Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-22 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting January 22, 1996 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................78-60 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 1995....................78-60 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Intelink Research, Inc. for a Wireless Vehicle Management System - CIP 19521..............................................78-60 2. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Urban Lane Campus Project Final Environment Impact Report (EIR) and Project-Related Applications for Property Located at 795 El Camino Real.........................................78-61 3. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an ordinance approving a First Amendment to a Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Medical Foundation regarding the Palo Alto Specific Plan area near Downtown Palo Alto located at 300 Homer Avenue and adjacent properties................................78-61 4. Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Vacate Public Street and Utilities Easements on the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Development Site at 795 El Camino Real and Setting a Public Hearing for February 20, 1996......................................78-61 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m............78-90 01/22/96 78-59 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:09 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: McCown, Rosenbaum ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wheeler explained that Council Member Rosenbaum was absent from the meeting because he was participating on City business out of the state. Because the main item of discussion that evening was the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), Council Member McCown was absent due to a conflict of interest, since the PAMF was a client of her law firm. Council Member Simitian recognized Den 1 of Pack 6 Cub Scouts and Den 1 of Pack 53. Nick Thompson, 2149 Bowdoin Street, spoke regarding selective purchasing of commodities in Burma. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding accountability (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Jim Dinkey, 3380 Cork Oak Way, spoke regarding ramp metering. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 1995 MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of November 16, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Rosenbaum absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Intelink Research, Inc. for a Wireless Vehicle Management System - CIP 19521; change orders not to exceed $15,700. MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Rosenbaum absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS MOTION: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to merge the public hearings for Agenda Item Nos. 2 and 3 and the public testimony for Item No. 4. 01/22/96 78-60 MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Rosenbaum absent. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Urban Lane Campus Project Final Environment Impact Report (EIR) and Project-Related Applica-tions for Property Located at 795 El Camino Real, Including Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Text Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Design Enhancement Exception (DEE), Deferral of Required Parking Spaces, Architectural Review Board (ARB) Approval, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Extension of Urban Lane to University Circle 3. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an ordinance approving a First Amendment to a Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Medical Foundation regarding the Palo Alto Specific Plan area near Downtown Palo Alto located at 300 Homer Avenue and adjacent properties 4. Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Vacate Public Street and Utilities Easements on the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Development Site at 795 El Camino Real and Setting a Public Hearing for February 20, 1996 Mayor Wheeler summarized the Council's procedure regarding the item and suggested Council Members focus on their issues of concern and also the concerns of members of the public and the applicant so that the Council's concerns could be responded to by them. She said the issue was one of the more important things that the Council would do for the current year and for the life of the community. She reminded her colleagues that the issue was quasi-judicial and contacts with both the applicant and other interested members of the public should be disclosed. Council Member Kniss said the issue had been under consideration for several years, and she asked the time frame for the disclo-sures. City Attorney Ariel Calonne clarified the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project had been out since October 1995. He said the Council policy limited disclosure obligation to contacts that significantly influenced a Council Member or provided information that a Council Member intended to rely upon. The time frame would be October 1995, and a Council Member would have to use his/her judgment about the impact of the contacts on his/her decision. Council Member Simitian asked for further clarification about the number of votes required to adopt the various approvals requested that evening and at a future Council Meeting if the item were continued. 01/22/96 78-61 Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the list of the applications and actions before the Council constituted the most complex set of actions on a development proposal that the City had processed in more than 21 years. However, from another perspective, there were relatively few issues that the Council needed to focus on. Basically, staff wanted the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) to stay in the City because a substantial number of Palo Altans used the Clinic and would be inconvenienced by its moving out of town, but staff wanted PAMF to move from its current site. The PAMF had been a part of the community for over 60 years, and there was value in maintaining that relationship. Staff also wanted PAMF not to implement the approved Specific Plan for its current site and wanted PAMF to relocate out of the neighborhood it was currently located in. The physical and operational problems associated with the current location and the interface with the neighborhood had gone on for decades. PAMF's relocation would provide an opportunity for redevelopment of the existing site and would heal the wounds that the neighborhood had suffered. The key question for any proposed relocation was whether the new site could function effectively, safely, and with reasonably minimized problems for the rest of the community. He was unaware of any site in Palo Alto which, if occupied by the PAMF, would not have some land use-related problems, so the hope was to reasonably minimize problems. The proposed Urban Lane campus would fit the City's objective for a relocation site. Staff strongly recommended, consistent with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning Commission recommen-dations, that the various actions necessary to bring about the Urban Lane campus be approved by the Council. The process of getting from the initial discussions with PAMF representatives through complete development applications to Board, Commission, and Council review had been a difficult process. Numerous technical and policy issues and problems had to be wrestled with. Many of those had been resolved to the point of no longer being issues. Others had been substantially addressed, but there was further technical work to be accomplished. The Council probably noted numerous conditions of approval that began with the phrase "no grading, excavation, or building permit shall be issued until..." That phrase was very deliberate and reflected staff's strong view that if the project were approved, no construction-related activity should be permitted until all the key on-site and off-site details were fully resolved. The ARB and Planning Commission had both done an excellent job in their review roles. Their minutes contained the conditions of approval and reflected their careful consider-ation of numerous issues. The more important items were discussed in the January 22, 1996, staff report (CMR:104:96). The four important policy and technical issues were: the proposed new signalized entry to El Camino Real; the second left-turn lane from El Camino Real to Embarcadero Road; the Urban Lane extension; and the much discussed under-, over-, or at-grade connection from the proposed Urban Lane campus to the Downtown. The proposed major 01/22/96 78-62 access from the PAMF's site to El Camino Real had been a prime objective for the PAMF from its first discussions with staff. Making that connection work had been a technical challenge, but the proposed intersection design would work, and Caltrans staff appeared satisfied with the design and analysis. It was important to note that Caltrans controlled the right of access to El Camino Real, and it could either deny or condition new access points as it believed appropriate to protect public safety. That role led to the second issue, the second left-turn lane at El Camino Real. Staff had three meetings with Caltrans staff since the release of the Draft EIR in late October 1995. From the beginning of its review of the EIR, Caltrans staff expressed a major concern that PAMF-related traffic, especially from the proposed driveway with El Camino Real, would cause significant left-turn problems at Embarcadero Road. Caltrans' response to the EIR indicated that it would require a second left-turn lane as part of the new PAMF entry approval. The final addendum to the EIR contained additional analysis of the second left-turn lane. Following the Planning Commission's December 12, 1995, conclusion of its review of PAMF-related items, staff, at the urging of the University South Neighborhoods Group, again met with Caltrans. Caltrans staff rather grudgingly agreed to accept, if requested by the City, a monitoring approach for the second left-turn lane rather than construction of the second left-turn lane as part of the PAMF project. City staff continued to recommend construction of the second left-turn lane as desired by Caltrans. The traffic projections clearly warranted the turn lane and construction before the PAMF moved in as preferred to construction after the problem was present. However, if the Council desired, Caltrans would accept the monitoring approach described in the staff report. The third issue was the Urban Lane extension from the PAMF's site to University Circle. The roadway was essential for the functioning of the PAMF's activities as presently designed. The Planning Commission, ARB, and staff recommended Alternative Design No. 4 in the EIR. He underscored that the PAMF, Joint Powers Board (JPB), and Stanford University had yet to agree to a proposed extension. The detail work of the issue would involve a variety of policy, technical, and financial issues, primarily among those three parties. City staff's concerns focused on there being a safe and technically acceptable design and being able to avoid becoming enmeshed in financial and policy issues that were of concern to the PAMF, JPB, and Stanford. That was one of the issues that the recommended conditions of approval required be resolved prior to issuance by the City of any grading, excavation, or building permits. He referred to the issue of the railroad track barrier between the Urban Lane area and Downtown, especially the South of Forest Area, and said in the very early discussions, City staff identified a pedestrian/bicycle connection as highly desirable. The PAMF staff concurred, but its initial investigation identified an undercrossing as quite expensive and the undercrossing was not part of the 1994 applications. Unfortunately, the PAMF's public relations efforts continued to tout an undercrossing as a benefit 01/22/96 78-63 of the proposed new campus. The PAMF did agree to fund a very preliminary engineering analysis of an undercrossing and that information was provided in Appendix G of the EIR. He summarized the conclusions about the undercrossing: nearly everyone wanted the connection built; Mountain View constructed a shorter, simpler undercrossing in the late 1980s at a cost comparable to $1,500,000 for a Palo Alto undercrossing; an overcrossing, because of various requirements, would have to have a 500- to 600-foot-long ramp up to and then down from the crossing--a technically feasible but probably not very practical solution that might cost somewhat, but not very much, less than an undercrossing; an at-grade crossing would need California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approval, and people more familiar with that process than City staff gave very little hope that an at-grade crossing would be approved. Further, City staff did not support an at-grade crossing for safety reasons; the PAMF site by itself would have some benefit from a crossing but was no where near enough to technically justify having the City impose the cost on the PAMF; City staff did not recommend that the City's General Fund absorb the bulk of the undercrossing cost; and the Urban Lane project was conditioned to provide land and easements for a future undercrossing, plus the $150,000 for construction costs that the PAMF representative volunteered at the Planning Commission hearing. He said an undercrossing was a good but expensive idea that the City did not have a way to implement at the present time. He said the amendment to the Development Agreement would accomplish four things: (1) avoid the PAMF's Down-town Specific Plan approvals if and when it constructed the Urban Lane campus; (2) establish a maintenance and security requirement for the Downtown site after the PAMF relocated; (3) establish a Downtown site reuse planning process based on the coordinated area planning concept discussed by the Council as part of the Comprehen-sive Plan Update which committed the PAMF to pay two-thirds of the cost of consultant contracts to a maximum of $200,000; and (4) establish a prohibition on demolition except for life safety concerns as determined primarily by the Fire Chief and Chief Building Official. He referred to the errata sheet at the Council's place that evening that identified three minor correc-tions to the material provided to the Council. In addition, the parking deferral had been recalculated at approximately 340 spaces rather than the 305 spaces as identified in the staff report. Staff remained comfortable with the parking deferral. Staff strongly recommended Council approval of the actions needed to establish an Urban Lane campus for the PAMF. Mr. Calonne noted that an important issue referenced to the Development Agreement in 1991 was that the Development Agreement carried forward the PAMF's obligation to provide a child care site at a nominal lease cost at Channing Avenue and Ramona Street. Planning Commissioner Sandy Eakins said five members of the Planning Commission were able to participate in the item. Three meetings on the PAMF application were held, and their votes were 01/22/96 78-64 unanimous. Commissioners made individual or joint visits to the proposed site, studied the staff reports and the draft EIR, and listened carefully to the public testimony. All of the Planning Commissioners were supportive of the planned move of the PAMF from its historic location in Downtown south to the Urban Lane area. The Planning Commission was aware of the conflicts that had resulted from the steady growth and changes of the PAMF and looked forward to the planned changes. A major area of concern was the second left-turn lane to Embarcadero Road from South El Camino Real which was still very controversial. Interior circulation was also a concern, i.e., safety of people walking on the campus, potential confusion about finding a way either on foot or in a vehicle in and out of the underground parking garage. The Commission urged continued attention to that area. The Commission was also concerned about the adjoining properties on Wells Road and Encina Avenue which would be heavily impacted by the new project. The height and bulk of the project would present challenges, but the Commission understood why the site had to be raised several feet in places to accommodate both the geologic constraints for construc-tion of the two-story underground parking garage and for construc-tion of buildings above the garage. The Commission anticipated that a lot of landscaping would be needed, especially from the south looking north to Building C. The Commission spent a lot of time on the connections to the Downtown, and the draft EIR that the Commission approved stated that the El Camino Real entrance had to include an Urban Lane connection. The Commission supported the pedestrian/bicycle underpass for Homer Avenue and Alma Street. Several Commissioners were concerned about the large size of the project, protecting all of the existing buildings Downtown, including the former University African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Zion Church, protecting the artists' murals on the original building and having artists involved in the treatment of the areas for the new project. Planning Commissioner Phyllis Cassel was particularly concerned about the urgent care parking and drop-off situations. The Commission recognized that the project was still work-in-progress and that the concerns would resurface until they were resolved. Architectural Review Board Member Robert Peterson explained that three members of the five-member Architectural Review Board (ARB) had a conflict of interest with the project, and one member had to be chosen in order to have a quorum. One critical issue that had not been resolved was the connection under or over the railroad tracks. The applicant had made a good faith effort to encourage that connection by providing $150,000 and had ensured that the applicant's plans would accept the connection in the future. The second critical issue was the need to include an art budget for a project of that size and scope, and he believed the PAMF had a proposal that would be submitted to the Public Art Commission (PAC). The third critical issue was the appearance of the east building. It was the largest single element of the structure and had the least definition. The ARB discussed the issue at length. 01/22/96 78-65 The applicant and the applicant's architectural landscape archi-tects had been extremely responsive to the ARB's comments and had made substantial changes as the project had moved through the process. The ARB supported the project. Council Member Andersen asked whether the City/Schools Traffic Committee was consulted regarding the left-turn lane. Mr. Schreiber said no. Council Member Andersen asked whether a consultation with the City/Schools Traffic Committee could be incorporated into the process. He said the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) was concerned about the impact of the traffic flow from Palo Alto High School. Mr. Schreiber understood a meeting was scheduled for Thursday, January 25, 1996, and the item could be placed on the agenda at that time. Council Member Andersen asked whether the City would have insisted that there be an undercrossing or overcrossing to connect the Urban Lane site with the City if a major developer had proposed to build housing on the site. Mr. Schreiber said the concept of the undercrossing surfaced during the previous Dream Team design exercise, and he did not believe before that exercise that there was any concerted effort to consider that issue in terms of development or redevelopment of the Urban Lane. He distinguished an undercrossing as a City Capital Improvement Project (CIP) versus a developer provided amenity. The City had limitations regarding its ability to impose a developer provided amenity as a condition of approval. The City would have to build a case that a housing project would have a notable impact which would require that type of mitigation condition of approval. He was not confident that the City would be able to make that type of nexus for most of the cost if there were a housing development proposed for the area. Council Member Andersen said staff indicated that an at-grade crossing would have significant safety problems with the JPB and the PUC. However, there were several pedestrian at-grade crossings in the City and the state that did not have substantial hazards. He asked what had changed the thinking of both agencies regarding the hazards of at-grade crossings and what the alternative would be for a pedestrian crossing. City Traffic Engineer Ashok Aggarwal understood from discussions with the JPB that it would strongly oppose an at-grade crossing. Staff had also spoken with the PUC staff, and its position was also in opposition to an at-grade crossing. Current administrative policy stated that there would be no new at-grade crossings. The City could submit a hazards analysis to the PUC for its consider- 01/22/96 78-66 ation of an at-grade crossing. However, the PUC staff suggested that the City not start a study because it was difficult, if not impossible, to prove that the hazards as a result of the new at-grade crossing would not exceed the present conditions. The hazards analysis should indicate that the hazards as a result of the at-grade crossing would be less than what presently existed. For example, the PUC's concern was that a person in a wheelchair or a person wearing high-heel shoes could get stuck on the railroad crossing. There had been fatal accidents at the intersection of Alma Street/Meadow Drive and Alma Street/Charleston, and the Council had approved a CIP to conduct a feasibility study to determine whether undercrossing could be built at one or all of the railroad crossings which would only be for pedestrians and bicyclists. Council Member Andersen asked whether a condition of approval would be necessary to carry out a proposal in the long-term CIP that would include underground crossings at Alma Street/ Charleston, Alma Street/Meadow Drive, and at the site. Mr. Calonne believed the staff recommendation before the Council accommodated that condition, but the budget question was another issue. Council Member Kniss clarified the PAMF was an anchor tenant within the Downtown, and it was important that the anchor tenant had access to the Downtown area. There were presently several at-grade crossings in Palo Alto, and she asked whether the City would not be permitted to have at-grade crossing henceforth and what the precedent was for the rest of California. Mr. Schreiber said the PUC had indicated a strong aversion to any more at-grade crossing anywhere, and there was some organizational policy at work to strongly discourage at-grade crossing. The site had the connection to the Downtown area through the University Avenue underpass, and the distance from the proposed PAMF site to the retail core of the Downtown would be no longer by using the University Avenue underpass than it would if there were an underpass at Homer Avenue. The South of Forest Area (SOFA) would be closer if there were a Homer Avenue undercrossing. Council Member Simitian felt that Council Member Kniss' questions were pertinent. Some people wanted parking close to their office so they did not have to walk very far to work, and he asked whether the proposed site was beyond the range that people would consider walkable. Council Member Kniss had always believed there would be a connec-tion between the proposed site and the Downtown. Mr. Schreiber said there was no adopted City policy to have a connection between that area and the Downtown. The concept was 01/22/96 78-67 discussed by the Dream Team and the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC). Staff encouraged the PAMF to investigate that concept, but the PAMF had no obligation to propose that connection. After investigating the cost, the initial proposal did not include a provision for the connection. The current proposal provided an easement for a connection if it were ever built. The distance from the proposed Urban Lane campus site to the Downtown would not be extremely close whether the University Avenue undercrossing or a new undercrossing at Homer Avenue was used. Staff had tried to sort out the advantages and potential advantages of having an undercrossing at Homer Avenue. Mr. Aggarwal presented overhead graphs of centroids close to the proposed site and away from the site. Several places showed that there was no difference in using the undercrossing at Homer Avenue or using the undercrossing at University Avenue. The Downtown centroid was at Bryant Street and University Avenue, and the walking distance was about 0.57 miles. The Downtown North centroid was at Waverley and Everett Streets, and the distance was the same. There was a substantial difference with or without the crossing along Homer Avenue and Emerson Street; at Lincoln Avenue and Waverley Streets, there was a slight difference. Council Member Kniss said the distance that people perceived was the issue. Mr. Schreiber said the proposed project would have a roadway, bicycle path, and sidewalk connection from the site to University Circle which would facilitate the movement of traffic both to and from the transit center as well as getting to University Avenue. After review of the EIR and the analysis, staff could not find any adverse impact for bicyclists or pedestrians because of the lack of an undercrossing at Homer Avenue. People had access to University Avenue which would get them into the Downtown area at the same travel distance as using Homer Avenue which was a strong part of the thinking in terms of the conditions that would be applied to the application. The City could do a CIP in the future, but it could not ask an applicant to provide certain amenities unless it was linked to adverse impacts. Mr. Calonne clarified staff looked to the EIR as a tool to justify imposing the cost of the undercrossing on the PAMF and none of the information thus far supported that demand. The constructive approach for the public and the Council was to identify some factual information that would support that kind of exaction. Vice Mayor Huber disclosed that he had met with representatives of the PAMF several times during the previous years. He referred to the deferred parking and asked how many times the City could trigger the requirement to build a parking facility. 01/22/96 78-68 Mr. Schreiber said in almost 20 years that the City had had deferred parking, he could think of a situation in which the City had to actually require the deferred parking to be implemented. The condition was structured so that the applicant would need to get enough parking on site to bring the parking space vacancy rate up a minimum of 5 percent. If a parking structure were envisioned, the foundations of the parking structure would have to be suitable to handle the full physical parking load for a full structure. One layer of the parking structure could be built which would provide enough parking to address the deficit. The specifics would have to be worked out at the time a parking need was documented and required by the City. Vice Mayor Huber wanted to make certain the language clarified that the City had the ability to address the parking issue more than one time. Mr. Schreiber said the City definitely had the ability to address the issue more than once or it would have to require all of the parking at the beginning. If all of the parking were required, the City might end up with a five-story parking structure that might not be needed or wanted due to visual impacts. Senior Assistant City Attorney Debra Cauble said the condition was worded so that the City would have an agreement that detailed how the condition would be implemented. The Council could incorporate into the condition that the City would have multiple chances to determine the need or require the work to be done in phases. Vice Mayor Huber said previously there was concern about overuse, and the PAMF's current facility had specifics about the number of physicians and hours. He asked whether there would be a similar control if the PAMF attempted to double in size. Mr. Schreiber said the control would be the parking problem. The existing site had been able to function by having parking spread into the neighborhood; but it never provided the amount of required parking, and there was always that interface problem with the neighborhood. The proposed site had more confined parking and fewer alternatives to off-site parking. In addition, the proposed site was located on El Camino Real, a major arterial, and not in the middle of a neighborhood which was another reason why the staff did not recommend pursuing that type of physician number or hour cap that was in the existing Specific Plan. Staff did not support that condition as part of the Specific Plan. Vice Mayor Huber asked what would restrict the parking from spreading to Town & Country Village. Mr. Schreiber said Town & Country Village could take action to control parking on its site. If there were an undercrossing to Homer Avenue, the most likely off-site parking would be in the 01/22/96 78-69 SOFA. There could be parking spaces in the JPB parking lot, but the JPB would probably regulate that parking lot in the future when train ridership increased. Vice Mayor Huber asked whether the City would be dealing with a clean slate when the area plan commenced so that the City would not be faced with a situation in which the interested neighbors could only react to it. Mr. Schreiber said that was the objective. A community process would be started to figure out what the community and the property owner concluded should be appropriate. Staff strongly discouraged the PAMF from entering the process with a developer in place and drawings already prepared which would counter the staff's vision of having effective process. Council Member Fazzino found it difficult to accept the conclusion that there was not a nexus between a downtown crossing and the proposed site, but there was a nexus at Page Mill Road/El Camino Real in the form of additional road improvements with the proposed development. He asked why there was a nexus in one place but not the other. Mr. Calonne said there were traffic studies that showed an impact at Page Mill Road/El Camino Real. He referred to the EIR and the fiscal impact and the numbers showed that the project would not cause a loss of revenue to the Downtown. If housing were con-structed at the Downtown site, it would produce the same revenue. He considered traffic and the fiscal impact as the two critical pieces of evidence which was why the staff report made that conclu-sion. Council Member Fazzino clarified any significant development along El Camino Real in Palo Alto would have an impact on Page Mill Road\El Camino Real. Mr. Schreiber said that was possible. The EIR set out significant standards to determine a significant impact, and the law stated there had to be a significant impact to impose mitigations. The problem at Page Mill Road/El Camino Real was that existing traffic volumes were quite high and the level of service was at Level "E." There was a significant physical impact under the City's standards when that worsened, e.g., in a cumulative scenario if the intersec-tion went to Level "F," then the PAMF had a share of that "F" level of traffic, and as such there was a linkage between the PAMF's project and the "F" condition. The staff had not found adverse impacts in terms of the Downtown; and the lack of an undercrossing would not result in a significant impact, or the presence of an undercrossing would not reduce a significant impact to a level of insignificance. The undercrossing would have a very minimal impact on the total vehicle traffic entering and exiting the proposed 01/22/96 78-70 site. There might be a slight impact at Page Mill Road/El Camino Real, but it would not reach a significant standard. Council Member Fazzino said the City Attorney previously offered some hope for those people who might be interested in exploring the issue of a potential nexus when he indicated that the Council could put together a body of evidence that justified a nexus. Mr. Calonne was uncertain of the area that the Council should explore. The future planning study for the Downtown that the PAMF was obligated to finance might be an opportunity to try to ventilate the issue better. Mr. Schreiber said the study would be an opportunity to explore the issue further in terms of positive benefits of having an undercrossing. However, the PAMF would have to be under construc-tion at the Urban Lane site before that study could begin, and there would be no opportunity to attach further conditions that linked the PAMF to the undercrossing. The PAMF indicated the reuse of the existing site would be primarily residential, and he could not envision a technically feasible connection between new housing and the need for the undercrossing of such magnitude that the City could attach a fee to the housing to help fund the undercrossing. He noted the nexus issue had to be based on factual information and conclusions. Anne Moore, Moore Consulting, had worked for over a year on how to determine what the fair share would be for the PAMF to contribute towards the cost of an expensive undercrossing. A study would have to be done to project what would be the likely use of such an undercrossing by pedestrians and bicyclists and where they would be coming from and going to. The study would then have to identify from that total what proportions were attributable to the PAMF's project. She felt the question became somewhat moot when the PAMF representatives committed to providing $150,000 toward construction of that improvement. She also felt an extensive detailed analysis would be subject to many questions because it would be based on professional judgment and projections. She estimated the projec-tions would show the PAMF to be about 10 percent of the total amount of traffic, and she expected the projections to show very heavy use by Stanford University students and employees and longer distance travelers between Downtown and point east to the Stanford campus and point south on El Camino Real. She felt Town & Country Village, Stanford University, and a large area in the Downtown, particularly along the Homer Avenue corridor, would benefit significantly from an undercrossing. Council Member Kniss asked whether Ms. Moore's reference was to walkers and bicyclists, not automobile traffic. Ms. Moore said yes. 01/22/96 78-71 Council Member Fazzino said the deliberations appeared to dismiss serious consideration of a shuttle service to the Downtown area as an alternative, particularly since the Council had accepted the Transportation Division's vision of an eventual tie-in between the Marguerite Shuttle System and a Palo Alto jitney system in the future. Ms. Moore said the deliberations focused on the transient and circulation impacts that would be triggered by the project in the area and/or the transit service limitations for the project. It was found that the standard distance for bus stops was further away at the site; and if it remained impossible to have both northbound and southbound bus stops in front of the site on El Camino Real, some kind of mitigation would be needed to take care of the transit deficiency. At that point, it was found that the Marguerite Shuttle System could go to and from the transit center and through the site in such a way that it would overcome that deficiency. The shuttle system was not ignored but analyzed, and an impact was found; but the mitigation was to have a Marguerite-type Shuttle System equivalent. The condition was set up so that if the PAMF and Stanford University did not reach an agreement on a provision for the Marguerite, the PAMF had responsibility for providing a people shuttle to and from the transit center. Mr. Schreiber said the Council had discussed a shuttle system as part of the Comprehensive Plan process; there was no adopted policy that related to a local shuttle service. Conditions of approval could not be created without an adopted policy. Karl Heisler, Environmental Science Associates, project manager for the EIR, referred to page 74 of the final EIR addendum and said Stanford University's current plan was that beginning September 1996, the Marguerite Shuttle System could go through the PAMF site and run to Lytton Plaza at least midday and possibly all day. There would be a potential shuttle that could go at least midday to and from the Downtown to the PAMF site. Council Member Fazzino was disappointed there was no consideration of the impact of an expanded shuttle system through the Downtown and other areas and what that might do to obviate the need for an undercrossing. He said the staff report (CMR:104:96) did not provide information regarding the alternative of pedestrian-only at-grade crossings, and he asked that safety and other information be provided on that alternative. Mr. Schreiber said representatives of the JPB could provide that information. Council Member Schneider asked whether people would use the railroad tracks anyway if an at-grade crossing were not provided which would create more of a danger. 01/22/96 78-72 Mr. Aggarwal said people currently used the railroad tracks, but he understood that as part of the project, a fence would be installed at the back of the PAMF site. Council Member Schneider said there was some information in the EIR regarding the amount of business that was attributable to the PAMF in the Downtown area. She recalled a previous study regarding the amount of negative impact on the Downtown area if the PAMF left the area. She asked whether there was a way to determine how much business was generated from the PAMF. Ms. Cauble said Appendix H of the EIR provided an economic analysis of the project. The report analyzed the shift of a small percent-age of business to the Town & Country Village and other sites south. The report also projected that there would be new users in the Downtown area. She was uncertain whether more specific projections could be done other than in Appendix H. Council Member Schneider asked whether the $150,000 provided by the PAMF would be the 10 percent exaction of $1.5 million of revenue lost. Mr. Schreiber said the 10 percent had not been factored into the analysis outside of the EIR process. The $150,000 figure was determined by the PAMF; he did not know the basis for that figure, but he did not believe it had a direct linkage to a percentage of future costs. Council Member Schneider said there was discussion about other methods of funding either the undercrossing or the at-grade crossing, i.e., an assessment district; and there was a comment that the $150,000 provided by the PAMF could be used to establish the assessment district. She asked whether a survey was done to determine whether the Downtown businesses would support an assessment district. Mr. Schreiber said the PAMF indicated it wanted the $150,000 to be used for construction purposes. He did not view the $150,000 being used as seed money for an assessment district process. An assessment district would need to include the SOFA and a portion of the Downtown. Staff had not done any work to assess the feasibili-ty of an assessment district, and Kathleen Gwynn, President of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, had indicated in her letter dated January 22, 1996, that the membership had not been polled either. Substantial support in the community would be necessary to justify those levels of cost. Council Member Schneider wanted either the Chamber of Commerce or the City to pursue whether the merchants or the people in the Downtown area were interested in an assessment district. She asked how the housing mitigation fee would be exacted from the project and how the proposed project differed from other housing projects. 01/22/96 78-73 Mr. Schreiber said the housing mitigation fee was based on the amount of new nonresidential square footage on a particular site. The buildings that existed on the proposed site were demolished after the application was submitted and totalled about 92,000 square feet. The PAMF started out with a credit of about 92,000 square feet, and for the square footage beyond that amount, the PAMF would pay a housing mitigation fee of approximately $3.45 per square foot effective at the time of the building permit. The PAMF had raised concerns about the mitigation fee and had suggested an alternative given the fact that the existing nonresidential site that would be vacated would be used for housing. Staff had not reviewed the proposed alternative since it was new information received from the PAMF, and it would probably require an amendment of the Housing Mitigation Ordinance to put such a trade-off in place. The PAMF presented an unusual situation and an interesting argument. Normal situations did not usually have an existing nonresidential development being vacated and replaced with residential. If the current project plus a reuse project were put together, it would address housing. Staff could consider the issue if Council desired. Council Member Schneider disclosed that she had visited the site, had met with representatives of the PAMF, and had spoken with members of the public regarding the issue. Council Member Simitian disclosed that he had visited the site, had met with representatives of the PAMF, and had spoken with members of the public regarding the issue. He referred to Attachment I, a variance request for parking, of the staff report (CMR:104:96). He asked whether there was a variance request because staff antici-pated the need for sufficient parking and believed the site coverage would have to be increased over the amount ordinarily allowed in order to accommodate the parking. Mr. Schreiber said the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) required that any deferred parking conceptually approved at the time the project was approved should be in the record to show that the parking could be provided. Staff concluded that the variance needed to be in place rather than in the future even though he could not think of an example where deferred parking had been triggered in the last 18 years. Council Member Simitian clarified the variance request indicated that if the variance were approved and if the additional parking were necessary, the site coverage would be 32 percent rather than 30 percent. He said while the discussion of the nexus had focused around the economic impacts of the Downtown, one of the benefits of an at-grade crossing or an undercrossing would be that a substan-tial amount of people would be able to either walk or bicycle to and from the site. If people either walked or bicycled, they would not need to park their cars at the site and then the variance 01/22/96 78-74 request would not be needed. The variance request indicated the City was in a situation where it could not find a nexus, but the reason for the variance request was to have the accommodation for parking. The accommodation for parking and the number of cars that might be at the site seemed to be directly related, and it suggested a nexus between a mitigation derivative that involved a greater possibility of pedestrian or bicycle activity rather than driving and parking spaces. He believed the nexus might be there rather than on the economic basis. Mr. Calonne suggested the Council direct the staff to review the issue. The courts described both type and burden nexus, and he understood the project would produce cars which would produce an impact on the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real intersection. The car impact was a type of nexus. The burden nexus was why the EIR attributed 6 or 7 percent of those costs to the PAMF rather than 100 percent of the costs. He needed to discuss the issue with the consultants, but he believed Council Member Simitian's analysis targeted the type nexus question. However, he was uncertain whether it reached the burden question and whether the City would do any better than $150,000 with that burden analysis. He emphasized to the PAMF that the consultants might come up with something different if Council so directed. Council Member Simitian clarified when the Council was asked to approve a variance, one requirement was extraordinary circumstances and another was in the absence of allowing the variance, the applicant was at a loss to make a reasonable benefit or suffer some undue hardship. That was one of the three justifications for granting the variance. If there were an alternative approach which would not require the variance, e.g., providing an undercrossing or at-grade crossing which would provide pedestrian and bicycle access, it would negate the need for a variance and a nexus would have been drawn. He asked the staff and legal counsel to consider that issue because that drew his attention much more than the attempt to draw a nexus of the economic analysis. He understood the 6 percent figure for Page Mill Road/El Camino Real and the rationale for assessing the burden, but he wanted clarification on both the potential cost for construction to make Page Mill Road/El Camino Real work and the cost of land acquisition depending on the nature of mitigation. He asked whether the 6 percent applied to simple construction costs or whether it also applied to acquisition costs, if any. Mr. Schreiber said it applied to whatever costs necessary to make the mitigation. Council Member Simitian said Palo Alto's previous experience with undercrossings did not generate much enthusiasm for spending $2 million more to have a dark, unattractive, and unpleasant undercrossing. He asked what the potential of creating an undercrossing was that avoided the previous problems and was 01/22/96 78-75 attractive and usable by the public. He understood why the PAMF did not want to spend $2 million for something that did not work. Mr. Aggarwal said the model would be similar to the undercrossing in Mountain View near San Antonio Road that was a reasonably attractive, lighted 14-foot tunnel with open wells on both ends. Mike Sheehy, Consultant, Ruth & Going, said the City of Mountain View indicated that the cost of the undercrossing in 1989 was $1.5 million. Council Member Simitian noticed, when he took the train to San Francisco, that the train stopped at Bay Meadows Race Track to let people on or off the train, and they walked across the railroad tracks. He believed there were sliding chain-link fences and attendants that made the system work. He asked whether a similar system could be used that was entirely safe since safety was the issue. Mr. Schreiber said it was important to differentiate between previously approved facilities and asking the PUC for new approval. He believed there were many facilities that would not be approved at the present time by the PUC, but the PUC did not have the power to remove the approval. He reiterated that the staff from the JPB and PUC had strongly indicated there was no interest in new at-grade crossings which would make it extremely difficult to get approval. Council Member Simitian said there was previous reference that there would be a wall between the PAMF and the railroad tracks, and he asked what the wall would look like. He recalled that previous path studies suggested that people took the shortest distance between two points. He asked what kind of wall would deter people from going from Point A to Point B if they thought it were the shortest distance between those two points. Mr. Schreiber said the City had been working on the design of the bicycle path at the rear of the site for some time, and there was federal funding to pursue the project, including the bridge over Embarcadero Road. The JPB had made it clear that one of the conditions of approval would be the construction of a substantial fence between the bicycle path and the railroad track area that would keep people from crossing in that area. He clarified that it would be a fence, not a wall, and the design details had not been completed on the fence at the present time. The design would return to the ARB for approval after consultation with the JPB. The JPB was very concerned about the number of people who walked along and across the path in various areas of the right-of-way. Council Member Simitian asked what would be the most important time that members of the public or employees moved back and forth across that area. 01/22/96 78-76 Ms. Moore said it would be different from the kind of events that were held at the Bay Meadows Race Track where large numbers of people arrived at the start and end of racing. At the PAMF site, employees would be the largest bulk of people on a regular schedule, but that employer had a very high percentage of staggered work hours. She believed there would be a need for a two-hour period of time in the morning and evening which was a lot for a project that would be generating a low amount of traffic in that area. Mr. Schreiber said if part of the objective were to facilitate people getting to the Downtown for the business community, that would be a midday function, so there would be an extended morning peak, a midday peak, and a fairly long evening peak. There would also be a considerable amount of scattered traffic throughout the day that related to the high school, Town & Country Village, and people who were going to and from Stanford University. Council Member Simitian presumed the safety issue raised related to the number of trains that crossed, and he said during the business day of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., there was a substantial number of trains traveling along the tracks before 9:00 a.m. and after 4:00 p.m. During the 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. period, the headway between trains was much less. He asked what the difficulty was from a safety standpoint if there were a system of gates and/or atten-dants, which he believed was more cost effective than a $2 million capital expenditure. Mayor Wheeler clarified that the Urban Lane extension was a condition of approval of the proposed site plan. She asked, if the Urban Lane extension did not come to fruition, how it would affect the site plan, the City's processes, and Council's action on the vacation of utility and right-of-way public easements that the City held. Ms. Moore said several changes to the project as currently designed would be triggered if the Urban Lane extension were not accom-plished. The major change would be the location of the signalized entrance. One problem was the traffic on the southbound on-ramp did not have sufficient distance to safely weave into the left-turn lane of the proposed signalized entrance at the PAMF which had been extensively analyzed in the EIR, but that issue would not signifi-cantly impact the Urban Lane extension because people would come from Palm Drive and University Avenue into the project. If the Urban Lane extension did not happen, it would force the need to relocate the signalized intersection further south, and the location would most likely be at Encina which would leave the PAMF design with a very ceremonial entrance. The majority of traffic would utilize Embarcadero Road, and it was expected that that would trigger rethinking of the other site design. The lack of an Urban Lane extension would significantly diminish the quality of 01/22/96 78-77 vehicular/bicycle/pedestrian circulation in the area; and there was also linkage from Town & Country Village north to University Circle with the north/south extension in the proposed project. Ms. Cauble said the staff report (CMR:104:96) indicated the proposed street vacation was on a track together with the subdivi-sion map, so the Council would only be asked to approve the vacation at a time when Council had before it a map that created new substitute adequate access. In the future, if the Urban Lane extension became inviable, the City would be looking at a new map with new dedications and eliminating the dedications that had been made previously. In addition, the kinds of site plan changes referenced by Ms. Moore would trigger new ARB review and an amended or new use permit with appropriate conditions. Mayor Wheeler clarified the Council was being asked to make both a Comprehensive Plan land use change and a zoning change for the property. She asked if the project did not proceed on that site, what kind of impact the land use designation and zoning on the site would have on some future development of the site. Mr. Calonne said the zoning and land use designation for the site would not be automatically rescinded. The Development Agreement only served to unwind the existing approval and did not convey a vested right for any period of years to the Urban Lane site. A successor Council would be free to amend the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations at that time. Mayor Wheeler referred to Building D which was included in the environmental material and said she was concerned about the vagueness regarding the use and intensity of use of the proposal. She asked what the Council's approval that evening would convey to the applicant in terms of the intensity of use that would be permitted on that site. Ms. Cauble said the use permit established a maximum square footage, so if Buildings A, B, and C were built first, there would be a remainder allotment that could be applied. It was not a vested right, and the ARB conditions of approval clearly included that the applicant had to show there was reasonable and convenient adequate amounts of parking and that the site design worked. Staff had been assertive with the applicant, and the ARB had indicated its concerns about the siting of the building and how it would work in the future. There were no ARB approvals for Building D, and the applicant had to demonstrate how the building and parking would work in that location. Mayor Wheeler clarified the City had not made any promise to the applicant that there would be a Building D or what the size of the building would be by any action taken by the Council that evening. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. 01/22/96 78-78 Mayor Wheeler referred to comments on page 57 of the staff report (CMR:104:96) on the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real intersection, "If the mitigation measure is eliminated, as PAMF has requested, the certification of the Final EIR will need to be modified because without the mitigation measure, the project will have a cumulative environmental impact without mitigation and the City Council will need to make findings of overriding considerations regarding this impact." She asked whether the document would need to be recircu-lated. Ms. Cauble said based on her review of the EIR as it was ultimately circulated for public review and as it was completed with the Final EIR document, elimination of a mitigation measure at that point would require recirculation because public review assumed that there was a feasible mitigation available which would reduce or eliminate the impact to a level of less than significant. Mr. Schreiber clarified the applicant requested the Planning Commission to eliminate the mitigation measure, but there was nothing in the applicant's submittal to the Council that raised the issue again. Unless the applicant raised the issue during public testimony, it no longer might be an issue. Mr. Calonne said in order to override an impact, there had to be evidence that it was outweighed by project benefits and that the mitigation was infeasible when the project alternatives would not work. The evidence that the City did not have with Page Mill Road/El Camino Real was that that exaction was infeasible. Mayor Wheeler said the Planning Commission added a condition to the amendment to the Development Agreement on the Downtown site which attempted to protect the integrity of the historic structures at the Downtown site during that period of time when the City had entered into and went through the coordinated area planning process. She referred to Exhibit A which described the area in question, and she wanted to make certain that the Planning Commission's discussion revolved around buildings such as the AME Zion Church and the houses on Bryant Street and that those structures were included in the description of the area in the final document. Ms. Cauble said the amendment added to the Development Agreement in response to the Planning Commission's recommendation was Paragraph 8(b), "None of the existing buildings on the Downtown site shall be demolished prior to issuance of permits for redevelopment of the property..." That would happen after the planning process was complete, unless there was an imminent safety hazard which would be determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment in conjunction with the Fire Chief and the Chief Building Official. The status quo would be preserved and the planning process would move forward; no particular buildings were singled out or excluded. 01/22/96 78-79 She clarified Exhibit A was the legal description of the Downtown site which was the same exhibit attached to the original Develop-ment Agreement and was the property covered by the Downtown Specific Plan. The agreement before the Council that evening preserved the status quo of the buildings in the area owned by the PAMF unless there was an imminent safety hazard. Mayor Wheeler disclosed that she had had a meeting with representa-tives from the PAMF and had spoken with members of the public, neighbors of the Downtown site, and a representative from the Chamber of Commerce regarding the issue. Council Member Fazzino disclosed that he had had a conversation with representatives of the PAMF and had also spoken with represen-tatives of the Chamber of Commerce and with members of the public and the neighborhood in which the PAMF was currently located. Council Member Kniss disclosed that her contacts echoed those of Council Member Fazzino's. She asked whether the bicycle path could be used by pedestrians. Mr. Aggarwal said yes. Council Member Kniss understood there would be a high wall on one side of the bicycle path, and she asked what the other side of the path would look like and whether it would be safe. Mr. Aggarwal said there would be a fence between the path and the railroad tracks. Ms. Moore said the area along the length of the building would be landscaped, and there would be landscaping behind Building B if it were built in the future. Close attention had been given to the nature of the landscaping and lighting improvements and it would be a safe path. Council Member Andersen disclosed that he had spoken with represen-tatives of the PAMF and members of the public regarding the issue. He understood that if there were a proposal to build Building D, it would be reviewed by the ARB. He asked, if the Council approved the recommendations that evening, whether the proposal would also be presented to the Council for approval. Ms. Moore said only ARB approvals would be required. Council Member Andersen asked whether the $150,000 offered by the PAMF for construction of the undercrossing had a cost of living factored into the figure given that it might take several years before something took place. Mr. Schreiber said no. The amount was cash and not inflated. 01/22/96 78-80 Mayor Wheeler asked the City Attorney's Office staff to clarify the Council's review process. Ms. Cauble said the first action before the Council after the public hearing had closed related to the EIR for the project. The Council would be required to certify that the EIR was adequate which meant that the document contained sufficient information for the Council to make an intelligent decision regarding the environ-mental consequences of the project. In addition to certifying that the EIR was adequate, the Council had to have reviewed and considered it before taking the project actions, and then to approve the project, the Council needed to make specific findings. Proposed findings were in Attachment C of the staff report (CMR:104:96). For each significant impact that the EIR had identified, the Council had to find that either the impact had been mitigated through impositions of conditions or modifications to the project, that the mitigations within the control of some other agency that could and should handle mitigation, or that there were specified economics, social or other considerations, which justified approving the project notwithstanding the fact that an impact could not be fully mitigated. Proposed findings were in Attachment C. In making the findings, the Council had to rely on substantial evidence. Substantial evidence generally meant there was enough relevant information to support a fair argument that that was a reasonable conclusion even though other conclusions might be reached. She clarified it would take five votes of the Council for any or all of the actions on the project before the Council that evening. She explained that Exhibits A and B to the Development Agreement would be attached to the second reading of the Ordinance. Council Member Simitian asked whether Council Member Rosenbaum would be able to participate at a future Council Meeting on the issue. Ms. Cauble said if Council Member Rosenbaum had listened to the tape of the proceedings and had made himself familiar with the evidence in the record that was available to the entire Council, he would be able to so declare and participate in future delibera-tions. RECESS: 9:40 P.M. - 9:50 P.M. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. David Jury, Real Estate Manager for the Palo Alto Medical Founda-tion, 300 Homer Avenue, said the process formally started in April 1995 when the PAMF went to the ARB for its first public hearing. Since that time, the PAMF had been through four ARB meetings and three Planning Commission meetings. The results of the ARB and the Planning Commission were unanimous, and the results were also unanimous in 1995 when they did not like the project. The project 01/22/96 78-81 before the Council that evening was the result of a lot of work by many people, including City staff, Planning Commission, and the ARB. The current facility was old and inefficient, and many of the buildings were not designed for medical use. There was no flexibility to share facilities, and it was possible to have to walk two or three blocks in cross traffic to go from one physician to another. There were streets that cut off departments and there was parking and traffic in the neighborhood. The new facility would address those issues and many more. The PAMF was pleased that the project was before the Council that evening. He reviewed several issues. Building D, the Wellness Center, was a possibili-ty, and the PAMF wanted to have a wellness center. A cooperation between the PAMF and other providers in the area should also be done but there were no agreements in place as yet. The PAMF wanted to bring everything forward in the EIR and not have to return in a few months with another piece. The requirement from Caltrans that there be a second left-turn lane on El Camino Real was tough. The PAMF agreed with staff when they asked Caltrans to postpone the issue and would agree with the Council's decision on the matter. There had been much discussion about pedestrian/bicycle access to the Downtown, and the PAMF also wanted pedestrian access. The problem was that the tunnel would cost $2 million, and the PAMF could not afford the cost. The PAMF agreed with the staff and the City Attorney that there did not appear to be the connection that would require the PAMF to construct a tunnel. The PAMF had pledged $150,000 and membership in an assessment district. The PAMF felt the mitigation fee was to help with the jobs/housing imbalance and believed it was only fair when talking about the jobs/housing imbalance that the total amount of commercial spaces that would be taken out of commercial space and into residential should be considered. The PAMF wanted credit for all the commercial space that would be removed. Dr. Robert Jamplis, President, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, felt it was a win-win situation for the PAMF, the City, and the neighbors. He pointed out that immediately after the Council approved the Specific Plan, it became apparent that Urban Lane was a better location for the facility. The PAMF realized that it would take 12 to 14 years before the Specific Plan could be accomplished, and the facility would still be in the wrong place. The PAMF was delighted with the Urban Lane site and felt the facility would meet all its needs. The PAMF had been very effective in delivering care, but it had not had the facilities to be efficient. The formula for success of any health care institu-tion in the future would be a large multi-specialty clinic that emphasized and stressed patient education, health maintenance, and an outpatient setting rather than a hospital. The PAMF had a large integrated system with marketing and contracting capabilities, and most of the patients should be capitated which was the only way to lower the cost of health care in the United States and still deliver patient satisfaction and quality health care. Incentives were different in that mode; and the doctors, providers, and 01/22/96 78-82 partners were on salary. The PAMF provided care to about 50 percent of the households in Palo Alto. There had been concern about duplication of facilities with Stanford which was the PAMF's new partner. Both Stanford and the PAMF were operating 7 days per week, and Stanford and the PAMF worked closely together not to duplicate facilities. Also, any expansion that would be done would be in the satellite facilities, not in the main facility. He thanked the City staff for its splendid cooperation with the project. Dr. David Druker, Chief Operating Officer, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 300 Homer Avenue, described the current situation as a cross between being overcrowded and intolerable. There was no place to put new doctors and the facility was out of space. He believed that the future of health care in Palo Alto would revolve around three providers: the PAMF, Stanford University, and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. It was too expensive in Palo Alto for new family practitioners to buy a home and start a practice. The PAMF currently saw about 50 percent of the households in Palo Alto and that would continue to grow. The entire facility would be focused around patient education, and there would be a lot of community outreach. The facility would be a credit to the community. Council Member Andersen said the applicant indicated that the expansion would be in the satellite areas but substantial growth was also anticipated. He asked why the application was for a Public Facilities (PF) zone rather than a Planned Community (PC) zone. Mr. Schreiber said most of the PAMF facilities had been in a Major Institution/Special Facilities land use category for a long time. The zoning that went with that land use category was PF. When the PAMF representatives came to the City and indicated they were in the process of acquiring 13 parcels in the Urban Lane area, they talked about the type of facility they wanted for the replacement of their existing facilities. Staff felt that given the type of medical care services that were provided by the PAMF, the land use category should be Major Institution/Special Facilities. The PF zone would not allow the PAMF as a conditional use, but very similar services were being provided at Stanford University which were allowed because it was ancillary to a hospital. Staff felt comfortable recommending an amendment of the PF zone to allow outpatient medical care and related medical research and felt it was consistent with the intent of the zone and the Comprehensive Plan designation. The applicant preferred not to pursue the PC zone, and staff did not feel it was necessity. Dr. Kenneth Weigel, Palo Alto Pet Hospital, 711 El Camino Real, said the pet hospital was adjacent to the proposed site. As stated on page 134 of the Final DEIR addendum dated January 11, 1996, "The DEIR analysis did not assume parking on Wells Avenue." There had 01/22/96 78-83 been informal public parking on both sides of Wells Avenue for 40 years. The PAMF's proposed construction would eliminate approx-imately 15 parking spaces from the south side of Wells Avenue. The employees of the Palo Alto Pet Hospital currently used 12 to 13 of the public parking spaces on Wells Avenue. On page 136 of the Final DEIR, the City staff determined that 13 parking spaces could be provided on the north side of Wells Avenue. However, the 13 spaces would have to take care of the parking demands for the 13 employees of the pet hospital, the owner of one of the warehouses, any warehouse employees, and any additional needs should the Holiday Inn reopen an establishment similar to the Half-Time Sports Bar. It was reasonable to expect the PAMF to provide parking on its lot for the Pet Hospital employees or to maintain public parking along the south side of Wells Avenue. The PAMF should replace the 15 public parking spaces that would be eliminated with its current plans. He asked the Council to direct the staff to adopt the City recommendation in the EIR to provide 13 parking spaces on the north side of Wells Avenue. In addition, he re-quested the Council to direct the Planning Department to further modify the variance already proposed on the south side of Wells Avenue in order to permit dedication of an additional 8-foot public parking strip on the south side of Wells Avenue. Alan Rogers, 49 Wells Avenue, said he owned the warehouse on Wells Avenue for 20 years and property on Urban Lane. Previously, there were studies to extend Wells Avenue over the railroad tracks for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The new idea was to squeeze in a Building D or to increase the land value adjacent to his property on Urban Lane. He agreed with Dr. Weigel's parking suggestions. He would be more impacted than most property owners because he had property on Wells Avenue and Urban Lane. His parking had been moved from Urban Lane adjacent to his warehouse, and he had trees growing in front of his warehouse doors. The Final EIR did not address his impact which was based on two streets with a traffic flow from zero to approximately 4,500 trips per day after the approval. He was concerned about the impact on Urban Lane where he owned property. William Nack, 2102 Almaden Road, San Jose, said the Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building Construction Trades Council endorsed the proposed new PAMF medical center on Urban Lane. Members of the labor unions had health insurance, and the facility would be an excellent option to service the thousands of union members in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. It appeared that the conceptual drawing for the project responded to the changing national movement toward managed care. Spiraling health costs had forced the medical community to conduct a self-examination of how it did business. The medical center reflected some of the changes required in order to provide health care at a reasonable cost for all the people. The Building Construction Trades Council applauded the PAMF for its vision. The PAMF would provide cutting edge service and the location was excellent. Because the facility was between two major 01/22/96 78-84 transportation corridors, it would have quick access and should cause virtually no traffic increase in residential neighborhoods. The Building Construction Trades Council had met with the construc-tion project director for the PAMF and felt sure the project would be of the highest quality, would use local businesses, and would employ approximately 500 local construction workers. On behalf of 22,000 highly skilled union construction workers, he committed their total support for the project. Steve Wright, 5168 Rimwood Drive, San Jose, represented the Electricians Union in Santa Clara County. Union workers recycled their paychecks back into the community. The union had $16 to $20 million in its health and welfare plan to provide benefits for its members. The new facility would have state-of-the-art diagnostic and patient treatment equipment. The PAMF had stated it intended to provide quality health care at a reasonable cost. The union had to be prudent with the $16 million it spent on health care, and the new PAMF facility would be good for the community. He hoped the Council approved the project. Bob Chaudoin, 3430 Pinnacle Drive, San Jose, representing the Plumbers, Steamfitters, and Refrigeration Mechanics Union of Santa Clara County, said the union had a large amount of money to invest in health plans, and it wanted quality health care at the lowest cost. The facility would be in an ideal location and would be accessible from two major transportation corridors. The goal of the PAMF was to provide quality care using fewer resources. The building was conceived for the future and everything would be an outpatient facility. He hoped the Council approved the project. Wayne Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, said the EIR was clear and very informative, particularly the design. Access routes included a group driveway off El Camino Real and service street connecting to University Circle and Encina Avenue. The site was a short walk to the CalTrain and bus transit station, and there would be a bicycle path on the west side of the railroad tracks. All those elements would help with trip reduction strategies. A more complete trip reduction strategy should include an undercrossing at Alma Street for pedestrians, bicycles, and electric golf carts. The best strategy to improve wellness was to promote walking and bicycling. He believed the City and the project sponsors should reach an agreement immediately to build an undercrossing. The PAMF project would be a great addition to the community (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Richard Rathbun, 575 Kellogg Avenue, representing the University South Neighborhood Group, said the University South Neighborhood Group (USNG) was formed to enhance relationships in the neighbor-hoods and within the community. USNG had worked with the PAMF and staff to understand the move to Urban Lane and the redevelopment of the SOFA location. Its primary interest was the redevelopment of the SOFA location. The USNG had four concerns and recommendations 01/22/96 78-85 as noted in its letter dated January 17, 1996: 1) traffic impacts, 2) pedestrian underpass, 3) wellness clinic EIR, and 4) historic buildings (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Patrick Burt, 1249 Harriet Street, representing the University South Neighborhood Group, said the USNG had had extensive meetings with staff and the PAMF to identify and work out some mutually acceptable resolutions for a number of the issues. There had been progress on the two left-turn lane issues. In addition to the underpass, USNG recommended that there be no inclusion of the wellness clinic in the EIR at the present time. The actual environmental impacts of the new clinic site should be seen before determining the cumulative impacts of the wellness clinic, the main clinic, and Stanford's plans for the future. Alternative sites had not been evaluated for the wellness clinic which was a requirement, the proposed project had conflicts with the existing Comprehensive Plan elements, and traffic and congestion would be increased in other areas. The PAMF derived significant benefits from the site, and there should be appropriate mitigations. Staff originally wanted the signal at Encina Avenue to serve both the PAMF and Town & Country Village. The left-turn lane would not be required to keep the access free into Town & Country Village if there were a signal at Encina Avenue. The PAMF indicated patients would not be increased at the new facility, but there had been a significant increase in patients and employees over the last decade. He felt the values of the pedestrian underpass had been understated. Everyone from University Avenue to almost Embarcadero Road would have a shorter pedestrian distance through the access. The employee and patient commuters would use the access, and it would also benefit other users who were not going to the PAMF. Encourag-ing employees to use mass transit was influenced by what an employee could do when he/she reached the site. USNG suggested there be a minimum and maximum dollar amount imposed on the PAMF and that the PAMF not participate in an assessment district. There were other alternative funding sources, and there was a number of beneficiaries that could share in the cost such as the PAMF, Downtown merchants, the City, perhaps the assessment district, and Stanford University. USNG felt the PAMF had not adequately analyzed the benefit of the cost avoidance potential, and the dollars per parking space might need to be considered. Paul Goldstein, 1024 Emerson Street, said the distance from the PAMF to the Downtown area might be the same, but it was less attractive. Studies showed that people walked farther if they could see their destination, and it was an attractive alternative. A direct connection at Homer Avenue would make a physiological link between the site and the Downtown closer and would encourage pedestrian traffic. The DEIR indicated the new site would generate approximately $900,000 annual revenue for the Downtown, and he wanted the trips made by pedestrians rather than by cars to the Downtown. Traffic was a major issue. He urged the Council to purse a safe at-grade crossing. The PAMF derived significant 01/22/96 78-86 benefits from the project and should be expected to contribute more than $150,000. Kathleen Gwynn, President, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said it was rare for the Chamber to take a position on a specific project, but the Chamber strongly favored the PAMF proposed plan because there was a compelling interest on behalf of the entire membership and the community. The Chamber believed the project should move forward without further delay. The PAMF had been a terrific addition to the community, and the Chamber wanted to ensure that it could provide high-quality, cost-effective health care to the community for many more generations. The Chamber shared with members of the community and the PAMF a concern about safe access to the PAMF from the Downtown and was willing to be an active participant in any discussions regarding the kind of crossing or a safe and effective connection between the Urban Lane site and Downtown Palo Alto. Hal Mickelson, Vice President, Government Affairs, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the Chamber strongly believed the new location for the PAMF would allow it to continue to provide quality care and health promotion for future genera-tions. The project deserved all the necessary approvals to enable it to proceed on schedule without delay. The Chamber did not want the refinements and the enhancements to jeopardize the project in any way. The Chamber strongly believed that an effective pedestri-an/bicycle link between Downtown and the PAMF would be essential to the success of the site. It was essential with regard to safety and economic vitality. The Chamber had interviewed its members at several of its committee meetings, and anecdotal evidence from talking with the members involved with the Downtown merchants, restaurant owners, and property owners had indicated that the strong link with the PAMF and its employees would be jeopardized unless the pedestrian/bicycle connection was ensured. The PAMF suggested the notion of the Downtown should include the area west of the railroad tracks. A pedestrian/bicycle lane would help that happen. The question was how to pay for it and what kind of link to have. The estimate for the cost of a connection through a tunnel would be approximately $2 million which would jeopardize the project. The PAMF could not absorb a $2 million cost or even half of that cost. The City had to consider all the alternatives avail-able both with regard to how the connection would look and how the connection could be financed. An at-grade crossing had been discussed as a possibility, and the PAMF had discussed the possibility of upgrading connections to the existing University Avenue undercrossing. The University Avenue undercrossing was neither the best possible choice in terms of perceived attractive-ness nor ideal for bicyclists. Other funding sources had to be considered. The Chamber had asked its neighbors, colleagues, and its counterpart foundation to consider making a measurably greater contribution to the cost of pedestrian/bicycle link in the amount that was currently under discussion. The amount was very generous 01/22/96 78-87 and was not only the $150,000 but also participation in an assessment district which could easily double the present value of $150,000. The PAMF's offer was an exceptionally generous public-spirited offer, particularly when coupled with other public benefit items, and had an aggregate value of $1 million. The Chamber urged the Council to facilitate and participate in an effective pedestrian/bicycle link. The Chamber was willing to be part of the dialogue along with the neighbors, the PAMF, and City staff to make sure that that very desirable element of the project could happen. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, referred to the recommendation from staff to implement the second left-turn lane at Embarcadero Road and El Camino Real. He agreed that it should be done at the same time as the project approval. Staff had also indicated that it would be less destructive to build the second left-turn lane at the present time, and in the future there would be more traffic and background growth from the PAMF and the cumulative impact of other projects. The alternative negotiated by staff with the PAMF was not as good. He understood the alternative would be to see how much overflow traffic there was from the left-turn stacking lane. However, that was not as good as similar trigger mechanisms that were used in the Stanford projects which were at a lower level of service. If an alternative were used in addition to looking at the overflow of the single left-turn stacking, a change in the level of service at the intersection should also be looked at. Also, single lane traffic might go another direction to get to Embarcadero Road. The level of service at University Avenue and El Camino Real should be looked at as well. He suspected if there were only one left-turn lane, some of the traffic would go northbound on El Camino Real to University Avenue and find its way through residential neighbors south of University Avenue. The closest signalized intersection was at Waverley Street and Embarcadero Road. Some people along Embarcadero Road between Emerson and Waverley Streets would benefit in the short term if the second left-turn lane were not put in. If there were a concern on the overall effect on Embarcadero Road traffic, the solution was a lower Floor Area Ratio (FAR). There was a related issue to the second left-turn lane in his letter dated January 17, 1996 (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). He agreed with the previous speakers that Building D should be excluded from the project approval. He recalled the underground parking that was part of the project was initiated in discussions at the preliminary ARB hearings and that underground parking was put in instead of a parking structure which gave a site area to put in Building D which might require a parking structure. The site was a potential housing site in the comprehensive housing study in both federal and state documents and was also incorporated in the City's Compre-hensive Plan. Therefore, it was trading one site for another and there should be the same housing mitigation. If the PAMF were built at its present site, it would require housing mitigation, and in the Comprehensive Plan, the Urban Lane site would be looked at 01/22/96 78-88 for housing. At the current site, the historic structures needed to be maintained rather than allowed to deteriorate more. Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, said University Avenue was not a good alternative for reaching the Downtown for people not in cars. The undercrossing at University Avenue was only suitable for people who were experienced bicyclists, and new people needed to be attracted. It was not a pleasant walk for people either. The PAMF employees currently reached the Downtown by using a bicycle due to the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard, and people were encouraged to use their bicycles or walk because it was so pleasant. People would change their behavior if there were a well designed crossing. She hoped the Council would consider the crossing seriously (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, supported the new site for the PAMF. She said the EIR devoted many pages to the issue of the double left-hand turn onto Embarcadero Road, but by the Year 2010, it projected a level of service of "F" for the Embarcadero Road/El Camino Real intersection which would gridlock the intersection. For the left-hand turn on Embarcadero Road, it projected a need for two left-hand turn lanes of 725 feet which was twice the length of a current one left-hand turn lane. In a response to a question about noise impacts, the EIR stated the decibel level would reach 74 decibels by 1998 and 75 decibels by 2010 which was two and one-half times the state recommended upper limit for residential areas. No data was given in the EIR on air and noise impacts on the segment on Embarcadero Road which would receive the most impact among the residential areas. The City had responsibilities for impact off the site to Highways 101 and 280. The discussions only referenced impacts on intersections on Embarcadero Road. The EIR framework did not suggest how Urban Lane could be urbanized. The proposed application was the first of several major developments and redevelopments projected for the El Camino Real area between Embarcadero Road and Menlo Park. If the area were to be urbanized, the transportation and community design infrastructures would not change by themselves, and the Council's leadership was needed. If it were going to be City policy to allow environmental standards to deteriorate the R-1 zone residential areas, she hoped the Council did it explicitly and not hide from real implications. She asked when the Council would say "no" to net growth and environmental impact. Judith Kemper, 326 Addison Avenue, asked whether an overpass had been considered at the crossing. She said the new coordinated area plan would invite and rely on active participation by all stakeholders when the use of a particular area was being decided. She referred to Sections 10 and 13 of the Development Agreement and said the process decoupled the approvals for the Urban Lane site from any mitigation that could apply to the current Downtown site. The neighborhood had to trust that the new planning process would provide an effective environment for compromise and accommodations 01/22/96 78-89 so that solutions would work for the neighborhood. Section 10 described the planning process but did not provide a specific reference to a coordinated area plan. She suggested the coordinat-ed area plan be used, that Recommendation No. 5 be implemented, and that Council ask staff to develop that plan for the site. A portion of Section 13 was recently changed to stipulate that the Development Agreement would be enforced for a maximum of 33 months following notice of commencement. She did not believe it provided sufficient protection for the neighborhood because if notice of commencement were given at the time that the approvals for the new site were obtained, then 33 months would be the time that the PAMF moved its new site and would be ready to sell the property. If for any reason the proposed planning were to be unsuccessful, it might provide the PAMF an opportunity to develop its current site despite a breakdown in the planning process. She wanted a longer period specified in the Development Agreement and suggested the neighbors have six weeks advance notice to participate in the process. The child care facility was the only exception to mitigation to the Downtown site. She suggested that some part of the PAMF land be dedicated to open space or to a park. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, was still concerned about the reason for a PF instead of a PC zone. Staff could justify the reasoning, but the PC zone read that "it was either publicly owned and operated by a nonprofit or publicly occupied properties." The project did not qualify under either of those definitions, and she felt the Council was opening up a real issue in terms of zoning. She asked how the Council would differentiate between the PAMF and some other medical clinic that might want to be PF because it served the public. The PAMF had operated under the PC in the Major Institutions/Special Facilities for many years. The PAMF was already at its 1:1 FAR limit and zoned PF, and she asked how the Council would deal with that when the PAMF wanted to expand. She asked whether the 1:1 FAR would be raised above 1:1 or whether it would apply to that private entity which was also PF. Those were serious questions that would have to be addressed by a future Council. Traffic projects and the possible purchase by the PAMF of adjoining properties might bring about the request again for a major break in FAR by a rezoning to PF. The Council had discussed an undercrossing on a 9-acre site with a 355,000-square-foot development and was abandoning large rights-of-way and getting some rather minor accesses. She hoped the rights-of-way for the Urban Lane access were publicly dedicated or in an easement so that they were protected for the future and not blocked off as in the Holiday Inn. It was important to make sure that the Development Agreements could not be simultaneous with the project. John Hackmann, 235 Embarcadero Road, said a walkable town was really nice. The PAMF in the area was a good place for the facility. The traffic volume and speed were high on Embarcadero Road. The proper design for Embarcadero Road should be a two-lane street with two bicycle lanes and a large tree median between 01/22/96 78-90 Middlefield Road to El Camino Real to have an appropriate entrance to Palo Alto and Stanford University. Two left-hand turn lanes were inappropriate at the intersection at El Camino Real. A greater shortcut would be provided through a more residential neighborhood to the detriment of the residents. If it were only one lane on Embarcadero Road, it would be similar to the traffic volume as on University Avenue which had one lane each direction and a speed reduction. To control the number of people who wanted to turn left, the rate of the left-turn sign could be moderated. He suggested that every new development that asked for a favor or a variance should charge employees the full cost of their parking space. An employee could have a subsidy, and they could make a choice to either ride their bicycles or use the money toward the fee to park. The true cost of parking should be paid on a marginal basis by the users. People would rationally shift their behavior to a mass transit direction. He believed the best solution for the PAMF was a jitney service. Mr. Jury said the fastest way to destroy the project was to put a $2 million tunnel in the project. Even if a nexus were created, the PAMF could not afford a $2 million tunnel. The PAMF continued to maintain if there were a nexus, it would be in the neighborhood of 10 percent or less. The PAMF still offered the $150,000, and it wanted to at least try to have a surface connection but the prob-lems with it were great. He did not believe a gate with an attendant would work since the facility functioned 13 to 18 hours per day, 7 days per week. People went through fences and gates, and it might be safer to create a crossing with a gate rather than let people cross at will. Council Member Andersen asked whether a representative from the JPB would be speaking that evening. He asked whether the JPB thought the surface crossing was feasible. Tom Davids, property manager, Joint Powers Board, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, said the final decision for that type of crossing would be the PUC. There had been previous comments about the PUC's reaction to that type of request. The City of Mountain View and the City of Redwood City had received a negative response from the PUC for a public crossing across the railroad tracks. The PUC was not inclined to create new at-grade crossings across live railroad tracks. The JPB had also taken the position that it did not want to be involved in that type of crossing. Last year 20 people died on the right-of-way. The JPB was currently adopting a program to install "no trespassing" signs along the right-of-way. There was very little fencing, and fencing was a problem with 50 miles of right-of-way. The JPB was attempting to curb the trespassing by installing signs to make trespassing unlawful which allowed Amtrak and local police to arrest people who walked on the property. The JPB wanted to keep people off the right-of-way, and a crossing invited people onto the tracks. The JPB's goal was to control the destiny of people and handle the safety issues as well. 01/22/96 78-91 Council Member Andersen asked about the funding of an undercrossing and whether there were other methods that had not been brought forward that evening. Mr. Davids said the JPB did not fund that kind of crossing. The cost of $2 million was probably a fair price. He believed an underground crossing was the best solution, but the design needed to be wide with adequate lighting and controlled by the Police Department. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue Item Nos. 2, 3, and 4 to the Special City Council Meeting on Monday, January 29, 1996. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, McCown, Rosenbaum absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 01/22/96 78-92