Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-05-28 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTEs ITEM Oral Communications Consent Calendar' Referral Item #1, Disaster Preparedness Study Finance and Publ is Works Committee Action Regul ar Meeting May 28, 1985. Refer to Item #2, Resolution re Merit System Rules and Regu— lations CITY O Al.iO PAGE 5 7 8 5 5 7 8 5 5 7 8 5 5 7 8 5 5 7.8 5 5 7 8 5 Item #3, Resolution re Compensation Pl an for Class- 5 7 8 5 i fi ed Personnel Agenda Changes, Additions and Del etions 5 7 8 5 Item #4, Finance and Public Works Committee Recom- mendation re . Review of Utility Reserves Uses and Balances - 1984-86 5 7 8 5 Item #5, Planning CopArnission Recommendation re 5 7 8 6 Appeal of Lee B. Spivack and >ori G. Hall, for P-eperty Located at 456 university Avenue (The . Hew Varsity) Item #7, Evergreen Park Neighborhood Traffic Study - 5 7 9 5 Evaluationof Second Trial Traffic Management 'Plan RECESS Item #8, Park Boou3 evard/Park Avenue Traffic Clrcl e Item #6, Peninsula Mass Transit Study (SCR 74) Recommendations Item #9, Request of Mayor Levy Re Referral to Poi icy and Procedures Committee of the. Animal Services Advisory Coif 1 t to e` s Re po r t Item #10, Request of Counc ilraembers Sutorius and Cobb Re Community Ice Skating Ini`t1ative Process Proposal ADJ k*(NT: 5 7 9 9 7 9 5 5 8 0.1 5 8 0 1 5801 5 8 k 2 5>7 8 4 5/28/85 Regul ar Meeting May 2 8, 1985 The City Council of the City of Palo Al to met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel , Cobb, Fl etcher, Kl ein (arrived at 7:32 p.m.) , Levy, Renxel Sutorius, Witherspoon ( arrived at 7:35 p .m .) , Wool 1 ey ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR !MOTION: Vice Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Sutorius, approval of the Consent Cal ender, Mayor Levy announced that he would not participate on Items #2, Merit System Rul es and Regulations and Item #3, Compensation Plan for Cl assi fled Personnel . Referral ITEM #1 , DISASTER PREPAREDNESS STUDY - REFER TO FINANCE AND PUBLIC WITT tIMPIITTtE (SAF 2) (CMR:3 3:5) Action ITEM #2 , RESOLUTION RE MERIT SYSTEM RILES AND REGULATIONS (PER RESOLUTION. 6388 entitled "RESOLUT tON OF THE .COUNCIL OF THr CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 1401 'OF THE MERIT SYSTEM RULES AND REGULATIONS* ITEM #3 RESOLUTION RE C0 'ENSATION PLAN FOR CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL TPER 2-4 CMR:3 RESOLUTION 6389 entitled *RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF Tit CITi of PALO ALTO ADOPTING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL (SEIU) . AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO.. $032 AS AMENDED. BY RESOLUTION NOS. 606S, 6126, 6150 and 6285' MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy 'not participating' •n Ite. 12, Merit System Rules and Regulations and Item 13, Compensation Plan for Classified Persesaei , V1 theespoon absent. AGENDA CHANGES ! ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS MOTION: Mayer Levy moved, seconded by Woolley, to bring. forward Its 17, Evergreen Park ilt19hborh•ed Traffic Stagy •ad Item 18, Park Boulevard/Park Avenge Traffic Circle ahead: : •f Item #6, Peniasel a Mass Transit Study Recosaesdatlsas, and coiablse. NOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent, ITEM #4 - FINANCE AND PUBLIC --_WORKS_ (FWWW) COMMITTEE'_ RECOMMENDATION Rt RE/I E W — -- MOTION: Ceencllaember Bechtel for the Finance and Public Works,'' Committeemoved to adept the two resei etioes establishing the transfer of the StsHl1isat1es Reserve and ,System Improvement Reserve for the dater Fund. 1 MOTION CONTINUED RESOLUTION 6390 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO. ALTO ESTABLISHING A TRANSFER STABILIZATION RESERVE' RESOLUTION 6391 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF TF ITT OF PALO ALTO ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT RESERVE FOR THE WATER FUND" Councilmember Wi therspcion arrived at 7:35 p.m. Councilmember Bechtel said the City did not have a system improvement reserve for water, but did for. all other util ity funds. The transfer stabilization reserve would be set aside so when the City transferred money from the Utilities Department to the General Fund, it would stabilize the transfer. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #5, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPEAL OF LEE B. SPIVACK ARD NORI G. HALL FOR PROIPERTY LOCATtf -AT 456 UNIVERSITY AVENUE Ifi r NEW VARSITY:) fLA -3-i f (CAR: I08: 5) Planning Commissioner Mark Chandler Said the -Conrail ssi o n recom- mended the rul es regarding the entertainment hours at the Varsi ty be somewhat shortened incl uding one compl etely dark night, combined with a strong message that the hours adopted be strictly followed Despite the Commission's unanimous support of the staff recommendation, with some modifications, the Commission struggled wi th the issue because both sides had many good things to say. The greatest disappointment was because the property was for sal e and the current owner would not extend the l ease, the owners of the Varsity we r e unable to justify putting in the expensive sound cover they were will ing to do when they bel ieved their lease woul d go for a long. time and which might have addressed the problem for the long run. The Commission hoped the solution would serve the needs of all. Councilmember Bechtel clarified the property managers at the Varsity originally requested extending their hours from what was granted by the previous use permit. She asked about the existing hours, the requested hours, and the Commission's compromise. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown said the previous use permit approved in I.r83., allowed the MUSIC Sunday night through Thursday night to go until 11:00 p.m., and on Friday and Saturdaynights it went until midnight. ` The operators of the Varsity requested there be no limit on the hours. The Planning Commission recommendation maintained the hours of 11 :00 p.m. on .week nights and midnight on wee -kends, but limited 'the musical entertainment to' six nights per week. Tuesday night there wb 'l d be- n -4e) operation and the music was 1 imited from May 1 to September 30. Councilmember Bechtel said much of the Pl awning Commission discus- sion was about whether there had actually been any sound meter testing. She asked whether the Pol ice Department had the equi p- ment and whether it was being used. . City Manager Bill Zaner said Council authorized: the acqui si tion of additional equip pent to deal with peak noises. '`City personnel was currently being trained on the equipment and it would soon be available. Councilmember Bechtel said the City's noise ordinance was effec- tive for approximately ten years and she presumed the City had equipment previously by which to measure noise. 5 7 8 6 5/2$/86 Mr . Zarier` said prev Department, and the r larly to peak noises Counc ilmember Becht year . Mr . Brown -knew o f contacted Pol ice tests at 1 east tw Counc i l member Ren ment with respec asked how many kind of time wa Mr . Brown disc Durkin and Lie the number of specific arre o f response t all calls rec determine ho time consum there were o peration r el ati ng to Counc ilmem audience staff i nv Councllm and ac ti call wa at 11 :0 us equipment was administered by the Pol ice ecently acquired equi pment responded particu- and sounds. el asked if any tests were done in the past none. Since the Planning Commission hearing , he Chief Jim Zurcher and was assured that sporadic ce a month would not be a probl em. zel saw no direct report from the Police Depart - t to probl eras with the Varsity Theatre and she al l s were made to the Pol ice Department and what s spent deal ing with the probl ems. ussed the problem with Ass,i fsta,nt Po) ice Chief Chris utenant Ron Louie, but they `were 'linable to tabul ate phone calls related to the Varsi ty. Un1 ess a st was made or citation filed, notation was not made o a call . It was poesibl a to go through the log of eived by the Poi ice Department over the past year to w many were rel ated to the Varsity, but .it woul d be ing. Generally, the Poi ice Department acknowl edged numerous calls, most of which related to the hours of of the music and the recent compl aints and arrests the activities following two concerts. ber Sutorius said former Counc ilmeriber Debs was in the and it was at hi s encouragement that the Counc i t and estigated the subject and acquired the equipment. ember Woolf ey asked what happened when a call was received on taken. She specifically asked what would happen if a s received at 11 :15 p .m . and the music was supposed to stop 0 p . m . Mr. Zaner said a car was dispatched, and the persons using the property were contacted. In most cases where a permit was in- volved, it was usually resolved on the site. The difficulty came with repeated offenses. Coupe dire ousl Mr o f in r a Haim ber :,Wool l ey ; a sked to . whom a ,complaint shoul d be cted and when, , She wfs bothere4 by the "word! "conternporane- y" in item No. 6 onJ page 3 of CMR:308:5. Brown said ideally soon after the offending event, the fended party should contact the Zoning Administrator by phone or writing . to describe the problem. Staff was trying avoid eceiving no' compl aint whatsoever for a period of up to six months nd when the six-month review occurred, to have numerous com- plaints cited which staff could not substantiate or take sound readings. Counc ilme ber Wool 1 ey asked how many compl aints it would take to trigger a hearing. Mr. Brown said it depended not only upon the number of compl alnts, but the nature of the offenses. If they were taal king about the music going a few minutes beyond: 11:00 p.m., he .would not view it as seriously as a major offense where the music went 15 to 30 minutes beyond the time limit. Counc ilrsember Renzel said a smart compl airier would have to endure a longer period of time in order to validate their complaint. Mr. Brown said he hoped not to get phone calls at 11:00 p.m. at hoe, but did not discount the fact that any violation to the time restrictions counted. Councilaeember Woolley' s question was to what degree it counted, and while he did not have a weighting system in mind, all offenses were logged in and taken seriously. 5 7 8 7 5/28/85 Lee Spivack, 488 University, said it was a medical fact that pro- longed noise was detrimental to one' s health. Sleeplessness as a result was potentially lethal. State courts held that injury to the senses of innocent people inflicted by whatever means was illegal and compensable. In fact, it was sustained the previous week. It was not the promise of government to guarantee profit in the marketpl ace-apeace and tranquil ity was the government' s function. If the Council could not abate the nuisance, he de- manded the Varsi ty' s right.; be pul 1 ed . If that could not be done, he suggested the courts would. Remedying wrongs long inflicted could be expensive when justice, long denied, prevailed. Mori Hall , 488 University, loved music including some played at the New Varsity, and hoped guidelines could be established to allow the New Varsity to prosper and her to fully enj oy her home. A certain level of noise downtown was predictable and acceptable, but music at the New Varsi try. was unreasonable.' Hourly curfews were unenforceable and she bel ieved the New Varsity would enl iv en downtown and make money even if the music stopped. The noise leyel in her apartment was invasive and offensive. She liked to get up early and go to work feeling refreshed . She could not operate efficiently when forced to stay up past 11 :00 p.m. She treasured tal king quietly, eating peacefully. and choosing the music she 1 istened to at night. She call ed the pol ice many times, and the New Varsity. She stopped call ing the New Varsity when she found the waitresses were unable to stop the music and when the owner would not answer the phone. She did not believe the New Varsity would be forced to close its doors if the music stopped or was shortened. She realized the m'isic would not be stopped al to- gether at the New Varsity, but urged that courtyard music be pl ayed six nights a week; only be permitted six months during the year; only continue until 10:00 p.m. on weeknights and 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday; that another public hearing be triggered automatically after the pvl ice were noti fled five times that the Varsity performers played past their deadline or after it was determined five times that the New Varsity performers violated the. City' s noise ordinance. Another public hearing would be triggered in any case after the six months permitted playing expired. Noise level testing would occur at the request of tenants of The President and al so on a regul ar basi s automatically, so that everyone's cur iousity about the nol\se ordinance standards was satisfied. She was concerned about the 10:00 p.m week night deadline, that was most important to her. She enjoyed getting eight hours sl eep eegul arly and liked getting up early. Glenn Lutge, General Partner, New Yar si ty,\°.32 9 Pope Street, Menlo Pant said when they were asked whether they wanted to consider 1 easing the New Varsity from United Artists (UA) 11 years ago, the first question was why UA wanted to give up its operation. of the theatre. The response was that UA considered the operation of an old and manually operated single screen theatre unprofitable. The next question was if UA was not making it, how could they. The idea of a restaurant and bar was expl ored and it looked as i f that in combination with the repertory film pol icy might overcome the lack of modernization and single screen. They 1 eased the New Varsity for ten years with an option on five more and opened May 1, 1974. It was not an instant success. Manylean years were spent getting the unique coreept recognized by the public. They tried live theatre and found no audience, they added mwsfc to the courtyard and found a large audience. For those months wen the weather permitted courtyard dining and music, their - business doubled and in July and August, it _tripled. They could now make it through the loan months of winter if it was carefully Managed. The Varsity was a restaurant serving lunch and dinner, :: a bar, :a movie theatre, a concert hall , a place for a variety of ,live shows, and a courtyard for warm _ weather music Because they were profitable, they were able to offer their -facility to a variety of nonprofit groups for fund raisers. They lived and worked in the c omm un l ty since 1959 and wanted ' to return something ` of value to the community. The businesses represented at the Varsity were the 5 ,7 8 8 5 /28/85 restaurant, the lobby and courtyard bar, the repertory film` con- cert hall , and in the first years of operation, the Varsity and Henry' s were alone at their end of University. Now there were a variety of restaurants- on almost every block. The lobby and courtyard bar contributed to Varsity profits during the warm months; the repertory film format which was successful in the first, ten years now suffered from ,VCR and cable television expan- sion. Their 'ticket sal es; where off,, 30 percent over -tlast year. In an effort to offset those fosses, their live-c"oncerts were ex- panded inside the theatre and received large audiences. Music was important both in the courtyard and the concert hall to overall Varsity economics. Having a diversi fled economic .base allowed the Varsity to survive when theatres like the Stanford went through openings and closings almost annually. - While the music in the Varsity concert hall was not the issue, he clarified that when they began to expand their live concert music, they included musicians from a variety of styles. Because they were unable to control the activities in the 'parking. lot and on the dance floor, they discontinued the punk --0 rock performances until adequate control s could be establ fished. They received a commendation from the Juvenil a Protection Department of the Palo Al to PTA for their immediate response to the incident. The situation was not the one of music in the courtyard. The courtyard music became an issue in 1983 when complaints were voiced by a few members of the only residence located down University Avenue. The issue went before the Council and a compromise was reached. They restricted their hours and spent $4,000 an a customed designed accoustically engi- neered sound . system. They started pi arming for a roof and brought the pl an s through. the Council to have the moratorium lifted for the prof ec t when they di scov eyed the Var si ty wa s for sal e and tha t the lease could not be extended to allow for an arrtorti xation of a $125,000 roof over the four years left on the lease. Commissioner Chandler indicated that ul timatel y the problem was zoning. . If the Varsity was not economic tJI v1atle, they would a unable to com- pete with the Tental_eineentes possib,l`e from conseer Zing its use to an office compl ex. When their lease expired, the issue might be whether the Varsity would remain or whether it. would fall victim to the office expansion of downtown Palo Al to. Greg Zill lac, 519 Everett, said the Varsity existed as -a viable business who claimed that without courtyard music, the business would no longer be viable. He believed that was true since he regut_,,arly patroned the theatre. The President Apartments was the only resttlential complex on University Avenue, and compromise was the only solution. Residential areas should not be constructed in the . downtown, area because downtown was the place where cul tural activities should take place. If noise was the main problem, he supported the P1 anning Commission recommendation. Patti Cathcart, 1908 Menai to, Menlo Park, said she and her husband started their careers at the New Varsity in Palo Al to, and -over the past several years, pl ayed there. New Varsi ty support enabled them to grow and build a foil owing . .They worked outside at the Varsity when the issue -.first arose and she believed the Varsity ►ent out of its way -to work with the President Apartments to try and keep the vol we down. She bel ieved the Varsity_ was an impor- tant part of Palo Alto, and was part of the multi- facited image the City liked to project. She supported the Planning Commission recommendations- and urged consideration. Gary BrickM*na, 488, kin iV.prsi ti e,Avenun,. lived _ at: the Presidents Ala 444 tier) ts. but ,bel iev_ed thy:,.: New Y r� s j 3 m_usi c addle to the con- munity, The us c appeal id to a range 'af -people and he' bel ieved a compromise was needed,. It was not right for a -few people in the c oma un i ty . to - har a say 'Over the . entire comaunity • _He preferred. an agreement -whereby there could ,be tus1c Wednesday through Saturday 55 ix: i81 Jim Weber, 488 University Avenue, bel ieved the issue was the New Varsity being a good neighbor to those who lived next door. Many peoples' bedrooms and living rooms were exposed to the music and often 1 ate at night there were crashing cymbals and vol times turned up to maximum and people were disturbed. He liked the Varsity Theatre, but they needed to be good neighbors to those who lived next door. The Planning Commission commented that the residents of the President Apartments did not document their case with deci- bel level s, etc. He bel ieved it was unrealistic to expect- peopl e to have documentation. The Yarsi ty Theatre should show consider- ation for its neighbors, restrictions were necessary. Tuck Andress, '1908 Menal to, Menl o Park, pointed out that from the musician' s standpoint, the Varsity was a great pl ace to p1 ay and one of the cut tural focal points in the area. He did not bel leve the music was that loud and usually the bands .did not have drum- mers. He realized music could be disturbing if someone did not want to listen and believed there should be some compromise, He urged the music not be stopped. Randy Lutge, 1044 Bryant, was part owner and manager at the New Varsi ty and booked the music in the courtyard and the theatre. He did not bel ieve the music was overly loud. They tried to have music without. drums and when the noon music in front of City Hall started, he was asked for input since it was felt that the New Varsity type of music would fit in. The Varsity would not have trouble 1 Writing the music to 11 :00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday excepting Tuesday, and to midnight on Friday and Saturday night if the Planning Commission recommendations were approved. He be- ieved the New Varsity was compromising and refuted the comments that New Varsity management would not respond to telephone calls. The management was •concerned about the phone call s. Music in the courtyard was an intrical part of the business, and an intrical part of Pal o Al to. One reason for the lack of 1 ogged dec ibel readings was that when the officers went out to do readings, they were found not tobe in violation. In some instances, dogs bark- ing and trucks going by sent the meter higher than the music. They enjoyed customers from the President Apartments and the fact that people 1 ived near the New Varsi ty helped the environment. Vice Mayor Cobb asked if the 11:00 p .m. deadline" would be used when it was avail able. Mr. Lutge bel leved there would be a safety factor of 15 minutes. The music usually started about 8:30 p.m., and once a couple of sets were played, it tended to be around 11:00 p.m. on weekdays that it ended. Other communities did not have music start until around 11 :30 p.m., but downtown Palo Alto was a little sleepier than other communities, which was why they were self -limited. They bel ieved midnight Friday and Saturday was a necessary com- promise. Robert Morgan, 1150 Byron Street, favored the Varsity Theatre and urged that Council take a liberal view of their problems. Living in Palo Al to was a nice experience because of the -dlversity o.f activities. The Varsity Theatre made a substantial contribution to providing that diversity. It.. was a necessary forum, and in order to continue in business, the Varsity needed the economic vlabil sty they could only get with the music Martine Habib, 761 Everett,, was a singer -songwriter .of contem- porary folk music. She pl eyed at the Varsi ty many times and for whatever reason -she was always aware of the limit on her singing. It was important for her that the --New Varsity music continue under the recommendations of the, Pl annieg Commission if necessary... It was importanti that people listen to' the words of her. songs, .and that atmospheres warms,, not possible. in .•b*rie She also managed the, Aquarius - Theatre in downtown Palo. Alto, which .recently changed ownershi p'because it could At'go- on °due_ to increased rents-. 5 1 9 0 5/28/85 Charles Nagy, 306 LaCuesta-, Los Ai tos, owned the property immedi- ately adjoining the Varsity- Theatre from 436 to 452 University Avenue. During their ownership of the property they always found the Lutge' s to be extremely good neighbors, considerate, and al ert to any problem which arose. Regarding the courtyard music, he grew up in the Hollywood hi 1 1 s just above- the Hol l ywood Bowl which must be a cl assic example of music every night to sometimes way past midnight. Music and the activity to keep young people occupied was important. He bel ieved that to stop a youth activity such as that offered by the Varsity was unacceptable in Palo Alto. Michael Classon, 2301 Harvard Street, favored reissuing ' the use permit for the New Varsity Theatre. He was a frequent patron and he and his wife got married in the courtyard last fall. He saw the Varsity as a community institution well worth preserving. It attracted peopl e to downtown Palo Al to and the diversi ty was worth trying to maintain. He knew the owners were responsible, com- munity -minded people. He was on the board of the Mid -Peninsula Peace Center and he knew the New Varsity sponsored a number of benefit performances at the Peace Center. He understood that without the music in the courtyard, it would be impossible for. the New Varsity to continue. It was an unfortunate conflict, but he bet ieved the benefits outweighed the costs, especially if the Planning Commission recommendations were approved. He knew a good faith effort was made to put a roof on the courtyard, but it appeared the owner wanted to sell the building. It was unfortu- nate the zoning: pattern rein fore edi the possibilities of more office buildings in Palo Alta as opposed to theatres like the .New Varsity. Palo Al to was fortunate to have the Varsity and he encouraged Council support. Mike O'Connor, 2727 Midtown Court, was a physicist and about half his work was focused on noise consulting. He spoke to the P1 an- ning Commission in an attempt to persuade them that the Varsity' s courtyard area was an excellent p1 acefor music. It presented the same sorts of sol utions to problems of hall accoustic s as did the early renowned halls of the shoe box design in Europe and Boston Symphony Hall . He supported the New Varsi ty Theatre. Donna Niguero, Palo Alto, worked at the New Varsity, said she did not believe the music was loud in the courtyard area. The dif- ference between the coney she made when there was music, opposed. to when there was not, was rent. . Stuart Soffer, 605 Forest Avenue, believed the New Varsity was important to the fabric of Palo Alto. The outdoor environment provided an alternative for people who did not like smoke- fi 1 led bars or liked to walk around downtown rather than. driving some- where. He bel ieved the . apartments that faced the courtyard were the choice ones. He urged that Council approve the Planning Coati lssion recommendation. Shi el ey, Morgan, 11.50 Byt on Street, supported the Varsity. Thea.tre because she believed -it 'provided- a 'wonderful. pl ace: for ev-eryone, i ncl srd ingi tire: "young-. ,peopl --Pelty Al do a She hoped a \corapromi se could be- reached. The -Varsity was needed,- a.nd• it was_, part of a bal once they should -look -toward -achieving. Counc i lmsermmber Woolley said- Counv it • listened- to two legitimate ton- - cerns-.-those- who Wanted- :to• sl eep -at- night -and those wo wanted to pr.ov_ide entertainment —the community. teemed to strongly support., She-- supported the-Pl.ann-ing. Commission recommendation,. but was con- cerned that it e work in prattle -tee She wanted-- to -ensure there- -was- staff-..avail.abl,e, in -the evening. who were capable; -of --operating the decibel meter. She re esmber-ed : h preyfous-- discussi.on about.-.reci- dents _ imi South pal o Al -to--` who had -:--trouble wi th a band next .door, -.and. when she-di.acussed it with the offs -ors, the problem. -was not having.. someone- ava11 abl a..who _ could go out. -and make= s reading , e - A which was important. She liked the idea of a safety factor and if the operation impinged upon silence by 11:00 p.im., one would do well to start working on it by 10:30 p.m. and make it clear that 10:45 p -.m. on a week night was the time to shut down so there would be no danger of running over the 11 :00 p.m_. deadline. With that in mind, she hoped there would not be' many complaints. Regarding the: 'need for a' 'roofa� the downtown -area was -under study and she' bet ie' ed Counc`11 �' action conC rning zoning' of the area shoul d all ev is 4e the raoffnrobileem.. MOTION: Coil ilme.ber Woolley moved,- seconded by Bechtel , to adopt planning Ceumi ssion recommendation to deny the appeal of Lee B. Spf v,ack and Mori G. Nall-, and to uphold the decision' of the Zoning Administrator to grant a use permit for. on -site sale and consumption, of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with the opera- tion of an eating and drinking: facility (restaurant and bar) , making the following findings, and subject to the following condi- tions: findings 1. The proposed use at the proposed location, will not be detri- mental or inj eerious to property or improvements in the vici- nity, and will not be detrimental to the public hearth, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the consuep- tion of alcoholic beverages on -site, by adult patrons of the restaurant/bar operation has not historically resulted- in con- ditions generally offensive to surrounding properties or the public welfare. Specific problems have been cited that re- lated to certain .entertainment events which are conducted en this site, but are net associated with the restaurant/ bar operation and, therefore, within the perview of this permit. Concerns, regarding wasical entertainment accessory to the restaurant/ bar operation, are -,addressed by restrictions con- tained in this permit, and pr'os►ide for lle#tations on the nature and duration of off -site impacts from this entertain- ment. 2. The proposed use wi l l be located and conducted in a summer in accord with the Palo Alto. Comprehensive Plan and the perposes •f Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, in that the Community Commercial land lose designation and zone district specifically permits such use, 'object to limitations en num- ber of permits issued per block., The City has encouraged retail and economic vitality of its downtown area, a good deal of which is provided by evening entertainment and commercial recreation. The Comprehensive Plan also seeks to °Protect and enhance those Baal sties which make Palo Alto's (residential) neighborhoods especially desiraf'e,' and to "Ensere compliance with existing noise laws and protection to residents from linnocessary noise. The restrictions placed on this . permit seek to ecieve a balance between these policies abed goals. Conditions 1. The serving of alcoholic beverages shall not be allowed, unless all Zoning 4rdiaasca, Mai l ding Code and other City ordinance redel ationt are complied with for. this ` location; 2. Outdoor ansical entertainment shall be coadectel at, a _vol ume which will set sabjett nearby. residents to unreasonable noise 1ev+els. SscN entsrtaiaaomt. sba l bo subject to the Parr Alto Noise Ordinance (Chapter g'.10' PXPle) , which perms et a mdse level no more than . 8d* ;;above the lace/ ambient level at any point eetside the property plane, MOTION CONTINUED_ 3. Outdoor musical entertainment shall be permitted during week- night evenings (Sunday through Thursday, but excluding Tuesday evenings when no entertainment shall occur) until 11:00 p.m., and on weekend evenings (Friday and Saturday) until 12:00 a.m. No music of any kind shall be permitted after these hours. Musical entertainment shall only be permitted during the p rriod from May 1 to September 30 of each year; 4. A master reel emu control for the entertainment sound system shall be provided for the management` of the restauraet, end shall be monitored to net permit music levels in excess of that which is permitted under Condition 2. In addition, the management shall be responsible to assure that the sound system is turned off eat later then 11:00 p.m. on weeknights and 12:00 a.m. on weekend evenings; 5. Musical entertainment involving percussive instrumentation shall not be permitted on weeknight evenings, with. the excep- tion of drams pl eyed eecl us1vety with breshe:so. • S. Failure to cbmply rith'the "c*nditions' of 'this 'wse permitmay result in revocation of the permit set forth in Section 18;50.080(a) of the Palm Alto Zoning Ordinance. Complaints regarding noncompliance of the operator with the use permit conditions should be made in writing or orally to the Zoning Adr.1zi strator comteuporafeousl y with the a1 l egedl jy noncom- plying event. Substantiation by the Zoning Administrator of noncompliance with the pewit conditions, either by Noise Ordinance standards or personal standards of acceptable noise levels:, will result in the holding of a public Merles for consideration or revocation; 7. The veaoyal of the former condition of Use permit 73 -UP -42, requiring a roof covering of the outdoor courtyard area, shall affect the facility operator daring the duration of the present lease, but not to exceed four years. . Upon extension • if the lease, issuance of a new lease to another operator, or other change in the foreseeable length of operation of the outdoor entertainment, the Zoning Administrator shall conduct a public hearing fur the purpose of considering reinstatement of the condition of a roof covering; 8, The management:: shall obtain a report from ao acoes°tica11 eaglneer expl okng the feasibility and benefits" of physical .modifications to the interior courtyard for the purpose of resi ing sound trpoap ss1on er reflection affeCtlpg the resi- • dents of the-, Preside _ `Apfrtaent$. A. copy o1r „the acoustical engineer;a report '.shall be made are11ab'ie, to the Zoning • Administrator in time for realer to take place within six months from the date of issuance of the permit; and !_ this permit shall be svbjeet to review and modification revs - cation by , tee PI arming C ail ss1 en end City Council, consi step t with the . requirements for public heariaunotification, as set forth in Settles 10.30.0$0 of the Zoning tirdinaace, at a date pot to exceed six smiths from the _: date of issuance of this permit Councilseaber Bechtel - understood the desire of the President Apartment residents for sleep. The motion was a. coeprodiso froa- that_ originally_ requested by the_ operators of .the -14e,wVarsity and there was an additional. condition that the permit would be subject to review --,and modification or revocation by the- .:Planning Com- mission and City Council consistent with the requirements for _ public hearing notification, etc. at a date not to exceed six months from' the date of issuance -o f the permit. She bel leved that during the six months the New Varsity provided outdoor _-Music, the eperatoei i,uul.d prove they could abide by and follow the hours of operation contained in the use permit and _to work to .ensure-- ade- quate testing as •assured by the- City -Manager. • She supported the trial. Counc ilmember Klein congratulated the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission for striking what he believed to be a fair compromisebetween the needs of the President Apartments to get r decent night' s s1 eep and the entire community' s need to preserve a significant part of the City's cultural life. He mould hate to see the New `Varsity disappear and bel ieved it provided a service to the commun 'ty. He enthusiastically supported the motion and hoped the strict management controls would make the hearings in six months pro forma without any protests. He urged Council support. Counc ilmember Renzel remained concerned about the 11:00 p.m. for most of the weeknights. It seemed to her that particul arly in the President Apartments, they were deal ing with many elderly people who were not aptto stay up late and she was concerned the one day a week did not offer much. AMENDMENT: Couscilaember Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that during the weeknights, excepting Tuesday, the hours be 10:30 p.m. rather than 11:00 p.m. Counc ilmomber Renzel believed 10:30 p.m. was s slightly more rea- sonable hour. She appreciated the service provided by the New Varsity, but believed 14 terms of reasonableness, 11:00 p.m. was late. 1 Counc iloaeober Witherspoon wanted the New Varsity to stay downtown, but also wanted to encourage people to live downtown. One reason the downtown was so much more .vital in the pest few years was that more people lived there. Her idea was to curtail Monday and Tuesday night. Ske did not know the ages of those who lived in the President Apartments, but knew they had no option ant listened to the Varsity mimic every night. Those who patrol+ized the Varsity, except for those who worked there, only went when they felt like the music. She noted that the Varsity was on the west side of the President Apartments, and the summer was when people liked to sleep with the windows open, especially if one lived on the west side of an old building that WAS not insulated. She believed a 10:30 p.m. cut-off time was perfectly reasonable for the weeknights and she agreed with Council/ember Renzel. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Renzel, Sstories, 9iitherspeen voting "aye." Couneilmember Sutorius said regarding Condition 8, he understood the logic of the Planning Commission, but he believed it was incompl ete because it merely required management to obtain a report from an acoustical engineer exploring feasibil ity benefits of physical modification to an interior ,,courtyard, but did not provide for. anything happening with it. He suggested incorpora- Lion within Con4itlon 8 that, a ccoy of said`. report be provided to the Zoning Administrator .in••tine,-ior incorporation. in the review process covered in Condition 9. LANGUAGE INCORPORATED INTO l AIN NOTION THAT A COPT OF THE : ACOUS- TICAL ENNINEER1S REPORT SHALL NE. MADE AVAILABLE TQ_. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR . IN TINE FOR THE., REVIEW- TO TAKE PLACE : WITHIN SIX MOTHS. OF THE DATE OF ISSUANCE THE PERMIT Course 11member Renzel would not teupport the motion because she believed it was top liberal, -died the natter- - of noise problems from. the . New Varsity_ was not new. The roof wss in response to problems with noise that occurred over a long period of time Now they had a request _to -; not build :,the roof, and Council was asked to give validity to an 11:00 p.m. music closing time for weekday nights._ Ma �i r= ' Mayo, u v y supported the motion and bei #eyed the conditions repre- s ented �. sented a good compromise. Palo Alto should be a community with much diversity and those who enjoyed the entertainment provided by the New Varsity should have it avail able to them. He appreciated the comments of Mr. Morgan regarding free speech. Music was a type of speech and Council should do everything possible to en- courage the freedom and diversity of speech, He bel ieved 11:00 p.m. was a reasonable time to stop the music on weekdays and 12:00 midnight was reasonable for the weekends. The Varsity was being held to compl lance with the City`s basic noise ordinance which was appropriate. He was frustrated by reading the minutes of the PI arming Commission that the• City had difficulty enforcing, moni- toring „ and measuring its noise ordinance. He hoped the City could be diligent in enforcing the noise ordinance and monitoring it carefully during the next six months. NOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Renzel voting "no." ITEM #7 EVERGREEN PARK NE•IOHBORHOOD TRAFFIC STUDY, °EVALUATION OF SECOND TRIAL TRAFFIC MAN AT FLAW (CMR:3)2:5 1; AND ITEM P8 PARK BOULEVARD/PARK AVENt MOTION: Caancilrerber Klein roved, seconded by Fletcher, to limit speakers to three minutes per speaker for Item 7 and O. Councilrmember Bechtel supported the motion and urged that Council - members try and limit their discussion. Cobncilsember Renzel urged the members of the public to make their comments brief, but did not believe Council should impede those who pi anned a five- minute presentation. She would not support the motion. Counc ilmember Bechtel suggested there might be a spokesperson for opposing viewpoints on the issue, and said she intended to support the three -minute limit because most people could get ` their points across in about a minute: MOTION PASSED by a vote of 0-3, Renzel voting ."no.* Mayor Levy asked for comment on speed 'lumps and their efficacy and the de:ree to -which they were proven 16 use in situations similar to Park Boulevard. Chief Transportation '0ffi•c4a1 Marvin- ,0verway _ said staff recom- mended "road bumps," which were a three-inch rise transitioned over 1 ai 12 -foot linear distance. It compahed to that normally experienced in a shopping center parking lot which had a three to six-inch rise spread over a three foot or less distance. The change in grade was different for "road bumps" versus a "speed burp." Road bumps were used in many places, and the report in- cluded with the staff report referenced 160 locations throughout California with about 200 mill ion vehicl es having passed over there by 1983. Based on that experience, design features were finalized and it was agreed that something like three to four Inches was appropriate, and the transition of 12 feet was recommended. They were shown to be• effective speed reduction Methods and to divert traffic away from roadways. The report implied the diversion might range anywhere from zero to forty to fi fty percent. In some cases, experience showed art increase in traffic, but as the report kepi led, the increases were,; attributebl a to growth in the particu- lar areas. Staff believed the one-way segment on Park Bouelvard was inherently unsafe and did not recommend it. The road bumps offered a substitute and addressed the speed issue on Park, which was a Council obj:ectire, and the potential for some diversion beyo rid w, tat would be experienced if nothingwereput there. 5 7-9 5 5 /28 /85 Counc i-tmember Woolley referred to "funding; discussed in the May 9 staff report, on page 26. The second paragraph spoke to a $30,000 Traffic Mitigation Fund which was essentially used, and it went on to say the developer of Palo Al to Central committed an additional $100,000 which might be used by the City for payment of up to 50 percent of the cost of traffic control improvements in the area bounded by Lambert, Park, the SP, and Ash. Staff .desired to save that- money for improvements cl oser to Pal o Al to Central itsel f, and she asked if there was anything specific in mind.. Assistant Transportation Engineer Ca_r.1 Stoffel said nothing was presently in mind because Palo .Al to Central was not compl eted. Counc ilme>mber Woolley asked how much money could be used in Evergreen Park. She understood there were boundaries and three of the barriers were outside of the. boundaries, so only a portion of the money could be appl ied . Mr. Stoffel said the boundary was Ash Street which left out, under the terms of the- staff recommended alternative, the three encl o- sures near El Camino. All of the other elements. of the Evergreen Park pl an could be funded on a 50/50 basis with. the $100,000. Counciimember Woolley clarified it would cost roughly $25,000 and could conceivably come from the $100,000. Mr. •Stoffel said that was correct. Vice Mayor Cobb bet ieved the worst case situation was getting a fire vehicle into the maze, and asked if the Fire Chief made any estimates of the time differential if the barrier was not there. Mr. Overway did not bel ieve any estimates were done, but bel ieved in the case of the one-way barrier , the Fire Department response would likely be to go around the barrier and it would probably not incur any del ay. Vice Mayor Cobb clarified ,the safety problems referred to the U-turns made by people going the wrong way. Apart from the com- ments regarding signage, he asked hed' it might be designed to be 1 ess of a hazard. Mr. Over way slid the only option was to try and reduce the number of unnecessary U—turns attributable to people going the wrong way, which attempt could be made by signage. The present signs were reviewed and other than putting up a sign in the middle of Park, mounted on some kind of a median in the middle of the roadway, there was not much el se that could be done. In terms of elimi- nating U-turns rel ated to the businesses. staff was uncertain about what could be done. The other el Bent was the one-way move- ment through the one-way section, He believed it was properly signed and peopl e simply chose to avoid the message. Vice Mayor Cobb asked about the potential 1 iabil ity of humps ." Mr. Overway said to date, the available information indicated there was no court case or findings of any consequence.. There was uncertainty about the official status of 1 iabil ity. Counc ilmember Fletcher asked about exposure from maintaining a one-way barrier where it was known ':that cars sped around in the wrong directions Mr. Over way said;. that was y staff was unable to recommend that situation. If it existed at an intersection, it would more fit a normal situation where there were:'traffi`d control devises which.. caused people to stop and be directed elsewhere. The particular. situation on Park Sul evArd was unique to. -hi s experience and those staff spoke . with, and was, .therefore, subject to interpretation through the courts.. Co'rncilmemher Rental cl arified that if a barrier was recimoved andsubstituted with bumps, the number of vehic1 es -.ravel ing on Park Boulevard would increase beyond what it 'was prior to the test. Mr. Stoffel said the bumps only affected the part of Park Boule- vard between Cambridge and Stanford, Through traffic would go up on Park 3oul evard beyond what it was because many residents who were now: blocked through the internal barriers on Ash and Birch would probably choose to use Park Boul evard as a straight shot to the northern part of the neighborhood. Staff figured a few hundred of those would now use Park that did not do so when there were no barriers in the neighborhood. Mayor Levy asked about the estimated speed with road bumps on Park. Mr. Overway estimated that at the bump itself, the speed would probably be 20 miles per hour, and in between, it wool d be 25 miles per hour. Mayor Levy asked about the current speed. Mr. Over way said it was measured as part of the study at 32 miles per hour and 35 mil esper hour. Mayor Levy realized the City had lawsuits rel ated to barriers, and was aware of one where a bicyclist struck a barrier. He asked if there was a simil ar 1 labil ity for road bumps or whether the t iabil ity was less with barriers. Anthony Bennetti, Senior Assi stant City Attorney said presently it was an open question. There was probably less of an indication in the case of road bumps . Neither was an approved traffic control dev iceby cal Trans so the City. had no immunity for following State recommended design= The barriers, under the legislation passed after the Rumford case, were local traffic devices not approved by Cal Trans and for^ which the City would probably have liabil ity If they were shown to create a dangerous condition. on public prop- erty. That was a question of fact to be determined by the courts. If, in fact, road bumps were determined not to. be traffic control devices devised locally, but rather roadway design features, there was a possibility the City could argue it had design immunity for road bumps, which was an open question not yet addressed by the courts. Larry Toll , 3820 Park Boul evard, grew up in Los Angel es, and said a feel ing of community was a precious commodity, which was the way it presently was on Park Boulevard. He supported the present barriers. John iianl ess, 2682 Cowper Street, had a traffic_ probl em in hi s area and tried to el icit neighborhood support. Neighborhood input was important, and he urged Counc it to consider what the residents of Evergreen Park had to say. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, believed it was appropriate, _ ehat the budget incl ode another loss management position because the speed control bumps d warrant them, He r em em b,er ed when Di arse Lee fir st oined the City staff arid was amazed at how few l lab it ity suits. there were -compared to San. Jose because Pal o Al. to, was careful not to do things which ,were unreasonable . and created a potential l iabil ity. The present si tuation had, =a'- real potential for liability and lawsuits. Thy barriers system worked, it met the Council goals and the community asked that through traffic be reduced by at least 30 percent. He suggested the barriers be made permanent with a traffic circle. Brian. Carill l,, 2i5O Columbia, said he bought hishouse because of the road barriers. They had a four -;ear -old daughter and the _street was -presently quiet and calm. The neighborhood was the. most: important part of feily life "which welt starting to return to 1 Palo Al tu. He bel ieved the road barriers kept the neighborhood in a community situation. He .urged they be maintained. Michael Rudin, 251 Stanford Avenue, bel ieved barriers were a way o f protecting neighborhoods. He and his wife had a business in Palo Alto and had to negotiate the barriers several times a day. There was some inconvenience, but the benefits outweighed any inconvenience Bill Fitch, 178 Park Avenue, supported the. traffic circle on Park Boulevard.. The traffic circle ways first approved over a .year ago and it was time to put it in. He al so -bel ieved the traffic circl e was most appropriate with the present traffic barriers also in pl ace. If there was an increase in traffic through the area, the traffic circle would be of marginal val ue. Vivlane Shupbach, 270 Stanford, was previously opposed to bar- riers, but changed her rind after the trial period in Evergreen Park. She strongly supported the barriers and asked that they be retained. Her street was now safe, and her eight-year-o1d son could ride his bicycle to the Co-op. She feared what would happen to her neighborhood once the developments on California, Park and Cambridge were filled. So far they were unoccupied or under - occupied. She also feared what would happen to Stanford Avenue itself i f Park Boulevard was filled with road humps. Alternative No. 3 would rake Stanford Avenue what Park Boulevard was before the barrier trial . The overdevelopment of the California Avenue business area and the barriers at Southgate made Evergreen Park' s situation unique, Joe Kinsella, 1874 Park Bo ul ev and , wanted to uphold the safety and security of the neighborhood, and he believed it could only be done by reducing the volume and speed of traffic. He personally put up a reflector sign three times and said the City had not maintained the particular curb of concrete, Three Saturdays ago he was awakened at 5:30 a.m. by an accident where a but was wedged between two of his neighbors' homes. The bus had not made the curb, jumped the sidewalk and crashed into his neighbor's home. He protested the use of his: street by Domino' s Pi zza which contin- ued to harass hi s neighborhood, particul arly hi s curve, by exceed- ing the speed limit. Lisa Layne, 125 Middlefield Road, was interested in neighborhood preservation, and thought road humps were appropriate at shopping malls, but she did not bel ieve they provided adequate protection o f neighborhood preservation. She supported retaining the status quo and forgetting the road humps. Dick Shupbach, 270 Stanford Avenue, said people were finally used to the traffic isl arid. The drunks and crazies were used to the fact that they could not speed up and down Park Boulevard. He urged retention of the present system. David Himmel tterger, 1763 Park boulevard, said it was difficult to know what impact the present recommendation would have. Speeders continued to fly down Park Soul ev`ard, and the current proposal did not address that issue. He strongly recommended continuing the plan now in effect because it was .likely that the flowrate woul d increase to pre -barrier level s on Park Boulevard and those who would be most affected were the residents of Park Boulevard who ✓ oted 23-1 to accept the current plan now in effect. Tommy .Derrick, 390 Leland Avenue, believed the -issue was one of courage. Council succeeded in reducing the traffic and with a plan supported by the cNemdnity. Mr. Stoffel had the figures,` but his boss directed it, a different Way He urged that. Council take control . Bernice Loeb, 2120 Middlefield Ro.d', could not comfortably use .the streets when there; were barriers.` She bel ie s,ed she hel ped pay for 5 1 9 8 5/2,8/85 1 0 the streets as a taxpayer, but when those streets were denied to her, she resented it and e,d not •want to pay anymore. She was concerned that every area in Palo Al to would be given barriers Will Beckett, 4189 Baker Avenue, Chairman of the Barron Park Traffic Committee, sent a letter to the City Council (which i s on file in the City Clerk's Office). He was appalled the traffic study took so long to even get started. September, 1985 was ridiculous considering that over a year ago, they were assured the Barron Park Study would start in .August, 1984. He presented his complaint to the Council over a year ago at a time when it was considering yet another solution for Evergreen Park. 'The Barron Park Traffic Committee urgently requested that more immediate and positive action take place to conclude the Evergreen Park and other studies Martin Perl , 428 Oxford Avenue, could see the residents side of 1 iving in Evergreen Park, but on the other hand, he came from a family of small businessmen, and could see the problems of the California Avenue businesses. He believed they reached a reason- able compromise on both sides. The Evergreen Park residents were snaking contributions to the business area. Now was the time to 1 eave the pl an status quo and let the residents of Evergreen Park go on .building their community and let the California Avenue business people go on building up their businesses. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:45 .m. TO 10:05 ip_.m. Jim Stapleton, 214 Oxford, was concerned about the safety of their children. The Palo Al to Comprehensive Plan spoke to no through traffic in the neighborhoods, Park Boulevard was supposed to be a collector street, which meant it did not carry through traffic, but only traffic in and out of the neighborhood. Park Boulevard acted as an arterial street for many years, and served as two extra lanes for El Camino. Hal f of the traffic was cut off by the barrier. Those who lived on Park Boulevard should not be asked to subsidize the business district by providing access to the busi- nesses through their private neighborhoods. Their quality of life suffered because -of the through traffic. They 1 iked the present situation although they preferred to see Park Boulevard closed down compl etel y. He supported the status quo. Jim Masi k, 254 Oxford Avenue, opposed the barriers. Lois Johnson, 230 Sequoia Avenue, opposed all traffic barriers because it had an adverse affect on every neighborhood in which they were installed. The barriers only created the need for more barriers. The trial p1 an was supposed to be the product of the ad hoc committee and was not. The members of the ad hoc committee never voted for the plan and few were informed that it would be changed. The Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association wanted to have Park Boul evard completely closed and would keep working for it. Mark Musen, 211 College Avenue, was pleased the criteria set up before the trial was a success. The people in the neighborhood overwhelmingly supported the trial and people in the business district by and large did not respond to Mr. .Steffei' s survey. The economic survey showed the businesses were not impacted by _the closures on Park Boul evard and the rest of the neighborhood. He was concerned about staff' s plan to r ove the one-way" closure on Park Soul evard and implement the system of . road bumps, which he opined was totally. irresponsible, "since : the staff report seemed to conclude the existing plan worked wel l . Removing: the one-way closure and putting in road,. bumps iui d effectively open Park Soul evard to two-way through trefflc_ ;and meant a through traffic reduction of 15 percent at Most. Was concerned about the, legal iwpl.icatlons of road bumps. The report indicated the State _did not endorse road Wimps and the Cal i„forrkia Traffic Coi:-trzo1 Device Committee report spoke to a criteria_ by width road' bumps should be 5 7 99. 5/28/85 rnp1emented. Road bumps should be used only on local streets, not collectors, and not arterials; should not be used on roads to be used by emergency vehicles; were not supposed to be on roads open to trucks; and were not supposed to be used on streets that totaled more than 3,000 cars per day. By opening Park Boulevard in both directions, the number of vehicles would be over 3,000 cars per day which would increase as the developments opened up in the California Avenue Di strict. He supported the status quo. Nancy Holmes, 5V 3 Moana Court, owner of Peninsula Scientific and a member of the Citizen's Ad Hoc Committee, said the second con- figuration of 'aarriers was better for • her business than the first, but anything was better than the first trial . She favored reduced speed on Park Boul evard and congratul ated staff for their courageous recommendation of road bumps on Park Boul evard and the removal of the one-way barrier. If the staff recommendation failed and the existing plan were implemented permanently, some- thing needed to be done about the speeding on Park Boulevard. She urged Council support of the third al ternative. Geoff Thompson, 416 Oxford, said the circle closure at the end of Oxford Avenue was not positioned at the barrier between the lots fronting El Camino and those fronting oil Oxford Avenue, which potentially meant a business could have a curb cut in back of the barrier and exit in the neighborhood, which he wanted corrected. He urged Council approval of the present plan. It achieved the goal of reduced through traffic in the neighborhood. In the late 1970's, Council planned to restrict the growth of the City by restrictive traffic, and it did not work. Neighborhoods were 1 fined up to do . the same as Evergreen Park and wanted to protect their neighborhoods from parking resul ting from the additional development on Cal ifornia Avenue and he still expected significant problems from 'parking overflow. Kristi Elliott, 302 College Avenue, said it was previously sug- gested that Park Boulevard was best left open to two-way traffic because of its status as a collector street. From 1969 to 1981, the years for which Ci ty-wide data was avail able, as daily vol times on Park Boulevard at El Camino rose 75 percent from 1,500 to 2,600, volumes on other residential collectors like Los Robles, Loma Verde, W verl ey, and Churchill rose 10 to 15 percent. Vol times on some residential collectors like Louis, Park, South at Lampert, Stanford from El Camino to Foothill , Churchill from Alma to Embarcadero, Miranda, North " .al ifornia, and Charming declined in some cases by Bore than 50 percent. Such declines often refl ected the =-effectiveness . of traffic control s installed when Council and its predecessors recognized the previous high volumes on those streets posed an unfair burden on those who lived al ong thee. Park Boulevard served a neighborhood of 400 residences which generated approximately 3,000 trips per day. Before con- trols were implemented and under the plan proposed by staff, Park carried that many trips all by itself, yet 1 icense plate studies showed only a third were neighborhood trips. Los Robles in Barron Park served 1 ,500 residences and generated approximately 10,000 per day and carried only 6,000. Park South at Lambert in 1969 carried 600 trips per day, but after it was closed to through traffic, vol uses were hal f. The residential area served by that portion of Park was more than twice the size of Evergreen Park and contained several times as many households, yet its present traf- fic vol use. was 1 ess than that proj ected\,, for .,Park Boulevard. in Ev r reen Par k under the staff proposal:: The curve'in Park Boul e= vard eight well- be the - most dangerous stretch of residential col ector . street in the City. Its radius of curvature was tighter , and the wl d th of unobstructed roadway available in each direction was narrower than on .any other sire il ar street. During the past four *onths4".there, were three accidents. Park _ Boulevard we.* unique end it was impOrtant to, to keep the one-wa.y section i tac t and to in stall the traffic circle and median :: improvements necessary to reduce speed between El Camino and the curve. 1 Richard Lyons, 2130 Middlefield serued on the Ad Hoc Citizen's committee and supported the removal of street closures on Birch and the. internal closures now on Birc h and Ash. Council dec ided to impl ement the present trial which came out of a pl an suggested by the Ad Hoc Committee. The pl an was incl usive, followed an open and public process, had input from diver se constituencies in the neighborhood, and lead to a successful trial , which met with ',Raj ority-approval of the most affec ted residents. The confl uence of something effective beyond projections, which had support and came out of citizen consul tation was a remarkable achievement. The proposed Alternative No. 3 puzzled. him . When they went to work on the Ad Hoc Committee, there were two criterion: 1) to consult with the diverse elements involved in the situation; and 2) maintain the priority of reduced through traffic in Evergreen Park. In order to reduce through traffic in Evergreen Park, the Citizen' s Committee consul ted the business people, neighborhood, and churches which recommended that Birch be opened in order to compromise and have access to the business district and al so main- tain the integrity of Park Bo ul ev ard and keep it from being inun- dated with through traffic. If the one-way on Park were removed, Park was essentially opened to two-way traffic once again and they were back to where they started. He supported the status quo. Brian McDonald, 555 Lytton. Avenue., said barriers created little l sl ands separated from - the rest o f the community. He was not against barriers, but opposed the ones on Park Boulevard. ITEMS TO BE HEARD AFTER 11:00 p.m. NOTION TO CONTINUE: Corecilwember Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to finish the items before Council tonight and adjourn meeting to 7:30 p.m. on flay 29, 1985, for Items #6, Peninsula Kass Transit Study; 0, Animal Services Advisory Committee; and #10, Community. Ice Skating Initiative. Councilmernber Fletcher said it was desirable for written communi- cations to reach PENTAP before Friday, May 31, if possible. City Manager Bill Zaner said if necessary, a messenger could del iver the comments. . NOTION PASSED UPI anisousl y. ITEMS #7 AND 418 EVERGREEN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC STUDY AND SARK BOULEYARb/PARK AYENUt TRAFFIC CIRCLE (Continued) 'Mike Bors s, 280 College Avenue supported the traffic barriers as they currently existed. Tom Fur1 sang for _Carey Heckman, 186 Park Avenue , ,said Evergreen Park''s current,: traffic control` pl an. Worked It satisfied a clear mad or1ty of the residents, the Council' s criteria and tha t of the Ad Hoc Citizens' Comamittee . The City Council accepted its obliga- tion to control through traffic so that Evergreen Park could sur- vive as a neighborhood. He urged that council continue` the exist- ing Evergreen Park traffic barriers, especially the one -Way traf- -fic on a. portion- of, Park Boulevard and. order construction of the promised traffic circle, on Park Avenue. Liz Pupar supported the present barriers because they- protec ted the quality of 1 ife. White she was- .so netimes 'inconvenienced, It -was a better idea to preserve the neighborhood rather -.,,than. having it be ah extension of El Camino-. Anne Ercol ani , 2040 Ash, urged Codnc it to make, the present . pl an perm.aonen with the traffic c;fr-cl a She suggested something be pl.aced in frogt=of the existing me i_en at the curve_=to warn ,people .. sooner that it -w s a tight curve-.. ..She' .hoped staff.- wol d respond. to -the Neighborhood Association 0.s repeated offers to help maintain the 1 an d sc a pi n e t Joe Ercol ani, 2040 Ash, said the issue. was through tr=affic and he echoed those comments in support of the present pl an. Howard Burnside, Attorney, 2211 Park Boul evard, spoke on behalf of more than 2,000 people in the City of Palo Alto who opposed bar- riers, and elderly people in Evergreen Park. The present plan created a dangerous condition on Park Boulevard, and the question was not 1 lability, but rather how much the City would pay. He suggested the people should vote on the issue . Kevin Pope, 301 Oxford, supported the present plan. Erica Prince, 302 College, said Evergreen Park residents were trying to create a Pal o Alto -type community. She supported the present p1 an . Saski a Boissevain, 410 Cambridge Avenue, President of the Cal ifornia Avenue Area Development Association (CAADA), with 150 members said in :many ways CAADA agreed with the Evergreen Park residents and wanted to preserve their qual ity of life, but was concerned about the growing issue of barricades. CAADA endorsed the staff recommendation to remove barriers on Park Boulevard and to install speed bumps in their place to control traffic speed and deter excessive commuter traffic . CAADA al so endorsed the pl an to install a traffic circle on Park. The plan should be a good com- promise. Speed bumps would be as effective as barricades because they woul d slow traffic and wool d be enough of a nui sance to encourage commuters to use arterial roads. CAADA agreed with keeping the quiet quality of the neighborhoods, but wanted to solve the , problem , not c ha se the problem from ne ig hb or hood to neighborhood with a stick. Ted Thompson, 410 Cambridge, Director of CAADA, was concerned with the partial closure of Park Boulevard because it did not l ower speed. If Council set a precedent with the barriers, how could it. refuse to barricade other collector streets. He endorsed the staff recommendation. He believed Council would face the same problems many times, and he suggested there should be guidelines for barriers and col 1 ec for streets. Bob Kavinoky, 2091 Cornell , Director of CAADA, said CAADA endorsed the staff recommendation. Staff was faced wi th `;two recommenda- tions neither of which represented full compliance with the stan- dards previously set. He believed staff's •recommendation was a compromise which addressed the speed reduction problem arid which the present barrier system did not address. Council had a dilemma and would have :.o .change the rules in the middle of the.. gage.. He hoped it would be done with sensitivity and consideration for all of the people involved Steven Avis, 164 'California Avenue supported the new staff recom- mendation. The concept of road bumps was raised early on and was dismissed, and all of the otherproposals used harriers. He urged that Council consider another trial, and to look at all answers before making a final decision. John Mock, . 136 Barron ,Avenue , referred to Attachment 3 _ of ' .the staff report* Section 2, "Interconnection of traffic signals on El Camino from Churchill to Page Mill Road is a traffic flow improve- ment project 'iohich was recommended by staff to be implemented in conjrunction with, through traffic disincentives in Evergreen Park." Re believed the traffic : barriers were a band -aid solution to a serious traffic problem If .Council proceeded with barriers, it should make a token effort to get at the major cause of the traf- fic in the Evergreen 'Park ' area, which was the situation on El Camino. ile took staff's .suggestion and urged that in addition to adopting; the Evergreen ,Traffic Plan, that staff expenditure be authorized for a full feasibility study of the El Camino Signal Interconnect Project if Cal Trans still claimed it did not have the manpower to advance the project in a timely fashon. 1 Jeff Hook, 302 College, spoke on behalf of the approximately 70 absentee owners in Fvergreen Park, 30 of which endorsed the pre- sent pl an . He supported the present pl an. Raymond Chamberlain, 3444 Greer Road, al so spoke on behalf of Dan OeCamp, 326 Leland Avenue, and understood the bumps in San Jose were essentially identical to those proposed in Pal o Al to. He did not bel ley the road bumps controlled speed. There were different from those bumps in a parking lot. He bel ieved road bumps pro- vided pol itical shifting. Sam Smith, 2031 Park Boulevard, said the current plan met its specified goals and should be permanent. A goal was to reduce traffic by 30 percent, and the plan reduced it by 50 percent. The idea of an al ternative pl an such as speed bumps was inappropriate and totally unacceptabl e. She experienced the benefits of the current p1 an and enj oyed the peace and quiet. If the one-way section were dangerous, the focus should •be on making it safer. She believed the traffic circle weal d help make the approach to the curve more safe- It did not appear that barriers had an economic impact on the businesses. Joe Koepnick, 2031 Park Boul evard, said his house was hit by a car and there was $700 damage. He supported making the present plan permanent. David Schrom, 302 College Avenue, said the City' s pol icy was clear on the issue of through traffic in neighborhoods. The Compre- hensive Plan said nothing about making residential neighborhoods access routes and parking lots for adjacent commercial areas. There was professional opinion which supported the position that business district parking and traffic belonged on business dis- trict streets and parking facilities. Modern subdivisions rude a clear choice between speed bumps, cul -de-sacs or closed streets 1 ike the ones in Evergreen Park. If road bumps did an effective job of making neighborhoods a pleasant place, they would be used in place of the cul-de-sac designs. The present plan had over- whelming support. The costs of through traffic in neighborhood s grossly outweighed the benefits. The process involved 15 meetings before the Council , more than 100 other meetings, and five years of. waiting. He urged Council to adopt the present plan, install the . traffic circle, and improve the signing that kept people out of dead -ends al ready in existence. Mayor Levy asked Mr. Schrom Why,he urged the neighbors to boycott the May 15 meeting Mr. Schrom said .Council gave staff a directive. The purpose was a Neighborhood Traffic Study aimed at achieving the objectives of the Palo Al to Comprehensive P1 an, the first of which was to reduce through traffic in neighborhoods. According to the guidelines of the State of California. the .objective as written in the plan was met to have a measurable standard. Council set a 30 percent standard, and staff returned with three things under consideration in . their report. One produced zero, one produce) 20 percent, which he believed was more like 15 percent. Staff first tried to define Evergreen Park' s boundaries to ir,cl ude the peripheral businesses including . the ones on El Camino. Real so the : through traffic in their neighborhood, according to their study, was understated. They next said Evergreen' Park was not a part of the objective set by Council in t4arc h. Mayor Levy also understood that Mr. Schrom recr, ended the neigh- bors boycott one business on California Avenue. Mr, Schrom Said he did not personally make that recommendation. R. J. Oebs , 3145 lowers Drive was interested in the traffic area and helped get the barriers .on. Park .i u1 evard South -because seven or _eight- chlldr.en,-were hit therein_ 1971. They faced the problems of speed control by bumps. He suggested the second trial be declared permanent, and covered in costs, if necessary, by next year' s fiscal Capital. Improvement Program moneys. The $110,000 should be used to install the . traffic signal at El Camino and Cambridge. He realized that once it was put out, Cal Trans would never give it back, but he suggested the signal be installed flexibly so as to meet Cal Trans possibility of sync ronization, which would provide more access to California Avenue. Al an Ledford, 584 ThaIn Way, represented his mother who lived at .61 Stanford Avenue for the past 55 years, and submitted a letter to the City Council which requested that the Fire Department managers be invited to the City Council meeting (letter is on fil e in the City Clerk' r. office) Any restriction into areas of heavy population was a problem. He believed their was a hidden safety factor with any type of catastrophe. To his knowledge, there was never a 1 arge catastrophe in Pal o Al to, but if Pal o Al to needed mutual aid from other Fire Departments in the area into Pal Al to in the event of a gas expl onion or mul ti -family dwell ings on fire in the Evergreen Park area, Palo Al to would be in trouble. Will iam Rosenberg, 820 Bruce Drive, was generally opposed to bar- riers, but believed a barrier was no different than a cul-de-sac except it was not al ways there. He found that many of hi s friends who opposed the barriers lived on cul-de-sacs After fighting his way through the barriers in Evergreen Park, he concl uded that they maintained the residential nature of the neighborhood. Council should make them permanent. Co unc i l shoul a look at the entire problem of the El Camino corridor, timing the signals and doing the same thing on Page Mill and Oregon Expressway. George McDonald., 2183 Park Boulevard, said the second barriers were better than the first, but Council owed it to the electorate to put the matter on the ballot. Marilyn Mayo, 404 Oxford, said the impression was that David Schrom urged and lead peopl o to boycott. She disagreed. Most people attended the Council meetings on their own volition. The plan was a .compromise, it was a delicate total plan, could not be adapted or changed or it would force a problem in another area She urged Counc it accept the current pl an, but if undul ations were the plan, she suggested keeping the barriers and undulating to slow the traffic at the curve. Corinne Powell, 381 Oxford Avenue, associated her sel f with the comments of most of the speakers in favor of the current system. If the barrier were removed on Park Boulevard, Stanford Avenue was a through route, and would essentiallybifurcate the neighborhood and be a. tot41 disaster. She encouraged Council to adopt the present pi an, install the traffic circl e and not begin the poten- tial problems involved with speed. bumps. Paul Bundy, 143 Park Avenue, supported the present plan and hoped t, was made permanent.. El yse Barnett -Nunez, 211, College Avenue, said regarding the I iabil ity of road bumps w the cost involved of, having. to go through the courts, and the I lab it ity from the U-turns, at the fi r st.. staff meeting, it was said that the U-turns_ at the one- way street were not riy different from those found in :other. parts of 'the City nor were they any more than the normal violations of stop signs. There were slower speeds because speed could not be, gained from making the U-turn_, and the Bl oar the speed the less the injury , and liability. The traffic circle might reduce the speed going around the curve where the- `accidents occurred Nark Garwood=, 25?. Stanford, Av enue , was a m.eber of the Evergreen Park -Traffic Committee, and urged Council _ adopt the, present plan He thanked David Schroa for all; his work on behalf of the committee 1 Ron Sutton. 384 Stan fnrr'd; President, Evergreen Park 'neighborhood Association; said as an individual , he opposed through traffic its residential neighborhoods; as a traffic committee member, he endorsed their work- and effort of almost five years; and as presi- dent of the- Neighborhood. Association, he encouraged the Evergreen Park Traffic Man be decided upon the fair, consistent criteria established by Council in September , 1983. Trial one ended in August, 1984 with a staff recommendation to make the plan perma- nent. That plan yielded a 65 percent through traffic reduction. Despite hi s preference to eliminate all ' through traffic and the Traffic Committee Plan, he participated in an ad hoc committee that went to Council and developed a pl an to overcome three obj ec- tions raised within the neighborhood, the business district and outside the neighborhood. Despite staff' s prediction that only a 35 percent traffic reduction would result_ from the compeomise pl an, trial two did end successfully. They focused on speed, but when half the traffic was eliminated, it reduced half the speed right off the top and .the resul ting speed was not as onerous. The major part of the speed problem wasthe curve at Peers Park. The process included more than a dozen City Council meetings, commit- tee meetings, and public meetings over the past four years, and ten months. The staff recommendation was inappropriate because it ignored the process which already occurred. It was an unaccept- abl a alternative and, he recommended Counc II adopt the present Plan . Hans Sorensen, 360 Leland, believed the barrier issue should be addressed by all citi zees of Palo Alto. He suffered guilt by association because he lived in Evergreen nark. He suggested all barriers be removed and the streets be left the way they were. Louise Ritzmann, 2091 Park Boui evard, urged that Council support the present pl an. She bet iev ed road bumps were inadequate. Renee Stapleton, 214 Oxford , believed her residence was probably at the worst possible location in terms of driving convenience, but would happily go out of her way to enjoy the peace and quiet. It would be disastrous to remove the barriers. She requested the one-way on Park Boulevard be retained; the traffic circle be install ed; and that it be done that evening . . Counc ilmember Bechtel said the issue was around for a long time, and whl l e she was sympathetic to those opposed to barriers, there were many barriers around town that were in place for so long, it was forgotten they were not there to begin with. For example, the intersection of Embarcadero/Middlefield/Coleridge. Col Bridge used to go through to Mlddlefield and was a dangerous intersection. The intersection of Seal a and Embarcadero was closed al so. Regarding whether. Evergreen Park was different from other neigh- borhoods that did not have or need barriers, it was different because it %Os impacted by the heavy amount of traffic on El Camino and the growth of California Avenue. It was al so different from those neighborhoods in South Pal o Al to that were buil t in the 1 ate 40' s ad 51 s when many'ware built. with cut -`:de- sacs.. She al so supported the traffic circle planting bed. Staff believed it would reduce the speed of the .traffic The intersection of Park Avenue and Park 8oclevard was'`a wide area, and the perception with a wide street was that :one coul d go fast. I"_ there were a plant- ing area to reduce the amount of space in the particular roadway, it would reduce the speed of traffic on that section of Park Boulevard about wjch people were so concerned. Aesthetically, a hunk of cement looked crummy, and if it were broken up with some greenery, it would make all the difference. The people in Evergreen Park offered to help maintain, and she hoped they would help pick up the trash that, got blown there because that was a problem with barriers. 5 8 0 5 5 /28 /85 MOTION: Count glee bee Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, perma- rreat adoption and installation of the second trial Traffic Manage- ment Plan; and en the basis of the initial study and comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the traffic management plan will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, approve the negative declaration. The recommends- tion includes the following elements: 1. Street closures on Park, Leland old Oxford Avenues near El Camino Real , at the boundary between -the commercial and residential zones; 2. Street closures on Birch Street between Oxford and College Avenues; on Ash Street at Stanford Avenue; and on College Avenue at Park Boulevard; 3. Two-way stop signs on Stanford Avenue at Ash Street, three-way stop signs on College Avenue at Ash Street, intersections of Birch/Stanford, Birch/Oxford and Oxford/Ash; and • removal of the stop sign on College Avenue at Park Boulevard; 4. Stop signs and a second crosswalk on Park Boulevard Avenue; S. 'No Parking Any Time" zones on the north side of Cambridge Avenue; and 6. One-way traffic southbound en Park Boulevard between . College and Oxford Avenues RESOLUTION 6392 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF tgr CITY OF PALO ,ALTO IMPLEMENTING THE EVERGREEN PARK TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND AMENDING THE CITY-WIDE STOP INTERSECTION SYSTEM NAP'. Count ilmember Woolley said the first objective of the Compre- hensive Plan in Chapter 4 on Transportation was to protect resi- dential neighborhoods from through traffic and -especially commuter traffic. Council received one letter which spoke to not wanting barriers because they denied an appropriate bypass to harried commuters. She supported the motion and believed it had reason- able support from the neighbors and the businesses. The study needed to be concluded. A few weeks ago at the Policy and Proce- dures (P&P) Committee meeting, they talked about . traffic studies for the entire. City and learned that because of the. time Evergreen Park took, the other traffic studies were held. up. :Counc flaaleaaaber Klein made a motion to hire a consul tentat the expense of $30,000 so the Midtown Study .would not have to wait until after the Barron Park Study scheduled to begin in October, but rather could go along ` in parallel. She supported the second alternative because the effects of the third alternative were unknown and the bumps were not located where the need was the greatest. The resolution was prepared for Alternative 3, -which was the staff recommenda- tion, and if the wording were changed in two places, the : resolu- tion could be adopted that evening with the corr•ectiwording. In the fourth "whereas," there needed to be a period at the end of the third line after "neighborhood." In Section I, .instead of Exhib#t:"A," it needed- to say "figure 3 on -page 6." Caunc ilae ber Bechtel asked whether the locations •were correct under. Section 2 of the resol ucion where it mentioned- Exhibit -4064 Mr. Stoffel said Exhibit "B" would remain the same. CORRECTIONS TO. RESOLUTION 092: INCORPORATED INTO RAIN NOTION AME%OMENT: Ce* citmsmber Witherspoon ` ao.ved,, seceaded b,p Seteries,the staff recoaajendatiem for road_ beeps ; .In appropriate locaafo es en Park Boulevard` between Stamford : aad ,Caasbridgee; Avesta., the removal of the :barriers and Peaking: the street .two-way. Mayer Levy cl arified that the amendment reinstituted into the resol ution the el ements del eted by Counc ilmember Woolley. Councilmember Sutorius supported the amendment because it was con- sistent with his position on the subject. He did not support the initiative being, circul aced, but was unable to support Al ternative 2. He preferred a p1 an with fewer barriers than those contained in the staff recommendation. Council needed to ask where the efforts toward barricades would lead. If Council approached each situation individually and lookeid for those unique things which sustained the idea of barriers and could discriminate and not apply them willy-nilly or bend to pressures from other neighbor- hoods, he would be confident, but he did not bel ieve Council could turn down connparably-based requests. Each would be unique and would turn out to be defensible. He did not bel ieve Council con- sidered the public safety aspects by the increased use and focus on barriers He was concerned to hear undulations challenged for their safety hazard potential when the barriers themselves were not chall enged for their safety hazard potential A one-way maj or access into the neighborhood via Park, and the suggestion that the fire truck woul d negotiate around the one-way was true, but it was inherently dangerous. If there was an emergency where a mutual aid service vehicle was responding, it would not be that f'amil Jar with Palo Al to s situation. He supported the amendment because. he believed Park Boulevard merited two-way traffic .and that, the undulators at the approaches in combination with the traffic c ircl e, established a better base for may.ing forward than if the entire Plan 2 was adopted as -is. Mayor Levy understood staff expected .the road bumps to be a test pi an and were no.t contempl aced as a permanent pl an unl ess the tests worked out. Mr. Overway said the nature of road bumps was such that they could not be installed on a "temporary" basis, and must be installed permanently. Staff suggested a demonstration period during which time they would evaluate their effectiveness in terms of speed reduction, traffic diversion and associated problems of public works with maintenance, pot ice, and fire and any other kinds of i ssues. Staff proposed a period of evaluation to determine their appl icabil ity. Either during or at the end of the period staff woUl d arrive at suitable conclusions regarding how they: should be used elsewhere. Mayor Levy asked about the cost involved with removing the bumps i f they proved to be unsuccessful . Mr. Overway estimated about $1,000 each to remove them. Counc flambee Renzel opposed the amendment because it would clear- ly result in increased traffic over the pre -barrier situation, which was the purpose of undergoing the Evergreen Park Study. As pointed out by Councilmember Woolley, it was completely -unknown how i t would impact the use of Stanford Avenue which was a straight .. shot down to Park and back again. She suggested the bumps would sl ow fire` trucks -which impact was +unknown. After four and one-hal f years of studying the Evergreen Park situation, to suggest they be an experiment was almost insulting. She also l ived in a neighborhood that was a' grid' system and receiv-ed' a fair amount of traffic, but her. neighborhood and -that of Counci1members Sutorius and Bechtel was not immediately adjoining, on one-fourth of the neighborhood's boundary, a major commercial , area,- which made a big difference in traffic. The. demands of the residents for prote"c tion from through traffic being `: experienced by the Council - was the VI real outcry o f people who objected _ o the rampant growth in the community without r-etard : > .fapac .0 ty-wide Until sonething was done about=growth Cwbc11 moul co-ntlsiue -to be faced•.wit_ . the issue. _ rTia bests sout1dn ws td deal wits • the growth .problem„ and •hopefully thau•we'll d, -eliminate the need ..to. protect neighborhoods -.,s11 over the City._. 5-80 : 5/28/85. Vice Mayor Cobb was not d fan of barriers nor the vue-way vii Park and wi shed Counc it had the sense to try a sl ow down on Park a couple of years ago. Council was faced with an imperfect sol ution for yet another trial for two years. He was forced to agree with Will Beckett --he was trialed out. It was time to move on. If he had seen some measurable and serious effects on the businesses in the California Avenue area, he would have to think hard. If he saw a prediction from staff that they could do better than the 20 percent, he would havr to think hard, but absent those two kinds ofdata, he opposed the amendment. Councilmember Klein did not support the amendment. Staff took a lot of heat on the subject, and while he disagreed with the staff recommendation, he supported the idea that staff shoul d be en- couraged to be creative and innovative and propose ideas even if they got shot down . It did not mean staff was being evil or trying to subvert the will of the Councils He believed Council wanted staff to propose ideas even if they turned out not to be the best ones. Safety was suggested as a reason for going to bumps rather than barriers, and he thought of the barriers that existed around the community for many years. There was a lot of experience on the barriers, and he did not see where they ever created a safety hazard. He was not a fan of barriers, but sug- gested they were "a" so ► iit i o_n-.-.not " the" solution , and were not a constitutionally protected right. Traffic was a problem in . the comr*un ity and it would continue to be. In the appropriate situa- tion, barriers could be effective. He referred to the barrier in Crescent Park which was removed --an example that barriers were not always the answer. For those concerned about barriers being put in everywhere, he would have to see the facts when they were before him. As pointed out by Vice Mayor Cobb, it was time for a decision. Unless 'there was something that carried the likelihood of being significantly better, he would go with what appeared to be a good solution. Regarding bumps, he would rather .try them at the beginning of a study --not four years into one, and not with the possibil ity of subjecting the Evergreen Park neighborhood to another round of study, and he, did not see that the sol ution would be any better than that which they presently had. He supported the main motion. Mayor Levy thanked the members of the public who participated throughout a long process. He commended -staff who.. he bel ieved performed outstandingly well . Throughout the process, staff had direction from Council that often went against -their professional judgment and they responded to the directions and constantly sought to reconcile their professional judgment with Council=s political judgment, did an excellent job , and showed outstanding courage in coaling up wi th a recommendation they bel ieved to be the best. He was sorry if members of the public felt frustrated in their dealings with staff, but :staff was of great assistance in working with the publ is and-Counc`i1 . Five years, ago there was no question the Evergreen Park niighborhoad needed to be preserved as all neighborhoods in town should be. The thing. about Evergreen Park was it was always a quiet neighborhood. The traffic counts were 1 ow exce$ for Park Boul evard itsel f s and they remained low. On the interior streets, the' traffic counts did not change. Park was the -affected :.,street and traffic there was cut' in half,- He bel leved the problem on Park was not the traffic, but the unustall speed. When the speed was reduced on Park Boulevard, traffic on Park was encouraged to go to the interior- of Evergreen, and the purpose of ` the berr ler s was,, to prey ent that. Traffic was kept low, but the speed -on Park Boulevard was not reduced. Staff specifically l oohed at the' speed problem and seed the ° bumps woui d reduce the speed down to 22 or 25 mil es per hour Which he bel iev ed was -an objective worth pursuing It might not work, but if -enot, the bumps could be torn down and the barriers replaced. He be- lieved if Council passed the -,amendment, the basic plan would still be ihstaili ed- on a permanent basis ' The barrier riff' of E1 Camino, the barriers on Ash and Birch weuld Still be installed The only element would be the Park Boulevard aspect of the plan ,' and he, believed staff's recommendation was worth testing. He respected their professional judgment and bel ieved there was a good chance they were right, that it would reduce the speed and improve safety. He urged his colleagues to support the amendment, which meant they could impl ement almost all of the barrier program and l eav a one element wi th a good chance of improving things. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 34, Levy, Witherspoon, Setorius voting *aye." Council member Fl etc her was a long- standing advocate of M road bumps ." Road bumps started in Eng l and in the early 1970 ' s arid proved to be successful. In all cases, they reduced the number of trips through the streets, . speed, the sound of the : traffic because ofthe reduced speed. they increased safety to the extent they became known as silent policemen" because they became ad hoc crossing places. They were not marked or signed as crossing pl aces, but because of the experience of the cars sl owing down so much to cross over them, they were used extensively. In the United States when they started to be install ed , simil ar results were achieved, and in all cases, they were popul ar with the neigh- borhood . They reduced . speeds and v of ume, and she had a 1 etter from the Department of _Transportation in Washington, D. C. who did its demonstration project in early .1980 and said traffic on the streets with Mumps was now 50 percent of its pre -bump level. She b el iev ed the neighborhood leaders did a disservice in urging a boycott of the public neighborhood meeting and spreading a lot of fear about the bumps instead of going to the meeting and finding out about them . She was going to be uncourageous and support the current pl an and said it was more courageous to try something new. She supported the current p1 an because trips were reduced and she had a long-standing commitment to reduction of through traffic in neighborhoods, and combined with it, Council was not certain the reduction in trips would be as significant as they hoped because the alternative was so congested and "people might go over things they would not ordinarily go over if the conditions were not so bad on El Camino, The trial process was lengthy and it was. time to make a decision. She was eager to try the bumps somewhere in town where they stood a good chance of being successful. If they were installed on Park Boulevard, staff correctly recommended that it no.t be done anywhere else in town until the two-year trial period was concluded. There was strong support for the current plan in ' the neighborhood , but one of the reasons she was not too enthusiastic was because she extensively used Park Boulevard as a bicycl ist and saw cars speed around the one-way .barrier in the wrong direction on' many occasions. The l egal implications were far greater than the City woul d have faith the bumps. The bumps were proven to be safe in all instances and were installed in hundreds of places throughout the United States as well as their history in other countries. If ithe hazard turned into specific accidents at the barrier, she !eight bring the item back to the Council in the future. Vice Mayor Cobb orig final l y supported the Evergreen Park peopl e and neighborhood protection generally because he bel ieved Council was required to protect neighborhoods. The plan was imperfect, but it worked. Evergreen Park, uni ike other neighborhoods, was right next door to burgeoning office devel._opment which had a serious side effects. People WOO d:.continue to devel op office space in areas where they were -all owed until such time as it was eco- nomically unattractive to do so, which would happen when people could, not get- to and from those offices and could not park when they got there. At that point, the developer would find the office space hard to' _ move, would be unabl a to get the kind of return they wanted, and would stop developing, but that would not happen until, it was too late because as long as people had escape routes, they would continue ta:king they until all . these routes were also fi 11 ed . At that point, t, it was untenable and : it was too late for those who lived next door. There was a difficult test wh i c h had to be met before barriers' could be considered. Were the 5 8 0 9 5/28/85 people suffering from massive overdevelopment of a commercial nature where their neighborhood would become the ultimate escape ✓ alve and only when it was pl ugged would that type of development stop. He did not bel ieve too many neighborhoods could bring tests o f that type, and for that reason he bel ieved barriers woul d be hard to j usti fy in many pl aces. The Citymust carefully design the way in which the barrier was finalized on Park •to make it as safe as possible. Council must do everything in its power to move ahead Frith the idea of signal izatlon on Cl Camino because it was supposed to carry all the traffic . Palo Alto had to do everything possible to push Cal Trans and do things on i.ts own initiative to get there sooner" rather than later. Finally, he bel leved Council needed to seriously consider how traffic would move in and out of the business area to make sure business was not harmed. For exampl e, Palo Alto had architectural students do charettes where they studied areas and came up with some creative and interesting ideas with regard to the . University Avenue area, He suggested they be turned loose on the business district to see if there were ways to improve parking and traffic flow in the business district so business caul o benefit from the arrangement. Councilmember Renzel said it was time to take. action. The com- munity could not wait until the office developers decided it was not economic to build because by that time, the Council' s options to do any logical planning for the City would be ..totally pre- empted. Council mast take strong action to make certain the City retained options to protect neighborhoods and to deal with the ensuing problems. One member of the publ is asked about the poten- tial of building a curb cut on Oxford behind the barrier, thereby gaining access into the neighborhood, and she asked if the City had to approve all curb cuts, Mr. Stoffel said yes, the Transportation Division usually reviewed any develonents. With regard to the barrier on Park at Lambert, staff was aware of the barrier location with respect to some new houses that went in and had some no parking areas ,put in. Councilmember Renzel asked if there was a way for the City to flag those instances so if it happened in tens years, it would turn up readily. She was concerned, that curb cuts not happen by accident and destroy the entire pl an as set forth. Mr. Schreiber believed the issue sho ul d " be 'looked at in the design o f the permanent barrier and staff working with the adj acentprop- erty owners. Councllmember Renzel asked if it could be flagged in the file for the adj ac en property owner with property on the other si de of the barrier . Mr. Schreiber said yes. Councilmember Renzel confirmed that no motion. was needed and it would be automatically tended to . Mayor Levy would rel uctantly support the pl an before the Counc it . Supporting the plan in Evergreen Park_ with the low traffic counts o n the interior streets was an invitation to every . street in town to ask for a barrier. The plan was the outcome of several pl an and al tern atives discussed and tested over a long : period of time. He wished they had the road "bumps instead of the "barrier on Park, but that was voted down NOTION PASSED by a vote lb IP 7-2, Stories, Witherspoon voting MOTION: Couecilmenalper Witherspoon waved, seconded by Bechtel, re Park Boulevard/Park Avenue Traffic Circle, to adopt the staff recommendation that the proposed agreement with Barrett, Harris and Associates, Inc. be renegotiated to include design of the per-. masaent street closures (Alternative B) and that the design of the Park/Castil l ej a closure also be incorporated into the agreement. Since the single agreement seal d result in a consultant agreement in excess of $20,000, the item be referred to the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee. Counc ilrember W►,ioi 1 ey did not support the motion because she did not believe the traffic circle addressed the problem of accidents at the curve. The two accidents rel ated to traffic problems occurred at the median because coming from El Camino', the median could not be seen. The median -was located far around the curve because when it was bull t, there was still a possibil ity of cars coming out of the. Southgate area so the median could not extend down towards Park Boul evard any further or the cars could not get out of the Southgate area. If Council wanted to address the acci- dents at the curb, it needed to look at some kind of extension of the median . Now that there would be a permanent barrier closing traffic to Southgate, the City did not need to consider that traf- fic so the median could be extended down towards El Camino far enough so that cars on the straight away could see what they had .to negotiate when they got to the curve. She spoke with Mr. Overway about it who said it would be far less expensive than designing a traffic circle which was sl ated to cost from $32,000 to a maximum of $39,0004 She believed it would be a far more beneficial design. The money the City saved from the more expen- sive traffic circle could go for other traffic related expenses. There was no money provided for the construction of the permanent barriers in Evergreen Park. There was money in the CIP for the design, but not construction which was slated to be about $100,000. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Coencilaember Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, that a contract be negotiated for the design of permanent barriers including the one at Park and Castil l ej a and the design of a physical element which would decrease the speed of westbound vehicles negotiating the curve. If the cost exceeds $20,000, the consultant agreement to- be referred to the Finance and Public Works (FRPW) Committee. Counc il member Wool ey said she used "physical el ement" because she did not want to preclude a traffic circle if that was- the best way to slow down the vehicles approaching the curve. She wanted to make it wider so the curve could be addressed as the focus rather than just having a traffic diverter which was the basic purpose of the circle. Mr. Overway recognized the need to do something around the curve on Park Boulevard, but preferred it be done in conjunction with looking at the barrier at Castill ej a and not preclude the con- tinued consideration of the traffic circle. The areas were suf- ficiently removed, but that he was not sure the effect of one would carry over to the effect of the other. It was valid to say that actual implementation ofthe median extension or some, kind of physical separation at the .curve at Cast -ill ej a would be cheaper than the traffic circle, but he did not see one substituting the need for the other. Mayor Levy asked if staff needed a different motion from M terna- tive No. 3 in order to do that. Mr. Overway said Alternative No. 3 included ` renegotiation with a consultant for the design of the traffic circle, design ot the approved barriers, and design of the Castill eJ a barrier. (elven the direction and discussion, he assumed consideration of additional controls on Park and in the area of Castll l ej a ' around the curve. 5 .0 1 I: 5 /28 /85 councilmPni►er Witherspoon preferred the original motion. it seemed the reason for the median strip was to keep people from turning onto Castil1 ej a, and if there was to be a permanent bar- rier, no one could go in or out. Maybe the strip was no longer needed. She agreed the circle addressed a completely different problem at the other end of the street. Councilmernber Bechtel would not support the substitute motion, but would support the original motion. Councilmember Renzel said besides the .fact that the circle would sl ow down traffic, i t made an important statement to people enter- ing the neighborhood by way of Park Boul evard that they were entering a.residential neighborhood. Councilmember Woolley raised an important problem with respect to the divider and the curve and she understood staff to say they intended to address it in any case under the original_ motion. She opposed the substitute motion, but supported the original motion. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED by a vote of 8-1, Woolley voting .aye.' MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Woolley voting Wno." ADJOURNMENT TO WEDNESDAY , MAY 29 , 1985 NOTION: Vice Myer Cobb moved, seconded by Renzel, to adjourn the City Council meeting to 7:30 p.•., Wednesday, Nay 29, 1985. NOTION PASSED unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 12:50 a.m. to Wednesday, May 29, 1985, 7:30 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: