HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-25 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting March 25, 1995 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 75-259 1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee .................................... 75-259 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. ........... 75-297
03/25/95 75-258
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Council Chambers at 9:45 a.m. PRESENT: Andersen (arrived at 9:50 a.m.), Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Huber ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Dr. Nancy Jewell Cross, representing Clean Air Transport Systems, spoke regarding inconsistency of processes involved with respect to the Comprehensive Plan, in particular, transportation systems. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 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 The City Council reviewed the Transportation Section of the Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Ariel Calonne noted his staff report regarding a briefing of conflict of interest rules pertaining to the Compre-hensive Plan (the Plan). It was important for Council to be concerned about the least obvious areas; namely, indirect effects on sources of income or investments. Council was good at picking out direct impacts but indirect impacts were those which were consequential regarding a decision before the Council. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the City Council's process involved the selection of goals, policies, and programs for inclusion into a draft plan. Adoption of the Plan would hopefully occur in 1996. Council had already reviewed the Business and Economics and Housing Sections of the Plan, and it hoped to complete the review of the Transportation Section that day. The Natural Environment Section of the Plan was scheduled for discussion on Monday, April 3, 1995, and would include one hour of public testimony. City Manager June Fleming said that staff distributed in the Council packet as requested pictures of trucks and associated weights. Council Member McCown referred to page 6a and queried whether the text of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)/
03/25/95 75-259
Congestion Management Agency (CMA) Action List was appropriate for inclusion in the Plan in its entirety or whether it should be referenced in the document. Mr. Schreiber said given the space limitations and future editing, the Plan would probably only refer to the BAAQMD/CMA Action List. The key point was BAAQMD had hopes and expectations and it was appropriate for the Plan to respond to them. Mayor Simitian clarified the information contained on pages 6a and 6b would be incorporated in some way into the document if only by reference, appendix, or in some portion in the text. Mr. Schreiber said the operative part at the end on page 6b, the last part of the shaded text, "Staff recommends that the draft Plan contain a Transportation Air Quality Program indicating the City's intent to implement and, where applicable, to apply to any new development the above listed items," and he did not see a need to list each of the items. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to reinstate Goal/Program TR-2.A2, "Encourage development of alterna-tive fuel infrastructure (e.g. provide electric plug-ins at key locations around the City)," into the Transportation Section. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. Council Member Kniss referred to the new program TR-2.A3 on page 7 "Support programs that result in the removal of the oldest and dirtiest vehicles on the roadway." She queried how that would be implemented. Mr. Schreiber said the statement of "support" did not envision any type of city program but rather referred to supporting efforts by the BAAQMD and other agencies to carry out such mitigation programs. Over the past five years while the concept started as being strange to the regulators it slowly moved toward being more acceptable. From staff's standpoint the idea could be productive and support by local jurisdictions could help the BAAQMD implement such a program. Council Member Kniss understood if such a mitigation program were woven into a company's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan, it could change how the company met the requirements. Mr. Schreiber said while he had heard references to such a mitigation program, nothing conclusive existed in terms of incorporating such a mitigation program as an option for a company's TDM program. Several programs especially in Southern California already existed and tended to be associated with mitigating air quality impacts for stationary sources. UNOCAL was the first in conjunction with a refinery expansion. Council Member McCown agreed with Mr. Schreiber. She was not aware that any current TDM rules supported such a mitigation program as a way to satisfy the employer based requirements.
03/25/95 75-260
Council Member Andersen said such a mitigation program went before the Environmental Quality Committee of the League of California Cities, and while legislation was introduced, he did not believe it passed. Council Member Rosenbaum cautioned Council about policies that would deprive senior citizens on fixed incomes of their means of transportation. As long as any such policies were voluntary, he had no problem with them. He believed the program was emphasized because clearly such a problem took care of itself over time and did not address the more significant air pollution problems. Council Member Schneider referred to Program TR-2.C4, "Change Homer and Channing to two-way streets." She queried when the streets were made one-way and for what reason. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway did not know the history of the decision to make Homer and Channing Streets one-way but believed the present use of the streets was inconsistent with the nature of the development along them. He believed it was time to review the matter. Council Member Kniss said there was a lot of discussion of Program TR-2.C4 in the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC). Personally, she liked the one-way configuration of the streets which had existed for about twenty years. To suddenly make Homer and Channing two-way streets would not be a casual change, and she would be interested in more information. David Ross, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Transportation Subcommittee, said CPAC's recommendation was to change Homer and Channing Streets back to two-way streets when and if appropriate in redevelopment of the current Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) campus. Currently, the streets primarily carried traffic to the PAMF campus and acted as a "mini-expressway" between Alma Street and Middlefield Road. Both uses were quite distasteful to the residents in the area of the PAMF campus. To return the streets to a more consistent grid when and if there were a neighborhood compatible development seemed like a good idea to consider. Mayor Simitian queried whether concern was expressed by other local groups about the impacts such a change would have on the other parallel streets between Middlefield road and Alma Street. He was concerned about improving two streets at the expense of six other streets. He referred to the bicycle boulevard situation where once "a mitigation" was in place it had an impact on adjacent areas and those adjacent areas became concerned about the impacts on them. Mr. Ross believed Council would hear from people on both sides of the issue. The speed issue seemed to have improved somewhat with the stop sign at Bryant Street and traffic moved along better there than the other neighborhood streets. While the people living on Lincoln Avenue were pleased, people living on Channing
03/25/95 75-261
Avenue had trouble with it. Mr. Overway said if consideration of Program TR-2.C4, changing Homer and Channing Streets to two-way streets, were to continue, then there would be an analysis and evaluation of the pros and cons of such a change. The issues raised were valid, and there were other concerns about accidents and speed on those streets. Staff was continually asked to install more stop signs along those streets; and, if the issue warranted further consideration, staff would return to Council at some future date with the information. Council Member Kniss said the proposed change was a major one. She was interested in the statistical evidence to support the change empirical or otherwise. When she and Council Member Fazzino introduced the need for a study last year because of their beliefs that patterns had changed dramatically throughout the City., the Police Department's study indicated that the actual statistical information was not very different from what it had been previously. While the numbers went up dramatically and behavior had changed, she was not convinced the statistics supported it from the information Council received last year. Mr. Ross did not recall CPAC's discussion being statistically based. It was more "seat of the pants." Sandy Eakins, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee, believed the recommendation fell more under the umbrella of quality of life/pedestrian access/safety of school children. Having two one-way streets invited much higher speeds, while one-way streets were designed to push commuter traffic through. She believed CPAC considered the recommendation as a possible change which could improve pedestrian access and the feeling of more safety for children going to and from the schools. Council Member Kniss said it was important for Council to know why the recommendation was presented and whether there was citizen outcry or whether the recommendation was something CPAC believed was empirically evident. Ms. Eakins said the recommendation also represented restoration of a standard grid system of two-way streets where traffic filtered through rather than one-way streets where traffic was focused and invited to zoom through. Council Member Andersen clarified the subject streets were no wider than any of the other streets in the area. Mr. Overway said that was correct. Council Member Andersen did not believe one street should be required to take more than the others when it was basically the same as all the others. He agreed with Ms. Eakins and supported the recommendation. Council Member McCown believed the wording was appropriate for inclusion because she believed it was inevitable that evaluating
03/25/95 75-262
those streets would occur at a minimum in connection with the redevelopment of the PAMF site. She said one thing to be evaluated when considering new land uses would be how the street would work. She understood the Planning Commission recommendation was not to incorporate the specific reference to the PAMF campus which was appropriate for the Plan. Regardless of whether the language was included, those streets would go through some evaluation when it happened. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to revise the wording of Goal/Program TR-2.C4, "Change Homer and Channing to two-way streets," to read "Evaluate if Homer and Channing should be changed to two-way streets with or without re-development of current PAMF campus." MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. Mr. Calonne referred to TR-2.C1, "Establish and fund a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program to implement appropriate mitigation measures," and said the staff comment characterized the program as basically a City-funded program. An alternative would be to try to set up the program as a nexus based developer fee program. Mr. Schreiber referred to the Citywide Study in the mid-1980's and the difficultly in connecting impacts of new nonresidential development with broader community traffic impacts. The only one where the nexus findings could be made was development of the Stanford Research Park and some areas outside of it. The program referred to by Mr. Calonne was envisioned to look at various requests for neighborhood traffic studies in some structured manner. He would be concerned about trying to link such requests with specific development proposals because he believed almost every one of the neighborhood studies staff received were not related to particular development proposals. Council Member McCown said program TR-2.C1 did not really speak to the source of funding, and she understood the point of its inclusion was the notion that there could be some defined budgetary source which could be used annually to respond to neighborhood requests which were received on an ad hoc basis for traffic calming devices. Along with the annual source of funds, pools would be in place where neighborhoods could seek the use of the moneys in their particular situation. She believed that was separate and apart from the source of funding. She queried whether there was any reason why Council could not pursue the use of some traffic mitigation fees. Mr. Calonne said if Council did not take the action in connection with the Comprehensive Plan to begin to establish the rationale for charging developers, it would be a constraint down the road. The staff's interpretation that it was not a developer fee program was the result of the language before the Council. If Council wanted to leave open the option of having it as a developer fee program, Council should have some kind of language reflected or at least ask staff to evaluate the idea in connection with the next
03/25/95 75-263
round. Council Member McCown suggested Council leave open the possibility that the City would have a legally sustainable developer fee source of funds for the program. While she appreciated Mr. Schreiber's comments, the last time Council considered the matter it had a hard time figuring out how to make it work, and it was probably worth looking at it again. The funding issues would be very difficult and she did not want to rule out anything. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, that with respect to Goal/Program TR-2.C1, "Establish and fund a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program to implement appropriate mitigation measures," add the wording "(development fees might be an appropriate funding for this program)." Council Member McCown assumed before the language was incorporated into the final stages Council would receive from staff an indica-tion of whether there was a basis in which the proposal could occur. If staff believed there was, she would support it. Mayor Simitian said whatever Council's views of the ultimate solutions and decisions, it was true that commercial development had some impact on traffic at remote locations in neighborhoods. If that conclusion were reached, then the motion before the Council made a lot of sense. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. Council Member Kniss asked for more information on Program TR-2.C, "Implement traffic calming measures in residential neighborhoods, on local and collector streets. Prioritize traffic calming over congestion management. Traffic calming defined as physical improvements on and near the roadways intended to slow traffic to within five miles per hour of the speed limit, while maintaining or improving safety for non-auto users of the street (e.g., bicycles, pedestrians)," which spoke to traffic calming measures. Mr. Ross said CPAC probably spent 12 to 15 hours on the matter. The motivation was that most residents in town lived in "residen-tial" neighborhoods rather than in a more urban setting, and one of their primary concerns was traffic. Along with what might be called neo-traditional planning for neighborhoods, he believed there was some neo-traditional thinking emerging in transportation circles about how to deal with cars as they moved through residen-tial areas. He believed speed and quantity of traffic had become the overriding concerns of more people more so than air pollution impacts. As cars had gotten cleaner, having a few more on the street, as long as they were moving more slowly, was a small price to pay. Traffic calming was a phrase for any number of measures which might keep cars from speeding through neighborhoods, and in some cases discouraging cars from going through at all. For example, if Middlefield Road or some piece of it were narrowed to two lanes, there would be a lot of concern about diversion of traffic to nearby residential streets. That diversion could be offset somewhat by other traffic calming measures. A traffic
03/25/95 75-264
circle was an example of a traffic calming measure where traffic was more likely to stay on the arterials even if there were a slight inconvenience because the arterial had been changed. The Transportation Division had an excellent handout with some graphic examples of eight or ten different traffic calming devices which were in place and had worked in other communities both in the United States and other places in the world. Council Member Kniss said while any number of traffic calming measures had been tried, she hoped Council would consider whether the language suggested by staff or the language suggested by CPAC should be used. She was concerned about the implications of implementation because staff's considerations included the costs. Council Member Andersen was interested in the Subcommittee's recommendation as opposed to the distinction being made by staff. He queried how traffic calming devices could be used on arterials without having dramatic impacts on the other portions of the community. Mr. Ross said Policy TR-2.C spoke more directly to traffic calming measures in neighborhoods. Arterial streets were left to another policy and goal. The purpose of arterials was to carry traffic efficiently, and that was distinct from a neighborhood street or even to a certain extent a collector street where the goal was to get people either to the arterial or home from it. He believed there was virtually unanimous support in the Transportation Subcommittee for neighborhood traffic calming. Certainly, people who lived on or near arterials were concerned about slowing the traffic down on them at least near the speed limit for the associated safety and pollution concerns. Council Member Andersen clarified the majority of the Subcommittee would likely be comfortable with the staff's language. Mr. Ross said that was correct. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified there was no philosophical difference and that staff's language was more precise. Mr. Ross said the Editorial Committee approved the staff change. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the Subcommittee addressed the issue of residential arterials and programs and lumped the associated poli-cies and programs together in Policies and Programs TR-3. She believed part of the confusion was in Goal TR-2 and the related programs, the language was included about the gateways and those specifically addressed the residential arterials. She wondered if editorially, it might be clearer if all the measures related to residential arterials were grouped together and those talking about the smaller local and collector streets within neighborhoods were grouped together. Mayor Simitian referred to the traffic calming language as currently written for Policy TR-2.C on page 7, to "Implement traffic calming (TC) measures in residential neighborhoods on
03/25/95 75-265
local and collector streets. Prioritize TC over congestion management. TC defined as: Physical improvements on and near the roadways intended to slow traffic to within 5 mph of the speed limit, while maintaining or improving safety for non-auto users of the street (e.g., bicycles, pedestrians)." While he had no problem if the goal and use of the traffic calming measures tried to bring speeds down to something which was appropriate to a residential neighborhood, he was concerned about how far the policy statement went. He was nervous when he heard about two lanes on Middlefield Road having an impact on adjacent neighbors and having to put traffic calming devices into the adjacent neighborhood to deal with the unintended consequences. Once the traffic calming was in place, he was concerned about unintended consequences elsewhere. To some extent the lesson in every suburban community in the country was that traffic found its way from point A to point B in the absence of any real impediments or barriers. Mr. Schreiber said the point of the staff comment was to distin-guish between local and collector streets and arterials. For over 20 years, the City had undertaken various efforts to calm and at times eliminate the traffic in various residential neighborhoods, e.g. College Terrace barriers and diverters in the early 1970s; Evergreen Park barriers; Midtown speed bumps experiment which turned into a successful implementation in the 1980s; and now traffic circles and other devices. There had been a consistent and ongoing effort to try to respond to neighborhood concerns about volume and speed of traffic. Traffic calming wording was a continuation of all those City efforts. Historically, the City's policy on arterials was a recognition that arterials had a legitimate and important function of moving cars into and out of the City efficiently and reasonably effectively. Staff tended to not pursue policies to restrict the capacity or speeds within reasonable limits on arterials, and that would be a new policy area, which was the reason for the distinction between the arterial language which occurred later. Staff had been working on neighborhood issues for a long time. Mayor Simitian cautioned that there were associated costs with the physical improvements necessary to provide traffic calming, and the City had a "mixed record" if one looked around the City with respect to the aesthetic appeal of some of the devices. He was not going to offer an amendment to use aesthetically appropriate traffic calming measures but that would be his direction when the Council discussed the Community Design Section of the Plan. He clarified the Planning Commission recommendation and the staff language were now consistent. Council Member Kniss referred to Policy TR-2.D on page 8, "Keep all streets open unless there is a demonstrated safety or overwhelming through traffic problem and there are no acceptable alternative solutions." In the past, the City closed streets, considered closing streets, and petitioned to close streets, etc., and she queried whether the decision centered around the fact that CPAC felt it was no longer an acceptable alternative.
03/25/95 75-266
Mr. Ross said the Transportation Subcommittee slightly differed from staff on the issue. A majority of the Transportation Subcommittee felt street closure should be fairly far down the list as a solution because more than almost any other traffic calming measure street closures tended to divert more traffic onto another street. While those who received a street closure had great success for their block or neighborhood, it was really at the expense of someone else. To the extent the street grid system remained open and usable in some fashion tended to distribute the traffic more evenly and made the flow choices of people moving through them most fair. Council Member Kniss queried whether the staff comments which were boldly shaded were added. Mayor Simitian clarified the shaded verbiage was implemented. Vice Mayor Wheeler referred to Program TR-3.C6, "Make new and replacement curbs vertical. In areas where there are currently rolled curbs, use trees or planting pockets to improve streets." The staff comments indicated a change in the first sentence to read: "Make new and replacement curbs vertical where desired by residents or the neighborhood." She was interested in how neighborhoods which currently had rolled curbs would be treated under the CPAC recommendation which was perhaps different from what staff suggested. Mr. Ross believed the only difference was some kind of a poll to determine if the people who lived in the neighborhood wanted a vertical curb rather than a rolled curb. When CPAC first included language which required the change in curbs to occur faster than when the streets were changed, it was cautioned about the expense of the program. CPAC watered down the recommendation somewhat in order to make it a de-evolutionary change as streets were changed for some reason. He was not too troubled by the idea of polling the neighbors. He lived on a rolled curb street, and it was fairly frequent to have to get out into the street to walk around a car that was parked on the sidewalk in the interest of not being either in the traffic flow or in danger of being hit by another passing motorist. The sidewalks became much less usable for the residents and become more a part of the street. Vice Mayor Wheeler queried why an existing neighborhood would ever have to replace its curbs. Mr. Overway said curb replacement probably only had to occur when it eventually deteriorated. Street resurfacing did not necessarily require curb replacement and neither did sidewalk replacement. Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel referred to two recent examples of the choice between rolled or vertical curbs. One was on Park Boulevard, a quasi-commercial area, where the new Hohbach project would be adding a new planting strip out into the street. There would be the choice of a rolled curb or a vertical curb. When the YMCA improved its site, it had a vertical curb installed
03/25/95 75-267
in front of the site where there was previously a rolled curb specifically to keep vehicles off the sidewalk. Mr. Ross believed the Public Works Department had a sidewalk replacement program scheduled over the next 20 years and his neighborhood was scheduled for the Year 2003. The sidewalk and curb were integral, and the whole thing had to be taken out and replaced. There was a choice at that point whether the curb would be rolled or vertical. Council Member Andersen said the City had a philosophy of getting back to vertical curbs and there was an ongoing sidewalk replace-ment program. He believed Council should encourage vertical curbing even though there would be a transitional period. While there would be portions of curbing that were vertical and some that were rolled, people would get the idea of not going on the sidewalk because they might hit a vertical. He was concerned that without a concerted effort to go vertical, the present curbs would tend to be replaced with what was previously there, and the problem would be perpetuated. Mayor Simitian opposed vertical curbs in neighborhoods where they were not desired. He was comfortable with the language which indicated the City would make new and replacement curbs vertical where desired by the residents or the neighborhood. As the replacement curbs were proposed, it was entirely appropriate for staff to have some contact with the neighborhood and draw some conclusions about the neighborhood's preference. He did not have the same experiences as Mr. Ross and Vice Mayor Wheeler, and his preference was an aesthetic one. From a planning perspective, rolled curbs reflected a softer streetscape and a less urban streetscape. A vertical curb had a more urban look and was considered more appropriate for Downtown. In his view, rolled curb was sort of the middle ground between Barron Park where there was no curb and Downtown where there was a vertical curb. His desire was for the neighborhoods to retain flexibility and choice. Council Member Andersen was persuaded that from an urban design perspective there was some real value in vertical curbs. He asked that as the issues arose staff afford the community the opportunity to understand the merits of vertical curbs if they had the rolled ones in order that they might understand the issued involved. Council Member Kniss felt strongly about vertical curbs. While she believed rolled curbs defined the neighborhoods very poorly, she was far more concerned with the safety aspects. When her children were little, they lived in a rolled curb cul-de-sac, and while the kids loved it, it was one of the more dangerous places she ever lived. They lived in constant fear of delivery trucks and everyone coming in and out of the neighborhood because one backed down rolled curbs very easily. Council Member Andersen referred to the word "improve" in Policy TR-3.A, "Improve Palo Alto's arterials for all users, including motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians," and whether the
03/25/95 75-268
improvements for bicycles on an arterial would make it more difficult to accomplish the purpose of an arterial. Mr. Ross said there was some debate in the Document Review committee about the use of the word "improve" because it could be construed many different ways. In terms of the word itself, there would be some editing. CPAC tried to stay away from wordsmithing. TR-3 was locked into an earlier phase of CPAC, and the word "improve" was included from Phase I. Another way to think of it was that when improvements were made to the City's arterials, all users should be considered and the improvements should benefit all users. Council Member Andersen said he supported bicycle lanes and paths, but a bicycle lane on an arterial made the purpose of the arterial less effective in terms of efficiency of moving traffic. Mr. Ross was not certain but believed a lot of bicycle riders actually appreciated fairly direct and unobstructed routes much the same as drivers did. He was personally a fan of bicycle lanes or riding on arterials even though there might be some more traffic danger. On the other hand, the percentage of time saved was greater for a bicyclist than a motorist by using an arterial. Council Member Andersen queried whether that would include the possibility of removing the parking spaces along the street. Mr. Ross said that was a possibility. Council Member Andersen had no problem as long as it was understood that the primary purpose of an arterial was to move the traffic. He was a little uncomfortable using the concept of "improvement" in a way that would diminish the purpose for which the arterial was intended. Council Member Kniss was concerned about Program TR-3.A1, "Work with Caltrans to evaluate alternative lane configurations for portions of El Camino in conjunction with provision of light rail." While light rail was desirable, her recollections were that the chance of light rail in Palo Alto within the duration of the Comprehensive Plan was zero. She did not believe the program represented reality. Mr. Schreiber said if Program TR-3.A1 ended up in the Comprehensive Plan, it should be noted that implementation would not occur for a very long time given the unlikelihood of a light rail extension within the 15 year term of the Comprehensive Plan. If the concept were in the Plan, it would have to be beyond the life of the Plan. If the desired objective for the City was to have light rail along El Camino Real at some point in time in the unforeseen future, the City should make sure it did not make decisions that would preclude it. Council Member Kniss did not want the general public to believe that light rail was something Palo Alto had much control over since it was really a state project.
03/25/95 75-269
Mr. Schreiber observed that in the Santa Clara County (County) transportation planning process, the local jurisdiction did have considerable influence. The highest priority routes where light rail was planned came about primarily because some jurisdiction or jurisdictions aggressively sought them and sometimes competed against other jurisdictions as was seen in Sunnyvale and Mountain View. Without that type of local commitment and effort, the likelihood of a local line rising to a high County priority was fairly slight because there were enough alternatives and competi-tion and the expenses were so high. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, moved to delete Goal/Program TR-3.A1, "Work with Caltrans to evaluate alternative lane configurations for portions of El Camino in conjunction with provision of light rail," from the Transportation Section. Council Member McCown believed the program should be deleted because of the implications of what it would take to pursue light rail. It was a matter of making some choices and priorities, and by suggesting that the program not be included in the Plan was partly the timing issue but more importantly it was a matter of what was the City really going to go after. She did not believe light rail was really up on the list. Mr. Schreiber's point was exactly right, if the City wanted to aggressively pursue a long-term vision of light rail on El Camino Real, it could decide it was a priority. She believed in light of everything else in the Plan and other things that were much more likely to be achievable for the community, the light rail was a choice the City should not pursue at that time. Mayor Simitian clarified Mr. Schreiber's comment about the primary concern being to make sure that the document indicated the City would not take steps along El Camino Real to preclude light rail in the long term. While watching the discussion about Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), the airport, and a CalTrain station in downtown San Francisco, he believed if they had given any thought at all to it someday, the obstacles would not be so large. While he agreed with both Council Members Kniss and McCown, he wanted to make sure there was some record in the Plan which indicated a truly long-range possibility and one which ought not be precluded. He was interested in language which would indicate the City's intention to work with Caltrans to ensure that the placement of long-term light rail along El Camino Real was not precluded. Council Member McCown could support that with the caveat that she would not want the language to eventually be in such a way that there was some implication that the City would aggressively pursue light rail. Council Member Schneider referred to earlier discussions in the Plan process for issues such as the one before the Council where there would be an appendix that would be informational rather than being included in the Plan. The idea was that the ideas with little promise of occurring during the 15-year life of the Plan would still be documented.
03/25/95 75-270
Council Member Kniss queried what kind of action Council could take that would preclude light rail from eventually happening on El Camino Real. Mr. Overway said there was little possibility of that occurring. If for urban design reasons Council considered affecting El Camino Real, one could envision bringing the curbs out further and having a larger pedestrian area. Another alternative would be to create a larger median in the middle. If light rail occurred, it would be down the middle. MOTION PASSED 6-1, Simitian "no," Fazzino, Huber absent. Council Member Kniss said the appendix document should reflect the City's intention of ensuring that the placement of long-term light rail along El Camino Real was not precluded. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked what was meant by the second paragraph of Policy TR-2.D, "Review city circulation network routes and designation periodically, re-classify roadways and adjacent zoning as necessary." Mr. Schreiber said the staff comment was "Delete the paragraph following TR-2.D. This review will be done routinely as part of the periodic update of the Comprehensive Plan." Staff did not believe it needed any type of special process to re-evaluate street designations. Vice Mayor Wheeler concurred with staff's opinion unless CPAC convinced her otherwise. She was particularly concerned about the last notion contained in TR-2.D about adjusting zoning. She was not sure that because a street was a four-lane street versus a two-lane street meant it could not be housing as opposed to a shopping center. Mr. Ross said as the streets evolved over time from one use into another, e.g., from a collector street into a quasi-arterial, it was possible that the appropriateness of the uses along those streets would need to be reconsidered particularly as environmental quality standards became more strict. For example, if Waverley Street became essentially an arterial at some point, the appropriateness of the type of zoning along the side of the street might be reconsidered in recognition of the change of use of the street itself. He believed the verbiage was included as a flag that the use of streets did not take place in a vacuum; that there were appropriate and inappropriate uses sometimes that ended up in such grandfathering along side a street where those uses were not particularly compatible anymore, and even in recognition of that it should be considered that the changing use of a street might be considered in light of the fact that it would affect the existing uses along the sides. The language was more than just a transportation issue, it spoke a little to environment and community design as well. They all worked together and the language represented a crossover issue. Maybe there was no good place in the Plan to look for those linkages among the sections,
03/25/95 75-271
but the language was an attempt to do so. Vice Mayor Wheeler had a problem with the entire concept. El Camino Real was a good example of a major street which had both residential and commercial zoning along it and both uses could be accommodated if appropriately designed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to delete the second paragraph of Goal/Policy TR-2.D,"Review city circulation network routes and designations periodically, re-classify roadways and adjacent zoning as necessary," from the Transportation Section. Mayor Simitian believed staff indicated from time to time it had to review the City's circulation network routes and reclassify roadways, and in some cases the adjacent zoning could be appropri-ately reclassified. He had not problem to the extent staff was talking about reflecting the reality of what a particular street situation was. What concerned him was the previous language seemed to suggest that what happened on the street should define what happened in the land use area in the neighborhood whether it was commercial or residential. While the fundamental idea of the paragraph was fine, he had the same concerns about making it clear that the traffic was not going to drive land use decisions. MOTION PASSED 7-0. Mr. Schreiber referred to page 6, TR-1.J1, "Evaluate extension of light rail line from Mountain View through Palo Alto to Menlo Park along El Camino Real," in light of Council's action on page 8, to delete Program TR-3.A1 regarding light rail and include it as an appendix item. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to change Goal/Program TR-1.J1, "Evaluate extension of light rail line from Mountain View through Palo Alto to Menlo Park along El Camino Real," to the B category, i.e., Draft Plan text or appendix, rather than retaining the concept as a Program. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. Council Member McCown believed Council Member Fazzino was an advocate for including the Program, and she wanted to ensure that Council's decision was pointed out to him in case he wanted to revisit the item in the wrap-up. She believed the light rail should be a lower priority, and therefore, in the B Category. Mayor Simitian wanted to move ahead to the truck routes while professional staff was available. He referred to Policy TR-3.F, on page 11, "Review Palo Alto's through truck routes and GVW limits to consider: differences between Palo Alto and neighboring jurisdictions; the environmental and economic effects of the current 7-ton limit vs. 3-ton; two levels of GVW limits (e.g., 3-ton general, 7-ton on Oregon Expressway); minor, if any revisions to through routes for heavy trucks."
03/25/95 75-272
Mr. Ross said there was serious disagreement both in CPAC and in the Subcommittee regarding Policy TR-3.F. The language was watered down somewhat to become a review item. There were some strong advocates for reducing gross vehicle weight GVW limits on all streets and reducing the number of through truck routes and trying to clamp down no matter what the consequences. There were other voices for leaving things status quo. Most of the members recognized that truck routes were an increasing problem and had something to do with neighboring jurisdictions clamping down on the reduction of GVW limits. Mountain View and Menlo Park had perhaps diverted more traffic of that type onto Palo Alto's streets, and generally Palo Alto had a higher GVW limit than the neighboring communities. Palo Alto was suffering the consequences of the decisions of the neighboring jurisdictions. GVW was a difficult thing to regulate for a lot of reasons, and it was sometimes difficult for enforcement people to get a handle on whether a truck was over the limit. Weighing the truck was impractical, and while some trucks obviously exceeded a limit, others did not. As one watched the trucks drive by, it was unknown whether the trucks were in an overweight situation on a street that would not normally allow it but did because of the truck's destination. Overweight vehicles could travel smaller streets if they had a legitimate reason for doing so. It was a very complicated subject. Mr. Overway believed there were two parts of the issue for staff. One was whether to reduce the weight from its current 7-ton limit, and another was whether there should be additional truck routes established for trucks in Palo Alto. Most cities had more options for trucks. For example, in the east/west direction, San Antonio Road was the only designated truck route. Other cities had something in the middle of the city, such as Oregon Expressway, and something in the northern part of the city, such as University Avenue. While he was not proposing those other routes, he was suggesting that cities with additional truck routes generally had a more robust network of facilities that trucks could use, and therefore, the issue of reducing the weight did not affect the cities very much. Mayor Simitian said he did not understand what difference it would make to add two more truck routes because if the GVW limits were reduced, there were three routes trucks that could not be used rather than one. Mr. Overway clarified the GVW limits would not be lowered for truck routes. The truck route would allow any weight trucks. San Antonio Road for example allowed trucks without weight limit. Theoretically, a heavy truck traveling from the East Bay across the Dumbarton Bridge or Highway 101 should go to San Antonio Road and then up El Camino Real or Alma Street. In practice some of the trucks went up University Avenue, which was not a legally designated truck route. If there were more truck routes, such as University Avenue, the trucks would use those routes as a legally designated truck route. Council Member Andersen queried the current GVW limit on Oregon
03/25/95 75-273
Expressway. Police Officer Brad Zuck said Oregon Expressway was not a through truck route but rather a truck route for vehicles going down to the Middlefield Road corridor. Any size truck could travel down Oregon Expressway en route to the Midtown area for a delivery. Council Member Andersen clarified legally the trucks could not travel on Oregon Expressway to Alma Street. Mr. Zuck said if the destination were the Midtown area, trucks could travel from Alma Street up Oregon Expressway to Midtown and then return back to Alma Street. Council Member Andersen said if the truck were on Highway 101 and wanted to get to California Avenue, it could not use Oregon Expressway. Mr. Zuck said that was correct. Mayor Simitian queried how a truck driver knew the designated truck routes. Mr. Zuck said if one believed the truck drivers, they did not know the designated truck routes until they were stopped. There were many published books which covered regional truck routes, weight limits, and directions in and out of towns. There were truck route signs along the freeways as well as in the cities, and any truck driver traveling down the freeway should be able to determine if an on-ramp were appropriate for the vehicle weight. The Police Department also had an educational program where it sent the truck route map along with the rules to the various trucking industries. Council Member McCown queried how much enforcement time was spent by the Police Department dealing with overweight trucks or trucks which were on inappropriate truck routes. Mr. Zuck said the Police Department did track the amount of time spent on commercial enforcement. The numbers were not specific to just truck route violations and also included safety inspections on the actual truck routes. In terms of non-traffic team people working truck route violations, those numbers could be obtained and forwarded to the Council. Mayor Simitian queried the issue. Mr. Overway believed the issue was that there were residents on University Avenue and Embarcadero Road that would like the truck GVW limit reduced from 7 tons to 3 tons. Mayor Simitian queried whether the 7-ton trucks were currently allowed on University Avenue and Embarcadero Road. Mr. Overway said up to 7-ton trucks were allowed on both of those streets. Trucks weighing 8 or 9 tons needed to go to San Antonio
03/25/95 75-274
Road to travel. Mr. Ross believed the issue was eliminating the United Parcel Service (UPS) van-style truck which when loaded probably approached 7 tons from using University Avenue or Embarcadero Road. Such delivery vans would then be smaller passenger size vans rather than the large van size trucks. He did not believe the issue was related to 18-wheelers but rather the van size truck traffic on Embarcadero Road and University Avenue. Will Beckett, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee, understood the residential concerns had to do with safety and vibration. In terms of the difference between 3 and 7 tons, vibration was probably the bigger issue. Council Member Schneider queried whether there was a way to eliminate large trucks from traveling on certain routes regardless of weight. The complaints she heard from University Avenue residents related to the size of the trucks which broke branches off of trees and were noisy whether or laden or not. Mr. Overway said while there were length and height limits, he believed they were far in excess of what was being brought to Council's attention. Council Member McCown believed the current language was fine in terms of the approach. In light of the fact that it was being recommended for review and there was the "B" designation from the Planning Commission, she queried what that meant. If the language made it all the way through to the final document in some form, then what would be the priority for actually going forward with the review called for presently. Mr. Schreiber said "B" designations from the Planning Commission's standpoint were recommended not to be specific programs or policies in the Plan but ideas which should be kept alive in terms of the text appendix or some other way. Council Member McCown queried whether that meant nothing would ever be done and the idea would be floating around with no follow through. Mr. Schreiber said the City Council could direct staff to undertake a review of the truck routes and GVW limits at any point in time. There did not need to be a Comprehensive Plan policy in order for an issue to be reviewed. Council Member McCown clarified Council could direct staff separately from the Plan to review the facts related to truck routes and GVW limits. In looking at the differences between Palo Alto and neighboring jurisdictions, it seemed the area of GVW limits was ready for an attempt to jointly plan with neighboring jurisdictions for what the truck route system should be. She wanted added to the actual concept some negotiation or proposed joint planning with Palo Alto neighbors in order to achieve a more integrated approach at least to the cities immediately north and
03/25/95 75-275
south if not on a broader basis. It was a classic case where each jurisdiction was acting in isolation and causing consequences to its neighbors without talking to its neighbors about it. Council Member Kniss did not believe the review of Palo Alto's through truck routes needed to be included in the Comprehensive Plan since it was something which could occur at any time. She agreed any such review needed to be regional. She referred to Program TR-3.F1, "Install signs on 101 indicating Oregon Expressway (in addition to Embarcadero and University) as a route to Stanford," and she said the signs already existed. Mr. Schreiber believed the signs directed traffic farther along to the Embarcadero Road connection and then there was a sign which said "Stanford University." The interpretation was to have signs directing people to use Oregon Expressway. There was a concern because while Oregon Expressway was a route to University Avenue, it was a less direct route and when a person arrived at El Camino Real, it was not clear what to do. Council Member Andersen associated with the comments of Council Member McCown. Council Member McCown clarified she did not propose to change the Planning Commission's recommendation for the "B" designation, and she believed it would be up to the Council at some appropriate time to initiate a specific direction to staff. It was a suggestion to add the additional concept that the City would pursue a regional set of standard. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to revise Goal/Policy TR-3.F, "Review Palo Alto's through truck routes and GVW limits to consider: differences between Palo Alto and neighboring jurisdictions; the environmental and economic effects of the current 7-ton limit vs. 3-ton; two levels of GVW limits (e.g., 3-ton general, 7-ton on Oregon Expressway); minor, if any revisions to through routes for heavy trucks," and add language that "provides for pursuing negotiations for a regional solution." MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. Council Member McCown referred to page 9, Program TR-3.B1, "Extend Sand Hill Road to El Camino." At a minimum, she believed the language should be reworded to use the same terminology that was included in the Business and Economics Section of the Plan. The language in the Business and Economics Section included many qualifiers to it with respect to neighborhood compatibility. Mayor Simitian said his comments related to supporting the Sand Hill extension if it improved traffic and against it if the extension did not. Mr. Schreiber said the policy was to extend Sand Hill Road consistent with neighborhood and community interests, and staff's notes indicated the wording was retained.
03/25/95 75-276
Mayor Simitian said once the roadway was expanded and extended, the typical reaction was it would solve the problem and traffic would move better. Experience in Palo Alto and other communities reflected that sometimes traffic expanded to fill the available roadway. He did not believe the City should be in a position where it presupposed the result would be effective. Council Member McCown was comfortable with the language of Policy TR-3.B, "Participate in design and implementation of a comprehen-sive solution to traffic circulation problems near Stanford Shopping and Medical Centers." There was a prior discussion and an attempt to reword the policy to "consider extending Sand Hill Road to El Camino," when it was discussed in the Business and Economics Section which failed. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to revise Goal/Program TR-3.B1, "Extend Sand Hill Road to El Camino" to read, "Consider extending Sand Hill Road to El Camino consistent with neighborhood and community interest," and to make the language consistent with the program under the Business and Economics Section. Council Member Kniss recalled Mr. Calonne's previous comments regarding being precise. She was persuaded previously to eliminate the word "consider" even though it was always tempting to modify that which went into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Calonne did not recall the debate over the word "consider" but did remember discussing that the wording would be evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and that Council would, before adoption of the final Comprehensive Plan, consider the precise question of whether to extend Sand Hill Road. In some ways "consider" might be a little redundant at least at the present time. If "consider" made it through to the final Compre-hensive Plan, that was a very different concept than a commitment to extend. He believed the tone of the previous discussion was that at the present stage for the purpose of finding out the environmental and other impacts about the extension it did not make a lot of difference to add the word "consider." To be clear, in the final document the word "consider" would have a major effect. Council Member Kniss would not support the inclusion of the word "consider" but would support the rest of the language regarding consistency with neighborhood and community interests. Council Member Rosenbaum was active in the effort to change the language in the Business and Economics Section. He believed the present section might be the most natural place to make the change because Policy TR-3.B, as mentioned by Council Member McCown, was exactly what Council wanted to achieve. The goal of extending Sand Hill Road would be before the Council regardless of whether the goal existed or not because of Stanford University's application. From his standpoint, to leave the language as it presently stood suggested 1) a prejudgment; and 2) some residents might be left with the feeling that if the language remained in
03/25/95 75-277
its present form their legal rights in the future should they be unhappy with any action taken by Council might in some way be abridged. For those two reasons, he believed the word "consider" should either remain or the program should be removed from the section. It would not make any difference in what went before the Council. Mr. Calonne said if the Council ultimately adopted a consistency requirement between zoning and the Comprehensive Plan, something which did not currently exist, and if Council included unequivocal language to extend Sand Hill Road to El Camino Real, that language could impact voters' ability to do either referenda or initiatives which would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan language. Again, that was all in the Council's hands because currently the City did not have a consistency requirement and the Council was not at the point of fully discussing it. Council Member McCown clarified at that point, it made no differ-ence whether the word "consider" was included in terms of the analysis of what would happen. When the final Comprehensive Plan was before the Council for adoption, then the wording, depending on what Council did with the other issues, and whether it said "consider" or "extend" Sand Hill would make a significant dif-ference. She concurred with Council Member Rosenbaum that what Council should be communicating to the community was, of course, the extension would be considered and evaluated based on the environmental analysis and the policy arguments and whether it, in fact, improved traffic. She believed it was more straightforward and accurate to have the word "consider" extending rather than just the word "extend." Since it made no difference for the present process, she preferred to have the word "consider" included, and when Council acted on the final plan, the wording could be finalized. Council could make a direct policy decision at that point to extend Sand Hill Road. The application might be before the Council before Council received the final plan for adoption. For the time being, the word "consider" extending Sand Hill Road was the right message for the community. Council Member Kniss clarified the wording of the final Comprehen-sive Plan was what was important not the wording of the draft Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. He did not want to discourage the Council from articulating the position it wanted in the final Comprehensive Plan at that point. The only caveat was if a consistency requirement were adopted, there could be consequences in terms of the referenda and initiative. For the sake of the analysis that would encourage Council's consideration of the final Comprehensive Plan, it would not make a difference. Mayor Simitian realized the Council had kept the City Attorney very busy with many other assignments, but it was important to get the issue about consistency and its relationship to the right of initiative or referenda sorted out sometime soon. There needed to be clarity on the ramifications of a statement for inclusion of the Plan. He would appreciate closure to the discussion.
03/25/95 75-278
Mr. Calonne said Council did direct him to prepare the opinion, and the California Supreme Court in the past three weeks came down with one of the cases with which he was concerned, e.g., DeVita v. County of Napa. It would not be inappropriate in his opinion to defer consideration of the issue until his opinion was delivered to Council, and consider the matter in the midst of one of the later element discussions. He believed Council would have some interest in a longer written analysis of both the initiative/referenda issues and the consistency issues. MOTION TO DEFER: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by McCown, to defer action on the motion pending receipt of an opinion from the City Attorney. MOTION TO DEFER PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. Council Member Kniss referred to page 9, TR-3.D1, "Implement computerized traffic management systems to improve traffic flow when feasible." She queried whether it related to the Caltrans cameras being installed and where lights would be placed indicating traffic difficulties. Mr. Ross believed the intent was to recognize and stay on top of emerging technologies which could provide additional means for analyzing and managing traffic flow. "Computerized" might be misleading in that the intent was really any technological advance whether it was direct signaling devices that could be incorporated into automobiles that indicated speed, trips, use of intersections, etc. Technology could become available within the 15-year span of the Plan which could become very useful. Council Member Kniss said the technologies were available, and Caltrans was busy installing cameras on Highways 101, 87, 237, etc., in order to do the types of management referred to by Mr. Ross. She hoped the Program would remain in the Plan and that at some point the City would see such management techniques on some of its lesser but still important commuter streets. Council Member Andersen referred to page 9, TR-3.C, "Reduce traffic congestion without widening streets or intersections," with the exception included by staff. He was unclear about why the limitations were being included in the Comprehensive Plan. He was concerned about limiting options if, in fact, minor widening in some areas might accomplish the objective of traffic calming in some other area. Mr. Ross believed the perception of the Subcommittee was that widening streets, particularly at intersections, was the major means of reducing congestion. There were, however, secondary impacts particularly on pedestrian and bicycle crossing of those intersections which might not be elevated to the same level as congestion concerns and perhaps should be. Staff provided good education about the proper use of intersection and street widening. The suggestion was that any widening should be done very careful recognizing that while it might reduce congestion, it
03/25/95 75-279
could create barriers. Certain intersections were currently very difficult to cross and tended to divide communities. For example, while Oregon Expressway was a wonderful street for drivers, but it was very difficult for pedestrians. If more lanes were added to Oregon Expressway for the purpose of reducing traffic congestion, there could be less well recognized but important impacts to people in the community. Council Member Andersen did not propose widening Oregon Expressway. He did not have any major objections but he wanted to make certain that staff was comfortable with the limitations and its own additions, and that the challenges of the next 15 years had been dealt with. Mr. Schreiber said with staff's suggested additions, Policy TR-3.C reflected current City policy. He was not sure it would deal with everything that might come up in the next 15 years, but it provided a basis to go back, if further intersection improvements or widenings were desired, and amend the policy to establish the basis for it. Council Member Andersen requested that under TR-3.C that Oregon Expressway be added to staff comment (d) "Page Mill/El Camino Real..." He believed all four intersections had the potential for needing improvements in future years, and he did not want the improvements to be limited to the western side of the street. He did not want the City to be in a position in 12 or more years of not being able to do a widening based on something included in the Comprehensive Plan which might actually be a benefit to traffic in the neighborhood. Mr. Overway said the present Comprehensive Plan policy stated that minor street widenings where appropriate were acceptable. Each time staff attempted minor street widenings, it was done in conjunction with a lot of public discussion and the improvements rarely occurred. The Citywide Traffic Study set up the particular intersections to be included, and Oregon Expressway was considered a part of it. Council Member Andersen realized he was not an authority on traffic issues and had learned to have a high respect for City staff in such issues. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved to remove TR-3.C, "Reduce traffic congestion without widening streets or intersections." MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Kniss referred to Program TR-3.E1, on page 10, "Analyze creation of a new category of arterial street called the Residential Arterial (RA). Designate Middlefield Road, University Avenue (between Woodland and Middlefield) Embarcadero Road (between Alma and West Bayshore) and Charleston-Arastradero as residential arterials." She asked for comments. Mr. Ross said the Subcommittee believed it would be appropriate to
03/25/95 75-280
have an additional street classification for purposes of estab-lishing design standards, how speeds were evaluated, etc. It would be called residential arterial, and part of the definition would include those roads which were presently considered arterials but which primarily had residential zoning along the sides rather than commercial zoning or "lesser setbacks." Oregon Expressway was an arterial which had residential zoning along the sides of it but there was a significant buffer in the setbacks. Portions of Alma Street, Embarcadero Road, and a few other streets around town were dominated by residential zoning whereas other arterials were not dominated by residential zoning. Council Member Kniss queried what would be different as a result of having the residential arterial category. Mr. Overway referred to Program TR-3.E3, "Change four-lane residential arterials to two lanes (plus a center turn lane), unless it contradicts a demonstrated safety need or severely congested conditions. Maintain existing signalled intersections widths to accommodate peak hour stacking and/or dedicated turn lanes," where the implications were significant. He interpreted the issue to mean that roads like Embarcadero Road could be reduced to one lane in each direction and to would operate more like University Avenue. Council Member Kniss queried whether staff supported the change to Program TR-3.E1. Mr. Overway said more information was always better than less information. As a technical person, he had serious reservations about the wisdom of a residential arterial category. Those views were expressed in the staff comments. If those comments were satisfactory, that was fine; if not, more information and analysis was needed. Mayor Simitian clarified what was presently before the Council was a new Policy TR-3.E, "Reduce impacts of commuter and/or through traffic on residential arterial streets." There would also be a program, which was the shaded paragraph above TR-3.E, which was originally a policy, to "Analyze creation of a new category of arterial street called the Residential Arterial (RA). Designate Middlefield Road, University Avenue (between Woodland and Middlefield) Embarcadero Road (between Alma and West Bayshore) and Charleston-Arastradero as residential arterials." Any of the specific programs were wiped out with the "D" designation except for TR-3.E4, "Treat RA's with landscaping and other visual improvements so that drivers know when they are part of neighbor-hoods (see Community Design)." Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Planning Commissioner Victor Ojakian clarified Mayor Simitian's explanation represented the Planning Commission's approach which was an overlay to what CPAC suggested. The reason for the Planning Commission's approach was somewhat of a comfort level with the concept but the specific programs seemed too dramatic for
03/25/95 75-281
most Commissioners to accept because of the significant changes on roadways. Mayor Simitian supported the Planning Commission recommendation. A starting point in the process was acknowledging what CPAC recognized and what the neighbors had been saying regarding a difference between an arterial and a residential arterial. Once that was recognized, there could be some conversation about what could and should be done. While not all recommendations would be feasible, there might be a little more room to work than what Mr. Overway was currently optimistic about. Council Member McCown agreed with Mayor Simitian. Notwithstanding the earlier discussion about traffic calming and the appropriate limitation of the program to local and collector streets, she believed when one looked at a new category of residential arterials, there might well be some traffic calming approaches that could be part of what might be pursued on residential arterials. She believed Embarcadero Road was a good example in that the excessive speeds people drove was a factor of the perceived width of the road, the fact that because of the speeds, no one parked on major stretches of it, so it was perceived as being even wider than the four traffic lanes it was. Landscaped bulb-outs which narrowed the whole feeling of the street were an example of what might be pursued in a residential arterial type of category in the future. She believed the Planning Commission was correct that endorsing as a program in the Plan to reduce four lanes to two lanes was not appropriate. There was not sufficient basis to endorse that idea at the present time. It would be a fruitful area for integration of the ideas which were elsewhere in the Transportation Section. Mayor Simitian believed the issue of reducing GVW limits on Embarcadero Road and University Avenue tied in well with the creation of residential arterial designations. He believed the Planning Commission was in the right place. Council Member Kniss believed whenever the City even analyzed a new category, and being mindful of Mr. Overway's comments, Council tended to forget the rather dramatic monetary implications involved even with the analysis. Staff had woven those comments in, and Council should be mindful of them. Mayor Simitian referred to the issues that related to University Avenue, for example, the ability of residents to bring six-foot fences out to the front, and truck routes. While neither issue had significant cost implications for the City, he suspected if Council asked the people on University Avenue, they would say a combination of reducing truck weight and the ability to build a six-foot fence against the front was a significant mitigation from what they were experiencing. Notwithstanding the fact that he voted against one of the situations, in terms of responding to Mr. Overway's comments, while some might cost, some might not, and the City should look at the range of solutions. He believed the City was headed in that direction.
03/25/95 75-282
Council Member McCown understood with regard to Program TR-3.H1, "Study projects to depress bike ways and pedestrian walkways under Alma Street and CalTrain tracks and implement if feasible," staff's comment was to renumber the Program to TR-4.A4, and add a sentence, "Refer to map titled, `Caltrain Grade Separations'." She queried whether that was the Planning Commission recommenda-tion. Mr. Schreiber observed an adopted Capital Improvement Program project which staff was in the process of pursuing that would do the study. Further, because it would end up being a program without a policy, staff recommended a way of tieing it back to another policy. When the draft Comprehensive Plan was put together, the numbers were likely to all change in any event but staff wanted to create some connection with the material under Goal TR-4. Council Member McCown asked when the authorized study would actually be before the Council. Mr. Overway said staff was preparing the scope of services which should go to the Policy and Services Committee for its review within the next six weeks. Council Member McCown queried whether Council would likely have the scope of services before it acted on the final language in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Overway said yes. Council Member McCown clarified Council could actually make a decision based on the study about whether to pursue depressed bike or pedestrian paths under Alma Street and CalTrain tracks before enacting the final Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Overway said that was correct. RECESS: 12:20 p.m. - 12:50 p.m. Council Member Kniss referred to page 11, TR-4.A2, "Set traffic signal timing for bicyclists and pedestrians (rather than autos) where appropriate." She asked for more information. Mr. Ross said the Subcommittee believed there might be one or two streets which might eventually be more friendly for pedestrians than cars, and a way to continue it might be to consider pedestrian travel speeds rather than auto travel speeds when setting the traffic signals. University Avenue would be an example of such a street. Council Member Kniss clarified the matter was changed to a "B" item. Mr. Ross said the Planning Commission disagreed with CPAC. Mr. Ojakian said the Planning Commission believed the Program was
03/25/95 75-283
so specific and limited to a few streets that it might be more appropriate to include the item in the appendix rather than to concentrate on it as a main item in the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member McCown referred to page 12, Program TR-4.C2 ,"Begin an aggressive program of preventing/monitoring violations by city-owned vehicles, using "Am I Speeding?" bumper stickers with telephone reporting information on all city vehicles (including PD, Utilities and PW)." She queried whether the program really needed to be included in the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to delete Goal/Program TR-4.C2, "Begin an aggressive program of preventing/ monitoring violations by city-owned vehicles, using "Am I Speed-ing?" bumper stickers with telephone reporting information on all city vehicles (including PD, Utilities and PW)," from the Trans-portation Section. Council Member McCown clarified that while she supported the idea of preventing City vehicles from speeding, she believed it already occurred and it did not need to be in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Fleming said the issue was addressed in an traffic report. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. Vice Mayor Wheeler referred to the upcoming study and queried whether there might be programs or policies set forth in that document which might be appropriately placed in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Fleming believed the study was divided into three sections: 1) programs that staff recommended for Council's consideration and which were prioritized; 2) programs that staff did not recommend; and 3) others that staff believed would really be impacted by the Comprehensive Plan which staff asked be delayed and dealt with in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Overway said those issues identified in the traffic safety report as appropriate to the Comprehensive Plan were already included. Vice Mayor Wheeler clarified there was nothing new which had not been mentioned. Mr. Overway said that was correct. Vice Mayor Wheeler queried why Program TR-5.B2 was eliminated by the Planning Commission. Mr. Ojakian said it was eliminated because it was already included in a different section of the Plan. Council Member McCown noted that staff's recommendation was that Program TR-5.A3 be retained in the Plan and that the idea of adjusting parking fees for permits and pay lots should be pursued
03/25/95 75-284
as a follow-up to the implementation of the 12-point parking program. Mr. Overway said Council Member McCown's comments were accurate. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to retain TR-5.A3, "Set parking fees for permits and pay lots according to a market demand analysis," in the Transportation Section. Mr. Overway said the City presently charged for parking permits in the Downtown area. One of the considerations in dialogue with the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Parking Subcommittee was to increase the parking charge at some point since it had not been increased for a very long time. The thought was to do so in conjunction with the provision of a new parking structure but not until after the current year's trial period had transpired. Mr. Schreiber said the Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) and staff had some theoretical differences. The Chamber wanted to see whatever parking revenues were generated used for downtown parking purposes. The comment staff raised in its report on transportation issues was if the City intended to pursue things like shuttle buses which needed sources of revenue, parking permit fees could be one of a variety of sources of income. The use of increased parking fees should not be limited to only things that were directly related to physical improvements or upgrades within the Downtown. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to Program TR-5.B2, "In the downtown area, new development should not increase the total parking deficit beyond 1,600 spaces," and noticed in the staff recommended reinstating it into the Plan. He queried whether that was consistent with the answer Council just received. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Staff tried to caution the Planning Commission not to delete things in one place and leave them in another because of the confusion it created. He was comfortable with what was on the record in terms of acknowledging that the Program existed in another place and the elimination in TR-5.A3 did not mean the concept was being eliminated. Mayor Simitian queried whether "set parking fees for pay lots according to a market demand analysis" meant a pay lot would charge what the market would bear for the lot. Mr. Overway said his interpretation was the same as Mayor Simitian. Council Member Andersen appreciated the market demand approach to most solutions and he was not unhappy with removing subsidies for parking. He was also aware of some of the implications such a regulation might have on some areas of the Downtown particularly. He was not sure whether he was ready to support it as a part of the Comprehensive Plan. He supported the Planning Commission recommendation and would oppose the motion.
03/25/95 75-285
Vice Mayor Wheeler also opposed the motion because it was a question of how the City was going to change people's behaviors. So far Council's approach was to encourage people to park their cars appropriately in the Downtown area, and in order to accomplish it, Council had more or less purposely taken the view that it would be as painless as possible for employees and long-term parkers to park in spaces provided for them. She was afraid the particular program was a little too stringent for the times and might, with the current mind-set of people who visited the Downtown area, have some unintended consequences of pushing parking out into the neighborhoods which was not what Council wanted to do. While it might be a good long-term goal, she was concerned about the immediate consequences. She preferred to place the matter where the Planning Commission suggested in a B section. Council Member Schneider said the fees in the Downtown area for parking were very low, and she believed a market based rate was important. While the City did not want to charge its customers, and employees would bear some of the brunt of the parking problem until better solutions could be achieved for the customers. Rates could be raised according to a demand analysis. She supported the motion. Council Member McCown understood the reason for including Program TR-5.A3 in the Plan was to say something about how the City would try to price permits and pay parking to the extent pay parking existed. The City already authorized the experiment on Lot S as part of the 12-point program, and she understood the idea was to try and price such things in a way that was reflective of the market being served. She believed the concept was important to include in the Plan as a statement of approach to try to get at the question of having the cost relate to what the market issues were, the demands, and the consequences. Lastly, if the City were going to try to do some of the other things such as a shuttle or other transportation improvements, the City would have to be creative about where the funds would come from. The concept was an important one to be part of the Plan--not just as an appendix but something that would part of the pursuit of permit fees and potential pay lots. Mr. Ross clarified the Program would partially allow some flexibility in rate setting from lot to lot. It might be that an underutilized lot or structure needed to have a lower parking fee in order to encourage people to use it so Program TR-5.A3 was not just about raising rates to the point of pain but to have flexi-bility for pricing permits for various lots at various levels in order to try to distribute the parking around the City. Mayor Simitian had difficulty with leaving the Program at a B level. He remained concerned about the diversity of people who worked downtown and that any market-based approach would have radically different impacts. He voted against the pay lots because he was disconcerted the City could not find a way to make the first hour or two free. The costs of a permit in a market
03/25/95 75-286
based approach were relatively inconsequential for a professional who earned a six figure income than they were for a sales clerk. They both needed a parking space but the impact of the system would be substantially different. Also, he did not believe people would be priced out of their automobiles until they were given a real alternative to use. MOTION FAILED 3-4, Rosenbaum, Schneider, McCown "yes," Fazzino, Huber absent. Council Member Wheeler referred to the staff's suggested wording for Program TR-5.A4, on page 13, "Encourage schools to discourage driving by a combination of parking fees, regulations, and education." She believed staff's suggested wording captured more clearly the results of the various studies on the issues of students driving to school. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to change Goal/Program TR-5.A4, "Work with PAUSD to evaluate charging for student parking," to staff's suggested wording, "Encourage schools to discourage driving by a combination of parking fees, regula-tions, and education." Council Member Andersen supported the motion. More students drove to school once they became 16 years old. Twenty years was not the case, and environmental issues were a concern. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. Council Member McCown clarified the Planning Commission basically adopted all the staff comments, mergers, and rewording on page 14. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Kniss referred to Goal TR-6 on page 14, "Improve, expand and maintain safe and efficient bicycle and pedestrian systems and paths." She queried whether the City finally completed the Bicycle Master Plan, and what was meant by "expand and improve." Mr. Stoffel said staff proposed some slightly altered wording which would not include the word "expand." However, there were many other bicycle programs listed on page 15a that actually would call for some expansion. There were some elements of the Bicycle Master Plan that were not yet adopted and there were other things that would be added to it. There would be expansion of facilities; however, staff just had a more generalized wording for the goal in order to have the specifics and then list it as policies and programs. Council Member Kniss referred to page 15a, and the staff comments on TR-6.A12, "Add new program: "Complete implementation of the Bay Trail and Ridge Trail plans in Palo Alto." She believed those were controversial trails, and she queried whether they were included carte blanche. While she did not want to make any dramatic changes, Council needed to know more about what the program implied. She recalled being asked recently about some of
03/25/95 75-287
the bicycle trails and heard that the mountain bikes had caused some problems on those trails; therefore, bikes would not be implemented. Mr. Stoffel was not familiar with anything about not going forward with the City's participation in the Bay Trail and the Ridge Trail plans. Council Member Kniss said she could help with the information if she knew which was the Ridge Trail and which was the Bay Trail. She suggested staff return to Council with a general idea. She queried whether either of the trails involved Foothills Park. Mr. Stoffel said while neither involved Foothills Park, there was discussion of connector trails between the Bay and the Ridge Trail. Neither of the trails mentioned in TR-6.A12 involved Foothills Park. Council Member Kniss queried whether either of the trails involved the problems surrounding mountain bikes and the need to monitor them. Mr. Stoffel did not believe so. Council Member Kniss said Program TR-6 was a huge program, and she queried whether all the information regarding bicycles was consistent with what Council had done that related to cars without having to do all the cross-checking. For example, Council had a lot of discussion simply about the bicycle parking places in front of Cafe Verona and whether it created more of a parking problem in a particular area. Mr. Overway believed there was a balancing issue involved. In the past, the emphasis and priority was given to automobiles, and CPAC had tried to bring a different balance to the existing trade offs between cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. Council Member Kniss referred to Program TR-6.A8, "Design and implement a Bay to foothills bicycle path." She could not support it given all the time and energy Council spent on it. She was surprised to see it in the Plan after Council had a number of discussions with the rangers indicating there was a real problem with the connection. Mayor Simitian was aware a controversy existed between hiker and cyclist users of the trails. He did not recall any discussion at the Council level, but it was a topic which had been discussed with trails and pathways advocates. The discussions had been going on for about ten years and had heated up in the past few years. He was not sure he reached the same conclusion as Council Member Kniss, but he was aware of the controversy and the struggle for turf between the cyclists and hikers. Council Member Kniss understood the matter would be dropped for the time being because the rangers indicated there was a problem with the cyclists.
03/25/95 75-288
Mr. Ross believed the Transportation Subcommittee was concerned with providing a more extensive network of bicycle trails. He was also aware of the controversy surrounding improper use of some trails which were currently shared, but he believed they were separate issues in a sense. If there was an abuse problem, it needed to be dealt with in some way but not by preventing the otherwise desirable linkage of a pathway network that could have many other benefits. Council Member Kniss suggested Program TR-6.A8, "Design and implement a Bay to Foothills bicycle path" be pulled out pending an opportunity to talk with those involved with the map entitled "Bay to Foothills Path Possibilities" to know more about the current issues. Mr. Overway understood the intent was not a reference to Foothills Park but rather to the foothills. The first step would be a feasibility study to look at the options, constraints, and opportunities to try to connect from the Bay to the foothills a path that would presumably serve bicyclists and possibly pedestri-ans and to work through a process where if difficulties existed to try to sort through a method for addressing them. The concept was a linkage which allowed travel from the Bay to the foothills. How that occurred needed a lot more study and consideration. Council Member Kniss clarified the wording "design and implement," and staff's comment was to add a sentence at the end of the program, "refer to Map entitled 'Bay to Foothills Path Possibili-ties.'" She asked where the map was. Mr. Schreiber said the maps were included in the March 9, 1995, Council packet. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle showed a map that showed three potential conceptual connections from the Bay to the foothills. One linkage would run essentially along San Francisquito Creek; another possibility was along the Matadero Creek alignment; and the third utilized the Adobe Creek alignment. Council Member Kniss asked whether all the linkages went through Foothills Park. Ms. Lytle said there was an alignment through Foothills Park. Mr. Schreiber suggested Council Member Kniss might be seeking to modify Program TR-6.A8 to evaluate implementation of a Bay to foothills bicycle path. He was hearing concern over the definitive statements to do it. Council Member McCown did not understand the problem with having a principle in the Plan to seek a good route for people who would like to ride a bicycle from trails in the baylands to trails in the foothills. Clearly the wording could be redone but she not understand why Council would reject the idea.
03/25/95 75-289
Mayor Simitian was sympathetic with the need to design and implement a Bay to foothills bicycle path. Part of the problem was staff's suggested wording regarding the map title identified three possibilities all of which converged through Foothills Park, which concerned Council Member Kniss. He suggested it might be appropriate to drop the reference to the map and say design and implement a Bay to foothills bicycle path, which as a goal was probably shared by all of the Council Members. If the map were eliminated, then the implicit assumption that the path would go through Foothills Park was also eliminated. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to revise Goal/Program TR-6.A8, "Design and implement a Bay to foothills bicycle path," to read "Evaluate the design of a Bay to foothills bicycle path." Mayor Simitian queried whether the references to the map were deleted. Mr. Schreiber said references to the map could be deleted. In any future study, routes would be identified. While the map would be a resource, it did not have to be a specific reference. Council Member Kniss said the reference to the map was deleted. MOTION PASSED 5-2, Andersen, Simitian "no," Fazzino, Huber absent. Council Member McCown agreed with staff's comment on page 15a that the new programs listed should be condensed. She would leave how to compress the list without losing the essential ideas to staff. Council Member Kniss referred to page 15a, TR-6.A20, "Provide Adult Crossing Guards at school crossings which meet adopted criteria." At a recent City/School Liaison Committee meeting there was extensive discussion as to whether the City might need to provide several more crossing guards. She was interested in reviewing the criteria. Mr. Overway would provide the information to Council. Council Member Andersen clarified new policies TR-7.B, "Encourage a responsive private sector taxi service" and TR-8.B1, "Wait time should not exceed 15 minutes," were part of the Planning Commission recommendation. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Mayor Simitian asked what was meant by Policy TR-7.B, "Encourage a responsive private sector taxi service." Mr. Ojakian said if the City were to encourage people to get around without an automobile, one effective way to do so was to have an efficient and responsive taxi service. Program TR-7.B1, "Wait time should not exceed 15 minutes," went along with the policy.
03/25/95 75-290
Mayor Simitian clarified the intent was to work with whatever private provider the City utilized, and the policy was to encourage them to be more responsive than they were currently. Mr. Ojakian said that was correct. Mayor Simitian queried the City's current practices with regard to licensing taxicab companies, including criteria, and whether more than one company could serve the community. Mr. Calonne said taxicab permits were issued through the Police Department utilizing a merit process. Ms. Fleming said the criteria related to the safety of the taxicab, legitimacy of the business, and whether the driver was appropriately licensed. The City then inspected the vehicle to ensure it was in compliance with rules of the road. It was true that more than one company could serve the community at one time, and as many as two or three taxi companies served the community at one time in the past. Complaints were investigated by the City, and if found to be legitimate, everything from pulling a particular vehicle out of service to pulling the operating permit could occur. Council Member Andersen clarified there were no restrictions on the number of taxicabs that could serve the area. Ms. Fleming said the City did not have any restrictions. It was more of a market-driven situation. Mayor Simitian asked when the item returned to Council, that staff provide more detail on regulations surrounding taxicabs. He understood there were regulations on where fares could be picked up and by whom. He also recalled some debate about whether there might be some sort of standardized regional licensing procedure. Mr. Ojakian referred to Goal TR-8, "Provide investments in infrastructure to support related visions," which the Planning Commission unanimously deleted. The Planning Commission recommended the item be deleted primarily because it was hard to approve such an item without knowing the costs. He believed a lot of the goals in TR-8 would be looked at in Phase III. Council Member McCown envisioned the final Plan would contain some type of statement about funding. She was not sure whether it needed to be a "policy" but funding was critical to the Plan, and the Transportation Element needed to be grounded in some content about funding and the City's commitments to pursuit of funding. Further, for the life of the Plan, the City might consider some mechanism for periodic evaluation of the process being made on the commitments and reprioritizing choices if necessary. Ms. Fleming clarified Council Member McCown referred to the section staff would prepare on implementation to include the funding statement.
03/25/95 75-291
Council Member McCown believed the Transportation Element itself needed to contain language which discussed the funding challenges, the City's philosophy regarding pursuit of funding, and incorporated of the idea that the Comprehensive Plan was for the long-term, and there were many uncertainties in terms of what might actually be funded. There needed to be a method to periodically check on the progress. Mr. Ross believed the Transportation Subcommittee's concern was that the concepts included in TR-8 be included somewhere because as pointed out by Council Member McCown, it was critical that funding be a priority and methods of funding be examined and always on the table. If the Goal/Policies/Programs of TR-8 were retained in the implementation phase, that was probably sufficient. Mayor Simitian believed when Council began the discussions on the Plan, staff appropriately reminded Council that a comprehensive plan was only as good as the implementation measures and their ultimate use. California was full of general plans with no meaning whatsoever because no one had ever implemented anything. The point of funding was well taken. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, that the Draft Plan, in reference to Goal TR-8, should have language addressing funding and implementation of Transportation proposals. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. Mayor Simitian referred to Program TR-9.A3, "Resist construction of a southern connection between Dumbarton Bridge and Highway 101." He recalled the concern about the connection was essentially environmental in terms of something through the Bay. He queried whether there was some discussion about a southern connection between the Dumbarton Bridge and Highway 101 that could avoid the particular concerns. Mr. Schreiber said there probably was a route which would avoid the environmental issues but it would have to cut through the City of East Palo Alto, and that route probably had as much or more opposition than any other route. Mayor Simitian referred to Program TR-9.A2, and queried why the words "...exclusive bus and high-occupancy lanes..." were bold. Mr. Schreiber said the bold face was related to the last round of CPAC editing processes. The basic program was already contained in the existing Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Section, and probably wordsmithing occurred in the CPAC editing process. Mr. Ross did not believe the prior Comprehensive Plan was as specific about bus and high-occupancy vehicles. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to Program TR-9.A4, "In evaluat-ing proposals for development on City-owned lands east of Bayshore Freeway, a determination should be made as to whether public
03/25/95 75-292
benefit and need outweigh potential traffic increases generated by the development." He asked for further information. Mr. Schreiber said the program was added into the Comprehensive Plan sometime in the early to mid-1980s as part of a land use and traffic study of the east of Bayshore/Embarcadero/Geng Road area. The program was the result of a conclusion that the level of traffic congestion in that location was substantial and the City should try to discourage additional traffic especially as to City land. There was another motivation that City lands likely to be generating more traffic and human activity included some parkland as well as the airport. The effort would be to try to discourage additional human activity and what was perceived as development of City-owned natural or quasi-natural resources. Council Member Rosenbaum queried whether there were proposals for development on City-owned land east of Bayshore. Mr. Schreiber said since the airport and the golf course were City-owned properties, there had been issues and considerable debate around those two facilities over the appropriateness of the scale of development. Restaurant facilities at the golf course and the number of fixed base operators at the airport were examples. While they had not been issues for a while, they were issues in the 1970s and early 1980s. Council Member Andersen referred to Program TR-9.A2, "Support the conversion of existing vehicle lanes to exclusive bus and high-occupancy lanes on freeways and expressways (including the Dumbarton Bridge)," regarding the conversion of existing vehicle lanes to exclusive bus and high-occupancy lanes. He reminded Council of discussions in 1990 or 1991 with East Palo Alto when the diamond lanes were removed going eastbound on the Dumbarton Bridge. There was strong concern on the part of East Palo Alto of the diamond lanes being repositioned on the Dumbarton bridge because of the backup of traffic into their community. Even though Palo Alto had a policy to the contrary, he was concerned about not actively pursuing the policy because the impacts on East Palo Alto had to be considered. It was important to remember the impacts on neighboring jurisdictions. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Andersen, to revise Goal/Program TR-9.A2, "Support the conversion of existing vehicle lanes to exclusive bus and high-occupancy lanes on freeways and expressways (including the Dumbarton Bridge)," to read "Support where appropriate the conversion of existing vehicle lanes to exclusive bus and high-occupancy lanes on freeways and express-ways." MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. Council Member Wheeler referred to Policy TR-9.D, "Participate in regional study of cost/feasibility/funding to depress CalTrain right-of-way below grade, to allow level crossings of local and arterial streets." While she realized it had been moved to a "B" status, she was not sure whether it might not be moved even
03/25/95 75-293
further out. Unless a regional study was going to take place, given the information regarding potential implementation of some of the "Dream Team" concepts, the proposed policy was well beyond the 50- to 100-year possibility and well beyond anyone's wildest financial realities. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, to delete Goal/Policy TR-9.D, "Participate in regional study of cost/ feasibility/funding to depress CalTrain right-of-way below grade, to allow level crossings of local and arterial streets" from the Transportation Section. Mr. Ross pointed out that San Mateo County was actually in the process with elevating grade separations for CalTrain. While the concept might appear way out there, in fact, on a regional basis such a program was a possibility. He understood CalTrain was still planning to implement close to a 100 percent increase in trains over the next year or two. Council Member Andersen said Rail 2000 would be disappointed if the City removed the potential for support of the study. He believed the door should remain open, and he would oppose the motion. Mr. Overway said while San Mateo County was in the process of elevating sections of their CalTrain on fill to grade separate, there was presently no regional study. In staff's last report to Council, staff raised what he considered to be one of the most important decisions Council would be addressing, i.e., what to do at those grade crossings. Currently, the City was proceeding along the lines that it would allow them to continue to exist status quo and possibly providing pedestrian and bicycle under-crossings to be evaluated as capital improvement projects. Mayor Simitian said in recent years he was persuaded by staff that such a study was beyond reach, yet in the cities of San Mateo and San Carlos elevated grade separations were occurring. He was concerned about the push for increased rail use, and the need for long-term improvements. He queried the distinction between elevation and depression of grades and what made it work for other communities in such close proximity that made it not practicable for Palo Alto. Mr. Overway believed depressed grades were financially almost impossible to achieve because of existing undercrossings, utili-ties, water, and costs, etc. Elevated grade separations across existing streets were financially achievable over a long period of time. San Mateo was elevating CalTrain on a high embankment through the communities, and the areas through which it was occurring had commercial development on both sides of the track. Staff's previous comments to Council indicated a belief that elevated grade separations were not an acceptable solution in Palo Alto. In the cities of San Mateo and San Carlos, the trade-off was the concern about getting traffic back and forth across the tracks to stimulate the commercial activity, whereas he did not believe within Palo Alto the concern about traffic delays at those
03/25/95 75-294
railroad tracks was as important. Staff's recommendation was to proceed with the pedestrian/bicycle undercrossings because of considerations somewhat unique to Palo Alto. Council Member McCown believed there were significant differences in each community. However, she did not want to lose sight of Mr. Ross' comments in terms of the hope that CalTrain would run at increased frequencies. Obviously, Palo Alto would have to deal with the safety issues using different devices if it continued to have at-grade crossings at least for automobiles. She supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 5-2, Andersen, Simitian "no," Fazzino, Huber absent. Council Member Andersen referred to TR-9.E, to add a new policy: "Support efforts by Caltrans and the Congestion Management Agency to institute measures to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow on existing area freeways." His concern was whether the policy would be interpreted by Caltrans or others that the City would support or endorse metering lights. Mr. Schreiber said the answer was "yes" given the programs that flowed out of the policy which included staff recommendation TR-9.E2, "Support implementation of ramp metering with HOV bypass provisions on freeway interchange ramps." that supported ramp metering with the provisions provided. Council Member Andersen queried whether staff had any concerns about the possibility of metering lights at nearby freeway connections on the traffic flow in Palo Alto. Mr. Overway said a year or two ago there was a proposal from Caltrans to install ramp metering on the southbound ramps headed in the southbound direction. At that time, staff supported the Caltrans recommendation to install ramp metering with the condition that Caltrans do some things to some of the intersections. The proposal by Caltrans was put on hold subsequently due to environmental work which needed to occur. While he understood the environmental work was completed, he was not sure Caltrans had the funding to go ahead with the program. At some point the proposal would return to the City because as a part of it, Caltrans wanted to add the Charleston on-ramp, which required City of Palo Alto approval to amend its freeway agreement. The intent was to go ahead with ramp metering in Mountain View and Sunnyvale without having to go for Council approval. Council Member Andersen clarified if the item were included in the Comprehensive Plan, it essentially indicated to Caltrans that Palo Alto had no concerns about traffic flow in its community. Mr. Overway did not believe inclusion in the Plan indicated no concerns but rather that Palo Alto supported the concept of trying to make freeways work better for the benefit of everyone including Palo Alto. There might well be, as experienced in the opening of highway 85, very emotional issues some of which were ultimately
03/25/95 75-295
resolved. In reality, where ramp metering was utilized, his experience was that a benefit was being derived. Problems were probably ones where Caltrans had not gone out and adjusted the timing. In his opinion, ramp metering was an effective tool for significantly better utilization of the freeways. Council Member Andersen preferred to have the option available to Council when the issue arose rather than endorse it at that point. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, to delete Goal/Policy TR-9.E2, "Support implementation of ramp metering with HOV bypass provisions on freeway interchange ramps," from the Transportation Section. Council Member Kniss indicated she would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. Council Member McCown said the alternative to Council Member Andersen's motion would be to add the "where appropriate" language similar to what Mayor Simitian added on the earlier support of HOV lanes. As long as deleting the statement from the Comprehensive Plan did not reflect opposition on the part of the Council but rather that Council would not take a position until the specific situation occurred, she had no problem. She noted one of the issues everyone faced was the potential violation of air quality rules. The use of the interchange ramp metering for Highway 85, as it turned out, was a specific condition of the environmental review of the extension of Highway 85. Caltrans had to agree to do the environment review in order to avoid the effects of an environmental lawsuit challenging the very concept of extending the road system. Mayor Simitian recalled the Council's discussion because of the debate over Caltrans' ability to respond to the concerns of local communities in a timely fashion regarding problems with the ramp metering and its impact on the local community. Some of the comments Council heard suggested Caltrans had not been particularly attentive to other communities where the problem existed, and when pressed for an answer about who really had an impact on Caltrans, the answer was only the Governor could tell Caltrans what to do. Council was not inclined to think that was a good solution. He was unenthusiastic about the ramp metering lights. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss "not participating," Fazzino, Huber absent. Vice Mayor Wheeler referred to the bicycle section of the plan and the proposed San Antonio Intermodal Transit Station, and yet in the Goal TR-10 did not specifically reference the development of the San Antonio Road Intermodal Transit Station. She queried whether support for the development at San Antonio Road of a new CalTrain transit stop needed to be specifically included. Mr. Overway saw no reason not to include the San Antonio Road transit stop. It was in Mountain View, and Palo Alto had
03/25/95 75-296
supported it in the past and it would be a benefit to Palo Alto residents. Vice Mayor Wheeler believed the verbiage should be included either in the section before the Council or the City's participation or working at the regional level to encourage regional solutions to transit and transportation issues. The transit station at San Antonio would be of benefit to the citizens of Palo Alto and employees. She understood with funding cutbacks, the proposal could be in jeopardy, and Palo Alto should encourage its comple-tion. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to add a new Program under Goal TR-10, to read "Support the proposed San Antonio multimodal transit station." MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. Mayor Simitian referred to the new policy as stated on page 18a, "Support the continued vitality and effectiveness of the Palo Alto airport without increasing the intensity of airport use or significantly intruding into open space." He queried what goal it went with. Mr. Schreiber said when the reorganization of the Plan took place, the policy would be appropriately located. If the concept were acceptable, staff would work on the location. Council Member Andersen was uncomfortable with the phrase "significantly intruding into open space." Mayor Simitian said the statement appeared to retain enough flexibility so that if the runway were extended five or ten feet, there would not be a conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The statement needed to be there so there was clarity regarding the fact the City did not want to intrude on the open space. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member McCown referred to the staff comments on page 18a where four points presently existing in the Baylands Master Plan were suggested to be added as programs. She queried who was responsible for Item 4, "relocate the terminal." Mr. Schreiber said that would probably end up being worded something like, "support relocation of the terminal." The terminal was the small building on the way to the interpretative center and the concept being at one time the County was going to relocate it and combine it with the fixed base operator area. Council Member McCown queried if, in the lifetime of the Compre-hensive Plan, there was a possibility that the County would try to divest itself of responsibility for the airport. Ms. Fleming said there had been discussion which had died down. She would not be surprised if the discussions resumed. It was a
03/25/95 75-297
guess in terms of whether it would be in the next 15 years. Council Member McCown queried whether there might be any reason to try to develop any policy guidance to be included in the Compre-hensive Plan if there were some movement. Ms. Fleming believed it would be a safeguard to include some policy guidance. Council Member McCown asked that staff give some thought as to whether anything needed to be included in the Comprehensive Plan that would anticipate that type of development. There could be something before the City sooner rather than later. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Simitian, to add text and possibly a program to the Draft Plan's Transportation Section addressing the potential return of the Palo Alto Airport to City control. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Huber absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 2:30 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.
03/25/95 75-298