HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-15 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting April 15, 1996 1. Joint Study Session with Historic Resources Board......79-53 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................79-55 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5, 1996.....................79-55 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hammon, Jensen, Wallen & Associates, Inc. to Perform Aerial Photogrammetric Services (Palo Alto Landfill and Former ITT Property...79-55 3. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation re 1995-96 Midyear Financial Summary to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance which reflects midyear adjustments to the 1995-96 budgets.............79-55
4. Ordinance 4341 entitled ≅Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.42 of Title 4 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add Section 4.42.085 Imposing Requirements for Controlled Substance and Alcohol Testing of Drivers of Taxicabs and Other For-Hire Vehicles, Amending Section 4.42.010(A) Exempting Paratransit Providers Under Contract With Other Government Agencies from the Regulations of Chapter 4.42, and Repealing Section 4.42.020(B) of Chapter 4.42 to Conform to the Changes to Section 4.42.010(A) of Chapter 4.42"...................79-56
5. Ordinance 4342 entitled ≅Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapters 5.25 and 5.26 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Aerial Spraying of Pesticides Due to State Preemption....................................79-56 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS....................79-56 6. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation.....79-56 6A. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation.....79-57 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council consideration of a Tentative Map application for
04/15/96 79-51 79-51
property located at 315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court subdividing .87 acres (38,000 square feet) of vacant land fronting Everett Avenue and Bryant Court..........79-57 8. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and PETROTEK for Fuel Site Improvements and Fuel Storage Tank Upgrades.......79-65 9. Caltrans 101 Ramp Metering Program.....................79-66 10. CalTrain At-Grade Crossing at University Avenue Station79-81 11. Implementation of Mayor Wheeler's Proposal for Creating Unity through City-Facilitated Community Action..............79-89 11A. (Old Item No. 2) Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Pacific International Contract, Inc. for Recarpeting the Main Library................................................79-90 12. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........79-91 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:40 p.m....................................................79-91 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.......79-92
04/15/96 79-52 79-52
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown (arrived at 6:02 p.m.), Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider, Simitian SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Joint Study Session with Historic Resources Board HRB Members present: Anderson, Kohler, Mario, Scott, Willis ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. Synopsis of Study Session with Historic Resources Board Historic Resources Board Member Mildred Mario indicated that the central issue in consideration of a new Historic Resources Ordinance was the question of whether Palo Alto would favor property rights or historic preservation. Historic Resources Board Member Roger Kohler presented a slide show
that illustrated the Historic Resources Board=s (HRB) desire to: revise the historic categories and definitions; establish design guidelines; provide incentives for preservation; limit demolition of historic structures; update the historic inventory; and develop responses to future catastrophic events. Ms. Mario and other HRB members commented on the points made in the slide show. Council Members asked questions and indicated general interest in considering the further development of a new historic preservation ordinance. Council Members questioned how the numerous preservation policy issues involved in a new ordinance would be addressed. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber and Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle indicated that the Planning Division would need $47,000 of professional contract time to supplement staff resources for ordinance preparation work. Prior to entering into a contract, staff would bring back for Council review an initial list of policy issues to obtain general direction in subsequent ordinance development work.
City Manager June Fleming noted that the City Attorney=s Office would probably also need additional budget resources. Council Member McCown noted that she regarded development of a new historic preservation ordinance as a high priority task that involved very difficult policy issues, and there was a need to find
04/15/96 79-53 79-53
fair balances between property rights and preservation issues and objectives. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
04/15/96 79-54 79-54
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 9:00 p.m.), McCown, Rosenbaum, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 343 Byron Street, spoke regarding police work and the poor of Palo Alto. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding responsibility to the electorate. Kevin Ng, Student Alliance for Burmese Liberation, 718 East Meadow, spoke regarding proposed Burma legislation. Cary Andrew Crittenden,(no address) spoke regarding University Avenue. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5, 1996 MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Minutes of February 5, 1996, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by McCown, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 3 - 5. 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hammon, Jensen, Wallen & Associates, Inc. to Perform Aerial Photogrammetric Services (Palo Alto Landfill and Former ITT Property); change order not to exceed $1,150 for 1996, $1,150 for 1997, and $1,150 for 1998. 3. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation re 1995-96 Midyear Financial Summary to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance which reflects midyear adjustments to the 1995-96 budgets
Ordinance 4340 entitled ≅Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Adjust Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures in Accordance
with the Recommendations in the Midyear Report≅
04/15/96 79-55 79-55
4. Ordinance 4341 entitled ≅Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 4.42 of Title 4 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Add Section 4.42.085 Imposing Requirements for Controlled Substance and Alcohol Testing of Drivers of Taxicabs and Other For-Hire Vehicles, Amending Section 4.42.010(A) Exempting Paratransit Providers Under Contract With Other Government Agencies from the Regulations of Chapter 4.42, and Repealing Section 4.42.020(B) of Chapter 4.42 to Conform to the Changes to Section 4.42.010(A) of Chapter 4.42" (1st Reading 4/01/96, PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Rosenbaum absent)
5. Ordinance 4342 entitled ≅Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Chapters 5.25 and 5.26 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Aerial Spraying of Pesticides Due
to State Preemption≅ (1st Reading 4/01/96, PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Rosenbaum absent) MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Items Nos. 1 and 3 - 5, Kniss, Schneider absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to bring Item No. 10 forward for the sole purpose of hearing from Martin Bishop, who wished to speak to the item at the present time, and then to hear the item in its appropriate agenda order with
Mr. Bishop=s comments to appear at the appropriate time of the discussion of the item. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 2 had been removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member Andersen and would become Item No 11A. CLOSED SESSION The items might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 6. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Nettie Williams v. City of Palo Alto, et al., DC95 303199 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) Public Comment None. 6A. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation
04/15/96 79-56 79-56
Subject: Brassinga v. City of Mountain View, et al., SCC# CV744729 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) Public Comment None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council consideration of a Tentative Map application for property located at 315-335 Everett Avenue/332-340 Bryant Court subdividing .87 acres (38,000 square feet) of vacant land fronting Everett Avenue and Bryant Court. The subdivi-sion will create 13 individual lots for development of detached, single-family units. A rezoning to Planned Communi-ty (PC) District and a development plan for this project have been previously approved by Council. Contract Planner Paul Jensen summarized the staff report (CMR:225:96) and said the Tentative Map application was a follow up
to the City Council=s recent approval of the Planned Community (PC) District rezoning for 13 new, single-family dwellings. The pattern of the subdivision reflected the approved development plan. The map also included a series of easements to address shared driveway access, parking, and private yard area encroachments. The Conditions of Approval also reflected the PC District conditions which included the Below Market Rate (BMR) agreement, subdivision agreement, and improvement plans for Bryant Court. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Tentative Map on March 27, 1996. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Tentative Map based on the findings and conditions as follows: Findings for Approval of Tentative Map (96-SUB-1) 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that, it would result in a project that it would preserve single-family residential use of a site located adjacent to downtown shopping and would result in a project that is compatible with the scale and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood and improvements. In addition, the subdivision would be consistent with the Palo Alto
04/15/96 79-57 79-57
Comprehensive Plan in that it would result in a project density that is well within the allowable density range of the Multiple-Family Residential land use designation. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development that is proposed in that the lots are designed to provide sufficient private outdoor living space and are designed to protect significant on-site trees and street trees. Furthermore, the proposed subdivision respects the physical conditions of the site by appropriately arranging lots with frontage on both Bryant Court and Everett Avenue, reflecting patterns in this traditional neighborhood. 3. The subdivision design would not cause significant environmental impacts or substantially or unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, as documented in the attached, approved Mitigated Negative Declaration (95-EIA-22). Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of the PC District rezoning approval and in the conditions of the Tentative Map, which will reduce all potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. Specifically, conditions ensure the protection of significant tree resources found on and around the site. 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not result in serious public health problems in that all necessary public services, including public utilities and access to two public streets, are available and will be provided. 5. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with the provision of utilities to adjacent land uses or public easements in that the project layout and map is designed to receive direct utility connections from two public rights-of-ways. No easements through private property are required to serve the subdivision. In addition, the project proposes to improve utility connections for adjacent land uses through installation of new underground utility lines along Bryant Court, sized to accommodate future connections. Conditions for Tentative Map Prior to the Submittal of a Final Map 1. The Final Map and Improvement Plans shall comply with the conditions of the Planned Community (PC) District Ordinance and the Standard Conditions of Approval, approved by the City Council on March 18, 1996. Approval of the Tentative Map shall not go into effect until the City Council has completed a second reading of the PC District ordinance. 2. The Final Map and Improvement Plans shall incorporate the required mitigation measures presented in the Environmental
04/15/96 79-58 79-58
Assessment-Mitigated Negative Declaration (95-EIA-22), and the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, both on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. 3. The project sponsor shall test the sewer line on Everett Avenue for flow capacity. If any upgrading of the sewer system is necessary to improve capacity to the system or to provide adequate sewer service to the project, the cost of the upgrading shall be responsibility of the project sponsor. 4. The Final Map shall show the location of all lot lines along with easements for deed restricted areas and reciprocal use of land for private yard areas, common driveways and parking spaces. 5. As required by conditions of the PC District, final ARB review
of the project may result in changes to the Αparallel≅ driveway parking concept and parking easements for Lots#1-6 (Units #1-6). If an alternative driveway parking design is selected, the parking easements for Lots #1-6 shall be adjusted accordingly, and reflected on the Final Map. 6. The Final Map and Improvement Plans shall comply with or include all conditions recommended by the Utilities Engineering Division summarized in the memorandums from Jose Jovel, dated September 18, 1995, and Roland Ekstrand, dated February 16, 1996, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment. 7. The Final Map shall include an oak preservation easement over portions of lot #7, 9 and 11 based on the landscape setback restrictions for Coast Live Oak tree #13 presented in the arborist report, which is outlined and included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (95-EIA-22). An oak preservation easement shall be placed over the western portions of lots #12 and 13 to acknowledge protection of Coast Live Oak trees #19, 20, 21 and 22. The boundaries of the easement shall be based on the recommendations presented in the arborist report addendum, prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates (August 23, 1995), on file with the Palo Alto Planning Department. The map shall note that a description of the oak preservation easement is provided in the subdivision Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&RS) and shall be provided in the deed to each lot. 8. The Improvement Plans for the Final Map shall present an accurate and updated survey of all trees (on-site and street trees along the Everett Avenue frontage), as required by the conditions of the PC District approval. 9. The following amendments shall be made to the final Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions:
04/15/96 79-59 79-59
a. Section 2.9 (Heritage Oak Preservation Easement) shall be amended to include oak preservation easements below Coast Live Oak trees #19, 20, 21 and 22, located along the western property boundary. Easements shall be established along the western portions of lots #12 and 13. b. Section 5.4 (Amendments) shall be amended to include a new sentence inserted at the end of this section to read: "No amendment of Sections 2.9 (Heritage Oak Preservation Easement) or 4.16 (Special Use Restrictions Required by City) are permitted without written consent of the City of Palo Alto." 10. The Improvement Plans shall include the location and specifications of the above-ground pad-mounted electrical transformer in a location approved by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). In addition, the Final map shall include a public utilities easement along the length of the underground electric lines from the designated point of electrical service to the above-ground transformer location. 11. The project sponsor shall be required to underground all utility services along the width of the property frontage of Everett Avenue and Bryant Court. 12. The Improvement Plans shall include the detailed specifications for repaving, light fixtures, and other improvements to Bryant Court, extending from Waverley Street to Bryant Street. Plan details and improvements shall comply with the requirements of the Planned Community (PC) District Ordinance conditions, approved by the City Council on March 18, 1996. In addition, the new utility lines/infrastructure that are to be installed within the Bryant Court right-of-way for service to the subject property, shall be sized to accommodate possible, future utility connections for other properties along this lane. Prior to the Recordation of a Final Map 13. The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Palo Alto. The agreement shall be recorded with the approved final map at the office of the Santa Clara County Recorder and shall include the following agreements: a. The subdivider shall agree to provide a total of one below-market-rate (BMR) unit in fulfillment of Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The
units shall be placed in the City=s BMR program as for sale units. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) is the
City=s designated representative to administer sale of the units. The following are the specifics to the agreement:
04/15/96 79-60 79-60
(I) The BMR unit is number 6 as shown on the Site Development Plan dated October 20, 1995 (revised January 2, 1996), prepared by Bassenian Lagoni Architects and is located in the northern corner of the site, or equivalent unit designated by City if plans are revised prior to project approval. This unit is located on Lot #6, as shown on the Tentative Map dated January 1996, prepared by Kier and Wright. (ii) The design, construction, materials, finishes, windows, hardware, light fixtures, landscaping, irrigation, appliances and other like features of the BMR unit, shall be comparable to the design and construction of all other units in the project. (iii) The unit shall be a 3-bedroom unit of approximately 1,377 square feet corresponding to Plan 1 on the above-referenced plans. The initial sales price of the unit shall be $146,550.
This price was reached utilizing the City of Palo Alto=s current Housing Price Guideline (effective 5/95) base price for a 3-bedroom unit of $146,550. In addition, the project sponsor shall pay an in-lieu fee of 0.8125% of the actual value of each of the remaining 12 units in the project, which is to be collected by the subdivider upon the first sale of each unit in the project and paid to the City for deposit in the housing reserve fund. Proof of sales price must be submitted to the City of Palo Alto at the time of the sale. The in-lieu fee requirement for any unit that is not sold and becomes occupied on a rental or lease basis shall be based upon the sales price of the most expensive unit that is sold in the development. b. The subdivider shall submit improvement plans for the design of the improvements proposed for the public rights-of-way and all public utilities. These improvements shall be installed
by the subdivider, at the subdivider=s expense and shall be guaranteed by bond or other form of guarantee acceptable to the City Attorney. All public improvements shall be constructed by a licensed contractor and shall conform to the
City=s standard specifications, except as modified by this approval (see City Standard Drawing 201). During Construction 14. The project sponsor shall comply with all conditions required during construction, as specified in the PC District Standard Conditions of Approval list, approved by the City Council on March 18, 1996.
04/15/96 79-61 79-61
Council Member Fazzino was pleased that there were more residential units in the Downtown area. He asked how many trees were being preserved and what steps were being taken to ensure trees were not inadvertently removed by a subcontractor. Mr. Jensen said there were 23 trees on the property, including 4 or 5 street trees along the Everett Street frontage. The proposed project included the Conditions of Approval which required preservation of 13 trees. A special study had been prepared by an arborist which set forth requirements for preservation including staying clear of the drip line of the largest tree, a 42" oak tree at the center of the site, and construction techniques for avoiding disturbance within the area of the trunks of most of the trees. A number of units were adjusted to preserve a number of trees. Included in the Tentative Map was a requirement that special easements be established within the drip line of a number of trees. Council Member Fazzino asked what type of monitoring was in place to ensure a contractor or subcontractor did not inadvertently take down one or more trees. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said it would be a condition compliance issue which would be enforced through the Building
Divisions=s code enforcement officer. Council Member Fazzino reiterated the need for staff to ensure the preservation of the trees. Council Member Andersen asked how many units had been on the site prior to being removed before the lot was sold. Mr. Jensen believed there had been four units. Council Member Andersen believed the four units had contained about ten rental units. If the units had stayed, a higher BMR would have resulted. He asked whether an incentive to tear down housing before selling the land had been built into the BMR ordinance. He was concerned with regard to future developments. Ms. Lytle did not know whether there was an incentive or not, but there was no way to track units through time with the BMR provision. The provision applied when a property came in for an entitlement. Council Member Andersen asked whether any thought had been given
for an approach to avoid the Αdisincentive.≅ Ms. Lytle said the only thought had occurred during the course of the current hearing. The circumstance was unusual where units had been demolished before the application came forward. The BMR requirement could be modified on the proposed site.
04/15/96 79-62 79-62
Mayor Wheeler said the subject was not an unimportant one and asked whether it was an appropriate area of questioning for the action before Council. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the issue was presented by the application and the question of whether or what Council might do should not be debated that evening; however, as an outgrowth of the item, if Council wished to give staff direction, it would be lawful under the Brown Act. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to direct staff to report back on possible modification to the Housing Element, Below Market Rate (BMR) Program. The purpose of the modifications was to account for all units previously existing on a property when establishing compliance with BMR program requirements, regardless of whether or not the units had been previously demolished. The timeline for the report can coincide with the preparation and return to Council of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Calonne clarified the direction was to look at ways to prevent the demolition of the units, which he believed would be difficult. He suggested staff could look at ways to force anticipatory demolishers to pay their full share under the BMR program. Council Member Andersen said that would be appropriate. Council Member McCown asked whether there was a subject area within the Comprehensive Plan update where the topic could logically be addressed. Ms. Lytle said staff could bring back an interim report on how language might be modified in the Draft Comprehensive Plan so Council could direct staff on how to finalize it for the draft document. Council Member McCown said on the basis of folding it into what was already being done, she would second the motion. Mr. Calonne clarified for Council the area was not an area which contained implementing ordinances; it was a policy that was directly applied to a comprehensive plan. If Council were looking for an interim solution, he would advise staff to look at developing an interim ordinance until the Comprehensive Plan revision was completed. Council Member Andersen asked whether staff had a recommendation for a short-term solution and whether it would come back to Council.
04/15/96 79-63 79-63
City Manager June Fleming understood Council Member Andersen=s request was for a report that would give Council options. She believed Council Member McCown had raised a different issue which was to have the area folded into the Comprehensive Plan, and the City Attorney had pointed out there was no ordinance related to the area. She asked Council to clarify which direction staff should pursue. Council Member Andersen understood Council Member McCown to say that as staff proceeded with some recommendations, it would be
folded into Council=s discussion of the final draft of the Comprehensive Plan. He would appreciate the report to include some recommendations for ways in which an interim ordinance could be provided. Mayor Wheeler clarified the interim solutions were not part of the motion as direction to staff. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. ORDINANCES 8. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and PETROTEK for Fuel Site Improvements and Fuel Storage Tank Upgrades MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the Ordinance and approve the contract between the City of Palo Alto and PETROTEK for Fuel Site Improvements and Fuel Storage Tank Upgrades.
Ordinance 4343 entitled ≅Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Fuel Storage Tank Upgrade Capital Improvement Project, 19205" MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss, Schneider absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 9. Caltrans 101 Ramp Metering Program Paul Hensley, District Division Chief, Caltrans, 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, explained in broad policy terms how ramp metering fit in with Caltrans operational strategies for the Bay Area freeway and expressway systems and how Caltrans dealt with local communities, counties, and cities in implementing the strategies. Caltrans, in partnership with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), was implementing a traffic operations system throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. The system consisted of call boxes, freeway service patrol,
04/15/96 79-64 79-64
changeable message signs, highway advisory radio located along freeways, park and ride lots, and closed-circuit television. These components would be tied into a transportation management center currently being installed in the Oakland office. The idea was to manage and operate the freeway system as efficiently as possible. Major expansions of the freeway systems in the future simply would not occur. Caltrans was faced with the issue of how to operate the freeway system to efficiently handle more traffic as the demands kept rising and capacity of the system remained the same. Ramp metering was one of the tools used to help operate the system to control the demand onto the system, to have people use other ramps where capacity might be available, or to control access and advise motorists when an incident occurred. Caltrans was implementing the hardware for the closed-circuit television cameras, the changeable message signs, and the ramp metering equipment. Once the items were in place, Caltrans met with the local communities and county to develop a corridor management plan. For example, as part of the environmental document and a commitment made by the Santa Clara County Transportation Authority (SCCTA), ramp metering was an integral part of the Route 85 project and was turned on the day the freeway opened. With the cooperation of the SCCTA and Congestion Management Agency (CMA), a working committee was formed with representatives from each community that would have a ramp along Route 85 to develop a ramp metering plan. At the end of six months, agreements had been finalized with all the agencies on how to implement the program and any changes. An evaluation plan was also developed in order to report what had happened once Route 85 opened. Ramp metering was implemented as well as freeway to freeway metering several months later. He described other implementation plans for traffic operations systems in the East Bay, Contra Costa County, and along Route 680. The Route 101 ramp metering project under discussion that evening ran from the San Mateo County line down to Route 87 in San Jose. The project had been around since the late 1970s. The time had come to install the hardware or risk losing the funding. Agreement on how the system would be operated had not been reached with City staff. The hardware needed to be installed to meet agreements in other areas which did not affect the City. Caltrans decided to delete the portion for San Antonio Road and Charleston Avenue to make time to work with City staff to develop a plan to proceed with the project. Metering hardware would be installed on the remaining ramps; in most cases, it would be underground conduits and foundations. Signal standards, lights, and signs would not be installed until the ramps were installed. Metering agreement had been reached on the corridor with all the communities involved. When the project proceeded to installation of the ramp metering hardware, the project would take one to one and a half years to complete. In the meantime, Caltrans would work with City staff to find a solution to the unresolved problems.
04/15/96 79-65 79-65
Council Member McCown asked what the funding time line was and how extensive the hardware installation was beyond the ones in Palo Alto. Mr. Hensley said the area extended from the San Mateo County line which included ramps at Embarcadero and Oregon Expressway, Rengstorff, Shoreline, Ellis Street, Route 237, Mathilda, Fair Oaks, Bowers, Great America Expressway, San Thomas Expressway, and Dela Cruz and was part of one funding package. Council Member McCown clarified the issue of a new ramp at San Antonio Road and the decision regarding Charleston Avenue was something Caltrans wanted to continue to pursue with the City. Mr. Hensley said that was correct. Council Member Simitian asked whether University Avenue was included in the long-term ramp metering plan. Mr. Hensley said ramp metering was not currently proposed at University Avenue.
Council Member Simitian asked staff to recall what Caltrans= had discussed for University Avenue three years prior. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said the University Avenue interchange was in San Mateo County. As part of the modifications planned for the interchange in conjunction with development occurring in East Palo Alto, plans included the installation of ramp metering at that interchange. Council Member Simitian clarified that the Caltrans proposal eventually included ramp metering at Embarcadero Road, Oregon Expressway, and San Antonio Road, and he questioned whether the City could really do anything about it. Mr. Overway said no Council action was required for Caltrans to more forward with the proposal. Council Member Simitian asked if the City had any authority in the matter. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said not to his knowledge. Council Member Simitian clarified any Council resolutions of protest or objection would have no result or impact. Mr. Hensley said he had been asked by the communities in the East Bay not to turn on the ramp metering until a full study was made, and Caltrans agreed with the request.
04/15/96 79-66 79-66
Council Member Simitian asked whether ramp metering was anticipated at the two intersections north of the City at Willow Road and Marsh Road. Mr. Hensley said he did not have specific information at that time. Mr. Overway said staff had not heard of a proposed ramp metering project in San Mateo County except for University Avenue. Mr. Hensley said usually if a local agency or developer did an
improvement on the Caltrans= system, Caltrans required installation of at least the subground ramp metering facilities in case it was needed in the future. Council Member Simitian asked what the potential impacts would be on the freeway or surface streets, if any, of having traffic flowing south on Route 101 from San Mateo County, coming down Route 101 past Marsh Road and Willow Road, having no ramp metering, and then hitting three or four successive ramp metering locations at University Avenue, Embarcadero Road, Oregon Expressway, and San Antonio Road. Mr. Hensley said it would depend on the analysis Caltrans made and how the system was operated. Basically, by ramp metering, access onto the freeway would be controlled in order to keep the freeway flowing around 30 to 35 miles per hour (MPH). In many areas, that was not possible because there was not enough storage capacity on local ramps. If the freeway were flowing free, then the meters automatically went to their fastest cycle. If there were a bottleneck up stream, ramp metering would not have any effect because there would be capacity on the roadway. The whole corridor needed to be taken into consideration. Council Member Simitian said people sitting on city streets were probably not looking at the whole corridor because they were backing up into Palo Alto surface streets. Mr. Hensley said it was important to involve all of the communities along the corridor because of the equity issue of ramp metering. Communities along the freeway accepted the impacts of the freeway, and Caltrans tried to ensure each a fair share of access onto the roadway versus long-term trips. Council Member Simitian queried how one would answer a constituent, resident, or worker in Palo Alto who said people entering the freeway from San Mateo County would not have to wait, would cross over the line into Santa Clara County, and would move swiftly without the impediment of people coming onto the ramps. Yet, if they lived or worked in Palo Alto, they would have to stop at Embarcadero Road, Oregon Expressway, or San Antonio Road and wait while the traffic went by.
04/15/96 79-67 79-67
Mr. Hensley said when that occurred, Caltrans would begin the discussion of freeway to freeway metering and looking at the corridor. The corridor might expand. Council Member Simitian asked how the ramp metering system accommodated changes in the traffic flow. Mr. Hensley said loops were installed in the pavement which were tied into the meter control hardware. If the road were at less than capacity, the meters would automatically cycle to a faster rate. If the freeway were congested, the meters would slow down to a predetermined minimum rate. Council Member Simitian asked whether the technology was in place in all of the other ramp metering locations. Mr. Hensley said yes with the exception of some facilities that were built many years ago. With the transportation management center in Oakland and the closed-circuit television cameras, Caltrans would be able to focus in on anything occurring on the ramps.
Council Member Simitian asked what Mr. Hensley=s experience had been with traffic backing up onto surface streets as a result of ramp metering. Mr. Hensley said Caltrans had agreed with most communities to keep the backup within the current available storage space. The queues were usually less than the backups that had occurred prior to ramp metering. Council Member Simitian confirmed it would be a conversation between Caltrans and the local community once the issue occurred, and he asked how long it took to sort out the issues. Mr. Hensley said with Route 85, it took about six months and on Route 880 about three months. Council Member Simitian confirmed the ultimate authority resided with Caltrans. Mr. Hensley said yes, but Caltrans had not implemented ramp metering where agreement had not been reached with the local community. Council Member Simitian asked if issues could not be resolved at
Mr. Hensley=s level what the next level would be. Mr. Hensley offered to leave with staff a copy of the Agreement for Cooperative Management of the Route 880 corridor where the Alameda County CMA was the referee if agreement could not be reached.
04/15/96 79-68 79-68
Caltrans was more than willing to do the same in Santa Clara County. Council Member Simitian asked if such an agreement already existed. Mr. Hensley said one did not currently exist but certainly could be developed.
Council Member Simitian said three years prior, Mr. Hensley=s predecessors had said if resolution could not be made at the local level, the issue would be taken to a regional level, then to the state level, and ultimately to the Governor. He expressed concern
about the Governor=s level of interest to ramp metering problems in the City of Palo Alto. He clarified a change had taken place in the last three years whereby there was a local party that would be involved in resolving any differences of opinion. Mr. Hensley said yes. He believed agreement would be reached with 98 to 100 percent of ramp metering and traffic operations system. Council Member Simitian asked what would happen if one community did not want ramp metering. Mr. Hensley said Caltrans had not run into that problem to date. Council Member Simitian clarified that backups being limited to the storage space meant the length of the ramp before city surface streets. He asked whether that was the type of issue that might be contained in a metering agreement. Mr. Hensley said yes. With Route 85, Caltrans met with each community to develop a plan for ramp metering strategies such as rates, how far traffic would back up, etc., until agreement was reached. Council Member Fazzino clarified the term equity meant that in return for Route 85, the communities agreed to take on the responsibility of ramp metering. Mr. Hensley said yes. Route 85 was entirely contained in Santa Clara County and when opened, not only the local ramps were metered, but also the freeway-to-freeway connectors. Surprisingly, the freeway-to-freeway metering was the issue which upset people; yet it was the way in which Caltrans dealt with the equity issue. Caltrans met with all the communities that had asked Caltrans to develop a metering plan that metered only the local ramps. Eventually, the communities realized more needed to be done because those entering at the southern end essentially had a free ride up to Route 280. Caltrans had proposed ramp metering of the connectors to control the flow on the freeways in order to hasten the metering rates on the local ramps. The City of Morgan Hill believed it was bearing an unfair burden of the metering at the
04/15/96 79-69 79-69
Route 85/101 interchange. Caltrans met with the staff and was able to show that by metering on the freeway for a 2- to 4-minute wait for someone coming up from Route 101 to the Route 85/101 interchange, 12 to 14 minutes would be cut off the ride along Route 85. The plan was implemented and accepted and everyone benefitted. Council Member Fazzino asked whether there was a similar equity issue for Palo Alto along Route 101. He did not believe any former Councils had been involved in a formal agreement in 1955 or 1956 when the Bayshore became Route 101. Mr. Hensley said there were time savings with Route 85 that could be spread to everybody. Route 101 would be difficult because it was the same facility. By operating the existing facility in an efficient fashion, the capacity would be better used when an accident or congestion occurred. Everyone would get a faster trip if capacity were where it should be. The idea was to meter everyone equitably at each location so one city did not take the brunt. Council Member Fazzino confirmed that the equity issues along Route 85 were different than the issues along Route 101. Mr. Hensley said yes. He wished he could add a lane along Route 101 to increase the capacity which would make his ability to negotiate a successful agreement much easier. Council Member Fazzino was concerned with the length of ramps and the proximity of Palo Alto neighborhoods to those ramps and the freeway. The community had been developed long before much of the area which had received ramp meters in the last few years. Cities which had been developed during the last 20 or 30 years had been developed primarily to accommodate cars. That had not been the case for Palo Alto. Along Embarcadero Road, for example, the ramp would be right behind a neighborhood. The length of the ramp appeared not to be as long as some of the ramps along Route 85. Mr. Hensley said there were some very short ramps along Route 85. Council Member Fazzino said Route 85 did not have the same proximity to neighborhoods as in Palo Alto. He was concerned about the possibility of significantly increased air pollutants and the larger possibility of traffic backups into Palo Alto streets. Mr. Hensley said there were several along Route 85 at Cottle Road and in San Jose. The air quality issue had come up several times and had been a major stumbling block in getting approvals for some projects. The models developed for predicting carbon monoxide had predicted high excedence. Caltrans had done a study on two ramps in Santa Clara County on Blossom Hill Road and De Anza Boulevard which had the heaviest background levels of carbon monoxide. Caltrans had monitored models with predicted heavy excedence of the federal and state standards for about three years and had not
04/15/96 79-70 79-70
detected any excedence that had been within 50 percent of any of the hourly or 8-hour values. Air pollution had not been a problem with the ramps. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the meters would be shut off if the City had significant problems with traffic backups, even after adjustment of the meters and the traffic could not be kept off the surface streets and neighborhoods. Mr. Hensley said other solutions would be considered first such as increased storage capacity. A four-second cycle could be used which would move the traffic through very quickly. The preference was not to shut the ramp meters off because a four-second cycle would break up the platoons of traffic. When 5 or 10 cars came on in one platoon, turning on the ramp meters was a safety benefit and did not back up traffic. Council Member Fazzino asked what was done with the meters if traffic were congested on Embarcadero Road and in the neighborhoods. Mr. Hensely said as an operation strategy, Caltrans had agreed to shut off the ramp meters for a period of time in some communities until the cue cleared. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the decision depended upon a city to establish that there was a problem or was an objective third party used to conduct the analysis. Mr. Hensley said that issue recently came up on Route 880, and part of the agreement was to work out a procedure when that occurred. He felt that situation was rare. Council Member Fazzino appreciated that Caltrans was willing to be flexible to a certain point. He asked why the money was being spent before the issues were resolved either at San Antonio or Embarcadero Roads. Considering the limited money available for transportation projects in the area, i.e., Route 101 and rail improvements, he asked why the money could not be moved in those directions if Caltrans had not been able to address adequately the issues of mitigation. Mr. Hensley said San Antonio Road was only one small portion of a larger project that would not affect Palo Alto. In those areas, Caltrans had reached agreement with the cities for implementation which was tied into their developments and local arterial operation. Several of the projects were required as mitigation for projects that were either developments that were being undertaken or communities that were being undertaken. Caltrans received a $6 return for each dollar benefit with each traffic operation systems installed. Unfortunately, opening and operating ramp meters were not high profile items but it gave the greatest benefit. If
04/15/96 79-71 79-71
congestion and incidents could be eliminated on a freeway, not only would the freeway be kept flowing but the accident rate would be kept down as well. Council Member Fazzino clarified Caltrans could spend significant amounts of dollars on hardware; and once the system was in place, there might be significant traffic and other problems which could result in a situation where the meters might have to be turned off. Mr. Hensley said that was correct. There were areas where an incident might occur on the freeway that blocked the entire area and the meters would not work so they could be turned off. Council Member Fazzino clarified his reference was to turning the ramp meters off permanently because of impacts on surface streets. Mr. Hensley said the majority of the meters continued to operate. Eventually if no improvements were made to the system and the traffic continued to increase, it would overwhelm any strategy that could be done. Council Member Fazzino said one of the concerns that several Council Members had was the possibility of impacts on University Avenue for the people who lived between Embarcadero Road and University Avenue. Many people did not want to stop for any reason and, therefore, might move north to University Avenue which was already congested and did not have ramp meters. He asked whether Caltrans would be willing to take into account the possible impact of the Embarcadero Road ramp meters on University Avenue before making a decision regarding mitigations. Mr. Hensley said by the time everything was done, ramp metering within those areas might be considered so the corridor would not only include that area but could include parts of San Mateo County. Council Member Fazzino did not believe a ramp meter could be put on University Avenue given the size of that area and proximity to residential areas. He asked whether Caltrans would factor in the impact of Embarcadero Road ramp meters on University Avenue when making mitigation decisions with respect to the Embarcadero Road. Mr. Hensley said that would take place if Caltrans proceeded with the corridor for Route 101. City representatives could bring that issue up at that time and a resolution could be reached then. Council Member Fazzino said several Council Members believed that the City was in the middle of a congestion corridor that extended from South San Mateo County to Route 85. He recognized there were county-by-county funding issues, but operationally he asked why Caltrans would begin ramp meters in the middle of that congestion corridor rather than more logically where the congestion began at the northern end.
04/15/96 79-72 79-72
Mr. Hensley said the location might end up as described by Council Member Fazzino. The ramp metering hardware was being installed at most locations and then the corridor would be put in. If the City felt the corridor were necessary to extend from San Francisco to San Jose, Caltrans would be willing to bring all the communities together. Council Member Andersen said Caltrans indicated that the meters would not be turned on until there was a coordinated plan. He asked whether the coordinated plan included San Mateo County. Mr. Hensley said if the group agreed that there should be meters in San Mateo County, the limits of the study would be extended. Council Member Andersen asked whether the cities involved would make those decisions. Mr. Hensley said yes. Council Member Andersen asked the deadlines for existing funding for Santa Clara County. Mr. Hensley said the project had to be delivered by June 30, 1996. Council Member Andersen asked where the funding for the San Mateo County corridor came from.
Mr. Hensley said San Mateo County=s funding came from the Traffic Systems Management (TSM) Program. The TSM program provided between $12 and $14 million in the Bay Area each fiscal year. Council Member Andersen asked whether it would be difficult to get the funding necessary to do the San Mateo County portion of the corridor. Mr. Hensley said no. Most of the funding was already programmed and moving forward. Council Member Andersen asked when the San Mateo County portion of the corridor would be completed. Mr. Hensley replied several years. Any ramp metering scheme might only involve a portion of that corridor because of the bottlenecks that existed within certain portions of the system. Council Member Andersen clarified the ramp meters would not be turned on until Caltrans had an opportunity to interact with all of the communities that would be affected, including San Mateo County. Mr. Hensley said the studies might or might not include San Mateo County.
04/15/96 79-73 79-73
Council Member Andersen asked when San Mateo County would be considered. Mr. Hensley said he did not have the dates for San Mateo County. Council Member Andersen hoped that ramp meters would not be turned on in Palo Alto until there was a comprehensive analysis and that could not be done until San Mateo County was part of the program. He asked whether the comment that the ramp meters did not impact the air pollution was unique for the situation described which was a change in the traffic flow as the result of a new freeway. Mr. Hensley said the existing conditions in Santa Clara County had the highest background levels to carbon monoxide and also the heaviest traffic flows. Council Member Andersen asked whether the traffic flow changed when Route 85 was finished. Mr. Hensley said no. Council Member Kniss asked whether any cities had successfully opposed ramp metering in the area. Mr. Hensley said at the beginning of the discussion on Route 85, there was almost unanimous opposition; but by the time the discussions were completed, there was unanimous agreement. Council Member Kniss said Caltrans installed the ramp meters, and the City really had no choice. Mr. Hensley said Caltrans had made a decision not to implement the ramp meters without the agreement of the community affected. Council Member Kniss clarified Caltrans would not turn the ramp meters on without agreement from Palo Alto. Mr. Hensley said that was correct. Council Member Kniss asked whether the community asked for the ramp meters to be installed. Mr. Hensley said Caltrans felt the ramp meters were beneficial and would eventually be needed to operate the whole system after each community saw the benefits. An individual community might not receive any benefit from the scheme but the community at large might. Council Member Kniss said Palo Alto was in the middle of the corridor, and she asked what the closest cities were on either side of Palo Alto on Route 101 that would have ramp meters.
04/15/96 79-74 79-74
Mr. Hensley said the cities involved in San Mateo County were Menlo Park and East Palo Alto. The project would install hardware at University Avenue. In the future, hardware would be installed on Marsh and Willow Roads and further ramps north. In Santa Clara County, each on-ramp from Palo Alto south would have metering hardware installed. Council Member Kniss clarified Caltrans would negotiate with each city when the ramp meters would be turned on. Mr. Hensley said that was correct. Council Member Kniss asked whether the ramp meters dramatically improved the flow on the highways. Mr. Hensley said ramp metering would help Caltrans operate the system more efficiently and keep the traffic flowing at a higher rate, would improve the accident rate, and would eliminate some of the congestion. Eventually, as traffic congestion built up, the problems recreated themselves; but ramp metering was a proven system nationwide. Council Member Rosenbaum had never seen any evidence that ramp metering was useful. He asked for references that demonstrated clearly that ramp metering was worth the money. Mr. Hensley said information could be provided for Route 85 and other areas. Mr. Overway said published data was not available. From personal experience, when the traffic stopped on the freeway, it was usually because of a heavy on-flow of ramp traffic. He found that traffic moved along quite well on a ramp-metered freeway. He recognized there were operational difficulties, but the evidence overall supported the benefits of ramp metering. Council Member Rosenbaum said previously a representative of Caltrans was not willing to make a comment regarding an agreement with the City to possibly turn off the meters. He asked whether Caltrans had changed its approach towards that issue. Mr. Hensley said since 1993, he had made the policy decision, which had been supported by his management, to reach agreement with the local communities before the meters were turned on. He said he would confirm his comments that evening in writing if Council desired. Jim Dinkey, 3380 Cork Oak Way, said Caltrans had not clarified whether Amphitheatre Parkway as it went into Route 85 would be done which had caused many problems. He said he had been in court with Caltrans for eight months and had never received the agreement from Caltrans that he required under the court. Both Byron Sher and the
04/15/96 79-75 79-75
City Attorney had written letters for the same information and nothing had been received. He wanted to know why Caltrans was in such a hurry to get it done by June 30, 1996. The problem with the four-second minimum was that there was a complete cycle that went on outside of the four seconds. The wrong equipment had been purchased and it could not go less than four seconds. There were no modems, telephone, or television lines into the equipment. Occasionally, there was loop sensing but that was not even being implemented. There was still traffic congestion on the City streets, and he hoped the Council would not approve anything that evening until it heard the truth. People would voice their opposition when they realized the problem that was coming. Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, said the effect of intelligent traffic management with cameras and message boards for smoother freeway traffic would be congested local streets. She hoped it did not happen in Palo Alto. Council Member Simitian said Council wanted a discussion with Caltrans to have some representations into the record. There would then be greater potential of holding Caltrans accountable for the representations and promises made. He suggested staff send a letter asking for written confirmation of the representations and promises made by Caltrans that evening. He viewed some of the important items as being the ramp metering would not be turned on until or unless there was agreement with the City; and if there were ever a dispute about the way in which the ramp metering was or was not working, there could be some resolution by a local or subregional body rather than being left to the discretion of Caltrans. He had greater confidence about the results that the City would receive at a regional or subregional level. In addition, the representation that ultimately it would be part of a broader solution that dealt with congested corridor or the adjacent on-ramps in San Mateo County was also an important part of the discussion that evening. There was discussion about an agreement with the City, and he asked whether the agreements were between staff and Caltrans or was Council action required to ratify the agreement.
Mr. Overway said given the Council=s level of interest, staff was not prepared to sign an agreement without returning to the Council for approval. Ms. Fleming said that was a policy issue and appropriately had to be approved by the Council. MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct staff to draft a letter from the Mayor to Caltrans which acknowledges the agreements/commitments made by Mr. Hensley on
Caltrans= behalf, and to return to Council with any agreements with
Caltrans prior to Council=s approval.
04/15/96 79-76 79-76
Council Member Simitian shared the view offered by Council Member Kniss that the reason there had been agreement in each community was because each community had taken the view that they better agree to whatever they could get or they would have something that was forced on them by Caltrans with no concessions whatsoever. He agreed with Council Member Rosenbaum that the previous discussion with Caltrans had not been what was heard that evening which made him anxious about how the City would work with the moving target of what Caltrans was or was not prepared to do. He was not optimistic
about the City=s ability to bring Caltrans into a local solution that was focused on what was important to that particular community as well as the larger transportation needs. Council Member Fazzino said it was important to make the matter a public record. He was not opposed to ramp metering, but he was very concerned about the possible impact of the project on Palo Alto streets, particularly Embarcadero Road. He believed a ramp meter at Embarcadero Road was qualitatively different than South Santa Clara County streets which had been metered for several years. He believed the City would be faced with the prospect of traffic backups and increased air pollution along Embarcadero Road, and he was also concerned about the impact on an already congested University Avenue as people moved north to avoid the Embarcadero road ramp meters. He appreciated Caltrans willingness to be flexible but he did not believe it was sound public policy to spend the money first and mitigate the problems later. The process needed to be reversed. He believed Palo Alto was in the central portion of the Midpeninsula congestion corridor. Perhaps there might be a new authority to manage problems in that corridor. It made sense to fund the projects throughout the corridor rather than beginning with Palo Alto. The problem had to be addressed throughout the corridor, not begin in the middle which would exacerbate the problems for the cities that were being exclusively asked to bear the burden of the problem which involved the entire corridor and began in San Mateo County. Council Member Andersen clarified the Council was committed to regional decision making. He appreciated the comments that nothing would move forward until it was coordinated regionally; but because
of Palo Alto=s location, there was a potential for the City to be impacted significantly. He was concerned about what would trigger turning the ramp meters off when it impacted the traffic within the
community. Caltrans= objective was to move the traffic smoothly on
the freeway, and Palo Alto=s objective was to keep traffic from being pushed into a neighborhood. He hoped the solutions would be compatible. Council Member McCown said the Council had received a letter from Caltrans in 1993 and staff at that time had provided information about the issue, and she did not believe it was fundamentally different in 1996 than it was in 1993. It was true that Mr.
04/15/96 79-77 79-77
Hensley=s approach and presentations that evening had a different tone. Council had put a lot of energy into something that would not improve the situation significantly. Everyone would have to work out sensible agreements with Caltrans. Council Member Simitian said the difference was that previously Caltrans wanted something from Palo Alto which meant the City had some leverage in the process which it had lost. He felt that in the absence of that leverage, the Council should use whatever leverage it could develop by having a public discussion of the issue. He felt the discussion that evening had been worthwhile. He was not usually inclined to rely on personal experience or anecdotal evidence on an issue, but from his personal experience and the comments from local employees and residents, it told him it was an issue that needed improvement. He understood one of the specific purposes of ramp metering was if there were backups at a particular ramp, it would encourage people to go to another ramp where the flow was more routine. There would not only be the relocation of a back up onto other surface streets, but also people would be traveling extra distances back and forth. He thanked
Senator Byron Sher=s office for the assistance it had given on the item, and the Council looked forward to the continued assistance from his office on the issue. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. RECESS: 9:22 P.M. - 9:40 P.M. 10. CalTrain At-Grade Crossing at University Avenue Station Council Member McCown clarified the issue was agendized after it
had been on the Joint Powers Board=s (JPB) agenda earlier in 1996. She had had a discussion with Chief Transportation Official Marvin
Overway about what Palo Alto=s perspective might be on the issue, and she also had a very useful meeting with Jerome Kirzner, Director of Rail Operations and his staff on the issue. She felt it was important for Palo Alto to be familiar with the issue and for the Council to take a policy position with respect to what the JPB had currently taken to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Mr. Kirzner and his staff had been invited to discuss the issue with the Council that evening. Jerome Kirzner, Director, Rail Operations, Peninsula Corridor Joint
Powers Board, said the Council=s input was sought on an issue that was very important to the JPB, CalTrain, and Palo Alto. JPB had been charged with making CalTrain accessible under the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Unlike Bart, Santa Clara Light Rail, and Metro Link in Los Angeles, JPB was faced with a particularly unique challenge of having to retrofit a system that was 130 years old to meet the requirements of the ADA law. It was easier to build a new system with the various ADA requirements.
04/15/96 79-78 79-78
The JPA worked very closely with the ADA community and the technical advisory committee to seek their input. CalTrain had been made accessible, and the JPB was currently working on making the stations accessible. Through a study that was done 10 years previous, 10 Key Stations were designated as key stations meeting the various requirements that would require the JPB to make them more accessible. Palo Alto was one of those stations. JPB had worked closely with the ADA community and had provided portable lifts at the stations for more ADA accessibility. JPB had also worked closely with various constituencies to make CalTrain bicycle friendly. The issue in Palo Alto was mandated by ADA laws which required CalTrain to be ADA accessible in Palo Alto. JPB had found that the process had conflicting issues or issues that needed further study or input. There were different alternatives to make the Palo Alto Station more accessible to the ADA community. With the input from the individuals on the ADA Technical Advisory Committee, JPB recommended the option of an at-grade crossing. The Technical Advisory Committee conditionally approved that recommendation. There were many architectural issues of convenience in terms of the accessible route being non-circuitous as well as money and the larger design issues associated with the
Dream Team=s concept. Eli Noor, AIA, Vice President, VBN Architects, said JPB had to comply with ADA requirements and had to holistically look at 10 different stations. The Palo Alto Station was quite beautiful and historic, but many individuals felt disadvantaged because the underground crossings were unobserved. He presented overhead graphs of the tunnels, ramps, and the proposed at-grade crossing. The disability community was very diverse and there was no unanimity on the issue of at-grade crossings or the use of ramps. However, the opinion gravitated toward the at-grade crossing rather than the use of ramps. JPB was very receptive to the design
concepts presented by the Dream Team, but until the Dream Team=s concept matured and was funded, JPB had to look at other ways to comply with the ADA. Ramps had been proposed, but the ramps tended to make the tunnel longer. A portion of the tunnel would have to remain underground so that access to the baggage building would not be blocked. Another ramp was proposed on the east side of the tracks which would be connected to accessible parking spaces in the parking lot. The at-grade crossing alternative would be strategically connected to the accessible parking lot and as far north as possible so that when trains were parked at the station, individuals who crossed at that crossing would be closer to the accessible car on the train. The typical at-grade crossing similar to the Sunnyvale crossing had a safety concern. It was decided that safety and some aspects of an innovative design should prevail and a circuitous route over the path of the tracks was proposed. Once an individual crossed the tracks, he/she would have a great opportunity to verify whether a train was coming. There could be gates at both ends similar to the crossing at Ohlone-Chynoweth Light Rail Station in San Jose. One of things that made the Palo
04/15/96 79-79 79-79
Alto Station particularly conducive to an at-grade crossing was the great distance between the tracks and the tremendous visibility in both directions. Council Member McCown asked whether the doglegged system between the tracks would be fenced. Mr. Kirzner said yes. Council Member McCown clarified a person could not exit other than returning from where he/she came from or staying in the path that had been designed for crossing. Mr. Kirzner said that was correct. It was a safety zone between the tracks. Mr. Noor explained there was a fence on both sides and in the middle of the right-of-way. Vice Mayor Huber said the CPUC was also attempting to comply with the ADA and the solution could come out different in terms of at grade. Mr. Kirzner said there were many conflicting desires, and the at-grade crossing was the most desired by the ADA community. Vice
Mayor Huber was correct that the JPB would have to have the CPUC>s approval and it might choose to ignore those desires and make the JPB use the tunnel. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the CPUC also had to comply with ADA requirements. Mr. Kirzner said that was correct. The ADA requirements did not usually mandate the method of compliance. Mr. Noor said the letter of law regarding ADA stated a person should get across the tracks in the safest way possible. The spirit of law acknowledged that there was something called an accessible route that the majority of the public, if given the option, would use. The at-grade crossing appeared to be predominant method of choice. Mr. Kirzner clarified for the record that the JPB was not getting a car produced by Caltrans. He explained that the tunnels were not abandoned and were painted and patrolled by police officers regularly. The perception problem with being in a tunnel was an issue that was also being addressed. Mayor Wheeler asked whether the JPB would close the tunnel if the at-grade crossing were approved.
04/15/96 79-80 79-80
Mr. Kirzner said the JPB could consider that option and possibly close the tunnel. Council Member McCown clarified if the JPB chose a tunnel and ramp that complied with ADA, the tunnel would have to be rebuilt and expanded. The present tunnel was not an ADA compliant. Mr. Noor said the tunnel was wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair, but the access to the ramps was the primary source of objection. The tunnel as an environment both from a comfort level and sanitation point of view were things that members of the community objected to.
Council Member McCown clarified the tunnel=s dimensions adequately met ADA requirements if the ramps could be made to work on either end. Mr. Noor said that was correct.
Council Member Simitian was still concerned about the Council=s previous discussion regarding the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) and the possibility for an at-grade crossing. The Council was told at that time that neither the JPB nor the CPUC looked favorably on at-grade crossings. He made the observation at that time that if it could be made doable for the Bay Meadows Race Track, it should be doable for a new medical clinic. The response was negative, and the Council ultimately eliminated the at-grade crossing as a possibility. He queried what was the rationale for indicating it could be done when necessary, but it was not doable when there was some other reason that was external to the JPB or the CPUC requirements under the ADA. Mr. Kirzner said no pedestrian crossings had been approved in between stations by the CPUC or the Federal Railroad Association (FRA) since 1920. Both the Palo Alto and the Bay Meadow Stations were in-station areas. The distinction between the two was the argument that the only reason a person should be at that crossing was for railroad business. There was a general policy by the CPUC and the FRA not to encourage any new grade crossings at mainline tracks for all the other in-between stations. Council Member Simitian clarified the distinction was that it was an in-between crossing rather than an at-station crossing. The notion was that it was safer than if it were at an in-between crossing. Mr. Kirzner said that was correct. The crossing was more controllable, and the only people who should be at that crossing were people who had railroad business. Council Member Simitian asked whether the Bay Meadow crossing was in the station.
04/15/96 79-81 79-81
Mr. Kirzner said it was a part-time station. The JPB inherited the crossing which was approved by the Southern Pacific Railroad. At Bay Meadows, there were gates at the crossing and a full-time guard supplied by Bay Meadows Race Track during racing season. The trains only stopped at the station during racing season. Mayor Wheeler asked what measures were taken at the at-grade crossing when it was not racing season and the station was closed. Mr. Kirzner said the fence was locked at Bay Meadows when the station was not in use. Martin Bishop, P.O. Box 582, Cupertino, was a seven-year member and the district representative to the Santa Clara County Disability Advisory Committee (SCCDAC) to County Transit (currently known as the Commission on Transit Accessibility (CTA). Additionally, he was a member of the CalTrain Key Rail Station Accessibility Task Force. He provided background information on the SCCDAC and noted the CTA was one of the most effective, well-respected commissions in the Santa Clara Valley. Presenting the agenda item as a disability issue was disrespectful to the hundreds of hours invested by the disabled community in the selection of both the station and the method of attaining accessibility. The disabled community had clearly spoken in favor of the at-grade crossing for attaining full station accessibility. The only valid issue was the safety of the at-grade crossing which had been in use for hundreds of years in the United States. The CTA had invested hundreds of hours ensuring the safety of transit passengers using Light Rail, which had an at-grade crossing. There was a dual CalTrain and Light Rail station in Santa Clara Valley where both modes of transportation utilized the same platform. There had been no incidence of injury, disabled or otherwise, over the past five years. The recommendation for a Key Station at the proposed site resulted from its proximity to Stanford University, Stanford Hospital, and the Downtown. The structural problems which existed with the tunnels presented hardships to the disabled and elderly. He asked whether the Council was in favor of at-grade crossings
(comments on file in the City Clerk=s Office). Council Member Kniss explained the trend was to move away from the at-grade crossing even though it was less expensive and more user-friendly. She asked whether the SCCDAC had discussed how to lobby for funding to do at-grade crossings. Mr. Bishop said each issue was considered on a case-by-case basis. Peter Devasto, Member, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, Key Station Advisory Committee, 1136 Villa, Belmont, said he was a visually-impaired person who had ridden the train for many years. He had used both the Bay Meadows and Sunnyvale at-grade crossings, and every time he went to Palo Alto he was afraid when he used the
04/15/96 79-82 79-82
tunnel. He knew people who had Seeing Eye dogs who also felt the same about going through the tunnel. As a visually-impaired person, he favored an at-grade crossing. There were enough indications to tell him a train was coming. The Palo Alto Station had parking and also very good bus connections. He would prefer the grade crossing if he had an easy way to get across the railroad tracks rather than worry about going 150 feet down a ramp, through a tunnel, and not being sure where he was on the platform. He was fairly mobile, but some people were not and trying to navigate a tunnel was a much longer procedure. An at-grade crossing would give disabled people a chance to more effectively use the train and visit the City. Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, recalled there was previously a crossing at the Lytton Avenue railroad tracks. It was very popular, and there was a tremendous backlash when a fence was placed there to stop people from crossing. People wanted to cross the railroad tracks without going through the unpleasant tunnels in Palo Alto. She recently rode to Redwood City on the train and there were two at-grade crossings at the station without warning bells. She did not believe any accidents ever occurred at the Lytton Avenue crossing. Sunnyvale had two newer at-grade crossings, and the signs at the crossings flashed lights and rang bells when the trains approached. There was an indication that the FRA had issued the policy to the states to get rid of at-grade crossings. She understood it was roadway at-grade crossings where many accidents occurred. She would be surprised if there were any significant number of accidents anywhere in the nation at official pedestrian crossings. People did not cross when the train was coming, and the problem was people walking along the tracks. She was disappointed the Council did not pursue an at-grade crossing at the PAMF site. The issues regarding the tunnels would apply to that site as well. She hoped the Council would revisit the issue of the PAMF. Council Member McCown referred to a letter sent to the JPB from the legislative representative for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers that raised concerns based on their observations at the Sunnyvale crossing. The letter stated commuters who failed to get to their boarding platform in time often ran up from the pedestrian crossing on the wrong side of the stopping train and then passed
directly in front of the train on the engineer=s blind side to get to the platform. The problem of commuters waiting until the last moment to cross the tracks was exacerbated by rainy weather because of the lack of shelters on the westbound platform. It was observed that Palo Alto had a small shelter on the westbound platform. She asked whether the JPB had also observed people taking advantage of at-grade crossings. Mr. Kirzner said that phenomenon could occur at any time at any station unless there was an at-grade crossing through an overpass or underpass. The JPB would be responding to the letter referenced.
04/15/96 79-83 79-83
There were shelters at Sunnyvale and also on the east side of the Palo Alto Station. Council Member McCown asked whether there had been any injuries or fatalities associated with that kind of behavior by a train rider. Mr. Kirzner said an accident could happen. There had been very few
pedestrian-type accidents on the JPB=s right-of-way at legitimized crossings. He pointed out that over half of the 21 fatalities during the prior year were identified as suicides. The JPB had
adopted an aggressive Αno trespassing≅ program in recent months to discourage people from crossing railroads track at other than bona fide crossings. There was always a risk when people boarded trains from a direction opposite from which the train was going. Council Member McCown said the design showed a safety zone in the middle between the tracks and she asked whether the train would
stop short of that section so it blocked a person=s ability to cross. Mr. Kirzner said the train could block that crossing. Council Member McCown clarified a person would be unable to cross and would miss their train. Mr. Kirzner said that was correct. Council Member Andersen asked where the funding for the ADA requirements came from. Mr. Kirzner said the funding came from a combination of state and federal funds that had been earmarked for ADA/JPB purposes. Unfortunately, the ADA mandate carried no special funding. Mayor Wheeler said the JPB had indicated previously that it believed one of the differences in the application as opposed to at-grade crossings outside stations was that there was a presumption that people who used those crossings would have business within the train station. Given the location of the Palo Alto Station between a very busy Downtown, the Stanford Shopping Center, and other transit alternatives, there was already a lot of pedestrian traffic at the station that was not related to train business. Mr. Kirzner said the JPB attorneys stated in law there was a difference among invitees, trespassers, and people who had business. Sequoia Station in Redwood City was built to gain access from the east side and people had to cross the tracks. The JPB had asked the City of Redwood City to sponsor a CPUC certified grade crossing for that specific purpose. He reiterated the primary purpose was to satisfy the needs of the ADA community, and the JPB believed the at-grade crossing with the appropriate
04/15/96 79-84 79-84
doglegs, signs, and flashing lights would enhance the safety for the general public who happened to be at the train station. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to support the proposed at-grade project with the condition that if the City of Palo Alto were successful in moving forward with
implementation of the Dream Team=s concept, the Joint Powers Board would cooperate with the City in the funding of the below-grade design as a replacement for the at-grade project. Council Member McCown two things influenced her decision: 1) The proposal was the outgrowth of a process that occurred previously which involved the ADA community who felt it was consistent with their safety needs to have that kind of crossing and 2) A well-designed, gated, and appropriately signed method of crossing the tracks even for people who were not in need of any special facility to cross or who were not taking the train would create a safer situation than the potential ad hoc crossing of the tracks that was being discouraged. A method that would realistically encourage people to use the crossing in a safe way was an improvement. Council Member Rosenbaum said if a well-designed, gated, and lighted crossing could be done at a train station, there should be a way with proper safeguards to do it elsewhere. Perhaps the crossing at the PAMF site should be reexamined in the future. Mayor Wheeler queried the fate of the current underground pedestrian crossing that had previously been described as an unpleasant situation if the at-grade crossing as described that evening moved forward. Mr. Kirzner had indicated the JPB would at that point entertain the closure of access to the underpass. She suggested a friendly amendment to that effect. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that if the project moved forward, the JPB would explore closure of the existing underground pedestrian crossing. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Huber Αno,≅ Schneider absent. 11. Implementation of Mayor Wheeler's Proposal for Creating Unity through City-Facilitated Community Action City Manager June Fleming said the staff report (CMR:222:96) outlined a reasonable way the staff could implement the proposal that had been brought forward by the Mayor. Staff had an opportunity to use some of the resources of the recently funded volunteer that was received through the grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. MOTION: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve implementation of Palo Alto Together, a new volunteer community action program.
04/15/96 79-85 79-85
Mayor Wheeler said she was pleased and enthusiastic about how supportive the staff had been in not only helping her think through the design of the project but also moving forward so quickly in a short time frame. If the enthusiasm staff had brought to the proposal were any measure of the enthusiasum that she hoped to engender throughout the community, the program would be exciting and meaningful. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. 11A. (Old Item No. 2) Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Pacific International Contract, Inc. for Recarpeting the Main Library Council Member Andersen explained he was not opposed to recarpeting the Main Library. There were only two companies that bid on the proposal, and the staff report (CMR:231:96) indicated there were new procedures that had been established by some of the carpet manufacturers. He asked why there were only two bids when there were nine proposals presented and what alternatives might be utilized later that could not be used for the present proposal. Public Works Director Glenn Roberts said a trend had recently developed in the carpeting industry that had been predominant in other construction trades for some time which was that the material suppliers were establishing preferred pricing with franchise installers. A license and franchise was given to a particular installer and then he/she was offered a price that was lower than what was offered to other installers on the materials which gave a competitive advantage to a particular installer. Many of the other installers declined to bid because they knew they could not compete with the materials component of the bid. Staff was concerned and had discussed but not finalized the possibility of some alternative approaches for the future. One concept discussed would be to split the bidding process into a materials procurement bid and installation contract bid. The City would procure the materials and furnish the materials to all installers who wanted to bid on the project. That alternative would help the price on the installation and engender some competitive bidding installation, but it would not save the City much money overall because the City would not be able to obtain that preferred price that was offered to the franchise installer. Staff was uncertain of the answer, but it was an issue that needed to be researched to stimulate some competition in those areas. Council Member Andersen asked whether it was the first time staff had encountered that situation in the carpeting industry. Mr. Roberts said a recent bid for the Downtown Library carpeting experienced the same situation, but there were three bidders on that project.
04/15/96 79-86 79-86
Council Member Andersen pointed out there were some serious issues with respect to the potential for not being able to get the number of bids the City expected to receive on a competitive project. It was a way to keep the prices up without having as many bids, and he asked whether there was some legal leverage that the City could use to put it in a better competitive position. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said there was the Unfair Practices Act. He did not know whether the process being described was an unfair practice. It was a way of encouraging qualified installers to do the work. He would research the issue. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, that the Council 1) approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Pacific International Contract, Inc. in the amount of $62,821 for the Main Library Recarpeting Project; and 2) authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Pacific International Contract, Inc., the total value of which change orders shall not exceed $6,400. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 12. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Wheeler invited members of the public to attend the State of the City Address and the honoring of the Boards and Commissions at the Cubberley Community Center on April 16, 1996, at 5:45 p.m., and also the Committee of the Whole Meeting on Thursday, April 18, 1996. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:40 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving existing litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 6 and 6A. Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 6 and 6A. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
04/15/96 79-87 79-87
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.
04/15/96 79-88 79-88