Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-09 City Council Summary Minutes1 CITY COUNCIL r�mures CITY of PAi() ALTO Regular Meeting Monday, April 9, 1984 ITEM —w PAGE Ural Communications 4 4 0 2 Approval of Minutes of Februar; 6, 1984 4 4 0 2 Approval of Minutes of February 13, 1984 Item 41¢ Resolution of Appreciation to Thomas K. ;.rickey .y 4 4 0 2 4 4 0 3 Item 42, Resolution. of Appreciation to Jan Thompson 4 Ccnsent Calendar 4 4 0 3 Action 4 4 0 3 Item #3, Civic Center Structural Repairs Project - 4 4 0. 3 Rejection of Bids Item -44, Parking Lot Q - Final Subdivision Map 4 4 0 4 Item #5, Parking Lot Q Air Rights Development 4 4 0 4 Item #6, Compliance with 5O 992 re Development 4 4 0 4 Permits Item #8, Ordinance re Historic Resources Board 4 4 0 4 Item #9, Ordinance re Zoning Map - 3530 RossRoad 4 4 0 4 (2nd Reading) Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 4 4 0 4 Item #9A, Ordinance re CM Regulations (2nd Reading) 4 4 0 5 Item #10, Substance Abuse Prevention and 4 4 1 1 Suppression.. Grant Item #11, Request of` Mayor Klein re Resolution of 4 4 1 2 Appreciation to Queen. Tahoomy Amirian Item #120 Request of Councilmember Renzel to refer 4 4 1 2 to the Planning Commission the .GM - Zone on Park Boulevard South of Page-Mill/Oregon Expresswayv>,\ Item: #i3, Urgescy Request of Evergreen Park Adjournment: 10:55 Mayor' Klein re 4 v 4.,4 1 5 Regular Meeting Monday, April 9, 1984 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on - this day in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at 7:40 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 8:16 p.m.) , Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT:_. Witherspoon URAL COMMUNICATIONS None MINUTES OF-,�FEBRUARY 6, 1984 Councilmember Sutorius had the following correction: Page 4200, first paragraph, lines 8 and 9, "(P) zone," should read '"(l) zone." Councilmember Woolley had the following correction: . 2 following o._,i ng the. S.iordc "f'.o'ni ng Page 41ti.S, first paragraph, line tc, 1 ul Iv.r �,�� ,...a.- . In it,* insert "the, high end of." Line 20, word "re" should be deleted, and a "," inr'rted. MOTION: Vice Mayor. Levy moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the minutes of February 6, 1984, as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Witherspoon absent. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 1984 Councilmember Renzel had the following correction: P_ .e 4236, last line on page, "PC' should be "Planning Commis- sion. Counci l member Cobb had the following corrections: Pa2e 4213., second full paragraph, line 5, word "how" -'should be Pa a 4215, first paragraph after Item #13, fol-lowing the word art "the need to use." Pale 4232, fi rf,t paragraph, first ,word, "be" should be "as," and rr arte ' 'tter" insert "be all they could do." MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by; Levy. approval of the minutes of February 13, 1984 es corrected. NOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Witherspoon . absent. MAYOR KLEINRE LENGTH OF ACEhDA Mayor Klein said. the . Coenci..l., received questions about why there were not more items on tP'_it evening's agenda as compared with the heavy agenda the past two weeks. He responded that due to unfor- tunate circumstances that could not be avoided, the - minutes for .. the last FiliP`a meeting were not ready in time for the packet or the meeting,, and the items had to be rescheduled. 1TtM #1, RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO THOMAS K. HICKEY (COU Mayor Klein said Thomas Hickey served the City of Palo Alto as a member of the Visual Arts Jury (VAJ) from March, 1981 to January, 1984, and gave unselfishly of his time and talents in support of the City's Art in Public Places Program. He provided invaluable assistance in the development of the 1982 Outdoor Sculpture Exhibition and made a significant personal contribution to the community through his diligent and conscientious, efforts while serving as a member of the VAJ, The City recognized the service of Mr. Hickey, and recorded its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of its citizens, for the outstanding public service rendered by him. MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Resolution of Appreciation to Thomas K. Hickey. RESOLUTION 6245 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO THOMAS K. HICKEY FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE VISUAL ARTS JURY" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Witherspoon absent. ITEM #2, RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO JAN THOMPSON (COU 5-7-2-7) Mayor Klein said that Jan Thompson served the City of Palo Alto as a member of • the Visual Arts Jury (VAJ) from April 28, 1982 t January 25, 1984, and gave unselfishly of her time and talents in support of the City's Art in Public Places Program. She made a significant personal contribution to the community through her diligent and conscientious efforts while serving as a member of the VAJ and the City recognized her service. The Council of the City of Palo Alto gratefully recorded its appreciation, as well as the appreciation of its citizens, for the outstanding public ser- vice rendered by Ms. Thompson. MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Sutorius, approval of the Resolution of Appreciation to Jan Thompson. RESOLUTION 6246 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE TO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO JAN THOMPSON FOR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE VISUAL ARTS JURY* MOTION PASSED unanimously, Bechtel, Witherspoon absent. CONSENT CALENC)AR Mayor Klein removed Item #7, Ordinance re CN Regulations, from the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Levy asked to be recorded as voting "no," on Item #4, Parking Lot Q - Final Subdivision Map; and Item #5, Parking Lot Q Air Rights Development. MOTION: Couucilmember Sutorius mo'ed, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Consent Calendar, with Item #7, Ordinance re CN regulations, removed. ITEM f3, CIVIC CENTER STRUCTURAL REPAIRS PROJECT - REJECTION OF lammar Staff recommends in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 2.30.080(c) of the Municipal Code, that Council reject all bids for Package *A# (Architectural, Mechanical, and Electrical) and Package "8" (Concrete Work) for the Civic Center Structural Repairs Project, CIP Q2-27 4 4 0 3 4/09/84 ITEM #4, PARKING LOT - FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP (PLA 3-1), Staff recommends that the City Council approve the final map. ITEM #b, PARKING LOT Q AIR _RIGHTS DEVELOPMENT - RESOLUTION AND c,J4r'sLit 10 sST OF _UPTOR- iFLea 2-1Z), (cMR: fIb .4 ) Staff reports that in complex real estate transactions title companies often require a resolution evidencing the approval of a transfer of public agency property. The resolution puts previous Council approvals in the form of a resolution and will satisfy the requirement. RESOLUTION 6247 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF O ALTO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF REVISED CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT - PARKING LOT Q AIR RIGHTS PROJECT AND CONSENTING TO ASSIGNMENT OF OPTION AGREEMENT° ITEM #6, COMPLIANCE WITH SB 992 RE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS (PLA 12), Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution P?stab- lishing the Chief Building Official or his/her designee, as the responsible administrative entity and also adopt the subscription fee as part of the Municipal Fee Schedule. RESOLUTION 6248 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF rtit L.i i L0 ALTO DESIGNATING THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL C000,11HATQR Fne ALL nFVELOPMENT PERMITS° OFFICIAL • LI. AS VYV.ev �'e��a • �e� ITEM #d, OR951NANCE RE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD (2nd Reading) (COU URUINANCE 3523 entitled °°ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF TrrtnarTrWto ALTO AMENDING SECTION 16.49.040(3)(a) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE MEMBERSHIP RE- QUIREMENTS FOR THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD° (1st Reeding 3/26/84, PASSED 9-0) ITEM #9, ORDINANCE RE ZONING NAP - 3530 ROSS ROAD (2nd Reading) ORDINANCE 3524 entitled °ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF (at coo! TT - o ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE MIMING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3530 ROSS ROAD (FORMER ROSS ROAD SCHOOL SITE) FROM PF TO R-1 AND R-2° (1st Reading3/26/84, PASSED 9-0) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy voting °no,° on Items #4 and #5 re Perking Lot Q, Bechtel, Witherspoon absent. AOENUA CHANGES, AUDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Manger ' i i l Zaner said that Item . 7, Ordinance re CN Regulations. would become Item 9A on the agenda. Mayor Klein added ur g ncy request Item 13 re Evergreen Park to the agenda. He was reluctant to depart from the formal process, but considered it an urgency item requiring the earliest possible action. The next Council meeting would be held in two weeks, and. he wanted staff to work on the item immediately. Public response to the Evergreen Park traffic barrier system in place for nearly three months suggested it had negative, as well as positive, impacts and presented an urgent problem for local merchants and customers. The system was to be evaluated in the summer, but staf? believed a fair interim evaluation could, be made before then. He planned to ask the Council to direct staff to perform an interim evaluation of the barrier system, which staff believed would take at least four -weeks, and that the report be scheduled for the May 14, 1984 Council meeting. ITEM 9A, ORDINANCE RC CN REGULATIONS (2nd Reading) (PLA 7.9) Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, referred to his letter and revised chart before the Council. Section 3 (1)(i) of the ordinance stated 2,500 square feet would be the minimum office space allowed on any lot, and he objected that the majority of office uses were smaller. When the CN zone was adopted in 1978, its primary intent was local retail and ancillary offices to assist the provision of retail services, with minor office uses like small real estate or professional offices, i.e., tax preparation or insurance. For the past seven years the Barron Park Association was concerned that. any attack on the retail vitality of El Camino Real would further blight the area, and there was no need for 2;500 square feet mini- mum office size because there were nine lots less then 5,000 square feet in the area. The 31 lots less than 10,000 square feet were the type of low intensity retail use they wanted to preserve, and if office uses replaced retail, the sales tax revenue would be cut without a commensurate increase in other tax revenue. Offices would increase the rush hour traffic load and the jobs/housing im- balance because -office occupancy was greater than the same number of square feet of retail, and would concentrate traffic during rush hours= His chart asterisked nine of the existing -16 offices to be grandfathered in with no exceptions required under a 25 per- cent office allowance in the CU zone. In its letter to the Coun- cil dated December 5, 1983. the Barron Park Association requested not more than 15 per=cent office use in the CN zone, which was a compromise since most of the Board wanted no more than 10 percent. The chart showed the number of jobs created with 25 and 50 percent office use developed on smaller sites and the deficiency created in the housing stock when offices were developed. at 25 percent, and which would be even greater at 50 percent. He asked that up to 30,000 square feet be allowed 25 percent, and over 30,000 square feet be allowed 50 percent of offices, which he believed would least likely encourage lot splits on larger lots, which being located -primarily in shopping centers, would be more likely Ito accommodate larger office areas. Reducing the allowed office space to 25 percent would not prevent a developer from requesting more'on a specific lot, and it was better.for.the Council to err on the i de :of caution to preserve neighborhood retail and retail vitality. _He believed it was more important for a developer to show the need rather than making it necessary for the public to vigilantly fight excessive developments. In - 1978, the Barron Park Association asked the Council to reduce the allowable office uses in the CW zone, but were told the time was not ripe. Since then, a number of excessively sized dffice developments went in the El Camino area that created anidosity, hardship, and hard feelings. The Council should not wait for another mistake to rectify the 50 percent suffice space in the CN zone, and he requested that the allowable office space be reduced to 25 percent. The Council had an opportunity to act before tae . fadt, and in view of his own -record of,accurate prognostication, he hoped the Council would accept his request. He predicted that if Council allowed 50 per- cent offices in the CN zone, accords ng to Levy's law, it would get 'a0 percent offices there, lose retail vitality, and have too: much traffic and too many jobs. Denny Petrosien, 44s. Ventura Avenue, Loncurred with Mr. Moss, She believed -.his arguments were excellent; and encouraged the Council to act on his. recammendations. 4 4 0 4/09/84 Millie Davis, 344 Tennessee Lane, represented the Charleston Meadows Association, who asked that Council remove the 2,500 square foot office use from the ordinance because it encouraged offices where they might otherwise not be considered, and reduce the permitted office use to 25 percent for CN lots of less than 30,U00 square feet because retail and/or housing were more bene- ficial. A survey of the Charleston Meadows Association showed almost unanimous support for all housing or housing plus retail development in the CN zone, and almost no support for a first choice of projects that included offices with housing and retail. Residents were aware of the detrimental effect of offices-- in- creased parking and traffic problems, smog, and increased shortage of housing, and she asked Council to further restrict office con- struction and encourage more housing with no damaging effects. Ground floors in CN zones could be restricted to retail or hous- ing; upper stories could be restricted to housing, with a use per- mit required for offices. The Association was happy that Council discouraged further office construction in the City, and she requested a stronger ordinance than that proposed, Douglas (graham, 984 'lima Way, Chairman of the Barron Park Associ- ation, sought to maintain no more than 15 percent office space use in the CN zone. For many years the Association advocated various controls on the CH zone to maintain its essentially neighborhood character. Offices were normally not thought of as an intrusive use in a primarily residential neighborhood, but the use to which they would be put should be considered. Staff said that office space of a neighborhood character, like small real estate offices and travel agents, were appropriate for the zone, whereas larger offices serving regional, City, or County -wide areas were not. They favored maintaining the character of the zone. Anne Ercolani, 2040 Ash Street., chaired the Evergreen Park Associ- ation, which did not vote on the issue. In the California Avenue study, the Association said it wanted to see the potential for office space in the area reduced. Since a rezoning along El Camino adjacent to Evergreen Park just occurred, their organiza- tion did not favor a lot of office space. She supported Mr. Moss' reesons for asking the Council to consider revising the ordinance, sirfce it was better to have less of what they did not want to begin with, rather than have to fight as each new development came up. Sam Sparck, 4099 Laguna, said the issues that concerned Barron Park over the years were consistent and included the = E1 Camino commercial strip, which were reflected in certain provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The strip was identified by name and given special consideration, together with the lots adjacent to residential zones acting as buffers. The Barron Park Association advocated neighborhood oriented development, and lately advocated residential development on the El Camino frontage. Developments should be low intensity, not require on -street parking, and not generate excessive traffic for the presently substandard neighbor- hood streets nor for the El Camino Real, which was heavily traveled and to which access was a problem. Any development should have substantial setbacks so that construction along El Camino did not form a continuous block. The structures should not be too high since there were residential lots in the rear. He favored the height limits placed on California Avenue, and sug- gested they be applied to the El Camino strip. The proposed allowed office use was excessive and detrimental to the area, would not be neighborhood oriented, and would displace potential residential use that would be better for thearea and City. Of- fices generated traffic, aggravated the jobs/housing imbalance, and was not needed for the viability of the zone He asked the Council to reduce the maximum space allowed to 25 percent --Palo Auto needed residences and retail stores, not more offices. The proposed plan would be detrimental to the area and would be found, after the fact, to be a mistake. 4 .4 0 6 4/09/84 Jeffrey Hook, 302 College Avenue, said a primary objective of the Comprehensive Plan was to preserve the overall residential char- acter of Palo Alto. The Neighborhood Commercial zone was a key part of that, and it was a good idea to reduce the commuter char- acter of the City, which was increased by office space. For the reasons cited by Mr. Moss, he urged the Council to go along with his suggestions. Erica Prince, 302 College Avenue, supported reduced office space in CH zones. Counci l member Cobb said Mr. Moss made two specific suggestions, and. he asked staff's reaction to their impact and whether the sug- gestions -would serve the ends discussed by the public. Mr. Freeland said the two proposals were _ to not have the lower threshold of 2,500 square feet of'office space, and to have 25 percent office space for up to 30,000 square feet. He had diffi- culty with the 30,000 square feet concept. They were discussing maintenance of a 5,000 square feet maximum, which gave a 20,000 -- square foot lot, and since one could not get more than 5,000 square feet without a Use Permit, 20,000 square feet would be a more sensible maximum cut-off figure. He believed the overall point bore consideration. Staff agreed that major office com- plexes not oriented to neighborhood use were unwanted, and there was no disagreement between the goals and purposes of the staff and the proposal from Mr. Moss i n terms of the CM zone. However, the overall limit on development was the floor area ratio of 1:1, development not put into office use would be put into some other use, and non -office use should not be equated to less development on the sites. Staff was not convinced that other forms of devel- opment were better for traffic or more compatible with the neigh- borhood than offices. Council would form its own judgment, but considering the various uses allowed in the CPi zone, offices tended to be among the lower producers of traffic. Eating estab- lishments (not including fast food chains, which needed a Use Permit) generated 150 trips per thousand square feet of use, with nine percent during the afternoon peak hour; retail generated about 60 trips per thousand square feet, with 11 percent during the peak hour; medical offices, which were more neighborhood- ser- ving, generated 43 trips per thousand square: -feet, with 14 percent during the peak hour; and general business offices generated 16 trips per thousand square feet, with 14 percent during the peak hour. In terms of traffic, staff was ceovinced that offices had less neighborhood impact than retail, and less than restaurants. Staff was -concerned that If it was more difficult to build of- fices, there might be more impact through the Uses that Occurred. He did not 'consider 2,500 square feet to be a large office come pl ex, the size was compatible with neighborhood use, and would not attract Hewlett-Packard'or a major operation to move to CH zones along El -Camino Real The likelihood of a housing development was considered greater with offices being the mixed use than some of the --other uses alliwed in the district since office and residen- tial parking did not occur during the ' same period, making it pose s i bl_e to share parking, whereas in a retail/ htausi ng rut x there might be Saturday competition. In terms of enticing people to build residential i n the CW zone, a mixture with offices would be most productive. It hwas also believed that the market was more receptive to housing mixed with office. than to housing mixed with general retail. It was reasonable to limit office uses, but staff was not-- convinced that 2,500 square feet was excessive,_. and was - more 'cnncer.ned about the impacts from More restrictions .on of - fides, there would be the same concerns with a 25 percent -rule a as with a 50 percent rule because it tended to push towards more i n- tensive ,.uses than office ,activities,- and if that suggestion were adopted; 'he believed 20,000 sgdaere feet was more reasonable than 30,000 square feet.. Councilmember Bechtel arrived at 8:16 .m. 4-4 0 7 4/09/84 Councilmember Cobb asked e any purpose would he served by giving the applicant an opportunity to look at the two suggestions and return with something more specific. Mr. Freeland doubted that Council would get any more information than it presently had. If Council believed that offices should be discouraged and preferred non -office uses on El Camino Real, it was appropriate to use Mr. Moss' suggestions. If the Council agreed with staff that offices were not necessarily the worst thing that could happen and that the limitations in force were adequate, they need yo no further. MOTION: Councilmember Woolley moved, seconded by Klein, to approve on second reading the ordinance amending the CM zone regulations regarding the size of office uses thereon. Councilmember Woolley said, as staff mentioned, the traffic impact was likely to be less for office uses, and she was also concerned about desirability. She knew of situations where office use would bo more desirable, and she did not want it discouraged as long as it was relatively small. It was possible for offices to be neigh- borhood oriented, but offices did not necessarily serve the neigh- borhood. She was concerned about the California Avenue area and the recent zoning changes along El Camino which could not have been included in the statistics provided by Mr. Moss. A frontal approach and more restriction on offices might have unforeseen consequences. She preferred to see the ordinance, as read, adopted. Councilmember Fletcher disagreed with some of the conclusions, and opposed office use. Palo Alto had more office space than any city in Santa Clara County except San Jose. Rent was higher than in any other city in the County, averaging $2.17 per square feat in Palo Alto and $1.669 in San Jose. The more offices allowed in a zone, the more rent they got, which raised the property values of all properties that permitted office use, which in turn attracted a lot of restaurants, just as they were attracted downtown. Restaurants. were profitable and could afford the high rents, and by zoning for additional office space, .the Council might attract, rather than discourage, more restaurants. The downtown offered a graphical demonstration --the more offices there were, the more restaurants went in. She opposed the motion. She was not certain what the mix should be, but preferred to see reduced office use, especially since the question of the job potential attracted by additional office space was not addressed. She considered it a high priority to reduce the jobs created in the City. Councilmember Sutorius supported the motion. He concurred with the staff observations, and Councilmember Wool l ey' s concern about the unknown and potentially unintended consequences in the California Avenue portion that recently became CN: He always looked for new options and incentives to use zones to increase housing, and believed the motion left that option open. He hoped those options and incentives would have a high priority in the planning processes. Councilmember Renzel said staff was probably_ correct with respect to traffic, but a different situation arose concerning the housing demand. The concern along El Camino was more tdward housing than traffic since El Camino was already a well traveled street, and. most patronage of businesses along there used El Camino. For those reasons, she believed Council should look at the more criti- cal problem about what a particular zoning did to the housing sit- uation. It was clear that office zones created a demand for per- manent housing. Councilmember Fletcher raised some important economic possibilities, and she preferred to see Condition (i), pertaining to the minimum square footage deleted, which meant that lots below 5,00U square feet would not•be granted_ a minimum' square footage of 2,5U0 square feet and the 50 percent lot area would be reduced to 25 percent. Councilmember Bechtel asked if that referred to Lots of less than 30,000 square feet, as Mr . 'Moss suggested, or all lots. Mr. Freeland said it could refer to all lots. If they still had a maximum of 5,000 square feet, it would be covered. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, to change the 50 percent figure in Section 3 to 25 percent and to delete Section 3 (1)(1). (ouncilmember Renzel said she was considering a third point to the amendment for office space on larger lots exceeding 5,000 square feet to allow a conditional use permit only in conjunction with housing. She did not know whether the Council could proscribe so closely, but believed that was the rationale for having a condi- tional use permit for office space. If that was the rationale for providing such an escape valve, it should be made explicit to encourage housing when the 5,.000 square feet was exceeded. She would make a motion later to that third point. Mayor Klein asked the Council to vote on the amendment to change Section 3 (1) from 50 percent to 25 percent, and delete condition 3 (1)(i). City Attorney Diane Lee said the ordinance was before the Counc i i for second reading, and if the amendment passed, it would mean starting over again. In that case, an ordinance would be returned to the Council incorporating the amendments for another first reading_ Councilmember Renzel clarified it would not then be the first reading with those points. Ms. Lee said no. She would prepare an ordinance addressing the points Councilmember Renzel made since some were complex. The ordinance would then be presented to the Council for a first reading. Councilmember Cobb suggested the amendment be divided for purposes of voting. He had different reactions to each part. AMENDMENT DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING Councilmember Renzel suggested that she move her third point to allow discussion of the whole question. FIRST PART OF AMENDMENT TO CHANGE SO PERCENT FIGURE IN SECTION 3 TO 25 =PERCENT PASSED by a vote of 5-3, Woolley, Klein, Sutorius voting '*no," Witherspoon :absent. SECOND PART OF AMENDMENT TO i ELETE SECTION 3 (1) (1) FAILED by ax vote of 4-4, Fletcher, Renzel, Levy, Bechtel voting "aye," Witherspoon absent. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, additiopa!1 wording to Section 3 MOM to ensure that the maxi- mum size for any conditional use be allowed to exceed the 5,000 square foot figure only when the . development was in conjunction with housing. Mayor Klein reminded the Council that the actual .language would have to be referred back to the City . Attorney for the first reading. Councilmember Sutorius encouraged investigation into ways to pro- vide additional incentives for housing and believed that to send the .mattes back to staff for work and representation would com- pound the frustrations of not wing able to communicate and deal effectively with the Planning. Commission. _ He believed it was more productive to refer the question to the Planning Commission. I/ 998 Councilmember Fletcher said Council was told that justification for ofi'ice uses was that it acted as d.1 incentive to provide af- fordable housing since the income subsidized the housing. She saw no harm, but much potential good._ AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 4-4, Fletcher, Renzel, Levy, Klein voting "yes,* Witherspoon absent. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzet moved, seconded by Woolley, to refer the item to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Sutorius supported the amendment provided there were no restrictions on huw the Planning- Commission might evaluete the question. He saw it as an opportunity to investigate the incen- tives within the CN rather than just within a use of the CN. The amendment was limited to conditional permits for office space over 5,000 square feet, and if staff and the Planning Commission took the Council's direction absolutely, the investigation would not be complete. The Planning Commission should consider that it had maximum license to seek positive and constructive avenues. Councilmember Renzel believed Mayor Klein said earlier that the entire matter was being sent to the Planning Commission and that her amendment was out of order. She wanted to see the ordinance go into effect, and then separately referred to the Planning Com- mission for a possible amendment. Mayor Klein said that was out of order-_ AMENDMENT WITlDRAWN: Councilmember Renzel withdrew her amend- ment, and suggested Council vote on the main motion as amended. Councilmember Woolley agreed. Ms. Lee said there was nothing to vote on at that point. The Council had an ordinance for second reading, but changes were made that would not allow it to he passed for a second reading. She would put the ordinance in the form requested by the Council and return it at the next or following meeting. Mayor Klein said the amendment was defeated. The question before the Council, the outline of the entire ordinance to be prepared by Ms. Lee, could properly be voted oRn. He clarified` the ordinance now before the Council would be changed in only one respect, i.e., to change the 50 percent figure to 25 percent in Section 3, and that it would be returned to the Council at its next meeting when itwould be voted on for first reading. Councilmember Renzel clarified she withdrew her amendment only because she believed it was being incorporated as part of the main motion. Ms. Lee pointed out that there was -no main motion, as staff was instructed to return. - Mayor Klein said that was the main motion. Councilmember Renzel said she wanted to leave her referral on the. table as a separate referral. Mayor Mayor Klein said the referral was not in order at that time. He d i d not see how it could be part of the motion. Councilmember Renzei, asked the City -Attorney if Council was limited as to wht they. could do as part of the motion. Ms. Lee believed- a referral to the Planning Commission should come after the vote. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 7-1, -Sutories voting "no, Witherspoon absents 4 4 -1 0 4/09/84 As Corrected 5/14/84 MOTION: Counci l member Renzel moved, seconded by Woolley, to refer to the Planning Commission the question of whether conditional use permits in the CM zone for offices in excess of 5,000 square feet should be limited to those cases where housing was offered In conjunction with the increased office space, CounciLmember Renzel clarified she did not want to make the motion broader because the CN zone already provided an extra floor of space beyond the two floor limit when residential was provided. Councilmember Sutorius said one item discussed at the Council's earlier meeting that evening with the Planning Commission was the entire subject: of the jobs/housing imbalance and ways in which to more effectively deal with it and work toward producing more housing. Commissioner Chandler and others who spoke to the sub- ject and the incentive process made telling points, which was why he wanted the Commission to have the maximum possible latitude. If something was referred to the Commission with an aspect for potential positive outcome, the Council -should provide the broadest possible license, and he believed it was described too narrowly. Mr. Freeland understood the referral was for the Commissions to review housing and incentives for offices over 5,000 square feet through a use permit process. If his understanding was correct, the wily question was the minimum amount of housing to justify the use permit. Councilme^rber Fletcher clarified the Planning Commission did not now have an assignment to deal with the issue. 1'r. Freeland said no. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Sutorius voting «no," Witherspoon absent. ITI.H #1O, SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION AND SUPP'.ESS1ON GRANT. (SAF Vice Mayor Levy asked whether theYouth Advisory Council reviewed the proposed item. Assistant Police Chief Chris Durkin said no.. Vice Mayor Levy asked when the submission was due. Lt. Lynne Johnson said the submission was due in Sacramento by Thursday, April 12. Vice Mayor Levy asked whether the Youth Advisory Council might provide input to be adopted after submission to the granting authority if Council approved the resolution and referred the matter to the Youth Advisory Council that evening. Lt. Johnson said the Youth Advisory Council could provide input into the specific programs developed. MOTION: Cauncil*ember Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt the staff recommendation indicating support of the grant program by authorizing the City Manager to inter into an inter- agency agreement with the. School District as outlined in the grant application. kLS€!LUTION 6249 entitled *RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF I nt t. i I T bp ri1Lo ALTO TO SUPPORT THE .'SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION PROGRAM' AS A JOINT VENTURE WITH, AND TO BE :ADMINISTERED BY, THE PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL D ISTR I t;T" 4 4 1 1 4/09/84 :ouncilmember Fletcher clarified the application was for a grant to institute a program for substance abuse prevention through the schools. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Klein, to refer to the Youth Advisory Committee for consideration and recommenda- tions. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Wi thet5puon absent. ITEM ill, REQUEST OF MAYOR KLEIN RE RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO .DrUttP t 1 AHUUM1 AML R - Mayor Klein said he put the item on the agenda at the request of City staff. In June, the City's Arts and Sciences Department would honor Queene Tahoomy Amirian, and staff _requested that Coun- cil authorize a resolution of appreciation for her long years of exemplary public service to the. community. He was honored to put the (natter on the agenda. MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, that staff prepare a resolution of appreciation to Queene Tahoomy Amirian for her years of exemplary public service to the community. MOTION PA::;;ED unanimously, Witherspoon absent. ITLM #i2, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER RENZEL TO REFER TO THE PLANNING vseentemour Councilrneriber Renzel said the GM zone on Park Boulevard south of Page Mill and Oregon Expressly recently had applications for over 60,000 square feet of office space. When Council studied the area in the past, it was believed the configuration and small size of the parcels would not result in that kind of activity for offices in an area contemplated to be a low density support area for sur- rounding businesses. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Woolley, that the Planning Commission study the GM zoned properties along Park Boulevard between the Expressway and Lambert Avenue to determine whether,. the B Combining District (which restricts office uses), residential zoning, or other zoning would be more appropriate. :ounciimeiber Renzel clarified the Planning Commission might determine that it was most appropriate to stay the same, but she wanted the matter reviewed. Jeff Hook, 302 College, supported the referral of GM zoned prop- erties back to the Planning Commission. He favored any. activity. to reduce the jobs/housing imbalance, and believed the Planning Commission was the appropriate body to study the issue. Sam Sparck, 4099 Laguna, supported the motion. He believed 60,000 square feet was a large space for an area whose zoning was not yet thoroughly discussed, and that the Planning Commission was a good place`to continue the debate. - Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, supported the referral. At the April 5, 1984 Architectural Review Board, (ARB) meeting, a parcel at Page Mill and Park was reviewed for 26,000 square feet of office building, and unanimously rejected. The ARBB-suggested that the site.. be studied by the Council and Planning Commission because of the severe problems engendered by that type of development in that area, and the belief that the impact of offices and other develop- ment in that area would be adverse. He urged that Council refer the matter to the Planning Commission to reevaluate the particular GM zoning. The area was critical, and it was clear that the 4 4 1 2 4/09/84 1 1 1 1 capacity for the streets and on -ramp to Page Mill was limited. The development would consume all the City's allowable traffic capacity before the Council and Commission reviewed the Maximart development and housing might be precluded on the site by exces- sive office development in that corridor. He requested Council support of the motion. Anne E.rcolani, 2040 Ash, supported the motion, and associated herself with the comments of Mr. Moss. The Maximart site was to be studied by the Planning Commission, and the fact that the entire area was tied into the one large lot suggested that all the areas should be reviewed in that context. Councilmember Sutorius supported the motion. He was concerned about whether an amendment enlarging the scope of tha study would be appropriate because conservatively, the GM zone Was the second smallest or smallest zone in the City. There was more PC square footage in Palo Alto than GM zone, and GM was located in three areas --a small area on East Bayshore, the area outlined in Councilmember Renzel's motion, and the south edge area of San Antonio and Bayshore. A couple of small parcels happened to be zoned GM, but were probably less than 10,000 square feet in size. He believed it was important for the Council to evaluate GM uses because while it had usage beyond general manufacture, the zone was intended to apply primarily to light industrial areas identi- fied in the Comprehensive Plan. There were important uses funda- mental to any community's balanced services and the economic pro- vision of those services. He asked if the study he suggested would compound or complicate matters if Council amended the motion to include the other large GM area at the south edge of town. Mr. Freeland said it was more work and would take longer to return to the Council. He snared the concern, and strongly believed that offices were more of a problem in the GM district than in the CAJ district because it was a limited resource and a specialized func- tion that might be lost through market pressure. He believed all GM districts should be reviewed, and if there was a sense of urgency along Park Boulevard, it could be dealt with quickly. Staff had a lot of facts, and it would not be difficult to get a report to the Commission and move rapidly on the one limited area. If Council wanted staff to take on more territory, the ability to respond would be slowed, and other programs might have to be moved, but a report would be provided on the impact of staff's overall workload. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Sutori us moved, seconded. by Woolley, that staff study the remaining GM zones in the southern part of the City, tirl ng and priority to be determined by staff la a sub- sequent report to Council. Councilmember Sutorins said his amendment supplemented the motion with the peoviso that Council was identifying the last remaining GM area not already structured a (B) Combining District as a worthwhile study to be incorporated into the program and a schedule for its conduct to return simultaneously with the GM review of the Expressway to Lambert portion. Mayor Klein asked whether the study was mandatory. Codncilmember Su.torius said it requested that the study .be made, but staff could.. return and advise the Council when and how it would be made. -It was not required to be conducted sirrrul taneously with -the study of the Expressway to Lambert portion of Park Boulevard. Vice Mayor Levy was conerned that in, all of the studies requested of staff, the overall Comprehensive Plan revisions were getting lost and delayed. He asked where the Comprehensive Plan entered into staff's plans and asked. what the timetable would be if such a study were integrated with the overall Comprehensive Plan review. 4 4 1 3 4/09/84 Mr. Freeland said stuff expected to get into full motion on the Comprehensive Plan update at the conclusion of the downtown study in about January, 1985. Staff could do the relatively small study of Park Boulevard with little impact because the area was studied intensely in the Maximart study which was almost complete. A lot was known about the one location, and it was a small job to take on the additional parcels. If the ove•al 1 study was delayed and incorporated with the Comprehensive Plan in January, 1985, he did not expect it would produce new zoning for at least a year follow- ing. It was a question of how long Council wanted to live with existing zoning and conditions. Vice Mayor Levy asked if staff was uncomfortable with tackling the particular area independent of the Comprehensive Plan, and whether Council might make some planning mistakes it would regret. Mr. Freeland said there was a danger in reviewing small individual areas and tailoring zoning to those areas. In reviewing the GM(B) regulations, manufacturing was not listed as a permitted use in the (B) district, but he did not know whether it was an oversight in producing the ordinance because he did not remember it with the East Bayshore study. when the City tailored regulations to a small area, it ran the risk that the regulations were only good for the small area and something might be overlooked, but the risks must be balanced against the risks of postponement and tak- ing on the global view. There were risks both ways. Vice Mayor Levy clarified staff was comfortable with proceeding as suggested in the motion. Mr. Freeland said yes. Councilmember Renzel said Councilmember Sutorius spoke of three areas in town and the fact . that a (B) designation was put on the GM zone in the East Bayshore. Council proposed to look at whether proper zoning was applied to those properties, .and she asked for clarification that the GM zone intended to provide certain kinds of services within the community, and whether the zone itself had proper limitations to channel the land resource into the neces- sary use within the community. It ;night be a different study to be undertaken with the zoning ordinance, and if that was the thrust of the amendment, Council should make clear direction in that vein rather than analyze a bunch of properties and try to structure a zone specific to those properties. Councilmember Sutorius was concerned that if the conclusion was that the GM zone along Park Boulevard between Lambert and the Lxp°essway should be changed to a totally different zone, the decision would cut the total GM square footage in the .City of Palo Alto by about one-third. The largest GM area was the .South Palo Alto portion, and it was important to understand the impacts of such a change. He was concerned about losing i rp`cartant support services in ` the comeiuni ty that would cost more if unavailable in Pal o Al to. The experi enee of the: East Bayshore area study demon- strated that intelligent things could be done to benefit traffic impacts and circulation as well as improve aesthetics.` The (B) Combining zone added a front yard setback of 20 feet that did not now exist in regular GM, and he believed there were many reasons to understand. the impacts of any review of the GM zone. Councilmember Renzel clarified that whether the City rezoned to some other zone or the entire zone was consumed by offices, the City would lose the support .services. The Counci 1 needed to un- derstand whether the demand for those support services, continued and if so, where they shoe l d be located. She believed the ques- tion was whether it should be incorporated with . the zoning ordi- nance study as . opposed to what currently sat on those parcels, and as long as the amendment was separate from that issue and did not delay her motion, it would be a useful study at some point in the future, and she supported the acme-ndment. 4 4 1 4 4/09/84 Counci'member uecntel opposed the amendment because the Planning Commission could bring the matter up it it deemed appropriate. The Council was referring too many things to staff and she would only support the more limited referral. AMENDMENT PASSEL) by a vote of 7-1, Bechtel voting "no," Witherspoon absent, Counc i l member Cobb was involved in a small business that used many service functions, and for the record, he believed there was little space in town to support industries like topographers, small printers, etc., which businesses were useful, did not generate a lot of traffic or employment problems, and served the immediate Palo Alto community. The cost to the people of Palo Alto would increase if it was necessary to go a long way to get those services, and as a consequence of many actions taken by the Council over the past several years, the City was slowly driving those kinds of small service businesses out of town. Counci lmember Fletcher was alarmed to hear about a 60,000 square foot office building in the particular location, and could not think of a location where traffic was at a more severe level. The on -ramp to Oregon Expressway from Park Boulevard was backed up :very rush hour, and there were noises again for a grade separa- tion at Pace Mill and El Camino which Council did not want to encourage. She supported V.2 motion. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent. ITEM #:l.$, URGENCY REQUEST OF MAYOR KLEIN RE EVERGREEN PARK (PLA MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Sutorius, that staff perform an interim evaluation of the barrier system in Evergreen Park and report back after the May 14 Council meeting. Mayor Klein regretted that the matter was put on the agenda as an urgency item, but given time constraints, he believed it was bet- ter than to wait another two weeks. The motion directed staff to prepare an interim study. He would rule statements regarding the entire validity of the barrier program and whether it worked "out of order," and said the discussion should be limited to whether staff should be directed to perform an interim evaluation. Vice Mayor Levy asked about. the original timetable, how it would be modified through the motion, and staff's comments as to the ability to satisfactorily measure the program. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the original program was set up for a six month trial period to expire the first week in August. In tnat evaluation, staff would take traffic counts in May and would not wait until afte • school was out. The effect of the assignment would be to move up the tr fic counts by about one month --probably the week of April 23 --local school districts were not in session, but Stanford was -- and the counts would be reasonably valid. The original evaluation schedule included a post card survey of the neighborhood, and given the proposed timetable, staff would not do that, but would notify the neighborhood. The economic information from the busi- ness community would not be for as long a period as would be the case later, which might be significant in that consumer patterns could change erratically and level off at a new level after three months, and staff would not have that period of time. Vice Mayor Levy believed the concern related to certain affected businesses, the financial impact on the businesses, and the under- standing of the motorists about how to move around in an area which aright not be reflected in traffic courts. He asked if the shortened period would provide adequate information 4 4 1 5 4/09/84 Mr. Schreiber said in terms of traffic counts and the movement of traffic, the shortened time period was satisfactory. In terms of the impact on the various businesses, and especially those along Park Boulevard, it would still be a three month period from the time the one-way section of Park went in place by the time the matter returned to the Council. He was reasonably comfortable that within a three month period the information should be a good reflection of what was happening. In terms of people being used to the system itself, staff was doing time-lapse photography of the seetiors and found fewer violations of the one- way area, which indicated that people were adjusting. Councilmember Woolley asked whether there would be a final evalua- tion after the six month period. Mayor Klein said his motion deliberately used the language "interim evaluation" because .he intended that there be a final evaluation after the six month period. Councilmember Woolley clarified the traffic count would not be repeated at the end of the six months; the post card evaluation would not occur in the interim evaluation, but would occur in August; and the economic impacts would be done both times. Mayor Klein believed the traffic count would occur both times. Mr. Schreiber said staff would assume a later evaluation if the conclusion of the first round indicated the need, but the later evaluation would redo the traffic volumes and speeds as well as the post card survey and economic analysis. Councilmember Woolley asked if the only duplication of staff time would be the economic impacts, and she clarified that the system of barriers mignt be altered. Mayor Klein said it was possible. Councilmember Bechtel asked staff about the optimum time to make a fair evaluation, and whether the evaluation would be adequate with the deletion of the economic and post card survey in the interim evaluation. Mr. Schreiber said staff would not delete the economic survey with the interim analysis. The merchants would not have as long a period to see how business adjusted to the new situation or__ whether initial drop offs were sustained. In terms of the post card survey, staff would need another couple of weeks to organize, mail out, receive results, tabulate, etc., which meant early June. Ron Sutton, 384 Stanford, represented the Evergreen Park Traffic Committee, and was concerned about the "emergency situation." Evergreen Park was concerned about traffic for over six years, and the last two years, Council, staff, the neighborhood, and mer- chants discussed and worked toward some type of agreement. The barriers were not yet in place when petitions were started by the merchants on California Avenue. Most people who signed petitions shopped at the businesses and their maximum impact was inconve- nience. He was inconvenienced for half the route --he used Park Boulevard going to work, and went around coming from work, but a lot of through traffic was saved from his neighborhood. He was concerned that the emergency could not wait two weeks and that the Committee was not notified as official representatives of the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association. They heard rumors and reacted. *Emergency° meant significant financial impacts, and he was only aware of a business that sustained a 27 percent loss from expected revenues. His personal business grew 50 percent from August through December; 15 percent in January, and one percent in February. He was not impacted by the barriers because his busi- ness was in pan Jose. Expected revenues were poor criteria to 4 4 6 4/09/84 measure business loss, and although he was unaware of the level of business complaints, an emergency required strong criteria. He realized the interim evaluation report was aimed at economics --net traffic -'and asked about the criteria for the economic evaluation. Angus Mcuonald stated, before the Council approved the traffic plan, that there would be minimal impacts on the merchants at the north end of California Avenue, which was the case. Without ary criteria by which to measure, he was unsure what proof could be required to determine significant economic impact. The businesses were a nonconforming use of the land --it was a grandfathered resi- dential area --and the neighborhood originally planned to have the businesses located with other business associates in their barrier plan and encouraged that the strip of businesses be put there rather than excluded. The neighborhood still supported putting the businesses together, but moving the barrier behind them and doing something with College Avenue. In order for an emergency, there must be criteria, a method by which to measure, and a valid person doing that measurement. Andrea Lenox, 396 Stanford Avenue, said the results of the interim study might mean early removal of the barriers. Last year, the Council committed that staff would set up the barriers for a trial period of six months. Council, staff, the neighborhood, and busi- nesses were partners, and before the Council changed the rules, broke a commitment, or reneged on an agreement, it should inform all partners. The neighborhood was not informed, and she felt slapped in the face. Allegedly there were businesses in trouble and negative letters to the Council, and she asked how the facts were established and evaluated, and about the perspective in which the claims were considered. Most businesses in the California Avenue area district where she shopped misled its customers, and she was given false information in terms of fire and police vehicles. A lot of value was based on the petitions, and when she signed a petition, it had an originator, stated its purpose, and a responsible party. She saw the petitions, and the situation was stated in a misleading manner and there was no way to find out who originated the petitions, or its purpose. She asked why the Coun- cil gave an ear to the businesses only. Businesses came and went, and when one bought a neighborhood property, it was with the in- tention of living there. Many people were in the neighborhood for at least 20 years, there were about 388 households, and Council actions would affect 700 to 900 lives. If Council changed its attitude from last year about traffic, it meant more traffic in her neighborhood and an adverse effect on those 700 to 900 lives, Given the 388 households and today's real estate prices, there was about 475 million worth of property, which should be considered, Any three month study was small, and she did not see how there could be an emergency. The important study should not -be invali- dated by such a short period of time. There was no guarantee that traffic \studies would be held twice, and she did not know how there could be an evaluation before Palo Alto • Central or the low cost housing in the area was filled. It meant more traffic in the Evergreen Park area and she urged that it be kept in mind. Jim Stapleton, 214 Oxford, said he and his wife preferred that Council extend the trial to eight months to a year rather than shorter; it to four months. City staff said it was questionable criteria for determining the economic impact of the program and he believed it was a mistake to abort the hard gained study without a fair __trial-,. He read a letter from Tommy and Judy Derek pleading that Council not dismantle that which just began to work. If the modifications created hardships to some business neighbors, he supported ways to return access to the customers who used business district ;streets. They specifically spoke of the businesses on Park Boulevard between College and Cambridge. If it was necessary to make changes, they requested that City staff restore access to those businesses on California Avenue, but absolutely not restore accesss to through traffic that used Park. Boulevard to get to E1. Camino, Karen Olsen, 121 Park Avenue, believed the time was too short to make a fair evaluation of the barrier program. uavid Gleason, 396 Stanford Avenue, opposed the motion because of the potentially disastrous effect on small businesses on California Avenue. It was likely that a bulk of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, including himself, would find it untenable to shop on California Avenue. His economic impact could be as disas- trous as the few number of customers who did not shop there now. He urged the Council to be circumspect --several years of planning went into the Evergreen Park program, and a short term study could open cans of worms that no one foresaw. If staff had the time to perform a .thorough economic analysis, that was one thing, but if not, he urged the Council to consider the effects of a short term study. Many could assist in finding ways to accommodate the busi- nesses, but the traffic must be on their streets --not the neigh- borhood. Corinne Powell, 30Z College Avenue, co -owned her property, and agreed that any interim study was too short a time to accurately evaluate impacts of the traffic control program. She believed the traffic diverters were like a course of antibiotics for a human, and if the program stopped before it ran its course, the problem might return and be worse than before. A six month trial and evaluation would allow potential losses. to businesses to re- stabilize and would probably accurately reflect that people ad- justed to traffic patterns when changed. She believed California Avenue would ultimately be as thriving .rom the new development as from customers who found a new route. She strongly urged Council to continue the study for its full length and weigh the potential short and long-term loss to the property owners and resideets of Evergreen Park if not protected from continued through traffic and the incremental traffic that would develop as more density occurred on California Avenue.. :lyse Barnett, 211 College, opposed an •interim study because she did not see the purpose if it was incomplete. An incomplete study based on half truths did not provide the full economic impacts because it did not allow people to readjust and would only inflame a touchy situation. The City needed to know the total picture, and the letters were decreasing along ielth violations. She believed the matter should be given a chance to work before making an evaluation, and that there might be validity to extend the study to a year to assess the impact of the Cox development in its second and third stage and those businesses that might go in on Park Boulevard. There seemed to be equal weight for delaying the study and:' an emergency type situation. She had as business at the north end of California Avenue, and supported waiting for s i x months even though her business was at stake because her profits were up despite the barriers. Mark Musen, 211 College Avenue, was enraged that the item came up prematurely. Those who . lived in Evergreen Park were concerned about the quality of residential life in Palo Alto, and he was concerned about a premature .evaluation. If the data was incom- plete and there were questions concerning the validity, it was clear that any motion to cause a premature evaluation was aimed at the elimination of any kind of traffic control in Evergreen Park without the ability to analyze the impact of those controls both on the residents and businesses. He was concerned about the so-called_ "emergency sit nation.'i There WAS a store across the street from him with profits up 15 percent in January, and down 12 percent ` in .-February, and it claimed a 27 percent loss i'n a profs ts. It was clear that staff would have to make a careful economic analysis of the situation, and base the decisions on true facts. He was irritated that the Co -Op claimed an emergency si tuati or because they were down 600 customers pet week. He was concerned about the credibility of, a Council that invested $20,000 in the Angus Mcudnal d study which advised that there would be mi ni muM impact, which was accepted. Minimal impact was being experienced, 4 4.1 8 4/09/84 and City staff ack► owl edged that, any data collected by May 14 riiiyht nut be valid. If the Council made a decision based on premature data, both the Evergreen Park Traffic Control Plan and the integrity of the City Council and staff would be circumspect. Geoffrey Thompson, 416 Oxford, spoke to the Council on the subject for about five years, and --the only rationale he saw for the emer- gency was to cut the traffic study short. He was disturbed by the. lack of due process associated with the matter, was ur1aware of any public notice, and the exact nature of the emergency was unstated by the Council. He attended the Council meetings' for years claiming that emergencies existed, that major developments were about to be granted building permits in the California Avenue area which would have vast spill over effects into residential neighborhoods, and received nothing by way of emergency action. If residents had to _ go through multiple years of procedure to get their emergency handled, and ai system was finally in place to review the problem, the planning for Evergreen Park and the California Avenue area should be taken as a whole with cross planning between the areas, rather than building permits and upzoning being granted on California Avenue without impacts assessed on adjoining residential areas. The idea seemed to be to cut the barriers short before knowing the impacts of full occupancy of the Cox development and other building permits. If the study was cut short, those things the residents were most worried about would never be counted in the assessment. He did not want to say it looked like there was a pro -business bias against the residents in the area, but when one business could call an emergency and it took four or five years for the residents to get action on an emergency, it did not look like the residents were getting a fair shake. Anne Ercolani, 2040 Ash Street, agreed with Mr. Thompson. She spoke with Councflmember Cobb earlier and let her anger out then. Wednesday noon was the latest time something coul a be put on the agenda, and she found out about the matter Thursday noon. She asked what happened in the 24 hours to cause sech an emergency. If a rumor was not started, the public would not be in attendance to address the matter. The residents called the .City often, and did not get even a courtesy phone call that the emergency item would be on the agenda Adequate economic information rust be included, and the number of cars should be verifiable. She was an accountant and knew that verifiable gross profit numbers could be presented to the Council to verify the economic analysis. If Council did not demand verifiable .numbers, the residents should demand verifiable numbors for traffic as for economics, otherwise the claims that people were losing business were no better than a claim that traffic went up. Elizabeth Beckett, 1883 Park Boulevard, read a letter from George Decker, 1863 Park Boulevard, requesting a trial period of up to one year for the Evergreen Park barriers. They were a cautious response to a severe traffic problem worsened by Palo Alto Central and the other approved projects. Although he was opposed to bar- riers, the recent developments threatened the living environment and lowered property values Marilyn Mayo, 404 Oxford, agreed with the preceding speakers, and said traffic and transportation was the serious issue of the 80s. There had to be a minimum six months study to give it integrity. A. San Francisco Chronicle survey said that traffic and transportation a as -'tire largest current issue, would be a problem for the next decade, and involved more than Evergreen Park. The Council made a commitment to support neighborhoods, and a"policy must be followed. It should look to the reap emergency --the commute and _ commercial traffic. Evergreen Park wanted, to stop people using ._their neighborhood as cut throughs, and she asked for the focus to be changed to the broader issue of traffic in the Bay Area. 4 4 1 9 4/09/84 Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, concurred with the comments made by Evergreen Park residents. It took time for people to adjust to changed traffic patterns, and people who complained about the difficulty of reaching Peninsula Scientific went there only on occasion, and a better evaluation would come after those people made several trips. Traffic and business fluctuated with the seasons, retail stores generally showed a decline in business during the first quarter of 1984 over the same in 19A3 because Easter came three weeks later, and local traffic and sales patterns showed the same fluctuation. An interim study would not include all local schools in session, and when schools were not in session, traffic patterns fluctuated dramatically, showing a 20 to 30 percent drop along East Meadow. Weather also had an impact because people did not drive children to school during the dry season. Inadequate time to take normal fluctuations into account would give a skewed picture. A traffic survey on April 23 would be a major mistake because it should be done when both local schools and Stanford were in session to show the maximum change from the original traffic flows. It was not appropriate to spend City resources on the study since there was insufficient information to evaluate overall traffic and economic impacts of the barriers, Mayor Klein said staff incorrectly said that school would not be in session on April. 23. The School District was on vacation from April 16 through April 20. Marian Slattery, 1737 Park Boulevard, said habits were difficult to change. Until people became familiar with the changed pat- terns, they would be upset by having to back up and turn round because of a barrier. As people became used to barriers, anger subsided, as shown in Southgate and College Terrace. The barriers were not put in place haphazardly --the amount of time, thoughts money and materials expended deserved a study long enough to find all the facts. She urged Council to consider whether it was a true emergency or th.e result of change. Jeffrey Hook, 302 College Avenue, agreed with Mr. Sutton that the motivation for the study had to be er�onorni c . The emergency was that one business was: threatened with closure. Since giving the equivalent of the cost of the study to the owner would set a bad precedent, he suggested the study be limited to finding a way to improve access to Peninsula Scientific. David Schrom, 302 College Avenue, said people believed theCouncil when it said it wanted to preserve the residential quality of Palo Alto and reduce through traffic in the neighborhood by 30 percent. He believed it was equally urgent to protect the .$3 million of property values in Evergreen Park that would be sacrificed if through traffic was allowed. The study showed that neighborhoods with and without - measures to control through traffic had an increased disparity in values, and he did not believe the neigh- borhood should be sacrificed for Peninsula Scientific. Staff was among the best -paid and was competent; their recommendations were based on the experience of other communities. During the last months the number of people screeching to a stop in front of his house, peeling away, then .turning at the end of the road decreased., he eXpected more when he moved to Palo Alto, and requested that Council ensurethatany action it took was designed to protect Evergreen Park from through traffic. Any study the staff made should include the caveat that recommendations coming before the Council should eliminate through traffic, otherwise the pressure of development would ultimately overcome any syster of controls. 1t was the only fair course of action. Current complex controls resulted from the Council's unwillingness to eliminate through traffic. Businesses in the community were subsidized-: by residents for long enough, and other communities similarly situated showed the unhAppy future of continuing down that path. 4 4 2 4 4/09/84 Erica Prince, 302 College Avenue, said the neighborhood considered the matter urgent. It was said there was a sense of urgency among business people, but none spoke. She opposed an interim study before the end of six months, and believed a year would be bet- ter. 1 1 Audrey Stewart, 1731 Park Boulevard, read a portion of a letter from Charles Poulter, 465 Calderon, #28, Mountain View, who believed the full test period should be used to determine the value or detriment to the neighborhood because otherwise it wasted money. She agreed with the previous speakers. Sarnia Smith, 2031 Park Boulevard, said.a lot of time and money was spent determining that a six month trial period was necessary to evaluate traffic control, and it was ridiculous to make an interim report after such a short period. The Evergreen Peril( neighborhood and general public should be notified of interim reports or changes to the traffic control plan. Daniel Bartsch, 302 College Avenue, was disappointed the neighbor- hood was not notified. He believed small businesses would be more threatened by the higher rents than by traffic control. Mr. Schreiber clarified for the record that the traffic counts would be taken during the week of April 16-20, when the School District was not in session. If the counts were taken later, the May 14, 19.84 date could not be met. Regarding a thorough economic analysis, he reiterated comments made in staff reports late in 1983 concerning the analysis of economic impacts of the barrier trial. Whether the analysis was made in April or later, the pub- lic and Council would be given sales information provided by the merchants. Staff did not have the authority to force merchants to open books, and regardless of when the study was made, requests for a thorough economic analysis were out of place. Staff would share information received from merchants, but that would be the extent of the information. Mayor Klein apologized for the procedure. He agreed with Anne Ercolani it was not good. The item should have appeared in the previous week's packet, but he was out of the area until Sunday, and was unable to call people. People had not heard "rumors" but were told about the item by him and Counci imember Cobb. He did not want to wait two weeks, and therefore put the item on tonight's agenda as an urgency item. He underlined the fact that it was an urgency, not an emergency, item, and there was a differ- ence. He was concerned about the issue, and believed the rhetoric was not helpful. Everyone lived in the community, not only the residents of Evergreen Park but the merchants on California Avenue and the other people of the community who drove the streets of the town. Everyone had to be taken into consideration; he was elected by everyone. The Council was getting a lot of static from resi- dents all over the community, rot just Peninsula Scientific. Wh' n he received letters from people with no previous involvement in the area, he felt a duty to respond, and his response was to ask for an interim study. He meant "interim study.' Four months earlier he voted for barricades, and then, now, and in the future, he said he favored reducing through traffic in neighborhoods. How that should be accomplished without dividing the community and driving people with legitimate businesses out of business was a difficult task, and there was no one answer. Barriers were con- troversial in many different communities, and . the Council reluc- tantly voted for them knowing that their history was doubtful at best. The urgency he felt was there was some evidence from a variety of people that the barrier system was not a good solution, and since he did not know whether that evidence was persuasive, he asked staff to look into it. When so many complaints were received, the Council had a duty to look into them. One ' might walk out of a six-month exercise program after four months if one had physical problems. This was , the same type of situation, and he was surprised that the neighborhood worried so much and used 4 4 2 1 4/09/84 overtreatea rhetoric. If they considered the system goad, they should not fear the study. There was no magic to a six month trial, and even two years was not a magic figure --it might be better, but no one knew to what percentage. If the trial was not good, it would be rejected. There was no right or wrong; it was not a scientific problem where numbers could be put into an equa- tion and the right answer popped out. Value judgments would have to be made, and if the system was good, the study should not be feared. There was no hidden agenda. There was a problem of con- flicts between citizens. The Evergreen Park residents couia not deny that many complaints were received from people. There were letters in the public packet and the Palo Alto Weekly --a lot of complaints. One role of any City Codnc was o reso ve conflicts between citizens, and he requested an interim study with that in mind. Everyone was in it together, and instead of thinking the Council had evil motives, the neighborhood should try to devise a system to satisfy the maximum number of people, while recognizing that nothing would please everyone. It might be that the system they had now was displeasing to the greater number of people, and he hoped they could do better, but stomping up and down and saying they had to .have the study did not make sense and was not the way to solve problems. He hoped that by moving forward with an interim study, they might come up with a better solution. An in- terim study might show the barriers to be the best solution, but he did not believe that asking for facts and studying them should be feared. By asking for facts, the Council was trying to find something that approximated the truth more closely, and all citi- zens should join in that. Councilmember Cobb made a public apology for the lack of notice, whicn troubled him. The only reason he did not call people was because they called him. He got home too late the previous Thursday to inform them the item was not agendized on Wednesday, as he expected. He feared three months was too short a time for a test of the barriers and wonuered if a decent study of a final nature could be made in four weeks, which was why he insisted on the word "interim." He did not see that an interim study was any- thinq more or less than what it said --he wanted information to see how well they were doing. He had some ideas of the results they might get, and if the original premise for undertaking the test was valiu, which he believed it was, he hoped they would not abort the whole problem they set out to solve because of a particular problem that rightly concerned the Council. They should use the interim study as a mechanism for finding a better way to solve the problem and one which would work for everyone involved. He did not want to put anyone out of business, and hoped there was another way of solving the problem. He agreed it took time to adjust to new traffic patterns, and there was some time element involved in obtaining data that made sense. He would support only an :interim study which should give information to improve a system which had flaws. The way the barriers were handled on Park Boulevard could be improved upon significantly, and he hoped that would be a result. The Council should not abort the idea of help- ing Evergreen Paek;abut rather should find ways to do a better job of solving the problems of the neighborhood without putting people out of business He expected the interim study would show that traffic was down in Evergreen Park and that most businesses in the California Avenue were not significantly impacted. It should also give the facts on Peninsula Scientific, and hopefully ameliorate such problems to the extent they. existed. He wanted it to be clear that he remained committed . to doing everything he .;could to solve the trafficproblems in Evergreen Park and eliminate them to the degree possible. He also wanted to see the study go full term, although it might have to be adjusted to solve, some problems addressed earlier. Councilmember Bechtel said she did not like the idea of an urgency ordinance or adding something to the agenda at the last minute when it was not listed Those who heard about the itei on Thursday or Friday knew ;sooner than she. She learned of i t that 4. 4 2 2 4/09/84 afternoon, and was told the leaders of the Evergreen Park communi- ty would be called. Neither she nor the Council liked to be at- tacked by the residents, and when the residents wanted something from the. Council, it worked hard and cooperatively with them. The most positive comments she heard came from Jeff Hook, who said the Council should make the survey as a positive step, and she agreed. It was suggested the urgency item was in response to a business that was in danger of bankruptcy in the next two or three months. No one wanted that to happen. She would not support an urgency ordinance, but preferree'`some action to see what could be done in the interim. She objected to the urgency ordinance process, but would not object to a study later if assured of getting all the information. She did not think it made sense to do a traffic study during the middle of spring vacation and again a month later before school was out. Vice Mayor Levy said he did not originally support the concept of barriers in Evergreen Park, He believed the job could be done without them, and was still not convinced of their wi dsom. The issue was whether an interim study should be made, and if there was an urgency. It was unwise to terminate a study without a clearly substantiated need, and an interim study was a half- hearted way of terminating a study or reaching conclusions before adequate data was available. He did not advocate an interim study because he believed there would not be enough time for the process to work. He considered it equally unwise to have agendized the item without prior discussion. He learned of the item when he saw it at his place at 7:30 p.m. that evening, and believed his col- leagues should have made the item more knowledgeable to the public before that evening. He heard of Peninsula Scientific's hardship, but not first-hand. The barrier system was _complicated and not as good as it should be, but he had not heard any information that evening to justify the matter as an emergency item and" would not support an interim study on an urgency basis. Cauncilmember Woolley said it was the first time she addressed Evergreen Park residents, and clarified her general philosophy concerning barriers. She publicly supported barriers on residen- tial streets, as newer neighborhoods were designed with cul-de- sacs to prevent traffic problems, whereas older neighborhoods were on a grid pattern. If neighborhoods so desired, barriers were a possible remedy to through traffic. The City categorized streets as residential, collector, and arterial, and using those cate- gories, Park Boulevard was a collector .treat. She wanted to see how the barrier program worked for Evergreen Park after six months when she would make her decision on -the entire program. - She did not support the interior study because she did not believe Council would obtain valid economic data, not because staff would not have the time to get the reports from the store, but because a period of adjustment was needed. Three months was not long enough for people to adapt to the system, especially in terms of stores that were not visited often. Mr. Schreiber said the interim evaluation would not include a postcard survey. That would be used if a survey was . made later in the year: Counci l rraember 'Woolley clarified the survey would be limited to Evergreen Park residents, and the interim study`woul d not provide any information from other residents. Even the final study would not contain a reaction from the rest of Palo Alto and how they felt about the barriers. She agreed .with Counci lmember Bechtel that if there wes a severe specific problem, it would be appropri- ate to consider a specific remedy --to readjust the barriers around Peninsula Scientific to help owners. An interim full scale study. should not be undertaken. Councilmember Renzel said Council could expect to hear from. the 300 households in Evergreen Park. Between 3,000 and 5,000 cars went through Evergreen Park and their route wes interrupted.' They ►juid register their complaints, and Council had to weather that kind of response to the interruption of people's travel patterns. She concurred with the concern for Peninsula Scientific, used the store herself, and had to adjust her travel pattern to get there. She believed it was premature to evaluate the result after three months and before all who used a particular travel pattern had sufficiently adjusted. The only thing that might result from an interim study would be elimination of the barriers, which she was not prepared to do after three months. With regard to the manner in which the item was agendi.zed, she recognized the apologies and that there was some snafu, but not one business person was pres- ent. It was unclear whether they were still having problems after two and a half months of the barriers. Evergreen Park residents were present only because of rumors, and she did not hear first- hand that the matter would be on the agenda. She was shocked because the item had so much public input, and the way the item came yap on the agenda was equally disconcerting to people who wanted the barriers removed. They were not hearing from that seg- ment of the cotnmuni ty , and she was not prepared to ask far an in- terim evaluation, which could only result in the removal of bar- riers. She opposed the motion. Councilmember Fletcher said she was the last to hear of the item, so there was no conspiracy concerning the action the Council would take She was also concerned the item was not agendized, and said the press could always be contacted if the deadline was missed on an item so urgent it could not wait. She was against an interim study in any event because she believed the data would be invalid. Traffic counts would not be comparable to the initial traffic counts because s'hool would be out, and there would not be feed- back from the neighborhood to be available later on. Without those factors, there would be insufficient facts on which to base a good decision. Such decisions should be made only after a thorough evaluation of complete information, and the economic data mentioned that evening could not be compiled on a short-term basis. Customers needed to adjust their traffic patterns for get- ting to a location, and it would be more clear after six months if they adjusted. Six months wes minimal, and she would not cut it down. She did not support an interim study. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Bechtel, that staff meet with the proprietors of Peninsula Scientific to determine the economic impacts and return to the Council with that information and mi ti natt ng measures to alleviate demonstrated economic impact. Councilmember Bechtel said they had to be careful not to imply the Council would take out ads on behalf of Peninsula Scientific. The Council would not alleviate the economic impact, but only evaluate it to see that neededto be done. Councilmember Cobb thanked Mr. Hook for his suggestion. The reason he grade the motion was because the word "urgency" was pre- cipitated by a concern that a business might literally go ---out of business due to Council actions. He :indicated earlier that: rather tharL abort a study he considered important and a .goal that remained 'valid and important, he preferred to find out -if an urgency -existed. -, If 50, Council should see whether an adjustment could he made to alleviate that emergency. Mayor Klein asked-Councilmember Cobb if there was a particular date on which staff should report back. - Councilmember Cobb said no because he had not discussed the time period ,revolved with staff, but believed it -could be done within a couple of weeks, since it' was not a Momentous undertaking. Mr. Zaner said staff would attempt to obtain figures and get back by -stay 14. He was unsure what kind of ,.data might be provided by Peninsula Scientifi.c's internal business operations. i 442.4 4/09/84 Mr. Schreiber asked for clarification that the substitute motion required not only economic information, but a search for an alter- native barrier design. Councilmember Cobb said that was correct, and more specifically, if the data showed the business was about to fold because of the action taken, the Council might want to consider moving the bar- riers down a little and changing the way they were structured so that people had access to the business. That was a reversion to' some of the plans that were originally made. It might be the fix needed, and he considered it consistent with what Council was try- ing to accomplish in the neighborhood. Mr. Schreiber said that element would take more time than just contacting Peninsula. Scientific because of the complex driveway location one block down from Peninsula Scientific, Councilmember Sutorius said there was a presumption that some vote counting was done, but he joined with his colleagues who had no previous knowledge of the item. He seconded the motion as a technique to have an issue on which to focus discussion, and because he understood it to be a- proposal for an interim study and evaluation based on that study. He saw nothing wrong with that. One concern was the tr=affic impact from Palo Al to Central at its full build-up, and other buildings that currently had building permits. None of those would be at full build-up and occupied at the end of the six month period involved in the study unless a miraculous building schedule was undertaken. He supported the motion for an interim study and report, but was concerned _about the valid challenges for the criteria for the study, which responses to Councilmember Wool l ey' s questions regarding the con- tents of the etudy and time elements had shown, He wanted to dis- cuss criteria and benefits that might result from a reasonable interim study and report. He was equally able to support the amendment, although he believed it was less than could be accom- plished by the original motion if some time was spent on further defining criteria, establishing dates and providing absolute as- surance that it would be an interim evaluation and interim report. It was not an uncommon action on any major subject. Mayor Klein pointed out the matter before the Council was a sub- stitute motion and not an amendment. Councilmember Renzel asked whether the substitute motion contem- plated that Council would receive a report back in the packets assessing the situation, after which it would be agendized by a Coun i 1 mernbcr . if action were indicated so that people would not come to a meeting only to find that nothing happened'. Councilmember Cobb said yes. He was unhappy with the situation that evening, and believed it could be rectified while still deal- iny with the urgency aspects. Councilmember Renzel clarified the report would return in the packet as a report. A Coencilmember would then agendize the report if it was necessary to proceed further. Councilmember Cobb said he considered that a reasonable way to go, and was prepared to agendize it if necessary. Mr. Zaner said he doubted that staff would obtain substantial verifiable financial data from the business, and did not know how staff could check out the data to ensure its accuracy end deter- mine, in Councilmember Cobb's words, that the business was *going under.* Assuming staff did not get much financial data, he asked if Council's instructions were for staff to try to devise some mitigating measures regarding traffic and Peninsula Scientific and to return to the Council with a report, followinj which a Council - member could agenda ze the subject if he or she wished. 4 _4 2 5 4/09/84 Counc i i member Bec lei said the on gi na1 trial was conditioned on i.he fact that the California Avenue businesses would not be im- pacted. Staff agreed to evaluate the economic impacts, and she wondered how staff proposed to do so. The kind of evaluation staff talked about the previous December was needed, and the ques- tion was whether staff could determine if the business would "go under." In terms of the process, staff should first evaluate whether a business was doing well or badly and return to the Coun- cil in two weeks with that information. Staff could then be directed to take the next step and come up with a means of devising remedies. Mr. lamer asked if, as a precondition to staff making the analysis of mitigating measures, there had to be some financial. difficulty. If no financial difficulty was determined, he asked whether staff should report that fact and do nothing, or take the next step and attempt to devise traffic measures, and then return to the Coun- cil. Mr. Schreiber understood that the motion focused on Peninsula Scientific and not on other businesses in the California Avenue area. Councilmember Cobb agreed with Cooncilmember Bechtel that the motion needed to be made in two steps. Council was putting the burden on staff to decide whether the economic impact was suffi- ciently severe to cause the consideration of mitigating measures. He believed it would be more clear mp i e for staff to make the first part of the investigation --check with Peninsula Scientific and find out what they could about the economic. impact on the particular business which triggered the urgency aspect. Staff should then report back and Council could decide whether the impact appeared severe enough for staff to enter the second stage of finding mitigating measures, . That path would be more logical and fair to staff. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilaember Cobb moved, seconded by Bechtel, that staff meet with proprietors of Peninsula Scientific to obtain specific economic information to evaluate and return to Council in two weeks, on April 23. Vice Mayor Levy was troubled by the matter, and believed when staff went to Peninsula Scientific and asked how they were doing, they would be told business was down 27 percent and there were problems because no one, could find them due to the barriers. When the Ce' n: F l received that response, it would only have questioned Peninsula Scientific. and would have no broader picture of the effects of the barriers. He was inclined to continue the study to term. in the _.interim, he believed Peninsula Scientific s! .:ul d provide the City with a specific report, saying w -hat -was going on and their traffic counts, etc. He apologized `for not knowing much about Peninsula Scientific, but expected that, if they were like other retail stores of .their type, a large percentage of their business was Christmas related, wi th ' the low point being during February and March in particular, andalso in April. Even a year- to-year comparison of the previous February with the current February when both were low months might be meaningless. The Council invited Peninsula Scientific to make its case to the City, and it should do so. Their case could then be evaluated and the Council could take whatever action it considered appropriate, but for _ the City to go to the company and ask how ' its business was doing was meaningless. Councilmeeber Renzel did not concur that the responses of Peninsula Scientific were known. The Council knew what they were a month earlier, but not what they were now. The proprietors:_ of Peninsula Scientific were open and candid and would continue to be. She agreed the Council should not assign staff to go to 4 company to ask it to reveal its business condition and make it a matter of public record as a requirement for the Council Staff 4 4 2 6 4/09/84 1 1 might come back and say the company refused to talk. That was possible, and the company should not be required, as part of a public report, to state .their business condition. Councilmembers could be contacted individually and told the precise current situation, and she intended to go and find out for herself. She knew the proprietor and was concerned about the condition of that business. It was a logical option, and probably quicker than waiting two weeks for staff to return with a report that might be limited in its scope because of the reticence of the business pro- prietor to put all the financial information down in black and white for the world to see. She believed it was preferable for the Council, individually or collectively, to find out the situa- tion and agendize the matter, if appropriate. Councilmember Bechtel said staff was not being asked to put down the financial information on that business in ,black and white because it was inappropriate. The Council waa contacted --the owner of Peninsula Scientific appeared in early March during the first five minutes of the public presentations and spoke, prac- tically in tears, about the situation of her business. Some Councilmembers later visited her to find out how the business was doing. The matter could be handled in two stages --a report could be included in the nex a packet, and if Council wanted to agendize it to see i f the barriers could be redesigned, it would be. appro- priate. She believed Council should move on. May.eir. Klein understood the motion to authorize star ` to talk to Peninsula Scientific people about the economic status of the busi- ness and the possible economic impacts of the barrier system on it. SUBSTITUTE !MOTION PASSED oy a Levy voting no, Witherspoon absent. FUTUKL A0ENUAS wits of 6-3, Fletcher, kenzel, Councilmember Fletcher asked staff if the April 23, 1984 meeting would continue until after midnight. Mr. Zaner said the agenda was heavy. Councilmember Fletcher said that was the kind of information she wanted before Council decided to cancel the April 16, 1984 meeting. When the April 16 meeting was cancelled, there was no way to determine what the situation would be. She did not think it conducive to making intelligent decisions to make meetings that lasted after 11:00 p.m. or 11:30. She would move holding a- Council meeting an April 16, 1984 if that would not present a problem for staff. Mr. Zaner - said it would become a problem because the hearings scheduled were advertised for the appropriate dates and staff reports were set up. It was hard to change. oincilmember Fletcher said she would not make a motion to that effect, but believed this situation it illustrated premature decisions that should be guarded against in the future. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10:5S p.rn. ATTEST: APPROVED: 4 4 2 7 4/09/84.