HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESO 6444RESOLUTION NO. 6444
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
SETTING ASIDE CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR AND PROJECT
APPROVAL FOR WILLOW ROAD/SAND HILL EXTENSION PUR-
SUANT TO THE PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE IN CIVIL
CASr. NO. 560274
WHEREAS, on September 26, 1985, Judgment was entered and a
Peremptory Writ was issued from the Superior Court in Civil Ca3e
N). 560 27 4, fi ti zens for Sensible Planning and Robert D. Ekedahl
v. City Council of Palo Alto and the Board of Trustees of Leland
Stanford Junior Universit~; and
WHEREAS, the Writ commanded the City of Palo Al to and its
City Council to set aside its decision of S€:pte:nber 18, 1984,
approving the Willow Road/Sand Hill Road Ex tens ion Project and its
certi f ic at ion of the Final EIR for that project ref lee ted in a
Notice of Determination filed on September 21, 1984.
NOW, THERF.FORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
RESOLVE:
SECTION l. The decisions of September-18, 1984, approving
the Willow Road/Sand Hill Road Extension Project and certifying
the Final EIR for that Project, as reflected in the Notice of
Determination filed on September 21, 1984, are hereby set aside in
accordance with the Peremptory Writ of Mandate issued in Civil
Case No. 560274, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit
HA."
SECTION 2. Prior to any future decision by the City of Palo
Alto approving the Willow Road/Sand Hill Road Extension Project, a
Supplemental EIR shall be prepared in accordance with the Judgment
in Civil Case No. 560274, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit "B."
SECTION 3. The City Attorney's Office is hereby requested to
file a timely return to the Peremptory Writ.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: November 12, 1985
AYES: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renze!, Sutorius, Witherspoon, Woolley
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: None
AS TO FORM:
Atto:eney
Plann ir.g and
Environment
2.
I r • . • . . . .. ~· ..•.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
(
,9
EXHIBIT A
I
SUPERIOR COURT OF TBE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
CITIZENS FOR SENSIBLE PLANNING )
and ROBERT D. EKEDABL, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
v. )
)
CITY COUNCIL OF PALO ALTO, )
)
Respondent, )
)
-~ ) )
TBE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE )
LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, )
)
Real Party in Interest )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~->
Civ. No. 560274
PEREMPTORY WRIT
OF MANDATE
20 The People of the State of California
21 To The City of Palo Alto and City Council of Palo Alto,
22 RE:spondents:
23 Judgment having been entered in this action,
24 ordering that a peremptory writ of mandate be issued from
2S this Court,
26 //
J·
... ~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
( ce --
YOO ARE SERESY COMMANDED immediately on receipt of
this writ to set aside your decision on September 18, 1984
approving the Willow Road/Sand Bill Road Extension project and
your certification of the final £IR for that project reflected
in a Hotice of Determination filed on September 21, 1984. The
above proceedings are hereby remanded to you, to reconsider
your actions in light of this Court's Judgment Granting
Peremptory Writ of ~andate and Statement of Decision and to
take any further action specially enjoined upon you by law:
but nothing in this writ sbal 1 1 imi tor control in any way the
discretion legally vested in you; and
YOO ARE FURTHER ORDERED to make and file a return
to this writ within ~ixty (60) days of receiving it.
Dated: Septembei1ff', 1985 GRACE K YAMAKAWA
~NETH W. VECCHIQN&eputy Clerk
LET THE FOREGOING
Dated: September~, 1985
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L• 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
~ECEIVED
CITY ATTORNEY·s OFFICE
OCT 21385 EXHIBIT B
---------TO~------
-
{ e
{ENDORSED}
F ILE D
SEP 2 G 1925
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
CITIZENS FOR SENSIBLE PI:ANNING )
and ROBERT D. EKE DAHL I )
)
Petitioners, )
) v. )
)
CITY COUNCIL OF PALO ALTO, )
)
Respondent, )
) ana )
)
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF TBE )
LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, )
)
Real ~arty in Interest )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
Civ. No. 560274
JUDGM£NT GRANTING
PEREMP7'0RY WRIT
Of' MANDATE
This matter came regularly before this Court on June
13, 1985 for bearing. Roger Beers appeared as attorney for
petitioners, Margaret Sloan appeared as attorney for: respondents
and Antonio Rossmann appeared as attorney for real party in
interest. ~he record of the administrative proceedings having
been received into evidence and ezamined by the Court,
arguments having been presented, an~ the Court having issued
its statement of decision, -
-.
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
(-
IT IS ORDER1.m that:
l. A peremptory writ of mandate shall issue from
this Court, remanding the proceedings to respondents and
commanding respondents to set aside their approval of the
Willow Road/Sand Bill Extension project, their certification
of the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Willow
Road/Sand Bill Extension project and the resulting Notice of
Determination.
2. Prior to any future decision by Respondents
approving the Willow Road/Sand Bill Extension project,
Respondents shall prepare and circulate for public comment a
Supplemental Draft EIR which revises the proj~ct description
and definition to include the improvemerts to the Willow Road
Corridor and which provides an environmental analysis of the
Willow Road/Sand Bill Extension project as required by CEQA.
In the Supplemental EIR, Respondents shall consider and sake
findings as to: (1) adverse errvironmental impacts along Willow
Road west of Pasteur, including those areas outside Palo
Alto's jurisdiction; (2) whether the Willow Road Corridor
improvements, including the third lane, would cause major
increases in street capacitiesr and (3) whether those
improvements would be inconsistent with Palo Alto's General
Plan ..
3. Respond~nts shall take any further action
specifically enjoined upon them by law: but nothing in this
judgment or in that writ shall limit or control in any way the
2
I I I'· .. ' ' ...
.
< . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
,·
' e
discretion legally vested in respon~ents.
4. ~his Court shall retain jurisdiction to review
and decide any petition
Approved as to Form:
September fl_, 1985
l for the City of
lto
Approved as to Porm:
September ll_., 1985
Counsel for Stanford
University
Approved as to Forr:
September 10, 1985
~~~£~
Sensible Planning
3
SILVER
Superior Court