HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 294-10TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
JULY 7, 2010
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 294:10
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
Noise, Geology, Soils and Seismicity, Hydrology, Hazardous Materials
and Utilities 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 fourth 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, June 14 and
July 12,2010. This item has been scheduled for Council's review on July 19 but is being sent to
you early to provide ample time for your review. Hardcopies are available at the Council
Chambers, the . Planning Department on the sth Floor and can also be viewed at
http://www .cityofpaloalto .org/knowzone/reports/ cmrs.asp
Staff will provide an overview of the Noise, Geology, Soils and Seismicity, Hydrology,
Hazardous Materials and Utilities Chapters at the meeting.
This item was heard by the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) on June 30,2010.
Minutes from this meeting is 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 DEIR.
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: CMR 294:10
Attachment B: Excerpt Minutes of the P&TC meeting dated June 30, 2010 (Council only)
ATTACHMENT A
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: JULY 19, 2010 CMR:·294:10
REPORT TYPE:. PUBLIC HEARING
SlTBJECT: Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement
Project Draft Environmental Impact Report -Comment on the Draft
. Environn1ental Impact Report, including an overview of the Noise, Geology,
Soils and Seismicity, Hydrology, Hazardous Materials, and Utilities 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 Iplpact Report (DEIR) 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
(FEIR). The DEIR 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 DEIR. The staff report provides an overview of the Noise, Geology, Soils and Seismicity,
Hydrology, Hazardous Materials, and Utilities chapters of the DEIR, including the key impacts and
mitigation measures. The P&TC will hear these items on June 30, 2010.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission:
1. Accept public comments on the DEIR; and
2. Forward comments on the DEIR to staff and the consultant for response in the FEIR.
BACKGROUND
On May 20, 2010, the SUMC Project DEIR was published starting a 69-day public review period.
On June 30th the P&TC will hold a public hearing to provide comments on the Noise, Geology, Soils
and Seismicity, Hydrology, Hazardous Materials, and Utilities chapters. On July 19th the City
Council will hold a public hearing on these chapters.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Copies of the DEIR can be obtained at the City of Palo Alto Development Center, at the Palo Alto
Main Library and via the City's website, www.cityofpaloalto.org/sumc.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff will provide an overview of the following chapters at the meeting:
• Noise (pages 3.7-1 through 3.7-39)
• Geology, Soils and Seismicity (pages 3.10-1 through 3.10-31)
• Hydrology (pages 3.11-1 through 3.11-57)
• Hazardous Materials (pages 3.12-1 through 3.12-53)
• Utilities (pages 3.15-1 through 3.15-37)
The comments on these chapters should be focused on whether the information presented in the
DEIR adequately covers the environmental impacts that could result from the proposed SUMC
Project. The hearings are meant to be opportunities to collect comments on the DEIR to ensqre that it
adequately describes and mitigates, if applicable, the environmental impacts of the Project.
1. Noise
Noise impacts are addressed in Section 3.7 of the D EIR. The chapter evaluates the potential for noise
and ground-borne vibration impacts resulting from implementation of the SUMC Project.
Significance Thresholds
Based on significance thresholds determined by the City, the SllMC Project would result in a
significant noise impact if it would:
During SUMC Project Construction
• Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background LeqI at sensitive receptors by
10 dBA2 or more; or
• Expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibrations during construction as
detemlined according to FTA vibration criteria (shown in Table 3.7-4). '
During SUMC Project Operation
• For SUMC-related traffic, ambulance operations and medical helicopter flights, cause Ldn3
to:
1 Leq -The equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise over any chosen exposure
time. The Leq is the constant noise level that would deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear as the actual time
varying noise over the same exposure time. Leq does not depend on the time of day during which the noise occurs.
2 dBA -The standard unit of sound amplitude. It is a measure of the physical magnitude of the pressure variations
relative to the human threshold of perception.
3 Ldn -The day-night average noise level, is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA "penalty" added to noise during
the hours of 10 PM to 7 AM to account for increased nighttime noise sensivity. Because of this penalty, the Ldn
would always be higher than its corresponding 24-hour Leq (eg. a constant 60 dBA noise over 24 hours would have a
60 dBA L eq , but a 66.4 dBA Ldn).
City of Palo Alto Page 2
o Increase by 5 dBA or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dBA;
o Increase by 3 dBA or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in
the area to exceed 60 dB; or
o Increase by 3 dBA or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently
exceeds 60 dBA (all as specified in CP Policy N-41).
• For SUMC-related medical helicopter flights, cause substantial increases in sleep disturbance
in residential neighborhoods as determined according to FICAN SEL/Awakening data (as
specified in Table 3.7-3.
• Cause an increase in noise from on-site, SUMC Project stationary sources or activities (i.e.,
HV AC equipment, emergency generator testing, loading dock activity, etc., all of which fit
the defmition of "any machine, animal, or device, or any combination of same, on
commercial or industrial property," as specified by Noise Ordinance Section 9.10.040) of8
dBA or more above the local ambient at any point outside the property plane of the project
site, unless the Ordinance's General Daytime Exception applies (i.e., source noise level less
than 70 dBA at a distance of25 feet during the hours specified in Noise Ordinance Section
9.1 0.060(b ».
Key Impacts and Mitigations
The following impact has been identified as significant (S); however this impact can be eliminated
through mitigation. The mitigation measures developed for each of the impacts are identified
below.
• NO-4: Operational Stationary Source Noise Impacts (S).
Mitigation Measure-
o NO-4.1: Shield or Enclose HV AC Equipment and Emergency Generators.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The following impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable (SU) even after
implementation of mitigation measures:
• NO-I: Construction Noise (SU).
• NO-5: Cumulative Construction Noise Impacts. (SU).
Mitigation Measure-
o NO-1.1: Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Construction Noise.
• NO-3: Operational Noise Impacts from Transportation Sources (SU).
Mitigation Measure-
o No mitigation measure would prevent or reduce the impact.
Discussion
Construction of the SLTMC Project is anticipated to occur over approximately 12 years. Heavy duty
equipment such as excavators, drill rigs, concrete mixers and pump trucks would be used during
City of Palo Alto Page 3
demolition. The noise impacts of a project are usually defined as effects on sensitive receptors
outside the project boundaries, rather than those on the project site itself. However, because the SHC
and LPCH would continue to operate during construction, hospital patients, visitors, and SUMC
employees at the Main SUMC Site would experience construction noise and must be considered
sensitive receptors for purposes of analyzing construction noise associated with the SUMC Project.
The closest off-site sensitive land use that could be affected by noise from construction activities is
the 1100 Welch Road apartments, approximately 200 feet from the Main SUMC Site. The Stanford
West Apartments, located approximately 500 feet from the Main SUMC Site, across Sand Hill Road,
could also be affected. The maximum incremental effect of construction activity on ambient noise
levels at the nearest off-site noise-sensitive use would be less than 10 dBA, which is a less-than
significant impact.
On-site construction activities would expose on-site noise-sensitive uses (especially the in-patient
hospital uses at SHC and LPCH) to high noise levels from operation of multiple pieces of
construction equipment working simultaneously. Construction noise levels could easily and often be
10 dBA or more higher than existing ambient when construction is occurring nearby and be an on
going source of annoyance for patients, visitors, and workers. Therefore, construction noise would be
significant and unavoidable for on-site noise-sensitive receptors, especia1lypatients. Implementation
of mitigation measure NO-1.1 would not reduce construction noise impacts to on-site sensitive
receptors to less-than-significant levels, although they would lessen construction-related noise.
Impact NO-3 analyzes operational noise impacts from transportation sources, inc1udin~: Vehicular
traffic; heliport operations; and Emergency Department (ED) Operations. The SUMC project-related
traffic would increase noise levels along roadways most affected by SUMC Project traffic by a
maximum of 0.3 dBA Ldn along Welch Road. This increase in noise would not exceed the City's
Comprehensive Plan's 3 dBA standard.
Increase helicopter operations associated with the SUMC Project would amount to about one
additional flight per day and would have a less-than-significant impact.
The Project proposes to increase the size of the ED allowing for an increase in the number of
treatment spaces from 38 to 51. This would translate to approximately 39 additional ambulance trips
per day. The ED relocation would reroute some of the ambulance trips coming from EI Camino Real
to use Sand Hill Road (east of Durand Way), in contrast to their current access route via Quarry Road
(see Figure 3.7-6 and 3.7-7).
Increased ambulance operations would increase the daily average noise levels (i.e., Ldn) along the
ambulance routes by about 8 dBA from an existing Ldn of about 55 dBA at the Stanford West
Apartments. The SandHill Road ambulance noise increment would be project-related and greater
than the 5 dBA increase that the Comprehensive Plan defines as a threshold for residential uses. As
such, the increased ambulance noise along the new ambulance route on Sand Hill Road would be a
significant impact. While the Comprehensive Plan threshold is technically triggered, the Noise
Ordinance Section 9.10.050 exempts noise associated with "emergencies" from its standards and
penalties. The analysis conservatively includes anlbulance noise in the Ldn calculation, but
recognizes that this noise source is intermittent and largely unavoidable due to the SUMC Project's
City of Palo Alto Page 4
relocation of the SUMC ED. No mitigation measure (short of forbidding ambulance access to the
new emergency room via the Durand Way access route; a measure that may be practically impossible
given the emergency nature of ambulance activity) would prevent or reduce the identified SUMC
Project-related ambulance noise impact at the noise-sensitive uses along Sand Hill Road. As such,
the impact would be a significant unavoidable impact.
2. Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Geology, Soils and Seismicity impacts are addressed in Section 3.10 of the DEIR.
Significance Thresholds
Based on significance thresholds detennined by the City of Palo Alto, the Project would result in a
significant geologic or seismic impact if it would:
• Expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic
related ground failure (including liquefaction), landslides, or expansive soil;
• Expose people or property to maj or geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use
of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques;
• Be located on a geologic unit or on soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse; or
• Cause substantial erosion or siltation.
Key Impacts and Mitigations
The DEIR identified no significant impacts.
Discussion
One purpose of the SUMC Project is to replace older buildings built prior to modern seismic safety
code requirements, with modern buildings constructed to applicable standards in order to reduce
geologic hazards to staff, patients, and visitors to the hospital portion of the SlJMC Project. The
non-hospital portion of the SUMC Project would be required to comply with construction standards
and seismic design criteria contained in the 2007 California Building Code (CBC), including the
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) 3 requirements where applicable.
The hospital portion of the SUMC Project would be required to meet the heightened safety standards
ofOSHPD, including the seismic requirements ofSB 1953. Implementation of these standards and
criteria would minimize the risk of loss, injury, or death from seismic events through the requirenlent
that the hospital building remain standing and be operational following a major earthquake. Because
the hospital portion of the SUMC Project would be required to conform to current OSHPD 1
standards of the 2007 CBC, it would not create any significant seismic hazards, soil instability
hazards, or other hazardous geotechnical con4itions. The design of the non-hospital portion of the
SUMC Project would be required to meet the standards contained in the current City Building Code
(based almost entirely on the 2007 CBC) and, therefore, would not create any significant seismic
hazards, soil instability hazards, or other hazardous geotechnical conditions.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Because all aspects of seismic-related hazards, other geotechnical hazards, and erosion and siltation
issues are regulated by City or State codes, no mitigation measures are required for the SUMC
Project.
3. Hydrology
Hydrology impacts are addressed in Section 3.11 of the DEIR. This section of the DEIR evaluates
whether the SUMC Project could affect storm drainage and streams, as well as local groundwater
resources in the area.
Significance Thresholds
Based on significance thresholds determined by the City of Palo Alto, the SUMC Project would
result in a significant drainage or water quality impact if it would:
• Substantially impede or redirect flood flows through placement of structures in the 100-year
flood hazard area;
• Substantially degrade or deplete groundwater resources or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local groundwater table level;
• Substantially increase the rate, volume, or flow duration of stormwater runoff or alter the
existing drainage pa~tem or the site or area, including altering the course of a stream or river,
in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site, including
increased in-stream erosion;
• Significantly increase the rate, volume, or flow duration of stormwater runoff in a manner
which would result in new or increased flooding on-or off-site, or exceedance of the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems in local streams;
• Provide substantial additional sources of pollutants associated with urban runoff or otherwise
substantially degrade surf~ce or groundwater quality;
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving flooding by
placing housing or other development in a 100-year flood hazard area or a levee or dam
failure inundation area;
• Result in stream bank instability; or
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Key Impacts and Mitigations
The following impact has been identified as significant (S); however this impact can be eliminated
through mitigation. The mitigation measures developed for each of the impacts are identified
below.
• HW-3: Groundwater Quality (S).
Mitigation Measure-
o HW-3.1: Develop a work plan for any unknown contaminated sites.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Discussion
During construction, impervious surfaces (e.g., parking lots and buildings) would be removed and
pervious surfaces exposed to rainfall and runoff waters. Prior to the beginning of construction
activities, a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is required. The SWPPP includes a
description of the construction erosion and sediment controls and control of post-construction
sediment and erosion control measures and maintenance responsibilities to be implemented. Also,
the City of Palo Alto Urban Runoff Management Plan includes performance standards for meeting
requirements of the Municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
There are limited areas on the SUMC sites where soil contamination has occurred. The SUMC
Project sponsors intend to remove all contaminated soil from these sites prior to SUMC Project
construction. Implementation ofHW-3. 1 would reduce the SUMC Project's impact on groundwater
to a less-than-significant level.
The SUMC Site surface is currently about 27 percent pervious land surfaces with about 3 percent of
green roofs. Implementation of the SUMC Project would replace existing buildings and surface
parking lots with new buildings, underground parking, and a new parking structure, and ultimately
create about 26 percent pervious land surfaces and about 11 percent of green roofs. Greenroofs can
detain 60 to 100 percent of precipitation, depending upon the substrate and size of storm event. The
increased amount of pervious surfaces would reduce the amount of stormwater runoff from the
SUMC Proj ect compared to existing conditions. Because the pre-development hydro graph would be
maintained, post-construction conditions under the SUMC Project would not substantially increase
off-site bed or bank erosion or sedimentation in San Francisquito Creek.
4. Hazardous Materials
Hazardous Materials impacts are addressed in Section 3.12 of the DEIR. This section of the DEIR
provides an analysis of the potential for the SUMC Project to expose persons or the environment to
hazardous materials. Public health concerns addressed in this section and associated with the SUMC
Project generally fall into four categories: hazardous materials; hazardous waste; contaminated soil
and groundwater; and hazardous building components. Four (4) Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments (ESAs), one( 1) Phase II ESA, and .additional soil vapor and groundwater sampling were
completed in order to assess the conditions at the SUMC Sites and identify potential hazardous
conditions within theSUMC Project boundary.
Significance Thresholds
Based on significance thresholds determined by the City of Palo Alto, the SUMC Project would
result in a significant hazardous materials impact if it would:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment as a result of the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident, conditions involving the release of hazardous n1aterials into the
environment;
• Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
City of Palo Alto Page 7
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
• Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions, or accidental release;
• Create a significant hazard to the public or theenvironnient from existing hazardous
materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination
either in excess of soil and groundwater cleanup goals developed for the site or from location
on listed hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 8ection 65962.5;
• Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires;
• Result in a safety hazard from a public airport for people residing or working within the
project area; or
• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or
evacuation plan.
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.
• HM-2: Demolition and construction-related hazardous materials disturbance (8).
• HM-12: Cumulative disturbance of hazardous materials from construction (8).
Mitigation Measure-
o HM-2.1: Conduct asbestos survey at the 8UMC sites.
• HM-3: Exposure to contaminated soil and/or groundwater during construction (8).
• HM-13: Cumulative exposure to contaminated soil and/or groundwater, and from Cortese
List sites (8).
Mitigation Measure-
o HM-3.1: Perform a Phase II E8A for the 701 Welch site;
o HM-3.2: Excavate contaminated soil from the 703 Welch site;
o HM-3.3: Conduct a soil vapor program at the Hoover Pavilion site;
o HM-3.4: Develop a site management plan for the Hoover Pavilion site.
• HM -7: Occur on a site included on the Cortese List, a List ofHazan:lous Materials sites. (8).
Mitigation Measure-
o HM-3.3: Conduct a soil vapor program at the Hoover Pavilion site.
o HM-3.4: Develop a site management plan for the Hoover Pavilion site.
• HM-10: Impairment of emergency plans (8).
• HM-15: Cumulative impairment of emergency plans (8).
Mitigation Measure-
o HM-10.1: Coordinate construction activities with the City of Palo Alto.
o TR-1.1: Provide off-street parking for construction related vehicles;
City of Palo Alto Page 8
o TR-1.4: Restrict construction hours;
o TR-1.5: Restrict construction truck routes;
o TR-1.6: Protect public roadways during construction;
o TR-1.8: Prepare and implement construction impact mitigation plan;
o TR-9.1: Pay fair share towards Opticonl installation.
Discussion
The SUMC Project would require demolition of about 1.2 million square feet of existing buildings,
some of which date back to 1953. Because it was common building practice to use materials
containing asbestos, PCBs, lead, and mercury in structures built prior to 1981, demolition of the
existing buildings (which were built prior to 1981) could disturb these hazardous building materials
and, without control nleasures, the hazardous materials could cause adverse health or safety effects to
construction workers, the public, and/or the environment. Implementation of mitigation measure
HM-2.1 would reduce impacts from exposure to asbestos containing materials to a less-than
significant level at SUMC Sites by ensuring that all asbestos containing materials are identified and
renl0ved prior to structural modification and/or demolition.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure HM-3.1 through HM-3.4, the significant impact on
construction personnel and the public due to exposure to contaminated soil and/or groundwater at the
SUMC Sites would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. In addition, Mitigation Measure HW-
3.1 in Section 3.11, Hydrology, would require the SUMC Project sponsors to develop a work plan
for any unknown contaminated site, which would further reduce the impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure HM-3.4 would require specification of measures to prevent hazards from any
remediation itself. As such, these would be less-than-significant impacts from any remediation.
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State,
local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about
the location of hazardous materials release sites. The Hoover Pavilion Site is listed on the Cortese
List. As such, construction at the Hoover Pavilion Site could potentially expose future occupants and
the environment to hazardous materials, resulting in a significant impact. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures HM-3.3 and HM-3.4, which involve the implementation of a soil vapor
program and development of a site management plan, would reduce the potential for exposure to
hazardous materials at the Hoover Pavilion Site to less-than-significant levels. Additionally,
compliance with current federal, State and local regulations would help prevent any further exposure
to hazardous materials.
The City's Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is the governing document regarding emergency
response and evacuation. The construction truck routes for the SUMC Project identified in Figure
3.4-6 of the DEIR also serve as evacuation routes. Construction traffic could potentially interfere
with emergency access along these routes. Additionally, upgrades to utility infrastructure along Sand
Hill and Arboretum Roads could temporarily interfere with the City's emergency evaluation plan.
Operation of the SUMC Project would increase vehicular travel within the City and would degrade
the level of service at several intersections. This would increase travel time by emergency vehicles.
Mitigation Measure HM-10.1 requires advance coordination with the City of Palo Alto on
construction routes or roadway closures. This measure? together with Mitigation Measures TR -1.1,
City of Palo Alto Page 9
TR-1.4 through TR-1.6, and TR-1.8, which all involve construction-period traffic controls would
reduce the significant construction-period impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation
Measure TR-9.1 would involve the installation of emergency vehicle traffic signal priority
(OptiCom) at all intersections significantly impacted by the Sl.TMC Project. Mitigation Measure TR-
9.1 would reduce impacts on emergency access during operation. Implementation of these nleasures
would reduce the SUMC Project's impact to emergency evacuation and response plans to a less
than-significant level.
5. Utilities
Utility impacts are addressed in Section 3.15 of the DEIR. This section of the DEIR addresses
whether the potential increase in demand would overtax, to a significant degree, the capacity of the
infrastructure systems serving the SUMC sites including, water supply, wastewater collection and
treatment, storm drainage, solid waste disposal, and energy (which includes electricity and natural
gas). A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) addressing the SUMC Project has been prepared and
approved by the Palo Alto City Council on March 16,2010.
Significance Thresholds
Based on significance thresholds determined by the City of Palo Alto, the SUMC Project would
result in a significant utilities impact if it would:
• Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB);
• Require or result in the construction of new stormwater or wastewater facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;
• Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has'inadequate capacity
to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments;
• Need new or expanded entitlements for water supplies;
• Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity;
• Result in adverse physical impacts from new or expanded utility facilities required to provide
service as a result of the project; or
• Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a utility facility due to increased use as a
result of the project.
Key Impacts and Mitigations
The DEIR identified no significant impacts.
Discussion
Although the SUMC Project would not need new or e~panded entitlements for water supplies and
would have a less-than-significant impact related to water demand, there are measures the City could
encourage the SUMC Project sponsors to implement or consider imposing as conditions of approval.
These measures would help reduce the actual water demands of the SUMC Project to below
projected levels, and would thereby reduce the extent to which the City would need to implement its
Water Shortage Contingency Plan during dry-year supply reductions from SFPUC.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Stanford has identified a list of conservation measures that it proposes to implement to help reduce
the. water demands of the SUMC Project. The City may impose these as conditions of approval.
These improvements are listed on pages 3.15-21 and 22 of the DEIR.
The SUMC Project would not require the expansion or installation of new wastewater facilities. The
existing stormwater facilities serving the SUMC Project have adequate capacity to convey the 6-hour
10-year storm event without flooding. Also, the SlTMC Project would increase pervious area and
thereby decrease runoff.
As the SMART Station and Kirby Landfill are projected to have available capacity, the SUMC
Project would not require expansion of solid waste disposal facilities. The S~C Project sponsors
have identified recycling efforts that they currently implement or would implement as part of the
SUMC Project. These are listed on pages 3.15-27 and 28 of the DEIR. In addition, Section 3.6,
Climate Change, lists measures that the SUMC Project sponsors are implementing to reduce waste
through purchasing decisions, reuse of materials and equipment, use of building materials and
products that generate less waste than comparable materials and products, and other programs
designed to minimize waste. These programs are furthering the goals of the City's Zero Waste
StrategicPlan. The SUMC Project would have a less-than-significant impact related to solid waste
generation.
The SUMC Sites are already developed and connected to the City'S electrical and natural gas
infrastructure. The SlTMC Project may require additional electrical feeder cables to supply its
increase in electricity demand. The SUMC Project would include installation of theses cables. The
SUMC Project Sponsors have. included measures to reduce energy consumption associated with
SUMC Project operations beyond the levels otherwise required by Title 24 and OSHPD
requirements. These are listed on pages 3.15-30 and 31 of the DEIR.
NEXT STEPS
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) will conduct a meeting to provide comments on the Visual
Quality Chapter of the DEIR on July 1,2010. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) will conduct a
meeting to provide comments on the Cultural Resources chapter on July 7,2010.
The P&TC will conduct a meeting on July 7 and the City Council on July 26 to review Alternatives
and Mitigation Measures. These are the final topics for each review body to consider. The public
review period will close on July 27,2010.
Subsequent to public testimony and P&TC , Council, ARB and HRB comments, along with the
written comments submitted on the DEIR during the 69-daypublic review period, the EIR consultant
and staffwill prepare a Final EIRJResponse 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.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Following preparation of the Final EIRIResponse 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 EIRIResponse to Comments for action.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
City of Palo Alto
STEVEN TURNER
Advance Planning Manager
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of Planning and Community Environment
Page 12
All ACHMENT B
1 Planning and Transportation Commission
2" Verbatim Minutes
3 June 30, 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 (DEIR) for the Stanford
9 University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project, including an overview
10 of the Noise, Geology, Soils & seismicity, Hydrology, Hazardous materials, and Utilities
11 chapters of the DEIR.
12
13 Mr. Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: Thank you Chair Garber and Commissioners.
14 My name is Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager, and Project Manager for the Stanford
15 University Medical Center Projects. 'Tonight we are continuing our discussion and public
16 comment for the Draft EIR for the SUMC projects. As the Commissioner and hopefully the
17 public know the Draft EIR was released for a public review starting on May 20 for 69 days with
18 an end of the public review period being Tuesday, July 27,2010. We are breaking down the
19 review of the Draft EIR into chapter so that we may get ample opportunity to review and
20 comment, and accept comments and questions regarding each chapter.
21
22 So for tonight we are looking at, as Chair Garber mentioned, Noise, Geology, Soils and
23 seismicity, Hydrology, Hazardous Materials, and Utilities chapters. The purpose of the meeting
24 tonight is collect comments and questions on the Draft EIR. It is not intended to discuss or
25 debate the merits of the project. It would be helpful for the Commissioner and members of the
26 public to keep the comments and questions on the topics identified in the Staff Report, but
27 certainly we will accept comments and questions on all chapters of the Draft EIR. Once the
28 public review period has concluded at the end of July all of the comments and questions will be
29 addressed during the preparation of the Final EIR.
30
31 Just a little bit about the format for tonight's nleeting. We will have Trixie Martelino from
32 PBS&J provide an overview of the chapters. After Trixie's presentation we will hear from
33 Stanford University. They will have a short presentation. Then we will open it up to the
34 Conlffiissioners for question and comments. With that I will had the presentation to Trixie
35 Martelino.
36
37 Ms. Trixie Martelino, PBS&J Consulting: Thank you Steven, and good evening. With me
38 tonight is Rod Jeung, and also we have here GoeffHomek who prepared the Noise Analysis and
39 Leanne Albe who prepared the water supply related discussions in the EIR. Leanne also worked
40 on the water supply assessment which fed into the EIR water supply discussions, and which was
41 approved by City Council in March.
42
43 So as mentioned by Steven, we are delving into the Noise, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity,
44 Hydrology, Hazardous Material, and Utilities sections. The first topic we will get into in Noise.
45 The table above summarizes the noise impacts of the SUMC project. As previously discussed NI
46 on the above table stands for No Impact, LTS for Less Than Significant, SILTS is a Significant
Page 1
1 Impact without mitigation but less than Significant after mitigation, and SU indicates a
2 Significant Unavoidable impact that cannot be mitigated to Less Than Significant levels.
3
4 As Shown in the table vibrations emitted during construction would be less than significant
5 however, during construction of the project there would be significant impacts from noise
. 6 emissions that cannot be mitigated to less than significant. During operation of the project there
7 would be significant impacts from stationary noise sources, particularly mechanical equipment,
8 which would have significant impacts on nearby residential uses. There would also be
9 significant impact from ambulance noise due to the creation of a new ambulance route along
10 Sand Hill Road. The noise generated would increase ambient noise levels along sensitive uses'
11 therein, and the noise cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels.
12
13 I would like to delve in a little bit more to the significant unavoidable impacts. During
14 construction, which would last approximately 12 years, there would be use of heavy construction
15 equipment. Noise from construction activities would have a less than significant impact on
16 sensitive receptors outside the project sites, but would significantly impact sensitive receptors
17 within the project site, especially inpatients.
18
19 As mentioned earlier, the project would create a new ambulance route along Sand Hill Road
20 between EI Camino Real and the proposed Durand Way extension. There are sensitive receptors
21 along this route including Stanford West Apartments, the Hyatt Classic Residences for senior
22 living, and the Ronald McDonald House. Assuming that one ambulance siren per day would be
23 experienced along this route the increase in average noise levels would exceed the allowable
24 limit as specified in the Comprehensive Plan. There is no feasible nlitigation that would reduce
25 ambulance noise given the emergency nature of this noise source.
26
27 In the cumulative scenario if construction at the larger Stanford University campus would occur
28 concurrently with SUMC project construction than cumulative construction noise would be
29 significant at nearby residences such as the 1100 Welch Road apartments. Mitigation measures
30 that have been identified for significant noise impacts are summarized above .. For construction
31 noise Measure NO-1.1 requires best management practices such as noise shielding, using quieter
32 equipment, and provisions of the Noise Disturbance Coordinator to respond to any noise
33 complaints. However, even with such measures noise levels would remain significant and
34 unavoidable.
35
36 During operation of mechanical equipment Mitigation Measure NO-4.1 requires acoustical
37 shielding, which would sufficiently reduce noise from mechanical equipment to less than
38 significant.
39
40 The next topic is Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. Before we get into the summary of Geology
41 related impacts it should be noted that one of the foremost reasons the project is being proposed
42 is to comply with state law for seismic safety. The Alquist Hospital Facility Seismic Safety Act
43· and Senate Bi111953 require that acute care hospitals throughout the state need heightened
44 seismic safety standards by certain deadlines so that they remain standing and operable after a
45 major earthquake. The Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, or OSHPD,
46 would review the project for compliance with design standards for the hospital components.
Page 2
1 Non-hospital facilities at the Medical Center would be subject to design requirements under the
2 City's Building Code. As such, the project would upgrade seismic safety design at the Medical
3 Center and reduce geologic hazards to staff, patients, and visitors. Given the design
4 improvements as shown in the above table, impacts related to seismic hazards and other
5 geotechnical hazards would be less than significant. Also, impacts related to erosion would be
6 less than significant.
7
8 The next topic is Hydrology. In general,hydrology impacts would be less than significant with
9 the exception of potentially degrading groundwater quality. Previous investigations have
10 identified contamination concerns at 701 and 703 Welch Road, and at the Hoover Pavilion site.
11 It is possible that unknown remnant contamination may occur at the SUMC sites. Construction
12 could expose contaminated soils and pollutants, which could then infiltrate into groundwater
13 during rainfall or through runoff As such the EIR conservatively concludes that there could be
14 significant impacts on groundwater quality during construction. As shown in the table other
15 "hydrology related impacts regarding impeding flood flow, increase erosion, exceedance of
16 stormwater capacity, and degradation of surface water quality would be less than significant.
17 Other hydrology impacts including dam failure and, inundation risk resulting in stream bank
18 instability or violation of water quality standards would also be less than significant.
19
20 Mitigation Measure HW-3.1 requires measure to reduce potential risk of groundwater
21 contamination. The measure requires that construction ceases if suspected contaminated soils
22 are encountered. At that time a site safety plan and sampling work plan would be developed and
23 implemented. If results show that there are contaminated soils a removal action plan would be
24 required. All these actions would be subject to approval by the Department of Toxic Substances
25 Control.
26
27 Next is Hazardous Materials. The above slide shows a summary of impacts related to hazardous
28 materials. Impacts related to disturbance of hazardous materials during construction would be
29 significant but mitigated to less than significant. In specific, the demolition of older buildings
30 could release asbestos, lead, and mercury and expose workers or members of the public to these
31 substances. These impacts would be significant but mitigable on both the project level and
32 cumulative level.
33
34 The project could also disturb contaminated soils during excavation. As stated previously soil
35 contamination concerns have been identified at 701 and 703 Welch Road, and at the Hoover
36 Pavilion site. Ground disturbance at or near these areas could potentially encounter unknown
37 contaminated soils and expose workers or the pUblic. This impact would be significant but
38 mitigable to less than significant on both project level and cumulative level. Other impacts
39 would be less than significant due to the various regulations that the hospital and other uses
40 onsite would be subject to, these include handling of hazardous materials, exposure to the public
41 of hazardous waste, emissions of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school.
42
43 The above slide is a continuation of the impact summary. As shown, there would be a
44 significant impact related to construction on the site and the Cortese List. The Cortese List is an
45 annually updated list of sites with known hazardous materials releases or spills. It is updated
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
---··--2-4
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
·33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
annually primarily by the California EPA. The Hoover Pavilion site is on the Cortese List as
such impacts would be significant but mitigable to less than significant.
Lastly, due to the large construction efforts, construction traffic, and post-construction traffic
would potentially hinder the City's emergency response plans. The above slide summarizes
some of the mitigation measures that have been identified to prevent the release of hazardous
substances during demolition efforts. Mitigation Measure HM-2.1 requires the applicant to
conduct as asbestos survey at the sites to reduce risk related to exposure of contaminated soils.
Mitigation Measures HM-3.1 through HM-3.4 require various measures such as performing of
Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, excavation of contaminated soil, conducting a soil
vapor program, and developing a site management plan for the Hoover Pavilion site. As shown
above, Mitigation Measures HM-3.3 and HM-3.4 again pertain to the Hoover Pavilion site and
prevent risk of hazardous materials exposure at the site.
As mentioned earlier one of the impacts would be potential interference with emergency plans.
Mitigation Measure HM-10.1, Mitigation Measures TR-1.1 through 1.8 and Mitigation Measure
TR-1.9 would alleviate potential impacts to emergency evacuation plans through coordination of
construction activities with the City of Palo Alto, through provision of a Transportation
Management plan during construction, and through provision of providing the Opticom
technology, which would enable emergency vehicles to pass through congested intersections.
The last subj ect is Utilities. As shown in the above slide utilities impacts would be less than
significant. The Utilities analysis looked at the need for expanded entitlements for water supply,
exceedances of wastewater treatment requirements, or the need for expanded wastewater
facilities, the need for expanded stormwater facilities, exceedance of landfill capacity, or the
need for expanded energy facilities. Under all these subjects impacts would be less than
significant and no mitigation measures would be necessary. That concludes the presentation.
Mr. Turner: Next we will hear from the project applicant.
Chair Garber: Will you need more than 15 minutes?
Mr. Mark Tortorich, Vice President, Design and Construction, Stanford Medical Center: No, 15
minutes ought to be just fine. Good evening Chair Garber and members of the Planning
Commission. We wanted to cover two of the topics this evening with you, obviously reviewing
first Seismic Safety and then Water Conservation Measures.
So one of the principle drivers of our project is to make earthquake safe buildings for Stanford
Medical Center. What drives this is the state law, SB 1953. State law categorizes existing
buildings into five categories from the worst being SPC 1 characterized as a potential collapse
hazard, to the best being SPC5. It is the state's desire to have hospitals over time be fully
compliant with the SPC5 criteria for hospitals. Stanford buildings fall into the categories of 1, 2,
3, and 4, and our proposed projects obviously would fall into category 5.
We have a significant component of our existing 1959 hospital that is a category 1, and SPC1
category. We also have portions of the 1959 hospital that category 2. Under the state law the
Page 4
1 particular structural elements of the 1959 building, it is a concrete frame, cannot be retrofit to
2 move into the SPC3 category, which would allow youto use those buildings beyond 2030. So
3 there is no retrofit strategy possible under current law to retrofit the 1959 buildings to operate
4 beyond 2030.
5
6 Our 1973 buildings fit into the SPC3 category. Here the state says the buildings are not a
7 collapse hazard and will protect life and lirrlb during a major earthquake but may not be
8 serviceable after a major earthquake. So obviously that is a building that ultimately needs
9 replacement to meet with the new criteria.
10
11 Then category 4 and category 5 buildings will perform better. Obviously the category 5
12 buildings are designed to meet the standards in existence today, which are standards that are
13 continually being updated based upon knowledge learned from recent earthquakes, such as those
14 in Northridge. Our 1989 and our Children's Hospital building meet the category 4 standard.
15
16 So the map gives you a bit of an orientation as to how this puzzle works. So orienting you to the
17 Medical Center, this is Welch Road, the Pasteur Mall entrance, and then this U-shaped structure
18 is the 1959 building. So as you can see the majority of the 1959 structure is actually that
19 category 1. We should be compliant currently by January 1,2013 with a replacement facility.
20 That 2013 date maybe extended to 2015 if we meet certain milestones of progress as viewed by
21 the State of California.
22
23 So as you can see those are our School of Medicine buildings, and a component of the Stanford
24 Hospital. Another component of that 1959 hospital, and this just purely based upon the
25 geometry, fits into the category 2. So this is the where actually all of the patient beds in the 1959
26 structure fit into this region, but again that building cannot be used beyond 2030 no matter what
27 we do it. It is not eligible for a retrofit.
28
29 Our core expansion, which was built in 1973, is here. As you know, as part of our proposal we
30 are proposing replacement. We are not proposing replacement of the 1989 structure or of the
31 Children's Hospital structure. We feel after consulting with our engineers that the buildings are
32 of sufficient strength to withstand nlajor earthquakes and should be serviceable after a major
33 earthquake, although they don't meet the current standards for hospitals that are under design.
34
35 Obviously, California is at risk for a major earthquake. I remember feeling after the Lorna Prieta
36 earthquake in 1989 that wasn't the big one but it certainly would postpone it for another 20 or 30
37 years. Well, guess what? It was 20 years ago or nlore that it was Lorna Prieta. So we clearly are
38 eligible and we predict obviously, or the engineers predict that we are ready for a major
39 earthquake. The map to the right sort of gives you the geographic location of Palo Alto in
40 between the San Andreas Fault and the Hayward Fault, as well as the prediction of a 62 percent
41 chance of a nlajor earthquake on one of those faults between now and I believe that is 2032.
42
43 The State of California reviews our geologic reports and assesses the hazards and establishes the
44 design criteria for our buildings. They have been reviewing our reports for over a year. In fact
45 probably 18 months at this point. They have come to us very recently and said they don't think
46 that we have accurately assessed the maximum credible earthquake predicted for this San
Page 5
1 Andreas Fault. We have used obviously what conventional wisdom uses, which is it is a 7.8
2 earthquake, which is the maximum credible. They wanted us to increase that force level to about
3 8.04, which there is order of magnitudes of greater force level. We have negotiated with them to
4 use what we think is reasonable at 7.9. There is also a Monte Vista Fault, one that I wasn't fully
5 aware of that is just on the uphill side of280. Again, the state geologists have questioned
6 whether there would be a simultaneous rupture of the Monte Vista Fault and the San Andreas
7 Fault. They have asked us to upgrade the design of the building to accommodate that
8 eventuality. So there is quite a level of scrutiny that goes through our geologic reports and our
9 building designs have to accommodate the judgments of the state as they evaluate these hospital
10 facilities.
11
12 Many lessons were learned from the Northridge Earthquake. Those lessons are that hospitals can
13 be evacuated not just for structural damage but for non structural damage. As you look at the
14 tally of eight hospitals that had partial or full evacuations after the Northridge Earthquake you
15 will see that many of those evacuations were the result of nonstructural damage. So you can see
16 the large numbers of patients that are being transferred from these hospitals because of
17 nonstructural damage or structural damage. All of our facilities at some point have to go through
18 a non structural upgrade. There are certain provisions of the law, which we just don't meet yet.
19 Our strategy obviously for the Children's Hospital expansion and for the replacement for the
20 adult hospital is to accommodate both the nonstructural criteria and the structural criteria
21 simultaneously through the new construction.
22
23 This is obviously the more famous hospital building collapse in the San Fernando Earthquake.
24 Just to give you sort of some rules of thumb, hospital building structures are designed to be at
25 least 50 percent stronger than conventional structures. That obviously follows through all the
26 structural elements and nonstructural elements. Not only do we have to brace the nonstructural
27 elenlents of the building but OSHPD has also decided now that major pieces of medical
28 equipment have to be certified for the internal workings to survive the predictable force of the
29 earthquakes. So the MRI now has to be certified by the manufacturer that the internal
30 components will withstand the force of an earthquake, not just the room in which that MRI sits.
31 Obviously construction costs reflect the added levels of safety. Construction costs excluding the
32 equipment are nearly twice what they are for conventional office buildings, and probably that
33 factor grows even more as OSHPD develops new and newer requirements for earthquake safety.
34
35 So in the adult hospital, which is the larger of the two buildings, we are using a base isolation
36 system. That has been used on a nutnber ofprojects in earthquake country. The most recent and
37 relevant proj ects to us that are good examples to look at are Mills Peninsula Hospital and San
38 Francisco International Airport. The base isolators actually separate the structural frame from
39 the foundation. They are gigantic shock absorbers so they will diminish the force that the
40 structural frame feels through an earthquake. To accommodate the shock absorbers we actually
41 have to build a moat around the building so that the building can nl0ve separately from the
42 ground that surrounds it. So it is a fairly complicated system but one worth the investment when
43 you consider the value of these buildings in a natural disaster.
44
45 So changing topics slightly to water conservation, and some of the measures we are employing in
46 our design. So clearly the new hospital buildings and the medical office structures and the other
Page 6
1 structures that we are proposing in this entitlement will conserve water by their design and their
2 use. Here are some of the features. Obviously the automatic sensors on faucets and urinals, low
3 flow fixtures, the use of dual flush systems, but we are also using different methods to wash your
4 hands. The antimicrobial hand rinse pumps are already in current practice within the hospital.
5 So we are trying to minimize water use whenever we can.
6
7 Our new hospital grounds are being designed to incorporate obviously sustainable features. You
8 have seen our green roofs, and you have seen our landscaping design. We are obviously going to
9 incorporate maximum use of drought tolerant landscape as possible. Look at how we manage
10 water use, and I will talk a little bit later about some of the features within the building design to
11 actually capture water, but then also features like using lawn mowers that will recycle the grass
12 clippings.
13
14 So our water planning strategies. We are taking some fairly aggressive steps in planning to
15 harvest rainwater and capture the rainwater for irrigation. We are also taking aggressive steps to
16 capture condensate water from mechanical· equipment and use it for irrigation. So I will have to
17 provide the cautionary and customary note, this is all subject to the approval ofOSHPD. These
18 are systems they have not traditionally approved before. I think one of the great inventions of
19 the project is to try to capture the condensate water. So you can see during the period of which
20 we have high water demand there is also high water generation from the air conditioning units,
21 and the condensate water, which they throw off. If we are able to capture that water and store it
22 in an underground tank both hospital facilities will be able to use that water to irrigate the
23 landscaping. So it is something we are willing to nlake an investment in. We are hoping that
24 OSHPD will give us the approval to use these systems, and we think it will provide great benefit
25 in minimizing our water use in the facility.
26
27 So these are some figures basically from the environmental analysis. Our project demand
28 estimate is approximately 177,000 gallons per day. This is for the SUMC project as it is defined.
29 We think through conservation measures, very aggressive conservation measures we can get that
30 water use down to less than 100,000 gallons per day. We believe that there is sufficient water
31 supply within the City to support the demands of the SUMC projects and to serve existing and
32 planned custonlers, obviously through 2030.
33
34 Our forecast of water use, on a per square footage basis, is approxinlately .204 gallons per day
35 per square foot for the adult hospital and a slightly larger use than that for the Children's
36 Hospital. Again, these are estimates that are incorporated in the environmental analysis, but you
37 can also see how we are benchmarking against other facilities. It is a fairly comparable statistic
38 to other facilities that you see around the state. We think it is reasonable. We also think that we
39 can improve on these estimates through aggressive conservation measures, and we have
40 mentioned that in the water supply assessment.
41
42 So that concludes my formal presentation, and obviously as always am happy to answer any
43 questions you might have.
44
45 Chair Garber: Thank you. Staff, anything else? Commissioners, let's go through this chapter-
46 by-chapter. We have two members of Palo Alto's Utility Department here who have asked if we
Page 7
1 would do their chapter first. Since we have had no more other requests from any of the other
2 departments why don't we do that? Do Commissioners have questions and comments on the
3 Utility Chapter? Commissioner Keller? Commissioner Martinez do you have any?
4 Commissioners Fineberg and Tanaka do you have some? W ell let' s start with ConIDlissioner
5 Keller and then we will go to me.
6
7 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So the current water use from the DEIR is 362,000 gallons
8 per day, and based on the conservation measures\ that is going up to 461,000 gallons per day. By
9 the way, I recognize that there are a lot of good conservation measures being put into place, and
10 it is kind of difficult to conserve water in this enviroIunent. I am impressed with the measures
11 being taken, particularly using the water from various other systems in the hospital.
12
13 What I am wondering about is there are pending regulations that would mandate a 20 percent
14 reduction in urban water use. I am not sure if that is 20 percent in terms of communities, or in
15 terms of per capita, or whatever. I am not sure exactly how that works. What I am wondering is
16 what is the baseline for that 20 percent? Is it the 13 million gallons per day that the city is
17 currently using or is it the 17 million gallons per day that the city is entitled,to use? I am
18 confused about this because there is a whole notion of water rights that people have, and it is
19 pretty clear that the Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir is going to have less capacity as global wanning
20 continues the amount of water available will be less because the snow pack will melt sooner and
21 the snow pack will be smaller, and therefore the total amount of water available will be less. So
22 I am trying to understand what the baseline is because if the baseline is 17 million we don't have
23 anything to worry about, but that is sort of like cutting vacant positions in order to save money
24 on the budget. On the other hand, if the baseline is 13 million and we have to go down to 10.4
25 million by a 20 percent reduction in gallons per day that is a significant impact. So can
26 somebody answer that question?
27
28 Mr. Roland Ekstrand, Senior Project Engineer: I am in the Engineering Group. I am not sure we
29 have anybody with the Water Resources Group here today. We deal with replacements and
30 installing utilities to new developments in the Engineering Group. We will have to get back to
31 you on that Mr. Keller. I don't think there is anybody here who is qualified to answer that
32 specific question.
33
34 Commissioner Keller: Okay, that's fine. I think it would be worthwhile if this were answered in
35 the FEIR. I think that is, something particularly worthwhile considering. In terms of potential
36 mitigation for this Stanford on its land provides a wonderful resource of the Stanford Industrial
37 Park, and to the extent that Stanford could work with Industrial Park customers to try to reduce
38 their water use particularly in terms of outdoor irrigation is sort of the low-hanging fruit there,
39 pun not intended. The issue is that that might be a good mitigation that could help the City
40 reduce its water use. So thank you. That is the main question I have about water. Thank you.
41
42 Chair Garber: The only thing that I would ask that would be helpful to see a bit more clearly in
43 the DEIR is a statement, and this is very simple but of the capacity of the City to generate its
44 water supply and what percent this project takes of that relative to some background use of that
45 water so we can understand what the capacities are one way or the other. Then I would have that
46 same desire to see that relative to our ability to manage wastewater, electricity, stomlwater, etc.
Page 8
1 It may be buried in here but to be able to sort of see that clearly so that I can understand the
2 demand and the capacity to meet that demand I think would be helpful. Commissioner Fineberg.
3
4 Commissioner Fineberg: I have talked about this before in other sections of our discussion on
5 the project, but I continue to have concerns about the safety and reliability of the electrical
6 supply given that the source is in an area that is in a floodplain, in soils that are subject to
7 liquefaction, and extreme ground shaking. How is the hospital going to remain serviceable long-
8 term if the City of Palo Alto can't provide power? I understand those conditions are offsite, they
9 are out in the Baylands, but does this DEIR need to consider the reliability of single-source
10 power when we know it is subject to extreme conditions during either flooding or earthquake
11 events?
12
13 I have a question on page 3.15-8, a statement in the DEIR about wastewater. It says that the
14 Regional Waste Quality Treatment Plant does not experience any major system constraints and
15 has no planned capacity expansions. That was per Rick Wetzel in 2007. I don't know if this
16 could be answered tonight or in the DEIR but it is my understanding we are currently working on
17 a new UV treatment plant to replace the chlorine gases. I am remembering that one of the
18 components in that was also increasing capacity. So if we are increasing capacity, I understand
19 the project is approved and not yet constructed, is it fair to say that we have no plans for capacity
20 expansions on the treatment facility when pieces of it are being expanded and improved?
21
22 Then electricity, page 3.15-13, I have the same question Chair Garber raised. I would like to see
23 not just what our peak capacity is. They are saying the load can be 385 megawatts, but is our
24 current peak demand? What proportion of that will be from the Stanford project? What is our
25 cushion during peak demand periods, and is that adequate?
26
27 The last thing is as a mitigation for some of the demands on water, the demands on wastewater
28 treatment, and electrical needs can the DEIR consider and anaerobic digestion facility collocated
29 with a power generation facility? There is a researcher at HP Labs who is espousing that concept
30 for data farms where they generate a tremendous amount of heat. I know this is a little off topic
31 but if you collocate cows and computers you generate electricity from the compo sting in the
32 anaerobic digester. You can use the excess heat from the building to generate electricity and
33 then you use the electricity generated from that heat to power the building. I know the Stanford
34 Hospital won't have the cows but it has people, so could there or should there be a consideration
35 of that? The advantage also of collocation of the anaerobic digester and the facility creating the
36 waste is that you don't have transmission losses. So it is an incredibly efficient system. So
37 that's it.
38
39 Chair Garber: Nothing like thinking from the bottom up. Commissioner Tanaka.
40
41 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. Some of my questions have already been covered by the
42 Chair and other Commissioners. So these are following on to the questions that have been asked.
43 I was also looking at 3.15-8 and I saw that our RWQC serves Mountain View, East Palo Alto,
44 Stanford University, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills. I assume that those other entities pay their
45 share for this service, right? My question though is I know residentially wastewater is not
46 metered. So I was looking at the allocation on the next page and it was saying a certain amount
Page 9
1 of allocation is given to each of these entities. I was just curious to know if certain entities, let's
2 say for instance the hospital increases their share maybe more than expected, how is that
3 accounted for, and is that metered somehow? Is there a portion of their fee increased? Let's say
4 they do better. Let's say they are very aggressive in their savings, do their rates drop? How does
5 it work?
6
7 Mr. Ekstrand: For the commercial customers the sewage is metered.
8
9 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, I didn't know that.
10
11 Mr. Ekstrand: Even for the residential we could meter it because it is based on the water usage.
12 It is directly related to the amount of water they use through their water meters. What was the
13 rest of the question there?
14
15 Commissioner Tanaka: I was just curious to know. So basically these different entities are
16 metered. So East Palo Alto we are metering their wastewater and we meter all the other cities
17 and they pay according to how much they use then.
18
19 Mr. Ekstrand: Right.
20
21 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, that's fine.
22
23 Mr. Ekstrand: The plant is jointly owned by all the entities. We own a share of the plant, Palo
24 Alto does.
25
26 Commissioner Tanaka: And everyone pays for their usage.
27
28 Mr. Ekstrand: Yes.
29
30 Commissioner Tanaka: Perfect, thank you. Then the second question is a quick one.
31
32 Chair Garber: Commissioner, Commissioner Fineberg had a follow up.
33
34 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. Can you tell me if Stanford's wastewater is currently
35 metered and would this proj ect' s wastewater be segregated from and measured separately, or it is
36 just the entire university gets metered in one place? Or how is it?
37
38 Mr. Ekstrand: We do have different nletering places in the city but it is riot broken down to just
39 Stanford Hospital. We can quantify what their sewage output is based on the amount of
40 domestic water that they are taking in. We do separate the irrigation meters and the fire services
41 from the domestic water. Pretty much all the domestic water goes back into the sewage system.
42 So we can quantify exactly how much they are inputting into the wastewater treatment plant.
43 We can call up that data.
44
45 Commissioner Fineberg: I anI sorry. I thought before you had said that commercial customers
46 the wastewater is metered. So is Stanford not considered a commercial customer then?
Page 10
1
2 Mr. Ekstrand: They are definitely comnlercial customers. The way we meter the commercial
3 customer's sewage usage is via their domestic water meter. That is the way we track that.
4
5 Chair Garber: You make the assumption that what comes in goes out.
6
7 Mr. Ekstrand: Yes. We separate the irrigation out from that because they have separate
8 irrigation meters.
9
10 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka.
11
12 Commissioner Tanaka: So my second question is about gray water. I don't know if given this is
13 a hospital if that is practical or even possible but I was just wondering if that is although right
14 now it is already less than significant so it is not critical, but of course a gallon saved is a gallon
15 created. Whether that could be something that is contemplated by this project as well.
16
17 Mr. Tortorich: I would be happy to answer that. We actually did look at a gray water system
18 and tried to talk to OSHPn about it, and were told flatly absolutely not. We are not ready for
19 that.
20
21 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. That is all I had.
22
23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, a final word.
24
25 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. To follow up on what Commissioner Fineberg mentioned in
26 terms of electricity reliability there already is the Cardinal COGEN plant. To the extent that that
27 COGEN plant, which not only provides chilled water and hot water for the hospital I understand
28 there could be inter-ties so that could be a backup generator for the hospital. I am not sure to the
29 extent that that makes sense but that could be an alternative onto sort of diesel type generators as
30 a potential.
31
32 The other issue that has been talked about is to the extent that there could be a cross-connection
33 at SLAC providing a different direction to bring Palo Alto power in the event of an outage
34 through the primary thing that goes by the airport.
35
36 The second thing is I would like to expand slightly on the comment made by Commissioner
37 Fineberg about the idea of using biomaterial for cogeneration. It is my understanding that
38 COGEN plant currently generates electricity and the processed heat is instead of being used to
39 generate additional electricity it is used to generate the hot and chilled water. That is my
40 understanding of how the Cardinal COGEN plant works. Is that correct? I am seeing nods from
41 Stanford.
42
43 I am wondering rather then thinking about biosolids, which come from sewage, the extent to
44 which a COGEN facility could be expanded to take into account compostable materials, which
45 would be easier to transport and not require manipulation of the sewage treatment plant by the
46 Baylands, but actually to have compost from Palo Alto and from Stanford go and be raw material
Page 11
1 for the COGEN plant. That would use an existing facility, expanded somewhat, for the
2 cogeneration ability for conlposting. I think that is perhaps more feasible then dealing with
3 sewage, and would also deal with the siting issue of where the COGEN facility for anaerobic
4 digestion for compost could be sited. So that could provide additional electricity that would
5 offset the hospital'~· electricity and also provide an emergency source of electricity in the event
6 that Palo Alto had a power outage. Thank you.
7
8 Chair Garber: Commissioners, let's first thank the members of the Utilities Department. You
9 are excused unless of course you would like to stick around.
10
11 Let's return to the chapter on Noise. Before we do I suspect the City Attorney is going to
12 suggest that I do something that I forgot before, which is to ask if there are members of the
13 public that would like to speak, and we would open the public hearing to do so. I see no cards.
14 If anyone from the public would like to speak? I see one card in preparation. You can submit
15 afterwards. Mr. Moss.
16
17 Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you. I just had a couple of comments on the hazardous
18 materials that caught my eye. One of the mitigation measures, HM-2.1 is to conduct an asbestos
19 survey.
20
21 Chair Garber: This is under the Hazardous Materials Chapter?
22
23 Mr. Moss: Yes, this is the Hazardous Material on page 8 of the Staff Report. While it is nice to
24 do a survey if you find it you have to have an action you take. So there should be another
25 mitigation that says, if we find it we will then do so and so. One of the things obviously is the
26 people who do demolition then have to wear protective clothing, and you have to make sure that
27 the demolished material is taken to a proper dump and so on. So right now it is incomplete.
28
29 Second, it doesn't say anything about leadpaint. At the time these buildings were built lead
30 paint was common. So there should be a review also to verify whether or not there is lead paint.
31 If lead paint is found then you have to do proper demolition precautions.
32
33 Then HM-7 is a mitigation measure to HM-3.3, Conduct a soil vapor program at the Hoover
34 Pavilion site. Well, again while it is probably a low probability that they are going find soil
35 recontamination, if they do what happens? So you have to have a next step. Ifwe fmd
36 contamination we will then do this and do that. If the contamination is severe then you will have
37 to redesign the building, so for example you put down a vapor barrier between the contaminated
38 soil and groundwater and-the actual structure. So the mitigations that are listed here are nice but
39 they are only the first step. So you should have a mitigation that is complete which takes me
40 down if this was a problem then I will do so and so. Otherwise you are kind of left hanging.
41 They find asbestos, so? In every case where they are doing an investigation you should have an
42 additional mitigation that says if found we will remedy it by whatever. I anl not going to get into
43 the details of whatever tonight. I am just saying you have to go through the proper procedures
44 and steps. Thank you.
45
Page 12
1 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have questions or comments about Noise in
2 particular here? Commissioner Fineberg, Tanaka? Okay. Commissioner Tanaka why don't you
3 start off.
4
5 CommIssioner Tanaka: So I have a few quick questions. This question may have been asked
6 before but I am going to ask it again because I don't know the answer. In terms of construction
7 noise are there construction routes as to where heavy trucks are going to be going versus regular
8 construction traffic? So while you are looking that up I saw that they have kind of like a heat
9 map of the noise, of the helicopter flight, perhaps that can also show a more legible flight path of
10 how the helicopters fly. It looked like they kind of go up to the north but it wasn't really clear to
11 me. Do you want to go to the first question?
12
13 Ms. Martelino: Yes. Figure 3.4-5 in the Transportation section provides a map of truck routes.
14
15 Commissioner Tanaka: Figure 3.4-what?
16
17 Ms. Martelino: Dash 5.
18
19 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, I will look it up later. Is there also one of the helicopter flight
20 paths?
21
22 Ms. Martelino: No, it doesn't specify the helicopter flight path.
23
24 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. Then also in regard to Noise, one other thought is one of the
25 mitigation factors for some of the traffic is to have more buses or shuttles running around, which
26 I think is a good idea. Some of the comments I have heard from other residents though about the
2 7 bu~es and shuttles are sometimes they are a little bit noisy. So that is maybe something you
28 could consider in terms of a mitigation to the mitigation as part of the Noise impacts. So that is
29 all I have so far. Thank you.
30
31 Chair Garber: Just for clarification, Figure 3.4-5 appears to be existing transit route network as
32 opposed to construction.
33
34 Ms. Martelino: It is expected that those are the truck routes that they would take. I am sorry.
35
36 Commissioner Keller: It is on 3.4-6 is the figure on page.3.4-41.
37
38 Chair Garber: Thank you.
39
40 Ms. Martelino: Thank you.
41
42 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg your comments and questions.
43
44 Commissioner Fineberg: I may have nlissed it if it is in the text but are there plans or
45 requirements for monitoring of noise levels during construction and during ongoing operations?
46 I understand that there are limits on what is allowable but will that be monitored?
Page 13
1
2 Ms. Martelino: There are no specified mitigation measures for the construction period to
3 monitor noise.
4
5 Commissioner Fineberg: Is there a reason why? Would it be feasible to have a monitoring
6 program and should that be incorporated into the DEIR for both during construction period and
7 operations?
8
9 Ms. Martelino: It is something we can look at in preparation of the Final EIR.
10
11 Commissioner Fineberg: Please. Okay, then page 3.7-37 it talks about cumulative construction
12 noise impacts. It states, "The only reasonably foreseeable probable future projects in close
13 proximity to the SUMC sites are 1) approved but un-constructed academic facilities, housing
14 units, parking, and associated utilities, roadways, and bikeways in the adjacent Stanford
15 University property." Two, just to paraphrase, demolition of 777 Welch. So the first thing that
16 came to my mind in reading that is what about the Performing Arts Center? That is a significant
17 known foreseeable, probable, all the jargonproject that will be happening in the immediate
18 vicinity. Is that considered an academic facility? If that is then everything in the universe comes
19 under academic facilities, housing units, parking, and associated utilities, and roadways. So
20 should there be a listing of the major un-constructed academic, and all the other types? I guess I
21 am just wondering is it adequate to say there is no cumulative noise because everything is in this
22 category and there we go?
23
24 Ms. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Commissioner Fineberg, just to clarify the
25 Performing Arts Center project has come up in your and Council's discussions in the past. That
26 was a project that came online after the NOP was issued so we did not view it as a foreseeable
27 project for the purposes of this analysis, but there have been comments that have come in
28 regarding that project. So we will take another look at it in the EIR.
29
30 Commissioner Fineberg: Great, thank you. I am not sure the right way to frame this, but it goes
31 on in the discussion in this section to talk about I believe it was 1,655,000 additional square feet
32 of academic land use. That seems to be significant. I am wondering if there should be an
33 elaboration of what makes that up, what the construction schedules are, whether they are
34 concurrent with this project. My hunch is there will be and I am concerned about, and I think the
35 DEIR may need to address whether the cumulative impacts are properly identified and
36 understood given that we are simply lumping it together with 1.5 million additional square feet in
37 adjacent areas.
38
39 Ms. Martelino: The over 1.0 million square feet of development refers to cumulative
40 development that is part of the Stanford General Use Permit. There is a more specific list of
41 what is currently projected to potentially occur or be constructed concurrently as the SUMC
42 project construction within the Stanford campus. That discussion is provided in section 3.1 of
43 the Draft EIR.
44
45 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. Thank you and I can look at that later. I still wonder whether
46 the cumulative impacts need to better analyze not just the Stanford University Medical Center
Page 14
1 but the other projects in the immediate vicinity even if they are in their inner sphere of influence,
2 and covered under the County's GUP they still are part of the cumulative impacts and I believe
3 the DEIR should analyze them in more detail.
4
5 Going to page 3.7-39, NO-6 is the cumulative vibration impacts, again, the same kind of issues.
6 Are we adequately looking at the cumulative impacts on sensitive receptors in the area given the
7 numbers of projects, the amount of square footage? What is the sphere of influence of the
8 vibrations? I understand that the further you get the less they are, but having lived through being
9 within a half a mile of several projects building hundreds of houses, those pile drivers shake you
10 a half a mile away. I don't know that they would rise to the level of waking you up at three in
11 the morning but 12 years of pile drivers may exceed what standards tolerate. So I think there
12 needs to be more analysis of the cumulative impacts of all the projects in the area over the
13 extended time period, and then kind of unless I missed it, something showing a map of who is
14 where and how far out the vibrations go rather than just saying when you get far away they don't
15 bother you, don't worry about it.
16
17 Commissioner Martinez: Just out of curiosity are there going to be deep driven piles proposed
18 for the foundation?
19
20 Mr. Tortorich: For purposes of the EIR we have asked to have driven piles studied, and they
21 would be fairly deep piles. We would prefer to use an auger cast pile method, however, our
22 friends at OSHPD have only approved that method in one other project. So we are skeptical
23 about whether they will approve it for this but we wanted to have the worst condition studied.
24
25 Just to issue of noise and vibration, pile driving activity would not be going on for 12 years. It
26 would go on for a period of just a few months. Believe me the Chief Nursing Officers of both
27 hospitals will call me as soon as the vibration or noise is unacceptable. They are very sensitive
28 receptors.
29
30 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. The last comment I have on this is Staff earlier stated, and
31 forgive me if I didn't quite catch this perfectly, but I thought I heard you say that there is no
32 mitigation for ambulance noise du~ to the emergency nature and the absolute unequivocal need
33 for their source. lam wondering though whether there aren't mitigations, the same kinds of
34 things that airports install when they generate noise, funds to insulate people's homes, funds to
35 pay for double-hung windows, whatever the construction methods are to soundproof the
36 sensitive receptors. So should there be consideration where whatever our thresholds of
37 significance are exceeded, and if they are in very concentrated focal area should there be funds to
38 improve those properties so that they comply with whatever our codes say interior noise should
39 not exceed from those 45 decibels so that those homes or residences or whatever not be impacted
40 by the helicopter and ambulance noise.
41
42 Ms. Silver: Commissioner Fineberg, as a clarification our Noise Ordinance does exempt
43 ambulatory noise, but not helicopter noise.
44
45 Chair Garber: As was just noted the project exists over 12 years, and does not exist in every
46 location all at the same time over that 12 years, which suggests that some of the unavoidable
Page 15
1 impacts of noise can in fact be planned for, and the critical topic here or the sort of critical
2 mitigation it seems to me is going to be management of those potential receptors of that.
3 Therefore it might be appropriate to include in a list of mitigations a plan that maps out where
4 the noise occurs at what times. I am not talking day-to-day I am talking month-by-month or
5 something of that sort such that those potential receptors can anticipate when those things can
6 happen and where.
7
8 It also occurs to me that it may not be something that can obviously be planned for right now, but
9 it could be planned for at some time rolling time schedule, six months before it occurs or
10 something of that sort. In any case, all I am suggesting is that there is a plan that occurs in time
11 and space that could allow that to happen. Commissioner Martinez.
12
13 Commissioner Martinez: First I would like to ask the City Attorney if she could explain to all of
14 us once again, as you did in our pre-Commission meeting, the difference between the noise of
15 the limits of the Comprehensive Plan versus the Municipal Code.
16
17 Ms. Silver: Yes, Commissioner Martinez I would be happy to do that. The Comprehensive Plan
18 sets forth general policies regarding noise, and it does not contain prescriptive requirements that
19 prohibit particular noise. Instead what it does is it actually incorporates and addresses the CEQA
20 threshold guidelines that should be applied to various projects. So in general terms it has a
21 policy that says that development shall minimize noise in general as it comes online. Then in
22 particular in Policy N-41 it states that when a proposed project is subject to CEQA, such as this,
23 and requires an EIR the noise impact of the project on existing residential land uses should be
24 evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels and potential for adverse community
25 impact regardless of existing background noise levels. Then it contains some detailed criteria
26 that should be applied when evaluating the project's impact on noise. So basically what the
27 Comprehensive Plan does is just sets for the criteria that needs to be used and that is what the
28 EIRdoes.
29
30 Then the Noise Ordinance has a specific exemption for ambulance noise and siren noise. So the
31 way we approach the EIR chapter is we disclose that the ambulance noise when taken into
32 account with all the other noise generated by the project would trigger a significance criteria, but
33 the project itself because the noise was attributable to the sirens would be exempt from any
34 prescriptive requirements in the Noise Ordinance. Hope that clarifies it.
35
36 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. I wanted to go to the heliport and ambulance noise issue
37 because those are the two items that we don't seem like we are going to be able to fully mitigate.
38 I am sure regarding these two types of transportation that this comes up at every major hospital
39 project. Did you look at, in preparing the EIR, some of our neighboring hospitals to see if they
40 addressed this at all? Are you familiar with other plans?
41
42 Ms. Rod Jeung, PBS&J Consulting: Commissioner Martinez, we have probably done five or six
43 other hospital environmental documents for the very same reasons that Stanford has submitted
44 this application in terms of trying to comply with SB 1953. So there have been hospital projects
45 that we have done in Palo Alto, ones that we have done in San Carlos, ones we have done up in
46 Burlingame for Mills Peninsula. In each of those instances it is pretty much the same scenario
Page 16
1 where we have identified the need for additional ambulance traffic, because in most cases, in all
2 the cases the hospitals were expanding their emergency departments. So there was an
3 expectation consistent with population forecast that the number of ambulances would be
4 increasing, and that the noise associated would· also be increasing. Like Palo Alto all of those
5 cities have ordinances that typically exempt sirens.
6
7 The helicopter noise is a little bit different. In those particular instances, particularly in
8 Burlingame at Mills Peninsula we did look at some alternative locations and talked to the
9 hospital operation folks about modifying their flight paths to see if there was a way to avoid
10 some of the incoming noise, and I think some of the downwash, the wind patten1s from the
11 helicopter rotors. So we did consider that in some of the other locations where it was a
12 significant concern.
13
14 Commissioner Martinez: In our case here did you look at any difference between having a
15 rooftop heliport versus keeping it on the ground, and is there any significant difference in terms
16 of noise?
17
18 Mr. Jeung: Was that considered in the plan application?
19
20 Ms. Martelino: I believe in this case, as well as I can recall this project involves the highest
21 rooftop heliport that we have looked at.
22
23 Commissioner Martinez: Did you look at having it located on the ground as a mitigation if
24 indeed it were a mitigation? Or at a lower elevation?
25
26 Ms. Martelino: No we previously have not looked at mitigation to put heliports at a lower
27 elevation.
28
29 Commissioner Martinez: In terms of noise impacts on patients I would assume that it makes
30 more sense to keep it higher, having been in aroom right next to a heliport.
31
32 Considering the impact on the apartments at 1100 Welch Road I wanted to follow up with what
33 Commissioner Fineberg had suggested. Did you look at the construction or whether these
34 apartments had double pane windows, or roof insulation, and whether that could be a mitigation
35 to kind of lower the impacts on the residents?
36
37 Mr. GeoffHornek, PBS&J Consulting: I had a good part in the noise section. The issue with the
38 helicopter noise is we didn't identify a significant noise impact due to the project so we didn't
39 look into the mitigations present or increase insulation for the building across the street.
40
41 Commissioner Martinez: I thought it did. I could be wrong because I read it a couple of nights
42 ago. I thought 1100 Welch Road that there was a significant noise impact.
43
44 Mr. Hornek: Not a helicopter noise impact, no.
45
Page 17
1 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. Then regarding the ambulances, currently there are 21 trips per
2 day, ten percent so two are with sirens. The build out projects 39 trips per day.
3
4 Mr. Homek: Right.
5
6 Commissioner Martinez: Weare not doubling in population so where are these extra trips
7 coming from?
8
9 Mr. Homek: I can't speak to the extra trips but one critical factor in identifying a significant
10 ambulance noise impact was the opening of a new ambulance route that would take it by
11 sensitive receptors that are not exposed to any ambulance noise directly now. That is the
12 primary reason why the ambulance noise impact was identified. Again, it relates to the
13 Comprehensive Plan standard for exposure of those units.
14
15 Con1ffiissioner Martinez: Okay, thank you, but can I get an answer to my question about the
16 doubling of the number of trips?
17
18 Mr. Homek: That is something I can't speak to.
19
20 Ms. Martelino: The number of treatment spaces within the emergency department would
21 increase so there is an accompanying increase in ambulance trips that are expected.
22
23 Mr. Jeung: I think the other consideration just to keep in mind is that even though the City of
24 Palo Alto's population is not doubling as you might infer from looking at the number of
25 ambulance trips, the hospital facilities are a regional facility and serves a larger population
26 service area than just Palo Alto. If you think about the demographics of the con1ffiunities and the
27 aging of the communities the number of ambulance trips would tend to increase. So it is not tied
28 specifically to the exact popUlation within the city but a larger service area and its demographics.
29
30 Chair Garber: Mr. Tortorich.
31
32 Mr. Tortorich: Thank you. Commissioner Martinez, one of the issues that we have with our
33 current facility is we have to be on diversion quite frequently. So arnbulances are diverted to
34 other hospitals. By expanding the emergency department we won't have to be on diversion and
35 we can then treat the patients that we should be treating.
36
37 Also state law in the future is going to make it, from what we understand, more difficult for
38 hospitals to close their emergency departments to new admits. So that volume of traffic there,
39 frequently it is diverted because we are full. We don't want to be full any more so we can accept
40 the volume of traffic from the community.
41
42 Commissioner Martinez: I appreciate that. Thank you.
43
44 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg, you had a follow up.
45
Page 18
1 Commissioner Fineberg: Excuse me sir, could you come back to the podium. You mentioned
2 briefly that there would be a new ambulance route with new sensitive receptors. Could you
3 either tell me where that is in this discussion or just elaborate a little bit? I know earlier someone
4 said it was on El Camino. Is that northbound or southbound?
5
6 Mr. Homek: The part of the project description, the emergency room would be relocated to a
7 site closer to Sand Hill Road, and that would open up Sand Hill Road from EI Camino to Durand
8 as an ambulance route where it currently is not an ambulance route for the present SUMC .
9 emergency room.
10
11 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so if you are El Canlino heading north, if I am thinking clearly,
12 you cannot now tum left onto Sand Hill?
13
14 Mr. Homek: Well, I guess you could but I guess if you were in a hurry the Quarry route, you
15 would take EI Camino to Quarry and then go right down and that would take you to the
16 emergency room a lot quicker. You wouldn't have to detour through the campus.
17
18 Commissioner Fineberg: So is there any re-jiggering of the Sand Hill intersection and sort of
19 how you can't cross over to Alma Way.
20
21 Mr. Homek: You mean is there any way to redefine the ambulance route so it won't take that
22 section of Sand Hill Road?
23
24 Commissioner Fineberg: I am just trying to figure out what your redefined route is beyond
25 Durand. Are they reaching as far as EI Camino or that is staying as it is?
26
27 Mr. Turner: Excuse me Commissioner Fineberg. I just want to highlight the pages in the EIR
28 that show the existing and proposed routes. So those are Figures 3.7-6 on page 31 of the Noise
29 Chapter. That shows the existing route. Then on the following page Figure 3.7-7 is the proposed
30 ambulance route so you can see the change between existing and proposed.
31
32 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, so I think what I am seeing then is that the ambulances would
33 not have a new route onto Sand Hill going northbound, and they would 110t be able to come from
34 Alma. Is that correct? I'm sorry I am looking at this sideways. It is not on the map. So let me
35 word that as a question. Are the new ambulance routes going to in any way impact Alma Way,
36 is it Alma Way when it is in Downtown? Whatever Alma. Is it going to allow ambulances to
37 have a new route on northbound hanging a left? I am not proposing that it should I just want the
38 route clarified so we can understand it a little further from the project site.
39
40 Mr. Homek: Okay.
41
42 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez, did you have anything else?
43
44 Commissioner Martinez: No, that's it for now.
45
46 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
Page 19
1
2 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The first comment about ambulance noise is that it is highly
3 dependent on traffic. So I presume that there is not much ambulance noise that happens in the
4 middle of the night because there is not much traffic. If I were an ambulance driver I would tum
5 on the siren when I wanted to get traffic out of the way so I can get to the emergency room.
6 There is some issue about turning on and off the siren and whether that is jolting to the patient,
7 but certainly keeping the siren off is less traumatic to the patient in general. So the issue of
8 continuing to discourage sirens at night is a potential mitigation.
9
10 The other issue is depending on traffic Quarry Road is a four-lane road from El Camino to
11 Arboretum, while Sand Hill Road is a two-lane road from much of El Camino to Arboretum. So
12 the consideration is that that does not seem like a good place to go to as a route during rush hour
13 traffic. Therefore there might be an idea of during periods of extreme traffic to relocate it so that
14 the arrlbulance route goes along the current route essentially of Quarry Road to Welch Road and
15 uses that to go there. That is also a potential mitigation for the ambulance noise along the new
16 Sand Hill Road path.
17
18 Finally, along these lines, the issue is that I would expect that the amount of time that there is
19 siren for an arrlbulance that would increase more than linearly. The reason is, as I mentioned
20 earlier, ambulance noise is related to traffic and traffic is expected to increase. Therefore I
21 would expect that as traffic increases, congestion increases, and therefore ambulance noise
22 would increase more than linearly. That should be taken into account. So that is it on ambulance
23 noise.
24
25 The next thing is with respect to construction noise. A lot of Commissioners have talked about
26 construction noise already. I would like to, I believe it was Commissioner Martinez who talked
27 about the construction routes. I am sorry it was Commissioner Tanaka. Thank you.
28 Commissioner Tanaka talked about construction routes. I think this is important because
29 construction route towards - a lot of construction presumably would come up or traffic would
30 come along 101 from the south, from San Jose, and then presumably take San Antonio Road and
31 either Alma Street or El Camino. However, San Antonio Road is not one of the road levels that
32 is in Table 3.7-11, and it should be in there because the trucks rumbling along that there are
33 residences along San Antonio Road that would be impacted. So that needs to be considered.
34 Also whether the requirement is that the traffic go along El Camino rather than on Alma because
35 the construction noise of these trucks along Alma has not been considered either. There is some
36 residential along El Camino that needs to be considered, particularly some residential for
37 example the Evergreen neighborhood, and College Terrace, and further along south there are
38 various residential like Ventura, Barron Park, also further south in Palo Alto there is residential.
39 So that needs to be considered as well.
40
41 So with respect to the noise impact of these construction vehicles there is the consideration of
42 time of day. Are these construction vehicles going to be limited to certain times of day where
43 the impacts would be less? Would they be encouraged to avoid rush hour times so that the
44 congestion would be less from these vehicles? Furthermore, there are some considerations that
45 have sometinles happened where there is physical impact of road impact. When you are running
46 along a lot of heavy construction vehicles along San Antonio Road and El Camino you are
Page 20
1 lessening the life of those roads. Currently a significant investment is being made in San
2 Antonio Road to improve it and that is being done with a significant amount of stimulus funds.
3 The extent to which that road will deteriorate with the construction vehicles and require the
4 appropriate mitigation or the appropriate impacts of the construction vehicles is worthwhile
5 considering.
6
7 Similarly with EI Camino that has not had a similar repaving as San Antonio Road is
8 undergoing. In particular, an agreement that these trucks do not go along Alma Street makes
9 sense. Alma Street is much nlore impactful in terms of traffic and also in terms of noise and
10 residential, and probably has a lower existing ambient noise than EI Camino does. Thank you.
11
12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg one last comment.
13
14 Commissioner Fineberg: There is a project going in at the comer of San Antonio, the Mayfield
15 Mall residential homes. I do not know, but I am wondering has there been consideration, does
16 the DEIR need to consider whether there is going to be any plan for either road closures or
17 changes at the intersection that would impact Stanford's use of that route for construction
18 vehicles. My guess is that it would be happening concurrently within the 12-year window. So it
19 is possible that ought to be considered.
20
21 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka a final comment and then we will go to Geology.
22
23 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. These are quick comments. I did have a chance to look at
24 the Figure 3.4-6, the construction routes. I agree with some of the comments that nly fellow
25 Commissioner made in regards to not going through all the neighborhoods. So I would suggest
26 as a possible mitigation for the noise of the construction trucks, especially the heavy truck
27 carrying a lot oftormage, is to have the trucks if they are going onto the 101 or 280 to go onto
28 Willow Road and Sand Hill Road versus going all the way down Alma and EI Camino to Page
29 Mill or San Antonio. It looks shorter to me on the map here and it looks like it would be less
30 impactful on the residential neighborhoods. So if that could be considered it would be
31 appreciated for trucks over a certain tormage.
32
33 If I was not clear before then I want to make sure it is clear, I think it would make sense to also
34 have the flight path of the helicopters in the next draft. I think that is actually very important.
35
36 Just to follow onto my other Commissioner's comment about what is more noisy a rooftop
37 helicopter or a ground helicopter pad. My dad used to be a helicopter mechanic so I grew up
38 around helicopters. I can tell you that a ground one is a hell of a lot noisier than a rooftop one.
39 So you want a rooftop one if you can. Thank you.
40
41 Chair Garber: Alright, let's go to Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. Yes.
42
43 Mr. Jeung: I am really, really sensitive to what all of you are saying about the importance of
44 understanding sort of the combined effects of having different construction projects occurring at
45 the same time and the resultant effect on residents, commercial businesses, etc. I do want to
Page 21
1 point out that there is a mitigation measure that is included in the Traffic section. So you may
2 not have seen it in Noise or some of the others.
3
4 There is a Traffic Mitigation Measure TR-l.8 that talks about developing and implementing a
5 construction impact mitigation plan. It is a pretty standard mitigation measure that Palo Alto has
6 used on a number of other projects including the one at San Antonio. So the intent of these
7 mitigation plans is that at the point where we are right now it is really hard to be able to predict
8 what the construction staging is going to be and when construction materials are going to be
9 coming in and when construction crews are going to be actively involved. Similarly if you are
10 thinking about all these other projects how to coordinate all that.
11
12 So what each of these individual projects is asked to do, and because this one is so long over a
13 12-year period, there is a desire to have that plan implemented over various phases. So every
14 time there is a new construction phase that is being considered by SUMC or Stanford there is a
15 need to go ahead and refine this plan specifically looking at the scheduled activities, the
16 construction workers, the road openings, the road closures, and see what else is occurring in the
17 vicinity. So I just wanted to point that out.
18
19 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, do we have questions on Geology, Soils, and
20 Seismicity? Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Fineberg. Commissioner Martinez.
21 Commissioner Keller, why don't start off?
22
23 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. The first thing is that although this is an existing hazard,
24 Searsville dam seems to be at issue. It does indicate that that is an existing hazard that exists.
25 There is potential for dam failure, which would apparently inundate the hospital if I read that
26 correctly. One of the things about that is there is the potential to upgrade Searsville dam so that
27 it would reduce the risk of dam failure causing inundation of the Stanford University Medical
28 Center. If that were to be the case the improvement to the Searsville dam could also be used to
29 provide additional flood protection for the San Francisquito Creek. That would have an ancillary
30 benefit there too. So I think what needs to be considered is the upgrade of the Searsville dam
31 and the potential improvement of that as an additional public benefit of this project and the
32 potential reduction of that earthquake risk of inundation.
33
34 It is interesting about the comment about the moat around the Stanford Hospital. To the extent
35 that there is actually a literal moat I am wondering what kind of digging or whatever is necessary
36 to create that moat. I am actually intrigued by that because in the Mexico City earthquake one of
37 the buildings that withstood that without hardly any damage is the United States Embassy. That
38 was also built on a structure that would move somewhat with the earthquake. What I understand,
39 is what they did is they actually designed it so that the soils would flow a little bit and absorb
40 some of the impact. They did that by actually watering the soils. So they pumped water down
41 there to make it more absorptive of the shaking. So that gets to the issue of when we have the
42 base of the foundation resting underneath the water table. To what extent does that affect the
43 nature of the transmissiveness of the shaking or not? I don't know the answer to that. I am not
44 geologist and I am not a structural engineer, and I will bring up the issue of foundation extending
45 below the water use for another issue.
46
Page 22
1 Finally, one of the considerations that I think is worthwhile pointing out is the -and this is not
2 something that Stanford should mitigate but it is something that should be identified as part of
3 this. That is the extent to which the access routes for emergency access not only locally but
4 further out to the Stanford University Medical Center complex and particularly to the enlergency
5 room, whether those access routes are potentially impacted by failure due to the structures that
6 that route goes over. So to the extent that for example if the bridge over the San Francisquito
7 Creek at El Camino were to fail during an earthquake that would impact the ability of Menlo
8 Park residents to reach the emergency department. If people are coming from Palo Alto the
9 extent to which the University Avenue overpass over EI Camino, the failure of that and the
10 collapse of that could effect the ability of people arriving through ambulance. Now they could
11 presumably go around that by taking other routes such as Churchill to EI Camino, to Galvez and
12 Arboretum. But still the understanding of alternative routes in the event of an earthquake and
13 having plans for that certainly is a worthwhile consideration. It is not an exercise that requires
14 actual mitigation per se but I think it is a worthwhile exercise so that in the event of these
15 outages there are appropriate plans in place for handling them. Thank you.
16
17 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez and then Fineberg.
18
19 Commissioner Martinez: In this section there was a description that a parking structure could be
20 built below grade in excess of 40 feet. Along side it was a comment that the assumed water table
21 was 30 feet. I didn't really see how that was going to be mitigated, or wasn't a problem, or could
22 be dealt with in construction. You don't have to answer that now but maybe just clarify it in that
23 section. Thank you.
24
25 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
26
27 Commissioner Fineberg: On page 3.10-8 it says the state geologist has identified that about two-
28 thirds of the area surrounding the Stanford University Medical site are zones with potential
29 liquefaction irrespective of the surface soils due to the water table being within 50 feet of the
30 ground surface. I understand that the construction methods and building design will address
31 much of that. My questions, two of them, are does the DEIR and/or the building designs and
32 construction methods take into account any changes in the water table that might occur due to
33 High-Speed Rail building a deep underground tunnel? I do not know ifit will have any impact.
34 If they do a deep bore method it probably won't impact the surface water, but if they are doing a
35 cut and cover, or cut and there is effectively a wall for the first 50-feet of grade is that going to
36 change the water table?
37
38 Then the second question is will sea level rise impact the height of the water table? Do current
39 construction methods consider that? I am sure there is some answer in code but I hadn't seen
40 any discussion of that.
41
42 Of course, just be a broken record on this, this is another section where Palo Alto being in a
43 floodplain and having its power supply subject to earthquake and flooding risks. Here again in
44 Geology do we need to have a reliable power supply so the hospital can have continuing long-
45 term ongoing operations if Palo Alto's power supply fails to be reliable in a flood or an
46 earthquake?
Page 23
1
2 Then I also would concur with Commissioner Keller's comments earlier, and I am having a brain
3 hiccup, and I am forgetting which ones. I will echo his earlier comments because there was
4 something there I agreed with but I can't remember what it is now.
5
6 Chair Garber: Alright, let's move to the Hydrology Chapter. Anyone have comments on that?
7 Commissioner Tanaka. Commissioner Fineberg you do. Commissioner Martinez and Keller.
8 Commissioner Fineberg why don't you go ahead. Commissioner Tanaka you did not have
9 comments.
10
11 Commissioner Fineberg: Tum the page and now I know what that comment was. It was on the
12 dam failure inundation area. I had my notes on that under Hydrology. I would concur that it is
13 Comprehensive Plan Map N-8 identifies that the project area is in a dam failure inundation area.
14 Maybe I missed it but I am not sure I saw analysis considering that or what potential mitigations
15 . would be, and if they are significant any work there to make the project safer, and then obviously
16 the ancillary benefit of a water retention facility to improve San Francisquito Creek conditions
17 would be good.
18
19 Also, under Hydrology has there been appropriate consideration of the primary evacuation routes
20 from the areas near to bay level west to higher ground? What impact, especially during
21 construction, would there be on evacuation routes? That is was it on Hydrology.
22
23 Chair Garber: I have a brief comment regarding Mitigation Measure HW -3.1, develop a work
24 plan for any unknown contaminated sites. This is not necessarily an additional mitigation to be
25 considered but the topic in general of groundwater contamination is one that our community is
26 very sensitive about. I would be interested in seeing the findings of the various excavations that
27 occur be published in some way that they can become easily seen. Now, if my memory serves, I
28 believe there are a variety of requirements but none of them really raise them to the surface. The
29 findings could be published to a website, or some other way to make it evident. I just think
30 having some daylight on that information that is found would lend just that much more credence
31 to the work that is being done there over the next 12 years. Commissioner Martinez.
32
33 Commissioner Martinez: A couple of things. There is a discussion in a couple of places about
34 surface runoff and impervious surfaces. On page 3.11-34 it says only one to two percent
35 increase in impervious area. Then on page 3.11-40 it says there is a 26 percent increase in
36 impervious area. Both of those statements might be true but they seem contradictory so can you
37 just edit that a little bit so we understand what you are sayiq.g?
38
39 Then on page 3.11-42 under Operations it talks about the project SUbmitting final grading plans.
40 I understood that operations means after occupancY,not about during the planning or design
41 phase. So I am sort of a little confused about that. I think it should be addressing surface runoff
42 from the streets, maintenance of the sewer systems, things of that nature, but not still be talking
43 about plans. Thank you.
44
45 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Tanaka has a comment as well.
46
Page 24
1 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So my first comment is related to the potential for
2 construction dewatering. It was pointed out that there would not be an ongoing dewatering
3 because of the flood proofing of the underground structures, but the idea that the underground
4 structures will protrude below the water table doesn't indicate to me that there is likely to be
5 dewatering. Typically the City of Palo Alto has ITLles for when you can do dewatering so that
6 . they are only done during the non-rainy months so as not to impact the storm drain system when
7 there is rain. I am not sure how that fits in with the construction project schedule. So I think that
8 is something that has to be considered. In particular, in the event of a severe rain event that
9 happens while there is construction dewatering the impact of the combination needs to be
10 considered.
11
12 Also, it would be helpful to,have a map indicating where the foundations and where the
13 underground parking or whatever intersects the water table. So the decent below the water table,
14 a picture or a map of that would indicate to some extent where the water streaming that is
15 coming from the hills underground is blocked, and might have affects on downstream. So this
16 project is of significant size to the effect that water needs to go around this project, and to the
17 extent that that might have some downstream effects on the underground water flow is
18 worthwhile considering.
19
20 I am assuming that this is not the case but the consideration that if water backs up behind such a
21 structure some sort of diversion to keep it from backing up and whether there could be upstream
22 kinds of flooding from underground water flow. I don't really understand that but I am sure the
23 geologists understand the issues better than I do.
24
25 A second consideration, which I guess goes under the category of flooding. Currently to my
26 understanding the helicopters are transporting patients among other places between the Palo Alto
27 Airport and the Stanford Hospital. Is that correct? Is that one of the ways that they go?
28
29 Mr. Tortorich: Commissioner Keller, they will refuel at the Palo Alto Airport but I don't believe
30 they are frequently moving patients from the Palo Alto Airport.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. So to the extent that there are fueling operations at the
33 Palo Alto Airport and the Palo Alto Airport is subject to flooding, which is a potential issue, then
34 alternative mechanisms for fueling the helicopters needs to be considered. Perhaps that could be
35 Moffett Field or some other place like that. To the extent that patients are flown in through the
36 Palo Alto Airport, I am not sure if they are flown in through other airports. I am seeing a nod.
37 They are not flown in through Palo Alto Airport?
38
39 Mr. Tortorich: Comnlissioner Keller, if they are capable enough to fly in an airplane to an
40 airport typically they would come by car to the hospital. So the life flight will bring somebody
41 who has been in an accident to the hospital, or if there is a patient transfer from another hospital,
42 but typically if you are able to fly on an airplane we can get you here by car.
43
44 Commissioner Keller: Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Yes?
45
Page 25
1 Commissioner Fineberg: I am not sure where your line of questions are going but one thing, and
2 correct me if I am wrong, don't organs get flown in on major commercial routes, and then the
3 organ is brought over by helicopter? I don't know if they would go through the Palo Alto
4 Airport.
5
6 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, why don't you get to your point and then if we need further
7 conversation with the applicant we can do that.
8
9 Commissioner Keller: My question is to the extent that the Palo Alto Airport waS necessary to
10 the operations and there was flooding there I wanted to understand that there were altemati ve
11 measures in place for continued operation. So whether it is patient transport or organs or simply
12 refueling the helicopter that is of import, particularly as sea level rises and the likelihood of Palo
13 Alto Airport being under water in significant events. Currently it is within the 100-year
14 floodplain and probably worse than that. Thank you.
15
16 Chair Garber: One thing before we go to Commissioner Tanaka, I had missed the dewatering
17 comment in the chapter. If that is in fact incurred it seems to me that there would be potentially
18 a mitigation plan for that water depending on what is encountered. This site is of such a size that
19 it seems to me reintroducing it to the water table at a different location would potentially be
20 reasonable depending on what the conditions were. In any case, if those conditions are
21 encountered it seems to me there are a variety of ways of dealing with that. Commi~sioner
22 Tanaka.
23
24 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. I just have a few quick comnlents here. As for the green
25 roof, the rainwater harvesting, as well as the condensate from the chillers seem like a really great
26 way to actually try to conserve water. So I think that is actually really nice that the applicant is
27 taking action in this area. One question I have for PBS&J is is this taken into account in the
28 Draft EIR? It sounds like they are still trying to get OSHPD approval for some of these
29 technologies. So is that taken into account in the Hydrology and other sections, the fact that they
30 are doing all these things to recycle water?
31
32 Ms. Martelino: Our hydrologist did consider the green roofs in analyzing the total permeable
33 and impermeable area and how that would affect runoff.
34
35 Commissioner Tanaka: It sounds like they are doing extensive rainwater harvesting as well,
36 which is great. Is that also taken into account? If not, maybe you guys can look at it and nlake
37 sure.
38
39 Ms. Martelino: We will look at that.
40
41 Commissioner Tanaka: One aspect I didn't see in this, and maybe it is in there already, if they
42 are doing permeable pavers as well on the ground. If they are that is a bigger bonus. Those are
43 all the questions I had on this section.
44
45 Chair Garber: Commissioners, we have been at this almost two hours. We would normally take
46 a break, but given that we really only have one more chapter I suggest we just move forward.
Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Our last chapter is Hazardous Materials. Do all the Commissioners have comments?
Commissioner Keller, Martinez, Fineberg. Commissioner Keller why don't you start?
Con1TI1issioner Keller: So there was a comment here about the Lucile Packard Children's
Hospital school. On the one hand it says there are no schools within a quarter of a mile, but that
is school. So you can't have it both ways. It is worthwhile evaluating that. I think the
evaluation should be straightforward because whatever mitigations you have for the sensitive
receptors the hospitals should also suffice for the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital.
There is also a statement that says that you are not going to build a school within a quarter of a
mile of this. That means I presume that the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital school is not
going to be located all within the new facility but it is only located within the existing buildings.
It would just be worthwhile confirming that.
15 The related thing to that is that obviously this site is within a quarter-mile of a University. In
16 fact, years ago I used to have an office on the Stanford campus that was probably within a
17 . quarter-mile of this site. I am wondering if there are issues with respect to the fact that there are
18 students located there.
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
Furthermore, one thing that wasn't mentioned I guess it is the -is it the Arboretum Children's
Center that is located adjacent to the Hoover Pavilion? That is not considered with respect to
this and I think it needs to be. It is not a school per se but it effectively operates as a school. It is
a preschool facility I believe, and that should certainly qualify in the same characteristic.
One final comment, I am not sure which section what was mentioned as the Cortese List is. If it
is pronounced the same way that Santa Clara County Supervisor Dave Cortese pronounces his
name then I assunle it is pronounced as Cortese as Cortese. Thank you.
Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
Commissioner Martinez: When I first started as an architect one of my first projects was to do
some redesign for the Stanford Hematology Lab. One of our greatest challenges was to rebuild
this, a 24-hour operation that could not be shutdown with the presence of asbestos that would
contaminate the equipment that was running. So even back in the early 1980s Stanford had a
very profound knowledge of the presence of asbestos, and probably had a pretty aggressive
program to remove it as they remodeled.
On page 3.12-37 it talks about asbestos surveys prior to construction. I would say that Stanford
likely has a lot of information about the building content of asbestos, and that really should be
made part of the EIR now. A table, a paragraph mentioning the existing hazard and the
mitigation measures that you talk about to mitigate it. Thank you.
Yes, lam certain there were surveys done to know the presence. In general, we know that in
buildings of this era asbestos was the material of choice. So you are going to find it everywhere.
Thank you.
Page 27
1 Chair Garber: The only comment I have is related to the cumulative analysis, HM-12, and it is
2 the same as I had for Hydrology, which is the release of findings to increase the confidence of
3 the way the project is being managed on an ongoing basis. Commissioner Fineberg.
4
5 Commissioner Fineberg: Comprehensive Plan Map N-9 shows that the project area is within
6 2,500 feet of a toxic gas facility. What is that? Does it have any impact on the project? :Ooes it
7 have any impact in emergencies? Does anyone here now know what that toxic gas facility is? I
8 have the map from the Comprehensive Plan that I would be happy to share with Staff or
9 consultants. What is it, and what does it mean, and do we need to do anything about it, is it
10 going to impact operations, or is it just if there is a leak in an emergency? I don't even know
11 what questions to ask because don't know what it is.
12
13 Ms. Martelino: We can take a look at that map and take a look at what the implications would
14 be.
15
16 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. Connnissioner Keller earlier was talking about the
17 preschool that is at the base of Hoover Pavilion. I don't know if they are within a quarter of a
18 mile throw, but there are a couple of other preschools pretty close. Escondido School, which
19 actually a P AUSD school to the south, and then there is another one, forgive me I don't know the
20 name, but another preschool located in the Stanford West Apartment area. I think it is a
21 children's something or other. So I don't know if preschools get the same consideration as
22 public schools but those nlay be additional locations to consider.
23
24 Then also I have a concern about the transportation of the hazardous materials via the truck
25 routes. I understand it is highly regulated. I understand there are codes. But I also understand
26 that to be human is to err, and having lived with a bunch of projects building hundreds of houses,
27 I can tell you there were tons of construction vehicles driving down my little one-block long cul-
28 de-sac street that sometimes I would be frustrated and I would hop in my car and I would follow
29 them, and they would be going to a big construction site. They didn't belong in a residential.
30 neighborhood. They didn't belong on residential streets. They were not delivering materials in
31 the residential area. I understand there are Code Enforcement mechanisms but it is too late that
32 point.
33
34 So if there can be some kind of consideration within the DEIR of, I don't know that it would be
35 monitoring, but a mitigation that would be proactive education for the drivers of the vehicles for
36 the construction companies rather than just assuming that the routes were distributed to the
37 construction companies that there actually be real handshakes between the folks on the site and
38 the folks in the trucks so that there be true compliance. I understand that the code requires that
39 but enhanced implementation of that to get compliance for hauling even the non-hazardous
40 materials, but especially if there are a bunch of trucks hauling hazardous materials, hazardous
41 groundwater, removing the asbestos, removing lead. Those things are going to be crossing our
42 streets, and there are countless sensitive receptors and countless potentials for unforeseen
43 consequences. So the more vigilant we can be about that in whatever ways are possible, if the
44 DEIRcould put some consideration into that.
45
46 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka.
Page 28
1
2 Commissioner Tanaka: My main point has already been covered so I am not going to repeat it. I
3 ' do know that there are after school right next to College Terrace. It is called Peppertree. I don't
4 think it is a quarter-mile. If there are other after schools near the site you should also look at that
5 as well. Thank you.
6
7 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, a final comment.
8
9 Commissioner Keller: Yes. First I agree with Commissioner Fineberg, it should be specifically
10 noted that Embarcadero Road and Oregon Expressway and Charleston are not to be used for
11 construction vehicles because those are not truck routes. I think it is important that we say that
12 today's topic exemplifies why the project is being done. We are doing this, as mentioned by
13, Stanford, for earthquakes because we live in earthquake territory. That is the whole reason for
14 Stanford investing over $3.0 billion in this project so that in the event of an earthquake you and I
15 and people all over will have a place to go still after that earthquake still, after that earthquake in
16 the event that we need medical attention. So I think here is a particular situation as was
1 7 mentioned that not only is in some sense the issues of the potential impacts of an earthquake but
18 that this is actually a great improvement in the earthquake safety of the Stanford Hospital. I only
19 wish that we had 'received this earlier rather than having Stanford having a rush project that they
20 have'to go through in order to meet the very quick, very soon deadline. So perhaps the delays in
21 getting the EIR processed because of the Stanford Shopping Center' and such unfortunately that
22 has an impact here. 'I think this is important that this does greatly improve the benefit to the
23 community by having an earthquake safety hospital in our community. Thank you.
24
Page 29