Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-09-11 City Council Summary Minutese CiTY COUNCIL MINUTEt CITY Mt (0 1I.1() Reg ul ar Meeting Tuesday, September 11, 1984 ITEM PAGE Oral Communications Minutes of July 16, 1984 Item #1, Resol ution re. Syntex Child Care Center Consent Cal endar Item #2, Repair of Water Quality Control Pl ant Incinerator #1 Item #3, Proj ec t LOOK! - Pal o Al to Cultural Center Guild - Contract for 1984-.85 Item #4, Resolutions re International City Management Association Deferred Compensation Plan Item #5, Ordinance re 216 Page Mill Road (2nd Reading) Agenda Changes, Additions and Del etions Item #6, PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board Recommendations on the Willow Road Extension Project and Environmental Impact Report Recess Adjournment at 12:50 a.m . to September 18, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. 5 0 0 3 5 0 0 3 5 0 0 3 5 0 0 5 0 0 4 5 0 0 4 5 0 0 4 5 0.0 4 5 0 0 4 5 0 0 4 5 0 1 9 5 0 4 4 5 0 0 2.. 9/11/84 Regular Meeting Tuesday, ^?pternber 11, 1984 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers., 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel , Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel , Sutorius, Witherspoon Woolley Mayor Klein announced that a Closed Session .re Personnel was held at 6:30 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, None MINUTES OF JULY 16, 1984 MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the i n utin of July 16, 1984, as submitted. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #1, RESOLUTION RE SYNTEX CHILD CARE CENTER (SOS -1) Mayor Klein removed Item 41, Syntex Child Care Center, from the Consent Calender as it was more appropriate under Special Orders of the Day.. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt the resolution regarding the Syntex Child Care Center, RESOLUTION 6306 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF Tl CITE or__r To ALTO COMMENDING SYNTEX CORPORATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CHILD CARE CENTER FOR FAMILIES OF SYNTEX EMPLOYEES° Councilmember Fletcher said Syntex Corporation demonstrated cor- porate leadership in the support of community programs and devel e oped a model corporate child care program that could be read i l y replicated by other employers. It showed concern for the needs of children and recognized the needs of -its employees and designed a child care program to meet them. It was supported in its en- deavors by other community ba4ed child care programs and made a major contribution to quality ':hild care in the Palo Alto area. The Council extended its best wishes for a successful and sus- tained corporate child care program. MOTION PASSED unanimously. Mayor Klein presented the resolution to Rachel Samoff. Rachel Samoff, Syntex Corporation thanked the Council for its commendation and said the recognition was appreciated. As a mem- ber of both the child care providers and a working family, she found the creation of the center an exciting step forward in the search for ways the corporate community might help support family life. Mayor Klein said it was nice to have such events. !4e hoped Syntex' s example would be copied . by other corporations i n. the com- munity. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Coeaci'tmmember Cobb moved, seconded by W1 therapoon, approval rf Consent Calendar items 2 through 5. 5 0 0 3 9/11/84 ITEM #2, REPAIR OF WATER gUAL I I Y CONTROL PLANT INCINERATOR #1 7071-7=4Y CI.MK:4/5741 - Staff recommends the contract for the repair of hearths #4 and #5 of #1 incinerator in the amount of $31,990 be awarded to Dee Engineering. AWARD OF CONTRACT Dee Engineering ITEM #3, PROJECT LOOK! - PALO ALTO CULTURAL CENTER GUILD - CO)4 T RACT FOR 1984 - Staff recommends the Mayor be authorized to execute the contract with Project Look! and the Palo Alto Cultural Center Guild for 1984-85 in the amount of $i5,000. ITEM #4, RESOLUTIONS RE INTERNATIONAL CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION UEFERREl COMFE1 S iTTO} PLAN (PER :2-9) RESOLUTION 6307 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF Lo ALTO AMENDING DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN ADMINISTERED BY ICMA" RESOLUTION 6308. entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF T`R "IiTT-DF TALI) ALTO ESTABLISHING AN INTERNATIONAL CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY°' ITEM #5, ORDINANCE RE 216 PAGE MILL ROAD (2nd Reading) (PLA 3-1) ORDINANCE 3567 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF 0 ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION nF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 216 PAGE MILL ROAD FROM GM TO GM(B)" (1st Reading 8/20/84, PASSED 9-0) MOTION PASSED unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Councilmember Fi etcher announced that a ;workshop woul d be held on September 14 by the Metropolitan Transportetion Commission► (MTC) on the 101 Corridor Mass Transit Study. ITEM #6, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL E it TOWITtrerrairwirsErr Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland pointed out an error in the published addendum `to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . A portion of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 15, 1984 was omitted. Coencil should have received that portion during the course of the day and extra copies were avail- able to the public The EIR included the full set of Planning Commission minutes. Planning Commission Chairperson Pat Cullen said the Commission had five meetings on the Willow Road extension. The draft EIR gener- ated a lot of information, questions, responses, testimony from the public, and discussion among the Commissioners. It was unani- mously recommended that the draft EIR and related materials be certified by the Council as an adequate informational document. The Commission found that all known significant impac Ls were iden- tified and mitigations were proposed and listed as infeasible in the case of two. Alternatives to the project were examined and the benefits and impacts of the extension were described in the EIR. Commissioners McCown, Wheeler, Hirsch, and Cullen supported approval - of ,the project . with all the mitigation measures and 5 0 0 4 9/11/84 conditions listed in its letter of transmittal dated September 6, 1984, but Commissioners Christensen and Chandler did not. Regard- ing the minutes of the final discussion, which were inadvertently omitted when binding the EIR, the discussion concerned the proj- ect, and whether it, with all the proposed mitigations and condi- tions, provided benefits and overriding considerations. Weighing the benefits against the adverse impacts was difficult. The ad- verse impacts included the traffic increase on Willow Road itself and on El Camino Real in Menlo Park and Palo Alto; congestion at a number of intersections; removal of trees; and the general change in the envirtn; ent of the area, which was balanced against the needed traffic •improvements at intersections and more direct access to El Camino-. Two Commissioners were unable to find the benefits outweighed the impacts. Except for Commissioner Hirsch, all believed each mitigation and condition recommended was essen- tial for approval of the project, and would not otherwise recom- mend approval. There was considerable discussion on control by Palo Alto to prevent any access across El Camino to Palo Alto Avenue. and Alma. CalTrans had jurisdiction, but the Planning Com- mission recommended that without written agreement by CalTrans in Sacramento, no crossover would be made, and the project should not be approved because of the potential inundation of downtown neigh- borhoods. Staff made the same recommendation. Commissioners Christensen and Chandler opposed the project because they believed i ong- term pressure would build to connect Willow to Alma regard- less of any agreements. A second condition which received consid- erable discussion and which was at variance with the staff recom- mendation was the third westbound lane from Pasteur to Sand Hill/ Santa Cruz, with the intersection improvements, the stream cross- ings for bicycles and a Frontage Road and sound wall on Sand Hill Road. All Commissioners believed that end of the road was already badly congested and because of the increased traffic it, would at- tract, it should be improved as a condition of the project. The area was identified as a bottleneck in the recent EIR for the Hos- pital Modernization Project (HMP) and Stanford West. The two Com- missioriers voting against the project believed improvements to Arboretum Road and changes in the Stanford Shopping Center parking lot as listed in the EIR were preferable to the extension. 'The Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) dif- fered concerning the widths of the median, The ARB wanted a 10 - foot wide median, with trees to beautify the road. The staff recommended a minimum median, and only where necessary. The Plan- ning Commission recommended the median be used to .preserve the trtes where possible, but that it vary in width from the minimum to the necessary width for that purpose. The ARB had communicated its concurrence with that recommendation. Councilmember Renzel showed a viewgraph of various levels of ser- vice at present and in the future. She asked what the projected levels of - service would be along Willow Road without the third lane westbound. Transportation Planner Dave Fairchild said :if the project was put in without the third lane, the 1985 forecast would show an in- crease in traffic: along the section where the third lane was pro- posed of approximately 13 percent .westbound. If the project was in place by 1990, the same increase would be approximately six percent. The third lane was proposed as a mitigation for the traffic increase. Councilmember Renzel asked if traffic would be better or worse without the third lane Mr. Fairchild said without the , third lane the traffic would be worse than it was today. Councilmember Renzel, asked if more traffic would be attrated to the corridor if the third lane was put in. a 4'O 5 9/11/84 0 1 Mr. Fairehi 1d said extra cars would use- the increased provided by a third lane from Pasteur to- Santa Cruz. Counc i 1 member Renzel believed those cars would al so pass the other related intersections to get into that corridor. Mr. Fairchild said the studies showed a large share cf the traffic increase was diversion from existing routes and not new genera- tion. It was not a land use proposal , but a network change. The traffic was on the system and would come from other links from the vicinity onto Willow if the capacity, was provided. capacity through Councilmember Renzel asked if the Willow corridor would remain in its current situation or the "no project" alternative in terms of levels of service if the project did not materialize and only some links were improved. Mr. Fairchild. said they were experiencing an historic growth in traffic on iii l low. If nothing was done and no new major projects added _ in the corridor to generate traffic, it would still in- crease because of the travel demand in the corridor, which was near capacity at critical intersections. If they were not im- proved, it would top out at the capacity of the into: -sections. Each intersection capacity increase would enable a slight in- crease. Counci1member Renzel said levels of service "E" or "F" were shown under many of the al ternatives. For instance, the project with a cross into Alma showed "E" or "F," and the project with current roads showed "0" and "E." Mr. Fairchild said that al ternative was a hypothetic case where through movements at El Camino were permitted. The case was made on the assumption that the travel demand would rise to fill the capacity in the corridor. Councilmember Renzel said there was much discussion about through traffic using the shopping center. She asked if the current figure was 5,000 or 7,000. Mr. Fairchild said they were currently using a figure of 5,000 to 5,000, based on origin/destination surveys made in 1981. The fig- ure was now probably higher. Councilmember Renzel asked if the estimated 2:000 trips antici- pated to continue to go through the shopping center were al so based on the 1981 surveys. Mr. Fairchild said the 2,000 figure was updated as it was a deri- vation from a percentage split based on the 1981 spl its and applied to current counts. It was presumed to be fairly accu- rate. Counci1member Renzel referred to page :HIV -28, which showed. poten- tial network improvements without the project. Nos. 3, 6 and 8 were identified as possibly not needed if the project was built. She asked if they were the only ones defined as a potential , over- riding benefit of the project. Mr. Fairchild said they were some of the benefits, buthe did riot know if they co.nsti tuted the sol e benefits, as he bel sexed no com- plete list was ever defined. Councilmember Renzel said one benefit was the elimination of the need for .improvements elsewhere. She asked if those were the only three benefits identified. Mr. Fairchild said of the 24 intersections looked at, they were the only ones that were clearly identified as being in need of im- provements unless the project was built. 5 0 0 6 9/41/84 councilme her Renzel referred to page P 32 of the 11MP and the agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University regarding specific improvements to five intersections as mitiga- tions. It said their status was unknown so they were not included as part of the baseline figures. She asked about the interrela tionship between the cumulative impact and the corridor. One major project EIR based on the mitigations was approved, and the Council was assured it would in no way commit the City to the Willow Road project. Now they were told those mitigations were uncertain and would be disregarded for the time being. She asked at what point would they get a handle on the mitigations for each of the projects in order to deal with the cumulative impacts. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said for the five intersections identified as part of the HMP in the mitigated negative declaration, the mitigation measure was to require the applicant to obtain approval for the improvements. General 1 y, the intersections were outside Palo Al to' s jurisdic- tion , and it was believed the Ci ty could not require the appl is ant to upgrade something over which the City had no control . In that sense, the intersections were included in improvements potentially possible by 1990. The HMP subdivision agreement would contain a provision concerning the specific procedures for the applicant to attempt to obtain such approvals, but there was no ironclad guar- antee they would be approved. Counciimember Renzei d.id not recall an attempt constituted a miti- gation since the objective was to eliminate the impacts rather than attempt to eliminate them. The handle would be approval of the project. She wondered how many projects could be approved cumulatively with the understanding that each would handle its probl ems only to discover that al though many bona fide attempts were made, many had no mitigation. Mr. Schreiber said specific wording needed to be worked out with the hospital regarding the process for implementation of the miti- gation measure. It did not... need to be a one time attempt, but could be an ongoing commitment to seek approval . If, for example, Santa Clara rejected it at one point in time, it would not elimi- nate the applicant from the obligation to undertake the particular improvement. Such agreements would be worked out prior to final subdivision approval. The hospital project had little impact at many of the .locations and, by itself, would not have enough impact to trigger roadway mitigations. However, because the City was deal ing in the context of the corridoe -and earlier and later dis- cussions the City and Stanford University wanted to make a state- ment as to its intent to achieve roadway mitigations If the ap- plicant was unsuccessful in gaining such improvements, they would certainly have to be brought up again. For future projects such as the relocation of the Childrens' Hospital , or if Stanford West came back, the same types of mitigations would have to be looked at and their status evaluated. Councilmember Renzel said in the cake of Stanford.. West, an appro- val was al ready made subject to otWer mitigations. It might not have to return. Mr. Schreiber said the mitigations in the hospital project were picked up twice as they came from the Stanford West anal ysi s. Councilmember Renzel said it was the Council's obligation_ as a decision -making body to ensure that mitigations took place and not simply that bona fide efforts were made to gain approval for them. Council member Cobb_ asked if office developments could take place on the Children's Hospital site under the present zoning without prior review by the. City 5 0 0 7 9/11 /84 Mr. Schreiher said it could not tare place effectively, as the Chi 1dren's Hospital site was zoned public facilities. Anything approaching what was generally considered to be an office building would require at least a use permit. A professional office would not be allowed in most cases. Councilmember Cobb understood in effect the City had control over more intensive uses on that site. Mr. Schreiber said the City had a significant amount of control over the site. Councilmember Cobb said he failed to find a logical reason why, in all but one or two of the scenarios, the El Camino/Embarcadero in- tersection would become worse with the extension. He referred specifically to the movement at the El Camino/Embarcadero inter- section, which would go from a level of service "C" to either "E" F or " " in all but the 1990 C scenario. Mr. Fairchild said it was because turning movements currently go- ing through Embarcadero westbound into Gal vez and up to, Arboretum and Willow, and the reverse flow currently crossing El Camino dir- ectly at Embarcadero would be shifted up to the extension causing new turning movements at- Embarcadero. The extension would cause right turns from Embarcadero westbound and left turns into Embarcadero from El Camino southbound. Councilmember Cobb understood that would repl ace the traffic _com- ing straight across from Gal vee, and asked if it would be possible to take steps to direct traffic so that the intersection problem would not worsen as much as was suggested. Mr. Fairchild said the consultants believed the estimate of how much of that diversion would occur might be off by 10 or 15 per- cent. It was unknown whether the turning movement forecast by the traffic analysis would develop exactly as anticipated. Further measures not addressed by the EIR could be taken. Councilmember Cobb asked if Cal Trans' authority over the connec- tion or noncannection to Alma Street was absol ute, and if they could overrule the City' s wishes if they so desired. Mr. Fairchild believed they could, but would not in his judgment Councilmember Cobb asked if the City would retain its authority to block streets connected with Alma Street _or, in a worst case sit- uation, to block off Alma Street in the unlikely circumstance of Cal Trans overruling the City's wishes. Mr. Fairchild said yes. Councilmember Cobb said people historically reached Alma Street through the parking lot. With the extension of Willow Road as proposed, he asked if it was anticipated :gat more people would attempt to use that short circuit, increasing traffic on Alma. Mr. Fairchild_ did not believe the project would create enough speed or capacity to encourage people to make that move. Councilmember Witherspoon referred to the third lane discussed on page IY-36 of the EIR. Obviously the problem was the peak traffic point east -west. A few years earlier it was strongly suggested that Stanford open up Campus Drive and continue it up to Junipero Serra..; That possibility was rarely mentioned except in the con- text of Junipero_ Serra intersection, which could not be improved. The whole impact report guessed at what drivers would do, and at what point things go so bvad that people took a ':new route to work. It was the Council's hope at the earlier discussions that Campus Drive would relieve much traffic on Willow Road She had not made 5 0 0 8 9/11/84 counts, hilt tha impart of the third lame was not really addressed with respect to Campus Drive. She asked why it was not feasible for people to get on at Pasteur if they had not already gotten onto Willow Road, and take Campus Drive off campus and go onto either Juni pero Serra. or take Alpine Road to Route 280 during the peak hour when heading west. Mr. Fairchild said the amount or traffic assigned to that route in the traffic analysis forecasting process was substantial . The figures showed a hefty assignment along. the Wel ch. Road extension to Campus Drive West and Junipero Serra, ,which was included in the analysis. All serious conditions forecast for Willow Road pre- sumed a fair amount of traffic continuing to use that route. Councilmember Witherspoon said page IV -40 showed 820 peak hour cars going west on Campus Drive at the intersection, which was substanti ally more than at present, Mr. Fairchild said thc, current level was approximately 600. The exact number for 1983 when the last counts were made was 652 cars, which meant a 33 percent increase. Councilmember Sutorius asked the City Attorney about the need to reference changes that occurred during the time when a document was originated manymonths ago and the point where they would be taking final action in the EIR process. The HMP and the heliport were examples . City Attorney Diane Lee said any substantial changes in informa- tion required a revision. She understood assumptions were made, when developing the data on which the projections in the EIR were based, that the projects mentioned would be approved or were in the pipeline. From that standpoint, the reports presumed those projects were in place. As much of the analysis and evaluations presumed that, there was no need to update them to indicate the current facts -- that they were approved. Councilmember Sutorius referred to page 75 of the addendum, and said a letter and attachment on page 43 of the addendum from Al Morales, Senior Planner, City of Menlo Park, identified some clar- ifications that were appropriate and to which responses were pro- vided. The exception was the service level at El Camino Real and Middle. The draft EIR, figure 18, section IV -43, indicated the service level at El Camino Real and Middle as Service Levels "A" through VDU (acceptable) for all the scenarios, with or without the project, whereas Kr. Morales indicated it was at Level "F.! \,Since this was not commented on, he was unclear as to .the status. Was it clarified wi th Mr. Morales, or was there information that should be updated in the materials. John Peers, consultant for PRC Engineering, 89 Davis Road, 0rinda, said when the analysis was made, the level of service was as shown in the EIR, and there was no reason to believe the numbers changed. Councilsaeraber Sutorius obtained Mr. Peers' confirmation that he did not dispute Mr. Morales' information, but relied on the infor- mation obtained at the time the study was made. He understood the consultant to be satisfied. that, at one point in any scenario, the intersection was somewhere between we through '°0" and therefore acceptable, but did not refute the fact that the Senior -Planner for Menlo. Park, the governmental entity in which the intersection existed, indicated it was at level 5-0 0 9 9/11/84 Mr: Peers referred to page I'-43, and said the key was that under each of the conditions, wi tii and wi thout the project, there was no change. As the EIR focused upon the consequences of the project, i t was fair to say there was ro change. If the recent. information from Menlo Park indicated a level of service different from the one specified, they could assume, even without more detailed anal- ysi s, that it would not change because of the project. Councilmember Sutorius said it was similar to the. way in which they studied and categorized El Camino Real at Ravenswood. Mr. Peers said yes. Councilmember Sutorius referred to an earlier di scussion on the 1990 Base Network without project. Page IV -43 without the overlay seemed to indicate a worsening of service at one intersection and an improvement at seven. Mr. Freeland said a differentiation had to be made between change in level of service" and "significant change in level of service." The figure referred to in . the EIR was based on what the consul- tants considered to be a significant change, In fact, at a more detailed level , there were many intersections that would have some change in level of service from a higher to a lower level in that condition. Six intersections would have some change in level of service --perhaps a hal f level, or a change from "C'" to "D," which stirs made it within the acceptabl e range. Such changes woul d not show up on the diagram. Staff believed the changes, as referenced by the table, showed only the environmentally significant levels of change. Councilmember Sutorius said the environmentally significant change affected one intersection in a negative direction, but seven in- tersections in a positive direct an .ten comparing without and with the project. Mr. Freeland showed a color coded chart of column 1990-A indica- ting the one adverse change at Willow at Oak Creek West, and the seven positive improvements. Councilmember Fletcher asked for clarification of what segments of the proposed improvements were included in the description when the project was referred to, for example, the intersection im- prove -men te such as the one at Sand Hill Road and Santa Cruz, and the left turn lane on Embarcadero. Mr. Freeland said the project per se was, shown on the illustration on the board. It was the roadway from the intersection of Arboretum to, and including, the intersection with El Camino Real. All improvements beyond that section would have to be attacned to the project as either conditions of approval or mitigation mea- sures. Therefore, the third lane of Willow Road to the west of Arboretum was not part of the project per se. Councilmember Fletcher referred to cutting through the parking lot to reach Alma Street and possibly using Downtown Park North streets to reach the Dumbarton Bridge etc. The EIR made it plain that, with or without the project, the intersection at El Camino Real and Ravenswood would become impacted through the unacceptahl 1 evel s. She asked if it was conceivable that it would cause addi- tional trips to be ° attracted to the alternate, more circuitous road despite stop signs, Mr. Fairchild said when an intersection reached capacity, the vehicles using it as their optimal route sought alternate paths. That would occur at El Camino Real and Ravenswood in any case, as it fell into the category "with, or without, the project." Ceenci1rn tuber . Fletcher suggested that with thn prnjPct the service level would be more impacted. Mr. Fairchild said the influence of the project on the inter- sec- tion was small , al though he could not give the percentage. It was identified because the intersection was presently at such a criti- cal volum a to capacity ratio. The majority of the diversion would occur wi th or without the project. Councilmember Fletcher said one of the proposed features of the extension was to have a major entrance to the shopping center from Willow Road. She asked if it would attract more cars in transit to enter the shopping center, as well as attracting more shop- pers. Mr. Fairchild said the three new entrances to the shopping center off an arterial was one of the benefits identified by the project sponsor to attract more trips to the shopping center. Neither the location nor the geometries of the entrances should attract more through traffic . Councilmember Fletcher referred to the addition of a second left turn lane on El Camino at Embarcadero. No mention was made of the impact the additional traffic lane entrance to Embarcadero would have on Embarcadero Road itself . Mr. Fairchild said the question was not addressed as it was in the area of impact of a mitigation. Any capacity increase at that intersection would allow a vol ume increase on Embarcadero. Councilmember Renzel asked what effect such increased capacity would have on other intersections such as Embarcadero/Middlefield, which were al ready pretty tight. Mr.. Fairchild qualified his earlier remarks by saying the volume that would use the doubt e left turn al ready used the intersection, with possibly a slight induced increase because of the slight increase in speed the extension would provide. Aside from the slight increase of five to six percent the extension per se would provide, that volume was currently using Embarcadero. It would use a different turning movement by coming down El Camino and turning onto Embarcadero as opposed to going straight through. Councilmember • Renzel said several weeks eW ier, staff was re- quested to take traffic counts whil a the shopping center was closed. She asked if staff had a report on the counts, and whether any interesting data resul ted. Mr. Fairchild said counts were made at IS minute intervals 24 hours per day on both Wednesday and Thursday at nine locations around the shopping center. They had only the arrival/departure figures, and had not yet compiled the hourly statistics. The counts revealed the surprising fact that the construction of the parking lot did not significantly al ter the flow of traffic in the shopping center areas because the detour required added only _60O feet in length, one additional stop sign and three turns. It was not a big deterrent to .a hardcore commuter traveling in the peak hour without many alternatives. There was a maximum of a nine percent change on a two-way basi s between counts taken in the spring and the previous week in arrivals and departures at any of the measured stations at the shopping center approach to Willow at Arboretum coming out of the work area; on Willow just west of Arboretum; on Arboretum between Willow and Quarry; at Quarry and at the shopping center entrance.. One spot showed a 13 percent change on a directional basis. They were small changes, well within the seasonal or . weekl, fluctuation. It was not known in which . months the spring counts were taken, and they might have differed as much as 10 percent from September counts. The figures showed that the detours required for the current construction project was not a deterrent to through use of the .parking lot. 5 0 1 1 g%11 /84 CouncilmerRber Renzel obtained confi rmation that Mr. Fairchil d meant a diminution of nine percent. Mayor Klein declared the public hearing open. Ph11 Williams, Director of Planning, Stanford University, said a master plan for circulation and parking was published by Stanford in April, 1958, with a pedestrian core, a concentric collector street, Campus Drive, and radial collector streets from the peri- pheral arterials to Campus Drive, with 1 ocal access. The plan was integrated with those of other agencies, in partic`ul ar with the Palo Alto 1954 P?an for a publ is arterial route circling the cam- pus on Willow Road, El Camino, Page Mill Road, and Junipero Serra Boulevard. He showed slides of the plan to separate local and through traffic. The plan was updated periodically. The campus portion of the plan was vir=tually completed with the building of Campus Drive West and Welch Road. The missing link was the por- tion of Willow Road between Arboretum and El Camino. Through traffic was diverted from the arterial system to neighborhood col- 1 ectors--Palm Drive, Gal vez, Arboretum, Campus Drive, and through the shopping center. Local campus traffic with heavy bicycle and pedestrian use was incompatible wi th through traffic, and created stress, safety and unjustified maintenance costs, comparable to through traffic in Palo Alto neighborhoods. Separation of public through and local neighborhood traffic and controls favoring cyc- lists and pedestrians continued to be basic goal s for Stanford. The west campus area was planned to access from campus roads and not from Willow Road. Plans for the 86 -acre west campus were out- lined in a letter from Donald Kennedy, Stanford University Presi- dent, to Mayor Klein on August 15, 1984. The area was held in reserve as an academic land bank, with one- third as an open space and low density academic buffer area along Willow Road, 15 acres of support service area and 28 acres of more typical medium to high -density academic use, with access from campus roads. Even at a fl oor area ratio of 1. 0, typical of the PF zone, the total area would be a floor area ratio of only 0.37, with 32 acres along Willow Road as mostly open space. In addition, as part of the up- dated County Use Permit, even lower densities were proposed, so that by 1990 and 2000 any proposal s beyond such thresholds would;, require an additional Use Permit, with are opportunity for input from Palo Al to and other neighbors. Palo Alto would be a partici- pant. in designing the provisions to provide incentives for Stanford to live within its projections and given a mechanism for Palo Alto to protect its interests. Stanford offered to pay for the Willow Road connection to El Camino and design it to meet City needs, including improved access to the shopping and medical cen- ters and Oak Creek apartments, all within Palo Alto. The project was to the advantage of Stanford , Palo Al to , Menl o Park and Portol a Val 1 ey. The connection was a positive step, although it did not solve all the problems. He asked Council to help Stanford take the step so they could proceed wi th more important mutual planning tasks in a positive manner. Concerning traffic from El Camino to Embarcadero, there would be an increase in left turns because the Wil 1 ow Road connection would ; take traffic off Arboretum and Gal vez now going through the intersection and put it on El Camino where 1t should be. He believed people who used the shopping center to get to Alma would continue to do so regardless, making no visible change in the amount of traffic Mayor Klein referred\ to the staff recommendations which also included those of the Planning Commission and asked Mr. Williams to reply. Mr. Williams said Mrs. Massey would address that point. Councilliember Cobb_ said a major concern was to assure that the nonconnection_`aat Alma Street was guaranteed into the future. It would be _helpful* .as part of the process i f=. Stanford would Join Palo Alto in opposing it by stipulating that it had no interest at, that time or in the future in achieving such a connection, to make a =case against CalTrans. 5 0 1 2 .9/11/04 Mr. Will lams said ne was sure Stanford would be willing to do so. Councilmember Sutorius referred to the 86 acres, and asked for an estimate of the distance from mid-Wfl low Road at present or wi th a third westbound lane to the most distant of the two or three parallel lines of oak trees recently planted along Willow Road after the fence took a jog. Mr. iii11 lams said they had a map showing more detail . They tried to design the setback in a variable fashion to include significant groups of existing oak trees, then supplemented them with three rows of new oak trees, which were not continuous so that as they grew, the setting would be naturalistic . The furthest setback shown in the plan was 220 feet from the center line at Willow Road. The furthest existing tree in the groupings was 175 feet, and the closest 60 feet from the center l ine, wi th the new rows at 140, 1.15, and 90 feet. Councilmember Sutorius said an additional lane for westbound traf- fic might mean the center line was moved from 10 to 12 feet. Mr. Williams said they attempted pted to pl ay it safe by putting the fence at the right-of-way line proposed as alignment I in earlier CIR's. It was the farthest inbc<;rd of any condition Stanford could imagine. The trees were inboard of the fence. Councilmember Sutorius confirmed with Mr. Williams that from a planning standpoint, the projected dripline of the young trees was considered to consti tute a desirabl e setback and an area that would not be invaded by buildings or asphalt= Councilmember Renzel asked if in addition to putting in writing that Stanford had no interest in connecting to Alma Street, Mr. Williams would confirm that those people who used the shopping center to get to Alma Street would continue to do so, but did not expect the number to grow. She presumed that through traffic used the shopping center close to I. Magnin' s, down the center and out through the exit, interfering seeer&y with pedestrian traffic, and pi so than -Incoming traffic did at present. Site asked what would Stanford' s reaction be if that number increased. Mr. Williams said he was not prepared to answer the question. He was not a traffic engineer and his remarks were to a certain ex- tent instinctive and from observing human behavior. He did not believe a significant number of people would change their behavior in going through the shopping center. They were a minor portion of the total through traffic and no major increase was antici- pated. Mr. Massey' s presentation might answer some questions after which there could be a further question period. Councilmember Renzel said her instinct told her Stanford would return and ask to punch through to Alma or ask Cal Trans to do so to alleviate the condition. She would like to hear assurances to the contrary. �. Kr, Williams said he had no crystal ball but assured Councilmember Renzel, that no one at Stanford had any such intentions. Councilmember Renzel said she heard that Stanford planned to build a second nuclear resonance unit (W1R) in the Willow Road corridor, and asked where it would be 1 ocated and the amount of empl oyment. i t might generate. Cdr. Williams said there was always a small facility included in the P. A research facility was also planned on Pasteur. The question under study was whether patient treataent imaging facil1- ties should be more closely connected to the research facility Ivi th other kinds of hospi tat imaging facilities such as CAT scans, 5 0 1 3 9/11/84 X-rays, etc. combined into one imaging facility to better sti t. the needs of clinical and in -patients and, if so, how it should be handled. There was no intent to increase the aggregate total of such devices, only to rearrange them on site. There would be no appreciable increase in employment in any case. Councilmember Renzel said she understood that presently the NMR was included in the HMP. Mr. Williams said a small unit was always part of the plan. Councilmember Renzel understood Stanford was presently consider- ing moving a separate unit away from the hospital to consolidate it with some research activity in another location. Mr. Williams explained that two NMR units were contemplated simul- taneously --a small HMP unit to serve patients in the hospital and a larger research facility with a capacity to serve clinical patients but primarily oriented towards research and located on Pasteur Drive. The hospital now considered combining all the dif- ferent kinds of patient imaging facilities into one units It might mean combining the NMR with the research facility or having two separate units of a different nature than the two separate units previously considered. Councilmember Renzel obtained confirmation from the staff that the City already saw plans for both NMR facilities with the traffic figures incorporated. She said Arboretum had four lanes from Willow Road to just south of the Quarry Road intersection. Con- sidering the levels of traffic hi storically occurring on Arboretum between Quarry and Gal vez, she asked why Stanford had not improved those intersections and the signals at Palm Drive. Mr. Williams said it was Stanford's hope and plan for over 30 years that through traffic would be separated from local traffic. The private roads on campus such as Arboretum and Palm Drive that served to transition through traffic from El Camino and Willow into the central campus would serve only that purpose. The improvements would then not be required. The reason they wanted to connect Willow Road was to complete the perimeter through traf- fic system and take pressure off the interior road system. Councilmember Renzel said there were truly interior road systems serving nearby facilities, but Arboretum for many years served as a major thoroughfare for Stanford principally and had no local service uses or! the sides until the shopping center was reached. Mr. Williams 'greed it was within the perimeter of the local street system, but the fact that traffic counts at Galvez, Embarcadero, and El Camino were predicted to change with the cart - pi etion of Willow Road verified the fact that Arboretum had carried through traffic that did not just go into the campus. As an observer, he suggested a fair number of people travel ed from Embarcadero down Gal vez, turned right on Arboretum, went to Willow Road through the shopping center aria and further south and west to other destinations, using the same route back at the end of the day. It was a part of the problem they were trying to solve. Councilmember Renzel said if- the Willow Road improvement was put into place, would Stanford request to close Arboretum. Mr. Williams said he did not believe so although it was an earlier plan. It was not currently .part of the plans because Stanford anticipated it had sufficient use of the street itself to make it worthwhile to keep. Councilmember Renzel clarified that Stanford was willing: to make assurances that it would .not request to. close Arboretum. 5 0 1 4 9/11/84 1 Mr. will lams hesitated to say so because it was a private road built and maintained by Stanford, arid he was not sure Stanford would want to concede that it was in the public domain to the extent it could guarantee it would stay open, but presently, Stanford had no intention of closing it. Councilmember Renzel asked for clarification that Arboretum from Willow Road to just south of Quarry was a public street, and belonged to the City of Palo Al to Mr. Will lams said that was correct. Jar:isle O'Flaherty, Brian Kangas Foul k & Associates, civil engi- neering consul tants to Stanford University said she would describe the key design criteria used to develop the proposed Willow Road extension schematic al ignment. Given the physical constraints imposed by the existing roadway improvements at Arboretum and El Camino Real , the Children' s Hospi tal parcel to the north, the shopping center to the south, San Francs squi to Creek to the north, the al ignment . was designed to meet two key design criteria First, to provide a two-lane roadway Sri th bike lanes in accordance wi th standard design practice for a 40 aril e per hour (mph) design speed. That speed was chosen because it was standard practice to take the posted limit, which was 35 mph, and add five mph to that to arrive at the design speed. The second key criterion was to save as many existing trees as possible, particularly those which were healthy and mature. The road layout shown on the schematic plans essentially followed the alignment of an existing dirt road used by the Stanford Shopping Center' s grounds maintenance staff. Near Cl Canino, patches of asphalt surfacing remained wtich were remnants of a former driveway connected to El Canino Real . Within that corridor, the specific geometric design criteria employed, which differed from the staff's and Pl anning Commission recommend- ations were first lane width. Standard practice for new con- struction was to use 12 -foot wide travel lane and 11 or 12 -foot wide turn lanes. Twelve -foot wide travel lanes were proposed for that and two additional reasons_ First, the Willow Road extension linked two roadways which had 12 -foot travel lanes. Secondly, Cal Trans indicated that 12 -foot travel and turn lanes would be required at the connection to El Camino Real . Consistent lane width prevented sudden changes of condition for motorists. Although the original design called for five-foot wide bike lanes, it .was revised to show eight -foot wide bike lanes per directions received from the Public Works Department. Another geometric design issue concerned medians. To control movements, median barriers were required at noses of islands at intersections, and at limited access points, and to provide smooth transitions, medi- ans were required when barriers or 1 anes were added or dropped. The Planning Commission recommended , that 10 or 12 -foot wide medi- ans be incorporated in the roadway design ► are feasible so as to save existing trees. The consultant's review indicated that few trees could actually be saved by such a median. Additional trees would have tie re:::;.;c4 c the,- eeren or south to accommodate a 10 or 12 -foot wide median. Paul Rodriguez, landscape architect, 515 -34th Avenue, Santa Cruz, said they were trying to use native plant materials as much as possible and drop tolerant plant materials. The idea was to pro- vide formal p1 anting along the side of .the road in keeping with the parking lot area of the shopping center. On the north side of. the road, they would do an informal planting irregular in align- ment and arrangement in keeping with the existing area. Special features of plan ti ng along the Wi l 1 ow Road would be at the entry ways into the shopping center parking lot areas and they would try to use color and trees to indicate those special areas. The plan Indic;aed a pedestrian walkway put on as a proposed alignment as requested by staff. Irrigation world only``be as required to main -;tarn the existing pi ant materials in the area and to get them established. The north side of the parking lot was not seen as being significantly different in character in tests of pl anning 6 0 1 5 9111 /84 nd open space from what it currently was. th .' -r 'r - � Regarding the rii�'U IAiiS, they would keep the landscape buffer areas as large as possible. and proposed to use textured concrete and cobble material s in the medians and keep therm to a minimum in terms of size and impact on the road itsel f. Bill Massey, Stanford Vice President for Business and Finance, said Stanford proposed to construct a two-lane road extension that would serve the entire area. The EaR showed the extension would provide a net benefit to the transportation network, widespread improvements and service levels would occur on local collector roads throughout the system as traffic was diverted from those roads via arterials to the extension. The troublesome and unsafe use of the Stanford Shopping Center parking lot as an arterial road would be el irainated. Opponents of the extension argue that it would worsen overall conditions rather than improve them. He disagreed as he hoped the documents and consultants made that clear. General service levels at some intersections al ong El. Camino Real and Willow Road leading directly to and from the proj- ect would decrease as traffic was shi fted to those arterial routes from nearby collectors. In the worst scenario example, those de- creases were considered significant at only three intersections, while improvements resulting from the project were significant at seven intersections. On the wtrole, improvements to service levels as a result of the project were far more widespread and signifi- cant than were the decreases. Other arguments were raised against the project, and with regard to those, Stanford was convinced that a number of important points were clear. The ,extension would not open up new areas of Stanford land for development. Those areas could be developed with or without the road. The extension was not essential to the construction of housing on Stanford West. Council approved the concept of a 1295 unit project there a year ago without the read. The extension would not harm the rest of Palo Alto. Stanford agreed to construct traffic islands on El Camino Real to prevent vehicles from crossing between Willow and Palo Alto Avenue, and stated repeatedly that Stanford had no in- terest in an El Camino crossing now or in the future. North Pal o Alto residents might take additional reassurance in the fact that the University property on either side of Palo Alto Avenue was dedicated par kiarid. A two-thirds popular vote would be required to widen ...the street at that point. Stanford stood ready to workwith the City of Palo Alto and Cal Trans in whatever manner was most appropriate as actively as possible to protect that area of the City, Stanford would not ask the City to punch Willow Road through to Palo Al to Avenue if traffic counts in the shopping cen- ter changed. He gave hi s word ..that Stanford had no pl ans to +c1 ose Arboretum Road now or in the future. Regarding the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission when it approved the exten- sion on August 15, Stanford found there were some recommendations i t could readily accept and others it, could note. The Commission's full list of recommendations would cost about $2.5 million, and the cost of the extension itself was estimated at $2.2 million. Stanford believed it was unreasonable to expect a sponsor to more than double the cost of a project so as to mitigate work which i tsei f was designed to mitigate existing poor traffic conditions. Traditionally, the 14411 ow Road project itself would be viewed as a municipal responsibility. Section 3-A of .the staff report_ (C1R 470:4 ) dated August 30, 1984, called for a series of improve- ments along Willow Road including a third lane from Pasteur 'to Santa Cruz, a frontage road, and a sound wall. Those improvements would require a realigning of an existing portion of Willow Road - from the bridge to the Santa Cruz intersection at a total con- struction cost of $700,000 to $1,QO0,000. Those costs were ex - el Usi ve of the value of the one to two acres that would be re- quired. The sound wall on the frontage road were recommended as e mitigation for noise impacts, but the need was ,not delionstrable from the EAR. Predicted noise levels met Palo 'Alto' s standards for residential 'tress and were at the lower threshold of condi- tional standards accepted by; the City _ of Menlo Park. Stanford requested that the wall and frontage road not be required as 5 0 16 9/11/84 mitigations or conditions of the extension. Recommendation' 2.A.3 called for "jug handle" entrances into the Oak Creek apartment driveways. The City's traffic consultant end Stanford's own proj- ect engineers both maintained that "jug handle" intersections were not an effective design solution for the predicted traffic condi- tions. Better levels of service would result from exclusive left turn lanes. In addition, "jug handles" would bite deeply into the landscape buffer east of the road which was valued by both the City and the University. Stanford believed "jug handles" were an extreme measure which were better held as a future option. If more conventional turn lanes turned out not to work, Sty anford was willing to join with the City to find a solution at that time. Section 2.A.4 presented the staff recommendations for the funding and timing of additional Willow Road improvements, and Stanford agreed with those recommendations if the sound wall and frontage road were e1 iminated from the 1 i st of improvements. Section 22. B.1 recommended the land between the ex tension and San Francs squi to Creek be rezoned to open space to assure that no future develop- ment occurred in the area. That mitigation was inappropriate and did not relate to any impact of the project. Further, the rezone could be construed to be a taking of private land without compen- sation. Stanford believed the property should be rezoned to PF which was consistent with the uses of the adjacent Children's Hos- pital leasehold and would .be required to support that compromise. Any proposed use of the land by the University would be subject to a conditional use .permit under PF zoning regul ations and woul d require the City' s prior approval , Stanford had questions about other recommendations offered by the ComIS1Ssion, but were willing to work them out with staff or the ARE. The questions pertained to the reduction of the road width to allow a 20 -foot buffer strip and the prov#sion of sidewalks along the extension. The road width suggested would be substandard and the sidewalks did not appear to be necessary now, but could be buil t as needed. Stanford proposed to construct the Willow Road extension as a first and vital component of a series of improvements needed in the area. it agreed to add a third lane to Willow Road from Pasteur Drive to Santa Cruz Avenue under a timetable tied to future development in the area. As an al ternative, it was willing to undertake a good faith start on a significant portion of the third lane or on bridge improvements at San Francisqui to Creek. He emphasi zed Stanford's ingress to work closely wi th the Ci ty in bringing about those improvements and reasonable mitigations. It recognized the concerns the City must address in the review of Stanford` s proposal and it pl edged its fullest possibl e coopera- tion. Some observed that there seemed to be little to be gained from Stanford's proposal to. extend _ Witlow Road to El Camino Real and little to be lost. The issue .as debated out of all propor- tion to its importance and it was far more devisive than it needed to be. He suggested i t be put behind them once and for all . He said it was an opportunity to dea*ornstrate that Stanford and Palo Al to could work together for the common good. The present situa- tion in the Willow corridor was widely recognized for being intolerable.- It was noted that a publicly funded solution was infeasible, and, therefore, Stanford proposed to build a two lane extension for the community` s benefl t as well as its own. He sug- gested building an effective working relationship based on mutual trust , dames Mori ey, l60 Waverley, said every new improves road in an area of heavy traffic . drew new traffic that never .:vent that ray before. He fully expected it, to be the case with the Willow Road extension. The EIR indicated that traffic on: both Willow Road and on El Camino would be worse with the extension than without it. The extension would be a dagger planted at the heart of the Down- town North residential area and: the pressure to connect with Alma would be tremendous. If barriers become necessary;- 1*co1 resi- dents would be inconvenienced. Cars westbound on Aloe in Palo Al to could cross the railroad _track and go one bi ock into Men1.o► Park, make a ti -turn, and return to go the other way westbound •on 1 the new extension, and thereby circumvent the island. The ques- tion was what was in the best interests of all the citizens of Palo Alto. He believed it was saving the residential quality of the City. Should the project be approved, mitigations were reasonable and must be observed . Jeff Hook, 302 College Avenue, said having seen Stanford's presen- tation, he felt more sympathetic towards the proposal than he did previously. He bel ieved ;it was reasonable for Stanford to want the through traffic out of their interior system, but at the same time, hi s ultimate concerns were that the area was becoming more congested and traffic was increasing to an intolerable level. The City attempted to sol ve the problems by building more infra- structure when the problem rested in the driving habits of the people. The Council had a tough choice, and its constituency was differently informed. Some people were conservation and residen- tial minded, and others were commuters who wanted the fast route. He believed a choice based on principle had the advantage of offering future vindication. Marjorie Martus, ,664 Creek Drive, Menlo Park, said proponents of the pl an behaved as if a wall rather than. a natural creek existed between Pal o Al to and Menl o Park. It was a residential area that the roadway would, threaten, and it was vulnerable because it hap- pened to be a few yards removed from Palo Alto. Proponents claimed they could assure that the project would not further destroy the val ues that brought so many to live in the area, It was implausible that the effects on the environment could be predicted, and it was evident that, there was still much uncertain- ty remaining. She urged the Council to consider the multiple con- sequences of attracting a presently unpredictable traffic prolif- eration on El Camino. Experience throughout the country showed that very soon after a road was opened, it created its own obso- lescence, and she asked what would be done then. If Creek Drive west was in Palo Al to, she wondered whether the action would have gone as far as it did. She urged Council to hold the line. Steve Shepard, 90 Linden Avenue, Atherton, President, Merchants' Association at Stanford Shopping Center, and owner/operator of Photo -Time, Inc., a saial1 business in the shopping center, said the merchants of Stanford Shopping Center supported the Wi l I ow Road extension. The shopping center was among the largest and most prestigous in northern Ca# i fornia with 125 stores. It was an asset to the City and a convenience to ite residents. A recent survey by the Peninsula Times Tribune shoeed .that 21 percent of the shoppers were gal o Alto resTrts. About 6,000 to 7,'100 people shopped at Stanford Shopping . Center each duty, and 28 per- cent of the shoppers came from Menlo Park, Atherton, Stanford, Woodside, Portol a Val 1 ey and Los Al tos. Over hai f were local residents. It was a resource with community support, but traffic was a major problem. His store was located on a curbside location and he saw the cars struggle every. day winding their way through the parking lot. It was easy to spot shoppers as they searched for a parking place, and it was easy to see transients as they were typically more aggressive and sometimes ignored the traffic controls, and cut across the parking areas. An average of over 210000 cars per day traveled through the Stanford Shoppi ng Ce Ater parking lot, and over 5,000 just passed through wi th a destination elsewhere. Those 5,.000 plus cars mixed with the shoppers to create a problem of traffic congestion, delays and inconvenience far al l , particularly Palo Alto .residents. Stanford kin iversi ty proposed a reasonable solution to the l`ong..standing problem, and many customers concurred. He submitted petitions in support of the project signed by over 1,400 residents over the past two weeks. He urged the Council to', approve the Willow Road extension wi thout conditions, Sara Doniach, 205 Emerson, said the Willow Road extension was the wrong step. notwithstanding the extra traffic on El camioo, she was concerned that it was a maitter of tine until the extension was extended to the Bays eoie freeway. Downtown No'th would be ruined in the interest of Stanford Shopping Center. She bel ieved Stanford always wanted a direct route from Baysho re to the Shop- ping Center, and the extra traffic generated by the extension would be the excuse to build the route. She was convinced that nothing would stop the building of the long desired missing link to 101, and she urged that Council vote against the extension. Jim Hal ibueton, Palo Al to Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, said it strongly endorsed the proposed extension of Willow Road. The Chambeo consisterol y recommended the improvement of traffic circulatioi through that area of the community. The situation grew progressively worse, and was now an almost intolerable situa- tion. Traffic , to and from the area' s largest shoppi ng center, medical center, apartment complex, professional " center, and the Children' s Ho sill tal emptied into the shopping center parking lot. Common sense dictated that something must be done. The proj ect had many merits and few, if any, serious disadvantages. It would benefit the total traffic circulation in the area, would be built at the expense of the University without cost to the taxpayers, would reduce traffic congestion in nearby residential neighbor- hoods, substantially improve pedestrian safety in the Shopping Center parking lot and encourage a more rational use of the exist- ing capital base wi thout attracting major additional expansion and density. So much public concern focused on imagined, as opposed to real issues. It was critical to begin to separate fact from fiction and evolve a reasonable plan by which the project could proceed. It was encouraging that the Planning Commission approved the project, but it was done wi th conditions that might be fatal . While some mitigations might prove to be reasonable, many appeared o. be overly restrictive or unnecessary based upon the findings of the EIR. The Chamber of Commerce hoped Council would strive to find workable solutions to valid concerns. It especially hoped Council would not abdicate its role by allowing veto power to another municipal jurisdiction. The Chamber of Commerce hoped Council would agree that for so many years of delay, it was now urgent to proceed wi th the project. Bill Green, 225 Greenmeadow, business address at 550 Hahitton Avenue, said the EI,R. was sufficiently studied and should be certi- fied. It was indisputable that an arterial road ending in a shop- ping center did not make sense Q The City and University were often viewed as two separate entities, and they must stand a_ neighbors and a single community. It was unrealistic to oppose the project on the basi s that Willow Road would be taken through the neighborhoods of Menlo Park and the City of Pal o Alto dis- regarding the will of the people. He did not see that it was politically feasible to approve carrying Will ow Road across El Camino, and that was the central issue. The University indicated a .wi l 1 'bigness to make adaptations, and he doubted the City was not like minded. He suggested approval of the project. . COUNCIL RECESSED 9:30 .m. TO 9:50 p.m! Mayor Klein announced if the public hearing was completed eted prior. to 1 l :30 p.m., Council would proceed to a decision; but if the public hearing went past midnight, discussion of the item would be con- tinued to ;Thurs\\day, September 13. Donald Rosenblat, 419 Hawthorne, said there was a traffic problem on Hawthorne because It'was convenient to get from Middlefield to Alma. If the project was approved, he was concerned that traffic flows dawn Hawthorne : would increase regardless of mitigations, because cars would find a way to get onto Alma from El Camino, and to 90 down Hawthorne and some' Of the other- streets. He preferred to have the card go" through the Stanford Shopping Center and Arboretum than his street. If the project proceeded, he; -,hoped the City would take steps to protect the area possibly by four-way stop signs on Hawthorne to slow the traffic flow and discourage people from going that way. Y -0 1 9/11/84 John :ill lams, 641 Middlefield Road, spoke as the .Executive Director of the Children's Hospital. The hospital was located at 52U willow Road, and the property al so housed the Children's Health Council and the Ronald McDonald house. The hospital sup- ported the project because it served a wide population of child- ren, with about 16 percent of the children being from the local area. The remaining 84 percent were from other Bay Area counties and other parts of California. All of the children and the 400 employees had to get to the hospital on Willow Road. Anything to improve access would help serve, the famil ies. Many of the child- ren' s famliSies used the shopping center as an `°outing" to get away from the hospital and get a break in the routine. Many children were in wheelchairs or otherwise had impaired mobility, they crossed Willow Road and were in the shopping center parking lot in the process of those outings. Currently, the parking lot was un- safe; and while Willow Road crossing was fairly safe .at Arboretum, at certain times of the day it was hazardous. He urged Council approval of the project. Bill Peterson, 228 Fulton, said he did not support the Willow Road project. He was concerned about the volume of traffic In 20 years. The demand for traffic in Palo Alto was intense, and pro- viding a Willow Road connection would get more cars into the City. The Stanford plan was to divert traffic from its private area. The problem was with commuters and he believed the Willow Road connection was a subsidy for the single person carpool . The ob- ject was to make the single person carpool expensive. He recom- mended Council not encourage single people driving to Palo Alto, and that a positive disincentive would be to not approve the proj- ect and taxing parking spaces in parking lots. Joe Lewis, 101 M ma, said he and his wife calculated that he made more than 22,000 trips through the parking lot accessing El Camino. He lived in Crescent. Park, 18 years at Oak Creek, two years at 101 Alma, had his law office at 900 Welch Road, and he had income property on Palo Alto Avenue. His entire life was in- timately connected with the area. He had yet to hear opposition fro:. people at Oak Creek and the Board of Directors of 101 Alma supported the extension. The extension was desperately needed, and while he was sureof the opposition in the community, for the most part, there was no opposition to the fact that the extension was needed. He urged Council approval. Betsy Crowder, spoke on behalf of the Committee for Green Foothills, 2253 Park Boulevard, and urged Council to reject the project in its present configuration and to adopt an al ternative plan for the easterly end of Willow Road, which incorporated improvements in Arboretum Road and in the Stanford Shopping Center parting .lot to better accommodate the present through traffic . If the Counc11 approved the project, i t should incorporate all of et he recommendations suggested by the Planning Commission. The Commit- tee for Green Foothills polled its membership with regard to the Willow Road extension project, and the members remained divided on the question wl th 60 percent being against the project and 40 per- cent being in favor. The. Committee believed the project as pro- posed would not rel leve the congestion in the l l ow Road corridor al though i t would benefit merchants in the shopping cen to r . The many negative impacts of an arterial road running through the grove of trees north of the shopping center were not mitigated either by the project sponsor or by the actions of the Planning Commission. green Foothil i s suggested six mitigation' measuree in its letter of June ,i3, a copy of which was on file in the City Clerk' s office, and did not believe the staff's -responses on pages 53 to 59 of the final CIR ;wer'e adequate. She. suggested another mitigation to save what remained of the grove of trees `along San Fran 1squ1 to Creek and provide an effective barrier for ,the Menlo Park residences on the _other side. For the through traffic, she suggested improvements to Arboretum Road and = the shopping center parking lot could be so designed as an al ternative to the present - y proposed alignment of Willow Road 5 0 2 0 9/11/84 Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, was cony in ed there was no way anyone could prevent the connection from Willow to Alma once Willow was connected to El Camino, and once there, the intersec- tion would be controlled by Cal Trans who could unilaterally remove the barrier at any time. Cal Trans presently had no plans to make that connection, but its criteria was efficiency and moving cars. Even if Palo Alto and Stanford went to Sacramento and received permanent reassurance that the connection would not occur, she did not believe that could be counted on in the future. If Cal Trans believed it was needed in the future, it would happen. Even if Palo Alto totally controlled the intersection, the pressures of traffic wi th Willow aimed at Alma would make it happen . The traf- fic in no rth Pal o Alto would be devastating and tat en she thought of the nurturing to make downtown Pal o Al to heal thy again and remembering what it was like 10 and 15 years ago, it was too bad to now funnel all that traffic through Hawthorne and Charming. Secondary impacts would be felt at Embarcadero and El Camino and Alma and Churchill . All pl anners seemed to agree the traffic im- pact would be disastrous, but it could still happen. She was con- cerned about what happened to north Palo Al to if the connection was made. She viewed north Palo Alto as a special and fragile kart of town which provided a lot of moderate cost housing. She could not understand how anything could be done to imperil that part of town when there was a City pol icy supporting more moderate income housing, and when City money, time and effort was being spent trying to create more housing. She suggested protecting and preserving what there was. As a citizen, she was unhappy to see City moneys spent to provide more moderate housing when .the City did not take care of what it had.. She suspected that new housing would be more massive and less appealing than that which was already in existence. She deeply cared about the issue, and was encouraged that the EIR was cl ear that everything Will ow was sup- posed to do it would not. The original purpose of the road wa s to e1 in irate or reduce congestion, but rather it moved it and accord- ing to the EIR, it increased it. She believed it was clear that there would be more smog more del ay and congestion and that all but one of the intersections would be worse with the improvement than without it. She was encouraged that the Planning Commission, al though it u1 timatel y supported the connection,,. supported it with mitigations and that five out of six opposed the connection unless the mitigations were included. She was encouraged that Councii- members Cobb and Levy were quoted in the newspaper as supporting the extension only if traffic could not get through to Mina. No one could know that traffic would not in time get through to Alma. Vice Mayor Levy was quoted as saying` that if traffic was increased downtown, or if there was increased congestion at intersections, he would not support the project. The EIR made it clear that increased traffic and congestion downtown must be expected. She was concerned that the minutes of the last portion of the Planning Commission were not available until that evening because no one would have had time to consider them. She saw the Commission as a major planning body who spent much time on the issue, and everyone should study its thoughts and ideas. Stanford was not the Coun- cil's constituency —the people a who 1 iv ed in Pal o Alto were. Stanford took good care of itself, and the people. of Palo Alto relied on the Council to take care of theme.. It was interesting that the supporters of the issue largely did not appear to live in Pal o Al to, and ®ost of the opposition was from residents who were not accustomed to appearing before City Councils. She believed the residents of Palo Alto valued the City for bleat it was, for its quality of life, and wanted the City to stay largely that way. The people wanted clean air and water and limited growth. When San Jose was talking about a 14 "lane Sayshore, the people must remind themselves that they had the right to decide what kind of community i t wanted to be, and the Council had the responsibility to plan for it. She voted , for the:: Council to represent the best interests of Palo Alto, and she bel levied the best interests of Palo Ai to required a "no" vote on the issue. 5 0 2 1 9/11/84 Pa-ul Madar-ang, 445 Ruthveri Avenue, sa id he lived in Palo Alto his whole life, and requested that each Councilrnernber consider the meaning of "quality living." If a Councilmember lived- 1n one of the affected neighborhoods, he hoped they would be comfortable wi th their decision. 1 i 1 Mike Lee, 164 Hawthorne, said the Willow extension would extend to hi s street, and it seemed wrong to sac ri fice a turn of the century neighborhood for the latest shopping center modernization program. Page 102 of the EIR said the two line section of upper Willow was the controlling fac t of devel opmer;t and must first be addressed. If the third lane was impossihl e, development would reach that 1 evel regardless of the extensi°sn al though at a sl ower rate. The corridor must be looked at in total . The existing sense of the gateway to the City and County at the El Camino Creek crossing would be weakened by the introduction of the 100 -foot wide exten- sion where many trees now stood. Perhaps the recent opening of the Universi ty Avenue extension to the Dumbarton Bridge added another aspect. Al ong wi th the southern pl armed final Dumbarton Bridge extension, the Willow Road corridor concept might gradually shift to existing arterials including Arboretum to the south of the downtown neighborhood. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, urged Council to rej ect the EIR because it was inadequate for the reasons stated in his letter, which was on file in the City Clerk's office. If Council chose to accept the EIR as adequate, he urged them to reject the project. If Council chose to accept the project, it should be done with all the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Relying upon actions of public bodies as a backhand way of denying the project or mitigating its negative effects was inadequate. It was best to require the project sponsor to pay a large sure of money i f any of those kinds of things happened. For example, if Stanford had to pay an amount a magnitude greater than the cost of the project if the barrier at El Camino was removed or if the road was widened to four lanes, he bel ieved that would be an adequate con- dition to the project. He disagreed with Ellen Wyman about the Planning Coraraission minutes. The motion to approve the project and the discussion started at the bottom of page 32 of the minutes of August 15, and continued for a couple of pages. Of the four Corar:issioners who voted in favor of the project, only two spoke He suggested it was only necessary to read the Commissioners statement, in favor of the project to conclude that a "no" vote was necessary. David F1 etcher, 2020 Waverl ey Street, resided and worked in Palo Al to, and urged approval of the project. Iraproved access to the medical center was a matter of publ is heel th, safety, and wel fare of the residents and something that was not given much consider- ation from the residents. Emergency access to the medical center from Pal o Alto and the surrounding community was presently inade- quate. Further, the benefit of the improved traffic circulation not only for the shopping center, but for the other facilities on Willow Road, was an important consideration in support of the project. The Stanford Shopping Center was an important source 'of sales tax revenue to the City and was important to its taxpayers. He believed the C1 ty had an obligation to ensure that traffic access was reasonable and should cooperate with Stanford in the reasonable improvement of that val uabl a co muni ty facility. \There was much traffic from Bayshore that went back and forth s.down University Avenue because there alas no way to get to the medical center other than down University Avenue, Palm Drive, Arboretum to Wi 1 low and then to Pasteur . If the Will ow extension was installed' traffic to the medical center and shopping :enter would be somewhat dispersed to other major arterials. He believed Stanford deserved the City's cooperation and it was inappropriate for, the City to condition approval onunreasonable conditions such as the extension of the third traffic lane up to Sand Hill and other things that might lead to denying the project. 5 0 2 2 9/11/84 Judy Peterson, 223 Fulton, loved her fieighiburhiood and tile sur- rjoundiny area, and many in the audience lived in Downtown Park North. She lived in that fringe area and commuted through the Downtown Park area to work on 180 University Avenue. She had to drive her car because she needed it at work, and getting to work was sometimes difficult. She took Everett, Hawthorne, or Lytton and the streets were al ways congested . If the proj ec t was approved, the area would experience an increase in spill over traf- fic, noise and congestion with a negative impact on safety. Criss Cornwell, 2030 Sand Hill Road, favored the extension wit th a road block in front of Sand Hill Road. She had two children, ages 2 and 4 years, and people did not sl ow down at that roads If her children or dogs wandered out into the street, they would be ser- iously injured. Jon Parsons, 323 Maclane, spoke on behalf of the Palo Alto Civic League . On September 8, a new steering committee was el ected , and al though the item was not agendized, it was of sufficient impor- tance that the Committee voted on it then. A few steering commit- tee members were unable to make the meeting, but those present voted unanimously to request that Council oppose or deny the ex- tension in any of the current proposed configurations. For the record, subsequent to the September 8 •meeting, one of the steering committee members contacted him and did not want to be associated either for or against the project. The committee bel ieved the limited gains offered by the project, .which were more cosmetic than substantive, were far outweighed by the as yet unappreciated traffic impacts and increases in areas specifically around Stanford. The Downtown North neighborhood appeared to be adverse- ly impacted and there were significant concerns about the contin- ued existence of the traffic barrier which was the only impediment to through traffic, Additionally, the increased traffic on Hawthorne, which was al ready a conduit from Alma to Middlefield, and likely continued use of traffic through the shopping center would riot be alleviated because there would sti1I be significant traffic evading the traffic control devices. There were traffic impacts which appeared to accompany the project and which could not be mitigated. More significant was the inequitable allocation of the costs and benefits of the project. There needed to be a rational connection between the two. An equi tably small group would benefit and a disproportionately large group and particular- ly the residents would be adversely impacted. Those reasons strongly argued against approval of the projectapart from whether the EIR itself be deemed sufficient. Tig Tarlton, 250 Cambridge, owned and devel oped the commercial propertyat 250 Cambridge and was partner/devel oper of Menlo Busi- ness Park (MBP) , a 50 -acre industrial and R&D park lei thin the the City of .Y1enl o Park. MPB was to have been the terminus of the Will ow freeway, but the property was now developed and the freeway was a dead issue. More d1 scussion of a Wil l ow freeway or through- way was still a red herring . MBP was approved as was 250 Cambridge w1 th a host of mitigation measures exacted by Men1 o Park and Palo Ai to respectively. In the case of MBP, there were 64 mitigation measures including the requirement for a day care cen- ter. He believed Menlo Park was capable of extracting its, own mitigation measures for property within its jurisdiction. To follow the Planning Commission suggestions of exact mitigation measures. outside its jurisdiction was inappropriate. He believed approval. of the project - would provide indreased safety, and improvementof- traffic through and around the. _shopping center and the City of Palo Alto, without impairing the City of Menlo Park. Loui sa Szasz, 2026 Sand Hill Road, presented photos of a carp ac.c1- dent .that oecared in front of her house, and urged approval of the extension w th the condition of a frontage road. She asked wlhen the frontageroad woui d be but 1 t if it was approved, and where the funds would cone from, since Stanford opposed it. 5 0 2 3 9/11 /84 Pain hiarsii, 327 Way erley, urged Council to consider the conse- quences to the Downtown Park North residents of an extension to Willow Road. In the short-term, extending Wi11 ow Road to El Camino created a traffic corridor between 230 and 101, and there would be increased through traffic wi th a Willow Road extension. A Peninsula Times Tribune article in June or July 1984 expected the number of commuter etween southern Alameda County and Santa Clara County to double by the year 2000. Extending Willow Road would invite more drivers to try to use Willow Road for their com- mute, and discover the most logical and fastest connection was through the Downtown North neighborhood of Everett or Hawthorne Streets. It was said a barrier in the El Camino/ Will ow Road intersection would mitigate that, but, as said by Mr. Fairchild, it took a lot tc deter commuters who quickly l earned to make a U-turn on El Camino to cut through the neighborhood. Many Downtown North residents voiced such concerns at the Planning Commission meeting. Stanford responded in the addendum to the EIR that the neighborhood's fears were unfounded —traffic al ready passed through their neighborhoods and there were al ternate east - west routes. That response contradicted the rational e for extending Willow Road. If a significant amount of through traffic continued to use the shopping center to reach its destination, it eliminated a main rationale for extending Wil low Road. A second rationale was consol idation of through traffic . on Willow Road to get it off routes, particularly wi thin the campus, that were less adequate for heavy traffic . To the extent they succeeded in so doing the would discourage use of any alternate routes. After reaching the intersection of Willow Road and El Camino, the shortest route was through the Downtown North neighborhood via that U-turn. Stanford's logic lacked analysis of the effect of traffic patterns on drivers traveling east to west--Bayshore through towards Stanford. The extension gave an impetus to those drivers to cut through the downtown north neighborhood as the al ternate routes of Ravenswood and Uri iversi ty Avenue involved both going :tut of theway and passing ;through seven or fourteen traffic lights. She queried that a traffic pattern involving a residen- tial neighborhood was a step up from one involving a shopping cen- ter. The 1 ong- terse effect would be worse. The pressure would build to remove the barriers, which Menlo Park would favor. Two weeks ago, the Council approved goals as part of the Downtown study --to reduce non -neighborhood traffic in the Downtown North, and preserve the qual ity and character of the residential neigh- borhood. She asked the Council to demonstrate its commitment to those goals. Peg Phelps, 1530 waverl ey Street, said a plus to living in Palo Alto was its proximity to Stanford. It behooved Palo Alto to cooperate further wi th Stanford, particul arty as it was beneficial to so any residents. Stanford offered *2 million. She endorsed the Willow Road extension to El Camino --north and south. Dolores Furman, 1070 Cambridge Avenue , Menl o Park, thanked the City for the available literature. ?lost speakers wanted to live in a rustic, beautiful residential area, not near shopping cen- ters. The three lights would not discourage drivers, as four out of six already made U-turns at Cambridge. The City's wishes would not prevent drivers from reaching Alma by going down Cambridge and making a U-turn. Her road was made unpleasant by trucks and up to 17 tour buses in one day for the Allied Arts, which vat' run by the auxiliary for- the -children's Hospital-. She asked Ilenlo Park to prohibit large trucks on _the road, and Stanford should be given a year to find an al ternate route for them. In 1 .5, when the neighborhood rose IIp in_ arses about the traffic, Stanford profiled a footbridge linkfng _the hospital's expanded parking area with the property as part of a long range plan. She was going-. to start a campaign to have a. sign put up prohibiting-teucks and vehicles over: a certain 'size. She saw sirs n ar heavy traffic going. -into the Palo Alto neighborhoods. 5 0 c 4 9/11/84 Mil i is Oav is, , 344 Tennessee Lane, said she was al so concerned about the effect of the project on the downtown north neighbor- hood which had the highest Palo Al to densi' in all types of housing. It was not reassuring to rely on r traffic barrier to prevent traffic entering Alma as Hamilton p., enue residents dis- covered. The barrier there caused congestion to increase to an unbearable 1 evel , and was removed because of heavy pressure brought to bear by motorists. She suggested the question be put on the ballot in November or a special election by mail held. The I atter was fast and cheap and many people would use it. She handed in a petition with 13 signatures opposing the Willow Road project, and a further 18 responses to a newsletter distributed that weekend, 17 of which al so opposed the project. Mitchell Mandich, 918 Creek Drive, Menlo Park, said he foetid no compelling reason to build the extension. It appeared to be a seal uti o n 1 ooki ng for a probl em as i t would reallocate and reroute an existing limited traffic flow through the shopping center park- ing lot to other arterials. . The benefit was directed to the shop- ping centE.r and the University --not necessarily to the communities of Menlo mark and Palo Alto and their shared interests. The E.IR indicated that seven intersections would be better without the ex- tension, and only one worse. A further thrust was an emotional concern about pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the shopping cen- ter. The Willow Road extension, with added arterial s, would in- crease the traffic flow and impact the future safety of pedestri- ans and cyclists. Stanford's concern for Palo Alto was future development for Stanford' s. He questioned whether the extension was for the common good, and whether the real beneficiaries were will ing to pay the price. There was al ways pressure for expansion of an extension in more lanes and more width, and to extend it across El Camino and into Palo Alto. Although Stanford would pay for the extension, it would extort its costs. dr. Nancy Jewell Cross spoke for the Committee for Safe and Sensible San Francisquito Creek Area Routing, and represented over 2,000 people, as well as those who opposed the project from 1975 to 1978, when it almost went through. Over 100 people opposed the extension even with the frontage road mitigation on Sand Hill Road. The earlier proposal included widening W ' ow Road, which was now considered a mitigation. The earlier EIR said the purpose was to decrease congestion and allow traffic to flow smo thly, although average speeds would not ise improved because of inter- section delays. There was a serious traffic problem in the cor- ridor which the extension would not solve. It was necessary to look at al ternatives, not at a specific project' by one devel oper. . Palo Alto suffered from not having a Transportation Commission to address ongoing transportation problems, which were often onl y addressed as a by-product of land development, without possible al ternatives. The qual ity of air deteriorated to the point %Mere i t was unhealthy and made work for Stanford Hospital . Her chart of hot spots showed Pal o Al to wi th more than Menl o Park and wi th both above 23 other cities in the Bay Area. It was a serious problem that needed to be addressed. The Council should reject the EIR as being inadequate since it did not disclose al l information, provided confess nq and misleading statements, and was the product of a firm salectedi and paid for by Stanford, yet treated as though it was the City` s consul tent. The conflict of interest would be heard at 9:311 a.m. on September 25 in Palo Alto. The EIR was inadequate, as it did not address the full , range of Stan ford development in the corridor and did not all ow the public to propose adequate al ter natives. She showed the impact on the corridor of the Dumbarton 8widge, which the EIR did not consider. The Couec11 should have that information before making a decision as it could deny the project. Elizabeth Al l eyne, 4136 Wel lmar Drive, concurred wl th Ellen .Wyman. She opposed the extension for 22 years as it would be the ki ss of death fo s Palo Al to. . She lived in Palo Alto all her life and saw it :,yverwhhel wed by traffic. She- lived on Arastradero, and was 5 0 2 5 9/11 /84 appalled by the fast traffic interspersed with Gunn students on bikes.. The connection would not benefit the City, and would only move traffic two blocks over. She obtained confirmation from the Mayor that the Willow Road freeway was taken off the State master plan. Her main concern was that the extension was in almost direct al ignment wi th the Dumbarton Bridge. There would be heavy pressure to connect routes 141 and 280, which would cause much trouble. Although Council needed courage to reject the project, i t was in the best interests of the residents. Calvin Jenes., Menlo Park candidate for the Menlo Park City Council , said eliminating the Palo Alto Avenue access was a pro- vincial solution to protect downtown Palo Alto .at the expense of Menlo Park. El Canino was downtown Menlo Park, and Maps 14 and 17 showed an additional four percent peak hour traffic on El Camino as far as Ravenswood and a decrease on Menlo, Middle, and Santa Cruz Avenues. The extra traffic would have to go on Ravenswood, which would have a 10 percent increase. The Cal Trans encroachment permit should require access to Pal o Al to Avenue and everyone should share the additional burden . He urged Palo Alto and Menlo Park to work together to sol ve the probl em, and not try to solve it at each other's expense. Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne .Avenue, said only those wearing coats and ties favored the Will ow Road connection: He was a Stanford graduate and when he came to Pal o Al to in 1954 there was cl can air. The City now hit critical mass, and he was considering moving to Oregon. He would not bother investing in his house if the extension went through. The graphs analyzed all the inter- sections except the one at Alma/E1 Camino, which should have received the most. He was convinced there would be an incredible increase of traffic in Downtown North, and knew no resident there who favored the connection. It would solve many of Stanford's probl ems, but create many for Palo Alto. Those not wearing coats and ties did not speak smoothly, but they lived in Palo Alto and represented a large portion of residents. He hoped Council would reject the project. Bob Moss 4010 Orme, asked Council to find the EIR insufficient. i If not, t should deny the project. If Council approved the con- nec ti en to El Camino Real , i t should inn po se al 1 the . P1 an n i ng Commission's recommended mitigations plus the ones he suggested. The EIR did not address the basic problem. Building a road should cause a net improvement in the overall traffic system, and the extension failed that basic test. The EIR, staff and consul- tants-- and in some cases Stanford - -agreed that the Willow Road connection reduced traffic and avoided the cost of road improve- ments for the main Stanford campus. The major beneficiaries were tbo se using routes wi thin the campus trtd the sho ppi ng center. Most adversely affected were drivers on El Camino Real or Willow Road. Approximately 7,600 cars .daily transferred from internal Stanford roads with 4,900 reappearing on Willow Road. The most optimistic report said traffic in the shopping center going through to El Camino and transi ting as commuters would be at least the current 5,000 cars daily. Stanford Shopping Center had $118 Million in taxable sales in the first nine months of 1984 --the highest in Santa Clara Cour*ty, when Bullock' s. closed and before Nordstrom's and. Neimdnn-Marcus opened. Terminating the road at the shopping tenter at Arboretum was an al ternative that was never evaluated. The EIR could:. not be sufficient if such a basic, no- project, no -build that saved Stanford $2.5 million was not evaluated. The real use of the road was to serve the shopping center. . The turning movements into the shipping center showed 1,170 cars entering or leaving, and traffic along the west end of the extension showed 56.4 percent ending up in or out of the shop- ping center. At E1 Camino Real almost 66 percent of 01 the traf- fic was shopping center related. The Willow Road a ttns1on- would attract only through traffic from internal Stanford streets,, and they did not need three entrances. One '*ad a stop light and\,was necessary; the second allowed' people to exit onto El Camind 5 0 2 6 9111-184 without a stop light. If. Stanford wanted to move people, it would not put a 1 fight as the determining factors of highway flow capacity were intersections and stop signals. A light plugged Willow Road, but was necessary to access the shopping center. It created an access road for the shopping center. He gave the City Clerk potential al ignments for Willow Road going across Alma. Staff recommended al igntaent to cross from Will ow Road to Alma and he suggested Stanford would have to post a machine -gunner to prevent people crossing. He had three suggestions to physically prevent that access, but all required that the road be moved into the shopping center parking lot, which was not considered because it would remove parking spaces. Stanford parking spaces appeared to be far more important than the connection to Alma, downtown north, or traffic circulation in Pal o Al to. It was essential that Stanford afford parking spaces to physical?,; prchibit the turns. Mercedes Wil1 cams, 1618 Willow Road, #314, said the opponents spoke as though 2,400 miles and not feet were involved. She encouraged Council to support the Willow Road extension. It was time to stop using a parking lot as a thoroughfare. The extension was needed wi thout del ay. Stephen Player, 1874 Guinda, supported the extension of Willow Road to El Camino Real. The problem impacted citizens, caused congestion in a shopping center and made access to medical facil s- ties difficult. During the past few days he used the Medical Center and realized how difficult it was to access. The Stanford proposal was reasonable, and the time had come to proceed and work with Stanford to solve the immediate problems that added to con- gestion and adversely affected the quality of life. The specter of a connection between routes 101 and 280 was a red herring whose time had passed. The extension should be approved with reasonable conditions. The Council should not veto the project nor abdicate its responsibility by imposing conditions that would move it to extra -jurisdictional consideration, but should give early approval to the extension. Peter Taskovich, 751 Gail en Avenue, supported the_ necessary project. He was troubled by the concerns of the downtown north residents. The proposed barrier was not the only possibil sty. If Cal trans revoked its promise, barriers and diverters could be put in Downtown North neighborhoods, such as at the entrance to Hawthorne and Everett from Alma. It would reduce traffic as people al ready used that route . There was a good reason why arterial routes should not end in shopping centers. It was inconvenient, too dangerous for biking, and made the wal kway in the shopping center dangerous. Construction should not be stopped as the Downtown North neighborhoods could be protected. Mayor Kl ein decl ared the public hearing cl osed He suggested that Council continue lei th the agenda since it was only 11:15 p.hr. Councilmember Woolley asked staff eto reiterate the pros and cons of the "jug handle' versus the conventional left turn lane on Willow Road at Oak Creek. Mr. Fairchild said the '"jug handle" design we; a safety improve- ment on a too- lane road wi th .high through vol umes on the westbound side. Approximately 70. cars per Peek hour tried to make a left turn across a road f1 i l ed to capacfty, end there was a difficult to maneuver two-phase signal. It wes hazardous although there `mss no accident history. The "jug. handle° samara ted the left hand turn from the eastbound flow and put it across the westbound flow, protecting it wi th a signal The solution would deteriorate the intersection by one vitae level, but achieved the safety objec- tive. The latter alternative would wake a left turn phase on the existing signal with a left .twen pocket, which provided standard protection for the left turn movement, but deteriorated the ser- vice level by approximately 10 percent. It was not as safe, and did not bring the left hand queue out of the eastbound direction. 5 0 2 1 9 /1 1 /84 Cowie iimei ber Woolley asked which solution was better with and without the third lane. Mr. Fairchild said the third lane on the westbound side cancelled the advantages of the "jug handle" because of crossing two lanes of traffic. The third lane at the intersection would solve the probl em more quickly and effectively by providing additional capacity and halving the time needed to accommodate the westbound flow. The third lane solution was preferable and made the "jug handle" unnecessary. Councllmember Renzel suggested the certi fication of the EIR should be considered first. Mayor. Kl ern said if Councllmember Wooll ey moved the staff recommendations, the EIR would be certified first. The Council could divide the motion up for purposes of voting. Councilmember Woolley said her only amendment would be in Section 2A(3 ), to provide a left turn pocket and not a "jug handle" to the two signal ized Oak Creek Apartments access drives. Other Councilmembers aright offer other amendments. She said she. intended to move the staff recommendation for 2A(4 ), and asked whether staff intended Council to choose. between 2 A(4)(a) and (b) Mr. Freeland said staff believed either (a) or (b) was acceptable. Both:. required subsequent negotiation with Stanford to determine the exact form. Staff recommended acceptance of both 2 A(4)(a) and (b) and that one be carried out, It was unnecessary to choose between the two. NOTION: Coaeaecilmember Woolley moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to adopt the staff recommendations as provided in DIR:4711:4, dated August 30, 1914, with 2 A(4) ended; staff recommendation 4(a) and (b), and deletion of recommendation 7, as follows: 1. Certify the final Ell, funding that the City Council has reviewed the Willow load Extension Project Final Eovirose. tar Ioja%d teport wiicn has been presented to it, finds that the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and finds , that the Cnonril 14" .-,..saa�.'e _bc informatloo contained 1n the final Ell prior to approving the project; and 2. Find that the Council has reviewed the final Ell and that for reasons cited in the final EIR, the Council requires the following mitigation •easores as conditions of project approval. A. Multi -J dr#sdictlenal R# ti9etti�ras 1. The design of the Willow load/El Camino Real inter - settles .. substastially as shown en . the . diagram attached to the Apgest 3R, 3964 staff report including the westbound bicycle crossing on the north side of the intersection (with the saaderstaading that the iiltersact#oa is .acceptable if. Cai.trans refuses to approve the north side bicycle crossing) . The City ose ient- mid ether permits shall A mot be issued onti l of 1 C ►1 trans approvals have bees obtained; ,frev1s#aR of a, *acesd left turn land from El Camino Real to Embarcadero„ with lai tial Col trans. approval to be ',mired prier:. te ; .the: issuance: of the City encroachment permit for the Extewsias Project . ends coipl sties ef` the isproreuee,t to be a clad# tlon of the permit; 5 4 2 8 9/11/84 MOTION CONTINUED 3. Provision of left signalized Oak Cr.. 4. *a ffa i r e that the fell owl mg; are pocket • entrances for the two k Apartments access drives; developer accomplish one of the a) An agreement between Stanford and the City whereby Stanford will agree to food and pursue the development of the third lane from east of Pasteur to Santa Croat incledimg the associated frontage road and saved wall. A timetable aewtd process for implementing the third land should he i nc uded in this agreement which could also tie fending to future deeeiopmeeeet projects in the area; or Provision of a significant portion of tiee . third lane project, sach as the frontage road and sowed wall in Sam Estee County or the stream crossing of Sae Framcise4ui to Creek be implemented with y.v irnme*tai approvals granted prior to comstructiom of the extension project; and Sec ear i vetoes El Ca Palo cons* Cam bag of a commitment from Cal trams, which *war - that the barriers to traffic movement across between the Willow Road Extension and Alto. Avenge will net be removed without the wet of the City of Palo Alto. ili t1jat1.as Rut heeds ng Apkrovai by ether Corernseatai - w.rr _ _ �wrr.r.��rr.u.r.�rrrrrsrearr�f�p� z e City of Palo Alto ,shseld initiate proceedings to ozone the reaaleimg area of undeveloped land between he El i eew Read: extension project and San Frase i stet to Creek and. between the Children's hospital site and El Camino Rena as open space to assure that me future development •ccur within this area, which i s part of - the larger parcel also ceeta1ming the 3taafsr4 Shoppiag Center; . The City el Palo Alto . e el d. initiate procetedi begs to prohibit toter* Garb cvtz; }fry the seeth side of Willow head =in - the area between Pasteur Drive aid the t l tf boundary,at Sae Franc 1 semi to Creek; 3. The ;treat cross section :substantially as skews fee drawings attached .. ..1'.I City Staff report with sections incl udiag . 5 feet wide bicycle 1 taus,, 10 foot wide turning lanes, end 11 feet wide tkrcmgh traffic lanes. The adds tfesal landscaping made possibl a by redistin, the roved cress section shill .' be Bees$ *sd se ` as to ree rue the nazism cur •f satire trees # 1 e Ratst$tu$s9 of least a ghl.fiset wide landscape boiler met the parkin/ met.. liedites may ee pied ` es Necessity to ve trees bit the read shall- set eec roach norther toward the creek. le -event that 'the desiin caa.et r iee.tale a 20 -feet wide -landscaped Wafter and sive° trees *1 thin the available space, the project *heel d be emended • s nthoiaerd in** the shoppi ee+g center p.rk1 n! let -.to gams *nth .,area as Nay be eaeded for the: 20- IfeeV tilde bwffit; ,. • 5 01 2 9 9/M84 /84 NOTION C# RTIhUED 4. A b -foot wide sidewalk on the south side of the Exteaslon frost El Camino Real. to the center shopping center eatrauce and e meandering 5 to $ foot wide 'sidewalk oa the per°th side of the Extension from El Camino Real to 'Arboretum. The final location and design of the sidewalk shall he' epproved by the Architectural Review Board (AU). More shall be "cohve*ie.tiy located ' aacest points' from the sidewalk into the shipping teeter se that pedestrians •need not walk along the major entrance drives to reach the stares; 5. ,A low weed fence north of the- north side sidewalk from El Camino teal to at= Iemst• the Ronald McDonald/ Children's Respi ta1 parcel. The d*slgn of the rood fence shall be approved by eke ANC; 6. Final traffic signal design iacleding interconnection of the si gra1 s with the City's traffic computer shall be approved by the Chief Transportation Official .and the .Director of utilities; • 7. For construction activities daring dry weather, dis- torbed soon shall be dampened to control dust;" e. .Compliance with the City of Pale A1'to Noise Ordi- nance; 9. Previsions ef ate archeological ■oiIttar end compliance with ether policies sorted 'to betreu'a the project sponsor . and the Stanford University Department of Astitre pal o97; 10. Use if latest earthquake oagiaeerieg codes and removal of expansive sell if forad; 11. A flail geetecheical study .shall be completed, reviewed acrd approved ' by the Public storks Department prior to issuance of the escroachmint and street opening permits; 1P. The design of tit storey water facilities shall be appreeeC, by the City Eaglrieer prior to issuance of the dacreachweat sad street opening 'permits; 13. An *reship -control plan **all bee prepared aad sub- mitted to and , approved bar ;tine Public Perks Impartment mi tb •pprovaJ prier to; . f s`itance ef tho ei roach000t - and street opening slcereits; 14. Approval by the Architectural Review -Allard prior to t .. l s.;suapce of a , gredieg permit and start of con stru ti oa of a final ,.taudscape pie! 'On* fact fides the fel 1 e 1 ng its es Plot.' 'others that '.the AU map request a. Gateway design troatmea t near El Caw.i as ` Anal ; b. S etlal tr:eeemeatef *boiling cutter r trasces; ,L*catieu ai sidewa1,k0 41' :atiem d materiels .fort a rtk sidewalk fence; e. Street 1 ightiag 'p1 aa'; '. irrigatloa plan; g. Lau4scepia$;: ofCl Ca.iao ang Ligation Of pried vegetation. MOTION CONTINUED 15: Preparation by a qualified tiuees for the treat*erat of Extension before, 'der i ng 'r oaaeadatines of the the review eaa approval reflected ea or With t emitted for AR5 relet 15. Preparation 'by a ,peal scips preservation, ee the area between the ins the Creek bask, NtIle eal#-/Childroo's be salmi ttea tb review and appr encroachment and 3. F1 nd that the Wi 1 l net Roe tent with the standards Section 16.45.120 of th A. The 11111 ow Road Ex Nip of 'the Coapr road In the prop. Arber�tIt of recoaaeadatl trees fa ,or close to the and after construction. The �trb Witt ball he subject to 'of the City *rber�i st and e' final ' Itealsc ipe plop sub- 1flea professional •r a land pgrade -and' maintenance plan for Extension and the Creek, incl ad- fro• El Camino Real to the Ronald hospital parcel'. The plan shall the final. l and sc ape pi an for MS oral prior to 1sseaace of the street opening permits; d Project, as conditioned, is consi s - for architectural review set forth in e Miteicipail Code in that. tension is consistent ai tS the Land Die eheasire Plan which indicates a future sod locati.s; The Willow Read project, including its regeired land- scaping, will be compatible with its .ieeaedists environment and site and with iaproveeea is near. the 'site; ' -The two lase design of the road With 11 -foot wide lanes is appropriate for its intended fenttioa, While minimizing its intrusion into the natural . setting end preserving a maximum dabber of trees coasi steet with the p+r®t1 slog of a road; The Project design incorporates safe Rai ceaieelent circa- 1ati4a for pedestrians, cycf istso and vehicles; 4. Approve the apps icstlon for tee design review of the Wi l l of Road Extessiepr Project, ssbject to the mitigations listed above, w1 tb the fel l onri ag additional conditions Web aro in the pabl is interest and tilt .Best 'interest of tl ie City: A. Mcess to the Resale McDonald Rdeese .. area Child res's i espi tal parties lot t . be studied farther with the latent of reducing ' tea tie of .theleft tare = lase *octet 'ad 'the width of the drisevaj%acc*ss paint: Fiaaal intersec- tion pleas shall be approved by the thief Tressp•rtetiea Officialf,. p. Approval at the ,flae1: bicola lona ,triples plan by tie ;4 Chief Tra sportitlea offttfal C•nstrs tl es Plans shell pr•w*1 of 'tine rea4 ;Rice4,00474 *tenor distance 1, tr$ss *to- tBf r` aiiad r 'et ` appreaed by the City 1.0117 street; Aliiorenel d►f a traffic eitaO'C t ear at satl sfactorn is the chief of ioellcat ad city £ter ry far tbe private sour of 'the external , trot fro* erboretas- 1 pt - Ira El Camilae heal ssian 'hiss a public MOTION CONTINUED _ F. Undergrounds ng of electric lines and relocation of exist- ing electric facilities subject to the approval of the Director of Utilities prior to issuance of the encroach- ment and street opening permits; and Yeri ficatioa of underground - utility facilities with approval of excavatlom by the Director of Utilities prior to start of construction; S. Find that tae City Council bias reviewed the final EIR and finds for the messes cited in the final E IB, that it is in- feasible to mitigate the significant traffic and air quality impacts at the intersection of E1 Camino Deal and Ravenswood and the .significant traffic impact at the intersection of Willow and Pasteur, and that impacts alone. Willow Road west of Pasteur may become infeasible; 6. Find that the iiroject, if all the recommended mitigation measures and conditions of approval are met, provides bene- fits that outweight the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the project at the El Ca,ein• Real/Ravenswood and Willow Reed/Pasteur intersections, and that therefore these effects are 'acceptable.' The. benefits and overriding con- siderations of the project listed in the DEYR include but are net limited to: A. Reducing the level of through traffic in the Stanford Stropping Center parking lot; B. Decreased travel time, primarily during mon-peak hours, and distance to the Stanford Medical Center, residences and offices in the Willow Road corridor; C. Provision of poteintia"fly more direct public transit routes to destinations within the corridor such as Stanford Medical Canter; D. Eliaisation of the need for certain roadway improvements otherwise required; E. Mitigation of traffic congestion cosal ti one that either arremtly exist or are projected to exist ay 1DBD without the project; F. Small improvement In regional Alr quality and decreased gasoline consumption as a result of decreased veblcular wiles traveled and/or decreased travel time; and 7. Adopt a 'motion encouraging Stamford University to continue aed expand University oro,1 d*d transit services; . 8. Direct staff to work with Sesta Clara County and Stanford Uo1vers1tj to institute limitations as deeveiop.ant of tits SS_ acres of unincorporated land month of willow Road and West of Pasteur Drive; Bad !. Asti rise the *rchi tectural Review Beard : to review- aid a1►preve the design s.difl:catiens aeccssary to csmply with the ceadltieas pf approval set by tie City Caaancii Councllueeber Woolley said several speakers indicated the area was not part of Palo Alto,, and she clarified ;. that the area under question with the ho s pi tab ' and the shopping aan ter 'was within the City's limits and that the contribution the area made to the City's revenue was out of pr+portion to .ifs geographical _ area. In 1980, it contributed $2.3 million iA sales tax and since 1980, the sales tax revenues increased about SO percent. , It riright equal about $3.5 million. That amount of money was more than enough to pay for the City's Parks and Open Space divisions work; about the right amount to pay for the City' s Libraries and Recreation Department; or 'it would pay about one-hal f of the Pol ice or Fire Department budget. It was an integral part of the City and played a key role in generating revenues, and Stanford would bear the financial cost of the project. Several people said it was a logical solution including some people she called "tradi- tional residential fists." Alma Street was probably the most tal ked about issue, and she egreed there should :not be through traffic on residential streets. She was active in historic preservation and appreciated the Hawthorne neighborhood, and- was a supporter of af- fordable housing. The Planning Commission was -attempting to preserve that area by considering the MD overlay. She did dot bel ieve the area was at risk. She would fully support a stronger statement in the motion to get a commitment from Cal Trans that the City and Stanford would have the say in 'terms. of the barrier. She did lot believe that was unreal istic—Cal Trans was reluctant to enter into controversies in the past, and it was hard to get them to put the Willow Road .exte'nsion on their list of projects at all for that reason. If that failed, several speakers suggested other alternatives like prohibiting right and left turns at the end of Everett and Hawthorne. Alma could be made one way, and as sug- gested by Councilrember Cobb, it was. within the City's powers to entirely close 'Alma if all el se failed. Stanford indicated that the two lanes could not be widened without the consent of a two- thi rds vote of the popul ace because it was park dedicated land up to the edge of Alma as it presently stood. The proposed primary alternative of those opposed to the extension involved whether the traffic went along Arbor=etum between Willow and Embarcadero or whether the southbound traffic was on El Camino between the possi- ble extension and Embarcadero. Her experience was that El Camino was a suitable road for heavy traffic. Because of the underpa es at University, it was a quick trip and if it was an option, it would be used by motorists. She believed that was preferable to through traffic on Arboretum. In the short term, it would keep cars on the intended arterials. There were Ste...4 streets in Menlo Park and on the campus that were not intended to be arterial s like Arboretum. It would improve bicycle and bus access and access to the hospi tal . In the long run, whether the extension generated more total traffic in the area depended on land use decisions made by Menlo Park, Portol a Yal i ey, Stanford, and Palo Al to . Roads did notcreate trRaffic, they shifted the traffic' within the network. It we the cities' decisions that would increase the total volume. Presently, Palo Alto had an opportunity to make wise land use decisions with the Downtown Study, and she supported the staff recommendation that staff 'work with Stanford Vivid the Coun ty to institute limitations 'on the development of the 85 acres of the unincorporated land south of Willow Road and west of Pasteur Drive. She supported the motion because she believed it was an important step in upgrading- the corridor. The Hospital Moderniza- tion mitigations were :a first step, and the extension was the second. She was wiIIin' to _tie the third step, which she consid- ered to be the, third . lane, : to a timetable to be worked out by staff with Stanford. She "agreed there re no overichelming bene- fits„ but believed there were no insurlaountabl a problems. Stanford was willing to bear the cost, and she believed Palo Alto should cooperate. \. Mayor Kleine asked for clarification - that Cduncilmetber Woolley proposed to delete Item 2-A(3) of the staff recommendation relat- ing to "jug handles," Couocilreember Woolley said: that was correct. Chief Planning Official .Bruce Freeland said he wanted to followup on that deletion because there was a question of whether something else should take the - place or whether it should be dropped entire- ly. There were significant adverse' environmental effects shown in the EIR at the Oak Creek west' end east driveways. He believed 5 0 3 3 9/11/84 unless a mitigation was brought forward for those significant ad- verse impacts, there would be a need later in the document to ad- dress why those mitigations were not brought forward. The al ter - natives were no mitigation, which would have to be justified; or the third lane on Willow Road between Pasteur and the bridge; or the 1 eft turn pockets identified earlier. Councilmember Woolley preferred to substitute the conventional 1 eft turn pockets as a mitigation. Councilmember Bechtel asked aboet the difference between the third lane left. turn which would include the pockets and the left turn pockets solely. Mr. Freeland said the key difference was if there was the same amount of traffic moving westbound in two lanes rather than in a single lane, it was easier to find breaks in traffic in order to time signals so that people could actually make that left turn against the westbound traffic. It would work better with the third lane. The difficulty wi th the third lane was that when one hit the bridge, they were back to one lane until such time as the rest of the third lane could be put in . There woul d be a merging problem in close proximity to. the Oak Creek west driveway. From an__enoineerina point, it was an awkward situation. He deferred to Dave Fairchild for additional comments, Mr. Fairchild said the idea of the "jug handles" was the interim sol utlon to a problem created when one did not put in a third lane all the way to the bridge. It would be undesirable from a design point of view to put in a third lane to the bridge because of the merge confl ict and the right turn coming into a bridge in the short space. The "jug handles" were proposed because they solved the intersection problem, but did not require the third lane. Councilmember Woolley said her motion substituted "conventional left turn pockets" for "jug handles" as a mitigation in 2-A(3). Mayor Klein clarified that Section 2-A(3) would read "provision of 1 eft turn pockets for the two signalized Oak Creek apartment ac- cess drives." The rest of the sentence woul d be deleted. He al so clarified that the completion of the improvement would be a condi- tion of the permit. Mr. Freel and said that was correct. NOTION TO COOTIUUYL: Conocl.lmewber itenzal roved, seconded by Fletcher, to contlaee the meeting to October 1, 19844 Councilmember Renzel believed the issue involved one -,.of the most significant decisions Council would a rake, and it was important that Council be fresh and thinking cl early while maki ng the deci- sion. Councilmember Fletcher said it was a major decision for the Coun- cil. If she thought the item would be cowpl eted by midnight, she would not support the continuance, but she bel ieved. Council would go for another one to two hours, and that was an unreasonable time to make a significant decision. . Vice Mayor Levy was amenable to continuing until 12.15 a.m. At that point, he would support a continuance. Councilmember Sutorius opposed a continuance to the date proposed. He preferred to see the Council continue to as reasonable a period as possible, and if that could _effect some conclusive _action, he was prepared to participate If there was a need for_ continuance, he preferred the alternative of continuing the matter to ,Thursday, September 13. 5 -0: 3 4 9/11./84 Councilmember Witherspoon opposed the continuance. Council had some momentum going and it was not a subject with which any Council member was unfamil iar. It had been going on for many years, and she bel leved Council might be able to compl.ete it in an hour. Councilmember Cobb associated himself wi th the comments of Councilmember Sutorius. Council went through a lot of material , and to put it off for three or four weeks was unreasonable. He was willing to continue the matter to September 13, but not beyond. NOTION TO CONTINUE FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Deezel , Fletcher voting "are.'° Councilmember Witherspoon said many speakers believed the EIR did not address all the concerns and that Council should postpone its approval. The EIR was one of the .most complete she ever saw. Al though everyone might not arrive at the same concl us'on from its data., the data was there. The road was an event whose time had come. She did not believe traffic would be created, and the EIR supported that. The EIR .pointed out that only 10 percent of the traffic had a destination outside the area. They were tal king about consolidating the traffic and doing exactly what the Comprehensive P1 an said to do --take the traffic off the non -arterial residential streets and concentrate on the arterial streets., The EIR said it alleviated traffic in almost all the surrounding areas and concentrated it on Willow Road, which she believed was the purpose. Page IV -47 stated that not only was Menlo Park greatly improved, but seven of the intersections .would operate at an improved level of service as a resul t of the extension, and one would operate at a significantly lower level . That one was Wet ch and Pasteur, which she did not believe impacted any residential neighborhood. She believed it had a: beneficial effect, and the project should go forward. The mitigations assured that all the impacts identified in the. EIR were mitigated as much as possible. She was troubled that people in the downtown residential neighborhoods were so concerned about the issue. She lived off University on Hamilton and it was an issue that the Crescent Park neighborhood, as well as the downtown neighborhood, was concerned about for many years. She did not believe the EIR supported the fears that it would inundate the neighborhood - with all kinds of through traffic. She pointed out that all of the EIR tabl es refl ec ted less than 10 percent of the traffic originated inside or outside of the study area. If one looked on the charts that showed the impacts on the intersection of Alma .and El Camino, in 1990 without' the extension, the traffic was worse than in 1990 with the extension. She could not buy the fact that it would cause a wave of new . traffic down Alma. She .had no fear that if Council insisted, the intersection would never be opened up to through traffic from Willow Road . On page 15 of the addendum, there was a statement that "a recent legal opinion from Cal Trans Indicated that local authorities may adopt ordinances prohibiting entry to or exit from a state highway under' its jurisdiction to irplement the circulation e3ement of a General pian.a She believed it was a phony issue: and she would. never do anything to endanger the "residential area of downtown or her own residential area. The project would benefit. CotrOcilmember Cobb fundamentally agreed with the comments of both Cowie ilmewbers Woolley and Witherspoon , but nothing he saw. con- vinced him there was any danger that the road would ever get -poked through to Mma Street.. He, believed Counc 11 had ample: ways to protect itself, and he did not believe Cal Trans .would ever . order it. It was impo'tant to underscore the verbage contained in the condition that securing a commitment from CalTrans which -guaran- tees that the barriers through traffic "movement across El Canino Real between the Willow Road extension. and. Palo Alto Avenue would not be removed wi thont the consent of the City of .Palo Al to." He bel loved the barrier must be designed in such a way that i t worked 5 0 3 5 9/11/84 physically as well as having the legal and procedural assurances. The question raised by Mr. Moss was whether the City had suffi- cient language to 'guarantee that the barrier could be built in such a way that people could not short-circuit it without commit- ting an extraordinarily illegal and dangerous act. Mr. Freeland said the intersection design was a compromise between many different considerations. He agreed it was physically possi- ble to maneuver around some of the barriers, but pointed out the difficulty in designing a barrier that would act as a valve to allow traffic through in one direction only when desirable yet make it physically impossible for a motorist to turn and work his way around it. Staff believed people were generally law abiding and, if the barrier was designed in such a way that it was clear that certain movements were illegal , people would not wake those movements. Someone at 2:00 a,m. might, but the general run of the traffic would behave in a law abiding manner. The main job of the barriers was to make the expected behavior perfectly clear. Staff believed the barrier would be sufficiently difficult so that most people would not be tempted to maneuver around it, even though it would be possible. Councilmember Cobb gathered that during times of heavy_ traffic, people would have a problem because the traffic would make it es- sentially impossible to make that type of maneuver. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Cobb •ov;:d, seconded by Levy, to add to paragraph 2.A.5., that the project would not gay forward without a commitment fro■ Caltrans and consent of the Palo Alto City Coun- cil, and Heat the City secure a letter fro• Stanford University re obtaining this comilt•eat f►om Caltrans. Councilmember Fletcher said a Cal trans official indicated to her that it would take the local jurisdiction's concerns into account in any decision regarding the barrier, but the wording was spe- cific and precise because, should an overriding traffic problem occur which in Cal trans' viewpoint mandated removal of the bar- rier, Cal trans wanted to retain the option to overrule the local jurisdiction. Cal trans' primary concern was the movement of traf- fic, and she envisioned that wi th the horrendous development in the mid -peninsula, the jamming up of the freeways, motorists seek- ing:_ alternative routes, and El Camino getting more congested, people would put the pressure on Caltrans and everyone else to open up all available roads to spread the traffic out. She be- lieved even a commitment from Caltrans could be -;overruled by a subsequent administration. Even if a document ryas' received, she did not believe it would be a secure one. Co unc i l n ember Renzel clarified the asaker and second of the amend- ment did not consider the letter received from Caltrans to be an assurance at that point. Councilmember Cobb did not consider the letter to be an assurance, but was confident such assurances could be obtained. He knew of at least one conversation at a level higher than that of the writer of the letter which indicated that such assurances were po ssi bl e, Councilmember Renzel said no mention was made` of. a written commit- ment. She assumed that would be required. Councilmember Cobb said it was implicit in the motion. Councilmember Renzel said it was not mentioned in the language of. the .staff report. Mayor Klein said Cduncilmeraber Renzel had a good -point and sug- gested that paragraph 2.A.5 be amended accordingly. 5 0 3.5 9/11/84 MAKER AND SECOND Of AMENDMENT AGREED TO REWORD THE AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE A WRITTEN COMMITMENT FROM CALTRANS AND A LETTER FROM STAMFORD RE OBTAINING THAT WRITTEN COMMITMENT. Councilmember Renzel referred to the main motion and said Council - member Woolley spoke of the -commitment from Cal trans that guaran- teed barriers unless consent was received -from the City of Palo Alto and Stanford. She preferred to have the wording • refer to Palo Alto -only, as the City was the only jurisdiction affected. Mayor Klein pointed out that Stanford Universi ty was not mentioned in the motion. Councilmember Woolley said she had not changed the wording. Councilmember Renzel obtained confirmation from Councilmember Cobb that the amendment_ meant the project would not go forward without written consent, and that Stanford would join in the request to Cal trans. Vice Mayor Levy said it was the most important aspect of the com- munity' s concerns about the proj ect. He shared Councilmember Fletcher's concern that Cal trans might not provide such a written commitment, and was necessary to get the commitment before going forward. He believed the City had sufficient resources and op- tioes at its command to bring heavy pressure to bear to prevent the traffic from crossing Alma, but it was nevertheless necessary for the City to ;crake to cl ear to Cal trans by rcqui ring their wri t - ten commitment. It was a fJJnda:aental aspect of approving the project. Councilmember Bechtel would only consider the project if the con -- sent was obtained from Cal trans in writing, otherwi se, the project should not go forward because there was too much danger with Willow Road being directly apposite Palo Alto Avenue and Alma. She supported the amendment. Councilmember Witherspoon was sure they would obtain the assurance from Cal trans, but even if i t wee not obtained, or if they reneged on it, there were a number of options open to Palo Alto. If an ordinance was required by Cal trans saying it was against the poi i- cy of the Comprehensive Plan ; she would ask staff to draft such an ordinance. She bel ieved it was a part of the Comprehensive PI an, and such an ordinance would _give the demand more clout and make it clear to future council s and constituents. that it was the City poi icy'. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: CeencI1momber Witherspoon .moved that staff proper. n ordinance preventing entry eestbennd from Alma onto the Nillost Dead • Extemsf *a to ,Iltl emeat the circulation ele- ment of the Cemprebeasi ve Plan. Ms. Lee bel ieved a resolution was required. Mayor Klein ruled such an amendment to the amendment out of order, as it was too far removed. Councilmember Witherspoon pointed out that page 15 of the addendum,. said Cal trans required it. City Manager Bill Zader said if the amendment passed, staff, would contact Cal trans. If Cal trans said, that such a resolution was desirable, staff would inform the Council accordingly. Mayor Klein was concerned because Councilmember Wi therspoon' s sug- gested amendment required that the matter be returned to the Plan- ning Commission, as amendments to the . Comprehensive Plan required Planning Corral ssion input. It should be divorced from the amend- ment on the floor. 5 0 3 7 9/11/84 1 Counci 1►mcmbcr Withers -goon agreed it might be the cor nentary procedure, but logically it fell within the d Councllmember Renzel clarified that any change removal would require City Council approval. Mr. Zaner said there was no question in staff's decision to be made by the City Council. Mayor Klein said it was a policy matter, whic mined by the Council and not by staff. Councilmembee Renzel said many traffic determined by staff. She asked that the mo i fi cats on, the project would not go forwa from Caltrans and consent of the Palo Alt Councilmember Cobb said he would inc amendment, but believed it was implicit AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Vice Mayor Levy asked about the 1 Item 2A -4(a). Mr. Freeland said the wording was require negotiations between th an acceptable process and ti►set an agreement to put sums of mo of all the road improvements. future projects in the vicinl schedule about which improve quence. There would be a money, an approach would b bodies to put in those im vision to cover the eve agencies were not ready time. It would all hav there would be a pack money to put in the satisfactory to both return to the City C Vice Mayor Levy ask it was possible t wall, and frontag or more to irple road. Mr. Freeland staff did not of the expen of -way woul enough at lane an W lesser c and the Vice M standa level deci Mr Y rect p►arl 1 a- 1scussion. the barrier mind that it was a h was always deter - control measures were tion include, for clar- rd without a commitment o City Council. lude the language in his pl eme:ntati on and timetable of somewhat vague because it would e City and Stanford to determine able. He envisioned there would be ney into a pot for the development The money would probably be tied to ty and there would be an agreed upon ments should take place in which se - requirement that when there was enough e made to the appropriate governmental provements, and there would be some pro- ntual i ty that perhaps the governmental to consider those improvements at that e to be negotiated. The rain thought was age that would be sufficient to raise the improvements and a process that would be parties. He believed that would probably ouncil„ ed about the cost of theitems, and he asked 1f o break out the cost of the third lane, sound e road. Stanford indicated i t would cost as much eent the third lane, etc as it did to build the said that was possible. In tests of the sound wall, have a cost estimate. There were several components se of the frontage road and sound wall. A new right - d have to be acquired because the road was not wide that point to have both a frontage road and the third Illow Road, The sound wall itself might be .one of the ost components when consl deri ng the right of. way value, land that might be involved i n. the frontage road. ayor Levy believed the EIR indicated Palo Alto's noise rd for residential _ areas was 66 decibels, and that the noise s along Willow Road did not and would not go above 65 bels. . Freeland said that was correct. ice Mayor Levy clarified. that Menlo Park's noise standard was 60 decibels and the noise levels along Willow Road would go slightly above that level , , but the amount would not be perceptable to the normal person. 6 0 3 8 9/11/84 Mr. Freel and said that was correct. Each community ect its own standards and they were not matters of absolute right or wrong. The homes in the Menlo Park area were traditionally of a rural suburban character and the quality of environment expected when those homes were constructed might have been at a different stan- dard than some of the more urban parts of Palo Alto. He did not think anyone should argue over whether the standard was correct or better or worse than Palo Alto's standard. It was the standard of the community that applied. The present noise levels were some -- what over that standard, and even though there might be an imper- ceptible rise in noise as a. direct result of the project, it would nevertheless be a rise over levels that were already in excess of the standards set by that community. Staff believed it was justi- fied from that point of view. Vice Mayor Levy clarified that even though the project accounted for an imperceptible change, the project should accept the cost of the complete mitigation. Mr. Freeland said given that the sound 1 evil s already exceeded the standard established for that area, staff believed a rise of even one or two decibels was environmentally notable. Councilmember Bechtel said regarding the sound walls and frontage road, she remembered the area as .being fairly narrow between the golf course area and the homes along there. She asked if the con- struction of a frontage road and sound wall would take from the front yards of residents in another jurisdiction. Mr. Freeland said it would take land from the golf course. A schematic was contained in the EIR on page 40-A. The schematic was from the old four -lane proposal and was not entirely accurate. It took in more territory than tite new proposal, but the frontage road was in a position similar to the existing alignment of the road, and the extension was towards the golf course side. Councilmember Bechtel clarified that the noise barrier/sound wall went essentially between Santa Cruz Avenue and Oak Avenue and went for a couple of blocks. She asked how many homes were affected. Mr-, Freeland believed there were 13 homes in that stretch. Councilmember Bechtel clarified that those 13 homes would not lose their front yards. #r. Freeland said that was correct. Councilmember Bechtel knew sound walls helped and reduced noise levels by perhaps eight to ten decibels. She thought hard about Willow Road and it was a project which she .never supported, The proposal before the Council was a far different approach than the previous proposals. Now they were down to a two-lane . road, with the protection of assurances of a decent barrier and a written commitment from Caltrans that the barrier not be. removed. The City of Palo Alto had control over Palo Alto Avenue --it was not a state highway. Further, the City had parkland on either side, which was park dedicated. The Council could close off Palo Alto Avenue. She supported the recommendations as outlined by staff, which included the option of the Open space area along the creek during earlier approaches. Much of the creek area was previously the site of ,a proposed four -lane expressway right through many of the trees. Four lanes were now deleted and two lanes moved over so fewer, of the trees would be affected. It included better bicycle access, and would include needed sidewalks. 5. 0 3 .9 9/11/84 Corrected 11_/19/84 1 1 AMENDMENT: Councilmen5er Sutorius welted, seconded by Cobb, to modify Section 2.11,1, Mitigations Not Needing Approval by Other Governmental Units, as follows: B.1.b In order to proscribe unacceptable growth and the atten- dant traffic generation, restrict additional floor area development at Stanford Shopping Center to no more than 10,000 square feet aggregate, not including projects already approved, bet not yet constructed. Retain this development cep until either 1) City modifies existing zon- ing to reduce current growth potential on the site; or 2) City negotiates and approves an applicant -initiated speci- fic plan that del 1 aeates ultimate devel opwen t on the site. O.1.c Modify IN -4 zoning •f the 46 -acre Stanford Vest site. The objectives are to mince site capacity from sodium density to ■•derate density while retaining design flexibility and construction options that promote affordable /looming. Section 1.1.a would remain the same. Councilmember Bechtel asked for clarification of medium density. Councilmember Sutorius said the amendment was specifically worded to avoid an inference or action that merely rezoned from RM-4 to RH-3. He believed that would be a wrong decision by the City because while it would change the zoning to Rai -3, which had site development regulations which provided for a capacity that was within the range that the applicant previously proposed and where the Planning Commission and Council had favorable di sposi tion toward that particular level of number of units, if it was done excl usi vei y under RH-3 , the City would be impo si r g all of the i-3 site development regulations which could introduce a design that merely substituted bulk for creativity in the design. It would particularly limit the potential for economical construction and, therefore, raise the cost of the housing that would be produced. That would occur because it would preclude the potential of cer- tain three and four story buildings, which would be wrong He bel ieved special rezoning attention was needed rather than just a rote defecto downzone. He antic ipatea such zoning would allow for a proposal by the applicant that would be an acceptable density both to the applicant and to the City and in a design flexibility that would enhance the project's appearance and better assure the affordability of the housing. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayer Levy moved, to continue the dis- cussion to"Thursday, September 13, 1514, at 1:30 p.a. BOTTOM " DIEN FOR LACK OF A SECOND Councilmember Bechtel. asked about the appropriateness of the sec- tion related to Stanford Shopping Center. She clarified that there was the potential for an additional 7,000,000 square feet. There was no way that it could or should be built, and the motion proposed a rezoning or a .cap until the rezoning occurred. Councilmember Sutorius said that was correct. He proposed the cap be there until the rezoning occurred in order to encourage prompt action on the part of the City and the appl scant He "bel ieved it behooved everyone to be sure the development occurred to a suc- cinct plan , and the motion provided' a way to assure that some un- intended devel opdent and further traffic generation did not occur by a defaul-t si tuation. Director of .Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the Palo Alto Zoning 0rdinance identified the RN -3 zone as "mode ate density" and the ilH-4 zone as *medium density." The Ri-3‘' translated to approximately 27 units per acre, and his interpreta- tianof the motion was a change from RN -4 to RM-3 except retaining some of the RN -4 site design flexibility —height, site coverage, rather than some of the lower limits of KM -3. b 0 4 0 9/11/84 Councilmember Sutuelus said Mr. Schreiber's interpretation was reasunable because height was probably the chief factor that would affect the construction flexibility and options for the affordable housing which was the intent of the applicant and desire of the City to attain He bel leved the resulting site density might in- cl ude 40 percent site coverage instead of 45 percent site cover- age Councilmember 'Witherspoon asked that the amendment be divided for purposes .of voting. Councilmember Renzel asked how much of the Stanford Shopping Center approval was already given by way of the ARB approval of the shopping center EIR. She asked if the restriction was mean- ingful . Mr. Freeland said yes. The Center was .essentially complete as envisioned in the EIR. Even if it were 'not, the cap would over- ride it. When the Master Plan in the EIR was granted, he did not bel ieve specific approval was given to the individual stores that might be consi stent wi th the pl an . In any event, there was little additional growth under the old pl an. Councilmember Renzel said the new store being built did not return for approval from the Council . Mr. Freel and sa °id it went to the ARS. Councilmember Renzel said under the RM-3 densi ty, 27 units per acre would be over 1 ,200 units, which was about the same as the project al ready approved. She asked if that was significant. )4r. Schreiber said it would be about 1 ,200 units on 46 acres, and would be a reduction in potential densi ty from the current limit which was in excess of 1,600 units on 46 acres. Counciimember Renzel clarified that it was approximately the same as what was approved. She supported the amendment because she bel ieved it was a step in the right direction for the corridor. Vice .Mayor Levy was unprepared to vote seecifie al1y on the amend- ment. It was not something that was discussed previously by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or any of the members of the public. He agreed with the concept of wanting to ge.t a handle on devel opment in the .Willow Road corridor and agreed with the element of 'the motion to' take a close look at the 85 acres of undeyel oiled land. He wanted to hear fom Stanford regarding its thoughts as it affected the shopping center. If it had no particul ar plans, he was comfortable approving it. • In terms of Stanford West, Council went through so much on Stanford West, he did not want to change the zoning at that point. Mr. Massey said Stanford would be pleased ,to work with the City in the preparation of an ultimate plan for the shopping center .and was prepared to do so in the context of not increasing the foot- print of the shopping center by more than 10,000 souare feet or so during a ._reasonable period of time. Macy's and the Emporium already had plans for miner additions involving the completion of their top floors, and to cut that off_ at the knees was harsh and not in the spirit of cooperative problem solving and mutual tvust. In terms of Stanford West balancing of the need for housing in - eluding low and moderato income housing, was debated in the Coun- cil Chambers, and if the City and Stanford came together in order to foresee a project without unacceptable mitigations, he believed density would a4gain be debated. To try:. and resolve that question at that hour or at another meeting in the context of Willow Road was unnecessary and inappropriate. Council had the ultimate power over density and he suggested it be done in _ an orderly way with appropriate staff support, consultation, expert testimony and that balancing of values that should go into it. 5 0 4 1. 9/11/84 Vice Mayor Levy asked about Macy' s and the Emporium's plans in terms of square footage. 1 Mr. Freel and said Macy' s al ready received approval for approxi- mately 10,000 square feet of space on the upper fl oor. Stanford University Director of Real Estate Frank Morrow said Macy' s had pl ans for another 10,000, which was al ready approved. The Emporium had space for another 22,000 square feet on the third floor. It al ready existed, but was never opened to retailing. Stanford preferred not to see a moratorium on the shopping center, but in the spirit of cooperation, if one was required, Stanford preferred the moratorium be that it not increase the general foot- print of the center. Other than Macy's and the Emporium, there was no other building that could accommodate expansion. Mayor Klein asked if Counciimember. Sutorius' motion referred to remodel space such as that alluded to by Messrs. Massey and Morrow, or whether it referred to increases in the footprint of the shopping center, Counc ilmember Sutorius said his proposal intended to allow for the initiative of Stanford in terms of a specific plan. and/or the ini- tiative of the City 4r1 terms of revised zoning if that were the preferred way to reach a mutual end. In the interim, he intended for it to allow for modest situations that might of a beneficial or unantic ipated nature. For exa,pl e, .i f Stanford proposed a 1 ,500 square foe c encl osed bike locker, it should be approved . It sounded facetious, but he intended that there be an allowance for the unanticipated and unexpected with the hope that they were not tal king about a prolonged period before one of the two ul timate results —revised zoning or a specific plan --both aimed to accom- pl i sh something mutually desirable by the appl is an t and the City was achieved. Mayor Klein clarified that the motion read, "additional floor area," which he interpreted to mean an increase in the footprint. He suggested Councilaiember Sutorius clarify the intent. Mr. Freeland suggested that the motion go with adds tional building coverage-- the footprint notion because staff considered the occu- pancy of shelf space to be the addition of square footage in terms of the zoning ordinance. Councilmember Sutorius cl ari fled the 1 anguage as "additional fl oor area requiring additional footprint." MAKER AID SECOND OF MERDXENT AGREED TO CLARIFICATION LANGUAGE OF "ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA REQUIRING ADDITIONAL FOOTPRINT." Couecilmember Renzel said as She initially understood Council - member Sutorius' amendment, i t prescribed unacceptabl a growth until the City cave to terms ab out What i t wanted. Whe the r it was in footprint or floor area, it would add to the square footage and usable space. She asked if the City calculated into its traffic figures the unused portions of the Emporium and Mlaoy's. Mr. Freel and said no. He believed the difference would be minor. CoU cMember Renzel clarified staff did not have the information that the projects were forthcoming.. She .asked 1f the proiect would not increase the levels of congestion at...a variety of inter- sections gal ong the Willow corridor so - that it was sore critical., to have a closer handle of *tat was,happening .in that. corridor. Mr. Freeland said the thrust of the endoent was to put-. a Brit and he asked whether Councitseaaber 'Renzel felt the limit was not strong, enough. 5 0 4 2 9/11/84 Councilmember Renzel said the amendment went in the right dig=ec- tion, but she was concerned about whether "footprint" was meaning- ful when they were tal king about adding 32,000 square feet that was not identified as traffic causing in the al ready awful figures for the proposal. Councilmember Bechtel said the amendment placed a temporary cap and encouraged rezoning down from a potential additional 6,000,000 square feet. She believed the direction of the amendment was good, and it provided the option of allowing the ,Ci ty and Stanford to work out either a specific plan or a rezoning. She urged sup- port. MUMMY DIVIDED INTO THREE PARTS FIRST PART OF AMENDMENT TO DE VOTED ON WITH RAIN MOTION SECOND PART OF AMENDMENT RESTATED: TO ADD SECOND PARAGRAPH TO THE PROVISION) THAT IN ORDER TO PRESCRIBE IiNACCEPTA$LE SAWN AND THE ATTENDANT TRAFFIC ENERATION RESTRAIN ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA DE■ELOPPIENT AT STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER TO NO MORE THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET AGGREGATE BASED ON THE ADDITIONS TO THE PRESENTLY EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THE SHOPPING CENTER, NT NOT INCLUDING PROJ- ECTS ALREADY APPROVED ENT R0T YET CONSTRUCTED. CAP TO BE RETAINED UNTIL CITY MODIFIED EXISTING ZONING TO NONCE COIRENT CR0WTH POTENTIAL ON THE SITE OR THE CITT NEGOTIATES AND APPROVES AN APPLICANT INITIATED SPECIFIC PLAN MT DELINEATED NIT MATE DEVEL- OPMENT ON TOE SITE. SECOND PART OF AMENDMENT PASSED enanimousl y. THIRD PART OF AMENDMENT RESTATED: TO ADD A THIRD SUBSECTION TO PARAGRAPH 2.8.1 TO MODIFY RM-4 ZONING OF THE 46 -ACRE STANFORD WEST SITE Wx1'H AN OBJECTIVE TO REDUCE CAPACITY FROM MEDIUM [TENSITY TO MODERATE DENSITY WHILE RETAINING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY AND CONSTRUC- TION OPTIONS TO PROMOTE AFFORDABL HOUSING. THIRD PART OF .AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Fletcher, Renzel , Sutorius voting "aye .'° MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Levy, to con- tinue the meeting to Thursda.;"a September 13, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. Councilmember Renzel asked whether Tuesday, September 18, 1981 might be better since many Councilmembers did not anticipate a continuance to September 14. She believed one week would provide a better opportunity to adjust schedules, and would be a more com- mon meeting night for the public SUUT!TOTE MOTION TO CONTINK : Comm' limber Ismael moved, seconded by Fl etcher", to coati nue the meeting to Tuesday: September 18, 1D#4 et 1: p •e. Councilmember Fletcher said Thursday, September 13, there would be an important workshop for the Transportation Commission and the general public on the Fremont Corridor Study, to which she was committed She preferred to continue the sleeting to September 18. Councilmember Cobb believed it _ was imps ri-ant.. for everyone to attend the Conti ntied meeting on Tuesday, September 18. Tie obtained assurances that all nine Councilmembers would be present. SOOSTITITE NOTION TO CO-WINNE PASSED .esaa1IoMs1y. M . Zaner_:clarifled tha t Council also continued the remaining item on the agenda. 5 0 4 3 9/11/84 Mayor Klein clarified that the remainder of the „acting wa s con- tinued to Tuesday, September 18, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT TO SEPTEMBER 18 1984 AT 7:30 p.m., Council adjourned at 12:50 a.m. to September 18, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: 0.64c4A-e4 er ay 5O 4 4 9/11 /84