HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-03-17 City Council Summary MinutesR
1
CITY
COUNCIL
MINUTEs
OF
ALIO
Regular Meeting
Monday, March 17, 1986
I EM
PAGE
Oral Communications 6 9 5 9
Minutes of February 3, 1986 6 9 6 0
Consent Calendar 6 9 6 0
Referral 6 9 6 0
Item #1, Consultant Selection for Utilities Cost of 6 9 6 0
Service Rate Studies - Refer to Finance and Public
Works Committee
Item 12, 1986-87 Community Development Block Grant
Applications Refer to Finance and Public Works
Committee
Item 13, Excess Liability Insurance - Refer
Finance and Public Works Committee
Action
6 9 5 0
6 9 6
Item 14, Public Works Inspections Services 6 9 6 0
Agreement
Item 15, Electric Line Clearing
Item #6, Remodeling Third Floor of Civic Center
Item 17, Agreement between City of Mountain View
and City of Palo Alto for Installation of a Traffic
Signal at San Antonio/East Bayshore Frontage Road
Item 18, Amendment No. One for Contract No. 4114 -
Start Up and Training Services for Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Item !9, Regional Water Quality Control Plant
;era -Environmental Protection Agency Audit
Item #10, Request for Addi ti ona r Community Block
Grant Funds - Peninsula Children's Center
Item #11, Ordinance re .744 Ramona Street and 745
Everson Street
Item f tt,: Fi nance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee
re Consultant Selection for Muni opal Service Center
.BMfldin4
Item 113, Finance and Public Works (FIPW) Committee
Recommendation re Funding ,Alternatives for Sidewalk
Repairs
Item X14= Palo Alto Flood Basin Project -. Cost
Sharing Agreement and Grant of Easement
6 9 6 1
6 9 6 1
6 9 6 1
6 9 6 1
6 9 6 1
6 9 6 1
q 9 6 2
6 9 6 2
6 9 6 3
6 9 1 4
6 9 5 7
3/17/86
ITEM PAGE
Item #15, 1985 Street Resurfacing 6 9 7 5
Council recessed from 9:10 p.m. To 9:25 p.m.
Item #16, Application of Varian Associates for 6 9 7 6
Design Approval of Hansen Way/Page Mill Road Office
Building
Item #17, Administrative Command and Control Radio 6 9 8 5
Channel Network
Item #18, Request of Councilmember Fletcher re 6 9 8 5
Willow Road Extension to Bayshore Freeway
Mayor Cobb re Draft Agendas for ARB and HRB 6 9 8 6
Meetings
Adjournment at 10:25 p.m. 6 9 8 6
Regular Meeting
March 17, 1986
The City Council of the. City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel., Cobb, Fletcher ;Klein, Levy,
Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley
Mayor Cobb announced that a Special City Council meeting to inter-
view Human Relations Commission applications was held in the
Council Conference Room at 6:10 p.m.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Herb Borock, 2731 Byron, submitted a letter (on file in the City
Clerk's office) re drainage problems at the former Hoover School
site. Buildings adjacent to the Hoover site had been located
there for over 30 years, and a 30 -year resident, property owner
could testify to the fact there were no drainage problems from the
Hoover site onto Byron Street until the new construction. The
Architectural Review Board (ARB) minutesofAugust 16, 1984 indi-
cated the owner of the Byron Street property favored the project.
The owner agreed to doing away with the easement between Byron
Street and the Hoover School site, but did not recall expressing
approval for the particular pr,oject. The Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) indicated no cl'enge in topography or ground sur-
face relief features, no increase in wind or water erosion of
soi 1 s either on or off site, no alteration to the course or flow
of flood water, no alteration of the direction of rate of flow of
ground water, no exposure of people or property to water. related
hazards such as flooding, and' no change in the quantity of ground
waters. The opposite was happening in terns of Byron Street since
construction of the project. He brought the problem to the atten-
tion of the Chief Building Official a week ago, and a landscape
buffer was planted. The landscape buffer approved as part of the
project was 15 -feet. Structures could be built in the buffer
including carports. The carports were the high point in the buf-
fer, and the gutters were the second high point. - (he gutters ran
the length of the property and were supposed to bring water runoff
from the direction of Hoover •Fark toward Middlefield Road. Meet
of the gutters were along the site boundary. There was some dis-
tance between the site boundary and buffer near Byron Street, but
a second small high point permitted water to flow in the direction
o.f Byron Street which was not the case before. He noticed the
poor maintenance and construction on the site during the heavy
rains in February. He found a large piece of plastic across the
valley gutter which blocked the flow of water towards the drainage
placed on the property and directed the water flow to Byron
Street. On March 8, a pipe either broke or was disconnected on
the site in the valley gutter and caused water to go onto Byron
Street. The on -site manager refused to allow City )Utilities
servi-ees to shut the water off, and he understood the problem went
on for several hours before a maintenance person was .called to
shut the water off, The conditions for approval of the project
indicated grading changes would be minimized on -site and the paved
area which was previously the easement from Byron Street to the
Hoover School' property would be removed and replaced with land-
scaping. The landscaping was put in at the last minute and had
not yet provided a place to stop water from flowing further. The
2700 block of Byron Street never flooded before the new construc-
tion project.
6 9 5 9
3/17/86
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3, 1986
Councllmember Fletcher submitted the following correction:
Page 6813, last line, change "Alma Till" to "Alan Wachtel" and
"Lewison" to "Lewiston."
Councllmember Patitucci submitted the following correction:
Page 6820, llth paragraph., first sentence, change "revolved" to
"revolving" and "extended" to "expended."
Staff submi tted the following correction:
Page 6825, fifth paragraph, ninth line, change "priorites; to
"priorities." \.
Councllmember Menzel had the following correction:
Page 6823, second to last paragraph, third line from bottom, word
Ran" should be "no."
Vice Mayor Woolley had the following correct:on:
Page 6816, paragraph 4, word "Crescent" should be "present."
Councllmember Klein had the following correction:
Page 6819, paragraph 9, second to last line, first "$l.6" should
be "$1.5."
paragraph 1 1 , first line, delete the word "inclining."
Page 6826, paragraph 6, second to last 1 1 n=1. insert word "million"
after TT7.
MOTION: Councllmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Sutorius,
approval of the minutes of February 3, 1986 as corrected.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION: Councilneuber Sutortus moved, seconded by Levy,
approval of the Consent Calendar.
Referral
ITEM #1 CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR UTILITIES COST OF SERVICE RATE
-STUUTE-S--=-1-1UFER-7-0 VINARE AO PIT LIC WORK COMKITTEE (UTI 11
ICMR:196:6)
ITEM #2 1986-87 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATIONS -
REFER TO ▪ -FINAI10E AND PUBLIC mows cummrTTrE U'LA 2 -II [C 2-( ;&
ITEM f3 ▪ .EXCESS LIABILITY INSURANCE -- REFER TO FINANCE AND PUBLIC
WORKS CORMITTtL r :
Action
ITEM #4 PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS SERVICES AGREEMENT (PWK 2-5)
(CIO:190:6)
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Barrett,
Harris & Associates for inspection services in the amount of
$70,000; and
1/?7,8R
2, Authorize staff co execute change orders to the agreement of
up to $10,500.
AGREEMENT PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION SERVICES
Barrett, Harris & Associates
1
1
1
ITEM #5, ELECTRIC LINE CLEARING (ENV 7/PWK 4) (CMR:181:6)
Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute a change
order to the existing contract with Arbor Tree Surgery, allowing
an additional $75,196 to be expended for 2200 crew hours of
service.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
TO CONTRACT NO. 4533
Arbor Tree Surgery
ITEM #6, REMODELING THIRD FLOOR OF CIVIC CENTER (PWK 7-2)
(CMR :199:6 )
Staff recommends"that the Mayor be authorized to:
1. Execute a contract with Cimco Construction Corporation in the
bid amount of $38,669, and
2. Authorize staff to execute change orders of up to $6,000
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Cisco Construction Corporation
ITEM #7, AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW AND CITY OF PALO
GNAL Al' SAN ANTONIO/EAST
Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute the
Agreement between the City of Mountain View and the City of Palo
Alto for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of
East Bayshore Frontage Road and San Antonio Road.
AGREEMENT
City of Mountain View
ITEM 08 AMENDMENT NO. ONE FOR CONTRACT NO. 4114 - START UP AND
TRAINING TEANICES FOP ADVANCED WASTEWATER 'TREATMENT -.FACILITY- (UTI
-
Staff recommends the Amendment be executed to qualify the
Montgomery Contract for grant eligibility before staff submits its
final grant payment request (CPR). When the contract is approved
for eligibility, theState will award an additional $53,000 on the
final GPR.
AMENDMENT NO. ONE TO CONTRACT NO. 4114
J. M. Montgomery
ITEM #9 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT PRE -ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECT -YON AGENCY AUDIT WTI 7-4) (CMR:1 y7: 6)
Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute a Change
Order to Contract 4562 with Larry Walker Associates, Inc., in the
amount of $5,000 to assist the City in the completion of the final
phases of preparation for the EPA audit of the Regional Water
Quality Control grant records, .and subsequent audit activities,
CHANGE ORDER NO. ONE TO CONTRACT 4562
Larry Walker Associates.
ITEM 010 RE UEST FOR ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
L 2---TT-710:203:61
Staff recommends:
1. The City grant PCC an additional $10,000 from CDBG contingent
funds for the purpose of acquiring the property located at
3838 La Selva Drive to be used as a group home for physically
or mentally disabled persons;
2. The total 1984-85 and current year grant of $35,000 be made to
Housing for Independent People, Inc., (HIP), rather than the
Peninsula Children's Center (PCC), with the stipulation that
all funds be used for the purpose stated in paragraph 1, :.
RESOLUTION 6497 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF• PALO ALTO GRANTING TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS
($10,000) FROM COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT CONTINGENCY FUNDS
TO PENINSULA CHILDREN'S CENTER"
ITEM #11, ORDINANCE RE 744 RAMONA STREET AND 745 EMERSON STREET
(2nd Reading) (PLA 3-li
ORDINANCE 3672 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALb ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO
ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO MODIFY
PROVISIONS OF PLANNED COMMUNITY. (PC) DISTRICT 3182 FOR
PROPERTIES KNOWN AS 744 RAMONA STREET AND 745 EMERSON
STREET" (1st Reading 2/24/86, PASSED 9-0)
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #12, FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS (F&PW) COMMITTEE RE CONSULTANT
UN A ST'RYTCE CENTER 611101146 C (PWK 7)
Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee Chairman Sutorius said
the Committee recommended Council authorize staff to proceed with
negotiations in the selection of consulting architects for ser-
vices associated with the Municipal Service Center (MSC) Building
C remodeling design at an amount not to exceed $28,000, and that
first negotiations be with the firm of Woodson -Barksdale
Architects. If those negotiations did not succeed, staff would
negotiate with Carter/Cody Associates, and thirdly, with Parsons
Brinkerhoff Construction Services, Inc. The F&PW Committee recom-
mendation included the $28,000 limit as `a result of interpreting
the capital improvement program budgeting process which listed
$28,000 in the electric utility as having been budgeted for the
architectural services. In addition to the $28,000 in the elec-
tric utility budget, there were funds in the water and gas utili-
ties budget, and the total of the additional funds budgeted for
the shared -use facility brought the total to $40,000 which wa's
previously budgeted. Procedurally, while the F&PW Committee.
motion brought to Council put a limit at $28,.000 it was appropri-
ate for the amount to be $40,000.
MOTION: Councilme.ber Sutorius ■owed, seconded by Woolley, to
adopt Finance and Public Works Committee recommendation with a
revision for the amount not to exceed $40,000 instead of $28,000,
and direct staff as follows:
1. Negotiate with the firm of Woodson -Barksdale Architects for
consultant services for the. MSC Building C remodeling design
at an amount not to exceed $40,000;
2. Negotiate wfth the firm of Carter/Cody Associates, if staff
fails to reach an agreement with Woodson -Barksdale Architects;
and
3. Negotiate with the firm' of Parsons Brinkerhoff Construction
Services, Inc., if staff fails to reach an agreement with
Curter/Cody Associates.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
6 9 6 2
3/17/86
ITEM #13 FINARCFAND PUBLIC WORKS (F&PW) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
RE FUMDT G ALTERN REPAIR (PWK 2-4)
Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee Chairman Sutorius said
during and since the budget process the concern about support on
the part. of Council and follow-througheon the part of staff to
improve sidewalk replacement was discussed. Community safety and
aesthetics were primary considerations. The F&PW Committee dis-
cussed proposals for accelerated sidewalk replacement one of which
involved a 50/50 sharing program wherein the property owner paid
half of the expense of the sidewalk replacepient.
MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius for the Finance and Public Works
Committee moved, re Funding Alternatives for Sidewalk Repair as
follows:
1. To accept the Sidewalk Repair Program as outlined in the
February 6, 1986 staff report (CMR:159:6) and direct staff to
return to Council in July, 1986, with an implementation plan
for inclusion in the Fiscal Year 1987-88 Budget;
2. The program be.a 50/50 share between the City General Fund and
the adjacent property owner, and that the 50/50 share program
be a permanent feature of sidewalk repair regardless of how
many years;
3. That the administrative costs for the program be included in
the cost per square foot;
4. That the program be implemented under the Improvement Act of
1911; and
5. That a mechanism be developed to give the property owner the
option to pay the costs over a period of time or at one time.
Further, that staff address the administrative costs that are
attributable to the 50/50 share program.
Director of Public Works David Adams said on the second page of
the staff report (CMR:159:6) one of the comments was not precisely
correct regarding liability of property owners. It ryas important
to note that no liabilities changed, i.e., the City's liability
did not change nor did the liability of any property owner.
Public Works Superintendent of Field Operations Mike Miller said
in 1982 and 1985, staff studied the problem of sidewalk replace-
ment, and discovered a backlog of about 26 years' work. Staff was
supplemented with $200,000 a year to contract for repairs to
attack the backlog. When staff resurveyed in 1985, they found
$200,000 a year was not addressing the backlog and it was getting
worse. An alternative to reduce the backlog and ultimately solve
the sidewalk problem was to o increase funding of the contracts.
If the current program was tripled to $.600,000 a year in contract
services, the backlog at the end of ten years would be three-
quarters of what it was presently, or 625,000 square feet instead
of 817,000 square feet. Another alternative was to eliminate any
backlog over ten yearns old. A chart reflected $.1 million per year
for ten years, and at the end of ten years, the backlog would have
been eliminated and 51,000 square feet gained. The final alterna-
tive, which staff believed was workable, provided for a 50/50
share program. Staff projected .a 29 -year. schedule, and a
revolving fund of $400,000 per year, would address the present and
projected backlog. The 50/50 share program was 50 percent prop-
erty owner and 50 percent City no matter what the cause of
damage.
6 9 6 3
3/17/86
Councilmember 5utorius said the F&PW Committee also discussed the
history of the responsibility of sidewalk maintenance. He under-
stood information retrieved from archives showed the property
owner was 100 percent responsible for sidewalk maintenance owner
responsibileity in the City of Palo Alto until 1963.
Mr. Miller said that was correct. In 1963, the City created a
50/50 program wherein the City split the cost of repairs to the
sidewalks except in the cases of utility and tree damage where the
City absorbed 100 percent of the cost. The program continued
until la,. 1974, or early 1975, when the City took over 100 per-
cent rest sibility for repairing the sidewalks, which was the
present pc. am.
Councilmember Pati tucc i said the F&PW Committee also di scosssed
the overall implications -of the numbers. He clarified there were
6,000,000 square feet of sidewalk in the City of Palo Alto.
Mr. Miller said that was correct. Palo Alto had 253 lineal mile's
of sidewalks 28 to 38 of which required replacment.
Councilmember Patitucci clarified somewhere between 12 and 15
percent needed immediate replacement, and annually one and
one-halfpercent went into backlog.
Mr. Miller clarified 148,000 square feet of sidewalks annually
went into backlog.
Councilmember Pati tucci said 148,000 square feet was about two and
one-half percent which meant the sidewalks lasted about 40 years.
It did not seem excessive to replace concrete approximately every
40 years.. He clarified the problem was the backlog.
Mr. Miller said until 1975, the City had contract funds and
additional people in the concrete program, The City reduced
staffing of the program by two people and suspended the
contracting which replaced approximately 60,000 square feet of
sidewalk per year. The backlog began at that time.
Councilmember Klein was not totally clear on the numbers in the
staff report (CMR:159:6). The first page stated, "the City pres-
ently spent $415,000 on sidewalk repair"; and on page 4, the
report stated stated, "In order to eliminate the backlog, funding
for the program would have to start at $1,000,000 per year and
continue for ten years." He asked if the $1,000,000 per year was
in addition to the $415,000 or an increase of roughly $600,000 per
year.
Mr. Miller said $1,000,000 was the total figure to eliminate the
backlog without any City crews. The $415,000 was the contract
amount plus the in-house costs of the replacement program.
C.ouncilmember Klein said for the City to do the whole program on
its own and eliminate the backlog in ten years it required
increasing the budget two and one-half times. He asked why a
sidewalk in frog t of a citizen's home was treated differently from
the street.
Mr. Adams said traditionally streets were paid for by gas tax
moneys, and the City supplemented some General Fund money. Gas
tax did not apply to sidewalks.
City Manager Bill Zaner said it was traditional in most cities in
California that streets were paid ;out of gas tax and/or General
Funds; sidewalks were not.
Councilmember Klein understood the history but not the logic.
6 9 6 4
31)17/86
Mr. Zaner did not believe there was any particular logic except
gas taxes might nut be used on the maintenance of sidewalks.
Councilmember Klein understood there was an item on the June
ballot which allowed the City to have General Obligation Bonds
again.
Mr. Zaner said that was correct.
1
1
Councilrcmber Klein asked whether staff considered the possibility
of the City funding the repairs through the issuance of a
G0 -Bond.
Mr. Zaner said not in- preparing the current report. In previous
discussions with the F&PW Committee in prior years, staff indi-
cated the General Obligation Bond method was a way of debt -
financing sidewalks if staff had the authority. If the June elec-
tion was successful, the City could use that mechanism.
Vice Mayor Woolley clarified if the City continued at the present
level of sidewalk repair, the backlog would increase.
Mr. Miller said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Woolley clarified another alternative was the City
could spend $1,000,000 per year and eliminate the backlog in ten
years. She asked how much the City would spend per year after
that.
Mr. Miller said $600,000 per year in order to stay even..
Vice Mayor Woolley clarified the middle-of-the-road approach was
the staff recommendation to split the cost and eliminate the
backlog in 29 years.
Mr. Miller said yes.
Vice Mayor Woolley said the staff report (CMR:159:6) stated trees
accounted for 48 percent of all damage. Council had a letter
signed by members of the community (on file in the City Clerk's
office) who believed trees caused about 90 percent of the damage.
She asked staff to comment.
Mr. Miller said the staff survey of the City was done by reporting
areas. Experienced surveyors stopped at each location which.
required replacement and determined why. Consistently throughout
the community, and more in North Palo Alto, the average damage
caused by trees was about 48 percent.
Vice Mayor Woolley said citizens' perceptions might be colored if
they lived in an area where there were a lot of trees. She
confirmed half of the damage to sidewalks was caused by trees.
Mr. Miller said the figure was consistent in both the 1982 and
1985 surveys. .
Vice Mayor Woolley said th'e F&PW Committee discussed the cast of
administering the plan. If the City funded the plan 100 percent,
there was not the issue of administering citizens' participation.
She asked if staff knew the administrative costs of the 50/50
program compared to the City's paying for all of it or whether the
entire program needed to be developed to answer the question.,.
6 9 6 5
3/17/86
Mr. . Adams said staff would address the question In the detailed
plan. It would take at least one additional staff person to
administer the billing, notifications, etc. The City would also
change some of its current staff to inspector -type work rather
than concrete finisher.
Vice Mayor Woolley asked how much staff time was involved if
Council directed staff to prepare a detailed report.
Mr. Adams said several hundred dollars worth of staff time.
Vice Mayor Woolley believed the information was useful. In a
letter Council received (on file in the City Clerk's office), a
citizen stated if it was $4.25 per square foot to repair a
sidewalk it was $19.13 per square foot. She believed the citizen
meant for the whole standard sidewalk square and asked if that was
correct.
Mr. Miller said the figures in the letter were correct, but the
citizen figured the entire frontage across the property and Down
the side, multiplied by 4.5, which was the width. The $19 figure
was one foot in length and 4.5 feet in width.
Vice Mayor Woolley clarified it was a linear foot.
Mr. Miller said yes.
Vice Mayor Woolley said the estimate would be far less.
Mr. Miller said the figures in the letter represented the total
replaceent for all of the sidewalk fronting the property. The
City used for its calreletiens an average of a 60 -foot lot and
half the side requiring replacement. The City also noted the cost
for a corner lot was approximately double but did not figure a
100 -foot side lot.
Vice Mayor Woolley clarified the calculation of the property owner
was correct.
Mr. Miller said yes for entire replacement of the sidewalk, not
just the damaged portion.
Councilmember Levy asked what was being asked of Council in
relation to the transition from a 50/50 policy to a 100 percent
policy. He asked -if during the first 29 years, all repairs Would
be 50/50, and then 100 percent in year 30.
Mr. Miller said Councilmember Levy cited the original proposal by
staff. The F&PW Committee recommended the program remain 50/50.
Councilmember Levy refe►red to the additional administrative
person required by the program and asked how many homes the person
would contact. and what the person's functions would be.
Mr. Miller said the position would devote full-time to notifying,
record keeping, following up, and all other requirements contained
in Section 1911 of the California Streets and Highways Code. The
Code specifically stated notifications to beposted, how they had
to be recorded and tracked, and the opportunity the City had to
give property owners to do their own repairs. The Code require-
ments had to be tracked furl -time by the person who would also
administer the contract. The two. people in the field would pro-
vide inspection and completion reports to ensure the requirements
were met.
Councilmember Levy asked .how many homes would be contacted a
year and if staff was satisfied a full time position was
required.
Mr. Miller did not know how many homes would be contacted a year
but the process would take a full-time person a year to do it.
The administrative person would not do the actual contacting
rather the two _people in the field would convert inforinatien,from
the concrete crew.
Councilmember Levy said it sounded as if the administrative posi-
tion would cost in the range of $40,000 to $50,000 a year.
Mr. Miller said $35,000 to $40,000 per year was reasonable.
Councilmember Levy clarified the figure per year included over-
head, benefits, etc.
Mr. Miller said yes.
ee
Councilmember Levy said it sounded like the public would be asked
to pay $200,000 more for sidewalk repairs, and the additional City
costs were at least $40,000 for the administrative person plus
costs for personnel to conduct necessary hearings.
Mr. Adams said the intent was to pass the charge on to the person
in need of the sidewalk repair in the form of percentage of the
repair or a fiat fee per project. Details for implementation
would be included in the plan when it returned to Council. All
of the costs had to be recovered as a part of the program.
Councilmember Levy clarified if the administrative costs totaled
$50,000, the City would get an extra $200,000 worth of sidewalk
repair at a cost to the home owners of $250,000. If the City
paid 100 percent, the cost would be $200,000.
Mr. Adams believed the figures were correct but said the problem
would not be solved. The repairs needed to be done much faster to
solve the problem.
Mr. Miller referred to Exhibit 4 of the 50/50 share program which
showed if the City increased each budget by five percent per year
and had a revolving fund returning to it, during the first year,
the City would have repaired 94,000 square feet of sidewalk and
had 148 square feet added to the backlog. By continuing the
funding and increasing the amount each year for inflation, the
City would start to reduce the backlog in 1991 and ,tart to see
the backlog decrease through year 29.
Councilmember Levy clarified the 1986-87 City budget would be
$400,000, and the property owners would pay $200,000.
Mr. Miller said in the first year 1986/87, the City's share would
be $200,000, The City put in the first $200,000 in ord'r to start
the revolving fund so the total budget for the first year was
$400,000.
Councilmember Levy asked if the budget for the City for the second
year was $420,000.
Mr. Miller said yes.
Councilmember Levy asked why the budget increased by $220,000.
Mr. Miller said the City's initial contribution of $200,000
would return to the City in payments from the property owners the
second ,bear. Nothing was added to the City's revolving fund
budget of $420,000 because of the payments received from the
residents, The City deposited the $200,000 payments received by
residents and the second year had a total contract for repairs of
$620,000. During the second year, property owners would make
payments of $310,000, to be added back in the third year. The
City's budget continued to go up so at the third year the City
would actually contract for over $7008000 worth of work.
6 9 6 7
3/17/86
Councilmember Levy clarified the program was supposed to be 50/5G
but he saw the City paying $400,000 and the residents $200,000.
In the first year the City budget would be $400,000 because
Council appropriated an extra. $200,000 the first year, but
apparently staff would ask Council to appropriate the extra
$200,000 every year.
Mr. Miller said that was correct until the City received the pay-
ments back into the revolving fund for that year's work.
Councilmember Levy clarified Council would increase its budget by
$200,000 per year.
Mr. Miller said per year was correct.
Councilmember Levy said the property owners' share started out at
$200,000 and ended up in the year 2000 at $1,000,000; therefore,
the share increased faster than the City's share which started out
at $400,000 and went to $1,000,000.
Mr. Miller clarified at the end of the program if the City went to
the 29th year, the- Gi ty had one more year's worth of payments
returning from the property owners for the work just completed
which added to the City's side of the revolving fund.
Mayor Cobb said if the•F&pig Committee's recommendation passed,
staff would return with a plan and clarification should be a part
of it.
Councilmember Bechtel clarified the City provided sole financial
support for sidewalk repair since 1975. She asked if staff knew
of any other cities in the immediate area that presently provided
100 percent total repair. The staff report (CMR:159:6) showed
either 100 percent property owner or 50/50.
Mr. Miller deferred response and said he would provide the
information.
Councilmember Bechtel clarified the majority of other cities were
either 50/50 share or 100 percent property owner.
Mr. Miller believed it was the case.
Councilmember Fletcher said in San Jose owners paid all costs for
repairs unless the damage was caused by City trees on noncommer-
cial property._ When the report spoke to damage by trees, she
asked if it was meant to be all of the City trees or some
privately -planted trees.
Mr. Miller said the survey did not differentiate between private
or public trees.
Councilmember Fletcher clarified the ratio was unknown.
Mr. Adams said it could be safely assumed most trees along the
planter strips were City -owned.
Councilmember Fletcher asked how much damage staff estimated was
done by utilitl es and asked how the damage occurred.
Mr. Miller did not have figures on the utility damage but said the
damage occurred either from making cuts through the sidewalk area
for repairs and just patching back the small areas, or the area
underneath settled where sewer pipes crossed.
Councilmember Fletcher referred to the damage caused by traffic,
and clarified it meant passing traffic in the street or traffic on
the sidewalk.
6 9 6 8
3/17/86
Mr. Miller said damage was caused by traffic using the driveways,
crossing the portion of the sidewalk on the side of the_ driveway
and the driveway apron. Some people drove up over curbs and
parked, which damaged the sidewalks.
Councilmember Fletcher believed if the damage was caused by City
trees and utilities, the City should pick up the cost for repairs.
Anything else could be paid by the property owner.
Mayor Cobb was advised by the City Attorney it was difficult
legally to make a distinction between what tree caused which
damage which was one reason staff moved away from that type of
discrimination.
Councilmember Patitucci believed there was a lack of understanding
of the history of why sidewalks were handled and financed in
certain ways. He asked who was responsible for constructing the
sidewalks in a new development.
Mr. Adams Said sidewalk construction was normally done as part of
a new development.
Councilmember Patitucci clarified the developer initially con-
structed the streets, built the sidewalks, and apparently rolled
the costs into the cost of the property.
Mr. Adams said yes.
Councilmember Patitucci said it was not unusual for the property
owners who benefited to pay for some of the public facilities
which were then used by not only the property owner but others who
used the street walking dogs, riding bicycles, etc. In terms of
repair as opposed to replacement, he asked if it was the City's
policy to get rid of dangerous situations by putting in the
attractive asphalt, and how repairs versus replacement worked.
Mr. Adams said the City patched with asphalt to eliminate
hakards.
Councilmember Patitucci asked how long those patches lasted.
M-. Miller said the patches were intended to be Ntemporary
repairs. In some locations the patches were ovee ten years old.
There were presently 13,000 locations where the City made
temporary repairs with asphalt.
Councilmember Patitucci clarified asphalt did not have the same
life as concrete.
Mr. Miller said that was correct.
Counci 1,aember Klein asked if the funds would count against the
Proposition 4 Gann if the City went to a General Ob1 i gata on Bond
to finance the sidewalk repair assuming the ballot measure passed
in June.
Mr. Laver said yes, the funds were proceeds of taxes..
Councilmember Klein asked whether the proceeds of a•$400,000 bond
issue would count in the same year or were spent over time.
Mr. Zaner said the funds counted as a proceed of taxes in the year
the City appropriated and spent the funds. If the City had a
$4,000,000 authorization but only sold $1,000,000 in the first
year, it would only be charged for the $1,000,000. The City would
not sell bonds it did; not need, but would wait.
Mayor Cobb asked if the City was approaching its Gann limits.
6 9 6 9
3/17/86
Mr. Zaner said yes, and it was estimated the City would be within
the $1,000,000 range next year.
Councilmember Levy asked who owned the sidewalk in front of a
house.
Mr. Miller said there were three types of ownership. First, where
the original subdivider or developer retained ownership of the
property under the street and sidewalk; second, where subsequent
to 1970 the City had title in fee; and, third, when the original
properties were subdivided and sold, the property was sold as a
lot to the center of the street. Palo Alto had all three
examples.
Diana Lewiston, 1849 Newell, said the problem seemed to need a
two -pronged approach: To repair the sidewalks, and remove the
trees which primarily caused the damage at least where she lived.
I' large camphor tree was planted on her property by the City
before her time. After several years, City crews replaced a
portion of the sidewalk cracked and heaved by the camphor's large
surface roots. Portions of sidewalk adjacent to the camphor trees
along all the 1700 and 1800 block of Newell were similarily
repaired, Several years later, City crews returned to saw through
the offending camphor roots which again cracked and listed chunks
of cement. The residents had an ongoing battle with the camphor
roots clogging the sewer lines and last fall the streetlights on
their block failed. City crews returned and planted a wooden pole
at the corner of their driveway, and installed strong electrical
wire to the power lines behind their property and a new street-
light. Camphor roots grew into the underground electrical cable
which supplied the current to their streetlights and shorted them
out. The project was supposed to be short-term. ACco'ding to a
City worker, the electrical cable ran under the sidewalk and the
short was somewhere in the east side of the 1700/1800 block of
Newell. Homo owners should have an informed choice about the
species of street trees grown. If the plant's characteristics
included shallow, invasive roots on adobe soil, but an attractive
shape whereby the home owners were willing to assume disadvantages
in choosing the tree, then the home owners could be obliged to
assume the financial burden of damage done. Since she did not
have a choice about the kind of tree planted in front of her home,
she did not feel obliged to share the cost of any damage done by
the tree. One solution to shared repair costs was to allow home
owners to choose their own street trees with a clear understanding
that if the tree buckled and cracked the sidewalk, costs of repair
would be shared equally by the home owner. For home owners
saddled with mature, cement -buckling trees, removal of the tree
and selection of a plant without a history of root damage to
cement was a desirable choice.
William Jansen, 1770 Guinda Street, had a flat sidewalk in front
of his house. Two years ago a City crew dug up the sidewalk and
spent a week or more to replace the entire sidewalk with a flat
sidewalk. He was glad at the time he did not have to pay for the
ceewe Philosophically, he did not want to share the cost or pay
,100 p ehent of the cost because it was a .hidden tax and he had no
control aver the sidewalk or the tree line. He did not know
whether he owned his lot out to the center of the street or to the
sidewalk, but he had no control and did not believe he should have
to pay for what went on there.
6 9 7 0
3/17/86
Alan Edwards, 186 Coleridge, said about a year and one-half ago
his grandmother received a notice she had to get her sidewalk
repaired within ten days. The financial impact was understated in
tithe staff report. If City trees caused most of the damage, the
other cause was a worn out. If one had a worn out 60 -foot
frontage and the sidewalk was 5 -feet wide, it was 300 square feet
times $4.25, or $1,275. Half of 51,275 was $683 and not $287. He
did not know how many corner lots were 60 x 60 as staff said, but
the one next to him was 50 x 150 which was over 200 lineal feet of
sidewalk, times 5 feet was 1,000 square feet at $4.25 or $4,250.
Half of ;2,125 was a substantial financial impact on people. A
corner lot devoted much of its frontage to the public good. Most
people would prefer to share the risk and have, the general com-
munity pay rather than an individual as evidenced by the fact most
people bought insurance for a loss of several thousand dollars.
He did not use his sidewalk much but mainly used other sidewalks
within the community on a walk He would just as soon have a
little brick walkway out to has car. He believed it was more fair
for the community to share the cost rather than just an individual
because everyone benefited by the City trees which were doing some
of the damage and the sidewalks as a whole. He proposed Council
consider a general assessment in the community whereby the assess-
ment was the average cost of repairing sidewalks rather than the
actual cost of repairing their sidewalk.
Gloria Brown, 1766 Fulton Street, did not believe it was fair to
tax the home owners on sidewalks owned by the City, The City
planted the trees and should have to pay the consequencial dam-
ages. It was a.health and safety matter and. the sidewalks ehou1d
be kept as safe as possible for everyone. In answer to the ques-
tion of how long the repairs lasted, the raised spot she fell over
two years ago was asphalted the day after, but the next year the
asphalt shrunk_ again and was already trippable. There were mature
Sycamore trees on her street which the City stopped spraying a few
years ago, anc the trees got so sick that the 1700 and 1800 block
home owners on Fulton Street paid $50 a year for their own
spraying program to keep the trees alive. On the other hand, if
the damage done by roots was by plantings done by home owners, the
home owner should bear part of .the cost. She wanted the City to
take care of its sidewalks.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO REFER: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded
by Pati tucci , to refer the matter back to the Finance and Public
Works (F&PW) Committee to allow citizens' reactions to an
accelerated Sidewalk Repairs Program within the funding con-
straints, and that such item remain in the Finance and Public
Works Committee until the results of the June Primary Election re
General Obligation Bonds are known, and for the Finance and Public
Works Committee to consider solving this problem through the use
of General Ooligation Bonds if that measure passes.
Vice Mayor Woolley believed Council heard the sidewalks definitely
needed repairing. Council took some action at budget time the
previous year which helped a little but it was not nearly enough
to even keep up with the increasing backlog. Council was faced
with an acceleration of the sidewalk repair program which on one
hand was a good idea for the City from the standpoint of
liability. On the other hand, regarding Proposition 4 and the
Gann Initiative, the City was within five percent of those limits.
One alternative was for the. City to put out $1,000,000 for ten
years and eliminate the backlog. Council had to make some
choices; they did not have an unlimited supply of money. Council
needed to hear from more citizens on whether they wanted to
accelerate the repair of sidewalks. She did not believe there was
anything pressing in terms of timing, and referring the item back
would allow staff another alternative if the General Obligation
Bonds passed in June.
6 9 7 1
3/17/86
Councilmember Patitucci agreed with Vice Mayor Woolley. He
believed the #.&►'W Committee mi Cnt return with the same recommenda-
tion, but was not sure about the mechanism for more public input
on the issue. He hoped from the discussion of the history and
magnitude of the problem, and if people walked around their neigh-
borhoods and assessed the condition of many sidewalks, people
would agree something needed to be done. He did not know whether
Council could squeeze the General Fund and get enough money to do
the repairs without returning in some other form to the public.
He was bothered by the traditional idea immediate property owners
were the ones who should pay for repairs to sidewalks in front of
their property. The beneficiaries were a larger population. He
wanted to explore other ideas about how the City could get the
matter,financed because sidewalks were definitely a problem not
getting'any better. He supported the substitute motion and hoped
for more public input and better ideas.
Councilmember Klein generally supported the substitute motion but
wanted to see language whereby the matter would be retained in
Committee until the results of the June ballot on the issuance of
General Obligation Bonds were known. If the matter passed, the
Committee could consider the possibility of solving the problem
through the issuance of a GO Bond.
MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO INCORPORATE LANGUAGE THAT THE ITEM
REMAIN IN THE FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE UNTIL THE RESULTS
OF THE _ JUNE PRIMARY ELECTION RE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ARE
KNOWN, AND THE FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER
SOLVING THE PROBLEM THROUGH THE USE OF GENERAL RAL OBLIGATION BONDS IF
THAT MEASURE PASSES
Councilmember Klein referred to the Possibility of a City-wide
assessment. For clarification purposes, Council found it was not
legally possible without the passage of the amendment referred to
in June. One of the "evils" of Proposition 13 in California was
to prevent the issuance of General Obligation Bonds. A General
Obligation Bond had not been issued in the State since Proposition
13. The other part of the substitute motion spoke to getting.
public input, and while he was not opposed, he did not believe
there would be a lot more input from the citizenry. History
showed Council only got input from the public when the bills
started going out, and people would then say they had never heard
about it. He could not support the F&PW Committee recommendation
as it presently stood. He did not see the logic for
distinguishing between sidewalks and roads and did not see where
it should be the home owner's responsibility because he dia not
see where the home owner had a personal benefit as compared to the
benefit to the general public. When there was a general :benefit,
it seemed appropriate for the political body as a whole to pay for
the cost of maintaining the improvement in the same .way it paid.
for road,, etc. Trying to collect the money from the citizenry
required more bureaucracy than it was worth. He wanted another
alternative, and preferred the use of a General Obligation Bond to
get the problem behind them for maybe the rest of his lifetime.
Otherwise, if Council could do so within the City's Proposition
limits, he was inclined to go to a program of approximately
$1,000,000 a year, have the City pay for it all, and get the
backlog caught up in ten years.
Councilmember Levy concurred with the sense of Councilmember
Klein's statements. There were many arguments in support of the
City's paying 100 percent of the costs and only two arguments for
the 50/50 share. Arguments in favor of the 50/50 share were the
City was almost forced into it because of Gann Amendment con-
straints and the home owner had a partial responsibility. The
arguments for the City paying 100 percent of the costs included
street repair was a fundamental City service; there was signifi-
cant discrimination against the owner of corner lots; City
liability was significant and therefore the City needed to
maintain the repair in order to reduce its liability; the program
was cheaper if the City paid 100 percent; there would be a lot of
confusion ar`id concern among the citizens because of their
perception the City trees were the cause of the major portion of
the damage. He leaned towards the City. paying 100 percent if
possible. He suggested the F&PW Committee also consider the
alternative of 100 percent General Fund financing to clean up the
backlog over a reasonable period of time.
Mayor Cobb asked whether the alternative was already considered by
the F&PW Committee.
Councilmember Levy believed the alternative should be presented as
an amendment because the F&PW Committee memorandum alluded to the
alternative but did not present the financial ramifications in
terms of a 29 -year clean-up period as done with the 50/50 share.
Mayor Cobb asked if the F&PW Committee needed a special amendment
to incorporate the alternative in its process assuming the matter
was referred back to Committee.
Councilmember Sutorius understood the matter was referred and
retained as part of the entire subject because funding at 100 per-
cent from the General Fund was among the alternatives. The asso-
ciated problems were delineated from time to time on the specific
subject per se and the generic problem was delineated every budget
year and every subsequent action at the Council level in terms of
spending decisions. He concurred the item generically was con-
tained in the motion and would remain in Committee.
Councilmember Bechtel referred to the incorporation of amendments
into existing motions. When she was Mayor, it was explained the
City Clerk did not like amendments to be incorporated because an
original motion might be followed by 15 minutes of discussion, and
when an amendment was incorpc-eted, it was difficult for the City
Clerk to go back and be sure she had the language, and it was also
difficult for someone reading minutes to be sure they understood
and followed the motion. If the language to be incorporated was
immediate, she did not believe there was a problem.
Mayor Cobb said he would work the issue out of incorporation of
amendments with the City Clerk and get some guidelines.
Councilmember Bechtel said during the budget hearings Council
added funds for sidewalk repair. Staff tried to get Council to
deal with the issue for some time and believed $200,000 per year
would not solve the problem. She was also reluctant to go to the
50/50 approach. As a member of the F&PW Committee, she only sup-
ported the approach because the Committee saw no other alterna-
tive. The F&PW Committee did not believe the City could afford
$1 million per year. Councilmember Levy's concern about
bureaucracy was good, as was Councilmember. Klein's point regarding
the June election and the possibility to use a General Obligation
measure, the first time since 1978. As Mr. Zaner pointed out,
Council still had the Gann limitation. Her first choice was the
possibility of a GO Bond because it eliminated the bureaucracy,
made the program easier, and spread the cost and burden around.
Council could look at the 100 percent approach and possibly spread
it out over 29 years. As soon as Council received the results of
the June :election, the matter could return to the F&PM Committee,
at which point the Committee could grapple with the issue.
Councilmember Sutorius would not oppose the substitute motion and
had no difficulty seeing the subject returned. The subject would
hive returned if Council passed the original motion because staff
would have received direction to develop, plan and return a plan
in conjunction with the 1987/88 budget process. Interest on
General Obligation Bonds was not free. The State of California
citizens might support the measure but GO bends would not be the
panacea for everything because there wa.. bureaucracy associated
6 9 7 3
3/17/86
with issuing a bond. There were costs associated with preper=ing
to issue bonds. and there were the costs of the interest. Council
needed to make hard choices in many arenas and could not look
forward to solving problems by reason of returned authority to do
some bonding. The reason the proposition passed in the first
place was because there were abuses, and if the City started
abusing them again, it would be in trouble again.
Mr. laner saw no problem with the item returning to F&PW
Committee. He clarified the June ballot, if passed, would autho-
rize cities to return to the status quo, and the City would then
be able to place the measure on the ballot for Palo Alto voters to
decide whether to authorize a General Obligation Bond.
Mayor Cobb believed sidewalks shquld be a basic City service pro-
vided by the City and hoped Council could find a way to do so
without imposing on the public directly. The Gann limits were
real, the City was getting close, and there were lots of other
things the City wanted to do besides fix sidewalks. In the last
few years the City spent more than its revenues and found ways to
deal with the issues and close the gap each year but it could not
go on in perpetuity. At some point Council had to line up the
projects and decide what could be done within the Gann limits,
existing budget, etc. The consequences of Jarvis Gann were
hitting an affluent city like Palo Alto.
Councilmember Renzel concurred with Mayor Cobb and while she sup-
ported the referral back to F&PW Committee, she also supported
staff's effort to accelerate the sidewalk repair program. In the
long term Council might find it more economical to pursue the
sidewalk repair system more rapidly because of the potential costs
of damage suits, etc.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO REFER PASSED unanimoeLly.
ITEM #14, PALO ALTO FLOOD BASIN PROJECT - COST SHARING AGREEMENT
A -4) (CMR:200:6)
Councilmember Sutorius asked if any money was allocated in the
1985/86 budget for the cost sharing agreement and grant of
easement.
Assistant Director of Public Works George Bagdon said no.
Councilmember Sutorius clarified Council's action was in January,
1985.
Mr. Bagdon said the District supplied the estimate within the last
two or three months and staff and the District just finished
reviewing it.
Councilmember Fletcher referred to the staff report (CMR:200:6)
which said the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) would
permanently maintain all of the earth levees raised as part of the
project. She asked if the SCVWD might damage the bike paths with
its heavy equipment and about the maintenance of the bike path
once it was reconstructed.
Mr. Bagdon said the City would maintain the path but if SCVWD
equipment damaged the path, the City would return to the District
for repairs.
Councilmember Fletcher hoped the City could hold the District
responsible.
Councilmember Patltucci had problems with the context of the
budget amendment. He was unclear about why the ; amendment could
not wait a month or two until the budget process.
Mr. Eagdon said the District planned to go out to bid within the
next month and needed a commitment from the City since it was a
cost -sharing agreement. The Distr°ict planned new construction
during the summer months and wanted to ti r;i sh before the winter
rains.
MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to adopt
staff recommendation as follows:
1. Authorize the establishment of CIP 85-24 for the Palo Alto
Flood Basin Improvements;
2. Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance appropriating $40,000 to
CIP 85-24 and decreasing the Reserve for Capital Projects by
the same amount;
3. Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with the Santa
Clara Valley Water District for $33,212) which is the esti-
mated City's share of the cost' -for relocating the proposed
levee under the existing bicycle path a'vd for relocating the
ITT pump station;
4. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the agreement of
up to $6,788; and
5. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Grant of Easement with
Santa Clara Valley Water District for the construction and
maintenance of the raised levees.
AGREEMENT
Santa Clara Valley Water District
ORDINANCE 3673 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1985-86 TO ESTABLISH AND PROVIDE FUNDING FOR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 10. 85-24 'PALO ALTO FLOOD
BASIN"
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #15, 1985 STREET RESURFACING (PWK 2-5) (CMR:182:6)
Councilmember Fletcher said City crews were constructing concrete
gutters on San Antonio Road which were three feet wide. She asked
about the purpose of such wide gutters.
Assistant Director of ►ublic Works George Etagdcn said City crews
were repairing curbs and gutters and he presumed the existing
width of the gutter was three feet.
Councilmember Fletcher asked if before major construction
occurred: staff could consult with the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory
Ccmrai ttee (PABAC) on the width of the gutters because it was quite
an issue for bicyclists.
Mr. Bagdon said the contract for the asphalt work being awarded
that. evening did not address the concrete curb and gutters at all.
Construction on the asphalt was intended to start in two weeks.
Councilmember Fletcher was a little frustrated the City was stuck
with three-foot gutters.
Mr. Bagdon said the City was not replacing the gutters as part of
the asphalt program. It was a separate distinct program to min -
thin the gutters. The asphalt work went to the gutter but would
not include any work in the gutter.
Councilmember Fletcher said that was her concern.
6 9 7 5
3/17/86
CobncilMembcr Patitucci said i t was difficult for him to track
where the money carne from to pay for the proyram. He asked
whether money, not previously budgeted, was from the General Fund
or whether Council was rebudgeting money given by the State.
Mr. Bagdon said all of the money for the project would either be
out of existing Gas Tax funds within the current budget or from a
State grant. The City had a cash flow problem and needed to add
money to cover for a future payment by the State to the City for
the work.
Councilmember Patitucci asked what budget was amended. -
Mr. Zaner said in order to accommodate the cash flow problem, it
was necessary for the City to take funds out of the Reserve, which
would be replaced by SB 300 money when it arrived from the State.
Councilmember Patitucci clarified the budget amendment was tech-
nically not corting the City's general tax base anything.
Mr. Zaner said that was right.
Councilmember Levy was unfamiliar with the Reserve for Special
Projects.
Mr. Zaner said the Reserve for Special Projects and the Capital
Improvement Reserve were called "Reserve for Capital Projects."
Councilmember Levy said on the first page of the Ordinance, in
Section 1, the reserve was called the "Reserve for Special Funds."
He asked if ;t should be changed to "Special Projects."
Mr. Zaner said yes.
Councilmember Levy assumed the change would be incorporated in the
motion.
Mr. Zaner said staff would make the change.
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel roved, seconded by Sutori us, to
adopt staff recommendation. to:
1. Approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance appropriating $391,850
to CIP 85-70,>
2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Raisch
Construction Company in the amount of $710,028.94, including
add alternate number one; and
3. Authorize staff to execute change orders of up to $106,000.
ORDINANCE 3674 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CTTY OF P#LG ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1985-86 TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECEIPT OF REVENUE FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL
APPROPRIATION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 86-70
'STREET RESURFACING'.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Rai sch Construction Company
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:10 .m. T0.9:25 p.m.
ITEM il6 APPLICATION OF VARIAN ASSOCIATES FOR DESIGN APPROVAL OF
HANSCN WADY/PAGE MILL ROAD OFFICE BUILDING (PLA 3-1) (CMR:207:6)
Councilmember Bechtel said she would not participate on the item
because of her husband's employment.
§1?718I
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber had
one modification to a mitigation measure. On page 3 of the
Mitigation Measures attached to staff report (CMR:207:6), Item 5
Employment/Housing, Item 5.a. was the Housing Mitigation Ordinance
adopted last year by Council and the payment under that ordinance.
The ordinance effective date was March 1,2, 1985, and the ordinance
contained a provision for an adjustment of the fee annually based
on increases in the Cost of Living Index. The fee was imposed at
the time of project approval. For the subject project and
assuming Council approval, March 17, 1986 would be the time of
project approval. The fee was somewhat higher than indicated: in
the sixth line where it was $223,000, the updated number was
$232,375.
Architectural Review Board (ARB) member Linn Winterbotham said
the ARB believed the portion of the housing mitigation was consis-
tent with its expectations in the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and wanted to use it to give the applicant an opportunity to
receive Council consideration for the item.
Diana Lewiston, 1849 Newell, was concerned about bicycle safety in
the traffic mitigation portion of the project. A portion of the
mitigation extended along the curved portion of Hanover Road from
Page Mill Road to the Varian bike path. For the last four and
one-half years she did bicycle accident studies for the City of
Palo A?to_and last November participated in bicycle traffic counts
as part of the City-wide traffic study. In the four years they
tracked bicycle accidents, there were seven accidents in that
section of the road. She showed three driveways which belonged to
Varian adjacent to the bike path. Of the seven accidents in the
area in question, four occurred at driveway intersections.. Of the
four adults involved in the accidents, three were riding the wrong
way; moving in de direction opposite the normal traffic flow in the
adjacent traffic lane.- In. order to 'understand the relationship
between accidents and counts, it was necessary to know how people
used the roadway. All bicycle movements for a three-hour period
of time were counted in November during peak traffic time. from
3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p,na, and 142 cyclists were counted going into
the Varian bike path, going in front of the bike path traveling on
Hanover Road, and exiting the Varian bike path. Taking the acci-
dent profile and comparing like categories from the cyclist count
and the intersection accidents count, observations could be there
Were two cyclists riding on the traffic lane for every one on the
sidewalk, there were no reported intersection accidents for any
cyclist riding in the traffic lane, and there were reported acci-
dents involving cyclists eon the sidewalk at the time of collision.
Three-hour traffic counts did not give as complete a picture of
cyclists' riding behavior as twelve-hour counts but it was
significant two-thirds of the cyclists rode in the traffic lane,
and there were -no reported accidents for that larger group. Con-
clusions from those preliminary studies_ seemed to indicate a
greater risk associated with people who rode bicycles on _side-
walks. One solution to the problem of cyclists riding on sidwalks
was to first remove the two-way sidewalk bike path .designation
from Page Mill Road to the Varian bike path; second, to increase
the usable bike lane width in the traffic lane adjacent to the
two-way sidewalk bike path, and the Varian bike path to Page Mil)
from the substandard two -foot width -to the three-foot width=- to
meet Caltrans bike lane design standards; and, third, to educate
cyclist commuters working at Yarianof the hazards associated with
sidewalk riding.
Will Kr.anzthor, 880 north California- Avenue, :Director of
Management Systems for -Varian Associates, said Varian worked with
the City .for many yea -0,s, to gain approval for an office complex
located on their Page Mill property. Varian and the C.l.ty prepared
five drafts of a proposed housing mitigation agreement which
included: 1) using the $232,000 standard Palo Alto _housing
mitigation payment; 2) a $50,000 property location study; and 3) a
$500,000 interest assistance program to help finance housing in
S/?15581
Palo Alto. Varian was also requested to make traffic improvements
and studies at a cost of approximately.$100,000. The total figure
of 5882,000 was 65 unprecedented mitigation_ for the size of
development. Varian continued to be the traffic management leader
at the Stanford Industrial Park. Varian's program was about twice
as effective as other programs in the City of Palo Alto. Varian
was also leader in programs controlling noise and industrial
waste, and had been and would continue to be a good citizen of
Palo Alto, Varian's request for a 5500,000 limit on. interest
assistance was consistent with statements Varian made to the City
Council and the ARB. The limit was also consistent with good
business practice; the idea of having an undefined commitment was
hard for most businessmen to understand. It was probably a mis-
take the limit was not in initially and Varian asked Council's
indulgence to help get approval of the limit. As Varian's presi-
dent, Jerry Meyer, indicated in his letter to Council Ion file in
the City Clerk's office) , Varian requested approval tc include a
5500,000 maximum for interest assistance in the housing mitigation
agreement. Varian also requested Council approval of its Site 5
Office Complex which was unanimously approved by the ARB on
February 20, 1986. A rendering of the project was in the Council
Chambers together with several sketches r Varian believed tile
project was a great addition to the Stanford Industrial Park and
for the City of Palo Alto. There were staff members from Varian
present to answer questions.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Klein, the
following findings:
1 A. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City Council certified the
Final EIR as complete on October 15, 1985;
8. The City Council has reviewed and considered the informa-
tion contained in the Final EIR prepared for the Varian
Site 5 Office Complex;
C. Mitigation measures which eliminate or substantially
lessen the potential significant effects of the project on
traffic, air quality, and housing have been identified in
the EIR;
D. Mitigation measures identified in the EIR which will
reduce the project's impacts on traffic, air quality, and
housing to an acceptable levtl will be required as condi-
tions of project approval;
E. Additional developer -sponsored housing mitigation measures
will make a substantial contribution towards development
of affordable housing for low and moderate income families
is the City;
F. These findings are supported by the substantial evidence
contained in the EIR and project record, on file and
available for review in the City of Palo Alto's Department
of Planning and Community Environment; and
G. Therefore, it is found that the project as mitigated will
not have a significant adverse impact on the physical
environment. .
2. Applying to the Yariaa offhie complex project the visual
quality/design, traffic, air quality, community services/
utilities, employment/housing, grading/drainage/seismic risk,
noise, and energy mitigation' measures contained in the
Mitigation Measures. Staff revised the figure under the
Mitigation titled Emplo rent Nousiig ti read, `The developer
will 9be required to provide 4.ae units or *232,375 R
1
1
077/81
MOTION CONTINUED
3. Approving the project design subject to the following condi-
tions recommended by the Architectural Review Board (ARB):
A. Final landscape plans shall be approved by the ARB. The
final landscape plans shall include:
- Resolution of the bicycle path location along Hanover
consistent with PABAC recommendations and to the satis-
faction of the Chief Transportation Official;
- Final design of, the lake;
- Provision of additional loading area backup space to the
satisfaction of the Chief Transportation Official;
- Provision of street trees along Hansen Way, Page Mill,
and Hanover frontages to the satisfaction of the City
Rrborist;
- A 20 -foot wide drop-off loop rather than the 16 -foot
width shown on current plans;
- A pedestrian circulation system to the satisfaction of
the Chief Transportation Official;
- Landscape treatment for a minimum five-foot landscape
strip between the curb and sidewalks;
- Detail plans for the bicycle parking spaces to the
satisfaction of the Chief Transportation Official;
- Provision of connections, power, and light standards at
the two curves in the Varian bike path; and
- The nine parking spaces on the Building 4A site that are
required for Building 5 must be delineated an the final
landscape plans.
B. Exterior lighting and signage plans shall be approved by
the ARS.
C. Approval by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment for placement of 73 parking spaces in land-
scape reserve.
D. Widening of the Hanover at Page Mill intersection con-
sistent with an engineering study to be prepared for
review and approval by the Chief Transportation Official.
Varian is responsible for dedication to the City of Palo
Alto of any additional right-of-way required for the
intersection improvements.
E. Proposed drainage plans aid calculations must be sub-
mitted to the Engineering Department of the Public Works
Department at least 30 days prior to application for the
initial building permit. No :building permit will be
approved and issued until gradieg and drainage plans ar=.,
approved by Public Works -Engineering.
Further, that a $500,000 pipit be placed on Varian s financial
exposures to the mitigation agreement.
Mayor Cobb clarified the motion incorporated the ARS recommenda-
tion with the change of the $500,000 cap.
Mr. Schreiber said that was correct.
Councilmember Sutori us did not want interpretations to be a prob-
lem when an agreement was satisfactorily worked out between the
perties. In paragrah c. of the attachment to the staff report
(CMR:207:6), page 4, where the nature of the construction loan was
described, he was concerned the words "construction loan," and
"bousiriy project," or the word "project" were all singular. The
staff report recognized the application of the funds might be to a
project or projects, and the $5 million involved in the
construction was the determinant. He asked staff whether there
was a need for any modification along with actions taken to make
those words apply to more than one, by either "(s)" or some other
process. If the sense was well -understood by both parties and was
not a problem in developing the formal agreement, then
modification might not be necessary.
Mr. Schreiber said staff sensed multiple loans were consistent
with the measure in discussions with Varian, and he confirmed
Messrs. Kranzthor and Clemm nodding their heads in agreement with
his statement. He did not believe it was necessary to amend the
language.
Mayor Cobb noted for the record Mr. Kranzthor commented interpre-
tation was included in the fifth draft.
Councilmember Fletcher said bicycle parking wan all in one corner
on the plans. The Parking Ordinance stated bicycle parking should
be situated at least as conveniently as the most convenient car
parking area. Car parking was all around the buildings, and she
wanted the ARB to discuss whether the location of the bicycle
parking could conform more closely to the requirements in the
ordinance. Under the recommendations for the ARB to approve the
final landscaping plans and associated items, she asked the com-
ments that evening regarding accidents on the bike path be con-
sidered and the PABAC recommendations be taken into account.
Mr. Schreiber noted for the record both bicycle accidents and the
PABAC recommendations were consistent with the staff recommenda-
tion as items to be resolved with the final landscape plan.
Councilmember Levy was on the Council approximately six years ago
during the zoning discussion of the subject parcel. It was a
close decision in his mind and a difficult one in terms of whether
the parcel should be rezoned and whether it was more appropriate
to have housing in the location rather than intensify the commer-
cial use. There were many elements on both sides but he decided
with the majority ,of Council the parcel should be zoned for com-
mercial use in line with the other uses in the industrial park.
He believed the decision was proper given the traffic and sur-
rounding uses. The traffic probleme on Page Mill Road would be
exacerbated no matter how the parcel .was used. He commended
Varian for its extensive' traffic management program and what it
did to encourage alternates to. automobile transportation, but
recognized the trafH,c picture on Page Mill and in the general
industrial park area was difficult. He referred to the traffic
mitigation measure On page 1 of the attachment to CMR:207:6, and
asked how the City enforced the Varian commitment of a 24 percent
reduction in peak hour vehicle trips for the propo3'ed project. He
was not presently concerned because Varian achieved a 24 percent
reduction and he was confident it could continue to maintain the
reduction in the near future. He was concerned about what hap-
pened in the long term if Varian, or a successor corporation, o,' a
Varian corporation with different management or objectives did
risk, maintain a 24 percent reduction. He asked what enforcement
mechanisms were available to the City.
1
1
1
6 9 8 0
3/17/86
Mr. Schreiber said absent some other City regulation, ordinance,
etc., the extent of the City's control over the amount of traffic
after completion of the development was relatively limited.
Staff's approach was to try to build 'in at least an annual
monitoring mechanism. Staff expected the monitoring results would
be reported to the Commission, Council, and the press as part of
the public/Council/Commission packets to instill a long-term
commitment on the part of the employer to meet the trip reduction
goals set out in the traffic mitigation measure. The bottom line
in terms of the hold the City had over a particulates employer or
site was relatively limited, and public embarrassment in terms of
failure to meet those goals was\one mechanism for enforcement and
pride was another.
Councilmember Levy said the traffic mitigation measure specific-
ally mentioned Varian. If Varian no longer occopied the site, he
asked if the mitigation carried on to the next occupant.
Mr. Schreiber said the City could word an agreement regarding the
implementation of mitigation measures to refer to successor
occupants or lessees. The City's ability to enforce, however,
might be somewhat limited.
Councilmember Levy asked the Acting City Attorney whether th City
would be limited in its ability to enforce the measures if is said
"Varian or successor occupant."
Senior Assistant City Attorney Clark Guinan believed the City
would be limited in its enforcement measure. Since his participa-
tion at the Council meeting was last minute, he did not have an
opportunity to thoroughly review the matter. Based on his perusal
cf the staff report (CMR:207:6), he believed the 24 percent reduc-
tion in peak hour was more of a moral commitment and would be dif-
ficult to enforce legally. 4_
Councilmember Levy clarified there was no enforcement per se only
hope. The City requested Varian make a study every year, and he
clarified there was no problem with that.
Mr. Guinan saw no problem with the language.
Councilmember Levy asked if Varian did not achieve a 24 percent
reduction, whether the City could add Varian must have on its
staff a traffic coordinator for the subsequent year whose function
would be to work toward achievement of the 24 percent reduction.
Mr. Guinan said the provision could be added as a full-back
condition.
Councilmember Levy asked Varian representatives to respond to the
particular element or to suggest some other e way for Council to
enforce the 24 percent reduction objective.
Mr, Kranzthor said one absolute control Council already had on
the 24 percent reduction was the number of parking spaces avail-
able for the site. Council had strong enforcement already built
into the layout of. Varian's site. He urged f,"ouncil consider
Varian's good traffic record. Varian was doing twice as well as
anybody else in the Stanford Industrial Park. The number of cars
on the site would be about 300 and it appeared unfair to ask
Varian to provide such a mitigation when none of the other tenants
had the same requirement. Varian .would cooperate with the City in
its traffic program. Varian had another Van Pool Fair on April
16, and .was the only member of the Stanford Industrial Park with a
discount ticket program at a current cost of about $30,000 a year.
Varian had a sterling record which it intended to maintain.
6 9 8 .1
3/17/86
Councilmember Levy recognized and appreciated Varianse traffic
record, Since there would be a significant addition of traffic,
and if Varian's objectives changed dS far as vehicle trips in the
future, or if there was another occupant of the location, he was
concerned about getting some bite into the mitigation measure.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, the
following amendment:
1. To revise the language to replace °Marian° with °occupant of
the property's; and
2. If the occupant of the property was unable to achieve the 24
percent reduction of peak vehicle trips, that the company be
required to hire a traffic coordinator whose primary responsi-
bility would be to achieve the 24 percent reduction.
Councilmember Fletcher said traffic counts were bound to be dif-
ferent in the summer than in the winter since in poor weather
fewer people rode bicycles. ,She was also concerned with the
implied self -monitoring and whether the City's arrangement could
be either a joint monitoring or an independent arrangement for
monitoring. It was not that she did not trust Varian, but it
would not, be in Varian's interests if the numbers were not
achieved, to wait a few days, hope the weather improved, and see
if the car counts went down. She asked for staff reaction.
Mr. Schreiber said the mitigation measure presently spoke to an
annual monitoring reporting procedure developed to the satisfac-
tion of Varian and the City of Palo Alto. Stanford had no inten-
tion of entering into an agreement which simply provided staff
with a set of numbers for which they had no clear basis. Whether
the numbers were based on hiring of an outside engineer, or some
other type of mechanism, it had to be worked out, but the types of
numbers staff expected to receive could; be -f r ependently verified
as part of the process.
Councilmember Levy was reassured.
AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded
by Renzel, that the initial year include monitoring to be done
twice a year, once in the summer and once in the winter.
Councilmember Renzel believed Councilmember Fletcher's point that
the parking on the project was designed for a limited number of
cars was important. The whole mitigation measure was dependent on
reductions from the higher levels which might occur. It made
sense to get some baseline measurement for summer and winter, and
to structure the monitoring program based on it rather than on
figures which might start out being artificially low.
AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-3, Patit*cci,
Woolley, Cobb voting °no,° Bechtel °not participating.°
Councilmember Renzel believed Councilmember Levy raised some
important questions about what the mitigation might mean if Varlar.
built the building, then leased it to someone else, or if the
master lease was modified so the property was conveyed to someone
else under a long-term lease. Council was making a permanent,
major change in the community with those: buildings in a sensitive
area, and in an era when it urged other communities in the
so-called 101 corridor to li;-it growth and traffic so the City was
not faced with another Bayfront Freeway or other problematic
solutions to traffic. It was important when Council proceeded on
a major new project, to ensure it actually mitigated and did not
just put . some prettywords in a document. Councilmember Levy's
amendment was in order and she hoped her colleagues would support
it.
Councilmember Patitucci would not support the amendment. The
issue was discussed by many committees, in many staff reports, and
in an incredible amount of negotiations. The amendment added
excessive detail.
Councilmember Sutorius was in a dilemma because he agreed with the
concept of a successor. He voted for the amendment to the amend-
ment only because he was not opposed to the summer and winter
studies, but he was closer to the position enunciated by
Councilmember Patitucci. The irony was Varian brought the matter
on itself by making a request when he did not believe it was in
difficulty of having any unforecastable experience. 'Bringing the
one issue forward opened up a can of worms, including delaying
when Varian's application was approved, and, therefore, its miti-
gation payments went up. He was sympathetic and empathetic with
Councilmember Levy's suggestion regarding a successor; that was
the one part of the main motion he really supported. If it was
inappropriate to have it separated, he would vote no on the
motion.
Councilmember Fletcher said the project might never have been pro-
posed if the close vote went the other way several years ago when
Council looked for parcels to rezone to housing. If the parcel
had been rezoned to :lousing, the peak -hour traffic would not be
nearly as - impacted. The traffic was already past what was con-
sidered very congested, and now Varian was adding considerable
traffic. The motivation to spend staff time working on the traf-
fic mitigations and the ride -sharing programs was something that
rose and fell. Hewlett-Packard used to have a full-time
ride -share coordinator. Syntex used to have an exemplary program,
and won a Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) award, but
its traffic coordinator was no longer on board. Those companies
presently assigned some employees for a minimum amount of time to
work on the ride -sharing so the commitment went down. She was
sure Varian had no intention of doing elle same, but there was no
legal assurance its commitment would not drop similarly. The
amendment was worthwhile, and she urged her colleagues to vote for
it.
Mayor Cobb had no problem making the agreement apply to any
successor/owner of the property. It was probably moot because the
property was intended to be a corporate headquarters for Varian,
and he could not imagine, short of going out of business, it was
anxious to see anyone else take it over. He would divide the
motion because it would be perceived differently from the other
matter. He voted against the amendment to the amendment as he
would the amendment because he believed at times Council's reach
exceeded its grasp, and the subject issue was an example. It was
unenforceable. Varian did a fine job, better than most, and
probably carried a disproportionate burden. He wished there was
some way to get some of Varian's other colleagues in the indus-
trial park to do some of the things Varian had. Council might
think about more of an effort on an outreach program. He com-
mended Varian for what it did, and hoped it would continue.
Within the context of the document, he expected they would.
AMENDMENT AS AMENDED DIVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VOTING
AMENDMENT AS AMENDED RELATED T4 REVISION TO CHANGE "VARIAN" TO
' OCCUPANT OF THE PIROPERTr PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Woolley voting
' ea,' Bechtel 'not participating."
AMENDMENT AS AMENDED RELATED TO 24 PERCENT REDUCTION OF PEAK
VEHICLE TRIPS AND THE INITIAL YEAR MONITORING TIME FRAME FAILED by
a vote of 2-6, Fletcher, Levy voting 'aye," Bechtel not
participating.`
6 g 8 3
3/17/86
Councilmember Renzel said a latter from the Palo Alto Housing
Corporation (PAHC) indicated PAHC did uof euticipate any circum-
stance in which money in excess of the $500,000 limit on the
interest buy -down would be achieved. Since construction loans
were taken out over a period of time which might run up to 22
months in that case, interest might fluctuate rather
significantly. She asked staff if that was correct.
Mr. Schreiber said construction loans did extend over a period of
time, and the ability to predict interest rates over the course of
one, two, or three years was difficult.
Councilmember Renzel clarified a project might start at the nine
and one-half or ten percent interest rates available now, and
interest rates might rise to fourteen percent or more in the midst
of construction.
Mr. Schreiber said it was possible; construction loan rates were
usually floating rates pegged with some relationship to the prime
rate.
Councilmember Renzel clarified if money was borrowed sequentially
as needed for a construction loan, the subsequent amounts borrowed
would be at the higher interest rate.
Mr. Schreiber said it was his understanding.
Councilmember Renzel said if it occurred, then the full buy -down
on a $5 million loan might exceed $500,000.
Mayor. Cobb said it might help to have Mr. Goldsmith of the Palo
Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), who was an expert in the matter,
give a brief answer to the question.
Lou Goldsmith, member of PAHC, said construction rates for
borrowing varied from time to time and might get to be high in the
future but in PAHC's experience, ohe made a deal on a construction
loan at a certain rate which was fixed for the duration. The only
variable was how long the loan would be in place. It was possible
if interest rates gyrated badly, a lender might say the rate would
be at so much over prime and the rate could fluctuate. He
believed they were talking about a comparatively short period of
time for the actual construction --typically under a year --and
there • we s a time limit of 22 months on any project there. If
interest rates got so high they were up to 15-20 percent, he did
not believe PAHC could build any housing because one simply could
not make a project feasible under those conditions, and the
project would not be affordable so it was not the kind of housing
in which the PAHC would be interested. He believed there was an
adequate cushion based on the numbers shown in the letter. which
showed with a'10 percent write -down, which allowed a 13 percent
construction loan interest, the Marian interest contribution would
be somewhere around $350,000 based on what PAHC did in selling out
condominiums at Birch Court. PAHC intended to build housing so
much below the typical market it would either rent or sell rapidly
otherwise it was not interested in building. With an apparent
safety factor of $150,000 out of the $500,000, it seemed pretty
safe to PANIC.
Councilmember Renzel was still uncomfortable about a major project
such as Varian's. Despite the significant contributions Varian
offered to make, she was concerned some were soft, and the fact
Council did not have a fallback position in the event the traffic
mitigation was not met meant mitigation really was not worth much
in the long term. She was worried particularly in view of the
major problems faced in the 101 corridor. Even though it was
Council `s formula, mitigating for . 4.4 housing units when 196
employee housing unit-. would be demanded in the overall market
meant Council would never come close to mitigating the problems
involved. She planned to vote against the project.
MAIIA
Councilmember Levy supported the motion and commended V eian for
going well beyond the strict letter of City requirements in making
funds available and in showing a lot of goodwill in trying both to
ameliorate the City's difficult housing situation and traffic
problems. He supported the motion as it now read.
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Renzel voting "no,"
Bechtel "not participating.
ITEM #17, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMAND AND CONTROL RADIO CHANNEL NETWORK
(1AF 2) (CMR:1f3 :
Councilmember Levy did not understand why the request could not
wait until the normal budget process.
City Manager Bill Zaner said staff was attempting to outfit the
Emerge' -y Operations Center (EOC) as quickly as possible. Staff
did not anticipate having an emergency before July, but it was
never known. The equipment was for the EOC, and the need was
noted during the last emergency. It was never known when the
equipment would be needed --it might be needed the next day for an
earthquake --or it might not be needed for six or eight months. He
preferred to purchase the equipment rather than wait for the
budget process.
MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Woolley,
approval of the budget amendment ordinance.
ORDINANCE entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
ZT PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1985-86 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION TO
ENHANCE THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMAND AND CONTROL RADIO
CHANNEL NETWORK"
Councilmember Levy would not support the motion not because he die
not feel it was needed but because he believed the process was
incorrect even though it was regarded as an item for the EOC. He
believed they could wait the three months for the approval of the
budget and recommended it lie done.
MOTION FAILED by a vote of 5-3, Patitucci, Renzel, Levy voting
"not" Bechtel absent.
ITEM 118, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE WILLOW ROAD
tXTENSION TO -
Councilmember Fletcher said CalTrans suomi tted a route map which
showed a link on Willow Road between 280 and 101, and despite the
City's objections, insisted on keeping the link on its concept
plans for future reference. If something was shown on the plans,
it was sure to encourage development in the corridor and later be
used as a justification for building the road both because the
demand was created, and the route was shown on maps for so long.
Council should make it clear to CalTrans there was no chance the
link should ever be built, and should not be shown on any of its
route maps.
MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to
direct the Mayor to send a letter to CalTrans stating insistence
that the Willow Corridor Connection (Route 114) be removed from
the State 20 -year nlanning documents; and further, that the Mayor
be directed to contact the Mayor of Menlo Park to request similar
action from the City of Menlo Park.
Councilmember Patitucci opposed the motion. He believed the
people of Palo Alto expressed serious concern about traffic in the
City. The City was currently doing a traffic study to try to
determine the sources and destinations of the traffic. -Based on
informal surveys of people who worked in various Menlo Park
destinations, he believed a large percentage of traffic in
Sr?7,8g
Downtown Palo Alto had as its origin work .locations in Menlo Park,-.
e �
either toward 280 or in the area around Sunset. The completion of
W' l l ow _ Road all the way through from 10I to 280 would put the
traffic going in and out of Menlo Park on roads in Menlo Park. If
there was a possibility of exploring it by having the route
designated as something to look at, study, and think about, then
he was in favor of doing so. Two weeks ago, they saw a proposal
for a major development in the St. Patrick's site in Menlo Park.
If anything like that was ever built, whether for housing or for
commercial, he asked where Councilmembers thought people coming
from the direction of Palo Alto, south and west, would drive to be
able to get to the facility People would go down Palo Alto's
local streets: University Avenue, Lytton, all Downtown Palo .Alto
would col 1 ect the traffic.. He knew the issue was not popular, but
he did not believe Council needed to sweep it under the carpet,
and it was worthwhile to have the matter in front of Council as an
option if Menlo Park was going to continue to develop according to
the plans recently seen.
Councilmember Renzel concurred with Councilmember Fletcher and
strongly disagreed with Councilmember Pati tucci . Showing a route
which was to remain unconstructed on a map was just like putting
an escape hatch on a ship and saying the ship would never sink,
but everybody continued to travel on it because they believed they
were safe and had an escape hatch. Council received in its
packets the Transportation 2000 Survey, which indicated some 35 or
36 percent of the public perceived the need to expand and increase
road., in order . to improve transportation in the area. That kind
of pressure was formidable in the _long term, and Council should
not encourage development which created pressure by drawing routes
on the map designated "route to remain unconstructed." It made no
sense and provided a false sense of security about what would or
would not happen. The Cities of Menlo Park and Palo Alto had
strong mandates within the community, and as a planning -matter,
Council should set tine matter to rest and let the route be desig-
nated at some future time if the politics were there to accept
it.
Councilmember Fletcher said the idea to oppose Willow Road was not
new; it was discussed many times over the years and was put in the
Comprehensive Plan as the City being not interested in the
connection.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Patitucci voting "no," Mechtel
"absent."
MAYOR COBB RE DRAFT AGENDAS FOR ARB AND HRB MEETINGS
Mayor Cobb said draft agendas were put at . Counci l members' places
for their special meetings with the ARB and the HRB. Comments
would be appreciated for the final agendas
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 10:25
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
6 9 8 6
3/17/86