Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-10 City Council Summary Minutes 02/10/97 −432 Regular Meeting February 10, 1997 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................81-432 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................81-432 1. Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. S7088922 between the City of Palo Alto and Cates, Calzada & Patterson for Police Background Investigations........................................81-433 2. Authority for Staff to Expend Fiscal Year 1996-97 Funds for Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program ......................................................81-433 3. Resolution 7648 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Contract No. 96-SNR-00110 Between the United States of America, Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, and Several Local Government Agencies, Including the City of Palo Alto, for the Funding of Operation and Maintenance for the Central Valley Project Power Generation Facilities”...........................................81-433 4. Mission Statement for the Junior Museum and Zoo - Requirement for Reaccreditation by the American Association of Museums81-433 5. Submittal of Proposal for Packard Foundation Volunteers for Cities Project Grant..................................81-433 6. Request for Approval to Complete Traffic and Engineering Surveys to Consider the Establishment of Radar Enforceable Speed Limits and Status Report on Related Strategies (continued from 12/16/96)........................................81-433 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation, to Amend the Table of Organization, and to Amend the Municipal Fee Schedule, for the Permit Streamlining Program...........................81-457 02/10/97 −433 8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........81-461 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.............81-461 02/10/97 −434 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:03 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen (arrived at 7:25 p.m. ), Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS T. J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding the need to hire City experts. Ben Bailey, 343 Byron Street, spoke regarding Palo Alto High School bicycle safety. Jeff Brown, 660 Lincoln Avenue, spoke regarding thoughts from the last two weeks. Jay Thorwaldson, 400 Channing Avenue, (letter on file in the City Clerk’s Office), spoke regarding electronic communications--Palo Alto Community Networking (PA ComNET). Alison Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, spoke regarding Cable Co-op. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, (letter on file in the City Clerk’s Office), spoke regarding accountability . Sue Lubais, 1771 University Avenue, spoke regarding Cable Co-op. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of November 18, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Eakins “abstaining.” MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of January 27, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Eakins “abstaining.” MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of January 30, 1997, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Eakins “abstaining.” CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 through 5. 02/10/97 −435 1. Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. S7088922 between the City of Palo Alto and Cates, Calzada & Patterson for Police Background Investigations 2. Authority for Staff to Expend Fiscal Year 1996-97 Funds for Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program 3. Resolution 7648 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving Contract No. 96-SNR-00110 Between the United States of America, Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, and Several Local Government Agencies, Including the City of Palo Alto, for the Funding of Operation and Maintenance for the Central Valley Project Power Generation Facilities” Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Western Area Power Administration and Bureau of Reclamation for the Operation and Maintenance of the Central Valley Project Power Facilities 4. Mission Statement for the Junior Museum and Zoo - Requirement for Reaccreditation by the American Association of Museums 5. Submittal of Proposal for Packard Foundation Volunteers for Cities Project Grant MOTION PASSED 9-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. Request for Approval to Complete Traffic and Engineering Surveys to Consider the Establishment of Radar Enforceable Speed Limits and Status Report on Related Strategies (contin- ued from 12/16/96) Police Chief Chris Durkin said the staff report (CMR:468:96) described some of the options available to address the complex issues of staff's attempt to improve the flow of traffic in Palo Alto. Staff believed the recommendation to conduct traffic and engineering surveys on Middlefield, Embarcadero, Arastradero, and Charleston Roads would provide Council with valuable information needed to determine whether or not the posted speed limits should be raised in order to permit the use of radar on a three-month trial basis. Council Member Schneider asked why the traffic and engineering surveys were required. 02/10/97 −436 City Traffic Engineer Ashok Aggarwal said the surveys were required by California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 40802 to be done every five years for use of radar for enforcement purposes. Council Member Schneider asked if there was any way to complete the surveys sooner than the three months. Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said that was possible. Staff used the three-month period in consideration of other workload. Vice Mayor Andersen said Mr. Durkin indicated one of the objectives was to improve the flow of traffic. He asked how staff's recommen- dation would improve the flow of traffic and whether that was a primary objective. Mr. Durkin said staff believed that the use of radar was one of the best tools. There would be more consistent enforcement of traffic speeds, which would have the benefit of improving the flow of traffic or traffic conditions. Vice Mayor Andersen said the item was continued from December 6, 1996, to allow additional communication from the neighbors in some neighborhoods. He asked staff for an update. Ms. Johnson said Council continued the item because some neighbors were not able to attend the December meeting but had some other information. Vice Mayor Andersen clarified there had not been any communication from neighboring groups. Ms. Johnson said that was correct. Vice Mayor Andersen referred to the consideration being given to putting left turn signals at Newell and Middlefield Roads and asked what that might do to the speed of the traffic going onto Embarcadero Road. Mr. Aggarwal said staff did not believe that would have an impact on speed. Both those improvements were basically safety related and had to do with left turning accidents. Vice Mayor Andersen asked if those two areas had a significant number of accidents that would justify putting left turn signals in those locations. Mr. Aggarwal said the intersection at Middlefield and Embarcadero Roads was definitely one of those locations. The reason for putting 02/10/97 −437 in left turn signals at the intersection of Newell and Embarcadero Roads had more to do with the potential for accidents. Also, there had been requests from Embarcadero Road residents in the past. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to page 13 of the staff report (CMR:468:96) in which there was discussion of possibly setting the radar enforceable speed limit at something less than the raw number that came out of the traffic and engineering survey. In particular, he referred to a situation on Junipero Serra Boulevard where Stanford was able to secure a considerable reduction in the radar enforceable speed limit below that associated with the traffic survey. He asked about that possibility. Mr. Aggarwal said CVC Section 627 governed how the surveys were conducted. There were three elements of traffic and engineering surveys. First was the 85th percentile speed. Second was the number of accidents within the last two years. Third was the roadway conditions. Caltrans guidelines were referred to when surveys were done and speed limits posted. Primarily, the speed limit was posted at or below the 85th percentile speed in five-mile increments. For example, if the 85th percentile speed were 39 miles per hour (mph), the speed limit would be posted at 35 mph. The Caltrans guidelines also allowed a further downzoning of 5 mph for accidents or for roadway conditions. If the 85th percentile were 39 mph, the posted speed limit could be 35 mph; but if there were too many accidents related to speed or there were conditions on the road, then the 35 mph speed limit could be downzoned to 30 mph. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified there were situations when the speed limit could be set at less than the 85th percentile based on the professional judgment of the traffic engineer and on certain criteria. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said yes, to a certain extent. However, the guidelines also laid out what some of those kinds of parameters were. One of the unique features of the Junipero Serra Boulevard section was the vertical and horizontal curvature that was very substandard, and he believed that was the basis upon which the finding was made for lower speed. Council Member Rosenbaum recalled the 85th percentile was 47 mph, and Stanford was able to secure a radar enforceable speed limit of 35 mph. Mr. Overway referred to one particular curve and elevation change that was responsible. It seemed Stanford was able to secure the 35 mph speed for the entire two-mile length of Junipero Serra Boulevard from Page Mill to Alpine Roads, although the curve occupied only a short part of that. He asked Mr. Overway for comments. 02/10/97 −438 Mr. Overway believed Council Member Rosenbaum was correct, but he did not have a comment as to how that was extrapolated. Council Member Rosenbaum said in the past the traffic engineers had been able to make a determination that from Alma Street to Middlefield Road on Embarcadero Road, it was possible to set a speed limit of 30 mph, whereas the survey might have indicated 35 mph. However, the traffic engineers were not able to make that judgment for the rest of Embarcadero Road. He asked staff if it might be possible to take the information and judgment on one part of Embarcadero Road and extend it for the entire length of Embarcadero Road. Mr. Overway said if the traffic engineers could have extended it, they would have. Council Member Fazzino asked how much radar coverage could be expected on the roads if Council approved the recommendation and the study concluded that radar could be used with a higher speed. Ms. Johnson said with the increased usage of radar, the Traffic team would primarily use radar in all speed enforcement efforts in those areas. It would be impractical to say the officers would spend full shifts out there. For example, at present the neighborhood officer assigned to the Embarcadero Road neighborhood spent at least a minimum of an hour a day. At other times, other traffic officers would join in. Depending upon what was happening with other traffic considerations throughout the City, the time spent could be more than that. Council Member Fazzino clarified that would be for Embarcadero and Middlefield Roads, as well as Charleston Road. Ms. Johnson said that was correct. There were neighborhood traffic officers assigned to most of those places. Council Member Fazzino clarified the current level of funding led staff to conclude at least an hour per day of radar coverage. Ms. Johnson said that was correct. It would also allow regular patrol officers to use radar, so it would not be just the Traffic team. Council Member Fazzino said Council could decide to increase that coverage; but based on the current level of service, it would be an hour per day per street. Ms. Johnson said that was correct. 02/10/97 −439 Council Member Fazzino said when Mr. Aggarwal cited the penal code, it sounded as if there had been a special task force appointed by the legislature to develop the speed trap law. He believed that in reality the law was passed because several legislators could not keep their feet off the accelerator in the 1970s. He asked if the City had devoted any time to working with local legislators to see if the law could be changed in any way to provide communities with more flexibility to set speeds. Mr. Durkin said no. Council Member Fazzino said Mr. Overway made some comments regarding the speed on Junipero Serra Boulevard. If the City were to change Embarcadero and Middlefield Roads in some way, such as narrowing them so they would feel less like expressways, he clarified those changes might justify a lower speed limit based upon the current state speed law. Mr. Overway said the goal of the traffic calming measures that had been discussed on those residential arterials was to create an environment that caused people to drive more slowly. Therefore, the expected 85th percentile speed would be lower. Council Member Fazzino said conceivably, once the staff recommenda- tions were implemented in a year or two, the City could go back and conduct surveys which might lead to a lower speed for use of radar. Mr. Overway said he was referring to redoing the cross-section and character of Embarcadero Road which might be more than a year or two. Speed surveys could be done at that point. Council Member Fazzino understood the City had some long-term efforts underway, and it would take some time to identify source of funding for the kinds of changes that would create the effect of a much more narrow road for both Embarcadero and Middlefield Roads. However, he was thinking more of the short term. There were recommendations that had come before Council, a couple which Council had accepted and a couple that staff did not recommend moving ahead with, such as the red light camera or use of photo radar. If Council decided to use photo radar and red light cameras or at the very least purchase a couple of additional posted speed units that displayed drivers' speeds, those short-term measures in and of themselves reduced the speed. Then the City would be able to survey at that point and conceivably be able to lower the speed and use radar. Mr. Overway said at any point in time, the City could resurvey speeds on a road, and if speeds had gone down, then that information could be reflected in the speed limit and radar enforcement. When doing a survey, such measures could not be in place, such as planting a 02/10/97 −440 police car or placing a posted speed unit on Embarcadero Road. So the question was how effective those kinds of measures were once they were not present. Council Member Fazzino clarified that if the Council decided to move ahead with photo radar as a City practice, the City would not be able to use a photo radar unit during the course of a study. Ms. Johnson said that was correct. In order to use photo radar, the City would have to meet the 85th percentile regulation beforehand. Council Member Fazzino said the presence of a photo radar unit and a significant amount of public education regarding that fact could lead to reduced speeds. He asked why the City would not be able to continue using that photo radar unit during a survey when using it would be established as a City practice. Mr. Aggarwal said using a photo radar unit was not different from having a police officer enforcing speeds during the survey period. The City could continue to use photo radar, but the City would have to shut it off two or three days in advance of doing the survey. Council Member Fazzino clarified there was a legal prohibition on maintaining that practice during a speed survey. Mr. Aggarwal said that was not specifically mentioned in the CVC or Caltrans guidelines, but there was mention that the surveys had to be done under unbiased conditions. Council Member Wheeler said Ms. Johnson commented that the neighbor- hood officer was spending about an hour per day on the roads. Presumably, the City did not have a speed limit that allowed radar enforcement, so she asked what methodology the officer was using at present to deal with the speeding issue. Traffic Lieutenant Don Hartnett said the officer could pace and cite cars by using the speedometer. Vehicles could be paced and drivers ticketed for speeding violations. There were usually two officers assigned to Embarcadero Road. One officer used the Police Department's commercial enforcement truck. Many people drove by it, not realizing it was a Police vehicle, and ended up receiving a speeding ticket. The commercial enforcement officer also stopped a number of trucks each month. The Police used pacing, although that was not as efficient or as safe a method for the officers to enforce the speed limit. Ms. Johnson said from time to time, the officers would use radar as an education tool. As mentioned in the staff report (CMR:468:96), 02/10/97 −441 officers could not issue citations, but they would obtain the speeds of the vehicles, stop the vehicles, and inform the drivers that they were speeding. Council Member Wheeler said the subject had been around since she was a Member of the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee well over a year before. She remembered that the P&S Committee had talked about the possibility of having an allowable lower speed limit in the vicinity of schools. She clarified that was one of the reasons given for the ability to use radar near Town & Country Village. Mr. Aggarwal said schools were exempt from the speed trap definition, which meant police could use radar when kids were present in that area and could enforce a 25 mph speed limit. Council Member Wheeler asked if there were a specific defined number of feet on either side of a school that would be considered in the vicinity of a school. Mr. Aggarwal said the school zones were supposed to be installed at or close to the school boundary or within so many feet of it, which he could not recall. Council Member Eakins asked what the effect was on average speeds when radar was used for speed enforcement. Mr. Aggarwal said in the mid-1970s, when the City received an Office of Traffic Safety grant, a traffic team of five police officers were enforcing speed limits throughout Palo Alto on five major streets, and it was found that speed enforcement was not very effective in reducing speeds. Speed enforcement was not to go after people who went at a reasonable speed but to go after people who traveled fast or at unsafe speeds. Speed enforcement had more to do with traffic safety, trying to reduce speeds. Council Member Eakins said there was a lot of interest in photo radar. The City of Campbell seemed to be the only entity that continued to use photo radar. She asked if Campbell's experience worked. Ms. Johnson said there was no empirical data from Campbell that would correlate the use of photo radar with reducing accidents and/or speed limits. Campbell's issuance of citations had increased, but the speeds had not necessarily dropped in those areas. Council Member Eakins asked if more citations meant more revenue. Ms. Johnson said the revenue that cities received from the state had diminished each year. For example, in 1990-91 the City's revenue 02/10/97 −442 from moving citations was about $188,000. Staff projected $66,000 for the current year. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. George Young, 981 Embarcadero Road, said he was strongly opposed to raising the speed limit to 35 mph on Embarcadero Road and other residential arterials for even a trial survey period. He commended the Police Department's more frequent and conspicuous traffic enforcement efforts over the past year which had resulted in a calmer and somewhat slower traffic. If the speed limit were raised, that would be seen as a license to drive faster, and he expected the average speed on Embarcadero Road would rise to approximately 50 mph because no California judge would penalize driving less than 10 mph over the posted limit. With heavy present and future traffic loads, a 50 mph average speed limit would clearly be unsafe for on and off traffic and cross traffic. If the City felt it had to raise the limit to 35 mph on Embarcadero Road and other residential arterials, he believed and recommended that the City take necessary measures to ensure safety on those roads: 1) all left turns from Embarcadero Road should be banned, except where there was a left turn lane, and left turns onto Embarcadero Road should be allowed only at lights; 2) semi-blind junctions to Embarcadero Road from West Bayshore Road, California Avenue, Churchill Avenue, the Cultural Center parking lot, etc., should be blocked off; 3) the Louis Road to Heather Lane cross connection should be made direct with a single light, such as at the Middlefield Road entrance to Mitchell Park; 4) all Embarcadero Road residents should be required and assisted to modify their driveways so they enter traffic front first, not backing out and stopping in traffic; 5) fields of vision for entering traffic should be improved by removing trees, shrubbery, poles, and signs as needed along Embarcadero Road, and a parking ban on Embarcadero Road between Highway 101 and Middlefield Road should be explored in whole or in part; 6) a public information program should be developed for signs and other measures that would make every commuter and truck driver realize each time they entered Palo Alto, they were facing strict, hard-nosed traffic enforcement and that Palo Alto was a speed trap; and 7) a public education plan advising how to safely enter, cross, or reverse direction on Embarcadero Road, i.e., how to avoid left turns, should be developed and distributed to City residents and other drivers. A total systems approach should be taken to make Embarcadero Road as safe as possible for both residents and through traffic. Edward Freiberg, 726 East Charleston Road, said a year prior, the Council approved the use of motorcycle police to enhance the enforcement of posted speed limits in Palo Alto. He commended Council for that decision. He had an opportunity to speak with 02/10/97 −443 Officer Tannock on motorcycle duty last spring who slowed the speed of traffic on Charleston Road single-handedly in a couple of hours by using the siren and using his motorcycle. Another officer assigned motorcycle duty was able to continue the good work. Alma Street was not patrolled for a three-month period in the recent past, and he heard that the speed of traffic went out of sight. Radar use legislation was flawed because 85 percent of drivers did not drive at reasonable speeds if speed limits were not imposed and enforced. Radar could legally be used on Alma Street at present. Under normal driving conditions, no one was stopped unless he or she exceeded 50 mph. If the proposal and recommendation to raise the speed limit were approved, there would be four more streets established with traffic traveling at speeds comparable to Alma Street. He understood that if a speed limit were raised to 35 mph, radar may be used, and the number of convictions of speeders could be increased. He asked if that would make the streets safer. Lowered driving speeds had proven to be most effective in decreas- ing accidents. Schools were located on and near the streets in the proposed study. The stretch of Charleston Road from Middlefield Road to Carlson Court, a one block distance of about 560 yards, was crossed every day by children going to and coming from Ohlone, Fairmeadow, and Jane Lathrop Stanford (JLS) Schools, and by clients attending Community Association for Rehabilitation (C.A.R.). Preschoolers frequently crossed in groups to Mitchell Park from Cubberley Community Center at Greendell Playground. Students attending classes at Cubberley at the Palo Alto facility for English as a second language at the entrance to Mitchell Park crossed to and from the shopping center to the Park. Stevenson House, a retirement home, was located next to the Ohlone school on that same block. The City could be deemed irresponsible if the speed limit were raised in that area. The argument that increasing the posted speed to 35 mph and not stopping drivers until they went 50 mph would slow the present traffic speed was disingenuous. Police presence and enforcement of present limits had proven to be the most effective means of controlling driving speeds. For the safety of the children, the present 25 mph had to be continued, and the police had to be urged to make the greater effort to gain compliance. Michael Gagliasso, 2064 Middlefield Road, said the Police Chief had said that one of the purposes was to improve traffic flow. The staff report (CMR:468:96) talked about traffic safety as an issue. He began to wonder how the issue ever came before the City Council. His belief was that people who lived on the streets asked the Council and staff to do something about the speeds on the streets. The people did not expect at that time for the staff to come up with the proposal that the limits be increased so that the Police could give tickets that would stick. There was nothing wrong with the survey, but he did not feel there was a need for a survey in order to determine 02/10/97 −444 that the traffic was faster than 25 mph on the streets in question. The problem with the recommendation was in its stated purpose, which was to assist Council to make a determination whether limits should be raised for a three-month trial basis and subsequently to see whether those new limits should be kept permanently. The residents who lived on those streets had a different perspective about the speed problem. Nobody driving on the streets thought there was a problem with the traffic traveling too fast. In terms of enforce- ment, the Police would not to be able to control speed just because the Police had radar and a legal means to do so. There were currently two big problems in the City with traffic: red light running and trucks on streets that were not allowed. The Police already had laws in the books but could not enforce and prevent activities on the part of ordinary citizens and truck drivers. When drivers were pushed off Embarcadero Road, they turned up on Oregon Expressway, Middlefield Road, and University Avenue. Everyday he saw at least one car run a red light. There did not need to be a new law to make it illegal because it was already illegal. The Police did not have the resources to enforce. Giving the 35 mph radar enforceable speed limit would not slow the speeds on the streets. Cathie Lehrberg, 1085 University Avenue, said from the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) vision statement, the adverse impacts of traffic on the environment in general and residential streets in particular would be reduced. In Policy T29, the City's objective was to address the desires of residents of the residential arterials who wanted to have slower speeds, safer conditions for bicyclist and pedestrians, and aesthetic improvements. Examples of improvements were boulevard treatments, landscape medians and planting strips, gateway features, and traffic signal changes. She was bothered that three of the four proposed residential arterials were included in the concept of increasing speed limits. The things that concerned residential arterials were noise, air quality, and safety. The idea of physical improvements on those streets would help reduce speeds. Timing the lights at 25 rather than at 33 on Embarcadero Road would help. Two schools, Walter Hays and Palo Alto High School, were on Embarcadero Road. Middlefield Road had three schools: Addison, Jordan, and Walter Hays. Charleston and Arastradero Roads had Gunn High School and would have the new JLS Middle School. It would seem that the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) would be interested in changing the 85th percen- tile law. All were residential communities faced with increasing traffic. She recommended and asked Council to implement the concepts of the residential arterials. If the speed limits were changed, they might not be changed back, which would be terrible. The rule should be changed instead. 02/10/97 −445 Carol Lee Williams, 14 Morton Street, said from Morton Street, it was difficult to make a left turn onto Embarcadero Road at 25 mph and also difficult to turn right. She strongly opposed raising the speed limit because 25 mph was reasonable. Palo Alto was a lovely place, and Embarcadero Road should not be an expressway. Horace Anderson, 1087 Embarcadero Road, said in December he had requested that the matter be referred back to the P&S Committee for reasonable dialogue among the community, staff, and Council Members that would result in an agreement that could be presented to the Council. He knew much time was spent on it, but there were specific reasons for the request. Page 3 of the staff report (CMR:468:96) indicated the installation of flashing lights had no impact on the 85th percentile. If that had had no effect, there was no reason to expect the 85th percentile would change. The last 10 or 15 years of surveys at about 39 mph had been consistent. The 85th percentile was intended originally to avoid speed traps in cities and small towns that were established on state highways and county roads. The impact that it had on residential city streets was not thought of. He believed that reconsidering the 85th percentile law as it applied to residential city streets was in order. The Palo Alto Daily mentioned that the Police Chief believed people would travel at a speed they deemed safe on a street. That was erroneous because in October 1996, Embarcadero Road had 28 major accidents between St. Francis Drive and El Camino Real. The Traffic people did not find out about the 28 accidents until he had mentioned it at a P&S Committee meeting concerning the possibility of having a stoplight survey for the City. The people attempting to raise the speed limit and making judgments about Embarcadero Road had not made a detailed analysis of the accidents. The City needed a survey of what was happening on the streets. Residents saw the red light running, the people lying on the street, and the Fire Department breaking open car doors to get the people out. He asked how the Police intended to use radar to enforce on the four streets 24 hours per day and attend court sessions, write reports, attend to other traffic problems throughout the City, and do an effective job with the size of the current traffic patrol. It would take five to ten times the number of people. Thomas Brenner, 1717 Middlefield Road, requested that Council deny any proposal or study with the intention to increase the speed limit to 35 mph on Embarcadero, Middlefield, Charleston, or Arastradero Roads. His son was one of the hundreds of children living along or going to the schools along those Roads. It was not safe for the children of the City to have cars speeding past them at 35 mph. Many residents realized the potential danger of the busy streets when they bought the properties. He and his wife decided to live on Middlefield Road because the speed limit was 25 mph and would 02/10/97 −446 not have purchased the home had they known the limit would be raised to 35 mph. He dreaded the day when his son would decide to cross the street to visit his friend. Many children were already crossing daily. He would pity not only the family of the child that would be hit and most likely killed but also the driver who would learn the hard way that the stopping distance of a car traveling at 35 mph was much greater than the stopping distance of a car traveling at 25 mph. It had been stated that since many drivers broke the speed limit, the limit should be changed to accommodate their desires. He asked if that was really a logical way to respond to the problem. He asked what other illegalities would soon be sanctioned. The Police Chief stated that under the state's 85th percentile rule, at least on Embarcadero Road where 85 percent of the traffic flowed at 37 mph or faster, the use of radar on that road would be considered a speed trap. The speed limit of 25 mph should be kept. Police presence on those roads should be increased. Radar should be used and the offending drivers ticketed even if it was illegal. Most drivers would just pay the ticket and slow down the next time they were on the roads. Some might go to court and win on the entrapment argument if they knew enough to argue it. If the Police Chief and the Police Department were not up to the task of protecting the children by finding ways to enforce present limits, then it might be time to find a new Police Chief. He asked the Council, on behalf of the children who lived, went to school, and played in the parks along those streets, to demand that the Police Chief and the Police Department direct their efforts to upholding the law instead of changing it. Donald Stone, 3618 Louis Road, said the proponents of maintaining the 25 mph presented some compelling but overly emotional arguments. The idea that raising the limits to the level of the 85th percentile speed of all traffic as specified in the CVC would somehow inspire motorists to drive even faster was nonsense. The studies of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) had shown that when the speed limits were raised to 65 mph or 70 mph, there was no particular increase in speeds. In some cases, speeds actually went down. In the areas where there had been a 55 mph speed limit in urban areas, accident rates actually dropped, and CHP conjectured that it was a result of not having to put up with the frustration of dealing with slower drivers. In the State of Montana, there had been no increase in accidents when speed limits were eliminated altogether. He was not advocating complete anarchy on the streets, but he did believe that the 85th percentile rule was a good one. He did not want to leave the impression that he was insensitive to those who lived on the arterials, but they were arterials for the vast majority of the people who moved there. He encouraged the Council, the Police Department, and traffic staff to consider further speed awareness and control on the collector streets feeding the arterials, namely Louis Road, 02/10/97 −447 Ross Road, Greer Road, Loma Verde Avenue, and East Meadow Drive. There was concern about the volume and speed in the residential areas in South Palo Alto where streets were wider and streets such as Louis and Ross Roads and East Meadow Drive not only were collectors to major arterials but also carried the probability of traffic to the growing commercial area on Charleston Road in Mountain View and to the industrial park on East Meadow Drive. He requested consideration be given to use of speed controls such as speed bumps, chokers, and traffic circles on the collectors, especially in the areas close to the schools. He supported the study of the 35 mph speed limit, and he would support increasing the speed limits on those arterials to that level within the guidelines of the 85th percentile rule. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, referred to a statute passed to give the City of Santee authority to set its own speed limits for the use of radar without the required engineering and traffic survey. His letter (on file in the City Clerk’s Office) dated February 5, 1997, reflected some editorial changes in the law. Palo Alto needed a multi-pronged approach to solve the need to enforce speed on the arterial streets. Staff had indicated for some time its opposition. It was at present before the Council to set policy. Council Member Fazzino was optimistic that the legislature would change its entire approach on setting speed limits. Two cities in Southern California received approval of their fellow legislators to put in special exceptions to the law, and Palo Alto should follow the same approach. He chose the City of Santee over the City of El Cajon as an example because in addition to authorizing Council to enforce speed limits that it set with radar without surveys, the statute also required the City to facilitate and expedite traffic flow on the chosen streets. Since they were arterial streets, that was a good idea. Currently, the speed limits were set with time signals on the streets. The P&S Committee discussed at its December 10, 1996, meeting a consultant scope of services for traffic signal timing. On page 7 of the minutes of that meeting, Council Member Fazzino said Palo Alto’s traffic signal system still failed to serve as a disincentive to exceed certain speeds, and Mr. Overway agreed. Mr. Overway said on the City’s arterials, staff had timed the 85th percentile speed or the progression speed people wanted to drive at naturally. As an example, in South Palo Alto on Middlefield Road, an apparent lack of enforcement on a segment from Matadero Creek to San Antonio Road had resulted in higher speeds, and the City’s Transportation Division had set the traffic signals to comply with those higher speeds. It was time for the Council to set leadership in the issue. It was important to request all legislators to enact such legislation. It was important that it applied to Embarcadero, Middlefield, and Charleston and Arastradero Roads so the community was not divided. That bill could be enacted in the current year 02/10/97 −448 because the last date for introducing bills was February 28, 1997. He provided Council with suggested wording. If the bill were passed in the current year, it would have to pass through the policy committee and the house of origin by June 6, 1997, and through the legislature by September 12, 1997. With the increased development over the past 15 years, the Traffic Division had tried to do its job of moving the commuter and through traffic through the City as fast as possible. That conflicted with what the City wanted to do about controlling speeds, and a three-year term for the City to control speeds would set radar enforceable speeds at the City’s own limits. Mr. Marion Hill, 4270 Pomona Avenue, said Arastradero Road should be called Arastradero Speedway. Although people maintained that the speed of Arastradero Road was 35 mph, people passed other drivers who traveled at 35 mph. There was a problem not only with speeding traffic that was unimpeded by traffic lights but also with very little police presence. Regardless of what Council decided about speed limits, without any or improved enforcement, the City would get nowhere. It was strange that the legislature set the 85 percent rule. The fox being the judge, jury, and eater of chickens. There were only three places for a pedestrian to cross Arastradero Road with a light, at Coulombe Drive, Terman Park, and Gunn High School. It was not unusual to see a mother with her children running to cross Arastradero Road to get to Juana Briones Park because a driver would be traveling on Arastradero Road at 40 to 45 mph. The City needed to define its streets as being freeway types for commuters or residential streets. It was extremely dangerous to make a left turn onto Arastradero Road. It was worse for people with driveways; there were times when they would be trapped because of the number of cars and the excessive speeds. He did not have a particular objection to the survey, but he did not see that it would prove anything that was already known. He agreed with the previous speakers regarding working with the legislature to change the law. The key to the issue was enforcement. If one hour per day on the streets was all that could be afforded, there needed to be provisions made to increase the size of the Traffic Division. If the speeds were enforced, the speeds would slow down. With the wide and lengthy Arastradero Road, there was no reason why pacing could not be used by the motorcycle officers. Enforcement was the way to get the job done. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, said the small measures taken, such as the Bott Dots, flashing lights, and increased enforcement, had had some effect. The draft Comprehensive Plan acknowledged that the nature and characteristics of streets were very important not only for binding the City together but also for dividing the City depending on the width of the street and the volume 02/10/97 −449 and speed of the cars. She was absolutely and unequivocally opposed to raising the speed limit above 25 mph on a residential road, including residential arterials. To a community with the values and priorities that Palo Alto had, the discussion about the actual speed on Embarcadero Road and other streets was irrelevant. The factors most relevant were traffic safety and number of driveways, unless the land use on the streets was changed. Council needed to decide what data or factors were important to look at. She was not convinced that radar had any effect on long-term control of speed on any street. For example, Alma was supposed to be radar enforced, but it was out of control. She did not see anything in the staff report (CMR:468:96) that said there would be any long-term control. She wanted to keep the posted 25 mph speed limit. The only thing that would have an effect was the driver’s perception of the street. Looking at the physical redesign was the right track. She and most people who lived on the residential arterials would rather ask the City to keep the current short-term measures and wait for the right long-term solution. She asked Council to tell staff that raising the speed limit on a residential street, including residential arterials, above 25 mph was not acceptable for a city like Palo Alto. She said that trying to cure traffic by increasing the capacity of a road was like trying to cure obesity by letting out a few notches on the belt. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said his recollection of the genesis of the speed limit was that it was a legislator’s wife who was cited on Interstate 5. He endorsed Mr. Borock’s comments on trying to get a special ordinance for Palo Alto to use radar enforcement without actually raising the speed limits. For the long term, Council Member Fazzino’s idea of changing the basic law was good, but it took a long time to get anything through the state legislature. There were other approaches that could be taken, one of which was changing people’s behavior by changing the street pattern. Over a year prior, he sent Mr. Overway a copy of an article from the Herald Tribune which reported on some very successful and cheap approaches taken in Europe. France and England successfully reduced speeds on highways for the cost of a bucket of paint by painting chevrons along the edge of the road which gave the appearance of narrowing the street. On Los Robles Avenue about eight or nine years prior, bicycle lines were painted along the shoulders, which gave the appearance of narrowing the street by about two to three feet, and immediately speeds dropped by approximately two to three mph. The lines had worn off since, and speeds had gone back up. The same approach might be attempted on Embarcadero Road where it was narrow in some areas and the chevron markings might have some effect. It might not be as effective for a wide street like Arastradero Road, but the City could try. The Barron Park Association (BPA) executive committee had been meeting with police officers for approximately 02/10/97 −450 three and one-half years to talk about problems in the area, and traffic and speeding were always major topics. BPA heard from the officers that it was very difficult to catch people without radar, and pacing was difficult. The only people cited were those driving really fast at 45 to 55 mph on a 25 mph zone. Jennifer Jones indicated at meetings that she was doing a better job at catching speeders because the motorcycle was less obtrusive. That seemed to have an effect on catching speeders and reducing speeding, so one way to help would be more motorcycle enforcement on some of the streets. He was ambivalent about raising the speed limit temporarily. It would mean raising the limit to a speed that people were driving at anyway. If the 85th percentile were 39 mph and the posted speed limit were 25 mph, raising that to 35 mph would mean catching with radar the people traveling at 45 mph and discouraging them. Ms. Jones talked about giving a ticket to a motorist who was going 55 mph on Arastradero Road, and another officer had cited the same motorist at about 50 mph. The motorist did not show up in court, so the judge issued a $35,000 bench warrant. That situation did not happen very often. He hoped Council would take a look at reducing the apparent width of the street, more enforcement, and selectively increasing the radar speed on a few street segments for a short period of time to see how that would work. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said the radar studies on the residential streets were counterproductive. Middlefield Road was problematic because there were three schools, three community centers and parks, and three shopping areas. Council had paid a consultant approximately $30,000 the previous year to analyze the traffic on Middlefield Road. The consultant concluded that 80 percent were local trips, not through traffic on Middlefield Road from Arastradero Road down to Oregon Expressway. If most trips were local, she asked if the speed needed to be increased to make the trips two minutes faster or one minute faster. Residents wanted quieter and calmer streets, not faster streets. The primary problem of too much traffic could not be solved, but some of the secondary problems could be solved. The Council had the choice to make the change that was necessary, which was not to increase speeds. Council could apply to the legislature to have the law changed or control traffic through timed signals that set the speeds at 25 to 28 mph rather than 35 mph. Council could try the red light cameras at intersections. The perception was that Palo Alto’s viability depended on more cars, more traffic, more jobs, and more growth. She asked Council to give the Transportation Division the direction it needed to focus on calming the traffic, not picking up the speeds. If residents wanted fancy plantings such as the traffic circle, the residents should pay for it, but the generic traffic calming methods were very simple and inexpensive. In the Fair Oaks area of Menlo Park and Redwood City, generic traffic calming methods were 02/10/97 −451 $2,000 each. Palo Alto had the capability and the creativity to do that type of job. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. Vice Mayor Andersen referred to page 5, item 7, of the attachment to the staff report (CMR:439:94), which said “It is unrealistic to set artificially low speed limits and expect a majority of the drivers to naturally accede to such limits. It is equally unrealistic to expect that through enforcement, a majority of drivers can be forced to conform to artificially low speed limits. Furthermore, experience has shown that artificially low posted speed limit signs have little, if any, significant influence on driver behavior.” He also referred to item 6, which said “Technical studies and experience in other Bay Area communities indicates that raising posted speed limits to conform with the results of prescribed Engineering and Traffic surveys does not result in a corresponding increase in overall speed.” He asked what the basis was for those conclusions and whether there were studies done in other cities. Mr. Aggarwal said in the mid-1980s, Council had a similar concern about raising speed limits, and there was specific direction to contact other Bay Area cities to find out what their experience had been when they raised speed limits. As done then, staff contacted several cities, including the City of San Jose and the City of Cupertino. Their experience was that traveling speed did not go up as a consequence of raising the speed limit. In addition, staff looked at the technical reports prepared by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that was the synthesis of FHWA’s traffic safety type of reports. There were some studies done before and after raising posted speed limits in certain areas of the nation, such as Minnesota and Illinois. The studies found that generally traveling speeds did not increase. MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to direct staff to conduct traffic and engineering surveys, for the purpose of gathering information that would assist Council in the decision making process of whether or not to establish radar enforceable speed limits not to exceed 35 miles per hour, on four selected streets for a three-month trial basis. Upon completion and analysis of the surveys, staff will return to the Council in approximately three months with the results of the surveys. If the information indicates that the posted speed limits should be raised in order to permit the use of radar, staff will also return with the appropriate ordinance required to raise speed limits. Further, to request the Mayor and Council make every effort to convince the state legislature to modify existing state legislation regarding the 85 percentile and the limited control that local governments have in that area. 02/10/97 −452 Vice Mayor Andersen said considerable resources had been spent to create a traffic team to deal with traffic, but the time being spent was not as much as many people wanted. Council had given it some emphasis and financial effort and had set it at a higher priority. Enforcement tools should be given to the Police Chief and his officers. He supported in the next budget some traffic calming environments, such as the left turn lights on Embarcadero Road, as well as the opportunity to do some creative calming on the streets. In order to give tools to enforce the law, he believed there had to be a speed limit that was enforceable. If leaving it at 25 mph would keep the speed from going higher, he would support it, but 25 mph was not realistic on many of the arterials. The only thing that really slowed it down was police presence, which did not happen unless there were some tools for police officers to use to enforce the law. Giving warnings instead of citations because those citations would get kicked out of any courtroom made little sense. Regarding the schools, speed limits would not go above 25 mph in any school zone, and that would continue to be just as easily enforced. For instance, on Embarcadero Road, the only place the speed limit could be enforced was the area near the schools, so the ones who received tickets were young people trying to get to school on time. He wanted the City to be able to enforce the law on the other part of Embarcadero Road as well, particularly coming off the freeway. Council Member McCown clarified the staff recommendation was to develop the engineering survey to see if the data would support establishing radar enforceable speed limits on a three-month trial basis. Ms. Johnson said that was correct. Council Member McCown said some people had mentioned that raising the speed limit for three months might mean the speeds would have to remain at the higher level because of the 85th percentile. She asked whether the City could drop the speed back down to 25 mph if after the three-month period, the City concluded not to continue with the higher speed limit because it was not producing control of the excessive speeds. Mr. Overway said the speed limit could be dropped back down even though the 85th percentile speed went up. The limit could be dropped back down, and then radar could not be used. Council Member McCown said the common view was that people were really concerned about excessive speeds. There were many different ideas on what were the best tools or combination of tools to use. She 02/10/97 −453 agreed with many speakers that for the long term, physical changes to the roadway were the best solution. Council Member Fazzino’s suggestion that major physical changes could be brought about, on Embarcadero Road for example, in a two-year time frame was not realistic because there were significant funding issues. That did not mean the City should not pursue that. Looking at the state law issues was also worth doing. She wanted also to look at whether Council could give back to the Police the use of radar as a tool. In 1990, the Council looked at the same stretch of road, and the Council on a 5-4 vote decided not to make the change. Because of that decision, the use of radar was lost. She used Embarcadero Road, and when cars traveled at 35 mph, she felt safer. She wanted the City to be able to do something about the dangerous situations of people traveling at excessive speeds of about 50 mph. She wanted to look at whether it made sense to try it and bring that kind of driving behavior under control. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler to direct staff to return to Council with a plan which includes options to: 1) reduce speeds on Embarcadero, Middlefield, and Charleston Roads; 2) not increase accident rates; 3) no recommendations to increase speeds; and 4) pursue legislative opportunities to make changes to current speed survey law, giving cities more authority to regulate speed and use radar in their own communities. Council Member Fazzino said the issue was vexing for everybody. Traffic safety was clearly one of the most critical issues facing the community. He was convinced that Palo Altans were much less safe than 10 years prior, based upon the speed of traffic and red light running. The Police Department had provided outstanding leadership over the past few years. There was an excellent plan which came before the City Council that was developed by both the Police Department and the Transportation Division. Components of that plan had been implemented, including the motorcycle police, and had resulted in a much greater emphasis on traffic safety in the community. As stated on page 3 of the staff report (CMR:468:96), 2,779 citations were issued in 1997 as opposed to 978 in 1996. He heard from Embarcadero Road neighbors that the issue of illegal truck use on Embarcadero Road had been addressed by the Police Department, so the Police Department should be applauded for its efforts. The issue had been debated for many years; it was really the question of a higher speed with use of radar versus a lower speed without use of radar. He was more for lower speeds with use of radar. Mr. Stone made some compelling arguments about 65 or 70 mph speeds. He had certainly been encouraged with what had happened since the speed limits were raised in California at that speed level. However, he believed there was a psychological difference between someone’s 02/10/97 −454 behavior at 35 mph and at 65 mph. Given the current physical characteristics of the road, people would drive 10 to 15 mph faster if the speeds were increased on those arterials. It was evident that with the current service levels, use of radar would be minimal. Therefore, he was not sure how much would be gained, but the City would gain speeds. The state law, which was an arbitrary decision made 20 years prior by the legislature, needed to be changed. He encouraged the City to work with State Senator Byron Sher and State Assembly Member Ted Lempert on the measure to provide greater flexibility and more opportunities for cities to use radar. He was more encouraged with the ability to change the law because term limits had changed the nature of the legislature significantly. There were fewer career legislators and a higher percentage of council members and school board members who had a much greater appreciation for local issues. Only part of the Police Department and Transportation Division traffic safety plan had been implemented. He believed that the City needed to look more closely at alternatives such as photo radar and use of red light cameras. He did not intend to suggest that the City would be able to achieve major changes to Embarcadero, Charleston, and Middlefield Roads within two years, but in the long term he believed that changing the physical nature of those arterials would make a difference in average speed. The City needed to move quickly to put in place the plan to change the physical nature of those streets and make them less like expressways and more like residential streets. He hoped his colleagues would support the substitute motion. Council Member Wheeler said when the item was in committee, she felt strongly at that time and at present that the residents on those arterials lived on a daily basis with the consequences of Council’s decision. Unless those residents approached her and said they were comfortable with the Council’s proceeding to take preliminary steps toward an increase in the speed limit, she could not support the motion. The people who had spoken with and had written to the City Council were clear about how well they knew the situation, the consequences of asking Council not to take the action, and the trade-offs if the Council failed to move ahead with the preparation for a test with raising the speed limits. People had mentioned various school sites where speed limits were enforced. If the City were allowed to include public school facilities that were not PAUSD public school facilities and were allowed to look at private school facilities, there were many spots along each of those arterials where the City could enforce with radar. The state legislation was done in an era when it was tempting for cities to have speed traps because citations garnered much revenue for city governments, but that was no longer the case. Perhaps it was time for the state legislature to take a more global look at the law because the motivation of a 02/10/97 −455 city to ask for that kind of consideration was not to advantage itself in a monetary sense. She supported the substitute motion. Council Member Rosenbaum thought the substitute motion was premature. He was curious about what an engineering and traffic survey would show for the streets. While he could not speak about Middlefield, Arastradero, and Charleston Roads, he believed in being able to do 30 mph on Embarcadero Road. With regard to the state legislation, it was extremely popular because there were many more drivers than there were people who lived along residential arterials. He doubted the state legislature would change it, but he would support that part of the motion about pursuing legislative opportunities. He opposed the substitute motion. Council Member Schneider said the issue was brought to the Council not as a way of assisting in reducing speeds but as a way for traffic safety. If traffic safety meant giving the Police additional tools to use, she was for that. Everything that had been brought to Council, such as motorcycle officers, use of radar around schools, and neighborhood speed programs, had been effective in traffic safety. She believed the three-month study would help in that area. The data showed that increasing speeds did not equate to lack of safety. The increase from 55 mph to 65 mph speed limit on the highways had reduced accidents. She wanted to see a tool used to stop the drivers who traveled at 50 mph, and radar worked. She opposed the substitute motion. Council Member Kniss said the motion was just to look at traffic and engineering surveys. Mr. Aggarwal spoke of the issue in the 1980s, and it was probably also an issue in the 1960s and 1970s. One of the persuasive pieces in the staff report (CMR:439:94) was in appendix A. It looked as if trip number at the Middlefield/Embarcadero juncture had gone up close to 50 percent and nearly 25 percent at the Oregon/Alma interchange. In addition to numbers of trips, the City’s ability to use the tools that would help enforce the speed limit was important. She was as equally worried as the parents were about their children crossing the streets. However, she was more worried about not having the ability to stop somebody who was going 35 mph to 45 mph on Middlefield Road. As the road became wider, people drove faster. It was time to analyze what was happening on the roadways, how fast people were traveling, and having some ability to judge that speed. She opposed the substitute motion. Council Member Eakins said she opposed the substitute motion not because she thought speed limits should be raised but because people lived on the streets. There were two related goals: 1) the tools to prevent accidents and 2) residents’ wanting average prevailing 02/10/97 −456 speeds reduced. If the trade-off for using the tool was the fear of having the average prevailing speed increased, then the tool became too expensive. The City was better off just starting with the study. It reminded her of when the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) discussed considering the possibility of the alternative. She was persuaded by Mr. Aggarwal’s material and statement that enforcement alone did not work. She agreed that people wanted to be safe, but people also wanted to feel safe. People did not feel safe when cars were whizzing by at a higher prevailing speed. Mayor Huber supported the substitute motion. In the 1970s and 1980s, he spoke before Council for his neighborhood. He felt that people tended to push a certain level of speed over the speed limit. He was not impressed by signs that read “enforced by radar.” The whole issue was the question of enforcement. Whether the City enforced an hour a day with or without radar, a good portion of the day was without enforcement; then people would speed. He was concerned that if the speed limit were raised, people would drive 10 to 15 mph over what was posted. He heard Mr. Aggarwal say it was a safety issue, not a speed issue. He heard the neighbors say they did not want those speed limits raised. He did not see that the evidence of unsafe conditions, other than high speeds, was any different on Embarcadero Road from other places. He would not support the increase of posted 25 mph speed limits on the three streets. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 3-6, Fazzino, Huber, Wheeler, “yes.” MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to eliminate reference to a three-month trial basis and not direct staff to return with an appropriate ordinance required to raise speed limits. Mr. Calonne said that part of the main motion was to convince the legislature to amend the 85th percentile to allow more local control. He clarified that it would include an option, like the City of Santee and the City of El Cajon, that would be Palo Alto only. Vice Mayor Andersen said he wanted it to be that limited. He had no problem if the Council made the decision to go before the League of California Cities (LCC) on a separate item. Council Member Fazzino said he did not have a problem with it as a legislative/political strategy. He wanted to solve Palo Alto’s problem, but he did not want to limit the City’s options that evening by suggesting the City Attorney could pursue a Palo Alto only option. The City might then be surprised to find a fair amount of support from the LCC. 02/10/97 −457 Mr. Calonne said Mr. Borock was correct that the deadline was at the end of the month. The deadline for giving language was in January. At the current time, an existing bill would need to be amended. Council Member Fazzino said from his experience, a piece of legislation could still be introduced in the current year. MOTION DIVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING 1ST PART OF MOTION: To direct staff to conduct traffic and engineering surveys, for the purpose of gathering information that would assist Council in the decision making process of whether or not to establish radar enforceable speed limits not to exceed 35 miles per hour, on three selected streets. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Fazzino, Wheeler, “no.” 2ND PART OF MOTION: To request the Mayor and Council make every effort to convince the state legislature to modify existing state legislation regarding the 85 percentile and the limited control that local governments have in that area. MOTION PASSED 9-0. RECESS 9:32 TO 9:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation, to Amend the Table of Organization, and to Amend the Municipal Fee Schedule, for the Permit Streamlining Program The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council to direct staff to: 1) process revisions to Title 17 to amend the Hazardous Materials Permit process; 2) revise the Use and Occupancy Certificate requirements contained in Title 16 to a Certificate of Use in Title 18 (the Zoning Ordinance); 3) prepare changes to Palo Alto Municipal Code section 16.28 to reflect and codify the current practices; 4) prepare Palo Alto Municipal Code changes to eliminate the current encroachment permit process for improvements subject to the Uniform Building Code and review by the Architectural Review Board; and 5) incorporate this item into an existing Council assignment, Item 22 in the Planning Division Work Program, Design Review for lot consolidation and lot line adjustment situations. 02/10/97 −458 The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council the following actions: 1) approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance authorizing requests 1 through 5 listed in Table A including Attachment A of staff report (CMR:483:96) and amending the Table of Organization and Attachment B amending the Municipal Fee Schedule to include the 1994 Uniform Building Code (Table 1-A); 2) direct the City Attorney to prepare ordinances revising the Palo Alto Municipal Code for the items listed in Table B; and 3) direct staff to pursue items listed in Table C. City Manager June Fleming said the item related purely to fees. The issue had been before both the Finance Committee and the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee. The concept had received their unanimous endorsements. Council Member Rosenbaum said he had a problem finding the annual cost of the program because some of the costs were based on the remaining six months of the year. The proposal was to add two people, and there was some contract money for outside plan checkers. He wanted to see how that balanced against the estimated increase in the building fees. Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Director Emily Harrison, said on page 8 of the staff report (CMR:483:96) in the redlined section, there was a description of the ongoing costs in 1997-98 of $228,700, including $166,500 for salaries and $62,200 for non-salary expenses. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that the building fees would increase by approximately $463,000. Chief Building Official Fred Herman said that was correct; it was on a full-year basis. Council Member Rosenbaum asked if that number should match the number given by Ms. Harrison. Mr. Herman said not necessarily because fees had not been raised since 1985. That brought the total budget of the Inspection Services Division to break even. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that staff wanted to accomplish raising building fees, and part of that building fee increase was cost recovery. Mr. Herman said yes. 02/10/97 −459 Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether it would be more appropriate to consider the general increase in building fees during budget hearings. Mr. Herman said an increase in building fees would have normally been done at the time of adopting new codes. However, it was being done currently to be smoother and to offset the cost of the new increases. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the permit streamlining work had been in process long enough, and it was prepared in 1996. The decision was that rather than putting it into the 1996-97 budget, the rest of the process needed to work its way through. The user fee increases were initially to be considered in July 1996. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether half of the item should really be part of the budget procedure. Mr. Schreiber said raising the fees was tied to the permit streamlining effort and the improvement of the customer service provided for permit applications and inspections. The numbers for permit streamlining and the fee increases were not intended to match exactly because there were other expenses in the Inspection Services Division. Those expenses were currently being covered by the General Fund. Instead, the expenses would be covered out of fees because City Council policy was to try to make the activities full-cost recovery. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified one number was $228,000 and the other number was $463,00. Mr. Schreiber correct. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about simply approving a building fee increase sufficient to match the increased expenses associated with permit streamlining. Ms. Fleming said the Council could do that, but the impact would be to absorb the loss for the current year out of the General Fund. It would be total cost recovery the following year. Mr. Herman said Council had already adopted the 1994 Uniform Building Code which contained the fee table. At the time of adoption, the fee was not changed. The City would be out of sync with local jurisdictions, 12 of which were on the 1994 fee table and 8 which were above the 1994 fee table. Currently, the City was on a fee 02/10/97 −460 table from the 1991 Uniform Building Code, which contained the fee table that had not been revised since 1985. Mr. Schreiber said staff did not want to see a situation in which the City had a fee schedule that did not match a code that an architect or applicant used. It would be confusing for the applicants who worked with many jurisdictions. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that there was a standard fee table. Ms. Fleming said staff had been working hard to get some consistency across Santa Clara County. Palo Alto would be consistent with other jurisdictions, beginning in August. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified there was really no connection between the additional costs of the permit streamlining and the adoption of the 1994 Uniform Building Code set of fees and that independent of permit streamlining, staff would have recommended that Council adopt the fees. Mr. Herman said yes. There was a link. The revenue generated on an annual basis was more than what was being increased, but the report did not reflect other expenses that had risen over the years and had not been accounted for. There were laws that regulated what the City could charge for building permit fees, and that was only to recover the cost to provide the service. Mayor Huber declared the public hearing open. There were no speakers, so he declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Policy and Services Committee recommendation to direct staff to: 1) process revisions to Title 17 to amend the Hazardous Materials Permit process; 2) revise the Use and Occupancy Certificate requirements contained in Title 16 to a Certificate of Use in Title 18 (the Zoning Ordinance); 3) prepare changes to Palo Alto Municipal Code section 16.28 to reflect and codify the current practices; 4) prepare Palo Alto Municipal Code changes to eliminate the current encroachment permit process for improvements subject to the Uniform Building Code and review by the Architectural Review Board; and 5) incorporate this item into an existing Council assignment, Item 22 in the Planning Division Work Program, Design Review for lot consolidation and lot line adjustment situations. Further, to approve the Finance Committee recommendation for approval of the following actions: 1) approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance authorizing requests 1 through 5 listed in Table A 02/10/97 −461 including Attachment A of staff report (CMR:483:96) and amending the Table of Organization and Attachment B amending the Municipal Fee Schedule to include the 1994 Uniform Building Code (Table 1-A); 2) direct the City Attorney to prepare ordinances revising the Palo Alto Municipal Code for the items listed in Table B; and 3) direct staff to pursue items listed in Table C. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation, to Amend the Table of Organization, and to Amend the Municipal Fee Schedule, for the Permit Streamlining Program” MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Huber announced there would be a Closed Session held on February 11, 1997, related to the Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. 02/10/97 −462 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.