The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 299-10 (3)CITY OF PALO ALTO Memorandum TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER JULY 21, 2010 DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 299:10 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project Draft Environmental Impact Report — Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, including an overview of the Alternatives and Mitigation Measures chapters. The City Manager's Report, including all attachments, were previously sent to you in your packet of July 14, 2010. This item will be heard at the City Council hearing of July 26, 2019. Hardcopies of this item are available in the Council Chambers at City Hall, the Planning Department on the 5th Floor and can also be viewed at the following link: http://www. cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/reports/cmrs. asp The draft Power Point presentation for this meeting is also attached. The presentation may undergo minor changes prior to the July 26, 2010 meeting. A final presentation will be provided "at places" on July 26th. In addition to the CMR, staff has attached written comments that have been received to -date on the Stanford University Medical Center Draft Environmental Impact report. Staff is providing these written comments at the request of City Council. Oral comments and questions received at the Planning & Transportation Commission meetings and City Council meetings will be transcribed and addressed in the Response to Comments document that will accompany the Final Environmental Impact report. Comments may be submitted to the City by the close -of -business on Tuesday, July 27, 2010. CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Draft Presentation Attachment B: Correspondence SUMC Facilities Renewal & . Replacement Project Alternatives Chapter of Draft EIR and Project Mitigations . Palo Alto City Council Meeting July 26, 2010 ~. ~ ::J: i: m z -I » Meeting Agenda • Overview of Alternatives chapter of Draft EIR and project mitigations by PBS&J • Project sponsor presentation • Questions and comments Next Steps • Close of public comment period-July 27 • Preparation of Final EIR-August to mid-October • Preliminary ARB Review-August & September • Formal ARB review after Final EIR is released • Formal entitlement reviews by P& TC and Council~ November & December Model & Project Plans • SUMC Main & LPCH models in City Hall Lobby this evening • Draft design guidelines and other project images delivered to Council • Complete draft design guidelines and preliminary plans available on website: www .cityofpa loa Ito! su mc Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (SUMC Project) Alternatives Mitigation Measures PBSJ® July 26, 2010 Wt CIJ > .-~ c s.. CIJ ~ <C Alternatives I • CEQA Irequires a range of reasonable alternatives to a project ~ • Altern tives must attain basic objectives while avoiding or red cing significant impacts • Every onceivable alternative need not be analyzed • Must i clude a "No Project Alternative" Previous SUMC Project Alternatives I • No Project Alternative A • .No Project Alternative B • Reduced Intensity Alternative A • Reduced Intensity Alternative B • Historic Preservation Alternative • Tree Preservation Alternative • Village Concept Alternative . Previous Next No Project Alternative A I • Retrofit noncompliant hospital facilities • No new buildings would be constructed • N work at Hoover Pavilion Site • B 2030, one or both of the hospitals would close Previous No Project Alternative B I • Replac noncompliant hospital facilities with new structures • Buildout to maximum allowable FAR (additional 9,000 sf) • No wor at Hoover Pavilion Site • SoM fapilities would be separated from the hospital and retrofitted • Decrea'se in patient beds at the SHC Hospital • LPCH v¥otJld continue to operate at current capacity or reduce~ capacity Previous Next] Reduced Intensity Alternative A I • Repl ce noncompliant hospital facilities with new stru tures • Righ -size SHC and LPCH hospital facilities (additional 446, 00 sf) • No new buildings at Hoover Pavilion Site, but Hoover Pavi ion would be renovated • Replace SoM facilities with the same square footage • No i crease in operations Previous Reduced Intensity Alternative B 1 • Rep1lace. noncompliant hospital facilities with new structures • Increase of 924,000 sf • No ~ew buildings at Hoover Pavilion Site, but Hoover Pavilion would be renovated • Replace SoM facilities with the same square footage • Incr ased operations (60% of SUMC Project ope ations) Previous Next Historic Preservation Alternative • Prese e historic. aspects of 1959 Stone Building complex and P steur Drive • Constr ct new SHC Hospital building • SHC ·Iinics and SoM would occupy 1959 Stone Building compl x • Expan LPCH and Hoover Pavilion Site as per SUMC Projec' • Same increase in development and operations as SUMC Projec Previous Next Tree Preservation Alternative • Modified site plan to reduce impacts on Protected Trees: • Remove hospital module in Kaplan Lawn • Re¢onfigure SHC garage to be narrower and partially abdve ground • Rettonfigure FIM 1 building • 13 biolpgically and aesthetically significant Protected Trees would be retained, compared to'SUMC Project • Same ~ncrease in development and operations as SUMC Projec' • Prefer~d site plan Previous Next Village Concept Alternative • The SlJJMC Project as proposed • Recorrimended dedication . of 490 previously approved housina units to SUMC em'olovees: • Qualrry Road/ Arboretum Road • Quarry Road/ EI Camino Re'al • Pas eur Drive/ San~ Hill Road • Pedestrian linkages tlW?S .,.--r;; ~ ..tF:.F ...• -:c-·-~~-· ~~. -."r,. . ,~-: ~~::; .. '. ;Jc.., -. TT ..... ' 4. 'i'~ .... ~y-~~' .~J'. -~ •• -1>'.' ~.Ittf. '~:'.}'';-':1\...'. ' .. ~~-.:.. •. ··.~i .. ~· .. ·#~.~;:..,. ,1 '" t;-t~~-.f) .. ~ ... ~.;~~ •.. ~ .• -" ~~ ", . ~'~''''''.~-''' .~~ ;:' ~~(-"" ~¥/,~,~~ ~ >~>.: -··5~ . t-~~:-;·"·'·iIi·" of ,.'~ ttj ~.~!\~. -..... ~ .•• ~:.~,.. '.':io ~~ ~;\ -".~ ~ ,:,v. ./1-8-- ;} ~J~f .~-::,.r..:. ... :.,. .!" ''"(.. /:"~;;:" :;:~.:: ~~ -,' '-':~~ " ...... L'~" .~ ~b r"/~ '. "'" . 5.~''''''' ,-.' ~" ~ 'VI' /r.' ~ <I' . .,...... .t". "VI"';':"""'. . ..... ~~.;,;-.'.. , .... ~ .. ., .. ~ .. ~. ~~:,: ... i.f ... :'" .JI~-~'.'" .-~ ::..... . ,._ --.f', -. ',' , ..... ~ o. 4 . ~ • ,,:.~ ~-'I -....... :~ .• ~ .• ~/:~~·,'~.3 ...•• ~: t.·. r. .... ,. '."",~ .~.~.~ r.:';~" "-'0' _~'-' ~ ~-i.:-."t -'",,/ ,:~. ' ... ; -.'!."',, '. ;-}if."i j~ ~;:~'~.'~8;~: .-~~.'~~ ~:~i;l~_.~?~.~,/{~:~~ c~:'! ~_~.,~,~{.~ .:~. :':-;.-' .~" '. ",-~;,>,: .7. ... ',' .... " .. i:l':., •.............. " ..... I'~"'l~ '.' :'.J ""'. .~~~ .~. 0 -~l~.:' .' _. ..;,' ........ ~i· ..... ',.' '. ,. ~ '.:.~ .,.V .~. ~.. ~ "( h.' 4-., :' C ,,,, • ":' . ";:' . " ~' 'i:~ :" .. : .• I'·· .~. I~' ..... ,. • . t'''': :"'-' " .. -~" . : .......... ,;.... . .", ,~, '",1. , ". .' J -.~ '. • '" ~' . ..:t.... .. -f~#'."\ .,.~, ...... .,-,~ • .. ~ .... '... ,-:III ... ,':"1'_'"0 •.• tJO ....... 7: r F .... .'~:;.. ..~:...-.... \ ... '~J:'.',T', ~ ;. ,." ~ I!-"~ .. :",. ,I;.' .>.; w.· ~.-.• \ . ~,.,. .. ~.-" ~. . .~ ..... ~ . :1~ ..... ~"~ " I:... : ... <,#. .• ",.·tS ", .. }~ .. ~.. . ' ....... ., ~$. I :::-~ '. ~ :~~ ~?"t'v', --. ~ Ulllt~ \.".. ~ ~ 1 • f..; .~~ ~ :~ ... -~ .:' .~:: . ~ .. :.... h 'It_. : " •• ~. ~-::~ •• ' .... ~~. m~~·~~·:·t ~ .t~. <~ .-. . ~ ___ ~ .. ~... :~ ;~ , . ~~ l·,:t:t: 'y';~ " .:c I; '~,'; .' " . .{.,o--.:. . .~ ~,., rhi : --:). .. ".~, . y • -tf':"~"" .. ~. . --' .... "-.. ': ,r., L ~·j .. " •• ~., ",~ .... ,~ /. ... ,,. ~~~~~:;~.~..i'~~·f:/~··5 ~~~~~. ~ ~ '. . $:f .. ' ... ~'. ~ <t, .' .. ,..~.. . • . t. t" • '''_ '. C .. ,... () .,.. ........ ,,~ ::';y;~ -,;,~~;,:.:~. r:'~:_ •• , ~. ~;JI' . ... ~~. I W " .' - --',. :,..,.,. -~>o ~ . I -l t; ~'<., . ,i ~ -'. " _.... ~ r '1 . . ":~ -~~ •• 'oJ ':4.r~,"""l. IJ/:'t··. ~.~ -. ~-;, .';.... -... " !." .. ~. . r / . -r.~. l .'~~ ~ . . -~~. ";" .:.. .~-E .. ~? -W ~. ,; '" : ~fr . .~ 1'-; f'," . Li';/ · o· "'i"" :~,·".~.~;,,61J·:. .... ;l/'" "~ .... -' '\. ' .. ~'/I' .. ~,' .. JF-' • '.~'. ·v·,~-·--.. -"'·.~ ..a-.l -.......... 001· -'=\>."~ •... ·~,o. ~'Jj' ,~. \.,..~~4;·.·-"·-··~*;; ~ ~;.. . ~r ,O~'.;:~~ IJIl -• "~ .. ~.'.r ~ .... '" .. '.; Jl y L' :.... . ... :-. 1· ., .~. ~-~~~ ':!a .~ .. _",,,#:,. _ '0 ';;". ~ " • .1 -y _-..J .• f .01:. c:-. .t:. -~ ~/.~ . Previous Next J Impact Comparison of SUMC Project and Impact I SUMC Project Construction NOx Significant during early emissions stages of construction Construction noise and Significantand vibration unavoidable noise on site Loss of biologically and aesthetically significant Protected Trees Previous Less than significant vibration Significant and unavoidable loss of 23 trees Tree Preservation Alternative Less than significant due to less excavation for SHC garage Significant and unavoidable noise on and off-site .due to pile driving Significant and. unavoidable vibration on-and off-site due to pile driving Significant and unavoidable loss of 1 0 trees ree t'reservatlon Noise • Imple ent Best Management Practices to Reduce Construction Pile Driving Noise • Pre drill pile holes; install mufflers and shrouds; vibrate piles into place • Imple ent Best Management Practices to Reduce Construction Pile Driving Vibration • Us sonic pile drivers, if feasible • Avoid ·cl>r Repair Structural Damage to SUMC Structures • Relbcate Blake-Wilbur Clinic occupants during pile driving • Assess structural conditions of Blake-Wilbur Clinic; repair any damage Hydrollogy • Ensurd No Net Increase in Runoff Previous Impact CompariSOn oTSUMC Project an Impact Intersection congestion SUMC Project Significant but mitigable impacts on 5 intersections in AM Peak Hour and 12 intersections in PM Peak Hour Pedestrian and Significant but mitigable bicycle safety impacts due to increased traffic plus increased ped/bike activity Previous Village Concept Alternative Significant impacts on more intersections due to spousal trips at housing units and increased pedestrian crossing time Significant but mitigable impacts due to increased traffic plus increased ped/bike activity, but with enhanced pedestrian safety features Impact Comparison ofSUMC Project·an Impact I SUMC Project Vehicle miles 275,873 daily miles traveled (employees + patients) Greenhouse 163,035 MT C0 2e . gas emissions Significant unavoidable impact Job to I Increase in ratio by 0.05 employed residents ratio Previous Next Village Concept Alternative 265,588 daily miles (employees + patients) 60,240 MT C02e Significant unavoidable impact Increase in ratio by 0.04, accounting for 70 units at Sand "Hill Road housing site Environmentally Superior Alternative I • Reduc~d Intensity Alternative A -Right-sizing SHC and LPCH • No incJease in operations • Avoidsl the following significant and unavoidable impacts of the $UMC Project: •. • Inc~eased traffic on 4 Menlo Park roadways • Emission of criteria air pollutants during operation • Greenhouse gas emissions during operation Previous .", CIJ L ::::s WI ~ nI u CIJ (]) J: .~ 0 ~ ~ C U 0 ~ --.~ ~ t)O rfJ --~ -- Mitigation Measures I • Identified measures minimize, avoid, rectify, or comp~nsate for significant impacts • Mitiga ion measures must be feasible and have a propo ional nexus to the impact • All mit gation measures listed in Table 8-4 • If 8U C Project is approved, City must adopt Mitigation Monit ring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure imple entation J Previous I Next Transportation Demand Management Measures I • TOM =1 menu of strategies to reduce travel demand (partic~larly single occupant private vehicles) • As a c~arter city, Palo Alto is permitted to require TOM to redulce traffic impacts • City has discretion to determine whether TOM is feasible Previous Next Turner, Steven From: Williams, Curtis Sent: Friday, May 21,20102:47 PM To: Turner, Steven Subject: FW: Error on Stanford Hospital Project EI R From: John Guislin [mailto:jguislin@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 1:07 PM ATTACHMENT B To: Williams, Curtis; Council, City Cc: jguislin@gmail.com Subject: Error on Stanford Hospital Project EIR Mr. Williams, Council Members: I have begun reading through the EIR for the Stanford Medical Center Renewal and Replacement Project and I find a error of fact that impacts some conclusions. In the Transportation Appendix C, Middlefield Road is listed as an arterial. Middlefield Road within Palo Alto is classified as an arterial. Under the City of Menlo Park guidelines, it is considered as a minor arterial. Page 1-5 In fact, Middlefield in Palo Alto is classified as a residential arterial. This impacts conclusions about whether an increase in traffic is significant or not. For example: 3. 7.1Palo Alto Residential Street Analysis A street is considered impacted if the TIRE Index increases by 0.1. An increase in the TIRE Index of 0.1 or more indicates that residents would notice an increase in traffic on the street. The 'With Project' scenario is compared to the 'No Build' scenario to determine any project impact. No residential roadway segments would be significantly impacted by the project in 2025 as seen in Table 3-8. Further, the report finds that the MiddlefieldlWillow Road intersection will be impacted but that the MiddlefieldlLytton and MiddlefieldfUniversityintersections will not. Middlefield Road I Willow Road (#18) LOS remains at E but the average critical movements exceeded 0.8 seconds for this Menlo Park intersection. This intersection is significantly affected by the project. This is highly unlikely if the increased traffic is heading to the Stanford Hospital as these intersections provide the most direct route from Willow Road to Stanford. And here is another example: For Marsh Road, Sand Hill Road, Willow Road and Ravenswood A venue that are classified as minor arterials with No Build volumes greater than 18,000, adding more than 100 trips in ADT would be considered an impact. The proposed SUMC expansion is expected to add more than 300 trips on these roadway segments. As such, the project would impact these roadway segments in Menlo Park according to the City's 7/6/2010 Page 2 of2 significance criteria. Again if 300 additional cars on Willow Road are headed to Stanford, the most likely route is on Middlefield to Lytton and University. I look forward to hearing from you when the error is corrected and with your view of these questions about the impact on Middlefield Road. Thank you, John Guislin Middlefield North Neighborhood Association 7/6/2010 Stanford Hospital Traffic Mitigations In Light Of Possible CalTrain Closure Turner, Steven From: Sent: To: Subject: Williams, Curtis Saturday, June 05,2010 1:18 PM Turner, Steven FW: Stanford Hospital Traffic Mitigations In Light Of Possible CalTrain Closure From: Wayne Martin [mailto:wmartin46@yahoo.com] Sent: Sat 06/05/2010 9:22 AM To: Council, City Cc: Keene, James; Williams, Curtis Subject: Stanford Hospital Traffic Mitigations In Light Of Possible calTrain Closure Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA 94301 CC: James Keene Subject: Impact of Stanford Hospital Transportation Mitigation Offer In The Event of CalTrain Closure. Elected Council Members: Pa~e lof2 The article below suggests that CalTrain might cease operations in the not too distant future. That's wonderful news, given the massive black hole for public dollars that this agency has become. However, this closure has implications for Palo Alto, since Stanford has proposed paying about $65M to CalTrain in the coming decades for rail passes for its employees (see attachment). So .. this sets a problem for Palo Alto, which few in town have yet to sense. If CalTrain does close down, what becomes of this $65M in terms of mitigating the traffic that the hospital expansion will cause. Some in the media have failed to notice that this $92M was not to be paid to Palo Alto, and have included it in the total $140+M that Stanford is offering to "buy" the permission of the City to build this facility. The $65M was a "cost" to Stanford, but not a "transfer" to Palo Alto. So .. if CalTrain does shut down, what becomes of this $65M commitment? Palo Alto could use grade separations at its rail crossings. If the HSR gets built, then this problem will be solved, one way or another--but not involving any direct expenditure by Stanford. The traffic mitigation issue will be different with grade separations, but what will it look like in 20- 40 years, given the HSR, Stanford growth, and other possible factors? Has the City done any traffic simulation work to even consider this possibility? So .. shouldn't the City be thinking about this? Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA www.twitter.comlwmartin46 www.youtube.com/wmartin46 http://www.stbg.comlpolitics/20 1 0/04/0 llcaltrain-faces-deep-cuts-perhaps:-even-closure#comment-15888 Caltrain faces deep cuts, perhaps even closure 04.01.10 -3:04 pm I Caltrain's San Francisco station on Townsend is crucial to the regional transportation system. Serious doubt was cast over the future of Caltrain today, with this vital commuter rail link threatened by the same funding cutbacks that are hobbling other regional transit agencies. The joint-powers agency might be forced to cut its service in half this summer probably by eliminating night and weekend service --or perhaps even shutting the system down. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency is in a fiscal emergency and moving ahead with service cuts and small but 7/6/2010 Stanford Hospital Traffic Mitigations In Light Of Possible Cal Train Closure Page 2 of2 controversial revenue -enhancements, all approved Tuesday by its Board of Directors, and the nearby San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) are in similarly desperate straits. Those three agencies run Caltrain, and all have had to scale back their funding commitments in order to preserve bus and light rail services in their core communities. "We're rapidly approaching a cliff," Caltrain CEO Mike Scanlon told the Caltrain Board of Directors today, according to the San Mateo Times. "It's going to be very, very painful. It's probably going to force people back on congested freeways." Caltrain spokesperson Mark Simon told the Guardian that the agency is fully funded through the current fiscal year that ends June 30, but after that, "I don't know how long we can survive." "I don't think 1 need to tell someone at the San Francisco Bay Guardian how bad things are at the SFMTA," he said, adding that the situation is as bad or worse at the other two agencies, and that Caltrain has no other sources of operating revenue. "That issue has come to a head and it's come to a head because the state has zeroed out how much money it gives to public transit," Simon told us. "What's really heartbreaking is that this is a time when we should be adding service." Indeed, Caltrain has been moving ahead with plans to electrify its track, which would increase train speed and therefore system capacity while polluting less. But while it seeks federal grants for that capital project, the operating funds that have traditionally come from the state via SFMTA, VTA, and SamTrans have dried up (state and federal transportation funds are strictly divided between capital and operating funds). Unlike Caltrain, SFMTA and many other transit agencies have the authority to put general tax measures on the ballot to fund transit services, but so far in San Francisco, neither Mayor Gavin Newsom nor the seven SFMTA board members he appointed have shown any leadership is doing so. 7/6/2010 Turner, Steven From: Williams, Curtis Sent: Saturday, May 22,20104:37 PM To: Turner, Steven Subject: FW: SUMC EIR From: Janet Davis [mailto:jadjadjad@sbcglobal.net] sent: Saturday, May 22, 20109:21 AM To: city.councll.@menlopark.org; Council, City Cc: Rich Gordon; Lennie Roberts Subject: SUMC EIR Page 1 of 1 I have just started looking at this and the very first thing I looked at was downright wrong. Figure 3.4.3. showed a class I bike path along the entire length of Alpine Road. Not so! The study did show that the on and off ramps at Alpine and 1-280 would be at "F." This is a no-brainer since they are already beyond that, and traffic is often backed up for long stretches along the freeway until quite late in the morning. The study failed to address the intersections of Stowe Lane, Bishop Lane, Ansel Lane, the "Dish" parking problems or the difficulties (TIRE analysis) that the residents of Stanford Weekend Acres already experience trying to access (let alone cross!) Alpine Road. The study was also in error in its calculation of what constitutes "rush" hour along Alpine Road. That starts before 7 a.m. at which time around more than 90% of the traffic heads to Stanford. There is a minor "rush" at lunch time and a , more extensive rush when the medical staff change shifts at the hospital around 3 p.m. It did not address the level of accidents, the blind comers, the problems with speeding that occurs in offhours, the minor landslides and the winter flooding. I live on Alpine and and usually come and go by car, bike or foot several times a day. I have never seen any traffic engineers doing a study anywhere in the vicinity and have no confidence that one was actually done. 7/6/2010 Page 1 of1 Turner, Steven From: tv@sonic.net Sent: Friday, May 28,2010 10:19 AM To: Stanford Project Subject: Draft EIR As a physician and as a patient in ,the community, I support Stanford's Draft EIR because the community needs a great hospital. The facilities need upgrading per the State's seismic standards and the city of Palo Alto should be happy that Stanford is willing to foot the enormous bill to build a new hospital that will benefit the community of patients and healthcare workers but also bring business to the area. The increased traffic will not likely to be severe since Stanford is willing to pay for transport passes for all the workers that need them. Moreover, the area to be developed is already a commercial area. It is not being built in a middle of houses so really should not inconvenience anyone much. We need a new hospital so the City of Palo Alto should support Stanford's efforts. The city should not forget that many of us live here because we have past or present ties to Stanford and our houses are worth more because of our proximity to Stanford! Soa Tsung, MD 7/20/2010 Department of Toxic Substances Control Linda S. Adams Secretary for Environmental Protection June 7,2010 Steven Turner City of Palo Alto 250 Harnilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 M~~~~g~:e~~~hi REcE/~EQ Schwarzenegger 700 Heinz Avenue IJ Governor Berkeley, California 94710-2721 JlIi~ 0 9' '" 2010 Department of Plann 0 Community Enllo .ng and "Ironment DRAFT EIR, STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT (SUMC PROJECT), SCH# 2007082130 Dear Mr. Turner: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has reviewed the Draft EIR document referenced above and dated May 2010 for hazardous materials related issues. The due date to submit comments is July 6, 2010. As you may be aware, DTSC oversees the cleanup of hazardous substance release sites pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.8. As a potential Responsible Agency, DTSCis submitting comments to ensure that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation prepared for this project adequately addresses any remediation of hazardous substance releases that might be required as part of the project. The project consists of demolition and construction of facilities at the Stanford University Medical Center. The following information was presented in the Draft EIR: 1) The site currently contains an office'building, constructed in '1958, that has been used primarily as dental offices. Four amalgam separators are located in the basement of this building. Wastewater from each separator is conveyed to a sump that, in turn, discharges the wastewater onto either the landscaping or pavement at four. locations outside the building. Also, an elevator shaft was added in 1993. 2) A Phase I ESA was completed for the site and recommended, prior to demolition, thorough testing of the four wastewater treatment sumps, sink piping and other surfaces for mercury, silver, tin, copper and zinc. An asbestos survey was recommended. A lead survey was recommended. Subsequent to building demolition, soils beneath the elevator shaft should be tested for PCBs and hydraulic fluid. Steven Turner June 7, 2010 Page 2 of 3 3) A Phase II Soil and Wastewater Quality Evaluation revealed elevated levels of mercury, silver, and zinc in soil impacted by discharges from the amalgam separator systems. 4) The Hoover Pavilion site, due to the operation of underground storage tanks, has vae impacts to soil and groundwater. DTse has the following comments regarding the Draft EIR: 1) Soil and groundwater sampling should be performed to identify whether currentor past chemical use may have resulted in a release of hazardous substances. This sampling should be conducted prior to or in conjunction with the preparation of the EIR. Any screening levels or criteria that are used in making a determination as to whether detected contaminants pose a risk to human health or the environment should be identified. If volatile organic compounds are present in soil or groundwater, the potential human health risk from vapor intrusion into future buildings will need to be considered. 3) Any remediation activities that are to be implemented as part of the project should be discussed in the EIR along with the cleanup levels that will be applied and the anticipated regulatory agency oversight. Potential impacts associated with the remediation activities should be addressed by the EIR. If the remediation activities include soil excavation, the EIR should include: (1) an assessment of air impacts and health impacts associated with the excavation activities; (2) identification of any applicable local standards which may be exceeded by the excavation activities, including dust and noise levels; (3) transportation impacts from the removal or remedial activities; and (4) risk of upset should there be an accident during cleanup. If you have any questions, please call me at (510) 540-3956 or email me at , abernahi@dtsc.ca.gov. Sincerely, ~ / Andrew Berna-Hicks, P.E. Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program * Printed on Recycled Paper Steven Turner June 7, 2010 Page 3 of 3 cc: Alyssa De La Cruz (via email) CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 ADelacr1 @dtsc.ca.gov Nancy Ritter (via email) Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis Department of Toxic Su bstances Control nritter@dtsc.ca.gov State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit (via email) Office of Planning and Research P.O Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 State.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov ® Printed on Recycled Paper CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES DEPARTMENT WATER -GAS -WASTEWATER ENGINEERING 1007 ELWELL COURT, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 MAIN PHONE: 650/566-4501; FAX: 650/566-4536 Subject Address: Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project Draft EIR, Application #2007082130 Reviewed By: Roland Ekstrand, WGW Util. Eng. Phone: 650/566-4511 Reviewed date: July 20, 2010 WATER, GAS & WASTEWATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT DRAFT EIR REVIEW COMMENTS CPAU WGW win need a final copy of the PBS&J 2010 water and wastewater utility analysis quoted in table S-5 for our files. CPAU needs the final analysis of the long-term utility and public infrastructure demand generated by the SUMC project (page 2-8). CPAU will require a signed agreement regarding the existing emergency CPAU water interconnects with Stanford water including the activation conditions for these interties. Add Utilities review to "Other City Approvals" on page 2-28/2-29 and add Utilities approval to section 2.8 page 2-62. On page 3.3-22 add to Utilities section (third paragraph from bottom) locations shall comply with CPAU Rules and Regulations, and the Utility Standards. Page 3.15-5 some statements under "Emergency Water Supply and Storage" (EWSS) are not accurate. The EWSS wells will be used only on an emergency basis and are not permitted to be used on a more frequent basis. Submit water CAD hydraulic analysis with assumption documentation for CPAU review and approval. Include the Water Demand calculations on page 3.15-18 in the water CAD analysis. Turner, Steven From: rich rollins [rollinsmp@sbcglobal,net] Sent: Monday, July 19, 20105:45 PM To: Stanford Project Subject: Fw: Stanford Hospital expansion DEI R comment letter Rich Rollins, Broker Rollins Realty and Management 640 Menlo Ave. Menlo Park, Calif. 94025 Ofc. 650-327-0375 Fax 650-327-0382 Cell 415 9997109 -----Forwarded Message ---- From: rich rollins <rollinsmp@sbcglobal.net> To: rcbaile@menlopark.org Cc: ksteffens@menlopark.org Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:37:59 PM Subject: Fw: Stanford Hospital expansion DEIR comment letter Rich Rollins, Broker Rollins Realty and Management 640 Menlo Ave. Menlo Park, Calif. 94025 Ofc. 650-327-0375 Fax 650-327-0382 Cell 415 9997109 I~ -----Forwarded Message ---- From: rich rollins <rollinsmp@sbcglobal.net> To: city.council@menlopark.org Cc: "nealai@yahoo.com" <nealai@yahoo.com> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:21:05 PM Subject: Stanford Hospital expansion DEIR comment letter Dear Council, the proposed Hospital Expansion traffic impact analysis failed to study the potential substantial impact on Oak A ve, and the Oak Knoll School neighborhood. Page 1 of2 Oak Avenue, at 24 feet wide, and, now with a new school parking and delivery entrance to Oak Knoll 7/20/2010 Page 2 of2 School, is already suffering excessive traffic due to the 2 outbound lanes to Sand Hill Road and speeding cars making the sharp right turn from Sand Hill onto Oak. As you know, the signal at Oak and Sand Hill is a huge attractant to cut through traffic, and the safety of pedestrians and cyclists on Oak Ave. is compromised daily. The hospital expansion will undoubtedly create even more cut through traffic as drivers attempt to avoid the near gridlock on Sand Hill Road during commute hours. Residents of our neighborhood would appreciate that this oversight be noted in your comment letter to the City of Palo Alto,and strongly urge the City of Palo Alto to respond to this oversight. Respectfully submitted, Rich Rich Rollins, Broker Rollins Realty and Management 640 Menlo Ave. Menlo Park, Calif. 94025 Ofc. 650-327-0375 Fax 650-327-0382 7/20/2010 Page 1 of2 Turner, Steven From: steve schmidt [menloparksteve@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 20109:32 PM To: Stanford Project Subject: Comment on bike/pedestrian conditions & mitigations Dear Steven: Below are my comments on the Medical Center DEIR: Comments on DEIR for Stanford Hospital Expansion Transportation Section: 1. Map showing bicycle facilities indicates a Class I facility on Alpine Road. Past the Menlo Park City Limit in San Mateo County, the side path does not meet the minimum standards for Class I facilities. 2. The discussion of bicycle/pedestrian facilities indicates that two new bicycle/pedestrian undercrossings of the Caltrain tracks will be built: one at Everett in Palo Alto and one at Middle Ave. in Menlo Park. It is stated that these improvements will "facilitate walking and bicycling from residential and commercial areas in North Palo Alto and South Menlo Park." The choice of Middle as the site for an undercrossing is premature and impractical for several reasons: 1. the site has not yielded a design that has been approved by the Menlo Park City Council, the Menlo Park Bicycle Commission or the Menlo Park Transportation Commission; 2. the site is not contiguous with the Class II bicycle facility on Willow Road that serves neighborhoods east of the Caltrain tracks; 3. the site is nearly % mile from Stanford and Sand I-lill Road; 4. construction at the site is in conflict with a Caltrain vertical alignment required to accommodate future grade separations; 5. the site would require expensive below grade switchbacks on both 7/20/2010 Page 2 of2 sides; 6. access to the eastern portal of an undercrossing at this site would create an unprotected mid-block T -intersection with Alma Street; 7. the site lacks direct and simple connection for users from east Menlo Park to Stanford Medical Center and Campus; 8. the intersection of Middle and El Camino is encumbered with commercial ingress and egress on Middle serving a Safeway superstore and a busy Shell gas station. An alternative site previously studied is at Willow and Cambridge, approximately V4 mile from Sand Hill Road and possessing none of the problems outlined above. It would be considerably less costly to construct due to the uncomplicated approach and generous elevation of the railroad tracks. Because of this site's proximity to Stanford it would be more likely to attract Stanford trips to and from Menlo Park. If Stanford were to share the costs of constructing an undercrossing at the Willow/Cambridge location, it would be a far more efficient use of limited resources for Stanford, Menlo Park and other potential funding partners. Steve Schmidt Former Mayor, Menlo Park 650-323 5546 menloparksteve@gmail.com 7/20/2010 PTC mtg. 6/24/10 Michael Griffin, 344 Poe Street, Palo Alto I have several questions concerning the adequacy of the Medical Center DEIR, relating to traffic impacts: 1) While the DEIR acknowledges Stanford knows the home location of all it's employees by zip code, there appears to be no attempt to correlate that data with the development of the project's TDM scheme. The TDM proposal is Caltrain centric, which will help employees living in a city served by Caltrain. Why then is there not a similar solution for east bay employees, to encourage and financially assist them in riding BART, and then U Line and Dumbarton Express busses? 2) Why is there no analysis on the probability that Caltrain can and will have the wherewithal to deliver sufficient new capacity making the GoPass solution a valid one, producing the mitigations promised in the DEIR? Will there in fact even BE a Caltrain when we need it? And, considering the uncertainty, why then is there no discussion of a back-up plan should Caltrain, for whatever reason, be unable to perform its role as the primary service provider for making a reality of the TDM scheme, with it's reliance on the GoPass? 3) The Trip Distribution map on pg 3.4-48 shows that the vast majority of regional traffic attempts to access the Stanford projects from the East, basically exiting off 101 and then sifting westward through the neighborhoods until finally reaching Stanford. Why doesn't the DEIR analyze methods of incentivizing motorists to access Stanford off 280 in the West? Why was there no discussion of encouraging this western access, thereby avoiding traffic impacts throughout Palo Alto between 101 and EI Camino Real? Why wouldn't off site park & ride lots at SLAC and behind the Berry Farm be of benefit in accomplishing this goal? 4) Why is there no discussion of No New Net Trips? No New Net Trips is a requirement of Stanford's Santa Clara County General Use Permit. Why doesn't the DEIR discuss the applicability of this County requirement to the SUMC? LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County June 17, 2010 Steven Turner, Advanced Planning Manager Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal-and Replaceme.nt Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Mr. Turner: Thank you for providing the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) with an opportunity to comment on the City of Palo Alto's Draft EIR for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project. We have completed a preliminary review of the document and have identified a few ' areas of the document which require revisions and or clarification in terms of the role of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara (LAFCO) and the annexation process. The DEIR indicates that the project includes the annexation of an unincorporated 0.75-acre portion of the SoM area to the City of Palo Alto. According to LAFCO/s records the 0.75 acre area is located within the City of Palo Alto's Urban Service Area boundary. Government Code Section 5657 prohibits LAFCO from reviewing a "reorganization that includes annexation to any city in Santa Clara County of unincorporated territory that is within the urban service area of the city if the reorganization is initiated by resolution of the legislative body of the city." Therefore, the City of Palo Alto will be the conducting .authority for the annexation or reorganization and will determine whether or not to approve the proposed alUlexation/ reorganization. The DEIR (see Page 2-62) identifies" Annexation and pre-zoning of the property at the northwest comer of the Main SUMC Site, which is currently unincorporated, to the new zone." Government Code Section 56375(a)(7) requires that the City to pre-zone the territory prior to . annexing it. Furthermore, information concerning the Cityl s pre-zoning designation should also be included in the City's adopted resolution approving the reorganization. Once the City approves an annexation, the pre-zoning becomes effective and must remain in place for a minimum of 2 years. Similarly, the DEIR (see Page 2-63) incorrectly identifies ~AFCO as being responsible for approving the annexation. While it is accurate that LAFCO is a Responsible Agency for this project, the City is the conducting authority for the proposed annexation because the territory in question is already located within the City's Urban Service A:rea. LAPCD's role in this instance is limited to issuing and recording a Certificate of Completion for the anriexation or reorganization, providing the required documentation to the State Board of Equalization, and 70 West Hedding Street • J 1 th Floor. East Wing I San Jose, CA 95110 • 1408) 299-5127 • (408) 295·1613 Fax • www.santaclara.laFco.ca.gov COMMISSIONERS: Pete Constant. Don Gage, Liz I<niss. Margaret Abe-I<oga, Susan Vicklund-Wilson ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS; Sam Liccardo, AI Pinheiro, George Shirakawa, Terry Trumbull EXECUTIVE OFFICER : Neelirna PalacherJa notifying the affected agencies and deparhnents about the City's approval of the annexation/ reorganization. I hope this information is helpful in clarifying certain aspects of the apnexation process and in ensuring that the DEIR contains accurate information. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (408) 299-5148 or durua.noel@ceo.sccgov.org. Thank you. Sincerely, J)~~ Dunia Noel LAFCO Analyst Page2of2