Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-01-09 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTO CITY COUNCI L MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU-FREOUENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting January 9, 1989 PAGE 2. Presentation by Congressman Tom Campbell 61-48 Oral Communications 61-48 Approval of Minutes 61-49 1. Election of Mayor and Vice Mayor 61-49 3 Resolution Recognizing the Outstanding 61-50 Achievtssntc of Max Ball Consent Calendar 5. Resolution Approving the Application for Grant Funds for the Per Capita Grant Program Under the California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land C'' ervation Act of 1988 for Greer Park 8. Finance and Public Works Committee Recom- mendation re Airport Levee Alternatives 9 . Finance and Public Works Committee Recom- mendation re User Fes and Cost Allocation Program 7. Policy and Procedures Committee Recommenda- tion re Winter Lodgo 61-50 61-50 61-55 61-56 61-46 1/9/89 IX= RAO 9-8. (Old 6), Resolution Setting City Council 61-58 Vacation 9-C. (Old 4), Ordinance Relating to Flag Lots 61-58 10. Resolution Authorizing the Filing of a 61-60 Claim with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Allocation of Transportation Development Act Funds 11. Water Usage and Conservation Update . 61-63 Adjournment at 10:34 p.m. 61-63 61-47 1/9/89 Regular Meeting January 9, 1989 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:40 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Klein, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci, Memel, Sutorius Woolley Vice Mayor Klein re Bring Forward Item 2, Presentation by Congressman Tom Campbell MOTION: Vice Mayor Klein ;moved, seconded by Cobb, to -bring forward Item 2, Presentation by Congressman Tom Campbell to proceed Oral Communications. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Woolley absent. sPEcznimminuism_TuE DAY 2. Presentation by Congrecsman Toa Campbell. (725-01) (NPG) Congressman Toa Campbell opened a district office and offered his assistance with federal issues. His telephone number was (415) 321-9154, and his district office was located at 599 forth J4athilda, Sunnyvale. He looked forward to future town hall meetings. It was a privilege for him to serve such a distinguished district as Palo Alto. He was assigned to the Space, Science and Technology Committees in the Mouse of Representatives, and the Small Business Committee. ORAIa COMMUNICATIONS 1. Harrison Otis, 2721 Midtown Court, spoke regarding the closing of Dinah's Shack and the potential loos of jobs for the employ. 2. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor. 3. Bunny Good, Founder, International r4roup Organisation for the Disabled, P. O. Box 824, Menlo Park, spoke regarding Inhumanity Award No. 10, Senior Citizens Free Lunch Program. 4. Tin Gadus, 4080 Wilkie Way, spoke regarding concerns with Dill Roller's residential facility, e.g., grading. 61-48 1/9/89 AFPROVAL Of MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of the zinutee of November 28, 1988 and December 12, 1988, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8--0, Woolley absent. SPZ-CIAL CAWS OF THZ DAY 1. Election of Mayor and Vice Mayor (701) Section of Mayor Mayor Sutorius intended to support Vice Mayoz Klein for Mayor on the first ballot. Council Member Cobb also intended to support Vice Mayor Klein for Mayor on the first ballot. FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR KLEIN: Bechtel, Cobb, Klein, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Vice Mayor Klein received eight votes and was elected Mayor. Mayor Klein thanked his colleagues and commended Council Member Sutorius for his outstanding leadership as Mayor of Palo Alto. His highest priority in 1989 vas the hope for successful negotiations with the City of East Palo Alto and an amicable resolution of the University Circle development dispute. Palo Alto's good relation- ship with all its surrounding communities was important. He was the City's delegate to the Golden Triangle Task Force and was optimistic that 1989 would see implementation of the first active programs, e.g., Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. He looked forward to the challenges of 1989. lle0tion of 1 ce Mayor Mayor Klein intended to support Council Member Bechtel for Vice Mayor on the first ballot. `ZRST ..JOlf�� aF V0.I g: VOTING FOR BECHTEL: Bechtel, Cobb, Klein, Fletcher, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius 61-49 1/9/89 Mn , Young announced Council Member Bechtel received eight votes and was elected Vice Mayor. Vice Mayor Bechtel thanked her colleagues for their support. She also looked forward to 1989. 3. Resolution Recognizing the OutstaLding Achievements of Max Ball (1080) NOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Sutorius, to adopt the resolution. RESOLUTION 6748 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOGNIZING THE OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENTS OF MAX BALL" MOTION PASSED S-0, Woolley absent. Max Ball thanked the Council. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Klein removed Items 4 (to become Item 9-C) , 6 (to become Item 9-B) , and 7 (to become Item 9-A). MOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to approve Consent Calendar Item 5. 5. R OIXTION §749 entitled "'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO AIli '1 APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE PER ( ./ITA GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE, COASTAL, AND PARK LAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1988 FOR GREER PARK" (1321-13) (412) MOTION PACED 8-0, Woolley absent. 8. Finance and Public Works Committee Recommendation re Airport Levee Alternatives (1161-01) (CMR:557:8) MOTION: Council Member Cobb for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved that the City Council: 1. Direct staff to pursue implementation of Alternative D in coordination and cooperation with the County Transportation Agency's Airport Division efforts to implement the airport security fence project; and 61-50 1/9/89 2. Authorize staff to apply for and secure any available grant funds for the implementation of the proposed Alternative D in either FY 1988-89 or FY 1989-90, and before expenditure, direct staff to evaluate the effectiveness and maintenance costs of the interim measures and repeat back to the Finance and Public Works Committee. Council Member Fletcher said the recommendations in the staff report (CMR:557:8) were not quite the same as those of the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee. The last part of the motion for staff to evaluate the effectiveness and maintenance costs of the interim measures and report back to the F&PW Committee was not included in the staff recommendation. Council Member Sutorius said he represented Council Member Patitucci at the December 13, 1988, F&PW Committee meeting. Council was assured by staff that it had the approval to initiate any review process to make the general application for supplemental funding but not to start the project until the item was again reviewed by the V&PW Committee. Council Member Menzel observed a gate was installed where the sewage outfall was, at the other end of the runway. She was concerned the gate did net address Council's direction which was to cause people to pause before they passed through the segment directly in front of the runway on the levee and to install new signs alerting people to the caution. She queried th.e criterion in evaluating the success of the new measures. . She believed Council decided it did not agree the safety threat was as great as originally suggested. The signs still said "No Trespassing." Deputy Director of Public Works/Special Pro ects Ted i. � Noguchi asd pipe barriers were installed in late December at the "Friendship Bridge" and of the levee and the other at the "split" coming from the Interpretive Center. Tne pedestrian decision to go back or take another route somewhat parallel to the runway but which went back towards E barcadero toad should be made at that point. The pedestrian could proceed regardless of the signs warning of the low flying aircraft. There were three signs at each end of the pipe barriers at both locations. Additional no trespassing" signs were placed in advance or the airport runway and at the airport runways. Council Member Rene el understood Council requested the "no trespassing" signs be removed and now signs such as those on the pipe barrier at the sewer outfall be installed to al+Irt people of the low flying aircraft. She was confident Council Member Woolley's motion was for something to slow people down so they read the signs to be installed on etthers+ side of the runways. She did not recall that a bigger bite would be taken o'lt of the public amass in the area by putting in the cautionary rests still further 61-51 1/9/89 1 along the levee. The issue of people walking along the parallel levee was never raised. It sounded as if staff's criterion was how many people could be deterred from using the levee when she believed Council ' s intent was to sake the levee safer for those who used it; to alert people to the potential dangers but that Council did not feel they were so savers as to keep people off. She queried how the City would measure success. Mr. Zaner said the gates wire not installed to discourage people from making use of the levee but to install them at a location where people would have an option to proceed or take an 4iternate path. If the gates were moved further down the levee, on either side of the runway, then individuals who arrived at the gate had no option --they could either proceed or turn around and go all the way back to where they were to take the alternate path. Staff's objective was to provide an alternative. Council Member Patitucci asked whether the (P&PW) Committee discussed placement of the gates. Council Member Sutorius said the FLPW Committee supported Alterne- tivs D which was in opposition to the original atai f recommenda- ti n . Staff was able to support Alternative D because it was a ].east cost typo of process and considered that the County and tha Airport by their authorities were installing perimeter fences. It seemed to the 7&PW Committee to be wasteful to go to other security or relocation procedures if there was going to be perimeter fencing all the way around. Council Mesb*t Patitucci referred to temp( Ary mo1ution of gates on the levee on either side of the airport runway --not 200 or 300 yerde down the various levees. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, said the area paralleling the runway was a valuable educational area which showed the contrast between saltwater and freshwater.. There was no significant danger to people walking on the levee especially compared to crossing the runway and crossing the runwiy was reasonably safe if one remained alert and watched for planes before crossing. Council Member Sutorius supported the notion. Council Member Fletcher opposed the motion because of what she perceived to be an imagined hazard. The only way to get et feel for the situation was to personally go but on the levee and watch the airplanes take off. She did: not believe one could miss the fact that an airplane was about to take off. It was a very noisy occurrence. She believed a warning sign to watch for low flying aircraft would suffice, Council recently voted against installing safety measures on the Vlba_rcadero Overpass • over Highway 101 where 61-52 1/9/89 a hazard really existed. The situation at the airport did not present a hazard yet the City wanted to throw money at it. Council Member Renzel agreed with Council Member Fletcher. From an environmental point of view, she had no trouble going down off the levee on the airport side of the fence, but $50.000 for the non -hazard was appalling. She was somewhat outraged by the placement of the gates thereby suggesting the zone of danger was increased from the "Friendship Bridge" to the sewer outfall when it was never an issue. She was astonished at staff's rationale to. do something quite different than Council's policy. Council Member Cobb stressed the F&PW Committee did not discuss the location of the gates. The Committee essentially looked at trade- offs between cost levels of different levels of protection. He argued for more protection and believed it was worth an additional cost. He urged full support of the Committee recommendation. People got hit by trains which were bigger and noisier, and when it happened, there were terrible legal consequences. The City needed to protect itself against potential liability exposure. Mayor Klein associated himself with the comments of Council Members Fletcher and Renzel. He would not support the motion. He believed the temporary solution deserved a chance to see how it worked before expending $50,000 of government funds on what he perceived to be a non -hazard. Council Member Levy reluctantly supported the motion because of liability concern.. The motion did not require the expenditure of any City funds, and staff was requested to return to Council if City funds were required. Staff was looking into cooperation with the County. and if funs Team required of the City. he would require a more stringent justification and analysis of the City's legal concerns. Vice Mayor Bechtel referred to the letter from the Federal Aviation Adainistz.ttion (PM) , dated Kay 2, 1988, (on file in the City Clerk's office) which c isciAssed the issue of children who could not read or did not pay adequate attention or believed he or she could outrun a plane. The City needed to think of the safety of children as well as value the environmental access. She supported the motion. Council Member Cobb referred to the measure of success of the interim solutions and stated thoi a who operated • the control tower, etc. could advise if people using they levees were observing the temporary measures. If people were taking a chance with airplanes. taking oft. he would assume the system was not working. If over a period of time the tower observed that people were observing the temporary measures, he would assume the system' was working. 61-53 1/9/99 1 0 MOTION PASSED 5-3, Fletcher, Klein, Hemel "no," Woolley absent. NOTION: Council Member Mama moved, seconded by Patitucci, that staff be directed to: 1. Move the barriers to either side of the area that is con- sidered by the Palo Alto Airport as a hazard (description clarified in the City Council minutes of September 12, 1988); and 2. Move "No Trespassing" signs to the County boundary. Mk. Zaner said the packet which went to the F&PW Committee included a drawing which showed the proposed location of the gates where they were installed. Staff may have erred in not calling to the Committee's attention the fact that the attachment was in the packet. Real Property Manager Bill Fellman advised that the reed "no trespassing" signs were installed by the County to keep people off the airport runway. The City had control over the signs since they were on City property but they wore County signs. Mr. Zaner believed the purpose of the County installing the "no trespassing" signs was to keep people from leaving the levee and going down onto the airport grounds. The signs might not be appropriately located and it might be mcr:ie appropriate to place then off the levee down below where it indicates that once one left the levee not to proceed any further. Council Member Sutorius understood part of the earlier motion was to provide for an evaluation on costs and effectiveness during the interim period. Maintenance of the barriers and signs were significant indicators as to the ongoing costs. He queried the effect on costs of a. relocation during the interim period of the signs. Mr. Noguchi believed it would cost less than $5,000 but said the pips barriers were installed in concrete footings, and it would not be an insignificant project to move them. Council Member Sutorius would not support the motion because it would add to the total cost on an ongoing basis. He preferred to allow Alternative stand as the next intended step, but to accomplish the interim evaluation. If the *valuation of the interim aethoda turned out to justify caving away from Alternative D, that was fine and relocation could be considered. He could not support spending money on the relocation when it might not be a final answer for a number of months. 61-54 1/9/89 Council Member Levy supported the motion and sympathized with the question of measurement standards. Council's intent was not to forbid people from using the levee but rather to -:all attention to the fact that it was a dangerous area and to be on the lookout for planes. With that in mind, the closer the signs and barriers were placed to the actual point of concern, the safer it was. Council should be concerned about the measurements being used. Council Member Patitucci seconded the motion because the situation was a mistake which needed to be corrected. He agreed with the original intent and did not believe Council would get a true indication of people's carefulness in crossing given the current situation. 'ION PASSED 7-1, Sutorius "no," Woolsey absent. 9. Finance and Public Works Committee recommendation re User Fee and Cost Allocation Program (409) (CMR:549:8) A"`TIOW: Council Member Cobb for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved to adopt a budget amendment ordinance to pay for the completion and implementation of the User Fee an Cost Allocation Program for fiscal year 1989-90 not to exceed $35,000. ORDINANCE 3849 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY 0) PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL, YEAR 1988-89 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES TO COMPLETE THE USER FEE AND COST RECOVERY ALLOCATION PROJECT" Council raster Cobb said the work needed to be done quickly to have it for the current budget process. Staff believed they were so deeply involved with the difficult budget process and in the implementation of the Financial Data Base (FOB) which Council wanted done as quickly as possible, it was imperative to have the consultant's help. Council Member Levy did not support the notion at the Committee level because a thorough and well conceived User Fes and Cost Recovery study was done by staff. Re bel ieved the figures supplied in that report needed only be updated and that there be sone policy diracti n from the Council as to what percentage of the various costs allocated should be recovered. He did not believe it required the expenditure of $351004 or to bring a consultant in particularly given the budget constraints. NOTION PASSED 7-1, Levy "no," Woolley absent. 51-55 1/9/89 7. The Policy and Procedures Committee Recommendation re Winter Lodge (300) (CHR:466:8) Vice Mayor Bechtel said the Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee heard the item on October 4 and November 22, 1988. LOTION: Vice Mayor Bechtel for the Policy and Procedures Committee moved that: 1. Staff be directed to continue negotiations with Community Skating, Inc. (CSI) for a two-year option and 20 -year lease of the Winter Lodge site and during the option period the City continue to lease the Winter Lodge to CSI on a year-to-year basis. 2. Staff be directed to set a maximum occupancy level for the Winter Lodge as the basis for the parking requirements. Staff be directed to include 41 parking spaces within the aforementioned CSI lease boundaries and that a condition of any future use of the adjacent portion of the site be consideration of the parking needs of the Winter Lodge site. In addition, CSI and any future lessee would be required to enter into a compatible parking agreement. a nt. 3. Staff be directed to continue to lease the tennis C ;aurts and swim center to the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) on a year-to-year basis. Staff -should also be directed to continue negotiations with the YMCA for development of the remainder of the site. 4. Staff be directed to forward to the Planning Commission the matter of rezoning the Winter Lodge site to Public Facilities Zone (P7) subject to Council approval of a two-year option and long-term lease with C.I. Further, the staff be directed to use its best efforts to try to coordinate discussion between the YMCA. and CSI to come up with a solution to the parking problem. 5. Sheltered bicycle parking be provided. Vico Mayor Bechtel understood *sabers of the public ware conct ':ed about noise generated by cquipreent operating at the Winter Lodge. The issue was not discussed at the P&P Committee meeting andshe pointed out the meetings were duly noticed public meetings and at that point there were no members of the public other than those representing either the Winter Lodge or the YMCA. Bill Rosenberg, 620 Bruce: Drive, President, Community Skating, Xnc. (CBI) , sympathised with those roe .dents who moved into the condominiums and found themselves next to an operation which made some noise. Powever, the operators of the Winter Lodge were not 61-56 1/9/89 consulted before the condominiums were built next door and others decided the environmental impacts and necessary mitigations. In 1986, discussions began with the Planning Commission and Ron Lee, the developer of the condominium project, to decide what could be done in terms of noise mitigation. An agreement was reached whereby the development contributed slightly less than $20,000 towards a new condenser, which was installed. CSI purchased a new sound system and new a Zamboni machine -which were significantly quieter. CSI believed the new equipment operated within the City's noise ordinance. The Winter Lodge wanted to cooperate with its neighbors. In September, 1988, principals of the Winter Lodge attended one of the homeowners' association meetings, introduced themselves, tried to discuss what operations were taking place and to urge homeowners to discuss any concerns directly with them. Since the letters from the Homeowners' Association were written, a meeting had been tentatively scheduled and he believed an agreement could be reached. Council Member Sutorius asked about the hours of operation of the rink itself and the Zamboni equipment. Mir. Rosenberg said there were generally figure skaters in the rink as early as 6:00 a.m. practicing figures. There was ::o music playing at that tine and the Zamboni did not operate. Mondays and Wednesdays the Zamboni operated at 9:30 p.n. or 10:00 p.m. Tuesdays, the Zamboni operated at 10:00 p.n. Thursdays the Zanboni operated at 10:30 p.m. On Fridays and Saturdays, t1e Zamboni operated about 11:00 p.m. if a private party took place. Sundays the Zamboni operated at 8:00 p.m. The Zamboni operation could occur later if there was a special event scheduled after the regularly scheduled events. Hockey classes on Saturday morning began at 7:00 a.m. Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, member Trust for CSI, referred to a letter to the P&P Coomeittee from the YMCA Board of Directors, dated October 27, 1988, which queried whether the YMCA would be given control over the Middlefield site if the Trust for CSI failed to meet it fund-raising goals. The Trust negotiated an agreement with the City to ensure the operational sufficiency of the program if voters approved the land exchange The Trust was anxious to improve the facility in accordance with its proposal, but could not begin improvements without a lease. Many of improvements would substantially modify the noise concerns, e.g. many more things will be done indoors, but the lease should contain no other conditions than those approved by the voters. Genevieve Dean, 3077 Middlefield Road, President, Homeowners' Aesociation of the property located next to the Winter Lodge, urged consideration be given to the condoainiue owners' interests in any plans for the development of the property. While they were not asking for conditions which night exist in a strictly -environmental 61-x7 1/9/89 i 1 e neighborhood, they did request reasonable curbs on the level of disturbance which spilled over. Zoning of the adjacent property should appropriately reflect the residential zoning of the condominium complex. Lee Muckey, 3412 Ross Road, represented the Palo Alto YMCA, and said its concern with the original staff recommendation had to do with the possibility of difficulties in negotiating parking. Since that time, the YMCA met with City staff and was confident that any future issues regarding parking could be workedout with CSI. Any future development would consider neighborhood concerns. Council Meatier Cobb looked forward to a meeting with staff, the neighbors and CSI to work out any problems. A lot of effort went into preserving ice skating in Palo Alto: He wanted to see similar attention and energy devoted to finding a long-term solution to some of the problems raised by the YMCA. He supported the motion. Vice Mayor Bechtel concurred with Council Member Cobb. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Woolley absent. ,EXCESS: 9:50 p.m. - 9:45 p.m. 9-8. (Old 6), Resolution Setting City Council Vacation (701) LYON: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Bechtel., that Council vacation schedule for calendar year 1989 is from August 21 to August 29, 1989, with the assumption that the September 4, 1989 City Council meeting would be cancelled, with no Standing Committee meetings occurring from August 15 to September 4. gESOLUTION 6750 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO SETTING THE CITY Y COUNCIL VACATION FOR CELENOAR YEAR 1989" Council Member Renzel preferred the earlier summer dates. SON PASSED 5-3, Klein, Renzel, Sutorius "no," Woolley absent. 9-C. (Old 4) , Ordinance Relating to flag Lots (237.01) Karen Bradshaw, 255 Caapesino, was ,zoncerned about second -story restrictions on flag lots. She understood the problem was o1versimed house on smaller lots. Her flag lot was about one-half acre and the lots surrounding hers were also large. She urged. fairness. Irene Presto.:`., 3786 Grove ,Avenue, said most ',f the flag lots in her area had second stories. ; Her elderly parents would hopefully be moving in with her and a second story was a logical addition. 61-58 1/9/89 Because of tLe prohibition, she would need to obtain a variance procedure. She was concerned about spending $3,000 for plans, reports, and a variance for an addition she might not be able to build. She was concerned about fairness,. Council Member Sutorius clarified there was nothing to preclude Council, when the R-1 material. was returned, from looking at the flag lot subject for'the potential of incorporating zoning criteria which might permit a change in the ordinance and the inclusion of a second story opportunity. ?4s. Northway said that was correct. Council Member Sutorius said while he was sympathetic and empathetic with the concerns expressed by the members of the public, it would be inappropriate for Council to try and design or lift some criteria which would alter the zoning. He urged support for the ordinance and said he would personally be following up to see about the application of second story opportunities when the single-family residence zoning recommendations were before the Council. MOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Renze1, to adopt the ordinance. ORDINANCE 3850 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING SECTIONS 21.04.030 (16.1) AND 21.04.3 01 TO AND ADDING SECTIONS 2104.030 (33) AND 21.20.300 OF TITLE 21 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE; AND AMENDING SECTIONS 18.04.030 (84) . 18.12.040, 18.12.055 AND l8.90. 050 OF TITLE 18 OF SAID CODE, RELATING TO FLAG LOTS (1st Reading 12/19/80, PASSED 8y1, Patitucci "no") Council Member Cobb associated himself with the comments of Council Member Sutorius. He believed there should be an appropriate exception procedure fox' . situations as described by Ms. Bradshaw. He would also be looking for the opportunity to create an exception procedure when the R-1 study returned to Council. Council Member Patiticci continued to believe such legislation was too "heavy-handed" and he would not support the motion. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Patitucci "no," Woolley absent. 61-59 1/9/89 REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 1 10. Resolution Authorizing the Filing of a Claim with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Allocation of Transportation Development Act Funds (1163-02) (CMR:101:9) Council Member Fletcher *period why the traffic signal item was being deferred for the second year in a row. Transportation Planner Gayle Liken said the project was recom- mended for deferral because of the priority of the preceding projects and the estimate that there would not be enough funding available to do the project without reprioritizing the other projects. The project would cost approximately $76,000, and given what staff anticipated to be available to Palo Alto in Transporta- tion Development Act (TDA) funding for fiscal year 1989-90, staff did not believe the project would be funded unless it was moved up to a higher priority. Council Member Fletcher asked about the priority of the Levee 7 provement Project for fiscal year 1989-90 when the Council at the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee level, said it wanted a period -of evaluation. Ms. Likens said the priority of the Levee Improvement Project was based on the- F6PW Committee motion te- seek grant funding for implementation in either fiscal year 1988-90 or 1989-90. In order to obtain TDA grant funds in fiscal year 1989-90e the grant would have to be funded wit's the subject application. Mr. Schreiber said it was Council's prerogative to designate any f the projects_ for a particular year funding desirability. The Airport Levee Improvements were included in response to the F&PW Comeittse motion. Given that plus the barriers and a few other items, staff did not believe there was any way to fund all of the pro4acts plus the Bryant/Ebarcadero signal. Priorities could be listed for fiscal year 1990-91, or the funding years for any cif the items could be shifted. Council Member Sutorius referred to the Bryant/Eabarcadero traffic signal and said he understood $76,000 was being applied for with the intent that the actual funding and a decision on whether to implement would then occur. He did not recall that the Bryant/ arcadero traffic signal had a final sign off by a majority of the Council. Mr. Zaner said the signal was included in the Capital Improvement Projects ( P), which was subject to review by the Council during the budget process. 61-60 1/9/89 Council Member Patitucci said there were two barriers on Bryant Street and one at Park and Castilleja, and he queried the cost of the ones on Bryant Street each. Mr. Schreiber said in accordance with Council direction, staff intended to return with a lower cost barrier design. Development of the design was still in process. The $75,000 was regarded as a maximum amount. Staff hoped to return with barrier designs for less, and could not provide a precise cost for the two Bryant barriers. The Park and Castilleja barrier would be more expensive because it was a more complicated intersection. Council Member Patitucci asked whether the City expected to receive $113,000, and what would happen if Council wanted to rearrange the priorities. Mr. Schreiber said there was no way to determine how much funding would be available for the City of Palo Alto because it depended on applications submitted by other cities and the allocation process. Funding could be as low as $23,000 or as high as $110,000. Staff indicated four projects in priority order which would likely be the maximum to be funded through the process. Vice Mayor Bechtel shared the same concerns as Council Member Sutor+us in terms of whether Council decided to go with the Bryant*Embarcadero traffic signal. Council would need to discuss and determine whether to wove the traffic signal up in the prirr'ty list. Council Member Renzel queried whether TDA funds were the only way the City could fund the Bryant/Emxbarcadero traffic signal Fir. `saner said the signal could be funded from the General Fund. Council Manber Renzel believed the traffic signal might come from Proposition 70 moneys as opposed to TDA funds. She asked whether. the traffic signal might barprioritized ahead of the airport levee improvements with respect to partial funding. The traffic signal was a higher priority to her than spending any money en the airport levee trail especially wince Council hoped to evaluate the existing situation as revised to reflect Council policy. Mr. Zaner said it was Council's decision in terms of project priorities. Once Council determined priorities, staff assumed Council wanted to build those projects. Council needed to make a policy decision about whether it wanted the Bryant/Eabarcadero traffic signal. Rearranging priorities and years changed available funding sources to some degree since TDA and Proposition 70 moneys were available at a certain times and restrictions applied. Staff needed to mesh funding sources with the City's CIP proposal. 6161 1/9/89 e MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Sutorius, to approve the staff recommendation adopting the resolution authorizing the City Manager to file a claim for allocation of TDA Article 3 funds in FY 1989-90 for pedestrian/bicycle projects in the following priority order: (a) Bicycle Course for Stanford Middle School ($3,000) (b) Traffic Barrier Construction ($75,000) (c) Bike Parking Facilities ($10,000) (d) Airport Levee Improvements ($25,000) (e) Bryant/Embarcadero Traffic Signal ($75,000) RESOLUTION 6751 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A CLAIM WITH THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COIISSION FOR ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1989-90" AMENDMENT: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, to reverse the priorities of (d) and (e) to give higher priority to the Bryant/Embarcadero Traffic signal than the Airport Levee Improvements. Council Member Renzel said while Council voted on the CIP yearly, projects included in any future CIP ware at least contemplated. She believed Council had wade a commitment to a bicycle boulevard on Bryant, and it would be nice to complete it by having a safe crossing at Embarcadero. AKENDKENT PASSED 5-3, Bechtel, Cobb, Sutorius "no," Woolley absent. AMENDMENT: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Zutorius that the Park/Casti1le j a barrier portion of pro j act (b) be removed and made project (f) in the amount of $30,000, and project (b) be revised to include the two Bryant Street barriers in the total amount of $45,000. Council Member Patitucci supported most of the barriers in the Evergreen Park area but believed the Park Avenue barrier went beyond any of the original goals of protecting the neighborhood. He preferred it be the lowest priority. Re supported the Bryant Street barriers and did not want then to be jeopardized by such a large dollar amount. i T PAWED 5-3, Bechtel, Clein, Menzel "no," Woolley absent. AMENDMENT; Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, to add $1,000 to Item (a) for Bicycle Education for Stanford Middle School. AMENDMENT PASSED 6-2, Cobb, Sutorius "no, " Woolley absent. 61-62 1/9/89 As Corrected 2/6/89 Mr Zaner clarified the motion included authority for staff to change the resolution amount to include the amended dollar amounts. Mr. Schreiber clarified of the $75,000 identified for barriers, $45,000 would be allocated to the two Bryant Street barriers and $30,000 for the Park/Castilleja. The cost breakdown would be part of the resolution. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to delete the Airport Levee Improvements from the application. Council Member Fletcher believed inclusion of the Airport Levee Improvements was a misuse of TDA funds. AMENDMENT FAILED 4-4, Bechtel, Fletcher, Klein, Renzel "aye," Woolley absent. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 8-0, Woolley absent. 11. Water Usage and Conservation Update (1410-02) (NPG) City Manager William Zaner said there were about eight days left in the billing cycle, and the City was about nine pecent below its alioc Lion from Hatch RetcPy, ADJOURNMENT: Council adjourned at 10:34 p.m. ATTES . APPROVED: City Clerk NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.200(b). The City Council meeting tapes are retained in the City Clerk's Office for two years from the date of the meeting, and thm Finance and Public Works Committee and Policy and Procedures Committee meeting tapes are retained for six months. Members of the public may listen to the tapes during regular office house. 61-63 1/9/89