HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-13 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting March 13, 1995 1. Interviews for Human Relations Commission ............. 75-212 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... 75-213 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 1994, AND JANUARY 9, 1995 ...................................................... 75-213 1. Request for City Endorsement of Flood and Erosion Control Study ......................................... 75-213 2. Approval of Cablecasting Taped Council Committee Meetings on Thursdays on Government Access Channel 16 . 75-213 3. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Deloitte & Touche for External Audit Services .................... 75-214 4. Resolution 7487 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring its Intention to Amend Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District Number 36 ............................ 75-214 5. Employee Performance Evaluation ....................... 75-214 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee .................................... 75-214 7. Mayor Simitian and Council Members Andersen, Huber, and McCown re Civic Center Plaza .......................... 75-239 8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 75-239 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. to a Closed Session ............................................... 75-239 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. .... 75-240
03/13/95 75-211
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:56 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber, Kniss ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Human Relations Commission ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
03/13/95 75-212
Regular Meeting March 13, 1995 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber (arrived at 7:30 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Clark Akatiff, 105 Rinconada Avenue, spoke regarding truck routes. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic responsibility (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding traffic count from 1964-1993. Mayor Simitian welcomed students from the English as a Second Language class from Palo Alto Adult School and their instructor Lynn Torin to the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 1994, AND JANUARY 9, 1995 MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Minutes of December 19, 1994, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 5-0-2, Schneider, Wheeler "abstaining," Huber, Kniss absent. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Minutes of January 9, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, Kniss absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 4. Refer 1. Request for City Endorsement of Flood and Erosion Control Study - Refer to Policy and Services Committee Action 2. Approval of Cablecasting Taped Council Committee Meetings on
03/13/95 75-213
Thursdays on Government Access Channel 16 3. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Deloitte & Touche for External Audit Services 4. Resolution 7487 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring its Intention to Amend Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District Number 36" MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. CLOSED SESSION The item might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 5. Employee Performance Evaluation Subject: City Attorney Ariel Calonne
Authority: Government Code ∋59957 Public Comment None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto's future. The policies and programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transportation, and Natural Environment. The policies and programs will provide recommended policy direc-tion for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update (continued from February 27, 1995) Mayor Simitian announced that the Council would review the Transportation Section of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Draft IV (the Plan). Council Member Schneider asked the difference between 3-ton trucks, 4.5-ton trucks, and 7-ton trucks. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway asked for the Council to defer the discussion of the trucks until the next City Council
03/13/95 75-214
meeting that discussed the Transportation Section. At that time, pictures would be provided of trucks so that Council could relate to the size. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked about the compatibility of the programs and policies that were enunciated in the Transportation Section as compared to the programs and policies already discussed in the previous sections. Sandy Eakins, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee, said the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) was split into various subcommittees in order to review the draft policies and programs. All the groups came together briefly to vote on all the ideas. There might be some inconsistencies with the interpretations especially if someone thought that any increase in business or housing meant an extreme change. CPAC always viewed that change would be moderate, modest, and slow. The fear that there might be gross inconsistencies was not a priority, and it did not motivate CPAC to resolve all potential inconsistencies. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said a previous staff report observed that the overriding theme of CPAC's work revolved around efforts to strengthen the historic sense of the community and to find ways of overcoming barriers by having a walkable, physically integrated community. Streets and traffic could be seen as one of the barriers that residents of Palo Alto dealt with. CPAC's work addressed that area in terms of residential arterials, narrowing some streets, and techniques to calm traffic. Those transportation policies and programs fit well with some of the other programs. There was also a strong stress on finding alternatives to the use of cars which could be the regional strengthening of CalTrain, additional development near train stations, a local shuttle bus system, or bicycle and pedestrian pathways which also tied into CPAC's basic theme. Part of strengthening a sense of community was the services offered which went into municipal revenue and balance within the community. The recommendations from CPAC tried to address that sense of balance. There could not be a world in which there was no additional traffic generation; otherwise the City would lose the economic balance which was the underpinnings of the services that were so critical in Palo Alto's community. Council Member McCown said the Transportation Section of the Plan presented the Council with very significant financial implications regarding the possible implementation of some of the visions that were in the document. It was not just the City's financial resources issues but also an entire set of issues--the avail-ability of regional, state, federal monies for major transportation improvements. She asked CPAC's and staff's perspective on the right level of constraint to use as a governor for what was put in the 15-year vision. The City's goal was to
03/13/95 75-215
put a blueprint in place that could be implemented in the next 15 years. There were so many financial unknowns for transportation issues. She asked where the right balance was for the vision that should be stated in the Transportation Element and financial realities that might be possible in a 15-year time horizon. David Ross, Chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Transportation Subcommittee, said there were many sources of funds available for projects that no one wanted to do, but there was very little funding available for the things that made sense. The Subcommittee was concerned that any type of infrastructure improvements would be extraordinarily expensive. Some programs might need to be looked at in a 50-year time frame, but if nothing happened toward that 50-year goal in a 15-year time frame, it would probably not be started at all. In some cases, the more educated the Subcommittee became, the less it understood about the sources of the funding and the level of investment required. It would be an extraordinarily expensive section of the Plan, if all of the programs suggested were retained. The consequences of not addressing those expensive items as soon as possible made the future consequences worse. Mr. Overway said the staff report had indicated some broad-brushed ranges of costs to give some order of magnitude to the types of items the Council would have to deal with. Some of the numbers fell in categories that seemed unreasonable in terms of expecta-tion. If the City only pursued the items for which it knew or could identify that future funding was available, nothing would happen. Funding at the state and federal level had already been asked for and programmed. Projects could be selected, supported, and pursued; and eventually as opportunities arose, funds would become available for significant projects in cities in Santa Clara County (SCC), e.g., Measure A or regional funding by gas tax bills. Those projects were specific kinds of bond measures or tax measures. Palo Alto had to decide what its priorities were and pursue those priorities diligently and aggressively. It was not wise to want it all and then wait and see what would happen. Other cities would strategically identify what was most important and put its resources both politically, technically, and financially toward increasing its competitiveness. Council Member McCown asked whether the range of potential projects that were encompassed within the Plan needed to be prioritized and defined by the Council so the direction could be determined. She asked whether the overall list in the Plan from CPAC was unrealistic. Mr. Overway said the overall package forecasted over 15 or 20 years was unrealistic and choices needed to be made. Planning Commissioner Chairperson Bernard Beecham said the Planning Commission based its support or nonsupport on whether
03/13/95 75-216
there was a significant benefit of the programs and policies. No data or details were available to do a cost benefit assessment. The Planning Commission felt that it would be necessary in the future to go through a prioritization process where the City would determine the costs of the programs and the funds available which would be a continuing process throughout the years. Council Member McCown asked what level of outside funding had been received by the City of Palo Alto over the previous 15-year time frame for transportation projects and how that funding compared with what the City should seek for the next 15-year time frame. She wanted to understand what the pared-down list would look like. Mr. Schreiber said the City received ongoing gas tax funds that went into street repair projects, and it also received special funding for particular projects. He asked whether Council Member McCown's question was oriented toward both of the sources of funding or toward special unusual funding. Council Member McCown was interested in capital improvement project-type funding, not the gas tax money. Council Member Fazzino wanted to know the degree of specificity by CPAC regarding the alternatives to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) such as the light rail extension from San Jose to Alameda County or CalTrain improvements. He asked whether CPAC went into the issue of the importance of having BART around the Bay, a light rail system along El Camino Real, or a ring around the Bay with mass transit in order to have some kind of alternative transportation system going north and south. Mr. Ross said there was a lot of debate about the merits of different types of systems and CPAC determined that people needed a three-level transportation to move around. People needed the ability to get from one place to another either by walking, bicycling, or using a shuttle which would get people to internodal stops where regional transportation could be used. The regional transportation would hopefully get people to regional destinations and then to continental or intercontinental transportation such as a train station or airport. It was unclear what the future trade-offs would be for light rail through Mountain View versus BART. There were some advantages with the existing CalTrain system but it was difficult to use that system for many needs of people who had close and regional travel. CPAC determined that a light rail would be worthwhile if it came through Palo Alto and stopped in the right places. Many things depended on the implementation of the systems, so it was difficult to choose one system over another. Council Member Fazzino clarified some qualitative decisions were made by CPAC with respect to the kinds of transportation systems needed to meet one or more of the objectives proposed.
03/13/95 75-217
Mr. Ross said that was correct. Mayor Simitian clarified CPAC answered "it depends" regarding the two or three alternatives or options. Mr. Ross said smaller jurisdictions could probably participate in the larger plans proposed for BART, especially if the jurisdictions were willing to look at a 50-year time frame. There were options such as the potential extension of light rail from Mountain View that could probably be achieved in a shorter time frame which might not be as good a system or fill as many needs. Council Member Andersen asked whether CPAC or staff communicated with the current transit system regarding the feasibility of the proposed circular bus service. Mr. Ross asked whether the transit system referred to the SAMTRANS system or the Marguerite system at Stanford Shopping Center. Council Member Andersen said the reference was to the SCC transit system. Some of the routes were similar, and he asked whether a modification of SCC's schedule had been considered rather than the City's setting up an independent system. Mr. Ross recalled staff advised that it was difficult to influence SCC's decision making which was based on its analysis of ridership needs. SCC transit was interested in cutting back, not expanding. CPAC felt the community loop proposal could not be met effectively by the bus service provider. Mr. Overway said SCC transit was a regional transit system intended to move people over greater distances. The transit system did the best it could within the environment it operated in but the direction had been to cut back in the past because of ridership. The service got worse with the cutbacks. The two routes identified in the document were a citywide single loop which tended to duplicate some existing services. Staff felt the local smaller routes were intended not to provide that kind of duplicative service and there was discussion about the pros and cons. The smaller loop service was meant for the residents of Palo Alto, not for people who wanted to go to the library, park, or the senior center. That type of system could be flagged down as opposed to a system with designated stops. The Marguerite-type system was user friendly and operated on nonarterial streets. One concept tended to duplicate the service that in theory was already provided by SCC transit, and the other issue was if the City decided to move forward with an initial step in the direction of that kind of service, the ultimate service would not be any of the loops that were represented. The ideas were conceptual about whether something like that might work, the trade-offs between different styles, and the cost parameters involved with 5-, 10-,
03/13/95 75-218
12-minute headways. Staff believed the Marguerite system was doing a good job of developing a system that served the needs of many people. It would be a convoluted loop or a circular kind of pattern. The City needed to identify the segment of the market it wanted to provide good service for and not try to provide service to everybody because it would end up not being able to provide good service to anybody and nobody would use it. If the City proceeded with that concept, it would probably evolve into something that did not fit into any of the loop concepts. Council Member Fazzino referred to page 1 and expressed concern that there was not enough emphasis on the regional nature of any transportation decision. He wanted that emphasis highlighted somewhere in the General Principles. The City was kidding itself if it believed many of the important transportation decisions which affected the City would be made at City Hall. It was important to lay out a transportation decision which incorporated the relationship of regional decision making to addressing Palo Alto's transportation needs. Council Member McCown said in addition to the point made by Council Member Fazzino, there might be local areas where the Council would have the ability to do something. There might need to be a way to emphasize or acknowledge those areas differently, and therefore, the areas might need to be higher on the list or on a different list because the Council had the control to do or not do something. For example, the Council could decide to charge for parking which would not need any regional authority. The Council had more ability with some strategies, but she was more concerned about the financial issues and the need to acknowledge which pieces the Council had influence on and which pieces the Council would have a hard time dealing with. There was a discussion about funding limitations in the opening paragraph on page 1 of the Plan. If the ultimate content of the whole section included some things that the Council acknowledged were a wish list and not an area that the Council could implement, the Council needed to state that those ideas were not just long term and that it recognized that some of things might not be able to be done. A comment was needed that the Council was being more inclusive on some ideas and that the Council's ability to influence some regional decisions were unknown in 1995. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association (CPNA) objected to the use of the word "commuter" in the second paragraph on page 1 under General Principles as a specific type of traffic. CPNA made the point that people going shopping or to the regional medical centers could also impose on the neighborhood. He suggested the word "commuter" be eliminated from the sentence. Mr. Ross said the statement was intended to be specific but could be broadened without compromising the document. It was stated
03/13/95 75-219
that way to distinguish between peak traffic problems and nonpeak shopping or medical center-type traffic. Commuters could be people who originated in Palo Alto and drove to the East Bay. Mr. Overway said the issue was traffic and whether it was shopping or going to work. Council Member Fazzino asked that language be added relative to the importance of regional decision making and how the Council might influence that decision making to advance the City's objectives. Mayor Simitian referred to the first bullet, "Provide alternatives attractive enough to reduce the number of single-occupant automo-biles, striving to achieve a better balance among the various modes," on page 1 under Transportation Objectives for Palo Alto. He was pleased to see that at the top of the list. Before the Council could either expect people to move out of their single-occupant automobiles or start to demand or price them out of their single-occupant automobiles, the Council had to give them real alternatives that were quick, cheap, convenient, and safe to take them from where they were to where they wanted to go and back again. Until and unless the Council did that, the rest of it was theory. Vice Mayor Wheeler referred to TR-1.C, "In transportation infra-structure development or redevelopment projects, reallocate the use of public land towards more pedestrian, bicycle and transit uses," on page 3 of the Plan and preferred the language from staff rather than the language proposed by the Planning Commission, "Change wording to: `In transportation infrastructure development or redevelopment projects, place more emphasis, including financial resources, on pedestrian, bicycle and transit use of this infrastructure.'" Mr. Schreiber said that commentary was very helpful, but a motion was not necessary unless there was dispute about the alternative wording. The staff's assumption was that the Planning Commission recommendations would be the preference. Staff would be editing and refining the language in many areas. Mayor Simitian clarified the shaded areas under the staff comments reflected what the Planning Commission agreed with. The Council's operating assumption as it went through the document was that the Planning Commission's version of the document prevailed unless the Council took action to the contrary. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said Policy TR-1.A, "Promote land use policies that reduce local and regional congestion, enhance bicycle use, enhance the pedestrian environment, and encourage
03/13/95 75-220
public transit," was arguably inconsistent with any allowance in the Community Design Section for development. Some qualifying language was necessary to explain better the congestion reduction proposed by the policy. Council Member Huber said CPNA commented that TR-1, "Reduce the reliance of Palo Alto residents and employees on single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs), and reduce the secondary impacts of SOVs," should be broader than Palo Alto residents or people who worked in the City as a goal in reduction which moved over to regional. He asked whether the language should be changed. The City was trying to reduce single-occupancy vehicle use by other people who entered the City other than residents and employees. Mr. Schreiber said residents and employees constituted the great bulk of traffic employees who worked in Palo Alto. It could be broadened to include people who shopped in the City. The underly-ing sense was that the peak periods were the biggest part of the problem and that was where the employment related traffic, whether residents or nonresidents, was the most significant. Council Member Huber wanted the language broadened to include people who did not fall in that category. Mayor Simitian clarified Goal TR-1 would be modified to indicate that a reduction in the reliance on single-occupant vehicles was not limited to Palo Alto residents or employees. Council Member Rosenbaum suggested that "of Palo Alto residents and employees" be deleted from the sentence and Goal TR-1 would read "Reduce the reliance on single-occupant vehicles..." MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Huber, to revise Transportation Goal TR-1 to read "Reduce the reliance on single-occupant vehicles (SOVs) and reduce the secondary impacts of SOVs" in the Transportation Section, e.g., noise, air quality [give other examples]," in the Transportation Section. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. Council Member McCown said the staff recommendation was unclear with respect to Program TR-1.B3, "Use additional parking fee/tax revenues to fund local alternative transportation projects." Staff emphasized that it wanted to retain in context the idea of the shuttle bus system. She asked whether staff recommended Policy TR-1.B3 be retained or whether the concept would be included elsewhere in the document other than in that section. Mr. Schreiber said staff recommended the item be discussed within the context of the need for some type of financing such things as a local shuttle bus system. The area could be discussed under
03/13/95 75-221
that area or later when the Council discussed specific recommendations. Staff indicated the potential need for a funding source. Council Member McCown asked what part of the Plan should indicate language if the City wanted to look at other local funding devices. She asked why the Planning Commission suggested eliminating TR-1.B3 and whether it thought funding issues were addressed elsewhere. Mr. Beecham said there was additional discussion on the issue in TR-5.A on page 13, which focused toward raising additional funding through paid parking. Council Member McCown was interested in a concept that was broader than paid parking. She understood the notion was how the City would generate local funding sources for transportation projects. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to retain Goal/Program TR-1.B3, "Use additional parking fee/tax revenues to fund local alternative transportation projects," in the Transportation Section. Mr. Ross said it was the place in the Transportation Section that addressed the question generally rather than specifically and it was intended to cover more than just parking fees but any source of funds that might be generated within the City for application towards worthy transportation programs. Mr. Overway said there were some sections on pages 16 and 18 that referred to a more general funding also. Mr. Calonne said it would be difficult to implement the use of additional parking fee/tax revenues without identifying a source. He suggested the Council could take Policy TR-1.A, for example, which focused on ways to reduce congestion and find an implementa-tion program that would achieve that policy. He was uncertain whether TR-1.B3 was the right place, but implementation pieces seemed to be missing. It would be helpful if the Council indicated specifically in TR-1.B3 what it had in mind. Mayor Simitian wanted to encourage the maker and seconder of the motion to be less specific. He clarified the present parking fees and tax revenues were designed and used specifically for parking, but it was a more significant departure from the current status quo. The Council was moving in a different direction. He preferred the language indicate the Council would consider use of additional parking fees/tax revenues; otherwise, the Council would be making a more significant decision than it realized. Council Member McCown was uncertain whether the Council could
03/13/95 75-222
figure out a way to have additional parking permit fees be the source of revenue. Consider was an acceptable word, but she noted that staff pointed out in its comments that "Palo Alto currently uses its parking permit revenues in the University and California Avenue areas to fund only parking maintenance and operations activities. Stanford, for example, uses its parking permit revenues to fund both parking and transit activities." The Council was trying to be broader in its thinking about how some of the projects could be funded locally. Mayor Simitian said the Council was underestimating the reaction it would receive from some members of the business community when the City said the parking fees would increase not because it cost the City more to provide the parking but because the City wanted to subsidize transit. He did not disagree that it was worth pursuing, but the steps should be taken incrementally. Council Member Fazzino said the Council needed to start adopting some market-based policies concerning transportation. Stanford University was not looked upon as a leader in the area of transportation but in that case it was. He supported the concept, and it was the first of many steps the Council needed to take to put in place a true market-based transportation fiscal policy. Council Member Schneider asked whether the excess revenues from the existing parking assessment district would fund the projects. Council Member McCown understood the parking fee language referred to the revenue from the sale of permits for parking, not the assessment applied to property owners. Mr. Overway said the language was not wordsmithed carefully enough to address the concerns raised by the Council. The City needed to find ways to create market linkages between transportation infrastructure demands and the funding sources for alternative transportation means. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether there was a place in the section where the Council could opine as to whether or not it favored the reintroduction of parking meters. Mr. Overway said there was no other location where there was any reference to parking meters. He was uncertain whether the comments from CPAC were that precise. Mr. Ross said the comments were not that precise. The possibility had not been ruled out, but he did not recall it being a highly promoted source in the Subcommittee. Council Member Andersen asked whether the approval of the motion would approve the inclusion of parking meters.
03/13/95 75-223
Council Member McCown said the idea was locally market-based pricing. The language was not that precise yet. Council Member Andersen said the policy question was more signifi-cant than the Council might think. Council Member Huber said market base was an interesting concept that needed to be explored regionally as well as locally. He did not read market base into the language. Council Member Fazzino said the market-based concept was an underlying principle of that program. He would accept the language proposed by Mayor Simitian to consider the use of additional parking fee/tax revenues. He believed that the Council should move in the direction of a market base and that the program was moving in that direction. Council Member McCown referred to TR-1.B2, "Support and participate in regional, state-wide and federal market pricing efforts, including pilot programs if appropriate," and said she believed TR-1.B3 should not be left out because the concept in TR-1.B3 tried to identify local measures the City could use which was the distinction between TR-1.B2 and TR-1.B3. Mayor Simitian did not believe people should be charged a fee which penalized them for using their cars until or unless the City provided them with meaningful and legitimate alternatives. He was concerned about the elitist consequences of a market-based approach in a heterogenous community and that a cost could be set with equal impact on everyone in a community such as Palo Alto that was relatively economically diverse. A "market-based" strategy was a system that had no impact whatsoever on the habits of the affluent and had a significant impact on the habits of those people who were of modest means. People needed some other way to get from where they were to where they wanted to go. If the City had not done its job at the state, regional, or local level to provide alternatives, the solution was not to get people out of their cars by making it too expensive. He agreed the Council should be more realistic about the real costs of parking, and he believed a legitimate policy approach was to ask people to pay more of the real costs. Council Member Fazzino agreed that the Council's recommendations throughout the document should bring about the kinds of alternative transportation systems suggested by Mayor Simitian. He believed the document emphasized the need to create alternative transportation modes and also believed the use of the funds was for the purpose of creating those alternative transportation modes. He was not suggesting that all parking fees and taxes be used to create alternative transportation systems. He agreed that a significant percentage of parking permit revenue needed to be applied to a fund to maintain parking structures and to fund the
03/13/95 75-224
parking management program, but it was appropriate to use some of the funds for creation of alternative transportation systems. He was comfortable with the recommendation to use the word "consider" use of funds in the motion. Council Member McCown said market-based pricing would not penalize people for using the automobile but would reflect the cost of the use of the automobile. The issue about parking specifically was whether free parking accurately reflected the cost of use of the automobile as compared with the cost, for example, that a person paid to ride the train. She agreed with Council Member Fazzino that that did not mean all parking would be fee parking, but the Council needed to figure out how to achieve the provision of the alternatives mentioned. One of the reasons transit was so difficult to provide was that it had to be subsidized by cities, and cities did not pass on the true cost to the person who drove a single-occupant vehicle. Cities subsidized the automobile more than anything else. The City needed to begin to influence that in a way that was fair. She understood that that was the concept CPAC tried to introduce in the document. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to add to TR-1.B3 the word "Consider" to "use of additional parking fee/tax revenues to fund local alternative transportation projects." Council Member Schneider supported consideration of parking fee/tax revenues to fund alternative transportation, but she asked what surrounding communities charged for parking. Mr. Schreiber said staff had not systematically collected informa-tion on surrounding communities. Council Member Schneider said once the Council started imposing fees on people for parking in commercial districts, it would discourage them from being in those districts and the people would go elsewhere. She suggested the Council proceed with caution. Council Member Rosenbaum said there were two types of people in the Downtown--the workers who were charged for parking and the shoppers whom the Council was concerned about driving away. At the risk of sending the wrong message, he suggested a parenthetical inclusion that TR-1.B3 would not suggest parking meters would be reimposed on the streets. Council Member Fazzino preferred to discuss the issue of parking meters at a later date. Council Member McCown said the chances were 99 out of a 100 that there would not be a proposal to reimpose parking meters. She did not believe it was necessary to specifically comment on the issue one way or the other given the fact that the Council would be
03/13/95 75-225
considering alternatives. MOTION RESTATED to revise Goal/Program TR-1.B3 to "Consider use of additional parking fee/tax revenues to fund local alternative transportation projects," in the Transportation Section. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. Council Member Andersen wanted to make certain the comments that the City Attorney made regarding TR-1.A would not be overlooked. TR-1.A emphasized regional congestion, and he was not prepared to remove the concept of reducing local congestion but the consistency issue raised suggested that the item was primarily of a regional nature. The most concern for traffic was during peak periods in neighborhoods, and he wanted to look at that from a regional perspective. He was not prepared at the present time to make specific language recommendations, but he wanted staff to work with that concept to make sure it was consistent with other efforts. Mr. Calonne said the obvious way was to talk about reducing the rate of growth of congestion. He would confer with Messrs. Schreiber and Overway and the issue would be reiterated when it returned to the Council for consideration. Mayor Simitian asked whether TR-1.E, "Significantly reduce daily auto trips per household," was a policy or a goal. Mr. Schreiber said in the editing process it might end up being merged into a goal because it really related to part of the goal. Council Member Fazzino referred to TR-1.F1, "Support plan for transit system across bay, to reach Silicon Valley and Menlo Park/Palo Alto jobs," and TR-1.F2, "Support completion of a BART-type system that circles the Bay. Must be quiet and fast," and he requested an additional program that would be TR-1.F3 which related to intra-county transportation systems. He agreed that a truly regional rail system needed to be completed whether it was BART, BART and light rail, or BART and CalTrain, and he did not have a problem with the idea of supporting a transit system across the Bay, but he was not certain the Council needed to commit itself to rail transit even though that was the preferred route. There were some real correct, political, and financial issues surrounding the possibility of renovating the old Southern Pacific bridge. He could envision a specific policy statement which incorporated some of the Measure A programs which tied Palo Alto to the rest of SCC. He requested such a statement be included. He believed the extension of the Tasman light rail line to Mountain View had a significant impact on Palo Alto. San Jose had become a much more attractive place to be after 5:00 p.m., and it was becoming increasingly important as a job center for Palo
03/13/95 75-226
Altans. Mayor Simitian asked how the issue related to the recent discus-sions about the impacts of the jobs/housing imbalance not being as substantial as once believed given the relatively short commute times that the staff had referenced. The need for additional housing was not perhaps as great as it was once believed because the jobs/housing imbalance would never be solved anyway and the overwhelming majority of the people had relatively "short" commutes. Staff indicated the average commute was 20 minutes or less. The argument had been made that there really was not a jobs/housing imbalance and the jobs and housing were in different places and people had to commute back and forth. The comments made by Council Member Fazzino suggested that there were real transportation needs associated with the placement of jobs and housing that forced people to come and go. If transportation needs were acknowledged as being associated with that placement of jobs and housing, the jobs/housing imbalance that created the problem also had to be acknowledged. Council Member Fazzino said there was a jobs/housing imbalance. He did not believe Palo Alto could solve the jobs/housing imbal-ance, but it was a very important objective for Palo Alto to get people out of their cars and create alternative transportation systems which linked people from their homes to jobs and areas of recreation. It was extremely important to be able to get around and across the Bay. Palo Alto had a tendency to ignore most of SCC, but the City had discovered over the previous seven or eight years through its involvement with the Golden Triangle, Measure A, and Council Member McCown's involvement with the Congestion Management Agency that the City needed to pay serious attention to intra-county transit as well. There needed to be a strong statement in that section with respect to intra-county transit. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, to add a Goal/Program TR-1.F3 to address intra-county transportation systems that would help tie Palo Alto into the rest of the Santa Clara County and merge with Goal/Program TR-1.F1 and TR-1.F2 to include around the Bay, across the Bay, and in this part of the Bay Area. Council Member Rosenbaum said the idea of BART circling the Bay using a BART-type system was an unusual word because of the existence of CalTrain on the Peninsula. He suggested the words "BART-type" be replaced with transit system. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to revise Goal/Program TR-1.F2, "Support completion of a BART-type system that circles the Bay. Must be quiet and fast," and change "BART-type" to "rail-type transit."
03/13/95 75-227
Mr. Overway said the use of the term BART-type came from staff. It was more likely that CalTrain would evolve into a BART-type system. Eventually, CalTrain would become electrified and provide more service. As the service became more frequent and it became electrified, it would take on BART characteristics which was the reason for the reference in the document to a BART or BART-type system. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. Council Member Huber said Programs TR-1.E1 and TR-1.E2 were the kind of programs that encouraged or reduced people from using their cars to go somewhere. Staff's comment indicated that it would not significantly reduce daily auto trips per household. He wanted the programs retained in the document. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Schneider, to retain Goal/Program TR-1.E1, "Expand range of city services that can be received on-line or through the mail (e.g., library renewals, pet licenses)," and Goal/Program TR-1.E2, "Promote private sector local delivery services," in the Transportation Section. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. Mr. Schreiber said the staff had recommended that Program TR-1.H3 be retained given the relationship to the California Clean Air Act and electric vehicles. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to retain Goal Program TR-1.H3, "Study feasibility of electric vehicle hook-ups for possible implementation in public and private parking structures," in the Transportation Section. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. Council Member Andersen said when the Council considered the issue of public school commuting, the Council needed to also encourage Palo Alto Unified School District's (PAUSD) decisions regarding the placement of students, especially small children, into schools throughout the entire community so that the traffic generated from the number of students would be directed onto arterials rather than into neighborhoods. Many times the decisions for schools such as Hoover and Ohlone had been based not on the traffic issue but rather on the issue of space available at the schools. The neighborhoods were being impacted by the number of students who were driven to and from school. The PAUSD needed to consider the amount of traffic being generated by the schools and what could be done to alleviate that problem. The issue had been discussed by the Transportation Committee and the City/School Liaison Committee, and he wanted it emphasized in the document.
03/13/95 75-228
Mayor Simitian asked whether staff had historically worked toward integrating public school commuting into the local transit system. Staff indicated the parameters already existed in the current Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), but he recalled that it had not had a lot of impact on what had been done either at the City level or at the PAUSD level. He asked whether the language needed to be strengthened in order to have some impact. Mr. Overway said the Gunn High School study recently completed indicated sometimes a bus was filled with students but using the buses was not always advantageous. Staff had sent a letter to SCC that asked it to try and facilitate a better bus service with PAUSD. Vice Mayor Wheeler recognized that TR-1.H5, "Improve design of bus stops, path lighting and overall urban environment that encourages pedestrians and bicyclists to use the streets at any time of day," would be merged into another program, but she was uncomfortable with the wording and wanted the concepts to get across that the design of bus stops, path lighting, etc., should enhance the feeling of safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. Council Member McCown said TR-1.I, "Improve access to Palo Alto's regional destinations with minimum impacts on the community," had one program, TR.1.I1, "Improve pedestrian/bike connections between transit stops and regional destinations," and she asked whether the Subcommittee came up with any other ways that access to regional destinations in the City could be improved. She believed there should be more opportunities than just one program. Mr. Ross said the program was narrow because it was only under the concept of reducing single-occupant vehicle use. There was an inherent conflict in improving access to the destinations and at the same time reducing single-occupant vehicle use. Most of the issues centered around the ability of people to get to and from a regional transit system in a way that did not require an automo-bile. The difficulty to take a bicycle on a regional system prevented that kind of access. Council Member McCown said the latter concept of better bicycle/ pedestrian connections to transit stops was applicable overall and not just for the benefit of regional destinations. The program did not indicate much. The intent seemed to be that the access to regional destinations would be part of trying to encourage more alternative modes of transportation and transit. The improvement of access should not make it easier for people to drive their cars which went against the other goals. She would reserve judgment as to whether at some later reading of the document that that program should be dropped out of a specific policy. Council Member Fazzino referred to TR-1.J2, "Evaluate and test a
03/13/95 75-229
Marguerite-type local transit shuttle system. Implement consistent frequent shuttles in both directions around a city-wide loop, with stops at or near schools, community centers and commercial destinations. Design for a maximum wait of 12 minutes. Collaborate with other local jurisdictions as appropriate (e.g., Stanford)"; TR-1.J3, "In order to provide safe, convenient access to Stanford Shopping Center, consider establishing shuttle services to/from the Downtown, the internodal transit station, and other locations; increasing public transportation service; or other alternative traffic/parking solutions"; and TR-1.J4, "Consider establishing shuttle services between major employment centers and business districts." He questioned whether several different statements were needed with respect to establishment and maintenance of a shuttle system. TR-1.J2 proposed the development of a Marguerite-type local transit system based upon the concept of a citywide loop; TR-1.J3 added a new shuttle program between Downtown, Stanford Shopping Center, and major transportation centers; and TR-1.J4 proposed service between major employment centers and business districts. The three programs should be pulled together into a single objective with regard to the City's vision for a citywide shuttle system. Mr. Ross said the Transportation Subcommittee would support that idea enthusiastically. It became a mapping issue, and the content flowed a little better if a person could look at a map and chart out exactly the kinds of systems and where the systems crossed and the directions traveled. The three programs could be pulled together into the context of a map. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Andersen, to combine into one program Goal/Program TR-1.J2, "Evaluate and test a Marguerite-type local transit shuttle system. Implement consistent frequent shuttles in both directions around a city-wide loop, with stops at or near schools, community centers and commercial destinations. Design for a maximum wait of 12 minutes. Collaborate with other local jurisdictions as appropriate (e.g., Stanford)"; Goal/Program TR-2.J3, "In order to provide safe, convenient access to Stanford Shopping Center, consider establish-ing shuttle services to/from the Downtown, the internodal transit station, and other locations; increasing public transportation service; or other alternative traffic/parking solutions"; and Goal/Program TR-1.J4, "Consider establishing shuttle services between major employment centers and business districts." MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. Council Member Fazzino asked how staff came up with the 12-minute standard. Mr. Overway said the 12-minute standard implied about a 6-minute wait. The standard seemed to be a reasonable balance between what
03/13/95 75-230
was financially feasible and the attractiveness of the service. A 10- to 12-minute headway was reasonable and provided a short enough wait. Mr. Schreiber had a recent discussion with an East Coast-based land use transportation consultant who made the observation that when people were required to wait for more than 5 or 6 minutes, it became a significant discouragement. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the annoyance would be less if it were a regular schedule that relied on a 12-minute standard. Mr. Schreiber said the consultant did not advocate a regular schedule but a more flexible call-up system which would have to provide service within 5 or 6 minutes. Council Member Fazzino wanted additional information regarding the costs associated with a shuttle service, e.g., $100,000 for one bus, driver, etc., and $1 million per year for a citywide loop system. Mr. Overway said the figures came from Stanford University which hired an outside contractor who was paid on an hourly basis. Staff estimated what it would take to run buses around a city loop on a 12-minute headway and the figure was $100,000 per bus or $1 million per year. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the City's costs would be comparable to Stanford University's costs. Mr. Overway said yes. The contract was competitive, but the contractor did not use union employees so the City's costs could be more. Mr. Schreiber said the cost numbers gave the Council a ballpark number to deal with. Shuttle service sounded great, but the issue was how the City would finance the service. The cost estimates were based on private contractors, not based on SCC's transit. The cost would be substantially higher if SCC's transit were used. Council Member Fazzino said it was a wonderful idea, but he asked how the program would be funded. Mr. Schreiber said if the program were included in the adopted Comprehensive Plan, an implementation effort would involve the Council, staff, and members of the community. There was a wide variety of ways to fund the program, none of which were easy or available. The funding would probably need to be multiple sources such as fees from parking, an assessment process, or new City revenues. The City would need to be very flexible with the implementation of the program.
03/13/95 75-231
Mr. Overway said the City presently shared the cost with Stanford University of a shuttle service between the quad and the Downtown area during the lunch period. If the City decided to proceed in that direction, he asked that consideration be given to the possibility of joining with Stanford University in the expansion of its service since Stanford had shown some interest in expanding into Palo Alto. Stanford had a system that ran well, and the City could benefit from exploring that possibility. Council Member Fazzino clarified staff's suggestion was that if the City wanted to move in that direction, the first step would be to develop a joint program with Stanford University to expand its service. After Palo Alto's pilot effort, expansion of the program in the City could be considered. Mr. Overway said that was correct if the City could come up with a system that mutually benefitted both the City and Stanford and the City was prepared to provide some of the resources. It would be much wiser to pursue that direction rather than to provide an independent system. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the City Council should take the lead in the near future and direct the staff to pursue the concept of a city shuttle system. City Manager June Fleming said the implementation of the shuttle system would be part of the adoption of the final Comprehensive Plan. The Council could pursue the concept if it wanted to give staff more specific direction. Council Member Fazzino asked whether there would be a follow-up implementation plan for the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Schreiber said the Comprehensive Plan was proposed to have an implementation section, and the Council would have an opportunity to weigh the wide variety of programs and establish priorities for staff implementation. Council Member Fazzino asked what the next step would be if several Council Members wanted to pursue the issue. Mr. Schreiber said the issue would have to be agendized. Mayor Simitian shared Council Member Fazzino's enthusiasm on the item. He said that it did not matter whose name was on the shuttle as long as people in Palo Alto could move from one place to another without using their car. He cautioned the Council and City staff not to assume because something was in writing that it would become a policy of the City of Palo Alto or that the City should act based on what was in writing but not yet approved. There might be some land use or neighborhood design issues which people would take exception to and would be a little disconcerted
03/13/95 75-232
if they became de facto policies before the Council had actually taken action. It was not a plan but a proposal for a plan. Mr. Ross said all the neighboring jurisdictions to Palo Alto had some form of business tax, but Palo Alto did not have any license fees. Based on the total employment in the City, a very modest per employee per year business license fee would completely fund such a system. Council Member Huber asked which shuttle service the City would choose if it wanted to test the system and whether a fee had been contemplated for riding the shuttle. Mr. Overway said a fee collected by the system would not make a lot of difference in the amount of money needed to support the system. The question was whether it was worth it to collect and handle the fees. Stanford University indicated it was not worth the effort to do so. SCC had discussed the possibility, but politically he did not believe it could take that step. SCC presently collected a small fee. Staff needed to pursue further the consideration of which shuttle service would be the best. A lot of the information was based on a void of technical analysis. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would provide an incremental technical analysis and consideration of some of those things. One system was not necessarily better than another; the question was opportunity. The opportunity for a shuttle service for employees through CalTrain subsidies could be pursued while dealing with Stanford University on other issues. Staff needed some time if the Council wanted to continue to consider that direction. Council Member Andersen asked what the cost benefit issue of the effort was. He clarified if the City contracted for the service or the service was incremental and the use level was not what was anticipated or the reduction of car use was insignificant, the City could retract its commitment without too much capital outlay. The cost was annual rather than a substantial fixed cost that would not commit the City to something over a long period of time. Mr. Overway said initially it would be wiser for the City to contract for a service with someone rather than buying the buses and hiring the staff. The City would need more flexibility and someone who knew how to run a bus system. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked whether the adoption of the policies and programs that related to the formation of the City's own small transit district would mean that for the next 15 or more years the City would give up the possibility of getting SCC transit to enhance the services it currently provided to the City of Palo Alto. Mr. Schreiber said SCC transit had different priorities and
03/13/95 75-233
objectives in terms of both light rail as well as focusing service on the peak commute period and moving commuters. In the future it was unrealistic to expect SCC transit to increase the local level of service other than focusing on ways of moving larger volumes of commuters. SCC transit would try to maintain its service rather than expand its systems. Council Member McCown asked whether SCC transit could be included as a partner with the City and Stanford University for the local shuttle system if that system provided a lot of the service that SCC already provided and if the City showed that the local system would provide some of the needs that SCC was currently trying to provide with its system. Mr. Overway said the City had not negotiated with SCC, but there had been conversations when the City considered a shuttle circulating system in the Stanford Research Park that would connect to California Avenue. Some of SCC's runs in Palo Alto were in the City as a courtesy and did not fall high on SCC's productivity list. There had been discussions that that might be a possibility if SCC could cut out some of those services and the City could do it more effectively. He cautioned the Council that its support for a local transit system should be based primarily on the Council's willingness or the City's ability to fund it locally. The City would not get that much from SCC transit and should not rely on it to do a local transit system. RECESS: 9:25 P.M. - 9:40 P.M. Mr. Schreiber noted that new policy TR-1.L, "Within limits of state law, approve a project based on overall benefit regardless of traffic impacts at particular intersections," was a Planning Commission recommendation and should have been shaded. Mayor Simitian asked whether the policy meant that the City would really "approve a project based on overall benefit regardless of traffic impacts at particular intersections" (no matter how extreme or untenable the impacts at an intersection might be). Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission's intent was to give the City flexibility with a desirable project such as a major conven-tion hotel at a major intersection where it might reduce the level of service to a degree less than acceptable. Council Member Andersen asked the limits of state law and whether the restrictions had some meaning. Mr. Schreiber said under CEQA, local jurisdictions had authority to make overriding findings regarding the significant impacts acceptable. The CMA program required that if jurisdictions had intersections on the designated CMA network, e.g., El Camino Real, Page Mill Road, and Oregon Expressway, and the level of service
03/13/95 75-234
deteriorated to a Level F, the jurisdiction had an obligation to physically mitigate that impact. It was a state mandated CMA program as implemented by SCC. There was an obligation to bring the level of service up to better than "F" or adopt a deficiency plan which was a state required mechanism that allowed the jurisdiction to tolerate a particularly bad situation. The negative impacts from congestion and air quality at one location had to be balanced with improvements to other parts of the regional network. Council Member Andersen asked whether the overall benefit in the context of that particular section of the Plan suggested that it was an overall traffic, transportation, or economic benefit. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission felt it was an overall community benefit, not limited to transportation. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to delete Goal/Program TR-1.L, "Within limits of state law, approve a project based on overall benefit regardless of traffic impacts of particular intersections." Council Member Rosenbaum referred to Goal TR-1 on page 3 and said the policy did not relate to that goal. The Council might do what the policy stated, but it should not be in the Plan as a course of action. Mayor Simitian asked whether the Council could do what the policy stated without having the policy. Mr. Calonne said no. The Council would need to amend the Compre-hensive Plan at that time which was often the appropriate way to confront inconsistencies in the document to match exigencies of a situation. Mayor Simitian clarified without Policy TR-1.L, the approval of a project that had a substantial traffic impact might be inconsistent with other policies in the Transportation Element. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. He said TR-1.A was enough to find inconsistency in the document. Mayor Simitian clarified Policy TR-1.A would "promote land use policies that reduce local and regional congestion..." The Council had debated the requirement for consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and other land use decisions that would be made, but the City's position as a charter city required the internal consistency. Mr. Calonne said that was correct.
03/13/95 75-235
Council Member Fazzino asked whether it would be consistent with Policy TR-1.A if the Council approved a proposal for a hotel which increased traffic at a particular intersection and then the Hyatt closed its operation and the Council decided to make that land a park which would dramatically reduce the traffic in that area. Mr. Calonne said consistency could be found if the action offset the impact. Council Member Fazzino asked whether it would have to be sequen-tial, i.e., the Hyatt action took place two or three years prior to Council's action on a hotel proposal for the El Camino Real/Page Mill Road site. Mr. Calonne clarified that he wanted to alert the Council that TR-1.A was susceptible to a broad reading. Council Member Andersen said if the Council indicated it was not interested in allowing for procedures that would provide some of the overall community benefits, it would make it more difficult to move forward with some projects that some Council Members had indicated previously it wished to do. He could not conceive a future Council in 15 years being able to use that policy in a nonjudicious manner. The deletion of the policy would make it difficult for future Councils to proceed in a very judicious manner and allow development that would benefit the community. The policy provided consistency and provided a way in which the legal issues surrounding the process would be facilitated. Mayor Simitian said the current language was absolutely without limit. He asked whether the Council would have the flexibility to make a decision in one direction or another if the following language were used: "Within the limits of state law, approve projects where overall benefit(s) substantially outweigh the adverse traffic impacts." The current language suggested the Council would approve a project no matter how bad the situation might be, but the motion went the opposite direction. He asked whether there was language that would allow the Council to assess whether or not the overall benefits of a project outweighed the adverse traffic consequences. Mr. Calonne said the Planning Commission's view was that it was a net benefit proposition and would be considered part of an overall balancing. The Council could identify through the review of the Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process specific sites where congestion might present a problem. It would give meaningful statements to prospective developers by the Council's intent on particular sites and avoid inconsistency. Specific language would solve the potential consistency concerns. He explained that he did not fully understand the context in which the statement was proposed by the Planning Commission and staff.
03/13/95 75-236
Mr. Schreiber said when the Council adopted the Citywide Study in the Fall 1989, it did so with an EIR that identified level of service "F" conditions at approximately six major intersections in the City. Most of the intersections related to the Stanford Research Park--El Camino Real/Page Mill Road, El Camino Real/Foothill, Charleston Avenue/Arastradero Road, Arastradero Road/Foothill, Middlefield Road/Oregon Expressway. The Council recognized that there were "F" intersections when it adopted the Citywide Study and adopted a traffic impact fee for the new Stanford Research Park development with the recognition that the situations could not be addressed as fast as the traffic was likely to deteriorate. An alternative to downzone the Stanford Research Park to allow little, if any, new development was not acceptable given broader community objectives in terms of not only economics but also the role of the Park. Employment had declined since the late 1980s, and the traffic in many locations had not become severely worse as predicted in 1989, but City policy as adopted in 1989 included a clear recognition that living with congested intersections was worth it because of some trade-offs that were for the good of the overall community. He believed the Planning Commission's intent was for the City to look at some decisions from a broader perspective rather than a strict traffic perspective--there could be no more cars because of a Level "F" designation no matter what good could be achieved. Council Member Huber asked whether the Council could override Policy TR-1.L if it felt there was public benefit. Mr. Calonne said the Council could not override inconsistency. Council Member Huber said an EIR was prepared for a project and the Council made policy decisions as to whether or not to override a policy for some other good. Mr. Calonne said in the context of a specific project if an inconsistency were identified, staff would propose an amendment at the time to take care of the situation. Council Member Huber asked whether the inconsistencies would be cleaned up as the Council went through the document so that the final product would be a consistent Plan. He asked whether the Council had the ability to override that decision if a project came forward with an EIR that indicated an intersection would be overloaded. Mr. Calonne said yes unless the Comprehensive Plan precluded overloading the intersection. The Council did not need specific authorization to overload if there were not specific prohibition against it. Council Member McCown supported the motion to delete TR-1.L because the wording was too broad and not appropriate. The
03/13/95 75-237
process could be accomplished similar to the 1989 land use study, i.e., specific places could be identified where the Council was willing to accept congested conditions if the Council were considering some land use policy relative to an intersection that the Comprehensive Plan wanted to pursue. The Council would make that specific decision as part of the approval of the Comprehensive Plan. In the future, the Council had to do two things if another project arose that was inconsistent with the policy statements: 1) make the finding of overriding benefits under CEQA and 2) possibly revise the Comprehensive Plan. She recalled the decisions regarding the Palo Alto Medical Foundation's downtown project required changes to the Comprehensive Plan that would have been necessary to allow the project to move forward. In the future, something could be accommodated by knowing the specifics of what the Council wanted to do and why it wanted to do it. If the El Camino Real/Page Mill Road hotel idea was something that the Council wanted as a policy direction in the Comprehensive Plan, the Council would need to have an accompanying statement relative to that policy direction and that the Council would accept the consequences of the traffic congestion if indicated by an EIR. The Council could make that specific decision when it reached that point. The Council needed to deal with the process along the lines discussed by Mr. Schreiber. Vice Mayor Wheeler agreed with the comments of Council Member McCown and said the language as stated by the Planning Commission brought up some "red flags." The Council needed to eliminate the "fuzzy" language when it wanted to discuss specific projects. She would rather discuss it in the context of the specific projects. She could not imagine a project that would be brought forward which would severely impact an intersection where the Council would not want to try to mitigate the effects of that project. She could not support that kind of language for any project that was presented to the City. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Andersen, to revise TR-1.L to read "Within the limits of state law, approve projects based on overall benefit where benefits substantially outweigh adverse traffic impacts." Mayor Simitian did not believe the Council wanted to solve the problem on an ad hoc basis when an applicant came forward with a project that did not follow the Comprehensive Plan by amending the Comprehensive Plan. It was important to respect the integrity of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. He did not want to preapprove two, three, or four intersections and/or projects at that point in the process. He wanted to put into place policy language that indicated there would be occasions when, based on the assessment of the overall benefits of a particular project, the Council was prepared to move forward as a city and accept that project
03/13/95 75-238
notwithstanding adverse traffic impacts. The Council would have the traffic flexibility to say "yes" or "no" when the need arose. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 4-4, Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider, Simitian "yes," Kniss absent. Council Member McCown said there was a way to acknowledge the idea in a more tailored way than preapproving specific land use issues in the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION PASSED 5-3, Andersen, Schneider, Simitian "no," Kniss absent. Ms. Eakins said staff recommended the retention of Program TR-1.H11 which was a grassroots CPAC idea. She asked the Council to reconsider that program for the Plan. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to retain Goal/Program TR-1.H11, "Provide information kiosks downtown and on California for transit and parking information. Design for computer-generated trip analysis upgrade," in the Transportation Section. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. Mayor Simitian announced the next scheduled meeting for the review of the Plan was March 25, 1995, from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He suggested that the Council continue and complete the Transportation Section and at a time certain of 2:30 p.m. begin the Natural Environment Section of the Plan which would allow comments from staff, CPAC, Planning Commission, and the public. Council Member Rosenbaum suggested the meeting adjourn at 2:30 p.m. rather than start a new section of the Plan. Mayor Simitian said another evening meeting would need to be scheduled if the March 25, 1995, adjourned at 2:30 p.m. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Schneider, to adjourn the March 25, 1995, City Council Meeting after the discussion of the Transportation Section. MOTION PASSED 5-3, Huber, Simitian, Wheeler "no," Kniss absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 7. Mayor Simitian and Council Members Andersen, Huber, and McCown re Civic Center Plaza MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct staff to develop a conceptual plan for providing increased
03/13/95 75-239
lighting on the Civic Center Plaza that can be put in place this summer, and return to Council with: 1) a conceptual plan for improved lighting on the Civic Center Plaza, and 2) a budget amendment ordinance to fund the project. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. 8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Andersen said he would be attending a conference on Friday, March 17, 1995, and would miss the meeting with Congress-woman Anna Eshoo. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the City Attorney's Office would not be represented at the meeting with Congresswoman Anna Eshoo due to a conflict with a Bay Area City Attorneys' Association (BACA) meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. to a Closed Session. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving employee performance evaluation as described in Agenda Item No. 5. Mayor Simitian announced that no action was taken on Agenda Item No. 5. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
03/13/95 75-240