Committee for Green Foothills' comments on Stanford Medical Center DEIR

(We submitted the comments below on the draft environmental review of the Stanford Medical Center. The letter references a previous letter that CGF wrote in 2007, which can be found here.  -Brian)

July 27, 2010

Steven Turner

Department of Planning and Community Environment

Re:  Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH #2007082130

Dear Steven,

The Committee for Green Foothills ("Committee") submits the following comments on the Stanford University Medical Center Draft Environmental Impact Report ("SUMC DEIR", or "DEIR").

General Comments:

Length of review period.  We are aware of complaints that the review period for this project is taking too long and is too close to the statutory deadline for seismic upgrades, and therefore further review should be truncated, no new mitigations should be requested, and Stanford's project should be approved without modifications.  These objections fail to account for two reasons that are related to Stanford's own actions. 

First, Stanford began the process much later than other hospital systems like the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center.  This strategy by Stanford, of beginning a process late and then claiming their proposal needs to be approved as is because there's no time to change it, is an oft-used procedure.  Stanford used the identical strategy for obtaining approval of its Sustainable Development Study from Santa Clara County, without incorporating any changes suggested by Palo Alto.  Giving into this strategy is self-defeating, so neither the City nor the County should let Stanford's delay function as a reason for giving in to its demands.

Second, the review was delayed for a period when Stanford was given unannounced access to preliminary versions of the DEIR.  This access contravenes a statement by the City several years earlier (which was the last that we had heard from the City) that the City would not share preliminary versions of DEIRs with applicants, a practice that biases the review process and gives applicants inappropriate opportunities to influence what is supposed to be a neutral evaluation.  While exactly what happened is unclear, it appears Stanford took advantage of its access to argue for changes in the DEIR that delayed its publication.  Again the fault for delay lies with Stanford (although also in part with the City for its mistaken decision).  These delays do not justify short-changing environmental review.

DEIR inadequately addressed issues raised in our scoping letter.  On October 1, 2007, the Committee submitted scoping comments for the DEIR (attached).  Several of our comments, reproduced below, have not been addressed adequately:

·         Any relaxing of existing zoning standards will violate thresholds for environmental significance that the standards are meant to protect, unless compensatory environmental mitigation is required.  This is especially true given the large size of the project. For example, easing density restrictions should be compensated with open space protection.

·         Increased building height and density should be compensated with open space protection.  Decreasing views of hillsides and of natural areas are visual impacts that can be appropriately compensated for by open space protection.

·         Increase utilization of recreational resources must be analyzed in the EIR for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.  The City should compare the analysis used for the Stanford GUP in Santa Clara Clount’s EIR for comparison.  Increased utilization is a significant impact unless mitigated.

·         The impact on housing will be significant unless mitigated and must be analyzed.  The impact will also affect open space and traffic, because if new housing is not constructed by Stanford, it will be constructed mostly in Central Valley and elsewhere, with workers commuting in on area highways.  The City must do its own calculations about the number of jobs generated by the amount of space created.  Secondary (off-site) economic impacts must also be considered in determining the net demand for housing created by this project.

·         All newly-created housing demand should be fully mitigated with housing creation that matches the income level of housing demand generated.

·         Any analysis that concludes a “no net increase” mitigation standard for transportation is not feasible, must also determine why it is feasible for the much larger Stanford GUP expansion but not for this project.

Raising height limits, visual impacts, and the recreational impacts justify and require open space mitigation.  The Committee disagrees that simple compliance with undefined ARB recommendations for final design (DEIR at S-28) will suffice to convert an admittedly-significant impact before mitigation into one that is less-than-significant.  The loss of open views and a "big sky" means that the ability to travel around the City and surrounding area and not find it dominated by structures is reduced.  An appropriate mitigation for this impact is to secure nearby open space, and Stanford could appropriately do that by providing open space access or paying funds that could be used to secure open space access.

Similarly, increased recreational use in an area that the DEIR acknowledges has insufficient parkland (DEIR at 3.14-8) is a significant impact.  The analysis of employee use fails to include overall increased population pressure, as the people who will be brought to work at SUMC will have to live somewhere with their families, despite the City's disinterest in requiring housing as part of the project.  The failure to account for housing impacts means payment of the Community Facility Fee for non-residential development is insufficient to fully mitigate the project's impacts.  Even if these people cannot live in Palo Alto, living elsewhere means they will place pressure on recreational uses elsewhere.  That effect on recreational uses elsewhere is unanalyzed, as is the lost opportunity of Palo Alto residents to use these out-of-city facilities, thereby placing more pressure on City facilities.  Finally, the analysis fails to consider the recreational impacts to areas immediately outside of Palo Alto such as the main campus area of Stanford and in San Mateo County, where the Community Facility Fee would not provide mitigation.

The cumulative recreational impact of this project together with other recreational population pressures is significant.  Combined with visual impacts, the DEIR should require mitigation that creates recreational access to open space to mitigate the lost open sky and diminished recreational opportunities.  One possibility which was included in the Stanford GUP DEIR was the construction of two trails from the main campus into the Foothills.  The same could be done in this case, either from SUMC or from portions of the main campus easily accessible from SUMC into the Foothills.   Alignments of the C1 Trail near the north side of Stanford Foothills and outside of the golf course would be ideal, or alternative versions of the S1 Trail that run along the Stanford Foothills and eventually connect to the trail under construction could work as well.

An alternative to dedication of a trail is payment of equivalent funds into a grant program that would mitigate Stanford's recreational impacts.  Stanford has essentially agreed to do just that regarding its proposed sidewalk expansion along Alpine Road.  If San Mateo County continues to reject the sidewalk expansion as it has, then Stanford will pay the money it would have spent on that massive project into a fund run by Santa Clara County Parks Department that could mitigate the recreational impacts of the Stanford GUP.  Given that was Stanford's own agreement with the County, it should meet the same standard with the City.

Transportation issues.Given the conclusion that transportation, air quality, and climate change impacts will be significant, the DEIR should have included either of the following feasible mitigations to reduce those impacts:  1. a No-Net-New Trips standard, based on the standard used in the Stanford County GUP EIR, requiring Stanford to either avoid the creation of net new trips or install the traffic mitigations required in this DEIR; or 2. the equivalent of No-Net-New Trips that would require SUMC to match every incentive and disincentive used by Stanford in the core campus, but without requiring actual measurement of traffic.  This would not exempt Stanford from traffic mitigations required in the DEIR.  This second alternative would adjust over time, "ratcheting" up to match changes in the program used on the core campus to avoid increased trips.

In developing a No-Net-New Trips standarad, patient trips should also be taken into account, and Stanford should provide similar incentives to patients and guests to avoid increased trips.  If this is seen as infeasible, however, the no net new trips standard could exempt patients and guests and still provide partial mitigation to the significant impacts from this project.

It should be noted that one traffic mitigation, improvements to Intersection #3 (El Camino/Ravenswood) (DEIR at 3.4-61), appears to be at least partially the same listed mitigation as that found in the Stanford GUP DEIR to mitigate for that separate and different Stanford project (Stanford GUP DEIR at 4.4-98).  While the SUMC DEIR does not count the improvement of Intersection #3 towards the post-mitigation conclusion (DEIR at 3.4-65), it does count it here as potential mitigation for this project, and that could be double-counting of a mitigation that will not be effective because it could be "used up" for another Stanford project.  It would be disturbing and inadequate if this same intersection keeps getting listed in still more environmental reviews as potential mitigation for still more projects.  Similarly, Intersections #10, #18, and #23 are listed in both DEIRs, although they raise fewer issues as they are not considered feasible.  The failure to discuss the potential double-counting in the DEIR is disturbing.

The DEIR states "The three feasible intersection improvements in Table 3.4-18" were combined with other mitigations to assess overall impact mitigation.  In fact, only two feasible improvements are listed in Table 3.4-18.  If the overall analysis counted on a third intersection mitigation that is now only considered "Potentially Feasible" or "Not Feasible", then the analysis exaggerates the effectiveness of the mitigation.

The impact of the SUMC expansion to traffic on Alpine Road between Juniper Serra and Highway 280 is likely to be especially severe.  For this reason as well, a No-Net-New Trips standard should be applied.

Additional comments:

The Tree Replacement Mitigation Measure BR-4.5 should emphasize the use of native trees and that provide maximum benefitis to wildlife as replacement trees for the ones that would be removed if this project is approved.

PH-1 impact analysis states the percentage of regional housing demand from the project is relatively small.  DEIR at S-85.  Given the tremendous total housing demand on this area, the cumulative is considerable and should be mitigated by the provision of on-site housing or paying into a fund for the construction of housing, especially housing that is affordable according to the type of demand generated by the new jobs at SUMC.  Mitigation Measure PH-3.1 should be mandatory and should expressly apply to the SUMC project.

Please contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Attachment:  Letter of October 1, 2007, from Committee for Green Foothills to City of Palo Alto

Committee for Green Foothills' scoping letter on Stanford Medical Center from October 1, 2007

(The letter below is referenced in another letter that CGF sent yesterday, so I'm posting it here.  -Brian)

October 1, 2007

Steven Turner

City of Palo Alto

Re:  Scoping comments for the Stanford Medical Center and Shopping Center Expansion EIR

Dear Steven;

The Committee for Green Foothills submits the following comments for scoping the EIR for the Stanford Medical Center and Shopping Center:

·         The purpose of the approval for this project must be defined by the City, not by the applicant.  If the purpose that the permissions the applicants seeks (such as improving medical care) can be done in a way that the applicant does not seek, that option remains within the purpose of the City.  Legally, the applicant cannot define the purpose in a way that artificially narrows the scope of the project and its alternatives.  Because the City is deciding whether to approve the agreement, it has to define the purpose.

·         The EIR must consider a “no expansion/seismic only upgrade” alternative for the Medical Center.

·         A “no increase in medical office space” alternative should be included.  Conditions should be placed defining what type of activity or organization may use “medical office space.”

·         Any relaxing of existing zoning standards will violate thresholds for environmental significance that the standards are meant to protect, unless compensatory environmental mitigation is required.  This is especially true given the large size of the project. For example, easing density restrictions should be compensated with open space protection.)

·         Increased building height and density should be compensated with open space protection.  Decreasing views of hillsides and of natural areas are visual impacts that can be appropriately compensated for by open space protection.

·         Increase utilization of recreational resources must be analyzed in the EIR for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.  The City should compare the analysis used for the Stanford GUP in Santa Clara Clount’s EIR for comparison.  Increased utilization is a significant impact unless mitigated.

·         The EIR process should analyze the phasing and mitigation monitoring used in the Stanford GUP EIR to avoid similar problems.  For the Stanford GUP, six years after the impacts have occurred, the promised trails have not yet been constructed.  Mitigations should not just be begun before the impacts have occurred, they should be completed, or at least a schedule established with clear stop dates.

·         The hospital opening should be in phases, with none the medical office space opening until all environmental mitigations have been complied with.  This will make mitigation monitoring and enforcement more credible if it stops use of medical office space until environmental conditions are complied with as opposed to stopping use of the hospital.

·         Any net increases in greenhouse gas emissions are cumulatively significant.

·         “Green building” standards should be required.

·         The impact on housing will be significant unless mitigated and must be analyzed.  The impact will also affect open space and traffic, because if new housing is not constructed by Stanford, it will be constructed mostly in Central Valley and elsewhere, with workers commuting in on area highways.  The City must do its own calculations about the number of jobs generated by the amount of space created.  Secondary (off-site) economic impacts must also be considered in determining the net demand for housing created by this project.

·         All newly-created housing demand should be fully mitigated with housing creation that matches the income level of housing demand generated.

·         Any analysis that concludes a “no net increase” mitigation standard for transportation is not feasible, must also determine why it is feasible for the much larger Stanford GUP expansion but not for this project.

·         Significant and unavoidable impacts must be compensated for in a comparable manner.  For example, the visual impact of Medical Center skyscraper will be unavoidable, but rather than simply accept that as the cost the community must bear, it should be compensated for with open space protection where buildings do not predominate views.

·         Eliminate Stanford’s “plateau bargaining” through the use of binding promises in the process.  For example, Stanford has made promises on where it would agree to place the S1 Trail on its property, and then after much work had been done by the County so it could accept the offer, Stanford reneged on the promises unless dramatic new concessions were added.  This problem can be stopped by spelling out in advance when and which parts of a promise are binding.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Good news from the Water District's Environmental Advisory Committee

Yesterday, the Environmental Advisory Committee of the Santa Clara Valley Water District approved five policy recommendations made by a subcommittee that I chair, all designed to improve the District's handling of erosion and the impact on streams and habitats.  Three of the recommendations were somewhat controversial as District staff felt they were too specific for the higher level policy recommendations, but in the end the Committee agreed with all five.  They'll now get passed on to the Water District Board for its final decision.

The new recommended policies are these:

Policy Objectives

4.1.3 Protect, enhance and restore the natural physical

     stability/dynamic equilibrium of streams.

4.1.4  Protect, enhance and restore thriving populations of key    

     species indicative of watershed health.

4.1.5    Protect, enhance and restore riparian and in stream and

                   tidal habitat conditions conducive to watershed health,  

including diked historical bayland wetlands and former salt ponds. 

Strategies

4.1.2.3      Develop ecologically based habitat goals and levels of

service for use in planning and implementation.” (P & C)

4.1.2.4            Develop Stream Restoration Plans in collaboration with

                  municipal governments (C) 

-Brian Schmidt

CGF opposes redesignating land to facilitate overdevelopment in South County

(We sent this letter to the Santa Clara County Planning Commission last week.  -Brian)

June 30, 2010

Santa Clara County Planning Commission

            Re:  CGF support for the County staff position on Planning Commission July 1, 2010 meeting Agenda Item 11, recommending rejection of application for formal processing

Dear Commissioners;

I regret that I may not be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting discussing the Pickett General Plan Amendment Proposal, but as we also stated in 2007, the Committee for Green Foothills continues to oppose the proposal, and the current proposal does not change any important issue that constituted adequate reason for rejecting the proposal three years ago.

The staff report describes several reasons for rejecting the application, both now and in 2007.  Related to the 2007 discussion, I would like to correct the record contained in the staff report:  it correctly states that I spoke on behalf of CGF in opposition to the project, but also states that I supported "conversion of lands to rural residential if the property is 35 percent or more surrounded by rural residential."

I am attempting to obtain the audio recording for that meeting, but at the least, the record does not describe what I intended to say.  Proposals like this one, where a minority of adjacent land is Rural Residential, should be rejected.  Proposals where even a majority of adjacent perimeter land is Rural Residential may also be inappropriate, and only where a substantial majority, such as three out of four sides, may be appropriately considered infill under some circumstances.

The applicant's proposal for what constitutes "infill" actually leads to a logical contradiction.  As can be seen on the parcel maps for the area, parcels with a large variety of sizes and shape are adjacent to one another.  If infill is only allowed where a substantial majority of adjacent perimeter is Rural Residential, then there will soon be a condition where the infill has "infilled" and no other parcels qualify for consideration.  If, on the other hand, the County uses the applicant's very different, proposed criteria of a minority of adjacent land being sufficient to justify changing designation, then the "infill" will actually expand consistently outward.  Instead of infilling holes, the applicant's rationale will lead to outward expansion, in direct contradiction to the purpose of infill.

Take the applicant's own example, where approximately one-third of their parcel number 77611001 borders Rural Residential property.  Changing this parcel's designation means that other neighboring parcels will have similar or greater percentages of perimeter shared with Rural Residential and appropriate for re-designation – parcels 77929027 (small parcel to the east), 77926003, 75619032 (already at equivalent percentage), 75619036, and 77612008.  These parcels, once re-designated, would justify changing the designation of still other parcels in an outward expansion that includes parcels 77929028, 75619031, 75619006, and 77612012, and those parcels would justify still more re-designations.  This is just in the immediate vicinity of the applicant, but their argument logically applies to any parcels anywhere in the County that border Rural Residential land.

The problem with the applicant's argument is not that it may someday take us down a "slippery slope" of accepting ever-smaller percentages for justifying re-designations.  Rather it is the applicant's own principle without any further deterioration that justifies outwardly expanding "infill".

Committee for Green Foothills has seen too many instances where past environmental mistakes have been used by developers to justify arguing for new mistakes.  We urge the Planning Commission to avoid a repeat of that process, and to recommend rejection of this application.

Please contact us with any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian A. Schmidt

Legislative Advocate, Santa Clara County

Tiger Salamanders Return to Historical Marsh Site to Breed Where Lake Lagunita Now Sits

(Another helpful guest post by CGF Intern Anthony Aerts.  I had wondered about this issue for a while.  -Brian Schmidt)

While looking through the “Creek & Watershed Map of Palo Alto & Vicinity” created by Janet M. Sowers and published by the Oakland Museum of California (2004), I came across the following information: “Historian Alan K. Brown observed that in 1857, a natural marsh occupied the depression that is now the lake.”  While Stanford’s Lake Lagunita was originally built as a livestock watering hole, it appears that a natural wetland predated this artificial lake. This fact is significant given the debate around the vulnerable California tiger salamander population that uses Lake Lag as a winter breeding ground.

Some people have stated that the salamanders are simply benefiting from a lake that Stanford created.  They therefore resent the obligation they consider imposed on Stanford, or they think Stanford hasn't received credit it deserves for its good work.  However, the existence of a natural marsh prior to the lake might suggest otherwise. In fact, the tiger salamander may merely be returning to a spot used as a breeding ground long before Stanford came into being.

Bay Area Peninsula’s Mercury Problem Continues to Attract Attention (Guest Post)

(Another guest post by CGF Intern Anthony Aerts, taking a break from his other research to return to the mercury issue.  -Brian Schmidt)

            A few weeks ago, I wrote about a Mercury News article which detailed the mercury contamination in Santa Clara County bodies of water. The article suggested that the origin of the problem might be traced back to the County’s use of mercury in its intense mining history. However, a recent SF Chronicle article discussed how levels of mercury beyond the safe consumption threshold have also been found in fish living in the Lower Crystal Springs Reservoir of San Mateo County. Crystal Springs is one of several water storage facilities, managed by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, used to supply drinking water to surrounding municipalities. Researchers are unsure of the source of the mercury in Lower Crystal Springs, but have suggested that atmospheric deposition carrying pollution across the ocean from China may be to blame. If this were the case, it would raise the additional need for air monitoring systems as a means for combating the mercury’s spread. As this problem continues to attract wider attention, it goes to highlight the need for a swift and dedicated approach to resolving the issue. 

Bucks and Silicon Archipelago in the Mercury News

CGF's direct and indirect connections to the high tech/silicon economy are in full display in recent editions of the Mercury News.

CGF Board President, Margaret MacNiven, got front page, above-the-fold treatment over her Buck's restaurant in Woodside:

Call it the Buck's Silicon Valley Barometer: The economy may be wobbly and the mood of the country anxious, but the Woodside cafe is humming again with deal-making breakfasts.

"There is more activity on the venture capital front. There is renewed enthusiasm," said Jamis MacNiven, who co-owns the restaurant with his wife, Margaret. "A year ago, it was about as bleak as it has ever been. People were talking about the drop in home values and joblessness as opposed to deal flows. Now the topic is back on business."

Meanwhile, the Mercury News just published our Op-Ed on the "Silicon Archipelago" as a new model to replace Silicon Valley sprawl in describing future economic growth for San Jose southwards:

Goodbye, Silicon Valley.  Hello, Silicon Archipelago.

 The low-density, land-wasting sprawl of Silicon Valley's past does not have to continue through the South Bay.  A better model can be an archipelago, a chain of urban islands emerging from an ocean of green space, all interrelated but separated.  This Silicon Archipelago model has a realistic chance of describing the future geography of our region as our high-tech economy extends southward. 

 The Silicon Archipelago will be an island chain of vibrant, prosperous, and high-tech cities growing upward and not outward, while ringed by “seas” of working farmlands, natural open space areas, and wildlife.  This future combines the best of environmental protection and technological development from San Jose, south to Morgan Hill and to Gilroy, and even to Hollister and beyond, without destroying the farmlands in between and wildlife nearby. 

 Just a few years ago, the idea of a Silicon Archipelago south of San Jose instead of endless sprawl would seem only a treehugger’s fantasy.  Times change, however, and the sprawling developments on the outskirts of San Jose have been stopped in their tracks. 

Debacles like the proposed Almaden Valley Sports Complex and the Coyote Valley Specific Plan are two examples of defeated threats. The Coyote Valley Research Park approved in 2000 wheezes onward in paper form only, with its permits nearly expired.  And two years ago, San Jose's City Council put South Almaden Valley and Mid-Coyote Valley off limits in the upcoming General Plan. 

 Then on April 20^th of this year, the City Council took a little-noticed but potentially dramatic move toward a Silicon Archipelago.  For the first time in 35 years, the Council hinted that greenfield areas, the farmlands of North Coyote Valley and the ranchlands of east Evergreen, may not be as appropriate for new development as are the many other parts of the city that desperately need redevelopment.

 After a suggestion by Committee for Green Foothills (my employer), the Council directed the General Plan revision process to consider the idea of "backloading" development in the greenfields of North Coyote and east Evergreen.  If enacted, this backloading would mean that only after redevelopment goals had been reached elsewhere (such as downtown) would the city consider proposals to siphon off development to the outskirts.  While an advisory Task Force rejected the backloading idea in a close vote, both that concept and the Silicon Archipelago model can still be used by the City Council to determine our future. 

 The wrong way forward into the future is to double the length of Silicon Valley sprawl from its current San Francisco-to-San Jose length, and extend it all the way through Gilroy.  This threat, while real, can be replaced by an alternative vision where San Jose is both the capital of Silicon Valley and the launchpoint of the Silicon Archipelago. 

 San Jose and cities to its south need not follow the philosophy of cancer, expanding ever outwards.  San Jose can instead be a model of an environmental, high-tech city that grows greener and richer within geographic limits.  This city with leopard sharks swimming in the Bay inside the northern city limits, tule elk grazing on the hills within its southern limits, and steelhead trout navigating the river that runs through it, is a city that can marry technology and nature. 

With these initial steps already taken, we're seeing the Silicon Archipelago at its birth.

Please click on the links above to read the complete versions in the Mercury News.

We've been talking about the Silicon Archipelago for years now and are very happy to see the concept get more prominence.  The next step is follow-through to make it happen.

-Brian Schmidt