HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 407-09TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ATTENTION: FINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2009 CMR: 407:09
REPORT TYPE: Information
SUBJECT: Participation of the Planning and Transportation Commission and
Other Council Appointed Groups in the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) Capital Budget Process
This is an informational report and no Finance Committee action is required.
BACKGROUND
During the CIP capital budget hearing in May 2009, the Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC) provided Council thru the Finance Committee a report on the result of its
review of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Plan for FY 2010-14.
In summary, the report indicated that the projects in the CIP Plan are consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. The report also contained suggestions for improvements in some facets of
the CIP Plan. Some of the suggestions were related to the budget process while some are project
specific. The letter of the PTC and staff response to the PTC's suggestions is shown in
Attachment 1.
The letter of the PTC provided a forum for the Finance Committee to discuss the timing of the
PTC's participation in the CIP budget process. The existing CIP budget process does not provide
the PTC sufficient opportunity to recommend CIP projects since the CIP Plan is made available
to the PTC after the final vetting process has been completed by staff. The PTC receives a copy
of the proposed CIP projects a month before the CIP budget hearing with the Finance
Committee.
Staff assured the Committee that the CIP budget process would be revisited and staff would
return with a report on how to include the PTC in the process sooner.
DISCUSSION
In summer 2009, staff from the City Manager's Office and key departments (Public Works,
Planning, Utilities, Community Services and Administrative Services) discussed the existing CIP
budget process. Staff identified areas that need improvements as follows:
CMR: 407:09 Page 1 of 3
• The group recognized that in addition to the Planning and Transportation Commission,
other Council appointed bodies such as the Utilities Advisory Commission, Parks and
Recreation Commission, etc. should also be engaged in CIP budget process since many
of the CIP projects are within their purview. More over, the City's Municipal Code
requires PTC review and input into the CIP. This supports the Council priority on Civic
Engagement.
• To provide ample time for the PTC and other Council appointed bodies to comment on
new CIP projects, the CIP budget calendar will be revised to provide a time slot for these
groups in the early stage of the budget process. The ideal time identified is in the months
of October and November. City staff has not finalized the list of projects that will be
included in the next year's CIP Plan at this time, and will still be considering what new
projects to include. This change in the process gives Council appointed bodies the
opportunity to provide input in the early stage of the planning process:
• City management will assign staff liaison to the PTC and to each Council appointed
group. The duty of a liaison staff is to convene a meeting with each group in October
/November and get their input. Community Services Department staff will be assigned to
the Parks and Recreation Commission while Utilities Department staff will coordinate
with the Utilities Advisory Commission. Staff from the Planning Department and Public
Works Department will work with the PTC.
• Input from the PTC and other Council appointed groups will be summarized and
incorporated in the CIP budget document. Recommended projects from these Council
appointed bodies will be compared with staff -recommended projects. Projects that were
recommended but did not get in to the CIP Plan will be identified for Council/Finance
Committee to review during the budget hearing.
• The PTC will be assigned two time slots in the CIP budget process — 1) in
October/November to provide input to the proposed CIP Plan, and 2) in April of the
following year — to review whether the projects in the proposed CIP Plan are consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Staff believes that these changes to the CIP budget process strengthen the Council's priority on
Civic Engagement by encouraging active participation of various stakeholders in planning the
City's CIP Plan.
Staff plans to implement these changes in two phases - Phase 1 (PTC) and Phase 2 (other
Council appointed groups). Phase 1 will be implemented in the coming CIP Plan 2011-15 while
Phase 2 will be implemented starting with CIP Plan 2012-16.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 — PTC Letter to Council dated May 11, 2009
Attachment 2 — Staff Response to PTC letter dated May 11, 2009
Attachment 3 — City Attorney's Letter to PTC dated May 20, 2009
Cc: Planning and Transportation Commission
CMR: 407:09 Page 2 of 3
PREPARED BY:
APPROVED BY:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
AM JA LC RI0
Sr. Financial alyst, Administrative Services
LAL
Di
Ad inistrative Services
JAMES U NE
City Ma er
CMR: 407:09 Page 3 of 3
,
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
May 11, 2009
Honorable City Council
c/o City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Review of 2010-2014 Proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) has completed its review of the
2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and determined that the projects in the CIP
are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the PTC's motion included
several suggestions for future C1P, priorities and requested that additional information
regarding prior CIP projects and the infrastructure backlog be provided next year to aide
in the PTC's review and analysis for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan,
At its meeting on May 6, 2009, the PTC passed the following motion on a vote of 6-0
(Commissioner Holman absent):
1) The PTC found that the 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan,
- With the following comments on Project PL -11000 Highway 101 Pedestrian /
Bicycle Overpass / Underpass:
a) That the .project description be revised to clarify 'that the activity is a
feasibility study for a year-round crossing (Note: staff has made this change]; and
b) That the study should be funded in FY 2009-10 if that significantly
increases the likelihood of securing outside funding for its construction.
2) The PTC suggested that:
a) The Public' Works and Utilities Departments improve coordination to
promote efficiency and timeliness of CIP projects within the City's right of
ways so as to minimize the occurrence of a street being paved then torn up
soon thereafter in order to complete a project; and
b) The Public Works and Utilities Departments better inform and consult with
the public regarding projects that involve work in the City's right of way so as
to explain why streets are sometime torn up not too long after being paved;
and
c) The Public Works Department use paving materials that reduce the need for
street resurfacing and increase the life of the streets.
Planning Transportation 'Building
250 Hamilton Avenue 250 Hamilton Avenue 285 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250 P.O. Box 10250 P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441 650,329.2520 650,329.2496
650329.2154 650.617.3108 650.329,2240
ATTACHMENT 1
PTC Review of 2010-2014 CIP
May 11, 2009
Page 2 of 3
3) The PTC suggested the City consider studying three issues that present
opportunities for future CIP projects to better align the City's existing conditions with the
Comprehensive Plan:
a) Flood Protection: Study the opportunity for the City to better utilize the
City's levee system to improve the public health and safety as well as economic vitality
of businesses and public infrastructure located within the creek and tidal flood plains; and
b) San Antonio Road / 101: Study the benefit to the City of constructing a new
south -bound on -ramp from east -bound San Antonio Road onto Highway 101; and
c) Neighborhood Amenities: Study improvements in the vicinity of the
following developments in South Palo Alto (Vantage, Echelon, Classic Communities,
Altaire, TKC1L, Arbor Real, SummerHill's Redwood Gate, Alma Plaza, Mayfield Mall,'
West Meadow Oaks) so as to address any deficiencies in "public gathering spaces,
essential services and pedestrian amenities, to encourage less reliance on the automobile"
[excerpt from Vision Statement for Chapter 2 Land Use and Community Design of the
Comprehensive Plan] .
4) The PTC requested that the City Council direct staff to provide in future the
following items to assist the PTC in its review of the CIP and in fulfilling its mission as
described in the Municipal Code:
a) Provide a detailed list of all unfunded major infrastructure backlog projects;
b) Provide a chronological list of all past, present and future CIP projects in a
Gantt chart format.
c) Provide a.map showing the location of all continuing, new and backlog CIP
projects,
d) Provide a list of all infrastructure studies conducted in the past; and
e) Cross -correlate these lists.
In addition, the PTC noted the following errors in the Proposed Capital Budget book:
• Page iv - In the last full sentence delete the word "in" after $60.4 million
• Page 69 - Add "Board /Commission Review:" and indicate None
• Page 71 - Foothills Park Interpretive Center (PF-05003): Add PTC review
• New CJP - Ventura Community Center & Park (PE -10002): "Add
Telecommunications Impact"
• Page 173 -- Correct the map error showing the Arastradero Road gas main project;
the gas line was already constructed. .
• New CJP - Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing/Undercrossing (PL -
11000) should include additional Comprehensive Plan Policy references, namely:
Policy L-7, L-46, L-64, L-68, T-1, Goal T-3, T-14, Program T-18, Program T-19,
T-16, T-17, Program T-26, T-18, Program C-23, C-27, Program C-25, C-28, Goal
C-5, C-29, C-30.
ATTACHMENT 1
PTC Review of 2010-2014 C]P
May 11, 2009
Page 3 of 3
Additionally, the PTC requests that Planning staff and the City Attorney support the
PTC's review of the CIP in future years that allows the PTC full latitude to conduct its
review in a manner that fulfills its mandate pursuant to PAMC Section 19.04.040.
Respectfully submitted,
r
Dan Garber, Chair
Planning and Transportation Commission
ATTACHMENT 2
Response to PTC Letter dated May 11, 2009
Regarding Review of CIP Plan 2010-2014
Item # 1 a) The project description of PL -11000 (Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle
Overpass/Underpass) was revised to incorporate the recommendation of the Planning and
Transportation Commission; which clarifies that the activity is a feasibility study for a
year-round crossing.
Item #1b) CIP Project PL -11000 (Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass/Underpass)
was moved from FY 2011 to FY 2010 for funding. The City had submitted an application
to the Valley Transit Authority (VTA) for stimulus funding for this project. A feasibility
study and analysis were necessary in order to support the application.
Staff is currently preparing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for professional services
needed to prepare a feasibility study for a potential Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle
Overpass project. The RFP will be issued this fall with a contract targeted to go to
Council by the end of this calendar year. In the meantime staff has provided information
to Senator Feinstein's office to elevate this project to the Federal level for possible
funding.
Item #2 a) in response to the City Auditors 2006 Audit of the Street Maintenance
Program staff from the Utilities and Public Works Department meet on a monthly basis to
coordinate planned street and underground utility capital improvement projects. This is
done to prevent planned utility capital construction from occurring after planned street
maintenance contracts. Of course the Utility Department and Public Works cannot
prevent private developers from installing underground utility connections after new
street maintenance work is done. Also, sometimes there are unforeseen emergencies
(e.g.: gas and water leaks) requiring utility repairs be done after recently completed street
work.
Item #2 b) Both the Utilities and Public works Departments notify and conduct outreach
to residents before major capital projects. Regarding unforeseen private developments
and utility emergencies affecting newly paved streets staff will continue to make it clear
to the public and City Council that these events are beyond staff's control.
Item #2 c) Approximately 20% of the annual street maintenance program budget is used
for preventative maintenance activities such as slurry and cape sealing street repair
techniques. These paving techniques reduce the need for street resurfacing typically
increasing a street's useful life by five to ten years.
Item # 3 — Staff will revisit these suggestions in planning for the CIP Plan 2011-15
Item # 4 -- Staff will try its best to provide the information needed by the Planning and
Transportation Commission within the time allotted. City's practice limits staff time to
respond to public requests to one hour.
Other errors identified in the proposed budget document have now been corrected in the
adopted budget document.
Last paragraph
The City Attorney's Office sent the Planning and Transportation Commission a letter
dated May 20, 2009 clarifying the role of PTC in the review of the CIP Plan.
(Attachment 3)
ATTACHMENT 3
'7017
FROM CITY ATTORNEY
May 20, 2009
Planning and Transportation Commission
Pala Alto, California
RE: Planning and Transportation Commission Duties re: Capital
Improvement Plan
Dear Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission:
We have received a number of questions on the Planning and Transportation
Commission's role in the review of the Capital Improvement Plan. Our review of past
staff and City Attorney advice indicates that the role of the Commission may have been
understated.
The following brief summary of Planning and Transportation Commission's duties
under Municipal Code Section 19.04.040 is provided for your information.
Question Presented:
What is the Commission's role in the review of the City's Capital Improvement
Program?
•
Short Answer:
State law. requires that the Commission "[annually review the capital
improvement program of the city . . . and the local public works projects of other
local agencies for their consistency with the general plan'." PAMC Section
19.04.040 provides guidelines for that review.
1 State law refers to the "General Plan"; Palo Alto has chosen to call its General Plan the Comprehensive
Plan.
090520 syn 0120354
ATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
May 20, 2009
Page 2
RE: Planning and Transportation Commission Duties re: Capital Improvement Plan
Analysis
The Commissions purview over the capital improvement program is defined in
e .- :' Tit5e•.1.9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Title 19 was enacted by initiative measure in
J962 with the stated purpose of incorporating "Articles 7 and 8, Chapter 3 of Title 7 of
the Government Code, which promulgate a system for the preparation and adoption of
master plans by general law cities. Such provisions [did] not apply to a charter city unless
such. a city adopted] them by charter or ordinance." See Fletcher v. Porter, 203
Ca1.App.2d 313, 317 (upholdingthe validity of the initiative measure under the Palo Alto
City Charter). Municipal Code section 19.04.010, provides that "the primary duty" of the
planning commission under Title 19 is "to prepare, adopt and recommend . . , a long-
range, comprehensive general plan." All of the Commission's other duties follow from
and are directly related to this primary duty.
"[T]he advocates of the [initiative] proposal state[d] the purpose of the ordinance
to be the [c]larif cation of the duties of the Planning Commission,' not the enlargement
of the commission's powers . . ." Fletcher v. Porter, supra at 317. One aspect of state law
which Title 19 attempted to clarify is the Commission's responsibility to review the
capital improvement program forconsistency with the general plan.
Government Code section 65103 requires that Commission "[a]nnually review the
capital improvement program of the city . . . and the local public works projects of other
local agencies for their consistency with the general plan." Section 19.04.040 clarifies
how the Commission is to conduct this review, with the primary requirement being that
"[t]he general plan shall be the guide for the capital improvement program insofar as the
capital improvement program affects the physical development of the city."
Because Section 1.9.04.040 goes further than state law in defining the
Commission's task in reviewing the capital improvement program, Commissioners have
asked whether the last two phrases in, the section give the Commission additional duties.
The section, in its entirety, reads as follows:
19.04.040 Capital improvement program reviewed.
The general plan shall be the guide for the capital improvement program
insofar as the capital improvement program affects the physical
090520 syn 0120354
ATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
May 20, 2009
Page 3
RE; Planning and Transportation Commission Duties re: Capital Improvement Plan
development of the city. The planning commission shall submit an annual
report to the council regarding the capital improvement program, which
shall review each project for its conformity to the master plan; review the
program as a whole in order to suggest any improvement in economy or
efficiency which might be effected through the combining of various
projects; and suggest any needed improvements which do not appear in the
program.
The usual rules of statutory construction provide that each phrase in a law is read
in context with the other phrases in its section; so too, are individual laws read in context
with the chapters in which they appear. Donovan v. Poway Unified School Dist., (2008)
167 Cal.App.4th .567, 592. Therefore, reading the last two phrases in this section as
giving the Commission new and separate powers would not be correct. All of the
Commission's powers under Title 19 revolve around creating the Comprehensive Plan
and reviewing other matters for their consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
However, the last two phrases do add factors which the Commission may properly
consider in reviewing the Capital Improvement Plan for its consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan, Specifically, if there are "any needed improvements which do not
appear in the program" and whose absence makes the program inconsistent with the
general plan, then the Commission may suggest them. Furthermore, if the Commission
identifies an "improvement in economy or efficiency which might be effected through the
combining of various "projects," such combination may be recommended in order to
better implement the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission's role is limited to the capital improvement program as it
"affects the physical development of the city." PAMC 19.04.040. The purview of the
Commission does not, therefore, extend to fiscal policy. Section 18 of the City Charter
provides that the Administrative Code covers "all rules and regulations relating to fiscal
operations . . ." Chapter 2.28 of the Administrative Code sets forth the City's fiscal
procedures. These procedures do not allow for Commission review of the City's
finances or fiscal policy.
As long as the Commission is not making budgetary recommendations, the scope
of their review of the Capital 'Improvement Program is rather broad. While the
Commission may not direct the expenditure of funds, the Commission may comment on
090520syn 0120354
ATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
May 20, 2009
Page 4
RE: Planning and Transportation Commission Duties re: Capital Improvement Plan
projects and programs as they relate to the physical development of the City, the Capital
Improvement Program, and the Comprehensive Plan,
Conclusion:
Under Section 19.04.040, the Commission is tasked with reviewing the capital
improvement program for. consistency with the general plan. This properly corresponds
with the Commission's other duties and allows the Commission to comment on
individual projects and the Program as a whole where it is most important and
appropriate. Thus, the Commission's purview in this area is ample and they may
comment on each project proposed as well as those projects that the Commission deems
to be missing from the Capital Improvement Program. The Commission may not,
however, direct that funds be spent to accomplish the Capital Improvement Program.
The Commission may point out projects that are missing from the CIP in order to achieve
goals elucidated in the Comprehensive Plan, Unfortunately, this is a complicated arena
and all questions presented may not have been answered. Please contact Donald Larkin
or me if you have additional questions or points of clarification.
Law Clerk Abbie Livingston and Assistant City Attorney Donald Larkin
contributed to this report.
Respectfully submitted,
le),- GARY M. BAUM
City Attorney
GMB:syn
cc: City Council
James Keene, City Manager
Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager
Curtis Williams, Interim Director of Planning
and Community Environment
Donald Larkin, Assistant City Attorney
090520 syn 0120354