Reso13 PC 13-16 2898 PC Reso Recommending Stanford EIR Certification

Browse Search

service to the site, replacing all existing inefficient plumbing fixtures and �itreous clay wastewater pipelines, reducing impervious surfaces throughout #he site, floo�-proofing al� buildings, storing storm water in apen space and greenway areas rather than on paricing lots, and repfacing all older buildings with new buildings constructed to meet the iatest seismic and engineering star�dards. The Existing Zo�ing Altemative would fail to advance the fallowin� project objecti�es: {i) trar�sformation of the de�elopment site's existing design to allow development intensity in a manner which implements the New General Plan's vision for land �se; urban form and density, economic de�elopment, and circulation; and (i�) achievement of project abjectives through a comprehensi�e land use plan. The Existing Zoning Alternative wouid substantially impair achievement of the following project objectives: (i} redevelo�ment of the de�efopmen# site for a S#anford University sate�iite location of sufficien# size to accommodate the long-term needs of academic support users; (ii) planning of the campus with sufficient flexibility to allow o�ce, R&D, and medical clinic uses; {iii) rede�elopment of the site to canserve natural resources tl�rough sustainable land use components and building features; (i�) rede�elopment of the site to enhance the quality and value af the adjacent residential neighborhood; (v) redevelopment of the site in a manner which pramates a�d enhances a healthy and diverse ecanomy in the City; (vi} creation of a pattern of smaller City blacks integrated into the neighborhood-scale street grid; and (�ii} pravision of a high-quafity campus with substantial usable open space. On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achie�ed with this alternative are outweighed by its environmental impacts compared to the Project, its red�ced environmental benefits compared to the Projsct, its substantia� impairment of most project objectives, and its failure to ad�ance two project objectives. The City Councif rejects this alternative. Reduced Development1425 Braadway Preservation Scenario Alternative (Alternati�e 18.3) ("Retfuced Development Alternative"). This alternati�e assumes the same uses as the Project in the same proportions, but would a11ow anfy 70% of the square foatage of the Project (1.06 million square feet compared to 1.52 miilion square feet) and a fower FAR (0.7 compared to 1.0). This alkernatir►e would also preserve the 425 Braadway building and adjoining plaza with fo�antains. Significant adverse environmental impacts af the Projec� that would be reduced by the Reduced Develapment Alternative are certain traffic, air quality, and cultural and historic resou�ce impacts, as described in t�e E1R. 5ome €ntersection level of sen�ice impacts that cauEd be significant and unavoidable under the Project (if other agenc�es with jurisdiction do nat approve mitigation) might be fess than significant under the Reduced De�elopment Alternati�e. The ProjecYs significant una�oidable air quality impacts would likely be reduced to a less than significant level under the Reduced Development Alternati�e. The potentially significant and unavoidable histaric resources impact on the 425 Broadway building and plaza with fountains would be avoided. None of the other signifcant unavoidable impacts of the Project wauld be reduced to a less than significant l�vel by the Reduced Development Alternative. The Reduced Development Alternative would sligh#ly increase clima#e change impacts compared to thE Project because its CO2-equivalent emissions would be 4.2 metric tons per ATTY/RE5D,2898/PC RE50 R�COMMENpING STANFORD EIR CERTIFICATfON REV:OS-15-13 VR Page 49 of 56