HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 299-10TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
JULY 21, 2010
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 299:10
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
Alternatives Chapter and Mitigation Measures.
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, July
12 and July 19, 2010. This item was previously sent to you in your packet of July 14, 2010.
Hardcopies are available at the Council Chambers, the Planning Department on the 5th Floor and
can also be viewed at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/reports/cmrs.asp
Staff will provide an overview of the Alternatives Chapter and Mitigation Measures at the
meeting.
This item was heard by the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) on July 7, 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 299:10
Attachment B: Excerpt Minutes of the P&TC meeting dated July 7,2010 (Council only)
ATTACHMENT A
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
PLANNI~G AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: JULY 26, 2010 CMR: 299:10
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement
Project Draft Environmental Impact Report -Comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report, including an overview of the Alternatives
Chapter and Mitigation Measures.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission (P &TC)
provide and accept public comments on the Draft Environmental hnpact Report (Draft EIR) for the
Stanford University Medical Center Facility Renewal and Replacement Project (SUMC Project) and
forward comments to staff and consultants for response in the Final Environmental Impact Report
(Final EIR). The Draft EIR began a 69-daypublic review period on May 20, 2010. The review period
ends on July 27, 2010. Multiple meetings have been held with the City Council and P &TC to accept
comments on the Draft EIR. The July 26, 2007 City Council meeting will be last public meeting
where oral comments may be presented. However, written comments will be accepted until the close
of business on July 27,2010. This staff report provides an overview of the Alternatives chapter of
the Draft EIR, including the key impacts and mitigation measures. The P &TC will comment on these
chapters on June 30, 2010 and the City Council on July 26,2010.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission:
1. Accept public comments on the Draft EIR with focus on the Alternatives Chapter and
mitigation nleasures; and
2. Forward cpmments on the Draft EIR to staff and the consultant for response in the Final EIR.
BACKGROUND
On May 20, 2010, the SUMC Project Draft EIR was published starting a 69-day public review
period. On July 7th the P&TC will hold a public hearing and on July 26 th the City Council will hold a
public hearing to review the Alternatives and Mitigation Measures.
Copies of the Draft EIR can be obtained at the City of Palo Alto Development Center, at the Palo
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Alto Main Library and via the City's website, www.cityofpaloalto.orglsumc.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staffwill provide an overview of the following at the meeting:
• Alternatives (pages 5-1 through 5-228)
• Mitigation Measures (Summary Table S-4, pages S-25 through S-92)
The comments should be focused on whether the information presented in the Draft EIR adequately
covers the environmental impacts that could result from the proposed SUMC Project and the
adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures. The hearings are not meant to provide a forum for
dialogue about the project merits, but to be opportunities to collect comments on the Draft EIR to
ensure that it adequately describes the environmental impacts of the Project.
1. Alternatives
An EIR is required to examine a range of project alternatives in order to assess whether impacts can
be reduced or eliminated while also achieving project goals. Alternatives are addressed in Section 5
of the Draft EIR. The chapter analyzes seven (7) alternatives including two (2) No Project
Alternatives, two (2) Reduced Intensity Alternatives, Tree Preservation Alternative, Historic
Preservation Alternative, and a Village Concept Alternative. The range of alternatives was
determined through the scoping process and supplemented later by staff and the applicants as project
impacts, such as historical and biological, were identified through additional analysis. The Draft EIR
provides a detailed description of each alternative, followed by an analysis of how each alternative
meets the Project objectives. The list of Project Sponsor and City objectives is contained in
Attachment A. Section 5.5 -Impact Assessment, starting on page 5-50, evaluates whether the.
alternatives would reduce or eliminate significant impacts of the SUMC Project and/or generate
impacts other than those identified for the SUMC Project. Table 5-8 (Attachment B) provides a
comparison of the impacts identified under each alternative to the impacts of the SUMC Project.
When assessing the feasibility of alternatives, it is important to assess whether they meet the
objectives of the applicant and the City.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Below is a comparison summary of the basic program features of the different alternatives.
Comparative Description of SUMC Project Alternatives
Floor Area New Floor
Demolished Area Net Increase SHC Total LPCH Total
Alternative (square feet) (square feet) (square feet) Beds Beds
SUMC Project
1,213,759 2,525,277 1,311,518 600 361
No Project Alternatives:
A. Retrofitting only' 0 0 0 o or 456 2 o or 257 2
B. Replace SB 1953 665,128 674,115 8,987 287 141 noncompliant structures
Reduced Intensity Alternatives:
A. Right-size SHC and LPCH 1,200,005 1,645,928 445,923 456 257
B. Right-size SHC and LPCH
plus add floor area (in an 1,213,836 2,137,538 923,702 542 319 amount less than the SUMC
Project)
Preservation Alternatives:
Tree Preservation Alternative 1,213,759 2,525,277 1,311,518 600 361
Historic Preservation 357,581 1,681,300 1,323,719 600 361 Alternative
Village Concept Alternative:
Village Concept Alternative 1,213,759 2,525,277 1,311,518 600 361
No Project Alternative A: Retrofitting Only/No New Structures
Under No Project Alternative A, only those hospital facilities that could be modified to meet the
Senate Bill (SB) 19532013 and 2030 deadlines would be retrofitted. No new buildings would be
constructed. In the long-term, portions of the hospital facilities would not meet SB 1953
requirements for the 2030 deadline, and one or both of the hospitals would be closed. This
alternative would require SHC and LPCH hospitals to continue to operate beyond the 2013 deadline
with reduced patient capacity. By 2013, SHC would have to move hospital functions out of the
portion of the original 1959 Hospital Building complex that could not be retrofitted to SB 1953
standards and into compliant existing facilities. The L:PCH and the SoM would continue to use
existing buildings for medical treatment, research, and teaching purposes, subj ect to seismic retrofit
work.
Under this alternative, there would he no new construction at the Hoover Pavilion Site and the
interior of the existing Hoover Pavilion building would not need to be renovated to relocate the users
of 11 01 Welch Road. The demolition of existing sheds at that site would not occur and no rezoning,
lOne or both hospitals would likely close in 2030 under this alternative.
2 Depending on which hospital closes
City of Palo Alto Page 3
annexation, or changes to existing land use designations would be required. In addition, this
alternative would include no function upgrades to meet current standards and technological
requirements.
This alternative would not achieve the basic SUMC Project or City objectives. This alternative
eliminates eight (8) significant and unavoidable impacts.
No Project Alternative B: Replace SB 1953 Noncompliant Structures at Maximum Allowable
FAR
Under No Project Alternative B, hospital facilities that are not compliant with Office of Statewide
Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) structural standards would be replaced with new
structures. New structures would be built out to the maximum size allowed under PF zoning. Under
PF zoning for the Main SUMC Site, the maximum allowable floor to area ratio (FAR) is 1.0,
allowing for an additional 9,000 -square-foot expansion ofhospital facilities. No additional buildings
would be added at Hoover Pavilion. No rezoning, annexation, or changes to existing land use
designations would be required to replace the SB 1953 noncompliant buildings with the maximum
allowable FAR.
LPCH would continue to use its existing facilities, with non-structural renovations made to
noncompliant critical care areas. The SoM functions are presently located in other portions of the
1959 Hospital Building complex (Grant, Alway, Lane, and Edwards Buildings) and would continue
to occupy those areas under this alternative.
This alternative would not meet the majority of the SUMC Project objectives and would not attain
the primary City objectives. This alternative eliminates six (6) significant and unavoidable impacts.
Reduced Intensity Alternative A: Right Size SHC and LPCH Facilities without Adding Beds
Under Reduced Intensity Alternative A, noncompliant facilities would be demolished and replaced
with new structures. All other uses on the Main SUMC Sites would remain the same as under
current conditions, subject to minor seismic retrofit work. In addition, the Hoover Pavilion would be
internally renovated to accommodate additional clinic and office uses; however, no new structures
would be constructed at this site. .Construction of new hospital facilities would be limited to the
minimum additional square footage required to right-size the existing LPCH and SHC facilities
without adding space for additional growth. The net increase in building square footage would be
445,923 square fe,et. A detailed breakdown of the demolition and replacement is included in Table 5-
3 of the Draft EIR. This alternative would expand the hospitals' existing floor area to provide
additional space for the hospitals' existing number of beds, associated support areas, and emergency
room. This alternative would require rezoning of the Main SUMC Sites to accommodate proposed
development intensities because the PF -zoned area is almost entirely built out under existing
co'nditions. This alternative also would necessitate annexation of the 0.75-acre portion of the Main
SUMC Site and would involve construction above the 50-foot height limit, requiring Comprehensive
Plan amendments arid zoning changes.
This alternative would meet some, but not all, of the SUMC Project and City objectives. This
alternative eliminates six (6) significant and unavoidable impacts.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Reduced Intensity Alternative B: Right-Size SHC and LPCH Facilities Plus Add Floor Area in
an Amount Less Than the SUMC Project
Reduced Intensity Altenlative B would include all of the components of Reduced Intensity
Alternativ.e A, but would also include additional square footage for clinics/medical offices, research
facilities, and other non-hospital uses. The net increase in building square footage would be 923,702
square feet. This would result in approximately 60 percent of the SUMC Projects' additional beds.
A detailed breakdown of the demolition and replacement is included in Table 5-4 of the Draft EIR.
Hoover Pavilion would be renovated for the users of 1101 Welch Road, but no new medical office
building would be added at the Hoover Pavilion Site. This alternative would require construction
above the 50-foot height limit; therefore, like Reduced Intensity Alternative A, Comprehensive Plan
amendments, zoning changes, and annexation would be necessary under this alternative.
This alternative would meet some short-term objectives, but overall would not meet all of the
objectives of the SUMC Project. This alternative would not attain the basic City objectives. This
alternative eliminates four (4) significant and unavoidable impacts.
Tree Preservation Alternative
The Tree Preservation Alternative comes from collaborative discussions between the applicant and
the City. It was designed to reduce the SUMC Project's impact on Protected Trees. The Tree
Preservation Alternative would seek to preserve the nlajority of the aesthetically and biologically
significant Protected Trees at Kaplan Lawn, the FIM 1 Grove, and along Welch Road. Under this
alternative, there would be no development on the Kaplan Lawn, and no Protected Trees would be
removed at that location. In addition, the FIM 1 building would be redesigned to save as many
Protected Trees as possible in this area. Lastly, two Protected oak trees along Welch Road would be
retained. The site plan for this alternative would avoid 13 biologically and aesthetically significant
Protected Trees that would be affected by the SUMC Project. Further, this alternative would seek to
relocate three more Protected Trees that would otherwise be affected under the SUMC Project.
Figure 5-1 of the Draft EIR shows the revised site plan, the Protected Trees that would be preserved
and the potential zones for planting of relocated trees.
The Tree Preservation Alternative maintains the same square footage and programmatic functions as
the SUMC Project, but proposes design modifications to the new hospital building as well as FIM 1
to accomplish tree preservation. The Project sponsor is promoting the Tree Preservation Alternative
and has indicated to City staff that it now prefers this alternative over its original proposal. As such,
his Alternative is currently being reviewed by the City's Architectural Review Board and was
presented to the P&TC on June 9 and the City Council on June 14, 2010.
The Tree Preservation would be similar to the SUMC Project, with the following exceptions:
• There would be no hospital module constructed in Kaplan Lawn. The program would be
absorbed into the remaining portion of the SHC Hospital building footprint off Welch Road
and Pasteur Drive. Although the resulting SHC Hospital building square footage would be
the same as under the SUMC Project, the design would change in the following ways:
o The first four floors (below~grade and Levels 1,2, and 3) of the central portion of the
City of Palo Alto Page 5
new SHC Hospital building would contain enclosed program, along with an atrium
(rather than courtyard space, as proposed under the SUMCProject), extending from
Floor 1 to Floor 3.
o The central atrium would include a glass-domed ceiling at Level 3 and the area above
the atrium would remain open.
o The four SHC Hospital modules surrounding the central atrium would be seven
stories tall, using the full amount of the 130-foot height envelope identified for the
proposed SUMC Project.
o The fifth SHC Hospital module, at the northeast comer of the proposed new SHC
Hospital building, would be seven stories tall (130 feet). This height also matches
the height identified under the proposed SUMC Project.
o Additional "platform" area would be located northeast of the SHC Hospital building,
containing additional diagnostic and treatment programs.
• All four modules of the Clinics would be 112 feet tall (as compared to the SUMC Project,
which would have one module at 112 feet and three modules at 64 feet).
• The ambulance route to and from the emergency department would be reconfigured to avoid
the century-old solitary oak at the edge of the Main SUMC Site, adjacent to Welch Road. In
addition, the fifth SHC Hospital module would be farther from the century-old oak tree than
under the SUMC Project.
• The parking structure at the Welch RoadlPasteur Drive intersection would be constructed as
a 40-foot tall structure with three levels underground and four levels aboveground. On top of
the garage would be a Wellness Center accessible to the pUblic.
• The Emergency Department entrance/parking would be moved to the Pasteur Drive side of
the new SHC Hospital building.
• The SHC patient and visitor drop-off loop would be located farther down Pasteur Drive,
more centrally located adjacent to the future clinics expansion and the existing D, E, and F
pods.
• In order to activate the pedestrian experience at the entry level to the new SHC Hospital
building, the building perimeter would be planned to accommodate the public functions of
the hospital building program: the cafe, gift shop, outdoor seating, and a small retail
component.
• Portions of the Main SUMC Site are susceptible to liquefaction; therefore, under this
alternative, the SHC Hospital foundation would be supported by piles in order to meet
OSHPD's heightened standards for hospital buildings.
• The FIM 1 building footprint would be altered to save Protected Trees at the northeast comer
of the building.
• The Protected oak tree that is east of the proposed LPCH hospital building, adjacent to
Welch Road, would relocate this tree to another location.
• A new road would be created running east-west directly down the middle of Kaplan Lawn,
City of Palo Alto Page 6
replacing the function of two roads that exist today between the two barrels of Pasteur Drive
(Blake-Wilbur Drive and the SUMC Promenade). This design would also allow the creation
of a new arrival plaza at the pedestrian exits from Parking Structure 4, permitting a safer
pedestrian entry sequence to the SHC Hospital building. In addition, it would remove a large
percentage ofvehicle/pedestrianlbicycle interactions along the SUMC Promenade, creating
better pedestrian opportunities between the hospitals and the SoM. Kaplan Lawn would be
further enhanced with additional landscaping, including the placement of two relocated trees
from the FIM 1 Site.
As proposed under the SUMC Project, the Tree Preservation Alternative would require the
demolition of the 1959 Hospital Building complex. In its place, the Tree Preservation Alternative
would construct the replacement SHC clinic/medical office building and SoM FIM Buildings 2 and 3
in the same locations as under the SUMC Project. The site plans at the LPCH and the Hoover
Pavilion would be the same as under the SUMC Project. The Tree Preservation Alternative would
necessitate the same Comprehensive Plan amendments, zoning changes, and annexation as the
proposed SUMC Project.
This alternative would attain all of the SUMC Project objectives and the majority of the City'S
. objectives. This alternative eliminates one (1) significant and unavoidable impact in the area of
construction air pollution emissions and would reduce, though not eliminate, the biological effect on
protected trees.
Historic Preservation Alternative
The Historic Preservation Alternative would preserve all of the essential historic aspects needed to
maintain the eligibility of the 1959 Hospital Building complex for listing on the California Register
of Historic ResoUrces (CRHR). The alternative would retain the 1959 Hospital Building conlplex,
which includes SoM buildings (Grant, Alway, Lane, and Edwards), along with the following SHC
Hospital/clinic buildings: West Pavilion ("West"), East Pavilion ("East"), Boswell, and Core. This
alternative would preserve the historic integrity of Pasteur Drive and its landscaping, which serve as
the main approach to the 1959 Hospital Building complex.
The Historic Preservation Alternative would not construct a new SHC clinic/medical office building
in place of the 1959 Hospital Building Complex. However, the existing buildings at the 1959
Hospital Building complex have a low seismic rating and do not comply with structural and non
structural criteria that must be met by the 2013 and 2030 deadlines imposed by SB 1953 for retrofit
or replacement of hospital facilities. Accordingly, under the Historic Preservation Alternative, these
buildings would not be used as hospital buildings, as defined by OSHPD.
This alternative would necessitate the same Comprehensive Plan amendments and zoning changes as
the SUMC Project, including an amendment to allow for the exceedance over the 50-foot height
limit. Annexation would not be needed for this alternative.
This alternative would not adequately meet the SUMC Project objectives but would meet the
majority of the City's objectives. This alternative eliminates three (3) significant and unavoidable
impacts.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Village Concept Alternative
The City has developed the Village Concept Alternative for the purposes of reducing the vehicle
miles traveled, traffic congestion, and vehicular air and noise emissions that are associated with the
SUMC Project. The Village Concept Alternative would accomplish this purpose primarily by
recommending dedication of nearby housing for Sl1MC Project employees, and enhancing pedestrian
connectivity in the Village Concept Study Area (see Figure 5-2, Attachment C). The Village
Concept Alternative would provide opportunities to enhance the SUMC Project by creating a more
walkable, bikeable, mixed-use, transit-oriented, and well-connected urban environment. The Village
Concept Alternative considers comprehensively and long-term the SUMC Project and the SUMC
Project's relationship to its surrounding context.
This alternative includes 490 previously approved but not yet constructed housing units along Quarry
Road and Pasteur Drive, on Stanford lands, be below market rate units that would be dedicated for
occupancy by SUMC Project employees, and a recommendation by the City that the housing be
constructed within a specified timeline. It is important to note that the Village Concept Alternative
does not propose to construct the 490 housing units as those units have been separately proposed and
considered for construction under the Stanford Community Plan/General Use Permit and Sand Hill
Road Corridor Projects; and pedestrian linkages between the SUMC Project, the Stanford Shopping
Center, Stanford University, the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station (p AITS), and Downtown, with
corresponding urban design recommendations. The pedestrian linkages were prepared by the City's
Urban Desigh Consultant and are included as Figures 5-2 through 5-5 (Attachment C).
These enhancenlents under the Village Concept Alternative can be implemented through one or more
of the following mechanisms: zoning amendments associated with the SlTMC Project, conditions of
approval, or through the Development Agreement conditions. The recommendations in this
alternative can be combined with the Project as proposed and any of the other Alternatives.
This alternative would attain all of the SUMC Project objectives and all of the City's objectives. This
alternative eliminates one (1) significant and unavoidable impact.
2. Mitigation Measures
In each staff report to review the Draft EIR, the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR
proposed to mitigate each environmental impact have been identified. Table S-4 (Attachment D)
provides a summary of all of the impacts and mitigation measures. Throughout the discussion on the
individual chapters, the City Council, P&TC and members of the public have commented on the
adequacy of the mitigation measures and in some instances, suggested others. Those comments have
been collected and will be addressed in the Final EIR. This hearing will give the Council and the
P &TC an opportunity to examine the mitigation measures in more detail while also examining them
in the context with other measures.
The CEQA Guidelines provide five broadcategories of mitigation nleasures: avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, eliminate or conlpensate the identified significant impacts. To be considered adequate,
mitigation measures should be specific, feasible actions that will actually improve adverse
environmental conditions. Mitigation measures should be measurable to everyone monitoring their
City of Palo Alto Page 8
implementation. Mitigation measures consisting only of further studies or consultation with
regulatory agencies that are not tied to a specific action plan may not be adequate and should be
avoided. Mitgation measures must be fully enforceable though conditions of approval or a
development agreement
When drafting mitigation measures, agencies should include only those that are feasible. A
nlitigation measure is considered feasible if it is capable of being accomplished in a successful
manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into consideration economic, environmental, legal,
social and technological factors.An appropriate mitigation measure involves clearly explaining its
objectives, specifically how it will be implemented, who is responsible for its implementation, where
it will occur and when it will occur.
If a project is approved, the City must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting plan to ensure
compliance with all mitigation measures and track their effectiveness.
Traffic Mitigation
There has been discussion about whether Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures can
be imposed as proj ect mitigation or whether they instead should be characterized as community
benefits and imposed through the proposed development agreement. TDM encompasses a broad
menu of strategies and policies to reduce travel demand (particularly single-occupancy private
vehicles) ranging fronl simple programs such as the provision of bike racks and electric car chargers
to more robust programs of Go Passes and shuttles. The attached memo from the City's outside legal
counsel concludes that the City can lawfully impose TDM measures as mitigation (Attachment E). It
should be noted that on other projects Palo Alto has imposed TDM as mitigation. For example, Palo
Alto imposed TDM in both the Cancer Research project, in the Mayfield Soccer complex, and at the
Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life project. In addition, other communities use TDM as an
effective way to mitigate traffic impacts. For example, a very comprehensive TDM program,
including Go Passes, is currently being proposed for the Bohannon Gateway proj ect in Menlo Park.
NEXT STEPS
The Alternatives and mitigation measures are the final topics for the P&TC and Council to consider.
The public review period will close on July 27, 2010.
Subsequent to public testimony and P&TC and Council comments, along with the written comments
submitted on the Draft EIR 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 of 201 O.
Following preparation of the Final EIRJResponse 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 EIRJResponse to Comments for action.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
PREP ARED BY:
STEVEN TURNER
Advance Planning Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Director of PlalUling and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
( ..
NE
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
City of Palo Alto
Project Sponsor and City Objectives (excerpt from Draft EIR Chapter 2: Project
Description)
Table 5-:8, Assessment of SUMC Proj ect Alternatives
Figures 5-2 through 5-5, Village Concept
Table S-4, SUMC Project Summary of Impacts ,and Mitigation Measures
Employee Trip Reduction Programs Memorandum, July 2, 2010 from Rick
Jarivis, Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson to Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City
Attorney
Page 10
ATTACHMENT A
2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
SUMC Project Sponsors Objectives
The SUMC Project sponsors have identified various objectives for the SUMC Project. The objectives
are listed below. These objectives are divided into three categories: Program, Siting, Circulation, and
Cost. The Program objectives are further sub-divided by entity (SHC and LPCH, and SoM).
Program Objectives
SHe and LPCH. The Program objectives of SHC and LPCH are listed below.
3
4
2-4
• Optimize delivery of healthcare and services to patients.
• Maintain each hospital's position as a leading provider of complex care.
• Achieve timely compliance with the requirements of Senate Bill 19533 and other applicable
code requirements:
Replace the SHC portion of the 1959 Hospital Building complex (the 1959 Hospital
Building complex is also referred to as the Stone Building complex), comprising 188 beds,
in its entirety;
Meet SB 1953's 2013 non-structural criteria for all 66 intensive care beds at SHC, the
Emergency Department (ED), and the 21 operating rooms at SHC in the most efficient manner;
Complete required non-structural renovations4 to critical areas at LPCH;
Provide sufficient space for patients and families during construction of required
renovations or replacements;
Meet SB 1953's 2030 criteria in the most efficient manner; and
Design new facilities to comply with applicable ventilation and structural requirements.
• Meet existing and projected future demand for patient care:5
Relieve the existing shortages of beds at SHC and LPCH;
Provide additional patient rooms and facilities at SHC to meet the projected needs of an
aging population;
Provide additional patient rooms and facilities at LPCH to meet projected growing demand
for LPCH services;
Please see Section 2.5, "Seismic Safety," for a description of SB 1953 and its requirements.
Non-structural renovations consist of securing interior fixtures, ceilings, sprinkler systems, bracing, and duct
work in the event of an earthquake. Such renovations are required for all critical care areas by 2013.
A description of the existing demand for healthcare and the current deficit of available space to accommodate
those demands is presented in Section 2.5, under the "Spatial Constraints" heading.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Project Description
Size the ED to provide adequate patient waiting and triage space, and trauma rooms
consistent with contemporary facility standards;
Meet existing and projected demand for clinic and other outpatient services that are
important to the core academic and translational discovery process,6 or that otherwise
should remain co-located with inpatient services; and
Provide sufficient space to replace medical offices removed due to demolition, and to
accommodate increased space for both medical offices and support services due to existing
and projected future growth in need for patient services.
• Provide modern, state-of-the-art facilities, designed to deliver high quality healthcare services
and related teaching and research:
Size facilities to accommodate advanced medical services, state-of-the-art imaging, modern
diagnostic and other medical equipment, and to provide sufficient space for high quality
patient care and associated support services;
Design facilities to enhance the comfort and healing of patients and the productive care
giving and general welfare of staff and visitors;
Meet current hospital planning guidelines by providing space to accommodate patients in
single-bed rooms as appropriate, including adequate space for treatment by healthcare
providers, equipment and support by family members;
Minimize the distance of travel from procedure room to patient room;
Provide a safe, secure, and efficient route from operating rooms or the Emergency
Department (ED) to patient rooms; and
Minimize patients' risk of infection.
• Meet regional needs for emergency and disaster preparedness:
Design facilities to take into account needs identified in the region's Disaster Preparedness
Program, such as the ability to quickly add or convert beds and procedure rooms to
manage critically injured patients for mass population events such as earthquakes,
pandemics (influenza), or man-made biological/chemical exposure (bioterrorism, etc); and
Design facilities to maintain and further SUMC's role as a Levell Trauma Center for daily
and extreme-disaster healthcare delivery.
Translational Resources: To improve human health, scientific discoveries must be translated into practical
applications. Such discoveries typically begin at "the bench" with basic research -in which scientists study
disease at a molecular or cellular level -then progress to the clinical level, or the patient's "bedside."
Scientists are increasingly aware that this bench-to-bedside approach to translational research is really a two
way street. Basic scientists provide clinicians with new tools for use in patients and for assessment of their
impact, and clinical researchers make novel observations about the nature and progression of disease that
often stimulate basic investigations. Source: SoM, April 2008.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities. Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Project Description 2-5
• Maintain relationships with community physicians:
Identify replacement space for community physicians who must relocate their medical
offices to accommodate demolition of facilities due to the SUMC Project.
• Provide responsible and sustainable design for the hospitals' operational systems, water
systems, and use of physical materials, while meeting applicable requirements and hospital
planning principles, including those applicable to infection control and patient safety.
• Allow sufficient design and entitlement flexibility to be able to adapt to changes in healthcare
needs, changes in technology, and changes in delivery practices.
SoM Objectives. The Program objectives of the SoM are listed below.
• Optimize the SoM's ability to translate medical research discoveries into treatments and cures.
• Replace outmoded research buildings with state-of-the-art research facilities to support
contemporary translational research:
Design facilities to comply with code requirements for strong and reliable fire separations;
Design research facilities to efficiently meet current building requirements, including those
pertaining to: seismic safety; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems; and provision of emergency power;
Design circulation and access to laboratories and offices to enhance handicapped
accessibility, and to allow for safe and efficient access to a diverse array of laboratory and
support functions; and
Employ best available design techniques to provide for efficient, high quality facilities.
• Provide sufficient faculty offices, research laboratories, and administrative support space to
meet the SoM's projected needs.
• Provide responsible and sustainable design for the SoM's operational systems, water systems,
and use of physical materials, consistent with Stanford University'S existing sustainability
practices.
• Allow sufficient design and entitlement flexibility to be able to adapt to changes in medical
research needs and changes in technology.
Siting Objectives
2-6
• Site facilities to maximize highest and best use of SUMC and Stanford University lands.
• Site SHC and LPCH facilities to efficiently use a single, shared ED.
• Locate patient beds, ED, and SoM facilities in close proximity to each other to maintain and
enhance program synergies and connections.
• Locate outpatient healthcare facilities that are important to the core academic and translational
discovery process in close proximity to inpatient facilities.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Project Description
• Site parking facilities for patients and visitors to provide clear, safe, and convenient access to
SUMC facilities, with sensitivity to the needs of elderly, limited mobility, and ill patients.
• Site parking facilities for staff with consideration of safe paths of travel after dark.
• Locate new clinical, medical office, and support facilities for hospital staff and community
physicians within reasonably close proximity to SHC and LPCH facilities.
• Optimize department adjacencies that ensure the healthcare facilities are clinically safe
environments, promote safe and efficient patient flow, and provide access to state-of-the-art
technology.
• Use the existing SUMC Sites in Palo Alto for all components of the SUMC Project.
• Arrange the buildings, open space areas, and infrastructure within the SUMC Project
boundaries to create a highly functional medical center environment.
Circulation and Parking Objectives
• Provide clear, safe, and convenient access to SUMC facilities for patients and visitors.
• Provide efficient access to SUMC for healthcare providers and staff.
• Provide sufficient convenient parking for patients, visitors, healthcare providers and staff, with
sensitivity to the needs of elderly, limited mobility, and ill patients.
• Enhance the pedestrian and bicycle connections within and between the SUMC, the Stanford
Shopping Center, PAITS, and nearby open space areas.
• Provide improved way finding to minimize unnecessary circulation.
Cost' Objective
• Select methods of construction to minimize the initial cost to the greatest extent feasible while
producing facilities that are cost effective to operate over the long term.
City Objectives
In addition to the SUMC Project sponsor's objectives, the City has identified the following objectives
for the SUMC Project:
• Provide high quality employment districts, each with its own distinctive character and each
contributing to the character of the City as a whole.
• Employ state-of-the-art urban design principles and ensure adequate design review of the
SUMC Project.
• Create a more walkable, bikeable, mixed-use, transit-oriented, and well-connected urban
environment that captures the potential travel behavior, air quality, and greenhouse gas
reduction benefits associated with the performance of well-designed urban villages.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Project Description 2-7
• Create walkable and bikeable connections that link together Stanford University Medical
Center, Stanford University, PAITS, downtown, Stanford Shopping Center, and surrounding
residential neighborhoods.
• Promote sustainable development and green building design principles through thoughtful urban
planning and site design, building design and construction,' energy production and
conservation, and utility and transportation infrastructure design and construction, in a manner
that improves the City's economic health, and improves the quality of life in the City.
• Promote development that contributes to the design and implementation of comprehensive
solutions to traffic problems near Stanford Medical Center and key connections.
• Encourage employment districts to develop in a way that encourages transit, pedestrian and
bicycle travel and reduces the number of auto trips for daily errands.
• In conjunction with new development proposals, create new park, open space, recreation,
plaza, or other public gathering spaces.
• Provide for long-term utility and public infrastructure demands generated by the SUMC
Project.
• Address project-induced school impacts not mitigated by school impact fees.
• Minimize environmental, financial, and municipal infrastructure impacts of the SUMC Project
on the City.
• Assist Stanford University Medical Center in responding to changes in the delivery of
healthcare services. Work with the SUMC to plan for changing facility needs, but within the
context of City of Palo Alto planning goals and policies, as well as the goals and policies of
other relevant jurisdictions.
• Support Stanford University's historic campus identity as "a place apart" with a "sense of
higher purpose" as well as Stanford's commitment to innovative, high quality of design through
their "interpretive approach to contextual design" in the architecture of campus buildings and
the landscape.
• Identify and implement strategies for accomplishing housing with a focus on below-market-rate
residential units that would be available to help accommodate employment generated by the
SUMC Project.
• Locate work force housing close to SUMC Sites and train station in order to reduce traffic trips
of both employees and employee household members.
• Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit.
• Optimize delivery of healthcare and services to patients and meet regional needs for emergency
and disaster preparedness.
2-8 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Project Description
Table 5-8
Assessment of SUMC Project Alternatives (Compared to the SUMC Project)
Reduced Reduced
No Project Intensity Intensity Tree Historic
Alternative Alternative Alternative
B A B
Conflicts with Applicable Land Use Designations and
Zoning
Contlicts with Comprehensive Plan Policies SISU SISU SISU SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS
Compatibility with Adjacent Land Use Character and NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Conflicts with Established Residential, Recreational,
Educational, Religious, or Scientific Uses in the Area
Division of an Established Community and Farmland I NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Conversion
Adverse Changes to Existing or Planned Land Use Pattern SILTS NI NI SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS
Cumulative Impacts LTS NI NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Permanent Degradation of Visual Character Post SILTS LTS LTS SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS
Construction
Alteration of Public Viewsheds, View Corridors, or SILTS NI LTS SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS
Scenic Roads
Terrain Modification NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
New Source of Light and Glare SILTS NI SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS >-
Shadowing of Public Open Spaces LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS -I > Cumulative Impacts LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS n
J:
~
rTI
Z
-I
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant S=Signijicant SU= Significant Unavoidable eel
University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Alternatives 5-51
Table 5-8
Assessment of SUMC Project Alternatives (Comp,ared to the SUMC
Intersection LOS
Impacts on Roadway Segments
Local Circulation Impacts
Freeway Impacts
Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts
Transit Impacts
Parking Impacts
Emergency Impacts
Cumulative Impacts
Operational Criteria Air Pollution Emissions
Construction and Operational TACs
Cumulative Impacts
Result in Significant Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
NI = No Impact
5-52
SUMC
S/SU
S/SU
SILTS
LTS
SILTS
SILTS
LTS
SILTS
SILTS
S/SU
LTS
S/SU
No Project
Alternative
A
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
LTS
NI
LTS
S/SU
LTS = Less-than-Significant
No Project
Alternative
B
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
SILTS
NI
LTS
S/SU
Reduced
Intensity
Alternative
A
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
NI
SILTS
LTS
LTS
S/SU
S = Significant
Tree Historic
S/SU S/SU S/SU S/SU
SILTS S/SU S/SU S/SU
SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS
LTS LTS LTS LTS
SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS
SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS
SILTS LTS LTS LTS
SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS
SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS
S/SU S/SU S/SU S/SU
LTS LTS LTS LTS
S/SU S/SU S/SU S/SU
S/SU S/SU
SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Alternatives
Table 5-8
Assessment of SUMC Project Alternatives (Compared to the SUMC Project)
Impact
Impacts on the Stone Building Complex
Impacts on the Hoover Pavilion
bnpacts on Archaeological Resources and Human Remains
Impacts on Paleontological Resources
Cumulative Impacts
iRi•
Special Status Plant or Wildlife Resources
Loss of Riparian or Other Sensitive Habitats
Interference with Species Movement, Wildlife
Corridors, or Nursery Sites
Effect on Protected Trees
Conflicts with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural
Community Conservation Plan
Exposure to Other Geotechnical Hazards
SUMC
Project'
SISU
SILTS
SILTS
SILTS
SISU
SILTS
LTS
SILTS
SISU
NI
No Project
Alternative
A
SISU
NI
SILTS
SILTS
SISU
SILTS
NI
SILTS
SISU
NI
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
No Project
Alternative
B
SISU
NI
SILTS
SILTS
SISU
SILTS
LTS
SILTS
SISU
NI
Reduced
Intensity
Alternative
A
SISU
LTS
SILTS
SILTS
SISU
SILTS
LTS
SILTS
SISU
NI
S=Signijicant
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Alternatives
Reduced
Intensity
Alternative
·B
SISU
SILTS
SILTS
SILTS
SISU
SILTS
LTS
SILTS
SISU
NI
Tree
Preservation
Alternative
SISU
SILTS
SILTS
SILTS
SISU
SILTS
LTS
SILTS
SISU
NI
Historic
Preservation
Alternative
SILTS
SILTS
SILTS
SILTS
SILTS
SILTS
LTS
SILTS
SISU
NI
LTS
SU = Significant Unavoidable
Village
Concept
Alternative
SISU
SILTS
SILTS
SILTS
SISU
SILTS
LTS
SILTS
SISU
NI
LTS
5-53
Table 5-8
Assessment of SUMC Project Alternatives (Compared to the SUMC
Reduced
No Project No Project Intensity Intensitv Tree Historic
SUMC I Alternative Alternative Alternative
A B A
-.... --~----.. -------~-.. -------~----------.----.------ -----"
, ---~ --'" . -~. -----....------_ ... _-~.----._--_-._ ... _. -• 4 -_ • -..", _____
Population Increases LTS NI NI NI LTS LTS LTS LTS
Displacement of Housing NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Cumulative Impacts SISU NI NI NI LTS LTS LTS LTS
--,---------------------------~ .... ---------_ _::;_--------~~-:_----7~r---: ---~:::--~-,..---.--.. ~: ----. ----.-~-.---. ---
~. ----------------------.-. -..... -------.----_______ • ___ ~~--..o..-_ __ - . ____ ---_0. _----.... ____ . _", _______________
~--... --------
Impacts on Police Services LTS NI NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Impacts on Fire Services LTS NI NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Impacts on Schools LTS NI NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Impacts on Parks and Recreation LTS NI NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Cumulative Impacts LTS NI NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
-... .-~~~-:.~".-----. -~---.-----.-._-----.----------;-----~-;----.. --.--~----.--:----~.--:~-:--:-;----.~-~-.-.-~----. --~' .... ----------~ ----
-, ''-• ,'" -. •• .'. '" -. --< -.--• • --_~~" __ "'-"4':--...-..-.-. __ -..' ____ -_______ ~_L-. ______ ~ __ ~ _ ___'~-' ________ " _~ ________ .... _~ ____ .... ~_......:....... ____ ~_~_ --.-
Water Demand LTS NI NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Wastewater Generation LTS NI NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Stormwater Generation LTS NI SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS SILTS
Solid Waste Generation LTS NI NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Energy Demand LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Cumulative Impacts LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Source: PBS&J, 2010.
Notes:
a. Before mitigation/After mitigation (e.g. SILTS)
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Alternatives 5-55
--'. Village Concept Study
Area
Stanford University
Medical Center Projects
FIGURE 5-2
Village Concept -Study Area
1110(\"
Source: Fukuji Planning & Design. October 2009.
----------------------------------------------------------~----------------~----.---,--------041357.00 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project
~
-t » o
::J:
~ m z -t
o
1. Transit-Oriented
Development
2. Stanford Barn Area
3. Housing Sites
FIGURE 5-3
Village Concept -Land Use PRSJ®
----------_______ ........ _ ........ _ ........ ___ • ___ ~ ___ ~~~~"~'»~_M~·. ~.'"'"."."<.,,,., .. ,.,',",,".,',',"
D41357.00 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and
)
1. EL Camino Real Grand
Boulevard bike lanes and
intersection improvements
at Quarry Road
2. Quarry Road as urban,
tree-lined arterial street
3. Quarry Road housing
designed as walkable,
residential neighborhoods
with urban street and block
pattern; residential entries
with direct pedestrian
access to face Quarry Road
4. Maintain Arboretum's rural
character with landscape
setbacks and design
features along EI Camino
Real, Palo Road and
Arboretum Road; residential
entrances with pedestrian
access facing the Arbore
tum
5. Stanford Barn area connec
tion as potential pedestrian
oriented shopping street
6. Welch Road as walkable,
bikable tree-lined street with
landscape setback for
medical campus uses to the
south
7. Durand Way and Pasteur
Drive as landscaped
campus entrances
FIGURE 5-5
liUlilH RURAl CA.M~US STREtT
lun Pf)Of$TRIAN SHOl'l'jN(;' STREJil
__ •• I'n~~S'fIlIAN WAYS
_ CNl'J'U$iO~N .$'ACe I'USI.iC S'tREU
• •• CiW.JU$ mv.ATIi ~rREn
Village Concept -Urban Design PBSI®
___________________ ~~""""'.._ ______ ''''"'''''''_~~,_""""''O·'''''~,~,,~*o,.·,.",,,,,,"'m»<","O
041357.00 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Re
Table 8-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
LU-I. Conflicts with Adopted Land Use Plans and Policies.
Without mitigation measures to ensure consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan's policies adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, the SUMC
Project could conflict with Comprehensive Plan policies that
avoid or reduce impacts related to visual quality, cultural
resources, pedestrian circulation, urban forest resources,
groundwater and runoff pollution, air quality degradation, and
noise incompatibility.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
LU-2. Conflicts with Established Residential, Recreational, NI
Educational, Religious, or Scientific Uses in the Area. The
SUMC Project would not conflict with residential,
recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses.
LU-3. Physical Division of an Established Community. The NI
SUMC Project would not physically divide an established
community.
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURES. The mitigation measures identified below would
ensure that the SUMC Project would have no conflicts with Comprehensive
Plan policies adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating
environmental impacts. These measures include Mitigation Measure
VQ-2.l, which requires compliance with the City's Architectural Review
process and recommendations; CR-I.2 through 1.4, which involves
measures to minimize the loss of the historic Edward Durell Stone Building
complex; CR-l.l and CR-1.5, which involve measures to minimize
vibration impacts on the Hoover Pavilion; TR-6.l, wl~ich requires
improvements for bicycle and pedestrian safety and access at" intersections
affected by SUMC Project traffic; BR-4.l through BR-4.5, which require
the preparation of a Tree Preservation RepOlt, a solar access study, a Tree
Relocation Feasibility Plan, a Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee,
and minor site modifications to the current site plans; HW -3.1, which
requires a work plan to protect groundwater from contamination; AQ-I.I
through AQ-I.2, which would control construction dust and reduce diesel
emissions; NO-4.l, which requires noise shielding or enclosure of
equipment; and NO-l.l, which controls construction noise
None required.
None required.
S=Significant SU=Signijicallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
N/A
N/A
S-25
l>
-I
-I
l>
(")
:::I:
3: m z
-I
C
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation l\rleasures
Impacts
LU-4. Farmland Conversion. The SUMC Project would
have no impact on conversion of farmland to non-agricultural
uses.
LU-5. Adverse Changes to Overall Existing or Planned Land
Uses in the Area. Because the SUMC Project would intensify
the planned uses within the SUMC Sites, the SUMC Project
would have a significant impact pertaining to on-site character
and views.
LU-6. Cumulative Impacts on Changes to Overall Existing
or Planned Land Uses in the Area. The SUMC Project, in
combination with other reasonably foreseeable probable future
development in the area. would have a less-than-significant
cumulative impact on overall existing or planned land uses in
the vicinity of the SUMC Sites.
VQ-l. Temporary Degrad;ltion of Visual Character During
Construction. The SUMC Project would substantially degrade
the existing visual character and quality of the SUMC Sites
during construction. (S)
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
NI
S
LTS
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-26
Mitigation Measures
N one required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, requires and ensures
compliance with Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommendations for
final design and would reduce impacts from increased intensity under the
SUMC Project. Based on the SUMC Project design guidelines, the
Architectural Review would consider, among other factors, whether the
SUMC Project has a coherent composition and whether its bulk and mass
are hannonious with surrounding development. Thus, implementation of
Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1 would reduce the significant impacts on overall
surroundings to a less-than-significant level.
N one required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure VQ-l.l. below, would reduce
visual impacts during construction to less than significant. (L TS)
VQ-I.I Implement Construction Visual Improvements Plan. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall develop and implement a Construction
Visual Improvements Plan that would make visual improvements
to construction zones within a given construction phase and
between phases if the zone is not scheduled for construction
S=Signijicant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
VQ-2. Permanent Degradation of Visual Character Post
Construction. The SUMC Project would have a significant
impact pertaining to degradation of the existing visual
character or quality of the SUMC Sites and their surroundings.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI No Impact LTS Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
activity or would remain unused for a period greater than six
months. Construction zones subject to this mitigation measure
shall be defmed by the Planning Director, and shall consider the
size of the area, the nature and timing of the construction
activity, and the proximity or visibility of the area to public
vantage point~ or residential uses. The Construction Visual
Improvements Plan shall be implemented by the project
contractor( s) and must be approved by the Planning Director.
The intent of the plan is to aesthetically improve portions of the
project site that would remain unimproved for an extended period
and screen the construction zone from view by passersby along
the public streets and sidewalks. Possible improvements in the
plan include, but are not limited tO,the following:
a. The SUMC ProjeCt sponsors shall conceal staging areas with
fencing material to be approved by the Planning Director
prior to commencement of use of the staging area for
construction equipment and vehicles.
b. The SUMC Project sponsors shall frequently remove
construction debris and refuse from the SUMC Sites.
c. The SUMC Project sponsors shall install all landscaping as
early as feasible to decrease visual impacts of construction.
Existing landscaping within the SUMe Sites that would not·
be removed by the construction shall be maintained.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, below, requires and
ensures compliance with ARB recommendations for fmal design. Such
compliance would ensure that impacts on on-site visual character and
quality would be less than significant because the ARB's recommendations,
through the Architectural Review process, would address massing, layout,
landscaping, and architectural design impacts from the SUMC Project, as
described further below.
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-27
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
VQ-3. Alteration of Public Viewsheds, View Corridors, or
Scenic Resources. TIle SUMC Project would result in
significant impacts on views.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
s
NI = No Impact LTS Less-thall-Significant
S-28
Mitigation Measures
VQ-2.1 Adhere to City's Architectural Reviel-l' Process and
Recommendations. The SUMC Project sponsors shall submit
fmal building and site plans to the ARB prior to issuance of any
development permits. Architectural Review shall assess the
appropriateness of proposed demolitions, proposed building
heights and massing, siting of buildings and structures,
architecture and fa~ade treatments, landscaping, circulation
plans, and parking. The ARB may require alterations to any of
the above project features, or the ARB may suggest new
features, such as new landscaping or public art, to improve the
proposed SUMC Project design. Any recommendations made by
the ARB with respect to the design of the SUMC Project shall be
implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure VQ;"2.1, above, requires and
ensures compliance with ARB recommendations for final design and would
reduce impacts on views from the proposed buildings under the SUMC
Project. The Architectural Review of the SUMC Project would consider,
among other factors, whether the SUMC Project has a coherent
composition and that its bulk and mass are harmonious with surrounding
development. TIle ARB's recommendations regarding these factors will be
forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The City Council would
then review the recommendations and make findings, as appropriate, that
natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the SUMC
Project: the design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character
in areas between different designated land uses; and the planning and siting
of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of
order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the
general community. Implementation of Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1
regarding the Architectural Review process would ensure that impacts on
views would be less than significant.
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project SunlDlary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
VQ-4. Terrain Modifications. The SUMC Project would not
require substantial terrain modifications that would degrade the
visual character of the SUMC Sites.
VQ-5. New Sources of Light and Glare. The SUMC Project
could increase light and glare nuisance from exterior lighting,
resulting in a significant impact.
VQ-6. Shadowing of Public Open Space. The SUMC
Project would not substantially shadow public open space
(other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00
a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21.
VQ-7. Cumulative Impacts on Visual Character. The SUMC
Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable
probable future development in the area, would have a less
than-significant cumulative impact on visual character in me
vicinity of the SUMC Sites.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
NI
S
LTS
LTS
NI No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1. above, requires
compliance with ARB reconunendations for final design and would reduce
light and glare· impacts from the proposed buildings under the SUMC
Project. The Architectural Review of the SUMC Project would consider,
among other factors, whether the SUMC Project incorporates
materials, harmonious colors, appropriate ancillary features, a cohesive
design with a coherent composition, and an appropriate lighting plan. The
ARB's recommendations regarding these factors will be forwarded to the
City Council for consideration. The City Council would then review the
recommendations and make findings, as appropriate, that the design is
compatible with the immediate environment of the SUMC Sites; is
appropriate to the function of the SUMC Project; promotes harmonious
transitions in character in areas between different designated land uses; and
is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. This
Architectural Review process would ensure that exterior treatment. would
not emit substantial glare and that exterior lighting impacts would be less
than significant.
None required.
N one required.
S=Signijicant SU = Sign{/icallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
N/A
N/A
S-29
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
VQ-8. Cumulative Impacts on Sensitive Views. The SUMC
Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable
future development in the area, would have less-than
significant cumulative impacts on sensitive views.
VQ-9. Cumulative Light and Glare. The SUMC Project, in
combination with other reasonably foreseeable probable future
development in the area, would be subject to Architectural
Review and Municipal Code, and County requirements
pertaining to light and glare. Impacts would therefore be less
than significant.
VQ-IO. Cumulative Shadows. Shadows from the SUMC
Project are not expected to combine with shadows from other
nearby .reasonably foreseeable probable future development.
There would be no cumulative impacts.
TR-l. Construction Impacts. Construction activity associated
with the SUMC Project could result in significant traffic
impacts.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
.LTS
LTS
NI
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
5-30
Mitigation Measures
N one required.
None required.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. With implementation of the following mitigation
measures,the significant construction related traffic impacts would be
reduced to less-than-significant levels.
TR-l.l Provide Off-Street Parking for Construction Related Vehicles.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall be required to provide
adequate off-street parking for all construction-related vehicles
throughout the construction period. If adequate parking cannot
be provided on the construction sites, a remote parking area shall
be designated, and a shuttle bus shall be operated to transfer
construction workers to the job site.
S = Significant SU = Signijicallt Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
LTS
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Rene'r1'a1 and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table 8-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation J.\<Ieasures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
TR-l.2 Maintain Pedestrian Access. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
be prohibited from substantially limiting pedestrian access while
constructing the SUMC Project, without prior approval from the
City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works. Such approval
shall require submittal and approval of specific construction
management plans to mitigate the specific impacts to a less-than
significant levels. Pedestrian access-limiting actions would
include, but not be limited to, sidewalk closures, bridge closures,
crosswalk closures or pedestrian re-routing at intersections;
placement of construction-related material within pedestrian
pathways or sidewalks, and other actions which may affect the
mobility or safety of pedestrians during the construction period.
If sidewalks are maintained along the construction site frontage,
covered Walkways shall be provided.
TR-l.3 Maintain Bicycle Access. The SUMC Project sponsors shall be
prohibited from limiting bicycle access wlllle constructing the
SUMC Project without prior approval from the City of Palo Alto
Department of Public Works. Such approval shall require
submittal and approval of specific construction management plans
that warn cyclists prior to reaching the impacted bicycle lanes
and provide alternative routing around the construction sites to
mitigate the specific impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Bicycle access-limiting actions would include, but not be limited
to, bicycle lane closures or narrowing, closing ()r narrowing of
streets that are designated bicycle routes, bridge closures, the
placement· of construction-related materials within designated
bicycle lanes or along bicycle routes, and other actions which
may affect the mobility or safety of bicyclists during the
construction period.
S = Significant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Rene).val and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-31
Impacts
NI No Impacf
S-32
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
TR-1A Restrict Construction Hours. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
be required to prohibit or limit the number of construction
material deliveries from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.-m., and from 4pm
to 6pm on weekdays. The SUMC Project sponsors shall be
required to prohibit or limit the number of construction
employees from arriving or departing the site from the hours of
4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
TR-l.5 Restrict Construction Truck Routes. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall be required to deliver and remove all construction
related equipment and materials on truck routes designated by the
cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Heavy
construction vehicles shall be prohibited from accessing the site
from other routes. Figure 3.4-6 and 3.4-7 of the EIR illustrates
the Stanford Area Truck Routes which must be used by all
trucks.
TR-l.6 Protect Public Roadways During Constnlction. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall be required to repair any structural damage
to public roadways, returning any damaged sections to original
structural condition. The SUMC Project sponsors shall survey
the condition of the public roadways along truck routes providing
access to the proposed project site before construction, and shall
again survey after construc:tion is complete. A before-and-after
survey report shall be completed and submitted to the City of
Palo Alto Public Works Department for review, indicating the
location and extent of any damage.
TR-l.7 Maintain Public Transit Access and Routes. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall be prohibited from limiting access to public
transit, and from limiting movement of public transit vehicles,
without prior approval from the Santa Clara County Valley
S=Significant SU= Significa/lt Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Dr({ft EIR Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
Transportation Authority or other appropriate jurisdiction. Such
approval shall require submittal and approval of specific impacts
to a less-than-significant level. Potential actions which would
impact access to transit include, but are not limited to, relocating
or removing bus stops, limiting access to bus stops or transfer
facilities, or otherwise restricting or constraining public transit
operations.
TR-l.8 Prepare and Implement Construction Impact Mitigation Plan. In
lieu of the above mitigation measures. the SUMC Project
sponsors shall submit· a detailed construction impact mitigation
plan to the City of Palo Alto for approval by the Director of
Public Works prior to commencing any construction activities
with potential transportation impacts. This plan shall address in
detail the activities to be carried out in each construction phase,
the potential transportation impacts of each activity, and an
acceptable method of reducing or eliminating significant
transportation impacts. Details such as the routing and
scheduling of materials deliveries, construction employee arrival
and departure schedules, employee parking locations, and
emergency vehicle access shall be described and approved.
TR-l.9 Conduct Additional Measures During Special Events. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall implement a mechanism to prevent
roadway construction activities from reducing roadway capacity
during major athletic events or other special events which attract
a substantial number of visitors to the campus. This measure
may require a special supplemental permit to be approved by
either Santa Clara County or the City of Palo Alto prior to
hosting such events during significant construction phases.
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-33
Table S-4
SUMC Project Sunnnary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-2. Intersection Level of Service. Implementation of the
SUMC Project would result in significant impacts to
intersections during Peak Hour conditions.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS Less-thall-Significant
S-34
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURES. Given the magnitude of the SUMC Project's
intersection impacts, there is no single feasible mitigation measure that can
reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. However, there are a
range of measures that, when taken individually, would each contribute to a
partial reduction in the SUMC Project's impacts. When combined, these
measures could result in a substantial reduction in the SUMC Project's
impacts.
Under all combinations of feasible mitigation measures below, impacts of
the SUMC Project on intersection LOS would remain significant and
unavoidable. Of aU of the feasible combinations, the one that would have
the largest reduction in impact, and that mitigates the greatest number of the
intersection impacts, is the combination of traffic adaptive signal
technology, additional bicycle and pedestrian undercrossings, enhanced
Travel Demand Management (TDM) program, and feasible intersection
improvements. This combination of mitigation measures would reduce the
SUMC Project impacts to a less-than-significant level at all of the impacted
intersections during the AM Peak Hour. However, intersection impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable in the PM Peak Hour at three
intersections with mitigation.
TR-2.1 Install Traffic Adaptive Signal Technology. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall contribute to the Palo Alto Citywide Traffic
Impact Fee program, for the installation of traffic adaptive
signals. However, this fee.is not structured to mitigate one
hundred percent of project related impacts, and an additional fee
could be imposed by the City on the SUMC Project sponsors to
mitigate the remaining share of the SUMC Project impacts. In
Menlo Park, the SUMC Project sponsors shall contribute their
fair share amount, which shall be tied to the amount of traffic
added to analyzed intersections by the SUMC Project. The
SUMC Project sponsors' contributions shall apply towards the
S=Significant S[J = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
Stanford Medical Center Facilities Rene·wal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Stanford
Impacts
Nl No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
installation of traffic adaptive signals as listed below.
• Sand Hill Road (Oak Creek to Shopping Center) - 4 signals
• Arboretum Road (Shopping Center to Palm Drive) - 3
signals
• Embarcadero Road (Bryant to Saint Francis) -7 signals
• University A venue (Palm to Lincoln) 13 signals
• Lytton Avenue (Alma to Middlefield) -10 signals
• Hamilton Avenue (Alma to Midd1efieJd) -10 signals
• Middlefield Road (San Antonio to Homer) - 9 signals
• Charleston Road (Alma to Middlefield) - 2 signals
• EI Camino Real (northern city limits of Menlo Park to
southern city limits of Palo Alto) -signals would require
approval of Caltrans
TR-2.2 Fund Additional Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossings. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall connibute their fair share to the
cost of construction of the Everett A venue undercrossing of the
Cal train tracks in Palo Alto and the Middle A venue
undercrossing in Menlo Park. In Palo Alto~ there is a Citywide
Traffic Impact Fee program that the SUMC Project sponsors
shall contribute to. However, this fee is not structured to
mitigate one hundred percent of the SUMC Project related
impacts, and an additional fee may be imposed by the City to
mitigate the remaining share of the SUMC Project impacts. In
Menlo Park, the fair share contribution shall be tied to the
amount of traffic added to analyzed intersections by the SUMC
S=Signijicanr SU= Significant Unavoidable
InillPYfCif't1 Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-35
Impacts
NT = No Impact
S-36
Table S-4
SUMC Project Sunnnary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation M~sures
Project. The construction of the Everett A venue and Middle
A venue undercrossings would reduce traffic volumes on nearby
streets, such as Ravenswood Avenue and University Avenue.
TR-2.3 Enhance Stanford University Travel Demand Management (TDM)
Program. The SUMC Project sponsors shall enhance the
currently-implemented TDM program in order to achieve 35.1
percent usage of alternative transportation modes (i.e, carpool,
vanpool, bus, Caltrain, bicycle, and walk) by SUMC employees.
The initial enhancements to the SUMC TDM program shall
include the following:
• Provide Caltrain GO Passes, or an equivalent TDM
measure, to aU eligible hospital employees and set target
Caltrain mode share for hospital employees equal to 15.8
percent.
• If Caltrain GO Passes would be provided to SUMC
employees, make arrangements with AC Transit to lease 75
spaces at the Ardenwood Park & Ride Lot, to serve SUMC
employees who commute from the East Bay.
• Expand bus service in support of the issuance of GO Passes.
• Expand the Marguerite shuttle bus service, and integrate it
with the other City of Palo Alto shuttle bus service.
• Maintain load factors less than 1.00 on the U Line, and less
than 1.25 on the Marguerite shuttle.
• Expand and improve the bicycle and pedestrian networks.
• Provide a full-time on-site TDM coordinator by 2015 for the
hospital components. The coordinator would be responsible
for organizing and disseminating TDM information primarily
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
. Significance
With
Mitigation
Starrjord University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
NI No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project SW1llllary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
to hospital employees and also to hospital patients. A central
location would be made available to provide information on
alternative travel modes. Also, the SUMC or hospitals'
website would contain information on TDM programs.
• Provide a guaranteed ride home program for all employees
who use transit and other transport alternatives like carpool
and vanpool. The guarantee ride home shall allow
employees with dependent children the ability to use
alternative modes to travel to and from work but still be able
to travel home mid-day in case of an emergency.
• Provide employees with shower facilities within the SUMC
Sites to encourage bicycling to work. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall also provide bicycle storage facilities on .the
SUMC Sites that would be conveniently located near the
employee showers.
• Establish, in conjunction with the GO Pass implementation,
a "Zip Car" (or other similar car-sharing program) with Zip
Cars available at the medical complex.
• Perform annual TDM monitoring and submit the report to
the City of Palo Alto to ensure that the assumed modal split
to alternative forms of travel and away from autos is actually
achieved.
These enhancements may not immediately change the mode split
for SUMC employees, because many employees would be unable
to change long standing commute patterns overnight. However,
with the passage of a mutually agreed amount of time, it· is
expected that the enhanced TDM program would gradually result
in a shift in the mode split of SUMC employees. If this proves
S =Signijlcant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-37
Impacts
N! No!mpact
S-38
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swumary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
not to b~ the case, then a second round of improvements to the
TDM program shall be implemented. Examples of additional
measures could be to increase the parking permit charges while
increasing the incentives to those who carpool or do not drive.
If, by the year 2025, at least 35.1 percent of SUMC employees
are not using alternative transpOltation modes, then a second
round of improvements to the TDM shall be implemented.
Examples of additional measures could be to increase the parking
permit charges while increasing the incentives to those who
carpool or do not drive. 111ereafter. SUMC Project sponsors
shall monitor/survey employee use of alternative modes of
transportation on an at least bi-annual basis, and shall continue to
improve its TDM program, until it is confirmed to the
satisfaction of the City that the target of 35.1 percent usage has
been met.
TR-2.4 Fund or Implement those Intersection Improvements that Have
Been Determined to be Feasible. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall implement the following measures:
• For the intersection of El Camino Real/Page Mill Road -
Oregon Expressway, the SUMC Project sponsors shall pay a
fair share towards (1) provision of exclusive right-turn lane
for westbound Oregon Expressway, in addition to the two
through lanes. (2) increasing the cycle length to 160 seconds.
Improvements to the westbound right turn lane would
require right-of-way from the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VT A) park-and-ride lot.
• At the intersection of Arboretum Road/Galvez Street, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall install a traffic signaL
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Drqft ElR Summary
Impacts
NI No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significarice
Without
Mitigation
LTS Less-thclil-Signijicant
. Mitigation Measures
TR-2.5 Coordinate with Other Jurisdictions for Potentially Feasible
Roadway Improvements. The City of Palo Alto shall work with
other jurisdictions to try to achieve feasibility for the following
roadway improvements or adjustments. In the event that one or
more of the below improvements would then be determined to be
feasible, the SUMC Project sponsors shall pay their fair share
towards implementation of the improvements, if a fair share
contribution would apply.
• Alpine Road/I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp -Signalize this
intersection. The City shall coordinate with Caltrans
regarding feasibility of these improvements.
• EI Camino Real/Ravenswood Avenue -Re-stripe the
exclusive right-tum lane on southbound EI Camino Real to a
shared through/right lane. Also, provide an additional
through lane for northbound EI Camino Real by removing
the right-tum slip island. Also, provide an exclusive right
turn lane for eastbound Menlo Avenue. The City shall
coordinate with the City of Menlo Park and Caltrans
regarding feasibility of these improvements.
• Bayfront Expressway/Willow Road -Provide one more
right-tum lane for eastbound Willow Road and make the
right-turn movement for southbound Bayfront Expressway
"overlap" with the left-tum of eastbound Willow Road. The
intersection has signals for the right-turn movement for
southbound Bayfront Expressway, but the "overlap'" phase is
not implemented. The City shall coordinate with the City of
Menlo Park regarding feasibility of these improvements.
• Middlefield Road/Ravenswood A venue -Provide an
additional exclusive left-tum lane for northbound Middlefield
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR SummalY
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-39
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-3. Impacts on Roadway Segments. The SUMC Project
would result in adverse traffic inlpacts to roadway segments in
the City of Menlo Park.
TR-4. Local Circulation Impacts. The SUMC Project could
result insignificant traffic impact to the local circulation
network in the immediate vicinity of the SUMC Sites.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
5-40.
Mitigation Measures
Road. The City shall coordinate with the City of Menlo
Park regarding feasibility of this improvement.
• Junipero Serra Boulevard/Campus Drive West -Request that
Santa Clara County change the signal cycle length at this
intersection to 90 seconds. The City shall coordinate with the
County of Santa Clara regarding feasibility of this
adjustment.
MITIGATION MEASURES. With the provision of additional bicycle and
pedestrian undercrossings (Mitigation Measure TR-2.2), the enhanced
TDM program (Mitigation Measure TR-2.3), and contribution to the City
of Menlo Park shuttle fee (Mitigation Measure TR -7.2), there would still be
significant impacts on four Menlo Park roadways, including Marsh Road,
Willow Road, Sand Hill Road, and Alpine Road. Therefore, the traffic
impacts to Marsh Road, Sand Hill Road, Willow Road, and Alpine Road
would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-4.1, involving funding
and implementation of a traffic impact study, and Mitigation Measure
TR-4.2, involving re-striping of Durand Way, would reduce the SUMC
Project's impact to a less-than-significant level. .
TR-4.1 Fund Traffic Impact Study. Upon construction of the SHC and
LPCH Hospital components, the SUMC Project sponsors shall
fund an independent traffic evaluation, commissioned by the
City, based on actual travel patterns, volumes, and emergency
access, with an emphaSIS on ease of circulation around and
through the medical complex to determine if the private street
connection between Roth Way and Pasteur Drive should be
operated as a public street. If the independent traffic study
demonstrates that the connection between Roth Way and Pasteur
Drive as a public street would improve circulation, then the
S =Signijicant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
LTS
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR _~m"mnr\1
Table 8-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-S. Freeway Impacts. The SUMC Project would result in
less-than-significant impacts on freeways.
TR-6. Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts. The SUMC Project
could impede the development or function of planned bicycle
or pedestrian facilities, and result in a significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
NI No Impact LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
connection shall be designated as a public street for all vehicular,
bicyc1e, pedestrian, and transit traffic.
TR-4.2 Fund Signing and Striping Plan and Signal Optimization. In
addition to paying for the construction of the extension of Durand
Way from Sand Hill Road to Welch Road, the SUMC Project
sponsors shall also pay for the following improvements to ensure
that queues from the Durand Way/Sand Hill Road intersection do
not spillback onto the Durand Way/Welch Road intersection.
• A signing and striping plan for the Durand Way extension,
which would maximize the storage capacity by creating a
four-lane roadway with a left and through/right at Sand Hill
Road and a right and through/left at Welch Road;
• The installation and optimization of the two signals at the
intersections of Durand Way/Sand Hill Road and Durand
Way/Welch Road.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 involving trip
reducing measures, plus Mitigation Measure TR-6.1, which involves
several bicycle and pedestrian improvements, would reduce the SUMC
Project's impact to a less-than-significant level. The improved facilities
would mitigate the hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists brought about by
the increased vehicular traffic and congestion.
TR-6.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastnlcture Improvements, The SUMC
Project sponsors shall fund the expansion and improvement .pf
the bicycle and pedestrian network in the immediate vicinity of
the SUMC Project. The intent of these improvements is to:
S = Significant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
S-41
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-42
Table S-4
SUMC Project SWllmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
• reduce auto related traffic by providing the infrastructure for
alternative travel modes:
• improve the bicycle and pedestrian linkages between the
SUMC Project and Downtown Palo Alto, and between the
SUMC Project and the surrounding residential
neighborhoods; and
• mitigate the safety hazards to pedestrians and cyclists that
will result from the SUMC Project related increase in
vehicular traffic and congestion.
The specific improvements to be funded by the SUMC Project
sponsors shall include the following:
• Provide an enhanced pedestrian crossing at Quarry RoadlEI
Camino Real· to establish a strong connection between the
SUMC Project and Downtown Palo Alto. The pedestrian
crossing shall be 12 feet wide, have contrasting pavement,
countdown signal heads, and high visibility markings. Even
though the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino Real
is projected to operate at acceptable levels of service, added
vehicular traffic through the intersection and added bicycle
and pedestrian volumes across the intersection would
potentially create safety hazards which would be mitigated
by the proposed enhanced crossings.
• Create a bicycle and pedestrian connection between the
Stanford Shopping Center and SUMC. The connection shall
provide an alternative route to Quarry Road, which is auto
dominated. This connection shall extend between Vineyard
Lane and Welch Road. Pedestrian traffic signals and
crosswalks shall be placed at the crossing of Vineyard Lane
S = Significant SU = Signijicallt Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Cellter Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Sunnnary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
and Welch Road. The crosswalk shall be enhanced either by
striping or by the use of contrasting paving.
• Provide a connection from the planned Everett Avenue
bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing to the EI Camino
Real/Quarry Road intersection. Once the tunnel is
completed. this linkage shall provide a direct connection
between the SUMC Project and Downtown North.
• Provide a bicycle and pedestrian trail through the Arboretum
Drive as part of future campus planning in the SUMC area.
TIus trail shall improve access to the SUMC Project. To
support this off-street path, bicycle and pedestrian crossings
at Arboretum Road and Palo Road shall be enhanced to
provide safe crossing of these streets. The crosswalks shall
be properly signed, marked, and lighted with enhanced
pavement markings and imbedded crosswalk lights.
Signalization of this crossing may ultimately be required.
• Incorporate into the Quarry Road corridor, from EI Camino
Real to Welch Road, continuous sidewalks according to the
SUMC Project's Design Guidelines. The extension of
Quarry Road west of Welch Road shall continue the
pedestrian facilities into the SUMC Project.
• Enhance all signalized intersections in the Project Vicinty,
particularly along Quarry Road, Vineyard, and Welch Roads to
include 12-foot pedestrian crosswalks on all legs, with textured
or colored paving or diagonal or longitudinal zebra striping as
determined by the City, pedestrian push buttons and countdown
pedestrian signal heads, and other specific improvements that
are determined as necessary during the design process, such as
median refuge islands, advanced signing, flashing beacons, in
pavement lighting, etc.
S=Signijicant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-43
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-7. Transit Impacts. Implementation of the SUMC
Project could impede the operation of the transit system as a
result of increased ridership, and result in a significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS Less-thall-Significant
S-44
Mitigation Measures
• Install the appropriate number of Class I and Class III
bicycle parking spaces as required by the City's Zoning
Ordinance for the total amount of existing and future
development. The SUMC Project sponsors shall install the
required number of bicycle parking spaces equally
distributed throughout the SUMC Sites.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-7.1 involves the addition
of transit centers to the SUMC Project's site plans, and Mitigation Measure
TR-7.2 involves [mancial contributions towards the expansion of transit
service. Implementation of these measures would reduce the SUMC
Project's transit impacts to a less-than-significant level.
TR-7.1 Incorporate Transit Centers Into Site Plans. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall revise their SUMC Project site plan to incorporate
two transit centers to reduce the impact to transit service caused
the SUMC Project. These transit centers shall be located at
Hoover Pavilion and at SHC, and shall be off-street facilities.
The transit centers shall accommodate three to four buses
simultaneously, and shall have shelters, seating, lighting, signs,
maps, bus schedules, and bicycle parking. On-street bus stops
along Welch Road and Quarry Road shall also be provided, but
the transit centers shall accommodate the majOlity of transit
riders and shall be located to maximize the convenience of
employees, patients, and visitors. One transit center shall be'
located in the vicinity of Welch Road and Pasteur Drive to serve
SHC. The other transit center shall be located near the entrance
to Hoover Pavilion. Both of these transit centers shall provide
the focal point for transit use for the SUMC.
TR-7.2 Provide Expanded Transit Service. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall make a fair share financial contribution to the cost of
expanding existing bus service of the Marguerite, Crosstown,
S = Significant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
Stanford University Medical Cellter Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table 8-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
and Menlo Park Shuttle bus services, and to the VT A
Community Bus Service.
• Marguerite Shuttle. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
make a financial contribution to expand the Marguerite
shuttle service into Palo Alto.
• U Line. The SUMC Project sponsors shall make a financial
contribution towards the operation of the U Line.
Arrangements with AC Transit shall be made to increase U
Line service (such as decreasing headways) to meet the
increase in demand attributable to the SUMC Project, and
ensure that load factors remain below 1.0.
• Crosstown Shuttle. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
participate in operating the Palo Alto Crosstown Shuttle
service, by contributing to the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee"
which would include covering the costs of this service.
Then current fee is $2,861 per net new PM Peak Hour trips.
A portion of Stanford's Citywide Traffic Impact Fee shall be
used by the City to expand City shuttle services.
• VTA Community Bus Sen ice. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall contribute to fund the project's fair share of
Palo Alto' s share of expanded VT A Community Bus
Service.
• Menlo Park Shuttle Bus. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall pay into the City of Menlo Park shuttle fee at $0.105
per square foot of new development annually or a percentage
agreed between Menlo Park and SUMC Project sponsors. In
Menlo Park. the contribution shall be tied to the amount of
project traffic added to analyzed roadway segments and
intersections.
S=Significant SU= Signijicallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-45
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
TR-S. Parking Impacts. The SUMC Project would provide
adequate parking for its demand, and would thus have a less
than-significant parking impact.
TR-9. Emergency Access. Implementation of the SUMC
Project could potentially result in inadequate emergency access
due to increased congestion, a significant impact.
TR-IO. Cumulative Construction Impacts. The SUMe
Project, in combination with concurrent construction projects
in the vicinity of the SUMC Sites, could result in a significant
construction-period impact. The contribution of the · SUMC
Project would be cumulatively considerable.
TR-ll. Cumulative Transit Impacts. Cumulative growth
would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact on
transit services.
AQ-l. Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions.
Without mitigation, construction activities associated with the
SUMe Project could cause emissions of dust and pollutants
from equipment exhaust that could contribute to existing air
quality violations or expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations . Impacts would be significant. .
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
S
LTS
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Signijicant
S-46
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures . Mitigation
N one required. N / A
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-9.1 involVes the LTS
installation of emergency vehicle traffic signal priOlity (OptiCom) at all
intersections significantly impacted by the SUMC Project. Implementation
of this measure would reduce the SUMC Project's impact to less-than-
significant levels.
TR-9.1 Pay Fair Share TOl'vards OptiCom Installatioll. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall pay their fair-share financial conttibution
towards the City of Palo Alto, to assist with the installation and
operation of emergency vehicle traffic signal priority (OptiC om)
at all significantly impacted intersections.
MITIGATION MEASURES. With implementation of Mitigation Measures LTS
TR-1.1 through TR-1.9, which involve transportation-related construction
management measures, the SUMC Project's contribution to the significant
cumulative construction-period impact would be reduced to less than
cumulati vely considerable.
None required. Nt A
MITIGATION · MEASURES . To minimize dust emissions, the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has identitied a set of feasible
PMIO control measures for all construction activities in the air basin.
Implementation of the BAAQMD-recommended measures (Mitigation
Measure AQ-1.1 below) would reduce the impacts caused by construction
dust to a less-than-significant level. Additionally, implementation of
S =Signijicant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Rellewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
SU
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
construction equipment emission reduction measures (Mitigation Measure
AQ-1.2 below) would further reduce NOx, ROG, PMlO and PM2.5
emissions during construction. However, reduction of NOx emissions
below 80 lbs/day during the first year of construction could not be
guaranteed, and this impact would still be considered significant and
unavoiaable.
AQ-l.l Implement Recommended Dust Control Measures. To reduce
dust emissions during project demolition and construction phases,
the SUMC Project sponsors shall require the construction
contractors to comply with the dust control strategies developed
by the BAAQMD. The SUMC Project sponsors shall include in
construction contracts the following requirements:
a. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials including demolition debris, or require all trucks
to maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
b. Water an active construction areas (exposed or disturbed soil
surfaces) at least twice daily;
c. Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of
structures or break-up of pavement;
d. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas;
e. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) all paved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas during the earthwork
phases of construction;
f. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent public streets;
g. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive
construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten
days or more);
S=Significant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-47
Impacts
NI No [mpact
S-48
Table S-4
SUMC Project Smnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS Less-titan-Significant
Mitigation Measures
h. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil
binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.);
i. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
j. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent
silt runoff to public roadways; and
k. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
AQ-l.2 Implement Equipment Exhaust Emission Reduction Measures. To
reduce emissions from construction equipment dming project
demolition and construction phases, the SUMC Project sponsors
shall require the construction contractors to comply with the
following emission reduction strategies to the maximum feasible
extent. The SUMC Project sponsors shall include in construction
contracts the following requirements:
a. Where possible, electrical equipment shall be used instead
of fossil-fuel powered equipment.
b. The contractor shall install temporary electrical service
whenever possible to avoid need for fossil-fuel powered
equipment.
c. Running equipment not being actively used for construction
purposes for more than five minutes shall be turned off.
(e.g., trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or
other bulk materials: however, rotating-drum concrete trucks
may keep their engines running continuously as long as they
are on site).
d. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling while on residential
streets serving the construction site (also included. in
Mitigation Measure NO-l.l).
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
AQ-2. Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions.
Combined mobile and stationary source emissions during
operation of the SUMC Project would exceed the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District's significance threshold of 80
pounds/day of ROG, NOx and PMlO. Therefore, air emissions
would result in a substantial contribution to an existing
regional air quality problem and a significant impact.
AQ-3. Localized Carbon Monoxide Impacts from Motor
Vehicle Traffic. The SUMC Project would have less-than
significant localized air emissions resulting from additional
traffic.
AQ-4. Toxic Air Contaminants. Simultaneous exposures to
DPM and T ACs from the construction and operational
components of the SUMC Project would have a less-than
significant impact on air quality.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
LTS
LTS
NI No Impact LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
e. Diesel-powered construction equipment shall be Tier III or
Tier IV California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified
equipment to the maximum feasible extent.
f. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the
smallest practical to accomplish the task at hand.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 involves
implementation of enhanced TDM measures. The enhanced TDM
measures include provision of the Caltrain GO Pass to SUMC employees,
or an equivalent TDM measure. If the GO Pass would be provided, then
remote parking spaces at the Ardenwood Park and Ride Lot in the East Bay
would also be provided to serve commuters from the East Bay. Provision
of the GO Pass plus remote parking spaces in the East Bay would reduce
Vehicle Miles Travelled by 13.5 percent. This reduction in SUMC Project
VMT, however. would not be sufficient to prevent project ROG. NOx and
PMJO emissions from exceeding the BAAQMD significance thresholds. In
addition, the City shall consider the feasibility of Mitigation Measure PH-
3.1. Nonetheless, impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with
mitigation.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR SlImmnrv
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
su
N/A
N/A
S-49
Table S~4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
AQ-5. Objectionable Odors. TIle SUMC Project would have
a less-than-significant impact related to exposing the public to
objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of
people.
AQ-6. Cumulative Construction Emissions. Construction
equipment NOx emissions associated with the SUMC Project
could contribute considerably to regional air quality problems.
AQ-7. Cumulative Operational Emissions. SUMC Project
operation could contribute considerably to a degradation of
regional air quality as defined by the BAAQMD.
AQ-8. Cumulative Construction and Operational T AC
Emissions. SUMC Project TAC emissions could contribute
considerably to the health risk of sensitive receptors on and
near the SUMC Project site and, thus, have a significant
cumulative impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
S
S
NI No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
S-50
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures AQ-l.l and AQ-L2 would
reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to cumulative construction
emissions, although the contribution to NOx would remain cumulatively
considerable.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 involves
implementation of enhanced TDM measures. The enhanced TDM
measures include provision of the Caltrain GO Pass to SUMC employee.s,
or an equivalent TDM measure. If the GO Pass would be provided, then
remote. parking spaces at the Ardenwood Park and Ride Lot in the East Bay
would also be provided to serve commuters from the East Bay. As
additional mitigation, the City shall consider the feasibility of Mitigation
Measure PH-3.l, as identified and discussed in more detail in Section 3.13,
Population and Housing. These measures would reduce the contribution to
criteria pollutants during operation of the SUMC Project. However, even
with mitigation. einissions would still exceed the BAAQMD significance
thresholds, and the contribution would remain considerable.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure AQ-L2 (Implement Equipment
Exhaust Emission Reduction Measures) has been identified primarily to
reduce construction-phase criteria pollutant emissions. but it would also
reduce Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions. However, the
emissions of criteria and DPM emissions from project construction sources
were based on current best estimates of the type, number, and duration of
use of the SUMC Project construction equipment. While some additional
reductions of Toxic Air Contanrinants (TACs) would be expected with
Mitigation Measure AQ-L2, where their implementation is feasible, their
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
SU
SU
SU
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation ~:leasures
Impacts
CC-l. Furthering Goals and Policies of the Palo Alto
Climate Protection Plan. The proposed Emissions Reduction
Program would minimize greenhouse gas emission increases
associated with the proposed development progranl. However,
the proposed Emissions Reduction Program would not be
sufficient to further the goals of the City's Climate Protection
Plan. . .
Impact
Significance
Without
l\iitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS ·= Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
potential additional reductions were not included in the SUMC Project's
DPM estimates that were the basis of the Health Risk Assessment.
However, it is not likely that the additional reductions in SUMC Project
T AC emissions resulting from their implementation would reduce the
SUMC Project health risk to the point where it would not be cumulatively
considerable in the context of Palo Alto's high TAC background levels.
Thus, SUMC Project TAC enlissions would remain cumulatively significant
even after the implementation of all feasible TAC reduction measures.
MITIGATION MEASURES. The mitigation measures below, which in addition
to the proposed Emissions Reduction Program, would further minimize the
increase in greenhouse gas emissions from this project. However, even
with these measures the SUMC Project would contravene the goals in the
City's Climate Protection Plan and would have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to global climate change.
CC-I.l Commission and Retro-Commission Energy Systems for Ne'rl' and
Existing Buildings. New construction and existing buildings
altered by construction of the SUMC Project shall undergo
commissioning of energy and HV AC systems during construction
and on an annual basis during the fust five years of operation.
The commissioning process shall follow the standards of the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Guideline 0-2005 or the
International Performance Measurement and Verification
Protocol (MVP). This process would ensure that new and
existing energy systems would perform interactively according to
construction documents, the SUMC Project design intent and the
owner's operational needs.
S = Significant SU = Signijicallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SumllulIY
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
S-51
Impacts
NI No Impact
S-52
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation l\leasures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
CC-I.2 Participate in Palo Alto Green Energy Program. Other
Equivalent Renel-vable Energy Program, or combination thereof
Under the Palo Alto Green program, residential, business and
industrial customers purchase renewable energy equivalent to
their electricity needs at an additional cost of 1.5 cents per kWh
above standard electric rates. The SHC and LPCH facilities
shall participate in this program to offset electricity emissions;
develop new renewable generation sources in collaboration with
the CP AU; incorporate a renewable energy source (such as
photovoltaics) into the SUMC Project. or a combination thereof,
such that a minimum of 54,640 MWh of electricity usage is
offset alillually.
CC-I.3 Provide Annual Greenhouse Gas Reporting. The SHC and LPCH
shall perform an annual inventory of greenhouse gas emissions
associated with hospital and medical facilities on the SUMC
Sites. This inventory shall be performed according to a common
industry-standard emissions reporting protocol, such as the
approaches recommended by California Air Resources Board,
The Climate Action Registry, or Business Council for
Sustainable Development (BCSD). This inventory shall be shared
with the City of Palo Alto to facilitate the development of future
collaborative Emissions Reduction Programs. Emissions
associated with energy, water, solid waste~ transportation,
employee commute and other major sources shall be reported in
tIns inventory.
CC-IA Prepare Waste Reduction Audit. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall perform a waste reduction audit of waste management
practices at the hospitals prior to construction of new facilities
and after completion of the SUMC Project to determine post
project diversions. This audit shall be repeated annually, and
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CC-2 Emit Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The
proposed Emissions Reduction Program would minimize the
greenhouse gas emission increases associated with the
proposed· development program, although the proposed
Emissions Reduction Program would not reduce emissions to
30 percent below business as usual (BAU) emissions.
Therefore the SUMC project would have a cumulative
considerable contribution to global climate change.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
with the results being made available to the public or to City of
Palo Alto staff.
CC-J.5 Implement Constntction Period Emission Reduction Measures.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the SUMC Project
sponsors shall incorporate the following measures into the
construction phasing plan and submit to City Planning for
approval.
• Use alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction
vehicles! equipment of at least 15 percent of the fleet;
• Use local building materials of at least 10 percent; and
• Recycle at least· 50 percent of construction or demolition
materials.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measures CC-l.l through CC-1.5, and
TR-2.3 would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, to further
reduce impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, the City shall consider
the feasibility of Mitigation Measure PH-3.1.
However, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures,
the anticipated emissions would remain above both the City of Palo Alto's
Climate Protection Plan and the CARB's reduction emission goals of 30
percent below BAU emissions. Because these reduction levels cannot be
achieved, the SUMC Project would emit significant amounts of greenhouse
gases and would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to globaf
climate change.
S=Signijicant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Rene)val and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
S-53
Table S-4
SUMC Project SWllmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
NO-I. Construction Noise. Construction of the SUMC
Project would create a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels on the SUMC Sites compared to existing
ambient noise levels. The noise increase would be a
significant impact to the sensitive uses (i.e .. patients) on the
Main SUMC Site during construction.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
S-54
. Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURE. The following IDltlgation measures would not
reduce construction noise impacts to on-site sensitive receptors to less-than
significant levels, although they wou1d ·lessen construction-related noise.
NO-i.i Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Construction
Noise. The SUMC Project sponsors shall incorporate the
following practices into the construction documents to be
implemented by the SUMC Project contractor:
a. Provide enclosures such as heavy-duty mufflers for stationary
equipment, shrouding or shielding for impact tools, and
barriers around particularly noisy operations on the site.
b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible,
particularly air compressors.
c. Provide sound-control devices on equipment no less effective
than those provided by the manufacturer.
d. Locate stationary equipment, material stockpiles, and vehicle
staging areas as far as practicable from sensitive receptors.
e. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
f. Require applicable construction-related vehicles and
equipment to comply with the City'S truck route ordinance.
g. Designate a noise disturbance coordinator who shall be
responsible for responding to complaints about noise during
construction. The telephone number of the noise disturbance
coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction
site and shall be provided to the City. Copies of the
construction schedule shall also be posted at nearby noise
sensitive areas.
S=Signijicant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Sunnnary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
NO-2. Construction Vibration. Construction of the SUMC
Project would have less-than-significant vibration impacts.
NO-3. Operational Noise Impacts from Transportation
Sources. Increased traffic and helicopter noise levels due to
implementation of the SUMC Project would be less than
significant. However, noise from ambulances due to
implementation of the SUMC Project would increase along
Sand Hill Road west of EI Camino Real, and would increase
roadside noise levels by an amount considered unacceptable
under the policies of the City Comprehensive Plan.
NO-4. Operational Stationary Source Noise Impacts.
Operational stationary source noise generated by the SUMC
Project could potentially increase ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the SUMC Sites and result in a significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
S
Nl No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. 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 anlbulance 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 significant unavoidable
impact.
MITIGATION MEASURE. The following mitigation measure would reduce
noise impacts to sensitive receptors from HVAC equipment and emergency
generators proposed for SUMC Project. Implementation of this measure
would reduce the SUMC Project's noise impacts at 1100 Welch Road.
NO-4.1 Shield or Enclose HVAC Equipment and Emergency Generators.
Noise levels from mechanical equipment shall be minimized to
the degree required by the City Noise Ordinance by proper siting
and selection of such equipment and through installation of
sufficient acoustical shielding or noise emission controls. Noise
levels for the emergency generators near Welch Road shall be
reduced such that noise levels do not exceed the City's General
Daytime Exception standard of 70 dBA at 25 feet. An acoustical
analysis shall be prepared by a qualified professional to ensure
that the new mechanical equipment is in compliance with noise
standards of the Noise Ordinance.
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement ElR Summary
, Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
SU
LTS
S-55
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
NO-5. Cumulative Construction Noise Impacts. If other
foreseeable construction in the immediate vicinity of the
SUMC Sites would occur simultaneously with the proposed
SUMC Project construction. then significant cumulative noise
impacts to adjacent residential and other noise-sensitive uses
could occur. The SUMC Project's contribution would likely
be cumulatively considerable.
NO-6. Cumulative Construction Vibration Impacts.
Vibration during construction activities under the cumulative
scenario would result in a less-than-significant cumulative
impact.
NO-7. Cumulative Operational Transportation Source Noise
Impacts. Cumulative development would result in less-than
significant cumulative noise impacts.
NO-S. Cumulative Operational Stationary Source Noise
Impacts. Cumulative development would not result in a
significant increase in cumulative noise levels from operational
stationary sources at sensitive receptors.
CR-l. Impacts on Historical Resources. The SUMC Project
would have a significant impact on historical resources.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
LTS
LTS
LTS
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
S-56
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURE. Although measures under Mitigation Measure
NO-I.I would lessen the resulting noise contribution from the construction
of the SUMC Project at 1100 Welch Road and on-site receptors, the
contribution of the SUMC Project construction noise would remain
cumulatively considerable.
None required.
N one required.
N one required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures
CR-l.I and CR-1.5 would reduce potential vibration and construction
related impacts to the Hoover Pavilion resulting from demolition of
adjacent sheds and storage facilities , impacts from falling construction
debris, and impacts from . movement of heavy equipment to a less-than
significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1.2 through
CR-1.4 would reduce impacts due to the loss of the Stone Building
complex; however, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
S = Significant SU= Signijicallt Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
N/A
N/A
N/A
SU
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table 5-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation MeasureCR-1.5 requires implementation of the Stanford
Hoover Pavilion Protection Documents (Documents) prepared by ARG and
dated September 21, 2009 (see Appendix J). These Documents provide
specifications for the treatment and protection of the Hoover Pavilion
during SUMC Project construction activities that could damage the historic
fabric of the building including the installation of protective. covering of
certain exterior surfaces and the removal, cataloging, and storage of
selective historic elements. The Documents are based on National Park
Service and National Fire Protection Agency protection guidelines and
include details on materials and methods of installation for the protective
coverings to prevent damage from nearby demolition. Proper installation,
as required in the Documents would prevent the protective covering itself
from damage the building. The removal of historic elements would ensure
their protection of some of the more fragile elements from construction
activities and property cataloging and storage of such elements would
ensure their proper care and reinstallation. The Documents include such
details as specifying under what weather conditions it is acceptable to
perform the various tasks that could be negatively impacted by different
weather conditions. Any variations on the specifications of the Documents
would not be allowed without prior consultation with ARG, or a qualified
preservation architect. Refer to Appendix J, Stanford Hoover Pavilion
Protection Documents, for a complete list of specifications for the Hoover
Pavilion.
CR-l.l Manually Demolish Stnlctures at the Hoover Pavilion Site.
Where feasible. the project sponsors shall establish a perimeter
of construction fencing around the Hoover Pavilion at a
minimum of 25 feet to establish a protective buffer around the
building. The demolition of these sheds and storage facilities
shall be accomplished manually without the use of vibration
causing equipment. Additional protective fencing at a height
sufficient to prevent any debris from hitting the building shall
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-57
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-58
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation .l\Ieasures
bnpact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
also be installed between the Hoover Pavilion and demolition
activities occurring within the 25 foot buffer.
CR-l.2 Prepare HABS Documentation for the Stolle Building Complex.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare HABS-like
documentation using the National Park Services' Historic
American Building Surveys Level ITl guidelines for each of the
buildings in the Stone Building complex prior to demolition of
each building that comprises this historic resource (East, West,
Core, Boswell, Edwards, Lane, Alway, and Grant). HABS-like
recordation shall not be required until each of the individual
buildings is vacated and prepared for demolition. The
documentation shall include written and photographic
documentation of each of the historic structures within the Stone
Building complex. The documentation shall be prepared by a
qualified professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History or
History.
The documentation shall be prepared based on the National Park
Services' HABS standards and include, at a minimum, the
following:
• Site-specific history and appropriate contextual information
regarding the Stone Building complex. This history shall
focus on the reasons for the buildings' significance: heart
transplantation program and the role of E.D. Stone in the
design of the complex.
• Accurate mapping of all buildings that are included in the
Stone Building complex, scaled to indicate size and
proportion of the buildings to surrounding buildings; if
existing plans accurately reflect these relationships these may
S=Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
With
Impacts
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation
N! No!mpact LTS = Less-than-Significant
be reformatted for submittal per HABS guidelines for CAD
submittals.
• Architectural descriptions of the major exterior features and
rooms within the Stone Building complex as well as
descriptions of typical patient, office, laboratory, and
operating rooms.
• Photographic documentation of the interior and exterior of
the Stone Building complex and Thomas Church-designed
landscape features. Either HABS standard large format or
digital photography may be used. If digital photography is
used, the ink and paper combinations for printing
photographs must be in compliance with National Register
National Historic Landmark photo expansion policy and
have a permanency rating of approximately 115 years.
Digital photographs will be taken as uncompressed . TIF file
format. The size of each image shall be 1600xl200 pixels at
300 ppi (pixels per inch) or larger, color format, and printed
in black and white. The file name for each electronic image
shall correspond with the Index to Photographs and
photograph Jabel.
CR-l.3 DistributeWrittell and Photographic Documentation to Agencies.
The written and photogJ;'aphic documentation of historic
resources shall be disseminated on archival-quality paper to
Stanford University, the Northwest Information Center, and
other local repositories identified by the City of Palo Alto.
CR-l.4 Prepare Pennanent Interpretive Displays/Signage/Plaques. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall install interpretive displays within
the SUMC Sites that provide infonnation to visitors and residents
regarding the history of the Stone Building complex. These
S=Significanr SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary S-59
Table S-4
SUMC Project Smnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CR-2. Impacts on Prehistoric or Archaeological Resources.
The . SUMC Project could potentially encounter archaeological
resources and result in a significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI No Impact LTS Less-thall-Signijicant
S-60
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
displays shall be installed in highly visible public areas such as
the property's open space or· in public areas on the interiors of
buildings. The displays shall include historical data and
photographs as well as physical remnants of architectural
elements. Interpretive displays and the signage/plaques installed
on the property shall be sufficiently durable to withstand typical
Palo Alto weather conditions for at least five years. Displays
and signage/plaques shall be lighted, installed at pedestrian
friendly locations, and be of adequate size to attract the interested
pedestrian. Maintenance of displays and signage/plaques shall be
included in the maintenance program on the property. Location
and materials for the interpretative displays shall be subject to
review by the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board and
approval by the Planning Director.
CR-1.5 Implement Protection Documents for the Hoover Pavilioll. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall ensure the implementation of the
Stanford Hoover Pavilion Protection Documents (Documents)
prepared by ARG and dated September 21. 2009. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall comply with the specifications for the
treatment and protection of the Hoover Pavilion during SUMC
Project construction activities that could damage the historic
fabric of the building as provided in the Documents.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure CR-2.1 provides discovery
and evaluation procedures for any previously unknown archaeological
resources on the SUMC Sites and requires that a professional archaeologist
employ preservation in place, data recovery, or other methods that meet the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation to
reduce impacts on unique archaeological resources. Therefore,
implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure the
impact remains less than significant. (L TS)
S=Signijicant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
LTS
Table S-4
SUMC Project Suntmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CR-3. Impacts on Human Remains. The SUMC Project
could potentially encounter human remains and result in a
significant impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI No Impact LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
CR-2.1 Construction Staff Training and Consultation. Prior to any
construction or earth-disturbing actlvltles, a qualified
archaeologist shall inform construction supervisors of the
potential to encounter cultural resources. All construction
personnel shall be instructed to be observant for prehistoric and
historic-era artifacts, subsurface archaeological features or
deposits~ including accumulations of dark, friable sail
("midden"), stone artifacts, animal bone, and shell. In the event
that any prehistoric or historic subsurface archaeological features
or cultural deposits are discovered during construction-related
earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100
feet of the resources shall be halted and the City shall be notified.
The City shall consult with the Stanford University Archeologist
to assess the significance of the find. If the find is determined to
be an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource as
defined by CEQA, then representatives of the City and the
Stanford University Archaeologist shall meet to determine the
appropriate course of action. All significant· cultural materials
recovered shall be subject to scientitic analysis, professional
museum curation, and a report shall be prepared by the qualified
archaeologist according to current professional standards.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure CR-3.1 summarizes the
procedures to be taken in the event that any previously unknown human
remains are discovered on the SUMC Sites. Therefore, imp1ementation of
the following mitigation measure would ensure that the potential impact
remains less than significant.
CR-3.1 Conduct Protocol and Procedures for Encountering Human
Remains. If human remains (including disarticulated or cremated
remains) are discovered at any SUMC Project construction site
during any phase of construction. all ground-disturbing activity
S=Significant SU= Significallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR SumllUlry
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
S-61
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation l\leasures .
Impacts
CR-4. Impacts on Paleontological Resources. The SUMC
Project could have a significant impact on unique
paleontological resources or unique geologic resources.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
S-62
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
within 100 feet of the human remains should be halted and the
Stanford University Archaeologist, City of Palo Alto, and the
County coroner notified immediately, according to Section
5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5
of California's Health and Safety Code. If the remains are
determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the
Native American.Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified
within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC adhered to in
the treatment and disposition of the remains. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall retain a professional archaeologist with Native
American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the
specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any,
identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may
provide professional assistance to the City of Palo Alto,
including the excavation and removal of the human remains. If
the human remains cannot be avoided, and the Most Likely
Descendant requests that the human remains be removed from its
location, the SUMC Project sponsors shall implement removal of
the human remains by a professional archaeologist. The City of
Palo Alto shall verify that the mitigation is complete before the
resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of
where the remains were discovered.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure CR-4.1 provides protocol for LTS
encountering paleontological resources and would reduce the potential
impacts resulting from disruption to unique paleontological resources to a
less-than-significant level.
CR-4.1 Conduct Protocol and Procedures for Encountering
Paleontological Resources. Should paleontological resources be
identified during SUMC Project ground-disturbing activities, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall notify the City and the Stanford
S=Signijicant SU= SignificaJlt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Sufimzary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Smllmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
University Arc~aeologist and cease operations in the vicinity
of the potential resource until a qualified professional
paleontologist can complete the following actions when
appropriate:
• Identify and evaluate paleontological resources by intense
field survey where impacts are considered high;
• Assess effects on identified resources; and
• Consult with the City of Palo Alto and the Stanford
University Archaeologist.
Before operations in the vicinity of the potential resource resume,
the SUMC Project sponsors shall comply with the
paleontologist's recommendations to address any significant
adverse effects where determined by the City of Palo Alto to be
feasible. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed· by
the consulting paleontologist, the SUMC Project sponsors shall
consult with the Stanford University Archaeologist and the City
to determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light
of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, cost
policies and land use assumptions, and other considerations. If
avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g. data
recovery) shall be instituted to avoid a significant impact. Work
may proceed in other parts of the SUMe Sites while mitigation
for paleontological resources is completed.
S=Significant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-63
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
CR-5. Cumulative Impacts on Historic Resources. The
SUMC Project, in combination with other past, current, and
probable future development in the City, would cause a
substantial change in the significance of the City's historic
resources and thus have a significant cumulative impact. The
SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact would
be cumulatively considerable.
CR-6. Cumulative Impacts on Prehistoric and/or
Archaeological Resources and Human Remains. The SUMC
Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable
probable future development, could cause a substantial change
in the significance. of prehistoric and/or archaeological
resources or human remains and thus contribute to a significant
cumulative impact. The SUMC Project is conservatively
assumed to have a considerable contribution.
CR-7. Cumulative Impacts on Paleontological Resources.
The SUMC Project, in combination with other reasonably
foreseeable probable future development where the
Pleistocene-age creek bed may occur, could have a significant
cumulative impact. Such an impact would occur if the buried
Pleistocene-age creek bed is exposed in lengths greater than
approximately 100 feet (or a sufficient length to support
detailed hydrological study) and if such deposits contain
substantially intact skeletons of extinct species. These
conditions would represent a major find for regional
paleontology. In the case that significant paleontological
finds-such as stretches of buried Pleistocene-age creek bed
greater than 100 feet in length and containing intact skeletons
of extinct species-are made on the SUMC Site, then the
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
S
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-64
Impact
Significance
\Vith
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
MITIGATION MEASURES. Due to the demolition of the Stone Building SU
complex, the SUMC Project's contribution would remain cumulatively
considerable as this impact cannot be avoided. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures CR-1.2 through CR-1.4 would reduce the SUMC
Project's contribution to the cumulative impact, but not to a less than
cumulatively considerable leveL
MITIGATION MEASURES. Compliance with Mitigation Measures CR-2.1 LTS
and CR-3.1 would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to the
cumulative impact to a less than cumulatively considerable level.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Compliance with Mitigation Measure CR-4.1 LTS
would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact to
a less than cumulatively considerable level.
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact on
paleontological resources could be cumulatively considerable.
BR-l. Impacts on Special-Status Plant or Wildlife Resources.
The SUMC Project could have a significant impact on special
status wildlife resources.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures BR-1.1 through BR-1.5,
below, to be implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors, would reduce the
SUMC Project's impact on special-status bats and Cooper's hawk to a less-
than-significant level. .
BR-l.l Conduct Pre-Demolition Survey. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall retain a qualified biologist ("bat biologist") to conduct a
pre-construction survey for roosting bats in trees to be removed
or pruned and structures to be removed. If no roosting bats are
found, no further mitigation is required. If a bat roost is found,
the SUMC Project sponsors shall implement the following
measures to avoid impacts on roosting bats.
BR-l.2 Avoid Roosting Areas. If non-breeding bats are found in a tree or
structure to be removed, the individuals shall be safely evicted,
under the direction of a qualified bat biologist, by opening the
roosting area to allow airflow through the cavity. Demolition
should then follow at least one night after initial disturbance for
airflow. This action should allow bats to leave during darkness,
thus increasing their chance of finding new roosts with a
minimum of potential predation during daylight.
If active maternity roosts are found in structures that will be
removed as part of project construction, demolition of that
structure shall commence before maternity colonies form
(generally before March 1) or after young are flying (generally
by July 31).
S=Signijicant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
S-65
Impacts
NI = No Impact
S-66
Table 8-4
8UMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
BR-l.3 Develop and Employ Bat Nest Box Plan. If special-status bats are
found in structures to be removed, the SUMC Project sponsors
shall develop a bat nest box plan for the SUMC Sites employing
state-of-the-art bat nest box tec1mology. The design and
placement of nest boxes shall be reviewed by a qualified bat
biologist.
BR-l.4 Avoid Tree Removal During Nesting Season. Tree removal or
pruning shall be avoided from February 1 through August 31, the
nesting period for Cooper's hawk, to the extent feasible'. If no
tree removal or pruning is proposed during the nesting period, no
surveys are required.
BR-l.5 Protect Cooper's Hawk in the Event of Nest Discovery. If tree
removal or pruning is unavoidable during the nesting season, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct
a survey for nesting Cooper's hawk within tive days prior to the
proposed start of construction. If active Cooper's hawk nests are
not present, project activities can take place as scheduled. The
qualified biologist shall visit the site daily to search for nests
until all nesting substrates are removed. This will avoid impacts
to Cooper's hawk that may have moved into the site and initiated
nest-building after the start of tree removal activities.
Additionally, if more than 5 days elapses between the initial nest
search and the tree removal, it is possible for new birds to move
into the construction area and begin building a nest. If there is
such a delay, another nest survey shall be conducted. If any
active Cooper's hawk nests are detected. the SUMC Project
sponsors shall delay removal of the applicable tree or shrub while
the nest is occupied with eggs or young who have not fledged. A
qualified biologist shall monitor any occupied nest to determine
when the Cooper's hawk nest is no longer used.
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford Medical Center Facilities ReneJ.l'al and Replacement Draft EIR -Summa/)I
Table 8-4
8UMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
BR-2. Loss of Riparian or Other Sensitive Habitats,
Including Wetlands as Defined by Section· 404 of the Clean
Water Act. Construction of the SUMC Project would have a
less-than-significant impact on riparian or other sensitive
habitat resources, including wetlands.
BR-3. Interference with the Movement of Any Native
Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or with
Established Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors,
or Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites. The SUMC Project
would have no impact on the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species, or use of native resident
or migratory wi1dlife corridors, but could impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites and thus result in a significant
impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
NI = No Impact LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures BR-3.1 and BR-3.2, below,
would reduce the SUMC Project's impact on nesting migratory birds to a
less-than-significant level ..
BR-3.1 Avoid Tree Removal During Nesting Season. Tree or shrub
removal or pruning shall be avoided from February 1 through
August 31, the bird-nesting period, to the extent feasible. If no
tree or shrub removal or pruning is proposed during the nesting
period, no surveys are required.
BR-3.2 Protect Birds in the Event of Nest Discovery. If tree and shrub
removal or pruning is unavoidable during the nesting season, the
Sl.JMC Project sponsors shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct
a survey for nesting raptors and other birds within five days prior
to the proposed start of construction. If active nests are not
present, SUMC Project activities can take place as scheduled.
The qualified biologist shall visit the site daily to search for nests
unti1 all nesting substrates are removed. These procedures would
avoid impacts to any birds that may have moved into the sites
and initiated nest-building after the start of tree and shrub
removal activities. Additionally, if more than five days elapses
between the initial nest search and the vegetation removal, it is
possible for new birds to move into the construction area and
begin building a nest. If there is s.uch a delay, another nest
survey shall be conducted. If any active nests are detected. the
SUMC Project sponsors shall delay removal of the applicable
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable ..
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR SumllUlry
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
S-67
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
BR-4. Result in a Substantial Adverse Effect on any
Protected Tree as Defined by the City of Palo Alto's Tree
Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10). The
SUMC Project could have a significant impact on Protected
Trees.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI No Impacf LTS Less.than-Signijicant
S-68
Mitigation Measures
tree or shrub while the nest is occupied with eggs or young who
have not fledged. A qualified biologist shall monitor any
occupied nest to determine when the nest is no longer used.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures BR-4.1 through BR-4.5,
below, to be implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors, would reduce the
SUMC Project's impact on Protected Trees. In addition, Mitigation
Measure BR-4.6 would require minor SUMC Project site plan adjustments
to avoid removal of some biologically and aesthetically significant Protected
Trees. However, the new Hospital District under the SUMC Project would
allow the removal of up to 48 Protected Trees that are protected under the
Municipal Code. In addition, minor modifications to the SUMC Project
site plans would not be able to avoid the nine biologically and aesthetically
significant Protected Trees in the Kaplan Lawn area. Therefore, the SUMC
Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to Protected
Trees.
BR-4.1 Prepare a Tree' Preservation Report for all Trees to be Retained.
An updated tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR)
prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted for review and
acceptance by the City Urban Forester. For reference clarity,
the tree survey shall include (list and field tag) all existing trees
within the SUMC Sites, including adjacent trees overhanging the
SUMC Sites. The approved TPR shall be implemented in
including mandatory inspections and monthly reporting to City
Urban Forester. The TPR shall be based on latest SUMC plans
and anlended as needed to address activity or within the drip line
area of any existing tree to be preserved, including incidental
work (utilities trenching, street work, lighting, irrigation, etc.)
that may affect the health of a preserved tree. The SUMC
Project shall be modified to address recommendations identified
to reduce impacts to existing ordinance-regulated trees. The
S = Signijicant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Rene'wal andReplacement Draft EIR Summary
25
Impacts
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the Tree
Preservation Ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
8.10.030, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00,
4.00 and 6.30.25 To avoid improvements that may be detrimental
to the health of regulated trees, the TPR shall review the SUMC
Project sponsors' landscape plan to ensure the new landscape is
consistent with Tree Technical ManuaL Section 5.45 and
Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks.
BR-4.2 Prepare a Solar Access Study (SAS) of Short and Long Term
Effects on Protected Oaks. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
prepare a SAS of Short and Long Term Effects on Protected
Oaks. The SAS shall be prepared by a qualified expert team
(horticulturalist, architect designer, consulting arborist) capable
of determining effects. if any, to foliage, health, disease
susceptibWty and also prognosis for longevity. The SAS shall
provide alternative massing scenarios to provide sufficient solar
access and reduce shading detriment at different thresholds of
tree health/decline, as provided for in the SAS. The SAS
adequacy shall be subject to peer review as determined necessary
by the City. The SAS design alternatives shall be the subject of
specific discussion at all levels of ARB, Planning Commission,
City Council, and public review in conjunction with the SUMC
Project sponsors, the City Urban Forester, and Director of the
Planning and Community Environment Department, until a final
design is approved.
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 8.10.030 and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30 is available at:
http://www .cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urban _canopy .asp.
NI No Impact LTS Less-thall-Significant S=Significant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR SumlJUlry S-69
Impacts
NI Nolmpacr
S-70
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS Less-than-Significant
Mitigation Measures
BR-4.3 Prepare a Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan for Any Protected
Tree Proposed for Relocation and Retention. Because of
inherent mortality associated with the process of moving mature
trees, a Tree Relocation and Maintenance Plan (TRMP) shall be
prepared subject to Urban Forester's approval. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall submit a TRMP to determine the
feasibility of moving the Protected Trees to an appropriate
location on site. Feasibility shall consider current site and. tree
conditions. a tree's ability to tolerate moving, relocation
measures, optimum needs for the new location, aftercare,
irrigation, and other long-term needs.
If the relocated trees do not survive after a period of five years,
the tree canopy shall be replaced with a tree of equivalent size or
security d.eposit value. The TRMP shall be inclusive of the
following 1Illmmum information: appropriate irrigation,
monitoring inspections, post relocation tree maintenance, and for
an annual arborist report of the condition of the relocated trees.
If a tree is disfigured, leaning with supports needed, in decline
with a dead top or dieback of more than 25 percent, the tree shall
be considered a total loss and replaced in kind and size. The
final annual arborist report shall serve as the basis for return of
the Tree Security Deposit (see Mitigation Measure BR-4.4,
below, for a discussion of the Tree Security Deposit).
BR-4.4 Provide a Tree Preservation Bond/Security Guarantee. The
natural tree resources on the SUMC Site include significant
Protected Trees and those that provide neighborhood screening,
including two trees proposed for relocation. Prior to building
permit submittal, the Tree Security Deposit for the total value of
the relocated trees, as referenced in the Tree Technical Manual,
Section 3.26, Security Deposits, shall be posted to the City
S = Significant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement DraftEIR -Summary
Stanford
Table S-4
SUMCProject Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
With
Impacts
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Mitigation
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Revenue Collections in a form acceptable by the City Attorney.
As a security measure, the SUMC ~roject sponsors shall be
subject to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOD) between the
City of Palo Alto and the SUMC Project sponsors describing a
tree retention amount, list of trees. criteria and timeline for
return of security 1 and conditions as cited in the Record of Land
Use Action for the SUMC Project. The SUMC Project sponsors
and SUMC Project arborist, to be retained by the SUMC Project
sponsors, shall coordinate with the City Urban Forester to
determine the amount of bonding required to guarantee the
protection and/or replacement of the regulated trees on the site
during construction and within five years after occupancy. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall bond for 150 percent of the value
for the relocated trees, and 50 percent of the value of the
remaining trees to be protected during construction (as identified
in the revised and final approved Tree Protection Report). The
SUM C Project sponsors shall provide an appraisal of the trees
with the proposed level of bonding in a tree value table to be
reviewed and accepted by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment with the description of each tree by
number, value, and total combined value of aU the trees to be
retained. A return of the guarantee shall be subject to an annual
followed by a final tree assessment report on all the relocated and
retained trees from the SUMC Project arborist, as approved by
the City Urban Forester, five years following final inspection for
occupancy, to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and
Community Environment Department.
BR-4.5 ProFide Optimum Tree Replacement Jor Loss of Publicly-Owned
. Trees Regulated Tree Category. There are many publicly owned
trees growing in the right-of-way along various frontages (Welch
Road. Pasteur Drive, Quarry Road, Sand Hill Road, etc.).
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR SumllullY S-71
26
S-72
Impacts
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
These trees provide an important visual and aesthetic value to the
streetscape and represent a significant investment from years of
public resources to maintain them. As mitigation to offset the
net benefits loss from removal of mature trees, and to minimize
the future years to achieve parity with visual and infrastructure
service benefits (C02 reduction, extended asphalt life, water
runoff management, etc.) currently provided by the trees, the
new public trees on all roadway frontages shall be provided with
best practices design and materials~ including, but not limited to,
the following elements:
• Consistency with the City of Palo Alto Public Works
Department Street Tree Management Plan, in consultation
with Canopy, Inc. 26
• Provide adequate room for natural tree canopy growth and
adequate root growing volume. For large trees, a target goal
of 1,200 cubic feet of soil shall be used.
• For pedestrian and roadway areas that are to include tree
planting or adjacent to existing trees to be retained. utilize
City-approved best management practices for sustainability
products, such as permeable ADA sidewalk surfaces, Silva
Cell base support planters, engineered soil mix base, and
other advantage methods.
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
Canopy, Inc. is a non-profit organization that advises the City with regards to public trees. The City typically interfaces between appli~ants and the
Canopy, Inc., but it is recommended that the SUMC Project sponsors consult with Canopy, mc. as well. "
NI No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
BR-S. Conflict with any Applicable Habitat Conservation
Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. The SUMC
Project would have no impact on any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.
BR-6. Cumulative Impacts on Special-Status Wildlife
Resources. The SUMC Project, in combination with other
foreseeable development, would have a less-than-significant
impact on Special-Status Plant Resources.
BR-7. Cumulative Loss of Riparian or Other Sensitive
Habitats. Including Wetlands as Defmed by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Cumulative impacts on riparian or other
sensitive habitats could be significant. However, the SUMC
Project's contribution to the cumulative impact would be less
than cumulatively considerable.
BR-S. Cumulative Interference with the Movement of Any
Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or With
Established Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors,
or Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites. Cumulative
interference with movement of resident or migratory species or
with established migratory corridors could be significant.
However, the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative
impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
NI
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
BR-4.6 Implement Minor Site Modifications to Preserve Biologically and
Aesthetically Significant Protected Trees. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall design and implement modifications to building
design, hardscape, and landscape to incorporate the below and
above ground area needed to preserve as many biologically and
aesthetically significant Protected Trees as possible.
None required.
None required.
.None required.
None required.
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-73
Table 8-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
BR-9. Cumulative Impacts on Protected Tree as defined by
the City of Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.10). Cumulative impacts on
Protected Trees would · be significant. Because the SUMC
Project would result in the loss of Protected Trees, the SUMC
Project's contribution would cumulatively considerable.
GS 1. Exposure to Seismic-Related Hazards. The SUMC
Project would have a less-than-significant potential to expose
people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known
earthquake fault, strong seismic groundshaking, seismic
related ground failure (including liquefaction), landslides,
expansive soil,. or major geologic hazards that cannot be
mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and
seismic safety techniques .
GS 2. Exposure to Other Geotechnical Hazards. The SUMC
Project would have a less-than-significant potential to be
located on geologic units or on soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project and
potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
as 3. Cause Substantial Erosion or Siltation. The SUMC
Project would . have a less-than-significant potential to cause
substantial erosion or siltation.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
S-74
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures BR-4.1 through BR-4.6
would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on
Protected Trees. However, removal of some Protected Trees, including
those identified by the City as being biologically and aesthetically
significant Protected Trees, would be unavoidable. As such. the
contribution of the SUMC Project to cumulative Protected Tree removal
would remain cumulatively considerable.
None required ..
None required.
None required.
S = Significant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
SU
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Cellter Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project SWllmary of Impacts and Mitigation l\leasures
Impacts
GS-4. Cumulative Exposure to Substantial Erosion or
Siltation. The SUMC Project, in combination with other
foreseeable development in the San Francisquito Creek
Watershed, would not substantially increase erosion or siltation
because of State, federal, and local runoff and erosion
prevention requirements. As a result, the cumulative impact
would be less than significant.
HW-l. Flood Risk and Flood Flows. The SUMC Project
would have no impact on flood risk or flood flows.
HW-2. Groundwater Recharge and Local Water Table. The
SUMC Project would have a less-than-significant impact on
groundwater recharge and the local groundwater table level.
HW-3. Groundwater Quality. The SUMC Project could have
a significant impact on groundwater quality during
construction.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
NI
LTS
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
None required.
None required.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure HW-3.1. below. would reduce
the SUMC Project's impact on groundwater quality to a less-than
significant level .
HW-3.1 Develop a Work Plan for any UnknOlt'fl Contaminated Sites.
During construction, if suspected contaminated soil,
undocumented underground tanks, hazardous materials pipelines,
or other evidence of potential hazardous materials are
discovered, construction activities shall cease and the SUMC
Project sponsors shall prepare a workplan to determine the
potential risk to human and ecological health. The workplan
shall be prepared by a Registered Environmental Assessor and in
compliance . with the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) guidelines and the National Oil and Hazardous
S = Significant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
LTS
S-75
Table S-4
SUMC Project Sunnnary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HW-4. Stormwater Runoff and Erosion. The SUMC Project
would have a less-than-significant impact on stormwater runoff
and erosion.
HW -5. Flooding and Stormwater Conveyance Capacity. The
SUMC Project would have a less-than-significant impact on
flooding and stonnwater conveyance capacity.
HW-6. Streambank Instability. The SUMC Project would
have a less-than-significant impact on streambank instability.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS Less-than-Significant
S-76
Mitigation Measures
Substances Contingency Plan (the "National Contingency Plan"
The SUMC Project sponsors, or their representative, shall be
responsible for submitting the workplan for the DTSC's review
and approval prior to implementing field activities. The workplan
must include all information necessary for implementing field
work. The workplan shall include a Site Safety Plan (SSP) and a
Sampling Work Plan (SWP). The SSP must be submitted to the
DTSC in conjunction with the submittal of the SWP. The
objective of the SSP is to ensure protection of the investigative
team as well as the general public during sampling activities.
If risk to .human or ecological health is identified, the SUMC
Project sponsors shall prepare and implement a Removal ~ction'
Workplan (SB 1706 Stats. 1994, Chapter 441) (non-emergency
removal action or remedial action at a hazardous substance
. release site which is projected to cost less than $1,000.000) that
is consistent with the NCP.
None required.
None required.
None required.
SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford Universitv Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HW-7. Degradation of Surface Water Quality. The SUMC
Project would have a less-than-significant impact on
degradation of surface water
HW-S. Dam Failure Inundation. The SUMC Project would
have a less-than-significant impact regarding dam failure
inundation.
HW-9. Violation of Any Water Quality Standards or Waste
Discharge Requirements (WDRs). The SUMC Project would
have a less-than-significant impact regarding . water
standards or WDRs.
HW -10. Cumulative Groundwater Recharge and Local Water
Table. The SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably
foreseeable probable future development, would have a less
than-significant cumulative considerable impact on
groundwater recharge and the local groundwater table.
HW-ll. Cumulative Groundwater Quality Impacts. The
SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable
probable future development, would have a less-than
significant cumulative impact on groundwater quality.
HW -12. Cumulative Stormwater Runoff and Erosion. The
SUMC ProjecL in combination with reasonably foreseeable.
probable future development, would have a less-than
significant cumulative impact on stormwater runoff and
erosion.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
None required.
None required.
N one required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Mitigation Measures
SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-77
Table S-4
SUMC Project Sunnnary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HW-13. Cumulative Flooding and Stormwater Conveyance.
The SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably
foreseeable probable future development, would have a less
than-significant cumulative impact on stormwater runoff and
erosion.
HW-14. Streanlbank Instability. The SUMC Project, in
combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future
development, would have a less-than-significant cumulative
impact on streambank instability.
HW-15. Degradation of Surface Water Quality. The SUMC
Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable probable
future development. would have a less-than-significant
cumulative impact on degradation of surface water quality.
HW-16. Dam Failure Inundation. The SUMC Project, in
combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future
development, would have a less-than-significant cumulative
impact regarding dam failure inundation.
HW-17. Violation of Any Water Quality Standards or Waste
Discharge Requirements (WDRs). The SUMC Project, in
combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future
development, w()uld have a less-than-significant cumulative
impact on violation of water quality standards and WDRs.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
S-78
Mitigation Measures
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S = Sign ificant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-I. Exposure from Hazardous Materials Use, Handling,
and Disposal. The SUMC Project would not substantially
increase exposure from hazardous materials use, handling, and
disposal during operation.
HM-2. Demolition and Construction-Related Hazardous
Materials Disturbance. The SUMC Project could release
hazardous materials in existing buildings.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of the mitigation measure below
would reduce impacts from exposure to asbestos containing materials to a
less-than-significant level at the SUMC Sites by ensuring that all asbestos
containing materials are identified and removed prior to structural
modification andlordemolition. -
HM-2.1 Conduct Asbestos Survey at the SUMC Sites. Prior to building
renovation and/or demolition, an asbestos survey shall be
performed on all areas of the building anticipated to be
demolished and/or renovated. This survey shall be performed by
a licensed asbestos abatement contractor. In the event that
asbestos is identified in the buildings proposed to be demolished
and/or renovated, all asbestos containing materials shall be
removed and appropriately disposed of by a licensed asbestos
abatement contractor. A site health and safety plan, to ensure
worker safety, in compliance with OSHA requirements (8 CCR
5208) shall be developed by the SUMC Project sponsors and in
place prior to commencing renovation or demolition work on
portions of buildings containing asbestos.
S=Signijicam SU = Signijicallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draff EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
S-79
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-3. Exposure to Contaminated Soil and/or Groundwate~
DUling Construction. The SUMC Project could expose
construction personnel and public to existing contaminated
groundwater and/or soil.
Impact
Significance
Without
l\<fitigation
S
NI No LTS = Less-than-Sigr:ijicant
S-80
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
MITIGATION MEASURES. With implementation of Mitigation Measure LTS
HM-3.1 through HM-3.4, below, the significant impact on construction
personnel and the public due to exposure to contaminated soil and/or
groundwater at the SUMC Sites would be reduced to less-than,..significant
levels. In addition~ Mitigation MeasUre HW -3.1 in Section 3.11,
Hydrology, would require the SUMC Project sponsors to develop a work
plan for any unknown contaminated site, 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.
HM-3.1 Perfann a Phase II ESAjar the 701 WelcJz Site. A Phase II ESA
shall be performed at 701 Welsh Site Building B. The Phase II
ESAshall include sampling and analysis of soil, groundwater,
wastewater, and residues on surfaces such as laboratories
countertops, fume hoods, sinks, sumps, floors, and drain lines.
The County DEH and PAFD shall be notified by the Project
sponsors if contamination is discovered. If contamination is
discovered, the SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare a site
remediation assessment that (a) specifies measures to protect
workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards
and (b) certifies that the proposed remediation measures would
clean up contaminants, dispose of the wastes, and protect public
health in accordance with federal, State, and local requirements.
Site excavation activities shall not proceed until the site
remediation has been approved by the County DEH and
implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors. Additionally, the
Site Remediation Assessment shall be subject to review and
approval by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. All appropriate
agencies shall be notified.
S=Signijicant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Rene"waf and Replacement Draft ElR -Summary
Impacts
NI = No Impact
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS = Less-thau-Significant
Mitigation Measures
HM-3.2 . Excavate Contaminated Soilfrom the 703 Welch Site. For the 4-
to 9-square-foot area near every discharge point from the
building, soil samples shall be performed and contaminated soil
excavated, removed, and transported to an approved disposal
facility in compliance with OSHA requirements. The County
DEH and the PAFD shall be notified by the SUMC Project
sponsors if contamination is encountered during construction.
HM-3.3 Conduct a Soil Vapor Program at the Hoover Pavilion Site. A
qualified consultant, under the SUMC Project sponsors'
direction, shall undertake the following activities:
• Remove all buried underground storage tanks from the
property after sheds and storage buildings on the Hoover
Pavilion Site have been demolished:
• To the extent necessary, additional soil sampling shall be
collected to determine health risks and to develop disposal
criteria;
• If warranted based on soil sampling, a human health risk
assessment shall be ptepared and implemented to determine
potential for impacts on construction workers as well as to
develop measures to ensure it is safe to redevelop the
Hoover Pavilion Site within engineering controls (e.g., SVE
or vapor barriers); and
• To the extent required based upon the results of soil
sampling and the results of a health risk assessment (if
applicable), a Site Health and Safety Plan to ensure worker
safety in compliance with OSHA requirements shall be
developed by the Project sponsors, and in places prior to
commencing work on any contaminated site.
S = Significant SU= Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
S-8J
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-4. Hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal Resulting
in Increased Exposure Risk. The SUMC Project would not
substantially increase exposure risk related to hazardous waste
generation.
HM-S. Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous
Materials Within One-Quarter Mile of a School. The SUMC
Project would not emit or handle hazardous materials within
one-quarter mile of schooL
HM-6. Construct a School on a Property that is Subject to
Hazards from Hazardous Materials Contamination, Emissions
or Accidental Release. The SUMC Project would not construct
a school that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
NI
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
S-82
Mitigation Measures
The SUMC Project sponsors shall cooperate with the County
DEH to proceed with closure of the Hoover Pavilion Site.
HM-3,4 Develop a Site Management Plan for the Hoover Pavilion Site.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare a site remediation
assessment that (a) specifies measures to protect workers and the
public from exposure to potential site hazards. including hazards
from remediation itself, and (b) certifies that the proposed
remediation measures would clean up contaminants, dispose of
the wastes, and protect public health in accordance with federal,
State, and local requirements. Site excavation activities shall not
proceed until the site remediation has been approved by the
County DEH and implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors.
Additionally, the Site Remediation Assessment shall be subject to
review and approval by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. All
appropriate agencies shall be notified.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities.Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
~
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-7. Occur on a Site Included on the Cortese List, a List of
Hazardous Materials Sites. The SUMC Project would result in
construction of facilities on a site included on the Cortese List.
HM-8. Wildland Fire Risk. The SUMC Project would not
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires.
HM-9. Occur on a Site Located Within an Airport Land Use
Plan or Within Two Miles of a Public Airport, and Result in a
Safety Hazard. The SUMC Project would not be located
within an Airport Land Use Plan or within 2 miles of a Public
Airport.
HM-I0. Impairment of Emergency Plans. The SUMC Project
could impair implementation or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
S
NI
NI
S
NI=No LTS Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURES. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HM-3.3
and HM-3.4, which involve the implementation of a soil vapor program and
development of a site management plan, would reduce the potential for
exposure to hazardous materials at the Hoover Pavilion Site to less-than
significant levels. Additionally, compliance with cunent federal, State and
local regulations would help prevent any further exposure to hazardous
materials.
None required.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure HM-IO.l requires advance
coordination with the City of Palo Alto on construction routes or roadway
closures. This measure, together with Mitigation Measures TR-l.l,
TR-l.4 through TR-1.6, and TR-1.8, 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 (OptiC om) at all
intersections significantly impacted by the SUMC Project. Mitigation
Measure TR-9.1 would reduce impacts on emergency access during
operation. Implementation of these measures would reduce the SUMC
Project' s impact to emergency evacuation and response plans to a less-than
significant level.
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
LTS
N/A
N/A
LTS
S-83
Table S-4
SUMC Project SUlllDlary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
HM-ll. Cumulative Handling, Storage, Disposal, and
Transport of Hazardous Materials. Cumulative development
would increase handling, storage, disposal, and transport
within the SUMC Sites and adjacent areas. However,
cumulative development would .be subject to applicable federa],
State, and local regulations that would govern these activities.
As a result, the cumulative impact would be less than
significant.
HM-12. Cumulative Disturbance of Hazardous Materials from
Construction. The SUMC Project and adjacent development
could result in cumulative release of hazardous materials
during construction, a significant cumulative impact. The
SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact would
be considerable.
HM-13.Cumulative Exposure to Contaminated Soil and/or
Groundwater, and from Cortese List Sites. The SUMC Project
and adjacent development could result in cumulative
disturbance of contaminated soils, release of hazardous
materials during construction, a significant cumulative impact.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
S
NI No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-84
Mitigation Measures
HM-IO.l Coordinate COllstmction Activities with the City of Palo Alto.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall provide to the City planned
construction routes, roadway closures, and access and closures
schedules. This information shall be provided to the City at least
two weeks in advance of the planned access and closures. The
City shall coordinate this information among affected emergency
service providers, including the City's Fire and Police
Departments, and private ambulance services, so that alternative
routes could be planned and announced prior to the scheduled
access and closures, as deemed necessary by the City.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURE. Mitigation Measure HM-2.1, involving measures
to reduce exposure of persons to hazardous materials (such as asbestos),
would reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to a less-than-significant
level
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure HM-3.2, which involves
remediation of known site contamination at the 703 Welch Road site, would
reduce the SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact to less
than considerable. Also, Mitigation Measures HM-3.1, HM-3.3, and HM-
3.4, involving investigations at other SUMC areas and preparation of the
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
LTS
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR S;1Jmmnrll
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
The SUMC Project's contribution to the cumulative impact
would be considerable.
HM-14. Cumulative Exposure of Schools to Hazardous
Materials and Waste. The SUMC Project, in combination with
reasonably foreseeable probable future development. would
have a less than cumulatively considerable impact on exposure
of schools to hazardous materials.
HM-15. Cumulative Impairment of Emergency Plans.
Cumulative development could impair implementation or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or
evacuation plan. The SUMC Project's contribution to the
cumulative impact would be considerable.
PH-I. Population Growth. The SUMC Project would
increase on-site employment and visitors and thus indirectly
induce housing demand and population growth; however, the
percentage of regional housing demand resulting from the
SUMC Project would be relatively small in . comparison with
projected housing growth in the region, and would compdse a
less-than-significant environmental impact.
PH-2. Displacement of Existing Housing or Residents. The
SUMC Project would not displace existing housing or residents
because the SUMC Project would involve infill of currently
developed sites that do not contain housing. Thus, the SUMC
Project would result in no impact with respect to displacement
of housing or residents.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
S
LTS
NI
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
Site Management Plan for remediation activities, would further ensure that
any other risks associated with the SUMC Project would be less than
cumulatively considerable.
None required.
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measures HM-IO.l, above, and
TR-l.l, TR-l.4 through TR-1. 6, and TR -1. 8 would reduce the SUM C
Project's contribution to cumulative impacts on emergency evacuation and
response plans to less than cumulatively considerable.
None required.
N one required.
S = Significant SU = Signijicallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
LTS
N/A
N/A
S-85
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
PH-3. Impacts on Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio. The
SUMC Project would have an adverse impact 011 the City's
jobs to employed residents ratio because it would exceed the
existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning allowances for the
SUMC Sites and thus require anlendment to the
Comprehensive Plan and rezoning, and it would increase the
City's jobs to employed residents ratio by more than 0.01.
However, this impact is not, itself, an environmental impact.
This impact will result in secondary environmental impacts
relating to additional commute traffic, including the significant
and unavoidable impacts on air quality and climate change, as
identified in Sections 3.5 and 3.6. The present analysis of
impacts to the "jobs to employed residents" ratio is presented
for informational purposes, and for the purpose of identifying
additional mitigation measures for those identified impacts.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
N/A
NI No Impact LTS Less-thall-Significant
S-86
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 N/A
would reduce the impact on the City's jobs to employed residents ratio;
however. such implementation would not fully avoid the SUMC Project's
impact on the jobs to employed residents ratio because (1) the measures
would not guarantee provision of housing units to cover the demand from
the 1,052 households (or 8 percent thereof), and (2) due to the various
factors that people consider in choosing where to live, it cannot be
ascertained that the 1,810 workers would choose to live in Palo Alto. Due
to the high concentration of jobs in Palo Alto, it is possible that a strong
affordable housing program would result in reduced traffic congestion,
vehicle miles traveled, and greenhouse gas emissions.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 is not directly required in
order to mitigate a significant environmental impact, but rather should be
considered as possible additional mitigation for Impacts AQ-2, AQ-7,
CC-l, and CC-2, as discussed in Section Air Quality, and Section 3.6,
Climate Change, of this EIR. However, it should be stressed that these
measures are presented here only in conceptual terms, and the City may
fmd that some or all of them are not feasible for various legal, practical, or
other reasons. As such, Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 is presented for
informational purposes, and to ensure that all possible options for
mitigation of these impacts are adequately considered.
PH-3.1 Reduce the Impacts on the Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio .. In
order to reduce the SUMC Project's impacts on the City's jobs to
employed residents ratio, one or more of the following measures
shall be implemented by both the City and the SUMC Project
sponsors:
• The City shall explore amending the Zoning Code to permit
more residential uses, particularly multifamily residential
use;
S = Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Dralt EIR Summary?
Table S-4
SUMC Project Sunnnary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
PS-l. Impacts Related to Fire Protection and Emergency
Medical Facilities. The SUMC Project would require an
increased level of fire and emergency services. However, the
increased level of fire and emergency services would not be
large enough to trigger the need for construction of new
facilities, which could adversely affect the physical
environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
Mitigation Measures
• The SUMe Project sponsors shall ensure that a specified
number of housing units in the County shall be dedicated to
SUMC employees;
• The City shall amend the Zoning Code to remove the
hospital exemption from payment of the affordable housing
fee;
• The City shall impose an additional ad hoc housing fee on
development to ensure development of required affordable
housing. The amount of the fee shall be based on the cost of
the additional affordable housing units induced by the SUMC
Project as well as the cost of the General Fund subsidy
contribution to the existing housing impact fee; and/or .
• The City sball provide an inclusionary housing requirement
in the newly created Hospital District. The requirement
shall provide a number of options for development of
additional housing with an emphasis on affordable housing.
None required.
S = Significant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SumllulIY
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
S-87
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation l\rleasures
Impacts
PS-2. Impacts from Police Protection Facilities. The SUMC
Project would require an increased level of police services.
However, the increased level of police services would not be
large enough to trigger the need for construction of new
facilities, which could adversely affect the physical
environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
PS-3. Impacts Related to School Facilities. An increase in
students, which would require school expansions, would result
as a tertiary impact of the SUMC Project, since increased
employment from the SUMC Project could induce additional
housing units within the City. Both the SUMC Project and
induced housing projects would be subject to SB 50 School
Impact Fees, which would mitigate impacts to less than
significant.
PS-4. Impacts Related to Construction of New or Altered
Parks and Recreation Facilities. The SUMC Project would not
result in the construction or expansion of new parks or fields,
which would in turn result in adverse environmental impacts.
The SUMC Project would be required to pay a City
COInmunity Facility Fee. which would be used to fund new.
parks or an alteration to an existing park, and would mitigate
impacts to less than significant.
PS-5. Deterioration of Park and Recreation Facilities.
Increased recreational demand from SUMC Project employees
could accelerate the physical deterioration of the City's parks
and fields. The SUMC Project would be required to pay a
City Community Facility Fee, which reduce or avoid any such
deterioration, and would mitigate impacts to less than
significant.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI No Impact LTS = Less-than-Significant
S-88
Mitigation Measures
None required.
None required.
N one required.
N one required.
S=Significant SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A'
N/A
Stanford 1nilll'1·.~itv Medical Center Facilities Rene'wal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table 5-4
5UMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
PS-6. Cumulative Fire Protection Demand and Emergency
Medical Facilities. Cumulative growth would increase demand
for fire protection and emergency response services within the
P AFD' s service area; however, no new P AFD facilities would
need to be constructed. Cumulative impacts would be less
than significant.
PS-7. Cumulative Police Protection Demand. Cumulative
growth in the City could necessitate construction of new or
expanded police facilities in order to meet increased demand
for services. Construction of new or expanded police facilities
could result in significant environmental impacts. As such,
cumulative impacts related to police service could be
significant. However the SUMC Project's contribution to the
cumulative need for new or expanded police facilities would be
less than cumulatively considerable.
PS-S. Cumulative School Demand. Cumulative
development in the City can be expected to necessitate
expansion of school facilities, which could have adverse
physical environmental impacts. This cumulative inlpact is
conservatively assumed to be signlficant, although the SUMC
Project's contribution to this cumulative impact would be less
than cumulatively considerable.
PS-9 Cumulative Demand for Parks and Recreation
Facilities, and for New Parks. Cumulative impacts related to
park deterioration would be less than significant due to the
City'S Community Facility Fee. Cumulative growth in the
City would necessitate acquisition or development of new
parklands, which could result in significant environmental
impacts; however, the contribution of the SUMC Project to
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS Less-than-Significant
None required.
N one required.
None required.
None required.
S=Significant
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Mitigation Measures
SU = Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-89
Table S-4
SUMC Project Swnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
this cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively
considerable.
UT-l. Water Demand. The SUMC Project would result in a
less-than-significant water supply impact because it would not
result in the need for new or expanded entitlements for water
supplies. and would not require expansion or construction of
water facilities.
UT-2. Wastewater Generation. The SUMC Project would
result in a less-than-significant wastewater impact because it
would not exceed treatment requirements of the RWQCB.
would not significantly increase use of the wastewater disposal
system, and would not require expansion or construction of
wastewater collection or treatment facilities.
UT-3. Stormwater Generation. The SUMC Project would
have a less-than-significant impact related to stonnwater
collection system capacity because it would not significantly
increase use of the stormwater collection system, and would
not require expansion or construction of new stormwater
facilities.
UT-4. Solid Waste Generation. The SUMC Project would
result in a less-than-significant solid waste impact because it
would be served by landfills with sufficient capacity and, thus,
would not contribute to the need to expand existing or
construct new solid waste disposal facilities.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
S-90
Mitigation Measures
None required.
None required.
None required.
None required.
S=Signijicant SU = Significallt Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Cellter Facilities Rene"wal and Replacement Draft EIR -Summary
Table S-4
SUMC Project Smnmary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
UT-5. Energy Demand. Although the SUMC Project is an
urban infil1 project and would not require the expansion of
natural gas facilities and would use existing utility facilities, it
may require the installation of near-site electrical facilities and
natural gas pipelines to accommodate the projected additional
demand. However, this installation is included in the SUMC
Project and no additional off-site construction relating to
electrical and natural gas facilities would occur. Therefore,
the SUMC Project would have a less-than-significant impact
related to the construction of energy facilities.
UT-6. Cumulative Water Impacts. Since the City has
sufficient water supply to accommodate water demands for
cumulative development up to 2025, new or expanded
entitlements for. water supplies are not necessary. Therefore,
cumulative development would have a less-than-significant
cumulative impact related to water supply.
UT-7. Cumulative Wastewater Impacts. Since the RWQCP
has sufficient capacity to accommodate wastewater generated
by cumulative development up to 2025, implementation of
major facility and infrastructure improvements would not be
necessary. In addition, general replacement and maintenance
of old wastewater facilities is expected and would comply with
applicable environmental regulations. Therefore, cumulative
development would not have a significant cumulative impact
related to wastewater.
UT-8. Cumulative Stormwater Generation. Cumulative
development in the City of Palo Alto and at Stanford
University could increase the amount of stormwater runoff.
This increased level of runoff may trigger the need for the
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
N one required.
None required.
None required.
N one required.
S = Significant
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -SumllulIY
Mitigation Measures
SU = Signijicallt Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
With
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
S-9J
Table S-4
SUMC Project Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impacts
replacement or maintenance of storm drain facilities.
However, general replacement and maintenance of storm drain
facilities is included in City plans and would comply with
applicable environmental regulations. Theretore, cumulative
development would have a less-than-significant cumulative
impact related to the capacity or deterioration of storm drain
facilities.
UT -9. C\JIDulative Solid Waste Impacts. Cumulative
development would generate solid waste within the permitted
capacity of the SMART Station and Kirby Canyon Landfill.
Cumulative development would not result in substantial
deterioration of solid waste facilities. As such, cumulative
impacts related to solid waste generation would be less than
significant.
UT-IO. Cumulative Demand. Cumulative
development in the City of Palo Alto would consume
additional energy and, therefore, would increase the demand
for energy. The City's electrical and natural gas facilities are
projected to have adequate capacity to serve the City's
increased demand for energy. The increased level of energy
demand may trigger the need for the replacement or
maintenance of energy facilities. However, genera]
replacement and maintenance of energy facilities is expected
and would comply with applicable environmental regulations.
Therefore, cumulative development would not have a
significant cumulative impact related to energy demand and
energy facilities.
Impact
Significance
Without
Mitigation
LTS
LTS
NI = No Impact LTS = Less-thall-Significant
S-92
None required.
None required.
S = Significant
Mitigation Measures
SU= Significant Unavoidable
Impact
Significance
'Vith
Mitigation
N/A
N/A
Stanford University Medical Cellter Facilities Rellel-val and Replacement Dralt EIR Summary
JArlVIS FAY DOPORTO GIBSON,LLP
LAND 11)[ At~D lOCAL GOV[R~JM(:\T LAW
TO: Cara Silver
FROM:
Senior Assistant City Attorney
City of Palo Alto
Rick W. Jarvis
Benjamin P. Pay
475 14th St., Suite 260
Oakland, CA 94612
tviain: 510-238··1400
Fax: 510-238 -1404
www.jarvisfay.com
ATTACHMENT E
RE: Stanford University Medical Center Proposed Expansion -
City· Authority to Impose Employee Trip Reduction Programs
DATE: July 2,2010
The Stanford University Medical Center ("SUMC") has filed an application with the City of Palo
Alto ("the City") to expand its hospital facilities located within the City. This proposed expansion
is referred to herein as "the Project." In order to approve the Project, the City will need to amend
its Comprehensive Plan and rezone the Project site to accommodate the increase in density. The
Draft Environmental Impact Report ("D EIR") for the Proj ect has concluded that it will result in a
significant increase in traffic trips, thus resulting in significant impacts to various intersections both
within and outside the City. The DEIR has also concluded that the increase in traffic will result in
other significant environmental impact relating to air quality and climate change.
To help mitigate these impacts, the DEIR identifies a proposed mitigation measure (TR-2.3) which
would require SUMC to enhance its Travel Demand Management ("TDM") Program, to reduce
vehicle trips by SUMC employees. The TDM Program would include the provision of Caltrain Go
Passes to all SUMC employees. The DEIR concludes that implementation of this mitigation
measure will mitigate to a level of "less than significant" the Project's impacts at several
intersections.
SUMC originally suggested the Go Pass measure, and continues to reaffirm its commitment to
including such a measure, as part of a negotiated development agreement with the City. However,
the question has nonetheless come up whether the City has the independent legal authority to
impose this requirement, and other TDM measures, were SUMC not to otherwise agree to them.
This question has arisen in light of section 40717.9 of the Health and Safety Code (hereafter
"Section 40717.9"), which purports to prohibit "any ... public agency" from "requir[ing] an
employer to implement an employee trip reduction program unless the program is expressly
Re: SUMC Proposed Expansion -City Authority to Impose Employee Trip Reduction Programs
Date: July 2, 2010
Page: 2
required by federal law .. ~ ." This memorandum analyzes that question and concludes that the City
does have such authority, notwithstanding this apparent prohibition.
Before proceeding to the analysis, it should be noted that, even if the City did not have the authority
to impose such TOM measures, it was nonetheless appropriate for the OEIR to identify them as
potential mitigation measures. EIRs are required to identify all potentially feasible mitigation
measures. In this case, TOM measures clearly are "potentially feasible" given SUMC's expressed
willingness to agree to them. Further, even if SUMC were not so willing, and even if Section
40717.9 prohibited the City from imposing them, these TOM measures nonetheless could be
deemed to be "potentially feasible" given the very real possibility that the Legislature could amend
or repeal Section 40717.9 sometime during the buildout of the Project. AB 32 and other recent
legislative enactments suggest that Section 40717.9 is very much contrary to current legislative
policy. Further, the OEIR certainly demonstrates that such TOM measures can be extremely
effective in reducing traffic congestion.
Furthermore, it should also be noted that it is becoming increasingly common for other jurisdictions
to impose TOM requirements on new development to mitigate traffic, air quality, and greenhouse
gas related impacts. For example, the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo
County (C/CAG) requires that if the project generates 100 or more peak: hour trips, "local
jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will reduce the demand for all new peak
hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development." (Revised
C/CAG Guidelines for the Implementation of the Land Use Component of the Congestion
Management Program, September 21,2004.)
Question Presented
Ooes the City have the legal authority to require SUMC to implement an employee trip reduction
program and other TOM measures in order to mitigate the traffic, air quality, and climate change
impacts of the Project prior to approving the Project?
Short Answer
As a charter city, the City has the power to require SUMC to implement an employee trip reduction
program to mitigate traffic congestion, despite the apparent prohibition in Section 40717.9.
Moreover, even if Section 40717.9 applied to the City, it would not prohibit the City from refusing
to amend its Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances to accommodate the Project based upon its
adverse traffic, air quality, and climate change impacts. Thus, the City could effectively and
appropriately require SUMC to agree to such mitigation before granting SUMC the legislative
approvals it needs for the Project to go forward.
Re: SUMC Proposed Expansion City Authority to Impose Employee Trip Reduction Programs
Date: July 2, 2010
Page: 3
Discussion
A. Because Palo Alto is a charter city, it is not barred by Section 40717.9 from requiring
SUMC to implement an employee trip reduction program to mitigate the traffic
congestion impact of the Medical Center's expansion ..
On its face, Section 40717.9 appears to prohibit the City from requiring SUMC to adopt an
employee trip reduction program. It states:
"Notwithstanding Section 40454, 40457,40717,40717.1, or 40717.5, or any other
provision of law, a district, congestion management agency, as defined in
subdivision (b) of Section 65088.1 of the Government Code, or any other public
agency shall not require an employer to implement an employee trip reduction
program unless the program is expressly required by federal law and the elimination
of the program will result in the imposition of federal sanctions, including, but not
limited to, the loss of federal funds for transportation purposes."The City is a "public
agency," and it is not required by federal law to require enlployee trip reduction
programs. Therefore Section 40717.9 appears to prohibit the City from requiring
such programs.-
The California Constitution grants all cities and counties the power (known as the local "police
power") to "make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and
regulations not in conflict with general laws." (Cal. Const. art. 11, § 7.) In addition, the California
Constitution actually allows charter cities legislative authority over purely "municipal affairs" even
if the charter city's legislation is in conflict with general state laws. (See Baron v. City of Los
Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 535.) The City of Palo Alto is a charter city. Thus, the question is
whether Section 40717.9 applies to charter cities such as the City of Palo Alto. We conclude that it
does not.
For a state law to apply to a charter city such as Palo Alto, the state law must be "reasonably related
to the identified statewide concern and narrowly tailored to avoid infringing legitimate municipal
affairs." (City of Watsonville v. State Department of Health Services (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 875,
888.) "The courts must be mindful that 'the sweep of the state's protective measures may be no
broader than its interest." (Fielder v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 137, 146 quoting
California Federal Savings and Loan Association v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1, 25.)
"[I]n articulating the test for preemption [of a charter city] the Supreme Court was concerned with
ensuring that a state law does not infringe legitimate municipal interests other than that which the
state law purports to regulate as a statewide interest." (City of Watsonville v. State Department of
Health Services 133 Cal.App.4th. at p. 889.) We believe that Section 40717.9 fails this test
because it impinges on two important municipal interests: traffic congestion and zoning. As a
result, Section 40717.9 is not sufficiently narrowly tailored to apply to a charter city.
Re: SUMC Proposed Expansion City Authority to Impose Employee Trip Reduction Programs
Date: July 2, 2010
Page: 4
The mitigation of traffic congestion caused by development is a legitimate municipal concern.
"[T]raffic congestion is a local problenl that cities ordinarily are authorized to address."
(O'Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Ca1.4th 1061, 1076.) "There would not seem to be much
question but that regulation of land use, particularly in relation to ... vehicular congestion ... is of
vital concern to a municipality." (Hirsch v. City of Mountain View (1976) 64 Ca1.App.3d 425, 430
quoting Codding Enterprises v. City of Merced (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 375,378.)
It might be argued that traffic congestion is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal
affair, in light of court rulings that "the state has preempted the field of vehicular traffic regulation."
(Rumfordv. City of Berkeley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 545,548). "The right of the state to exclusive
control of vehicular traffic on pUblic streets has been recognized for more than forty years. While
local citizens quite naturally are especially interested in the traffic on the streets in their particular
locality, the control of such traffic is now a nlatter of statewide concern." (Mervyne v. Acker (1961)
189 Cal.App.2d 558, 561.) However, we believe that only the "control of vehicular traffic" -the
rules for how vehicles can be used on the public roads -is a matter of statewide concern. The
reduction of traffic congestion is not part of this statewide concern. The cases addressing the
"statewide concern" in traffic control are distinguishable from cases dealing with the local interest
in the mitigation oftraJfic congestion. For example, Ex Parte Daniels, (1920) 183 Cal. 636,
concerned speed limits; Barajas v. City of Anaheim, (1993) 15 CaLApp.4th 1808, concerned the
regulation of sales from cars parked on public streets; Los Angeles Railway Corp. v. City of Los
Angeles (1940) 16 Ca1.2d 779, concerned the number of drivers required in a streetcar; and Brierton
v. Department of Motor Vehicles, (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 499, concerned the power of a university
police department to enforce traffic laws. Although the State has preempted the specific rules of
how vehicles can be operated and used on the public streets, it has not preempted how cities can
address traffic congestion caused by development. Consequently, none of these cases contradict the
cases that have held that traffic congestion is a legitimate municipal concern. (See, e.g., O'Connell
v. City o/Stockton, supra, 41 Ca1.4th 1061, 1076; Hirsch v. City of Mountain View, supra, 64
Cal.App.3d 425, 430; Codding Enterprises v. City of Merced, supra, 42 Cal.App.3d 375, 378.)
Land use regulation, zoning in particular, has long been held to be a municipal affair. "Land use
regulation in California historically has been a function of local government." (Big Creek Lumber
v. County of Santa Cruz (2006) 38 Ca1.4th 1139, 1151.) The chapter of the Government Code that
contains zoning regulations (Chapter 4 of Division 1 of Title 7) specifically provides that it does not
apply to charter cities. (Gov. Code § 65803.)
Because Section 40717.9 impinges on two municipal concerns -traffic congestion and zoning
it is our opinion that it is not sufficiently narrowly tailored to further a matter of statewide concern,
and therefore its prohibition of employee trip reduction programs does not apply to charter cities.
Indeed, the fact that Section 40717.9 appears in a section of the Health and Safety Code containing
Re: SUMC Proposed Expansion City Authority to Impose Employee Trip Reduction Programs
Date: July 2, 20 I 0
Page: 5
regulations applicable to air pollution control districts suggests that the Legislature was really not
considering local concerns about traffic congestion or zoning.l
Because traffic congestion is a particularly local problem that varies significantly across the state,
from low density rural areas to high density urban areas, a court would be particularly hesitant to
hold that Section 40717.9 preempts the City's ability to use an employee trip reduction program to
mitigate the traffic congestion caused by new development.
"We have been particularly reluctant to infer legislatiVe intent to preempt a field
covered by municipal regulation when there is a significant local interest to be
served that may differ from one locality to another. The common thread of the cases
is that if there is a significant local interest to be served which may differ from one
locality to another then the presumption favors the validity of the local ordinance
against an attack of state preemption. Thus, when local government regulates in an
area over which it traditionally has exercised control, such as the location of
particular land uses, California courts will presume, absent a clear indication of
preemptive intent from the Legislature, that such regulation is not preempted by state
statute." (Big Creek Lumber v. County of Santa Cruz (2006) 38 Ca1.4th 1139, 1149.)
It should be noted that, while 0 'Connell v. City of Stockton, supra, 41 Ca1.4th 1061, recognized that
"traffic congestion is a local problem that cities ordinarily are authorized to address," it held that
"they may not do so by means of an ordinance that, by allowing forfeiture of a vehicle used to
commit a specific state law violation, impinges on an area fully occupied or exclusively covered by
state law." (Id. at p. 1076.) The court, however, reached this conclusion with no analysis, and the
Stockton ordinance directly impinged on an area of law that is fully covered by state law. In
contrast, a employee trip reduction program imposed to mitigate traffic congestion would not
impinge on the State's regulation of vehicle emissions. It therefore remains that, as a charter city,
Palo Alto should be able to require SUMC to inlplement an employee trip reduction program to
mitigate the traffic congestion that would be caused by the expansion of its medical center.
B. Even if section 40717.9 applied to the City, the City could require SUMC to mitigate
the traffic impacts of the medical center expansion, and an employee trip reduction
program could be one of the mitigation methods.
Section 40717.9 prohibits a public agency from requiring an employer to implement an employee
trip reduction program. However, it does not prevent a city from requiring that traffic congestion
impacts of new development be mitigated, and it does not prevent an employee trip reduction
program from being selected by a developer as a mitigation measure.
lThis is evident from both the legislative history and the fact that it is placed in Part 3
("Air Pollution Control Districts") of Division 26 ("Air Resources") of the Health and Safety
Code.
Re: SUMC Proposed Expansion -City Authority to Impose Employee Trip Reduction Programs
Date: July 2, 2010
Page: 6
In a 1996 opinion, the Attorney General concluded that an air pollution control district is not
prohibited by Section 40717.9 from offering a trip reduction program as one of several options that
employers can choose from to reduce emissions. (79 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 214 (1996).) The
Attorney General explained that Section 40717.9 only prohibits an air district from requiring that an
employer adopt a trip reduction program. It does not prohibit an employer from deciding to adopt
one. Consequently, provided the employer is given multiple options, one of the options can be a
trip reduction program.
The Attorney General's reasoning would apply with even more force to the City. As noted earlier,
Section 40717.9 is directed at pollution control districts. As discussed above, its application to a
charter city that is trying to mitigate the traffic congestion impact of new development -not trying
to mitigate vehicle emissions -is very questionable. Moreover, the zoning change SUMC needs
is a quasi-legislative act. (Corona-Norco Unified School District v. City of Corona (1993) 17
Cal.AppAth 985, 992.) The City has more discretion over whether to grant or deny the request than
it would have with a quasi-judicial decision. "[Z]oning decisions are afforded more deference than
adjudicative decisions made by a governmental agency." (William S. Hart Union High School
District v. Regional Planning Commission of the County of Los Angeles (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d
1612,1624; Mira Development Corporation of San Diego v. City of San Diego (1988) 205
Cal.App.3d 1201, 1218 ("Zoning decisions are afforded more deference than an agency's
adjudicative decisions.")
As a result, the City could elect to deny the zoning change on the grounds that it would cause too
much traffic congestion. However, the City could also decide that the traffic congestion impact
would be sufficiently mitigated by an employee trip reduction program. In doing so, the City
would not be requiring SUMC to adopt an employee trip reduction program. SUMC would be
voluntarily agreeing to a trip reduction program as part of its voluntary application for a zoning
change. Indeed, in this case, SUMC has stated that it is willing to "voluntarily" implement certain
TDM measures, particularly the Go Pass measures.
Conclusion
Section 40717.9 does not apply to the City because it is a charter city. Furthermore, even if it did
apply, it would not require the City to amend its Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances to
accommodate the Project based upon the Project's traffic, air quality, and climate change impacts,
in the absence of an agreement by SUMC to the implementation ofTDM measures to partially
mitigate such impacts. Given this backdrop, the Council has broad discretion to determine whether
the proposed TDM measures are feasible and whether they will effectively mitigate the identified
impacts.
J:\Clients\156 [City of Palo Alto]\OOlb [EIR]\Memo\TDM Memo 07-02-10.wpd