Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1997-07-28 City Council (14)
City of Palo Alto Manager’s Report 2 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: AGENDA DATE: CITY MANAGER JULY 28, 1997 DEPARTMENT:PUBLIC WORKS CMR:338:97 SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A RIG~ OF ENTRY AGREEMENT WITH STANFORD UNIVERSITY INCLUDING A CONTRIBUTION FOR A SOUND WALL NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF PAGE MH~L ROAD AND FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY This is a request for-approval of an Amendment to the Right of Entry Agreement with Stanford University. Approval will authorize a City contribution to Stanford of up to $113,000 toward the construction cost of a sound wall. While only $75,000 is budgeted towards this element of the project, a budget amendment ordinance is not required at this time because the overall project budget contains adequate total funding to advance these amounts against funds for future elements of the project. .RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that Council: Approve the attached Environmental Assessment recommending a Negative Declaration for the intersection improvements which includes a noise analysis for the intersection. Approve the attached Amendment to the Right of Entry Agreement (Amendment) between the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University. P__Q_LICY IMPLICATIONS The Amendment (Attachment C) contains a statement to the effect that the City supports Stanford’s application for an appropriate capital contribution from Santa Clara County (County) to offset the-revised sound wall project costs. The City has broached the subject of shared financing to the County for the sound wall, but has obtained no commitment. However, whether or not the County agrees to contribute, the City’s share of the payment to Stanford will not be affected. CMR:338:97 Page 1 of 4 BACKGROUND The 1988 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study recommended operational improvements at various intersections throughout the City including the Page Mill Road/Foothill Expressway/Junipero Serra Boulevard intersection. In 1993, the City applied and received approval for $800,000 in federal Funding to supplement $200,000 in City Traffic Impact Fees which brought the totttl project budget to $1,000,000. The 1993 project budget did not include monies for sound attenuation improvements or right- of-way acquisition. In the 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program, $150,000 was budgeted for the City to construct a conventional sound wall with an anticipated $75,000 reimbursement from Stanford for its 50 percent share of the sound wall construction costs. DISCUSSION Based on the preliminary plans, minimal size right-of-way easements for the road improvements are needed in the northeast, northwest and southwest quadrants of the intersection. Stanford University owns all of the property adjacent to the intersection. In order to obtain the needed roadway easements, the City of Palo Alto entered into a Right of Entry Agreement (Attachment A) with Stanford in October 1994. In the Right of Entry Agreement, the City agreed to design and construct the street improvements as .well as design, build and share the construction cost of a noise attenuation feature in the northwest quadrant of the intersection. In exchange for these considerations, Stanford would agree to grant, at no cost to the City or County, the required roadway easements. Although findings contained in the project’s environmental documents indicated that sound mitigation measures would not be required, the City agreed to contribute to the cost of the sound wall, since noise from the intersection has been a longstanding issue with nearby residents. Based on the design consultant’s estimated cost of $150,000 to build a conventional sound wall, additional money was budgeted in the 1995-96 CIP, with the agreement that Stanford and the City would share the cost at $75,000 each. Shortly after the $150,000 estimate was submitted, Stanford decided to conduct an additional noise analysis; due to its concern that the noise levels in the residential areas warranted more in-depth study. Stanford’s subsequent noise study used a different acoustical methodology, and included an analysis of an alternative sound wall design’s effectiveness. The alternative sound wall proposed by Stanford is expected to provide reductions below existing ambient noise levels for all residents, and is the preferred option of the homeowners. Stanford’s conceptual estimates for its proposed sound wall is $300,00 to $340,000. Upon approval of the Amendment and at the time of construction, the City will contribute one-third of the construction cost to Stanford for its preferred sound wall design (to a maximum of $113,000). Stanford will pay one-third and will seek a contribution from the County for the remaining third. Stanford will pay for any portion not contributed by the County. The Amendment also separates the design and construction CMR:338:97 Page 2 of 4 responsibilities, placing the intersection work under the purview of the City, and the sound wall under Stanford. Although the Amendment will separate the design and construction responsibilities, the .City and Stanford will work together in presenting the intersection and sound wall designs to the Architectural Review Board and the County, and coordinating construction. The preliminary intersection design was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board on June 19, 1997. FISCAL IMPACT In the 1995-96 CIP budget, $150,000 was added to the Major Intersection Improvement CIP 19073 for City construction of a standard sound wall at the Page Mill/Foothill intersection. Stanford was to reimburse the City $75,000 for the City’s construction of the sound wall. Council approval of the Amendment provides for a revised and improved sound wall, which is now to be designed and constructed by Stanford at a cost of $300,000 to $340,000. The City would pay Stanford a maximum of $113,000 (one-third of the cost) at the time Stanford ’constructs the sound wall. This represents an increase of $38,000 over the previous $75,000 budgeted for the .City’s share of construction costs. The overall project currently has sufficient funds to accommodate this increase. However, upon completion of the project in the spring of 1998 design staff will re-evaluate the total project cost and may need to return to Council with revised project funding requirements. The current construction budget has been negatively impacted due to the delay for the soundwall negotiations, (a three year inflationary factor for construction costs), the additional cost of the revised sound wall project~ and the cost for medianlandscape design added to the project by the Architectural Review Board. ENVIRONMENTAL An environmental assessment prepared for the intersection improvements (Attachment B) included a discussion of noise impacts. This environmental assessment (negative declaration) was presented to and certified by the Architectural Review Board on June 19, 1997. The Architectural Review Board reviewed and approved the report and it is attached for certification by Council. Upon certification, no further environmental review by the City will be required for either the intersection improvements or sound wall. Stanford, however, may need to prepare its own assessment of its proposed sound wall for presentation to the County as part of the project’s approval process. ATTACHMENTS A - Right of Entry Agreement B - Environmental Assessment - Page Mill Road/Foothill Expressway Improvements C - Amendment to the l~.ight of Entry Agreement CMR:338:97 Page 3 of 4 PREPARED BY: Karen Bengard, Senior Engineer, Public Works Engineering DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: GLENN’ S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works CMR:338:97 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT A RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT THIS RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is entered into as of Oero~.E,q /g ,1994, by and between the City of Palo Alto ("City") and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University ("Stanford"). RECITALS ’ City desires to construct certain improvements to the intersection of Page Mill Road, Foothill Boulevard, and Junipero Serra Boulevard consisting generally of widening to provide double left-turn lanes and right-turn lanes and adding bike and pedestrian lanes (as indicated on attached F, xhihJ.!~) and changing certain traffic signal hardware and - . operations, and in connection therewith, the construction of noise attenuation improvements in the areas indicated on attached Exhibit C (all of the foregoing being herein referred to as the "Improvements"). Upon completion of the Improvements,- Stanford will grant to the County of Santa Clara (the "County") roadway and pedestrian and bike path easements as provided herein. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 1. Subject to the terms and conditions ofthis Agreement, Stanford hereby grants to City permission for ingress and egress over, under, upon and through the following areas of land owned by Stanford for the following purposes: (i) the area located as shown on attached ~ -for purposes of constructing and installing a roadway, bicycle pathway, and pedestrian pathway; (ii) the area.located as shown on attached ~ for purposes of grading the slope of the bank to confom~ to the new bicycle.pathway; (iii) and the area shown on attached ~ for purposes of constructing sound attenuation improvements.. ¯ 2. It is expressly understood and agreed that all Improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor approved by Stanford pursuant hereto, and that all costs and expenses in connection with the roadway, bicycle pathway and pedestrian pathway shall be borne by City, and after completion of construction and the granting of the easements referred to in the Right of Entry. Agreement, the County. 3. Prior to and as a condition to the commencement of construction ofafiy of the Improvements, (i) City shall obtain Stanford’s prior written approval (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld) of the plans and specifications for all the Improvements and for the environmental assessment process under the California Environmental Quality Act relating to the Improvements, and (ii) City and Stanford shall have agreed upon the responsibility for all costs and expenses in connection with the pagejsb.agm I sound attenuation improvements. Any consents or approvals given by Stanford shall not transfer or be deemed to transfer to Stanford, and Stanford shall not have, any liability or responsibility whatsoever for the design, location or construction of the Improv.ements or any aspect thereof. 4. City shall be responsible for and slxall pay for the prompt backfilling of any trench made by or for City, restoring the surface of the area as nearly as possible to its pre-excavation condition, and the full and complete repair, in a first-class and workmanlike manner of, or the full reimbursement to Stanford for, any damage caused to the property of Stanford, including without limitation, any utility line, service, landscaping, paving, fences, or other improvements, in connection with the activities conducted under this Agreement. 5. City, its successors and assigns, shall indemnify, protect, defend and save harmless Stanford and its trustees, officers, directors, agents, employees and successors and assigns, from and against any and all loss, cost, damage, liability, expense, claim and demand, of whatsoever character, direct or consequential, arising out of or in any way connected with the design, construction, installation, removal, use or condition of the Improvements, including, without limitation, injury or death of persons, and damage to or loss of property, arising out of the exercise by City or any of its agents, contractors or employees or their respective successors and assigns of the rights granted hereunder. 6. If Stanford deems it necessary, City shall pay Stanford’s reasonable costs and expenses for an on-site Stanford designated.archeological consultant during any excavation under taken in connection with the Improvements. If the archeblogieal consultant deems it necessary to investigate the possible presence of, or to protect,. archeological artifacts, the consultant shall ha~,e the authority to halt the excavation work in the area subject to such investigation. City, at City’s expense, shall comply with the consultant’s requests regarding the protection, removal or reburial of such artifacts or the temporary or permanent cessation of excavation of construction of the Improvements. In the event that cessation of excavation is required, City, at City’s expense, shall restore the affected portion of the property to its condition prior to the commencement of construction of the Improvements, orapplicable portion thereof. Any archeologieal artifacts discovered on the property shall belong to Stanford. Stanford and its consultant shall not be liable for any losses, costs, damages, expenses or liabilities, direct or consequential, that may result from cessation of excavation or construction or other compliance with this provision. 7. ’ Upon completion of construction of the Improvements, Stanford shall grant to the County of Santa Clara, at no cost to the county of Santa Clara, easements for the roadway, pedestrian pathway and bicycle pathway pursuant to an easement agreement in the form of attached Exhibit D. pagejsb.agm 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as of the date first above written. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY "--" !//I Print Name: Geoffrey Cox Its: Vice Provost for Institutional Planning & Financial Affairs CITY OF~ . ~l~anager ~ P~bl~ Works D~re~tor APPROVED AS TO FORM: S.r. Assistant City Attorney pagejsb.agm 3 PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXHIBIT "A" Fn~,ir~=,~s ! Planners I Surw,vofs PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EXHIBIT TO 8549268 P.~? / /// PROPOSED SLOPE RIGHT QF ENTRY EXISTING NOLTEar~~’I’ES, In~.PROPOSEO SLOPE RIBHT OF ENTRY En~ine~s[Ptann~/~,(~OR CONSTRUI~TION puRPO~E,~ ONLY| FROM TO 854~268 EXHIBIT "C" PROPOSED SOUND ATTENUATION RIGHT OF ENTRY \% EXISTING R/W (TYP) EXHIBIT D TO RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT Recording Requested By and When Recorded Return to: COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA (space above this line for Recorder’s use) EASEMENT THIS EASEMENT is made and entered into as of ., by and between THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California ("Grantor") and THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ("Grantee"). 1. For valuable consideration paid by Grantee, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby ac "knowledged, Grantor does hereby grant and convey unto Grantee an easement for roadway and bicycle pathway and pedestrian pathway purposes over and across certain .parcels of the lands of Grantor situate in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, as more particularly described in ~ attached hereto (the "Easement Property"). 2. Grantee shall be solely responsible for, and Grantor shall have no responsibility or liability for, the inspection, maintenance and repair of the Easement Property and any improvements thereon. 3. Grantee shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless Grantor, and Grantor’s trustees,’ officers, directors, agents, and employees, from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, costs, damages, penalties and expenses, including without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses, arising out of or resulting from or in any way connected frith the use of the easement granted hereby, including without limitation, injury or death, of persons or damage to or loss of property arising out of the use by the public of the roadway or pathways on the Easement Property or the exercise by Grantee or any of its agents, contractors or employees of any of the rights granted herein. 4. The easement hereby granted shall cease and terminate upon the nonuse of the Easement Property or any portion thereof for the purposes set forth herein for a period of two (2) consecutive years. In such event, all right, title and interest of Grantee in and to the Easement Property or, in the event of termination of the easement over a portion of the Easement Property for nonuse, said portion, shall terminate and revert to Grantor. 5. Upon termination of the easement g.ranted herein or any portion thereof, Grantee shall (a) if requested in writing by Grantor, remove any paving or other improvements on the Easement Property (or that portion thereof as to which the easement granted herein is terminated) and diligently restore the land as nearly as possible to its condition prior to construction and installation thereof, and (b) make, execute, acknowledge, and deliver to Grantor a quitclaim deed conveying to Grantor all right, title and interest herein conveyed to Grantee as to the easement or portion of the easement so terminated. 6. This Easement Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. This Easement Agreement, together with the exhibits hereto which are incorporated herein by reference, constitutes the entire agreement of the parties relating to the easement granted herein and shall not be amended or modified except by a writing executed by the parties hereto. 7. This Easement Agreement agd the easement granted herein shall not constitute a dedication of the Easement Property and concurrently herewith Grantor is recording in the Official Records of Santa Clarfi~County a notice under Section 813 of the California Civil Code to the effect that the right of the public or any person to make any use whatsoever of the Easement Property or any portion thereof, other than any use expressly allowed under this Easement Agreement or other written or recorded map, agreement, deed or dedication, is by permission, and subject to control of Grantor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument by proper persons thereunto duly authorized as of the day and year first above written. GRANTOR: THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of Califor~a By: Print Name: Its: GRANTEE: THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA By: Print Name: Its: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SSo COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) On this __ day of ,19_,’before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, residing therein, duly commissioned and swom~ personally appeared , [ ] personally known to me [ ] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the of The Leland Stanford Junior University, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California, who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that said University executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal at my office in said County and State, the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SSo COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) On this m day of ,19_, before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, residing therein, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , [ ] personally known to me [ ] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the of The County of Santa Clara who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that said County executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my 6fficial seal at my office in said County and State, the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public 4 ATTACHMENT B City of Palo Alto DRAFT MINUTES Thursday, June 19, 1997 8:00 AM EXCERPT MINUTES OF TIlE JUNE 19, 1997 MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD. ko Board Members Present: Board Members Absent: Frank Alfonso Dave Ross Bob Peterson Cheryl Piha Jim McFall Staff Members Present:Lisa Grote Phillip Woods Bob Schubert (Contract Planner for Items II. 1, 11.3, II.5 I1.7) Paul.Jensen (Contract Planner for Item II.4) Chandler Lee (Contract Planner for Item II.6) Bo ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None Co Item I. 1 was pulled for discussion, Item 1.2 was continued to July 3, 1997. APPROVALS: The Architectural Review Board (ARB) decision on the design of the project is a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment (the Director), .who makes the final decision. Unless otherwise stated by the ARB or the Director, project approvals generally incorporate Project Review Committee conditions as mailed to the applicants and staff conditions as recommended in the B :ARB :MIN0619.drf Page 1 Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 1.Color chips to match the approved colors shall be attached to the cover of the building permit drawing set by the applicant. 6.104 Page Mill Road~97-ARB-104 City of Palo Alto 97-EIA- 10 R~quest for Architectural Review Board’s review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment on an application by the City of Palo Alto to widen the Page Mill/Foothill Expressway intersection and related landscaping improvements. PROJECT REPRESENTATIVES: Karen Bengard, city engineer, presented the proposal. Ron Benoit, landscape architect, presented landscape proposal. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Charles Carter, assistant director at Stanford Planning Department, reinforced concepts outlined in a letter dated 6/10/97 from Stanford that addressed concerns about the intersection improvement plan. They were in support of the soundwall. James Patell, 1076 Vernier Place, was concerned about potential increase of trucks, traffic and pedestrians and most of the mitigation measures outlined in the letter from Stanford. Jeannie Shegman, 550 Junipero Serra Blvd., Stanford, was in support of the proposed modifications outlined in the Stanford letter. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION: Approved with conditions (3-0.-1-1 McFall absent, Piha stepped down) Peterson and Piha stated conflicts of interest but Peterson participated through a process to establish a quorum. CONDITIONS P_ri~ uance~ofD~.zn olition Permit A final site plan shall be prepared and approved by the Planning Division which reflects any modifications by the ARB. B :ARB :MIN0619.drf Page 7 Works Operations All existing street trees to be retained, as shown on the final landscape plan, shall be protected during _construction. The following tree protection measures sha!l be approved by the Planning Department Arborist and included in construction/demolition contracts and be implemented during demolition and construction activities unless otherwise approved. The followingtree protection measures shall apply: PAMC Sec. 8"-04-070. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the City Arborist. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done .under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #505). No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. The tree proteciion measures shall be approved by the PlanningDivision Arborist and included in construction/demolition-contracts and be implemented during demolition and construction activities unless otherwise approved; Public Works Engineering o The applicant shall Submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works "Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan-_shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform B :ARB :MIN0619.drf Page 8 with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. So The. developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor " BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, et~.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. Planning Continue to cooperate with Stanford University and Santa Clara County to modify .the intersection design to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and to discourage additional traffic volumes and speed. o Continue to review the annual Congestion Management Agency (CMA) traffic monitoring of the intersection during the months of September and October and share the results with Stanford University and its leaseholders, especially as they apply to traffic volumes on Junipero Serra Boulevard and Stanford Avenue as alternatives to Page Mill Road. : Continue to cooperate frith Stanford University to jointly fuiid the proposed greenwall located on Stanford University property adjacent to the intersection. 3400 E! Camin0 Real Linn Winterbotham 97-ARB-60 Request for Architectural Review Board’s review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for approval of relocation of a proposed trash recycling enclosure to an existing landscape area between the Fresco Restaurant and the Driftwood Market, approximately 3 feet from the sidewalk ~long El Camino Real. PROJECT REPRESENTATIVES: Lynn Wilson, applicant, presented the proposed changes to trash enclosure location. B:ARB:MIN0619.drf Page 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report Item No.~o G Agenda Date: To: June 19, 1997 Architectural Review Board From:Chandler Lee, Planner Department:Planning Subject:PAGE MILL/FOOTHILL INTERSECTION:File No.:97-ARB-104 CITY OF PALO ALTO 97-EIA-10 REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION Review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment on an application by the City of Palo Alto to widen the Page Mill/Foothill Expressway intersection and related landscaping improvements. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board: Approve the attached Negative Declaration (Attachment #6), finding that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts,, if certain conditions of approval are imposed; and o Recommend approval to the Director of Planning and Community Environment for the proposed project to widen the Page Mill/Foothill Expressway intersection and related landscaping improvements based on the attached findings and conditions. . r i 1 ¯ "Make operational and intersection improvements to ease traffic flow onmajor streets." The improvement of this intersection is called for in the 1989 Citywide Land Use AAARB20\ROW.sr Page I Transportation Study. The proposed intersection improvements will reduce traffic congestion, improve intersection levels of service and improve air quality levels. .Urban Design Element. Policy 3. P~ "Promote visual aesthetics through tree planting, landscaped areas, and removal of visually disruptive elements on major City streets." , The intersection improvements include the introduction of landscaping and an assortment of trees within the roadway medians and at the perimeter of the right of way. Noise Element. Program 37 " ’_ ; Construct noise barriers where the noise impacts can be significantly reduced." Noise standards would be met with the construction of the intersection improvements .regardless _of wh~ther the greenwall is built or not. The greenwall is being const..ructed to reduce existing noise levels inside adjacent single family homes. The improvements were identified in the City of Palo Alto!s 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study which was certified by theCity Council in 1989. The project is also included in Santa Clara County’s Transportation 2010 Plan as an intersection improvement project.The proposed intersection improvements are necessary to reduce existing and future congestion during peak commute periods. Intersection levels of service will improved froma LOS F to LOS "D" as a result of the improvements. Intersection Improvements The project includes the modification of the existing intersection of Page Mill Road and Foothill Expressway to increase the capacity of the intersection. The existing intersection (see Figure 3) is signalized with two through lanes on each approach. The north, east, and west approaches each have a single left turn lane, while the south approach has an exclusive left-turn lane plus one shared left-through lane. All four approached have right- turn lanes. Striped bike lanes are present on Page Mill Road on the east leg of the intersection. AAARB20\ROW.sr Page 2 . . The project proposes to modify the intersection, as shown in Figure 3. The primary components of the intersection improvements will include the following: 1. Modification to the south, east, and west approaches to include two left-turn lanes, 2. Improvements to and lengthening of the right-turn lanes on the approaches, 3. Replacement of the existing signal, :,~ 4. Removal of the existing triangular traffic islands in the northwest, northeast, and southeast quadrants, 5. Reduction in size of the existing triangular traffic island in the southwest quadrant, 6. Relocation.of the existing crosswalks to better accommodate truck turning movements, and - -- 7. minor adjustments to the alignments of existing bike ianes and paths to accommodate the intersection improvements and to improve bike safety. Please refer to the attached project description submitted by the applicant. The Green Wall ... A separate but related project consists of a "greenwall" noise barrier to be constructed on private land adjacent to the public right-of-way. The greenwall is not subject to ARB review but is being presented only for the information of the Board. The greenwall is proposed to be built on land owned by Stanford University in the northeast quadrant of the intersection. The greenwall is setback about 27 feet from Page Mill and will be partially screened by a row of existing Olive Trees. The greenwall is setback about 95 feet from Foothill and is partially screened by existing vegetation. The greenwall is not required as a mitigation caused by the intersection improvements. Rather, it is designed to reduce existing noise levels in adjacent single family homes that are leased by Stanford University.. The greenwall features an unusual design that includes a stepped wall of vegetation that provides both visual and noise benefits greater than a standard soundwall. The greenwall is being built and m~iintained by Stanford University on private property while the intersection improvements are being built and maintained by the City of Palo Alto on public land. For purposes of satisfying CEQA requirements, the two separately sponsored projects are being considered together in the attached environmental evaluation. A:\ARB20\ROW,sr Page 3 The greenwall would be located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection, as Shown in Figure 3A. The greenwall is a pre-cast, reinforced concrete tray system that is pre- engineered to meet California seismic standards. The concrete trays are keyed together and stacked to form pyramidal structure with a base approximately five feet in width narrowing to a crown of approximately two feet in width. The height of the wall will range from approximately 16 feet at the center to about 8 feet a~t each end. The wall will consist of six trays at the central point closest to the intersection and three trays at either end. Each tray will be about 2.5 feet in height and will consist of a reinforced concrete planter filled with earth and variety of non-flowering plants, as shown on Figure 3B. : Project Information Information regarding the applicant, owner,, Comprehensive Plan designation, zoning district, and existing land use, is shown below in Table 1. TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant: Owner: Assessor’s Parcel Number:n/a Comprehensive Plan Designation:Expressway Zoning District:n/a City of Palo Alto Stanford University Surrounding Land Use: Northwest: Open Space Southwest: Open Space Southeast: Research and Development Northeast: Single Family Residential Parc~l Size:n/a The staff analysis for this project relates to Architectural Review Ordinance Standards, A :~ARB20\ROW.sr Page 4 topography, landscaping, pedestrian access, noise, aesthetics and City department comments. Architectural Review Ordinance Standards for Review The project must be consistent with the Architectural Review Ordinance, Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC. Findings are included as Attachment #3. , Topography Because the existing terrain is relatively level, the intersection improvements will only result in minor grading to the accommodate the road widening and associated landscaping. The proposed greenwall will change the topography of the land area immediately adjacent to the proposed right of way in the northeast quadrant of the intersection. The existing relatively level site will be replaced by a greenwall ranging in height from 8 to 16 feet and from 2 to f~ve fe~t in width. The greenwall will increage the amount of landscaping on site and slightly increase the amount of impervious surface area. Site soil modifications and changes in topography are not expected to result in significant earth or geologic impacts. Landscaping Both the intersection improvements and the greenwall have been designed to minimize the number of trees that need to be removed. No trees will be removed within the proposed right-of-way. The greenwall displaces no more than three trees including a 15 inch Monterey Pine, a 15 inch California Pepper and a 12 inch California Pepper. These trees are proposed to be replaced by six new trees on private land adjacent to the right-of-way. The planting of these new trees meet the City’s required tree replacement ratio of 2:1. The intersection improvements include the introduction of landscaping and an assortment of trees within the roadway medians and at the perimeter of the right of way. The new landscaping includes naturalized grasses, low evergreen shrubbery, and groundcover in addition to Northern Red Oak, Native Oak and Canary Island Pine trees. The greenwall will include a variety of evergreen draping plants. However, the plants will be in contained planters, located above ground level. The plants will not disturb existing soils on the site. The gre~nwall will add a vertical element of landscaping that will buffer the visual effects of the roadway from nearby residences and add a visually attractive feature to the area. A:\ARB20\ROW.sr Page 5 The major impact of the project is on pedestrian access. The existing intersection will be widened by about 10 feet. Currently, a pedestrian must cross Page Mill Road via a 20 foot turn lane to a traffic island, cross 70 feet of pavement spanning four lanes to a traffic island, and then cross the final 20 feet to the curb. The proposed widening would only increase the total width of the crossing from about 110 to 120 feet but would eliminate the porkchop islands and create a more direct route. A four foot wide median island is !ocated in the middle of each crossing. A pedestrian typically would take about 20-24 seconds to cross the full length of the crosswalk. Signal timing will be adjusted to allow pedestrian crossing of the intersection. The amount of landscaping will be substantially increased to compensate for the additional asphalt required by the project. Existing sidewalks will remain along both sides of Page Mill, east of the intersection, and on the east side of Foothill, north of the intersection. Noise Future noise levels (year 2010) were projected in the vicinity of the intersection using Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) highway noise model, assuming the proposed improvements were in place.. Year 2010 noise levels were projected to be 0 to 1 dBA higher than existing levels near the closest residences. Existing noise levels at these residences are 62 to 63 dBA. These future noise levels (e.g., 64 dBA or less) would not require noise mitigation under either the FHWA or County noise standards. (FHWA) Noise Criteria for residential areas during the peak hour is 67 Leq (dBA) in exterior areas (e.g., backyards). A separate acoustical analysis was conducted to measure the noise reduction potential of the proposed greenwall. The study determined that the addition of the greenwall would reduce existing and future noise levels in nearby residential areas by 10 to 20 dBA compared with noise levels without the wall. Federal Highway Administration Noise Criteria for residential areas during the peak hour is 67 Leq (dBA) in exterior areas (e.g., backyards) and 52 Leq (dBA) in interior areas (e.g., inside homes). Noise standards would be met with the construction of the intersection improvements regardless of whether the greenwall is built or not. However, the construction of the greenwall would significantly reduce noise both inside and outside adjacent homes. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant noise impacts. Aesthetics AAARB20\ROW.sr Page 6 Construction of the greenwall will introduce a new visual element into the landscape. The existing intersection and adjacent terrain are relatively level with minimal vegetation. The intersection improvements include the introduction of landscaping and an assortment of trees within the roadway medians and at the perimeter of the right of way. The new landscaping includes naturalized grasses, low evergreen shrubbery, and groundcover in addition to Northern Red Oak, Native Oak and Canary Island Pine trees. The greenwall will include a variety of evergreen draping plants. However, the plants will be in contained planters located above ground level, The plants .will not disturb,existing soils on the site. The greenwall will add a vertical element of landscaping that will buffer the visual effects of the roadway from nearby residences and add a visually attractive feature to the area. Both the intersection and greenwall landscaping will improve the aesthetics of the area compared to the existing condition by adding native species within the right of way and adding a welcom~ visual barrier between the right of way and adjacent residential areas. ~ITIONS ARB findings (Attachment #4) and conditions of project approval (Attachment #5) are attached. Notice of this ARB review of project requirements was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and.utility customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card. Date project received: Date application deemed complete: Action time limit: (105 days after project deemed complete) Optional extension upon applicant’s request: (90 days after action date) 5/8/97 5/22/97 9/10/97 12/10/97 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSES~ A:\ARB20\ROW.sr Page 7 The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and determined that the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review from May 30, 1997 through June 19, 1997 and is attached to this staff report (see Attachment #6). Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Attachment 6: Figure 3: Existing and Proposed Intersection Figure 3A: Adjacent Land Uses Figure 3B: Green Wall Cross Section ARB Findings Project Conditions Negative Declaration COURTESY Karen Bengard, City of Palo Alto, Public Works Engineering Charles Carter, Stanford University Planning Office, 855 Serra Street, Stanford, CA 94305 Nolte and Associates, 60 Market Street #600, San Jose, CA 95113 Ron Benoit, 225 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA:94301 Prepared By: Manager Review: Chandler Lee James E. Gilliland A:~ARB20\ROW.,r Page 8 EXISTING PROPOSED GREENWALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS No Scale FIGURE 3 Figure 3A PROPOSED EASEMenT3400 SG. FT. 111’~ & VARIES OPENFIELD EXIST STANFORD RESIDENTS .PROPOSED EASEME~425 SO. FT. .~x 160’tl PROPOSED EASEMENT 8510 8(a. FT.(7’t x 600’~1 . OPEN FIELD STANFORD RESEARCH PARK PAGE MB_.L RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY Figure 3B I WALL SEE PI..~N FOR’fop or WALL (~) £L£VATIONS FENCE OLIVE ¯ GROVE ’ 3TM F~NCE 161.3 PINE GROVE .,~ BA~I~ OF PIN~~162.69 IBB PN3 ~ PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 6 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY ATTACHMENT #4 FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL PAGE MILL/FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY INTERSECTION The following findings for the Standards for Architectural Review have been prepared by staff in support of the proposal: ’ 1. The project is consistent with the land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan (Standard #al) in that both’roads are designated as expressways on the land use map. The project is also consistent with Transportation Element, Program 17 (Make operational and intersection" improvements to ease traffic flow on major streets), Urban Design Element, Policy 3 (Promote visual aesthetics through tree planting, landscaped areas, and removal of .visually disruptive elements on major City streets, and Noise Element, Program 37 (Construct noise barriers where the noise impacts can be significantly reduced). 2. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site (Standard #a2) i-a that the site is surrounded by open space on the northwest and southwest, by office buildings on the south east and by vegetation and a proposed greenwall that screens single family residential on the northeast. 3. Standard #a3 is not applicable. 4. Standard #a4 is not applicable to this project. 5. The proposed project promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character to the surrounding neighborhood (Standard #a5) in that. the project scale has been adequately screened with landscaping and will be compatible with neighboring residential projects. 6. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on- and off-site in that the intersection and landscapi’ng improvements complements the scale and design of the adjacent buildings in the vicinity Of Page Mill and Foothill Expressway, notably the Frenchman’s Hill residential neighborhood in the northeast quadrant of the intersection (Standard #a6). 7. Standard #a7 is not applicable to this project. 8. The proposed amount and arrangement of open space is appropriate to the design and function of the project in that the s~ite plan and landscape plan minimize the number of trees to be removed (three) and maximize the amount of landscaping on the site (Standard #aS). 9. Standard #a9 is not applicable to this project. 10. Access to the property and circulation for both drivers and pedestrians would be provided in a safe and convenient manner in that vehicular movement will be improved and pedestrian access will be provided by pedestrian signal crossings and sidewalks in three of four directions. (Standard #al0). 11. Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated into the project in that the landscape plan preserves all trees within the right-of-way and only calls for removal of three existing trees near the greenwall which will be replaced in a 2:1 ratio. (Standard #I 1). 12. Standard #a12 is not applicable to this project. 13. The proposed landscape design provides a desirable and functional environment and"pleasant outdoor space and is appropriate to a major intersection in that the landscape scheme provides pleasant walkways, perimeter landscaping, and outdoor open spaces conducive to pedestrian use (Standard #a13). 14. The proposed plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site and can be properly maintained on the site and the plantings are appropriate for outdoor use and includes a mix of trees, shrubs-and groundcover suitable for this type of development (Standard #a14), ..- 15. Standard #a15 is not applicable to this project. ATTACHMENT #5 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL pAGE MILL/FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY INTERSECTION 1. A final site plan shall be prepared and approved by the Planning Division which reflects any modifications by the ARB. Public Works Operations All existing street trees to be retained, as shown on the final landscape plan, shall be protected during construction. The following tree protection measures shall be approved by the Planning Department Arborist and included in construction/demolition contracts and be implemented during demolition and construction activities unless otherwise approved. The following tree protection measures shall apply: PAMC Sec. 8-04-070. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the City Arborist. ao bo All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the. trees. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place Until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under-the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #505). No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shail be permitted within the tree enclosure area. c. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. d.Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. eo The tree protection measures shall be approved by the Planning Division Arborist and included in constf’uctionidemolitioncontracts and be implemented during demolition and construction activities unless otherwise approved. Public Works Engineering 3. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site an~l from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. o The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices’:(BMP’s) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into-gutters or storm drains. _-. (S :\plan\pladiv\arb\rowarb.att) INITIAL STUDY PAGE iLL FOO,THiLL EXP OA AT ESSWAY i TE SECTIO i P 0 VE E T P OJECT CiTY OF PALO ALTO MAY 1997 IX.’ III. IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT .....................1 A.PROJECT LOCATION .......................................1 B.PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................1 DESCRIPTION OF A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...............9 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ............................9 GEOLOGY ...............................................9 HYDROLOGY ..........................................: ....9 AIR QUALITY ............................................10 NOISE ..................................................11 CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................11 UTILITIES ...............................................11 LAND USE ............ ....................................12 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ...........................13 DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS .......................’ ....20 Ao B. C. D. E. F. G. GEOLOGY .................................’ .............."20 WATER ....’ .............................................20 AIR QUALITY ............................................21 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ..........". .....................21 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................21 NOISE .................23 AESTHETICS ................., ......, .....................28 REPORT AUTHOR AND CONSULTANTS ..........................29 DETERMINATION ..............................................30 Figure 1 ¯ Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 3A Figure 3B Figure 4 Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Regional Project Location Map .................................2 Vicinity Project Location Map . .. ................................3 Existing and Future Intersection Configurations .......................4 Greenwall .................................................5 Greenwall ....................................’ ..........~.. 6 Noise Receptors and Measurement Locations ........................27 Existing and Future Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ....................10 Projected Carbon Monoxide Levels ..............................22 Noise Abatement Criteria of the Federal Highway Administration .........25 Existing and Future Noise Levels ................................26 PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the requiren,ents of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA ") (California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 and following) and its itnplementing regtdations ("the Guidelines") (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 and following). This Initial Study meets the requirements of Guidelines Section 15063(d)(1).(6). I.DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT PROJECT LOCATION The project location is the intersection of Page Mill Road and Foothill Expressway in the City of Palo Alto, California. The project location is shown on Figures 1 and 2 on the following pages. Page Mill Road is a major arterial which runs in a southwesterly-northeasterly direction, while Foothill Expressway is a mgjor arterial which runs in a.sOutheasterly-northwesterly direction. [Note: For the purpose of dbscribi"ng the project, in this document it will be assumed that PageMill Road r~~ns east- west and Footi, ill Expressway runs north-south.] North of the Page Mill/Foothill intersection, Foothill Expressway ~becomes Junipero Serra Boulevard. B.PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes the modification of the existing intersection of Page Mill Road and Foothill Expressway for the purpose of increasing /he capacity of the intersection. The existing intersection, shown on Figure 3 on page 4, is signalized with two through lanes on each approach. The north, east, and west approaches each have a single left-turn lane, while the south approach has an exclusive left-turn lane plus one shared left-through lane. All four approaches have right-turn lanes. Striped bike lanes are present on Page Mill Road on the east leg of the intersection. A separate but related project consists of a "greenwall" noise barrier to be constructed on private land adjacent to the public right-0f-way. The greenwall is proposed to be built on land owned by Stanford University in the northeast quadrant of the intersection. The greenwall is not required as mitigation for impacts caused by the proposed intersection improvements. Rather, it is designed to reduce existing noise levels in the adjacent single-family residences that are leased by Stanford University. The greenwall features an unusual design that includes a stepped Wall of vegetation that provides both visualand noise benefits greater than a standard soundwall. The greenwall is being built and maintained by Stanford University on private property, while the intersection improvements are being built and maintained ’by the City of Palo Alto (for Santa Clara County) on public land. For the purpose of satisfying CEQA requirements, these two separately-sponsored projects are being considered together in this Initial Study. PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY RAFA SAN FRANCI BERKELEY :ONCOI WAI T CREEK ,N SA HAYWARD lORE M[ ALTO JOSE REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 1 N I V 1" = "- 3000’ Base Map: CSAA, 1990 VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2 EXISTING PROPOSED No Scale , EXISTING AND PROPOSED INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS FIGURE 3 Figure 3A PROPOSED ~EASEI~ENT 3400 SO. FT. (11’1 & VARIES x 330’t OPENFIELD STANFORD RESIDENTS ¯PROPOSED 425 SO. FT, .X~ X 160’tl PROPOSED EASEMENT 3510 SO. FT. (7’! x 500’i| . OPEN FIELD STANFORD RESEARCH PARK PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY Figure 3B ’L.FENCE I PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 6 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY Description of Page Millff’oothill Intersection Improvements The project proposes to modify the intersection, as shown on Figure 3. The primary components of the intersection modification will include the following: Modification to the so.uth, east, and west approaches to include two left-turn lanes. Improvements to and lengthening of the right tffrn lanes on the approaches: Replacement of the existing signal. Removal of the existing triangularly-shaped traffic islands in the northwest, northeast, and ¯ southeast quadrants. Reduction in size of the existing triangularly-shaped traffic island in the southwest quadrant. Relocation of the existing crosswalks to better accommodate truck turns at the intersection. Minor adjustments to the alignment of existing bike lanes and paths to accommodate the intersection improvements and to improve bicycle safety. In order to accommodate these proposed intersection improvements, some additional right-of-way will be required. A strip of right-of-way approximately 10 feet in width would be required on the north leg of the intersection along the west side of Junipero Serra Boulevard. In addition, a strip of right- of-way approximately 10 feet in width would be required on the west leg of the intersection along the south side of Page Mill Road. This additional right-of-way will not affect any buildings, structures or developed areas. The land use at these locations is open space. Description of "Greenwall" The greenwall noise barrier would be located in the northeastquadrant of the intersection, as shown on Figure 3A. The greenwall is a pre-cast, reinforced concrete tray system that is pre-engineered to’ meet California seisrn~c standards. The concrete trays are keyed together and stacked to form a pyramidal structure with a base approximately five feet in width, narrowing to a crown of approximately two feet in width. The height of the greenwall will range from approximately 16 feet at the center to approximately eight feet at each end. The wall will consist of six trays at the central point closest to the intersection and three trays at either end.- Each tray will be about 2.5 feet in height and will consist of a-reinforced concrete planter filled with earth and a variety of non-flowering plants, asshown on Figure 3B. PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Project The proposed intersections improvements are necessary to reduce existing and future congestion during peak commute periods at this intersection. Under existing conditions, the intersection operates at level of service "F" during the PM peak commute hour. According to the City of Palo Alto, this congestion translates into 41 hours of vehicular delay each day during the PM peak hour. The proposed improvements to the intersection will raise the level of service from "F" to "D". Under the resultant improved operating conditions, congestion will be reduced, as will delay. Decreases in congestion have the benefit of improving air quality since congested conditions (e.g., stop.:,and-go, idling, etc.) cause increased levels of emissions, as compared to free-flow conditions. Improvements to this intersection were identified in the City of Palo Alto’s Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study EIR, which was certified by the Palo Alto City Council on March 6, 1989. The project is included in Santa Clara County’s Transportation 2010 (T-2010) Plan as an expressway intersection improvement project. Noise standards would be ,met with the construction of the intersection improvements, regardless of whether or not the greenwall is built. The greenwall is being constructed to reduce existing noise levels inside the adjacent single-family residences, and it is not a mitigation measure that is required by the intersection improvement project. The combination of structural barrier and the exterior vegetation of the greenwall will reduce existing noise levels inside nearby homes to a greater extent than a conventional s0undwall, and will provide a more aesthetically-pleasing design than a traditional soundwall. PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHIZL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY II.ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A.TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Page Mill Road is a major arterial which runs in an east-west direction through Palo Alto with connections to Interstate 280 and the El Camino Real (State Route 82). North of the El Camino Real, Page Mill Road becomes Oregon Expressway which, ,in turn, connects to U.S. 101. Foothill Expressway is a major arterial, owned and operated by the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, which runs in a north-south direction through Palo Alto and Los Altos. North of the Page Mill/Foothill intersection, Foothill Expressway becomes Junipero Serra Boulevard and provid~’s access to Stanford University and Menlo Park. The existing Page Mill/Foothill intersection, shown on Figure 3 on page 4, is signalized with two through lanes on each approach. The north, east, and west approaches each have a single left-turn lane, while the south approach has an exclusive left-turn lane plus one shared left-through lane. All four approac.hes hav~ right-turn lanes. Under existing conditions, the Page Mill/Foothill intersection operates at level of service "F"t. during the PM peak commute hour. According to the City of Palo Alto, this congestion translates into 41 hours of vehicular delay each day during the PM peak hour. Existing traffic volumes through the Page Mill/Foothill intersection were measured in January 1994, and are shown in Table I. B.GEOLOGY There are no existing geologic features or constraints present in the immediate .project area which constitute a constraint to the proposed intersection improvements or the proposed greenwall. Specifically, there are no steep slopes with potential landsliding hazards that are present, nor are there any active faults which cross the project area. The closest active fault is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately four miles to the southwest. C. HYDROLOGY There are no streams or waterways in the immediate project area. The closest stream is Matadero Creek which crosses under Foothill Expressway south of the project area. The project site is not located within any 100-Year Floodplains, according to maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ~Level of service (LOS) is used by traffic engineers to describe the operating condition of an intersection or roadway segment. LOS ranges from "A", representing freeflow conditions, to "F", representing jammed conditions. PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY TABLE 1 EXISTING AND FUTURE PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Intersection Existing Future Percent App roach (1994)(2010) .Change AM PEAK HOUR " Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound PM PEAK HOUR Northbound Southbot~nd Eastbound Westbound 697 640 2,552 889 798 1,060 799 2,234 1,444 712 2,552 961 1,104 1,738 99l 2,234 107% 11% O% 8% 38% 64% 24% ’ O% Note:Existing volumes are actual counts taken in January 1994. Year 2010 volumes are based upon projected intersection approach volumes, as shown in Santa Clara County’s Congestion Management Agency (CMA) model. Source: Patterson Associates, 1994. D. AIR QUALITY The Page Mill/Foothill intersection is located in an area which experiences violations of federal and state air quality standards on various occasions each year, Specifically, the San Francisco Bay Area experiences violations of standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulates and, as such, has been designated as a "non-attainment" area.by the EPA. The number of violations per year varies due to meteorological conditions. Under the Federal and California Clean Air Acts, there are numerous programs and measures in place aimed at reducing emissions of pollutants, with the goal of achieving.compliance with standards in the 1990s. These measures include stricter controls on emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources (e.g., factories), as well as regulations directed at reducing vehicle trips. According to the Bay.Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), existing (1989) background concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) in the project area are 11.0 parts-per-million (ppm) for the peak 1-hour period and 6.5 ppm for the peak 8-hour period. Given these background concentrations, PAGE MILL R.D/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 10 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY it is likely that there are occasional violations of CO standards2 at receptors located near congested intersections with high volumes of traffic in Palo Alto and other parts of Santa Clara County (especially downtown San Jose). These violations occur under stagnant meteorological conditions, which allows for a buildup of CO. E. NOISE Please see the discussion in Section IV of this Initial Siudy, beginning on page 23. F.CULTURAL RESOURCES A cultural resources assessment was undertaken during the preparation of this Initial Study forthe purpose of determining whether the project area is an archaeologically-sensitive area. The assessment included both an archival literature search, as well as a surface reconnaissance of the project site by a qualified archaeologist. The archival literature search consisted of contacting the Northwest InformationCent~ of the California Archaeological Site Inventory. The Informatiofi Center recommended a surface reconnaissance of the project impact area since archaeological resources have been encountered within one-half mile of the Page Mill/Foothill intersection. The surface reconnaissance of the site was conducted by an archaeologist) The archaeologist searched for surface indicators of archaeological resources, including shellfish remains, evidence of fires, concentrations of bone or stone, and other related artifacts. No evidence of archaeological resources was seen inside any of the right-of-ways or underneath the proposed greenwall. Based upon this reconnaissance~ the need for further testing and/or~ archaeological monitoring during construction was not recommended. G. UTILITIES The Page Mill/Foothill intersection .area contains utilities typically found in urban settings such as storm drains, electricity, natural gas, telephone, etc. The presence or absence of these facilities does not normally represent a constraint to construction of the type of improvements which are being proposed as a part of this project. However, there is one major utility in the immediate area which would affect the design of the proposed project. This utility is the Hetch-Hetchy Aqueduct which runs underground parallel to Foothill Expressway, along the east side of the expressway. The aqueduct is owned and operated by the City & County of San Francisco. The project has been 2The 1-hour CO standard is 20 ppm and the 8-hour CO standard is 9 ppm. ~"Archaeological Field Inspection of the Page Mill Road and Foothill Expressway Intersection Improvement Project", Holman & Associates, June 1994. PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS I 1 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY designed to avoid impacting the Hetch-Hetchy facility and, in fact, no Hetch-Hetchy right-of-way will be required for the either the intersection improvements or the greenwall. H. LAND USE The existing land uses adjacent to the Page Mill/Foothill intersection are as follows: Northwest and Southwest Quadrants The land use in these two quadrants is open space. There are no buildings or structures in the immediate area. Vegetation consists of landscaping and grassland. Southeast Quadrant There is a building located in this quadrant which is light industrial/~esearch and development, and is part of what is known as the Stanford Industrial Park. The building is set back from the intersection. In addition, as noted above, the Heteh-Hetchy Aqueduct is immediately adjacent to the easterly edge of the Foothill Expressway right-of-way. Northeast Qt~adr~t Immediately adjacent to the right-of-way for Junipero Serra Boulevard is the underground Hetch-Hetchy Aqueduct. Beyond the right-of-way for the aqueduct and an open space buffer area is a residential neighborhood known as the Frenchman’s Hill Neighborhood. The fence along the edge of the yards of the nearest residences is approximately 150 feet from the sidewalk along Junipero Serra Boulevard at the closest point. The distance to the fence from the sidewalk along Page Mill Road is approximately 60 feet. PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHI~LL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 12 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY III.ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This checklist was used to identify environmental impacts which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The right.hand column in the checklist lists the source(s)for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer except "No Impact" are found in Section IV of this Initial Study. In some instances, where the basis for a "No Impact" determination needs explanation, a discussion can also be found in Section IV. , ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST LAND USE AND PLANNING Would th~ prop~’sal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be ineompatib!e with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority communiiy)? II.POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Potentially Significant Beneficial No Adverse impact Impact Impact 0 [] 0 0 0 [] 0 0 0 [] 0 0 Potentially Significant Impact, but Mitigation included in Project Less Than Significant lnfor- Adverse mation Impact Source(s) O 2 2 1 I 1 1 1 1 PAGE MILL P.D/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 13 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable s611 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? IV. WATER Would the proposal result in: a)Changes in the absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions-or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? Beneficial Impact No Impact 0 [] [] 0 Potentially Stgnificant Adverse Impact O 0 O O Potentially Significant Impact, but Ivhtigation included in Project O O O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O Less "rhan Significant Adverse Impact 0 0 0 0 O 0 lnfor. motion Source(s) ,8 1 1 I p. 20 I 1 1 p. 20 7 I 1 I 1 I PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 14 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONlVIEN~AL CHECKLIST i)Substantial reduction .in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? V. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? VI.TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in: a) b) c) d) f). g) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Insuffieieht parking capacity on-site or off-site? Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the proposal resu_lt in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species o/" their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? Less Potentially Than S~gnificant Significant Beneficial No Adverse Adverse Impact Impact Impact Impact Potentially Significant Impact, but Mitigation included in Project 0 [] 0 0 0 0 [] 0 0 0 [] UI [3 I 131 0 13 El []: 0 0 0 0 []0 13 0 [] 0 0 [] 0 0 0 0 El [] 13 131 131 Infor- mation Source(s) p. 21 4 p. 21 p. 21 1 1 p. 21 I 1 0 El UI El [] , p. 21 15 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)7 e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? VIII.ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-tenewalSle resources in a wasteful and inefficient way? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region & residents of the state? IX. HAZARDS Would the proposal involve: a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or rad~atlon)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees? X. NOISE Would the proposal resuit in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? NO Impact Potcntiall), Significant Less Potentially Imp.act, but Significant Mitigation Stgnificant Adverse included in Adverse Impact Project Impact 0 ,[] 131 0 131 mation Source(s) 1 ’1 1 1 I I 1 1 O El 0 El ¯p. 23 0 []O O O 5 PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 16 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST XI.PUBLIC SERVICES Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protertion? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other gov6rnmeri[~l services? XII.UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? XlII. AESTHETICS Would the proposal: a)Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? XIV.CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Potentially Impact, but Than Stgnificant Mitigation Significant Beneficial No Adverse included in Adverse Impact Impact Impact Project Impact 0 []0 0 0 []0 0 0 []0 0 0 []O O 0 O []O O O O []O 0 O O []O O 0 0 []O O O E)[]O 0 O 0 []O O El, O []O O O 0 ’~1 El O 0 marion Source(s) 1 1 a) Disturb paleontological resources?121 []O 121 121 3 1 1 1" I 1 1 p. 28 1 PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHI1.L EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 17 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST b) Disturb archaeological resources? c).Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within a potential impact area’?. XV. RECREATION Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks orother recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? XVI.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially ~educe the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animals community, reduce the number or range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects oir past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly? Benefici’al No Impact Impact Potentially Significant Potentially Impact, but Significant Mitigation Adverse included in Impact Project L~$s ’Than Significant lnfor. Adverse mation Impact Source(s) 0 []0 0 0 0 []O 0 0 3 3 0 []0 0 0 I E)[]C~C)C) I PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 18 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST INFORAIA TION SOURCES Professional judgment and expertise of the environmental specialist preparing this assessment, based upon a review of the site and surrounding conditions, as well as a review of the project plans. o o Palo Alto General Plan. Holman & Associates, "Archaeological Field Inspection of the Page Mill Road/Foothill Expressway Intersection Improvement Project", 1994. MO’C Physics Applied, "Air Quality Assessment for the Page Mill Road/Foothill Expressway Intersection. Improvement Project", 1994. MO’C Physics Applied, "Noise Assessment for the Page Mill Road/Foothill Expressway Intersection Improvement Project", 1994. Patterson Associates, "Traffic Assessment for the Page Mill Road/Foothill Expressway Intersection Improvement Project", 1994. Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Santa Clara County and Palo Alto. 8.Barclays Maps, "Seismic Hazard Zones of Santa Clara County", 1997. PAGE MILL R.D/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 19 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY IV.DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS [lntroductor~ Note: This section discusses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, based upon the responses to the environmental checklist on the previous pages. Seven subject areas where impacts may occur were identified, all of which are discussed below. These areas are earth/geology, water, air quality, transportation/circulation, biological resources, noise, and aesthetics.] " Ao GEOLOGIC IMPACTS The project will result in the overcovering of a small area of existing bare ground due to the paving associated with the proposed intersection improvements. The area to be paved will not cover any unique geologic features or steep slopes or other topographic features which might otherwise create potential hazards and/or cause erosion. The paving would be limited to relatively minor widening at the interseeiion it~’eif and on the approaches, to the intersection. Thus, while the project wiii result in some overcovering of the soil, the impacts associated with that overcovering would be minimal and would not result in any significant geologic or soils impacts. The proposed greenwall will change the topography of the land immediately adjacent to the proposed right-of-way in the northeast quadrant of the intersection. The existing relatively level site will be replaced by a greenwall ranging from 8 to 16 feet in height and from 2 to 5 feetin width. The greenwall will increase the amount of landscaping onsite and slightly increase the amount of impervious surface area. Site soil modifications and changes in topography are not expected toresult in significant earth or geologic impacts. B.WATER QUALITY IMPACTS The project will include some additional paving for the intersection improvements and additional groundcover for the greenwall which will .have the result of causing a minor increase in impervious surfaces in the area. In turn, this will result in a slight increase in the amotmt of surface runoff during rainstorms. The total increase in impervious area is estimated to be approximately four-tenths of an acre. This would increase existing stormwater runoff by approximately 0.25 cubic-feet-per- second (efs)J The existing stormwater drainage system will be able to accommodate this increased runoff. In addition, the projec_t will not require any new stormwater outfalls into streams or creeks. Finally, any increase in pollutants contained in additional stormwater runoff will be negligible due to the relatively minor improvements associated with the project. Based upon this discussion, it is concluded that the project will not result in any significant water quality impacts. 4Source: Nolte and Associates, Preliminary Design Report, April 1994. PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 20 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY C.AIR QUALITY IMPACTS A detailed carbon monoxide (CO) analysis was undertaken for this project during the preparation of this Initial Study.~ The purpose of the CO analysis was to determine whether future CO concentrations in the vicinity of the intersection would exceed CO standards at nearby receptors with the proposed improvements in place. The CO analysis assumed "worst-case" meteorological conditions and utilized future peak-hour traffic volumes, as projected by Santa Clara County’s Congestion M~nagement Agency (CMA) model. The CO analysis was undertaken so as to satisfy the requirements of the Metropolitan Transportation Comrr~ission (MTC) Resolution 2270. Resolution 2270 spells out the procedures for determining whether or not federally-funded transportation improvement projects conform to the Federal Clean Air Act. The results of the CO analysis are shown in Table 2. The data in Table 2 show that no exceedanees of either the l-hour or the 8-hour CO standards are projected with the project in place in either 1995 or 2010. Based upon this analysis, it is concluded that the proposed intersection improvements will not result in any significant air quality impacts. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION IMPACTS The proposed intersection improvements will result in a number of beneficial transportation-related impacts. These beneficial effects are as follows: ¯Reduced congestion through, the construction of additional turning lanes ¯Improved safety for trucks making turns at th~ intersection ¯Improved bicycle and pedestrian safety at the intersection E.IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Both the intersection improvements and the greenwall have been designed to minimize the number of trees that need to be removed. No trees will be removed by the intersection imProvements. The greenwall will impact no more than three trees, including a 15-inch diameter Monterey Pine, a 15- inch diameter California Pepper, and a 12-inch diameter California Pepper. These trees will be replaced by six new California Live Oak trees on private land adjacent to the intersection right-of- way. The planting of these new trees complies with the City’s required tree replacement, ratio of 2:1. ~"Carbon Monoxide Study for the Page Mill Road/Foothill Expressway/Junipero Serra Boulevard Intersection Improvements", M O’C Physics Applied, April 1994. That study is incorporated into this Initial Study by reference and is available for review during normal business hours at the Palo Alto Public Works Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto. The contact person is John Carlson. PAGE MILL R.D/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 21 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY TABLE 2 PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS Sidewalk - NE quadrant Sidewalk - NE quadrant Sidewalk - NE quadrant Sidewalk -- NW quadrant Sidewalk - NW quadrant Sidewalk - NW quadrant Sidewalk - SW quadrant Sidewalk - SE quadrant Sidewalk - SE quadrani Dirt Trail - NE quadrant Dirt Trail - NE quadrant Residence - NE quadrant Residence - NE quadrant Residence - NE quadrant Notes [Expressed in parts.per.million (ppm)] loHour AM Peak 12.8 13.1 11.4 12.2 13.2 12.9 13.9 14.4 13.4 10.6 ll.l 10.8 10.5 10.4 1995 1-Hour PM Peak 13.8 14.5 14.8 15.0 17.1 14.0 15.1 14.1 14.6 12.2 11.7 12.1 11.2 11.7 8.Hour Peak 7.6 5.1 7.0 4.6 7.3 5.0 1.-Hour AM Peak 7.4 7.6 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.4 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.5 6.5 2010 1-Hour PM Peak 8.8 9.4 9.9 10.0 10.1 9.2 9.3 9.0 9.0 8.6 7.6 8.1 7.4 8.0 The 8-hour concentrations are shown for residences since human exposure to CO is likely to occur for an extended period of time. The l-hour concentrations are shown for the sidewalks and trail since human exposure at those locations is likely to occur for a short period of time. 8-Hour Peak The 8-hour CO standard is 9 ppm. The 1-hour CO standard is 20 ppm. Concentrations shown are for "worst-case" meteorological conditions. Source M O’C Physics Applied,April 1994 PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY 22 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY F.NOISE AND NOISE IMPACTS A detailed noise analysis was undertaken for the intersection improvement project during the preparatiofi of this Initial Study.6 The purpose of the noise analysis was to determine whether future noise levels in the vicinity of the intersection would exceed standards at nearby receptors with the proposed improvements in place. 1.Interpretation of Noise Levels and Star~dards Noise is measured in "decibels" (dB) which is a numerical expression of sound levels on a logarithmic scale. A noise level that is ten dB higher than another noise level has ten times as much sound energy and is perceived as being twice as loud. Sounds less than 5 dB are just barely audible, and then only in the absence of other sounds. Intense sounds of 140 dB are so loud that they are painful and can cause damage with only a brief exposure. These extremes are not commonplace in our normal working and living environments. An "A- weighted decibel" (dBA) filters out some of the low and high pitches which are not as audible to the hum~tn ear. Thus, noise impact analyses commonly use the dBA. For traffic noise, ten times as many vehicles per hour means ten times as much sound energy, resulting in a ten-decibel increase, and a perceived doubling of loudness. Twice as many vehicles per hour means twice the sound energy, resulting in a three-decibel increase, and a just-noticeable increase in loudness. Twenty-six percent more vehicles per hour means 26% more sound energy, resulting in a one-decibel increase, usually considered to be imperceptible increase in loudness. The speed of traffic also affects noise levels: for every 5 mph increase in speed there is a ! to 2-decibel increase in aqerage noise levels. Since excessive noise levels can adversely affect human activities (such as conversation and sleeping) and human health, Federal, State, and local governmental agencies have set forth criteria or planning goals to minimize or avoid these effects. The noise guidelines are almost always expressed using one bf several noise averaging methods such as Leq, Ldn, or CNEL.7 Using one of these descriptors is a way for a location’s overall noise exposure to ~"Noise Study for the Page Mill Road/Foothill Expressway/Junipero Serra Boulevard Intersection Improvements", M O’C Physics Applied, May 1994.. That study is incorporated into this Initial Study by reference and is available for review during normal business hours at the Palo Alto Public Works Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto. The contact person is John Carlson. 7Leq stands for the Noise Equivalent Level and is a measurement of the average energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time such as the noisiest hour. Ldn stands for Day-Night Level and is a 24-hour average of noise’lev61s, with 10-dB penalties applied to noise occurring between 10 PM and 7 AM. CNEL stands for Community Noise Equivaleni Level; it is. similar to the Ldn except that there is an additional 5-dB penalty applied to noise which occurs between 7 PM and |0 PM. As a general rule of thumb where traffic noise predominates, the CNEL and Ldn are typically within 2 dBA of the peak-hour Leq. PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 23 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY be measured, realizing of course that there are specific moments when noise levels are higher (e.g., when a large truck is accelerating through an intersection or a ieaf’blower is operating) and specific moments when noise levels are lower (e.g., during lulls in traffic flows or in the middle of the night). For this report the peak-hour Leq (representing the noisiest hour) will be used as it is consistent with the guidelines of the FHWA, EPA, and Santa Clara County. The noise abatement criteria of the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) specify that highway projects will not be approved "unless those noise abatement measures which are reasonable and feasible are incorporated into the plans and specifications to reduce or eliminate the noise impact on existing activities, developed lands, or undeveloped lands for which development is planned, designed, and programmed." (Title 23, Section 77~2.1 l(g), Code of Federal Regulations). FHWA identifies a noise impact if it is found that certain noise levels would be approached or exceeded in the project’s design year (in this case 2010). These levels are shown on Table 3. FHWA also identifies a noise impact if predicted traffic noise levels substantially exceed existing noise levels (emphasis added). Caltrans, in turn, defines a substantial increase as 12 decibels or more for abatement purposes. SantaClara’County’s General Plan contains guidelines for determining the comp:ifibility of the acoustic environments of lands with their uses. [Note: The County’s General Plan is cited here because the residences located in the northeast quadrant of the Page Mill/Foothill intersection are located in an unincorporated area of the County.] The County’s General Plan describes outdoor L,~o’s below 55 dB at residences as "satisfactory", Lao’s between 55 and 65 dB as "cautionary", and La,’s above 65 dB as "critical". However, these criteria are applied only to new land uses, such as when an application for a new residential development is received. The County has a separate policy which addresses roadway improvement projects. That policy states that peak-hour L,,~’s exc~edihg 67 dB trigger mitigation, generally in the form of noise walls. The policy states the noise wall should reduce noise levels to 67 dB, with the proviso that the noise wall must be no less than six feet in height. 2.Existing Noise Levels and Sources in the Project Area The primary source of noise in the project area is traffic traveling on Page Mill Road and Foothill Expressway/Junipero Serra Boulevard. Existing noise levels w~ere measured in the vicinity of the Page Mill/Foothill intersection in the northeast quadrant, since that is where the noise-sensitive land uses (i.e., the residences) are located. Measurement locations are shown on Figure 4. The existing peak-hour noise levels closest to the residences are 62-63 dBA, which are acceptable according to FHWA and County standards. The existing peak- hour noise level near-the sidewalk along Junipero Serra Boulevard is 66 dBA. 3.Future NoiseLevels with the Project in Place (Without the Greenwall_)_ Future (year 2010) noise levels were projected in the vicinity of the intersection using FHWA’s highway noise model, assuming the proposed improvements were in place. Year PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 24 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY TABLE 3 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA OF THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (Expressed in dBA) Activity Peak-Hour .Category ~Description of Activi~ty Category , A 57 ....(Exterior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an imiSortant public need and where the preservation of those’ qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 (Exterior) Picnic a.reas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, chu~’ches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 (Exterior) Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above. D Undeveloped lands. E 52 (Interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 25 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY TABLE ,4 EXISTING Location MI M2 M3 1 2 3 4 Rl R2 R3 See Figure 4 for locations. & FUTURE PEAK-HOUR Leq NOISE LEVELS Existing Future (year 2010) 66 62 63 64 67 69 69 64 62 64 PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 26 MAY 1997, INITIAL STUDY z 2010 traffic volumes were utilized, as required by FHWA. The results of the computer modeling are shown in Table 4. The data in Table 4 show that future noise levels will be 0-I dB higher than they are today near the closest residences. These future noise levels (i.e., 64 dBA or less) would not require consideration of any mitigation measures under either the FI’-D, VA’s or County’s standards. Based upon this analysis, it is concluded that the proposed project would not result in any significant noise impacts. Future Noise Levels with the Proiect in Place (With-the Greenwall) A separate acoustical analysis was conducted to measure the noise reduction potential of the proposed greenwall. The acoustical analysis determined that the addition of the greenwall would reduce existing and future noise levels in nearby residential areas by 10 to 20 decibels, as compared to noise levels without thegreenwall. Thus, although the above-described noise standards of the FHWA and County would not be exceeded at the residences even without a greenwall, the greenwall would provide a substantial noise reduction benefit, reducing noise levels well below the applicable noise standards. G.AESTHETIC IMPACTS Construction of the greenwall will introduce a new visual element into the landscape. The existing intersection and adjacent terrain are relatively level with minimal vegetation. The intersection improvements include the introduction of landscaping and an assortment of trees within thE~oadway median and at the perimeter of the right-of-way. The new landscaping includes naturalized grasses, low evergreen shrubbery, and groundcover in addition to Northern Red Oak, Native Oak, and Canary Island Pine trees. The greenwall will include a variety of evergreen draping plants. However, the plants will be in contained planters located above ground level. The plants will not disturb existing soils ,on the site. The greenwall will add a vertical element of landscaping that will buffer the visual effects of the roadway from nearby residences and add a visually-attractive feature to the area. Both the intersection and greenwall landscaping will improve the aesthetics of the area compared to the existing condition by adding native species within the right-of-way and adding a welcome visual barrier between the right-of-way and adjacent residential areas. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant aesthetic impacts. PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 28 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY V.REPORT AUTHOR AND CONSULTANTS AUTHOR City of Palo Alto Public Works Department Glenn S. Roberts, Public Works Director John A. Carlson, Project Manager Krystyna Stadnik, Project Engineer CONSULTANTS David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultants & Planners San Jose, California John M. Hesler, Vice President & Initial Study Author Jodi L. Starbird, Graphic Artist M O’C Physics Applied Consultants in Acoustics/Air Quality/Energy Palo Alto, California Mike O’Connor, Ph.D., Author of Noise & CarbonMonoxide Analyses Patterson Associates Transportation Planning & Traffic Engineering San Mateo, California Ty Tekawa, Traffic Engineer I-Iolman & Associates Cultural Resources Consultants San Francisco, California Miley Holman, Author of Cultural Resources Assessment PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 29 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY VI. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION ,will be prepared. XX or I find-that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the previous pages have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. -or I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. SIGNATURE TITLE NAME OF LEAD AGENCY PAGE MILL RD/FOOTHILL EXPWY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 30 MAY 1997 INITIAL STUDY *** Draft*** PARKS MANAGEMENT STUDY VOLUME 1 - Executive Summary for Infrastructure Management Study City of Palo Alto 3 July 1997 Pale Alto Parks Management Study Pale Alto, California *****DRAFT***** I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AA 97/3908 3 Jul97 A. Overview of Parks Management System (ParksMS) The goal of the Infrastructure Management Syst,~m Program is to preserve and maintain existing facilities so that they function efficiently and safely. An effective program attempts to minimize problems by anticipating and correcting failure of systems pri6r to the occu1Tence. The City of Pale Alto owns or maintains over facilities, which include Foothills Park, the Arastradero Preserve, the Byxbee Recreation Area, and numerous city parks ranging in size from 0.2 acres (Lytton Plaza Park) to over 20 acres (Greet Park and Mitchell Park). The City also maintains three athletic fields and twenty five tennis courts owned by the Pale Alto Unified School District. Additionally, the City is responsible for the individual perimeter sites associated with each of the city owned buildings. The City has an in place maintenarice program for the Parks, which provides the minimal required services for upkeep of city parks. Funding has not kept pace with maintenance requirements and records show minimal funds were allocated for systems upgrade over the last 15 years. In the past five years, a program has been in place for the r~placement of two major parks component, mainly playground, equipment and irrigation replacement/turf renovations. Approximately 30% (?) of these two components have been replaced to date. Other components, such as deteriorated paving, deficient lighting, and landscape renovations have not been addressed (or minimally in isolated cases). Currently, there is no funding plan for systems replacement in the Open Spaces. Systems have been replaced on an as need basis, sometimes after failure of the component. Funding for Open Space has been minimal over the past years, and maintenance by Park Rangers has not kept pace with nature’s growth .... Page 1 Palo Alto Parks Management Study Palo Alto, California *****DRAFT***** I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AA 97/3908 3 Ju197 B.Goals of This Study The City of Palo Alto does not have a system for long term infrastructure management.. The infrastructure management is currently done through the 5 year CIP program ~d annual operating budget. This short term view is inadequate to anticipate costs assooiated with infrastructure components whose useful life may be 10, 20, or 50+ years. The purpose of this project is to establish a system to provide sufficient information to proactively plan for and finance-the replacement and repair of critical site components. This study..is to be integrated into Palo Alto’s infrastructure management strategy. The goals of this study are to: o Identify major site components and associated replacement cost anticipated in the next 25 years. °Identify annual funding requirement including backlog. o Organize logical workflow to minimize rework of associated systems. Page 2 Palo Alto Parks Management Study Palo Alto, California *****DRAFT***** I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AA 97/3908 3 Jul 97 C. Benefits of the ParksMS Effort The many benefits of an effective ParksMS progra~n in.clude: The City can proactively plan for and seek funding required for recurring costs. The City can prioritize improvements and renovations based on a developed plan and criteria Costly disruptions due to sudden systems failure can be avoided. The systems life may be extended and therefore the value of the asset is maintained, not reduced. D. Consequences of Deferring Maintenance Deferring maintenance has several consequences: o Increased liability due to unsafe/non code compliant conditions (ie deteriorating walks) *Increases repair cost due to multiple systems failure *Shortens component lifetime and thus components need to be replaced more frequently. o Staff reacts to emergencies instead of regularly planned maintenance activities and therefore are less productive. Page 3 Palo Alto Parks Management Study Palo Alto, California *****DRAFT***** I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AA 97/3908 3 Jul 97 E. Systems Replacement Needs for City Owned Sites Projected annual needs vary. During the initial five years of the study period, projected needs are anticipated to be approximately $12.0 milliofi dollars. These costs, identified in Table 1-A and 1-B arebased on condition assessment and life cycle factors only. A more exact analysis will be identified in Tables 2-A, 2-B and 2-C. (To be provided at a future submittal). This analysis will include additional factors beyond the initial condition assessment and life cycle costing. Those additional factors are associated with Health and Salg~ty issues, Legal and Regulatory issues, and Population Usage .... These factors and their respective priority weighting are described in paragraph II.C Priorities. (Note - Methods 1 and 2 each include life cycle factors). The recommended funding only includes systems replacement program. The annual needs projection ~: and facilities inspection Paved parking lots, bike/pedestrian bridges (large engineered type) and access roads Site lighting upgrades where currently inadequate or non existent Park restrooms (included under BMS) Items funded in the current 96/97 CIP. ADA compliance program for public facilities Preventive maintenance program. Corrective maintenance (day to day work order related). CIP funding for program changes/enhancements. Allocation for in house salaries of City Staff required to administer the program. ¯Cubberly site Page 4 Palo Alto Parks Management Study Palo Alto, California AA 97/3908 3 Jul 97 *****DRAFT***** II.METHODOLOGY A. Site Systems Study Parameters This report is currently limited to the Parks, Open Spaces and a limited number of sites associated with City owed buildings and identifies cost and replacement schedules for each infrastructure component with a value greater tha~n $10,000. The report does not address renovations due to future programmatic changes. This report covers work to be performed during the twenty five year period from 1:998/99 to 2022/23. Presently no allowance has been made for inflation or discounting of future expenses, nor has any allowance been made to provide for temporary maintenance to prevent further deterioration in the period prior to the scheduled maintenance/replacement. The report excludes costs for Temporary Accommodations (if required due to construction). The information in this report was generated from several sources.: review of Site History files; review of plans; field survey/physical inspection; and discussions with City staff. Expected life-cycle period was generated from industry .standards for the respective components. Unit costs were generated from Historic data for individual components. The site observations were limited to a walk or drive through of the various sites. The scope of the site visit was limited to identifying primary areas of concern, the general condition of the systems, and the order of magnitude of scheduled maintenance. No testing or measuring was performed. The costs are based on all work being competitively bid to qualified contractors. All work is to be performed during normal working hours, with the area of work being under the control of the contractor. For major work, the costs are based on the area being vacated during construction. For minor work, the site will continue in operation at all times, with the contractor providing all necess .ary safety management. The budgets include an allowance of 15% of construction cost to cover owner related costs, such as design, management, testing, etc. A contingency of 10% is included in the unit rates to allow for additional scope which may be discovered during the design phase. Page 5 Palo Alto Parks Management Study Palo Alto, California AA 97/3908 3 Ju197 *****DRAFT***** II. METItODOLOGY B. The Component System The Cost information for the site is expressed in a Component Format as opposed to a trade format. The Component cost includes all trade costs necessary for the performance of the work. The Component Format allows analysis o,f’costs by function, regardless of material or method applied to fulfill the funetion. Major components for this study include: Irrigation Systems - all components related to the complete installation of this system including trenching an.d backfill, and reseeding of the turf area. A minimal allowance has been included for ground cover restoration. Playground- comprises all components related to the tot lots and children play areas including rubber mats and sand paving - comprises all components related to the replacement of existing pavement including headerboards and base. Furniture - for the purposes of this study, all site furniture has been counted and assigned an average unit rate, recognizing that some elements (benches) are less costly than others (picnic tables). The average works for planning purposes. C. Priorities (This section to be modified based on City staff inpuO The following components [will be] used to identify suitable priorities for each system: 1. Criticality of Site - this differentiates sites on the basis of their importance relative to the .City and community. This rank was weighted 40%. 2. Criticality of components - this is based on health and safety and legal and regulatory issues.. This rank weighted 40%. 3. People affected - this identifies the importance of the component relative to. the number of people affected by the component failure. This rank was weighted 20%. Population Rank Page 6 Palo Alto Parks Management Study Palo Alto, California AA 97/3908 3 Jul 97 *****DRAFT***** III.FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The City has just started funds allocation for systems replacement. Many systems replacement have been deferred recently due to funding limitations. PARKS Overall, the average city site receives a fair rating. Although well maintained, many systems are original and due for life cycle replacement. ,-, Playground Renovations have just begun. Many sites have deteriorating or unsafe playground equipment. Safety hazards were evident, and accesibility was an issue. Park lighting was not evident in most parks. Where they did existing; fixtures were old and replacement parts were not available. Park pathways are in need of repair. In many instances, the base has failed. In other locations, roots from adjacent trees have uplifted areas of pavement and created" tripping hazards. This combined with the lack of lighting can be a major liability. Picnic area renovations are underway and new furnishings have been provided in many areas. On ongoing program should be adopted for replacement. Signage and fences are in fair condition typically. Minimal evidence of deterioration was observed. The tot lot fences in some locations should be sheduled for replacement soon. Turf and irrigation system components have just.begun. A significant scope still remains. Drainage improvements were only considered in areas where a history of problems exist - mainly the athletic fields. Other areas (ie parking lots and landscape area drains ) were not addressed. Tennis courts have been well maintained. The current plan appears to be a 5 - 7 year cycle for resurfacing pavement. OPEN SPACE The Open Space suffers from lack of funding. Currently 6 full time rangers (along with ??’? seasonal staff) provide maintenance for all open spaces. The minor yearly funding" of $ ??? has not been sufficient for proper trail maintenance, non native weed abatement, and other recurring maintenance isssues. Thus a backlog exists of unaddressed items. Many pressing issues are outside the scope of this study (to maintain what currently exists). This study includes funding allocation to review the long term needs of the open space and create a masterplan for future needs (Should this be included?) Page 7 Palo Alto Parks Management Study Palo Alto, California AA 97/3908 3 Jul 97 *****DRAFT***** III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) This report includes recommendations for several Consultant Studies: -Open Space Masterplan - as described above. - Facilities Inspection - Periodic .updating df the facility conditions data is required for this report to remain a meaningful and useful financial planning tool. One strategy for updating this plan is to consider performing an in depth study of 1/3th of the City~,s facilities every three years At that time, a needs assessment of specific items can be perf0rmed’and updated. All sites will be reevaluated within a ten year cycle. Page 8 Palo Alto Parks Management Study Palo Alto, California *****DRAFT*~*** AA 97/3908 3 Ju197 V. USE OF REPORT This report has been prepared solely to establish "order of magnitude" budgets for the financial planning of long term work items related to Parks and Open Space systems. Specifically, it sets to identify needs funding vs. ~tctual funding and the projected backlog if needs remains unfunded over a period of time. The report is for the sole use of the City of Palo Alto for the above purpose, and it may not be used by any other entity, or for any’other purpose without prior written consent. Page 9 Summary Tables oo Location Maps JUL-07-97 NON O?:SB P. 02 PARK LOCATION O Arastradero preserve John Between High and ,~ma at ,/ Juanz Brtones PaW. Clemo Avenue between Arast~adero Ro;=d end Mayb~ll Avcrtue John Fletcher By’xboe Recreation Area (The Bmylands) East end of F.mbarcad~m Ro~d Donaldln= M, Cameron Park 2100 Welle=ley St~t F~or Clmrk Park El Camlno Park 100 El Camlno Real B Pale Alto P~ Palo’ A~o AVenue Alma Street Foothills P=rk ~ Lytton 3300 Page ~ill Ro~Un~:~-~ Avenue John Lu~a~ G~r ~ 1~ ~lo A~nue ~ Ma~eld P=~. H=~n Hoover P=~ 2300 Well=~ 2g01 C~r S~t ~ J. Pearce Mi~h~ll Pa~ Timely Hop~ns ~lde Pa~~ Monr~ Pale ~ Aven~ ~M~ D~ve and MIII~ Aven~ ~n to Mad~e ~ Eleanor PeNce Park Edl~ Eugenle (E~n~ P&~)Johnson Pa~851 Ce~er D~ Be~n Wavedey and ~pli~ Str~,’Ev~ and H~ Lawn Bowling Green 474 Embarcadero Reed Alexander PeePs Park 1899 Park Boulevard Don Jesus Rarnas Park 600 East MeadoWy Drive RJnconada Park 777 Embarcadero Road Don 5ecundlno Robles Park 4116 Park Boulevard Scott Strut Mlnlpark ,.~ott ~t end Channing Avenue HenP/W. Seale Park 310o Stockton Place Terman Park 655 A~15100c Infrastructure Management Study " Parks and Op~n Spa~ Management S--’---y&tem Prcidu~ of GI~ -’~g No: JUL-07-~7 MON 07:3~P. 03 ARASTRADERO TENNIS COURTLOCATIONS RJnconada Park Hop~ns Su~et & Newell Road courts (6 lighted) Stanford Middle School 480 East Meadow Drive I~l Pale Alto High School 25 Churchill Avenue 7 ourts (e Ilghled) Cubberley Center 4000 Middlefield Road ’ 6 courts Pee~ Park (~) Torman Pad~1899 Park Boulevard 655 Arasvadero Road 2 Caud~4. courts KEY [] ~ of Pate Alto fermi. I~ P==lo Alto Unif’md School District [] Hoover Park ~ Gunn High 5hooi 2~01 CoWper Street 780 Amstraero Road 2 courts 6 courts {~ Welsshaar Park ~ Jordan Middle SchoolDartmou~ Street 750 North California Avenue 2 ourt~6 ourts ~} Mitchell Park 600 East Meadow Drive 7 ~oud~ (lighL-~l) AB153008 Infrastructure Management St,,udy ! ’ -index - Tennis Courts . Parks and .... Open Space Management System Product, ~of GIS - Dwg No JUL-07-97 MON 07:36 P, 04 ARASTRADERO SCHOOL SITES INVOLVING CITY’ OF PALO ALTO MAINTENANCE Rr:$PONSIB~LITIES Athletic tlelds (tuff r~n~vadon) r~, Stanford Middle School ~] Jordan Middle School [] Wa.~er Hayes Elementary 8r.,,hOOI infrasti’ucture Manageme~nt _Study ! "Index -. Athletic Fields JUI-07-97 MON 07:36 P, O5 ’, .:...,_-..; -. ARASTRADERO Community facilities requiring inventory and analysis 8 Cultural C~nter/M~in Library’ 8 Lucy Ste~n Slt~ inc. Junior Museum ~CNi= Center Plaza ~Fire stations (5 total) ~Small Itbrades (S total) AB 15500== Infrastructure Management Study l_Index - Community Facilities Parks and Open Space Management System I Pr0d~ct of GIS Pw No" Charts and Graphs o Photos ATTACHMENT AMENDMENT TtflS AMENDMENT (this "Amendntent") is entered into as of_. ~{,~, ~."~ , 1997 by and between the City of Palo Alto (the "Ci0’") and The Board of Trustees oil" the Leland Stanford Junior University ("Stanford’3. RECITALS The City and Stanford entered into that certain Agreement dated as of October 18, 1994 (the "Agreement") pursuant to which Stanford granted to the City permission for ingress and egress over Stanford land to construct certain improvements to the intersection of Page Mill Road, Foothill Boulevard and Junipero Serra Boulevard consisting generally of widening to provide double left-turn lanes and right-turn lanes and adding bike and pedestrian lanes and changing certain traffic signal hardware and operations, and, in connection therewith, the construction of noise attenuation improvements as more particularly described in the Agreement. The pat:ties desire to amend the Agreement so as to exclude the City’s obligation to construct the . sound attenuation improvements referred to therein (the "Sottttd l~’all’) and to pro~,ide.that the City will contribute toward the cost of the Sound Wall and that Stanford will seek contribution from the County of Santa Clara as provided herein. The City is supportive of such cost sharing. NOW THEREFOILE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Paragraph 1 ofthe Agreement is amended to delete clause (iii) thereof. For all purposes of the Agreement the definition of "Improvements" shall specifically exclude the Sound Wall and Exhibit C to the Agreement is hereby deleted. 2. Stanford agrees to construct the Sound Wall, including undertaking the design, development, approval and construction thereof subject to the following provisions: (i) The parties will use reasonable efforts to cause the Sound Wall to be constructed prior to the Improvements under the Agreement. (ii) The parties will coordinate the scheduling, approval hearings and proceedings, development of design and construction documentation, bidding and construction process of the Improvements and the Sound Wall so as to achieve the maximum efficiency and synergy for each of the Improvements and the Sound Wall. (iii) The City will contribute toward the cost of the Sound Wall an amount equal to the lesser of $113,000 or one-third of the total cost of the Sound Wall (including, without limitation, costs of design, development, approvals, environmental assessment and mitigation costs, if any, and construction). The first payment shall be made at the time the construction contract for the Sound Wall is awarded based upon the City’s share of the total costs incurred to date plus the City’s share of the total construction costs which will be due under the contract and within 30 days of receipt by the City of reasonable evidence, including invoices and other statements, as applicable, of such costs. Not later than sixty days after completion of the C FA963100,024/19310-016 Sound Wall, Stanford shall provide the City with written evidence of the total costs, incurred by Stanford in connection with the Sound Wall (the "FinalStatement"). If the amount previously ~ paid by the City is less than the total amount due, the City shall pay to Stanford, within thirty days of receipt of the Final Statement, any additional amount due. (iv) Stanford will seek an appropriate capital contribution from the County of Santa Clara for costs of the Sound Wall, which shall b¢ in addition to the City’s contribution obligation. 3.Section 7 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows: "Upon completion of construction of the Improvements by the City, Stanford shall grant to the County of Santa Clara, at no cost to the County of Santa Clara, easements for the roadway, pedestrian pathway and bicycle pathway pursuant to an easement agreement in the form of attached Exhibit D. 4. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein the Agreement remains unmodified and in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as of the date first above written. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELA~~ ~.NFORD ~IVERSITY CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Public Works Director APPROVED AS TO FORM:. Sr. Assistant City Attorney 2 FA963100.024 CALiFORNiA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CALIFOP~ State of County of On ....07108197- Date personally appeared --~Belinda Burns, lqotary Public----~,before me, Name and Titte of Officer (e,g,, "Jane Doe, Notary Public’) .GEOFFREY H. COX .... Name(s) of S~gner(s) personally known to me - OR - [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(~) COMM. # 1001044Notary Public -- Collfomio SAN MATE) COUNTY whose name(s) is~m~subscribed to the within i~strument and acknowledged to me that he/=~d~b~ executed the same in hi--authorized capacity(i~), and that by his~i~r~ignature~) on the instrument the person(Q, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(~) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could preven.t fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: AHENDHENT TO RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEHENT FOR SOUNDWALL -14- including ,07/08/97- Number of Pages: ackn. form & Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:~~none, Capacity(~ Claimed by Signer(S) Signer’s Name: GEOFFREY M. COX [] Individual E~ Corporate Officer Title(s): Vice President [] Partner--[] Limited [] General [] Attorney-in-Fact [] Trustee I-I Guardian or Conservator. [] Other: Signerls Representing: "l"ae Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Top of thumb here not reques~ of constitl e e Signer’s Name: [] Individual [] Corporate Officer Title(s): [] Partner-- [] Limited [] General [] Attorney-in-Fact [] Trustee [] Guardian or Conservator [] Other: [ Signer Is Representing: Top of thumb here © 1995 National Notary Association ¯ 8236 Remrnet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 ¯ Canoga Park. CA 91309-7184 Prod, No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827