Res13 15294 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

09/09/2013 Alternative. The R&D, Hotel, and Restaurant Alternative would reduce climate change impacts compared to the Project because its COz-equivalent emissions would be 3.6 metric tons per capita, compared to the Project's 4.1 metric tons; neither the R&D, Hotel, and Restaurant Alternative nor the Project would cause a significant climate change impact. Due to its increased R&D square footage and its restaurant uses, the R&D, Hotel, and Restaurant Alternative would cause increased water and wastewater impacts compared to the Project that could be significant and unavoidable. The R&D, Hotel, and Restaurant Alternative would not advance the following project objectives: (i) redevelopment of the development site for a Stanford University satellite location of sufficient size to accommodate the long-term needs of academic support users; and (ii) planning of the campus with sufficient flexibility to allow office, R&D, and medical clinic uses. If any project proponent were to implement this alternative, it could partially achieve the project objective of redeveloping the site to conserve natural resources through sustainable land use components and building features, although there would be no guarantee that this alternative would include the robust sustainability features, including a the state-of-the-art TDM program, that have been proposed by Stanford. If a project proponent were to implement this alternative, it could meet or partially meet the project objectives of redeveloping the site to enhance the quality and value of the adjacent residential neighborhood, promote and enhance a healthy and diverse economy in the City, and transforming the development site's existing design to implement the New General Plan vision. If a project proponent were to implement this alternative, it could implement the project objectives of creating a pattern of smaller City blocks integrated into the neighborhood-scale street grid, providing a high-quality campus with substantial usable open space, and ensuring that some project objectives are achieved through a comprehensive land use plan. However, it is uncertain whether any project proponent would be willing to implement this alternative. For that reason, this alternative would not satisfy these objectives as fully as the Project. On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this alternative are outweighed by its environmental impacts compared to the Project, its reduced environmental benefits compared to the Project, its failure to achieve two basic project objectives, and its impairment of the ability to fully satisfy many of the other project objectives. The City Council rejects this alternative. With Housing Alternative (1.0 FAR) (Alternative 18.5). This alternative would consist of office, medical clinic, and R&D uses, as well as approximately 228 residential units, within a 1.0 FAR. Significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project that would be reduced by the With Housing Alternative are certain traffic and air quality impacts, as described in the EIR. Some intersection level of service impacts that could be significant and unavoidable under the Project (if other agencies with jurisdiction do not approve mitigation) might be less than significant under the With Housing Alternative. The Project's significant unavoidable operational air quality impacts would likely be reduced to a less than significant level under the With ATTY/RE50.2901/STANFORD EIR CERTIFICATION RESO.#15294 REV:09-10-13 VR MUFF#100 Page 50 of 55