HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 279-10TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
JULY 12, 2010
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 279:10
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
Transportation, Climate Change and Air Quality chapters.
Attached is the City Manager Report (CMR) for the Stanford University Medical Center
Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). This
meeting is the third opportunity for the City Council to provide comments on the DEIR. The
City Council previously held public hearings to accept DEIR comments on June 7 and June 14,
2010. This item was previously sent to you in your packet of June 30th. Hardcopies are
available at the Council Chambers, the Planning Department on the 5th Floor and can also be
viewed at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/reports/cmrs.asp
Staff will provide an overview of the Transportation, Climate Change and Air Quality Chapters
at the meeting.
This itenl was heard by the Plalming and Transportation Commission (P&TC) on June 16 and
June 24, 2010. Minutes from those meetings are attached. Although staff will provide an
overview of the chapters listed above, the City Council and members of the public may provide
comments on any topics within the DElR.
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
ATTACHMENTS
. Attachment A: CMR279:10
Attachment B: Excerpt Minutes of the P&TC meeting dated June 16,2010 (Council only)
Attachment C: Excerpt Minutes of the P&TC meeting dated June 24,2010 (Council only)
ATTACHMENT A
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: JULY 12,2010
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 279:10
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 Transportation,
Climate Change and Air Quality Chapters.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission (P &TC)
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 P&TC to accept
comments on the Draft EIR. The staffreport provides an overview of the Transportation, Climate
Change and Air Quality chapters of the Draft EIR, including the key impacts and mitigation
measures. The P &TC will hear these items on June 16 and 23, 2010. The City Council will hear this
item on July 12.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission:
1. Accept public comments on the Draft EIR; and
2. Forward comments on the Draft EIR to staff and the consultant for response in the Final EIR.
BACKGROUND
On May 20, 2010, the SUMC Project Draft EIR was published starting a 69-day public review
period. OnJune 16 the P&TC will hold a public hearing on the Transportation Chapter and on June
23 the P&TC will hold a public hearing on the Clinlate Change and Air Quality chapters. On July 12
the City Council will hold a public hearing on all three· chapters.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
-
f
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.orglsumc.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff will provide an overview of the following chapters at the meeting:
• Transportation (pages 3 A-I through 304-87)
• Climate Change (pages 3.6-1 through 3.6-60)
• Air Quality (pages 3.5-1 through 3.5-27)
The comments on these chapters should be focused on whether the information presented in the
Draft EIR adequately covers the environmental impacts that could result from the proposed SUMC
Project. The hearings are not meant to 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 Proj ect.
1. Transportation
Transportation impacts are addressed in Section 3 A of the Draft EIR. The chapter evaluates the
potential transportation impacts resulting from construction and operation of the SUMC Project. A
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by AECOM and is included in Appendix C of
the Draft EIR. The P&TC and City Council reviewed a draft TIA in February 2009. This TIA was
prepared for the SUMC Project and the Stanford Shopping Center Expansion Project (SSC Project).
In April 2009, Stanford withdrew the SSC Project.. Subsequently" the TIA was amended to
eliminate SSC Project. Staff also included three new study intersections, and an analysis of remote
parking lots as an alternate mitigation.
Significance Thresholds
The Study Area encomlJasses parts of the Cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto, as
well as unincorporated parts of Santa Clara County. Significance criteria for project impacts vary by
jurisdiction. For the purposes of this analysis, impacts were determined based on the criteria of the
jurisdiction in which the intersection or roadway segment is located. Additionally:
• City of Palo Alto criteria have been applied for intersections under Santa Clara County and
Stanford University control, as Palo Alto's criteria are more stringent.
• City of Menlo Park criteria have been applied for collector and minor arterial roadway
segments in Menlo Park.
• Residential roads in Palo Alto and Menlo Park identified for the study have been analyzed
using the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment Index nlethodology.
• City of East Palo Alto criteria have been applied for intersections within that jurisdiction.
A detailed list of the transportation significance criteria is included in Attachment A. Key Impacts
and Mitigations
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The following impacts have been identified as significant (8); however these impacts can be
eliminated through mitigation. The mitigation measures developed for each of the impacts are
identified below.
• TR -1: Construction Impacts (8).
• TR-I0: Cumulative construction impacts (8).
Mitigation Measures-
o TR-l.l: Provide off-street parking for construction related vehicles;
o TR-l.2: Maintain pedestrian access;
o TR-l.3: Maintain bicycle access;
o TR -1.4: Restrict construction hours;
o TR-l.5: Restrict construction truck routes;
o TR-1.6: Protect public roadways during construction;
o TR-l.7: Maintain public transit access and routes;
o TR-l.8: Prepare and implement construction impact mitigation plan;
o TR-l.9: Conduct additional measures during special events.
• TR-4: Local circulation impacts (8).
Mitigation Measures-
o TR-4.1: Fund traffic impact study;
o TR-4.2: Fund signing and striping plan and signal optimization.
• TR-6: Bicycle and pedestrian impacts (8).
Mitigation Measure-
o TR -6.1: Bicycle and l?edestrian infrastructure improvements.
• TR-7: Transit impacts (8).
Mitigation Measures-
o TR -7.1: Incorporate transit centers into site plans;
o TR-7.2: Provide expanded transit service.
• TR-9: Emergency access (8).
Mitigation Measure-
o TR-9.1: Pay fair share towards Opticom installation.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The following impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable (8U) even after
implementation of mitigation measures:
• TR-2: Intersection level of service (8U).
Mitigation Measures-
o TR-2.1: Install traffic adaptive signal technology;
o TR-2.2: Fund additional bicycle and pedestrian undercrossings;
o TR-2.3: Enhance 8tanford University travel demand management program;
City of Palo Alto Page 3
o TR-2A: Fund or implement those intersection improvements that have been
determined to be feasible;
o TR-2.5: Coordinate with other jurisdictions for potentially feasible roadway
improvements.
• TR-3: Impacts on roadway segments (SU).
Mitigation Measures-
o TR-2.2: Fund additional bicycle and pedestrian undercrossings;
o TR-2.3: Enhance Stanford University travel demand management program;
o TR-7.2: Provide expanded transit service.
Discussion
The traffic study analyzed a total of 66 intersections. A list of these intersections is provided in Table
3 A-I. The study locations were chosen to represent those intersections deemed most likely to
experience increases in traffic due to the implementation of the SUMC Project. It is important to note
that while not every intersection in the Study Area was analyzed, intersections were strategically
selected to ensure a representative and comprehensive sampling.
Analysis of the existing traffic conditions was based on existing (2007, 2008, and 2009) traffic count
data, and the future year analysis is based on traffic forecasts that were developed using the City of
Palo Alto Travel Demand Forecasting Model.
Construction Impacts
During the peak of construction, it is anticipated that there would be as many as 2,200 construction
workers at the SUMC Sites. Construction impacts would be significant, although would be limited to
the construction phase of the SUMC Project. The combined construction employment for the
expansion would average between 300 and 1,615 workers at a given time. The number of peak hour
vehicle trips for the peak of construction workers would average between 200 to 1,075 trips.
Mitigation measure TR-l.l would require the Project sponsors to designate remote parking areas for
these construction workers, with shuttles to bring them to and from SUMC Sites if adequate off
street construction parking cannot be identified.
Intersection Level of Service
Trip generation rates for the SUMC Project were determined using data collected from existing
facilities. The SUMC Project would result in 10,061 daily trips, with 766 trips in the AM peak hour
and 746 trips in the PM peak hour. The trips are then distributed and assigned to all study
intersections (Figures 304-8 and 9).
Ba~ed on the level of trips produced by the SUMC Project, and the distribution patterns of these
trips, the full buildout of the SUMC Project by 2025 would result in significant impacts at several
intersections during AM and PM Peak Hours. These intersections either operate at acceptable LOS
levels under 2025 No Project conditions, and with the addition ofproject traffic, they deteriorate to
unacceptable LOS levels; or they already operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS) and with
City of Palo Alto Page 4
the addition ofproject traffic exceed threshold levels. This information is presented in Table 3.4-17.
Without mitigation, a total of five intersections would be significantly impacted by the SUMC
Proj ect during the AM peak hour and 12 intersections in the PM peak hour.
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 the SUMC Project's impacts.
A set of five different mitigation measures were identified in the TIA. Each measure was then
prioritized. The following are the five mitigation measures, ranked according to priority:
• Priority 1 mitigation measure -
• Priority 2 mitigation measure -
• Priority 3 mitigation measure -
• Priority 4 mitigation measure -
• Priority 5 mitigation measure -
interchanges
Traffic-adaptive signal technology
Additional bicycle and pedestrian undercrossings
Enhanced TDM program
Intersection improvements
Remote employee parking lots near freeway
Stanford University currently implements a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program
for its employees. The TDM program for SUMC includes providing VTA Eco-Passes to employees.
The Eco-Pass allows unlimited travel on VTA buses and light rail vehicles. However, most SUMC
employees (77.1 percent) continue to drive alone to work, whereas only 54.4 percent of the rest of
the larger University's employees drive alone to work. There is thus a difference in commuting
patterns between SUMC employees and employees in the rest of the University. Priority 3 requires
the SUMC Project sponsors to enhance the current TDM program, with the intent to increase the
percentage ofSUMC employees who commute by Caltrain. This increased use of Cal train would be
achieved by purchasing Caltrain GO Passes or an equivalent TDM measure for SUMC employees,
following the example set by Stanford University where 15.8 percent of its employees use Caltrain.
The Priority 5 nlitigation measure (Remote employee parking lots near freeway interchanges) was
analyzed as an alternative to the Priority 3 mitigation measure. Both are aimed at reducing traffic
impacts of longer distance commuters. Priority 5 was developed as an alternative to Priority 3, and is
not specifically included in the mitigation analysis. The discussion and analysis of the Priority 5
mitigation measure is contained in the appendices of the Draft EIR.
The Priority 1 mitigation measure was analyzed first to determine to what extent it ameliorated the
SlTMC Project's impacts by itself. The Priority 1 mitigation measure was then combined with other
lower priority mitigation measures to determine the combined impact reduction. The following
combinations of mitigation measures are analyzed in the Draft EIR:
• Priority 1 + Priority 2
• Priority 1 + Priority 2 + Priority 3
• Priority 1 + Priority 2 + Priority 3 + Priority 4
City of Palo Alto PageS
Table 3.4-19
Summary of Mitigation of Intersection Impacts
Combination of
Mitigation
Measures
PI
PI +P2
PI + P2 + P3
PI + P2 + P3 + P4
# of Remaining AM
Peak Hour
Intersections Impacted
4
3
0
0
Source: AECOM Transportation, 2010.
Note: SU = Significant and Unavoidable
# of Remaining PM
Peak Hour
Intersections Significance Level with
Impacted Mitigation
9 SU
9 SU
4 SU
3 SU
Implementing Priority 1 - 4 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.
Impacts on Roadway Segments
The TIRE Index analysis methodology was used to evaluate the traffic impacts of the SUMC
Project on residential roadways in 2025.TIRE is a numerical representation of a resident's
perception of the effect of street traffic on activities such as walking, cycling, and children
playing, as well as on the ability to maneuver an autonl0bile in and out of residential driveways.
According to TIRE, a given change in traffic volume would cause a greater impact to a
residential environment on a relatively quiet residential street with a low pre-existing (before
implementation of the SUMC Project) traffic volume than it would on a street with a higher pre
existing volume. An increase in the index of 0.10 is approximately equivalent to an increase in
average daily traffic (ADT)ofbetween 20 and 30 percent.
The SUMC Project would not have a significant impact on any residential roadway segments in
2025. For roadway segments in Menlo Park, an ADT analysis was conducted that involved
estimating the net increase in traffic volumes that would result from implementation of the
SUMC Project. With mitigation, there would still be, sIgnificant and unavoidable impacts on four
Menlo Park roadways, as shown in Table 3.4-22.
Transit Impacts
Tile SUMC Project vicinity is currently served by the Marguerite shuttles that connect to the Palo
Alto and California Avenue Caltrain stations. Other transit services to the Caltrain Stations that
provide connecting service to the Marguerites include SamTrans, VTA, U-Line and Palo Alto
Shuttles.
The mitigation of the SUMC Project's transit impacts involves two measures. First, the SUMC
Project's site plan needs to be modified to include the addition of mini transit centers at two
locations within the SUMC site. Second, additional transit service needs to be provided to meet the
City of Palo Alto Page 6
proj ected increase in demand. The Marguerite, Crosstown, and Menlo Park Shuttle services and the
VT A Community Bus service would need to be expanded to meet the projected increase in demand.
In some cases, additional capacity would need to be provided, in the form of new routes, or
additional buses and higher frequencies on existing routes.
2. Climate Change
Climate Change impacts are addressed in Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR.
Significance Thresholds
For the purposes of this analysis and based on full consideration of the available information, the
SUMC Project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant climate change
impacts if it would:
• Fail to further the goals and policies established in the City's Climate Protection Plan; or
• Not reach a 30 percent reduction of2020 business as usual (BAU) emissions.
Key Impacts and Mitigations
The following impacts have been identified as significant (S); however these impacts can be
eliminated through mitigation. The mitigation measures developed for each of the impacts are
identified below.
• CC-l : Furthering goals and policies of the Palo Alto Climate Action Plan (Sr
Mitigation Measures-
o CC-l.l: Commission and retro-commission energy systems for new and existing
buildings;
o CC-l.2: Participate in Palo Alto Green Energy Program, other equivalent renewable
energy program, or combination thereof;
o CC-l.3: Provide annual greenhouse gas reporting;
o CC-1.4: Prepare waste reduction audit;
o CC-l.5: Implement construction period emission reduction measures.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The following impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable (SU) even after
implementation of mitigation measures:
• CC-2: Emit significant greenhouse gas emissions (SU).
Mitigation Measures-
o TR-2.3: Enhance Stanford University travel demand management program;
o CC-l.l: Commission and retro-commission energy systems for new and existing
buildings;
o CC-l.2: Participate in Palo Alto Green Energy Program, other equivalent renewable
energy program, or combination thereof;
o CC-l.3: Provide annual greenhouse gas reporting;
o CC-l,.4: Prepare waste reduction audit;
o CC-l.5: Implement construction period emission reduction measures;
o PH-3.1: Reduce the impacts on the jobs to employed residents ratio.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Discussion
Based on emerging developments in the area of greenhouse gas analysis, the EIR contains a separate
chapter on greenhouse gas emissions. This chapter utilizes the factors discussed in the CEQA
Guidelines which were recently amended in December 2009. For this EIR, emissions from sources
such as construction, vehicles, energy consumption, water supply wastewater treatment, and solid
waste generation are inventoried and discussed quantitatively and qualitatively.
The implications of the SUMC Project greenhouse gas emissions are analyzed qualitatively and
quantitatively. The qualitative analysis provides a comparison of the SUMC Project, including the
proposed Emissions Reduction Program, with the goals and policies in the City's Climate Protection
Plan. The quantitative analysis identifies the emissions reduction with the proposed Emissions
Reduction Program, and compares the SUMC Project greenhouse gas emissions, after
implementation of the proposed Emissions Reduction Program, with emissions that would occur
under the business as usual scenario.
Greenhouse gas emissions would be generated during operation and construction of the SUMC
Project facilities. An inventory of the net change in three key greenhouse gas emissions (C02, CH4,
and N20) that would be emitted as a result of the SUMC Project is presented in the Draft EIR. This
inventory is discussed in context of the City's greenhouse gas reduction goals, and the proposed
Emissions Reduction Program as compared to the goals and actions of the Palo Alto Climate
Protection Plan.
The proposed Emissions Reduction Program includes a number of design features and measures that
would reduce energy use, water consumption, landfilled solid waste, and trip generation. Table 3.5-6,
which discusses consistency of the SUMC Project with the City's Climate Protection Plan, indicates
which of the design features under the proposed Emissions Reduction Program are currently being
implemented and are included in the SUMC Project inventory and which would be new features that
would result in additional emissions reductions.
The inventory ofSUMC Project emissions is based upon standard construction practices and energy
use at hospital, clinic, and research facilities. The SUMC Project sponsors propose to design the new
facilities so that they would use less energy demand than under standard practices. As part of the
SUMC Project, SHC and LPCH have committed to design their new facilities such that they will use
35 percent less energy than typical hospitals (based on a comparison to the Department of Energy's
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey) and 20 percent less energy than a hospital
designed to meet ASHRAE 90.1 standards. The SoM has committed to design its new facilities such
that they will meet Stanford University's 2008 Building Performance Guidelines, which set a target
energy efficiency in new buildings of 30 percent below California Title 24 (2006
standards)/ ASHRAE 90.1.
As shown in Table 3.6-7, the proposed Emissions Reduction Program alone would be insufficient for
the SUMC Project to further the goals and policies established in the City's Climate Protection Plan.
The proposed mitigation measures, in addition to the proposed Emissions Reduction Program,
would further minimize the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from this project, but would not
City of Palo Alto Page 8
reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The SUMC Project' contribution to global clinlate
change would be cumulatively considerable due to the SUMC Project's interference with the City's
attempt to achieve the overall goals set forth in the City's Climate Protection Plan.
3. Air Quality
Air Quality impacts are addressed in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR. The EIR evaluates the potential
impacts on air quality resulting from construction and operation of the proposed SUMC Project.
Significance Thresholds
Based on significance thresholds as recommended in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1999) and
adopted by the City of Palo Alto, the SUMC Project would result in a significant air quality impact if
it would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2000 Clean Air Plan, the 2001 Ozone
Attainment Plan, or the 2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy or violate an ambient air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation as
demonstrated by the following:
1. Direct and/or indirect operational emissions that exceed the BAAQMD criteria air
pollutants of 80 pounds per day or 15 tons per year for NO x , ROG, and PMlO; and
2. CO concentrations exceeding the Stat~ AAQS of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged
over 8 hours or 20 ppm for 1 hour.(as demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which
would be performed when a) project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100
tons per year; or b) project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links
operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E, or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E,
or F; or c) project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10 percent or
more).
• Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
• Expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of Toxic Air
Contaminants (TAC) where:
1. Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) exceeds
10 in one million; and
2. Ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index
greater than one (1) for the MEL
• Not implement all applicable construction PM lO emission control measures (recommended in
the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Table 2).
Key Impacts and Mitigations -Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The following impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable (SU) even after
implementation of mitigation measures:
• AQ-l: Construction criteria air pollutant enlissions (SU).
• AQ-6: Cumulative construction emissions (SU).
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Mitigation Measures-
o AQ-1.1: Implement recommended dust control measures;
o AQ-1.2: Implement equipment exhaust emission reduction measures.
• AQ-2: Operational criteria air pollutant emissions (SU).
• AQ-7: Cumulative operational emissions (SU).
Mitigation Measures-
o TR-2.3: Enhance Stanford University travel demand management program;
o PH-3.1: Reduce the impacts on the jobs to employed residents ratio.
• AQ-8: Cumulative construction and operational TAC emissions (SU).
Mitigation Measure-
o AQ-1.2: Implement equipment exhaust emission reduction measures.
Discussion
Construction
Construction of the SUMC Project is anticipated to occur consecutively for approximately 12 years.
Approximately 1.2 million square feet of buildings and related paved areas would be demolished.
Construction activities would include site preparation, grading, placement of infrastructure,
placement of foundations for structures, and fabrication of structures. Demolition and construction
activities would require the use of heavy trucks, excavating and grading equipment, concrete
breakers, concrete mixers, and other mobile and stationary construction equipment. Emissions
during construction would be caused by material handling, traffic on unpaved or unimproved
surfaces, demolition of structures, use of paving materials and architectural coatings, exhaust from
construction worker vehicle trips, and exhaust from diesel-powered construction equipment.
Mitigation measures would reduce dust emissions, NOx, ROG, PM lO and PM2.5. However, reductions
of NO x emissions below threshold levels during the first year of construction could not be
guaranteed, and this impact would still be considered significant and unavoidable.
Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
The estimated 10,061 trips increase in daily traffic have an overall average trip length of27.4 miles
(for SlTMC patients and employees). The increase in daily trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
under the SUMC Project was calculated by AECOM Transportation based on the commuting
patterns of existing employees and patients. Construction worker VMT was not calculated due to the
uncertainty of commuting distances. The SUMC Project's VMT would be 275,837 daily vehicle
miles. The VMT calculations assume that 60 percent of the daily trips are made by patients and 40
percent made by employees. Using employee and patient origin data (zip codes) provided in the
project application, distances from these origins to the SUMC Site were estimated and the average
trip length determined. The URBEMIS 2007 model was used to calculate the emissions associated
with increased trips and VMT to and from the SUMC Project.
The SUMC Project would generate criteria pollutant emissions from on-site combustion of natural
gas for space and water heating and of other fuels by building and grounds maintenance equipment.
Other such emissions would result from increased demands of the SUMC Project on the boilers and
City of Palo Alto Page 10
chillers at Stanford's Central Energy Facility (CEF) and from the periodic testing of the emergency
generators.
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 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 VMT by 13.5 percent. While lessening the impact, this would
not reduce emissions from exceeding the significant thresholds and would be significant and
unavoidable.
Cumulative Construction and Operational TAC Emissions
The health risks from both the SUMC Project's construction and operational sources were found to
be less than the BAAQMD's TAC exposure significance threshold. However, the SUMC Sites are
adjacent to a BAAQMD-identified CARE "Priority Community," where the background diesel
particulate matter (DPM) cancer risk is likely substantially greater than the Bay Area average 500 to
700 in a million. Although reduction in DPM from diesel engines has been given priority by federal,
State, and local agencies, and regulations are in place to bring about substantial reduction ofDPM
from diesel engines over time, there is still no regional modeling study that predicts when
remediation can be expected of the Bay Area's elevated DPM health risk identified in the CARE
studies. Furthermore, the SUMC Project is the largest project compared to the list of cumulative
projects expected to be dev~loped in the City of Palo Alto. Consequently, SUMC Project TAC
emissions is considered cumulatively considerable even though the health risk they pose to the local
population is relatively small (i.e., lOin a million) in comparison to the background TAC risk (i.e.,
greater than 700 in a million) that affects Palo Alto and environs.
NEXT STEPS
TheP&TC will conduct a meeting on June 30 to review the Noise, Geology, Soils and Seismicity,
Hydrology, Hazardous Materials and Utilities chapters. The City Council will review these topics on
July 19.
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 staffwill
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 E~mment~ for action.
PREPARED BY: ~-
City of Palo Alto
STEVEN TURNER
Advance Planning Manager
Page 11
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Transnortation Significance Criteria
City of Palo Alto Page 12
. ATTACHMENT A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR
Transportation Standards of Significance
City of Palo Alto Standards of Significance. Traffic impacts would be considered significant
if the SUMC Project would:
• Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below LOS D;
• Causes a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
control delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more, and the critical VIC
ratio value to increase by 0.01 or more;
• Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from LOS E or better to LOS F;
• Cause a regional intersection already operating at LOS F to deteriorate in the average
control delay for the critical movements to increase by four seconds or more, and the
critical VIC to increase by 0.01 or more;
• Result in increased traffic volumes at an unsignalized intersection, and meet traffic signal
warrants;
• Cause queuing impacts based on a comparison of the demand queue length and the
available queue storage capacity for intersections and access points in the immediate
vicinity of the proj ect;
• Cause a freeway segment (for each direction of traffic) to operate at LOS F, or contribute
traffic in excess of 1 percent of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating
at LOS F;
• Result in increased traffic related hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists as a result of
increased congestion;
• Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of a significant increase in ridership;
• Result in inadequate on-site parking supply;
• Create an operational safety hazard;
• Resultjn inadequate emergency access; or
• Cause any change in traffic that would increase the TIRE index by 0.1 or more on a local
or collector residential street.
City of Menlo Park Standards of Significance. The City of Menlo Park considers a proj ect to
have a significant impact if it would:
• Cause an intersection on a collector street to operate at LOS D or below or have an
increase of 23 seconds or greater in average vehicle delay, whichever comes first;
• Cause an intersection on an arterial street or a local approaches to a State controlled
signalized intersection to operate at LOS E or below or have an increase of 23 seconds or
greater in average delay, whichever comes first;
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR
Transportation Standards of Significance
• Cause an increase of more than 0.8 seconds of average delay to vehiCles on all critical
movements for intersection on collector streets operating at LOS D or below or LOS E or
below for arterial streets;
• Cause an increase of 0.8 seconds or more of delay to vehicles on any critical movement
for intersections on local approaches to State controlled signalized intersections operating
at LOS E or below;
• Cause the following impacts on minor arterial streets. If the existing ADT is:
1. greater than 18,000 (90 percent of capacity), and there is a net increase of 100
trips or more in ADT due to project traffic;
2. the ADT is greater than 10,000 (50 percent of capacity) but less than 18,000, and
the project traffic increases the ADT by 12.5 percent or the ADT becomes 18,000
or more;
3. the ADT is less than 10,000, and the project traffic increases the ADT by 25
percent;
• Cause the following impacts on collector streets. If the existing ADT is:
1. greater than 9,000 (90 percent of capacity), and there is a net increase of 50 trips
or more in ADT due to project traffic;
2. the ADT is greater than 5,000 (50 percent of capacity) but less than 9,000 and the
project traffic increases the ADT by 12.5 percent or the ADT becomes 9,000 or
more;
3. the ADT is less than 5,000 and the project traffic increases the ADT by 25
percent;
• Cause the following impacts on local streets. If the existing ADT is:
1. greater than 1,350 (90 percent of capacity), and there is a net increase of 25 trips
or more in ADT due to project traffic;
2. the ADT is greater than 750 (50 percent of capacity) but less than 1,350, and the
project traffic increases the ADT by 12.5 percent or the ADT becomes 1,350; or
3. the ADT is less than 750 and the project traffic increases the ADT by 25 percent.
City of East Palo Alto Standards of Significance. The City of East Palo Alto considers a
project to have a significant impact if it would:
• Cause an intersection's operation to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS D or
better) under background conditions to an unacceptable level (LOS E or LOS F);
• Exacerbate unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) at a signalized intersection by
increasing the critical delay by more than four seconds and increasing the VIC ratio by
0.01 or more; or
• Exacerbate the VIC ratio by 0.01 or more at a signalized intersection observed to operate
at unacceptable operations, even if the calculated level of service is acceptable.
ATTACHMENT B
1 Planning and Transpo(tation Commission
2 Verbatim Minutes
3 June 16,2010
4
5 DRAFT EXCERPT
6
7 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project: Stanford
8 University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project-Meeting to accept
9 comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Stanford University
10 Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project, including an overview of the
11 Transpoliation chapter of the Draft EIR.
12
13 Chair Garber: This is item number two, Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal
14 and Replacement Project. For those that have just assembled, Vice-Chair Tuma has recused
15 himself and is not joining us. Our Vice-Chair this evening is Commissioner Keller. We have the
16 next in our review sessions of the Stanford DEIR this evening is on the Transportation Chapter.
17 Would Staff like to make a presentation?
18
19 Mr. Steven Turner. Advance Planning Manager: I would thank you Chair Garber and
20 Commissioners. I am Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager for the City of Palo Alto and
21 Project Manager for the Stanford University Medical Center Projects. We are here for a meeting
22 focusing on the Transportation Chapter of the Draft EIR.
23
24 Just a quick summary of where we are at in the process. The EIR was released for a 69-day
25 public review period on May 20 and that public review period ends on July 27. We are breaking
26 the review of the Draft EIR down to smaller chunks so tonight's discussion is focusing on the
27 Transportation Chapter of the EIR, however we will accept comments on any chapter of the EIR
28 the Commissioners might want to comment on, and certainly members of the public if they
29 would like to speak any chapter they are more than welcome to do so.
30
31 The purpose of tonight's meeting is to collect comments and questions on the Draft EIR. It is
32 not intended to discuss or debate the merits of the project. Certainly we want to hear your
33 comments and questions tonight. We will also accept written comments in the form of a letter or
34 an email. If you have very detailed comments on the Transportation Chapter certainly send those
35· to me. My contact information is in the Staff Report. Perhaps just focus on your larger items for
36 this evening.
37
38 All the comments and questions that we receive at tonight's meeting will be addressed in the
39 Final EIR. So what we will do is collect your comments and questions and then respond to each
40 of them as part of the EIR process.
41
42 .A little bit about the format of tonight's meeting. After my concluding remarks I will hand it to
43 PBS&J who will introduce AE COM, the City's consultants on the Transportation Impact
44 Analysis. Then Staffwill provide a very brief overview of the traffic model and some of the
45 adjustments that we made to afford this project. Then we will give it over to the project
46 applicant who has an approximately I5-minute presentation tonight. Then we will hand it back
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
,27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
to the Planning and Transportation Commission for questions and comments. So with that I will
hand it to PBS&J.
Mr. Rod Jeung, PBS&J: Thank you Steve. My name is Rod Jeung with PBS&J. I am here with
Trixie Martelino ofPBS&J. It is good to be here and see all of you. As Steven mentioned,
tonight's presentation and discussions will be on Transportation. There is an old adage in real
estate about location,'location, location. Well, when we do Environmental Impact Reports and
we do development projects it is always about transportation, transportation, transportation.
In places like Santa Clara County where forthe larger projects a Transportation Impact Analysis
is prepared. In this case we were fortunate to work with AE COM, represented by Dennis
Struecker. They prepared the Transportation Impact Analysis and we summarized that
information for its inclusion in the Environmental Impact Report.
Just a few key overview points regarding that before I trim it over to Dennis. The first is that the
Transportation Impact Analysis really does try to cover all the different modes of transportation.
So we do talk about traffic. We do talk about transit. We do talk about pedestrian and bicycle
access.
The impacts that are identified in the Environmental Impact Report are a comparison of the no
build conditions in the year 2025 against the 2025 conditions with the project. So the delta is
projected out to year 2025, and the difference between the no project versus the project
conditions represents the impacts. It is important because a lot of the other topics tend to look at
the impacts as it relates to existing conditions. It is important to also understand that the future
forecasts are based on the City's traffic demand model. So all the analysis that Dennis and
Nicole have been doing rely on the City's data sources and existing conditions. So without
further ado I think you all know Dennis pretty well, Dennis Struecker.
Mr. Dennis Struecker, AE COM: Tharlk you Rod. So we have a little slideshow here to go
through. Steven kind of touched on this Purposes Overview of the Transportation Analysis,
discussed the mitigation measures that have been proposed and ~he Commission and public
input.
The study area is pretty extensive with 66 intersections, six freeway segments, three on 101 and
three on 280, eight residential roadway segments in Palo Alto and Menlo Park, and then the
Menlo Park analysis required an additional roadway corridor analysis. So there are eight
roadway segments that required analysis in Menlo Park. Analysis year 2025 coincides roughly
with the completion of the project and it is also consistent with the City's travel demand model.
'I
The scenarios we looked at, we looked at existing conditions, and traffic counts were collected
from 2006 to 2009. In the Traffic Report although no in the EIR, but in the Traffic Report there
is an existing with project analysis provided for information, and in the future no project
conditions in 2025 and the future with project conditions in 2025.
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The idea of traffic, 10,000 new daily trips and in the 650 range of AM and PM peak hour trips.
The existing traffic is around 1,700 AM and PM peak hour trips from existing traffic for the
~ospital to give you an idea where the growth is.
Here are the 66 study area intersections. As you can see they blanket Palo Alto' pretty well and
extend considerably into Menlo Park and a few key intersections in Palo Alto. Here are the eight
residential streets that were analyzed in Palo Alto and in Menlo Park. There are the freeway
segments on 101 and 280. Here are those other roadway corridors that were required to be
analyzed based on the criteria of Menlo Park.
The 2025 no build plus the project in the AM we have identified five intersections that would be
significantly affected by the project. They are shown there in the circles. They are El Camino,
Page Mill, Galvez, Arboretum, Palm, University, the northbound off ramps of Alpine, and Sand
Hill, Santa Cruz. The 12 intersections affected in the PM peak hour are shown there again, a lot
of the same intersections, and as you see we get up onto Bayfront Expressway with a couple of
impacts and a couple of impacts in Menlo Park.
Other transportation impacts. The freeways were assessed and based on the CNA criteria there
were no freeway impacts. There were no residential street impacts but there were some impacts
based on Menlo Park criteria to those roadways that we looked at there. Transit service, it says
delayed by intersection congestion, actually the EIR identified the transit impacts based on
increased transit volumes. Delay to enlergency vehicles, pedestrian, and bicycle movements
affected by traffic, and construction impacts were access of workers, access of materials, and
effects on traffic lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks.
Mitigation measures we looked at for the roadways, physical improvements. Many of the
physical improvements were identified to be infeasible because of lack of right-of-way and they
also conflicted with the general plan policies of the City. Intersection delays and inefficiency
can be dominated by what is called traffic adaptive signal technology, and the un-signalized
intersections are generally mitigated through signalization.
There were also trip reduction mitigation strategies, smart planning, build housing around it
close to the project, we looked at some remote parking lots to intercept the trips before they got
into the area, Transportation Demand Management programs, and improved pedestrian and
bicycle connections.
/'
Alternative modes. Transportation can be mitigated by increasing service and expanding service,
bicycle and pedestrian improvements and safety enhancements. Emergency vehicle access can
be improved by installing signal overrides that are activated by the emergency vehicles. The
construction impacts are mitigated by construction access plans, remote parking lots, and
restricting access routes and access times.
Key measures of the TDM. The one that gets the most red)lction in impacts is providing Go Pass
to not only the new employees but the existing employees.! That is really where you not only are
dealing with the proj ect trips but you are dealing with trips that are on the road today. An onsite
TDM coordinator, guaranteed ride home for those people that have an unexpected emergency
Page 3
1 during the day, and shower and bicycle storage facilities to encourage cycling. The program
2 needs to be monitored to make sure that the desired most is achieved and expand the zip car
3 programs.
4
5 So we should have a slide in here that talks about the priorities but let nle talk about them or list
6 them here. Priority 1 is the traffic adaptive signal technology, so that is what we applied first.
7 You can see what reduction in impact we achieve through that Priority 1. Priority 2 is new
8 pedestrian and bicycle undercrossings near Everett in Palo Alto and near Middle in Menlo Park.
9 Priority 3 is TDM measures, and then Priority 4 is roadway improvements. So by implementing
10 Priority 1, the traffic adaptive signal technology, there were five impacts in the AM but one of
11 them is mitigated. So now there are only four impacted intersections left. In the PM there were
12 12 but now there are nine, three are mitigated by traffic adaptive signal technology. If we add on
13 top of Priority 1, Priority 2 the new added bike undercrossings we eliminate one more AM so
14 now we are down from four to three, but the PM stays the same at nine. If we add Priority 3,
15 TDM measures, on top of the other two now we are down to zero impacts in the AM, all AM
16 impacts are mitigated, and we still have four PM impacts.
17
18 Then if we look at the intersection improvements on top of the other three measures, these are
19 the four intersections that 'on the last slide were noted as still impacted with Priority 1, 2, and 3
20 only. Middlefield -Willow improvements, we identified them in the Traffic Report in the EIR as
21 being infeasible. One we didn't think they may be possible and two they were outside our
22 jurisdiction to make the improvements. Menlo Park has come back and said that improvements
23 at Middlefield and Willow are feasible and in addition to the ones that we have suggested they
24 have suggested some other ones. So according to Menlo Park in parentheses we put 'feasible'
25 according to Menlo Park. Arboretum-Galvez was identified as a feasible mitigation in the
26 Traffic Report in the EIR. Signalization is the solution there. Bayfront-Willow in the EIR in the
27 Traffic Report we identified those as being potentially feasible but they are in the City of Menlo
28 Park. Menlo Park again said that they agree with those mitigations and they think they are
29 feasible. Finally, Bayfront-University we said that the improvements there are probably
30 infeasible but again Menlo Park came back and said they are feasible. So what this last slide
31 shows us is that by having Priority 1 mitigations, Priority 2 mitigations, and Priority 3
32 mitigations plus these four other physical roadway improvements that are then determined to be
33 feasible either for Arboretum-Galvez in the City of Palo Alto or the three that Menlo Park said
34 are feasible mitigates the project impacts. I think that is the last slide.
35
36 Mr. Turner: With that I will hand it to Gayle Likens to give comments on the model.
37
38 Ms. Gayle Likens, Management Specialist: Thank you. I will try to brief but there are quite a
39 few steps that I want to go through to update on how the model was developed.
40
41 The City developed the model in order to be able to forecast the local traffic impacts of the
42 projects and also potential mitigations,' Our original model dates from about 2003. At that time
43' it was developed and the output years for the base year, which was using the counts from 2002,
44 and 2010, and 2015. The projections stopped at 2015.
45
Page 4
1 Starting in 2007 with the development of the Stanford Proj ects the model was updated to include
2 projections through 2015 and 2025 using the approved and lmown projects and the regional land '
3 use data using the ABAG projections, also consistent with the way VTA does their model,
4 because our model needs to be consistent with the VT A model.
5
6 Then the model was run for the original projects, which were both the hospital and the Medical
7 Foundation. Because we have the actual development projects for those two projects we backed
8 out of the model the ABAG projects for the future years for the two projects. When the Stanford
9 Shopping Center project was withdrawn and we had the new project that was only the Medical
10 Center projects we needed to add back the shopping center growth projections into the
11 background conditions through 2015 and 2025, at least through 2025 because now the project
12 was horizon year 2025, so we could measure the Stanford Medical Center project against
13 background conditions that also include the shopping center growth projections. In doing that,
14 when we ran the model we found that we had to make further adjustments in the model to
15 constrain the volumes that were being produced. So we looked at gateways where we would
16 constrain the growth so that there wouldn't be more traffic coming into the city then could
17 actually get through on these gateways. There were 11 of those and I can provide a map if you
18 would like to see where the gateways were constrained. They are on our major streets, major
19 . entryways to the city. Even the constraining at the gateway points didn't solve all of the capacity
20 problems at all of the 66 intersections that were analyzed. Tltere were still the volume-to-
21 capacity ratios that were greater than 1.0 which is greater thaii the capacity of the growth to carry
22 this so further adjustments were made. All of this was done in conjunction and in consultation
23 with the VT A because whatever model changes we make we still have to be verified and
24 accepted by VT A because we use their regional model as well.
25
26 So we did look at exactly where there were some intersections that were over capacity, and since
27 it is not technically feasible to be over capacity there were ways that we could shift the traffic by
28 looking at moving some of that traffic to under-utilized freeways, or adjacent corridors. Traffic
29 would gravitate to the freeway rather than being constrained on our surface streets. Also, to use
30 a peak spreading methodology and this was all done by our traffic consultants in consultation
31 with our City Traffic Engineers. So that is basically how the model was changed. We have
32 received VTA's concurrence and actually-they encouraged us to look at making these tweaks
33 because we cannot have streets that are running at greater than their capacity.
34
35 So there is a technical memo that is included in the Appendix of the Traffic Report that discusses
36 all of this in detail. If you have any questions I will try to answer those or our Traffic
37 Engineering Consultant can respond as well. Thank you.
38
39 Chair Garber: As you start, if you would identify yourself.
40
41 Mr. Bill Philips, Senior Associate Vice President of Land. Buildings. and Real Estate. Stanford
42 University: As you have heard, the traffic section of the DEIR is usually very complicated and
43 lengthy, and complex. So I would like to just nlention a few work issues, and probably reiterate
44 a few of Dennis's about things that we saw and understood as highlights and important
45 information.
46
. Page 5
1 I think it is important in tenns of the setting, the context, we know that Palo Alto's policy is to
2 first and foremost advocate multimodal approaches to getting traffic off the streets as opposed to
3 increasing roadway capacity to accommodating that increased traffic. At Stanford and at the
4 hospitals Transportation Demand Management is one of the most important things we do, and it
5 has that importance because it is something that helps achieve environmental sustainability. It
6 allows us to work to meet the no new net trips target that we have under the General Use Pennit
7. as an alternative to widening the street. Of course, it enhances employee wellbeing.
8
9 We know and have learned over time that a robust TDM system is robust simply because it is
10 full of flexibility. It has variability.· It adapts to'the situation at hand. It responds to various
11 employees' use of alternative modes of transportation, making those things available that will
12 appeal to the individual employees. The success I think of that program is in today's modal split
13 where the University drive alone rate is now under 50 percent. The Caltrain mode split is just
14 Under 20 percent. Even for the Medical Center the drive alone mode rate is just slightly over 70
15 percent and the Caltrain mode split is almost six percent. That is very good if you compare that
16 with a number of our Research Park tenants who are very aggressive, or even with t~e City of
17 Palo Alto's mode split. Both the University of course far below and the even the Medical Center
18 are below what we see at those tenants and at the City of Palo Alto.
19
20 I think there is a bit of a leap occasionally that the SUMC employees~ the hospital employees
21 won't be able to take as much advantage ofTDM or the Go Pass because of their habits in tenns
22 of when they work, how they work, the time of day they work, and these kinds of things. What
23 we found, what Robert Eckles ofFehr & Peers found, and he did a very close study of the habits
24 s that probably 89 percent of the employment base for the hospitals working at regular times,
25 regular commute times can take advantage of something like a Go Pass or an Eco-Pass. We also
26 found to our surprise that actually more of those employees live in locations crossing Caltrain
27 than where the University itself in comparison of the 65 percent to 52 percent.
28
29 Next slide. I am not going to go through all these. This is just an example of everything that we
30 have and shows the robustness of the program, and how we try and work everything to get
31 people to do things that will take cars off the streets. Even the commuter check sales where
32 people can go and buy with before tax dollars to pay for BART passes and other bus lines,
33 SamTrans, something that moves these people off the roadway.
34
35 Next slide. I think we talked about this with Dennis's layout of the various Priorities, with the
36 last one being the feasible intersection improvements.
37
38 Next slide. We have focused on, and I think the DEIR focuses on the mode split for transit and
39 the advantages that we get out of having a Caltrain Go Pass for all the hospital employees, not
40 just for the project employees, but all hospital employees, which is the way the Go Pass works.
41 The DEIR refers to an expected increase in the transit mode split of21.1 percent, 15.8 percent of
42 that being to Caltrain as a result of the Go Pass. It talks about the Stanford Shuttle Program
43 adjusting and supporting the Go Pass connections. Also, our shuttle program is really designed
44 to work to meet the capacity demands through route and vehicle changes. Extra bus supply, new
45 routes rather than having transfers and people waiting around for additional buses because that
Page 6
1 slows down the headways and that tends to prove to be an impediment to getting people to use
2 the transit system.
3
4 What we see is with these assumptions we can eliminate over 500 peak hour trips from the 766
5 that Dennis showed you. We get down to the intersection impact removal that Dennis described.
6 Also by using a Go Pass and applying to the existing employees we are decreasing the vehicle
7 miles traveled, or VMT. So that 500 peak hour trip reduction from the 766 is what causes this 66
8 percent reduction in the project's peak hour trips.
9
10 I think Dennis went over these so I am not going to do them again. Let's see, so we don't have
11 any significant impacts on Palo Alto residential roadway segments. We know we don't have any
12 intersection impacts left after making the adjustments and doing the roadway improvements.
13 There are four roadway segments in Menlo Park on Marsh Road, Sand Hill, Willow, and Alpine
14 which still have unmitigated impacts. I would just like to draw your attention to the criterion for
15 those impacts. It is a peculiar one going in Menlo Park. It is an increase of 100 daily trips to a
16 minor arterial that carries over 18,000 daily trips. So it wouldn't take a very big project at all to
17 trigger that criterion. That is the end of my presentation. I have Robert Eckles here with me
18 tonight too. I would be happy to answer questions and I know Robert would as well. Thank
19 you.
20
21 Chair Garber: Thank you. Before we return to the Commission we will open the public hearing.
22 We have one card. If there is anyone else that would like to speak to us please fill out a card.
23 The first speaker will be Michael Griffin, and you will have three minutes.
24
25 Mr. Michael Griffin, Palo Alto: Thank you Commissioners. I do not live up in Portola Valley or
26 Woodside, or even in the safety of Sharon Heights. I live in scenic Downtown North Palo Alto,
27 which is ground zero for a lot of traffic impacts that occurred across the EI Camino in Stanford.
28 I am an advocate of priority number five, which is a satellite parking or as the DEIR calls it the
29 remote parking lots alternative to mitigation measure TR-2.3. The details of this improved
30 mitigation are found unfortunately in a CD in Appendix D. So it is a little hard to dig out for
31 citizens, but nevertheless it is there and worth reading. It is to be used in conjunction with 'the
32 Eco-Pass and the Go Pass solutions to discourage drive alone coming into Palo Alto. I do not
33 think the DEIR adequately assessed the need for offsite parking and erroneously places way too
34 much reliance on TDM measures alone for solving the enormous traffic imp~cts brought by these
35 projects.
36
37 The EIR states Stanford knows the employees home locations due to their zip code analyses that
38 then begs the question of where indeed do all these employees live? No answers are provided in
39 the DEIR that I could see. Wouldn't it be instructive to know how many employees live in areas
40 outside the sphere of Cal train? The EIR says on page 59, "Likelihood of using Caltrain is a
41 function of place of residence. Employee location data indicates 52 percent of University
42 employees on the peninsula live within a city that is served by Caltrain". So that is great. That is
43 great if you live on the peninsula. But what if you don't? What if you live over on the coast
44 side, Santa Cruz, or in the East Bay? What is the likelihood of you benefiting from the Caltrain
45 Go Pass? At that stage I am saying not very darn much.
46
Page 7
1 The TDM program being Caltrain-centric presumes we will continue to have a Caltrain in the
2 future. Recently, this has been put into some doubt. According to the press releases from the
3 agency hopefully Caltrain is too big to fail, but it would be smart to have a contingency plan,
4 would it not? We don't want to be over-reliant on the single solution and then run the risk that
5 the Caltrainsolution doesn't cut it. We for sure don't want to hear Stanford use the infamous
6 word, "We don't have any more tools in our toolkit to fix that problem." Because in fact we do
7 have tools and they are called offsite parking lots.
8
9 The EIR says if the Go Pass isn't satisfactory then the TDM scheme will be enhanced by leasing
10 75 spaces at the Ardenwood Park and Ride, and the bus service of course expanded. That is
11 obviously a step in the right direction, nevertheless why doesn't the EIR deal with the factual,
12 known number and location of East Bay employees and deal proactively with leasing more than
13 75 parking spaces? Empirical evidence suggests parking lots in ,Newark; in the area of the
14 Pacific Research Park next to the Dumbarton Bridge tollbooth is more in keeping with actual
15 East Bay commuter requirements.
16
17 Stanford has the numbers and they appear to be unused by the EIR.
18
19 Chair Garber: Mike, I apologize you are significantly over your three minutes. Can you sum
20 up?
21
22 Mr. Griffin: Okay, sorry. Well, gosh I have a few more quick ones here. I encourage the
23 construction of the two mini centers, of mini transit centers. The fair share Stanford to contribute
24 to all of this means 100 percent in my estimation. Also, and lastly, there is a trip distribution
25 map on page 48 that says the vast majority of regional traffic attempts to access the projects from
26 the east, basically existing off Highway 101 and then sifting westward through the
27 neighborhoods until finally reaching Stanford. I am suggesting this must change. We must have
28 ,the projects provide an incentive for traffic to access Stanford off280 in the west. A method for
29 doing this would be to provide offsite parking at SLAC, by expanding their existing lots off Sand
30 Hill Road, and another lot behind the berry farm at Alpine is also required to give incentive for
31 people to use park and ride lots that will then be served by Marguerite. There is more but thank
32 you for your patients.
33
34 Chair Garber: There may be an opportunity if one of the other Commissioners calls on you. Our
35 second speaker and last speaker is Robert Moss. You will have three minutes.
36
37 Mr. Bob Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you. A lot of the comments you had are things I was thinking
38, about. While Stanford has a lot of good ideas in mitigating the traffic impacts, they will only
39 work if everything falls in place. The one obvious one of course is Caltrain. They said recently
40 that they think three years is going to go out of business. I don't think that is going to happen but
41 I think it is quite likely that the frequency of trains and the service level will drop over the next
42 three to five years. That is going to make Caltrain and TDM Go Passes less viable for reducing
43 traffic.
44
45 Th~ offsite parking and then having it served by Marguerite is an excellent idea especially if you
46 have it areas where you know that the workers live. I also think as a fallback position since
Page 8
1 Stanford has been using Marguerite successfully for years you might consider running
2 Marguerite type buses to places like San Francisco, Fremont, and other areas. They have buses
3 that come from San Francisco and some other cities to Mountain View quite successfully. So
4 there is no reason why Stanford can't do the same thing with the Marguerite system, expanding it
5 from 41 to 51 buses for example is not a huge increase. Especially if Caltrain dies I think
6 something like that is going to be essential. So that ought to be on a specific list of fallback
7 positions.
8
9 Other things that people can do --Palo Alto has been very successful with having offsite parking
10 lots and serving them from the three to five miles from the city. They could have offsite parking
11 lots and they have the Marguerite go there to pick people up and drop them off. So all of those
12 are possible. There is nothing that hasn't been done before successfully. As I say, everything
13 has to be done simultaneously for this thing to have fallback positions. If we need ~hyn we can
14 just pull them out and do it. You don't have to go through the exercise of having hearings and
15 publicizing it and all that.
16
17 Well, if Caltrain did shutdown this year so we are going to expand the Marguerite. I think it is
18 possible to get the traffic mitigated but I think you are going to have to have more on the plate,
19 more options. Thank you.
20
21 Chair Garber: Thank you. We will return to Commissioners for questions and comments. I am
. 22 'going to start and Commissioner Keller is next. We will do this in five-minute bites. I apologize
23 for the door. Weare not actually allowed to close the door. It is a public meeting so we have to
24 suffer through our public.
25
26 So I think this question is actually perhaps for Gayle. What I am interested in learning is the last
27 time that the parking and transportation analysis was presented to the Commission was perhaps
28 two years ago, something like that. It was when the project included the mall. So is the
29 information that was a part of that presentation related to the Medical Center is that what we are
30 seeing here, or is this generated anew, or is that information imbedded in what we are seeing this
31 evening? Are we seeing the same information or has this been totally regenerated?
32
33 Ms. Likens: It has been regenerated. The whole model was redone and the output was redone
34 because the shopping center proj ect is no longer part of the application. If you were to go back
35 and look at that analysis I think it would be very confusing and very misleading because the
36 projects were packaged together at the time. We have changed the way we have constrained the
37 model output. It is much more aggressive then at that time. I think we did have four constraints
38 gateways at that time and they have since done more constraints and we now have 11. We have
39 moved the analysis out, as I mentioned,to sidetrack it to the freeways that are under capacity and
40 to use peak spreading to reflect what really can actually occur on the network. Some of the
41 inputs about the proj ect descriptions and all that are for the most part the same I think.
42
43 Chair Garber: The model has become much more refined over the last years.
44
Page 9
1 Ms. Likens: Much more refined and it reflects in the background conditions all of the ABAG
2 projections including what is foreseen for the shopping center area that has been removed from
3 the original model.
4
5 Chair Garber: In a very conceptual way one of the key learnings that came out of the previous
6 presentation some years ago was simply the background increase in population had a
7 significantly larger impact on the transportation outcomes than the project itself did. Does that
8 still, in a very general comment still apply in a very general way here?
9
10 Ms. Likens: I believe it does. Dennis I think did some further analysis about that. Yes, the
11 background conditions without the projects are going to show growth to 2025, and now we are
12 looking only at 2025 and not 2015 as the horizon year of the project. So I believe that is an
13 accurate statement.
14
15 Mr. Struecker: The only thing we looked at, as I noted, was existing plus project and future plus
16 project. There were quite a few more impacts in future plus project than the existing plus project
17 in the outside growth was triggering those impacts on the proj ect.
18
19 Chair Garber: That is it for me for the moment Commissioner Keller, and then Lippert.
20
21 Commissioner Keller: So first I note that the way of evaluating whether there are significance is
22 the significance criteria for whether there are impacts in Menlo Park seem to be a lot more
23 stringent than the ones in Palo Alto. With Menlo Park having criteria of adding 100 daily trips to
24 a minor arterial that carries over 18,000 daily trips that seems like a pretty low threshold. This
25 particular project basically has 15 percent of the new traffic is going to go along Embarcadero
26 Road, and there seems to be practically no impact about that. I am not sure that people living
27 along Embarcadero Road would agree that there is practically no impact. But it seems like our
28 significance thresholds are such that there is no impact detected by those significance thresholds.
29 So I think that is something to be questioned.
30
31 That is I guess why Santa Cruz Avenue north of San Hill Road, which seems pretty much like
32 Embarcadero Road in terms of being a four lane, two lanes each way, road is treated specially
33 while Embarcadero Road is essentially not considered in terms of the -it is only considered
34 because of traffic lights not because of increase in traffic load. I think that· says something about
35 our traffic significance thresholds and whether ours are really adequate to the task and whether
36 we should consider for the future importing Menlo Park's in terms of our Comprehensive Plan
37 analysis.
38
39 So although the Appendix does mention the Homer Avenue Undercrossing and the University
40 Avenue Undercrossing there is.no mention, the maps do not indicate a bicycle undercrossing.
41 The map on Figure 3.4-2, which is on page 3.4-20, does not show a Homer Avenue
42 Undercrossing so that was confusing.
43
44 So my first question is that there was a description by Mr. Struecker, who did the traffic analysis,
45 of essentially 766 AM peak hour trips and 746 new PM peak hour trips. I am wondering if you
Page 10
1 have an idea with the four mitigations that you have proposed what the new numbers would be
2 for the amount of peak hour trips in AM and PM.
3
4 Mr. Struecker: Well, the Go Pass gets rid of about 500.
5
6 Commissioner Keller: Five hundred in the morning and 500 in the afternoon?
7
8 Mr. Struecker: Right. That is both new employees and existing employees.
9
10 Commissioner Keller: So do we have the numbers of how many new peak hour AM and trips,
11 because if there is a number I don't know what it is, after mitigations P-l through P-4.
12
13 Mr. Struecker: Well, the Go Pass takes it down 500. The traffic adaptive doesn't take anything,
14 it just allows for more traffic to go through a signalized intersection. The pedestrian and bicycle
15 undercrossings get rid of three percent of local trips. So we have not exactly got what it would
16 be. Two measures would get rid of trips, the Go Pass, and the undercrossings. The traffic
17 adaptive only accommodates the volume in a more efficient manner, as well as the intersection
18 improvements do not get rid of trips they just accommodate the trips through the intersection
19 faster.
20
21 Commissioner Keller: So is it fair to say that if you add the PM and AM trips you get about
22 1,500 or 1,600 trips all told, within that range? And that this will reduce it from 1,500 trips to
23 about 500 trips morning and afternoon combined?
24
25 Mr. Struecker: Five hundred plus the undercrossing so it may be 450, somewhere in that range.
26
27 Commissioner Keller: Four hundred and fifty, so we still have a significant number of trips it is
28 basically reduced by about two-thirds of the increase.
29
30 Mr. Struecker: Yes, the slide showed 60 to 66 percent.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: Okay. I will pass it off to the next Commissioner.
33
34 Chair Garber: Comn1issioner Lippert and then Martinez.
35
36 Commissioner Lippert: A member of the public has spoken about Stanford being able to
37 quantify by zip code I guess where the people are coming from. Is that easily derivable data? Is
38 that something we could get hold of and is significant in this model?
39
40 Ms. Likens: I believe we do have all of this sorted by zip code.
41
42 Commissioner Lippert: So we do understand where people are coming from?
43
44 Mr. Struecker: It is in Appendix H. There is a table in Appendix H that lists to the hospital
45 employees and lists that city that they are from. They start with Group 1 are cities that are on the
46 peninsula where they are served by Caltrain, and the number is 65 percent.
Page 11
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. So that has all been substantiated as far as what we are looking at
3 in tenus of people being able to make use of the Go Passes.
4
5 Mr. Struecker: Correct. We only counted the people that lived in a Caltrain city as being a part
6 of the population that would take advantage of the Go Pass.
7
8 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. How would that be administered, the Go Pass? How is it
9 currently administered at Stanford?
10
11 Chair Garber: If you would please wait for the microphone.
12
13 Mr. Robert Eckles, Fehr & Peers Associates: The Parking and Transportation Services of
14 Stanford is the organization that manages the Go Pass. Basically what they do is they purchase a
15 Go Pass for every employee outside of Palo Alto. They basically buy those for every person that
16 lives outside of Palo Alto. The way the Go Pass works is you have to buy the pass for all your
17 employees whether they live in an area they could use it or not because part of the idea is that the
18 regular commuter can use it, they can also get other people interested in using it. You can use a
19 Go Pass any time of the day, any time that Caltrain is operating. So basically the Parking and
20 Transportation organization purchases the Go Pass and they work with the Joint Powers Board,
21 the JPB, of Caltrain to get those passes.
22
23 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. My understanding is in listening to I guess the presentations we
24 have had on SB 375 transportation issues that if you can get ten percent of the people to use
25 public transit that that is a significant reduction in tenus of mitigating traffic. Is that correct?
26
27 Mr. Eckles: Correct. Getting more people out of their drive alone vehicles and onto available
28 transit is a positive.
29
30 Commissioner Lippert: So already 50 percent or 48 percent, close to 50 percent?
31
32 Mr. Eckles: When you are talking about the number of users?
33
34 Commissioner Lippert: Correct.
35
36 Mr. Eckles: But those are people that are living in the city. That percentage as related to what
37 Bill what said that five percent of the employees are using Caltrain today but then you boost that
38 up with the Go Pass. So that is where you get the percentage increase. Then by applying it not
39 only to the new employees but to the existing employees that is the big growth there.
40
41 Commissioner Lippert: But in tenus of what you currently have on campus, not the hospital, on
42 campus you currently have already gotten to about 48 percent.' ,
43
44 Mr. Eckles: Yes, on campus on 48 percent drive alone, and then the Caltrain is around 19
45 percent.
46
Page 12
1 Commissioner Lippert: So you have already exceeded the threshold of ten percent. Okay. Then
2 I have a question for Dennis, I guess. When you look at the levels of service here, the level of
3 service letter grades that are given here they are not really grades. What you are talking about
4 here is describing how traffic is flowing or the density of the traffic based on, and A is not
5 passing and F is not failing, it is just talking merely about the density or how traffic is moving. If
6 you go to let's say for instance an E density that is appropriate along University Avenue because
7 you don't want people zipping down University at an A level because they would miss all the
8 shops, and they would pass the shops before they even saw it. Correct?
9
10 Mr. Struecker: Yes, you can drive faster at an: A level than you could an E. E, you are right, you
11 are pretty much right at capacity of the street. F, you are starting to breakdown.
12
13 Commissioner Lippert: So in terms of the F capacity here my understanding is that people are
14 only willing to commute a certain amount of or dedicate a certain amount of time during the day
15 to commuting. If it is going to take more than what is it, two hours, they pretty much throw up
16 their hands and find another route or another job.
17
18 Mr. Struecker: Or another time. That is where the peak spread in the model is estimating more
19 traffic. So the peak hour spreads from an hour and a half or two hours to three or four hours.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: So if we saw an F level at an intersection that has been grayed in on the
22 chart here would it ever become a self-fulfilling prophecy where people would just sort of
23 commute at another time or throw their hands up and say hey, I am going to find another way to
24 get here?
25
26 Mr. Struecker: That is why if you look at the existing conditions analysis you really don't see
27 any intersections out there that are operating greater than, or have a capacity ratio greater than
28 1.0. A couple of them maybe go 1.05 and that is because of that, yes. You just can't get through
29 and so they either go somewhere else, get ajob somewhere else, or go on flex time, change
30 routes. Traffic is really a lot like water it finds its own level.
31
32 Commissioner Lippert: Can Ijust ask one other? It is not uncommon, on the peninsula it is real
33 easy, I can get on Caltrain, I can go to Redwood City, or I can go to San Jose. In fact, my first
34 job I think I commuted to San Jose on Caltrain. But it is not uncommon for people to drive to
35 say where the Dumbarton Express, hop on the Dumbarton Express and cross, and go 'to Welch
36 Road toward the hospital.
37
38 Mr. Struecker: That expansion at Ardenwood was just completed not very long ago. My
39 understanding is it is filling up quite a bit.
40
41 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you very much.
42
. 43 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez and then Fineberg.
44
45 Commissioner Martinez: I have a follow up to Commissioner Lippert's question about the level
46 of service. My understanding isn't that in A you can drive faster and it slows faster in an F.
Page 13
1 Those conditions are really controlled more by signalization, traffic speeds, and safety rather
2 than the designation of A through F. Is that correct?
3
4 Mr. Struecker: Well, it kind of depends on what you are talking about, whether you are talking
5 about an intersection or whether you are talking about a section of freeway. The level of service
6 A for an intersection means that when your phase of the signal turns green you will get through.
7 If you have an intersection where it is operating at level of service F and your phase of the signal
8 turns green you probably won't get through on that phase. You probably will have to wait until
9 is cycles around again.
10
11 Commissioner Martinez: I travel those every day.
12
13 Mr. Struecker: On a freeway for instance a level of service A means that you can go at whatever
14 speed you want to go. If you want to go 85 you can probably go 85. If you want to change lanes
15 it would be fairly easy for you to change lanes. If you are operating on a freeway at level of
16 service F the speed is highly variable. It is from zero to 35 and back to zero. The ability to
17 change lanes is greatly restricted. So it kinds of depends on whether you are talking about an
18 open road type drive or an intersection.
19
20 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. I wanted to ask a little bit about the difference between the
21 University employees and the Medical Center employees in tenns of their Caltrain and driving
22 habits. The applicant used a little bit more populist number but I memorized the numbers in the
23 DEIR so I am going to use those, and if they are little ,bit low just bear with me. What I recall is
24 drive alone for University employees is about 56 percent, and for Medical Center employees it is
25 77 percent. Is there any reason for that difference that you discern? Is it a zip code kind of
26 thing?
27
28 Mr. Struecker: It is one of the things that the people that ride Caltrain to the University are very
29' much higher than for the hospital because they are in the Go Pass.
30
31 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. Then that relates to my next question. The Go Pass participants
32 from the University, I think the number was 15.6 percent or something likethat, and for just
33 Caltrain users from the Medical Center it is 3.6. The numbers the applicant showed here are a
34 little bit better than that.
35
36 Mr. Struecker: Yes, the numbers we are working with are numbers that were generated when the
37 Go Passes were proposed and are about three years old by now.
38
39 Commissioner Martinez: Okay.
40
41 Mr. Struecker: I did those, that same stuff on the slide and they continue to go up, which is a
42 good thing.
43
44 Commissioner Martinez: That relates to my question. In the DEIR it says that by 2025 for the
45 Medical Center by that time it will be about equal, 15.6, or ,17 or 19, whatever your current
Page 14
1 projection is. Can you explain why your confidence is that number going up for the Medical
2 Center?
3
4 Mr. Eckles: Just to clarify the data that was put into Appendix H was from 2006. That was the
5 most current data that we had at the starting of the whole process. That is where you get the 52
6 percent and 77 percent drive alones because that was what it was in 2006. We prepared the
7 memorandum and we provided information on doubling, tripling, or quadrupling of the ridership
8 going to Go Pass at the Medical Center. Ultimately I think it was the City's decision to use the
9 15.8, which was the University's level in 2006 as what they wanted to shoot as the target. So
10 again, we felt that because we see the same similar housing patterns and people living in that
11 corridor there is that potential there.
12
13 Mr. Struecker: There are slightly more hospital employees in Caltrain cities than University
14 employees. So that was another thing.
15
16 Commissioner Martinez: That sounds good but do you have a criteria for things like I live six
17 blocks from the station. If you live five miles from the station does that still kind of allow you to
18 count that?
19
20 Mr. Struecker:' We made the assumption if you live in a Caltrain city then you could be a'
21 candidate for riding Caltrain. Also, the nlitigation in the EIR also says that if 15.8 is somewhat
22 arbitrary. The University is doing it so the hospital should be able to do it, but there is a margin
23 in there that they all based the non-drive alone mode split and then they need to do other things
24 to get them to where they need to be.
25
26 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, that's good.
27
28 Chair Garber: Mr. Eckles.
29
30 Mr. Eckles: I also wanted to mention that when you are living in a Caltrain city, and in your
31 discussion earlier, if intersections start going to level of service F and it gets harder to move on
32 the freeways then even if you may be a Jittle bit farther away from the station but you can get to
33 a station and avoid some of the delay on the other facilities that is another motivation for those
34 people that are living in those areas closer to the station.
35
36 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Tanaka. Then we will do another round.
37
38 Commissioner Fineberg: A couple of meetings back we were talking about impact on housing. I
39 think it was Commissioner Keller mentioned I think it was in Appendix H that 94303 zip code
40 was being treated as East Palo Alto. Can Staff take a look again and make sure. The zip code
41 94303 is basically the eastern part of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. Can Staff make sure that
42 split zip code is being accounted for properly in all of these analytic models?
43
44 I would like to ask a quick question of Staff. Of the Stanford University employees how many
45 employees participate in the Go Pass program on an average daily basis, Monday to Friday, so
46 commute type hours?
Page 15
1
2 Mr. Turner: I think the Stanford University applicant could probably best answer.
3
4 Mr. Eckles: In tenns of the actually numbers using it today?
5
6 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes.
7
8 Mr. Eckles: Actually I don't have the University's here.
9
10 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, here is where I am with that. I would love to have a sanity
11 check. How many Stanford University employees, how many Stanford Hospital employees
12 given all of our assumptions however we define it utilizing the Go Passes? How many people
13 get on and off the trains at the Downtown train station, and does it make sense? Ifwe have
14 15,000 employees riding a train and there are only 2,000 people getting off?
15
16 Mr. Eckles: That is something that Stanford or Brody Hamilton from VT&S can give us that
17 infonnation because they do that check in tenns of when they do their employee surveys. They
18 then look at their ridership because they actually have the loadings by where they get on and
19 where they get off. So they do a validation of that.
20
21 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. My guess is there are a lot of people who get the passes who
22 may not actually use the passes. There are probably a lot of people who use them occasionally.
23 So I would love to see the analysis validated that the way we are saying the mitigation is going to
24 reduce traffic. If it turns out that people use them one-tenth of one-one hundredth of what the
25 headcount is, the actual-if 100 percent of the traffic getting off at the Downtown station is way
26 under what we are thinking the mitigation would be are we jiving? I know you can't answer that
27 tonight if you don't have the basis nUlTlbers but I think we need to do a rationality test on that
28 one.
29
30 Let me move onto some questions on the cumulative analysis on page 3.4-85. I am not sure I
31 understand how cumulative analysis is being handled for the transportation. Typically what I see
32 in other things is that it is the cumulative impact of multiple projects in adjacent areas. They
33 define the geographic context. Here we are saying that the LOS impacts under the project level
34 analysis above already accounted for cumulative growth through 2025 because growth has been
35 incorporated in the City of Palo Alto's demand forecasting model.
36
37 So if we have this model that says we h~ve a massive amount of growth from millions of
38 different things by 2025 and then we compare this to that what is triggering all that growth?
39 Where are they going? Our population is not growing that fast within Palo Alto. Stanford is the
40 largest employer. They are the largest sales tax generator, the largest retail. By every measure
41 they are they magnet, they are the bull's-eye, they are the target that everybody is heading to or
42 from. So if we have all this other cumulative growth what is it? If is other parts of Stanford then
43 why is it not part of what we see as the cumulative impacts of this project?
44
45 Chair Garber: Again, forgive me Commissioner. I don't know if we need an answer. We need
46 to record this as part of the comments.
Page 16
1
2 Commissioner Fineberg: Answer another night. Okay. Then going down further in that same
3 paragraph on page 3.4-85 it talks about the cumulative analysis applied to construction period
4 impacts. It is saying that we will mitigate those, but what about other projects like the
5 Performing Arts Center, or other St~nford development on contiguous land but outside the
6 bounds of this project? I am not sure that we are appropriately addressing the amount of growth
7 other than saying we already have it in the model, and the model is showing massive growth, but
8 it is cumulative and from someplace else. Do we need to consider the other projects on Stanford
9 land, the other projects across EI Canlino in Downtown Palo Alto, other projects that might be
10 immediately adjacent in Menlo Park outside our scope but still, or areas down in Stanford
11 Research Park? Again, just because it is outside the project area I don't think the geographic
12 context of cumulative analysis is the project bounds. So are we considering the appropriate
13 geographic context for cumulative impacts on traffic?
14
15 Then the last piece of that is something the geographic context analysis and cumulative, I am
16 sorry. The next sentence. The cumulative transit impacts are the service areas of the major
17 transit services servicing the Stanford University Medical Center sites. These areas include San
18 Mateo County and Santa Clara County. The highlight there is on the cumulative transit impacts.
19 Then two pages later, 3.4-87 on TR-11 it talks about cumulative transit impacts. It says the
20 major transit agencies providing service to the surrounding areas include Caltrain, VTA,
21 SanlTrans, and AC Transit. Well, if you look at most of those, all of them, they are having
22 serious financial problems. There is a Bay Area wide study saying that they are on a road to
23 failure. So we are using a mitigation, external agencies that may cease to exist, or at best have
24 massively limited service. So what happens ifCaltrain shuts down? What happens ifVTA
25 continues to cut service? What happens is SamTrans cuts service? AC Transit Center, how
26 much of a proportion of the ridership is on AC Transit? So our major transit mitigation is
27 agencies that are beyond the scope of this project, beyond our control, and are not economically
28 viable. So how do we handle if they fail? Is there I guess a Plan B? Then what would be
29 appropriate within the EIR, or what would be appropriate in the Development Agreement, or the
30 project conditions to handle if they fail? Ifwe lose the mitigations that depend on their financial
31 viability and continued existence. The other piece to add to that, it was up on the screen, the zip
32 cars. There was recently some news about their economic model and potential viability and
33 needing to get cash infusions. So that was another sort.oftransit mitigation that could have·
34 questionable economic viability going forward.
35
36 Chair Garber: Before we get to Commissioner Tanaka, Commissioner Keller you had some
37 quick VT A numbers and comments.
38
39 Commissioner Keller: Actually, I have the ridership numbers for 2006 overall from Caltrain. So
40 what it shows here is that in the northbound direction there are 777 people getting off in the
41 morning at the Palo Alto Downtown station. In the morning in the southbound direction getting
42 offare 1,185 people. So that indicates about 1,800 people or so getting off in the morning at the
43 Caltrain station. In terms of getting on it is kind of interesting because in the afternoon there are
44 1,300 people getting on going northbound and 850 people getting on in the southbound direction.
45 So somehow more people get on in the afternoon that is kind of weird. But essentially what you
46 are seeing are somewhere about 1,800 to 2,000 people taking Caltrain. I am not sure how that
Page 17
1 compares to the current figures. But it does indicate that the Palo Alto Downtown station is the
2 second busiest station along the entire Caltrain line. It also, from the data I have seen, looking at
3 this and the analysis I did it looks like most of the people taking Caltrain are doing so between
4 San Francisco and Palo Alto. A lot fewer people are doing them closer. I wouldn't expect
5 anybody to take Caltrain from Mountain View, maybe from San Jose. So the degree of how far
6 you go on Caltrain is not merely whether you are in a city that is close. You have to be far
7 enough away to have the wait for Caltrain make your while. So cities probably north of San
8 Mateo may make sense. Cities that are south of Sunnyvale may make sense. Anything between
9 San Mateo and Sunnyvale probably the overhead involved in taking Caltrain probably does not
10 make up that overhead compared to driving.
11
12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka.
13
14 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. So this question is actually for AE COM. So thank you for
15 putting this together. I have questions about the potential impact on two residential
16 neighborhoods, Downtown North and College Terrace. I noticed on page 3.4-1 that is looking at
17 Downtown North for right now. Let's do page 3.4-2 that the points analyzed are on Middlefield
18 going into Downtown North from let's say 101, so 19 and 20. I guess in 'terms of the speaker
19 had mentioned earlier was I guess the potential for cut-through traffic. Like you said, traffic is
20 like water it will kind of spread out and going down University is very difficult. I understand
21 why 19 was chosen because that is a natural choice to cut-through. But I think a driver going
22 down University towards the Medical Center depending on whether the light is green or red, if it
23 was green I would go onto maybe Webster and tum ri'ght, and then go and make a left on a street
24 like Webster is a lot less of a light to get off Middlefield. So I was just wondering whether any
25 thought had been given to the fact that maybe half the time or more that drivers might actually
26 tum into that neighborhood not necessarily go on Middlefield. ,
27
, 28 Mr. Struecker: Yes, that is why we looked at some of the residential streets in Crescent Park,
29 which is shown, well we don't have a graphic here I guess. I had one in the presentation.
30
31 Commissioner Tanaka: I was actually looking at Downtown North though because I think
32 drivers going down University all the way to Middlefield, and then after Middlefield I would
33 imagine that they would make a decision, do I go onto Lytton or Everett on Middlefield; or do I
34 do it on Webster or Cowper depending on lights. So I was wondering if you guys took that into
35 account or not.
36
37 Mr. Struecker: Well, we took it into account to the degree that somebody existing does it today
38 then that is accounted for in existing traffic movements. As they go over time they tend to go in
39 the same proportions.
40
41 Commissioner Lippert: I live on Hawthorne. There is a mitigation in place to prevent people
42 from cutting through Downtown North. Currently between the hours of five in the nl0ming and
43 ten you can't make a right hand tum off of Middlefield Road into Downtown North. You have
44 to go as far south as Lytton. '
45
46 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, thanks.
Page 18
1
2 Mr. Struecker: Yes, and that is why we looked at Lytton.
3
4 Commissioner Lippert: Alld it is currently enforced by the Palo Alto Police. People do cut
5 through. It does happen. I am getting the hand from Mike because I know that he does it. The
6 neighborhood does have something in place to prevent that. Then also between morning hours
7 and afternoon hours there is also no left hand turn going down Alma Street from Menlo Park and
8 cutting through again Downtown North.
9
10. Chair Garber: Commissioners, just in general what we should be doing is less asking of
11 questions and more making statements so that they can either be considered for inclusion in the
12 DEIR or be responded to as to why they are or not.
13
14 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, anyway it sounds like that is taken care of. I think in terms of the
15 College Terrace area I doubt that people would go to the California area because that is a very
16 common cut through when Page Mill is busy, which it looks like it is in here, so perhaps that
17 could also be studied and see if there is necessary mitigation measures for that intersection.
18
19 I have a question also I was looking at the map and it looks like Pasteur does not go all the way
20 through in terms of pedestrians and not necessarily for cars. I was wondering why. That might
21 also help mitigate the impact on Sand Hill Road and EI Camino, which is also one of the
22 intersections heavily inlpacted.
23
24 Chair Garber: Your thinking there is, or the question for the team here is could that be used as
25 an alternate route.
26
27 Commissioner Tanaka: Correct, and that might help unload off of that intersection.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: Are you suggesting connecting it to Campus Drive?
30
31 Commissioner Tanaka: Maybe all the way to' that or Quarry or Campus Drive so that instead of
32 having to funnel everything down on Sand Hill maybe ....
33
34 Commissioner Keller: It does connect currently with Welch.
35
36 Commissioner Tanaka: Right, but Pasteur doesn't connect with Campus Drive.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: Right and Quarry doesn't go that far.
39
40 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. That's what I have so far.
41
42 Chair Garber: Commissioners, you have each had five minutes and for some strange reason we
43 are 55 minutes from where we started. That said, let's see if we can try and aim for like 10:30.
44 We may have more questions but maybe if we are succinct we can try and get at least close to
45 that. I just have a couple of quick comments but one clarification on your slide number six,
46 which is about background SUMC trip generation. You are describing new trips daily and then
Page 19
1 AM peak hours and PM peak hours. So is this existing condition, or is this what it looks like in
2 2025 with the no proj ect impact?
3
4 Mr. Struecker: This is what the proposed expansion of the hospital will generate in addition to
5 what is generated today. This is new growth.
6
7 Chair Garber: In 2025?
8
9 Mr. Struecker: Yes.
10
11 Chair Garber: Okay.
12
13 Mr. Struecker: Or maybe more accurately it could be 2022 whenever they are fully built and
14 operable.
15
16 Chair Garber: Understood. On page 3.4-27 Transportation Denland Management, would you
17 include some consideration for bike sharing and bike sharing programs to determine if that is
18 valid or would have impact, and/or mitigation to some issues?
19
20 On page 3.4-65, excuse me before I get there I want to go to page 3.4-43 the Mitigation Measure
21 TR-1.4 and TR-1.5 which deal with restricted construction hours. It states that the project shall
22 be required to limit the amount of construction material deliveries from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM and
23 from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM on weekday. I think we need to expand actually both of those
24 particular mitigations to recognize local conditions. Maybe what it should really more get at is
25 constructing a plan for how they should be restricted. For example, I would not want to have
26 deliveries being made, trucks coming up Embarcadero at that time of the morning because it is
27 going to run smack into Paly and that would make a mess out of that street. But, if those were
28 coming down University Avenue it is a lot more imaginable, however if they are coming down at
29 that time on Sand Hill that is a problem. So it seems to me that there is probably some planning
30 that can be done to make that more better. Commissioner Keller.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: A few things. First of all I think that the analysis of the Go Passes should
33 be clarified to really indicate the fact that people are -what I think is the likelihood is that people
·34 won't be taking Go Passes from nearby cities but would be taking them from further away cities.
35 Usually, the reason that people pick their nlode share is because of time. So it doesn't make
36 sense ifit takes several times more to take Caltrain than it takes to drive people will drive. On
37 the other hand if Caltrain is comparable in time or faster, but at most slightly slower then you
38 have to have a pretty stiff financial incentive to force them to take Caltrain. So I think what
39 would be helpful is to understand in terms of the 19 percent that is actually taking Caltrain or the
40 claim number for Stanf01;-d is to understand what zip codes they are coming from, and map zip
41 codes. Matching cities doesn't make sense. Matching zip codes makes sense and
42 proportionately deal with those zip codes makes a lot more sense then dealing with it in terms of
43 entire cities. So this way you are basically comparing apples and apples, not apples and oranges.
44
45 I heard Mr. Struecker say that there is some notion of cut-through traffic is proportionate
. 46 basically when you increase background traffic then cut-through traffic increases
Page 20
1 proportionately. Actually, I find that counter-intuitive, because from my point of view what I
2 would guess is that if you increase background traffic and there is more congestion then cut-
3 through traffic will increase more than linearly. The more congestion you have the more
4 intensive it is for cut-through traffic. If the background traffic is rather light there is no incentive
5 for cut-through traffic. As you get to LOS E and LOS F because the delays are increasing the
6 cut-:-through traffic would increase more dramatically.
7
8 Therefore I think the way to think of it is not that the cut-through traffic would increase
9 proportionately with traffic, but that the cut-through traffic would increase proportionately with
10 the delay. Since delay is super lin~ar, it is perhaps exponential with respect to traffic increases
11 then you would expect cut-through traffic to increase based on that. I think that makes sense.
12 Basically you are trying to avoid delay is why you would cut-through. I have seen people turn
13 left onto Downtown North from Alma Street between the hours of three and six.
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: It is not left. It is not right
16
17 Commissioner Keller: I have seen people take left hand turns on Alma Street onto Downtown
18 North from Menlo Park. I have seen it happen between the hours of three and six, and I have had
19 to wait behind cars when I was going straight even though they were making and illega11eft tum.
20 They are waiting there at the intersection to make the left tum when traffic was coming in the
21 opposing direction. So I have seen that happen.
22
23 I understand that people have said that a no new net trips requirement for Stanford is onerous
24 even though the Stanford General Use Permit requires a no new net trips for Stanford on the
25 general part of the campus. I actually have made a statement in favor of saying no new net trips
26 unless mitigated. What I mean by that is that an acceptable mitigation from my point of view is
27 get somebody else's car off the road. So for every car that Stanford puts on the road during peak
28 hours that is additional over baseline get somebody else's care off the road. Then that seems to
29 make a lot more sense.
30
31 Now how can you take people's cars off the road? Well, there are ways of doing it. There was a
32 mention in the EIR about increasing the Palo Alto Shuttle. That is one way of taking people's
33 cars off the road. Right now we are capacity constrained on the Embarcadero Shuttle to Palo
34 Alto High School. There is nlore demand for the Embarcadero Shuttle for Palo Alto High
35 School then there is capacity. As a result of that demand is suppressed below that. So to the
36 extent that the Palo Alto Shuttle can be expanded to take the Pa1y students an4 provide maybe
37 additional routes to take those students to Pa1y and maybe additional routes to take them home,
38 because you can't get to school if you can't get home. People have to go both ways. That is an
39 example of taking other people's cars off the road. I think that would be of general benefit to the
40 community and general benefit to reducing the 15 percent of the Stanford traffic that is expected
41 to go along Embarcadero Road.
42
43 Also, the 88 bus for Gunn High School is capacity constrained. According to the figures that I
44 got from the VTA essentially that is operating at seated capacity in the morning, and sometimes
45 in excess when it rains, well in excess of seated capacity. So taking those cars off the road at
46 Charleston and Arastradero would actually have some benefit in general. Getting VT A to
Page 21
1 increase their capacity and perhaps additional routes, perhaps providing Gunn students with
2 these VTA Bco-Passes as you do for the community wo:uld also help encourage taking those cars
3 off the road. So I think be creative in tenns of getting cars off of this structure.
4
5 With respect to cut-through traffic on Downtown North considering that a great deal of the
6 congestion is due to people coming from the north or people coming from the east who are
7 cutting through Menlo Park, taking Willow Road, and presumably because they can't get
8 through Willow Road all the way to BI Camino. Nobody is going to want to go on Ravenswood
9 that doesn't make any sense for people who are trying to get efficiently to Stanford. What they
10 are doing is making a left tum from Willow Road onto Middlefield, and then they are turning
11 right onto Lytton, and then they get stuck waiting for Lytton. Therefore, those people are turning
12 right into Downtown North to avoid the intersection of Lytton and Middlefield Road.
13
14 So first of all, one of t~e things that is a useful mitigation, and we have talked about traffic
15 adaptive signaling. But there is something to me that is much more interesting than traffic
16 adaptive signaling and that is timed signaling. So if we were to time Lytton Avenue so that
17 traffic moved at a constant 25 miles an hour, if the traffic was timed from Middlefield towards
18 Alma Street, once you get on that street the lights are timed in sequence in green at 25 miles and
19 hour just as there are streets in San Francisco that do that. You get on a street, you go at the
20 speed limit, and you get all the way to the other end and you know you are going to make it, and
21 you don't get stopped along the way. That is going to encourage people to take that route.
22 Similarly at Hamilton, you take Hamilton and have it timed signals that go all the way in the
23 other direction so that the traffic doesn't speed. It goes exactly 25 miles an hour, because if you
24 go faster than 25 mil~s an hour you are going to hit a red light. But if you are going exactly 25
25 miles an hour you are going to make it all the way through to the other end. I have personally
26 talked about the idea of having those be one-way streets. That would certainly, but traffic tin led
27 signals would certainly help this. I think for those two streets it would be much better than
28 traffic adaptive signaling and it would encourage that traffic and it would just go all the way. I
29 think that would be much more effective. Perhaps it could be increased by making those into
30 one-way streets in those directions, but I think that would be helpful.
31
32 I would like to know what is the goal for Go Passes and the goal for the drive alone figure for the
33 hospital. Do we have the numbers for that and the mitigation and the goal overall? Do we have
34 nurnbers for what those are?
35
36 Mr. Struecker: The Go Pass is 15.8 percent.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: So the Go Pass goal is 15.8 percent. How will that be road share, which
39 means an increase of about eight points or nine points?
40
41 Mr. Struecker: We worked off the data as Robert said from 2006, and existing at that point in
42 time was 3.6 so if we went to 15.8 it would be 12.2 percent increase.
43
44 Commissioner Keller: Alright, 12.2 percent. What you are thinking about right now they said
45 the data is almost six. So are we still going to 15.8 or are we going to 19, which is the current
46 mode share for the University?
Page 22
1
2 Mr. Struecker: I looked at those numbers briefly. The University now is doing 19+ and the
3 hospital is doing 6+ percent. So it is still pretty close to the 12.2 percent increase.
4
5 Commissioner Keller: Okay. So I think it was 5.7 for the hospital, if I remember correctly. So I
6 am wondering what the goal is. first of all, we should have a clear understanding of the goal. Is
7 the goal 15.8? Is the goal 19+? A clear understanding of what the goal is. Also a clear
8 understanding of what the drive alone mode share is. For the University mode share it says that
9 the drive alone mode share is a fantastic 48 percent, and that is down 20 percentage points or
10 more since the County implemented their GUP rules of no new net trips. So I think that is a very
11 important issue to think about. We would have to think about what the mode share is for drive
12 alone for the hospital, because I think that is in some sense another figure that needs to be
13 measured and a goal for that.
14
15 And, I would like to understand what happens when these goals are not met, because the
16 nlitigations ofP1, P2, P3, and P4 are based on an understanding of that mode share being met in
17 terms of Calt,rain and other traffic mitigations. I think we need to understand if Caltrain is not
18 met then it i~ not clear that the other Priorities combined will work to reach it. So I would like to
19 see in some sense some understanding of something with more teeth than simply mitigations that
20 are proposed, but an understanding that if they are not met then additional things will happen,
il additional traffic mitigations, or various kinds of measures of what this is.
22
23 I think one of the things that were done, I studied the Gunn High School Expansion EIR, and one
24 of the things that EIR did was said you exceed the number of cars exiting the driveway by 20-
25 some odd cars, and 54 students I think it was. When you exceeded that, you have to keep below
26 that in order to avoid the impacts. So in some sense what we have to think about is if we think
27 that a certain number of cars are being mitigated by these traffic adaptive signals and such, in
28 some sense if that is the anlount that we think are mitigating that then it would be helpful to see
29 that we actually don't exceed that number of cars exiting Stanford, and if we do then that calls
30 for additional mitigation for transit. So it seems to me that additional mitigations for traffic. So I
31 do think that to summarize 1) get somebody else's cars off the road; 2) have some measures with
32 teeth which allow for additional measures to be implemented if we exceed those goals. Thank
33 you.
34
35 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Martinez.
36
37 Commissioner Lippert: Well, I have no desire to make it easier for Stanford employees to get
38 . here by motor vehicle. I don't have a desire to do that at all. I would like to try to find ways to
39 make it easier and to increase the number of employees that arrive by public transit. That is
40 really the key to success here. So I am looking at these zip codes, and it is a difficult table to
41 read and decipher. I think it is probably a little easier if I could understand the dot on the map,
42 measure the nunlber of enlployees in a zip code, or if it was done by color or something like that.
43 In fact there are a number of employ~es here that commute from out of state, Boston,
44 Massachusetts, and Kentucky, and Miami. I don't think that is even relevant to the data here.
45
Page 23
1 What I am thinking of here, and I don't even know if this considers the employees that will be
2 coming to the Hoover Pavilion in terms of working there as well. So what I am thinking, is there
3 a way to extend the Go Pass program and make it work better than it does on the campus right
4 now? Part of what I am thinking is that if parking were prohibitively expensive and the Go
5 Passes were provided for free then more people would be inclined to take public transit to get
6 there. The flip side of that of course is that we happen to have one of the largest parking lots in
7 Palo Alto immediately adjacent to the Stanford Medical Center, which is the Nordstrom parking
8 lot. So to circumvent the whole punitive nature of paid parking they could shop at Nordstrom
9 every day. Sir?
10
11 Commissioner Keller: The Stanford Medical Center and Stanford University already have paid
12 parking and I believe the Go Passes ate issued for free, is that correct? So I am getting nods
13 from them. So I figured I would add that to the list.
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: So how do you get that ridership up above that threshold that we are
16 looking for, the 19 percent or higher? I guess part of what I am thinking is Go Passes are being
17 provided to people that really are not going to be using them. Is there a way to take Go Passes
18 and provide them to other people that are commuting to Palo Alto that would not be working at
19 the Medical Center? I am using an adage here because this really has to do with energy. A
20 kilowatt saved is a kilowatt we don't have to generate in terms of electricity. In this case a car
21 off the road, does it really make a difference if it is one that is going to the Medical Center or
22 whether it one that is going to the Research Park or whether it is one that is going to the
23 Downtown? We already have impacts of people driving to the Downtown or to the shopping
24 center to work and impacting our neighborhoods in terms of parking in Downtown North for
25 instance.
26
27 Commissioner Keller: My understanding is that the Go Passes are issues to an entity like a
28 university or a company or a school or whatever, like a VTA Eco-Pass or Go Pass, and that you
29 have to buy them based on the census of that entity. Essentially for every employee and they are
30 not transferable to other entities.
31
32 Commissioner Lippert: Well.
33
34 Commissioner Keller: Certainly, an entity can buy thenl for some other entity but that requires
35 an additional outlay of cash.
36
37 Chair Garber: Again, let him get through his comments so that they can be added to the record.
38 We don't have to answer them.
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: What I am interested in is finding ways to mitigate the traffic and
41 mitigating ultimately the greenhouse gas emissions that are generated by those cars. The traffic
42 is then generated by those automobiles, congestion on the roads. So I guess where I am going is
43 is there a way for Stanford Medical Center to purchase these Go Passes and issue them for
44 instance to employees at the shopping center if they are not being used by employees of the
45 Medical Center? It is the general vicinity. It is still Stanford land. It may that Simon Group
46 runs the shopping center but we do have a large number of people that do commute from all over
Page 24
1 that do come to the shopping center, which is in proximity to the Medical Center. Ijust want to
2 find a way to reduce the traffic, and how that is done is the mechanics of how it is financed. So
3 that is just nly thought here.
4
5 My other question I have, and'then I will sort of stop it here, is where does traffic and climate
6 change sort of intersect? I don't think that has been clearly defined. I think that if we look at the
7 third sort of cross of that it is housing. So the idea is you have people that live here and they
8 work here the commute is minimized. If you have people that live in other areas and they can
9 get here via public transportation the impact is minimized. If you have people that are coming
10 from great distances and driving here you have an impact. People that are living locally and they
11 are driving their vehicle to the Medical Center you have an impact. So' I want to find way~ of
12 where climate change or greenhouse gas emissions and traffic definitely impact. I want to
13 reduce traffic but I also want to reduce gr~enhouse gas emissions.
14
15 Chair Garber: I believe our next topic is Air Quality and Clinlate and we can address that more
16 at our next nleet.
17
18 Commissioner Lippert: Maybe what needs to come back at that point is an understanding of if
19 we were to follow the numbers that are proposed in the mitigations how many kinds of carbon
20 emissions would be reduced. I
21
22 Chair Garber: Anything else?
23
24 Commissioner Lippert:' That's it.
25
26 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez and then Fineberg.
27
28 Commissioner Martinez: I wanted to make a point that is really directed to us, but I wanted to
29 make the start of our deliberations about my report on the Council. There have been two Council
30 hearings one on the 6th and one Monday related to,the DEIR. Both because of the fullness of the
31 Council Agendas it started very late. I think the first one started at 10:30 at night and Monday's
32 started around ten o'clock or something like that. The first one there were 21 members of the
33 public that spoke so that ,was almost an hour. The Council started to discuss this item going on
34 11 :30 and they decided to continue it to this last Monday. So on Monday they are taking up the
35 project description, and Comprehensive Plan, and housing, and Visual Quality, and Cultural
36 Resources. The stuff we had taken three hours each to talk about.
37
38 A couple of things were clear. One, their time to consider these was very limited. I think each
39 got less than an hour after Staff presentations and all of that. The other thing that really struck
40 me, and I may be stepping over my bounds a bit, but that is okay I am a volunteer. I think this
41 1,000-page document is not easy to just sort of be able to absorb. I kind of got from the
42 Council's comments that they are not having the time to sort of take in every section and
43 generate the questions because we have 71 intersections to look at along with bicycle
44 alternatives, and Go Passes, and all that. You are going to go through it very quickly. I want to
45 echo something that Chair Garbersaid, in that it is really'incumbent upon us to really try to put
46 out either what we consider larger impacts, mitigations that are marginally addressed, and not
Page 25
1 just sort of our questions about what this means. I hope for the remainder of our time we can
2 assist the Council by really putting back to our consultants and Staff some questions about what
3 really needs to be further addressed in the DEIR or the Final EIR. That is my thought.
4
5 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Tanaka.
6
7 Commissioner Fineberg: That is a hard act to follow. I think my next set of comments will live
8 up to the spirit of the request.
9
10 Commissioner Martinez: I will let you know.
11
12 Commissioner Fineberg: I raised before some questions about TRll, Cumulative Transit
13 Impacts~ on page 3.4-87. There has been a whole bunch of numbers bandied around since then.
14 I went back and looked at some other numbers from some other places in the document. Unless
15 I am making a mistake I don't think this mitigation statement that as part of our operations these
16 transit providers adjust service frequencies and distribution of services to meet demand trends.
17 As such cumulative impacts of transit would be less than significant.
18
19 The way I am figuring it I question if that is correct. Let me tell you where my numbers are
20 going. Commissioner Keller cited earlier that the people getting on and of Caltrain at the AM
21 and .PM peaks at the Downtown station is roughly 1,800 in the AM and a little over 2,000 in the
22 PM. Let's call it 2,000 to make numbers easy to think about. On page 3.4-45 it is talking about
23 750, I am rounding, additional trips in the peak AM and peak PM. Then it is talking on page 3.4-
24 67 in TR2.3 providing the Go Pass to 15.8 percent of the hospital employees. On page S-23 I
25 found that the population of the Stanford University Medical Center employees at full build out
26 is 12,123. If the baseline of that 12,000 is let's say five percent now are using Go Passes and our
27 goal is 15 percent then we are adding an additional ten percent of the population would use Go
28 Passes. So ten percent of 12,000 employees would be 1,200, I am rounding, employees. So our
29 baseline right now, we have about 2,000 people hopping on and off the train in the morning and
30 at night. We are going to give them an additional 1,200 that is I don't know, 40 percent. So we
31 are going to ask Caltrain to add 40 percent capacity during their AM and PM peak? How can
32 that be? Then we say adjust service frequencies and distribution so the cumulative impacts
33 would be less than significant. A 40 percent increase in capacity during peak AM and PM?
34 What is the threshold of significance? I think 40 percent is significant. ~o can that be addressed,
35 not tonight, but in future comments?
36
37 The other thing I want to say generally just to echo Commissioner Martinez's comments is I am
38 finding this chapter on Transportation difficult and how can I say this? Got an MBA from
39 Cornell, I have done gobs of work with day-to-day, I am technically proficient, I get the analysis,
40 but I don't understand what I am reading. It doesn't fit the common sense and the smell test. I
41 don't know how to incorporate that sense of incredulity into a CEQA comment that could be
42 resp'onded to in an EIR other than like what I am talking about with this TR-ll Cumulative
43 Transit Impact comment. I don't follow the logic and maybe there could be a quick executive
44 summary that would help Council. We have the baseline of our projections that include ABAG's
45 growth projections, and that includes Stanford because they are the major job-producing engine,
46 the major popUlation-producing engine, the major employer, the major source of sales tax. We
Page 26
1 have this baseline of growth and somehow using all our models that are black boxes proj ect
2 traffic for 2025. We have the biggest project in the City's history. Then we say with some
3 relatively focused mitigations there won't be significant impact. I don't follow that logic. I
4 don't see how you can get from the beginning to the end. It is partly because I am not following
5 how the models I guess I am questioning a lofofthe underlying assumptions in the models. I
6 am not seeing how they are getting us to those conclusions. If I am struggling with that and if,
7 forgive me, Council doesn't have ten hours to sit and go through these thousands of pages, and
8 read the thousands of pages and the Appendixes, if there can be a two-page summary that .
9 explains it, maybe some basic numbers, a kind of an executive summary especially on this
10 Transportation Chapter. I know I still don't get it. I don't understand how we are ,getting from
11 the beginning to the end, and I have read this, I have looked at the Appendixes, and I don't have
12 trouble with numbers, but I am just not following it. Thank you.
13
14 Chair Garber: Thank you, good comments. Commissioner Tanaka.
15
16 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. This is to go back to the Go Pass mitigation and other
17 alternatives other than what have been currently proposed. I just listened to my fellow
18 Commissioners about this and I am thinking perhaps it is not just employees but maybe residents
19 going to jobs outside of the area near a Caltrain station perhaps also could benefit. I know there
20 is a lot of negotiation that would have to happen with Cal train to kind of make that actually
21 happen but if you do that you could.get almost nearly 100 percent. To the residents, to City
22 employees, to Stanford employees at the shopping center, you could really expand the program
23 perhaps you would get a tremendous reduction in car trips. So that is something for
24 consideration.
25
26 Then the other thing I was just looking at is there are going to be a lot of construction workers
27 over the 15 years of this proj ect. I kind of want to reemphasize the pedestrian access for not just
28 the hospital workers but the construction workers, or anyone else that wants to dine and help the
29 economic activity in Palo Alto to make sure there is a nice core, a nice way of facilitating that
30 from the hospitals to the shopping center. I think that is important to have so we have a
31 reduction in parking, better economic activity, and less traffic. I
32
33 One thing I am not clear on is are we not talking about the climate change and air quality?
34
35 Chair Garber: Next time ..
36
37 Commissioner Tanaka: That's it. Thank you.
38
39 Chair Garber: We have follow up comments from Commissioner Keller and then Martinez.
40 Commissioner Keller.
41
42 Commissioner Keller: So the first thing is not only do I have the data on ridership of Caltrain
43 from 2006 I actually have the ridership by train. The ridership by train shows that in the
44 southbound direction in the morning the train that arrives shortly before eight 0' clock in the
45 morning has 214 people getting off and going to Stanford or Palo Alto, but probably most of
46, them are going to Stanford on the Marguerite Shuttle. Right before that there are 461 people
Page 27
1 onboard on that train when that data survey was done. I don't know what the capacity is of
2 Caltrain but it would be helpful to know what the capacity is of a Baby Bullet train. I can tell
3 you I have taken Caltrain Baby Bullets at around five o'clock out of San Francisco and they are
4 pretty darn full. So I am wondering where these other people are going to go if they are taking
5 that depending on what their schedule is.
6
7 Similarly the northbound schedule that leaves just after five o'clock in the afternoon 239 people
8 get on at the Palo Alto station and there are 397 people onboard right after that. So it is a little
9 bit less than there is in the morning but still a significant amount. So I am wondering how much
, 10 additional capacity and really to understand how the mode share is for people working eight to
11 five. They are going to try to catch those two trains and therefore peak demand certainly makes
12 sense.
13
14 I think it is helpful to understand that I actually engaged in discussions on behalf of Gunn High
15 School of trying to see what would be needed for Gunn High School to get Go Passes for all of
16 Gunn. I had some discussions with the VT A about that. What was constructive about this is I
17 got a letter in support of yes we are willing to price these Go Pass, we are willing to sell them to
18 you, but we are not willing to commit to increasing service. In fact, they were willing to say
19 they were writing a letter saying they won't increase service even if we gave all the students free
20 bus passes. Presumably demand would increase if you give them free bus passes but the original
21 draft letter says we are not going to increase service. I wrote back to them saying I am not going
22 to be able to write a letter to a grant agency asking for people to pay for Go Passes for Gunn
23 High School if you are not going to increase service. That is ridiculous. You are going to
24 increase demand and not have service that is sort of a self-defeating prophecy. That doesn't
25 really work. So I basically said to them that your policies are that you accommodate to increases
26 in demand to accommodate increases in service. But they basically said with their environment
27 the next year at least, and who know how much further it will be, the next so many years they
28 don't have the money to increase service.
29
30 So the issue is that if you expect VTA to increase service there has to be money behind it not
31 simply Go Passes because that is not going to work. If you want Caltrain to increase service
32 their budget is being cut primarily instigated by San Mateo County with the fact that there is no
33 dedicated funding for Caltrain. So they are being cut in San Mateo. VTA is happy to go along
34 with San Mateo's cuts and so is Muni because they want to protect their own bus service. So
35 these services are at risk and they are continually going down. So expecting that to fill in the gap
36 as Commissioner Fineberg mentioned in TR-ll doesn't make sense.
37
38 I think that also there is a lot of stuff here in terms of Transit Impacts, TR-7. I like a lot of what I
39 read here because it says you are going to expand this, you are going to expand that, you are
40 going to provide more capacity. These things need to be quantified. It says as part of the plan
41 communities are required, and then the comment says the SUMC Projects sponsors will
42 contribute the project's fair share of Palo Alto's'share of <expanded VTA community service.
43 Well, I am not sure if Palo Alto actually pays the VTA to expand the community service. I am
44 not sure exactly what the share would be from Stanford, but this needs to be quantified. You are
45 going to provide X dollars estimated with inflation based on VTA's costs to provide that. I
46 would say it is interesting because according to the figures that I know is that the Palo Alto
Page 28
1 Shuttle, the two lines, carry 175,000 passengers, boardings, a year at a cost of about $350,000
2 from the City plus another $150,000 or $175,000 that comes from sonlewhere else. The figures I
3 have are probably obsolete but they were that 1.3 million boardings for Marguerite. That is an
4 amazing, fantastic service. I guess the number has gone up since then. I don't remember what
5 they were. Are they 1.4 million now? So that is several times, eight or so times, what Palo Alto
6 gets for the Palo Alto but on the other hand there are 13 or 14 routes. You compare that with
7 VTA, the entire VTA county system, is about 30 million boardings a year. So contrast the
8 Marguerite with the VT A for the entire county and you are something like three or four percent
9 . of the entire county's boardings, which is pretty amazing. So I think that the issue is that .
10 Stanford has shown itself to a leader in providing transportation, at least on campus. I think that
11 if Stanford sets its mind to it and it shows that its mind has been sharpened very significantly by
12 the county GUP and let's see how Stanford can go well with the Stanford Medical Center and
13 community physicians and how we can really bring that down so that in fact there will be not
14 only mitigated impacts but in fact the mitigations will actually bring it down to zero rather than
15 bringing it down to sonlething that is below significance. I think that can be done, I think that
16 Stanford knows how to do it, and Stanford has done a fantastic job so far of 20-some odd
17 percentage points reduction in mode share of single occupant vehicles. That is an amazing thing
18 to do in ten or so years. I think that is fantastic. So it is a challenge to figure out what you can
19 do with the Medical Center. I realize there are more people in the Medical Center who are
20 coming from or nlore people who are patients and comnlunity physicians and such than the share
21 is on campus where it is a lot of workers and a lot of students who live on campus. A lot of
22 workers who have a schedule on campus. I think something can be done so I would challenge
23 you to do as equally as well a job and to have that quantified in the EIR exactly what that means,
24 and have it backed up by doing additional measures to make that work, and indicating what the
25 fallback measures are if it doesn't work. If that means that Stanford at some point in time says
26 we are not meeting the thresholds and the limits, and we are exceeding that, and they come back
27 to Palo Alto just as Stanford would have to do with the County with the GUP then so be it and
28 we figure out collectively the additional mitigations to make that work. I think that that's very
29 important and I think that Stanford is certainly a leader in the peninsula and most of the Bay
30 Area in this. I think that Stanford can do as well with the Medical Center. Thank you.
31
32 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez, some final words, and then we will wrap up.
33
34 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. I will be as quick as I can. On page 3.4-60 what do we do if the
35 mitigations don'twork? This is following in the steps of Commissioner Keller. I think there is a
36 lot more that can be done in terms of the TDM, much more creativity. It is rather weak. It
37 doesn't mention any kind of creative sort of Facebook kind of thing related to people using Go
38 Pass, and who should be using it. I get an email every month telling me I need to pay my Fast
39 Track. We can do things that are even much more multidimensional that. I didn't see anywhere
40 about rideshare and vanpooling and carpooling that is also a great alternative.
41
42 I wanted to get back quickly to Commissioner Lippert's point about housing. We know there are
43 two sure-fire ways to decrease traffic. You locate your project near transportation, which is not
44 going to happen. We couldn't even get them to move the building. The second is to build
45 housing near facilities, which ironically is one of the first items.ofthis section that describes the
46 policy at Stanford. I know when we discussed housing the impact was considered not so
Page 29
1 significant. I was curious because the study looked at improving bicycle and pedestrian access.
2 If it were only for the increased population, and you sort of calculate it out it would be for 42
3 residel~ts of Palo Alto. We know that is not the intension it is going to be used by all 10,000
4 workers at the hospital and students and Stanford employees, and that is the way we should look
5 at it because that is the total mitigation that would happen. We should also look at mitigation for
6 housing in that same way. We have a problem today of too much commuting by people who
7 work at Stanford. I understand we can't require it as a mitigation but the inclusion of increased
8 worker housing in the Development Agreement or as a mitigation for all this traffic would do
9 more to reduce this impact then anything I can think of. Thank you.
10
11 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, we are at the end of this particular item. I would
12 like tothank Stanford. We will close the public hearing and close this item. Thank you for
13 sticking with us for so long. We will see you next week.
14
Page 30
1 Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Verbatim Minutes
3 June 24, 2010
4
5 DRAFT EXCERPT
6
7 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project: Meeting
8 to accept comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Stanford
9 University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project, including an overview
10 of the Climate Change, and Air Quality chapters of the Draft EIR.
11
12 Mr. Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: We do, thank you Chair Garber and good
13 evening Commissioners. My name is Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager, and Project
14 Manager for the SlTMC projects. I just want to give a brief overview of about the Draft EIR and
15 the public review period. We have heard this presentation a number of times before but for
16 anybody who may be listening in or who is first time here tonight I will just go over the public
1 7 review period a bit.
18
19 We have released a Draft EIR for public review on May 20, for approximately a 69-day public
20 review period that will end on July 27. The process that we have taken in introducing the Draft
21 EIR to the Commission, the Council,' and the public is to breakup the Draft EIR into chapters for
22 review at 11 public hearings, six of which with the Commission, and five with the City Council.
23 Tonight we will be speaking about and focusing on the Climate Change and Air Quality
24 Chapters of the Draft EIR.
25
26 The purpose of tonight's meeting is to collect comments on specifically these two chapters but
27 really we will take comments on any chapter of the Draft EIR. It is not intended to discuss or
28 really debate the merits of the project this evening. It is helpful to keep the questions and
29 comnlents on the topics that we have identified in the Staff Report this evening, but as I
30 mentioned members of the public or the Commission may comment on any portion of the Draft
31 EIR. All of the comments that we receive through this process will be addressed during the
32 preparation ,of our Final EIR, which will come back to the Commission and Council later on this
33 year.
34
35 Just for the format of tonight's meeting, we have PBS&J here to provide an overview of the
36 Clinlate Change and Air Quality Chapters. They have members of their staff in the audience
37 tonight, technical professionals that worked on these two chapters, and they will be available for
38 questions that the Commission may have. The project sponsors have a presentation this evening,
39 approximately ten to 15 minutes. Then the Planning and Transportation Commission can accept
40 comments from the public and have their own questions and comments for Staff.
41
42 Before we get into Trixie's presentation I just want to give the Commission an update regarding
43 a meeting that City Staff had with the Menlo Park City Council this past Tuesday evening.
44 Menlo Park Staff invited City of Pal 0 Alto Staff to the City Council meeting with the City of
45 Menlo Park on Tuesday to provide essentially an overview of the project, and to provide some
46 background with regard to some of the more specific impacts that affect Menlo Park, and that is
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
.43
44
45
46
namely traffic. So the project sponsors provided an overview of the project much similar to the
visual presentation that you saw a nurrlber of weeks ago. The City provided a summary of the
applicant's entitlement requests, talked about the process and the schedule for the rest of the
year. Again, we highlighted sections of the Draft EIR but focusing on traffic that really affects
Menlo Park. There was a question and answer period between the Council and Staff. At the end
we really reaffirmed our commitment to provide updates and project information to the City of
Menlo Park as needed, and we certainly would make ourselves available to speak at fuhlfe City
Council meetings if their City Council so requested.
So with that! had the presentation over to Trixie Martelino from PBS&J.
Ms. Trixie Martelino, PBS&J: Thank you Steven. Good evening I am Trixie Martelino of
PBS&J, Project Manager for the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Also with me tonight is
Michael Hendrix who prepared the climate change analysis, GeoffHomek who prepared the air
guality analysis, and ENVIRON our specialists who prepared the health risk assessment that was
folded into the air quality analysis.
I will first get into a summary of impacts of the Air Quality section. The above table
summarizes the air quality iinpacts. As explained in previous hearings in the upper row NI
stands for No Impact, LTS is Less Than Significant, SILTS is Significant without nlitigation but
Less Than Significant with mitigation, and SU is for an impact that cannot be mitigated to a less
than significant level and is considered Significant and Unavoidable.
As shown in the table the project would have less than significant impacts with regards to
localized carbon monoxide emissions for motor vehicle traffic. It would also have a less than
significant impact related to health risk from toxic air contaminants. It would also have a less
than significant impact related to objectionable odors. As I mentioned earlier, the toxic air
contaminants analysis was extracted from the health risk assessment by ENVIRON, and that
health risk assessment has been appended to the EIR.
As shown in the table there would be significant and unavoidable construction and operational
emissions of criteria air pollutants on both the project and cumulative level. In specific,
construction activities would emit significant: amounts of nitrogen oxides during the early stages
of construction. Operation of the project would result in significant emissions of reactive
organic gases, nitrogen oxides, and respirable particulate matter.
Mitigation measures have been presented in the EIR for both construction and operation. For
construction impacts mitigation measures AQ-l.l and AQ-l.2 have been identified. These
measures would reduce both construction dust and vehicle emissions, however as stated,
emissions of nitrogen oxides would remain significant and unavoidable even with these
measures.
During operation of the project measures identified in the Transportation section and the
Population Housing sections would apply. These measures were discussed in previous hearings.
As you know, Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 involves enhancing Stanford's ongoing Transportation
Demand Management Plan by providing Caltrain Go Passes to all SlJMC employees or an
Page 2
/
1 equivalent TDM measure. Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 involves measures related to providing
2 -employee housing near the SUMC sites to reduce vehicle trips and emissions associated with
3 employee commutes. Even ~ith these measures emissions of reactive organic gases, nitrogen
4 oxides, and respirable particulate matter would be significant and unavoidable.
5
6 It should be noted that the conclusions in the Draft EIR are based on BAAQMD, Bay Area Air
7 Quality Management District, tpresholds prior to June 2. New thresholds were adopted on June
8 2,2010. However those thresholds were adopted after publication of the Draft EIR. The Draft
9 EIR provides, for informational purposes only, an analysis of the project emissions against the
10 criteria for criteria air pollutants. The new thresholds by the BAAQMD identify that the project
11 would have a significant impact ifit would have 54 pounds per day of ROG, Reactive Organic
12 Gases, nitrogen oxides or fine particulate matter, and 82 pounds per day of particulate matter ten
13 microns in diameter. Both of these dust emissions would be from mobile sources. The previous
14 criteria was 80 pounds per day. For informational purposes the EIR identifies that the project
15 would exceed these thresholds even with mitigation.
16
17 Now onto Climate Change. Climate Change is a fairly recent topic that is being addressed in
18· CEQA documents. As such I am first providing a brief overview of Climate Change. Global
19 Climate Change refers to changes.in normal weather of the Earth. These changes in weather
20 could affect sea level, water supply and quality, ecosystems, and human health. Global Climate
21 Change is increasingly attributed to greenhouse gases from human activity. Greenhouse gases
22 effectively trap heat in the atmosphere and these greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon
23 dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, among others. Climate Change is a cumulative impact on a
24 global scale, and as such the Draft EIR examines the projects contribution to Global Climate
25 Change through its greenhouse gas emissions.
26
27 In recent years several plans and regulations have been set forth on the federal, state, and local
28 level. These regulations are described in the Draft EIR starting on page 3.6-15. I am not going
29 through all the regulations listed above, but I would like to highlight the California Global
30 Warming Solutions Act, or AB 32. This la:w requires the California Air Resources Board to
31 implement rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state to 1990 levels by 2020. As a
32 result the Air Resources Board prepared it Climate Change Scoping Plan. The scoping plan .
33 strategizes to reduce by 30 percent California's projected 2020 greenhouse gas emissions under a
34 business as usual scenario. The business as usual scenario refers to operations that conform
35 minimally to the required building codes and state regulations. The business as usual scenario
36 does not include enhanced green building practices or more robust emissions reduction strategies
37 such as that proposed as part of the project
38
39 I would also like to point out that the new criteria adopted by the BAAQMD includes new
40 criteria regarding climate change, however those are not applicable to' the project
41
42 Also, on a local level there is the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan. The plan identifies that
43 current emissions in the city are over 800,000 nletric tons of C02 equivalent per year. The plan
44 also has the following goals: by 2009 reduce 2005 municipal emissions by five percent; by 2012
45 reduce 2005 municipal and community emissions by five percent; by 2020 reduce 2005
46 municipal and community emissions by 15 percent These City goals are aligned with the carbon
Page 3
1 reduction goal of 30 percent below business as usual emissions. As such, the EIR applies as one
2 of its thresholds the 30 percent reduction from business as usual emissions.
3
4 The above slide summarizes the criteria and impact conclusions on Climate Change. The two
5 criteria that were addressed include whether or not the project would further the goals of the
6 City's Climate Protection Plan, and whether the project would through its proposed emissions
7 reduction program reduce the business 8;S usual emissions by 30 percent. The analysis shows
8 that even with the proposed emissions reduction program and additional mitigation the SUMC
9 project would have a significant and unavoidable impact under both criteria.
10
11 The mitigation measures that have been identified include those listed above. Mitigation
12 Measures CC-1.1 through CC-1.5 include commissioning or maintenance of new energy
13 systems, participating in the City's green energy program, greenhouse gas monitoring,
14 performing and annual waste reduction audit, and construction period measures as well. The
15 measures also include the enhanced Transportation Denland Management program involving the
16 Caltrain Go Pass, as well as previously identified measures to provide housing for SUMC
17 employees. As said earlier, the project's greenhouse gas emissions would be a considerable
18 contribution to Global Climate Change and as such impacts would be significant and
19 unavoidable. That concludes my presentation.
20
21 Mr. Mark Tortorich, Vice President of Design and Construction, Stanford Medical Center: Good
22 evening Chair Garber and Commissioners. We want to share with you a presentation of our
23 sustainability program for the proposed projects, and as it relates to the Climate Change sections
24 and Air Quality sections that you are considering.
25
26 First of all, one significant issue these hospital buildings face significant challenges in being
27 sustainable buildings, and challenges that we are working quite hard to overcome. The first is
28 our very strict infection control requirenlents. We obviously are caring for immune
29 compromised patients within our hospitals and so there are obviously very stringent requirements
30 on airflow, the amount of airflow, the quality of air, which generally requires that it be
31 mechanically ventilated. OSHPD, our state agency does heavily regulate these buildings and
32 ultimately is the final authority on what types of systems we can implement. Third, we are
33 running 24/7. So it is a 24-hour operation. We don't have great opportunity to shut these
34 buildings down and conserve energy during off-peak hours.
35
36 LEED, Leadership in Energy and Enviroinnental Design, the standards'within LEED are
37 predominantly created for commercial buildings not for healthcare buildings, and specifically not
38 for hospitals. However, there is an awful lot of work underway to prepare guidelines for
39 healthcare buildings. The Green Guide for Healthcare is one of those guidelines. The design
40 teams employ consultants who are primary authors of the Green Guide for Healthcare and we
41 have used that as sort of our roadmap for sustainability in our projects.
42
43 Finally, the Draft EIR concludes that with mitigation the project will result in approximately 25
44 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than business as usual. We appreciate the City's
45 consultant's thoughtful work on this, however we think there may be some technical
46 clarifications that will demonstrate that we are really very close to the 30 percent goal thathas
Page 4
1 been outlined. For example, by designing much more energy efficient buildings we will use less
2 chilled water from our central utility plant, which will reduce the amount of emissions created by
3 that plant to produce the chilled water.
4
5 We have talked about within our design process 15 Big Ideas for Sustainability. You see them
6 here. We want to highlight the top six, and give you some illustrations of what we are doing in
7 these areas to provide sustainable buildings. First is our desire in our design attempt to achieve
8 Energy Star scores of 90 to 95 for the hospital buildings. That is a very, very ambitious goal.
9 That goal will require the approval of state OSHPD to achieve. What that nleans is we will be
10 designing these hospital buildings to use 35 percent less energy than typical hospital buildings,
11 and 20 percent less than a hospital designed to meet the current energy standards. There are a
12 couple of features that you will see later in the presentation that talk about how we are
13 attempting to achieve those goals.
14
15 Our School of Medicine buildings, which are not regulated ~y the State of California as hospital
16 buildings are designed to use 30 percent less energy than buildings designed to meet current
17 standards.
18
19 Finally, we are absolutely committed to using green materials and recycled materials wherever
20 possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during construction.
21
22 So what are sonle of these features of our projects? We are using first and foremost a
23 displacement ventilation system. I will talk a little bit more about that. That is a rather novel
24 approach for healthcare buildings, and certainly for hospital buildings. It has been used in one
25 test example by Kaiser at a facility in Modesto. We are close to the bleeding edge on this
26 technology invention. It is a bit of a risk I will have to admit, on the part of the hospitals, to do
27 this, but it is the only way we can achieve superior energy performance we believe.
28
29 Variable air volunle systems are being designed within the facility. Obviously occupant controls
30 for patient rooms, occupancy sensors as well, so that we can mi~mize the use of energy when a
31 room is not occupied, and certainly in comparison to our existing facility.
32
33 We are connecting the existing buildings to the Stanford COGEN, the existing cen~al utility
34 plant that exists on the Stanford campus. We are not building an independent COGEN plant for
35 the hospitals, as you may see other healthcare providers doing. You would see at El Camino
36 Hospital in Mountain View they did that. Mills Peninsula Hospital in Burlingame has done that.
37 We are connecting to the existing COGEN plant.
38
39 So displacement ventilation, what does it really mean in technical terms? You will see the
40 graphic down below. That is me under the cup of water in a few years. Typically the way that
41 you mix the air within the environment is that you provide supply and provide return in the
42 ceiling cavity. So you are really diluting the existing air by punlping a lot of new air, controlled
43 air, into the space.' Displacement ventilation introduces new air into the room at the floor and
44 exhausts at the ceiling. So you can reduce the amount of horsepower necessary for the fans to
45 produce the volume of air. You can also increase the temperature of air provided to the space
46 because of this separation effect. So it again is novel technology, it we think is very promising
Page 5
1 within the constraints of energy use, but it also means we have to do some other things to the
4 architecture.
3
4 The control of daylight into the buildings is very important. We have used the same concept for
5 both the Stanford Hospital and the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital but we have applied that
6 concept very differently in architectural terms. So for the Stanford Hospital the glass fayades
7 that you see in the building renderings are really a doub,e layer of glass. Actually there are four
8 layers of glass to create a double curtain wall fayade. Within the double curtain wall will be
9 operable louvers, large Venetian blinds that will adjust mechanically with the sun nlovement
10 around the building to make sure that there aren't hot spots on the floor that the displacement
11 ventilation system would then have to try to cool. So by modulating the amount of sunlight into
12 the building, again we can reduce the amount of energy used and therefore the amount of
13 greenhouse gas emitted into the atmosphere. The system we are using at Lucile Packard
14 . Children's Hospital is a louver system on the exterior of the building. The differences between
15 the two are really related to the different architectural expressions that not only the architects
16 want to take but the different view that each hospital has of itself and the way that it wants to
17 express the buildings. So similar system applied differently, but all with the attempt of having
18 the solar gain controlled passively, or somewhat mechanically and actively, through the design
19 of the buildings.
20
21 We are obviously committed to using recyclable materials and practices wherever we can like
22 the attempts to use crushed concrete from demolition within our projects. Obviously we cannot
23 use the crushed concrete for foundations of the hospital but we can certainly use it as roadway
24 base, and backfill within trenches and pipes. We are using materials amenable to natural and
25 green cleaning methods. That is something we talk about quite a bit within the hospital
26 environment is to provide materials that are continuously healthy. Then as you have seen within
27 the various architectural presentations there is an extensive use of green roofs within the
28 facilities. It provides a comfortable environnlent within the facility. It also obviously provides a
29 very attractive space to look out or space to use within the roofs. You can see the abund'ance of
30 that technology within these buildings.
31
32 Our architects also are very aware of material use. So this is a screen capture from Perkins + .
33 Will, our architect of the Children's Hospital Just to give you an illustration of their
34 precautionary list of specified materials. This list is updated regularly. It is real-time data that
35 can be used by the designers so that they are aware as materials and technologies are being
36 updated how they can specify the latest and greenest materials for the buildings that we are
37 designing.
38
39 As I mentioned before about green roofs we also have really done quite something I think that is
40 really quite spectacular at the Children's Hospital. That is that we have taken the parking lots
41 and structures on the facility and we have turned that hardscape into greenscape. We have
42 created about three and one-half acres of greenscape on the Children's Hospital site that didn't
43 exist there before. Clearly that is going to help us conserve energy and create a much more
44 public green face to the hospital. We are taking similar efforts obviously over at Stanford
45 Hospital and Clinics.
46
Page 6
1 Then an element that I think you may have seen a more thorough presentation of this probably
2 quite awhile ago, and Christine Hansen from our General Services Department could always
3 provide an update. We have already implemented within the hospital a very significant waste
4 reduction program, and you would see that program enumerated within the tables within the
5 Environmental Impact Report. ·We are obviously very committed to maintaining that waste
6 reduction program and enhancing it in the future. So not only are we constructing green
7 buildings but we also are going to be operating green buildings. So that sustainable practice is
8 already part ofour business practice but will be improved as we deliver these new facilities.
9 That concludes our presentation and happy to take any questions you have later.
10
11 Chair Garber: Thank you. Before we corne back to the Commission we will open the public
12 hearing. I have one card. If there are other members of the public that would like to speak
13 please fill out a card. Michael Griffin. You will have five minutes.
14
15 Mr. Michael Griffin, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I have reconstituted my
16 previous comments and nlake them into questions concerning the adequacy of the Medical
17 Center DEIR relating to traffic impacts.
18
19 First of all, while the DEIR acknowledges Stanford knows the horne location of all its employees
20 by zip code there appears to be no attempt to correlate that data with the development of the
21 project's TDM scheme. The TDM proposal is Caltrain centric, which will help employees living
22 in a city served by Caltrain. The question is why then is there not a similar solution for East Bay
23 employees to encourage and financially assist them in riding BART, and the U-Line, and the
24 Durnbarton express buses?
25
26 Secondly, why is there no analysis on the probability that Caltrain can and will have the where
27 with all to deliver sufficient new capacity making the Go Pass solution a valid one producing the
28 mitigations pronlised in the DEIR. Will there in fact even be a Caltrain when we need it?
29 Considering this uncertainty why then is there no discussion of a backup plan should Caltrain for
30 whatever reason be unable to perform its role as the primary service provider for making a reality
31 of the TDM scheme with its reliance on the Go Pass that we hear so much about this evening?
32
33 Thirdly, the trip distribution map on page 48 shows that the vast majorityof regional traffic
34 attempts to access the Stanford projects from the east, basically exiting off 101 and then sifting
35 westward through the neighborhoods until finally reaching Stanford. Why doesn't the DEIR
36 analyze methods of incentivizing motorists to access Stanford off of Highway 280 in the west?
37 Why was there no discussion of encouraging this western access thereby avoiding traffic impacts
38 throughout Palo Alto between 101 and El Camino Real? Why wouldn't offsite park and ride lots
39 at SLAC and behind the berry farm for example be of benefit in accomplishing this goal?
40
41 Fourthly, why is there no discussion of no new net trips? No new net trips are a requirement of
42 Stanford's Santa Clara County General Use Permit. Why doesn't the DEIR discuss the
43 applicability of this County requirement to SUMC? Thank you.
44
45 Chair Garber: Thank you. I see no more cards so we will return to the Commission.
46 Commissioners, let me suggest that we take Air Quality first and we can take a round there.
Page 7
1 Then we can come back and do Climate Control. Do the Commissioners feel that they will need
2 any more than one five-minute pass on the Air Quality Chapter? If I can get a nod of heads. If
3 we can do that we can try and keep our comments to about 30 to 35 minutes or so. Would
4 someone like to lead off? Commissioner Martinez~
5
6 Commissioner Martinez: Normally when I read these things, no offense, 'but I sort of skip over
7 the construction phase because my attitude is it is temporary, it is going to pass, and I like
8 looking at construction. So I don't feel we need to cover it up. In this case I was sort of struck
9 that in the discussion of the construction phase the mitigation took the same standard route of
10 construction vehicles, and diesel, and screening activity, and dust, and like that which are all
11 valid. It doesn't ~ake into account that we have an operating hospital right next to what is going
12 on. I didn't see anything in this discussion that talked about the impact on patients, on clinic
13 . visitors, on people with transplants who have a suppressed immune systems. The dozens of
14 people you see walking around Stanford right now with respirators. It just seemed to be a gross
15 onlission of sort of the circunlstance of construction. Maybe I nlissed it but it just seems to nle
16 that it would be one time during construction that there would be a red flag.
17
18 . Similarly, construction is stated to be over 12 years. Well, that is in my estimation, I don't really
19 see anything there about it, but that is not 12 years of constructing a hospital and a medical office
20 building, and the Medical School buildings. I assunle that there is a phasing plan and that the
21 hospital will likely be the first major construction project, which with all its excavation, arid
22 underground constructions, and heavy equipment would have a greater impact than smaller
23 buildings. So I would have liked to have seen some measure, a graph, a bar chart that kind of
24 shows that this impact on air quality isn't standard and kind of a flat line through the 12 years of
25 construction, but it does have some peaks and valley. It seem to me a discussion of the highest
26 peaks, and mitigations for that isn't going to be something that is carried for 12 years but it
27 should be addressed separately.
28
29 Again, on Air Quality we see that the greatest impacts come from pollution from automobiles
·30 and like that. We keep coming back to the mitigation measures that were stated under Traffic
31 and under Land Use, and like that, the importance of Go Passes, and TDM, and like that. It is
32 even discussed in the next section that we are going to be talking about. It seems to me to put so
33 much faith in those measures, as a member of the public spoke just a minute ago, for Caltrain
34 that is on kind of shaky ground right now and even its capacity to be ab~e to do what we hope it
35 can do. So it seems to me like we need to have a greater introspection of these assumptions
36 about the TDM and our traffic mitigation measures. I am going to come back to this in the next
37 round, but I really want to talk about really putting some, really some more vitality into these
38 measures to give us things that have a greater chance of working for us. Thank you.
39
40 Chair Garber: Commissioners? Commissioner Keller and then Fineberg.
41
42 Commissioner Keller: I am looking at page 3.5-21, Table 3.5-8. This table identifies several
43 intersections for study. So I am curious first of all about how the future baseline of 2025
44 somehow got magically cleaner than the current. I am assuming that is probably because the
45 California Air Resources Board and the US EPA is continually ratcheting down on emissions
46 from vehicles. That is what I am assuming is going on. But I want to compare these with a chart
Page 8
1 that is Figure 3.4-8, which is the local distribution of trips as well as 3.4-9, which is the regional
2 distribution of trips. What is interesting to me about this is if you look at the intersections that
3 have been considered there are no carbon monoxide concentrations that have been considered
4 that are east of El Camino. If you look at Chart 3.4-8 it looks like a significant amount of the
5 traffic is coming from east ofEl Camino. In particular, it says that 15 percent of the increased
6 . traffic is going along University Avenue, 15 percent of the traffic is going along Embarcadero
7 Road, seven percent of the traffic is going along Oregon, and so the lack of studies of
8 intersections for which these significant amounts of traffic coming fronl the east ofEl Camino
9 seems to be a lack. It seems to be an oversight that is inappropriate.
10
11 If we take a look at the regional trip distribution we get 15 percent coming from 101 to the north,
12 11 percent coming from the Dumbarton Bridge, 21 percent coming from 101 from the south, and
13 that adds up to 47 percent, and that doesn't cpunt the four percent coming from Central
14 Expressway direction. What that seems to indicate to me is that we need to understand the
15 amount of carbon monoxide and other pollutants coming from 101 direction, and that which will
16 be wafting over the eastern portions of Palo Alto near 101. There are no intersections along 101
17 that are being considered. So that to me is somewhat bothersome about this.
18
19 I think that there is a strong correlation between these mobile source pollutants and traffic. What
20 is interesting to me about this is that the traffic nlainly considered the issue of AM peak and PM
21 peak, in other words the peak during rush hours. But the pollutants are more widespread in
22 terms of when traffic comes any other time of day. ,That adds to the eight-hour load but it won't
23 necessarily add to the one-hour average load. So I think it would be helpful to understand a little
24 bit more about traffic midday and understand what those impacts would be so that we can better
25 understand the eight-hour average for this. So that is something that needs to be further
26 considered, particularly considering the coverage area where 6,0 percent of the trips involve
27 people who are patients at the facilities, understanding where that comes from is important to
28 understand the traffic impacts and the pollution impacts from that traffic. Thank you.
29
30 Chair Garber: If you have something else why don't you go ahead? Okay. Commissioner
31 Fineberg.
32
33 Commissioner Fineberg: When we measure the impact of a project on traffic we look at a
34 baseline of what is existing and then require mitigations for only the portion above the existing
35 baseline. Is that the same model for Air Quality impacts or does it measure the total amount of
36 emissions from the entire new buildings, and there is sort of no credit for something that is
37 already there causing impacts?
38
39 Ms. Martelino: Geoff Hornek will answer that question.
40
41 Mr. Geoff Hornek, Consultant: In .general our emission estimates are net emissions for the
42 project. So because there is an existing medical center there we subtract that from the proposed
43 plans for the Medical Center. So in this case all the emission estimates you see are net
44 emISSIons.
45
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Fineberg: So I can understand that construction impacts won't be netted because
that is something in and of itself. So when there is a significant and unavoidable impact you are
saying that the new'structure will be considerably more polluting than taking old, very how can I
say, I don't want to say poorly designed, but inefficient systems that were designed 50 years ago.
Mr. Hornek: Right. That is being taken into account too, but one thing we are working with in
making the significance call is we are using Air District criteria that are fixed numbers. Literally
every project that comes along for CEQA evaluation gets evaluated against those fixed numbers
be it a 1 OO-unitsubdivision or SUMC. So literally everyone is working against 54 pounds per
day and 82 pounds per day, and that is why it is fairly easy even with proj ects with significant
proposals for mitigations don't get you under that threshold. That is why the significance finding
is called.
I
Commissioner Fineberg: Do we know what the exiting pounds, forgive mel don't know that
terminology, but do we know what the current level of emissions is for the existing facilities?
Mr. Hornek: When I ran the model I ran it for the existing Medical Center and the future
Medical Center, and the net is what is in the Table. I can find out what the model predicted the
existing Medical Center emissions to be. However, the numbers in the Table are the future
horizon so it would depend on what year you were talking about. I don't know if I have the
existing emissions for the existing Medical Center, but I believe I have the future emissions for
what would have been there had nothing been changed ..
Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thank you. I would like to echo Commissioner Keller's
comments. This is a little bit mixed with Air Quality and Climate. I understand technical
measurements and common sense versus how there are prescribed ways to calculate impact, but I
am struggling with how we can have a project that has no traffic impacts that are significant but
yet can have significant Air Quality impacts. Ignoring the comnlents that the technical
measurements that are prescribed I think it is because the measurements as they are done in this
document deal with peak, deal with specific targets, and it kind of defies common sense. Either
we don't have a tremendous number of new cars on the street creating greenhouse gases, or we
measure them differently so it is okay for there to be lots of new cars, but if they are spread out
over time we miss that on traffic but then we will measure that on air quality. I don't know if we
have to live with that or if we have the ability to look at it in a more common sense way. There
are either a lot of cars and a lot of enlissions and we mitigate both, or why are we measuring
emissions in off-peak times. So okay, thank you.
Chair Garber: Commissioner, if you have something else on Air Quality why don't you get it
out.
Commissioner Fineberg: Actually two more quicker ones. For the crushed concrete the
applicant mentioned would be reused, the crushed concrete fr0 111 demolition would be reused.
Are there specific regulations that govern the reuse of concrete in hospitals near sensitive
receptors? I ask that relating to the more recently produced concrete that uses fly ash. Fly ash
has been used as a byproduct of coal combustion and as a means of sequestering heavy metals in
the concrete. I believe that hospitals have regulations about that so has that been considered,
Page 10
1 specifically that sensitive receptors cannot be exposed to contact with that concrete if it has
2 excess heavy metals in it.
3
4 The last thing is that the applicant mentioned that they are connecting to the existing Cardinal
5 Cogeneration Plant. Has there been consideration of how power is supplied to that Cardinal
6 Cogeneration Plant, and what contingencies will allow the hospital to continue operations at full
7 capacity for long periods of time in the event there is a power failure because of a single source
8 supply through an area that is in a floodplain, in soil that is at high risk of liquefaction, and
9 subject to potential earthquake risks? Those natural disasters that would take out the power
10 supply would cause a high demand on the hospital at a time when there is a power failure. I am
11 just wondering if there has be~n a plan for secondary sources of power into the Cardinal COGEN
12 system so that the hospital wouldn't be taken down.
13
14 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert, and then Garber and Tanaka.
15
16 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, I have a couple of questions for the EIR consultant particularly
17 regarding the Air QualIty aspects., I am looking at the presentation that you did here and the
18 chart. The. localized carbon monoxide impacts for motor vehicles is less than significant. We
19 have already addressed I believe through Transportation Demand Management program trying to
20 mitigate that. With regard to the operation of the mechanical equipment during construction
21 work can some of the I guess air pollution emissions be offset simply by requiring that
22 construction workers commute here via public transit or that there be a Transportation Demand
23 Management program for that aspect of the project?
24
25 Chair Garber: Commissioner, do you need someone to respond or can we just simply take that
26 as a comment to be added to the EIR?
27
28 Commissioner Lippert: Why don't we get a response on that because I have another question
29 associated with that?
30
31 Chair Garber: Okay.
32
33 Mr. Homek: Just as a quick answer on that the equipment that you are actually using for the
34 construction, the emis~ions from it are usually far and away greater proportionately and
35 absolutely than any contribution that the worker vehicles would add. So we have estimates for
36 those worker emissions, but I guarantee you that they are a small fraction of the total for the
37 equipment emissions.
38
39 Commissioner Lippert: Yes, but going another step with that what I am thinking is if you look at
40 the level of service for a lot of intersections and people coming in from the east, or from
41 Bayshore Freeway, when the level of service is reduced you have vehicles sitting in traffic. So
42 again, and I understand what you are saying, because construction equipment uses far more fuel.
43
44 Mr. Homek: That would be a finer scale detail than we would be able to address. What we are
45 dealing with are purely the number of construction worker commutes and average distance that
46 they drive. To add in the added factor of what exactly the vehicles are doing at every point
Page 11
1 during the commute would add enonnous complexity to the calculation, but I don't believe it
2 would really change the fractional comparison as you compare the equipment emissions to the
3 commute emissions.
4
5 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, while I have you up there with regard to the presentation that
6 Mark Tortorichmade with regard to looking at the standards going from LEED to Energy Star in
7 tenns of running the equipment, and I understand what the difference is. Does that at all help us
8 in tenns of getting into compliance by following the Energy Star standards and making it an
9 Energy Star building?
10
11 Mr. ·Homek: Most of the criteria pollutant emissions that we calculated in the EIR were based on
12 purely the COGEN contribution to total emissions. Again, proportionally they would be the
13 most dominant factor in both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. So I think again
14 we are getting into, at least in my calculations for criteria emissions I didn't address the energy
15 efficiency question at all. It was a question of basically the motor vehicle use associated with the
16 hospital, the energy use large scale for heating and cooling, and a nurrtber of other peripheral
17 sources, maintenance equipment, and that sort of thing. The effect of the energy efficiency on
18 that total would be a fairly small variation in the baseline I calculated.
19
20 ·Commissioner Lippert: Okay and then one last just to put things in perspective. Conventional
21 wisdom up until say the last ten years was that 85 percent of a building's lifecycle costs were
22 really captured in maintenance and operation of the building not in the construction of the
23 building. With higher efficiency standards being used, does that skew at all in tenns of the
24 proportion in tenns of reducing that 85 percent, and what lam thinking is 85 percent of the cost
25 again fossil fuel getting more expensive, reducing that 85 percent cost down to 65 percent, does
26 it buy is anything?
27
28 Mr. Homek: Actually, you are getting a little bit outside nly expertise here, but I might ask
29 Michael Hendrix if he has anything to add on that, our greenhouse gas.
30
31 Mr. Michael Hendrix, Consultant: You are right most of the emissions, especially for
32 greenhouse gases, are what we are talking about when you are looking at energy efficiency and
33 the energy consumption for the project. That 85 percent is the focus of the mitigation for climate
34 change. One of the problems with a hospital is that by its nature it is energy intensive. So there
35 is only so much we can do as far as efficiencies. In particular the emergency medical
36 transportation system such as helicopters, anibulances, those sorts we cannot reduce the fuel
37 consumption of those. Then again, the energy efficiencies like we don't know how to reduce
38 emissions or electrical consumption associated with MRI units and those things that are used in
39 hospitals. So there is a lotof energy intensity in hospitals that maybe in a nonnal building we
40 could do some more robust mitigation for. We did offset inthe ClImate Change 100 percent of
41 the electrical emissions associated with greenhouse gases through the Palo Alto Green Energy
42 Program.
43
44 Commissioner Lippert: Did you want to add anything to that? Thank you, I will pass it along to
45 the next Commissioner.
4p
Page 12
1 Chair Garber: That would be me followed by Commissioner Tanaka. On page 3.5-17 under
2 AQ-l.2, item number A, it says where possible electrical equipment will be used instead of fossil
3 fuel powered equipment. It occurs to me you may want to include if it is appropriate natural gas
4 using vehicles.
5
6 On the following page there is a general description with mitigation measures. I don't have a
7 specific citation here, but it occurs to me in alignment with some of the other comments that
8 have been made by the Commissioners and also related to our last Transportation element that
9 establishing a plan for how the construction workers actually get to the site has likely impacts
10 -both on Air Quality as well as Transportation. Given the duration of the project is many, many
11 years long it could have a significant impact. In any case, I believe that could have significantly
12 mote meat around it. Commissioner Tanaka.
13
14 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. I have a few quick questions for Trixie. The way I read this
15 chapter it seemed like the majority of the impact comes from mobile sources, which seem to be
16 basically transportation. Is that correct?
17
18 Ms. Martelino: That is correct.
19
20 Commissioner Tanaka: It looks like on page 3.5-18 that 60 percent of the trips are actually nlade
21 by patients. It says that in the first paragraph.
22
23 Ms. Martelino: That is correct.
24
25 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. So I guess when I was thinking about this chapter is I kind of
26 assumed that given the aging population and the importance of health care that some sort of
27 hospital facility would have to be built somewhere. So do you think about the difference in
28 terms of if it was built here in Palo Alto what the air quality impact would be versus if it was
29 built say in Redwood City versus Mountain View versus Sunnyvale versus other cities in terms
30 of how patients would get to the hospital, whether this is a good location, in terms of air quality
31 impacts whether this would increase trips, decrease trips, has that analysis been done?
32
33 Ms. Martelino: In some cases the EIR takes a look at an alternative location in the Alternatives
34 Analysis. In this case, an alternative location was rejected as infeasible.
35
36 Commissioner Tanaka: I see. So you are saying that this is the best location then given the air
37 quality impacts?
38,
39 Ms. Martelino: There has been no analysis as to what a better location would be in terms of air
40 quality impacts. When you look at the Air Quality analysis for criteria pollutants we are looking
41 at standards on a basin wide level.
42
43 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, thank you.
44
45 Chair Garber.: Commissioner Martinez, anything more?
46
Page 13
1 Commissioner Martinez: I think I am going to overlap into the next section so I can wait.
2
3 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Keller and then Fineberg.
4
5 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. A couple of things. Firstly, since a significant amount of the
6 sources seem to be from mobile sources adding to a significant air quality concern I am
7 wondering whether it is possible to offset some of these mobile sources of pollutants, particularly
8 by increasing shuttle services for patients to be able to get to and from the Medical Center from
9 the surrounding area, and by increasing transit for patients during the day whether that will mean
10 that people can get there without taking cars, and thereby reduce both congestion and traffic
11 during off hours as well as criteria pollutants. .
12
13 I know that some jurisdictions have further incentives for alternative fuel vehicles. Notably
14 Vacaville; wJfich is sometimes referred to as 'voltage-ville' has long had programs for promoting
15 alternative fuel vehicles. I am wondering if anybody has studied the degree to which funding
16 such a project for Palo Alto or perhaps other communities surrounding Stanford might reduce
17 criteria pollutants sufficient to make an impact on the current amount of impacts. In other words,
18 significantly reduce the impact that is provided, perhaps not to eliminate it, but perhaps to make
19 a dent so· to speak.
20
21 With respect to the COGEN plant, I understand the COGEN plant generates power from natural
22 gases is that correct? It generates both, it is co-gen, so it generates processed heat, hot water,
23 cold water, or chilled water, and electricity. So the first thing is what has been done about
24 potential disruption of potential supply of natural gas particularly in an earthquake? So are there
25 sufficient reserves of natural gas in the event of an earthquake to provide continued operations
26 until the supply is restored after disruption? Assuming that the COGEN plant is allowed to
27 continue to operate does it have sufficient capacity and reserves to operate during a power outage
28 or a natural gas supply outage? Could the COGEN plant also provide backup power to the
29 Stanford University Medical Center so that if we have a further disruption of power from an
30 airplane hitting the 'single point where all of the power lines come into the City of Palo Alto that
31 at least the hospital would have a backup supply of power. I think that certainly should be
32 considered.
33
34 A summarizing question. There is a notion of non-attainment days that I understand is a
35 principle of the Air Quality Management District. I am wondering how many non-attainment
36 days in terms of ozone, or carbon monoxide, or whatever the criteria pollutants are that are
37 measured for non-attainment days, how many non-attainment days the Bay Area Air Quality
38 Management District currently has and how likely is it that the project will adversely affect, in
39 other words increase, the number of non-attainment days that the Bay Area Air Quality
40 Management District has? Does it move the needle in terms of the entire district or does it not
41 move the needle? Obviously it moves the needle in terms of significance on a lower threshold
42 but it would be interesting to actually see whether it nloves the needle in terms of the overall air
43 district considering that this project is of significant size. Thank you.
44
45 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Lippert.
46
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
·27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Fineberg: Thank: you. The applicant had a presentation with slides with a fair
amount of detailed text. Is that something that can be made available to us? There was a
considerable amount of text in there that I personally at least couldn't take in given the quick
pace of the presentation.
Mr. Turner: Absolutely. We can make copies available to the Commissioners and to the pUblic.
Commissioner Fineberg: Great, thank: you. Then I have a question ahout
Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg, Commissioner Keller would like to as a follow up.
\
Commissioner Keller:· Can I request that in the future that the applicant provide copies of the
presentations at places during the presentations so that we don't have to scribble notes? We
didn't get them. So it would be helpful if the Commissioners had them at places too.
Mr. Turner: I just want to nlake sure the Comnlissioners have this packet where the applicant's
presentation is on the back. Okay, just want to make sure.
Commissioner Keller: Thank: you.
Chair Garber: Apologize about that. Commissioner Fineberg.
Commissioner Fineberg: I don't believe I have it but maybe it is .... and the end of our Staff
Report?
Commissioner Lippert: It is part of the PowerPoint. The first part is the Staff s presentation ·and
the last part is Stanford's presentation.
Commissioner Fineberg: Forgive me then. I take that question back. It got filed with the last
item. Okay, I am hearing a comment from my fellow Commissioner though that the print is so
small and gray that it is not legible. So enough said on that one.
I have a question on Mitigation Measure PH-3-1. Basically it says that the City should consider
reducing the impacts of the ratio between jobs and housing as a way of nlitigating air quality
impacts. That to me goes to the heart of the air quality impacts, the traffic impacts, and how we
measure housing and the demand that ABAG will place on us to build more housing. Within the
DEIR it talks about it in the Housing section so that ties it with this topic.
We right now are factoring.eight percent of the new workforce will live in Palo Alto so 92
percent will be driving into the facility. That is where the air quality impacts and the patients are
generating the mobile greenhouse gases. I think we need to have some consideration of what
means do we have to avail ourselves of, how can we address the jobs/housing imbalance within
this proj ect to reduce the inlpact on the greenhouse gases? Simply mentioning that a mitigation
is an option I don't think is specific enough. So can comments from Staff or consultants at a
later date address what mechanisms the City could use ·to create those mitigations triggered by
the imbalance in the jobs to housing ratio?
Page 15
1
2 That goes to the earlier question we had about wh~ther using the eight percent, because they
3 happen to live in Palo Alto, is the correct methodology? Or are we mitigating only the historic
4 proportions or are we really attempting to reduce trips and house those that work within Palo
5 Alto? Should the DEIR address what the answer to that question is? Thank you.
6
7 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Lippert. I have a couple of questions for Mark
8 Tortorich.
9
10 Mr. Tortorich: I will do my best to answer them.
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: I was very impressed by your presentation, particularly the use of
13 Energy Start. That was a point that I was going to bring up earlier. With regard to your
14 displacement ventilation system and the way you are going to be providing an envelope to the
15 new building, are you going to be re-improving those portions of the existing Medical Center
16 that are going to remain? How are you going to bring those up to efficiencies or are you not?
17
18 Mr. Tortorich: So we are proposing the demolition and removal of a significant portion of the
19 Medical Center so we can build new efficient facilities. The 1989 beds that remain we don't
20 currently have a plan to renovate them extensively for energy efficient performance. But by the·
21 management of the beds there we will improve the energy performance, because we will lower
22 the occupant load, and in a low census we could actually shut down portions of those units and
23 tum off air conditioning and power to those units.
24
25 Commissioner Lippert: With regard to the OSHPD standards here with regard to infectious
26 disease, actually it is stringent infectious control criteria. What I read in that is mechanical
27 ventilation, filtering as a necessity but not all conditions or all diagnosis are infectious in fact.
28 Are there ways of separating out and perhaps using those wings for noninfectious treatment?
29
30 Mr. Tortorich: Well, the risk isn't necessarily to the patient that may not have an infection. The
31 risk is that you are in the hospital environment with patients that do have infections and there can
32 be a spread of those infections within the hospital environment. So there really isn't a way that I
33 know of to segment the building between different disease types in any manageable way ,
34 effectively. The infection control rules are certainly administered by OSHPD but they are also
35 administered by the hospital itself and by the joint commission that will evaluate and certify
36 hospitals as fit to be operated.
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Please.
39
. 40 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez, a follow up.
41
42 Commissioner Martinez: It used to be that OSHPD would require 100 percent fresh air in
43 hospitals. Has that changed?
44
45 Mr. Tortorich: Oh no, that has not changed. No, it has gotten more strict in terms of the number
46 of airflow and air exchanges.
Page 16
1
2 Commissioner Martinez: How does that affect this innovative ventilation system?
3
4 Mr. Tortorich: Well, so we in effect have to get OSHPD to agree to alter the code or to give us
5 an alternate means of compliance to the code. The challenge is, to be quite candid codes can be
6 somewhat arbitrarily written, but once they are written they are the standard. If you want to
7 change the standard you have to provide more science to change the standard. So that is what we
8 are doing with OSHPD. We are actually going to have to ask them to waive certain requirements
9 of the code to let us do this. We think this is more effective than the code for a variety of
10 reasons, not just energy performance, but also managing the flow of air within the rooms to
11· prevent the spread of infections within a hospital.
12
13 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Thank you very much, Mark. I have another question for the
14 EIR consultants in terms of air quality, again going back to the heavy equipment here. I guess
15 during the last go-round in terms of Stanford building the underground parking structure there
16 was a great amount of soil removal, and of course big soil trucks that carry and awful lot of
17 weight, and of course· there is air quality pollution associated with that. I think during that the
18 City had a prescribed route that they had to follow where they had to go out through South Palo
19 Alto. So could by finding a closer area for dumping soil or dumping materials or dealing with
20 those materials help reduce the amount of air pollution or the amount of greenhouse gases?
21
22 Mr. Hornek: Based on what I worked with, and I had some pretty detailed equipment
23 specifications from Stanford, what I found in the course of doing the emission estimates we
24 looked at the actual construction equipment, the excavators, we had fairly detailed phasing, more
25 information on what kind of work they were doing to do, whether it was foundation work or the
26 superstructure work. One thing that really stood out was that the equipment itselfwas innately
27 much more emission intensive than any of the trucks associated with the operations, be they on
28 the site trucks, or trucks that would be hauling material on and off the site. When basically I
29 finished the equipment emissions and then added in the onsite and offsite trucks they turned out
30 to be a fairly small fraction of the total construction emissions, a very small as a matter of fact.
31 So again if we start dealing "lith not just the number of trucks but actually how far they are
32 actually going to go that would be another small adjustment to a relatively small source of the
33 pollutant. So I don't think we would see much difference especially when we are comparing to
34 like Air District thresholds or Air District risk criteria.
35
36 Commissioner Lippert: I know. My line of questioning is almost like looking for coins in the
37 cushions so to speak.
38
39 Mr. Homek: Right.
40
41 Commissioner Lippert: When I go through the report and I see that we are going to have great
42 difficulty making the Bay Area Air Quality Management District guidelines and I don't know,
43 do they have any authority here, and can they be punitive in terms of this process?
44
45 Mr. Homek: We do meet some of the guideline thresholds. When looking at the toxic risk as a
46 result of the equipment we do meet those thresholds. The thresholds we are not meeting are the
Page 17
1 regional emission thresholds. Those are again, it is a sort of a one-size fits all threshold. Not
2 matter what the project is, what its size is literally, you are allocated 54 pounds per day. In some
3 cases it is very easy to meet. You might be under it without any effort at all. Again, the larger
4 the project gets the harder and harder it is to get under those thresholds. So I don't think the Air
5 District would be at all surprised that this project exceeded those regional thresholds.
6
7 Commissioner Lippert: I guess what I am looking at here is the project would exceed threshold
8 even with mitigation. So the question is does the Bay Area Air Quality Management pistrict
9 have the authority here or are we saying we can make findings for overriding consideratiori and
10 allow for those additional emissions?
11
12 Mr. Homek: We did show the effectiveness bfthe transportation measures on reducing the
13 mobile source emissions. The trouble is that the thresholds are fairly low and the project is large.
14 So even with a fairly significant percentage decrease you still don't get under those nUInbers.
15
16 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then one last question here. We are looking at emissions per
1 7 day, but all days are not the same. I think as Commissioner Keller mentioned there are certain
18 days where we have air quality emergency situations where they don't want us to run our
19 fireplaces for instance. Poor air quality days. Can they be averaged out over a period of time in
20 which we are looking at when the building is completed that it would operating at a much lower
21 threshold perhaps. .
22
23 Mr. Homek: Actually, the two types of thresholds mentioned in their guidelines are average
24 daily and annual emissions. Both of which we did, but I also have fairly complete time lines for
25 the construction. We were able to go year by year and give the average day, and the average
26 annual emissions per year to show the variation of construction activity as it would occur.
27
28 Commissioner Lippert: I think Commissioner Fineberg had comment to make.
29
30 Commissioner Fineberg: Commissioner Lippert's comments are making me think about timing
31 much. in the same way that we regulate the time of year that construction can be. done with cut
32 . and fill on slopes to minimize erosion would it worth considering that during the season when we
33 have the Spare the Air Days, I think that is summer and frankly around the Christmas holidays.
34 Would it be worth avoiding certain pieces, and I don't know if one could schedule a project this
35 way, but scheduling the avoidance of whatever the most polluting practices would be to avoid
36 those times.
37
38 Mr. Homek: The activity that I think you are most familiar with is the fireplace regulations
39 where certain nights are declared Spare the Air nights, and it is strongly suggested that you not
40 light a fire. We also have Spare the Air day for ozone alerts where people are advised if at all
41 possible take public transportation. One possible approach would be to· say if the Spare the Air
42 was very severe there might be an Air District recommendation to avoid construction activity or
43 kind of relatively inessential activity, certainly not talking economically, but if you could at all
44 avoid doing it then do it. I don't believe the Air District has those kinds of alerts to kind of
45 include construction activity as part of a Spare the Air suggestion.
46
Page 18
1 Commissioner Fineberg: Should that be considered as a mitigation? I am not thinking
2 necessarily all construction. For instance, somebody could put carpet down, or install a window,
3. and that is not going to create any pollutants. If you have a temperature inversion, you have a
4 Spare the Air day is that a day that maybe we don't dig a big hole which creates dust?
5
6 Mr. Hornek: I wish I were the Air District. . I wish I could give you an authoritative reply to that.
7 It sounds like it might be applicable in certain occasions. I have never seen a recommendation of
8 that sort from the Air District.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: I actually have a follow up on the follow up. We do have microc1imates
11 in the Bay Area. It is cooler on the peninsula than it is in the East Bay for instance. When you
12 have temperature differentialslhere are different air quality issues that come into play. Surely
13 San Francisco with its natural air conditioning is another microclimate. Is it possible to ask the
14 . Air Quality Management District to look at the peninsula for the sake of the project differently
15 say than the whole Bay Area?
16
17 Mr. Hornek: In reading through their new CEQA guidelines, looking at some of the setting
18 information they suggest be, mentioned in EIRs they do put in a lot of material to explain
19 microc1imates and how particular air quality problems differ in different sub areas of the Bay
20 Area.
21
22 One thing I would comment on is that sometimes when air is good in your area, you may still be
23 creating a bad condition in another part of the Bay Area. Like up in San Francisco on foggy days
24 the wind is blowing toward the hotter interior so all of our ozone precursors, we don't suffer the
25 ozone problem, but if it drifts out to Concord that would affect it negatively there. Basically, the
26 Air District thresholds are generally to give it an indication of when the Air District thinks in
27 general in the Bay Area it kind of rises to the level of interfering with air quality plan
28 implementation, at least potentially.
29
30 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you very much.
31
32 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez a final word and then we move to the next chapter.
33
34 Commissioner Martinez: I just want to follow up a bit on Commissioner Fineberg's question.
35 The construction industry is fan1iliar with rain days. This might just be a progressive step in the
36 right direction when we have a Spare the Air day to incorporate that into the normal practice of
37 construction. I don't think it would be that difficult or too impacting on the project.
38
39 I did want to ask Trixie, and this is also a follow up to Commissioner Fineberg's question. You
40. mentioned in your presentation that providing housing is an alternative. Is that elaborated
41 anywhere in your DEIR?
42
43 Ms. Martelino: That mitigation measure is provided in the Population and Housing section.
44
Page 19
1 Commissioner Martinez: Only about the eight percent and the.l04 units. It is a question too, I
2 am sorry to state it this way. Is it stated as a way to reduce or improve air quality, reduce the
3 number of trips in that frame of mind?
4
5 Ms. Martelino: Yes. The introduction in the Population and Housing section cites back how
6 providing housing near employment centers would help reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles
7 traveled.
8
9 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, I was hoping there was something going forward from that.
10 Okay, thanks.
11
12 Chair Garber: Commissioners, lets move to the next chapter, Climate Change. I will go first and
13 then Commissioner Keller.
14
15 First let me compliment the writers ona renlarkably comprehensive discussion of the existing
16 regulatory environment. I am no expert but it is one of the few places where I have seen it
1 7 written up succinctly as well as the quantitative synopsis of the various values that this proj ect is
18 dealing with.
19
20 Climate Change in my mind has to do with lifecycle impact, and the greenhouse gas analysis is a
21 proxy for carbon footprint, which is about different types of energy, as I understand it. There are
22 two ways of thinking about energy. One is energy that is expended through operations and the
23 other is energy that is put into things, and is otherwise called embodied or embedded energy.
24 The way that I would have imagined seeing this chapter organized or at least addressing, the
25 project is looking specifically at all of the embedded energy that occurs during the course of
26 construction, and then the operational energy that occurs after occupancy of the building. Seeing
27 that expressed as a carbon footprint in both cases helps as away to rollup all of those impacts
28 into a single set of numbers. Granted, getting to those numbers is very difficult, particularly
29 difficult when trying to do an analysis of embodied or embedded energy, but I think it would
30 help create incentives that would drive efficiencies as well as good practice and use in the
31 project.
32
33 I note that most of the discussion of the 60 pages here deals with emissions. The construction
34 portion of the project has an operational part to it, which is emissions, the use and the operation
35 of equipment, and appliances, systems, etc. There is also a material side that as well that has
36 embedded energy in it, which is completely missing here, and has an impact on climate change
37 not just here but in the places where those materials are gotten and manufactured from. To the
38 point that was made earlier, the sort of rule of thumb is that that is equal to 15 or 20 percent of
39 the overall energy footprint or carbon footprint of the project. This chapter does not address
40 them.
41
42 This would be the opportunity for some of the comments that were offered by the presentation by
43 Mr. Tortorich in terms of how the design addresses some of these things could be incorporated
44 into this chapter, and viewed therefore as mitigations to the energy that has to be embedded into
45 the project. So just to sort of emphasize that, of the 60 pages only three of those pages deal with
46 the emissions that deal with the construction i.e., the energy that is being embedded into the
Page 20
1 project and that the energy that is embodied into the materials and systems themselves that are
2 brought to the site or assembled onsite, etc. are missing from the conversation. Commissioner
3 Keller.
4
5 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So the first thing is I would like to refer to the Table 3.6-2 on
6 page 3.6-7. On the bottom of this table it says in the year 2050 the population of California will
7 be about 59 million and change, and the greenhouse gas emissions are 80 percent below 1990
8 levels. Then in Footnote C it says calculated by multiplying 427.0, which is the 1990 level by
9 .80 percent. It is not reducing it to 80 percent. It is reducing it by 80 percent, meaning that the
10 factor that you have to n1ultiply by is .2. So instead of the greenhouse gas target being 341.6, the
11 greenhouse gas target should be 85.4. So I am not sure of the implications of all of that but that
12 is an error by a factor of four. At least that is how I understand math. So reducing it by 80
13 percent, which means reducing it to 20 percent of the original.
14
15 That also means that because the population is increasing dramatically if we take a look a the
16 2000 level of 452.3 TGCOE, I don't even know what that stands for but it is some big amount,
17 divided by 34 million people and then you take the factor of 85.4 divided into 59 million people
18 what you wind up actually with on a per capita basis the reduction is 89.2 percent, because
19 population almost doubles. So that is dramatic increase that we have to consider.
20
21 I sort 'of analyzed this project and it looks like the current usage is about 165,000 metric tons of
22 carbon dioxide equivalents is the current usage. The calculation here is that the business as usual
23 increase is approximately 75,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. That increase of75,000 metric
24 tons is reduced to 56,000 metric tons. That means that we are essentially changing from a 45
25 percent increase of current rates to a 34 percent increase of current rates. So I have trouble .
. 26 understanding how business as usual is a reduction. If you are talking about a 30 percent
27 reduction of the increase as opposed to a 15 percent reduction from the baseline, which is where
28 we are now, so I am sort of having trouble understanding that.
29
30 Now let me put that a little bit more into perspective before you comment on that. Let me give
31 you some more date. There is a comment here that says the reduction of the City of Palo Alto
32 119,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. The Stanford increase is 56,000 metric tons of carbon
33 dioxide. Meaning that the amount that the rest of Palo Alto has to shrink in greenhouse gases in
34 order to accommodate the 56,000 metric tons increase, the rest of Palo Alto has to shrink by
35 additional 47 percent between now and 2020 or so, or if this thing is through 2025 or whatever,
36 and essentially it is going to be even worse by then. Essentially the rest of Palo Alto has to go on
37 a carbon dioxide diet of 47 percent more than we otherwise would in order to accommodate the
38 increase of Stanford. Now that may be a good or a not good thing but that is what I compare it to
39 is the other numbers.
40
41 A further consideration is that if you consider the state's Executive Order 8-3-05 that essentially
42 means an 80 percent reduction from current levels, which essentially means that we are about
43 150,000 or 160,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide for the entire City of Palo Alto in 2050. Yet
44 Stanford Medical Center as envisioned here with all the nice bells and whistles that are going to
45 be here are going to be is 221,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. So essentially all of Stanford
46 without anything -the best thing that Stanford is doing here gets to be more than Palo Alto is
Page 21
1 allowed to emit in 2050 under the state's Executive Order. So I am totally confused how all
2 these things fit together, but the math seems to be pretty bad from my point of view.
3 Considering that Stanford is a significant percentage of Palo Alto"s greenhouse gas emissions.
4 So maybe you want to address that. Thank you.
5
6 Mr. Hendrix: Concerning the state's ambition to get to 80 percent below 1990 emissions,
7 currently that is technologically infeasible. We will have to be carbon neutral, all of us, in order
8 to achieve that. So the 2050 goal is not a threshold at this point. We are focused on the 2020
9 goal because that is, although very aggressive, is technologically feasible. It is going to take a lot
1 0 of money and effort to get there but we can get there. The 2050 goal at this point is the ultimate
11 place we need to be to keep climate change at a two degree Celsius rise. In other words, to have
12 it peak and level off That was from the IPCC.
13
14 The reason we have these stair step goals is just because of that, because technologically we
15 can't get to the ultimate goal' so we get the ones we can get at and then work from there.
16
17 Commissioner Keller: So if I may follow up, then with Stanford increasing by 56,000 metric
18 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year how does Palo Alto meet its 2020 goal for reduction,
19 which you say is achievable? That means that Palo Alto has to change its reduction goal for the
20 rest of Palo Alto from 119,000 metric tons to 175,000 metric tons to deal with Stanford Medical
21 Center's increase of 56,000 metric tons. Could you explain that?
22
·23 Mr. Hendrix: Palo Alto needs to look broadly at all of the benefits as well as the impacts.
24 Certainly this hospital because it is energy intensive, fuel intensive has significant impacts on
25 greenhouse gas. It also has a significant contribution as far as public safety and health. So you
26 need to weigh the two. You don't want to sacrifice public health and safety in order to achieve a
27 greenhouse gas goal. We want to walk a fine line that allows us feasible mitigation to get the
28 emissions as low as technically feasible without jeopardizing the overarchinggoals of a hospital.
29 A hospital does not fit well within a Climate Change analysis because things like recycling are
30 not achievable as they are with an office building. You have biohazards and things. We can't
31' get like a 70 percent reduction in solid waste from a hospital. Energy consumption is pretty high
32 because there are things that are required. Hopefully as time goes on our technology will get
33 better with hospitals, and the other things that we have. We have.I believe got as much feasible
34 mitigation in here to offset the emissions.
35
36 Chair Garber: Commissioner, let's take your comments'and the comments of the consultant as
37 comments for the DEIRio respond to and we can use that to flush out the conversation.
38
39 Commissioner Keller: So can I make one response?
40
41 Chair Garber: Please.
42
43 Commissioner Keller: So the thing is this. It seems to me that Stanford has done a great job of
44 trying to do a lot in tenns of reducing from what it might otherwise be. I know that the Stanford
45 campus throughout has done a lot of work in tenns of sustainability initiatives to try to minimize
46 the carbon footprint of the campus. What I am wondering is whether Stanford University as a
Page 22
1 whole in whatever that means can sort of take on Palo Alto as a project and help the rest of Palo
2 Alto achieve as much greenhouse gas emissions as we can achieve in order to be able to deal
3 .with this increased diet of emissions of 47 percent. I think it may be doable if we work in some
4 sort of partnership. I would welcome Stanford taking on the challenge of its wonderful expertise
5 and applying it in this direction.
6
7 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Tanaka.
8
9· Commissioner Lippert: I am going to nlake a couple of comments here. The first one is I
10 appreciate Stanford University's presentation here. There are a couple of things that I think the
11 EIR consultants need to take into consideration. One is the standard that they prefer to use rather
12 than LEED is the Energy Star compliance. I think that is particularly important. That is driven
13 by the Environmental Protection Agency. In looking at that it sounds as though that they are
14 going to be, while it is a big energy consumer, it could in fact wind up being more energy
15 efficient than say looking at the LEED standards. The reason being is that LEED is really
16 looking at sustainability and this is looking at actual efficiency. So that is just something that I
17 think we should examine.
18
19 The other thing is that at great risk they are looking at the displacement ventilation system as
20 well as the double building envelop. I think that recently with their approach in ternlS of the
21 design is something that the merits of that really need to be addressed in terms of the EIR here.
22
23 The third aspect again has to do with climate change and AB 32 and SB 375. The project I
24 believe is within half a mile of the City of Palo Alto transit station. That is a very significant
25 aspect. If this proj ect was not located within half a mile I think I might have additional concerns.
26 But because ofth8;t we are able-to avail ourselves of certain state level programs within that. I
27 am thinking of TPP, Transit Priority Projects. If Stanford wasn't the single largest landholder in
28 Palo Alto then again I might have difficulty with it. Perhaps again adding the emphasis to
29 providing more housing associated with the project for people that are going to be working in the
30 hospital. It does two things, number one if for instance there is a cutback in Caltrain service as
31 Michael Griffin had mentioned earlier, it actually has staff living locally that could then be
32 working in the hospital during those hours of cutback service. In addition to that a facility like
33 this operating, as Stanford said themselves, 24 hours a day has inlIDediate staff available to get
34 there in case of an emergency, for instance where we might have a Bay Area wide blackout and
35 loss of power for running the trains if we do go with electrification for instance of the railways.
36 So if there was an earthquake for instance staff is local and can get to the hospital
37
38 Then the third thing that"! w3;ntedto say, and I may not have the numbers exactly right, you can
39 correct me if I am wrong. With regard to greenhouse gas emission I believe it is 20 percent of
40 greenhouse gas emissions are generated by our homes, 40 percent from commercial buildings,
41 and I believe another 40 percent are generated by transportation aspects. Could there in fact be a
42 tradeoff in that transportation area where we are looking at a further reduction again by getting
43 people to live closer to work and thereby cutting down per person the greenhouse gas emissions
44 in terms of transportation just simply by having people living locally and working in the
45 community. So that is sort of where I am coming from in terms of how it relates to AB 32 and
46 SB 375.
,Page 23
1
2 Mr. Hendrix: Yes. There is the Village Concept Alternative that maybe Trixie can elaborate on
3 that I think hits right to the points that you are talking about.
4
5\ Commissioner Lippert: Do you want to elaborate on that, Trixie?
6
7 Ms. Martelino: That is right the Village Concept provides recommendations for housing
8 dedicated to SUMC employees. The analysis of the Village Concept Alternative addresses the
9 vehicle miles traveled and the reduction of vehicle miles traveled compared to the SlJMC project
10 without any assumption that housing would be constructed nearby.
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then I want to make one final point, which again goes back to
13 Mark Tortorich's presentation on running a facility 24 hours. If I have a car and it is in my
14 driveway and it is running but it is not going anywhere it is still consuming a certain an10unt of
15 energy, not at as great a rate as driving on the freeway or on streets, but it is consuming energy.
16 If Stanford has difficulty shutting down the facility at night because they have patients in the
17 rooms, and those patients need to have the facility operating, but there are also ancillary facilities
18 associated with that, particularly operating theaters, treatment rooms; MRIs, things like that.
19 Perhaps there is a way of having greater efficiency and a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
20 sin1ply by having those facilities in operations 24 hours a day. Therefore requiring that maybe I
21 may not like it, but I may have to come in to have my MRI done at two o'clock in the morning. I
22 have had MRIs done as late as nine'o'clock in the evening. Again, with increased capacity or
23 demand for medical services it just makes sense to have the facility operating at greater
24 efficiency by having it maybe operate at 24 hours a day.
25
26 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka and then Fineberg.
27
28 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. As I was looking at this chapter it struck me that this
29 chapter is about climate change, which is actually a very global issue not really a local issue. As
30 such, given that it is kind of a global issue, one of the mitigations I wanted to ask Trixie or our
31 consultant here why it wasn't considered is the concept of carbon offsets. Like for instance,
32 Stanford has a lot of land they could plant a bunch of trees perhaps around the Stanford Dish to
33 mitigate some of the carbon impacts, or even buy carbon offsets from third parties. I wanted to
34 understand why that couldn't be considered a mitigation factor.
35
36 Mr. Hendrix: We actually looked into offsets as far as planting trees. You have to be careful
37 with that because there are also emissions embedded in say irrigation water and fertilizers and
38 those sorts of things. So if you plant natural vegetation in an area that is stays natural, so a
39 habitat and you don't have to water, you don't have to fertilize it, and those trees grow and
40 mature you actually have sequestration. If you do the kind of urban planting that is typical
41 landscaping they produce more en1issiont; n1aintaining those trees than they sequester. Offsets
42 are becoming more and more viable a solution.
43
44 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is in the very beginning stages of setting up an
45 offset program. The California Climate Action Registry is in the process of doing that too. But
46 it is in very early stages. Now you can buy through the Chicago Climate Exchange and a few
Page 24
1 other existing markets. I have found a buyer beware mentality there. Just like stock it is all in
2 what you purchase. If I was to go into emission credits right now I would want to go into very
3 good detail of exactly what you are buying into, how it is getting funded, the scheduling for it,
4 what is actually being implemented. Are we preserving rainforests, which is not really offsetting
5 emissions but just kind of abating further degradation of sequestration, or are you buying into a
6 project that literally does offset emissions, such as renewable energy or something like that:
7
8 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, thank you.
9 ~
10 Ms. Martelino: If I may add as well, I would like to cite mitigation measure CC-l.2 which does
11 call for participation in the Palo Alto Green Program involving purchase of renewable energy as
12 Michael just mentioned. As he mentioned earlier it does offset the greenhouse gas from
13 electricity consumption.
14
15 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. I was just thinking that given that Stanford does have a lot
16 of open space it would seem to be, and even on the Stanford logo the tree, that they could
17 certainly plant a lot of trees to mitigate assuming it doesn't take more water to irrigate them. I
18 just thought that whether it is on the land or third party it seems to me at least that you could
19 mitigate all the impact if you really wanted to. Now, whether you are actually able to audit it
20 and verify is another story. It seems like there are certainly a lot of people out there selling
21 carbon credits.
22
23 Mr. Hendrix: With money not being an issue certainly that is the case. But you get into
24 econorillc feasibility as well. I think we actually hit Stanford pretty hard by totally offsetting
25 electricity. The Go Pass, we have been kind of conservative in what kind of reduction we are
26 going to get off of that. It may get more than we plan on but I would rather be pleasantly
27 surprised with a mitigation than find out that we didn't adequately address the impacts here. So I
28· have a rather conservative nature on assumptions.
29
30 The other place is the steam and chilled water, the amount ofBTUs there that are in that
31 combined cycle unit. Like I say, they have mitigated ~ significant amount of emissions actually.
32 They went from 74 to 56,000.
33
34 Commissioner Tanaka: So yes, I would like to see if that could be something that can be
35 considered as part of this in terms of possible mitigations if it has not already.
36
37 The other thing, speaking about the chilled water plant I know that a lot of commercial buildings,
38 especially the other centers these days, they do the concept of at night they actually freeze ice in
39 the basement somewhere or somewhere that they have space. Then during the day they will
40 actually use it to chill the building or cool the servers or in this case cool the hospital. Perhaps
41 using some of that, the fact that it is cooler at night to actually cool the building when it is nl0re
42 economical both in electricity as well as physically might make a lot of sense.
43
44 Mr. Hendrix: I think Stanford has actually made some improvements to their steam and chilled
45 water process that improves that.· I will let them speak to the details of that but I think they have
46 looked into making that more efficient.
Page 25
1
2 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, great. I am out of tinle so I will do nlore later.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Martinez.
5
6 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. Trixie," could we go back to your response to
7 Commissioner Lippert's comments about the Village Concept Alternative? I am not sure I heard
8 you properly but at the very end of what you said I thought I heard you say that the Village
9 Concept Alternative would reduce the trip miles taken without a requirement for building
10 additional housing nearby.
11
12 Ms. Martelino: To clarify, the Village Concept wouldreduce the vehicle miles traveled
13 assuming that housing would be constructed nearby for employees. In comparison to the SUMC
14 project the analysis for which does not assume that h()using would be constructed for employees
15 . then the vehicle miles traveled would be reduced.
16
17 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. Now I understand the distinction. Regarding the Go Pass
18 as a mitigation measure to reducing impacts of climate changes, in our last meeting we talked
19 about the Transportation Chapter and the relative demand that the Go Pass would put on
20 Caltrain. Comnlissioner Keller had some data that was not in the DEIR that there were about
21 2,000 trips at peak, and if we are talking about a reduction of 500 trips at peak that is a 25
22 percent increase in demand, approximately on Caltrain. I am making an assumption that they
23 have adequate engines and adequate passenger cars to handle peak capacity. Ifwe are ~asking
24 Caltrain to adjust their schedules, adjust the capacity based on demand, does this chapter on
25 Climate Protection need to account for the energy required, the environmental"impacts of
26 Caltrain building cars, buying cars, transporting them to the area, and then running additional
27 cars? I understand that they are more energy efficient than car vehicle trips, but we are requiring
28 the production of new trains. That is going to slim the margin a bit. ""
29
30 Mr. Hendrix: This is where I get into the concept that climate change analysis is not easily fit
31 into CEQA. We are looking at project impacts and you can see where taking that analysis we are
32 actually going off into another jurisdictions realm and figuring out what the emissions are. From
33 a climate change perspective if we were not just narrowly focused on it project would probably
34 be a viable thing to do. Personally and to be candid, I think we need to in the future Palo Alto as
35 a whole as well as Stanford and myself need to rely more and more on transit, to do that we need
36 to increase demand. The budget woes they are going into now are partially related to insufficient
37 demand at times. So I think the Go Pass actually helps us to motivate the state and transit in
38 particular to step up the pace that we need to have statewide. That being said, I don't know what
39 alternative you would have. I suppose Stanford could run an army of shuttles, which would not
40 be as efficient as the transit system as an alternative or a backup. It would certainly be expensive
41 for Stanford and like I say it wouldn't be as efficient emission wise as it is having an in-place,
42 existing transit system that is there.
43
44 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thank you. If I could have just one more quick point. In order
45 for the Planning Commission to look at this Climate Change Chapter and review its consistency
46 with our Comprehensive Plan I would like to just make the point that it would have been very
Page 26
1 helpful to have a new Comprehensive Plan with a section on sustainability and climate change.
2 This is one place where not having the Comprehensive Plan Update done ahead of our review of
3 this project I think is not allowing us to do the best job that we possibly could.
4
5 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
6
7 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. In this chapter I really liked Table 3.6-5 where we
8 compare the kind of project impacts against our Climate Protection Plan. Even though it is a
9 'little wordy it is actually a pretty good summary of all the major issues. It goes back to traffic
10 and like that. I was curious though on I think 3.6-60 it talks about the project as being a mixed
11 use development. I have a little bit of trouble with that because it is basically like a healthcare:-
12 hospital project. It describes it as because it is really part of an urban area, close to transit, it
13 allows for people to live nearby. I think this is a bit of a difference from what we have talked
14 about before when we are talking about housing and we only have eight percent of the people
15 living in Palo Alto. We have 275;000 miles per day traveled to get to the campus. I think this
16 section needs to be kind of tweaked just to really state it more accurately.
17
18 I am glad there is a discussion of the importance of the Go Passes because even in climate
19 change, and in air quality, and traffic we talk about how this is a primary TDM. I don't think we
20 have enough really sufficient information about that it would work. That it would work to the
21 level of 20 percent or higher based on the fact that we have so many employees who work within
22 cities that are served by Caltrain. If you count Palo Alto, I wouldn't ride Caltrain to go to
23 Stanford. If you lived in Menlo Park you wouldn't do it. Mountain View? Maybe, but probably
24 not. It is really San Francisco, further north like Redwood City perhaps, San Jose, Santa Clara.
25 So I think the way we use the data to use zip codes and like that to state we have so many
26 employees that the potential of giving them free Go Passes will make this work really is a little
27 bit suspect. If we are going to put so much stock into this I really want better confirmation of
28 where people are coming from. Even if employees lived in San Jose there are some areas of San
29 Jose like Evergreen that people may not take Caltrain. It just may be a little bit too inconvenient
30 to get to. So I am hoping that you will have time to really revisit this concept because it is
31 important to make the project work. We want it to work. We want to reduce those trips from
32 275,000 miles to less than 100 ifit is possible. So let's make sure our data is correct.
33
34 Chair Garber: Commissioner, if I may interrupt Comn1issioner Lippert has a follow up to your
35 line.
36
37 Commissioner Martinez: Of course.
38
39 Commissioner Lippert: I was looking at Appendix L, which is the employees by zip code here.
40 one thought that I had here is that perhaps again expanded shuttle service, and maybe paying into
41 not just the Palo Alto Shuttle but also maybe East Palo Alto 'and perhaps a Menlo Park shuttle or
42 even expanding the Marguerite Shuttle so that it allowed for people living in Menlo Park,
43 Mountain View, and Palo Alto and East Palo Alto to be able to commute by shuttle. Now, why
44 do I emphasize that? Well, it is not just a regional hospital it is also a local hospital. If I was
45 having surgery of course I wouldn't get on a shuttle to go to the hospital I would have my wife
46 drive me. But, if I am going for a simple procedure like an'MRI or some blood tests or some lab
Page 27
1 work it becomes very appealing to be able to hop onto one of the local shuttles to go to Stanford
2 if I knew that it was a pretty direct route, and it was nearby to where I lived. So that is one
3 thought that I had.
4
5 Then in following up here I am looking through the employee staffing by zip code and one of the
6 things in the EIR that needs to be addressed is that there are multiple cities with the same zip
7 code spelled differently that should be consolidated so that we can make better sense out of it.
8 East Palo Alto in particular is E, without a period, Palo Alto, 94303 and then there is E. Palo
9 Alto, with a period, and there is East Palo Alto, and then there is East Palo Alto, spelled '
10 differently. It does the sanle thing for Palo Alto and a number of other cities. So if those could
11 be consolidated that would clarify some of the data here.
12
13 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg, you wanted to continue the line.
14
15 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes. Also, the zip code 94303 we have talked about this relative to
16 other chapters. Can there be a review of whether the data relating to these two chapters treat
17 94303 appropriately. Part of it is in East Palo Alto, which is San Mateo County, part of it is the
18 eastern swath of Palo Alto, and if the 94303 iri Palo Alto is excluded from Palo Alto it will skew
19 data. So could it be confirmed that in these two chapters 94303 is being treated appropriately.
20
21 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez, we may have interrupted you. Did you have more?
22
23 Commissioner Martinez: Yes, just one final thought. Also thinking about this mixed use
24 concept, my fellow Commissioner right here, Commissioner Tanaka a couple of meetings ago
25 suggested that maybe Stanford may be building too much. I was thinking well, at $2,000 a
26 square foot I don't think they would build more than they need to, but as I have become more
27 familiar with the master plan, and other Commissioners have suggested this before, that there are
28 elements of what is to be built that could be placed in locations that reduce trips. Offices for
29 community physicians don't have to be right next to the hospital. As we noted earlier, 60
30 percent of the trips are generated by patients. I would guess having gone through this that 60
31 percent of those trips are for follow up doctor visits. So I think there is some reasonableness to
32 the suggestion that not everything that is being proposed is necessarily being proposed in a
33 location that is absolutely necessary for the full efficiency of the hospital. I would like us to look
34 at that as part of our mitigations. Thank you.
35
36 Chair Garber: Commissioners, we have been going for two hours now. I would either like to
37 take a three-minute break unless you think we cali get through in the next 30 to 35 minutes. Is
38 everybody going to be able to get through with one more round? Alright we will not break. We
39 will go back to Commissioner Keller and then Lippert.
40
41 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So I would like to expand on Commissioner Lippert's
42 suggestion of transit. What is interesting to me about this is I basically created hand-drawn
43 spreadsheet with the benefit of a calculator. What is interesting is that the vehicle miles traveled
44 of the existing hospital is about 600,000 miles. The mitigations reduce the increase of vehicle
45 miles traveled from an increase of 276,000 vehicle miles traveled to an increase of 238,000
46 vehicle miles traveled, or approximately 37,000 less additional vehicle miles traveled then
Page 28
1 without mitigations. That means that the amount of vehicle miles traveled instead of going up by
2 46 percent goes up by about 40 percent.
3
4 The greenhouse gases from the existing vehicle miles traveled comes out to 62 percent of the
5 total greenhouse gases of the existing hospital. The vehicles miles traveled of the unmitigated
6 increase compared to the unmitigated increase of greenhouse gases is 55 percent. If you
7 compare the additional vehicle miles traveled and the greenhouse gases from that of the
8 mitigated portion compared to the mitigated total greenhouse gas of the increased project that is
9 64 percent. What you wind up with on the mitigated portion of the project of the total of the
10 combination of Stanford existing Medical Center and the new Medical Center you wind up with
11 138,000 metric tons comes from vehicle emissions from vehicle miles traveled. That excluded
12 helicopters and fleets. It seems to exclude all of that kind of stuff. It seems to be mainly
13 passenger cars. Is that right? Mainly people commuting?
14
15 Mr. Hendrix: Yes, primarily patients.
16
17 Commissioner Keller: Right. So th~t means that 63 percent of the greenhouse gases from the
18 Stanford Medical Center as mitigated, as expanded comes from vehicles miles traveled, which is
19 an astounding amount. If you think about that 63 percent multiplied, I am assuming that some
20 people are coming from further away and some people are coming from closer, I am assuming
21 more of the patients are coming from closer. I don't know. I am not sure of the mix of patients
22 versus the mix of employees and how that comes about, because I don't see a figure on dividing
23 that out. It does indicate that increased transit services would be helpful in this regard, and
24 incentives to increase transit services, because it is not merely a situation where if you provide it
25 they will come. They won't. They will come if there are incentives for doing that such as the
26 Go Pass incentive for Stanford employees to use Ca1train.
27
28 So it seems to me that providing additional services if it is free, for example as I mentioned last
29 time the Marguerite Shuttle carries 1.4 million boards a year compared to 30-some odd million
30 for all of Santa Clara County bus service, which is an amazing figure. I think that if we can do
31 something to reduce the total of 839,000 vehicle miles traveled from the combined mitigated
32 project it seems a lot, and any reduction to that would go a long way towards mitigating the
33 hospital greenhouse gases. So I do recognize that there is not much you can do to the building
34 that you haven't already done. There is probably more that can be done in terms of greenhouse
35 gases from vehicle miles traveled.
36
37 I don't know what is being considered in terms of for example te1emedicine. A lot of elderly
38 may not be able to travel so much from their houses. If you can think about things like fiber to
39 the homes so that you can actually do an effective te1emedicine kind of program. I know that
40 Stanford is a leader in terms of using technology. Here is an opportunity where providing
41 additional opportunities for te1emedicine, providing additional opportunities where patients don't
42 actually have to come. Where they can do visits and when the doctor is available and don't have
43 to wait in the waiting room but can be seen when the doctor is available. I think this would go a
44 good way towards increasing patient care to the extent possible with appropriate instrumentation
45 and would be a wonderful use of technology, which would have additional spillover. So I would
Page 29
1 think there are things we could do to reduce vehicle miles traveled through technology and also
2 through transit. Thank you.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Tanaka.
5
6 Commissioner Lippert: I just wanted to follow up here. I had mentioned earlier about expanded
7 shuttle service in tenns of being able to capture employees. I had also mentioned about perhaps
8 patients. Part of the reason I had mentioned the patients is that if Stanford did expanded its
9 shuttle service I think it is antithetical and it actually works in the opposite direction if those
10 shuttles are operating but nobody is riding on them. So the idea is by opening it up to patients as
11 well there is at least a chance that we nlight be able to capture additional ridership there, thereby
12 again reducing the greenhouse gas emissions.
13
14 Then I also wanted to mention one other possibility, which is at this point Stanford is talking
15 about the entire academic campus plus the hospital going with the Go Passes. Maybe there are
16 additional efficiencies by also expanding Go Passes to Hoover Pavilion, which is meant to be
17 again those are leased clinical office spaces for physicians, is that correct? So again that is on
18 Stanford land. It is all within one bundle so perhaps there is away to incorporate that into the
19 process thereby again reducing another group in tenns of commuting.
20
21 Then the last aspect that I want to mention is that really only leaves Stanford Shopping Center as
22 the only Stanford entity that is not covered under Go Passes. If we need to' again reduce the
23 greenhouse gas emissions further perhaps there is a way to expand Go Passes to Stanford
24 Shopping Center even though it is being operated by the Simon Group. The Stanford Research
25 Park is pretty much handled under Transportation Demand Management programs by the
26 individual companies that are leasing those lands, and part of the development of Stanford is
27 associated with those. So there is not very much left in the way of Stanford lands not being
28 covered by Go Passes, so I am just looking to expand that envelop a little bit more to squeeze the
29 last little bit of greenhouse gas emissions out of it. .
30
31 Chair Garber: . Commissioner Tanaka and then Fineberg.
32
33 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. I first want to just clarify some comments. Ijust want to
34 make sure it is understood from what Commissioner Martinez said that I don't actually think this
35 project is too large. I don't want to give the impression that I said the project is too large,
36 because I don't think I did say that earlier. Okay, sorry, I misunderstood then.
37
38 In tenns of mixed use I do think it does make sense for a hotel to be nearby as I said several
39 times before.
40 .
41 Back to Climate Change. I really applaud Stanford for doing the green roofs. It seems to make a
42 lot of sense. I was just wondering is that also counted towards their offset, in tenns of the carbon
43 offset by having plants on the roofs. If not, maybe that could be considered.
44
Page 30
1 The other thing is rooftop space is a lot of times undemtilized. fu this case it is going to have a
2 helipad and green roofs, but perhaps there could be PV or maybe even a solar water heater up
3 there as well to take advantage of that undemtilized space if that has not been considered.
4
5 The other thing is the City of Palo Alto is actually encouraging residents and I think even
6 . businesses to do some rainwater harvesting. Perhaps as part of this development that is
7 something that Stanford could consider to use for irrigation perhaps later on. I think there is
8 even a rebate for that, although I don't know if Stanford would qualify.
9
10 Then kind of back to a comment I made back on Air Quality, but I think it is even more
11 applicable here is that climate change is a global issue and because it is a global issue I think
12 kind of like what I said earlier where in some ways there is a difference, maybe it is just part of
13 the Alternatives Analysis where you will look at well if the hospital is here in Palo Alto, which is
14 relative centrally located near transit, as Commissioner Lippert mentioned versus another
15 location let's say Sunnyvale or Cupertino, or who knows where. What would the climate change
16 impact be? Would it be greater because it is in Palo Alto or would it be less compared to other
17 areas? I think that is kind of the question. I think everyone understands that the hospital is a
18 viable service that needs to be built, the public demands it, it benefits a lot of people, but the
19 question is by building it in Palo Alto is it that going to make the climate change worse or better
20 versus other locations? I think that is really to me because this is a global issue, if you locate it
21 in let's say Stockton sure maybe land is cheaper but the climate change might be bigger because
22 people would have to commute there. All the patients would have to commute there for instance,
23 right? So that is something that perhaps as we go into the Alternatives Analysis we could
24 explore further. Thank you.
25
26 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Martinez.
27
28 Commissioner Fineberg: Some of the earlier comments by fellow Commissioners about the way
29 Air Quality impacts and Climate Change impacts get measures and get, I am not sure if the word
30 is allocated, but get applied to Palo Alto's allocations for greenhouse gases raised the question
31 for of whether this project presents an opportunity for the hospital or Stanford and the City of
32 Palo Alto to work together with the County and with the State looking at whether the
33 measurements and the models that they allocate the impacts are as they should be. Stanford
34 provideshealthcare yet its impacts are measured only against Palo Alto's allocation for
35 greenhouse gases and such, and should those impacts be measured on a regional basis? Is there
36 any pattern of that kind of regional allocation done for other regional creators of significant
37 negative impacts? Things like San Francisco Airport. Does the City of San Francisco have to
38 reduce its greenhouse gas emissions when the airport is a source for the entire region? Can we
39 find answers from what others are doing or do we have the opportunity to jointly enter into
40 negotiations with the County and the State to change how they measure? Commissioner Keller
41 talked about Palo Alto having to go on a huge diet in order to accommodate the needs of the
42 hospital and should Menlo Park and Mountain View and Atherton also have a portion of that
43 diet? So if that could be investigated I think that would be appropriate.
44
45 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Martinez.
46
Page 31
1 Commissioner Martinez: I am reminded of when the State a few years ago decided to encourage
2 people to drive hybrid vehicles they allowed use of the carpool lanes. Immediately within a
3 month the 80,000 passes for that use were taken because that was a real incentive. People felt
4 they could get to work faster, they could get to wherever they were going faster, and it was worth
5 trading in their car and having that for that. .
6
7 I think our TDM needs to be reinforced with those kinds of incentives. I am not the one to tell
8 Stanford what it is that those should be exactly, but I am going to kind of give you some
9 suggestions. One suggestion might be following the State's model is what if we said 50 percent
10 of all parking spaces are reserved for clean fuel vehicles? Maybe that would be incentive enough
11 for people to look ahead. We are also looking at 12 to 15 years from now when hopefully most
12 of us will be driving something like that, but who knows.
13
14 A second thing is I mentioned sort of a Facebook kind of thing where there is more interaction
15 with people like you know why aren't you using your Go Pass? We see your Go Pass is kind of
16 not used much this month. Or a paid day off every 30 days for the top ten people that use.Go
17 Passes. I nlean really put some great incentives into making Go Passes and our TDM and all the
18 measures we need to do to make this work.
19
20 Finally, I am like a broken CD, I guess. I think there needs to be something for Stanford to ,
21 really reinforce the concept of living locally. Maybe it is not building 500 housing units. Maybe
22 it is advocating, encouraging, working with realtors, whatever it takes to try to get more people
23 to live in Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, locally. I think I left out a city. I think that
24 will make our TDM really more vigorous. I do want to say one thing.' I think the shining star in
25 all of this over the past few weeks has been the architecture that Stanford has proposed. I think
26 kudos to my profession for standing up for green building. Thank you.
27
28 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and Commissioner Lippert had some final comments. Do
29 any of the other Commissioners have comments? Commissioner Keller and then Lippert.
30
31 Commissioner Keller: So I would like to follow up on what Commissioner Martinez said. So
32 one of the things about the Caltrain Go Pass is it is a Transportation Demand Management,
33 TDM, measure that the Stanford campus has long had that the Medical Center does not. What is
34 being proposed here is that here is a TDM measure that will be expanded to the Medical Center.
35 I think it would be worthwhile looking at all the other TDM nleasures that the campus provides
36 and see if there are any ones that are not provided by the Medical Center and should be provided
37 by the Medical Center. Does the Medical Center currently do carpool promotion? Does the
38 Medical Center currently do vanpool subsidies? Is the Go Pass the only one that exists? I see
39 nods. So that is useful to know, right? .
40
41 Should it be considered expanding it to the community physicians? Not necessarily the
42 physicians but more toward the nurses and the people like office workers in the community
43 physician block. That is something that might not have that much additional cost ifit can be
44 considered sort of one umbrella as opposed to individual companies. That might be something to
45 consider in terms of expanding that.
46
Page 32
1 I think Commissioner Tanaka had a good idea in terms of offsets but I would like to focus that a
2 little bit. The issue is rather than thinking of it in terms of buying offsets from the Chicago
3 Climate Exchange or something like that, which is somewhat suspect. I kind of like in-kind
4 offsets. So earlier I talked about for putting cars on the road if you put nlore cars on the road in
5 Palo Alto then take somehody else's cars off the road. Well, similarly if you want to reduce
6 vehicle miles traveled it doesn't matter to me if you reduce only Stanford's vehicle miles
7 traveled or Stanford Medical Center's vehicle miles traveled but if you can reduce some other
8 people's vehicle miles traveled that is the same vehicle miles. So in particular the extent to
9 which Stanford can for example improve the shuttle service to the Stanford Industrial Park from
10 Caltrain, I know there is some there already, but inlproving that to try t~ encourage more of the
11 companies in the Stanford Industrial Park to use Caltrain and try to get them to also provide Go
12 Pass services and the like, I think that whatever reductions you can get in VMT there should
13 count as a mitigation in terms of an offset. I think that those are quite valuable. The amount of
14 people you get riding an expanded Marguerite Shuttle or expanding shuttles that other people
15 talked about through Palo Alto or through Menlo Park, or to East Palo Alto or Mountain View.
16 Whatever shuttles you can create those ones are certainly worthwhile.
17
18 I do think however that we need to think about what area the hospital serves especially in terms
19 of patients. For example, there is the EI Camino Hospital that sort of serves the region to the
20 south. What is the next hospital to the north? Is it Sequoia? So you ne'ed to think about what
21 the area that is most served by most of the patients going to Palo Alto. Obviously that .can
22 produce a significant amount of congestion and reduce some nurrlber of vehicle miles traveled,
23 but also thinking in terms of those who are traveling, mainly workers who are traveling, from
24\' further away how we deal with that.
25
26 To some extent as the price of gasoline increases that will discourage people from working
27 farther away. Vanpools certainly help subsidize that. lknow that some companies, for example
28 Facebook, really encourage workers to work locally. I am not sure whether that subsidy still
29 exists. Stanford can think in terms of differential pay if you can reduce your vehicle miles
30 traveled you can get some sort of bonuses of some sort. I think that has two benefits. One
31 benefit is that it reduces the vehicle miles traveled for greenhouse gases, but to the extent that
32 workers live closer to the Medical Center it increases their ability to come there in the event of
33 transportation disruptions, for example due to earthquake. Just as Palo Alto is concerned about
34 the amount of public safety workers who will get here in the event of an earthquake that happens
35 in the middle of the night on a weekend or a holiday, and how people can get here next day to be
36 firefighters and police officers, I am assuming that Stanford will also have to be concerned about
37 how many of the nurses and doctors and other people who take care of the Medical Center will
38 be able to come there in the event of this. To the extent that we can get people to live more
39 locally it certainly helps in both of those regards. Thank you.
40
41 One finally thing and that is there was a mention by somebody about increasing incentives for
42 clean fuel vehicles. I certainly think that that is also useful. In order to increase incentives for
43 clean fuel vehicles also think about increasing the amount of electric vehicle chargers. I do point
44 out that Stanford has several electric vehicle chargers and has had them for some time.
45 However, has disconnected or disabled the ones over at Tresidder, which I realize "are not for the
Page 33
1 hospital, but they are for Stanford in general. So increasing the amount of electric vehicle
2 chargers and facilitating clean fuel vehicles would seem to be a useful incentive. Thank you.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert, our final comments on this item. I want to follow up on
5 something Comn1issioner Martinez said earlier, which is again regarding the individual clean
6 vehicles and the incentives behind the for instance hybrid passes or carpool lane passes, same
7 thing for the alternative gas vehicles as well. It is a white sticker instead of a yellow sticker.
8
9 We do have something in our Municipal Code that allows for green parking spaces as a
10 consideration of the Transportation Demand Management programs. What is meant by a green
11 parking space is that it is a parking space that is closer to where the front door is given over to
12 clean energy vehicles. One possibility n1ight be to actually, and you were sort of alluding to this,
13 is perhaps it is paid parking versus free parking for the clean energy vehicles. Perhaps that is
14 another way to squeeze out a last little bit of greenhouse gas emissions.
15
16 Another thought that I had is that there is some connectivity between Palo Alto Medical
17 Foundation and Stanford Medical Center. Often times doctors refer patients to Stanford Medical
18 Center and vise-versa. Simply by tweaking the route of the Marguerite Shuttle a little bit and
19 having it cut-through as it comes around by the Caltrain station maybe it goes down Urban Lane
20 and through Palo Alto Medical Foundation before it loops back to the Medical Center. It already
21 does? Okay, great. So again that connectivity I think is particularly important.
22
23 I wanted to make a point with regard to the trees. In the EIR there is mention of those significant
24 heritage trees, protected trees that are being taken out. Again, they add to the canopy and they
25 add to absorption of carbon. Again, I think it should be sort of quantitated as to how those are
26 going to be impacting or not absorbing more greenhouse gases. So I think that the City Arborist
27 does have a plan for replacing those trees but as you mentioned they have to be fertilized and
28 watered, etc.', etc. So I think that needs to be further flushed out.
29
30 Then lastly I want to just speak about the Urban Village Concept. I think that is a particularly
31 important point here. Many of us can afford to live here in Palo Alto. Other people can't afford
32 to live here and they need to commute from another area. The tradeoff that is being made is the
33 cost of housing versus putting that burden on the cost of transportation. Somewhere it still
34 comes out of your pocket. You still have to pay for it, but a lot of individual say well, I can get a
35 bigger house out in Stockton or Tracy, and I am going to pay for it by having to commute to Palo
36 Alto. ·So in some ways, the Village Concept what it says here is that perhaps there should be
37 some sort of subsidized housing. The idea is that they are really paying for it because they are
38 not having to pay for the transportation to get here. So they may have to pay a little bitmore for
39 housing here but it could be subsidized but then they don't have to pay for transportation which
40 then recognizes that there is going to be greenhouse gas emissions associated with the carbon
41 footprint of driving from Tracy or Stockton or some other area to get here. So ultimately what
42 we are seeingis we are paying down the carbon footprint. So again, I think that the Village
43 Concept here is particularly important in terms of us cracking this nut of greenhouse gas
44 en1issions.
45
Page 34
1 Chair Garber: Thank you. With that we will close this particular item. I would like to thank
2 Staff, the consultants, and Stanford for their continued work on this item. We will see you all
3 next week.
4
5 Mr. Hendrix: If I could make one last suggestion.
6
7 Chair Garber: Sure.
8
9 Mr. Hendrix: Commissioner Fineberg brought up this idea of regional analysis rather than using
10 the Bay Area thresholds. Particular to greenhouse gases there is an opportunity. The City of
11 Palo Alto currently has a Climate Protection Plan. It needs a little updating and some more
12 inventories in it to make it what is called a 'qualified plan' that you could use develop thresholds
13 instead of using the Bay Area thresholds. But this regional concept is really enticing. ill a
14 narrow look just combining having Stanford and the City of Palo Alto have a combined strategy
15 for reducing greenhouse gases would do well with the hospital then as you put it the City of Palo
16 Alto is not stuck with figuring out how to offset those emissions, together you are figuring out
17 how you are going to offset those emissions, plus you have your combined inventories to
18 struggle with. That's it.
19
20 Chair Garber: Thank you very much. Again, thank you all. We will see you next week.
21
Page 35