HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-04 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting March 4, 1996 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................78-300 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 8, 1996.....................78-300 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and A. V. & C. Construction, Inc. for Sidewalk Replacement...........78-300 2. Lease and Maintenance Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Memorex-Telex Corporation for Equipment to Access Nation al, State and Local Law Enforcement Databases.........78-301 3. Color Zone Parking Program............................78-301 4. Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.04 [Council Organization and Procedure] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Revised Regular Meeting Times for Standing Committees and to Modify Council Mail Processing Procedures.............78-322 5. Audit of Heavy Vehicles and Equipment.................78-329 6. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........78-332 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m...........78-332
03/04/96 78-299 78-299
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 8:03 p.m.), Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian (arrived at 7:38 p.m.), Wheeler ABSENT: McCown ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 343 Byron Street, spoke regarding police retaliation for making a complaint. Harry Merker, 501 Forest Avenue, No. 302, spoke regarding Palo Alto Police Department. Tony Ciampi, c/o Joe Baldwin, 555 Waverley, spoke regarding Homeless Task Force. Margaret Beernink, 2351 Oberlin Street, spoke regarding the water tower. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 8, 1996 MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of January 8, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss, McCown, Simitian absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2. 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and A. V. & C. Con-struction, Inc. for Sidewalk Replacement; change orders not to exceed $35,000. 2. Lease and Maintenance Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Memorex-Telex Corporation for Equipment to Access Nation-al, State and Local Law Enforcement Databases MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss, McCown, Simitian absent. RESOLUTIONS
03/04/96 78-300 78-300
3. Color Zone Parking Program Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said the City implemented a parking program one year previously that was intended to address the sleeper parking problem and increase the number of available spaces for visitors to the Downtown area. The Parking Subcommittee of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and staff believed the program had been very successful at achieving its goal. While there were differences of opinion on the program, almost everyone agreed that finding available on-street and/or lot parking spaces was not the problem it once was. Although the City had received complaints from people indicating they would not return to the Downtown area for shopping because of the program, information received from a number of retail owners was that their volume of business had increased. The information was substantiated by sales tax information. According to Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Emily Harrison, sales tax in the Downtown area had increased 17 percent between the third quarter of 1994 and the third quarter of 1995. From the time of the original discussions on the program, color zones had never been promoted as being the answer to the overall Downtown parking problem. The 13-point Comprehensive Downtown Parking Plan underscored the fact that the color zone program was only one point. The estimated 1,500-parking space deficit in the Downtown area still existed. The only viable option to address that problem was the addition of parking facilities. The area of greatest concern regarding the implementation of the color zone program had been the impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. She said page 5 of the staff report (CMR:158:96) explained how the surveys were conducted. She clarified the assumption was that each vehicle with a chalk mark, i.e., those that were actually parked on the street prior to the 6:00 a.m. chalking, belonged to or were associated with a resident and that all vehicles found without chalk marks thereafter belonged to nonresidents. As pointed out by the residents and according to the survey data, there had been a greater increase of nonresident parkers in the neighborhood south of University Avenue since the color zone program was initiated. The factors noted in the staff report such as visitors, repair and delivery, and general intrusion of the neighborhoods were significant prior to the color zone program. However, based upon observations of the neighbors south of University Avenue, there had been an estimated 50 percent loss of available spaces in their area. Additionally, they noted that there had been an increase in the core area where the loss of available spaces had been more significant. Many complaints had been received from people living between Addison and Lincoln Avenues and Ramona and High Streets. She emphasized the issue of the neighborhood intrusion was one that the members of the Parking Subcommittee and staff had taken very seriously and continued to struggle with during the year. No easy answer had been found to date because the parking space deficit still existed. Staff would continue to educate employees and visitors to the Downtown area about other means of travel. Staff believed the addition of
03/04/96 78-301 78-301
representatives of the neighborhood associations to the Parking Subcommittee would serve not only to facilitate improved communications but also to generate other possible short-term ideas to address the problem. Staff would continue to look for opportunities to increase the number of permit spaces while maintaining the balance needed for two-hour spaces. Pending Council approval of the proposed Resolution, staff would make the neighborhood intrusion issue the number one priority. During the first part of December 1995, a paid attendant lot at Lot S was initiated for a one-year trial period. Because the usage of the lot had not reached expectations, staff would be completing a four-month evaluation for Council review at the end of March 1996. During the three months of operation, December 1995 had the highest usage; however, during that month, 88 percent of the total people who used the lot used it for only 1 hour while only 5 percent used it for longer than 3 hours. In February 1996, 75 percent of the users parked for only 1 hour while 14 percent used it for longer than 3 hours. The original intent of the attendant lot was to provide longer-term parking. Some additional advertising and signage had recently been done to increase the awareness of the lot. She pointed out the decrease in the revenue noted in the staff report did not reflect an increase in permit parking revenue. She did not have detailed information that evening regarding a breakdown of the revenue associated with one-day, quarterly, or annual permits, but generally the permit revenue increased by approximately $46,000. When that revenue was taken into consideration, the overall decrease in revenue would be approximately $175,000. City Traffic Engineer Ashok Aggarwal said work was currently being done on the Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study, and the study included surveying sites, parking demand and supply analysis, conceptual designs, and cost estimates, etc. The study process would be similar to the California Avenue area district study and would provide information to the Council to decide whether to proceed with the final design information of the assessment district to finance such a project. The study and the Council action to proceed with the design phase was expected to be completed at the end of 1996. Design information of the assessment district was expected to take 12 to 18 months, and construction could start as early as Spring or Summer 1998 with completion in
Summer 1999. Based on staff=s past experience as well as concern about parking intrustion into the neighborhood, parking in the structure would include both long-term parking for employees as well as short-term customer parking. Council Member Schneider asked what the estimated cost of the parking structure would be. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said the cost estimate would depend upon whether one or two structures were built. If only one structure were built, it would be bigger; if there were
03/04/96 78-302 78-302
two structures, each structure would probably be smaller. He felt the cost would range between $5 to $8 million which would be dependent on how big and how many structures were built. Council Member Schneider asked how much money was available in the parking assessment district at the present time for the parking structure. Mr. Overway said there were no funds available. Normally, the amount would be funded through an assessment district. Staff expected that some of the projects presently being constructed would have taken advantage of the in-lieu parking assessment. The money that would come from that source, which several projects planned to take advantage of, would contribute toward that amount. Council Member Schneider clarified current projects paid into parking assessment district, and she asked how the money was allocated. Ms. Johnson said the current payments made into the parking assessment district were used for the maintenance of the Civic Center Garage and other City garages and also to pay the security at the Webster/Cowper Garage and Lot Q. Mr. Overway explained the properties assessed through the tax rolls went toward paying off some of the existing structures, e.g., Webster/Cowper Garage, the portion of the garage that the City bought at Plaza Ramona. The money received from the permit sales was used for the purposes noted by Ms. Johnson. Council Member Schneider asked whether there was a balance in that account and, if so, how the money would be spent and how long it would take to raise $5 to $8 million for the parking structure. City Manager June Fleming said funds were available in the account for maintenance and other related costs, but the funds would not necessarily be transferred toward the construction of a new parking facility. Council Member Schneider clarified a new assessment district would be created for the purpose of building the Downtown parking facility. Mr. Overway said that was correct. Council Member Schneider asked what area would be assessed. Mr. Overway said there needed to be a finding when the assessment district was formed, but the probability was high that it would coincide with the existing assessment district boundary.
03/04/96 78-303 78-303
Council Member Schneider asked whether the money needed to be in the assessment district before construction began. Mr. Overway said the assessment district was formed by action of the Council. On that basis, bonds were sold, and all of the money was raised to build it immediately. Over the next 20 to 30 years, properties were assessed through the tax rolls to pay off the bonds. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the Council added additional 30-minute spaces when it approved the program the previous year. Mr. Aggarwal said the 30-minute green spaces were to be added on an
Αas requested≅ basis, and very few requests were received during the year. Council Member Fazzino asked who had made the requests. Mr. Aggarwal replied the Downtown property owners or businesses had. Council Member Fazzino asked whether parkers made any requests. Mr. Aggarwal did not recall one request from a parker. He said not many 30-minute spaces had been added during the year. Council Member Fazzino asked how many 24-minute or 30-minute short-term parking spaces were available in the City. Mr. Aggarwal said there were approximately 12 short-term spaces in the Downtown area. Council Member Fazzino said the parking issue was a significant concern during the previous year, and staff had proposed one recommendation to address it. He asked whether the possibility of adding additional short-term green spaces had been considered and, if so, why it was rejected. Mr. Aggarwal said one of the recommendations in the staff report was to exempt the 30-minute green zones which would solve the reparking issue. If the Council approved the staff recommendation, staff would begin adding green zones on a block-by-block basis up to 20 or 30 spaces. There were 50 blocks in the Downtown color zone area, and Council had approved 2 green zones per block space which meant there was the potential to add up to 200 spaces in the Downtown area. Council Member Fazzino asked when the 20 to 30 spaces would be added. Mr. Aggarwal said staff would look at businesses in the Downtown that needed short-term parking, e.g., flower or bagel shops or
03/04/96 78-304 78-304
drugstores, and on that basis would prepare a map to make certain that the spaces were not too close together. Staff would then personally talk to the businesses owners or tenants to make certain they wanted a 30-minute space in front of their businesses, and then the spaces would be added as soon as possible. He anticipated that the spaces would be added during the next few months. Council Member Fazzino clarified it would be another way in which to address the reparking concerns. Mr. Aggarwal said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino said the City recently approved valet parking for Stars Restaurant, and he suspected it had been a net plus for the City despite the loss of five or six on-street parking spaces since the cars were parked in private lots. He wanted to understand the philosophy behind that decision and what the possible long-term impacts might be on on-street parking if additional valet parking requests were approved. He assumed that any large business could request valet parking in front of the facility if there were a private lot to park the cars; but he wanted to address the issue of the loss of on-street parking and how it related to the issue of adequate parking for shoppers and employees. Mr. Overway said when the issue of Stars Restaurant arose, it was clear to staff that the net benefit to everyone in the Downtown area was positive in terms of the availability of on-street parking. The restaurant was parking 40 to 50 cars on a private lot that no one else had access to; therefore, 40 to 50 cars were removed from competition for on-street spaces. The restaurant had four on-street spaces designated for its private use. Staff had checked with other cities in the area, e.g., Beverly Hills had an ordinance, and decided to use a permit process for a one-year period rather than an ordinance to determine whether the service worked and how popular it would be. Staff had prepared the process so that it could be available to any business that could meet the same conditions. Two other restaurants had asked about a valet service, but most of the businesses could not meet the provision of parking on private property. There had been no other businesses except Stars Restaurant that had followed through with their initial request. The valet service had been in effect for approximately eight months and had worked satisfactorily. Council Member Fazzino asked about the issue of the loss of on-street parking. It might be a net plus for the City in terms of getting large numbers of cars off the street, but it was focused on users of a single use. He wanted to understand the issue within the broader context of the whole Downtown parking issue. A large number of permits could be issued on the basis of the criteria established, and the City would lose 50 or 60 on-street parking spaces for general shoppers in the Downtown area.
03/04/96 78-305 78-305
Mr. Overway said the scenario described by Council Member Fazzino could happen and that was the reason the process was done on a one-year permit basis. On a case-by-case basis, the spaces were in front of Stars Restaurant and were of limited use to other people. The trade-off of 40 or 50 cars out of the public realm for the price of 4 or 5 parking spaces was reasonable. Council Member Fazzino said it might be a bigger issue in the Downtown core. Mr. Overway said that was correct, which was the reason for the one-year revocable permit. If the City received such complaints, the system could be readjusted before an ordinance was written. Council Member Fazzino referred to the statement on page 6 of the
staff report (CMR:158:96) ΑThis information lends credence to the premise that sleepers and/or the color zone are not the only influencing factors associated with increased parking in the
neighborhoods.≅ He asked what the other factors were. Ms. Johnson said before the color zone was implemented, there was already a significant intrusion of other employees, not necessarily sleepers, who chose to park their vehicles in the neighborhoods as opposed to moving their cars every two hours. That factor and the information received from neighbors that the vibrancy of the Downtown in the evenings and the weekends drew in more people who wanted more convenient access to the Downtown area and parked in the neighborhoods were referred to in the staff report. Council Member Fazzino clarified staff had concluded the increased usage of Downtown restaurants and services had also led to an increase number of cars in the neighborhoods as well; it was not just the sleeper parking. Ms. Johnson said that was correct. Council Member Andersen asked approximately how many parking spaces would be created if the City reached the maximum on the parking facilities suggested in one of the 13 points and moved forward with the project.
Mr. Overway said the City=s portion of the Webster/Cowper Garage was presently 450 spaces, and the two floors at the top that would
eventually become the City=s would add another 160 spaces. He was uncertain whether there would be that many spaces in another single location. A parking structure at Lots S an L might create approximately 400 to 500 spaces, and another location on the edge of the Downtown might be one-half or two-thirds of that size. If two structures were built at the sizes suggested, there could be approximately 800 or 900 parking spaces available.
03/04/96 78-306 78-306
Council Member Andersen clarified the City currently had a 1,500- parking space deficit. Ms. Johnson said that was correct. Council Member Andersen clarified the resolutions seemed to be temporary. Mr. Overway said that was correct if the definition of a resolution were to get all the people who parked adjacent to the Downtown area out of that area. If the definition were to continue to address the issue the best possible way and keep a balance that had existed for many years, the actions were positive and were moving in the right direction. Council Member Andersen referred to the 13-point parking plan provided by the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and said he could not see any major potential shifts other than the recommendation for an additional parking structure. He asked whether there were any additional efforts pending on the list that would relieve some of the problem. Ms. Johnson said the best example was the education of employees and employers who worked in the Downtown area. Staff had noticed there had been a shift in some of the managers of many retail establishments Downtown, so it was difficult to get them to understand how to work with their employees on permit parking and alternative uses of transportation. During the year, staff would continue to spend more time educating the employers as well as the visitors to the Downtown about the alternatives. Council Member Andersen clarified the report suggested there was a waiting list for permit parking. Ms. Johnson said that was correct; that was the reason the outreach regarding transportation alternative would be emphasized. Mr. Aggarwal said there was a potential in Lot S for 40 more parking spaces. There were 85 marked spaces, but with tandem parking, the valet parkers could accommodate 40 more cars. Only 40 to 50 spaces had been changed from three-hour to permit parking in the Webster/Cowper Garage basement, so there was a potential to change some of those spaces to permit parking. Council approved and authorized staff to change the remainder of the two-hour parking in Lot T to permit parking. Staff would continue to monitor the Webster/Cowper Garage and work closely with the Parking Subcommittee of the Chamber of Commerce to determine the appropriate time to change the Webster/Cowper Garage. For example, there had been occasions when there was a short waiting list of 10 to 15 days for a permit at the Webster/Cowper Garage; but after review by staff, additional spaces would be found so additional permits were issued. That was another way to handle people on a
03/04/96 78-307 78-307
waiting list for permits. The approximate 800 people on the wait list was somewhat erroneous because people were often on multiple waiting lists and some people who currently held a permit were still on the wait list for Civic Center Garage or Lots C or G. Council Member Andersen asked whether there was sufficient parking spaces for sleepers if the City managed the resource more effectively. Mr. Aggarwal said that was not his suggestion, but there was some parking available periodically. Council Member Simitian said the surge in restaurant activity had anecdotally produced an increase in the number delivery trucks that parked in the middle of the street rather than in a parking area. Parking Enforcement Supervisor Dave Dudley replied that was correct.
Council Member Simitian understood the City=s ordinance provided a certain loading zone period during the morning hours for delivery trucks, that some of the trucks made deliveries outside of the designated hours, that the City had always been tolerant in that area and had tried to make the system work without too much enforcement, but that it had become increasing difficult given the number of increased trucks that spent extended periods of time during busier times of the day in the streets. He asked whether there had been any discussion about a long-term solution of where the trucks could park. Mr. Overway said staff was concerned about the situation, and one solution would be to create loading zones throughout the day that trucks could use but that could drastically impinge on the availability of parking spaces for cars. Staff considered the situations on a case-by-case basis when complaints were raised by either businesses, truckers, or customers. In most cases, staff tried to foster an atmosphere of tolerance and cooperation. When the traffic condition or situation became unsafe, staff found a solution; but the solutions tended to be the creation of yellow zones which removed the availability of parking for cars. Council Member Simitian asked whether the trucks would observe the hours if the City had limited hours for the loading zones so that parking would not be lost during the majority of the day. Mr. Overway understood from the people who received deliveries that it was extremely difficult for them to get the truckers to deliver within a certain window of time. In large cities, certain zones were set aside and deliveries were done early in the morning before businesses were open. He felt the City could not dictate that requirement in the delivery Downtown.
03/04/96 78-308 78-308
Vice Mayor Huber said staff outlined a scenario that would take the City into completion of construction of one or two parking structures by the Summer of 1999. Mr. Aggarwal said that was correct. Vice Mayor Huber asked whether the completion could be moved forward faster. Mr. Overway said the time frame was realistic. The study process would take nine months; and at the end of that time, there needed to be review and decision making by the Council about whether or not to proceed with the next steps which would take the process to the end of 1996. If Council decided to proceed, then there was a design phase for the garage and the formation of an assessment district. Procedurally, that process would take another year, and then there was the selling of bonds and construction of the project. It was a three-year project: 1996, 1997, and 1998. The project would be open in early 1999. Vice Mayor Huber asked whether the schedule was realistic. Mr. Overway felt the assessment was honest if everybody wanted to make it work expeditiously; but he did not believe it could be done in one or two years. If the schedule languished between the steps indicated, it would take longer. The actual work without periods of inactivity should be three years. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the requirements imposed on Stars
Restaurant were defined as Αprivate parking lots≅ to park the cars. He asked whether unused City lots could be used in the evening. Mr. Overway said unused City lots could be used, but the primary interest was at lunch time and in the evening; there was no unused spaces at lunch time, so a private lot was found. The understanding was that only public spaces could be used and only the public spaces that were not being utilized in the evening. The same understanding would be offered to any restaurant, but the difficulty was securing private parking during the lunch period. Vice Mayor Huber asked whether there was any valet evening parking from Stars Restaurant in public spaces. Mr. Overway said no, but public spaces could be used based on the understanding he mentioned previously. Council Member Kniss referred to the two-hour time slots and the fact that the license plates were entered into a hand-held computer. The observation she had heard often was why the time could not be cumulative and why a person could not come to the Downtown in the morning and then return in the afternoon. She asked why the two- to four-hour time frame that was within that
03/04/96 78-309 78-309
period of time could not be counted. If the City=s intent was to discourage the sleeper problem, she asked why there could not be some other mechanism to address the issue of people who wanted to park in the same area twice a day but who were not employees who parked there all day. Ms. Johnson said staff had tried to resolve those issues, but there were two problems. First, it was impossible for the parking enforcement officers to differentiate, based upon a license plate, whether a person was an employee, shopper, or visitor from out of town. The license plate would have to be run for registration which was very time consuming. Second, the answer to the question about why people could not be allowed two hours in a color zone during the day was that there was no way for parking enforcement officers to determine what time a person parked or for how long in a particular space or zone other than the time that he/she entered the license plates into the computer. Council Member Kniss had heard positive feedback about being able to find a parking space Downtown, and that was the only negative piece of the program that she had heard about. She hoped staff could address that issue in the future. Ms. Johnson said staff hoped that if more 30-minute green zones were added and the 30-minute green zones were eliminated from the color zone regulations, it would alleviate some of those problems. Mayor Wheeler clarified the proposal would remove the 30-minute green zones from the color zone. She asked how the parking enforcement officers would differentiate between the person who parked in the zone and stayed more than 30 minutes and the person who was observed in the morning in a green zone and came back and parked in a green zone in the afternoon. She also asked what kind of educational program would be launched to explain to people that they could only park in a green zone once during the day and would have to park in another zone later in the day. Mr. Dudley said the green zones would be exempt from the color zone, which meant that the parking enforcement officer would not enter the license plates of anyone parked in a 30-minute zone into the computer but would use the method of chalking the tires. A person would be able to park as many times as he/she wished in a day in any green zone because it was not bound by reparking for the color zone. There would be educational outreach to the community so that people would know the 30-minute zones could be used for frequent parking throughout the day. Irvin Dawid, 3886 La Donna Avenue, recalled that previously there were three issues that affected the Downtown: parking, traffic congestion, and panhandling. A panhandling task force was formed, and he wondered what would have happened if the merchants had convened a committee to handle the panhandling issue. The City had
03/04/96 78-310 78-310
relinquished its jurisdiction over the issue and had given the Parking Subcommittee of the Chamber of Commerce the chore of coming up with a parking plan. He felt the City had a new set of parking czars who would or would not come up with solutions. There were people who did not think there was a parking problem. He felt a different perspective on the issue was that there was a surplus of cars, and the process should be opened up to residents, bicyclists or public transit advocates, and urban environmentalists. Dena Mossar, Commute Coordinator for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 400 Channing Avenue, said she was responsible for employee parking at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) and she
was also on the Chamber=s Downtown Parking Committee. The PAMF supported the extension of the color zone parking program for
another year. The PAMF=s move to the Urban Lane site would alleviate some of the parking problems that were being dealt with temporarily that evening. As an alternative transportation advocate on the Downtown Parking Committee, she made certain the parking brochure included information on alternative transportation. She emphasized long-term solutions to Downtown parking problems were not just parking structures and spaces on the street but also improved opportunities for people to use alternative transportation. She understood the issues involved in the placement of a fence on one side of the railroad tracks on Hamilton Avenue, but it was a favorite access route to two of the permit parking lots and to the train station. The fence would force people to use either the crossing on the other side of University Avenue or the underpass. Access across the tracks, additional bicycle parking Downtown, and exploration of shuttle services within the Downtown to improve intracity transit services were important long-range opportunities for people to use alternative transportation. She encouraged the Council to review the commitment it made many years previously to have a Downtown area commute coordinator who would be responsible for education and who would work with the various transportation agencies and employers to find ways to improve alternative transportation use Downtown. Council Member Andersen asked how many PAMF employees currently parked on PAMF lots and on the street.
Ms. Mossar said the PAMF=s employees had very flexible schedules. She believed the parking deficit was about 200 spaces but that was not at any one time. Chop Keenan, 700 Emerson Street, thanked the staff for its efforts during the previous two years to implement the 13 points of the parking plan. One point did not offer a solution, but in concert the points would ultimately get the parking deficit out of the neighborhoods and provide adequate customer parking. The Parking Assessment District was approaching a half-billion dollar enterprise of retail sales, government, medical, and professionals.
03/04/96 78-311 78-311
The PAMF would be missed because it was a $90-million dollar piece of that enterprise, and the Parking Assessment District was self-funded. Parking cost approximately $17,000 per space which was paid by the Downtown property owners, not the City taxpayers. The
two big pieces of the neighborhood problem were the PAMF=s relocation and building 600 to 900 parking spaces which would clear up 70 to 80 percent of the historical deficit. He said the deficit had been as high as 1,800 cars, and the City was in a better position currently than a few years previously. The color zone had incrementally created 100 spaces of deficit in the neighborhoods. Council Member Andersen had asked what other components other than more vitality Downtown would contribute to neighborhood problems. The vitality of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) would contribute to neighborhood problems, which was outside of the Parking Assessment District. In addition, the conversion of garages to living quarters affected the parking supply in the Downtown. All the points of the 13-point plan were critical. Neighborhood permit parking could be discussed once there were 700 to 900 spaces in place. There would be no place to put the 1,200 to 1,400 cars if a parking permit process were put in place. The enterprise could not be moved too quickly. He wanted the parking structure to move faster than the 36 months and would like to see it done in 18 months, but it was a consensus-building process that needed to involve the neighborhoods, users, and retailers. All the issues addressed that evening had been explored at length once a month, and the solutions would come from within. He felt the color zone had been successful, but an extension was needed another year. Council Member Kniss asked how the parking structure could be built in 18 months. Mr. Keenan said there had to be a consensus process to sell an assessment of $5 to $10 million. He thought it could go faster, but the most important people were the people who got the bill. He thought the public/private partnership should be a complementary effort with a self-interested group working for that solution. He was optimistic that everything was moving in the right direction. Sleeper parkers were the problem, and a big part of the solution was educating the employer. He said 12,000 people were happier because 12,000 fewer citations were issued during the year. Kathleen Gwynn, President, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) strongly recommended the continuation of color zone parking for at least another year with some minor modifications as indicated in the staff report (CMR:158:96) and the continued focus on the implementation of the remaining points of the plan, particularly the parking structure. The color zone parking was only one part of the 13-point plan, and it had reached its goal to free up parking spaces in the Downtown. The Downtown Parking Committee was concerned about the ripple effects that had resulted from the color zone parking. An additional 1,200 parking spaces needed to be
03/04/96 78-312 78-312
added to the Downtown=s capacity. The additional 30-minute spaces plus the exemption from the color zones would help alleviate the problem. The Parking Committee would continue to meet with the neighborhoods regarding sleeper and/or employee parking in neighborhoods. She noted that there were significantly fewer additional cars in the neighborhoods, e.g., 10 percent of the staff at the Downtown Senior Center had moved to public transportation since the color zone parking had become effective. The issue of color zone parking being a difficult system to learn was not supported by the fact that 12,000 fewer citations were issued during the previous year. A new system required adjustments and a learning process, and it did not make sense to change the system. The Parking Committee agreed there was a continuing need to educate merchants and residents about the color zones and the other parking options for their employees. The additional marketing and outreach efforts would be used better to address those concerns than to change the color zoning. The Chamber acknowledged the efforts of the City staff who had worked diligently with the Chamber and the community to assure a workable system. The Parking Committee would continue to find fair and practicable solutions for the whole community. Susan Frank, Executive Director, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said four years previously, the Downtown Parking Committee was reinstituted to deal with a serious parking problem in the Downtown. It was comprised of Downtown retailers, property owners, major employers, City staff, and other representatives of the Downtown. The Parking Committee created the 13-point plan; and since July 1993 when the Council adopted 12 of the 13 points of the plan, all 12 of the points had been completed or had been put into progress in some way. There had been short-term usage of interim lots, increased security and safety measures, the first comprehensive guide to Downtown parking, and the City staff had taken creative approaches on per business basis when problems arose. Everyone agreed that parking in the Downtown was a continuing problem. Parking, either financial or educational, should be viewed as an investment for every Downtown employer. Parking in the neighborhoods surrounding the Downtown had not improved and in some cases had become worse. Color zone parking was not a panacea for the problem but was one approach to deal with the issue. There was more parking available in the Downtown since color zone parking went into effect. More parking spaces were needed. It was easy to criticize color zone parking because it was different and sometimes confusing, but when she asked people whether they wanted to return to the way it was before, the answer
was Αno.≅ She hoped the Council would extend the color zone with modifications for another year, so the Committee could survey the users, talk with employers, and work with the neighborhoods to develop some long-term solutions.
03/04/96 78-313 78-313
Patrick Burt, 1249 Harriet, said the University South Neighborhood Group (USNG) had closely monitored the impact of the color zones during previous year, and many residents had expressed their concern and frustration about the impacts to their neighborhoods. The USNG had recently been working with the Downtown Parking Committee to address the issues. The USNG recognized the color zones had been successful in improving the Downtown parking. It felt the Downtown was an extension of the neighborhood; however, it was difficult to defend a process which created customer parking Downtown but drove employees to use residential neighborhoods as parking lots. On many occasions, residents could not park in front of their homes or within a block of their homes during weekdays. The primary issue was not whether a serious problem existed but what fair, appropriate, and effective actions needed to be taken. Unless the Council adopted program changes to improve the situation significantly, the USNG could not support the continuation of the program. The purpose should be redefined. In addition to reducing sleepers and freeing visitor parking, the purpose statement should include that the activities would be done without detrimentally impacting the neighborhoods. The staff should set quantifiable goals about how many additional permits would be issued and how many additional spaces would be created for permits. The staff report included a key item about the outreach to encourage additional permits, but the program was meaningless if there were very few available spaces for permits. Consequently, there needed to be a more active approach toward redesignated spaces for permits, and the new garage should have a designated percentage of permit spaces. The City needed to aggressively pursue temporary lots and meet with property owners to address their reservations that existed by those owners. The City might need to provide both legal and public assurances that the use would end no later than three years upon the completion of the new parking structure and
the PAMF=s relocation. The regulations regarding the temporary lots should be relaxed to facilitate their use. In addition, the survey methods should be improved. The present survey showed approximately a 15 percent increase in parking since the color zone was implemented; however, a better figure would be to measure the change in available spaces which would measure the loss experienced by residents. The USNG believed the 15 percent increase in parking in the neighborhoods had resulted in a 75 percent decrease in available spaces on the streets in some areas. The survey should broaden the boundaries surveyed because it did not include all impacted areas. The residential permit approach should be studied and could be helped through a participatory process. The USNG wanted a greater approach on improving other transportation such as bicycle parking. Additional bicycle parking would be cost effective and would reduce the need for parking spaces. Alternative transportation should be coordinated. A City Transportation Coordinator could evaluate approaches for their economic benefits as well as the community and environmental benefits derived from them. The City should reexamine the potential parking meters as a funding source. The Downtown had a
03/04/96 78-314 78-314
demand for parking spaces that exceeded supply. The purposes of the Parking Assessment District should be expanded to provide for the vitality of the district. Perhaps the funds from the Assessment District could be used as a funding source for a shuttle system that would bring more patrons Downtown in a more cost-
effective manner. The Downtown Transportation Coordinator=s position should be implemented to broaden the issue beyond merely parking. The parking problem was one aspect of an integrated
citywide transportation problem. Most of the USNG=s
recommendations would address the neighborhood=s problems as well as other related problems in a cost-effective manner which would benefit the entire City. The USNG hoped the Council would adopt its recommendations and help correct the situation created by the color zone. If a strong plan were adopted, the USNG would not oppose the extension of the color zones for another year and to evaluate the progress of the program at that time. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7576 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting Changes in the City of Palo Alto's Restricted Parking Zones" Council Member Kniss said the Council benefitted from having a plan come forth from the group that had the most to gain or lose by the parking working well in the Downtown area. The program seemed to be working at the present time, and it deserved to have a further period of time for exploration and observation. The program had its problems, but she had also heard from people who went Downtown that they could now find a parking space. Not having enough parking often meant that the Downtown was doing well, but if people became frustrated that parking could not be found, they would quit going to the Downtown. The program had worked well and would continue to be refined, and she would support its continuation even with the few problems mentioned that evening. Council Member Schneider said more time had been spent on Downtown parking than any other issue except the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) review of the Comprehensive Plan. The color zone parking had worked well in the Downtown area. She had heard nothing but glowing reports from both her customers and constituents she spoke with regarding parking in the Downtown. She wanted the establishment of an assessment district in the Downtown area to move with haste for the construction of the one or more parking structures which would alleviate much of the problem. There had not been any discussion regarding whether the parking structures would be free, paid, or validated parking and that was an area that should be discussed further. A paid parking structure with validation from the merchants that it served made sense.
03/04/96 78-315 78-315
Council Member Fazzino felt that on balance, the color zone parking had been a net plus, and he would support continuation of the program for another year. He applauded the staff and the Chamber; and he recognized it was not easy to accommodate the needs of employees, shoppers, and Downtown residents. The program in one year had done a good job of accommodating the needs of the Downtown shoppers. There was currently more central core parking available than one year previously. He also felt the City was on the right
track toward addressing some of the Downtown employees= needs. It was very important for the Council to view the color zone parking as being only one part of a comprehensive long-term strategy to
address parking issues in the Downtown area. Ms. Mossar=s comments regarding a Downtown area commute coordinator were correct, and the Council needed to move forward quickly to establish that position. He felt a mid-term possibility of a Downtown shuttle system that would serve as an opportunity to bring Downtown employees from lots located in other areas to the Downtown should be explored. Hopefully, if the legislature and Supreme Court ever addressed the transportation infrastructure needs of the state adequately, CalTrain and other transportation services could be expanded as well. However, his biggest concern was still the impact on neighborhoods both north and south of the Downtown. He recognized the fact that if someone lived in the Downtown area, they had to deal with more parking problems than someone who lived in Woodside or Portola Valley. However, based on his personal anecdotal experience, the parking situation for Downtown neighborhoods had become a much more serious problem since the adoption of the color zone parking. Every morning two or three drivers parked their cars on his block and then left in one car with Downtown employees to park in a Downtown parking lot. He had also seen valet parkers from Stars Restaurant parking on his block on a regular basis. It had become increasingly difficult for Downtown residents to park in front of their homes. The color zone system had exacerbated the problem, and it had to be addressed. He was probably a greater proponent of permit parking than some of his colleagues, but he would not suggest that evening the Council move in the direction of implementing a neighborhood parking program. However, he wanted staff to explore the possibility of a permit parking program with the neighbors. He recognized the insurmountable divisions over the issues among residents both north and south of University Avenue, but he believed it was an issue worth exploring because it involved neighbors directly in the decision making regarding the future of
the City=s Downtown parking strategy. Council Member Kniss asked whether the staff would return with an outline that included timing. Council Member Fazzino said staff should first provide evidence of an outreach program that identified the level of interest. Council Member Kniss asked what the time frame would be.
03/04/96 78-316 78-316
Council Member Fazzino wanted an indication of the level of interest from staff within six months, and then Council could decide how to proceed at that point. City Manager June Fleming reminded Council that staff members who would be working on the report were in the Planning Department and they already had a work program outlined. She would need to determine the impact and what would be shifted to accommodate the program. She was uncertain whether the six-month time frame was practical, but staff would need to respond before the one-year time period in order for the Council to fold the information into its consideration. Six months might be too fast, but staff could return to Council at that time with a status report. Council Member Fazzino clarified he did not expect a specific plan to be in place in six months; staff could identify the level of interest at that time. Council Member Kniss was comfortable with the incorporation if the report could come to the Council as work in progress. Ms. Fleming clarified staff would begin a program to carry out the assignment; and if the report were not completed after six months, staff would return with a status report of the program to determine the level of interest. Council Member Fazzino clarified the status report would be on the program to ascertain the level of interest on the part of Downtown neighbors. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the staff would work with the neighbors to the north and south of University Avenue to identify the level of interest in developing a residential permit parking program within a six-month period and provide Council with a status report. Council Member Fazzino said staff acknowledged the importance of adding additional short-term 24- and 30-minute, parking in the central core which he believed was an essential element of the program. He was pleased with the staff recommendation which eliminated the 30-minute parking from the 5-hour regulation, but he also believed it was important to create as much central short-term parking as possible. He encouraged staff to add the additional spaces as quickly as possible not only on the basis of what the owners and tenants wanted but also on the basis of what shoppers needed. The valet parking issue needed to be explored very carefully. He appreciated the decision made with respect to Stars Restaurant, but he was very nervous about the precedent and the loss of on-street parking throughout the Downtown area. He was concerned about the elitist aspect and the rule needed to be applied very carefully. He supported the decision made with respect to the one property, but he was concerned about the long-term impact unless it was approached appropriately. He suggested
03/04/96 78-317 78-317
the curbs could be painted the color of the zone. He had heard a number of complaints from people who did not understand which zone they were in, and the signs were not enough to delineate the color zones. Vice Mayor Huber said the program was designed to make parking spaces available for customers who used the Downtown. It was anticipated that there would be difficulties with the neighborhoods, and Council promised many people, including neighborhood organizations, that it would consider the issue at the end of one year. He believed the City needed to explore with neighborhood organizations the possibility of some form of residential permit parking. He felt by involving the neighborhood organizations, something workable would be found. The problems had existed for 10 years and would continue to exist even with the advent of a new parking structure. He lived in the south side and
his anecdotal evidence was the same as Council Member Fazzino=s testimony of Downtown north, i.e., parking had pushed further into a historic neighborhood which was not a Downtown neighborhood. He noted many older homes did not have driveways or garages, so the only place to park was in front of the house. When that was taken away, something very important had been lost for the families and for the use of their property. Council Member Andersen supported the exploration of the possibility of residential permit parking as long as it was done concurrently with providing some alternatives for employees of the Downtown area. The dynamics of the Downtown were envied by every community in the state, but he was unsure how much more the City could handle at the present time. There would be some relief with the relocation of the PAMF. Many parts of the 13-point plan had already been implemented, but one area he would endorse was moving ahead with the position of a Downtown Commute Coordinator. The answer was to get people out of their automobiles and to provide alternatives that worked for people. Council Member Simitian suggested staff and the Downtown Parking Committee to be mindful of the issue of loading zones and asked whether or not the City needed any institutional changes rather than tolerance as the program moved forward. He believed the loading zone problem had become greater with the success of the Downtown restaurant businesses. He was concerned about the increased lack of civility Downtown and hoped something could be done to bring the level of aggressive driving Downtown under control. It was a safety issue when people drove around parked trucks or pedestrians walked in front of them. He supported
Council Member Fazzino=s recommendation that the staff determine the level of interest on the part of neighborhood. He felt the issue would be better served if it were done in a year, and the issue might divide some neighborhoods. An attempt to return with a
definitive notion about a neighborhood=s thoughts on the issue of permit parking in six months might be disruptive in the
03/04/96 78-318 78-318
neighborhoods. He underscored Council Member Andersen=s comments regarding alternatives. The suggestion was made earlier that the color zone program had produced 100 additional spaces Downtown, but if 50 people rode their bicycles Downtown, it would be half of the figure achieved through the color zone parking situation. At
approximately $20,000 per parking space, a million dollars= worth of parking construction would not have to be done. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to Attachment B of the staff report (CMR:158:96) and said the results for February 1996 showed that 1,326 nonresidents parked in the residential area which was three full garages or $25 million worth of parking. He felt the City would be saved during the following year if the residents of that area did not unite behind residential permits, and he did not believe it was feasible in the near term. However, it could be considered seriously in conjunction with the construction of a new garage, and it would have an impact on whether or not all the spaces would be permit spaces or what the ratio of permit to temporary spaces might be. The color zone seemed to be working, and he felt it should be continued for another year. Mayor Wheeler said if the Council did a tally of the number of letters it received from the public previously, the largest amount of complaints would have been about the citations and the impossible parking situation Downtown. While the Council had had a few complaints during the year, largely most of those complaints would be addressed by the new use of the 30-minute zones. The number of letters had decreased to a minimum with the one exception. That anecdotal information indicated the color parking zone had done its job. She supported the recommendation regarding evaluation of residential parking permits because she was open to discussing alternative solutions to the problems. She admitted that spillover parking was a problem, but she was skeptical about the results of that examination. She recalled a previous examination of the Downtown North area when Fire Zone 1 regulations were discussed, and she doubted that the mind set of residents had changed that much. While the evils of spillover parking from the employment zone was admittedly very distressing to residential property owners, the alternative when fully examined was not much more attractive. Another reason she was pessimistic about the outcome of that examination was that the City did not presently have a sufficient number of places to park employees. Employees did not have attractive alternatives either in terms of the number of extra spaces that the City might be able to restripe Downtown or redesignate for permit parking as opposed to two-hour parking nor did the City have in place attractive public transit alternatives that allowed people to leave their cars at home and reach the City by alternative means. The City would not have those things within the year. She was willing to have staff explore the issue and have the residents discuss the pros and cons of a permit system, and she was confident that staff would return with a reasonable answer.
03/04/96 78-319 78-319
MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. RECESS: 9:35 P.M. - 9:45 P.M. ORDINANCES 4. Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.04 [Council Organization and Procedure] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Revised Regular Meeting Times for Standing Committees and to Modify Council Mail Processing Procedures City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Ordinance had two pieces. First, it would change the mail handling procedures that were put in place after the amended Brown Act became effective several years previously. He recommended the change because Council Members found it inconvenient or impossible to deliver correspondence to the City Clerk at the beginning of the meeting. There had been no history of any litigation or problem arising from using the alternative procedure proposed which would be that the Council would retain correspondence when it was known to the Council Member that that correspondence had been delivered to a majority of the Council. Second, at the request of the Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services, the standing committee days had been moved around and a second regular meeting was added. It might be excessive for the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee, but the thought was that it would be more convenient to cancel a regular meeting than to post special meetings if a second meeting were needed monthly for either of those committees. Council Member Andersen asked if one of the standing committees wanted to modify the time the meeting began, whether the Ordinance would have to be modified that evening. Mr. Calonne said yes, or the meeting could be noticed as a special meeting which required posting by staff. Council Member Simitian referred to the language contained in
Section 2.04.200(b) that stated ΑCouncil members shall retain personally or provide copies to the city clerk of any written communication regarding an item of business on a meeting agenda that is known to have been distributed to a majority of the
council.≅ He asked who would have to know. Mr. Calonne said the Council Member would have to know. The Brown Act did not help with that situation. One of the things lobbied on the bill was that there was no assurance or legal requirement or likelihood that correspondence delivered to the Council would reach City staff. Staff had no way of knowing that the correspondence had been delivered to a majority of the Council. He said the only way he knew how to do it was to indicate that if a Council Member knew it had been delivered, the correspondence should be retained.
03/04/96 78-320 78-320
Council Member Simitian did not want the Council placed in a position that it could violate the Ordinance it adopted. Council Members received information from a wide variety of sources, e.g., home telephone voice mail and U.S. mail, materials dropped off at their homes, telephone calls and mail at the office, information delivered by people on the street, material and voice mail received at City Hall, and information sent by E-mail. In theory, the Council Members should share all that information which they were willing to do, but none of the Council Members had staff at their homes who organized and tracked the materials received and determined whether the materials had or had not been received by a majority of the Council through the sources mentioned. One of the reasons Council did not retain much of the material was because the
Council relied on the City Clerk=s Office to keep the official City records. He was troubled by the prospect that the implementation of the Ordinance would probably not work. Mr. Calonne said that same argument was made in 1993 and 1994 in Sacramento and lost. The law stated that written material relating to an agenda item of business which went to a majority of the Council was public record. Council Member Simitian clarified that statement was true even if the material were not delivered to the Council either in person or by mail at City Hall. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. The alternative previously discussed by the Council was that the Council would deliver all correspondence to the City Clerk. The difficulty of doing that was that it did not respect the possibility that Council Members might not want to disclose some type of correspondence. The courts had been increasingly sensitive during the previous three years to what
was called the Αdeliberative process privilege.≅ The reasons a council member voted a certain way were privileged, and the courts stated that appointment calendars of the Governor or telephone logs of a city council member in Southern California that described the reasoning behind a vote on a particular matter could be protected from disclosure. The existing policy called for disclosure of everything and that was the alternative.
Council Member Simitian said the City Clerk=s Office was the
repository for the City=s official records, and one alternative would be for Council Members to bring everything he/she received to the City Clerk on Monday night to be held in a file until it was needed so the City Clerk could assess whether or not a majority of the Council received the information. It was disingenuous to ask Council Members to keep track of material received in a home office file. Mr. Calonne clarified that was the existing policy.
03/04/96 78-321 78-321
Council Member Simitian asked whether Council Members had followed that policy. City Clerk Gloria Young said various Council Members had submitted letters that he/she believed might have been received by more than a quorum of the Council, and those letters were submitted in the
Council=s packet. Mr. Calonne said the area that he tried to inject some practicality
on was in the statement, Αthat is known to have been distributed to
a majority.≅ It was unusual for correspondence to indicate that, but if a letter showed a carbon copy to the Council, it would be a good indicator that the Council should inquire further. There was no policy that required retention for any period of time if there were no indicator. Ms. Young explained only one member of the public had questioned whether or not a piece of correspondence had been received by at least a quorum of the Council since the policy had become effective. Mayor Wheeler clarified Council Members would have the option with
the new policy to bring the correspondence into the City Clerk=s
Office, i.e., Αretain personally or provide copies to the city
clerk.≅ The Council could still follow the existing policy or choose to do it differently. Council Member Simitian asked whether a record would be kept of every piece of correspondence so that a Council Member would have protection against a charge at a later date that he/she did not turn in the correspondence. Mr. Calonne said it was the responsibility of the City Clerk to categorize the documents received in that manner. Council Member Simitian asked whether the penalty was a misdemeanor and punishable by six months in jail or a $500 fine if a Council Member violated the Ordinance. Mr. Calonne said yes, and the punishment could be as stated. Council Member Simitian said the Council had been very strong on Brown Act issues and public records availability, but the Council was reaching the limits of cajolery in terms of what was realistic and possible. Mr. Calonne said the City received a recent request from the Grand Jury about the educational steps that had been taken under the Brown Act compliance and what some of the continuing problems were under the Brown Act. Staff indicated to the Grand Jury that the area under discussion that evening was an unworkable area and that
03/04/96 78-322 78-322
the City had made a good faith effort to comply but the City was considering amendments to make it more practicable. He added there was no requirement that the policy be in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The Council could put the policy in its pamphlet of City Council Procedural Rules or the Council could approve an uncodified guideline for its own conduct that would not carry with it criminal penalties. The policy was put into the PAMC to provide an additional layer of notice to the public and to anyone who
questioned the Council=s compliance with the Brown Act. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, opposed the suggested change to the current policy. The issue was debated and decided upon in Sacramento, and the Council agreed on a policy to implement that provision of the Brown Act. The agenda packet periodically included items that met that policy. The proposal avoided the responsibilities of providing items for the public. Under the proposal, it would be difficult to know when a majority of the Council had received some information. Under the current policy, there was a requirement that the information be presented to the City Clerk for tracking. The current policy only required that agenda items be kept, and it was not that complicated. He did not believe the protection should be any different for an item that was sent to nine Council Members at City Hall versus an item that was
sent to nine Council Members= homes. The issue was not about how an individual Council Member decided to vote on an issue but rather about items presented to a majority of a legislative body which was a different issue of law described by the City Attorney. The public was entitled to know the written items that a majority of Council Members had received. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Huber, to introduce the Ordinance. Council Member Andersen had received letters on agenda items that had probably been sent to other Council Members which were very personal, and the majority of the public that sent personal letters
to a Council Member=s home had no idea that they were sending something that was going to be available to the public. In some instances, it might be a source of embarrassment if it became a public record. The Council had a responsibility to make sure that the information was made available. He appreciated the effort of the City Attorney to make the Ordinance more flexible, but the law
indicated it was the public=s right to know. In order for the Council to be consistent with its strong commitment to live up to the spirit of the Brown Act, he would oppose the proposed changes in Section 2.04.200(b). MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING Council Member Simitian said the Council received correspondence about an item that might not yet be agendized, or might be agendized three or six months later, and some of the items took a
03/04/96 78-323 78-323
long time to come to fruition in the community; and each of the Council Members exercised his/her independent judgment about what should be saved and what should be thrown away. Given the fact that the Council was obliged by state law, he would support the motion but with the caveat that Council Members could deliver the
materials to the City Clerk=s Office with the request that they be retained. If the Council retained the materials, it would have the responsibility for notification if the item were agendized and to make sure copies were available. If the information were delivered
to the City Clerk=s Office, the City Clerk=s Office could maintain a file for the nine individual Council Members so that the materials would be available if and when the Council wanted to use them as a reference point. Mr. Calonne asked the City Clerk what the retention period was for Council correspondence. Ms. Young said general correspondence had a two-year retention schedule. If the correspondence were associated with a certain subject matter that had a longer retention schedule, then the correspondence would have the same retention schedule as the appropriate subject matter. She clarified the retention schedules had been in place since 1985 and were revised when appropriate. 1ST PART OF THE MOTION regarding established revised regular meeting times for standing committees. City Manager June Fleming clarified the proposal would change the meeting schedule for the P&S Committee which usually met once a month to twice a month and the second meeting would need to be canceled by the City Clerk if it were not held. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified members of the P&S Committee would reserve the second and fourth Tuesday of each month for its meeting. Possible agenda items were reviewed by the Committee at the end of each meeting to determine the future schedule. He assumed it would not be difficult for the City Clerk to cancel a meeting. Ms. Young explained that the staff liaison was required to make sure that the meetings were canceled. In the past, the second meeting was reserved in case the Committee needed to have an additional meeting and it would be established as a special meeting. With the establishment of regular meetings for all the meetings, the agenda would have to indicate that the next regular meeting would be canceled. The staff liaison would be required to make sure that the meeting was posted and canceled accordingly. Ms. Fleming said historically, the P&S Committee only met once a month, so the liaison would have to cancel the second meeting because it was not usually necessary.
03/04/96 78-324 78-324
Council Member Simitian said Section 2.04.220(a) stated ΑEach standing committee shall meet once per month on their designated
meeting night at seven p.m. at city hall.≅ He asked whether the intent was for the standing committee to meet once per month but that once-a-month meeting could be on either of those two days. Mr. Calonne said two areas were considered: (1) the order of the meetings would be switched between the two standing committees and (2) the Finance Committee liaison requested that a second regular meeting be added. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Andersen, to continue the item to the Regular City Council Meeting on Monday, March 11, 1996. Council Member Rosenbaum was opposed to continuing the item with respect to the standing committees. He pointed out the exchange of meeting dates between the P&S Committee and the Finance Committee was at the request of Council Member Simitian because he wanted an opportunity at the end of the month when neither of the staff nor the Council needed to be present for a meeting. The Finance Committee usually met twice per month, and possibly the P&S
Committee=s schedule could remain once per month. Council Member Simitian clarified he had suggested a meeting-free zone at the beginning of the previous year which he still supported, but he preferred clarification of the issues before Council action. Council Member Rosenbaum wanted the simple portion of the proposal returned to the Council for action in the future. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 6-1, Huber "no," Kniss, McCown absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 5. Audit of Heavy Vehicles and Equipment City Auditor Bill Vinson said the objective of the audit was to evaluate internal controls over the accounting and use of the
City=s heavy vehicles and equipment. Based on the results of the audit, staff concluded that internal controls and operating
procedures surrounding the use and management of the City=s heavy vehicles and equipment required significant improvement. The following conclusions were reached: (1) Vehicle and equipment usage was not comprehensively reviewed and evaluated. Staff found that
30.3 percent of the City=s Αlow use≅ units lacked proper justification as to their continued need which represented over $1.4 million in vehicles and equipment. Additionally, staff found that justifications that were submitted by the respective division managers were not thoroughly reviewed and evaluated, even though the justifications were solicited some 18 months earlier.
03/04/96 78-325 78-325
Obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating justifications for retaining low use units were essential to managing the heavy vehicle and equipment fleet. (2) The City could reduce its heavy vehicle and equipment fleet. Staff recommended the reassignment or
elimination of 14 units in the City=s inventory, representing over $300,000 in vehicles and equipment. The recommendation was based on an analysis of mileage, observations performed at the assigned locations, and extensive discussions with the responsible division managers. Initially, units incurring less than 5,000 miles or 50
hours of annual use were Αred flagged.≅ In addition, staff performed 15 observations during the summer (between May and
October) in order to identify Αred flagged≅ units that were frequently parked and unused at their assigned locations. Staff identified 25 vehicles and 10 pieces of equipment that incurred low annual miles or hours and were found on site at least 70 percent of the time. Finally, in order to get a complete and thorough understanding of the use of these units, the audit team met with the responsible division managers. Staff discussed the frequency of use, including seasonal use and needs, crew assignments, and specific tasks performed as well as the possibility of sharing units between departments. Staff also discussed the potential impact on operations by eliminating or reassigning the unit or units in question. After careful consideration, staff recommended the City reduce its heavy vehicle and equipment fleet by 14 units. (3) Potentially excessive mileage was not tracked and justified. Staff found that approximately 14 percent of the heavy vehicle fleet averaged more than 10,000 miles per year. However, there currently were no procedures to determine why the vehicles incurred potentially excessive mileage. High annual mileage could serve as
a Αred flag≅ for improper vehicle use. Without determining why vehicles were incurring excessive mileage, any improprieties could go undetected. Staff recommended the vehicles that reflected potentially excessive mileage be identified and the use analyzed. Staff concluded that fleet management was an essential City function and had provided the City Manager and her staff with recommendations to improve controls and to improve the management
and oversight of the City=s fleet. City Manager June Fleming said staff comments regarding the audit
report had been included in the City Auditor=s Report. Staff would consider and implement the recommendations made in the report, pending her approval. Council Member Andersen commended the City Auditor for a helpful report and the City Manager and her staff for responding so responsibly. He asked what the cost was of retaining the underutilized vehicles versus the amount of money that would be derived from the sale of fully depreciated vehicles and what the cost would be of renting similar vehicles if there were an emergency situation.
03/04/96 78-326 78-326
Mr. Vinson said the cost savings were primarily realized from the internal service fund. Each year the City, based on depreciation, allocated a certain amount of dollars which went into that fund. Even though a vehicle might be fully depreciated, those dollars were still retained in the fund. Council Member Andersen clarified if the recommendations were taken into consideration, the fund would be reduced. Mr. Vinson said that was correct. Some of the vehicles were fully depreciated and others were more recent. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said most of the vehicles were either fully depreciated or in the process of being
depreciated. He could not answer all of Council Member Andersen=s questions that evening, but he assured the Council that those issues would be considered in the upcoming evaluation. Staff was in agreement that half of the equipment recommended by the City Auditor should be surplus. There would be some salvage value and the City would realize some savings. The other half of the recommendations would be considered by staff further and Council
Member Andersen=s questions would be taken into account. Council Member Andersen asked whether there were vehicles that might be underutilized by the Public Works Department that could be used more effectively in a pooling arrangement with another department. Mr. Roberts said that was currently being done as long as it was feasible and did not interfere with the work tasks, e.g., primarily dump trucks and backhoes. However, equipment that was specific to a task and utilized frequently would not be suitable for sharing. Staff would pursue other opportunities further. Mr. Vinson said the audit report looked at a particular compressor unit that had been used by the Utilities Department. A need arose in the Public Works Department, and the compressor was reassigned. There was an effort as staff went through the vehicles and equipment to determine whether reassigning or pooling between departments was a possibility. Council Member Andersen said the City had an abundance of equipment that allowed staff to provide excellent customer service. There were other ways to fully utilize the equipment in a way that could benefit other agencies such as the Palo Alto Unified School District or adjacent communities that needed equipment. He was uncomfortable with auctioning the equipment if it could be better used elsewhere. Ms. Fleming said that concept was employed by the City, but that concept was not the focus of the audit. The City had a larger
variety of different types of equipment because of the City=s
03/04/96 78-327 78-327
organization, e.g., a utility function, and certain jobs were done in-house because it was more cost effective. The fleet size had a different mix, but when the service was no longer being done, the City had used other options for eliminating equipment from the fleet other than putting the equipment up for auction. She recalled several pieces of equipment that were given to other agencies. The City also loaned equipment that was only used occasionally to other agencies. Council Member Andersen said one important aspect of the audit was the suggestion that it was appropriate to look at reduction of the fund. He was sympathetic with the suggestion by the City Auditor to reduce the replacement fund as a result of some of the underutilization. Mayor Wheeler said the first set of observations by the City Auditor and his follow-up recommendations were the crux of the audit. The recommendation indicated to her that the City needed to do a more thorough job of making sure that the City tracked the receipt of department justifications for retention of identified underutilized equipment. In addition, the City should go beyond the mechanical receipt of justification to carry on a rather thorough evaluative process. A unique feature of the evaluative process was that there was direct involvement in that process by a neutral third party, e.g., the Director of Public Works and/or the Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services. The staff basically agreed with the findings and recommendations of Recommendation No.
1 on page 5 of the City Auditor=s Report, and she asked whether the agreement included the notion that the evaluation would be ultimately done by the neutral parties.
Mr. Roberts clarified that that was staff=s intent. Specifically, the administration had just issued a revised Policy Procedure 4-1 covering all City vehicles and equipment which stipulated that exact procedure. Staff was very comfortable with the City
Auditor=s recommendation and felt it was consistent with the new policy procedure. Mayor Wheeler thanked the staff for both the report and the response to it. No action required. COUNCIL MATTERS 6. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Fazzino said he walked through the Downtown area with a visitor last Friday and was pressured by panhandlers for money. He also witnessed people who were intoxicated and said he was troubled by some of the activities in the Downtown area. He said the City Council needed to address the issue and emphasize
03/04/96 78-328 78-328
that the issue was separate from the homeless issues being addressed by the Human Relations Commission. Council Member Schneider concurred with Council Member Fazzino. Council Member Andersen announced that the Palo Alto High School's Boys' Basketball Team won the Central Coast Section (CCS) Champion-ship. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:42 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.
03/04/96 78-329 78-329