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

Browse Search

the Project would be reduced to a fess than significant level by the R8�D,Hotel, and Restaurant Aiternative. The R&D, Hotel, and Resta�rant Alternati�e would reduce climate change impacts compared to the Project because its COz-equivalent emissions would be 3.6 metric tons per capita, comparsd to the Project's 4.9 metric tons; neither the R&D, Notel, and Restaurant Alternati�e nor the Project waufd cause a significant clima#e change impact. Due to its increased R&D square footage and its restaurant uses, the R&D, Hotel, and Restaurant Alternati�e would cause fncreased water and wastewater impacts compared to the Project that cauld be sigr�ifican# and unavaidable. The R&D, Hotel, and Restaurant Alterna#i�e wauld not ad�ance the fallowing project objecti�es: {i) rede�e�opment of the de�elopment site for a Stanford University satellite location af sufficient size to accommadate the iang-term needs of academic suppar� 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 alternati�e, it could partially achieve the project objective of redeveloping the si#e ta canserve natural resources througl� sustainable land use companents and building features, although there would be no guarantee that this alternative would include the robust sustainability features, including a the state-af-the-art TDM program, that have been proposed by 5tanford. If a project propflnent were to imp�ement this alternative, i# could meet ar partially meet the project objecti�es of redeveloping the site to enhance the quality and value of the adjacent residentiaf neighborhood, promote and enhance a healthy and diverse economy in the Ciiy, and transfarming the de�elopment 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 objecti�es af creating a pattern of smaljer 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 achie�ed thro�agh a comprehensi�e land use plan. Hawever, it is uncertain whether any project proponent would be willing to implement this alternati�e. For that reason, this alternative would not satisfy these abJect9ves as fully as the Project. On balance, the en�ironmental benefits that might be achieved with this alternati�e are autweighed by its environmental impacts compared to the Project, its reduced en�ironmental benefits compared to t�e Project, its failure to achie�e two basic praject abjectives, and its impairment of the ability to fully satisfy many of the other project objectives. The City Co�nciE rejects this alternative. With Housing Alternati�e {1.0 FAR� (Alternative 98.5). This alternative would consist of office, medical clinic, and R&D uses, as we�l as approximately 228 residential units, within a 1.0 FAR. Significant adverse environmental impacts of tf�e Project that would be reduced by the �th Housing Altemative are c�rtain traffic and air quality impacts, as described in the �IR. Some intersection le�el of service impacts tha# could be significant and una�oidable under the Project (�f other ager�cies with jurisdiction do not approve mitigation) mfght be less than significant und�r the With Housing Alternative. The Project's significant u navaidable operational ATTYIRE50.2898IpC RE50 RECOMM�NDING STANFORD EIR CERTIFICATION REV;Q8-15-�3 VR Page 51 of 56