HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-08-05 City Council Summary Minutes1
0
ITEM
OTY
COUNCJL
MINUTEs
CITY
of
PAI()
ALIC)
Regular Meeti ng
Monday, August 6, 1984
PAGE
Oral Communications 4 8 8 7
Approval of Minutes of June 19, 1984 4 8 8 7
Approval of Minutes of June 25, 1984
Item #1, Resolution Welcoming Representatives of 4 8 8 7
Oaxaca, Oaxaca, Mexico
Consent Calendar 4 8 8 8
Referral 4 8 8 8
Action 4 8 8 8
Item #2, 1984 Street Resurfacing 4 8 8 8
Item #3, Alma/Churchill Intersection Improvements 4 8 8 9
Item #4, Construction of Security Fence at Regional 4.8 8 9
Water Quality Control Plant
Item #5, Terman Sports Fields 4 8 8 9
item #6, Disposal of Polychlorinated BipPenyls 4 8 8 9
Transformers
Item 48, Ordinances re Mixed Use . Concept... and 4 8 8 9
Termination of. Moratorium on Maximart Site (2nd
Readi ng)
Item #9, Ordinance .re Geneeal- Business Services and 4 8 9 0
General Business Offices (2nd Reading)
Item 10, Ordinances re Park Boulevard GM Zone Area 4 8 9 0
(2nd Readi ng)
Item #11, .Ordinance re Visual Arts Jury (2nd
Reading)
Item #12, Ordinance re Golf Course Park Impr've,ent
(2nd Readi Pig)
Item #13, Ordinance re Amending PC Zone for 700
Welch Road (2nd Reading)
Item #14', Si gn. Ordinance Amendments . (2nd Reading)
Item #1-5, Revised Housing Mitigation Ordinance (2nd
Read rig )
4 8 9 0
4 8 9 0
4 8 9 0
4 8 9 0
ITEM P A G -E
Item #19-A (Old Item 7), University Avenue Lot J 4 8 9 1
Parking Garage Project
Item 17, Historic Resources Board Recommendation re 4 8 9 3
Application of Michael Lee for Designation of
907-911 Cowper as a Historic Landmark
Item #20, 907-911 Cowper - Ei nal Subdi ui
o IS Map
Item #21, Evergreen Park Neighborhood Traffic Study
- Evaluation of Six -Month Trial Traffic Control
P1 an
Recess
Item #16; Los Altos Treatment Plant Acquisition
Item #18, Peport
Committee
from Council
r.
y � 7
s 1
ti L I e
4 8 9 4
4 8 9 4
e A G a
4 9 0 5
`Y 7 0 J
Item #19, California Avenue Parking District Ad 4 9 0 6
Valorem Assessment. Rate - 1984-85
Adjournment: 12:05 a.m. 4 9 0 6
Regul ar Meeting
Menday,- August 6, 1984
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day in tie
Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, at
7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy,
Renzel, Sutorius, Witherspoon, Woolley
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Brian Pegg, 945 Laurel Glen Drive, referred to his letter
dated July 31, 1984, which was on' file in the City Clerk's
office, concerning problems with. the owner and contractor of
the building under construction next door to him, where the
City allowed grading of loose fi l l . When it rained, water
would damage under his house, his landscaping and driveway,
and despite assurances to the contrary from the City, the
owner did not i ntend to i nstal l downspouts or other means to
pipe water from his driveway. The house was 2,000 square
feet, and collected 1,503 gallons of water per inch of rain.
That might cause tremendous erosion, destroy his property and
make it unsal able. The City should requi re the owner to im-
medi ately remedy the threat si nce the Sri nter storms would soon
commence. He discussed the matter with the Citymany times to
try to avoid litigation after the damage. He appeal ed to the
Council for help.
MINUTES OF JUNE 19, 1984
MOTION: Councila+ember Sutorius moved, seconded by Fletcher,
approval of the cat nutes of June 19, 1984, as submitted.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
MINUTES OF JUNE 25. 1984
Mayor Klein had the following corrections:
Page 4712, first paragraph under Item #6, line 6, add the words
TZ
next week" after the word "agenda." Line 7, add the word "sole-
ly" between the wards "be" and "on."
Second to last paragraph on page, last 1 i ne, substitute "for" for
"or"
Page 4721, paragraph 7, line 5, should read "...the budget, Coun-
I KeiL prejudging what it might do. Next..."
Page 4724, paragraph 7, first and second sentence should read
"! y6r rr ei n said Mr. Diaz' argument actually favored one of the
other propositions. There was a big difference between the two
approaches."
NOT/ON Vice Naylor Levy moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approv
el of the minutes of June 25, 1984, as corrected.
NOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #1, RESOLUTION WELCOMING REPRESENTATIVES OF OAXACA, OAXACA,
Nay -or K1efk,welcomed students from Oaxaca. who were staying with
host families in Palo Alto.
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the
resolution welcoming representatives of Palo Alto's Sister City,
Oaxaca.
RESOLUTION 6292 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
iMt GIT* Ut rACO ALTO RECOGNIZING THE PRESENCE OF, AND
_WELCOMING TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO REPRESENTATIVES OF
OAXACA, OAXACA, MEXICO"
Councilmember Woolley said a student from Oaxaca stayed with her
family . She added that the goal of the program to establish
friendship and increase cultural understanding was met.
Mayor SCI el n welcomed representatives of Oaxaca. The cultural
exchange from people -to -people communication was the foundation of
the Sister City program to further international understanding.
Oaxaca honored Palo Alto by sending its representatives, Apolo B.
Martinez, Gabriel a Y. Hernandez, Jorge A.I. Sol ands, Maria L.I.
Ochoa, Oscar Y. Hernandez, Ignacio F.S. Gutierrez, Luz D.H. Leyva,
Carlos E.W. Bermudez, A-dri ana M.D. Carbal1ido, Rebeca Y. Fabil a,
Nancy R. Bennett, Jorge L.R. Martinez, Sara G. Felguerez, Iris
L. 1. Wool rich, and Jose R.U. I rigoyen. The cultural exchange
participation exemplified the mutual attempt to promote, encourage
and cultivate understanding between the two communities. The
Council expressed arpreciation to the City of _ O.axaca and its
representatives for their warm and significant contribution to the
Sister City program, and honored and recognized the Student
Exchange program as a vital. element in its perpetuation and con -
ti nuation. Palo Al to students with whom the Oaxacan students were
staying included Jennifer Crow; Lisa Gi rand; Alec MacKenzie;
Mc'issa McCann; Lee Penrose; William Relier; Page Stafford;
Suzanne Strei fer; Li ndsay Thompson; Deborah Tuerk; Brooke van Dyke
and Ch ri stophe r Schaefer. The Mayor presented the students with
the resolution written in English and Spanish, a brochure, and a
flag.
Marie€. Mandell of Neighbors Abroad transi ated Mayor Klei n's
remarks into Spanish.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Klei n removed Item 7, University Avenue Lot J Parki ng Garage
Project, from the Consent Calendar.
MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, approval of
Consent Calendar Items 1 through 6 and 8 through 15.
Councilmember R-enzel asked to be recorded as voting "no" on Item
13, PC Zone Amendment for 700 Welch Road.
Councilmembers Sutorius, Cobb, Witherspoon, and Woolley asked to
be recorded as voting I. nog' .on Item $, Ordinances re Mixed Use
Concept and Ternni nation of Moratorium on Maximart site."
Referral
None
Action
ITEM #2, 1984 STREET RESURFACING (PWK 2-5)(CMR:429:4)
Staff recommends that Council .iithorize the ' Mayor to ,execute a
contract with Piazza Construction Co. in the amount of $968,726.55
including all add alternates; and that staff be authorized to exe-
cute change orders up to $60,000.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Piazza Construction COneny
CONSENT CALENDAR CONTINUED
ITEM #3, ALMA/CHURCHILL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (PWK 2-5)
Staff recommends the Mayor be authorized to execute the agreement
with Sandis & Associates for engineering services in the amount of
$19,500, and that staff be authorized to execute change orders to
the agreement of $3,000.
AGREEMENT
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SERVICES
Sandis & Associates, Inc.
ITEM #4 , CONSTRUCTION OF SECURITY FENCE AT REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
Staff recommends that Council award a contract in the amount of
$53,659 to the low bidder, Silva Fence of Santa Clara, California,
for the construction of the security fence at the RWCQP.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Silva Fence Company
ITEM #5, TERMAN SPORTS FIELDS (PWK 6-2)(CMR:432:4)
Staff recommends the Mayor be authorized to execute a contract
with A.A.S. Landscape Contractor in the amount of $369,555.64
including the base bid and Alternate A for additional landscaping
and fencing and Alternate 9 to eliminate the path from the con-
tract, and that staff be authorized to execute change orders to
the contract of up to $56,000.
AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
A. A. S. Landscape Contractor
ITEM #6, DISPOSAL OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS TRANSFORMERS
Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute the
contract with Excel tech to dispose of eight PCB filled
transformers.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
Excel tech
ITEM #8, ORDINANCES RE MIXED USE CONCEPT AND TERMINATION OF MORA-
ORDINANCE 3551 entitled *ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
0 ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE
PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE ( THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE
ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3200 PARK
BOULEVARD P MAXIMART SITE') FROM CS TO RM-3*. (1st Read-
ing 7/16/84, PASSED 5-4, Cobb, Sutori us, Witherspoon,
Woolley *no')
ORDINANCE 3552 erti tl ed "ORDINANCE OF _ THE COUNCIL OF THE
UT!T wr r'Xtu AL' D TERMINATING THE MORATORIUM OM THE PRO-
CESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR _ PLANNING APPROVALS IN THE
AREA INCLUDING AND SURROUNDING 320 , PARK BOULEVARD (THE
FORMER 'RAXIMART SITE')." (1st Reading 7/16/84, PASSED
5-4, Cobb, Sutorius, Witherspoon, Woolley "no')
4: 8 8 9
ITEM #9f ORDINANCE RE GENERAL BUSINESS SERVICES AND GENERAL
BUSTNL s D1- iCt s IZtadIngl ( .A _3-b )
ORDINANCE 3553 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
lid curl. UV PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 18.57 OF THE PALO
ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (GENERAL MANUFACTURING COMBINING
DISTRICT) REGARDING GENERAL BUSINESS SERVICES AND GEN-
ERAL BUSINESS OFFICES" (lst Reading 6/17/84, PASSED 9-0)
ITEM #10, ORDINANCES RE PARK BOULEVARD GM ZONE AREA (2nd Reading)
41 -
ORDINANCE 3554 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
0 ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE
PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO COANGE THE
ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE GM AREA ON
PARK BOULEVARD FROM GM TO GM(B)" (1st Reading 7/16/84,
PASSED 9.0) (PLA 3-6)
ORDINANCE 3555 entitled '"ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
trrnrrAnnttio TERMINATING THE MORATORIUM ON THE PRO-
CESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTING NEW SQUARE
FOOTAGE IN PORTIONS OF THE GM AREA ON PARK BOULEVARD"
(lst Reading 7/16/84, PASSED 9-0) (PLA 3-16)
ITEM #11, ORDINANCE RE VISUAL ARTS JURY (2nd Reading) (COU 5-7)
ORDINANCE 3556 entitled *ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
ME 'CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 2.18.030 AND
2.18.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
MANNER OF APPOINTMENT AND TERM OF OFFICE OF THE VISUAL
ARTS JURY' (1st Reading 7/23/84, PASSED 9-0)
ITEM #12, ORDINANCE RE GOLF COURSE PARK IMPROVEMENT (2nd Reading)
ORDINANCE 3557 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
(nt . t i 1 ur" ).0 ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS FOR
GOLF COURSE CART PATHS OVER A PORTION OF BYXBEE PARK,
THE CITY -OWNED BATLANDS AND THE MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE"
(1st Reading 7/23/84, PASSED 9-0)
ITEM #13, ORDINANCE RE AMENDING PC ZONE FOR 700 WELCH ROAD (2nd
Ire A rig
ORDINANCE 3558 _entitled 'ORD INANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
It tT ----ot PALO ALTO AMENDING PC ORDINANCE No. 1992
APPLYING TO PROPERTY KNOWN AS 700 WELCH ROAD' (1st Read-
ing 7/23/84, PASSED 8-1, Renzel *no*)
ITEM #14, SIGI4 ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (2nd Reading) (LEG 5-6)
ORDINANCE 3659 entitled °ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
liffr=MALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 16.20 (SIGN
ORDINANCE)* (1st Reeding 7/23/84, PASSED 9-0)
ITEM 015 REVISED HOUSING MITIGATION ORDINANCE (2nd Reading)
Timmm.
ORDINANCE 3660 entitled *ORDINANCE- OF THE COUNCIL OF
immirrrrormo ALTO AMENDING THE . PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL
CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 16.47 REGARDING APPROVAL OF
PROJECTS WITH IMPACTS ON HOUSING" (1St Reeding 7/23/84,
PASSED 9-0)
4 8 9 0
8/06/84
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobh, Sutorius, Witherspoon, and
Woolley voting " no" on Item 8, re Maximart Site, and Renzel voting
"no" on Item X13, eC zone amendment for 700 Welch Road.
AGENDA CHANGES. ADDITIONS AND _DELETIONS
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to bring forward
Item 21, Evergreen Park Traffic Study.
Councilmember Fletcher suggested Item 17, re 907-911 Cowper, also
be brought forward.
Councilmember Witherspoon suggested a time limit be set for the
Evergreen Park item.
Mayor Klein agreed that discussion should not be allowed to con -
ti nue past 11:30 p.m.
City Manager Bill Zaner recommended that Item #7, Lot +i Parking
Garage, become Item 19-A, The consultants and staff would remain
if necessary, but if the matter could be handled quickly, he asked
that it be disposed of early to allow staff and consultants to
leave.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Witherspoon,
to bring forward Item 19-A (Old Item 7), Lot J Parking Garages to
be followed by Item 21, Evergreen Park Traffic Study.
Councilmember Bechtel said if it was possible to got to Item 21 by
8:30 p.m., she believed it was more fair to stay with the noticed
agenda since other item; could be continued.
Mayor Klein said two persons wanted to speak an Item 17, 907-911
Cowper, and on item 19-A (old Item 7), Lot J. No times were set
on the agenda, And no one was being misled. He was concerned
about accommodating the greatest number.
Councilmember Sutorius supported Councilmember Bechtel All items
were entitled to the same consideration.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: "nu'cilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by
Fletcher, to hear 1ter _ a -A (old Item 7), 17, 20, and 21 in that
order.
Counclimember Bechtel preferred to stay with the agenda and reach
Item 21 by 8:30, but supported the motion.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #19-A (OLD ITEM 7)
UNIVERSITY AVENUE LOT J PARKING GARAGE
Mayor Klein said the bid was under the .engi neer's estimate, but
only one additional option was chosen. He asked why the other op-
tions were not considered as it was still under the estimate.
Directo of Public Hocks- Uavid,Adams said the other options would
have reduced the price by changes in some specifications. The op-
tion chosen added to the price but provided an extra benefit.
Financial Planning Admi nistrator Gordon Ford said the bids were
opened at 11:00 a.m. ' Monday, August 6, 1984, at the office of.
Rauscher Pierce Refines, _ Inc. and were before the Council.
Merrill Lynch submitted the winning bid at the rate of 9.2315 per-
cent. Bids were received at higher rates from Smith Barney, E.
F. Hutton, Paine !,:ebber, and Stone & Youngberg, and were favorable
bids compared to the indexes. The City took advantage of the
improved market and obtained insurance, and was rated AAA by
4 8 .9 1
8/06/84_.
Standard and Poor's Corporation. It was a strong security leading
to strong bids. Staff was pleased with the bid, and recommended
it be accepted by Council.
Vice Mayor Levy asked if the 9.2315 percent included insurance.
Mr. Ford, said yes.
Mayor Klein said the May 17, 1984 Notice of Public Hearing on the
bonds i ncluded an estimated assessment for each parcel based on an
annual bond service cost of $776,000 at 12 percent interest. With
an interest rate of 9.2315 percent, the average assessment would
be approximately $600,000 annually, or 77 percent of the prelimi-
nary assessments.
Stephan Dahl, 546 Ramona Street, opposed basing the assessments on
square footage because of the different parking needs. He showed
a di ag ram of two adj acent identically sized lots, one needi ng 18
spaces, the otter 26, which would pay the same assessment, even
though one contributed 50 percent more to the parking problem. He
suggested the assessment be based or; parking need. The bond would
be paid off over 20 years, and any inequity would continue for
that time and set a precedent for future bond issues for parking
needs. It would be difficult for the Council to later sodtch to
assessing according to need, and he urged Council to reconsider
the assessment method. People should pay for parki ng use --not
square footage.
Bil 1 Syxbee, 27 Don Court, Redwood City, said most property owners
in the downtown accepted the assessment although some did not. like
its spread. The project was fi rst proposed 5.5 years earlier, and
started to move 3.3 years ago primarily due to C.ouncilmember
Bechtel. The Council's patience was appreciated: they were ready
to start, and work would hopefully commence immedi ately. He
thanked Ted Noguchi, Edward llgarte, and Bill Zaner for their help
and patience, and urged Council, approval. Changes might be a pos-
sibility, but should not be allowed to affect the bond issue.
MOTION: Councilmember moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval
of the resolution selling $5,430,000 City of Palo Alto University
Avi\nue Lot J Parking Garage Assessment District Bonds of 1984.
RESOLUTION 6293 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
rho GiiT vF VXLO ALTO AWARDING SALE OF BONDS UNIVERSITY
AVENUE LOT J PARKING GARAGE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT°
AGREEMENT
S. K. Brown Construction, Inc.
Councilnaember Witherspooeen confi reed that property owners would be
notified. of .the lower assessment,. She asked staff to comment on
establishing a different formula for assessment which was raised
at at earlier meeting.
City Attorney Plane Lee said the assessment could not be changed
for that bond issue as bids were made with the expectation of that
formula. There was flexibility for changes to , future bond
issues.
Counci lmember iii therspoon suggested the method be researched.
before another bond issue came up.
Ms. Lee agreed.
Vice Mayor Levy commended staff and bond counsel for the excellent
sale of the bonds, the low interest rate, and bids. He did" not
believe the assessment formula was the best possible, but did not
want to change it at that point. They should move ahead, but
consideration should be given to Mr. Dahl's suggestion that the
assessment formula be directly related to the parking need and not
as a functior: of the square footage. The parking assessment now
used was developed before the concept of different - parki rg
requi rements for different uses downtown evolved. Each property
was considered for its use and the parking generated. For the
future, it would not be a hardship to develop assessments based on
parking requirements.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Cobb, that staff
i nvestigate the concept of the assessment formul a for future
assessment districts based on parking requirement needs.
Councilmember Renzel supported the motion, but did not consider it
a simple problem. The assessments would accommodate the proper-
ties in the district for a long time to come, and there was no
di rest correlation time wise between a particul ar current use and
a future more intensive use. There might be more complications
than met the eye.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
Mayor Klein said Items 17 and 20 would not be consolidated but,
given their rel atedness, it was appropri ate to consider them
se ri at'im.
ITEM #17, HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION
LANDMARK iPLA3-I J (CMR:4'18"41 lContinue trod�f 37
Ni na Hatvany, 2838 Union Street, San Francisco, owner of the prop-
erty, urged Council to uphold the Historic Resources Board (HRB)
decision. Although the building was not of great historic merit,
she tried to comply wi th the spirit as well as the 1 etter of the
ordinance by moving the bui 1 di ng onto a suitable lot. They
searched in vain for a suitable lot and advertised the property--
fi rst for $20,000, then for free --to anyone who wanted to move it.
More than 100 callers decided it was not worthwhile. The building
was structurally unsound, had 1 i ttl a architectural merit, and
would be expensive and difficult to move. Few lots were large
enough to accommodate it. They had vacant bui1di ngs, tentative
maps, and were about to receive a construction loan. It would be
unfair to impose any delay as they unsuccessfully attempted to
move the bui idi ng. .
Mike Lee, 164 Hawthorne, said the house at 907-911 Cowper was one
of the oldest, stood as a sentinel on the corner, and was all that
remained of the historical enclave. The prewar history of the
huuse was i nspi rational, and the postwar adds tions were only
tacked on. Photos of the house were shown at a previous meeti ng
when neighbors traumatized by the loss of the Market spoke.
Condominiums were a sad vision of the future.
Jonathan Kitchen, 2838 Union Street, San Francisco, husband of
Ni na Hatvany, said the HRB thoroughly discussed the historic merit
of the house, carefully compared it with the; other houses in the
inventory, and found that it did not match `the standards. He
urged approval of the HRB recommendation.
C6uncilmember Woolley said although the structure might contribute
to the interest of the st reetsc ape, she agreed with the HRB
assessment that it did not qualify for either categories. 1 or
2 --exceptional or meior status.
MOTION: Councilwember Woolley moved, seconded by Witherspoon,
to adopt the Historic Resources Board recommendation that the
building at 907-911 Cowper Street does not possess stfflcient
architectural or historic merit to be considered of exceptional or
major importance and deny the application.
Councilmember Renzel reluctantly supported th.e motion. She could
not second-guess the HRB' s knowledge of the architecture and its
history i n. Palo Alto. She enjoyed seeing the structure on
Charnel ;fig, and would miss it.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #20, 907-911 COWPER FINAL SUBDIVISION! MAP (PLA 3-1)
Mayor Klein said the subdivision map was for the building dis-
cussed in the previous item.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Klein, approval of
the final subdivision map for 907-911 Cowper Street.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #21, EVERGREEN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC STUDY - EVALUATION
Di rector of Planning and Communi ty Envi ronient Ken Schreiber said
there were two objectives. One would allow two-way traffic be-
tween Evergreen Park and the California Avenue area through use of
Park Boulevard or Bi rch Street or a combination of the two. The
second objective was to substantially reduce the amount of
through, commute, or non -neighborhood traffic. The objectives
received considerable analysis over the years, and were found to
be mutually exclusive. Staff 1 ooked at more than 15 alternatives,
but found that traffic could not be substantially reduced if two-
way traffic was allowed. Staff recommended, based on goals and
constraints approved by. the Council in September and October 1983
when the trial was set up, that the tri al plan, with technical
modifications, be installed as a permanent barrier system for the
area.
Vice Mayor Levy asked what traffic count standards were used to
define the different street categories.
Assistant Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel said there were no
fixed standards, and staff followed slightly nodi fi ed guidelines.
In an earlier staff report, the technical boundary between col-
lector and arterial streets was shown as 10,000 vehicles daily,
although i n Palo Alto, it was believed that between 4,500 to 6,000
cars per day constituted a good upper boundary for collector
streets. The Transportation Division believed a daily 800 to
1,000 cars would be suitable for local streets. The standards
were not rigid, .but were staff's interpretation of currentuses i n
Palo Alto.
Mayor Klein said .61 persons wanted to speak, and he called for
brevity, otherwise public testimony would take five hours.
Kay Westrum, 350 Oxford Avenue, referred to her letter dated July
30, .1984, which was on file in the City Clerk's office. They
owned three properties on Oxford Avenue, and applauded the
presence of barriers because of safety for children crossing Park
Boulevard into Piers Park. The barriers had not altered her shop-
ping patterns.
A. J. Ramberg, 1795 Park Avenue, said traffic in Palo Alto in-
creased tremendously over the past 31 year --his son rode a
skateboard. The stoppage of traffic in front of his house had
4 8 9 4
5/06/84
improved things, and Council should consider the encroachment of
cars on homes and children. He saw two wars and wanted peace from
cars. He was hospital i zed by an accident on Alma, and wanted 1 ess
cars i.n town.
Bernice Loeb, 2120 Middlefield Road, objected to the barriers.
She chose to live in Palo Alto because it was a closely knit com-
munity that solved problems commonly. Duri ng the past years sev-
eral communities were severed by barriers. Their reasons were
good, but barriers forced traffic to use other neighbors ng
streets. Everyone wanted traffic reduced, property upgraded, and
to avoid fumes, and barriers were easy, but stopped the search for
valid solutions. They were physically ugly and a sign of a non -
community. She urged the Council to reject barriers and fi nd a
solution to help keep the community whole.
Bill Fitch, 178 Park Boulevard, said the route to El Camino Real
was less circuitous due to the barriers. Be supported keeping
traffic out of neighborhoods, and was astounded peopl a bel i eved
traffic should filter through residential areas.
Sam Sparck, 4099 Laguna, was a commuter, and a resident of a
neighborhood where through traffic was a problem. He Iiked
Peninsula Scientific and believed it should receive separate con-
sideration. It was frustrating to drive through heavy traffic,
but he appreciated the feelings of the neighborhoods, which should
take precedence over the convenience of motorists. He urged
acceptance of the staff report.
Joan Srni th, 4160 Byron, read a statement from Patricia Atkins of
Leland Avenue who asked that the barriers be made permanent. She
was willing to accept the inconvenience to herself because it
helped the people on the other streets,
Deb Burr of Escondido Vi 1 .I age shopped in the California Avenue
district and endorsed the plan because she used a bike. She read
a statement from a resident at 137 Park Avenue who endorsed the
barriers because they allowed her to back out of her driveway.
Martin Eichner, 3944 Park, had a business at 2165 Park Boulevard,
and the barrier on Park Boulevard severely impacted a two block
area where other businesses besides Peninsula Scientific suffered.
Staff figures showed the barrier to be counterproductive. By
blocking off the short piece of Park, traffic was forced down to
El. Camino and back up College, where traffic had doubled. College.
Avenue should be protected; not have to carry double traffic.
Children should be protected and traffic controlled, but not to
the point of d ri vi riq people out of business.
George MacDonald, 2183 Park Boulevard, spoke for aMrs. Strom, 210
College Avenue, whose bedroom was 50 feet from a steel sign that
was knocked\<down every night, and for Mr. & Mrs. Sven Oxford.
They found the burden i ntol erabl e because cars conti nual ly bumped
into the barriers and signs, and screaming police cars chasm
people going the wrong way. During the day they had to drive 10
to 15 blocks to cover two blocks, , and friends had to go through a
maze to reach them. For 30 years they paid for streets they now
could not use to satisfy people who did not have to bear the bur-
den. Barriers could be pl aced at the corner of Park and El Cami no
to eliminate all cars, and staff and the Council could spend a
night at their homes to see what the barriers did. They were
homeowners, not members of pressure groups. Barriers ;were fine,
but as most of the traffic came from Stanford, blocki ng off Pare
and 0. Camino would give peace and quiet.
Pass Marsh, 327 4averley, urged the Council to retain the barriers.
They were effective. She occasionally used California Avenue, and
after initial frustration, she realized she should take either El
Cami no or Alma. Many other people realized that, and traffic
dropped dramatically. The barriers met their goal --the reduction
of through traffic in a residential neighborhood was important.
The Council would be faced with similar quests ores i n the future as
growth and development conti nued i n order to protect neighborhoods
from the destructive side effects. Downtown residents had simil ar
problems. The viability of residential neighborhoods was at
stake, the barriers were an effective coping measure, and should
be retai ned.
John Canyon, 270 Leland Avenue, represented ''Citizens Against
Barriers." He asked members of the audience against barriers to
raise their hands. There were many, but a small percentage of all
who were against them. The barriers were successful in reducing.
traffic on some streets by pushing it onto others. They had a
negative effect on buss nesses, specifically the Co-op market,
which lost six percent of its business. Supermarkets were compe-
titive, and barrier proponents should consider what a blow it
would be, particularly for senior citizens, if the Co-op were
lost. It was asking too much to have to drive via El Camino to
shop on Cal i forni a Avenue. The Fire Department was strongly
against barriers, which caused over $3,000 damage to their vehi-
cles. Barriers were an impediment to all emergency vehicles, and
would be a tragedy if there were a major catastrophe such as an
earthquake. One objectionable aspect was the one-way street on
Park, which should be reversed. The Supreme Court ruled barriers
illegal because streets were public thoroughfares paid for by the
taxpayers and for their use. At least a two-thi rds majority
should be required in favor of barriers. He lived in Evergreen
Park for 20 years, and was never bothered by the traffic. It was,
in the mai n, a qui et residents al neighborhood, and si nce much time
was al ready wasted, he urged removal of the barriers,
Kevin Gross, 354 Leland Avenue, was impressed by the quiet neigh-
borhood when he moved in a few weeks ago, although the barriers,
particul ar-ly the one on Park, made it a pai n to get to the stores,
His family enjoyed the non -traffic, and endorsed placing a barrier
at the other end of Park.
Greg £ananian, 391A College Avenue, favored the barriers. They
were a good idea, as Evergreen Park was now a quiet neighborhood.
Those who favored the barriers' removal should move to San Jose to
get all the traffic they wanted.
William Carillon, 2053 Park Boulevard, said the barriers increased
the noise in front of his house. The traffic flow changed as had
his driving pattern. He used Sedro instead of El Cami no as it was
easier, and drove half a mile to cover half a block. Two-way
access to the neighborhood was a minimum requirement. Maximum -
amounts of traffic were not reached on Park Boulevard or local
streets. The mi n#mum requi r°ementwas the removal of the barricade
and rest ri c to r, but the best would be to do away with al 1 .
John Sl atterly lived at 352 Stanford Avenue for 35 years. He
attended many meetings and believed the purpose of the barriers
was achieved. Evergreen Park was .still a fine, pl ace because of
them. There were many representations for small businesses, but
the Council should give weight to the experts in the Traffic Divi-
sion who designed the system. The system was successful, and he
hoped it would stay.
Kristi Elliott, 302 College read a letter from a resident of
College and. IA rch who said the annoyance ,from the Keystone patrons
late at night.; was substantially reduced' by the barricade. She.
resisted the barriers at first because they represented change.
4 8 9 6
8/06/84
Robert Howard, 3340 College Avenue, opposed the barriers because
he had to go half a mile out of his way each day. It was immoral
to blockade oneself, and use passage through the streets of
others, and barriers created more fumes. The Palo Alto Weekly
said the change in speed on Park Avenue was insignificant a Id
traffic on College, one of the more dense streets in the area,
i nc r€ased. He now shopped i n Mountain View.
Tom S1owik, 374 Stanford Avenue, lived i n Evergreen Park for 15
years. He was .a gardner, adjusted to the barriers, and believed
they were the - best thing that ever happened. He was priud of the
town, and looked forward to its exciting future. His motivation
was for his family, their safety and that ofolder people..
Andrea Lenox, 396 Stanford Avenue, supported the staff recommenda-
tion, and said the trial period returned the quality of life in
Evergreen Park to that of a residential neighborhood, al though
some neighbors felt inconvenienced and threatened. Neither pol ice
nor paramedics reported del ays i n ac':ess, and al though Fi re
Department trucks were damaged, they were not delayed. Barrier
modifications could prevent vehicular damage, and the slight
increase in driving time was a small price to pay for increased
property value, and safety for the homes, children, and pets.' The
traffic plan would ensure stability.
Ted Thompson, 410 Cambridge Avenue, said staff did not study the
whole area and did not use the consultants. Traffic counts were
omited on Sedro Lane, California Avenue, El Cami no Real ,
Cambridge, and Park, and there were no traffic controls at
Cambridge and Park where there were several accidents. The future
stop at Cambridge and El Camino was ambiguous, and slow negotia-
tions with Cal trans might mean as much as a 10 -year delay. The
cost of the .i i ght was not nenti oned, and solutions to block
College Avenue to the north and remove the Bi rch/Cambridge barrier
were not explored, Sedro Lane alley was heavily used and com-
pounded the density problems on College, and had the same rights
as the Evergreen Neighborhood Association. The situation should
be explored in conjunction with the California Avenue District.
The Council cooperated with Evergreen Park --the area was downz.:aed
and , could not be expanded, and an attempt to retai n retail was
made. Fie requested a further study to explore other possibili-
ties.
Nancy Holmes, 843 Moana Court, owned/managed Peni rsul a Scienti fic,
and was a 23 -year Palo Alto resident. She said the City responded
to its citizens and was 'a leader in environmental issues. She
championed the City's fight to protect the Bayl ands and the Open
Space decision. She was not opposed to all barriers as the neigh-
borhood had parking problems that would i norease with continuing
development. The dollars or index of gross sales figures in the
report were meaningless, and she requested a management consultant
specs al i xi ng 1 n small business to interpret the figures submitted.
The winter and spring of 1982 were not as successful as those of
1983 because of rain and the recession, whereas -Christmas 1984 was
to bethe best i n four years. Three weeks after the barriers were
installed in February 1984, she went before the Council °in dis-
tress. Since then almost all optics went up, and had to raise
figures, which made the gross sales look good. She resented the
one-way street on Park Boulevard, and the predictions that "people
would yet used to it haunted her as she listened to customers'
complaints. Most of her customers were long-term, and people who
called ahead were told how to get', to the store. It was a danger-
ous one-way street and shortening and widening It would make it
worse, but the situation might calm down if police cited more
wrong -way drivers. Council should consider moving the one-way
street to Oxford and Park Boulevard, and give thought to making
College Avenue safer. The plan could be adopted with the trial
extended for that i ntersection. Peninsula Scientific was there
for 24 years, and she wanted to restore its friendly atmosphere.
Sally As3111driri, 759 Middlefield Rudd, f requeiitiy biked tu the dr=en
and favored the barriers, and shopped by car at the Co-op, there
was a precedent for barriers in the College Avenue area, and
people 1 earned to not go down streets with no exit, and some
learned to use their bi cycl es. The pl an could resul t 1 n an over-
all improvement in Everg reen Park.
Jayne March, 837 Tolman, worked at Peninsula Conservation Center
(PCC) . News media was mi sl eadl ng because instead of raising more
revenue for thei r nonprofit organization, the PCC raised less des-
pite increased sales prices. She read a letter from the PCC that
the one block one-way section was i n front of the PCC, that input
was given on the plan, and Council was informed of the i nconven-
ience to citizens coming to the PCC for its brown bag series, etc.
The PCC was assured the barriers were only a trial, but sentiment
said they should stay. He requested the barrier in front of the
PCC be moved and pl aced i n front of houses.
Marjorie Reddick, 1610 Portola Avenue, spoke many years ago about
closing Park Boulevard, and the then mayor said although he made
his decision, he would listen to public statements. The current
Council, was essentially the same, but the earlier Council did not
pay attention to public opinion, and if the present Council did
not listen carefully, it was not a representative body.
Steve Long, 532 Colorado Avenue, previously used Park Boulevard as
a short cut, but changed his commute pattern. It was a small
price to pay to create a safe, quiet, stable neighborhood.
Jim Gorman, Park Boulevard south of Evergreen Park, worked on
California Avenue. He used Park Boul evard as a short cut, and hi s
friends on College Avenue supported the barriers. Despite some
i.nconvenlence to visit his friends, he was not deterred.
Mary Ellen Foley, 254 College Avenue, said if the area flooded,
the solution would not be to scoop up water from some streets eo
pour on others. An uncontested effect of barriers was to remove
traffic from some streets and put it on others, which was unfair
and not a solution. The neighborhood was quiet and driving
instructors brought learners there to practice. People who lived
on streets where traffic increa'ed also wanted peace from cars.
Traffic grew a :erywhere, and to encourage the use of bicycles, the
public should be educated accordingly-- not block off streets. A
neighborhood was a public thoroughfare and could be used as a
shortcut. The barriers were tried and did not work.
Stephen Avis worked at 164 California Avenue and spoke for the\
California Avenue Area Development ,Assocation (CAADA). Traffic
was moved from one road to another and increased on Cambridge
Avenue from 4,800 cars per day to 8,000. Sedro Lane showed an.
additional 800 cars up Cambridge Avenue, •which were not included
because the count was between Sedro Cane and El Camino Real.
Cambridge Avenue now surpassed a collector' street .for Palo Alto,
and circulation was a problem. for busi nesse.s. The business dis-
trict wanted less traffic, and more cars were forced onto
Cambridge and California Avenues with little regard to pedestrian
safety, congestion, and shoppers. Building. limits were imposed
after three major construction projects started which would cause
future probl ems. It was unfair •to move traffic froar a collector
street like Park Boulevard to narrower streets such as Cambridge,
which had equal pedestrians, the Social Security office, and other
businesses on both sides where parking was available. People had
to face problem;, associated with rapid growth in an area not
designed for it, and residents and businesses could not ignore
each other. Restricting traffic through Evergreen Park was fine,
but isolating an unwilling neighbor was improper. Birch could be
closed to curtail commuter traffic, but closing northbound . Park
Boulevard traffic was unacceptable. The increased traffic should
be shared, and an attempt mode to reduce traffic in the enti re
area. The program should be modified and a new trial conducted.
1
KU: SS FROM 9:35 p.m. TO 9:50 p.m,
Dr. Janet Weiss, 517 19th Avenue, San Francisco, a pathologist at
the Johns Hopki ns Hospital and former Palo Al tan, supported traf-
fic control in neighborhoods. The danger to children and senior
citizens was unnecessary, and small adjustments were a small price
to pay for the advantages.
Loi s Johnson, 230 Sequoi a Avenue, said traffic barriers were a
City-wide problem of being isol ated and ghettoized. Barriers bred
barriers, and if Palo Alto was to function as a City, it had to
remai n united. She called for removal of all barriers.
Paul Garrett, 890 California Avenue, said there were no barriers,
but many cars where he lived. Twice a day he walked through
College Terrace, and saw the benefits of barriers. The broader
phi 1 osophi cal issue needed to be addressed as the City was swamped
with cars.
Carey Heckman, 186 Park Avenue, said traffic barriers made good
neighborhoods just as fences made good neighbors. A good neigh-
borhood meant bei ng able to cross the street safely, children
playing in their front yards, and a minimum of quiet and tran-
quil ity. Heavy traffic separated a neighborhood, and had to be
corrected by barriers and additional measures to reduce excessive
speedi ng on Park Boul evard.
Jim Beckett, 1883 Park Boulevard, favored the barriers on Park
Boulevard. It made for i nc reared traffic on College Terrace, but
the benefits in protecting the residential neighborhood far out-
weighed the inconvenience. He was not anti -California Avenue nor
anti -construction. He was in construction, and contended with a
lot of noise during the day. He appreciated goi ng home to a quiet
neighborhood, and barriers improved the situation. The one-way on
Park Boul evard could be totally blocked.
Dennis Briski n, 925 Waverley Street, said barriers were inconve-
nient, but taught people not to drive through a neighborhood. He
supported barriers, despite personal inconvenience because the
people were divided. Palo Al to was a community, and a gain for a
neighborhood was a gain for the community.
Jean Ramacciotti, 959 Waverley Street, supported the barriers
because remaining peacefulness in Palo Alto should be preserved.
She shopped on California Avenue and did not notice the barriers
because she used the main streets. No one said they did not want
tie go there because of the barriers, and the residents should have
their peace and safety.
Karen Olsen, 121 Park Avenue, lived next to a barrier. The system
helped tremendously. She called the paramedics 1 ate at night, and
emergency vehicles had no problems with barriers.
Ann Masi k, a 33 -year resident of 264 Oxford Avenue, said some
Evergreen Park residents were not speaking to each other. She
supported the trial period and was glad they had it, but it was an
obstacle. course for those diving within the confi nes. Sedro Lane
was a hazard for the pupil s at the Montessori School ,, and she
believed some barriers could be placed more sensibly because to
people driving in to fast from El Camino, some were invisible.
The trial period should be conti nued or all barriers removed and
the stop suns left. A new plan might be devised with more one-
way streets.
Erica Prince, 302 College Avenue, favored the closures, especially
the one on Birch Street. Life was more pleasant on quiet streets,
and neighborhoods were being redesig>ned in Palo Alto and every-
where to reduce traffic. Automobile drivers did not pay the full
cost of their . pollution, and by using., neighborhood streets, the
lack of infrastructure was hidden. BuW;l di ng ; appeared profitable
4 8 9 9
8/06/84
because it was subsidized by residents who paid the hidden costs.
Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan spoke of protecting its citizens,
and quiet neighborhoods were -more stable, needed less public ser-
vices, streets lasted longer, properties were better maintained,
tax revenues were higher relative to services, and people were
interested in community affairs. Evergreen Park was subdivided
early l n the century as a shortcut to avoid busier roads. Before
the barriers, there was 75 percent through traffic, which could.
double in ten years when remedies would be harder to fi nd. She
presented 300 petitions, mostly from residents, and 38 proxy
statements.
Audrey Poulter, 1731 Park Boulevard, supported the staff recom-
mendation. There were three accidents at the Park Boulevard curve
near the C<astilleja barrier and a "Slow curve" sign was requested.
if Park Boulevard or Birch were opened to two-way traffic, the
goals would not be met and all barriers could be removed. She
requested the barriers remain as is.
Elyse Muse n, 211 College, said many opponents of the barriers made
suggests ons, but because people disobeyed signs was no reason to
back down. One 1 ady was hit by a person backing his vehicle from
a barrier, and such intimidation should not be cause to remove.
barriers. She saw only one crime report for the area, and the
Fire Department would approve the barriers with modifications.
Park Boulevard was the most abused road, and the system should be
made as cumbersome el possible.
Daniel Bartsch, 302 College Avenue, said the plan was reasonable.
Such measures i n other cities made them livable. Streets needed
to be designed for specialized use, and it was neither economical
nor safe to allow commuter traffic on thinly paved, light duty
neighborhood streets. Grid patterns were rarely used, and the
opportunity to design should be grasped as i n other cities.
Rose Bernet, l 545 Alm - - staff
e
bJt'J 1112111k Street, said the 3t �f1 report did not men-
tion the feelings of visitors to the Senior Center nor those of
churchgoers. She lived in the City for 33 years, and older people
had an established pattern. The barriers made it necessary to
make two 1 efthand turns on El Cari no i nstead of usi ng Bi rch
Street: Many people i n her area requested the barriers be
removed. Piers Park was their closest park, but from California
Avenue they had to go via El Camino Real to get to it, creati ng
more traffic< Sedro Lane was only an alley, too narrow for two-
way traffic, and . had no gutters. She referred to the appeal
pri nted i n the newspaperR that eveni ng.
Joe Koep ni ck, 2031 Park Boulevard, supported the pl an.
Nigel Ray, 983 Lawrence Avenue, commuted through the area and
shopped at the Co-op. The barrier at Bi rch had not inconvenienced
him, and he was surprised the PCC did not support the barriers.
He . reached Peninsula Sclenti fic by bicycle, which was the sanest
way to travel, and the barriers reduced traffic and made it safer
for bicyclists.
Carol Kersten would soon live at 376 College Avenue, and repre-
sented, the owners of the building for 14 years. They 'requested
removal of the barriers on B1 rch and Park to provide access to
California Avenue. Before the barriers there was little problem
with traffic or crime, and with more traffic, the .barriers wasted
'time and gas, and increased frustration end danger. Traveling
south on El Camino meant either a dangerous left turn on El Camino
or, a ci rcuitaus.. route not to mention the _difficulty for emergency
vehicles. The barriers confiscated some benefits especially for
older people who now had a 1 ong. drive to the market.. The result
wasmincingthe neighborhood half a mile away and a major thorough-
fare placed between it and the shops, and bottleneck traffic on El
Cami no.
4 9 0 0
8/06/84
Paul Deutschman, 847 Moana Court, used Cal i forni a Avenue shops and
facilities. The three buildings now going up would have tremen-
dous impact on the neighborhood, and if a major outflow path from
them was restricted, traffic would be forced onto Cambridge or
California and create a hazard for pedestrians. When the office
buildings and condominiums were occupied they would cause a big
problem, and the logical artery for the flow was Park Boulevard,
which had access to El Camino.
Geoff Thompson, 416 Oxford,. lived in Evergreen Park for 12 years.
Downtown Palo Alto converted from a local service area to a re-
gional banking center and office complex. Retail was lost and
moved to California Avenue, and for many years Council was asked
to restrict development on California Avenue to prevent it from
becoming like downtown. Additional office space could not be
tolerated by adjacent neighborhoods, and since Council neglected
to enact a moratorium, the neighborhood asked for barriers. The
tardy moratorium al'iowed three major office buildings, and it was
unreasonabl e to remove the barriers before their impact was seen.
Susan Wolfe, 220 College Avenue, objected to the barriers at Bi rch
and Park preventing ingress from California Avenue into Evergreen
Park. It was important to protect the integrity of neighborhoods,,
but the real b= - .��ri --
- - v z=:.. �,,;w„u�� � �� were California Avenue to the south and
Park Avenue to the north, and the barriers chopped it in half.
She frequently walked or biked, but many people di l _ not have those
options. The barriers significantly affected he., buying habits
and did not significantly reduce traffic. Stop signs would reduce
and slow traffic, and present an interesting neighborhood.
Louise Ritzmann, 2091 Park Boulevard, favored the barriers because
they improved the situation for her. It was i nconvenient, but
better than the noise and speeds ng. Church members were_ concerned
about the unsafe condition of Sedro Lane, and she suggested it be
upgraded. The church was mai my used in non -rush hour conditions,
so members did not see it at problem hours.
Ralph De Yoe, 2.20 College Avenue, opposed the barriers because the
neighborhood was not safer, more convenient, or quieter. He com-
muted on Oregon Expressway, exiting at Birch, and from there to
College was the most dangerous part of his 30 -mile commute. He
jogged for five years on Park, and never noticed much traffic. He
no 1 onger shopped at the; Co-op because of the inconvenience. Page
13 of the survey said most people were opposed to the barriers;
but staff combined those in favor with those who were in favor
'only if," and called them all "i n favor." He voted "only if" the
Birch and Park barriers were removed. The report showed 69 per-
cent of the residents, 90 percent of ttie commercial property own-
ers, and 74 percent of the property owners described the barriers
not acceptable" --an average of 63 percent. He did not understand
the deduction that most wanted the barriers. It was a devisive
issue, and the questionnai re should have been more clearly worded.
The report was written on July 26, although he received his ballot
postmarked July 24 on July 27.
Jahn Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, previously lived i n Berkeley, where
a similar situation occurred. B'areiers became a nuisance and were
mostly: removed or Made into chokers, and it was now easier to get
around. i n Berkeley.. One community asked for a collector street to .
be made one-way, but there- had to be _a good reason for it. People`
rho bought or rented -there were aware of the traffic situation;
and it -was unfair to afterwards -ask- that the situc'_tion be changed.
There was' no substantial impact on the commercial area, with the
exception of the Co-op,, and it was different for,Peni-nsula Scien-
tific and the Peninsula Conserv-ati.on Center. - The whole idea of
barriers was =wrong. Residents -al streets were used because El
Camino and Page, Mill Road were too congested, and .the new signal.
at Cambridge and new high-rises would worsen the situation. The
main streets should be improved —they were "the .problem
Jeff Ziinan, 1444 Pitman Avenue, said his office averi ooked the
Park Boulevard barrier, whic; was extremely dangerous, and people
often ignored it. Many arguments applied equally well to other
areas of Palo Alto including Channi ng Avenue th rough Crescent
Park, but such arguments could not be sustained on a City-wide
basis.
Ron Mason, 2161 Park Boulevard, said the office connplexes on Park
now used the roads with multiplex housing. He proposed that the
Park Boulevard barrier be placed closer to the park or in the
residential area to protect residents from clients using College
than had 20 multiplex dwell i ngs with children pl ayi ng out i n
frant, not in the commercial section. The American way was to
protect all, not just those who owned houses.
Brian Keast, 255 College Avenue, said if he owned a .cruise missile
he would have used it on the barriers by now. He could only
afford a poorly located house and accepted its deficiencies.
Residents with only medium traffic to contend with should be
satisfied and not push the traffic onto others. He was a keen
bicyclist, but cars were a necessity, Roads should not be closed
to taxpayers.
Henry Pasternack, 334C College Avenue, said barrier proponents
were generally younger and more mobile. The elderly, who remem-
bered Palo Alto as it was, were the majority and opposed the bar-
riers. A daily 10,000 cars spread overall the neighborhood meant
one car per3.6 seconds, which was not dense. Streets were not
parks, and sentimental arguments should not overwhelm rational
ones. The turnout supported the argument that barriers were a
detriment.
Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, said her neighborhood had
Barriers for 12 years. Barriers were a Palo Alto tradition to
support community safety. Previously, children wa1ki ng across the
street were hit by speeding cars. If Park were not one-way, it
would become a major commuter path, and she supported the staff
recommendation. The inconvenience of a few drivers was balanced
against the lives of children.
Ellis Jacobs owned the building at 437 Cambridge for over 30 years
and urged further study for another solution. Busi ness for his
three commercial tenants drastically decreased because the
increase in traffic on Cambridge made access to his building dif-
ficult. The loss of 14 parking spaces to barriers cost approxi-
mately $20,000, which the parki ng district had to pay. He read a
letter front seven tenants of 432 College protesting the increased
traffic and requesting another more equitable solution. Thei r
children were just as precious and worthy of protection.
Marilyn Mayo, 401 Oxford, supported the staff recorame ndati on. The
process was five years in the making, and staff explained why
alternatives might not work. Barriers decreased traffic, and
business was not overly affected. If the Council reneged, they
were saying residential areas would not be preserved --the whole
plan should be app roved.
Mayor Kiel n _:suggested that after the 18 remaining speakers, Item
21 be conti nued to all ow comps etion of item 16, Los Altos
Treatment Pl ant Acquisition; rtern 18, Report f rom Council
Legislative Committees and Item 19, California Avenue Parking
District Ad Val orem Assessment Rate.
Counciimeraber Renzel was reluctant to debate Item 21- at midnight,
but recognized much of the audience wanted to see the item
concluded,.
Mark Musen, 211 College Avenue, believed the staff' report set all
the Council's criteria, through traffic was significantly reduced,
businesses not significantly affected, and .residents were happy.
4 9 0 2
8/06/84
The i ncreased traffic on College was coiitpenseted by the reducti on
on Park Boulevard. The plan showed the Council's commitment to
improve residential life, and decisions should not be made based
on petitions or people in attendance. The plan should be per-
manent.
David Howard 1 ived at 346 College for 'four years, but was II ever
bothered by traffic. He was now inconvenienced daily by the Bi rch
Street barrier, and his dentist on Birch might move because there
was no parking for clients. Local businesses complained of up to
a ten percent drop in business. Barriers damaged the desirable
retail, and the new building was having trouble filling its retail
shops so there would be more banks, etc., and he no longer. used
the local, gas station. All barriers and extra stop signs should
be removed.
Richard Lyon, 2130 Middlefield Road, previously lived on College
where he worked, and that part of Evergreen Park picked up the
extra traffic and significantly deteriorated while the quality of
life around Park Avenue improved. The elderly population was shut
off by the barriers because they could no longer use the rela-
tively safe routes to California Avenue, and Sedro Lane had become
a major thoroughfare with a dangerous entrance from ` El Camino.
College was also a part of the neighborhood, and many visitors to
the area were church -goers. The senior citizens using the church
during the week complained, and those who used to abuse Park now
abused College. It did not make sense to pl ace the onus of traf-
fic on a different part of the neighborhood, and protecti ng child-
ren on Park meant endangeri ng the elderly on College. The strong
opposition showed that barriers did not solve the problem.. New
solutions were needed to preserve the quality of life for all, and
he asked that the barrier on Bi rch be removed.
George McDonald, 2183 Park Boulevard, said Council was aware of
his feelings about the harriers at Park and College.
Mil l ie Davis, 344 Tennessee Lane, shopped ana visited i n Evergreen
Park. The greatest good to the greatest number was achieved by
traffic barriers to keep through traffic on El Camino and Alma.
To help the smal l businesses, the barrier on Park should be moved
a block north, and College and Park Boulevard could be closed.
Hans Sorensen, 360 Lel and Avenue, said his circuitous route to get
gas included eight blocks, three stops signs and two traffic sig-
nal s i nstead of one block and one stop sign. Through traffic
could be hindered by residents pl ayi ng street football or frisbee.
Cars went over the barriers, which were no solution.
Mac Larsen, President, Palo Alto Co-op., 164 California .Avenue;
presented testimonial letters, which were on file in the City
Clerk's office. The Co-op was sympathetic to traffic levels and
accepted most staff proposals.. Experience showed the barriers
significantly harmed their busi ness, which also harmed Evergreen
Park residents. The goals of the plan were not met because retail
was damaged. From February through July, Co-op sales averaged
$10,000 less per week than i n the previous year, with the customer
count dropping by' 700 per week, Staff atentioned a decline the
previous year, but that drop was $4,500 and 60 customers, The
latest loss was seil ous, and the staff report implied the loss was
due to the new generic.: food store. That store's volume had in-
creased at the same time the Co-op volume increased, volume
the .seri-
ous potential costs of;. the barriers indicated a further study was
necessary. Some residents spoke of the adverse effects the bar-
riers had on them, and two supermarkets were lost -earlier from
California Avenue. With continuing obstacles to retail, Evergreen_
Park would, , like the downtown, _be ,without markets.`' He suggested
the barriers at Park and College be removed as Park was _designed
to carry ::„substantially more traffic . than;, it ; _did. Otherwise.
remove the barriers' on 81 _reb. He requested further trials.
Corinne Powell, 381 Oxford, congratulated City staff who ;night be
the only remai ni ng objective peopl e. She supported thei r recom-
mendations to retain a barrier system to protect Evergreen Park.
Dave Swartz, 237 Stanford Avenue, said he was a resident for 28
years, and was proud of the neighborhood and opposed barriers, but
not divider islands and stop signs. He asked for return of the
short, safe, and convenient access to the local shopping area.
David Schrora, 302 College Avenue, presented an overlay showing the
areas where proponents and opponents of the plan lived. Of the
380 units, 150 opposed the barriers or did not care, while 230
units were supporters. Of the approximately 100 adults present,
37 opposed the system and 65 approved. Council suggested an
Evergreen Park Associ ation be formed to fi nd acceptable solutions,
and many objected to the plan through ignorance. Improving El
Cami no was suggested, but was untenable, and residents should fi nd
a mutual accommodation. if Council attempted to redraw a plan
resulting from many years' work, conflict would be encouraged and
attempts to improve neighborhoods would be discouraged.
Anne Ercolani, 2040 Ash, Chair of the Evergreen Park Neighborhood
Association, said the trial pl an was imperfect, but a reasonable
compromise. Opening Birch at College would resolve one problem
but create another. She complimented staff on a thorough report
which met the c ri terl a set. Since the compromise satisfied some
requi rements of all , she asked that it be made permanent.
Michael Skuce, 190 Park Avenue, was a businessman in Palo Alto
with a 22 -month old child. The program encouraged him to remain
in Evergreen Park and rai se his child there. He thanked the Coun-
cil and staff for helping the residents.
Rob Savoie, 2150 Bi rch, supported the pl an, but favored a stronger
method to prevent traffic through the neighborhood. His environ-
ment had improved, and Council should adopt the staff recommenda-
tions.
Joe Ercolani, 2040 Ash, said the busi ness district waT accessible
from both north and south, and only traffic ...eg ressi ng was dis-
rupted. IN;reased traffic on Cambridge did rot justify opening
streets to let traffic go through the neighborhood, and the staff
report discussed the reported extra traffic on Cambridge. For
five years, the Neighborhood Association dealt with issues of the
Grecian Health Spa, the Cal i forrii a Avenue study, the Maximart find
the Week's property, and the subject issue took five Council and
one Policy & Procedures meeti ngs where barrier opponents were not
present. He hoped opponents became i nvolved in the community
because they might side with the Association if they learned about
the issues. A decision should be made that eveni ng.
Jeff Hook, 302 College, said the combined revenues of Palo Alto
Produce and the Generic Store, both new, .exceeded the Co-op's
loss. The Co-op also had problems in Sunnyvale, Menlo Park, and
Berkeley. The Park Soul evard residents were happy_ tohave their
street more residential , and he wi shed opponents had attended
earlier meetings concerning growth in the neighborhood. Barriers
did not cause problems, but responded.; to increased congestion.
The jobs/housi rag imbalance .was outrageous, and the town had grown,
especially the daytime population, due to Council, policy. Five
years of hard work should not be smashed at the last minute.
Ron Sutton, 384 Stanford, spoke as a senior citizen who favored
completely closing Park Bout ev-ard, and whose resolve to el imi nate
through traffic in Evergreen Park had increased. Excessive
through traffic was the issue. Council said traffic should be
reduced by 30 percent with two constraints, which were met, but
50 percent of traffic still went through, and he adamantly en-
dorsed the existing pl an.
A39
i
1
Howard Burnside, 2211 Park Boulevard, said many older people from
Evergreen Park were unable to attend, and . others al ready left.
Staff had originally not recommended the barriers, but were
di rected to do so for a tri al period. The barriers were imposed
on all by a self-appointed group who spoke for a way of life not
necessarily convenient for their neighbors. The Council should
consider the well-being and convenience of the people in Evergreen
Park and the thousands of residents who did not want the. barriers.
Public programs, plans and agencies once created became immortal,
and measures to isolate Evergreen Park should not be adopted. It
was to have been a trial, and the plan even if modified should not
be installed. The Council should look at the most desirable for
all the neighborhood. The plan would save money, and staff recom-
mended its adoption with some cosmetic changes. The report did
not determine whether there should be barriers or one-way streets.
Over 2,000 people, willing to be identified, opposed the barriers,
and over 200 lived in Evergreen Park. Only 105 cards described
the barriers as "acceptable." The one-way restriction on Park
would cause accidents, and the right to use public streets could
not be removed without cause.
Mayor Klein said the public testimony was concluded, and Mr. Zaner
suggested that the item be continued for one week.
MOTION: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Levy, to continue the
Item #21, Evergreen Park Neighborhood Study, to August 1.3.
Mayor Klein said regardl ess of the i nterest i n reachi ng a
resolution, it was more appropri ate to make rational decisions
calmly, and with due deliberation., which was impossible after
three and a half hours of testimony and at midnight. The fact
that 80 people spoke indicated It was not a simple issue. The
Council would be derelict i n its .duty to the entire community if
i t made an important decision under fatigue.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Sutorius voti ng "no."
Mr. Zaner said the continued item would be discussed immediately
after the Consent Calendar, at approximately 7:45 p.m., on August
13.
ITEM #16, LOS ALTOS TREATMENT PLANT ACQUISITION (INK 6-1)
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel aroved, seconded by Cobb, approval
-of the ordinance amending the budget to establish a reserve for
the refuse transfer site purchase.
ORDINANCE 3561 entitled "'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF
MITT OF vXL0 ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1984-85 TO ESTABLISH A RESERVE FOR REFUSE TRANSFER
SITE PURCHASE AhD. TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS TO THE 1984-85
REFUSE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE ANNUAL TRANSFER SITE
LEASE PAYMENT" (Conti nued from 7/23/84)
Mayor K1 =? n. reminded the Council that a two-thirds vote was
nec ':ssary .tao approve. the ordi nance.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM 018, REPORT
FRuM
COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE (LEG 4-2)
NOTION: . Mayor Al ei m moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt
Co 'c 11 -Legislative Committee recommendations as follows:
1. Support AB 999, pe r. tti ng special elections by moil;
2. Support SB 1717, 1718, and SS 1754 and Ore qualified support
to S 1620 and: AB 469 all of which `relate to after school
child care; and
4 9 0 5
8/06/84-
MOTION CONTINUED
3. Submit to the League of California Cities a proposed resolu-
tion relating to a state-wide water policy.
Counci lmember Witherspoon suggested it might be preferable to vote
on the issues separately si nce some of the bills on the child care
issue conflicted, and some should be allowed to go through commit-
tee before taking a stand. She suggested that Council vote on 1
and 3, but hold off on 2 until the committee had more of a sense
of direction in the legislature. She believed Council diffused
its efforts by writing every week on the issues, and than it
should decide which issues it truiy supported, and go after them.
Mayor Klein considered the five bills as a package, and if they
conflicted, it was a technical problem, not the intention of the
authors.
Councilmenber Witherspoon suggested they be allowed to mature a
little if possible.
Mayor Klein believed Council should take a position at that time,
because the bills would be considered by the legislature that
month, and otherwise Palo Alto's position would not be counted.
Councilnember Renzel heard that day from Sacramento that the
Governor was dropping his plans to pursue the water plan during
the session. It was good news, but she believed Council should go
forward to devel op a consensus on a state-wide water policy.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #19, CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING DISTRICT AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT
lean Apoineommumwmplomminnimimsmir*
MOTION: Councilmea«ber Sutorius moved, seco ided by Cobbs to
adopt the ordinance- for the California Avenue Parting District.
ORDINANCE 3562 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
.. ALTO FIXING AN ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1984-85 FOR THE CALIFORNIA ,: AVENUE DISTRICT OFFSTREET
PARKING PROJECT NO. 55-5'
ORDINANCE 3563 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL. OF THE
L11T ut ?ALO ALTO FIXING AN ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1984-85 FOR THE CALIFORNIA AVENUE DISTRICT OFFSTREET
PARKING PROJECT NO, 60-8"
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 12:05 a.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED1_.„