HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-05-08 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting May 8, 1995 SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY .................................. 75-474 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 75-474 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and O'Grady Paving, Inc. for 1995 Street Resurfacing .............. 75-475 3. Ordinance 4274 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapters 2.08 Relating to Officers and Departments and 2.28 Relating to Fiscal Procedures of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in order to implement Mission Driven Budgeting and the Organizational Review ................................. 75-475 4. Ordinance 4275 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System (Military Service Credit for Local Police Members) .............................................. 75-475 5. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation .... 75-475 6. Utilities Advisory Commission recommends to the City Council approval of a Consultant to Conduct a Telecommunications Feasibility Study .................. 75-475 7. Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council re Lytton Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Study ... 75-486 8. Temporary Relocation of Senior Center Staff and Programs to 353 University Avenue, 425 Bryant Street, and 450 Bryant Street ................................. 75-498 9. Establishment of Teen Center at 425 Bryant Street ..... 75-499 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 75-502 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:44 p.m. ............................................ 75-502 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. .... 75-502
05/08/95 75-473
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:08 p.m. PRESENT: Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:12 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler (arrived at 7:13 p.m.) ABSENT: Andersen SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Kathy Vejtasa for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Utilities Advisory Commission Utilities Advisory Commissioner Fred Eyerly, 101 Alma Street, said that Kathy Vejtasa had served on the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) since it was formed in 1991 and would be missed. She was very articulate and her service on the UAC was exemplary. Council Member Rosenbaum thanked Kathy Vejtasa for her service on the UAC and said she had been a vital member of the UAC and would be missed. Council Member Fazzino said that serving on the UAC was difficult but critical, and that Kathy Vejtasa was one of the reasons that the UAC was so successful. He thanked her for her selfless public service and said she would be missed. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 2507 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Kathy Vejtasa for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Utilities Advisory Commission" MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent. Kathy Vejtasa thanked the City Council, her fellow UAC members, and the City staff. She said the utilities was a tremendous asset to the City. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding "Who's Running the Show" (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Jim Drobnick, Sales Manager, Four Seasons Inc. Landscape & Maintenance, 215 San Juan Avenue, Half Moon Bay, spoke regarding Landscape Maintenance Contract Bid No. 74107. Jennie Sierra, apartment manager, 2621 Greer Road, spoke regarding the recycling programs (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office).
05/08/95 75-474
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 4. 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and O'Grady Paving, Inc. for 1995 Street Resurfacing; change orders not to exceed $190,000 3. Ordinance 4274 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapters 2.08 Relating to Officers and Departments and 2.28 Relating to Fiscal Procedures of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in order to implement Mission Driven Budgeting and the Organizational Review" (1st Reading 4/17/95, PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent) 4. Ordinance 4275 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System (Military Service Credit for Local Police Members)" (1st Reading 4/17/95, PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent) MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent. CLOSED SESSION 5. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Baratte v. City of Palo Alto, et al., SCC No. CV744130
Authority: Government Code ∋54956.9(a) Public Comment None. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 6. Utilities Advisory Commission recommends to the City Council approval of a Consultant to Conduct a Telecommunications Feasibility Study Assistant City Manager Bernard M. Strojny said the issue of telecommunications had significant policy implications for the City of Palo Alto. The crucial question was not if Palo Alto would have advanced telecommunications services available for citizens, businesses, schools, and medical facilities, but rather when, at what cost, and to what extent the services would be available. Those questions had prompted staff to consider what the City could do to accelerate the deployment of a wide range of low cost and high quality telecommunications services throughout Palo Alto. The City should consider involvement in telecommunications because cutting edge telecommunications were becoming increasingly important to Palo Alto, its citizens, and
05/08/95 75-475
other institutions. City actions could influence the cost range and quality of telecommunications services provided by Palo Alto, and the City had an opportunity to generate substantial revenue to the General Fund to strengthen the City's revenue base and/or provide enhanced City services. Staff was recommending a study rather than specific actions because the difference between good and bad telecommunications decisions by the City could have significant cost implications for Palo Alto's citizens and businesses. Staff needed the additional information the study would provide in order to make a sound recommendation for specific telecommunications actions to the City Council. The study would provide the City with a thorough assessment of its position in the telecommunications marketplace, an estimate of the size and scope of the market, an analysis of various telecommunications strategies the City could pursue including a purchase designed to limit the City's exposure to risk, and the recommended telecommunications strategy and practical plan for implementing it. The study made sense because it had the potential to pay for itself many times over if the study helped the City establish a revenue producing telecommunications enterprise. Even if the City did not establish such an enterprise, the study would assist the City in developing a comprehensive telecommunications policy. Utilities Advisory Commission Chairperson Paul Grimsrud said that the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) members supported the resolution. As a prime customer of communications, the utilities could gain by having good decisions made. Technology and opportu-nity were changing quickly, and the City needed consultant help in making those decisions. The cost of making bad decisions could be high, as well as the benefits of making good decisions. The strategy of the consultants would not only help in understanding the current state of things but develop a path for making decisions in the future. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Telecommunications Advisory Panel would fall under the Brown Act. He did not think it involved any political reform implications for the private appointees, but it would need to be looked into. Council Member Schneider said several citizens recently had questioned the use of consultants in general for the City and asked why it was necessary for another expensive contract. Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said as Mr. Grimsrud had stated the telecommunications/fiber optics field was changing rapidly and there was no staff in Utilities with the expertise necessary to do such a study. Council Member Schneider asked whether there was any risk that the information the City received now might not be the information needed by the time the utility was ready to be put in place. She asked how the City could stay current. Mr. Strojny said the early part of the study that involved the situation analysis would take a long hard look at the current available technologies as well as a forward look into the
05/08/95 75-476
technologies emerging. Staff should have a good handle on that range of technologies when it came back to Council for further consideration. Council Member Kniss said she had several questions. She asked for more information with regard to what else consultants had done, and if staff had looked at other counties when doing its comparisons. She was surprised Blackburgh, Virginia, was not used as a comparison, which was one of the best cities known in the nation for its program and was very comparable with Palo Alto. She was glad Council was looking at it and agreed it was controversial. Assistant Director Utilities Resource Planning Tom Habashi said the reason staff did not include every city that was involved with telecommunications in the staff report was that one of the parts of the proposed study included looking at what other cities were doing in the area of telecommunications. He said one of the consultants would explain the consultants' expertise. Myron Glaser, Principal, ICT Group, 1909 Milano Way, Mountain View, said the ICT team had extensive experience in a variety of areas working for cities, counties, other governmental agencies, and private organizations in terms of planning and implementation of telecommunications systems including some state-of-the-art and fiber optics installations. Three members of ICT Group had had extensive time at SRI International working in the Telecommunica-tions area and all of the ICT Group had previously been in private practice involved in various aspects of telecommunications for a minimum of 5 years and up to 15 years. He was available to answer any specific questions. Council Member Kniss asked if the ICT Group had worked with other cities in determining whether or not they should consider looking at it as a utility which was one of the avenues the City was pursuing. Lloyd Krause, Principal, ICT Group, said it was an applications mode with the cities of Milpitas and Alameda, and he was involved with the application of telecommunications and how to utilize cable television for the City mode of operation which was not so much looking into the future but with the general application. He and Mr. Glaser had worked for the County of San Mateo, and he also worked with the counties of Sacramento and Placer. Council Member Kniss asked if any of those entities intended to use the system as a utility. Mr. Glaser said none of those entities were actually involved in utilities and that there were certain selected places in the country that had municipal operated utilities that had gone into the telecommunications field. It was fresh ground that needed to be explored. The ICT Group was aware of Blackburgh, Virginia, as well as a number of other places that had done public access network activities. He did not think any of them specifically paralleled the situation they anticipated finding in Palo Alto.
05/08/95 75-477
Council Member Kniss agreed. Mr. Krause said the ICT Group was still involved in a study with a new city north of Tracy called Mountain Home. It was now pure land, but the city and the developer wanted to put in all of the telecommunications possible for the next 20 years. Though the ICT Group had written the general specifications, fiber optics, cable television, etc., it was one of a practical application. Council Member Kniss asked who intended to run that system. Mr. Krause replied the developer wanted the city to run the system, but the decision had not made as to whether it should be contracted out or if the city wanted to run the system themselves. Council Member Rosenbaum said there were two aspects. One had to do with the ordinary city of which there thousands across the country that were concerned about telecommunications policy. The cities were able to get franchise fees from cable systems that could not be done with telephone systems. There was some uncer-tainty as to whether telephone systems would soon be offering cable franchises, and he asked whether the consultant contract would in any way aid the City in that general area. Mr. Strojny said the consultant contract would definitely assist staff in that area. The staff had a base understanding of those issues but until aspects of deregulation in particular, there were many questions on the horizon regarding franchise fees and those kinds of issues that were being explored as part of the legislative activities, both in Washington and Sacramento. Staff did feel with what was known about the telecommunications field that there was a need for the City to become involved, recognizing the fact that Palo Alto was in a unique situation in comparison with other municipalities in the State of California. Council Member Kniss had asked earlier about cities forming utilities for that purpose which had not happened as yet. In most cases, the electrical utility and jurisdictions that had them had really been in the forefront of advancing some ideas and attempting to apply them to other areas of the city. Council Member Rosenbaum had a question with regard to Palo Alto having its own utilities and felt it had some special expertise and indeed ran an electric utility. Both Mountain View and Sunnyvale were served by Pacific Gas and Electric and were both sophisticated cities with such companies as Sun, Silicon Graphics, Lockheed, etc. He asked whether staff thought that those cities due to a lack of an electric utility were in any way going to suffer in not having the very latest and best telecommunications facilities available to them. Mr. Strojny said it was hard to know how those cities would handle the situation, but staff felt that Palo Alto had the opportunity to shape the telecommunications industry because of its infra-structure, which the other cities did not have. Staff felt Palo Alto had the ability to either, through its own means or in
05/08/95 75-478
conjunction with the private sector, put together a system that could be far better or competitive than neighboring cities which were not in the same situation as Palo Alto. Council Member Rosenbaum asked if staff felt companies in Palo Alto would enjoy superior telecommunications to those enjoyed by companies in Mountain View and Sunnyvale. Mr. Strojny said no, in terms of the overall product. The overall approach of telecommunications, the cost of what those telecommunications services were to residences and businesses, and the ability to provide more universal access at a lower cost existed more in Palo Alto than would be the case in its neighboring cities. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that the neighboring cities would enjoy the same telecommunications facilities but the cost in Palo Alto because of city participation might be less. He asked for Mr. Strojny to clarify further on his comment regarding "universal access." Mr. Strojny replied that what staff had found thus far, e.g., the Metropolitan Fiber Systems (MFS), was there were telecommunication providers that were selectively picking off parts of the market that from a business perspective made a lot of sense for them to become involved with. As a city, Palo Alto had the ability to not just restrict or limit telecommunications systems to those highly profitable direct links to companies, but also to consider an overall system that would provide services to small businesses and residences as well and have a major focus in that area. Palo Alto was more able to provide a universal access system than the private sector could perform on its own. Mr. Grimsrud said there might be utilities that bundled communications services with electric and gas services and he felt the City should be in a position to not only address that but offer it, and by having that under one umbrella, there was an excellent opportunity to do that. Council Member Fazzino supported the need to move ahead with the project. He asked whether the contract was structured in such a way that staff could return to Council and conclude that there was not a legitimate role for the City in the telecommunications area. Mr. Strojny said the study had five phases, the first three being a situation analysis, a market analysis, an alternatives assess-ment. After the first three phases, the City would be in an excellent position to decide whether it should take a further look into telecommunications or not. The proposal provided that if staff felt after the first three phases there was no reason to go further, the study could be stopped at that point and the total expenditure would amount to $91,000. After the staff has returned to the Council and the UAC and it was concluded that the study should continue into phases four and five, then the remainder of the cost would be incurred.
05/08/95 75-479
Council Member Fazzino asked whether the City would have the option to conclude that municipal involvement was not appropriate at the completion of phase three as well as phase four. Mr. Strojny said that at phase four the consultant would be providing a detailed analysis of the preferred recommendation. If after phase four the City felt the risks were too great and it did not want to proceed beyond that point, it would not enter into any of the alternatives the consultant had recommended. Council Member Fazzino assumed staff would not proceed with phase four until both the UAC and the Council had significant input. Mr. Strojny said that was correct. The importance of the Telecom-munications Advisory Panel was that along with the staff review of the consultant's documents, Council Members and members of local telecommunications groups from the private sector would also be reviewing that information and providing critical input to make sure what the consultant provided met the City's needs. Council Member Fazzino said he was not opposed to municipal involvement but he recalled 15 years ago when staff argued that municipal cable was the way to go. He asked what kind of analysis and alternatives could be obtained with respect to involvement of local cable. Mr. Strojny said one of the important points of the first phase was to take a look at the City's as well as Cable Co-op's infrastructure. After the information was disseminated, staff could see exactly what it had and what opportunities there might be in partnering with Cable Co-op or others to use the infrastructure the City had for telecommunications purposes, and that concept would be thoroughly studied during the early phases of the overall effort. Mr. Grimsrud assured Council and staff that the UAC would put an equal amount or more of technical scrutiny on the project as it had recently done with regard to water reclamation. Vice Mayor Wheeler thanked staff for preparing a thorough document in terms of its evaluation and selection recommendation process and in having the actual consultant team at the meeting that evening to answer questions, which was precedent setting for the Council to have that opportunity. She noticed when reviewing the document containing comparisons of the consultants that the group that was selected did not seem to have expertise and experience in the legal and regulatory area. She assumed that at some point, the City would need and want some information on the legal and regulatory aspects and asked how staff proposed to fill that gap which might be left by the consultant's level of expertise in that area. Mr. Calonne said the consultant was contracted to provide a legal and regulatory analysis and if it was concluded that the analysis was not adequate, staff would return to Council with some recommendations at that time. He had not felt the need to look
05/08/95 75-480
past the contract to the qualifications of the individuals to make a determination. A year ago, the prospect of having a legal component of the study was discussed but he was content that it was primarily regulatory and a legislative analysis task at that stage and did not feel it would be advantageous to have a law firm involved. Certainly at the point of forming a utility, the City would need special counsel. Council Member Huber referred to the top of page 8 of the staff report (CMR:240:95) which stated "...the UAC agreed with staff that, while there was not necessarily a high probability that the City will form a full-service telecommunications utility..." He asked with regard to the investigation aspects whether that was the staff's and UAC's general suggestion to focus on the alternatives rather than the full service or would it be studied equally. Mr. Strojny said the study would look at a full range of the opportunities. It had not been seen as yet a full telecommu-nications utility being formed and run by a municipality in every sense of the word. In view of Palo Alto's unique situation, might merit a federal analysis as to whether it made sense or not. Council Member Huber confirmed that aspect would be looked at along with the alternatives on an equal plane. Mayor Simitian referred to page A-7 of the staff report in regard to the cost range from $55,000 to $3,449,550 and asked the difference in what the work product might be and why the estimates were so varied. Mr. Habashi replied that the staff felt that the proposals in the $55,000 to $95,000 range did not give a lot of what was expected. Staff did not know why the $3,449,550 proposal was quoted so high. There was nothing in the bid that was different from what had been asked for, but staff felt that the proposals in the range of $100,000 to $250,000 provided a much better proposal than the $3,449,550. He could not explain the high range but the responses to the low range were not very good. Mayor Simitian asked if the staff got any indication as to the number of hours of work the consultant's thought would be required and what exactly was driving the numbers. Mr. Habashi said the proposals that were quoted at $200,000 to $250,000 were charging approximately $150 to $200 per hour. The selected consultant was charging $100 per hour. Mayor Simitian clarified it was a function of fee rather than number of hours. Mr. Habashi said yes. Council Member Kniss said with regard to an advisory panel, there were many groups in the Silicon Valley that were interested and were willing to argue both sides. She asked if staff had thought
05/08/95 75-481
of including people that were currently doing Smart Valley, etc., because there were a number of groups involved, including the Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group. Mr. Strojny said that was staff's thought in terms of the advisory panel. Staff felt that Smart Valley should have a representative and also other businesses in the Silicon Valley including the Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group. There had been success throughout the process enlisting the aid of some of those individuals and agencies who had helped staff along the way and staff would anticipate they would play an active role on the advisory panel. Council Member Kniss hoped that as many as possible would be included because there were so many viewpoints. She asked that the deregulation process be watched in Washington, D.C., and that contact be established with and kept up with whomever fronted it, whether it be Senator Pressler or Congressperson Anna Eshoo's office. Bob Moss, Member, Board of Directors, Cable Co-op, 4010 Orme Street, had been heavily involved with the use of the cable system and broadband communications for an area-wide communication facility and also with deregulation. Cable Co-op had hired consultants to look at the basic issue and would be willing to provide information to the City's consultants providing it was not proprietary. The technology was changing very rapidly, and products were introduced that changed the equations of what could and could not be done. Palo Alto moved rather slowly, but Cable Co-op was small enough, fast enough, and smart enough to move on issues quickly. He suggested the Council consider that if City created a utility that provided broadband services to the communi-ty, it would create real problems with respect to universal service in the other areas that Cable Co-op served, e.g., East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Atherton, and unincorporated areas in Santa Clara County. If the City provided services primarily to Palo Alto, it would difficult for Cable Co-op to finance and justify providing equivalent services to the rest of the service area at adequate rates. The City should consider the overall effect of a utility that was narrowly focused. It would cost roughly $100,000 to put in a mile of fiber without the detail into the home. There was approximately 450 miles of cable in the entire system, and the cost would be approximately $45 million, plus the cost of the set tops which would cost between $300 to $500 each. Palo Alto was only a portion of the system, and the Council should consider what it would cost for the entire area. The issue was complex, and Cable Co-op had been looking at it for a long time and was farther along than the City. Council Member Rosenbaum said an article in the San Jose Mercury News mentioned a company that could develop a modem that would connect a coaxial cable to a computer which could provide an infinite data rate structure. He asked whether the idea was realizable. Mr. Moss said the article did not mention that it was Cable Co-
05/08/95 75-482
op's system and equipment that had been used for over a year. There were other companies that had been using Cable Co-op's system for experimentation. John Kelly, President, Board of Directors, Cable Co-op, complimented the staff on addressing a very complicated subject which should provide the Council with the information necessary to make some policy decisions. He hoped the Council would understand fully the different ways the City could be involved with Cable Co-op if it decided to do so. A number of facilities were currently made available to the City through the franchise agreement and if there were changes to the system, e.g., activate the B Cable, additional facilities would be made available to the City on behalf of the Joint Powers. The franchise agreement had always included an option that the City could exercise the purchase of up to 49 percent of the system which should be explored. Cable Co-op believed it had enjoyed formal and informal relationships with the City over time, and it hoped that the City would consider what would happen if Cable Co-op and City were to enter into a joint venture in the future. He encouraged the consultants during the evaluation process to consider not only where Cable Co-op was presently but where it would be in the future. Cable Co-op had undertaken the study of many similar issues and how it should go about expanding and augmenting its system so that more advanced services could be provided in the future. Originally, Cable Co-op proposed to the Council that the City consider building a system and leasing it back to Cable Co-op which was not followed. Cable Co-op had built a system that served its members well and there were compelling reasons both economically and operationally why the City should conclude that if it wanted to get into the business, it should work with Cable Co-op. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to: 1) Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $135,100 from the Electric Rate Stabilization Reserve Fund for funding of the Telecommunications Feasibility Study; 2) Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and The ICT Group for Telecommunications Consulting Services in the amount of $135,100; and 3) Appoint two of its members to participate in the Telecommunications Advisory Panel that will review reports prepared by the consultant and provide feedback to staff. Ordinance 4276 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 To Provide Funding for a Telecommunications Feasibility Study" Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and The ICT Group for Telecommunications Consulting Services Council Member Kniss said Mr. Moss' comments about the cost was sobering; however, one of the best comments came from page 6 of the staff report (CMR:240:5) which was that the difference between good and bad telecommunications could have eventual cost implications of millions of dollars. The decision made in 1904 regarding electric utilities when a stand was taken at the border
05/08/95 75-483
of Menlo Park and Palo Alto was a momentous decision and had served the City extremely well. When she was back in Washington D.C., in March 1995, there was such a sense of uneasiness with regard to where telecommunications was heading and what deregulation meant to cities, counties, and to the nation which left her unsettled. The ICT Group seemed to be comfortable and knew it needed to be looking at the issue carefully. She felt there was always the possibility that staff could return to Council without a recommendation for the present time. She was pleased the issue would be studied, but she was uncertain that it was a clearly charted course. At the same time, it would be neglectful for the Council to not have done what it should by moving forward with the study for the City and its citizens. Council Member Huber supported the motion. He felt it was important to look at the issue and that the comments by Mr. Moss were appropriate with regard to the fact that Palo Alto's process seemed to take a lot of time. He felt the telecommunications field was changing constantly. As the study was going on, it was important to stay ahead, if in fact, the City was going to get into any portion of the telecommunications field. He felt it was still worth looking at the City's appropriate role. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to the comment of Council Member Kniss with regard to Palo Alto's electric utilities starting in the early 1900s and the Council's obligation to demonstrate that it had the wisdom of its forbearers. The Council had to keep in mind that it was really a different issue. Electricity in those days was a natural monopoly, and with telecommunications there was a lot of competition and it was a rapidly changing area and he did not feel that model was applicable. A telecommunications venture would be a very high risk venture almost from an ideological basis and not an appropriate activity for a city to get into. The City did own all the poles and the conduit, and at the very least a systematic way to make use of those facilities needed to be investigated and the study might not lead to anything more than that. He felt it was something the City needed to go ahead with but the subject needed to be approached cautiously. Mr. Calonne said with regard to the Telecommunications Advisory Panel, the charge outline was to provide some feedback to staff. He said if Council had any different or specific expectations, it would be useful for his analysis on political reform consequences of the panel. The practical effect of applying conflict of interest rules to the panel was going to drive away a number of people who had extensive dealings in the telecommunications field and the more advisory and the less involved in actual decision making or in affecting the product that went to Council, the further the body became from being one subject to the political reform act. Mayor Simitian asked Mr. Calonne if he had any thoughts about how it could be refined. Mr. Calonne said the best approach was to include some direction to staff to return with a specific outline of what the
05/08/95 75-484
Telecommunications Advisory Panel would do. City Manager June Fleming said the Telecommunications Advisory Panel would function as any other advisory panels did. It would be a way to secure community input and to touch base with an advisory group that might give staff or the consultants assistance. As the role of all advisory groups was refined, staff always checked with the City Attorney's Office to make sure that the members of such a group were aware of their obligations and responsibilities in terms of conflicts and reporting. Council Member McCown asked how the Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) was treated with regard to Fair Political Practice Commission purposes when it was created for the Organizational Review. Mr. Calonne said the BRTF was not subject to the Political Reform Act and that was received in a formal opinion issued to Mr. Busterud. His recalled that the BRTF reported directly to the Council and it was the element of feedback to staff that gave him reason for concern that the groups actions might be more probative and less apparent at the same time. He agreed with the City Manager that it was something that could be figured out and staff could return to the Council with its conclusions. Council Member McCown wanted a report back on how the advisory panel would interrelate with the role of the UAC which was also going to be advisory on the study. Ms. Fleming said that would be a critical element of the report staff brought back to Council because there were now two community groups that needed to interact in a good way and staff needed to make sure that the UAC had some input into the process. Mayor Simitian clarified the third item in the staff recommendation to appoint two Council Members to participate in the Telecommunications Advisory Panel would be Mayoral appointments. Mr. Strojny said that was correct. Mayor Simitian shared the view expressed earlier that it was a policy document and was appropriately before a policy making body. Staff was talking about moving forward so the Council could make informed and intelligent policy choices. If the Council did not move into the telecommunications area, it should be able to say to itself and the community that it did not move forward because it had made an informed judgment and because it was inappropriate or inappropriately risky to move forward in that area. If Council did move forward, it would do so with some sound analysis. He was pleased in contrast with the discussion a year ago that there was some real policy focus and that the work being proposed for the consultants was policy-oriented and incremental allowing the Council to make decisions in a series of stages which was sensible. With respect to Mr. Moss's comment about Palo Alto moving slowly, if Palo Alto was going to work with Cable Co-op which had made great strides over the years, in terms of
05/08/95 75-485
technology, before he would be convinced that Palo Alto was going to move into the 21st Century with Cable Co-op, he would have to see a picture that was not fuzzy, service that did not go out, phones that got answered, and prices that were not as high as they currently were. Before anyone would believe that Cable Co-op was going to take Palo Alto into the 21st Century, people had to believe that the 20th Century had been mastered. It was a cause for concern he had if Palo Alto was going to move forward in that direction. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent. 7. Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council re Lytton Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Study to direct staff to proceed with implementation of Alternative 5 on a six-month trial basis, approve the Negative Declaration (Environmental Assessment) [95-EIA-5], and direct staff to prepare a Budget Amendment Ordinance to fund the trial installation for consideration and action by Council. Council Member Huber gave an overview of the item and said Alternative 5 was an effort to deal with the problem that existed on Lytton and Palo Alto Avenues. The main focus he believed from those people that did not like the plan had to do with the median at Chaucer Street and what impact it would have on traffic. MOTION: Council Member Huber for the Policy and Services Committee moved to proceed with the implementation of Alternative 5 on a six-month trial basis. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by McCown, to: 1) Approve the Negative Declaration (Environmental Assessment [95-EIA-5]), and 2) Direct staff to prepare a Budget Amendment Ordinance transferring a total of $74,000 from the City's Street Improvement Fund to a new Capital Improvement Program Project - Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan - in order to provide funding for a trial installation. Art Sherman, 438 Chaucer Street, strongly objected to a plan that used taxpayer money to funnel additional traffic down Chaucer Street. Chaucer Street already had a lot of traffic and he saw no rationale for other residential streets nearby receiving preferred treatment by reducing their traffic and increasing the traffic on Chaucer Street. Hennie Sherman, 438 Chaucer Street, agreed with Mr. Sherman and in addition said their neighborhood had a traffic circle that Menlo Park had implemented which her neighborhood felt controlled the traffic. They did not want anymore traffic circles or barriers on their street, it was not necessary. From a real estate point of view, it would take away the character of Crescent Park and influence the value of the property.
05/08/95 75-486
Rory Van Tuyl, 1231 Woodland Avenue, Menlo Park, said he was an individual that would be greatly inconvenienced by the plan because he drove through Palo Alto. He supported Alternative 5 and asked that the City continue in the fine tradition of traffic management in Palo Alto by managing difficult situations on older street areas where uses had changed over the years. Palo Alto Avenue had become an obstacle course and dangerous. He was nearly hit on the corner between Hale and Seneca Streets and had a friend that was actually hit on that same corner. He urged the Council to adopt the raised median on Chaucer Street. It would be a large percentage improvement on Palo Alto Avenue which would be at the cost of a small percentage increase on other streets. He further urged the Council to include a bicycle opening and some sort of means to prevent people from cutting the very dangerous corner on Palo Alto Avenue between Hale and Seneca Streets. It would be money well spent and perhaps it would save lives. Darrell Benatar, 881 Lytton Avenue, strongly favored Alternative 5 and said that the majority of the neighborhood as defined by the City's Traffic Division was in favor of Alternative 5. He circulated a petition signed by approximately 100 residents in support of a six-month trial of Alternative 5. The creek acted as a natural barrier which divided the neighborhood from Middlefield Road down to Highway 101 and the only pass through was the Pope/Chaucer bridge so traffic on both sides funneled over that bridge onto Palo Alto Avenue. It was unfortunate because even though the creek acted as a barrier, it was also a natural resource and a recreational spot for the neighborhood and people on both sides of the creek and he felt that resource should be taken advantage of and encouraged. Palo Alto Avenue up to Seneca Street usually carried about 100 cars a day but had now become dangerous because when it intersected into Seneca Street suddenly there were 2,500 cars a day passing through. No one wanted more traffic on their street, but he felt the plan was worth trying because it would have a significant effect on Palo Alto Avenue which according to the Traffic Division would not be perceivable. Mary Haslam, 437 Chaucer Street, opposed to Alternative 5. She said all the traffic would be taken from one neighborhood and put onto another. She also opposed the way a median would look in light of the traffic circle located at the Menlo Park side and agreed that it would start looking like an obstacle course. Jan Wasson, 423 Chaucer Street, opposed to Alternative 5. She felt the traffic circle on the Menlo Park side had calmed traffic to a great degree. She did not see any possible way of making a median attractive. There were very few people on Chaucer Street to speak on behalf of the neighborhood. The traffic would probably increase by 1,000 cars a day with the median, and Palo Alto Avenue would provide no relief. She did not feel that one street's desires should dictate to another street's detriment. Channell Wasson, 423 Chaucer Street, opposed Alternative 5 and supported Alternative 4 which would do nothing. He saw no need for a median, it was expensive and a sign or a bike lane would be much less expensive. He would not be able to use Palo Alto Avenue
05/08/95 75-487
to go Downtown. Bill Petersen, 228 Fulton Street, supported Alternative 5. Since the Dumbarton Bridge was put in, there were speeding commuters going down Palo Alto Avenue. It was not safe to walk any longer. During the process in 1992 or 1993, Mr. Banenator came up with a solution which was now Alternative 2. He felt the staff went to great lengths to mitigate the through traffic and the diverter was the least possible compromise that would do any good. He strongly supported the recommendation as written. David Dwyer, 835 Lytton Avenue, said Palo Alto Avenue was not the tree-lined narrow street they thought they were moving into. The reality was they had experienced noise, hazardous conditions, and inconvenience. The proponents for something to be done in the area were heartfelt by the people that lived along Lytton and Palo Alto Avenues. He recognized the inconvenience to the neighbors but he felt the staff had gone to great lengths to try to come to a compromise. The trial period would allow the neighborhoods to take a look at what some of the proposals would actually do and remove the issue out of the area of speculation. Laura Furgerson, 920 Palo Alto Avenue, agreed with the previous speaker and felt that having data instead of speculation would be important. The increased traffic situation was creating both safety and recreational issues. The sharp curve between Hale and Seneca Streets was the source of many near misses. She found it difficult to believe there was no record of accidents since she had observed three herself. She said the staff had put a lot of energy into developing a reasonable compromise plan and she supported Alternative 5. Cathy Fitzgerald, 765 University Avenue, opposed Alternative 5 because it had some serious implications for them. There was no way to get to their house except from University Avenue and Alternative 5 would take a two-lane street in front of their house and make it three full lanes which was a 50 percent increase in traffic. Instead of having a bicycle lane and a parking lane in front of their house, there would be traffic all the way to the curb which would force the bicyclists onto the sidewalk and would increase the bicyclists risk of safety as well, both with walking or pulling out of their driveway into three lanes of traffic. She was not sure who benefitted by the proposal but she urged the Council to at least not approve that portion of Alternative 5. Nancy Bjork, 555 Chaucer Street, said while the neighborhood that was proposing the plan had excellent representation, those that would be most affected by the changes had no chance to participate. None of the names on the committee were located on Chaucer Street or Hamilton Avenue. Once the neighborhood found out, they attended a Policy and Services (P&S) Committee meeting where they asked to be informed of the appropriate Council meeting and to their disappointment were not. While the City and the staff had done a great deal of work, it was too bad it was not balanced by those neighbors that would be affected with the change. She agreed with the unfairness of moving the traffic from
05/08/95 75-488
one neighborhood to another and did not object to the bumps to slow down the traffic. She objected to the diversion of traffic. Since most of the traffic was coming from Menlo Park over the bridge, the reason it went up Palo Alto Avenue was because there was already too much traffic on University Avenue; and if it could not go up Palo Alto Avenue, it would go up Chaucer Street or Hamilton Avenue which would aggravate the amount of traffic that was already there. Cathie Lehrberg, 1085 University Avenue, wanted to address the change to the University/Middlefield intersection lanes and the diverter at the intersection of Chaucer Street and Palo Alto Avenue. The restripping at University Avenue and Middlefield Road was originally conceived as a win-win situation for everyone. The original proposal was a simple exchange of an eastbound lane for a westbound lane between Middlefield Road and Fulton Street which had numerous advantages for the neighborhood. It improved the incoming traffic flow, while helping the outbound flow. While there was traffic flow improvement, it did not change the bike lane or the physical lane improvement. Under Alternative 5, the westbound double lane configuration had moved back a block to Guinda Street which changed the situation for families living in the Guinda/Fulton block of University Avenue. The Crescent Park Association requested a return to the original idea of eliminating the change to the block between Middlefield Road and Fulton Street. The plan specifically addressed the additional westbound lane but did not specifically state the deletion of the second eastbound lane. The Crescent Park Association wanted to be clear that that was what was intended and what would occur. The diverter at Palo Alto Avenue and Chaucer Street impeded the access to its immediate neighborhood, but according to the information from the Transportation Division, was not the double oval depicted in the graphic but included two turn lanes for access to the Palo Alto Avenue section that became Marlowe. That meant there was no means of landscaping or beautifying the diverter and it would become an ugly entrance to the neighborhood and Palo Alto. She urged the Council to look at development policies that increased traffic and resist the temptations to indulge or shift. Margaret Feuer, 1310 University Avenue, spoke on behalf of the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association (CPNA), said the Lytton Avenue neighborhood was part of the Crescent Park neighborhood and had participated in the study groups and committees. CPNA empathized with the concerns of the residents of the Lytton Avenue study area which reflected the traffic problems of many residential streets in the neighborhood. The consensus of the Board and Traffic Committee was to oppose the traffic solutions which inordinately alleviated traffic on some streets to the detriment of other streets, and therefore, oppose the use of raised medians at Chaucer Street and Palo Alto Avenue in Alternative 5. CPNA was not opposed to the use of speed bumps, traffic circles, nor to a one block reconfiguration of both the eastbound and westbound University Avenue lanes. The staff report recommended using raised medians at Chaucer Street and Palo Alto Avenue which in reality were partial street closures or barricades and as such were contrary to the Comprehensive Plan Advisory
05/08/95 75-489
Committee (CPAC) recommendation in Goal/Policy TR.2-D, "Keep all streets open unless there is a demonstrated safety problem or overwhelming through traffic and there are no acceptable alternative solutions." Palo Alto and Lytton Avenues had its share of problems and traffic but it was no more onerous than similar residential streets throughout the City. In addition, Alternative 5 offered "acceptable alternative solutions" without the use of raised medians or barricades. According to the staff report (CMR:242:95), the use of the barricades would decrease traffic on three streets and increase traffic on eight streets. She asked the City why it would favor a plan that so inordinately favored three streets. The number of cars on the streets added up to a decrease of 3,140 cars on Palo Avenue (55 percent), Lytton Avenue (63 percent), and Guinda Street (8 percent), and to an increase of 2,045 cars on Chaucer Street (19 percent), Hale Street (20 percent), Seneca Street (15 percent), Middlefield Road (2 percent), University Avenue (5 percent), Hamilton Avenue (3 percent), and Hawthorne Avenue (percent unknown) and Everett Avenue (percent unknown). She realized the Council was only considering a trial period for Alternative 5, but trial periods had a habit of becoming reality that pitted neighbor against neighbor. If the Council adopted Alternative 5, it would be taking the first step toward implementing an unfair and parochial solution to a traffic problem which affected an entire neighborhood. She urged the Council to amend the current proposal with a compromised solution which would be more equitable and would eliminate the raised medians and try out the speed bumps, traffic circles, and lane reconfiguration. If the raised medians were eliminated, traffic counts would be similar to Alternative 1 which she felt was a fairer solution to the traffic issue as the decreases and increases were distributed more evenly. Jocelyn Baum, 909 Hamilton Avenue, was involved in trying to figure out traffic solutions to the areas south and north of University Avenue approximately 15 years ago. At that time a lane diverter was proposed at Hamilton and University Avenues which was welcomed by the larger neighborhood except for the people that lived near the freeway. She had no idea until that evening as to what was going on. Hamilton Avenue traffic had increased at least three to five times in the last 24 years. It was full of new young families with children and handled almost all of the bicyclists coming out of Menlo Park and further east, the dog walkers, the joggers, etc., that were not on Palo Alto Avenue. She was appalled that the traffic study had gone on and no one had notified her neighborhood. She agreed with the use of speed bumps or traffic circles but to divert more traffic into a neighborhood that had no idea the traffic study was going on because a group of people on a street had traffic and wanted to get rid of it, did not make any sense at all. Eric Doyle, 322 Laurel Avenue, Menlo Park, felt justified in making comments about the traffic plan because his wife worked in Palo Alto and he traveled through the Palo Alto Avenue/Lytton area daily mostly by bicycle, owned property in Palo Alto, and did most of their business in Palo Alto. He had followed the plan from the beginning because he felt threatened by the sentiment on the Palo
05/08/95 75-490
Alto side for closing the bridge. He thanked the City and the staff for offering alternatives and for pushing it in a different direction. He felt uneasy about the "us and them" attitude that was behind the cut through traffic notion. On page 3 of the staff report (CMR:242:95) it stated "...safety and travel speeds within the study area were not unusual for comparable streets in Palo Alto," and in Attachment F, staff report (CMR:554:93), page 2, it stated "A comparison of these traffic volumes with traffic volumes on several other and local and collector streets in Palo Alto, indicates that the measured 24-hour traffic volumes for this area were not unusual compared to similar streets in other parts of Palo Alto." He said what distinguished the project and made it worthy of doing was the fact that there was a substantial amount of cut-through traffic within the neighborhood. He suspected that the traffic volumes on those residential streets had been fairly constant for several years compared to the general rise in traffic on the major streets and on the small residential streets that were getting less than their proportionate share of it. The diversion aspect of the plan was benefitting one group of residents at the expense of others. The diversion was said to be barely noticeable but what about the accumulative effect if the people on another street decided they wanted the same treatment. He suggested the possibility of judging the traffic on residential streets and adjusting it for the general inflation of traffic which would be a way of saying which streets were not getting a disproportionate amount of the additional traffic. He thought the raised median on Chaucer Street was the main diverting element in the plan and that was the one he felt would be the most objectionable. Otherwise, the diversion was probably minimal. One aspect about traffic circles that was brought to the attention of the City of Menlo Park City Council was that Portland did not use traffic circles on bicycle routes anymore because of the safety problems occurring when bicycles and cars were squeezed into the same lane. He hoped the City Council would take that into consideration as well. Linda Remmel McGregor, 337 Fulton Street, said her children had almost gotten hit several times going across Fulton Street to Lytton Avenue on their way to school. She supported Alternative 5 for the safety of her children, other children, and people in general. Daniel Heller, 428 Fulton Street, said he and his wife had been involved in many meetings and had seen a lot of alternatives and they supported Alternative 5. He walked on Hamilton Avenue along with the bicyclists and roller bladders because it was safer than Palo Alto and Lytton Avenues. A lot of possible alternatives had been considered and Alternative 5 seemed to be the best solution. He hoped it would be considered. Margaret Galloway, 401 Fulton Street, strongly supported the trial period for Alternative 5. She walked in the Lytton/Palo Alto creek area and used that area as a recreational facility. The traffic had gotten worse on Palo Alto Avenue and she had almost gotten hit. She felt it was important to maintain that area as a recreational area and to try Alternative 5 because it had good
05/08/95 75-491
compromises. She was interested if it really would help the area because that was why she chose to live in Palo Alto. Council Member McCown asked staff to respond to the question Cathie Lehrberg asked regarding the restripping of the lanes between Middlefield Road and Fulton Street and how it compared with the earlier plan for that area as part of the Citywide Transportation Study a few years previously. Traffic Engineer Ashok Aggarwal said currently there were two eastbound lanes and one westbound lane as well as one westbound and one eastbound left-hand pocket. The traffic plan was to restripe the westbound to two lanes and one left-hand pocket and to reduce the two eastbound lanes to one lane and keep the one left-hand pocket. Staff also looked at how far the restripping should go and given the current traffic volumes and signal timing, restripping only needed to go as far as Fulton Street. Council Member McCown clarified the plan could be modified from what was proposed by not extending the two lanes into the block between Fulton and Guinda Streets. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said yes. The drawing would not show the additional blue which represented a continuation of the double left turn lane beyond Fulton Street. He and Mr. Aggarwal went out to the area earlier that day and concluded that with the amount of traffic that was clearing the traffic signal and the present amount of "green" time that was there, it would not be necessary to have that last piece east of Fulton Street. The project would just go from Middlefield Road to Fulton Street. The drawing should be modified to remove the eastern portion of the blue section on the map. Council Member Schneider asked Mr. Aggarwal how accurate were the projected traffic volumes and when did the staff go back and get new volume figures. Mr. Aggarwal replied that staff had two recent experiences, one was Evergreen Park which came close to what had been projected and the other was Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard the projections which did not get as close as projected. Council Member Schneider asked whether there was less or more traffic than projected. Traffic Engineer Carl Stoffel said with the project, staff had less information about where people were going so the numbers would not be as accurate as in Evergreen Park. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the current project had been a long time in the making. In the meantime, Menlo Park had taken some substantial steps toward changing the traffic pattern on its side of the Pope/ Chaucer Bridge. She asked if staff had been able to glean any information as to any effects on that particular area by the changes that had been made in Menlo Park over the period of time since the Lytton Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Study first was
05/08/95 75-492
discussed. Mr. Overway said when Menlo Park first proposed its Willows program, there were a series of diverters and prohibited turns. At that time, Palo Alto expressed some concern because it changed a lot of traffic patterns. Menlo Park backed down from that and proposed traffic circles, stop signs, etc., which did not tend to redistribute traffic as much as diverters and closures did. The general impact as far as the change in traffic going across the Pope/Chaucer Bridge had been minimal. Mr. Stoffel said staff had made two traffic counts, one before and one after, and he recalled no definitive counts but the numbers assumed a 5 percent reduction in traffic going over the bridge from Menlo Park due to its traffic plan. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked if in staff's opinion was the diverter in question the lynch pin of the whole project or would there be some value in testing the other devices without the diverter. Mr. Stoffel preferred to address it as a median which did different things than a diverter. If the median was taken out of Alternative 5, the plan would be similar to Alternatives 1 or 7 which did not have the median but had a few additional things. The amount of traffic removed from the internal streets, Palo Alto/Hale/Seneca/ Lytton dropped considerably. Alternative 5 had a medium affect while the other alternatives were considered low. The median made a difference. Council Member Kniss asked how high the raised median was, whether it was similar to some of the diverters put on Bryant Street, and whether it could be driven over. Mr. Overway said no. It would be made out of the same material as the traffic circle so it could not be driven over. Staff hoped it could be structured in a way so some of the turns could be made on Marlowe Street. The intent was to eliminate the left turn lane from Palo Alto Avenue so it could not be driven over or around. Council Member Kniss said earlier it had been mentioned that it would not be an attractive entrance and she asked what could be used instead for the long-term and what alternative would look attractive there. Mr. Overway said a portion of the median would have enough width that it could be planted. The design had not been carried to a point where he could intelligently answer the question. If it worked for the trial period, then staff could return with what it would look like. Council Member McCown had tried to compare the Working Group Scenario 2 and Alternative 5 and realized they were not directly comparable. She asked what difference it would make if it were a traffic circle at Chaucer Street and Palo Alto Avenue as opposed to the raised median.
05/08/95 75-493
Mr. Stoffel replied it would become something like Alternatives 1 or 7 with a traffic circle at that location and no blockage at Palo Alto Avenue and Seneca Street. Council Member McCown confirmed that Alternatives 1 and 7 did achieve some slowing of traffic but had very little impact on quantity at Palo Alto and Lytton Avenues. Mr. Stoffel said that was correct. Vice Mayor Wheeler said another area where speed bumps were used was the Cowper area, south of Oregon Expressway, which had been there for a long period of time. She asked if follow-up studies had been done in that area to determine if the speed bumps had stopped a significant amount of cut-through traffic which was one of the items of concern to that neighborhood. Mr. Stoffel replied a follow-up study had been done a year after the bump had been put in and there was a reduction in the traffic of 10 to 20 percent. Staff did not know whether it was cut through traffic or the residents. Council Member Huber said any one of the scenarios had both reductions and increases in traffic on other streets. He asked if a six-month trial were done, whether staff would look at the increase on some of the other streets to see if it exceeded what staff had anticipated and whether that was one of the measures of "success." Mr. Overway replied he would not label it as "success." It would be measured, people would be informed, and information would be available. The only success would be whether staff was accurate in its predictions. Staff had found with the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard and the barrier and traffic circle that the anticipated traffic volume transfer was not as significant as had been anticipated. Staff was not convinced that the traffic volume was only due to the traffic circle or barrier. He said anytime the traffic volume was counted it varied by 10 percent just by itself so there was a natural fluctuation that had to be considered. Staff had a reasonable educated opinion of what was expected and the only way Council, staff and the citizens would be satisfied was to try it, measure it, and report back with the numbers. Mayor Simitian asked what happened at the end of the six-month trial period. Mr. Overway said that staff would return to Council at that point and report the findings and what conclusions staff had made. If there were any adjustments necessary, such as in the case of the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard where staff concluded that the barrier was working satisfactorily, but Council decided on the traffic circle and so that was done on a trial basis. Mayor Simitian confirmed that after the six-month trial period, Council could act to remove the median, modify it, or take some
05/08/95 75-494
other action. Mr. Overway said that was correct. Mayor Simitian said there had been reference to a reduction of 3,000 cars and a net increase of 2,000 cars. He asked what happened to the extra 1,000 trips that were referenced. Mr. Overway said the plan assumed a fair amount of traffic did not go over the bridge at all, it stayed on Willow or Middlefield Roads. Mayor Simitian asked whether it was such a diversion technique that people did not even bother to try and make their way through it. Mr. Overway said that Willow and Middlefield Roads received some of the diverted traffic also. Mayor Simitian said the Council was chastised for spending too much money on the traffic circle on Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard, chastised by others for not spending more money to making it more aesthetically pleasant, and then chastised again after the fact for spending too much, and people were there that evening saying the diverters looked ugly. He thought most of the diversion devices were very unattractive and asked what staff's ability was to make the devices look like something other than a construction site. Mr. Overway said it related to the amount of space left over after providing for the ability for trucks to turn around, etc. His sense was that the amount of vault that was left available was probably similar to some of the street closures in Evergreen Park which had more surface area than the ones on the Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard which were small. Mayor Simitian said reiterated the comments of Mr. Doyle quoted from staff reports (CMR:242.95) and (CMR:254:93) and asked what the rationale was for improvements when the volumes were comparable with other local and collector streets and the safety and speed findings were comparable with other streets. Mr. Overway said the factual data in terms of volume, accidents, and speeds did not indicate that there was anything unique on those streets that was not replicated in several areas of the City which confirmed the question. What was being dealt with was perceptions. The Comprehensive Plan talked about reducing the impact of traffic in neighborhoods, and the traffic plan was a way to do that. The plan was the result of a serious and rigorous study as to what could and should be done. If the Council wished to proceed with those kinds of measures and programs within the City, then that was an appropriate place to begin. Areas of high accidents or excessive speeds would be pointed out to Council by staff but that did not exist in the Lytton Avenue traffic area. Mayor Simitian asked staff's view regarding the reallocation of
05/08/95 75-495
traffic from the identified neighborhood to streets that were more appropriate to carry the additional increment of traffic. Mr. Overway said in some cases. The things staff used to measure the traffic as being harmful in its diversion was whether it was going to arterial streets. In the case of the identified traffic area, staff favored measures that focused the traffic on University Avenue. He wished there was a solution to only diverting the traffic to University Avenue, but it went to other streets also. One of the measures was whether or not University Avenue was one of the prime recipients as opposed to Hamilton Avenue which staff did not feel should be a prime recipient of the majority of traffic. Mayor Simitian wanted to hear from his colleagues who had a view about the issue and what it was that supported the notion of diverting traffic from that neighborhood given the volume, speed, and safety analysis that had been done because he thought the Council would see the same issue occur with other neighborhoods that would make the same claim. Council Member McCown said one question she had asked during the P&S Committee meeting was how the streets in the Lytton Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Study compared with other neighborhoods. The answer she received was that there was no objective criteria for what level of traffic should be on a residential street with the same character the streets in the study carried, and it was not unique because there were other streets that carried it. What Council was inevitably responding to was a subjective reaction to traffic and the impact it had on peoples lives, witness the degree of participation and energy from neighborhoods about those issues. It was unavoidable that a standard needed to be set for which situations deserved some measures to control traffic and which ones did not. She felt Palo Alto needed to look at Portland's policy because if the Alternative 5 trial period was approved by Council in light of the Comprehensive Plan policies and other similar decisions, the City was going to get more of this type of request. It would behoove staff to figure out a structure and system so people would feel their neighborhood was being treated similarly if certain criteria were met. The neighborhood strongly supported Working Group Scenario 2 which had a complete blocked off diverter on Palo Alto Avenue; and if she took the block between Guinda and Seneca Streets, it was projected that it would reduce traffic volumes from 2,260 trips to 130 trips, a real radical change, and at the intersection of Palo Alto Avenue and Chaucer Street, the count was reduced from 3,400 to 2,700 trips. At the other end of the spectrum, Working Group Scenario 1 which included only road bumps reduced traffic in the first section from 2,200 to 2,000 trips, and at Chaucer Street reduced traffic from 3,500 to 3,200. She felt Alternative 5 was a compromise and did not achieve the same level of reduction on any of the sections of Palo Alto or Lytton Avenues and did not radically shift traffic. From previous Committee meeting discussions, she felt that was what Council wanted and she commended staff for providing an alternative that was a better balance which was offered earlier on. She also commended the neighborhood participants involved in
05/08/95 75-496
the discussions because it characterized in her view a predominant spirit of flexibility of different neighbors which was why Alternative 2 was much better for people living on Palo Alto and Lytton Avenues but the people were willing to support Alternative 5. She supported Alternative 5 with the adjustment staff indicated on the restripping on University Avenue. Council needed to see what the consequences would be by prohibiting just the one turning direction off of Palo Alto Avenue and needed that data because other neighborhoods would be asking for similar things in the future. AMENDMENT: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to delete the median and change it to an oval or a traffic circle. Mayor Simitian said staff's recommendation was for a trial basis and he felt a more modest approach should be tried first before determining a more severe approach was necessary. Staff had commented that the speed bumps and traffic circles did have an impact on volume and speed which related to safety. Since safety and speed were the primary concerns and had some modest effect on volume, he suggested the more modest approach with an oval or traffic circle. If the trial period did not achieve its purpose, at the end of six months a more significant impediment to traffic flow in the area could be discussed. Council Member Huber said one of his concerns at the P&S Committee meeting was staying away from traffic engineering. There was a legitimate concern when there was a major closure because it was easier to leave it there. The City had history of pulling one out at Bryant Street even though staff suggested leaving it closed. Since the goal was to see what was going to happen with traffic, he was inclined to take the lesser measure and see how it worked but would not be disinclined to try the barrier after six months. Council Member Kniss was persuaded by Council Member McCown's comments and supported going the fair route. She was a big supporter of circles but felt if the median was not tried, Council would get a different type of reporting. Council Member Schneider supported the amendment. She suggested the Public Art Commission become involve in the design of the devices to make them more attractive once they became permanent. AMENDMENT FAILED 4-4, Wheeler, Huber, Schneider, Simitian "yes," Andersen absent. Council Member Fazzino said the issue was very difficult. Philosophically he was more comfortable with traffic circles, they worked very well. For the long-term, he preferred that route, but he was concerned about changing the plan at the last minute given the amount of work that had gone into it. He felt Council needed to get the information which would be provided by the Alternative 5 trial period and make a permanent decision one way or the other. He thought Council needed to go with the more problematic approach now and see what the results were, but he might be supportive of a permanent traffic circle at that location rather
05/08/95 75-497
than a median. He felt the issue was primarily one of safety. Mayor Simitian raised the issued of how traffic in the Lytton Avenue area differed from traffic situations in other area of Palo Alto. Palo Alto had a crisis situation with regard to traffic safety throughout the community which was being addressed at a number of levels at the current time. He observed traffic at the corner of Lytton and Palo Alto Avenues and he was convinced there was a significant safety issue in that area. For whatever reason, traffic traveled down that street at very fast speeds and it was an issue that needed to be addressed. He supported Alternative 5 but if at the end of six months there was a significant impact on adjoining streets with the median then he was in favor of moving to a traffic circle as an alternative. Mayor Simitian supported the main motion with the clear understanding that it was a trial and if at the end of six months it had not worked or worked unfairly, he would be obliged to vote against it. He reiterated to staff that the votes in favor that evening were for a trial and not for a system that was permanent in nature. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Schneider "no," Andersen absent. RECESS: 10:03 P.M. - 10:14 P.M. ORDINANCES 8. Temporary Relocation of Senior Center Staff and Programs to 353 University Avenue, 425 Bryant Street, and 450 Bryant Street Manager Real Property William Fellman said both Item Nos. 8 and 9 had in common the use of 425 Bryant Street for a joint teen and senior project. Item No. 8 requested an additional $232,650 to temporarily relocate staff and the programs at the Senior Center building at 450 Bryant Street while the building was strengthened. Senior Center staff convinced City staff that the La Comida lunch program was the nexus to all of the Senior Center (the Center) programs and that the distance and condition of any lease space needed to take into consideration the special needs of their 6,000 clients. The La Comida lunch program would remain at 450 Bryant Street and the proposal made use of sites that were as close to the La Comida program as possible. Classrooms would be located at 450 and 425 Bryant Streets and the majority of the counseling services would be located at 353 University Avenue. A fourth location yet to be determined would serve as the location for eight senior staff members of the Center. Staff felt it was important to note that the short-term lease of space in the Downtown areas was no easy task. One major developer was willing to lease space on Lytton Avenue for $3.10 per square foot, and another major developer refused to lease his Bryant Street space for less than a three-year commitment. The owner of 353 Bryant Street first quoted $3.00 per square foot and finally agreed to $1.90 per square foot. Each owner's quote did not include tentative improvements to the shortness of the lease. The timing was wrong for the interim use of the Times-Tribune building and
05/08/95 75-498
all of the recent vacant spaces such as Wiedemans. The improvements considered for 353 University Avenue included the cost of moving the Senior Center's existing phone system in and back out again at the end of the lease at a budgeted cost of $25,000. The four enclosed office spaces in the board room that would cost $5,000 to build would be removed at the end of the lease as would the used rented partitions. The only tenant improvement to remain was the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) work to the restrooms and the carpeting. The owner was not willing to participate in the cost of the restrooms which was $20,175 or the carpeting at $12,500 which might be removed depending on the sites future use. Item No. 8 detailed the cost associated with each location, and staff was also requesting approval of the lease for 353 University Avenue. Both Item Nos. 8 and 9 spoke to the unique opportunity of a joint use of 425 Bryant Street for both seniors and teens and Item No. 9 spoke specifically for the use of the site for teens during the evenings and weekends. He thanked the staff and board members of the Senior Center for their cooperation and willingness to work to resolve problems associated with such a large project and also the teens for their cooperation in helping to create a joint use of 425 Bryant Street. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a 15-month lease of 353 University Avenue with Amir Amidhozour and increase the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No. 18508 budget for the relocation of the Senior Coordinating Council staff and programs by $232,650. Further, funding would also enable the implementation of a teen center at 425 Bryant Street. Ordinance 4277 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Capital Improvement Project No. 18508, `Public Buildings: Structural Improvements'" Lease between the City of Palo Alto and Amir Amidhozour for Office Space at 353 University Avenue MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 9. Establishment of Teen Center at 425 Bryant Street MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the use of 425 Bryant Street as a Teen Center. Cynthia Harrison, President, Palo Alto Youth Council, 121 Heather Lane, emphasized there were many loyal Youth Council members in the audience and commended staff for its support throughout the year. She said each year it has been a goal of the Youth Council to create a space for teens, and it wanted to bring the concept to fruition for the current year. She noted that Mayor Simitian had tried to create a teen center when he was a teen. To many
05/08/95 75-499
teenagers the curfew ordinance passed by Council in July was viewed as a negative message. There was a growing need among young people to find a place to belong and call their own. In response to that need, the Youth Council took it upon itself to design a plan and proposal for a teen center in Palo Alto understanding that 15 Youth Council members could not fully represent the more than 3,000 teenagers in Palo Alto. An informal survey of the four high schools in Palo Alto was conducted and of the 1,300 collected and tallied surveys, 67 percent were in favor of the creation of a teen center. In addition to the teen center surveys, the Youth Council facilitated a community meeting where over 20 youths expressed their thoughts and contributed their suggestions as to how to make the teen center a success. The proposal was a collaborative effort of many committed Palo Alto youth. Leora Hanser, 749 Matadero Avenue, said 425 Bryant Street, the Board of Realtors building, was an ideal location for a teen center. Teenagers felt strongly that finding the right location was key to the success of the teen center. The Downtown area was particularly appealing because it offered a combination of social activities and local businesses. According to the Youth Council local teen center survey, the three most popular activities suggested for a teen center were a pool, a coffee house, and a discotheque. Teens also suggested many other activities. The Youth Council realized that no single activity would please everyone nor were some of the activities appropriate for the space available at 425 Bryant Street. The Youth Council felt that it was possible to create a successful teen center in which more than one of the activity suggestions would thrive. Despite the different ideas expressed, one consistent message was loud and clear, teens wanted a place where they felt safe, felt they belonged, and felt they could call their own. In an effort to ensure the success of the teen center, the Youth Council was working in cooperation with the Safer Summer Program. By collabo-rating resources, ideas, and energies, the Youth Council hoped to provide a variety of safe and free alternatives for Palo Alto youth. She said the Youth Council believed that the cooperation between the Senior Center and the youth would be a welcome sign to the community that generation gaps could be bridged successfully. The creation of a teen center would achieve the balance between a teenager's desire to be an adult and an adult's desire to ensure the safety and well being of the teens. The Youth Council strongly urged the City Council to approve the use of 425 Bryant Street as a teen center. On behalf of the Youth Council she thanked the City Council for considering the proposal. Council Member Fazzino applauded the Youth Council for all the work that had been done, it was an outstanding proposal and he supported it. He asked for the Youth Council's perspective on what made the current proposal qualitatively different than past proposals and what made it a prescription for success, a center that would truly be used by teens. In the past there were other attempts at teen centers that were not successful. His sense was that much of the problem centered around adult supervision and adult prescribed activities. He asked what needed to be done and
05/08/95 75-500
what needed to be avoided in order to make the teen center a success. Ms. Hauser replied that part of what made the proposal particularly appealing to teenagers was the location. When referring to the Mitchell Park Youth Activity Center, it was not a place where teenagers went to hang out, it was not around businesses. In the teen center proposal that the Youth Council prepared, it spoke to the Downtown area as being appealing because of the social businesses that were there, along with restaurants, shops, movie theaters, etc. Everything was located on one main strip. There was nothing at Mitchell Park open at night except the library. Second, it was something the teenagers had suggested themselves. The survey encompassed 1,300 teenagers which was a good cross section that enabled the Youth Council to know what the public wanted. Third, it piggybacked off of the Safer Summer Program which had been extremely successful during the past summer at getting teenagers to visit businesses at night. It might not have made as much money as some of the businesses had hoped, but it was a catalytic program of what the teen center should become. Those three elements were contained in the proposal and were going to be important in making sure that the teen center was a success. Ms. Harrison said above the location, above the Safer Summer Program, above everything, it sounded like it was something teenagers would use and it would be worthwhile to have around. Council Member Kniss recalled that Ms. Hanser said a cafe such as Cafe Barrone's in Menlo Park would work well for teens. She asked what use the Youth Council anticipated, where did it anticipate the structure would come from, and was any fund-raising anticipated. For example, the seniors did an incredible amount of fund-raising to support the Senior Center. She thought if the teens had a plan for caring for and raising money for the teen center, it would make them feel much more like it belonged to them. Ms. Harrison said so far all of their energies had gone toward getting the teen center up and off of the ground and fund-raising had not been one of the Youth Council's topics of discussion, but it planned to do as much fund-raising as possible. She asked Council Member Kniss if she meant authority when speaking about structure. Council Member Kniss asked if someone dropped in to the teen center at 10:30 p.m., did she anticipate what would they find. Ms. Harrison replied whatever could be set up. As she had said earlier a pool, coffee house, and a discotheque was what everyone wanted to have happen. They might be able to get a high school band in the outer area and have some dancing in the lobby area, maybe a movie room, a coffee house in the back with some pool tables set up. It was not going to be anything structured. There would not be a schedule with certain activities between 9:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. or between 11:30 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. It needed to
05/08/95 75-501
be as open as possible because teens wanted to get away from a classroom-type setting and the Youth Council wanted to create something that was free, liberating, fun, and safe. Ms. Hanser said with regard to fund raising, last year the Youth Council put together a Youth Forum Conference with a set budget of $2,000 and single-handedly was able to raise well over that amount. She did not believe fund raising would be a problem if a budget was set with a goal of how much should be raised. She could not see how the Youth Council would not be able to raise the funds. Council Member Kniss asked if someone came into the teen center at 11:00 p.m. and wanted some coffee, would there be a coffee machine or would someone serve it. While she did not want all of the answers that evening, she wanted all of the teens in conjunction with the adults that would support it to realize that it was a dual effort. Ms. Hauser said the Youth Council knew it was a major undertaking and presently it was working toward getting the facility and the funds and if that was accomplished, they were prepared to look into the specificities seriously. The Youth Council had an incredible staff to help do that. Human Relations Commissioner Henrietta Burroughs and liaison to the Youth Council, 795 Gailen Avenue, said the Human Relations Commission (HRC) applauded the City's efforts to develop a downtown teen center and look forward to doing everything possible to work with the Youth Council to bring the teen center about. The HRC knew that the curfew issue would be coming up soon on the Council's agenda and it hoped that the Council would look at the teen center as a valuable activity for the City's youth, particularly since it was designed to be a safe, clean, supervised facility. Approximately one year earlier, the subject of youth violence was raised as an issue in Palo Alto and the Council designated a committee to look into the issue and that committee became the Positive Alternatives for Youth Committee. Since she currently sat on that committee, she advised that the issue of gang violence in Palo Alto was being examined and the Youth Committee had also listened to representatives from other communities discussing what had been going on in their cities with that issue. The Youth Committee was now in the process of considering productive activities that could be recommended to the City Council that would be supported by Palo Alto's youth. The teen center was a worthwhile activity for the youth, and everyone was excited about it. She hoped the Council would look favorably upon the teen center and do everything possible to make it a reality. Mayor Simitian commended the City Manager and her staff and said that one of the reasons the teen center was finally a reality was because of the City Manager's commitment to support the Council and the community. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Andersen absent.
05/08/95 75-502
COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Kniss spoke regarding Palo Alto's Black and White Ball. City Manager June Fleming said the Black and White Ball was an overwhelming success. Mayor Simitian announced that the Tuesday, May 9, 1995, Finance Committee would be cablecast live on Government Access Channel 16 because the Menlo Park City Council meeting has been canceled. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:44 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving existing litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 5. Mayor Simitian announced that no action was taken on Agenda Item No. 5. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 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.
05/08/95 75-503