Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 253-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: MAY 24, 2010 REPORT TYPE: STUDY SESSION DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 253:10 SUBJECT: Introduction of the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft Environmental Impact Report and Outline of Public Review Schedule EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City contracted with the environmental consulting finn PBS&J to prepare an environmental impact report (ElR) for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal arid Replacement Project (SUMC). The Draft EIR was published on May 20,2010, commencing an extended public review period that will conclude on July 27, 2010. The public review period has been extended beyond the nonnal 45-day period to provide ample opportunity for the public to comment on this important project. RECOMMENDATION The purpose of tins Study Session is to provide the City Council with an overview of the EIR process and to commence public review of the document. BACKGROUND The Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) comprises the general area between Sand Hill Road, Vineyard Lane, Quarry Road, Pasteur Drive, and including Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive. The area is zoned Medical Office and Medical Rescarch (MOR) and Public Facilities (PF). The applicant is proposing the demolition of the existing Stanford Hospital and Clinics (SHC), construction of new hospital buildings, renovation and expansion of the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (LPCH), reconstruction of the School of Medicine (SoM) facilities, and construction of a new medical office building near Hoover Pavilion to meet State mandated seismic safety standards (SB 1953) and to address capacity issues, changing patient needs and modernization requirements. The renovation and expansion project, which would be constructed over a IS-year horizon, would result in a net increase of approximately 1.3 million square feet of hospital, clinic, and office space. The original application for the project described above was filed on August 21, 2007 with the City of Palo Alto. Subsequently, applicants filed nine fonnal application amendments with the latest amcndment dated March 25, 2010. The SUMC Project sponsors have applied for 1 amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, adoption of a new zoning district, changes in zoning boundaries, a jurisdictional boundary change, design review approvals, and a development agreement. The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on August 22, 2007, announcing its intent to prepare and distribute an ErR analyzing the impacts of the SUMC Project. The NOP identified two separate projects, including the SUMC Project and the Simon-Properties Stanford Shopping Center Expansion. However, in April 2009, after the DEIR was nearly complete, Stanford withdrew the application for the expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center requiring significant changes to the EIR and delaying the EIR release date.. As such, this EIR addresses only the SUMC Project. The Draft EIR for the SUMC Project was published on May 20, 2010, commencing a public review period through July 27, 2010. At over 1,000 pages, the Draft EIR provides a comprehensive review of environmental impacts, mitigations and alternatives, as described in detail below. The Draft EIR is available for public review via the City's website, www.eityo:fj:laloalto.org/sumc, at the City of Palo Alto Development Center, and at the Palo Alto Main Library. Copies of the document are available on-loan from the Department of Planning and Community Environment, I'ifth Floor, Palo Alto City Hall. Comments on the Dmft EIR may be submitted in writing or orally at any of scheduled Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) hearings or City Council hearings, ineluding the kick-off meeting on May 24, 2010. Additionally, comments can be submitted in writing at any time during the public review period to Steven Turner, Advance PlaIming Manager, City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department and via electronic mail at Stanford.Project@cityofpaloalto.org by 5:00 p.m. on July 27, 2010. DISCUSSION Description of Physical Improvements The SUMC Project is proposed jointly by Stanford Hospital and Clinics (SHC), the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (LPCH), and the Stanford University School of Medicine (SoM), which are collectively referred to here as the SUMC Project sponsors. The SUMC Project would demolish and replace on-site structures, adding approximately 1.3 million square feet of net new floor area, broken down as follows: • Dcmolition, renovation, and construction of SHC facilities, providing a net increase of approximately 824,000 square feet; • Demolition, renovation, and construction of LPCH facilities, resulting in approximately 442,000 additional square feet; • Demolition of four existing SoM buildings and construction of three replacement buildings, with no net increase in square feet; • Demolition of shops and storage spaee, renovation of existing Hoover Pavilion, and net addition of approximately 46,000 squarc feet of new medical, office, research, clinic, and 2 administrative facilities at the Hoover Pavilion Site for medical offices for community practitioners, and SUMC-related medical offices, clinical facilities, and support uses; • Demolition of existing parking spaces and construction of 2,985 new and replacement spaces, for a net increase of 2,053 spaces to address additional demand for the SUMC project, to be located in surface parking and above-and underground structures; • Construction of a new road connecting Sand Hill and Welch Road, and provision of interior driveways and improved circulation connections including the extension of Quarry Road to Roth Way; • Widening of Welch Road by the addition of a third lane to accommodate left turns in both directions; and • Related on-site and off-site improvements. The proposed SUMC renewal and replacement project is the largest private land use project to take place in Palo Alto since the Sand Hill Road Corridor projects were approved in 1997. Enviromnental Impact Report The ElR is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. As the CEQA Guidelines state, an EIR is an "informational document" intended to inform public agency decision-makers and the public of the environmental ramifications of a project before the project is approved. An EIR consists of three major components: a detailed analysis of significant environmental effects of a project, discussion of possible ways to minimize or mitigate the significant effects, and reasonable alternatives to the project. An ElR looks at the specific impacts the project may have as well as the project's cumulative impacts on the environment. A cumulative impact can result from the combination of the project together with other projects causing related impacts. Before approving the SUMC project, the Council must make one or more of the following findings for each significant impact: • Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. • Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency that has adopted, or can and should adopt, such changes. • Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. When the project will result in significant urunitigated environmental effects, the lead agency must also adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" before approving the project. Although the EIR does not control the decision to approve the SUMC Project, the City of Palo Alto will use the certified EIR, along with other information and public processes, to determine whether to approve, modify, or disapprove the SUMC Project, and to specify any applicable mitigation measures as part of conditions of project approvals. 3 Staff provided the City Council with a summary of the key EIR sections on December 7, 2009 as part of an update on the status of the SUMC project (CMR 453:09, Attachment A). Summary of Impacts The Draft EIR provides an analysis of physical impacts anticipated to result from the SUMC Project. Where significant impacts are identified, the Draft EIR recommends feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate the significant impacts and identifies which significant impacts are unavoidable even with proposed mitigation. Alternatives to the SUMC Project are also presented. Table S-4 (Attachment B) from the Draft EIR, presents a summary of the impaets of the SUMC Project, proposed mitigation measures, and each impact's level of signifieance after mitigation. The Draft EIR's analyses conclude that the SUMC Project would have the following 16 significant and unavoidable project and/or cumulative impacts (impacts would not be avoided or reduced to less than significant by feasible mitigation measures): • Deterioration of intersection level of service during Peak Hour conditions at three Menlo Park intersections (Middlefield Road and Willow Road, Bayfront Expressway and Willow Road, and University Avenue and Bayfront Expressway) (Impact TR-2); • Increased average daily traffic on four Menlo Park roadway segments, on Marsh Road, Sand Hill Road, Willow Road, and Alpine Road (Impact TR-3); • Emission of criteria air pollutants (NOx) during construction, on both a project level and cumulative level (Impacts AQ-I and AQ-6); • Emission of criteria air pollutants (ROG, NOx, PMIO) during operation, on both a project level and cumulative level (Impacts AQ-2 and AQ-7); • Contribution to cumulative emissions of toxic air contanlinants (Impact AQ-8); • Emission of greenhouse gases, which would contravene the City's ability to meet emission reduction goals in the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan and which would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change (Impacts CC-l and CC-2); • Temporary but substantial noise during construction, on both a project level and cumulative level (Impacts NO-l and NO-5); • Emission of ambulance noise along a new route along Sand Hill Road into the proposcd Durand Way extension, so that noise levels at roadside rcsidences would inerease by a level considered unacceptable under the City's Comprehensive Plan (Impact NO-3); • Demolition of an historical structure, the 1959 Hospital Building complex (also referred to as the Stone Building complex), which is a significant and unavoidable impact on both a project and cumulative level (Impacts CR-I and CR-5); and • Removal of up to 71 Protected Trees, as defined in City of Palo Alto's Tree Protection and Management Regulations, which is a significant and unavoidable impact on both a project level and a cumulative level (Impacts BR-4 and BR-9). The Draft EIR identifies these impacts as those that would remain significant and unavoidable even after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Due to these significant 4 unavoidable environmental effects, approval of the SUMC Project would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, indicating that the City of Palo Alto is aware of the significant environmental consequences and believes that the benefits of approving the SUMC Project outweigh its unavoidable significant environmental impacts. Alternatives As required by CEQA, the EIR analyzes several project alternatives. Included are two No Project Alternatives, two Reduced Intensity Alternatives, a Tree Preservation Alternative, an Historic Preservation Alternative and a Village Concept Alternative. The Project sponsors have developed the Tree Preservation Alternative in order to preserve biologically and aesthetically significant oak trees. The Tree Preservation Alternative maintains the same square footage and programmatic functions as the SUMC Project, but proposes design modifications to the new hospital building as well as FIM 1 to accomplish tree preservation. The Project sponsor is promoting the Trec Preservation Alternative and has indicated to City staff that it now prefers this alternative over its original proposal.The City's Architectural Review Board has seen this revised design at study sessions and will be reviewing it through their regularly scheduled meetings. The Tree Preservation Alternative would mect all of the objectives outlined by the SUMC Project spollSors. The Project sponsors consider the Trec Preservation Alternative their preferred Alternative. Also, in an effort to better integrate the surrounding areas and regional transit facilities with tlle SUMC Project, along with exploring alternative means for reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) attributable to employee trips, the City has identified the Village Concept Alternative for consideration. The Village Concept Alternative assumes that the previously approved housing units located in the County of Santa Clara will be occupied by SUMC employees. Taken together staff believes the Tree Preservation Alternative and the Village Concept Alternative meet the Project sponsor's and City's project objectives. Development Agreement In addition, Stanford is seeking a Development Agreement, which will lock in the zoning regulations for a negotiated period of time. Development Agreements are negotiated contracts between the applicant and City. Developers typically apply for a Development Agreement to ensure that the regulations will not change over time and to help secure financing for large-scale projects. In exchange, the parties negotiate an acceptable community benefit package. Since they are the product of voluntary negotiations rathcr than a unilateral imposition by the governments, community benefits under a Development Agreement are typically broader than ElR mitigation measures and project conditions of approval. As such, community benefits are not legally required to have the same rigorous nexus applicable to other development conditions. A Development Agreement in this case is a discretionary legislative action by the City Coucil and is subject to referendnm. The May 24, 2010 CMR describes the status of the Development Agreement negotiations. It is not anticipated that the Development Agreement would result in physical environmental impacts beyond those disclosed in the EJR for the SUMC Project. 5 Public Review The Draft EIR is being distributed for a public review and comment period that concludes on July 27, 20 I o. Readers are invited to submit written comments on the document. Comments are most helpful when they suggest specific alternatives or measures that would better mitigate significant environmental effects. Staff has shared with the cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto copies of the Traffic Impact Report which is the technical analysis of traffic impacts prepared for the Draft EIR. Staff also met with representatives from East Palo Alto on March 31't and has made contact with staff from Menlo Park to diseuss traffic issues. Staff has also contacted these cities to let them know of the release of the Draft EIR and the sehedule for public review. Public hearings to take oral comments on the Draft EIR will bc held before the P&TC and also the City Council. Traditionally, the public review period for a Draft EIR is 45-days. Due to the complexity of this project and the volume of information contained in the EIR, the public review period has been extended to July 27, 2010, which constitutes 69-days. This expanded review period will allow the P&TC to hold a series of six weekly hearings starting on June 2,2010. Each hearing will be focused on particular topics in order to allow the Commission and the public time to review the Draft EIR and to allow for more focused comments. The City Council will also hold a series of five public hearings during this same time frame. The structure of the hearing schedule is that the P&TC would review specific EIR topics first, which would then be followed soon after with City Council hearings on thc same topics. In total there will be 11 public hearings to collect comments on the Draft EIR as well as an expanded review period enabling a broad forum for public testimony. A schedule of hearings and meeting topics is found in Attachment C. All comments received by 5:00 p.m., July 27, 2010, will be responded to in writing as part ofthe Final EIR. As required by CEQA, responses to all comments will be prepared, and both comments and responses will be included in the Final EIR. The purpose of the scheduled public hearings is to provide the public, P&TC and City Council with opportunities to present comments on whether the information presented in the Draft EIR adequately covers the environmental impacts that could result from the proposed SUMC Project. The hearings are not meant to be a forum for dialogue about the project merits, but to be opportunities to collect comments on the Draft EIR to ensure that it adequately describes the environmental impacts of the project. NEXT STEPS During the public review period and beyond, the applicant will continue to present preliminary designs for the SHC, LPCH, FIM 1, Hoover Pavilion and Design Guidelines to the City's Architectural Review Board. Upon completion of the public comment period, PBS&J will prepare written responses to all comments reeeived dm·ing the comment period. The Comprehensive Plan amendments, zone change, development agreement, architectural review and annexation will be reviewed by the P&TC during the time PBS&J is preparing the Response to Comments document. The Development Agreement negotiations will also continue (Attachment D). 6 The Final ErR, which consists of the Comments, the Response to Comments and any changes to the Draft ErR, will then be reviewed by the P&TC with a recommendation to the City Council for certification. Certification of the Final ErR must occur before any final action is taken by the CbrCi! on the requested approvals. . PRE~AREDBY: ~~------ STEVEN TURNER Advance Planning Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD: CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment CITYMANAGERAPPROV""'~~~ . ~£.,JAMES KEENE j City Manager ATTAC~ENTS . Attachment A: CMR 453:09, Review of the SUM~ Project, December 7, 2009 Attachment B: Table S-4 from SUMC Draft EIR, SUMC Project Summary ofImpaets and Mitigation Measures Attachment C: SUMC Draft EIR Public Hearing Schedule Attachment D: SUMe Project Entitlement Process 7 ATTACHMENT A TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 7,2009 REPORT TYPE: STUDY SESSION DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 453:09 SUBJECT: Review of the Stanford Univer~ity Medical Center Facilitie~ Renewal and Replacement Project EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff will provide an update to the City Council of progress regarding the Stanford University Medica! Center (SUMC) project, particularly the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) preparation and the Development Agreement discussions. The City contracted with the environmental consulting firm PBS&J to prepare a joint EIR for the SUMC Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (Project) and Simon Properties -Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Project. In April of 2009, Simon Properties fomially withdrew their request for the Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Project. Over the past several months, staff has been working with the environmental consultant to extract the Shopping Center Project from the environmental analysis. This involved updating most sections of the ElR and updating the City's traffic model. In June 2009 Stanford provided the City with a Development Agreement proposaL Representatives from Stanford and the City have initiated discussions about the draft business terms of the Development Agreement. RECOMMENDATION The purpose of this Study Session is to provide the City Council with an overview of the EIR and the status of the Development Agreement negotiations and allow for Council cornment.The current City Council has provided substantial input and direction to Staff and the applicants throughout the review period of the project. This session is an opportunity for this City Council to provide their additional Project comments before the new City Council is seated in January. BACKGROUND The Stanford University Medical Center comprises the general arca between Sand Hill Road, Vineyard Lane, Quarry Road, Pasteur Drive, and including Welch Road and Blake Wilbur Drive. The Project applicant is proposing the demolition of the existing Stanford Hospital and Clinics (SHC) at 300 Pasteur Drive, construction of a new hospital building, renovation and expansion of the Lucile Packard ChUdren's Hospital (LPCH), reconstruction of the School of Medicine (SoM) facilities, and construction of a new medical office building near Hoover Pavilion to meet State mandated seismic safety standards (SB 1953) and to address capacity issues, changing patient needs EIl1d modernization requirements. SB 1953 requires hospitals to retrofit or replace noncompliant facilities by January 1,2013. There have been some legislative attempts to extend this deadline and Stanford has received a partial concession from OSHPD to receive early plan review. The. renovation and expansion project, which would be constructed over a IS-year horizon, would result in a new increase of approximately 1.3 million square of hospital, clinic, and office space. The Project includes a request for the following entitlements: • Comprehensive Plan amendments to: o Change 701, 703 Welch Road and a small portion of Santa Clara County land on Welch Road proposed to be annexed "Major InstitutionaVSpecial Facilities" land use designation. o Amend Program 1-3 to revise the Citywide 50-foot height limit to allow exceptions for taller buildings within the proposed "Hospital District." o Amend Policy L-8 to clarify that the hospital and treatment uses are exempt from the development cap. • Zoning Code and Map amendments to: o Create a new "Hospital Zone." o Rezone 701 and 703 Welch Road from MOR to the new "Hospital Zone." . 0 Prezone the site to be annexed to the City to the new "Hospital Zone." • ~ex the small parcel described above. • ARB review of the SHC, LPCH, FIMI, medical office building at Hoover Pavilion, and Design Guidelines. • Development Agreement • Certification of an Environmental Impact Report The Project applicant has submitted seven substantive project amendments with the most recent amendment submitted on June 2, 2009. Since the Project was first submitted to the City, SUMC has made chllllges based upon staff analysis and ARB, Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council input. These changes include significant modifications to site planning and building massing, revisions to the location of parking garages and site access for automobiles, refinements to the pedestrian and bicycle network to promote stronger linkages and connections, and changes to building placement and design to protect significant oak tree specimens. DISCUSSION Environmentlll Impact Report The EIR will address the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project. The Project would demolish and replace on-site structures, adding approximately 1.3 million square feet of net new floor urea. 2 The following is a sununary of the key EIR sections and possible mitigation measures. Land Use ElR analyses of land use and planning generally consider the compatibility of a project with neighboring areas, change to or displacement of existing uses, and consistency of a project with relevant local land use policies thai have been adopted with the intent to mitigate or avoid an environmental effect. With respect to land use conflicts or compatibility issues, the magnitude of these impacts depends on how a project affects the existing development pattern, development intensity, traffic circulation, noise, and visual setting in th~ inunediately surrounding area. Comprehensive Plan Policy (L-8) addresses growth in non-residential square footage for nine planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study. The City has initiated a Comprehensive Plan amendment to provide clarification of this policy. City staff will recommend that the policy should not limit growth of hospital and treatment center uses. If adopted by the City Counci I, the amendment will modify the text of the Policy to clarify that such uses are exempt under.this policy, Text modifications to the Comprehensive Plan are also proposed to clarify proposed building height exceptions within the proposed hospital zone district (discussed below). Following adoption of the proposed amendments, the Project would not contlict with any Comprehensive Plan policies. To address zoning issues, the Project sponsors propose creation of a new zoning district that could be applied by the City to land used specifically for hospitals and clinics, associated medical research, medical office, and support uses. The new "Hospital Zone" would include development standards that accorrunodate the Project. Visllal Qllality This section of the EIR will discuss how development of the Project would affect the existing visual quality in the Project Area and its vicinity. Visual quality pertains to howpeople see and experience the environment, particularly its visual character. Visual character consists of spatial and scale relationships, and the line, form, color, and texture of an area's natural features and man-made elements. Natural features include landforms, street trees, rock outcrops, vegetation, and water bodies. Man-made elements include buildings, structures, parking areas, roads, roadway interchanges and overpasses, above ground utilities, signs, and lighting fixtures. Full buildout conditions will be depicted through visual simulations prepared by William Kanemoto and Associates. The Project may degrade the existing visual character and quality of the SUMC Sites during construction. Possible mitigation measures could be to aesthetically improve portions of the project site that would remain unimproved for an extended period and screen the construction zone from view by passersby along the public streets and sidewalks, conceal staging areas with fencing and remove construction debris and refuse would reduce visual impacts during construction to less than significant. The analysis also considers if the Project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the SUMC Site and its surroundings, and alter public viewsheds, view corridors or scenic resources. Given the size and scope of the Project it is likely that there would 3 be visual character or quality impacts. Architectural Review of the Project would consider among other factors, whether the Project has a coherent composition, and whether its bulk and mass are harmonious with sWTounding development. Architectural Review approval cannot be granted unless the Project meets stringent criteria, including a finding of consistency with the sixteen Architectural Review Board (ARB) findings. Compliance with the ARB findings and Comprehensive Plan visual quality policies would typically reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Transportation This section of the EIR will evaluate the potential transportation impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Project. Potential impacts include the addition of project related pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto trips to the surrounding transportation system, resulting in an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system; exceed either individually or cumulatively a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; result in a change in air traffic patterns; substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses; result in inadequate emergency access; result in inadequate parking capacity; or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The basis for the traffic analysis will be the revised citywide transportation model that was originally developed in 1996 and last updated in 2008. The purpose of the model is to accurately forecast demand for travel by vehicles, and conforms to upgraded modeling methodologies adopted regionally. The citywide transportation model has been updated to account for changes in Palo Alto demogmphy, street network, transit services, and land use patterns. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) travel demand model formed the basis for the City's model, using 2005 Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) projections for growth. The traffic conditions of the C/CAG (City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County) were investigated for the study area and reviewed by the City and the project team. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VT A) travel demand model growth estimates were modified to an average 1.6% annual traffic growth through 2025. The City model was initially developed without constrained volumes in the Palo Alto area. The City model was then constrained at four identified locations (Sand Hillll·280, El Camino ReallSan Antonio, El Camino Rea1lSand Hill, Middlefield/San Antonio) based on those roadway capacities and VT A travel demand growth rates. The traffic volumes at the freeways were constrained to their capacities. The model results were reviewed and refined several times by the City to calibrate intersection turning movement counts for both A.M. and P.M, peak hour, link and intersection turning movement volumes of years 2006, 2015, and 2025 for both A.M. and P.M. peak hour, and 66 study intersections with turning movement volumes. Recent updates to the Palo Alto model have resulted in a more accurate tool to analyze traffic within Palo Alto as compared with other adjacent and nearby cities, The limitations of the Palo Alto model are evident as when the analysis reflects traffic volumes entering Palo Alto from other jurisdictions, The result is that more traffic would enter Palo Alto through the roadway gateways than what would be expected due to intersection capacity constraints. Concerns have 4 been raised with the traffic model's regional growth assumptions. To address this, the model has been modified to constrain additional gateways in addition to the four gateways mentioned above (for a total of 11 constrained intersections), to limit traffic entering the City during peak hours. Post-processing the model will also look at the trips and spread some trips beyond the peak hour . and/or be transferred to other roadways. The process of constraining gateways is commonly practiced to more precisely address these variables. The VT A has previously ,accepted these adjustments to address model limitations. . Some possible mitigation measures include: Participation in region-wide commute incentive programs, construction/improvement of bicycle lanes and pedestrian crossings, expansion of the City shuttle program, adjustment of traffic lanes, and signal timing adjustments. The EIR is also evaluating the potential for CaITrain Go Pass use and remote parking as a potential mitigation. The City Council has historically not approved physical widening of traffic 4mes or physical increases to intersections to accommodate increased traffic. These types of mitigations are not expected to be recommended in the EIR. A revised Traffic Impact Analysis is tentatively scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) and City Council prior to the release of the Draft EIR. Air Quality This section of the EIR will evaluate the potential impacl~ on air quality resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project. Possible air quality impacts could result from construction activities, emergency generator testing and operation, increased vehicular traffic to the hospital, and other stationary source emissions. Possible mitigations include the development and approval of a construction management plan to limit the operation or machinery and control on-site dust, limits on the testing on generators, and similar practices. Climate Change It is recognized that anthropogenic (human caused) emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols are contributing to changes in the global climate, and that such changes are having and will have adverse effects on the environment, the economy, and public health. These are cumulative effects of past, present, and future actions worldwide. Pursuant to SB 97, the State Secretary for Natural Resources is in the process of promulgating thresholds of significance for assessing greenhouse 'gases. The Governor's office of Pl!U\IIing and Research (OPR) has recommended guidelines for assessing the significance of the project's impact on greenhouse gases; and it is expected that the Secretary will formally adopt such guidelines by January 2010. While OPR's suggested guidelines have not been formally adopted, in anticipation of their adoption the EIR applies the guidelines for assessing the greenhouse gas impacts of the project. The OPR recommended guidelines provide that a lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based on available information, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. In making this assessment the agency may consider "[t]he extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement II statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or 5 mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.'" In accordance with these draft guidelines, the EIR will assess how the Project complies with the City adopted Clitnate Protection Plan. During bUildout and operation of the Project, greenhouse gases would be emitted as the result of construction activities and deliveries; new direct operational sources, such as operation of . emergency generators, natural gas usage, medical nitrous oxide usage, and operation of fleet vehicles and helicopters; and indirect opefll.tional sources, such as production of electricity, steam and chilled water, transport of water, and decomposition of project-related wastes. The EIR will discuss how the development proposed under the Project would contribute to emissions of greenhouse gases. For the EIR, emissions from sources such as construction, vehicles, energy consumption, and solid waste generation will be inventoried and discussed quantitatively and qualitatively. Emissions associated with the water supply and wastewater treatment will also be discussed. The Project could result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant climate change effects if they would fail to further the goals and policies established in the City's Climate Protection Plan. The City'S Climate Protection Plan provides a roadmap that the City of Palo Alto will follow in complying with (or exceeding) the State of California's greenhouse gas emissions goals. While the City has not mandated specific measures for individual private projects, its goals and policies are a useful tool for evaluating whether an individual project would do' its part to minimize its contribution to emissions of greenhouse gases. The City recognizes that meeting the State's goals will require both substantial reductions in emissions from existing sources, and reductions in emissions from new sources compared to a "business as usual" standard. A project that furthers the City's Climate Protection Plan policies would be a project that minimizes its emissions of greenhouse gases by including design features and commitments that implement the relevant policies of the Climate Protection Plan and which mitigate wherever possible, increased emissions. Project design features may be considered to mitigate greenhouse gases. Mitigation may also include participation or compliance with a plan or mitigation program that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A series of conservation measures are being explored, including: energy effIcient building designs, preferential purchasing of recycled content material and extensive recycling programs, consideration of the GO Pass for all eligible hospital employees, expansion of the Marguerite Shuttle service, green building practices to optimize shading, day lighting and natural ventilation and the use of sustainable building materials. Noise This section of the EIR will evaluate the potential for noise and ground-borne vibration impacts resulting from implementation of the Project. Projected increases in noise levels in the Project Area can be expected from additional traffic, increased medical helicopter flights associated with the Project, new mechanical systems installed at the new facilities, and construction activities. These noise sources are evaluated to detennine whether they would cause a substantial temporary and/or peImanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Area; exposure of people to excessive noise levels or ground-borne vibration; andlor exceedances of 6 standards established in the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, or any other applicable standards. Implementation of Best Management practices to reduce construction noise would help reduce construction related noise impacts. Special demolition and construction requirements would help reduce vibration impacts on Hoover Pavilion. Cultural Resources This section of the EIR will assess the Project's potential impacts on cultural and paleontological resources. Cultural resources are commonly classified in three categories: (1) prehistoric resources, (2) historical resources, and (3) Native American resources. Historical resources can include buildings, structures, objects, or sites. The Project could have a significant impact on two identified historical resources --the Hoover· Pavilion and the Main Medical Center Complex designed by Edward Durell Stone with landscaping designed by Thomas Church. Implementation of mitigation measures such as establishing a protective zone around the Hoover Pavilion during construction and demolition would reduce potential vibration and construction-related impacts to the Hoover Pavilion. The Stone Building (Main Hospital), the location of the first North American heart transplant, is proposed to be demolished. Mitigation measures that could reduce this impact include preparation of documentation using the National Park Services' Historic American Building Surveys Level III Guidelines for each of the buildings in the Stone Building complex prior to demolition of each building that comprises this historic resource (East, West, Core, Boswell, Edwards, Lane, Always, and Grant). In addition, site-specific history and appropriate contextual information regarding the Stone Building complex to focus on the reasons for the buildings' significance: the groundbreaking heart transplantation program and the role of E.D. Stone in the design of the complex. This would include: architectural descriptions of the major exterior features and public rooms within the Stone Building complex as well as descriptions of typical patient, office, laboratory and operating rooms; photographic documentation of the interior and exterior of the Stone Building complex and Thomas Church designed landscape features; and distribution of written and photographic documentation to agencies and the preparation of pennanent interpretive displays/signage/plaques. Because none of these mitigation measures would completely mitigate this impact an Historic Preservation alternative is also analyzed (see Alternatives section below). Biological Resources This section addresses potential effects on existing biological resources, which are special-status plant and animal species within the Project Area. Biological characteristics, such as habitat types and plant and animal species present, will be described in the EIR based on federal, State and local regulations using site-specific information developed for the Project from published technical infonnation, consultant analyses and on-site surveys. The Project could have a significantimpact on protected oak and redwood tree species within the Project area. Potential mitigation measures would require avoidance of tree removal, design modifications to allow adequate soil and solar access during construction, and site-specific 7 preservation measures. If avoidance measures cannot be achieved, and protected trees are removed, not retained, or relocated, then the Project could result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Because it is unlikely that avoidance measures can be fully implemented to the extent that all protected trees to be removed would be replaced or relocated, impacts would be conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable. In response, Stanford has prepared an Alternative to be studied in the EIR that shifts the SHC and one of the SoM building (FIM1) footprints around to avoid significant oak trees. (See Alternative section below.) Geology, Soils, and SeismiCity Geology, soils, and seismicity conditions are important aspects of all development projects in the San Francisco &y Area. Although most projects have little or no effect on geology, any project involving construction would have some effect on soils and topography, and all projects may be affected by certain geologic events, such as earthquakes or landslides. Protection from the effects of geologic events is provided through existing building codes and construction standards, land use policies, and State and local regulations. Because one of the mllior effects of loss of topsoil is sedimentation in receiving waters, erosion control standards are set by the State Water Quality Control Board through administration of the NPDES pennit process for storm drainage discharge. Erosion and sedimentation issues are addressed in Hydrology because they are they are primarily related to turbidity and other depositional effects in local and regional water bodies. Hydrology This section describes the hydrology and water quality conditions present at the Project Area including surface and groundwater re;gources. This section evaluates whether the Project could affect stonn drainage and streams, as well as local groundwater resources in the area. Potential impacts expanded upon in this EIR section are ground and surface water quality degradation during construction and operation, flooding and drainage, and loss of groundwater recharge. The Project could have a significant impact on groundwater quality during construction. Mitigation measures would be required to prevent construction site run-on and direct infiltration to reduce this impact to less than significant Hazardous Materials This section provides an analysis of the potential for the Project to expose persons or the environment to hazardous materials. Potential environmental impacts can be associated with the potential disturbance of contaminated soils or groundwater, if present in the Project Area, as well as risk of spills from increased future use disposal, and transport of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes associated with project construction or operation. Specific topics presented in this section include the types of hazardous materials that would be handled and hazardous wastes that would be generated, known on-site contamination from historic uses, the regulatory setting applicable to such activities, and applicable health and safety policies and procedures. Population and HOI/sing This section documents the existing population, housing, and employment conditions in the City of Palo Alto and estimates changes in current conditions that could result from implementation 8 of the Project. Demographic changes in population and employment that would result from development of the Project are not intrinsically physical environmental impacts. However, environmental effects associated with increased population or daytime employment, such as increased traffic, traffic-generated air quality and noise concerns, increased demands on public services and utilities, and growth inducement could result from population growth. The impacts associated with popUlation growth are addressed separately in various sections of this EIR. The City's significance criteria treat substantial population growth and increases in the jobs to housing ratio as significant environmental effects in order to ensure the effects of such growth are analyzed. The Project, as proposed, would not directly result in substantial population growth. It would, however, increase local employment, which in turn could create demand for additional housing and result in associated population. In addition, the Project could have a significant adverse impact on the City's jobs to employed residents ratio and the related jobs to housing ratio because it would generate a large number of new jobs without adding housing to increase the number of employed residents in the City. Possible mitigation measures include dedicating housing and/or providing a site near the .Project to house Medical Center employees, payment of housing fees, and an inclusionary housing requirement in the Hospital Zone. Public Services This section addresses the potential environmental effects of the Project on public services, including police and fire protection, schools, and parks and recreational services. Increases in public service demand alone do not constitute a significant environmental effect. Instead, an increase in demand for public services, such as additional staff or lengthier response times, could lead to potentially significant environmental impacts only if constructing or expanding a new facility were required and the construction or operation of the facility might adversely affect the air, water, noise, or other aspects of the physical environment. The current EIR analysis concludes that while the Project will likely increase demand for public services, such demand will not result in an environmental impact. For impacts to school, under proposition lA, payment of school impact tees by new development is the exclusive method of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities that may occur as a result of approval of development of real property. Utilities The Project would result in increased on-site employment, visitors, and developed floor area. These increases have the potential to create greater demand for utilities, including water supply, wastewater collection and treatment, storm drainage, solid waste disposal, and energy (which includes electricity and natural gas). This section assesses whether the potential increase in demand would overtax, to a significant degree, the capacity of the infrastructure systems serving the Project Area. A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was conducted for this project. In April 2009 the City Council reviewed the SUMC WSA and directed staff to return to Council with a revised plan for 9 the Project that quantifies significant reductions in water use due to conservation measures. The WSA has been amended and is tentatively scheduled for Council consideration in early 2010 prior to release of the Draft EIR.The EIR will include analysis and conclusions fronithe WSA. Alternatives CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects ofthe project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives". Based on the objective of substantially reducing significant impacts, two No Project Alternatives, two Reduced Intensity Alternatives, a Preservation Alternative, a Tree Preservation Alternative and a Village Concept Alternative have been developed for the SUMC Project for evaluation in the EIR. No Pro; ect Alternatives The two No Project Alternatives include: (A) Retrofitting only those hospital facilities that could be retrofitted and no new buildings would be constructed; (B) Replace only SB 1953 noncompliant structures with new structures. Reduced Intensity Alternatives The two Reduced Intensity Alternatives include: (A) Right-siring SHC and LPCH so construction of new hospital facilities would be limited to the minimum additional square footage required to right-size the existing LPCH and SHC facilities without adding space for additional growth; (B) Right-size SHC and LPCH plus add 60-percent of the floor area of the SUMC Project medical offices and 60 percent of the floor area of the SUMC Project hospital space above the amounts needed for right-sizing. Preservation Alternative The Preservation Alternative would retain the. 1959 Hospital Building complex, which includes 80M buildings (Grant, Alway, Lane, and Edwards), along with the following SHC hospital/clinic buildings: West Pavilion ("West"), East Pavilion ("East'~, Boswell, and Core. However, these buildings have a low seismic rating and do not comply with structural and non-structural criteria that must be met by the deadlines imposed by Senate Bill (SB) 1953 for retrofit or replacement of hospital facilities. Accordingly, under the Preservation Alternative, these buildings would not be used as hospital buildings, as defined by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD). Tree Preservation Alternative In response to a number of significant trees planned for removal, an Alternative is being prepared that would preserve protected oak trees located in the portion of the SUMC known as Kaplan Lawn and near Welch Road. Under the proposed SUMC Project a hospital module is proposed to be located on the Kaplan Lawn, resulting in removal of nine protected trees. Under this Alternative, the square footage and programmatic functions planned for this module would be incorporated into the other hospital modules and the proposed ambulance route would be reconfigured. In addition, the previously proposed underground SHC parking structure at the 10 WelchlPasteur intersection would instead be constructed as a structure with three levels> underground and four levels above ground along Welch Road. The Emergency Department entrance/parking would be moved from its proposed location along Welch Road to the Pasteur Drive side of the new SHC. The SHC patient and visitor drop-off loop would continue to be from Pasteur Drive; however, the drop-off loop would be located farther down Pasteur Drive. The Kaplan Lawn would not be developed, and no protected trees would be removed at that location. This Alternative would also include a redesign of one of the SoM buildings (FIMl) to save as many protected trees as possible. Due to the requirements ofthe program, and the location of the protected trees on the site, not all -of the protected trees could be preserved in place with this alternative and would need to be relocated. Village Concept Alternative The Village Concept Alternative provides opportunities to enhance the suMc Project to create a more walkable, bikeable, mixed-use, transit-oriented, and well-connected urban environment. A key goal of this Alternative is to ensure that the Project contributes to, and does not preclude, future opportunities to create an urban, transit-oriented village that can capture the potential travel behavior, air quality protection and greenhouse gas reduction benefits associated with the performance of well-designed urban villages. To achieve this end, the Village Concept Alternative proposes features that potentially can attain the basic objectives of the Project, lessen environmental effects of the Project, and provide benefits of an urban village environment consistl;:nt with the values and character of the City of Palo Alto. This Alternative includes the SUMC Project, recommendations for housing at the Pasteur Drive/Sand Hill Road site and the Quarry Road housing sites, pedestrian linkages between the Project, the Stanford Barn area, Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford University, the Intermodal Transit Center and downtown, urban design recommendations and potential Development Agreement components that the City seeks to negotiate with the SUMC Project sponsor. These enhancements can be implemented through one or more of the following mechanisms: zoning amendments associated with the Projects, conditions of approval, or Development Agreement conditions. City staff and the Stanford project team have collaborated on both the Tree Preservation and Village Concept Alternatives and through a series of meetings, technical report exchanges and innovative thinking, have advanced two alternatives that will continue to accommodate advanced medical space planning while promoting broader land use principles and mitigating impacts in a way that cannot be addressed through standard mitigations. Sustainability Program The Project's unique operation needs require a tailored sustainability program for each project component. The Hospitals have 24-hour, seven days per week operations that differ from those ofthe medical office buildings and the School of Medicine (SoM) buildings. For conservation and energy efficiency, the Hospitals and Clinic buildings would be designed to achieve EnergyStar scores of 90 -95, which means they will perform> better than 90 -95 percent of similar hospitals and use 35 percent less energy than typical hospitals. The SoM buildings 11 would meet Stanford University's 2008 Building Performance Guidelines, which set a target energy efficiency in new buildings of 30 percent below California Title 24/ASHRAE 90.1 (2004). These buildings would include exterior sunshades, highly insulated building shells and fenestration, high efficiency building lighting systems and HV AC equipment, use of passive cooling and smart building technology to coordinate building systemsllperations with occupancy and use patterns. Green building components include the use of sustainable building materials, where feasible, . such as recycling crushed concrete from demolition, renewable/recyclable materials in flooring, paint, construction adhesives, cabinet substrates. insulation, ceiling acoustical panels and . furniture. Permeable asphalt; permeable concrete, and grass pavers will be used. The Hospitals would include measures such as: occupancy controls for patient rooms, and occupancy sensors for lighting strategic areas, reduced lighting power densities, use EPA EnergyStar labeled equipment where available, link to the Stanford University cogeneration/thermal storage system for generation of chilled water and steam, Illld implement various water saving features. The Hospitals and SoM would continue to focus on environmentally preferable purchasing and extensive recycling programs. Transportation programs proposed would include consideration of the GO Pass for all eligible hospital employees, expansion of the Marguerite Shuttle service between the Palo Alto Trunsit Center and the SUMC, and inclusion of hospital employees in the Stanford C9mmute Club that gives subsidies for vanpools and for not driving, guaranteed ride home, Rco Pass for free Use of VTA buses and light rails, Dumbarton Express, Highway 17 Express and U Line Stanford Express that connects BART and ACE Train to Stanford. Development Agreement Negotiations Stanford is seeking a Development Agreement, which will lock in the zoning regulations for a negotiated period of time. Development Agreements are negotiated contracts between the applicant and City. Developers typically apply for a Development Agreement to ensure that the regulations wiJJ not change over time and to help secure financing for large-scale projects. In exchange, the parties negotiate an acceptable community benefit package. Since they are the product of voluntary negotiations rather than a unilateral imposition by the government, community benefits under a Development Agreement are typically broader than EIR mitigation measures and project conditions of approval. As such, community benefits are not legally required to have the same rigorous nexus applicable to other development conditions. A Development Agreement is a legislative action and is subject to referendum. On June 15, 2009, the City received a Development Agreement proposal from Stanford (Attachment A). Stanford proposed a 30-year Development Agreement with some terms extending to 51 years. The proposal focused on the following major categories of community benefits: (1) health care, (2) fiscal benefits, (3) reduced vehicle trips. (4) linkages, and (5) housing. The proposal noted thllt the most important community benefit would be the applicants' investment in seismiclllly safe, state of the art facilities that would enoble the hospitals to continue to provide high quality patient care. In addition, Stanford offered some additional community benefits, including the following significant proposals: 12 • . Establishment of two new programs for the exclusive benefit of residents: a $3 million fund 10 assist qualified low-income residents and a $4 million fund to subsidize communit)' health programs within Palo Alto. • Provide construct;ion spending and associated use taxes of $8.3 million and obtain a use tax direct payment pennit that will generate approximately $26,000 annually. • Purchase of "Caltmin Go Passes" for all SUMC employees at an estimated annual cost of $1.3 million. (Currently only Stanford University employees are entitled to this benefit.) • Expansion of the Marguerite service by purchasing additional shuttles in tile amount of $2 million and by funding additional annual operating costs of $450,000. • Funding a range of improvements to encourage use of transit and enhance pedestrian and bicycle connections between the hospitals and downtown: $2.25 million for pedestrian and bicycle connections around the Intermodal TrBIIsit Center, $400,000 for right of way impro",ements along Quarry Road and $700,000 for pedestrian connection between the Medical Center and Shopping Center (Stanford Bam 1I.relI). • Payment of housing in lieu fees in the amount of $23.1 million which is lIquivalent to what a commercial project would pay. Staff believes Stanford's proposal is substantive and responsive to many project impacts. The proposal fucuses on the key areas of concern raised by the Planning and Transportation Commission, the City Council IIItd the community. However, it is also important to note that with a project of this magnitude many of the proposed community benefits wonld typically be imposed as conditions of approval or EIR mitigation measures. Staff has had several meetings with Stanford to discuss areas where the community benefit package can be enhanced. These discussions to date have focused on health care. fiscal impacts IIItd housing. Staff plans to continue these discussions and will provide a further progress report in J Ilnullry or February. At that time, staff will seek input from the Council on whether the offered package is acceptable and if not which areas to prioritize. NEXT STEPS Substantial progress has been achieved in the preparation of the Project for fonnal entitlement reviews, though significant work remains 10 see the project to completion. Initial staff work focused on the preparation of the update to the Stanford University Medical Center Land Use Area Plan (Area Plan), which was presented to City Council in July 2007 for review and comment. Staff IlOd the applicant have since focused on four generally concurrent tracks! 1) Preparation of the Draft BIR, 2) Preliminary ARB reviews of project components, 3) Development Agreement preparation and discussions with the applicllltts, and 4) Community outreach nnd updates with the Planning & Transportation Commission and City Council. Due to the complexity of the Project and the potential for substantial environmental iropacts upon the community, the timeline for preparation of the Draft EIR has been extended from initial expectations. In addition, the withdrawal of the SSC Project has resulted in additional delays in the completion and issuance of the DEIR. Staff, in cooperation with the SUMC applicants and Stanford University representatives, is committed to completion of the Draft BIR, the Development Agreement discussions, 13 Arc.h:itectural Review and the other public review processes in a timely manner. The current schedule anticipates the following milestones during 201 0; • Council review of Water Supply Assessment • T~ortationllnp~rcview • Development Agreement terms review ., Fiscalllnpacts review • Release ofDmft ElR and fiscal report • Architectural reviews • Draft ElR hearings • Preparation of response to Draft ElR comments • Planning & Transportation Commission review of entitlements • City Council review of entitlements late January early February mid February late February March March-June April May-.July July early August The intent is to complete the City Council entitlement review before the August 2010 recess or immediately thereafter. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Dmft Development Agreement Proposai from Stanford University 14 June 15.2009 City MBDBgllT James Keene City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear City Manager.~ene: ATTACHMENT A Lucile Packard Children's Hospital AT STANFORD Stanford Hospital and CllniCB. Lucile Packard Chil~n's Hospital and Stanford University submit the following pro)l9sal for a Development Agreement to vest entitlements for the Stanford UniverSity Medical Center Renewal and Rep1acement Project. In arriving at this proposal, we considered not only our discussions with City staff over the past two years, but also the substantial input received from members of the public, the Plaiming and Transportation Commission and the City Councll during sessions dedicated to discu8.'lions of community benefits. We considered carefully the expected im)Jllcts, including positive impacts, of the. Project on local residents, City services. and City revenues, and we coDBidered the economic constraints facing the hospitals' funding of Project co.nstruction •. Finally, and most importantly, we considered the role that the medical center plays in the community and the ways in which we feel we are particularly suited and sltumed to provide benefits that are within our expcirtlse. . BUsed on allofthesi: considerations, our proposal below focuses on many ofthe benefits. suggested and described previously by the City, including the inherent direct and indirect community benefits provided by the hospitals today and into the future. In addition, the proposal emphllSizes benefits that we. are best suited to provide to the community and are tied to the impacts that the Project could have on the community. We cannot agree to and are not proposing items unrelated to medical center services and impacts. In addition to the principles that guided our selection. of community benefits, the items and associated dollar amounts identified in this proposal are based upon our best estimates of the cost of Project construction and·Project mitigation. These are difficult economic times and the hospitals have a limited amount of money they can commit to providing benefits to the City. over.and above what is a reasonable mitigation of impacts. We do notye! know precisely what will be required by the City lIS a "mitigation" nor whether the City will change its existing regulations to increase the cost of the hospitals' project. This proposal is based on the Development Agreement Conditions and Understancllngs set out below in thi: last part oftbis letter, lIS well as upon the fullowing essential assumptions: lDO PAsteur Drive ~ H1200 .. M/C 5130, Stanford CA P430!J1 TtI.ephont: 6!JO·721~287ti Clty Man'age< 1ame. Keene Page 2 • The Project is approved by the City substantially as described in the current version, of the Project application and as presented to the Architectural Review Board, including the applicants' proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, zoning, jurisdictional boundary change, and architectural review approvals. • The City does not enact new regullitlons or modifY existing regulations that would apply to the Project prior to approval ofthe Development Agreement. • The City does not impose, through the zoning ordinance, conditions of apProval or other means, requirements other than those currently tequiied by the City's Municipal Code or those that conslitute feasible mitigation measures thet will reduce the Project's significant envlronmenta1lmpacts. • TI).e tenn of the Development Agreement will be Cot 30 years. Obligations in the Development Agreement that are for "the life of the Project" are for 51 years. The following deal points are presented for consideration by City staff as the conceptual basis for a negotiated Development Agreement. Of course, these deals points can be changed at any time up and until the Development Agreement is fmal Qlld signed by the parties. ' , HeaIthCare Health Care: OnlWing Direct and Indirect Hasp;!!!!!! CommunIty Benefit. The Agreement will recogruze that the most important community benefit will be the applicants' investment in seismically safe, state-of-the-art facilities that will enable the hospitals to continue to provide high-quality patient care and the School of Medicine to perfonn research leading to ground breaking technologies and treatments. Advancements In medicine that have taken place at the Stanford University Medical Centerinclude pioneering achievements in transplantation medicine, advancements in cancer care through the introduction of the lineIII' accelerator and the cyberknife, leodership in prenatal diagnosis and treatment, discovery of the protein thet appears to be the root cure of type I diabetes, and discOvery of the link between exercise and increased "good" cholesterol levels. In addition to World-renowned medical breakthroughs, in 2007 the benefits provided by the hospitals equated to the following: • 37,138 inpatients admitted • 44,073 emergency department visits • 5,432 babies delivered lOO Pufeul' Drive -H.J2.O(l ~ M/C 5230, StAnford CA 901JOS, 1'etepho"t "IIfO~7Jl .. 28'3 3 It is il'llpOrl8nt to empbasize that the hospitals served more than two-thirds , . of the Palo Alto residents whd requin:d hospitalizat.ion in 2007. The addition of more beds fur adults and ohildren wiD alleviate ovezcrowding aRd allow the two hospitals to serve patients who CWliilltly must be turned away. Iii 2008, 924 pallenm could not be admitted to the bospitals because 0( a Shortase of availabll' beds. . The hospitals 8J.se p~ the only Levell Tmwna Center between San Francisco and San Jose. The Trauma Center and the Emergency [)epartm.ent ensure critical emergency prepareMe/lS and respG1ISe resources fur the cominUnity In the event of an earthquake, pandemic, or othClr tnI\Ior disaster. The expansion of the Emergeney DePartment and the 8SIIOciated facilities needed to suppoJt the BD services win solve thl' crit1ca1 pmblem ofa woetbDy unden!ized facility fur the volume ofpcople seekiog OllIe. In the last Y'lBt, the Emergency Department had to be closed numerous tUnes due to lack oft'll.cilities. . . . Health Qmj; AddWwl Qffered CmmnunityBenefits. The bo8Jilia1s propoae to fund the foUowing new pmgrams specifically to benefit IeBidents of Palo Alto. Bach of these funding obU8!ltlons will cominence at issuance of the first grading pennit fur the Project. • $3 million fOI in-patient and out-patient servioes at Stanford Hpspital and Clinics and Luoi1e Packard Children's Hospital for residents of Palo Alto who have 11 self-payment responsibility beyOnd their financial maans. This pmgram is additional to the hospitals' manty policies. The hospitals WIll malntain and distribute this fiwd, with reporlinll to the City of Palo Alto when the 1'im4 is depleted. The reporting will be in a fonn that cOmplies with all aPPlicable .privacy laws and policies. • $4 million for community health pmgmms within the City ofPaio Alto, paid in equal annual amounts over 10 years to selected pmgmms. The b08pitslS will work with a community advisory board to ~ the !lPecific community health programs to receive imdlng. Inmples of potentially eligible bealth programs and glUupa include the Mayview Health Clinic, health pmgmDl! in the public schools. seniors bealth services provided by Aveoidas and Lytton<iardens, psychiatric servioes at the Opportunity Center, pfograms fur chilihnd ado1ellcent suicide prevmtion, Bmallt Cancer Connections, and bealth programs provided by Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life, Abilities United, Palo Alto YMCA, and Children's Hoalth Council. . , . SOD r." •• r Drlw -83100. MIC S2!D, Stanf.rd CA 94305, Td.pl.n.6511·m·2I7Il 4 Palo Alt& Fiseal Benefits Palo Alto Fiscal Ben.: Direct pnd tniljrect Hoyita!!! Cgmmunity Bensfitl. The hOspitals provide a positive economic benefit to Palo Alto and the· surrounding 1II.'ell. Project comtruction will provide addiliolllll jobs, :Increase spendiltg, and brlng immediate added revenues to the City of Palo Alto .. The Fiscal JmpIICI RiIport prepaied by CBRE Consulting estimates that col1lltruction spending and llllsociated II!Itl taxes will bring $8.3 million to die City's general fund l1li the Project Is built oul m addition, the hospitals win pay Community Facilities and Citywide TranSportation Impsct Fees as follows: • $5.8 million in Community FaciHtle!l Fees for parb, community center!! and libraries. . • $2.0 million in Citywide Transportstiop.1mpact Fees for public facilities and services that relieve citywide traffic congestion caused by new development prqects, inoludlng advanced traI1/IportBtion mtuIIigemeni and information systems, expanded shutlle transil services; and bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The app/tCQ1IlS . wtll not seek credit agairlSl thts fee for fimding the trriproverttenfs tc tm1l8it, pBlkstriall and bkycle Unkagea described below. Palo Alto FiscaJ. BenefiW: AddjtiOlllll Offered Com!JlllDity B!!l1!!l:'jt§. The QOIipitals propose 10 obtain a use tax direct payment permit tom the State of california in order to increase, on an ongoing basis, the local tax allooatlon for the hoapitals' purchaliea. The hospitals win maintain the use tall. direct pl!)'lt\ellt pemail for the life of the Project, 888UfI'ling the State continues to administer the use· tax direct paymont permit program or a substantially eci.uivalont program. Reduced Vehicle Trips ReducC4 yehicle Trips: Djrect gnd Indirect IWpitals Cgmmunity Benefit. The hospitals provide a robust program to minimize commuting by way of dri-.alone vehiclell, which includes the following components: • Incentives to reJiain from driving or to partiqipate in carpools, Including payments to einployees who agree not to drive to work of . $282 in "Clean Air Cash" or other credit fur participating in a carpool program, complimentary parking for carpools. reserved parking spaces for catpOOls and .vanpools, online ride matching, pretax payron l'Iflduction for transit passes, emergency rides homo. ftee car rental vouchers, Zipcar car sharing credits, and other gifts and rewjU'ds. 300 1'." •• r p,.rv.-"3:100 -M/C 5130. Stanr • ...t CA 94305, T.lephone 6110-721-1173 5 • .stanftud University nlnS a free comprehensive Marguerite Shuttle system, supported by paymonts from the hospitals, that connects the hospitals to locallrllnBit, Caltrain, shopping and dining. • The hospitals provide an Eco Pass to their employees, which allows frile useofVrA bllSes and Ught nUl, the Dumbarton express, and . the Highway 17 Express, and the Monterey-San lose Express. • The hospitals provide free UBe of the U-Une Stanford Express thIIt connectll BART and the ACE train, and the Ardenwood Park. & Ride . io Stanford. . • Stanfurd also provides an extensive transportation website, transit pass sales,a1tmnat1ve tnmsportatlon infonnation at new employee orientation, regular e-mail updates to Commu~ Club members and • parking pennit holders, one-on-one commute plMDing assisbmce, and a conunute cOst and carbon emissions calculator. • The hoSpitals also provide services to bicyclistll; including maps, clothes lockers and showers, bike lockers, safety education, and commute planning As described above, in connection with this Project, the hospitals also will be paYing $2 million in Citywide Transportation Impact Fees for public facilities and services that ",lieve citywide traffic congestion caUBed by new development projectll, including advanced transportation management and infopnation systenls, ex:psnded shuttle transit services, and bicycle and pedestrlan improvementll keduee!i vehiCle Trips: Additional Ofi!red Communitv Benefits. To further minimize commute trips in drlve-aJone vehicles, the hospitals propese to provide the foIlowing benefitll for the life of the Project: • Th-e hospitals will purchase MDuaJ Caltraln Go P~se9 (ftee train passes) for all existing and new hospital employees who work more than· 20 hauls per week at a cost of up to $1.3 million per year, . l198uming CaJtmin continues to offer the Go Pass program at its . current cost (Plus cost of living a4justments) or Caltrain offers 8 substantially equivalent program at approximately the same cost. While the hospi~8 cannot guarantee a specific level of Cal train ridership. if Caltrain ridership by hospital employees reaches the silme Ievelas is being achieved cumntly by University employees, this program would res'olt in off~tting all peak hour trips ftmn the Project's new employment. ;lOIJ huteur DI'I","-HJZOO -M/e ei:uo, StanrOl'd CA 94305. TelepttolW 653--711-1878 .. • The hospitals will fund expansion of Milrguerite service by purchasing additional shuttles at a total capital cost ofup to $2.0 million, and by funding ann\laloperat!ng ~tII of providing 6 . increased shuttle Service in an amount of up to $450,000 per year in order to accommodate the inorease in demand for shuttle services resulting froID increased Caltridn ridership by hospital employees. • The hospitals will provide an onsite Transportation Demand Management Coordinator. • The. total.value of these benefits over the life of the Project Is $90.4 million. LInkages Linlgjwj. Mditional Offered Commgnijy .Periefits· To filrther encourage use Of ~altrain, bus and.other transit services, and to enhance pedestrian and bicycle connections between the hospitals and downtown Palo Alto, the hospitals propose to fund the following improvements: • $2.25 million for Improvements to enhance the pedestrlan and bicycle cOnnection from the Palo Alto Intermodal Tmnsit Center to the existing intersection at EI Camino Real and Quarry Road, with up to $2.0 million of that amount going to the development of an attractive, landscaped passive park/green space with a clearly truirked and lighted pedestrian pathway, benches, and flower boiders. This amount will be paid to the City QfPalo Alto upon .. issuance of the fust gniding permit for the Project, and the City will bel'ellponslblefor constructing these improvements. • ,$400,000 for improvements to the public right-of-way to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle connection from EI Camino Real to Welch Road along QUany Road, Including urban design elements and way finding, wider bicycle lanes, as necessary, on Quarry Road, enhanced transit nodes for bus and/or sl1uttle stops, and prominent bicycle facilities. ThIs amowtt will be paid to the City of Palo Alto , upon issuance of the fust grading permit for, the Projc:ct. and the City will be responsible for constructing these improvements. • Up to $700,000 for improvements to enhance the pedestrian connection between the Medical Center and the Stsnford Shopping Center going from Welch Road to Vineyard Lane, in the area adjacent to the Stanford Bam. The hospitals will be responsible for constructing these improvements prior to Project completion. 300 Paltevr Drlw--H32{10 -MfC 52JO, s,'It.rol'd CA 94lDS. TetepllBnr 6SO~711 .. :Z!n8 7 Housing Housing: Additional Offered Community Benefits. The Hospitals are exempt from the City's housing impact requirements under Section 16.47 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Like other exempt entities (churches, · schools and City facilities), hospitals provide needed services to the community, and therefore are not expected to also provide community services in the form of affordable housing. Nevertheless, in recognition of the relatively large number of jobs created by the Project, the need for City subsidies to entice affordable housing development, and the City's stated desire to increase its affordable housing supply in Palo Alto, the hospitals propose to provide payment to the city's housing fund in the amount of $23.1 million. . · Tliis amount is the same amount tltst a for-profit developer would pay under · Municipal Code section 16.4'1, based on. the City's current in-lieu housing · fee.' The Agreement will provide tltst the portion of the fee that corresponds to each new structure will be due and payable prior to the issuance of the building permit by the City or OSHPD for tltst structure, and the amowit of the fee will be calculated at the fee rate in effect on Iune I, 2009. City Servlees City Services: Direct and Indirect HOspitals Communitv Benefits. The Fiscal Impact Report prepared byCBRE Consulting concludes tltst revenues generated by the Project will more than offset the City's on-going cost of providing services. CitY Services: Additional Offered Community Benefits. To further support the provision of City services, the hospitals propose to provide $70,000 in funding for a jurisdiction-wide Standard of Service Fire Study. This . funding will be provided to the Palo Alto Fire Department prior to issuance of the first grsding permit for the Project. SehoolFees School Fees: Direct and Indirect Hsw»tats Community Benefits. The hospitals will pay School Fees to the Palo Alto Unified School District in the amount of$616,413, based upon the currently applicable School Fee. The applicable fee for each new or expanded building will be due and payable prior to receiving a building permit from the City of Palo Alto. The hospitals propose thst, for buildings subject to OSHPD jurisdiction, school teeil willbe due Within five days of issuance of a building permit from OSHPD. 300 Pasteur Drlve-H3200 -M/C 5230. StAnford CA 94305, Telephone 650-721-2878 Development Agreement Condltloll!il and Undentandlngs The propOeal is based on .our understanding that the Development Agreement will apply only to development olthe Project, and not to any other property owned by Stanford or any other project proposed 11y the hospitals or Stanford. In addition, we have baso our. proposal on the foIJowing anticipated benefits of entering into a Development Agreement: Project Approvals, City Reguladonli The Agreement will vest the applicants' right to construct, use and occupy the Project in accordance with (a) approvals for the Project granted by the City, specified in the Agreemltttt and acceptable to the hospllals and . Stanford, including amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and 1DIling . ordinance. ajurisdictional boundary change, and architectural review approval (conCotive1y !' Project Approvals"); (b) the ordinances, rules, regulations, and official poUcies of the City in furce and effect on lune I, ·2009 as modified by the Project Approvals ("City Regulations") and such 8 · oU-ministerial and disCllltionary approvals .that are necessary or desirable for the economic and efficient constroction, use and occupancy of the , . . . Project that maybe granted subsequent to the execution of this Agreement ("Subsequent Approvals"). Through Incorporation ofille Project Approvals, the Agreement will specifY the permitted uses of the property, the. density or intensity of use, the maximwn height and size of proposed buiidinp, 1IIl!1 provisions (if any) for teservation or dedication ofllllld for public purposes. The City will agree to grIIIlt all Subsequent Approvals, whether ministerial or discretionary, subject only to its n:asonable determination that the application for the tequested Subsequent Approval is complete and · consistent with the PrOject Approvals, City Regulations, and any neW City rules, regulations, and policies which do not conflict with the Project Approvals and City bgulations. The City will agree not to impose any tequin:ment or condi!ion on Subsequent Approvals or development or operation of the Project other than those required by the ~ect Approvals, City Regulations, and any new City rules, regulations, and policies which do not c~)Jlflict with the Project Approvals and CIty Regulations .. The Agreement will provide that the parties win cooperate and diligentl y work to implement a.11 Project Approvals and to expeditioU$ly review and act . uponatt requests (or Subsequent Approvals. From and after approval. each · Subseciuent Approvill shalt be vested under this Agreement to the same extent as. the Project Approvals. 30B Pasleul' DI'I",,-H,UOO -M/C 5230. SI8nro-rd CA 943DS. Ttl'plaQRt 650~721.'J9"8 ·' 9 Project Design The Agreement will include the Design Guidelines for the Project as an attachment For those portions of the Project that have not yet received arclUtectural review approval by the time the City approves the Development Agreement, the Ce!!ign Guidelines will be the exclusive design criteria applicable to the Project components, and the exercise of the City'sarchitectura1 review discretion will be limited to determining whether a proposal ill substantially consistent ~th theDesfgn Guidelines, If iIrebltectural review approval or any Other type of site or design apptoval is needed for Subsequent Approvals, the decisions shall be made by the Dimltor of Planning and Con!.Q1.unity Environment, after recommendation . by the Atohltectu1'llllUwiew Board, subject only to appeal to the City Counoil(plUSuant to Secti0l118.77.070 of the Municipal Code). Public Improvements, Fees Dnd EXDctlons The Agfeement wlll desoribe the publio improvements (if any), fees, dedications and exactions required by the Project Approvals or otherwise required under the Development Agreement, and the Agreement will provide that no other public improvements, tees, dedications or exactions will be required. Inspedlons The Agreement will describe protocols and procedures for Subsequent Approvals and inspections, in.oluding agteed upon tum lIlQund times. PhaIIlng Schedule PJussing Schedule: The Agreement ~ll oonfmn that the applicants are not required to initiate or complete development of the Projeet, or my portion thereof, or to initiate or complete the Project componentll within any period of time or in any particular order .. The Agreement will acknowledge that the applicantll may develop the Project components in such order and at such rate and times as they deem appropriate within the exercise of their sole and subjective business judgment. The applioants also may ohoose, in their discretion, to phase the Project. Project MocUfleation The Agreement will provide a process and standard of review for future City consideration of applicant-proposed modifications to the Project, including to Project phasing if the applicants 80 choose, with the objective 300 h.t .... r DriYf-H328.0 a M/C 5230, Shmtord CI\. 9430.5. TelephQ~ 65{)..721 .. 1678 10 of expedited review of project modifications and City approval ofsuch modifications if no new or substantially mOl'\l severe environmental Impacts would result. No MoratDrlum The AgRimilen( will provide that neither the right to develOp nor the timing of developinent will be affected or limited by a phasing schedule, growth control ordin.anCe, moratorium or suspension ofrigJUa, whether adopted by the City CO~l or a vote of tile citizens through the initiative p~ss exce,pt as required by supervening federal or state law , order; rule or raguliltion •. If a moratorium negatively a1fectI! tiJriing of the 'Project, the .. appliClllltfl may elect to extend the tenn of the Development Agnlement for the duration of the moratorium plus ten years. Term of Agreement 1'he tcmn of tile Agreement will commence as of the Effective Dllie IIIId . continlie 30 yePl'S flom the Effective Date, or until earlier tenninllted by mutual consent of the parties, except 8s to those obllgaticins that expressly extend for the life of the Project, Which is defined to be S i }rears.' . other The Agreement will include provisions addressing annual review, amendment, dispute rasolution, rameclies and notices. Thank yoU fot considering our proposal. We look forward to discuising these terms with you during the next few weeks . • ~. p'f4).~'f7I~. Vice President, Special Projects Stanford Hospital & Clinics . 300 PaRte .... r Drive -H3200 '" M/c 523D, BlftnrOTd CA 94305. Telephonr 6SQ-721-18'78 .~ " , .. Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts LU-1. Conflicts with Adopted Land Use Plaru and Policies. Without mitigation measures to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan's policies adopted for the pwpose of avoiding or mitigating ao environmental effect. the SUMC Project could conflict with Comprehensive Plan policies that avoid or reduce ilIlpacLS related to visual quality. cultural resources, pedestrian circulation, urban forest resourc.es~ groundwater and runoff pollution. air quality degradation. and noise incompatibility. LU -2. Conflicts with Established Residential, Recreational, EducatiooaI. Religious, or Scientific Uses in the Area, The SUMC Projec, would lKlt conflict with residential, . recreational, educational, religious OT scientific uses, LU-3. Physical Division of an Established COlIlfllllnity. The SUMC Project would not physically divide an established community. Impact Significance Witbout Miligation S NI NI Nl = No Impact LTS = Less-Ihan-Sig.uji= Mitigation l\feasnr .. MmGA T10N MEASURES, The mitigation measures identified below would ensure that the SUMC Project would have no conflicts with Curnprmensive Plan policies adopted for. the PUIpOses of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. These measures include Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, which requires compliance with the City's Architectural Review process and recommendations; CR-L2 through 1.4, which involves measures to minimize the loss of the historic Edward Durell Stone Building complex; CR-J.I and CR-J.5, which involve measures to minimize vibration impacts on the Hoover Pavilion; TR-6, I, which requires improvements for bicycle and pedestrian safety and aCcess at mtersections affected by SVMC Project traffic; BR-4.1 through BR-4,5, which require the preparation of a Tree Preservation Report. a solar aCcess study, a Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan, a Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guaranree. and minor site modifications to the current site plans; HW-3. \, which requires a work plan to protect groundwater from contamination; AQ-J. I through AQ-1.2. which would control construction dust and reduce diesel emissions; N04. I ~ which requires noise shielding or enclosure of equipment; and NO-I.l, which oontrols con.'truction noise None required. None required, S=SignijicanJ su= Significaru UTIlIWJMable Smnjoro University ~fedical Center Facilities Renewal and Rq;la.cemenr Draft ElR -Summary bnpact Significance With Mitigation LTS N/A N/A S·25 Table S4 SUMC Project SIlII1II1lU")' or Impacts and Mitigation Mt!a'lures Impact Impact Significance sigoir~ Without With Impacts Mitigation Mitigatioo Measorcs Mitig;>tion --------------------------------- LF-4, F:mn1and CODversion, The SUMC Project would NI None required, NiA have no impact on CO!l\'""ion of farmland to non-agricultural uses, LU-5, Adverse Changes ID Overall Existing or Planned Laod Uses in die Area. Because the sm.!C Project would iIrtel!sify the planned uses within the SUMC Sites, die SUMC Project would bave a signiflClUlt impact pertalmng to on-site character and views. LU-6, Cumulative Impacts on Changes to OveraU Existing or Planned Laod Uses in the Area, 'I'i:u3 SUMC Proj ~t, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable probahle future development in the area, W<J\lld baw a less-!l:tan-signiticant cumulative impact OIl overall e.wting or planned land uses in the viciDity of the SUMC Sites, VQ-l. Temporary Degrad.ation of Visual Character Durinii' Con.sU'Ucfion, The SUMC Proj""t would substantially degrade the existing \'isual ch:u:acter and quality of the SUMC Sites during construction, (5) S LTS S NI No Impact LTS ~ ulIS-r}um-Signijicam MITlGATION MEAsURE, Mitigation Measure VQ-2, I, require. and ensures compliance with Arc,bjtectura] Review Board (ARB) recommendations for final design and would reduce impacts from increased intensity under the SUMC Project Based on the SUMC Project design guidelines, the Arcbitectural Review would consider, among other factors, whether the SUMC Project bas a coherent composition and whether its bulk and mass are bannonious with surrounding development, Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure VQ-2, I would reduce the significant impacrs on overall surroundings to a Jess-than~ignificant leveL NOlle required. MmGATIO!'>" MEASUl\E. Mitigation Measure VQ-l.I. below, would reduce visual impactsdwing COIlStruction to less !ban significant. (L TS) VQ-1,1 Implement CofUtntction VISual lmprove_ PllIJ't The SUMC Project Spo!l>OfS shall deVelop and implement a COfj,tructioo Visual improvementS Plan thaI would make visual improVOl1le1ltll to conso:uction zones within a gjven construction phase :md between phases if the zone is :lot scheduled for construction S~Sigrriji= SlAJiford Ulliverriry Medical Center Fadliries R""""",l and &plo.r:emem Draft f!JR -Summar,' LTS NIA Table S-4 SL1\-IC Project Summary of Impacts and ~fitigation Measures Impacts VQ-2. Permanent Degradation of Visual Character Post Construction. The SUMC Project would have a significant impact pertaining to degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the SUMC Sites and their surroundings. Impact SignifiClll1<:e Without l'tfitigatlon S NI No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant Mitigation Measures activity or would remaiu unused for a period greater than six months. Construction zones subject to this mitigation measure shall be defined by the Planning Director, and shall consider the size of the area., the nature and timing of the construction activity, and the proximity or visibility of the area to public vantage points or residential uses. The Construction Visual Improvements Plan shall be implemented by the project conttactor(s) and must be approved by the Planning Director. The intent of the plan is to aesthetically improve portions of the project site that would remaiu utriroproved for an extended period and screen the construction zone from view by passersby along the public streets and sidewalks. Possible improvements in the plan include, but are not limited to, the following: a. The SUMC Project sponsors shall conceal staging areas ,,1th fencing material to be approved by the Planning Director prior to conunencement of use of the staging area for construction equipment and vebieles. o. The SUMC Project sponsors shall frequently remove construction debris and refuse from the SUMC Sites. c. The SUMC Project sponsors shall install all landacaping as early as feasible to decrease visual impacts of construction. Existing landscaping within the SUMC Sites that would not be removed by the COnstructioD shall be maintained. MmGATION MEAScRE. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, below, requires and ensures compliance with ,,\RB recommendations fur finaI design. Such compliance would ensure that impacts OD oD-site visual character and quality would be less than significant because the ARB's recommendatioDs, through the ArcbitecturaI Review process, would address massing, layout, landscaping, and arcbitecturaI design impacts from the SUMC Project, as described further below. S=Signijicant SU= Significant U/lllVOidabie StaJrjord UniversiJy Medical Cen1er Facilities Renewal and Replacemenr Draft Em -Summary Impact Significance With Mitigation S-27 Table S-4 SOMe Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts VQ,3. Alrerntion of Public Viewsheds, View Corridors, or Scenic Resources. The SUMC Project would result in significant impacts on views. Impact Signlf"tcalICe Without l\<titigatioll s NI No lInpact LTS -L<JS-lIran-signfjicaJt/ .5-28 VQ,2.1 Adhere to City's Archlrectural R""iew Process and Recorru'fumdat'or..s. T:!e SlIMC Project sponsors shall submit final building and site plans to the ARB prior to issuance of any development pemrits. Architectural Review shall assess the appropriateD.ess of proposed demolitions, proposed building heights and massiug, siting of buildings .nd SlIUctures, architecture and fu>ade treatments, landscaping, circulation plans, and parking. The ARB may re<juire alterations TO any of the above project featUres, or the ,<\RB may suggest new feamres, such as new Iaudscsping or public art, to improve Ibe proposed SUMC Project de,rgo, My :recommf'IlaatiOlls made by the ARB wflb respect to the design of the SUMC Project shall be implemented by the SUMC Proje<:t spOIlSOIS. . MITIGATION MEASURE. MicigatiOll Measure Vl)-2.1, above, requ;re. and ensures compliance wfth ARB recommendations for final design and would reduce impacts on ,iews from the proposed buildings under !he SUMC Project. The Architeetural Re\'iew of the SUMC Projea would consider, among other factors, whether the SlIMC Project bas a coherent composition and that its bulk and mass are bannonious with surrounding development. The ARB's recommeudarlons regarding Ihese factor.! "ill be forwarde<i to the City Council for consideration. The C'1Iy Council would !hen review the recommendati""" and make findings, as appropriate, tbat natural features are appropriately preserved and integrall'ld with the SUMC Project; the design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and cbaracter in areas between different designated laud uses; and the planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site ere'le an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Vl)-Z.! regarding the Architectural Review process would eus,ure Ibat impacts 011 views would be less than significant. S=SignijicaJt/ s U -Signl/itXillJ Uno:voitJab/e Impact SigDil:i.can", With Mitigation LTS Stanford University Medical CtWer Fad/ities Ren"",ai rvriJ Rep/acemenJ Draft ElR -Sum:mtL>y Table S-4 SlJ"MC Project Summary or Impacts and :MitigatioD Measures Impacts VQ4. Tenain Modifications. The SUMC Project would not require substantial terrain modifications that would degrade the visual character of the SlIMC Sites. VQ-5. New Sources of Light and Gla(ll. The SUMC Project could increase light and glare nuisance from exterior lighting, (llsulting in a significant impact. VQ-6. Shado",ing of Public Open Space. The SUMC Project would not substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.w. frow September lIto March 21. VQ-7. Cumulative Impacts on Visual Character. The SUMC Project, in combination "'ith other reasonably foreseeable probable future development in the area, would have a less­ th.aD-signifiCIlJ]t cumulative impact on visual character in the vicinity of the SUMC Sites. Jmpact Significance Without Mitigation NI S LTS LTS NI ~ No Impact LTS ~ Less-then-Significant Impact Significance With Mitigation Measuros Mitigation Nooe required. NJ A MmOATION MEJI.S~ll.E. Mitiiation Measure VQ-2. \, above, reqllires LTS compJiaru:e with ARB recommendations for final design and would reduce light and glare impacts from the proposed buildings under the SUMC Project. The Architectural Review of the SUMC Project would consider, aroong other factors. whether the SUMC Project incorporates quality materials. hannonious colors, appropriate ancillary features, a cohesive design with a coherent, composition, and an appropriate lighting plan. The ARB's recoIllltlf'Ildations regarding these factors will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The City Council would then review the recolDlDeDdatioDs and make fmdings, as appropriate, that the design is compatible with tbe immediate environment of the SUMC Sites; is appropriate to the function of the SUMC Project; promotes harmonious transitions in character in areas between different designated land uses; and is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. This Architectural Review process would ensure that exterior treatment would not emit substantial glare and that exterior lighting impacts would be less than significant. NODe required. NJ A None required. NIA S~SigrrifiCan1 su ~ Significant Ullamidable Sr{Jflford Universiry Medical Cenler Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummnJy S-29 Table S-4 SUMC Project Smumary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Significance Without Impacts Mitigatitm Mitigation Measures VQ-8. Cumulative Impacts on Sensitive Views. The SUMC Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable future development in the area, would have less-than­ significant cumulative impacts on sensitive views. VQ-9. Cumulative Light and Glare. The SUMC Project. in combination with other reasonably fureseeable probable future development in the area, would be subject to Architectural Review and Municipal Code. aru:I County requirements pertaining to light and glare. Impacts would therefore be less than significant. VQ-IO. Cumulative Shadows. Shadows from the SUMC Project are not expected to combine with shadows from other nearby reasonably foreseeable probable future development. There would be no cumulative impacts. TR-l. Construction Impacts. Construction activity associated with the SUMC Project could result in significant traffic impacts. LTS LTS NI s loll ~ No Impaa LTS = LesHiran-Signijicant None required. None required. None required. MmGATION MEASURES. With implementation of the fullowing mitigation measures, the si.gnificant construction related traffic impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. TR-l.l Pro"id£ Off-Street Porking for Construction Related Vehicles. The SUMC Project sponsors shall be required to provide adequate off-street parking for all construction-rel.ted vehicles throughout the construction period. If adequate parking cannot be provided on the COnsUUCtiQD sites. a remote packing area shall be designated, and a shuttle bus sba\l be operated to transf;,r constrocuon workers to the job sire. S = SignificalU SU~ SignifiCrml UnaWJidnb1. Impact SiJlnificance With Mitigation NIA N/A NIA LTS S-30 Stanford Universiry Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacemeru Draft ElR -Summary Impacts NI = No Impact TatJJe S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures IPlpact Significance Without Mitigation LTS ~ Le.<r-tlran-,SignijicanJ Mitigation Measures TR-J.2 Maintain Pedestrian Access. The SUMC Project sponsor.; shall be prohibited from substantially limiting pedestrian access while constructiJJg the SUMC Project, without prior approval from the City of Palo Alt() 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 levels. Pedestrian access-limiting actions would include, but not be limited to, sidewalk closures, bridge closures, crosswalk dosures OJ pedestrian re-routing at intersections~ placement of cOI15truction-relaled material within pedestrian pathways or sidewalks, and other actions which may affect the mobility or safety of pedestrians during the c0D.5trUction period. If sidewalks are maintained along the construction ,ite frontage, covered walkways shall be provided. TR-J.3 },[aintain Bicycle Access. The SUMC Project sponsors shall be prohibited from limiting bicycle access while constructing the SUMC Project without prior approval from the City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works. Such approval shall require submittal and approval of specific construction mana,gc-ment plans that warn CYCliSTS prior to reaching the impacted bicycle lanes and provide alternative routing atound the construction sites to mi~""e the specific impacts to a less-than-significant level. Bicycle access-limiting .",ions would include. but not be limited to, bic:ycle lane closures or narro'Wing, closing or n.arrowing of streets that are designated bicycle routes. bridge closures, the placemem of construction-related material. within designated bicycle laces or along bicycle routes. and other actions which may affect the mobility or safety of bicyclists during the construction period. S=Significcm:r SU= SignijicanJ UnavoidalJl. Stan.ford UniveTsiry Medical Ce.nUT Faciliries Renewal and Replacemem Draft ElR -Summar)' hnpact Significance With Mitigation 5-31 Impacts NI = No IlITpact S-32 Table S-4 SUMC Proj~ Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Signilicanc" Without Mitigation LTS = um.fium-Signijicant Mitigation Measures TR-I.4 Restrict Conslronton Hours. The SUMC Project sponsors shall be required to prohibit or limit the number of construction material deliveries from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., aod from 4pm to 6pm on weekdays. The SUMC Project sponsors shall be required to prohibit or limit the number of corutruction employees from arriving or departing the site from the hours of 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m, TR-I.5 Restrict Construction Truck RoUles, The SlJ,,1C Project sponsors shall be required to deliver and remove all corutruction­ relared equipment and materials on truck routes designated by the cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, Heavy Coru;rructiOD vehides shaU be prohibited from aocessing the site from other roures. Figure 3.4-6 and 3.4-7 of the EIR illuscrates the Stanford Area Truck Routes which must be used by aU trucks, TR-I.6 Protect Public Roadways During Cons/ruman, The SUMC Project sponsors shall be required to repair aoy structural damage to public roadways, returning any. damaged sectioru to original structural condition. The SUMC Project spcnsors shaH survey the condition of the publi9 roadways along truck routes providiog access to the proposed project site before coru;truction, and shall again survey after construction is complete. A before-and-after survey report shall be completed and submitted to the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department for review, indicating the location and extent of any da.mage. TR-I.? Maintain Public TrWl,jit Access and Routes, The SUMC Project sponsors shall be prohibited from limiting access to public transit. and frOID limiting movement of public transit vehicles. "iiliout prior approval from the Santa Clara County Valley S=SignijicaJU SU= Signijicam Unavoidable bnpact Significance With Mitigation Stnnford UniversiTy Medical Cenrer FadUtia Renewal and RepJacemeru Draft EIR -SurnJffo.ry Table S-4 SlIMe Project Summary of and Impact Impact Significance Significance Without '"lib Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation ----------------~---~--------------------------~~------------~T~r-~--po--na-h~·o-n~Audrori~Orom.-r-a-mrr--op--na~·~~-J~·un~·s~m~·cQ~·-oc-.~S~u-c~h------------ /'if = No imparJ approval shall require submittal and approval of specifu: impacts 10 a Iess-than-significanl J ... ·eL Potential actions which would impact access 10 tnmsit include, but are nO! limited 10, relocating or removing bus stops, limiting access 10 trus stopS ()l'traJIsfer facilities, or omeN1se restricting Qr con.,traiDing public transit operations. TR·I.8 Prepare and ImplemenJ Consn=ion Impac! MitigaJiM Plo}1. In lieu of the above mitigation measures. the SU:\-lC Project sponsors shall submit a detailed coJlStruction imp''';'! mitigation plan to me City of Palo Alto fur approval by me Director of Public Warks prior to commencing any construction activities wim potential transportation irnpacts. This plan shall address in detail the activities to be carried oul in each construction pbase, the potential transportation impacts of each activity, and an acceptable method of reducing or eliminating signific.-mt transportation impacts, Details such as the routing and scheduling of materials deliveries, construction t:mployee arrival and departure schedules, employee parking locations, and emergency vehicle access shall be described and approved. TR-I,9 Conduct AdditiOf1(l1 Measures During Special events, The SUMC Project sponsors &ball implement a mechanism to prevelll roadway construction activities from reducing roadway capacity during major athletic evenlS or other special evenlS which attract a substaDtial !l\ll1lber of visitors to the campus, This measure may require a special supplemental permit to be approved by either Santa Clara Couruy or the City of Palo Alto prior to hosting such events during si:¢ficant coosrruction phases, S=Signijicam SU= SI!gnifkon1 UnaV<li&lble Table 8-4 SLMC Projet.1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts TR-2. Intersection Level of Service. Implementation of !be SUMC Project would result in significant impacts to intersectiOllS during Peak Hour conditions. Nf No [mpaCJ Impact Significance Without Mitigation s Impact Significance Wrth Mitigation Measures l\fitigation MmGATION MEASURES. Gil'"" Ibe magni!llde of !be SUMC Project's SU Uuerseclion impact:;, th"'" is DO single feilSili'e mitigario!l measure that can reduce the impacts to • ''''<''l-than-signifkant leveL However, Illere are a nmge of measures 1hal. when taken individwilly, would each contribute 10 a partial redw::tion in tile SUMC Project'S impacts. When combined, these measures could result in ~ ,ubmntial reduocion in tile SUMC Project's impacts. Under all combinatioru of feasible mitigation measures below, impacts of the SUMC Project on imersection LOS would remain s~ficaJll and unavoidable. Of all of the feasible combinations. tl:eone 1hal would bave the large", reduction in impact, and thaI mitigateS the greatest number of the intersection impaols, ;. tlIe combination of traffic adaptive signal tecbnology, additional bicycle and pedestrian undercrossin",crs. erlhanced Travel Demand Management (TDM) program, and fuasible intersection improvements. This combination of mitigation measures would reduce the SlIMC Project impaols to a 1.",-tblUHignificant level at all of the impacted imersocooDS during !he AM Peak HOdr. However, intersection impaols would remain signifit:aIlt and unavoidable in the PM Peak Hour at three intersectiODS with mitigation. TR-2.1 InJraIl Traffic AdcJptive Signol Tedrnology. The SUMC Project sponsor. sball comribute to !he Palo Alto Citywjde Traffic Impact Fee program, fur the installation of traffic adaptive signals. However, thi. fee is not sttuctored to mitigate one bundred percent of project related impacts. and an additiomJ. fee could be imposed by llie CitY OIl the Sl:JMC Project sponsors IO mitigate the lemainiDg share of the SUMC Project impact'!. In Menlo Park, the SUMC Project .!lp()I.IWrS sball contribute tbei:r fair share amount, wbicb sbali be tied to the amoo.m: of traffic added to analyzed intersections by Ibe SUMC Project. The SUMC Project sponsors' contributions shaR apply towards the SU= Significanr U/Ulvoidable Sranjord r,ntvemty Me<licaJ Center Facilities RR/lI?1W:l ond Replacemelll Draft Em -SW11J1fIJTJ Impacts NI = No Impacl Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Signilicance Without Mitigation I.,TS ; Less·rhan-Significam Mitigation Measures installation of uaffic adaptive signals as listed below. • Sand Hill Road (Oak Creek to Shopping Center) - 4 signals • Arboretum Road (Shopping Center to Palm Drive) - 3 signals • Embarcadero Road (Bryaot1D Saint Francis) - 7 signals • Uni,"ersit), Avenue (palm to Lincoln) -13 signals • Lytton Avenue (Alma to Middlefield) -10 signals • Hamilton Avenue (Ahna to Middlefield) -10 signals • Middlefield Road (Sao Antonio to Homer) -9 signals • Charleston Road (Abu. to Middlefield) - 2 signals • El Camino Real (northern city limits of Menlo Park to southern city limits of Palo Alto) -signals would require approval of Caltrans TR-2.2 Fund Mdttlonal Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossings. The SUMC Project sponsors shall contribute their fair share to the cost of co:n.struction of the Everett Avenue undercrossing of the Caltrain tracks in Palo Alto and the Middle Avenue undercrossing in Menlo Park. In Palo Alto, there is a Citywide Traffic Impact Fee program that the SUMC Project sponsors shall contribute to. However, this fee is not structured to mitiga.e ODe hundred pereen! of the SUMC Project related impacts, and an additional fee may be imp<>sed by the City to mitigare the remajning share of the SUMC Project impacts. In Menlo Park, the fair sbare contribution shall be tied to the amount of traffic added to analt"Zed inteIsections by the SUMC S=Significam SU= Significam Unavoidable StaJ1/(Jrd University Medical Center Facilities Ren.ewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary Impact Significance With Mitigation S-35 Impacts NI = No Impact S-36 Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation M~asures Impact Significance Without Mitigation LTS = Less-than-SignificalU Mitigation Measures Project. The construction of the Everett Avenue and Middle Avenue undercrossings would reduce traffic volumes on nearby streets, such as Ravenswood Avenue and University Avenue. TR-2.3 Enh(lJ'lce St(lJ'l/ord University Travel Demand M(IJ'lagement (IVM) Program. The SUMC Project sponsors sball enhance the currently-implemented TDM program in order to achieve 35.1 percent usage of alternative transportation modes (i.e. c3IpOol, vanpool, bus, Caltrain, bicycle, and walk) by SUMC employees. The initial enhancements to the SUMC TDM program shall include the following: • • • • • • • Provide Caltrain GO Passes, or an equivalent TDM measure, to all eligible hospital employees and set target Caltrain mode share for hospital employees equal to 15.8 percent. If Caltrain GO Passes would be provided to SUMC employees, make arrangements with AC Transit to lease 75 spaces at the Ardenwood Park & Ride Lot, to serve SUMC employees who commute from the East Bay. Expand bus service in support of the issuance of GO Passes. Expand the Marguerite shuttle bus service, and integrate it with the other City of Palo Alto shuttle bus service. Maintain load factors iess than LOO on the U Line, and less than 1.25 on the Marguerite shuttle. Expand and improve the bicycle and pedestrian networks. Provide a full-time on-site TDM coordinator by 2015 for the hospital components. The coordinator would be responsible for organizing and disseminating TDM information primarily S=SignijicanJ SU = Significant Unavoidable Impact Significance With Mitigation Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary Impacts Nt Notmpacl Table S-4 SliMe Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Significance Without Mitigatkln LTS = Less-than-Signific"," Mitigatkln Measures to hospital employees and also to hospital patients. A cenlraJ location would be made available to provide information on alternative travel modes. Also, the SUMC or hospitals' website would contain information on ruM programs. • Provide. guaranteed ride home program for all employees who use transit and other transport alternatives like carpool and vanpooL The guarantee ride home shall allow employees with dependent children the ability to use alternative modes to travel to and from work but still be able to travel home mid-day in case of an emergency. • Provide employees with shower facilities within the SUMC Sites to encourage bicycling to work. The SUMC Project sponsors shall also provide bicycle storage facilities on the SUMC Sites that would be conveniently located near the employee showers. • Establish, in conjunction with the GO Pass Implementation, a "Zip Car" (or other similar car-sharing program) with Zip Cars avaliable at the medical complex. • Perform annual TDM monitoring and submit the report to the City of Palo Alto to ensure that the assumed modal split to alternative fOlIDs of travel and away from autos is actually achieved. These enhancements may not immediately change the mode split for SUMC employees, because many employees would be unable to change long standing commute patterns overnight. However, with the passage of a mutua\ly agreed amount of time, it is expected that the enhanced ruM program would grnthtaIly result in a shift in the mode split of SUMC employees. If this proves S=Significam SU= Stgnificam U/UIV()idable Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewall1l!d Replacement Draft EIR -Summary Impact Significance With Mitigation 5-37 Impacts Nl No Impact 5-38 Table S-4 SlJMC Project Sl1J1llIUiry of hnpacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Significance Wllhout Mitigation LTS ~ Less-than-Significanl Mitigation Measures not to be the case, then a second round of irtlprovemems to the TDM program shall be implemented. Examples of additional measures could be to increase the parking permit charges while increasing the incentives to those who carpool or do not drive. If, by the year 2025, at least 35.1 percent of SUMC employees are not using alternative transportation modes, then a second round of improvements to the TDM shall be implemented. Examples of additional measureS could be to increase the parking permit charges while increasing the incentives to those who carpool or do not drive. Thereafter, SUMC Project sponsors shall monitorl survey employee use of alternative modes of transportation on an at least bi-annual basis, and shall continue to irtlprove its TDM program, until it is confirmed to the satisfaction of the City that the target of 35.1 percent usage has been met. TR-2.4 Fund or Implement those Intersection ImprovemRJ1JS that Ha:ve Been Detemrined to lJe Feasible. The SUMC Project sponsors shall implement the following measures: • For the intersection of El Camino Real/Page Mill Road - Oregon Expressway, the SUMC Project sponsors shall pay a fair share towards (1) provision of exclusive right-turn lane for westbound Oregon Expressway, in addition to the two through lanes, (2) increasing the cycle 1en.,,"Ih to 160 seconds. Improvements to the westhound right turn lane would require right-ai-way from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) park-and-ride lot. • At the intersection of Arboretum Road/Galvez Street, the SUMC Project sponsors shall install a traffic sigual. SU= Significant Unavoidable Impact Significance With Mitigation Stanford University Medical Center Facilities RerteWal and Rep/aceml!7lJ DrCfft ErR Summary Impacts NI = No Impart Table S-4 SlJMC Project Summary oflmpacts and J\ofitigatioD Measures Impact Sigoifit:al\ce Without MItigation Mitigation Measures TR-2.5 C.oordirw.te with Orher Jurirdictions Jor Potennally Feasible Roaoway Improvements. The City of Palo A1t" shall work witll orner juri.ruc1:lom [0 try to achieve feasibility fl:Jr tbe following roadway impro-"'eIIleDL5 or adjustmems. In the event that one or roOre of tbe below improvemel1l8 would tben be de"'nnined ID be feasible, the St.:MC Project sponsors shall pay their fiLiI share towards implementation af tile improvements, if a fair share contribution would apply. • Alpine Roodil-280 Northbound Off-Ramp intersection. The City shall coordinate regarding feasibility of tbese improvements. Signalize this with Calttans • El camino RealiRavenswood Avenue Re-sttlpe the e;<elu,ive right-11Jm Iane on southbo1l1ld El Cautino Real to a shared through/right Iane. Also, provide an additional Ihrough lane Jor northbound El Camino Real by removing the right-tum slip island. Also, provide an • ...,Iusive righl­ tum lane for eastbotmd Menlo Avenue. The City shall coordimtJ< witb the city af Menlo Park and Caltrans regarding feasibility af these improvements. • Bayftoor ExpresswaylWillow Road -Provide one more right-tum lane for eastbound Willow Road and make the right -tum movement for soutbbound Bayfroot Expressway 'overlap" with the left-tum of eastbound WIllow R,>ad. The Inrerse<:tion has signals for the right-turn movement for soutbOOu.nd BayfrOlll Expressway, but the "overlap" phase is IJ<)t implemented. The City shall coordinate with the City of Menlo Park regarding feasibility of these improvements. • Middlefield RoodiRavenswood Avenue -Provide an additioual exclusive left-turo lane for nortbbound Middlefield S=Signifir(l:tlf Stl1lr{ord University Mf4iCai Cwer Facilities /lmewaJ 1Jl'.d R'1'lac,"",,,,.., Draft ElR -Summary Impact Significance With Mitigation 5-39 Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigatioll Measures Impacts TR-3. Impacts on Roadway Segments. The SUMC Project would result in adverse traffic impacts to roadway segments in the Ciry of Menlo Park. TR-4. Local Circulation Impacts. The SUMC ProjeCT could resulL in significant traffic impact to Ihe loc.al circulation nerwork w the immediate vicwit)' of the SUMC Sires. Impact Significance Without Mitigation s S M= No Impact LTS = Less-than-Signific= Mitigation Measures Road. The City shall coordinate with the Ciry of Menlo Park regarding feasibiliry of this improvement. • Junipero Serra Boulevard/Campus Drive West -Request that Santa Clara COllIlly change the sigoal cycle length at this intersection to 90 seconds. The City shall coordinate with the Coont)' of Santa Clara regarding feasibiliry of this adjustment. MITIGATION MEASllRl'S. With the provision of additionaJ bicycle and pedestrian undercrossings (Mitigation Measure TR-2.2), the eDhanced TDM program (Mitigation Measure TR-2.3), and contributiClll to the Ciry of Menlo Park shuttle fee (Mitigation Measure TR-7.2)_ there would stiU be significant impacts on four Menlo Park roadways, including Marsh Road. Willow Road, Sand Hill Road, and Alpine Road. Therefore. the traffic impacts to Marsh Road, Sand Hill Road, Willow Road, aod Alpine Road would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation. MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-4.I, involvwg funding and implementation of a traffic impact study, and Mitigation Measure TR-4.2, wvolving re-striping of Durnnd Way, would reduce the SUMC Project's impact to a less-than-significant level. TR-4.I Fund Traffic Impact Srudy. Upon construction of the SHC aod LPCH Hospital components, the SUMC Project sponsors shall fund an independeut traffic evaluation. commissioned by the Ciry, based on a<:ruaJ tr.vel patterns, volumes, and emergency access, with an emphasis 00 ease of circulation around and through Ihe medical complex to dererrnine if the private so-eet connection between Roth Way and Pasteur Drive should be operated as a public meet. If the independent traffic srudy demonstrates that the connO<.-YiClll between Roth Way and Pasteur Drive as a public street would improy" circulation, then the S =Signifi= su= Significan.1 Unavoidable Impact Significance With Mitigation su LTS Stanford University Medit.-al CenIer F~ilitieJ Renewal and ReplacemtnI Draft EIR -SwrtmlJ.!J TableS-4 SUMe Project SI1IIIInlU'Y of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impaas TR5. Freeway Impacts. The SUMC Project would result in less-tban-significaot impacts on freeways. TR-6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts. The SlIMe Project could impede the development or function of planned bicycle or pedesman facilities. md result in a significant impact. Impact Signil'icilDce WIthout Mitigation LTS s Mitigation Measures connection sball be designated as a public streel for all vehicular, bicYcle, pedestrian. and transit traffic. TR-4.2 Fwld Signing IJJrd Striping Plan and Signal OprimiZD1ion. In addition to paying for Ille construction of Ille eXll:nsion of Durand Way from Sand Hill Road to Welch Road, Ibe SliMC Project sponsors sball also pay for the following improvements to ensure that queues from the Durand Way/Sand Hill Road intersection do not splllback onto the Durand Way/Welch Road inrersection. • A signing: md striping plan for the Durand Way extellSion, which would maximize the storage ~ity by creatin,g a four-lane roadway with a left and throughirig!tt at Sand HU! Road and a right and dJrougbfleft at Welch Road; • The installation md optimization of the tWO signals at the intexsections of Durand Way/Sand Hill Road and Durand Wayrwe!ch Road. None required. MlTIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 involving trip­ reducing measures, plus Mitigation Measure TR-{,). J, which involves several bicycle and pedestrian improvements, would reduce the SUMC Project's impact to • !ess-than-significant level. The improved facililles would miligare lIIe bazaIds to pedestrians and bicYclists brought about by ,be increased vehicular traffic and congestion. TR-6.1 Bicycle and Pedestrilln Irrfrr:Lsrrucrure Irnprovemems. The SUMC Project sponsors shall fund lIIe expansion md improvement of the bicycle and pedestrian network in Ihe irurnediate vicinity of Ihe SliMC Project. The intent of these improvements is to; su= Sign:t.Jicilf11 Ul1Ilvo!dable NIA LTS 5-41 Impacts ,vI = No Impact S-42 Table S-4 SlJMC Project Summary of hupacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Significance Without Mitigation LTS Less-thaJt-Signijicant Mitigation Measures • reduce auto related traffic by providing the infrastructore for alternative travel modes: • improve the bicycle and pedestrian linkages between the SUMC Project and Downtown Palo Alto, and between the SUMC Project and the surrounding residential neighborhoods; and • mitigate the safety hazards to pedestrians and cyclists that will result from the SUMC Project related increase in vehicular traffic and congestion, The specific improvements to be funded by the SUMC Project sponsors shall include the following: • Provide an enhanced pedestrian crossing at Quarry RoadIEl camino Real to establish a strong connection between the SUMC Project and Downtown Palo Alto, The pedestrian crossing shall be 12 feet wide, have contrasting pavement, countdown signal heads, and high visibility markings, Even though the intersection of Quarry Road and EI Cantino Real is projected to operate at acceptable levels of service. added vehicular traffic through the intersection and added bicycle and pedestrian volumes / across the intersection "'Quid potentially create safety hazards which would be mitigated by the proposed enhanced crossings. • Create a bicycle and pedestrian connection between the Stanford Shopping Center and SUMC. The connection shall provide an alternative route to Quarry Road, which is auto dominated. This connection shall extend between Vineyard Lane and Welch Road. Pedestrian traffic signals and crosswalks shall be placed at the crossing of Vineyard Lane S=Signijic(1Il1 SU = Signijicam Unavoidable Impact Significance With Mitigation Sttmford University Medical Cemer Fadlilies RfJllewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Significance Significance Without With Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation --------------------~~--------------------------~-----------------an-d~W~e~lc~h-R~oa-d~.~Th~ecr--o-ss-w-ruk~~Sha~n~b~e-~~---ed~e~im~er~bY'·------------ NI = No Impact LTS Less-ihan-Signijict1nI striping or by the use of contrasting paving. • Provide a connection from the planned Everett Avenue bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing to the El Camino Real/Quarry Road intersection. Once the tunnel is completed, this linkage shall provide a direct connection between me SUMC Project and Downtown North. • Provide a bicycle and pedestrian trail ilirougb me Arboretum Drive as part of future campus planning in me SUMC area. This trail shall improve access to the SUMC Project. To support this off-street path, bicycle and pedestrian crossings at Arboretum Road and Palo Road shall be enhanced to provide safe crossing of these streets. The crosswalks shall be properly signed, marked, and lighted with enhanoed pavement markings and imbedded crosswalk lights. Signalization of this crossing may ultimately be required. • Incorporate into the Quarry Road corridor, from El Camino Real to Welch Road.. continuous sidewalks according to the SUMC Project's Design Guidelines. The extension of Quarry Road west of Welch Road shall continue the pedestrian facilities into me SUMC Project • Enhance all sigoalized inl.ersections in the Project Vicin!y, particularly along Quarry Road, Vineyard., and Welch Roads to include 12-foot pedestrian crosswalks on all legs, with textured or colored paving or diagonal or longitUdinal zebra striping as determined bY the City, pedestrian push buttons and countdown pedestrian signal heads, and nther specific improvements that are determined as necessary during the design process, such as median refuge islands, advanced signing, tlashing beacons. in­ pavement lighting, eu:. S~Significant SU ~ Significam UJUIVOidable Sranford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replo.cement Draft ElR -Summary $-43 Table S-4 SUMC Project Smnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measur.s Impacts 1R-7. Tnmsil Impacts. Implementation of the Sl.lMC Project could impede the operatitm of lIJe transit system as Ii result of iru:reased ridenbip. and resul! in a significaoJ. impact. 'Nl ~ No fmpac/ Impact Signif"u:ance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measun" • Install the appropriate number of Class 1 and Class ill bicycle parking spaces as required by the City's Zoning Ordinance rot the total amount of exi;1ing and future development, The SUMC Project sponsors shall install the required number of bicycle parking spaces equally distributed throughout the SUMC Sites. MmGATION MEAStIRES. Mitigation Measure TR-7.1 involves the addition of transit centers to the SUMe Project's site plans, and MltigatioD Measure 1R-7.2 involves financial contributions towards the exp:msion. of transit service. Implementation of these measures would reduce the SL"MC Project's mmsit impacts to a lesHban-significant level. TR-7.] Incorporate TrtlllSit CeJ/Jt!rs into Site PlfJl!S. The SUMe Project sponsors shall revise their SUlIK Project she plan to incorporate two transit ce:nters to reduce. the impact to transit service caused by the SUMC l'rQiect. These transit cemers shall be located al Hoover Pavilion and at SHC, and shall be off..street filcilities. The transit centelS sball acOOlJllllQdale three to four buses simultaneously, and shall have shelle.rs, se:aIiDg, Iigbtlng, si,gns, maps, bus schedules, and bicycle parking, On-street bus stops along Welch Road and Quarry Road shall aJso be provided, bllt the transit centen shan accO!Ill1lOdate the majority of =it riders and shall . be located In maxi.mil:. the conve:oillll«> of employees, patients, and visiro.rs, On. fJ:aI::I5it center shall be located in the vicinity .of Welch Road and Pasteur Drive to '<TVe SHC. The other transit ceIller shall be locared nem: the entrmce to Hoover Pavilion, Both of these transit cenUln .ball provide the focal point for transit USe for the SUMe " TR-7.2 Provitk E7:pa1ukd Transit Service. The SUMC Project SPOIISors &ball make a fujr share finaru:ial contn1mdon 10 the cost of expanding e)tisting bus service of the Ma:rguerire, Crosstown, S~Signif.CIOIl SU ~ :;ig~lficam UnJ1Voidable Impact SignIfiClll'1Ce Witb Mitigation LTS ----------~-..... --.... -------:------------------- Stalf/oni rJi<i,,",iry Medical' Cmrer Fadli/ie:; _ewal and Rep/aumenr Draft ElR -~. 5-44 Impacts NI = No Impact Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Significance Without Mitigation LTS = Less-than-SignijicaJ/1 Mitigation Measures and Menlo Park Shuttle bus services, and to the VT A Commuuity Bus Service. • Marguerite Shuttle. The SUMC Project sponsors shall make a financial contribution to expand the Marguerite shuttle service into Palo Alto. • U Line. The SUMC Project sponsors shall make a financial contribution towards the operation of the U Line. Arrangements with AC Transit shall be made to increase U Line service (such as decreasing headways) to meet the increase in demand attributable to the SUMC Project. and ensure that load factors remain below 1.0. • Crosstown Shuttle. The SUMC Project sponsors shall participate in operating the Palo Alto Crosstown Shuttie service, by contributing to the Citywide Traffic hopact Fee, which would include covering the costs of this service. Then current fee is $2,861 per net new PM Peak Hour trips. A portion of Stanford's Citywide Traffic Impact Fee shall be used by the City to expand City shuttle services. • VTA Community Bus Service. The SUMC Project sponsors shall contribute to fund the project's fair share of Palo Alto's share of expanded VTA Conrmuuity Bus Service. • Menlo Park Shuttle Bus. The SUMC Project sponsors shall pay into the City of Menlo Park shuttle fee at $0.105 per square foot of new development annually or a percentage agreed between Menlo Park and SUMC Project sponsors. In Menlo Park, the contribution shall be tied to the amount of project traffic added to analyzed roadway segments and intersections. S =SignijicaJ/1 SU= SignijicaJ/1 Unavoidflble Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Ren.rn'ai and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary Impact Significance With Mitigation S-45 Table S-4 SlJl\fC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts TR-8. Parking Impacts. The SUMC Project would provide adequate parking for its demand, and would thus bave a less­ than-significant parking impact. TR-9. Emergency Access. lmpletnentation of the SUMC Project could potentially result in inadequate emergency access due to increased congestion., a significant impact. TR-lO. Cumulative Construction Impacts. The SUMC Project, in combination with concurrent construction projects in the vicinity or the SUMC Sites, could result in a significant construction-period impact. The connibution of the SOMC Project would be cumulatively considerable .. TR-ll. Cwnulative Transit Impacts. Cumulative growth would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact on transit services. AQ-l. Construction Crit.ria Air Pollutant Emissions. Wilbonl mirigatioo, COD.~trucrion activities associated with the SUMC Project could c .. use emissions of dust and pollutants from equipment exhaust that could contribute to existing air quality violations or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pol\Utanl L'Oncentnltions. Impacts would be significant. Impact Siguifi<lUlce Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures LTS None required. S MmOA110N MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-9.1 involves the installation of emergency vehicle traffic signal priority (OptiCom) at all intersections significantly impacted by the SUMC Project. Implementation of this measure would reduce the SUMC Project's impact to less-than­ significant levels. TR-9.1 P<ry Fair Sho.re T(JWartis OptiCom InstuUurion. The SUMC Project sponsors sball pay their fair-share financial contribution towards the City of Palo Alto, to assist with the iD.mllation and operation of emergency vehicle traffic signal priority (OptiCom) at all significantly impacted intersections. S MmOATlON MEASURES. With implementation of Mitigation Measures TR-l.l through TR-1.9, wbicb involve transportation-related construction management measures. the SUMC Project's contribution to the significant cumulative construction-period impact would be reduced to less than cumulatively considerable. L TS N one required. S MmOATION MEASU!<ES. To minimize dusl emissions, the Bay Area Air Quality Management Disnict (BAAQMD) has identified a set of feasible PM~o control measures for all construction ac:tivities in the air basin. Implementation of die BAAQMD-recommended measures (Mitigation Measure AQ-Ll below) would reduce die impacts caused by construction dust to a less-than-significant level. Additionally, implementation of NI = No Impart LTS = Less-than-Significant S U = Signific!W Ull£IWJidab/P Impact Significance Witb Mitigation NiA LTS LTS N/A SU 5-46 Stanford Unillersiry Medical Cmrer Facilirr.'eJ RefU?HKJl and Repl.acemerrt Draft EIR -S/Uf'fl'fItJl'Y Impacts NI = No [mpaCl Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Significance Without Mitigation LTS = Less-than-SignificanJ construction equipment emission reduction measures (Mitigation Measure AQ-1.2 below) would further reduce NOx, ROG, PM!o and PM2~ emissions during construction. However. reduction of ~Ox emissions below 80 IbsJday during the first year of construction could not be guaranteed, and this impact would still be considered significant and uwrvoidable, AQ-Ll Implemen1 Reco/1l1lleJlded Dust Comrol Measures, To reduce dust emissions during project derwlition and construction phases, the SUMC Project sponsors sball require the construction contractors to comply with the dust control strategies developed by the BAAQMD. The SUMC Project sponsors sball include in construction contracts the following requirements: a. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials including demolition debris, or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; b. Water all active construction areas (exposed or disturbed soil surfaces) at least twice daily; c. Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structnres or break-up of pavement; d. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and sta,,<>ing areas; e. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas during the earthwork phases of construction; f. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; g, Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); S = Sigrrificant SU = Significant UTIllvoiaall/e Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary Impact Significance With Mitigation 5-47 Impacts NI = No Impact S-48 Table S-4 Sl.JMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impad Significance Without Mitigation l-TS ~ Less-,han-Sigflificcm1 Mitigatioo Measures h. Enclose, coyer, water twice daily. Or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (din, sand, etc.); i. Linnt traffIC speeds on unpaved roads 10 15 mph; j. lnstaU sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevem silt runoff to public roadways; and k. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. AQ-J.2 Implemenl Equipmeru Eduiul Emission Reduction Mea:mres. To reduce emissions from construction equipment du.ring project demolition and construction phases, !he SLIMC Project sponsors shall require the construction contracton; to comply with the following entission reduction SU'ao:egies to the maximum feasible extent. TJy, SUMC Project sponsors sball include in construction contracts the following requirements: a. Where possible, electrical equipmem shall be used instead of fossil-fuel powered equipment. b. lbe contractor sball install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid Deed for fossil-fuel powered equipment. c. Running equipment not being actively used for con...'=1:rUction purposes for more than five nUnutes sbal1 be turned off. (e.g .• trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil" ag,gregate~ or other bulk materials; however, rotating-drum concrete truclcs may keep !heir engines running continuously as long as they are on site). d. Trucks shaII be prohibited from idling while on residential streets serving the construction site (also included in Mitigation Measure NO-I.!). S =SignijicG11l SU ~ Sigflifi= Unavoidable Jmpad Signiflcauee With Mitigation Stmrjord Orril"ersiry Medical Cmrt!r Faciliries Reflt!1IWl1 and ReplacemenI Draft ElR -SummaF')' Table S4 SUMC Project Summary of hnpacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts AQ-2. Operational Criteria Air Pollutant EmissioIlS. Combined mobile and stationary source emissions during operation of the SUMC Project would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality ManaBement District's significance threshold of 80 pounds/day of ROG, NOx and PMlO. Therefore, air emissions would result in a subst>Dtial contribution to an existing regional air quality problem and a significant impact. AQ-3. Localized Carbon Monoxide JmpactS from Motor Vehicle Traffic. The SUMC Project would have less-thao­ significant localized air emissions resulting from additiolllli traffic. AQ-4. Toxic Air Contaminants. Simultaneous exposures to DPM and T ACs from the construction and operational components of the SUMC Project would have a less-than­ significant impact on air quality. Impact Significance Without Mitigation S LTS LTS NI ~ No Impact LTS ~ uss-than-SignificarJ Mitigation Measures e. Diesel-powered construction equipment shall be Tier ill or Tier IV California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified equipment to the maximum f"""ible extent. f. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the smallest practical to accomp~sh the task at hand. MmGATION MEASURES: Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 involves implementation of enhanced TOM measures. The enhanced TDM measures include provision of the Caltrain GO Pa.<s !D SUMC employees, or an equivalent TDM measure. If the GO Pass would be provided, then remote parking spaces at the Ardenwood Park and Ride Lot in the East Bay would also be provided to serve commuters from the East Bay. Provision of the GO Pass plus remote parking spaces in the East Bay would reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled by 13.5 percent. This reduction in SUMC Project VMT, however, would not be 51lfficient to prevenl project ROG, NOx and PMIO emissions from exceeding the BAAQMD significance thresholds. In addition, the City shall consider the feasibility of Mitigation Measure PH- 3.1. Nonetheless, impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. None required. None required. S =Signiftcam SU= Signiji= UMVoidnb/J! Starford Univer.siry Medical Cenrer FaciUtie.s Renewal and. Replncemem Draft ElR -SWnmllry Impact Significance Wrth l\fiti gation SU NIl\. N/A S-49~ Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts AQ-5. Objectionable Odors. The SUMC Project would bave a less-than-significant impact related to exposing the public to objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. AQ-6. Cumulative Construction Entissions. Construction equipment NOx emissions associated with the SUMC Project could contribute considerably to regional air quality problems. AQ-7. Cumulative Operational Entissions. SUMC Project operation could contribute considerably to a degradation of regional air quality as defmed by the BAAQMD. AQ-8. Cumulative Construction and OperatiouaI TAC Entissions. SUMC Project TAC entissions could contribute considerably to the health risk of sensitive receptors on and near lbe SUMC Project site and, thus, have a significant cumuJative impact. Impact Significance Without Mitigation LTS S S S M = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant S-50 Miti gatioD Measures None required. MmGA TION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures AQ-l.l and AQ-1.2 would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to cumulative construction entissions, although the contribution to NOx would remain cumulatively considerable. MmGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 involves implementation of enhanced TDM measures. The enhanced TDM measures include provision of the Caltrain GO Pass to SUMC employees, or an equivalent TDM measure. If the GO Pass would be provided, then remote parking spaces at the Ardenwood Park and Ride Lot in the East Bay would also be provided to serve commuters from the East Bay. As additional ntitigation, the City shall consider lbe feasibility of Mitigation Measure PH-3.1, as identified and discussed in more detail in Section 3.13, PopuJation and Housing. These measures would reduce the contribution to criteria pollutants during operation of the SUMC Project. However. even with mitigation, emissions would still exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds, and lbe contribution would remain considerable. MmGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure AQ-1.2 (Implement Equipment Exhaust Entission Reduction Measures) has been identified primarily to reduce construction-phase criteria pollutant emissions, but it would also reduce Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions. However. the emissions of criteria and DPM emissions from project construction sources were based on current best esti..m3.tes of the type. number, and duration of use of the SUMC Project construction equipment. While some additional reductions of Toxic Air Contaminants (rACs) would be expected with Mitigation Measure AQ-1.2, where their implementation is feasible, their S=Significam SU~ SignijicaJlt Unavoidable Impact Significance With Mitigation N/A SU SU SU StalZ/Ord UniversiTY Medical Cenrer Fadliries Renewal and ReplacemenI Draft ElR -Sununary Table S-4 SL"MC Project Sumwary of Impacts and Mi1;igation Measures Impact Signific.ance With Impacts Impact Signillcanco WIthout Mitigation Mitigation Measures J'vlitigation CC-L Furthering Goals and Policies of the Palo Alto Climate Prorection Plan. The proposed Emissions Reduction Program would minimize greenhouse gas emission increases associated with the proposed development program. However, Ibe proposed Emissions Reduction Program would not be sufficien. to further the goals of the CiIY'S Climate Protection Plan. Nt No Impact potential additional reductions were not included in the SUMC Project's DPM estim.tes that were the basis of the Health Risk Assessment. However. it is not likely that the add;tioaal reductions in SUMC Project TAC emissions resulting from their implementation would reduce the SL"MC Project health risk to the poin. wbere it wQUld not be cumulatively considerable in the COJ)t""t of Palo Alto's ~jgb TAC background levels, Thus, SUMC Project TAC ;:missions would remaio cumuhu;,ely significant even after the intl'lemenlJ!lion of all feasible TAC reduction measures, M:rnGATION l'.fEAS1!RES. The mitigatiOll measures below, which in addillO'll to the proposed Emissions Reduction Program, would furtber minimi:re the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from Ibis project. However. even with these Ill<'$Ure. the SUMC Project would coottavene the goals in the City's Climate Protecuoo Plan and would have Ii cllIlluiatively considerable contribution to global climate chaog.e. CC-l.l CommissiO'l! I11fIi Betro-Commission En£rgy Systems for New I11fIi ExiJling Buildings. New t'OIlSIrul:tion and existing buildings altered bY construction of the SUMC Project sball undergo commissioning of energy and HV AC systems during construction and On an annual basis during the first live years of operation. The commissioning process ,ball fullow the standardS of the American Society of HOllting, Refrigerating, and Air­ Conditioning Engineers (.-'\SHRAEJ Guideline Q.2005 or the International Perfurwaru:e Measurement and Verificatioo Protocol (MVP). This process would ensure that new and existing energy systenJs would perform inlelactively according to construction documents, the SUMC Project design intent and the owner', operational needs. SraJ'iforli University Medi<:aI Ce/'ller Facilities Rm"wai and Rep/acemOll Draft E1R -SiimJr.ary S-SI Impacts Nf -No 1",l'act S-52 Table 8-4 SliMe Project SUlIIIIIlIrY of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Jmpact SigaHkaJK:!l Significant<! Witboot With l\litig.ation j\fjtigatioo Measures Mitigation --------------------~---- CC-I.2 Panicipllle ill Palo Alto Gr"t! Energy Program, Orher Equiwllen.t Renewable Energy Program, or comhillmion thereof Under the Palo Alto Green program, residentiaL business and induslriaJ customers purchase renewable energy equivalem to their electricity :needs at an additional cost of 1.5 cents per kWh above standard electric rates. The SHC and LPCH facilities sball participate in !hi, program to offset electricity emissions; devel<'P new renewable generation sources in collaboration with the CPA U; im:orporate a renewallle energy source (such as pllDtovoltaics) into the SU)',!C Project, or a combination thereof, such thet a minimum of 54,640 MWh of electricity usage is offset annuaIJy. CC-I.3 Preville AlI1UIal GrccnlwliSe Gas RepMting. The SHC andLPCH· sball perform an annual inventory of grEe!lhouse gas emissions associated wirb hospital and medical facilities OIl the SUMC Sites. This inventory shall be performed =ding to a common industry-standard emissions reporting protocol, such as me approaches recommended by California Air Resources Board, The Climate Action Registry, or Business Council for Sustainable Deve.lC'IJIDeot (BCSD). This invenlOry shall be shared with the City of Palo Alro to facilitate rbe develC'IJIDeDt of fumre collaborative Emissions Reduction Programs. Emissions associated wilh energy, water, solid waste. tran.portation, employee commute and other major sources shall be reponed in this inventory. CC-I.4 Prepare WIlSIe Reduction Audit. The SUMC Project spoIlSQIS sball perform a waste reduction audit of waste ntana.!!'emeIlt practices at the hospitals prior to construction of new facilities and after completion of the SUM C Project to determine l"'51- project diversions. This audit sball be repeated annually, and Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact SignificruIce Without Impacts Mitigation MItigation Measure. CC-2 Emit Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissioa.. The proposed Emissions ReductiO!l Program would minimize the greenhouse gas emission increases associated with the proposed development program, although the proposed Emi>siO!ls Reduction Program would not reduce emissiO!ls to 30 percent below business as usual (»ALry emissiOIlS. Therefore the SUMC project would have a cumulative considerable contribution to global climate change. S NJ = No Impact l.TS = LeI!.S-than-Significlll!1 with the results being made available to the public or to City of Palo Alto staff. CC-I.5 /mplemen1 CarlStrom"" Period Emission Reducrion Measures. Prior to the issuance of a gradiag permit the SUMC Project sponsors ,hall incorporate Ibe fullowing measures into the constructioa phasing plan and submit to City Plannin.g for approval. • Use alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) CO!lstructioa vehk]e,i equipmeat of at least 15 percen! of Ibe fleet: • Use local building materials of at least 10 percent; and • Recycle at least 50 percent of construction or demolition materials. MmGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measures CC-l.I through CC-1.5, and TR-2.3 would teduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, to furlber reduce impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, Ibe City shall CO!lsider the feasibility of Mitigation Measure PH-3.1. However, even with the implementation of aU feasible mitigation measures, the anticipated emissions would remain abcve both the City of Palo Alto's Climate Protection Plan and th.e CARE's !eduction emission goals of 30 percent below BAU emissions. Because these reduction levels cannot be achieved, the SUMC Project would emil significant amounts of greenhouse gases and wauld bave a cwnuJatively considerable cO!ltribution to global climate change. S=Sig"ificant SU= Significlll!1 Unavoidable SUJIiford Uni.,<rsity Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft Em -Summnry hopacl Significance With Mitigation SU 5-53 Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts NO-I. Construction Noise. Construction of the SUMC Pr~ect would create a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels on the SUMC Sites compared to existing ambient noise levels. TIle noise increase would be a significant impact to the sensitive uses (i.e., patients) on the Main SUMC Site during co~ction. Impact Significance Witbout Mitigati()n S NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significam S-54 Impact Significance Witb Mitigation Measures Mitigati<>n MmGAT!ON MEASURE. The following mitigation measures would not SU reduce construction noise impacts to on-site sensitive receptors to less-than- significant levels, although they would lessen construction-related noise. NO-I. I Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Constru.ction Noise. TIle SUMC Project sponsors sball incorporate the following practices imo the construction documents to be implemented by the SL'MC Project contractor: a. Provide enclosures such as heavy-duty mufflets for stationary equipment, shrouding or shielding for impact tools, and barriets around particularly noisy operations on the site. b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible, particularly air compressors. c. Provide sound-contrul devices on equipment no less effective than those provided by the manufacturer. d. Locate stationary equipment, material stockpiles, and vehicle staging areas as far as practicable from sensitive receptots. e. Prohibit Ull1lecessary idling of internal combustion engines. f. Require applicable construction-related vehicles and equlpment to comply with the City'S truck route ordinance. g. Designate a noise disturbance coordinator who shall be responsible for responding to complaints about noise during construction. TIle telephone number of the noise distnrbance coordinator sbalI be conspicuously posted at the construction site and shall be provided to the City. Copies of the construction schedule shall also be posted at nearby noise­ sensitive areas. S =Significan1 SU= Significant Unavoidnble Stanford UniversiTy Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacemem Draft ElR -Summary Table S-4 SlJMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Siguificance Without Imparu Mitigation Mitigation Measures NO-2. Construction Vibration. Coru.uuction of rhe SUMC Project would have less-tban-signifir.anl vibration impacts. NO-3. Operational Noise Impru:ts from Transportation Sources. Increased traffic and helicopter noise l.v.ls due 10 implementation of rhe SUMC Proje<."" would b.. less tban significant. However. noise from ambu1ances due to implemeotation of the SUMC Project would increase along Sand Hill Road west of EI Camino Real, and would increase roadside noise levels by an amount considered WIaCceptable under the policies of rhe City Comprehensive Plan. NO-4. Operational Statiooary Source Noise Impacts. Operational statiooary source noise generated by the SUMC Project could potentially increase ambient noise levels in rhe vicinity of rhe SUMC Sites and result in a significant impact. LTS s S NI = No Impact LTS ~ Less-than-Significant None required. MmGATION MEASURE. No mitIgation measure (sboIt of forbidding ambulance access to the new emergency room via the Durand Way access roule; a measure that may "" practically impossible gh-en the emergency nature of ambulance activity) would prevent or reduce tbe identified SUMC Project-related ambulance noise impaci at the noise-sensitive uses along Sand Hill Road. As such, the impacl would be significant Wlavoidable impact. MmGATION MEASURE. The follov.ing mitigation measure would reduce noise impacts to sensitive receptors from HYAC equipment and emergency generators proposed for SUMC Project. impieIIllmlation of this measure would reduce the Sl.JMC Project's noise impacts ;oj 1100 Welch Road. N0-4.1 Shield or Ellc/O"" HVAC Equipment arui Emergency Generators. Noise levels from mechanical equipment shall b.. minimized 10 the degree required by the City Noise Ordinance by proper siting and selection of sucb equipment and through installation of sufficient acoustical shielding or noise emission controls. Noise levels for the emergency generators near Welch Road shall b.. reduced such that noise levels do not exceed the City's General Daytime Exception standard of 70 dBA al 25 feet. An acoustical analysis s!:tall be PT"Pared by a qualified professional to ensure tbat rhe new mechanical equipment is in compliance willi noise standards of the Noise Ordinance. S=Sigruficom 511= SignijicaJII IIrJIIWJwab/e Swnjord Universiry Medical Center Facilities Renewal aM. ReplacemenT Draft ElR -Summa.ry Impact Siguificance With Mitigation NIA SU LTS S-55 Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts NO-5. Cumulative Construction Noise Impacts. If other foreseeable construction in the immediate vicinity of the SUMC Sites would occur simultaneously with the proposed SUMC Project construction, then significant cumulative noise impacts to adjacent residential and other noise-sensitive uses could occur. The SUMC Project's contribution would likely be cumulatively considerable. N0-6. Cumulative Construction Vibration Impacts. Vibration during construction activities under the cumulative scenario would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact. NO-7. Cumulative Operational Transportation Source Noise Impacts. Cumulative development would result in less-tban­ significant cumulative noise impacts. NO-S. Cumulative Operational Stationary Source Noise Impacts. Cumulative development would not result in a significant increase in cumulative noise levels from operational stationary sources a~ sensitive receptors. CR-1. Impacts on Historical Resources. The SUMC Project would have a significant impact on historical resources. Impact Significance Without Mitigation S LTS LTS LTS S Nl = No Impact LTS ~ Less-than-Szgnificant S-56 Impact Significance With Mitigation Measures Mitigation MmGA nON MEASURE. Although measures under Mitigation Measure SU NO-I.l would lessen the resulting noise contribution from the construction of the SUMC Project at 1100 Welch Road and on-site receptors, the contribution of the SUMC Project construction noise would remain cumulatively considerable. None required. N/A None required. N/A None required. N/A MmGA nON MEASURES. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures SU CR-I.l and CR-1.5 would reduce potential vibration and construction- related impacts to the Hoover Pavilion resulting from demolition of adjacent sheds and storage facilities, impacts from falling construction debris, and impacts from movement of heavy equipment to a less-tban- significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1.2 through CR-IA would reduce impacts due to the loss of the Stone Building complex; however, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. S~Significant SU ~ Significant Unavoidable Stanford Ulliversiry Medical CenJer Facilities Renewal and Replacemenr Draft EIR -Summa,)' Impacts NI ~ No [mpd'" Table 5-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Significance Without Mitigation LTS ~ Less-Illan-Significan: Mitigation Mea.ores Mitigation Measure CR-1.5 requires implementation of the Stanford Hoover Pavilion Protection Documents (Documents) prepared by ARG and dated Seprember 21, 2009 (see Appendix J). These Documents provide spedfications for the treatment and protection of the Hoover Pavilion during SUMC Project construction .ctivities that could damage the historic fabric of the building including the installation of protective covering of certain exterjor surfaces and the removal. cataloging, and storage of selective historic elements. The Documents are based on National Park Service and National Fire Prote<:tion Agency protection guidelines and include detail. on materials and methods of installation for the protective coverings to prevent damage from nearby dornolition. Proper installation, as required in the Documents would prevent the protective covering itself from damage the building. The removal of historic elements would enS\lIe their. protection of some of the more fmgile elements from construction activities and property catalosing and storage of such elements would ensure their proper care and reirutallation. The Documents include such details as specifying under what weather conditions it is acceptable to perform the various t3Sks ilial could be negatively impacted by different weather conditions. Any variations on the specifications of the Documents would not be allowed without prior consultation with ARG, or a qualified preservation architect. Refer to Appendix J, Stmford Hoover Pavilion Proteclion Documents. for a complele list of specifications for the Hoover Pavilion. CR-1.1 M{]Jwalty Demolish Slrucrures at the Hoover Pavilion Site. Where feasible, Ibe project spomers shall establish a perimeter of construction fencing around the Hoover Pavilion at :it minimum of 25 fret to establish a protective boffer around the building. The demolition of these sheds and storage facilities shall be accomplished manually without Ibe use of vibration causing equipmeDl. Additional protective fencing at a height sufficienl to prevent any debris from hitting the building shall S ~Significant SU~ Significam Ur.avoidable Swn/ord Urliversiry M.edical Cemer Facilities Rt!Jlewai anti Replacement Draft Em -Summary Impact Sigoifl£3D£e Witb Mitigation 5-57 Impacts Nl = No ll1ql(JCt S·J8 Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact SigoifiCllllte Without Mitigation Mitigatiou Measures also be installed between the Hoover Pavilion and demolition activities oo.::urring within the 25 foot buffer. CR-l.2 Prepare HAi3S DocumemntionJor th. STOne Building Compl~. The SUMC Project sponson; shall prep..... RABS-lilte documentation using the National Park Services' Historic American Building Surveys Lewl III guidelines for each of the buildings in the Stone Building complex prior to demolition of each building that comprises !his historic resource (East. Wesl. Core. Boswell. Edwards, Lane, Alway. :md Gram). RABS-like recordatioo sllaJl not be required until eacll of the indivicual buildings is ,,,,cated and prepared for demolition. The documentation shall include written and photogrnpbic docur.oentation of each of the historic struCl1ll'eS within the Slone Building complex. The documentation shall be prepared by a qualified professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Stmdards for AtchiteeDtral History or Hi<lory. The documentation shalJ be prepared based on the National Park Services' HABS standards and include, al a minimum, the following: • Site-specific history and appropriate contextual infurmation regarding the Stone Building complex. This history sball focus on the reasons for the buildings' significance, heart transplant1tion program and the role of E.D. Stone in the design of the complex. • Accurate mapping of all buildings that are included in <he Slone Building complex, scaled 10 indicate size and proportion of the buildings to SUItOllllding buildings; if existing pialls a<:<:urately rellec! these relationships these may Impact S'Jgoificanee Witb l\fitigation -----..... -~ •.... ------- Impacts !v7 = No lIT/pact TableS-4 Sl)MC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Significance Without Mitigation LTS = LesNhan..filgnijiclZlll Mitigation Measures be reformatted for submittal per HABS guidelines for CAD submittals. • Architectural descriptions of the major exterior features and public rooms within the Stone Building complex as well as descriptions of typical patient, office, laboratory, and operating rooms. • Photographic documentation of the interior and exterior of the Stone Building complex and Thomas Church-designed landscape features. Either HABS standard large format or digital photography may be used. If digital photography is used, the ink and paper combinations for printing photographs must be in compliance with National Register­ National Historic Landmark photo expllllSion policy and have a permanency rating of approximately 115 years. Digital photographs will be taken as uncompressed .TIF file fOnnat. The size of each image shall be HiOOx1200 pixels at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger, color format, and printed in black and white. The file name for each electronic image shall correspond with the Index to Photographs and photograph label. CR-l.3 Distribute Written 0JUi Photographic Documentation to Agendes. The written and photographic documentation of historic resources shall be disseminated on aIchival-quality paper to Stanford University, the Northwest Infonnation Center, and other local repositories identified by the City of Palo Alto. CR-IA Prepare Permanen1 Interpretive Displays/SignagefPlaques. The SUMC Project sponsors shall install interpretive displays within the SUMC Sites that provide information to visitors and residents regaIding the history of the Stone Building complex. These SU= Signlficam Unavoidable Stanto,,!. UntYersiry Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Swnmory Impact Significance W"lth Mitigation S-59 Table S-4 SL"MC Project Summary of Impacts and MitigatiOD Measures Impacts CR·2. Impacts on Prehistoric or Archaeological Re=es. The SUMC Project could potentiaUy encounter archaeological resources and result iII a significant impact NJ ~ NQ [mpact Impact Sigoi.ficance Without Mitigation S displays shall be installed in highly visible public areas such as the property's open space or in puNic areas on the interiors of buildings. The displays ,ball include hislorical data and pholOgraphs as well as physical relll1l""ts of architectural elements. Interpretive dis(ll.y. and the sig1lage/plaques installed on the property shall be sufficieIIlly durable to '>'iths(;md typical Palo Alto weather conditions for at leaSI five yearn. Displays and signage/plaques shall be lighted, installed at pedestrian­ friendly locations, and be of adequate size to attract the interested pedestrian. Maintenance of displays md signage!pJaques sball be included in the maintenance program on the property. Location and materials for the interpretative displays shall be subject to review by the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board and approval by the PJannlng Director. CR-1.5 Implement Protection DOCJllWYIts for the Hoover Pa.ilion. The SUMC Project sponsors .balI ensure the implementation of the Stanford Hoover PaYiIiOll Protection Documents (Documents) prepared by ARG and dated September 21, 2009, The SUMC Project sponsors shall com(lly with the specifications for the treatment and protection of the Hoover Pavilion during SUMC Project construction activities that oould damage the historic fabric of the building as provided in the Documents. MrrKlATION MEASURE. Mitig;ation Measure CR-2.1 provides discovery and evaluation procedures for any previonsly UIlknown archaeological resources on the SOMC Siles and requires that a professional archaeclogist employ preservation in place, dalJ! recovery, or other methods that meet the Secreruy of the Interior's Standards for ArchaeologinaI Documentation to reduce impactS on unique archaeological resources. Therefore, implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure the impact remains less than significant. (L TS) su-SignifiCGllI UMWJilJable impact Siguilkaoce With lI-litigation LTS StoJ1furd Un/versf,y Medica! CenTer F.ciIlrieJ _.l and Replacemefl/ Drqft EIR -Sunrmnry Table 8-4 SlJMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ------------------------------ Impacts CR-3, Impacts on Human Remains. The SUMC Project could potentially encounter human remains and result in a significant impact. Impm Si,"ifieanee Without Mitigation S us ; Less-tht;n-Significant CR-2,1 Consrrucrion SrajJ Training alUl Consultation. Prior to any COIlIltruction or eartb-disturbing ."OVttloS, a qualified archaeologist shall infOnll construction supervisor, of the potential to encounter cultural resource.. All construction personnel shall be instructed to be observant for preruSloric and historic-era arti.facts. subsurface archaeological features or deposir.s, illCludfu,. ,",cumulations of dark:, friable soil ("midden"), .tone artifact •• animal bone. and shell. In the "vent that any prehistoric or rustorit: subsurface arcbarological features or cultural deposits are diSCC'l'ered during consrruclion-rel2Ied earth-moving at:tivities, all ground-diSlurbing at:tivity witbin 100 feet of the resource. shall be halted and the City shall be notified. The City shall coosult with the Stanford University Archeologist to assess the significance of the find. If the find is determined to be an rustoncal reSOurce or a unique archaeological resource as dollned by CEQA, then representatives of the City and the Sttmford University Archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course rIf action. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to -scientific analysis, professiQJl;!1 museum coration, and a report shall be prepared by the qualified archaeologiht according to current professional standards. MITIGATION MF.A5URE. Mitigation Measure CR·3.1 SU11l1lli!rizes the procedures to be t:Iken in tile event that any previously unknown human remains are discovered on tile SUMC Sires, Therefore. implementation of tbe following mitigatiOD measure would ensure thaI the potential impact remains less than significarn.. CR-3.1 Conduct Protocol and Procedu,res for Er,,:OUn1en'ng Human Remains. If human remains (including disarticulated or cremated remains) are discovered at any SUMC Project construction site during ally phase of construction, all ground-distorbing activity S~Significant SU; Sign(fic(11ft UlJQ.voidable SU"iford UrJ",rsiry lIferIical Cenler Facilities R_I and Repltueme111 Drltft EIR -Summary Impact Significance With l'rlitigation LTS 5-61 TableS-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and :Mitigation Measures Impact Impact Significance Significance Without Wrtb Impacts Mitigation Mitigation Measures !\Iing.lioo --------=----------=------~--;-;~~~-;--~~~~~~~~~---------------- CR4. Impacts 00 Plljeontological Resow:t:es. The StTMC Project could have a significant impact on unique paleontological resoU!c<:s or unique geologic fesnUfces. s I'll = No Impact LTS = Le.ss-tllfJII-Signific= within 100 feel of the h= remaiIJs should be baited aDd th. St:aoford University Archaeologist. City of Palo Alto, and <he ColllllY CQronef notified immediately. accQrding to Section 5097.98 of the Stale Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California's Henith and Safety Code. If the remains are delennioed by the County coroner !D be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission \NAHC) sbalJ Ix notified within 24 bours, and the guidelines of the NAHC adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The SUMC Project spon.'lOrs sbaJJ retain a professional arclJaeologisl with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of tbe specific sile and consult with the MOSI Likely Descendant. if any. ideorifled by the NAHC. As necessaI)', the archaeologist may provide profes.'Iional lISSistaoce 10 the City of Palo Alto. including the excavation and removal of the bnman ",;mains, If the human remains cannot be avoided, and the Most Likely Descendant requests that the human remains be removed from its location. the SUMC Project sponsors shall implement removal of the human remains by a professional ar<:baeologist. The City of Palo Alto sbaJJ verity that the mitigation is complete before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where tlte remains were dis<overed. MmGATION MEAsURE. Mitigation Measme CR4.! provides protocol for encountering paleontological resources and wonId reduce the potential impacts resulting from disruption to unique paleontologleni resources to a less-than-sigoificant level. CR-4.1 eontfw:r Prorocol anti Procedures for En_ring Paleontol1lgical Resources. Should paleontological resources be identified during SUMC Project groun<klistorbing activities, u", SUMC Project 'ponsors sball DOtity the City and the Sranfurd S=SignifiCMI Stanford Um"rsiry Medica! Center Facifjtf" &~ewal <Wi Replacemenz Drqfr ElR -~ LTS. Impacts Nl = No Impact Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Mea~ures Impact Significance Without Mitigation LTS = uss-tiran-Sigriijicar. Mitigation M .... ur .. University Archaeojogiqt and cease operations in the vicinity of the potential resource until a qualified professional paleontologist can complete the following acnom when appropriate: • Identify and evaluate paleontological resources by intense field survey where impacts are considered high; • Assess effects on identified resources; and • Consult with the City of Palo Alto and the Stanford University Archaeologist. Before operations in the vicinity of the potential resource resume, the SUMe Project sponsors shall comply with the paleontologist's reco=endarions to address any significant adverse effects where detennined by the City of Palo Alto to be feasible. In considering: any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the SUMC Project sponsors shall consult with the Stanford University Archaeologist and the City to determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the namre of the find, project design, cost policies and land use asswnptions, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g. data re<:overy) shall be imntuted to avoid a significant impact. Work may proceed in other parts of the SliMC Sites while mitigation for paleontologicaJ resoorces is completed. S=Signijicaru su= SignificQJ11 TJl1lll'Oidable SrOJl/ord Uni'Versiry Medical Center Facilities Renewal am1 Repl1lcemenl Draft EIR -Sumnuuy Jmpact Significance With !\litigation Table S-4 SlIMe Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts CR-5. Cumulative Impacts on Historic Resources. The SUMC Project, in combination with other past, current, and probable future development in the City. would cause a substantial change in tile significance of the City's historic resources and thus bave a significant cumulative impact. The SUMC Project's contribution to tile cumulative impact would be cumulatively considerable. CR-6. Cumulative Impacts on Prebistoric andior Archaeological Resources and Human Remains. The SUMC Project, in combin.ation with otller reasonably foreseeable probable future development, could cause a substantial change in tile significance of prehistoric andlor archaeological resources or human remains and thus contribute to a significant cumulative impact. The SUMC Project is conservatively assumed to bave a considerable contribution. CR·7. Cumulative Impacts on Paleontological Resources. The SUMC Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable probable future development where the P1eistocene·age creek bed may occur, could bave a significant cumulative impact. Such an impact would occur if tile boried Pleistocene-age creek bed is exposed in lengths greater than approximately 100 feet (or a sufficient length to support detailed hytbological study) and if such deposits contain substantially intact skeletons of extinct species. These conditions would represent a major find for regional paleontology. In the case tIlat significant paleontological finds-such as stretches of buried Pleistocene-age creek bed greater than 100 feet In length and containing intact skeletons of extinct species-are made on the SUMC Site, then the Impact Significance Witbout Mitigation S S S NI = No Impact LTS Less-rhan-SignijiCfllU -----------------------------------Impact Significance With Mitigation Measures Mitigation MmGATION MEASURES. Due to the demolition of the Stone Building SU complex. the SUMC Project's contribution would remain cumulatively considerable as this impact cannot be avoided. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-l.l through CR-1.4 would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact, but not to a less than cumulatively considerable level. MITIGATION MEASliRES. Compliance with Mitigation Measures CR-2.1 and CR-3.1 would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact to a less than cumulatively considerable level. MITIGATlOl'< MEASURE. Compliance witll Mitigation Measure CR-4.1 would reduce tile SUMC Projecr's contribution to the cumulative impact to a less than cumulatively considerable level. S ~Significllll1 SU ~ Signijicanz UnaWJidnlJle Stanford University Medical CenIer Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Smnmmy LTS LTS Table S-4 SUMe Project Summary or Impacts and :Mitigatiou Measures Impacts SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact on paleontological resources could be cumulatively considerable. SR-I. Impacts on Special-Status Plant or Wildlife Resources. The SL'MC Project could bave a significant ImpaCt on special­ stams wildlife resources. Impact Significance Without Mitigation S NI = No Impact LTS I.ess-thtm-Signifkxm! l\1itigatioD Measures MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures BR-l.I through BR-1.5, below, to be implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors, would reduce the SUMC Project's impact on special-stams bals and Cooper's hawk to a Iess­ than-significant leye!. BR-1.1 ContJuct Pre-DeJ1I[J/ition Survey. The SUMC Project sponsors ,ball retain a qualified biologist ("bat biologist') to conduct a pre-construction survey for roosting bats in trees to be removed or pruned and structures to be removed. If no roosting bats are found, no further mitigation is required. If a bat roost is found. the SL'MC Project sponsors sball implement the following measures to avoid impacts on roosting bats. BR-l.2 Avoid Roasting Areas. If non-breeding bats are found in a tree or Structure to be removed, the individuals shall be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified bat biolOgist, by opening the roosting area to allow airflow through the cavity. Demolition should then follow at least one night after initial disturbance for airflow. This action should allow bats to leave during darlmess, thus increasing their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation during daylight. If active maternity roosts are found in structures that will be removed as part of project construCtion, demolition of that structure sball commence before maternity colonies foml (generally before March I) or after young are flying (generally by July 31). S=Signijiccw SU= Signijiccw Unavoidable Sxanjord UniversiTy Medical Center Facilities Ren.ewal and Replacement Dratr EIR -Summary Impact Significance Witb Mitigation LTS us Impacts NI = No Impacr 5-<56 Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impoct Significance Withont Mitigation LTS = LesJ-lJran-Signi/ica", Mitigatinn Measures BR-l.3 Dl!1Ielop and Empluy Bat Nest Box Pion. If special-status bats are found in structures to be removed, the SUMC Project sponsors shall develop a bat nest box plan for the SUMC Sites employing state-of-thl>-art bat nest box technology. The design and placement of nest boxes shall be reviewed by a qualified bat . biologist. BR-l.4 Avoid Tree Removal During Nesting Season. Tree removal CIT pruning shall be avoided from February I through August 31, the nesting period for Cooper's hawk, to the extent feasible. If no . tree removaJ or pnmlng is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys are required, BR-l.5 Protecr Cooper's Hmrk in the Event of Nest Discovery. If tree removal or pruning is unavoidable during the nesting season, the SUMC Project spousors shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct a survey for nesting Cooper's hawk within five days prior to the proposed stan of construction. If active Cooper's hawk nest.s are not present, project activities can take place as scheduled. The qualified biologist shall visit the site daily to sean:h for Dests until all nesting substrates are removed. This will avoid impacts to Cooper's hawk that may have moved into the site and initiated neSl-buildiog after the stan of tree removal activities. Additionally, if more than 5 days elapses between the initial nest search and the tree removal, it is possible for new birds 10 move into the construction area and begin building a nest, If there is such a delay, another nest survey shall be conducted. If any active Cooper's hawk nests are detected, the SUMC Project sponsors shall delay removal of the applicable tree or shrub while the nest is occupied with eggs or young who bave not fledged. A qualified biologist shall monitor any occupied nest to determine when the Cooper's hawk nest is no longer used. 5 = Sign[fiaw su= Sigl!i.-fiC41lf UlIlI>oidfJblE Impact Significance With Mitigation Sum/ord University Medical Center FacUities.Renewal and Replacemel'rl Draft ElR -Sunrmn.ry Table S-4 SUMe Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Mea.ures Impact Significance Without Impacts Mitigation :Mitigation Measures BR-2. Loss of Riparian or Other Sensitive Habitats, LTS None required, Including Wetlands as Defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Construction of the SUMC Project would have a less.-than-significant impact on riparian or other sensitive habitat resources, including welllmds, BR-3, Interference wilb rile Movement of Any Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or wil:h Established N arive Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors_ or Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites. The SUMe Project would have no impact OJ] the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or use of native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. but could impede the use of lllltive wildlife nursery sites and thus result in a sigrtificant impact, S NI ~ No Impact LTS ~ Less-than-Signijicam MITIGATION MEASURES, Mitigation Measures BR-3, I and BR-3,2, below, would reduce the SUMC Project's impact on nesting migratory birds to a less-than-significant level. ER-3,l Avoid Tree RemtJ)lai Durillg Nesting Season, Tree or shrub removal or pruning shall be avoided from February I through August 31, the trird-nesting period, to the extent feasible, If no tree or shrub removal or pruning is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys are required, BR-3,2 Protect Birds in the EW!nl of Nest Disco,ery. If tree and shrub removal or pruniog is unavoidable during the nesting season, the SLIMC Project sponsors s:hall hire a qualified biologist to conduct a survey for nesting raptors and other birds within five days prior to the proposed start of construction. 1f active nests are not present, SUMC Proj oct activities can mke place as scheduled. The qualified biologist shall visit the site daily to search for nests until all nesting substrates are removed, Ttlese procedure, would avoid impacts to any birds that may have moved imo the sit., and initiated nest-building after the stan of tree and shrub removal activities. Additionally, if more than five days elapses between the initial nest search and we vegetation removaL it is possible for new birds to mOve into the comtruction area and begin building a nest, If there i.s such a delay, another DeS! survey shall be conducted, If any active nests are detected, the SUMC Project sponsors shall delay removal of the applicable S ~ Signijicam SU = Signijiwm Unavoidab/J! Sran.ford Un.iversity Medical Cenrer FaciUtres Renewal and Replacemem Draft ElR -Summary Impact Significance With Mitigatioo NIA LTS 5-67 Table 8-4 SliMe Project Suwmary of Impacts and "'litigation Measures Impacts BR.-4. Result in a SubSllmtial Adverse Effect on any Protec!l?d Tree as Defined by the city of Palo Alto's Tree Preservatioo Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8. to}. The SUMC Project could have a significant impact on Protected Trees. 1'<1 = So ImptICl S-68 Impact Signifi(:!lJlce Wltbout Mitigation s Mitigatio" Measures tree or slu"ub wbile the nest is occupied with eggs or yOI1llg who bave nOI :fledged. A qillilified biologist shall monitor any occupied nest to determine wben the nest is no lon,ger used, MmG!\TION ME"SL'RBS. '\fitigation Measures ER-·L1 through BR-4.5,. below, 10 be implemented by the SL1\fC Project SPOl\5OfS, would reduce the SUMC Prqje<:t's lmpact on Protected Tn:es. In addition, Mitigation Measure 8R-4,6 would require minor SL1\(C Proje.:;t ,ite plan .djustmeills II) avoid removal of some biologi::aUy and aesthetically si~cant Protected Trees. However, the new Hospital District under tbe SUMC Project would allo", the removal of up to 48 Protected Trees that are prote;;ted under the Municipal Code. In addition, minor modifications to' the SUMC Project site plnll5 would not be able to avoid the nine biologically and aesthetically significant Protected Trees in the Kaplan Lawn area. Therefore, the SUMC Project would result in a significant and UDavoidabk impact to Protected Trees, BR-4, 1 Prepare IJ Tree PreJervatr'on Rep<m/or aU Trees tfJ be RefIJin£d. An updated tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR) prepared by a certified arbonsl shall be :rnIm:!itted for review and acceptance by the City Urban ForeSter. For reference clarity, the tree survey shall iIlcIude (list and field tag) all existing trees within the SUMC Sires, includin,g adjacent trees overbangiog the SUMC Sites. The approved TPR shall be implemented in full, including mandatory inspectiOllS and monlhly reportin,g 10 City Urban Forester. The TPR sball be based on latest SUMC plans and amended as needed to address activity or within the dripline area of any existing tree to be preserved, including incidental work (utilities IreDcbing, _ wort, lighting, irrigation, etc,) that may affect the health of • preserved tree. The SUMC Project shall be modified to address recommendations identimd to reduce itopacts to existing ordinaI:la:-regulared =s. The S = Si gnifictllU SU~ Signijicam Unavoidable Impact SigDificance Witb MltiglrtIOI1 su StlIJiford Univer,siry Medical Ctnrer Facilities Renewal aM Repl.acetnml Draft ElR -Summnry Impacts TableS4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the Tree Preservation Ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 8.10.030, and the City Tree Technkai Manoa!, Section 3.00. 4.00 and 6.30." To avoid improvements that may be detrimental to the health of regulated trees, the TPR shall review the SUMC Project sponsors' landscape plan to ensure the new landscape is consistent with Tree Te<:hnical Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendb, L, Landscaping under Native Oaks. BR-4.2 Prepare a Solar Access Study (SAS) of Shon and Long Term Effects on Protected Oaks. The SUMC Proje<:t sponsors shaU prepare a SAS of Short and Long Term Effe<:lS on Protected Oaks. The SAS shall be prepared by a qualified expert team (horticulturalist, arcJrilect designer, consulting arborist) capable of deternrining effe<:ts, if any. to foliage, bealth, disease susceptt1>ility and also prognosis for longevity. The SAS shall provide alternative massing scenarios to provide sufficient solar access and reduce shading detriment at different thresholds of tree healtbJdecline, as provided for in the SAS. The SAS adequacy shall be subject to peer review as determined necessary by the City. The SAS design alternatives shall be the subject of specific discus,ioil at all levels of ARB, Planning Commission. City Council, and public review in conjunction with the SUMC Project sponsors. the City Urban Forester. and Director of the Planning and Community Environment Department. until a final design is approved. Impact Significance With Mitigation Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 8.10.030 and the City Tree Te<:hnical Manual, Section 3.00. 4.00 and 6.30 is available at: http://www.cityotpaloalto.org/envirornnentiurban_canopy.asp. Nl = No Impact LTS = Less-than-SignijicOJ1I S=SfgnijicOJ1I SU = SignificOJ1I Unavoidil/)/e Stanford University Medical Cemer Facilities Renewal ami Replacement Draft EIR -SUlTUllary S-69 Impacts NI = No Impact S-70 Table S-4 SL1\1C Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Sigoilicance Without Mitigation LTS= uS3-1han-Signijicom Mitigation Measlll'ES BR-4.3 Prepare lJ Tree Reloc:o.ticm Feasibiliry Plan for Any Prolecred Tree Proposed for RelocaJion and Retention. Becanse of inherrnt mortality associated with the process of moving mature trees, a Tree Relocation and Maintenaru:e Plan (TRMP) shall be prepared subject to Urlrm Forester's approval. The SUMC Project 'poruors sball submit a TRMP. to determine the feasibility of moving the Protected Trees to an appropriate location on site. Feasibility shall consider current site and tree conditions, a uee's ability to tolerate moving. relocation measures, optimum needs for the DeW location~ aftercare, irrigation, and other long-term needs. If the relocated trees do not survive after a period of five years, the tree canopy shall be replaced with a tree of equivalent size or security deposit value. The TRMP sball be inclusive of the following IlIl1lJ1llUlll infunnation: appropriate irrigation, mani.",ring: inspections, post relocation tree mainten.ance, fllld for an anoual lIIborist report of the condition of the rel0t3ted trees. If a tree is disfigure<!, leaning with supports needed, in decline with a dead top or dieback of lIlore than 25 percent, the tree ,ball . be coo,idered a tom! loss and replaced in kiIld and size. The final aruma! arborist report shall serve as the basis for retum of the Tree Security Deposit (see Mitigation Me",,'U[e BR-4.4, below, for a discussion of the Tree Security Deposit). BR4.4 Provide a Tree Presetllation Bond/Security Guarantee. The natural tree resources on the SUMC Site include significant Protected Trees and those that provide neighborhood screening, including two tree, proposed for relocation. Prior to building permit .ubmitml, the Tree Security Deposit for the total value of the relocated trees, .5 refereoced in the Tree Technical Manoa!, Section 3.26, Security Deposits, shall be posted to the City S~Signijicall1 SU ~ Signijicam Unavoidable hopacl Significance Witb Mitigation Stanford Universiry Medical Cefl1er Faa"lities Renewal and. Replacemertl Draft ElR -Summar)' Table S-4 Sl.~IC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Signiliranre Witb Imp3rts Impact Sigoifir:m<e Withont Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation N1 = No Impacr LTS = uSNhan-SignijiclIlU Revenue CollecriOIL' in a fOfIll aoreptable by the City Anomey. As a security measure. the SUMC Project sponsors shall be subject to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Palo Alto and the SUMC Project sponsors descnDing • tree retention amoum, list of trees. criteria and timeline for return of security, and conditions as cited in the Record of Land Use Action fur the SUMC Project. The SUMC Project sponsors and SUMC Project arborist, to be retained by the SUMC Project spoDSors, shall coordinate with the City Urban Forester to detennine the amount of booding required to guarantee the prot.ection and/or replacement of the regulated trees on the site during construction and witlrin five years after occupancy. The SUMC Project sponsors sball bond for 150 percent of the value for the relocated trees, and 50 percent of the value of the remai:ning trees to be protected during construction (as ideIllified in the r ... ised and final approved Tree Protection Report). The SUMC Project sponsors shall provide an appraisal of the trees with the proposed level of bonding in a tree value table to be reviewed and accepted by the Director of Planning and Community Environment with the description of each tree by number, value, and tobl combined value of all the trees to be retained. A rerum of the guarantee shall be subject'" an annual followed by a final tree assessment report on all the relocaled and retained trees from the SUMC Project arborisi; a!l approved by the City Urban Forester, five years following fmal inspectioo fur occupancy, TO the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and Community Environment Department. BR-4.5 Provide Optimum Tree R!?p/o.cemenr for Loss of Publicly-Owrr£d Trees ReguIared Tree earegory. There are mao)' publicly owned trees growing in the right-<Jf-way along various frontages (Welch Road, pagteur Drive, Quarry Road, Sand Hill Road, etc.). S=SignificOOl SV= SigrrijiclIlU UIUl>oidllble S'wiford Urriversity Medica! Center Facilities Renewa/1JIId R!?plncement Draft EIR -Summary 5-71 Impacts Table 54 SUMC Proj eel: SUlllJJlary of Impacts and Mitigation ~leasures Impact Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures These trees provide an important visual and aesthetic value to the meetscape and represent a significant investment from years of public re:iOtJr<;eS to maintain them. As mitigation to offset the net benefits loss from removal of mature trees, and to minimize the full1te years to achieve parity with \'j:;ual and infrastrncll1re service b;mefits (CO, reduction, e<tended aspbalt life, water runoff management, etc.) currently pro,ided by the trees, the new public trees on all roadway frontages shall be provided with best practices design and materials, iDduding, but ""t limited to, tile following elements: • Consistency witll tile City of Palo Alto Public Works Department Street Tree Management Plan, in consultation witll Canopy, Inc. ,. • Pro,ide adequate room for natural tree canopy growth and adequate root growing Yo11ll(le. For large trees, a target goal of 1,200 cubic feet of soil shall be used. • For pedesnian and roadway areas tbat are to i:nclude tree planting or adjacent to existing trees to be retlIined. utilize City-approved best ])UllL1lgemenl prncti<:e$ for sustainability products, such as penueable ADA sidewalk surfaces, Silva Cell base surron planters, engineered soil mix base, :md otIIer advantage metllods. Impact SignificRfIN' wltb Mitigatian --.,---_ .......••••• - S-72 Canopy, Inc. is a OOIJ-profit organization that advlses the City with regards to public trees. The City typically intemc". between applicants and tile Canopy, Inc., but it is reco=nded Ibat tile SUMC Project sponsotS consult with Canopy, Inc .• s weU. SU ~ Signilicam U/IilWJidab/e SraJrford Un!"""!!)! Medical Cmrer Facili,ies RelUlWtJ~ l1lUI. Rep1acemf!JU Drafl; Em -SuJnn<.ary Table S4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts omd lVlitigation Measures Impact Significaoce Without Impacts Mitigation Mitigation 1\1.""u,,", BR -5. Conflict with any Applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. The SUMC Project would have 00 impact on any applicable Habitat Conservatioo Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan, BR-6. CumuJath'e Impacts on SpeciaI-StalllS Wildlife Rerourees. The SUMC Project. in combination with other foreseeable development, wauld bave a less-tbm-significam impact on Special-Status Plant Resources. BR-7. Cumulative Loss of Riparian or Other Sensitive Habitats, Including Wetlands .. Defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Cumulative impacts on riparian or other sensitive habitat" could be significant. However, the SUMC Project" contribution to the cumulative impact would be less than c111ll!.llativety considerable. BR-8. Cumulative lnterfimmce with the Movement of Any Native Resident or Miv4tory Fish or Wildlife Species or With Established Native Reside11l or Migratory Wildlife Corridon, (l£ U"" of /':ati,'e Wildlife Nursery Sires. Cumulative interference with movement of resident or migratoty species or "ith "!llblished migratory corridors could be Significam. Howover, the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact would be less lh.'Ul cumulatively considerable. NI LTS LTS LTS Nl = No lmpatt lIS = uss.than-SigllijUanr 8R-4.6 Implement Mirwr Sire Modificati&ns TO Pres,,,,. Biologiroily anti Aeslluuicail:y Slgniflc(Jll( Protected Trees. The SUMC Project spcnsors shall deSign and implement modificatiu", to building design, ha:rdscape. and landscape to incorporate the be)o", and ahove ground area needed to preserve as many biologicaUy and aesthetically significant Protected Trees as possible. None required. None required. NODe required. S=Signifi= SU= SignificlW Ur.al!lJidoJJl. SraJifard ll"',..rsi/y Mi!!dJC(J/ Cettler Faci1iries Renewal anA R"flli1ceml!rtt Draft EIR -Sununary Impact Significaoce With Mitigation N!A N!A NIA Table S-4 SUi\{C i'rujeet SlIIl1D.l.ary Qr Impacts and Mitigation Measures Iwpads BR·9, Cwnulalive Impacts on Protected Tree as defined by the City of Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10). Cwnulative impacts on Protected Trees would be significant. Because the SUMe Project would result in the loss of Protected Trees, the SUMC Project's contribution would cumulatively c"",iderable, GS L Expo",,,, to Seismic-Related Hazards. The SlJMC Projec1 would have a less-th.m-significanl potential to expose people or structures to $Ubstlllltial ad,'ene effects, includin!, the risk of loss. injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fuult, strong seiStrtic groundshaking. seismic­ related groWll;! [allure (includin~ liquefaction). landslides, expansive soil. Or major geologic hazards that cann01 be mitigated through the use (If ,tm1dard engineering design lIIld seismic safety recbniques. GS 2. Expo;'lIl'e 10 Other Geotechnical Hazards. The SUMC Project would have a le .. -than-significant potential to be located on geologic units or on soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the projeL'I and polE'DtiaIly result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. GS 3. Cause Substantial Erosion or Siltation. The SOMC Project would have a less.fuan,.significam potential to cause substantial erosion or siltation. N1 No ilrrpa<1 Impact SienifjcQnce Without Mitjgation s LTS LTS LTS Impact Significance With Mitigatioll Measur.. Mitigation MmoATIoN MEASURES, Mitigation Measures BR-4.1 through BR-4,6 SU would reduce the SlJMC Project's contJibution to C'UI1lulati\'e irnpac<s on Protected Trees. However, removal of rome Prorected Trees, including tbose identified by the City as being biologically and aesthetically significant Protected Tree" would be unavoidable. As sucll, the cOltlribution of the SUMC Project to cumuJative Protected Tree rmKlval would remain cumulatively consid.."1'aNe, None required, NiA None I"'l"ired. NI A None required. N/A S=Sign!ficant. SInn/oro Ul1ivenUy Medical C<7I1er Facililies Re"""",/ aM Replacemmt DrtJft Em -Swrumry TableS4 SUMC Project Smmnary of Impacts omd Mitigation Measures Impact.' GS4. Cumulative Exposure to Substantial Erosion or Siltation. The SUMC Project, in combination with other foreseeable development in the s.m Frnncisquiro Creek Watershed, would not substantially increase etosion or siltation because of State, rederal, and local runoff and erosion prevention requirements. As a result, the CIl!IIUIative impact would be less than significant. HW-L Flo...-xI Risk and Flood Flows. The SUMC Project would bave no impact on flood risk or fI<>?d flows. HW-2. Groundwater Recbarge and l<>cal Water Table, TIte SUMC Project would have a less-than-significant impact on groundwater recharge and the local groundwater ",ble level. EW-3. Groundwater Quality. Th. SUMC Project could bave a significant impact on groundwater quality during construction, Impact Siguificaru:e Without Mitigation LTS Nl LTS s NI = :N;; 1l1lfXlCl LTS -u&s-tJum-Signiji<aJf1 Impact Significance Witb Mitigation Measures Mitigation NOlle requireO. NI A None required, NI A None required. NIA MmoAll0N ME.'IllURE. Mitigation Measure HW-3,1. below,wouId reduce LTS the SUMC Project's impact on groundwater quality to a less-than- significant level. HW-3.1 DffI'e/op a Work Plan for IlJf)' UnbwWfl OJ!!1amiMl.:a Siler, During COltlltruction. if suspected conllll:ninared soil, undocumeI!led underground tanks, baz;mlous materials pipelines, or other evidence of potential hazardous materials ate discovered, construction activities shall C<>lIl!e and the SUMC Project spomor, shall prepare a work;plan to determine the potential risk to human and ecological health. The work;plan shall be prepared by a Registered Environmental Assessor and in compliance with. the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) guidelines and the National Oil and Hazardous SU= Signijicam Uno:voidable Stanford UnlversiJy Muical Cenl<r Fadlities Renewal GlId Replacement Dtaft ErR -Swr.-uy S-75 Table S-4 SL1HC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts HW-4. SlOrmwater Runoff and ErOSiOD. The SUMC Project would bave a less-than-significant impact on stornlwater runoff and erosion. HW-5. Flooding and Stormwater Conveyance Capacity. The SUMC Project would bave a less-than-significant impact on flooding and stormwater convey:mco capacity, HW-6. Streambank instability. The SUMC Project would bave a less-than-significant impact on streambank insbbility, Impac.t Significance Witbout Mitigatiou LTS LTS LTS hI = No Impact l-TS = l£ss-th(QI-Signijic(JJIJ S-76 Mitigation Measures Substances Cootingency Plan (the "National Contingency Plan" [NCPj). The SUMC Project sponsor>, or their representative, shall be responsible for submitting the workplan for the DTSe's review and approval prior to implementing field activities. The workplan must include all information necessary for implementing field work. The workplan shall include a Site Safety Plan (SSP) and a Sampling Work PI:m (SWP). The SSP must be submitted to the DTSC in conjunction with the subminal of the SWP. The objective of the SSP is to ensure protcctioo of the jn,'estigative team as well as the general public during sampling acrhities. If risk to human or ecological health is identified, the SUMC Project sponsors sball prepare and implement a Removal Action Workplan (SB 1706 Stats. 1994, Chapter 441) (non-emergency removal action or remedial action at a hazardous substance release site which i< projected to cost less than $1,000,(00) tbat is consistent with the N CP. NODe required. None required, None required. SU = Signi]k(J]T1 UlUlWJidilble Impact Significan"" With Mitigation N/A N/A N/A SUIlljord Unil'eTSiry Medical Cenrer Fac;uties Renewal and RepbuemenI Draft EIR -Summary Table S4 SUMC Project Smnmary or Im~ and Mitigation Measures Impact Signif'K<Illce Without Impacts Mitigation l\1iIigation M.lISures HW-7. Degrddation of Surface W.",r Quality. Project would have a le,s-than-slgnificam degradation of surface water quality. The SUMC impact on HW-8. Dam Failure Inundation. The SUMC Project would have a less-tban-signifitaOt impact regarding dam failure inundation. HW-9. Violation of Any Water Quality StJuJdanls or Was", Dixharge Requirements 0\'DRs}. The SIJMC Project would have a less-than-signiftcant impact regarding water quality standards or WDRs. HW-IO. Cumulative Groundwater Recharge and I...oI;aI Water Table. The Sli""MC Proj""!' in combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future d~veloprnent, would have a less­ than-signllicaut cumulative considerable impact on groundwater recharge and the local groundwater table. HW -1 L CumuIat:ve Groundwater Quality Impacts. The SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future development, would bave a les.-than­ significant cumulative impact on groundwater quality. HW-12. Cumulative Stonnwater Runoff and Erosion. The SUMC Project, ill romblnation with reasonably foreseeable probable future development, would bave a les.s-than­ significant c\lJJ\lIJaave impact on stonnWater runoff and erosion. LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS NT = No ImpaCT LTS = Less-than-SignificlJ1f1 None requited. None required. None requiTed. None required. None required. None required. SltJIIford Uni,mity Medical Cen!£r Facililies Ren""",Iand.l/2placrn"", Draft ElR -Sumnu;uy SU -Sig,tilkam UnayoldGiJk Impact SIgnIi1cance With .Mitigation Nil'. NIA Nil'. NiA NiA 5-77 TableS4 S1.JMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts HW-13. Cumulative Floodiug and Storm",aI., Conveyance. The SOMC Project. in C(lmblnation \"lith reasonably foreseeable probable future development, would have a less­ than-significant cumulative impact on stonnwater runoff and erosion. HW-l~. Streambank lnsIllbility. The SOMe Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future development, would have a less-thall-significant cumulatke impacr on streambank inslability. HW-15. Degradation of Surfai:e Water Quality. The SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably foreseellble probable future development, would have a less--than-siptlficant cumulative impact on degradation of surface warer quality. HW-16. Dam Failure Inundation. The SVMC Project. in combination I'ith reasonably foreseeable probable future development, would have a less-than-significant culllulative impact rega~ dam failure inundation. HW-17. Violation of Any Water Quality Sta:ldards or Waste Discharge Require!Jll:llts (WDRs). The SOMC Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeabie probable future d"".lopment. would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact on violation of water qualiry slandards and WDRs. Imp.ct Significance Without Mitigation LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS ~ Less-than-significam S-7S Mitigation Measures ;-.lone required. bnpact Signifjcan~ Wttb Mitigation NIA NIA N/A ;-.IIA N/A Stanford Univ"",iry I'dedical Center Faci/iIies lIf!MWai and l/eplacente7i1 Drqft EIR Summary' Table S-4 SIJMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts HM-I. Exposure from Hazardous Materials Use. Handling, and Disposal. Tbe SUMC Project would not subst.mrially iIlCrease e;qlOSUfe from hazardous materials use, handling. and disposal during operation. HM-2. Demolition and Construction-Relate<! Hazardous Malerials Disturbance. The SUMC Project. eQuId release hazardous materials in existing building •. Impact Significance Witboul Mitigation LTS s NI ~ ND Impact LTS -Less-,han-Signiji,am Impact Significance Witb Mitigation Measures Mitigation None required. N! A MITIGATIQN :MEASURE. Implementation of the mitigation measure below L 1'5 would reduce impacts frOll) exposure to asbestos containing materials to ii less-than-significant level at the SUMC Sites by ensuring that all asbestos contalning materials are identified and removed prior to structural modification and! or demolition. HM-2.1 Conduct Asbestos Survey at the SUMC Sites. Prior to building renovation and/or demolition, an asbestos survey shall be performed on all areas of the building anticipated to be demolished and/or renovated. This survey shall be performed by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor. In the event that asbestos is identified in the buildings proposed to be demolished and/or renovated, an asbestos containing materials shall be removed and appropriately disposed of by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor. A site health and safety plan, to eDSure worker safety. in compliance with OSHA requirements (8 CCR 5208) shall be developed by the SUMC Ptoject sponsors and in place prior to commencing renovarioo or demolition ","ork on portions of buildings containing asbestos. SU = Signijicallt Una""idl1ble Sranford University Medical Ce.nter Fadlities Renewal and Replm;ement Draft ElR -SwMUlI)' S-79 TableS4 SU!\IC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts a\1-3. Exposure to Contaminated Soil and/or Groundwater During Construction. The SL'MC Project could expose construction personnel and public to existing contaminated groundwater and/or soil. Nt = No Impact S-t.o Impact Slguificance Without Mitigation S / Impact Slguificance Witb Mitigation Measures Mitigation MmOATION MEASURES. With implementation of Mitigation Measure LTS HM-3.I througb HM-3.4. below, the significant impact on construction personnel and the publiC due to exposure to contaminated soil and/or groundwater at the SUMC Sites would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. In addition, Mitigation Measure HW-3. I in Section 3.11, Hydrology, would require the SUMC Project sponsors to develop a work plan for any unknown contaminated site. which would forther reduce the impacts to less than significant.. Mitigation Measure HM-3.4 would require specification of measures to prevent hazards from any remediation itself. As such, thes~ would be less-than-significant impacts from any remediation. HM-3.I Peifom. a Phase II ESAfor the 701 Welch Site. A Phase II ESA sbali be perfonned at 701 Welsh Site Building B. The Phase II ESA shall include sampling and analysis of soil_ groundwater, wastewater. and residues on surfaces such as laboratories counrertops. fume hoods, sinks, sumps, floors. and drain lines. The County DEB: and P AFD sbali be notified by the Project sponsors if contamination is discovered. If contamination is discovered. the SUM C Project sponsors sball prepare a site remediation assessment that (a) specifies measures to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards and (b) certifies that the proposed remediation measures would clean up contaminants. dispose of the wastes, and protect public health in accordance with federal, State, and local requirements. Site excavation activities sball not proceed until the site remediation has been approved by the County DEH and implemeoted by the SUMC Project spoDsors. Additionally, the Site Remediation l\ssessmeot shall be subject to review and approval by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. All appropriate agencies shall be notified. S =SigrnJic<mt SU= Slgnijic01'l1 Unavoidable Stanford University Medical Cen1er Facilities ReneWal and Replacemelll Draft EIR -Summary Impacts Nl = No impact Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Signif"lCaIlte Witbout Mitigation LTS = LesHhan.SignificatU Mitigation Measur •• HM-3.2 ExcG"are ConiamiNJ1ed Soil from lile 703 Welch Site. For the 4- to 9-square-foot area near every discharge point from the building. soil samples shall be perfonned and contaminated soil excavated. removed, and transported to an approved disposal facility in compliance with OSHA requirements. The County DEH and the PAFD shall be notified by the SUMC Project sponsors if contamination is encountered during construction. HM·3.3 Conduct a Soil Vapor Program as the Hoover Pavilion Sire. A qualified consultant, under the SUMC Project sponsors' direction, sball undertake the following activities: • Remove all buried undorground storage tanks from the property after sbeds and storage buildings on the Hoover Pavilion Site bave been demolished: • To the exteJJt necessary, additional .oil sampling shall be collected to determine health risks and to develop disposal criteria; • If warranted based On soil sampling, • tluman health risk assessment shall be prepared and implemented to determine potential for impacts an con.tnJcrion workers as well as to develop measures to ensure it is safe to redevelop the Hoover Pavilion Site withID engineering controls (e.g., SVE or vapor barriers); and • To the ehlent required based upon the results of soil sampling and the results of a bealth risk assessment (if applicable). a Site Health and Safety Plan to ensure worker safety in compliance with OSHA noquirernents shall be developed by the Project sponson;, and in places prior to commencing work on any contaminated site. S=Significam su= SignifiCillU U!1J1. .... 'Oi.dable Szan/Qrd University Medical Center Facilities Renl!lh'a1 and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary hupact Significance Wilb Mitigation S-81 Table S-4 SliMe Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts HM-4. Hazardous Waste Generation aod llisposal Resulting in Increased Exposure Risk. The SUMC Project would not substantially increase el'posure risk related to hazardous waste generation. HM-5. Emit Hazardou., Emissions or Handle Hazardous Materials Wirbin One-Quarter Mile of a School. The SUMC Project would not emil or handle hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of seiloo!' HM-6. COIlSlfUcr a Scbool on a Property that is Subject to Hazards from HazardoUs Materials Contamination. Emissions or Acci&ntal Release. The SUMC Project would not construct a scbool that is subject 10 hazards from hazardous materials contamination~ emissions or accidental release. Impact Significance ~ltbout Mitigation LTS LTS NI NI ~ No Impact LTS = LesS-tJlaJl-Significant S-il2 Mitigation Measures The SUMC Project sponsors sball cooperate with the County DEH to proceed with closure of the Hoover Pavilion Site. HM-3.4 Develop a Site Management Plo.n for the Hoover Pavilion Site. The SlJMC Project sponsors shall prepare a site remediation assessment that (a) specifies measures 10 protect workers and !:be public from exposure to potential site hazards, including hazards from remediation itself, and (b) cenifies that !:be proposed remediation measures would clean up oontaminarus, dispose of the wastes, and protect public bealth in accordance with federal, State, and local requirements. Site excavation ac.dvities sbaU not proceed until the sire remediation bas been approved by the County DEH and implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors. Additionally, the Site Remediation Assessment shall be subject to re,iew and approval by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. AU appropriate agencies sball be notified. None required. None required. None required. S~Signifi«l]U SU~ Sigr.ificant UlUlvoidabJe Impact Significance Witb Mitigatiou NIA NIA NIA Stall ford U.i>ersity Medical CeNer Facilities Rer."",al and RL!plawnenl Dmft £lR -Swrrmary Table S-4 SliMe Project Summar), of Impacts and MitigatioD Measures Impacts HM-7. Occur on a Site Included on the Cortese List, a List of Hazardous Material, Sites. The SUMC Project would result in constrllction of facilities on a site included on the Conese Ust. HM-S. Wildland Fire Risk. The SUMC Project would not expose people or structures to a sigrtificant risk of loss, injury, or death invohing wildland fires. HM-9. Occur on a Site Located Wi!hiD an Airpon Land Use Plan or Within Two Miles of a Public Airpon, and Result in a Safety Hazard. The SUMC Project would DOt be located within an Airpon Land Use Plan or wirhln 2 miles of a Public Airpon. HM-IO. Impairment of Emergency Plans. The SUMC Project could impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Impact Sigoificauce Without Mitigation S NI I'll S NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significanl Impact Siguificauce With Mitigation Measures Mitigation MITIGATION MEASURES. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HM-3.3 LTS and HM-3.4, which involve the implementation of a soil vapor program and development of • site management plan, would reduce the potential for exposure to hazardous materials at the Hoover P",'i1ion Site to less-than- sigrtificant levels. Additionally, compliance with current federal, Stale and local regulations would help prevent any further exposure to hazardous materials. None required. N! A None required. I'll A MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure HM-IO.1 requires advance LTS coordination with the City of Palo Alto on construction routes or roadway closures. This measure, together with Mitigation Measures TR-l.l, TR-IA through TR-1.6, and TR-I.S, which all involve construction-period traffic controls, would reduce the significant construction-period impacts to a less~than-significant leveL Mitigation Measure TR-9.1, would invoJve the installation of emergency vehicle traffic signal priority (OptiCom) 3t all intersections siguificaDtly impacted by the SUMC Project. Mitigation Measure TR-9. I would reduce impacts on emergency access during operation. Implementation of these measures would reduce the SUMC Project's impact to emergency evacuation and response plans to a less-than- siguificant leveL SU= Significl2!I1 U!W.voidable Sranfotd University }dedical Center Facilities Renet'.'al and Replacement Draft ElR -Srmunary TableS4 Sl.iMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts HM-1 L Cumulative Handling, Storage. Dispo,al, l!lld Transport of HazardoIJ.'i Marerials. Cumulative development would increase handling. !i\or>ge. disposal, l!lld transport witi1in the SUMC Sites l!lld adjacent areas. However, ~'Utl\ulative development would be subject to applicable fedenL State_ and local regul.tions thai would govern these acthities. As a result. !he cumulative impact would be less Ihan significant. HM-12. Cumulative Disturbance of HazardolJ.'i Materials from eoo"truction. The smlC Project and adjaaru development could result in rumulative release of hazardous materi.ls during construction_ a significant cumulative impact. The SOMe Project's contribUtion to the =ulative impact would be OOIIsiderable. HM-IS. Cumulative Exposure to Contaminated Soil and/or Groundwaler, and from Cortese List Sites. The SUMC Project and adjacent development eQuId result in cumulalive disturb""ce of contaminated soils, release of bazardoU! materials during <"",truction, a significant cwnulative impact. lv7 ~ No {mpm:/ Impact Significance Without Mitigation LTS S S Mitigation Measures H11/'-10.1 CoordtnaJe Cnnsmwion Arn>mes .... ith the City of Palo Alro. The SIJMC Project spomor> shall provide to the City planned construCrion routes, roadway dosures, IIIId access l!lld cJO'SIl!<!S schedules. This infOlJIllllion shall be provided to th< City at least two weeks in advllllce of the planned acr ... and closures. The City .hall coordinate Ibis information among affected emergency service provider>, including m. City's Fire and Police Departments, and private ambulance services, so that aUemative routes could be planned and announced prior 10 the scheduled access and closures, as deemed necessary by the City. None required. MlTIGA110N MEASURE. Mitigation Measure HYl-2.1. involving measures to reduce exposure of persons to hazardous materials (such as ashestos/, would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to a less-thall-significant level MmGA'TION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure ffi'\4-3.2, which in\'olves remediatioo of koown site c()!!(;m)inarlon at the 7(13 Welch Road site, would reduce fue SUMC Project's contribution to the clIlI1ulative impact to Ie .. Ihan considerable. A1w, Mitigation Measures HM-).l, RM-3.3, and HM- 3.4, involving investigations at other SUMC areas and preparation of the S~SignifiCf.W su= Significant Ul1fll1oidable Impact Signif'k::ance With Mitigation N/A LTS LTS ------..... -~ .... ----------------------- Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts The SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact would be considerable, HM-14. Cumulative Exposure of Schools to Hazardous Materials and Waste. The SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future development. would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact on exposure of schools to hazardous materials. HM-15. Cumulative Impairment of Emergency Plans. Cumulative development could impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact would be considerable. PH-I. Population Growth. The SUMC Project would increase on-site employment and visitors and thus indirectly induce housing demand and population growth: however, the percentage of regional housing demand resulting from the SUMC Project would be relatively small in comparison with projected housing growth in the region, and would comprise a less-than-sigrtificant environmental impact. PH-2. Displacement of Existing Housing or Residents. The SUMC Project would not displace existing housing or residents because the SUMC Project would involve infill of currently developed sites that do not contain housing. Thus, the SUMC Project would result in no impact with respect to displacement of housing or residents. Impact Significance Without Mitigation LTS S LTS NI NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significam Mitigation Measures Site Management Plan for remediation activities, would further ensure that any other risks associated with the SUMC Project would be less than cumulatively considerable. None required. MmGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures HM-IO.l. above, and TR-l.l, TR-I.4 through TR-1.6, and TR-1.8 would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on emergency evacuation and response plans to less than cumulatively considerable. None required. None required. S=Sfgnijicam SU = Significcuu Unavoidable Stanford UniversiTy Medical Center Facilities ReneM-'al and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary Impact Significance With Mitigation N/A LTS N/A N/A S-85 Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts PH-3. Impacts on Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio. The SUMC Project would have an adverse impact on the City's jobs to employed residents ratio because it would exceed the existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning allowances for the SUMC Sites and thus require amendment to the Comprehensive Pian and rezoning, and it would increase the City's jobs to employed residents ratio by more than 0.01. However, this impact is not, itself, an environmental impact. This impact will result in secondary environmental impacts relating to additional commute traffic, including the significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality and climate change, as identified in Sections 3.5 and 3.6. The present analysis of impacts to the "jobs to employed residents" ratio is presented for informational purposes, and for the purpose of identifying additional mitigation measures for those identified impacts. Impact Significance Without Mitigation N/A NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Signijicant S-86 Mitigation Measures MmGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 would reduce the impact on the City's jobs to employed residents ratio; however, such implementation would not fully avoid the SUMC Project's impact on the jobs to employed residents ratio because (I) the measures would not guarantee provision of housing writs to cover the demand from the 1,052 households (or 8 percent thereof), and (2) due to the various factors that people consider in choosing where to live, it cannot be ascertained that the 1,810 workers would choose to live in Palo Alto. Due to the high concentration of jobs in Palo Alto, it is possible that a strong affordable housing program would result in reduced traffic congestion, vehicle miles traveled, and greellhouse gas emissions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 is not directly required in order to mitigate a significant enviromnental impact. but rather should be considered as possible additional mitigation for Impacts AQ-2, AQ-7, CC-l, and CC-2, as discussed in Section 3.5, Air Quality, and Section 3.6, Climate Change, of this EIR. However, it should be stressed that these measures are presented here only in conceptual terms, and the City may find that some or all of them are not feasible for various legal, practical, or other reasons. As such. Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 is presented for informational purposes, and to ensure that all possible options for mitigation of these impacts are adequately considered. PH-3.1 Reduce the Impacts OJl the Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio. Io order to reduce the SUMC Project's impacts on the City's jobs to employed residents ratio, one or more of the following measures shall be implemented by both the City and the SUMC Project sponsors: • The City shall explore amending the Zoning Code to permit more residential uses, particularly multifamily residential use; S~Significant SU~ Significant Unavoidable Impact Significance With Mitigation N/A Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and ReplacemenJ Draft ElR -Summary Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts PS-I. Impacts Related to Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Facilities. The SUMC Project would require an increased level of fire and emergency services. However, the increased level of fire and emergency services would not be large enough to trigger the need for construction of new facilities, whicb could adversely affect the pbysical environment. Impacts would be less than significant. Impact Significance Without Mitigation LTS NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-5igniftcant Mitigation Measures • The SUMC Project sponsors shall ensure that a specified number of housing units in the County sball be dedicated to SUMC employees; • The City shall amend the Zoning Code to remove the hospital exemption from payment of the affordable housing fee; • The City shall impose an additional ad hoc housing fee on development to ensure development of required affordable housing. The amount of the fee shall be based on the cost of the additional affordable bousing units induced by the SUMC Project as well as the cost of the General Fund subsidy contribution to the existing housing impact f~; and/or • The City shall provide an inclusionary housing requirement in the newly created Hospital District. The requirement shall provide a number of options for development of additional bousing with an empbasis on affordable bousing. None required. S=SignijiCani su= Significant Unavoidable Sran/ord University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacemenr Draft ElR -Summary Impact Significance With Mitigation N/A 5-87 TableS4 SUl'rIC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact SigDlfican." Without Impacts ~fitip(ioD Mitigation Measures PS-2, Impacts from Police l'l:ofectioD Facilities, The SUMC LTS None required, Proje<:f would require an increased level' of police services, However. the increased level of police services would not be large enough to trigger the need for construction of new mOllities, which could adversely affect the physical environment. Impacts would be Jess 1ban significant. PS-3, ImpactS Related to School Facilities, An increase in L TS None required, studeIlts. whiclt would require school ~0'llS, would result as a tertiary impacc of the SUMC Project. since increased employment from the SUM C Proj oct could induce additional hausiDg lIDits within the City, Both the SUMC Project and induced housing projects would be subject to SB 50 School Impact Fees. which would midgace impacts to less thM significant. PS4, Impacts Related 10 Construction of New or Altered LTS None required. Parks Md Recreation Facilities, The SUMC Project would not result in the construction or expan!iioo of new parks or fields, which would in turn result in adverse envi.rownental impacts, The SLIMC Proj<et would be required to pay a City Community Facility Fee, which would be U5ed to fund new parks or an alteration to an e:tisrin,g parle. and would mitigate impacts 10 less than significant, PS-S. Deterioration of Park and Recreation Facilities, LTS None required. Increased recreational derDllJld from SLIMC Project employees could accelerate the physical dererior.ation of the City's parks and fields, The SLIMC Project would be required to pay a City Community Facility Fee, which reduce or avoid lIJlY such deterioration, and would miti,gate impacts 1:0 less than significant ."1 = No IlJlf"lCl S=SignijiCanJ SU= SignificanT U""Wlidabl£ Impact Signjficance Witb Mitigation N/A NiA NlA N!A Stan/ord Univ~"jty Medical Cenrer Facilities Renewal and ReplacemeTll Draft fJR -Sitmmmy Table S-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts PS-6. Cumulative Fire Protection Demand and Emergency Medical Facilities. Cumulative growth would increase demand for fIre protection and emergency response services within the P AFD' s service area; however, no new PAFD facilities would need to be constructed. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. PS-7. Cumulative Police Protection Demand. Cumulative growth in the City could necessitate construction of new or expanded police facilities in order to meet increased demand for services. Construction of new or expanded police facilities could result in significant environmental impacts. As such, cumulative impacts related to police service could be significant. However the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative need for new or expanded police facilities would be less than cumulatively considerable. PS-8. Cumulative School Demand. Cumulative development in the City can be expected to necessitate expansion of school facilities, which could bave adverse physical environmental impacts. This cumulative imyact is conservatively assumed to be significant, although the SUMC Project's contribution to this cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable. PS-9 Cumulative Demand for Parks and Recreation Facilities, and for New Parks. Cumulative impacts related to park deterioration would be less than significant due to the City's Community Facility Fee. Cumulative growth in the City would necessitate acquisition or development of new parklands. which could result in significant environmental impacts; however, the contribution of the SUMC Project to Impact Significance Without Mitigation LTS LTS LTS LTS !v7 = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significan! None required. None required. None required. None required. S=SignijicanJ Sral'iford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary Mitigation Measures SU = Significant Unavoidable bnpact Significance With Mitigation N/A N/A N/A N/A S-89 Table S-4 S1.JMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts this cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively comidewle. UT-l. Water Demand_ The SUMC Project would result in a less-man-significant water supply impact because it would not result in the need for Dew or expanded entitlements for water supplies~ and would not require expansion or construction of water facilities. UT-2. Wastewater Geoeration. The SUMC Project would result in a less-tban-significant wastewater impaCT because it would not exceed treatment requirements of the RWQCB, would not significantly increase use of the wastewater disposa.l system.. and would not require expansion or construction of wastewater coUection or treatment facilities. lJT-3. Stormwater Generation. The SUMC Project would have a less-than-significant impact related to stonnw,ter collection system capacity becau", it would not significan!ly increase use of the stonnwater collection system. and would not require expansion or construct jon of new stormwater facilities . UT-4. Solid Waste Generation. Th. SUMC Project would result in a less-thm-significant soHd waste impact because it would be served by landfills with sufficient capacity and, thus, would not contribute to the need IQ e:tpand existing or construct new solid waste disposal facilities. Impact Significance Without Mitigation LTS LTS LTS LTS ~1 ~ No lmpacI LTS ~ Leu-than-Signifkl1J1J S-9O Mitigation M.........,. None required. None required. None required. None required. S~Si{rlificQJll SU = SignificanI U!UlVOidnbLe Impact Significance With Mitigation NIA NIA NIA NIA SfIlJ!fora University Medical Celli" FaciUri" Remnval and Replacemeru Drofr ElR -Summary Table 5-4 SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts UT-5. Energy Demand. Although the SUMC Project is an urban infill project and wuuJd not require the expansion of natural gas facilities and would use existing utility facilities, it may require the installation of near-site electrical facilities and natural gas pipelines to .ccommodate the projected additional demand. However, this insrallation is included in the SUMC Project and no additional off-site construction relating to electrical lII\d natural gas facilities would occur. Therefore, the SUMe Project would have a less-than~sjgllificant impact related to the construction of energy facilities. lJT-<i. Cumulative Water Impac", , Since the City has sufficient water supply to accommodate 'Water demands for cumulative development up to 2025, new or expanded entidemenLS for water supplies are not necessary. Therefore, cumulative development would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact related to water supply, UT-7. Cumulative Wastewater Impacts. Since the RWQCP has" sufficient capad£y to accommodan~ wastewater generated by cumulative development up to 2025, implementation of major facility aItd infrastructure improvements would not be necessaty. In addition, general replacement and maintenance of old wastewater facilities is expected and would comply with applicable environmental regulations. Th.erefore~ cumularive development would not have a significant cumularive impact related to waste\\later. UT-8. Cumulative Stormwater Generation. Cumulative development in the City of Palo Alto and at Stanford University could increase the amount of stomlwater runoff. This increased level of runoff may trigger the need for the Impact Significance Witbout Mitigation LTS LTS LTS LTS NI = NQ Impact LTS ~ LesHhan-Significam None required. None required. None requited. N one required. s~ Signifiaw Stanford Universiry Medical Cenrer Faciliti.eJ Renewal and Rep1LJ~emenr Draft ErR -Summary Mitigation Measures SU ~ Significam UT!i2voidob/e Impact Significance With Mitigation NIA NIA NiA NIA 5-91 Table S4 SLIMe Project Summary of Impacts and :Mitigation I\leasures Impacts replacement or maintenance of storm. drain facilities. HO'WeveT, general Teplacement and malntena:nce of storm drain facilities is included in City plans and would comply with applicable environmental regulations. Therefore. cumulative development would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact Telated to the capacity or deterioration of storm drain facilities. UT-9. Cumulative Solid Waste Impact~. Cumulative development would generate solid waste within the permitted capacity of Ibe SMART Station and Kirby Canyon Landfill. Cumulative develupment would not result in substantial deterioration of solid waste facilities. As such. cumulative impacts related to solid waste generation would be less than signifi=t. UT-lO. Cumulative Energy Demand. Cumulative develupment in the City of Palo Alto would consume additional energy and, therefore, would increase the demand for energy. The City's electrical and natuTai gas facilities are projected to have adequate capacity to serve the City's increased demand for eneTgy. Tbe increased level of energy demand may trigger tbe need faT tbe replacement or mainte:nam:e of energy facilities. However, general replacement and malntenance of energy facilities is expe<:ted and would comply witb applicable environmen1al regulations. Therefore, cumulative development would Dot have a significant cumulative impact related to energy demand and energy fucilities. Impact SigJ:lifk:anoo Witbout MitlgatioD LTS LTS NI ~ No Jmpacr LTS = USS-lha~-SignifiCfP1l S-92 MitigatioD Measures None required. None required. S~Signiftc"", su= SignificanT Unn.V<Jidable Impact Sigoifi=e Witb MitigatioD N/A NIA Slmrjord University Medical Cenrer Facilities Renewal and Rep/acaru:m Draft ErR -Sumnw.l)' 3 10 17 24 (5) CITYCO"1NCIL FWi.:al Srody1 De'I--elO'p11IIetIot Agreen)"'nf &: EIR Kkk~Oif 31 (12) 4 11 18 25 (6) UpdlJlrd MJ!J If, 201() 12 19 26 (J) 13 14 20 (1) STAl<T BIll 21 (2) PUIlUC COMMENT PE.ltIOD JUm.. Ptdm. a~ ot Lnoi!e Pacloa..t Children', Ho<p!ml 7 (19) 8 (ZIl) aTY COU;-;ClL Ptoj<:(:[ Drs-triptiun. Laud U$'e, PopUb~ &: Htluslag:-~ Pnhlit; Sen.-'ic.es 14l26) 15 (Z7) CITY CO,"NClL VlSo:uI QD3ti~~ a.nu A'chi_..! D<sign, Bi~.u. Resourca, Cu1roml Reso'Dtu"s 21 (33) 22(34) 28 (46) 29 (41) 2: (14) 1'&TC i'rojea n .. aiptioo, l..a:.ad U6et PttpubtiOil &Ho~.Publi< ~ 9 (21) P&TC V"lIlual QuaIity..w Atchita::ttlr.dD<::3ign., BioJogkal Jicsoorces. CWf'W1ll R.esoutees 16 (28) I'&TC T:t:W~on 23(35) P&TC Climau-Cb_e,AU Quolit)l 30 (42) P&TC Nois., G.ooIogy, Soik &. Scismiciry, Hydrology, , Ht'l2.Udous M'alt;:ri:ili, Utilirles i 3(15) ~M -P~limmll'" Review dHoover Medical Dmce & Pa.rJciDg Strndm'e &: Hoover Pavilion R<_dd 10 (22) 11 (Z3) 17 (29) 18 (liJ) A.RB -Prellm&luy ~ofS...u;"d Hoopiul and Clinics 24(36) 25 (37) 5 (47] Holiday 12 (M) Crn' COlJNClL T l'lUl~r'Ca lion, Climate Cb',\T,rge, Air Qwllil)' 19 (G1) CITY COL~ClL NQise, Geology7 Soil .. & Sci.stnidty. HJdrol~"~ H..,r.uooll$ MiUe.rla1s~ (J 1iI1tJe,; 26 (68) CITY COt::KClL Attt.num-e$ and Mitig~t.iun Mea!'wt5' 6 (48) 1.'1 (55) 20 (62) Z7 (69) CLOSE OF PUBLIC COMMEN"I' PEIUOD 7(49) I'&TC '\lu:matiVH1/l.:Ud 1\tltiga1ion Mea ..... 14 (56) 21 (1).,) 28 1 (43) .ARB -P",ldnlruuy : Review <>f Scl:wol of Medici"" FIMl bui!diug 8 (SO) 15 (57] ARB -&.mninmy Review Dosign Goid..-.lines, Lucile Packard Children's &spital 22 (64) 19 9 (51) 16 (58) • 23 (65) j : 30 SUMC Project Tentative Timeline 2010 1 DEJR Preparation 2 WSA Approval at CitY Council 5 Draft Fiscal Impact Report Revi_ by P&TC 6 Draft Agreement: CIty and Respective Torms lQ Draft EIR Section ReviewslPublic Hearings by PiTC 11 Draft EIR Review/Public Hearing by CitY Council 12 End of DEIR public .. view 13 Preparation of Final EIRIRespon ... to Public Comments 14 Final EJR Released; Rev_ by paTC 15 Final EIR Released; Rev_dby City Council '6 ARB Reeommendation Review by P3.TC '7 Comp Plan Amendment. Zone Chan!!". Co<><Iitional Use Permit, Final Development Agreement. Annexation reviewed by PIlTC Comp Plan Amendment. Zone Change, Canditional U"" Permit, 18 Development Agreement, Arch. Review. Annexation reviewed by Council _511812010