HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1339City of Palo Alto (ID # 1339)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 6/6/2011
June 06, 2011 Page 1 of 15
(ID # 1339)
Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine}
Summary Title: SUMC-EIR & Entitlement Review
Title: PUBLIC HEARING-QUASI JUDICIAL: Certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and
Replacement Project (SUMC Project); Adoption of a Resolution Containing
California Environmental Quality Act Findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations; Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan to
Permit the SUMC Project; Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Code
to Establish a New “Hospital District”; Adoption of an Ordinance Approving a
Thirty–Year Development Agreement; Adoption of a Record of Land Use Action
Approving a Conditional Use Permit for the SUMC Project; Adoption of a
Resolution Commencing Annexation of an Approximate 0.65 acre Site from
Santa Clara County; Acceptance of SUMC Area Plan Update; and Adoption of a
Resolution Approving Architectural Review Board Findings
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council take
the following actions regarding the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and
Expansion Project (SUMC Project):
1. California Environmental Quality Act
A. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (the Final EIR was previously distributed
to Council; an electronic version is available on the SUMC Project website;
B.Adopt a resolution containing California Environmental Quality Act Findings and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment A);
2. Land Use
A.Approve a resolution adopting changes to the Comprehensive Plan to recognize taller
building heights at SUMC, to exclude hospital, clinic and medical school use areas from
the citywide and area specific non-residential growth limits, and changes to the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (Attachment B);
June 06, 2011 Page 2 of 15
(ID # 1339)
B.Adopt an ordinance amending the municipal code to establish a new “Hospital” district
and amending the sign code and tree code to be consistent with the Hospital Zone
regulations (Attachment C);
3. Other Entitlements
A.Adopt an ordinance approving a thirty–year development agreement between the City
of Palo Alto and the Applicants that would grant certain development rights in exchange
for certain public benefits (Attachment D);
B.Adopt a Record of Land Use Action approving a conditional use permit that would allow
specific hospital, medical office, and related uses in the Hospital District (Attachment E);
C. Adopt a resolution approving Architectural Review (Attachment F)
4. Administrative
A. Adoption a Resolution initiating the annexing of an approximate 0.65 acre site from
Santa Clara County (Attachment G);
B. Accept the SUMC Area Plan Update (Attachment H); and
C. Review recommendations from the Planning & Transportation Commission from the
meeting on May 11, 2011 and May 18, 2011, listed in the Board/Commission Review
and Recommendations section below.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.Stanford Hospitals and Clinics
Stanford Hospital provides both general acute care services and tertiary medical care for
patients locally, nationally and internationally. Stanford Hospital and Clinics (SHC) contains the
group practice of most faculty physicians of Stanford University School of Medicine. SHC is
currently licensed by the State of California to operate 613 beds, but is currently operating at a
456 bed level. In order to viably meet current and future demand, its projected need requires
an increase of 144 beds.
The new Stanford Hospital has been designed by Rafael Vinoly Architects. A detailed description
of the new Stanford Hospital is included in the P&TC report (Attachment K). Highlights of the
new hospital’s architecture and design are included in Attachment R. A complete set of plans
for the hospital is included in Electronic Attachment B.10.
2.Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital
The existing LPCH facility requires expansion to serve additional children and families, and to
accommodate modern healthcare standards. The expansion of the LPCH is designed to promote
family-centered care and create welcoming and safe healing environments by balancing the
hybrid needs of clinical research advancements with the specialized needs of pediatric and
obstetric patients and their families.
Perkins + Will in association with Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. (HGA) have designed
the new addition LPCH. A detailed description of the LPCH is included in the P&TC report
June 06, 2011 Page 3 of 15
(ID # 1339)
(Attachment K). Highlights of the new children’s hospital’s architecture and design are included
in Attachment R. A complete set of plans for the hospital is included in Electronic Attachment
B.10.
3.Hoover Pavilion Site
The Hoover Pavilion Site development includes the renovation of the existing Hoover Pavilion;
construction of a new 60,000 square foot medical office building (MOB) northwest of the
Hoover Pavilion; and construction of a new 55-foot high parking garage west of the Hoover
Pavilion with 1,085 parking capacity that has six above-grade levels and three below-grade
levels, along with site improvements and landscaping that would connect the medical office
building, parking garage and Hoover Pavilion.
WRNS Studio, LLP and Bellinger Foster Steinmetz Landscape Architects have designed the new
MOB and parking structure and its landscaping respectively. A detailed description of the
Hoover Pavilion Site is included in the P&TC report (Attachment K). Highlights of the site are
included in Attachment R. A complete set of plans for the Hoover renovations, the MOB, and
parking structure are included in Electronic Attachment B.10.
4.School of Medicine
The site for the SoM replacement facilities is generally the site of the existing facilities to be
replaced. Foundations in Medicine (FIM1) would be the first SoM building to be constructed as
part of this project. The architect for FIM1 is Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects and Tom Leader
Studio is the landscape architect. A detailed description of the FIM1 buildings is included in the
P&TC report (Attachment K).
In the first phase, only FIM1 would be built. FIMs 2 and 3 would be constructed later. Highlights
of FIM1 architecture and design are included in Attachment R. A complete set of plans for FIM1
is included in Electronic Attachment B.10.
5.Surface Improvements for Welch Road
The applicants have proposed surface improvements for Welch Road and Durand Way in order
to accommodate the new SUMC Project. A detailed description of the surface improvements
for Welch Road is included in the P&TC report (Attachment K). A complete set of plans for the
improvements are included in Electronic Attachment B.10.
6.Design Guidelines
The Medical Center Design Guidelines provide a basis from which to better understand the
architectural implications of new projects within the four districts that make up the medical
center. WRNS Studio LLP has prepared the design guidelines for the SUMC. A detailed
description of the design guidelines is included in the P&TC report (Attachment K). The Design
Guideline document itself is included in Electronic Attachment B.10.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) reviewed the SUMC Project and its
June 06, 2011 Page 4 of 15
(ID # 1339)
components in a meeting on May 11, 2011, with a continued meeting on May 18. 2011. The
P&TC recommended approval of all items listed above in the Recommendation section. The
PTC recommendation was unanimous on all items with the exception of the certification of the
Environmental Impact Report and Statement of Overriding Considerations, which resulted in a
5-1 vote in favor of approval.
The PTC also made two categories of additional recommendations. The first category was
addressed to particular provisions of the entitlement documents and the subject of separate
votes. These items included clarifying language in the Comprehensive Plan to indicate that the
tall building height was mitigated through ARB review and clarification that only development
in the HD Zone was exempt from the development cap; clarifying language in the HD Zone
Ordinance to indicate origin of tree numbers; and additional tree and construction outreach
and communication plan conditions in the CUP.
The second category of comments were recommendations for specific items to be considered
by the City Council. The following is a summary of those comments with a City staff response.
The excerpt verbatim minutes of May 18, 2011 contain the complete record of their action and
recommendations (Electronic Attachment F).
1.Commission supported the condition of approval recommended by the ARB and HRB to
replace the finial (a metal sculptural element) at the Hoover Pavilion tower. Staff
Response: Architectural Condition #B.2.1 requires replacement of the finial.
2.Enforcement Plan for MMRP and Conditions of Approval (CUP) –Ensure that all costs
associated with MMRP and CUP enforcement costs are recouped. Staff Response: CUP
Condition #12 and Architectural Review Conditions #2 and #3 contain language for
recouping of costs associated with condition and mitigation monitoring, as well as
inspection activities.
3.Pre-construction monitoring/post-construction monitoring of intersections affected by
the SUMC Project.Staff Response: CalTrans performs intersections analysis for El
Camino Real on a regular basis. In addition, the SUMC EIR establishes baseline
conditions for affected intersections. However, it would be difficult to identify
intersection impacts specifically as a result of the SUMC project over time, in that
current and future development apart from SUMC would contribute to impacts. It is
City Staff’s position that no further conditions relating to intersection monitoring are
necessary.
4.A communications plan shall be implemented to inform the public of tree removal
activities as part of the SUMC construction activities.Staff Response: A public
communication plan for construction activities, including the removal of trees, will be
implemented as part of the Construction Impact Minimization Plan (CIMP), a document
that is required to be approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of construction
permits. The CIMP is required as part of CUP Condition #6, Mitigation Measure TR-1.8,
June 06, 2011 Page 5 of 15
(ID # 1339)
and Architectural Review Condition A.4.1. In addition SUMC has hired a full-time
coordinator for the SUMC construction activities.
5.Examine whether 4.5% index used for yearly increases in the fund for healthcare services
(Development Agreement, Page 18, Section 5(a)(ii), is appropriate. Also examine
appropriateness of other indexes for payments to third parties and payment for capital
costs. Staff Response: All indexes were items negotiated by the City and SUMC
representatives. The index for healthcare takes into account present value calculations.
It does not take into account a specific health care index. Attachment M to this Staff
Report is a memo from the City’s economic consultant which analyzes alternative
indexes and their historic performance for Council’s consideration. Staff does not
recommend changes to the economic factors proposed in the draft Development
Agreement.
6.A Historic Fund should be established as mitigation for the impacts of demolishing Stone
Building. Staff Response: The MMRP contains mitigations that would reduce the impacts
resulting from demolition of the Stone building, but not to a less-than-significant level
(Mitigation Measures CR-1.1 through CR-1.5).If the fund were used to further mitigate
the Stone building demolition it would have to be limited to other Stone buildings.
Establishment of a broader based historic fund would need to be included as an item in
the Development Agreement. This is a policy decision for the Council.
7.Review and update citywide impact fees and apply the updated fees to the SUMC
Project. Staff Response: As is typical in a Development Agreement, the current draft of
the Development Agreement provides limits on the City’s ability to impose increased
fees on the projects. While this is a policy decision for the Council, additional citywide
“nexus” fee studies would need to be prepared prior to updating the fees. It is staff’s
opinion that the review and update of impact fees should not be tied to the SUMC
project.
8.Any revenues collected for parking passes in excess of the capital costs required to
construct parking garages should be used to fund the provision of Go Passes to SUMC
employees. Staff Response: Currently, parking permit fees are used to fund
Transportation Demand Management programs and efforts. The funding mechanism for
parking garage construction is not based upon parking permit fee revenue. The
requirements for the provision of Go Passes to SUMC employees are outlined in the
Development Agreement and in the MMRP.
9.There should be one point of contact at SUMC for the multitude of tracking, reporting
and other follow-ups required by the City.Staff Response: Staff concurs and this has
requirement has been incorporated into Condition 6 of the Conditional Use Permit. As
mentioned in Comment #4 above, SUMC has hired a full-time coordinator to direct
construction related activities between SUMC and the City.
June 06, 2011 Page 6 of 15
(ID # 1339)
10.Prepare a matrix of payments to be made by SUMC. Staff Response: Staff has prepared
a payment matrix (Attachment I) that describes the specific Development Agreement
payments and the anticipated timeline for receipt.
11.References to Planning and Transportation Commission exclusion from the any possible
future Site and Design review process should be deleted from the Development
Agreement.Staff Response: City Staff does not anticipate any Site and Design review
process that would be required for future buildings, such as FIM2, FIM3 and the SHC
Clinics. City staff has removed references excluding the Commission from future reviews
and removing references to the Site and Design review process. The result is that future
building would be required to follow the Architectural Review process as described in
the Municipal Code.
Staff concurs with recommendation numbers 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 11 and where applicable has
incorporated those recommendation into the approval documents. The remaining items are
policy issues and require additional Council input. Attachment L contains the P&TC
recommendations and staff reponses.
CITY COUNCIL ROLE IN ENTITLEMENT REVIEW
While the final recommendations on this Project have been bundled together for purposes of
the Staff Report, Council’s actions fall into two distinct categories: (1) approval of the CEQA
documents and (2) action on entitlements. Under CEQA, before the Council can take any action
on the entitlements, it must first certify the legal adequacy of the FEIR.
Environmental Review
The Council as lead agency for preparation of the EIR has a duty to the public to ensure that the
FEIR is adequate and complete. Council must certify that the FEIR complies with CEQA and
reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis. Considerable deference is given
to the Council’s factual determinations and such determinations must be upheld if supported
by “substantial evidence” in light of the whole record. In the CEQA area, “substantial evidence”
exists if there is enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information
that a “fair argument” can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions
might also be reached. The law recognizes that EIRs are intended as information documents
and need not be perfect in every respect.
When an EIR identifies significant environmental impacts, the Council must make one of the
following findings: (1) changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects; (2) such changes
or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency that has
adopted, or can and should adopt, such changes; or (3) specific economic, social, legal
technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternative identified in the EIR. Lastly, for all unmitigated environmental impacts, the Council
must adopt a “Statement of Overriding Considerations”. This is a separate finding that the
project’s anticipated benefits override the unmitigatable environmental impacts. Like the CEQA
June 06, 2011 Page 7 of 15
(ID # 1339)
findings discussed above, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is judged on the deferential
“substantial evidence” test.
Entitlement Review
By approving the CEQA documents, the Council is not technically approving the project. In order
to approve the project, the Council must take a series of additional legislative and quasi-judicial
land use actions, collectively referred to as project entitlements. The Council has discretion to
approve, deny or condition these project entitlements. The Conditional Use Permit and
Architectural Review permit are quasi-judicial decisions, and as such the Council must make
specific findings supporting their decisions on these items. The Council can impose conditions
on these quasi-judicial permits, but any requirement for land dedication or payment of impact
fees must be “roughly proportional” to the development’s impact. This strict “rough
proportionality” requirement does not apply to development agreement terms. However, any
term proposed in a development agreement must be mutually agreeable to the applicant.
SUMMARY OF ENTITLMENTS
The P&TC Report (Attachment K) contains detailed information on the requested entitlements.
Below is a high level summary of the requested entitlement package.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Text modifications to the Comprehensive Plan are proposed to clarify proposed building height
exceptions and commercial square footage limits for the SUMC to accommodate the proposed
building heights. Specifically, the SUMC Project sponsors propose to modify Program L-3, and
the City has proposed to modify Policy L-8. In both of the requested Comprehensive Plan
modifications, the changes would affect only those sites at SUMC. If the City Council decided to
approve the maximum height allowance as part of the HD, the modification to Policy L-3 would
be consistent with the new regulations.
Zoning Ordinance
The SUMC Project would conflict with existing development restrictions in the PF district, such
as FAR and height limits. The Applicants request creation of a new zoning district; the “Hospital
District”; specifically designed for SUMC for hospitals and clinics, associated medical research,
medical office, and support uses. This new zoning district would include development standards
that accommodate the SUMC Project as proposed. The proposed boundaries of the new district
are depicted in Attachment C, Exhibit A. The proposed zoning changes would resolve potential
zoning inconsistencies associated with the SUMC Project. Please refer to the P&TC Report
(Attachment K) for further details on the HD District.
Development Agreement
Based on preliminary input from the Council and the public, City staff proposed four major
guiding principles governing negotiation of specific deal terms for a Development Agreement
with the Applicant:
June 06, 2011 Page 8 of 15
(ID # 1339)
1.Minimize fiscal impacts to the City. Ensure that the project does not have a negative fiscal
impact on the City through focusing, among other things, on revenue guarantees and robust
analysis of long term project expenses.
2.Require project mitigation. Ensure that zoning ordinance and Conditions of Approval
adequately address all project mitigations. Ensure that the General Fund is not unfairly
burdened with long term impacts of project.
3.Preserve community health care. Ensure that local benefits of hospital and clinics will be
retained, while transitioning towards greater world class hospital status.
4.Enhance City infrastructure. Recognize mutual interest in preserving high standard of
economic and community vitality. Partner with Stanford to fund the long-term
infrastructure needs of the community (capital programs, housing, transportation, and
broadband).
Over the past two years, City staff has been meeting with the Applicants to negotiate the terms
of the Development Agreement. An important component of the negotiations has been the
fiscal analysis reports prepared by the City’s consultant, Applied Development Economics (ADE)
and Stanford’s consultant, CBRE. A Draft Development Agreement is included as Attachment D
and a more detailed discussion of these terms is contained in the April 20, 2011 Policy &
Services staff report (Electronic Attachment C.3).
The following points provide a summary of the Community Benefits and Project Mitigations as
listed in the Development Agreement (Attachment D):
Health Care and Patient Services Benefit
1.Health Care Services: Effective in 2025, Payment of $5,600,000 paid out over ten years to be
used to assist residents of Palo Alto who have self-payment responsibilities beyond their
financial means, to pay healthcare services. These funds shall be above and beyond SUMC’s
existing charity care program and in addition to the federal Health Care program. The
payment of this fund will be deferred in order to address the Cost Neutrality Agreement
(see Fiscal section below).
2.Community Health Programs: One-time payment of $4,000,000 to be used for community
based health and wellness programs. While the agreement provides the City with wide
discretion to allocate these funds, the agreement specifically references that all or a portion
of this payment may be applied to Project Safety Net. This will be paid 45 days after the
effective date of the Development Agreement.
Fiscal Payments
The fiscal benefits that will be provided by Stanford includes a payment of $2.42 million to
address projected deficit of project as analyzed by ADE; a Use Tax Direct Payment Permit of
$750,000 over life of project to be obtained by Stanford, and a guarantee by Stanford that City
will receive no less than $8.1 million in Construction Use Tax Revenue. As a result, these
benefits will further the cost-neutrality goals as directed by the City Council.
Reduced Vehicle Trips
June 06, 2011 Page 9 of 15
(ID # 1339)
1.SHC and LPCH will provide GO Passes to their employees. Their estimated cost of this
mitigation is approximately $91,000,000 over 51 years. The parties have mutually worked
out a TDM program that will provide for alternate TDM measures and/or penalties in the
event an aggressive 35.1% alternative mode share is not achieved or Caltrain service is
eliminated as a result of ongoing financial difficulties. At the City’s request, the Hospitals
have agreed to begin funding the GO Pass program in 2015, well before project buildout.
2.To address the enhanced GO Pass program, SUMC will purchase and operate four new
Marguerite shuttles to support service to and from the train station. The capital and
operational cost over 51 years is $24,950,000.
3.SHC and LPCH will provide a permanent TDM Coordinator at the Hospitals in an amount of
$5,100,000 over 51 years.
4.The Hospitals will contribute to AC Transit to address potential capacity issues caused by
the project and will lease parking spaces at Ardenwood Park and Ride to encourage
employees of the hospital to use AC Transit and other transit options. The total cost of
these additional transit measures is $5,095,000.
Linkages
The Applicants will fund various City improvements to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle
connections, including enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connection for the Intermodal Transit
Center to El Camino Real and Quarry; improvements to the ROW to enhance pedestrian and
bicycle connection from west side of El Camino to Welch Road along Quarry Road, and
improvements to enhance the pedestrian connection between the Medical Center and the
Stanford Shopping Center in the area of the Barn. The total cost of these linkages is $3,350,000.
Infrastructure Capital Fund
The Applicants will provide $23,200,000, of which approximately $2,000,000 represents the
housing fee required for the clinics and the balance to be used by the City in connection with
other infrastructure, sustainable neighborhoods and communities and affordable housing
programs. This fund could be used for a wide variety of important infrastructure projects. This
payment will be made in three equal installments timed to the construction phases.
Climate Change/Sustainable Communities
The Applicants will make a contribution of $12,000,000 paid in three equal installments for use
in projects and programs for a sustainable community also timed to the construction phases.
As described above and in the Commission staff report, the community benefits and mitigations
contained within the Development Agreement are consistent with the guiding principles used
throughout the negotiating process. A number of community benefits suggested by the Council
and members of the public are not included in the Development Agreement. Examples of these
benefits include San Francisquito Creek upstream retention, a no-cost right-of-way easement at
Bol Park with Stanford University, an extension of the El Camino Park lease, also with Stanford
University, and a cooperative agreement with Stanford to provide a redundant power-supply
transmission infrastructure. Although the value of these proposed benefits is understood, the
focus of the negotiating team centered on cost-neutrality, healthcare benefits, development of
June 06, 2011 Page 10 of 15
(ID # 1339)
pedestrian linkages from SUMC to the transit center, automobile trip reductions, and an
infrastructure fund. These benefits are recognized to be directly related to the objectives of the
SUMC project. It is anticipated that the City will continue to work with Stanford University to
address those community benefits that are not included in the Development Agreement.
The City and Stanford differ in their valuation of the total benefit package in that Stanford
characterizes some of the required mitigations as community benefits. While they are, in fact,
mitigations, City staff recognizes that the bulk of the mitigations also have an overall
community benefit. Likewise many of the community benefits enhance the overall project. In
total, City staff has valued the total community benefit package to be approximately
$43,646,512 and Stanford has valued it to be $174,769,500. See Attachment J. A summary of
the Development Agreement payments is contained in Attachment I. Regardless of the
differences in calculating the total benefits, staff agrees that the package responds to
immediate needs and contributes to the overall health of our communities.
Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review
The proposed HD Zone provides that hospital, clinic, office and private university use are
conditionally permitted uses. This additional discretionary review allows the Council to ensure
that the proposed uses are appropriate for the site and are compatible with each other as well
as adjoining land uses. Likewise, architectural review provides another level of discretionary
design review for the project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is
incorporated into the CUP Conditions of Approval as well as the Development Agreement to
better ensure its enforceability.
Annexation Resolution and SUMC Area Plan Update
A small portion of the Project site is currently located in Santa Clara County. In order to ensure
that the site is located entirely in Palo Alto and ensure compliance with the Tri-Party Agreement
between the County, City and Stanford regarding use of medical center land, an annexation is
required. Attachment G initiates this annexation.
The final Project entitlement is the Area Plan Update. Comprehensive Plan L-46 requires
Stanford and the City to prepare an Area Plan that provides the framework for development
within the Project boundaries. The bulk of this work was completed in Phase 1 of the project
and the guiding principles were carried through project development and also codified in the
Design Guidelines formulated by the Architectural Review Board with assistance from the City’s
urban designer Bruce Fukuji. The Area Plan Update is a guidance document for the City,
Stanford and the public to provide an overview and context for anticipated future development
at the SUMC. The Area Plan Update is not intended to establish land use or development
policies or standards,and is not intended to supersede the applicable policies, regulations,
requirements and standards of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code.
Please refer to the P&TC Report (Attachment K) for details on the different sections of the Area
Plan Update. Staff recommends that the City Council find the Area Plan Update to be
acceptable in satisfying Comprehensive Plan Program L-46.
June 06, 2011 Page 11 of 15
(ID # 1339)
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
A detailed matrix showing Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Policies is included in
Attachment E, Exhibit B.
Land Use Designations
The following changes to existing land use designations would be made through the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
·SoM proposes annexation of the 0.65-acre parcel within Santa Clara County jurisdiction.
This area would be annexed under the Major Institution/Special Facilities land use
designation. The proposed FIM 1 building would be consistent with this designation.
·LPCH proposes that the 701 and 703 Welch Road parcels be converted from the
Research/Office Park land use designation to the Major Institution/Special Facilities land use
designation. The proposed LPCH expansion would be consistent with this new designation.
Please refer to the P&TC Report (Attachment K) for further details on these sites.
RESOURCE IMPACT
ADE prepared a fiscal impact study of the project. Due to SUMC’s tax exempt status the
projected revenues from the project were less than the City induced expenses. As discussed in
the fiscal section above, the Development Agreement contains a cost neutrality agreement that
will ensure that the project is fiscally neutral over time.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The previously released Draft EIR (May 2010) and the Responses to Comments document
(Volumes I and II, February 2011) constitute the Final EIR. The responses and revisions in the
Final EIR substantiate and confirm or correct the analyses contained in the Draft EIR. It should
be noted that no new significant environmental impacts and no substantial increase in the
severity of an earlier identified impact have resulted from responding to comments. The Final
EIR was previously distributed to the City Council. The Final EIR is available on the SUMC Project
website (www.cityofpaloalto.org/sumc).
Resolution Certifying Final EIR and Approving Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
A resolution certifying the adequacy of the Final EIR and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (MMRP) is included for review as Attachment A. The CEQA Resolution
summarizes the findings of the Final EIR and makes the necessary statutory findings required to
certify the Final EIR. The MMRP contains a comprehensive list of mitigation measures for the
project and designates the agency responsible for monitoring compliance. References to the
MMRP are incorporated into the Project Conditions of Approval as well as the Development
Agreement to ensure their enforceability. As the project involves certain impacts that cannot be
mitigated, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) must be adopted by the City Council
before it can approve the Project. A SOC represents the City Council’s views on the ultimate
balancing of the merits of approving the Project despite the significant and unavoidable
June 06, 2011 Page 12 of 15
(ID # 1339)
environmental impacts identified in the FEIR. Please refer to the P&TC Report (Attachment K)
for further details on the MMRP and SOC.
Revisions to the Previously Identified Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
As a result of responding to comments and initiating changes to the analysis in the Draft EIR,
revisions to the previously identified significant and unavoidable impacts have been made as
described in the Final EIR.Please refer to the P&TC Report (Attachment K) for details on each of
these impacts.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Most impacts identified for the SUMC Project would either be Less-Than-Significant (LTS) or
could be mitigated to a LTS level. Twelve impacts remain significant and unavoidable for the
Project which include increased average daily traffic in Menlo Park, construction-and
operation-related air pollutant and noise impacts, removal of up to 74 protected trees and
removal of a historical structure. Additionally, the analysis of the Tree Preservation Alternative
included pile-driving activities during construction. It should be clarified that the Tree
Preservation Alternative reduces the number of protected trees to be removed (62 in lieu of 74)
and preserves all fifteen of the biological and aesthetic tree resources, 12 are to be retained in
place and three will be relocated.
Please refer to the P&TC Report (Attachment K) for a detailed discussion for all impacts.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
If the City Council decides to approve the SUMC Project, and if the SUMC Project as approved
would result in significant impacts that could not be mitigated to less-than-significant levels,
then the City Council must indicate that any such unavoidable impacts are acceptable due to
overriding considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093,a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” would balance the benefits of the SUMC Project against its
unavoidable environmental effects. If the City Council finds that the benefits of the SUMC
Project outweigh the impacts, then the adverse environmental effects may be considered
acceptable.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations document includes two categories of benefits from
the amenities of the Project that would constitute “overriding considerations”:
A.Amenities of the development of the Project itself, such as:
a)Health Care
b)Level 1 Trauma Center
c)Seismic Safety
B.Additional community benefits and other payments negotiated as part of the
Development Agreement for the Project, which include:
a)Health Care Services Funding
b)Community Health programs
c)Infrastructure Capital Fund
d)Climate Change / Sustainable Communities
June 06, 2011 Page 13 of 15
(ID # 1339)
e)Cost Neutrality Payment
f)Use Tax Direct Payment Permit
The Statement of Overriding Considerations document is included in Attachment A.
City of Menlo Park
Menlo Park provided a comment letter on the DEIR and FEIR relating primarily to traffic issues.
Following receipt of the comment letter on the FEIR, Stanford met with representatives of
Menlo Park and entered into a side agreement which fully addressed Menlo Park’s issues. As a
result, Menlo Park withdrew its comment letter on the FEIR. A summary of the traffic
mitigations that SUMC will provide to Menlo Park is contained in Section 5(c)(ii) of the updated
Development Agreement. In total Stanford will be providing $3,699,000 to Menlo Park.
City of East Palo Alto
On May 12, 2011, the City of East Palo Alto submitted a comment letter on the FEIR. This
comment letter focused primarily on traffic impacts. On May 19, following the P&TC continued
hearing, Rajiv Bhatia submitted a related comment letter on the FEIR. (These letters are
contained in Attachment O.) Staff and SUMC representatives plan to meet with East Palo Alto
to discuss these issues further and will provide updated information to the Council in the staff
presentation.
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
The chief executive officers of the hospitals and the dean of the school of medicine have
submitted a letter regarding the SUMC Project review process, the goals of the Project, the
Development Agreement, and upcoming next steps. This letter is contained in Attachment N.
Other public correspondence is contained in Attachment P.
ERRATA
Replacement Table: Appendix T of Final EIR
An error was discovered on a table presented in Appendix T of the Final EIR. Table 4-5 of
Appendix C in the Draft EIR should have been updated to be consistent with Table 3.4-18 in the
Final EIR. The incorrect table is on Page 19 of Appendix T. The corrected table is contained in
Attachment Q. Staff believes that this is a clerical error that does not affect the traffic analysis
within the Final EIR.
Electronic Attachments
This staff report references attachments that are available electronically on the SUMC Project
website (www.cityofpaloalto.org/sumc) for the May 11, 2010 PTC meeting. These Attachments
are designated as “Electronic Attachment” throughout this report. City Councilmembers have
received these attachments on compact disc. The following are the attachments available in
electronic format:
A.Final EIR Documents
1.Final EIR Staff Report to PTC + supporting materials and responses
June 06, 2011 Page 14 of 15
(ID # 1339)
2.Final EIR Review-PTC Meeting Minutes
3.Public Comment on Final EIR
B.Architectural and Historic Review –Staff Reports and Minutes
1.Design Guidelines
2.LPCH
3.Welch Road
4.FIM1
5.Hoover Renovations
6.Hoover Site Development
7.SHC
8.Peer Review Memorandums prepared by Bruce Fukuji
9.Historic Review Board –Minutes
10.Final Project Plans
C.Development Agreement Discussions with City Council
1.City Council January 31 Update Meeting: Staff Report and Minutes
2.March 15, 2011 Finance Committee Meeting: Staff Report and Minutes
3.April 20, 2011 Policy and Services Committee Meeting: Staff Report and Minutes
D.Fiscal Report –ADE March 9, 2011
The following documents are not on the compact disc, but are available on the SUMC
Project website (www.cityofpaloalto.org/sumc):
E.Final EIR, previously distributed to Council
F.May 11 and May 18, 2011 PTC Excerpt Minutes
ATTACHMENTS:
·Attachment A: Resolution Certifying Adequacy of CEQA FIndings and Adopting MMRP
(PDF)
·Attachment B: Resolution Amending L-3 and L-8 of Comprehensive Plan (PDF)
·Attachment C: Ordinance Adding PAMC Section 18.36 (HD Zone) and Related Amendments
(PDF)
·Attachment D: Ordinance Approving Development Agreement (PDF)
·Attachment E: Record of Land Use Regarding CUP (PDF)
·Attachment F: Resolution Approving Architectural Review (PDF)
·Attachment G: Resolution Initiating Annexation(PDF)
·Attachment H: Area Plan (PDF)
·Attachment I: Summary of Development Agreement Payments (PDF)
·Attachment J: Comparison of Development Agreement and Mitigations (PDF)
·Attachment K: P&TC Staff Report of May 11, 2011 (w/o attachments)(PDF)
June 06, 2011 Page 15 of 15
(ID # 1339)
·Attachment L: P&TC Recommendations from May 11 and May 18 Meetings (PDF)
·Attachment M: ADE Inflation Index Memo (PDF)
·Attachment N: Correspondence from Stanford (PDF)
·Attachment O: Correspondence from City of East Palo Alto (PDF)
·Attachment P: Correspondence from Public (PDF)
·Attachment Q: Corrected Table 4-5 for FEIR Appendix T (PDF)
·Attachment R: Project Plans Highlights (for Councilmembers only under separate cover)
(PDF)
Prepared By:Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
Not Yet Approved
1
110601 jb 0130719
Resolution No _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying
the Adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and
Replacement Project Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Introduction and Certification.
(a) The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”), in the exercise of
its independent judgment, makes and adopts the following findings to comply with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”; Pub. Resources Code, §§
21000 et seq.), and Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code
Regs., § 15000 et seq.). All statements set forth in this Resolution constitute formal findings of
the City Council, including the statements set forth in this paragraph. These findings are made
relative to the conclusions of the City of Palo Alto Stanford University Medical Center
(“SUMC”) Facilities Renewal and Replacement Final Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse No. 2007082130) (the “Final EIR”), which includes the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (“Draft EIR”), Public Comments, and Responses to Comments. The Final EIR
addresses the environmental impacts of the implementation of the Stanford University Medical
Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (the “Project”, as further defined in Section
2(b) below) and is incorporated herein by reference. These findings are based upon the entire
record of proceedings for the Project.
(b) Mitigation measures associated with the potentially significant impacts of the
Project will be implemented through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
described below, which is the responsibility of the City.
(c) The City of Palo Alto is the Lead Agency pursuant to Public Resources Code
section 21067 as it has the principal responsibility to approve and regulate the Project. Stanford
Hospital and Clinics, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford and Stanford University
(hereafter collectively, “SUMC Project sponsors”) are the Project applicants.
(d) The City exercised its independent judgment in accordance with Public
Resources Code section 20182.1(c), in retaining the independent consulting firm PBS&J to
prepare the Final EIR, and PBS&J prepared the Final EIR under the supervision and at the
direction of the City’s Director of Planning and Community Environment.
(e) The City, through PBS&J, initially prepared the Draft EIR and circulated it
for review by responsible and trustee agencies and the public and submitted it to the State
Not Yet Approved
2
110601 jb 0130719
Clearinghouse for review and comment by state agencies, for a comment period which ran from
May 20, 2010, through June 27, 2010. As noted above, the Final EIR includes the Draft EIR,
copies of all comments on the Draft EIR submitted during the comment period, the City’s
responses to those comments, and changes made to the Draft EIR following its public
circulation.
(f) The City’s Planning and Transportation Committee has reviewed the Final
EIR and a draft of these findings and has provided its recommendations to the City Council
regarding certification of the Final EIR. The City Council has independently reviewed the Final
EIR and has considered the Planning and Transportation Committee’s recommendations in
making these findings.
(g) Based upon review and consideration of the information contained therein,
the City Council hereby certifies that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA,
and reflects the City of Palo Alto’s independent judgment and analysis. The City Council has
considered evidence and arguments presented during consideration of the Project and the Final
EIR. In determining whether the Project may have a significant impact on the environment, and
in adopting the findings set forth below, the City Council certifies that it has complied with
Public Resources Code sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21082.2.
(h) Section 6 of the Final EIR shows all revisions which the Final EIR made to
the Draft EIR. Having reviewed this section and the Final EIR as a whole, the City Council
hereby finds, determines, and declares that no significant new information has been added to the
Final EIR so as to warrant recirculation of all or a portion of the Draft EIR. Likewise, the City
Council has considered all public comments and other information submitted into the record
since publication of the Final EIR, and further finds that none of that additional information
constitutes significant new information requiring recirculation of the Final EIR.
SECTION 2. Project Information.
The following Project information is supplied to provide context for the discussion
and findings that follow, but is intended as a summary and not a replacement for the information
contained in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, or Project approvals.
(a) Project Objectives
The Project Objectives of both SUMC Project sponsors in proposing the Project and
the City in approving the Project are set forth in Section 2.3 of the Draft EIR, which is
incorporated herein by reference.
(b) Project Description
The Project is the demolition, replacement, expansion, and development of new
medical facilities at the SUMC Sites, which are comprised of the 56-acre Main SUMC Site and
9.9-acre Hoover Pavilion Site. The SUMC Project would demolish approximately 1.2 million
square feet of existing buildings at the SUMC Sites and construct approximately 2.5 million
Not Yet Approved
3
110601 jb 0130719
square feet of hospital, clinic, and research facilities, for a net increase of about 1.3 million
square feet of hospital and clinic uses (research space would not increase). In addition, other
existing buildings would be renovated to meet seismic standards, and approximately 2,053 net
new parking spaces would be added to the sites.
The Project is located on two sites that are collectively about 66 acres: the
approximately 56-acre Main SUMC Site and the approximately 9.9-acre Hoover Pavilion Site.
The Main SUMC Site is located mainly in the City of Palo Alto, south of Sand Hill Road and is
primarily bounded to the north and east by Welch Road, to the south by Quarry Road, and to the
west by Stanford University lands. A 0.75-acre portion of the Stanford University School of
Medicine area within the Main SUMC Site is located in unincorporated Santa Clara County, and
is proposed for annexation to the City of Palo Alto. The Hoover Pavilion Site is about 1,700 feet
east of the Main SUMC Site, at the southwestern corner of Quarry Road and Palo Road.
A complete description of the Project as originally proposed by the SUMC Project
sponsors is set forth in Section 2 of the Draft EIR (as amended on pages 6-71 to 6-72 of the Final
EIR). In addition, a description of the Tree Preservation Alternative is located at pages 5-15
through 5-22 of the Draft EIR (as amended on pages 6-128 through 6-130 of the Final EIR). As
further discussed later herein, the City is approving the Tree Preservation Alternative, with
certain components of the Village Concept Alternative incorporated, rather than the Project as
originally proposed. Thus, as used in these Findings, the term “Project” is intended to reference
the Tree Preservation Alternative and includes the following linkages components of the Village
Concept Alternative and Mitigation Measure TR-6.1.
Provision of a connection from the planned Everett Avenue bicycle and
pedestrian undercrossing to the El Camino/Quarry Road intersection.
Once the tunnel is completed, this linkage will provide a direct connection
between the SUMC Project sites and Downtown North. To implement
this linkage component, the SUMC Project sponsors will provide
$2,250,000 for the City to construct these improvements.
Creation of an enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connection between the
Stanford Shopping Center and SUMC (through the Stanford Barn area).
The connection will provide an alternative route to Quarry Road, which is
auto dominated. This connection will extend between Vineyard Lane and
Welch Road. Pedestrian traffic signals and crosswalks shall be placed at
the crossing of Vineyard Lane and Welch Road. The crosswalk will be
enhanced, either by striping or by the use of contrasting paving. To
implement this linkage component, the SUMC Project sponsors will
construct these improvements at a cost of up to $700,000.
Enhanced signalized intersections in the Project vicinity, particularly
along Quarry Road, Vineyard and Welch Roads to include 12-foot
pedestrian crosswalks on all legs, with textured or colored paving or
diagonal or longitudinal zebra striping as determined by the City,
pedestrian push buttons and countdown pedestrian signal heads, and other
specific improvements that are determined as necessary during the design
Not Yet Approved
4
110601 jb 0130719
process, such as median refuge islands, advanced signing, flashing
beacons, in-pavement lighting, etc. To implement this linkage component,
in combination with the Quarry Road corridor linkage component set forth
below, the SUMC Project sponsors will provide a total of $400,000 for the
City to construct these improvements.
Incorporation into the Quarry Road corridor, from El Camino Real to
Welch Road, of improvements to and within the public right-of-way to
enhance the pedestrian and bicycle connection, including urban design
elements and way finding, wider bicycle lanes as necessary, on Quarry
Road, enhanced transit nodes for bus and/or shuttle stops, and prominent
bicycle facilities. To implement this linkage component, in combination
with signalized intersections linkage component set forth above, the
SUMC Project sponsors will provide a total of $400,000 for the City to
construct these improvements.
(c) Required Approvals
The approvals required by the City as lead agency for implementation of the Project
include:
A. Adoption of Comprehensive Plan Amendments as follows:
1. to redesignate 701 and 703 Welch Road from the Research/Office
Park land use designation to the Major Institution/Special Facilities
land use designation;
2. to apply the Major Institution/Special Facilities land use designation
to the proposed annexation of the 0.75 acre property within Santa
Clara County jurisdiction;
3. to include language that new Hospital zoning would allow buildings
to exceed 50 feet in height;
4. to amend Policy L-8 to clarify that the City-wide cap on non-
residential development does not apply to SUMC hospital, clinic, and
medical school uses;
B. Acceptance of the Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan, pursuant to
Comprehensive Plan Program L-46;
C. Creation of a new “Hospital District” (HD) Zone for the SUMC Sites in the
Palo Alto Zoning Code that could be applied by the City to land uses
specifically for hospitals, associated medical research, medical office and
support uses;
Not Yet Approved
5
110601 jb 0130719
D. Conditional Use Permits as necessary within the new Hospital District zone;
E. Amendment to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 8.10 to recognize and cross
reference the Hospital District Ordinance;
F. Annexation and prezoning of a 0.75-acre property at the northwest corner of
the Main SUMC Site to the new zone;
G. Rezoning of 701 and 703 Welch Road to the new HD Zone;
H. Architectural review for development of the SUMC Project, including design
guidelines;
I. Approval of a Development Agreement, if one can be mutually agreed upon
by the City and SUMC Project sponsors;
J. Approval of permits to remove or relocate approximately 62 Protected Trees,
in accordance with the requirements of the HD Zone.
K. Issuance of building, grading, and other ministerial permits necessary for
construction of the Project.
The approvals required by the other responsible agencies for implementation of the
Project include:
A. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), coverage under the
General Construction Permit by preparation of a NOI and SWPPP. Possible
approval of an individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES), if major dewatering is required;
B. State of California, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development
(OSHPD), approval of construction for the acute care portions of the SUMC
Project. SUMC Project plans would also need to be reviewed for compliance
with fire safety codes by the State Fire Marshal;
C. State of California, Department of Health Services (DHS), operating licenses;
D. State of California, Department of Radiological Health Services (DRHS),
design review and operating licenses of shielded areas; and
E. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), approval of
remediation of existing hazardous materials, operational ventilation related to
hazardous materials and permit approvals for emergency generators and any
other stationary sources.
SECTION 3. Record of Proceedings.
Not Yet Approved
6
110601 jb 0130719
(a) For purposes of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e), and these
findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of the following documents, at a
minimum:
(1) The Final EIR, which consists of the Stanford University Medical Center
Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft Environmental Impact Report,
published and circulated for public review and comment by the City from
May 20, 2010 through July 27, 2010 (the “Draft EIR”), and the Stanford
University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Final
Environmental Impact Report, published and made available on February 11,
2010, and all appendices, reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps,
testimony, and other materials related thereto;
(2) All public notices issued by the City in connection with the Project and the
preparation of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, including but not limited to
public notices for all public workshops held to seek public comments and
input on the Project and the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Completion,
Notice of Availability;
(3) All written and oral communications submitted by agencies or interested
members of the general public during the public review period for the Draft
EIR, including oral communications made at public hearings or meetings
held on the Project approvals;
(4) The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
(5) All findings and resolutions adopted by the City Council in connection with
the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein;
(6) All final reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning
documents relating to the Project prepared by the City of Palo Alto,
consultants, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City of Palo
Alto’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA, and with respect to the
City of Palo Alto’s actions on the Project, including all staff reports and
attachments to all staff reports for all public meetings held by the City;
(7) Minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all public meetings and/or public
hearings held by the City of Palo Alto in connection with the Project;
(8) Matters of common knowledge to the City of Palo Alto, including, but not
limited to, federal, state, and local laws and regulations;
(9) Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited
above; and
Not Yet Approved
7
110601 jb 0130719
(10) Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public
Resources Code section 21167.6(e).
(b) The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is the
Director of Planning and Community Environment, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue,
Palo Alto, California, 94301.
(c) Copies of all of the above-referenced documents, which constitute the record
of proceedings upon which the City of Palo Alto’s decision on the Project is based, are and have
been available upon request at the offices of the Planning and Community Environment
Department, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, 94301, and other
locations in the City of Palo Alto.
(d) The City of Palo Alto has relied upon all of the documents, materials, and
evidence listed above in reaching its decision on the Project.
(e) The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the above-
referenced documents, materials, and evidence constitute substantial evidence (as that term is
defined by section 15384 of the CEQA Guidelines) to support each of the findings contained
herein.
SECTION 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
(a) CEQA requires the lead agency approving a Project to adopt a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the changes made to the Project that it has
adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. An MMRP has
been prepared and is recommended for adoption by the City Council concurrently with the
adoption of these findings to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during Project
implementation. As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the MMRP designates
responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of the mitigation measures
recommended in the Final EIR. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the
compliance period.
(b) The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP for the Project attached hereto and
incorporated by reference, and finds, determines, and declares that adoption of the MMRP will
ensure enforcement and continued imposition of the mitigation measures recommended in the
Final EIR, and set forth in the MMRP, in order to mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the
environment.
SECTION 5. Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant.
By these Findings, the City Council ratifies and adopts the Final EIR’s conclusions
for the following potential environmental impacts which, based on the analyses in the Final EIR,
this City Council determines to be less than significant, or to have no impact:
3.2 Land Use
Not Yet Approved
8
110601 jb 0130719
LU-2. Conflicts with Established Residential, Recreational, Educational, Religious,
or Scientific Uses in the Area. The SUMC Project would not conflict with residential,
recreational, educational, religious or scientific uses.
LU-3. Physical Division of an Established Community. The SUMC Project would
not physically divide an established community.
LU-4. Farmland Conversion. The SUMC Project would have no impact on
conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.
LU-6. Cumulative Impacts on Changes to Overall Existing or Planned Land Uses in
the Area. The SUMC Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable probable future
development in the area, would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact on overall
existing or planned land uses in the vicinity of the SUMC Sites.
3.3 Visual Quality
VQ-4. Terrain Modifications. The SUMC Project would not require substantial
terrain modifications that would degrade the visual character of the SUMC Sites.
VQ-6. Shadowing of Public Open Space. The SUMC Project would not
substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks)
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21.
VQ-7. Cumulative Impacts on Visual Character. The SUMC Project, in combination
with other reasonably foreseeable probable future development in the area, would have a less
than significant cumulative impact on visual character in the vicinity of the SUMC Sites.
VQ-8. Cumulative Impacts on Sensitive Views. The SUMC Project, in combination
with other reasonably foreseeable future development in the area, would have less than
significant cumulative impacts on sensitive views.
VQ-9. Cumulative Light and Glare. The SUMC Project, in combination with other
reasonably foreseeable probable future development in the area, would be subject to
Architectural Review and Municipal Code, and County requirements pertaining to light and
glare. Impacts would therefore be less than significant.
VQ-10. Cumulative Shadows. Shadows from the SUMC Project are not expected to
combine with shadows from other nearby reasonably foreseeable probable future development.
There would be no cumulative impacts.
3.4 Transportation
TR-5. Freeway Impacts. The SUMC Project would result in less than significant
impacts on freeways.
Not Yet Approved
9
110601 jb 0130719
TR-7. Transit Impacts. Implementation of the SUMC Project would not impede the
operation of the transit system as a result of increased ridership, and thus would not result in a
significant impact.
TR-8. Parking Impacts. The SUMC Project would provide adequate parking for its
demand, and would thus have a less than significant parking impact.
TR-11. Cumulative Transit Impacts. Cumulative growth would result in a less than
significant cumulative impact on transit services.
3.5 Air Quality
AQ-3. Localized Carbon Monoxide Impacts from Motor Vehicle Traffic. The
SUMC Project would have less than significant localized air emissions resulting from additional
traffic.
AQ-4. Toxic Air Contaminants. Simultaneous exposures to DPM and TACs from the
construction and operational components of the SUMC Project would have a less than significant
impact on air quality.
AQ-5. Objectionable Odors. The SUMC Project would have a less than significant
impact related to exposing the public to objectionable odors that would affect a substantial
number of people.
AQ-8. Cumulative Construction and Operational TAC Emissions. SUMC Project
TAC emissions and TAC emissions from other sources within a 1,000-foot zone of influence of
the Main SUMC site, would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact on air quality under
the criteria set by the BAAQMD’s 2010 CEQA Guidelines.
3.6 Climate Change
CC-2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Implementation of the proposed Emissions
Reduction Program along with regulations adopted after the CARB Scoping Plan, would reduce
emissions associated with the Project to more than 30 percent below BAU. Therefore,
greenhouse gas emissions from the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to global climate change.
3.7 Noise
NO-6. Cumulative Construction Vibration Impacts. Vibration during construction
activities under the cumulative scenario would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.
NO-7. Cumulative Operational Transportation Source Noise Impacts. Cumulative
development would result in less than significant cumulative noise impacts.
Not Yet Approved
10
110601 jb 0130719
NO-8. Cumulative Operational Stationary Source Noise Impacts. Cumulative
development would not result in a significant increase in cumulative noise levels from
operational stationary sources at sensitive receptors.
3.9 Biological Resources
BR-2. Loss of Riparian or Other Sensitive Habitats, Including Wetlands as Defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Construction of the SUMC Project would have a less
than significant impact on riparian or other sensitive habitat resources, including wetlands.
BR-5. Conflict with any Applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural
Community Conservation Plan. The SUMC Project would have no impact on any applicable
Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.
BR-6. Cumulative Impacts on Special-Status Wildlife Resources. The SUMC
Project, in combination with other foreseeable development, would have a less than significant
impact on Special-Status Plant Resources.
BR-7. Cumulative Loss of Riparian or Other Sensitive Habitats, Including Wetlands
as Defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Cumulative impacts on riparian or other
sensitive habitats could be significant. However, the SUMC Project’s contribution to the
cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
BR-8. Cumulative Interference with the Movement of Any Native Resident or
Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or With Established Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife
Corridors, or Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites. Cumulative interference with movement of
resident or migratory species or with established migratory corridors could be significant.
However, the SUMC Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact would be less than
cumulatively considerable.
3.10 Geology
GS-1. Exposure to Seismic-Related Hazards. The SUMC Project would have a less
than significant potential to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic
ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure (including liquefaction), landslides, expansive
soil, or major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety techniques.
GS-2. Exposure to Other Geotechnical Hazards. The SUMC Project would have a
less than significant potential to be located on geologic units or on soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the Project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
GS-3. Cause Substantial Erosion or Siltation. The SUMC Project would have a less
than significant potential to cause substantial erosion or siltation.
Not Yet Approved
11
110601 jb 0130719
GS-4. Cumulative Exposure to Substantial Erosion or Siltation. The SUMC Project,
in combination with other foreseeable development in the San Francisquito Creek Watershed,
would not substantially increase erosion or siltation because of State, federal, and local runoff
and erosion prevention requirements. As a result, the cumulative impact would be less than
significant.
3.11 Hydrology
HW-1. Flood Risk and Flood Flows. The SUMC Project would have no impact on
flood risk or flood flows.
HW-2. Groundwater Recharge and Local Water Table. The SUMC Project would
have a less than significant impact on groundwater recharge and the local groundwater table
level.
HW-4. Stormwater Runoff and Erosion. The SUMC Project would have a less than
significant impact on stormwater runoff and erosion.
HW-5. Flooding and Stormwater Conveyance Capacity. The SUMC Project would
have a less than significant impact on flooding and stormwater conveyance capacity.
HW-6. Streambank Instability. The SUMC Project would have a less than
significant impact on streambank instability.
HW-7. Degradation of Surface Water Quality. The SUMC Project would have a less
than significant impact on degradation of surface water quality.
HW-8. Dam Failure Inundation. The SUMC Project would have a less than
significant impact regarding dam failure inundation.
HW-9. Violation of Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
(WDRs). The SUMC Project would have a less than significant impact regarding water quality
standards or WDRs.
HW-10. Cumulative Groundwater Recharge and Local Water Table. The SUMC
Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future development, would have a
less than significant cumulative considerable impact on groundwater recharge and the local
groundwater table.
HW-11. Cumulative Groundwater Quality Impacts. The SUMC Project, in
combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future development, would have a less than
significant cumulative impact on groundwater quality.
HW-12. Cumulative Stormwater Runoff and Erosion. The SUMC Project, in
combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future development, would have a less than
significant cumulative impact on stormwater runoff and erosion.
Not Yet Approved
12
110601 jb 0130719
HW-13. Cumulative Flooding and Stormwater Conveyance. The SUMC Project, in
combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future development, would have a less than
significant cumulative impact on stormwater runoff and erosion.
HW-14. Streambank Instability. The SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably
foreseeable probable future development, would have a less than significant cumulative impact
on streambank instability.
HW-15. Degradation of Surface Water Quality. The SUMC Project, in combination
with reasonably foreseeable probable future development, would have a less than significant
cumulative impact on degradation of surface water quality.
HW-16. Dam Failure Inundation. The SUMC Project, in combination with
reasonably foreseeable probable future development, would have a less than significant
cumulative impact regarding dam failure inundation.
HW-17. Violation of Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDRs). The SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable
probable future development, would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact on violation
of water quality standards and WDRs.
3.12 Hazardous Materials
HM-1. Exposure from Hazardous Materials Use, Handling, and Disposal. The
SUMC Project would not substantially increase exposure from hazardous materials use,
handling, and disposal during operation.
HM-4. Hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal Resulting in Increased Exposure
Risk. The SUMC Project would not substantially increase exposure risk related to hazardous
waste generation.
HM-5. Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous Materials Within One-
Quarter Mile of a School. The SUMC Project would not emit or handle hazardous materials
within one-quarter mile of school.
HM-6. Construct a School on a Property that is Subject to Hazards from Hazardous
Materials Contamination, Emissions or Accidental Release. The SUMC Project would not
construct a school that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions
or accidental release.
HM-8. Wildland Fire Risk. The SUMC Project would not expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
HM-9. Occur on a Site Located Within an Airport Land Use Plan or Within Two
Miles of a Public Airport, and Result in a Safety Hazard. The SUMC Project would not be
located within an Airport Land Use Plan or within 2 miles of a Public Airport.
Not Yet Approved
13
110601 jb 0130719
HM-11. Cumulative Handling, Storage, Disposal, and Transport of Hazardous
Materials. Cumulative development would increase handling, storage, disposal, and transport
within the SUMC Sites and adjacent areas. However, cumulative development would be subject
to applicable federal, State, and local regulations that would govern these activities. As a result,
the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
HM-14. Cumulative Exposure of Schools to Hazardous Materials and Waste. The
SUMC Project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable probable future development, would
have a less than cumulatively considerable impact on exposure of schools to hazardous materials.
3.13 Population and Housing
PH-1. Population Growth. The SUMC Project would increase on-site employment
and visitors and thus indirectly induce housing demand and population growth; however, the
percentage of regional housing demand resulting from the SUMC Project would be relatively
small in comparison with projected housing growth in the region, and would comprise a less than
significant environmental impact.
PH-2. Displacement of Existing Housing or Residents. The SUMC Project would
not displace existing housing or residents because the SUMC Project would involve infill of
currently developed sites that do not contain housing. Thus, the SUMC Project would result in
no impact with respect to displacement of housing or residents.
PH-3. Impacts on Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio. The SUMC Project would
have an impact on the City’s jobs to employed residents ratio, as the Project involves
Comprehensive Plan and zoning amendments which would result in a significantly greater
amount of employment-generating uses beyond what the City historically planned for this area,
thus exacerbating the pre-existing imbalance between jobs and housing within the City.
However, as further discussed in Section 3.13, this is not, by itself, an environmental impact.
The environmental consequences of this impact on traffic and air quality are addressed elsewhere
in these findings.
3.14 Public Services
PS-1. Impacts Related to Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Facilities. The
SUMC Project would require an increased level of fire and emergency services. However, the
increased level of fire and emergency services would not be large enough to trigger the need for
construction of new facilities, which could adversely affect the physical environment. Impacts
would be less than significant.
PS-2. Impacts from Police Protection Facilities. The SUMC Project would require
an increased level of police services. However, the increased level of police services would not
be large enough to trigger the need for construction of new facilities, which could adversely
affect the physical environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
PS-3. Impacts Related to School Facilities. An increase in students, which would
require school expansions, would result as a tertiary impact of the SUMC Project, since
Not Yet Approved
14
110601 jb 0130719
increased employment from the SUMC Project could induce additional housing units within the
City. Both the SUMC Project and induced housing projects would be subject to SB 50 School
Impact Fees, which would mitigate impacts to less than significant.
PS-4. Impacts Related to Construction of New or Altered Parks and Recreation
Facilities. The SUMC Project would not result in the construction or expansion of new parks or
fields, which would in turn result in adverse environmental impacts. The SUMC Project would
be required to pay a City Community Facility Fee, which would be used to fund new parks or an
alteration to an existing park, and would mitigate impacts to less than significant.
PS-5. Deterioration of Park and Recreation Facilities. Increased recreational demand
from SUMC Project employees could accelerate the physical deterioration of the City’s parks
and fields. The SUMC Project would be required to pay a City Community Facility Fee, which
reduce or avoid any such deterioration, and would mitigate impacts to less than significant.
PS-6. Cumulative Fire Protection Demand and Emergency Medical Facilities.
Cumulative growth would increase demand for fire protection and emergency response services
within the PAFD’s service area; however, no new PAFD facilities would need to be constructed.
Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
PS-7. Cumulative Police Protection Demand. Cumulative growth in the City could
necessitate construction of new or expanded police facilities in order to meet increased demand
for services. Construction of new or expanded police facilities could result in significant
environmental impacts. As such, cumulative impacts related to police service could be
significant. However the SUMC Project’s contribution to the cumulative need for new or
expanded police facilities would be less than cumulatively considerable.
PS-8. Cumulative School Demand. Cumulative development in the City can be
expected to necessitate expansion of school facilities, which could have adverse physical
environmental impacts. This cumulative impact is conservatively assumed to be significant,
although the SUMC Project’s contribution to this cumulative impact would be less than
cumulatively considerable.
PS-9. Cumulative Demand for Parks and Recreation Facilities, and for New Parks.
Cumulative impacts related to park deterioration would be less than significant due to the City’s
Community Facility Fee. Cumulative growth in the City would necessitate acquisition or
development of new parklands, which could result in significant environmental impacts;
however, the contribution of the SUMC Project to this cumulative impact would be less than
cumulatively considerable.
3.15 Utilities
UT-1. Water Demand. The SUMC Project would result in a less than significant
water supply impact because it would not result in the need for new or expanded entitlements for
water supplies, and would not require expansion or construction of water facilities.
Not Yet Approved
15
110601 jb 0130719
UT-2. Wastewater Generation. The SUMC Project would result in a less than
significant wastewater impact because it would not exceed treatment requirements of the
RWQCB, would not significantly increase use of the wastewater disposal system, and would not
require expansion or construction of wastewater collection or treatment facilities.
UT-3. Stormwater Generation. The SUMC Project would have a less-than-
significant impact related to stormwater collection system capacity because it would not
significantly increase use of the stormwater collection system, and would not require expansion
or construction of new stormwater facilities.
UT-4. Solid Waste Generation. The SUMC Project would result in a less-than-
significant solid waste impact because it would be served by landfills with sufficient capacity
and, thus, would not contribute to the need to expand existing or construct new solid waste
disposal facilities.
UT-5. Energy Demand. Although the SUMC Project is an urban infill project and
would not require the expansion of natural gas facilities and would use existing utility facilities,
it may require the installation of near-site electrical facilities and natural gas pipelines to
accommodate the projected additional demand. However, this installation is included in the
SUMC Project and no additional off-site construction relating to electrical and natural gas
facilities would occur. Therefore, the SUMC Project would have a less than significant impact
related to the construction of energy facilities.
UT-6. Cumulative Water Impacts. Since the City has sufficient water supply to
accommodate water demands for cumulative development up to 2025, new or expanded
entitlements for water supplies are not necessary. Therefore, cumulative development would
have a less-than-significant cumulative impact related to water supply.
UT-7. Cumulative Wastewater Impacts. Since the RWQCP has sufficient capacity to
accommodate wastewater generated by cumulative development up to 2025, implementation of
major facility and infrastructure improvements would not be necessary. In addition, general
replacement and maintenance of old wastewater facilities is expected and would comply with
applicable environmental regulations. Therefore, cumulative development would not have a
significant cumulative impact related to wastewater.
UT-8. Cumulative Stormwater Generation. Cumulative development in the City of
Palo Alto and at Stanford University could increase the amount of stormwater runoff. This
increased level of runoff may trigger the need for the replacement or maintenance of storm drain
facilities. However, general replacement and maintenance of storm drain facilities is included in
City plans and would comply with applicable environmental regulations. Therefore, cumulative
development would have a less than significant cumulative impact related to the capacity or
deterioration of storm drain facilities.
UT-9. Cumulative Solid Waste Impacts. Cumulative development would generate
solid waste within the permitted capacity of the SMART Station and Kirby Canyon Landfill.
Cumulative development would not result in substantial deterioration of solid waste facilities. As
such, cumulative impacts related to solid waste generation would be less than significant.
Not Yet Approved
16
110601 jb 0130719
UT-10. Cumulative Energy Demand. Cumulative development in the City of Palo
Alto would consume additional energy and, therefore, would increase the demand for energy.
The City’s electrical and natural gas facilities are projected to have adequate capacity to serve
the City’s increased demand for energy. The increased level of energy demand may trigger the
need for the replacement or maintenance of energy facilities. However, general replacement and
maintenance of energy facilities is expected and would comply with applicable environmental
regulations. Therefore, cumulative development would not have a significant cumulative impact
related to energy demand and energy facilities.
SECTION 6. Potentially Significant Impacts to be Mitigated.
The Draft EIR and the Final EIR concluded that the Project would result in
potentially significant environmental impacts in the areas listed below. Through the imposition
of the identified mitigation measures, these identified potentially significant environmental
impacts will be reduced to less-than-significant impacts. All citations to the Draft EIR chapters
below include reference to all revisions to those chapters contained in the Final EIR.
3.2 Land Use
LU-1. Conflicts with Adopted Land Use Plans and Policies. The SUMC Project
could conflict with Comprehensive Plan policies that avoid or reduce impacts related to visual
quality, cultural resources, pedestrian circulation, urban forest resources, groundwater and runoff
pollution, air quality degradation, and noise incompatibility.
a) Potential impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. The following Mitigation Measures will be adopted
and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
as further described in the remainder of these findings:
Mitigation Measures VQ-2.1, CR-1.1 through CR-1.5, TR-6.1, BR-4.1 through BR-
4.5, HW-3.1, AQ-1.1 and AQ-1.2, NO-1.1 and NO-4.1
c) Findings. The above-noted Mitigation Measures will ensure consistency
with Comprehensive Plan Policies as follows:
1) Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1 would require that the City and SUMC Project
sponsors comply with Comprehensive Plan Policy L-3 requirements for
respecting views of the foothills and East Bay hills, and that the Project
would maintain the scale and character of the City and is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces.
2) Mitigation Measures CR-1.1, CR-1.2, CR-1.3, CR-1.4 and CR-1.5 would
minimize the loss of the historic Edward Durell Stone Building complex, and
protect the Hoover pavilion from vibration impacts, thus furthering the
Not Yet Approved
17
110601 jb 0130719
objectives of Comprehensive Plan Policy L-51, which encourages
preservation of historic resources.
3) Mitigation Measure TR-6.1 requires the Project sponsors to implement
improvements for bicycle and pedestrian safety and access at intersection
affected by Project traffic, consistent with Comprehensive Plan transit
policies encouraging walking and bicycling.
4) Mitigation Measures BR-4.1 through BR-4.5, provided in Section 3.9,
Biological Resources, require the preparation of a Tree Preservation Report,
a solar access study, a Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan, a Tree Preservation
Bond/Security Guarantee, and minor site modifications to the current site
plans. While complete preservation of Protected Trees would not occur, this
mitigation would fulfill the City’s responsibility set out in Comprehensive
Plan Policy N-14 to protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto’s urban forest.
5) Mitigation Measure HW-3.1, provided in Section 3.11, Hydrology, requires
the SUMC Project sponsors to develop a work plan for any unknown
contaminated sites. This measure would address environmental impacts
associated with groundwater quality impacts, ensuring consistency with
Comprehensive Plan Policy N-18.
6) Mitigation Measures AQ-1.1 and AQ-1.2 would address environmental
impacts associated with particulate emissions by controlling construction
dust and reducing diesel emissions. By requiring these mitigations, the City
would support applicable air quality programs, consistent with
Comprehensive Plan Policy N-26. These mitigation measures would reduce
emissions of particulates from construction and continued implementation of
the ongoing TDM programs would minimize emissions from operation of the
SUMC Project, ensuring consistency with Comprehensive Plan Policy N-27.
7) Mitigation Measure NO-4.1 which requires shielding or enclosure of HVAC
and emergency generator equipment, and Mitigation Measure NO-1.1 which
controls construction noise, would reduce Project noise impacts to less than
significant levels, consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies N-39 and N-
43.
Impact LU-5: Adverse Changes to Overall Existing or Planned Land Uses in
the Area. Because the Project would increase building intensity and massing within the SUMC
Sites, the Project would have a potentially significant impact pertaining to on-site character and
views.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR.
Not Yet Approved
18
110601 jb 0130719
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1 will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1 will reduce the significant impacts on
overall surroundings to a less than significant level because it requires ARB and City Council
review of the design of the Project and compliance with Council-imposed conditions for final
design. Architectural Review would consider whether the Project has a coherent composition
and whether its bulk and mass are harmonious with surrounding development.
3.3 Visual Quality
Impact VQ-1: Temporary Degradation of Visual Character During
Construction. The SUMC Project would temporarily but substantially degrade the existing
visual character and quality of the SUMC Sites during construction.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure VQ-1.1 will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measure VQ-1.1 will reduce this impact to a less than
significant level because it will require the development and implementation of a Construction
Visual Improvements Plan that would aesthetically improve portions of the Project site that
would remain unimproved for an extended period and screen the construction zone from view by
passersby along the public streets and sidewalks.
Impact VQ-2: Permanent Degradation of Visual Character Post Construction.
The SUMC Project would have a significant and permanent impact pertaining to degradation of
the existing visual character or quality of the SUMC Sites and their surroundings.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1 will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1 will reduce the Project’s impact on
the existing visual character of SUMC Sites and their surroundings to a less than significant level
because it will require ARB and City Council review and compliance with Council-imposed
conditions addressing massing, layout, landscaping and architectural design impacts from the
Project.
Not Yet Approved
19
110601 jb 0130719
Impact VQ-3: Alteration of Public Viewsheds, View Corridors, or Scenic
Resources. The SUMC Project would result in significant impacts on views.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, above, will be adopted
and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1 will reduce impacts on views from
the proposed buildings under the Project to a less than significant level because the Architectural
Review process will make recommendations to the City Council on such issues as whether
natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the Project, on whether the
design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character, and whether the planning and
siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and
provide a desirable environment for the community.
Impact VQ-5: New Sources of Light and Glare. The SUMC Project could
increase light and glare nuisance from exterior lighting, resulting in a significant impact.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, above, is hereby
adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1 will reduce light and glare impacts
from the proposed buildings to a less than significant level because the Architectural Review
process will consider and make recommendations on the issue of whether the Project
incorporates quality materials, harmonious colors, appropriate ancillary features, a cohesive
design with a coherent composition and an appropriate lighting plan.
3.4 Transportation
Impact TR-1: Construction Impacts. Construction activity associated with the
SUMC Project would result in potentially significant traffic impacts.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures TR-1.1 through TR-1.9 will be
adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
Not Yet Approved
20
110601 jb 0130719
c) Findings. Mitigation Measures TR-1.1 through TR-1.9 will reduce
construction-related traffic impacts to a less than significant level because these mitigation
measures (either individually or through the development of a construction impact mitigation
plan pursuant to TR-1.8) will: provide off-street parking for construction-related vehicles;
maintain pedestrian and bicycle access during construction unless given approval by the
Department of Public Works to limit such access; restrict deliveries to the construction site
during morning and afternoon rush hours; require the use of designated truck routes; require the
protection of public roadways from damage during construction; maintain public transit access
and routes; and require additional measures to prevent roadway construction from reducing
roadway capacity during special events.
Impact TR-2: Intersection Levels of Service. Implementation of the SUMC
Project would result in potentially significant impacts to multiple intersections during Peak Hour
conditions.
a) Potential Impact. The impacts identified above are described and discussed
in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures TR-2.1 through TR-2.4 will be
adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measures TR-2.1 through TR-2.4 will reduce Project
impacts to all intersections to a less than significant level through the installation of traffic
adaptive signal technology, the funding of additional bicycle and pedestrian undercrossings, the
implementation of SUMC’s enhanced transportation demand program, and the funding of
additional feasible intersection improvements. The analysis in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR, as
amended on pages 6-75 through 6-89 of the Final EIR, demonstrates how the implementation of
these mitigation measures will mitigate impacts at each of the intersections.
Impact TR-4: Local Circulation Impacts. The SUMC Project could result in
significant traffic impacts to the local circulation network in the immediate vicinity of the SUMC
Sites.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure TR-4.2 will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measure TR-4.2 will reduce traffic impacts to a less
than significant level because it will require improvements to local roadways to ease traffic flow.
Not Yet Approved
21
110601 jb 0130719
Impact TR-6: Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts. The SUMC Project could impede
the development or function of planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities, and result in a significant
impact.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures TR-2.3 and TR-6.1 will be
adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measures TR-2.3 and TR-6.1 will reduce this impact to
a less than significant level because they would combine enhancement of the SUMC TDM
program, which encourages alternative transportation, with bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
improvements. These would ensure that the projected increase in on-site employment and
visitorship would not significantly affect planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities.
Impact TR-7: Transit Impacts. Implementation of the SUMC Project could
impede the operation of the transit system as a result of increased ridership, and result in a
significant impact.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures TR-7.1 and TR-7.2 will be
adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measures TR-7.1 and TR-7.2 will reduce the potential
impact of the Project on the transportation system to a less than significant level because these
measures will require the enhancement of bus stops on-site to accommodate increased ridership
as well as require Project sponsors to make a fair share financial contribution toward the
expansion of existing transit service to fund increases in capacity on the Marguerite Shuttle and
the AC Transit U Line to serve the Project.
Impact TR-9: Emergency Access. Implementation of the SUMC Project could
potentially result in inadequate emergency access due to increased congestion, a significant
impact.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure TR-9.1 will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Not Yet Approved
22
110601 jb 0130719
c) Findings. Mitigation Measure TR-9.1 will reduce the impact of Project
generated traffic congestion on emergency service access to a less than significant level because
it will require the Project sponsors to make a fair share financial contribution to the installation
of an emergency vehicle traffic signal priority system at all significantly affected intersections.
Impact TR-10: Cumulative Construction Impacts. The SUMC Project, in
combination with concurrent construction projects in the vicinity of the SUMC Sites, could result
in a significant construction-period impact. The contribution of the SUMC Project would be
cumulatively considerable.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure TR-1.1 through TR-1.9 will be
adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measures TR-1.1 through TR-1.9 will reduce the
Project’s contribution to a cumulative construction-period impact on traffic to a less than
significant level because these measures contain transportation-related construction management
programs designed to reduce the impact of construction on existing traffic patterns.
3.6 Climate Change
Impact CC-1: Furthering Policies of the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan.
The proposed Emissions Reduction Program would minimize greenhouse gas emission increases
associated with the proposed development program. However, the proposed Emissions
Reduction Program would not be sufficient to further some of the individual policies of the
City’s Climate Protection Plan.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures CC-1.1 through CC-1.5 and TR-
2.3 will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measures CC-1.1 through CC-1.5 and TR-2.3 will
mitigate the Project’s impact on the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan to a less than significant
level by ensuring that the Project will meet all of the individual policies of the Plan.
3.7 Noise
Impact NO-2: Construction Vibration. While the Draft and Final EIR concluded
that any construction vibration from the Project as originally proposed would be less than
Not Yet Approved
23
110601 jb 0130719
significant, the Draft EIR also explained that the Tree Preservation Alternative, which the City is
now adopting, may necessitate the use of pile driving, which could result in potentially
significant vibration impacts on the Blake-Wilbur Clinic.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
pages 5-148 and 5-149 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. The Draft EIR identifies two different sets of
Mitigation Measures as “Mitigation Measure NO-1.1.” The first such set of measures is
identified in Section 3.7, and the second set of measures (specifically addressing impacts relating
to use of pile driving equipment) is identified on page 5-149 of the Draft EIR (as revised on page
6-149 of the Final EIR). Both of these sets of measures identified as Mitigation Measure NO-1.1
will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measure NO-1.1 will reduce vibration impacts from
pile driving equipment on the Blake-Wilbur Clinic by requiring use of sonic pile drivers where
feasible, by relocating patients and workers at the Blake-Wilbur Clinic during periods when pile
driving occurs within 75 feet of the clinic, and by requiring engineering assessment of any pile
driving impacts to the Blake-Wilbur Clinic, including any necessary repair. Such measures will
reduce any construction vibration impacts to the Blake-Wilber Clinic to a less than significant
level. As explained in the Draft and Final EIR, the Project will not result in any other potentially
significant construction vibration impacts.
Impact NO-4: Operational Stationary Source Noise Impacts. Operational
stationary source noise generated by the SUMC Project could potentially increase ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the SUMC Sites and result in a significant impact.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure NO-4.1 will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measure NO-4.1 will reduce operational stationary
noise impacts to a less than significant level because the City Noise Ordinance will require that
noise from mechanical equipment shall be minimized through compliance with noise standards
of the Noise Ordinance, as confirmed by an acoustical analysis conducted by a qualified
professional.
3.8 Cultural Resources
Impact CR-2: Impacts on Prehistoric or Archaeological Resources. The SUMC
Project could potentially encounter archaeological resources and result in a significant impact.
Not Yet Approved
24
110601 jb 0130719
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure CR-2.1 will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measure CR-2.1 will reduce impacts on prehistoric and
archaeological resources to a less than significant level because the mitigation measure requires
that (i) construction crews be trained regarding the possible presence and identification of
cultural resources, (ii) that work be stopped within 100 feet of the site if cultural resources are
discovered, (iii) a Stanford University archaeologist be consulted to evaluate the significance of
discovered resources, and (iv) appropriate steps be taken to avoid, protect and preserve such
resources as described in Mitigation Measure CR-2.1 on page 3.8-24 of the Draft EIR.
Impact CR-3: Impacts on Human Remains. The SUMC Project could potentially
encounter human remains and result in a significant impact.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure CR-3.1 will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measure CR-3.1 would reduce the impacts relating to
undiscovered human remains to a less-than-significant level because they would require(i) work
stoppage if human remains are discovered, (ii) consultation with the Stanford University
Archaeologist, City of Palo Alto, and the San Mateo County Coroner concerning appropriate
treatment of such remains, and (iii) the implementation of appropriate measures based on
consultation with the Coroner and archaeologist and with the Native American Heritage
commission if the remains are determined to be Native American.
Impact CR-4: Impacts on Paleontological Resources. The SUMC Project could
have a significant impact on unique paleontological resources or unique geologic resources.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure CR-4.1 will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measure CR-4.1 will reduce impacts on
paleontological resources to a less than significant level because it requires that if
paleontological resources are encountered on site, Project sponsors shall (i) stop work and notify
the City and Stanford Archaeologist; (ii) consult with a qualified professional paleontologist; (iii)
comply with the paleontologist’s recommendations to reduce impacts to paleontological
Not Yet Approved
25
110601 jb 0130719
resources, including avoidance of the area if feasible, or other appropriate measures if avoidance
is not feasible.
Impact CR-6: Cumulative Impacts on Prehistoric and/or Archaeological
Resources and Human Remains. The SUMC Project, in combination with other reasonably
foreseeable probable future development, could cause a substantial change in the significance of
prehistoric and/or archaeological resources or human remains and thus contribute to a
significant cumulative impact. The SUMC Project is conservatively assumed to have a
considerable contribution.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures CR-2.1 and CR-3.1 will be
adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measures CR-2.1 and CR-3.1 will reduce the Project’s
contributions to cumulative impacts on prehistoric and archaeological resources and human
remains to a less than significant level because the Project is entirely outside of the
archaeologically sensitive zone, making it’s impact on such resources unlikely. If such resources
were to be uncovered, the implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the impact of
the Project itself on these resources to a less than significant level.
Impact CR-7: Cumulative Impacts on Paleontological Resources. The SUMC
Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable probable future development where
the Pleistocene-age creek bed may occur, could have a significant cumulative impact. Such an
impact would occur if the buried Pleistocene-age creek bed is exposed in lengths greater than
approximately 100 feet (or a sufficient length to support detailed hydrological study) and if such
deposits contain substantially intact skeletons of extinct species. These conditions would
represent a major find for regional paleontology. In the case that significant paleontological
finds—such as stretches of buried Pleistocene-age creek bed greater than 100 feet in length and
containing intact skeletons of extinct species—are made on the SUMC Site, then the SUMC
Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on paleontological resources could be
cumulatively considerable.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure CR-4.1 will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measure CR-4.1 will reduce cumulative impacts to
paleontological resources to a less than significant level because should any paleontological
Not Yet Approved
26
110601 jb 0130719
resources be identified on site, the Mitigation Measure imposes a protocol for the protection of
these resources as described on pages 3.8-25 to 3.8-26 of the Draft EIR.
3.9 Biological Resources
Impact BR-1: Impacts on Special-Status Plant or Wildlife Resources. The
SUMC Project could have a significant impact on special-status wildlife resources.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures BR-1.1 through BR-1.5 will be
adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measures BR-1.1 through BR-1.5 will reduce impacts
on special-status bats and Cooper’s hawk to a less than significant level because the measures
require pre-demolition surveys for roosting bats and avoidance of the roosts, or protection of
active maternity roosts if they are found, or the use of bat nest boxes if structures are to be
demolished; and avoiding tree removal during the nesting season for Cooper’s Hawks as well as
protection of the hawk as well as its eggs and young if tree removal or pruning is unavoidable
during the nesting season.
Impact BR-3: Interference with the Movement of Any Native Resident or
Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or with Established Native Resident or Migratory
Wildlife Corridors, or Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites. The SUMC Project would have
no impact on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or use of
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, but could impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites and thus result in a significant impact.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures BR-3.1 and BR-3.2 will be
adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measures BR-3.1 and BR-3.2 will reduce impacts on
native nesting migratory birds to a less than significant level because they require (i) the
avoidance of tree or shrub removal or pruning during the bird-nesting period, or (ii) if tree or
shrub removal must be conducted during the nesting period, a survey to determine whether nests
are present and if they are found, a delay in the removal of the tree or shrub while the nest is
occupied.
Not Yet Approved
27
110601 jb 0130719
3.11 Hydrology
Impact HW-3: Groundwater Quality. The SUMC Project could have a
significant impact on groundwater quality during construction.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.11 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure HW-3.1 will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measure HW-3.1 will reduce impacts on groundwater
quality during construction to a less than significant level because if any source of suspected
contamination is discovered during construction, work shall cease and Project sponsors will be
required to prepare a workplan to assess potential health risks from the contamination and
prepare a Removal Action Workplan pursuant to state law to remove or remediate any identified
source of potential groundwater contamination.
3.12 Hazardous Materials
Impact HM-2: Demolition and Construction-Related Hazardous Materials
Disturbance. The SUMC Project could release hazardous materials in existing buildings.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure HM-2.1 will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measure HM-2.1 will reduce impacts from the
disturbance of hazardous materials during demolition and construction to a less than significant
level because the Measure requires the conduct of an asbestos survey by an licensed asbestos
abatement contractor, and in the event that asbestos is discovered the material shall be removed
and disposed of by an asbestos abatement contractor. The Measure also requires a site health
and safety plan to be developed in compliance with OSHA requirements to protect worker
health.
Impact HM-3: Exposure to Contaminated Soil and/or Groundwater During
Construction. The SUMC Project could expose construction personnel and public to existing
contaminated groundwater and/or soil.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR.
Not Yet Approved
28
110601 jb 0130719
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures HM-3.1 through HM-3.4 and
HW-3.1 will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measures HM-3.1 through HM-3.4 and Mitigation
Measure HW-3.1 will reduce the impacts of construction personnel or the public being exposed
to contaminated groundwater and/or soil to a less than significant level. Phase I ESAs were
conducted to identify potential hazards within the Project boundaries. Mitigation Measures HM-
3.1 through HM-3.3 address those sites where potential hazards were identified, requiring further
analysis to determine the existence of contamination and remediation if contamination is
discovered. Mitigation Measure HM-3.4 requires specification of measure to prevent hazards
resulting from remediation. Mitigation Measure HW-3.1, which addresses potential
contamination to groundwater, also requires Project sponsors to develop a work plan for any
unknown contaminated site, which would further reduce the impacts to less than significant.
Impact HM-7: Occur on a Site Included on the Cortese List, a List of
Hazardous Materials Sites. The SUMC Project would result in construction of facilities on a
site included on the Cortese List.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures HM-3.3 and HM-3.4 will be
adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measures MH-3.3 and HM-3.4 will reduce impacts
from exposure to hazardous material to a less than significant level because they require the
implementation of a soil vapor program and site management plan to address the known hazards
existing on the Hoover Pavilion site.
Impact HM-10: Impairment of Emergency Plans. The SUMC Project could
impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation
plan.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures HM-10.1, TR-1.1, TR-1.4
through TR-1.6, TR-1.8 and TR-9.1 will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measures HM-10.1, TR-1.1, TR-1.4 through TR-1.6,
TR-1.8 and TR-1.9 will reduce this impact to a less than significant level because they (i) require
advance coordination with the City on construction routes or roadway closures, (ii) impose
Not Yet Approved
29
110601 jb 0130719
construction-period traffic controls to reduce the impact on traffic in general and during special
events scheduled to occur during construction, and (iii) reduce the impact on emergency vehicles
during Project operation by requiring the installation of traffic signals giving priority to
emergency vehicles.
Impact HM-12: Cumulative Disturbance of Hazardous Materials from
Construction. The SUMC Project and adjacent development could result in cumulative release
of hazardous materials during construction, a significant cumulative impact. The SUMC
Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact would be considerable.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure HM-2.1 will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measure HM-2.1 will reduce to a less than significant
level the Project’s contribution to the cumulative release of hazardous materials during
construction because the Measure will require asbestos abatement for construction during the
Project (as described at pages 3.12-37 to 3.12-38 of the Draft EIR) that will reduce the Project’s
individual impact to a less than significant level.
Impact HM-13: Cumulative Exposure to Contaminated Soil and/or
Groundwater, and from Cortese List Sites. The SUMC Project and adjacent development
could result in cumulative disturbance of contaminated soils, release of hazardous materials
during construction, a significant cumulative impact.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures HM-3.1 through HM-3.4 will be
adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measures HM-3.1 through HM-3.4 will reduce the
Project’s contribution to cumulative release of hazardous materials during construction to a less
than significant level because the Measures would require remediation of known site
contamination as well as investigation of other SUMC areas and preparation for remediation
where necessary.
Impact HM-15: Cumulative Impairment of Emergency Plans. Cumulative
development could impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response or evacuation plan. The SUMC Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact would
be considerable.
Not Yet Approved
30
110601 jb 0130719
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures HM-10.1, TR-1.1, TR-1.4
through TR-1.6, and TR-1.8 will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Mitigation Measures HM-10.1, TR-1.1, TR-1.4 through TR-1.6
and TR-1.8 will reduce the Project’s contribution to cumulative impairment of emergency
response or evacuation plans to a less than significant level because the Measures would require
the implementation of construction traffic management procedures as well as other traffic
management measures that would reduced the Project’s impact on the emergency vehicle access
to a less than significant level.
SECTION 7. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.
The Draft EIR and the Final EIR also concluded that the Project would result in
significant and unavoidable environmental impacts which cannot be fully mitigated through the
adoption of mitigation measures. Those impacts, along with measures to partially mitigate them,
are listed below. All citations to the Draft EIR chapters below include reference to all revisions
to those chapters contained in the Final EIR.
Impact TR-3: Impacts on Roadway Segments. The SUMC Project would result
in adverse traffic impacts to roadway segments in the City of Menlo Park.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures TR-2.2, TR-2.3, and TR-7.2
will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before the City, the
City Council finds that:
(i) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures
available to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. The implementation of the
mitigation measures identified above will reduce adverse traffic impacts by encouraging the use
of alternative transportation. However, even with the adoption of these measures there will still
be significant and unavoidable traffic impacts on four Menlo Park roadways.
(ii) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating
to traffic impacts, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
Not Yet Approved
31
110601 jb 0130719
Impact AQ-1: Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions. Construction
activities associated with the SUMC Project would cause emissions of dust and pollutants from
equipment exhaust that could contribute to existing air quality violations or expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures AQ-1.1 and AQ-1.2 will be
adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before the City, the
City Council finds that:
(i) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures
available to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. While the Mitigation Measures
noted above would significantly reduce construction dust emissions as well as construction
equipment emissions, the reduction of these emissions to a less than significant level cannot be
guaranteed. Thus, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
(ii) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating
to emissions associated with construction activity, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations below.
Impact AQ-2: Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions. Combined mobile
and stationary source emissions during operation of the SUMC Project would exceed the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District’s significance threshold of 80 pounds/day of ROG, NOx
and PM10. Therefore, air emissions would result in a substantial contribution to an existing
regional air quality problem and a significant impact.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before the City, the
City Council finds that:
(i) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures
available to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. There are no mitigation
measures available to address stationary source emissions that will result from the construction
of the Project. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 will reduce mobile source emissions through the
Not Yet Approved
32
110601 jb 0130719
SUMC program encouraging the use of alternative transportation, reducing VMT. However, this
reduction will not result in a sufficient decrease in mobile source emissions, and therefore the
City considers this impact to be significant and unavoidable. Section 3.13 of the Draft EIR does
identify additional possible mitigation strategies in its discussion of Mitigation Measure PH-3.1.
However, in part for the reasons discussed on pages 3-184 through 3-186 of the Final EIR, the
Council finds that it would not be feasible to impose Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 on the Project.
Specifically, with respect to the suggestion that the City could amend its Zoning Code to permit
additional residential uses within the City, the City it already considering what residential
designations within the City are feasible as part of its update of its ongoing Housing Element and
there is no further mitigation which could feasibly be imposed in the context of this specific
Project. With respect to requiring SUMC to pay the City’s affordable housing fee for the
portions of the project that are currently exempt from the City’s housing fee, SUMC is already
agreeing to pay its equitable share in an amount equivalent to what the fee would be as part of
the Development Agreement. In addition, the Council has previously made the policy decision
to exempt hospital uses from paying a housing fee. With respect to providing additional housing
sites within the Hospital District itself, the City agrees with SUMC’s comment (Comment 22.72
in the Final EIR) that there are no feasible sites within the Hospital District in which new
housing could be required. Finally, it would not be feasible for the City to require the creation of
additional housing sites in unincorporated areas outside of the City, given the City’s lack of
jurisdiction to do so, and given SUMC’s opposition to any such requirement.
(ii) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating
to a reduction in air quality caused by mobile and stationary source emissions, as set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
Impact AQ-6: Cumulative Construction Emissions. Construction equipment
NOx emissions associated with the SUMC Project could contribute considerably to regional air
quality problems.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures AQ-1.1 and AQ-1.2 will be
adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before the City, the
City Council finds that:
(i) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures
available to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures AQ-1.1
and AQ-1.2 would reduce the Project’s contribution to cumulative construction emissions, but
the contribution to NOx would remain cumulatively considerable, thus making this impact
significant and unavoidable.
Not Yet Approved
33
110601 jb 0130719
(ii) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating
to a reduction in air quality resulting from construction equipment emissions, as set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
Impact AQ-7: Cumulative Operational Emissions. SUMC Project operation
could contribute considerably to a degradation of regional air quality as defined by the
BAAQMD.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before the City, the
City Council finds that:
(i) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures
available to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 will
reduce mobile source emissions through the SUMC TDM program encouraging the use of
alternative transportation. However, this reduction will not result in a sufficient decrease in
emissions to prevent degradation in air quality, and therefore the City considers this impact to be
significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 is not feasible for the reasons discussed
above.
(ii) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating
to degradation in air quality, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
Impact NO-1: Construction Noise. Construction of the SUMC Project would
create a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels on the SUMC Sites compared to
existing ambient noise levels. The noise increase would be a significant impact to the sensitive
uses (i.e., patients) on the Main SUMC Site during construction.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.7 and also on pages 5-148 to 5-149 of the Draft EIR. As discussed in those pages of
the Draft EIR (as revised at page 6-149 of the Final EIR), this impact will be potentially greater
with adoption of the Tree Preservation Alternative, since that alternative may necessitate the use
of pile-driving.
b) Mitigation Measures. The Draft EIR identifies two different sets of
Mitigation Measures as “Mitigation Measure NO-1.1.” The first such set of measures is
identified in Section 3.7, and the second set of measures (specifically addressing impacts relating
to use of pile driving equipment) is identified on page 5-149 of the Draft EIR (as revised on page
Not Yet Approved
34
110601 jb 0130719
6-149 of the Final EIR). Both of these sets of mitigation measures identified as Mitigation
Measure NO-1.1 will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before the City, the
City Council finds that:
(i) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures
available to mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. While the mitigation measures
identified above will reduce the impact by requiring the implementation of best management
practices to reduce construction noise (including noise and vibration from pile driving) and
provide a mechanism for responding to complaints about noise, it will not reduce the impact to a
less than significant level. Therefore this impact remains significant and unavoidable.
(ii) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating
to construction noise as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
Impact NO-3: Operational Noise Impacts from Transportation Sources.
Increased traffic and helicopter noise levels due to implementation of the SUMC Project would
be less than significant. However, noise from ambulances due to implementation of the SUMC
Project would increase along Sand Hill Road west of El Camino Real, and would increase
roadside noise levels above the thresholds established in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, albeit
on an intermittent basis.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. There is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this
impact.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before the City, the
City Council finds that:
(i) Remaining Impacts. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to
mitigate the impact of ambulance noise to a less-than-significant level. The only available
measure would be to forbid ambulance access to the new emergency room via the Durand Way
access routes, a measure that would be inconsistent with the provision of emergency room
services. Therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable.
(ii) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating
to noise from ambulances, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
Not Yet Approved
35
110601 jb 0130719
Impact NO-5: Cumulative Construction Noise Impacts. If other foreseeable
construction in the immediate vicinity of the SUMC Sites would occur simultaneously with the
proposed SUMC Project construction, then significant cumulative noise impacts to adjacent
residential and other noise-sensitive uses could occur. The SUMC Project’s contribution would
likely be cumulatively considerable.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure NO-1.1 will be adopted and will
be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before the City, the
City Council finds that:
(i) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures
available to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. Although the identified
mitigation measure will less construction noise from the Project, the Project’s contribution to
cumulative noise will remain considerable, and therefore this impact is significant and
unavoidable.
(ii) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating
to its contribution to cumulative construction noise as set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations below.
Impact CR-1: Impacts on Historical Resources. The SUMC Project would have a
significant impact on historical resources.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures CR-1.1 through CR-1.5 will be
adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before the City, the
City Council finds that:
(i) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures
available to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. While the identified mitigation
measures will lessen the impact on historical resources by providing protection from construction
damage for the Hoover Pavilion, and historical documentation of the Stone Building Complex
slated for demolition, the remaining impact will be significant and unavoidable due to the
demolition of the Stone Building. However, the Council finds that impacts to the Hoover
Pavilion will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Not Yet Approved
36
110601 jb 0130719
(ii) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating
to historical resources as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.
Impact CR-5: Cumulative Impacts on Historic Resources. The SUMC Project,
in combination with other past, current, and probable future development in the City, would
cause a substantial change in the significance of the City’s historic resources and thus have a
significant cumulative impact. The SUMC Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact
would be cumulatively considerable.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.8 of the Draft EIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures CR-1.2 through CR-1.4 will be
adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before the City, the
City Council finds that:
(i) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures
available to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. The demolition of the Stone
Building Complex means that the Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on historical
resources is considerable. While Mitigation Measures CR-1.2 through CR-1.4 will lessen this
impact by documenting the historical significance of the Complex, the cumulative impact
remains significant and unavoidable.
(ii) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating
to cumulative impacts on historical resources , as set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations below.
Impact BR-4: Substantial Adverse Effect on any Protected Tree as Defined by
the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10). The
SUMC Project could have a significant impact on Protected Trees.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR, as well as on pages 5-152 through 5-154 of the Draft EIR (as
amended on pages 6-143 and 6-144 of the Final EIR) in its discussion of the Tree Preservation
Alternative.
b) Mitigation Measures/Alternatives. Mitigation Measures BR-4.1 through
BR-4.5 will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program. In addition, as further discussed in the City’s finding on alternatives below,
the City is adopting the Tree Preservation Alternative described on pages 5-15 through 5-22 of
Not Yet Approved
37
110601 jb 0130719
the Draft EIR, as amended on pages 6-128 through 6-130 of the Final EIR, to further reduce the
Project’s impacts on protected trees. Because the City is adopting the Tree Preservation
Alternative, there is no need to also adopt Mitigation Measure BR-4.6, since the Tree
Preservation Alternative already achieves the purpose of that measure.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before the City, the
City Council finds that:
(i) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures
available to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures BR-4.1 through BR-4.5 and adoption of the Tree Preservation Alternative would
lessen the Project’s impact on Protected Trees, and avoid removal (without relocation) of all
biological and aesthetical tree resources Trees. However, the Project would still be able to
remove up to 59 Protected Trees, and 3 Protected Trees that are biological and aesthetic tree
resources would be relocated.
(ii) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating
to the Project’s impact on Protected Trees, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations below.
Impact BR-9: Cumulative Impacts on Protected Tree as defined by the City of
Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10). Cumulative
impacts on Protected Trees would be significant. Because the SUMC Project would result in the
loss of Protected Trees, the SUMC Project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.9 of the Draft EIR, as well as on pages 5-152 through 5-154 of the Draft EIR (as
amended on pages 6-143 and 6-144 of the Final EIR) in its discussion of the Tree Preservation
Alternative.
b) Mitigation Measures/Alternatives. Mitigation Measures BR-4.1 through
BR-4.6 will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program. In addition, as further discussed in the City’s finding on alternatives below,
the City is adopting the Tree Preservation Alternative described on pages 5-15 through 5-22 of
the Draft EIR, as amended on pages 6-128 through 6-130 of the Final EIR, to further reduce the
Project’s impacts on protected trees.
c) Findings. Based on the Final EIR and the entire record before the City, the
City Council finds that:
(i) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures
available to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. While Mitigation Measures BR-
4.1 through BR-4.6 and the Tree Preservation Alternative will lessen the Project’s impact on
Protected Trees, as discussed above, that impact will remain significant and unavoidable, making
the Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on Protected Trees considerable.
Not Yet Approved
38
110601 jb 0130719
(ii) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating
to the cumulative impact on Protected Trees as set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations below.
SECTION 8. Further Findings Regarding Proposed Mitigation Measures.
The Council further rejects the following mitigation measures proposed at various
stages of the proceedings for the following reasons:
Private Bus Service. For the reasons stated in the Final EIR, provision of the
Caltrain GO Pass to Hospital employees is expected to be an effective measure to reduce Project-
related vehicle trips and associated air pollutant emissions, including greenhouse gases.
Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 also includes steps that would be taken to monitor progress toward
achievement of the required alternative mode splits, and the steps that would be taken if the
SUMC Project sponsors cannot achieve the required alternative mode splits, either because the
Caltrain GO Pass is no longer available in its current form, or because the enhanced TDM
program does not perform as anticipated. The Final EIR evaluates an alternative mitigation
approach under which the City would require the SUMC Project sponsors to provide a private
bus service for their employees, rather than funding the GO Pass Program or other substitute
programs. For the reasons presented in the Final EIR, provision of private bus service would not
be as cost-effective as Mitigation Measure TR-2.3.
Expanded Shuttle Service. In combination, Mitigation Measures TR-2.1, TR-2.2,
TR-2.3 and TR-2.4 would reduce impacts on freeway segments and at intersections to a less-
than-significant level. The Final EIR evaluates the effectiveness of increased shuttle service for
SUMC employees to reduce traffic congestion impacts. The analysis shows that four possible
routes could be provided to serve the local SUMC employees; however, such additional
mitigation is unnecessary to reduce intersection impacts to a less-than-significant level. Further,
such additional mitigation would not substantially reduce the significant and unavoidable impact
from increased average daily trips on four Menlo Park roadway segments.
Remote Parking. Both the Draft EIR and the Final EIR evaluate remote parking as
an alternative to Mitigation Measure TR-2.3, which requires the Hospitals to provide an
enhanced TDM program to address the Project’s impacts on intersections and freeway segments.
The analysis identifies potential remote parking locations, all of which would require further
analysis if they were to be selected with the exception of use of the existing Ardenwood Park-n-
Ride lot, which is a component of Mitigation Measure TR-2.3. The analysis also identifies
substantial concerns as to the effectiveness of remote parking. For the reasons presented in the
Final EIR, provision of remote parking would not be as effective as Mitigation Measure TR-2.3.
Further, remote parking would not substantially reduce the significant and unavoidable impact
from increased average daily trips on four Menlo Park roadway segments.
Other TDM Measures. Commentors have suggested a variety of TDM measures in
addition to the measures described in Mitigation Measure TR-2.3. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3
Not Yet Approved
39
110601 jb 0130719
requires that the SUMC Project sponsors achieve specified alternative mode split targets and
describes a process for evaluating changes to the enhanced TDM program should those targets
not be achieved. The SUMC Project sponsors will adapt their TDM program as needed over
time. Accordingly, it is not necessary to add TDM measures to Mitigation Measure TR-2.3.
No Net New Trips (or Similar) Requirement. The Final EIR explains why it
would not be feasible to impose a No Net New Trips requirement or other cap on the number of
vehicle trips on the Project. Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 differs from such a requirement because
it is based on mode split for employee travel, rather than trip counts. In addition to explaining
why a No Net New Trips requirement would not be feasible, the Final EIR also explains why, for
this Project, it is more practical to measure employee mode split than employee trip counts. The
SUMC facilities will generate both patient and vehicle trips, making measurement of the actual
number of employee trips difficult.
SECTION 9. Findings Regarding Project Alternatives.
Public Resources Code section 21002 prohibits a public agency from approving a
project if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. When a lead agency
finds, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, that a project will still cause
one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, it
must, prior to approving the project as mitigated, first determine whether there are any project
alternatives that are feasible and that would substantially lessen or avoid the project's significant
impacts. Under CEQA, “feasibility” includes “desirability” to the extent that it is based on a
reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors,
and an alternative may be deemed by the lead agency to be “infeasible” if it fails to adequately
promote the project applicant’s and/or the lead agency’s primary underlying goals and objectives
for the project. Thus, a lead agency may reject an alternative, even if it would avoid or
substantially lessen one or more significant environmental effects of the project, if it finds that
the alternative’s failure to adequately achieve the objectives for the project, or other specific and
identifiable considerations, make the alternative infeasible.
The City Council certifies that the Final EIR describes a reasonable range of
alternatives to the Project, or to its location, which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of
the Project, and that the City Council has evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives.
As described below and in Section 2(b) above, the City Council has decided to adopt the Tree
Preservation Alternative and certain components of the Village Concept Alternative and to reject
the remainder of the alternatives, as summarized below.
Section 2.3 of the Draft EIR sets forth a detailed and comprehensive list of both
SUMC Project sponsors’ and the City’s respective objectives for the Project. That list is
incorporated herein by reference. In light of the Project sponsors’ and City’s objectives for the
Project, and given that the Project is expected to result in certain significant environmental
effects even after the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, as identified above, the
City hereby makes the following findings with respect to whether one or more of the alternatives
evaluated in the Draft EIR could feasibly accomplish most of the goals and objectives for the
Project and substantially lessen or avoid one or more of its potentially significant effects.
Not Yet Approved
40
110601 jb 0130719
No Project Alternative A: Retrofitting Only
No Project Alternative A: Retrofitting Only is discussed at pages 5-1 to 5-6 of the
Draft EIR. No Project Alternative A is hereby rejected as infeasible because it would not
achieve most of the Project objectives, as explained at page 5-40 of the Draft EIR.
No Project Alternative B: Replace SB 1953 Noncompliant Structures
No Project Alternative B: Replace SB 1953 Noncompliant Structures is discussed at
pages 5-7 to 5-9 of the Draft EIR. No Project Alternative B is hereby rejected as infeasible
because it would not achieve most of the Project objectives, as explained at pages 5-41 and 5-42
of the Draft EIR.
Reduced Intensity Alternative A: Right-size SHC and LPCH
Reduced Intensity Alternative A: Right-size SHC and LPCH is discussed at pages 5-
9 to 5-12 of the Draft EIR. Reduced Intensity Alternative A is hereby rejected as infeasible
because it would not achieve many significant Project objectives, as explained at pages 5-42 and
5-43 of the Draft EIR.
Reduced Intensity Alternative B: Right-size SHC and LPCH plus additional
floor area (in an amount less than the SUMC Project)
Reduced Intensity Alternative B: Right-size SHC and LPCH plus additional floor
area (in an amount less than the SUMC Project) is discussed at pages 5-12 to 5-15 of the Draft
EIR. Reduced Intensity Alternative B is hereby rejected as infeasible because, while it would
achieve many of the short-term Project objectives, it would not achieve most of the long-term
Project objectives, as explained at pages 5-43 and 5-44 of the Draft EIR.
Tree Preservation Alternative
The Tree Preservation Alternative is discussed at pages 5-15 to 5-22 of the Draft
EIR. The Tree Preservation Alternative would attain all of the same Project objectives as would
the Project as originally proposed, as explained at pages 5-44 and 5-45 of the Draft EIR.
Furthermore, as discussed at pages 5-135 through 5-166 of the Draft EIR and pages 6-139
through 6-145 of the Final EIR, it would reduce the Project’s impacts on protected trees, without
resulting in any new or increased environmental impacts different than those of the Project as
originally proposed. Thus, the Tree Preservation Alternative would feasibly attain the Project
objectives and would be environmentally superior to the Project as originally proposed. In
approving the Project, the City is therefore adopting the Tree Preservation Alternative, as
explained in Section 2(b) above.
Historic Preservation Alternative
The Historic Preservation Alternative is discussed at pages 5-22 to 5-26 of the Draft
EIR. The Historic Preservation Alternative would not fully attain the Project objectives, and also
Not Yet Approved
41
110601 jb 0130719
has multiple drawbacks, as discussed at pages 5-45 through 5-48 of the Draft EIR. The City
Council finds that this alternative would not accomplish the Project objectives and is not feasible
for the reasons explained at pages 5-45 through 5-48 of the Draft EIR.
Village Concept Alternative
The Village Concept Alternative is discussed at pages 5-26 to 5-38 of the DEIR.
The Village Concept Alternative would attain most of the Project objectives, as discussed at
pages 5-49 of the Draft EIR and 6-132 of the Final EIR. The environmental impacts of the
Village Concept Alternative would be similar to the impacts of the Project as originally
proposed, as discussed at pages 5-195 through 5-222 of the Draft EIR and pages 6-149 through
6-158 of the Final EIR. The City is incorporating into the Project certain components of the
Village Concept Alternative, specifically, the linkage components described in Section 2(b)
above. However, the Village Concept Alternative also includes a housing component which
calls for the dedication of housing for SUMC employees. One of the housing sites, on Pasteur
Drive, already is zoned for housing in the City of Palo Alto. The other two sites (the Quarry
Road sites) are outside of Palo Alto, in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Implementation of
the housing component, as a whole, would require the cooperation of the SUMC Project
sponsors and land use approvals by Santa Clara County, over which the City has no control or
jurisdiction. Further, according to SUMC Project sponsors, the Quarry Road sites identified in
the Village Concept Alternative are currently projected for use instead by students and
employees of Stanford University. The City and SUMC Project sponsors have engaged in
extensive discussions regarding the potential for implementation of the housing component of
the Village Concept Alternative, but SUMC Project sponsors have consistently expressed
opposition to the dedication of housing to SUMC employees. Based upon the SUMC Project
sponsors’ expressed opposition, and the fact that the City does not have jurisdiction over the two
Quarry Road housing sites, the City finds the housing component of the Village Concept
Alternative to be infeasible, but is approving the linkage components of the Village Concept
Alternative as described in Section 2(b) above.
Additional Alternatives
Master Response 8 in the Final EIR (at pages 3-204 to 3-206) explains why various
other alternatives suggested by members of the public would not feasibly attain important Project
objectives. For the reasons set forth in Master Response 8 and elsewhere in the record, the
Council finds that there are no additional feasible alternatives to the Project which could mitigate
the above-identified significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project.
SECTION 10. Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines, this City Council adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations regarding the remaining significant unavoidable impacts of the Project, as
discussed above, and the anticipated economic, social and other benefits of the Project. The City
finds that: (i) the majority of the significant impacts of the Project will be reduced to less-than-
Not Yet Approved
42
110601 jb 0130719
significant and acceptable levels by the mitigation measures described in the Final EIR and
approved and adopted by these Findings; (ii) the City’s approval of the Project will result in
certain significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided even with the
incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the Project; and (iii) there are no other
feasible mitigation measures or feasible Project alternatives that would further mitigate or avoid
the remaining significant environmental effects. The significant effects that have not been
mitigated to a less-than-significant level and are therefore considered significant and unavoidable
are identified in Section 7 above. Despite these potentially significant impacts, it is the City’s
considered judgment that the benefits offered by the Project outweigh the potentially adverse
effects of these significant impacts. The substantial evidence supporting the following described
benefits of the Project can be found in the preceding findings and in the record of proceedings.
The City Council finds that there are two categories of overriding considerations.
The first category relates to the amenities of the development of the Project itself, and the second
relates to the additional community benefits and other payments negotiated as part of the
Development Agreement for the Project. It should be noted that, as discussed in Master
Response 12 of the Final EIR, the SUMC Project sponsors could have requested City
consideration of the Project itself without approval of the Development Agreement, and thus
without the additional community benefits negotiated as part of the Development Agreement.
The City Council finds that the benefits from the amenities of the Project development itself, as
identified in Section 10(A) below, constitute “overriding considerations” for approval of the
Project, even without the additional community benefits identified in Section 10(B) below. The
City Council further finds that the additional community benefits and other payments serve as
additional overriding considerations which justify approval of the Development Agreement.
A. Project Amenities
The benefits of the Project which the City Council finds serve as “overriding
considerations” justifying its approval are as follows:
a. Health Care
Advancements in medicine that have taken place at the Stanford University Medical
Center include pioneering achievements in transplantation medicine, advancements in cancer
care through the introduction of the linear accelerator and the cyberknife, leadership in prenatal
diagnosis and treatment, discovery of the protein that appears to be the root cure of the type I
diabetes, and discovery of the link between exercise and increased “good” cholesterol levels.
In addition to world-renowned medical breakthroughs, in 2009 the benefits
provided by the Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital
at Stanford equated to the following:
36,559 inpatients admitted
48,744 emergency department visits
4,759 babies delivered
Not Yet Approved
43
110601 jb 0130719
$262.6 million in uncompensated medical services, charity care, and
community programs.
In addition, the two hospitals at the SUMC served 64 percent of the Palo Alto
residents who required hospitalization in 2009. The Project will enable the SUMC Project
sponsors to continue their important work to provide advancements in medicine, and health care
services to their patients. Further, the addition of more beds for adults and children will alleviate
overcrowding and allow the two hospitals to serve patients who currently must be turned away.
b. Level 1 Trauma Center
The two hospitals also provide the only Level 1 Trauma Center between San
Francisco and San Jose. The Trauma Center and the Emergency Department ensure critical
community emergency preparedness and response resources for the community in the event of
an earthquake, pandemic, or other major disaster. The expansion of the Emergency Department
and the associated facilities needed to support the ED services will help alleviate the critical
problem of an undersized facility for the volume of people seeking care.
c. Seismic Safety
Several buildings at the SUMC require structural retrofit or replacement to comply
with SB 1953 and other applicable laws. Also, many of the facilities require nonstructural
renovations or replacement to comply with SB 1953. Portions of the School of Medicine that
currently occupy space in structures used for hospital purposes must be physically separated
from those structures or replaced in order to comply with SB 1953 requirements. In addition,
new or replacement hospital structures must meet current standards specified by the California
building code for hospitals; compliance with these standards necessitates increased square
footage and height to accommodate current seismic structural requirements, patient safety
requirements, air handling systems and mechanical duct work.
The Project has been designed to achieve compliance with the requirements of SB
1953 and other applicable laws, and will improve the seismic safety of the facilities at the
SUMC.
B. Community Benefits and Other Payments
Some of the additional community benefits and other payments negotiated as part of
the Development Agreement are identified below. The City Council finds that these additional
community benefits and other payments serve as overriding considerations which collectively
justify approval of the Development Agreement.
a. Health Care Services Funding
Payment of $3,000,000 paid out over ten years (subject to deferral under the terms
set forth in the Development Agreement) to be used to assist residents of Palo Alto who have
self-payment responsibilities beyond their financial means, to pay health care services.
Not Yet Approved
44
110601 jb 0130719
b. Community Health Programs
One-time payment of $4,000,000 to be used for community based health and
wellness programs. The agreement specifically authorizes the City to use a portion of this
payment as seed money for Project Safety Net.
c. Infrastructure Capital Fund
The SUMC Project sponsors will provide $21,479,512 to be used by the City for
infrastructure, sustainable neighborhood and community development and affordable housing
programs. This fund could be used for a wide variety of important infrastructure projects.
d. Climate Change/Sustainable Communities
The SUMC Project sponsors will contribute $12,000,000 paid in three equal
installments for use in projects and programs for sustainable communities.
e. Cost Neutrality Payment
The SUMC Project sponsors will pay the City $2,417,000 up front to assure City
costs do not exceed City revenues generated by the Project over time. This payment represents
the discounted present value of the projected deficit as calculated by the City’s economic
consultant.
//
//
//
Not Yet Approved
45
110601 jb 0130719
f. Use Tax Direct Payment Permit
The SUMC Project sponsors will obtain a Use Tax Direct Payment Permit which is
estimated to result in $750,000 paid over the life of the Project.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
______________________________ _________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________
City Manager
_______________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney _________________________________
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 1
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
LAND USE
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Without mitigation measures to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan’s policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect, the SUMC Project could conflict with Comprehensive Plan policies that avoid or reduce impacts related to visual quality, cultural resources, pedestrian
circulation, urban forest resources, groundwater and runoff pollution, air quality degradation, and noise incompatibility. (LU-1)
See Mitigation Measures VQ-2.1, TR-6.1, AQ-1.1 through AQ-1.2, NO-1.1, NO-4.1, CR-1.1 through CR-1.5, BR-4.1 through BR-4.5, and HW-3.1.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Because the SUMC Project would intensify the planned uses within the SUMC Sites, the SUMC Project would have a significant impact
pertaining to on-site character and views. (LU-5)
See Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1.
VISUAL QUALITY
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project would substantially degrade the existing visual character and quality of the SUMC Sites during construction. (VQ-1)
VQ-1.1 Implement Construction Visual Improvements
Plan. The SUMC Project sponsors shall develop and
implement a Construction Visual Improvements Plan that
would make visual improvements to construction zones
within a given construction phase and between phases if
the zone is not scheduled for construction
activity or would remain unused for a period greater than
six months. Construction zones subject to this mitigation
measure shall be defined by the Planning Director, and
shall consider the size of the area, the nature and timing
of the construction activity, and the proximity or
visibility of the area to public vantage points or
residential uses. The Construction Visual Improvements
Plan shall be implemented by the project contractor(s)
and must be approved by the Planning Director. The
intent of the plan is to aesthetically improve portions of
the project site that would remain unimproved for an
extended period and screen the construction zone from
view by passersby along the public streets and sidewalks.
Possible improvements in the plan include, but are not
limited to, the following:
a. The SUMC Project sponsors shall conceal staging
areas with fencing material to be approved by the
Planning Director prior to commencement of use of
Review and approve
Construction Visual
Improvements Plans;
compliance monitoring
City of Palo Alto
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 2
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
the staging area for construction equipment and
vehicles.
b. The SUMC Project sponsors shall frequently
remove construction debris and refuse from the
SUMC Sites.
c. The SUMC Project sponsors shall install all
landscaping as early as feasible to decrease visual
impacts of construction. Existing landscaping
within the SUMC Sites that would not be removed
by the construction shall be maintained.
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project would have a significant impact pertaining to degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the SUMC Sites and
their surroundings. (VQ-2)
VQ-2.1 Adhere to City’s Architectural Review Process
and Recommendations. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall submit final building and site plans to the ARB
prior to issuance of any development permits.
Architectural Review shall assess the appropriateness of
proposed demolitions, proposed building heights and
massing, siting of buildings and structures, architecture
and façade treatments, landscaping, circulation plans, and
parking. The ARB may recommend alterations to any of
the above project features, or the ARB may suggest new
features, such as new landscaping or public art, to
improve the proposed SUMC Project design. Any
conditions required by the City Council as a result of the
Architectural Review process with respect to the design
of the SUMC Project shall be implemented by the SUMC
Project sponsors.
Undergo Architectural
Review; verify building
permit plan compliance
City of Palo Alto
City Council or
City of Palo Alto
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 3
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project would result in significant impacts on views. (VQ-3)
See Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could increase light and glare nuisance from exterior lighting, resulting in a significant impact. (VQ-5)
See Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1.
TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Construction activity associated with the SUMC Project could result in significant traffic impacts. (TR-1)
TR-1.1 Provide Off-Street Parking for Construction
Related Vehicles. The SUMC Project sponsors shall be
required to provide adequate off-street parking for all
construction-related vehicles throughout the construction
period. If adequate parking cannot be provided on the
construction sites, a remote parking area shall be
designated, and a shuttle bus shall be operated to transfer
construction workers to the job site.
Verify that information
is contained in
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 4
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
TR-1.2 Maintain Pedestrian Access. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall be prohibited from substantially
limiting pedestrian access while constructing the SUMC
Project, without prior approval from the City of Palo
Alto Department of Public Works. Such approval shall
require submittal and approval of specific construction
management plans to mitigate the specific impacts to a
less-than-significant levels. Pedestrian access-limiting
actions would include, but not be limited to, sidewalk
closures, bridge closures, crosswalk closures or
pedestrian re-routing at intersections, placement of
construction-related material within pedestrian pathways
or sidewalks, and other actions which may affect the
mobility or safety of pedestrians during the construction
period. If sidewalks are maintained along the
construction site frontage, covered walkways shall be
provided.
Verify that information
is contained in
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 5
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 6
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
TR-1.3 Maintain Bicycle Access. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall be prohibited from limiting bicycle access
while constructing the SUMC Project without prior
approval from the City of Palo Alto Department of
Public Works. Such approval shall require submittal and
approval of specific construction management plans that
warn cyclists prior to reaching the impacted bicycle lanes
and provide alternative routing around the construction
sites to mitigate the specific impacts to a less-than-
significant level. Bicycle access-limiting actions would
include, but not be limited to, bicycle lane closures or
narrowing, closing or narrowing of streets that are
designated bicycle routes, bridge closures, the placement
of construction-related materials within designated
bicycle lanes or along bicycle routes, and other actions
which may affect the mobility or safety of bicyclists
during the construction period.
Verify that information
is contained in
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
TR-1.4 Restrict Construction Hours. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall be required to prohibit or limit the
number of construction material deliveries from 7:00
a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
weekdays. The SUMC Project sponsors shall be required
Verify that information
is contained in
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment,
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 7
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
to limit the number of construction employees based
upon an approved construction management plan from
arriving or departing the site from the hours of 4:30 p.m.
to 6:00 p.m. Although not needed to reduce the impact
to a less-than-significant level, the SUMC Project
sponsors also shall limit the number of construction
employees from arriving at the site from 7:00 a.m. to
9:00 a.m., contingent upon the City’s granting of an
exception to its construction hours under its noise
ordinance to allow construction to commence at 7:00
a.m.
compliance monitoring
Department construction
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
TR-1.5 Restrict Construction Truck Routes. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall be required to deliver and
remove all construction-related equipment and materials
on truck routes designated by the cities of Palo Alto, East
Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Heavy construction vehicles
shall be prohibited from accessing the site from other
routes. Figure 3.4-6 and 3.4-7 of the EIR illustrates the
Stanford Area Truck Routes which must be used by all
trucks.
Verify that information
is contained in
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 8
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
TR-1.6 Protect Public Roadways During Construction.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall be required to repair
any structural damage to public roadways, returning any
damaged sections to original structural condition. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall survey the condition of the
public roadways along truck routes providing access to
the proposed project site before construction, and shall
again survey after construction is complete. A before-
and-after survey report shall be completed and submitted
to the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department for
review, indicating the location and extent of any damage.
Review before and
after survey reports to
determine the repair to
public roadways
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Department
Before construction of
any portion of the
SUMC projects
and
after SUMC Project
construction is
completed
“Before” Survey Report
______________________________________
Signature Date
“After” Survey Report
______________________________________
Signature Date
Road Repair Completed, if necessary
______________________________________
Signature Date
TR-1.7 Maintain Public Transit Access and Routes.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall be prohibited from
limiting access to public transit, and from limiting
Verify that information
is contained in
construction impact
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 9
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
movement of public transit vehicles, without prior
approval from the Santa Clara County Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) or other appropriate
jurisdiction. Such approval shall require submittal and
approval of specific measures to reduce impacts to a less-
than-significant level. Potential actions which would
impact access to transit include, but are not limited to,
relocating or removing bus stops, limiting access to bus
stops or transfer facilities, or otherwise restricting or
constraining public transit operations.
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
compliance
monitoring during
construction
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 10
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
TR-1.8 Prepare and Implement Construction Impact
Mitigation Plan. In lieu of the above mitigation
measures, the SUMC Project sponsors shall submit a
detailed construction impact mitigation plan to the City
of Palo Alto for approval by the Director of Public
Works prior to commencing any construction activities
with potential transportation impacts. This plan shall
address in detail the activities to be carried out in each
construction phase, the potential transportation impacts
of each activity, and an acceptable method of reducing or
eliminating significant transportation impacts. Details
such as the routing and scheduling of materials
deliveries, construction employee arrival and departure
schedules, employee parking locations, and emergency
vehicle access shall be described and approved. Prior to
its approval of the construction impact mitigation plan,
the City of Palo Alto shall provide a copy of the
construction impact plan to the City of Menlo Park for
review and comment.
Review and approve
construction impact
mitigation plans;
compliance
monitoring; transmit
construction impact
mitigation plans to the
City of Menlo Park and
receive comment
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring throughout
term of the
construction impact
mitigation plan
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
TR-1.9 Conduct Additional Measures During Special
Events. During major athletic events or other special
events which attract a substantial number of visitors to
the campus, the SUMC Project sponsors shall implement
Review and approve
SUMC Sponsor-
prepared plan(s) to
minimize traffic effects
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
As necessary during
construction
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 11
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
a mechanism to prevent roadway construction activities
from reducing roadway capacity along those roadways
that would be affected by the SUMC Project and that
would provide access to the athletic or other special
events. This measure may require a special supplemental
permit to be approved by either Santa Clara County or
the City of Palo Alto prior to hosting such events during
significant construction phases.
in advance of major
events near the SUMC
during construction
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Implementation of the SUMC Project would result in significant impacts to intersections during Peak Hour conditions. (TR-2)
TR-2.1 Install Traffic-Adaptive Signal Technology. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall contribute to the Palo Alto
Citywide Traffic Impact Fee program, for the installation
of traffic-adaptive signals. In Menlo Park, the SUMC
Project sponsors shall contribute their fair share amount,
which shall be tied to the amount of traffic added to
analyzed intersections by the SUMC Project. The
SUMC Project sponsors’ contributions shall apply
towards the installation of traffic-adaptive signals as
listed below.
Sand Hill Road (Oak Creek to Shopping Center) - 3
signals
Arboretum Road (Shopping Center to Palm Drive) -
3 signals
Embarcadero Road (Bryant to Saint Francis) - 7
signals
University Avenue (Palm to Lincoln) - 13 signals
Lytton Avenue (Alma to Middlefield) - 10 signals
Hamilton Avenue (Alma to Middlefield) - 10
signals
Middlefield Road (San Antonio to Homer) - 9
signals
Charleston Road (Alma to Middlefield) - 2 signals
Verify payment of
Citywide Traffic
Impact Fee and fair
share contribution
towards traffic-
adaptive signals in Palo
Alto and Menlo Park.
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 12
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
El Camino Real (northern city limits of Palo Alto to
southern city limits of Palo Alto) – signals would
require approval of Caltrans
In addition, the SUMC Project sponsors shall pay a fair
share contribution towards installation of traffic-adaptive
signals at the below significantly-impacted intersections
in Menlo Park. These intersections are among those at
which Menlo Park anticipates installing traffic-adaptive
signals:
Middlefield Road/Willow Road (intersection #18)
Middlefield Road/Ravenswood Avenue
(intersection #46)
TR-2.2 Fund Additional Bicycle and Pedestrian
Undercrossings. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
contribute their fair share to the cost of construction of
the Everett Avenue undercrossing of the Caltrain tracks
in Palo Alto and the Middle Avenue undercrossing in
Menlo Park. In Palo Alto, there is a Citywide Traffic
Impact Fee program that the SUMC Project sponsors
shall contribute to. In Menlo Park, the fair share
contribution shall be tied to the amount of traffic added
to analyzed intersections by the SUMC Project. The
construction of the Everett Avenue and Middle Avenue
undercrossings would reduce traffic volumes on nearby
streets, such as Ravenswood Avenue and University
Avenue.
Verify payment of
Citywide Traffic
Impact Fee and fair
share contribution
towards bicycle and
pedestrian
undercrossings in Palo
Alto and Menlo Park.
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 13
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
TR-2.3 Enhance Stanford University Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall enhance the currently-
implemented TDM program in order to achieve 35.1
percent usage of alternative transportation modes (i.e.,
carpool, vanpool, bus, Caltrain, bicycle, and walk) by
Hospital employees. The initial enhancements to the
SUMC TDM program shall include the following:
Commencing on September 1, 2015, the Hospitals
shall purchase annual Caltrain GO Passes (free train
passes) for all existing and new Hospital employees
who work more than 20 hours per week, at a cost of
up to One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars
($1,800,000) per year, which amount shall be
adjusted annually to reflect any change in the San
Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index (the “GO
Pass Amount”). The Hospitals’ obligation to
provide GO Passes shall continue for fifty-one (51)
years , or until such earlier date as: (a) Caltrain
discontinues the GO Pass program, or a
substantially similar program; (b) Caltrain increases
the cost of GO Passes, or a substantially similar
program, such that the Hospitals’ annual costs
would exceed the GO Pass Amount; or (c) Caltrain
service is reduced by such an extent that the
Hospitals and the City mutually determine purchase
of annual GO Passes, or a substantially similar
program, would no longer be effective in
substantially reducing Hospital employee peak
period trips in order to achieve the Alternative Mode
targets in Table 3.4-19A in Section 3 in the Final
EIR. If the cost of obtaining GO Passes exceeds the
GO Pass Amount, the Hospitals shall have the
option to elect either to purchase the GO Passes at
the then applicable price, or to terminate the
obligation to provide GO Passes, or a substantially
Review TDM reports
to verify that
enhancements of TDM
program have been
implemented and
determine whether
interim mode split
targets have been
achieved; transmit
TDM reports to City of
Menlo Park for their
review
City and SUMC
Project sponsors will
meet annually to
discuss effectiveness of
enhanced TDM
program and to identify
potential
improvements. SUMC
Project sponsors may
modify enhanced TDM
program as needed to
improve its
effectiveness.
Verify lease of 75
parking spaces at
Ardenwood Park and
Ride lot, or an
equivalent location, at a
cost not to exceed
$45,000 per year.
For U-Line load
factors, verify Initial
City of Palo
Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Baseline TDM report
within six months of
SUMC Project
approval
Annual TDM reports
submitted each Spring
Baseline TDM Report
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2013
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2014
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2015
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2016
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2017
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2018
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2019
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2020
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2021
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 14
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
similar program. If the Hospitals’ obligation to
provide GO Passes, or a substantially similar
program, terminates for any of the reasons specified
in this measure , the Hospitals shall contribute the
GO Pass Amount to one or more substitute
programs to encourage use of transit by Hospital
employees or otherwise reduce peak period traffic
trips in the intersections impacted by the Project as
identified in the Project EIR, including but not
limited to regional transportations systems or
solutions. The substitute program or programs shall
be mutually agreed upon by the SUMC Parties and
the City’s Director of Planning and Community
Environment.
Use all reasonable efforts to arrange with AC
Transit to lease 75 spaces at the Ardenwood Park &
Ride Lot, or an equivalent facility, to serve SUMC
employees who commute from the East Bay.
Expand the Marguerite shuttle bus service between
the SUMC and PAITS as needed to accommodate
increased ridership by Hospital employees.
Use all reasonable efforts to assure that the
controlling transit agency maintains load factors less
than 1.00 on the U-Line.
Maintain a load factor less than or equal to 1.25 on
the Marguerite shuttle.
Expand and improve the bicycle and pedestrian
networks as specified by Project site plans.
Provide a full-time on-site TDM coordinator by
2015 for the hospital components. The coordinator
would be responsible for organizing and
disseminating TDM information primarily to
hospital employees and also to hospital patients. A
central location would be made available to provide
information on alternative travel modes. Also, the
Payment offer to AC
transit ($250,000) and
then subsequent annual
payment offers up to
$50,000 total.
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2022
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2023
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2024
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2025
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2062
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 15
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
SUMC or Hospitals’ website would contain
information on TDM programs.
Provide a guaranteed ride home program for all
employees who use transit and other transport
alternatives like carpool and vanpool. The guarantee
ride home shall allow employees with dependent
children the ability to use alternative modes to travel
to and from work but still be able to travel home
mid-day in case of an emergency.
Provide employees with shower facilities within the
SUMC Sites to encourage bicycling to work. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall also provide bicycle
storage facilities on the SUMC Sites that would be
conveniently located near the employee showers.
Establish, in conjunction with the GO Pass
implementation, a “Zip Car” (or other similar car-
sharing program) with Zip Cars available at the
medical complex.
Perform annual TDM monitoring from the date of
initial project approval through the life of the project
(51 years after project approval) and submit the
report to the City of Palo Alto. This report also
shall be submitted to the City of Menlo Park for its
review.
Within six (6) months of project approval, and
annually for a period of fifty-one (51) years from
initial project approval, the SUMC Project sponsors
shall submit to the City’s Director of Planning and
Community Environment, a Hospital TDM Program
Report that shows the current number of employees
employed over 20 hours per week;, the number of
employees using an alternative mode share as
documented by a study or survey to be completed
by the Hospitals using a method mutually agreeable
to the City and Hospitals; and the efforts used by the
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 16
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
Hospitals to attempt to achieve the Alternative
Mode targets.
These enhancements may not immediately change the
mode split for Hospital employees. Further, because
transit use by employees of the Hospitals is voluntary,
and may be influenced by a number of factors outside the
reasonable control of the Hospitals, such as gasoline
prices, costs and availability of alternative transit,
housing costs and availability, and personal preferences
of employees, the Hospitals cannot guarantee the results
of their TDM programs. The interim targets in Table
3.4-19A in Section 3 in the Final EIR shall be used to
measure the progress toward meeting the desired mode
split by 2025. These interim targets assume that in the
early phases of implementation, there may be larger
shifts to alternative modes than the shifts that may occur
in later phases of the TDM program enhancement. For
purposes of calculating alternative mode share, any
mode that does not constitute driving in a single-
occupant vehicle to and from the work site shall be
considered an “Alternative Mode,” including
working remotely from home.
For each of the interim target years, following
submission of the Hospitals TDM Annual Report, the
City shall determine if the interim year target has been
met. If the Hospitals have not met the interim target, the
Hospitals and the City shall meet to review the TDM
Program and to identify possible additional TDM
Program enhancements that the Hospitals should
consider incorporating into their TDM Program in order
to increase the Program’s effectiveness.
If the Hospitals do not meet the applicable interim targets
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 17
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
for any two consecutive years prior to 2025, the
Hospitals shall provide alternative transportation funding
to the City of Palo Alto in annual payments in the
amount of $175,000 per year until the earlier of the year
2025 or the year the Hospitals achieve the applicable
interim mode split target, subject to a maximum of five
annual payments. The alternative transportation funding
shall be used by the City of Palo Alto for local projects
and programs that encourage citywide use of alternative
transportation mode uses or otherwise reduce peak period
traffic trips in the intersections impacted by the Project as
identified in the Project EIR, including but not limited to
regional transportation systems and solutions. The City
of Palo Alto should consider transportation systems and
solutions that also help to reduce traffic in the City of
Menlo Park.
.
If by 2025, the Hospitals have not demonstrated
substantial achievement of the 35.1 percent target modal
split for alternative transportation modes, the following
measure shall be required:
The Hospitals shall make a lump sum payment of
$4.0 million to the City of Palo Alto for local
projects and programs that encourage and improve
citywide use of alternative transportation mode uses
or otherwise reduce peak period traffic trips in the
intersections impacted by the Project as identified in
the Project EIR, including but not limited to
regional transportation systems and solutions. The
City of Palo Alto shall identify capital projects and
program enhancements for which the funds may be
applied. Sample projects may include contributions
towards regional transportation projects of interest
to the City of Palo Alto and that are identified
within the Valley Transportation Authority – Valley
Transportation Plan or other local planning
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 18
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
documents. The City of Palo Alto should consider
transportation systems and solutions that also help
to reduce traffic in the City of Menlo Park. If
required, said $4.0 million payment shall constitute
funds to be used by the City to offset trips by
Hospital employees through citywide trip reduction.
The $4.0 million payment shall not relieve the
Hospitals of any of their obligations under this
measure, including but not limited to their
obligations to continue to attempt to achieve the
35.1 percent target modal split through
implementation of the GO Pass or substantially
similar program, or a substitute program mutually
agreed upon by the Hospitals and the City’s Director
of Planning and Community Environment, which
shall continue for 51 years from the date of Project
approval. Further, the Hospitals shall continue to
implement an enhanced TDM program, monitor
modal splits by Hospital employees, and strive to
maximize use of alternative commute modes by
Hospital employees. In addition, the Hospitals shall
continue to meet with the City on a regular basis to
identify potential improvements to the enhanced
TDM program.
TR-2.4 Fund or Implement those Intersection
Improvements that Have Been Determined to be
Feasible. The SUMC Project sponsors shall implement
the following measures:
At the intersection of Arboretum Road/Galvez
Street, the SUMC Project sponsors shall install a
traffic signal.
At the intersection of Bayfront Expressway/Willow
Road, the SUMC Project sponsors shall pay a fair
share towards providing one more right-turn lane for
eastbound Willow Road.
Verify installation of
Arboretum/Galvez
traffic signal
Verify payment of fair
share contribution for
both Bayfront
intersections
City of Palo Alto
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to Occupancy
Permit for SHC
Hospital
Arboretum/Galvez traffic signal
______________________________________
Signature Date
Fair Share Payment for both Bayfront
intersections
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 19
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
At the intersection of Bayfront Expressway/
University Avenue, the SUMC Project sponsors
shall pay a fair share towards widening southbound
Bayfront Expressway to include an additional
through lane and re-stripe the exclusive right turn
lane to a shared through right turn lane. As a result,
two additional receiving lanes in the southbound
direction on Bayfront Expressway would be needed.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project would result in adverse traffic impacts to roadway segments in the City of Menlo Park. (TR-3)
See Mitigation Measures TR-2.2, TR-2.3, TR-7.2.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could result in significant traffic impact to the local circulation network in the immediate vicinity of the SUMC Sites. (TR-
4)
TR-4.2 Fund Signing and Striping Plan and Signal
Optimization. In addition to paying for the construction
of the extension of Durand Way from Sand Hill Road to
Welch Road, the SUMC Project sponsors shall also pay
for the following improvements to ensure that queues
from the Durand Way/Sand Hill Road intersection do not
spillback onto the Durand Way/Welch Road intersection.
A signing and striping plan for the Durand Way
extension, which would maximize the storage
capacity by creating a four-lane roadway with a left
and through/right at Sand Hill Road and a right and
through/left at Welch Road;
The installation and optimization of the two signals
at the intersections of Durand Way/Sand Hill Road
and Durand Way/Welch Road.
Review signing and
striping plan for
Durand Way extension,
and signal optimization
plan for Durand Way/
Sand Hill Road and
Durand Way/ Welch
Road
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permit for
Durand Way
Durand Way Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could impede the development or function of planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities, and result in a significant impact.
(TR-6)
TR-6.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure
Improvements. The SUMC Project sponsors shall fund
the expansion and improvement of the bicycle and
pedestrian network in the immediate vicinity of the
Verify payment for
connection from
planned Everett
bike/ped undercrossing
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Payments received
prior to Initial Date
(45 days from Notice
of Determination)
Funding received for improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 20
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
SUMC Project. The intent of these improvements is to:
reduce auto related traffic by providing the
infrastructure for alternative travel modes;
improve the bicycle and pedestrian linkages
between the SUMC Project and Downtown Palo
Alto, and between the SUMC Project and the
surrounding residential neighborhoods; and
mitigate the safety hazards to pedestrians and
cyclists that will result from the SUMC Project
related increase in vehicular traffic and congestion.
The specific improvements to be funded by the SUMC
Project sponsors shall include the following:
Create a bicycle and pedestrian connection between
the Stanford Shopping Center and SUMC. The
connection shall provide an alternative route to
Quarry Road, which is auto dominated. This
connection shall extend between Vineyard Lane and
Welch Road. Pedestrian traffic signals and
crosswalks shall be placed at the crossing of
Vineyard Lane and Welch Road. The crosswalk
shall be enhanced either by striping or by the use of
contrasting paving.
Provide a connection from the planned Everett
Avenue bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing to the
El Camino Real/Quarry Road intersection. Once
the tunnel is completed, this linkage shall provide a
direct connection between the SUMC Project and
Downtown North.
Incorporate into the Quarry Road corridor, from El
Camino Real to Welch Road, improvements to and
within the public right-of-way to enhance the
pedestrian and bicycle connection, including urban
design elements and way finding, wider bicycle lanes,
as necessary, on Quarry Road, enhanced transit nodes
for bus and/or shuttle stops, and prominent bicycle
to ECR/Quarry
($2,250,000), and
enhancements of
Quarry Road and
intersections
($400,000)
Verify construction of
bicycle/ped connection
between Stanford
Shopping Center and
SUMC
Verify that landscape
plans contain sufficient
Class I and III bicycle
parking spaces and are
located in a manner
consistent with the City
of Palo Alto Municipal
Code
City constructs
improvements prior to
Hospital Occupancy
Permit
Stanford constructs
bicycle/ped
connection between
Stanford Shopping
Center and SUMC
prior to LPCH
Hospital Occupancy
Permit.
Bike parking
requirements prior to
issuance of issuance
of building permits
for each building
Improvements completed by City
______________________________________
Signature Date
Improvements completed by Stanford
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Hospital Bike Parking
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics Bike Parking
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics Bike Parking
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB Bike Parking
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1 Bike Parking
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2 Bike Parking
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3 Bike Parking
______________________________________
Signature
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 21
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
facilities.
Enhance all signalized intersections in the Project
Vicinity, particularly along Quarry Road, Vineyard,
and Welch Roads to include 12-foot pedestrian
crosswalks on all legs, with textured or colored paving
or diagonal or longitudinal zebra striping as
determined by the City, pedestrian push buttons and
countdown pedestrian signal heads, and other specific
improvements that are determined as necessary during
the design process, such as median refuge islands,
advanced signing, flashing beacons, in-pavement
lighting, etc.
Install the appropriate number of Class I and Class
III bicycle parking spaces as required by the City’s
Zoning Ordinance for the total amount of existing
and future development. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall install the required number of bicycle
parking spaces equally distributed throughout the
SUMC Sites.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project would not adversely impact either AM or PM Peak Hour bus service in Palo Alto or Caltrain service. Nonetheless,
mitigation to provide enhanced bus stops and shuttle service is identified here. (TR-7)
TR-7.1 Incorporate Enhanced Bus Stops Into Site Plans.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall revise their SUMC
Project site plan to incorporate two enhanced bus stops to
reduce the impact to transit service caused by the SUMC
Project. These enhanced bus stops shall be located at
Hoover Pavilion and at SHC, and shall be on-street
facilities. The enhanced bus stops shall accommodate two
buses simultaneously, and shall have shelters, seating,
lighting, signs, maps, bus schedules, and bicycle parking.
On-street bus stops along Welch Road and Quarry Road
shall also be provided, but the enhanced bus stops shall
accommodate the majority of transit riders and shall be
located to maximize the convenience of employees,
patients, and visitors. One enhanced bus stop shall be
located in the vicinity of Welch Road and Pasteur Drive to
Verify that enhanced
bus stops have been
included in site plans
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Public Works
and Department
of Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
SHC Hospital and
Hoover MOB
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 22
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
serve SHC. The other enhanced bus stop shall be located
near the entrance to Hoover Pavilion. Both of these
enhanced bus stops shall provide the focal point for transit
use for the SUMC.
TR-7.2 Provide Expanded Transit Service. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall fund expansion of the Marguerite
shuttle service between the SUMC and PAITS, and shall
make a fair share financial contribution to the cost of
expanding U-Line bus service
Marguerite Shuttle. The SUMC project sponsors
shall fund expansion of the Marguerite shuttle service
into Palo Alto between SUMC and PAITS.
U-Line. The SUMC project sponsors shall use
reasonable efforts to assure that the controlling
transit agency maintains load factors of less than 1.0
on the U-Line.
Verify expansion of
Marguerite shuttle in
annual TDM reports
pursuant to TR-2.3
Verify Initial Payment
offer to AC transit
($250,000) and then
subsequent annual
payment offers up to
$50,000 total pursuant
to TR-2.3.
City of Palo Alto
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Initial Payment offer
within 30 days of
Hospital Occupancy
Permit and then
subsequent annual
payments
Initial AC Transit payment offer
______________________________________
Signature Date
Subsequent annual payment offers
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Implementation of the SUMC Project could potentially result in inadequate emergency access due to increased congestion, a significant impact.
(TR-9)
TR-9.1 Pay Fair Share Towards OptiCom Installation.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall pay their fair-share
financial contribution towards the City of Palo Alto, to
assist with the installation and operation of emergency
vehicle traffic signal priority (OptiCom) at all
significantly impacted intersections.
Verify payment of fair
share towards OptiCom
installation ($11,200 to
City of Palo Alto and
$6,400 to City of
Menlo Park).
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Public Works
Within 30 days of
Hospital Occupancy
Permit
Opticom Fair Share Payment
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project, in combination with concurrent construction projects in the vicinity of the SUMC Sites, could result in a significant
construction-period impact. (TR-10)
See Mitigation Measures TR-1.1 through TR-1.9.
AIR QUALITY
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Construction activities associated with the SUMC Project could cause emissions of dust and pollutants from equipment exhaust that could
contribute to existing air quality violations or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (AQ-1)
AQ-1.1 Implement Recommended Dust Control
Measures. To reduce dust emissions during project
Verify that information
is contained in
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 23
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
demolition and construction phases, the SUMC Project
sponsors shall require the construction contractors to
comply with the dust control strategies developed by the
BAAQMD. The SUMC Project sponsors shall include in
construction contracts the following requirements:
a. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials including demolition debris, or require all
trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
b. Water all active construction areas (exposed or
disturbed soil surfaces) at least twice daily;
c. Use watering to control dust generation during
demolition of structures or break-up of pavement;
d. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-
toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas
and staging areas;
e. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) all paved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas during
the earthwork phases of construction;
f. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil
material is carried onto adjacent public streets;
g. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to
inactive construction areas (previously graded areas
inactive for ten days or more);
h. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-
toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand,
etc.);
i. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
j. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to
prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and
k. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as
possible.
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
Public Works each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
AQ-1.2 Implement Equipment Exhaust Emission
Reduction Measures. To reduce emissions from
Verify that information
is contained in
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 24
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
construction equipment during project demolition and
construction phases, the SUMC Project sponsors shall
require the construction contractors to comply with the
following emission reduction strategies to the maximum
feasible extent. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
include in construction contracts the following
requirements:
a. Where possible, electrical equipment shall be used
instead of fossil-fuel powered equipment,
b. The contractor shall install temporary electrical
service whenever possible to avoid need for fossil-
fuel powered equipment.
c. Running equipment not being actively used for
construction purposes for more than five minutes
shall be turned off. (e.g., trucks waiting to deliver or
receive soil, aggregate, or other bulk materials;
however, rotating-drum concrete trucks may keep
their engines running continuously as long as they
are on site).
d. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling while on
residential streets serving the construction site (also
included in Mitigation Measure NO-1.1).
e. Diesel-powered construction equipment shall be
Tier III or Tier IV California Air Resources Board
(CARB) certified equipment to the maximum
feasible extent.
f. The engine size of construction equipment shall be
the smallest practical to accomplish the task at hand.
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
Department each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Combined mobile and stationary source emissions during operation of the SUMC Project would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District’s significance threshold of 80 pounds/day of ROG, NOx and PM10. Therefore, air emissions would result in a substantial contribution to an existing regional air quality
problem and a significant impact. (AQ-2)
See Mitigation Measure TR-2.3.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Construction equipment NOx emissions associated with the SUMC Project could contribute considerably to regional air quality problems.
(AQ-6)
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 25
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
See Mitigation Measures AQ-1.1 and AQ-1.2.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: SUMC Project operation could contribute considerably to a degradation of regional air quality as defined by the BAAQMD. (AQ-7)
See Mitigation Measure TR-2.3.
CLIMATE CHANGE
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The proposed Emissions Reduction Program would minimize greenhouse gas emission increases associated with the proposed development
program. However, the proposed Emissions Reduction Program would not be sufficient to further some of the individual policies of the City’s Climate Protection Plan. (CC-1)
CC-1.1 Commission and Retro-Commission Energy
Systems for New and Existing Buildings. New
construction for the SUMC Project shall undergo
commissioning of energy and HVAC systems within one
year following building occupancy. The commissioning
process shall follow the standards of the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Guideline 0-2005 or the
International Performance Measurement and Verification
Protocol (MVP). The SUMC Project sponsors shall
provide the City of Palo Alto with commissioning
verification data within 12 months of OSHPD (or City)
certificate of occupancy for each new SUMC Project
building component (parking structures excluded).
These components shall include: SHC Hospital (Phase
1), SHC Hospital (Phase 2), LPCH Hospital Expansion,
Hoover Medical Office Building, School of Medicine
(FIM 1, FIM 2 and FIM 3) and 429,000 square feet of
clinic space for SHC. The commissioning of the new
SHC and LPCH Expansion Hospitals shall be conducted
as part of LEED Enhanced Commissioning in
compliance with the ASHRAE Guideline 0-2005.
During years two to five after completion of the entire
SUMC Project, the SUMC Project sponsors shall
annually provide the City of Palo Alto with an EPA
Energy Star Statement of Energy Performance report for
each new building component. This report shall be
generated using the EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager
system. Building profiles and consumption details
Review commissioning
verification data
provided by the SUMC
Project sponsors for
each building
Review EPA Energy
Star Statement of
Energy Performance
Report
City of Palo Alto
Utilities
Department and
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Commission
verification report
within 1 year of
occupancy permits for
each building
EPA Energy Star
Performance Report in
years 2 through 5 after
completion of entire
SUMC Project
SHC Hospital Commissioning
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics Commissioning
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics Commissioning
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB Commissioning
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1 Commissioning
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2 Commissioning
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3 Commissioning
______________________________________
Signature Date
Energy Star Performance Year 2
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 26
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
entered in the Portfolio Manager system and a resulting
energy efficiency rating is provided based on similar
facilities (i.e., academic teaching facility, community
hospital, free-standing surgery center, etc.) This process
would ensure that new and existing energy systems
would perform interactively according to construction
documents, the SUMC Project design intent and the
owner’s operational needs.
______________________________________
Signature Date
Energy Star Performance Year 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Energy Star Performance Year 4
______________________________________
Signature Date
Energy Star Performance Year 5
______________________________________
Signature Date
CC-1.2 Participate in a Renewable Energy Program.
The SHC and LPCH Project sponsors facilities shall
participate in a renewable energy program approved by
the City to partially offset electricity emissions; develop
new renewable generation sources in collaboration with
the CPAU; incorporate a renewable energy source (such
as photovoltaics) into the SUMC Project, and/or
otherwise promote expansion of the use of renewable
energy by CPAU customers (“Renewable Energy
Program”). The Renewable Energy Program shall be
approved by the City and need not directly reduce the
emissions from the SUMC Project facilities, and may be
designed to promote expansion of the use of renewable
energy by CPAU customers, either by providing a new
source of renewable energy, educating the public about
use of renewable energy, or contributing to research and
development of renewable energy sources.
Review and approve
SUMC Project
sponsor’s participation
in a Renewable Energy
Program
City of Palo
Utilities
Department and
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to completion of
entire SUMC Project
Participation in Renewable Energy Program
______________________________________
Signature Date
CC-1.3 Provide Annual Greenhouse Gas Reporting.
The SHC and LPCH shall perform an annual inventory
of greenhouse gas emissions associated with Hospital
and medical facilities on the SUMC Sites. This inventory
Review annual
inventory of
greenhouse gas
emissions
City of Palo
Utilities
Department and
Department of
Annually
2012
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 27
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
shall be performed according to a common industry-
standard emissions reporting protocol, such as the
approaches recommended by California Air Resources
Board, The Climate Action Registry, or Business
Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD). This
inventory shall be shared with the City of Palo Alto to
facilitate the development of future collaborative
Emissions Reduction Programs. Emissions associated
with energy, water, solid waste, transportation, employee
commute and other major sources shall be reported in
this inventory.
Planning and
Community
Environment
2013
______________________________________
Signature Date
2014
______________________________________
Signature Date
2015
______________________________________
Signature Date
2016
______________________________________
Signature Date
2017
______________________________________
Signature Date
2018
______________________________________
Signature Date
2019
______________________________________
Signature Date
2020
______________________________________
Signature Date
2021
______________________________________
Signature Date
2022
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 28
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
______________________________________
Signature Date
2023
______________________________________
Signature Date
2024
______________________________________
Signature Date
2025
______________________________________
Signature Date
CC-1.4 Prepare Waste Reduction Audit. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall perform a waste reduction audit of
waste management practices at the hospitals prior to
construction of new facilities and after completion of the
SUMC Project to determine post-project diversions.
Review waste reduction
audits
City of Palo
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment.
Initial waste reduction
audit prior to
construction
Final waste reduction
audit after completion
of the entire SUMC
Project.
Initial Waste Reduction Audit
______________________________________
Signature Date
Final Waste Reduction Audit
______________________________________
Signature Date
CC-1.5 Implement Construction Period Emission
Reduction Measures. Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit the SUMC Project sponsors shall incorporate the
following measures into the construction phasing plan
and submit to City Planning for approval.
Use alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric)
construction vehicles/ equipment of at least 15
percent of the fleet;
Use local building materials of at least 10 percent;
and
Recycle at least 50 percent of construction or
demolition materials.
Verify that information
is contained in
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
City of Palo
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 29
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 30
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
NOISE
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Construction of the SUMC Project would create a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels on the SUMC Sites compared to
existing ambient noise levels. The noise increase would be a significant impact to the sensitive uses (i.e., patients) on the Main SUMC Site during construction. (NO-1)
NO-1.1 Implement Best Management Practices to
Reduce Construction Noise. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall incorporate the following practices into
the construction documents to be implemented by the
SUMC Project contractor:
a. Provide enclosures such as heavy-duty mufflers for
stationary equipment, shrouding or shielding for
impact tools, and barriers around particularly noisy
operations on the site.
b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever
possible, particularly air compressors.
c. Provide sound-control devices on equipment no less
effective than those provided by the manufacturer.
d. Locate stationary equipment, material stockpiles,
and vehicle staging areas as far as practicable from
sensitive receptors.
e. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion
engines.
f. Require applicable construction-related vehicles and
equipment to comply with the City’s truck route
ordinance.
g. Designate a noise disturbance coordinator who shall
be responsible for responding to complaints about
noise during construction. The telephone number of
the noise disturbance coordinator shall be
conspicuously posted at the construction site and
shall be provided to the City. Copies of the
construction schedule shall also be posted at nearby
noise-sensitive areas.
Verify that information
is contained in
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
NO-1.2:Implement Best Management Practices to Verify that information City of Palo Alto Prior to issuance of SHC Hospital
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 31
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
Reduce Construction Noise
The SUMC Project sponsors shall incorporate
the following practices into the construction
documents to be implemented by the project
contractor:
a. Require construction contractors to use noise-reducing
pile driving techniques, including pre-drilling pile
holes (if feasible, based on soils) to the maximum
feasible depth, verify that manufacturer-provided
intake and exhaust mufflers on pile driving equipment
are present, vibrating piles into place when feasible,
and installing shrouds around the pile driving hammer
where feasible.
Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce
Construction Pile Driving Vibration. The SUMC
Project Sponsors shall use sonic pile drivers to
reduce vibration annoyance and/or damage to on-
site sensitive receptors, if feasible.
Avoid or Repair Structural Damage to SUMC
Structures. The SUMC Project sponsors shall:
a. Use sonic pile drivers, if feasible, to avoid potential
vibration damage to the closest on-site SUMC
structures near the SHC Hospital and garage site; or
b. Blake-Wilbur Clinic patients and workers shall be
relocated to other, more-distant buildings during
periods when pile driving occurs on parts of the SHC
Hospital construction site within 75 feet of the Blake-
Wilbur Clinic. The structural conditions of the Blake-
Wilbur Clinic shall be assessed before and after pile
driving by a licensed structural engineer and any
damage resulting to the Blake-Wilbur Clinic from pile
driving shall be completely repaired before patients
and workers are allowed to return.
is contained in
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
Public Works
Department
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Increased traffic and helicopter noise levels due to implementation of the SUMC Project would be less than significant. However, noise from
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 32
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
ambulances due to implementation of the SUMC Project would increase along Sand Hill Road west of El Camino Real, and would increase roadside noise levels by an amount
considered unacceptable under the policies of the City Comprehensive Plan. (NO-3)
No feasible mitigation measures.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Operational stationary source noise generated by the SUMC Project could potentially increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the SUMC
Sites and result in a significant impact. (NO-4)
NO-4.1 Shield or Enclose HVAC Equipment and
Emergency Generators. Noise levels from mechanical
equipment shall be minimized to the degree required by
the City Noise Ordinance by proper siting and selection
of such equipment and through installation of sufficient
acoustical shielding or noise emission controls. Noise
levels for the emergency generators near Welch Road
shall be reduced such that noise levels do not exceed the
City’s General Daytime Exception standard of 70 dBA at
25 feet. An acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a
qualified professional to ensure that the new mechanical
equipment is in compliance with noise standards of the
Noise Ordinance.
SUMC Project
sponsors to prepare
acoustical analysis;
City to review and
verify analysis
City of Palo
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance testing
post-construction
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 33
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: If other foreseeable construction in the immediate vicinity of the SUMC Sites would occur simultaneously with the proposed SUMC Project
construction, then significant cumulative noise impacts to adjacent residential and other noise-sensitive uses could occur. The SUMC Project’s contribution would likely be
cumulatively considerable. (NO-5)
See Mitigation Measure NO-1.1.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project would have a significant impact on historical resources. (CR-1)
CR-1.1 Manually Demolish Structures at the Hoover
Pavilion Site. Where feasible, the project sponsors shall
establish a perimeter of construction fencing around the
Hoover Pavilion at a minimum of 25 feet to establish a
protective buffer around the building. The demolition of
these sheds and storage facilities shall be accomplished
manually without the use of vibration causing equipment.
Additional protective fencing at a height sufficient to
prevent any debris from hitting the building shall also be
installed between the Hoover Pavilion and demolition
activities occurring within the 25 foot buffer.
Verify that construction
contracts contain
Hoover Pavilion
protection requirements
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permit for
Hoover Pavilion
renovation
Hoover Pavilion Renovation
______________________________________
Signature Date
CR-1.2 Prepare HABS Documentation for the Stone
Building Complex. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
prepare HABS-like documentation using the National
Park Services’ Historic American Building Surveys
Level III guidelines for each of the buildings in the Stone
Building complex prior to demolition of each building
that comprises this historic resource (East, West, Core,
Boswell, Edwards, Lane, Alway, and Grant). HABS-like
recordation shall not be required until each of the
individual buildings is vacated and prepared for
demolition. The documentation shall include written and
photographic documentation of each of the historic
structures within the Stone Building complex. The
documentation shall be prepared by a qualified
professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural
History or History.
Review HABS-like
documentation
City of Palo
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Upon vacation and
prior to demolition of
any portions of the
Stone Building
complex.
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 34
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
The documentation shall be prepared based on the
National Park Services’ HABS standards and include, at
a minimum, the following:
Site-specific history and appropriate contextual
information regarding the Stone Building complex.
This history shall focus on the reasons for the
buildings’ significance: heart transplantation
program and the role of E.D. Stone in the design of
the complex.
Accurate mapping of all buildings that are included
in the Stone Building complex, scaled to indicate
size and proportion of the buildings to surrounding
buildings; if existing plans accurately reflect these
relationships these may be reformatted for submittal
per HABS guidelines for CAD submittals.
Architectural descriptions of the major exterior
features and public rooms within the Stone Building
complex as well as descriptions of typical patient,
office, laboratory, and operating rooms.
Photographic documentation of the interior and
exterior of the Stone Building complex and Thomas
Church-designed landscape features. Either HABS
standard large format or digital photography may be
used. If digital photography is used, the ink and
paper combinations for printing photographs must
be in compliance with National Register-National
Historic Landmark photo expansion policy and have
a permanency rating of approximately 115 years.
Digital photographs will be taken as uncompressed
.TIF file format. The size of each image shall be
1600x1200 pixels at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or
larger, color format, and printed in black and white.
The file name for each electronic image shall
correspond with the Index to Photographs and
photograph label.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 35
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
CR-1.3 Distribute Written and Photographic
Documentation to Agencies. The written and
photographic documentation of historic resources shall
be disseminated on archival-quality paper to Stanford
University, the Northwest Information Center, and other
local repositories identified by the City of Palo Alto.
Verify distribution of
written and
photographic
documents
City of Palo
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to demolition of
any portion of the
Stone Building
complex.
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
CR-1.4 Prepare Permanent Interpretive
Displays/Signage/Plaques. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall install interpretive displays within the SUMC Sites
that provide information to visitors and residents
regarding the history of the Stone Building complex.
These displays shall be installed in highly visible public
areas such as the property’s open space or in public areas
on the interiors of buildings. The displays shall include
historical data and photographs as well as physical
remnants of architectural elements. Interpretive displays
and the signage/plaques installed on the property shall be
sufficiently durable to withstand typical Palo Alto
weather conditions for at least five years. Displays and
signage/plaques shall be lighted, installed at pedestrian-
friendly locations, and be of adequate size to attract the
interested pedestrian. Maintenance of displays and
signage/plaques shall be included in the maintenance
program on the property. Location and materials for the
interpretative displays shall be subject to review by the
Palo Alto Architectural Review Board and approval by
the Planning Director.
Review and approve
location and materials
for the displays; verify
installation
Review by City
of Palo Alto
Architectural
Review Board
and approval by
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to demolition of
entire Stone Building
complex; verify
installation post-
construction
Demolition of entire Stone Building Complex
______________________________________
Signature Date
Installation of Permanent Interpretive
Displays
_______________________________________
Signature Date
CR-1.5 Implement Protection Documents for the
Hoover Pavilion. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
ensure the implementation of the Stanford Hoover
Pavilion Protection Documents (Documents) prepared by
Verify that construction
contracts contain
Hoover Pavilion
protection requirements
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Hoover Pavilion
renovation; monitor
Hoover Pavilion Renovation
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 36
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
ARG and dated September 21, 2009. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall comply with the specifications for the
treatment and protection of the Hoover Pavilion during
SUMC Project construction activities that could damage
the historic fabric of the building as provided in the
Documents.
from ARG report dated
September 21, 2009;
compliance monitoring
compliance during
construction
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 37
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could potentially encounter archaeological resources and result in a significant impact. (CR-2)
CR-2.1 Construction Staff Training and Consultation.
Prior to any construction or earth-disturbing activities, a
qualified archaeologist shall inform construction
supervisors of the potential to encounter cultural
resources. All construction personnel shall be instructed
to be observant for prehistoric and historic-era artifacts,
subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including
accumulations of dark, friable soil (“midden”), stone
artifacts, animal bone, and shell. In the event that any
prehistoric or historic subsurface archaeological features
or cultural deposits are discovered during construction-
related earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing
activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted
and the City shall be notified. The City shall consult
with the Stanford University Archeologist to assess the
significance of the find. If the find is determined to be an
historical resource or a unique archaeological resource as
defined by CEQA, then representatives of the City and
the Stanford University Archaeologist shall meet to
determine the appropriate course of action. All
significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to
scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a
report shall be prepared by the qualified archaeologist
according to current professional standards.
SUMC Project
sponsors submit
report from qualified
archaeologist
documenting that
construction
supervisors were
informed about
potential cultural
resource procedures;
City to review report
City of Palo
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 38
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could potentially encounter human remains and result in a significant impact. (CR-3)
CR-3.1 Conduct Protocol and Procedures for
Encountering Human Remains. If human remains
(including disarticulated or cremated remains) are
discovered at any SUMC Project construction site during
any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity
within 100 feet of the human remains should be halted
and the Stanford University Archaeologist, City of Palo
Alto, and the County coroner notified immediately,
according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public
Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s
Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined
by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be
notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC
adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the
remains. The SUMC Project sponsors shall retain a
professional archaeologist with Native American burial
experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific
site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any,
identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist
may provide professional assistance to the City of Palo
Alto, including the excavation and removal of the human
remains. If the human remains cannot be avoided, and
the Most Likely Descendant requests that the human
remains be removed from its location, the SUMC Project
sponsors shall implement removal of the human remains
by a professional archaeologist. The City of Palo Alto
shall verify that the mitigation is complete before the
resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100
feet of where the remains were discovered.
SUMC Project
sponsors include
procedures related to
possible discovery of
human remains in
construction contracts;
City to verify
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 39
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could have a significant impact on unique paleontological resources or unique geologic resources. (CR-4)
CR-4.1 Conduct Protocol and Procedures for
Encountering Paleontological Resources. Should
paleontological resources be identified during SUMC
Project ground-disturbing activities, the SUMC Project
sponsors shall notify the City and the Stanford University
Archaeologist and cease operations in the vicinity of the
potential resource until a qualified professional
paleontologist can complete the following actions when
appropriate:
Identify and evaluate paleontological resources by
intense field survey where impacts are considered
high;
Assess effects on identified resources; and
Consult with the City of Palo Alto and the Stanford
University Archaeologist.
Before operations in the vicinity of the potential resource
resume, the SUMC Project sponsors shall comply with
the paleontologist’s recommendations to address any
significant adverse effects where determined by the City
of Palo Alto to be feasible. In considering any suggested
mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall consult with the Stanford
University Archaeologist and the City to determine
whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of
factors such as the nature of the find, project design, cost
policies and land use assumptions, and other
considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other
appropriate measures (e.g. data recovery) shall be
instituted to avoid a significant impact. Work may
proceed in other parts of the SUMC Sites while
mitigation for paleontological resources is completed.
SUMC Project
sponsors include
procedures related to
possible discovery of
paleontological
resources in
construction contracts;
City to verify
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 40
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project, in combination with other past, current, and probable future development in the City, would cause a substantial change in
the significance of the City’s historic resources and thus have a significant cumulative impact. The SUMC Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact would be cumulatively
considerable. (CR-5)
See Mitigation Measures CR-1.2 through CR-1.4.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable probable future development, could cause a substantial change in the
significance of prehistoric and/or archaeological resources or human remains and thus contribute to a significant cumulative impact. The SUMC Project is conservatively
assumed to have a considerable contribution. (CR-6)
See Mitigation Measures CR-2.1 and CR-3.1.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable probable future development where the Pleistocene-age creek bed may
occur, could have a significant cumulative impact. Such an impact would occur if the buried Pleistocene-age creek bed is exposed in lengths greater than approximately 100 feet
(or a sufficient length to support detailed hydrological study) and if such deposits contain substantially intact skeletons of extinct species. These conditions would represent a
major find for regional paleontology. In the case that significant paleontological finds—such as stretches of buried Pleistocene-age creek bed greater than 100 feet in length and
containing intact skeletons of extinct species—are made on the SUMC Site, then the SUMC Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on paleontological resources could
be cumulatively considerable. (CR-7)
See Mitigation Measure CR-4.1.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could have a significant impact on special-status wildlife resources. (BR-1)
BR-1.1 Conduct Pre-Demolition Survey. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall retain a qualified biologist (“bat
biologist”) to conduct a pre-construction survey for
roosting bats in trees to be removed or pruned and
structures to be removed. If no roosting bats are found,
no further mitigation is required. If a bat roost is found,
the SUMC Project sponsors shall implement the
following measures to avoid impacts on roosting bats.
Review pre-
construction roosting
bat survey report
City of Palo
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment.
Prior to issuance of
building and
demolition permits
and/or vegetation
removal for each
building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 41
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 42
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
BR-1.2 Avoid Roosting Areas. If non-breeding bats are
found in a tree or structure to be removed, the individuals
shall be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified
bat biologist, by opening the roosting area to allow
airflow through the cavity. Demolition should then
follow at least one night after initial disturbance for
airflow. This action should allow bats to leave during
darkness, thus increasing their chance of finding new
roosts with a minimum of potential predation during
daylight.
If active maternity roosts are found in structures that will
be removed as part of project construction, demolition of
that structure shall commence before maternity colonies
form (generally before March 1) or after young are flying
(generally by July 31).
Verify that construction
contracts contain
procedures related to
avoidance of roosting
bat areas; SUMC
Project sponsor to
provide qualified bat
biologist compliance
monitoring reports.
.
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction during
site disturbance period
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
BR-1.3 Develop and Employ Bat Nest Box Plan. If Review bat nest box City of Palo Alto Prior to issuance of SHC Hospital
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 43
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
special-status bats are found in structures to be removed,
the SUMC Project sponsors shall develop a bat nest box
plan for the SUMC Sites employing state-of-the-art bat
nest box technology. The design and placement of nest
boxes shall be reviewed by a qualified bat biologist.
plan, if special-status
bats are found in
structures to be
developed; SUMC
Project sponsor to
provide qualified bat
biologist compliance
monitoring reports
Planning and
Community
Environment
building permits for
each building, if
required; compliance
monitoring during site
disturbance period
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 44
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
BR-1.4 Avoid Tree Removal During Nesting Season.
Tree removal or pruning shall be avoided from February
1 through August 31, the nesting period for Cooper’s
hawk, to the extent feasible. If no tree removal or
pruning is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys
are required.
Verify that construction
contracts contain
procedures related to
avoidance of Cooper’s
Hawk nesting
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
BR-1.5 Protect Cooper’s Hawk in the Event of Nest Verify that construction City of Palo Alto Prior to issuance of SHC Hospital
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 45
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
Discovery. If tree removal or pruning is unavoidable
during the nesting season, the SUMC Project sponsors
shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct a survey for
nesting Cooper’s hawk within five days prior to the
proposed start of construction. If active Cooper’s hawk
nests are not present, project activities can take place as
scheduled. The qualified biologist shall visit the site
daily to search for nests until all nesting substrates are
removed. This will avoid impacts to Cooper’s hawk that
may have moved into the site and initiated nest-building
after the start of tree removal activities. Additionally, if
more than 5 days elapse between the initial nest search
and the tree removal, it is possible for new birds to move
into the construction area and begin building a nest. If
there is such a delay, another nest survey shall be
conducted. If any active Cooper’s hawk nests are
detected, the SUMC Project sponsors shall delay removal
of the applicable tree or shrub while the nest is occupied
with eggs or young who have not fledged. A qualified
biologist shall monitor any occupied nest to determine
when the Cooper’s hawk nest is no longer used.
contracts contain
procedures related to
timing and
requirements for
Cooper’s hawk
surveys; SUMC Project
sponsor to provide
qualified biologist
compliance monitoring
reports
Planning and
Community
Environment
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during site
disturbance period
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project would have no impact on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or use of native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, but could impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites and thus result in a significant impact. (BR-3)
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 46
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
BR-3.1 Avoid Tree Removal During Nesting Season.
Tree or shrub removal or pruning shall be avoided from
February 1 through August 31, the bird-nesting period, to
the extent feasible. If no tree or shrub removal or
pruning is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys
are required.
Verify that construction
contracts contain
procedures related to
avoidance of bird
nesting
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 47
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
BR-3.2 Protect Birds in the Event of Nest Discovery. If
tree and shrub removal or pruning is unavoidable during
the nesting season, the SUMC Project sponsors shall hire
a qualified biologist to conduct a survey for nesting
raptors and other birds within five days prior to the
proposed start of construction. If active nests are not
present, SUMC Project activities can take place as
scheduled. The qualified biologist shall visit the site
daily to search for nests until all nesting substrates are
removed. These procedures would avoid impacts to any
birds that may have moved into the sites and initiated
nest-building after the start of tree and shrub removal
activities. Additionally, if more than five days elapses
between the initial nest search and the vegetation
removal, it is possible for new birds to move into the
construction area and begin building a nest. If there is
such a delay, another nest survey shall be conducted. If
any active nests are detected, the SUMC Project sponsors
shall delay removal of the applicable tree or shrub while
the nest is occupied with eggs or young who have not
fledged. A qualified biologist shall monitor any
occupied nest to determine when the nest is no longer
used.
Verify that construction
contracts contain
procedures related to
protection of nesting
birds; SUMC Project
sponsor to provide
qualified biologist
compliance monitoring
reports
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during site
disturbance period
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could have a significant impact on Protected Trees. (BR-4)
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 48
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
BR-4.1 Prepare a Tree Preservation Report for all
Trees to be Retained. An updated tree survey and tree
preservation report (TPR) prepared by a certified arborist
shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Director of Planning and Community Environment in
consultation with the City Arborist. For reference
clarity, the tree survey shall include (list and field tag) all
existing trees within the SUMC Sites, including adjacent
trees overhanging the SUMC Sites. The approved TPR
shall be implemented in full, including mandatory
inspections and monthly reporting to City Arborist. The
TPR shall be based on latest SUMC plans and amended
as needed to address activity within the dripline area of
any existing Protected Tree to be preserved, including
incidental work (utilities trenching, street work, lighting,
irrigation, etc.) that may affect the health of a preserved
Protected Tree. The TPR shall be consistent with the
criteria set forth in the Tree Preservation Ordinance, Palo
Alto Municipal Code Section 8.10.030, and the City Tree
Technical Manual, Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30. To avoid
improvements that may be detrimental to the health of
Protected Trees, the Director of Planning and
Community Environment, in consultation with the City
Arborist shall review the SUMC Project sponsors’
landscape plan to ensure the new landscape is consistent
with Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix
L, Landscaping under Native Oaks.
SUMC Project
sponsors to prepare
TPR; City to review
and approve TPR
City of Palo Alto
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
BR-4.2 Prepare a Solar Access Study (SAS) of Short
and Long Term Effects on Protected Oaks. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall prepare a SAS of Short and Long
Term Effects on Protected Oaks that are aesthetic tree
resources for review and approval by the Director of
Planning and Community Environment in consultation
with the City Arborist. The SAS shall be prepared by a
qualified expert team (horticulturalist, architect designer,
consulting arborist) capable of determining effects, if
Review and approve
Solar Access Study, if
project design changes
and would affect
biological and aesthetic
tree resources
City of Palo Alto
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permit for
each building, if
project design changes
and would affect
biological and
aesthetic tree
resources
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 49
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
any, to foliage, health, disease susceptibility and also
prognosis for longevity. The SAS shall contain the same
information as the SAS for FIM 1 trees that are aesthetic
tree resources submitted September 23, 2010. If the
Director of Planning and Community Environment, in
consultation with the City Arborist, determines that the
SUMC Project would have an adverse effect on solar
access to a Protected Tree that is an aesthetic tree
resource such that the tree is unlikely to survive, then the
SUMC Project sponsors shall relocate the Protected Tree
to a site with sufficient solar access, as determined by the
Direct0r of Planning and Community Environment, in
consultation with the City Arborist. The SAS has been
completed and accepted by the City for trees #608,
Kaplan Lawn (trees #33 through 41), and FIM (trees
#317 through 320 and #322).
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 50
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
BR-4.3 Prepare a Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan for
Any Protected Tree Proposed for Relocation and
Retention. Relocation of Protected Trees with the SUMC
Sites shall be allowed only upon issuance of a Protected
Tree relocation permit from the Director of Planning and
Community Environment in consultation with the City
Arborist. Because of inherent mortality associated with
the process of moving mature trees, the SUMC Project
sponsors shall prepare a Tree Relocation and
Maintenance Plan (TRMP) to be reviewed in connection
with the Protected Tree relocation permit. The TRMP
shall evaluate the feasibility of moving the Protected
Trees to an appropriate location on site. Feasibility shall
consider current site and tree conditions, a tree’s ability
to tolerate moving, relocation measures, optimum needs
for the new location, aftercare, irrigation, and other long-
term needs.
The tree relocation permit shall specify that if the
relocated trees do not survive after a period of five years,
the relocated tree or trees shall be replaced with trees or a
combination of trees and Tree Value Standards consistent
with Section 3.20, Table 3-1 Tree Canopy Replacement,
of the Tree Technical Manual. The TRMP shall be
inclusive of the following minimum information:
appropriate irrigation, monitoring inspections, post
relocation tree maintenance, and for an annual arborist
report of the condition of the relocated trees. If a tree is
disfigured, leaning with supports needed, in decline with
a dead top or dieback of more than 25 percent, the tree
shall be considered a total loss and replaced as described
above.
Review and approve
Tree Relocation
Feasibility Plans, and
Tree Relocation and
Maintenance Plans
Issue Protected Tree
Relocation Permit
City of Palo Alto
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
BR-4.4A Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding for
Tree Maintenance. As a security measure, the SUMC
Project sponsors shall be subject to a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the City of Palo Alto and
Sign Memorandum of
Understanding and
security guarantee for
trees to be retained
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 51
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
the SUMC Project sponsors describing a tree retention
amount, the list of trees to be retained, an appraised value
for each listed tree, a five-year tree growth and
establishment, timeline for return of security, and
conditions of approval related to Protected Trees, as cited
in the Conditional Use Permit for the SUMC Project.
The SUMC Project sponsors and SUMC Project arborist
shall coordinate with the City Arborist to determine the
conditions required to guarantee the protection and/or
replacement of the regulated trees on the site during
construction and within five years after occupancy. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall provide a security
guarantee for the trees, as determined by the Director of
Planning and Community Environment, in consultation
with the City Arborist, in an amount consistent with the
City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual.
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
BR 4.4B Replace Protected Trees in Accordance with
the Tree Technical Manual. Removal of Protected Trees
shall be allowed only upon issuance of a Protected Tree
removal permit from the Director of Planning and
Community Environment, in consultation with the City
Arborist. Protected Trees that are removed without being
relocated shall be replaced in accordance with the ratios
set forth in Table 3-1 of the City of Palo Alto Tree
Technical Manual in the following way, in order to
maintain the appropriate landscape approach at the
SUMC Sites, which has limited opportunities to plant the
required replacement of trees:
The Protected Tree removal permit issued shall
stipulate the tree replacement requirements for the
removed tree, including number of trees, location,
and irrigation;
The number and size of trees required for
replacement would be calculated in accordance with
Table 3-1; and
Review and approve
Tree Removal Plans
Issue Protected Tree
Removal Permit
City of Palo Alto
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 52
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
The difference between the required tree
replacement and the number of trees planted at the
SUMC Sites would be mitigated through
contribution to the Forestry Fund in the City of Palo
Alto. Payment to the Forestry Fund would be in the
amount representing the value of the replacement
trees that would be required under the TTM
standard.
BR-4.5 Provide Optimum Tree Replacement for Loss of
Publicly-Owned Trees Regulated Tree Category. There are
many publicly owned trees growing in the right-of-way
along various frontages (Welch Road, Pasteur Drive, Quarry
Road, Sand Hill Road, etc.). These trees provide an
important visual and aesthetic value to the streetscape and
represent a significant investment from years of public
resources to maintain them. As mitigation to offset the net
benefits loss from removal of mature trees, and to minimize
the future years to achieve parity with visual and
infrastructure service benefits (CO2 reduction, extended
asphalt life, water runoff management, etc.) currently
provided by the trees, the new public trees on all roadway
frontages shall be provided with best practices design and
materials, including, but not limited to, the following
elements:
Consistency with the City of Palo Alto Public
Works Department Street Tree Management Plan, in
consultation with Canopy, Inc.
Provide adequate room for natural tree canopy
growth and adequate root growing volume. For
large trees, a target goal of 1,200 cubic feet of soil
shall be used.
For pedestrian and roadway areas that are to include
tree planting or adjacent to existing trees to be
retained, utilize City-approved best management
practices for sustainability products, such as
Review landscape
plans submitted as part
of building permit
applications for impact
to publicly owned trees
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each project
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 53
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
permeable ADA sidewalk surfaces, Silva Cell base
support planters, engineered soil mix base, and other
advantage methods.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Cumulative impacts on Protected Trees would be significant. Because the SUMC Project would result in the loss of Protected Trees, the
SUMC Project’s contribution would cumulatively considerable. (BR-9)
See Mitigation Measures BR-4.1 through BR-4.6.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could have a significant impact on groundwater quality during construction. (HW-3)
HW-3.1 Develop a Work Plan for any Unknown
Contaminated Sites. During construction, if suspected
contaminated soil, undocumented underground tanks,
hazardous materials pipelines, or other evidence of
potential hazardous materials are discovered,
construction activities shall cease and the SUMC Project
sponsors shall prepare a workplan to determine the
potential risk to human and ecological health. The
workplan shall be prepared by a Registered
Environmental Assessor and in compliance with the
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
guidelines and the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Contingency Plan (the "National
Contingency Plan" [NCP]).
The SUMC Project sponsors, or their representative,
shall be responsible for submitting the workplan for the
DTSC’s review and approval prior to implementing field
activities. The workplan must include all information
necessary for implementing field work. The workplan
shall include a Site Safety Plan (SSP) and a Sampling
Work Plan (SWP). The SSP must be submitted to the
DTSC in conjunction with the submittal of the SWP. The
objective of the SSP is to ensure protection of the
investigative team as well as the general public during
sampling activities.
Verify that SUMC
Project sponsors have
submitted workplans to
DTSC, if any unknown
contaminated is
discovered during
construction
.
City of Palo Alto
Fire Department
and Department
of Planning and
Community
Environment
As necessary
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 54
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
If risk to human or ecological health is identified, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare and implement a
Removal Action Workplan (SB 1706 Stats. 1994,
Chapter 441) (non-emergency removal action or
remedial action at a hazardous substance release site
which is projected to cost less than $1,000,000) that is
consistent with the NCP.
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could release hazardous materials in existing buildings. (HM-2)
HM-2.1 Conduct Asbestos Survey at the SUMC Sites.
Prior to building renovation and/or demolition, an
asbestos survey shall be performed on all areas of the
building anticipated to be demolished and/or renovated.
This survey shall be performed by a licensed asbestos
abatement contractor. In the event that asbestos is
identified in the buildings proposed to be demolished
and/or renovated, all asbestos containing materials shall
be removed and appropriately disposed of by a licensed
asbestos abatement contractor. A site health and safety
plan, to ensure worker safety, in compliance with OSHA
requirements (8 CCR 5208) shall be developed by the
SUMC Project sponsors and in place prior to
commencing renovation or demolition work on portions
of buildings containing asbestos.
Verify that SUMC
Project sponsors have
conducted asbestos
surveys and prepared
site health and safety
plan for buildings to
be demolished
.
City of Palo Alto
Fire Department
and Department
of Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
demolition permits for
each project
1101 Welch Road
______________________________________
Signature Date
Parking Structure III
______________________________________
Signature Date
701 Welch Road
______________________________________
Signature Date
703 Welch Road
______________________________________
Signature Date
Edwards
______________________________________
Signature Date
Alway
______________________________________
Signature Date
Lane
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 55
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
______________________________________
Signature Date
East, West, Core, Boswell, Grant
______________________________________
Signature Date
Core Expansion
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could expose construction personnel and public to existing contaminated groundwater and/or soil. (HM-3)
HM-3.1 Perform a Phase II ESA for the 701 Welch Site.
A Phase II ESA shall be performed at 701 Welch Site
Building B. The Phase II ESA shall include sampling
and analysis of soil, groundwater, wastewater, and
residues on surfaces such as laboratories countertops,
fume hoods, sinks, sumps, floors, and drain lines. The
County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) and
Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) shall be notified by
the Project sponsors if contamination is discovered. If
contamination is discovered, the SUMC Project sponsors
shall prepare a site remediation assessment that (a)
specifies measures to protect workers and the public
from exposure to potential site hazards and (b) certifies
that the proposed remediation measures would clean up
contaminants, dispose of the wastes, and protect public
health in accordance with federal, State, and local
requirements. Site excavation activities shall not proceed
until the site remediation has been approved by the
County DEH and implemented by the SUMC Project
sponsors. Additionally, the site remediation assessment
shall be subject to review and approval by the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). All appropriate agencies shall be notified.
Receive notification if
contamination is
discovered during
Phase II ESA at 701
Welch Site Building B
Verify that County
DEH has approved a
site remediation plan, if
necessary
Compliance monitoring
City of Palo Alto
Fire Department
As necessary 701 Welch Road
______________________________________
Signature Date
HM-3.2 Excavate Contaminated Soil from the 703
Welch Site. For the 4- to 9-square-foot area near every
Receive notification if
contamination is
City of Palo Alto
Fire Department
As necessary 703 Welch Road
______________________________________
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 56
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
discharge point from the building, soil samples shall be
performed and contaminated soil excavated, removed,
and transported to an approved disposal facility in
compliance with OSHA requirements. The County DEH
and the PAFD shall be notified by the SUMC Project
sponsors if contamination is encountered during
construction.
discovered during
construction at 703
Welch
.
Signature Date
HM-3.3 Conduct a Soil Excavation Program at the
Hoover Pavilion Site. A qualified consultant, under the
SUMC Project sponsors’ direction, shall undertake the
following activities:
Remove all buried underground storage tanks from
the property after sheds and storage buildings on the
Hoover Pavilion Site have been demolished;
To the extent necessary, additional soil sampling
shall be collected to determine health risks and to
develop disposal criteria;
If warranted based on soil sampling, contaminated
soil shall be excavated, removed, and transported to
an approved disposal facility in compliance with
OSHA requirements;
To the extent required based upon the results of soil
sampling and the results of a health risk assessment,
a Site Health and Safety Plan to ensure worker
safety in compliance with OSHA requirements shall
be developed by the Project sponsors, and in places
prior to commencing work on any contaminated
site; and
The SUMC Project sponsors shall submit
documents to the County DEH to proceed with
closure of the Hoover Pavilion Site.
Verify that SUMC
Project sponsors have
removed buried
underground storage
tanks and conducted
soil sampling, if
necessary
Verify that SUMC
Project sponsors have
prepared a site health
and safety plan, if
warranted
Verify that SUMC
Project sponsors have
submitted closure
documents to County
DEH
Compliance monitoring
City of Palo Alto
Fire Department
As necessary Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 57
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
HM-3.4 Develop a Site Management Plan for the
Hoover Pavilion Site. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
prepare a site remediation assessment that (a) specifies
measures to protect workers and the public from
exposure to potential site hazards, including hazards
from remediation itself, and (b) certifies that the
proposed remediation measures would clean up
contaminants, dispose of the wastes, and protect public
health in accordance with federal, State, and local
requirements. Site excavation activities shall not proceed
until the site remediation has been approved by the
County DEH and implemented by the SUMC Project
sponsors. Additionally, the site remediation assessment
shall be subject to review and approval by the San
Francisco Bay RWQCB. All appropriate agencies shall
be notified.
Verify that SUMC
Project sponsors have
prepared and submitted
a site management plan
to County DEH
.
City of Palo Alto
Fire Department
Prior to excavation at
the Hoover site
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project would result in construction of facilities on a site included on the Cortese List. (HM-7)
See Mitigation Measures HM-3.3 and HM-3.4.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. (HM-10)
See Mitigation Measures HM-10.1, TR-1.1, TR-1.4 through TR-1.6, TR-1.8, and TR-9.1.
HM-10.1 Coordinate Construction Activities with the
City of Palo Alto. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
provide to the City planned construction routes, roadway
closures, and access and closures schedules. This
information shall be provided to the City at least two
weeks in advance of the planned access and closures.
The City shall coordinate this information among
affected emergency service providers, including the
City’s Fire and Police Departments, and private
ambulance services, so that alternative routes could be
planned and announced prior to the scheduled access and
closures, as deemed necessary by the City.
Coordinate SUMC
Project information on
planned construction
routes, and roadway
closures to affected
emergency service
providers
City of Palo Alto
Fire Department
and Department
of Planning and
Community
Environment,
and Public
Works
Department
At least two weeks
prior to scheduled
roadways closures
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 58
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project and adjacent development could result in cumulative release of hazardous materials during construction, a significant
cumulative impact. The SUMC Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact would be considerable. (HM-12)
See Mitigation Measure HM-2.1.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project and adjacent development could result in cumulative disturbance of contaminated soils, release of hazardous materials
during construction, a significant cumulative impact. The SUMC Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact would be considerable. (HM-13)
See Mitigation Measures HM-3.1, HM-3.2, HM-3.3, and HM-3.4.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Cumulative development could impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The
SUMC Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact would be considerable. (HM-15)
See Mitigation Measures HM-10.1, TR-1.1, TR-1.4 through TR-1.6, and TR-1.8.
Not Yet Approved
Resolution No. _______
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Amending Program L-3, Policy L-8 and Map L-6 of the
Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto is in the process of updating its Comprehensive
Plan;
WHEREAS, State law imposes strict deadlines to bring non-compliant hospitals
up to current seismic standards;
WHEREAS, Stanford University has applied for certain entitlements that will
require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan;
WHEREAS, the City desires to make discreet amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan in advance of the pending update in order to expedite the proposed project so that Stanford
University can comply with the State seismic requirements;
WHEREAS, while the Comprehensive Plan recognizes Palo Alto’s historic
preference for a 50-foot building height limit, it also recognizes that there may be extenuating
circumstances for varying from this preference in very limited circumstances;
WHEREAS, the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and
Replacement Environmental Impact Report certified by the City Council in June 6, 2011 (SUMC
EIR) carefully analyzed the impact of taller buildings in the Hospital District and concluded that
the Architectural Review process would mitigate visual impacts associated with the proposed
taller buildings in the Hospital District identified in the SUMC EIR;;
WHEREAS, permitting taller buildings in the Hospital District would permit the
provision of more open space and result in the preservation of more trees;
WHEREAS, the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study referenced
specific area caps in order to ensure that traffic would not exceed the levels anticipated in the
Study’s horizon year;
WHEREAS, a detailed Traffic Study was conducted by AECOM in March 2010
in connection with the SUMC EIR;
WHEREAS, the Traffic Study showed that with mitigation the SUMC renovation
and expansion project would not result in significant traffic impacts in Planning Area 9 nor
would the project result in traffic impacts to any of the 11 intersections identified in the 1989
Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study;
WHEREAS, other similarly situated medical facilities, such as the Palo Alto
Medical Foundation and the Veterans Administration Hospital are exempt from monitoring;
1
100720 jb 0130753
Not Yet Approved
WHEREAS, the Council desires to amend the Comprehensive Plan to clarify that
taller buildings would be permitted in the Hospital District to reflect the Stanford University’s
Medical Center’s unique needs;
WHEREAS, the Council further desires to amend the Comprehensive Plan to
clarify that hospital, clinic and medical school uses in the Hospital District are not intended to be
treated as “non-residential development” for purposes of policy L-8;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Transportation Commission, after duly noticed
public hearings on May 11 and May 18, 2011 recommended that the City Council amend the
Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below; and
WHEREAS, upon consideration of said recommendation after a duly noticed
public hearing held on June 6, 2011, the Council desires to amend the Comprehensive Plan as set
forth below;
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and
welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region would be furthered by an amendment of the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below.
SECTION 2. Program L-3 of the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to read
as follows:
1. Program L-3
Maintain and periodically review height and density limits to discourage single
uses that are inappropriate in size and scale to the surrounding uses.
The Citywide 50-foot height limit has been respected in all new development since it was
adopted in the 1970’s. Only a few exceptions have been granted for architectural enhancements
or seismic retrofits to noncomplying buildings. In addition, the City has allowed taller buildings
within the Hospital District at the Stanford University Medical Center that reflect the Medical
Center’s unique needs.
SECTION 3. Policy L-8 of the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to read
as follows:
1. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-8:
Maintain a limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new non-residential
development for the nine planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide
Land Use and Transportation Study, with the understanding that the City
Council may make modifications for specific properties that allow modest
additional growth. Such additional growth will count towards the 3,257,900
maximum. Stanford University Medical Center hospital, clinic and medical
2
100720 jb 0130753
Not Yet Approved
school uses are exempt from monitoring; thus, additional growth in areas
zoned “Hospital District” is exempt from this policy.
Not only will the area devoted to urban development remain constant, but new non-residential
growth from 1989 forward will be limited to just over 3.25 million square feet. The total non-
residential development in the city in 1996 is in the range of 25 million square feet. This amount
of growth was determined by the Citywide 1989 Land Use and Transportation Study and was
largely implemented through commercial downzoning. This growth limit will be observed
citywide for the term of this Plan. Traffic will be monitored to ensure that the intent of the limit
is being achieved, though it is recognized that traffic counts are affected by both residential and
non-residential growth and also by auto use behavior. Any uses identified in Map L-6 as exempt
from monitoring shall not count towards the area specific or citywide caps.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby amends Map L-6 Commercial Growth
Monitoring Areas from Citywide Study to clarify that hospital facilities within the HD Zone are
not monitored. A revised Map L-6 is attached as Exhibit “A” to this resolution and incorporated
into it by this reference.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the land use designation of the area depicted in Exhibit B
and commonly referred to as 701 and 703 Welch Road from Research/Office Park to Major
Institution/Special Facilities and by designating the area depicted in Exhibit C, which parcel is
currently located in the County of Santa Clara but subject of a pending annexation request by the
City of Palo Alto, as Major Institution/Special Facilities. Exhibits B and C are attached to this
resolution and incorporated into it by this reference.
SECTION 6. The City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report in
connection with this project on June 6, 2011.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
Senior Assistant City Attorney
3
100720 jb 0130753
Not Yet Approved
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
4
100720 jb 0130753
Not Yet Approved
5
100720 jb 0130753
Attachment A
** Not Yet Approved **
Ordinance No. ______
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding
Section 8.10.95 (Tree Removal in HD Zone) to Chapter 8.10
(Tree Preservation and Management Regulations) of Title 8
(Trees and Vegetation) and Amending Section 16.20.160(a)(1)
(Special Purpose Signs) of Chapter 16.20 (Signs) of Title 16
(Building Regulations) and Amending Section 18.08.010
(Designation of General Districts) and Section 18.08.040 to
Chapter 18.08 (Designation and Establishment of Districts) and
Adding Chapter 18.36 (Hospital (HD) District) to Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows:
(a) Stanford Hospital and Clinics (“SHC”), Lucile Salter Packard Children’s
Hospital at Stanford (“LPCH”) and Stanford University School of Medicine (“SoM”) operate
existing Stanford University Medical Center (“SUMC”) facilities within the City of Palo Alto on
two sites that are collectively approximately 66 acres: the approximately 56-acre Main SUMC
Site and the approximately 9.9-acre Hoover Pavilion Site. The two sites collectively are referred
to in this zoning ordinance as the SUMC Sites. The Main SUMC Site is primarily bounded by
Welch Road, Quarry Road, and Stanford University lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County.
The Hoover Pavilion Site is located south and east of the corner of Quarry Road and Palo Road.
The boundaries of the SUMC Sites are shown on Exhibit A to this zoning ordinance.
(b) SHC, LPCH and SoM have applied for a Zone Change, Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Environmental Assessment, Architectural Review, Annexation and a Development
Agreement for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement
Project (“Project” or “SUMC Project”), including the demolition, renovation, and replacement of
on-site structures, thereby adding approximately 1.3 million square feet of net new floor area.
(c) Following staff review and preparation of the Environmental Impact Report
for the SUMC Project, the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the
Project, including this zoning ordinance, and recommended approval on May 11, 2011. The
Commission’s recommendations are contained in Attachment L.
(d) On June 6, 2011, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report
for the SUMC Project, adopted the findings required by the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
(e) Section 8.80.010 of Chapter 8.80 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
allows the City to amend Title 18 by changing the boundaries of districts, or by changing the
regulations applicable within one or more districts, or by changing any other provision of Title
18, whenever the public interest or general welfare may so require. The amendments to Title 18
specified in this ordinance are necessary to carry out the SUMC Project, which will benefit the
110503 jb 0130717 1
** Not Yet Approved **
110503 jb 0130717 2
public interest and general welfare. The Stanford University Medical Center is recognized as a
global leader in medical care and research, having pioneered advancements in transplantation
medicine, cancer care, prenatal diagnosis and treatment, and diabetes and cholesterol treatments.
In 2009, the SHC and LPCH served 64 percent of Palo Alto residents who required
hospitalization. The Project will enable the SHC, LPCH and SoM to continue this important
work, and the addition of more beds for adults and children will alleviate overcrowding and
allow the hospitals to serve patients who currently must be turned away. The hospitals also
provide the only Level 1 Trauma Center between San Francisco and San Jose. The Trauma
Center and the Emergency Department ensure critical community emergency preparedness and
response resources for the community in the event of an earthquake, pandemic, or other major
disaster.
SECTION 2. Section 8.10.95 of Chapter 8.10 of Title 8 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows:
“8.10.95 Tree Removal in HD Zone
Tree removal and relocation in the HD shall be subject to the provisions in Section
18.36.070. To the extent Section 18.36.070 is inconsistent with this Chapter, Section 18.36.070
shall control.”
SECTION 3 The following amendments are made to Chapter 16.20 of Title 16 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code in order to address maximum sign size and location in the HD.
a. Section 16.20.120(a) (Freestanding signs) is hereby amended to read as follows:
“(a) Freestanding Signs Over Five Feet. Freestanding signs over five feet in height
shall be permitted only on nonresidential properties in the Hospital Zone, GM zones and on El
Camino Real in the CN and CS zones and for service stations, restaurants and shopping centers
elsewhere.”
b. Section 16.20.160(a)(1) is hereby amended to read as follows:
“(1) Directory Signs. In all districts where group occupancies in office buildings are
permitted, directory signs may be erected displaying the names of the occupants of a building
who are engaged in a particular profession, business or the like. Such signs shall be situated at
least two feet inside the property line and shall not exceed eight feet in height. Such signs may
have an area of four square feet, plus one and one-half square feet per name, in no event to
exceed seventy-five square feet. In the HD district, Directory and Directional signs may be up to
12 feet in height, thirty square feet in area, and located no less than two feet from the nearest
public right-of-way unless an alternative location is approved by the Planning Director.”
c. Section 16.20.270, Table 1, first note, is hereby amended to read as follows:
“This Table is to be used in all Zoning Districts except for the GM zones, the
Hospital District, and for El Camino frontages of CN and CS zoned properties.”
d. Section 16.20.270, Table 2, first note, is hereby amended to add the following:
“For requirements in the HD district, see Section 16.20.160(a)(1).”
** Not Yet Approved **
110503 jb 0130717 3
SECTION 4. Section 18.08.010 (Designation of General Districts) of Chapter
18.08 (Designation and Establishment of Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to read as
follows:
Map Designation Zoning District Name Chapter Number
R-E Residential estate district 18.10
R-2 Two-family residence district 18.10
RMD Two unit multiple-family residence district 18.10
R-1 Single-family residence district 18.12
RM-15 Low density multiple-family residence district 18.13
RM-30 Medium density multiple-family residence district 18.13
RM-40 High density multiple-family residence district 18.13
CN Neighborhood commercial district 18.16
CC Community commercial district 18.16
CS Service commercial district 18.16
CD Downtown commercial district 18.18
MOR Medical office and medical research district 18.20
ROLM Research, office and limited manufacturing district 18.20
RP Research park district 18.20
GM General manufacturing district 18.20
PF Public facilities district 18.28
OS Open space district 18.28
AC Agricultural conservation district 18.28
PC Planned community district 18.38
HD Hospital district 18.36
SECTION 5. Section 18.08.040 (Zoning Map and District Boundaries) of
Chapter 18.08 (Designation and Establishment of Districts) of Title 18 (Zoning) is amended to
include the HD district on the Zoning Map.
SECTION 6. The following amendments are made to Chapter 18.28 of Title 18
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in order to remove references to the Stanford Hoover Pavilion
Site from the provisions governing the Public Facilities (PF) District:
a. Section 18.28.02(h) (defining the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site) is hereby
deleted.
b. Section 18.28.050 (Site Development Standards), Table 2, footnote 3 is hereby
amended to read: “(3) Provided that, for parking facilities, the maximum floor area ratio and site
coverage shall be equal to the floor area ratio and site coverage established by the most
restrictive adjacent district, and provided, further, that the maximum floor area ratio for the
Stanford Hoover Pavilion Site shall be .25:1.”
** Not Yet Approved **
110503 jb 0130717 4
SECTION 7. Chapter 18.36 of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
hereby added to read as follows:
“Chapter 18.36
HOSPITAL (HD) DISTRICT
Sections:
18.36.010 Purposes
18.36.020 Applicable Regulations
18.36.030 Definitions
18.36.040 Land Uses
18.36.050 Development Standards
18.36.060 Parking and Loading
18.36.070 Tree Preservation
18.36.080 Signs
18.36.090 Historical Review
18.36.100 Architectural Review
18.36.110 Grandfathered Uses
18.36.120 Consistency with Development Agreement
18.36.010 Purposes
The Hospital (HD) district is designed to accommodate medical and educational uses including
the Stanford Hospital and Clinics (SHC), Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (LPCH), medical,
office, research, clinic and administrative facilities at the Stanford Hoover Pavilion Site, and
School of Medicine (SoM) buildings in a manner that balances the needs of hospital, clinic,
medical office and research uses with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding areas and
neighborhoods.
18.36.020 Applicable Regulations
The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures established
by this title shall apply to all Hospital Districts.
18.36.030 Definitions
For the purposes of this section, the following terms are defined:
(a) The “Main SUMC” site is defined as all properties zoned HD bounded by Welch Road,
Pasteur Drive and Quarry Road and is comprised of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 142-23-
003, 142-23-004, 142-08-005, 142-23-006, 142-23-007, 142-23-010, 143-23-012, 142-23-
016, 142-23-017, 142-23-018, 142-23-019, 142-23-024, 142-23-025.
(b) The “Stanford Hoover Pavilion” site is defined as all properties zoned HD bounded by
Quarry Road and Palo Road and is comprised of Assessor's Parcel numbers, 142-04-011
and 142-04-019.
** Not Yet Approved **
110503 jb 0130717 5
18.36.040 Land Uses
The uses of land allowed by this chapter in the HD district are identified in the following table.
Land uses that are not listed on the table are not allowed, except where otherwise noted.
Permitted and conditionally permitted land uses for the HD district are shown in Table 1:
Table 1: HD Permitted and Conditional Uses
LAND USE HD Subject to
Regulations in:
ACCESSORY AND SUPPORT USES
Accessory facilities and activities customarily associated with or
essential to permitted uses, and operated incidental to the principal use P
Eating and drinking services in conjunction with a permitted use P
Retail services in conjunction with a permitted use P
Ch. 18.40,18.42
EDUCATIONAL, RELIGIOUS, AND ASSEMBLY USES
Churches and religious institutions P
Public or private colleges and universities and facilities appurtenant
thereto CUP
HEALTH CARE SERVICES
Ambulance services CUP
Convalescent Facilities CUP
Hospitals CUP
Medical Office CUP
Medical Research CUP
Medical Support Retail P
Medical Support Services P
OTHER USES
Other uses which, in the opinion of the director, are similar to those
listed as permitted or conditionally permitted uses P, CUP
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC FACILITY USES
All facilities owned or leased, and operated or used, by the City of
Palo Alto, the County of Santa Clara, the State of California, the
government of the United States, the Palo Alto Unified School District,
or any other governmental agency
P
Community Centers CUP
Utility Facilities essential to provision of utility services but excluding
construction/storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation
yards.
CUP
SERVICE USES
Day Care Centers CUP
Hotels providing not more than 10% of rooms with kitchens CUP
TRANSPORTATION USES
Helipads and Helicopter uses CUP
Transit stops and shelters P
** Not Yet Approved **
110503 jb 0130717 6
LAND USE HD Subject to
Regulations in:
Parking Facilities CUP
TEMPORARY USES
Farmers markets P
Temporary parking facilities, provided such facilities shall remain no
more than five years P
18.36.050 Development Standards
(a) Development Standards
Table 2 specifies the development standards for structures in the HD district.
Table 2: Development Standards
HD
Subject to
regulations in
Section (7):
Minimum Site Area No standards
Minimum Site Width No standards
Minimum Site Depth No standards
Minimum Street Setbacks 10 ft (1)
Maximum Site Coverage 40% (2)(4) 18.04.030(a)(86)
Maximum Height (ft) 130 ft (5) 18.04.030(a)(67);
18.40.090
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.5 to 1 (3)(6) 18.04.030(a)(57)
(1) Measured from the right-of-way line of any public street to the base of the buildings and not including any
awnings or other projections. This setback requirement does not apply to below-grade parking facilities or
portions of buildings that bridge a street. This setback requirement also does not apply to any portion of a lot or
site that does not abut a public street.
(2) Site coverage is calculated based upon the total contiguous area within this zone (Main SUMC site or the
Stanford Hoover Pavilion site), rather than on a parcel-by-parcel basis.
(3) FAR is calculated based up on the total contiguous area within this zone (Main SUMC site or the Stanford
Hoover Pavilion site), rather than on a parcel-by-parcel basis.
(4) The maximum site coverage for the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site shall be 30 percent.
(5) The maximum height for new construction at the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site shall be 60 ft.
(6) The maximum floor area ratio for the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site shall be 0.5 to 1.
(7) The regulations referenced in this table apply except as revised in this chapter.
(b) Floor Area Ratio
Except as provided in this section, floor area ratio shall be defined in accord with Chapter 18.04
of the Zoning Ordinance. All areas used to enclose service and mechanical equipment, whether
on rooftops, basements, interstitial space, or other interior areas, shall be excluded from floor
area calculations. All parking facilities also shall be excluded from floor area calculations.
** Not Yet Approved **
110503 jb 0130717 7
(c) Lot Coverage
Except as provided in this section, lot coverage shall be defined in accord with Chapter 18.04 of
the Zoning Ordinance. Parking facilities shall be excluded from lot coverage.
(d) Height and Grade
(1) Except as provided in this section, building height shall be defined in accord with
Chapters 18.04 and 18.40.090 of the Zoning Ordinance. Helicopter pads on top of
the buildings, rooftop mechanical equipment and associated screens, cryogen
vents, grease hoods, wind or solar energy equipment, and elevator shafts/
overruns shall be excluded from building height calculations, but shall be subject
to architectural review as required in Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
(2) Grade shall be measured in accord with Chapter 18.04 of the Zoning Ordinance.
(e) Street Setbacks
Except as provided in this section, setbacks shall be defined in accord with Chapter 18.04 of the
Zoning Ordinance. In the HD district, setbacks from public streets shall be defined as the area
between the right of way line of any public street to the base of the building, and not including
any awnings or other projections. Setback requirements do not apply to any below grade parking
facilities or portions of buildings that bridge a street. Setback requirements also do not apply to
any portion of a lot or site that does not abut a public street. No setback requirements other than
street setback requirements apply in the HD district.
(f) Recycling Storage
All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor
area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures
for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and
accessibility of exterior recycling areas and exterior enclosures shall be subject to
recommendation by the architectural review board, and approval by the director of planning and
community environment, in accordance with Section 18.76.020 of the Zoning Ordinance.
(g) Employee Shower Facilities
Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any
addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 3.
Table 3: Employee Showers Required
Uses Gross Floor Area of New
Construction (ft2) Showers Required
0 - 9,999 No requirement
10,000 – 19,999 1
20,000 – 49,999 2
All government or special district
facilities designed for employee
occupancy, colleges and
universities, private educational
facilities, business and trade
schools and similar uses 50,000 and up 4
** Not Yet Approved **
110503 jb 0130717 8
18.36.060 Parking and Loading
(a) Except as provided in this section, off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required
for all permitted and conditional uses in accord with Chapter 18.52 and 18.54 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Except as provided in this section, all parking and loading facilities on
any site, whether required as minimums or optionally provided in addition to minimum
requirements, shall comply with regulations and the design standards established by
Chapters 18.52 and 18.54 of the Zoning Ordinance.
(b) Parking requirements in the HD district will be performance-based, as established by the
applicable conditional use permit. Parking shall be provided to meet projected needs, with
consideration given to the potential for reduced parking demand due to the proximity of
the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station (PAITS) and demonstrated effective
transportation demand management (TDM) programs.
(c) The following parking improvements shall be exempt from the parking landscape
requirements of Section 18.54.040:
(1) All structured parking facilities;
(2) Restriping of existing surface parking facilities and other improvements to surface
parking facilities that do not materially alter the existing conditions; and
(3) Parking or loading areas identified for use in the event of emergency or mass
population events such as earthquakes, pandemics, or human-made
biological/chemical exposure.
(d) Valet parking facilities shall be exempt from the requirements of Sections 18.54.030 and
18.54.040(c).
(e) For the purposes of calculating shading percentage pursuant to Section 18.54.040(d):
(1) Shade structures may be utilized in lieu of trees;
(2) The canopies of Protected Trees (as defined by Section 8.10.020(j)) transplanted
on the Site will count as double the actual tree canopy; and
(3) Valet parking facilities may be designed to achieve 25 percent shading (rather
than 50 percent shading).
18.36.070 Tree Preservation
(a) Applicability
(1) Except as provided in this section, development in the HD district shall comply
with Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management
Regulations), and the City Tree Technical Manual.
(2) No Protected tree (as defined by Section 8.10.020 (j)), shall be removed or
relocated until the Director of Planning and Community Environment
(“Director”), in consultation with the City Arborist, has determined whether the
** Not Yet Approved **
110503 jb 0130717 9
Protected tree meets the standards of Group 1 or Group 2 Trees, as defined below,
and the applicable Protected Tree Removal Permit or Protected Tree Relocation
Permit has been obtained. The City’s determination whether a Protected Tree
meets the standards of Group 1 or Group 2 Trees shall be valid for a period of ten
years following the date of such determination.
(3) For the purposes of this Chapter, “Biological tree resources” shall have the same
meaning as “Protected trees” as defined in Section 8.10.020 (j).
(4) For the purposes of this Chapter, “Biological and Aesthetic tree resources” shall
consist of those trees that are both Biological tree resources and that have been
designated as Group 1 Trees by the Director in consultation with the City Arborist
based on a finding that the tree possesses at least one of the following
characteristics:
(i) Functions as an important or prominent visual feature relating to
the existing area, proposed conditions, pedestrian or vehicular
thoroughfares;
(ii) Contributes to a larger grove or shared canopy, landscape theme or
otherwise provides important visual balance to existing buildings,
trees or streetscape; or
(iii) Possesses unique character as defined in the designation of
Heritage Trees, (Section 8.10.090) such as, an outstanding
specimen of a desirable species, distinctive in form, size, age,
location or historical significance.
(5) Within the HD district, Protected trees fall into one of the following categories:
(i) Group 1 Trees: Biological and Aesthetic tree resources which are
identified in Table 4. If a Protected tree is not listed in Table 4, or
if more than ten years have elapsed since the City’s determination
whether the tree is a Group 1 Tree, the Director shall determine
whether the tree meets the definition of Section 18.36.070(a)(3),
above prior to issuance of any permit to remove or relocate the
tree;
(ii) Group 2 Trees: Biological tree resources that are identified in
Table 4. If a Protected tree is not listed in Table 4, or if more than
ten years have elapsed since the City’s determination whether the
tree is a Group 2 Tree, the Director shall determine whether the
tree meets the definition of Section 18.36.070(a)(2), above prior to
issuance of any permit to remove or relocate the tree.
** Not Yet Approved **
110503 jb 0130717 10
Table 4: Protected Tree Groups
Tree Group Tree Tag Number (from SUMC FEIR) Tree Location
33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 Kaplan Lawn
317, 318, 319, 320, 322, 323*, 324* FIM 1
1
608, 996* Welch Road
325, 326, 327, 328 FIM 1
333, 373, 374, 375, 383, 387, 388, 410, 425, 428,
433, 436, 438, 439, 440, 441, 448, 450, 478, 479,
538, 544
SHC
887, 960, 961, 966, 967, 968, 969, 970, 1010, 1011,
1016, 1017, 1092, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1102, 1103,
1104, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1111, 1119, 1170, 1172,
1174, 1175, 1176, 1177
LPCH
2
1349, 1350, 1351, 1352, 1365,1366, 1388, 1389,
1390, 1391, 1393, 1399, 1400, 1420, 1435, 1438,
1439, 1442, 1469, 1481, 1483, 1485, 1500, 1503,
1506
Hoover
*Trees to be relocated.
(b) Preservation. Notwithstanding Chapter 8.10, Group 1 Trees shall not be removed unless
they meet the standard in Section 8.10.050(a). Authorized relocation of Group 1 Trees
shall not constitute removal.
(c) Relocation. Notwithstanding Chapter 8.10, Group 1 and Group 2 Trees may be relocated
upon issuance of a Protected Tree Relocation Permit from the Director in consultation with
the City Arborist. For purposes of this section, authorized relocation of Group 1 and 2
Trees shall not constitute removal. The requirements for a Protected Tree Relocation
Permit shall be as follow:
(1) The applicant shall submit a proposed Tree Relocation and Maintenance Plan
(TRMP) that (i) evaluates the feasibility of moving the tree to another location on
or near the development site; and (ii) identifies the actions to be taken to increase
the likelihood that relocation is successful including the following information:
pre-relocation irrigation, relocation procedures, monitoring inspections, and post-
relocation tree irrigation and maintenance.
(2) If the Director determines the proposed relocation is feasible, the Director shall
issue a Protected Tree Relocation Permit requiring the following:
(i) The Protected Tree Relocation Permit shall specify the actions
required to increase the likelihood that relocation is successful.
(ii) Location of relocated trees is subject to review and approval by the
Director in consultation with the City Arborist.
(iii) If the relocated tree does not survive after a period of five years,
the relocated tree shall be replaced with a tree or a combination of
trees and Tree Value Standards consistent with Section 3.20,
** Not Yet Approved **
110503 jb 0130717 11
Table 3-1 Tree Canopy Replacement, of the Tree Technical
Manual. If, after relocation, a relocated tree is disfigured, leaning
with supports needed, or in decline with a dead top or dieback of
more then 25 percent, the tree shall be considered a total loss and
replaced as described in this subsection.
(iv) The applicant shall provide a security guarantee for relocated trees,
as determined by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment, in consultation with the City Arborist, in an amount
consistent with the Tree Technical Manual.
(d) Removal of Group 2 Trees. Notwithstanding Chapter 8.10, removal of Group 2 Trees
shall be allowed in the HD district, upon issuance of a Protected Tree Removal Permit from
the Director in consultation with the City Arborist. The requirements for a Protected Tree
Removal Permit shall be as follows:
(1) Group 2 Trees that are removed without being relocated shall be replaced in
accordance with the ratios set forth in Table 3-1 of the City of Palo Alto Tree
Technical Manual in the following way:
(i) The Protected Tree Removal Permit issued shall stipulate the tree
replacement requirements for the removed tree, including number
of trees, size, location, and irrigation. The number and size of trees
required for replacement shall be calculated in accordance with
Table 3-1 of the Tree Technical Manual.
(ii) The difference between the required tree replacement and the
number of trees that cannot be feasibly planted on site shall be
mitigated through contribution to the City of Palo Alto Forestry
Fund as provided in Section 3.15 of the Tree Technical Manual.
Payment to the Forestry Fund would be in the amount representing
the fair market value, as described in Section 3.25 of the Tree
Technical Manual, of the replacement trees that cannot be feasibly
planted on site.
(2) Location of replacement trees is subject to review and approval by the Director in
consultation with the City Arborist.
(e) Appeal. Any person seeking the Director's classification of Group 1 or 2 Trees, or seeking
the approval to remove or relocate a Protected tree pursuant to this Chapter who is
aggrieved by a decision of the Director may appeal such decision in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Chapter 18.78 (Appeals).
18.36.080 Signs
Signs within the HD district shall comply with Chapter 16.20, except as follows: The
requirements for Directory Signs and Directional Signs set forth in Section 16.20.160 are
modified to allow such Directory and Directional signs to be up to 12 feet in height, thirty square
feet in area, and located no less than two feet from the nearest public right-of-way unless an
alternative location is approved by the Planning Director.
** Not Yet Approved **
110503 jb 0130717 12
18.36.090 Historic Review
Any exterior alterations to the Stanford Hoover Pavilion and any new construction on the
Stanford Hoover Pavilion site shall be provided to the Historic Resources Commission for
comment prior to final review by the Architectural Review Board. In reviewing any new
construction on the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site the prime concern of the Historic Review
Board shall be to ensure that the new construction is differentiated from the old and is
compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic
integrity of the Hoover Pavilion building and site.
18.36.100 Architectural Review
Architectural review, as required in Chapters 18.76 and 18.77 of the Zoning Ordinance, is
required prior to the issuance of any building permit in the HD district. Architectural review for
landscape and design features linking building areas within the HD district may be implemented
through approval of Design Guidelines, which may be modified in the same manner as other
architectural review approvals. Directory Signs, Construction Project Signs, and Directional
Signs consistent with the area and location regulations set forth in Section 16.20.160 (as
modified by Section 18.36.080) and temporary, unsecured pedestrian amenities such as café
seating and furniture are exempt from Architectural review.
18.36.110 Grandfathered Uses
(a) Applicability
(1) Except as provided in this section, nonconforming uses and noncomplying
facilities are governed by Chapter 18.70 of the Zoning Ordinance.
(2) Any use allowed as a conditional use but legally existing as a permitted use prior
to the effective date of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance modifying the
allowable uses in the HD district shall be considered a conforming use, except
that a conditional use permit shall be required if the use is expanded as outlined in
Section 18.70.020.
18.36.120 Consistency with Development Agreement
It is the intent of the City Council that the provisions of this Chapter 18.36 be interpreted
consistent with the terms of the Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and
Stanford University approved and adopted by Ordinance No. XXXX.
SECTION 8. The EIR for this project was certified by the City Council on XX.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
** Not Yet Approved **
110503 jb 0130717 13
SECTION 9. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the
date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
Not Yet Approved
1
110601 jb 0130722
Ordinance No. ________
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving a
Development Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and
Stanford Hospital and Clinics; Lucile Salter Packard
Children’s Hospital at Stanford; and the Board of Trustees of
the Leland Stanford Junior University
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
A. Stanford Hospital and Clinics, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation
(“SHC”), Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, a California nonprofit public
benefit corporation (“LPCH”), and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior
University, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California
(“University,” and together with SHC and LPCH, collectively, the “SUMC Parties”) intend to
replace, retrofit and enhance their facilities in the City of Palo Alto. In conjunction with certain
state-mandated retrofit and replacement work, the SUMC Parties also intend to expand their
hospital, clinic and medical office facilities to meet patient demand. To facilitate this, the SUMC
Parties have applied to the City of Palo Alto (“City”) for a development agreement pursuant to
Sections 65864-65869.5 of the California Government Code and the City’s Resolution No. 6597
(“Agreement”). Pursuant to this Agreement, the SUMC Parties would provide certain
community benefits and voluntary mitigation measures.
B. In exchange for these community benefits and voluntary mitigation measures,
and in recognition of the substantial public benefits provided by the SUMC Parties’ facilities and
operations, the City would vest for a period of thirty (30) years the SUMC Parties’ rights to
develop and use their facilities in Palo Alto in accordance with the Project Approvals, and would
streamline the process for obtaining Subsequent Approvals, as described in the Agreement.
C. Under the terms of the Agreement, the parties have the right to unilaterally
terminate this Agreement, if this ordinance is subject to a referendum or if litigation is
commenced seeking to rescind the Project Approvals or the City’s decision to enter into this
Agreement within one year from the date of the filing of the Notice of Determination.
SECTION 2. Findings.
The City Council finds and determines that:
A. Notice of intention to consider the development agreement has been given
pursuant to Government Code section 65867.
Not Yet Approved
2
110601 jb 0130722
B. The City’s Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council have
given notice of intention to consider this Agreement, have conducted public hearings thereon
pursuant to Government Code section 65867 and City’s Resolution No. 6597, and the City
Council has found that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with City’s
Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
C. The City has prepared and certified an EIR and has imposed mitigation measures
as Conditions of Approval prior to the execution of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement
between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford Hospital and Clinics, a California nonprofit public
benefit corporation (“SHC”), Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, a California
nonprofit public benefit corporation (“LPCH”), and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford
Junior University, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and authorizes the Mayor to
execute the Agreement on behalf of the City.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of the development
agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder not later than ten (10) days after it becomes
effective.
SECTION 5. The City Council adopts this ordinance in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) findings adopted by Resolution No. _______.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Not Yet Approved
3
110601 jb 0130722
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31st) day
after its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
__________________________ __________________________
City Clerk Mayor
__________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager
__________________________ __________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of Planning and Community
Environment
110520 jb 0130741
DRAFT
5/24/11
This document is recorded
for the benefit of the City
of Palo Alto and is entitled
to be recorded free of charge
in accordance with Section 6103
of the Government Code.
After Recordation, mail to:
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Between
CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city
and
STANFORD HOSPITAL AND CLINICS,
a California nonprofit public benefit corporation,
LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD,
a California nonprofit public benefit corporation,
and
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR
UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of
California
i of v
110520 jb 0130741
TABLE OF CONTENTS
R E C I T A L S ...................................................................................................... 1
A. Definitions................................................................................................... 1
B. Outline of Terms......................................................................................... 1
C. Nature and Purpose of Development Agreements...................................... 2
D. Authority for City Development Agreements............................................. 2
E. Comprehensive Plan................................................................................... 2
F. Property Interests........................................................................................ 2
G. Seismic Safety Requirements ..................................................................... 2
H. Seismic Safety Project Components........................................................... 3
I. Project Purposes.......................................................................................... 3
J. Project Approvals........................................................................................ 3
K. Compliance with City Requirements.......................................................... 3
L. Binding Future Actions............................................................................... 4
M. Elimination of Uncertainty ......................................................................... 4
N. Orderly Development.................................................................................. 4
O. Nature of Recitals ....................................................................................... 4
1. Definitions................................................................................................... 5
(a) Annual Payment.............................................................................. 5
(b) Applicable Rules............................................................................. 5
(c) Architectural Review Approval...................................................... 5
(d) City.................................................................................................. 5
(e) Comprehensive Plan....................................................................... 5
(f) Conditions of Approval................................................................... 5
(g) Construction Period. ....................................................................... 5
(h) County Property.............................................................................. 6
(i) Days................................................................................................ 6
(j) Design Guidelines........................................................................... 6
(k) Development Agreement Act. ........................................................ 6
(l) Development Impact Fees............................................................... 6
(m) Discretionary Action and Discretionary Approval......................... 6
(n) Effective Date................................................................................. 7
(o) Hospital Foundation Permit............................................................ 7
(p) Hospital Occupancy Permit............................................................ 7
(q) Hospitals. ........................................................................................ 7
(r) Hospital Zoning Ordinance............................................................. 7
(s) HSSA.............................................................................................. 7
(t) Initial Payment Date. ...................................................................... 8
(u) Initial Project Approvals................................................................. 8
(v) Life Of The Project......................................................................... 8
(w) LPCH.............................................................................................. 8
(x) Mortgage......................................................................................... 8
(y) Mortgagee....................................................................................... 8
110520 jb 0130741 ii of v
(z) Net New Square Footage................................................................ 8
(aa) Occupancy Permit........................................................................... 9
(bb) OSHPD. .......................................................................................... 9
(cc) Party................................................................................................ 9
(dd) Project............................................................................................. 9
(ee) Project Approvals.......................................................................... 10
(ff) Property......................................................................................... 10
(gg) SB 1953......................................................................................... 10
(hh) SHC............................................................................................... 10
(ii) School of Medicine....................................................................... 10
(jj) Subsequent Applicable Rules. ...................................................... 10
(kk) Subsequent Approvals. ................................................................. 11
(ll) Subsequent Rules.......................................................................... 11
(mm) SUMC........................................................................................... 11
(nn) SUMC Parties............................................................................... 11
(oo) Term.............................................................................................. 11
(pp) University...................................................................................... 11
(qq) Vested Right.................................................................................. 11
(rr) Zoning Ordinance......................................................................... 11
2. Interest of the SUMC Parties.................................................................... 11
3. Binding Effect........................................................................................... 12
4. Negation of Agency.................................................................................. 12
5. SUMC Parties’ Promises.......................................................................... 12
(a) Health Care Benefits..................................................................... 12
(i) Summary of Intrinsic Benefits.......................................... 12
(ii) Fund for Healthcare Services............................................ 13
(iii) Fund for Community Health and Safety Programs........... 13
(b) Palo Alto Fiscal Benefits. ............................................................. 14
(i) Payment of Sales and Use Taxes...................................... 14
The SUMC Parties shall use their best efforts to maximize the
City’s allocation of sales and use taxes associated with Project
construction and operation as follows: ......................................... 14
(A) Designation of Project Site for Construction Period
Sales and Use Tax Purposes. ............................................ 14
(B) Direct Pay Permit for Sales and Use Taxes from
Existing Facilities.............................................................. 15
(C) Establishment of Retail Sales and Use Tax
Reporting District.............................................................. 15
(ii) Assurance of Construction Use Tax Revenue. ................. 15
(A) Funds To Be Used In The Event Of A Shortfall... 15
(B) Monitoring Construction Use Tax Revenue......... 15
(C) Reconciliation and Payment of Shortage or Surplus.
16
(D) Costs of Monitoring and Compliance................... 17
(iii) Funding of Operating Deficit............................................ 17
110520 jb 0130741 iii of v
(iv) Payment of Utility User Tax............................................. 18
(v) School Fees....................................................................... 18
(c) Traffic Mitigation and Reduced Vehicle Trips............................. 18
(i) Summary of Existing Programs........................................ 18
(ii) Menlo Park Traffic Mitigation.......................................... 19
(iii) Contributions to AC Transit.............................................. 20
(iv) Opticom Payments............................................................ 20
(A) Opticom Systems.................................................. 20
(v) Caltrain Go Passes............................................................ 20
(vi) Marguerite Shuttle Service. .............................................. 21
(vii) Transportation Demand Management Coordinator.......... 21
(viii) Monitoring of TDM programs.......................................... 21
(A) Submission of Reports.......................................... 22
(B) 2025 Mode Split Penalty....................................... 22
(d) Linkages........................................................................................ 23
(i) Improvements to Enhance Pedestrian and Bicycle
Connection from Intermodal Transit Center to El Camino
Real/Quarry Road Intersection. .................................................... 23
(ii) Public Right-of-Way Improvements to Enhance Pedestrian
and Bicycle Connection on Quarry Road..................................... 24
(iii) Stanford Barn Connection................................................. 24
(e) Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and
Affordable Housing. ..................................................................... 24
(i) Payment............................................................................. 24
(ii) Use of Funds..................................................................... 25
(iii) Use of Housing Credit. ..................................................... 25
(f) Climate Change............................................................................. 25
(i) Sustainability Programs Benefit. ...................................... 25
(g) Administrative Costs..................................................................... 26
(h) Satisfaction of All Conditions of Approval.................................. 26
6. City’s Promises......................................................................................... 26
(a) Vested Rights to Develop and Use the Property........................... 26
(b) Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses................................ 26
(c) Maximum Density and Intensity of Uses...................................... 27
(d) Other Development Standards...................................................... 27
(e) Subsequent Rules.......................................................................... 27
(f) Subsequent Approvals. ................................................................. 27
(g) Limitation on Architectural Review Approvals............................ 27
(h) Annexation of County Property.................................................... 28
(i) Utility and Storm Drain Connections. .......................................... 28
(j) Waste Treatment Capacity............................................................ 28
(k) Storm Drain Capacity. .................................................................. 28
(l) OSHPD. ........................................................................................ 29
(m) No Other Dedications. .................................................................. 29
(n) No Other Public Improvements or Financial Contributions......... 29
110520 jb 0130741 iv of v
(o) No Obligation to Develop............................................................. 30
(p) Timing for Performance of Conditions of Approval.................... 30
7. Exceptions................................................................................................. 30
8. Exclusions................................................................................................. 30
(a) Sewer Facilities, Storm Drains and Runoff.................................. 30
(b) Limited Effect on Right to Tax, Assess, or Levy Fees or Charges31
(c) No Limit on Right of City to Adopt and Modify Uniform Codes.32
(d) No Limit on Power of City to Adopt and Apply Rules Governing
Provision and Use of Utility Services........................................... 32
(e) California Environmental Quality Act Compliance (CEQA)....... 32
(f) No General Limitation on Future Exercise of Police Power........ 33
9. Indemnity.................................................................................................. 33
10. Cooperation and Implementation.............................................................. 33
11. Identification of Applicable Rules............................................................ 34
12. Periodic Review of Compliance............................................................... 34
(a) Periodic Review............................................................................ 34
(b) Special Review.............................................................................. 34
(c) Annual Report............................................................................... 35
(d) Supplement to the Annual Report................................................. 35
(e) Procedure...................................................................................... 35
(f) Default by SUMC Parties............................................................. 36
(g) Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination.......................... 36
(h) Hearings on Modification or Termination.................................... 36
(i) Certificate of Compliance............................................................. 37
13. Default by City.......................................................................................... 37
14. Remedies for Default................................................................................ 37
15. Modification, Amendment or Cancellation by Mutual Agreement.......... 39
16. Superseding State or Federal Law............................................................ 39
17. Notices...................................................................................................... 40
18. Term of Agreement; Force Majeure......................................................... 41
(a) Basic Term.................................................................................... 41
(b) Extension for Referendum, Litigation, Default or Moratorium.... 41
(c) Force Majeure............................................................................... 41
19. Assignment; Right to Assign.................................................................... 41
(a) Assignment. .................................................................................. 41
(i) Right to Assign. ................................................................ 42
(ii) Release of Transferor........................................................ 42
20. Mortgagee Protection................................................................................ 43
(a) No Impairment.............................................................................. 43
(b) Notice of Default by the SUMC Parties. ...................................... 43
(c) Notice............................................................................................ 43
(d) Transfer of Ownership.................................................................. 44
21. Miscellaneous. .......................................................................................... 44
(a) Effect of Recitals........................................................................... 44
(b) Construction.................................................................................. 44
110520 jb 0130741 v of v
(c) Severability................................................................................... 44
(d) Time.............................................................................................. 44
(e) Waiver........................................................................................... 45
(f) Governing State Law.................................................................... 45
(g) Determination of Compliance....................................................... 45
(h) Entire Agreement.......................................................................... 45
(i) No Third Party Beneficiaries........................................................ 45
(j) Authority to Execute..................................................................... 45
(k) Administrative Appeal.................................................................. 46
(l) Exhibits......................................................................................... 46
(m) Signature Pages............................................................................. 46
(n) Precedence.................................................................................... 46
(o) Recordation................................................................................... 47
(p) Referendum or Challenge............................................................. 47
(i) City’s Reimbursement Obligation.................................... 47
(ii) Effect of Suspension or Termination of Agreement......... 49
(iii) Limit of City’s Reimbursement Obligations..................... 49
1
110520 jb 0130741
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter “Agreement”) is
entered into as of this ___ day of _______, 2011, by and between the CITY OF
PALO ALTO, a chartered city of the State of California (“City”), STANFORD
HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation
(“SHC”), LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT
STANFORD, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (“LPCH”), and
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR
UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of
California (“University,” and together with SHC and LPCH, collectively, the
“SUMC Parties”).
R E C I T A L S
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on the basis of the following facts,
understandings and intentions of the parties:
A. Definitions.
These Recitals use certain terms with initial capital letters that are defined
in Section 1 of this Agreement. City and the SUMC Parties intend to refer to
those definitions when the capitalized terms are used in these Recitals.
B. Outline of Terms.
Stanford Hospital and Clinics and Lucile Salter Packard Children’s
Hospital provide substantial and important public benefits through operation of
world-class health care facilities and provision of a Level 1 trauma center located
in the City of Palo Alto. The Stanford School of Medicine, which is part of
Stanford University, provides substantial and important public benefits through
research that will be translated into life-saving and life-enhancing medical
treatments and procedures. To comply with the requirements of state law and to
provide state-of-the-art medical and research facilities, the SUMC Parties intend
to replace, retrofit and enhance their facilities in the City of Palo Alto. In
conjunction with certain state-mandated retrofit and replacement work, the SUMC
Parties also intend to expand their hospital, clinic and medical office facilities to
meet patient demand. To facilitate this, the SUMC Parties have applied to the
City for a development agreement pursuant to Sections 65864-65869.5 of the
California Government Code and the City’s Resolution No. 6597. Pursuant to
this development agreement, the SUMC Parties would provide certain community
benefits and voluntary mitigations measures. In exchange for these community
benefits and voluntary mitigation measures, and in recognition of the substantial
public benefits provided by the SUMC Parties’ facilities and operations, the City
would vest for a period of thirty (30) years the SUMC Parties’ rights to develop
and use their facilities in Palo Alto in accordance with the Project Approvals, and
would streamline the process for obtaining Subsequent Approvals, as described in
this Agreement.
110520 jb 0130741
2
C. Nature and Purpose of Development Agreements.
Development agreements were authorized by the State of California in
1979, through the adoption of Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5. These
statutes authorize the parties to enter into binding agreements for the development
of real property within the City. Because California has a “late vesting” rule,
landowners usually cannot be certain that they can proceed with a development
project until they have actually obtained a building permit and started building.
This lack of certainty can discourage long range planning and investment and
make it more difficult for cities to provide needed public facilities. A
development agreement, in which a city agrees that, for a certain period of time, it
will not change the rules applicable to a project, and the property owner agrees to
assist with the provision of public facilities or to otherwise provide community
benefits, can benefit all parties.
D. Authority for City Development Agreements.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, the City adopted Resolution
No. 6597 establishing procedures and requirements for consideration of
development agreements in Palo Alto.
E. Comprehensive Plan.
In July of 1998, the City of Palo Alto adopted its current Comprehensive
Plan, a document containing the City’s official policies on land use and
community design, transportation, housing, natural environment, business and
economics, and community services. Its policies apply to both public and private
properties. The Plan is used by the City Council and Planning and Transportation
Commission to evaluate proposed land use changes in the City, including the
adoption of this Agreement. It is intended to guide City land use decisions.
F. Property Interests.
The University is the fee owner of certain Property. SHC leases from the
University certain portions of the Property and operates the Stanford Hospital and
Clinics, as well as medical offices thereon. LPCH leases from the University
certain other portions of the Property, and operates the Lucile Salter Packard
Children’s Hospital thereon. A portion of the Property is occupied by the
University’s School of Medicine. A portion of the Property consisting of
approximately 0.65 acres is in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County.
The balance of the Property is within the City of Palo Alto.
G. Seismic Safety Requirements.
SB 1953 requires hospitals to retrofit or replace facilities that do not meet
State-designated safety criteria by January 1, 2013. Further requirements must be
met by 2030. If a hospital does not comply with these mandates, the State may
revoke the hospital’s operating license. On September 30, 2010, Governor
110520 jb 0130741
3
Schwarzenegger signed SB 608, which will provide SHC with the ability to apply
for up to five additional years for extensions to meet seismic requirements. If the
extensions are granted, the legislation sets a new deadline of January 1, 2018.
Effective January 1, 2011, SHC may apply for a three-year extension of the
structural compliance deadline; from January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2016. SHC
may also be eligible for an additional two-year extension of the 2016 deadline,
subject to certain patient safety criteria. The Office of Statewide Health Planning
and Development is responsible for approving plans for construction work
required by SB 1953.
H. Seismic Safety Project Components.
Several buildings on the Property require structural retrofit or replacement
to comply with SB 1953 and other applicable laws. Also, many of the facilities
within the Property require nonstructural renovations or replacement to comply
with SB 1953. Portions of the School of Medicine that currently occupy space in
structures used for hospital purposes must be physically separated from those
structures or replaced in order to comply with SB 1953 requirements. In addition,
new or replacement hospital structures must meet current standards specified by
the California building code for hospitals; compliance with these standards
necessitates increased square footage and height to accommodate current seismic
structural requirements, patient safety requirements, air handling systems and
mechanical duct work.
I. Project Purposes.
The City and the SUMC Parties desire that the Project is designed and
constructed to achieve timely compliance with the requirements of SB 1953 and
other applicable laws, to meet existing and projected future demand for patient
care, to provide modern, state-of-the-art facilities designed to deliver high quality
healthcare services and related teaching and research, and to meet regional needs
for emergency and disaster preparedness.
J. Project Approvals.
The SUMC Parties have applied for, and the City has certified or
approved, as applicable, certain environmental documents and land use approvals
and entitlements relating to the development of the Project. These actions are
identified on Exhibit B.
K. Compliance with City Requirements.
The City’s Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council
have given notice of intention to consider this Agreement, have conducted public
hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code section 65867 and City’s
Resolution No. 6597, and the City Council has found that the provisions of this
Agreement are consistent with City’s Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
110520 jb 0130741
4
L. Binding Future Actions.
This Agreement will bind future City Councils to the terms and
obligations specified in this Agreement and limit, to the degree specified in this
Agreement and as authorized under state law, the future exercise of City’s ability
to preclude development on the Property.
M. Elimination of Uncertainty.
This Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the
orderly development of the Property, eliminate uncertainty about the validity of
exactions imposed by City, allow installation of necessary improvements, provide
for public services appropriate to the development of the Project, and generally
serve the public interest, both within the City of Palo Alto and in the surrounding
region.
N. Orderly Development.
Development of the Project in accordance with this Agreement and the
Project Approvals will provide for orderly development consistent with City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have
undergone extensive review by City staff, its Planning and Transportation
Commission and the City Council, and have been found to be fair, just and
reasonable. Specifically, the City Council has found that:
1. The provisions of this Agreement and its purposes are consistent
with the goals, policies, programs and standards specified in City’s
Comprehensive Plan;
2. This Agreement will help attain important economic, social,
environmental and planning goals of City and enhances and protects the public
health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Palo Alto and the
surrounding region.
3. The SUMC Parties will incur substantial costs in providing
community benefits, including voluntary mitigation, in excess of that required to
address the impacts of the Project;
4. This Agreement will mitigate significant environmental impacts;
and
5. This Agreement will otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for
which the Development Agreement Act (California Government Code Sections
65864-65869.5) was enacted.
O. Nature of Recitals.
110520 jb 0130741
5
These recitals are intended in part to paraphrase and summarize this
Agreement, however, the Agreement is expressed below with particularity and the
Parties intend that their rights and obligations be determined by those provisions
and not by the recitals.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows:
1. Definitions.
In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) Annual Payment.
“Annual Payment” means each annual payment subsequent to the first
payment and shall be paid no later than August 31 of the year following the year
in which the first payment is made. For example, if the Initial Payment Date is
June, 2011, the next Annual Payment would be due by August 31, 2012.
(b) Applicable Rules.
“Applicable Rules” means the City ordinances, resolutions, rules,
regulations and official policies in effect on the Effective Date, as amended by the
Project Approvals.
(c) Architectural Review Approval.
“Architectural Review Approval” means the approval of an application for
architectural review under the Applicable Rules, including without limitation the
Hospital Zoning Ordinance.
(d) City.
“City” is the City of Palo Alto.
(e) Comprehensive Plan.
“Comprehensive Plan” is the 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
adopted in July 1998 and as amended through the Effective Date.
(f) Conditions of Approval.
“Conditions of Approval” are the conditions to the Project Approvals or
Subsequent Approvals included in or incorporated by reference in an ordinance,
resolution or motion granting a Project Approval or Subsequent Approval, and
including the environmental mitigations adopted by the City Council.
(g) Construction Period.
110520 jb 0130741
6
For purposes of payment, monitoring and reconciling Construction Use
Tax payments in Section 5(b), “Construction Period” is the time period between
the issuance of the first permit or approval by a public agency with jurisdiction
over the Project, whether it be the City, OHSPD, or any other public agency,
which allows the SUMC Parties to undertake development and construction
activities contemplated by the Project, the issuance of which the Parties currently
estimate to occur in 2011, and December 31, 2025.
(h) County Property.
“County Property” means the portion of the Property in the unincorporated
area of Santa Clara County, consisting of approximately 0.65 acres.
(i) Days.
“Days” shall mean calendar days.
(j) Design Guidelines.
“Design Guidelines” means the Design Guidelines approved as part of the
Project Approvals, as listed on Exhibit B.
(k) Development Agreement Act.
“Development Agreement Act” means Article 2.5 of Chapter 4, of
Division 1 of the California Government Code (Sections 65864 - 65869.5).
(l) Development Impact Fees.
“Development Impact Fees” means all fees now or in the future collected
by the City from applicants for new development (including all forms of
approvals and permits necessary for development) for the funding of public
services, infrastructure, improvements or facilities, but not including taxes or
assessments, or fees for processing applications or permits or for design review.
The fees included in this definition include, but are not limited to those fees set
forth in Chapters 16.45, 16.47 and 16.58 of the Municipal Code, fees for traffic
improvements and mitigation, and fees for other community facilities or related
purposes (but not including any school fees imposed by a school district);
provided nothing herein shall preclude City from collecting fees lawfully imposed
by another entity having jurisdiction which City is required or authorized to
collect pursuant to State law.
(m) Discretionary Action and Discretionary Approval.
“Discretionary Action” includes a “Discretionary Approval” and is an
action or decision which requires the exercise of judgment, deliberation, and
which contemplates the imposition of revisions or conditions, by City, including
110520 jb 0130741
7
any board, commission or department and any officer or employee thereof, in the
process of approving or disapproving a particular activity, as distinguished from
an activity which merely requires City, including any board, commission or
department and any officer or employee thereof, to determine whether there has
been compliance with applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, or Conditions
of Approval.
(n) Effective Date.
“Effective Date” means June 6, 2011.
(o) Hospital Foundation Permit.
“Hospital Foundation Permit” means the OSHPD Incremental Project
Permit allowing either Hospital to construct the primary load bearing foundation
for a new or expanded hospital building. The SUMC Parties’ best estimate of the
anticipated date for issuance of the first Hospital Foundation Permit, based on
current information, is by January 1, 2012.
(p) Hospital Occupancy Permit.
“Hospital Occupancy Permit” means issuance of all permits necessary to
allow the first Hospital building to be used by members of the public for
healthcare services. Issuance of a temporary occupancy permit for purposes of
building preparations in advance of opening shall not trigger obligations based
upon issuance of the Hospital Occupancy Permit. However, a temporary or
partial occupancy permit that allows the Hospital building to be used by the
public for healthcare services shall trigger obligations based upon issuance of the
Hospital Occupancy Permit. The SUMC Parties’ best estimate of the anticipated
date for issuance of the first Hospital Occupancy Permit, based on current
information, is by January 1, 2018.
(q) Hospitals.
“Hospitals” means SHC and LPCH.
(r) Hospital Zoning Ordinance.
“Hospital Zoning Ordinance” is the ordinance of City, adopted as part of
the Project Approvals, amending the Zoning Ordinance to revise and establish the
permitted and conditionally permitted uses, intensity, and other standards and
specifications applicable to the Property.
(s) HSSA.
“HSSA” means the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic Safety
Act of 1973, as amended by the Alfred E. Alquist Hospital Facilities Seismic
110520 jb 0130741
8
Safety Act of 1983, and by SB 1953, as it may be further amended from time to
time.
(t) Initial Payment Date.
“Initial Payment Date” means the date that is 45 days from the filing and
posting of the Notice of Determination filed by the City after the second reading
of the ordinance approving the Hospital District zoning and the ordinance
approving this Development Agreement.
(u) Initial Project Approvals.
“Initial Project Approvals” means those entitlements, permits and
approvals listed on Table 1 of Exhibit B.
(v) Life Of The Project.
“Life Of The Project” means fifty one years from the Effective Date.
(w) LPCH.
“LPCH” means Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford, a
California nonprofit public benefit corporation.
(x) Mortgage.
“Mortgage” means and refers, singly and collectively, to any mortgages,
deeds of trust, security agreements, assignments and other like security
instruments encumbering all or any portion of the Property or any of the SUMC
Parties’ rights under this Agreement.
(y) Mortgagee.
“Mortgagee” means and refers to the holder of any Mortgage encumbering
all or any portion of the Property or any of the SUMC Parties’ rights under this
Agreement, and any successor, assignee or transferee of any such Mortgage
holder.
(z) Net New Square Footage.
“Net New Square Footage” means the amount of new square footage
constructed pursuant to the Project Approvals, less the total amount of existing
square footage demolished. For purposes of calculating applicable fees, the
demolition of square footage of the structure at 1101 Welch Road, the 1973 Core
Expansion building, and the 77 square foot hospital entry shall be credited against
the fees for the new SHC hospital structure; demolition of the square footage of
the structures at 701 and 703 Welch Road shall be credited against the fees for
expansion of LPCH; demolition of the square footage of the Nurses’ cottage,
110520 jb 0130741
9
shops and sheds at the Hoover Pavilion Site shall be credited against the fees for
the square footage of the new medical office building at the Hoover Pavilion Site;
demolition of the Stone Building complex (1959 Hospital Buildings, including
East, West, Core, Boswell, Grant, Alway, Lane and Edwards) shall be credited
against the fees for new square footage for the University and SHC in the amount
corresponding to the new square footage constructed by each entity. To the extent
the SUMC Parties construct new buildings to replace the Stone Building complex
and/or 1973 Core Expansion building prior to demolishing or vacating all or part
of those structures, the SUMC Parties may, in their discretion, elect to take credit
for future demolition of the Stone Building complex and/or 1973 Core Expansion
building when calculating payment of fees for the new square footage.
Construction of School of Medicine improvements for the University is not
expected to result in any Net New Square Footage.
(aa) Occupancy Permit.
“Occupancy Permit” means a permit issued by any agency that allows a
new or expanded structure to be used by members of the public for the intended
uses of the facility. Issuance of a temporary occupancy permit for purposes of
building preparations in advance of opening shall not trigger obligations based
upon issuance of the Occupancy Permit. However, a temporary or partial
occupancy permit that allows the building or structure to be used by the public for
any of the intended uses of the facility shall trigger obligations based upon
issuance of the Occupancy Permit.
(bb) OSHPD.
“OSHPD” means the Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development.
(cc) Party.
“Party” is a signatory to this Agreement, or a successor or assign of a
signatory to this Agreement.
(dd) Project.
“Project” means development of the Property in accordance with the
Applicable Rules, Project Approvals, and this Agreement, which is generally
described as follows: (1) construction of the new SHC Hospital (in multiple
phases), new SHC Clinic/Medical office buildings, new medical office/clinic
building at the Hoover Pavilion site, new LPCH Hospital, new LPCH
clinic/medical office space, new buildings for the School of Medicine, new SHC
parking structure, new LPCH parking structure, new clinics parking structure at
the Main SUMC Site, new parking structure at the Hoover Pavilion Site, Welch
Road widening, Durand Way connector road, new driveways and drop-off areas,
other roadway improvements, new heliport, and miscellaneous accessory
110520 jb 0130741
10
structures, surface parking, pavement and landscape improvements; (2)
renovation and remodeling of existing hospital, clinic and medical office facilities
including the Hoover Pavilion; and (3) demolition of the 1959 Stone Building
complex (hospital and School of Medicine buildings), 1973 Core Expansion
building, 1101 Welch Road medical offices, hospital entry, nurses’ cottage,
miscellaneous shops and storage buildings at the Hoover Pavilion Site, 701 and
703 Welch Road medical offices, Parking Structure 3, Falk Lot 5, a portion of the
Hoover Pavilion surface parking lot, and other miscellaneous surface parking,
pavement and landscaped areas.
(ee) Project Approvals.
“Project Approvals” means the approvals, certifications or actions listed
on Exhibit B and any Subsequent Approvals, including all Conditions of
Approval.
(ff) Property.
“Property” means the real property more particularly described in Exhibit
A.
(gg) SB 1953.
“SB 1953” means Senate Bill 1953 (Chapter 740, 1994), California Health
and Safety Code Section 130000 – 130070 (amending the Alfred E. Alquist
Hospital Seismic Safety Act of 1983).
(hh) SHC.
“SHC” means Stanford Hospital and Clinics, a California nonprofit public
benefit corporation.
(ii) School of Medicine.
“School of Medicine” means the Stanford University School of Medicine,
which is part of the University.
(jj) Subsequent Applicable Rules.
“Subsequent Applicable Rules” means the ordinances, resolutions, rules,
regulations and official policies of City, as they may be adopted and effective
after the Effective Date that do not conflict with the Applicable Rules, or that are
expressly made applicable to the subject matter of this Agreement by Sections 7
and 8.
110520 jb 0130741
11
(kk) Subsequent Approvals.
“Subsequent Approvals” means any approval relating to the Project issued
by the City upon request of any SUMC Party after the Effective Date, including
Discretionary Approvals and ministerial approvals.
(ll) Subsequent Rules.
“Subsequent Rules” means all City ordinances, resolutions, rules,
regulations and official policies in effect at the time a City action is to be taken
that would apply to the Project had this Agreement not been adopted.
(mm) SUMC.
“SUMC” means the Stanford University Medical Center.
(nn) SUMC Parties.
“SUMC Parties” means SHC, LPCH, and the University.
(oo) Term.
“Term” means the term of this Agreement as set forth in Section 18.
(pp) University.
“University” means the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior
University, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of
California.
(qq) Vested Right.
“Vested Right” means a property right conferred by this Agreement that
may not be rescinded, reduced, revoked or abrogated by the City.
(rr) Zoning Ordinance.
“Zoning Ordinance” is the zoning ordinance for the City of Palo Alto
(Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code).
2. Interest of the SUMC Parties.
Each of the SUMC Parties represent that, as of the Effective Date, it has a
legal or equitable interest in all or a portion of the Property as required by Section
65865 of the California Government Code.
110520 jb 0130741
12
3. Binding Effect.
Subject to the provisions of Section 19 below, this Agreement, and all of
the terms and conditions hereof, shall run with the land and shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective assigns, heirs or other
successors in interest.
4. Negation of Agency.
The parties acknowledge that, in entering into and performing this
Agreement, the City, on the one hand, and the SUMC Parties, on the other hand,
are each acting as an independent entity and not as an agent of the other in any
respect. Nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection
herewith shall be construed as making City the joint venturer or partner of any of
the SUMC Parties, or any of the SUMC Parties the joint venturer or partner of the
City.
5. SUMC Parties’ Promises.
(a) Health Care Benefits.
(i) Summary of Intrinsic Benefits.
Stanford University Medical Center is recognized as a global leader in
medical care and research, having pioneered advancements in transplantation
medicine, cancer care, prenatal diagnosis and treatment, and diabetes and
cholesterol treatments. In 2009, the SHC and LPCH provided the following
benefits and services:
36,559 inpatients admitted
48,744 emergency department visits
4,759 babies delivered
$262.6 million in uncompensated medical services, charity care, and
community programs.
The SUMC Parties served 64 percent of Palo Alto residents who required
hospitalization in 2009. The Project will enable the SUMC Project sponsors to
continue this important work, and the addition of more beds for adults and
children will alleviate overcrowding and allow the hospitals to serve patients who
currently must be turned away. The hospitals also provide the only Level 1
Trauma Center between San Francisco and San Jose. The Trauma Center and the
Emergency Department ensure critical community emergency preparedness and
response resources for the community in the event of an earthquake, pandemic, or
other major disaster.
110520 jb 0130741
13
(ii) Fund for Healthcare Services.
Not later than the Initial Payment Date, and subject to the provisions in
Section 21(p), the Hospitals will designate for Healthcare Services the amount of
Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000), which amount shall increase by 4.5% per
year through 2025, and thereby will total Five Million Six Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($5,600,000) by December 31, 2025. After completing the reconciliation
of construction use tax payments described in Section 5(b)(ii)(C), the Hospitals
shall use the resulting Fund for Healthcare Services by spending the fund in even
increments over a ten-year period from 2026 through 2036 to assist residents of
Palo Alto who have self-payment responsibilities beyond their financial means, to
pay healthcare services (“Patient Service Program”). If in any year less than one-
tenth of the Fund for Healthcare Services is used by the Patient Services Program,
the excess shall be used in any one or all subsequent years or added to the Fund
for Community Health and Safety Programs described in Section 5(a)(iii) below.
The Patient Services Program shall be in addition to the Hospitals’ Financial
Assistance/Charity Care Policy dated August 2010, as amended from time to
time, and in addition to any coverage afforded by the new federal Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act and subsequent amendments. The Hospitals, in
their reasonable discretion, shall develop criteria for determining whether patients
are qualified to receive assistance from the Patient Services Program based on
Palo Alto residency status and financial need. The Hospitals shall report the
criteria used to determine eligibility for assistance from the Patient Services
Program, comparative criteria used to determine eligibility for assistance under
the Hospitals’ charity policies (in order to verify that the Patient Services Program
is in addition to the Hospitals’ charity policies and other federal requirements) and
their disbursements under the Patient Services Program annually, as part of the
annual report described in Section 12(d). All reporting will comply with
applicable privacy laws and policies, as well as the privacy policies of the
Hospitals.
If at any time the Hospitals and City mutually determine that the Patient
Services Program creates undue administrative burdens or is not needed by the
Palo Alto community in view of other available programs, the Hospitals shall
contribute, in annual installments, the remainder of the funds allocated to the
Patient Services Program to the Community Health and Safety Program Fund
described in Section 5(a)(iii) below.
(iii) Fund for Community Health and Safety Programs.
Not later than the Initial Payment Date, and subject to the provisions in
Section 21(p), the SUMC Parties shall contribute, in a single lump sum payment,
Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000) (the “Community Health and Safety Program
Fund”) to the City, to be held in a separate account and to be distributed to
selected community health programs that benefit residents of the City, which
amount could be spent at the City Council’s discretion in whole or in part on the
Project Safety Net Program. The SUMC Parties and the City shall establish a
110520 jb 0130741
14
joint committee to evaluate proposals regarding the other specific programs to
receive funding, composed of two representatives selected by the SUMC Parties
and two representatives selected by the City. The joint committee may choose to
coordinate its efforts with the City’s Human Relations Commission, and the
City’s representatives on the committee may be members of the Human Relations
Commission. The joint committee shall make annual recommendations to the
City Council regarding proposed disbursements from the Community Health and
Safety Program Fund, and the City Council shall use its reasonable discretion to
decide whether to accept, reject or modify the joint committee recommendations.
The City shall keep the funds paid by the SUMC Parties to the Community Health
and Safety Program Fund in a separate account, to be used only for the purposes
described in this Section 5(a)(iii). The City shall deliver an annual report of
disbursements from the Community Health and Safety Program Fund in
accordance with Section 12(d) below.
(b) Palo Alto Fiscal Benefits.
(i) Payment of Sales and Use Taxes.
The SUMC Parties shall use their best efforts to maximize the
City’s allocation of sales and use taxes associated with Project construction and
operation as follows:
(A) Designation of Project Site for Construction Period
Sales and Use Tax Purposes.
The SUMC Parties shall accrue or self report sales and use taxes for the
benefit of the City pursuant to the applicable regulations of the State Board of
Equalization (the “SBOE”) regulations, and any additional regulations issued or
amendments made thereto, for the purpose of maximizing the City’s allocation of
construction use tax revenues derived from the Project available under the
applicable laws and regulations. To this end, the SUMC Parties shall use their
best efforts to the extent allowed by law to: (i) obtain all permits and licenses
necessary to maximize the City’s allocation of construction use taxes derived
from the Project, including but not limited to California Seller’s Permits, Use Tax
Direct Payment Permits, and any other license or permit necessary or desirable to
maximize the City’s allocation of sales and use taxes derived from the Project; (ii)
designate, and require its contractors and subcontractors to designate, the Property
as the place of sale of all “fixtures” furnished and/or installed as part of the
Project; (iii) designate, and require all its contractors and subcontractors to
designate, the Property as the place of use of all “materials” used in the
construction of the Project; and (iv) require all contractors and subcontractors to
allocate the local sales and use taxes derived from their contracts directly to the
City. The SUMC Parties shall, and shall use their best efforts to require their
contractors and subcontractors to, complete and file any forms as the SBOE
requires to effect the designations required by this Section pursuant to the
applicable regulations of the SBOE. The SUMC Parties shall bear all costs
110520 jb 0130741
15
associated with its activities under this Section 5(b)(i)(A). This Section 5(b)(i)(A)
does not require the SUMC Parties to establish a purchasing entity or office in the
City of Palo Alto.
(B) Direct Pay Permit for Sales and Use Taxes from
Existing Facilities.
Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, the Hospitals shall begin and
diligently complete the process necessary to obtain a use tax direct pay permit
from the State of California in order to increase, on an ongoing basis, the City tax
allocation for the Hospitals’ purchases. The Hospitals shall maintain the use tax
direct pay permit for the Life Of The Project, unless the State of California ceases
to continue to administer the use tax direct pay permit program or a substantially
equivalent program.
(C) Establishment of Retail Sales and Use Tax
Reporting District.
The SUMC Parties shall cooperate in good faith with the City to assist the
City in establishing and administering a Retail Sales and Use Tax Reporting
District that includes the Property and the Project, to enable the City to track the
generation, allocation, reporting and payment of sales and use taxes derived from
the Project. Such cooperation shall include providing the City with a list of all
SBOE Permit Codes assigned to the SUMC Parties’ operations and activities on
the Property and associated with the Project, and the physical locations (e.g.,
addresses) associated with such SBOE Permit Codes.
(ii) Assurance of Construction Use Tax Revenue.
The SUMC Parties shall take the following steps to provide reasonable
assurance to the City that it will receive no less than Eight Million, One Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($8,100,000) in construction use tax revenues resulting from
the Project by December 31, 2025:
(A) Funds To Be Used In The Event Of A Shortfall.
As provided in Section 5(a)(ii), the Hospitals will designate the amount of
Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000), which amount shall increase by 4.5% per
year through 2025, and thereby will total Five Million Six Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($5,600,000) by December 31, 2025.
(B) Monitoring Construction Use Tax Revenue.
During the Construction Period, the SUMC Parties shall use their best
efforts to require Project contractors and subcontractors to report to the SUMC
Parties the permits obtained and payments made pursuant to Section 5(b)(i)(A).
Within six (6) months of the conclusion of each calendar year during the
Construction Period, the SUMC Parties will submit to the City a report to be used
110520 jb 0130741
16
by the City to monitor payment of construction use taxes and to determine the
share of such construction use taxes that the City has received as a result of the
Project (“Monitoring Report”). The report shall include the following
information: (i) a self-accrual report for the year identifying purchases made,
purchase prices and taxes pertinent to such purchases for owner supplied items;
and (ii) a memorandum for the year identifying contractor, sub-contractor, sub-
contractor vendor, supplier and other similarly situated persons from whom
purchases were made, where such contractor, sub-contractor, vendor, and/or other
similarly situated party may allocate taxes directly to the City rather than through
SUMC Parties' self-accrual system.
Within sixty (60) days of receiving the SUMC Parties’ Monitoring Report,
the City shall provide to the SUMC Parties its determination of the amount of
construction use taxes that it has received as a result of the Project during the
preceding calendar year, along with documentation of the basis for the City’s
determination. In the event that the City’s local share of construction use tax
revenues is diminished due to legislative/and or other legal changes, the City shall
calculate the amount of construction use tax revenue that it would have received
under the local share provisions existing on the Effective Date, based upon the
payments actually paid to the State Board of Equalization by the SUMC Parties
and their contractors and subcontractors, and the City shall add any diminished
amount to the amount it has received to arrive at a total amount of “Construction
Use Tax Revenues Received” as a result of the Project. The SUMC Parties shall
not be required to make up, or assure, to the City that it receives the difference
between the actual amount of construction use taxes that the City has received and
the amount that the City would have received under the local share provisions
existing on the Effective Date. However, as allowed by law and applicable
restrictions, the SUMC Parties will join with the City in opposing any legislative
or legal change that would result in diminution of the City’s local share of
construction use tax revenues because the SUMC Parties recognize that such
diminution could adversely affect City services to the community and to the
Project facilities.
(C) Reconciliation and Payment of Shortage or Surplus.
In August 2026, or as soon thereafter as records are reasonably available,
the City shall provide to the SUMC Parties its determination of the total amount
of Construction Use Tax Revenues Received as a result of the Project, along with
a report documenting the basis for the City’s determination (“Reconciliation
Report”). Within thirty (30) days of receiving the Reconciliation Report, the
SUMC Parties shall notify the City as to any dispute regarding the Reconciliation
Report, and the SUMC Parties shall provide a report to the City documenting the
basis for the SUMC Parties’ dispute. The Parties shall act in good faith to resolve
any and all disputes regarding the Reconciliation Report within ninety (90) days
from the date that the SUMC Parties notify the City of such dispute or disputes.
110520 jb 0130741
17
Shortfall. Within thirty (30) days of the date the Parties reach mutual
agreement as to the total amount of Construction Use Tax Revenues Received as
a result of the Project, the SUMC Parties shall pay to the City the amount of any
shortfall between Eight Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($8,100,000) and
the amount of the Construction Use Tax Revenues Received as a result of the
Project, which amount shall be paid in full regardless of whether it exceeds the
amount identified pursuant to Section 5(a)(ii). The amount of the Shortfall
Payment then shall be deducted from the Five Million Six Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($5,600,000) amount that the SUMC Parties designated pursuant to
Section 5(a)(ii), and the remainder of that designated amount, if any, shall be
applied to the Patient Service Program as described in Section 5(a)(ii).
Surplus. Within thirty (30) days of the date the Parties reach mutual
agreement as to the total amount of Construction Use Tax Revenues Received as
a result of the Project, the City shall provide to the SUMC Parties the amount of
any surplus between Eight Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($8,100,000)
and the amount of the Construction Use Tax Revenues Received as a result of the
Project (“Surplus Payment”). The SUMC Parties then shall reduce the amount
designated pursuant to Section 5(a)(ii) in an amount commensurate with the
Surplus Payment such that the fund for the Patient Service Program shall total
Five Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,600,000), comprised of the
Surplus Payment paid by the City plus the difference between that payment and
Five Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,600,000) to be paid by the
SUMC Parties.
(D) Costs of Monitoring and Compliance.
The Parties each shall bear their own costs of compliance with the
provisions of Section 5(ii)(A) – (C), including but not limited to monitoring
payment and receipt of construction use taxes, preparation and analysis of reports,
and reconciliation.
(iii) Funding of Operating Deficit.
Not later than the Initial Payment Date, and subject to the provisions in
Section 21(p), the SUMC Parties shall pay to the City, in a single lump sum
payment, the amount of Two Million Four Hundred Seventeen Thousand Dollars
($2,417,000) for the purpose of assuring that City costs associated with the
Project do not exceed revenues to the City resulting from construction and
operation of the Project. This amount is the discounted net present value of the
projected shortfall in revenues over a 30-year period, based upon the inflation,
cost and revenue assumptions used by the consultant hired and directed by the
City.
110520 jb 0130741
18
(iv) Payment of Utility User Tax.
All requirements and language in Section 2.35.100(a) of the City’s
Municipal Code to the contrary notwithstanding, the SUMC Parties shall pay to
the City a utility user tax at a minimum rate of five percent (5%) of all electricity,
gas, and water charges allocable to new construction completed as part of the
Project for the Life Of The Project, which rate may be increased by the City as
provided by Section 2.35.100(b) of the City’s Municipal Code.
(v) School Fees.
The SUMC Parties shall pay to the City, who in turn shall forward to the
Palo Alto Unified School District, school fees upon issuance of each building
permit from the City or OSHPD, in the amount that is generally applicable to non-
residential development at the time of payment based upon Net New Square
Footage. For buildings subject to OSHPD jurisdiction, the school fees will be
paid within Thirty (30) days after issuance of a building permit from OSHPD.
(c) Traffic Mitigation and Reduced Vehicle Trips.
(i) Summary of Existing Programs.
The Hospitals provide a robust program to minimize commuting by drive-
alone vehicles, which currently includes the following components:
Incentives to forego driving or to carpool, including cash payments or
other credit for participating in a carpool program, various parking
incentives, online ride matching, pretax payroll deduction for transit
passes, emergency rides home, free car rental vouchers, Zipcar car
sharing credits, and other gifts and rewards.
The free Marguerite Shuttle system, supported in part by payments
from the Hospitals, connecting the Hospitals to local transit, Caltrain,
and local shopping and dining.
The Eco Pass program for hospital employees, allowing free use of
VTA buses and light rail, the Dumbarton Express, the Highway 17
Express, and the Monterey-San Jose Express.
Free use of the U-Line Stanford Express connecting BART, the ACE
train, and Ardenwood Park & Ride to Stanford.
Alternative transportation support and information, such as bicycle
commuter facilities (clothes lockers, showers, bike lockers), transit
pass sales, and various sources of ‘green’ and alternative transportation
information including an ‘alternative transportation website.
110520 jb 0130741
19
(ii) Menlo Park Traffic Mitigation.
(A) Payment.
Subject to the City of Menlo Park’s agreement to be bound by provisions
substantially similar to those described in Section 21(p) and subject to the City of
Menlo Park’s agreement to use payments received from the SUMC Parties as
described in Section 5(c)(ii)(B), below, the SUMC Parties shall contribute to the
City of Menlo Park a total of Three Million Six Hundred Ninety Nine Thousand
Dollars ($3,699,000) for the City of Menlo Park’s use in connection with traffic
mitigation and other measures to enhance City of Menlo Park infrastructure and to
promote sustainable neighborhoods and communities and affordable housing.
The SUMC Parties shall make this contribution in three equal payments as
follows:
(1) the first payment shall be made not later
than the Initial Payment Date;
(2) the second payment shall be made within
Thirty (30) days from issuance of the first Hospital Foundation Permit; and
(3) the third payment shall be made within
Thirty (30) days from issuance of the first Hospital Occupancy Permit.
(B) Use of Funds.
The amount of Two Hundred Ninety Thousand Dollars ($290,000) shall be used
by the City of Menlo Park prior to January 1, 2018 to install Traffic-Adaptive
Signal Technology at the following two intersections in the City of Menlo Park:
Middlefield Road/Willow Road; and Middlefield Road/Ravenswood Avenue.
The amount of One Million Forty Six Thousand Dollars ($1,046,000) shall be
allocated by the City of Menlo Park to the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Fund to pay
for any improvements for which the Traffic Impact Fee Fund has been
established, which amount is in lieu of the SUMC Project's fair share contribution
toward the cost of construction of one pedestrian/bike Caltrain undercrossing in
Menlo Park; improvements at the Willow Road/Bayfront Expressway
intersection; improvements at the Bayfront Expressway/University Avenue
intersection; and installation of Opticom systems at the following four (4)
intersections: Middlefield Road/Willow Road, Middlefield Road/Ravenswood
Avenue, Willow Road/Bayfront Expressway, and Bayfront
Expressway/University Avenue.
The remainder of the funds shall be used by the City of Menlo Park in its
discretion in connection with infrastructure, sustainable neighborhoods and
communities, and affordable housing.
110520 jb 0130741
20
(iii) Contributions to AC Transit.
The Hospitals shall offer to contribute the following to AC Transit:
(A) Within Thirty (30) days from issuance of the
Hospital Occupancy Permit, the Hospitals shall offer to make a one-time payment
to the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (“AC Transit”) of Two Hundred
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) to be used for capital improvements to the U-
Line to increase capacity.
(B) Commencing within Thirty (30) days from issuance
of the Hospital Occupancy Permit and continuing for the Life Of The Project, the
Hospitals shall offer to make Annual Payments to AC Transit in a reasonable
annual amount, not to exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), to be used for
operating costs of the U-Line to maintain a load factor for bus service to the
SUMC of less than 1.0.
(C) In order to encourage Hospital employees who
commute from the East Bay to use public transit from the East Bay to the Project,
the Hospitals shall use best efforts to lease seventy five (75) parking spaces at the
Ardenwood Park and Ride lot, or an equivalent location, commencing within
Thirty (30) days from issuance of the Hospital Occupancy Permit and continuing
for the Life Of The Project, at a cost not to exceed Forty Five Thousand Dollars
($45,000) per year.
(iv) Opticom Payments.
Within Thirty (30) days after issuance of the Hospital Occupancy Permit,
the SUMC Parties shall make the following contributions to mitigate traffic in
Palo Alto.
(A) Opticom Systems.
The SUMC Parties shall pay Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Dollars
($11,200) to the City for installation of Opticom systems at the following seven
(7) intersections: El Camino Real/Palm Drive/University Avenue; El Camino
Real/Page Mill Road; Middlefield Road/Lytton Road; Junipero Serra/Page Mill
Road; Junipero Serra/Campus Drive West, Galvez/Arboretum, Alpine/280
Northbound ramp. The City shall use its best efforts to cause the Opticom system
to be installed at the intersections listed in this Section 5(c)(ii)(A) that are not
located within the City’s jurisdiction.
(v) Caltrain GO Passes.
Commencing on September 1, 2015, the Hospitals shall purchase annual
Caltrain GO Passes (free train passes) for all existing and new Hospital employees
who work more than 20 hours per week, at a cost of up to One Million Eight
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000) per year, which amount shall be adjusted
110520 jb 0130741
21
annually to reflect any change in the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price
Index (the “GO Pass Amount”). The Hospitals’ obligation to provide GO Passes
shall continue for fifty one (51) years, or until such earlier date as: (a) Caltrain
discontinues the GO Pass program, or a substantially similar program; (b) Caltrain
increases the cost of GO Passes, or a substantially similar program, such that the
Hospitals’ annual costs would exceed the GO Pass Amount; or (c) Caltrain
service is reduced by such an extent that the Hospitals and the City mutually
determine purchase of annual GO Passes, or a substantially similar program,
would no longer be effective in substantially reducing Hospital employee peak
period trips in order to achieve the Alternative Mode targets specified in Section
5(c)(viii). If the cost of obtaining GO Passes exceeds the GO Pass Amount, the
Hospitals shall have the option to elect either to purchase the GO Passes at the
then applicable price, or to terminate the obligation to provide GO Passes, or a
substantially similar program. If the Hospitals’ obligation to provide GO Passes,
or a substantially similar program, terminates for any of the reasons specified in
this Section 5(c)(v), the Hospitals shall contribute the GO Pass Amount to one or
more substitute programs to encourage use of transit by Hospital employees or
otherwise reduce peak period traffic trips in the intersections impacted by the
Project as identified in the Project EIR, including but not limited to regional
transportation systems or solutions. The substitute program or programs shall be
mutually agreed upon by the SUMC Parties and the City’s Director of Planning
and Community Environment.
(vi) Marguerite Shuttle Service.
The Hospitals shall fund the reasonable costs, in an approximate amount
of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000), for the purchase of additional shuttle
vehicles for the Marguerite shuttle service, as and when required to meet
increased demand for shuttle service between the Project Sites and the Palo Alto
Intermodal Transit Station. In addition, for the Life Of The Project, the Hospitals
shall fund as Annual Payments the reasonable costs, in an approximate amount of
Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($450,000) per year, to cover the net
increase in operating costs for the Marguerite Shuttle.
(vii) Transportation Demand Management Coordinator.
Commencing on September 1, 2015, and continuing through the Life Of
The Project, the Hospitals shall employ an onsite qualified Transportation
Demand Management (“TDM”) coordinator for the SUMC.
(viii) Monitoring of TDM programs.
The City and the SUMC Parties acknowledge that because use of transit
by employees of the Hospitals is voluntary, and may be influenced by a number
of factors outside of the reasonable control of the Hospitals, such as gasoline
prices, costs and availability of alternative transit, housing costs and availability,
and personal preferences of employees, the Hospitals cannot guarantee the results
110520 jb 0130741
22
of their TDM programs. However, the Hospitals shall monitor the success of
their TDM programs from the date of the Initial Project Approvals through the
Life of The Project. The following interim targets shall be used to measure the
progress toward meeting the desired mode split by 2025. These interim targets
assume that in the early phases of implementation, there may be larger shifts to
alternative modes than the shifts that may occur in later phases of the TDM
program enhancement. For purposes of calculating alternative mode share, any
mode that does not constitute driving in a single-occupant vehicle to and from the
work site shall be considered an “Alternative Mode,” including working remotely
from home.
Target Year Alternative Mode Share Percent Change
EIR Baseline
(2006) 22.9 % NA
Project Approval
Baseline (2011) TBD TBD
2018 30 % 7.1%
2021 33 % +3 %
2025 35.1 % +2.1 %
If the applicable interim target is not met for any two consecutive years
prior to 2025, the Hospitals shall provide alternative transportation funding to the
City in Annual Payments in the amount of One Hundred Seventy Five Thousand
Dollars ($175,000) per year until the earlier of the year 2025 or the year the
applicable interim mode split target is achieved, subject to a maximum of five
Annual Payments. The alternative transportation funding must be used by the
City for local projects and programs that encourage use of alternative
transportation mode uses or otherwise reduce peak period traffic trips in the
intersections impacted by the Project as identified in the Project EIR, including
but not limited to regional transportation systems and solutions. The City of Palo
Alto should consider transportation systems and solutions that also help to reduce
traffic in the City of Menlo Park.
(A) Submission of Reports.
The Hospitals shall submit annual reports showing the current number of
employees employed over 20 hours per week; the number of employees using an
alternative mode share as documented by a study or survey to be completed by the
Hospitals using a method mutually agreeable to the City and Hospitals; and the
efforts used by the Hospitals to attempt to achieve the Alternative Mode targets.
(B) 2025 Mode Split Penalty.
If by 2025, the Hospitals have not demonstrated substantial achievement
of the Thirty Five and One-Tenth Percent (35.1%) target modal split for
110520 jb 0130741
23
alternative transportation modes, the Hospitals shall make a lump sum payment of
Four Million Dollars ($4.0 million) to the City for local projects and programs
that encourage and improve use of alternative transportation mode uses or
otherwise reduce peak period traffic trips in the intersections impacted by the
Project as identified in the Project EIR, including but not limited to regional
transportation systems or solutions. The City shall identify capital projects and
program enhancements for which the funds may be applied. Sample projects may
include contributions towards regional transportation projects of interest to the
City and that are identified within the Valley Transportation Authority—Valley
Transportation Plan or other local planning documents. The City of Palo Alto
should consider transportation systems and solutions that also help to reduce
traffic in the City of Menlo Park. If required, said Four Million Dollar
($4,000,000) payment shall constitute funds to be used by the City to offset trips
by Hospital employees through citywide trip reduction. The Four Million Dollar
($4,000,000) payment shall not relieve the SUMC Parties of any of their other
obligations under this Agreement, including but not limited to their obligations to
continue to attempt to achieve the 35.1% target modal split through
implementation of the GO Pass or substantially similar program, or a substitute
program mutually agreed upon by the SUMC Parties and the City’s Director of
Planning and Community Environment, which shall continue pursuant to the
terms of this Agreement for fifty-one (51) years from commencement of the GO
Pass program. Further, the Hospitals shall continue to implement an enhanced
TDM program, monitor modal splits by Hospital employees, and strive to
maximize use of alternative commute modes by Hospital employees. In addition,
the Hospitals shall continue to meet with the City on a regular basis to identify
potential improvements to the enhanced TDM program. The City shall keep all
payments received from the Hospitals pursuant to this Section 5(c)(viii) in a
separate account (the “TDM Fund”), to be used only for the purposes described in
this Section 5(c)(viii). The City shall deliver an annual report of disbursements
from the TDM Fund in accordance with Section 12 below.
(d) Linkages.
To further encourage use of Caltrain, bus and other transit services, and to
enhance and encourage use of pedestrian and bicycle connections between the
SUMC and downtown Palo Alto, the SUMC Parties shall fund the following
improvements:
(i) Improvements to Enhance Pedestrian and Bicycle
Connection from Intermodal Transit Center to El Camino
Real/Quarry Road Intersection.
Two Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,250,000) for
improvements to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle connection from the Palo
Alto Intermodal Transit Center to the existing intersection at El Camino Real and
Quarry Road, with up to Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) of that amount going
to the development of an attractive, landscaped passive park/green space with a
110520 jb 0130741
24
clearly marked and lighted pedestrian pathway, benches and flower borders. Not
later than the Initial Payment Date, and subject to the provisions in Section 21(p),
the SUMC Parties shall pay to the City Two Million Two Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($2,250,000) in one lump sum (the “Intermodal Transit Fund”),
and the City shall be responsible for constructing the improvements described in
this Section 5(d)(i). The City shall keep the Intermodal Transit Fund in a separate
account, to be used only for the purposes described in this Section 5(d)(i). The
City shall deliver an annual report of disbursements from the Intermodal Transit
Fund in accordance with Section 12(d) below. The City shall construct the
improvements described in this Section 5(d)(i) prior to issuance of the Hospital
Occupancy Permit.
(ii) Public Right-of-Way Improvements to Enhance Pedestrian
and Bicycle Connection on Quarry Road.
Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) for improvements to and
within the public right-of-way to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle connection
from the west side of El Camino Real to Welch Road along Quarry Road,
including urban design elements and way finding, wider bicycle lanes, as
necessary, on Quarry Road, enhanced transit nodes for bus and/or shuttle stops,
and prominent bicycle facilities. Not later than the Initial Payment Date, and
subject to the provisions in Section 21(p), the SUMC Parties shall pay to the City
Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) in one lump sum (the “Quarry Road
Fund”), and the City will be responsible for constructing the improvements. The
City shall keep the Quarry Road Fund in a separate account, to be used only for
the purposes described in this Section 5(d)(ii). The City shall deliver an annual
report of disbursements from the Quarry Road Fund in accordance with Section
12(d) below. The City shall construct the improvements described in this Section
5(d)(ii) prior to issuance of the Hospital Occupancy Permit.
(iii) Stanford Barn Connection.
Up to Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($700,000) for improvements to
enhance the pedestrian connection between the SUMC and the Stanford Shopping
Center going from Welch Road to Vineyard Lane, in the area adjacent to the
Stanford Barn. The SUMC Parties shall be responsible for constructing these
improvements prior to issuance of the Hospital Occupancy Permit.
(e) Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and
Affordable Housing.
(i) Payment.
Subject to the provisions of Section 21(p), the SUMC Parties shall pay to
the City a total of Twenty-Three Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars
($23,200,000) for use in connection with infrastructure, sustainable
110520 jb 0130741
25
neighborhoods and communities, and affordable housing. The SUMC Parties
shall make this contribution in three equal payments as follows:
(A) the first payment shall be made not later than the
Initial Payment Date;
(B) the second payment shall be made within Thirty
(30) days from issuance of the first Hospital Foundation Permit; and
(C) the third payment shall be made within Thirty (30)
days from issuance of the first Hospital Occupancy Permit.
(ii) Use of Funds.
The amount of One Million Seven Hundred Twenty Thousand Four
Hundred Eighty Eight Dollars ($1,720,488) shall be used in the same manner as
funds collected by the City pursuant to its housing fee ordinance. The City shall
keep the balance of the payments made pursuant to this Section 5(e) (the
“Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and Affordable
Housing Fund”) in a separate account, to be used only for the purposes described
in this Section 5(e). The City shall deliver an annual report of disbursements
from the Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and
Affordable Housing Fund in accordance with Section 12(d) below.
(iii) Use of Housing Credit.
The housing credit issued to the SUMC Parties in connection with the
Alma substation relocation and Quarry Substation Lease may be used to offset the
obligations in this Agreement.
(f) Climate Change.
(i) Sustainability Programs Benefit.
Subject to the provisions in Section 21(p), the SUMC Parties shall
contribute Twelve Million Dollars ($12 Million) to the City for use in projects
and programs (including carbon credits) for a sustainable community, including
programs identified in the City’s Climate Action Plan, as may be amended, and
investments in renewable energy and energy conservation. The SUMC Parties’
obligation to make this contribution is conditioned on there being no other non-
voluntary requirement applicable to the Project to participate in Palo Alto
Utilities’ Palo Alto Green Program. The SUMC Parties shall make this
contribution in three equal payments, as follows:
(A) the first payment shall be made not later than the
Initial Payment Date;
110520 jb 0130741
26
(B) the second payment shall be made within Thirty
(30) days from issuance of the first Hospital Foundation Permit; and
(C) the third payment shall be made within Thirty (30)
days from issuance of the first Hospital Occupancy Permit.
The City shall keep all payments made pursuant to this Section 5(f) (the
“Climate Change Fund”) in a separate account, to be used only for the purposes
described in this Section 5(f). The City shall deliver an annual report of
disbursements from the Climate Change Fund in accordance with Section 12(d)
below.
(g) Administrative Costs.
In implementing each of the funds described in this Section 5, the funds
may be used for the Party’s reasonable costs of administering the funds, including
establishing and maintaining the necessary accounts, reporting upon the use and
balance of funds, establishing and implementing procedures to allocate funding,
and other activities to implement the funds’ purposes.
(h) Satisfaction of All Conditions of Approval.
The SUMC Parties shall satisfy all Conditions of Approval by the dates
and within the time periods required by the Project Approvals, subject to such
modifications allowed by this Agreement.
6. City’s Promises.
(a) Vested Rights to Develop and Use the Property.
City hereby grants to the SUMC Parties the vested right to develop,
construct and use the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Applicable Rules, the Project Approvals and this Agreement,
and City hereby finds the Project consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Zoning Ordinance as amended by the Project Approvals. City shall not apply to
the Project any change in the Applicable Rules adopted or effective after the
Effective Date, except as provided in Sections 7 and 8 below.
(b) Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses.
The permitted and conditionally permitted uses of the Property shall be
those described in the Hospital Zoning Ordinance. Upon approval by the City,
each conditional use permit issued for the Project shall be vested for the Term of
this Agreement and the provisions of Section 18.77.090 of the City’s Municipal
Code shall not apply to such conditional use permits; provided however, that the
rights of the SUMC Parties to continue and maintain permitted and conditionally
permitted uses on the Property shall be subject to compliance with the terms and
110520 jb 0130741
27
conditions of this Agreement, the other Applicable Rules, and the Project
Approvals.
(c) Maximum Density and Intensity of Uses.
When developed, the density and intensity of use of the Property shall not
exceed those densities and intensities of use set forth in the Hospital Zoning
Ordinance.
(d) Other Development Standards.
All design and development standards not set forth in the Project
Approvals or this Agreement shall be in accordance with the Applicable Rules
and the Subsequent Applicable Rules as applied to the Project; provided such
standards shall not conflict with the Project Approvals or this Agreement.
(e) Subsequent Rules.
Subsequent Rules that conflict with the SUMC Parties’ rights to develop
the Property as provided under this Agreement are applicable to the Project only
under the circumstances described in Sections 7 and 8 below. This limitation
applies to changes made by ordinance, initiative, referendum, resolution, policy,
order or moratorium, initiated or instituted for any reason whatsoever and adopted
by the Mayor, City Council, Planning and Transportation Commission or any
other board, commission or department of City, or any officer or employee
thereof, or by the electorate.
(f) Subsequent Approvals.
City shall not deny or unreasonably delay any Subsequent Approval that is
necessary to the exercise of the rights vested in the SUMC Parties by this
Agreement. Any conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for subsequent
Discretionary Actions imposed or required by City, including those provided for
herein, shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density or
intensity of development set forth in the Agreement. Except as provided in
Sections 7 or 8 below. City shall not interpret any Subsequent Approval or apply
any Subsequent Rule in a manner that would conflict with the Applicable Rules or
the Project Approvals or reduce the development rights provided by this
Agreement. . Upon City approval, each Subsequent Approval shall be vested for
the Term of the Agreement and the provisions of Sections 6(a) and 6(b) shall
apply to each Subsequent Approval.
(g) Limitation on Architectural Review Approvals.
To the extent that the Project Approvals or Applicable Rules require
further decisions, determinations or actions pertaining to architectural review
“Architectural Review Approval”), the decision in all cases shall be made by the
Director of Planning and Community Environment, after recommendation by the
110520 jb 0130741
28
Architectural Review Board, subject only to appeal to the City Council, pursuant
to Section 18.77.070 of the Municipal Code as set forth in the Applicable Rules,
without review or recommendation by the Planning and Transportation
Commission. Further, in each case, Architectural Approval shall be limited to
determining consistency with the Design Guidelines, the Hospital Zoning
Ordinance, and the findings regarding architectural review set forth in Section
18.76.020(d) of the Municipal Code. City shall process any application for
Architectural Review Approval expeditiously. The provisions of this Section 6(g)
shall apply to each architectural review process undertaken and Architectural
Review Approval granted with regard to any portion of the Project.
(h) Annexation of County Property.
City shall petition the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to
annex to City the County Property. The SUMC Parties shall cooperate by
executing all necessary documents, by providing all information requested by
City acting as the conducting authority for purposes of the annexation
proceedings, and by attending annexation hearings and testifying in favor of the
annexation. The SUMC Parties shall be responsible for paying all reasonable
costs of the annexation.
(i) Utility and Storm Drain Connections.
Unless prohibited by a moratorium lawfully adopted by another
governmental agency, or by action taken by City in accordance with Sections 7 or
8, or by state or federal law, City shall allow the SUMC Parties to connect the
Project to the City’s sanitary sewers, storm drains, water system, gas system and
electrical system in accordance with its generally applicable rules in effect at the
time of application for service and shall issue all permits and authorizations
necessary for such connections and service in accordance with such generally
applicable rules. A moratorium shall not prevent the issuance of Discretionary
Approvals or ministerial approvals for the Project, provided that City shall not be
required to allow any connections or provide any services barred by the
moratorium.
(j) Waste Treatment Capacity.
Subject to any limitation imposed by state or federal law, in the event of a
moratorium preventing or limiting sanitary sewer connections, the SUMC Parties
shall have priority for sanitary sewer treatment capacity for the Project over other
unbuilt residential, commercial or industrial development until December 31,
2025. In addition, the SUMC Parties shall have priority over new commercial
space built or approved subsequent to the Effective Date, including but not
limited to retail, office and industrial space, until December 31, 2025. These
priorities apply to both “domestic waste” and “industrial waste.”
(k) Storm Drain Capacity.
110520 jb 0130741
29
Subject to any limitation imposed by state or federal law, in the event of a
moratorium preventing or limiting discharge or increased runoff to storm drains,
the SUMC Parties shall have priority for use of storm drains for the Project over
other unbuilt commercial development until December 31, 2025. The SUMC
Parties also shall have priority over new commercial space built or approved
subsequent to the Effective Date, including but not limited to retail, office, and
industrial space, until December 31, 2025.
(l) OSHPD.
City recognizes that, pursuant to the HSSA, (i) OSHPD has exclusive
jurisdiction of certain aspects of design and construction, including construction
of associated infrastructure, of hospital buildings, including plan review, issuance
of building permits, building inspections, and issuance of certificates of
occupancy, and, (ii) certain OSHPD standards and rules apply to non-hospital
buildings that provide outpatient clinical services. In the event that any OSHPD
requirement conflicts with the Project Approvals, the City shall (a) approve
revisions to Project Approvals or, as necessary, grant Subsequent Approvals for
modifications that are not inconsistent with the Hospital Zoning Ordinance, or, (b)
if necessary modifications would be inconsistent with the Hospital Zoning
Ordinance, promptly and in good faith enter into negotiations with the appropriate
SUMC Parties for such modifications to the Project Approvals as are necessary to
conform to the conflicting OSHPD requirement so that the public benefits and
objectives of this Agreement will be achieved at the earliest feasible date. The
approval of such revisions or modifications shall be determined in the first
instance by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, subject to
review only by expedited appeal to the City Council.
(m) No Other Dedications.
Except as may be required to provide for the installation and maintenance
of City-owned public utilities to the Project, including such easements as may be
required to install and maintain utility laterals required to serve the Project
buildings, and except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement or the Project
Approvals, or as may be agreeable to the SUMC Parties, the SUMC Parties shall
not be required to make any dedications or reservations of the Property, or any
portion thereof or interest therein, or of any other property in connection with the
development, construction, use, or operation of the Project, or any portion thereof.
The Parties shall also cooperate to identify the locations for any new necessary
easements, and the locations of any existing easements that are no longer
necessary and may be relinquished or vacated, to minimize the costs to the Parties
of creating, maintaining, or vacating such easements.
(n) No Other Public Improvements or Financial Contributions.
Except as may be required under the Conditions of Approval, in
connection with the relocation of City-owned public utilities under Welch Road,
110520 jb 0130741
30
the gas line retrofitting on Welch Road, or restoration of any public improvements
impacted by the Project construction, the SUMC Parties shall not be required to
construct public improvements or make financial contributions to City in lieu of
public improvements as part of the Project, except as expressly set forth in this
Agreement, or as may be agreeable to the SUMC Parties, or as provided in the
Project Approvals.
(o) No Obligation to Develop.
The SUMC Parties shall have no obligation to develop the Project, or any
component of it. The SUMC Parties may develop the Project in their sole
discretion in accordance with their own time schedule, subject to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement. The SUMC Parties may develop and construct the
Project in any sequence or phases, in their sole discretion.
(p) Timing for Performance of Conditions of Approval.
The SUMC Parties may request in writing a change in the time of
performance of any Condition of Approval. Within a reasonable time of
receiving the request, the City Manager or his or her designee (a) shall determine
whether additional environmental review is required because of the proposed
change; (b) may condition approval of the proposed change upon changes in the
timing of related conditions or mitigation measures; and, finally, (c) shall
approve, conditionally approve or deny the requested change. Within a
reasonable time of receiving the City Manager’s decision on the request, the
SUMC Parties shall give written notice of its acceptance or of its withdrawal of
the request. The change shall be effective upon receipt by the City of the notice
of acceptance.
7. Exceptions.
To the extent Subsequent Rules (including a moratorium otherwise
lawfully adopted by City) conflict with the Applicable Rules or Project
Approvals, they may be applied to the Project without the consent of the SUMC
Parties only (i) if City determines that application of such Subsequent Rules is
necessary to protect against conditions that create a substantial and demonstrable
risk to the physical health or safety of residents or users of the site to which the
Subsequent Rules apply or the affected surrounding region; or (ii) if such
Subsequent Rules are mandated or required by supervening federal, state or
regional statute or regulation; or (iii) if otherwise provided by this Agreement.
8. Exclusions.
(a) Sewer Facilities, Storm Drains and Runoff.
This Agreement does not affect the SUMC Parties’ obligations, if any, to
pay for or construct improvements in the storm drain system required to
implement the Project, nor does it affect the SUMC Parties’ obligations to meet
110520 jb 0130741
31
any applicable federal, state and local discharge limits and requirements
pertaining to sewer facilities, storm drains or runoff.
(b) Limited Effect on Right to Tax, Assess, or Levy Fees or Charges.
Except as expressly provided herein, this Agreement does not limit the
power and right of the City to impose the same taxes, levy the same assessments,
or require the payment of the same permit fees and charges by the SUMC Parties
as the City requires for all other nonresidential development or property on a
citywide basis. The SUMC Parties shall be required to pay all Development
Impact Fees in effect on the Effective Date, as provided in this Section 8(b),
subject to the SUMC Parties’ right to protest and/or pursue a challenge in law or
equity to the new or increased Development Impact Fee. The SUMC Parties shall
not be required to pay any new Development Impact Fees adopted after the
Effective Date through December 31, 2019, unless such payment becomes due
under the Applicable Rules or this Agreement on or after January 1, 2020.
Further, the City shall not require the SUMC Parties to pay any increase in the
amount of a Development Impact Fee, except as set forth in this Section 8(b) and
the amount of the Development Impact Fees shall be calculated as set forth in this
Section 8(b). All fees, charges, taxes and assessments permitted by this
Agreement, and as modified from time to time, are Applicable Rules or
Subsequent Applicable Rules. For buildings subject to OHSPD jurisdiction, City
fees shall be considered due not later than 30 days after issuance of the Hospital
Foundation Permit from OSHPD. In no event may any fees be paid later than the
date for payment under the Applicable Rules.
(i) All provisions and requirements of this Agreement and the
Applicable Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the SUMC Parties shall have
the following options with respect to the timing of payment of Development
Impact Fees, and the rates of Development Impact Fees will be calculated as
follows:
(A) If the SUMC Parties elect to pay or prepay all or
any portion of the Development Impact Fees between the Effective Date and
December 31, 2011, the SUMC Parties shall pay such fees at the rate in effect on
the Effective Date;
(B) If the SUMC Parties elect to pay or prepay all or
any portion of the Development Impact Fees on or after January 1, 2012 through
and including December 31, 2019, the SUMC Parties shall pay such fees at the
rate applicable citywide to nonresidential development at the time of payment;
except that the City shall not require the SUMC Parties to pay any increase in a
Development Impact Fee that exceeds an amount calculated according to the rate
in effect on the Effective Date and adjusted to reflect the change in the San
Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index from January 1, 2012 to the date of
payment.
110520 jb 0130741
32
(C) If the SUMC Parties elect to pay all or any portion
of the Development Impact Fees on or after January 1, 2020, the SUMC Parties
shall pay such fees at the rate applicable citywide to nonresidential development
at the time of payment, subject to the SUMC Parties’ right to protest and/or
pursue a challenge in law or equity to the increased fee.
(ii) The SUMC Parties shall not receive any credit against any
City Development Impact Fees for any community benefits provided pursuant to
this Agreement.
(iii) Payment of the city-wide Transportation Impact Fees in
accordance with this Agreement shall constitute the Project’s entire fair share
contribution to the following transportation mitigation measures: TR 2.1
(contribution to traffic adaptive signal technology in Palo Alto); TR 2.2
(contribution to Everett undercrossing in Palo Alto); and TR 7.2 (contribution to
Palo Alto Crosstown Shuttle).
(iv) Except as provided in this Section 8(b), the SUMC Parties
shall pay Development Impact Fees in accordance with the Applicable Rules, on
the basis of Net New Square Footage.
(v) Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the City from
collecting fees from the SUMC Parties that are lawfully imposed on the Project
by another entity having jurisdiction over the Project which the City is required or
authorized to collect pursuant to applicable laws.
(c) No Limit on Right of City to Adopt and Modify Uniform Codes.
This Agreement does not limit the right of the City, to the extent permitted
by state law, to adopt Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Fire and similar uniform
construction codes, and to adopt local modifications of those codes, from time to
time. Those codes, as modified from time to time, are Subsequent Applicable
Rules.
(d) No Limit on Power of City to Adopt and Apply Rules Governing
Provision and Use of Utility Services.
Except as expressly provided in Section 6, this Agreement does not limit
the power and right of the City to adopt and amend from time to time rules and
procedures governing the provision and use of utility services provided by the
City. These rules, as modified from time to time, are Subsequent Applicable
Rules. If there is any conflict between such Rules and Section 6, the latter shall
control.
(e) California Environmental Quality Act Compliance (CEQA).
The City has prepared and certified an EIR and has imposed mitigation
measures as Conditions of Approval prior to the execution of this Agreement.
110520 jb 0130741
33
This Agreement does not limit the City’s duty to comply with the provisions of
CEQA and the associated Guidelines, and to comply with the provisions of its
own local CEQA procedures, as they may be amended from time to time, that
comply with the provisions of section 21082 of CEQA. However, the City shall
not undertake additional environmental review under CEQA unless required to do
so by CEQA. In the event that any such further environmental review is required
for a Subsequent Approval or other Discretionary Action, it shall be in accordance
with Sections 15162-15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the scope of analysis
and evaluation shall be as required by CEQA.
(f) No General Limitation on Future Exercise of Police Power.
The City retains its right to exercise its general police power except when
such exercise would conflict with the vested rights granted under this Agreement.
The police powers so retained and enforceable under this Agreement shall
include, but are not limited to, the enactment of regulations concerning the
disposition of construction and demolition materials that apply generally to the
City.
9. Indemnity.
To the maximum extent permitted by law, the SUMC Parties shall defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees
and agents (each an “Indemnified Party” and collectively the “Indemnified
Parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by any third
party against the Indemnified Parties to attack, set aside, or void any of the Project
Approvals, or any Subsequent Approvals. The SUMC Parties shall take the lead
role in defending any such claim, action or proceeding, and may, in their sole
discretion, elect to be represented by the attorneys of their choice. The City may,
in its sole discretion, elect to be represented by the attorneys of its choice in any
such action or proceeding, with the reasonable costs of such representation to be
paid by the SUMC Parties. The SUMC Parties and the City shall fully coordinate
and cooperate in the defense of any such action and shall keep each other fully
informed of all developments relevant to such defense, subject only to
confidentiality requirements and any privileges or legal doctrines that may
prevent the communication of any such information. The SUMC Parties’
obligations set forth in this Section 9 shall survive any suspension or termination
of this Agreement, regardless of cause.
10. Cooperation and Implementation.
The Parties shall cooperate to implement this Agreement in a manner that
ensures that all Parties realize the intended benefits of the Agreement. With
respect to the City, such cooperation shall include, but without limitation, diligent
processing of applications for approval of development of the Project that comply
with the Project Approvals, Applicable Rules and Subsequent Applicable Rules,
and the City shall not unreasonably deny or delay any Discretionary Action,
110520 jb 0130741
34
Subsequent Approval or OSHPD approval that is necessary to the exercise of the
rights vested in the SUMC Parties by this Agreement. Such cooperation shall
include, but without limitation, prompt compliance by each Party with all requests
by another Party for materials and information necessary to determine the
responding Party’s compliance with this Agreement, and the diligent provision
and implementation of all community benefits and voluntary mitigation measures
to be provided by the SUMC Parties under this Agreement and the City’s
expenditures of funds for the purposes described in this Agreement.
11. Identification of Applicable Rules.
Prior to the Effective Date, the Parties will use reasonable efforts to
identify and assemble four (4) sets of the Applicable Rules, one (1) set for the
City and one (1) set for each of the SUMC Parties, so that if it becomes necessary
in the future to refer to any of the Applicable Rules, there will be a common set of
the Applicable Rules available to each Party. Failure by City to identify or
assemble written Applicable Rules shall in no manner limit City’s ability to later
identify or use such Applicable Rules.
12. Periodic Review of Compliance.
(a) Periodic Review.
City shall review this Agreement annually, in accordance with the
procedures and standards set forth in this Agreement and City of Palo Alto City
Council Resolution No. 6597 in order to ascertain the SUMC Parties’ compliance
with the terms of the Agreement. The SUMC Parties shall submit an annual
report (the “Annual Report”) to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment (the “Planning Director”), in the form and containing the content
described in Section 12(c) below, each year within thirty (30) days after the
anniversary of the Effective Date. The Annual Report shall be accompanied by
an annual review fee sufficient to cover the estimated costs of review of the
Annual Report. The amount of the annual review fee shall not exceed the City’s
actual, reasonable costs for such review. Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of
the SUMC Parties’ Annual Report, the City shall prepare and submit to the
SUMC Parties a Supplement to the Annual Report, in the form and containing the
content described in Section 12(d) below, to demonstrate the City’s good faith
compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
(b) Special Review.
The City Council may order a special review of compliance with this
Agreement any time the City Council determines that the SUMC Parties may be
in breach of the Agreement. The Planning Director or City Council, as
determined from time to time by the City Council, shall conduct such special
reviews, at the City’s expense.
110520 jb 0130741
35
(c) Annual Report.
The Annual Report to be submitted by the SUMC Parties pursuant to
Section 12(a) above shall summarize the SUMC Parties’ progress on the Project,
including, at a minimum (i) a list of the net new square footage for which a
certificate of occupancy has been received; (ii) a description of the steps the
SUMC Parties have taken to comply with the obligations listed in Section 5 of
this Agreement; and (iii) any other information the City reasonably requires to
determine the SUMC Parties’ compliance with this Agreement.
(d) Supplement to the Annual Report.
The Supplement to the Annual Report to be submitted by the City
pursuant to Section 12(a) above shall include an accounting of the funds received
by the City, including a description of the account balances for each of the funds
that the City is required to maintain under Section 5 of this Agreement (“City
Funds”), the City’s expenditures from each of the City Funds, and the purposes
for which the expenditures were used. The City’s descriptions of the expenditures
shall be at the level of detail the SUMC Parties reasonably determine is necessary
to confirm that the City’s expenditures from the City Funds are consistent with
the terms of Section 5 of this Agreement. The City’s report shall be included in
any hearings held by the City pursuant to Section 12(e) of this Agreement. The
City shall bear the burden of proof that the City has complied with the
requirements of Section 5 for use of funds paid by the SUMC parties.
(e) Procedure.
During either a periodic review or a special review, the SUMC Parties
shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the
Agreement. The burden of proof on this issue shall be on the SUMC Parties.
During the periodic or special review, the City may rely on information in
addition to that provided in the Annual Report prepared by the SUMC Parties
pursuant to Section 12(a) above. The Parties acknowledge that failure by the
SUMC Parties to demonstrate good faith compliance shall constitute grounds for
termination or modification of this Agreement in accordance with the provisions
of this Section 12.
(i) Upon the SUMC Parties’ submission of the Annual Report
to the Planning Director, the Planning Director shall review the Annual Report
and, based on the Annual Report and any other information available to the
Planning Director relating to the SUMC Parties’ compliance with the Agreement,
prepare and submit a report (the “Planning Director’s Report”) to the City Council
setting forth the evidence concerning good faith compliance by the SUMC Parties
with the terms of this Agreement and the recommended finding on that issue.
(ii) The City Council shall review the Planning Director’s
report, the Annual Report submitted by the SUMC Parties, and any other
110520 jb 0130741
36
information available to the City Council relating to the SUMC Parties’
compliance with the Agreement.
(iii) If, upon completing its review, the City Council finds that
the SUMC Parties have complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, the review shall be concluded.
(f) Default by SUMC Parties.
If, upon completing its review described in Section 12(e), the City Council
makes a finding, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the SUMC Parties have
not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the
City shall provide written notice to the SUMC Parties describing: (i) such failure
to comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement (referred to herein as a
“Default”), (ii) whether the Default can be cured, (iii) the actions, if any, required
by the SUMC Parties to cure such Default, and (iv) the time period within which
such Default must be cured. If the Default can be cured, the SUMC Parties shall
have at a minimum 90 days after the date of such notice to cure such Default, or
in the event that such Default cannot be cured within such 90-day period but can
be cured within one (1) year, the SUMC Parties shall have commenced the actions
necessary to cure such Default and shall be diligently proceeding to complete
such actions necessary to cure such Default within 90 days from the date of the
notice. If the Default cannot be cured or cannot be cured within one (1) year, as
determined by City during the periodic or special review, the City Council may
modify or terminate this Agreement as provided in Section 12(g) and Section
12(h).
(g) Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination.
If, upon a finding under Section 12(f) and the expiration of the cure period
specified in Section 12(f) above, City determines to proceed with modification or
termination of this Agreement, City shall give written notice to the SUMC Parties
of its intention so to do. The notice shall be given at least ten calendar days
before the scheduled hearing and shall contain:
(i) The time and place of the hearing;
(ii) A statement as to whether or not the City proposes to
terminate or to modify the Agreement; and
(iii) Such other information as is reasonably necessary to inform
the SUMC Parties of the nature of the proceeding.
(h) Hearings on Modification or Termination.
At the time and place set for the hearing on modification or termination,
the SUMC Parties shall be given an opportunity to be heard and shall be required
to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of this
110520 jb 0130741
37
Agreement. The burden of proof on the issue shall be on the SUMC Parties. If
the City Council finds, based upon substantial evidence, that the SUMC Parties
has not complied in good faith with the terms or conditions of the Agreement, the
City Council may terminate this Agreement or modify this Agreement in a
manner mutually acceptable to the Parties to address the Default. The decision of
the City Council shall be final and subject to judicial review as provided in
Section 14, below.
(i) Certificate of Compliance.
If, at the conclusion of a periodic or special review, the SUMC Parties are
found or deemed to be in compliance with this Agreement, City shall, upon
request by the SUMC Parties, issue a Certificate of Compliance (“Certificate”) to
the SUMC Parties stating that after the most recent periodic or special review and
based upon the information known or made known to the Planning Director and
City Council that: (1) this Agreement remains in effect, and (2) the SUMC Parties
are not in Default. The Certificate shall be in recordable form, shall contain
information necessary communicate constructive record notice of the finding of
compliance, shall state whether the Certificate is issued after a periodic or special
review and shall state the anticipated date of commencement of the next periodic
review. The SUMC Parties may record the Certificate without cost or expense to
City.
13. Default by City.
If the SUMC Parties determine that City has failed to comply with any of
the City’s obligations under this Agreement, the SUMC Parties may provide
written notice to the City describing its contentions regarding (i) such failure to
comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement (referred to herein as a
“City Default”), (ii) whether the City Default can be cured, (iii) the actions, if any,
required of City to cure such City Default, and (iv) the time period within which
such City Default must be cured. If the City Default can be cured, City shall have
at least 90 days after the date of such notice to cure such Default, or in the event
that such City Default cannot be cured within such 90 days period but can be
cured within one year, City shall have commenced all actions necessary to cure
such Default and shall be diligently proceeding to complete all such actions
necessary to cure such Default within 90 days from the date of notice. If the
SUMC Parties contend that the City Default cannot be cured or cannot be cured
within one year, or if City fails to cure within the applicable cure period as
provided in this Section 13, the SUMC Parties shall give notice to City of its
contentions before pursuing the remedies described in Section 14.
14. Remedies for Default.
It is acknowledged by the Parties that City would not have entered into
this Agreement if doing so would subject it to the risk of incurring liability in
damages, either for breach of this Agreement, anticipatory breach, repudiation of
110520 jb 0130741
38
the Agreement, or for any actions with respect to its implementation or
application. The Parties intend by the provisions of this Section 14 that none of
the Parties shall have any liability for money damages arising out of a breach of
this Agreement, and no liability in money damages for any claims arising out of
the application process, negotiation, execution and adoption, or the
implementation or application of this Agreement.
Each of the Parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law or equity
available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, including but not
limited to temporary or permanent injunctive relief or restraining orders, except
that the Parties shall have no liability in damages for any acts which are alleged to
have arisen out of or relate to this Agreement, under any circumstances.
The Parties further acknowledge that money damages and remedies at law
generally are inadequate, and specific performance is the most appropriate
remedy for the enforcement of this Agreement and should be available to all
Parties for the following reasons:
(a) Money damages are excluded as provided above.
(b) Due to the size, nature, and scope of the Project, it may not be
practical or possible to restore the Property to its original condition once
implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, the
SUMC Parties may be foreclosed from other choices they may have had to utilize
the Property or portions thereof. The SUMC Parties have invested significant
time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the
Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even
more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon
the terms of this Agreement, and it is not possible to determine the sum of money
which would adequately compensate the SUMC Parties for such efforts.
Except for non-damages remedies, including the remedy of specific
performance, the SUMC Parties, on the one hand, and the City, on the other hand,
for themselves, their successors and assignees, hereby release one another’s
officers, trustees, directors, agents and employees from any and all claims,
demands, actions, or suits of any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known
or unknown, present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or liability,
based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution,
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, or any
other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any money damages, whatsoever,
upon the Parties because the Parties entered into this Agreement, because of the
terms of this Agreement, or because of the manner of implementation or
performance of this Agreement.
All legal actions shall be heard by a reference from the Santa Clara
County Superior Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 638, et seq.
The parties to the action shall agree upon a single referee who shall then try all
110520 jb 0130741
39
issues, whether of fact or law, and report a finding and judgment thereon and
issue all legal and equitable relief appropriate under the circumstances of the
controversy before the referee. If the parties to the action are unable to agree on a
referee within ten (10) days of a written request to do so by any Party, any Party
may seek to have one appointed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 640.
The cost of such proceeding shall initially be borne equally by the parties to the
action. Any referee selected pursuant to this Section 13 shall be considered a
temporary judge appointed pursuant to Article 6, Section 21 of the California
Constitution.
15. Modification, Amendment or Cancellation by Mutual Agreement.
Subject to meeting the notice and hearing requirements of Section 65867
of the Development Agreement Act, this Agreement may be modified, amended,
or cancelled at any time by mutual consent of the Parties in accordance with the
provisions of Section 65868 of the Development Agreement Act and City’s
Resolution No. 6597.
16. Superseding State or Federal Law.
In the event that any state or federal law or regulation enacted or adopted
after the date of this Agreement shall prevent or preclude compliance with any of
the provisions hereof, such provisions shall be modified or suspended only to the
extent and for the time necessary to achieve compliance with said law or
regulation and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall be in full force
and effect. Upon repeal of said law or regulation or occurrence of other
circumstances removing the effect thereof upon this Agreement, the provisions
hereof shall be restored to their full original effect.
110520 jb 0130741
40
17. Notices.
All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in
writing and shall be delivered personally or by overnight courier service or sent
by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. Any notice shall be
deemed to have been duly given and received upon receipt. Notices to the parties
shall be addressed as follows:
City: City Manager
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
with copies to: City Attorney
City of Palo Alto, 8th Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Director of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto, 5th Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
SHC/LPCH: Mark J. Tortorich, Vice President
Planning, Design & Construction
384 Stanford Shopping Center
Stanford, CA 94304
with a copy to: Sarah Diboise, Esq.
Office of General Counsel
Building 170, 3rd Floor, Main Quad
P.O. Box 20386
Stanford, CA 94305-2038
Stanford University: Vice President, Land Buildings and Real Estate
Stanford University
3145 Porter Drive, Building F
Palo Alto, CA 94304
with a copy to: Vice President and General Counsel
Stanford University
P.O. Box 20386
Stanford, CA 94305
Any Party may change its address for notice by giving ten (10) days’ notice of
such change in the manner provided for in this paragraph.
110520 jb 0130741
41
18. Term of Agreement; Force Majeure.
(a) Basic Term.
Except as to those obligations that expressly extend for the Life Of The
Project,, or otherwise expressly extend beyond the stated Term of the Agreement,
the Term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date, and shall
continue for thirty (30) years from the adoption of the Ordinance authorizing this
Agreement or until earlier terminated by mutual consent of the Parties or as
otherwise provided by this Agreement. Upon the termination of this Agreement,
no Party shall have any further right or obligation hereunder except with respect
to any obligation to have been performed prior to such termination, or with
respect to any default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement
which has occurred prior to such termination, or with respect to any obligations
which are specifically set forth as surviving this Agreement.
(b) Extension for Referendum, Litigation, Default or Moratorium.
If a Party is deprived of a benefit under this Agreement as a result of
referendum of one or more of the Project Approvals, litigation challenging one or
more of the Project Approvals or one or more Subsequent Approvals, a
moratorium, or a default by the other Party, then the Party so deprived may elect
to extend the Term of this Agreement with respect to that benefit for the duration
of the moratorium or default.
(c) Force Majeure.
Performance by either the SUMC Parties, on the one hand, or the City, on
the other hand, of an obligation hereunder shall be excused during any period of
“Permitted Delay.” Permitted Delay shall mean delay beyond the reasonable
control of a Party including, without limitation, an inability to perform caused by
(a) acts of God, including without limitation earthquakes, floods, fire, and other
natural calamities, (b) civil commotion; (c) riots or terrorist acts; (d) strikes or
other forms of material labor disputes; (e) shortages of materials or supplies; and
(f) vandalism. A Party’s financial inability to perform shall not be a ground for
claiming a Permitted Delay. The Party claiming the Permitted Delay shall notify
the other Party of its intent to claim a Permitted Delay, the specific grounds of the
same and the anticipated period of the Permitted Delay within 10 business days
after the occurrence of the conditions which establish the grounds for the claim.
The period of Permitted Delay shall last not longer than the conditions preventing
performance.
19. Assignment; Right to Assign.
(a) Assignment.
110520 jb 0130741
42
(i) Right to Assign.
Each of the SUMC Parties shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign its
interest in the Property, in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer
shall be permitted to cause a violation of the Subdivision Map Act, Government
Code section 66410, et seq.), to any person or entity at any time during the term
of this Agreement; provided:
(A) Concurrently with any such sale, transfer or
assignment, or within ten (10) business days thereafter, the transferor shall notify
City, in writing, of such sale, transfer or assignment and shall provide City with
an executed agreement, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City, by the
purchaser, transferee or assignee and providing therein that the purchaser,
transferee or assignee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the duties and
obligations of the transferor under this Agreement.
(B) No sale, transfer or assignment of any right or
interest under this Agreement shall be made without the prior written consent of
the City Council, which consent may not be unreasonably withheld.
Notwithstanding the failure of any purchaser, transferee or assignee to
execute the agreement required by subparagraph (i) above, the burdens of this
Agreement shall be binding upon such purchaser, transferee or assignee, but the
benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to such purchaser, transferee or
assignee until and unless such agreement is executed.
(ii) Release of Transferor.
Notwithstanding any sale, transfer or assignment, the transferring Party
shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement unless such Party is given a
release in writing by City, which release will be provided by City upon the full
satisfaction by the transferring Party of all the following conditions:
(A) The transferring Party no longer has a legal or
equitable interest in the portion of the Property being transferred.
(B) The transferring Party is not then in default and
default proceedings have not been commenced by City under this Agreement.
(C) The transferring Party has provided City with the
notice and executed agreement required under Section 19(a)(1)(i) above.
(D) The purchaser, transferee or assignee provides City
with security reasonably satisfactory to City to secure performance of its
obligations under this Agreement.
Nothing contained in this Section 19 shall prevent a transfer of the
Property, or any portion thereof, to an institutional lender or Mortgagee as a result
110520 jb 0130741
43
of a foreclosure of a Mortgage or deed in lieu of foreclosure, and any lender or
Mortgagee acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, as a result of
foreclosure of a Mortgage or a deed in lieu of foreclosure shall take such Property
subject to the terms of this Agreement; provided, however, in no event shall such
lender or Mortgagee be liable for any defaults or monetary obligations of the
SUMC Parties arising prior to acquisition of title to the Property by such lender or
Mortgagee; and provided further in no event shall any such lender or Mortgagee
or its successors or assigns be entitled to a building permit or occupancy
certificate for any portion of the Project until all fees due under this Agreement
have been paid to City, until all outstanding obligations of the SUMC Parties have
been performed, and until any and all outstanding Defaults have been cured.
20. Mortgagee Protection.
The Parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit any
of the SUMC Parties in any manner, at their sole discretion, from encumbering
the Property or any portion thereof or any improvement thereon by any Mortgage
securing financing with respect to the Property or development of the Property.
City acknowledges that the lenders providing such financing may require certain
Agreement interpretations and shall upon request, from time to time, meet with
any of the SUMC Parties and representatives of such lenders to consider any such
request for interpretation. City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any
such requested interpretation provided such interpretation is consistent with the
intent and purposes of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee of the Property shall be
entitled to the following rights and privileges:
(a) No Impairment.
Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall
defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust
on the Property made in good faith and for value.
(b) Notice of Default by the SUMC Parties.
The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the
Property, or any part thereof, which Mortgagee, has submitted a request in writing
to the City in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to
receive written notification from City of any Default by the SUMC Parties in the
performance of the SUMC Parties’ obligations under this Agreement.
(c) Notice.
If City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of
any notice of default given to any of the SUMC Parties under the terms of this
Agreement, City shall provide a copy of that notice to the Mortgagee within
twenty (20) days of sending the notice of default to the SUMC Parties. The
110520 jb 0130741
44
Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during
the remaining cure period allowed such Party under this Agreement.
(d) Transfer of Ownership.
Mortgagee shall have the rights set forth in the last paragraph of Section
18 above.
21. Miscellaneous.
(a) Effect of Recitals.
The Recitals are intended in part to paraphrase and summarize this
Agreement, however, the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement are
expressed with particularity in Section 1, et seq. and the rights and obligations of
the Parties are to be determined by the terms of the Agreement and not by the
Recitals. To the extent the Recitals provide factual context for the Agreement,
they may be considered when interpreting the terms and provisions of the
Agreement.
(b) Construction.
As used in this Agreement, and as the context may require, the singular
includes the plural and vice versa, and the masculine gender includes the feminine
and neuter and vice versa.
This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair
language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the
Parties. This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for each
Signatory Party, and no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed
against the drafting Party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this
Agreement. Each Signatory Party has consulted with counsel and determined that
this Agreement accurately and completely reflects the agreement of the Parties.
The captions of the sections and subsections of this Agreement are solely
for the convenience of reference and shall be disregarded in the construction and
interpretation of this Agreement.
(c) Severability.
If any terms of this Agreement are determined to be invalid, void, or
unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected to the extent
the remaining terms are not rendered impractical or impossible to perform taking
into consideration the purposes of this Agreement.
(d) Time.
110520 jb 0130741
45
Time is of the essence of this Agreement and of each and every term and
condition hereof.
(e) Waiver.
No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in
writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom
enforcement of a waiver is sought. No waiver of any right or remedy in respect of
any occurrence or event shall be deemed a waiver of any other right or remedy or
in respect of any other occurrence or event.
(f) Governing State Law.
This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the state
of California.
(g) Determination of Compliance.
At any time during the Term of this Agreement, any Party or its lender,
may request any Party to this Agreement to confirm that to the best of such
Party’s knowledge, no defaults exist under this Agreement or if defaults do exist,
to describe the nature of such defaults. Each Party shall provide such a
determination to such lender or other Party within forty-five (45) days of the
request therefor. The failure of any Party to provide the requested determination
within such forty-five (45) day period shall constitute a confirmation that to the
best of such Party’s knowledge, no defaults exist under this Agreement. Requests
for such determinations shall be made in writing and as required by Section 17
above.
(h) Entire Agreement.
This Agreement contains the entire understanding and agreement of the
Parties. There are no oral or written representations, understandings,
undertakings, or agreements that are not contained or expressly referred to herein,
and any such representations, understandings, or agreements are superseded by
this Agreement. No evidence of any such representations, understandings, or
agreements shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature relating to
the terms or conditions of this Agreement, its interpretation, or breach.
(i) No Third Party Beneficiaries.
This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and
benefit of the signatory Parties and their successors and assigns, including
Mortgagees. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any
provision of this Agreement.
(j) Authority to Execute.
110520 jb 0130741
46
Each person executing this Agreement warrants and represents that he or
she has the authority to bind the signatory Party for which he or she is signing to
the performance of its obligations hereunder.
(k) Administrative Appeal.
Whenever in the Applicable Rules or Subsequent Applicable Rules any
requirement or action by the SUMC Parties is conditioned upon the approval or
satisfaction, however expressed, of any entity other than City, such condition shall
not be interpreted as providing the third party the right to make any final decision
other than as may be authorized by law other than the Applicable Rules or
Subsequent Applicable Rules. Where a third party has no right authorized by law
other than the Applicable Rules or Subsequent Applicable Rules to make a final
decision, a condition requiring approval or satisfaction of such third party,
however expressed, shall mean that the third party shall provide, as appropriate,
advice, consultation, a recommendation and/or an initial decision regarding the
condition. The actual determination in such case will be made by the official or
entity of City required or authorized to make such determination in accordance
with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code as set forth in the
Applicable Rules. Appeals from determinations made by City officials or entities
shall be made in accordance with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code as set forth in the Applicable Rules.
(l) Exhibits.
The following s to which reference is made in this Agreement are deemed
incorporated herein in their entirety:
Exhibit A – Property Description
Exhibit B – Project Approvals
If the recorder refuses to record any exhibit, the City Clerk may replace it
with a single sheet bearing the exhibit identification letter, stating the title of the
exhibit, the reason it is not being recorded, and that the original, certified by the
City Clerk, is in the possession of the City Clerk and will be reattached to the
original when it is returned by the recorder to the City Clerk.
(m) Signature Pages.
For convenience, the signatory Parties may execute and acknowledge this
Agreement on separate signature pages, which, when attached hereto, shall
constitute one complete agreement.
(n) Precedence.
If any conflict or inconsistency arises between this Agreement and the
Applicable Rules or the Subsequent Rules, the provisions of this Agreement shall
110520 jb 0130741
47
have precedence and shall control over the conflicting or inconsistent provisions
of the Applicable Rules or Subsequent Rules.
(o) Recordation.
Whenever recordation is required or may be required by either Party, City
shall be responsible for recordation. If City fails to record a document when
required, the SUMC Parties may, but are not obligated to, record the document
and by doing so the SUMC Parties do not assume the duties or obligations of City
established by this Section or the Development Agreement Act nor does it waive
any right it may have to compel City to properly perform its duties and
obligations. The failure of City to record or to properly record this Agreement or
any other document as provided herein shall not affect or limit in any way the
SUMC Parties’ rights to enforce this Agreement and to rely upon it.
(p) Referendum or Challenge.
In the absence of a referendum petition, City shall not unilaterally submit
the Project Approvals or the ordinance approving this Agreement to a referendum
by action of the City Council on its own motion without the SUMC Parties’
consent. In addition to the remedies set forth in Section 18(b), if the Project
Approvals or the ordinance approving this Agreement is the subject of a
referendum, or if litigation is commenced seeking to rescind the Project
Approvals or the City’s decision to enter into this Agreement or to declare this
Agreement void (“Legal Action”), less than one year from the filing with the
County Clerk by the City of the Notice of Determination following the second
reading of the ordinance approving the Hospital District zoning and the ordinance
approving this Agreement (the “NOD”), each Party shall have the right to
terminate this Agreement by written notice to the other Parties no later than thirty
(30) days after the event that gives a Party the right to terminate, or such later
time allowed in writing by the non-terminating Party or Parties. Each Party’s right
to unilaterally terminate this Agreement as set forth in this Section 21(p) shall
expire one year from the date of the filing of the NOD. The Parties may also, at
any time by mutual agreement, suspend performance of all or part of the
obligations in this Agreement pending the outcome of any such referendum or
litigation.
(i) City’s Reimbursement Obligation.
If the Project Approvals or the Ordinance approving this Agreement is
challenged by a Legal Action as described above in Section 21(p), the City shall
return payments made by the SUMC Parties to the City according to the following
requirements:
(A) If the Legal Action is filed with the court before 90
days have elapsed from the filing of the NOD, then the City shall return all
110520 jb 0130741
48
payments made by the SUMC Parties pursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement,
within 30 days of the City’s receipt of a written request by the SUMC Parties.
(B) If the Legal Action is filed with the court more than
90 days but less than one year after the filing of the NOD, then the City shall
return payments made by the SUMC Parties pursuant to Section 5 of this
Agreement, within 30 days of the City’s receipt of a written request by the SUMC
Parties, as follows:
(1) Section 5(a)(iii) (Fund for Community
Health and Safety Programs) Payments.
The City shall return to the SUMC Parties such portions of payments
made by the SUMC Parties pursuant to Section 5(a)(iii) that have not been
disbursed through the City’s Human Relations Committee or otherwise, or
contractually committed to a third party community health care program by the
City.
(2) Section 5(b)(iii) (Fund for Operating
Deficit) Payments.
The City shall return to the SUMC Parties such portions of payments
made by the SUMC Parties pursuant to Section 5(b)(iii) that have not been
contractually committed by the City to a third party.
(3) Section 5(e)(i) (Infrastructure, Sustainable
Neighborhoods and Communities, and
Affordable Housing Fund) Payments.
The City shall return to the SUMC Parties such portions of payments
made by the SUMC Parties pursuant to Section 5(e)(i) that have not been
contractually committed by the City to a third party.
(4) Section 5(f)(i) (Sustainability Programs)
Payments.
The City shall return to the SUMC Parties such portions of payments
made by the SUMC Parties pursuant to Section 5(f)(i) that have not been
contractually committed by the City to a third party.
(C) If the Legal Action is filed with the court one year
or more after the filing of the NOD, and results in a final judgment that materially
impairs the SUMC Parties’ vested rights under this Agreement, then the City shall
have no obligation to return any payments already made by the SUMC Parties to
the City pursuant to this Agreement, and all of the Parties’ outstanding obligations
under this Agreement shall be suspended until the Parties have mutually agreed to
either reinstate or terminate this Agreement.
110520 jb 0130741
49
(ii) Effect of Suspension or Termination of Agreement.
If the Parties mutually agree to suspend performance of all or part of the
obligations in this Agreement pending the outcome of the Legal Action pursuant
to Section 21(p) above, the agreement to suspend performance shall address the
terms under which the SUMC Parties’ payment obligations under Section 5 shall
be reinstated.
In the event that the SUMC Parties unilaterally terminate this
Development Agreement pursuant to Section 21(p), the City may elect at its
reasonable discretion to revoke the conditional use permit for the Project in whole
or in part, and the SUMC Parties will not contend that commencement of
construction elsewhere on the Property has vested the SUMC Parties’ rights to
construct structures for which construction has not yet commenced. The Parties’
rights and obligations set forth in this Section 21(p)(ii) shall survive the SUMC
Parties’ unilateral termination of this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of
Section 21(p).
(iii) Limit of City’s Reimbursement Obligations.
Except as specifically set forth in this Section 21(p), the City shall have no
obligation to return any payments made by the SUMC Parties pursuant to this
Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the
parties as of the day and year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF PALO ALTO
______________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney
APPROVED:
______________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
_____________________________
Director of Planning and Community Environment
110520 jb 0130741
50
STANFORD HOSPITAL AND CLINICS
By: _________________________
Name: _______________________
Title: ________________________
LUCILE SALTER PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AT STANFORD
By: __________________________
Name: ________________________
Title: _________________________
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD
UNIVERSITY
By: ___________________________
Name: _________________________
Title: __________________________
110520 jb 0130741
51
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
(To Be Inserted Later)
110520 jb 0130741
52
Exhibit B
Initial Project Approvals
A. Approval of the resolution adopting changes to the Comprehensive Plan to
recognize taller building heights at SUMC, to exclude hospital, clinic and
medical school use areas from the citywide and area specific non-
residential growth limits, and changes to the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map;
B. Adoption of an ordinance amending the municipal code to establish a new
“Hospital” zone district and amending the sign code and tree code to be
consistent with the Hospital Zone regulations;
C. Adoption of an ordinance approving a thirty–year development agreement
between the City of Palo Alto and the Applicants that would grant certain
development rights in exchange for certain public benefits
D. Adoption of a Record of Land Use Action approving a conditional use
permit that would allow specific hospital, medical office, and related
uses in the Hospital Zone
E. Architectural Review Board Approval of the following:
1. Stanford Hospital;
2. Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital expansion;
3. School of Medicine, Foundations in Medicine 1 building (FIM1);
4. Renovation of the existing Hoover Pavilion;
5. Medical Office Building and Parking Garage;
6. Surface Improvements along Welch Road, and Durand Way; and
7. SUMC Design Guidelines.
F. Adoption of a Resolution annexing an approximate 0.65 acre site from
Santa Clara County; and
G. Acceptance of SUMC Area Plan Update.
110525 jb 0130751
ACTION NO. 2011-__
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND
REPLACEMENT PROJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR STANFORD
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
(STANFORD HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, LUCILE SALTER CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL
AT STANFORD, AND STANFORD UNIVERSITY, APPLICANTS)
On June __, 2011, the City Council approved the Conditional
Use Permit for the Stanford University Medical Center facilities
within the Hospital District zone, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Stanford Hospital and Clinics (“SHC”), Lucile Salter
Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford (“LPCH”) and Stanford
University School of Medicine (“SoM”) operate existing Stanford
University Medical Center (“SUMC”) facilities within the City of
Palo Alto on two sites that are collectively approximately 66
acres: the approximately 56-acre Main SUMC Site and the
approximately 9.9-acre Hoover Pavilion Site. The two sites
collectively are referred to in this Conditional Use Permit as the
SUMC Sites. The Main SUMC Site is primarily bounded by Welch Road,
Quarry Road, and Stanford University lands in unincorporated Santa
Clara County. The Hoover Pavilion Site is located south and east
of the corner of Quarry Road and Palo Road. The boundaries of the
SUMC Sites are shown on Exhibit A to this Conditional Use Permit.
B. On August 13, 2007, SHC, LPCH and SoM (collectively, the
“Project Applicants”) applied for a Zone Change, Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Environmental Assessment, Architectural Review,
Annexation and a Development Agreement for the Stanford University
Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project
(“Project” or “SUMC Project”), including the demolition,
renovation, and replacement of on-site structures, thereby adding
approximately 1.3 million square feet of net new floor area, broken
down as follows:
Demolition, renovation, and construction of SHC facilities,
providing a net increase of approximately 824,000 square feet,
the combined replacement of existing hospital beds and the
addition of new hospital beds for a total of 600 beds;
Demolition, renovation, and construction of LPCH facilities,
resulting in approximately 442,000 additional square feet, the
addition of new hospital beds to existing beds to comprise a
total of 361 beds;
110525 jb 0130751
Demolition of four existing SoM buildings and construction of
three replacement buildings, with no net increase in square
feet;
Demolition of shops and storage space, renovation of existing
Hoover Pavilion, and net addition of approximately 46,000
square feet of new medical, office, research, clinic, and
administrative facilities at the Hoover Pavilion Site for
medical offices for community practitioners and SUMC-related
medical offices, clinical facilities, and support uses;
Demolition of existing parking spaces and construction of
2,985 new and replacement spaces, for a net increase of 2,053
spaces to address additional demand for the SUMC Project, to
be located in surface parking and above- and underground
structures;
Construction of a new road connecting Sand Hill Road and Welch
Road, and provision of interior driveways and improved
circulation connections, including the extension of Quarry
Road to Roth Way;
Widening of Welch Road by the addition of a third lane to
accommodate left turns in both directions; and
Related on-site and off-site improvements.
C. Following staff review and preparation of the
Environmental Impact Report for the SUMC Project, the Planning and
Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed the Project,
including the Conditional Use Permit, and recommended approval on
__________, 2011. The Commission’s recommendations are contained
in the Staff Report#1339, Attachment __.
D. On __________, 2011, the City Council certified the
Environmental Impact Report and approved the Project and related
approvals, including the Conditional Use Permit, making certain
findings, determinations and declarations.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead
agency for the Project has determined that the Project is subject
to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15081,
Decision to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report. An
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Project and
the City Council has determined that the Project would have
significant impacts on the environment that can and cannot be
mitigated. The Draft EIR was available for public review beginning
May 20, 2010 through July 27, 2010. The Final EIR was made
available on February 17, 2011. On _____________, 2011, the City
Council certified the EIR, adopted the findings required by CEQA,
and adopted a statement of overriding considerations for those
impacts that could not be mitigated to less than significant
levels. The Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting Plan are contained in Staff Report #1339,
Attachment __.
110525 jb 0130751
SECTION 3. Conditionally Permitted Uses. Palo Alto
Municipal Code, Section 18.36.040 (Hospital District) identifies
uses that may be conditionally permitted upon issuance of a
Conditional Use Permit. Health Care Services (including hospitals,
medical offices, medical research and ambulance services), public
or private colleges and universities, services uses (including day
care centers), transportation uses (including helipads and parking
facilities), among other uses, are conditionally permitted uses
under the HD regulations. Based on the Findings in Section 4 and
the Conditions of Approval in Section 6, the City Council hereby
approves the following existing and expanded uses on the SUMC
Sites:
1. Existing Buildings. Continuation of the following lawful
existing uses in their present locations, including legal
nonconforming uses:
a. Hospital/ Clinic Buildings. The conditionally permitted
uses (as identified in the HD zoning regulations) in the
hospital/clinic buildings at the Main SUMC Site are:
public or private colleges and universities and facilities
appurtenant thereto, ambulance services, convalescent
facilities, hospitals, medical office, and medical
research.
Original Hospital Building (East/West/Core/Boswell)
(441,201 gsf)
Core Expansion (223,850 gsf)
Hospital Modernization Project (431,280 gsf)
Hospital Entry (77 gsf)
Blake-Wilbur Clinic (73,100 gsf)
801 Welch Road (12,671 gsf)
Lucile Salter Packard Children’s Hospital (274,700
gsf)
Advanced Medicine Center (224,836 gsf)
1101 Welch Road (40,100 gsf)
701 Welch Road (56,300 gsf)
703 Welch Road (23,500 gsf)
Subtotal: 1,801,615 gsf
b. Medical Office/ Clinic Buildings. The conditionally
permitted uses (as identified in the HD zoning regulations)
in the medical office/clinic buildings at the Hoover
Pavilion Site are: medical office
Hoover Pavilion (84,230 gsf)
Hoover Shops and Storage, including Nurses Cottage
(13,831 gsf)
110525 jb 0130751
Subtotal: 98,061 gsf
c. Research Buildings. The conditionally permitted uses
(as identified in the HD zoning regulations) in the
research buildings at the Main SUMC Site are: public or
private colleges and universities, and medical research.
Original Hospital Building
(Grant/Alway/Lane/Edwards) (414,977 gsf)
Falk Building (52,226 gsf)
Subtotal: 467,203 gsf
d. Childcare Buildings. The conditionally permitted
use (as identified in the HD zoning regulations) in the
childcare buildings at the Hoover Pavilion site is Day Care
Center:
Arboretum Children’s Center (9,113gsf)
Subtotal: 9,113 gsf
Total Existing Buildings: 2,375,992 gsf
e. Transportation Uses, including all existing
structured and surface parking facilities, transit stops
and shelters.
f. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility
services.
2. New Construction at Main SUMC Site. Construction and use
of up to 3,534,090 total square feet of hospital/clinic
and research buildings, as well as associated utility
facilities, parking facilities, helicopter and heliport
facilities, and infrastructure improvements at the Main
SUMC Site, including up to 1,265,272 net new square feet
of hospital, clinic and research buildings, which may
include all of the following:
a. New or Expanded Hospital/Clinic Buildings. The
conditionally permitted uses (as identified in the HD
zoning regulations) in the hospital/clinic buildings at the
Main SUMC Site are: public or private colleges and
universities and facilities appurtenant thereto, ambulance
services, convalescent facilities, hospitals, medical
office, and medical research.
110525 jb 0130751
New Stanford Hospital Buildings (1,100,000 gsf; not
to exceed total of 600 beds for combined existing and
new Stanford Hospital facilities)
New SHC Clinic/Office Buildings, (429,000 gsf)
New Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Buildings,
including clinic/office space (521,300 gsf, not to
exceed 361 beds for combined existing and new Lucile
Packard Children’s Hospital)
b. New Research Buildings. The conditionally permitted
uses (as identified in the HD zoning regulations) in the
research buildings at the Main SUMC Site are: public or
private colleges and universities and facilities
appurtenant thereto, and medical research.
FIM Buildings #1, #2 and #3 (414,977 gsf)
c. New Public/Quasi-Public Facilities.
Such utility facilities as are essential to the
provision of utility services to the permitted and
conditionally permitted uses, but excluding
construction/storage yards, maintenance facilities, or
corporation yards.
d. New Transportation Facilities.
SHC Parking Structure (approximately 970 spaces)
LPCH Parking Structure (approximately 430 spaces)
Clinics Parking (underground) (approximately 500
spaces)
Helipads and Helicopter Facilities (as described in
the Final EIR)
3. New Construction at Hoover Pavilion Site. Construction and
use of up to 153,343 total square feet of medical
office/clinic buildings and day care center, as well as
associated utility facilities, and parking facilities, at
the Hoover Pavilion Site, including up to 46,169 net new
square feet of medical office/clinic buildings, which may
include all of the following:
a. New Medical Office/Clinic Buildings. The conditionally
permitted uses (as identified in the HD zoning regulations)
in the medical office/clinic buildings at the Hoover
Pavilion Site are: medical office.
110525 jb 0130751
Hoover Medical Office Building (60,000 gsf)
b. New Public/Quasi-Public Facilities.
Such utility facilities as are essential to the
provision of utility services to the permitted and
conditionally permitted uses, but excluding
construction/storage yards, maintenance facilities, or
corporation yards.
c. New Transportation Facilities.
Hoover Parking Structure (approximately 1,085 spaces)
4. Minor Variations in Square Footage. The conditionally
permitted uses set forth in this Section 3 may include
renovation of existing facilities at the Main SUMC Site and
at the Hoover Pavilion Site, including renovation of
existing Hospital/Clinic Buildings and renovation of the
Hoover Pavilion. The gross square footage designations and
parking space amounts set forth in Section 3 are intended
to correspond to the project description in the February
2011 Final EIR. They represent the City’s and the SUMC
Parties’ best estimates of the gross square footage of each
building and the parking spaces in each new parking
structure after construction of these described uses. The
City and the SUMC Parties anticipate that there may be some
variations in square footages and parking spaces from the
figures listed in Section 3, such that some completed
buildings and parking structures may be larger than
described herein, and some buildings and parking structures
may be smaller than described herein. Accordingly, the
gross square footage and parking space figures in Section 3
are not intended to serve as absolute minimums or maximums
on the square footage or parking spaces allowed for each
building or parking structure. In no event, however, may
the total square footage allocated to each type of
conditionally permitted use (e.g., hospital, medical
office, research uses) substantially exceed the square
footage for that type of use that was quantified in the
trip generation studies for the SUMC Project in the Final
EIR, such that the increase in square footage allocated to
the type of use would result in a materially higher overall
trip generation rate than the rate studied in the Final
EIR.
5. Overlapping Uses. In recognition of the unique
relationship between SHC, LPCH, and the SoM facilities, and
the need for the SUMC Parties to maintain close cooperation
and coordination of the various uses on the Main SUMC Site
and Hoover Pavilion Site in order to sustain their position
110525 jb 0130751
as a global leader in medical care and research, and to
most effectively deliver to the City and the region the
public benefits associated with the operation of their
facilities in the City of Palo Alto, the City acknowledges
and hereby allows that university uses, which are permitted
Educational uses under the HD regulations, may occur in all
of the existing and new buildings on the Main SUMC Site and
on the Hoover Pavilion Site. Similarly, medical research
uses, which are permitted Health Care Services uses under
the HD regulations, may occur in all of the existing and
new buildings on the Main SUMC Site and on the Hoover
Pavilion Site. The occurrence of these uses in these
described facilities shall not constitute a violation, or
otherwise be a ground for revocation, of this conditional
use permit.
SECTION 4. Conditional Use Permit Findings. Neither the
Director, nor the City Council on appeal, shall grant a conditional
use permit, unless it is found that the granting of the application
will:
1. Not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to public
health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
As described in summary in Section 2 and in detail in the June 6,
2011 Staff Report, an EIR was prepared for the Project in
accordance with CEQA. It was determined that the Project would
have significant and unavoidable impacts with regard to
Transportation, Air Quality, Noise, Cultural Resources, and
Biological Resources. With mitigation, the Project would have less-
than-significant impacts with regard to Land Use, Aesthetics,
Climate Change, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, Hydrology,
Hazardous Materials, Population and Housing, Public Services and
Utilities. The City Council has adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (SOC) for those significant impacts that cannot be
mitigated. As described Chapter 3.2, pages 3.2-30 to 3.2-31, of the
Draft EIR for the Project, the Project would not significantly
impede the function of surrounding uses despite having significant
and unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The SUMC Project
would not introduce a new land use. Rather, it would intensify and
reconfigure the established hospital, clinic/medical office and
research uses on the SUMC Sites. The nearest sensitive uses are
the residences at 1100 Welch Road. The effect most likely to
result in localized interference with sensitive uses is long-term
operational noise. While noise from testing Project emergency
generators could be heard at the residences at 1100 Welch Road, the
testing would be sporadic and during times when residents would
typically be out of their homes. Similarly, while ambulance noise
along new ambulance routes would be significant, it would be
sporadic and it would not impede the function of the nearby
residential uses. The SUMC Project would not conflict with nearby
110525 jb 0130751
residential, recreational, educational, religious or scientific
uses.
2. Be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title
(zoning). The Project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as
outlined in the findings in Exhibit B. The Project is also in
conformance with the HD zoning (Palo Alto Municipal Code, chapter
18.36) requirements approved by City Council on June __, 2011.
SECTION 5. Conditional Use Permit Granted. Conditional
Use Permit approval is granted for the uses described in Section 3
above by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
18.76.010 for the Project, subject to the conditions of approval in
Section 6.
SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS
1. This permit is effective 30 days after final passage of the HD
zoning ordinance for the Project (Ordinance #__) and shall
automatically expire after 12 months from the permit’s
effective date if within such twelve month period, the Project
Applicants have not commenced construction of the first Project
building, parking facility, or roadway improvement pursuant to
and in accordance with the provisions of a building,
encroachment, or grading permit issued by the City of Palo Alto
or State of California Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development (“OSHPD”) for such building, parking facility or
improvement. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
18.77.090, the Planning Director may, without a hearing, extend
such time for a maximum period of twelve additional months
only, upon application filed with him or her before the
expiration of the twelve-month limit.
This CUP shall have no force or effect if the concurrent
Development Agreement between the SUMC Parties and the City of
Palo Alto is not entered into. Further, in the event that the
SUMC Parties unilaterally terminate the Development Agreement
pursuant to Section 21(p), the City may elect at its reasonable
discretion to revoke this CUP in whole or in part, and the SUMC
Parties will not contend that commencement of construction
elsewhere on the Property has vested the SUMC Parties’ rights
to construct structures for which construction has not yet
commenced.
110525 jb 0130751
2. Within ten days of City Planning Division transmittal of the
Record of Land Use Action, the Project Applicants shall sign
and return a copy of the Record of Land Use Action prepared by
the City Planning Division, agreeing to the conditions of
approval and acknowledging that failure to comply with such
conditions may constitute grounds for revocation of the permit
approval. By signing same, Applicants shall not thereby waive
any legal rights Applicants may possess regarding said
conditions. The signed Statement shall be returned to the City
Planning Division. Failure to comply with this condition may
constitute grounds for permit revocation.
In the event Project Applicants violate or fail to comply with
any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits,
licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy shall be
issued until such violation has been fully remedied.
3. To the extent permitted by law, the Project Applicants
shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City
Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “Indemnified
Parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding
brought by a third party against the Indemnified Parties to
attack, set aside, or void this Record of Land Use Action or
any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project. The
Project Applicants shall take the lead role in defending such
claim, action or proceeding, and may, in their sole discretion,
elect to be represented by the attorneys of their choice. The
City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such
action with attorneys of its choice, with the reasonable costs
of such representation to be paid by the Project Applicants.
The Project Applicants and the City shall fully coordinate and
cooperate in the defense of any such action and shall keep each
other fully informed of all developments relevant to such
defense, subject only to confidentiality requirements and any
privileges or legal doctrines that may prevent the
communication of any such information.
Conformance with Approved Plans
4. Project Applicants shall comply with the general and specific
conditions attached to the City’s Architectural Review approval
for each new or expanded building, including any modifications
to such conditions requested by the Project Applicants and
approved by the Director of Planning and/or City Council under
the applicable Architectural Review approval procedures.
5. Project plans shall be subject to complete Code Compliance
review when the building plans are submitted for plan check and
shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal
Code and all other pertinent ordinances and Comprehensive Plan
policies of the City of Palo Alto prior to building permit
110525 jb 0130751
issuance. This provision shall not be applicable to any OSHPD
permitted uses.
Construction Phase
6. Prior to commencement of construction of each new or expanded
building, a construction period mitigation plan shall be
prepared by the Project Applicants for approval by the
Department of Public Works. The approved construction period
mitigation plan shall be posted on the site for the duration of
the Project construction and shall be produced upon request.
As applicable, this plan shall include the construction-period
mitigation measures identified in the MMRP as measures subject
to Department of Public Works approval and shall:
a. Specify the names, addresses, telephone numbers and
business license numbers of all contractors and
subcontractors as well as the developer and architect;
b. Specify the nature and extent of any dewatering and its
effect on any adjacent buildings;
c. State whether any construction activity beyond normally
permitted hours is proposed;
d. Describe construction-period security measures including
any fencing, lighting, and security personnel;
e. Designate primary contact person for all construction
related issues;
f. Specify a community outreach program for notification of
construction related work and tree removal.
7. Project Applicants shall prepare a notice, subject to the
review by the Director of Planning and Community Development,
that lists all construction mitigation requirements, permitted
hours of construction, and identifies a contact person at City
Hall as well as the Project Applicant who will respond to
complaints related to the proposed construction. The notice
shall be mailed to property owners within a 600-foot radius
from the subject site at least five (5) days prior to the start
of construction.
8. Because the Project Applicants may need to continue to occupy
existing buildings after completion of construction of new or
expanded buildings on the Main SUMC Site, and due to the need
to maintain existing operations and efficiently transfer
existing uses, equipment and occupants from existing buildings
to new or expanded buildings, the total occupied square footage
of the buildings on the Main SUMC Site may exceed the total
existing plus net new building square footage allowed under
110525 jb 0130751
this Conditional Use Permit for a period of three years prior
to demolition or closure of all or portions of each of the
following buildings:
Original Hospital Buildings (East/ West/ Core/ Boswell/
Gale/ Alway/ Lane/ Edwards/ Entry) (856,255 gsf);
Core Expansion (223,850 gsf).
This three-year time period shall apply separately and
independently to each new or expanded building that results
in an exceedance of the total occupied existing and net new
building square footage allowed under this Conditional Use
Permit, and each such three-year time period shall commence
upon public occupancy of the new or expanded building that
results in the exceedance, and shall terminate upon the
earlier of (a) commencement of demolition of the existing
building square footage necessary to eliminate the
exceedance; or (b) closure of the existing building square
footage necessary to eliminate the exceedance, which shall
be accomplished by removing all occupants from the
applicable structure or building square footage, and
refraining from using the applicable structure or building
square footage for any purpose until such structure has been
demolished. The Planning Director may, without a hearing,
extend each three-year time limit for a maximum period of
two additional years, upon application filed with him or her
before the expiration of the three-year limit.
Operations
9. The conditionally permitted uses allowed by this Conditional
Use Permit shall be contained within the facilities summarized
in Section 3 above and described in detail within the EIR
(Project Description) certified by City Council in Resolution
_____. Any expansion of these conditional uses beyond the
facilities summarized in Section 3 shall require an amendment
to this permit.
10. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) for the
Project shall be implemented according to the requirements
contained within Resolution _____. The MMRP is attached as
Exhibit C to this Conditional Use Permit.
11. If at any time the City of Palo Alto determines that the
Project Applicants are not in compliance with one or more
conditions of this Conditional Use Permit, the City may revoke
this permit as provided in the City of Palo Alto Municipal
Code, Section 18.77.110. Failure of the Project Applicants to
comply with aspects of the MMRP adopted for the Project shall
also constitute a violation of this Conditional Use Permit for
which revocation action may be taken as described in this
110525 jb 0130751
condition.
12. The Project Applicants shall be responsible for paying all
reasonable costs associated with work conducted by the City or
under supervision of the City that is conducted in conjunction
with the conditions of this Conditional Use Permit, including
inspections to monitor the implementation of conditions and
mitigation measures. This includes reasonable costs for staff
time, consultant fees and direct costs. The City will not
require the Project Applicants to pay any fees otherwise
payable under the Municipal Fee Schedule for any costs that the
City recovers pursuant to this condition.
13. The requirements of Mitigation Measure TR-2.3 pertaining to
purchase of GO Passes for existing and new Hospital employees
shall apply to all clinic/office employees who work more than
20 hours per week at the New SHC Clinic/Office Buildings
(429,000 gsf) at the Main SUMC Site.
14. In all newly constructed buildings and landscaping, the Project
Applicants shall implement an aggressive water conservation
program designed to achieve 20% water savings for hospital
buildings and 25% water savings for clinics and medical office
buildings based on comparable hospital and medical office
projects in California. The water conservation program shall
contain the following elements:
Outdoor Water Conservation
The landscaping shall be designed to make maximum use of
drought-tolerant, native plantings.
Landscape irrigation shall be continually adjusted using smart
controllers adjusted to climatic conditions, e.g. reduced as
the weather cools an turned off as the rain begins.
The grounds team shall use mulching lawn mowers that recycle
grass clippings back into the lawns. This helps the soil to
retain moisture, which reduces the need for irrigation water.
The grounds team shall make extensive use of bark-mulch
(generated by Project Applicants’ tree pruning) to mulch the
grounds, which further helps the soil to retain moisture and
reduce the need for irrigation water.
Indoor Water Conservation
The newly constructed facilities shall use automatic sensors on
fixtures such as faucets and urinals. These devices ensure
that people do not leave the water running unnecessarily.
The newly constructed facilities shall use low-flow U.S. EPA
Water Sense labeled fixtures such as faucets, urinals and
showerheads.
In the newly constructed hospital buildings, dual-flush toilets
shall be used to save significant amounts of water, which will
allow the user to select a lower volume of water per flush for
110525 jb 0130751
disposing of liquids, or a higher volume for disposing of
solids. For the newly constructed non-hospital buildings,
dual-flush toilets or recycled water shall be used.
The newly constructed facilities shall employ minimal use of
water-cooled equipment such as ice-makers, and when such
equipment is used, it will be water-efficient.
The newly constructed facilities shall not use once-through
water cooled equipment, such as sterilizers and imaging
equipment that use potable water once and discharge it to the
drain.
The newly constructed facilities shall include anti-microbial
hand pumps to reduce the need for hand washing.
The newly constructed facilities shall use water-efficient
sterilizers with water recirculation and automatic shut-off.
Newly constructed kitchen facilities shall use water-efficient
equipment and operations, including low-flow spray-heads,
water-efficient dishwashers, energy-efficient steam cookers,
water-efficient ice machines and composting of food scraps
instead of using a garbage disposal.
Upon request by Project Applicants, the Planning Director may
approve substitute water conservation features designed to achieve
equivalent water savings. Project Applicants shall submit
conservation monitoring reports to the City prior to occupancy of
each new building, which reports shall describe the water
conservation features installed in the new building and associated
landscaping.
15. In order to provide maximum flexibility for on-site
construction of the Project and to upgrade the utility load
capacities necessary to service the Project, the City and SUMC
Parties intend to enter into a collateral agreement that will
permit the SUMC Parties to relocate existing utilities in the City-
owned Welch Road, Quarry Road and Pasteur Drive rights of way, to
install certain new facilities in such rights of way and to restore
such rights of way (“Welch Road Utilities Project”). The SUMC
Parties agree to pay for and be solely responsible for(1)
completing the design, construction, and installation of all below-
grade utility facilities and surface level improvements on, along,
and under Welch Road, Pasteur Drive, and Quarry Road to service the
Project; (2) abandoning and re-connecting (except as directed by
City) all utilities currently in the Project area which are
planned for removal or relocation under the Welch Road Utilities
Project and (3) removing and replacing all necessary curb, gutter
and sidewalk improvements on Welch Road, Quarry Road, Pasteur
Drive, and Durand Way Extension as part of the Welch Road Utilities
Project.
The SUMC Parties shall also execute for recordation the
following easement(s) related to the Welch Road Utilities
Project:
110525 jb 0130751
1) Right of Way Easement, which grants the City of Palo Alto
a nonexclusive Right of Way on and along Welch Road, and
includes the right of ingress and egress across said property;
and
2) Public Utility Easement, which grants the City the non-
exclusive right of ingress and egress across on, along,
and under Welch Road, and the non-exclusive right to
install, construct, operate, maintain, repair, replace and
upgrade all its below grade public utility facilities and
equipment, and surface improvements and related
appurtenances on, along, and under Welch Road, including but
not limited to, the following:
1) Water Distribution Facilities;
2) Natural Gas Distribution Facilities;
3) Waste Water Collection Facilities;
4) Electric Distribution Facilities;
5) Storm Drain Collection Facilities;
6) Fiberoptic Facilities [if applicable];
7) Telecommunications Facilities [if applicable];
8) Street Lighting and Signage Facilities;
9) Street Traffic Signal and Cross Walk Facilities;
10) Landscaping and Irrigation Facilities; and
11) Reclaimed Water Facilities [if applicable].
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
110525 jb 0130751
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
Development Plans prepared by the following:
Exhibit A: Site Boundaries
Exhibit B: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Policies
Exhibit C: MMRP
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the
City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, the time within which judicial
review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the
City pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 1.04.071.
110525 jb 0130751
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY PERMIT HOLDER
I hereby agree to the above conditions of approval and acknowledge
that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute
grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval.
_________________________
Print Name and Title
_________________________ _____________________
Applicant’s Signature Date
_________________________
Print Name and Title
_________________________ _____________________
Applicant’s Signature Date
_________________________
Print Name and Title
_________________________ _____________________
Applicant’s Signature Date
PROJECT
AREA
Source: PBS&J, 2009.
PROJECT
NORTH
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR
FIGURE 2-1
Project Vicinity Location
D41357.00
Camp
u
s
D
r
i
v
e
W
e
s
t
Camp
u
s
D
r
i
v
e
W
e
s
t
Menlo Par k B o u n d a r y
Menlo Par k B o u n d a r y
Meeennnlo Paaarar kkk B o u nnn d a rrrar yy
MMMMeeeMeeeeeeeeeeMnnnnnnnllllolooooo PPPPPaPPaaPPaaPaaaaaaarraaaaPPrrrrrrr kkrrrrarkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkrrkkrr BBBBBB ooooo uuuuu nnnnnnn ddddd addaaaaaaa radaddrrrrrrr yrryyryyyyyyyrrrryyyy
Palo Alt o B o u n dar y
P alo Alt o B o u ndar y
Welc
h
R
o
a
d
to be
annexed
totoo bb beee
anannnnexeddd
to be
annexed
Paste
u
r
D
r
i
v
e
Paste
u
r
D
r
i
v
e
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
R
o
a
d
Arb
o
r
e
t
u
m
R
o
a
d
Co
u
n
t
y
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Co
u
n
t
y
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Qu
a
r
r
y
R
o
a
d
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Viney
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
Camp
u
s
D
r
i
v
e
W
e
s
t
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
San
d
H
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
Hoover
PavilionSite
Hoover
PavilionSite
Main
SUMC Site
Main
SUMC Site
Project Vicinity
SUMC Area Plan Boundary
SUMC Sites = Main SUMC Site and Hoover
Pavilion Site
Viney
a
r
d
L
a
n
e
Qu
a
r
r
y
R
o
a
d
SUMC Sites
Area to be Annexed
P
a
l
o
R
o
a
d
P
a
l
o
R
o
a
d
3.2-10 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Comprehensive Plan Policy SUMC Project Consistency
Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities, and open
spaces.
Policy L-1: Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to
currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the
urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary.
The City would annex an approximately 0.75-acre parcel from unincorporated
Santa Clara County under the SUMC Project to accommodate the proposed FIM 1
building. As part of the main Stanford University campus, this site contains
landscaping and is surrounded by urban uses. This parcel is outside the existing
service and political jurisdiction of the City of Palo Alto; however, annexation of
the parcel would not conflict with Policy L-1 because the annexation area is small,
and environmental consequences from this annexation would be minimal. The
SUMC Project would not impact the undeveloped lands that this policy seeks to
protect.
Policy L-2: Maintain an active, cooperative working relationship with Santa Clara
County and Stanford University regarding land use issues.
The SUMC Project is an urban infill project that would redevelop existing sites
within the City with similar, but expanded uses. While the SUMC Sites border
Santa Clara County, the adjacent uses are within Stanford University, which is one
of the SUMC Project sponsors. No land use conflicts are thus anticipated between
the SUMC Sites and adjacent County land.
Policy L-3: Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills
from public streets in the developed portions of the City.
As explained further in Section 3.3, Visual Quality, and as required in Mitigation
Measure VQ-2.1, the SUMC Project would be subject to the City’s Architectural
Review process. The Architectural Review of the SUMC Project by the City’s
Architectural Review Board (ARB) would consider, among other factors, whether
the SUMC Project has a coherent composition, and whether its bulk and mass are
harmonious with surrounding development. The ARB’s recommendations
regarding these factors will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
The City Council cannot approve the Architectural Review unless it finds that,
among other things, natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with
the SUMC Project; the design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and
character in areas between different designated land uses; and the planning and
siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of
order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general
community. Implementation of Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1 would require that the
City and SUMC Project sponsors comply with Policy L-3 requirements for
respecting views of the hillsides.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use 3.2-11
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are
overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale.
As discussed in Section 3.3, and as required in Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1,
Architectural Review would consider, among other factors, whether the SUMC
Project has a coherent composition and whether its bulk and mass are harmonious
with surrounding development. The City Council cannot approve the Architectural
Review unless it finds that, among other things, the design promotes harmonious
transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses;
the planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an
internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors,
and the general community; and the amount and arrangement of open space are
appropriate to the design and the function of the structures.
Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between
residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different
densities.
As discussed in Section 3.3, and as required in Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, the
Architectural Review would consider, among other factors, whether the SUMC
Project has a coherent composition and whether its bulk and mass are harmonious
with surrounding development. The City Council cannot approve the Architectural
Review unless it finds that, among other things, the design promotes harmonious
transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses;
the planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an
internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors,
and the general community; and the amount and arrangement of open space are
appropriate to the design and the function of the structures.
Policy L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall
City welfare and objectives, as well as the desires of the surrounding
neighborhoods.
This EIR provides an evaluation of local as well as regional environmental effects
of the SUMC Project. It should be noted that the SUMC Project would maintain
but expand existing on-site land uses. Consideration of the merits of the SUMC
Project in context of regional needs, City welfare, and the desires of surrounding
neighborhoods will be considered by the City during the subsequent project
approval process.
Policy L-8: Maintain a limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new non-residential
development for the nine planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use
and Transportation Study, with the understanding that the City Council may make
modifications for specific properties that allow modest additional growth. Such
additional growth will count towards the 3,257,900 maximum.
The City has determined that the medical center uses associated with the SUMC
Sites should not be included in the non-residential development cap established by
Policy L-8. The City is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA),
revising the language of Policy L-8 to clarify the exemption of hospital, clinic, and
research buildings from square footage caps.
3.2-12 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Goal L-2: An enhanced sense of “community” with development designed to foster public life and meet citywide needs.
Policy L-10: Maintain a citywide structure of Residential Neighborhoods, Centers,
and Employment Districts. Integrate these areas with the City’s and the region’s
transit and street system.
The SUMC is a designated Employment District,5 accessible via the existing street
network. The SUMC Project would enhance integration of this Employment
District into the citywide land use and circulation network by adding pedestrian and
bicycle improvements and providing better connections between the SUMC Sites,
the Stanford Shopping Center, PAITS, and the downtown area.
Policy L-11: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support
between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential
neighborhoods.
The SUMC Project would meet the growing demand for medical facilities in Palo
Alto and the region as indicated in the SUMC Project application. The medical
services that the SUMC Project would provide to residents of the City of Palo Alto
would increase interdependence and support between uses on the SUMC Sites and
residential uses.
Goal L-5: High quality employment districts, each with their own distinctive character and each contributing to the character of the City as a whole.
Policy L-42: Encourage Employment Districts to develop in a way that encourages
transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel and reduces the number of auto trips for daily
errands.
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are included in the SUMC Project. A shuttle
service would run between the SUMC Site, nearby commercial areas, and nearby
transit hubs. The SUMC Project would also include the existing Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program, which includes efforts to increase use of
transit and alternative modes of transportation, and decrease trips in single occupant
vehicles.
Policy L-43: Provide sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and connections to the citywide
bikeway system within Employment Districts. Pursue opportunities to build
sidewalks and paths in renovation and expansion projects.
Several bicycle and pedestrian improvements, which would connect to the existing
trail network, are included in the SUMC Project. The SUMC Project would also
include bicycle and pedestrian improvements which would provide better
connections between the SUMC Sites, the Stanford Shopping Center, PAITS, and
the downtown area.
5 City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, 1998. Definition of “Employment Districts” is provided on page L-14. Employment Districts are
geographic areas within the City with distinctive physical and economic characteristics. The Stanford Medical Center is one of four designated Employment
Districts. Comprehensive Plan page L-33.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use 3.2-13
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy L-45: Develop Stanford Medical Center in a manner that recognizes the
citywide goal of compact, pedestrian-oriented development as well as the
functional needs of the Medical Center.
The Main SUMC Site is a medical campus and by function is pedestrian-oriented,
providing walkways, manicured lawns, benches, fountains, art sculptures, and
pathway lighting. The proposed site plan is expected to maintain its pedestrian
orientation. Functional adjacencies are critical to efficient medical services and, as
such, the proposed site plan would provide optimal functional adjacencies. (A
SUMC Project objective is to optimize department adjacencies to ensure the
healthcare facilities are clinically safe environments, promote safe and efficient
patient flow, and provide access to state-of-the-art technology.)
Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is
compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.
As discussed in Section 3.3, and as required in Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, the
Architectural Review of the SUMC Project by the ARB would consider, among
other factors, whether the SUMC Project incorporates quality materials,
harmonious colors, appropriate ancillary features, and a cohesive design with a
coherent composition. The City Council cannot approve the Architectural Review
unless it finds that, among other factors, the design is compatible with the
immediate environment of the SUMC Sites, is appropriate to the function of the
SUMC Project, promotes harmonious transitions in character in areas between
different designated land uses, and is compatible with approved improvements both
on and off the site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1 would ensure
that the proposed structures would be compatible with surrounding development.
Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to
enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of
entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is
consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level;
and include human-scale details and massing.
As discussed in Section 3.3, the SUMC draft Design Guidelines outline three basic
factors to be applied to the SUMC Project: site design, building design, and
connective elements. The site design concept for the SUMC Project builds upon
existing patterns of pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and parking. In addition,
open spaces would serve to physically connect the SUMC to the public perimeter,
as well as to connect the SUMC visually to the current Stanford landscape. The
proposed building designs would serve to redefine the architectural image and
spatial character of the medical campus, while blending with the existing buildings
and landscape. The intent of the Design Guidelines is to allow a variety of
architectural expressions for each institution, while promoting a cohesive campus
image. In addition, connective elements include consistent use of specific paving
materials; the placement of new planting schemes; lighting; signage; shared
amenities (for example, bus shelters, benches, and public art); and utilities and
infrastructure.
3.2-14 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy L-50: Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the
location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs.
As discussed in Section 3.3, and as required in Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, the
Architectural Review of the SUMC Project by the ARB would consider, among
other factors, whether the SUMC Project incorporates quality materials,
harmonious colors, appropriate ancillary features, and a cohesive design with a
coherent composition. The City Council cannot approve the Architectural Review
unless it finds that, among other factors, the design is compatible with the
immediate environment of the SUMC Sites, is appropriate to the function of the
SUMC Project, promotes harmonious transitions in character in areas between
different designated land uses, and is compatible with approved improvements both
on and off the site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1 would ensure
that the proposed structures would be compatible with surrounding development.
In addition, the SUMC draft Design Guidelines state that the SUMC Project would
establish a unifying signage theme and follow existing campus signage guidelines
for directional and pedestrian signs.
Goal L-7: Conservation and preservation of Palo Alto’s historic buildings, sites, and districts.
Policy L-51: Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources
that have historic merit, including residences listed in the Historic Inventory.
Policy L-51 encourages the preservation of historic structures. The City has
identified Mitigation Measures CR-1.1, CR-1.2, CR-1.3, and CR-1.4 to help
minimize the loss resulting from the demolition of the historic Edward Durell Stone
Building complex (see Section 3.8, Cultural Resources). Therefore, the SUMC
Project would not conflict with this policy since it encourages protection of historic
resources. The SUMC Project also includes the renovation of Hoover Pavilion,
which is a historic resource (see Section 3.8 Cultural Resources). Structures
proposed at the Hoover Pavilion Site would be sited so as to preserve the visual
prominence of the Hoover Pavilion as a historic structure. In addition, Mitigation
Measure CR-1.5 would protect the Hoover Pavilion from vibration impacts during
construction. The preservation and enhancement of this historic resource furthers
the objectives of Policy L-51.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use 3.2-15
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy L-54: Support the goals and objectives of the Statewide Comprehensive
Historic Preservation Plan for California.
The Statewide Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan identifies current and
emerging historic preservation issues throughout the State and establishes the
vision, mission, and priorities for the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The
OHP is required to review and revise the State Plan every five years as a condition
for receiving a grant from the federal Historic Preservation Fund. The SUMC
Project would not conflict with the OHP’s preparation or review of the State Plan,
including the identification of statewide preservation issues or the establishment of
the OHP’s vision, mission, and priorities.
Policy L-58: Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings. The SUMC Project would renovate the Hoover Pavilion and would improve
seismic operating conditions of clinic uses within. Such renovation would
constitute adaptive reuse.
Goal L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the City.
Policy L-70: Enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by
expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system.
Street trees would be incorporated into the SUMC Sites under the SUMC Project.
Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate
parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible.
The SUMC Project would add new underground parking structures and an above-
ground parking structure at the Hoover Pavilion Site. The parking structure at the
Hoover Pavilion Site would be located south of Hoover Pavilion to preserve views
of this landmark from public vantage points.
Policy L-76: Require trees and other landscaping within parking lots. The SUMC Project would add above- and underground parking structures to
minimize the area devoted to surface parking lots; therefore, landscaping would be
minimal. However, as discussed in Section 3.3, and as required under Mitigation
Measure VQ-2.1, the Architectural Review of the SUMC Project by the ARB
would consider, among other factors, whether the SUMC Project adequately
incorporates landscaping. Upon receipt of the ARB’s recommendations, the City
Council cannot approve the Architectural Review unless it finds that, among other
factors, the amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design
and the function of the structures, and the planning and siting of the various
functions and buildings provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and
the general community.
3.2-16 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy L-77: Encourage alternatives to surface parking lots to minimize the amount
of land that must be devoted to parking, provided that economic and traffic safety
goals can still be achieved.
The SUMC Project would add above- and underground parking structures to
minimize the area devoted to surface parking. In addition, the proposed number of
spaces would be sufficient to accommodate the resulting demand (see Section 3.4,
Transportation). Lastly, a TDM Program would be continued to decrease car trips
and parking demand (see description in Chapter 2, Project Description).
Policy L-78: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the
project by providing for shared use of parking areas.
Parking on the SUMC Site would be shared by the various on-site uses. Sharing
parking facilities with off-site uses would be infeasible due to the distance to off-
site facilities.
Goal T-1: Less reliance on single-occupant vehicles.
Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public
transit use.
The SUMC Project would involve infill within an area that is currently accessible
by transit, walking, and bicycling. By reducing the size of surface parking lots and
increasing development density, the SUMC Project would be expected to increase
demand for alternative means of transport. The Hospitals and SoM both implement
TDM Programs that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. These
programs would continue to decrease car trips and parking demand (see description
in Chapter 2, Project Description). On-site and off-site bicycle and pedestrian
improvements included in the SUMC Project would provide better connections
between the SUMC Sites, the Stanford Shopping Center, PAITS, and the
downtown area.
Policy T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective
programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels.
The SUMC Project sponsors implement (and would continue to implement) a TDM
Program to decrease car trips and parking demand. See also Policy T-1.
Goal T-2: A convenient, efficient, public transit system that provides a viable alternative to driving.
Policy T-5: Support continued development and improvement of the University
Avenue and California Avenue Transit Stations, and the San Antonio Road Station
as important transportation nodes for the City.
The SUMC Project would continue to implement the Marguerite Shuttle, which
serves the SUMC Sites and the University Avenue Transit Station. In addition, the
SUMC Project would involve bicycle and pedestrian circulation improvements (to
be refined during Architectural Review) that would provide access to the transit
station.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use 3.2-17
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy T-6: Improve public transit access to regional destinations, including those
within Palo Alto.
The SUMC Project would not impede the City’s plans to develop regional public
transit. Moreover, the SUMC Project sponsors would continue to implement a
TDM Program to decrease car trips and parking demand. These programs include
provision of the free Marguerite Shuttle service, which connects the SUMC Sites to
other destinations, local transit and Caltrain, and free use of the East Bay express
bus that connects BART and ACE train to Stanford.
Policy T-8: Encourage employers to develop shuttle services connecting
employment areas with the multi-modal transit stations and business districts.
The SUMC Project would continue the use of the Marguerite Shuttle, a free local
shuttle serving the SUMC Sites, PAITS, the Shopping Center Site, and other
nearby locations.
Goal T-3: Facilities, services, and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling
Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local
destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment
districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations.
See discussion for Policy L-42.
Policy T-15: Encourage the acquisition of easements for bicycle and pedestrian
paths through new private developments.
Several bike and pedestrian trails, which would connect to the existing trail
network, are included in the SUMC Project.
Policy T-19: Improve and add attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and
private facilities, including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City
parks, in private developments, and at other community destinations.
Bicycle parking would be provided at the SUMC Sites under the SUMC Project.
Policy T-22: Improve amenities such as seating, lighting, bicycle, parking, street
trees, and interpretive stations along bicycle and pedestrian paths and in City parks
to encourage walking and cycling and enhance the feeling of safety.
The SUMC Project would install new benches, lighting, bicycle, parking,
landscaping along its pedestrian paths on site.
Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks,
street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and
interesting architectural details.
See discussion for Policy T-22.
Goal T-4: An efficient roadway network for all users.
Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the
roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists,
and pedestrians.
The proposed widening of Welch Road and expansion of Durand Way would
accommodate bicycles, pedestrians, and transit.
3.2-18 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy T-26: Participate in the design and implementation of comprehensive
solutions to traffic problems near Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Medical
Center.
Section 2, Project Description, identifies that the SUMC Project would implement
traffic management solutions, such as a continued TDM Program, bicycle and
pedestrian improvements, and public transit access.
Policy T-27: Avoid major increases in street capacity unless necessary to remedy
severe traffic congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity
is increased, balance the needs of motor vehicles with those of pedestrians and
bicyclists.
The SUMC Project would add a connection (Durand Way) between Sand Hill Road
and Welch Road; however, this connection would provide new access to the Main
SUMC Site. In addition, Welch Road would be widened to three lanes to provide
roadway capacity. Neither of these improvements would enhance capacity for
anticipated vehicle movement, including ambulance access.
Policy T-28: Make effective use of the traffic-carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major
street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also
using this network.
Mitigation Measure TR-6.1 in Section 3.4, Transportation, requires the SUMC
Project sponsors to implement improvements for bicycle and pedestrian safety and
access at intersections affected by SUMC Project traffic.
Policy T-30: Reduce the impacts of through-traffic on residential areas by
designating certain streets as residential arterials.
As discussed under Impact TR-3 in Section 3.4, Transportation, the SUMC Project
would not result in adverse impacts to Palo Alto residential roadway segments. It
should be noted that the SUMC Project would have significant impacts on
residential roadways outside Palo Alto in Menlo Park. Identified mitigation would
reduce the impact to less than significant (see Section 3.4, Transportation).
Policy T-34: Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and
collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion
management. Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among these
measures.
The SUMC Project would not significantly impact adversely affect traffic on
residential streets within Palo Alto, and therefore does not include traffic calming
measures. See Policy T-30.
Policy T-39: To the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority
of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile
safety over vehicle level-of-service at intersections.
See discussion for Policy T-28. In its consideration of the SUMC Project, the City
will continue to adhere to this Policy and will prioritize safety over vehicle level-
of-service improvements at intersections.
Goal T-7: Mobility for people with special needs.
Policy T-42: Address the needs of people with disabilities and comply with the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) during the planning
and implementation of transportation and parking improvement projects.
The SUMC Project would be required to conform to ADA standards specified in
the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use 3.2-19
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Goal T-8: Attractive, convenient public and private parking facilities.
Policy T-48: Encourage parking strategies in the Stanford Medical Center area that
maximize the efficient use of parking and, in the long term, consider the possible
use of remote parking lots with shuttle bus service.
Parking would be provided under the SUMC Project for the calculated increased
demand, which takes into account minimization of parking needs through
implementation of a comprehensive TDM program. Existing TDM programs, such
as operation of the Marguerite Shuttle, would be continued in order to minimize the
need for additional parking. This program also includes provision of free use of the
Line U Stanford Express, which connects Stanford to BART and the ACE train.
The Line U express bus enables employees to park remotely, and travel to the
SUMC via this service. In addition, the proposed parking structure at the Hoover
Pavilion Site would be used by SUMC staff, who would take a shuttle to the Main
SUMC site.
Goal N-1: A citywide open space system that protects and conserves Palo Alto’s natural resources and provides a source of beauty and enjoyment for Palo Alto residents.
Policy N-3: Protect sensitive plant species resources from the impacts of
development.
Per Section 3.9, Biological Resources, there is no habitat capable of supporting
sensitive plant species at the SUMC Sites, and there would be no impacts on
sensitive plant species.
Policy N-6: Through implementation of the Site and Design process and the Open
Space zone district regulations, minimize impacts of any new development on
views of the hillsides, on the open space character, and the natural ecology of the
hillsides.
As explained further in Section 3.3, and as required under Mitigation Measure VQ-
2.1, the SUMC Project is subject to the City’s Architectural Review process. The
Architectural Review of the SUMC Project by the City’s ARB would consider,
among other factors, whether the SUMC Project has a coherent composition, and
whether its bulk and mass are harmonious with surrounding development. The
ARB’s recommendations regarding these factors will be forwarded to the City
Council for consideration. The City Council cannot approve the Architectural
Review unless it finds that, among other things, natural features are appropriately
preserved and integrated with the SUMC Project; the design promotes harmonious
transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses;
and the planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create
an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants,
visitors and the general community.
3.2-20 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Goal N-2: Conservation of creeks and riparian areas as open space amenities, natural habitat areas, and elements of community design.
Policy N-11: Preserve the integrity of riparian corridors. Construction associated with the SUMC Project could contribute to bed and bank
erosion along the San Francisquito Creek riparian corridor. However, as discussed
in Section 3.11, Hydrology, the SUMC Project would be required to comply
existing regulatory requirements (Municipal Regional Permit, Construction General
Permit, as well as local municipal codes), which include both construction phase
and permanent erosion and sediment controls that prevent substantial erosion and
sediment transport from development within the San Francisquito Creek watershed.
Construction site inspection by the City, as required by the UWMP, would also
ensure that appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs are implemented and
functioning.
Policy N-13: Discourage creek bank instability, erosion, downstream
sedimentation, and flooding by minimizing site disturbance and vegetation removal
on or near creeks and carefully reviewing grading and drainage plans for
development near creeks and elsewhere in the watersheds of creeks.
See discussion for Policy N-11.
Goal N-3: A thriving “urban forest” that provides ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits for Palo Alto.
Policy N-14: Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto’s urban forest through
public education, sensitive regulation, and a long-term financial commitment that is
adequate to protect this resource.
The SUMC Project would replace trees removed during construction and would
supply new street trees. However, the SUMC Project would remove up to 71
Protected Trees, which are considered an important resource to the City.
Mitigation Measures BR-4.1 through BR-4.5, provided in Section 3.9, Biological
Resources, require the preparation of a Tree Preservation Report, a solar access
study, a Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan, a Tree Preservation Bond/Security
Guarantee, and minor site modifications to the current site plans. While complete
preservation of Protected Trees would not occur, this mitigation would fulfill the
City’s responsibility to protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto’s urban forest.
Also, as required under Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, the Architectural Review of
the SUMC Project by the ARB would consider, among other factors, whether the
SUMC Project adequately incorporates landscaping. Upon receipt of the ARB’s
recommendations, the City Council cannot approve the Architectural Review
unless it finds that, among other factors, the amount and arrangement of open space
are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures, and the planning
and siting of the various functions and buildings provide a desirable environment
for occupants, visitors, and the general community.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use 3.2-21
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
In addition, the SUMC draft Design Guidelines include landscaping elements in
order to create visual continuity in open spaces between the SUMC Sites and the
Stanford campus. The campus would include approved tree species and their
typical planting patterns to serve campus cohesiveness. The SUMC Sites would
include landscaping such as: the naturalistic Arboretum with native oak trees;
formal open space to create nodes of interest and connectors; lawns with manicured
grass; interior courtyards and gardens; and street tress that would line the streets
and major pathways.
Goal N-4: Water resources that are prudently managed to sustain plant and animal life, support urban activities, and protect public health and safety.
Policy N-18: Protect Palo Alto’s groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban
uses.
During construction, impervious surfaces (e.g., parking lots and buildings) would
be removed and pervious surfaces exposed to rainfall and runoff waters. Without
controls, infiltrating rainfall could pick up existing pollutants in the underlying soils
or pollutants associated with construction activities (e.g., spills and leaks) and carry
these materials to the local groundwater table. Mitigation Measure HW-3.1,
provided in Section 3.11, Hydrology, requires the SUMC Project sponsors to
develop a work plan for any unknown contaminated sites. This measure would
address environmental impacts associated with groundwater quality impacts.
Policy N-19: Secure a reliable, long-term supply of water for Palo Alto. A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the SUMC Project to
determine whether or not the City would have sufficient supply to meet projected
demand. The WSA found that in years of average and above-average water supply,
the City has adequate supplies to serve 100 percent of normal-year demands,
inclusive of the SUMC Project, and that in dry-year and multiple-dry-year events,
when SFPUC imposes reductions in its normal supply to the City, the City has in
place a Water Shortage Contingency Plan sufficient to maintain a balance of
supplies and demands. See Section 3.15, Utilities.
Policy N-20: Maximize the conservation and efficient use of water in new and
existing residences, businesses and industries.
The SUMC Project would be required to conform to landscaping water
conservation practices specified in the Municipal Code (see policy summary in
Section 3.15, Utilities). Moreover, the SHC and LPCH have committed to several
water conservation measures including daily and seasonal adjustment of irrigation,
drought tolerant landscaping, and water and moisture-retaining mulches.6 The
SUMC Project also proposes to apply water efficient fixtures, sterilizers, and
kitchen equipment, and would continue its current use of microfiber mops for
6 William T. Phillips, Stanford University, Memorandum to Steven Turner, City of Palo Alto: Response to City Palo Alto’s Draft Water Supply Assessment for the
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project, August 2008.
3.2-22 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
cleaning.7
Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential,
commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities.
As discussed in Section 3.11, Hydrology, operation and construction of the SUMC
Project could cause or contribute to stormwater runoff if disturbed surfaces are not
stabilized and if changes in drainage patterns result in more runoff. However,
compliance with existing mandatory regulations and implementation of these
requirements would prevent substantial runoff by requiring erosion and sediment
controls. In addition, Mitigation Measure HW-3.1, provided in Section 3.10,
Hydrology, requires the SUMC Project sponsors develop a work plan for any
unknown contaminated sites. This measure, along with the existing regulations,
would address environmental impacts associated with groundwater and surface
water quality impacts.
Policy N-22: Limit the amount of impervious surface in new development or
public improvement projects to reduce urban runoff into storm drains, creeks, and
San Francisco Bay.
As discussed in Section 3.11, Hydrology, the SUMC Project, at full buildout,
would decrease stormwater runoff by increasing the pervious area on the site,
including roof area that contains plant material.8
Policy N-23: Reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the City’s sanitary sewer
collection system by promoting the use of Best Management Practices.
Demolition of the existing structures on the SUMC Sites would disturb hazardous
building materials such as asbestos, PCBs, lead, and mercury. In addition,
hazardous materials, such as paints, solvents, cements, glues and fuels, would also
be used in varying amounts during construction. Operation of the SUMC Project
would also increase the use and amount of hazardous materials on the SUMC Sites.
Examples of hazardous materials include chemical waste, medical waste, and
radioactive waste. The SUMC Project sponsors would be required to comply with
existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations to protect the community and
the environment from exposure to hazardous materials, including the discharge of
toxic materials into the City’s sanitary sewer collection system.
Policy N-24: Improve storm drainage performance by constructing new system
improvements where necessary and replacing undersized or otherwise inadequate
lines with larger lines or parallel lines.
As discussed in Section 3.14, Utilities, the SUMC Project would not require
expansion of existing stormwater infrastructure.
7 Catherine Palter, memorandum to EIR Team (City of Palo Alto and PBS&J), November 12, 2008. 8 Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project Application, August 2007, as amended; Tab 4,
Figures 4-8a and 4-8b.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use 3.2-23
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Goal N-5: Clean, healthful air for Palo Alto and the San Francisco Bay Area.
Policy N-26: Support regional, State, and federal programs that improve air quality
in the Bay Area.
As discussed in Section 3.5, Air Quality, construction and operation of the SUMC
Project would exceed BAAQMD standards for criteria pollutants. Policy N-26
does not prohibit such an exceedance. The SUMC Project includes continued
implementation of the SUMC Project sponsors’ TDM program. Mitigation
Measures AQ-1.1 and AQ-1.2, provided in Section 3.5, Air Quality, would address
environmental impacts associated with particulate emissions by controlling
construction dust and reducing diesel emissions. By requiring these mitigations,
the City would support applicable air quality programs.
Policy N-27: Reduce emission of particulates from wood burning stoves,
construction activity, automobiles, and other sources.
As discussed in Section 3.5, Air Quality, heavy construction activity on dry soil
exposed during construction phases would cause emissions of dust (usually
monitored as PM10), which could be annoying to persons near the construction area
or otherwise unhealthy. The SUMC Project would implement existing TDM
programs, which would minimize mobile source emissions during operation of the
SUMC Project. Nevertheless, those emissions would exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) significance threshold of 80 pounds
per day or 15 tons per year of PM10. Emissions would result in a substantial
contribution to an existing regional particulate air quality problem. Mitigation
Measures AQ-1.1 and AQ-1.2, provided in Section 3.5, Air Quality, would address
environmental impacts associated with particulate emissions by controlling
construction dust and controlling diesel emissions. These mitigation measures
would reduce emissions of particulates from construction and continued
implementation of the ongoing TDM programs would minimize emissions from
operation of the SUMC Project.
Policy N-28: Encourage developers of new projects in Palo Alto, including City
projects, to provide improvements that reduce the necessity of driving alone.
See Policies L-42, L-43, and N-27.
3.2-24 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy N-29: All potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants should be
adequately buffered, or mechanically or otherwise mitigated to avoid odor and
toxic impacts that violate relevant human health standards.
As discussed in Section 3.5, Air Quality, the SUMC Project would include on-site
stationary source emissions related to the periodic testing of emergency diesel
generators. These emissions are not expected to have the potential for substantial
odor impacts on local sensitive receptors, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.
In addition, the health risk assessment prepared for the SUMC Project indicates that
the estimated excess lifetime cancer risks associated with potential simultaneous
exposures to construction diesel particulate matter (DPM) and operational sources
of toxic air contaminants (TACs) would be below the BAAQMD significance
threshold of 10 in one million, and the estimated health indexes (HIs) would be
below 1.
Goal N-6: An environment free of the damaging effects of biological and chemical hazardous materials.
Policy N-30: Minimize the use of toxic and hazardous materials. Encourage the
use of alternative materials and practices that are environmentally benign.
As discussed in Section 3.11, Hazardous Materials, the SUMC Project would be
required to conform to all Municipal Code, State and federal policies regarding the
use of hazardous materials. Development proposed under the SUMC Project would
comply with existing hazardous materials management plans.
Goal N-7: Reduced volumes of solid waste; solid waste disposed in an environmentally safe, efficient, manner.
Policy N-34: Reduce the amount of solid waste disposed in the City’s landfill by
reducing the amount of waste generated and promoting the cost-effective reuse of
materials that would otherwise be placed in a landfill.
As discussed in Section 3.14, Utilities, the SUMC Project would be subject to Palo
Alto Municipal Code 5.24 Requirement to Divert Construction and Demolition
Waste from Landfill Ordinance. In addition to complying with Stanford
University’s general waste reduction initiatives, which cover paper, cardboard,
cans, glass, and plastics, compostable goods, batteries, and other items, the
hospitals would implement a number of specialized recycling programs for items
such as electronic wastes, fluorescent lamps, toner and inkjet cartridges, surplus
chemicals, batteries, and waste anesthetics. Instrumentation and automation
upgrades would also help to reduce the production of wastes. The SUMC Project
would not generate wastes that would exceed the capacity of the solid waste
facilities that serve the City, and would take measures to reduce, reuse, and recycle
wastes.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use 3.2-25
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy N-35: Reduce solid waste generation through salvage and reuse of building
materials, including architecturally and historically significant materials.
As discussed in Section 3.14, Utilities, construction of the SUMC Project would be
subject to the Requirement to Divert Construction and Demolition Waste from
Landfill Ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code 5.24). This ordinance requires that
a minimum of 90 percent of inert solids (e.g., concrete, asphalt, and rock) and a
minimum of 50 percent of the remaining debris, generated from construction and
demolition projects, be diverted from landfills through reuse and/or recycling.
Policy N-37: Ensure the environmentally sound disposal of solid waste. See Policies N-34 and N-35.
Goal N-8: An environment that minimizes the adverse impacts of noise.
Policy N-39: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise
environments. Use the guidelines in the table “Land Use Compatibility for
Community Noise Environment” to determine compatibility.
The SUMC Project would not introduce a new land use but would expand and
reconfigure the established medical office and hospital land uses at the SUMC
Sites. This analysis looks at the relationship of the SUMC Sites with surrounding
uses. As discussed in Section 3.7, Noise, the mechanical noise generated by the
SHC emergency generators off Welch Road could have a significant impact on
nearby residential uses. However, Mitigation Measure NO-4.1 requires shielding
or enclosure of equipment, which would reduce noise to less-than-significant
levels.
The SUMC Project would emit significant and unavoidable ambulance noise on
residential uses off a portion of Sand Hill Road. However, ambulance noise is not
considered to be incompatible in residential or other developed areas. It also
should be noted that the SUMC Project would not create a new land use on the
Main SUMC Site. Also, ambulance noise is already generated by the SHC
Hospital, and the impact in this case would be along a portion of Sand Hill Road
where there would be a new ambulance route. Policy N-39 does not prohibit
location of land uses with incompatible noise sources; rather it calls for
encouraging location of land uses in areas with compatible noise environments. The
ambulance noise would be sporadic within the existing environment.
Policy N-41: When a proposed project is subject to CEQA, the noise impact of the
project on existing residential land uses should be evaluated in terms of the increase
in existing noise levels and potential for adverse community impact, regardless of
existing background noise levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum noise
guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be
allowed. A project should be considered to cause a significant degradation of the
noise environment if it meets any of the following criteria:
Consistent with Policy N-41, this EIR identifies where significant noise impacts
will occur. Section 3.7, Noise, provides an evaluation of the SUMC Project on
residential uses. Among the significance criteria applied are the standards set forth
in the Comprehensive Plan. Based on the City’s Ldn criteria in the Comprehensive
Plan, the SUMC Project would emit significant and unavoidable ambulance noise
on residential uses off a portion of Sand Hill Road, on the basis that the ambulance
noise would increase Ldn by more than 5.0 dB, as stated in Policy N-41. Existing
3.2-26 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
• The project would cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by
5.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain
below 60 dB;
• The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing
residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB;
• The project would cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing
residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB.
Ldn along Sand Hill Road ranges from 53.5 to 55.2 dBA, which is below the 75 dB
maximum noise guideline for conditionally acceptable uses, per the Comprehensive
Plan’s Land Use Compatibility chart. The ambulance noise would increase Ldn by
about 8 dBA. At most, the resulting dBA would be about 63.2 dBA, which is still
within the maximum noise guideline for conditionally acceptable uses per the
Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Compatibility chart. As such, the City may
approve the SUMC Project under Policy N-41.
Policy N-43: Protect the community and especially sensitive noise receptors,
including schools, hospitals, and senior care facilities, from excessive noise.
Section 3.7, Noise, states that construction of the SUMC Project could result in a
significant noise level with respect to on-site hospital uses. Mitigation Measure
NO-1.1, identified in Section 3.7, Noise, involves best management practices for
construction noise and would address environmental impacts associated with pile
driving noise to off-site sensitive receptors and other construction noise impacts to
on-site sensitive receptors. This mitigation measure would lessen the impacts from
excessive construction-related noise. Also, the mechanical noise could have a
significant impact on nearby residential uses. However, Mitigation Measure NO-
4.1 requires shielding or enclosure of equipment, which would reduce noise to less-
than-significant levels. The City has identified feasible measures to protect
sensitive uses from excessive noise.
Goal N-9: A clean, efficient, competitively-priced energy supply that makes use of cost-effective renewable resources.
Policy N-47: Optimize energy conservation and efficiency in new and existing
residences, businesses, and industries in Palo Alto.
As discussed in Section 3.6, Climate Change, the SUMC Project includes a number
of energy conservation strategies. The SHC and LPCH components of the SUMC
Project would be designed to achieve EnergyStar scores of 90-95, which means
they would perform better than 90-95 percent of similar hospitals. The buildings
would use 35 percent less energy than typical hospitals (based on a comparison to
DOE’s Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey) and 20 percent less
energy than a hospital designed to meet ASHRAE 90.1 standards. The new SoM
buildings would meet Stanford University’s 2008 Building Performance
Guidelines, which set a target energy efficiency in new buildings of 30 percent
below California Title 24/ASHRAE 90.1 (2004).
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use 3.2-27
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy N-48: Encourage the appropriate use of alternative energy technologies. The City provides electricity and natural gas to the SUMC Site and is currently
replacing a significant portion of its energy supply with renewable energy
resources. Although no on-site renewable energy technologies are planned, the
SUMC Project would support alternative energy technologies through purchase of
energy through the City.
Goal N-10: Protection of life and property from natural hazards, including earthquake, landslide, flooding, and fire.
Policy N-51: Minimize exposure to geologic hazards, including slope stability,
subsidence, and expansive soils, and to seismic hazards including groundshaking,
fault rupture, liquefaction, and landsliding.
As discussed in Section 3.10, Geology, non-hospital structures would be required to
comply with the California Building Code, while hospital structures would be
required to comply with heightened OSHPD requirements, both of which would
reduce exposures to geologic hazards to a less-than-significant level. The SUMC
Project was initially triggered by SB 1953, which requires the all hospital facilities
meet current seismic standards to prevent disruption of hospital operations during
an earthquake.
Policy N-52: Minimize exposure to flood hazards by adequately reviewing
proposed development in flood prone areas.
This EIR reviews potential flooding impacts at the SUMC Site in Section 3.11,
Hydrology. Flooding impacts were determined to be less than significant.
Policy N-54: Provide emergency fire and medical services consistent with the
response time standards set forth in the Fire Department’s annual budget.
As discussed in Section 3.14, Public Services, the SUMC Project must construct its
proposed structures to current OSHPD and City Code standards for fire safety and
would install the latest fire control measures. As a part of the City’s development
review process, the State Fire Marshal would review the plans for the SUMC
Project (including construction, fire service water main, and Automatic Fire Alarm
System plans) to determine conformance with the Fire Code prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Goal C-4: Attractive, well-maintained community facilities that serve Palo Alto residents.
Policy C-26: Maintain and enhance existing park facilities. There are no City park facilities on the SUMC Sites. Per Section 3.14, Public
Services, the SUMC Project would have a less-than-significant impact on City
parks.
Policy C-27: Seek opportunities to develop new parks and recreation facilities to
meet the growing needs of residents and employees of Palo Alto.
As discussed in Section 3.14, Public Service, as required by Palo Alto Municipal
Code 16.58, the SUMC Project would be required to pay a “Community Facility
Fee,” which has a line item for parks that would fund acquisition of land and
improvements for neighborhood and district parks.
3.2-28 Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR — Land Use
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Goal C-5: Equal access to educational, recreational, and cultural services for all residents.
Policy C-30: Facilitate access to parks and community facilities by a variety of
transportation needs.
See Policies L-42, L-43, and L-45. The Marguerite Shuttle, one of the TDM
measures discussed above, would provide access between the SUMC Sites and
other community facilities.
Goal B-6: Thriving employment districts at Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical Center, East Bayshore/San Antonio Road Area and Bayshore Corridor that
complement the City’s business and neighborhood centers.
Policy B-32: Assist Stanford Medical Center in responding to changes in the
delivery of health care services. Work with the Center to plan for changing facility
needs, but within the context of City of Palo Alto planning goals and policies, as
well as the goals and policies of other relevant jurisdictions.
The SUMC Project addresses changing demand for health care services and
facilities. The City is working with the SUMC Project sponsors to determine the
most appropriate plan for future development as part of the review of the SUMC
Project application. This EIR has been prepared to inform the City’s decisions with
respect to applicable planning goals and policies.
Sources: Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998; PBS&J, 2010.
Page 20
110525 jb 0130751
EXHIBIT C
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
LAND USE
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Without mitigation measures to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan’s policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect, the SUMC Project could conflict with Comprehensive Plan policies that avoid or reduce impacts related to visual quality, cultural resources, pedestrian circulation,
urban forest resources, groundwater and runoff pollution, air quality degradation, and noise incompatibility. (LU-1)
See Mitigation Measures VQ-2.1, TR-6.1, AQ-1.1 through AQ-1.2, NO-1.1, NO-4.1, CR-1.1 through CR-1.5, BR-4.1 through BR-4.5, and HW-3.1.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Because the SUMC Project would intensify the planned uses within the SUMC Sites, the SUMC Project would have a significant impact pertaining to
on-site character and views. (LU-5)
See Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1.
VISUAL QUALITY
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project would substantially degrade the existing visual character and quality of the SUMC Sites during construction. (VQ-1)
VQ-1.1 Implement Construction Visual Improvements
Plan. The SUMC Project sponsors shall develop and
implement a Construction Visual Improvements Plan that
would make visual improvements to construction zones
within a given construction phase and between phases if
the zone is not scheduled for construction
activity or would remain unused for a period greater than
six months. Construction zones subject to this mitigation
measure shall be defined by the Planning Director, and
shall consider the size of the area, the nature and timing
of the construction activity, and the proximity or
visibility of the area to public vantage points or
residential uses. The Construction Visual Improvements
Plan shall be implemented by the project contractor(s)
and must be approved by the Planning Director. The
intent of the plan is to aesthetically improve portions of
Review and approve
Construction Visual
Improvements Plans;
compliance monitoring
City of Palo Alto
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 21
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
the project site that would remain unimproved for an
extended period and screen the construction zone from
view by passersby along the public streets and sidewalks.
Possible improvements in the plan include, but are not
limited to, the following:
a. The SUMC Project sponsors shall conceal
staging areas with fencing material to be approved
by the Planning Director prior to commencement of
use of the staging area for construction equipment
and vehicles.
b. The SUMC Project sponsors shall frequently
remove construction debris and refuse from the
SUMC Sites.
c. The SUMC Project sponsors shall install all
landscaping as early as feasible to decrease visual
impacts of construction. Existing landscaping
within the SUMC Sites that would not be removed
by the construction shall be maintained.
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project would have a significant impact pertaining to degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the SUMC Sites and
their surroundings. (VQ-2)
VQ-2.1 Adhere to City’s Architectural Review Process
and Recommendations. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall submit final building and site plans to the ARB
prior to issuance of any development permits.
Architectural Review shall assess the appropriateness of
proposed demolitions, proposed building heights and
massing, siting of buildings and structures, architecture
and façade treatments, landscaping, circulation plans, and
parking. The ARB may recommend alterations to any of
the above project features, or the ARB may suggest new
features, such as new landscaping or public art, to
improve the proposed SUMC Project design. Any
Undergo Architectural
Review; verify building
permit plan compliance
City of Palo Alto
City Council or
City of Palo Alto
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 22
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
conditions required by the City Council as a result of the
Architectural Review process with respect to the design
of the SUMC Project shall be implemented by the SUMC
Project sponsors.
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project would result in significant impacts on views. (VQ-3)
See Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could increase light and glare nuisance from exterior lighting, resulting in a significant impact. (VQ-5)
See Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1.
TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Construction activity associated with the SUMC Project could result in significant traffic impacts. (TR-1)
TR-1.1 Provide Off-Street Parking for Construction
Related Vehicles. The SUMC Project sponsors shall be
required to provide adequate off-street parking for all
construction-related vehicles throughout the construction
Verify that information
is contained in
construction impact
mitigation plan
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 23
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
period. If adequate parking cannot be provided on the
construction sites, a remote parking area shall be
designated, and a shuttle bus shall be operated to transfer
construction workers to the job site.
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
monitoring during
construction
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
TR-1.2 Maintain Pedestrian Access. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall be prohibited from substantially
limiting pedestrian access while constructing the SUMC
Project, without prior approval from the City of Palo Alto
Department of Public Works. Such approval shall
Verify that information
is contained in
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
Page 24
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
require submittal and approval of specific construction
management plans to mitigate the specific impacts to a
less-than-significant levels. Pedestrian access-limiting
actions would include, but not be limited to, sidewalk
closures, bridge closures, crosswalk closures or
pedestrian re-routing at intersections, placement of
construction-related material within pedestrian pathways
or sidewalks, and other actions which may affect the
mobility or safety of pedestrians during the construction
period. If sidewalks are maintained along the
construction site frontage, covered walkways shall be
provided.
compliance monitoring
construction
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 25
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
TR-1.3 Maintain Bicycle Access. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall be prohibited from limiting bicycle access
while constructing the SUMC Project without prior
approval from the City of Palo Alto Department of Public
Works. Such approval shall require submittal and
approval of specific construction management plans that
warn cyclists prior to reaching the impacted bicycle lanes
and provide alternative routing around the construction
sites to mitigate the specific impacts to a less-than-
significant level. Bicycle access-limiting actions would
include, but not be limited to, bicycle lane closures or
narrowing, closing or narrowing of streets that are
designated bicycle routes, bridge closures, the placement
of construction-related materials within designated
bicycle lanes or along bicycle routes, and other actions
which may affect the mobility or safety of bicyclists
during the construction period.
Verify that information
is contained in
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
TR-1.4 Restrict Construction Hours. The SUMC Project Verify that information City of Palo Alto Prior to issuance of SHC Hospital
Page 26
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
sponsors shall be required to prohibit or limit the number of
construction material deliveries from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.,
and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall be required to limit the number of
construction employees based upon an approved
construction management plan from arriving or departing
the site from the hours of 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Although
not needed to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant
level, the SUMC Project sponsors also shall limit the
number of construction employees from arriving at the site
from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., contingent upon the City’s
granting of an exception to its construction hours under its
noise ordinance to allow construction to commence at 7:00
a.m.
is contained in
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
Planning and
Community
Environment,
Public Works
Department
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
TR-1.5 Restrict Construction Truck Routes. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall be required to deliver and remove
Verify that information
is contained in
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Page 27
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
all construction-related equipment and materials on truck
routes designated by the cities of Palo Alto, East Palo
Alto and Menlo Park. Heavy construction vehicles shall
be prohibited from accessing the site from other routes.
Figure 3.4-6 and 3.4-7 of the EIR illustrates the Stanford
Area Truck Routes which must be used by all trucks.
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
Department each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 28
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
TR-1.6 Protect Public Roadways During Construction.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall be required to repair
any structural damage to public roadways, returning any
damaged sections to original structural condition. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall survey the condition of the
public roadways along truck routes providing access to
the proposed project site before construction, and shall
again survey after construction is complete. A before-
and-after survey report shall be completed and submitted
to the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department for
review, indicating the location and extent of any damage.
Review before and
after survey reports to
determine the repair to
public roadways
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Department
Before construction of
any portion of the
SUMC projects
and
after SUMC Project
construction is
completed
“Before” Survey Report
______________________________________
Signature Date
“After” Survey Report
______________________________________
Signature Date
Road Repair Completed, if necessary
______________________________________
Signature Date
TR-1.7 Maintain Public Transit Access and Routes. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall be prohibited from limiting
access to public transit, and from limiting movement of
public transit vehicles, without prior approval from the
Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
or other appropriate jurisdiction. Such approval shall
require submittal and approval of specific measures to
reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Potential
actions which would impact access to transit include, but
are not limited to, relocating or removing bus stops,
limiting access to bus stops or transfer facilities, or
otherwise restricting or constraining public transit
operations.
Verify that information
is contained in
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 29
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 30
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
TR-1.8 Prepare and Implement Construction Impact
Mitigation Plan. In lieu of the above mitigation
measures, the SUMC Project sponsors shall submit a
detailed construction impact mitigation plan to the City
of Palo Alto for approval by the Director of Public
Works prior to commencing any construction activities
with potential transportation impacts. This plan shall
address in detail the activities to be carried out in each
construction phase, the potential transportation impacts
of each activity, and an acceptable method of reducing or
eliminating significant transportation impacts. Details
such as the routing and scheduling of materials
deliveries, construction employee arrival and departure
schedules, employee parking locations, and emergency
vehicle access shall be described and approved. Prior to
its approval of the construction impact mitigation plan,
the City of Palo Alto shall provide a copy of the
construction impact plan to the City of Menlo Park for
review and comment.
Review and approve
construction impact
mitigation plans;
compliance monitoring;
transmit construction
impact mitigation plans
to the City of Menlo
Park and receive
comment
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring throughout
term of the
construction impact
mitigation plan
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 31
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
TR-1.9 Conduct Additional Measures During Special
Events. During major athletic events or other special events
which attract a substantial number of visitors to the campus,
the SUMC Project sponsors shall implement a mechanism
to prevent roadway construction activities from reducing
roadway capacity along those roadways that would be
affected by the SUMC Project and that would provide
access to the athletic or other special events. This measure
may require a special supplemental permit to be approved
by either Santa Clara County or the City of Palo Alto prior
to hosting such events during significant construction
phases.
Review and approve
SUMC Sponsor-
prepared plan(s) to
minimize traffic effects
in advance of major
events near the SUMC
during construction
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
As necessary during
construction
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Implementation of the SUMC Project would result in significant impacts to intersections during Peak Hour conditions. (TR-2)
TR-2.1 Install Traffic-Adaptive Signal Technology. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall contribute to the Palo Alto
Citywide Traffic Impact Fee program, for the installation of
traffic-adaptive signals. In Menlo Park, the SUMC Project
sponsors shall contribute their fair share amount, which
shall be tied to the amount of traffic added to analyzed
intersections by the SUMC Project. The SUMC Project
sponsors’ contributions shall apply towards the installation
of traffic-adaptive signals as listed below.
Sand Hill Road (Oak Creek to Shopping Center) -
3 signals
Arboretum Road (Shopping Center to Palm Drive)
- 3 signals
Embarcadero Road (Bryant to Saint Francis) - 7
signals
Verify payment of
Citywide Traffic
Impact Fee and fair
share contribution
towards traffic-adaptive
signals in Palo Alto and
Menlo Park.
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 32
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
University Avenue (Palm to Lincoln) - 13 signals
Lytton Avenue (Alma to Middlefield) - 10 signals
Hamilton Avenue (Alma to Middlefield) - 10
signals
Middlefield Road (San Antonio to Homer) - 9
signals
Charleston Road (Alma to Middlefield) - 2 signals
El Camino Real (northern city limits of Palo Alto
to southern city limits of Palo Alto) – signals would
require approval of Caltrans
In addition, the SUMC Project sponsors shall pay a fair
share contribution towards installation of traffic-adaptive
signals at the below significantly-impacted intersections in
Menlo Park. These intersections are among those at which
Menlo Park anticipates installing traffic-adaptive signals:
Middlefield Road/Willow Road (intersection #18)
Middlefield Road/Ravenswood Avenue (intersection
#46)
TR-2.2 Fund Additional Bicycle and Pedestrian
Undercrossings. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
contribute their fair share to the cost of construction of
the Everett Avenue undercrossing of the Caltrain tracks
in Palo Alto and the Middle Avenue undercrossing in
Menlo Park. In Palo Alto, there is a Citywide Traffic
Impact Fee program that the SUMC Project sponsors
shall contribute to. In Menlo Park, the fair share
contribution shall be tied to the amount of traffic added to
Verify payment of
Citywide Traffic
Impact Fee and fair
share contribution
towards bicycle and
pedestrian
undercrossings in Palo
Alto and Menlo Park.
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
Page 33
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
analyzed intersections by the SUMC Project. The
construction of the Everett Avenue and Middle Avenue
undercrossings would reduce traffic volumes on nearby
streets, such as Ravenswood Avenue and University
Avenue.
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 34
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
TR-2.3 Enhance Stanford University Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall enhance the currently-implemented TDM
program in order to achieve 35.1 percent usage of
alternative transportation modes (i.e., carpool, vanpool, bus,
Caltrain, bicycle, and walk) by Hospital employees. The
initial enhancements to the SUMC TDM program shall
include the following:
Commencing on September 1, 2015, the Hospitals
shall purchase annual Caltrain GO Passes (free train
passes) for all existing and new Hospital employees
who work more than 20 hours per week, at a cost of
up to One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars
($1,800,000) per year, which amount shall be adjusted
annually to reflect any change in the San Francisco
Bay Area Consumer Price Index (the “GO Pass
Amount”). The Hospitals’ obligation to provide GO
Passes shall continue for fifty-one (51) years , or until
such earlier date as: (a) Caltrain discontinues the GO
Pass program, or a substantially similar program; (b)
Caltrain increases the cost of GO Passes, or a
substantially similar program, such that the Hospitals’
annual costs would exceed the GO Pass Amount; or
(c) Caltrain service is reduced by such an extent that
the Hospitals and the City mutually determine
purchase of annual GO Passes, or a substantially
similar program, would no longer be effective in
substantially reducing Hospital employee peak period
trips in order to achieve the Alternative Mode targets
in Table 3.4-19A in Section 3 in the Final EIR. If the
cost of obtaining GO Passes exceeds the GO Pass
Amount, the Hospitals shall have the option to elect
either to purchase the GO Passes at the then applicable
Review TDM reports to
verify that
enhancements of TDM
program have been
implemented and
determine whether
interim mode split
targets have been
achieved; transmit
TDM reports to City of
Menlo Park for their
review
City and SUMC Project
sponsors will meet
annually to discuss
effectiveness of
enhanced TDM
program and to identify
potential
improvements. SUMC
Project sponsors may
modify enhanced TDM
program as needed to
improve its
effectiveness.
Verify lease of 75
parking spaces at
Ardenwood Park and
Ride lot, or an
equivalent location, at a
cost not to exceed
City of Palo
Alto
Department
of Planning
and
Community
Environment
Baseline TDM report
within six months of
SUMC Project
approval
Annual TDM reports
submitted each Spring
Baseline TDM Report
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2013
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2014
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2015
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2016
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2017
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2018
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2019
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2020
Page 35
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
price, or to terminate the obligation to provide GO
Passes, or a substantially similar program. If the
Hospitals’ obligation to provide GO Passes, or a
substantially similar program, terminates for any of
the reasons specified in this measure , the Hospitals
shall contribute the GO Pass Amount to one or more
substitute programs to encourage use of transit by
Hospital employees or otherwise reduce peak period
traffic trips in the intersections impacted by the Project
as identified in the Project EIR, including but not
limited to regional transportations systems or
solutions. The substitute program or programs shall
be mutually agreed upon by the SUMC Parties and the
City’s Director of Planning and Community
Environment.
Use all reasonable efforts to arrange with AC
Transit to lease 75 spaces at the Ardenwood Park &
Ride Lot, or an equivalent facility, to serve SUMC
employees who commute from the East Bay.
Expand the Marguerite shuttle bus service
between the SUMC and PAITS as needed to
accommodate increased ridership by Hospital
employees.
Use all reasonable efforts to assure that the
controlling transit agency maintains load factors less
than 1.00 on the U-Line.
Maintain a load factor less than or equal to 1.25
on the Marguerite shuttle.
Expand and improve the bicycle and pedestrian
networks as specified by Project site plans.
$45,000 per year.
For U-Line load
factors, verify Initial
Payment offer to AC
transit ($250,000) and
then subsequent annual
payment offers up to
$50,000 total.
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2021
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2022
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2023
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2024
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2025
______________________________________
Signature Date
Spring 2062
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 36
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
Provide a full-time on-site TDM coordinator by
2015 for the hospital components. The coordinator
would be responsible for organizing and disseminating
TDM information primarily to hospital employees and
also to hospital patients. A central location would be
made available to provide information on alternative
travel modes. Also, the SUMC or Hospitals’ website
would contain information on TDM programs.
Provide a guaranteed ride home program for all
employees who use transit and other transport
alternatives like carpool and vanpool. The guarantee
ride home shall allow employees with dependent
children the ability to use alternative modes to travel
to and from work but still be able to travel home mid-
day in case of an emergency.
Provide employees with shower facilities within
the SUMC Sites to encourage bicycling to work. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall also provide bicycle
storage facilities on the SUMC Sites that would be
conveniently located near the employee showers.
Establish, in conjunction with the GO Pass
implementation, a “Zip Car” (or other similar car-
sharing program) with Zip Cars available at the
medical complex.
Perform annual TDM monitoring from the date of
initial project approval through the life of the project
(51 years after project approval) and submit the report
to the City of Palo Alto. This report also shall be
submitted to the City of Menlo Park for its review.
Within six (6) months of project approval, and
Page 37
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
annually for a period of fifty-one (51) years from
initial project approval, the SUMC Project sponsors
shall submit to the City’s Director of Planning and
Community Environment, a Hospital TDM Program
Report that shows the current number of employees
employed over 20 hours per week;, the number of
employees using an alternative mode share as
documented by a study or survey to be completed by
the Hospitals using a method mutually agreeable to the
City and Hospitals; and the efforts used by the
Hospitals to attempt to achieve the Alternative Mode
targets.
These enhancements may not immediately change the mode
split for Hospital employees. Further, because transit use
by employees of the Hospitals is voluntary, and may be
influenced by a number of factors outside the reasonable
control of the Hospitals, such as gasoline prices, costs and
availability of alternative transit, housing costs and
availability, and personal preferences of employees, the
Hospitals cannot guarantee the results of their TDM
programs. The interim targets in Table 3.4-19A in Section
3 in the Final EIR shall be used to measure the progress
toward meeting the desired mode split by 2025. These
interim targets assume that in the early phases of
implementation, there may be larger shifts to alternative
modes than the shifts that may occur in later phases of the
TDM program enhancement. For purposes of
calculating alternative mode share, any mode that
does not constitute driving in a single-occupant
vehicle to and from the work site shall be
Page 38
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
considered an “Alternative Mode,” including
working remotely from home.
For each of the interim target years, following submission
of the Hospitals TDM Annual Report, the City shall
determine if the interim year target has been met. If the
Hospitals have not met the interim target, the Hospitals and
the City shall meet to review the TDM Program and to
identify possible additional TDM Program enhancements
that the Hospitals should consider incorporating into their
TDM Program in order to increase the Program’s
effectiveness.
If the Hospitals do not meet the applicable interim targets
for any two consecutive years prior to 2025, the Hospitals
shall provide alternative transportation funding to the City
of Palo Alto in annual payments in the amount of $175,000
per year until the earlier of the year 2025 or the year the
Hospitals achieve the applicable interim mode split target,
subject to a maximum of five annual payments. The
alternative transportation funding shall be used by the City
of Palo Alto for local projects and programs that encourage
citywide use of alternative transportation mode uses or
otherwise reduce peak period traffic trips in the
intersections impacted by the Project as identified in the
Project EIR, including but not limited to regional
transportation systems and solutions. The City of Palo Alto
should consider transportation systems and solutions that
also help to reduce traffic in the City of Menlo Park.
.
If by 2025, the Hospitals have not demonstrated substantial
Page 39
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
achievement of the 35.1 percent target modal split for
alternative transportation modes, the following measure
shall be required:
The Hospitals shall make a lump sum payment of
$4.0 million to the City of Palo Alto for local projects
and programs that encourage and improve citywide
use of alternative transportation mode uses or
otherwise reduce peak period traffic trips in the
intersections impacted by the Project as identified in
the Project EIR, including but not limited to regional
transportation systems and solutions. The City of Palo
Alto shall identify capital projects and program
enhancements for which the funds may be applied.
Sample projects may include contributions towards
regional transportation projects of interest to the City
of Palo Alto and that are identified within the Valley
Transportation Authority – Valley Transportation Plan
or other local planning documents. The City of Palo
Alto should consider transportation systems and
solutions that also help to reduce traffic in the City of
Menlo Park. If required, said $4.0 million payment
shall constitute funds to be used by the City to offset
trips by Hospital employees through citywide trip
reduction. The $4.0 million payment shall not relieve
the Hospitals of any of their obligations under this
measure, including but not limited to their obligations
to continue to attempt to achieve the 35.1 percent
target modal split through implementation of the GO
Pass or substantially similar program, or a substitute
program mutually agreed upon by the Hospitals and
the City’s Director of Planning and Community
Environment, which shall continue for 51 years from
the date of Project approval. Further, the Hospitals
Page 40
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
shall continue to implement an enhanced TDM
program, monitor modal splits by Hospital employees,
and strive to maximize use of alternative commute
modes by Hospital employees. In addition, the
Hospitals shall continue to meet with the City on a
regular basis to identify potential improvements to the
enhanced TDM program.
TR-2.4 Fund or Implement those Intersection
Improvements that Have Been Determined to be Feasible.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall implement the following
measures:
At the intersection of Arboretum Road/Galvez
Street, the SUMC Project sponsors shall install a
traffic signal.
At the intersection of Bayfront
Expressway/Willow Road, the SUMC Project
sponsors shall pay a fair share towards providing one
more right-turn lane for eastbound Willow Road.
At the intersection of Bayfront Expressway/
University Avenue, the SUMC Project sponsors shall
pay a fair share towards widening southbound
Bayfront Expressway to include an additional through
lane and re-stripe the exclusive right turn lane to a
shared through right turn lane. As a result, two
additional receiving lanes in the southbound direction
on Bayfront Expressway would be needed.
Verify installation of
Arboretum/Galvez
traffic signal
Verify payment of fair
share contribution for
both Bayfront
intersections
City of Palo Alto
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to Occupancy
Permit for SHC
Hospital
Arboretum/Galvez traffic signal
______________________________________
Signature Date
Fair Share Payment for both Bayfront
intersections
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project would result in adverse traffic impacts to roadway segments in the City of Menlo Park. (TR-3)
See Mitigation Measures TR-2.2, TR-2.3, TR-7.2.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could result in significant traffic impact to the local circulation network in the immediate vicinity of the SUMC Sites. (TR-
Page 41
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
4)
TR-4.2 Fund Signing and Striping Plan and Signal
Optimization. In addition to paying for the construction of
the extension of Durand Way from Sand Hill Road to
Welch Road, the SUMC Project sponsors shall also pay for
the following improvements to ensure that queues from the
Durand Way/Sand Hill Road intersection do not spillback
onto the Durand Way/Welch Road intersection.
A signing and striping plan for the Durand Way
extension, which would maximize the storage capacity
by creating a four-lane roadway with a left and
through/right at Sand Hill Road and a right and
through/left at Welch Road;
The installation and optimization of the two
signals at the intersections of Durand Way/Sand Hill
Road and Durand Way/Welch Road.
Review signing and
striping plan for
Durand Way extension,
and signal optimization
plan for Durand Way/
Sand Hill Road and
Durand Way/ Welch
Road
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permit for
Durand Way
Durand Way Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could impede the development or function of planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities, and result in a significant impact. (TR-6)
TR-6.1 Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure
Improvements. The SUMC Project sponsors shall fund the
expansion and improvement of the bicycle and pedestrian
network in the immediate vicinity of the SUMC Project.
The intent of these improvements is to:
reduce auto related traffic by providing the
infrastructure for alternative travel modes;
improve the bicycle and pedestrian linkages
between the SUMC Project and Downtown Palo Alto,
and between the SUMC Project and the surrounding
residential neighborhoods; and
mitigate the safety hazards to pedestrians and
cyclists that will result from the SUMC Project related
Verify payment for
connection from
planned Everett
bike/ped undercrossing
to ECR/Quarry
($2,250,000), and
enhancements of
Quarry Road and
intersections
($400,000)
Verify construction of
bicycle/ped connection
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Payments received
prior to Initial Date
(45 days from Notice
of Determination)
City constructs
improvements prior to
Hospital Occupancy
Permit
Stanford constructs
bicycle/ped
connection between
Funding received for improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
Improvements completed by City
______________________________________
Signature Date
Improvements completed by Stanford
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Hospital Bike Parking
Page 42
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
increase in vehicular traffic and congestion.
The specific improvements to be funded by the SUMC
Project sponsors shall include the following:
Create a bicycle and pedestrian connection
between the Stanford Shopping Center and SUMC.
The connection shall provide an alternative route to
Quarry Road, which is auto dominated. This
connection shall extend between Vineyard Lane and
Welch Road. Pedestrian traffic signals and
crosswalks shall be placed at the crossing of Vineyard
Lane and Welch Road. The crosswalk shall be
enhanced either by striping or by the use of
contrasting paving.
Provide a connection from the planned Everett
Avenue bicycle and pedestrian undercrossing to the El
Camino Real/Quarry Road intersection. Once the
tunnel is completed, this linkage shall provide a direct
connection between the SUMC Project and
Downtown North.
Incorporate into the Quarry Road corridor, from El
Camino Real to Welch Road, improvements to and
within the public right-of-way to enhance the pedestrian
and bicycle connection, including urban design elements
and way finding, wider bicycle lanes, as necessary, on
Quarry Road, enhanced transit nodes for bus and/or
shuttle stops, and prominent bicycle facilities.
Enhance all signalized intersections in the Project
Vicinity, particularly along Quarry Road, Vineyard, and
Welch Roads to include 12-foot pedestrian crosswalks
on all legs, with textured or colored paving or diagonal
or longitudinal zebra striping as determined by the City,
pedestrian push buttons and countdown pedestrian signal
between Stanford
Shopping Center and
SUMC
Verify that landscape
plans contain sufficient
Class I and III bicycle
parking spaces and are
located in a manner
consistent with the City
of Palo Alto Municipal
Code
Stanford Shopping
Center and SUMC
prior to LPCH
Hospital Occupancy
Permit.
Bike parking
requirements prior to
issuance of issuance
of building
permits for each
building
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics Bike Parking
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics Bike Parking
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB Bike Parking
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1 Bike Parking
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2 Bike Parking
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3 Bike Parking
______________________________________
Signature
Page 43
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
heads, and other specific improvements that are
determined as necessary during the design process, such
as median refuge islands, advanced signing, flashing
beacons, in-pavement lighting, etc.
Install the appropriate number of Class I and Class
III bicycle parking spaces as required by the City’s
Zoning Ordinance for the total amount of existing and
future development. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall install the required number of bicycle parking
spaces equally distributed throughout the SUMC
Sites.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project would not adversely impact either AM or PM Peak Hour bus service in Palo Alto or Caltrain service. Nonetheless, mitigation to
provide enhanced bus stops and shuttle service is identified here. (TR-7)
TR-7.1 Incorporate Enhanced Bus Stops Into Site Plans.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall revise their SUMC Project
site plan to incorporate two enhanced bus stops to reduce the
impact to transit service caused by the SUMC Project. These
enhanced bus stops shall be located at Hoover Pavilion and at
SHC, and shall be on-street facilities. The enhanced bus stops
shall accommodate two buses simultaneously, and shall have
shelters, seating, lighting, signs, maps, bus schedules, and
bicycle parking. On-street bus stops along Welch Road and
Quarry Road shall also be provided, but the enhanced bus
stops shall accommodate the majority of transit riders and
shall be located to maximize the convenience of employees,
patients, and visitors. One enhanced bus stop shall be located
in the vicinity of Welch Road and Pasteur Drive to serve
SHC. The other enhanced bus stop shall be located near the
entrance to Hoover Pavilion. Both of these enhanced bus
stops shall provide the focal point for transit use for the
SUMC.
Verify that enhanced
bus stops have been
included in site plans
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Public Works
and Department
of Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
SHC Hospital and
Hoover MOB
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 44
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
TR-7.2 Provide Expanded Transit Service. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall fund expansion of the Marguerite
shuttle service between the SUMC and PAITS, and shall
make a fair share financial contribution to the cost of
expanding U-Line bus service
Marguerite Shuttle. The SUMC project sponsors
shall fund expansion of the Marguerite shuttle service
into Palo Alto between SUMC and PAITS.
U-Line. The SUMC project sponsors shall use
reasonable efforts to assure that the controlling transit
agency maintains load factors of less than 1.0 on the
U-Line.
Verify expansion of
Marguerite shuttle in
annual TDM reports
pursuant to TR-2.3
Verify Initial Payment
offer to AC transit
($250,000) and then
subsequent annual
payment offers up to
$50,000 total pursuant
to TR-2.3.
City of Palo Alto
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Initial Payment offer
within 30 days of
Hospital Occupancy
Permit and then
subsequent annual
payments
Initial AC Transit payment offer
______________________________________
Signature Date
Subsequent annual payment offers
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Implementation of the SUMC Project could potentially result in inadequate emergency access due to increased congestion, a significant impact.
(TR-9)
TR-9.1 Pay Fair Share Towards OptiCom Installation.
The SUMC Project sponsors shall pay their fair-share
financial contribution towards the City of Palo Alto, to
assist with the installation and operation of emergency
vehicle traffic signal priority (OptiCom) at all significantly
impacted intersections.
Verify payment of fair
share towards OptiCom
installation ($11,200 to
City of Palo Alto and
$6,400 to City of
Menlo Park).
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Public Works
Within 30 days of
Hospital Occupancy
Permit
Opticom Fair Share Payment
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project, in combination with concurrent construction projects in the vicinity of the SUMC Sites, could result in a significant
construction-period impact. (TR-10)
See Mitigation Measures TR-1.1 through TR-1.9.
AIR QUALITY
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Construction activities associated with the SUMC Project could cause emissions of dust and pollutants from equipment exhaust that could
contribute to existing air quality violations or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (AQ-1)
AQ-1.1 Implement Recommended Dust Control Measures.
To reduce dust emissions during project demolition and
construction phases, the SUMC Project sponsors shall
Verify that information
is contained in
construction impact
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 45
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
require the construction contractors to comply with the dust
control strategies developed by the BAAQMD. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall include in construction contracts the
following requirements:
a. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials including demolition debris, or require all
trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
b. Water all active construction areas (exposed or
disturbed soil surfaces) at least twice daily;
c. Use watering to control dust generation during
demolition of structures or break-up of pavement;
d. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-
toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and
staging areas;
e. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) all
paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas
during the earthwork phases of construction;
f. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil
material is carried onto adjacent public streets;
g. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to
inactive construction areas (previously graded areas
inactive for ten days or more);
h. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-
toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand,
etc.);
i. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
j. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures
to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and
k. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
compliance
monitoring during
construction
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 46
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
possible.
AQ-1.2 Implement Equipment Exhaust Emission
Reduction Measures. To reduce emissions from
construction equipment during project demolition and
construction phases, the SUMC Project sponsors shall
require the construction contractors to comply with the
following emission reduction strategies to the maximum
feasible extent. The SUMC Project sponsors shall include
in construction contracts the following requirements:
a. Where possible, electrical equipment shall be used
instead of fossil-fuel powered equipment,
b. The contractor shall install temporary electrical
service whenever possible to avoid need for fossil-fuel
powered equipment.
c. Running equipment not being actively used for
construction purposes for more than five minutes shall
be turned off. (e.g., trucks waiting to deliver or receive
soil, aggregate, or other bulk materials; however,
rotating-drum concrete trucks may keep their engines
running continuously as long as they are on site).
d. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling while on
residential streets serving the construction site (also
included in Mitigation Measure NO-1.1).
e. Diesel-powered construction equipment shall be
Tier III or Tier IV California Air Resources Board
(CARB) certified equipment to the maximum feasible
extent.
f. The engine size of construction equipment shall be
the smallest practical to accomplish the task at hand.
Verify that information
is contained in
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 47
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Combined mobile and stationary source emissions during operation of the SUMC Project would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District’s significance threshold of 80 pounds/day of ROG, NOx and PM10. Therefore, air emissions would result in a substantial contribution to an existing regional air quality
problem and a significant impact. (AQ-2)
See Mitigation Measure TR-2.3.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Construction equipment NOx emissions associated with the SUMC Project could contribute considerably to regional air quality problems. (AQ-
6)
See Mitigation Measures AQ-1.1 and AQ-1.2.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: SUMC Project operation could contribute considerably to a degradation of regional air quality as defined by the BAAQMD. (AQ-7)
See Mitigation Measure TR-2.3.
CLIMATE CHANGE
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The proposed Emissions Reduction Program would minimize greenhouse gas emission increases associated with the proposed development
program. However, the proposed Emissions Reduction Program would not be sufficient to further some of the individual policies of the City’s Climate Protection Plan. (CC-1)
CC-1.1 Commission and Retro-Commission Energy
Systems for New and Existing Buildings. New construction
for the SUMC Project shall undergo commissioning of
energy and HVAC systems within one year following
building occupancy. The commissioning process shall
follow the standards of the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
Guideline 0-2005 or the International Performance
Measurement and Verification Protocol (MVP). The
SUMC Project sponsors shall provide the City of Palo Alto
with commissioning verification data within 12 months of
OSHPD (or City) certificate of occupancy for each new
SUMC Project building component (parking structures
excluded). These components shall include: SHC Hospital
(Phase 1), SHC Hospital (Phase 2), LPCH Hospital
Expansion, Hoover Medical Office Building, School of
Medicine (FIM 1, FIM 2 and FIM 3) and 429,000 square
feet of clinic space for SHC. The commissioning of the
Review commissioning
verification data
provided by the SUMC
Project sponsors for
each building
Review EPA Energy
Star Statement of
Energy Performance
Report
City of Palo Alto
Utilities
Department and
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Commission
verification report
within 1 year of
occupancy permits for
each building
EPA Energy Star
Performance Report in
years 2 through 5 after
completion of entire
SUMC Project
SHC Hospital Commissioning
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics Commissioning
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics Commissioning
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB Commissioning
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1 Commissioning
Page 48
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
new SHC and LPCH Expansion Hospitals shall be
conducted as part of LEED Enhanced Commissioning in
compliance with the ASHRAE Guideline 0-2005. During
years two to five after completion of the entire SUMC
Project, the SUMC Project sponsors shall annually provide
the City of Palo Alto with an EPA Energy Star Statement
of Energy Performance report for each new building
component. This report shall be generated using the EPA
Energy Star Portfolio Manager system. Building profiles
and consumption details entered in the Portfolio Manager
system and a resulting energy efficiency rating is provided
based on similar facilities (i.e., academic teaching facility,
community hospital, free-standing surgery center, etc.)
This process would ensure that new and existing energy
systems would perform interactively according to
construction documents, the SUMC Project design intent
and the owner’s operational needs.
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2 Commissioning
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3 Commissioning
______________________________________
Signature Date
Energy Star Performance Year 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
Energy Star Performance Year 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Energy Star Performance Year 4
______________________________________
Signature Date
Energy Star Performance Year 5
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 49
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
CC-1.2 Participate in a Renewable Energy Program. The
SHC and LPCH Project sponsors facilities shall participate
in a renewable energy program approved by the City to
partially offset electricity emissions; develop new
renewable generation sources in collaboration with the
CPAU; incorporate a renewable energy source (such as
photovoltaics) into the SUMC Project, and/or otherwise
promote expansion of the use of renewable energy by
CPAU customers (“Renewable Energy Program”). The
Renewable Energy Program shall be approved by the City
and need not directly reduce the emissions from the SUMC
Project facilities, and may be designed to promote
expansion of the use of renewable energy by CPAU
customers, either by providing a new source of renewable
energy, educating the public about use of renewable
energy, or contributing to research and development of
renewable energy sources.
Review and approve
SUMC Project
sponsor’s participation
in a Renewable Energy
Program
City of Palo
Utilities
Department and
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to completion of
entire SUMC Project
Participation in Renewable Energy Program
______________________________________
Signature Date
CC-1.3 Provide Annual Greenhouse Gas Reporting. The
SHC and LPCH shall perform an annual inventory of
greenhouse gas emissions associated with Hospital and
medical facilities on the SUMC Sites. This inventory shall
be performed according to a common industry-standard
emissions reporting protocol, such as the approaches
recommended by California Air Resources Board, The
Climate Action Registry, or Business Council for
Sustainable Development (BCSD). This inventory shall be
shared with the City of Palo Alto to facilitate the
development of future collaborative Emissions Reduction
Programs. Emissions associated with energy, water, solid
waste, transportation, employee commute and other major
sources shall be reported in this inventory.
Review annual
inventory of
greenhouse gas
emissions
City of Palo
Utilities
Department and
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Annually
2012
______________________________________
Signature Date
2013
______________________________________
Signature Date
2014
______________________________________
Signature Date
2015
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 50
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
2016
______________________________________
Signature Date
2017
______________________________________
Signature Date
2018
______________________________________
Signature Date
2019
______________________________________
Signature Date
2020
______________________________________
Signature Date
2021
______________________________________
Signature Date
2022
______________________________________
Signature Date
2023
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 51
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
2024
______________________________________
Signature Date
2025
______________________________________
Signature Date
CC-1.4 Prepare Waste Reduction Audit. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall perform a waste reduction audit of
waste management practices at the hospitals prior to
construction of new facilities and after completion of the
SUMC Project to determine post-project diversions.
Review waste reduction
audits
City of Palo
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment.
Initial waste reduction
audit prior to
construction
Final waste reduction
audit after completion
of the entire SUMC
Project.
Initial Waste Reduction Audit
______________________________________
Signature Date
Final Waste Reduction Audit
______________________________________
Signature Date
CC-1.5 Implement Construction Period Emission
Reduction Measures. Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit the SUMC Project sponsors shall incorporate the
following measures into the construction phasing plan and
submit to City Planning for approval.
Use alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric)
construction vehicles/ equipment of at least 15 percent
of the fleet;
Use local building materials of at least 10 percent;
and
Recycle at least 50 percent of construction or
demolition materials.
Verify that information
is contained in
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
City of Palo
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
Page 52
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 53
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
NOISE
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Construction of the SUMC Project would create a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels on the SUMC Sites compared to existing
ambient noise levels. The noise increase would be a significant impact to the sensitive uses (i.e., patients) on the Main SUMC Site during construction. (NO-1)
NO-1.1 Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce
Construction Noise. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
incorporate the following practices into the construction
documents to be implemented by the SUMC Project
contractor:
a. Provide enclosures such as heavy-duty mufflers
for stationary equipment, shrouding or shielding for
impact tools, and barriers around particularly noisy
operations on the site.
b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever
possible, particularly air compressors.
c. Provide sound-control devices on equipment no
less effective than those provided by the manufacturer.
d. Locate stationary equipment, material stockpiles,
and vehicle staging areas as far as practicable from
sensitive receptors.
e. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion
engines.
f. Require applicable construction-related vehicles
and equipment to comply with the City’s truck route
ordinance.
g. Designate a noise disturbance coordinator who
shall be responsible for responding to complaints
about noise during construction. The telephone
number of the noise disturbance coordinator shall be
conspicuously posted at the construction site and shall
be provided to the City. Copies of the construction
Verify that information
is contained in
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
Page 54
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
schedule shall also be posted at nearby noise-sensitive
areas.
______________________________________
Signature Date
NO-1.2:Implement Best Management Practices to
Reduce Construction Noise
The SUMC Project sponsors shall incorporate the
following practices into the construction
documents to be implemented by the project
contractor:
a. Require construction contractors to use noise-
reducing pile driving techniques, including pre-drilling
pile holes (if feasible, based on soils) to the maximum
feasible depth, verify that manufacturer-provided intake
and exhaust mufflers on pile driving equipment are
present, vibrating piles into place when feasible, and
installing shrouds around the pile driving hammer where
feasible.
Implement Best Management Practices to
Reduce Construction Pile Driving Vibration. The
SUMC Project Sponsors shall use sonic pile drivers
to reduce vibration annoyance and/or damage to on-
site sensitive receptors, if feasible.
Avoid or Repair Structural Damage to SUMC
Structures. The SUMC Project sponsors shall:
a. Use sonic pile drivers, if feasible, to avoid
potential vibration damage to the closest on-site SUMC
structures near the SHC Hospital and garage site; or
b. Blake-Wilbur Clinic patients and workers shall be
relocated to other, more-distant buildings during periods
when pile driving occurs on parts of the SHC Hospital
Verify that information
is contained in
construction impact
mitigation plan
pursuant to TR-1.8;
compliance monitoring
City of Palo Alto
Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 55
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
construction site within 75 feet of the Blake-Wilbur
Clinic. The structural conditions of the Blake-Wilbur
Clinic shall be assessed before and after pile driving by a
licensed structural engineer and any damage resulting to
the Blake-Wilbur Clinic from pile driving shall be
completely repaired before patients and workers are
allowed to return.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Increased traffic and helicopter noise levels due to implementation of the SUMC Project would be less than significant. However, noise from
ambulances due to implementation of the SUMC Project would increase along Sand Hill Road west of El Camino Real, and would increase roadside noise levels by an amount
considered unacceptable under the policies of the City Comprehensive Plan. (NO-3)
No feasible mitigation measures.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Operational stationary source noise generated by the SUMC Project could potentially increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the SUMC
Sites and result in a significant impact. (NO-4)
NO-4.1 Shield or Enclose HVAC Equipment and
Emergency Generators. Noise levels from mechanical
equipment shall be minimized to the degree required by the
City Noise Ordinance by proper siting and selection of such
equipment and through installation of sufficient acoustical
shielding or noise emission controls. Noise levels for the
emergency generators near Welch Road shall be reduced
such that noise levels do not exceed the City’s General
Daytime Exception standard of 70 dBA at 25 feet. An
acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a qualified
professional to ensure that the new mechanical equipment
is in compliance with noise standards of the Noise
Ordinance.
SUMC Project
sponsors to prepare
acoustical analysis;
City to review and
verify analysis
City of Palo
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance testing
post-construction
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Page 56
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: If other foreseeable construction in the immediate vicinity of the SUMC Sites would occur simultaneously with the proposed SUMC Project
construction, then significant cumulative noise impacts to adjacent residential and other noise-sensitive uses could occur. The SUMC Project’s contribution would likely be
cumulatively considerable. (NO-5)
See Mitigation Measure NO-1.1.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project would have a significant impact on historical resources. (CR-1)
CR-1.1 Manually Demolish Structures at the Hoover
Pavilion Site. Where feasible, the project sponsors shall
establish a perimeter of construction fencing around the
Hoover Pavilion at a minimum of 25 feet to establish a
protective buffer around the building. The demolition of
these sheds and storage facilities shall be accomplished
manually without the use of vibration causing equipment.
Additional protective fencing at a height sufficient to
prevent any debris from hitting the building shall also be
installed between the Hoover Pavilion and demolition
activities occurring within the 25 foot buffer.
Verify that construction
contracts contain
Hoover Pavilion
protection requirements
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permit for
Hoover Pavilion
renovation
Hoover Pavilion Renovation
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 57
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
CR-1.2 Prepare HABS Documentation for the Stone
Building Complex. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
prepare HABS-like documentation using the National Park
Services’ Historic American Building Surveys Level III
guidelines for each of the buildings in the Stone Building
complex prior to demolition of each building that comprises
this historic resource (East, West, Core, Boswell, Edwards,
Lane, Alway, and Grant). HABS-like recordation shall not
be required until each of the individual buildings is vacated
and prepared for demolition. The documentation shall
include written and photographic documentation of each of
the historic structures within the Stone Building complex.
The documentation shall be prepared by a qualified
professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural
History or History.
The documentation shall be prepared based on the National
Park Services’ HABS standards and include, at a minimum,
the following:
Site-specific history and appropriate contextual
information regarding the Stone Building complex.
This history shall focus on the reasons for the
buildings’ significance: heart transplantation program
and the role of E.D. Stone in the design of the
complex.
Accurate mapping of all buildings that are
included in the Stone Building complex, scaled to
indicate size and proportion of the buildings to
surrounding buildings; if existing plans accurately
reflect these relationships these may be reformatted for
submittal per HABS guidelines for CAD submittals.
Review HABS-like
documentation
City of Palo
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Upon vacation and
prior to demolition of
any portions of the
Stone Building
complex.
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 58
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
Architectural descriptions of the major exterior
features and public rooms within the Stone Building
complex as well as descriptions of typical patient,
office, laboratory, and operating rooms.
Photographic documentation of the interior and
exterior of the Stone Building complex and Thomas
Church-designed landscape features. Either HABS
standard large format or digital photography may be
used. If digital photography is used, the ink and paper
combinations for printing photographs must be in
compliance with National Register-National Historic
Landmark photo expansion policy and have a
permanency rating of approximately 115 years.
Digital photographs will be taken as uncompressed
.TIF file format. The size of each image shall be
1600x1200 pixels at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) or
larger, color format, and printed in black and white.
The file name for each electronic image shall
correspond with the Index to Photographs and
photograph label.
CR-1.3 Distribute Written and Photographic
Documentation to Agencies. The written and photographic
documentation of historic resources shall be disseminated
on archival-quality paper to Stanford University, the
Northwest Information Center, and other local repositories
identified by the City of Palo Alto.
Verify distribution of
written and
photographic
documents
City of Palo
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to demolition of
any portion of the
Stone Building
complex.
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 59
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
CR-1.4 Prepare Permanent Interpretive
Displays/Signage/Plaques. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall install interpretive displays within the SUMC Sites
that provide information to visitors and residents regarding
the history of the Stone Building complex. These displays
shall be installed in highly visible public areas such as the
property’s open space or in public areas on the interiors of
buildings. The displays shall include historical data and
photographs as well as physical remnants of architectural
elements. Interpretive displays and the signage/plaques
installed on the property shall be sufficiently durable to
withstand typical Palo Alto weather conditions for at least
five years. Displays and signage/plaques shall be lighted,
installed at pedestrian-friendly locations, and be of
adequate size to attract the interested pedestrian.
Maintenance of displays and signage/plaques shall be
included in the maintenance program on the property.
Location and materials for the interpretative displays shall
be subject to review by the Palo Alto Architectural Review
Board and approval by the Planning Director.
Review and approve
location and materials
for the displays; verify
installation
Review by City
of Palo Alto
Architectural
Review Board
and approval by
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to demolition of
entire Stone Building
complex; verify
installation post-
construction
Demolition of entire Stone Building Complex
______________________________________
Signature Date
Installation of Permanent Interpretive
Displays
_______________________________________
Signature Date
CR-1.5 Implement Protection Documents for the Hoover
Pavilion. The SUMC Project sponsors shall ensure the
implementation of the Stanford Hoover Pavilion Protection
Documents (Documents) prepared by ARG and dated
September 21, 2009. The SUMC Project sponsors shall
comply with the specifications for the treatment and
protection of the Hoover Pavilion during SUMC Project
construction activities that could damage the historic fabric
of the building as provided in the Documents.
Verify that construction
contracts contain
Hoover Pavilion
protection requirements
from ARG report dated
September 21, 2009;
compliance monitoring
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Hoover Pavilion
renovation; monitor
compliance during
construction
Hoover Pavilion Renovation
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 60
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could potentially encounter archaeological resources and result in a significant impact. (CR-2)
CR-2.1 Construction Staff Training and Consultation.
Prior to any construction or earth-disturbing activities, a
qualified archaeologist shall inform construction
supervisors of the potential to encounter cultural resources.
All construction personnel shall be instructed to be
observant for prehistoric and historic-era artifacts,
subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including
accumulations of dark, friable soil (“midden”), stone
artifacts, animal bone, and shell. In the event that any
prehistoric or historic subsurface archaeological features or
cultural deposits are discovered during construction-related
earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity
within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City
shall be notified. The City shall consult with the Stanford
University Archeologist to assess the significance of the
find. If the find is determined to be an historical resource or
a unique archaeological resource as defined by CEQA, then
representatives of the City and the Stanford University
Archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate
course of action. All significant cultural materials
recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis,
professional museum curation, and a report shall be
prepared by the qualified archaeologist according to current
professional standards.
SUMC Project
sponsors submit
report from qualified
archaeologist
documenting that
construction
supervisors were
informed about
potential cultural
resource procedures;
City to review report
City of Palo
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 61
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 62
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could potentially encounter human remains and result in a significant impact. (CR-3)
CR-3.1 Conduct Protocol and Procedures for
Encountering Human Remains. If human remains
(including disarticulated or cremated remains) are
discovered at any SUMC Project construction site during
any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity
within 100 feet of the human remains should be halted and
the Stanford University Archaeologist, City of Palo Alto,
and the County coroner notified immediately, according to
Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and
Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If
the remains are determined by the County coroner to be
Native American, the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and
the guidelines of the NAHC adhered to in the treatment and
disposition of the remains. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall retain a professional archaeologist with Native
American burial experience to conduct a field investigation
of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely
Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary,
the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the
City of Palo Alto, including the excavation and removal of
the human remains. If the human remains cannot be
avoided, and the Most Likely Descendant requests that the
human remains be removed from its location, the SUMC
Project sponsors shall implement removal of the human
remains by a professional archaeologist. The City of Palo
Alto shall verify that the mitigation is complete before the
resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet
of where the remains were discovered.
SUMC Project
sponsors include
procedures related to
possible discovery of
human remains in
construction contracts;
City to verify
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 63
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could have a significant impact on unique paleontological resources or unique geologic resources. (CR-4)
CR-4.1 Conduct Protocol and Procedures for
Encountering Paleontological Resources. Should
paleontological resources be identified during SUMC
Project ground-disturbing activities, the SUMC Project
sponsors shall notify the City and the Stanford University
Archaeologist and cease operations in the vicinity of the
potential resource until a qualified professional
paleontologist can complete the following actions when
appropriate:
Identify and evaluate paleontological resources by
intense field survey where impacts are considered
high;
Assess effects on identified resources; and
Consult with the City of Palo Alto and the
Stanford University Archaeologist.
Before operations in the vicinity of the potential resource
resume, the SUMC Project sponsors shall comply with the
paleontologist’s recommendations to address any
significant adverse effects where determined by the City of
Palo Alto to be feasible. In considering any suggested
mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall consult with the Stanford
University Archaeologist and the City to determine whether
avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such
as the nature of the find, project design, cost policies and
SUMC Project
sponsors include
procedures related to
possible discovery of
paleontological
resources in
construction contracts;
City to verify
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
grading permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 64
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
land use assumptions, and other considerations. If
avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g.
data recovery) shall be instituted to avoid a significant
impact. Work may proceed in other parts of the SUMC
Sites while mitigation for paleontological resources is
completed.
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project, in combination with other past, current, and probable future development in the City, would cause a substantial change in
the significance of the City’s historic resources and thus have a significant cumulative impact. The SUMC Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact would be cumulatively
considerable. (CR-5)
See Mitigation Measures CR-1.2 through CR-1.4.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable probable future development, could cause a substantial change in the
significance of prehistoric and/or archaeological resources or human remains and thus contribute to a significant cumulative impact. The SUMC Project is conservatively
assumed to have a considerable contribution. (CR-6)
See Mitigation Measures CR-2.1 and CR-3.1.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable probable future development where the Pleistocene-age creek bed may occur,
could have a significant cumulative impact. Such an impact would occur if the buried Pleistocene-age creek bed is exposed in lengths greater than approximately 100 feet (or a sufficient
length to support detailed hydrological study) and if such deposits contain substantially intact skeletons of extinct species. These conditions would represent a major find for regional
paleontology. In the case that significant paleontological finds—such as stretches of buried Pleistocene-age creek bed greater than 100 feet in length and containing intact skeletons of
extinct species—are made on the SUMC Site, then the SUMC Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on paleontological resources could be cumulatively considerable. (CR-7)
See Mitigation Measure CR-4.1.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could have a significant impact on special-status wildlife resources. (BR-1)
BR-1.1 Conduct Pre-Demolition Survey. The SUMC
Project sponsors shall retain a qualified biologist (“bat
biologist”) to conduct a pre-construction survey for
roosting bats in trees to be removed or pruned and
structures to be removed. If no roosting bats are found, no
Review pre-
construction roosting
bat survey report
City of Palo
Department of
Planning and
Community
Environment.
Prior to issuance of
building and
demolition permits
and/or vegetation
removal for each
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
Page 65
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
further mitigation is required. If a bat roost is found, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall implement the following
measures to avoid impacts on roosting bats.
building
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 66
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
BR-1.2 Avoid Roosting Areas. If non-breeding bats are
found in a tree or structure to be removed, the individuals
shall be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified bat
biologist, by opening the roosting area to allow airflow
through the cavity. Demolition should then follow at least
one night after initial disturbance for airflow. This action
should allow bats to leave during darkness, thus increasing
their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of
potential predation during daylight.
If active maternity roosts are found in structures that will be
removed as part of project construction, demolition of that
structure shall commence before maternity colonies form
(generally before March 1) or after young are flying
(generally by July 31).
Verify that construction
contracts contain
procedures related to
avoidance of roosting
bat areas; SUMC
Project sponsor to
provide qualified bat
biologist compliance
monitoring reports.
.
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during
construction during
site disturbance period
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
Page 67
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
______________________________________
Signature Date
BR-1.3 Develop and Employ Bat Nest Box Plan. If
special-status bats are found in structures to be removed,
the SUMC Project sponsors shall develop a bat nest box
plan for the SUMC Sites employing state-of-the-art bat nest
box technology. The design and placement of nest boxes
shall be reviewed by a qualified bat biologist.
Review bat nest box
plan, if special-status
bats are found in
structures to be
developed; SUMC
Project sponsor to
provide qualified bat
biologist compliance
monitoring reports
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building, if
required; compliance
monitoring during site
disturbance period
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Page 68
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 69
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
BR-1.4 Avoid Tree Removal During Nesting Season. Tree
removal or pruning shall be avoided from February 1
through August 31, the nesting period for Cooper’s hawk,
to the extent feasible. If no tree removal or pruning is
proposed during the nesting period, no surveys are
required.
Verify that construction
contracts contain
procedures related to
avoidance of Cooper’s
Hawk nesting
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
Page 70
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 71
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
BR-1.5 Protect Cooper’s Hawk in the Event of Nest
Discovery. If tree removal or pruning is unavoidable
during the nesting season, the SUMC Project sponsors shall
hire a qualified biologist to conduct a survey for nesting
Cooper’s hawk within five days prior to the proposed start
of construction. If active Cooper’s hawk nests are not
present, project activities can take place as scheduled. The
qualified biologist shall visit the site daily to search for
nests until all nesting substrates are removed. This will
avoid impacts to Cooper’s hawk that may have moved into
the site and initiated nest-building after the start of tree
removal activities. Additionally, if more than 5 days elapse
between the initial nest search and the tree removal, it is
possible for new birds to move into the construction area
and begin building a nest. If there is such a delay, another
nest survey shall be conducted. If any active Cooper’s
hawk nests are detected, the SUMC Project sponsors shall
delay removal of the applicable tree or shrub while the nest
is occupied with eggs or young who have not fledged. A
qualified biologist shall monitor any occupied nest to
determine when the Cooper’s hawk nest is no longer used.
Verify that construction
contracts contain
procedures related to
timing and
requirements for
Cooper’s hawk
surveys; SUMC Project
sponsor to provide
qualified biologist
compliance monitoring
reports
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during site
disturbance period
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
Page 72
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project would have no impact on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or use of native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, but could impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites and thus result in a significant impact. (BR-3)
BR-3.1 Avoid Tree Removal During Nesting Season. Tree
or shrub removal or pruning shall be avoided from February
1 through August 31, the bird-nesting period, to the extent
feasible. If no tree or shrub removal or pruning is proposed
during the nesting period, no surveys are required.
Verify that construction
contracts contain
procedures related to
avoidance of bird
nesting
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 73
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
BR-3.2 Protect Birds in the Event of Nest Discovery. If
tree and shrub removal or pruning is unavoidable during the
nesting season, the SUMC Project sponsors shall hire a
qualified biologist to conduct a survey for nesting raptors
and other birds within five days prior to the proposed start
of construction. If active nests are not present, SUMC
Project activities can take place as scheduled. The
qualified biologist shall visit the site daily to search for
nests until all nesting substrates are removed. These
procedures would avoid impacts to any birds that may have
moved into the sites and initiated nest-building after the
start of tree and shrub removal activities. Additionally, if
more than five days elapses between the initial nest search
and the vegetation removal, it is possible for new birds to
move into the construction area and begin building a nest.
If there is such a delay, another nest survey shall be
conducted. If any active nests are detected, the SUMC
Project sponsors shall delay removal of the applicable tree
or shrub while the nest is occupied with eggs or young who
have not fledged. A qualified biologist shall monitor any
occupied nest to determine when the nest is no longer used.
Verify that construction
contracts contain
procedures related to
protection of nesting
birds; SUMC Project
sponsor to provide
qualified biologist
compliance monitoring
reports
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building;
compliance
monitoring during site
disturbance period
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
Page 74
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could have a significant impact on Protected Trees. (BR-4)
BR-4.1 Prepare a Tree Preservation Report for all Trees
to be Retained. An updated tree survey and tree
preservation report (TPR) prepared by a certified arborist
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director
of Planning and Community Environment in consultation
with the City Arborist. For reference clarity, the tree
survey shall include (list and field tag) all existing trees
within the SUMC Sites, including adjacent trees
overhanging the SUMC Sites. The approved TPR shall be
implemented in full, including mandatory inspections and
monthly reporting to City Arborist. The TPR shall be
based on latest SUMC plans and amended as needed to
address activity within the dripline area of any existing
Protected Tree to be preserved, including incidental work
(utilities trenching, street work, lighting, irrigation, etc.)
that may affect the health of a preserved Protected Tree.
The TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the
Tree Preservation Ordinance, Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 8.10.030, and the City Tree Technical Manual,
Section 3.00, 4.00 and 6.30. To avoid improvements that
may be detrimental to the health of Protected Trees, the
SUMC Project
sponsors to prepare
TPR; City to review
and approve TPR
City of Palo Alto
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
Page 75
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
Director of Planning and Community Environment, in
consultation with the City Arborist shall review the SUMC
Project sponsors’ landscape plan to ensure the new
landscape is consistent with Tree Technical Manual,
Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native
Oaks.
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
BR-4.2 Prepare a Solar Access Study (SAS) of Short and
Long Term Effects on Protected Oaks. The SUMC Project
sponsors shall prepare a SAS of Short and Long Term
Effects on Protected Oaks that are aesthetic tree resources
for review and approval by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment in consultation with the City
Arborist. The SAS shall be prepared by a qualified expert
team (horticulturalist, architect designer, consulting
arborist) capable of determining effects, if any, to foliage,
health, disease susceptibility and also prognosis for
longevity. The SAS shall contain the same information as
the SAS for FIM 1 trees that are aesthetic tree resources
submitted September 23, 2010. If the Director of Planning
and Community Environment, in consultation with the City
Arborist, determines that the SUMC Project would have an
adverse effect on solar access to a Protected Tree that is an
aesthetic tree resource such that the tree is unlikely to
survive, then the SUMC Project sponsors shall relocate the
Protected Tree to a site with sufficient solar access, as
determined by the Direct0r of Planning and Community
Environment, in consultation with the City Arborist. The
SAS has been completed and accepted by the City for trees
#608, Kaplan Lawn (trees #33 through 41), and FIM (trees
#317 through 320 and #322).
Review and approve
Solar Access Study, if
project design changes
and would affect
biological and aesthetic
tree resources
City of Palo Alto
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permit for
each building, if
project design changes
and would affect
biological and
aesthetic tree
resources
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 76
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
BR-4.3 Prepare a Tree Relocation Feasibility Plan for
Any Protected Tree Proposed for Relocation and Retention.
Relocation of Protected Trees with the SUMC Sites shall
be allowed only upon issuance of a Protected Tree
relocation permit from the Director of Planning and
Community Environment in consultation with the City
Arborist. Because of inherent mortality associated with the
process of moving mature trees, the SUMC Project
sponsors shall prepare a Tree Relocation and Maintenance
Plan (TRMP) to be reviewed in connection with the
Protected Tree relocation permit. The TRMP shall evaluate
the feasibility of moving the Protected Trees to an
appropriate location on site. Feasibility shall consider
current site and tree conditions, a tree’s ability to tolerate
moving, relocation measures, optimum needs for the new
location, aftercare, irrigation, and other long-term needs.
The tree relocation permit shall specify that if the relocated
trees do not survive after a period of five years, the
relocated tree or trees shall be replaced with trees or a
combination of trees and Tree Value Standards consistent
with Section 3.20, Table 3-1 Tree Canopy Replacement, of
the Tree Technical Manual. The TRMP shall be inclusive
of the following minimum information: appropriate
irrigation, monitoring inspections, post relocation tree
maintenance, and for an annual arborist report of the
condition of the relocated trees. If a tree is disfigured,
leaning with supports needed, in decline with a dead top or
dieback of more than 25 percent, the tree shall be
considered a total loss and replaced as described above.
Review and approve
Tree Relocation
Feasibility Plans, and
Tree Relocation and
Maintenance Plans
Issue Protected Tree
Relocation Permit
City of Palo Alto
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
BR-4.4A Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding for
Tree Maintenance. As a security measure, the SUMC
Sign Memorandum of
Understanding and
City of Palo Alto
Planning and
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Page 77
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
Project sponsors shall be subject to a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the City of Palo Alto and
the SUMC Project sponsors describing a tree retention
amount, the list of trees to be retained, an appraised value
for each listed tree, a five-year tree growth and
establishment, timeline for return of security, and
conditions of approval related to Protected Trees, as cited
in the Conditional Use Permit for the SUMC Project.
The SUMC Project sponsors and SUMC Project arborist
shall coordinate with the City Arborist to determine the
conditions required to guarantee the protection and/or
replacement of the regulated trees on the site during
construction and within five years after occupancy. The
SUMC Project sponsors shall provide a security
guarantee for the trees, as determined by the Director of
Planning and Community Environment, in consultation
with the City Arborist, in an amount consistent with the
City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual.
security guarantee for
trees to be retained
Community
Environment
each building
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
BR 4.4B Replace Protected Trees in Accordance with the
Tree Technical Manual. Removal of Protected Trees shall
be allowed only upon issuance of a Protected Tree removal
permit from the Director of Planning and Community
Environment, in consultation with the City Arborist.
Protected Trees that are removed without being relocated
shall be replaced in accordance with the ratios set forth in
Table 3-1 of the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual
in the following way, in order to maintain the appropriate
landscape approach at the SUMC Sites, which has limited
opportunities to plant the required replacement of trees:
The Protected Tree removal permit issued shall
stipulate the tree replacement requirements for the
removed tree, including number of trees, location, and
Review and approve
Tree Removal Plans
Issue Protected Tree
Removal Permit
City of Palo Alto
Director of
Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each building
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Page 78
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
irrigation;
The number and size of trees required for
replacement would be calculated in accordance with
Table 3-1; and
The difference between the required tree
replacement and the number of trees planted at the
SUMC Sites would be mitigated through contribution
to the Forestry Fund in the City of Palo Alto. Payment
to the Forestry Fund would be in the amount
representing the value of the replacement trees that
would be required under the TTM standard.
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
BR-4.5 Provide Optimum Tree Replacement for Loss of
Publicly-Owned Trees Regulated Tree Category. There are
many publicly owned trees growing in the right-of-way along
various frontages (Welch Road, Pasteur Drive, Quarry Road,
Sand Hill Road, etc.). These trees provide an important visual
and aesthetic value to the streetscape and represent a
significant investment from years of public resources to
maintain them. As mitigation to offset the net benefits loss
from removal of mature trees, and to minimize the future years
to achieve parity with visual and infrastructure service benefits
(CO2 reduction, extended asphalt life, water runoff
management, etc.) currently provided by the trees, the new
public trees on all roadway frontages shall be provided with
best practices design and materials, including, but not limited
to, the following elements:
Consistency with the City of Palo Alto Public
Works Department Street Tree Management Plan, in
consultation with Canopy, Inc.
Provide adequate room for natural tree canopy
Review landscape
plans submitted as part
of building permit
applications for impact
to publicly owned trees
City of Palo Alto
Department of
Public Works
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
each project
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 79
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
growth and adequate root growing volume. For large
trees, a target goal of 1,200 cubic feet of soil shall be
used.
For pedestrian and roadway areas that are to
include tree planting or adjacent to existing trees to be
retained, utilize City-approved best management
practices for sustainability products, such as
permeable ADA sidewalk surfaces, Silva Cell base
support planters, engineered soil mix base, and other
advantage methods.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Cumulative impacts on Protected Trees would be significant. Because the SUMC Project would result in the loss of Protected Trees, the
SUMC Project’s contribution would cumulatively considerable. (BR-9)
See Mitigation Measures BR-4.1 through BR-4.6.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could have a significant impact on groundwater quality during construction. (HW-3)
HW-3.1 Develop a Work Plan for any Unknown
Contaminated Sites. During construction, if suspected
contaminated soil, undocumented underground tanks,
hazardous materials pipelines, or other evidence of
potential hazardous materials are discovered, construction
activities shall cease and the SUMC Project sponsors shall
prepare a workplan to determine the potential risk to human
and ecological health. The workplan shall be prepared by a
Registered Environmental Assessor and in compliance with
the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
guidelines and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan (the "National Contingency Plan"
[NCP]).
The SUMC Project sponsors, or their representative, shall
Verify that SUMC
Project sponsors have
submitted workplans to
DTSC, if any unknown
contaminated is
discovered during
construction
.
City of Palo Alto
Fire Department
and Department
of Planning and
Community
Environment
As necessary
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 80
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
be responsible for submitting the workplan for the DTSC’s
review and approval prior to implementing field activities.
The workplan must include all information necessary for
implementing field work. The workplan shall include a Site
Safety Plan (SSP) and a Sampling Work Plan (SWP). The
SSP must be submitted to the DTSC in conjunction with the
submittal of the SWP. The objective of the SSP is to ensure
protection of the investigative team as well as the general
public during sampling activities.
If risk to human or ecological health is identified, the
SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare and implement a
Removal Action Workplan (SB 1706 Stats. 1994, Chapter
441) (non-emergency removal action or remedial action at a
hazardous substance release site which is projected to cost
less than $1,000,000) that is consistent with the NCP.
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
______________________________________
Signature Date
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could release hazardous materials in existing buildings. (HM-2)
HM-2.1 Conduct Asbestos Survey at the SUMC Sites.
Prior to building renovation and/or demolition, an
asbestos survey shall be performed on all areas of the
building anticipated to be demolished and/or
renovated. This survey shall be performed by a
licensed asbestos abatement contractor. In the event
that asbestos is identified in the buildings proposed to
be demolished and/or renovated, all asbestos
containing materials shall be removed and
appropriately disposed of by a licensed asbestos
abatement contractor. A site health and safety plan, to
Verify that SUMC
Project sponsors have
conducted asbestos
surveys and prepared
site health and safety
plan for buildings to be
demolished
.
City of Palo Alto
Fire Department
and Department
of Planning and
Community
Environment
Prior to issuance of
demolition permits for
each project
1101 Welch Road
______________________________________
Signature Date
Parking Structure III
______________________________________
Signature Date
701 Welch Road
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 81
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
ensure worker safety, in compliance with OSHA
requirements (8 CCR 5208) shall be developed by the
SUMC Project sponsors and in place prior to
commencing renovation or demolition work on
portions of buildings containing asbestos.
703 Welch Road
______________________________________
Signature Date
Edwards
______________________________________
Signature Date
Alway
______________________________________
Signature Date
Lane
______________________________________
Signature Date
East, West, Core, Boswell, Grant
______________________________________
Signature Date
Core Expansion
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could expose construction personnel and public to existing contaminated groundwater and/or soil. (HM-3)
HM-3.1 Perform a Phase II ESA for the 701 Welch Site. A
Phase II ESA shall be performed at 701 Welch Site
Building B. The Phase II ESA shall include sampling and
analysis of soil, groundwater, wastewater, and residues on
surfaces such as laboratories countertops, fume hoods,
sinks, sumps, floors, and drain lines. The County
Department of Environmental Health (DEH) and Palo Alto
Fire Department (PAFD) shall be notified by the Project
Receive notification if
contamination is
discovered during
Phase II ESA at 701
Welch Site Building B
Verify that County
DEH has approved a
City of Palo Alto
Fire Department
As necessary 701 Welch Road
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 82
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
sponsors if contamination is discovered. If contamination
is discovered, the SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare a
site remediation assessment that (a) specifies measures to
protect workers and the public from exposure to potential
site hazards and (b) certifies that the proposed remediation
measures would clean up contaminants, dispose of the
wastes, and protect public health in accordance with
federal, State, and local requirements. Site excavation
activities shall not proceed until the site remediation has
been approved by the County DEH and implemented by the
SUMC Project sponsors. Additionally, the site remediation
assessment shall be subject to review and approval by the
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). All appropriate agencies shall be notified.
site remediation plan, if
necessary
Compliance monitoring
HM-3.2 Excavate Contaminated Soil from the 703 Welch
Site. For the 4- to 9-square-foot area near every discharge
point from the building, soil samples shall be performed
and contaminated soil excavated, removed, and transported
to an approved disposal facility in compliance with OSHA
requirements. The County DEH and the PAFD shall be
notified by the SUMC Project sponsors if contamination is
encountered during construction.
Receive notification if
contamination is
discovered during
construction at 703
Welch
.
City of Palo Alto
Fire Department
As necessary 703 Welch Road
______________________________________
Signature Date
HM-3.3 Conduct a Soil Excavation Program at the Hoover
Pavilion Site. A qualified consultant, under the SUMC
Project sponsors’ direction, shall undertake the following
activities:
Remove all buried underground storage tanks
from the property after sheds and storage buildings on
the Hoover Pavilion Site have been demolished;
To the extent necessary, additional soil sampling
shall be collected to determine health risks and to
Verify that SUMC
Project sponsors have
removed buried
underground storage
tanks and conducted
soil sampling, if
necessary
Verify that SUMC
Project sponsors have
City of Palo Alto
Fire Department
As necessary Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
Page 83
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
develop disposal criteria;
If warranted based on soil sampling, contaminated
soil shall be excavated, removed, and transported to an
approved disposal facility in compliance with OSHA
requirements;
To the extent required based upon the results of
soil sampling and the results of a health risk
assessment, a Site Health and Safety Plan to ensure
worker safety in compliance with OSHA requirements
shall be developed by the Project sponsors, and in
places prior to commencing work on any contaminated
site; and
The SUMC Project sponsors shall submit
documents to the County DEH to proceed with closure
of the Hoover Pavilion Site.
prepared a site health
and safety plan, if
warranted
Verify that SUMC
Project sponsors have
submitted closure
documents to County
DEH
Compliance monitoring
HM-3.4 Develop a Site Management Plan for the Hoover
Pavilion Site. The SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare a
site remediation assessment that (a) specifies measures to
protect workers and the public from exposure to potential
site hazards, including hazards from remediation itself, and
(b) certifies that the proposed remediation measures would
clean up contaminants, dispose of the wastes, and protect
public health in accordance with federal, State, and local
requirements. Site excavation activities shall not proceed
until the site remediation has been approved by the County
DEH and implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors.
Additionally, the site remediation assessment shall be
subject to review and approval by the San Francisco Bay
RWQCB. All appropriate agencies shall be notified.
Verify that SUMC
Project sponsors have
prepared and submitted
a site management plan
to County DEH
.
City of Palo Alto
Fire Department
Prior to excavation at
the Hoover site
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project would result in construction of facilities on a site included on the Cortese List. (HM-7)
Page 84
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
See Mitigation Measures HM-3.3 and HM-3.4.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project could impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. (HM-10)
See Mitigation Measures HM-10.1, TR-1.1, TR-1.4 through TR-1.6, TR-1.8, and TR-9.1.
HM-10.1 Coordinate Construction Activities with the City
of Palo Alto. The SUMC Project sponsors shall provide to
the City planned construction routes, roadway closures, and
access and closures schedules. This information shall be
provided to the City at least two weeks in advance of the
planned access and closures. The City shall coordinate this
information among affected emergency service providers,
including the City’s Fire and Police Departments, and
private ambulance services, so that alternative routes could
be planned and announced prior to the scheduled access
and closures, as deemed necessary by the City.
Coordinate SUMC
Project information on
planned construction
routes, and roadway
closures to affected
emergency service
providers
City of Palo Alto
Fire Department
and Department
of Planning and
Community
Environment,
and Public
Works
Department
At least two weeks
prior to scheduled
roadways closures
SHC Hospital
______________________________________
Signature Date
SHC Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
LPCH Hospital/Clinics
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover MOB
______________________________________
Signature Date
Hoover Parking Structure
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 1
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 2
______________________________________
Signature Date
FIM 3
Page 85
110525 jb 0130751
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Mitigation Measures
Monitoring or
Reporting Action Responsibility Timing Signature/Date Completed
______________________________________
Signature Date
Welch Road Improvements
______________________________________
Signature Date
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project and adjacent development could result in cumulative release of hazardous materials during construction, a significant
cumulative impact. The SUMC Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact would be considerable. (HM-12)
See Mitigation Measure HM-2.1.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The SUMC Project and adjacent development could result in cumulative disturbance of contaminated soils, release of hazardous materials
during construction, a significant cumulative impact. The SUMC Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact would be considerable. (HM-13)
See Mitigation Measures HM-3.1, HM-3.2, HM-3.3, and HM-3.4.
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Cumulative development could impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The
SUMC Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact would be considerable. (HM-15)
See Mitigation Measures HM-10.1, TR-1.1, TR-1.4 through TR-1.6, and TR-1.8.
Not Yet Approved
1
Resolution No. ____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving
Architectural Review for the Stanford University Medical
Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (Stanford
Hospitals and Clinics, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital and
Stanford University School of Medicine, Applicant)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. Background.
The City Council finds, determines, and declares that:
A. On August 13, 2007, Stanford Hospitals and Clinics, Lucile Packard Children’s
Hospital and Stanford University School of Medicine on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the
Leland Stanford Junior University, applied for a Zone Change, Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, Environmental Assessment, Architectural Review, Annexation and a Development
Agreement for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement
Project, including the demolition, renovation, and replacement of on-site structures, thereby
adding approximately 1.3 million square feet of net new floor area, broken down as follows:
Demolition, renovation, and construction of SHC facilities, providing a net increase of
approximately 824,000 square feet;
Demolition, renovation, and construction of LPCH facilities, resulting in approximately
442,000 additional square feet;
Demolition of four existing SoM buildings and construction of three replacement
buildings, with no net increase in square feet;
Demolition of shops and storage space, renovation of existing Hoover Pavilion, and net
addition of approximately 46,000 square feet of new medical, office, research, clinic, and
administrative facilities at the Hoover Pavilion Site for medical offices for community
practitioners and SUMC-related medical offices, clinical facilities, and support uses;
Demolition of existing parking spaces and construction of 2,985 new and replacement
spaces, for a net increase of 2,053 spaces to address additional demand for the SUMC
Project, to be located in surface parking and above- and underground structures;
Construction of a new road connecting Sand Hill Road and Welch Road, and provision of
interior driveways and improved circulation connections, including the extension of
Quarry Road to Roth Way, and
Widening of Welch Road by the addition of a third lane to accommodate left turns in
both directions; and related on-site and off-site improvements (“The Project”).
Not Yet Approved
2
B. The City Council has adopted Resolution No. ______ certifying an
Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project, Ordinance No. _____ adopting a new
chapter in Title 18 (Zoning) for a “Hospital” zone district (HD), Resolution No. ______
amending the Comprehensive Plan to clarify language in specific Land Use policies, initiation of
an annexation petition for a 0.65 acre portion of land in Santa Clara County to the City of Palo
Alto, approval of a Development Agreement with Stanford University that would vest certain
land use and development regulations for a 30-year period in exchange for public benefits, and
acceptance of an update to the Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan.
C. The Architectural Review Board, at duly noticed hearings on December 2, 2010,
January 6, 2011, February 3, 2011, February 17, 2011, March 24, 2011, April 7, and 2011, April
21, 2011 reviewed and considered design components of the Project and recommended approval
upon certain conditions.
D. The Planning and Transportation Commission held duly noticed public hearings
on the Project on May 11 and May 18, 2011 and recommended approval of the design of the
Project based upon the findings and upon the conditions set forth below.
E. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on June 6,
2011 and heard and considered all public testimony, both oral and written, presented to it,
together with all staff reports and the record of the proceedings before the Architectural Review
Board and Planning and Transportation Commission.
SECTION 2. Design Approval. The City Council hereby approves the Stanford
University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project regarding the
architecture, site planning and related site improvements, subject to the conditions set forth
below, making findings as described in Exhibit A.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Not Yet Approved
3
SECTION 3. Conditions of Approval. The City Council approves the Project subject to
the conditions of approval described in Exhibit B.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
1. Development Plans prepared by the following:
2. New Stanford Hospital: February 17, 2011 & March 31, 2011
3. Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Expansion: December 2, 2010 & March 17, 2011
4. Stanford Hoover Pavilion Renovation: February 2, 2011 & March 25, 2011
5. Hoover Site Development (Medical Office Building and Parking Structure): October 14,
2010 & April 7, 2011
6. School of Medicine Foundations in Medicine: March 17, 2011
7. Welch Road Surface Improvements and Durand Way: March 17, 2011
8. SUMC Campus Design Guidelines: March 17, 2011
Exhibit A: Architectural Review Findings
Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval
Not Yet Approved
4
Exhibit A
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS
A. GENERAL:
The project shall be subject to the mitigation measures as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report’s
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted by the City Council. The MMRP is attached an
exhibit to the CEQA resolution.
A.1 Planning Division
1. Plan Conformance. The plans submitted for permits shall be in substantial conformance with the following
Architectural Review Board Drawing Submittals, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of
approval:
a. New Stanford Hospital: February 17, 2011 & March 31, 2011
b. Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Expansion: December 2, 2010 & March 17, 2011
c. Stanford Hoover Pavilion Renovation: February 2, 2011 & March 25, 2011
d. Hoover Site Development (Medical Office Building and Parking Structure): October 14, 2010 & April
7, 2011
e. School of Medicine Foundations in Medicine: March 17, 2011
f. Welch Road Surface Improvements and Durand Way: March 17, 2011
g. SUMC Campus Design Guidelines: March 17, 2011
2. Review, Oversight, and Inspections. Due to the complexity and size of the Project and a phasing schedule that is
anticipated to last approximately fifteen years, the City shall hire, at the expense of the applicant, an
independent consulting firm or firms and/or contractors to perform activities including, but not limited to, plan
review, condition compliance review, mitigation monitoring, inspections, and report preparation. Within 30-
days of Project approval, the Project sponsors and the City of Palo Alto shall enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) that describes the initial deposit and subsequent payments, the types of contractors that
could be retained, the scopes of work to be performed, procedures for amending the MOU, and reporting
responsibilities, among other considerations. It is anticipated that consulting firms and contractors would be
needed in the fields including, but not limited to, Planning, Building Review and Inspections, Public Works,
Utilities, Fire, and Arborist.
3. Mitigation and Condition Monitoring. Within 30-days of Project approval, the Project sponsors shall meet with
representatives from the Department of Planning and Community Environment to initiate a plan and process for
mitigation and condition monitoring that is agreeable to all parties and is consistent with the provisions of the
Development Agreement approved by City Council on ____. All project plan submittals shall include the
following statement, printed on the introductory sheet of the plans, “These plans shall be consistent with the
conditions of approval, located in the implementation document prepared for the Project.”
4. The proposed project shall comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Green Building Ordinance No. 5107,
where applicable, prior to submittal for building permits. Projects under the jurisdiction of the Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) shall be exempt from this Ordinance. Projects submitted
for building review to the Palo Alto Building Department prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 5107 shall be
exempt from this Ordinance.
A.2 Fire Department
1. Perform a “Hazardous Materials Closure” with the PAFD for 701, 703, and 1101 Welch Road or facilities,
areas or rooms within the project area that stored, used or handled hazardous materials. This includes
“permitted site” as well as “unpermitted sites” discovered during the project that have or had hazardous
Not Yet Approved
5
materials. For sites where a determination has been made that have or previously had hazardous materials and
has not been closed with PAFD, a hazardous materials closure permit is required prior to removal of related
materials and prior to demolition. Additionally, prior to removal or modification of the site an inspection by the
fire dept is required unless otherwise determined.
A hazardous materials closure includes the physical facility and soil below or associated with the facility. Per
project specific determination, a complete Phase II ESA and / or soil sampling may be required. The Hazardous
Materials Closure Application and Guidelines can be found at http//:www.unidocs.org or is available from
PAFD. Hazardous Materials closure of the facility includes removal or addressing any items or areas to the
degree that maintenance of a hazardous materials permit is no longer required. Any building, room or area shall
have hazardous materials or residuals removed to a level at or below state hazardous waste levels, as agreed at
the project start. Clean up level within the building will determine if there is a deed restriction on the building
use. At a minimum the hazardous materials closure of a facility room or area will include items listed in the
Hazardous Materials Closure Guidelines and may include for example; sampling of residues on facility surfaces
such as laboratory countertops, fume hoods as well as sampling of walls, equipment, sinks, sumps, floors, and
drain lines. Testing for lead containing materials may be required for any facility that previously contained x-
ray equipment.
When contamination of the soil suspected or determined, a Phase II ESA or soil sampling shall include
sampling and analysis of soil and associated items; sinks, sumps, floors, and drain lines at a minimum. A post
closure report shall be supplied to the PAFD. The PAFD and the County DEH shall be notified by the Project
sponsors if contamination remains after the hazardous materials closure is completed with the Fire Department.
If soil contamination is discovered, the project will be referred to the RWQCB. The RWQCB will determine
appropriate action or referral to another agency for the project. The SUMC Project sponsors shall prepare a site
remediation assessment that (a) specifies measures to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential
site hazards and (b) certifies that the proposed remediation measures would clean up contaminants, dispose of
the wastes, and protect public health in accordance with federal, State, and local requirements. Site excavation
activities shall not proceed until the site remediation has been approved by the RWQCB or the designated
regulatory oversite agency and implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors. Additionally, the site remediation
assessment shall be subject to review and approval by the RWQCB. All appropriate agencies shall be notified.
(Note: 701 and 703 Welch Rd. are addressed separately in this report. Other known hazardous materials use
storage and handling buildings, facilities, areas or rooms are not addressed separately – such as 1101 Welch
Rd, multiple medical clinics / office buildings on Welch Rd, Stanford Hospital areas being remodeled or
demolished, 211 Quarry Rd structures, as well as unpermitted or unknown buildings, facility areas or rooms
with hazardous materials.)
A.3 Planning Arborist
General Conditions
1. The Project shall be consistent with the Hospital District (Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 18.XX) tree
regulations including, but not limited to tree retention, relocation and removal.
2. All required Biological Resource mitigations as described in the MMRP approved by City Council shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment or his/her designee.
3. The project shall comply with The Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Standards & Specifications
(Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10.030)
Prior to Demolition, Building or Grading permit issuance
1. Building Permit Submittal Review. Prior to submittal for staff review, the plans submitted for State or City of
Palo Alto building permit shall be reviewed by the SUMC Project Arborist to verify that all of their
recommendations have been incorporated into the final plan set. The submittal set shall be accompanied by the
SUMC Project Arborist’s certification letter that the plans have incorporated the following information:
a. Final Tree Preservation Report (TPR) design changes and preservation measures as required in
Mitigation Measure BR-4.1.
Not Yet Approved
6
b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080.
2. Site Plan Requirements. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information
and notes on the relevant plan sheets:
a. Sheet T-1_”Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan” Applicant shall complete the following sections on
Sheet T-1: Tree Disclosure Statement, Inspections, and Monthly Reporting.
b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the TPR approved by the City shall be printed on
numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index.
c. Conditions of Approval- the final list of City Arborist Conditions of Approval shall be printed on the
numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index.
d. Protective Tree Fencing Type. Delineate on grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans,
Type II fencing around Street Trees and Type I fencing around Protected/Designated trees as a bold
dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (per the approved Tree Preservation Report) per
instructions on Detail #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans.
Site Plan Note- Apply to the site plan stating, "Note #1: All tree protection and inspection schedule
measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full
by owner and contractor, as stated in the Tree Preservation Report on Sheet T-1 and the approved
plans”.
3. All Other Plan Notes. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant
sheets shall include the following notes applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees:
a. "Note #1: Regulated Trees-before working in this area contact the SUMC Project Arborist at Tel. ___";
b. “Note #2: Soils Report and excavation instructions for basement construction within the Tree
Protection Zone (TPZ) of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in
order to avoid over-excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires City
Arborist approval, please call (650) 329-2441.”
c. “Note #3: Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be
responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors,
City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.”
d. Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspection Verification to the City. The LA of record shall
verify the performance measurements are achieved with a separate letter of verification to City
Planning staff, in addition to owner’s representative for each of the following:
i. Percolation & drainage checks have been performed and are acceptable.
ii. Final grading inspection of all plantable areas has been inspected for tilling depth, rubble
removal, soil test amendments, are mixed and irrigation trenching will not cut through any
tree roots.
iii. Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the
CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees
are subject to rejection.
4. Tree Protection Verification. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification
from the contractor that the required protective fencing (at the boundary of the TPZ) is in place shall be
submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in
place until final inspection of the project.
Not Yet Approved
7
During Construction
5. Excavation Restrictions Apply (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a
tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup.
For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain
intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1,
Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans. Plan Changes. Revisions and/or changes
to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the SUMC Project Arborist, (name
of certified arborist of record and phone #), with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to
the OSHPD or City of Palo Alto for review and approval.
6. Tree Damage. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury
mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30.
Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are
damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree
Technical Manual, Section 2.25.
7. General. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of
material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the TPZ. The ground under and around the
TPZ shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure
survival.
Prior to Final Inspection by City Arborist
8. Landscape Inspection. The SUMC Project Arborist and Landscape Architect shall perform a final inspection
and prepare a final report for submittal to the City Arborist. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of
written verification that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that
they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans.
9. Tree Inspection. The contractor shall call for an inspection by the Project Arborist and City Arborist. A final
inspection and report by the project arborist shall evaluate all trees to be retained and protected, as indicated in
the approved plans, the activity, health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injury, if any, and for the long term
care of the trees for the new owner. The report shall provide written verification to the Planning Department
that all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation are installed as specified in the approved plans. The final arborist
report shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy.
The final report may be used to navigate the security guarantee return process, when applicable.
Post Construction
10. Maintenance. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best
Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001 or current version). Any vegetation that dies shall be
replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery.
A.4 Public Works
Prior to Submittal of Construction Permits
1. Construction Impact Mitigation Plan. Prior to issuance of any development permit (street work, grading,
building, etc) for the SUMC project, the project sponsors shall prepare and receive approval of a Construction
Impact Minimization Plan (CIMP), the minimum requirements of which are described in Mitigation Measure
TR-1.8 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). Additional CIMP information not
specifically described in MMRP TR-1.8 may be required. It is anticipated that a separate CIMP will be required
for each of the project components. Please contact Public Works staff to initiate discussions on the development
of the CIMP.
2. The applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) prior to submittal of construction
permits to verify the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water infiltration. The
applicant is required to submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan that conveys site runoff to the nearest
adequate municipal storm drainage system. In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the plan
shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution
Not Yet Approved
8
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP shall include permanent BMP’s to
be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality. (Resources and handouts are available from
Public Works – Engineering. Specific reference is made to Palo Alto’s companion document to “Start at the
Source”, entitled “Planning Your Land Development Project”). The elements of the PWE-approved conceptual
grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans.
3. A Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the CPA Building Inspection Division is required for the proposed
project. Any grading permit issued in conjunction with a phased project implementation plan will only authorize
grading and storm drain improvements. Other site utilities may be shown on the grading plan for reference only,
and should be so noted. No utility infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprint. Installation of
these other utilities will be approved as part of a subsequent Building Permit application.
4. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan shall
show spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the
nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of
runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained.
5. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall
provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A Storm
Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant’s monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the
final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets
and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering.
6. A detailed site-specific soil report prepared by a licensed soils or geo-technical engineer must be submitted
which includes information on water table and basement construction issues. This report shall identify the
current groundwater level, if encountered, and by using this and other available information, as well as
professional experience, the engineer shall estimate the highest projected ground-water level likely to be
encountered in the future. If the proposed basement is reasonably above the projected highest water level, then
the basement can be constructed in a conventional manner with a subsurface perimeter drainage system to
relieve hydrostatic pressure. If not, measures must be undertaken to render the basement waterproof and able to
withstand all projected hydrostatic and soil pressures. No pumping of ground water is allowed. In general,
however, Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a way that they do not
penetrate existing or projected ground water levels.
7. Storm water discharge associated with construction activity. This proposed development will disturb more than
one acre of land. The applicant must apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board’s
(SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice of
Intent (NOI) must be filed for this project with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The
General Permit requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works
Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The SWPPP should include both
permanent, post-development project design features and temporary measures employed during construction to
control storm water pollution. Specific Best Management Practices (BMP’s) which apply to the work should be
incorporated into the design.
8. The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to San Francisquito Creek” logo in blue color on a
white background, adjacent to all storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works
Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to
secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and
drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan
is part of this project.
9. Dumpster/recycling area.
a. The project includes the construction of dumpster and recycling areas as part of a food service facility.
Regulations require that the dumpster/recycling area be adequately roofed or covered (PAMC
5.20.120).
Not Yet Approved
9
b. The project includes the construction of dumpster and recycling areas. City guidelines recommend that
this area be covered where feasible (PAMC 5.20.120).
10. Storm runoff from loading docks. The plans include a loading dock. Storm runoff from loading docks where
chemicals or hazardous materials may be handled shall not drain to a street, gutter, or storm drain. See
16.09.032(b)(4)(D). It is recommended that the loading dock(s) be covered to preclude the need for a drain.
11. Dewatering: The project excavations will require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows
groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only
allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical
report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend a piezometer to be
installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to
excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3
feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest
excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used. Public Works will require the water to be tested
for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. The contractor must retain an
independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the
results to Public Works.
12. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Measures. Per Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11, the applicant must
incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures that treat storm water runoff prior to
discharge. As of February 10, 2011, the prevention measures shall be reviewed by a qualified third-party
reviewer who needs to certify that it complies with the Palo Alto Municipal Code requirements. This is required
prior to the issuance of a building permit. The third-party reviewer shall be acquired by the applicant and needs
to be on the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program’s (Program) list of qualified
consultants. (http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/consultants.htm) Any consultant or contractor hired to
design/and/or construct a storm water treatment system for the project cannot certify the project as a third-party
reviewer.
13. Basement Shoring: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent
private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private
property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works.
During Construction
14. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in
the public right-of-way.
15. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of
Public Works Engineering.
16. The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP's) for stormwater
pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry,
paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (PAMC Chapter 16.09).
17. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction
shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments.
Prior to Finalization
18. All sidewalks and curb and gutters bordering the project which have been damaged during
construction shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works
approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010.
19. All unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. Sec. 12.08.090.
Not Yet Approved
10
20. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this
permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. Similarly, all as-builts, on-
site grading, drainage and post-developments BMP’s shall be completed prior to sign-off. As-Built
drawings shall be drawn using NAD88 coordinates and submitted in digital format (ACAD) as well
as 3 mil. Mylar.
A.5 Public Works – Water Quality
1. PAMC 16.09.117(c) Discharge of Groundwater. Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or
designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee
may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either or both would improve the water
quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for
discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to the
sewer, provided that the requirements of Section 16.09.110 are met and the approval of the superintendent is
obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge,
at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule.
2. PAMC 16.09.080 Industrial Waste Discharge Permit. Industrial dischargers must submit an application for an
industrial waste discharge permit no later than sixty days in advance of commencing discharge. (This is likely to
only apply to the hospital and labs/clinics buildings)
3. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9) Covered Parking. Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to
an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system.
4. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities. New buildings and residential
developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall
provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed
with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area.
5. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper. On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper
metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted
for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper
flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement
roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall
be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to
structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and
Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.
6. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks
a. Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or
equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock
operation.
b. Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the
loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer
system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed
during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain
is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate
wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the
loading dock site.
7. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC. Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to
the storm drain system.
8. 16.09.215 Silver Processing. Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray films) shall either
submit a treatment application or waste hauler certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650-329-2421.
Not Yet Approved
11
9. PAMC 16.09.205 Cooling Towers. No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain
system, or add to a cooling system, pool, spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchanger, any substance that contains
any of the following:
Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter;
Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10 mg/liter;
Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or
Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
10. The above limits shall apply to any of the above-listed substances prior to dilution with the cooling system,
pool, spa or fountain water.
11. A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume of blowdown water from the new cooling tower. Cooling
systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are required to meet a copper discharge limit of 0.25
milligrams per liter.
12. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping. Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be
used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps
and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must
specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing.
13. PAMC 16.09.175(j) Traps Below Laboratory Sinks. Sewer traps below laboratory sinks shall be made of glass
or other approved transparent materials to allow inspection and to determine frequency of cleaning.
Alternatively, a removable plug for cleaning the trap may be provided, in which case a cleaning frequency shall
be established by the Superintendent. In establishing the cleaning frequency, the Superintendent shall consider
the recommendations of the facility. The Superintendent will grant an exception to this requirement for areas
where mercury will not be used; provided, that in the event such an exception is granted and mercury is
subsequently used in the area, the sink trap shall be retrofitted to meet this requirement prior to use of the
mercury.
14. PAMC 16.09.175(a) Floor Drains. Interior (indoor) floor drains to the sanitary sewer system may not be placed
in areas where hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, industrial wastes, industrial process water, lubricating
fluids, vehicle fluids or vehicle equipment cleaning wastewater are used or stored, unless secondary
containment is provided for all such materials and equipment
15. PAMC 16.09.175(i) Laboratory Sinks. Laboratory countertops and laboratory sinks shall be separated by a berm
which prevents hazardous materials spilled on the countertop from draining to the sink.
16. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(1) and 16.09.105 Segregated Plumbing and Sampling Locations. The owner of every new
commercial and industrial building or portion thereof shall cause the building to be constructed so that industrial
waste is segregated, by means of separate plumbing, from domestic waste prior to converging with other waste
streams in the sanitary sewer system. For the purposes of this section only, the term "new" shall also include
change to a use that requires plumbing for industrial waste.
Establishments from which industrial wastes are discharged to the sanitary sewer system shall provide and
maintain one or more sampling locations or metering devices or volume and flow measuring methodologies or
other sampling and measuring points approved by the Superintendent which will allow the separate measuring
and sampling of industrial and domestic wastes. Unless otherwise approved by the Superintendent, domestic
and industrial waste shall be kept completely separated upstream of such sampling locations and/or measuring
points. Establishments that are billed for sewer service on the basis of sewage effluent constituents shall provide
a suitable means for sampling and/or measurement of flow to determine billing constituents in accordance with
the utilities rules and requirements. Sampling locations shall be so located that they are safe and accessible to
the Superintendent at any reasonable time during which discharge is occurring. (This is likely to only apply to
the hospital and labs/clinics buildings)
17. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches. Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps.
Not Yet Approved
12
18. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers. It shall be
unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the
storm drain system.
19. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling. Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No
dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent.
20. Designated Food Service Establishment (FSE) Project:
a. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes
i. The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and installation details of all proposed GCDs. (CBC
1009.2)
ii. GCD(s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007 California Plumbing Code.
iii. GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 500 gallons.
iv. GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the plans. See a sizing calculation example below.
v. The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or larger than what is specified on the plans.
vi. GCDs larger than 50 gallons (100 pounds) shall not be installed in food preparation and storage areas.
Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health prefers GCDs to be installed outside. GCDs
shall be installed such that all access points or manholes are readily accessible for inspection, cleaning
and removal of all contents. GCDs located outdoors shall be installed in such a manner so as to
exclude the entrance of surface and stormwater. (CPC 1009.5)
vii. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three manholes to allow visibility of each
inlet piping, baffle (divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping. The plans shall clearly indicate the
number of proposed manholes on the GCD. The Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works
Department may authorize variances which allow GCDs with less than three manholes due to
manufacture available options or adequate visibility.
viii. Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all GCDs.
ix. All GCDs shall be fitted with relief vent(s). (CPC 1002.2 & 1004)
x. GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated and indicated on plans.
b. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes
i. To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures are connected to the correct drain lines, each drainage fixture shall
be clearly labeled on the plans. A list of all fixtures and their discharge connection, i.e. sanitary sewer
or grease waste line, shall be included on the plans.
ii. A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD shall be included on the plans. This can be
incorporated into the sizing calculation.
iii. All grease generating drainage fixtures shall connect to a GCD. These include but are not limited to:
iv. Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks (direct connection)
v. Three compartment sinks (pot sinks) (direct connection)
vi. Drainage fixtures in dishwashing room except for dishwashers shall connect to a GCD (direct
connection)
Not Yet Approved
13
vii. Examples: trough drains (small drains prior to entering a dishwasher), small drains on busing counters
adjacent to pre-rinse sinks or silverware soaking sinks
viii. Floor drains in dishwashing area and kitchens
ix. Prep sinks (indirect connection)
x. Mop (janitor) sinks
xi. Outside areas designated for equipment washing shall be covered and any drains contained therein
shall connect to a GCD.
xii. Drains in trash/recycling enclosures
xiii. Wok stoves, rotisserie ovens/broilers or other grease generating cooking equipment with drip lines
(indirect connection)
xiv. Kettles and tilt/braising pans and associated floor drains/sinks
xv. The connection of any high temperature discharge lines and non-grease generating drainage fixtures to
a GCD is prohibited. The following shall not be connected to a GCD:
xvi. Dishwashers (direct connection)
xvii. Steamers (indirect connection)
xviii. Pasta cookers (indirect connection)
xix. Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens (indirect connection)
xx. Hand sinks (direct connection)
xxi. Ice machine drip lines (indirect connection)
xxii. Soda machine drip lines (indirect connection)
xxiii. Drainage lines in bar areas (indirect connection)
xxiv. No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in a FSE. (PAMC 16.09.075(d)).
xxv. Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking, food preparation and storage areas.
xxvi. Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be individually trapped and vented. (CPC 1014.5)
c. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2)
i. New buildings constructed to house FSEs shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or
container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease
(FOG) or tallow.
ii. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the
area.
iii. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins
serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a GCD.
iv. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be
included in the covered area.
Not Yet Approved
14
d. Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B)
i. FSEs shall have a sink or other area drain which is connected to a GCD and large enough for cleaning
the largest kitchen equipment such as floor mats, containers, carts, etc. Recommendation: Generally,
sinks or cleaning areas larger than a typical mop/janitor sink are more useful.
e. GCD sizing criteria and an example of a GCD sizing calculation (2007 CPC)
Sizing Criteria: GCD Sizing:
Drain Fixtures DFUs Total DFUs GCD Volume (gallons)
Pre-rinse sink 4 8 500
3 compartment sink 3 21 750
2 compartment sink 3 35 1,000
Prep sink 3 90 1,250
Mop/Janitorial sink 3 172 1,500
Floor drain 2 216 2,000
Floor sink 2
Example GCD Sizing Calculation:
Note:
All resubmitted plans to Building Department which include FSE projects shall be resubmitted to Water
Quality.
It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the next size larger GCD to allow for more efficient
grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between cleaning. There are many
manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced
fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal)
The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain
pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures,
record keeping and construction projects.
A.6 Transportation Division
1. Bicycle Parking Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each project component, the project
sponsors shall review the bicycle parking plan and layout with the Transportation Division. Bicycle parking
shall be consistent with all applicable codes (PAMC 18.54.060).
2. Bicycle Parking During Construction. As part of the Construction Impact Minimization Plan (CIMP), the
project sponsors shall include the installation of temporary bicycle parking facilities if existing facilities would
be affected by construction work including bike racks, bike lockers, and covered bike racks. Prior to the
Quantity Drainage Fixture & Item Number DFUs Total
1 Pre-rinse sink, Item 1 4 4
1 3 compartment sink, Item 2 3 3
2 Prep sinks, Item 3 & Floor sink, Item 4 3 6
1 Mop sink, Item 5 3 3
1 Floor trough, Item 6 & tilt skillet, Item 7 2 2
1 Floor trough, Item 6 & steam kettle, Item 8 2 2
1 Floor sink, Item 4 & wok stove, Item 9 2 2
4 Floor drains 2 8
1,000 gallon GCD minimum sized Total: 30
Not Yet Approved
15
submittal of the draft CIMP, please contact Transportation staff to discuss the layout, type, duration and number
of spaces to be provided.
3. Transit Facilities During Construction. As part of the CIMP, the project sponsors shall include the installation
of temporary transit facilities if existing facilities would be affected by construction work. Prior to the submittal
of the draft CIMP, please contact Transportation Division staff to discuss the transit stops that would be affected
and the design of temporary facilities, which may include the placement of temporary shelters, furniture,
informational signage, etc.
4. Wayfinding Signage Plan
a. During Construction. As part of the CIMP, the project sponsors shall include the installation of
temporary pedestrian wayfinding/directional signage to improve the flow and circulation of pedestrian
and bicyclists around construction areas. Prior to the submittal of the draft CIMP, please contact
Transportation staff to discuss the design and placement and duration of the temporary signage.
b. Permanent Signs. Prior to occupancy, the project sponsors shall submit plans for installation of
permanent pedestrian wayfinding/directional signage to improve the flow and circulation of pedestrian
and bicyclists around the medical center complex and at Hoover Pavilion. Please contact
Transportation staff to discuss the design and placement and duration of the permanent signage.
5. Onsite Improvement Plans. Prior to the submittal of building permit plans, the project sponsors shall review
with Transportation Division staff the automobile and pedestrian circulations plans for each of the project
components, including the interface between the driveways, walkways, parking garages, private streets and the
public right-of-way. Transportation staff shall make a determination regarding the acceptability of the
improvement plans.
A.7 Utilities
A.7.1 Utilities Electric
1. Applicant shall adhere to the requirements listed in City of Palo Alto’s Electric Service Requirements and the
City of Palo Alto’s Electric Rules and Regulations.
2. Where CPAU primary electrical facilities enter private property, the applicant/developer/owner shall supply a
Public Utility Easement which shall be approved by the Electric Utilities Department.
3. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel.
4. The applicant/developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers,
switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City.
5. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point
to the customer’s switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on
plans.
6. The applicant shall be responsible to relocate and/or upgrade all CPAU electric facilities which are impacted by
the projects listed under review.
7. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural
Review Board and Utilities Department.
8. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on
the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape
materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the
building design and setback requirements.
9. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the
interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The
Not Yet Approved
16
cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and
approval. See Drawing SR-XF-E-1020.
10. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the
transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If
customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the
installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. See Drawings SR-XF-E-1020 and DT-SE-U-1032.
11. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the
National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. See Drawing DT-SE-U-1032.
12. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard
facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of
installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership.
13. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the
electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must
be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All
off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed
upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the
Applicant.
14. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches.
No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length
require additional pull boxes.
15. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by
the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling.
16. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition
cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code and the City
Standards.
17. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment
Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations.
18. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for
review and approval prior to installing the switchgear.
19. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division
and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.
20. The Applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within
the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert
(USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work.
21. All electrical utility installations shall meet the specifications listed in the City of Palo Alto’s Electric Service
Requirement Manual.
22. Applicant shall maintain required spacing between electric facilities and all other utilities. See CPAU
engineering drawing DT-SS-U-1003 for spacing requirements.
23. All conduit installation shall be in accordance with CPAU engineering drawing DT-SS-U-1003.
24. All vault and box installations shall be in accordance with CPAU engineering drawing DT-SS-U-1002.
25. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric
facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility.
Not Yet Approved
17
A.7.2 Utilities Marketing
1. Outdoor Water Efficiency and Conservation Requirements. Please be advised that as of January 1, 2011, the
City of Palo Alto is enforcing the new State Green Building Code (CALGreen) with local amendments for Palo
Alto. Compliance with the tier 2 requirements for outdoor water efficiency is required for landscapes of any size
when the project is a new construction, rebuild, or addition with greater than 1,000 square feet of building area.
All other projects need to meet the tier 1 requirements if a landscape area included in the scope of the project is
greater than 1,000 square feet. Prior to issuance of either a Building Permit or Grading Permit, the applicant will
need to demonstrate compliance by providing the following documentation when applying for a Building and/or
Grading Permit:
Landscape Water Use Statement
Water Use Calculations
Irrigation Plan
Grading Plan
Landscape Design and Planting Plan
Applicants will need to provide this documentation to the City at the Building Permit Review stage. All
landscape worksheets and Green Building Permit Applications can be found on the City’s website at
www.cityofpaloalto.org/greenbuilding Please contact Catherine Elvert in Utilities Marketing Services at (650)
329-2417 catherine.elvert@cityofpaloalto.org or Kristin Parineh in Planning and Community Environment at
(650) 329-2189 or kristin.parineh@cityofpaloalto.org for more information.
2. Recycled Water. The City of Palo Alto’s Recycled Water Ordinance (Ordinance No. 5002) became effective on
June 12, 2008. This ordinance has requirements for irrigation and dual plumbing that are effective immediately
for certain types of projects in Palo Alto. For most projects, this requires a separate irrigation system utilizing
purple irrigation pipe, appropriate fittings and the installation of an approved backflow prevention device.
Please see Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.12 for more information on the recycled water ordinance.
A.8 Water, Gas and Wastewater Utilities Department
No General Conditions of Approval at this time. Please see project specific conditions.
Not Yet Approved
18
Exhibit B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
B. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS PER PROJECTS
For the SUMC Projects, these conditions of approval are intended to be followed in addition to Section A.
General Conditions of Approval.
B.1. New Stanford Hospital
B.1.1. Architectural Review Board
1. The following item shall be reviewed as part of the Architectural Review Board Consent Calendar:
a. The design, construction and materials plans for kiosk at the main entry shall be further developed.
B.1.2. Planning Arborist
11. Kaplan Lawn Area. Prior to the submittal of Stanford Medical Center, Main Hospital building permit
plans for State or City of Palo Alto review, the Project Sponsors shall provide a construction plan for
the road design through the Kaplan Lawn Area. The plans shall employ a “no-cut” road design, limited
to a cut no more than 4-inches from grade as feasible. This plan shall be prepared in consultation with
the Project and City Arborist to preserve the root area of trees 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41.
B.1.3. Water, Gas & Wastewater Utilities Department
Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit
1. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads
(and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit
for the existing load (for all buildings to be demolished). If the applicant does not submit
loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures.
2. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including
a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working
days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection
division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed.
Prior to Submittal For Building Permit
3. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application
- load sheet for each set of meters (the load and location for each water and gas meter shall be
separately detailed on one or more utility applications) to City of Palo Alto Utilities. The
applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in
fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.).
4. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show
the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right
of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer
cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities.
Not Yet Approved
19
5. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be
placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear
separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If
there is a conflict with existing utilities, cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan
location as needed to meet field conditions.
6. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e.
water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc).
7. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains
and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all
costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility
mains and/or services.
8. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located less than one foot above the next upstream
sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per California
Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on
the plans.
9. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates
shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer.
10. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions:
a. The pump(s) be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or less.
b. The sewage line changes to a 4” gravity flow line at least 20’ from the City clean out.
c. The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each
cycle.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
11. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing
that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the
domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development
and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required
to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be
signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at
his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the
remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a
minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior
wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW
engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted.
12. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to
the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of
water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities
department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly
shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The
contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the
manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering
Not Yet Approved
20
section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement
plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering
section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record
drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per
City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures.
13. Existing wastewater laterals to new or remodeled buildings that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or
PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense.
14. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees, connection and inspection fees associated with the
installation of the new water, gas or wastewater utility services, or additional load to existing
services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be
performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. Each unit or place of
business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. An approved reduce
pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing
and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of
California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA
shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter, within 5’ of the
property line. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross
connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. The
applicant shall provide the City with current test certificates for all backflows.
15. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water
connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code,
title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be
installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line.
Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. Inspection by the
utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the City
connection and the assembly.
16. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for City of Palo Alto Utilities facilities
installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the
county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public
utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. Where
public mains are in private streets/PUEs the service agreement shall include the statement:
“Public Utility Easements: If the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which
are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be
the responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of
the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the
City”.
17. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the
main per WGW Utilities procedures before any new utility services are installed. All utility
installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas
& wastewater.
During Construction
18. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall prepare
and submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department as-built drawings of
the installation of water and wastewater utilities to be owned and maintained by the City in
accordance with:
a. Two sets of as-built drawings (hard copies).
Not Yet Approved
21
b. As-built drawings in 2008 or 2010 AutoCAD format.
c. As-built drawings in .tiff format.
d. Survey points in .csv format for all new utility features.
Note: All survey data shall be collected by a California Licensed Land Surveyor. The
surveyor is responsible to setup all control points needed to perform the survey work. The
accuracy for all survey data shall be +/- 1cm.
Survey data to be collected (what's applicable):
I. Collect horizontal and vertical data for:
1. Sanitary sewer manholes (rim and invert elevations and depth)
2. Storm drain manholes and catch basins (rim and invert elevations and depth)
3. Water valves (cover and stem elevations)
II. Collect horizontal data only for:
1. Service or lateral connection points at the main
2. Fire hydrants
3. Water meters
4. Sanitary sewer cleanout boxes
Use CPAU WGW Engineering’s "feature codes" for naming convention available from
CPAU WGW Engineering 1007 Elwell Ct, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 566-4501. All
drawings and survey data shall be on the California State Plane Coordinate System - Zone 3
in units of feet. The horizontal datum shall be the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)
and the vertical datum shall be based on Bestor 93.
B.2. Hoover Pavilion Site
B.2.1. Architectural Review Board
For Hoover Medical Office Building
1. The following items shall be reviewed by Planning Division Staff:
a. Trash enclosure details
b. Final hardscape plan (center spine paving)
c. Bruce Fukuji’s recommendations regarding open space and parking reserve be considered.
For Renovation of the existing Hoover Pavilion
1. The applicant shall reconstruct and install the finial at the top of the Hoover Pavilion corner tower.
B.2.2. Water, Gas & Wastewater Utilities Department
For Building Permit
1. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load
sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility
Not Yet Approved
22
service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.).
2. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size
and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including
meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift
stations and any other required utilities.
3. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over
existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the
vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing
utilities, cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field
conditions.
4. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well,
gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc).
5. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or
services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated
with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services.
6. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located less than one foot above the next upstream sewer main
manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per California Plumbing Code
710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall be shown on the plans.
7. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be
diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer.
8. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions:
a. The pump(s) be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or less.
b. The sewage line changes to a 4” gravity flow line at least 20’ from the City clean out.
c. The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. The
applicant's engineer may be required to submit flow calculations and system capacity study
showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the
domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and
adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to
determined current water and wastewater flows and water pressures on existing water and
wastewater mains. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer.
9. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s
expense.
10. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with the installation of the
new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities or increased demand on existing
water or wastewater services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities
will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation.
11. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape plan.
Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation
account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans
submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto
water efficiency standards. An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow
preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to
comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605
inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter,
within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Inspection by the utilities
cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. The
Not Yet Approved
23
applicant shall provide the City with current test certificates for all backflows.
12. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection
for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections
7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's
property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced
pressure detector assembly on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is
required for the supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly.
13. As part of this project the applicant is required to relocate the gas meter out of the breezeway to the
front of the building. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must
conform to utilities standard details.
14. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property
(including the existing water meters). The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the
county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities
easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development.
15. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per
WGW utilities procedures before any new utility services are installed.
16. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas
& wastewater.
B.2.3. Utilities Electric
1. The Applicant and Utilities Electric staff shall meet and discuss the requirements for access to the
electrical substation during construction of the Hoover parking garage and medical office building and
access to accommodate future placement of additional equipment that may be needed within the
existing footprint of the substation.
B.3. Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital
B.3.1. Architectural Review Board
2. The following items shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board Subcommittee:
a. Exterior signage;
b. Material sample for the exterior site wall adjacent to Quarry Road and Welch Road;
3. The following items shall be reviewed by Planning Division Staff:
a. Final photometric plan, and
b. Final light fixture plan
B.4. Welch Road / Durand Way
B.4.1. Architectural Review Board
1. The following items shall be reviewed by the Planning Division Staff:
a. Study alternate locations for Marguerite Shuttle Stop along Quarry Road; and
b. Study the intersection of Quarry Road and proposed LPCH loading dock to insure safe bike,
pedestrian and traffic movements.
B.4.2. Transportation Division
1. Durand Way. Durand Way shall be constructed at the earliest opportunity to improve automobile
circulation from the medical center complex in the vicinity of Welch Road and Sand Hill Road. At a
Not Yet Approved
24
minimum, to the extent feasible, the Durand Way intersection apron shall be constructed with the
Welch Road improvements.
2. Welch Road. Welch Road shall be constructed per improvements plans approved by the City and shall
include, but not be limited to: new median islands that extend from key intersections to channelize left
turn vehicles and restrict driveway movements near intersections; installation of pedestrian-activated
flashing beacon systems with enhanced roadway markings & signage; installation of new retro-
reflective signage throughout the project corridor; traffic signal improvements including intersection
safety lighting enhancements; and miscellaneous roadway improvements.
3. Quarry Road. Improvements to the Quarry Road public street shall be reviewed by Transportation
Division staff prior to the submittal for permits.
B.5. School of Medicine, Foundations in Medicine 1 (FIM1)
B.5.1. Architectural Review Board
1. The following items shall be reviewed by the Architectural review Board Subcommittee:
a. Final landscape plan;
b. Proposal for a School of Medicine gateway entry feature from Pasteur Drive area;
c. Final photometric plan; and
d. Revisions to both FIM1 building entries to be more visible and prominent to pedestrians.
B.6. Design Guidelines Document
B.6.1. Architectural Review Board
1. The following items shall be added by the Applicant and reviewed by Planning Division staff:
a. Add language to SHC Clinics section that describes importance of the building as terminus to
Pasteur Mall and the need for a strong axial relationship of between the building massing and
Pasteur Mall;
b. Include language in the Executive Summary that would allow minor adjustments to the Design
Guidelines for items such as light fixtures, pedestrian furniture, etc; and
c. Include language to the Executive Summary that would describe the process, procedure, and
review responsibilities for any future amendments to the Design Guidelines.
Not Yet Approved
110503 jb 0130713
Resolution No. ________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Setting Date
for Consideration of Reorganization of Area Designated “Major
Institution/ University Lands” Property Located on the
northwest side of the Main SUMC site Adjacent to Pasteur
Drive; Approximately 0.65 Acre(s), (APN: 142-05-031)
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Palo Alto has received a request for
annexation of territory designated “Major Institution/ University Lands” by the County of Santa
Clara; and
WHEREAS, the property, 0.65 + acre on the northwest side of the Main SUMC site
adjacent to Pasteur Drive (APN 142-05-031) is contiguous to the City of Palo Alto and is within
its urban service area; and,
WHEREAS, there are no special districts that would be affected by the proposed
annexation;
WHEREAS, annexation would provide for use of City services; and
WHEREAS, this territory was pre-zoned on June 6, 2011, to City of Palo Alto Pre-
zone Hospital District; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto, as Lead Agency for environmental review for the
reorganization, certified the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and
Replacement Project Final Environmental Impact Report on June 6, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the County Surveyor of Santa Clara county has found the map and
description (Exhibits “A” and “B”) to be in accordance with Government Code Section 56757,
the boundaries to be definite and certain, and the proposal to be in compliance with LAFCO’s
road annexation policies; and
WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 56757, the Council of the City
of Palo Alto shall be conducting authority for a reorganization including an annexation to the
City; and
WHEREAS, said territory is inhabited and all owners of land included in proposal
have consented to this annexation; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56663 (a) provides that if a petition for
annexation is signed by all owners of the land within the affected territory the City Council may
approve or disapprove the annexation without public hearing.
Not Yet Approved
110503 jb 0130713
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby resolve as
follows:
SECTION 1. Initiates annexation proceedings and will consider annexation of the
territory designated as Major Institution/ University Lands and detachment from the County of
Santa Clara at their regular meeting of June 20, 2011.
SECTION 2. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that the Stanford
University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project Final Environmental
Impact Report discussed the annexation and was certified on June 6, 2011 in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
INTRODUCED and PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning and Community
Environment
Not Yet Approved
110503 jb 0130713
Not Yet Approved
110503 jb 0130713
1
2
3
Table of Contents
AREA PLAN -BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
1.1 Purpose
1.2 His10ry and Background
PLAN ELEMENTS
2.1 Planning Principles
2.2 Land Use
2.3 Linkages and Connections
2.4 Circulation, Vehicular Access, and Parking
2.5 Transil, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Ci rculation
2.6 Open Space, Historic Resources, and ,-"sual Resources
1.1
1.5
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.7
2.12
2.18
ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS -EXISTING AND FUTURE
3.1 Existing Zoning -City 01 Palo Alto 3.1
3.2 Future Zoning Changes -City 01 Palo Alto 3.4
3.3 Existing and Future Comprehensive Plan Designation -City of Palo Alto 3.4
3.4 Land Use Designations -Santa Clara Counly 3.5
3.5 Jurisdictional Boundary Change 3.5
3.6 Land Use Policy Agreement 3.8
APPENDIX A
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update May 2011
1
2
3
ii May 2011
list of Exhibits
AREA PLAN -BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
1-1 Context
1-2 Plan Area -Boundary
1.2
1.3
1-3 SUMC Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project Documents 1.4
1 .4 Plan Area -Existing Facilities 1.8
1-5 Plan Area -Future Facilities 1.9
1-6 Past Entitlement Actions 1.10
FACILITIES RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT NEEDS
2-1 SUMC Linkages -Future
2-2 Vehicular Circulation and Parking -Existing
2-3 Vehicular Circulation and Parking -Future
2-4 Transit -Existing
2-5 Transit -Future
2-6 Pedestrian and Bicycle -Existing
2-7 Pedestrian and Bicycle -Future
2-8 Open Space -Existing
2-9 Open Space -Future
2.4
2.8
2.9
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.20
2.21
2-10 Historic Resources -Existing 2.22
ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS -EXISTING AND PROPOSED
3-1 Zoning -Existing
3-2 Zoning -Future
3-3 Comprehensive Plan -Existing
3-4 Comprehensive Plan -Future
APPENDIX A
Connparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Sian ford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
3.2
3.3
3.6
3.7
1 Area Plan-
Background and Purpose
This Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Area Plan has been prepared pursuant to
Program L-46 of the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan as an informational document for the
City, the SUMC entities and the public. It is not a regulatory document and does not com-
prise a coordinated area plan or specilic plan under the City's Municipal Code. The Area
Plan is not intended. to establish land use or development policies or standards, and is not
intended to supersede the applicable policies, regulations, requirements and standards of the
City's Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code. If any provisions of the Area Plan vary from
or conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or Municipal Coce, the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan or Municipal Code shall prevail.
This Plan update is the most recent in a series of planning documents for the SUMC that be-
gan in the mid-1 950s. The medical center plan evolved during master pt3nning in the 1 970s
and early 1 980s, and continued through to the SUMC Land Use Area Analysis 2000 that
was completed and submitted by Stanford in conjunction with an application for Palo Alto's
approval for the Center for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/ Ambulatory Care Pavilion and
underground parking structure. Prior to submittal of the SUMC Renewal and Replacement
Project application in August 2007, a first draft of this Area Plan Update was submitted to the
City in April 2007.
Stanford University, Stanford Hospital and Clinics (SHC), and Lucile Packard Children'S
Hospital (LPCH) have developed various plans in response to evolling land use issues and
changes in the nature of teaching, medical practice, and medical research. This Area Pt3n
identifies current campus planning and community design principles for the SUMC. Refer to
Exhibits 1-1 and 1-2 for the planning context and the area plan boundary, respectivefy.
1,1 PURPOSE
The purpose of the SUMC Area Plan Update is to respond to the City of Palo Alto Compre-
hensive Plan Program L -46:
Work with Stanford to prepare an area plan lor the Stanford Medical Center
An area plan for the Medical Center should address building locations, floor area
ratios, height limits, and parking requirements. It should discuss the preservation of
historic and open space resources and the protection of views and view corridors.
The plan should describe improvements to the streetscape and circulation pattern
that will improve pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto connections.
This Area Plan Update meets the requirements of Program L-46 by addressing t3nd use, cir-
culation, open space, visual resources, and historic resources in the Plan Elements (Section
2). and building locations, floor area ratios, height limits, and parking requirements in Zoning
and Land Use Regulations -Existing and Future (Section 3) for the SUMC area as a whole.
SlanfOld Univefsily Medical Center Area Plan Update May 2011 1.1
several clinics were constructed and leased by community physicians along Welch Road, in
anticipation of the new medical center facility, Construction at the Medical Genter began in
1957 and facilities opened in phases beginning in 1959,
The original Medical Center cornplex included the Edwards, Lane, Alway, Boswell, and Core
buildings, as well as tile East and West Pavilions, Patient care programs were located in the
Edwards BUilding and in the north portion of the complex, The teaching and research pro-
grams were located in the southern area, Together, these buildings are sometimes calied the
"E.D, Stone Complex" afier the architect who designed them,
In the 1960s, the Grant building was added to the rear of the Medical (,,enter, "filling in" the
"H" structure of the o~ginal group of buildings. During th's same time frame, several more
buildings were constructed along Welch Road.
The 1970$ saw a small expansion of Medical Cenler build;ngs to the north, known as the
Core ExpanSion, In addition, two more office/research buildings were constructed on Welch
Road,
The decade of the 19608 realized a signiflcanl increase in SUMC size. SHC added the Hos-
pital Mode,nizatiol1 Project, including Ihree patient 'pods", In addition, housing was con-
structed at 1100 Welch Road (apartments managed by the Santa Clara County Assistance
League for patient families at reduced rates and apartments for medical residents and other
faculty and staff), a child care center was added at the rear of Hoover Pavilion, and a parking
structure was constructed to the east of the Medical Center along Campus Drive West.
The 1990s continued with a new facility for LPCH, allowing a mOVe from its first location in
the old convalescent hospital near Sand Hill and Arboretum roads. SHC also constructed
the Blake-Wilbur Clinic for the faculty practice program, and a second parking structure. The
School of Med:cine developed the Psychiatry Academic/Clinic Facil,ty at Quarry and Arbore-
tum: the Medical School Lab Surge/Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Building (now Lucas
Center): and the Center for Clinical Sciences Research.
In the early 2000s, SHC constructed the ('klnter for Gencer Treatment and Prevention!
Ambulatory Gare Pavilion (CCTP/ACp) at Blake-Wilbur Drive, with an underground parking
structure located in the Pasteur OrNe median. The CCTP!ACP, now known as the Advance
Medicine (',enter (AMC), was developed as a facility where the services of a decentralized
Cancer Treatment Center and other specialized ambulatory clinics could be consolidated in
a single, accessible, state-of-the-art facility, In Santa Clara County, a parking struclure at the
Stockfarm parking lot was constructed.
The SUMC Project, scl1eduled for approval in 2011, Includes replacement of Stanford Hospi·
tal, expansion of LPCH, and replacement research facilitiP2 for the Stanford University School
of Medicine, Existing and future :acilities in the Plan area are shown in Exhibits 1-4 and 1-5,
respectively.
1,,6 May 2011 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
SUMe Action Year
Rezone 725 and 900 Blake Wilbur 1984
Construct Haspilal Modernization Project 1987
Construct Lucile Packard Children's Hospital 1991
Rezone 851 Welch Road 1990
Cons~uct Blake Wilbur (Faculty Pracllcej Clinic 1992
Rezone 801 and 1101 Welch Road 2000
Construct Cancer Center/Ambulatory Care Pavilion (AMe) 2003
The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes that "because the health care industry is constantly
changing, the Medical Center is likely to need additional development entitlements from the
City to respond to future facility needs and space demands," Comprehensive Plan Policy
B-32 states:
Assist Stanford Medical Center in responding to changes in the delivery of health
care services, Worl< with the Center to plan for changing facility needs, but within
the context of City of Palo Alto planning goals and policies, , ,
In 2000, in connection win, the City Council's consideration of the application for the Center
for Cancer Treatment and Prevention/Ambulatory Care Pavilion (CCTPIACP), Stanford
prepared a Land Use Area Analysis to comply with the stipulations created during the Blake
Wilbur Clinic approval in 1991 and Comprehensive Plan Program l-46, Submitted to the City
Council in June 2000, this document conta"ns traditional planning <,<ements such as land
use: access, c'rcu'ation, and parking; and urban designicommunity charae:er, as well as a
discussion of existing land use regulations, and changes to sueh regulations that might be
proposed in the future, The City Council accepted the Land Use Area Analysis as the area
plan tor the Medical Center.
1.2.4 Historic Entitlement Mechanisms
Prior entitlement actions are listed in Exhibit 1-6, Historically, City entitlement for hospital
expansions has occurred by rezoning Welch Road parcels fmm OR to PF, and adding them
to the single planning p8rce" (Note that as part of a city-wide Zoning Ordinance Update in
2005, OR parcels were rezoned to Medical Office Research (MOR)), Currently, \t,ree MOR
parcels remain "in-board" (toward the hospital) of Welch Road and seven MOR parcels ace
located "out -board" of Welch Road, After the SUMC PrOject, one MOR parcel will reman
in-board of Welch Road,
The hospital uses are a conditional use on the Public Facilities parcel. Therefore, the City is-
sues conditional use permits with IBquirements during each project approval,
1.10 May 2011 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
1-6 Past Entitlement
Actions
2 Plan Elements
2.1 PLANNING PRINCIPLES
This section discusses the broad planning principles that have been adopted by the City of
Palo Alto in its Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and will guide the planning and develop-
ment within the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC).
The SUMC is part of an urban corridor that is a gateway to both Stanford University and Palo
Alto. The district is bounded by San Francisquito Creek to the west and the more ceremonial
Stanford University Palm Drive and Arboretum to the east. To the north is the Stanford Shop-
ping Center, the multi-modal transit center, and downtown Palo Alto. To the south and west
are additional elements of the Medical School and the rest of the Stanford Campus, residen-
tial development, Menlo Park office development, access to Highway 280, and the foothills.
In addition, the SUMC entities have the following campus planning principles, goals, and
objectives:
• To reinforce the unique character of the SUMC with respect to the City structure and to
Stanford University
• To establish a unified center while maintaining the unique identity of each institution
• To promote a sense of security through attentiveness to personal and public safety
• To create a sense of welcome to the broad community of Medical Center users
• To enhance connectivity to all modes of travel and transit
• To design for efficiency in land use and other resources
• To plan for adaptability to new medical, research, and infrastructural technologies
2.1.1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Comp Plan goals, policies and programs call for a well-designed, compact, healthy, pedes-
trian-scale community, with thriving employment districts and commercial areas and with
attractive gathering spaces and coherent patterns of development. Policies include working
with Stanford and Santa Clara County cooperatively on land use matters while meeting the
city goals for appropriate development (Policy L-2).
The Comp Plan identifies several Employment Districts in Palo Alto and recognizes them as
an essential part of the local economic base. Goal 6-6 is established to keep the City's em-
ployment districts economically healthy in order to provide jobs, create a customer base for
many local businesses, and generate City revenues. The Comp Plan identifies the SUMC as
one of these important employment centers and one of the largest concentrations of health
care services in the 6ay Area. The Comp Plan recognizes that because the health care in-
dustry is constantly changing, the SUMC will likely need additional development entitlements
to respond to future facility needs. Policy 6-32 is established to support these anticipated
necessary future facilities in conjunction with the City's efforts to achieve its broader planning
goals and pdicies.
A full listing of Comp Plan goals and policies that apply to the SUMC are provided in Appen-
dix A.
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update May 2011 2.1
Aerial View
Northeast view of a portion of
the SUMC campus with Stanford
Shopping Center and Downtown
Palo Alto beyond.
Palo Alto is currently undergoing a Comp Plan Update process, which is expected to be
completed in 2012.
2.2 LAND USE
Throughout its hlsto.oy of planning for the SUMC, Stanford University has established the
fundamental land use goals of unity, synergy of functional relationships, security, and fiex-
biLty. It has striven to accommodate and integrate clinical uses w,th teaching and research
whi'e providing necessaoy support uses such as housing, childca'B, and related non-Stanford
University health care and commerCial uses,
2.2.1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Land use objectives of Comp Plan goals, policies, and programs emphasize sound plan-
ning and focus on maintaining appropriate scale and density. Other objectives include the
reuse of old buildings and the appropriate siting and design of parking. Comp Plan Goal L-1
expresses the City's desire for a werl-designed, compact city, and recognizes that infill and
redevelopment of the Cty's urban land will pro.ide protection of the baylands and foothills.
Specifically for tt18 SUMC, PoliCY L-45 encourages future development to support compact,
pedestrian-oriented development that also meets the functional needs of the facilities within
the SUMC.
As part of the Comp Plan, the City's 1989 Citywide Land Use end Transportation Study ana-
lyzed a specified amount of development and Policy L-8 maintains that amount 01 develOp-
ment as a citywide limit on new non-residential development. As part of any project approval
process, the City determines whether the SUMC proposed facilities are within tho established
citywide limit. While the now development in the SUMC project is within the overall city
development cap set forth in L-B. the amount of development anticipated for district 9 (which
includes the Medical Center) would be exceeded wittl the proposed SUMC development. In
approviog the prOJect, the city will adopt a Comprehensive Plan amendment to clarify that
development within the Hospital District is exemot from the policy.
2.3 LINKAGES AND CONNECTIONS
Although tne SUMC is a distinct area w,tn defined boundaries, it exists wtflin a larger land
use context. Refer to Exhibit 2-1 lor a depict,on of SlJMC linkages with adjacent areas.
Stanford Shopping Center Area
The Stanford Shopping Center shares streets and other Infrastructure with SLJMC and pro-
Vides important retail support for SUMC employees, patients, and visitors.
Other Nearby City Areas
O!her areas in the city have geographical or functional relationships to the SUMC area. The
downtown Provides retail shopping opPOrtun,ties and services 10 employees and other
SUMC users, and benefts from the employee and user populations at the SUMC. Residen-
Staliford University Medical Center Area Plan Update May 2011 2,3
lial areas north and south of downtown, in nearby Menlo Park and espedally the housing
along Sand Hili Road are very close to the SUMC and undoubtedly provide housing for some
SUMC employees,
Development along EI Camino Real such as Town and Country Village, the Palo Alto Mee1ical
Foundation and the hotels just east of University also serve the SUMC and benefit from the
proximity of SUMC,
Open Space
The regional open space resources of the Arboretum and San Francisquito Creek are sig-
nificant fealures that provide landscape amenity to SUMC employees, patients and visitors
Structured open spaces within the Medical Center provide more immedate relief and respite
to Cente:-users.
Campus Linkage
It is ver, important that linkages to the campus be not only maintained but also strength-
ened, The School of Medicine has affinities with the main academic campus that will only
increase as interdisciplinacj academic programs grow, Further, many hospital employees take
advantage of cultu'al amenities and other services available on ca",pus,
Transportation
Transportation facilities and routes that enable ;ravel are clearly important to the vitality of
the SUMC, The important transportation linkages include the regional roadways that serve
the SUMC: 1-280 and Foothill Expressway to the south; and EI Ca'1Cino Real, Alma/Central
Expressway, and Highway 101 to the north, Local actarial roadways providing connection to
the region roadways (and generally running east-west) include Sand Hill Road, Alpine Road,
Quarry Road, University Avenue, Embarcadero Road and Page Mill RoadiOregon Express-
way,
All available regional and local transit systems connect to the Palo Alto Intermada: Transit
Station (PAITS), The systems include the Caltrain Peninsula Rail SeIVice, SamTrans, VTA,
Dumbarton Express (east bay service) and the Palo Alto and Marguerite shuttles, Streets
linking Ihe Cenler to the PAITS include Quarry Road, Palm Drive, EI Camino Real, and Sand
Hill Road,
An extensive pathway network exists beyond the street system, The paths provide opportu-
nities for pedestrians and cyclists to connect to the related land uses and transportation sys-
tems dIscussed above. A more thorough description of streets, paths, and transit facHities is
provided in Section 2.4 (Circulation, Vehicular Access, and Parking) and Section 25 (Transit,
Bicycle, and Pedestrian Circulation),
Slar:tord University Modical Cer:ter Area Plan Update :V1ay 2011 2,5
Internal Linkages
Most internal linkage within the SUMC and between it and the Shopping Center will occur
on the streets paths and systems referenced above and described further in Section 2.4
(Circulation, Vehicular Access, and Parking) and Section 2,5 (Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian
Circulation), There are, however, three connections of special significance that bear mention-
ing here,
The main pedestrian spine of the SUMC aligns with the centra! mall of the Shopping Center,
The SUMC Project includes a signalized intersection where the Stanford Barn and LPCH
drVeways intersect with Welch Roaa, The signal provides an opportunity to create a central-
ized ana protected pedestrian crossing and extend the central Medical CAJnter pedestrian
route through to the Shopping Center. The SUMC Proisct will rearrange the parking at 700
and 730 Welch Road to consolidate access to a single driveway, Two well-defined pedes-
trian paths wil be created; ono wil, be adjacent to the Stanford Barn and the other adjacent
to the building at 730 Welch Road,
Quany Road was widened as part of the Sand Hill Road Project in 2002, creating a new "lulI-
service" intersection at EI Camino, This intersection creates a new entry point to the SUMC
on Quarry, one of the few roads in the local network with capacity for more movement. The
Sand Hill Road Project also upgraded and extended sidewalks and bike lanes to increase
capacity for those modes. The SUMC Project includes funding Of a future Class 1 multi-use
path connecting directly from the Quarry/EI Camino intersection to tllO futuro Everett Tunnel
in order to benefit pedestrians ana cyclists traveling between downtown and the SUMC,
The developrDent parce's on Quarry Road borde' tho deSignated Campus Open Space of
the Arboret"m, The University has located a utility corridor along this edge. Stanford Univer-
sity may, in the future, construct a pathway through its campus lands to connect the SUMC
to EI Camino Real by crossing diagonally along the norttl side of the Stanford arboretum,
Such a pattlway would be within the jurisd'ction of Senta Clara County, The pathway could
serve the University campus, SUMC and future planned housing sites on Quarry Road. If
Stanford pursues this paUlway on County lands, Stanford and Santa Clara County would
need to address pedestrian safety in the location where the pathway crosses Arboretum
Road, Safety teatures could include integration of Palo Road and Arboretum Road crossings
with housing site entry drives to create controlled intersections. This facility would provide
connection to the PAITS and Downtown as well as allowing users to experience the path
network, open space and cultu'al resources of the Arboretum,
Nodes
Access to the streots, routes and paths described above occu's at key points or nodes gen-
erally wheee facilities intersect. Primary nodes 3'SO act as entry points to the City, University
or district. These are located at EI Camino ReaVSand Hill, Sand Hit/Pasteur and EI Camino/
Pam/ University, Secondary Nodes inciude EI Camino/Quarry, QuarryiWe:ch, Quarry/Cam-
pus, and Quarry/Arboretum, Minor Nodes are generaliy iearned through local knowledge, but
2.6 May2011 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
they are important in that they provide even greate' opportunity to disperse traffic (all modes)
throughout the network and give travelers options. The minor nodes alB: Sand HiIiNine\<ard,
Sand HilVDurand, CampusiWelch and Campus/Roth.
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
The Comp Plan includes policies intended to encourage linkages and connections via
walking and other non-vehicular modes of travel. The Medical Center's proximity to related
and supporting uses, such as retail and open space, create opportunities to increase and
enhance those connections.
2.4 CIRCULATION, VEHICULAR ACCESS, AND PARKING
Th's and the following section ana,fZc transportation opportunities and limitations in the Plan
area. Given the recogn:zed constraints on road capacity, 8 fundamental goal is to minimize
auto top incr~,ases. Similarly, another pri"'"ry goal is to increase access opportunities lor
bicyclists and pedestrians. Clarity and order in the circulation systems, clear connections
to regional transportation resources. and convenient and accessible parking are of prime
importance.
The layout and past development ot the SUMC and the local circulation systems have cre-
ated Infrastructure to support walking and hiking. The Area Plan Update examines opportuni-
ties to expand these systems through specific improvements while providing efficient access
for vehicles. the primary travel mode for patients and visitors and the means for delivery of
goods and support selVices to the Center. Refer to Exhibits 2-2 and 2-3 for a depiction of
existing and future vehicular circulation and parking.
Road System
The SUMC utilizes an overall network of circulation, via roads, paths, other pedestrian ways,
selVice areas. and parking lots. This circulation system is a hierarchical network of public
roads linking it to regional roadways and surroundng communities: feeder I entry roads;
a loop road system enci~cling the main SUMC, connecting it to the main campus and tre
pecimeter SUMC parcels; and internal distributor roads connecting the loop to final vehicular
destinations.
Primary objectives include safety, clarity, and convenience of routes from entry to parking
and, via pedestrian paths, to destinations. Roads should have sufficient capacity for antici-
pated Iraffic. Routes for emergency vehicles should be well-signed, direct, and free from
obstruction and congestion. The system should provide equally clear access to all principle
destinations for every mode of travel.
The entry and loop roads connect to four major public roads that provide puhl<o access to
the SUMC. These roads are EI Cam'no Real, Junipero Serra Bouevard, Sand Hill Road, and
Ouacry Road. These roads connect to highways and expressways that are regional trans-
portation 'aei'ities iUS 101, 1280. CA 84, etc,). Some acal arterials such as Alpine Road in
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update: 2.7
San Mateo County and Embarcadero Road in Palo Alto also provide connection between the
Center and regional facilities. The most important external access routes are those serving
the Emergency Department (ED), which is currently reached via Quarry Road from Cam-
pus Drive, Welch Road, Arboretum Road, and EI Camino Real. Construction of the SHC
replacement hospital will relocate the ED to the west side of the hospital complex and shift
the primary access to Welch Road. The above streets will continue to provide ED access but
Sand Hill Road will become the primary route connecting to Welch via Pasteur Drive and the
Durand Way extension.
Entryways should be designed and articulated to welcome visitors, clearly announce their
status as main entries and convey a sense of quality and care representative of the institu-
tions. Under the SUMC Project, each of the major destinations, the Stanford School of
Medicine, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, along with
three additional entries, will have a distinct identity and arrival statement. Three entry roads
serve as major arrival statements to the SUMC and orient visitors to main building entries or
other primary destinations. These entries are Pasteur Drive, Quarry Road, and Campus Drive.
Through their geometry and urban design elements, these roads announce their status as
main entries and provide new visitors with clear messages of arrival destinations. Quarry
Road will be clarified and enhanced to identify it as a principle entry. A secondary entry to
provide access to Welch Road and entry to some outpatient facilities will be constructed by
extending Durand Way from Sand Hill Road.
Loop roads consist of Campus Drive West, Welch Road, Vineyard Lane, and Quarry Road.
These roads support the basic University circulation at the perimeter, connecting to penetra-
tions that allow convenient access to all possible campus destinations. These roads are
generally engineered to serve as collectors and are designed to identify them as such.
The internal distribution roads are the final roadway links in the system. They consist of con-
nections that provide necessary vehicular access to each facility. These routes include minor
streets, driveways and parking lot aisles. To clarify and reinforce these as access routes, their
design and engineering will emphasize transition from vehicular to pedestrian movement
and clearly communicate available destinations, Under the SUMC Project, service areas for
the delivery of materials and building access by vendor and service personnel will generally
be centralized and located to facilitate convenient vehicular access from internal distribu-
tor roads reached via loop and entry roads. The primary service access for central materials
receiving will remain via the service drive off of the Quarry Road extension. The SUMC has
a major network of service corridors located at the basement level to distribute goods from
central service pOints. Some perimeter facilities not connected to the service corridors will
need dedicated service entries. Where service and pedestrian access coincide, service areas
would be screened or enhanced and integrated through design and landscape.
2.10 May 2011 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Parking
Parking in the SUMC serves a variety of functions. Close-in parking, convenient to the front
door entries of clinical facilities, is used primarily for patients, their visitors, and families. Com-
munity physicians, vendors, and other business visitors to the Center also use this parking.
The next tier of parking is commuter parking in the University parking system. Hospital and
University faculty, staff, and students who desire or need parking close to their work or
research place may purchase premium-priced permits for close-in parking, which is man-
aged to assure adequate vacancies, with some spaces reserved for the safety and security
of evening shift workers. General commuter parking is also available, first-come-first-served,
on the perimeter of the SUMC. It is generally a longer walk from most employment and aca-
demic areas and is often served by the campus shuttle system.
The existing Palo Alto Use Permits for SUMC facilities allow for Stanford's regional parking
approach that relies on parking in City and Santa Clara County locations, rather than relying
upon parking assigned on a building-by-building basis. In the future, performance-based
parking requirements will be established to recognize the unique demands of this medical
center, located near a multi-modal transit center and supported by an extensive Transporta-
tion Demand Management program. Staff and long-term parking will continue to be evalu-
ated for remote locations with proximity to freeway access as a part of a larger campus/
community-wide program for transportation management and parking.
As uses intensify and density increases in the core of the SUMC, three principles guide the
planning of parking facilities:
• Maintain supplies of front door parking to serve patients, community physicians and care
givers, visitors, and evening shift workers.
• Locate parking in structures or below grade when feasible to maintain space for clinical
and academic facilities.
• Provide general purpose staff/commuter parking in perimeter locations not needed for
clinical or academic facilities
2.4.1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Applicable Comp Plan policies include the consideration of economic, environmental, and
social costs of transportation decisions and the possibility of higher density or concentrated
land uses to support transportation efficiencies. Program and policies also support the plan-
ning, design, and creation of complete streets and other facilities to support all transportation
modes as well as vehicles.
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update May 2011 2.11
elsewhere on the site during the SUMC Project. The Design Guidelines Identify and describe
a variety of new and enhanced landscapes that will result from the SUMC Project. The design
of the SUMC Project continues the Stanford tradition of integrating open space and land-
scape elements into the design of Its facilities.
Regional Open Spa" ..
The regional open space resources near the SUMC include the Arboretum and San Fran-
clsqulto Creek. Both are near the SUMC and currently connected by existing streets and
pathways. The connections to the natural landscape of the creek corridor were enhanced
w.th the pathways and designation of preserves as a resul of the Sand Hill Road Projects.
The SUMC Project will inc:ude an extension of Durand Way to Welch Road, thereby connect-
ing the creek open space corridor and Stanford West to the core of the SUMG.
Section 2,3 describes a possible future campus pedestrian bike path along the edge of the
Arboretum where it borders the Quarry Road parcels. This path would link the campus and
SUMC stree1Jpath systems near the intersection of Quarry Road and Campus Drive, provid-
ing users of the Stanford campus and SUMC with enhanced access to the Arboretum and
the landscape resources it contains. This route would extend south through the campus
and link other important campus open spaces. The northern terminus of the path is the EI
Camino Reali Palm intersection where path users could connect to the Palo Alto intermodal
Transit Station, related commercfal and clinical uses along EI Camino, and Downtown Palo
Alto,
The open space features discussed above are general:y not developed playfields for orga-
nized, active recreation. There are a nLOmber of such faciliUes in the area. These include the
EI Camino Park in Palo A'to, the Intramura' Playfie'ds on campus and the Village Green at
the Stanford West apartments, These nearby facilities are also included on the Open Space
Diagram,
Opportunties to view natural landscape features such as the foothills and rpaoan corridor
are preserved and enhanced under tha SUMC Project Landscape features such as the
Arboretum, Governor's Avenue and the rural features along Sand Hii' Road are also important
to creating a sense of place, The SUMC Project wlit be carefuity sited and designed to f:t
into this landscape context and to provide Visual connection to these resources.
Historic Resources
Two historic structures have heen identified within the Area Plan boundaries: the Hoover
Pavilion and the Stone Building Comp'ex and are shown in Exhibit 2-10. Neither structure
is formally iisted as a local, state or nalionellandmark; how€\:er, both were found eligible
lor listing during the env'ronmental assessment process for the SUMG Project. Under the
SUMG Project, the Hoover Pavilion. a zigzag Moderne building sited on the edge at the
Arboretum, will be preserved and restored follOWing the Sacrelsoy of the Intenor's Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Structures. The restored building will house medical offices and
StanforO GnivefSly Medical Center Area Plan Update \4ay 2011 2,19
Hoover Pavilion, 19305
Image provided by the
Palo Alto Historical Association
a health library, and will be open to the public. The SUMC Project was designed to preserve
the view of the Hoover Pavilion's historic main entry from the Quarry Road/Palo Road inter-
section. This view will be enhanced by removal of overgrown vegetation and the restoration
of the exterior fa<;ade of the building. The Stone Building Complex cannot be retrofitted for
hospital use and must be removed in order to create space for construction of the new medi-
cal facilities.
Regional Historic Resources
There are a number of nearby historic resources including the Stanford Museum of Art/Can-
tor Center for Visual Arts at Stanford, the university's Main Quadrangle, Palm Drive and the
university's entrance gates, the Palo Alto Southern PaCific Railroad Depot, Hostess House
(currently the MacArthur Park restaurant), and the Stanford Winery Barn. These resources
(shown on Exhibit 2.10) are reached by the circulation network presented in the Area Plan
and provide both visual interest and programs of interest to SUMC staff and visitors.
2.6.1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Comp Plan policies for the protection of distant open space views are incorporated into
building siting decisions. Policies and programs intended to protect and enhance the com-
munity forest will guide the planning for site and street tree protection, replacement, and
planting.
Palo Alto and the SUMC entities value the backdrop of forested hills to the southwest. Comp
Plan Policy L-3 guides development to respect views of these hills from public City streets to
provide a sense of enclosure and a reminder of the City's proximity to open space and the
natural environment. Additional policies and programs intended to protect and enhance the
community forest (i.e., Policy L-76 and Policy N-16) will further guide the planning for site and
street tree protection, replacement, and planting. Comp Plan Policy L-51 encourages public
and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historical merit and Policy L-58
promotes adaptive reuse of old buildings.
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update May 2011 2.23
2.24 tJay 2Cl1 Stan'o"d University Medical Center Area Plan Update
3 Zoning and land Use Regulations
Existing and Future
3.1 EXISTING ZONING -CITY OF PALO ALTO
3.1.1 Public Facilities (PF)
The majority of the Stanlord University Medical Center (SUMC) in Palo Alto is presently zoned
Public Facilities (PF) (Exhibit 3·1). The PF public facilities district is "designed to accommo-
date governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreationallacili-
ties."
The PF parcels in the SUMC are treated as a single planning parcel to which the zoning regu-
lations apply. Current PF development standards include:
• Private educational facilities. hospitals, and outpatient medk:al facilities with associated
medical research are conditionally permilled uses. A new or amended conditional use
permit is necessary for expansion of a building site or area.
• The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 1 to t (i.e., 1 sf of development per 1 sf of land
area). On the Hoover Pavilion site. the FAR is ,25 to 1.
• The maximum site coverage is 30% of the site area; however, for parking facilities the
maximum site coverage is equal to the site coverage allowed by the most restrictive
adjacent zoning district.
• The maximum height is 50 feet. Sites abutting or having any portion located within 150
feet of any residential district are subject to special requirements.
• Parking requirements are established in Zoning Code section 18.83. For a hospital,
the requirement is 1 space for every 1.5 beds; lor medical offices, the requirement is 1
space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. It is possible to defer up to 20% of
the required parking based upon a showing that alternative transportation programs will
reduce demand.
• At least a 20 foot street setback (yard) is required. Minimum setbacks are equal to the
setbacks in the most restrictive abutting district. Sites abulling a reSidential district
must have a solid wall or fence, and a 10 foot interior yard planted or maintained as a
landscape screen. Sites oppoSite from a residential district and separated by a street.
drainage facility or other open area. require a minimum yard of 10 feet. planted and
maintained as a landscape screen.
Generally. use permits require that parking be maintained at quantities necessary to meet
zoning requirements. However. in recognition that there is no formal distinctiOn between hos-
pital and campus parking and that the Medical Center spans two jurisdictions. use permits
in the SUMC have allowed for a regional parking approach that relies on parking in bOth City
and County locations. not assigned on a building-by-building basis.
3.1.2 Medical Office Research (MOR)
Outside the PF parcels. there are also several leasehold parcels along Welch Road owned
by Stanf{)(d University which fall within the bOundaries zoned Medical Office Research (MOR)
(FAR =0.5).
SlanlOfd University Medical Center Area Plan Updale May 2011 3.1
3.1.3 High Density Multiple Family (RM·40j
The area located no.1heast of the Sand H:II Road!Pasteur Drive intersection is zoned RM-40
(high density multiple-family residential), which has a maximum density of 40 dwelling units
per acre.
3.2 FUTURE ZONING CHANGES -CITY OF PALO ALTO
3.2.1 Future Zoning Ordinance and Designation Changes
The SUMC Project will rosull in two zoning changes (ExhibiI3-2).
First. a new general zoning district knewn as the "Hospital District" will be created and ap-
plied, replacing the PF zoning district on those sites.
Second, 701 and 703 Welch Road will be brought within the same zOl1lng designation as the
other inboard We!ch Road properties li.e., rezoned from MOR to the new Hosplal District
zone discussed above).
3.2.2 Changes to Development Standards for SUMC
The Hospital District zoning for the development sites includes the following revised develop-
ment standards to accommodate the SUMC Project:
o The maximum FAR for the in board Welch Road "Hospital District" zoned sites wi!' be
1.5 to 1. The maximum FAR for the Hoover Pavilion site would be 0.5 to 1.
o The maximum height at tho in-board Welch Road sites will bo 130 feet. The maximum
height at the Hoover Pavilion site will be 60 feet.
Other changes to the existing PF district development standards include:
• Site coverage reqUlremenls.
o Yard (setback) requi.'Bments.
o Performance-based packing requirements instead of traditional parking ratios.
o Regulation of Protected Trees
• Landscape requirements in parking areas
3.3 EXISTING AND FUTURE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION -
CITY OF PALO ALTO
SUMC lands that are beated in the Cily of Palo Alto are subject to the Palo Alto Compre-
hensive Plan. The Comp Plan identifies the SUMC as one at four employment districts in
the City. Most of the SUMC is designated as "Major Institution! Special Facilities" (Exhibit
3-3), which specifically applies 10 hospitals. The Camp Plan designates other portions of the
SUMC Area as "Research/Office Park" and "Mu'lple Family Residential: As a result of the
SUMC Project, the Comp Pian designation for 70' and 703 Welch Road will be changed
trom "Research/Office Park" to "Ma;or Institutionl Special Faci'ities" IExhibit 3-4).
3.4 f\1ay 2011 Stan:o~-d University Medical Center Area P!an Update
The Palo Alto Comp Plan includes many policies that apply to the SUMC. Appendix A pro-
vides Table 3.2-2 from the SUMC Project Environmental Impact Report, which presents the
Comp Plan policies that apply to the SUMC.
3.4 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS -SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Three portions of the SUMC Area are within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County: the Quarry
"Rectangle" (northeast of Quarry/Arboretum), the Quarry "Trapezoid" (southeast of Quarry/
Arboretum), and the Quarry/EI Camino site. The Quarry Rectangle and the Quarry EVCamino
site are referred to in this Area Plan Update as the "Quarry housing sites." Development of
Stanford's lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County is subject to the County's land use
regulations,
The Stanford campus is designated as "Major Educational and Institutional Uses" in the
County's General Plan. In December 2000, Santa Clara County approved the Stanford
Community Plan, which was adopted as an amendment to the County's General Plan and
contains Stanford-specific land use designations and policies. The Stanford Community
Plan divides the campus into seven land use categories and designates the Quarry Trapezoid
and the Quarry housing sites as "Academic Campus." Allowable Academic Campus uses in-
clude: instruction and research (including teaching hospital facilities); administrative facilities;
housing intended for students, postgraduate fellows, and other designated personnel; high
density housing for faculty and staff; athletics, physical education, and recreation facilities;
support services; infrastructure, storage, and maintenance facilities; cultural facilities associ-
ated with the University; and non-profit research institutions with close academic ties to the
University.
Also in December 2000, the County approved Stanford's General Use Permit (GUP) for con-
struction of 2,035,000 gsf of additional academic and academic support facilities, and ap-
proximately 3,000 additional housing units on Stanford's lands. The 2000 General Use Permit
sub-divides the campus into ten Development Districts. The Quarry Trapezoid and Quarry
housing sites are in the Quarry Development District. The General Use Permit anticipates
50,000 gsf of academic development and 350 housing units within this development district.
The GUP allows reallocation of academic and housing development between Development
Districts after preparation of an environmental assessment and approval of the County Plan-
ning Commission.
3.5 JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY CHANGE
The current placement of the jurisdictional boundary between the City of Palo Alto and Santa
Clara County along the southern edge of the SUMC region bisects the future site for the
School of Medicine's FIM1 building, requiring a minor adjustment to the City-County line in
the future.
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update May 2011 3.5
3.6 LAND USE POLICY AGREEMENT
The 1985 Land Use Policy Agreement (also known as the three-party agreement) between
the Stanford University Board of Trustees, the City of Palo Alto, and the County of Santa
Clara, describes the polices regarding land use, annexation, planning and development
of Stanford University lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Stanford provides its
own municipal services to the academic facilities on these lands (including by contract with
neighboring municipalities). The agreement specifies that academic land uses do not require
annexation. Palo Alto and Santa Clara County recognize in the agreement that each has a
legitimate interest in planning decisions made by the other and agree to timely notification of
projects or proposals that could affect the other. The Land Use Policy Agreement states that
the County, the City and Stanford agree that Stanford lands" ... are held in perpetual trust
for educational purposes ... " (Policy 1 a). The Land Use Policy Agreement also refers to an
informational document, known as the Protocol, which is maintained by the three parties to
the agreement and outlines all adopted land use designations, regulations, restrictions, and
review and referral procedures governing Stanford lands in Santa Clara County. This protocol
outlines the mechanism by which Palo Alto reviews Stanford University proposals in Santa
Clara County.
3.8 May 2011 Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update
Appendix A
Table 3.2·2 Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
(19 pages)
Fror.1 Stanford University Modical Cente, Facilities Renewal and Replacement Deaf! EIR
(May 2010). updated by Fnal EIR (February 2011)
Stanford University Medical Center Area Plan Update May 2011
to/a, 2C~ 1 Staq!or::j J,)jversity Medical Center Area Plan Update
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Comprehensive Plan Policy SUMC Project Consistency
Goal L-l: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping
spaces.
and open
Policy L-1. Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to
currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the
urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary.
L-2: Maintain an active, cooperative working relationship with Santa Clara
County and Stanford University regarding Jand usc issues.
Policy L-3. Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills
from public streets in the developed portions of the City.
The City would annex an approximately 0.75-aere parcel from unincorporated
Santa Clara County under the SUMC Project to accommodate the proposed FIM I
As part of til. main Stanford University campus, this site contains
landscaping and is surrounded by urban uscs. This parcel tS outside the existing
service and political jurisdiction of the City of Palo Alto; however, annexation of
the parcel would not conflict with Policy L-l because the annexation area is small,
and environmental consequences from this annexation would be minimal. The
SUMC Project would not impact the undeveloped lands that this policy seeks to
protect.
The SUMC PrOject is an urban inlill project that would redevelop existing sites
within lhe City with similar, but expanded uses. While lhc SUMC Siles border
Santa Clara County, the adjacent uses arc within Stanford University, which is one
of the SUMC Project sponsors. No land usc conflicts arc thus anticipated between
the SUMC Sites and adjacent County land.
As explained further in Section 3.3. Visual Quality, and as required in Mitigation
Measure VQ-2.1, the SUMC Project would be subject to the City's Architectural
Review process. The Architectural Review of the SUMC PrOject by the City's
Architectural Review Board (ARB) would consider, among other factors, whether
the SUMC Project has a coherent composition, and whether its bulk and mass arc
hannonious with surrounding development. The ARB's recommendations
regarding these factors will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
The City Council cannot approve the Architectural Rev1cw unless it finds that,
among other things, natural features arc appropriately preserved and integrated with
the SUMC Project; the design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and
character in areas between different designated land uses; and the planning and
sjting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of
order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general
community. Implementation of Mitigation Measure VQ-2.l would require that the
City and SUMC Project sponsors comply with Policy L-3 requirements for
respecting views of the hillsides.
SIOf!ford UniverslIY Medical Ccnrer FaciliTies Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR Land Use 1
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy L-5.· Maintain the scalc and character of the City. Avoid land uscs that arc
overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale.
Policy 1.-6: Where possible. avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between
residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different
densities.
L-7: Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall
City welfare and objectives., as well as the desires of the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Policy L-8: Maintain a limit of 3.257,900 square feet of ncw non-residential
development for the nine planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use
and Tmnsportation Study, with the understanding that the City Council may make
modifications for specific properties that allow modest additional growth. Such
additional growth will count towards the 3,257,900 maximum,
2
As discussed in Section 3.3, and as required in Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1,
Architectural Review would consider, among other factors, whether the SUMC
Project has a coherent composition and whether its bulk and mass are harmonious
with surrounding development. The City Council cannot approve the Architectural
Review unless it finds that. among other things, the design promotes hannonious
transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uscs~
the planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an
internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors,
and the general community: and the amount and arrangement of open space arc
appropriate to the design and the function of the structures.
As discussed jn Section 3.3, and as rcquired in MWgation Measure VQ~2.1, the
Architectural Review would consider, among other factors, whether the SUMC
Project has a coherent composition and whether its bulk and mass are hannonious
with surroundIng development. The City Council cannot approve the Architectural
Review unless it finds that, among other things, the design promote..:;; harmonious
transitions in scale and charactcr in areas between different designated land uses~
the planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an
intemal sense of order and provide a desirable enyironrnent for oceupants~ visitorS,
and the general community; and thc amount and arrangement of open space are
appropriate to thc design and the function of the structures.
This EIR provides an evaluation of local as well as regional environmental effects
of the SUMC Project. It should be noted that the SUMC Project would maintain
but expand existing on-site land uses, Consideration of the merits of the SUMC
Project in context of regional needs, City welfarer and the desires of surrounding
neighborhoods will be considered by the City during the subsequent project
approval process.
The City has dctellllined that the medical eentcr uses associated witb the SUMC
Sites should not he included in the non-residential development cap established by
Policy L-S. Thc City is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA),
revising the language of Policy L~8 to clarify the exemption of hospital. clinic, and
research buildings from square footage caps.
Stal?ford University Medical Center For,..-ilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EJR -Land {he
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Goal L-2: An enh anced sense of"community" with development designed to foster public life and meet citywide needs.
Policy L·]O: Maintain a citywide structure of Residential Neighborhoods. Centers.
and Employment Distric ts. Integrate these areas with the City 's and the region's
transit and street system.
Policy L-1 I: Promote increased compatibili ty, interdependence, and support
between commercial and mixed use centers and the surroun ding residential
neighborhoods.
The SUMC is a designated Employment District,l accessible via the exi sting street
network. The SUMC Project would enhance integration of this Employment
District into the citywide land use and circulation network by adding pedestrian and
bicycle improvements and providing better connections between the SUMC Sites,
the Stanford Shopping Center. PAITS , and the downtown area.
The SUMC Project wo uld meet the growing demand fo r medical facilities in Palo
Alto and the region as indicated in the SUMC Project applicati on. The medical
services that th e SUMC Project would provide to residents of the City of Palo Alto
would increase interdependence and support between uses on the SUMC Sites and
residential uses.
Goal L-5: High qu alit y employment districts, each with their own di stinctive character and each contri buting to the character of the City as a whole.
Pohcy L-42: Encourage Employment Districts to develop in a way that encourages
transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel and reduces the number of auto trips fo r daily
errands.
Policy L-43: Provide sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and connections to the citywide
bikeway system within Employment Districts. Pursue opportunities to build
sidewalks and paths in renovation and expansion projects.
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements arc included in th e SUMC Project. A shuttle
service would run between th e SUMC Site, nearby commercial areas, and nearby
transit hubs. The SUMC Project would also include the existing Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program, which includes efforts to increase use of
transit and alternative modes of transportation, and decrease trips in single occupant
vehicles.
Several bicycle and pedestrian improvements, which would connect to the existing
trail network, are included in the SUMC Project. The SUMC Project would also
include bicycle and pedestrian improvements which would prov ide better
connections between the SUMC Sites, the Stanford Shopping Center, PAITS, and
the downtown area.
City of Palo Alto, Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, 1998. Definition of "Employment Districts" is provided on page L-14. Employment Districts are
geographic areas within th e City with distincti ve physical and economic characteristi cs. The Stanford Medical Center is one of fo ur designated Employment
Districts. Comprehensive Plan page L-33.
Stanford University Medical Cenler Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Lond Use 3
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy L-45: Develop Stanford Medical Center io a manner that recognizes the
citywIde goal of compact. pedestrian-oriented development as well as the
functional needs of the Medical Center.
Policy L~48: Promote high quaHtj\ creative design and site planning that is
compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.
L-49: Design buildings to revjtalize streets and public spaces and to
enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of
entries. porches. windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is
consistent with neighborhood character: avoid blank or solid walls at street level;
and include human-scale details and massing.
4
The Main SUMC Site is a medical campus and by function is pedestrian-oriented.
provjding walkways, manicured lawns, benches, fountains, art sculptures, and
pathway lighting. The proposed site plan is cxpeeted to maintain its pcdestrian
urientation. Functional adjacencies are critical to efficient medical services and, as
such, the proposed site plan would provide optimal functional adjacencies. (A
SlJMC Project objective is to optimize department adjacencies to cnsure the
healthcare facilities are clinically safe environments, promote safe and efficient
patient flow, and provide access to state-of-the-art technology,)
As discussed in Section 3.3. and as required in Mitigation Measure VQ-2. 1, the
Architectural Review of the SUMC Project by the ARB would consider, among
other factors, whether the SUMC Project incorporates quality materials,
hannonious colors, appropriate ancillary features, and a cohesive design wif,h a
coherent composition. The City Council cannot approve the Architectural Review
unless it finds that, among other factors, the design is compatible with the
immediate environment of the SUMC Sites, is appropriate to the function of the
SUMC Project, promotes harmonious transitions in character in areas between
different designated land uses. and is compatible with approved improvements both
on and off the site. Implementation ol'Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1 would ensure
that the proposed structures would be compatible with surrounding development
As discussed in Section 3.3. the SUMC draft Design Guidelines outline three basic
factors to be applied to the SUMC Project: site design. building design, and
connective elements. Thc site design concept for the SUMC Project builds upon
existing patterns of pedestrian and vehicular circulation! and parking, In addition,
open spaces would scrve to physically connect the SUMC to the public perimetcr.
as wcll as to eonncct the SUMC visually to the current Stanford landscape. The
proposed buiJding designs would serve to redefine the architectural image and
spatial character of the medical campus~ while blending with the existing buildings
and landscape. The intent of the Design Guidelines is to allow a varicty of
architectural expressions for each institution, while promoting a cohesive campus
image. fn addition, connective clements include consistent usc of specific paving
materials; the placement of new planting schemes; lighting; signage; shared
amenitics (for example. bus shelters. benches, and publie art); and utilities and
infrastructure.
Stanford University' Nledical Center Facilities Renewal and Rcpla(xment Draft EJR -Land Use
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy L·50: Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the
location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs.
As discussed in Section and as required in Mitigation Measure VQ-2. 1, the
Architectural Review of the SUMC Project by the ARB would consider, among
other taetors. whether the SUMC Project incorporates quality materials.
harmonious colors~ appropriate ancillary features:. and a cohesive with a
coherent composltlon. The City Council cannot approve the Architectural Review
unless it finds that, among other factors, the design is compatible with the
immediatc cnvironment of the SUMC Sites, is appropriate to the function of the
SUMC Project, promotes hannonious transitions in character in areas between
different designated land U5CS, and is compatible with approved improvements both
on and off the site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure VQ·2.1 would ensure
that the proposed structures would be compatible with surrounding development.
In addition, the SUMC draft Design Guidelines state that (he SUMC Project would
establish a unifying signage theme and follow existing campus signage guidelines
for directional and pedestrian signs.
Coal L-7: Conservation and preservation of Palo Alto's historic buildings, siles, and districts,
Policy L-5 f: Encourage public and private upkcep and preservation of resources
that have historic merit, including residenccs listed in the Historic Inventory.
L-Sl encourages the preservation of historic structures. The City has
identified Mitigation Measures CR·L1, CR-1.2, CR-I.3, and CR· 1.4 to help
minimize the loss resulting from thc demolition of the historic Edward Durell Stone
Building complex (see Section 3.8, Cultural Resources). Therefore, the SUMC
Proje<;t would not conflict with this policy since it encourages protection of historic
resources. The SUMC Project also includes the renovation of Hoover Pavilion,
which is a historic resource (sec Section 3.8 Cultural Resources), Structure:;
proposed at the Hoover Pavilion Site would hc sited so as to preserve the visual
prominence of the Hoover Pavilion as a historic structure. In addition, Mitigation
Measure CR-I.5 would protect the Hoover Pavilion from vibration impacts during
con~troction. Thc preservation and enhancement of this historic resOUrce furthers
the objectives of Policy L-S!'
Stanford UniversifY Medin;/ Center Facilities Renewal and Replacemenl Hill --Land Use 5
Table 3.2-2
Comparison ofSUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policics
Policy L-54: Suppor! the goals and objectives ofthe Statewidc Comprehensive
Historic Preservation Plan for California.
Policy L-58: Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings.
The Statewide Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan identifies current and
emerging historic preservation issues throughout the State and estabHshcs the
vision. mission. and priorities for the Omce of Historic Prcscrvation (OHP). The
OHP is required to review and revise the State Plan every five years as a condition
for receiving a grant from the federal Historic Preservation Fund. The SUMC
Project would not conflict with the OHP's prcparation or review ofthc State Plan.
including the identification of statewide preservation issues or the establishment of
the OHP's vision, mission. and priQrities.
The SUMC Project would renovate the Hoover Pavilion and would improve
seismic operating conditions of clinic uses within. Such renovation would
constitute adaptive reuse.
Goal L-9: Attractive. public spaces and streets that enhance the imagc and character of the City.
Policy L-70: Enhance thc appearance of streets and other public spaces by
expanding and maintaining PaJo Alto's street trec system.
Policy L·75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate
parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible.
Pulicy L-76: Require t.rees and other landscaping within parking lots.
6
Street trecs would be incorporated into the SUMC Sites under the SUMC Project.
The SUMC Project would add new underground parking structures and an above-
ground parking structure at the Hoover Pavilion Site. The parking structure at the
Hoover Pavilion Slte would be located south of Hoover Pavilion to preserve views
ofthis landmark from puhlic vantage points.
The SUMC Project would add above-and underground parking structures to
minimize the area devoted to surface parking lots; therefore, landscaping would be
minimaL However, as discussed in Section 3.3, and as rcqujrcd under Mitigation
Measure VQ-2.1. the Architectural Review of the SUMC Project by the ARB
would consider. among other factors, whether the SUMC Project adequately
incorporates landscaping. Upon receipt of the ARB~s recommendations. the City
Council cannot approve the Architectural Review unless it finds that, among other
factors. the amount and arrangement of open space arc appropriate to the design
and the function of the structures, and the planning and siting ofthc various
functions and buildings provide a desirable environment lor occupants, visitors, and
the general community_
Stanford Ul1iversi(v Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Drajl EIR -l.and Use
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Polides
Policy L-77: Encourage alternatives to surface parking lots to minimize the amount
of land that must be devoted to parking, provided that economic and traffic safety
goals can still he achieved.
Policy L-78: Encourage development that creatively integrales parking into the
project by providing for shared usc of parking areas,
Goal 1'-1: Less reliance on single-occupant vehicles.
The SUMC Project would add above-and underground parking ,truetures to
minimize the area devoted to surface parking. In addition, the proposed number of
spaces would be sufficient to accommodate Lhe resulting demand (see Section 3.4.
Transportation). Lastly. a TUM Program would be continued to decrease car trips
and parking demand (sec description in Chapter 2. Project Dcseripllon).
Parking on the SUMC Site would be shared by the various on-site uses. Sharing
facilities with off-site uses would be infeasible due to the distance to off-
T-I: Make land usc decisions that encoura.ge
transit uSc.
and public The SUMC Project would involve infill within an area that is currently accessible
by transit, walking, and bicycling, By reducing the size of surface parking lots and
increasing development density, the SUMC Project would be expected to increase
demand lor aiternative mcans of transport. The Hospitals and SoM both implement
TUM Programs that encourage walking, bicycling, and publie transit usc. These
programs would continue to decrease ear trips and parking demand (sec description
in Chapter 2, Project Description), On-site and off-sitc bicycle and pedestrian
improvcments included in the SUMC Project would provide better connections
between the SUMC Sites, the Stanford Shopping Center, PAITS, and the
downtown area.
Policy T-3.' Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective
programs to reduce auto usc at both local and rcgionallevcls.
The SUMC Project sponsors implcment (and would continue to implement) a TUM
Program to decrease car trips and parking demand. See also Policy T-l.
Goal T -2: A convenient. efficient, public transit system that provides a viable altcrnatlvc to driving .
.. _--------
Policy T-5: Support continued development and improvement of the University
Avenue and California Avenue Transit Stations, and thc San Antonio Road Station
as important transportation nodes for the City.
The SUMC Project would continue to implement the Marguerite Shuttle, which
serves the SUMC Sites and the University Avenue Transit Station. In addition. the
SUMC Project would involve bicycle and pedestrian circulation improvemenL.r.:;
be refined during Architectural Review) that would provide access to the transit
station.
Suu?(ord University Medical Cent(!r Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR -Land Uxe 7
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy T~6: Improve public transit access to regional destinations, including those
within Palo Alto.
Policy T-8: Encourage employerS to develop shuttle services connecting
employment areas with the multi-modal transIt stations and business districts,
The SUMC Project would not impede the City's plans to develop regional public
transit Moreover, the SUMC Project sponsors would continue to implement a
TDM Program to decrease car trips and parking demand. These programs include
provision of the free Marguerite ShuUle service, which connects the SUMC Sites to
other destinations1 local transit and Caltmin, and free use of the East Bay express
hus that connects BART and ACE train to Stanford.
The SUMC Project would eantmuc the usc or the Marguerile Shuttle, a frce local
shuttle serving the SUMC Sites, PAITS, the Shopping Center Site, and other
nearby locations.
Goal T M3: Fadlities, services, and programs that encourage and promotc walking and bicycling
Policy T-14: Improve pedeslrian and bicyclc access to and between local
destinations, including public facilities~ schools, parks, open spaec, employment
districts, shopping eentcrs, and multi-modal transit stations,
Policy T-15: Encourage the acquisition of easements for bicycle and pedestrian
paths through ncw privale developments.
Policy T-19' Improve and add attractive, seClire bicycle parking at both public and
private facilities, including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehielest in
parks, in privatc developments, and at other community destinations.
Policy T-22: Improve amenities such as seating, lighting. bicycle, parkingl street
trees, and interpretive stations along bicycle and pedestrian paths and in City parks
to encourage walking and cycling and cnhance the feeling of safcty.
Polic.v T-23: EncQurage pedestrian-friendly deSlgn features such as sidewalks,
street trces, oo-strect parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and
interesting architectural details.
Goal T -4: An efficient roadway network for all users.
Policy T-25: \Vhen constructing or modifying roadways. plan for usage of the
roadway space by aU users, including motor vehicles. transit vehicles, hicyclists,
and pcdcstrian~.
8
See discussion for Policy L-42.
Several bike and pe:destrian trails, which would connect to the existing trail
network, arC includcd in the SUMC Proiect.
Bicycle parking would be provided at the SUMC Siles under the SUMC Project.
The SUMe Project would instaIl new benches, lighting, bicycle, parking,
landscaping along its pedestrian paths on site.
See discussion for Policy T-22.
The proposed widcning of Welch Road and expansion of Durand Way would
accommodate hicyelcs~ pedestrians, and transit.
Stanford UniV(!rsity .Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacemenr Dro./i EIR -Land Use
Table 3.2-2
Comparison orSUMC Project to Cnmprehensive Plan Policies
Policy T-26: Participate in the design and implementation of comprehensive
solution, to traffic problems ncar Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Medical
Center.
Polie,v T-27: Avoid major increases in street capacity unless necessary to remedy
severe traffic congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity
is increased, balance the needs of motor vehicles with those of pedestrians and
Policy T-28: Make effcctivc usc ofthc tranic-carrying ability of Palo Alto's
street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also
this nctwork.
T-30; Reduce thc impacts of through-traffic on residential areas by
designating certain streets as residential arterials.
Policy T-34: Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and
collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion
management Include trafJic circles and oth(,."f traffic calming devices among these
measures.
Policy T-39: To the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority
of citywide transportation planning, Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile
safety Over vehIcle level-of-service at intersections.
Section 2, Project Description, identifies that the SUMC Projcct would implement
traffic management solutions, such as a continued TOM Program, bicycle and
Dcdestrian improvements, and public transit access.
GencraHy~ exis.ting roadway capacity is improved by adding left and right tum
lanes to the intcrsections, The SUMC Project would add a connection (Durand
Way) between Sand Hill Road and Welch Road; however. this connection would
cxtcnd through one block and would provide new access to thc Main SUMC Site,
The Durand Way extension would increase roadway capacity, but only to the extent
that it would provide traffic relicf to Pasteur Road and Sand Hill Road, This would
enable traffic from EI Camino Rcal to rely on Durand Way and traffic from 1-280
to rely on Pasteur Drive, Although roadway capacity would increasc, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities would be included as part of the Durand Way extension. which
would connect to thc Class 1 bicycle path along San Franeisquito Creek, This
connection would help satisfy compliance with Policy T ·27,
In addition, W cleh Road would be widened to three lanes in order to improve
safety and to accommodate on-strcct hicycle lanes.
Mitigation Measure TR-6, I in Scetion 3.4, Tf'dnsportation, requires the SUMC
Project sponsors to implement improvements for bicyclc and pedestrian safety and
access at intersections affccted by SUMC Project traffic.
As discussed under Impact TR-3 in Section 3.4, Transportation, thc SUMC Project
would not result in adverse impacts to PaJo Alto residential roadway segments. It
should bc noted that the SUMC Project would have significant impacts On
residential roadways outside Palo Alto in Menlo Park, Idcntified mitigation would
reduce the impact to Jess than significant (see Section 3.4. Transportation),
Thc SUMC Project would not significantly impact adversely atTect traffic on
residential streets within Palo Alto, and therefore does not include traffic calming
measures, See Policy T-30,
See discussion for Policy T-28.ln its consideration of the SUMC Project. the City
will continue to adhere to this Policy and will prioritize safety ovcr vchiclc level-
of-service improvcmcnt.<i at intersections.
Stanford University Medical Gm/a Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EIR ---Land U.W~ 9
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Goal T-7: Mobility for pcople with special needs.
Policy T-42: Address the needs of people with disabilities and comply with the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) during the planning
and implementation of transportation and parking improvement projects.
Goal T..s: Attractive, convenient public and parking tacilities.
Policy T-48: Encourage parking strategies in the Stanford Medical Center area that
maximize the cfHcienl usc of parking and, in the long term, consider the possible
usc of remote parking lots with shuttle bus service,
The SUMC Project would be required to contemn to ADA staodards speeitled in
the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Parking would be provided under the SUMC Project for the calculated increased
demand, which takc~ into account minimization of parking needs through
implementation of a comprehensive TDM progmm. Existing TOM programs~ such
as operation of the Marguerite Shuttle, would be continued in order to minImize the
need for additional parking. This program also includes provision of free usc ofthe
Line U Stanford Express, which connects Stanford to BART and the ACE train.
The Line U express bus enables employees to park remotely, and travel to the
SUMC via thIs service. In addition, the proposed parking structure at the Hoover
Pavilion Site would be used by SUMC staff, who would take a shuttle to the Main
SUMC site.
Goal N-l: A citywide open space systcm that protects and conserve;:; Palo Alto's natural resources and provides a source of beauty and enjoyment for Palo Alto residents.
Policy N-3: Protect sensitive
development.
species resources from the impacts of
Policy N-6: Through implementation of lhe Site and Design process and the Open
Spacc zone district regulations, minimize impacts of any new development on
views of the hillsides, on thc open space character, and the natural ecology of the
hillsides.
/0
Pcr Section 3.9, Biological Resources, there is no habitat capable of supporting
sensitive plant species at the SUMC Sites, and there would be no imnacts on
scnsitive SpCCICS.
As explained further in Section 3.3, and as required under Mitigation Measure VQ-
2.1, the SUMC Project is subject to the City's Architectural Review process. The
Architectural Review ofthc SUMC Project by the City's ARB would consider,
among other factors, whether the S UMC Project has a coherent composition, and
whether its bulk and mass are harmonious with surrounding development. The
ARB)s recommendations regarding these factors will be forwarded to the City
Council for consideration. The City Council cannot approve the Architectural
Review unless it finds that, among other things, natural features are appropriately
preserved and integrated with the SUMC Project; the design promotes harmonious
transitions in scale and character in ar(;!as between different designated land uscs;
and the planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create
an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants,
visitors and the general community.
Stanford University Medica! Center For.dJities Renewal and Replacemem Draft EIR -Land Use
Table 3.2-2
Comparison ofSUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Goal N-2: Conservation of creeks and riparian areas as open space amenities, natural habitat areas, and clements of community design.
folic.'v N-ll: Preserve the integrity of riparian corridors. Construction associated with the SUMC Project could contribute to bed and bank
erosion along the San Francisquilo Creek riparian corridor. However, as discussed
in Section 3.11, Hydrology. the SUMC PrOject would bo required to comply
existing regulatory requirements (Municipal Regional Penn it, Construction General
Permit, as well a'-tlocal municipal codes), which include both construction phase
and permanent erosion and sediment controls that prevent substantial erosion and
sediment transport from development within the San Franelsquito Creek watershed.
Construction site inspection by the City, as required by the UWMP, would also
cnsure that appropriate crosion and sediment control BMPs arc implemented and
functioning.
Policy N-13: Discourage ereek bank instability, erosion, downstream Sec discussion for Policy N~I 1.
sedimentation, and flooding by minimizing sitc disturbance and vegetation removal
on or near t:rccks and carefully reviewing grading and drainage plans for
development ncar creeks and elsewhere in the watersheds of creeks.
Goal N~3: A thriving "urban forcst" that provides ecological, economic. and aesthetic benefits for Palo Alto.
Policy N-l 4: Protcct, revitalize, and cxpand Palo Aho's urban forest through
public educalion, sensitive regulation, and a long-te[ID financial commitment that is
adequate to protect this resource.
The SUMC Project would replace trees removed during construction and would
supply new street trees, However, the SUMC Project would remove up to 74
Protected Trees, which arc considered an important resource to the
Mitigation Measures BR~4.1 through BR-4.5, provided in Section 3.9, Biological
Resourccs, require the preparation ofa Tree Preservation Report, a solar access
study~ a Tree Relocation FeasibiJity Plan, a Tree Preservation Memorandum of
Understanding, and minor site modjfications to the current site plans. While
complete preservation or relocation of Protected Trees would not occur, this
mitigation would fulfill the City's responsibility to protect. revitalize, and expand
Palo Alto's urban forest
Also. as required under Mitigation Measure VQ-2.1, the Architectural Review of
the SUMC Project by the ARB would consider, among other factors, whether the
SUMC Project adequately incorporates landscaping, Upon receipt ofthc ARB's
recommendations, the City Council cannot approve the Architectural Review
unless it finds that. among other factors, the amount and arrangement of open space
are appropriate to the deSign and the function of the structl1rcs~ and the planning
and siting of the various functions and buildings provide a desirable environment
StaT~fiJrd Unfversi(v Afedi('a! Center Facilities Rent'Wal and Replacement Droll EfR ---Land Usc 11
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Polk}' /11-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential,
commercial, industrial, municipal. and transportation land llS(;S and activities.
N-22: Limit the amount of impervious surface in new development or
improvement projects to reduce urban runoff into stonn drains, creeks, and
San Francisco Bay.
Polh.y N-23: Reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the City's sanitary sewer
collection system by promoting the use of Rest Management Practices.
Polic:v N-24: Improve Slorm drainage performance by constructing new system
improvements where necessary and replacing undersized or otherwise inadequate
lines with Jarger lines or parallel lines.
SUMC Project also proposes to apply waler efficient lixtures, sterilizers, and
kitchen equipment, and would continue its current use of microfibcr mops for
cfeaning.3
As discussed in Section 3.11. Hydrology, operation and construction of the SUMC
Project could cause or contribute to stonnwater runoff jf disturbed surfaces arc not
stabilized and if changes in drainage patterns result in more runoff. However.
compliance wlth existing mandatory regulalions and implementation of these
requirements would prevent substantial runoff by requiring erosion and sedimenl
controls. In addItion, Mitigation Ivfcasurc HW-3. I, provided in Seclion 3.10~
Hydrology, requires the SUMC Project sponsors develop a work plan for any
unknown contaminated sites. Thi!) measure, along with the existing regulations.
would address environmental impact~ associated with groundwater and t>urface
water quality impacts.
As discussed in Section 3.11. Hydrology, thc SUMC Project, at full buildout.
would decrease stonnwatcrrunoffby increasing the pervious area on the site,
including roof area that contains olant material.4
Demolition ofthc existing structures on the SliMC Sites would disturb hazardous
buildIng materials sueh as asbestos, PCBs, lead, and mercury. In addition,
hazardous Inatcrialsj such as paints, solvents, cements, glues and fuels. would also
be used in varying amounts during construction. Operation of the SliMC Project
would also increase the use and amount of hazardous materials on the SUMe Sites.
Examples of hazardous materials include chemical waste, medical waste, and
radioactiye waste. The SUMC Project sponsors would be required to comply with
existing federal, State, and local laws and regulations to protect the community and
the environment from exposure to hazardous materials, including the discharge of
toxic materials into the City}s. s.anitary sewer collection system,
As discussed in Section 3.14, Utilities, the SUMC Project would not require
expansion of existing stonnwatcr infrastructure.
Catherine Paller, memorandum to F'IR Team (City of Palo Alto and PBS&J), November 12,2008,
4 Stanford University Medical Center. Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project Apphcation, August 2007, as amended; Tab 4,
Figures 4-8a and 4·8b.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement RIR -Land U5e 13
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensivc Plan Policies
Goal N-5: Clean, heallhful air for Palo Alto and the San Francisco Bay Arca.
Policy N·26: Support regional, State, and fedcral programs that improve air quality
in thc Bay Area.
Policy N~27: Reduce emission of particulates from wood burning stoves,
construction activity, automobiles. and other sources.
Policy N-28: Encourage dcvelopcrs of new projects in Palo Alto, including City
projects, to provide improvements that reduce the necessity of driving alonr..:.
14
As discllssed in Section 3.5, Air Quality. construction and operation of the SUMC
Project would excccd BAAQMD standard, for criteria pollutants. Policy N-26
docs not prohihit such an cxceerlance. The SUMe Prqject includes continued
implementation of the SUMe Project sponsors' TDM program. Mitigation
Measures AQ-I. J and AQ-I .2, provided in Section Air Quality, would address
environmental impacts associated with particulate emissions by controlJing
construction dust and rcducing dicscl emissions. By requiring these mitigations,
the City would support applicable air quality programs.
As discussed in Section 3.5, Air Quality, heavy construction activity on dry soil
exposed during construction phases would eausc cmissions of dust (usually
monitored as PM 10), which could be annoying to persons near the construction area
or otherwise unhealthy. The SUMC Project would implement cxisting TDM
programs, whieh would minimize mobile source emissions during operation of the
SUMC Project. Nevertheless, those emissions would exceed the Bay Arca Air
Qualily Management District's (BAAQMD) significance threshold of80 pounds
per day or IS tons per year of PM 10. Emissions would result in a substanlial
contribution to an existing regional particulate air quality problem. Mitigation
Measures AQ-I.I and AQ-1.2, providcd in Scction Air Quality. would address
environmental impacts associated with particulate emissions hy controlling
construction dust and controlling diesel emissions. These mitigation measurcs
would reduce emissions of particulates from construction and continued
implementation of the ongoing TOM programs would minimize emissions from
operation of the SUMC Project.
See Policies L-42, L-43, and N-27.
Stanford University Medical Center Facilifies Renewal and Rep!acemenr Drqft EJR -Land Use
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy N-29: All potential sources of odor andlor toxic air contaminants should be
adequately buffered, or mechanically or otherwise mitigated to avoid odor and
toxic impacts that violate relevant human health standards.
As discussed in Section 3.5, Air Quality, the SUMC Project would include on-site
stationary source emissions related to the periodic testing of emergency diesel
generators. These emissions are nor expected to have the potential for substantial
odor impacts on local sensitive receptors, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.
In addition, the health risk assessment prepared for the SUMC Project indicates that
the estimated excess lifetime cancer risks associated with potential simultaneous
exposures to construction diesel particulate maHer (DPM) and operational sources
of toxic air contaminants (TAC,) would be below the BAAQMD significance
threshold of 10 in one million, and the estimated health indexes (HIs) would be
below L
Goal N-6: An environment free of the damaging effccts ofbioiogical and chemical hazardous materials.
Po/icy N-30: Minimize the usc of toxic and hazardous materials, Encourage the
usc of alternative materials and practices that are environmentally benign.
As discussed in Section 3.11, Hazardous Materials, the SUMC Project would be
required to conform to all Municipal Code, State and federal policies regarding the
use of hazardous materials. Development proposed under the SUMC Project would
comply with existing hazardous materials management plans.
Goal N-7: Reduced volumes of solid waste; solid waste disposed in an environmentally safe, eft1cicnt, manner.
Policy N-34: Reduce the amount of solid waste disposed in the City'S landfill by
reducing the amount of waste generated and promoting the cost-efteetive reuse of
materials that would otherwise bc olaccd in a landfill.
As discussed in Section 3.14, Utilities, the SUMC Project would be subject to Palo
Alto Municipal Code 5.24 Requirement to Divert Construction and Demolition
Waste/rom Landfilt Ordinance. In addition to complying with Stanford
University's general waste reduction initiatlves~ which cover paper, cardboardj
cans, glass, and plastics, compostablc goods, batteries, and other items, the
hospitals would implement a number of special ized recycling programs for items
such as electronic wastes~ fluorescent lamps> toner and inkjct cartridges,
chemicals. batteries. and waste anesthetics. Instrumentation and automation
upgrades would also help to reduce the production of wastes. The SUMC Project
would not gcnerale wastes that would exceed the capacity of the solid waste
facilities that Serve the City, and would take measures to reduce, reuse, and recycle
wastes.
Sla/~/bJ"d Universi~'y' Medicaf Center Foci/We.'; Renewal and Replacement EIR ~ Land Use 15
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Projecllo Comprehensive Plan Policies
Policy N-35: Reduce solid wasle generation through salvage and reuse of building
materials, including architecturally and historically significant materials.
Policy N-37: Ensure the environmentally sound disposal of solid waste.
Goal N-8: An environment that minimizes the adverse impacts of nOIse.
Polk.':! N-39: Encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatIble noise
environments. Usc the guidelines in the table '"'Land Use Compatibility for
Community Noise Environment" to determine compatibility.
Policy N-41: When a proposed project is subject to CEQA. the noise impact of the
project on existing residential land uses should be evaluated In terms of the increase
in existing noise levels and potentja1 for adverse community impact, regardless of
cxisting background noise levels. If an area is below the applicable maximum noise
guideline, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not necessarily be
allowed. A project should be considered to cause a significant degradation of the
noise environment if it meet..:; any of the following criteria:
16
As discussed in Sc<tion 3.14, Utilities. construction of the SlJMC Project would bc
subject to the Requirement to Divert Constructiun and Demolition Waste from
Landfill Ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code 5.24). This ordinance requires that
a minimum 0[90 percent of inert solids concret.e, asphalt, and rock) and a
minimum of 50 percent of the remaining debris, generated from constnlction and
demolition projects. he diverted from landfills through reuse and/or recycling.
Sec Policies N-34 and N-3S.
The SUMC Project would not introduce a new land usc but would expand and
reconfigure the established medical office and hospital land uses at the SUMC
Sites. This analysis looks at the relationship of the SUMC Sites with surrounding
uses. As discussed in Section 3.7, Noise, the mechanical noise generated by the
SHe emergency generators off W clch Road could have a significant impact on
nearby residential uses, However, Mitigation Measure NO-4.1 requires shielding
or enclosure of equipment, which would reduce noisc to less-than~slgnificant
levels,
The SUMC Project would emit significant and unavoidable ambulance noise on
residential uses off a portion of Sand Hill Road. However, ambulance noise is not
considered to be incompatible in residential or other developed areas, It also
should be noted that the SUMC Projcct would not ereatc a new land use on the
Main SUMC Site. Also. ambulance noisc is already generatcd by the SHC
Hospital, and the impact in this case would be along a portion of Sand Hill Road
where there would be a new ambulance route. Policy N-39 does not prohibit
location of land uses with incompatible noise sources; rather it calls for
encouraging location of land uses in areas with eornpatible noise environments. The
ambulance noise would be sporadic within the existing cnvJronment.
Consistent with Policy N-4J, this EIR idcntifies where significant noise impacts
will occur. Section 3.7, Noise, provides an evaluation of the SUMC Project on
residential uses. Among the significance criteria applied are the standards set torth
in the Comprehensive Plan. Basc-d on the City's Ldn criteria in the Comprehensive
Plan. the SUMC Project would emit significant and unavoidable ambulanee noise
on residential uses off a portion of Sand Hill Road, on the basis that the ambulance
noise would increase Ldn by morc than 5.0 dB, as stated in Policy N-4 L Existing
Sta~ford University l'vfedical Center Facilities Renewal and Rep/Of.:ement Draft EIR Land U:)C!
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
The project would cause the average 24~hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by
5.0 dB or more in an existing residential area~ even ifthc Ldn would remain
below 60dB;
The project would cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing
residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB~
The project would cause an increase of3.0 dB or more in an existing
residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB.
Pu/ky N-43: Protect the community and especially sensitive noise receptors,
including schools, hospitals, and senior care faci1itics~ from excessive noisc.
Ldn along Sand Hill Road ranges from 53.5 to 55.2 dBA. which is below the 75 dB
maximum noise guideline for conditionally acceptable uses. per the Comprehensive
Plan's Land Usc Compatibility chart. The ambulance noise would increase Len by
about 8 dBA. At most. the resulting dBA would be about 63.2 dBA, which is still
withjn the maximum noise guideline for conditionally acceptable uses per the
Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Compatibility chart. As such, the City may
approve the SUMC Project under Policy N-4I.
Section 3.7, Noise, states that construction of the SUMC Project could result in a
significant noise level with respect to on-slte hospital uses. Mitigation Measure
NO-L]~ identified in Section 3.7, Noise, involves best management practices for
construction noise and would address environmental impacts associated wilh pile
driving noise to off-site sensitive receptors and other construction noise impacts to
on-site sensitive receptors, This mitigation measure would lessen the impacts from
excessive eonstruction~related noise. Also, the mechanical noise could have a
significant impact on nearhy residential uses. However, Mitigation Measure NO-
4.1 requires shielding or enclosure of equipment, which would reduce noise to less-
than-significant levels. The City has identified feasible measures to protect
sensitive uses from excessive noise.
G&.I N-9: A efficient. competitively-priced energy supply that makes use of cost-effective renewable resources.
Policy N-47: Optimize energy conservation and efficiency in new and existing
residences, businesses, and industrjcs jn Palo Alto.
As discussed in Section 3.6. Climate Change, the SUMC Project includes a number
of energy conservation strategies. The SHe and LPCH components of the SUMC
Project would be designed to achieve EncrgyStar scores of90-95, which means
they would perform better than 90-95 percent of similar hospitals. The buildings
would use 35 percent less energy than typical hospitals (based on a comparison to
DOE's Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey) and 20 percent less
energy than a hospital designed to meet ASH RAE 90.1 standards. The new SaM
buildings would meet Stanford University's 2008 Building Perfonnance
Guidelines, whieh set a target energy efficiency in new buildings of30 percent
below California Title 24!ASHRAE 90.1 (2004).
Sran/(wd Uni.,,'ersity Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement EfR ~ Land Use 17
Table 3.2-2
Comparison of SUMC Project to ComprebensiYe Plan Polieies
Policy N-48: Encourage the appropriate use of alternative energy technologies. The City provides electricity and natuml gas to the SUMC Site and is currently
replacing a significant portion of its energy supply with renewable energy
resources. Although no oowsite renewable energy technologies are planned, the
SUMC Project would support alternative cncrgy techno logics through purchase of
energy through the City.
Goal N-10: Protection of life and property from natural hazards. including earthquake, landslide, and fire.
Policy N-51: Minimize exposure to geologic hazards, including slope stability,
subsidence, and expansive soils, and to seismic hazards including groundshaking,
fault rupture, liquefaction, and landsliding.
Policy N-52: Minimize exposure to flood hazards by adcquately reviewing
proposed deyelopmcnt in flood prone arcas.
Policy N-54: Provide emergency fire and medical services consistent with the
response time standards set forth in the Fire Department's annual budget.
As discussed in Section 3.10, Geology, non-hospital structures would be required to
comply with the California Building Code, while hospital structures would be
required to comply with heightened OSHPD requirements, both of which would
reduce exposures to geologic hazards to a Icss-than-significant level. The-SUMC
Project was initially triggered by SB 1953, whieh requires the aU hospital facilities
meet current seismic standards to prevent disruption of hospital operations during
an earthquake.
This EIR reviews potential flooding impacts at the SUMC Site in Section 3.11,
Hydrology. Flooding impacts were determined to be less than significant.
As discussed in Section 3.14, Public SOrYices, the SUMC Project must construct its
proposed structures to current OSHPD and City Code standards for fire safety and
would install the latest fire control measures. As a part of the City'S development
review process, the Statc Fire Marshal would review the plans for the SUMC
Project (including construction, fire service water majn~ and Automatic Fire Alarm
System plans) to determine conformance with the Fire Code prior to issuance of a
building permit,
Goal C-4: Attractive, well-maintained community facilities that serve Palo Alto residents.
Policy C-26: Maintain and enhance existing park facilities.
Policy C-27: Seck opportunities to devclop new parks and recreation facilities to
meet the growing needs of residents and employees of Palo Alto.
18
There arc no City park facilities on the SUMC Sites" Per Section 3.14, Public
Services, the SUMC Project would have a less-than-significant impact on City
parks.
As discussed in Section 3.14, Public Service, as required by Palo Alto Municipal
Code 16.58, the SUMC Project would be required to pay a "Community Facility
Fee," which has a line item for parks that would fund acquisition of land and
improvement"]. for neighborhood and district parks.
Stanford University A1edical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft EJR Land U.~e
Table 3.2-2
Comparison or SUMC Project to Comprehensive Plan Policies
Goal C~5: Equal access fO cducational~ recreational" and cultural services for all residents.
C-30: Facilitate access to parks and community facilities by a variety of
transportation needs.
See Policies L-42, L-43, and L-45. The Marguerite Shuttle. one of the TDM
measures discussed above, would provide access between the SUMC Sites and
other community faciHlies.
Go.1 B-6: Thriving employment dislricL, at Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical Center, East Bayshore/San Antonio Road Area and Bayshor. Corridor that
complement the City's busincss and neighborhood eentcrS.
Policy B-32: Assist Stanford Medical Center in responding to changes in the
delivery of health care services. Work with the Center to plan tor changing facility
needs, but within the context of City oIPalo Alto planning goals and policies, as
well as the goals and policies of other relevant jurisdictions.
The SUMC Project addresses changing demand for health care services and
facilities. The City is working with the SUMC Project sponsors to determine the
most appropriate plan for future development as part of the review of the SUMC
Project application. This EIR has been prepared to inform the City's decisions with
respect to applicable planning goals and policics.
Sources: Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998; PBS&J, 20 I O.
Stanford Universi(v Medical Cemer Facilities Renewal and Replacement Drojf E!R Land Use 19
Stanford University Medical Center
Summary of Development Agreement Payments
Updated May 24, 2011
Payment
Description
Development
Agreement
Paragraph
Summer
2011 (Initial
Payment
Date)
January
2012
(Estimated
date of 1st
Hospital
Foundation
Permit)
September
2015
January
2018
(Estimated
date of 1st
Hospital
Occupancy
Permit)
Spring
2026
Cumulative
Total
Payments to Palo Alto
Healthcare Services
5(a)(ii) $560,000/year
for 10 years
$5,600,000 (final
amount depends
upon
construction use
taxes received by
City)
Community Health &
Safety Programs
5(a)(iii)$4,000,000 $4,000,000
Fiscal Neutrality
Payment
5 (b)(iii)$2,417,000 $2,417,000
Linkage from
Downtown through
PAITS to Quarry/ECR
Intersection
5(d)(i)$2,250,000 $2,250,000
Linkage along Quarry
Road for Pedestrian/
Bicycles/Transit
5(d)(ii)$400,000 $400,000
Infrastructure,
Sustainable
Neighborhoods &
Affordable Housing
5(e)(i)$7,733,333 $7,733,333 $7,733,333 $23,200,000
Sustainability Programs
5(f)(i)$4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $12,000,000
Opticom Payment to
Palo Alto
5(c)(iv) $11,200 $11,200
110524 jb Att I_Summary of SUMC Development Agreement Payments.doc
Summary of Stanford Hospital
Development Agreement Payments
May 24, 2011
110524 jb Att I_Summary of SUMC Development Agreement Payments.doc
Payment
Description
Development
Agreement
Paragraph
Summer
2011 (Initial
Payment
Date)
January
2012
(Estimated
date of 1st
Hospital
Foundation
Permit)
September
2015
January
2018
(Estimated
date of 1st
Hospital
Occupancy
Permit)
Spring
2026
Cumulative
Total
Linkage from Shopping
Center through Barn to
SUMC (Stanford
Builds)
5(d)(iii) $700,000 $700,000
Payments to Menlo
Park
Traffic Mitigation
Payment to Menlo Park
5(c)(ii)$1,233,000 $1,233,000 $1,233,000 $3,699,000
Payments to AC
Transit
Payment to AC
Transit for additional
buses
5(c)(iii) $250,000 $250,000
Payment to AC
Transit for additional
operating costs
5(c)(iii) $50,000/year $50,000/year
(Life of
Project
Payment for long term
lease for Ardenwood
Lot (AC Transit)
5(c)(iii) $45,000/year $45,000/year
(Life of
Project)
Payments to Caltrain
Begin Purchasing Go
Passes
5(c)(v)$1, 800,000
+ CPI
$91,000,000 +
CPI
Analysis of SUMC Development Agreement Proposal
Updated April 20, 2011
SUMC Proposal City Staff Response
Health Care
In‐patient and out‐patient services $ 3,000,000 3,000,000
Community health programs 4,000,000 4,000,000
Total Health Care $ 7,000,000 $7,000,000
Reduced Vehicle Trips
Four new shuttles $ 2,000,000 Mitigation
Shuttle operations over 51 years 22,950,000 Mitigation
GO PASS over 51 years 90,907,500 Mitigation
Sub Total $ 115,857,500
TDM Coordinator $ 5,100,000 Mitigation
AC Transit and U‐Line‐Capital 250,000 Mitigation
AC Transit and U‐Line ‐Operating 2,550,000 Mitigation
East Bay Transit options ‐ Ardenwood Lease 2,295,000 Mitigation
Sub Total $ 10,195,000 $‐
Total Reduced Vehicle Trips $ 126,052,500 $‐
Linkages
Improvements to enhance the pedestrian and
bicycle connection $ 2,250,000 Mitigation
Improvements to the public ROW to enhance the
ped/bike connection $ 400,000 Mitigation
Improvements t enhance ped connection between
SUMC/SSC/Welch Rd $ 700,000 Mitigation
Total Linkages $3,350,000 $‐
Housing
Housing Impact Fee $ 1,720,488 Required Impact Fee
Housing/Sustainable Neighborhoods and
Communities $ 21,479,512 $ 21,479,512
Total Housing $ 23,200,000 $21,479,512
Climate Change/Sustainable Communities
Defined contribution $ 12,000,000 $12,000,000
Total Climate Change/Sustainable Communities $ 12,000,000 $12,000,000
Fiscal
Upfront Contribution/Cost Neutrality Assurance $ 2,417,000 $ 2,417,000
Use Tax Direct Payment Permit 750,000 $750,000
Total Fiscal $ 3,167,000 $3,167,000
TOTAL $ 174,769,500 $43,646,512
Item Description
Defined as a mitigation in DEIR/Required Impact Fee
110308 jb 0130685
S:\ATT\USERS\013 Silver\0130710 SUMC Development Agmt Proposal April 20 2011.xlsx
2. Land Use
A. Recommend approval of the resolution adopting changes to the Comprehensive Plan to
recognize taller building heights at SUMC, to exclude hospital, clinic and medical school
use areas fronl the citywide and area specific non-residential growth limits, and changes
to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map;
B. Recommend adoption of an ordinance amending the municipal code to establish a new
"Hospital" zone district and amending the sign code and tree code to be consistent with
the Hospital Zone regulations;
3. Entitlements
A. Recommend adoption of an ordinance approving a thirty-year development agreement
between the City of Palo Alto and the Applicants that would grant certain development
rights in exchange for certain public benefits'
B. Recommend adoption of a Record of Land Use Action approving a conditional use
permit that would allow specific hospital, medical office, and related uses in the Hospital
Zone;
4. Administrative
A. Recommend adoption of a Resolution annexing an approximate 0.65 acre site from Santa
Clara County;
B. Recommend acceptance of SUMC Area Plan Update, and
C. Review Architectural Review Board findings and Historic Resources Board comments
and forward to City Council.
EXECUTIVE SlTMMARY
The Stanford University Medical Center (SlJMC) comprises the general area between Sand Hill
Road, Vineyard Lane, Quarry Road, Pasteur Drive, and including Welch Road and Blake Wilbur
Drive. The area is zoned Medical Office and Medical Research (MOR) and Public Facilities
(PF). The applicant is proposing the demolition of the existing Stanford Hospital and Clinics
(SHC), construction of new hospital buildings, renovation and expansion of the Lucile Packard
Children's Hospital (LPCH), reconstruction of the School of Medicine (SoM) facilities, and
construction of new medical office buildings and parking structure as well as the renovation of
the Hoover Pavilion to meet State mandated seismic safety standards (SB 1953) and to address
capacity issues, changing patient needs and modernization requirements. The renovation and
expansion project, which would be constructed over a 20-year horizon, would result in a net
increase of approximately 1.3 million square feet of hospital, clinic, and office space.
This staff report discusses the package of entitlements requested by Applicant and recommends
that the Planning and Transportation Commission make the following recommendations to the
City Council:
• Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project and Adopt a Statement of
Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations,
• Adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendments to:
o Change in land use designations at 701 and 703 Welch Road from the Research/Office
Park land use designation to the Major Institution/Special Facilities land use
designation;
City of Palo Alto Page 2
o Annexation to the City of Palo Alto of a 0.65-acre property within Santa Clara County
jurisdiction with a Major Institution/Special Facilities land use designation to be
applied to this property;
o Modify the text of Program L-3 to identify the hospital zone as an exception to the 50-
foot citywide limit due to the Medical Center's unique needs, and
o Amend Policy L-8 to clarify that the hospital, clinic and medical school and treatment
uses are exempt from the development cap.
• Adopt Zoning Code and Map Amendments to:
o Create a new "Hospital District";
o Rezone 701 and 703 Welch Road from Medical Office Research (MOR) to the new
"Hospital District";
o Clarify treatment of Protected Trees in Hospital Zone;
o Clarify treatment of freestanding signs in Hospital Zone; and
o Pre-zone the site to be annexed to the City to the new "Hospital District".
• Approve a 30-year Development Agreement that would vest Applicant's rights to develop the
Project in exchange for a robust package of community benefits;
• Forward Architectural Review of the SHC, LPCH, Foundations in Medicine Building 1
(FIMl), Medical Office Building and Parking Structure at the Hoover Pavilion Site, Hoover
Pavilion Renovations, Surface Improvements for Welch Road and Durand Way, and SUMC
Design Guidelines;
• Approve a Conditional Use Permit that would allow specific hospital, medical office, and
related uses in the Hospital Zone as discussed in the FEIR, and
• Acceptance of the SUMC Area Plan Update prepared by the Stanford University in
collaboration with the City of Palo Alto.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Stanford Hospitals and Clinics
Stanford Hospital provides both general acute care services and tertiary medical care for patients
locally, nationally and internationally. Stanford Clinics contains the group practice of most
faculty physicians of Stanford University School of Medicine. SHC is currently licensed by the
State of California to operate 613 beds, 'but is currently operating at a 456 bed level. In order to
viably meet current and future demand, its projected need requires an increase of 144 beds. The
application materials describe the SHC as follows:
• The new SHC would build approximately 1,100,000 gross square feet of facilities, which will
include surgical operating suites, new diagnostic and treatment suites, new emergency
department and associated nursing and support space. This space would primarily consist of
five, connected towers extending 130-feet to the parapet and l80-feet to the top of the
helipad elevator;
• There would be a new addition of 429,000 gross square feet to house clinics, medical offices,
and administrativ~ offices on the Main SUMC site;
• The existing D, E and F nursing units would be renovated and reused; as will the remaining
1989 Hospital Modernization Project (HMP) building to house diagnostic and treatment
space and other supporting fimctions such as materials management, clinical laboratory , and
physician and administrative offices; _
• Demolition of a total of approximately 705,000 square feet of existing facilities on the site
City of Palo Alto Page 3
which includes 441,201 gsf of the original medical center complex, commonly referred to as
the Stone Building (East Building, West Building, Core Building and Boswell Clinics
Building); 223,850 gsfofthe existing Core Expansion Building and 40,100 gsfofthe 1101
Welch Road structures;
• Replacement of 456 hospital beds; addition of 144 new hospital beds for a total of 600 beds;
• Construction of a new four level above-grade and three level below-grade parking garage
containing approximately 970 automobile parking spaces, bicycle parking facilities, and a
rooftop landscaped area, including nleeting room areas and wellness center;
• Site improvements and landscaping, including the development of a "Medical Center
Promenade" connecting various hospital and university uses at the SUMC campus, a
medicinal garden, a main entrance with shared spaces for automobiles and pedestrians, and
outdoor spaces for cafe-style seating, and
• At SHC, automobile parking would be available in a new four level above-grade and three
level below-grade parking garage at the Welch Road/Pasteur Drive intersection. A total of
970 parking spaces would be provided in this facility. Access would be from Welch Road
and Pasteur Drive. The Emergency Department entrance/parking would be along Pasteur
Drive side of the new SHC Hospital building.
The new Stanford Hospital has been designed by Rafael Vinoly Architects, based in New York·
City. Highlights of the new hospital's architecture and design are included in Attachment I-J. A
complete set of plans for the hospital are included in Attachment II -B.11.
hl the first phase, construction of the five cOlmected hospital towers, emergency department, and
parking structure, renovation of the D, E, and F nursing units, associated demolition and site
improvement activities would take place. The clinics building would be constructed later. The
Applicant has not requested architectural review approval for the clinics at this time.
2. Lucile Packard Children's Hospital
The existing LPCH facility requires expansion to serve additional children and families, and to
accommodate modem healthcare standards. The expansion of the LPCH is designed to promote
family-centered care and create welcoming and safe healing environments by balancing the
hybrid needs of clinical research advancements with the specialized needs of pediatric and
obstetric patients and their families.
The Applicant proposes to construct a new hospital addition on the properties located at 701 and
703 Welch Road, atthe comer of Quarry and Welch Roads. This new addition will become the
key entry point to the medical center. The existing LPCH hospital facility would continue to
house inpatient beds as well as diagnostic, treatment, clinical, and support services. The LPCH
project will include the following components:
• Demolition of approximately 80,000 square feet of the 701 and 703 Welch Road buildings
and the existing parking lot north of the Falk building;
• Construction of approximately 521,000 square feet of new surgical operating suites,
diagnostic and treatment suites, and associated nursing and support space. This space would
be an expansion of the existing children's hospital and would serve at its main entrance. The
building height would extend to 85-feet to the parapet;
City of Palo Alto Page 4
• Addition 104 new patients beds to the existing 257 beds currently in use for a total of 361
beds, in addition to surgical operating suites, diagnostic and treatment suites, and associated
nursing and support space;
• Construction of a three level below-grade parking garage to be accessed from Welch Road
containing approximately 430 automobile parking spaces, and
• Site improvements and landscaping, including retention of mature redwood tree grove at the
comer of Welch and Quarry Roads, landscaping and garden spaces specifically designed for
various users of the hospital.
Perkins + Will in association with Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. (HGA) have designed
the new addition LPCH. Highlights of the new hospital's architecture and design are included in
Attachment I-J. A complete set of plans for the hospital are included in Attachment II-B. 11.
3. Hoover Pavilion Site
The Hoover Pavilion site is an area of approximately 10 acres located at the comer of Palo and
Quarry Road between EI Camino Real and Arboretum Road. The site includes approximately
84,200 square feet of the existing Hoover Pavilion, 7,400 square feet within the Arboretum
Children's Center, and 13,800 square feet of miscellaneous shops and storage outside of the
Hoover Pavilion Building.
Hoover Pavilion was constructed as the Palo Alto Hospital, in operation from 1930 to 1939. The
building is T-shaped in plan with a five-story central block, six-story tower, and four-story
wings. It is Art Deco in style, which is represented in the ziggurat form, vertical emphasis of
window bays, and stylized floral and geometric terra cotta panels and fixtures.
In brief, components of the SUMC Project and the Hoover Pavilion Site development include:
Renovation o/the existing Hoover Pavilion
• Retention of the 84,000 square foot Hoover Pavilion building, to be used for SHC clinic-
related uses, as it is used currently. Interior renovations and reconfiguration for medical
office uses. Healthcare providers who currently lease space at 701, 703 and 1101 Welch
Road would be offered leases in the Hoover Pavilion;
• Demolition of approximately 13,800 square feet of industrial shops and storage to
accommodate the construction under the SUMC Project;
• Removal of existing mechanical penthouses and construction of new mechanical penthouses
on the roof of the south wing, east wing, and fifth floor of the tower at the north fa9ade;
• Repair of exterior concrete walls;
• Alterations to main (north) fa9ade entrance bay;
• Window repair and replacement, removal of window air conditioning units;
• New exterior stairway on the south fa9ade of the south wing;
• Structural, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical upgrades;
• Site improvements and landscaping, and
• Retention of the existing 7,375 sf Arboretum Child Care Center.
Adjacent New Construction
• Construction of a new 60,000 square foot Medical Office Building (MOB) northwest of the
Hoover Pavilion;
City of Palo Alto Page 5
• Construction of a new 55-foot high Parking Garage west of the Hoover Pavilion with 1,085
parking capacity that has six above-grade levels and three below-grade levels, and
• Site improvements and landscaping that would connect the medical office building, parking
garage and Hoover Pavilion.
WRNS Studio, LLP and Bellinger Foster Steinmetz Landscape Architects have designed the new
MOB and parking structure and its landscaping respectively. Highlights of the new hospital's
architecture and design are included in Attachment I-J. A complete set of plans for the Hoover
renovations, the MOB, and parking structure are included in Attachment II -B.11.
4. School of Medicine
The site for the SoM replacement facilities is generally the site of the existing facilities to be
replaced. The four buildings occupied by SoM within the City's boundaries are designated as
Edwards, Lane, Alway and Grant. The site includes these four buildings as well as an existing
landscape area currently developed as a forecourt/garden immediately north of the Center for
Clinical Sciences Research (CCSR) building. The site abuts the boundary between the City of
Palo Alto and Santa Clara County campus lands.
According to the applicant, these buildings no longer serve the medical center's clinical and
translational research needs and must be replaced. Currently, the buildings house the primary
faculty offices, research laboratories and administrative support for 13 of the School's 28
academic departments, including the departments of Medicine, Neurology, Neurosurgery,
Obstetrics & Gynecology, Orthopedic Surgery, and Pediatrics. In addition, the applicant has
stated that upgrading the existing buildings to accommodate changes to the building
requirements for occupancy separation, exiting, mechanical systems, circulation, laboratory
support, and Americans with Disabilities Act requirements could only be accomplished at great
cost and would result in inefficiencies in the use of space. As per the application materials,
construction of the SoM would include the following components:
• Demolition of approximately 415,000 square feet of the existing School of Medicine,
including buildings Edward, Lane Always, and Grant;
• Construction of approximately 415,000 square feet within three Foundations in Medicine
Buildings (FIM1, FIM2 and FIM3), and
• Site improvements and landscaping.
FIM1 would be the first SoM building to be constructed as part of this project. The architect for
the School of Medicine building is Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects and Tom Leader Studio is
the landscape architect. FIM1 is proposed to be a four story building with a basement, located at
the southwest comer of the SUMC project site, adjacent to Pasteur Drive, Governor's Avenue,
and the CCSR. The gross floor area would be approximately 168,000 square feet. Building
heights would be approximately 68' to the top of the building parapet and approximately 80' to
the top of the mechanical penthouse screen.
In the first phase, construction only FIM1 would be built. FIMs 2 and 3 would be constructed
later. The Applicant has not requested architectural review approval for FIMs 2 and 3 at this
time. Highlights of the new hospital's architecture and design are included in Attachment I-J. A
complete set of plans for FIM1 are included in Attachment II-B.ll.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
5. Surface Improvements for Welch Road
The Applicant has proposed surface improvements for Welch Road and Durand Way in order to
accommodate the new SUMC Project. These improvements include the following components:
• Welch Road would be widened from two to three lanes to provide a dedicated left-tum lane
in both directions, and it would continue to serve vehicle circulation within the SUMC,
connecting Quarry Road to Pasteur Drive and to Campus Drive.
• Durand Way, a four-lane connector road, would be constructed between Sand Hill Road and
Welch Road to provide additional Medical Center access from Sand Hill Road (at the current
signal). No demolition of existing structures would be necessary to construct Durand Way.
This connector road would extend into the Advanced Medicine Center.
• A new driveway would be constructed with ingress and egress from Welch Road serving the
SHC Emergency Department. A second new driveway would be provided for public access
to the ED, along with a small area for patient drop-off;
• Two new driveways would be installed to the east and to the south of the proposed new
LPCH Hospital addition; these driveways would provide drop off access and access to the
new LPCH loading area.
• Signalized intersections at the vicinity of LPCH and Durand Way would improve traffic flow
and safety for pedestrians; and
• Coordinated landscaping along the length of Welch road, including sidewalks, street trees
and groun4 level plantings; landscaped roadway islands would also be installed.
A complete set of plans for the Welch Road improvements are included in Attachment II -B.II.
6. Design Guidelines
The Medical Center Design Guidelines provide a basis from which to better understand the
architectural implications of new projects within the four districts that make up the medical
center. The SUMC Design Guidelines document serves the following functions:
• A document that provides illustration of the variety of architectural expressions that would be
allowed for development of the SUMC project while promoting a cohesive campus
environment, with enhanced connections to Stanford University. It is a document to be used
to evaluate future development at the SlTMC sites;
• The Design Guidelines provides a basis from which to understand the architectural
implications and connections between the different projects within the medical center. They
express the similarities and differences of the new project components and how they
contribute to a cohesive identity, and
• The Design Guidelines includes sections on: Site Design (Site Design, Main Circulation,
Parking, Public Access Streets, Open Spaces, and Pathways), Building Design (Visual
Hierarchy, Density Pattern and Context, Massing and Building Composition, Material
Palette, and Entry Expression), and Connective Elements (Paving, Planting, Lighting,
Signage, and Shared Amenities). In addition, there is an Appendix that describes the
approach to preservation at Hoover Pavilion and the future SHC Clinics.
To that end, the Medical Center Design Guidelines seek to provide consistent and equal
representation of all the proposed -SUMC projects.
WRNS Studio LLP has prepared the design guidelines for the SUMC. The Design Guideline
document is included in Attachment II -B.II.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
ENTITLEMENT DESCRIPTION
Environmental Impact Report and Statement of Overriding Considerations
A Draft EIR, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was prepared by the
City of Palo Alto to disclose the potential environmental effects of the SUMC Project. The Draft
EIR includes a description of the SUMC Project, an assessment of its potential effects, a
description of possible mitigation measures to reduce significant effects that were identified in
the Draft EIR, and a consideration of alternatives that could address potential impacts.
An extended 69-day public review period for the Draft EIR began on May 20,2010 (CEQ A
typically requires a 45-day review period). During the public review period, the document was
reviewed by various State, regional, and local agencies, as well as by interested organizations
and individuals. Comment letters on the Draft EIR were received from 10 public agencies, three
City Council members, three private organizations and 34 private individuals. The public review
period also included six Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) hearings, five
City Council hearings, one Architectural Review Board (ARB) hearing, and one Historic
Resources Board (HRB) hearing, for a total of 13 public hearings. The Commission and City
Council hearings were open to the public and comments during the hearings were received from
members of the public, commissioners, City Council members, and members of the ARB and
HRB. The public review period ended on July 27,2010. There were over 1,000 individual
comments on the Draft EIR.
Response to Conunents
At the conclusion of the public review period, City staff began the process of responding to the
comments. The result of the process was the preparation of a Response to Comments document.
It contains the public comments received on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments,
and changes made to the Draft EIR in response to the comments. This document was completed
in February 2011. Details regarding the Final EIR Responses to Comments can be found in the
Staff Report for the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting held on March 9 and 23,
2011 (Attachment II -A. 1).
The Staff-Initiated Changes and Master Responses presented below are included in the Final EIR
Responses to Comments document and address the following topics:
Staff-Initiated Changes
• Staff-Initiated Change 1: Quantified SUMC Project Transit Analysis
• Staff-Initiated Change 2: Changes to Intersection Impact Conclusions
• Staff-Initiated Change 3: Changes to Analysis of Cumulative Health Risk from Toxic Air
Contaminants
• Staff-Initiated Change 4: Changes to Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate
Change Analysis of the SUMC Project and its Alternatives
• Staff-Initiated Change 5: Impacts of the Proposed Hoover Pavilion Renovation and Site
Development on the Hoover Pavilion's Potential Status as a Historic Resource
• Staff-Initiated Change 6: Changes to Protected Tree Numbers and Mitigation Measures
Under the SUMC Project and the Tree Preservation Alternative
City of Palo Alto Page 8
• Staff-Initiated Change 7: Changes to Table 3.13-8, SUMC Project 2025 Indirect Housing
Demand by County/City Based on Existing SUMC Employee Zip Code Distribution
• Staff-Initiated Change 8: Changes to Trip Generation and Level of Service Analysis of
Alternatives to the SUMC Project
Master Responses
• Master Response 1: Viability of the Caltrain GO Pass Mitigation Measure and Alternative
Mitigation Measures to the GO Pass
• Master Response 2: Other Traffic Mitigation Measures
• Master Response 3: Background Growth and Cumulative Traffic Impacts
• Master Response 4: Construction Traffic
• Master Response 5: Connection of Pasteur Drive and Roth Way
• Master Response 6: Cost of Transportation-Related Mitigation Measures and Fair Share
Calculations
• Master Response 7: Impact on City's Jobs to Employed Residents Ratio and Mitigation
Regarding Affordable Housing
• Master Response 8: Range of Alternatives Analyzed and Consideration of Alternatives in the
SUMC Project Approval Process
• Master Response 9: Merits of the SUMC Project and Alternatives
• Master Response 10: Response to Comments Not Applicable to CEQA and Not Applicable
to SUMC Project
• Master Response 11: City Process for Reviewing and Deciding on SUMC Project
• Master Response 12: Development Agreement
A summary of the Staff Initiated Changes and Master Responses are contained in Attachment 11-
A.
Together, the previously released Draft EIR (May 2010) and the Responses to Comments
document (Volumes I and II, February 2011) constitute the Final EIR. The responses and
revisions in the Final EIR substantiate and confirm or correct the analyses contained in the Draft
EIR. It should be noted that no new significant environmental impacts and no substantial
increase in the severity of an earlier identified impact have resulted from responding to
comments.
Resolution Certifying Final EIR and Approving Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
A resolution certifying the adequacy of the Final EIR and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program (MMRP) is included for review as Attachment I-A. The CEQA
Resolution summarizes the findings of the Final EIR and makes the necessary statutory fmdings
required to certify the Final EIR. The MMRP contains a comprehensive list of mitigation
nleasures for the project and designates the agency responsible for nl0nitoring compliance.
References to the MMRP are incorporated into the Project Conditions of Approval as well as the
Development Agreement to ensure their enforceability. As the project involves certain impacts
that cannot be mitigated, a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) must be adopted by
the City Council before it can approve the Project. A SOC represents the City Council's views
on the ultimate balancing of the merits of approving the Project despite the significant and
City of Palo Alto Page 9
unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the FEIR. A discussion of the SOC is provided
below in the Environmental Review section, below.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The Applicant is seeking amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan. These amendments
would result in changes to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and modify language to
specific policies and programs that directly relate to the Project. These changes would only affect
sites within the Project area.
The Applicant has requested the following changes in land use designations at several locations
within the Project site:
• Change in land use designations at 701 and 703 Welch Road from the Research/Office Park
and use designation to the Major Institution/Special Facilities land use designation.
• Annexation to Palo Alto of a 0.65-acre property within Santa Clara County jurisdiction with
a Major Institution/Special Facilities land use designation to be applied to this property.
In addition, the Applicant has proposed changing the text associated with Program L-3 of the
Comprehensive Plan. Program L-3 states that the City will maintain and periodically review
height and density limits to discourage single uses that are inappropriate in size and scale to the
surrounding uses. The discussion following Program L-3 refers to the City's historic 50-foot
height limit. As proposed, some portions of the SUMC Project would exceed the current limit by
approximately 80 feet. Accordingly, the Applicant requests the applicable Comprehensive Plan
language be modified to identify the hospital zone as an exception to the 50-foot citywide limit
due to the Medical Center's unique needs.
City staff has proposed an additional change to the Comprehensive Plan to clarify Policy L-8.
Policy L-8 directs the City to maintain a limit of3,257,900 square feet of new nonresidential
development within nine planning areas evaluated in a 1989 Citywide Land Use and
TransPQrtation Study. On a citywide basis, there is 1,944,090 square feet of development
potential remaining under the Comprehensive Plan policy. The Comprehensive Plan also divides
the City into nine distinct areas for transportation monitoring and the SUMC Project is located in
Planning Area 9. Under a strict reading of the Comprehensive Plan each planning area also has
development caps. At the time the Comprehensive Plan, most public facilities and institutional
uses were exempt from the area specific cap; however, due to an apparent oversight it appears
that the SlTMC uses were not exempted. Accordingly, City staff has suggested a modification of
the text of this policy to specify that neither the citywide nor the Planning Area 9 cap is meant to
apply to hospital, clinic and medical school uses.
A discussion of these requested amendments is provided below in the Policy Impacts section.
The Comprehensive Plan amendment resolution is provided in Attachment I-B.
Hospital District Zoning Ordinance
The Applicant has requested an ordinance that would establish a new zoning district for the
Project area. The new zone district would be designated as "Hospital District" (HD). The
purpose of the HD district would be to accommodate medical and educational uses including the
SHC and LPCH, medical, office, research, clinic and administrative facilities at the Hoover
Pavilion site, and SoM buildings in a manner that balances the needs of hospital clinic, medical
City of Palo Alto Page 10
offices and research uses with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding areas and
neighborhoods.
The HD would allow, by right or through the issuance of a conditional use pernlit, land uses
related to the functions and operations of SUMC. Most health care services, including hospitals,
medical offices, and medical research would require a conditional use permit. Educational uses,
such as private universities and activities related to the Stanford University SoM, would also
require a conditional use permit. As part of the entitlement process, the City has prepared a
conditional use permit for Commission and City Council review, which is provided in
Attachment I-E.
The HD would also include the following Development Standards:
• The maximum FAR for the area for the Main SUMC Site would be 1.5 to 1. FAR would be
calculated based on the total contiguous area within this zone, rather than on a parcel by
parcel basis. The maximum FAR for the Hoover Pavilion Site would be 0.5 to 1. Rooftop,
basement, interstitial space, and interior areas used to enclose mechanical equipment would
be excluded from floor area calculations;
• The maximum site coverage for the inboard Welch Road area would be 40 percent of the site
area. The maximum site coverage for the Hoover Pavilion Site would remain at 30 percent.
Parking facilities would not be counted in determining site coverage. Site coverage would be
calculated based on the total contiguous area within this zone, rather than on a parcel by
parcel basis;
• The maximum height on the Main SUMC Site would be 130 feet and the maximum height on
the Hoover Pavilion Site would be 60 feet (for new structures). Helicopter pads on top of
buildings would be excluded from height calculations;
• No yard adjoining a street would be less than 10 feet, measured from the curb to the base of
the buildings and not including any awnings or other projections. This setback requirement
would not apply to below-grade parking facilities or portions of buildings that bridge a street;
• No standards would be-specified for the site area, including width or depth;
• Regulations governing accessory facilities and uses, and the application of site development
regulations in specific instances would be established by Chapter 18.42;
• Parking requirements would be performance-based, as established during review of project
design. Parking would be provided to meet projected needs, with consideration given to the
potential for reduced parking demand due to the proximity of the P AITS, and
• Tree preservation would be based on regulations specifically proposed for the HD. In the
HD, specific trees would be categorized into two groups based upon their "Biological" and
"Aesthetic" values. Group 1 trees, possessing both Biological and Aesthetic values, could not
be removed (with exception of diseased or dead trees). Group 2 trees, possessing only
"Biological" values (consistent with the existing definition of a Protected tree) could only be
removed after issuance of a Tree Removal Permit and replaced according to specific ratios.
Other section of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) would also be amended to
modify specific requirements and for consistency with the HD, including:
• P AMC Title 8.10 (Tree Preservation) would be amended to recognize the HD and to refer to
the specific requirements of the HD for tree preservation and removal requirements;
City of Palo Alto Page 11
• PAMC Title 16.20 (Signs) would be amended to allow Freestanding sign taller than five-feet
and Directory and Directional sign to extend up to twelve-feet in height and not to exceed
thirty square feet in area;
• PAMC Title 18.08.010 (Designation of General Districts) would be amended to include the
HD and the chapter number in the table of districts, and
• P AMC Title 18.08.080 (Zoning Map and District Boundaries) would be amended to include
the HD on the zoning'map.
The HD Ordinance is provided in Attachment I-C.
Development Agreement
The California Planning and Zoning Law authorizes cities to enter into "development
agreements" which grant certain rights to developers, typically in exchange for other benefits
which cities otherwise do not have the police power to require. The scope of a development
agreement is prescribed by State law (Government Code section 65864-65869.5.). A
development agreement has the effect of immediately vesting a developer's right to proceed
under existing zoning and other local laws, without having to worry about later changes in those
zoning requirements imposing expensive new requirements or preventing the project from
proceeding. Development agreements are also generally needed for bond financing. The
Government Code imposes various requirements on development agreements, including a
requirement that each development agreement specify its duration. Additional background
information on development agreements is contained in the January 31, 2011 City Council Staff
Report (Attachment II-C. 1).
The Development Agreement for Commission and Council consideration is contained in
Attachment I-D. An overview of the negotiation process, terms, and fiscal issues are contained in
the Discussion section, below.
Annexation
In order to construct the new SoM Foundations in Medicine (FIM) buildings, a 0.65 acre portion
of land immediately adjacent to Governor' Lane and Pasteur Drive would need to be annexed
from Santa Clara County to the City of Palo Alto. Prior to annexation, the site would first need to
be pre-zoned to be consistent with the Main SUMC campus. If the City of Palo Alto supports the
annexation, the process with Santa Clara County and the Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) is a ministerial process. Annexation documents are contained in Attachment I-G.
Conditional Use Permit
As proposed in the HD ordinance, specific land uses at the SUMC would require a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP). Staff has prepared a draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) for issuance
ofaCUP.
Under the proposed Hospital Zone, the major components of the Project would require
Conditional Use Permits. As part of the Development Agreement negotiations, the City is
processing the entire proj ect under an umbrella CUP with more lenient vesting procedures than
provided by the existing CUP process. In the event the Development Agreement is not approved,
the Applicant has agreed to re-apply for separate CUPs for each major Project component.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Approval ofa CUP requires the following findings under PAMC Section 18.76.010(c):
a. Not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
b. Be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning).
The draft RL U A is contained in Attachment I-E.
Architectural Review
The Applicant's entitlement request includes Architectural Review for the following project
components, as described earlier in the Project Description section:
1. Stanford Hospital and Clinics Main Hospital
2. Lucile Packard Children's Hospital
3. Hoover Pavilion Renovations
4. Hoover Pavilion Site Development
5. School of Medicine, Foundations in Medicine Building 1
5. Welch Road Improvements
6. Design Guidelines
The items listed above represent the extent of the applicant's request for Architectural Review.
The request for architectural review does not include the SHC clinics buildings (approximately
429,000 square feet) and Foundations in Medicine Buildings 2 and 3 (approximately 116,000
and 131,000 square feet, respectively). However, the overall Project as analyzed in the FEIR and
the applicant's request for entitlements include the floor area for the SHC clinics and School of
Medicine buildings. The SHC clinics and School of Medicine buildings would require
Architectural Review prior to submittal for building permits.
Bruce Fukuji, the City's Urban Design Peer Reviewer, has been involved in the architectural
review process for each component over the past three years. His peer review comments have
allowed the ARB to more easily focus on the important elements of design.
All of the Architectural Review staff reports, minutes of the meetings, Bruce Fukuji's peer
review memos, and project plans are contained in Attachment II-B.
DISCUSSION
Development Agreement
Development agreements are mutually agreeable contracts and thus the parties have broad
latitude on negotiating terms. At a minimunl, however, State law requires a Development
Agreement to specify the duration of the agreement, the permitted uses of the property, the
density or intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and provisions
for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. In addition, it is typical for a
development agreement to include a package of community benefits in exchange for the vested
rights conferred.
Based on preliminary input from the Council and the public, City staff proposed four major
guiding principles governing negotiation of specific deal terms:
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1. Minimize fiscal impacts to the City. Ensure that the project does not have a negative fiscal
impact on the City through focusing, among other things, on revenue guarantees and robust
analysis of long term project expenses.
2. Require project mitigation. Ensure that zoning ordinance and Conditions of Approval
adequately address all project mitigations. Ensure that the General Fund is not unfairly
burdened with long term impacts of project.
3. Preserve community health care. Ensure that local benefits of hospital and clinics will be
retained, while transitioning towards greater world class hospital status.
4. Enhance City infrastructure. Recognize mutual interest in preserving high standard of
economic and community vitality. Partner with Stanford to fund the long-term infrastructure
needs of the community (capital programs, housing, transportation, and broadband).
Over the past two years, City staff has been meeting with the Applicant to negotiate the terms of
the Development Agreement. An important component of the negotiations has been the fiscal
analysis reports prepared by the City's consultant, Applied Development Economics (ADE) and
Stanford's consultant, CBRE. The City recently completed a comparative analysis of the
annualized projection of fiscal impacts, based upon a revised CBRE report submitted at the
beginning of the year.
On January 12,2011, Stanford's consultant CBRE informed the City that there had been a slight
shifting of the SUMC Project phasing that could impact the fiscal analysis. City staff requested
its fiscal consultant ADE to update its fiscal analysis to account for the updated project phasing
and also'to run the fiscal analysis through the life of the project (51 years), rather than the
previous 31 years used by CBRE. The 51 year period better aligns with the project conditions
imposed through the Development Agreement. An updated version of ADE's Fiscal Report is
included as Attachment II-D. ADE's updated analysis projects a cumulative project related
deficit for the City of $8.46 million in constant dollars over 51 years and CBRE's extrapolated
projection shows a surplus of approximately $6.5 million in constant dollars. Both projections
assume that all projected revenues are realized (April 20, 2011 Policy & Services Committee
Staff Report, Attachment II-C.3, Table 1).
Throughout the negotiating period, staff has updated the City Council on the progress of the
negotiations. The pace of negotiations increased at the end of 20 1 0 and the beginning of 20 11.
Although significant progress was made during the negotiation period, there were remaining
items that had not been resolved, including a cost neutrality agreement as directed by City
Council and identification of a reliable revenue stream before hospital employment is added and
expenses incurred. Staff presented updates to the Council on January 31, March 15 (Finance
Committee) and April 20, 2011 (Policy & Services Committee). Staff reports for these meetings
are contained in Attachments II-C.2 and II-C.3. Immediately prior to the April 20 Policy &
Services Committee meeting, the SUMC negotiating team presented an offer to the City to
address the unresolved items.
Summary of Terms of Agreement
A Draft Development Agreement is included as Attachment I-D. Subject to approval by the
Council; the respective negotiating teams have reached agreement on all of the principle terms of
the agreenlent as well as the major scope of the community benefit package. Below is a summary
outline of the key terms of the agreement as well as the proposed community benefits. A more
City of Palo Alto Page 14
detailed discussion of these terms is contained in the April 20, 2011 Policy & Services staff
report (Attachment II-C.3):
1. Duration of Agreement (Section 18(a)): The basic term of the Agreement is 30 years;
however, there are certain obligations that are longer. These longer provisions include the
indemnity provision and maintenance of the TDM program. A thirty year term exceeds the
terms of other City Development Agreements, but given the scope and nature of this project,
staff believes the extended term is warranted.
2. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses (Section 6(b)): The permitted uses of the
Property will be set forth in the Hospital District zoning ordinance (Attachment I-C). In
general, hospital, clinic and school of medicine uses will be permitted subject to a
conditional use permit.
3. Maximum height and density (Section 6(c)): The height and density of the buildings will be
set forth in the Hospital District zoning ordinance. In general, the Hospital District will
contain a 130 feet height limit, 40% site coverage and a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 1.5 to
1.0.
4. Reservation of Easements (Section 6(n)): With the exception of easements for City owned
public utilities, the City will not require any easements for park or open space or other public
facilities.
5. Payment of Fees (Section 8(b)): Applicants will pay all processing and permit fees in
accordance with the rates in effect at the time the fee is due. With respect to existing
Development Impact Fees (i.e. housing, transportation and community facilities), the
proposed agreement has an incentive for pre-payment by providing that all fees paid prior to
December 31, 2011, would be subject to the rates in effect at the time the agreement is
signed. All impact fees paid between December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2019 would be
subject to a CPI adjustment. Finally all fees paid after December 31, 2019 would be at the
rates in effect at the time of payment, thus providing a disincentive for deferring payment of
impact fees. The project would be exempt from new Development Impact fees until 2019.
6. Indemnity (Section 9): The SUMC Parties will indemnify the City in the event that a legal
action is brought by a third party to set aside any of the project approvaL In addition, the
SUMC will pay for the City's reasonable costs of defending such an action.
7. Periodic Review (Section 12): The SUMC Parties will file an Annual Report describing their
progress on the Project and demonstrating compliance with the Development Agreement. In
addition, the City shall submit a supplement to the Annual Report containing an accounting
of all funds received under the Development Agreement. The Planning Department will be
the lead on this task with Administrative Services assisting in validating information.
Summary of Community Benefits and Project Mitigations
Health Care and Patient Services Benefit
1. Health Care Services: Payment of $3,000,000 paid out over ten years to be used to assist
residents of Palo Alto who have self-payment responsibilities beyond their financial means,
to pay healthcare services. These funds shall be above and beyond SUMC's existing charity
care program and in addition to the federal Health Care program. The payment of this fund
will be deferred in order to address the Cost Neutrality Agreement (see Fiscal section below).
City of Palo Alto Page 15
2. Community Health Programs: One-time payment of $4,000,000 to be used for community
based health and wellness programs. The agreement specifically authorizes the City to use a
portion of this payment as seed money for Project Safety Net. This will be paid 45 days after
the effective date of the Development Agreement.
Reduced Vehicle Trips
1. Stanford Hospitals will provide Go Passes to its hospital employees. Their estimated cost of
this mitigation is $90,907,500 over 51 years. The parties have mutually worked out a TDM
program that will provide for alternate TDM measures and/or penalties in the event an
aggressive 35.1 % alternative mode share is not achieved or Caltrain service is eliminated as a
result of ongoing financial difficulties. At the City's request, Stanford has agreed to begin
funding the Go Pass program in 2015, well before project buildout.
2. To address the enhanced Go Pass program, SUMC will purchase and operate four new
Marguerite shuttles to support service to and from the train station. The capital and
operational cost over 51 years is $24,950,000.
3. Stanford will provide a permanent TDM Coordinator at the Hospitals in an amount of
$5,100,000 over 51 years.
4. The Hospitals will contribute to AC Transit to address potential capacity issues caused by the
project and will lease parking spaces at Ardenwood Park and Ride to encourage employees
of the hospital to use AC Transit and other transit options. The total cost of these additional
transit measures are $5,095,000.
Linkages
Stanford will fund various City improvements to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle connections,
including enhanced pedestrian and bicycle cOIUlection for the Intermodal Transit Center to EI
Camino Real and Quarry; improvements to the ROW to enhance pedestrian and bicycle
connection from west side of EI Camino to Welch Road along Quarry Road, and improvements
to enhance the pedestrian connection between the Medical Center and the Stanford Shopping
Center in the area of the Bam. The total cost of these linkages is $3,350,000.
Infrastructure Capital Fund
Stanford will provide $23,060,490, of which approximately $2,000,000 represents the housing
fee required for the clinics and the balance to be used by the City for other sustainable
neighborhood and community development and affordable housing programs. This fund could be
used for a wide variety of important infrastructure projects. This payment will be made in three
equal installments timed to the construction phases.
Climate Change/Sustainable Communities
Stanford will make a contribution of $12,000,000 paid in three equal installments for use in
projects and programs for a sustainable community also timed to the construction phases.
Fiscal issues
Immediately prior to the April 20, 2011 Policy and Services Committee meeting, SUMC
presented City staffwith a proposal to resolve the issues of cost neutrality, which had been
highlighted as an area of disagreement between the City and SUMC. The April 20 staff report
does not contain an analysis of the proposal, but it was discussed with the committee at the
City of Palo Alto Page 16
••• If
meeting.
The fiscal benefits to be provided by SUMC include the following:
1. Stanford will provide a payment of $2.42 million to address the projected deficit of the
project as analyzed by ADE. The deficit is a result of the gap between City revenues and
expenditures generated by the project over time and represents the present value of the
projected deficit as calculated by the City's economic consultant.
2. In addition Stanford will obtain a Use Tax Direct Payment Permit which will result in
$750,000 over the life of the project.
3. Stanford will guarantee that the City will receive no less than $8.1 million in Construction
Use Tax Revenue (CUTR) as a proxy for potential revenue leakage. In order to provide
assurance of this guarantee, Stanford would use the funds originally dedicated for In/Out-
patient services for low income residents, in the a>mount of $3 million, to be set aside by
SUMC, increased at 4.5% per year through 2025, for a total of$5.6 million at 2025. In 2025,
after the CUTR revenues have been reconciled, SUMC would use the $5.6 million to cover
any shortfall of ClTTR between what was received at the $8.1 million guarantee. The
remaining balance of the $5.6 million would be used by the SUMC parties to support the
original purpose of the fund, except that implementation would start in 2025.
The City negotiating team led by the City Manager believes that community benefit package is
fair and reasonable and that the cost neutrality agreement mitigates any potential operating
deficit resulting from the Project's property tax exempt status.
Note that the City and Stanford differ in their valuation of the total benefit package in that
Stanford characterizes some of the required mitigations as community benefits. While they are,
)n fact, mitigations, City staff recognizes that the bulk of the mitigations also have an overall
community benefit. Likewise many of the community benefits enhance the overall project. In
total, City staffhas valued the total community benefit package to be approximately $43,646,512
and Stanford has valued it to be $174,769,500. See Attachment I-D.
Conditional Use Permit
As described above, a conditional use permit would be required for many of the medical-related
uses in the new HD district. Staffhas prepared a draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment I-
E) for a Conditional Use Permit that would allow medical-related and other uses at SUMC,
subject to conditions of approval.
. Architectural Review Board Recommendation
Over the course of the past four years, each of the SUMC Project conlponents has been reviewed
by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) through a series of study sessions, preliminary
reviews, and final ARB reviews. The following is a list of all ARB meetings for each component
of the SUMC Project.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
s ummaryo fARBM f ee In ,!S, 2007 2011 -
Project Component Date Meeting Type Notes
Project Introduction December 20, 2007 Study Session
May 20,2010 Study Session Fly-Through Video Presentation
& Photomontages
SUMC Design Guidelines January 17,2008 Study Session
April 3, 2008 Study Session
June 12, 2008 Joint Study Session SSC & SUMC Guidelines
July 3,2008 Preliminary Review
August 5, 2010 Preliminary Review
March 24,2011 Final Review
New Stanford Hospital June 19, 2008 Study Session
(SHC) October 20, 2008 Study Session Joint Session for SHC & LPCH
November 20,2008 Preliminary Review
February 18,2010 Study Session
June 17,2010 Preliminary Review 1
September 2, 2010 Preliminary Review 2
February 17,2011 Pre-Final Review
April 21, 2011 Final Review
Lucile Packard Children's August 21,2008 Study Session
Hospital (LPCH) October 20, 2008 Study Session Joint Session for SHC & LPCH
August 20, 2009 Study Session
February 4, 2010 Study Session
May 20, 2010 Preliminary Review 1
July 15,2010 Preliminary Review 2 _
December 2, 2010 Pre-Final Review
March 24,2011 Final Review
Hoover Site Development, August 7, 2008 Preliminary Review
including: December 4, 2008 Study Session a) Medical Office Building
& Parking Structure June 3, 2010 Preliminary Review 1
b) Hoover Pavilion August 19,2010 Preliminary Review 2
Renovation February 3, 2011 Pre-Final Review
April 7, 2011 Final Review
School of Medicine (SoM) July 17, 2008 Preliminary Review
Foundations In Medicine July 1,2010 Preliminary Review 1 (FIM) 1 Building
October 21,2010 Preliminary Review 2
January 6, 2011 Pre-Final Review
March 24,2011 Final Review
Surface Improvements for August 5, 2010 Preliminary Review
Welch Road + Durand December 2, 2010 Pre-Final Review Way
March 24, 2011 Final Review
City of Palo Alto Page 18
The ARB mernbers evaluated each of the Project components by reviewed the proposed designs
with elements contained in the Architectural Review Findings (PAMC 18.76.020(d)), including,
but not limited to the following:
• Site development and planning;
• Pedestrian movements;
• Landscaping (including trees and other natural features), open space, hardscape materials;
• Automobile, bicycle parking and circulation;
• Signage and lighting;
• Building massing and contextual relationships;
• Exterior materials and finishes, and
• Energy conservation and green building features.
The Architectural Review Findings provide a basis from which to understand the architectural
implications and connections between the different projects within the Medical Center. Hence,
the SUMC Design Guidelines document was prepared in order to express the similarities and
differences of the new project components and how they could contribute to a cohesive identity
over the entire SlTMC site.
Consequently, at the end of the ARB review process in April 2011, the ARB recommended
approval of all of the SUMC Project components with recommended architectural conditions of
approval. These recommendations are included in Attachment I-F.
Tree Preservation Alternative
During the course of the application review and comments from the ARB, major design changes
were observed. One of the most significant project refinements was developed by the Applicant,
which included minimizing tree impacts, providing more compact building footprints and
expanding gardens and open space. The City discussed this refinement in the EIR as the
Applicant's preferred project, the Tree Preservation Alternative. The design of each Project
component was revised on the basis of this alternative, which in tum preserved 74 protected trees
on the entire SUMC site. These protected trees have been discussed earlier in the Tree
Preservation Alternative Discussion section above.
The Tree Preservation Alternative primarily brought about the following major changes to the
design of the new Stanford Hospital:
• Eliminated a tower from the Kaplan Lawn and incorporated that use into the remaining
portions of the project preserving nine oak trees in this area. Each hospital module was
reduced in size and all four modules were made equal in height. In addition, the hospital was
enclosed at level 3 and the size of the central atrium was reduced to provide a more compact
footprint;
• Changed the parking plan to include a parking garage off of Welch Road with a conference
center and garden and wellness center on the third floor roof that connected to the Hospital.
This parking garage was subsequently set back further from Welch Road to form a more
cohesive landscaped and tree lined front; and
• Incorporated a landscaped area at the comer of Welch Road and Pasteur Drive.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
All the trees to be removed would be required to be replaced, as proposed, in accordance with
the ratios set forth in Table 3-1 of the City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual (TTM) in order
to maintain the appropriate landscape approach at the SUMC. The difference between the
required tree replacement and the number of trees planted at SUMC would be mitigated through
contribution to the Forestry Fund in the City of Palo Alto. Payment to the Forestry Fund would
be in the amount representing the value of the replacement trees that would be required under the
TIM standard if appropriate replacement tree locations cannot be identified within the proposed
"Hospital" district.
The following table summarizes the total number of protected trees on site and the manner in
h· h th ld b t' did tr ltd fj th SUMC P . t W IC eywou e re alne ,rep ace or ansp an e or e rOJec.
Site Trees to be Trees to be Trees to be Trees to Total
removed removed and transplanted remain Number of
replaced Trees
Stanford Hospitals -4 16 3 23
and Clinics
Lucile Packard -11 16 4 31
Children's Hospital
Hoover Pavilion Site 1 -10 14 25
School of Medicine 3 -2 7 12
Buildings
Visual Quality
The Draft EIR prepared for the project includes an analysis of how development of the SUMC
Project would affect the existing visual quality of the SUMC Sites and the vicinity. Visual
quality pertains to how people see and experience the environment, particularly its visual
character. A detailed discussion regarding how the -existing visual quality is addressed on the
SUMC sites and the vicinity is included in the ARB staffreports for each project component
(See Attachments II-B.2 to II-B.7).
Over the course of the four-year design review process, changes were made to the Project
components that resulted in better consistency with the Architectural Review Findings. The site
planning and design revisions that resulted in the Tree Preservation Alternative is a primary
example of the efforts of the City, the Applicant and the ARB to design a Project that has
dramatically improved from the start of the process.
The design drawings submitted by the Project applicant and reviewed by the ARB responded to
each of the Visual Quality impacts identified in the Draft EIR, and were thus found to be
consistent with the Architectural Review Findings. The ARB recommended approval of each of
the Project components. The ARB staff reports and minutes from the final review meeting are
located in Attachment II-B.
Historic Review and Historic Review Board Comments
In preparation for the environmental analysis, the consulting firm Architectural Resources Group
(ARG) provided descriptions and assessments of a number of potential resources within the
SUMC sites. Each resource was evaluated using the standards for eligibility for listing on the
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). Part of the evaluation process includes determining if the resource maintains integrity,
City of Palo Alto Page 20
as identified by the National Parks Service. ARG's report is contained within the Draft EIR in
Attachment I. The resources that would be affected by the SlTMC Project include Hoover
Pavilion and the Stone Building.
Stone Building Complex
The Stone Building complex (also referred to as the 1959 Hospital Building complex),
constructed in 1959 and 1963, is a large three-story building with two wings projecting from the
main block to form a forecourt with a central fountain. Interior courtyards are located throughout
the building complex. Originally the joint Palo Alto-Stanford Hospital and Stanford University
Medical School, the building complex was designed by Edward Durell Stone and the
landscaping was designed by Thomas Church.
Evaluation and analysis of the Stone Building Complex was performed by Stanford University as
part of the SUMC application submittal and peer reviewed ARG for the environmental analysis.
Although the Stanford University analysis found that the Stone Building Complex was not a
historic resource, ARG concluded that it appeared eligible for listing on the CRHR and should be
considered a historical resource for purposes of the City's CEQA review. This conclusion was
supported by the City of Palo Alto's Historic Preservation Planner.
The SlTMC project would result in the demolition of the Stone Building Complex. Since the
building is to be considered as a historical resource for purposes of CEQA review, demolition
would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. As described above in the Environmental
Review section, City Council would need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that
would allow demolition of a historic resource.
Hoover Pavilion
The Hoover Pavilion is not currently listed on the National Register or the California Register.
The property was not included in the City of Palo Alto's 1978-79 historic survey report by Beach
and Boghosian that created the City's original Historic Inventory because it was outside the
boundary of the surveyed area. The Dames and Moore report "Final Survey Report Palo Alto
Historical Survey Update" dated February 2001, evaluated the Hoover Pavilion and found it to
appear eligible for the National Register under Criteria A and C. The significance and integrity
of the Hoover Pavilion was again evaluated in the "Cultural Resources and Stanford University
Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project" report prepared by SU,MC staff.
The SUMC report concluded that the Hoover Pavilion retained integrity and appeared to be
eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3, as an important example of pre-
World War II hospital design and for its Art Deco features and original building materials. ARG
who was hired to analyze the Project for the EIR, concurred with the SUMC findings of
eligibility for the California Register in its September 2009 report "Historic Resource Evaluation
and Peer Review: Stanford University Medical Center Project."
As a property that appears to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National
Register) and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), the Hoover
Pavilion is considered a historical resource for the purposes of California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). Generally, under CEQA a project that follows The Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
City of Palo Alto Page 21
Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (The Standards) or The
Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Structures is considered to have mitigated impacts to a historical resource to a less-than-
significant level (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5).
ARG analyzed the potential impacts of the project on the Hoover Pavilion in their report,
"Stanford Hoover Pavilion Renovation Project Impact Analysis Report," dated January 18, 2011
(Attachment II-B.5). ARG found that while integrity would be diminished, overall the historical
resource would retain good integrity and the physical characteristics that convey its historical
significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register. As defined by
CEQA, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to the Hoover
Pavilion. In Section 6 of its report, however, ARG provided detailed recommendations to further
reduce project impacts on the historic character of Hoover Pavilion, and to enhance consistency
with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation beyond the minimum required.
The· Stone Building Complex and Hoover Pavilion are not listed on the City of Palo Alto's
Historic Inventory. The City'S Historic Resources Board (HRB) does not have authority under
the existing Code to make recommendations on historic resources that are not listed on the
Historic Inventory (PAMC 16.49.050). However, it was recognized that the HRB could provide
valuable input with regard to the Hoover Pavilion renovations and affect of the proposed MOB
and parking structure on Hoover Pavilion. In addition, the proposed Hospital Zone also provides
a special HRB review process for future development on the Hoover site.
City Staff presented the Hoover Pavilion renovations project to the HRB on February 2 and April
6, 2011. Staff also reviewed the Cultural Resources chapter of the Draft EIR with the HRB on
July 7, 2010. At those meetings, the HRB expressed general support for the renovation to Hoover
Pavilion. Suggestions were made with regard to the modifications to historic main entry and the
rooftop equipment screens, as well as the renovation and replacement of exterior windows.
These suggestions were transmitted to the ARB for their consideration. See Attachment 11-B.l 0
for the minutes of these meetings.
The HRB also commented on the relationship between the MOB and parking garage to Hoover
Pavilion. ARG, in their January 2011 report, had indicated that the location of the MOB would
reduce views of a primary favade of Hoover Pavilion. As described above, this would be in
conflict with one of the Standards and would diminish the integrity of Hoover Pavilion (but
overall, Hoover Pavilion would still be eligible for listing on the California Register). The HRB
agreed with the ARG report. The HRB recommended, as a way to reduce the impacts of the
MOB, that the finial, which had been located at the Hoover Pavilion comer tower but removed
decades ago, be restored and replaced. The finial would restore visual focus to the impressive
comer tower. This recommendation was also transmitted to the ARB. The ARB recommended
that asa condition of approval, the finial be replaced.
Green Building
The non-OSHPD buildings are subject to all requirements of the City's Green Building Code.
The OSHPD permitted buildings will receive their building permits from the State and are
subject to a different set of regulations applicable to hospitals.
City of Palo Alto Page 22
Despite the separate regulations governing the hospitals component, Applicant is targeting LEED
for New Construction (LEED-NC) Silver certification equivalency. LEED for New Construction
and Major Renovations is designed to guide and distinguish high-performance commercial and
institutional projects. The LPCH Expansion Project is targeting LEED for Healthcare (LEED-
HC) Silver certification equivalency. LEED for Healthcare, passed by member ballot on
November 16,2010, is designed to guide and distinguish high-performance healthcare projects,
including inpatient and outpatient care facilities and long term care facilities.
Information regarding LEED for New Construction and LEED for Healthcare may be found at
the u.S. Green Building Council's website: www.usgbc.org.
Both the LPCH and the Stanford Hospital and Clinics have been tracking 15 "big sustainability
ideas" throughout the design process, which include:
1. Alternative System Approaches to Reduce Energy Demand (Displacement Ventilation)
2. Passive Design Elements to Reduce Energy Demand
3. Maximize Daylight and Views
4. Healthy Materials -Develop Material "Precautionary List"
5. Site as Therapeutic & Restorative Tool
6. Restore the Landscape & Create Habitat
7. Rainwater Harvesting to Provide 100% Irrigation
8. Reduce Potable Water Use by at least 30% from BAU
9. Alternative Transportation & Active Living
10. Renewable Energy Sources
11. Local Materials -Regional Materials Sourcing
12. Sustainability Sourced Materials with Low Embodied Energy
13. Minimize Construction Waste
14. Optimize Indoor Air Quality
15. Learning -educate visitors by integrating sustainable design features into the patient
experience
During the architectural review, the applicants have highlighted the sustainable design aspects of
the exterior fa9ade, and have explained how the skin system is integral to the Displacement
Ventilation HV AC System.
POLICY IMP ACTS
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations and Policies
Land Use Designations
The majority of the SlTMC Site falls within a Major Institution/Special Facilities land use
designation. However, small portions of the Main SUMC Site fall into the Research/Office Park
land use designation. These portions include the 701 Welch Road and 703 Welch Road clinics
near the intersection of Welch Road and Quarry Road, and the property immediately west of 800
Welch Road between Sand Hill Road and Welch Road. The .0.65-acre area on the western
City of Palo Alto Page 23
boundary of the SUMC Site falls within the jurisdiction of unincorporated Santa Clara County
and is designated for Major InstitutionlUniversity Lands/Campus Educational Facilities uses.
The SUMC Project would expand the LPCH Hospital into the area occupied by the 701 and 703
Welch Road clinics, which would be demolished. This expansion would conflict with the
existing Research/Office Park designation, which does not allow hospital uses. However, as part
of the SUMC Project, modifications to the existing Comprehensive Plan land use designations
are proposed. The following changes to existing land use designations would be made through
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
• SoM proposes annexation of the 0.65-acre parcel within Santa Clara County jurisdiction.
This area would be annexed under the Major Institution/Special Facilities land use
designation. The proposed FIM 1 building would be consistent with this designation.
• LPCH proposes that the 701 and 703 Welch Road parcels be converted from the
Research/Office Park land use designation to the Major Institution/Special Facilities land use
designation. The proposed LPCH expansion would be consistent with this new designation.
Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs
The SUMC Project is required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In order to ensure
such consistency is achieved, City staffhas identified all Comprehensive Plan policies applicable
to the SUMC Project. The Draft Environmental Impact Report, Table 3.2-2 demonstrates how
the SUMC Project would be consistent with each of these policies with mitigation. This analysis
is based upon the Project Description and upon the environmental analysis provided in
subsequent sections of this EIR. Where the environmental analysis identifies necessary
mitigation measures, the analysis in Table 3.2-2 briefly describes those measures. Mitigation
measures would help ensure consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies that avoid or reduce
impacts related to visual quality, cultural resources, pedestrian circulation, urban forest
resources, groundwater and runoff pollution, air quality degradation, and noise incompatibility.
The mitigation measures are described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan in
Attachment I-A.
Text modifications to the Comprehensive Plan are also proposed to clarify proposed building
height exceptions and commercial square footage limits for the SUMC to accommodate the
proposed building heights. Specifically, the SUMC Project sponsors propose to modify Program
L-3 as follows (underlined text would be added):
The Citywide 50-foot height limit has been respected in all new residential and
commercial development since it was adopted in the 1970's. Only a few exceptions have
been granted for architectural enhancements or seismic retrofits to noncomplying
buildings. In addition, the City has allowed taller buildings within the Hospital District at
the Stanford University Medical Center that reflect the Medical Center's unique needs.
In addition, the City has proposed to nl0dify Policy L-8 as follows (underlined text would be
added):
Maintain a limit of 3,257,000 square feet of new non-residential development for the nine
planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, with
City of Palo Alto Page 24
the understanding that the City Council may make modifications for specific properties
that allow modest additional growth. Such additional growth will count towards the
3,257,900 maximum. Stanford University Medical Center hospital, clinic and medical
school uses are not intended to be treated as "non-residential development" for the
purposes of this policy; thus, additional growth in areas zoned "Hospital District" is
exempt from this policy.
In both of the requested Comprehensive Plan modifications, the changes would affect only those
sites at SUMC. If the City Council decided to approve the maximum height allowance as part of
the HD, the modification to Policy L-3 would be consistent with the new regulations. The
modification recognizes the unique needs of SUMC, as well as the development plan which
supports more efficient medical-related functions with vertically designed buildings and
preservation of landscaping, plazas and walkways that would promote pedestrian activities. The
modification to Policy L-8 clarifies an exemption for SUMC that currently exists for other
medical-related uses in the City, including the Palo Alto Medical Foundation facility on El
Camino Real and the Veteran's Administration Hospital on Miranda Avenue, as shown on
Comprehensive Plan Map L-6.
Zoning Ordi.oance .
The SUMC Project would conflict with existing development restrictions in the PF district, such
as FAR and height limits. The Applicant requests creation of a new zoning district specifically
designed for SUMC for hospitals and clinics, associated medical research, medical office, and
support uses. The new zoning district is proposed as "Hospital District," and would include
development standards that accommodate the SUMC Project as proposed. The following table
illustrates the differences between the existing PF district and the proposed HD:
Comparison of existing PF zone district regulations with the new HD district regulations
HD PF
Minimum Site Area No standards No standards
Minimum Site Width No standards No standards
Minimum Site Depth No standards No standards
Minimum Street Setbacks 10 ft (1) 20 ft
Maximum Site Coverage 400/0 (2)(4) 30%(7)
Maximum Height (ft) 130 ft (5) 50 ft
. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.5 to 1 (3)(6) 1 to 1
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Comparison of existine; PF zone district ree;ulations with the new HD district ree;ulations
I HD I PF
llJ Measured from the right-of-way line of any public street to the base of the buildings and not including any
awnings or other projections. This setback requirement does not apply to below-grade parking facilities or
portions of buildings that bridge a street. This setback requirement also does not apply to any portion of a lot
or site that does not abut a public street.
(2) Site coverage is calculated based upon the total contiguous area within this zone (Main SUMC site or the
Stanford Hoover Pavilion site), rather than on a parcel-by-parcel basis.
(3) FARis calculated based up on the total contiguous area within this zone (Main SUMC site or the Stanford
Hoover Pavilion site), rather than on a parcel-by-parcel basis.
(4) The maximum site coverage for the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site shall be 30 percent.
(5) The maximum height for new construction at the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site shall be 60 ft.
(6) The maximum floor area ratio for the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site shall be 0.5 to 1.
(7) Provided that, for parking facilities the maximum floor area ratio and site coverage shall be equal to the floor
area ratio and site coverage established by the most restrictive adjacent district, and provided, further, that the
maximum floor area ratio for the Stanford Hoover Pavilion site shall be 0.25: 1.
The proposed boundaries of the new district are depicted in Attachment I-C. The proposed
zoning changes would resolve potential zoning inconsistencies associated with the SUMC
Project. With the adoption of the new Hospital District, the SUMC Project would be consistent
with the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance.
Area Plan update
The Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Area Plan Update has been prepared pursuant
to Program L-46 of the City's 2010 Comprehensive Plan, which states:
Work with Stanford to prepare an area plan for the Stanford Medical Center. An area
plan for the Medical Center should address building locations, floor area ratios, height
limits, and parking requirements. It should discuss the preservation of historic and open
space resources and the protection of views and view corridors. The plan should describe
improvements to the streetscape and circulation pattern that will improve pedestrian,
bicycle, transit, and auto connections.
The Area Plan Update has been cooperatively prepared by the City and Stanford with the City
having ultimate approval authority (Attachment I-H). The Area Plan Update is a guidance
document for the City, Stanford and the public to provide .an overview and context for
anticipated future development at the SUMC. The Area Plan Update is not intended to establish
land use or development policies or standards, and is not intended to supersede the applicable
policies, regulations, requirements and standards of the City's Comprehensive Plan and
Municipal Code. The Area Plan Update does not identify mitigation measures for project
impacts, evaluate alternatives to the proposed project, or specify community benefits outside the
immediate scope of the proj ect.
The draft Area Plan Update is divided into the following sections:
1.0 Area Plan-Background and Purpose
This section identifies the purpose and intent of the Area Plan and a history of hospital planning
and development at Stanford.
City of Palo Alto Page 26
2.0 Plan Elements
This section discusses the key issues and broad planning principles that have been adopted by the
City in the Comprehensive Plan to guide the planning and development within the SUMC. Sub-
sections within Section 3 include Land Use; Linkages and Connections; Circulation, Vehicular
Access and Parking; Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Circulation; Open Space, Historical
Resources, and Visual; Resources.
3.0 Zoning and Land Use Regulations
This chapter identifies the Comprehensive Plan and zoning changes that may be needed to
accommodate the SUMC's current proposals.
The draft Area Plan Update has been reviewed by the City Council on May 14 and July 23,2007
and by the Commission on June 27 and July 11,2007. Comments received at these meetings
have info1'11led and shaped the development of the Draft Area Plan Update.
It is important to understand that the SUMC Area Plan Update is not a regulatory document and
does not comprise a coordinated area plan or specific plan under the City's Municipal Code.
Staff recommends that the City Council find the Area Plan Update to be acceptable in satisfying
Comprehensive Plan Program L-46.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As described earlier, the previously released Draft EIR (May 2010) and the Responses to
Comments document (Volumes I and II, February 2011) constitute the Final EIR (Attachment II-
A). The responses and revisions in the Final EIR substantiate and confirm or correct the analyses
contained in the Draft EIR. It should be noted that no new significant environmental impacts and
no substantial increase in the severity of an earlier identified impact have resulted from
responding to comments.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As described earlier in the Entitlement Description section, if the City Council decides to
approve the SUMC Project, then the City Council must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, an MMRP is a
mechanism used for the monitoring and reporting of revisions to the project or conditions of
approval that the public agency has required as mitigation measures to lessen or avoid significant
environmental effects. The City can conduct the reporting or monitoring, or it can delegate the
responsibilities to another public agency or private entity that accepts the delegation.
The SUMC Project MMRP would identify: the specific monitoring action that would occur, the
various City departments or other entities that would oversee the completion of the measures,
and a timeline for when these measures would be implemented. The responsible departments
would ensure that due diligence is carried out during implementation of the measures. Execution
of the MMRP would reduce the severity or eliminate the identified significant impacts.
The MMRP is included in Attachment I-A.
City of Palo Alto Page 27
Revisions to the Previously Identified Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
As a result of responding to comments and initiating changes to the analysis in the Draft EIR,
revisions to the previously identified significant and unavoidable impacts have been made as
described in the Final EIR. The following five impacts are no longer significant and unavoidable:
• (TR-2) Intersection Level of Service: The Significant and Unavoidable (SU) LOS impacts
during Peak Hour conditions at three Menlo Park intersections (Middlefield Road and
Willow Road, Bayfront Expressway and Willow Road, and University Avenue and Bayfront
Expressway) have now been reduced to Less Than Significant (LTS). Please refer to Staff-
Initiated Change 2 in Section 3 of the, Final EIR for a detailed explanation of this change.
• (TR-7) Transit impacts: The SUMC Project would not adversely impact either AM or PM
Peak Hour bus service in Palo Alto or Caltrain service. Nonetheless, mitigation to provide
enhanced bus stops and shuttle service is included.
• (AQ-8) Cumulative Construction and Operational TAC and Fine Particulate Matter
Emissions: A revised analysis of cumulative Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) and fine
particulate matter emissions has been completed for the SUMC Project using the
methodology and thresholds established by the 2010 Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines. This quantified analysis replaces the qualitative
analysis in the Draft EIR and yields more accurate results. The results show that all
cumulative estimates for cancer risk, chronic non-cancer Health Indexes (HI), and annual
average PM2.5 concentration would be below the BAAQMD cumulative significance
thresholds for on-site patient receptors and maximally exposed off-site residential receptors
within the zone of influence. Please refer to Staff-Initiated Change 3 in Section 3 of the Final
EIR for a detailed explanation of this change.
• (CC-l) Furthering Individual Policies of the Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan and (CC-2)
Emit Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The SUMC Project's greenhouse gas emissions
were reevaluated. The reevaluation has determined that, compared to the Business as Usual
(BAU) scenario, the SUMC Project would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30
percent. Also, the SlTMC Project would be consistent with the goals of the City's Climate
Protection Plan after implementation of identified mitigation measures. As such, the SUMC
Project's contribution to global climate change would be less than cumulatively considerable
after mitigation. A major driver for the change in this conclusion is that the City has
determined that, from a global perspective, increased patient/visitor trips would not constitute
new trips that would result from the SUMC expansion. This is because patients would be
expected to seek medical treatment somewhere, even if the SUMC Hospitals were not
expanded. Please refer to Staff-Initiated Change 4 in Section 3 of the Final EIR for a detailed
explanation of this change.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Most impacts identified for the SUMC Project would either be LTS or could be mitigated to a
LTS leveL The following is a list of the twelve impacts that remain significant and unavoidable:
• (TR-3) Impacts on Roadway Segments: Increased average daily traffic on four Menlo Park
roadway segments on Marsh Road, Sand Hill Road, Willow Road, and Alpine Road;
• (AQ-l) Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions and (AQ-6): Emission of criteria air
pollutants (NOx) during construction, on both a project level and cumulative level;
• (AQ-2) Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions and (AQ-7): Emission of criteria air
pollutants (ROG, NOx, PMlO) during operation, on both a project level and cumulative level;
City of Palo Alto Page 28
• (NO-I) Construction Noise and (NO-5): Temporary but substantial noise during
construction, on both a project level and cumulative level;
• (NO-3) Operational Noise Impacts from Transportation Sources: Emission of ambulance
noise along a new route along Sand Hill Road into the proposed Durand Way extension, so
that noise levels at roadside residences would increase by a level considered unacceptable
under the City's Comprehensive Plan;
• (CR-I) Impacts on Historical Resources and (CR-5): Demolition of an historical structure,
the 1959 Hospital Building complex (also referred to as the Stone Building complex), which
is a significant and unavoidable impact on both a project and cumulative level; and
• (BR-4) Result in a Substantial Adverse Effect on any Protected Tree and (BR-9): Removal of
up to 74 Protected Trees, as defined in City of Palo Alto's Tree Protection and Management
Regulations, which is a significant and unavoidable impact on both a project level and a
cumulative level. While the Draft EIR identified the loss of up to 71 Protected Trees, per
revisions to the analysis, this number has been corrected to 74 Protected Trees.
Additionally, the analysis of the Tree Preservation Alternative included pile-driving activities
during construction. It has been determined by the SlTMC Project sponsors that pile-driving may
be required in order to construct the replacement SHC Hospital. Also the SUMC Project
sponsors have identified the Tree Preservation Alternative as a preferred site plan such that,
going forward, refinements to project design would focus on the site plan for the Tree
Preservation Alternative. As such, the Draft EIR addresses pile-driving impacts under the Tree
Preservation Alternative scenario. The Draft EIR indicates that potential pile-driving activities
would result in significant and unavoidable noise effects to nearby residents.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
If the City Council decides to approve the SUMC Project, and if the SUMC Project as approved
would result in significant impacts that could not be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, then
the City Council must indicate that any such unavoidable impacts are acceptable due to
overriding considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" would balance the benefits of the SUMC Project against its
unavoidable environmental effects. If the City Council finds that the benefits of the SUMC
Project outweigh the impacts, then the adverse environmental effects may be considered
acceptable.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations document includes two categories of benefits from
the amenities of the Project that would constitute "overriding considerations":
A. Amenities of the development of the Project itself, such as:
a) Health Care
b) Level·1 Trauma Center
c) Seismic Safety
B. Additional community benefits and other payments negotiated as part of the
Development Agreement for the Project, which include:
a) Health Care Services Funding
b) Community Health programs
c) Infrastructure Capital Fund
d) Climate Change / Sustainable Communities
e) Cost Neutrality Payment
City of Palo Alto Page 29
f) Use Tax Direct Payment Permit
The Statement of Overriding Considerations document is included in Attachment I-A.
NEXT STEPS
The Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council, which is tentatively
expected to review the Project on June 5, 2011.
ATTACHMENTS I -Printed
A. CEQA Resolution & Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resolution
C. Hospital District Ordinance
D. Development Agreement
E. Record of Land Use Action for the Conditional Use Permit
F. Resolution for Architectural Review
G. Resolution for Annexation
H. SUMC Area Plan
I. SUMC Application Excerpt Materials
J. SUMC Project Plans Highlights Pages
ATTACHMENTS II -ELECTRONIC (CD)
A. Final EIR Documents
1. Final EIR Staff Report to PTC + supporting materials and responses
2. Final EIR Review-PTC Meeting Minutes
3. Public Comment on Final EIR
B. Architectural and Historic Resources -Staff Reports and Minutes
1. Design Guidelines )
2. LPCH ) -ARB Staff Reports of March 24,2011
3. Welch Road )
4. FIM1 )
5. Hoover Renovations ) ARB Staff Reports of April 7, 2011
6. Hoover Site Development )
7. New Stanford Hospital (SHC) -ARB Staff Report of April 21, 2011
8. Peer Review Memorandums prepared by Bruce Fukuji
9. ARB Minutes of March 24, April 7 and April 21, 2011
10. HRB Minutes of February 2 and April 6, 2011
11. Final Project Plans
C. Development Agreement Discussions with City Council
1. City Council January 31 Update Meeting: Staff Report and Minutes
2. March 15,2011 Finance Committee Meeting: Staff Report and Minutes
3. April 20, 2011 Policy and Services Committee Meeting: Staff Report
D. Fiscal Report -ADE March 9, 2011
City of Palo Alto Page 30
As part of its action to recommend approval of the SUMC Project, the Commission
included recommendations for specific items to be considered by the City Council. The
following is a summary of those comments with a City staff response. The verbatim
minutes of May 18, 2011 contain the complete record of their action and
recommendations.
1. Commission supported the condition of approval recommended by the ARB and
HRB to replace the finial (a metal sculptural element) at the Hoover Pavilion
tower. Staff Response: Architectural Condition #B.2.1 requires replacement of
the finial.
2. Enforcement Plan for MMRP and Conditions of Approval (CUP) – Ensure that
all costs associated with MMRP and CUP enforcement costs are recouped. Staff
Response: CUP Condition #12 and Architectural Review Conditions #2 and #3
contain language for recouping of costs associated with condition and mitigation
monitoring, as well as inspection activities.
3. Pre-construction monitoring/post-construction monitoring of intersections
affected by the SUMC Project. Staff Response: CalTrans performs intersections
analysis for El Camino Real on a regular basis. In addition, the SUMC EIR
establishes baseline conditions for affected intersections. However, it would be
difficult to identify intersection impacts specifically as a result of the SUMC
project over time, in that current and future development apart from SUMC would
contribute to impacts. It is City Staff’s position that no further conditions relating
to intersection monitoring are necessary.
4. A communications plan shall be implemented to inform the public of tree removal
activities as part of the SUMC construction activities. Staff Response: A public
communication plan for construction activities, including the removal of trees,
will be implemented as part of the Construction Impact Minimization Plan
(CIMP), a document that is required to be approved by City Staff prior to the
issuance of construction permits. The CIMP is required as part of CUP Condition
#6, Mitigation Measure TR-1.8, and Architectural Review Condition A.4.1. In
addition SUMC has hired a full-time coordinator for the SUMC construction
activities.
5. Examine whether 4.5% index used for yearly increases in the fund for healthcare
services (Development Agreement, Page 18, Section 5(a)(ii), is appropriate. Also
examine appropriateness of other indexes for payments to third parties and
payment for capital costs. Staff Response: All indexes were items negotiated by
the City and SUMC representatives. The index for healthcare takes into account
present value calculations. It does not take into account a specific health care
index. Staff has requested additional information from the City’s economic
consultant and will include it in the staff report for Council’s consideration.
6. A Historic Fund should be established as mitigation for the impacts of
demolishing Stone Building. Staff Response: The MMRP contains mitigations that
would reduce the impacts resulting from demolition of the Stone building, but not
to a less-than-significant level (Mitigation Measures CR-1.1 through CR-1.5). If
the fund were used to further mitigate the Stone building demolition it would have
to be limited to other Stone buildings. Establishment of a broader based historic
fund would need to be included as an item in the Development Agreement. This is
a policy call for the Council.
7. Review and update citywide impact fees and apply the updated fees to the SUMC
Project. Staff Response: As is typical in a Development Agreement, the current
draft of the Development Agreement provides limits on the City’s ability to
impose increased fees on the projects. While this is a policy decision for the
Council, additional citywide “nexus” fee studies would need to be prepared prior
to updating the fees. It is staff’s opinion that the review and update of impact fees
should not be tied to the SUMC project.
8. Any revenues collected for parking passes in excess of the capital costs required
to construct parking garages should be used to fund the provision of Go Passes to
SUMC employees. Staff Response: Currently, parking permit fees are used to
fund Transportation Demand Management programs and efforts. The funding
mechanism for parking garage construction is not based upon parking permit fee
revenue. The requirements for the provision of Go Passes to SUMC employees
are outlined in the Development Agreement and in the MMRP.
9. There should be one point of contact at SUMC for the multitude of tracking,
reporting and other follow-ups required by the City. Staff Response: Staff
concurs. As mentioned in Comment #4 above, SUMC has hired a full-time
coordinator to direct construction related activities between SUMC and the City.
10. Prepare a matrix of payments to be made by SUMC. Staff Response: Staff has
prepared a payment matrix (Attachment A) that describes the specific
Development Agreement payments and the anticipated timeline for receipt.
11. References to Planning and Transportation Commission exclusion from the any
possible future Site and Design review process should be deleted from the
Development Agreement. Staff Response: City Staff does not anticipate any Site
and Design review process that would be required for future buildings, such as
FIM2, FIM3 and the SHC Clinics. City staff has removed references excluding
the Commission from future reviews and removing references to the Site and
Design review process. The result is that future building would be required to
follow the Architectural Review process as described in the Municipal Code.
MEMO
TO: Joe Saccio
FROM: Doug Svensson, AICP
DATE: May 27, 2011
RE: Consumer Price Indexes
I have compiled several consumer price indexes for items that are relevant to costs
associated with the SUMC Expansion project. The table below summarizes the annual
compound growth rates for each index for two time periods, the past 10 years and the past
20 years. Most of the inflation analysis conducted for the fiscal impact study for the SUMC
project used the 10 year San Francisco Consumer Price Index (All Items), which had a
2.34% annual growth rate. This is also the rate used to escalate Caltrans Go Passes in the
proposed Development Agreement. The 20 year time frame may a helpful context for some
of the specific cost categories under consideration.
TABLE 1
ANNUAL GROWTH RATES FOR SELECTED CPI CATEGORIES
SAN FRANCISCO REGION
Time Period
Category
2000-
2010
1990-
2010
SF CPI (All Items) 2.36 2.75
Energy 5.90 4.13
Medical Care 4.86 4.54
Transportation 2.21 2.22
Building Construction Costs* 3.53 1.75
*Construction costs are national rather than regional.
Source: US Bureau of labor Statistics and Engineering News
Record.com
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the CPI is based on “prices for food, clothing,
shelter, and fuels, transportation fares, charges for doctors’ and dentists’ services, drugs, and
other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living.” The Energy index includes
all forms of energy such as electricity, natural gas and transportation fuels. The
Transportation index includes both private and public transportation.
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 560 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tel 925.934.8712 Fax 925.934.2402
www.adeusa.com
May 27
Page 2 of 4
The following graphs show volatility of each index during the 20 year period. For example,
although the Transportation index has had a lower growth rate, it has shown a similar
pattern to the Energy index.
FIGURE 1
SAN FRANCISCO REGION ALL ITEMS CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
FIGURE 2
SAN FRANCISCO REGION ENERGY PRICE INDEX
May 27
Page 3 of 4
FIGURE 3 SAN FRANCISCO REGION MEDICAL CARE PRICE INDEX
FIGURE 4
SAN FRANCISCO REGION TRANSPORTATION COST INDEX
May 27
Page 4 of 4
FIGURE 5
ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD BUILDING COST INDEX
Index: 1913 = 100
Sfanford University M~/ic(/1 Cenier
May 26, 2011
Mayor Sid Espinosa
Palo Alto City Council Members
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Lucile Packard
Children's Hospital
AT STANFORD
Dear Mayor Espinosa and Members of the Council,
We're here when you need us most.
we • ~ T S(aliford University Medical Cellter
We look forward to your upcoming June 6, 2011 City Council meeting at which the Stanford University Medical
Center Renewal Project will be presented for formal action. Since the Project application was submitted in
August 2007, a tremendous collaborative effort by the City Council and its committees, the Architectural
Review Board, Historic Resources Board, Planning and Transportation Commission, and City staff has brought
us to this major milestone. We are very grateful to all who have participated in this extensive and important
process and want to express our sincere appreciation to the City.
Since we first introduced the project to the City Council in late 2006, our primary goal has continued to be to
ensure that our community has access to seismically safe, modern hospitals with sufficient capacity for Palo
Altans and the residents of our neighboring communities. By expanding Lucile Packard Children's Hospital,
rebuilding Stanford Hospital & Clinics, and replacing the School of Medicine's outdated facilities, we will be
making an historic investment of more than $5 billion-an amount that will benefit all of our patients wherever
they live and work. Stanford University Medical Center will playa transformative role in the future of health
care, and we are proud that this investment will enable us to offer the most advanced treatments and
breakthroughs to our community first. The recent earthquakes across the globe have underscored the urgency
of seismic safety, adequate emergency department capacity and sufficient hospital beds for children and adults
in need of care.
The process to review and analyze the Renewal Project has been inclusive and extensive, providing
opportunities for community input at more than 95 public meetings over nearly four years. We are gratified
that so many local citizens took the time to learn about our plans, understand the issues, and express their
perspectives and support.
The terms of the proposed Development Agreement that will be brought to the Council on June 6 reflect a
productive and respectful dialogue with the City. We believe it is a fair and generous proposal that is
responsive to community priorities, including traffic demand management, climate change, infrastructure,
housing, community health and safety services, and a fiscally healthy city. For the latter, we have created a
comprehensive agreement that assures financial neutrality for the City and accelerates upfront payment of
funds that the City may need for the future.
SUIII/ord University Medical Celller
Lucile Packard
Children's Hospital
AT STANFORD
We're here when you need us most.
we o. ~ T S[(Jnjord Ulliutrsity Medical Cenlcr
We are pleased and excited that the final reviews and decisions by the City Council are nearing completion. As we
anticipate the start of construction, we look forward to continuing a positive relationship with the City and to
assuring that a key contributor to the quality of life in Palo Alto-access to the finest health care available
anywhere-will always be part of this community.
With sincerest appreciation,
Christopher G. Dawes Philip Pizzo, MD
President & CEO Dean
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Stanford University School of Medicine
Amir Dan Rubin
President & CEO
Stanford Hospital & Clinics
Mayor Carlos Romero
City of East Palo Alto
2415 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
~!!Y_QfJ~~Q_t\J!Q-
Office of the. Mayor and City Council
May 23, 2011
Re: Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project
Dear Mayor Romero:
Thank you for reviewing and commenting on the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) for the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Facilities Renewal and Replacement
Project. East Palo Alto's involvement in the environmental review portion of this project has
been very valuable.
I understand that Stanford and Palo Alto City staff are in the process of setting up a
meeting with East Palo Alto representatives to discuss the issues raised in your May 12, 2011
letter.
I look forward to our cities' continuing dialogue and collaboration on this important
project.
cc: Members ofthe Palo Alto City Council
James R. Keene, City Manager
Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager
Cara Silver, Senior Asst. City Attorney
Very truly yours,
J1.{i~tft¥---MayO~-\-
Michael J. Peterson, Stanford Hospital & Clinics
William T. Phillips, Stanford University Land, Buildings & Real Estate
110520 jb 0130744
Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine.
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.3631 fax
CIT Y 0 F E A S T PAL 0 A L T 0 (;1 ry or: PAL
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY CLERK~ALTO. CA
2415 University Avenue. East Palo Alto, CA 94303 \ OFFICE
Tel: (650) 853-3100. Fax: (652~I~gJ3if9 j.iJj i= oa II MAY 16 P~f I: 57
------------------------------------~----~~~--------
Mayor Sid Espinosa
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
May 12,2011
Re: Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement
Project Final Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mayor Espinosa,
The City of East Palo Alto would like to take this opportunity to provide you written
comments on the final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Stanford University
Medical Center (SUMC) Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project.
As indicated in the City's official comment letter, dated July 26, 2010, the City has
appreciated the broad support that Stanford University Medical Center and Lucile
Packard Children's Hospital have provided through the city's various non-profit
organizations. The collaborative spirit demonstrated by those community-based
organizations that have partnered with the City of Palo Alto to address the disparity
between our two communities is also sincerely appreciated. While the City of East Palo
Alto welcomes these initiatives and recognizes the importance of the SUMC to the wider
community, the conclusions reached by the authors of the report, and the assumptions
contained within it are likely to have detrimental impacts to the residents of the City of
East Palo Alto, if they remain unmitigated as proposed.
By this letter, the City of East Palo Alto formally notifies you that one of the most
concerning deficiencies in the FEIR is the decision to apply thresholds of significance
which are the least onerous and which therefore have a significantly greater likelihood to
overlook impacts requiring mitigation. One of the most commonly identified concerns in
the comment letter are the potential impacts on non-motorized mobility, such as walking,
bicycling, skateboarding and using wheelchairs or other forms of active transportation.
Given that 26% of all trips generated by the project pass through the City of East Palo
Alto, a city which has one of the lowest median ages for any population in the peninSUla,
the impact of such an omission could be significant. Our youth are the most likely to
skateboard, bike, and use other active means of transportation, and therefore this
oversight impacts those least able of providing for themselves.
The City of East Palo Alto feels that the FEIR should review impacts through more than
one lens, and especially more rigorous ones, such as Palo Alto's adopted thresholds of
significance. By not doing so, I fear that the FEIR not only perpetuates a disparity, but
aggravates it. Moreover, the California State legislature, which has required all
jurisdictions to include a section on environmental justice in General Plans, argues for
such an approach. That guidance provided through the Office of Planning and Research
and published in the General Plan Guidelines (2003) argues for application of the most
rigorous level of analysis, not the least, as is evident by the FEIR.
In conclusion, the City remains steadfast in its belief that the comments provided on July
26,2010, and supported by peer reviewed literature are valid. We, however, remain
willing to discuss how our concerns can be addressed other than through the mitigations
proposed.
Mayor
cc: Stanford President, John Hennessy
Members of the East Palo Alto City Council
Members of the Palo Alto City Council
Members of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission
1
Rajiv Bhatia
1324 Oxford Street
Berkeley, CA 94709
Via Email: Sid.Espinosa@CityofPaloAlto.org
May 19, 2011
Honorable Sid Espinoza
Mayor, City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Re: Stanford University Medical Center FEIR
Dear Mayor Espinoza:
As a graduate of Stanford University Medical School (1989) who has practiced medicine
and public health in the Bay Area since 1992, I am writing to express my concern that the
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) on the Stanford University Medical Center is
not equitable with regards to the concerns raised by the City of East Palo Alto. I am
requesting that the City of Palo Alto investigate these concerns thoughtfully and work
towards a collaborative and equitable solution with the City of East Palo Alto before
certifying the FEIR for this project. I would also suggest that the City of Palo Alto
consider reviewing its process for implementing the California Environmental Quality
Act with regards to environmental justice and neighboring jurisdictions.
The SUMC project is necessary for seismic safety and has many compelling societal
benefits. However, as recognized in the EIR, a development of this nature, has effects,
both positive and negative, on living conditions in neighboring jurisdictions, including
Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto. An equitable EIR process under CEQA
should treat each of these communities in the same way with regards to both analysis of
potentially adverse health and environmental effects and the mitigation of these effect.
In my reading, the FEIR analysis of the SUMC project appears to be discriminatory in at
least two ways.
The authors of the FEIR have limited the scope of the transportation analysis
conducted in East Palo Alto relative to the scope of analysis conducted in Palo
Alto and Menlo Park.
The authors of the FEIR have limited the evaluation of health impacts of concern
to the City of East Palo Alto.
California law defines "environmental justice" as the fair treatment of people of all races,
cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Relative to Palo Alto and
Menlo Park, the City East Palo Alto has a higher proportion of low income and minority
residents than the region as a whole. These facts define East Palo Alto as a community at
risk for environmental injustice. Regional agencies including the Metropolitan
2
Transportation Commission and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District also
consider East Palo Alto to represent a “community of concern” vulnerable to
discriminatory environmental and civil rights impacts. The two-tiered application of
environmental analysis and standards analysis in this FEIR appear create the potential for
environmental justice impacts.
Furthermore, media reports indicate that proponents of the SUMC project have offered
$3.7 million to the City of Menlo Park to address impacts associated with the project. No
similar compensation or mitigation fund has been offered to the City of East Palo Alto.
The authors of the FEIR have limited the scope of the transportation analysis
conducted in East Palo Alto relative to the scope of analysis conducted in Palo Alto
and Menlo Park.
It is well accepted that the development and use of adopted significance thresholds varies
by jurisdiction in California. Not all individual jurisdictions have adopted thresholds for
all potentially important environmental effects nor are they required to have adopted
thresholds. The absence of adopted significance thresholds do not remove the obligation
for and EIR conducted under CEQA to provide an adequate environmental analysis. The
lead agency in this case has evaluated transportation impacts using a substantially
different scope of analysis for East Palo Alto relative to Palo Alto and Menlo Park.
In East Palo Alto, the City currently has approved quantitative thresholds for one type of
transportation impact—intersection level of service (LOS). East Palo Alto uses the
measures of intersection delay and vehicle to capacity ratios to evaluate impacts on LOS.
The SUMC EIR has consequently chosen to only analyze intersection level of service
impacts in EPA, ignoring other potential impacts on transportation. The LOS evaluation
has also applied somewhat weaker East Palo Alto LOS significance criteria to East Palo
Alto intersections rather than using the somewhat stronger LOS standards of Palo Alto
and Menlo Park.
More importantly, for the jurisdictions of Palo Alto and Menlo Park, the EIR has
conducted as substantially greater scope of analysis considering several potential impacts
on transportation in addition to LOS impacts. The City of Palo Alto has adopted a set of
transportation impact thresholds that are more comprehensive with regards to potential
impacts on transportation, reflecting issues such as safety and neighborhood quality of
life. For example, Palo Alto uses the Traffic Impact on the Residential Environment
(TIRE) index to evaluate impacts. The TIRE index is based on the work of Appleyard
(1981) and other research that has found that changes in traffic volumes, irrespective of
intersection-level vehicle delay, can significantly change residents’ levels of satisfaction
with their neighborhood environment.1 Underlying these resident perceptions are known
causal relationships among the level of traffic volume and pedestrian injury collisions,
environmental noise, and air pollution.
While in cases, it may be acceptable or appropriate to defer to a jurisdictions own
significance threshold in evaluating impact analysis, it appears clearly discriminatory to
vary the scope of analysis among jurisdictions and to fail to analyze potentially important
1 Appleyard, “Livable Streets,” University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, 1981.
3
impact simply because the jurisdiction does not have an adopted significance threshold
for those impacts.
The authors of the FEIR have limited the evaluation of health impacts of concern to
the City of East Palo Alto
Several comments on the DEIR, including those from the City of East Palo Alto, identify
the need for the EIR to analyze health impacts of the project, including safety and
mobility impacts on vulnerable road users (pedestrians and pedal-cyclists). While do not
have sufficient information to evaluate the substantive merit of the claims, the nature of
these health concerns is broader that those related to air pollution and evaluated in the air
quality risk assessment on the project.
Many of the health concerns raised by East Palo Alto comments were not analyzed or
addressed in the EIR; rather responses in the FEIR incorrectly imply that CEQA does not
require the analysis of a project’s health effects. In arguing against the need for analysis,
the FEIR responses appear to incorrectly confound human health effects with other social
and economic effects. While CEQA regulations make a clear distinction between how
environmental and social effects may be considered, they provide equal clarity on the
necessity of an adequate analysis of any adverse impacts on human health that may be
related to physical changes resulting from the project.
Under 14 Cal. Code Regulation 15126.2, regarding the content of an EIR, “direct and
indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified
and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects”
Under the same section, the discussion of environmental impacts should also include
“health and safety problems caused by the physical changes.” Furthermore, Under 14
Cal. Code Regulation 15065(d), which identifies certain mandatory findings of
significance. CEQA requires an EIR for any project where: “The environmental effects
of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly.”
The FEIR on the SUMC project has included an air pollution health risk assessment for
East Palo Alto in a supplement to the FEIR. This risk assessment appear to have been
generally conducted in conformance with the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA guidance.
However, the risk assessment presents only the incremental air pollution risks in East
Palo Alto from additional SUMC project-generated traffic. While not explicitly required
by the BAAQMD guidance, a more complete health risk assessment of this issue would
include information about the community vulnerability to air pollution risk (e.g. baseline
prevalence of asthma and ischemic heart disease) and information about cumulative
exposures to air pollution from all sources. Many residential areas in East Palo Alto are
downwind of US Highway 101 and already experience substantial, health adverse
exposures to air pollution.
Moreover, development in Palo Alto may have adverse health impacts on East Palo Alto
through mechanisms beyond air pollution. An air pollutant health risk assessment is not a
sufficient analytic tool for all heath impacts of concern. Physical development can
produce health risks due to changes in hazards related to noise, traffic safety, water
quality, housing adequacy, and food resources. In October 2010, the California
4
Department of Public Health issued a guidance document for health impact assessment
that describes a range of methods that may be utilized in comprehensive health
assessment. 2
Overall, a two-tiered approach to the analysis of transportation impacts and failure to
comprehensively consider all of the health effects of concern raised in comments appears
to be inequitable. The fact that the project has offered compensation / mitigation fund to
Menlo Park but not East Palo Alto further suggests a discriminatory process that may be
resulting in discriminatory outcomes. Both the procedures and outcomes in this case
appear to contravene the purpose of CEQA and widely accepted principles of
environmental justice and equal rights. 3
I urge the City of Palo Alto to consider and investigate these concerns and work towards
a collaborative and equitable solution with the City of East Palo Alto before certifying the
FEIR for this project. For the future, the City of Palo Alto might productively review how
it implements the California Environmental Quality Act with regards to environmental
justice.
Thank you in advance for considering my concerns.
Sincerely,
Rajiv Bhatia, MD,MPH.
(Stanford University Medical Center Class of 1989)
cc: Palo Alto City Council (city.council@cityofpaloalto.org)
Steven Turner (steven.turner@cityofpaloalto.org)
Carlos Romero (cromero@cityofepa.org)
Brent Butler (bbutler@cityofepa.org)
Cathleen Baker (cabaker@co.sanmateo.ca.us)
2 Bhatia R. A Guide to Health Impact Assessment. California Department of Public Health.
October 2010. Available at:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/pubsforms/Guidelines/Documents/HIA%20Guide%20FINAL%2010-19-
10.pdf 3 California Code - Section 11135 (a) No person in the State of California shall, on the basis of
race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, or
disability, be unlawfully denied full and equal access to the benefits of, or be unlawfully subjected
to discrimination under, any program or activity that is conducted, operated, or administered by
the state or by any state agency, is funded directly by the state, or receives any financial assistance
from the state.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
NAME
Bhatia, Rajiv
eRA COMMONS USER NAME (credential, e.g., agency login)
RAJIVBHATIA
POSITION TITLE
Director, Occupational and Environmental Health
Department of Public Health, San Francisco, CA
Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine,
University of California, San Francisco
EDUCATION/TRAINING (Begin with baccalaureate or other initial professional education, such as nursing, and include postdoctoral training.)
INSTITUTION AND LOCATION DEGREE
(if applicable) YEAR(s) FIELD OF STUDY
Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA B.S.June/85 Electrical Engineering
Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA M.D. May/89 Medicine
Stanford University Hospital, Palo Alto, CA Residency June/89-91 Internal Medicine
Mount Zion Hospital, San Francisco, CA Residency June/92-93 Internal Medicine
University of California, Berkeley M.P.H. May/96 Environmental Health
University of California, San Francisco Postgraduate July/95-97 Occupational &
Environmental Medicine
Positions and Employment
1985-1987 Research Assistant, Division of Medical Computer Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA
1992-1995 Staff Physician, Tom Waddell Clinic, San Francisco Department of Public Health, San
Francisco, CA
1997-1998 Staff Physician, Alta Bates Occupational Medicine Clinic, Oakland, CA
1999- Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
1998- Director of Occupational and Environmental Health, San Francisco Department of Public Health,
San Francisco, CA
Other Experience and Professional Memberships
1994- Member, International Medical Commission to Bhopal
1994-1996 Board of Directors, Santa Clara Committee On Occupational Safety and Health
1994-1999 Board of Directors, Asian Pacific Environmental Network
1997-2006 Board of Directors, Pesticide Action Network North America
2001-2007 Social Justice Team, National Association of City & County Health Officers
2006- Faculty, UC Berkeley School of Public Health, PH 267 (Health Impact Assessment)
2006- Co-founder and Scientific Advisor, Human Impact Partners
2009-2010 Health Impact Assessment Academic Advisory Committee, California Air Resources Board
2009-2010 San Francisco Mayor’s Food Policy Advisory Committee
2010- Working Group on Health Indicators for Transportation, WHO, Geneva
2010-2011 Committee on Health Impact Assessment, National Research Council
Peer-reviewed publications
1. Bhatia R, Tognoni G . An analysis of pharmaceutical use in the victims of the Carbide Gas exposure.
International Perspectives in Public Health 1996; 11:14-22.
2. Bhatia R, Lopperio P, Smith AH. Meta-analysis of occupational studies of diesel exhaust exposure and
lung cancer. Epidemiology. 1998; 9:84-91.
3. Bhatia R, Katz, M. Estimation of health benefits accruing from a Living Wage Ordinance. American
Journal of Public Health 2001;91:1398-1402.
4. Bhatia R, Shiau R, Petreas M, Weintraub JM, Farhang L, and Eskenazi B. 2004. Organochlorine
Pesticides and Male Genital Anomalies in the Child Health and Development Studies. Environ Health
Perspectives 2005; 133: 220-224.
5. Farhang L, Weintraub JM, Petreas M, Eskenazi B, and Bhatia R. Association of DDT and DDE with
birthweight and length of gestation in the Child Health and Development Studies, 1959-1967. American
Journal of Epidemiology. 2005;162:717-25
6. Dannenberg A, Bhatia R, Cole B, Dora C Fielding JE, Kraft K, McClymont-Peace, D Mindell J,
Onyekere C, Roberts JA, Ross CL, Rutt CD, Scott-Samuel A, Tilson HH. Growing the Field of Health
Impact Assessment in the United States: An Agenda for Research and Practice. American Journal of
Public Health 2006; 96:262-70.
7. Kessell ER, Bhatia R, Bamberger JD, Kushel MB. Public health care utilization in a cohort of homeless
adult applicants to a supportive housing program. Journal of Urban Health. 2006;83:860-73.
8. Bhatia, R. Protecting Health with Environmental Impact Assessment: A Case Study of San Francisco
Land Use Decision-Making. American Journal of Public Health 2007; 97:406-413.
9. Seto E, Holt A, Rivard T, Bhatia R. Spatial distribution of traffic induced noise exposures in a US city:
an analytic tool for assessing the health impacts of urban planning decisions. International Journal of
Health Geographics. 2007; 6:24
10. Corburn J, Bhatia R. Health Impact Assessment in San Francisco: Incorporating the. Social
Determinants of Health into Environmental Planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management. 2007; 50: 323-341.
11. Dannenberg A, Bhatia R, Cole B, Heaton S, Feldman J, Rutt C. 2008. Use of Health Impact
Assessment in the United States: 27 Case Studies, 1999-2007. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine 34: 241-256.
12. Farhang L, Bhatia R, Comerford-Scully C, Corburn J, Gaydos M, Malekfzali S. Creating tools for
healthy development: Case study of San Francisco’s Eastern Neighborhoods Community Health
Impact Assessment. Journal of Public Health Policy and Management. May 2008
13. Bhatia R, Wernham A. Integrating Human Health into Environmental Impact Assessment: An
Unrealized Opportunity for Environmental Health and Justice. Environmental Health Perspectives.
August 2008; 116: 991- .
14. Weir M, Weintraub J, Seto E, Humphreys E, Bhatia R. An area-level model of vehicle-pedestrian injury
collisions with implications for land use and transportation planning. Accident Analysis & Prevention.
2009; 41: 137–145.
15. Wier M, Sciammas C, Seto E, Bhatia R, Rivard T. Health, Traffic, and Environmental Justice:
Collaborative Research and Community Action in San Francisco, California. American Journal of
Public Health. 2009; 99(S3): S499-S502.
16. Bhatia R, Wier M. Safety in Numbers" re-examined: Can we make valid or practical inferences from
available evidence? Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2011; 43: 235-240. DOI:
10.1016/j.aap.2010.08.015
17. Bhatia R, Seto E. Quantitative estimation in Health Impact Assessment: Opportunities and challenges.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2011; 31:301-309. DOI:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.08.003
18. Jones P and Bhatia R. Supporting Equitable Food Systems through Food Assistance at Farmers
Markets. American Journal of Public Health. (2011) DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2010.300021
19. Bhatia R, Jones P, Reicker Z. Competitive Foods, Discrimination, and Participation in the National
School Lunch Program. American Journal of Public Health. (in press)
Ongoing Research Support
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Bhatia (PI) 12/1/09-7/1/11
Health Impact Assessment of San Francisco Area Congestion Pricing Scheme.
Conduct of health impact assessment for a proposed congestion pricing program and alternatives in San
Francisco.
Role: Principal Investigator
Completed Research Support
R29ES09042-01A1 Bhatia (PI) 8/1/98-1/31/06
NIEHS
Organochlorine Insecticides and Male Genital Anomalies
Determine whether in utero exposure to the pesticide DDT is a determinant of cryptorchidism and
hypospadias.
Role: Principal Investigator
SFDPH Bhatia (PI) 7/1/06- 7/1/08
San Francisco Pedestrian Collision Forecasting Model
Developed and applied a predictive model to predict pedestrian-vehicle collisions associated with area-level
transportation and land use characteristics.
Role: Principal Investigator
SFDPH Bhatia (PI) 1/1/07-12/31/08
Community Transportation Planning for Treasure Island
Conducted a community planning process for a bicycle and pedestrian transportation action plan for military
base reuse and redevelopment in San Francisco.
Role: Principal Investigator
NIOSH 1 R25 OH008146 Bhatia (PI) 10/1/03-12/30/08
Jornoleros Unidos Con El Pueblo
Implemented participatory Research to address health, economic, and environmental justice issues affecting
Latino Day Laborers in San Francisco.
Role: Principal Investigator
SFDPH Bhatia (PI) 1/1/04-12/31/06
Eastern Neighborhoods Community Health Impact Assessment
Developed and implemented of a collaborative urban planning process to create policy tools to integration of
public health goals in urban planning.
Role: Principal Investigator
EPA 82872601 Bhatia (PI) 11/1/00-10/31/03
San Francisco Healthy Homes for Healthy Airways
Intervention research to evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of in-home environmental education and
empowerment to assist clients with asthma to identify and reduce indoor asthma triggers.
Role: Principal Investigator
SFDPH Bhatia (PI) 11/1/98-3/30/00
Health Benefits of the San Francisco Living Wage
A health impact assessment of the San Francisco Living Wage Ordinance.
Role: Principal Investigator
R21OH009081 Bhatia (Co-PI) 9/1/07-8/31/09
NIEHS
Worker Health and Safety in Chinatown Restaurants
Analyze the association between working conditions and workers’ health and injuries using checklist and
surveys developed with Chinatown restaurant workers.
Role: Principal Investigator
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Seto (PI) 10/1/08-9/31/09
Health Impact Assessment of San Francisco Public Housing
Provide technical support for Health Impact Assessment of HOPE VI public housing project redevelopment in
San Francisco to inform future housing redevelopment policy and design.
Role: Collaborating Investigator
Annette Glanckopf
2747 Bryant Street
650-321-8933
Annette_G@att.net
. '!'-Stanford Medical Genter Renewal Project"
City Council Meeting June 6, 2011
Dear Mayor Espinosa and Council Members,
I am writing to urge the council to come to closure and approve the Stanford Medical Center Renewal
Project. I want to focus my comments on the key council priority of emergency preparedness:
In the event of a major earthquake, will the hospitals (Stanford and Packard) withstand or will they
crumble like a pack of cards? Approval of earthquake safe hospitals that meet the current California
laws & seismic standards should be considered a critical action item in the City's emergency
preparedness planning. Not only do these 'hospitals play this critical role for Palo Alto, but both hospitals
playa major role in the Santa Clara County health care network and in the region's overall disaster
preparedness program.
The Stanford Emergency Department (ED), which serves both hospitals, was built to accommodate
25,000 patients a year; however, the ED is currently receiving over 48,000 patients a year. The Renewal
Project will significantly expand and modernize the ED. Specifically the treatment spaces will increase
from 38 to 51 spaces which is a 34% increase. As mentioned many times before -the ED will be
modernized with larger treatment and equipped with the latest technology
The hospitals not only have the responsibility for general emergencies; they are one of 3 trauma centers
in Santa Clara County. (See attached on difference between a Trauma Center v Emergency Department)
Stanford and Santa Clara Valley Medical Centers are Level 1 Trauma Centers -the highest. certification
from the American College of Surgeons. Regional Medical Center is a Level 2 Trauma Center. Stanford
is the only Trauma Center between San Jose and San Francisco. Thus it serves as the Trauma Center
for southern San Mateo County as well as northern Santa Clara County.
Past studies have shown that hospitals in our county have just adequate capacity (inpatient & ED beds)
to care for our patients in normal circumstances but would be quickly overwhelmed in a disaster or
pandemic. Having more inpatient beds helps with surge in the ED, because patients can be moved to
regular (inpatient) rooms sooner. To this point, Stanford Hospital will add 144 beds for a total of 600
patient beds. Packard will add 104 beds for a total of 361 patient beds. Our community needs this extra
capacity.
(,"").C") -~~ In closing: The sooner that the city approves the project, the sooner we will have a seismicallf:iafe~-<
building with increased capacity for times of disaster. ~ n~ r c..> rn-o :;0 » Respectfully submitted, ~r tho ~ .J;~ allJj~rI-~ ~~ __ ["l"\C?
--1>
Annette Glanckopf
Extracted and modified from an article from Eden Hospital (San Leandro) Trauma centers v EDs
What is Trauma?
Trauma is a medical term for a class of very serious injuries that include amputations; penetrating injuries
to the head, neck or torso (Le. gunshot or knife wounds); blunt injuries to the head, neck or torso (most
often-associated with motor-vehicle accidents );ejection from a moving vehicle; certain vehicle accidents
and rollovers; falls; multiple bone fractures; and other potentially serious injuries to the head, spine or
vital organs.
There are specific criteria that paramedics use at the scene to determine if a patient is a critical trauma
patient. Whenever a patient is determined to be a trauma patient, the paramedics transport him or her to
the nearest trauma center, bypassing closer hospitals. Because they are alerted by radio from the scene
or in transport, the trauma team can assemble in the trauma unit and begin treating the patient the
moment he or she arrives.
The Golden Hour
"Before trauma centers, patients would have to wait hours in an Emergency Room for surgeons or
specialists to arrive at the hospital; now, our trauma team is fully prepared and assembled in the trauma
room before the patient arrives," explains one trauma surgeon. "The golden hour is real. If you can take
care of these people, or at least start treatment on them within the first hour, it really can save their lives."
"We start preparing in advance, as soon as a trauma call comes in," says one trauma nurse. "We get a
very brief report that includes the patient's age, gender and the mechanism of injury, and we immediately
begin thinking, 'What are the worst injuries this patient could have?' The surgeon, anesthesiologist,
respiratory therapist and other trauma team members begin assembling immediately. We set up the
surgery trays, and get everything ready. As the paramedics who were on scene wheel the patient in, they
describe what injuries they've assessed and what treatment they've started. Then we begin checking the
patient's airway, breathing and circulation. Is their chest moving? Can they speak? Do they have a list of
medications they take or are allergic to in their wallet?" The radiology technologist takes X-rays of injured .
areas, blood is drawn and lab tests are conducted immediately. If the patient needs immediate surgery,
the operating room nurse begins those preparations. An operating room is available around-the-clock for
any trauma patient who needs surgery. As the trauma team works on the patient, a scribe is writing down
everything that happens and at what exact time.
How is a Trauma Center Different from an Emergency Room?
This question often arises when a patient is seriously injured in an accident and the ambulance
transports the patient to a trauma center, bypassing hospitals that are closer to the scene of the accident.
There are several factors that are involved, including the severity of the injury and the need for
immediate treatment. While most emergency rooms have an emergency medicine physician on duty,
they do not have an entire medical team and surgical capability at any moment, 24 hours a day. It would
require valuable time to assemble the appropriate staff, equipment and support in a basic emergency
room -time that trauma patients do not have.
The trauma system was created when it was discovered that more lives could be saved by taking
critically injured patients to specialized trauma centers for immediate care, eliminating the delays to
activate on-call staff and open an operating room.
A trauma center differs from an emergency department in its organized, systematic approach to trauma,
its rigorous staffing criteria, and its constant state of readiness 24-hours a day. In addition to a full trauma
staff that includes a board-certified trauma surgeon and an anesthesiologist on the premises 24 hours a
day. Other specialists are on-call and can be at the hospital within minutes. Usually trauma centers have
a helicopter landing site on campus, allowing patients to be delivered by air ambulance.
Minor,8eth
From: Paula Sandas [psandas@paloaltochamber.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 8:26 AM
To: Council, City
Subject: Stanford Med Ctr Renewal
June 1,2011
Mr. Sid Espinosa, Mayor
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Page 1 of2
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA
CITY CLERK'S OFfICE:
IL:JUN-f AMID: 13
RE: Support for Stanford University Medical Center Renewal Project
Dear Mayor Espinosa and Members of the City Council,
The Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors supports the proposed Stanford
University Medical Center Renewal project and encourages the City Council to complete its
multi-year review of the project and grant project approval in June, 2011. The Chamber Board
of Directors appreciates the comprehensive review that the City Council and City staff have
given the Renewal Project. The reasons for the Board's support include the following:
*The Stanford Hospital and Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital serve as Palo Alto's
community hospitals and the Hospitals are critical to our community. The state mandated
seismic requirements and the proposed upgraded facilities and expansion are necessary to
meet current and future healthcare needs.
*The Hospitals, in conjunction with their proximity to the Stanford School of Medicine, provide
the dual role of ongoing research and discoveries, resulting in cutting -edge treatments and
cures that benefit patients in the community and in the world. The proposed upgrades will
insure the Medical Center's ability to implement new technologies and improved patient care.
*The Stanford Medical Center is the only Level 1 Trauma Center between San Francisco and
San Jose. As such, it constitutes a critical element and major participant in emergency
preparedness and disaster planning for Palo Alto and the Silicon Valley.
*The Medical Center is also a key employer in Palo Alto and serves as a business anchor and
hub that attracts, sustains, and creates new business for the area and the region. The
Renewal Project is targeted to create over 2200 long term jobs which will be a good economic
stimulus after the last few years.
*The new facilities at both Hospitals are being designed to incorporate leading "green"
technologies. The design includes maximizing sustainable practices which complements the
Chamber's efforts to encourage building a green sustainable economy.
Our City is extremely fortunate to have "right here in our own backyard" two premiere Hospitals
providing excellent patient care, medical services, research, and innovation. The Chamber
Board of Directors urges the City Council to approve this important project.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paula Sandas
President/CEO
6/1/2011
Dan Dykwel
Chair, Board of Directors
Minor,8eth
From: Paula Sandas [psandas@paloaltochamber.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 8:26 AM
To: Council, City
Subject: Stanford Med Ctr Renewal
June 1,2011
Mr. Sid Espinosa, Mayor
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Page 1 of2
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA
CITY CLERK'S OFfICE:
IL:JUN-f AMID: 13
RE: Support for Stanford University Medical Center Renewal Project
Dear Mayor Espinosa and Members of the City Council,
The Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors supports the proposed Stanford
University Medical Center Renewal project and encourages the City Council to complete its
multi-year review of the project and grant project approval in June, 2011. The Chamber Board
of Directors appreciates the comprehensive review that the City Council and City staff have
given the Renewal Project. The reasons for the Board's support include the following:
*The Stanford Hospital and Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital serve as Palo Alto's
community hospitals and the Hospitals are critical to our community. The state mandated
seismic requirements and the proposed upgraded facilities and expansion are necessary to
meet current and future healthcare needs.
*The Hospitals, in conjunction with their proximity to the Stanford School of Medicine, provide
the dual role of ongoing research and discoveries, resulting in cutting -edge treatments and
cures that benefit patients in the community and in the world. The proposed upgrades will
insure the Medical Center's ability to implement new technologies and improved patient care.
*The Stanford Medical Center is the only Level 1 Trauma Center between San Francisco and
San Jose. As such, it constitutes a critical element and major participant in emergency
preparedness and disaster planning for Palo Alto and the Silicon Valley.
*The Medical Center is also a key employer in Palo Alto and serves as a business anchor and
hub that attracts, sustains, and creates new business for the area and the region. The
Renewal Project is targeted to create over 2200 long term jobs which will be a good economic
stimulus after the last few years.
*The new facilities at both Hospitals are being designed to incorporate leading "green"
technologies. The design includes maximizing sustainable practices which complements the
Chamber's efforts to encourage building a green sustainable economy.
Our City is extremely fortunate to have "right here in our own backyard" two premiere Hospitals
providing excellent patient care, medical services, research, and innovation. The Chamber
Board of Directors urges the City Council to approve this important project.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Paula Sandas
President/CEO
6/1/2011
Dan Dykwel
Chair, Board of Directors
SC-2
AECOM 1 March, 2011
C:\Documents and Settings\sturner\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\SC-2_Table 4-5 (2).docx
Revised Table 4-5 of Draft EIR Appendix C
Summary of Impact Locations
Avg Avg Avg Avg Avg Avg
Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit
Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del Del Crit Del
#Intersection LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec) LOS (sec) V/C (sec)
10 ECR/University-Palm (Single Int) E- 79.5 1.107 98.3 F 95.8 1.165 120.9 E 65.7 1.075 87 -11.3 -0.032 N D- 51.6 0.943 61.3 E 71 1.017 79.8 D 43.2 0.893 50.4 -10.9 -0.05 N
23 Junipero-Foothill/Page Mill Road F 126 1.23 177 F 128 1.236 180 F 128 1.236 180 3 0.006 N F 109.2 1.136 151.4 F 112.9 1.152 157.7 F 100.5 1.1 137 -14.4 -0.04 N
26 Junipero/Campus West D 50.8 0.687 62.3 D- 54.5 0.697 62.9 C 31.7 0.67 26.4 -35.9 -0.017 N E- 79.8 0.995 103.8 F 83.9 1.005 108.2 E+ 59.9 0.961 79.3 -24.5 -0.03 N
37 Arboretum/Galvez * E 38.8 0.772 38.8 E 45.4 0.819 45.4 A 9.6 0.399 6.1 -32.7 -0.373 N F 230.5 1.463 230.5 F 263.1 1.543 263.1 B 13.8 0.631 13.3 -217 -0.83 N
52 Bayfront Expy/Willow D 42.5 0.969 65.3 D 43.6 0.981 67.9 D 42.2 0.981 67.9 2.6 0.012 N F 115.6 1.221 147.7 F 119.2 1.232 152.3 E 62.4 1.028 74.2 -73.5 -0.19 N
53 Bayfront Expy/University D 43.5 1.057 86.8 D 44.6 1.064 89.3 C 28.3 0.948 54.9 -31.9 -0.109 N F 104.6 1.167 120.8 F 107.7 1.176 124.5 D+ 36.9 0.88 41 -79.8 -0.29 N
62 I-280 NB Off-Ramp / Alpine Road *F 323.6 2.474 324 F 336 2.524 335.5 F 93.9 1.168 127 -197 -1.306 N F 205.7 1.789 205.7 F 215.8 1.83 215.8 D 39.7 0.895 47.4 -158 -0.89
N
* Unsignalized
10
23
26 Increase signal cycle length to 90 seconds. This mitigation is feasible. This intersection is under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County. Changes to the signal timing would require County approval.
37*Signalize the intersection. Signalization of this intersection is feasible. Traffic signal warrants are met.
52
53 Widen southbound Bayfront Expressway to include an additional through lane and re-stripe the exclusive right turn lane to a shared through right turn lane. As a result, two additional receiving lanes in the southbound direction on Bayfront Expressway would be needed.
This intersection is located in Menlo Park. Approval for implementation would be required from Caltrans and Menlo Park.
62*Signalize the intersection. Signalization of this intersection is feasible. Traffic signal warrants are met.
2025 No Build 2025 + SUMC 2025 + SUMC
_Mitigation
AM AM AM Compare PM PM PM
2025 + SUMC 2025 + SUMC
_Mitigation2025 No Build
Compare
∆ Avg
Crit
Delay
∆ Crit
V/C
Impact
?
∆ Avg
Crit
Delay
∆Crit
V/C
Impact
?
Provide one more right-turn lane for eastbound Willow Road and make the right-turn movement for southbound Bayfront Expressway 'overlap' with the left-turn of eastbound Willow Road. The intersection has signals for the right-turn movement for southbound Bayfront but
the ‘overlap’ phase is not implemented. The intersection performance will also improve with only the additional eastbound right-turn lane provision. Implementation is physically possible . This intersection is
reducing the width of already narrow front yards. Capacity improvements at this intersection would be contrary to the City’s General Plan Policy T-27.
Provide three left-turn lanes for northbound Foothill Expressway onto westbound Page Mill Road. In addition, Page Mill Road must be widened to receive the three turn lanes. Though physically possible, it would be costly to widen Page Mill Road between Junipero Serra
Boulevard and Old Page Mill Road (or Coyote Hill Road) and Foothill Expressway. This intersection is under the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County and implementation of any mitigation measures would require their approval.
Proposed Mitigation
Provide an exclusive right-turn lane for eastbound and westbound Palm Drive-University Avenue, giving two lanes to the through movement along Palm Drive-University Avenue. While physically possible, this mitigation would require the acquisition of right-of-way, the
construction of a retaining wall for the westbound right turn and the relocation of the entrance arch to Stanford for the eastbound right turn. This mitigation measure would be inconsistent with City General Plan Policy T-27
ATTACHMENT R
SUMC PROJECT PLANS HIGHLIGHTS PAGE
(UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
COUNCIL AND LIBRARIES ONLY
ALSO AVAILABLE AT:
http://webadmin.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1786