HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1858City of Palo Alto (ID # 1858)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/11/2011
July 11, 2011 Page 1 of 5
(ID # 1858)
Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine}
Summary Title: 2nd Reading SUMC Project Ordinances
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Reorganization of an
Approximately .65 Acre Territory Designated “Major Institution/University
Lands” Located in the County of Santa Clara and Second Reading for the
Adoption of Two Ordinances: (1) Amendment of Title 18 of the PAMC to add a
new Chapter 18.36 (Hospital District), 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 (2)
Approval of 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;
and Update on Efforts to Address Comments Made by Parents of Students at the
Stanford Arboretum Childrens Center
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1.Adopt the Resolution approving the Reorganization of an approximately .65 Acre
Territory Designated “Major Institution/University Lands” Located in the County of
Santa Clara (Attachment A);
2.Conduct a second reading and adopt the Ordinance Amending Title 18 of the PAMC to
add a new Chapter 18.36 (Hospital District), 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) (Attachment B); and
July 11, 2011 Page 2 of 5
(ID # 1858)
3.Conduct a second reading and adopt the Ordinance 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 (Attachment C).
BACKGROUND
On June 6, 2011 the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Expansion Project (“project”) and
approved a series of land use entitlements related to the project. These entitlements included
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to exempt the Hospital District from the citywide and area
specific non-residential development caps and to permit higher buildings in the HD zone; the
creation of a new Hospital District Zone; a Conditional Use Permit for the major components of
the project and a Development Agreement which would lock in the entitlements for a period of
30 years in exchange for a mutually acceptable package of community benefits.
The Council also requested that the Development Agreement be revised to include language
consistent with the agreement between the City of Palo Alto, the SUMC project applicants, and
the City of East Palo Alto, for payment of specific fees related to traffic improvements at
University Avenue in East Palo Alto and a payment if the SUMC project sponsors are unable to
achieve the 2025 transportation mode-split target as described in the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, mitigation number TR-2.3.
DISCUSSION
Annexation
In order to ensure that the site is located entirely in Palo Alto and to ensure compliance with
the Tri-Party Agreement between the County, City and Stanford regarding the use of medical
center land, an annexation is required. On June 6, Council initiated the annexation proceedings
by adopting a resolution setting the date of June 20, 2011 to conduct a meeting on the
annexation of a 0.65 acre site from Santa Clara County. The City of Palo Alto is the lead agency
for annexation proceedings. The property to be annexed is solely owned by Stanford
University. No objections to the annexation have been received by the City. To complete the
annexation, the City must adopt a Resolution Making Certain Findings (Attachment A).
Zoning Ordinance
Given the unique and complex characteristics of the project, a new Hospital District was added
to the Zoning Code. No substantive changes were made to the ordinance since Council’s first
reading on June 6. For convenience, a copy of the ordinance is included in this Staff Report as
Attachment B.
The Development Agreement-East Palo Alto Traffic Issue
Prior to the June 6, 2011 Council meeting, City of Palo Alto staff, the SUMC project applicants
and representatives from the City of East Palo Alto held a series of meetings regarding
transportation-related impacts in the City of East Palo Alto. The Final EIR prepared for the
SUMC Project concluded that there were no significant traffic related impacts in East Palo Alto.
July 11, 2011 Page 3 of 5
(ID # 1858)
The traffic study prepared for the Final EIR included a level-of-service (LOS) analysis for East
Palo Alto intersections, including Woodland/University, University/Bay, and
University/Donohoe. It was determined that with the full build-out of the project in 2025, these
intersections would continue to operate in a manner that would not trigger CEQA-impacts.
Although East Palo Alto representatives have accepted the Final EIR conclusions, they have
argued that there would be perceived impacts from the SUMC Project, in that many East Palo
Alto intersections currently operate poorly and that these intersection’s LOS would continue to
deteriorate over time, even if the SUMC Project’s contribution does not trigger a CEQA impact.
Representatives from East Palo Alto requested payments from the SUMC project applicants and
the City of Palo Alto to address the perceived traffic impacts.
In response to East Palo Alto’s request, at the June 6, 2011 meeting the City Council directed
staff to incorporate the following additional provisions into the Development Agreement:
1.The Hospitals shall make a payment of $200,000 to the City of East Palo Alto for
roadway and traffic signal improvements scheduled to be done on the length of
University Avenue within the East Palo Alto city limits. This work includes repaving and
restriping/bike lanes to improve both vehicular and non-vehicular traffic flow.
2.In the event the SUMC Parties are unable to meet the trip diversion goal set forth in this
Agreement such that the $4 Million penalty payment is triggered, the City of Palo Alto
shall remit $150,000 of the penalty payment to the City of East Palo Alto.
The revisions Council directed are incorporated into Section 5(c)(iii) of the Development
Agreement (Exhibit A to Attachment C). Approval of a Development Agreement is a legislative
act which becomes final 31 days after the second reading of the Ordinance approving the
Development Agreement. (Attachment C.)
Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center
On June 16, 2011, the City received comments regarding the Stanford Arboretum Children’s
Center (operated by the Children’s Creative Learning Centers (CCLC)), located at the Hoover
Pavilion site. The commentors expressed concerns that the SUMC project could affect the
health of the children who attend the CCLC daycare at 215 Quarry Road. The commentors
include parents of children who attend the CCLC.
Representatives from SUMC and Stanford University have met with the parents group to
understand their concerns and identify possible solutions. One July 1, City staff met with the
parents group and SUMC/Stanford representatives to provide information and answer
questions regarding the Health Risk Analysis, Air Quality, Hazardous Materials and Noise
analyses contained within the Final EIR. A memorandum with the information was provided by
the City’s EIR consultant, ATKINS, and distributed to attendees at the meeting. The
memorandum is contained in Attachment D.
July 11, 2011 Page 4 of 5
(ID # 1858)
The following is a summary of the progress the stakeholders have made with regard to this
issue:
Ø A temporary, off-site daycare center location for the CCLC has been identified by
Stanford University. The site would need to be developed to accommodate the CCLC, as
it is currently vacant land located in Santa Clara County. Once developed, this site would
be the temporary home of the CCLC during construction activities at the Hoover pavilion
site, and
Ø Stanford University has agreed to delay construction of the Hoover Pavilion parking
garage until the temporary CCLC site is ready for occupancy.
A follow-up meeting with SUMC/Stanford University and the parents group was scheduled for
July 6. At the parents’ request, City staff also attended. At the meeting, Stanford and the
parents reviewed construction plans, construction site preparation, and a timeline for
construction activities at Hoover Pavilion, and to resolve any remaining issues.
On July 7, Stanford presented a draft letter agreement to the parents. (A copy of this draft
letter is included as Attachment E.) This letter agreement summarizes Stanford’s plans to
relocate the day care center during the key elements of construction and the additional steps
Stanford plans to take to protect the day care center from disruption. Staff will provide a verbal
update at the meeting on whether the letter agreement is acceptable to the day care parents,
whether there are any remaining issues to be resolved and the time frame for resolution.
NEXT STEPS
The ordinances would be in-effect 31-days after the second reading, which would be August 10,
2011.
The SUMC project applicant is expected to begin minimal site preparation at Hoover Pavilion
for the building renovation activities within the next few weeks. This may include installation of
protective fencing and minimal tree protection and relocation preparation work.
The parties are also negotiating an agreement that would permit Stanford to relocate the major
utility infrastructure servicing the project from the SUMC site to underneath Welch Road. This
relocation will facilitate better site planning and avoid possible construction impediments. Also
as part of this agreement, the City plans to upgrade the capacity of its gas line in this area. Staff
will bring this agreement to Council for approval shortly.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City Council certified the FEIR for the project on June 6, 2011.
ATTACHMENTS:
·Attachment A: Annexation Resolution (PDF)
July 11, 2011 Page 5 of 5
(ID # 1858)
·Attachment B: HD Zoning Ordinace (PDF)
·Attachment C: Ordinance Adopting Development Agreement (PDF)
·Attachment D: ATKINS Memorandum, SUMC Project Impacts on CCLC (PDF)
·Attachment E: Stanford University & SUMC Letter Agreemement to SACC Parents (PDF)
Prepared By:Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager
Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
*NOT YET APPROVED*
110614 jb 0130714
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Making
Determinations and Approving the Reorganization of an
Approximately .65 Acre Territory Designated “Major Institution/
University Lands” Located in the County of Santa Clara on the
Northwest Side of the Main SUMC Site Adjacent to Pasteur Drive
(APN: 142-05-031)
WHEREAS, a petition for the annexation of certain territory to the City of Palo Alto and
detachment of said territory from the County of Santa Clara, consisting of 0.65 acres on the
northwest side of the Main SUMC site adjacent to Pasteur Drive (APN: 142-05-031) has been
filed by the owner of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2011 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9170 initiating
proceedings for annexation of the area designated as “Major Institution/ University Lands ”; and
WHEREAS, said territory is inhabited and all owners of land included in the proposal
consent to this annexation; and
WHEREAS, section 56757 of the California Government Code states that the Local
Agency Formation Commission shall not review an annexation proposal to any City in Santa
Clara County of unincorporated territory which is within the urban service area of the city if
initiated by resolution of the legislative body and therefore the Council of the City of Palo Alto is
now the conducting authority for said annexation; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 56663 (a) provides that if a petition for
annexation is signed by all owners of land within the affected territory, the City Council may
approve or disapprove the annexation without public hearing; and
WHEREAS, evidence was presented to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby resolve as
follows:
SECTION 1. That it is the conducting authority pursuant to Section 56757 of the
Government Code for the annexation of property designated “Major Institution/ University
Lands”, more particularly described in Exhibits “A” and “B”;
SECTION 2. That the following findings are made by the Council of the City of Palo
Alto:
*NOT YET APPROVED*
101018 jb 013714
a. That said territory is inhabited and comprises approximately .65 acres;
b. That the annexation is consistent with the orderly annexation of territory within the
City’s urban service area and is consistent with the City policy of annexing when
providing City services;
c. On June 6, 2011, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the Stanford University Medical Center Renewal and Expansion Project pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act;
d. The City Council on June 6, 2011, enacted an ordinance pre-zoning the subject
territory with the “Hospital District” zoning designation;
e. That the territory is within the city urban service area as adopted by the Local Agency
Formation Commission of Santa Clara County;
f. The City requests the County Surveyor, if necessary, determine the boundaries of the
proposed annexation to be definite and certain, and in compliance with the
Commission’s road annexation policies. The Applicant shall reimburse the County
for the actual cost incurred by the County Surveyor in making this determination;
g. That the proposed annexation does not create islands or areas in which it would be
difficult to provide municipal services;
h. That the proposed annexation does not split lines of assessment or ownership;
i. That the proposed annexation is consistent with the City’s General Plan;
j. That the territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing City limits; and
k. That the City has complied with all conditions imposed by the Commission for
inclusion of the territory in the City’s urban service area.
SECTION 3. That no subject agency has submitted any written opposition to a waiver of
protest proceedings.
SECTION 4. That all property owners and registered voters have been provided written
notice of this proceeding and no opposition has been received.
SECTION 5. That said annexation is hereby ordered without any further protest
proceedings pursuant to Government Code section 56663 (d).
/ /
/ /
*NOT YET APPROVED*
101018 jb 013714
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon completion of these reorganization proceedings
the territory annexed will be detached from the County of Santa Clara.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon completion of these reorganization proceedings
the territory reorganized will be taxed.
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
____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
*NOT YET APPROVED*
101018 jb 013714
*NOT YET APPROVED*
101018 jb 013714
** 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 0130755 1
** Not Yet Approved **
110503 jb 0130755 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 0130755 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 0130755 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, 142-23-012, 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 0130755 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 0130755 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 0130755 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 0130755 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 0130755 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)(4),
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)(3), above prior to
issuance of any permit to remove or relocate the tree.
** Not Yet Approved **
110503 jb 0130755 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 0130755 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 0130755 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. _______.
SECTION 8. The EIR for this project was certified by the City Council on June
6, 2011.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
** Not Yet Approved **
110503 jb 0130755 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 **
110503 jb 0130755 14
EXHIBIT “A”
* NOT YET APPROVED *
110615 jb 0130722
1
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.
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
* NOT YET APPROVED *
110615 jb 0130722
2
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. 9168.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
//
* NOT YET APPROVED *
110615 jb 0130722
3
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
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
110614 sh 0130788
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 ....................................................................................... 5
A G R E E M E N T
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. ....................................................................... 6
(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
i of v
110614 sh 0130788
(y) Mortgagee....................................................................................... 8
(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
(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
(iv) Payment of Utility User Tax............................................. 17
(v) School Fees....................................................................... 18
110614 sh 0130788 ii of v
(c) Traffic Mitigation and Reduced Vehicle Trips............................. 18
(i) Summary of Existing Programs........................................ 18
(ii) Menlo Park Traffic Mitigation.......................................... 19
(A) Payment...................................................................... 19
(B) Use of Funds............................................................... 19
(iii) East Palo Alto Voluntary Mitigation 20
(iv) Contributions to AC Transit.............................................. 20
(v) Opticom Payments............................................................ 20
(A) Opticom Systems.................................................. 21
(vi) Caltrain Go Passes............................................................ 21
(vii) Marguerite Shuttle Service. .............................................. 21
(viii) Transportation Demand Management Coordinator.......... 22
(ix) Monitoring of TDM programs.......................................... 22
(A) Submission of Reports.......................................... 23
(B) 2025 Mode Split Penalty....................................... 23
(d) Linkages........................................................................................ 24
(i) Improvements to Enhance Pedestrian and Bicycle
Connection from Intermodal Transit Center to El Camino
Real/Quarry Road Intersection. .................................................... 24
(ii) Public Right-of-Way Improvements to Enhance Pedestrian
and Bicycle Connection on Quarry Road..................................... 24
(iii) Stanford Barn Connection................................................. 25
(e) Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and
Affordable Housing. ..................................................................... 25
(i) Payment............................................................................. 25
(ii) Use of Funds..................................................................... 25
(iii) Use of Housing Credit. ..................................................... 25
(f) Climate Change............................................................................. 26
(i) Sustainability Programs Benefit. ...................................... 26
(g) Administrative Costs..................................................................... 26
(h) Satisfaction of All Conditions of Approval.................................. 26
6. City’s Promises......................................................................................... 27
(a) Vested Rights to Develop and Use the Property........................... 27
(b) Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses................................ 27
(c) Maximum Density and Intensity of Uses...................................... 27
(d) Other Development Standards...................................................... 27
(e) Subsequent Rules.......................................................................... 27
(f) Subsequent Approvals. ................................................................. 28
(g) Limitation on Architectural Review Approvals............................ 28
(h) Annexation of County Property.................................................... 28
(i) Utility and Storm Drain Connections. .......................................... 28
(j) Waste Treatment Capacity............................................................ 29
(k) Storm Drain Capacity. .................................................................. 29
(l) OSHPD. ........................................................................................ 29
(m) No Other Dedications. .................................................................. 30
110614 sh 0130788 iii of v
(n) No Other Public Improvements or Financial Contributions......... 30
(o) No Obligation to Develop............................................................. 30
(p) Timing for Performance of Conditions of Approval.................... 30
7. Exceptions................................................................................................. 31
8. Exclusions................................................................................................. 31
(a) Sewer Facilities, Storm Drains and Runoff.................................. 31
(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.33
(d) No Limit on Power of City to Adopt and Apply Rules Governing
Provision and Use of Utility Services........................................... 33
(e) California Environmental Quality Act Compliance (CEQA)....... 33
(f) No General Limitation on Future Exercise of Police Power........ 33
9. Indemnity.................................................................................................. 33
10. Cooperation and Implementation.............................................................. 34
11. Identification of Applicable Rules............................................................ 34
12. Periodic Review of Compliance............................................................... 35
(a) Periodic Review............................................................................ 35
(b) Special Review.............................................................................. 35
(c) Annual Report............................................................................... 35
(d) Supplement to the Annual Report................................................. 35
(e) Procedure...................................................................................... 36
(f) Default by SUMC Parties............................................................. 36
(g) Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination.......................... 37
(h) Hearings on Modification or Termination.................................... 37
(i) Certificate of Compliance............................................................. 37
13. Default by City.......................................................................................... 38
14. Remedies for Default................................................................................ 38
15. Modification, Amendment or Cancellation by Mutual Agreement.......... 39
16. Superseding State or Federal Law............................................................ 40
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.................................................................... 42
(a) Assignment. .................................................................................. 42
(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............................................................................................ 44
(d) Transfer of Ownership.................................................................. 44
21. Miscellaneous. .......................................................................................... 44
(a) Effect of Recitals........................................................................... 44
110614 sh 0130788 iv of v
110614 sh 0130788 v of v
(b) Construction.................................................................................. 44
(c) Severability................................................................................... 45
(d) Time.............................................................................................. 45
(e) Waiver........................................................................................... 45
(f) Governing State Law.................................................................... 45
(g) Determination of Compliance....................................................... 45
(h) Entire Agreement.......................................................................... 45
(i) No Third Party Beneficiaries........................................................ 46
(j) Authority to Execute..................................................................... 46
(k) Administrative Appeal.................................................................. 46
(l) Exhibits......................................................................................... 46
(m) Signature Pages............................................................................. 47
(n) Precedence.................................................................................... 47
(o) Recordation................................................................................... 47
(p) Referendum or Challenge............................................................. 47
(i) City’s Reimbursement Obligation.................................... 48
(ii) Effect of Suspension or Termination of Agreement......... 49
(iii) Limit of City’s Reimbursement Obligations..................... 49
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.
1
110614 sh 0130788
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.
110614 sh 0130788 2
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
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.
110614 sh 0130788 3
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.
110614 sh 0130788 4
O. Nature of Recitals.
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.
AGREEMENT
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.
110614 sh 0130788 5
(g) Construction Period.
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
110614 sh 0130788 6
which contemplates the imposition of revisions or conditions, by City, including
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
110614 sh 0130788 7
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 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,
110614 sh 0130788 8
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
110614 sh 0130788 9
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.
110614 sh 0130788 10
(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.
110614 sh 0130788 11
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.
110614 sh 0130788 12
(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(a). 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
110614 sh 0130788 13
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
associated with its activities under this Section 5(b)(i)(A). This Section 5(b)(i)(A)
110614 sh 0130788 14
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
by the City to monitor payment of construction use taxes and to determine the
110614 sh 0130788 15
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.
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
110614 sh 0130788 16
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(b)(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.
(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,
110614 sh 0130788 17
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.
110614 sh 0130788 18
(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.
110614 sh 0130788 19
(iii) East Palo Alto Voluntary Mitigation.
(A) The Hospitals shall make a payment of $200,000 to
the City of East Palo Alto for roadway and traffic signal improvements scheduled
to be done on the length of University Avenue within the East Palo Alto city
limits. This work includes repaving and restriping/bike lanes to improve both
vehicular and non-vehicular traffic flow.
(B) In the event the SUMC Parties are unable to meet
the trip diversion goal set forth in this Agreement such that the $4 Million penalty
payment is triggered, the City of Palo Alto shall remit $150,000 of the penalty
payment to the City of East Palo Alto.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
110614 sh 0130788 20
(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)(v)(A) that are not
located within the City’s jurisdiction.
(vi) 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
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)(ix). 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)(vi), 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.
(vii) 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
110614 sh 0130788 21
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.
(viii) 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.
(ix) 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
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
110614 sh 0130788 22
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
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)(ix) in a
separate account (the “TDM Fund”), to be used only for the purposes described in
110614 sh 0130788 23
this Section 5(c)(ix). 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
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
110614 sh 0130788 24
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
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.
110614 sh 0130788 25
(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;
(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.
110614 sh 0130788 26
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
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.
110614 sh 0130788 27
(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
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
110614 sh 0130788 28
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.
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
110614 sh 0130788 29
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,
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
110614 sh 0130788 30
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
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
110614 sh 0130788 31
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.
(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
110614 sh 0130788 32
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.
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
110614 sh 0130788 33
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,
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.
110614 sh 0130788 34
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.
(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
110614 sh 0130788 35
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
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
110614 sh 0130788 36
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
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.
110614 sh 0130788 37
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 to 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
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.
110614 sh 0130788 38
(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
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.
110614 sh 0130788 39
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.
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
110614 sh 0130788 40
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.
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
110614 sh 0130788 41
(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.
(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.
110614 sh 0130788 42
(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) (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
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.
110614 sh 0130788 43
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
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
19 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.
110614 sh 0130788 44
(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.
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.
110614 sh 0130788 45
(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.
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 exhibits to which reference is made in this Agreement are
deemed incorporated herein in their entirety:
Exhibit A – Property Description
Exhibit B – Initial 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.
110614 sh 0130788 46
(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
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.
110614 sh 0130788 47
(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
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.
110614 sh 0130788 48
(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.
(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.
110614 sh 0130788 49
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
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: _________________________
110614 sh 0130788 50
Title: __________________________
110614 sh 0130788
51
110614 sh 0130788
52
110614 sh 0130788
53
110614 sh 0130788
54
110614 sh 0130788
55
110614 sh 0130788
56
110614 sh 0130788
57
110614 sh 0130788
58
110614 sh 0130788
59
110614 sh 0130788
60
110614 sh 0130788
61
110614 sh 0130788
62
110614 sh 0130788
63
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.
1
June 30, 2011
Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Construction and Operational Air Quality, Noise, and Hazardous Materials Impacts of
SUMC Project on Existing Childcare Facility at the Hoover Pavilion
Comments were first submitted to the City on June 16, 2011 regarding the Stanford Arboretum
Children’s Center (operated by the Childrens' Creative Learning Centers [CCLC]) at the Hoover
Pavilion Site. The commentors expressed concern that the SUMC Project could affect the health of
the children who attend the CCLC daycare at 215 Quarry Road. On June 27, the SUMC Project
sponsors agreed to relocate the CCLC during construction at the Hoover Pavilion Site to Stanford
land in unincorporated Santa Clara County subject to Stanford’s General Use Permit (GUP) with the
County. Nonetheless, the below analysis summarizes the impacts to the CCLC during construction.
In addition, it is expected that the CCLC would continue to operate at its current location after the
construction period is complete. As such, the below analysis also includes a description of the
operational impacts at the Hoover Pavilion Site on the children at the CCLC.
Please note that the EIR makes repeated references to “sensitive receptors” in the air quality, noise, and
health risk assessments. As defined in the EIR, sensitive receptors include land uses with populations
that may be susceptible to changes in ambient conditions for health-related concerns. Typically, these
uses include residences, hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, and daycare facilities. The EIR listed
CCLC as an existing on-site use at the Hoover Pavilion Site and for purposes of the discussion below it
is considered a “sensitive receptor.”
Section 3.5, Air Quality
Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (Impact AQ-1)
The Draft EIR, Section 3.5, identified that impacts related to construction air quality emissions would
be significant. Heavy construction activity on dry soil exposed during construction phases would
cause emissions of dust (PM10 being the air pollutant component of greatest concern). ROG, NOX,
PM10 and PM2.5 emissions also would result from the combustion of fuel by construction equipment
and construction worker vehicles. Throughout construction, pollutant emissions would vary day-to-
day and year-to-year depending on the specific construction phase in progress.
When considered in the context of long-term project operations, demolition and construction-related
emissions of criteria pollutants would be temporary, but, given the duration and scale of the SUMC
Project and the fact that construction emissions would overlap with emissions from SUMC Project
2
operations, emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 from the construction equipment have the
potential for significant effects on local and regional air quality. The determination of significance in
Impact AQ-1 is not specifically linked to any particular population, or even to sensitive receptors.
The determination of significance is tied to a numerical standard established by the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to be protective of public health. Thus, the exceedance of
the construction emission standards is significant and would affect nearby uses, including CCLC. As a
result, mitigation measures to reduce construction-related air pollutants would be required and applied
at project construction sites, including Hoover Pavilion.
To minimize dust emissions, the BAAQMD has identified a set of feasible PM10 control measures for
all construction activities in the air basin. Implementation of the BAAQMD-recommended measures
(Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1 below) would reduce the impacts caused by construction dust to a less-
than-significant level. Additionally, implementation of construction equipment emission reduction
measures (Mitigation Measure AQ-1.2 below) would further reduce NOx, ROG, PM10 and PM2.5
emissions during construction compared with the estimates of construction equipment emissions.
However, reduction of NOx emissions below 80 lbs/day during the first year of construction could
not be guaranteed, and this impact would still be considered significant and unavoidable. Mitigation
Measures AQ-1.1 and AQ-1.2 have been developed as part of this analysis to reduce impacts, in
consideration of BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. These measures would reduce the effects of
pollutants, like dust, on all receptors, including those at CCLC; only NOx emissions would remain
significant and unavoidable.
AQ-1.1 Implement Recommended Dust Control Measures. To reduce dust emissions during project
demolition and construction phases, the SUMC Project sponsors shall require the
construction contractors to comply with the dust control strategies developed by the
BAAQMD. The SUMC Project sponsors shall include in construction contracts the
following requirements:
a. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials including demolition debris,
or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
b. Water 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);
3
h. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles
(dirt, sand, etc.);
i. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
j. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways; and
k. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
AQ-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.
Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions (Impact AQ-2)
Mobile Source Emissions. The SUMC Project would result in an increase in traffic from current
conditions. For purposes of this analysis, all trips associated with the SUMC Project were assumed to
be new trips within the air basin, although some portion of the trips attributed to the SUMC Project
would likely occur whether or not the SUMC Project is constructed (i.e., those in need of medical
treatment likely would seek treatment elsewhere in the Bay Area if the SUMC facilities were not
expanded). Thus, the SUMC Project emission estimate represents an upper bound on potential new
emissions from mobile sources.
Stationary Source Emissions. The SUMC Project would generate criteria pollutant emissions from on-
site combustion of natural gas for space and water heating and of other fuels by building and grounds
maintenance equipment. The SUMC Project facilities also would use larger amounts of electricity,
which would result in increased criteria pollutant emissions associated with operations of power plants
4
supplying that electricity. Since most of the electricity used in the Bay Area is produced by power
plants located elsewhere, the criteria pollutants they produce would have very little effect on the San
Francisco Air Basin, and therefore, these emissions were not estimated.
Total Emissions. SUMC Project stationary and mobile sources would emit ROG, NOX and PM10 in
excess of the BAAQMD 80 pounds per day (15 tons per year) significance thresholds. Thus, the
SUMC Project emissions of ROG, NOX and PM10 would be significant. These emissions would be
mostly from SUMC mobile sources. Continued implementation of the current Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program is included as part of the SUMC Project for existing employees
at the hospitals and the increase in employees that would result from the SUMC Project. As indicated
in Section 3.4, Transportation, enhanced TDM measures are identified in Mitigation Measure TR-2.3.
The resulting reduction in SUMC Project vehicle miles traveled, however, would not be sufficient to
prevent project ROG, NOx and PM10 emissions from exceeding the BAAQMD significance
thresholds. Accordingly, impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation.
As noted earlier for Impact AQ-1, the determination of significance is tied to a numerical standard
established by the BAAQMD to be protective of public health. Thus, the exceedance of the
operational emission standards is significant and would affect CCLC.
Localized Carbon Monoxide Impacts from Motor Vehicle Traffic (Impact AQ-3)
Increases in traffic from the SUMC Project would contribute to localized CO emissions. Table 3.5-8
in the Draft EIR identifies the intersections where predicted CO concentrations would be the highest
with the SUMC Project; the closest study intersection to the CCLC is at El Camino Real/Palm
Avenue/University Avenue, approximately 1,215 feet from the CCLC. The maximum 1-hour CO
concentration at 25 feet from this intersection during the PM peak hour under 2025 conditions would
be 5.8 ppm; the maximum 8-hour concentration, approximately 2.5 ppm. The maximum 1-hour CO
concentration would be significantly below the federal and State 1-hour standards of 35 ppm and 20
ppm, respectively. The maximum 8-hour concentration would be below the 9 ppm State and federal
standard. Because the SUMC Project would not exceed CO standards, it is considered to have a less-
than-significant impact on localized carbon monoxide emissions at intersections affected by project
traffic. Therefore, localized CO impacts from the SUMC Project would be less than significant for all
receptors, including CCLC.
Although the dispersion model was limited to certain intersections, the modeling is adequate for
describing possible impacts elsewhere in the project vicinity for two important reasons:
• CO standards in the Bay Area have not been exceeded for almost 20 years and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the entire Bay Area as “Attainment”
with regard to the CO air quality standards, meaning that the Bay Area has satisfied the federal
standards.
5
• CO levels, even at their highest as measured at Bay Area monitoring stations, are typically
only a quarter to a third of the ambient standards. Since these relatively low values are added
to the CO modeling results as being representative of local background concentrations, local
emissions of CO by vehicles using the intersections would have to be very high to result in a
local standard violation.
In addition to increased traffic at nearby intersections, there would be additional traffic ingress and
egress at the Hoover Pavilion Site due to the proposed parking garage. Currently, there are 85 parking
spaces at the Hoover Pavilion Site and the SUMC Project would include a total of 1,085 parking
spaces, for a net increase of 1,000 spaces. As such, it is expected that CO levels would increase slightly
over existing conditions. However, as explained above, even the areas in the Bay Area with the
highest CO levels have not exceeded the air quality standards in over 20 years. Since the most
congested intersections in the Bay Area do not exceed the standards, the proposed parking structure at
the Hoover Pavilion Site also would not exceed these standards.
In addition, the proposed parking structure is designed as an open-air garage. CO could be an issue for
an underground/closed garage without ventilation and cars driving within the structure and idling.
However, in an open-air garage, CO emissions (and any other pollutants emitted by cars) would be
rapidly dispersed by wind flow. Additionally, only a small fraction of cars within the garage would be
active at any given time. Vehicles that would use the structure are expected to arrive and depart
during shift changes for medical and other staff and at steady intervals throughout the day due to
medical appointments at the Hoover Pavilion Site. As such, localized CO impacts from the Hoover
Pavilion parking garage would have a less-than-significant impact on the sensitive receptors at the
CCLC.
Toxic Air Contaminants (Impact AQ-4)
Exposure to diesel particulate matter and toxic air contaminants, depending on their concentrations,
may trigger human health risks. The Health Risk Assessment (HRA), Appendix F of the Draft EIR, is
summarized under Impact AQ-4 and concludes that sensitive receptors would not be subject to
significant health risks, based on the criteria established by the BAAQMD. Receptors both on-site and
off-site would be exposed to diesel particulate emissions from construction equipment, additional
onsite emergency generators at SUMC, and additional trucks traveling to/from the existing and
proposed loading dock at SUMC, and to toxic air contaminants from additional helicopter travels to /
from the existing and proposed helipad. The combined exposures during construction and operational
emissions would be less than the targeted total cancer risk and chronic hazard index, so that a
significance conclusion of less than significant is appropriate.
Appendix F describes in detail the “receptor grid” that was created to estimate human health risks all
occupied locations within the SUMC. More specifically, as shown in Figures 3.6 and 3.7 of Appendix
F, the modeled receptor grid covered all occupied areas of the Hoover Pavilion Site, including the
CCLC. Residential and worker risks were both previously evaluated at these receptors but only the
maximum worker risks were presented in the report. Because the modeled risks for residents and
6
workers in the Hoover Pavilion area were low, it would be reasonable to expect similar conclusions
for children at CCLC. The primary contributor to health risks in the vicinity of CCLC is the
construction activity and its emissions of diesel particulate matter. During the operational period,
risks from truck and electric generator emissions are very small at the Hoover Pavilion Site. This
qualitative assessment for the CCLC indicates a low risk from exposure to toxic air contaminants.
ENVIRON has performed a quantitative assessment for a child at the CCLC using the same
methodology as presented in the HRA, as included in Attachment A to this memo. Exposure
assumptions used in the HRA for child residents and a school child are presented in Table 4.1a of
Appendix F to the Draft EIR. At the CCLC location, the estimated risks for a child resident (assumed
exposed 350 days/year) would be 5 x 10-6 and for a school child (assumed exposed 180 days/year)
would be 3.6 x 10-6 (both below the Bay Area Air Quality Management District [BAAQMD]
threshold of 10 in a million; 10 x 10-6 or 1 x 10-5). Assuming a daycare child is at the center for the
duration of a worker exposure (i.e., whenever the parent is working or an assumed exposure of 245
days/year), the estimated risk would be 4.8 x 10-6. The estimated noncancer hazard index for all child
populations is less than 0.1 (well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1). Accordingly, the EIR
conclusion of a less-than-significant health risk for onsite and offsite receptors is applicable to CCLC.
Attachment A to this memo, prepared by ENVIRON, provides further details.
Objectionable Odors (Impact AQ-5)
None of the activities associated with the SUMC Project would have the potential to expose nearby
sensitive receptors, including the CCLC, to objectionable odors. According to BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines, objectionable odors are typically emitted by industrial and commercial operations such as
wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, petroleum refineries, chemical factories, and paint and
coating operations. The SUMC Project consists of increased inpatient hospital and clinic/medical
office uses. Such operations are not known to emit substantial objectionable odors that would impact
sensitive receptors or sensitive land uses. As such, the SUMC Project would have a less-than-
significant odor impact.
Section 3.7, Noise
Construction Noise (Impact NO-1)
As part of the SUMC Project, construction of a new medical office building and parking garage are
planned on sites adjacent to the existing Hoover Pavilion building and the CCLC. Demolition of
existing structures (sheds and storage buildings) on the parking garage site and excavation for the
garage foundation is expected to take four months; subsequent construction of the garage and medical
office building superstructures would take an additional six months; and work on interior finishing for
the medical office building and garage would take an additional eight months. As such, the total
construction period at the Hoover Pavilion Site would occur over a period of 18 months. During the
initial periods of demolition, excavation, and superstructure work on the garage, noise generated by
the equipment used for construction would affect the occupants of the CCLC.
7
The Draft EIR contains Table 3.7-8, which reports typical noise levels associated with the operation of
various types of common construction equipment. Table 1, below, presents the noise levels associated
with a subset of this equipment, which would most likely be used for construction of the medical
office building and parking garage at the Hoover Pavilion Site. There would be a brief initial phase
involving demolition of the existing shops and sheds on the proposed garage site; however, these
structures are not substantial and would not require the use of any heavy equipment for their removal.
Noise levels generated by equipment during garage excavation and construction are shown in Table 1,
below, at reference distances corresponding to its operation at the closest approach to the CCLC
boundary (estimated to be 50 feet, allowing for a 15-foot zone of construction activity around the
garage site, which is about 65 feet distant from the Center) and at an average distance from the garage
site center (estimated to be 150 feet).
Table 1
Typical Construction Equipment Outdoor Noise Levels
Equipment Type Unmitigated Peak Outdoor
Noise Level at 50 feet from the
equipment location
Unmitigated Peak Outdoor
Noise Level at 150 feet from the
equipment location
Backhoe 85 dBA 75 dBA
Dozer 80 dBA 70 dBA
Concrete Mixer 85 dBA 75 dBA
Crane 83 dBA 73 dBA
Source: Unmitigated equipment noise levels at 50 feet were taken from SUMC DEIR Table 3.7-8.
Notes:
Unmitigated equipment noise levels at greater distances were estimated using the formula Lequip(At
distance D) = Lequip (At D=50 feet) – 20 log(D/50) as recommended in Federal Transit
Administration, Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment, May 2006, Chapter 12. No
adjustments were included to account for equipment being used for lesser time fractions during a
work day or for shielding by terrain or existing structures.
On-site construction activities would expose on-site noise-sensitive uses to high noise levels from
operation of multiple pieces of construction equipment working simultaneously. Measurements of
background noise levels on the Main SUMC Site indicate that the average hourly daytime noise levels
range between 55 dBA and 60 dBA in areas not close to the Main SUMC Site access roads. Site
activities and traffic conditions around the Hoover Pavilion Site would result in similar background
noise levels in that vicinity. As shown in the table above, construction noise levels could easily and
often be higher than existing ambient conditions by more than 10 dBA when construction is occurring
nearby and be an on-going source of annoyance for patients, visitors, workers, and children at the
CCLC. Therefore, construction noise would be significant for on-site noise-sensitive receptors,
especially patients, but also for other sensitive receptors such as CCLC.
8
Considering the sensitive nature of activities at the CCLC, and the widely recognized special
sensitivity of children to the adverse effects of many environmental agents, including noise, the
susceptibility of the occupants of the CCLC during construction at the Hoover Pavilion Site is
described in more detail below.
• Hearing Impairment. Cases of noise-induced hearing impairment are most commonly
attributed to high occupational noise exposures. Noise from environmental sources does not
often rise to the level or continue long enough to pose a significant risk for hearing
impairment, although studies have noted exceptions for noise exposures associated with
specific leisure-time activities (i.e., firearm shooting, motorcycle riding and amplified music
from discotheques, concerts and stereo headphone/ear bud use). According to the World
Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for Community Noise (1999), the risk for hearing
impairment would be considerable only if 8-hour average noise levels or 24-hour average noise
levels exceed 75 dBA or 70 dBA for occupational and environmental exposures, respectively,
over a lifetime exposure period.1
There is a potential for the development of hearing impairment with extended exposure to
noise levels exceeding 70 dBA. This potential increases as the noise level and exposure time
increase. As shown in Table 2, below, at 85 dBA, the permissible exposure time is 8 hours and
for every 3 dBA increase in noise level over 85dBA, the permissible exposure time is cut in
half. Specially, an individual would need to be exposed to 85 dBA continuously for 8 hours
before hearing impairment would become an issue; exposures at higher noise levels would
require shorter exposure times to remain acceptable. WHO also recommends that high-noise
exposure in the workplace for adults never exceed 140 dBA, with the same limit also
appropriate for environmental and leisure-time noise. In the case of children, WHO
recommends that noise from environmental and leisure-time noise sources should never exceed
120 dBA at any time.
1 Note that the EPA reached essentially the same conclusion regarding protective exposure standards in Levels
of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety
(1971).
9
Table 2
Exposure Time Needed for Continuous Noise at the Specified Level
Before Evidence of Hearing Impairment would become Apparent
Continuous Noise Exposure
Level
Permissible Exposure Time
85 dBA 8 hours
88 dBA 4 hours
91 dBA 2 hours
94 dBA 1 hour
97 dBA 30 minutes
100 dBA 15 minutes
103 dBA ~8 minutes
106 dBA ~4 minutes
109 dBA ~2 minutes
112 dBA ~1 minute
115 dBA ~30 seconds
Source: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and
Center for Disease Control (CDC), as accessed on
http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/education/information-center/decibel-
exposure-time-guidelines/ accessed June 25, 2011.
The highest outdoor noise levels during construction at the Hoover Pavilion Site would be
approximately 85 dBA with one piece of equipment operating near the CCLC and a few dBA
higher with two pieces of equipment. This noise level could occur when equipment would
operate on the portion of the parking garage closest to the CCLC, which is about 50 feet. For
hearing impairment in staff/children to be a possibility at this level, the equipment would have
to be stationary at 50 feet and operating at full power. In addition, the staff/children would
need to remain outdoors continuously for a full eight hours or a shorter time if more
equipment were in operation and/or the equipment were operating closer than 50 feet from
the CCLC. See Table 2, above, for those recommended maximum exposure times.
CCLC buildings are located at 50 feet from the closest areas of construction equipment
operation; however, staff/children would be inside the CCLC for considerable periods of time
during the day. The building structure itself would provide noise attenuation for
staff/children inside (i.e., a minimum of 20 dBA, provided that the windows were securely
closed while equipment would be operating). Estimates of the maximum indoor noise levels in
the closest CCLC buildings from the construction activity are given in Table 3, below. Even
if an interior noise level of 65 dBA were to persist all day in the closest CCLC buildings for
the duration of garage construction, which is an unlikely scenario, no hearing impairment to
staff/children would be expected.
10
Table 3
Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Indoors
in the Arboretum Children’s Center Buildings
Equipment
Type
Unmitigated Peak Indoor
Noise Level at 50 feet from
the equipment location
Unmitigated Peak Indoor
Noise Level at 150 feet from
the equipment location
Backhoe 65 dBA 55 dBA
Dozer 60 dBA 50 dBA
Concrete Mixer 65 dBA 55 dBA
Crane 63 dBA 53 dBA
Source: SUMC DEIR Table 3.7-8, as shown in Table 1, above, with 20 dBA subtracted to
account for the noise attenuation provided by the CCLC structures with the windows closed.
• Sleep Disturbance. Studies of sleep disturbance of people in their normal living situations show
an increased association with sleep disturbance when indoor noise level averaged over sleep-
time hours exceeds 30 dBA. Also, a relationship has been established between short-term noise
events (e. g., aircraft fly-overs, train pass-bys, etc.) and the percentage of people awakened or
who showed sleep-stage changes. Thus, the intermittent character of intrusive construction
noise, as well as its average level over sleep-time, needs to be taken into account to avoid sleep
disturbance. WHO also recommends an indoor maximum noise level limit of 45 dBA to avoid
significant sleep disturbance from short-term noise events.
Noise from construction activities at the proposed parking garage, either on the portions close
to the CCLC or at other locations on-site, would be high enough inside the CCLC buildings
to occasionally exceed the 45 dBA peak levels known to trigger sleep disturbance. These
disruptions could be reduced by CCLC staff adjusting the location of noise-sensitive activities
during noise-intensive periods of construction. In addition, Mitigation Measure NO-1.1,
below, which is required as a condition of approval for the SUMC Project, would help reduce
noise levels during construction. For example, Mitigation Measure NO-1.1a, which calls for
barriers around noisy operations, could be installed at the CCLC. However, while barriers are
effective at reducing noise transmission (e.g., the Federal Transit Administration estimates that
at least an 8 dBA reduction can be obtained from a solid barrier that completely shields a noise
source from a receptor), disruption of activities at the CCLC would occur during the period of
exterior construction of the parking garage. Exterior work on the medical office building
would also occur during this time; however, this construction site is too distant from the
CCLC to have any potential for noise impacts.
• Interference with Speech Communication. For speech to be intelligible in situations where
message content is important (e.g., instruction at school, conversing on the telephone, etc.), it
has been found that the speech sound level should be at least 15 dBA higher than the
background noise level. Thus, for an average speech sound level of 50 dBA, which is typical of
casual speech where the speaker and listener are about 1 meter apart, WHO recommends that
11
environmental noise intrusions should not exceed 35 dBA to allow easy communication.
Environmental noise intrusions at higher levels may also mask many other acoustical signals
important in daily life (e.g., doorbells, telephone signals, alarm clocks, fire alarms, etc.).
Noise from construction activities at the proposed parking garage, either on the portions close
to the CCLC or at other locations on-site, would be high enough inside the CCLC buildings
to occasionally exceed the 35 dBA average levels known to interfere with casual speech and
school instruction. These disruptions could be reduced by CCLC staff adjusting the location
of noise-sensitive activities during especially noisy periods of garage construction. In addition,
Mitigation Measure NO-1.1, below, which is required as a condition of approval for the
SUMC Project, would help reduce noise levels during construction, but not to a less-than-
significant level.
As discussed above, the following mitigation measure, which was provided in the Draft EIR, would
not reduce construction noise impacts to on-site sensitive receptors to less-than-significant levels,
although the measure would lessen construction-related noise.
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.
Construction Vibration (Impact NO-2)
Construction activities cause varying degrees of ground vibration depending on the equipment and
methods employed. The demolition of the sheds and storage facilities would occur within a relatively
short period of time; however, the construction of the nearby parking structure would pose potential
vibration effects for CCLC over the 18-month construction period. Because of the vulnerability of the
12
Hoover Pavilion to damage from construction vibration, pile driving, which generates the greatest
vibration levels, would not be allowed at the Hoover Pavilion Site. This also means that the
construction equipment that would most disturb CCLC would not be used.
Schools and daycare facilities are treated by the Federal Transit Administration as a Category 3 Land
Use, meaning that the site does not contain vibration-sensitive equipment, but is susceptible to activity
interference primarily during the daytime. Category 3 Land Uses are generally tolerant of vibration
annoyance levels up to 83VdB on an ongoing basis. The magnitude of vibration impacts from
equipment such as trucks, dozers, and excavators is generally only significant at 25 feet or less from the
construction site (according to Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise Impact and Vibration
Assessment, May 2006, Chapter 12). The closest construction site to the CCLC would be about 50 feet.
As a result, vibration levels from the anticipated construction equipment at the Hoover Pavilion
would result in a less-than-significant impact. The SUMC Project sponsor’s ability to adjust
construction schedules; route loaded trucks towards Quarry Road and away from the CCLC; phase
demolition, earth-moving and ground-impacting operations so as not to occur in the same time period;
and select demolition methods not involving impact, where possible would further reduce
construction vibration effects and ensure that impacts are less than the significance threshold identified
in the EIR.
Operational Noise Impacts from Transportation Sources (Impact NO-3)
Vehicular Traffic. The SUMC Project-related traffic would increase noise levels along roadways most
affected by SUMC Project traffic by a maximum of 0.3 dBA Ldn along Welch Road. The CCLC is in
close proximity to Quarry Road and Arboretum Road, which are roadways that were not identified in
Section 3.7 as being significant affected by traffic noise. Nonetheless, even for the impacted roadways,
the SUMC Project would result in a less-than-significant traffic noise impact.
Heliport Operations. Under the SUMC Project, heliport operations would increase by 28 percent by
2025, specifically from the existing 2,120 annual helicopter trips (six daily trips) to 2,714 (seven daily
trips, an increase of about one trip per day). The helicopter approach and departure paths would
generally remain the same and CCLC would be within the 85 SEL Ldn contour. It can be assumed
that sensitive receptors within the 85 dBA SEL would experience an interior noise level of 65 dBA SEL
during an individual worst-case helicopter flyover. The average probability of sleep disturbance
associated with this flyover would be about two percent. Increased helicopter operations associated
with the SUMC Project would amount to about one additional flight per day and such a single-digit
increase in the sleep disturbance to nearby sensitive receptors could be considered insubstantial. Thus,
the helicopter noise increase associated with the SUMC Project at the CCLC would have a less-than-
significant impact. Further, the City’s Noise Ordinance (Section 9.10.050) exempts noise associated
with “emergencies” from its standards and penalties.
Emergency Department (Ambulance) Operations. Based on the increase in size and treatment spaces
under the SUMC Project, the SUMC anticipates annual Emergency Department (ED) visits to increase
13
from the current 42,522 (8,331 annual ground ambulance trips or 23 trips per day) to 72,675 (14,244
annual ground ambulance trips or 39 trips per day) by full occupancy of the hospitals. The current
ambulance route accesses the SHC from Arboretum Road and Quarry Road from El Camino Real,
which are in close proximity to the CCLC. However, the ED relocation under the SUMC Project
would reroute some of the ambulance trips coming from El Camino Real to Sand Hill Road (east of
Durand Way), in contrast to their current access route via Quarry Road. Therefore, although the
SUMC Project would increase activity at the SUMC Sites, some of the ambulance traffic would be
rerouted and would no longer travel along Quarry Road, in front of the Hoover Pavilion Site. The
Draft EIR identifies ambulance noise as a significant and unavoidable impact; however, this conclusion
focuses on noise-sensitive uses along Sand Hill Road. Therefore, since some ambulance traffic would
be rerouted to an area away from the CCLC, ambulance noise would be a less-than-significant impact
at the Hoover Pavilion Site.
Operational Stationary Source Noise Impacts (Impact NO-4)
Mechanical Equipment. HVAC equipment would be installed at two rooftop locations at the Hoover
Pavilion Site (in addition to three existing HVAC systems on the roof of the Hoover Pavilion
building). The noise generated by HVAC equipment can vary substantially according to the type,
size, and capacity of the equipment. Most existing HVAC equipment is completely enclosed in
penthouses or surrounded by walls, a major purpose of which is to substantially reduce the intensity
of the noise radiated from the equipment. Consequently, at the time noise measurements were taken,
no HVAC noise was audible at on-site or off-site ground-level locations. The proposed HVAC
equipment would likely achieve the same inaudible levels with proper choice of equipment and
acoustical shielding. Nonetheless, the following mitigation measure would reduce noise impacts to
sensitive receptors (including the CCLC) from HVAC equipment proposed for the SUMC Project.
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.
No new emergency generators would be installed at the Hoover Pavilion Site (one emergency
generator, EGD 810, already exists at the site). As such, noise from emergency generators would not
increase over existing conditions at the Hoover Pavilion Site.
Loading Activity. No loading docks are proposed at the Hoover Pavilion Site. As such, increased
noise from loading activities would be less than significant.
14
Parking Facilities. One parking facility, the 1,085-space structure, would be located at the Hoover
Pavilion Site. The net increase in parking at the Hoover Pavilion Site of 1,000 spaces would raise noise
levels and increase the potential annoyance and level of disturbance experienced by adjacent uses.
Noise sources would include tires squealing, engines starting, doors slamming, car alarms, and people
talking.
A 24-hour noise measurement was taken on the Main SUMC Site along the Promenade, adjacent to
the existing Parking Structure 3. This location, as shown as Location 8 in Figure 3.7-1 of the Draft
EIR, was selected because it was considered representative of on-campus noise levels without exposure
to outside traffic on major roadways, but representative of noise from garage activity and medical
helicopter flights. Non-helicopter peak noise events, which included any events caused by audible
vehicle operations within the garage, did not exceed the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 60 dBA Ldn
standard for residential and other noise sensitive uses. Even with effects of helicopter operations
included in the daily average noise level, the measured on-campus average noise level (59.4 Leq) did not
exceed the City’s noise standard. In addition, this average noise level does not exceed the WHO
threshold of 8-hour average noise levels or 24-hour average noise levels of 75 dBA or 70 dBA for
hearing impairment.
The ambient noise levels at this measurement site (which included noise from the existing parking
garage at the Main SUMC Site) would be similar to the levels at the proposed Hoover Pavilion parking
garage. However, the helicopter noise is expected to be less at the Hoover Pavilion Site than at the
Main SUMC Site, thereby lowering the average noise level. In addition, the measurement was
conducted at approximately 15 feet from the Parking Structure 3, whereas the CCLC would be
approximately 50 feet from the proposed parking garage at the Hoover Pavilion Site. Thus, future
post-construction noise levels at the CCLC are expected to be below the average levels considered
acceptable for noise-sensitive uses under the Comprehensive Plan. Any peak noise intrusions from
vehicle operations inside the garage are unlikely to rise to levels of concern for hearing impairment,
sleep disturbance, or speech communication within the CCLC. The noises from the proposed parking
garage would occur sporadically and, while potentially annoying, would not be expected to occur on a
frequent enough basis to result in a significant noise impact to the CCLC.
Section 3.12, Hazardous Materials
Hazardous Materials Use and Storage (Impact HM-1)
The SUMC Project would increase the on-site use and handling, disposal, and transport of hazardous
materials relative to existing conditions. Regulations restricting emissions and specifying safe work
practices would be implemented to reduce impacts of hazardous materials use and storage. These
regulations include California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law (also
called the “Business Plan Act”); the 2007 California Building Code; the 2003 Life Safety Code; the 2001
California Fire Code; the San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s groundwater protection program;
Cal/OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard; OSHA’s Bloodborne Pathogen Standard; hazardous
waste laws and regulations; radiation control laws and regulations; the California Medical Waste
15
Management Act; the DOT hazardous materials transportation regulations; the USPS hazardous
materials transportation regulations; the EPA hazardous materials transportation regulations; and the
BAAQMD and Cal/OSHA. These regulations would minimize the potential for exposure to adverse
health or safety effects. Therefore, the SUMC Project would not involve the use, disposal, or
transport of materials in a manner that poses substantial hazards to people, animal, or plant
populations.
Furthermore, the SUMC Project would implement its required emergency response plan as part of the
Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP), which is then submitted to the PAFD. The HMBP,
along with the Business Plan Act, would cover incidents such as accidental releases. In a hazardous
materials incident, which is unlikely under the SUMC Project, the PAFD would be responsible for
incident command, scene management, hazard control, containment, and mitigation until relieved by
another agency having jurisdiction over the event. Participation in the PAFD Unified Command of
hazardous materials incidents during emergency and post-emergency periods includes, but is not
limited to: hazmat site perimeter security, crowd control, traffic control, and evacuation and
relocation of evacuees to a secure location.2 Therefore, the SUMC Project (including operations at the
Hoover Pavilion Site) would not result in a significant environmental impact related to the increased
use, transport, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials.
Demolition and Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Disturbances (Impact HM-2)
The construction of the SUMC Project could release hazardous materials in existing buildings.
Because it was common building practice to use materials containing asbestos, PCBs, lead, and
mercury in structures built prior to 1981, demolition of the existing buildings (which were built prior
to 1981) could disturb these hazardous building materials and, without control measures, the
hazardous materials could cause adverse health or safety effects to construction workers, the public,
and/or the environment. However, implementation of the mitigation measure below would reduce
impacts from exposure to asbestos containing materials to a less-than-significant level at the SUMC
Sites by ensuring that all asbestos containing materials are identified and removed prior to structural
modification and/or demolition.
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.
2 City of Palo Alto, City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan, June 2007.
16
Exposure to Contaminated Soil and/or Groundwater During Construction (Impacts HM-3 and HM-7)
The Hoover Pavilion Site (211 Quarry Road) is listed on the Cortese List, which compiles information
on public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination; sites selected for remediation;
sites with known toxic material; LUST sites; and/or solid waste disposal facilities. The sites on the list
are designated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Integrated Waste
Management Control Board (IWMCB), and the DTSC. Since the Hoover Pavilion Site is listed,
construction could potentially expose occupants and the environment to hazardous materials;
however, as explained in more detail below, the risks would be low because of prior actions and
mitigation measures in the EIR.
The Phase I ESA for the Hoover Pavilion Site identified on-site conditions that represent potential
environmental concerns. These conditions include two 2,200-gallon USTs (diesel); one 750-gallon
UST (primarily diesel); one 350-gallon waste oil UST; a boiler room with sumps; and three oil-filled
transformers. The two 2,200-gallon USTs were emptied and closed in-place under a permit with the
PAFD. The 750-gallon UST (which was installed in the 1960s under a permit with the PAFD) was
removed in 1996, and the 350-gallon waste oil UST was emptied and closed in-place in 1987.
According to interviews conducted as part of the Phase I ESA, the boiler room and sump were closed
in 2000, and the three oil-filled transformers were removed and replaced with dry type transformers in
the mid-1990s.
The AMEC Geomatrix reports conducted from 2008 to 2010 concluded that residual petroleum is
present in soil, particularly in the area of the two 2,200 gallon, closed-in-place USTs that formerly
contained fuel oil and diesel. Testing confirms that no petroleum constituents are present in soil
vapor. The presence of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) was evaluated as part of the
Hoover Pavilion Site (in soil) and found to be limited in concentration, area and depth, and presents
no impacts to human health or the environment. The impacted area would be excavated as part of the
Hoover Pavilion parking garage excavation. Thus, all of the residual CVOCs and most of the
petroleum impacted soil whose areal extent has been defined will be removed as part of the SUMC
Project and therefore will not impact operations at the Hoover Pavilion Site post-construction.
Mitigation Measure HM-3.4, below, would require a Site Remediation Assessment to reduce impacts
to less than significant by specifying measures to protect workers and the public from exposure to
potential site hazards and ensuring that the proposed remediation measures would adhere to federal,
State, and local requirements.
With respect to groundwater, the studies show no dissolved-phased constituents are present above
environmental screening levels and the lateral extent of the plume is confined to the property. In two
monitoring wells immediately adjacent to the USTs, 1/8 to 1/4 inch of product composed of a
mixture of degraded viscous fuel oil (heavy fuel oil number 6) and degraded diesel has been measured;
remediation of this product has been completed to the fullest extent practicable. CVOCs testing in
groundwater shows results below the State Maximum Contaminants Levels (MCLs). Therefore, the
17
Hoover Pavilion Site has been thoroughly investigated and the cleanup meets the State’s standards and
poses no threat to human health or the environment.
In addition to the steps that have already been taken to reduce health risks from on-site potential
environmental concerns, the following mitigation measures from the EIR would further reduce
exposure to contaminated soil to construction personnel and users of the Hoover Pavilion Site,
including the CCLC, to a less-than-significant level.
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 SUMC Project sponsors, and in
places prior to commencing work on any contaminated site.
• The SUMC Project sponsors shall submit documents to the County DEH to proceed
with closure of the Hoover Pavilion Site.
HM-3.4 Develop a Site Management Plan for the Hoover Pavilion Site. The SUMC Project sponsors
shall prepare a site remediation assessment that (a) specifies measures to protect workers and
the public from exposure to potential site hazards, including hazards from remediation itself,
and (b) certifies that the proposed remediation measures would clean up contaminants,
dispose of the wastes, and protect public health in accordance with federal, State, and local
requirements. Site excavation activities shall not proceed until the site remediation has been
approved by the County DEH and implemented by the SUMC Project sponsors.
Additionally, the Site Remediation Assessment shall be subject to review and approval by the
San Francisco Bay RWQCB. All appropriate agencies shall be notified.
Hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal (Impact HM-4)
The regulatory framework for hazardous waste generation and disposal is administered by the
Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and the Radiologic Health Branch of the California
18
Department of Health Services (CDHS). The regulations require the use, storage, handling,
transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes to be maintained at a level
that would ensure interruption of the exposure pathway between hazardous substances and the
environment or populations. The SUMC Project facilities would be required to have in place and to
maintain “cradle-to-grave” procedures to dispose of hazardous wastes properly; would need to comply
with the federal and State radiation control laws described in the EIR under Applicable Plans and
Regulations); and, because the SUMC Sites combined would likely generate 200 or more pounds per
month3 of medical waste, would be required to implement a Medical Waste Management Plan.
Compliance with these requirements would ensure the exposure pathway would be greatly restricted.
Without a complete exposure pathway, impacts from hazardous waste would be less than significant.
Please let Kirsten Chapman or myself know if we can assist further with an understanding of the
project impacts and mitigation measures that would be applicable to the CCLC.
Sincerely,
Rod Jeung
Associate Vice President/Senior Group Manager
3 5.8 tons of hazardous waste per year divided by 12 months equals an average monthly generation of 0.48
tons (about 967 pounds).
201 California Street, Suite 1280, San Francisco, CA 94111 www.environcorp.com
Tel: +1 415.796.1950 Fax: +1 415.398.5812
APPENDIX A:
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Rod Jeung, Atkins
From: Liz Miesner/Michael Keinath, ENVIRON
Date: June 30, 2011
Re: Health Risk Assessment of SUMC Project on Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center
Introduction
At the request of Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan (PBS&J) (now Atkins), ENVIRON
International Corporation (ENVIRON) performed a human health risk assessment (HHRA) of the
incremental increase in diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions associated with the
construction and operation of the proposed Stanford University Medical Center Facilities
Renewal and Replacement Project (SUMC Project) and the toxic air contaminants (TAC)
emissions associated with the helipad operation at the Medical Center , which was included as
Appendix F of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the SUMC Project. The SUMC
Project involves demolition, replacement, and expansion of existing medical facilities at the
SUMC Sites, which are comprised of the 56-acre Main SUMC Site and 9.9-acre Hoover Pavilion
Site. Both the Main SUMC Site and the smaller Hoover Pavilion Site are shown on Figure 1.1 of
the HHRA (see attached).
The HHRA presented the maximum risk estimates for onsite and offsite populations or
receptors, but did not present any site-specific estimates for children at the Stanford Arboretum
Children’s Center, which is located on the Hoover Pavilion Site. As shown on Figures 3.6 and
3.7 of the HHRA (see attached), ENVIRON’s modeled receptor grid covered the Stanford
Arboretum Children’s Center. Both worker and residential risks were previously evaluated in the
model for all receptor locations. Because the modeled risks for residents and workers on the
Hoover Pavilion Site were low (below applicable thresholds), it would be reasonable to expect
similar conclusions for children at Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center.
The purpose of this memorandum is to address specifically the estimated risks for children at
the Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center associated with the SUMC Project.
Methodology
The purpose of the HHRA was to estimate the potential health effects to onsite and offsite
populations associated with the incremental increase in DPM and other TAC emissions from
construction sources and operational emissions of the SUMC Project, including:
Exposure to emissions of DPM from construction equipment used for the SUMC Project,
Incremental exposure to DPM emissions from additional onsite emergency generators at
SUMC,
Mr. Rod Jeung 2 June 30, 2011
Incremental exposure to DPM emissions from additional trucks traveling to/from the
existing and proposed loading dock at SUMC, and
Incremental exposure to TAC emission from additional helicopter travels to/from the
existing and proposed helipad at SUMC.
The methodology used in the HHRA is consistent with California Environmental Protection
Agency (Cal/EPA) and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) risk assessment
guidance. ENVIRON evaluated potential exposures at the receptor locations using conservative
exposure parameters consistent with BAAQMD risk screening guidance (BAAQMD 2005a,
2005b).
This HHRA estimated excess lifetime cancer risks and chronic noncancer hazard indices and
compared them to the BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) thresholds of
significance. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the threshold for significance for
TACs is a excess lifetime cancer risk greater than ten in one million (1 x 10-5) and a noncancer
hazard index of greater than 1.0 for the maximum exposed individual (MEI).
Project Description
The Stanford Hospital and Clinics (SHC), the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (LPCH), and
the Stanford University School of Medicine (SoM) are jointly proposing the SUMC Project. The
SUMC Project consists of demolishing approximately 1.2 million square feet of existing buildings
and replacing them with onsite structures containing approximately 2.5 million square feet of
new hospital, clinic, medical office and medical research uses; adding approximately 1.3 million
square feet of net new floor area. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 from the HHRA (see attached) show the
existing and the proposed layout for the SUMC Project, respectively. Table 2.1 from the HHRA
(see attached) lists the existing buildings associated with the SUMC as well as the buildings to
be demolished or constructed as part of the proposed SUMC Project.
The Hoover Pavilion Site currently contains approximately 84,200 square feet within the Hoover
Pavilion building; approximately 7,400 square feet within the Stanford Arboretum Children’s
Center; and approximately 13,800 square feet of miscellaneous shops and storage outside of
the Hoover Pavilion building (See HHRA Figure 2.1 attached). Under the redevelopment
scenario, about 60,000 square feet of clinic/medical office space would be constructed in a new
building at the Hoover Pavilion Site and the existing Hoover Pavilion building would be
renovated, with portions converted to medical office uses. The approximately 13,830 square
feet of shops and storage space at the Hoover Pavilion Site would be demolished to
accommodate the construction. To replace the demolished parking and accommodate the
increase in clinic/medical office space at the Hoover Pavilion Site, a 60-foot-tall garage would be
constructed on that site. The garage would provide 1,085 spaces. The redevelopment scenario
is shown on Figure 2.2 of the HHRA (see attached).
On the Hoover Pavilion Site, demolition of existing structures on the parking garage site and
excavation for the garage foundation is expected to take 4 months; subsequent construction of
the garage and medical office building superstructures would take an additional 6 months; work
on interior finishing for the medical office building and garage would take an additional 8 months
(thus, the total construction period on the Hoover Pavilion site would be 18 months). In the
Mr. Rod Jeung 3 June 30, 2011
HHRA, the construction of the new parking structure and the new medial office/clinic building
was assumed to start in mid-2010 and end in late 2011.
The SUMC Project proposes the addition or modification of emergency generators, loading
docks and helipads which can be sources of DPM or other TACs; therefore, the incremental
impact of these operational sources were also be evaluated in this HHRA. However, as shown
on Figure 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 of the HHRA (see attached) none of these sources are located on
the Hoover Pavilion Site.
Emissions Estimation
Using established emission standards adopted by the California Air Resources Board (ARB)
and an emission estimation model developed by ARB; ENVIRON estimated DPM emissions
from emergency generators and loading docks associated with future operations at the
proposed SUMC. In addition, ENVIRON estimated incremental TAC emissions for the existing
and proposed helipad operation using an emission estimation model developed by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). PBS&J provided estimated incremental DPM emissions for the
construction of the SUMC Project that were estimated using the ARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel
Vehicle Rule.1
PBS&J provided ENVIRON the year-by-year construction DPM emissions calculated based on
ARBs In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Rule. Table 3.1 from the HHRA (see attached) presents
the year-by-year emissions of DPM from building construction and demolition at the construction
sites including the Hoover Pavilion Site.
Air Dispersion Modeling
Consistent with BAAQMD-approved practices, DPM concentrations for estimated emissions
were then conservatively estimated at receptor locations using the American Meteorological
Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) version 07026 (United
States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 2005) with meteorological data recorded on
the Stanford University campus during 2005. This location was determined to be the most
representative meteorological data available for air dispersion modeling for the SUMC Project.
Each source type modeled (e.g., construction equipment, emergency generators, and delivery
truck/vehicles) is assumed to operate on a separate schedule based on information provided in
the SUMC Project application.2,3 Wind roses which correspond to the period modeled for each
source are shown in Figures 3.3 (construction activities – 9 am to 5 pm), 3.4 (emergency
generators – 6 am to 7 am) and 3.5 (delivery truck/vehicles – 24 hours per day) from the HHRA
(see attached).
Three resolutions of grid spacing were used at differing distances from the SUMC Project. A
fine grid with 20 meter spacing between receptors was used for areas within and up to 500
1 ARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Rule was approved on July 26, 2007 and was modified in December 2010.
The rule sets increasingly stringent fleet-average emission rates year-by-year. 2 Project Application – Demographics and Operations (Revised 04/2008),
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=8833 3 Project Application – Construction Activities (Revised 04/2008),
htttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=8839
Mr. Rod Jeung 4 June 30, 2011
meters from the Project boundary. A medium grid receptor spacing of 50 meters was used up
to one kilometer from the Project boundary, and a coarse grid spacing of 200 meters was used
to cover the area bounded by US 101 (northeast), 280 (southwest), and local streets that are
2000 meters northwest and 4500 meters southeast of the Project boundary. Figure 3.6 from the
HHRA (see attached) presents an overview of the ground level grid receptor locations used in
the analysis. Note that the gridded area (at finest resolution, 20 meter spacing) includes all
occupied areas of the Hoover Pavilion Site.
ENVIRON conducted the construction modeling analysis on a year-by-year basis to take into
account the relocation of construction activities and employees as the Project progresses. For
this analysis, ENVIRON assumed that the operating schedule of the construction equipment is 9
am to 5 pm, Monday to Friday. The location of the proposed construction activities are
represented by adjacent volume sources as shown in Figures 3.11a - 3.11m from the HHRA.
Figures 3.11a and 3.11b, which include the Hoover Pavilion Site construction in 2010 and 2011,
are attached to this memorandum.
Human Health Risk Assessment
The HHRA was performed to evaluate the potential health effects associated with exposures to
the incremental increase in DPM emissions resulting from the proposed SUMC Project.
Specifically, ENVIRON estimated the excess lifetime cancer risks and chronic noncancer
hazard indices associated with onsite and offsite exposures to the incremental increase in DPM
emitted during construction activities and on-going operations. The potential health effects
associated with TAC emissions from helipad operations are not evaluated in this section
because the incremental increases of TAC emissions from helipad operations are below the
BAAQMD TAC Trigger Levels. According to the BAAQMD, TAC Trigger Levels represent the
concentration “below which the resulting health risks are not expected to cause, or contribute
significantly to, adverse health effects” (BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5, Section 223).
The HHRA was performed in accordance with the June 2005 BAAQMD Toxic Evaluation
Section Staff Report (BAAQMD 2005a) and consistent with BAAQMD’s Risk Evaluation
Procedure and Risk Management Policy (BAAQMD 2000) as well as methodologies presented
in the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk
Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of
Health Risk Assessments (Cal/EPA 2003) and Technical Support Document for Exposure
Assessment and Stochastic Analysis (Cal/EPA 2000).
DPM emissions from construction activities and operational sources, including emergency
generations and truck traffic servicing the loading docks, are the focus of this HHRA. Diesel
exhaust is generated when an engine burns diesel fuel and consists of a mixture of gases and
fine particles (also known as soot). Under California regulatory guidelines (Cal/EPA 1998,
2008a), DPM is used as a surrogate measure of exposure for the mixture of chemicals that
make up diesel exhaust as a whole. The toxicity values selected for use in evaluating potential
adverse health effects associated with exposure to DPM are presented in Table 4.2.
The exposure parameters used in the HHRA for residents, workers, and school children were
summarized in Tables 4.1a, 4.1b, and 4.1c of the HHRA (see attached). Note that a child
Mr. Rod Jeung 5 June 30, 2011
resident is assumed to be present 24 hours per day; 350 days per year for nine years and a
school child is assumed to be present for 10 hours per day; 180 days per year for nine years. It
is assumed that a daycare child would be present at the 12 hours per day; 245 days per year for
approximately 6 years (age 8 weeks to 5 years). The duration of 245 days per year is the same
as for a worker (assuming the worker is taking their child to daycare) and assumes exposure 5
days a week for 49 weeks; minus vacation and holiday time).
Note that since construction activities are assumed to take place between 9 am and 5 pm on
weekdays, all populations are assumed to be present during all construction activities. As the
emergency generators are assumed to be tested once per week for 30 minutes between 6 am
and 7 am, and the truck travel to and from the loading docks are assumed to occur 24 hours per
day, not all populations will be present at all times when these sources are operating.
Findings
As noted earlier, the HHRA presented the maximum risk estimates for onsite and offsite
receptors, but did not present any site-specific estimates for the Arboretum Children’s Center.
Table 1 (new, attached) presents the estimated cancer risks and hazard indices (HIs) based on
construction emissions at the Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center for all receptors included in
the model. At the daycare center location, the estimated risks for a child resident (assumed
exposed 350 days/year) would be 4.9 x 10-6 and for a school child (assumed exposed 180
days/year) would be 3.6 x 10-6 (both below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in a million; 10 x 10-6 or
1 x 10-5). Assuming a daycare child is at the center for the duration of a worker exposure (i.e.,
whenever the parent is working or an assumed exposure of 245 days/year) the estimated risk
would be 4.8 x 10-6. The estimated noncancer hazard index for all child populations is less than
0.1 (well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1). Note that these are all conservative estimates as
they assumes that a child is present at that location all day, every day of construction and is
outdoors during that time.
Table 2 (new attached) presents the estimated cancer risks and HIs based on construction and
operational emissions. As shown on these two tables, the primary contributor to the estimated
health risks in the vicinity of Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center is the construction activity
and its emissions of diesel particulate matter. During the operational period, risks associated
with emissions from delivery trucks and routine testing of standby emergency generators
located at the main SUMC Site are very low at the Hoover Pavilion site.
Accordingly, the EIR conclusion of a less-than-significant health risk for onsite and offsite
receptors is applicable to the Stanford Arboretum Children’s Center.
References
BAAQMD. 2000. Bay Area Air Quality Management Air Toxic Risk Evaluation Procedure (REP)
and Risk Management Policy (RMP). February.
BAAQMD. 2005a. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Staff Report. Toxic Evaluation
Section. June.
BAAQMD. 2005b. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis (HRSA)
Guidelines. June.
Mr. Rod Jeung 6 June 30, 2011
Cal/EPA. 2000. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Part IV Technical
Support Document for Exposure Assessment and Stochastic Analysis. Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. September.
Cal/EPA. 2003. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health
Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. August.
USEPA. 2005. Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised). 40 Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 51, Appendix W. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. November.
Attachments
List of Tables included from HHRA
2.1 Existing and Proposed Buildings by Facility - Stanford University Medical Center
3.1 Estimated Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions – Construction Activities
4.1a Exposure Parameters – Construction Activities
4.1b Exposure Parameters – Operational Emissions - Emergency Generators
4.1c Exposure Parameters - Operational Emissions - Truck Emissions Associated
with the Existing and Proposed Loading Docks
4.2 Inhalation Toxicity Values for Diesel Particulate Matter
New Table
1 Estimated Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk and Chronic Noncancer Hazard Indices at the
Arboretum Daycare Center
List of Figures included from HHRA
1.1 Project Location Map
2.1 Existing Project Layout
2.2 Proposed Project Layout
2.3 Emergency Generator Locations – Existing and Proposed
2.4 Loading Dock Locations – Existing and Proposed
2.5 Helipad Locations – Existing and Proposed
3.3 Windrose for Construction Activity
3.4 Windrose for Emergency Generator Testing
3.5 Windrose for Loading Dock Truck Delivery
3.6 Receptor Grid – Overview
3.11a - 3.11 b Location of Modeled Construction Sources (2009
Building Name Map Reference Building Name Map Reference
Hoover Pavilion Figure 2.1 (37)Hoover Pavilion
Hoover Medical Office Building Figure 2.2 (11)
AMC (Cancer Center)Figure 2.1 (11)AMC (Cancer Center)
Blake-Wilbur Figure 2.1 (12)Blake-Wilbur
Falk Figure 2.1 (32)Falk
HMP Figure 2.1 (31)HMP
D, E, F Pods Figure 2.1 (38)D, E, F Pods
Original Hospital Figure 2.1 (31)
Core, East, West, Boswell Figure 2.1 (29)
Core Expansion Figure 2.1 (30)
SHC Replacement Hospital Facility Figure 2.2 (1)
SHC Clinic/Office Buildings Figure 2.2 (2)
703 Welch Figure 2.1 (34)
701 Welch Figure 2.1 (35)
730 Welch Figure 2.1 (1)730 Welch
Original LPCH Figure 2.1 (33)Original LPCH
LPCH Hospital Expansion/Clinic Figure 2.2 (5)
LPCH Clinic Figure 2.2 (6)
PSRL Figure 2.1 (21)PSRL
Grant Figure 2.1 (29)
Edwards Figure 2.1 (39)
Lane Figure 2.1 (40)
Alway Figure 2.1 (41)
FIM 1 Figure 2.2 (8)
FIM 2 Figure 2.2 (9)
FIM 3 Figure 2.2 (10)
Clark Figure 2.1 (27)Clark
Fairchild Figure 2.1 (26)Fairchild
LKC (under construction)2 Figure 2.1 (25)LKC
Beckman Figure 2.1 (23) Beckman
CCSR Figure 2.1 (22) CCSR
Lucas Figure 2.1 (16) Lucas
Redwood Figure 2.1 (20) Redwood
Hoover
LPCH
SHC
SoM
Off-Project
SoM
On-Project
Table 2.1: Existing and Proposed Buildings by Facility - Stanford University Medical Center1
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project
Palo Alto, California
Post-ProjectFacilityPre-Project
Notes:
1. Information was summarized from the Project Description (dated 06/17/2009) and the data request response from Stanford University on
09/16/2008.
2. Learning and Knowledge Center (LKC) is currently under construction at the site of the former Fairchild Auditorium between Beckman and
Fairchild. Footprint is shown on Figure 4-4 of the Project Design.
Abbreviations:
AMC: Advanced Medicine Center
CCSR: Center for Clinical Sciences Research
FIM: Foundations in Medicine
HMP: Hospital Modernization Project
LKC: Learning and Knowledge Center
LPCH: Lucile Packard Children's Hospital
PSRL: Children's Surgical Research Lab
SHC: Stanford Hospital and Clinics
SoM: School of Medicine
Source:
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project - Project Design
Text: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=8801
Figures: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=8802
ENVIRON
Annualized Construction DPM Emissions (lb/year)
Construction Phases Year 2010 Year 2011 Year 2012 Year 2013 Year 2014 Year 2015 Year 2016 Year 2017 Year 2018 Year 2019 Year 2020 Year 2021
LPCH PARKING
LPCH EXPANSION
SHC PARKING
PARKING STRUCTURE 3 DEMO
SHC REPLACEMENT HOSPITAL
CORE EXPANSION/DEMO
SHC CLINICS PARKING
SHC CLINICS
FIM #1
EDWARDS DEMO
FIM #2
LANE ALWAY DEMO
FIM #3
GRANT DEMO
HOOVER PAVILLION PARKING
HOOVER PAVILLION MOB
TOTAL PM EMISSIONS
Notes:
1. The project time frame and the year-by-year annual DPM emissions from building construction were summarized from the emissions calculation provided by PBS&J on August 20, 2009.
Abbreviations:
DEMO: demolition
DPM: Diesel Particulate Matter
FIM: (School of Medicine) Foundations In Medicine Buildings (FIM 1, 2, and 3)
lbs: pounds
LPCH: Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Hospital Expansion and Clinic
MOB: Medical Office Building
PBS&J: Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jenigan
SHC: Stanford Hospital and Clinics Replacement Hospital Facility and Clinic/Office Building
SUMC: Standford University Medical Center
Table 3.1: Estimated Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions - Construction Activities1
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project
Palo Alto, California
313
161 161 161
334 167
32
136 136 136 136
21 21 21
54 54 54
48 48
52 52
6
17
96 96
32
176 176
171 342
233
25 50
1018 927 54 4817 75 127 127329 298 233
ENVIRON
Exposure Parameter Units
Adult Resident
&
Senior Center1
Child Resident Worker School Child1
Daily Breathing Rate (DBR) [L/kg-day]302 581 149 581
Fraction of Day Exposed (F)2 --1 1 1 0.42
Exposure Frequency (EF)[days/year]350 350 245 180
Exposure Duration (ED)3 [years]12 9 12 9
Conversion Factor (CF)[m3/L]0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Averaging Time (AT) [days] 25550 25550 25550 25550
Intake Factor, Inhalation (IFinh)4 [m3/kg-day]0.0041 0.0080 0.0014 0.0017
Modeling Adjustment Factor (T) -- 1 1 4.2 5 3.4 6
Table 4.1a: Exposure Parameters - Construction Activities
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project
Palo Alto, California
Notes:
1. Offsite sensitive receptors identified for evaluation in this HHRA include childcare centers, schools, and retirement facilities/senior centers. Sensitive receptors at
childcare centers and schools were evaluated using exposure parameters recommended by BAAQMD (2005) for school children. Exposure parameters
recommended by Cal/EPA (2003) for adult residents were used to evaluate receptors at retirement facilities/senior centers.
2. Fraction of the day exposed for the school child was calculated assuming that the child attends school 10 hours per day (BAAQMD 2005).
3. The exposure duration for adult residents, workers and sensitive receptors at retirement facilities/senior centers corresponds to the planned construction period
of 12 years. The exposure duration for a child resident and school child is 9 years per BAAQMD guidance (2005).
4. IFinh = DBR x F x EF x ED x CF / AT
5. Consistent with Cal/EPA (2003) guidance, and adjustment factor is applied to evaluate the worker. The adjustment factor converts the annual average
concentration (estimated assuming exposure occurs 24 hours per day for 7 days per week) to a concentration a worker may breath during an 8 hour work day
assuming the worker is present at the same time as the construction activity (that is, concurrent with the DPM emissions). The adjustment factor for a worker is 4.2
(equal to [24 hours/8 hours]*[7 days/5 days]).
6. Consistent with Cal/EPA (2003) guidance, an adjustment factor is applied to evaluate the school child. The adjustment factor converts the annual average
concentration (estimated assuming exposure occurs 24 hours per day for 7 days per week) to a concentration a school child may breath during an 10 hour school
day assuming the school child is presented at the same time as the construction activity (that is, concurrent with the DPM emissions). The adjustment factor for a
school child is 3.4 (equal to [24 hours/10 hours]*[7 days/5 days]).
Abbreviations:
BAAQMD: Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Cal/EPA: California Environmental Protection Agency
DPM: Diesel Particulate Matter
HHRA: Human Health Risk Assessment
kg: kilogram
L: liter
m3: cubic meter
Sources:
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2005. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis (HRSA) Guidelines. June.
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2003. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. August.
ENVIRON
Exposure Parameter Units
Adult Resident
&
Senior Center1
Child Resident Worker School Child1
Daily Breathing Rate (DBR) [L/kg-day]302 581 149 581
Fraction of Day Exposed (F)2 --1 1 1 0.42
Exposure Frequency (EF)[days/year]350 350 245 180
Exposure Duration (ED)[years]70 9 40 9
Conversion Factor (CF)[m3/L]0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Averaging Time (AT)[days]25550 25550 25550 25550
Intake Factor, Inhalation (IFinh)3 [m3/kg-day]0.29 0.072 0.24 0.052
Modeling Adjustment Factor (T)--1 1 4.2 4 3.4 5
Table 4.1b: Exposure Parameters - Operational Emissions
Emergency Generators
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project
Palo Alto, California
Notes:
1. Offsite sensitive receptors identified for evaluation in this HHRA include childcare centers, schools, and retirement facilities/senior centers. Sensitive receptors at
childcare centers and schools were evaluated using exposure parameters recommended by BAAQMD (2005) for school children. Exposure parameters
recommended by Cal/EPA (2003) for adult residents were used to evaluate receptors at retirement facilities/senior centers.
2. Fraction of the day exposed for the school child was calculated assuming that the child attends school 10 hours per day (BAAQMD 2005).
3. IFinh = DBR x F x EF x ED x CF / AT
4. Consistent with Cal/EPA (2003) guidance, and adjustment factor is applied to evaluate the worker. The adjustment factor converts the annual average
concentration (estimated assuming exposure occurs 24 hours per day for 7 days per week) to a concentration a worker may breath during an 8 hour work day
assuming the worker is present at the same time as the emergency generator test (that is, concurrent with the DPM emissions). The adjustment factor for a worker
is 4.2 (equal to [24 hours/8 hours]*[7 days/5 days]).
5. Consistent with Cal/EPA (2003) guidance, an adjustment factor is applied to evaluate the school child. The adjustment factor converts the annual average
concentration (estimated assuming exposure occurs 24 hours per day for 7 days per week) to a concentration a school child may breath during an 10 hour school
day assuming the school child is presented at the same time as the emergency generator test (that is, concurrent with the DPM emissions). The adjustment factor
for a school child is 3.4 (equal to [24 hours/10 hours]*[7 days/5 days]).
Abbreviations:
BAAQMD: Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Cal/EPA: California Environmental Protection Agency
DPM: Diesel Particulate Matter
HHRA: Human Health Risk Assessment
kg: kilogram
L: liter
m3: cubic meter
Sources:
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2005. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis (HRSA) Guidelines. June.
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2003. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. August.
ENVIRON
Exposure Parameter Units
Adult Resident
&
Senior Center1
Child Resident Worker School Child1
Daily Breathing Rate (DBR)[L/kg-day]302 581 149 581
Fraction of Day Exposed (F)2 --1 1 1 0.42
Exposure Frequency (EF)[days/year]350 350 245 180
Exposure Duration (ED)[years]70 9 40 9
Conversion Factor (CF)[m3/L]0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Averaging Time (AT)[days]25550 25550 25550 25550
Intake Factor, Inhalation (IFinh)3 [m3/kg-day]0.29 0.072 0.057 0.015
Modeling Adjustment Factor (T)4 --1 111
Notes:
Adult and worker: IFinh = (Breathing Rate*Exposure Frequency*Exposure Duration*CF)/(Averaging time)
School Child: IFinh = (Breathing Rate*[Exposure Time/24 hours]*Exposure Frequency*Exposure Duration*CF)/(Averaging time)
Source:
Acronyms
OEHHA = Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
"Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparations of Health Risk Assessments," OEHHA, August 2003.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2005 June. Staff Report, Appendix D Proposed BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program HRSA Guidelines, Section 2.1
Table 4.1c: Exposure Parameters - Operational Emissions
Truck Emissions Associated with the Existing and Proposed Loading Docks
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project
Palo Alto, California
Notes:
1. Offsite sensitive receptors identified for evaluation in this HHRA include childcare centers, schools, and retirement facilities/senior centers. Sensitive receptors at
childcare centers and schools were evaluated using exposure parameters recommended by BAAQMD (2005) for school children. Exposure parameters
recommended by Cal/EPA (2003) for adult residents were used to evaluate receptors at retirement facilities/senior centers.
2. Fraction of the day exposed for the school child was calculated assuming that the child attends school 10 hours per day (BAAQMD 2005).
3. IFinh = DBR x F x EF x ED x CF / AT
4. Modling adjustment not necessary, as emission sources are in operation 24 hours per day.
Abbreviations:
BAAQMD: Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Cal/EPA: California Environmental Protection Agency
HHRA: Human Health Risk Assessment
kg: kilogram
L: liter
m3: cubic meter
Sources:
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2005. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis (HRSA) Guidelines. June.
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2003. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. August.
ENVIRON
Chemical CPF [(mg/kg-day)-1] Chronic REL (ug/m3)
Diesel PM 1.1 5
Notes:
CPF = Cancer potency factor
PM = Particulate matter
(mg/kg-day)-1 = per milligram per kilogram-day
REL = Reference exposure level
ug/m3 = microgram per cubic meter
References:
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. April 9.
Table 4.2: Inhalation Toxicity Values for Diesel Particulate Matter
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement
Palo Alto, California
Abbreviations:
CPF: Cancer Potency Factor
PM: Particulate Matter
(mg/kg-day)-1: per milligram per kilogram-day
REL: Reference Exposure Level
ug/m3: microgram per cubic meter
Source:
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) / Air Resource Board
(ARB). 2008. Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment
Health Values. June 25.
ENVIRON
Cancer Risk Chronic HI2
(in one million)(-)
Adult Resident 2.6
Child Resident 4.9
Worker 3.7
School Child 3.6
Daycare Child 4.8
0.07
Table 1: Estimated Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk and Chronic Noncancer
Hazard Indices from Construction at Stanford Arboretum Children's Center1
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement
Palo Alto, California
Population
Notes:
1. This table presents the estimated excess lifetime cancer risks and chronic
noncancer HI associated with offsite receptor exposure to diesel exhaust
emissions from the construction related to the SUMC Project and assumes the
receptor is outdoors for entire construction period.
2. The chronic HI is based on a diesel particulate matter (DPM) concentration of
0.37 ug/m3, which represents the maximum annual concentration from
construction activity as predicted at the SACC. Note: the DPM concentration
varies by year based on level of construction activity.
Abbreviations:
DPM: Diesel Particulate Matter
HI: Hazard Index
m: meter
PM: Particulate Matter
SACC: Stanford Arboretum Children's Center
ENVIRON
Cancer Risk Chronic HI2
(in one million)(-)
Adult Resident 3.0
Child Resident 5.0
Worker 4.0
School Child 3.6
Daycare Child 4.9
Table 2: Estimated Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk and Chronic Noncancer
Hazard Indices from Construction and Operation at Stanford Arboretum
Children's Center1
Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement
Palo Alto, California
Population
0.07
Notes:
1. This table presents the estimated excess lifetime cancer risks and chronic
noncancer HI associated with offsite receptor exposure to diesel exhaust
emissions from the construction and operational activities related to the SUMC
Project and assumes the receptor is outdoors for all exposure.
2. The chronic HI is based on a diesel particulate matter (DPM) concentration of
0.37 ug/m3, which represents the maximum annual concentration from
construction activity as predicted at the SACC. Note: the DPM concentration
varies by year based on level of construction activity.
Abbreviations:
DPM: Diesel Particulate Matter
HI: Hazard Index
m: meter
PM: Particulate Matter
SACC: Stanford Arboretum Children's Center
ENVIRON
Drafter:Date: 10/01/2009 Contract Number:
Figure
6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608
Project Location MapStanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 1.1
µ
0 250 500 750 1,000125
Meters
KZ 0320376A
Legend
Stanford University Medical Center
Palo AltoPalo Alto
Los AltosLos Altos
Menlo ParkMenlo ParkRedwood CityRedwood City
Mountain ViewMountain View
StanfordStanford
East Palo AltoEast Palo Alto
FremontFremont
North Fair OaksNorth Fair Oaks
San CarlosSan Carlos
§¨¦280
£¤101
UV84
UV84
UV84
0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,0001,250
Meters
Drafter:Date: 10/01/2009 Contract Number:
Figure
6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608
Existing Project LayoutStanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 2.1
KZ 0320376A
38
39 40 41
4243
38 D, E, F Pods
39 Edwards
40 Lane
41 Alway
42 Barn
43 Child Care Center
Source: Adapted from Figure 1-1 SUMC Buildings & Location,
Stanford Medical Center Application - Part 1
Entitlements, 04/18/2008.
Drafter:Date: 10/01/2009 Contract Number:
Figure
6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608
Proposed Project Layout Stanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 2.2
KZ 0320376A
Source: Adapted from Figure 3-5b Project Replacement Buildings/Structures,
Stanford University Medical Center Project - Part 3
Project Description (Rev. 05/2009)
Drafter:Date: Contract Number:
Figure
6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
SHC
LPCH
FIM3FIM1
FIM2
EGD 814
EGD 817
Emergency Generator LocationsExisting and ProposedStanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 2.3
µ
0 50 100 150 20025
Meters
KZ 0320376A
#*Emergency Generators for Removal
#*Proposed New Emergency Generators
Stanford University Medical Center
10/01/2009
Drafter:Date: 10/01/2009 Contract Number:
Figure
6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608
Existing Shared
Loading Dock
Proposed LPCH
Loading Dock
Proposed SHC Technology
Loading Dock
Loading Dock Locations - Existing and ProposedStanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 2.4
KZ 0320376A
Source: Adapted from Figure 4-1 SUMC Proposed Site Access Plan
Stanford Medical Center Application
Part 4 - Project Design (rev. 06/2009)
Drafter:Date: 10/01/2009 Contract Number:
Figure
6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608
Helipad Locations - Existing and ProposedStanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 2.5
KZ 0320376A
Source: Adapted from Figure 5-2a Helipad Location - Existing and Proposed,
Stanford Medical Center Application
Part 5 Demographics and Operations, 05/2009.
WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software
WIND ROSE PLOT:
Windrose for Construction Activity
Stanford University Medical Center
Palo Alto, California
COMMENTS:
Figure 3.3
COMPANY NAME:
MODELER:
DATE:
10/10/2008
PROJECT NO.:
0320376A
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST EAST
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
>= 22
17 - 21
11 - 17
7 - 11
4 - 7
1 - 4
Calms: 0.00%
TOTAL COUNT:
3285 hrs.
CALM WINDS:
0.00%
DATA PERIOD:
2005
Jan 1 - Dec 31
09:00 - 17:00
AVG. WIND SPEED:
4.10 Knots
DISPLAY:
Wind Speed
Direction (blowing from)
WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software
WIND ROSE PLOT:
Windrose for Emergency Generator Testing
Stanford University Medical Center
Palo Alto, California
COMMENTS:
Figure 3.4
COMPANY NAME:
MODELER:
DATE:
10/10/2008
PROJECT NO.:
0320376A
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST EAST
8%
16%
24%
32%
40%
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
>= 22
17 - 21
11 - 17
7 - 11
4 - 7
1 - 4
Calms: 0.00%
TOTAL COUNT:
730 hrs.
CALM WINDS:
0.00%
DATA PERIOD:
2005
Jan 1 - Dec 31
06:00 - 07:00
AVG. WIND SPEED:
2.29 Knots
DISPLAY:
Wind Speed
Direction (blowing from)
WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software
WIND ROSE PLOT:
Windrose for Loading Dock Truck Delivery
Stanford University Medical Center
Palo Alto, California
COMMENTS:
Figure 3.5
COMPANY NAME:
MODELER:
DATE:
1/29/2009
PROJECT NO.:
0320376A
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST EAST
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
>= 22
17 - 21
11 - 17
7 - 11
4 - 7
1 - 4
Calms: 0.00%
TOTAL COUNT:
8760 hrs.
CALM WINDS:
0.00%
DATA PERIOD:
2005
Jan 1 - Dec 31
00:00 - 23:00
AVG. WIND SPEED:
3.10 Knots
DISPLAY:
Wind Speed
Direction (blowing from)
Drafter:Date: 10/01/2009 Contract Number:
Figure
6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608
Receptor Grid - OverviewStanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 3.6
µ
0 250 500 750 1,000125
Meters
KZ 0320376A
Overview of Receptor Grid
Modeled Receptors
Stanford University Medical Center
DRAFT
0 3,100 6,2001,550
Meters
Drafter:Date: Contract Number:Approved:Revised:
Figure
6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608
FIM #1
SHC Parking Structure
LPCH Parking Structure
Hoover Pavillion Parking
Hoover Pavillion MOB
Location of Modeled Construction Sources in 2010Stanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 3.11a
µ
0 100 200 300 40050
Meters
SP 0320791A
Legend
Construction Source
Stanford University Medical Center
Drafter:Date: Contract Number:Approved:Revised:
Figure
6001 Shellmound St., Suite 700, Emeryville, CA 94608
FIM #1
SHC Parking Structure
LPCH Expansion-Hospital and Clinic
Hoover Pavillion Parking
Demolition of Existing Parking Structure 3
Hoover Pavillion MOB
Location of Modeled Construction Sources in 2011Stanford University Medical CenterPalo Alto, California 3.11b
µ
0 100 200 300 40050
Meters
SP 0320791A
Legend
Construction Source
Stanford University Medical Center
:> I ANtUKLI UNIVt.K:>11 Y Mt.I.JII,;AL I,;t.N I tK
PROJECT: renew
July 7. 2011
Attachment E
We're nere wnen you neeD us most.
Lucile Packard
Children's Hospital
at Stanford
STANFORI)
SCHOOL OF MED
Dear Stanford Arboretum Children's Center Parents,
During the last several weeks, representatives from the Stanford University Medical
Center Renewal Project have met with parent-nominated delegates from the Stanford Arboretum
Children's Center (SACC) to discuss construction related~work planned for the Hoover Pavilion
site. The SACC parents have communicated a wide range of concerns regarding the potential for
construction activities to disrupt the SACC programs and we understand that the resulting
discussions have been cooperative and productive. Based upon careful consideration of the
SACC parents' requests, the Stanford University Medical Center Renewal Project team has
developed the attached statement describing a detailed set of plans to temporarily relocate the
SACC prior to construction of the Hoover Pavilion parking structure, perform work to renovate
the Hoover Pavilion in a manner that will be protective of the children at the SACC, and
continue to work with the SACC staff and parents to address concerns as they arise.
Stanford University, Stanford Hospital & Clinics and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital
support and are committed to the actions described in the attached statement. While temporary
relocation of the SACC will be a significant expense, and postponement of the Hoover Pavilion
parking structure will present substantial construction logistics challenges, we are willing to take
these steps on behalf of our employees, their children and the staff at the SACCo Although we
fully expect that the SACC relocation plan will be approved, if for some unforeseen reasons it
cannot be carried out, the SACC will have to be closed. Should this transpire, we will not close
the SACC before September 1,2012 and will delay construction on the parking structure until
that time. In that unlikely event, we will do our best to help parents find alternate
accommodations for their children.
While we are delaying the parking structure construction, please be aware that it is
imperative that the renovation and remodeling of the historic Hoover Pavilion building proceed
as planned. Completion of the Hoover Pavilion renovation is on the critical path for replacement
of Stanford Hospital and, therefore, is necessary for timely compliance with mandatory State of
California seismic requirements. As described in detail in the attached statement, the Renewal
Project team will take the necessary steps to prevent disruption to the SACC prior to its
relocation. However, our ability to keep the SACC open during this first phase of construction
depends upon there being no obstacles to proceeding with the Hoover Pavilion renovations. For
that, we need your understanding and cooperation.
The Renewal Project team, as well as other University representatives, will continue to meet
regularly with SACC staff and parents to address your concerns and to provide updates regarding
project construction and the timing for relocation of the SACCo
We appreciate the collaborative dialog with you that led to a set of procedures and steps that
will enable us to move forward.
Sincerely,
Christopher G. Dawes
President and CEO
Packard Children's Hospital
cc
John Etchemendy
Provost
Stanford University
James Keene, Palo Alto City Manager
Amir Dan Rubin
President and CEO
Stanford Hospital & Clinics
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEOICAL CENTER
PROJ EeT: renew ~ Yl!Je're liiere wl'lem MOU meeo us most.
Lucile Packard
Children's Hospita[
at Stanford
STANFORD
SCHOOL. OF MEfHCINE
Stanford has identified a campus site to temporarily relocate the Stanford Arboretum Children's
Center (SACC) on Stanford land adjacent to Stock Farm Road, between Oak Road and Campus
Drive West. Stanford is determining the location of necessary utilities and other infrastructure in
order to design the facility and will then seek the necessary Santa Clara County permits to
construct it. Application will be made to the State of California for child care licensing. Upon
approval by Santa Clara County, completion of construction, and the receipt of state licensing,
the SACC will be relocated to the Stock Farm Site. The SUMC Renewal Project team hopes to
complete the relocation process within six months, but recognizes that the time line for receipt of
County permits and State licensing is not entirely within our control.
Although we fully expect that the SACC relocation plan will be approved, if for some unforeseen
reasons it cannot be carried out, the SACC will have to be closed. Should this transpire, we will
not close the SACC before September 1, 2012 and will delay construction on the parking
structure until that time. In that unlikely event, we will do our best to help parents find alternate
accommodations for their children.
Until the SACC has been relocated, the SUMC Renewal Project team will refrain from
commencing excavation for the Hoover Pavilion parking structure. Only a limited amount of
work connected with the parking structure on the Hoover Pavilion site will occur prior to
relocation of the SACCo Soil test borings may be performed, but such borings will occur only at
times when children are not present at the SACCo In addition, in order to avoid tree removal
during the nesting season, trees to be relocated will be boxed and other trees may be removed.
While we are delaying construction of the parking structure, it is imperative that the SUMC
Renewal Project team immediately proceed with renovation and remodeling of the historic
Hoover Pavilion building. Completion of the Hoover Pavilion renovation is on the critical path
for replacement of Stanford Hospital in order to timely comply with mandatory State of
California seismic requirements for hospitals. In order to construct the new Stanford Hospital,
the medical office buildings housing community physicians at 1101 Welch Road must be
demolished. Several of the practitioners at 110 1 Welch Road first must be relocated to the
renovated Hoover Pavilion. Accordingly, completion of the Hoover Pavilion renovations is a
precursor to construction of the new Stanford Hospital.
Prior to relocation of the SACC, utilities work necessary for the Hoover Pavilion may occur on
the portion of the site nearest to Quarry Road and around the building perimeter. This utility-
related work will also require some tree removal.
With the exception of two brief periods for crane lifts, renovation of the historic Hoover Pavilion
building will be performed using electrically-powered hand-held equipment in an area of the site
1
that is not directly adjacent to the SACCo The specific work planned at the Hoover Pavilion
building is as follows:
• Baseline air quality monitoring within the Hoover Pavilion building will be conducted.
• The Hoover Pavilion will be sealed, and interior containment systems will be installed
throughout the building. Pursuant to Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) requirements for prevention of exposure to asbestos and other hazardous
materials, negative air pressure will be created within the building.
• The construction contractors will perform interior demolition and hazardous materials
abatement beginning no earlier than August 8, 2011. Throughout this work, any asbestos
and lead paint will be handled as required by BAAQMD and other applicable regulatory
agencies in order to prevent exposure.
• To reduce truck traffic near the SACC, off haul of debris from interior building
demolition will occur on the Quarry Road and/or Palo Road sides of the Hoover Pavilion
building.
• Upon completion of hazardous materials abatement and interior demolition, air quality
clearance testing will be performed and then the containment system will be removed.
• The exterior south stairway will be demolished and replaced.
• For approximately two days, a crane will be used to remove mechanical equipment from
the Hoover Pavilion rooftop.
• The bridge between the Hoover Pavilion and the Nurses' Cottage will be removed.
• The construction contractor will erect scaffolding on all sides of the existing Hoover
Pavilion building.
• The construction contractor will wrap the exterior of the Hoover Pavilion building with a
mesh net. In addition to protecting the historically significant building, the mesh net will
prevent construction debris from falling outside the active construction area and it will
conceal construction activities within the building enclosure.
• Windows on the Hoover Pavilion will be removed and then taken offsite to be repaired to
match the historical condition.
• The Hoover Pavilion clay tile roof and other portions of the roof will be replaced.
• For approximately two days, a crane will be used to install new rooftop mechanical equipment.
• New mechanical systems, including HVAC and elevators, and interior tenant
improvements and furnishings will be installed throughout the Hoover Pavilion bUilding.
• A glass wall will be installed in an area on the Palo Road side of the Hoover Pavilion.
• The Hoover Pavilion building will be re-painted and other exterior work will take place,
including work on awnings and restoration of design features.
• A new finial will be installed on top of the Hoover Pavilion tower.
• Work will be performed at the building entrances to provide access required under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
In performing construction work at the Hoover Pavilion site, the Renewal Project team will
comply with all of the dust, construction air quality and construction noise mitigation measures
required by the City of Palo Alto in the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP)
adopted as part of the conditional use permit. With implementation of the measures required in
the MMRP along with the protective measures outlined above, the Renewal Project team does
not anticipate disruption to the SACCo Nevertheless, the following additional steps will be taken
during the construction period:
2
• Representatives from the Renewal Project team will continue to meet with SACC staff
and parents to review the status of permitting and cons.truction work to complete the
temporary relocation facility, to address concerns regarding construction work at the
Hoover Pavilion site prior to relocation of the SACC, and to address concerns regarding
air quality and noise effects from the adjacent parking structure upon return to the
Arboretum site.
• The project manager and/or the construction manager for the Hoover Pavilion project
component will meet with SACC staff and parents to review the overall construction
schedule and provide regular briefings on upcoming construction work at the Hoover
Pavilion site. In addition, the project manager and construction manager for the Hoover
Pavilion project component will be available on site to respond to questions and concerns
as they arise.
• The project team will take baseline noise measurements prior to commencement of
construction activities on the Hoover Pavilion site. Periodic noise monitoring will then
occur during construction, in locations and at intervals determined in cooperation with
the SACC staff and parents, and the results of the noise monitoring will be shared. Based
on the results of noise monitoring and feedback from SACC staff, the project team will
work cooperatively with the SACC to minimize disruption to the center.
• The Renewal Project team will provide data to the SACC regarding air pollutant
emissions and noise levels from full operation of the Hoover Pavilion parking structure.
After the Hoover Pavilion parking structure has been constructed and the SACC Forest Room
relocated, the SACC will be returned to the Arboretum site.
3