Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-08 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL M1MUTES ITEM Oral Communications CITY of PRtO ALTO Regular Meeting September 8, 1986 Minutes of August 4 and August 11, 1986 1. Appointment of Visual Arts Jury Member to Fill the Unexpired Term Ending January 31, 1987 2. Transportation 2000 - Phaso II Consent Calendar 3. Foothills Park Erosion Control - Phase I°i - Rejection of Bid 4. Hazardous Materials Storage Facility Improvements - Phase II - Rejection of Bid 6. Contract for Parking Citation Processing Vendor 7. Contract for ClaimsAdministration Services for Sel f -Insured 'General/Auto Liability 8. Contract for Claims Administration Services for City of Palo Alto Self -Funded Employees' Health and Dental Plans and Retirees' Health and Reimbursement Plans 9. Gas Rate Increase PAGE 7 6 2 2 7 6 2 2 7 6 2 2 7 6 6 4 7 6 7 4 7 6 7 4 7 6 7 4 7 6 7 5 7 6 7 5 7 6 7 5 7 6 7 5 7 .,.6 6 0 9/08/86 ITEM PAGE 10. Ordinance re 744 Ramona Street Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 10A. Amendment to Water Quality Control Plana,_ Capacity Expansion Design 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 11. Amendments to the Below -Market -Rate (BMR) 7 6 7 7 Guidelines (Continued from 9/2/86) 12. Report from Council Legislative Committee re 7 6 7 7 Parental Leave -- HR 4300 13. Payment for On -Call Service at the Refuse 7 6 7 9 Area.- Stevens Creek Quarry 14. Request of Councilmember Fletcher re 7 6 7 9 Pooper-Scooper Ordinance Adjournment at 9:38 p.m. 7 6 8 0 Final Adjournment at 9:50 p.m. 7 6 8 0 7 6 6 1 9/08/86 Regular Meeting Monday, September 8, 1986 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:34 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Mayor Cobb announced the need for a Closed Session re Personnel to be held after the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. W. R. Smith, 187.3 Edgewood Drive, was concerned that Council voted to close the. Arastra stables. He urged reconsidera- tion. MINUTES OF AUGUST 4 AND AUGUST 11, 1986 MOTION: Co unc i l mewbe r Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Minutes of August 4, 1986, as submitted.. Councilmember Patitucci said he would abstain from voting on the August 4, 1986, minutes since he was not present. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-8-1, Patitucci $aabstainiaeg..R MOTItM I Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Minutes of August 11, 1986, as submitted. Vice Mayor Woolley and Councilmember Sutorius would abstain from voting on the August. 11, 1986, minutes sinc:i they were not pres- ent. mono* PASSIM by a veto of 7--© 2, Woolley, Sutorius *abstaining! SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. APPOINTMENT OF VISUAL ARTS JURY MEMBER TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED TERM ENDING JANUARY 31-7-0, (COO 4-7-5) Mayor Cobb said the applicants were as follows: John B. Montgomery James E. Nelson Beatrice . M. Wax Su:an Wexler Jean Wren 7 6 6 2 9/08/86 Councilmember Levy was impressed with the applicants. He intended to support John Montgomery because he was a, practicing artist and an attorney. T le Visual Arts Jury (VAJ) members were active and utilized a lot of time furthering visual arts in Palo Alto. He was also impressed with the qualifications of Jim Nelson and the many years of participation in the community by Bea Wax and Susan Wexler. Councilmember Klein supported Jim Nelson. The VAJ did a fine job, but was unable to break intocooperation with local industy. Mr. Nelson's background, having worked at Stanford and Raychem, would provide a necessary perspective which the VAJ presently lacked. It would be a helpful step for the community to appoint Jim Nelson. Councilmember Sutorius supported Jim Nelson and agreed with Councilmember Klein's comments. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING Assistant City Clerk Georgene Takayama announced the results of the first round of voting: VOTING FOR MONTGOMERY: Levy, Woolley VOTING FOR WEXLER: Bechtel VOTING FOR WREN: Fletcher, Renzel VOTING FOR NELSON: Sutorius, Cobb, Klein, Patitucci Ms. Takayama said none of the candidates received five votes :and another ballot round was in order. RESULTS OF THE SECOND ROUND OF VOTING Ms. Takayama announced the results of the second round of voting: VOTING FOR NELSON: Bechtel, Cobb, Klein, Patitucci, Sutorius, Woolley VOTING FOR WREN: Fletcher, Renzel VOTING FOR MONTGOMERY: Levy Ms. •Takayama said Mr. Nelson received six votes and was appointed. Mayor Cobb congratulated Mr. Nelson. 7 6 6 3 9/08/86 2. TRANSPORTATION 2000 - PHASE II (PLA 4) (CMR:473:6) Mayor Cobb said no Council action was required. Staff requested Council comments on the report. Assistant City Manager June Fleming introduced James Lightbody, a member of the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency and Project Manager for the Transportation 2000 Study. Bruce Heflinger, Western Wheelers of Palo Alto, was concerned about the possibility that the shoulders on Central and Foothill. Expressways might be taken over by cars at commute hours because it was dangerous for cyclists. He urged opposition. Herbert Susmann, 2330 Tasso Street, .paid membership in Western Wheelers was higher than ever. To allow_ motor vehicles to use the shoulders on the expressways mentioned would turn over the major bicycle commute route to the least efficient means of commuting. Bicycles also used the most direct route to work. He realized Council did not have to take a position, but it might help to send a message before the project continued on towards the use of the shoulders. Herb Bbrock, 2731 Byron, said the intersection of Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway was key in the Midtown Traffic Study. He wanted to ensure Council's options for the best traffic solution in the Midtown Traffic Study stayed open and that information gen- erated by the Transporation 2000 (T-2000) Study got to the neigh- borhoods in a timely fashion in order for the :Midtown neighbors to participate in the solution. The traffic signal element of the T-2000 Study was prepared. by D.K.S. Associates, the same consul- tant for the Midtown Traffic Study, and Council waived its normal conflict of interest guidelines for contractors to permit D.K.S. to work on both studies. He understood the current plan restored the subject intersection to the coordinated signals between Bryant and West Bayshore and Oregon Expressway and removed the split phase along Middlefield Road at Oregon Expressway. At the beginning of 1980, the split phase was installed to relieve some of: the congestion on Middlefield Road, but since the situation worsened, the intersection was removed from the coordinated sig- nals along Oregon due to the longer delay on Middlefield Road as a result of the split phase. He queried the effect of the recommen- dations in terms of what would be required to have simultaneous left turn lanes if the split phase was removed. He also queried the intent in terms of cycle time and the amount of green time both on Oregon and Middlefield. Typically such attempts to syn- chronize and improve traffic flow on an expressway caused the cross streets to suffer, i.e., Middlefield Road. He hoped the County could provide some information as to what it expected would happen if its proposals for the intersection were implemented by Palo Alto. 7 6.6 4 9/08/06 Will Beckett, 4189 Baker Avenue, Traffic Committee Chairman for the Barron Park Association (BPA), said the Traffic Committee was generally frustrated with the traffic situation on 21 Camino Real, which had grown to such an extent that the arterial on the other side of Barron Park-Arastradero--was ,now as crowded as El Camino. The committee agreed arterials should be improved such that people did not short cut through residential streets. At the same time, growth needed to be controlled in the City to assure improvements to the arterials were not for naught. It was important for the study to look intently at a possible work center to allow the use of rail systems. The Traffic Committee wanted the improvements to the arterials but resisted any separated grade crossings at El Camino and Foo:hill because growth could not be controlled. He believed that separated grade crossings at Page Mill were long overdue and if Palo Alto continued in its present style in other areas of the City, an underpass rather than an overpass would be the right thing to do at least at Page Mill and El Camino. He hoped fora successful study and that Palo Alto would not move towards aSan Francisco or Los Angeles by the year 2000. Councilmember Fletcher referred to a letter from the BPA (on file in the City Clerk's office), and asked if it represented the con- sensus between the Board of Directors and Traffic Committee. Mr. Beckett saidbefore the Committee met, there was a long dis- cussion and he could not agree with the full content of the letter because little was said about the growth problem. He believed arterial improvement was necessary and something, the committee would like •to see as an alternative to through traffic problems in the Barron Park area. They were starting to hear things in the neighborhood about increased through traffic and believed if no improvement was made, the situation would worsen. The data was not analyzed completely, but in another reek or so, the BPA would have information on its current through traffic problem. Jim Lightbody, Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, said traffic and congestion was the number one problem in the County. The most serious problems were in the 101 corridor from the County line to south San Jose and the Fremont; Southbay corridor which would extend from the Golden Triangle area into Alameda County. Phase 11 began earlier in 1986, and the first emphasis was to develop the system concept," which concept called for efforts in the "highway system," . 'transit system," and "commuter syEttem." The general emphasis was to bring those systems into better bal- ance by placing a greater emphasis on transit and the commuter end in future years. While not ignoring the highway system and recog- nizing that highway improvements were needed in the short term, the concept of the plan had to be balancedto respond to future 7.6 6 5 9/08/86 1 needs. In the highway area, they would focus on expressway and freeway improvements; and in transit, recommendations in the rail area emphasized priorities for rail expansion specifically for the 101, Fremont/Southbay, and Vasona/Route 17 corridors. Para transit, elderly, handicapped, and circulation system elements would be included in the final plan. A bicycle element would be included in the plan, as well as a demand management program dealing with how to define and establish ride sharing programs and activities with cities and companies to assure usage of commuter lanes and the transit system. The intent was to bring all the pieces together in the next few months and pull them into a final plan draft and. have public workshops in� October, a public hearing in November, and final circulation of the plans to the cities probably in January, 1987. In terms of the bus element, people did not feel the present bus system was convenient so the study tried to address ways to make the system more convenient to a potential market; the nonstop direct express routes were not as effective as they should be and were expensive to operate; and the the rail system needed to be_ better integrated with the Cuudaiupe Corridor and First Street. and the bus system to tie it into one complete system. The major emphasis was in the grid system. The primary routes operating on major arterials and the recommenda- tions called for reducing the headways to make it easy to transfer between lines, less reliance on complicated scheduling, and improved frequency of service so those routes operated at 10 -minute intervals during the peak period and about 15 minutes in the off peak. Other elements included some additional service into the job centers and improved the transfer between lines and integreation with the rail system. Regarding commuter express - lines, one recommendation was to target certain corridors where commuter lanes existed or were planned and to involve private operators under a contract arrangement possibly utilizing a more specialized vehicle for longer trips. It was hoped that using private operators would reduce the cost of the service. The regional bus service would be emphasized. In the short term, an addition al route was proposed to operate from Palo Alto with a limited number of stops connecting the San Jose Airport and the train _ station in downtown San Jose. The purpose of the particular line would be to supplement the current CalTrain.service, particu- larly in the nonpeak hours so it would stop in the train stations and perhaps the schedule could be interspersed with the train schedules so that from the train stations one could get service on at least a one-half hour frequency. Development of the.CalTrain service that the plan would like would not be seen for a number of years. The short-term improvements in the bus system were about a 50 percent increasein the overall level of service over the next 5-7 years_. In the longer term to year 2000, they recommended a doubling of the bus service level to anultimate bus fleet size of 900-1,000 buses. In regard to the commuter -lane network of the highway element, the boardrecently adopted a program t.o help fund 7 6 6 6 9/08/86 the expressway commuter lanes and had the ability to fund commuter lanes on State Highways 101 and 85 through Measure A. Much of the 130 miles of commuter lanes in the overall plan was funded. In response to the bicycle issue, some recommendations called for shoulders for commuter lanes which would create a problem, but not with Central Expressway or Foothill Expressway which would both retain the full shoulder, and the additional commuter lanes -would be added in the median. Locations where the shoulder was antici- pated for conversion to a commuter lane included Capitol Expressway, Almaden Expressway, and Lawrence Expressway, and only Capitol and Almaden currently allowed bicycles. The issue needed to be addressed. There might be some conflict between the bicycle and commuter -lane elements in the plan that would need to be resolved as the specific design development went forward. In the short term, there were not many other highway recommendations. There were some improvements .at intersections on the County expressway system and a few proposed grade separations and inter- changes. In Palo Alto there were a few intersection improvements, and the recommendations for Middlefield and Oregon did call for removing the split phase and returning the coordination system. That might involve additional width to eliminate the split phase, but they had not gone into detail as to how that would work, how it might be restriped, or whether the roadway would have to be widened slightly. It was a planning -level study to identify needs and develop general strategies. Some improvements were also recommended at the Veterans Hospital with the connections onto Foothill Expressway and at the intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The improvements represented the top priorities over the next 5-6 years that were reasonable in terms of funding expectations. The longer -term recommendations, looking out to year 2000, represented more ambitious improvements prrybably requiring additional funding. On a County -wide basis they were attempting to eliminate bottleneck problems, particularly on the Expressway system where key locations caused backups mainly in and around the industrial area near 101 and the Golden Triangle area. The second target category was to offer some relief to . 101, recognizing that was one of the most congested areas with some of the largest efficiency, and specifically to improve Central Expressway so it could perhaps pick up some of the 101 traffic. The third improvement recommendation was to provide some capacity increase to serve the projected in -commute increase from the housing growth in Alameda County. In the mid -range category, Palo Alto recommendations included an interchange at Page Mill Road and Foothill Expressway, and a non-specific commuter -lane facility or bypass to the approaches to the Dumbarton Bridge to provide an afternoon alternative to the bypass lane that commuters would have in the morning through the. toll plaza. That might be done by adding an additional lane reserved for buses and carpools to the present afternoon bottleneck sections. The long-term category represented improvements that would likely be recommended for 7 6. 6 .7 9/08/86 beyond year 2000, so were non-specific and included some of the consultant recommendations that were not as high a priority such as the commuter lanes on Foothill Expressway, and the possibility of an interchange at El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Spe- cifically, the highway recommendation would be going through the Transportation Commission during September, would be taken to the T-2000 Steering Committee in October, and ultimately to the Board of Supervisors. Chief Transportation Official Marvin .Overwa y said Council had the choice that evening of taking a specific position or giving gen- eral guidance and, as a minimum, staff would like some general guidance. The whole plan would go. before Councilat a later time. The bus and highways elements were presently before Council and any action or comments should reference that point. Staff would also appreciate guidance on the concerns raised by Councilmember Fletcher in a previous memorandum. As they continued to partici- pate in the process, in the public hearings, the public meetings, and Councilmember Fletcher's participation in the review bodies, it was important to receive as much discussion and direction as possible. Councilmember. Fletcher asked Mr. Lightbody about the time frame. When the Board of Supervisors votedon ueing transit funds to the extent recommended by the sub -Committee for T-2000, the transit fund infusion was considerably more than contemplated, .and the Supervisors said they would like the whole network to be imple- mented in five years. Mr. Lightbody said recent action by the Board of Supervisors to provide funding from the transit tax accelerated the program over the consultants' recommendations. The consultants' recommenda- tions in terms of relative priorities would probably still hold, and the first attention would likely be given to the recommended top priorities, specifically a portion of Central Expressway from Lawrence Expressway to De La Cruz and the improvements to Lawrence Expressway. Other improvements, such as Almaden Expressway and Capitol Expressway, might be moved up to before 1990. Councilmember Fletcher said the study was before Council that week because on Wednesday the Transportation Commission . was asked to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Since the ele- ments of the plan were a vast departure from the previous philoso- phy and specific plans in the Comprehensive Plan, she would be grateful for more than general direction because she would be voting on specifics. The final plan would not be adopted until later in the year so present actions could be reversed, but she did not like to go ahead against what the Council believed was the. right thing for Palo Alto. In regard to her concerns, the com- muter lanes were not three and one-half hours for one lane as at present, but nine hours of commuter -lane use in both directions, 7 6 6 8 9/08/86 i.e., almost constant use even if the commuter lanes were shoul- ders. Another aspect was the more commuter lanes, the more transit funding would be used because of CHP ehforcewei t, which she calculated came to approximately $4.9 million in 1986 dollars to enforce the commuter lanes as envisioned in the plan. Thirdly, she was concerned with the plans for Central Expressway which would be made virtually into a freeway with the addition of grade separations at Mary, Castro, Route 85, Bowers, De la Cruz, Scott, and Lafayette with direct connections to Bayshore Freeway at the San Jose end, plus direct connections to the new Guadalupe Freeway, and improved connections to the expanded Route 850 which would be a full freeway all the way to South San Jose. The intent was to attract traffic to Central Expressway and to relieve traf- fic from other routes, but she shuddered at the thought of the future traffic on. Alma Street if the plan went ahead as envisioned. Councilmember Bechtel shared some of Councilmember Fletcher's concerns. Specifically, in the long-range improvements. the County of Santa `Mara just sold to a private, developer and the City approved approximately a 100 -unit apartment project on what was designated for Page Mill/El Canino interchange. The County and -City took that off the map, and it was not being resurrected. It was a mistake particularly to put it in long-range plans after the County just sold some of the parcels. She referenced urban interchange and asked if the intersection o.f Page Mill Road and Foothill Expressway was a full interchange. Mr. Lightbody said no, the urban interchange was a relatively new design providing a tighter intersection geometric that allowed for construction almost within the existing right-of-way. The use of retaining walls on the sides allowed them to bring the main line over the cross street within a tighter amount of right-of-way. Most of the recommendations in the plan called for consideration of that type of interchange. Councilmember Bechtel asked how high the design went up. Mr. Lightbody replied the main line► of the expressway went over the cross street with.:a bridge structure and would be the standard clearanctaf Councilmember Bechtel said she understood Mr. Lightbody to say that Foothill was not an expressway where there was any widening, and there would still be room for the bicycle lanes. Mr. Lightbody said that was correct. The landscaping in the middle might be removed but the shoulders would remain. 1 Councilmember Bechtel said she had three alternatives going south daily toward Los Altos: Alma, El Camino, and Foothill Expressway, and she found the slowest way was Foothill Expressway because the lights were extremely long, and El Camino was best because of the synchronized lights. Mr. Lightbody commented one of the top priorities. in the plan recommendation was the coordination and synchronization of signals on the expressways, including replacing many of the existing sig- nal systems with more`modern, state-of-the-art equipment. Councilmember Bechtel asked if Mr. Linnthndy had s response to Councilmember Fletcher's concerns abouty the Dumbarton Bridge con- nection and moving from wider to narrower the right of ways in the case of both Alma and Foothill. Mr. Lightbody said in regard tv the Dumbarton Bridge connection, they had notdone much more than identifying it as a bottleneck problem and suggesting something could be pursued. They tried not to provide a general widening but rather an incentive for transit and carpooling that right now was somewhat limited to the morning at the toll plaza. The improvements probably would not be within Santa Clara County, but would be a part of the plan in terms of responding to the overall demand of traffic from Alameda County going to the job centers in the county. They recommended improve- ments to Central Expressway to relieve some of the 101 traffic, but the primary usage would be from Highway 85 to De La Cruz and also from the i! ! tri 1 ?reae in Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. It was not designed to bring traffic all the way through, but rather between those connecting major freeways. Mayor Cobb did not see how Alma Street could take more traffic as it was almost full ;n Palo Alto in the mornings and evenings. He referred to page 4 of the staff report (CMR:473:6) concerning the increase in ridership of the buses, where it said the calcula- tions were based upon optimistic assumptions. There tended to be a lot of optimism about how much people used public transit, and he was concerned they . not build the transportation system on the basis of unrealistic assumptions. He asked the difference between optimistic and realistic. Mr. Lightbody said "optimistic" reflected that for year 2000 they used a standard transportation model to project usage on the Guadalupe corridet light rail and the Peninsula. corridor, etc. --the kinds of things being done in the typical transportation study, In projecting out to 2000, the model tended to reflect a growth based on certain characteristics. In the short term, they also: looked at a different approach that reflected the existing base of ridership and what might happen in the near term. They anticipa4ted a relatively modest growth in transit usage -- specifically the bus system usage, over the next 5.6 years if they 7 6 7 0 '9/08/86 made the short-term improvements. There was some question about how realistic the longer -term numbers by year 2000 were. They reflected major changes in the way people used transit that might not occur. Mayor Cobb said the short-term numbers showed a lot more Muses for a lot less increase in ridership so the percentages made no sense. Mr.. Lightbody's comments about the long-term numbers reflected his viewpoint, except you could not force people to do things they did not want to do. In designing a longer -term system, he hoped there would be some realism, because absent that a lot of money would be spent on the wrong things and the problem would become worse. He asked if the widenings both on 101 --eight lanes from San Mateo County line south --and Foothill Expressway involved taking of property by eminent domain. Mr. Lightbody did not believe there would be any right-of-way requirements in either casc There was sufficient right-of-way on 101 to complete the improvements within the existing lane. Mayor Cobb wondered if they sometimes fooled themselves more than they should. They did not want to create arteries for good traf- fic flow and consequently traffic spilled into the neighborhoods. They created barriers and wound up making a meSs every place. It therefore there made more sense to have traffic flow easily and �..�L.. a,..�, _ would be no incentive to go into the neighborhoods. He concurred with the recommendations made by staff to keep the options open and look at the alternatives until they had a better handle on what they must and could do, and it was his counsel to Councilmember Fletcher that they follow that course. Councilmember Menzel was torn over the issue of keeping options open. As things got studied and became parts of plans, they tended to feed on themselves and eventually became reality despite efforts at a later date to remove them. As Mr. Beckett so elo- quently said, unless they did something about growth all the transportation efforts would be meaningless. By the same token, putting road improvements in a plan or study encouraged growth in the areas where people believed they would have the transportation routes to handle the growth. They should take a hard look at exactly what they were willing to accept should anything make it through to the end of the study. She was greatly concerned about the vague Dumbarton access. There were actual plans at one time with southerly access through the Baylands, across ITT property, and beyond the airport. It was suggested the access was in San Mateo County but she was uncertain what that would do for all the Santa Clara traffic. There already were three accesses in San Mateo County. It certainly behooved Council to look at improving the signalization of the Middlefield/Page Mill intersection, but it would be difficult to have simultaneous left turns occurring 7 6 7 1 9x'08/86 from Middlefield north and southbound without people colliding. Middlefield Road was a major internal access system for Palo Alto and also was residential on both sides of the Oregon/Page Mill road. Cars backed up still further would be more than a block into residential areas at peak hour, and probably as much as a block at ;,non -peak hours if the green light was given primarily to the expressway.. She was also concerned with Central Expressway narrowing to two lanes at San Antonio Road. There was no capacity there to expand without taking out a row of houses or intruding on the railroad right-of-way. She concurred with the concerns over the use of the shoulders on Foothill and Central, because it was important to have some routes where bicycles could go long dis- tances without dealingwith a lot of cross traffic. In general, she concurred with the points and concerns raised by Councilmember Fletcher. Councilmember Fletcher pointed out the Central Expressway widening was not projected to San Antonio Road. Due to her concerns, the widening was cut back and would occur from Bailey to San Jose. Councilmember Levy was trying to understand the size of the urban interchange. He assumed three levels as a minimum. Mr. Lightbody replied the urban interchange was just two levels. There would be a traffic signal located underneath the bridge to accommodate the left turns from the Expressway and the through movement on the cross street. The through movements on the Expressway would be elevatld up and over the interchange; other- wise, it w' uld continue to `function like an at -grade intersection, giving preference to the through movement. Councilmember Levy would also be reluctant regarding urban. inter- changes at Foothill and El Camino. The split phasing at Middlefield was an engineering problem. Santa Clara County bus ridership was low, and Palo Alto's was the lowest. The charts on page 3, figure 2, of the Bus Element, indicated bus transit was overwhelmingly used by people who had no automobile available, and only 18 percent_ used the bus by preference. The BART extension issue was not addressed, but he believed the i'ocus should be to extend BART into Santa Clara County.. The more money spent on stop -gap for buses was money diverted from what should be the emphasis. He agreed with the cautions expressed by Mayor Cobb. Councils tuber Sutorius said the schedule called for gathering input from the Golden Triangle Task Force regarding land use, but the date for completion, review and approval by the County Board of Supervisors appeared to be before the Golden Triangle Task Force proposed to complete the traffic and land use subject. He asked for comment. 7 e 7 2 9/08/6.6 Mr. Lightbody said the current phase of the Golden Triangle work would continue through the middle of 1987, and theobjective was to wrap up the T-2000 plan in the next few months. The committees were working closely together and the recommendations of T-2000 might be a basis for some of the work being done by the Golden Triangle particularly in the area of highway improvement needs. In Lerms of land use, there might be some general comments in the T-2000 plan as to how the specific kinds of land use improvements would fit into the overall transportation picture but generally referring to the Golden Triangle and other activities to follow through with the land use and transportation balance. Councilmember Sutorius asked about the City-wide Land Use and Traffic Study. Mr. Overway said staff began review of the consultant's first round of testing the six scenarios upon which Council. agreed. He expected public review and presentations in October regarding the relative impacts of the six scenarios combined with mitigation measures and physical improvement combinations to give some sense of where further study should be continued. Staff expected to identify one or two specific alternatives in order to begin the environmental impact report (EIR) process, which would probably lead to the spring or summer. Councilmember Sutorius was concerned aboutthe completeness of the City's participation. Regarding the interchanges, he concurred with Mr. Beckett _.and was intrigued with the nature of the new concepts associated with how an interchange could be accomplished with less intrusion and requirement for acquisition of property. Regarding bus ridership, he asked about T --2000's target of a 50 percent increase in the service level and the hours of service. Mr. Lightbody said T-2000 anticipated if 1.0 percent more service was added in terms of the number of hours buses operated, there would probab2 y not be a 10 percent t increase in ridership because the base transit usage reflected those people who used the bus. It was difficult to do straight line improvements and it became a question of at what cost did they decide to go after the incre- mental ridership as opposed to going back to the baseline. Councilmember Sutorius said Palo Alto was along the CalTrain route and saw the effective, expanded use as a major contribution to solving much of the traffic problems. The bus plans to coordinate with the major rail corridor --whether it be a BART or enhanced Cal?rain--were critical. He was pleased to see attention given to paratransit and private operator situations because it was impor- tant to spend the dollars carefully on : those things with the highest payoffs. He supported those elements which focused on finding ways to rapidly get people back and forth from light and heavy rails and ultimately BART rails. 7 6 7 3 9/08/86 Councilmember Fletcher got mixed signals on the interchange issue and asked for clarification because the issue would be before the Transportation Commission in two days. MOTION: Councilmeeher Fletcher moved, seconded by Patitucci, to adopt the staff recommendation in support of further evaluation of the Transportation 2440 Plan Bus and Highway Elements, recognizing that decisions regarding whether to. implement specific roadway projects will be based upon information and evaluation to come from the City-wide Land Use and Transportation Study. Councilmember Sutorius said Council concurred with staff's recom- mendation and Councilwould continue to evaluate and make deci- sions regarding specific projects as additional information was availatle. MOTION PASSED unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR Action Councilmember Levy removed Item 5 from the Consent Calendar. MOTION: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Klein, to approve Items 3 through 10, with Item 5 removed. Councilmember Renzel asked to be recorded as voting "no° on Item 10. Mayor Cobb asked to be recorded as "abstaining on Item 10. 3. FOOTHILLS. PARK EROSION CONTROL - PHASE II -- REJECTION OF BID (PAR 2-15) (CMR:461:6) . Staff recoimends Council reject the bid of $.142,337.60 from George Bianchi Construction Company for. Phase II of the Foothills Park Erosion Control Project, CIP 83-20. . 4. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS -- PHASE II - REJECTION OP BID (SAF 5) (CMR:460:6 ) Staff. recommends Council reject the bid of $413,80.0 from Atlas Hydraulic Corporation. for Phase II of the Hazardous Materials Storage Facilities Improvements Project, CIP 84-23. 7 6 7 4 9/08/86 6. CONTRACT FOR PARKING CITATION PROCESSING VENDOR (SAF 3-6) (CMRz465s6) Staff recommends the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Vertical Management Systems to provide pro- cessing for Palo Alto parking citations for the approximate annual cost of $57,200. AGREEMENT FOR PROCESSING PARKINNG. CITATIONS Vertical Management Syatew' 7. CONTRACT FOR CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION SEx,+ICES FOR SELF -INSURED GENERAL AUTO LIABILITY PLR 2-a (CMR:468:6) Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute the agree- ment with George Hills Company for claims administration services. AGREEMENT - ADMINISTRATION OF GENERAL/ AUTO LIABILITY CLAIMS PROGRAI George Hills Company 8. CONTRACT FOR CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION SERVICES FOR CITY OF PALO ALTO SELF -FUNDED EMPLOYEES' HEALTH AND DENTAL PLANS AND RETIREES' HEALTH AND REIMBURSEMENT PLANS (PER 2-5) (CMR:46906) Staff recommends the Council authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Ad Sery Corporation for claims administration ser- vices. AGREEMENT - CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION POR . CITY OP PALO ALTO EMPLOYEES HEALTH AND DENTA3. PLANS AND THE RETIREES HEALTh AND REINBURSEMENT PLANE Ad Sery Corporation 9: GAS zATE INCREASE (UTI 1-1) (CMR:47U:6) Staff recommends Council adopt the reso>_ution confirming the actions taken by the City Manager to effect gas rata._ changes on June 9, 1986 and October 1, 1986. RESOLUTION 65 6 entitles °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF ' I OF .O ALTO AMENDING UTILITY RATE SCREDVLSS G-1, WAD G.S$ AS A RESULT OF maim PG&E OASRATS CD 7 6 7 5 9/08/86 CONSENT CALENDAR (Cont'd) e 10. ORDINANCE RE 744 RAMONA STREET (2nd Reading) (PLA 3-i) ORpINA NCE 3703 entitled _"ORDINANCE OF TH8 COUNCIL OF THE +CITY L PALO ALTO kMENDING SECTION 18.08.040'0F THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING NAP) TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF PC DISTRICT 3182 FOR PROPERTY RIPON* AS 744 RAMONA STREET' .(1st Reading 8/23/83, PASSED . 7-1, Renzel ono," Cobb absent MOTION PASSED unanimously, Reesel voting 'no,6 on Item 10, Cobb °abstaining" on Item 19. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS 'AND DELETIONS Assistant City Manager June Fleming said Item 5 would become Item 13-A. MOTION, Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Bechtel, to bring forward Item 13-k (Old Item 5) to become Item 10-A. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 10A. AMENDMENT TO WATER QULLITY CONTROL PLANT CAPACITY EXPANSION DESIGr (UTI 7-4) (CMR:474:6) SOtION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the staff recommendation approving Amendment No. 1 to the design contract with CH2M Hill for the Water Quality' Control Plant Expansion Project at a cost of 846,600. ' ` " AMENDMENT NO. 1 ' TO AOREENENT NO. 4529 FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR CAPACITY EXPANSION OP THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT WITH CH2M HILL Councilmember Levy said the $46,600 was for additional design work and he asked the cost of the actual construction. Directorof Utilities Richard Young said the construction costs would comefrom the developmental design. The project was origi- nally scheduled in the CIP over a three-year period, and the amount was about $350,000. NOTION PASSED unanimously. 7-6 7 6 9/00/86► 11. AMENDMENTS TO THE BELOW -MARKET -RATE (BMR) 'GUIDELINES (Continued from 9/2/86) (PLA 2-6) (CMR:454:6) NOTION* Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Woolley, to adopt the staff recommendation approving the Amended Below - Market -Rate Rental Guidelines as recommended by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 12. REPORT FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE RE PARENTAL LEAVE - HR 4300 (LEG 4-2) (CMR:476:6) NOTION: Councilmember Fletcher sieved, seconded by Klein, to adept Council Legislative Committee recommendation supporting BR 410. with the following ssendseeentss a) Title I, Section 102, shall be changed to read: "The rights pramid.d under this title shall not apply with respect to e4egioyess of any facility of an employer at which fewer than 15 employees are employed°, b) The bill shall apply only to family leave and shall not include provisions for the a nal temporary medical leave: c) The provisions which apply to federal civil service including congressional employees shall be no different than' those applying to other public and private employees; and. d) Title III, which provides for establishment of a commission to study paid family and medical leave shall be deleted. Councilmember Fletcher said the bill presently defined the number of employees of 15 from the number employed by the employer within a 200 -mile radius of the facilities. Councilmember Patitucci opposed the bill because of the employee number and because with the support/reservation concept, he was concerned supporters would read the support first. The current bill had many flaws, the most significant of which was its appli- cability to small employers. Less than 2 or 3 percent of a work force meant a company size of 40 to 60 employees, where such leg- islation might be an imposition, but 6 dt 7 percent of the work force was one -fifteenth of the employees, and. it was a major impact. He urged opposition. Councilmember Sutorius concurred with the concerns raised by Councilmember Patitucci. He queried whether individual Councilmembers read the multiple pages of dissenting, views. Council acted from its position as a large employer and several Councilmembers with employment experience had it with large employment bodies and could not pretend to relate to the problems of the small businesses. When Palo Altans cited things they sup- ported or missed about Palo Alto, they focused on the small busi- nesses rind found ways to sustain the kinds of environment in which small businesses could compete. The legislation missed the mark. He commended the Committee for its analysis, but believed it missed the mark in sticking with the 15 employee level and in failing to include in Item (c) that the provisions which applied to federal civil service employees shall be no different than those applying to other public and private employees. It should also be amended to apply to congressional,, employees because the legislative body excluded its own body from the law. He opposed the bill. _ s Councilmember kennel supported the motion. In her experience, when people had extended absences they were paid absences and whether it be a small ' or large company, the occurrences were not sofrequent as to be a major problet. Temporary help could keep the business running without a significant cost. Councilmember Levy was concerned about making decisions for busi- nesses generally with the information at hand. He supported the concept but did not k'riow whether to support HR 4300 or whether 15 employees was the right figure. Without significant public input and more background • in forma t ion, he could not adequately vote to represent the citizens of Palo Alto. Councilmember Klein supported HR `4300 with the'., proposed amend- ments. Palo Alto succeeded on many occasions with the State legislaturfk in supporting bills and suggesting amendments. Palo Alto's voice was listened to and the staff's legislative efforts were` warranted. The congressional staff report indicated 135 countries, incl7uding virtually every industrialized country, had such`a policy. In terms of the right threshold for the law to take effect, the background material stated the exemption of small employers with less than 15 employees excluded more than one -fifth of the private sector work force. He believed it: was an appropri- ate threshold to start at, Councilmember Sutorius' point on con- gressional employees was a good one, but it was the intent of the word "federal." He urged support of HR 4300. NAMAND SECOND Or NOTION AGREED TO INCORPORATE TNE WORDS .*INCLUDING COOGRBSSIONAL LO!UV IN ITEM (C) 7 6 7 8 9/08/86 Councilmember Fletcher said one group o'f dissenters supported the concept but did not believe the legislation should mandate lengthy paid leaves. She understood the bill was unpaid leave and she urged support. Councilmember Levy did not see where the legislation fit into previous areas of involvement by the City Council. He was con- cerned there would be a large number of federal issues before the Council and he asked about the standard used by the Legislative Committee to choose which items Council should take a stand on. Councilmember Fletcher said the Child Care Council support the legislation. MOTION TO .TABLE: Councilmember Patitucci SMtorin*, to table the issue of HR 4390. NOTION FAILED by a vote of 4 5, Patitucci, voting °aye. ° Task Force suggested moved, seconded by Cobb, Sutorius, Levy MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-3-1, Cobb, Patitucci, Sutorius voting "no," Levy "abstaining. 13. PAYMENT FOR ON -CALL SERVICE AT THE REFUSE AREA. - STEVENS CREEK QUARRY (UTI 5) (CMR:458:6) MOTION: Councilmembor Reuel moved, seco dod by Sutorius, to adopt staff recommendation approving payment of $28,440 to Stevens Creek Quar. ry.. MOTION PASSED unanimouslyfr 14. REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE POOPER-SCOOPER ORDINANCE (LEO 5) - MOTION Coumeilmeaber Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel,: to direct the City Attorney to amend Section 4.20.040 of the rn aicipsl Cods requiring dog walkers to carry with them a suitable coatsiser to be used for removing dog droppings from all oreas lather than their own property. Councilmember Renzel supported the motion. She believed such a motion could relieve some of the antagonism between dog lovers and dog haters. Vice Mayor Woolley asked if the intent was to enforce the ordi- nance on a complaint basis. 7 6 7 9 9/08/86 Councilmember Fletcher believed it would be more proactive if the Animal Services truck cited someone they saw walking a dog without the appropriate mitigations. It was an unhealthy and unpleasant practice to not pick up dog droppings on other people's property. Ms. Fleming said when asked about enforcement, Mr. Bennetti had some concern about the City's ability to stop and ask persons if they were carrying "popper scoopers." Councilmember Patitucci supported the motion. There were many examples of enforceable methods proven to be workable. He war,`.ed to see the ordinance enacted quickly. NOTIOP PASSED by a veto of 6-3, Cobb,. Bechtel, Levy voting .no.. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 9:38 p.m. to a Closed Session re Personnel. FINAL ADJOURNMENT AT 9:50 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 7 6 8 0 9/08/86