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

Browse Search

air quality impacts would likely be reduced ta a less than sign'rficant leve! under the With Housing Alternati�e, but as described beiow, an adcfitiona! significant air quality impact could be created by this aiternative. None of the other significant and unavoidable impacts of the I'roject would be red�ced to a less than significant level �y the With Housing Alternati�e. The Wit� Housing Alterna#ive would reduce climate cf�ange impacts compared to the Project because its COz�equivalent emissions would be 3.9 metric tons per capita, campared to the Project's 4.1 metric tons; neither the With Housing Alternati�e nor the Project would cause a significant climate change impact. Because it would bring residents to the Project site, the �th Housing Alternative would add a potentially signifcant impact to new residents from �xposure to PMz.S emissions from the nearby Tyco facility. In addition, residents would canstitute sensitive receptors who wvuld be exposed ta significant and unavoidable oonstruction naise impacts if they are on site durirtg construction. The With Housing Alternative would nat achie�e the project objective of implementing the New General Plan �ision for the Project site, because residentia� use is not a designated use for the Project site in the New General Plan. The With Housing Alternative wouid also substantially impair the praject objective of rede�eloping the development site for a Stanford University satellite Iocation of sufficient size to accommodate the long-term needs of academic s�pport users. If any project proponent were to implement this alternative, it could meek or partially achieve the project objecti�es of: (i} planning the campus with su�cient flexibility ta alaow o�ce, R&D, and me�ica! clinic uses; (ii) rede�elopment of tf�e development si#e to conserve natural resources through sustainable land use components and building features; (iii) redevelopment of the site ta enhance the quality and value of the adjacent residential neighbarhood; (iv) rede�elopment of the site ta promote and enhance a healthy and diverse ecanomy in the City; (v} creation of a pattern of smaller City blocks integrated into the neighborhood-scale strsst grid; (vi} pro�ision of a high-quality campus witl� substantial usabfe open space; and {�ii� achievement of the forgoing objecti�es through a comprehensive land use plan. However, it is uncertain whether any project proponent would be willing to implement this alternati�e. For that reason, this alternative would not satisfy these objectives as�ully as#he Proj�ct. Because the With Housing Alternati�e would generate the fewest wehicle trips of the action alterna#ives, it would reduce the greatest number of overall adverse environmental impacts, compared to the Project, of a!I the actian alternativ�s. It is, therefore, the Environmentally 5uperior Alternati�e among the actfon alternatives. However, the With Housing Alternati�e would expose mor� sensitive receptars to PM2.s emfssions from the Tyco facility and to significant construction naise than would the Project. In addition, the With Housing Alternative is inconsistent with the City's New General Pian and therefore would fail to meet one basic project objective, and it would impair achievement of additional project objectives. On balance, th� en�ironmental benefits that might be achieved with this alternati�e are outweighed by its environmental disadvantages campared to the Project, its failure to achieve a basic praject objecti�e, and its impairment of the a�ifity ta fully satisfy ather project objectives. The City Council rejects this aEternative. A7TY/RE50,2898/PC RES4 RECOMMENDING STANFORD EIR CERTIFICATIflN REV:D8-15-13 VR Page 52 of 5b