HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 299-10 (2)All ACHMENl B
1 Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Special Meeting of Wednesday, July 7, 2010
3 Verbatim Minutes
4
5 Draft Excerpt
6
7 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project: Meeting
8 to accept comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Stanford
9 University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project, including an overview
10 of the Alternative Chapter and Mitigation Measures of the DEIR.
11
12 Chair Garber: The first thing is to note that this is a final wrap-up of the DEIR. The
13 Commissioners as well as the public can continue to make comments so long as they are written
14 up until July 27,2010. Our objective this evening is to comment obviously on the Alternatives
15 that are being presented but also to have some discussion about the Alternatives, and through our
16 comments make suggestions to the City Council on what Alternative, Alternatives, or parts of
17 which Alternatives appear to be the most viable to pursue.
18
19 We will start as we normally do with the Staff, and consultant, and applicant making a
20 presentation. I believe we had asked at pre-Commission if a map showing the various building
21 heights of the Alternatives could be produced. Do we know if that was done? Okay. From there
22 we will open the public hearing and hear comments from the public, at which point we thought
23 we would return to the Commission and organize our discussion into four pieces. The first of
24 which is questions regarding the DEIR process and procedure itself, and its schedule. The
25 second will be to then focus on each of the Alternatives separately to the degree that we can. We
26 won't limit conversation that occurs across many of them, but we will sort of march through
27 each one of them separately to see if there are specific comments that should be gleaned. Third,
28 will be a discussion about Mitigations, and we will ask the City Attorney to discuss the use of the
29 CEQA document as a tool for mitigation, as well as to re-brief on the utility and use of the
30 Development Agreement, and then the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and how those
31 all playa part. Finally, you are also going to brief us on how we should deal with Attachment E
32 at that time. Then finally, we will have a general discussion on anything else that was missed
33 which includes mixing and matching Alternatives, orphan topics, crosscutting, etc.
34 Commissioner Keller, have I missed anything?
35
36 Conlnlissioner Keller: I believe we had said that we were going to go through the individual
37 Alternatives and then discuss mixing and matching of the Alternatives right after the individual
38 Alternatives. Then the last issue or the fourth topic was anything that we have not covered
39 already, or crosscutting issues in general, or orphan topics.
40
41 Chair Garber: Yes, okay. That's fine. With that let us go to item number one, Stanford
42 University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project. This meeting is
43 specifically about the chapter on Alternatives and Mitigation Measures of the DEIR. Would
44 Staff like to make a presentation?
45
Page 1 0[76
1 Mr. Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: Yes, thank you Chair Garber and
2 Commissioners. My name is Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager, and Project Manager
3 for the Stanford University Medical Center Project.
4
5 Tonight we are as Chair Garber mentioned to review the Alternative Chapter and an overview of
6 the Mitigations contained within the Draft EIR. As Commissioners know, the Draft EIR was
7 released for a public review on May 20,2010. That public review period is lasting 69 days and
8 will end at the close of business on Tuesday, July 27,2010. Commissioners also know that we
9 have been breaking the review of the Draft EIR into smaller chunks for easier review. This is the
10 final scheduled meeting with the Planning and Transportation Commission· on the Draft EIR, but
11 it is not the final opportlmity to submit comments as July 27 is the last day for that. Written
12 comments can be submitted to the City on any chapter or any part of the information within the
13 Draft EIR.
14
15 The purpose of tonight's meeting again is to collect comments on the Draft EIR. It is not
16 intended to discuss or debate the merits of the project. It would be helpful to keep questions and
1 7 comments specifically to the topics that we have identified in the Staff Report and in the
18 presentation tonight.
19
20 All of the comments that we receive through this process will be addressed during the
21 preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Report, which will begin once the public
22 comment period has closed. From that I just wanted to provide an overview of where we will be
23 going with the rest of the entitlement review for this project for the remainder of the year. I have
24 a slide up on the wall that just summarizes where we are. Again, we will have the public review
25 period that ends on July 27. On a parallel track with that are a couple of items. The
26 Development Agreement discussions with the applicant will be ongoing and really will be
27 continuing up until the point where the entitlements go to the Planning and Transportation
28 Commission and City Council for a fmal and formal review at the end of the year, late
29 December.
30
31 A second parallel track is the Architectural review process. We are going through a preliminary
32 review process throughout the summer that should last into late August or September. At that
33 point the preliminary review Architectural review process will cease until after the preparation of
34 the Final Environmental Impact Report. As I mentioned, the preparation of the Final
35 Environmental Impact Report will take place once the public comment period has closed and we
36 expect that we will probably get a Final EIR in mid to late October. The Final EIR doesn't have
37 a review process of its own. However, CEQA law requires that we make it publicly available for
38 ten days. I think the way that we have outlined our process that it will be available for at least
39 ten days, and more likely 30 days or slightly more, prior to any formal action being taken on the
40 Final EIR.
41
42 Then we hope to wrap-up this project with a very aggressive schedule by the Planning and
43 Transportation Commission and Council review in November and December of this year. So
44 that is essentially where we will be going once the public review period is complete ..
45
Page 2 0[76
1 As Chair Garber mentioned the format for tonight's meeting, PBS&J is here to provide an
2 overview of the Alternative's Chapter and Mitigations. The applicants have a presentation as
3 well that will last between 15 and 20 minutes. Then we would open the item up for public
4 comment and Commissioner comments. So with that I will hand the presentation over to Rod.
5
6 Mr. Rod Jeung, Project Director, PBS&J Consulting: Thank you, Steven. Chair Garber,
7 members of the Commission, members of the public good evening.
8
9 Chair Garber: Let me interrupt just briefly. Commissioner Lippert, you had a clarifying
10 question.
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: Steven, where in this do we actually recommend certifying or not
13 certifying the adequacy of the document?
14
15 Mr. Turner: That would take place once the Final EIR has been prepared and released. We
16 would take that to a public hearing with the Planning and Transportation Commission. You
17 would be able to review all of the responses to comments that are contained within the Final EIR,
18 have your deliberations, and make that recommendation to Council whether or not to certify the
19 Environmental Impact Report.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, great.
22
23 Chair Garber: I apologize for interrupting. Let us also note for the Secretary that Commissioner
24 Fineberg has arrived.
25
26 Mr. Jeung: Thank you Chair Garber, members of the Commission, members of the public good
27 evening. Tonight is a really important evening. We are wrapping up the hearings on the Draft
28 Environmental Impact Report. As Chair Garber said it is a catch up meeting, and some of the
29 more substantive topics have to do with the Alternatives and the various Mitigation Measures.
30 So I hope, and I am looking forward to a very. fruitful, productive discussion.
31
32 Just by way of introduction, the Alternatives tonight, and in the environmental document are
33 really keyed to address significant unavoidable impacts that are identified in the Draft
34 Environmental Impact Report. So with us tonight are the individual team members who have
35 been instrumental in helping to formulate those Alternatives to respond to some of the significant
36 unavoidable impacts.
37
38 So just by way of introduction again, Trixie Martelino, our Project Manager, Kirsten Chapman to
39 nly left who helped assemble the entire Alternatives section with help from the technical team
40 GoeffHornek, whom you have heard from before, also with PBS&J on Air and Noise. From
41 AECOM who did the Transportation Analysis we have Dennis Struecker and Nicole Sou. On
42 the Preservation Alternative from ARG we have Jodi Stock and Charles Chase. So with that as
43 an introduction I am going to tum it over to Trixie who will do the overview.
44
45 Ms. Trixie Martelino, Project Manager, PBS&J: Thank you and good evening. As was
46 mentioned earlier we are talking about the Alternatives and the Mitigation Measures. So first off
Page 3 0[76
1 are the Alternatives. The California Environmental Quality Act requires an EIR to identify and
2 analyze a range of reasonable alternatives to a project. The alternatives must attain the basic
3 objectives of the project while avoiding or reducing significant impacts that have been identified.
4 Not every conceivable alternative needs to be analyzed in the EIR. There is a section in the
5 Alternatives Chapter that addresses alternatives that were considered but rejected as infeasible,
6 and as mentioned before alternative locations were rejected as infeasible. Also, the Alternatives
7 Analysis must identify a 'no project' alternative, which is comprised of the reasonably
8 foreseeable scenario that would occur if the project were not approved.
9
10 So the Draft EIR identifies seven alternatives to the SUMC project. We have two No Project
11 Alternatives, two Reduced Intensity Alternatives, one Historic Preservation Alternative, a Tree
12 Preservation Alternative, and the Village Concept Alternative. I am going to highlight some
13 notable descriptions of each.
14
15 The first No Project Alternative is the No Project Alternative A. It essentially involves
16 retrofitting noncompliant hospital facilities to comply with SB 1953. Under this Alternative no
1 7 new buildings would be constructed, there would be no increases in expansions or floor area, no
18 work at the Hoover Pavilion site would occur. The hospitals would be enabled to operate
19 beyond the 2013 deadline under SB 1953, but by 2030 one or both of the hospitals would have to
20 close.
21
22 No Project Alternative B involves replacement of noncompliant hospital facilities with new
23 structures and build out to the maximum allowable floor area ratio. The current zoning of the
24 SUMC site allows for a modest additional 9,000 square feet of floor area. It is reasonably
25 foreseeable that the applicants would seek to build out to this maximum allowable floor space.
26 Under this Alternative no work at the Hoover Pavilion site would occur. The School of
27 Medicine facilities would be separated from the hospitals and retrofitted. There would be a
28 decrease in patient beds at the Stanford Hospital. The Lucile Packard Children's HQspital would
29 . continue to operate at current capacity or at reduced capacity. So under both No Project
30 Alternatives there would be some decrease in medical services compared to current conditions.
31
32 Reduced Intensity Alternative A essentially involves right sizing the hospital facilities with no
33 increases in operation. As you know, right sizing involves additional space per bed or per
34 service unit with no increase in operations. The right sizing of the hospital facilities would add
35 additional 446,000 square feet. Under this Alternative no new buildings at the Hoover site
36 would be constructed but the Hoover Pavilion would be renovated. The School of Medicine
37 facilities would be replaced with structures with the same square footage. There would be no
38 increase in operations under this Alternative.
39
40 Reduced Intensity Alternative B involves an expansion in development and ope.rations but to a
41 lesser degree than what would occur under the SUMC Project. Under this Alternative
42 noncompliant hospital facilities would be replaced with new structures. There would be an
43 increase in square footage of 924,000. There would be no new buildings at the Hoover Pavilion
44 site, but the Hoover Pavilion would be renovated. School of Medicine facilities would be
45 replaced with buildings of the same square footage. The increase in operations under this
Page 4 0[76
1 Alternative would be approximately 60 percent of the increase in operations that would occur
2 under the SUMC Project.
3
4 Next is the Historic Preservation Alternative. This Alternative was developed to avoid the
5 demolition of the historically significant Stone Building complex that would otherwise be
6 demolished under the proposed project. This Alternative would seek to preserve the historic
7 aspects of the 1959 Stone Building complex as well as Pasteur Drive. Under this Alternative a
8 new SHC hospital would be constructed. The Stanford Hospital Clinics and School of Medicine
9 facilities would occupy the Stone Building complex. The Lucile Packard Children's Hospital
10 and Hoover Pavilion site would be expanded as proposed under the main project. The increase
11 in development and operations under this Alternative would be the same as the SUMC Project.
12
13 Next is the Tree Preservation Alternative. Under this Alternative there is a modified site plan
14 that is aimed to reduce impacts on protected trees. The modifications in the site plans are
15 summarized in the above three bullets. First, the hospital module that is proposed within Kaplan
16 Lawn at the median of Pasteur Drive would be removed and embedded within the main hospital
17 facility. The Stanford Hospital garage would be reconfigured to be narrower and now would be
18 partially above ground, whereas it was previously below ground. Also the Foundations in
19 Medicine Building 1, which is off Pasteur Drive, would be reconfigured.
20
21 The modifications to the site plan under this Alternative have been developed especially to
22 preserve a certain category of protected .trees that the City has identified as biologically and
23 aesthetically significant, and thus requiring special protection. Under this Alternative, as a result
24 of the modifications, 13 biologically and aesthetically significant protected trees would be
25 retained in comparison to the SUMC Project. Under this Alternative there would be the same
26 increase in development and operations as would occur under the main SUMC Project.
27
28 Lastly, the applicant has identified that this Alternative is the preferred site plan. As such, going
29 forward, refinements in design would be focused on this site plan rather than the main site plan.
30
31 Lastly, we have the Village Concept Alternative. This was developed mainly to reduce the
32 vehicle miles traveled and associated air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions that result from
33 employees commuting to the SlTMC sites. As described in the EIR the Village Concept
34 Alternative is comprised of the SUMC project as proposed. It also includes recommended
35 dedication of 490 previously approved housing units for occupancy by SUMC employees.
36 Recommendations also include that the housing units be constructed within a certain timeline in
37 time for occupancy. This Alternative also involves pedestrian linkages that would enhance
38 connectivity between and around the sites, and the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station.
39
40 Given those seven Alternatives I would just like to highlight some differences in impacts
41 between the SUMC Project and the Tree Preservation Alternative. I will be doing the same
42 between the SUMC Project and the Village Concept Alternative because these Alternatives are
43 of special interest to both the applicant and the City.
44
45 So for the Tree Preservation Alternative I am highlighting Construction, Air Quality, Air
46 Emission, Construction Noise and Vibration, and impacts related to Protected Trees. For
Page 5 0/76
1 Construction Emissions of nitrous oxides the SUMC Project would result in significant impacts
2 during early stages of construction. However, under the Tree Preservation Alternative this
3 impact would now be less than significant mainly due to less excavation needed for the Stanford
4 Hospital garage. Also, there is a difference in Construction Noise and Vibration inlpacts
5 between the SUMC Project and the Tree Preservation Alternative. This is mainly due to the
6 application of pile driving in the Tree Preservation Alternative. As mentioned earlier,
7 refinements in proj ect design are now focused on the Tree Preservation Alternative whether
8 these refinements are required or recommended by OSHPD, whether they are required by the
9 City, or initiated by the applicant.
10
11 OSHPD has recommended potential pile driving for the Stanford Hospital, and as such, pile
12 driving has been addressed as part of the Tree Preservation Alternative. As shown in the above
13 slide under the analysis of the main SUMC Project there would be significant and unavoidable
14 noise onsite, and less than significant vibration impacts. However, under the Tree Preservation
15 Alternative due to pile driving there would now be significant and unavoidable noise onsite and
16 offsite, and there would be significant and unavoidable vibration onsite and off site.
17
18 Lastly, as mentioned earlier this Alternative is aimed at reducing the impact on those protected
19 trees that have been identified as biologically and aesthetically significant. Under the SUMC
20 Project there would be a loss of 23 such protected trees. Under the Tree Preservation Alternative
21 the loss would be reduced to ten trees.
22
23 I would also like to point out some additional Mitigation Measures that have been identified in
24 the EIR for the Tree Preservation Alternative that were not identified for the main SUMC
25 Project. The bulk of these Mitigation Measures pertain to pile driving. As you see from the
26 above slide, these measures involve best management practices to reduce construction pile
27 driving noise, as well as best management practices to reduce construction pile driving vibration.
28 They also involve avoidance of or repair of structural damage to SUMC structures in the vicinity
29 of the potential pile driving sites. Of particular interest is the Blake Wilbur Clinic, which is in
30 proximity to potential pile driving sites, and the measures involve relocating occupants during
31 pile driving, assessing structural conditions of the Blake Wilbur Clinic and repairing any damage
32 as needed.
33
34 Also, of note is an additional mitigation in the Hydrology Analysis of the Tree Preservation
35 Alternative. The measure involves insuring that no net increase in runoff would occur under this
36 revised site plan.
37
38 Now for an impact comparison between the SUMC Project and the Village Concept Alternative.
39 It should be noted that the Village Concept Alternative Analysis assumes as mentioned before
40 that the recommendations for the housing units would be implemented. Given these assumptions
41 for intersection congestion the SUMC Project was identified to have significant but mitigable
42 impacts on five intersections in the AM peak hour and 12 intersections in the PM peak hour. I
43 would just like to note, as was discussed in the previous Transportation hearing that the Draft
44 EIR identified the impacts on intersections as significant and unavoidable, but based on input
45 from Menlo Park these impacts would be mitigable to less than significant.
46
Page 60/76
1 The Village Concept Alternative will result in significant impacts on more int~rsections than
2 were identified for the SUMC Project. This is mainly due to accounting of spousal trips at the
3 housing sites, so the spouses of the employees, and also increased pedestrian crossing time. due
4 to the enhanced pedestrian connections.
5
6 In terms of pedestrian and bicycle safety both the SUMC Project and the Village Concept
7 Alternative would have significant but mitigable impacts due to increased traffic plus increased
8 pedestrian and bicycle activity. The difference would be that the Village Concept Alternative
9 would have enhanced pedestrian safety features and so the impact would not be a severe.
10
11 As mentioned earlier, the main purpose for developing the Village Concept Alternative is to
12 reduce vehicle miles traveled. The employees and patients of the SlJMC Project were identified
13 to generate approximately 276,000 daily miles. If the housing units were dedicated to SlTMC
14 employees the vehicle miles traveled would then be reduced to 265,000 daily miles. The
15 reduction in vehicle miles traveled from the employees and patients result in a reduction in
16 greenhouse gas emissions. Under the SUMC Project there would approximately 63,000 metric
17 tons of C02 equivalent generated, and under the Village Concept Alternative these emissions
18 would be reduced by about 3,000 metric tons of C02 equivalent. Nonetheless, under both
19 scenarios the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
20
21 In terms of the jobs to employed residents ratio, it was determined in the analysis that the SUMC
22 Project would increase the ratio by·.05, and under the Village Concept Alternative if you account
23 for the 70 housing units at the Sand Hill Road housing site the ratio increase would be .04. It
24 should be noted that the housing sites at Quarry Road are within jurisdiction of the County and
25 so would not count towards the City's jobs to employed residents ratio.
26
27 The California Environmental Quality Act requires EIRs to identify an environmentally superior
28 alternative, which is the alternative with the least amount of impact. If this alternative is a No
29 Project Alternative then an altenlative other than the No Project Alternative would need to be
30 identified. The Reduced Intensity Alternative A has been identified as the environmentally
31 superior alternative. As you recall, this alternative involves right sizing the hospital components
32 with no increases in operations. As a result this alternative avoids the significant impacts of the
33 SUMC project related to increased traffic on Menlo Park roadways, emissions of criteria air
34 pollutants during operation, and emissions of greenhouse gases during operation.
35
36 Next I would like to talk briefly about the Mitigation Measures. The various mitigation
37 measures for the various sections have been identified in previous hearings. So I am not going to
38 reiterate all the mitigation measures again at this point. Basically the identified mitigation
39 measures in the EIR minimize, avoid, rectify, or compensate for the significant impacts that have
40 been identified. CEQA requires that mitigation measures be feasible and have a nexus to the
41 impact. For a summary of all the mitigation measures you can refer to Table S-4 in the EIR,
42 which is also attached to the Staff Report. Essentially, if the SUMC Project is approved the City
43 must adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure implementation of all the
44 mitigation measures.
45
Page 70[76
1 At this point I would like to turn the presentation over to Cara Silver who will discuss
2 application of Transportation Demand Management as mitigation.
3
4 Ms. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Thank you Trixie. As you know, one of the
5 major mitigations that is proposed for the traffic impacts on this project is the implementation of
6 the Go Pass or an equivalent program. The Go Pass is considered a Transportation Demand
7 Management Program, what we call a TDM Program. There is a state law, it is rather an esoteric
8 state law, and is something that we believe is rather outdated, but there is a law that is on the
9 books that states that cities cannot impose TDM as mitigation.
10
11 So we have consulted with our outside legal counsel regarding the application of this particular
12 law to Charter cities and to this particular project. As Chair Garber mentioned, the Staff Report
13 does contain Attachment E, which is a menlO regarding the application of this particular law to
14 Charter cities. The memo concludes that it is possible for charter cities to impose TDM. Palo
15 Alto, as you probably know, has imposed TDM on other projects in connection with the CEQA
16 process.
17
18 TDM can encompass a range of different measures, and there are many different TDM measures
19 that are proposed for this particular project. The Go Pass of course being the major mitigation.
20 We believe that is a very effective way to mitigate the traffic impacts. There are also TDM
21 measures that are suggested to be considered such as expansion of the shuttle program, the
22 installation of bike rakes, and a hiring of a TDM Coordinator for the hospital.
23
24 So it ultimately is up to the City to determine whether this particular TDM measure, and other
25 TDM measures, are feasible and whether they are effective in mitigating the identified impacts
26 associate~ with Traffic and Air Quality.
27
28 Also, if I could I would like to just briefly amplify on some of the comments that Trixie made
29 regarding Alternatives. As Trixie mentioned, the purpose of an EIR, one of the primary purposes
30 of an EIR is to identify a range of alternatives that will serve to mitigate some of the impacts that
31 have been identified in the EIR. The driver for identifying alternatives is that the Alternatives
32 need to feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project. So it is very important to
33 analyze the project objectives when you look at whether the Alternatives are feasible. When you
34 are looking at Project Objectives, the Project Objectives are included in the Project Description,
35 and those Project Objectives were vetted with the City. We believe that they are very well
36 crafted, and that they are broad enough to focus on a reasonable range of alternatives. You will
37 note that the Project Objectives include Applicant sponsored objectives as well as City
38 objectives. So it is a very balanced set of objectives.
39
40 The EIR need not analyze every permeation or every conceivable variation of an alternative.
41 The Alternatives Chapter is intended to essentially bookend impacts, range of impacts. So
42 certainly there will be other permutations that you can consider, but the alternatives in the EIR
43 are designed as prototypes or models to gauge the variations of the impacts.
44
45 Finally, we need to distinguish between the Alternative Analysis in the EIR and then the findings
46 that ultimately will be adopted by the City Council with your input. The EIR is intended to
Page 8 of 76
1 analyze the range of alternatives. Then after that, after certification of the EIR and in
2 conjunction with project approval the Council needs to make specific findings regarding whether
3 there are any feasible mitigations that can reduce the impacts identified in the EIR, and also
4 whether there are any feasible alternatives that can reduce the impacts that have not been
5 mitigated through Mitigation Measures. So those are two significant findings that need to be
6 separated from the Alternative Analysis itself in the EIR.
7
8 So with that I think the applicant has a presentation that we would like to go forward with.
9
10 Mr. Mark Tortorich, Vice President, Design and Construction, Stanford Hospital and Lucile
11 Packard Children's Hospital: Good evening Chait Garber and Commissioners. I am not sure
12 what I am going to do with myself next Wednesday.
13
14 So we wanted to review with you a few comments on the Alternative section of the Draft EIR.
15 Bill Philips of Stanford University and I will be reviewing three key alternatives and our
16 perspective on those.
17
18 So first is the Tree Preservation Alternative. I think an important point needs to be made about
19 the pile driving activities that may be attributable to this alternative. The pile driving really is
20 attributable to the soils condition and would be a structural solution for both the base proposal
21 and the Tree Preservation Alternative. We are trying to avoid pile driving because of the serious
22 disruptions that would occur to the hospital occupants, but right now OSHPD is very suspicious
23 of alternative methods of building the foundation. So that is just something we will have to work
24 through. That would be a consistent issue whether it was the proposed project or the Tree
25 Preservation Alternative.
26
27 As you know, we did re-plan the hospital building, the Stanford Hospital replacement building,
28 to preserve what we believe are 15 trees instead of 13. So I think the statement is we will
29 preserve at least 13 trees through this Alternative. We did that by removing the sixth pavilion
30 that is here on Pasteur Mall, Kaplan Lawn, and by condensing the parking structure from being
31 an entirely below grade structure to one that is partially below and partially above grade in that
32 location. We also redesigned the first School of Medicine building, FIM 1, to preserve trees in
33 this location.
34
35 So this is the map that is shown as the Tree Preservation Alternative in the Draft EIR~ As has
36 been stated this now our preferred design alternative and we are at about a 50 percent design
37 development level in the development of this Alternative. So obviously we have made a
38 substantial investment in this Alternative. What we have done is taken the square footage of that
39 sixth pavilion and we have placed it within the surface of the five pavilions, and we have
40 expanded a little bit the diagnostic and treatment block, and then condensed the parking structure
41 again to save two trees here in this region. We have also realigned the perimeter of the first
42 School of Medicine building to preserve trees in that location. I think you have seen those
43 studies both in plan elevation diagram and also in our photorealistic simulation.
44
45 Our next comments come to the Historic Preservation Alternative. As described the Historic
46 Preservation Alternative suggests that we would retain the 1959 structure, about 850,000 square
Page 9 of 76
1 feet, and use it for clinics, medical offices, and School of Medicine research buildings. That is a
2 significant challenge. The buildings don't meet the criteria for use as a hospital in any event. So
3 that issue is put aside. The buildings structurally don't meet the majority -or the majority of the
4 buildings of the 1959 structure don't meet the seismic ordinances from the City of Palo Alto.
5 They are really not well-structured buildings by today's modem earthquake standards.
6 Additionally, we believe, and we I think have shown you sonle diagrams of the significant
7 challenges of putting research labs in these buildings and nl0dern clinics that also have
8 significant ventilation requirements.
9
10 So our proposed project has been, and to show you the existing diagram on the slide, our
11 proposed project has been to replace the footprint of that 1959 structure with the medical
12 facilities necessary, contained within pretty much the same building area. So the School of
13 Medicine buildings would be in this region, and the future clinical buildings would be in this'
14 region, and you can see that dissolves there. So within the footprint of the Stone Building is our
15 future 429,OOOsquare foot clinic building, our School of Medicine, research buildings, and
16 underground parking. So that site is really necessary to regenerate'these facilities into modem
17 structures suitable for the technologies and forecasting what our technologies are going to be into
18 the future.
19
20 Then one of the illustrations that we like to provide is this is what we have been doing to the
21 1959 building to accommodate current and past programs. There is a building designed
22 predominantly for natural ventilation and state codes certainly don't allow our hospital licensed
23 clinics to have natural ventilation in the clinical areas. Certainly, the research functions don't
24 allow for natural ventilation. So these will be mechanically ventilated buildings, very efficiently
25 mechanically ventilated buildings, but nonetheless not very suitable for that 1959 structure.
26
27 Then finally we wanted to comment on some of 'the linkage components to the Village Concept
28 Alternative. We feel the linkage components are very valuable components of the Village
29 Concept. We have suggested in our offer for the Development Agreement that we would put
30 money towards developing these linkages, and just wanted to review with you some of the key
31 linkages and some of the strategies that we believe appropriate in the Village Concept
32 Alternative.
33
34 The primary linkage comes from the EI Camino Real and Quarry Road intersection through the
35 Quarry Road corridor and pathways through the Stanford Bam. So I will take these one by one.
36 The first is the existing. The blue lines show the pedestrian and bicycle paths from the
37 intersection of Quarry and EI Camino through the transit center to Downtown Palo Alto. You
38 can see they are a sort of series of maybe haphazard paths through these sites. What we have
39 proposed and what we have considered to be appropriate within the Village Concept Alternative
40 . is a more direct alignment that will align with the tunnel. I know that Palo Alto is proposing and
41 funding the Everett Street Tunnel. So there will be a stronger linkage, I think a better-landscaped
42 element to allow for pedestrian and bicycle movements from town across the EI Camino and
43 down Quarry Road.
44
45 So moving onto the Quarry Road corridor there are a couple of elements here that we have
46 suggested. The first to align with our proposed facilities and renovation of the Hoover Pavilion
Page 100/76
1 would be an area of transit linkage where we would have bus shelters and drop-offs. So that
2 people coming to these buildings could come by public transportation. They don't have to come
3 by car. We certainly would encourage that. The value of having these buildings so close to the
4 transit mall is the fact that you can take alternate means to see your doctor for primary care
5 purposes.
6
7 Then moving on down towards the Stanford Barn and the important connection that I know
8 many members of my staff take daily from the Stanford Shopping Center through to Lucile
9 Packard Children's Hospital is providing a better designed pathway through the parking lot
10 adjacent to the Stanford Barn. So here is Welch Road, Stanford Barn, 730 Welch Road, which
11 are the Children's Hospital clinics, and there is again a path that comes through the parking lots,
12 sort of meanders through the paved vehicle roads. Then you sort of take your chances as you
13 cross the street. We have a signalized, well not really a signalized, but a pedestrian signal
14 intersection here. We have sponsored a crossing guard who is there to help monitor patients and
15 families to cross the street there because we have been concerned about the conflicts with
16 vehicles. What we are proposing to make this condition much better, and I believe this is part of
17 the Village Concept Alternative, is to aggregate the two driveway entrances here within the Bam
18 into 730 Welch into a signalized intersection, create separate pathways along 730 Welch
19 property to Vineyard Lane, as well as to provide an alternative path that is a little bit more
20 structured and pleasant up against the Stanford Bam, and then for allowing for the movement of
21 vehicles. So realignment of the parking, additional landscaping, and some dedicated pathways
22 that then terminate into a signalized intersection and just a much more rational way of crossing
23 Welch Road.
24
25 So Bill Philips would like to talk a little bit about some of the housing components of the Village
26 Concept Alternative.
27
28 Mr. Bill Philips, Senior Associate Vice President, Land Buildings and Real Estate, Stanford: It
29 is nice to be here this evening. I want to echo Mark's comments starting with the linkages and
30 going back to the Tree Preservation Alternative. I think we have ended up some very significant,
31 very substantial improvements, and advantages that occur with these new design components.
32 That has been done with a strong collaboration and help and assistance, maybe sometimes even
33 the pushing of Staff. I think where we have ended up is very, very positive.
34
35 Having said something positive, I want to say that on the housing component of the Village
36 Concept Alternative we do have some concerns. I am going to mention those, and I think they
37 basically have to do with the kind of scrutiny we put into sonle of the assumptions on the
38 housing component, layout what we think we saw, and then you can judge what you think results
39 from that analysis.
40
41 The DEIR states that the demand for housing per se as a result of the SUMC Project would be
42 less than significant. We also note the DEIR says that the key goal of the Village Concept
43 Alternative is to create this urban transit-oriented village that can capture travel behavior, air
44 quality protection, and greenhouse gas reduction in such a way that benefits the performance of
45 the project as part of the performance of a well-designed urban village.
46
Page 11 0/76
1 Here are the basic travel behavior assumptions as we see them. The Village Concept Alternative
2 for the housing component shifts the occupancy of what is already planned and approved
3 housing on the Stanford campus, and by shifting that occupancy it doesn't produce any
4 significant additional net benefits. The Quarry housing sites that are the reference of the 420
5 units are already approved for other Stanford programs and populations. The Village Concept
6 Alternative has housing at exactly the same density on the same sites, but simply switches the
7 housing from University employees that is medical residents and postdoctoral students to
8 Medical Center employees. So we are going from employees of one campus, the Stanford
9 campus, to employees of another campus, the Medical Center campus. Either way the residents
10 of the Quarry sites are in a transit rich environment, they are part of a village, and they are going
11 to benefit from the proximity to transit, and thereby reduce non-campus trips.
12
13 The DEIR concludes that the Village Concept Alternative slightly reduces trips, but results in
14 one additional intersection impact. The reduction in trips is 14 in the AM and 37 in the PM. The
15 additional impacted intersection that is caused by trip generation is the Alpine-280 offramp.
16 The DEIR concludes that the Village Concept Alternative reduces vehicle miles traveled by less
17 than one percent for employee and patient trips. That is when we look at it assuming Go Pass for
18 both the project and for the Village Concept Alternative.
19
20 Contrary to the DEIR assumption the Village Concept Alternative wouldn't significantly reduce
21 VMT or C02, greenhouse gases for other household members compared with approved GUP
22 housing. This is where they suggest there is a difference, but when the difference is scrutinized
23 you can see that you are just simply moving the other household members of these employees to
24 different locations. So the advantage you gain for one is offset by the disadvantage that now
25 occurs for the other.
26
27 So in summary, you have this kind of comparison which I think shows that the additional change
28 with the Village Concept Alternative on most of these-aspects is fairly insignificant. Trips in the
29 AM go down in comparison with the project with Go Pass. The change is down 1.8 percent for
30 trips in the AM, down a fairly significant five percent for trips in the PM. Intersection impacts
31 go up for the Village Concept Alternative by 20 percent because of that one intersection that is
32 added. You have a nil increase for intersection impacts. I like that nil these days. For VMT
33 patients and visitors we are talking about a less than one percent reduction for the Village
34 Concept Alternative.
35
36 So we would remind everybody that the Go Pass is probably the all-important aspect of what is
37 going on here in terms of trying to achieve some of the inlportant climate change, and trip
38 reduction, and other benefits of moving to a different program, particularly one that is focused on
39 shifting traffic away from single occupancy vehicles and into transit. DEIR demonstrates the Go
40 Pass is the most effective thing at reducing traffic congestion, air pollution, and greenhouse
41 gases. Changing'the occupancy of already previously approved housing has ve~y insignificant
42 effect. We also are, as part of our proposal, providing $23 million toward the City's affordable
43 housing fund. That is the big difference maker we think because that would allow new housing
44 to be built in Palo Alto helping the City achieve ABAG requirements, increasing the City's
45 housing supply, and doing something far more than simply changing housing unit occupancy.
46 Thanks very much.
Page 120/76
1
2 Chair Garber: Is that it?
3
4 Mr. Turner: I think so, yes.
5
6 Chair Garber: Commissioners, as a reminder we will first focus on questions regarding the
7 DEIR process. Let's also open up for just general questions as well. Thank you Commissioner
8 Keller, we will go to the public first and then we will come back to our questions. I have no
9 cards, however. If there are members of the public that would like to speak they should fill out a
10 card and we will hear you. I have one card. We will keep the public hearing open should
11 someone else also like to speak. Mr. Moss, you will have three minutes.
12
13 Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Garber. I thought that was an interesting
14 presentation. Looking at the various Alternatives my preference is the Reduced Alternative A
15 because that eliminates a number of otherwise very undesirable negative impacts. Although I
16 might be able to be persuaded that something close to Alternative B is also acceptable.
17
18 Let me make a few conlments. First of all, we keep being told that the project is important
19 because it serves Palo Alto. It does serve Palo Alto, but Palo Alto is a small portion of the
20 service area. This is a regional facility and they get patients from not only all over the county but
21 all over the state, and even all over the western United States and even occasionally from foreign
22 countries. So we don't need to expand the facility significantly in order to serve just the people
23 of Palo Alto and Menlo Park, and neighboring communities. I think there obviously is a need to
24 upgrade it and make is safe seisniica;lly and to increase the emergency facilities, but when you
25 talk about bed count that gets a lot more problematic.
26
27 They constantly say that it is not going to have a negative impact on the housing demand. That
28 is false. They are projecting almost 10,000 additional workers. That is about 12 percent of our
29 current employees. Let me backup. ABAG has projection for how many employees we have in
30 Palo Alto. The number is pulled out of thin air because nobody knows how many jobs or how
31 many businesses we have, but that is the number that is going on. So if that is increased they are
32 going to give us another bogy for housing. The additional housing they are talking about
33 providing, that $23 million, might provide 40 or 50 low-income housing units. We are·going to
34 be asked to provide between 400 and 500. One of the ways to provide that is, instead of taking
35 the 420 units, which have already been approved for other Stanford uses and just assign them to
36 the hospital so there is no net increase in housing. Require additional housing beyond the 420, at
37 least another 300, or 400. That will start addressing the housing impact, traffic, and the
38 job/housing imbalance.
39
40 Now in terms of problems with traffic and parking I don't think any of the mitigations that are
41 proposed with any of the new expanded projects are going to reduce the traffic impacts. They
42 are going to have major traffic problems regardless when this project is built. So I think we
43 should go for the alternative that gives us the lowest impacts for traffic analysis, and I see that as
44 Alternative A.
45
Page 130/76
1 Chair Garber: If you have something more to finish up feel free. Alright, Commissioners,
2 questions. We are going to the DEIR Process and Procedure as well as other questions.
3 Commissioner Keller.
4
5 Commissioner Keller: Mr. Turner, could you pleas put up the schedule chart that was in the
6 beginning of your presentation? Thank you. What appears to me is happening hereis that there
7 will be a formal ARB review after the Final EIR is released. Now, my understanding from
8 hearing what our City Attorney said is that there are from the FEIR multiple alternatives of
9 which some may be more feasible than others, and some may be preferred environmentally than
10 others, and that from the Alternatives as part of perhaps the Development Agreement, perhaps
11 the City Council will then choose among those Alternatives, or mix and match or whatever, and
12 say this is what we are going to agree on being built. So what I am wondering is if the formal
13 entitlement reviews by the PTC and Council how can the ARB review precede the formal
14 entitlenlent reviews where I assume it is decided which of the Alternatives, or what combination
15 of the Alternatives will be chosen.
16
17 Mr. Turner: The ARB is reviewing the proiect that has been applied for to the City by the
18 applicants. So the applicants have provided an application that includes expansion of the Lucile
19 Packard Children's Hospital, expansion of the Medical Center, replacement of the School of
20 Medicine buildings, and new structures at the Hoover Pavilion. The ARB would be reviewing
21 essentially that project. They are not reviewing or making a recommendation on any Alternative'
22 in the Environmental Impact Report. They are simply making a recommendation on what is
23 essentially the project that is presented to them.
24
25 Now, they could make that recommendation to the Planning and Transportation Commission,
26 and once the EIR goes through the process and is ultimately certified then the City Council can
27 decide on a project that is either the main project that they have applied for, or an Alternative, or
28 a mix of Alternatives. If that is the case then the applicants would need to go through the
29 Architectural review process again in order to show the project that ultimately is approved by the
30 City.
31
32 So what the applicant is doing is really presenting the main project for review, but with the
33 understanding that if a smaller project is ultimately approved they would need to go through the
34 discretionary review process again with ARB to show a project that meets what was approved.
35
36 Commissioner Keller: So am I to understand that while there is a review of essentially what is
37 the proposed final proj ect by the applicant that final architectural review won't be granted until
38 after the entitlement review process happens or later depending on which Alternative is
39 ultimately decided.
40
41 Mr. Turner: That is correct. It should be noted and reminded to Commissioners and the public
42 that the architectural review Board does not make decisions on the project. They make
43 recommendations to the Planning Commission and to the Council. So the Planning Commission
44 may vote to deny that architectural review and have them start over, and the City Council could
45 make that final decision whether to approve or deny the architectural review process. If they do
Page 140/76
1 not approve the architectural review project that has been coming forward then the applicants
2 have to essentially go through architectural review again for whatever project is approved.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: Well, I am a little confused because I have been on the Planning
5 Commission now for practically four years, and I have never been given the opportunity to
6 review an architectural review by the ARB, and given the opportunity to approve or deny it. So I
7 am not sure I really understand that process.
8
9 Mr. Turner: Perhaps Curtis can assist, but essentially if you think of a Planned Community
10 process it is similar to that where you are presented with a development plan, and often an
11 environmental analysis, sometimes it is an EIR. The recommendation is forwarded from the
12 Architectural Review Board to the Planning and Transportation Commission, and ultimately to
13 the City Council. Now, you would be making a recommendation to Council on whether or not
14 you find the architectural review process to have been adequately analyzed and the findings for
15 architectural review have been made before it gets sent to Council for final approval.
16
17 Mr. Curtis Williams. Director of Planning and Community Environment: I think that is a good
18 summary that Steven gave. I would just add that this is just a level of complexity that has the
19 zoning implications with it that the Commission does have to review that it is very difficult to
20 separate those from one another, so it is appropriate here for the Commission to weigh in on that
21 as well. It is also part of the EIR, the aesthetics part of the EIR. So it is appropriate in this kind
22 of situation.
23
24 I also think that we have Public Facility zoning in most of this area right now. Most of our
25 Public Facility zoning is a Site and Design process, which does include Plamling Commission as
26 well. So I think there are number of reasons why it makes sense to do that.·
27
28 Now, as you go through particularly the zoning aspect of it and determine whether a Conditional
29 Use Permit for a hospital is appropriate, and what the review process should be for say
30 amendments to the plans, etc., etc. there may be components of this, and we certainly suspect
31 that not every detail, architectural detail, is going to be wrapped up here by the time it gets
32 through you and Council. So there may be components of it that ARB recommends to the
33 Director on subsequently to address specifics, or there may be components of that zoning that
34 says that as certain substantive changes are made that has to come back through this whole
35 process too. So it is just too difficult to pull it all out and treat it as something only to be dealt
36 with in a typical architectural review process at a later date.
37
38 Chair Garber: Yes, I figure that we will go through a couple of times here. I have
39 Commissioners Martinez, Tanaka, Fineberg, Lippert, and Garber. Commissioner Martinez.
40
41 Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. I only have a couple of questions. What is the level of
42 review required for the Alternatives? It seems that some of the assumptions and conclusions
43 seem a little questionable. Can you answer that?
44
Page 15 0/76
1 Ms. Martelino: Alternatives need not be analyzed to the same level of specificity as the main
2 proposed project. Essentially, what needs to be provided is a comparison of the significant
3 impacts under the proposed project versus the significant impacts under the Alternative.
4
5 Commissioner Martinez: I understand that. One of the surprising things say under Alternative
6 A, the No Project Alternative, was the impact of losing our hospital. I didn't see that addressed.
7 Was that in there and I missed it?
8
9 Ms. Martelino: There is mention of the No Project Alternative A not being able to comply with
10 certain policies in the Comprehensive Plan that seek to provide medical services.
11
12 Commissioner Martinez: And the mitigation for that was?
13
14 Ms. Martelino: It was identified to be a significant and unavoidable impact that cannot be
15 mitigated under the No Project.
16
17 Commissioner Martinez: Finally, in Table S-4 under No Projects there are a number of less than
18 significant impacts. How is that derived when there is no project? What are you thinking about
19 or observing when there is no project?
20
21 Ms. Martelino: Well, the conclusions are based on what would occur in the No Project scenario.
22 Under the No Project scenario what we have assumed to occur would be necessary compliance
23 with state law requiring seismic retrofit, seismic upgrading of the hospital facilities, and
24 construction up to the modest allowable increase in floor area ratio at the SUMC sites. So under
25 the No Project Alternatives there is still sonle degree of work, of construction. There would
26 however be no increases in operational levels. In fact, there are foreseeable decreases in the
27 operation levels compared to existing conditions. So when we look at the impacts from the No
28 Project we are essentially looking at impacts from the physical construction activities that would
29 occur, and essentially you can conclude that there would be no additional impact resulting from
30 increased operations because that would not occur.
31
32 Commissioner Martinez: Okay, I get it. That's it for now.
33
34 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka, and then Fineberg. Commissioner Fineberg and then
35 Lippert.
36
37 Commissioner Fineberg: I am a little confused about the role ofPTC comments and these sorts
38 of processes that the review is going through. Weare not recommending any actions now, which
39 means we are not picking between Alternatives, nor are we recommending between the different
40 Alternatives. We are commenting on specific details in each Alternative. So it appears to me
41 Staff and the applicant are kind of picking the Alternative that will be proposed as the desirable
42 project. I am not sure how that gives room for the desirable Alternatives that the applicant and
43 Staff are not moving forward with. I know we will be able to discuss that, but if we never state
44 for instance that we want 100 percent of trees protected, or 100 percent of an historic
45 preservation option, not reconlmending that, but if that was something the body did want or did
Page 160/76
1 not want and we never state it, it is not going to move forward if the applicant and Staff don't
2 focus on that. So how does it ever get changed off what applicant and Staff are coordinating?
3
4 Ms. Martelino: Well, it is possible at this point to comment on the adequacy of the range of
5 Alternatives that have been addressed in the Draft EIR. So if you feel that additional alternatives
6 would need to be looked at or should be looked at it is a comnlent you can make and it is a
7 comment we would need to respond to in the Final EIR.
8
9 Commissioner Fineberg: Any comment for instance that I might make would have the weight of
10 one individual member of the community who happens to be a Planning Commissioner. There is
11 no like vote of the body. There is no measure of -is there a straw vote or a head nod? Let's say
12 there was one combination of something that we all thought was the best. Are we ever going to
13 express that until there is sonle final project that is an up or down vote?
14
15 Mr. Williams.: I think that is a good question. I know it is confusing, sort of the timing, and the
16 cart and the horse here. As Trixie said, no that is not what is being done through this process. If
17 you said there should be X Alternative also looked at then these folks would go back and look
18 and look at that, and either would add another alternative to the Final EIR and analyze that, or
19 would indicate why that did not seem to be appropriate to do that. Maybe two of the existing
20 Alternatives cover all the ground that that would cover anyway. It is just a matter of sort of
21 putting those together. Or it clearly wouldn't meet certain other objectives or give some
22 reasoning as the EIR does in terms of other alternatives that were not included. So the point here
23 is to look at the adequacy of what has been presented both in terms of the analysis that has been
24 done on the Alternatives as well as the range, as she said, of Alternatives. Then I would argue
25 that you to sort of pick an Alternative or a couple of Alternatives is premature until you have an
26 Environmental Impact Report that you feel can be certified.
27
28 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. I agree that we are not picking the most favorable one now, but
29 there are components of each that in combination might sort of filter to a hybrid alternative.
30
31 My last question is the City and Stanford has a list of goals, of objectives, of the project. There
32 is descriptive analysis of them starting at about page 5-40 in the DEIR. I might have missed it,
33 but is there any chart that shows which of those objectives are met or are not met by each
34 Alternative? I see in our Staff Report and in places in the text where it says the majority of
35 objectives are or are not, or some are and some not, but is there just a check, check, check, it is
36 met, it is met, or not it is not? Which objective satisfies? Pick any objective, and which
37 Alternative satisfies those objectives? I can't tell.
38
39 Ms. Martelino: In the Draft EIR it is purely provided in the text paragraphs. No table is
40 provided currently in the EIR that provides that checklist of which objectives are met or not.
41
42 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. Just to reconfirm, the text only highlights general statements
43 like most of them or many of them. So there is no way to tell now which Alternative satisfied
44 any partiCUlar objective of either Stanford or the City. I can reiterate that as a comment later or
45 just take it now, but I think that needs to be something that is easily gotten out of the document.
46
Page 170/76
1 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Garber.
2
3 Commissioner Lippert: Steven, if I go through your schedule here what is the role of the HRB in
4 this? Do they get to weigh in on the Draft EIR at any point or do they have involvement after?
5
6 Mr. Turner: Well, actually this morning the HRB did get an opportunity to weigh in on the Draft
7 EIR. This meeting was held after comments received from the Commission and the City Council
8 regarding that question, regarding the HRB's role in this process. The HRB is limited by the
9 Historic Preservation Ordinance which really applies to the structures in Palo Alto that are on the
10 City'S Historic Inventory List that are designated as Categories 1,2, 3, or 4.
11
12 The Stone Building and the Hoover Pavilion are not on the City's Historic Preservation List and
13 are not Category buildings. However, they are historic resources as defined by CEQA. They are
14 eligible for the California National Register. SO CEQA had looked those two buildings in
15 compliance with the Secretary's Standards. However, the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the
16 City of Palo Alto does not allow the HRB .to make recommendations on non-Category buildings.
17
18 However, given that these two structures are important to the City of Palo Alto, that they are
19 eligible for the California National Register it did make sense for us to bring the projects to the
20 HRB for their comment. So we accomplished that this morning. We brought to the HRB a
21 description of the renovations that would be happening to the Hoover Pavilion, the two new
22 structures adjacent to Hoover Pavilion, the medical office building and parking garage, as well as
23 an opportunity for the HRB to comment on the Cultural Resources Chapter of the Draft EIR, as
24 well as any other cultural resource or historic aspects that were identified within the Draft EIR. I
25 think it was a productive meeting today. We received a lot of good comments from the HRB on
26 each of those three topics. Those comments will be factored in as we continue the review of this
27 project. So at this point we don't see ourselves going back to the HRB for any other formal
28 review. They did request that a qualified historic preservation consultant review the renovations
29 at Hoover Pavilion to make sure that they are consistent with the Secretary's Standards, and there
30 is a possibility we might bring those findings back to the HRB. With regard to the Draft EIR and
31 the rest of the entitlements there would be no other HRB planned reviews.
32
33 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. The significance of the HRB, I think as you know, when it comes
34 to making those improvements on the building or any modifications to the building they are
35 really the decision-making body in terms of well, they make a recommendation to the City
36 Council in terms of whether they comply or they don't conlply with the Secretary of the
37 Interior's Standards. So I guess where I am going with this and I really need to hear a little bit
38 more about it is number one, is an historic structures report or historic structure evaluation been
39 prepared for either the Stone Building or the Hoover Pavilion.
40
41 Mr. Turner: There is the peer review analysis performed by ARG on the Hoover Pavilion that is
42 EIR as well as ARG's peer review of Stanford's historic report that is also
43 contained in the applicant's to the project.
44
45 Commissioner Lippert: Would that be deemed sufficient?
46
Page 180[76
1 Mr. Turner: That has been deemed sufficient in terms of its consistency with CEQA.
2
3 Commissioner Lippert: What about the Historic Resources Board review of those documents?
4
5 Mr. Turner: The comments that we received this morning seem to indicate that the Board feels
6 that ARG's review is adequate and satisfactory. The findings of the peer review consultant have
7 adequately addressed the buildings.
8
9 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I have one other question then I will pass it on. With regard to
10 one of the Alternatives, well mUltiple Alternatives, which are not non-historic alternatives, it
11 really calls for the demolition basically of the Stone Building unless it is being preserved. In that
12 aspect when would the Historic Resources Board make their review of the adequacy or the
13 importance of that building in order to make a reconunendation in terms of a Finding of
14 Overriding Considerations of City Council?
15
16 Mr. Turner: Well, HRB did comment with regard to the Historic Preservation Alternative. It is
17 not too surprising that most of them were in favor of the Historic Preservation Alternative as the
18 preferred alternative for the project. However, I would say that about half of the HRB members
19 were also realistic with regard to the feasibility of the retention of the Stone Building. So I think
20 that although they preferred to have the Stone Building remain there was a sense that the
21 retention of the Stone Building may not feasible and therefore would I think from their point of
22 view could be a resource that could be a reason for Council adopting a Statement of Overriding
23 Considerations. Again, since the Stone Building is not an historic building on the City's
24 Inventory the HRB would not be making a formal recommendation to the City Council with
25 regard to that Alternative. However, the comments that we received today would be forwarded
26 to the Council for their consideration.
27
28 Commissioner Lippert: I just have one other comment. I don't want to lose sight of things, but
29 Lawrence Halperin also was very significant as a landscape architect of that building.
30
3-1-Chair Garber: On page 5-2, the Description of Alternatives considered in a similar vein as
32 Commissioner Fineberg. It would be nice to be able to see the list of significant and unavoidable
33 project specific and cumulative impacts as a chart against the various project Alternatives. Just
34 help me out though, the bottom bullet, removal of up to 71 protected trees, that would be slightly
35 modified as a result of the Tree Alternative if that were being pursued. It would still not avoid
36 the significant impacts and unavoidable impacts, correct?
37
38 The next bullet up, denlolition of historic structure that would be avoided if we were to pursue
39 the Historical Alternative there. So that would knock off one of those bullets.
40
41 Let me start at the top here. Deterioration of the intersection level of service during peak hour
42 conditions at the three Menlo Park intersections. Do the No Project Alternatives A and B mean
43 that we do not have unavoidable impacts there on those two?
44
45 Ms. Martelino: Under the No Project correct there would be no significant impacts.
46
Page 190/76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Garber: Both Alternatives?
Ms. Martelino: Yes.
Chair Garber: Okay. Any of the other ones accomplish that? I don't believe they do I am just
confirming.
Ms. Martelino: Well, I would like to clarify first off that based on recent input from Menlo Park
as was discussed in pervious hearings that the significant unavoidable on intersections now goes
away because of mitigation measures that now have been deemed feasible in Menlo Park.
Chair Garber: In Menlo Park.
Ms. Martelino: Correct.
Chair Garber: But relative to the impacts in Palo Alto?
Ms. Martelino: In Palo Alto under the No Projects yes, the intersection impacts go away. There
would be some level of intersection impact under the Reduced Intensity Alternative B.
Chair Garber: That is in the S-4 list.
Ms. Martelino: Yes. Under all other Alternatives that would construct to the same level of
increase in operations as the SUMC Project would also result in the same level of intersection
impacts as the proposed project.
Chair Garber: So the only project Alternative that would take that bullet point offis No Project
Alternative A then. Am I understanding that correctly?
Ms. Martelino: And the Reduced Intensity A.
Chair Garber: Okay, so it is both. Then the increased average daily traffic on the four Menlo
Park roadway segments, does that go away then as a result of Menlo Park's ... ?
Ms. Martelino: No. The impacts on the Menlo Park roadways stay significant and unavoidable
under the proposed project.
Chair Garber: Under the proposed project.
Ms. Martelino: And it would also stay significant and unavoidable under the Tree Preservation
Alternative, the Historic Preservation Alternative, and the Village Concept Alternative. Those
three basically.
,'1,
If I could just add, as you are asking these really important questions and being able to
understand and distinguish among the Alternatives, what we are referring to is Table S-5.
Page 20 of 76
1
2 Chair Garber: I apologize.
3
4 Mr. J eung: So there beginning on page S-98 is a very handy comparison among the different
5 Alternatives. You can see in the fIrst column where the proposed project may result in a
6 signifIcant unavoidable impact. You can see across the different colunms which Alternatives
7 might alleviate that particular signifIcant unavoidable impact.
8
9 Chair Garber: Yes, I actually looked at that and there are significantly more line items in that
10 chart than there are on the nine of so bullets there. I was just trying to be able to cut through it a
11 little bit. So if you will forgive me I have one more minute left in my time so I am going to keep
12 plowing through this.
13
14 Mr. Jetmg: So bullet point number two, the increased daily traffic. The No Project Alternatives
15 essentially mitigate that as well as, I am sorry there was a third one as well?
16
17 Ms. Martelino: The Reduced Intensity Alternative A, which would involve no increase in
18 operations.
19
20 Chair Garber: Then the emission criteria, the air pollutants, I believe that can't be mitigated by
21 any Alternative. Well, the No Project I guess.
22
23 Mr. Jeung: Only No Project Alternative A would allow that impact to be reduced to less than
24 significant.
25
26 Chair Garber: I believe the same is true for the following bullet point.
27
28 Ms. Martelino: If I may add for during construction the Tree Preservation Alternative does
29 reduce the impact of construction emissions of air pollutants, particularly nitrous oxide.
30
31 Chair Garber: That is which one? Tree Preservation, thank you. Commissioner Keller, you had
32 some more questions.
33
34 Commissioner Keller: Yes. So just for example is Lucie Stern Theater is that on the list of
35 historic resources for the City?
36
37 Mr. Turner: Without having the list in front of me I think that it is. I can't tell you which
38 Category it is.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: So that was evaluated but the Hoover Pavilion and the Stone Building
41 were evaluated or not evaluated? I am just trying to understand whether those were evaluated or
42 not for the purposes of being on the list. In other words, were they deliberately omitted from the
43 list or they were just not categorically put on the list?
44
45 Mr. Turner: Well, our Historic Preservation Planner could probably better answer this but I
46 think the way that the ordinance works is that it is a property owner driven process to add
Page 21 0[76
1 essentially a building to the City's Historic Preservation Inventory. There is not, as I am aware,
2 a direct process where the City can designate a building without owner consent.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: I see, thank you. So what we seem to have here is what I would refer to
5 as a multi-constrained problem. It is essentially a multidimensional optimization problem. As
6 an engineer type when you do multi-constrained optimization problems you have various
7 weightings that you apply to things and then you try to find the overall match that has the lowest
8 badness ratio, or whatever kind of formula you want to pick. What is interesting about that is
9 that when you are considering among the Alternatives in this process there are Alternatives that
10 you will consider for CEQA purposes, and say okay here is something that makes sense from
11 CEQA. We want to basically consider the ranges of this. If you think about this it is sort of the
12 boundaries of a space. So the various CEQA Alternatives essentially define boundaries of a
13 multidimensional space, but something in the interior of the multidimensional space might have
14 a goodness rate or lowest badness rate that is better than something that is one of the points on
15 the Alternative.
16
17 So what I am wondering is from this process while it won't be the point that we can at this
18 juncture decide that a particular alternative or conlbination of alternatives will be best, because
19 the FEIR process is supposed to wind up with the evaluation of that. But because the FEIR
20 process only evaluates fixed alternatives that are at the boundaries I am wondering how we can
21 find out a point on the interior that is actually better if such a point exits, or multiple such points
22 exist that are better than any of the alternatives chosen. So I am wondering, to follow up on
23 Commissioner Fineberg brought up, if it makes sense for the Commission to identify some
24 alternative or some combination of alternatives which is not currently one of the eight or so that
25 have been studied, which the Commission feels in a straw vote would be promising to consider
26 as a candidate for evaluation and comparison to the others for their impacts in order to determine
27 maybe there is an alternative that will bubble up to the top that we can identify to be considered.
28 At this juncture we won't identify it and say it will be better, but we can perhaps identify an
29 alternative that might be better to be evaluated and that might become the preferred alternative in
30 the overall evaluation, better than any of the ones that have been so far identified. So if you posit
31 my hypothetical condition that there are some additional better ones than the ones identified how
32 do we identify those, how do we get them studied, what is the role of those in the FEIR process?
33
34 Mr. Williams: I will let others chime in if they would like to but the role of those in the FEIR
35 process is for us to respond to any of those suggestions whether it be from the Commission as a
36 whole or from one individual. We are going to respond in any event as to whether the impacts,
37 this differs in some significant way from an Alternative that is there, and then whether or not it
38 meets the criteria for reducing impacts and meeting most of the objectives of the project. Then if
39 we d0J;1't feel that it does then we would indicate that we have other Alternatives that have been
40 excluded. So the Commission again could go through that exercise, but at this point the role in
41 the FEIR is to take those suggestions and look at whether or not another Alternative is viable and
42 should be added to the FEIR.
43
44 Mr. Jeung: Let me preface this by saying I anl going to step gingerly into this area, because I am
45 very, very sympathetic to exactly the points that you are bringing up even though I didn't do
46 particularly well in math and I really got lost with vector spaces and things like that.
Page 22 of 76
1
2 One of the things we do as part of the CEQA process, and I think Attorney Silver brought it up
3 really well earlier, as part of these Alternatives we are trying to create bookends. We are trying
4 to identify the range of the potential impacts and to address those from very unique, distinct
5 perspectives so we do have an Alternative that specifically addresses historic resources. We
6 have another Alternative that specifically addresses trees. There are others that speak to getting
7 better linkages.
8
9 I think the point that you are trying to bring up is that as we go through this exercise and we look
10 at the environmental document it is supposed to be an informational document. It is intended to
11 help fashion solutions that can help inform the Commission and the Council. So to the extent
12 that I can draw upon experiences from some other jurisdictions, and again I am not saying this is
13 how Palo Alto will do it, but in other conununities where we have had multiple Alternatives and
14 we have looked at those, we have asked Commissions or the Councils in those jurisdictions to
15 say are there aspects of these different alternatives that are before you that if we were to
16 composite them in another alternative it could be identified as a mitigated alternative, for
17 example. So you could take the best of the Tree Preservation Alternative or you could take the
18 best of the Reduced Intensity Alternative. Each of those different Alternatives has already been
19 evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report. To the extent that we have already done the
20 analysis of the bookends or sort of the boundaries as you put it, then the combined impacts or the
21 composite impacts of an alternative that is within the interior of that boundary should be
22 presumably already addressed in the environmental document. So to the extent that the
23 Commission, if I am losing you let me know. So to the extent that the Commission decides that
24 there is some combination or composite alternative that collectively you think is preferable or
25 something that should be considered, not preferable, but something that should be considered
26 then what we would do in the Final Environmental Impact Report is to say that there are aspects
27 of each of these different Alternatives that have been evaluated in the Draft environmental
28 document. We have now constructed s~mething that is a little bit different. It is this hybrid that
29 we have created and we will go through the environmental document and see whether there are
30 components of this hybrid that have not been adequately addressed. We will have to go ahead
31 and provide that additional supplemental environmental analysis. If it doesn't result in
32 significant new impacts, new mitigation measures that in and of themselves create impacts, then
33 we can say that the Draft environmental document is solid, and that it sufficiently addresses the
34 impacts that might be associated with this hybrid. So what I am saying is I am sympathetic to
35 what you and Commissioner Fineberg have brought up and we applied this in other jurisdictions
36 where that was kind of the desire because the Council wanted to hear input from the Commission
37 in that fashion.
38
39 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. If I may? So what is interesting about this is that there is sort
40 of a gradient that comes when you have a surface for a multidimensional space, if you will. So
41 when you are coming in from the boundary you might want to think about taking different
42 alternatives and understanding how to choose among them by taking some of these combinations
43 and alternatives.
44
. 45 Two other quick things. One is with respect to the additional workers. I believe it was
46 mentioned by somebody 10,000 additional workers. I believe it is more like 2,000 and change
Page 23 0176
1 additional workers. If somebody could verify that just to correct the record. I think there is a
2 total of 10,000 plus/minus and 2,000 plus/minus additional if I remember correctly.
3
4 With respect to the program of objectives that are in Attachment A and also on page 2-4 of the
5 EIR document.· There are ones with bullets and ones with dashes. The ones with dashes are sort
6 of sub underneath the ones with bullets. I am assuming that the major objectives, if you will, are
7 the ones will bullets, and that the ones with dashes are sort of ways of implementing what is
8 really on in terms of bullets. So for example the third bullet on page 2-4 is achieve timely
9 compliance with the requirements of Senate Bill 1953, and other applicable code requirements.
10 The first dash under that is replace the SHC portion of the 1959 hospital building, etc. It seems
11 to me the idea behind that is really to replace the function of that as opposed to necessarily
12 replace the building. For example, the Preservation Alternative does not replace the building but
13 it replaces that function. It reuses the building for something else and therefore essentially
14 complies with the spirit of that requirement, of that objective, but it doesn't implement it in the
15 way that the proposed proj ect does. So I am trying to understand the scope of exactly what was
16 meant by substantially complying that these things are to be read I am assuming conceptually
17 and not literally. They don't have to be read literally. Is that correct?
18
19 Mr. Jeung: Maybe answering you indirectly. An analogy might be the analysis that you go
20 through with a development project and understanding whether it substantially complies with the
21 Comprehensive Plan policies and goals and objectives. The Comprehensive Plan goals and
22 objectives provide information, direction, guidance just as these objectives are intended to
23 provide direction and guidance. As you go through an evaluation of the project you are making
24 certain judgments about how satisfactorily it complies with those program objectives. So it is
25 similar in that same fashion that you don't have to specifically comply to the. letter, but if you are
26 intending to comply with the spirit as you would with a Comprehensive Plan policy.
27
28 In this case, I don't know if Stanford needs to address this, but part of the reason that there is a
29 program goal to comply with SB 1953 is because there are Duildings that do require seismic
30 retrofitting. Those specific buildings are what are identified in the dashes I think.
31
32 Conlffiissioner Keller: Thank you. I assume that there is no program objective that specifically
33 says 600 beds or whatever that a slightly smaller number would substantially comply.
34
35 Mr. J eung: Right. I think the attorney brought it out earlier in terms of coming up with these
36 objectives. You can't be too specific so much as to preclude different ways of accomplishing
37 those set of objectives. They are setup at the outset just like the Comprehensive Plan.
38
39 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg you had a brief follow up and then we will get back to
40 Commissioner Martinez.
41
42 Commissioner Fineberg: Can I just get confirmation? Are the items listed under the Objectives
43 that have dashes in front of those, are those objectives and are the various Alternatives going to
44 be measured against those dashed items, or will the Alternatives only be measured against the
45 bullet dotted items?
46
Page 24 0/76
1 Ms. Silver: We look at the Objectives as a whole. So we look at both the bulleted and the
2 dashed language to determine compliance with the Objectives.
3
4 Commissioner Fineberg: So if an Objective is stated that we are going to replace the 1959
5 structure, we are going to increase the number of beds, keep going the list one could define as the
6 set of objectives something that could only be satisfied with a desired outcome and no other
7 Alternative could satisfy that. So how is that handled?
8
9 Ms. Silver: Well, the Objectives have been reviewed so thatthey, we believe, are written
10 broadly enough to allow for a range of Alternatives. When we reviewed the Objectives we
11 reviewed sort of the broad-brush objectives that are highlighted in the bullet points, and we also
12 reviewed the more detailed amplification of those broad-brush points that are in the dashed
13 language. I hope that answers your question.
14
15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez, and Commissioners it is 20 of eight at which point we
16 will have been here for two hours. Let's see if we can try and wrap up our remaining questions
17 perhaps by eight and then we can take a briefbreak and continue on. Go ahead.
18
19 Commissioner Martinez: Okay. I want to focus my comments at this point on the Village
20 Concept Alternative. I really want to encourage my fellow Commissioners to kind of pile on on
21 this one. The conclusions that building housing near work increases traffic and traffic impacts
22 really flies in the face of all conventional wisdom about planning, and tells us we should really
23 stop working on our Comprehensive Plan and go in another direction. I just don't get it, to use
24 Commissioner Fineberg's words from last time. Maybe I should have gone to Cornell.
25
26 I don't get the conclusions that by providing nearly 500 housing units for employees that we
27 create additional traffic impacts on another intersection and that the vehicle mile trips only goes
28 down one percent. I think you would have to make some startling conclusions about what are
29 these spouses doing. Do they work in Livermore? Just some things that are non-sequitur. We
30 are proposing to suggest to build housing near where doctors and healthcare workers and
31 doctorial students will work. Yet we are not also saying that this is also near Caltrain and
32 substantially good transit. Ifwe make such a conclusion we should make the conclusion on the
33 other side that says Go Passes will fail.
34
35 So I am really not following. I am not appreciating. I am not supporting this argument that if
36 these housing units were given or built for the Stanford Hospital workers that sonlehow this
37 would not make a significant impact on traffic. I don't know if anybody can explain that away.
38 Even if you could, you are saying that those 490 housing units are going to be occupied by other
39 Stanford employees and we are going to be looking at the same impacts somewhere else. Maybe
40 for the sake of this EIR it is not to be considered but for the sake of our streets and the city and
41 mitigations that need to come it is there regardless. Thank you.
42
43 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka followed by Lippert.
44
45 Commissioner Tanaka: I have two questions for the Chair. The first question is should we start
46 moving on to start talking about Alternatives or are we still on the Draft EIR process?
Page 25 0/76
1
2 Chair Garber: We are just on the process and general questions for the moment until we can get
3 back down the line here and then we will move to the individual Alternatives and go through
4 each one.
5
6 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. Then the second question is given some of the discussion that has
7 gone on so far do you recon1ffiend that we take a straw poll or try to give some guidance to
8 Stanford and Staff as to which Alternative is good to focus on or a hybrid of Alternatives that is
9 good to focus on?
10
11 Chair Garber: We can discuss once we get through the Alternatives. If there is some desire to
12 do so we can entertain it at that time.
13
14 Commissioner Tanaka: Great, thank you.
15
16 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
17
18 Commissioner Lippert: I want to finish up with nly questions on the historic again. Just to
19 clarify, regardless of whether these buildings are on the City's Historic Inventory they are
20 potentially eligible as a state historic resource, or they are a state historic resource. They would
21 have to be reviewed by our Historic Resources Board as long as they are within Palo Alto's
22 jurisdiction. Is that not correct?
23
24 Mr. Turner: I do not believe that that is correct. The HRB reviews only resources that are on the
25 City's Historic Inventory. Those two buildings are not on the City's Historic Inventory.
26
27 Commissioner Lippert: So who would have the jurisdiction then if they were potentially eligible
28 or actually state historic resources?
29
30 Mr~ Jeung: Whenever we do an analysis in a community, if we identify a property as being
31 potentially eligible for inclusion on either the State or the National Register regardless of the
32 local circumstances and ordinances it still then becomes the purview of the local lead agency to
33 consider that in the environmental document. So as we are going through and reviewing the
34 environmental document and pointing out that there are potentially significant unavoidable
35 impacts associated with the loss of this resource then the City Council would have to consider a
36 Statement of Overriding Consideration that they wanted to move forward with the project.
37
38 Comnlissioner Lippert: Okay. So again, I feel like I am making a circular point here, because it
39 would then come back to the Historic Resources Board that would have to make a
40 recommendation to the City Council. Is that not correct?
41
42 Mr. Turner: Well, again our hands are pretty tied actually with regards to the Historic
43 Preservation Ordinance and what the purview of the HRB is. So we are limited. However, we
44 do recognize the fact that these structures are historically significant with regard to CEQA. We
45 feel that the HRB should be inserted into the process, albeit not in a formal way, but at least in a
46 way where their comments can be transmitted to the various Boards and Commissions for their
Page 26 of 76
1 consideration. So we have done that. If you feel that there needs to be more review by the HRB
2 then you may recommend that and Staff will take that into consideration, but the Historic
3 Ordinance itself does not provide us with a pathway for review by the HRB of these buildings.
4
5 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. So again, I am trying to get some clarity on this. According to
6 the consultant it would have to be, if it was potentially eligible which these are potentially
7 eligible, it would have to be reviewed by the City Council, but the City Council doesn't really
8 nlake those determinations without the Historic Resources Board first making a
9 recommendation. Have we had a situation like this before where the Historic Resources Board
10 has not weighed in on potentially eligible buildings along the same lines?
11
12 Mr. Turner: No, I don't recall a situation like this. I think previously on the High Street project
13 the Creamery building was on the Historic Inventory and that was reviewed by the HRB and the
14 City Council. I don't recall any other examples of non-listed buildings going through the process
15 without -------16
17 Commissioner Lippert: Wasted a lot of time on this one. I apologize. My time is almost up. I
18 will just pass onto thenext Commissioner. I have other questions but we can come back.
19
20 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg you were going to wait until the item itself?
21 Commissioner Keller? In the applicant's presentation on their page 20 there was a bullet point
22 number two, Stanford University Medical Center Proposal includes, and the second bullet point
23 states, provision of $23 million towards City affordable housing projects unlike Quarry site
24 housing would be in Palo Alto helping City achieve ABAG requirements, would increase City
25 housing supply rather than simply changing occupancy.
26
27 One, would that money be specifically assigned to housing projects or can it be used for
28 anything? Does it matter? Two, how would we evaluate the significance of that money relative
29 to it helping the City achieve our ABAG requirements? Three, is it true that by looking at the
30 Alternative for replacing housing on Stanford sites that are not in Palo Alto that we are simply
31 changing or swapping occupancy versus increasing it? That is the first I have heard of that and I
32 am just curious if there is another plan that the applicant has that is not apart of this project but
33 includes housing of some significant amount, and if that has been made part of the EIR and the
34 potential cumulative impacts that were to be evaluated. So there are three questions there.
35
36 Mr. Williams: I will just indicate that there isn't another plan as far as what specifically would
37 be done with that $23 million, and how far that would go to produce housing, which would be
38 separate from housing on these sites that have been designated. It depends on a lot of
39 assumptions in terms of how much the City could leverage that money, what land is available
40 because there are not sites that go along with that money at this point. So essentially the City
41 would need to use that for land and construction costs, and again how far that would go would
42 depend on a lot of factors.
43
44 Chair Garber: We would need to asserrlble the criteria in order to make the evaluation as to
45 whether that would really be a significant amount and have a significant impact on us alleviating
46 our ABAG disparity.
Page 27 of 76
1
2 Mr. Williams: We can make some assumptions and probably provide a range that that might
3 provide, but I don't think we have done that at this point.
4
5 Chair Garber: I am not sure we should have. I am just trying to figure out how we would get
6 into that question. So that was number one. One moment, we have two follow ups coming.
7 Then to my first question, which is does that money need to be or is it required to be specifically
8 assigned to housing projects versus anything else the City wants to do with that money?
9
10 Mr. Williams: That is what it is intended for at this point it is specifically for that. I think that
11 would be, if the Development Agreement went according to what Stanford Medical Center has
12 offered in that, there would be some condition that it be used in that way. So that leaves open the
13 question of how the Development Agreement actually reads in the end but that is what certainly
14 the intent is to focus it on housing.
15
16 Chair Garber: So that is the intent. The Development Agreement can be utilized to use that
1 7 money in other ways should the City decide to.
18
19 Ms. Silver: Currently, Stanford's offer is that the money be dedicated to housing. The City has
20 not yet accepted that offer. We are still in negotiations. There will be additional hearings on the
21 extent of that offer. So we just can't answer that question at this point.
22
23 As to you other question about the ABAG requirements, we do have some documentation from
24 ABAG that states that the current 2007 through 2014 ABAG cycle includes the Stanford Project
25 development. So that is good. However, when the 2015 RHNA cycle comes out it mayor may
26 not include some additional employment projections attributable to this project. ABAG will not
27 guarantee that there will be no additional allocation in the next cycle. We do have some
28 confirmation that the current cycle does include some employment growth.
29
30 Chair Garber: Then to the third quest,ion, which is are we simply swapping housing but having
31 to deal with the impacts either on this project or some other project that we don't know about, is
32 that a true statenlent? Ifit is a true statement, is the City aware or maybe the applicant can speak
33 to it, is that something that we should be taking into consideration as part of our 15-year, our 20-
34 year outlook relative to the impacts that this project has on our community?
35
36 Ms. Silver: Yes, Chair Garber, the GUP permit actually requires Stanford to build a certain
37 number of units. I believe it is 2,200, I may be off a couple of hundred. Then it permits Stanford
38 to build an additional 600 units. So we believe that the 600 units are not required to be built
39 under the GUP. We have determined that we characterize that as an overage. So what the
40 Village Concept Alternative looks at is taking those unprogrammed 600 units and restricting
41 them to hospital employees. So I think there is a difference of opinion as to whether we are just
42 swapping out housing units or whether they are housing units that are not currently on the ground
43 and constructed, they are entitled, and they are permitted under the GUP. Village Concept looks
44 at just restricting those to hospital employees.
45
Page 28 of 76
1 Chair Garber: That is the third follow up. For our consultants, has the work that you have done
2 relative to impacts of the GUP, whether it is occurring as part of this project or not, is that apart
3 of the DEIR? I would assume it would come under Cumulative Impacts if it is not apart of this
4 proj ect directly.
5
6 Ms. Martelino: Well, development under the GUP is considered in the Cumulative Analysis.
7 Going back to the Village Concept Alternative the analysis of that Alternative does identify
8 where the recommended dedication of housing towards SUMC employees could potentially have
9 implications on the previous GUP analysis, particularly trip generation associated with the
10 occupancy of the housing.
11
12 Chair Garber: Let me pause here. Mr. Philips, do you have some thoughts to share with us?
13
14 Mr. Philips: Yes, thank you. I just want to characterize the GUP so-called requirement and what
15 the program is under the GUP. What we applied for and received under the GUP, which was
16 program driven was for 3,000 units. That is what the University desired. That is what the
1 7 University was granted. There was a linkage requirement because the GUP also addresses
18 University facilities to be built. There was a linkage requirement the County imposed saying we
19 don't want all the University facilities built out before the University develops its housing. So a
20 certain amount of that housing program had to be driven along with the development of the
21 facilit,ies. That is what that is.
22
23 It is not that you have build so many housing units in orderto do whatever you want to do. It is
24 that there has been some para-pursue approach to both facilities and housing, but the program at
25 the University is for the 3,000 units. So our view is that the units are Quarry are part of those
26 3,000 and if those are displaced then we have a hole in what our total need is as far as program is
27 concerned. Thanks.
28
29 Chair Garber: We have three follow-ups. Commissioner Keller, Martinez, Lippert.
30 Commissioner Keller.
31
32 Commissioner Keller: Yes, quickly, the issue is that there was a statement that the Quarry Road
33 housing was used for hospital housing, presumably for married employees, that that would add
34 additional trips. If that Quarry housing were used for married student housing or married
35 students on campus presumably that would involve the same number of additional trips, and
36 therefore would have already been analyzed under the GUP. Is that a reasonable assumption?
37
38 Chair Garber: If you would identify yourself when you begin.
39
40 Mr. Dennis Struecker. AECOM: Yes, that is pretty close. The GUP used a lower trip rate than
41 we used for the medical employees in this analysis but you are essentially correct.
42
43 Commissioner Keller: Spouses of medical employees tend to range further a field than spouses
44 of students, I presume. Thank you. In terms of the GUP range of housing I would assume that
45 with respect to Mr. Philips' comment that all of those 3,000 have an allocated purpose in
46 Stanford's plans. I am seeing nods from people from Stanford. Thank you.
Page 29 of 76
1
2 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez, and then Lippert.
3
4 Commissioner Martinez: I just wanted to follow up on something that the Planning Director said
5 in terms of leverage. Typically the City won't take $23 million and build a housing project. It
6 will typically leverage it to help write down the cost of land, to help with development costs
7 working with a partner, a nonprofit. Therefore rather than 50 units we might be looking at 200
8 units that could be constructed under a wise strategy to increase our housing supply.
9
10 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: For the City Attorney. Can you clarify for nle, I believe under
13 California State law you can take very low, low, and moderate-income housing and actually
14 transfer those to other communities in terms of being built. They don't necessarily have to be
15 built within the geographical boundaries of Palo Alto. It could be shifted to another community.
16 Is that not correct.
17
18 Ms. Silver: I think you are talking about a particular aspect of the redevelopment law and the
19 City does not have a redevelopment area. We have a redevelopment agency but we don't yet
20 have a designated redevelopment area.
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then the other aspect is under SB 375, because of the proximity
23 of Quarry Road to the transit center if these are allocated as very low, to low, to m~derate-
24 income housing units the housing bonus density law could also kick-in in teml.s of allowing for
25 higher density housing. So in fact it could be that it could be graduate student housing with
26 another component that could be dedicated to worker housing for the hospital if they were
27 deemed to be very low to moderate income housing. Correct?
28
29 Ms. Silver: That is possible. The Quarry Road sites are located in the County jurisdiction and
30 there is CEQA clearance fOJ; 420 units. There would have to additional CEQA clearance for any
31 additional density bonus laws and the density bonus would have to be granted by the County.
32
33 Commissioner Lippert: Then again under SB 375 if they were identified as TPP, Transit Priority
34 Project, sites by the regional planning group then it would be entitled to relief from a certain
35 amount, a streamlining, through the CEQA process. I believe it is also an exemption from
36 certain cascading provisions ofCEQA.
37
38 Mr. Williams: That potential is out there. It requires that this would have to be or we would
39 have to have plans developed that are compliant with the sustainable communities strategy under
40 SB 375 that is adopted by the region. The City has also adopted that. So if we have that in place
41 then yes, they would be eligible for some CEQA relief and density bonus applies really
42 regardless of the SCS SB 375.
43
44 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you.
45
Page 30 of 76
1 Chair Garber: Commissioners, let's take a brief three-minute break. We will take another one at
2 ten o'clock. When we come back, let's start going through our various project alternatives with
3 comments. Thank you.
4
5 Commissioners, let's provide some comments. We have seven different Alternatives. I will
6 query you at the beginning of each to find out if people have comnlents. If they do, let's try and
7 get all of our comments into package and ideally within five minutes if we can manage it. Ifwe
8 have to we will come back but otherwise we are going to be here until the wee hours of the night,
9 and I would like to try and not do that. So who would like to go first on Alternative A
10 Retrofitting Only? Does anybody have comments on A? I am seeing no head nods. You have
11 one? Commissioner Fineberg.
12
13 Commissioner Fineberg: this isn't going to be very teclulical and I think it is just going to affirm
14 what is in the DEIR. This Alte:rnative doesn't satisfy anybody's objectives to accomplish
15 anything so ex-nay.
16
17 Chair Garber: Moving on. Anyone have comments on No Project Alternative B? Could we put
18 up a slide for that? I am looking on page 5-3 if that helps you at all. So no comments on No
19 Project Alternative B, which was about noncompliant structures. How about Reduced Intensity
20 Alternative, the right sizing of Stanford Hospital and the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital?
21 Commissioner Fineberg.
22
23 Commissioner Fineberg: I am blind on the better part of how to consider the attainment of
24 objectives versus the Reduced Intensity Alternatives A and B without detail of understanding
25 what objectives are being met, and what objectives are not being met. I don't know. I don't
26 know what the City or the applicant consider their significant objectives and which of the
27 objectives are not significant objectives. I don't know which, A or B, satisfies each of those
28 objectives or not. So it is hard for me to constructively draw any conclusions.
29
30 Chair Garber: Commissioners, how about Reduced Intensity Alternative B? Conlmissioner
31 Keller.
32
33 Commissioner Keller: What is interesting about Reduced Intensity Alternative A is you can pick
34 some numbers basically it is not based on the number of current beds. What is interesting about
35 Reduced Intensity Alternative B is it is an arbitrary number. In other words, a growth of 60
36 percent of the number of beds and that seems to be a very arbitrarily chosen nutnber. So perhaps
37 what might be considered as a variation of this Alternative for further evaluation is if you look at
38 Figure 2-11 of the DEIR you will notice that there a five towers that are 130 feet. I believe it is
39 about 18 feet or so is the floor-to-floor height ofa floor, if I remember correctly it is somewhere
40 in that range. So if we were to lop off a floor from each of those five towers, which would make
41 the highest be 112 or so, which is the height of one the office towers I am wondering whether
42 that is an alternative that should be evaluated as being perhaps better than the 130 foot alterative.
43 It in some sense has some logical coherence as to why you would want to do that. I think I
44 would ask my fellow Commissioners, whether ... yes?
45
Page 31 0/76
1 Chair Garber: Restate your logic again. What does lopping off the top floor do and tell me how
2 you got there again?
3
4 Commissioner Keller: Well, if you look at Figure 2-11 there are five towers at 130 feet.
5
6 Chair Garber: Yes.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: So lopping off one story from each of those five towers would mean that
9 the highest of all the buildings would be about 112 feet, which would reduce some of the impact
10 and it would be somewhat more of a feasible alternative than some arbitrary number like 60
11 percent. It is based on this design. I don't know exactly how many beds it turns out to be
12 reducing the main hospital, but it is something that would not require a lot of redesign and I am
13 wondering the degree to which the impacts on traffic, the impacts on housing, and the impacts on
14 other things would be reduced.
15
16 Chair Garber: I appreciate your general comment that it is hard to know why B is at whatever
17 number it ends up being. I am not sure that just taking off a floor it doesn't get you all that
18 much closer to like say the 50-foot height limit or something of that sort versus some other
19 objective.
20
21 Conlmissioner Keller: I understand. I am not sure. I don't know exactly how many rooms or
22 beds it would remove. If you think about it from a point of view of sort of a coherent design of
23 what is already there it would retain that notion of a coherent design. It is a logical amount to
24 reduce it by based on the design. The question is, we would like to know, I would like to know
25 personally and I am not sure whether anybody else would, but I would like to know how many
26 beds does that reduce it by and what are the corresponding impacts of that.
27
28 Chair Garber: You are using the phrase 'coherent design' again I appreciate what you are trying
29 to do. I am not sure you and I, or you and I or anybody else could establish what that is as a
30 baseline. I am not really arguing with you just sort of having a discussion. It would seem to me
31 that you would want to find something that is not sort of design driven and that is planning
32 driven, and say like what happens if the project were not go above a 50-foot height limit, and
33 then look at the impacts.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Let me state it as if suppose the project was to go above 112-feet. I think
36 it is going to be very hard to build a building that is not above 50-feet.
37
38 Chair Garber: I don't disagree I anl just saying that is a number that exists, and somebody could
39 say we looked at what the impact is and therefore here are the results and why we didn't choose
40 it.
41
42 Commissioner Keller: I understand. I am just suggesting 112-feet as a number to consider
43 because one of the other towers is that height and it is something that would not require a great
44 amount of redesign to accomplish.
45
46 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert, you have something to add?
Page 32 of 76
1
2 Commissioner Lippert: I had another question earlier on that I was going to ask and I sort of
3 dismissed it. I thought at the time it wasn't going to make much of a difference but I think it
4 does make a difference here. Stanford University Proj ect that is what the applicant is proposing.
5 That is the A-I prime metric here. Then all the other Alternatives here, and it was alluded to by
6 Commissioner Fineberg that those were somehow convoluted and made up by the applicant
7 along with Staff. I may be paraphrasing that incorrectly, but as though they were just drummed
8 up and pulled out of a hat. This is just Alternatives. I think it would be helpful if maybe Trixie
9 went through and just identified where each of those Alternatives came from and how
10 particularly the Reduced Intensity Alternatives were arrived at. I think that would basically
11 answer Commissioner Keller's line of questioning as to why we are looking at a 60 percent
12 reduction here. I think that these are Alternatives. There is rationale behind them, and
13 understanding what the rationale of those are, and they are only snapshots.
14
15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, just as a point of clarification, your reference to
16 Commissioner Fineberg was in supporting something that you thought she said? Commissioner
17 Fineberg, you had a concern about that?
18
19 Commissioner Fineberg: Yes. I didn't say that Staff cooked up various alternatives. What I was
20 saying is that they were working with the applicant to detennine what the favorite alternative
21 would be, and that what would be analyzed going forward and what the proposed proj ect would
22 be was a collaborative effort and maybe not getting input from the Commission. But no, I don't
23 think they in any way arbitrarily cooked up alternatives.
24
25 Chair Garber: Well, let's not get into that just now. I think Commissioner Lippert's suggestion
26 may not a bad one, which is to review the attributes of the Alternative relative to this
27 conversation. Could you, Trixie, just review the attributes of Reduced Intensity Alternative B
28 for us, and what the objectives were that the team was trying to solve in that Alternative? Or
29 Rod or Steve? Trixie.
30
31 Commissioner Lippert: It isn't so much attributes as to how they arrived at, and I think it goes
32 back to what Comnlissioner Keller was trying to get at, and Commissioner Fineberg was trying
33 get at also, which is that there are certain programmatic requirements or aspects of the project. I
34 think identifying how they arrived at these Alternatives will illuminate or illustrate more clearly
35 why they were selected.
36
37 Chair Garber: Why this Alternative.
38
39 Ms. Martelino: I will make an attempt answering this as accurately as I can. It has been awhile
40 since we developed these Alternatives. In general, when dealing hospital projects there is, yes, a
41 collaborative effort with the applicant in arriving at Alternatives. The reason is that hospitals are
42 a special case compared say to an office project, or a residential project. Where a hospital is a
43 very tightly knit unit with necessary functional adjacencies and program requirements that the
44 applicants are really most qualified or in the best position to detennine what feasible alternatives
45 can be developed. The collaboration on Staffs end and on the consultant's end comes in where
46 we also look at these alternatives against the requirements of CEQA. Would they reduce
Page 33 0/76
1 significant impacts? Would they attain close to the project's objectives? So there was a
2 collaborative effort there in arriving at the Alternatives.
3
4 Specifically for Reduced Intensity Alternative B this came about as the fruit of a sequence of
5 steps that occurred much earlier in the EIR preparation process. The analysis looked at the
6 midpoint of development of the SUMC Project. Specifically the 2015 deadline for when the
7 hospitals would need to meet seismic requirements under SB 1953. The Reduced Intensity
8 Alternative B was sort of a parallel level of development as what would happen at that 2015
9 point. So it is not as arbitrary as it may seem because the basis of this came at point where there
10 is a certain deadline that would need to be met and what level of development could potentially
11 be foreseen at that midpoint, the 2015 midpoint?
12
13 Chair Garber: Am I understanding you to say that you were looking at a construction period of
. 14 whatever it is, and you were looking at how much square footage was accomplished by the end
15 of that complete construction period. Then you took a point midway through that construction
16 period and looked at how many square feet was available at that point, and that is where you
17 came up with Reduced Intensity Alternative B.
18
19 Ms. Martelino: Right.
20
21 Chair Garber: So when it satisfied the SB 1953 the noncompliant structures, when it completed
22 that is when you stopped and you evaluated just that project at that point.
23
24 Ms. Martelino: Right. Well yes in terms of what would be developed for the hospital
25 components, the medical office components.
26
27 Mr. Williams: If I could?
28
29 Chair Garber: Yes.
30
31 Mr. Williams: We picked that date and I think now that I hear it again that did have a bearing on
32 the 60 percent. When you are doing this kind of determination of alternatives it is very standard
33 to have a Reduced Intensity Alternative whether it is a residential or commercial project or
34 whatever. So what you want to try to achieve is an option, and it doesn't mean it is a preferred
35 option but just an option that has some significant reduction that is going to achieve some
36 reduced impacts for you. So saying a 90 percent or a 95 percent instead of a 60 percent is not
37 going to do much in terms of reducing impact. So 60 percent is something that is significant. It
38 could be 50 percent. It could be 70 percent. You are trying to pick a number that has some
39 impact. That is why I think when you compare it to reducing a floor, we look at 60 percent and
40 say well, okay that is going to have an impact on traffic. It is going to reduce traffic whether it is
41 enough to eliminate significant unavoidable impacts, maybe. We don't know that right offbut at
42 least it is a pretty substantial number. It is going to have some impact on height because if you
43 only have 60 percent of the project it may not mean that 130, there isn't still a 130-foot tower,
44 but you are not going to have everything be 130 feet at that point.
45
Page 34 0/76
1 So when you then go to something has been suggested, let's take off one story of height that is
2 probably a ten percent impact on the project. It really probably doesn't do much for the other
3 types of impacts. So we just see that is a more substantial alternative to review than removing
4 one floor of the height, which is probably covered in many respects already by the Alternatives
5 that we looked at.
6
7 Chair Garber: So in other words, maybe the question for the Commission relative to this
8 Alternative is 60 percent the right number and what is the argument that you would make for
9 that? So a suggestion for instance that I made, what is the impact if we make it all 50 feet high?
10 The reality is that is probably 30 percent of the project or something so it is way too low and
11 unreasonable versus a suggestion by Commissioner Keller which is take off one floor, which is
12 more 90 to 95 percent and is not significant in the other direction. So there we are at 30.
13 Commissioner Keller, a follow up.
14
15 Commissioner Keller: I think in terms of considering some of the height issues the Children's
16 Hospital is much less of an impact than is Stanford Hospital itself. So I was thinking about in
17 terms of some of the. height issues of what happens if we lowered it. I do realize that applying 60
18 percent of both would do it but in some sense the 60 percent analysis that was done Reduced
19 Intensity Alternative B there are no heights, there are no numbers, I didn't even see it exact
20 saying we will have X number of beds in each hospital. I don't see a specific detail on that. So I
21 was trying to specify something that is concrete. There is square footage but not beds. At least I
22 couldn't find the number of beds. So I was trying to think in terms of a concrete definition since
23 essentially the upper floors are beds and the lower floors are other kinds of facilities, operating
24 rooms, and labs, and stuff like that. It seemed to nlake sense that that was something coherent
25 and that it might be somewhat linear but it is somewhat more specific than the 60 percent
26 alternative, which was very vague.
27
28 Chair Garber: You are looking to assign something functional to that number as opposed to just
29 an arbitrary one.
30
31 Commissioner Keller: Right. So it seems to me that since I was concerned about some of the
32 impacts and concerned about the impact of height in particular then why not choose that as a way
33 of having something that we can evaluate, and say okay how many beds is that, how many
34 square feet is that, and what kind of impact is quantified with that.
35
36 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Martinez.
37
38 Comnlissioner Martinez: I think we are kind of going the wrong direction looking at that 60
39 percent. When I looked at these different Alternatives it was different construction, or non-
40 construction scenarios. This scenario is to build essentially the hospitals. Not 60 percent. Sixty
41 percent is the outcome of that because we are not doing work at Hoover Pavilion and the School
42 of Medicine and whatever comes later. So I think saying well, why not 50 percent misses the
43 point because the direction of this Alternative is let's get the hospitals built.
44
45 Chair Garber: Thank you for that. Any other comments? Commissioner Fineberg.
46
Page 35 0/76
1 Commissioner Fineberg: Commissioner Keller's direction of questions I think having the view
2 of an Alternative that is functionally different, I shouldn't say functionally, structurally different
3 with the goal of reducing the height might be one that should be considered in a slightly different
4 light. I don't see that the Alternative should be remove the top floor and then lose the square
5 footage associated with it because then you also lose the objectives of what those floors yield.
6 Should there be an alternative with the goal of reducing the impact of the extra height? Then that
7 space would be spread. It would have some additional impacts of possibly taking out more trees,
8 using up more land, maybe being a little less compact, but you could reduce the height impacts.
9 Still it wouldn't change the traffic and it wouldn't change the air pollution. Well maybe it might
10 change the air pollution during construction. It would still achieve the goals of the facility. If we
11 don't analyze something that is at a lower height how do we know whether it is a viable
12 alternative? So I would kind of like to see Conunissioner Keller's idea of lopping off the top he
13 make it lower, spread it, and whether that should be analyzed would be a question maybe other
14 Commissioners could comment on.
15
16 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then let's move on.
17
18 Commissioner Keller: I understand the objective of Commissioner Fineberg, but I was actually
19 trying to solve multiple problems at once. I was trying to reduce the intensity, reduce the height,
20 and several other things at the same time. That is why I thought it made sense.
21
22 Also, the issue is that it does seem to make sense to me that some reduced intensity of the
23 hospital being the biggest thing that is being built is something that is worthwhile considering
24 and evaluating that. I think that I want to separate out the notion, as we did earlier, what is
25 necessary in order to figure out the purposes from the point of view of CEQA for which this
26 theoretically adequately studied than from the point of view of giving input to the decision
27· process of choosing an alternative to move forward with. The 60 percent Alternative is not well
28 enough defined to be an alternative anybody would consider choosing, while the alternative that
29 I am proposing actually may be an alternative that the Council might consider choosing, and that
30 is why I am proposing it.
31
32 Chair Garber: I think to your point the 60 percent is arbitrary and very hard to define. Although,
33 I don't find simply taking off one floor compelling enough to be different than some of the other
34 Alternatives we already have in there. Again, we can take it as a comment and move on.
35
36 Okay, let's go to the Tree Preservation Alternative. Comnlissioner Tanaka.
37
38 Commissioner Tanaka: Yes, thank you. I found this Alternative, which I guess is the preferred
39 Alternative, to overall be quite compelling. There were several things that I wasn't quite clear
40 on. I will take one at a time. First of all, it looked like there would be a higher parking lot,
41 which I didn't quite understand why there would be. Why would the parking lot be raised for
42 this Alternative to happen? Can someone speak to that?
43
44 Mr. Tortorich: Yes, I would be happy to answer the question. We might have a graphic for it.
45 Our original proposal had a parking structure below grade. To put that structure below grade we
46 would have to remove two protected trees. So by reducing the footprint of the parking structure
Page 36 of 76
1 without going any deeper below grade we had to bring it up above grade. So what we did ~hen is
2 decided to make something special out of it so we extended that third floor garden on the top of
3 the garage.
4
5 Commissioner Tanaka: I see, so it is a narrower project so you had to go up another floor. I
6 understand.
7
8 Mr. Tortorich: Yes.
9
10 Commissioner Tanaka: The other thing is was thinking about, and it is hard to tell because I
11 couldn't figure out where the trees are. I notice some buildings are going to be made taller to
12 make up for the loss of one of the modules.
13
14 Mr. Tortorich: Right.
15
16 Commissioner Tanaka: It seemed that the same could be done with the Foundation Medicine
17 buildings as well. So why not have maybe fewer buildings or reduce the footprints of those
18 buildings and make them higher as well to match?
19
20 Mr. Tortorich: Well, we were able to accommodate the School of Medicine buildings on the site
21 without having to increase their height. The height of the School of Medicine buildings sort of
. 22 matches the character of the buildings built in the County that is right in that surrounding. So
23 there was no need to go up in height for the School of Medicine building.
24
25 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, so where are the trees being lost then? The other trees?
26
27 Mr. Tortorich: The trees being lost?
28
29 Commissioner Tanaka: Yes.
30
31 Mr. Tortorich: There are trees under the footprint of the Stanford Hospital building. Some of
32 those trees are in parking structures or actually surface lots. There are trees on the Lucile
33 Packard Children's Hospital site again in paved parking lots. Then there are some trees that we
34 are removing at the Hoover site again on paved parking lots.
35
36 Commissioner Tanaka: Modifying those footprints couldn't save those trees or making the
37 footprint higher or making buildings higher reducing the footprint couldn't?
38
39 Mr. Tortorich: No. Ifwe had the diagram of the Stanford Hospital you can see that base
40 platform, the emergency department, imaging, our interventional platform is a pretty large floor
41 plate and we have shrunk it as much as we can to preserve trees around the perimeter, but there
42 are some protected trees that are just unavoidable in their removal or replacement because they
43 will sit square in the middle of the proposed project.
44
45 Commissioner Tanaka: I see. So basically the reason why the footprint can't be made smaller is
46 because you need a certain size floor plate for the equipment and work that has to be done.
Page 37 0/76
1
2 Mr. Tortorich: Yes, clearly the programmatic requirements for our emergency department,
3 imaging department on the ground floor coupled with that interventional platform on the second
4 floor, which are our operating rooms and prep and recovery spaces define sort of the envelope of
5 those spaces. You can't quite easily have holes in them or shrink that perimeter any further.
6
7 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, great. Thank you.
8
9 Chair Garber: ConlITlissioner Fineberg and then Lippert.
10
11 Commissioner Fineberg: Would it be possible for the City Arborist, Dave Dockter, to answer a
12 few questions? I could use some help understanding some terms that are in the DEIR. On page
13 5-15 and 5-16 it talks about the site plan for this Alternative would avoid 13 biologically and
14 aesthetically significant protected trees. Then on page 5-16 it talks about preserving
15 approximately 23 protected trees. What is the difference between biologically and aesthetically
16 significant tree, and a protected tree? What is the difference between the 13 and the 23? ' Then I
1 7 have some more questions.
18
19 Mr. Dave Dockter, Planning Arborist: Good evening Commissioners. The defmition of
20 protected trees well, let me just address the difference between the numbers first. Staff
21 identified approximately 23 trees that were both aesthetically and biologically important that had
22 those characteristics. The project proponents are proposing to save 13 or 15 of those 23 that
23 Staff identified as having both of those characteristics. So in a perfect world we would have all
24 23, or approximately 23, preserved, worked around, or saved sonlehow. The project is not
25 proposing to save all of those but rather 13 or 15. There are two trees in flux I understand.
26
27 The former question was what is the difference between terminology.
28
29 Commissioner Fineberg: Between the biologically and aesthetically significant trees versus
30 protected trees. I guess I am wondering are they all protected and there is something more
31 significant about the 13. Is there something about how it is being done that are we saving the
32 best of the best trees, or are we losing the best of the best, and maybe we need to tweak
33 something? I don't know.
34
35 Mr. Dockter: Okay, just for the record I will clarify how our interpretation of biological
36 resources was identified, and aesthetic resources. If a tree possesses both of these characteristics
37 that in our minds kind of elevated them to a very, very important tree that should be, again I say
38 in a perfect world, retained, saved, and built around in one way the other. Those are the trees of
39 elevated importance so to speak.
40
41 So let me identify how we got to those two categories. Biological resources are simply any tree
42 that is identified in our Tree Ordinance as meeting certain size standards ifit is an oak or a
43 redwood. Just by virtue of it being a code protected tree qualifies it as a biological resource
44 according to CEQA. That is true in any city in the state. If it is mentioned in a Tree Ordinance it
45 becomes automatically a significant tree.
46
Page 38 of 76
1 So now the other category is aesthetic tree resource that is pretty much a discretionary opinion of
2 a tree, in this case. I will just read from one of the memos that was referenced in the document
3 here. Aesthetic tree resources is a tree that is deemed important to the project, as designated by
4 the Department of Planning and Community Environment or the City Council because it has one
5 or more of the following qualities. It functions as an important, prominent visual feature relating
6 to the existing area, proposed conditions, pedestrian or vehicular thoroughfares. The tree
7 contributes to a larger grove or shared canopy, landscape thenle, or provides a visual balance to
8 existing buildings, trees, or streetscape. If the tree possesses a unique character as defined in the
9 designation for instance of a Heritage Tree in the Tree Ordinance such as if the tree is an
10 outstanding specimen of a desirable species, distinctive in form, size, age, location, or has some
11 other historical significance. So that is what qualifies an aesthetic resource, if the tree or trees
12 contributed.
13
14 So when we looked at the site and evaluated all of the trees, many, many trees though it was an
15 oak or a redwood standing at or near buildings meant most of them did not have this aesthetic
16 resource quality. However, several trees did. For instance in the approach to the Stone Building
17 before you get to the fountain there are groupings of trees on each side that posed a literal
18 bookend entry feature. These became very, very prominent and meeting this aesthetic resource
19 characteristic. We designated those, or it was a discretionary opinion from the Department of
20 many, many people, it wasn't just myself for instance that just came up with this. So that is how
21 this aesthetic resource plays a role.
22
23 So a tree that has the characteristics of an aesthetic resource and biological resource because it is
24 and ordinance size tree that grouping of trees, small in number is what we elevated to this level
25 of importance to be designed around or retained, or at least recommended that.
26
27 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you, I appreciate that. If the Chair can bear with me I just have
28 a quick wrap up comment. I would like a question as to whether the current Tree Preservation
29 plan preserves an adequate number of trees, and whether it adequately analyzes what might be
30 considered tree preservation. This Alternative is saving something depending on what I am
31 looking at either 13 or 23 out of71 total trees. Well, the question was raised whether it was 15
32 but it is talking about preserving 23 protected trees, and yet the map from the applicant is
33 showing three. So let me add a'sub-question. Is the Tree Protection plan preserving 13 trees or
34 23 trees? On page 5-16 it is saying 48 of the trees will be removed, preserving approximately 23
35 of the protected trees that are considered both biologically and aesthetically significant. So is it
36 13 or 23? Is that adequate? Should it be called a Tree Preservation Alternative when it is a small
37 percentage of the total at the site?
38
39 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert.
40
41 Commissioner Lippert: I just need a clarification on one minor point here. In Stanford's
42 presentation they talked about 12 to 15 protected trees remaining. Then in the Staff presentation
43 it was 13 biological/aesthetic significant protected trees would be retained. Are we talking about
44 the same trees? Since there are so many trees on the site I want to make sure that we are in
45 agreement with Stanford and Stanford is in agreement-with Staff. Dave, do you want to answer
46 that?
Page 39 of 76
1
2 Mr. Dockter: The answer is yes. Whether it is 13 or 15 it is the same grouping of trees at the
3 Kaplan Lawn area and at the FIM building, and a couple of others.
4
5 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then one other quick question here. Generally there is an
6 Arborist Report that is done evaluating trees, and with that there is an amortization done on each
7 of the trees as to what their monetary value is. What is to keep Stanford Medical Center from
8 just knocking out a couple of trees and paying the penalty on them and chopping them up for
9 cordwood? When you talk about a Medical Center .....
10
11 Mr. Dockter: Planning for removal is one thing. That is what we do ahead of time. Doing it
12 defiantly after a project is approved and starting up the chainsaws is another. I assume you are
13 talking about the former where we foresee and we plan for removal. Based on an Arborist
14 Report we can pretty well evaluate if a tree will survive or not. During the actual individual
15 project reviews .is where we would render an opinion of can the tree be saved or not, or if it goes
16 to the remove list. That determination of all of these trees to be saved still has yet to be truly
17 verified, because there is a solar access study as well as an arborist assessment of what is
18 happening with the ground and all around a given tree.
19
20 If for instance the solar access study reveals that the tree will not tolerate the amount of shade
21 being cast on a tree, and it is denying the solar access basically to the tree, the tree could
22 foreseeably decline. That would be put in the removal category. We would have to render an
23 opinion at that time whether the roofline would have to be lowered say, or whether the tree
24 would be allowed to be put on the removal list. I mean one of the 13 to 15. So though we are
25 counting that now one of the issues of going parallel with projects 'and the EIR at the same time
26 is the question is raised, what if the project needs to be changed in order to save one of the 13 or
27 15 trees? That is answer I don't have for that question, but it does have bearing on your
28 comment and question to me.
29
30 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you.
31
32 Chair Garber: Anything else?
33
34 Conunissioner Lippert: Actually, I do but I can hold off.
35
36 Chair Garber: Go ahead.
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: Dave, DC Berkeley had quite a bit of controversy over building and I
39 think everybody seems to remember somebody camped out in one of the heritage trees in
40 Berkeley. What were sonle of the decisions that were underlying in terms of the considerations
41 for removal of those trees? You probably followed that pretty closely. There were people that
42 actually camped out and said no way this tree is going, and yet the university had all the right to
43 remove those trees. In some ways this is almost a similar situation.
44
45 Mr. Dockter: My opinion is it doesn't have a lot of bearing on our project here. We are doing it
46 properly by assessing the characteristics and the values and do they apply to our regulations here.
Page 40 of 76
1 There I think it was just purely state land jurisdiction and there was really no local zoning
2 applying to those oak trees. I think it was a lot of popular opinion and people tying themselves
3 to the tree. They had a PR issue to deal with.
4
5 In our case, we are going about it a little bit more responsibly by foreseeing and evaluating can
6 the trees be saved, should they, what level of importance they have to the community ahead of
7 time, before pennits are issued. This is a big difference in my opinion between Berkeley and
8 Stanford.
9
10 Commissioner Lippert: Thank you.
11
12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: So what seems to me here is that looking at page S-152 and S-153, it
15 appears that out of the 71 trees that were originally considered for removal in the original proj ect
16 proposa123 of those are considered biologically and aesthetically significant. Some of those are
17 being preserved but it looks like there are ten biologically and aesthetically significant protected
18 trees that are either going to be cut down or removed, and that number may change by one or two
19 depending on the footprint of the building.
20
21 If I look at this diagram, can we have this diagram put up? It is from the Stanford presentation.
22 It is the diagram that says Historic Preservation Alternative. I like that one because it has
23 numbers on it that I can refer to. I understand. I am not talking about Historic Preservation but I
24 can refer to it because it has numbers, labeled. No, if you can go a few slides further. The very
25 next one. Yes, thank you. The reason I want this one is because the buildings are numbered and
26 I can talk about them.
27
28 So what is· interesting about this is it appears that most of the aesthetically and biologically, I
29 guess they are all biologically, so the main issue is aesthetically. The main ones that are
30 aesthetically significant are those that are under the footprint of Building 8, which I guess is
31 FIM 1 I believe. It looks like there is a big gap between Buildings 9 and 10, which I guess is
32 FIM 2 and FIM 3. So I am wondering the extent to which Building 8, FIM 1, can be shrunk to
33 preserve more trees. There is a gap between Building 9 and Building 10, FIM 2 and FIM 3, that
34 doesn't seem to have any function except maybe because of the surge capacity issues. It looks
35 like that gap might be usefully filled in to some extent and thereby reduce the footprint ofFIM 1
36 or Building 8. I am wondering whether a design like that might preserve more of the trees in
37 what is refereed to as the FIM 19rove. Mr. Dockter, do you want to comment on that?
38
39 Mr. Dockter: I can't comment on the footprint change to 9 and 10, or FIM 2 and 3. Moving
40 away from trees FIM 1 of course would increase the potential for preservation of some of the
41 trees there I would expect.
42
43 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So may I suggest that as part of this ana1ysis;that further
44 tweaking be done to the footprint ofFIM 1 to reduce the impact on the FIM 1 grove? Perhaps
45 decreasing the footprint of that building and increasing the footprint of Buildings 9 and 10
Page 41 0/76
1 connecting them closer together, making that gap be less and retaining the total square footage,
2 might help in that.
3
4 Do you have something you want to add? Identify yourself.
5
6 Mr. Rich Tangori, Stanford School of Medicine: I am Rich Tangori with the School of
7 Medicine. I would actually respond to that question if the Commission pleases.
8
9 Commissioner Keller: Yes, please.
10
11 Mr. Tangori: The footprint between 9 and 10 cannot be expanded for two reasons. One, there is
12 a building on that site right now. If you know, the Stone complex actually sits on that site.
13 There is a tunnel that I believe goes through between those two buildings. That is why the site
14 plan was the way it was.
15
16 More importantly, there is a certain size associated with the lab modules and the lab support
17 spaces that give the building number 8, the FIM 1 building, its width. So even if we shrink the
18 building in length that width is not likely to be shrunk. In doing so we may not be able to save
19 any more trees. I couldn't be more specific without actually looking at some more specific
20 drawings, but given the width of the building from north to south is more or less fixed. It will
21 not help, I do not believe, in saving more trees.
22
23 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I appreciate that and if that is the best we can do, but it is
24 worthwhile at least evaluating that. Thank you. Mr. Dockter?
25
26 Mr. Dockter: I think I would like to add as a follow up in support of what this gentleman just
27 that FIM 1 is retaining the largest and biggest trees along that section. They are relocating one
28 tree, which in the eyes of the City would be retained. They are not removing that tree. The other
29 largest trees along Pasteur there would be remaining the way the footprint is now. By narrowing
30 the building it would improve conditions for the trees that remain but it wouldn't be the tipping
31 point whether a tree was removed or staying. So modifying the footprint of that building would
32 not really increase the nUITlbers of trees removed or remaining. It would just improve the
33 conditions for survivability of probably one tree.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Let me just close my comments on this by saying that it
36 would be helpful to actually have a detailed drawing showing where all the trees are and which
37 ones are being removed and which ones are staying, and this as part of the Final EIR process.
38 sort of indicating the degree to why some of them have to be taken down because ofa necessary
39 footprint, and also an explanation of what the gentleman from the medical school said regarding
40 the gap between FIM 2 and FIM 3, particularly since there is now a building that encompasses or
41 connects the two together. So I am not sure I understand that but an explanation of that I think
42 would be very helpful. Thank you.
43
44 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka.
45
Page 42 of 76
1 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. This is a quick follow on to Commissioner Keller's line of
2 questioning. I guess from earlier questions I was under the impression that the FIM buildings
3 were not impacting the trees because they have already been modified. From this line of
4 discussion it sounds like if that' building, I guess FIM 1, is on protected trees perhaps the
5 footprint of that building could be eliminated and added onto Building 9 and 10 on that diagram
6 up there, if it is. If there are no trees under FIM 1 then it doesn't nlatter. Maybe you could
7 address that.
8
9 Mr. Tortorich: Let me give you just a quick-I think these two slides, one on top of the other
10 will help show you really the planning of what is happening with the School of Medicine
11 bUildings.
12
13 So FIM 1 is going to be constructed while the Stone Building is still in place that way you can
14 decamp occupants of the Stone Building into FIM 1. Then we start incrementally demolishing
15 the Stone Building to get into this final condition. Okay?
16
17 So the site is not clear. As we start construction the site is still occupied with School of
18 Medicine faculty and staff. While we build a building to move a group into, and then we
19 demolish a portion of the Stone Building, and then continue in a sequential replacement. So it is
20 a truly a replacenlent effort.
21
22 Commissioner Tanaka: So are there trees on that footprint right now where that Building 8 is?
23
24 Mr. Tortorich: There are some trees. I think we have been able to realign the building to protect
25 the most significant trees and aesthetically valuable trees on that site.
26
27 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. So for decamping reasons then it sounds like the significant trees
28 are being protected.
29
30 Mr. Tortorich: We believe so.
31
32 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, great. Thank you. Then I mentioned this earlier at one of the
33 earlier meetings, but I do think it is very important as part of the Final EIR to have a very good
34 communication plan on the trees so we don't have a Berkeley-like situation. Exactly, California
35 Avenue situation. So I think a very, very clear well publicized communication plan is very
36 important to have.
37 '
38 Maybe this is already in there but since there are losses of quite a few trees I think having a plan
39 to have additional trees planted other places, which of course I understand is not a full
40 mitigation, but would actually I think be a good PR thing as well. Have additional trees planted
41 at maybe a 2: 1 ratio or something where it could maybe in 50 years make up for it I think would
42 be a good thing.
43
44 Actually, I have one other question for Stanford so maybe Mark can come up again to answer
45 quickly. If you were to look at the cost of this Alternative project, I a~ talking about building
Page 43 0/76
1 cost to Stanford, this Alternative to the original planned project how does it relate? How does it
2 compare? Is it about the same, or a little bit more, or a little bit less?
3
4 Mr. Tortorich: The building costs would be comparable because it is the amount of square
5 footage that we are building. As I mentioned, before we are actively pursuing and drawing this
6 Tree Preservation Alternative so that we can comply with state mandates that tell us we have to
7 finish our drawings and get them permitted by the end of this year. So we have made a
8 considerable investment in this Tree Preservation Alternative after working with Staff to
9 certainly save as many trees.
10
11 Something else I should point out. The Tree Preservation Alternative saves a certain quantity of
12 trees, 13 to 15 trees. We will have that clarified obviously for the Final EIR. We are relocating
13 a significant number of the other trees that are being disturbed. So we will excavate them, box
14 them, hold them, and then replant them in our landscaping plan. So we are taking a considerable
15 amount of effort to relocate trees that are in the path of construction.
16
17 Commissioner Tanaka: I think that is the responsible thing to do, so thank you. Actually, before
18 you leave, I thought because we are losing one building footprint I thought you would actually
19 save some money here, because you are adding it to the heights of the building. You are saying
20 the cost would be about the same?
21
22 Mr. Tortorich: It would be about the same because really the costs obviously are in the square
23 footage that you are constructing. So the square footage didn't change at all, and within a
24 hospital building there is a significant cost in the medical equipment and the information
25 technology that goes into it, and again that wouldn't change because the square footage has not
26 changed.
27
28 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, great. Thank you.
29
30 Chair Garber: I have no real comments on this item other than to recognize that this seems like a
31 natural outcome of the development of the design and all of the objectives continue to be met in
32 a slightly more efficient way, and has two apparent benefits. One, it saves some trees, and two it
33 reduces the footprint.
34
35 So with that let's go to the Historic Preservation Alternative. Commissioners, does anyone have
36 comments on that? Commissioner Tanaka.
37
38 Commissioner Tanaka: I have just a quick comment. I kind of said this earlier. I think what is
39 historically significant about the Stone Building isn't so much the way it looks but it is what
40 happened inside. I think what would be more important is to actually allow these new kind of
41 procedures or discoveries to be made. So I think having the research facilities that enable that I
42 think is far better in recognizing the historic significance of this building versus the way it looks.
43 So that is my comment. Thank you.
44
45 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
46
Page 44 0/76
1 Commissioner Fineberg: I have a question for Stanford. Please. Thank you. Can you tell me if
2 Memorial Chapel is on the City's list of historic sites?
3
4 Mr. Tortorich: I don't know. It is in the County of Santa Clara. It is not in the City of Palo Alto
5 so I don't know that it would be on a City list.
6
7 Commissioner Fineberg: Does it meet current P AUSD building code?
8
9 Mr. Tortorich: I don't know.
10
11 Commissioner Fineberg: I am sorry, not P AUSD, Palo Alto City code or current County code?
12
13 Mr. Tortorich: I will look to nly colleagues at the University. I am not familiar with the design
14 standards of tlt.e University buildings themselves. I know it was damaged in the Lorna Prieta
15 Earthquake and hadto go through a significant seismic retrofit. So it probably meets the
16 applicable codes at the time of post Lorna Prieta.
17
18 Commissioner Fineberg: Would that be true for the buildings on the quad also? I would venture
19 to guess they don't meet current code.
20
21 Mr. Tortorich: I don't know. I honestly don't know.
22
23 Commissioner Fineberg: The reason I am asking that is earlier you talked about tearing·down
24 the buildings and replacing them because they don't meet code .. I am wondering if it is
25 appropriate to have a different standard in different locations because one particular building is
26 not desirable anymore. Whether the historic qualities, the events, the aesthetics trump that, and
27 whether it warrants working around and putting classrooms or other facilities that wouldn't have
28 as tough demands on the facility. I would be curious for your thoughts on that.
29
30 Mr. Tortorich: Let me clarify. We are not demolishing the buildings because they don't meet
3"1 code. If I said that I said that in error. We are denlolishing the buildings because they don't fit
32 our needs and the cost of retrofitting these buildings to accommodate even the City of Palo
33 Alto's earthquake standards are extraordinary for two reasons. One, just the physical
34 restructuring of the buildings to accommodate earthquake forces, they are tremendously
35 disruptive interventions that we have to make to the structure. Two, to make those disruptive
36 interventions to the structure we actually have to move everybody out of the building. So for the
37 School of Medicine as we have talked about with this replacement plan we have 420,000 square
38 feet more or less of medical research labs that have to continue to function. How do we relocate
39 those research labs while we restructure a 1959 structure to accommodate current earthquake
40 safety codes, and accommodate all the technology that is necessary to support modem research
41 labs? It is an equation that just doesn't work.
42
43 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So I guess where I am going, maybe I didn't make it clear, is
44 why do those buildings have to be retrofitted for labs or hospital uSe? Can they not be used for
45 purposes of the hospital, of the Medical Center that don't require that high level of retrofitting?
46 Other buildings on campus are not always brought up to code. Why do the 1959 structures have
Page 45 0/76
1 to comply with Palo Alto Building Code? Why can't they remain and be repurposed in some
2 way that is useful and beneficial, but not be brought up to code?
3
4 Mr. Tortorich: So the code level analysis done for the Stone Building was not to meet any
5 extraordinary requirements of hospital buildings. It was to meet the basic life-safety criteria of
6 safe buildings. So we consider these buildings long-term not to be safe. Not for a long-tenll
7 occupancy. We would derelict in our fiduciary responsibilities if we didn't undertake a
8 replacement strategy.
9
10 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay. So is that the same test that is used on other campus buildings?
11 Are there long-term plans to teardown campus buildings that are not currently safe?
12
13 Mr. Tortorich: I don't know that for a fact. I know there are some campus buildings that have
14 been shuttered since the Loma Prieta Earthquake and are not being occupied. I know that the
15 campus through its construction efforts on campus has tom down a number of buildings. I don't
16 know if they tore them down for code reasons or for other reasons, but there has been quite
1 7 . regeneration of facilities on the main campus.
18
19 I have worked ina lot of other environments. The Stone Buildings are very vulnerable. They
20 have varying degrees of vulnerability, but they are very vulnerable. I have had an awful lot of
21 consultation with our structural engineers who have analyzed the buildings, and their advice to
22 me was you need a long-term replacement strategy. These buildings long-term are not safe.
23
24 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you.
25
26 Mr. Tortorich: Okay.
27
28 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then Keller.
29
30 Commissioner Lippert: Just digressing a tiny bit. What makes the Stanford campus unique, and
31 particularly the Memorial Chapel is Stanford White's design. Those buildings surely need to be
32 preserved with regard to their historic significance.
33
34 With regard to the hospital, the hospital is a whole other kettle of fish. I think what is important
35 here is we need to have clarity on the process for determining whether these buildings are
36 historic resources or not, and their significance in terms of being eligible for either the State
37 Historic Register or the National Register, and whether in fact Edward Durell Stone's design is
38 reaching the threshold of something like Stanford White. For those of you that don't know,
39 Edward Durell Stone did design this building but I don't think there is anything significant about
40 this building. Well, it had a lot of construction flaws in it to begin with that had to be fixed. In
41 addition to that it really is a dumb-down version of the General Motors building which is a very
42 significant building in New York City.
43
44 I think what is important here with regard to the University Hospital and Edward Durell Stone's
45 design is trying to get a handle on two things. Number one is its significance, which I went
46 through. Number two, what the process will be for determining that. I think that whether it is
Page 46of76
1 done by our Palo Alto Historic Resources Board with a recommendation to the City Council or
2 whether it goes directly to the City Council. I don't have the basis on which I can make those
3 findings. I think that our Historic Resources Board is better equipped for making those findings.
4 Based on your preliminary investigation or the hearing that you had earlier today it sounds like
5 the Historic Resources Board, which has architects on it, was beginning to finally wrestle with
6 the whole issue of whether there really needs to be some sort of Statement of Overriding
7 Consideration. I think that with that this whole section as to whether Historic Preservation
8 Alternative is appropriate or not is going to either meet the light of day or wind up being just
9 another chapter in the EIR.
10
11 Chair Garber: Commissioner, would it be helpful perhaps to ask the historic consultants to give
12 us a brief overview of the historic value of the Stone Building and perhaps the Hoover Pavilion?
13
14 Commissioner Lippert: Sure.
15
16 Chair Garber: Especially if they are here. If you would introduce yourself. Can you tell us
1 7 approximately how long this might take? Three minutes or something like that?
18
19 Mr. Charles Chase, Director of Planning, Architectural Resources Group: We can be as brief as
20 you would like us to be. We will be very brief.
21
22 Chair Garber: Give it a shot.
23
24 Mr. Chase: Good evening Commissioners, my name is Charles Chase. I am the Director of
25 Planning for Architectural Resources Group. With me is Jodi Stock the Architectural Historian
26 who has prepared the information for the Draft EIR. Jodi will tell you about the findings of
27 significance and the criteria that was used to make those findings.
28
29 Ms. Jodi Stock, Architectural Historian, Architectural Resources Group: So we conducted
30 research. Actually, .we did a peer review of an evaluation that was prepared by Stanford. We
31 evaluated based on the California Register criteria. We found it eligible under -there are four
32 criteria. The fourth one has to do primarily with archeological resources, so didn't look at that
33 one asmuch. We found the building significant for criterion one and these are similar to the
34 National Register criteria. So criterion one is association with an important event. In this case it
35 was the first heart transplant in the United States.
36
37 Under criterion B it was for the association of Dr. Norman Shumway who did the transplant. So
38 that is A and B.
39
40 C was as the work of Edward Durell Stone, and it was·a very pivotal period in his architectural
41 design development. Does that help?
42
43 Commissioner Lippert: It does. Sounds like the hospital needs a coronary bypass.
44
45 Chair Garber: I think it is getting a replacement, actually. What about the Hoover Pavilion?
46 Did you do an evaluation of the Hoover Pavilion as well?
Page 47 of 76
1
2 Ms. Stock: That was in the original evaluation and they found it to be a resource for architecture,
3 and we concurred with that finding.
4
5 Commissioner Lippert: I have a follow up on that.
6
7 Chair Garber: Please.
8
9 Commissioner Lippert: I want to go back to the Stone Building for just a moment if I might.
10 There are also other criteria that come into play, which is number one, the materials that the
11 building has been constructed out of and whether those have been impacted in any way. It is the
12 deterioration of the building, how much of the building has been modified from its original
13 pristine original design. Then there are also other aspects to it which are that as I think Stanford
14 had indicated previously that it really doesn't make today's seismic standards. Can that also be a
15 consideration? I think a really good example of that is falling water, is falling down, and they
16 had to basically rebuild the entire thing because it is deteriorating from the inside out.
17
18 Ms. Stock: You are correct. So to be eligible for the California Register or the National Register
19 you have to have significance, which is the criteria I described. You also have to have integrity.
20 There are seven aspects of integrity. I won't go through them all but materials are one of them.
21 So we did look at and went through each of the aspects of integrity and determined whether we
22 thought that it had sufficient integrity. The test is whether it has sufficient integrity to convey the
23 reasons for its significance, and we felt it did.
24
25 As far as the current uses, or the current purposes really we are limited to the criteria for
26 significance and integrity and that is pretty much it.
27
28 Ms. Silver: Commissioner Lippert, if I could just add one clarification here. For purposes of
29 CEQA if a building is considered eligible for the California Register or the National Register for
30 CEQA purposes it needs to be considered historic. So the EIR does deem the Stone Building and
31 the Hoover building historic.
32
33 Then if the City does approve this project there will have to be a Statement of Overriding
34 Considerations.
35
36 Commissioner Lippert: I guess what I am trying to get at is the clarity in the process. I think in
37 my line of questioning in the very beginning it is not very clear, because it is not on the City's
38 Historic Register but it is identified in the Draft EIR, and what the process of that would be in
39 temlS of its removal. I think it is important to us and it is important to Stanford.
40
41 Ms. Silver: Yes, and for CEQA purposes there are several different triggers for designating a
42 building as historic. One is that it is on the City's Historic Inventory. That is not present here so
43 we look at other factors. ARG has determined that it is eligible for the Registry and so under
44 CEQA we do consider it historic and the EIR analyzes it that way.
45
Page 48 of 76
1 In tenns of whether the HRB needs to approve the demolition, at this point it does not because
2 the HRB only needs to approve buildings that are on the Inventory. So because this building is
3 not on the Inventory that particular process is not available under the City's Historic Preservation
4 Ordinance.
5
6 Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
7
8 Chair Garber: Con1ll1issioner Keller and then Martinez.
9
10 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So first of all I had the pleasure of spending about 20 years
11 of my life on the Stanford campus both as a grad student and then subsequently as a researcher. I
12 notice that a lot of buildings had been rebuilt on campus and particular care was taken to build
13 the buildings that comprise the quadrangle. In particular I for a number of years had an office in
14 what was called Building 460 Margaret Jacks Hall, which is an original quadrangle building that
15 was rebuilt from the internal and kept the exterior. Maybe it was raised a floor, I am not sure. In
16 any event that obviously has particular significance.
17
18 On the other hand a lot of other buildings on campus like the ERL and other buildings like that
19 which may have had significant things happen there were not deemed nearly as historic and have
20 subsequently been replaced by buildings with morelasting value for thy University and I would
21 certainly say architecturally. Alot of the buildings that were built in the 1930s, and 1940s, and
22 1950s were not of lasting beauty I woulcl. say. The University has the benefit that there are lots
23 of departments and you can shuffle them around in order to be able to when you do one building
24 if you have surplus space you can move departments around from building to building, and it is a
25 lot easier to do. Although there tend to be zones on campus where Engineering is, where
26 Sciences are, where Humanities are, and Arts, etc.
27
28 With respect to the School of Medicine they are sort of clustered around so it would be
29 somewhat awkward to say classroom buildings in the S.ton~ Bl!i1ding and move the School of
30 Medicine elsewhere because there are no classrooms right near there. You might put biology
31 classrooms there but what else would you put there? It would be kind of awkward. So because
32 of the siting and the distances there is sonle issue about what kinds of things you might put there.
33 It is sort of one of these jigsaw puzzles where you are replacing things in phases, and you are
34 trying to keep the hospital and trying to keep the school available. I understand that is a tricky
35 situation.
36
37 I do think that there are other things that we can think about in tenns of preservation. I
38 mentioned earlier the idea of creating scale models and that. I also think the idea of considering
39 that the School of Medicine sort of has as part of its logo the motif of the Edward Durell Stone
40 Building in tenns of how that square goes with the rectangles and the square in the middle that
41 that motifbe somehow carried forward into the new hospital. Maybe as a pattern on the floor, in
42 tenns of walkways and things like that, in tenns of tile patterns and things like that that might
43 bring those echoes back in tenns of the new building. I think that one of the interesting things is
44 what is the value of retrofitting the building based on, and how hard it is to retrofit a building.
45 My impression is that it is quite expensive and difficult to retrofit the Stone Buildings, and if
46 they were retrofit they, from what I am hearing, would be of limited value in tenns of their future
Page 49 of 76
1 use for the purposes of the objectives of the project. So that is the situation where they become
2 hard in tenns of meeting the objectives.
3
4 If I might go briefly to a comment about the lopping off of one story. One comment about that is
5 that the mention of specific number of beds is not an objective. Their objective is about meeting
6 quality of service, and adequate whatever, but those are qualitative in that particular sense rather
7 than quantitative. So with respect to this which I guess would reduce about 25 percent of the bed
8 space approximately of the Stanford Hospital, and none of the Lucile Packard Children's
9 Hospital the question I would like to know, and I am notsure if anybody else would, how well
10 that kind of reduction meets the objectives, and how well it reduces the other impacts. That 'was
11 my intent there. I don't think you can arbitrarily say it doesn't meet the objective. It might meet
12 the objectives somewhat less well than the full project. But it might reduce for example
13 intersection impacts to less than significant because that is a thresholding effect. It might make
14 some significant impact in reductions of greenhouse gases or things like that. So I think in some
15 sense an evaluation of that as a specific design could help. Thank you.
16
17 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
18
19 Commissioner Martinez: I come at this historic preservation option from a couple of different
20 directions. One is that I was a great fan of Edward Durell Stone. Growing up in LA I saw a lot
21 of his buildings going up and really got to appreciate probably the greatest part of his career. So
22 I don't really quite understand this sort of this building being at a pivotal stage and what that
23 means. Does it mean this is a good building or mediocre, or he was on a downer? I do recognize
24 that the building has substantial structural issues to it. Structural I am really saying in two ways.
25 One that I know that the exterior walls and the floors of the building are not really tied together,
26 kind of constructed in an odd way, which is to public safety really a disaster waiting to happen. I
27 know from visiting the hospital many, many times that this very horizontality of the building
28 really doesn't work for anything. It doesn't work for the clinics. It definitely doesn't work for
29 the patient and hospital areas. Hospitals just are not built this way anymore. To suggest that
30 there is a reasonable retrofit plan that works for healthcare in this building really I believe are
31 sort of out of touch with the kind of realities that Stanford is faced with.
32
33 From another direction I see it not as a significant or historical resource, because it might be and
34 I appreciate the consultant's analysis of that. I see it as we see most buildings that are part of our
35 community as just something familiar that we have known, that we each have some sense of
36 . history like my mother died in that building. So it means something to me. Does it mean that
37 the building should remain standing and Stanford should go to Herculean lengths to try to
38 salvage it? I am not really sure about that. I kind of doubt it.
39
40 I am a big fan of preservation, as I said of Stone. I got to work on a great fun Stone building, the
41 Seaside City Hall, which I really enjoyed and respected. I don't feel that kind of passion about
42 this building. I think we have some bigger, bigger objectives to try to support in moving this
43 project along. Thank you.
44
45 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then let's move onto our last Alternative.
46
Page 50 of 76
1 Commissioner Lippert: I just want to say that I think without a doubt it can't be argued that
2 Edward Durell Stone has a legacy in this city. The first City Hall and the Art Center was built by
3 him, the main library, the Stanford Medical Center, and this City Hall. So he does have a
4 significant legacy in this city in terms of character defining buildings within this city.
5
6 I am just thinking about something though that I had seen while on vacation in Europe. In
7 Europe they have a great history of preserving buildings, and particularly building fayades. The
8 way they do it is they build a steel structure and they support the fayade. They demolish the
9 building virtually in its entirety and then they build a brand new building behind that fayade that
10 is then tied in. Then they remove the steel armature. So perhaps in reviewing the analysis in the
11 Draft EIR is to look at the potential of retaining the fayade and with Stanford's double-walled
12 concept of having a building inside of a building and non-operable windows that very well nlight
13 work in terms of retaining at least the fayade of the building at as a workable approach.
14
15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
16
17 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you for another follow up. This Historic Preservation
18 Alternative as it is is almost a nonstarter because the way it is defined, preservation means the
19 objectives of the project are not nlet and that is a false choice. Is there a reason the DEIR doesn't
20 analyze an historic preservation alternative that both preserves the historic structures, if it is
21 found they should be preserved, and meets the objectives of the hospital? I am not sure I
22 understand why we defined that the choice has to be made between preservation and meeting the
23 objectives of the project. That means that the conclusion is there is no preservation. So should
24 there be an alternative with a different design that nleets the preservation objectives and the
25 objectives of the facility?
26
27 Chair Garber: Alright, let's move to our last Alternative, the Village Concept. I am going to ask
28 the first question here. On Figure 5-5, the Village Concept Urban Design Diagram that is in the
29 DEIR I note that there are brown lines that represent urban street and building frontages that are
30 going down Quarry Road. Is the suggestion there that the zoning change to define that buildings
31 occur at that line, at that urban street? What is actually being suggested there?
32
33 Mr. Bruce Fukuji, Consultant: Good evening Commissioners. So what that line is really trying
34 to say is Quarry Road as an arterial street has the traffic volume and width and location to have a
35 more urban street frontage along that. So it is saying the intention there is to orient buildings and
36 entrances of buildings to Quarry Road, without specifying exactly sort of setbacks, and heights,
37 and other characteristics.
38
39 Chair Garber: That sort of specification would come later in the process presumably?
40
41 Mr. Fukuji: The applicant's design guidelines that they have as part of the application covers the
42 details of how that would be accomplished.
43
44 Chair Garber: Okay. I don't believe we have seen those, right? It has not come before us. It
45 has been apart of the ARB. Okay. I have lights from Commissioner Lippert and then Tanaka.
46
Page 51 0[76
1 Commissioner Lippert: I am going to have to pass for the nloment. I have an emergency.
2
3 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Tanaka and then Fineberg.
4
5 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. Actually, I do have some follow up on the Chair's
6 questions. It is on Figure 5-4 and I notice that there are lines here, red lines that show some
7 darker red lines and some lighter red lines. What is the difference between the light red lines and
8 dark red lines?
9
10 Chair Garber: That is on the same diagram, 5-5?
11
12 Commissioner Tanaka: No, 5-4.
13
14 Chair Garber: I am sorry.
15
16 Comnlissioner Tanaka: There are lighter ones and darker ones.
17
18 Mr. Fukuji: The difference is that the lighter dashed lines are part of the School of Medicine's
19 campus planning but they are not really part of the project application in terms of types of
20 connections. So it is showing the context of what is going on and the spaces and the connectivity
21 of spaces of how the School of~edicine as part of the campus planning relates to the project.
22
23 So the project areas are the ones that have the darker lines. Those are relationships that the
24 project and how it is being designed can influence the characteristics of those connections, as
25 opposed to the lighter ones, which are already part of existing campus planning.
26
27 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. Then I have a question for our attorney. I notice that some of the
28 Village Concept area is in areas that is County land not Palo Alto land. So can we actually make
29 restrictions or have requirements as part of this project on County land that is not in the city?
30
31 Ms. Silver: It would have to be probably through the Developnlent Agreement. Certainly the
32 housing units would have to be a negotiated term in the Development Agreement. There are
33 portions of this project that do plan to be annexed and that is something that also could be
34 explored.
35
36 Commissioner Tanaka: I see, so perhaps maybe perhaps annexed or the Development
37 Agreement would, I see.
38
39 Can Staff tell us how the study area was selected for this? Does anyone know?
40
. 41 Chair Garber: Yes, perhaps our consultant can help us out. That was discussed about a year and
42 a half ago or so, but a refresher would be helpful.
43
44 Mr. Fukuji: The history of the project is that when the Staff and the City initiated exploring the
45 Village Concept at that time the project sponsors had two different projects. You had the
46 Stanford University Medical Center campus project, the Hoover project is the medical projects,
Page 52 of76
1 and then you had the expansion of the Stanford Shopping Center. So when the scope or the
2 boundary of the Village Concept was defmed it was looking at how those two projects could be
3 planned and considered comprehensively together. So in light of that that defined the overall
4 boundary. That is why it goes from San Francisquito Creek and then all the way over
5 encompassing El Camino Park, the transit station, and then along the boundaries of the area that
6 Stanford has defined in the Medical Center plan as the boundaries of their Medical Center
7 planning area. So it took that boundary, two projects, and then took it to the creek, and then up
8 to Downtown.
9
10 Commissioner Tanaka: So given that this is only the medical project now would you still keep
11 the boundaries the same?
12
13 Mr. Fukuji: Yes.
14
15 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. I notice that some of the recommended areas are actually on very
16 busy streets like El Camino or Sand Hill Road. So maybe Staff or our consultants can answer,
1 7 was it thought to have this pure residential or to go mixed use, or what was the idea behind that?
18 I know there is the number of units but is it intended to also have say retail on the bottom for
19 instance for a mixed use design? Especially given that some of this is on very, very busy streets.
20
21 Mr. Turner: I believe the housing that is recommended for the site would be 100 percent
22 residential housing.
23
24 Commissioner Tanaka: I would make the comment then that I think given that these are
25 especially busy streets that we actually do have some sort of mixed use. Thank you.
26
27 Chair Garber: Commissioners, Commissioner Lippert is probably going to have to leave us here
28 quickly. I would like to give him an opportunity to speak to this, and ifhe has any other
29 comments that he would like to make before he goes.
30
31 Commissioner Lippert: I am very intrigued by the Village Concept Alternative. I think that it
32 has a lot of potential here. With regard to that I wanted to ask a couple of questions on the
33 proximity to transit. Earlier I think it was both cited in Stanford's presentation as well as the
34 Draft EIR that the additional I guess it is the spousal jobs would add to the transit both
35 congestion in tenns of added traffic so we are not having a net gain in terms of being able to
36 reduce our carbon footprint as much as we think we are, and this is actually making things a little
37 more intense. Can you clarify that a little bit, Bruce?
38
39 Mr. Fukuii: I think there are really two parts to the answer to this question. So I think Dennis
40 should also respond to this. The intent here is that you want to take advantage of the opportunity
41 of having commuter rail transit station in the Downtown Palo Alto Intermodal Station by
42 increasing density and mix of use in proximity to the station. In locating housing there and
43 encouraging housing in that location even if it is employee housing has spouses who are going to
44 be there also having their own travel pattenls. Having it located adjacent to transit increases the
45 probability or likelihood that they would have the opportunity to use transit to travel to wherever
Page 53 0/76
1 their other employment opportunities are. So it is a good location for locating housing for doing
2 that.
3
4 As to the confounding factors as to the calculation as to what the total net trip benefits are I am
5 going to let Dennis respond to that part of the question.
6
7 Mr. Struecker: There are two components to the traffic. By concentrating the employee housing
8 in this immediate are we are taking ten households from Mountain View, and ten from
9 Sunnyvale, and ten from Redwood City, and ten from Santa Clara, and wherever they are coming
10 from and concentrating them here. So if they are disbursed around where the existing employees
11 are disbursed the impact of the spousal trips is really not measurable on the study area we are
12 looking at. But if you concentrate them in this are then they are. That is why we did trip one
13 more intersection impact by concentrating the spousal trips in this immediate area.
14
15 We did take a reduction though for TOD as Bruce was mentioning. So the spousal trips are only
16 creating about 50 percent of what they would create without the effect of TOD. So we do have
17 that one other impact. The main benefit is a reduction in VMT because now we have the
18 employees that are no longer driving to work, and we have the spouses that are only 50 percent
19 driving to work, and the other 50 percent are on transit. So it is about an eight percent reduction
20 is our calculations in overall VMTs. So the carbon footprint is reduced there.
21
22 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Just thinking out loud here, isn't it likely though that the people
23 that are moving into these units, the spouses,would seek other jobs that might be closer to where
24 they live?
25
26 Mr. Struecker: They might. I think the average trip length, Nicole is it II? The overall Bay
27 Area average work trip is 11 miles. They might. If they currently live in Livermore and one of
28 them was commuting to the hospital they may change their location, but 11 miles still gets you
29 outside of the study area. So they are essentially going to be -going down south on EI Camino
30 Real we are only analyzing down to Arastradero/Page Mill area. So the 11 nliles on average is
31 longer than that, so they will still be traveling through all these study area intersections.
32
33 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, but then if we are looking at the cost of housing versus what you
34 are paying in the way of transit or gasoline miles there is a real trade-off there. So by having in
35 some ways subsidized housing or housing that is made available at a price for the Stanford
36 Medical Center, I guess their pay grade or what their income level is, would they not be looking
37 to save those dollars or invest them or do something with them? They are not at such a high pay
38 grade that they would be punlping it back into gasoline-to commute all the way out to Livermore.
39
40 Mr. Struecker: Right. We took the 50 percent reduction. Yes, we think they will take advantage
41 of the transit.
42
43 Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
44
45 Mr. Struecker: But still an average of an II-mile trip is going to fan them out throughout the
46 study area we looked at of essentially Palo Alto and Menlo Park and into East Palo Alto.
Page 54 0[76
1
2 Commissioner Linnert: Okay. Then on the flip side of that more and more cities are beginning
3 to implement their own Transit Demand Management programs. So let's say somebody is
4 commuting down to I'll just say Google or Yahoo! down in Mountain. Wouldn't those
5 companies be inclined to subsidize those people who are commuting from Palo Alto rather than
6 having them drive?
7
8 Mr. Struecker: Yes. So I think your point is that the 50 percent still may be high. The 50
9 percent reduction. Is that your point?
10
11 Commissioner Lippert: Yes it is.
12
13 Mr. Struecker: Then that very well could be, yes I agree.
14
15 Commissioner Lippert: Then again, I guess it is the last little piece to this, which is we are
16 looking at the Development Agreement including subsidized transit in the way of a Go Pass to
17· prevent people who are on staff from driving from Tracy or Livermore or wherever, and taking
18 public transit in some way, shape, or form, and that would be subsidized. Now we don't have to
19 subsidize those individuals in terms of their transit to Palo Alto because they are within the
20 Stanford environs. They can take Marguerite Shuttle.
21
22 Mr. Struecker: Yes for those 490. The thing to remember on the Go Pass is that is being given
23 to not only the new employees but the existing employees as well. So there is still a pretty big
24 universe that would need to be provided with Go Passes.
25
26 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. So could we in fact take those Go Passes and apply them to the
27 spouses since those spouses are within the Stanford environs? Is that a possibility? I guess that
28 is a question for the City Attorney.
29
30 Chair Garber: Or is it something that we should just simply note and add to the evaluation?
31
32 Ms. Silver: My understanding of the Go Pass program is that it only applies to employees not
33 spouses.
34
35 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, but if it was made as part of the Development Agreement as a
36 mitigation could it not be applied?
37
38 Ms. Silver: We could look at some other program through the Development Agreement, yes.
39
40 Commissioner Lippert: Okay, thank you.
41
42 Chair Garber: Commissioner, anything else because I know you have some pressing.
43
44 Commissioner Lippert: I was looking at the Alternative here and I think it is real strong. I think
45 this is something that we will see in the Final EIR. Thank you.
46
Page 55 0[76
1 Chair Garber: Okay, good luck. Commissioner Keller and then Martinez. I am sorry, we had
2 gone through Tanaka, Commissioner Fineberg I believe you were next and then Keller.
3
4 Commissioner Fineberg: My first questions relate to whether the DEIR properly analyzes the
5 questions that have been raised about if we put 490 employees in these houses and we are
6 deposing 490 University employees from the houses are we getting any net benefit, or are we
7 just robbing Peter to pay Paul? If the University has an entitlement for 600 homes there and that
8 has been analyzed in the GUP then have those cumulative impacts already been analyzed in the
9 DEIR without the Village Concept? Then are we double counting the impacts if they are already
lOin the baseline of the proposed project and then we are sort of adding them as a Village Concept
11 Alternative because of this project? Does it have to do with whether it is primary or secondary
12 impacts? I don't see how that all unwinds itselfin a way that I understand that it is covered. So
13 if something can be done there to bring some clarity to that.
14
15 The other question I would have relating to this is on page 5-197 it talks about the cumulative
16 impacts of the Village Concept Alternatives. As long as I have the right page cited. This is
17 something I brought up on another issue many, many meetings ago. Where it talks about ARB
18 review process of any major development ensuring that the SUMC Project will not contribute to
19 cumulative land use concept, my comment on this is same as before. The ARB has no purview
20 over land use. I do not understand how ARB review will ensure that there are no land use
21 conflicts. I would like to generalize this comment to the analysis of all of the Alternatives. Any
22 comment that says that ARB review will minimize land use conflicts needs to either be
23 reworded, or better explained, or something needs to be done where that comment occurs in any
24 or all of the Alternatives.
25
26 I am also wondering if there is any way to yield a Village Concept Alternative that has the
27 linkages and the walkways that Stanford has shown but doesn't necessarily mandate who lives in
28 the homes. It is the linkages and the walkways and the access to the transit for both the residents
29 and the folks in the hospital facilities that I believe it give it the most significance, and whether it
30 is a University employee or a medical facility employee you are going to get 490 people off the
31 roads. You are going to have 490 people yielding a vital community. You are going to build the
32 things that yield the benefits. I anl not understanding where it is better that they work for the
33 hospital than the University. Now if Stanford has absolutely zero plans of ever building that
34 housing then I understand how having the Medical Center people kind of tipping the hand to
35 force it to get built is a benefit. But if the applicant is stating that they are going to put
36 University employees there anyhow the significant thing is all those linkages and beneficial
37 things that would surround the housing. So I don't know if there is a way to get that without
38 mandating who lives in the house. Thank you.
39
40 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Martinez.
41
42 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. First let me use this opportunity to say that one of the other
43 things I would like considered is moving the additional buildings and parking that is proposed
44 for adjacent to the Hoover Pavilion moving that either to within the project area on the Stanford
45 University Medical Center, that whole complex site, or alternatively on the outbound of Quarry
Page 56 of 76
1 Road closer to the hospital as opposed to closer to El Camino as an alternative to be considered.
2 I am not sure that is within the bounds of existing alternatives.
3
4 The second thing is it is my understanding and I will ask the appropriate people from Stanford to
5 nod appropriately whether I am correct or not. It is my understanding that Stanford Medical
6 Center employees as well as Stanford Medical Center students such as residents, interns, grad
7 students, and such are eligible for the comparable housing on campus at the appropriate rank and
8 titles that are comparable to the rest of the University. Is that correct? Do you want to respond
9 to that? Thank you.
10
11 Mr. Philips: My understanding is that the employees of the hospitals per se are not eligible for
12 the housing on campus. The persons that are eligible for the housing on campus are qualified
13 faculty and staff. So if you are a faculty member out the School of Medicine and also happen as
14 a result to work at the hospitals then you would be qualified as an individual as an employee who
15 could seek housing on campus.
16
17 Commissioner Keller: For example, when you say qualified I assume that for example on the
18 main campus that lower level administrative staff are not eligible for housing on campus in
19 general.
20
21 Mr. Philips: That is correct.
22
23 Commissioner Keller: So if you think about it by rank in some sense it might make sense.
24 Would medical grad students be eligible for the student housing on campus?
25
26 Mr. Philips: For student housing?
27
28 Commissioner Keller: Yes.
29
30· Mr. Philips: I know that we do have postdoctoral candidates and we do have some medical
31 residents living on campus. So they qualify for sonle of the graduate student housing. It is a
32 very small nUlnber.
33
34 Commissioner Keller: Great. So one of the things that might be, if you will, a grand
35 , compromise in terms of these 490 units, I am not sure exactly how many, but I have heard the
36 number 490. Suppose that some number of them might be allocated to people who are currently
37 within the pools of being eligible for housing. In particular if medical residents and interns who
38 work ungodly hours and it probably is not that safe for them to go long distances, if some of the
39 housing were allocated to these groups that seems to be within the realm of where the 3,000 units
40 might be allocated. If that were to be a use that seems to be better because it is closer proximate
41 to the hospital than this being used for people who are working further away from the hospital
42 for example.
43
44 Mr. Philips: Right.
45
Page 57 0[76
1 Conlffiissioner Keller: That might enable a three-way agreement, which I will ask our City
2 Attorney to see if this is legal, between Stanford, and Palo Alto, and the County because this is
3 County jurisdiction land, to indicate that because some number, whatever we decide makes
4 sense, of housing that Stanford intends to build anyway, because I understand you intend to build
5 all 3,000 housing units. Is that right?
6
7 Mr. Philips: That was the intent. That was the request per the GUP.
8
9 Commissioner Keller: Exactly, so since it is your intent to build the housing units if we allocate
10 them to these medical residents and interns who are working at the hospital essentially. They are
11 working there. Then that sort of qualifies as housing in some sense for people who are working
12 in Palo Alto. Therefore make an agreement between Stanford that that is what some amount of
13 the housing is used for, and agreement between Palo Alto, and Santa Clara County to allocate
14 these housing units to the Stanford ABAG housing allowance. Thereby in some sense we can, if
15 there are 490 for discussion sake, we can say 490 of the units that are on the Housing Element
16· are in fact on County land as far as these two sections of units are concerned. Thereby they
17 apply to our requirement for producing housing. In fact it makes sense from a jurisdiction point
18 of view because they are housing for Palo Alto workers logically. Since the County doesn't
19 really have a requirement why should it care? That will help us be able to better satisfy our
20 ABAG numbers. So I will ask the City Attorney whether that would actually be something we
21 can do?
22
23 Ms. Silver: Well, it is certainly worthwhile pursuing. It would require ABAG's approval for the
24 allocation. ABAG does allocate housing units to the County, but the County has satisfied its
25 ABAG requirements historically. So I think that it would be something that the County would
26 be interested in pursuing. It would just need to be approved by ABAG to get actual credit for
27 those units.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Is that something that Stanford might entertain?
30
31 Mr. Philips: I think Commissioner Keller the issue there IS probably whether the County feels
32 that it could entertain and additional shift of units, which it probably believes it has already made
33 in reducing the ABAG RHNA number now down to the 2,800 units. ill other words, it went
34 down simply because it was requested of the County that they reevaluate this housing including
35 the medical resident postdoctoral housing on the Quarry sites in terms of how much of that could
36 be credited to reducing the Palo Alto ABAG requirement. So they did draw those down. So in
37 essence they did make a shift if you will. I think what you are suggesting is can they make a
38 further shift, and I don't know the answer to that.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I think my understanding is the reason that some of the shift
41 happened to the County is because the ABAG numbers were including Stanford employment not
42 just the employment of the hospital within Palo Alto.
43
44 Mr. Philips: That is correct.
45
Page 58 of 76
1 Commissioner Keller: So if you think about the 2,200 or 2,400 units that are being built on
2 campus for the million or two million square feet on the Stanford campus that that is what is
3 going on there. Then these 490 are not towards that so they could be towards this. Anyway, I
4 am just leaving this open. I don't think we can resolve this now but I think it is an interesting
5 thing that could be a win/win for Stanford and for Palo Alto. Thank you.
6
7 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
8
9 Commissioner Martinez: I have been a fan of this Alternative studies because I didn't really
10 stress too much on sort of whether this was the right Alternative, or if this should be more of this
11 or more of that. But given these No Project, or not very much project, or smaller hospital, or all
12 of the hospital but nothing else, or the Village Concept we could look at the impacts of that. I
13 thought that was completely useful. I think your summary of that was good.
14
15 I felt that way about this Village Concept too until I realized tonight that we may just be
16 displacing other residents that would down the road incur the same kind of impacts to the streets
17 and air quality and other aspects. If the Village Concept included 490 new housing units that
18 didn't have an attachment to another group of Stanford people that would be a breakthrough I
19 think, because I think we would then be able to assess really the cumulative impacts without
20 having to sort of wonder who is being displaced if we do this kind of thing.
21
22 So I am a little disheartened that this very promising Alternative really becomes a kind of non-
23 Alternative because it doesn't really give us what we think we are buying. So I really don't
24 know sort of where we go with this. It is a great idea. It sounds good. It is win/win because we
25 build all of the hospital facilities, but then when you look at the detail it doesn't really satisfy the
26 traffic issue for anyone. Thank you.
27
28 Chair Garber: I have another comment and then we have Tanaka. I guess what I am about to
29 say is supporting somewhat Commissioner Martinez's comments. I looked down Table 5-8 and
30 if I look down the Inlpacts of the SUMC Project and then I look down the Village Concept
31 Alternative the impacts are identical with the one exception of stormwater generation, all the
32 way down, which is not what I was expecting to find.
33
34 Now, it may be that in fact the way that it has been defined causes that to occur. I guess the
35 other thing that that means is that if I go back to the very beginning and the Significant and
36 Unavoidable Project Specific and Cumulative Impacts where we were recognizing that at least
37 on three or four of the bullet points the Village Concept was reducing if not eliminating some of
38 the impacts regarding air pollution, during construction, during operation, and cumulative
39 emissions, and emission of greenhouse gases. But I guess what I am reading is that even with
40 the addition of the housing, or let's say that you were to take the housing out, you would still
41 have these same altern~tives because you are really just left with the SUMC Project except for
42 the linkages that are beneficial but they don't really have any impact on the issues that we are
43 trying to mitigate.
44
45 So what is the point? I guess, one of the points is that you could add it without incurring
46 additional mitigations, or incurring additional impacts that have to be mitigated. But to
Page 59 of 76
1 Commissioner Martinez's point my gosh, I would have expected there to be a quantity - I would
2 have expected to see the difference, and I am not seeing that anywhere. So either my expectation
3 was misplaced, which is one outcome, or there is something about the definition that we are not
4 taking into account here.
5
6 Yes, Commissioner Keller and then Tanaka.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: The problem Chair Garber is that summary chart is binary and what you'
9 are saying is basically that the Village Concept does not flip anything that changes a result from
10 yes to no, or from no to yes if you will. On the other hand it could make a qualitative difference
11 that could reduce the amount of some impact. So the issue for me is not so much whether you
12 eliminate an impact, make it less than significant instead of significant, but if you reduce it and it
13 is still significant is that a good thing? I think it could be.
14
15 Chair Garber: Yes, I don't mean to argue against it, because I do believe that your comment is
16 right. It does reduce it. But the binary issue here is significant and unavoidable or is it not. So it
17 doesn't flip anything from page 5-2. However, I have four choices and some of them have been
18 on Chart 5-8 it is not binary. I have actually four choices and some of them are divided further,
19 and it hasn't flipped any of those either. So where is the sensitivity? Is it really that gross?
20
21 Commissioner Keller: Well, it may be that the project has impacts so bad that you have to move
22 the needle significantly a lot in order to flip any of them. So that is what the problem is you are
23 moving the needle somewhat but you are not moving the needle enough.
24
25 Chair Garber: Yes, clearly. So at any rate that is just one comment there. it would be nice to
26 have some further explanation or exploration as to what or if there is a definitional problem there
27 that allows for less impacts to be realized along the lines that Commissioner Martinez is
28 suggesting or asking to be explored, or if in fact it really is that it does not have that sort of
29 impact on ~he project. Commissioner Tanaka.
30
31 Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. I have some similar comments to Commissioner Martinez
32 and Chair Garber here but from a slightly different angle. First let me start with a question to our
33 City Attorney. It is a follow up to a question I asked earlier, which is if we were to annex some
34 of this land or Stanford " was willing to annex it, how does that impact their GUP numbers? I
35 understand their concern that they have 3,000 units allocated. They have to build it. Ifit
36 becomes annexed as part of Palo Alto how does that affect their number?
37
38 Ms. Silver: Well, I can speak to some of that. I can't fully answer your question. As Mr. Philips
39 mentioned earlier there is a linkage requirement in the GUP. So to the extent they build out the
40 academic uses on the campus they have to provide housing. Some of that housing is
41 programmed for the Quarry sites. If they don't build the housing at the Quarry sites they will
42 have to build it somewhere else. I believe that there is sufficient sites on campus to satisfy the
43 linkage requirement, but we would have to look at that further.
44
45 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay. So I guess I have a comment here. Perhaps one thing for let's
46 say the EI Camino-Quarry site that is right next to the transit center or even the TOD area
Page 60 of 76
1 district, perhaps there could be a density bonus given so that there actually can be 400 more units
2 being built than could be built before, or was already allowed by the County. So that they could
3 get their GUP numbers as well as additional numbers that could help mitigate some of the
4 housing/job imbalance. So maybe that is something that could be considered as a possible
5 mitigationJI am not sure what to call it.
6
7 Where I anl kind of going on this, and I have talked about this before, but maybe what kind of
8 makes sense near the transit center is some sort of condolhotel. I am thinking a lot of these
9 workers they live where they live not necessarily because of where they work but because they
10 know people there, they have family there, they have friends there. They may buy a small unit
11 near where they work perhaps during the workweek and live there, and rent or buy that perhaps,
12 and go back home. A condolhotel situation would allow them to perhaps rent it out during the
13 weekends when they are not there. So it gives some flexibility for the workers. I am a little bit
14 suspect of whether people move housing because of jobs. I realize that is a different issue with
15 ABAG. I think perhaps having a density bonus with some sort of condolhotel situation might
16 make a lot of sense here, especially given that as our City Manager has told us several times, that
17 residential housing, especially multifamily residential housing, costs the City money annually,
18 reoccurring forever. So I think having a hotel there would also help decrease that burden
19 because we would get some sort of hotel tax as w~l1. So perhaps the density bonus could help
20 justify the building of such a structure. So it could be a win for all parties, perhaps.
21
22 I have some other questions for Staff. Were the units contemplated here were they going to be
23 rentals or are they going to be for sale properties, or is it just units?
24
25 Chair Garber: Maybe if it were one or the other you could create a statement that we could have
26 the EIR respond to when it comes back.
27
28 Commissioner Tanaka: Okay, that sounds good. I think the other thing is if there is no
29 requirement on the size of the unit, perhaps the units could be quite small, studio size or smaller.
30 I think a lot of workers would be willing to rent or buy perhaps a unit near work that they could
31 stay in part-tinle during the workweek, as I said earlier. So that is another consideration. It
32 wouldn't have the same massing as let's say a three-bedroom condo would have. So I think that
33 is another possibility. You would have a high density of units but not necessarily a lot of square
34 footage.
35
36 With that thought in mind we actually had a project here under our review earlier for senior
37 housing. One thing I noticed about the senior housing is that the units are very, very small. In
38 fact one of the recommended housing sites on Sand Hill Road near Pasteur Drive perhaps that
39 would be an ideal location for high-density senior housing. They don't need very, very large
40 units it is basically just a room, and it could satisfy a lot of the ABAG numbers. Of course it
41 wouldn't help the jobs/housing imbalance but it would certainly help reduce I think traffic
42 between maybe a place where they may need medical attention and a place where they give
43 medical attention. I think it would be very attractive to a lot of seniors who may have health
44 problems. So that is another possibility.
45
Page 61 0[76
1 Overall, I think anything that is near these high traffic areas should have some sort of mixed use.
2 Thank you.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioners, let's take a two-minute break and then let's try and get through
5 Mitigations and anything else in 30 minutes or so. I apologize for the lateness of hour everyone.
6 Let's take a two-minute break and then we will reconvene.
7
8 Let's talk about Mitigations first, and perhaps we can do that quickly. Then I would like to get
9 to a point where we talk about our proceedings here and see if we can give, either through some
10 straw poll or some simple head nods from the Commissioners, on the Alternatives and/or bits
11 and pieces of the Alternatives that we believe have the most viability for pursuit, if I can say that
12 in a very general way. So Commissioner Keller, Mitigations.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: Yes. First I would like a straw poll if I n1ay on the Commissions sense
15 that Go Passes are a feasible but not necessarily adequate mitigation for transportation impacts.
16
1 7 Chair Garber: Commissioners, I think a head no<:1 is all we need here. Is there general support
18 for that?
19
20 Commissioner Keller: Feasible but not necessarily adequate. This has to do with Appendix E,
21 that attachment there. So it turns out that I understand that the City Attorney has said that this
22 would be helpful for us to make such a statement.
23
24 Chair Garber: Just for clarification here, if I have read it correctly as well as understood the
25 Attorney's comments the City would probably look to pursuing that with the applicants not
26 through the CEQA document but the Development Agreement as the tool there. Is that correct?
27
28 Ms. Silver: There are a variety of ways to pursue that. One is the Development Agreement, and
29 one would be a condition of approval through the entitlement process. Ultimately what the City
30 needs to make a finding on is whether that particular Mitigation is in fact feasible.
31
32 Chair Garber: Well I for one an1 in general agreement with that. Commissioners? Fineberg.
33
34 Commissioner Fineberg: I would agree that the Go Passes are feasible as a mitigation measure.
35 If we are sort of doing this as a group, I would like a little bit of a clarification about whether the.
36 comment of 'not necessarily adequate,' does that mean we are not commenting on the adequacy
37 or is that traveling into the 'it is inadequate?'
38
39 Chair Garber: I suspect all that we really need to give here are some comments that are directed
40 to this.
41
42 Ms. Silver: That is correct.
43
44 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
45
Page 62 of 76
1 Commissioner Keller: Firstly, I think that I don't take the statement that the Go Passes are
2 necessarily part of the Development Agreement and not part of the CEQA process. In particular,
3 if they are part of the CEQA process then they are considered a mitigation. So the intent of my
4 statement is that they could be considered a CEQA mitigation for transportation or they could be
5 handled as part of the Development Agreement if that is desired, but this is certainly eligible for
6 a CEQA mitigation.
7
8 Chair Garber: Right, we are recognizing that the City may take a flexible approach but in
9 general the concept here is using the Go Pass to mitigate traffic impacts.
10
11 Commissioner Keller: Yes, it is a mitigation and whether it is a CEQA mitigation or not is a
12 decision to be made later, but that it is a feasible mitigation for some of the transportation
13 impacts.
14
15 Chair Garber: Conunissioner Fineberg.
16
1 7 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. So I believe then Commissioner Keller didn't comment
18 about our statement that it is not necessarily adequate. We are not stating that it is an inadequate
19 mitigation. We are simply not commenting on the adequacy now.
20
21 Commissioner Keller: What I am saying is that it mayor may not be adequate but that we are
22 not saying that it is. That is correct.
23
24 Commissioner Fineberg: . Okay, thank you. I would also like to add the comment that its
25 feasibility at the present time is obviously contingent on the continued existence of Caltrain,
26 which is not 100 percent certainty.
27
28 Chair Garber: CommisSioner Martinez.
29
30 Commissioner Martinez: In the summary Table S-4 I think the Go Passes are listed seven times
31 under Air Quality Mitigation, Traffic Mitigation, and other things. It just seems we are putting a
32 lot of eggs in one basket, or as Commissioner Fineberg says, something we don't know in ten, or
33 15 years is even going to be there. I am not sort of comfortable saying it is feasible. I want it to
34 work obviously. I want other mitigations as well. .
35
36 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka, any comments on that?
37
38 Commissioner Tanaka: In general, it seems like the Go Pass is a reasonable mitigation. Whether
39 it is sufficient or not, I don't know, but it does seen1 reasonable.
40
41 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, something else for us to consider?
42
43 Commissioner Keller: Yes. First of all, my understanding is from reading this is that there is
44 need for having a mitigation monitoring process to make sure that the n1itigations are in fact
45 adequate. So if the mitigations are not adequate then presumably additional steps would need to
46 be taken appropriately. Therefore what we are simply saying is throw this in the mix and see
Page 63 0/76
1 how well it works. It is in the foreseeable future, subject to various decisions by other bodies
2 that we cannot evaluate, seems to be feasible.
3
4 The other mitigations I would like to refer to is Mitigation PH-3.1, which is on page 3.13-19.
5 Let me get that. First of all let me say what this is. It is reduce the impacts on the jobs to
6 employed residents ratio. That is the item, and the first bullet under it is the City shall explore
7 amending the zoning code to permit more residential uses particularly multifamily uses. There
8 are two problems with this. Firstly this is something the City is doing and there are secondary
9 impacts from doing that, and it is not clear that Stanford is responsible for those secondary
10 impacts. Secondly, this is a separate process the City is doing independently of this. So I would
11 suggest actually striking this item. To the extent that Palo Alto does this it should be considered
12 mitigation for Palo Alto's ownjob/housing ratio and not as a result of Stanford's additional
13 contributions to the jobs/housing ratio.
14
15 The next point is if you take a look at TR -7.2, which is on pages 3.4-80 through 81. It says
16 provide expanded transit service. I can understand the idea of Marguerite Shuttle and the
17 u-Line. Certainly those are very direct to this. In terms of the cross-town shuttle and the VT A
18 community bus service those are not quantified in terms of what that means. I guess there is a
19 dollar amount. Is that dollar amount a one-time fee or is that an ongoing fee? It is not clear how
20 much this would be and the long-term impact of that. In terms of the community bus service
21 presumably that would be an ongoing cost. So I would like to have this more clarified and
22 quantified to understand what this means.
23
24 What is interesting is in terms of Menlo Park bus shuttle that is actually clearly an annual
25 amount. So it is interesting to me that the next one I am going to make is that in terms of this
26 Menlo Park being part of San Mateo County has a stricter policies in terms of paying for annual
27 shuttle fees, as opposed to what Palo Alto seems to be which is maybe one shot deals as opposed
28 to annual recurring fees.
29
30 In addition, as was mentioned in Attachment E the C/CAG, the City/County Association of
31 Governments for San Mateo County has a policy that if you have additional 100 net trips that
32 you mitigate all the trips, which is much more strict than Palo Alto has and Santa Clara County
33 has, although there is a no new net trips requirement for the Stanford GUP. When we get to this
34 part of the Comprehensive Plan I think we should evaluate whether it makes sense to adopt the
35 kind of policies that Menlo Park and San Mateo County have.
36
37 Two final issues. One is as a potential mitigation or perhaps as a potential public benefit the
38 consideration of including in the OSHPD certified complex, the hospital which is very strong,
39 built to very high standards, those standards are likely to be the standards to which a public
40 safety building would have to satisfy. So the idea of putting in the 911 dispatch center there,
41 making some space available for the 911 dispatch center so that would survive an earthquake. It
42 would be unfortunate for during the earthquake and the hospital were still standing but the 911-
43 dispatch center was not usable. Although you could somehow get help, if you can get help you
44 can get to the hospital, but you can't get the help you need to get there. So that is unfortunate.
45
Page 64 0[76
1 Then finally, as I mentioned the last time or a time or two ago, I think that an interesting
2 mitigation for the greenhouse gas impacts is for Stanford in general, collectively the University,
3 to collaborate with Palo Alto for Stanford to use its wonderful expertise in this area to help Palo
4 Alto reduce both the city's residents and the businesses greenhouse gas impact since there is the
5 idea that we have to reduce our greenhouse gas impact over time, and with the hospital sort of
6 bringing us the other way by increasing its greenhouse gas impact somehow working with Palo
7 Alto or working in terms of the Stanford Industrial Park, or Stanford Research Park that
8 collaboration to try to reduce greenhouse gases overall I think would be fruitful. I think would
9 be a win/win mitigation that would be very cost effective. Thank you.
10
11 Chair Garber: Commissioners, anyone else? I have one regarding the bullet point on emission
12 of greenhouse gases on 5-2. A reminder that one of the consultants from PBS&J who is the
13 climate change expert from Los Angeles, I am not remembering his name, had mentioned the
14 possibility of Palo Alto qualifying its Green Ordinance as a way to help mitigate some of those
15 issues .. I don't know what is involved with that but I think that would be a very interesting way
16 of utilizing that ordinance if that can help us. Commissioner Fineberg.
17
18 Commissioner Fineberg: On the Staff Report page 2-8 it states that one of the objectives of the
19 City of Palo Alto is to "address project induced school impacts not mitigated by school impact
20 fees." So thinking about mitigations, which Alternative satisfies this objective? I should say
21 which Alternatives satisfy this objective, and which Alternatives do not? Where is it analyzed in
22 the DEIR, or is it analyzed?
23
24 Then if we do a Village Concept Alternative with 490 additional homes has the DEIR analyzed
25 the impacts on PAUSD of additional students? The impacts on Public Facilities and all other·
26 impacts caused by the growth? Has that been handled appropriately? If we do have the 490
27' folks from the University versus coming in the GUP does that change anything of whether they
28 are considered primary impacts or secondary, or tertiary that don't require mitigations?
29
30 Chair Garber: Anything?
31
32 Comnlissioner Fineberg: I am sorry. A procedural question if I could. We are also going to be
33 discussing orphaned items from other elements. Should I hold those for later?
34
35 Chair Garber: Yes, let's hold those and see if we can get through the mitigations, and then we
36 will do that. Commissioner Tanaka.
37
38 Comnlissioner Tanaka: I was going to talk about my thoughts on the Alternatives in terms of
39 trying to get a straw poll on that, but if you want to do that later let's do that later then.
40
41 Chair Garber: Well, I think we may be there. Commissioner Martinez, anything on mitigations?
42 One to follow up, Commissioner Keller.
43
44 Commissioner Keller: Yes. If the 490 units are part of the 3,000 units already part of the
45 Stanford 2000 GUP, then it is my understanding that the impacts for schools were mitigated by
46 "the $10 million payment by Stanford collectively for Stanford West and the 3,000 units towards
Page 65 0/76
1 the reopening of Terman. That was a payment that was in excess of the amount that P AUSD
2 gets in terms of standard housing. impact Jees, and is quite generous in comparison to what any
3 other housing developer has done in Palo Alto ever in the history.
4.
5 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioner Tanaka, why don't you start off with the Alternatives?
6
7 Commissioner Tanaka: O~ay. The Altenlative that I thought made a lot of sense was the Tree
8 Preservation Altenlative with the linkages from the Village Concept Alternative. I do agree that
9 having the Village Concept Alternative without actually having more housing is just taking
10 housing from one place and putting it in another doesn't make a whole lot of sense, if that is
11 what is happening. So I think maybe something with some sort of bonus density for a
12 condolhotel, as I mentioned earlier, makes a lot of sense. I would love to hear my fellow
13 Commissioners' thoughts on that and what they had in mind in terms of Altenlatives. Thank
14 you.
15
16 Chair Garber: Commissioners? Commissioner Keller.
17
18 Commissioner Keller: Well I had suggested two things. One is considering the Alternative of a
19 variation between Reduced Intensity Altenlative B and one of the full size alternatives, namely a
20 reduction of approximately 25 percent of the rooms corresponding to lopping off one floor of the
21 hospital. I am not sure if that -that is a particular quantified kind of design and scope and could
22 be relatively easily accomplished in the timeframe, and could be studied in a quantified way as
23 condressant with the qualified way that Reduced Alternative B currently has.
24
25 Ms. Silver: Chair Garber, excuse nle. I think if I could just clarify here. In terms of looking at
26 the Altenlatives what would be most helpful for Staff is again in the Alternative Analysis what
27 the EIR does is look at the impacts that cannot be mitigated through mitigation measures. If
28 there is a need further, after imposing mitigation measures, if there is still a residual impact then
29 the Alternatives look at other ways to mitigate that impact. Again, we have mentioned that an
30 Alternative should advance most of the Project Objectives. So it would be most helpful if you
31 could zero in on the particular impacts that hav~ been identified in the EIR and then we can
32 assess whether there is further need for Alternative Analysis.
33
34 Again, the Alternative Analysis in the EIR is meant to try to address those impacts. There are a
35 range of alternatives in the EIR that accomplish that. So it is possible that an entirely new
36 alternative need not be analyzed but maybe your input would help in terms of clarifying some of
37 the existing Alternatives that we have.
38
39 Chair Garber: So, by way of exanlple, most ofnlY focus has been on this description of the
40 Altenlatives considered here on 5-2, and trying to understand. What cannot be mitigated there
41 are these bullet points. Some of the Alternatives are able to mitigate some but not all. So one
42 question that might be asked is is there an Alternative that has not been considered that could
43 mitigate all or most? Commissioner Keller.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: In order for an alternative to make sense for consideration if it does a
46 better job of mitigating a significant unavoidable impact, so it doesn't eliminate it, but it does a
Page 660[76
1 better job it partially mitigates but it is still significant, and yet still substantially satisfies the
2 alternatives, is that worthwhile to consider? One might argue that the Alternative B does not
3 satisfy the Project Objectives and that something in between the full build out and Project
4 Alternative B might satisfy the Objectives and provide better mitigation than the full build out.
5 So I am not sure I agree with this binary nature if either mitigates something completely or it
6 doesn't mitigate it. Simply mitigating it partially isn't that an improvement?
7
8 Ms. Silver: Yes. Alternatives look at lessening or eliminating all together the residual impacts.
9 It might be helpful, I know it is late, but we are getting into a further discussion of Alternatives,
10 we do have our outside counsel, Rick Jarvis here, and he might be able to frame the alternative
11 discussion to optimize your time here.
12
13 Chair Garber: Let's give it a shot.
14
15 Mr. Rick Jarvis, Jarvis Fay Doporto Gibson, LLP: Thank you members of the Commission. As
16 Cara mentioned, my name is Rick Jarvis. I am outside legal counsel for the City with respect to
17 CEQAmatters and bulletproofing and whatnot.
18
19 One observation I would have is the purpose of the Alternatives Analysis is not sort of tie the
20 hands of the City and say well these are the only Alternatives set forth in the EIR that City can
21 consider. The Alternatives in the EIR are examples they don't bind the City in terms of what it is
22 ultimately going to do with the project. The purpose is to make sure that whatever the City
23 decides to do at the end of day, whatever action the City takes to approve the project that the EIR
24 satisfies the requirement that it serves as an informational document that provides the City, the
25 City Council, the public with enough information that whatever that project is at the end of the
26 day there is enough information there to make findings as to what its environmental impacts are
27 going to be. So that is one primary objective of the Alternatives Analysis is to make sure there is
28 enough information for whatever project is ultimately approved that you understand the
29 environmental impacts.
30
31 Chair Garber: Forgive me for interrupting. Just for clarification, and part of the reason I am
32 interrupting you is because I think we have tried to have this conversation before in some other
33 forms, but the Alternatives that are being produced here are not actually any of the solutions that
34 may end up being ultimately pursued between the City and the applicant. It could be some other
35 combination of these things. What is important here is that we are looking at a series of
36 scenarios, a series of solutions that presumably would cover any solution set that is allowable.
37
38 Mr. Jarvis: Right.
39
40 Chair Garber: So we are not pushing the rope. Weare just pushing the rope into the comer and
41 finding out how much area it covers. The distinction here I think for the Commissioners as well
42 as the Council is that anyone of these solutions isn't ultimately the one that we will end up with.
43
44 Mr. Jarvis: It could be any permutation of them. I mean there could be any combination. You
45 could like one element of the one, one element of the other, take and combine them. Youjust
46 want to make -the goal of the Alternatives Analysis, or one of the goals, because there is
Page 67 0/76
1 another important one I want to mention. One of the goals of the Alternatives Analysis is to
2 make that whatever permutation is adopted by the City at the end of day the environmental
3 impacts of that are adequately disclosed in the EIR. So one thing the Commission may look at is
4 is there some alternative, some approach that may be of interest to the City at the end of the day
5 whose impacts are not adequately disclosed by the analysis that is done in the EIR.
6
7 The other important purpose of the Alternatives-Analysis is to make sure that the City actually
8 considers all reasonably potential alternatives for mitigating environmental impacts. That is sort
9 of the other side of the coin there. To make sure that if you have a project that has certain types
10 of impacts those impacts can't necessarily be mitigated through mitigation measures, are there
11 other alternative approaches that would avoid those significant impacts?
12
13 Chair Garber: So, again just to sort of clarify through exanlple here, the conversation that
14 Commissioner Keller and I are having about the Reduced Intensity Alternative B, the reality is
15 that if it is 60 percent or 75 percent the range that we are dealing with there is somewhat
16 irrelevant because you have an example that is less than that, and you have an example that is
1 7 more than that.
18
19 Mr. Jarvis: Right.
20
21 Chair Garber: So it is somewhat academic where that threshold is taken.
22
23 Mr. Jarvis: Yes, the threshold is always going to be arbitrary. EIRs typically need to look at
24 some sort of reduced proj ect alternative. What that percentage reduction is, there is a certain
25 arbitrariness there. Although there is rationale for how they reached that particular reduced
26 alternative.
27
28 Chair Garber: Understood, but relative to the potential impacts what would be more interesting
29 is if you were at a 60 percent or a 75 percent point and that revealed some impact that was not
30 mitigated under some previous scenario then there would actually be, from a CEQA standpoint, a
31 reason to pursue that alternative because it has not been exposed in some other circumstance or
32 scenano.
33
34 Mr. Jarvis: Right. What a reduced intensity alternative will often do is identify ways of
35 reducing even though you don't necessarily fully eliminate the environmental impacts. Then of
36 course, you have to weigh that against the fact that or certainly the argument by Stanford that the
37 reduced density alternative does not fully acconlplish their objectives for the project, and
38 ultimately it is sort of a policy and factual balance the Commission and the Council have to make
39 in terms of weighing what the environmental benefits are versus the failure to fully achieve what
40 Stanford's objectives for the project are.
41
42 Chair Garber: Okay. Commissioners, do you have other questions for the outside counsel?
43 Commissioner Keller.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: Yes, so firstly, although for example in terms of evaluating roadway
46 segments and other transportation issues it still says significant unavoidable. The analysis as far
Page 68 of 76
1 as I can tell was not done as to whether any of the roadway segments are now maybe just one
2 of the roadway segments are no longer impacted and reduced to less than significant. It looks
3 like it looked at them as a whole but it didn't look at them individually. If one of the roadway
4 segments is less than significant that might be a difference.
5
6 The other issue is you mentioned the consideration of .....
7
8 Mr. Jarvis: Can I stop you there because the way I would translate that into a comment upon the
9 EIR is, you know it is fair to raise the question do any of these alternatives eliminate any of the
10 roadway segments significant and unavoidable impacts? That is a fair question for the EIR
11 preparers and for Staff to go back to and answer in a response to comnlents.
12
13 Commissioner Keller: Because it doesn't look like they have analyzed it to that level of
14 specificity and analytics.
15
16 The second thing is that if it comes out to be that the Reduced Intensity Alternative, while
17 reducing .... for example, if you look at Reduced Alternative B it does drive the needle between
18 impacts on roadway segments. It does reduce it from significant to less than significant. That
19 difference between that and either the Tree Preservation Alternative and the Historic
20 Preservation Alternative and the Village Concept are all significant and unavoidable. Therefore
21 that is a difference that I think our Chair would identify as essentially flipping from one to the
22 other. We don't know the degree of specificity or"that. So for example if 60 percent eliminates
23 all of the impacts on roadway segments to less than significant what would 75 mean? What
24 would 80 mean? Where is the threshold and where does it happen on each of the segments,
25 firstly?
26
27 Mr. Jarvis: That is a little more of a detailed analysis than you would normally see in an EIR's
28 Alternative Analysis calculating out the exact percentage of the size of the project to get to a
29 particular impact. The analysis has be reasonable, provide a reasonable amount of infonnation,
30 but nonnally an EIR is not going to get that comprehensive and detailed in terms of the threshold
31 for each impact.
32
33 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that but to the extent that the Reduced Intensity Alternative B
34 were deemed not to substantially satisfy the objective of the applicant then the question is is
35 there something in between that does substantially satisfy the objectives of the applicant and yet
36 reduces the impacts on roadway segments, at least some of the roadway segments, to less than
37 significant? Since this does flip the needle here from positive to negative essentially it does
38 toggle the switch here, it does make sense that maybe something in between might be
39 considered, which is considered to be substantially satisfying the project objectives. I doubt that
40 the Reduced. Intensity Alternative would be considered substantially satisfying the project
41 alternatives. That is wh~ I think it is import~nt to look at something in between. I anl just
42 suggesting something to be considered. If somebody wants to suggest something else to be
43 considered that nlight be appropriately discriminating I welcome that for consideration.
44
Page 690f?6
1 Mr. Jarvis: What I interpret you are saying in tenns of the comment upon the EIR is is there
2 another reduced project alternative that better accomplishes the project objectives while still
3 mitigating the roadway segment impacts, for example in this case.
4
5 Commissioner Keller: Or at least does a better job than the three biggest alternatives. Thank
6 you.
7
8 Chair Garber: There may be more. We will let you know. Commissioners? Commissioner
9 Fineberg.
10
11 Commissioner Fineberg: I said it earlier but I will restate it here while we are discussing the
12 Alternatives Analysis. I believe the alternative on Historic Preservation ought to be one that both
13 preserves the historic Stone structure and satisfies the objectives of the applicant and the City so
14 it is not a false choice. That may mean that the proj ect has either a bigger footprint or it might be
15 bigger. I am not going to get into suggestion how it be designed. If having both the historic
16 preservation objective and the other objectives of the hospital satisfied meant there were
17 additional impacts we need to understand that in the DEIR. I don't know if the consultant has a
18 way I should say that that is in DEIR speak, but it is better than what I said. Ifhe is not getting
19 up I think I got it.
20
21 I would say the same thing for the Tree Preservation Alternative. Tree Preservation Alternative
22 is currently stated that we save either 13, or 15, or 23 trees out of a total of 71. Is there an
23 alternative that would both save more of the best of the trees and meet the objectives of the
24 hospital and the City?
25
26 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka.
27
28 Commissioner Tanaka: So I think I understood what our attorneys have said about the Draft
29 EIR. I guess there is that context. There is the legal context of what we need to consider. I was
30 just thinking about it in tenns of a practical context. We heard from the applicant that they are at
31 50 percent of design on the tree alternative option right now. I would assume that as time goes
32 on they are going to progress forward. The City Staff is going to spend time. Our consultants
33 are going to spend time analyzing a particular project. So I understand the Draft EIR legal
34 context, and maybe we are done already. Is it helpful, would it be helpful for Staff, would it be
35 helpful for our consultant, would it be helpful for the applicant to understand where the
36 Commission is sitting right now in tenns of its feeling on the project so that they could get sonle
37 guidance beyond just boundary poles. Get some guidance to how to make this project better so
38 that when it does come forth for a real approval it is a higher test of getting approved.
39
40 Ms. Silver: Is that a question?
41
42 Chair Garber: Do you want us to give our impressions on the solution sets that are being offered
43 here? Is that helpful?
44
45 Ms. Silver: This is a public hearing to receive comments on the EIR. It has been agendized for
46 that so it would be helpful just to keep your comments focused on the EIR.
Page 700/76
1
2 Chair Garber: I think I heard no. Commissioner Keller.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: So let me also point out the discrimination between the Reduced Intensity
5 Alternative and the larger alternatives also comes about in Clinlate Change where the Reduced
6 Intensity Alternative B is reduced to less than significant for the two Climate Change items, and
7 is significant unavoidable for all the full build out alternatives. So again there again some degree
8 of discrimination is also worthwhile considering.
9
10 With respect to the process, I am reminded of a quote by Chopinhower and that is, "In theory
11 there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is." In theory the idea
12 is that we will create the FEIR, consider all the alternatives that have been created, then from
13 there go on and say well let's see if we can find a better one or mix and match or whatever. In
14 reality there is no time for that mix and match. Because we are viewing this EIR process
15 essentially six months to a year later than we would have if the Stanford Shopping Center had
16 been included removal of the. Stanford Shopping Center has delayed the process by at least six
17 months. Because Stanford essentially, is my understanding, has to give a submittal to OSHPD
18 by the end of the calendar year, essentially there is no time to come up with alternatives. So my
19 interest in having something in between the ·Reduced Intensity Alternative that might be deemed
20 not satisfying the Project Objectives and something that is the full build out, unless we consider
21 it now in 'such a way that is a feasible change to essentially the Tree Preservation Alternative that
22 the applicant is moving forward to the City Council and the Planning Commission will
23 essentially have no choice but to approve the Tree Preservation Alternative as it evolves to that
24 because of the timing considerations. So that is why I think that unless there are additional
25 unless this example of a Reduced Project Alternative is considered there essentially won't be any
26 time to do it.
27
28 My boss in college, I have quoted this before, had a saying, why is there never enough time to do
29 it right, but always enough time to do it over. The interesting thing is while there may be the
30 time to do it over there is rarely the opportunity. This is a situation in which there will not be the
31 opportunity to do it over. There will not be the opportunity in the future to do the kinds of mix
32 and match when the FEIR comes out if we don't identify those now, and do the studies of them
33 now.
34
35 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg a follow up and then Commissioner Martinez.
36
37 Commissioner Fineberg: Forgive me for having a -this will appear to be a frontal challenge. I
38 am not sure if your statement is correct. I don't know if either City Attorney or outside counsel
39 would want to comment, but if I understood it correctly, the DEIR needs to analyze sort of the
40 impacts of the maximum. build out, and determine the mitigations required to make that possible.
41 Does Council have the discretion at the 13th hour to say okay, maximum build out minus X
42 percent? Figure out how to design it and we will approve it and here are the mitigations. The
43 plan hasn't been analyzed but if it is less than what has been analyzed it is covered.
44
45 Ms. Silver: Yes. The Final EIR will provide adequate CEQA coverage for the maximum project
46 build out. If the Council decides to approve something less than that there is appropriate CEQA
Page 71 0[76
1 coverage so long as all of the impacts associated with a smaller size project have been adequately
2 discussed and analyzed in the EIR.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez.
5
6 Commissioner Martinez: I kind of agree with Conlffiissioner Keller, and I apologize for that
7 lukewarm kind of support. I agree in terms of that I think there maybe some mitigation in
8 looking at this other Alternative that is worth the time to try to consider an alternative that looks
9 at a reducyd impact. I am not saying I am in favor of that Alternative but I think there are some
10 significant things, mostly related to traffic, pollution as typically there are in EIRs that I think we
11 need a little bit more digging .to see if we can come up with something that works here. I think
12 that might be a vehicle to get us there.
13
14 This is going to be my last statement of the night I hope. So I sort of want to come back to the
15 beginning. The beginning is why are we doing this? The Objectives at the beginning of the
16 Staff Report lay it all out there. I think there are 50-odd reasons why Stanford is doing this, and
17 close to 20 why the City is doing this. It really comes down to four objectives on either side.
18 For Stanford clearly the first is they have to comply with SB 1953. Either that or go out of
19 business and none of us want that.
20
21 Secondly, and they have talked about this, they want to meet their healthcare spacial program
22 needs. It has been called right sizing but it is more than that. I think if we go through the six
23 weeks of this discussion we know that their third objective is to meet the impacts, to mitigate the
24 impacts as much as it is possible for thenl to do this.
25
26 Let me see what my fourth one was. I think that they want to build in a sustainable way. I was
27 trying to avoid saying it that way, but the intelligent planning and design and consideration of
28 alternative methods really shows that this hospital is going to be significantly different from what
29 we have now.
30
31 On the City's side we want to partner with Stanford to retain our community hospital. We don't
32 want it to g away. We don't want it to move somewhere else. We want it to be safe for the
33 public, and we want it to continue.
34
35 Second, if I can just pick one impact we want to mitigate traffic. We know regardless of how we
36 slice it there are going to be cars, there is going to be more congestion, there are going to be
37 delays, and there are going to be the impacts from all that.
38
39 The third and I think I have heard this from the Council, we want to have a vital, economic,jobs
40 based, employment based, tax base going into the future. This project is important to that.
41
42 Then finally, our Climate Protection Plan is kind of the under-riding guiding force in this project.
43 We want it to adhere to that. I wanted to bring that back because we are not so far away from the
44 applicant and the City that we need to seek further delays, that we need more information, that
45 this document needs to be twice as thick. I think we have enough information in what we have
Page 720[76
1 been given with the exception that I alluded to that Commissioner Keller has asked for to really
2 be able to support the project going forward. Thank you. Good night.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
5
6 Commissioner Keller: So one of the objectives of the alternatives is to make sure that we have
7 coverage of whatever alternative is chosen from some combination. One of the things that has
8 not yet been discussed is the, if you will, ranking or the choice of an environmentally preferred
9 alternative. I am wondering not only will having an intermediate alternative allow for better
10 discrimination among those toggles that we identified earlier as flipping from being significant
11 unavoidable to less than significant between the Reduced Intensity Alternative B and any of the
12 full Alternatives, but also from the point of view of identifying an environmentally preferred
13 alternative .. Ifit turns out that this intermediate alternative both meets the objectives of the
14 applicant substantially, and better meets the objectives of Palo Alto with respect for example to
15 Climate Change, and has less impacts either it reduces the significant unavoidable impacts to less \
16 than significant or reduces the significant unavoidable impacts to somewhat less than they would
17 have been otherwise. In other words, it is a significant difference but yet still significant and
18 unavoidable. That would seem to indicate that it could be an environmentally preferred
19 alternative over the full build out alternative. So that is another reason why it would be
20 considered.
21
22 One other point is that essentially the way that we mitigate land use issues with the hospital is
23 essentially by definition. Essentially, the intent is we will redefine the Comprehensive Plan land
24 use issues by simply saying they are not an issue. We are going to have the new Comprehensive
25 Plan changed just for the hospital that defines away the problem. It is certainly feasible to do
26 that, but I think we need to be honest with ourselves that that is what we are doing, and it is
27 arguably for a great cause. Essentially, the land use considerations are simply going away by
28 definition and not by actual doing something about it. Thank you.
29
30 Chair Garber: A couple of final comments from me. In very general terms I believe that the
31 Alternatives that have been outlined in the DEIR are adequate and have adequately described the
32 various inlpacts that will be encountered. There have been a variety of additions that have been
33 discussed this evening that add to that but I think in general they do.
34
35 In my mind, the trade-off here is that for the Alternatives that meet the objectives of both the
36 applicant and the City fully are ones that are the full or the Tree, the Historic, or the Village. The
37 trade-off there is dealing with these significant and unavoidable project specific cumulative
38 impacts that then have to be essentially overridden by the unavoidable consequences of them
39 being there. That is the trade-off that we have to make, is the value that the project brings to the
40 City worth that? I will leave that to the City Council, but I think we have recognized or
41 adequately described what those impacts are.
42
43 I think there is for me, personally at any rate, been some surprises and some learnings as a result
44 of going through this. That is in particular that the Village Concept doesn't have a bigger or
45 doesn't create stronger mitigations of a variety of the impacts that the other Alternatives present,
Page 730[76
1 which does not mean that it doesn't have value in other ways to us. I think that is an inlportant
2 finding that should be recognized as we go forward here.
3
4 I guess the other surprising thing is that even with the housing as part of that project you don't
5 get more significant mitigations, at least as it is being defined in the EIR. We did create the
6 comment that we would like that to be confirmed based on some of Commissioner Martinez's
7 comments as well as mine.
8
9 . Comnlissioners, anything else? We have the topic of orphans and anything else. Commissioner
10 Fineberg.
11
12 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. This section then is where I am going to make some
13 comments on sections of the DEIR we have reviewed in past meetings. When we talked about
14 the growth-inducing impacts of the project we had talked about the 2,200 employees and about
15 eight percent of them living in Palo Alto generating a certain number of new homes that would
16 then yield as secondary and tertiary impacts students in the schools. When I discussed that
17 before I had questioned whether or not using some kind of County-weighted average would
18 make sense.
19
20 I have since thought about it and I don't know if I can retract a comment, or change my
21 conlIDent. I would like to question now whether the method that was used of multiplying the
22 number of new employees by eight percent is appropriate because that mitigates only the impact
23 of the historic yield, the number of employees that historically have lived in Palo Alto rather than
24 the number of employees that will live in Palo Alto as a result of ABAG's demands for us to
25 balance our jobs/housing. So is there some different methodology that we should be using that
26 will more closely match what we know will be future demand for mitigations based on ABAG's
27 models where they are now demanding we balance jobs and housing more so than they have in
28 the past? That method would be something that mitigates more than eight percent of the impact.
29
30 Secondly, my comments about using the County-weighted average, I retract that. I want to say
31 that taking the 2,200 employees and whatever percentage we are saying are going to live here,
32 and then we divided that by the 1.7 number. I believe that it is not a correct method to divide it
33 by the 1.7. What that is saying is that there is an average of 1.7 employees per household in Palo
34 Alto but that would only apply if the 1.7 employees, basically the two adults in the household,
35 work at Stanford. Both of them cohabitate and work at Stanford, at the hospital specifically. I
36 think that we don't have these numbers, but I would venture to guess that the majority of the
37 2,200 new employees don't live in a household with two Stanford employees. So it is artificially
38 reducing the yield of the number of households. So I would like some further analysis and
39 explanation of why, if that method is used, it is correct, or why if there is let's say 200 new
40 employees why aren't there 200 new homes unless we can say that five percent of the employees
41 cohabitate with another hospital employee.
42
43 I also would like to rephrase some of my questions about the impacts on Palo Alto's schools. In
44 the last five years I believe all projects that have come through City review use the student yield
45 projections based on methodologies developed by Lapkoff & Gobalet, the school district's
46 demographer. This project uses an unrelated method. I would like to know why this project is
Page 740/76
1 using a method that has not been used in all other recent projects. If the Lapkoff & Gobalet yield
2 projection methods are used consistently with what we have done would the fmal yield numbers
3 be significantly different and what would they be? That's it. Thank you.
4
5 Chair Garber: Commissioners, let's close the public hearing and conclude this item. Let me
6 thank the Staff and applicant for waiting this out, and sticking with us through the end here.
7
8 Commissioners, we have a few other things to do this evening. We have the approval of minutes
9 for June 16 and June 17. Commissioner Keller will need to not take action on the meeting of
10 June 17 because he was absent.
11
12 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of June 16 and 17,2010.
13
14 Chair Garber: May I get a motion to approve the minutes of the 16th ?
15
16 MOTION
17
18 Commissioner Tanaka: So moved.
19
20 Chair Garber: So moved by Commissioner Tanaka. A second by?
21
22 SECOND
23
24 Commissioner Martinez: Second.
25
26 MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2, Commissioners Tuma and Lippert absent)
27
28 Chair Garber: Commissioner Martinez. All those in favor say aye. ( ayes) That passes
29 unanimously. A motion to approve minutes of the 1 ih?
30
31 MOTION
32
33 Commissioner Fineberg: So moved.
34
35 Chair Garber: A second?
36
37 SECOND
38
39 Commissioner Tanaka: Second.
40
41 MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2, Commissioner Keller not participating, Commissioners Tuma and
42 Lippert absent)
43
44 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tanaka. All those in favor say aye. ( ayes) With one abstention
45 and two absent the motion passes.
46
Page 750/76
1 REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS/COMMITTEES.
2
3 COMMISSION MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNOUNCEMENTS.
4
5 Chair Garber: We will note that I am the Commission's representative to Council this month. In
6 August the·Council does not meet so there isn't a representative there. September we will deal
7 with in August.
8
9 Are there any meeting reports? Commissioner Fineberg.
10
11 Commissioner Fineberg: I was not able to attend the Housing Element Update Technical
12 Advisory Group meeting last month. This month's will be cancelled. However, and for
13 members of the public who are still with us tonight, the Planning Department will be having two
14 community meetings on I believe it is July 27 and July 29. The first at Cubberley and the second
15 at the Arts Center, both of them at 6:30 for people to learn about the Housing Element Update. It
16 is absolutely imperative that we get as much public participation as possible. It is going to have
17 a huge impact on what the City does and whether the community understands what City plans
18 will look like. So if you can be there please attend.
19
20 Chair Garber: With that, Commissioners anything else? Commissioner Martinez.
21
22 Commissioner Martinez: The Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee met today. We are starting
23 work on the Vision Statements. We have a schedule, and I think our first time to come back to
24 the Planning Commission is August 25, right?
25
26 Mr. Turner: I believe so. We have a meeting on August 11 to present our work on the housing
27 opportunity sites. So we received the direction from Council about how we should go about
28 identifying sites. Staff has begun to implement that direction, and it is now producing a list of
29 sites coming up with recommended densities for those sites. So we expect to bring that work as
30 an update item to the Commission on I believe August 11. Then we would have a meeting
31 scheduled I believe in Septerrlber to go over kind of the first aspect of the Subcommittee's work
32 which is the Vision Statements for the various chapters of the Comprehensive Plan focusing on
33 the Housing.
34
35 Chair Garber: Thank you. With that it is 11 :30 exactly on the clock here, and we will adjourn.
36 Thank you all.
37
38 NEXT MEETING: Special Meeting of July 14, 2010 at 6:00 PM
39
40 ADJOURNED: 11:30 PM
41
Page 760[76