HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 260-10TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
JUNE 7, 2010
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 260:10
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and
Replacement Project Draft Environmental Impact Report -Comment
on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, including an overview of the
Project Description, Umd Use, Population and Housing and Public
Services Chapters;
Attached is the City Manager Report for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities
Renewal and Replacement Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). This meeting
is the first opportunity for the City Council to provide comments on the Draft EIR. Staffwill also
provide an overview of the Project Description, Land Use, Population and Housing and Public
Services chapters of the Draft EIR at the meeting.
This item will be heard by the P&TC on June 2, 2010 and by the City Council on June 7, 2010.
Although staff will provide an overview of the chapters listed above, the P&TC, City Council
and members of the public may provide comments on any topics within the Draft EIR.
Verbatim minutes from the June 2, 2010 P&TC meeting will be forwarded to the City Council as
soon as they are prepared. The expectation is that minutes will be available on June 3, 2010.
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
~Lo~ ~>-JAMES KEENE
~~.. City Manager
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 260:10
DATE: JUNE 7,2010
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement
Project Draft Environmental Impact Report -Comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report, including an overview of the Project
Description, Land Use, Population and Housing and Public Services
Chapters.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission provide and
accept public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Stanford
University Medical Center Facility Renewal and Replacement Project (SUMC Project) and forward
comments to staff and consultants for response in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final
EIR). The Draft EIR began a 69-day public review period on May 20,2010. The review period ends
on July 27, 2010. Multiple meetings will be held with the City Council and Planning and
Transportation Commission (P &TC) to accept comments on the Draft ElR. The P &TC will hear this
item on June 2, 2010. The staff report provides an overview of the Project Description, Land Use,
Population and Housing and Public Services chapters of the Draft ElR, including the key impacts
and mitigation measures.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning and the Planning and Transportation
Commission:
1. Accept public comments on the Draft EIR; and
2. Forward comments on the Draft ElR to staff and the consultant for response in the Final ElR.
BACKGROUND
On May 20, 2010, the SUMC Project Draft ElR was published starting a 69-day public review
period. On May 24, 2010, the City Council held a Draft EIR Kick -off Study Session which provided
an overview of the EIR process and schedule and a summary of the environmental analysis.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission Review of Draft EIR
This is the first of a series of public hearings to be to accept public testimony and Council and
Commission comments on the Draft EIR that has been prepared for the SUMC.
Due to the complexity and volume of information, the review of the Draft EIR and acceptance of
comments are being conducted over a series of six P&TC meetings and five City Council meetings.
Staff will provide an overview of specific Draft EIR chapters at each meeting. Although specific
Draft EIR chapters will be presented at the meetings, the City Council, the P&TC and the public can
provide comments on any portion of the document. Following the meeting by the P&TC, the City
Council will hold a public meeting to collect additional comments and provide the community with
another forum for comments. A meeting schedule has been prepared (Attachment B) which identifies
the Draft EIR chapters to be presented at each meeting. The City Council and P&TC may choose to
keep the comments focused on the specified chapters for the particular meeting, but all comments
received will be addressed in the Final EIR.
Traditionally, the public review period for a Draft EIR is 45-days. However, the public review period
has been extended for a total of 69-days to accommodate the extended review format. The public
comment period is from May 20th closing on July 27,2010. In order to maintain the schedule, it
would be helpful for the City Council and P&TC to complete their comments on the identified Draft
EIR chapters on the specified meeting dates.
One staff report will be used for both the P&TC and City Cpuncil meetings and will be distributed to
the Council and community at the same time as distributed to the P&TC. A short summary of the
specific chapters will be provided in each staff report. However, the staff reports will not repeat the
Project's background information. CMR 253:10 (dated May 24,2010) and CMR 453:09 (dated
December 7, 2009) can be referenced for additional background information.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Draft EIR has been prepared for the SUMC by the City in collaboration with PBS&J, with staff
assistance. The Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with the requirements of 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.
Format and Content
The Draft EIR consists of two items, a written report and a CD with a number of technical
appendices to support the analysis in the Draft EIR both of which were provided to the P &TC and
Council under a separate cover. Copies of the Draft EIR can be obtained at the City of Palo Alto
Development Center, at the Palo Alto Main Library and via the City's website,
www.cityofpaloalto.org/sumc. The report is organized as follows:
• The Summary of the Draft EIRincludes a project overview and project location, project
objectives, existing site development, changes proposed under the project, a summary of
impacts and mitigation measures, a list of alternatives, areas of controversy and issues to be
. resolved.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
• Section 1 -Introduction includes a summary of the purpose of the document, the process, use
of the report and the report organization.
• Section 2 -Project Description provides a more detailed description of the project location,
project objectives, existing setting, changes proposed under the SUMC Project, summary
comparison of existing and proposed development, project construction and approvals.
• Section 3 -Environmental Analysis provides an extensive evaluation of all of the potential
environmental impacts of the project and cumulative impacts, including: Land Use, Visual
Quality, Transportation, Air Quality, Climate Change, Noise, Cultural Resources, Biological
Resources, Geology, Soils and Seismicity, Hydrology, Hazardous Materials, Population and
Housing, Public Services and Utilities.
• Section 4 -Other CEQA Considerations a summary of significant unavoidable
environmental impacts, significant irreversible environmental changes, growth inducing
impacts and cumulative impacts.
• Section 5 -Project Alternatives includes an analysis of seven project alternatives, a list of
alternatives considered but rejected, attainment ofproject objectives, and impact assessment.
• Section 6 -List of Pre parers identifies the City of Pal 0 Alto individual staff and consultants
who participated in preparation of the Draft ElR.
Staff will provide an overview of the following chapters at the meeting:
• Project Description (pages 2-1 through 2-64)
• Land Use (pages 3.2-1 through 3.2-34)
• Population and Housing (pages 3.13 through 3.13-20)
• Public Services (pages 3.14-1 through 3.14-26)
The comments on these chapters should be focused on whether the information presented in the
DraftElR adequately covers the environmental impacts that could result from the proposed SUMC
Project. The hearings are not meant to provide 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.
1. Project Description
The SUMC Project is being 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,
renovate, and replace on-site structures, thereby adding approximately 1.3 million square feet of net
new floor area, broken down as follows:
• Demolition, 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;
City of Palo Alto Page 3
• Demolition of four existing SoM buildings and construction of three replacement buildings,
with no net increase in square feet;
• Demolition of shops and storage space, renovation of existing Hoover Pavilion, and net
addition of approximately 46,000 square feet of new medical, office, research, clinic, and
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 Road 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 SUMC Project sponsors have applied to the City for the following entitlements:
• Comprehensive Plan Amendment;
• Creation of a new Hospital zone;
• Conditional Use Permit;
• Architectural Review;
• Annexation of a small piece ofland adjacent to the SoM, and,
• A development agreement.
The SUMC Project sponsors have identified program, siting, circulation and cost objectives for the
SUMC Project. Primary objectives include:
• SHC and LPCH:
o Optimize delivery of healthcare and services to patients
o Achieve timely compliance with the seismic requirements of Senate Bill 1953
o Provide modern, state-of-the-art facilities
• SoM:
o Optimize ability to translate medical research discoveries into treatments and cures
o Allow design flexibility to be able to adapt to changes in medical research needs and
technology
• Siting and Circulation:
o Arrange the buildings and open space areas to create a highly functional medical
center environment
o Provide sufficient, convenient parking for patients and visitors with sensitivity to the
needs of elderly, limited mobility, and ill patients
In addition to the SUMC Project sponsor's objectives, the City has identified objectives for the
City of Palo Alto Page 4
j
J
SUMC Project. Some of those key objectives include:
• Provide high quality employment districts, each with its own distinctive character arid each
contributing to the character of the City as a whole
• Create a more walkable, bikeable, mixed-use, transit-oriented, and well-connected urban
environment
• Locate work force housing close to SUMC sites and train station in order to reduce traffic
trips of both employees and employee household members
• Encourage public and private preservation and maintenance of resources that have historic
merit
Additionally, the Project Description includes information on the location of the project, existing
setting, changes proposed under the SUMC Project, summary comparison of existing and proposed
development, project construction and approvals. Most of the information in this section of the Draft
EIR is based on the Project application. The analyses conducted throughout the Draft EIR are based
on the Project description.
2. Land Use
Land Use impacts are addressed in Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR.
Significance Thresholds
Land Use impacts are addressed in Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR. Based on the following significance
thresholds, the SUMC Project would result in a significant land use impact if it would:
• Conflict with any applicable City land use plan, policy, or regulation (including, but not
limited to the Comprehensive Plan, coordinated area plan, or the City's Zoning Ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect;
• Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding
area, including density and building height;
• Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of
an area;
• Physically d'ivide an established community;
• Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance· (farmland) to
non-agricultural use; or
• Otherwise adversely change the type or intensity of overall existing or planned land use
patterns in the area.
Key Impacts and Mitigations
The following impacts have been identified as significant (S);however the impacts identified in this
chapter can be eliminated through mitigation. The mitigation measures developed for each ofthe
impacts are also identified below.
• LU-I: Conflicts with Adopted Land Use Plans and Policies (S).
City of Palo Alto Page 5 ,
Mitigation Measures-
o VQ-2.l: Compliance with the City's Architectural reVIew process and
recommendations;
o CR-1.2 through 1.4: Measures to minimize loss of historic Edward Durell Stone
Building complex;
o CR -1.1 and CR -1.5: Measures to minimize vibration impacts on the Hoover Pavilion;
o TR -6.1: improvements for bicycle and pedestrian safety and access at intersections
affected by SUMC Project traffic;
o BR -4.1 through 4.5: Preparation of a Tree Preservation report, a solar access study, a
Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan, a Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee and
minor site modifications to the current site plans;
o HW -3.1 : Work plan to protect groundwater from contamination;
o AQ-t 1 through AQ-1.2: Control construction dust and reduce diesel emissions;
o NO-4.1: Noise shielding or enclosure of equipment; and
o NO-I.1: Controls construction noise.
• LU-5: Adverse Changes to Overall Existing or Planned Land Uses in the Area (S).
Mitigation Measures -
Discussion
o VQ-2.1: Compliance with the City's Architectural review process and
recommendations;
Text modifications to the Comprehensive Plan are proposed to clarify proposed building height
exceptions and commercial square footage limits for the SUMC to accommodate the proposed
building heights. Specifically, the SUMC Project sponsors propose to modify Program L-3 ofthe
Comprehensive Plan as follows (underlined text would be added):
The Citywide 50-foot height limit has been respected in all new residential and commercial
development since it was adopted in the 1970' s. Only a few exceptions have been granted for
architectural enhancements or seismic retrofits to noncomplying buildings. In addition, the
City has allowed taller buildings within the Hospital District at the Stanford University
Medical Center that reflect the Medical Center's unique needs ..
In addition, the City has proposed to modify Policy L-8 as follows (underlined text would be added):
Maintain a limit of3,257,000 square feet of new non-residential development for the nine
planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, with the
understanding that the City Council may make modifications for specific properties that
allow modest additional growth. Such additional growth will count towards the 3,257,900
maximum. Stanford University Medical Center hospital uses are not intended to be treated
as "non-residential development" for the purposes ofthis policy; thus, additional growth in
areas zoned "Hospital District" is exempt from this policy.
Additionally, the land use designation for 701 and 701 Welch Road parcels would be changed to
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Major Institutional/Special Facilitiesto be consistent with the main SUMC site. The small parcel of
land within Santa Clara County would be annexed under this same land use designation.
The SUMC Project would conflict with existing development restrictions in the PF district, such as
floor area ratio (FAR) and height limits. To address this zoning inconsistency, the SUMC 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 zoning district would have its own name, such as "Hospital District," and would include
development standards that accommodate the SUMC Project.
Land use impacts are determined to be less-than-significant. The Draft EIR concludes that mitigation
measures identified throughout the Draft ElR would ensure that the SUMC Project would have no
conflicts with Comprehensive Plan policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating
environmental impacts. The SUMC Project would not change the overall existing or planned land
use patterns in the area surrounding the SUMC Sites. Mitigation measures identified in the visual
quality chapter address the increase in building intensity and massing. The Architectural Review
Board (ARB) would consider among other factors, whether the SUMC Project has a coherent
composition and whether its bulk and mass are harmonious with surrounding development.
The SUMC ProjeCt is required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In order to ensure such
consistency is achieved, City staffhave identified all Comprehensive Plan policies applicable to the
SUMC Project. Table 3.2-2 demonstrates how the SUMC Project would be consistent with each of
these policies with mitigation. This analysis is based upon the Project Description and upon the
environmental analysis provided in subsequent sections of this ElR. Where the environmental
analysis identifies necessary mitigation measures, the analysis in Table 3.2-2 briefly describes those
measures. Mitigation measures would help ensure consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies
that avoid or reduce impacts related to visual quality, cultural resources, pedestrian circulation, urban
forest resources, groundwater and runoff pollution, air quality degradation, and noise incompatibility.
It should be noted that the ultimate determinations of Comprehensive Plan consistency can and will
be made by the City Council in acting on the SUMC Project, and that such ultimate findings of
Comprehensive Plan consistency do not require that a project be entirely consistent with each
individual Comprehensive Plan policy.
3. Population and Housing
Population and Housing impacts are addressed in Section 3.13 of the Draft ElR. This section
incorporates a Housing Needs Analysis prepared by Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) that was
reviewed by the P&TC in October 2008 and the City Council on November 10,2008 (CMR 441 :08)
and December 8, 2008 (CMR 464:08).
Significance Thresholds
Based on the following significance thresholds, the SUMC Project would result in a significant
population and housing impact if it would:
City of Palo Alto Page 7
J
• Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure), that exceeds ABAG projected levels;
• Displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere;
• Displace substantial numbers of people,· necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere; or
• Cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections.
Key Impacts and Mitigations
The DEIR found the impact on population and housing to be less than significant. However, for
informational purposes the DEIR also included a discussion ofthe secondary environmental impacts
relating to increasing the City's jobs/housing balance. Below is a summary of this analysis together
with some possible mitigation measures.
• 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 Plan 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. Mitigation is presented for informational purposes, and to ensure that
all possible options for mitigation of impacts are adequately considered.
Mitigation Measures -
o PH-3.1: Reduce the impacts on the City's Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio which
shall include one or more the following options:
• The City shall explore amending the Zoning Code to permit more residential uses,
particularly multifamily residential use;
• The SUMC Project sponsors shall ensure that a specified number of housing units in the
County shall 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 ofthe additional affordable housing units induced by the SUMC Project as well as the
cost of the General Fund subsidy contribution to the existing housing impact fee; 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
housing with an emphasis on affordable housing.
Discussion
The SUMC Project would not include the development of new housing units and would thus not
City of Palo Alto Page 8
directly increase the residential population within the region. However, the SUMC Project would
increase on-site employment by 2,417 persons at 2025 full buildout and occupancy, or 2,242 persons
if adjusted for part-time employment (see Table 3.13-6). The increased employment would occur
within the City.
This increase in population growth, by itself, is not an environmental impact per se. To the extent
that it would result in secondary environmental impacts (e.g. traffic, noise, air quality, climate
change), those impacts are addressed by topic in the various sections of the ElR. The analysis in the
Population and Housing section focuses instead on the impact the increased population growth from
the Project would have on housing demand in the region.
Given the rate of 1.72 workers per worker household in Palo Altoand that the SUMC Project would
result in a net increase of 2,242 employe.es, a demand of about 1,303 housing units to support the
households resulting from the SUMC Project at 2025 full buildout and occupancy (see Table 3.13-7).
The projected distribution of where new SUMC Project employees would live is based on existing
SUMC employee zip code data provided by Stanford. Approximately 8 percent of SUMC workers
live within the City of Palo Alto, creating a demand for 104 housing units within the City of Palo
Alto. The SUMC Project would be consistent with the 2025 forecasted household growth projections
for the City and other jurisdictions within the region, and the demand for housing as a result of the
SUMC Project would be less-than-significant.
The SUMC Project would have an adverse impact on the City's ''jobs to employed residents" ratio
because the Project would increase employment above that contemplated in the existing
Comprehensive Plan and zoning allowances for the SUMC Sites without a corresponding allowance
for housing. However, this impact is not, itself, an environmental impact. This impact would 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 of
the Draft ElR.
The analysis of impacts to the ''jobs to employed residents" ratio is presented in the Draft EIR for
informational purposes, and for the purpose of identifying possible additional mitigation measures
for identified air quality and climate change impacts. The mitigation measures are presented in
conceptual terms and the City may find that some or all of them are not feasible for various legal,
practical, or other reasons. This is a unique approach to address the impacts to the ''jobs to employed
residents" ratio and provides the City with. flexibility to determine the appropriate mitigation
measures. These mitigation measures are presented to ensure that all possible options for mitigation
of air quality and climate change impacts are adequately considered:
This approach to mitigating transportation, air quality and climate change impacts through a
workforce housing program is also analyzed in more detail in the Village Concept Alternative. An
alternative and more traditional approach to mitigating the secondary environmental impacts of
employee commutes is analyzed in the air quality and climate change chapters of the DElR and
includes a range of transportation demand management programs and other similar mitigation
measures. These mitigations will be discussed in greater detail in connection with the transportation,
City of Palo Alto Page 9
air quality and climate change DEIR chapters. The City Council has broad discretion in deciding
which approach or combination is best suited for this community.
4. Public Services
This section addresses the potential environmental effects ofthe SUMC Project on public services,
including police and fire protection, schools, and parks and recreational services.
Significance Thresholds
Based on the following significance thresholds, the SUMC Project would result in a significant
public service impact if it would:
• Result in an adverse physical impact from the construction of additional fire, police,
recreational or school facilities, such as stations, parks, or schools, in order to maintain
acceptable performance standards; or
• Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
Key Impacts and Mitigations
There are no significant (S) or significant and unavoidable (SU) impacts identified for this chapter,
and hence no mitigation measures are required.
Discussion
For Fire and Police protection, the SUMC Project would not result in a significant impact, per the
City's significance criteria, because it would not necessitate the construction of fire or police
protection facilities to maintain performance standards.
Although the SUMC Project would have less-than-significant impacts related to fire protection and
emergency service, there are measures the City could encourage the SUMC Project sponsors to
implement or consider imposing as conditions of approval. These measures would help reduce the
equipment and staffing burden resulting from the SUMC Project.
• At the time of SUMC Project buildout, the SUMC Project sponsors should provide to the
P AFD a 100-foot ladder truck to replace the existing P AFD 75-foot ladder truck.
• At the time ofSUMC Project buildout, the SUMC Project sponsors should provide funding
to the PAFD to increase the 12-hour Medical unit to a 24-hour unit and add three full time
employees.
The Palo Alto Unified School District (P AUSD) enrollment and capacity for the 2008-2009 school
year is included in Table 3.14-1. This information was provided by the City's Board of Education. It
states that the PAUSD schools' classroom capacity can accommodate approximately 457 additional
students. The SUMC Project would not construct residential units that would generate more students
to the PAUSD. The SUMC Project would involve the expansion ofthe LPCH School, which is a
PAUSD facility within the LPCH. It is estimated that 104 households (approximately 8 percent) of
housing demand generated by the SUMC Project would be located in the City. The State has
determined that housing units yield approximately 0.7 students per unit. Applying this factor to the
104 units that would potentially be induced by the Project within the City, the indirect school
City of Palo Alto Page 10
demand that would be generated by the SUMC Project would be 73 students within PAUSD schools.
Generation of new students is considered a tertiary impact of the SUMC Project. That is, the SUMC
Project would directly increase employment, this employment is expected to generate housing
demand, and construction of more housing would generate more students.
Non-residential development, including the SUMC Project, is subject to SB 50 School Impact Fees.
Payment of school impact fees established by SB 50 is deemed to constitute full and complete
mitigation for school impacts from development that may be required from a developer by any local
or State agency.
Residential projects generally have more of an impact on community facilities than commercial
projects. Commercial proJects typically mitigate impacts to community facilities through payment of
ali. impact fee. The SUMC Project would be required to pay the City a "Community Facility Fee."
Payment ofthis fee is considered full mitigation for a project's exacerbation to the City's park land
deficit, including playing fields. Additionally, the SUMC Project sponsors would provide access to
Stanford University's fields for SUMC employees. This access would offset the potential
deterioration new SUMC employees could cause on City parks. In addition, the SUMC Project
would be subject to the City's taxes and program fees that support the City's General Fund, which
finances the maintenance of City Parks.
NEXT STEPS
Subsequent to public testimony and P&TC and Council comments, along with the written comments
submitted on the Draft EIR during the 69-day public review period, the EIR consultant and staff will
prepare a Final EIR/Response to Comments. The timing of this document is dependent on the
number of comments received. However, the goal is to complete review of this Project and the EIR
by the end of2010.
Following preparation of the Final EIR/Response to Comments document, the P&TC will conduct a
public hearing(s)on the Final EIR and provide a recommendation to the City Council. The City
Council will then review the Final EIR/Response to Comments for action.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
CMR 253:10 Introduction ofthe SUMC Project Draft EIR, May 24,2010
EIR Meeting Schedule
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
June 2, 2010 P&TC Meeting Minutes (available after the June 2, 2010 meeting)
PREPARED BY: ~~~tv---
City of Palo Alto
STEVEN TURNER
Advance Planning Manager
Page 11
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
City of Palo Alto
UJAMES KEENE 1/ City Manager
Page 12
ATTACHMENT A -
TO: 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 (EIR) for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and
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 this 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 Research (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 15-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 amendment 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 EIR 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.cityofpaloalto.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, Fifth Floor, Palo Alto City Hall. Comments on the Draft EIR may
be submitted in writing or orally at any of scheduled Planning and Transportation Commission
(P&TC) hearings or City Council hearings, including 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 Planning 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:
• Demolition, 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 space, renovation of existing Hoover Pavilion, and net
addition of approximately 46,000 square feet of new medical, office, research, clinic, and
2
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 Tree 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 meet all of the objectives
outlined by the SUMC Project sponsors. The Project sponsors consider the Tree Preservation
Alternative their preferred Alternative.
Also, in an effort to better integrate the surrounding areas and regional transit facilities with the
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 rather than a unilateral imposition by the
governments, 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 in this case is a discretionary legislative action by the City Coucil
and is subject to referendum. 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 EIR 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, 2010. 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 st and has made contact with staff from
Menlo Park to discuss traffic issues. Staff has also contacted these cities to let them know of the
release of the Draft EIR and the schedule for public review.
Public hearings to take oral comments on the Draft EIR will be held before the P&TC and also
the City Council. Traditionally, the public review period for a Draft ElR is 45-days. Due to the
complexity of this project and the volume of information contained in the ElR, 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 ElR 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 ElR topics first, which would then be
followed soon after with City Council hearings on the 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 of the
Final EIR. As required by CEQA, responses to all comments will be prepared, and both
comments and responses will be included in the Final ElR.
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 prqposed 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 received during 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 EIR, which consists of the Comments, the Response to Comments and any changes to
the Draft EIR, will then be reviewed by the P &TC with a recommendation to the City Council
. for certification. Certification of the Final EIR must occur before any final action is taken by the
Council on the requested approvals.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
STEVEN TURNER
Advance Planning Manager
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGERAPPROVAL~~-tp
~y!AMES KEENE
j City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: CMR 453:09, Review of the SUMC Project, December 7, 2009
Attachment B: Table S-4 from SUMC Draft EIR, SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and
Mitigation Measures
Attachment C: SUMC Draft EIR Public Hearing Schedule
Attachment D: SUMC 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
Ii' ! •
SUBJECT: Review of the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal
and Replacement Project
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff will provide an update to the City Council of progress regarding the Stanford University
Medical 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 formally 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 EIR and updating the Citi 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 comment. 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 area 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
1
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. 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 L-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 treatPlent uses are exempt from.
the development cap.
• Zoning Code and Map ahl.endments to:
o Create a new "Hospital Zone." I
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 changes 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,
refmements 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
Environmental Impact Report
The EIR will addr.ess 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 area.
2
The following is a summary of the key ElR sections and possible mitigation measures.
Land Use ,
EIR 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 that have been adopted with the intent to mitigate or avoid an
envirorunental 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 the immediately 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 Council, 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 conflict 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 accommodate the Project.
Visual Quality
This section of the ElR will discuss how development of the Project would affect the existing
visual quality in the Project Area and its vicinity. Visual quality pertains to how people see and
" experience the environment, particularly its visual character. Visual character consists of spatial
and scale ~elationships, 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 surrounding development. Architectural Review approval cannot be
granted unless the Project meets stringent criteria, including a fmding 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 demography, 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 (VTA) 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 HilllI-280, EI Camino Real/San Antonio, El
Camino Real/Sand 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 VTA 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 CalTrain Go Pass use and remote parking as a potential mitigation.
The City Council has historically not approved physical widening of traffic lanes 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 impacts 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 emis~ions.
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 Planning
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 a 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 Climate 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 operational 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 "biIsiness 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 m,echanical systems installed at the new facilities, and construction activities.
These noise . sources are evaluated to determine whether they would cause a substantial
temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project Area;
exposure of people to excessive noise levels or ground-borne vibration; and/or exceedances of
6
1
J ,
;
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 categorie's: (l) 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
establishhig 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, arid Grant). In addition, site-specific history and appropriate contextual
infonnation 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
permanent 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 infonnation developed for the Project from published
technical information, 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 SHe and one of the SoM building (FIMl)
footprints around to avoid significant oak trees. (See Alternative section below.)
Ge%gy, Soils, and Seismicity
Geology, soils, and seismicity conditions are important aspects of all development projects in the
San Francisco Bay 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 major 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 permit 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 resources. This section evaluates whether the Project could
, affect storm 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 Housing
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
J
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 inc1usionary 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 enviro~ntal 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 fees 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, stonn 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 from the 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 Project 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-sizing 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 ri~t-sizing.
Preservation Alternative
The Preservation Alternative would retain the. 1959 Hospital Building complex, which includes
SoM 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
1
I
1
I
I ! --,
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 oftlie 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
consist~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
of the 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 of90 -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 systems operations 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, and 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 Transit
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, Bco 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 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 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 that the most important community benefit would be the
applicants' investment in seismically safe, state of the art facilities that would enable 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 to assist qualified low-income residents and a $4 million fund to subsidize
comrtlUnity health programs within Palo Alto.
• Proyide construction spending and associated use taxes of $8.3 million and obtain a use
tax direct payment permit that will generate approximately $26,000 annually.
• Purchase of "Caltrain 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 the 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 Transit Center, $400,000 for right of way
improvements along Quarry Road and $700,000 for pedestrian connection between the
Medical Center and Shopping Center (Stanford Bam area) ..
• Payment of housing in lieu fees in the amount of $23.1 million which is equivalent to
what a commercial project would pay.
Staff believes Stanford's proposal is substantive and responsive to many project impacts. The
proposal focuses on the key areas of concern raised by the Planning and Transportation
Commission, the City Council and the community. However, it is also important to note that
with a project of this magnitude many of the proposed community benefits would 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 and housing. Staff plans to
continue these discussions and will provide a further progress report in January 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 formal entitlement
reviews, though significant work remains to see the project to completion. Initial staff work
focused on the preparation of the update tp 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 and the applicant have since focused on four generally concurrent tracks: 1)
Preparation of the Draft EIR, 2) Preliminary ARB reviews of project components, 3)
Development Agreement preparation and discussions with the applicants, and 4) Community
outreach and updates with the Planning & Transportation . Commission and City Council. Due to
the complexity of the Project and the potential for substantial environmental impacts 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 EIR, the Development Agreement discussions,
13
Architectural Review and the other public review processes in a timely manner. The current
schedule anticipates the following milestones during 2010:
• Council review of Water Supply Assessment
• Transportation impact review
• Development Agreement terms review
• Fiscal impacts review
• Release of Draft EIR and fiscal report
• Architectural reviews
• Draft EIR hearings
• Preparation of response to Draft EIR 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: Draft Development Agreement Proposal from Stanford University
14
June 15,2009
City Manager James Keene
City of Palo Alto
250 ·Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear City M~ager .Keene:
ATTACHMENT A
Lucile Packard
Children's HospitaJ
AT STANFORD
.",=
T
Stanford Hospital.and Clinics, Lucile Packard Childr,en's Hospital and Stanford University
submit the following prop.osal for a Development Agreement to vest entitlements for the
Stanford UniverSity Medical Center Renewal and Replacement Project.
In arriving at this proposal, we considered not only our discussions with City staff over the
past two years, but also the substanti8I input received from members of the public, the
Plaiming and Transportation Commission and the City Council durlng sessions dedicated
to discussions of community benefits. We considered carefully the expected impacts,
including positive impacts, of the. Project on local residents, City services, and City
revenues, and we considered the economic constraints facing the hospitals' funding of
Project construction., 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 situated to provide benefits that are within ·our expertise.
Based on all'ofthese considerations, 01;Jl' proposal below focuses on many of the benefits· .
suggested and described previously by the City, including the inherent direct and indirect
community benefits pr~vided by the hospitals today and into the future. In addition, the
proposal emphasizes benefit~ 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 not yet know
precisely what will be required by the. City as 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 Understandings set
out below in the last part of this letter, as well as upon the following essential assumptions:
300 Pasteur Drive -93200· M/C 5230, Stanford CA 94305, Telephone 650·72]·2878
. City Manager,ames 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 regulations or modify existing regulations that would
apply to the Project prior to approval of the Development Agreement.
• The City does not impose, through the zoning ordinance, conditions of approval or
other means, requirements other than those currently requited by the City's
MUllicipal Code or those that constitute feasible mitigation measures that will
reduce the Project's significant environmental impacts.
• The term of the DevelopJilent Agreement will be for 30 years. Obligations in the
Developmen:t Agreement that are for "the life of the Project" are for 51 years.
The following deal poblts are presented for consideration by City staff as the conceptual
basis for a negotiated·Dev~lopment Agreement. Of course, these de81s points can be
changed at any time up and until the Development Agreement is fmal and signed by the
parties. .
Health Care
Health Care: Ongoing Direct and Indirect Hospitals Community Benefit.
The Agreement will recognize 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 perform research leading to
ground breaking technologies and treatments.
Advancements in medicine that have·taken place at the Stanford University
Medical Center include pioneering achievements in transplantation
m.edicine, advancements in cancer care through the introduction of the
linear accelerator and the cyberknife, leadership in prenatal diagnosis and
treatment, discovery of the protein that 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
300 Pllsteul' Drive -H3200 -!VIle 5230. StllnfOl'd CA 94305. Telephone 650-n 1-2878
It is important to emphasize that the hospitals served more than two-thirds
of the Palo Alto residents who required hospital~tion in 2007. The
addition of more beds for adults and children will alleviate' overcrowding and allow the two hospitals to serve patients who currently must be turned
away. In 2008, 924 patients could not be admitted to the hospitals because
of. a shortage of avai1abl~ beds. ' '
3
The hospitals ws6 pr~vide the only Levell Trauma Center between San
Francisco and San Jose. ,The Trauma Center and the Emergency
pep~ent ensure critical emergency preparedness and response resources
for the commUnity in the event of an earthquake, pandemic, or other major
disaster. The expansion of the Emergency DePartment and the associated
facilities needed to support the ED services will solve th~ critical problem
of-a wOefully undersized facility for the volume of people seeking care. In
the last year, the Emergency Department had to be closed numerous times
due to lack offacilities. ' , ,
Health Care: Additional Offered Community Benefits. the hospitals
propose to fund the following new programs specifically to benefit residents
of Palo Alto. Each of these funding obliptions will commence at issuance
of tile first gnlding permit for the Project.
e $3 million for in-patient and out-patient services at Stanford
, Hpspital and Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital for
residents of Palo Alto who have a self-payment responsibility
beyond their ~cial means. This program is additional to the
hospit$1s' charity policies. The hospitals will maintain and
distribute this fund, with reporting to the City of Palo Alto when the
tun4 ~s depleted. The reporting will be in a form that complies with
, all applicable, privacy laws and policies.
e$4 million for community health programs within the City of Palo'
Alto, paId in equal annual amounts over 10 years to selected
programs. The hospitals will work with a community Bdvisory
board to ~lect tb.e ~pecific community health programs to receive
funding. Examples of potentially eligible health programs and
groups include the Mayview Health Clinic, health programs in the
public schools, seniOTS health services provided by A venidas and
Lytton ,Gardens, Psychiatric services at the Opportunity Center,
programs for child: and adolescent suicide prevention, Breast Cancer
Comections, and health programs provided by Taube Koret Campus
for Jewish Life, Abilities United, Palo Alto YMCA, and Children's
Health Council.' '
300 Pasteur Drln -H3200 -M/C 5230. Shlnfol'd CA 94305. Telephone 650-721-2878
4
Palo Alto Fiscal Benefits
Palo Alto Fiscal Beilefits: Direct and Indirect Hospitals Community
Benefits. The hospitals provide a positive economic benefit to Plllo Alto
and the' sUlTOunding area. Project construction will provide additional jobs,
increase spending, and bring immediate added revenues to the City of Palo
Alto. .The Fiscal Impact Report prepared by CBRE Consulting estimates
that construction spending and associated use taxes will bring $8.3 million
·to the City's general fund as the Project is built out.
Ih additiC?n, the hospitals will pay Community Facilities and Citywide
Transportation Impact Fees as follows:
• $5.8 million in Community Facilities Fees for parks, community
centers and libraries. .
• $2.0 million in Citywide Transportatio~ Impact Fees for public
facilities and services that relieve citywide traffic congestion caused
by. new development projects, including advanced transportation
maruigement and information systems, expanded shuttle transit
services; and bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The applicants
will not seek credit against this fee for fimding the improvements to
. transit, pedestrian and bicycle linkages described below.
PalQ Alio Fiscal ijenefitsj Additional Offered Community Benefits. The
hospitals propose to obtain a use tax direct payment permit from the State of
California in order to increase, on an ongoing b~is, the local tax allocation
for the hospitals' purchases. The hospitals will maintain the use tax direct
p~yment permit for the life of the Project, assuming the State continues to
administer the use tax direct payment permit program or a substantially
equivalent program.
Reduced Vehicle Trips
. Reducect Vehicle Trips: Direct Md Indirect Hospitals Community Benefit.
The hospitals provide a robust program to minimize commuting by way of
drive-alone vehicles, which includes the following Components:
• Incentives to refrain 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 for participating in a
caCpO()I program, complimentary parking for carpools, reserved
parking spaces for carpools and .vanpools, online ride matching,
pretax payroll deduction for transit passes, emergency rides home,
free car rental vouchers, Zipcar car sharing credits, and other gifts
and rewards.
300 Pasteur Drive -H3200 -M/C SIlO, Stllnford CA 94305. Telephone 650-721-2878
5
• ,S~ford University runs a free comprehensive Marguerite Shuttle
system, support"" by payments from the hospitals, that connects the
hospitals to local transit, Caltrain, shopping and dining.
• The hospitals provide an Eco Pass to their employees, which allows
:free use 'of VI' A buses and light rail, the Dumbarton :express, and
the Highway 17 Express, and the Monterey~San Jose Express.
• The hospitals provide free use of the U-Line Stanford Express that
connects BART and the ACE train, and the Ardenwood Park & Ride ,
to Stanford. .
• stanford also provides an extensive transportation website, transit
pass sales,altemative transportation information at new employee
orientation, regular e-mail updates to Commute Club members and
.: parking permit holders, one-on-one commute planning assistance,
and it commute cOst and carbon emissions calculator.
• . The hospitals also provide services to bicyclists; including maps,
clothes lockers and showers, bike lockers, safety education, and
commute planiling .
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 relieve citywide traffic congestion caused by new
development projects, including advanced transportation management and
information systetns, expanded shuttle transit services, and bicycle and
pedestrian improvements .
Reduced VehiCle Trips: Additional Offered COmmunity Benefits. To
further minimize commute trips'in drive-alone vehicles, the hospitals
p~pose to provide the following benefits for the life of the Project:
• The hospitals will purchase annual Caltrain Go Pa~ses(free train
passes) for all existing and new hospital employees who work more
than 20 hours per week at a cost of up to $1.3 million per year,
. asSuming Caltrain continues to offer the Go Pass program at its .
. current cost (plus cost of living adjustments) or Caltrain offers a
substantially equivalent program at approximately the same cost.
While the hospit4ds cannot guarantee a specific level of Cal train
ridership, ifCaltrain ridership by hospital employees reaches the
. S8me level as is being achieved currently by University employees,
this program Would resUlt in o~etting all peak hour trips from the
Project's new employment.
300 Pasteur D.'lve-H3200 -M/C 5230, Stanrol'd CA 94305, Telephone 650-721-2878
,
--'
6
• The hQspitals will fund expansion of Marguerite service by
purchasing additional shuttles at a total capital cost of up to $2.0
million, and by funding annl18lopei'ating QOsts of providing
increased shuttle service in an amount of up to $450,000 per year in
order to acconunodate the increase in demand for shuttle services
res~lting from increased Caltrain 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
LinkA&esj .' Additional Offered Community ·Beriefits. To further encourage
use of.Galtrain, 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 pedestrian and
bicycle connection from the Palo Alto Intennodal Transit 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
nuirked and lighted pedestrian pathway, benches, and flower
bonters. This amount will be paid to the City of Palo Alto upon
. . issuance of the first gniding permit for the Project, and the City wili
be responsible for constructing .these improvements.
• .$400,000 fc;>r improvements to the public right-of-way to enhance
the pedestrian and bi~ycle cOlUlection from EI Camino Real to
Welch Road along Quarry Road, including urban design elements
and way finding, wider bicycle lanes, as necessary, on Quarry Road,
enhanced transit nodes for bus and/or sputtle stops, and prominent
bicycle facilities. This amount will be paid to the City of Palo Alto
. upon issuance of the first grading pennit for the Proj~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 Stanford 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 Pasteur Drive -H3200· M/C 5230, SIRnfOl'd CA 94305, Telephone 650·721·2878
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 Gity facilities), hospitals provide needed services to the
conUnunity~ 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. . .
· This amount is the same amount that a for-profit developer would pay under
· Municipal Code section 16.47, based on. the City's current in-lieu housing·
. fee.· The Agreement will provide that the portion of the fee that corresponds
to each new structure will be due and payable prior to the issuance ·ofthe
building permit by the City or OSHPD for that structure, and the amount of
the fee will be calcUlated at the· fee rate in effect on June 1,2009.
City Services
City Services: Direct and Indirect Hospitals Community Benefits. The
Fiscal Impact Report prepared by CBRE Consulting concludes that
revenues generated by the Project will more than offset the City's on-going
cost of providing services.
CitY Services: Additiopal Offered Community Benefits. To further support
the provision of City services, the hospitals propose to provide $70,000 in
funding for a jurlsdiction.,wide Standard of Service Fire Study. This '
funding will be provided to the Palo Alto Fire Department prior to issuance
of the first grading pennit for the Project.
School Fees
School Fees: Direct and Indire,s;t Hospitals Community Benefits. The
hospiWs 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 pennit from the City of Palo Alto. The
hospitals propose that, for buildings subject to OSHPD jurisdiction, school
fees willbe due Within five days of issuance of a building pennit from
OSHPD.
300 Pasteur Drive -H3200 -M/C 5230, Stanfol'd CA 94305, Telephone 650-721-2878
Development Agreement
Condidons and Understandings
, The proposal is bMed on .our un~tanding 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 })y the hospitals or Stanford. In addition, we have base our.
proposal on the following anticipated benefits of entering into a Development Agreement:
Project Appr,ovals, City Regulations
. .
The Agreement will vest the applicants' right to c~truct, use and occupy
the Project in accordance with (a) approvals for the Project granted by the
City, specified in the Agreement and acceptable to the hospitals and .
. Stanford, including amendments tQ the Comprehensive Plan and zoning
. ordinance, a jurisdictimial boundary change, and architectural review
approval (collectively!' Project Approvals"); (b) the ordinances, rules,
regulations, and official policies of the City in force and effect on June 1,
·2009 as modified by the Ploject Approvals ("City Regulations") and such
other ministerial and discretionary approvals.that are necessary or desirable
for the economic and efficient ~nstruction, use and occupancy of the
Pr9ject that maybe granted subsequent to the execution of this Agreement
("Subsequent Approvals"). Through incorporation of the Project
Approvals, th~ Agreement will specify the pennitted uses of the 'property,
the. density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size 9f proposed
bui1dings, and provisions (if any) for reservation or dedication ofland for
public pwposes.
The City will agree to grant all Subsequent Approvals, whether ministerial
or discretionary, subject only to its reasonable determination that the
application for the requested Subsequent Approval is complete and
8
. 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 Regulations. The City will agree not to impose any
requirement or condi~on Qn Subsequent Approvals or development or
operation of the Project other than those required by the Project Approvals,
City Regulati~ns, an<J any new City rules, regulations, and policies which do
not c~>nflict with the Project Approvals and City Regulations. The
Agreement will provide that the parties will cooperate and diligently work
to implement all Project Approvals and to expeditiously review and act
upon·all requests for Subsequent Approvals. From and after approval, each
. Subsequent Approval shall be vested under this Agreement to the same
extent as.the Project Approvals.
300 Pasteur Drive -H3200 -M/C 5230, Stanford CA 94305. Telephonr 650-721-2878
• • 'I V
9
Project Design
The Agreement will include the Design Guidelines for the Project as an
$chment. For those portions of the Project that have not yet received
architectural review approval by the time the City approves the
Development Agreement, the Design Guidelines will be the exclu.sive
design criteria applicable to tJte Project components, and the exercise. of the
City's· architectural review discretion will be limited to determining whether
a proposal is substantially consi~t with the' Design Guidelines; If
architectural review approval or any other type of site or design appfoval is
needed for Subsequent Approvals, the decisions shall be made by the
Director of Planning and Co~unity Environment, after recommendation
. by the Architectural Review Board, subject only to appeal to the City
Counci1'(purs~ai1t to Section 18.77.070 of the Municipal·Code).
PubUc Improvements, Fees and Exactions
The' A8feemenf will describe the public improvements (if any), fees,
dedications and exactions required by the Project Approvals or otherwise
required under the Dev~lopment Agreement, and the Agreement will
proVide that no other public improvements, fees, dedications or exactions
will be required. .
Inspections
The Agreement will describe protocols and procedures for Subsequent
Approvals and ~nspections, including agreed Upon tum arQund times.
Phasing Schedule
Phasing Schedule: The Agreement will confirm that the applicants are not
required to initiate or complete development of the Project, or any portion
thereof, or to initiate or complete the Project components within any period
oftime or in any particular order .. The Agreement will acknowledge that
the applicants may develop the Project components in such ord~ and at
such rate and times as they deem appropriate within the exercise of their
sole and subjective business judgment. The applicants also may choose, in
their discretion, to phase the Project.
Project Modification
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 so choose, with the ol,ljective
300 Pasleu," D."lve -H3200 -M/C S230, SlnnfOl"d CA 94305. Telephont' 650-721-2878
10
of expedited review of project modifications and Ciiy approval of such
modifications if no new or substantially more severe environmental impacts
would result.
No Moratodum
The Agreement will provide tluit neither the right to develOp nor the timing
. of development will be affected or limited by a.phasing schedule, growth
control ordinance, moratorium or suspension of rights, whether adopted by .
the City'COuncil or a vote of the citizens through the initiative process
exce.pt as· required by supervening federal or state law, order; rule or
reguhltion .. If a moratorium negatively affects tiniing of the Project, the
... applicants· may elect to extend the tenn of the Development Agreement for
the duration of the moratorium plus teD years.
Term of Agreement
The term of the Agreement will commence as of the Effective Date and
. contin\Je 30 years :from the Effective Date, or until earlier tenninated by
mutual consent of the parties, except as to those obligations that e.xpressly
extend for the life of the Project, which is defined to be 51 years.
Other
The Agreement will include provisions addressing annual review,
amendment, dispute resolution, remedies and notices.
Thank you fot considering our proposal. We look forward to discussing these tenns with
you during the next few weeks.
300 Pasteul' Drive -H3200 -M/C 5230, StlinfOl'd CA 94305. Telepbonr 650-721-2878
" " I ~
3 4 5 6 7
10 111 112 1
13 114
~
~
Z
~ ~ 17 18 19 20 (1) START EIR I 21 (2) == PUBLIC COMMENT U PERIOD -< ARB-Prelim. Review of ~ Lucile Packard ~ Children's Hospital -<
24 (5) I 25 (6) I 26 (7) I 27 (8) I 28 (9)
CITY COUNCIL
Fiscal Study,
Development Agreement
& EIR Kick-Off
31 (12) I Updated
Mqy 11,2010
·'-1
1 (13)
7 (19) 8 (20)
CITY COUNCIL
Project Description,
Land Use, Population
& Housing, Public
Services
14 (26) 15 (27)
CITY COUNCIL
Visual Quality and
Architectural Design,
Biological Resources,
Cultural Resources
21 (33) I 22 (34)
28 (40) 29 (41)
I ""
I 2 (14)
P&TC
Project Description,
Land Use, Population
& Housing, Public
Services
9 (21)
P&TC
Visual Quality and
Architectural Design,
Biological Resources,
Cultural Resources
16 (28)
P&TC
Transportation
I 23 (35)
P&TC
Climate Change, Air
Quality
30 (42)
P&TC
Noise, Geology, Soils
& Seismicity,
Hydrology,
Hazardous Materials,
Utilities
3 (15) I 4 (16)
ARB -Preliminary
Review of Hoover
Medical Office &
Parking Structure &
Hoover Pavilion
Remodel
10 (22) I 11 (23)
17 (29) I 18 (30)
ARB -Preliminary
Review of Stanford
Hospital and Clinics
1 24 (36) ·1 25 (37)
5 (47)
Holiday
12 (54)
CITY COUNCIL
Transportation,
Climate Change, Air
Quality
19 (61)
CITY COUNCIL
Noise, Geology, Soils
& Seismicity,
Hydrology,
Hazardous Materials,
Utilities
26 (68)
CITY COUNCIL
Alternatives and
Mitigation Measures
~~---~'--.--r··--r.-=-~'~~-__ """·'_--rro'''·~'.'''~~~'''·· __ ''--'-'-'T"T"T,,,,''''·r, -;0-,---,-.,
6 (48)
13 (55)
120 (62)
27 (69)
CLOSE OF
PUBLIC
COMMENT
PERIOD
7 (49)
P&TC
Alternatives and
Mitigation Measures
14 (56)
121 (63)
128
1 (43)
ARB -Preliminary
Review of School of
Medicine FIMI
building
8 (50)
15 (57)
ARB -Preliminary
Review Design
Guidelines, Lucile
Packard Children's
Hospital
122 (64)
I 29
9 (51)
I 16 (58)
I 23 (65)
I 30
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
LU-I. Conflicts with Adopted Land Use Plans and Policies.
Without nritigation measures to ensure consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan's policies adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or nritigating an environmental effect. the SUMC
Project could conflict with Comprehensive Plan policies that
avoid or reduce impacts related to visual quality, cultural
resources, pedestrian circulation, urban forest resources,
groundwater and runoff pollution, air quality degradation, and
noise incompatibility.
LU-2. Conflicts with Established Residential, Recreational,
Educational. Religious, or Scientific Uses in the Area. The
SUMC Project would not conflict with residential,
recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses.
LU-3. Physical Division of an Established Community. The
SUMC Project would not physically divide an established
community.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI
NI
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
MmGATION MEASURES. The nritigation measures identified below would
ensure that the SUMC Project would have no conflicts with Comprehensive
. Plan policies adopted for. the purposes 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-1.2 through 1.4, which involves
measures to minimize the loss of the historic Edward Durell Stone Building
complex; CR-I.l and CR-l.5, which involve measures to mininrize
vibration impacts on the Hoover Pavilion; TR-6.1, which requires
improvements for bicycle and pedestrian safety and access at intersections
affected by SUMC Project traffic; BR-4.l through BR-4.S, which require
the preparation of a Tree Preservation Report, a solar access study, a Tree
Relocation Feasibility Plan, a Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee,
and minor site modifications to the current site plans; HW-3.l, which
requires a work plan to protect groundwater from contamination; AQ-l.l
through AQ-I.2, which would control construction dust and reduce diesel
emissions; NO-4.1, which requires noise shielding or enclosure of
equipment; and NO-I.l, which controls construction noise
None required.
None required.
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stan,ford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummaJY
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
N/A
N/A
S-25
> ~
~ > ~
== ~
~
Z
~
~
Lc
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
LU-4. Farmland Conversion. The SUMC Project would
have no impact on conversion of farmland to non-agricultural
uses.
LU-5. Adverse Changes to Overall Existing or Planned Land
Uses in the Area. Because the SUMC Project would intensify
the planned uses within the SUMC Sites, the SUMC Project
would have a significant impact pertaining to on-site character
and views.
LU-6. Cumulative Impacts on Changes to Overall Existing
or Planned Land Uses in the Area. The SUMC Project, in
combination with other reasonably foreseeable probable future
development in the area, would have a less-than-significant
cumulative impact on overall existing or planned land uses in
the vicinity of the SUMC Sites.
VQ-l. Temporary Degradation of Visual Character During
Construction. The SUMC Project would substantially degrade
the existing visual character and quality of the SUMC Sites
during construction. (S)
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
NI
S
LTS
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-26
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, requires and ensures
compliance with Architectural 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
Architectural Review would consider, among other factors, whether the
SUMC Project has a coherent composition and whether its bulk and mass
are harmonious with surrounding development. Thus, implementation of
Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1 would reduce the significant impacts on overall
surroundings to a less-than-significant level.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure VQ-l.l, below, would reduce
visual impacts during construction to less than significant. (L TS)
VQ-l.l Implement Constnlction Visual Improvements Plan. TheSUMC
Project sponsors shall develop and implement a Construction
Visual Improvements Plan that would make visual improvements
to construction zones within a given construction phase and
between phases if the zone is not scheduled for construction
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
N/A
StGliford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummGlY
I
Table S-4
SUl\-IC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation 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 tbeir surroundings.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
activity or would remain 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
contractor(s) and must be approved by the Planning Director.
The intent of the plan is to aesthetically improve portions of the
project site tbat would remain unimproved 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 with
fencing material to be approved by the Planning Director
prior to commencement of use of the staging area for
construction equipment and vehicles.
b. The SUMC Project sponsors shall frequently remove
construction debris and refuse from the SUMC Sites.
c. The SUMC Project sponsors shall install all landscaping as
early as feasible to decrease visual impacts of constmction.
Existing landscaping within the SUMC Sites that would not
be removed by the construction shall be maintained.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, below, requires and
ensures compliance with ARB recommendations for final design. Such
compliance would ensure that impacts on on-site visual character and
quality would be less than significant because the ARB's recommendations,
through the Architectural Review process, would address massing, layout,
landscaping, and architectural design impacts from the SUMC Project, as
described further below.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
IVlitigation
S-27
"" I
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
VQ-3. Alteration of Public Viewsheds, View Corridors, or
Scenic Resources. The SUMC Project would result in
significant impacts on views.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-28
Mitigation Measures
VQ-2.1 Adhere to City's Architectural Review Process and
Recommendations. The SUMC Project sponsors shall submit
final building and site plans to the ARB prior to issuance of any
development permits. Architectural Review shall assess the
appropriateness of proposed demolitions, proposed building
heights and massing, siting of buildings and structures,
architecture and facade treatments, landscaping, circulation
plans, and parking. The ARB may require alterations to any of
the above project features, or the ARB may suggest new
features, such as new landscaping or public art, to improve the
proposed SUMC Project design. Any recommendations made by
the ARB with respect to the design of the SUMC Project shall be
implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors. .
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, above, requires and
ensures compliance with ARB recommendations for final design and would
reduce impacts on views from the proposed buildings under the SUMC
Project. The Architectural Review of the SUMC Project would consider,
among other factors, whether the SUMC Project has a coherent
composition and that its bulk and mass are harmonious with surrounding
development. The ARB's recommendations regarding these factors will be
forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The City Council would
then review the recommendations and make findings, as appropriate, that
natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with tbe SUMC
Project; the design promotes hannonious transitions in scale and character
in areas betw·een different designated land uses; and the planning and siting
of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of
order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the
general community. Implementation of Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1
regarding the Architectural Review process would ensure tbat impacts on
views would be less than significant.
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
VQ-4. Terrain Modifications. The SUMC Project would not
require substantial terrain modifications that would degrade the
visual character of the SUMC Sites.
VQ-5. New Sources of Light and Glare. The SUMC Project
could increase light and glare nuisance from exterior lighting;
resulting in a significant impact.
VQ-6. Shadowing 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.m. from September 21 to March 2l.
VQ-7. Cumulative Impacts on Visual Character. The SUMC
Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable
probable future development in the area, would have a less
than-significant cumulative impact on visual character in the
vicinity of the SUMC Sites.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
NI
S
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-~ignijicant
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, above, requires
compliance 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,
among other factors, whether the SUMC Project incorporates quality
materials, harmonious colors, appropriate ancillary features, a cohesive
design with a coherent composition, and an appropriate lighting plan. The
ARB's recommendations regarding these factors will be forwarded to the
City Council for consideration. The City Council would then review the
recommendations and make findings, as appropriate, that the design is
compatible with the ilIimediate 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.
None required.
None required.
S=Signijicant SU= Sign(ficant Unavoidable
StaJ~ford University Medical Center Facilities Renel'l-'al and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
N/A
N/A
S-29
~. l
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
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 inlpacts on sensitive views.
VQ-9. Cumulative Light and Glare. The SUMC Project, in
combination with other reasonably foreseeable probable future
development in the area, would be subject to Architectural
Review and Municipal Code, and County requirements
pertaining to light and glare. Impacts would therefore be less
than significant.
VQ-lO. 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.
. Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
NI
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-30
Mitigation Measures
None required.
None required.
None required.
M1TIGATION MEASURES. With implementation of the following mitigation
measures, the significant construction related traffic impacts would be
reduced to less-than-significant levels.
TR-l.l Provide Off-Street Parking for Construction Related Vehicles.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall be required to provide
adequate off-street parking for all construction-related vehicles
throughout the construction period. If adequate parking cannot
be provided on the construction sites, a remote parking area shall
be designated, and a shuttle bus shall be operated to transfer
construction workers to the job site.
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
LTS
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SurnmalY
Impacts
NI = No Impact
!
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
TR-I.2 Maintain Pedestrian Access. The SUMC Project. sponsors shall
be prohibited from substantially limiting pedestrian 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
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 closures or pedestrian re-routing at intersections,
placement of construction-related material within pedestrian
pathways or sidewalks, and other actions which may affect the
mobility or safety of pedestrians during the construction period.
If sidewalks are maintained along the construction site frontage,
covered walkways shall be provided.
TR-I.3 Maintain 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 management plans
that warn cyclists prior to reaching the impacted bicycle lanes
and provide alternative routing around the construction sites to
mitigate the specific impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Bicycle access-limiting actions would include, but not be limited
to, bicycle lane closures or narrowing, closing or narrowing of
streets that are designated bicycle routes. bridge closures, the
placement of construction-related materials within designated
bicycle lanes or along bicycle routes, and other actions which
may affect the mobility or safety of bicyclists during the
construction period.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renel'olal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-31
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-32
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
TR-l.4 Restrict Construction 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., and from 4pm
to 6pm on weekdays. The SUMC Project sponsors shall be
required to prohibit or limit the number of construction
employees from arriving or departing the site from the hours of
4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
TR-l.5 Restrict Construction Truck Routes. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall be required to deliver and remove all construction
related equipment and materials on truck routes designated by the
cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Heavy
construction vehicles shall be prohibited from accessing the site
from other routes. Figure 3.4-6 and 3.4-7 of the ElR illustrates
the Stanford Area Truck Routes which must be used by all
trucks.
TR-l.6 Protect Public Roadways During Construction. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall be required to repair any structural damage
. to public roadways, returning any damaged sections to original
structural condition. The SUMC Project sponsors shall survey
the condition of the public roadways along truck routes providing
access to the proposed project site before construction, and shall
again survey after construction is complete. A before-and-after
survey report shall be completed and submitted to the City of
Palo Alto Public Works Department for review, indicating the
location and extent of any damage.
TR-l.7 Maintain Public Transit Access and Routes. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall be prohibited from limiting access to public
transit, and from limiting movement of public transit vehicles,
without prior approval from the Santa· Clara County Valley
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stal1/ord University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummOlY
Impacts
NI = No Impact
· ~ .. I ..
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
Transportation Authority or other appropriate jurisdiction. Such
approval shall require submittal and approval of specific impacts
to a less-than-significant level. Potential actions which would
impact access to transit include, but are not limited to, relocating
or removing bus stops, limiting access to bus stops or transfer
facilities, or otherwise restricting or constraining public transit
operations.
TR-l.8 Prepare and Implement Construction Impact Mitigation Plan. In
lieu of the above mitigation measures, the SUMC Project
sponsors shall submit a detailed construction impact mitigation
plan to the City of Palo Alto for approval by the Director of
Public Works prior to commencing any construction activities
with potential transportation impacts. This plan shall address in
detail the activities to be carried out in each construction phase,
the potential transportation impacts of each activity, . and an
acceptable method of reducing or eliminating significant
transportation impacts. Details such as the routing and
scheduling of materials deliveIies, construction employee arrival
and departure schedules, employee parking locations, and
emergency vehicle access shall be described and approved.
TR-l.9 Conduct Additional Measures During Special Events. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall implement a mechanism to prevent
roadway construction activities from reducing roadway capacity
during major athletic events or other special events which attract
a substantial number of visitors to the campus. This measure
may require a special supplemental permit to be approved by
either Santa Clara County or the City of Palo Alto prior to
hosting such events during significant construction phases.
S = Significant SU= Significant Ulwvoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renel1lal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-33
Table S-4
SU1.\-1C Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-2. Intersection Level of Service. Implementation of the
SUMC Project would result in significant impacts to
.' intersections during Peak Hour conditions.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-34
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURES. Given the magnitude of the SUMC Project's
infersection impacts, there is no single feasible mitigation measure that can
reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. However, there are a
range of measures that, when taken individually, would each contribute to a
partial reduction in the SUMC Project's impacts. When combined, these
measures could result in a substantial reduction in th.e SUMC Project's
impacts.
Under all combinations of feasible mitigation measures below, impacts of
the SUMC Project on intersection LOS would remain significant and
unavoidable. Of all of the feasible combinations, the' one that would have
the largest reduction in impact, and that mitigates the greatest number of the
intersection impacts, is the combination of traffic adaptive signal
technology, additional bicycle and pedestrian undercrossings, enhanced
Travel Demand Management (TDM) program, and feasible intersection
improvements. This combination of mitigation measures would reduce the
SUMC Project impacts to a less-than-significant level at all of the impacted
intersections during the AM Peak Hour. However, intersection impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable in the PM Peak Hour at three
intersections with. mitigation.
TR-2.1 Install Traffic Adaptive Signal Technology. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall contribute to the Palo Alto Citywide Traffic
Impact Fee program, for the installation of traffic adaptive
signals. However, this fee is not structured to mitigate one
hundred percent of project related impacts, and an additional fee
could be imposed by the City on the SUMC Project sponsors to
mitigate the remaining share of the SUMC Project impacts. In
Menlo Park, the SUMC Project sponsors shall contribute their
fair share amount, which shall be tied to the amount of traffic
added to analyzed intersections by the SUMC Project. The
SUMC Project sponsors' contributions shall apply towards the
S = Significant SU= Significant U/lavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummaJY
Impacts
~
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
installation of traffic adaptive signals as listed below.
• SandHill Road (Oak Creek to Shopping Center) - 4 signals
• Arboretum Road (Shopping Center to Palm Drive) - 3
signals
• Embarcadero Road (Bryant to Saint Francis) - 7 signals
• University Avenue (Palm to Lincoln) -13 signals
• Lytton Avenue (Alma to Middlefield) -10 signals
• Hamilton Avenue (Alma to Middlefield) -10 signals
• Middlefield Road (San Antonio to Homer) - 9 signals
• Charleston Road (Alma 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 Additional Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossings. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall contribute their fair share to the
cost of construction 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
mitigate one hundred percent of the SUMC Project related
impacts, and an additional fee may be imposed by the City to
mitigate the remaining share of the SUMC Project impacts. In
Menlo Park, the fair share contribution shall be tied to the
amount of traffic added to analyzed intersections by the SUMC
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-35
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-36
1-
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
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 Enhance Stanford University Travel Demand Management (TDM)
Program. The SUMC Project sponsors shall enhance the
currently-implemented TDM program in order to achieve 35.1
percent usage of alternative transportation modes (i.e, carpool,
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 less than 1.00 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=Significant SU= Significant Ullavoidable
'--.'-"~--'-'-'-~-.-... ~ .. -" -~.-~---
bnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal alld Replacement Draft EIR -SummaJY
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
to hospital employees and also to hospital patients. A central
location would be made available to provide information on
alternative travel modes. Also, the SUMC or hospitals'
website would contain information on TDM programs.
• Provide a 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 available 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 forms 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 mutually agreed amount· of time, it is
expected that the enhanced TDM program would gradually result
in a shift in the mode split of SUMC employees. If this proves
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -SumlllaJY
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-37
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-38
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-SignificaIU
Mitigation Measures
not to be the case, then a second round of improvements 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 monitor/survey employee use of alternative modes of
transportation on an at least bi-annual basis, and shall continue to
improve 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 Imersection Improvements that Have
Been Detennined to be Feasible. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall implement the following measures:
• For the intersection of EI Camino Real/Page Mill Road -
Oregon Expressway,. the SUMC Project sponsors shall pay a
fair share towards (1) provision of exclusive light-turn lane
for westbound Oregon Expressway, in addition to the two
through lanes, (2) increasing the cycle length to 160 seconds.
Improvements to the westbound right turn lane would
require right-of-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 signal.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
NI ,,;, No Impact
•• c I
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
TR-2.5 Coordinate 'with Other Jurisdictions for Potentially Feasible
Roadway Improvements. The City of Palo Alto shall work with
other jurisdictions to try to achieve feasibility for the following
roadway improvements or adjustments. In the event that one or
more of the below improvements would then be determined to be
feasible, the SUMC Project sponsors shall pay their fair share
towards implementation of the improvements, if a fair share
contribution would apply.
• . Alpine Road/I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp -Signalize this
intersection. The City shall coordinate with Caltrans
regarding feasibility of these improvements.
•
•
•
El Camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue -Re-stripe the
exclusive right-tum lane on southbound EI Camino Real to a
shared through/right lane. Also, provide an additional
through lane for northbound El Camino Real by removing
the right-turn slip island. Also, provide an exclusive right
turn lane for eastbound Menlo A venue. The City shall
coordinate with the City of Menlo Park and Caltrans
regarding feasibility of these improvements.
Bayfront Expressway/Willow Road -Provide one more
right-turn lane for eastbound Willow Road and make the
right-tum movement for southbound Bayfront Expressway
"overlap" with the left-tum of eastbound Willow Road. The
intersection has signals for the right-tum movement for
southbound' Bayfront Expressway, but the "overlap" phase is
not implemented. The City shall coordinate with the City of
Menlo Park regarding feasibility of these improvements.
Middlefield Road/Ravenswood Avenue -Provide an
additional exclusive left-tum lane for northbound Middlefield
S=Significant SU= Significant Un([Voidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-39
~ I
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-3. Impacts on Roadway Segments. The SUMC Project
would result in adverse traffic impacts to roadway segments in
the City of Menlo Park.
TR-4. Local Circulation Impacts. The SUMC Project could
result in significant traffic impact to the local circulation
network in the immediate vicinity of the SUMC Sites.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-40
Mitigation Measures
Road. The City shall coordinate with the City of Menlo
Park regarding feasibility of this improvement.
• Junipero Serra Boulevard/Campus Drive West -Request that
Santa Clara County change the signal cycle length at this
intersection to 90 seconds. The City shall coordinate with the
County of Santa Clara regarding feasibility of this
adjustment.
MITIGATION MEASURES. With the provision of additional bicycle and
pedestrian undercrossings (Mitigation Measure TR-2.2), the enhanced
TDM program (Mitigation Measure TR-2.3), and contribution to the City
of Menlo Park shuttle fee (Mitigation Measure TR-7.2), there would still 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, and Alpine Road
would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
MITIGATION MEASlJRES. Mitigation Measure TR-4.1, involving funding
and implementation of a traffic impact study, and Mitigation Measure
TR-4.2, involving re-striping of Durand Way. would reduce the SUMC
Project's impact to a less-than-significant level.
TR-4.1 FUlld Traffic Impact Study. Upon construction of the SHC and
LPCH Hospital components. the SUMC Project sponsors shall
fund an independent traffic evaluation, commissioned by the
City, based on actual travel patterns, volumes, and emergency
access. with an emphasis on ease of circulation around and
through the medical complex to determine if the private street
connection between Roth Way and Pasteur Drive should be
operated as a public street. If the independent traffic study
demonstrates that the connection between Roth Way and Pasteur
Drive as a public street would improve circulation. then the
S= Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
LTS
Stan/ord University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summmy
"l"_~," """'""'_,_~,~"~~"'~_~,
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-5. Freeway Impacts. The SUMC Project would result in
less-than-significant impacts on freeways.
TR-6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts. The SUMC Project
could impede the development or function of planned bicycle
or pedestrian facilities, and result in a significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
s
NI = No hllpact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
connection shall be designated as a public street for all vehicular,
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit traffic.
TR-4.2 Fund Signing and Striping Plan and Signal Optimization. In
addition to paying for the construction of the extension of Durand
Way from Sand Hill Road to Welch Road, the SUMC Project
sponsors shall also pay for the following improvements to ensure
that queues from the Durand Way/Sand Hill Road intersection do
not spillback onto the Durand Way/Welch Road intersection.
• A signing and striping plan for the Durand Way extension,
which would maximize the storage capacity by creating a
four-lane roadway with a left and through/right at Sand Hill
Road and a right and through/left at Welch Road;
• The installation and optimization of the two signals at the
intersections of Durand Way/Sand Hill Road and Durand
Way/Welch Road.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 involving trip
reducing measures, plus Mitigation Measure TR-6.1, which involves
several bicycle and pedestrian improvements, would reduce the SUMC
Project's impact to a less-than-significant level. The improved facilities
would mitigate the hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists brought about by
the increased vehicular traffic and congestion. "
TR-6.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall fund the expansion and improvement of
the bicycle and pedestrian network in the immediate vicinity of
the SUMC Project. -The intent of these improvements is to:
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renel',lal and Replacement Draft EJR -SumlllalY
Impact
Significance
With
:Mitigation
N/A
LTS
S-41
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-42
I"~. , .. ".~.~_.," __ .. " ..•• , .. ,,,,,"~ .. ,~~~,,,,.,,~._~ .. " .. ~~, ~_~
Table S-4
SUMe Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
• reduce auto related traffic by providing the infrastructure 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 pedesnians 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 RoadlEl
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 El Camino 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 would
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=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stan/ord University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -SummOlY
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
and Welch Road. The crosswalk shall be enhanced either by
striping or by the use of contrasting paving.
• Provide a connection from the planned Everett A venue
bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing to the EI Camino
Real/Quarry Road intersection. Once the tunnel is
completed, this linkage shall provide a direct cOIDlection
between the SUMC Project and Downtown North.
• Provide a bicycle and pedestrian trail through the Arboretum
Drive as part of future campus planning in the 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 enhanced
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 the SUMC Project.
• Enhance all signalized intersections in the Project Vicinty,
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 other specific improvements that
are determined as necessary during the design process, such as
median refuge islands, advanced signing, flashing beacons, in
pavement lighting, etc.
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renev.'al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summmy
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-43
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-7. Transit Impacts. Implementation of the SUMC
Project could impede the operation of the transit system as a
result of increased ridership, and result in a significant impact.
Impact
SignIficance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No IlIqJact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-44
Mitigation Measures
• Install the appropriate number of Class I and Class III
bicycle parking spaces as required by the City's Zoning
Ordinance for the total amount of existing and future
development. The SUMC Project sponsors shall install the
required number of bicycle parking spaces equally
distributed throughout the SUMC Sites.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-7.1 involves the addition
of transit centers to the SUMC Project's site plans, and Mitigation Measure
TR-7.2 involves financial contributions towards the expansion. of transit
service. Implementation of these measures would reduce the SUMC
Project's transit impacts to a less-than-significant level.
TR-7.1 IncOlporate Transit Centers Into Site Plans. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall revise their SUMC Project site plan to incorporate
two transit centers to reduce the impact to transit service caused
by the SUMC Project. These transit centers shall be located at
Hoover Pavilion and at SHC, and shall be off-street facilities.
The transit centers shall accommodate three to four buses
simultaneously, and shall have shelters, seating, lighting, signs.
maps, bus schedules, and bicycle parking. On-street bus stops
along Welch Road and Quarry Road shall also be provided, but
the transit centers shall accommodate the majority of transit
riders and shall· be located to maximize the convenience of
employees, patients, and visitors. One transit center shall be
located in the vicinity of Welch Road and Pasteur Drive to serve
SHC. The other transit center shall be located near the entrance
to Hoover Pavilion. Both of these b:ansit centers shall provide
the focal point for transit use for the SUMC.
TR-7.2 Provide Expanded Transit Sen'ice. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall make a fair share financial contribution to the cost of
expanding existing bus service of the Marguerite, Crosstown,
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacemelit Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
and Menlo Park Shuttle bus services, and to the VT A
Community 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 Shuttle
service, by contributing to the. Citywide Traffic Impact 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 Community 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=Signijicant SU= Sign(ficant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
lVlitigation
S-45
· .... l ... '."" .. ~.".~.~. ~. __ ~,~~~_ .. ~.~._~~~~.~._~~ •. ""._~._. __ ~
Table S-4
SUMC 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 have a less
than-significant parking impact.
TR-9. Emergency Access. Implementation 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 of the SUMC Sites, could result in a significant
construction-period impact. The contribution of the SUMC
Project would be cumulatively considerable.
TR-ll. Cumulative Transit Impacts. Cumulative growth
would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact on
transit services.
AQ-l. Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions.
Without mitigation, construction activities associated with the
SUMC Project could cause etnissions of dust and pollutants
from equipment exhaust that could contribute to existing air
quality violations or expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be significant.
Impact
Significance
. Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
LTS None required.
S MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-9.1 involves tbe
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
signitkant levels.
\TR-9.1 Pay Fair Share Towards OptiCom Installation. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall pay their fair-share financial contribution
towards the City of Palo Alto, to assist with the installation and
operation of emergency vehicle traffic signal priority (OptiCom)
at all significantly impacted intersections.
S MITIGATION MEASURES. With implementation of Mitigation Measures
TR-l.l through TR-1.9, which 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.
LTS None required.
S MITIGATION MEASURES. To minimize dust emissions, the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has identified a set of feasible
PMlO control measures for all construction activities in the air basin.
Implementation of the BAAQMD-recommended measures (Mitigation
Measure AQ-Ll below) would reduce the impacts caused by construction
dust to a less-than-significant leveL Additionally, implementation of
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
LTS
N/A
SU
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Sign{ficant S = SignificCUlt SU= Significant Unavoidable
S-46 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
r LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
construction equipment emission reduction measures (Mitigation Measure
AQ-1.2 below) would further reduce NOx, ROG, PMIO and PM2.5
emissions during construction. However. reduction of NOx emissions
below 80 lbs/day during the first year of construction could not be
guaranteed, and this impact would still be considered significant and
unavoidable.
AQ-I.I Implement Recommended Dust ConJrol Measures. To reduce
dust emissions during project demolition and construction phases,
the SUMC Project sponsors shall require the construction
contractors to comply with the dust control strategies developed
by the BAAQMD. The SUMC Project sponsors shall include in
construction contracts the following requirements:
a. Cover all trucks bauling 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
structures or break-up of pavement;
d. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas;
e. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) all paved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas during the earthwork
pbases 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=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Staltord University Medical Center Facilities Renel1-'al and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-47
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-48
_ ~ ... L",
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
h. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil
binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.);
i. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
J. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent
silt runoff to public roadways; and
k. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
AQ-l.2 Implement Equipment Et:haust Emission Reduction Measures. To
reduce emissions from construction equipment during project
demolition and construction phases. the SUMC Project sponsors
shall require tbe construction contractors to comply with the
following emission reduction strategies to the maximum feasible
extent. The SUMC Project sponsors sball include in construction
contracts tbe following requirements:
a. Where possible, electrical equipment sball be used instead
of fossil-fuel powered equipment.
b. The contractor shall install temporary electrical service
wbenever possibJe to avoid need for fossil-fuel powered
equipment.
c. Running equipment not being actively used for construction
purposes for more tban five minutes sball be turned off.
(e.g., trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or
other bulk materials; however, rotating-drum concrete trucks
may keep their engines running continuously as long as they
are on site).
d. Trucks shaH be prohibited from idling while on residential
streets serving the construction site (also included in
Mitigation Measure NO-I. 1).
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal alld Replacement Draft EIR -SummOlY
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
AQ-2. Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions.
Combined mobile and stationary source emissions during
operation of the SUMC Project would exceed the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District's significance threshold of 80
pounds/day of ROG, NOx and PMIO. Therefore, air emissions
would result in a substantial contribution to an existing
regional air quality problem and a significant impact.
AQ-3. Localized Carbon Monoxide Impacts from Motor
Vehicle Traffic. The SUMC Project would have less-than
significant localized air emissions re&ulting from additional
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 = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
e. Diesel-powered construction equipment shall be Tier III or
Tier IV California Air Resources Board (CARE) certified
equipment to the maximum feasible extent.
f. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the
smallest practical to accomplish the task at hand.
MITIGATION 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. 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 sufficient to prevent project ROG, NOx and
PMlO 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=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
N/A
N/A
S-49
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
AQ-5. Objectionable Odors. The SUMC Project would have
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 Emissions. Construction
equipment NOx emissions associated with the SUMC Project
could contribute considerably to regional air quality problems.
AQ-7. Cumulative Operational Emissions. SUMC Project
operation could contribute considerably to a degradation of
regional air quality as defined by the BAAQMD.
AQ-8. Cumulative Construction and Operational TAC
Emissions. SUMC Project TAC emissions could contribute
considerably to the health risk of sensitive receptors on and
near the SUMC Project site and, thus, have a significant
cumulative impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
S
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-50
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
None required. N/A
MiTIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures AQ-l.l and AQ-1.2 would SU
reduce. the SUMC Project's contribution to cumulative construction
emissions, although the contribution to NOx would remain ·cumulatively
considerable.
MmGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 involves SU
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 mitigation, the City shall consider the feasibility of Mitigation
Measure PH-3.1, as identified and discussed in more detail in Section 3.13,
Population 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 the contribution would remain considerable.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure AQ-l.2 (Implement Equipment SU
Exhaust Emission 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 estimates of the type, number, and duration of
use of the SUMC Project construction equipment. While some additional
reductions of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) would be expected with
Mitigation Measure AQ-l.2, where their implementation is feasible, their
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
"--
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CC-l. Furthering Goals and Policies of the Palo Alto
Climate Protection Plan. The proposed Emissions Reduction
Program would minimize greenhouse gas emission increases
associated with the proposed development program. However,
the proposed Emissions Reduction Program would not be
sufficient to further the goals of the City's Climate Protection
Plan.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
s
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
potential additional reductions were not included in the SUMC Project's
DPM estimates that were the basis of the Health Risk Assessment.
However, it is not likely that the additional reductions in SUMC Project
TAC emissions resulting from their implementation would reduce the
SUMC Project health risk to the point where it would not be cumulatively
considerable in the context of Palo Alto's high TAC background levels.
Thus, SUMC Project T AC emissions would remain cumulatively significant
even after the implementation of all feasible TAC reduction measures.
MlTIGATION MEASURES. The mitigation measures below, which in addition
to the proposed Emissions Reduction Program, would further minimize the
increase in greenhouse gas emissions from this project. H()wever, even
with these measures the SUMC Project would contravene the goals in the
City's Climate Protection Plan and would have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to global climate change.
CC-l.l Commission and Retro-Commission Energy Systems for New and
Existing Buildings. New construction and existing buildings
altered by construction of the SUMC Project shall undergo
commissioning of energy and HV AC systems during construction
and on an annual basis during the first five years of operation.
The commissioning process shall follow tbe standards of the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Guideline 0-2005 or the
International Performance Measurement and Verification
Protocol (MVP) . This process would ensure tbat new and
existing energy systems would perform interactively according to
constmction documents, the SUMC Project design intent and the
owner's operational needs.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummalY
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
S-51
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-52
_~_I ______ ,~-.-,,"---------c~.~'"--~~-~~-----~"~~~' '~_~~~~
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
CC-l.2 Participate in Palo Alto Green Energy PrograJ7j, Other
Equivalent Renewable Energy Program, or combi1lation thereof
Under the Palo Alto Green program, residential, business and
industrial customers purchase renewable energy equivalent to
their electricity needs at an additional cost of 1.5 cents per kWh
above standard electric rates. The SHC and LPCH facilities
shall participate in this program to offset electricity emissIons;
develop new renewable generation sources in collaboration with
the CPAU; incorporate a renewable energy source (such as
photovoltaics) into the SUMC Project, or a combination thereof,
such that a minimum of 54,640 MWh of electricity usage is
offset annually.
CC-l.3 Provide Annual Greenhouse Gas Reporting. The SHC and LPCH
shall perform an annual inventory of greenhouse gas emissions
associated with hospital and medical facilities on the SUMC
Sites. This inventory shall be performed according to a common
industry-standard emissions reporting protocol, such ,-as the
approaches recommended by California Air Resources Board,
The Climate Action Registry, or Business Council for
Sustainable Development (BCSD). This inventory shall be shared
with the City of Palo Alto to facilitate the development of future
collaborative Emissions Reduction Programs. Emissions
associated with energy, water, solid waste, transportation,
employee commute and other major sources shall be reported in
this inventory.
CC-l.4 Prepare Waste Reduction Audit. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall perform a waste reduction audit of waste management'
practices at the hospitals prior to construction of new facilities
and after completion of the SUMC Project to determine post
project diversions. This audit shall be repeated annually, and
S=Significant S U = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summmy
Table S-4
SUl\<IC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
..•. L.
hnpact
Significance
With
Impacts
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation
CC-2 Emit Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The
proposed Emissions Reduction Program would minimize the
greenhouse gas emission increases associated with the
proposed development progranl, although the proposed
Emissions Reduction Program would not reduce emissions to
30 percent below business as usual (BAU) emissions.
Therefore the SUMC project would have a cumulative
considerable contribution to global climate change.
S
N! = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
with the results being made available to the public or to City of
Palo Alto staff.
CC-I.5 Implement Construction Period Emission Reduction Measures.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the SUMC Project
sponsors shall incorporate the following measures into the
construction phasing plan and submit to City Planning for
approval.
• Use alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction
vehicles/ equipment of at least 15 percent of the fleet:
• Use local building materials of at least 10 percent; and
• Recycle at least 50 percent of construction or demolition
materials.
MITIGATION MEAS1JRE. Mitigation Measures CC-l.l through CC-1.5, and
TR-2.3 would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, to further
reduce impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, the City shall consider
the feasibility of Mitigation Measure PH -3.1.
However, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures,
the anticipated emissions would remain above both the City of Palo Alto's
Climate Protection Plan and the CARB' s reduction emission goals of 30
percent below BAU emissions. Because these reduction levels cannot be
achieved, the SUMC Project would emit significant amounts of greenhouse
gases and would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to global
climate cbange.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
StaJ1ford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummalY
SU
S-53
l~_._". __ ._,,~~~~.~~~~._ ..• _,,_.~. '"~~"" __ ~~~
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
NO-I. Construction Noise. Construction of the SUMC
Project would create a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels on the SUMC Sites compared to existing
ambient noise levels. The noise increase would be a
significant impact to the sensitive uses (i.e., patients) on the
Main SUMC Site during const~ction.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-54
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURE. The following lDltlgation measures would not
reduce construction noise impacts to on-site sensitive receptors to less-than
significant levels, although they would lessen construction-related noise.
NO-I. 1 Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Construction
Noise. The SUMC Project sponsors shall incorporate the
following practices into the construction documents to be
implemented by the SUMC Project contractor:
a. Provide enclosures such as heavy-duty mufflers for stationary
equipment,' shrouding or shielding for impact tools, and.
barriers around particularly noisy operations on the site.
b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible,
particularly air compressors.
c. Provide sound-control 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 receptors.
e. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
f. Require applicable construction-related vehicles and
equipment 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. The telephone number of the noise disturbance
coordinator shall 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=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
lVlitigation
SU
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
NO-2. Construction Vibration. Construction of tbe SUMC
Project would have less-tban-significant vibration impacts.
NO-3. Operational Noise Impacts from Transportation
Sources. Increased traffic and helicopter noise levels due to
implementation of the SUMC Project would be less than
significant. However, noise from ambulances due to
implementation of the SUMC Project would increase along
Sand Hill Road west of El Camino Real, and would increase
roadside noise levels by an amount considered unacceptable
under the policies of the City Comprehensive Plan.
NO-4. Operational Stationary Source Noise Impacts.
Operational stationary source noise generated by the SUMC
Project could potentially increase ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the SUMC Sites and result in a significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. No mitigation measure (short of forbidding
ambulance access to the new emergency room via tbe Durand Way access
route; a measure that may be practically impossible given the emergency
nature of ambulance activity) would prevent or reduce the identified SUMC
Project-related ambulance noise impact at the noise-sensitive uses along
Sand Hill Road. As such, the impact would be,~ignificant unavoidable
impact.
MmGATION MEASURE. The following mitigation measure would reduce
noise impacts to sensitive receptors from HV AC equipment and emergency
generators proposed for SUMC Project. Implementation of this measure
would reduce the SUMC Project's noise impacts at 1100 Welch Road.
NO-4.1 Shield or Enclose HVAC Equipment and Emergency Generators.
Noise levels from mechanical equipment shall be minimized to
the degree required by the City Noise Ordinance by proper siting
and selection of such equipment and through installation of
sufficient acoustical shielding or noise emission controls. Noise
levels for the emergency generators near Welch Road shall be
reduced such that noise levels do not exceed the City's General
Daytime Exception standard of 70 dBA at 25 feet. An acoustical
analysis shall be prepared by a qualified professional to ensure
that the new mechanical equipment is in compliance with noise
standards of the Noise Ordinarice.
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stat~ford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
SU
LTS
S-55
L ____ .~ __ ~.~~~~ ,~~~~"~~. ~~~~.-.~~~
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.
NO-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-than
significant cumulative noise impacts.
NO-8. Cumulative Operational Stationary Source Noise
Impacts. Cumulative development would not result in a
significant increase in cumulative noise levels from operational
stationary sources at sensitive receptors.
CR-l. Impacts on Historical Resources. The SUMC Project
would have a significant impact on historical resources.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
LTS
LTS
LTS
s
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-56
Mitigation Measures
MmGATION MEASURE. Although measures under Mitigation Measure
NO-I.I 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.
None required.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures
CR-l.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-than
significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1.2 through
CR-1.4 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
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
N/A
N/A
N/A
SU
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EiR -SummGlY
,. l, -"'~_~~"'~~"_~". __ ''"''" __ ~'~''''~~_ ~. ~~,~_~ .. ~ .. ___ ~.~_
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CR-1.5 requires implementation of the Stanford
Hoover Pavilion Protection Documents (Documents) prepared by ARG and
dated September 21, 2009 (see Appendix J). These Documents provide
specifications for the treatment and protection of the Hoover Pavilion
during SUMC Project construction activities that could damage the historic
fabric of the building including the installation of protective covering of
certain exterior surfaces and the removal, cataloging, and storage of
selective historic elements. The Documents are based on National Park
Service and National Fire Protection Agency protection guidelines and
include details on materials and methods of installation for the protective
coverings to prevent damage from nearby demolition. Proper installation,
as required in the Documents would prevent the protective covering itself
from damage the building. The removal of historic elements would ensure
their. protection of some of the more fragile elements from construction
activities and property cataloging and storage of such elements would
ensure their proper care and reinstallation. The Documents include such
details as specifying under what weather conditions it is acceptable to
perform the various tasks that 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, Stanford Hoover Pavilion
Protection Documents, for a complete list of specifications for the Hoover
Pavilion.
CR-[l Manually Demolish Structures at the Hoover Pavilion Site.
Where feasible, the project sponsors shall establish a perinleter
of construction fencing around the Hoover Pavilion at a
minimum of 25 feet to establish a protective buffer around the
building. The demolition of these sheds and storage facilities
shall be accomplished manually without the use of vibration
causing equipment. Additional protective fencing at a height
sufficient to prevent any debris from hitting the building shall
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
StaJ;ford University Medical Center Facilities Renel""ai and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-57
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-58
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
also be installed between the Hoover Pavilion and demolition
activities occurring within the 25 foot buffer.
CR-l.2 Prepare RABS Documentation for the Stone Building Complex.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare HABS-like
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, Alway, and Grant). HABS-like
recordation shall not be required until each of the individual
buildings is vacated and prepared for demolition. The
documentation shall include written and photographic
documentation of each of the historic structures within the Stone
Building complex. The documentation shall be prepared by a
qualified professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History or
History.
The documentation shaH be prepared based on the National Park
Services' HABS standards and include, at a minimum, the
following:
• Site-specific history and appropriate contextual information
regarding the Stone Building complex. This history shall
focus on the reasons for the buildings' significance: heart
transplantation program and the role of B.D. Stone in the
design of the complex.
• Accurate mapping of all buildings that are included in the
Stone Building complex, scaled to indicate size and
proportion of the buildings to surrounding buildings; if
existing plans accurately reflect these relationships these may
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
__ I. ___ .. __ ~._,,~~~~ .. ,,~"" ______ .. _~.~~_~~~_~._~~~.~
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
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 expansion policy and
have a permanency rating of approximately 115 years.
Digital photographs will be taken as uncompressed . TIF file
format. The size of each image shall be 1600x1200 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-I.3 Distribute Written and Photographic Docwnentation to Agencies.
The written and photographic documentation of historic
resources shall be disseminated on archival-quality paper to
Stanford University, the Northwest Information Center, and
other local repositories identified by the City of Palo Alto.
CR-I.4 Prepare Permanent Interpretive DisplayslSignagelPlaques. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall install interpretive displays within
the SUMC Sites that provide information to visitors and residents
regarding the history of the Stone Building complex. These
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stal~ford University Medical Center Facilities Renev."al and Replacement Draft EIR -SummalY
hnpact
Significance
With
lVlitigation
S-59
...... -, ! .',,, ~.~-~ ......... ,.~'--~~~. ~"""""""''''''''''''-''-~-.. --'--'''''''''''--'-'-'-''''''~~.~.~-~~~.-~~--
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CR-2. Impacts on Prehistoric or Archaeological Resources.
The SUMC Project could potentially encounter archaeological
resources and result in a significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-60
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
displays shall be installed in highly visible public areas such as
the property's open space or in public areas on the interiors of
buildings. The displays shall include historical data and
photographs as well as physical remnants of architectural
elements. Interpretive displays and the signage/plaques installed
on the property shall be sufficiently durable to Withstand typical
Palo Alto weather conditions for at least five years. 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 and signage/plaques shall 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 Planning Director.
CR-l.5 Implement Protection Documents for the Hoover Pavilion. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall ensure the implementation of the
Stanford Hoover Pavilion Protection Documents (Documents)
prepared by ARG and dated September 21, 2009. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall comply with the specifications for the
treatment and protection of the Hoover Pavilion during SUMC
Project construction activities that could damage the historic
fabric of the building as provided in the Documents.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure CR-2.1 provides discovery
and evaluation procedures for any previously unknown archaeological
resources on the SUMC Sites and requires that a professional archaeologist
employ preservation in place, data recovery, or other methods that meet the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation to
reduce impacts on unique archaeological resources. Therefore,
implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure the
impact remains less than significant. (LTS)
S=Significant SU = Significant Ullavoidable
Stanford Ulliversity Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
LTS
Table S-4
SUMC 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.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
CR-2.1 Constmction Staff Training and Consultation. Prior to any
construction or earth-disturbing activities, a qualified
archaeologist shall inform construction supervisors of the
potential to encounter cultural resources. All construction
personnel shall be instructed to be observant for prehistoric and
bistoric-era artifacts, subsurface archaeological features or
deposits, including accumulations of dark, friable soil
("midden"), stone artifacts. animal bone, and sbell. In the event
that any prehistoric or historic subsurface archaeological features
or cultural deposits are discovered during construction-related
earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100
feet of the resources shall be halted and the City shall be notified.
The City shall consult with the Stanford University Archeologist
to assess the significance of the frod. If the frod is determined to
be an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource as
defroed by CEQA, then representatives of the City and the
Stanford University Archaeologist shall meet to determine the
appropriate course of action. All significant cultural materials
recovered shall be subject to" scientific analysis, professional
museum curation, and a report shall be prepared by the qualified
archaeologist according to current professional standards.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure CR-3.1 summarizes the
procedures to be taken in tbe event that any previously unknown human
remains are discovered on the SUMC Sites. Therefore, implementation of
the following mitigation measure would ensure that the potential impact
remains less than significant.
CR-3.1 Conduct Protocol and Procedures for EncoulZtering Human
Remains. If human remains (including disarticulated or cremated
remains) are discovered at any SUMe Project construction site
during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stal~ford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replact;ment Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
S-61
-Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CR-4. Impacts on Paleontological Resources. The SUMC
Project could have a significant impact on unique
paleontological resources or unique geologic resources.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NJ = Nolm;pact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-62
bnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
within 100 feet of the human remains should be halted and the
Stanford University Archaeologist. City of Palo Alto, and the
County coroner notified immediately. according to Section
5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5
of California's Health and Safety. Code. If the remains are
determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified
within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC adhered to in
the treatment and disposition of the remains. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall retain a professional archaeologist with Native
American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the
specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any;
identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may
provide professional assistance to the City of Palo Alto,
including the excavation and removal of the human remains. 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 archaeologist. The City of
Palo Alto shall verify that the mitigation is complete before the
resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of
where the remains were discovered.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure CR-4.1 provides protocol for LTS.
encountering paleontological resources and would reduce the potential
impacts resulting from disruption to unique paleontological resources to a
less-than-significant level.
CR-4.1 Conduct Protocol and Procedures for Encountering
Paleontological Resources. Should paleontological resources be
identified during SUMC Project ground-disturbing activities, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall notify the City and the Stanford
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft Em -SummalY
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts aild Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
University Archaeologist and cease operations in the vicinity
of the potential. resource until a qualified professional
paleontologist can complete the following actions 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 SUMC Project sponsors shall comply with the
paleontologist's recommendations to address any significant
adverse effects where determined 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 nature of the find, project design, cost
policies and land use assumptions, and other considerations. If
avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g. data
recovery) shall be instituted to avoid a significant impact. Work
may proceed in other parts of the SUMC Sites while mitigation
for paleontological resources is completed.
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-63
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CR-S. 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 the significance of the City'S historic
resources and thus have a significant cumulative impact. The
SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact would
be cumulatively considerable.
CR-6. Cumulative Impacts on Prehistoric andlor
Archaeological Resources and Human Remains. The SUMC
Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable
probable future development, could cause a substantial change
in the significance of prehistoric and/or archaeological
resources or human remains and thus contribute to a significant
cumulative impact. The SUMC Project is conservatively
assumed to have a considerable contribution.
CR-7. Cumulative Impacts on Paleontological Resources.
The SUMC Project, in combination with other reasonably
foreseeable probable future development where the
Pleistocene-age creek bed may occur, could have a significant
cumulative impact. Such an impact would occur if the buried
Pleistocene-age creek bed is exposed in lengths greater [han
approximately 100 feet (or a sufficient length to support
detailed hydrological 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 that 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
Without
Mitigation
S
S
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-64
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
MITIGATION MEASURES. Due to the d.emolition 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-1.2 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 MEASURES. Compliance with Mitigation Measures CR-2.1 LTS
and CR-3.1 would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to the
cumulative impact to a less than cumulatively considerable level.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Compliance with Mitigation Measure CR-4.1 LTS
would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact to
a less than cumulatively considerable level.
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal alld Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
-1--
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact on
paleontological resources could be cumulatively considerable.
BR-l. Impacts on Special-Status Plant or Wildlife Resources.
The SUMC Project could have a significant impact on special
status wildlife resources.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
s
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significanz
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures BR-l.l through BR-1.5,
below, to be implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors, would reduce the
SUMC Project's impact on special-status bats and Cooper's hawk to a less
than-significant level.
BR-l.l Conduct Pre-Demolition Sun'f?)'. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall 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 SUMC Project sponsors shall implement the following
measures to avoid impacts on roosting bats.
BR-l.2 Avoid Roosting 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 darkness,
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 shall commence before maternity colonies form
(generally before March 1) or after young are flying (generally
by July 31).
S = Significant SU= Sign(ficant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
S-65
Impacts
LVI = No Impact
S-66
__ I
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significam
Mitigation Measures
BR-l.3 Develop and Employ Bat Nest Box Plan. 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-the-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 or
pruning shall be avoided from February 1 through August 31, the
nesting period for Cooper's hawk, to the extent feasible. If no
tree removal or pruning is proposed during the nesting period, no
surveys are required.
BR-l.5 Protect Cooper's Hawk in the Event of Nest DiscovelY. If tree
removal or pruning is unavoidable during the nesting season, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct
a survey for nesting Cooper's hawk within five days prior to the
proposed start of construction. If active Cooper's hawk nests are
not present. project activities can take place as scheduled. The
qualified' biologist shall visit the site daily to search for nests
until all nesting substrates are removed. This will avoid impacts
to Cooper's hawk that may have moved into the site and initiated
nest-building after the start 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 to 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 have not fledged. A
qualified biologist shall monitor any occupied nest to determine
when the Cooper's hawk nest is no longer used.
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
lVlitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
j
..... J ..... "_.~."."._~. ~. ~.~~"." ...... ~.,~.~~~~.~~~~
Table 8-4
SUMe Project Suminary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
BR-2. Loss of Riparian or Otber Sensitive Habitats,
. Including Wetlands as Defined by Section 404 of tbe Clean
Water Act. Construction of the SUMC Project would have a
less-tban-significant impact on riparian or other sensitive
habitat resources, including wetlands.
BR-3. Interference with the Movement of Any Native
Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or with
Established Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors,
or Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites. The SUMC Project
would have no impact on 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
native wildlife nursery sites and thus result in a significant
impact.
/
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MmGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures BR-3.1 and BR-3.2, below,
would reduce the SUMC Project's impact on nesting migratory birds to a
less-than-significant level.
BR-3.1 Avoid Tree Removal During Nesting Season. Tree or shrub
removal or pruning shall be avoided from February 1 through
August 31, the bird-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 Event of Nest Discovery. If tree and shrub
removal or pruning is unavoidable during the nesting season, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct
a survey for nesting raptors and other birds witbin five days prior
to tbe proposed start of construction. If active nests are not
present, SUMC Project activities can take place as scheduled.
The qualified biologist shall visit the site daily to search for nests
until all nesting substrates are removed. These procedures would
avoid impacts to any birds that may have moved into the sites
and initiated nest-building after the start of tree and shrub
removal activities. Additionally, if more than five days elapses
between the initial nest search and the vegetation removal, it is
possible for new birds to 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 nests are detected, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall delay removal of the applicable
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
S-67
.1. . .. "_"_~~_"'~ __ """' ____ "_~~._~~,_~, __ ~, ~_
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
BR-4. Result in a Substantial Adverse Effect on any
Protected Tree as Defined by the City of Palo Alto's Tree
Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10). The
SUMC Project could have a significant impact on Protected
Trees.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-68
Mitigation Measures
tree or shrub while the nest is occupied with eggs or young who
have not fledged. A qualified biologist shall monitor any
occupied nest to determine when the nest is no longer used.
MmGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures BR-4.1 through BR-4.5,
below, to be implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors, would reduce the
SUMC Project's impact on Protected Trees. In addition, Mitigation
Measure BR-4.6 would require minor SUMC Project site plan adjustments
to avoid removal of some biologically and aesthetically significant Protected
Trees. However. the new Hospital District under the SUMC Project would
allow the removal of up to 48 Protected Trees that are protected under the
Municipal Code. In addition, minor modifications to the SUMC Project
site plans 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 unavoidable impact to Protected
Trees.
BR-4.1 Prepare a Tree Preservation Reponjor all Trees to be Retained.
An updated tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR)
prepared by a certified arbolist shall be submitted for review and
acceptance by the City Urban Forester. For reference clarity,
the tree survey shall include (list and field tag) all existing trees
within the SUMC Sites, including adjacent trees overhanging the
SUMC Sites. The approved TPR shall be implemented in full,
including mandatory inspections and monthly reporting to City
Urban Forester. The TPR shall 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 trenching, street work, lighting, irrigation, etc.)
that may affect the health of a preserved tree. The SUMC
Project shall be modified to address recommendations identified
to reduce impacts to existing ordinance-regulated trees. The
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
StO/liord University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
25
. Impacts
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
·. L
Impact
Significance
With
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation
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 Technical Manual, Section 3.00,
4.00 and 6.30.25 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 Technical Manual, Section 5.45 ~ and
Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks.
BR-4.2 Prepare a Solar Access Study (SAS) of Short and Long Tenn
Effects on Protected Oaks. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
prepare a SAS of Short and Long Term Effects on Protected
Oaks. The SAS shall be prepared by a qualified expert team
(horticulturalist, architect designer, consulting arborist) capable
of determining effects, if any, to foliage, health, disease
susceptibility 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 health/decline, 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 discussioil 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.
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 8.10.030 and the City. Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30 is available at:
http://www . cityofpaloalto. org/ environment/urban_canopy. asp.
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary S-69
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-70
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
BR-4.3 Prepare a Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan for Any Protected
Tree Proposed for Relocation and Retention. Because of
inherent mortality associated with the process of moving mature
trees, a Tree Relocation and Maintenance Plan (TRMP) shall be
prepared subject to Urban Forester's approval. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall 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 tree's ability to tolerate moving, relocation
measures, optimum needs for the new 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 shall be inclusive of the
following mmlmUill information: appropriate irrigation,
monitoring inspections, post relocation tree maintenance, and for
an annual arborist report of the condition of the relocated trees.
If a tree is disfigured, leaning with supports needed, in decline
with a dead top or dieback of more than 25 percent, the tree shall
be considered a total loss and replaced in kind and size. The
fmal annual arborist report shall serve as the basis for return of
the Tree Security Deposit (see Mitigation Measure BR-4.4,
below, for a discussion of the Tree Security Deposit).
BR-4.4 Provide a Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. The
natural tree resources on the SUMC Site include significant
Protected Trees and those that provide neighborhood screening,
including two trees proposed for relocation. Prior to building
permit submittal, the Tree Security Deposit for the total value of
the relocated trees, as referenced in the Tree Technical Manual,
Section 3.26, Security Deposits, shall be posted to the City
S=Significan/ SU= Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
._1
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures lVlitigation ,
Revenue Collections in a form acceptable by the City Attorney.
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 describing a
tree retention amount, list of trees. criteria and timeline for
return of security, and conditions as cited in the Record of Land
Use Action for the SUMC Project. The SUMC Project sponsors
and SUMC Project arborist, to be retained by the SUMC Project
sponsors, shall coordinate with the City Urban Forester to
determine the amount of bonding required to guarantee the
protection and/or replacement of the regulated trees on the site
during construction and within five years after occupancy. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall bond for 150 percent of the value
for the relocated trees, and 50 percent of the value of the
remaining trees to be protected during construction (as identified
in the revised and fmal 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 total combined value of all the trees to be
retained. A return of the guarantee shall be subject to an annual
followed by a final tree assessment report on all the relocated and
retained trees from the SUMC Project arborist, as approved by
the City Urban Forester. five years following fmal inspection for
occupancy, to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and
Community Environment Department.
BR-4.5 Provide Optimum Tree Replacement for Loss of Publicly-Owned
Trees Regulated Tree Category. There are many publicly owned
trees growing in the right-of-way along various frontages (Welch
Road, Pasteur Drive, Quarry Road, Sand Hill Road, etc.).
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities ReneM-'al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary S-71
26
Impacts
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
These trees provide an important visual and aesthetic value to the
streetscape and represent a significant investment from years of
public resources to maintain them. As mitigation to offset the
net benefits loss from removal of mature trees, and to minimize
the future years to achieve parity with visual and infrastructure
service benefits (C02 reduction, extended asphalt life, water
runoff management, etc.) currently provided by the trees, the
new public trees on all roadway frontages shall be provided with
best practices design and materials, including, but not limited to,
the following elements:
• Consistency with the City of Palo Alto Public Works
Department Street Tree Management Plan, in consultation
with Canopy, InC.26
• Provide adequate room for natural tree canopy growth and
adequate root growing volume. For large trees, a target goal
of 1,200 cubic feet of soil shall be used.
• For pedestrian and roadway areas that are to include tree
planting or adjacent to existing trees to be retained, utilize
City-approved best management practices for sustainability
products, such as permeable ADA sidewalk surfaces, Silva
Cell base support planters, engineered soil mix base, and
other advantage methods.
Canopy, Inc. is a non-profit organization that advises the City with regards to public trees. The City typically interfaces between applicants and rhe
'~Canopy, Inc., but it is recommended that the SUMC Project sponsors consult with Canopy, Inc. as well.
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Signijicam S=Signijicam SU= Signijicam UnClVoidable
S-72 StQJiford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacemem Draft EIR-SummaJY
"".1
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
BR-S. Conflict with any Applicable Habitat Conservation
Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. The SUMC
Project would have no impact on any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.
BR-6. Cumulative Impacts on Special-Status Wildlife
Resources. The SUMC Project, in combination with other
foreseeable development, would have a less-than-significant
impact on Special-Status Plant Resources.
BR-7. Cumulative Loss of Riparian or Other Sensitive
Habitats, Including Wetlands as Defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Cumulative impacts on riparian or other
sensitive habitats could be significant. However, the SUMC
Project's contribution to the cumulative impact would be less
than cumulatively considerable.
BR-S. Cumulative Interference with the Movement of Any
Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or With
Established Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors,
or Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites. Cumulative
interference with movement of resident or migratory species or
with established migratory corridors could be significant.
However, the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative
impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
NI
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
BR-4.6 Implement Minor Site Modifications to Preserve Biologically and
Aesthetically Significant Protected Trees. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall design and implement modifications to building
design, hardscape, and landscape to incorporate the below and
above ground area needed to preserve as many biologically and
aesthetically significant Protected Trees as possible.
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummalY
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-73
... _.1
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
BR-9. Cumulative Impacts on Protected Tree as defined by
the City of Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.10). Cumulative impacts on
Protected Trees would be significant. Because the SUMC
Project would result in the loss of Protected Trees, the SUMC
Project's contribution would cumulatively considerable.
GS 1. Exposure to Seismic-Related Hazards. The SUMC
Project would have a less-than-significant potential to expose
people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known
earthquake fault, strong seismic groundshaking, seismic
related ground failure (including liquefaction). landslides,
expansive· soil, or major geologic hazards that cannot be
mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and
seismic safety techniques.
GS 2. Exposure to Other Geotechnical Hazards. The SUMC
Project would have a less-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 project and
potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
GS 3. Cause Substantial Erosion or Siltation. The SUMC
Project would have a less-than-significant potential to cause
substantial erosion or siltation.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-74
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures BR-4.1 through BR-4.6
would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on
Protected Trees. However, removal of some Protected Trees, including
those identified by the City as being biologically and aesthetically
significant Protected Trees, would be unavoidable. As such, the
contribution of the SUMC Project to cumulative Protected Tree removal
would remain cumulatively considerable.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
bnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummalY
Table S-4
SUl.\<IC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
GS-4. Cumulative Exposure to Substantial Erosion or
Siltation. The SUMC Project, in combination with other
foreseeable development in the San Francisquito Creek
Watershed, would not substantially increase erosion or siltation
because of State, federal, and local runoff and erosion
prevention requirements. As a result, the cumulative impact
would be less than significant.
HW-l. Flood Risk and Flood Flows. The SUMC Project
would have no impact on flood risk or flood flows.
HW-2. Groundwater Recharge and Local Water Table. The
SUMC Project would have a less-than-significant impact on
groundwater recharge and the local groundwater table level.
HW-3. Groundwater QUality. The SUMC Project could have
a significant impact on groundwater quality during
construction.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
NI
LTS
s
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
None required.
None required.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure HW-3.1, below,would reduce
the SUMC Project's impact on groundwater quality to a less-than
significant level.
HW-3.! Develop a Work Plan for any Unknown Contaminated Sites.
During construction, if suspected contaminated soil,
undocunlented underground tanks, hazardous materials pipelines,
or other evidence of potential hazardous materials are
discovered, construction activities shall cease and the SUMC
Project sponsors shall prepare a workplan to detennine the
potential risk to human and ecological health. The workplan
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
S= Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renev.'al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
IVlitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
LTS
S-75
... I
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HW-4. Stormwater Runoff and Erosion. The SUMC Project
would have a less-than-significant impact on stonnwater runoff
and erosion.
HW-5. Flooding and Stormwater Conveyance Capacity. The
SUMC Project would have a less-than-significant impact on
flooding and storm water conveyance capacity.
HW-6. Streanlbank Instability. The SUMC Project would
have a less-than-significant impact on streambaJ:l1( instability.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Signijicam
S-76
Mitigation Measures
Substances Contingency Plan (the "National Contingency Plan"
[NCP)).
The SUMC Project sponsors, or their representative, shall be
responsible for submitting the workplan for the DTSC'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 Plan (SWP). The SSP must be submitted to the
DTSC in conjunction with the submittal of the SWP. The
objective of the SSP is to ensure protection of the investigative
team as well as the general public during sampling activities.
If risk to human or ecological health is identified, the SUMC
Project sponsors shall 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 is projected to cost less than $1,000,000) that
is consistent with the NCP.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Signijicant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HW-7. Degradation of Surface Water QUality. TIle SUMC
Project would have a less-than-significant impact on
degradation of surface water quality.
HW-S. Dam Failure Inundation. TIle SUMC Project would
have a less-than-sigl1ificant impact regarding dam failure
inundation.
HW-9. Violation of Any Water Quality Standards or Waste
Discharge Requirements (WDRs). The SUMC Project would
have a less-than-significant impact regarding water quality
standards or WDRs.
HW -10. Cumulative Groundwater Recharge and Local Water
Table. The SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably
foreseeable probable future development, would have a less
than-significant cumulative considerable impact on
groundwater recbarge and the local groundwater table.
HW-ll. Cumulative Groundwater Quality Impacts. The
SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable
probable future development, would have a less-tban
significant cumulative impact on groUlidwater qUality.
HW-12.Cumulative Stonnwater Runoff and Erosion. The
SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable
probable future development, would have a less-than
significant cumulative impact on stormwater runoff and
erosion.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Mitigation Measures
SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-77
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HW-13. Cumulative Flooding and Stormwater Conveyance.
The SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably
foreseeable probable future development, would have a less
than-significant cumulative impact on stormwater runoff and
erosion.
HW-14. Streambank Instability. The SUMC Project, in
combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future
development, would have a less-than-significant cumulative
inlpact on streambank instability.
HW-lS. Degradation of Surface Water QUality. The SUMC
Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable probable
future development, would have a less-than-significant
cumulative impact on degradation of surface water qUality.
HW-16. Dam Failure Inundation. 'The SUMC Project, in
combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future
development, would have a less-than-significant cumulative
impact regarding dam failure inundation.
HW-17. Violation of Any Water Quality Standards or Waste
Discharge Requirements (WDRs). The SUMC Project, in
combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future
development, would have a less-than-significant cumulative
impact on violation of water quality standards and WDRs.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
-LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Signijicant
S-78
Mitigation Measures
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Signijicant SU= Signijicant UlUIVoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-l. Exposure from Hazardous Materials Use, Handling,
and Disposal. The SUMC Project would not substantially
increase exposure from hazardous materials use, handling. and
disposal during operation.
HM-2. Demolition and Construction-Related Hazardous
Materials Disturbance. The SUMC Project could release
hazardous materials in existing buildings.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
s
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significara
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of the mitigation measure below
would reduce impacts from exposure to asbestos containing materials to a
less-than-significant level at the SUMC Sites by ensuring that all asbestos
containing materials are identified and removed prior to structural
modification and/or demolition.
HM-2.1 Conduct Asbestos Sun'ey at the SUMe 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, all asbestos containing materials shall be
removed and appropriately disposed of by a licensed asbestos
abatement contractor. A site health and safety plan, to ensure
worker safety, in compliance with OSHA requirements (8 CCR
5208) shall be developed by the SUMC Project sponsors and in
place prior to commencing renovation or demolition work on
portions of buildings containing asbestos.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stal~ford University Medical Center Facilities Renl!l'v'al and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
S-79
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-3. Exposure to Contaminated Soil and/or Groundwater
During Construction. The SUMC Project could expose
construction personnel and public to existing contaminated
groundwater and/or soil.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-80
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURES. With implementation of Mitigation Measure
HM-3.1 through 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-3.1 in Section 3.11,
Hydrology, would require the SUMC Project sponsors to develop a work
plan for any unknown contaminated site, wruch would further reduce the
imp,!cts to less than significant. Mitigation Measure HM-3.4 would require
specification of measures to prevent hazards from any remediation itself.
As such, these would be less-than-significant impacts from any remediation.
HM-3.1 Perfoml a Phase II ESAfor the 701 Welch Site. A Phase n ESA
shall be performed at 701 Welsh Site Building B. The Phase IT
ESA shall include sampling and analysis of soil, groundwater,
wastewater, and residues on surfaces such as laboratories
countertops, fume hoods, sinks, sumps, floors, and drain lines.
The County DEH and P AFD shall be notified by the Project
sponsors if contamination is discovered. If contamination is
discovered, the SUMC Project sponsors shall 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 shall not proceed until the site
remediation has been approved by the County DEH and
implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors. Additionally, the
Site Remediation Assessment shall be subject to review and
approval by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. All appropriate
agencies shall be notified.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
L"_ .....
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
HM-3.2 Excavate Contaminated Soil from the 703 Welch Site. For the 4-
to 9-square-foot area near every discharge point from the
building, soil samples shall be performed 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 at the Hoover Pavilion Site. A
qualified consultant, under the SUMC Project sponsors'
direction, shall undertake the following activities:
• Remove all buried underground storage tanks from the
property after sheds and storage buildings on the Hoover
Pavilion Site have been demolished;
• To the extent necessary, additional soil sampling shall be
collected to determine health risks and to develop disposal
criteria;
• If warranted based on soil sampling, a human health risk
assessment shall be prepared and implemented to detennine
potential for impacts on construction workers as well as to
develop measures to ensure it is safe ,to redevelop the
Hoover Pavilion Site within engineering controls (e.g., SVE
or vapor barriers); and
• To the extent required based upon the results of soil
sampling and the results of a health risk assessment (if
applicable), a Site Health and Safety Plan to ensure worker
safety in compliance with OSHA requirements shall be
developed by the Project sponsors, and in places prior to
commencing work on any contaminated site.
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stal\ford University Medical Center Facilities Renel",'al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-81
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-4. Hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal Resulting
in Increased Exposure Risk. The SUMC Project would not
substantially increase exposure risk related to hazardous waste
generation.
HM-5. Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous
Materials Within One-Quarter Mile of a School. The SUMC
Project would not emit or handle hazardous materials within
one-quarter mile of school.
HM-6. Construct a School OJ;l a Property that is Subject to
Hazards from Hazardous Materials Contamination, Emissions
or Accidental Release. The SUMC Project would not construct
a school that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
N1
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-82
Mitigation Measures
The SUMC Project sponsors shall cooperate with the County
DEH to proceed with closure of the Hoover Pavilion Site.
HM-3.4 Develop a Site Management Plan for the Hoover Pavilion Site.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare a site remediation
assessment that (a) specifies measures to protect workers and the
public from exposure to potential site hazards, including hazards
from . remediation itself, 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 shall not
proceed until the site remediation has been approved by the
County DEH and implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors.
Additionally, the Site Remediation Assessment shall be subject to
review and approval by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. All
appropriate agencies shall be notified.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant . SU = Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummalY
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-7. Occur on a Site Included on the Cortese List, a List of
Hazardous Materials Sites. The SUMC Project would result in
construction of facilities on a site included on the Cortese List.
HM-S. Wildland Fire Risk. The SUMC Project would not
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires.
HM-9. Occur on a Site Located Within an Airport Land Use
Plan or Within Two Miles of a Public Airport, and Result in a
Safety Hazard. The SUMC Project would not be located
within an Airport Land Use Plan or within 2 miles of a Public
Airport.
HM~lO. Impairment of Emergency Plans. The SUMC Project
could impair implementation or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI
Nl
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
MmGATION MEASURES. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HM-3.3
and HM-3.4, which involve the implementation of a soil vapor program and
development of a site management plan, would reduce the potential for
exposure to hazardous materials. at the Hoover Pavilion Site to less-than
significant levels. Additionally, compliance with current federal, State and
local regulations would help prevent any further exposure to hazardous
materials.
None required.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure HM-lO.l requires advance
coordination with the City of Palo Alto on construction routes or roadway
closures. This measure, together with Mitigation Measures TR-l.l,
TR-l.4 through TR-1.6, and TR-1.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 involve
the installation of emergency vehicle traffic signal priority (OptiCom) at all
intersections significantly impacted by the SUMC Project. Mitigation
Measure TR-9.1 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
significant level.
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renel1!al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
N/A
N/A
LTS
S-83
_" I
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM -11. Cumulative Handling, Storage. Disposal, and
Transport of Hazardous Materials. Cumulative development
would increase handling, storage, disposal, and transport
within the SUMC Sites and adjacent areas. However,
cumulative development would be subject to applicable federal,
State. and local regulations that would govern these activities.
As a result, the cumulative impact would be less than
significant.
HM-I2. Cumulative Disturbance of Hazardous Materials from
Construction. The SUMC Project and adjacent development
could result in cumulative release of hazardous materials
during construction. a significant cumulative impact. The
SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative inlpact would
be considerable.
HM-13. Cumulative Exposure to Contaminated Soil and/or
Groundwater, and from Cortese List Sites. The SUMC Project
and adjacent development could result in cumulative
disturbance of contaminated soils, release of hazardous
materials during construction, a significant cumulative inlpact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-84
Mitigation Measures
HM-IO.l Coordinate Constl1lction Activities with the City of Palo Alto.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall provide to the City planned
construction routes, roadway closures, and access and closures
schedules. This information shall be provided to the City at least
two weeks in advance of the planned access and closures. The
City shall coordinate this information among affected emergency
service providers, including the City's Fire and Police
Departments, and private ambulance services, so that alternative
routes could be planned and announced prior to the scheduled
access and closures, as deemed necessary by the City.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure HM-2.1. involving measures
to reduce exposure of persons to hazardous materials (such as asbestos),
would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to a less-than-significant
level
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation MeasUre HM-3.2, which involves
remediation of known site contalllination at the 703 Welch Road site, would
reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact to less
than considerable. Also, Mitigation Measures HM~3.1, HM-3.3, and HM-
3.4, involving investigations at other SUMC areas and preparation of the
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
.Mitigation
N/A
LTS
LTS
StaJiford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SummaJY
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 combinatiou 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 sman in comparison with
projected honsing growth in the region, and would comprise a
less-than-significant 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-Significant
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-lO.l, above, and
TR-l.l, TR-l.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 = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renev.'al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
N/A
N/A
S-85
TabJe 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 Plan 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 inlpacts
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-Significant
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 (1) the measures
would not guarantee provision of housing units 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 caDIlot 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 greenhouse gas emissions.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 is not directly required in
order to mitigate a significant environmental impact, but rather should be
considered as possible additional mitigation for Impacts A Q-2, A Q-7 ,
CC-1, 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 sucb, Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 is presented for
informational purposes, and to ensure that all possible options for
mitigation of tllese inlpacts are adequately considered.
PH-3.1 Reduce the Impacts OIL the Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio. In
order to reduce tile 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
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal alld Replacement Draft EIR -SummaJY
_ .. J~
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
PS-l. 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, which could adversely affect the physical
environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Signijiccml
Mitigation Measures
• The SUMC Project sponsors shall ensure that a specified
number of housing units in the County shall 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 housing units induced by the SUMC
Project as well as the cost of the General Fund subsidy
contribution to the existing housing impact fee; 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 housing with an emphasis on affordable housing.
None required.
S= Signijiccmt SU= Signijiccmt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Rene-wal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
hnpact
Significance
With
lVlitigation
N/A
S-87
... _ .. ~~·~~-=.·,-__ ~L...._._"""' .. ~ .• ".~~,,,,,,,,,,,,u._,.~_ .. _."""~_ ... u.L~L _......L...i4 __ '-__ ..... _ ..... ,~~· "'--_.~,-' __
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
. Impact'>
PS-2. Impacts from Police Protection Facilities. The SUMC
Project would require an increased lever of police services.
However, the increased level of police services would not be
large enough to trigger the need for construction of new
facilities, which could adversely affect the physical
environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
PS-3. Impacts Related to School Facilities. An increase in
students, which would require school e},.-pansions, would result
as a tertiary impact of the SUMC Project, since increased
employment from the SUMC Project could induce additional
housing units within the City. Both the SUMC Project and
induced housing projects would be subject to SB 50 School
Impact Fees, which would mitigate impacts to less than
significant.
PS-4. Impacts Related to Construction of New or Altered
Parks and Recreation Facilities. The SUMC Project would not
result in the construction or expansion of new parks or fields,
which would in turn result in adverse environmental inlpacts.
The SUMC Project would be required to pay a City
Community Facility Fee, which would be used to fund new
parks or an alteration to an existing park, and would mitigate
impacts to less than significant.
PS-S. Deterioration of Park and Recreation Facilities.
Increased recreational demand from SUMC Project employees
could accelerate the physical deterioration of the City's parks
and fields. The SUMC Project would be required to pay a
City Community Facility Fee, which reduce or avoid any such
deterioration, and would mitigate impacts to less than
significant.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-88
Mitigation Measures
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EJR -SUfnJ1'laJY
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 P AFD 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 have adverse
physical environmental impacts. TIris cumulative impact 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
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Signijicant
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Signijicant
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renev.'al and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Mitigation Measures
SU= Signijicant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance~
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-89
_" I
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
this cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively
considerable.
UT-l. Water Demand. The SUMC Project would result in a
less-than-significant water supply impact because it would not
result in the need for new or expanded entitlements for water
supplies, and would not require expansion or construction of
water facilities.
UT-2. Wastewater Generation. The SUMC Project would
result in a less-than-significant wastewater impact because it
would not exceed treatment requirements of the RWQCB,
would not significantly increase use of the wastewater disposal
system, and would not require expansion or construction of
wastewater collection or treatment facilities.
UT-3. Stormwater Generation. The SUMC Project would
have a less-than-significant impact related to stormwater
collection system capacity because it would not significantly
increase use of the stormwater collection system, and would
not require expansion or construction of new stormwater
facilities.
UT-4. Solid Waste Generation. The SUMC Project would
result in a less-than-significant solid waste impact because it
would be served by landfills with sufficient capacity and, thus,
would not contribute to the need to expand existing or
construct new solid waste disposal facilities.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-90
Mitigation Measures
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
hnpact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
UT-S. Energy Demand. Although the SUMC Project is an
urban infIlI project and would 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 accommodate the projected additional
demand. However, this installation is included in the SUMC
Project and no additional off-site construction relating to
electrical and natural gas facilities would occur. Therefore,
the SUMC Project would have a less-than-significant impact
related to the construction of energy facilities.
UT-6. Cumulative Water Impacts. Since the City has
sufficient water supply to accommodate water demands for
cumulative development up to 2025, new or expanded
entitlements 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 capacity to accommodate wastewater generated
by cumulative development up to 2025, implementation of
major facility and infrastructure inlprovements would not be
necessary. In addition, general replacement and maintenance
of old wastewater facilities is expected and would comply with
applicable environmental regulations. Therefore, cumulative
development would not have a significant cumulative impact
related to wastewater.
UT-8. Cumulative Stormwater Generation. Cumulative
development in the City of Palo Alto and at Stanford
University could increase the anlount of stormwater runoff.
This increased level of runoff may trigger the need for the
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S = Significant
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft E1R -Summary
Mitigation Measures
SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-91
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
replacement or maintenance of storm drain facilities.
However, general replacement and maintenance 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 related to the capacity or deterioration of storm drain
facilities.
UT-9. Cumulative Solid Waste Impacts. Cumulative
development would generate solid waste within the permitted
capacity of the SMART Station and Kirby Canyon Landfill.
Cumulative development would not result in substantial
deterioration of solid waste facilities. As such, cumulative
impacts related to solid waste generation would be less than
significant.
UT-lO. Cumulative Energy Demand. Cumulative
development in the City of Palo Alto would consume
additional energy and, therefore, would increase the demand
for energy. The City' s electrical and natural gas facilities are
projected to have adequate capacity to serve the City's
increased demand for energy. The increased level of energy
demand may trigger the need for the replacement or
maintenance of energy facilities. However, general
replacement and maintenance of energy facilities is expected
and would comply with applicable environmental regulations.
Therefore, cumulative development would not have a
significant cumulative impact related to energy demand and
energy facilities.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = l_ess-than-Signijicant
S-92
Mitigation Measures
None required.
None required.
S=Signijicant SU~ Signijicant Unavoidable
~---
hnpact
Significance
With
:Mitigation
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -SummalY