Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-10-10 City Council Summary MinutesRegular Meeting October 10, 1978 ITEM Oral Communications Elsie Parker Brown, 135 Lois Lane Nancy Jewell Cross, 1902 Palo Alto Way Consent Calendar - Action Items 2 1 9 Awaed of Contract for Library Computer Maintenance Program 2 1 9 Purchase of Electric Facilities from PG&E (Foothills Annex .03) 2 2 0 Request of Counci 1menber Fletcher re Bicycle/Pedestrian Funding 2 2 0 Public Hearing: Sand Hill Road Improvement Project 2 2 1 Correction to Draft Minutes of October 2, 1978 2 2 2 Press 2 2 8 Oral Communications 2 3 4 Adjournment 2 3 4 PAGE 219 21$ 10/10/78 Regular Meeting October 10, 1978 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in a regular meeting, Vice Mayor Henderson presiding. PRESENT: Brenner, Clay, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson ABSENT: Carey, Sher, Witherspoon ORAL COMMUNICATIONS S 1. Elsie Parker Brown, 135 Lois Lane, read a letter signed by five Palo Altans, four of whom were parents of youngster involved in a serious automobile accident on Embarcadero on September 15. The letter praised the prompt and attentive aid given by paramedics, and police and fire departments of Palo Alto following that: accident. The signers of the letter asked that Embarcadero be returned to being a residential street, rather than a thoroughfare. 2. Nancy Jewell Cross, 1902 Palo Alto Way, University Park, Menlo Park? spoke of the meetings of Metropolitan Transportation Commission (WC) and Associated Bay Area Governments (ABAG) being held in Berkeley. While they had large amounts of money for transportation purposes, they had very little for bike paths. She said John Beckett represented Santa Clara County, and he had been appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Dr.Cross said that in the last two fiscal years neither MTC nor ABAG had given any money for the purposes of bikeways and pedestrian ways. She suggested that some of the money .might go for Palo Alto's bike- aed pedestriae ways, or perhaps for such ways on Stanford. She asked that Palo Alto's MTC representative be asked to make the ABAG and MTC proceedings more obtainable —perhaps to be offered in libraries in the area, as were the minutes of Palo Alto Council meetings. Dr. Cross submitted a table showing how ABAG and MTC funds were allocated throughout the area. Councilmember Fletcher told Dr. Cross that some funds would be allocated. The utter would come up later on the agenda that evening. CONSENT CALENDAR Referral Items None Action Items AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR UNARY (QMt:433:8) Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to sign the three-year contract V3 provide maintenace for the library computer service at $13,596 per year, retroactively to August 1, 1978. LIBRARY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT LIBS 100 --CL Systems, Inc. 219 10/10/78 PURCHASE OF ELECTRIC FACILITIES po s nnex. (CMR:431:8) On July 27, 1969, an area known as the Foothills Annexation Number 3 was annexed by the City. The Palo Alto Municipal Utilities presently provides electric service to all customers in this area except for two served by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Company. An agreement has been prepared for the City to purchase PG&E's facilitiesvproviding service to these two customers for $2,566. This will provide .the City's electric utility the provision to serve these two customers. PG&E will prepare an application to the California Public Utilities Commission, to authorize the sale. MOTION: Councilniember Fazzino moved, seconded by Brenner, that Council approve the consent calendar. The motion passed on a unanimous vice vote, Mayor Carey ?nd Councilmembers Sher and Witherspoon assent.. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Fletcher, that the matter of Bicycle/pedestrian funding be moved forward on the agenda. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote, Mayor Carey absent and Councilmembers Sher and Witherspoon absent. RE EST OF COUNCILMIEMBER FLETCHER :383:8) Councilmernber Fletcher said Council had acted on the matter August 28, 1978. The county had asked if cities wanted to switch to state funding for bicycle/pedestrian facilities; the county had been using highway funds, which is why the funding had not come through MTC procedures. Palo Alto had reconviended that funds be -divided according to population. She said she had since thought it would be best to base allocation of funds on the criteria of safety and potential for diverting auto/ commuter trips. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Brenner, that staff be directed to transmit a letter to the Coupty Transportation Agency recommending the allocation of 2 percent of Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds to projects based on: a) improving safety; b) potential for diverting auto/commuter trips. Ken Schreiber, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment, said that safety was a recommended factor on which to base'a request for funds; diverting auto/commuter trips, he thought, would be difficult to quantify in developing a formula. Caun►cil r Eyerly asked if there were some other specific upon which a request for funds could be based. Mr. Schreiber said he did not know; staff had thought that the simplest base would be population. Cou►ncil r Fletcher said that other cities were grappling with what method to use upon which a request for TDA funds could be based. She said she thought anything done to persuade people to use transportation other than their cars should have priority. A throughway for bicycles paralleling Alma would to one such persuasion. Tunnels and overpasses foe the railway tracks was another. "People are afraid to go other than by nu bile because it is so dangerous," she said. Palo Alto was going to submit to the county those projects it had had in the Capital Improvements Program but which it had set aside after the passage of Proposition 13. 220 10/10/11 Councilmember Brenner ascertaieed that Councilmember Fletcher was asking that Palo Alto provide another criterion to give a base for allocating funds and this was not a final decision. Councilmember Fletcher agreed: there would be ten letters from tern cities, each giving its suggestions as to criteria to use. She thought employment centers and school population would provide some estimated count for numbers of trips. Councilor Fazzino favored sending a letter to the county transportation Commission expressing concern about the possible inequity inherent in the criterion of population and giving her suggestions as possible alternatives. He said he understood some need to use population as a criterion, and he did not want to eliminate it. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilor Fazzino moved, seconded by Eyerly, that the Mayor be directed to send a letter to the Transportation Agency expressing Council's concern over the use of population count as a prime criterion because it thought that would not be to Palo Alto's advantage, and requesting the Transportation Agency to look at the possibility of including criteria of a) improving safety, and b) potential for diverting auto/commuter trips. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED: The substitute motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Brenner, Clay, Eyerly, Fazzino, Henderson NOES: Fletcher ABSENT: Carey, Sher, Witherspoon PUBLIC HEARIK: SAND HILL ROAD I WMEN Nf PROJECT ' TrnTITM7775711Tober 2, 1978) Vice Mayor Henderson said that on October 2 a public hearing was held to receive comments on the SR/EIR. After receipt of the public comment the public hearing was closed and the consultant responded to comments. In the pocket for this meeting are responses:to non -addressed EIR comments at the October 2nd sheeting. There was a discussion by Councils ors at the October 2 meeting about the SR/EIR. At tonight's meeting there was before Councilaembers the following: Certification of the SR/EIR: Determination of whether or not the project is in conformance with the Comprehees i ve Plan The decision whether or not to proceed with the "project,' and, if so, to approve a 'project' alternative concurrent with the necessary environmental findings, That, briefly, is a summery of the tasks before Council that evening. Vice Mayor Henderson said, for clarification, that he would point out that there were two separate actions to be "taken with respect to the environmental aspects of the project. First, the SR/EIR must be certified before any further action ��d be taken. Later, if the project were approved, the further findings had to be mad a at that time. He asked that Council proceed with the certification of the SR/EIR. 221 1d/10/78 Councilmember Eyerly said he was pleased to see that the consultants had responded to all the questions asked at that meeting in thew supplemental addendum. Vice Mayor Henderson ascertained that Councilmembers had no questions on the draft minutes of October 2 before them. Ben Pawloski, Director of Public Works, said a correction was needed on the addendum to CMR:440:8, submitted by the consultants. He observed that the comments had been made by Councilor Clay, not Mayor Carey, as indicated on the third page. CORRECTIONS TO DRAFT MINUTES OF OCTOBER 2 1978 Vice Mayor Henderson referred to page 14 of the draft minutes and asked that in the second paragraph, the last sentence read instead, "Why wouldn't people use Campus Drive and Junipero Serra and go to Page Mill, for example, if they were headed south?"' Doug Donaldson, consultant, E.I.P. Corporation, said that on page 1, the following sentences were direct quotations from the letter from the City Council of Menlo Park: "The Menlo Park City Council, at their meeting of September 12, 1978, changed their previous decision on proposed improvements to the Oak Avenue/Sand Hill Road intersection. At that meting the Council chose Alternate 2, Olic:h allows right turns only in and out of Oak Avenue. You'll note thatthere is approximately 200 vehicles a day difference . (etc.) 1 feel that is an insignificant difference and would therefore not affect the traffic projections as stated in the SR/EIR," Emily Ren`el, chairwoman of the Planning Commission, asked that on page 1, the second paragraph, the second sentence read instead: "We did find that it was sufficient to make a decision and our official planning action was to rule that it was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. . ." MOTION: Councilor Eyerly moved, seconded by Brenner, that Council. approve the draft minutes of the portion of the October 2, 1978 Council meeting that dealt with the Sand Hill Road improvements, The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote, Mayor Carey and Council bers Sher and Witherspoon absent. MOTION: Council a ber Clay moved, secoeed by Fazzino, that the final SR/EIR consisting of the Willow Road_ Improv t Proect Environmental Report, dated November 25, T975, a prepa y nv ronmenta iapact 1annirtg Corporation; the "Saud Hill Road Supplemental Revised Environmental Impact Report," dated May 26, 1978, and prepared by Environmental Impact Planning Corporation; all correspondence, Planning Commission minutes, and related material received since distribution of the SR/EIR; and the environmental information memo attached to staff reports; the Council minutes of October 2, and any additional correspondence, responses and related information, has been completed in co.pliance with the California Environmental t ua1 i ty Act (CEQA) and State EIR guidelines, and that the City Council has reviewed and consiQered the information contained in the SR/EIR. Councilamm r Fletcher said she had raised a question last week about a two-lane full length alternative, and she did not think staff had responded to it fully. The staff report listed no benefits; "...it was all strongly nega t're . " She knew that one benefit would be that traffic would be diverted out of the Stanford Shopping Center. 222 10/10/78 Pete Lesr.ure, Transportation Department, said that benefits of a 2-2 (lanes) alternative would be very similar, though proportionately somewhat less, than a 3-2 (lanes) proposal. He had a short length of time in which to develop an analysis. Elfrid Giocmoousis, 992 Lorna Verde Avenue, said that her comments regarding Sand Hill Road were not those attributed to her in the consultant's addendum. Mr. Donaldson and Vice Mayor Henderson concluded that the cents given in her name would .instead be attributed to "...a member of the public." It was then agreed the comments had been'made by etsy Blass. A discussion ensued as to whether or not it would he proper to re -open the public hearing. Lou Green, Assistant City Attorney, said that re.her than re -open the public hearing it would be best for Council to evaluate metier or not the responses to comments by the public were adequate; as a ratter of form Council could take further input. MOTION: Councilmember Clay moved, secondeJ by Brenner, that Council hear further comments from the public regarding the Sand Hill Road matter. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote, Mayor Carey and Council!nenbers Sher and Witherspoon absent. Dr. Nancy Jewell Cross, representing the Comnittee for Safe and Sensible San Prancisquito Area Routing, and the University Park Association (in unincorporated San Mateo County) referred to the draft minutes of the Sand Hill Road portion of the October 2 meeting, and listed those matters which she had raised, saying they had not been fully addressed by the consultant. She objected to the perfunctory quality of the responses that had been spade. She questioned the consultants qualifications for undertaking his analysis'of traffic. George Jacqu rt, the consultant from Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, said he had a degree in transportation engineering, and a master's degree in urban planning. His title, he said, was Transportation Planner - Engineering. He listed his experiences for the past five years. He gave his reasons for having ode the responses he had made as shy by the draft inutes of October 2. Vice Mayor Henderson appealed for an end to the dialogue between Dr. Cross and Mr. Jacquemart. He said he would give another opportunity for the public to be heard later. Dr. Cross repeated that she thought the responses "...are very inadequate to serious concerns . ° Ken Schreiber, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment said that the role of the Director of Transportation, Mr. uhf, had been such that Mr. Noguchi had been "intimately involved in this project since its inception both in tie EIR of 1975 as well as the SR/EIR." Mr. Schreiber pointed out a few of the staff reports written by Mr. Meguchi, and assisted by Mr. Lescure. At the present time Mir. Nogi chi was an a vacation for which he had planned for soon time. Doug Donaldson, E.I.P. Corporation, referred to the air quality report !bout Which Cr. Cross disagreed. He said the report had been written by a meteorologist; the report was quite detailed. He said he had perhaps done it an injustice by trying to sum it up orally in the October 2 meeting. He said he thought it was adequate. 223 10/10/78 1 1 Councilmember Eyerly listed the numerous pages in the EIR devoted to the matter of air quality. He read a summarizing statement on page A-5: "The project would have no regional effect on air quality. It is projected that there would be a local reduction in carbon monoxide levels due to expected future emission controls on. automobiles." Councilmember Eyerly said he thought there was sufficient information about air quality. Vice Mayor Henderson called fora vote on the motion before Council certifying the SR/EIR and its many parts. MOTION PASSED: The motion, certifying that the SR/EIR with its components had been completed in compliance with the CEQA and state EIR guidelines and had been reviewed and considered, by Council, passed on a unanimous vote, Mayor Carey and Counciimembers Sher and Witherspoon absent. Vice Mayor Henderson said all proposed alternatives were now open for consideration. The Planning Commission recommendation for Alternative 3 was before Council. The staff recommendation before Council was for Alternative 1, a four -lane facility. Emily Renzel, chairwoman of the Planning Commission, read the following statement: "The Planning Commission held hearings and considered the Sand Hill Road Supplemental EIR and the Willow Road EIR on June 14 and July 12, 1978, and recommends that the City Council approve Alternative 3, a three -lane road from Santa Cruz to Pasteur Drive and two lanes following the eastbound lanes of Alignment 1 from Pasteur to El Carina Real. The vote was Commissioners Green, Gordon, Mitchell, and Renzel, in favor, Commissioners Rack and Carpenter opposed; then -Chairman Steinberg abstaining. The Planning Commission's recd nendetion includes all of the mitigation measures proposed earlier- including the frontage road for the Oak Creek and adjacent properties with related turn limitations, acquisition of creekside property, double left ture lanes at Santa Cruz, the Campus Drive extension, restriction on closure of Arboretum Road, Oak Avenue intersection improvements, etc. Alternative 3 includes separate bike and pedestrian paths, as did the other alternatives. Alternative 3 was originally worked out by the consultants and meets the objectives of the project to improve traffic flow and to improve access to adjacent properties. This project costs one-half or less than Altern- ative 1 and causes a minims of environmental damage. ienlo Park's recent action to allow right turns ,only at Oak Avenue should make this alternative even more favorable to both Menlo Park and Palo Alto. The October 5, 1978, staff report has several important emissions with respect to the findings for the Planning Commission's recommendation: 1) On page 2, section II, appendix A, the Land Use finding was omitted, and it is identical to the compiFible finding for Alternative 1, that reads "...ar purchase remaining vacant grove land far permanent Open Space; b) have designed the project to connect to connect east and west frontage road segments --change signalization and connect frontage road to Paste- Drive;" 2) In that sore section under #7 Trams, these findings should be added: c) Bikeways have been designed into the project for maximum safety and convenience. including separate bicycle bridges over San Ermncisquito Creek; 224 10/10/16 d) Project has been designed to provide adequate safety measures such as proper signing, alignments, lighting, good visibility and speed limitations. 3) There should be a section V, Statement of Overridin Considerations. Again most of the comparable statement or ternat ve app es. The exception is the reference to medians under 43 on page 5 of Exhibit S. Furthermore, 43 may not be accurate for either Alternative since the number of accidents on the road is expected to increase 6 to 10 percent under all of the alternatives due to the projected increase in traffic volume. (Willow Road EIR p. xvii) The change brought about by a connection of Sand Hill Road through to El Camino will have far reaching traffic implications which are imprecisely, suggested by the traffic model. The Planning Commission's recommendation represents a go -easy approach so that Palo Alto can absorb and assess those very serious impacts. (signed) Emily Renzel for the Planning Commission" Pete Lescure, Division of Transportation, sale! staff had first recommended a four lane road with a four -lane extension at El Camino, to include a dual left -turn lane on El Camino into Alma and also the current Oak Avenue proposal for right turns only. Mr. Lescure listed three arguments contained in the staff report of October 5, 1978, (ChgR:440:0, on file in the City Clerk's office) The first concerned the thought that the El Camino and Santa Cruz intersections were overriding constraints. He projected transparencies on the screen to show that four lanes did not need to extend from one intersection to the other, and that two lanes wou?d be adequate. He presented a graph giving hourly traffic readings. Mr. Lescure said the second issue was the stated need for four lanes the length of the Sand Hill corridor. He projected a transparency showing various levels of traffic, the "F" level7prevailed for about two or three hours, "F" level meaning there was significant congestion. "0" was an acceptable level of traffic use. Gouncilrmember Eyerly asked if a survey of traffic from the Shopping Center to El Camino had been made. Mr. Lescure responded that no study had been made but from personal experience he thought it would be "F"" level. He then projected a slide showing projected levels of traffic for 1990, stowing that traffic would be attracted to Sand Hill Road, and that would extend the peak -hour kind of traffic throughout a longer period of the day. Vice Mayor Henderson asked about access to Oak Creek apartments. Mr. Lesce;re said that with the expected level "F" access for emergency vehicles would be w...seriously impaired." Fire vehicles now had to sometimes travel the roadway shoulders. Under present circumstances motorists could not very well pull over to the right. )k Lescure spoke of the need to provide "...thenecessary capacity et the intersection" and he showed slides diagraming the roadways that highway traffic regulation guidelines indicated mould be needed. There were "...so many intersections in the same area" that according to guidelines the roadways would overlap one another, with one 90 -foot exception at Pasteur Drive. The guidelines for drawing the asps shown on the trrensparencies had been drawn from the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) from which many states took their standards for highway design. Staff, he concluded, proposed a four -lane facility, which was to Barry no more than 6,000 to 13,000 vehicles daily. Sand Hill had projected are actual use of from 17,000 to 27,000 vehicles daily, Staff's recommendation was based on the assumption of good conditions where traffic flowed freely. He said "...I think it's not being over -generous to talk about four lanes on Sand Hill Road." 225 10/10/78 Ben Pawioski, Director of Pubic Works, summarized for Alternative 1, alignment I (eye): "The project has as its primary purpose the construc- tion of road improvements to mitigate existing traffic conditions. It is helpful to determine in broad terms the beneficial features associated e;,th various proposed improvements." He read from page 3 of CMR:44O:8 the benefits resulting from installation of traffic signals, medians, and additional traffic lanes. Proposed intersection designs with mitiga- tion measures for Sand Hill Road at El Camino and Santa Cruz Avenues would provide a satisfactory level of service for an extended daily, off-peak period. To achieve Level "D" or "C" four lanes would be required for the length of the proposed roadway. He said there would be improvement of traffic safety, convenience and comfort on a roadway that service major facilities in the area. Based �n 1990 traffic projections the traffic serviced by the present roa y would worsen. Alternative i, Alignment I, would improve ingress and egress from properties adjacent to Sand Hill. Safety would be improved -by "construction of medians and unproved bicycle and pedestrian facilities,.along with reduced congestion. He listed the regional facilities, such as tldspital and shopping center, to benefit from the project. It would tend to pnmmo`.e the development of mass transit, insofar as mass transit was feasible. Bicycle and pedestrian pathways provided alternative modes of transportation. The project would afford improved emergency vehicle access to the Oak Creek apartments, that could be reached no other way. He said that in his opinion there were no adverse environmental impacts associated with Alternative 1, Al igrarent I, based an the forecioing data. Diana Bost said she was the administrator of the Oak Creek Apartments, which had 759 units. The apArtnents had a vested interest in the Sand Hill Road project. She said residents at the apartments were mixed.for and against the road improvements; the managers and developers of the apartments thought the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. There traffic flow would be improved; visual appearance with the radians would be improved. The effect on residenti financially would be slight. Coencilmember Eyerly asked if the building owners were going to return ax savings from Proposition 13 back to residents. Ms. Bos declined to answer that question. Councilr er Eyerly asked if M. Bos knew the cost per resident for the levy for improving the road. s. 3os said the assert would be minimal. Emmett liession, 1788 Oak Cree Drive, asked if the Sand Hill/Junipero Serra project was within the project area. He thought "...something must be done" about that i nters+ect'on, Mr. Paawloski outlined the improvements plenned for the subject intersection. Or. Nancy ,Jewell Cross said that bicycle bridges and pathways and pedestrian pathways had to be built before their value could be known. She cited safety hazards. She said she had noticed that car ;`raffic has lessened on the med. She thought perhaps another study could be made, since, ,as she had been told, traffic patterns change all the timare. John mast, 1520 Willow Road, said logical thinking led him to conclude that the intersections at Santa Cruz and El Camino had to be broadened. He did not want to spend $6 million on a road just to save a minute. Lorraine Downing, 365 Olive Street, Menlo Park, did not went the road improved; she thought a frontage road for Oak Creek apartments would relieve the present problem. She thought communities, along with motels, could put out `no vacancy" signs. John Hargis, 407 California Avenue, said he was one of the attorneys involved in bringing a public interest lawsuit against the City in regard to the Sand Hill Road project. He felt it was his duty to remind Councilmembers of the terms of the agreement which settled the lawsuit: his clients had agreed to dismiss the suit in return for the City's agreement to set aside the assessment district which had been enacted and to go back and do a. "...complete and full environment impact report." His clients had entered into that agreement with the expectation that the City would act in good faith on its end of the bargain. His clients had overlooked the City's having made an "end run" around the contract, and had thought of it as face-saving. His clients had been disturbed when they read that. Palo Alto was about to contract with Menlo Park on t :t. .iii -lane alternative before the present hearing. He understood that the agreement with Menlo Park had since been shelved. Yet it seemed that some Counc i l ese:hbers were not approaching the hearing with the fresh -look -open-mindedness that had been agreed upon, but instead gave the appearance of "...reaffirming past political commitments." Mr. Hargis said he had read that Alan Henderson had been quoted in the newspaper as calling for actions and contingency plans which presupposed the four -lane alternative and also predicated his comments on voting patterns of the Councilors who were not allowed to participate (because of conflict of interest). Mr. Hargis said presumptions on how mon-participating Councilmembers would vote could not be made. He said he did not want to charge any Councilor with acting in bad faith, He wanted to think instead that the terms of the agreemenc had "...slipped people's rinds." He compared the forthcoming reassessment of Sand Hill Road to a "prizefight" with a new decision to be made. Mildred Cleaveland, 762 University Avenue, regretted having sold her hoe* in a quiet neighborhood to move to her present address, for the traffic presented a serious problem to her. She did not want Sand Hill widened. She cited the risk of flood from San Francisouito Creek with the excess runoff more pavement would cause. She cautioned Councilrrembers saying they could not commit future Councils by way of their decisions. As a former Council ber she had voted to limit expansion in Industrial Park, but Stanford's plans had since changed. She urged that public transportation be made more effective to give an alternative to traveling in pri►'ate autos. She asked that land be acquired by the City so that at various points cars could be parked and shuttle buses used to take people to their destinations. She deplored the present infrequent bus service. Dr. George Gioumousis, 992 Loma Verde Avenue, repeated some figures given at the last meeting by the traffic department, which led him to conclude the delays in traffic occurred at Santa Cruz Avenue during the evening peak hour. He said that the AASHO standards were set in a "dreamworld." He had found in informal discussions that most people opposed construction of the road. Jean Hawes, Nidpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing; 350 Santa Rita Avenue. explored the relationship of the proposed Sand Hill Road improve- ment to the proposed housing development Stanford was ebnte nplating on the 45 acres along that road. The SR/EIR fi r«di ngs shafted that the proposed 1200 housing units would:Ave relatively small impact on traffic. She gave the figures of the projected impact. Continued job expansion led to increased pressure on housing; Stanford's proposed housing develop- meet would help to relieve that pressure. She urged Cosncil ers to include that fact among issues they weighed that evening. Richard J. Unhozfer, 1470 Willow load, read a letter from a neighbor/r es ldent at Oak Creek Apartments, Fred Eberle. The letter stated that it appeared the road was being built so that it would serve customers for the Stanford Shopping Center. The letter said that through removal of the "...Santa 227 10/10/78 1 Cruz Avenue bottleneck" traffic would be improved. difference in'cost of improving the intersettion as the road, the writer said that it was worth a try. with the views the writer had expressed. RECESS Council Mecessed from 9:42 to 10:08 p.m. In view of the opposed to fixing Mr. Unhozfer agreed Monty Frost, 1114 Hamilton; read a statement from residents of Crescent Par:4 who stated they had became concerned about Sand Hill Road improvements when they noticed increased vehicle traffic in their neighborhood, a factor directly related to quality of life. Though the improvements were taking place west of the City he felt they'would affect Palo Alto. At first tiny thought it was "...,just another of Stanford's expansion projects and the City Council was being overwhelmed by events which were out of their control. . . ." He questioned statements made in the letter from the' president of Stanford University, Richard Lyman. Mr. Frost forecast the burgeoning development, beginning with completion of Dumbarton Bridge, and projects continuing "...their inexorable growth." That growth would lead to more cars on residential streets, which he said was unacceptable. A vote at the polls for or against the proposed improved Sand Hill Road assumed that the road dealt with today's traffic only. He did not favor generating new traffic "...focused toward Palo Alto." He thought Stanford's "four -lanes -or -nothing" attitude might lead to renaming Palo Alto "Stanfordville.t" William Massy, Vice President for Business and Finance, Stanford University. He asked that the Council reaffirm its position toward "...prov;din; access to one of the most valuable areas of Palo Alto." He said he spoke for Richard Lyman, president of Stanford. He said Livingston and Blayney had advised Palo Alto several years ago to acquire open space to the foothills, and leave it undeveloped. Mrs Massy briefly reviewed the history of Sand Hill Road from 1972. Me quoted statements which urged improved access by improving Sand Hill Road. He assessed the factors involved such as cost and length of time, needed to improve that access. Small charges would not solve the problem, he said. He gave his reasoning behind that statement, and asked that Council not permit.itself "...not to be misled by spectres from the past or vague or overdrawn fears of the future." Stanford, he said, wanted to cooperate "every way possible to minimize the effect of the project on the City." He surveyed costs of the past of the project, and those that would probably be incurred in the fu$are. He listed ten reasons for proceeding with the project. He gave the.projects Stanford would then proceed on once Sand Hill was improved. 1fie acknowledged that Stanford would gain from completion of the project He gave some of those benefits. He thought, however, the project was.also in the best interests of the City and the assessment district. "The work should be done right," he concluded, "and it should be done soon." His letter is on file at the City Clerk's office. Ed Tearney, Stanford Shopping Center, president of the Merchants' Associ- ation of Stanford Shopping Center, representing 90 merchants. He supported a "..,full Sand Hill Road project." The assessment district, he said, would pay for 80 percent of the protect, up to almost $2 million. He said that at present transit motorists used Stanford Shopping Center's parking lot as a highway, which created hazardous conditions. Palo Alto received revenues of $1.2 million annually from the shopping center, about 11 percent of the City's total revenue. There was potential for more, and he quoted from the EIR to substantiate his statement. The ...ideal , painless revenue" would be welcome in view of cuts resulting. from passage of Proposition 13. He said that much of the trade came from west of El Camino Real eel much trade was sliscouraged from coming to the shopping canter by the peak -hour tiaa. Four lanes and %provi intersections were needed. He tadignat of 17W people favoring Sand Hill Road improvements, 24 percent of whom were Palo Altans. He said Palo Alto had to contribute only 10 percent of the cost of the improvements. Dr. Harry Jennison, 520 Willow Road, said he represented Children's Hospital. His and the hospital's concerns had been expressed in a letter :nailed to Council earlier, he said. He said the congestion at present gave serious hazard to clients for the facilities on the creek side of Sand Hill (toad. all of which served this community and broader areas as well. About 13,QOC outpatient visits a year were made to Children's Hospital. He recounted an episode when a patient was transfer- red to Stanford Hospital, safely, in that case, but if there had been congestion the transfer might have not been made in time to save the patient's life. Joseph Carleton, 2350 Ross Road, gave figures from the SR/EIR from which Mr. Carleton concluded that when improvements were made on Send Hill Road congestion would be worse at intersections at peak hours. The projections he made from those figures, implied to him that the levels of traffic resulting from improving the road would be unacceptable. Ho - build alternative projections for 1990 were that traffic would be identical that that of the present time. Intersection improvements were not part of the project, he said, Paul Headrick, 31 Jennings Drive, chairman of the board at Bullock's. emphasized the importance of the Stanford Shopping Center to the City. He and other shopping center merchants had lost sales to new shops that had opened in other cities. Expansion that Bullock's contemplated would not be effective without completion of the full four -lane road. He compared St:Pock's Stanford sales with stores in other areas. He gave sales projection figures as given in the San Jose Mercury, which he found "frightening." The figures showed that all other communities had greater percentage increases in sales than Stanford Shopping Center, in spite of improvements made at Bullock's and the entire Stanford Shopping Center. Other shopping centers were easier to reach, he concluded. He said continued success of the Stanford Shopping Center "...was key to the City's strength," for it generated sales tax revenue owing to its strong businesses. The Center employed 2000 young and middle-aged people from this area. He cited some of the ways in which Bullock's contributed to community endeavors. Patty Overall, 1200 Hamilton, voiced concern over traffic which might be channeled through her neighborhood if the Sand Hill Road project was approved. She favored the Planning Commission recommendation. She thought traffic should be contained, not increased. hiilly Davis, 344 Tennessee Lane, supported the Planning omission's "go -easy" approach, with a 3-2 lane project. She reviewed the ways in which increased traffic would erode the quality of life in Palo Alto. She thought commuter buses would lessen traffic. She hoped the City would start with a less expensive alternative, perhaps making four lanes unnecessary. Lewis Fein, 1540 Oak Creek Drive, objected to a Palo Alto Times editorial of October 4, implying that objectors to the Sand Hill Road project were "nitpickers." He observed that a former .objector, the management of Oak Creek Apartments, had now become supportive of the project. Elfrid Gioumousis, 992 Lome Verde, said the did not think that building a road would solve Palo Alto's traffic problems. Past roadbuilding proved her statement, she said. She thought that the intelligence of Palo Alto's Council and cities would lead to a new, different, and better solution. There had been similar objections to a "superblock" proposed some years back; defeat of that project had led to a very pleasant residential and shopping area. 22g 10/10/78 Vice Mayor Henderson noted that there were no further speekers and he returned the discussion to Council. Councilmember Fletcher recalled that Mr. Massy had said consultaats had seen the need for the project. She was said, of the consultant saying the project was needed. Mr: Donaldson, consultant, replied that she was correct. no recommendations. Councilmember Fletcher said that she had seen figures of $250,000 for building a bridge over San Francisquito Creek, $250,000 for acquisition of en open space parcel, and one-third of the cost of the El Camino link. There were also smaller costs, related to the proposed project; how could the City have already spent the money? Mr. Pawloski said the City had advanced funds for the EIR and to collect data, with the understanding that if the project were begun the City would be reimbursed; also, the City wrould'make a contribution, as well. Were the project to take place the amounts spent would be the City's contribution. If the City spent more than its share it would be reimbursed. City staff and rot aware, she The EIR made Councilmember Fletcher asked if, at present inflation, the project would now cost over $7 million. Mr. Pawloski said that construction costs were inflating at 1 percent a month. He could not forecast exact total casts. MOTION: Councilmember Brenner roved, seconded by Fletcher, that Council approve the Planning Commission recommendation for Alternative 3, for a three -lane road from Santa Cruz to Pasteur Dive, and two lanes following the eastbound lanes of Alignment I from Pasteur to El Camino Real. Councilmember Brenner said the Planning Commission minutes were complete; basic backing for the Planning Commission approach was on page 129 of the green EIR. She read: "It can, for instance, be deduced that the Shopping Center gets more benefit from the Willow Road connection with Fl Camino than from its widening; that the Medical 'Center gets more benefit from the widening; that the benefits of San Mateo County are proportionately lower with AlternateA and highest with Alternate 1, and that for Palo Alto, Stanford and Santa Clara County:together.the benefits are proportionately highest with Alternative 3 and lowest with Alternative 1 and that In terms of absolute numbers of trips Alternative 2 is the most beneficial procedure. . . ." Palo Alto's interests were her primary interest as wel l , and they were test served by Alternative 3. The maximum road weed have the maxliem impact on University Avenue corridor, according to projections, and that was not acceptable to her. Council er Eyerly pointed out that the passage in the EAR on page 129 • quoted by Councilmember Brenner was preceded by the. statement "Assuming that the benefits derived...are in direct proportion to the number of trip ends . . ." Councilmember Eyerly said that were than trip end benefits had to be consid:'ed. He pointed oet that the increase in traffic on University Avenue ended at Chaucer --it was thought University Avenue area residents would take Saod Hill to connect with 280, so the residents were generating the i area se . He said he . thought the 3-2 lane con :truction problems were insurmountable. He did not -want to put two ten -foot lanes alone with a twelve -foot lane on the bridge leading across See Francisq ito. Mr. Pewloski interjected that the Planning Commission recommendation said that the staff report had several important omissions in its report of October 5, 1978. He repeated those oa+i scions, as Ms. Renzel had given theme -the t* mitigations staff had provided were purchase of vacant grove land for open space ( Mr. Peal osk i said it was Trot knewn_ .. if the land could be acquired for open space),.aleo it was not known if. the Corrected see page 271. 20/10/78 r improvement of signalization and improved connection with Pasteur Drive could be achieved. Councilmember Fazzino praised the reports given by staff and other interested parties. He acknowledged "historic fears" operant since 1958 improvement of the Oregon underpass. Traffic had long been a concern. He found nothing in the SR/FIR to change his support of'the improvement of the Sand Hill Road. The plan was oriented toward mitigation of traffics rather than inducement of traffic. Reconsiderrtten of the project had been based on a legal blunder. Stanford has offered important concessions to Palo Alto. He did not share the fear that there would be a subsequent Willow Expressway. He had reservations about the El Camino/Sand Hill intersection. He thought the staff proposal was the most reasonable -- he would oppose the motion before Council.. Councilmember Fletcher said she had made a balance sheet of the pros and cons for the project. Costs of maintenance of landscaping would fall to Palo Alto for the medians, and the like, and the 3-2 lane alternative mould not give those costs. She continued weighing other pros and cons. She had favored the 2-2 proposal because it relieved iongesticn at the Shopping Center. She would vote against the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilmember Clay said he had thought the Planning Commission recommendation would be drawn from the SR/EIR. He thought the cost of the 3-2 construction would be higher than anticipated. Costs would continue to rise, he thought. He mould oppose the motion before Council. He hoped that the proposal Council had approved earlier could be resumed. Vice Mayor Henderson said he had deliberated the project for seven years, and now it appeared that the project might lost. He had favored having a study made in 1971 about widening the present road and extending it to El Canino. Two Councils had since approved Sand Hill Road improvement. The present Council had also approved it, and had obtained several contingent benefits from Stanford University. "Because of teanicalities we ere back a year icter reconsidering the project. .s' He said he saw no reesoh to change his earlier approval, though one difference was a substantial increase in cast. He did not favor 2-2 or 3-2 alternat4ves. He favored a 4-4 road for many reasons. He commented on the reactiof of University Avenue residents to increased traffic: the traffic was to originate arming themselves: however. Pressure from Oak Creek residents in 1975 to complete the project had now become pressure to defeat the project-ehe thought that might be due to assessment costs. He observed that any project other than the 4.4 would result in extreme congestion; he said the 4-4 would be visually attractive: He felt his record and views could not be faulted by Conservationists or Environmentalists. Many Environmentalists were opposed to anything that might benefit Stanford, or ,mhich Stanford favored. Logic meant that the congested road be widened and cut through to E1 Caino, With a 4-4 there would be safer bicycle and pedestrian movement.' He would oppose the aaotict: MOTIOI4 FAILED: The motion that Council approve the Planning Commission recommendation failed on the following vete: AYES: Brenner NOES: Clay, Eyerly, Fauzinot Fletcher, Henderson NOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Clay, that Council approve the four -lane road complete from Santa Cruz to. El Camino, called Alternate 1, Alignment I (ere) in the .staff report, including the mitigation measures identified in Exhibit 8-a, also .a part of the staff report, Willow Road Improvement Project, Preliminary Plans and Preliminary Assessment District information --Nay 6, 1976, fl8I;260:5 attached to the report as Exhibit C. 231 10/10/78 Corrected see page 271. Councilmember Brenner said she thought the "...lack of success in this road lies in having focused on solving a local problem with an assess- ment district (which is an appropriate way to solve a local problem), and designing a regional facility." The focus was on smooth traffic in the area. The LIP. was voluminous and was sufficient but the impact on the City itself from the road could not be given in the EIR. She referred to Figure 7 opposite page 60 of the EIR. She noted decreases in traffic in Menlo Park Streets. Those decreases led to increases in Palo Alto's crosstown roads. Also, increases on University Avenue corridor went onto Hamilton Avenue. The effect of Dumbarton Bridge completion could not yet be known, and so it had not been factored in, though there would be an unquestionable effect. Sand Hill Road was overedesigned if it were just to serve an assessment district. The basic error was to have focused on the Road as the ultimate solution to the traffic problems of Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Hospital and the Oak Creek apartments. It was a mistake to overlook the fact that the road would have an impact on other areas of Palo Alto. There were considerable "delayed costs" to neighborhoods in collecting any revenues from increased sales tax and the like. "Our neighborhoods are really not for sale. I'm far more concerned about the impact that this will have on our residential areas in Palo Alto. How long can the City hold out against pressure for another major crosstown traffic carrier?" Weather or not the road was completed, she thought, the cars would be there and they would find a path to Dumbarton Bridge; people 0ould demand there be a road to carry that traffic and the question w uid be what street would be designated. A fragment of a street such as Sand Hill Road was not acceptable to her. It did not serve the interests of Palo Alto residents. Council ber Fletcher said she had followed the expansion plans of the Shopping Center as they evolved. People had been told that the expansion plans were not tied in any way to the Willow Road expansion. She referred to minutes of July 1, 1975 of the Architectural Review Board, telling of preliminary plans of Stanford S pping Center as corroboration of her statement. A ring road, to handle shopping center traffic, was being discussed. That ring road was not being designed to generate new traffic, the ARB had been told. She was opposed to the present four -lane alternative. She asked Hr. Green, Assistant City Attorney, if Co:Nil was nom to take into consideration all the previous decisions that Council had made. Mr. Green replied that in settlement of the lawsuit referred to earlier the City had agreed to go through the procedures again from the start, that is, remake decisions. Council was now so doing. The same information that was available before the lawsuit was still to be considered. If Council decided that evening to proceed with the project staff would return and assessment proceedings would be started. Corrected Councihmewber Fletcher confirmed that Council was now starting to make a see page decision which had already been made last year Ste said she was concerned 271. about Dumbarton Bridge. The consultant's analysis had been made without knowing the configuration of the access roads to Palo Alto from Dumbarton Bridge. She scrutinized a transparency projected on the screen. She noticed that the access road narrowed to two lanes when it approached the University access road. Then there was congestion. "That shows to are that the Willow Expressway really is dead --that we have a new problem -- that University Avenue is go f ng to be the major access rote across town end I think the 300 trips a day to Sand Hill, from there, is a very low Corrected figure. . . ." She thought that Palo Alto would be taking considerable see a page traffic off of Menlo Park streets as well. She said that it was undisputed 271. that congestion at the two intersections of Sand Hill Road would be higher. She said she had spent time reading and studying and also standing at the corner of Santa Cruz and Sand Hill and watching traffic movement. Sitting in a car gave a deceptive idea that if other cars would move to another lane one's own car would be free to move, but 232 10/10/78 standing at the intersection gave a broader look at the traffic that gathered there. She thought double left turns at Santa Cruz would not solve the problem. She described the problems she had observed, and said she thought they would be accentuated by feeding more traffic into the intersection. Noise would be a problem, as the EIR stated, saying that barriers would have to be installed to rate traffic noise, double pane windows were recommended to reduce noise, and also improved ventilation systems were recommended for avoidance of fumes. Even if ' the improved road would improve traffic flow it was not a desirable project. She had more objections which she might give after the vote had been taken. Council ber Eyerly said that the expenses referred to by Councilor Fletcher were undertaken for the earlier project; those expenses would be expunged. He hated to see that money and all the effort go to waste. The problem six or seven years ago and the problem today was traffic on Santa Cruz Avenue. The reason for the project was to help move that traffic; he thought the four -lane proposal was the only Way that situation could be helped, though "...it's not perfect at Santa Cruz, but when I look on out Santa Cruz in Menlo Park and look at the four -lane road thet they have that leads out to SLAC...I realize that traffic flows easily. • • ." Traffic backed up at the intersection and the bridge. If the road was improved traffic mould be helped all the way along. He did not think other ways to rove on Alpine signal lights would be afforded. Figure 7 showed him that Palo Alto got a plus from the project -•a decrease of 5.4 percent on Ernbarcadero and on Alma near University of 16.7, and on Page Mill Road of 2.4 percent though there was an increase on university Avenue. He had resided in Crescent Park and he - knew that was a problem. He did not fully believe the projected traffic figures, for example, that 2,300 cars would be traveling Ha. ilton Avenue, as one flyer against the project had stated. He thought there were fallacies in the flyer with Joseph Carleton's and Elfrid Cioumousis's names on it, for example, that Sand Hill had been designated a .truck route. Sand Hill already was a truck route. Stanford had already agreed that it would not close Arboretum Drive, contrary to the stated thr:at in the flyer that Stanford might close roads, Stanford's promise to build Campus Drive was a plus. The EIR clearly stated that mass transit would not solve the Sand Hill koad problem, on page 156. He thought such flyers did not help the comity. He said it was up to Council to solve the many problems occasioned by congestion on Sand Hill Road. Council had to think about the plusses of what the project would contribute: monetary, through increased sales tax, 1200 housing units, Campus Drive extension, a creekside easement behind the proposed housing area, a good price on three acres of land next to the shopping center, which, should the project not go through, Stanford had the right to develop commercially, He thought it as wrong to vote from fear of hypothetical situatiois that were not real. He asked Council to vote for the four -lane road. "It's been before us too long." Vice Mayor Henderson said he had talked to some Menlo Park people who said they drove Al pi ne to 280 because there were fewer traffic lights. Councilor Fletcher said that Dumbarton Bridge generated traffic in the university Avenue corridor, in the projections, of about 24,200 cars per day. She added that she was not against improvements --she just thought --this one would not solve the problems, tut would create new. She thought Children's Hospital could cut a drive through Arberetnem` to get to Quarry, to get to Stanford Hospital. She thought the assessment district could get together to look at a car-, vanpooling program, with outside contractors to handle the wile operation including insurance and the -like. There were ways to reduce traffic without spending $6 million One amusing and creative suggestion had been to set up a ricksha service. She had said she would be one of the first to use it. 233 10/10/78 Corrected see page 271. MOTION PASSED: The motion that Council approve the four -lane road, called Alternate i, Alignment I in the staff report, passed on the following vote: AYES: Clay, Eyerly, Fazzino, Henderson NOES: Brenner, Fletcher ABSENT: Carey, Sher, Witherspoon Lou Green, Assistant City Attorney, said the present vote was sufficient to pass the motion, which was to designate an alignment. It directs staff to prepare assessment district prteedi's and return to Council with the necessary resolutions. The resolutions, which would be adopted at that time, and at subsequent proceedings, such is issuance of the contracts, would then require five voles, Vice Mayor Henderson observed that with that requirement for five votes there was little point in continuing with the project. George Sipel, City Manager, said "I have a problem with that too, because we've already got the meter running to the tune of $500,000. I really don't want to go any further in light of the current line-up of votes. . . MOTION: Councilmiber Eyerly moved, seconded by Clay, that in view of 4-2 vote tonight and need of additional votes for assessment district that Council direct staff not to proceed with further activates on the Sand Hill Road project. The .motion passed on a unanimous us vote. Vice Mayor Henderson thanked participants and workers. ORAL LMCNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino loved, seconded by Clay, that Council adjc'rn. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. Council adjourned at 12 midnight. ATTES i • Corrected see page 271. 234 10/10/18 -Zee