Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-15 City Council (16)City of Palo Alto Manager’s Rep r¢ TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AGENDA DATE: April 15, 1996 CMR:228:96 SUBJECT:Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) Proposal to Install a New At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing at the Palo Alto CalTrain Station REOUEST The Peninsula Comdor Joint Powers Board (JPB), as part of its Key Station Accessibility Project to achieve compliance with the Americans with Disability Act and State Title 24, proposes to install a new at-grade pedestrian crossing of the CalTrain tracks, at the Palo Alto (University Avenue) CalTrain Station. The JPB has filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for authority to construct the at-grade crossing. While the City ofPalo Alto’s approval is not required, the JPB has an interest and desire to share information regarding this proposal and JPB staff has indicated that they would welcome comments from the City. Staff representatives from the JPB will be present at the April 15, 1996 Council meeting to discuss this proposal. Also, Council Member McCown is a designated Santa Clara County representative to the JPB and is currently serving as the Chair of the JPB. RECOMMENDATIONS Staffrecommends that the Council review and discuss this proposed project and consider what position, if any, the City should take. Alternative positions include: ao Council could choose to take no formal action. Council could express its opposition to the proposed at-grade project and/or communicate its support for proceeding now with a grade-separated solution. CMR:228:96 Page 1 of 7 Council cotfld express its support for the proposed at-grade project, with or without conditions. Such conditions might include an explicit understanding and intent that this current proposed at-grade project is only an interim, Phase I solution, and that a long-term, Phase II solution will be pursued in conjunction with the development of the Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station project. P..OLICY IMPLICATIONS While the City of Palo Alto does not have an explicit formal policy regarding crossings of the CalTrain tracks, Council has discussed the issue in the recent past, in conjunction with the review and approval of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Project. Council has also approved funding for a feasibility study to assess various options for providing pedestrian/bike grade separations at the CalTrain tracks at four existing cross street locations: Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, Churchill Avenue, and Palo Alto Avenue. In addition, residents periodically express interest in pedestrian/bike crossings, at points where the spacing between existing cross streets is quite a long distance (e.g. between Meadow Drive and California Avenue). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Backm’ound As part of the JPB’s Key Station Improvement Project, physical improvements have been proposed for each of the ten CalTrain facilities identified as "key stations". These improvements are intended to achieve compliance with both the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title 24 regulations, in a cost-effective and customer-friendly manner. The improvements recommended for the Palo Alto (University Avenue) CalTrain Station include a new at-grade pedestrian crossing at the north end of the platform. The creation of a new at-grade crossing is proposed as an alternative to upgrading or replacing the existing pedestrian tunnel at the north end of the station, the cost of which is estimated to be between $1 million and $2 million. JPB staff believes that the proposed at-grade crossing could be considered a "private crossing" since it is within the station platform limits, and, therefore, they could proceed without CPUC approval. However, CPUC staff recommended that the J-PB proceed through the formal CPUC application process, citing a code section which could, in the opinion of CPUC staff, be utilized to assert jurisdiction over the creation of this proposed new at-grade crossing. CMR:228:96 Page 2 of 7 In January 1996, the JPB authorized the filing of an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to create an at-grade pedestrian crossing at the Palo Alto CalTrain Station. The application, a copy of which is included as Attachment 1, was subsequently fried with the CPUC in February. Proposed At-Grade Crossing A plan view illustration of the proposed new at-grade crossing, included as part of the CPUC application, is provided in Attachment 2. The basic features include: (a) (b) (c) (d) an asphalt paved crossing, side fencing approximately 3 feet high, warning devices at the ends of the track areas, and a crossing path that has a jog to force users to face approaching trains in each direction. It is unclear as-to exactly what equipment the JPB plans to install (e.g. gates, warning devices). In conversations with JPB staff, they have indicated that they will do whatever the CPUC requires. In order to help visualize what such a crossing might look like, City staffvisited two locations where at-grade crossings of rail tracks now exist. Photographs of these two locations are included as Attachments 3 and 4. The first location (Attachment 3) is an existing at-grade crossing at the Sunnyvale CalTrain Station. There are two such crossings, one at each end of the station. They have been in place for several years and comments fi’om Sunnyvale staff indicate they are working satisfactorily. When a train approaches the station, a bell rings and the vertical display boards light up. There are no gates. The second location (Attachment 4) is an existing at-grade crossing at a SCC Light Rail System in San Jose. There are two such crossings, one at each end of the station. They have been there since the station opened. When a train approaches the station, the standard railroad crossing cross-bar lights flash on and off, and a bell sounds. When a second train is approaching, an additional advisory display lights up. There are gates on the platform side which rest in a closed position, open outward, and are not locked at any time. JPB staff have indicated that the at-grade crossing at the San Jose LRT Station is somewhat representative of what they think the proposed new at-grade crossing at the Palo Alto CalTrain Station will be like. More information regarding the proposed project can be provided by JPB staff at the Council meeting discussion. CMR:228:96 Page 3 of 7 Existing Council p.Qlicy/Direction While the City of Palo Alto does not have an explicit formal policy regarding crossings of the CalTmin tracks, Council has discussed the issue in the recent past, in conjunction with the review and approval of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation project. Council has also approved funding for a feasibility study to assess various options for providing pedestrian!bike grade separations at the CalTrain tracks at.four existing cross street locations: Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, Churchill Avenue, and Palo Alto Avenue. When the issue of a new at-grade pedestrian crossing of the CalTrain tracks (near Homer) came up during the review of the PAMF project, representatives from the JPB indicated that they would not support such a proposal and they did not believe that the CPUC would approve such a proposal. When City staff contacted a staff member from the CPUC, he said that (a) the CPUC policy, which comes from Federal Railway Administration (FRA) regulations, is "no new grade crossings of mainline tracks" and (b) that the CPUC would be against a new grade crossing at the PAMF project site. The CPUC staff‘person added that a new crossing might be considered only if a hazard analysis study clearly demonstrated that hazards with the new crossing would not increase above what they are now. He cautioned that such a study was extensive, and he did not recommend that someone embark on such a study because it would be almost impossible to prove that there will be no increase in hazard. The CPUC staff person stated that cun’ent FRA and CPUC policy is to remove as many existing grade crossings as possible. (Attachment 5 is an excerpt from the City Council minutes of January 22 and January 29, 1996 when Council discussed the at-grade crossing related to the PAMF project.) With respect to the feasibility study to assess options for providing pedestrian/bike grade separations at four existing cross street locations (Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, Churchill Avenue and Palo Alto Avenue), this is an approved Capital Improvement Project. Funding has been approved for the feasibility study portion of this project. A draft scope of work for the feasibility study has been prepared. Selection of a consultant team to do the feasibility study will proceed following Policy and Services Committee review of the scope of work. The primary reason for this feasibility study is concern for the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, as they cross the CalTrain tracks at the existing cross street locations. The intent is to explore ways to eliminate existing at-grade crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists (not vehicles), rather than add new ones. If such efforts lead to the construction of pedestrian/bike grade separations, they will require significant capital funds. In addition, staff has periodically received complaints/requests from some residents expressing their desire to see pedestrian/bike crossings of the CalTrain tracks created at points where the spacing between existing cross streets is quite a long distance (e.g. between Meadow Drive and California Avenue). More recently, with the JPB’s plans to post no trespassing signs along the CalTrain right-of-way and their expressed intent to CMR:228:96 Page 4 of 7 post no trespassing signs along the CalTrain right-of-way and their expressed intent to enforce the no trespassing regulation, some residents have expressed the concern that their present habit of crossing the tracks will now be prohibited and enforced. Therefore, they have renewed their request for a formal, approved, at-grade crossing. As part of the Embarcadero Pedestrian/Bike Bridge and Path project, which the City is about to construct along a portion of the JPB right-of-way, a six-foot high secure fence will be constructed between the path and the CalTrain tracks. This is for the express purpose of physically stopping people from crossing the tracks along the full length of the project. Finally, the City is continuing to pursue the Palo Alto Intermodal Transportation Station ("Dream Team") project, which, if implemented as now envisioned, would completely reconstruct the existing University Avenue underpass and surrounding roadway system. During the coming fiscal year, this project will enter into the design development stage, which is intended to provide the. necessary information base to identify incremental implementable portions of the project, as well as to effectively compete for capital funds for project construction. In summary, the current City policy and direction is to eliminate or reduce pedestrian/bicycle exposure to trains through physical separation, and not to create new situations where pedestrian and bicycle exposure to trains increases. Notwithstanding such City policy and direction, there is a continuing interest by some people to create additional at-grade pedestrian/bike crossings. Issues and Concerns The proposal by the JBP, to install a new at-grade pedestrian crossing at the Palo Alto CalTrain Station, raises several issues and concerns that Council may wish to consider: Most actions seem to be moving toward increased separation between the trains, pedestrians, and bikes. The creation of a new at-grade crossing at the Palo Alto CalTrain Station is contrary to such actions. Most, if not all, of the passengers wanting to cross the tracks at the station are likely to use the proposed at-grade crossing rather than the existing tunnels, which are less convenient. CMR:228:96 Page 5 of 7 o In addition, persons walking between the general area of Lytton Avenue and the general area of the MacArthur Park Restaurant, Holiday Inn, the Red Cross, and Stanford Shopping Center are likely to use the proposed at-grade crossing, due to its relative convenience. A case can be made that the type of at-grade crossing being proposed is similar to existing at-grade crossings at the Ohlone-Chynoweth Light Rail Station in San Jose and the Stmnyvale CalTrain Station, both of which seem to be working without serious incident. Representatives of the disabled community were included in the task force that worked with JPB staff on the access issues. JPB staff has indicated that these representatives prefer the proposed at-grade crossing rather than a grade separated solution. The proposed at-grade location is in a station area where the speed of most trains is quite low. However, the trains will still be unable to stop for a pedestrian in trouble. Currently, all passenger trains stop at the Palo Alto Station. There are several freight trains that pass through the station without stopping. Also, in the past, there were express passenger trains that did not stop at the Palo Alto CalTrain Station, and this may or may not recur in the future. If the proposed at-grade crossing is installed at the station, requests for similar at- grade crossings are certain to arise at other locations (e.g. adjacent to the PAMF site or between Meadow Drive and Califoi’nia Avenue). The proposed "Dream Team" project, as now envisioned, would probably offer an opportunity to remove the proposed at-grade crossing. When, if, or how that oppommity will actually materializes is uncertain at this time. Current Status of~oposed At-Grade Crossing The JPB submitted the application to the CPUC to create the at-grade pedestrian crossing in February of this year. Subsequent discussions between representatives from the JPB and the City resulted in a letter from the JPB (Attachment 5) indicating that they regard this proposed at-grade crossing as an interim measure, pending implementation of other improvements proposed as part of the "Dream Team" project. CMR:228:96 Page 6 of 7 The CPUC, in a letter to the JPB dated March 26, 1996 (Attachmem 6), indicated that they require substantial additional information and justification, for them to continue processing the application. FISCAL IMPACT Whatever action is taken by the JPB with respect to this issue will be fully funded by the JPB and will not have any direct fiscal impact on the City of Palo Alto. ENVIRONMENTAL ,ASSESSMENT The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) is the lead agency for this project and is responsible for any required environmental assessment. ATTACHMENTS 1.Application to construct the at-grade crossing 2.Plan view of the proposed at-grade crossing 3.Photos of the at-grade crossing at the Sunnyvale station 4.Photos of the at-grade crossing at the LRT station 5.Excerpt from City Council Minutes dated January 22 and 29, 1996 6.Letter from the JPB to the City, April 2, 1996 7.Letter from the CPUC to the JPB; March 26, 1996 Prepared By: Marvin L. Overway, Chief Transportation Official Department Head Review: Ki~TH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment City Manager Approval: FLEMING City Manager Tom Davids, JPB/CalTrain Julia Fremon, Stanford University Andy Cole, Stanford University CMR:228:96 Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENT 1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILIT~S COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the At-Grade Pedestrian Crossing To Be Constructed by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 1201. Application No.: ~Judge: Filed,, 1996 APPLICATION FOR AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT AN AT-GRADE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 1250 San Carlos Avenue P.O. Box 3006 San Carlos, California 94076-1306 Attention:Jerome Kirzner Telephone:(415) 508-6200 Facsimile:(415) 508-6365 276767. I COMES NOW the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board ("Applicant") and pursuant to Sections 1201, et seq. of the California Public Utilities Code ("Code") herewith applies for authority to construct an accessible, at-grade pedestrian crossing within the limits of the Palo Alto train station, in the vicinity of Mile Post 30.1, in the City of Palo Alto, State of California, as follows: I Applicant The, Applicant’s legal name is the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, a joint powers agency formed by the Santa Clara County Transit District, San Mateo County Transit District and the City and County of San Francisco pursuant to Title i, Division 7, Chapter 5, Article I (§6500, et seq.) of the California Government Code. The Applicant operates the Caltrain commuter rail service along the right of way and owns the railroad right-of-way at the Palo Alto Station. The Applicant’s ownership extends approximately tw@nty-five feet (25’) west of Track 2, but does not include the station building on the west side of the tracks. II Notices Correspondence regarding this matter shall be addressed to: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 1250 san Carlos Avenue, P.O. Box 3006 San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 Attention: Jerome Kirzner, Director of Rail Operations With copy to: Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos & Rudy 333 Market Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, California 94105 Attention: David J. Miller, Esq. III Description of At-Grade PedestrianCrossing The Applicant seeks authority to establish one at-grade pedestrian crossing, with appropriate safety, visibility and 276767. I - 2 - protective features, at the Palo Alto Caltrain station, in the vicinity of Mile Post 30.1. The proposed crossing is needed for pedestrian access to the platform and is part of the Applicant’s plans toimprove the Palo Alto Caltrain station as part of a project to provide accessible facilities required under Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the Americans with Disabilities Act. A legal description of the location of the proposed crossing is attached as Exhibit A. The proposed crossing will be located within the platform limits of the station, will cross mainline tracks One and Two, and will be approximately 75 feet in length and 12 feet in width. The proposed crossing will comply with General Order 75-C of the Public Utilities Commission and will be constructed with additional safety features, such as side fencing, detectable warnings, and striping, as shown in the drawing attached as Exhibit B. The side fencing will be approximately three feet (3’) high to provide containment, but this height will also allow visibility from an approaching train° Detectable warning devices will alert users to the track area, but will not preclude egress from the track area. A map showing the locations of the streets, tracks, buildings and structures to view for a distance of at least 400 feet along the railroad tracks is attached as Exhibit C and a statement of conditions concerning the location of the proposed crossing is attached as Exhibit D. IV Environmental Review This Application complies with the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the California Public Utilities Commission. Additionally, the Applicant has completed the appropriate environmental review as shown in Exhibit E. V Public Interest Requires Approval of Application The Applicant has determined that the proposed crossing is necessary to provide pedestrian access to and from the station. The ~pplicant has determined that the public need served by the proposed at-grade pedestrian crossing is accessibility for the disability community, and improved facilities at the station, with reduced maintenance and security expenses. The Applicant has determined that no other reasonable alternative exists without significant financial, historic preservation, and public safety impacts to the Caltrain customers. A grade separation improvement would be impractical, as Applicant has-determined that it is physi~ally and financially infeasible to construct a pedestrian overpass or to modify the existing underpass within the Joint Powers Board’s right of way at this location. 276767. I -- 3 -- The Applicant has completed an analysis of the station, train operations, and pedestrian activity, which demonstrates the safety features and reasonableness of the proposal in this Application. VI Request for Ex Parte Relief The Applicant seeks ex parte relief because expedited review is necessary due to the construction schedule for the station improvements required under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title 24. VII ge~ificate of Service The Applicant has served all affected railroad corporations with a copy of this Application. A genuine copy of the Certificate of Service is attached as Exhibit F. VIII Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, the Applicant requests that: The Public Utilities Commission of the State of California issue an order authorizing the at-grade pedestrian crossing proposed herein. Such order allow for the proposed crossing to be completed by June 30, 1997. 3.Construction, construction administration and on-going maintenance and repair costs shall be the respo~nsibility 9f_the Applicant. Dated this ~day of ~~ , 1996,//~ Executed at San Mateo, California. Respectfully submitted, 276767. I -- 4 - PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT EXHIBIT A Description of Proposed Crossing Counw_:Santa Clara Milepost: Fencing: Crossing: Palo Alto 30. !, within limits of Palo Alto Station, west end of station Proposed crossing affects Main Tracks 1 and 2 PCJPB owns railroad right-of-way and platforms, the remainder of the station area isowned by Stanford University and is sub-leased to the City of " Palo Alto and/or Santa Clara County Transit District. There is an existing metal fence through entire station area midway between track centers. The fence will be cut at the point where the proposed crossing intersects the fence line. Proposed crossing will have these features: Asphalt paving at same hdight as platforms Side fencing approximately 3 feet high Warning devices at ends of track areas Configured in a "Z" formation, to force users to face the normal direction of train traffic when crossing \ws0202.wpd I I I I EXHIBIT "D " Statement of Conditions ." o Number of Trains Daily: (a)Current:Passenger 60 Freight 4 .,Number of Trains Stopping at Palo Alto CalTrain Station: Passenger Trains Stopping 60 Passenger Trains Not Stopping 0 Freight Trains Not Stopping 4 Train Speed: Current maximum authorized train speed at the Palo Alto passenger station is 70 m.p.h, for passenger and 60 m.p.h, for freight trains. Estimated Number of Pedestrians Using the Proposed Crossing: Field counts of pedestrians crossing the railroad tracks in the vicinity of the proposed crossing indicates that several hundred persons per day will use the crossing. View Conditions: At the proposed crossing location, there are no obstacles to the view of the railroad tracks in either direction within PCJPB’s right-of-way. Signalized Pedestrian Crossing: The proposed two CPUC Standards No. 10 automatic signal wam.ing devices will be modified to include two flashing light heads on each cross-street. " The automatic signal warning devices will be operated by track circuits for both normal and reverse direction train movements on westbound and eastbound main tracks. The operation of the warning devices will conform to CPUC General Order 75-C, including the required warning time. \ws 1205.wpd\aws EXHIBIT E PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT The FY I994-95 Section 9 program of projects noted below are: Operating Assistance (1994-95) Categorically exempted under the National Environmental Policy Act (Section 23 CFP~ 771.17 (c)(17) (exempt) and the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (14 Cal. Admin. Code Section 15301 (Exempt). Track Rehabilitation (Section 9) Categorically exempted under the National Environmental Policy Act (Section 23 CFR 771.17 (c)(17) (exemptl and the Calilbrnia Environmemal Quality Act of 1970 (14 Cal. Admin. Code Section 15300 (No Significant Impact as amended) Mid Life Locomotive Rebuild Program (Phase I) ( ISTEA) Categorically exempted under the National Environmental PoliCy Act (Section 23 CFR 771.17 (c)(17) (exempt) and the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (14 Cal. Admin. Code Section 15300 (No Significant Impact as anaended) Mid Life Passenger Car Rehabilitation Program (Phase 1) (ISTEA) Categorically exempted under the National Environmental Policy Act (Section 23 CFR 771.17 (c)(17) (exempt) and the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (I4 Cal. Admin. Code Section 15300 (No Significant Impact as amended) " Key Station Accessibility (ADA Compliance) (ISTEA) Categorically exempted under the National Environmental Policy Act (Section 23 CI-’R 7 t 1.17 (c)(17) (exempt) and the Environmental Quality Act oi i 970 (14 Cal. Admin. Code Section - 15300 t’No Signifi,-ant lmnact as amended) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL State of California County of San Mateo I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United states, over the age of eighteen years; that my address is 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, California, 94070; that I served a copy of the Application for Authority to Construct an At- Grade Pedestrian Crossing in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, by placing a copy in an ~nvelope addressed to the following: City of Palo Alto Atm: Marvin Overway Chief Transportation Officer 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mr. James T. Jones State Legislative Director United Transportation Union 921 llth Street, Suite 502 Sacramento, CA 95814 AmTrak PCS Attn: Frank Forcione 510 West San Femando Street San Jose, CA 95110 Mr. Paul Morrison State Legislative Director Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 12526 Woods Road Galt, CA 95632 which envelopes were then sealed and, with postage fully prepaid thereon, deposited in the United States Mail on ~~a~y Jz, 1996 at 5,,..., C,~-Io ~ , California; that there is d ° °¯i oehvery servxce by Umted States marl at the places so addressed, or that there is.regular communication by mail between the place of mailing .and the places so addressed. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and executed this 1).~ day of /;;~, , 1996. 284154.1 VERIFICATION I, Gerald To Haugh, under penalty of perjury, declare: That I am the Executive Director of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (applicant herein) and am authorized, pursuant to Resolution No. 1996-77, to make this verification on behalf of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board; that I have read the foregoing application and know the contents thereof; that I am informed and believe the matters stated herein to be true and correct and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing application are true and correct. I declare under penalty of per~jury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed a~ ~, California on ~/~ , 1996o ~ Haugh, E~ve Director ~76767. I -- l 0 -- ATTACHMI~NT 2 J -I ,/ ATTACHI~ENT 3 EXISTING AT-GRADE CROSSING AT THE SUNNYVALE CALTRAIN STATION ATTACH~,,~ENT 4 EXISTING AT-GRADE CROSSING AT OHLONE-CHYNOWETH LIGHT. RAIL STATION IN SAN JOSE ATTACHMENT 5 EXCERPTS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DATED JANUARY 22 AND 29, 1996 o PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Urban Lane Campus Project Final Environment Impact Report (EIR) and Project-Related Applica- tions for Property Located at 795 E1 Camino Real, Including Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Text Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Design Enhancement Exception (DEE), Deferral of Required Parking Spaces, Architectural Review Board (ARB) Approval, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Extension of Urban Lane to University Circle o o PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an ordinance approving a First Amendment to a Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Pa!o Alto Medical Foundation regarding the Palo Alto Specific Plan area near Downtown Palo Alto located at 300 Homer Avenue and adjacent properties Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Pa!o Alto to Vacate Public Street and Utilities Easements on the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Development Site at 795 E1 Camino Real and Setting a Public Hearing for February 20, 1996 Mayor Wheeler summarized the Council’s procedure regarding the item and suggested Council Members focus on their issues of concern and also the concerns of members of the public and the applicant so that the Council’s concerns could be responded to by them. She said the issue was one of the more important things that the Council would do for the current year and for the life of the community. She reminded her colleagues that the issue was quasi- judicia! and contacts with both the applicant and other interested members of ~the public should be disclosed. Council Member Kniss said the issue had been under consideration for several years, and she asked the time frame for the disclo- sures. City Attorney Ariel Calonne clarified the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project had been out since October 1995. He said the Council policy limited disclosure obligation to contacts that significantly influenced a Council Member or provided information that a Council Member intended to rely upon. The time frame would be October 1995, and a Council Member would have to use his/her judgment about the impact of the contacts on his/her decision. Council Member Simitian asked for further clarification about the number of votes required to adopt the various approvals requested that evening and at a future Council Meeting if the item were continued. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the list of the applications and actions before the Council constituted the most complex set of actions on a development proposal that the City had processed in more than 21 years. However, from another perspective, there were relatively few issues that the Council needed to focus on. Basically, staff wanted the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) to stay in the City because a substantial number of Palo Altans used the Clinic and would be inconvenienced by its moving out of town, but staff wanted PAMF to move from its current site. The PAMF had been a part of the community for over 60 years, and there was value in maintaining that relationship. Staff also wanted PAMF not to implement the approved Specific Plan for its current site and wanted PAMF to relocate out of the neighborhood it was currently located in. The physical and operational problems associated with the current location and the interface with the neighborhood had gone on for decades. PAMF’s relocation would provide an opportunity for redevelopment of the existing site and would heal the wounds that the neighborhood had suffered. The key question for any proposed relocation was whether the new site could function effectively, safely, and with reasonably minimized problems for the rest of the community. He was unaware of any site in Pa!o Alto which, if occupied by the PAMF, would not have some land use-related problems, so the hope was to reasonably minimize problems. The proposed Urban Lane campus would fit the City’s objective for a relocation site. Staff strongly recommended, consistent with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning Commission recommen- dations, that the various actions necessary to bring about the Urban Lane campus be approved by the Counci!. The process of getting from the initia! discussions with PAMF representatives through complete development applications to Board, Commission, and Council review had been a difficult process. Numerous technical and policy issues and problems had to be wrestled with. Many of those had been resolved to the point of no longer being issues. Others had been substantially, addressed, but there was further technical work to be accomplished. The Council probably noted numerous conditions of approva! that began with the phrase "no grading, excavation, or building permit shall be issued unti!..." That phrase was very deliberate and reflected staff’s strong view that if the project were approved, no construction-related activity should be permitted until al! the key on-site and off-site details were fully resolved. The ARB and Planning Commission had both done an excellent job in their review roles. Their minutes contained the conditions of approval and reflected their careful consider- ation of numerous issues. The more important items were discussed in the January 22, 1996, staff report (CMR:I04:96). The four important policy and technical issues were: the proposed new signalized entry to E1 Camino Rea!; the second left-turn lane from E1 Camino Real to Embarcadero Road; the Urban Lane extension; and the much discussed under-, over-, or at-grade connection from the proposed Urban Lane campus to the Downtown. The proposed major access from the PAMF’s site to E1 .Camino Real had been a prime objective for the PAMF from its first discussions with staff. Making that connection work had been a technical challenge, but the proposed intersection design would work, and Caltrans staff appeared satisfied with the design and analysis. It was important to note that Caltrans controlled the right of access to E1 Camino Real, and it could either deny or condition new access points as it believed appropriate to protect public safety. That role led to the second issue, the second~ left-turn lane at E1 Camino Real. Staff had three meetings with Caltrans staff since the release of the Draft EIR in late October 1995. From the beginning of its review of the EIR, Caltrans staff expressed a major concern that 01/22/96 78-62 PAMF-related traffic, especially from the proposed driveway with E1 Camino Real, would cause significant left-turn problems at Embarcadero Road. Caltrans’ response to the EIR indicated that it would require a second left-turn lane as part of the new PAMF entry approval. The final addendum to the EIR contained additional analysis of the second left-turn lane. Following the Planning Commission’s December 12, 1995, conclusion of its review of PAMF- related items, staff, at the urging of the University South Neighborhoods Group, again met with Caltrans. Ca!trans staff rather grudgingly agreed to accept, if requested by the City, a monitoring approach for the second left-turn lane rather than construction of the second left-turn lane as part of the PAMF project. City staff continued to recommend construction of the second left-turn lane as desired by Caltrans. The traffic projections clearly warranted the turn lane and construction before the PAMF moved in as preferred to construction after the problem was present. However, if the Council desired, Caltrans would accept the monitoring approach described in the staff report. The third issue was the Urban Lane extension from the PAMF’s site to University Circle. The roadway was essentia! for the functioning of the PAMF’s activities as presently designed. The Planning Commission, ARB, and staff recommended Alternative Design No. 4 in the EIR. He underscored ~that the PAMF, Joint Powers Board (JPB), and Stanford University had yet to agree to a proposed extension. The detail work of the issue would involve a variety of policy, technical, and financial issues, primarily among those three parties. City staff’s concerns focused on there being a safe and technically acceptable design and being able to avoid becoming enmeshed in financial and policy issues that were of concern to the PAMF, JPB, and Stanford. That was one of the issues that the recommended ~conditions of approval required be resolved prior to issuance by the City of any grading, excavation, or building permits. He referred to the issue of the railroad track barr±er between the Urban Lane area and Downtown, especially the South of Forest Area, and said in the very early discussions, City staff identified a pedestrian/bicycle connection as highly desirable. The PAMF staff concurred, but its initial investigation identified an undercrossing as quite expensive and the undercrossing was not part of the 1994 applications. Unfortunately, the PAMF’s public relations efforts continued to tout an undercrossing as a benefit of the proposed new campus. The PAMF did agree to fund a very preliminary engineering analysis of an undercrossing and that information was provided in Appendix G of the EIR. He summarized the conclusions about the undercrossing: nearly everyone wanted the connection built; Mountain View constructed a shorter, simpler undercrossing in the late 1980s at a cost comparable to $1,500,000 for a Palo Alto undercrossing; an overcrossing, because of various requirements, would have to have a 500- to 600-foot-long ramp up to and then down from the crossing--a technically feasible but probably not very practical solution that might cost somewhat, but not very much, less than an undercrossing; an at-grade crossing would need California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approval, and people more familiar with that process than City staff gave very little hope that an at-grade crossing would be approved. Further, City staff did not support an at-grade crossing for safety reasons; the PAMF site by itself would have some benefit from a crossing but was no where near enough to technically justify having the City impose the cost on the PAMF; City staff did not recommend that the City’s General Fund absorb the bulk of the undercrossing cost; and the Urban Lane project was conditioned to provide land and easements for a future undercrossing, plus the $150,000 for construction costs that the PAMF representative volunteered at the Planning Commission hearing. He said an undercrossing was a good but expensive idea that the City did not have a way to implement at the present time. He said the amendment to the Development Agreement would accomplish four things: (i) avoid the PAMF’s Down- town Specific Plan approvals if and when it constructed the Urban Lane campus; (2) establish a maintenance and security requirement for the Downtown site after the PAMF relocated; (3) establish a Downtown site reuse planning process based on the coordinated area planning concept discussed by the Council as part of the Comprehen- sive Plan Update which committed the PAMF to pay two-thirds of the cost of consultant contracts to a maximum of $200,000; and (4) establish a prohibition on demolition except for life safety concerns as determined primarily by the Fire Chief and Chief Building Official. He referred to the errata sheet at the Council’s place that evening that identified three minor correc- tions to the material provided to the Council. In addition, the parking deferral had been recalculated at approximately 340 spaces rather than the 305 spaces as identified in the staff report. Staff remained comfortable with the parking deferral. Staff strongly recommended Council approval of the actions needed to establish an Urban Lane campus for the PAMF. Mr. Calonne noted that an important issue referenced to the Development Agreement in 1991 was that the Development Agreement carried forward the PAMF’s obligation to provide a child care site at a nominal lease cost at Channing Avenue and Ramona Street. Planning Commissioner Sandy Eakins said five members of the Planning Commission were able to participate in the item. Three meetings on the PAMF application were held, and their votes were unanimous. Commissioners made individua! or joint visits to the proposed site, studied the staff reports and the draft EIR, and listened carefully to the public testimony. All of the Planning Commissioners were supportive of the planned move of the PAMF from its historic location in Downtown south to the Urban Lane area. The Planning Commission was aware of the conflicts that had resulted from the steady growth and changes of the PAMF and !ooked forward to the planned changes. A major area of concern was the second left-turn lane to Embarcadero Road from South E1 Camino Rea! which was still very controversial. Interior circulation was also a concern, i.e., safety of people walking on the campus, potential confusion about finding a way either on foot or in a vehicle in and out of the underground parking garage. The Commission urged continued attention to that area. The Commission was -also concerned about the adjoining properties on Wells Road and Encina Avenue which would be heavily impacted by the new project. The height and bulk of the project would present challenges, but the Commission understood why the site had to be raised several feet in places to accommodate both the geologic constraints for construc- tion of the two-story underground parking garage and for construc- 0!/22/96 tion of buildings above the garage. The Commission anticipated that a lot of landscaping would be needed, especially from the south looking north to Building C. The Commission spent a lot of time on the connections to the Downtown, and the draft EIR that the Commission approved stated that the E1 Camino Real entrance had to include an Urban Lane connection. The Commission supported the pedestrian/bicycle underpass for Homer Avenue and Alma Street. Several Commissioners were concerned about the large size of the project, protecting all of the existing buildings Downtown, including the former University African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Zion Church, protecting the artists’ murals on the original building and having artists involved in the treatment of the areas for the new project. Planning Commissioner Phyllis Cassel was particularly concerned about the urgent care parking and drop-off situations. The Commission recognized that the project was still work-in-progress and that the concerns would resurface until they were resolved. Architectural Review Board Member Robert Peterson explained that three members of the five-member Architectural Review Board (ARB) had a conflict of interest with the project, and one member had to be chosen in order to have a quorum. One critical issue that had not been resolved was the connection under or over the railroad tracks. The applicant had made a good faith effort to encourage that connection by providing $150,000 and had ensured that the applicant’s plans would accept the connection in the future. The second critical issue was the need to include an art budget for a project of that size and scope, and he believed the PAMF had a proposal that would be submitted to the Public Art Commission (PAC). The third critical issue was the appearance of the east building. It was the largest single element of the structure and had the least definition. The ARB discussed the issue at length. The applicant and the applicant’s architectural landscape archi- tects had been extremely responsive to the ARB’s comments and had made substantial changes as the project had moved through the process. The ARB supported the project. Council Member Andersen asked whether the City/Schools Traffic Committee was consulted regarding the left-turn lane. Mr. Schreiber said no. Council Member Andersen asked whether a consultation with the City/Schools Traffic Committee could be incorporated into the process. He said the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) was concerned about the impact of the traffic flow from Palo Alto High School. Mr. Schreiber understood a meeting was scheduled for Thursday, January 25, 1996, and the item could be placed on the agenda at that time. Council Member Andersen asked whether the City would have insisted that there be an undercrossing or overcrossing to connect the Urban Lane site with the City if a major developer had proposed to build housing on the site. Mr. Schreiber said the concept of the undercrossing surfaced during the previous Dream Team design exercise, and he did not believe before that exercise that there was any concerted effort to consider that issue in terms of development or redevelopment of the Urban Lane. He distinguished an undercrossing as a City Capital Improvement Project (CIP) versus a developer provided amenity. The City had limitations regarding its ability to impose a developer provided amenity as a condition of approval. The City would have to build a case that a housing project would have a notable impact which would require that type of mitigation condition of approval. He was not confident that the City would be able to make that type of nexus for most of the cost if there were a housing development proposed for the area. Council Member Andersen said staff indicated that an at-grade crossing would have significant safety problems with the JPB and the PUC. However, there were several pedestrian at-grade crossings. in the City and the state that did not have substantial hazards. He asked what had changed the thinking of both agencies regarding the hazards of at-grade crossings and what the alternative would be for a pedestrian crossing. City Traffic Engineer Ashok Aggarwal understood from discussions with the JPB that it would strongly oppose an at-grade crossing. Staff had also spoken with the PUC staff, and its position wasalso in opposition to an at-grade crossing. Current administrative policy stated that there would be no new at-grade crossings. The City could submit a hazards analysis to the PUC for its consider- ation of an at-grade crossing. However, the PUC staff suggested that the City not start a study because it was difficult, if not impossible, to prove that the hazards as a result of the new at- grade crossing would not exceed the present conditions. The hazards analysis should indicate that the hazards as a result of the at-grade crossing would be less than what presently existed. For example, the PUC’s concern was that a person in a wheelchair or a person wearing high-heel shoes could get stuck on the railroad crossing. There had been fatal accidents at the intersection of Alma Street/Meadow Drive and Alma Street/Charleston, and the Council had approved a CIP to conduct a feasibility study to determine whether undercrossing could be built at one or all of the railroad crossings which would only be for pedestrians and bicyclists. Council Member Andersen asked whether a condition of approval would be necessary to carry out a proposal in the long-term CIP that would include underground crossings at Alma Street/ Charleston, Alma Street/Meadow Drive, and at the site. Mr. Calonne believed the staff recommendation before the Council accommodated that condition, but the budget question was another issue. Council Member Kniss clarified the PAMF was an anchor tenant within the Downtown, and it was important that the anchor tenant had access to the Downtown area. There were presently several at-grade crossings in Palo Alto, and she asked whether the City would not be permitted to have at-grade crossing henceforth and what the precedent was for the rest of California. Mr. Schreiber said the PUC had indicated a strong aversion to any more at-grade crossing anywhere, and there was some organizationa! poliCy at work to strongly discourage at-grade crossing. The site had the connection to the Downtown area through the University Avenue underpass, and the distance from the proposed PAMF site to the retail core of the Downtown would be no longer by using the University Avenue underpass than it would if there were an underpass at Homer Avenue. The South of Forest Area (SOFA) would be closer if there were a Homer Avenue undercrossing. Council Member Simitian felt that Council Member Kniss’ questions were pertinent. Some people wanted parking close to their office so they did not have to walk very far to work, and he asked whether the proposed site was beyond the range that people would consider walkable. Council Member Kniss had always believed there would be a connec- tion between the proposed siteand the Downtown. Mr. Schreiber said there was no adopted City policy to have a connection between that area and the Downtown. The concept was discussed by the Dream Team and the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC). Staff encouraged the PAMF to investigate that concept, but the PAMF had no obligation to propose that connection. After investigating the cost, the initial proposal did not include a provision for the connection. The current proposal provided an easement for a connection if it were ever built. The distance from the proposed Urban Lane campus site to the Downtown would not be extremely close whether the University Avenue undercrossing or a new undercrossing at Homer Avenue was used. Staff had tried to sort out the advantages and potential advantages of having an undercrossing at Homer Avenue. Mr. Aggarwal presented overhead graphs of centroids close tO the proposed site and away from the site. Several places showed that there was no difference in using the undercrossing at Homer Avenue or using the undercrossing at University Avenue. The Downtown centroid was at Bryant Street and University Avenue, and the walking distance was about 0.57 miles. The Downtown North centroid was at Waverley and Everett Streets, and the distance was the same. There was a substantial difference with or without the crossing along Homer Avenue and Emerson Street; at Lincoln Avenue and Waverley Streets, there was a slight difference. Council Member Kniss said the distance that people perceived was the issue. Mr. Schreiber said the proposed project would have a roadway, bicycle path, and sidewalk connection from the site to University Circle which would facilitate the movement of traffic both to and from the transit center as well as getting to University Avenue. After review of the EIR and the analysis, staff could not find any adverse impact for bicyclists or pedestrians because of the lack of an undercrossing at Homer Avenue. People had access to University Avenue which would get them into the Downtown area at the same travel distance as using Homer Avenue which was a strong part of the thinking in terms of the conditions that would be applied to the application. The City could do a CIP in the future, but it could not ask an applicant to provide certain amenities unless it was linked to adverse impacts. Mr. _alonne clarified staff looked to the EIR as a tool to justify imposing the cost of the undercrossing on the PAMF and none of the information thus far supported that demand. The constructive approach for the public and the Counci! was to identify some factual information that would support that kind of exaction. Vice Mayor Huber disclosed that he had met with representatives of the PAMF several times during the previous years. He referred to the deferred parking and asked how many times the City could trigger the requirement to build a parking facility. Mr. Schreiber said in almost 20 years that the City had had deferred parking, he could think of a situation in which the City had to actually require the deferred parking to be implemented. The condition was structured so that the applicant would need to get enough parking on site to bring the parking space vacancy rate up a minimum of 5 percent. If a parking structure were envisioned, the foundations of the parking structure would have to be suitable to handle the full physical parking load for a full structure. One layer of the parking structure could be built which would provide enough parking to address the deficit. The specifics would have to be worked out at the time a parking need was documented and required by the City. Vice Mayor Huber wanted to make certain the language clarified that the City had the ability to address the parking issue more than one time. Mr. Schreiber said the City definitely had the ability to address the issue more than once or it would have to require all of the parking at the beginning. If all of the parking were required, the City might end up with a five-story parking structure that might not be needed or wanted due to visual impacts. Senior Assistant City Attorney Debra Cauble said the condition was worded so that the City would have an agreement that detailed how the condition would be implemented. The Council could incorporate into the condition that the City would have multiple chances to determine the need or require the work to be done in phases. Vice Mayor Huber said previously there was concern about overuse, and the PAMF’s current facility had specifics about the number of physicians and hours. He asked whether there would be a similar control if the PAMF attempted to double in size. Mr. Schreiber said the control would be the parking problem. The existing site had been able to function by having parking spread into the neighborhood; but it never provided the amount of required parking, .and there was always that interface problem with the neighborhood. The proposed site had more confined parking and fewer alternatives to off-site parking. In addition, the proposed site was located on E1 Camino Rea!, a major arterial, and not in the middle of a neighborhood which was another reason why the staff did not recommend pursuing that type of physician number or hour cap that was in the existing Specific Plan. Staff did not support that condition as part of the Specific Plan. Vice Mayor Huber asked what would restrict the parking from spreading to Town & Country Village. Mr. Schreiber said Town & Country Village could take action to control parking on its site. If there were an undercrossing to Homer Avenue, the most likely off-site parking would be in the SOFA. There could be parking spaces in the JPB parking lot, but the JPB would probably regulate that parking !ot in the future when train ridership increased. Vice Mayor Huber asked whether the City would be dealing with a clean slate when the area plan commenced so that the City would not be faced with a situation in which the interested neighbors could only react to it. Mr. Schreiber said that was the objective. A community process would be started to figure out what the community and the property owner concluded should be appropriate. Staff strongly discouraged the PAMF from entering the process with a developer in place and drawings already prepared which would counter the staff’s vision of having effective process. Council Member Fazzino found it difficult to accept the conclusion that there was not a nexus between a downtown crossing and the proposed site, but there was a nexus at Page Mill Road/El Camino Real in the form of additional road improvements with the proposed development. He asked why there was a nexus in one place but not the other. Mr. Calonne said there were traffic studies that showed an impact at Page Mill Road/El Camino Real. He referred to the EIR and the fiscal impact and the numbers showed that the project would not cause a loss of revenue to the Downtown. If housing were con- structed at the Downtown site, it would produce the same revenue. He considered traffic and the fiscal impact as the two critical pieces of evidence which was why the staff report made that conclu- sion. Council Member Fazzino clarified any significant development along E1 Camino Real in Palo Alto would have an impact on Page Mill Road\E! Camino Real. Mr. Schreiber said that was possible. The EIR set out significant standards to determine a significant impact, and the law stated there had to be a significant impact to impose mitigations. The problem at Page Mill Road/E! Camino Real was that existing traffic volumes were quite high and the level of service was at Level "E." 01/22/96 78-69 There was a significant physical impact under the City’s standards when that worsened, e.g., in a cumulative scenario if the intersec- tion went to Level "F," then the PAMF had a share of that "F" leve! of traffic, and as such there was a linkage between the PAMF’s project and the "F" condition. The staff had not found adverse impacts in terms of the Downtown; and the lack of an undercrossing would not result in a significant impact, or the presence of an undercrossing would not reduce a significant impact to a level of insignificance. The undercrossing would have a very minimal impact on the tota! vehicle traffic entering and exiting the proposed site. There might be a slight impact at Page Mill Road/El Camino Real, but it would not reach a significant standard. Council Member Fazzino said the City Attorney previously offered some hope for those people who might be interested in exploring the issue of a potential nexus when he indicated that the Council could put together a body of evidence that justified a nexus. Mr. Calonne was uncertain of the area that the Council should explore. The future planning study for the Downtown that the PAMF was obligated to finance might be an opportunity to try to ventilate the issue better. Mr. Schreiber said the study would be an opportunity to explore the issue further in terms of positive benefits of having an undercrossing. However, the PAMF would have to be under construc- tion at the Urban Lane site before that study could begin, and there would be no opportunity to attach further conditions that linked the PAMF to the undercrossing. The PAMF indicated the reuse of the existing site would be primarily residential, and he could not envision a technically feasible connection between new housing and the need for the undercrossing of such magnitude that the City could attach a fee to the housing to help fund the undercrossing. He noted the nexus issue had to be based on factual information and conclusions. Anne Moore, Moore Consulting, had worked for over a year on how to determine what the fair share would be for the PAMF to contribute towards the cost of an expensive undercrossing. A study would have to be done to project what would be the likely use of such an undercrossing by pedestrians and bicyclists and where they would be coming from and going to. The study would then have to identify from that total what proportions were attributable to the PAMF’s project. She felt the question became somewhat moot when the PAMF representatives committed to providing $150,000 toward constguction of that improvement. She also felt an extensive detailed analysis would be subject to many questions because it would be based on professional judgment and projections. She estimated the projec- tions would show the PAMF to be about I0 percent of the total amount of traffic, and she expected the projections to show very heavy use by Stanford University students and employees and longer distance travelers between Downtown and point east to the Stanford campus and point south on E1 Camino Real. She felt Town & Country Village, Stanford University, and a large area in the Downtown, particularly along the Homer Avenue corridor, would benefit significantly from an undercrossing. Council Member Kniss asked whether Ms. Moore’s reference was to walkers and bicyclists, not automobile traffic. Ms. Moore said yes. Council Member Fazzino said the deliberations appeared to dismiss serious consideration of a shuttle service to the Downtown area as an alternative, particularly since the Council had accepted the Transportation Division’s vision of an eventual tie-in between the Marguerite Shuttle System and a Palo Alto jitney system in the future. Ms. Moore said the deliberations focused on the transient and circulation impacts that would be triggered by the project in the area and/or the transit service limitations for the project. It was found that the standard distance for bus stops was further away at the site; and if it remained impossible to have both northbound and southbound bus stops in front of the site on E1 Camino Real, some kind of mitigation would be needed to take care of the transit deficiency. At that point, it was found that the Marguerite Shuttle System could go to and from the transit center and through the site in such a way that it would overcome that deficiency. The shuttle system was not ignored but analyzed, and an impact was found; but the mitigation was to have a Marguerite-type Shuttle System equivalent. The condition was set up so that if the PAMF and Stanford University did not reach an agreement on a provision for the Marguerite, the PAMF had responsibility for providing a people shuttle to and from the transit center. Mr. Schreiber said the Council had discussed a shuttle system as part of the Comprehensive Plan process; there was no adopted policy that related to a local shuttle service. Conditions of approval could not be created without an adopted policy. Karl Heisler, Environmental Science Associates, project manager for the EIR, referred to page 74 of the fina! EIR addendum and said Stanford University’s current plan was that beginning September 1996, the Marguerite Shuttle System could go through the PAMF site and run to Lytton Plaza at least midday and possibly all day. There would be a potential shuttle that could go at least midday to and from the Downtown to the PAMF site. Council Member Fazzino was disappointed there was no consideration of the impact of an expanded shuttle system through the Downtown and other areas and what that might do to obviate the need for an undercrossing. He said the staff report (CMR:I04:96) did not provide information regarding the alternative of pedestrian-only at-grade crossings, and he asked that safety and other information be provided on that alternative. Mr. Schreiber said representatives of the JPB could provide that information. Council Member Schneider asked whether people would use the railroad tracks anyway if an at-grade crossing were not provided which would create more of a danger. Mr. Aggarwal said people currently used the railroad tracks, but he understood that as part of the project, a fence would be installed at the back of the PAMF site. Council Member Schneider said there was some information in the EIR regarding the amount of business that was attributable to the PAMF in the Downtown area. She recalled a previous study regarding the amount of negative impact on the Downtown area if the PAMF left the area. She asked whether there was a way to determine how much business was generated from the PAMF. Ms. Cauble said Appendix H of the EIR provided an economic analysis of the project. The report analyzed the shift of a small percent- age of business to the Town & Country Village and other sites south. The report also projected that there would be new users in the Downtown area. She was uncertain whether more specific projections could be done other than in Appendix H. Council Member Schneider asked whether the $150,000~provided by the PAMF would be the I0 percent exaction of $1.5 million of revenue lost. Mr. Schreiber said the I0 percent had not been factored into the analysis outside of the EIR process. The $150,000 figure was determined by the PAMF; he did not know the basis for that figure, but he did not believe it had a direct linkage to a percentage of future costs. Council Member Schneider said there was discussion about other methods of funding either the undercrossing or the at-grade crossing, i.e., an assessment district; and there was a comment that the $150,000 provided by the PAMF could be .used to establish the assessment district. She asked whether a survey was done to determine whether the Downtown businesses would support an assessment district. Mr. Schreiber said the PAMF indicated it wanted the $150,000 to be used for construction purposes. He did not view the $150,000 being used as seed money for an assessment district process. An assessment district would need to include the SOFA and a portion of the Downtown. Staff had not done any work to assess the feasibili- ty of an assessment district, and Kathleen Gwynn, President of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, had indicated in her letter dated January 22, 1996, that the membership had not been polled either. Substantial support in the community would be necessary to justify those levels of cost. Council Member Schneider wanted either the Chamber of Commerce or the City to pursue whether the merchants or the people in the Downtown area were interested in an assessment district. She asked how the housing mitigation fee would be exacted from the project and how the proposed project differed from other housing projects. Mr. Schreiber said the housing mitigation fee was based on the amount of new nonresidential square footage on a particular site. The buildings that existed on the proposed site were demolished 01/22/96 78-72 after the application was submitted and totalled about 92,000 square feet. The PAMF started out with a credit of about 92,000 square feet, and for the square footage beyond that amount, the PAMF would pay a housing mitigation fee of approximately $3.45 per square foot effective at the time of the building permit. The PAMF had raised concerns about the mitigation fee and had suggested an alternative given the fact that the existing nonresidential site that would be vacated would be used for housing. Staff hadnot reviewed the proposed alternative since it was new information received from the PAMF, and it would probably require an amendment of the Housing Mitigation Ordinance to put such a trade-off in place. The PAMF presented an unusual situation and an interesting argument. Normal situations did not usually have an existing nonresidential development being vacated and replaced with residential. If the current project plus a reuse project were put together, it would address housing. Staff could consider the issue if Council desired. Council Member Schneider disclosed that she had visited the site, had met with representatives of the PAMF, and had spoken with members~of the public regarding the issue. Council Member Simitian disclosed that he had visited the site, had met with representatives of the PAMF, and had spoken with members of the public regarding the issue. He referred to Attachment I, a variance request for parking, of the staff report (CMR:I04:96). He asked whether there was a variance request because staff antici- pated the need for sufficient parking and believed the site coverage would have to be increased over the amount ordinarily allowed in order to accommodate the parking. Mr. Schreiber said the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) required that any deferred parking conceptually approved at the time the project was approved should be in the record to show that the parking could be provided. Staff concluded that the variance needed to be in place rather than in the future even though he could not think of an example where deferred parking had been triggered in the last 18 years. Council Member Simitian clarified the variance request indicated that if the variance were approved and if the additional parking were necessary, the site coverage would be 32 percent rather than 30 percent. He said while the discussion of the nexus had focused around the economic impacts of the Downtown, one of the benefits of an at-grade crossing or an undercrossing would be that a substan- tial amount of people would be able to either walk or bicycle to and from the site. If people either walked or bicycled, they would not need to park their cars at the site and then the variance request would not be needed. The variance request indicated the City was in a situation where it could not find a nexus, but the reason for the variance request was to have the accommodation for parking. The accommodation for parking and the number of cars that might be at the site seemed .to be directly related, and it suggested a nexus between a mitigation derivative that involved a greater possibility of pedestrian or bicycle activity rather than driving and parking spaces. He believed the nexus might be there rather than on the economic basis. Mr. Calonne suggested the Council direct the staff to review the issue. The courts described both type and burden nexus, and he understood the project would produce cars which would produce an impact on the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real intersection. The car impact was a type of nexus. The burden nexus was why the EIR attributed 6 or 7 percent of those costs to the PAMF rather than i00 percent of the costs. He needed to discuss the issue with the consultants, but he believed Council Member Simitian’s analysis targeted the type nexus question. However, he was uncertain whether it reached the burden question and whether the City would do any better than $150,000 with that burden analysis. He emphasized to the PAMF that the consultants might come up with something different if Council so directed. Council Member $imitian clarified when the Council was asked to approve a variance, one requirement was extraordinary circumstances and another was in the absence of allowing the variance, the applicant was at a loss to make a reasonable benefit or suffer some undue hardship. That was one of the three justifications for granting the variance. If there were an alternative approach which would not require the variance, e.g., providing an undercrossing or at-grade crossing which would provide pedestrian and bicycle access, it would negate the need for a variance and a nexus would have been drawn. He asked the staff and legal counsel to consider that issue because that drew his attention much more than the attempt to draw a nexus of the economic analysis. He understood the 6 percent figure for Page Mill Road/El Camino Rea! and the rationale for assessing the burden, but he wanted clarification on both the potential cost for construction to make Page Mill Road/El Camino Real work and the cost of land acquisition depending on the nature of mitigation. He asked whether the 6 percent applied to simple construction costs or whether it also applied to acquisition costs, if any. Mr. Schreiber said it applied to whatever costs necessary to make the mitigation. Council Member $imitian said Palo Alto’s previous experience with undercrossings did not generate much enthusiasm for spending $2 million more to have a dark, unattractive, and unpleasant undercrossing. He asked what the potential of creating an undercrossing was that avoided the previous problems and was attractive and usable by the public. He understood why the PAMF did not want to spend $2 million for something that did not work. Mr. Aggarwal said the model would be similar to the undercrossing in Mountain View near San Antonio Road that was a reasonably attractive, lighted 14-foot tunnel with open wells on both ends. Mike Sheehy, Consultant, Ruth & Going, said the City of Mountain View indicated that the cost of the undercrossing in 1989 was $1.5 million. Council Member Simitian noticed, when he took the train to San Francisco, that the train stopped at Bay Meadows Race Track to let people on or off the train, and they walked across the railroad tracks. He believed there were sliding chain-link fences and attendants that made the system work. He asked whether a similar system could be used that was entirely safe since safety was the issue. Mr. Schreiber said it was important to differentiate between previously approved facilities and asking the PUC for new approval. He believed there were many facilities that would not be approved at the present time by the PUC, but the PUC did not have the power to remove the approval. He reiterated that the staff from the JPB and PUC had strongly indicated there was no interest in new at- grade crossings which would make it extremely difficult to get approval. Council Member Simitian said there was previous reference that there would be a wall between the PAMF and the railroad tracks, and he asked what the wal! would look like. He recalled that previous path studies suggested that people took the shortest distance between two points. He asked what kind of wall would deter people from going from Point A to Point B if they thought it were the shortest distance between those two points. Mr. Schreiber said the City had been working on the design of the bicycle path at the rear of the site for some time, and there was federa! funding to pursue the project, including the bridge over Embarcadero Road. The JPB had made it clear that one of the conditions of approval would be the construction of a substantia! fence between the bicycle path and the railroad track area that would keep people from crossing in that area. He clarified that it would be a fence, not a wall, and the design details had not been completed on the fence at the present time. The design would return to the ARB for approval after consultation with the JPB. The JPB was very concerned about the number of people who walked along and across.the path in various areas of the right-of-way. Council Member Simitian asked what would be the most important time that members of the public or employees moved back and forth across that area. Ms. Moore said it would be different from the kind of events that were held at the Bay Meadows Race Track where large numbers of people arrived at the start and end of racing. - At the PAMF site, employees would be the largest bulk of people on a regular schedule, but that employer had a very high percentage of staggered work hours. She believed there would be a need for a two-hour period of time in the morning and evening which was a lot for a project that would be generating a low amount of traffic in that area. Mr. Schreiber said if part of the objective were to facilitate people getting to the Downtown for the business community, that would be a midday function, so there would be an extended morning peak, a midday peak, and a fairly long evening peak. There would also be a considerable amount of scattered traffic throughout the day that related to the high school, Town & Country Village, and people who were going to and from Stanford University. Council Member Simitian presumed the safety issue raised related to the number of trains that crossed, and he said during the business day of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., there was a substantial number of trains traveling along the tracks before 9:00 a.m. and after 4:00 p.m. During the 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. period, the headway between trains was much less. He asked what the difficulty was from a safety standpoint if there were a system of gates and/or atten- dants, which he believed was more cost effective than a $2 million capital expenditure. Mayor Wheeler clarified that the Urban Lane extension was a condition of approval of the proposed site plan. She asked, if the Urban Lane extension did not come to fruition, how it would affect the site plan, the City’s processes, and Council’s action on the vacation of utility and right-of-way public easements that the City held. Ms. Moore said several changes to the project as currently designed would be triggered if the Urban Lane extension were not accom- plished. The major change would be the location of the signalized entrance. One problem was the traffic on the southbound on-ramp did not have sufficient distance to safely weave into the left-turn lane of theproposed signalized entrance at the PAMF which had been extensively analyzed in the EIR, but that issue would not signifi- cantly impact the Urban Lane extension because people would come from Palm Drive and University Avenue into the project. If the Urban Lane extension did not happen, it would force the need to relocate the signalized intersection further south, and the location would most likely be at Encina which would leave the PAMF design with a very ceremonial entrance. The majority of traffic would utilize Embarcadero Road, and it was expected that that would trigger rethinking of the other site design. The lack of an Urban Lane extension would significantly diminish the quality of vehicular/bicycle/pedestrian circulation in the area; and there was also linkage from Town & Country Village north to University Circle with the north/south extension in the proposed project. Ms. Cauble said the staff report (CMR:I04:96) indicated the proposed street vacation was on a track together with the subdivi- sion map, so the Council would only be asked to approve the vacation at a time when Council had before it a map that created new substitute adequate access. In the future, if the Urban Lane extension became inviable, the City would be looking at a new map with new dedications and eliminating the dedications that had been made previously. In addition, the kinds of site plan changes referenced by ~s. Moore would trigger new ARB review and an amended or new use permit with appropriate conditions. Mayor Wheeler clarified the Council was being asked to make both a Comprehensive Plan land use change and a zoning change for the property. She asked if the project did not proceed on that site, what kind of impact the land use designation and zoning on the site would ~have on some future development of the site. Mr. Calonne said the zoning and land use designation for the site would not be automatically rescinded. The Deve!opment Agreement only served to unwind the existing approval and did not convey a vested right for any period of years to the Urban Lane site. A successor Council would be free to amend the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations at that time. Mayor Wheeler referred to Building D which was included in the environmental material and said she was concerned about the vagueness regarding the use and intensity of use of the proposal. She asked what the Council’s approval that evening would convey to the applicant in terms of the intensity of use that would be permitted on that site. Ms. Cauble said the use permit established a maximum square footage, so if Buildings A, B, and C were built first, there would be a remainder allotment that could be applied. It was not a vested right, and the ARB conditions of approval clearly included that the applicant had to show there was reasonable and convenient adequate amounts of parking and that the site design worked. Staff had been assertive with the applicant, and the ARB had indicated its concerns about the siting of the building and how it would work in the future. There were no ARB approvals for Building D, and the applicant had to demonstrate how the building and parking would work in that location. Mayor Wheeler clarified the City had not made any promise to the applicant that there would be a Building D or what the size of the building would be by any action taken by the Council that evening. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Mayor Wheeler referred to comments on page 57 of the staff report (CMR:i04:96) on the Page Mill Road/E! Camino Real intersection, "If the mitigation measure is eliminated, as PAMF has requested, the certification of the Final EIR will need to be modified because without the mitigation measure, the project wil! have a cumulative environmental impact without mitigation and the City Council will need to make findings of overriding considerations regarding this impact." She asked whether the document would need to be recircu- lated. Ms. Cauble said based on.her review of the EIR as it was ultimately circulated for public review and as it was completed with the Final EIR document, elimination of a mitigation measure, at that point would require recirculation because public review assumed that there was a feasible mitigation available which would reduce or eliminate the impact to a level of less than significant. Mr. Schreiber clarified the applicant requested the Planning Commission to eliminate the mitigation measure, but there was nothing in the applicant’s submittal to the Council that raised the issue again. Unless the applicant raised the issue during public testimony, it no longer might be an issue. Mr. Calonne said in order to override an impact, there had to be evidence that it was outweighed by project benefits and that the mitigation was infeasible when the project alternatives would not work. The evidence that the City did not have with Page Mill Road/El Camino Rea! was that that exaction was infeasible. Mayor Wheeler said the Planning Commission added a condition to the amendment to the Development Agreement on the Downtown site which attempted to protect the integrity of the historic structures at the Downtown site during that period of time when the City had entered into and went through the coordinated area planning process. She referred to Exhibit A which described the area in question, and she wanted to make certain that the Planning Commission’s discussion revolved around buildings such as the AME Zion Church and the houses on Bryant Street and that those structures were included in the description of the area in the final document. Ms. Cauble said the amendment added to the Development Agreement in response to the Planning Commission’s recommendation was Paragraph 8(b), "None of the existing buildings on the Downtown site shall be demolished prior to issuance of permits for redevelopment of the property..." That would happen after the planning process was complete, unless there was an imminent safety hazard which would be determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment in conjunction with the Fire Chief and the Chief Building Official. The status quo would be preserved and the planning process would move forward; no particular buildings were singled out or excluded.~ She clarified Exhibit A was the legal description of the Downtown site which was the same exhibit attached to the original Develop- ment Agreement and was the property covered by the Downtown Specific Plan. The agreement before the Council that evening preserved the status quo of the buildings in the area owned by the PAMF unless there was an imminent safety hazard. Mayor Wheeler disclosed that she had had a meeting with representa- tives from the PAMF and had spoken with members of the public, neighbors of the Downtown site, and a representative from the Chamber of Commerce regarding the issue. Council Member Fazzino disclosed that he had had a conversation with representatives of the PAMF and had also spoken with represen- tatives of the Chamber of Commerce and with members of the public and the neighborhood in which the PAMF was currently located. Council Member Kniss disclosed that her contacts echoed those of Council Member Fazzino’s. She asked whether the bicycle path could be used by pedestrians. Mr. Aggarwal said yes. Council Member Kniss understood there would be a high wall on one side of the bicycle path, and she asked what the other side of the path would look like and whether it would be safe. Mr. Aggarwal said there would be a fence between the path and the railroad tracks. Ms. Moore said the area along the length of the building would be landscaped, and there would be landscaping behind Building B if it were built in the future. Close attention had been given to the nature of the landscaping and lighting improvements and it would be a safe path. Council Member Andersen disclosed that he had spoken with represen- tatives of the PAMF and members of the public regarding the issue. He understood that if there were a proposal to build Building D, it would be reviewed by the ARBo He asked, if the Council approved the recommendations that evening, whether the proposal would also be presented to the Council for approval. Ms. Moore said only ARB approvals would be required. Council Member Andersen asked whether the $150,000 offered by the PAMF for construction of the undercrossing had a cost of living factored into the figure given that it might take several years before something took place. Mr. Schreiber said no. The amount was cash and not inflated. Mayor Wheeler asked the City Attorney’s Office staff to clarify the Council’s review process. Ms~ Cauble said the first action before the Council after.the public hearing had closed related to the EIR for hhe project. The Council would be required to certify that the EIR was adequate which meant that the document contained sufficient information for the Council £o make an intelligent decision regarding the environ- mental consequences of the project. In addition to certifying that the EIR was adequate, the Council had to have reviewed and considered it before taking the project actions, and then to approve the project, the Council needed to make specific findings. Proposed findings were in Attachment C of the staff report (CMR:I04:96). For each significant impact that the EIR had identified, the Council had to find that either the impact had been mitigated through impositions of conditionsor modifications to the project, that the mitigations within the control of some other agency that could and should handle mitigation, or that there were specified economics, social or other, considerations, which justified approving the project notwithstanding the fact that an impact could not be fully mitigated. Proposed findings were in Attachment C. In making the findings, the Council had to rely on substantial evidence. Substantial evidence generally meant there was enough relevant information to support a fair argument that that was a reasonable conclusion even though other conclusions might be reached. She clarified it would take five votes of the Council for any or all of the actions on the project before the Council that evening. She explained that Exhibits A and B to the Development Agreement would be attached to the second reading of the Ordinance. Council Member Simitian asked whether Council Member Rosenbaum would be able to participate at a future Council Meeting on the issue. Ms. Cauble said if Council Member Rosenbaum had listened to the tape of the proceedings and had made himself familiar with the evidence in the record that was available to the entire Council, he would be able to so declare and participate in future delibera- tions. RECESS: 9:40 P.M. -9:50 P.M. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. David Jury, Real Estate Manager for the Palo Alto Medical Founda- tion, 300 Homer Avenue, said the process formally started in April 1995 when the PAMF went to the ARB for its first public hearing. Since that time, the PAMF had been through four ARB meetings and three ~Planning Commission meetings. The results of the ARB and the Planning Commission were unanimous, and the results were also unanimous in 1995 when they did not like the project. The project before the Counci! that evening was the result of a lot of work by many people, including City staff, Planning Commission, and the ARB. The current facility was old and inefficient, and many of the buildings were not designed for medical use. There was no flexibility to share facilities, and it was possible to have to walk two or three blocks in cross traffic to go from one physician to another. There were streets that cut off departments and there was parking and traffic in the neighborhood. The new facilit~ would address those issues and many more. The PAMF was pleased that the project was before the Council that evening. He reviewed several issues. Building D, the Wellness Center, was a possibili- ty, and the PAMF wanted to have a wellness center. A cooperation between the PAMF and other providers in the area should also be done but there were no agreements in place as yet. The PAMF wanted to bring everything forward in the EIR and not have to return in a few months with another piece. The requirement from Caltrans that there be a second left-turn lane on E1 Camino Rea! was tough. The PAMF agreed with staff when they asked Caltrans to postpone the issue and would agree with the Council’s decision on the matter. There had been much discussion about pedestrian/bicycle access to the Downtown, and the PAMF also wanted pedestrian access. The problem was that the tunnel would cost $2 million, and the PAMF could not afford the cost. The PAMF agreed with the staff and the City Attorney that there did not appear to be the connection that would require the PAMF to construct a tunnel. The PAMF had pledged $150,000 and membership in an assessment district. The PAMF felt the mitigation fee was to help with the jobs/housing imbalance and believed it was only fair when talking about the jobs/housing imbalance that the total amount of commercial spaces that would be taken out of commercial space and into residential should be considered. The PAMF wanted credit for all the commercial space that would be removed. Dr. Robert Jamplis, President, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, felt it was a win-win situation for the PAMF,. the City, and the neighbors. He pointed out that immediately after the Council approved the Specific Plan, it became apparent that Urban Lane was a better location for the facility. The PAMF realized that it would take 12 to 14 years before the Specific Plan could be accomplished, and the facility would still be in the wrong place. The PAMF was delighted with the Urban Lane site and felt the facility would meet all its needs. The PAMF had been very effective in delivering care, but it had not had the facilities to be efficient. The formula for success of any health care institu- tion in the future would be a large multi-specialty clinic that emphasized and stressed patient education, health maintenance, and an outpatient setting rather than a hospital. The PAMF had a large integrated system with marketing and contracting capabilities, and most of the patients should be capitated which was the only way to lower the cost of health care in the United States and still deliver patient satisfaction and quality health care. Incentives were different in that mode; and the doctors, providers, and partners were on salary. The PAMF provided care to about 50 percent of the households in Palo Alto. There had been concern about duplication of facilities with Stanford which was the PAMF’s new partner. Both Stanford and the PAMF were operating 7 days per week, and Stanford and the PAMF worked closely together not to duplicate facilities. Also, any expansion that would be done would be in the satellite facilities, not in the main facility. He thanked the City staff for its splendid cooperation with the project. Dr. David Druker, Chief Operating officer, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 300 Homer Avenue, described the current situation as a cross between being overcrowded and intolerable. There was no place to put new doctors and the facility was out of space. He believed that the future of health care in Palo Alto would revolve around three providers: the PAMF, Stanford University, and Kaiser Permanente Medical Center. It was too expensive in Palo Alto for new family practitioners to buy a home and start a practice. The PAMF currently saw about 50 percent of the households in Palo Alto and that would continue to grow. The entire facility would be focused around patient education, and there would be a lot of community outreach. The facility would be a credit to the community. Council Member Andersen said the applicant indicated that the expansion would be in the satellite areas but substantial growth was also anticipated. He asked why the application was for a Public Facilities (PF) zone rather than a Planned Community (PC) zone. Mr. Schreiber said most of the PAMF facilities had been in a Major Institution/Special Facilities land use category for a long time. The zoning that went with that land use category was PF. When the PAMF representatives came to the City and. indicated they were in 01/22/96 78-81 the process of acquiring 13 parcels in the Urban Lane area, they talked about the type of facility they wanted for the replacement of their existing facilities. Staff felt that given the type of medical care services that were provided by the PAMF, the land use category should be Major Institution/Special Facilities. The PF zone would not allow the PAMF as a conditional use, but very similar services were being provided at Stanford University which were allowed because it was ancillary to a hospital. Staff felt comfortable recommending an amendment of the PF zone to allow outpatient medical care and related medical research and felt it was consistent with the intent of the zone and the Comprehensive Plan designation. The applicant preferred not to pursue the PC zone, and staff did not feel it was necessity. Dr. Kenneth Weigel, Palo Alto Pet Hospital, 711 E1 Camino Real, said the pet hospital was adjacent to the proposed site. As ~stated on page 134 of the Final DEIR addendum dated January Ii, 1996, "The DEIR analysis did not assume parking on Wells Avenue." There had been informal public parking on both sides of Wells Avenue for 40 years. The PAMF’s proposed construction would eliminate approx- imately 15 parking spaces from the south side of Wells Avenue. The employees of the Palo Alto Pet Hospita! currently used 12 to 13 of the public parking spaces on Wells Avenue. On page 136 of the Final DEIR, the City staff determined that 13 parking spaces could be provided on the north side of Wells Avenue. However, the 13 spaces would have to take care of the parking demands for the 13 employees of the pet hospital, the owner of one of the warehouses, any warehouse employees, and any additional needs should the Holiday Inn reopen an establishment similar to the Half-Time Sports Bar. It was reasonable to expect the PAMF to provide parking on its lot for the Pet Hospital employees or to maintain public parking along the south side of Wells Avenue. The PAMF should replace the 15 public parking spaces that would be eliminated with its current plans. He asked the Council to direct the staff to adopt the City recommendation in the EIR to provide 13 parking spaces on the north side of Wells Avenue. In addition, he re-- quested the Counci! to direct the Planning Department to further modify the variance already proposed on the south side of Wells Avenue in order to permit dedication of an additiona! 8-foot public parking strip on the south side.of Wells Avenue. Alan Rogers, 49 Wells Avenue, said he owned the warehouse on Wells Avenue for 20 years and property on Urban Lane. Previously, there were studies to extend Wells Avenue over the railroad tracks for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The new idea was to squeeze in a Building D or to increase the land value adjacent to his property on Urban Lane. He agreed with Dr. Weigel’s parking suggestions. He would be more impacted than most property owners because he had property on Wells Avenue and Urban Lane. His parking had been moved from Urban Lane adjacent to his warehouse, and he had trees growing in front of his warehouse doors. The Final EIR did not address his impact which was based on two streets with a traffic flow from zero to approximately 4,500 trips per day after the approval. He was concerned about the impact on Urban Lane where he owned property. 01/22/96 78-82 William Nack, 2102 Almaden Road, San Jose, said the Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building Construction Trades Council endorsed the proposed new PAMF medical center on Urban Lane. Members of the labor unions had health insurance, and the facility would be an excellent option to service the thousands of union members in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. It appeared that the conceptua! drawing for the project responded to the changing national movement toward managed care. Spiraling health costs had forced the medical community to conduct a self-examination of how it did business. The medical center reflected some of the changes required in order to provide health care at a reasonable cost for all the people. The Building Construction Trades Council applauded the PAMF for its vision. The PAMF would provide cutting edge service and the location was excellent. Because the facility was between two major transportation corridors, it would have quick access and should cause virtually no traffic increase in residential neighborhoods. The Building Construction Trades Council had met with the construc- tion project director for the PAMF and felt sure the project would be of the highest quality, would use local businesses, and would employ approximately 500 local construction workers. On behalf of 22,000 highly skilled union construction workers, he committed their tota! support for the project. Steve Wright, 5168 Rimwood Drive, San Jose, represented the Electricians Union in Santa Clara County. Union workers recycled their paychecks back into the community. The union had $16 to $20 million in its health and welfare plan to provide benefits for its members. The new facility would have state-of-the-art diagnostic and patient treatment equipment. The PAMF had stated it intended to provide quality health care at a reasonable cost. The union had to be prudent with the $16 million it spent on health care, and the new PAMF facility would be good for the community. He hoped the Council approved the project. Bob Chaudoin, 3430 Pinnacle Drive, San Jose, representing the Plumbers, Steamfitters, and Refrigeration Mechanics Union of Santa Clara County, said the union had a large amount of money to invest in health plans, and it wanted quality health care at the lowest cost. The facility would be in an ideal location and would be accessible from two major transportation corridors. The goal of the PAMF was to provide quality care using fewer resources. The building was conceived for the future and everything would be an outpatient facility. He hoped the Council approved the project. Wayne Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, said the EIR was clear and very informative, particularly the design. Access routes included a group driveway off E1 Camino Real and service street connecting to University Circle and Encina Avenue. The site was a short walk to the CalTrain and bus transit station, and there would be a bicycle path on the west side of the railroad tracks. All those elements would help with trip reduction strategies. A more complete trip reduction strategy should include an undercrossing at Alma Street for pedestrians, bicycles, and electric golf carts. The best strategy to improve wellness was to promote walking and bicycling. He believed the City and the project sponsors should reach an agreement immediately to build an undercrossing. The PAMF project would be a great addition to the community (letter on file in the City Clerk’s Office). Richard Rathbun, 575 Kellogg Avenue, representing the University South Neighborhood Group, said the University South Neighborhood Group (USNG) was formed to enhance relationships in the neighbor- hoods and within the community. USNG had worked with the PAMF and staff to understand the move to Urban Lane and the redevelopment of the SOFA location. Its primary interest was the redevelopment of the SOFA location. The USNG had four concerns and recommendations as noted in its letter dated January 17, 1996: I) traffic impacts, 2) pedestrian underpass, 3) wellness clinic EIR, and 4) historic buildings (letter on file in the City Clerk’s Office). Patrick Burt, 1249 Harriet Street, representing the University South Neighborhood Group, said the USNG had had extensive meetings with staff and the PAMF to identify and work out some mutually acceptable resolutions for a number of the issues. There had been progress on the two left-turn lane issues. In addition to the underpass, USNG recommended that there be no inclusion of the wellness clinic in the EIR at the present time. The actual environmental impacts of the new clinic site should be seen before determining the cumulative impacts of the wellness Clinic, the main clinic, and Stanford’s plans for the future. Alternative sites had not been evaluated for the wellness clinic which was a requirement, the proposed project had conflicts with the existing Comprehensive Plan elements, and traffic and congestion would be increased in other areas. The PAMF derived significant benefits from the site, and there should be appropriate mitigations. Staff originally wanted the signal at Encina Avenue to serve both the PAMF and Town & Country Village. The left-turn lane would not be.required to keep the access free into Town & Country Village if there were a signal at Encina Avenue. The PAMF indicated patients would not be increased at the new facility,.but there had been a significant increase in patients and employees over the last decade. He felt the values of the pedestrian underpass had been understated. Everyone from University Avenue to almost Embarcadero Road would have a shorter pedestrian distance through the access. The employee and patient commuters would use the access, and it would also benefit other users who were not going to the PAMF. Encourag- ing employees to use mass transit was influenced by what an employee could do when he/she reached the site. USNG suggested there be a minimum and maximum dollar amount imposed on the PAMF and that the PAMF not participate in an assessment district. There were other alternative funding sources, and there was a number of beneficiaries that Could share in the cost such as the PAMF, Downtown merchants, the City, perhaps the assessment district, and Stanford University. USNG felt the PAMF had not adequately analyzed the benefit of the cost avoidance potential, and the dollars per parking space might need to be considered. Paul Goldstein, 1024 Emerson Street, said the distance from the PAMF to the Downtown area might be the same, but it was less attractive. Studies showed that people walked farther if they could see their destination, and it was an attractive alternative. A direct connection at Homer Avenue would make a physiological link 01/22/~7~-84 between the site and the Downtown closer and would encourage pedestrian traffic. The DEIR indicated the new site would generate~ approximately $900,000 .annual revenue for the Downtown, and he wanted the trips made by pedestrians rather than by cars to the Downtown. Traffic was a major issue. He urged the Council to purse a safe at-grade crossing. The PAMF derived significant benefits from the project and should be expected to contribute more than $150,000. Kathleen Gwynn, President, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said it was rare for the Chamber to take a position on a specific project, but the Chamber strongly favored the PAMF proposed plan because there was a compelling interest on behalf of the entire membership and the community. The Chamber believed the project should move forward without further delay. The PAMF had been a terrific addition to the community, and the Chamber wanted to ensurethat it could provide high-quality, cost-effective health care to the community for many more generations. The Chamber shared with members of the community and the PAMF a concern about safe access to the PAMF from the Downtown and was willing to be an active participant in any discussions regarding the kind of crossing or a safe and effective connection between the Urban Lane site and Downtown Palo Alto. Hal Mickelson, Vice President, Government Affairs, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the Chamber strongly believed the new location for the PAMF would allow it to continue to provide quality care and health promotion for future genera- tions. The project deserved al! the necessary approvals.to enable it to proceed on schedule without delay. The Chamber did not want the refinements and the enhancements to jeopardize the project in any way. The Chamber strongly believed ~hat an effective pedestri- an/bicycle link between Downtown and the PAMF would be essential to the success of the site. It was essentia! with regard to safety and economic vitality. The Chamber had interviewed its members at several of its committee meetings, and anecdota! evidence from talking with the members involved with the Downtown merchants, restaurant owners, and property owners had indicated that the strong link with the PAMF and its employees would be jeopardized unless the pedestrian/bicycle connection was ensured. The PAMF suggested the notion of the Downtown should include the area west of the railroad tracks. A pedestrian/bicycle lane would help that happen. The question was how to pay for it and what kind of link to have The estimate for the cost of a connection through a tunnel ~ould be approximately $2 million which would jeopardize the project. The PAMF could not absorb a $2 million cost or even half of that cost. The City had to consider all the alternatives avail- able both with regard to how the connection would look and how the connection could be financed. An at-grade crossing had been discussed as a possibility, and the PAMF had discussed the possibility of upgrading connections to the existing University Avenue undercrossing. The University Avenue undercrossing was neither the best possible choice in terms of perceived attractive- ness nor ideal for bicyclists. Other funding sources hadto be considered. The Chamber had asked its neighbors, colleagues, and its counterpart foundation to consider making a measurably greater 01/22/96 78-85 contribution to the cost of pedestrian/bicycle link in the amount that was currently under discussion. The amount was very generous and was not only the $150,000 but also participation in an assessment district which could easily double the present value of $150,000. The PAMF’s offer was an exceptionally generous public- spirited offer, particularly when coupled with other public benefit items, and had an aggregate value of $i million. The Chamber urged the Council to facilitate and participate in an effective pedestrian/bicycle link. The Chamber was willing to be part of the dialogue along with the neighbors, the PAMF, and City staff to make sure that that very desirable element of the project could happen. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, referred to the recommendation from staff to implement the second left-turn lane at Embarcadero Road and E! Camino Real. He agreed that it should be done at the same time as the project approval. Staff had also indicated that it would be less destructive to build the second left-turn lane at the present time, and in the future there would be more traffic and background growth from the PAMF and the cumulative impact of other projects. The alternative negotiated by staff with the PAMF was not as good. He understood the alternative would be to see how much overflow traffic there was from the left-turn stacking lane. However, that was not as good as similar trigger mechanisms that were used in the Stanford projects which were at a lower level of service. If an alternative were used in addition to looking at the Overflow of the single left-turn stacking, a change in the level of service at the intersection should also be looked at. Also, single lane traffic might go another direction to get to Embarcadero Road. The level of service at University Avenue and E1 Camino Real should be !ooked at as wel!. He suspected if there were only one left- turn lane, some of the traffic would go northbound on E1 Camino Real to University Avenue and find its way through residential neighbors south of University Avenue. The closest signalized intersection was at Waverley Street and Embarcadero Road. Some people along Embarcadero Road between Emerson and Waverley Streets would benefit in the short term if the second left-turn lane were not put in. If there were a concern on the overall effect on Embarcadero Road traffic, the solution was a lower Floor Area Ratio (FAR). There was a related issue to the second left-turn lane in his letter dated January 17, 1996 (letter on file in the City Clerk’s Office). He agreed with the previous speakers that Building D should be excluded from the project approva!. He recalled the underground parking that was part of the project was initiated in discussions at the preliminary ARB hearings and that underground parking was put in instead of a parking structure which gave a site area to put in Building D which might require a parking structure. The site was a potential housing site in the comprehen- sive housing study in both federal and state documents and was also incorporated in the City, s Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, it was trading one site for another and there should be the same housing mitigation. If the PAMF were built at its present site, it would require housing mitigation, and in the Comprehensive Plan, the Urban Lane site would be looked at for housing. At the current site, the historic structures needed to be maintained rather than allowed to deteriorate more. 01/22/96 78-86 Ellen Fletcher,. 777-108 San Antonio Road, said University Avenue was a good alternative for reaching the Downtown for people not in cars. The undercrossing at University Avenue was only suitable for people who were experienced bicyclists, and new people needed to be attracted. It was not a pleasant walk for people either. The PAMF employees currently reached the Downtown by using a bicycle due to the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard, and people were encouraged to use their bicycles or walk because it was so pleasant. People would change their behavior if there were a well designed crossing. She hoped the Council would consider the crossing seriously letter on file in the City Clerk’s Office). Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, supported the new slte for the PAMF. She said the EIR devoted many pages to the issue of the double left-hand turn onto Embarcadero Road, but by the Year 2010, it projected a level of service of "F" for the Embarcadero Road/El Camino Real intersection which would gridlock the intersection. For the left-hand turn on Embarcadero Road, it projected a need for two left-hand turn lanes of 725 feet which was twice the length of a current one left-hand turn lane. In a response to a question about noise impacts, the EIR stated the decibel level would reach 74 decibels by1998 and 75 decibels by 2010 which was two and one- half times the state recommended upper limit for residential areas. No data was given in the EIR on air and noise impacts on the segment on Embarcadero Road which would receive the most impact among the residential areas. The City had responsibilities for impact off the site to Highways I01 and 280. The discussions only referenced impacts on intersections on Embarcadero Road. The EIR framework did not suggest how Urban Lane could be urbanized. The proposed application was the first of several major developments and redevelopments projected for the E1 Camino Real area between Embarcadero Road and Menlo Park. If the area were to be urbanized, the transportation and community design infrastructures would not change by themselves, and the Council’s leadership was needed. If it were going to be City policy to allow environmental standards to deteriorate the R-I zone residential areas, she hoped the Council did it explicitly and not hide from rea! implications. She asked when the Council would say ~"no" to net growth and environmental impact. Judith Kemper, 326 Addison Avenue, asked whether an overpass had been considered at the crossing. She said the new coordinated area plan would invite and rely on active participation by all stakeholders when the use of a particular area was being decided. She referred to Sections I0 and 13 of the Development Agreement and said the process decoupled the approvals for the Urban Lane site from any mitigation that could apply to the current Downtown site. The neighborhood had to trust that the new planning process would provide an effective environment for compromise and accommodations so that solutions would work for the neighborhood. Section I0 described the planning process but did not provide a specific reference to a coordinated area plan. She suggested the coordinat- ed area plan be used, that Recommendation No. 5 be implemented, and that Council ask staff to develop that plan for the site. A portion of Section 13 was recently changed to stipulate that the Development Agreement would be enforced for a maximum of 33 months 01/22/96 78-87 following notice of commencement. She did not believe it provided sufficient protection for the neighborhood because if notice of commencement were given at the time that the approvals for the new site were obtained, then 33 months would be the time that the PAMF moved its new site and would be ready to sell the property. If for any reason the proposed planning were to be unsuccessful, it might provide the PAMF an opportunity to develop its current site despite a breakdown in the planning process. She wanted a longer period specified in the Development Agreement and suggested the neighbors have six weeks advance notice to participate in the process. The child care facility was the only exception to mitigation to the Downtown site. She suggested that some part of the PAMF land be dedicated to open space or to a park. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, was still concerned about the reason for a PF instead of a PC zone. Staff could justify the reasoningi, but the PC zone read that "it was either publicly owned and operated by a nonprofit or publicly occupied properties." The project did not qualify under either of those definitions, and she felt the Counci! was opening up a rea! issue in terms of zoning. She asked how the Council would differentiate between the PAMF and some other medical clinic that might want to be PF because it served the public. The PAMF had operated under the PC in the Major Institutions/Special Facilities for many years. The PAMF was already at its I:I FAR limit and zoned PF, and she asked how the Counci! would deal with that when the PAMF wanted to expand. She asked whether the I:I FAR would be raised above i:I or whether it would apply to that private entity which was also PF. Those were serious questions that would have to be addressed by a future Council. Traffic projects and the possible purchase by the PAMF of adjoining properties might bring about the request again for a major break in FAR by a rezoning to PF. The Council had discussed an undercrossing on a 9-acre site with a 355,000-square-foot development and was abandoning large righ~s-of-way and getting some rather minor accesses. She hoped the rights-of-way for the Urban Lane access were publicly dedicated or in an easement so that they were protected for the future and not blocked off as in the Holiday Inn. It was important to make sure that the Development Agreements c~uld not be simultaneous with theproject. John Hackmann, 235 Embarcadero Road, said a walkable town was really nice. The PAMF in the area was a good place for the facility. The traffic volume and speed were high on Embarcadero Road. The proper design for Embarcadero Road should be a two-lane street with two bicycle lanes and a large tree median between Middlefield Road to E1 Camino Rea! to have an appropriate entrance to Palo Alto and Stanford University. Two left-hand turn lanes were inappropriate at the intersection at E1 Camino Rea!. A greater shortcut would be provided through a more residential neighborhood to the detriment of the residents. If it were only one lane on Embarcadero Road, it would be similar to the traffic volume as on University Avenue which had one lane each direction and a speed reduction. To control the number of people who wanted to turn left, the rate of the left-turn sign could be moderated. He suggested that every new development that asked for a favor or a variance should charge employees the full cost of their parking space. An employee could.have a subsidy, and they could make a choice to either ride their bicycles or use the money toward the fee to park. The true cost of parking should be paid on a marginal basis by the users. People would rationally shift their behavior to a mass transit direction. He believed the best solution for the PAMF was a jitney service. Mr. Jury said the fastest way to destroy the project was to put a $2 million tunnel in the project. Even if a nexus were created, the PAMF could not afford a $2 million tunnel. The PAMF continued to maintain if there were a nexus, it would be in the neighborhood of I0 percent or less. The PAMF still offered the $150,000, and it wanted to at least try to have a surface connection but the prob- lems with it were great. He did not believe a gate with an attendant would work since the facility functioned 13 to 18 hours per day, 7 days per week. People went through fences and gates, and it might be safer to create a crossing with a gate rather than let people cross at will~. Council Member Andersen asked whether a representative from the JPB would be speaking that evening. He asked whether the JPB thought the surface crossing was feasible. Tom Davids, property manager, Joint Powers Board, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, said the final decision for that type of crossing would be the PUC. There had been previous comments about the PUC’s reaction to that type of request. The City of Mountain View and the City of Redwood City had received a negative response from the PUC for a public crossing across the railroad tracks. The PUC was not inclined to create new at-grade crossings across live railroad tracks. The JPB had also taken the position that it did not want to be involved in that type of crossing. Last year 20 people died on the right-of-way. The JPB was currently adopting a program to install "no trespassing" signs along the right-of-way. There was very little fencing, and fencing was a problem with 50 miles of right-of-way. The JPB was attempting to curb the trespassing by installing signs to make trespassing unlawful which allowed Amtrak and local police to arrest people who walked on the property. The JPB wanted to keep people off the right-of-way, and a crossing invited people onto the tracks. The JPB’s goal was to contro! the destiny of people and handle the safety issues as well. Council Member Andersen asked about the funding of an undercrossing and whether there were other methods that had not been brought forward that evening. Mr. Davids said the JPB did not fund that kind of crossing. The cost of $2 million was probably a fair price. He believed an underground crossing was the best solution, but the design needed to be wide with adequate lighting and controlled by the Police Department. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. o PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the Palo Alto Medica! Foundation Urban Lane Campus Project Final Environment Impact Report and Project-RelatedApplications for Property Located. at 795 E1 Camino Real, Including Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.and Text Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, Rezoning, Conditiona! Use Permit, Variance, Design Enhancement Exception, Deferral of Required Parking Spaces, Architectural Review Board Approval, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Extension of Urban Lane to University Circle (continued from 1/22/96 - Public Hearing closed) PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an ordinance approving a First Amendment to a Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Medical Foundation regarding the Palo Alto Specific Plan area near Downtown Palo Alto located at 300 Homer Avenue and adjacent properties (continued from 1/22/96 - Public Hearing closed) o Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Vacate Public Street and Utilities Easements on the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Development Site at 795 E1 Camino Rea! and Setting a Public Hearing for February 20, 1996 (continued from 1/22/96 - Public Hearing closed) Council Member Rosenbaum explained that he had watched the video tape of the January 22, 1996, City Council Meeting; and therefore, he would participate in the discussion and action on the items that evening. Mayor Wheeler asked the Council to discuss the issues that arose from the previous public testimony and presentations by staff and others. She believed the Council needed to discuss and determine a general direction for five areas before presenting the motions: I) a connection across the railroad tracks between the project and the Homer Avenue, 2) inclusion of Building D in the project, 3) the double left-turn lane from E1 Camino Real onto eastbound Embarcadero Road, 4) housing mitigation, and 5) the Wells Avenue parking situation. Council Member Andersen wanted clarification regarding the report from the City Attorney’s Office dated January 24, 1996. Council Member Simitian asked for the City Attorney to distinguish between contacts with members of the public in connection with the public hearing which had been closed and the written materials that the Counci! received after the close of the public hearing that provided additional information on the various topics. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said written communications that were received by the Council after the public hearing had closed should be disregarded. The Council’s rules indicated that other than questions to staff, additiona! contacts with the public should not be made. He advised the Council not to rely on the letters when making its findings that evening. Staff had reviewed the correspondence, and from a legal perspective, the communications did not raise anything the Council needed to be aware of. Council Member Schneider asked what were the prohibitions regarding Council comments to the press. Mr. Calonne said in a quasi-judicial public hearing, the Council had an obligation to be fair, impartial, and reframe from bias. Comments to the press that might indicate a prejudgment of an issue could be problematic. If a Council Member went on record strongly after the public hearing was closed but before Council deliberation, it was an appearance issue but it did not indicate prejudgment. Council Member Fazzino felt that Council Members as elected officials had the right to talk to members of the public and the press anytime they wished. He clarified the Council would vote on a policy proposal regarding each of the issues which would later become part of the main motion. 01/~9/96 ~8-9~ Mayor Wheeler said yes. She explained the Council would begin its discussion with the crossing from the project through to Homer Avenue to Alma Street. Council Member Kniss clarified approval of an at-grade crossing by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) was unlikely. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the staff of the PUC and the Joint Powers Board (JPB) had indicated that neither agency would favor an at-grade crossing. Council Member Kniss clarified the staff could not recall any at- grade crossings being granted for severa! years. Mr. Schreiber said the PUC could not provide an example of an at- grade crossing being approved for at least the past three years. Council Member Kniss had viewed the tunnel in Mountain View and had not found it unattractive. She asked the usage and cost of the tunnel. Senior Transportation Planner Ashok Aggarwal was not familiar with the Mountain View usage. Staff had viewed the tunnel previously and felt the underpass was attractive, wide, and well lighted. Council Member Kniss felt the lighting was important and that the tunnel was user friendly. She recalled staff indicated the cost of the tunnel would be approximately $1.5 million. Mr. Aggarwal said the tunnel was built eight to nine years previously, and the consultant indicated at that time that the cost was approximately $1.5 million. He believed the tunnel was 40 feet, and a tunnel at the proposed location would be in the range of 60 to 70 feet. With an inflation factor and the additional length in Palo Alto, the cost could be approximately $2 million. Council Member Kniss asked the possible location of a tunnel and whether there would be another opportunity in the future if the Council did not require some type of tunnel at the present time. Mr. $chreiber said Homer Avenue was identified as the logical area to come out of the undercrossing because of the traffic signal which would facilitate people crossing Alma Street. The location would have to also fit within the various utilities. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended a provision Which would allow a landing area that could be tied to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) site and the north/south connector road. Council Member Kniss wanted the final approval for the project to include a condition of approval that the City would have the ability to construct an undercrossing at the proposed location. Council Member Fazzino clarified Council Member Kniss’ focus was on the landing area next to the tunnel. Council Member Kniss wanted to make certain that the landing area would be available to accommodate a tunnel. Mr. Schreiber referred to Condition No. 8 on page 4 of Attachment H, Findings and Conditions for the Use Permit, which read: "If/when the City constructs the Homer Avenue pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing, the permittee shall provide at no cost, easements to accommodate the landing area for the stairway and ramp, and the connection with the bicycle/pedestrian path." The landing area would allow the undercrossing to connect with the PAMF site and continue to the north/south connector road. Council Member Kniss said Condition No. 8 stated "If/when the City constructs the Homer Avenue...," and she asked whether Condition No. 8 covered the previous Counci! discussion on the issue that evening. Mr. Schreiber Said yes. The PAMF did not propose the construction and assumed that if the undercrossing were ever constructed, it would be a City-constructed project. Council Member Andersen clarified that when the project was initially suggested, the PAMF discussed a connection to the Downtown. He was certain the PAMF did not believe a connection could be built for $150,000. The previous discussions clearly indicated that the safety factor was the reason to have the PAMF involved in paying for some portion of the crossing. Many ~safety issues would be raised if a connection were not provided. He felt it was a public benefit that went beyond the PAMF’s providing the funding, and he would propose the PAMF pay 15 percent of the cost. He was concerned about using a fixed figure because 85 percent would have to come from other funding sources. If the City were able to build the crossing in five years, there Would be a fixed amount of money provided by the PAMF. He would be willing to have the PAMF hold its funds unti! the time of construction and that there not be a fixed amount but rather a percentage of the cost in order to provide the inflationary factor from depreciating the PAMF’s participation. He felt it would be appropriate to request the PAMF to provide 15 percent of the cost of providing an undercrossing, and he preferred that the funding be provided at the time of the construction of the undercrossing. The PAMF would not be adversely affected by inflation either° Council Member Fazzino did not want to build an undercrossing until the Council had foreclosed the other two options of across or over the area. The Council had previously heard the strong statement from the JPB regarding the at-grade crossing. He asked whether any data with respect to safety issues or the current safety situation at at-grade pedestrian crossings had been found. Mr. Aggarwal said other than the two accidents in Palo Alto at at- grade crossings, he was unfamiliar with any other data. Council Member Fazzino asked whether any statewide data was available. 01/29/96 78-95 Mr. Schreiber said staff had not been able to research that issue. Council Member Fazzino wanted the information made available in the future. He asked why the City could not construct a bridge which would be easy to cross. Mr. Schreiber said staff was told that in order to spiral up, given both the maximum grade under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well as the clearance necessary between the concrete levels, the spiral would have to be a very big structure. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the JPB had an official policy on the issue of elevated structures which might interfere with a Bart-type transit system. Tom Davids, Property Manager, Joint Powers Board, said elevating or depressing ~he railroad tracks was a local option. The City of San Carlos had brought the railroad tracks up so the traffic would be under the tracks. He encouraged the Council to think about the possibility of a third railroad track which had been a part of the JPB’s forward planning. The JPB’s future plans anticipated that a third track could be located on the rights-of-way, and the tunnels portals locations would have to allow room for a potential third track. Council Member Fazzino clarified that was a larger issue in terms of the tunnel option as opposed to the elevated option. Mr. Davids said there was plenty of room in the area, but the JPB wanted to make certain there was enough room over the tunnel to accommodate the third track. He pointed out that there was an extensive length fiber line down the west side of the track, and the fiber needed to be carefully handled and was expensive to move which needed to be considered in the economics of the project. Vice Mayor Huber believed the undercrQssing was a rational idea that would assist in traffic reduction and the parking problems. He was not enthused about an at-grade crossing because of the safety issues. The Council needed to set a reasonable figure that it could expect from the PAMF in terms of contribution, and he believed as the Council went through the backfill process of the specific plan which would include the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) as wel! as the old campus of the PAMF, that would be the time to consider the efficacy of the tunnel or another type of crossing. There had been previous discussions about the necessity of an assessment district for parking in the SOFA and logically overall financing, if necessary, would also need to be considered by way of an assessment district or otherwise in the future. The Council should leave the provision in place regarding the underground access, set a reasonable figure that the PAMF should provide, and then deal with the issue during the process of the specific plan. Council Member Schneider asked what kind of access would there be at the Homer Avenue entrance or exit to the tunnel. There was no sidewalk on that side of the street. Mr. Aggarwal believed a sidewalk would have to be constructed on that side of the street, and there was a signal at Homer Avenue to cross Alma Street. Council Member Schneider asked the cost to the City for the sidewalk. Mr. Aggarwal said the approximate cost of $2 million included most of the improvements. Council Member Schneider clarified the $2 million for the tunnel included the sidewalk on the west side of Homer Avenue. Mr. Aggarwal said that was correct. Council Member Schneider supported the 15 percent amount but preferred a.maximum dollar amount not to exceed $300,000. She said the total project budget of $I00 million was.established previously when interest rates were significantly lower than at the present time, and she believed there were some dollars in the proposa! for the tunnel. She felt the statement "that the tunnel under the railroad tracks would be of marginal utility" was disingenuous. It was not a marginal utility and was of significant importance to the City of Palo Alto. She wanted the tunnel to be part of the project and requirements. Council Member Kniss referred to the language in Condition No. 8, Attachment H, which read: "permittee shall provide at no costs, easements to accommodate the landing area..." She asked, if the Council did not make a decision about an undercrossing that evening and the PAMF moved forward and constructed the proposed project with landscaping, etc., whether the PAMF would be required to remove the landscaping. Ann Moore, Moore Consulting, said the intent of the condition was that the PAMF provide the easements and make those kinds of changes at such time the improvement was made. There would be some minor changes needed for the landscaping. The design of the area was carefully considered so that it did not have important elements in the expected landing area that would be costly to modify. Council Member Kniss asked whether the area for a tunnel would be sufficient enough to avoid the railroad tracks and the fiber optic, whether there needed to be a ramp or stairs to the tunnel, and where would the landing end up. Ms. Moore said an original planning design done by the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) engineers showed a very long ramp. Staff’s initia! comment was that the ramp needed to at least double or triple back onto~itself. The area had a fair amount of width across the railroad right-of-way even with a third track concern. Staff believed there was sufficient depth to. get under the fiber optic on the side of project. Karl Heisler, Environmental Sciences Associates, said the design illustrated in Appendix G in the Draft EIR (DEIR) showed the access tunnel doubling back on itself both on the PAMF side and on the Alma Street side. The tota! length was 180 feet of travel. Council Member Kniss clarified the length was equivalent to half a city block and that the ramp would triple on itself before going underground and the location on the Alma Street side was unknown at the present time. She assumed the condition included ample easement on the PAMF side and also on the Alma Street side for the potential undercrossing. Council Member Rosenbaum said at Homer Avenue and Alma Street, there was easily 50 feet between the railroad tracks and Alma Street. The City of Mountain View’s tunnel was depressed I0 feet below-grade, and the ramp was 150 feet and parallel to the railroad tracks. He encouraged seeking approval for an at-grade crossing and wanted cost estimates for the overhead with the two spirals. He suggested those alternatives be pursued. Council Member Simitian asked whether Council Member Kniss’s suggestion was that if an undercrossing were to be provided in the future, it was appropriate for the PAMF to pay some portion of the cost. Council Member Kniss said she only addressed Condition No. 8. Council Member Simitian said the many pages of environmental work reflected several years of research and professional time and expertise. He wanted to avoid designing the access from the Downtown to the PAMF campus. He was not prepared to eliminate the possibility of an at-grade crossing and had heard that there were many people in the bureaucracy who did not have much enthusiasm for an at-grade crossing and who had taken the view that Palo Alto should provide $2 million for an under- or overcrossing. He wanted the forthcoming motion to address the question of whether the passageway was needed from the proposed PAMF site to the Downtown, whether the PAMF should pay some fair share and, if so, what the amount should be, and-to give the Council some flexibility to either go over, under, or around the railroad tracks. Council Member Kniss suggested if the Council agreed that some kind of crossing were needed, it should look at the issue as a crossing rather than under, over, or across. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, that the Architectural. Review Board Condition of Approva! No. 59 [Attachment L of the January 22, 1996, staff report (CMR:I04:96)] be changed to read: "The permittee shall provide 15 percent of the cost of providing a pedestrian/bicycle ~crossing at Homer Avenue in a form acceptable to the ’~- ~ ~ ........City Attorney ~ .............. Council Member Andersen understood there was some interest in having a fixed cap and he assumed the $300,000 figure suggested was based on the notion that the cost of the project would be $2 million. There was no way to know what the project would cost in the future. The PAMF would provide $300,000 for the project in the future, and the fund would continue to grow and cover additional costs over the $300,000. The PAMF would not pay more than a $300,000 cap. He would support a cap if the money were deposited prior to issuance of evacuation, grading, or building permits so the City could accumulate interest. He did not believe it was necessary to take the funds until the financing mechanism was in place for the remainder of the cost for the project. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to impose a $300,000 amount plus a Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflationary factor or 15 percent of the cost of providing a pedestrian/bicycle crossing whichever was less. Council Member Kniss asked whether the motion included that the money would be deposited into an escrow fund. Council Member Schneider said no. Council Member Simitian said the value of a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) approach was to find some way to assure that the same level contributions would be provided at a later date but without requiring that $300,000 to be committed up front. He asked staff to find an approach that would give the City the protection it needed and would not require the $300,000 up front. He believed requiring the money up front was onerous and not necessary. Mr. Schreiber concurred with the intent of not receiving the money up front and wanted an agreement developed with the PAMF that would guarantee the funds in the future. An agreement had not been developed, but the language indicated that the form should be acceptable to the City Attorney. Council Member Andersen concurred with that intent. Senior Assistant City Attorney Debra Cauble said the City Attorney’s Office was contemplating that as part of the subdivision improvement agreement for the project, staff could include that condition when it dealt with guarantees of completion for various other public improvements. The agreement could provide for appropriate security. She assumed that the Council’s approval of the motion would give direction to the City Attorney’s Office to ensure that agreement contained appropriate security for that obligation. Mr. Calonne asked the Council to consider broadening the inflationary adjustment to allow staff the flexibility to confer with the engineering staff. There might be better inflationary adjustment indexes for construction.projects other than the CIP. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the staff be allowed flexibility in establishing the inflationary adjustment. Vice Mayor Huber said the possibility existed that at backfill time an assessment district might be created. He suggested that the new PAMF be included in that district and that there be a credit for whatever amount it was charged under the condition. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the Palo Alto Medical Foundation be allowed a credit if in fact an assessment district were formed. Ms. Cauble clarified the condition would require the PAMF to agree to participate in an assessment district if one were established in exchange for which it would receive credit for the payment. Council Member Andersen said the PAMF should not be obligated to participate. Council Member Simitian had previously spoke strongly about putting some limit on the total dollar and also about the desire to avoid imposing aD up-front requirement, but he would not want to eliminate the potential for including the PAMF in an assessment district if that were determined to be the most equitable way to proceed. There needed to be ful! credit for sums described previously if the sums were paid in whole or in part. Council Member Andersen said there might be some other elements that had little to do with the tunnel where an assessment district might be a requirement. He agreed that flexibility to obligate the PAMF would be preferable. Council Member Simitian referred to the 15 percent figure and the $300,000 adjustable cap, and he asked whether a nexus would be necessary if there were a 15 percent requirement. Mr. Calonne replied that he was uncertain whether it was incumbent upon the Council to calculate that figure that evening; but if there were a challenge, that would have to be done. Council Member Simitian said the $150,000 figure had been suggested by the PAMF and $300,000 had been suggested by a Counci! Member, but someone might ask the basis for using that number. There should be some reasonable relationship to some fair share whether it be a precise nexus calculation or an assessment. He wanted to be assured that there was some basis for using that figure. Mr. Calonne said staff had previously advised the Council regarding its concern in that area. Counci! Member Andersen’s recommendation was different from previous recommendations and was the reaction to the prospect of an illegal at-grade crossing. There appeared to be a safety concern that a tunne! would alleviate. The question was whether the City was obligated to quantify that safety benefit. Council Member Simitian asked whether the represented a reasonable fair share of burden.number proposed Mr. Calonne said Council could direct staff if it wanted a further demonstration. He was uncertain whether the math had been exhausted regarding the record before the Council. Council Member Simitian believed the Council’s view was that the cost should be shared equitably among the parties who benefitted and among the parties who created the need for the cost to be made, and that the Council should not use the approva! process as the means by which to exact contributions for any project. He also believed the numbers reflected the scope of the project and the contribution that would be appropriate. He asked whether it wa~ feasible that an assessment district would be put in place~prior to the construction of the improvements and, if so, whether it was the intent of the motion that the Council require the contribution at that time rather than permitting the election of participating in the assessment district if the assessment district participation ended up being a greater sum. Mr. Ca!onne suggested if the Council still had concern, staff could provide broaderlanguage, i.e., the obligation to participate in an assessment district. AMENDMENT: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, that the City Council not pursue the issue of an at-grade crossing. Council Member Kniss believed an at-grade crossing was the most friendly way for any portion of the City to be connected to another area; however, the City, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and the community had gone through anguish and agony when there had been a death at a railroad crossing. She felt it would not be responsible for the Council to pursue an at-grade crossing at that time and to use.staff resources to ultimately discover that the JPB would not allow an at-grade crossing. Vice. Mayor Huber echoed the comments of Council Member Kniss and said the potentia! increase of train traffic would create more possibilities for conflict. Council Member Fazzino said the comments of his colleagues was a significant reason why he favored a tunnel than an at-grade crossing. However, he wanted the additional data on safety and cost regarding the two alternatives, i.e., at-grade and elevated, before he foreclosed the option of at-grade. He also doubted that the JPB would ever allow an at-grade crossing. AMENDMENT PASSED 5-3, Fazzino, Rosenbaum, Simitian "no," McCown absent. Council Member Rosenbaum wanted staff to look at the cost and feasibility of an overcrossing. Mr. Schreiber explained the overcrossing was one of two options in the motion. Council Member Kniss asked about the design options. Mr. Schreiber replied the options were a spiral, a long ramp, and an elevator. He anticipated as part of the future coordinated area plan for the SOFA and the existing PAMF area, staff would evaluate those options as well as an undercrossing. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Council Member Andersen believed that there needed to be more contro! over Building D at a later date and that a conditional use permit was appropriate. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, that the Council provide that the Conditional Use Permit Condition No. 3 [Attachment H of the January 22, 1996, staff report (CMR:I04:96)] be modified to approve "approximately 295,580 square feet"; and Condition No. 5 be modified to read: "A Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Review Board design approval for development of Building D is required." Council Member Rosenbaum believed the PAMF did not have real plans for Building D and that it was put in simply to make sure that the PAMF receiv.ed an entitlement to the full floor area ratio. The Council had an opportunity to wait and see how the rest of the buildings worked out rather than relying on the EIR. The Council would have some actual data on how the operation worked and at that point it would be appropriate to consider the addition of Building D. Council Member Fazzino asked staff what would be the best course of action for good planning. Mr. $chreiber said Building D had been a speculative concept, and staff was comfortable with the motion before the Counci!. Council Member Simitian asked what processes would be required if, and when, the applicant wanted to return with a proposal for Building D. Mr. Schreiber said the motion added a requirement for another conditional use permit in addition to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval which would have been required in any event. Council Member Simitian asked what level of environmental review might be required at that time, if any, to supplement the work already~received. Mr. Schreiber said if the proposal were done in the near future, it might be able to use the certified EIR that would have to be prepared as part of the process. If the time were delayed and conditions changed, it might be necessary to have a supplement to the EIR. Council Member Simitian asked what the time frame would be. Mr. Schreiber said the issue was not the time frame but the extent to which conditions might have changed, i.e., a notable change in E! Camino Real traffic or after the operations began, the actual traffic generation was substantially different and greater than what was in the EIR. 01/29/96 78-102 April 2, 1996 Peninmla Corridor Joint Powers Board 1250 San Carlos Ave., P.O. Box 3006, San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 (415) 508--6269 fax (415) 508-6281 ATTACHMENT 6 Mr. Marvin Overway Transportation Dept. City of Palo Alto Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Marvin: This letter provides additional information concerning PCJPB’s application to construct an at- grade crossing at the Palo Alto CalTrain Station, which was filed with the PUC on February 12, 1996. As discussed with you and Joint Powers Board Chairperson McCown on January 4, we regard this crossing as an interim cost-saving measure pending the implementation of other Palo Alto redevelopment/improvement projects, such as the Dream Team concept on University Avenue. If the J-PB reconstructs the pedestrian tunnel (costing $1-2 million) and Palo Alto then implements the Dream Team concept, our investment will have a very short lifespan. Based on JPB staff discussions with Palo Alto Planning staff during 1995, the Dream Team plan " will ultimately construct accessible ramps from the south end of the CalTrain Station platforms to a reconstructed University Avenue plaza. This permanent facility would eliminate the need for the interim accessible at-grade crossing, while providing a high quality transit-oriented civic improvement. I hope this expands our definition of the purpose and need for the at-grade crossing. Si [n~erely, iJ~om&Kirzner ’.E)xr’ ector - Rail Services JK:cp \jk0335.wpd ATE O; CALIFORNIA UBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ~ VA~’~’ NESS AVENUE -~ FRANCISCO, CA 9,~102-3298 PETE WILSON, Governor ATTACHMENT 7 March 26, 1996 Jerome Kirzner, Director of Rai! Operations Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board !250 San Carlos Avenue, P.O. Box 3006 San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 Attention: Walt Stringer SUBJECT:Application 96-02-028 - For an at-grade Pedestrian Crossing at the Palo Alto train station. This letter will state the reasons CPUC staff finds the subject application to be deficient. The application proposes to.construct an at-grade pedestrian crossing at a location where there are three existing grade- separated pedestrian crossings: Sidewalks along both the north and south sides of University Avenue,- which each have ramps up. to the boarding platforms, and the pedestrian tunne! adjacent to the station building, which has stairs to the platforms at each end. Presumably, these underpasses would either be left open or b!ocked off if the requested at-grade crossing is approved and constructed, but the application is not clear aboutwhich, if any, would be closed. The stated expectation of "reduced maintenance and security expenses" gives the impression that at least one would be closed, however. The application is lacking several items required by Rule 38 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure: (e)Signs, signals, etc. The plans do not show where the Standard No. i0 Signals, modified with two !ights per mast, are to be located. Also, there is no indication what would be displayed on the "VISUAL DISPLAY PANEL POLE MOUNTED" called for on Exhibit B, and there is no description of the "detectable warnings" called for in the same Exhibit and the text of the application (section III).. What is to be detected, and how is the warning to be given? (f)Location map. Exhibit C does not extend far enough south from the proposed crossing to show theexisting south side University Avenue sidewalk. Also, the paved surfaces of streets, sidewalks, platforms, and ramps are not differentiated from dirt, gravel, or landscaping. (g)Vicinity map (!000 to 3000 feet per.inch scale). included in the application. None Kirzner, JPB March 26, 1996 Page -2- (h)Profiles. None included. We need the track(s), University Avenue sidewalks and ramps to-platforms, and existing north end pedestrian underpass, as well as proposed at-grade crossing. Alma Street is also desirable. While some of these items may be minor, they are essential for a complete application, and must be addressed before we can continue processing the application. Other questions raised by the application in its present form: What is the "historic preservation impact" alluded to in section V of the application? What are the current and projected volumes for pedestrian usage of the crossing(s)? The "severa! hundred persons per day" shown on Exhibit D is unacceptably vague, although it does underscore the significant level of exposure envisioned. How soon might the rumored 72.train per day schedule be implemented? If Amtrak intercity service were implemented on this corridor, would they stop at this station? If not, at.what speed would they go through? Our chief concern, however, is with the proposal to replace an existing grade-separated facility with an at-grade design, which is inherently less safe. This is particularly alarming in view of the level of activity at this location. The high number of trains, not al! of which stop, coupled with "severa! hundred" pedestrians per day crossing the tracks, creates a hazard requiring very serious consideration of any option which retains the grade-separated feature of the existing crossings. The one- sentence justification, stating that a grade separation is impractica!, and that it has been determined "that it is physically and financially infeasible," is inadequate. To fully address the problem, we recommend that you perform, or have performed by a competent consultant, an in-depth analysis of the special operating hazards associated with the Palo Alto Station. Such a repo±t should focus on al! safety hazards associated with the station, taking into account all possible scenarios involving Ca!train, Amtrak, and Southern Pacific operations, and describe in detail how each.hazard would be mitigated. Enc!osed is a copy of Metropolitan Transit Development Board’s (MTDB - San Diego) "Old Town Transit Center Grade Crossing Pedestrian Crossing Analysis" which is an example of the type of document we seek. kirzner, JPB March 26, 1996 Page -3- You should also be aware that our current policy is to not authorize any more new at-grade crossings of main-lines, in accordance with the Federal Railroad Administration’s stated objective to reduce the number of public at-grade crossings nationwide. Very truly yours, Haj~. Jameel Superv±s±ng Transportation Eng±neer Traffic Engineering Section Safety and Enforcement Division RLE: Enclosure cc:Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos & Rudy 333 Market Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Attention: David J. Miller, Esq. Mr. Marvin Overway Chief Transportation Officer City of Pa!o Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Pa!o Alto, CA 94301 Mr. Frank Forcione AmTrak PCS 510 West San Fernando Street San Jose, C~ 95110 Mr. James P. Jones State Legislative Director United Transportation Union 921 l!th Street, Suite 502 Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Paul Morrison State Legislative Director Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 12526 Woods Road Galt, CA 95632