The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1983-09-09 City Council Summary Minutes1 1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY of 1l_IO Regular Meeting Monday, September ]9 , 1983 I1'LM Oral . Communications Item #1, Resolution Welcoming the Repr'sentatives of Enschede to the City of Palo Alto Consent Calendar Referral Action Item #3, Handicap Ramps c . 4.1 Phase I - P A G E 3 7 6 9 3 7 6 9 3 7 7 0 3 7 7 0 3 7 7 0 3 7 7 U roet.hi 1 l s Park . Erosion. Control Project - 3 7 7 U Item #5, Residential Conservation Program Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions Item #6, Procedural Rules - for City- Council Meetings - Move to End of Agenda item #7, Certificates of Participation for the Civic Center Project 3 1 7 1 3 7 7 1 3 7 7 1 3.7 7 Item #8, Everyree�;..Park Neighborhood Traffic Study 3 7 7 2 item #6, Procedural Rules for City Council Meetings - bring Forward for Continuance 3. 7 9 6 Return to Item #8, Evergreen Park Item #9, Smoking Ordinance Item #9-A, (Old Item #2) 1983 Speed Limit Update Referral to Policy .and Procedures Committee Adjournment 3 7 9 6 3 8 0 0 3 8 0 5 3 8 0 5 3 7 5 8 9/19/83 Regular Meeting September 19, 1983 the City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this day An the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Pale Alto, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Eyerly, Fletcher, Fazzino, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon Mayor Bechtel announced that a special meeting of the City Council was held at 6:20 p.m. in the Council Conference Room to interview candidates for the Human Relations Commission. Mayor Bechtel announced the need for an executive session rya liti- gation to be held at some point during the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ITEM #1 , RESOLUTION WELCOMING THE REPRESENTATIVES OF ENSCHEDE TO TAT —CITY OF PALO ALTO MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Cobb, to adopt the resolution welcoming the representatives of Enschede to the City of Palo Alto. RESOLUTION 6180 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF LO ALTO RECOGNIZING THE PRESENCE OF, AND WELCOMING TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO REPRESENTATIVES OF ENSCHEDE, THE NETHERLANDS" MOTION PASSER unanimously. Mayor Bechtel welcomed the visitors of Enschede, and said a cul- tural exchange which resulted fro! ,people-to-peeple communication was the foundatlon of the Sister City Program which attempted to further international un6erstanding. The City of Enschede was Palo Alto's Sister City in the Netherland`, and honored Palo Alto by sending its representatives to visit. The Enschede .visitors'. participation in the -.cultural exchange exemplified the mutual ob- jectives of the two, cities to promote: encourage, and cultivate understanding between -the people of Enschede and Palo Alto, and the opportunity to welcome the Enschede visitor' had preen to be Mutually beneficial. Piet J. Flint, Lydia A. Flint de Bruin, Paul R. ter Weeme, He l ya ter Weeme-Steinmann, G. lidding, G. Uddi ng-van Coyn, Mari,a O. G. Japinkx ots, J anna van der Schoor-Hannewi jk,• B. Dekker, bertus Workel, Dick ter Weenie, Rita Henenkaup-Kayser, and Annie Kayser from the Sister City of Enschede were. welcomed and recognized by the City of Palo Alto. On behalf of the people of Palo .Alto, the City Council expressed its heartfelt appreciation to the City n.f. Enschede and its r'epr°eseetatives for their signifi-. cant contribution to the.Sister City .program. She said she had the opportunity to meet.th' representatives: the day before at a`` -"Neighbors Abroad".function, and apologized for any mispeonouncia- tican of names. She presented each representnti ve with a copy of the resolution Dick ter Weeme, representing the City of Enschede, thanked Mayor Bechtel and the Council for the kind welcome. in 1979, offtoials from the Enschede City administration visited Palo Alto, and there were earlier contacts .;between Stanford and the Technical High; School in Enschede. The warm and friendly relations resulted in a ,partnership between the cities Western Europe had much ?winning_. of cities, which brought people together to understand the cultur- al life of other countries, and was i ns,trumenta l in solving world- wide problems. Most people sow problems -from their own -points of 1 3 7 6 9 9/19/83 As Corrected 1/09/84 1 View. a n u i t n g w them - the. L of was good to �� iiE:i;i from. i.tl� viewpoints t)i..nt-'i5. This• year an exchange with Pali Alto Hiyh School was made, •and he hoped the friendship between the two cities would last a long• tine. The Mayor of Enschede, who was just re-elected for another six years, sent his best wishes and was sorry he could not attend. On behalf of the Mayor of Enschede, Mr. ter -Weenie presented Mayor Bechtel with a gift of friendship. - Mayor Bechtel thanked Mr. ter Weeme and wished the representatives of Enschede an enjoyable stay in Palo Alto and California. • She asked him to convey a message of appreciation for the gift and visit to the Mayor of Enschede. She invited the representatives of the City of Enschede to stay and listen to the Council meet- ing. Sam Daram, 167 Rinconada, welcomed. the visitors in -Dutch. He said he lived in Ni jma gen for two years and learned to love the people. if elected to the City Council, he would like to visit them on an official basis. He wished them an enjoyable stay. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Klein asked to be recorded as "not participating" on Item 5, Residential Conservation: Program, due to a conflict of interest. Councilmember Eyerly removed Item #2, 1983 Speed Limit Update, from the consent calendar. MUTION: Councilmember Eyerly mowed, seconded by Renzel, approv- al of Consent Calendar Items 3 through 5. Referra 1 None Action ITEM #3, HANDICAP RAMPS (CMR:4d6:3) Staff recommends that Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with P F Con- struction, Inc. in the amount of $17,820 which includes the base bid and add alternates. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract of up to $2,180.(0. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT P $ F Con-struction, Irc. ITE14 #4 F1lOTHILLS PARK EROSION CONTROL PROJECT ' - PHASE I Staff recommends that Council 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Keyco Engi- neering Corporation in the amount of $219,491 for:coostruction of FOOTHILLS PARK EROSION CONTROL PROJECT - PHASE 1 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the construction contract of up ; o a total of $50,000. AWARD Ol' CONTRACT Keyco En91 neerin9 Corporation 3 7 7 0 9/19183 ITEM #5 RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM (CMR:507:3) Staff recommended the Council authorize the Mayor to execute the contracts with the contractors, as outlined in CMR:507:3, dated September 15, 1983. AWARD OF INSULATION CONTRACTS Dolin A Son Roofing and Insulation Budget Insulation Sierra Sun Energy Classic Roof Seal Al ten Products Company Adams Roofing Company MOTION! PASSED unanimously, Gouncilmerrtber Klein not participating" on Item 5, Residential Conservation Program. AGENDACt1AN[ILS, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Manager Bill Zane( said that item #2, 1983 Speed Limit Up- date, would become Item #9-A. MOTION TO MOVE ITEM #6, PROCEDURAL RULES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS TO THE END OF THE AGENDA MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Fs ".cher, that Item #6, Procedural Rules for City Council Meetings, be moved to the end of the agenda. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #7t CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION FOR THW -CIVIC CENTER PRUJ ECT (CMR :510: 3 ) Mr. Laver said all "ertificates of Participation for the Civic Center went to bid as indicated. He believed a good net interest rate for the sale of the certificates was obtained, and staff was available to answer questions. Council,rernbe Levy asked for an explanation of the capital zed interest and -the reserve account amounts. Financial Planning Administrator Gordon Ford said the capitalized interest shown on the preliminary official -statement represented interest set aside- during the.construction period, so that pay- ments could be shade for the certificates during construction rather than having the City pay for them. The reserve account represented a sum set aside so that in the event the City did not fund payments, the trustee could be instructed to make a payment from it. Councilrember Levy commented that the capitalized interest was $1,000,000, and asked about the difference between capitalized interest and the remaining interest to be paid on the bonds, and why the distinction was made. Mr. Ford said the capitalized interest was for _the two-year con- struction period. Counc ► l member Levy said normal interest for the bonds would be appropriated on a yearly basis by the City Council, and asked for clarification that the procedure would not be followed for the first two gears. Mr. Ford said that was correct. In developing the Certificates of Participation, it was believed that the Council should 'not be obligated to make payments until such time as the construction phase was completed. Money would be rasied by the issuance of bonds to make payments until completio►l, which allowed for the sale to proceed with maximum security and for the current offering to be at a tax free rate, which could_ be nvestc4 ;, a slightly higher rate. 3 7 7 1 9/19/83 Ci unci lmewber Levy asked if interest would have to be paid 4)(1 the capitalized interest. Mr. Ford said interest would be paid at the rate. of the offering on the capitalized interest, would earn interest at the portfolio rate, and result in a slight profit. Councilrnember Levy asked if the more interest capitalized, the greater the benefit, and if the bonds were issued with the capi- talized interest for 20 years included, the gain would be great- er. Mr. Ford said that was not recommended by bond counsel. Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked how the certificates would be paid off. Mr. Ford said there were provisions for payment or repurchase of the securities' ahead of schedule. Vice Mayor Witherspoon said the certificates represented an obli- gation of the City, as well as its good faith, and asked if the City would still be obligated to pay the debt if it was destroyed b;° 'an earthquake, Mr. Ford said the City was obligated.to make lease payments, and should it not do so, the nonprofit corporation would have to find an alternative, such as another tenant for the building. Vice Mayor Witherspoon said her question made the assumption that the building was destroyed, and she asked if insurance would be the only alternative to the City's picking up the debt. Mr. Ford said yes. Counci lrrrember Levy noted Clayton Brown was listed as the City Controller, and asked if. that designa4ion was correct. Mr. Ford said it should be "Acz.ring City Controller." 1UT1O'L: Vlce Mayor Witherspoon moved, seconded by Renzel, to approve the following: 1. Approve the Official Statement pith the figures based on the sale price; 2. Approve the negotiated purchase contract with the under- writers; 3. Adopt a resolution approving the finai documents and pricing; and 4. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to sign closing documents. RESOLUTION 6181 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF NE- TY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING ANU AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AMU CERTIFICATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT" MOTION PASSEL!unanimously* ITEM #d, EVERGREEN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD'TRAFFIC STUDY MR. 515:3) Counci lmember Fazzino said Carl Stoffel's report mentioned _ the neinhborhoad was asked tc consider a suggestion for a traffic plan, 'but at the end of the process, the idea could not be formally proposed due to the cost involved. He asked for more 3 7 7 2' 9/19/83 information, and why it was put to the neighborhood with the pos- sibility that it would not become a final staff recommendation for cost and other reasons. Assistant Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel asked for clarifi- cation. Councilmernber Fazzino said a few months earlier, an idea floated to the neighborhood for a vote and later the proposal was pulled by Mr. Stoffel due to cost considerations. Mr. Stoffel believed Councilmember Fazzino referred to a .r.recursor of the plan when two or three alternatives were considered. The neighborhood groups composed the suggested proposal from those elements, but he could not remember anything other than those pre- cursors, Councilmenrber Fazzino clarified that they were not staff propos- als. Mr. Stoffel said the ideas were proposed with the intent of reach- ing neighborhood .agreement. Director of Planning. and Community Environment Kenneth Schreiber said the entire neighborhood was considered as a traffic street network system. Different types -of devices for different loca- tions were considered,- and from the input of the Evergreen Park Association Traffic- Committee and neighborhood meetings, staff looked at ways to handle individual intersections and street seg- ments and made their estimates as to the bese basic plan to achieve the Council's objectives --to reduce speeding and through traffic. He did not believe a formal plan was pulled back for cost or any other reasons. Uciuncilmember Cobb said the report indicated staff was originally assigned the task in July 1980, so the problem was wrestled with for three years. He asked for confirmation that the matter was actually about six years old. Mr. Stoffel said he joined the City in 1979, but the problem sur- faced with the Southgate Study in early 1980. Councilmomber Cobb asked if consideration -was given to using the "choker" type of pots used in the Greenmendow/rte 1 son area, which he found effective. Mr. Stoffel said they were cunsi-tiered only as an element to give more bulk to the islands on Park Boulevard, but not as a separate item because they were used in other areas on curves, whereas the. subject problems were straightaway areas. Pots alone were con- sidered ineffective. Councl imenber Cobb asked if consideration was given to the -use of pots versus the chokers at .some of the interior street/Park boulevard Stop signs. Mr Stoffel said pot -se were not considered on the interior streets. Councilriember Cobb .eked if stop signs could be used instead._: nF chokers. Mr. Stoffel said only a few additional stop signs were proposed rather than stop signs at every block and in the interior of the neighborhood. Mr. 'Schreiber .said studies in Palo Alto and other jurisdictions showed that stop signs were generally ineffective by themselves in deterring speed or reducing through traffic. Given the situatian_ 3 7 7 3 9/19/83 1 1 in kveryreen Park and the conditions on El Camino Real and Page Mill !toad, it would be necessary to create a, series of obstacles in that area sufficient to convince drivers to stay oil El Camino and Page Mill --otherwise they would continue to cut through the neighborhood. People had to be channeled back to El Camino- and Page Mill. Speed was determined by what most drivers believed was safe and comfortable, and might or might not relate to the posted speed 1 imi t. A problem on a. number of streets in Evergreen Park was the fairly long stretches of wide road with few interruptions where drivers felt comfortable exceeding the posted speed. To reduce speed, conditions must be created to make the driver uncom- fortable at 35 or 40 m.p.h. A stop sign by itself, or even I. a series, did not address either objective of removing through traf- fic r,r reducing speed. Many drivers rolled through stop signs, then accelerated hard to regain lost time. Stop signs were added in the plan where they made sense, but were not relied upon to achieve the objectives. Mr. Schreiber said staff was uncertain about whether narrowed lanes, joys in traffic lanes-, and visual obstacles seen by the driver ahead of time -would make drivers uncomfortable at higher speeds. Reducing through traffic caused greater concern, and given the conditions on El Camino and Page Mill, he doubted that a sufficient obstacle course was created, -and that it would be dif- ficult to persuade drivers not to use the area. The staff recom- mendation was to defer action until toe California Avenue study was considered by the Council, and it was evident that Evergreen 'ark residents were concerned not only with current conditions but also with future approved and possible development in the California Avenue area, The California Avenue study would give the Council an opportunity to look at some policy and zoning alternatives that might reduce the level of development, and thereby reduce the residents' Understandable- fears. When the assignment was given, staff was told not to include barriers ena other devices to restrict the flow of traffic by physical means -into California Avenue. The California Avenue study included an option to close Park Boulevard or make it one way towards the com- mercial area. Both options would have a significant impact on traffic in Evergreen Park, and given the cost of the trial of over fi.5 ,UUU, it was more appropriate to consider the options before arriving at a decision. Staff was surprised at the estimated costs, but analysis proved the estimates to be reasonable. Councilmember Cobb asked if there were legal or physical reasons at intersections Such- as Ash/Stanford why pots 4� �J 1l i ti ii ii i, u c , }► i,� i, _ .. - b.ecause he understood they .slowed traffic down. Director of Transportation Ted Ko_guchi said there was no problem if it was considered a roadway design feature as opposed to a traffic control device. In most applications, they were used as a roadway ,design feature, although in effect 'they functioned as. a _median of a road. A traffic control device must meet the tests - for traffic control. Councilm.ember Fazzino asked if the pots on Nelson Drive were design features. Mr. Moguchi said they were considered a median. Mr. Schreiber said there was a difference between creating a 'median strip condition and putting an obstacle in the middle of an intersection. A first experiment with obstacles caused strange turning movements to occur and .raised concern in the Police Department about City liability .if ,no clear left turn was indi- cated. After staff review, more ,complicated barriers were designed. Counci lmember Fletcher referred to k.1he.. scenario in the staff report whereby Perk Boulevard and Birch might become one war southbound. She queried the advantage that would give. 3 7 7 4 9/19/83 Mr. Schreiber said if there was only one direction of traffic into the commercial, area, all return traffic would have to use El Camino. From the neighborhood standpoint, the traffic could then go to El Camino and make a right-hand turn into the intersection, whisk would reduce the amount of traffic. It was not intended for Park Boulevard to be one way in its entirety, but only a stretch on the edye of the residential area. That would have to be refined, and was being considered by the California study. Transportation Planner Vicci Rudin said the matter- !night not go to. the Planning Commission until early November. Staff awaitec information to present to the representatives of the business dis- trict before developing the land use -recommendations, and hoped to meet with the Assessment District Committee the following week, Dependent upon how clear the response to the information, and if the City could go ahead and buy property for additional parking, staff wanted that information before finalizing recommendations to the Planning Commission. Staff also wanted to return to the sounding toard to discuss the recommendations further. The matter should be before the Planning Commission in late October or early November, and would then depend on how swiftly the proposal moved through the Planning Commission. Councilmember Eyerly clarified that the :matter would hopefully be before the Council by the first of 1984. Ms. Rudin said that was correct. Councilmember Eyerly said he did not understand why staff brought back -the Evergreen Park Study ahead of the California Avenue Study because he would have thought staff could have submitted therm at the same time rather than askint Ci.nnci 1 to do so. Mr. Schreiber said that about nine months ago when the matter was first before the Council, the items were on separate time tracks, and became more parallel over the past six months. When providing a work program for the Council in December, 1982, staff indicated it would take until late August to return with the study, which was the understandiny with the neighborhood. Staff did not believe it had the option, given the work program and the discus- sions with the neighborhood,_ to unilaterally defer the item and wind it into the California Avenue Study. Councilmember Renzel said the staff report indicated some general numbers as to the total cost of the pilot program and these of a permanent program. She asked if a detailed breakdown was avail- able which would indicate the cost,of the temporary traffic circle on Park Boulevard, the cost of its removal; and the cost of the permanent traffic. circle. Mr. Stoffel said following _ the same format of installation, main- tenance, evaluation ana .eventual removal, the cost was approxi- mately $9,UOU for installation through removal if the pilot were determined- to be unsuccessful . Councilmember Renzel asked about the costs for a permanent instal- lation of a traffic circle with flowers, etc. Mr. Stoffel said the estimates for a permanent facility without the flowers or a landscape design, would be approximately $39,000. The costs escalated with the permanent design because °tile area was large.,. -Councilmember lienzel clar-i fled that the $39,000 was just , for the 47 foot diameter circle on Pa.fk Boulevard. Mr. Stoffel said that was correcte and that it was over half of the cost of the esitire Park Boulevard installation because the area was so large. 1 3 7 7 5 9/19/83 Councilnember Renzei asked about a permanent installation. Mr. Stoffel-said it was a semi -attractive aggregate rock --not just a slab of asphalt. Vice Mayor Witherspoon clarified that the Council had the option to .discuss the possibility _of a barrier and/or a one way designa- tion. Mr. Schreiber said a range of eptions:}could be discussed. There were several problems with trying to actively consider one-way streets or barriers. It was not part of the staff report, or a part of the environmental assessment, and was clearly differ- entiated feom the recommendation. There might be people in Ever- green Park as well as the California Avenue area that wanted to address the items, and althoug it was not part of the staff report, it was a part of the agenda. He believed the matter was open for discussion, but said he would be concerned in terms of taking action in that area. Staff analysis wa-s currently being developed for the Planning Commission. Counc ; lmernbers Levy asked whether there were any parts of the plan before the council that could be implemented without involving the California Avenue Study in any way. He clarified he was thinking about the circle where Park Boulevard and Park Avenue came toyether and some of the other elements towards the northern part of Evergreen Park. Mr. Stoffel said part of the idea of having a total plan was to .address speeding throughout the neighborhood. The presumption was that with less traffic in the neighborhood, there would be less cars to speed. Traffic could still speed, and in that sense, there was always -a need for a way to red'sce speed. fhe potential for speeding was there, but staff hoped that if traffic was reduced in the neighborhood, it rr1, ght not have to worry about direct speed control measures such as those outlined in the plan. Councilsnember Levy clarified that staff believed it would be un- wise for the Council to deal with anything until receiving the California Avenue Study. Mr. Schreiber said the' traffic circle at Park Boulevard and Park Avenue had a cert .in attractiveness in terms of breaking up the long stretch of Park Boulevard. If all of the Park Boulevard im- provements were done without touching the other part of the Park Boulevard, that one circle would slow traffic down briefly in the stretch between El Camino and the beginning of- the curves, but would probably not discourage through traffic from using Park Boulevard. !.f enough things were done to "gum up" Park Boulevard, cars would yo down El Camino, turn left at the light at Stanford, and go in.through the neighborhood. Limited things could be done, but limited things b; ought. ji:nited objectives and a greater-poten- tial for the undesired side effects such as swinging traffic from one part of the neighborhood to another. Louise Ritzmann, 2091 Park Boulevard, deferred to.David Gleason, President of the Evergreen Park As ociation, David Gleason, 396 Stanford Avenue, President of the Evergreen Park Neighborhood -Association, requested that the Council agree to implement traffic control measures to accomplish the objectides specified last December to reduce speed and through traffic in Evergreen Park. The neighbors continued to believe the most ef- fective way to accomplish those goals was through street closures around the ' perimeter of ` the neighborhood, and asked that a six month trial solution be implemented. The* issue was discussed for sev ra l years, d the Council was aware that the. neighborhood association was concerned with the steadily increasing flow of traffic in 'the 'neighborhood and: tthe source of thatnonresidential traffic was the congestion on El Camino heal which _ i arced .traffic `3 7 7 6 9/19/83 onto the neighborhood. 'Ole Association believed that now was the time to resolve the issue because of the rapid increase in devel- opment in the California Avenue business district. California Avenue was growing several times the rate predicted by the Compre- hensive Plan, and several major projects were currently underway. Three of those projects would produce 120,000 square feet of com- mercial space and would generate over 400 new jobs, 200 new resi- dences, dnd hundreds of commercial patrons. Projections by the outside consultant indicated growth of almost 350,000 square feet within the decade. The Association supported the vitality of the California Avenue Business District, but the growth was taking a toll on the neighborhood with the 10,000 nonresidents driving through every day, and with hundreds of cars parked on neighbor- hood streets rather than in the business district. While the res- idents had no desire for an adversary relationship with the California Avenue Business District and while it was in their best interests to see those businesses thrive, some merchants believed their businesses would be jeopard zed by any alteration of traffic patterns. The Association believed the proposed developments would more than make up for any decrease in patronage, and accord- ing to the staff report, the Cox -(teller project would _generate approximately 1,740 car trips per day, which was two-thirds of all the traffic which currently passed on Park Bouelvard each day. The Cambridge Avenue development was. another 32,000 square feet, and would generate 50 new jobs and hundreds of car trips per day. With its high cost and the fact that staff did not endorse the recommendations in the report, the Association could not endorse the plan either. The residents -opposed further delay because the relevant findings were already published in tine Angus McDonald Lconomic Forecast Working Paper published in March, 1983, which stated that the economic impact of traffic control measures on California Avenue would be "insignificant." The Evergreen Park Traffic Study was currently in its fourth year, and the Associa- tion believed it had waited long enough to expect some action. Tne issue was becoming incneasinyly controversial, and the Associ- ation was afraid that the neighborhood and business district would become more fractious as time went on. He noted that several new faces:from the Association were in attendance at the meeting because trey were aware of and concerned with the impact of traf- fic on the neighborhood. As more projects were completed, there would be more neighborhood opposition to through traffic, and as the developments were completed, more people on Celifornia Avenue would have a vested interest in forcing traffic problems onto the local neighborhoods. The Association did net want to vote two years down the road with a stuffed ballot box, did not want to see the community divided by the issue, and did not want to push for a moratorium on building on- California Avenue. - Last December, the Association presented the results of a survey At made in -1982, and in.,that survey, a majority of the residents signed a document ask- ing for traffic reduction through street closures. The results of that survey were again i-rrc;,luded iFt the Council's patkets, and the Association asked that the Council reconsider the restrictions placed on street closures at that time and implement a method of reducing.through traffic 'effectively. e The..Association believed its propOsal was effective, inexpensivr� and strongly supported by the neighborhood, and it was still willing to work with City staff to devise a method sui tab i e to accomplish the neighborhood's ob- jectives. He thanked the Council far its support and -°cont-i-hued goodwill. Councilmember Cobb asked -for clarification that the EvergreenPark Association- advocated going back to barriers, and asked if there was anything snort of barri rs the neighborhood would like to try over the next six months. Mr. Gleason clarified that the Association devised three plansand meant them as`‘options and guidelines for the City Council. The neighborhood believed their plans were effective and that street closures would accomplish . their goals. The neighborhood wanted the elimination of through traffic and would settle for anything to accomplish that goal. , 3 7 -1 7 9/19/83. Jim Stapleton, 214 Oxford Avenue, lived at the corner of Oxford Avenue and Park boulevard for about four years with his wife and children, ages five and three. He liked the _City's services, the schools, and the neighborhood, and the only problem was the noise, safety and inconvenience of high traffic on Park Boulevard. Oxford Avenue was a quiet residential street, but with the commer- cial development in the shopping district, he' could foresee that in a few years it would be similar to Hamilton and Forest Avenue. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Park Boulevard had a lot of commuters, traffic from El Camino, tow trucks shortcut - tiny, through the neighborhood, and a lot of traffic that did not belong in the neighborhood, which practices created a safety prob- lem for his children. A City staff report, dated October 14, i-982, regarding .the Evergreen Park Traffic Study, stated that 2300 vehicle miles were driven in Evergreen Park daily at that time. A table in that report stated that "about one-third of• this travel is neighborhood related --the remainder is non -neighborhood related:" The first objective of the Traffic Sectior in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan was the protection of neighborhoods from through traffic, and defined a collector street as one which carried traffic within an area to arterials and provided access to adjacent properties. Under that definition; Park Boulevard should carry only one-third of its present volume of traffic, and the other two-thirds should travel on arterials such as El Camino and Alma. It was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or fair to the resideots of Evergreen Park to argue that Park Boulevard carried no more traffic than other collector streets such as Churchill or Louis Road. If traffic studies showed that Churchill and Louis Road had through traffic, some steps should be taken to see what could be done to divert through traffic off those col- lector streets. To argue that Park Boulevard was physically able to handle the traffic it carried or that the traffic. on Park Boulevard was no greater than it was ten years ago, begged the whole question of whether Park Boulevard was being misused as a collector street, The neighbors wanted the through traffic off their neighborhood street and a quiet and safe neighborhood for their children. A year ago the residents of Evergreen Park voted in favor of a plan to eliminate through traffic by the use of street closures, and urged the Council to consider street closures in Evergreen Park, including a closure on Park Boulevard. Mark Musen, 211 College Avenue, clarified that the Neighborhood Association was concerned about the magnitude of the problem, and the significance of the traffic and parking problems in Evergreen Park. The Mott recent staff report showed that about 3400 cars went by in a 24 -hour period. He lived at the corner of College and Park, which was used as through route by most commuters and was close to the business district, and calculated the amount of cars to equal about 2--i12 cars per minute on an average. The situation was intolerable during the peak commuter periods when it seemed like hundreds of cars were going towards the train station or to the business district and posing safety problems for child- - ren going to school or for people going to the park with no con- trolled means for crossing a major highway during that period of time. Notwithstanding the amount of cars, the amount of drivers who disobeyed the speed. i imi t posed a real threat for people who lived in the neighborhood, The neighbors were concerned about the encroachment of the bus t Hess district ore the neighborhood and the impact as -new developmef is occurred. The plan proposed by staff was not endorsed by anyone, and most 'residents believed the only eealistfc solution was to invoke perimeter closure of the neigh--- borhood to limit the amount of traffic. There were _ether possi7- bilit.;es open for discussion, but the neighborhood believed that peri,neter closure of not only Park _Boulevard, but. perhaps Birch and elsewhere, --would-- eli`minate' the amount 'of --through traffic and make the neighborhood ar'mor.e _,quiet and peaceful place to live. Those -oh College Avenue were concerned about the number of people who used their ,neighborhood- as a place to park for the business district, and he was uncertain about how it would be possible to make a clear assessment of the needs of the California' Avenue 3 7 7 8 9/19/83 parking situation when everyone parked in Evergreen Park. A solu- tion to the Evergreen Park problem would allow a better handle on what to do with California Avenue. Personally, he did not believe street closures were necessarily unsightly, and because his house was at a major intersection, he hoped one would be right next t- his place in ord?r to r -educe the amount of traffic to come through. He emphasized that no matter what plan was adopted, som4 tool was needed to find out its success. The Comprehensive Plan desired to protect the neighborhoods from through traffic, and some solution was needed to help reach that protection before the development on California Avenue made the situation worse. Geoff Thompson, 416 Oxford, left the meeting, but had the follow- ing read into the record: "Dear Members of the City Council: It has been over three years since I requested that you make a com- mitment to control traffic in Evergreen Park. It was my position at that time, that traffic growth was likely due to California Avenue development. It was also my position that through traffic was unacceptable to the citizens of Evergreen Park. You have never made the commitment --studies yes -.meetings yes, but neither action nor -commitment. Please stop waffel ing and state your posi- tion. Do you support our position or is this a contest of endur- ance? Sincerely, Geoff Thompson." John Canyon, 270 Leland, opined that the issue of excessive traf- fic in Evergreen Pa rk, was much ado about nothing. For the most part, it_was a quiet residential neighborhood, -and residents of Evergreen Park were bitterly opposed to barriers. Some improve- ment could be made on the bend where Park went by Castilleja. People came around that bend too fast sometimes, and there should be some signs posted on the road stating the speed limit with per- haps some lettering on the street, which he believed woel d do the trick. He lived in the neighborhood and there was little traffic on most of the streets. He urged the council to not continue wasting time and taxpayers' money on the situation before it found out the desires of the total neighborhood. Daniel Bartsch, 302 College, said he moved tato Evergreen ;Park about two years ago, noticed the traffic right away, and having been a former student of urban geography, he wondered whether it was getting worse or better. He wanted to see a safer, quieter and more stable r,ei ;hbarhood not cant i naa l ly getting to be a worse place for people to live. He saw near accidents with bicycles, cars swerve on Park Boulevard as if there was no bike lane on the side of the road, and trucks with large loads going to.,,construc- tion areas on California Avenue.e Each day he saw displays of power from people driving automobiles, stopping at stop signs, hitting their.• accelerators and "peeling out," and he was tired of it. He was tired of paying the .rost indirectly of those who used. his neighborhood as a parking lot, and of the City Council going in circles while saying they were doing another study.. In college he was told not to get into urban planning because it was politics and there was no reality, which was good advice. He did not care what . the Council did a s long as i t worked and as long a s their neighborhood was safer, quieter and more stable. He�.was tired of waiting for one more study--t.he neighborhood wanted a Compre- hensive Plan .that would work. He supported Plan B or C, or any- thing else that would work. He helped organize a crime watch program in the neighborhood, and when Cheryl .Sampson talked with the ne.ghbors in a meeting and suggested = that they watch for unfamiliar autos in the neighborhood, everyone in the group laughed because all the automobiles were unfamiliar, Elyse Barnett-Musen, 211 College Avenue, said earlier this week, a young mars Pounded at her door locking for his little sister. He s.gid he received a call from somewhere on Park Boulevard that she was riding her bike, got hit by a car,'and had a broken arm. He was going from home to hometrying;to find his little sister who had just been struck by a car. She- ,.corked in the emergency room, at Stanford and saw young children brought in who biked around and 3 7 7 9 9/19/83 were hit in their own neighborhoods. It did not take much speed to destroy a child, and even a broken arm or leg required a ----child remain in pain for an hour or so without medication in the event of some other problem. Watching those children scream and having that guy come to the door was like having it happen to her. . She remembered that south on the same Park Boulevard was closed for that reason, and was told a child was brought in a wheelchair to the City Council meeting after many years of fighting for a clo- sure of the street, and something was done on the same Park Boulevard outside her front door. She wondered how many broken arms or legs it would take, or whether a paralyzed child was the price to finally have a safe street. She realized that ultimately traffic would be controlled, and the sooner it was done, the less friction would be involved. About 23 percent of the Southgate residents approved the plan initially for closures compared to 52 percent of the Evergreen Park total neighborhood approving some plan of traffic control. Oftentimes, she biked home and passed by her street with some stranger sitting out in front of a car. She was afraid to go into her house when those things occurred, and was more frightened about what would happen as the population increased. There were 24 letters which supported street c1!sure, and one which supported the staff position. That one letter was given prime space right in front with all the other letters behind. Andrea Lenox, 396 Stanford Avenue, was angry with the process. The Evergreen Park neighborhood worked with the City under the direction of the City Council for three years, cooperated, worked out studies, came up with questionnaires, etc. The City Council did everything to assist a movement, gave directives to staff over and over again, listened to the neighbors personally, and now: when staff had a chance to make a recommendation, they did nothing. Another delay was recommended, and she was beginning to wonder in whose interest the staff was working:, It was beginning to smack of civil service in a futile system. The taxpayers were paying for the staff members, and they were wasting money and time. A good and healthy neighborhood and its possible demise by traffic was. at stake. Rumor had it that since it was an election year, the City Council would do nothing. She wanted to see an elected City official who world refuse to grant 1,000 or more people the peaceful neighborhood they desired. The businesses were safe from possible demise as the California Assessment Dis- trict study showed, and Evergreen Park would be safe once the Com- prehensive Plan established and approved by the neighborhood was implemented. The neighbors did not want to wait until they suf- focated from traffic --not another year --or another study. There was no reason to postpone any further controls, the neighbors waited for three years, and some had waited longer. ,How much longer did the residents have to wait and what would it take for the Council to provide some help. Joe Ercolani, 2040 Ash, deferred to Ron Sutton. Ron Sutton, 384 Stanford, said the crux of the problem was that two-thirds of the traffic in their neighborhood did not originate or destinate in the neighborhood --it was through traffic --and should to directed off to the arterial or other collectors where it belonged. That might inconvenience businesses and residents who would have to use El Camino to get to the business district if Birch were also cut off, but despite that, over 40 percent of all 388 resident, in the neighborhood voted for Plan B. In terms of the financial impact on the California Avenue Business District, their interim consultant report showed it to be minimal, and in fact, California Avenue already enjoyed an increased employment through. March, 1983, . of 212 percent of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan employment increase.; Therefore, the residents predicted a healthy business district. Businesses all across America were being forced to internalize external costs. The big cost factor was parking,' and` -the residents requested that the business district internalize the external cost of parking in Evergreen Park in 3 7 8 0 9/19/83 traffic. into -thirds of the traffic in Evergreen Park did not ori- ginate or destinate.there. The residents asked that the business district internalize those costs --about $30,000 -or more per park- ing space --but that was what the residents were paying through decreased property values, a different way of life, etc. Some people believed that barriers would put neighborhoods against neighborhoods, and he argued that they only wanted a modern neigh- borhood which had cul-de-sacs and restricted access because that made them more -peaceful. Palo Alto was a class city, and the people deserved that way of life. He asked that the 1905 Evergreen Park Plan be upgraded. Peripheral closures would help the neighborhood maintain and enhance its neighborhood status and character. He asked that Evergreen Park have a safer, quieter and more stable neighborhood through the business- district internal izing its external cost, getting rid of the through traffic, and the extra business parking in the neighborhood. Joe Ercolani, 2040 Ash Street, said Mr. Canyon was fortunate to live on a luiet street. The neighbors who attended the August 17 meeting believed the plan then under consideration was the one recommended to the Council, and were surprised to learn it was not the case. Since he last spoke before the Council, a quarter of a million cars had passed his house, and he: wanted action. He believed the Council should imnleiaent a Comprehensive Plan to eli- minate the t;rough traffic which threatened the residential quali- ty of Evergreen Park. The neighborhood plan was effective, inex- pensive, and approved by 52 percent of the Evergreen Park resi- dents, whereas only 33 percent of the Southgate residents had ad- vocated their street closure plan. The Evergreen Park plan had twice as much support, and he pointed out that some City Council members were elected by fewer than 25 percent of the total elec- torate. The survey was intended to educate the neighbors about their neighborhood problems, and all of Palo Alto should be edu- cated -about the dangers of through traffic and overflow parking. The City's overall land use policy would slowly choke the City to death with people, cars, and pollution. A traffic count done 18 months ago reflected that 1,800 cars used Park Boulevard and 1,700 used College. Nearly e60 percent of the traffic on Park Boulevard --a Collector street taking traffic to and from an arterial --was through traffic. To say that the problem on those 'streets was not as serious as whose on other Palo Alto streets was like telling an emphysema patient he was lucky not to have termi- nal lung cancer. If conditions were worse.in other parts of Palo Alto, something should be done -because the City as a whole would benefit by not having througn traffic in neighborhoods. Ken Schreiber had said in May that Palo Alto would have to tolerate more traffic problems in the future because of development, and he was concerned about 'those who already had traffic problems with no cul-de-sac, street closures, or traffic disincentives, and who were adjacent to -4 fist developing business area. They appealed to the Council:that traffic had to gc somewhere else.- Evergreen Park had boundaries on all sides, .and the traffic belonged on the arterials. An objective of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan was to limit growth by development and preserve the City's character as a residential community. The first transportation Objective was to protect neighborhoods free) through traffic, and -he request- ed a specific plan -to eliminate through traffic in -Evergreen Park, That plan should be implemented .for a period of six months With a new traffic co&nt taken. .if no redu.ctio.n was shown An -through traffic, a new plan should be:, .Made, and the cycle should be repeated until -through,,traffic was eliminated. Americans made startling concessions for cars -.-productive -land -was converted to parking lots and freeways; breathable ie was converted to poison, and the strength of the economy was measured by car production: The cars were destroying the neighborhoods, anti it should be stopped. ,Jay. Packard, 315 Oxford Avenue, said he and his wife moved into their house six months ago, liked the aria and sympathized= with the neighbors about through traffic and speeding cars. Nis 3 7 8 1 9/19/83 problem was the parking encroachment, and he believed that traffic and parking problems could be eliminated by perimeter control rather than an interior obstacle course that would punish resi- dents. California, Cambridge and 'ollege Avenues were full of parked cars during the day, yet newly constructed homes or units required off-street parking.. Soon there would be new businesses on Cambridge Avenue, and with -College Avenue full and traffic creeping up on Birch, quiet Oxford would be the next one filled in order to satisfy the needs of the businesses on Cambridge. Busi- nesses should bear their own costs --not tlee residents. Jeff Hook, College Avenue, supported the comments of the previous speakers. Only the Chairman of the Neighhorhood Association spoke ors behalf of the neighborhood at the last Council meeting, and, he was glad to see so many speak that evening. He believed it was rude that 30 or 40 residents waited almost an hour to. speak to the Council, and that it was the Council's job to listen to the resi- denta--not make them listen to. internal discussions between Coun- cil and staff that could have taken place during non -meeting hours. Cars wore out streets which had to be repaved about every 20 years, and more cars required earlier repairs --the cost of which was borne by residents. Streets should be considered a valuable capital asset, which tied with Mr'.. Ercolani's remarks regarding land use. The more the development and intensification of human artifacts in the City was promoted, the greater the cost. Money would be used faster, and the City would be more hard pressed for its maintenance. The Evergreen Park residents were asked' to wait for :the completion of the California Avenue Study, but the California Avenue developers did not. He commented that a comprehensive review of the area showed that the developments on California Avenue were largely subsidized by the rest of the neighborhood in terms of parking. Mayor Bechtel clarified that all speakers were limited to a maxi- mum of five minutes, and that shorter remarks were to the advan- tage of all. The Council knew how residents felt about the issue because the majority of those present stood to show support or opposition to a particular plan in response to the request of Dave Gleason. She said that 13 more people' warted to speak on the item, but d'ra't the Council would recess to Executive Session shortly. Audrey ``tewart did not give an address, and used her maiden name to avoid phone harassment. She believed immediate implementation of the trial plan to eliminate through traffic from Evergreen Park streets was necessary to provide the :more peaceful, safer., quieter and stable neighborhood without through traffic, speeders, legal and illegal trucks, strangers, pollution and noise. Before the unsightly development, the neighbors were concerned about a prob- lem which came true. Cement and lumber trucks ignored the weight limits on .'Park and College, and the "Co-ops gas station and other businesses contributed trucks to the streets. The elimination of trucks in the neighborhoods would alleviate the road repairs required in a few years. Five or seven ton trucks damaged streets, and the business at the neighborhood's perimeter con- tributed many extra cars that ewere perked all day. If through traffic was not controlled, Evergreen Park could become a giant parking lot, with permit parking extended -to various streets. Measures to reduce speed would have to be instituted on all streets to make -the area safer. The Grecian Health Spa parking monitor. had several close .calls, and it was unfortunate he could not give citations for moving violations. The crosswalk at Peers Park should also be safer -`-drivers did not stop for pedestrians, and although it was the only crosswalk on Park Boulevard, many parents did nut allow their children to cross unsupervised to a "neighborhood park. About 980 bikers passed Park Boulevard and Casti l leja in a 12 -hour period,. and 130 bikers used Park Boulevard and El Camino from $:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Many school children also used the bike lane including third graders who biked to Escondido school. People driving in the bike lanes coining from 3/19,8i Peers Park to El Camino and goi rig down to Park, and the light at Park Boulevard and El Camino should be adjusted to stay green longer. Pedestrians and bikers had as much right to cross the intersection safely as cars, and bicycling should be encouraged as an alternative to cars. She did not know if there was a solution to the Park Boulevard/E': Camino intersection, but suggested that separate turn and through traffic signals be installed since traf- fic backed up there continually to enter the. Spa. That problem had existed for years, and a solution was up to the Council. Many plans --from undulations, effective stop sign solutions, opening Southgate, combining the two neighborhoods, and a closure at Churchill were suggested, and she preferred a closure at Park Boulevard and El Camino below Grecian Health Spa to reduce through traffic. Park Boulevard was a collector street that took traffic from within an area and delivered i 'to arterials. She supported perimeter: closures to most of the Evergreen Park streets for a trial period of six months. She thanked the Council for John Hanson, the Evergreen/Southgate parking monitor, and said he was great and handled parking ticket problems well. Kathleen Himmelberger, 1763 Park Boulevard, said she was called an activist for the first time, but did not mind because her cause was good. She wanted a reduction of through traffic in the Evergreen Park neighborhood and believed that planters, chokers and stop signs were as effective as a peashooter against a ram- paging elephant. She recommended opening California Avenue to Alma. She was told the money was not available, but queried the cost of the current study and similar projects. She believed that only the erection of a barrier would stop through traffic, and was willing to consider any alternatives if the Council did not ap- prove her recommendations. COUNCIL RECESSED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION RE LITIGATION FROM 9:30 p.m. TO 9:55 p.m. Emily Clifford, ,271 Stanford Avenue, lived close to Park Boulevard and was concerned about -the traffic and its speed because of the crosswalk at the end of Stanford to Peers Park. She carne to. Palo Alto in 1957 from the .:st, and enjoyed Peers Park with her six grandchildren. She always crossed the street with some of her great grandchildren because she believed it was unsafe even for an older child to cross alone. Tennis and volley- ball players, young people, picnickers used the crosswalk, and a :safer crossing was needed. She hoped something could be done without more delay: Louise Loh, 390 Oxford Avenue, said the issue was important to her children. She asked for immediate action to make Evergreen Park a safer place to raise her trree children and other neighbor- hood children. She watched traffic turn off Stanford, go two blocks down Ash and turn on College to go to California Avenue and beyond via Birch daily, and it was unfair to ask the residents to tolerate misuse of the neighborhood struts which were sr pposei: to provide access to adjacent properties only. Peers Park was ur lafe for children and adults —cars whizzed by as she and her friend attempted to use the crossing with their two babies and two strol- lers. It was unsafe for anyone= -especially children and elderly people who could not run. There were no stop signs and no light, and 50 to 75 percent ofthe traffic was through traffic She dis ayi zcd with those who believed traffic was not heavy enough to cause a problem --with 800 to 1700, cars a day, the neighborhood streets exceeded the Transportatiiih Lepartment°s . ratios for local streets by far too much. To suggest that there should be a fur- ther 50 to 7,5 percent through traffic when the Comprehensive Plan sought to protect neighborhoods from through traffic was a breach of. staff duty, and she asked who staff was protecting.: She asked that a triad plan toreduce speed and' eliminate through traffic be implemented. Closures were preferred. but any measures with a clear policy and measurement standards, a procedure to monitor effectiveness, and a commi tm nt to take further action - if the trial period was unsuccessful -would: be acceptable. -3 7 8 3. 9/19/83 Anne Ercolani, 2040 Ash Street, said that in her discussions with Councilmembers concerning the Evergreen Park study, the residents were always asked the nature of the problem, and what they wanted to accomplish. The staff study of April 8, 1982 indicated about 60 percent of the daily trips and two-thirds of vehicle miles in Evergreen Park were the result of traffic not generated in the neighborhood. The October 14 study showed that from three pending projects alone, the number of non -neighborhood trips wculd in- crease by one-third. At least four additional projects were ap- proved with more to come. The problem of through traffic existed on all Evergreen Park streets and much was said about Park Boulevard. Of other local streets --defined in the Comprehensive Plan as only providing access to adjacent properties --Ash was four blocks long, and had only 14 dwellings. The staff traffic esti- mates showed that 50 to 60 percent of the traffic on Ash was through traffic and currently approved California Avenua projects would raise it two-thirds to three-quarters. That would occur despite the Comprehensive Plan objectives to protect neighborhoods from through traffic. The situation was getting worse and would deteriorate further. If - there were worse situations than Evergreen Park in Palo Alto, something should be done. She wanted a safe and more stable neighborhood, and a comprehensive solution so that the current traffic on Ash was rerouted to the arterials-- El Camino -and Oregon --and not pushed to another neighborhood street. Looking at the configuration of the neighborhood, the only streets on which traffic could be rerouted were El Camino and the business district. There had to be at least 15 detailed plans provided by staff, the neighborhood, etc., and -she hoped one would be adopted that evening. The criteria for success should be es- tablished that evening , with the reduction of a certain number and percentage of cars. There should be a procedure to monitor the effectiveness of the plan and --a commitment that if the criteria were not met. Council would take further action. She wanted to see an inexpensive Comprehensive Plan and believed street closures at the --perimeters would be the most effective. The consultant in- dicated the economic impact on California Avenue businesses which did not take into consideration the 213 condominiums under con- struction or the more than 113,000 square feet of commercial space. already approved. She asked -that the decision not be delayed any longer. Bruce Freeland .and Vicci Rudin indicated that the California Land- Use and Traffic proposals would not go to the Planning Commission before November, and were not even formulated. If action were taken that evening, staff could formulate its pro- posals with a clear knowledge_ of the Evergreen Park street situa- tion so their proposals could address rautin -the traffic within the business district to improve" the f.lr" of traffic the busi- nesses generated, She asked the Council'tO consider the layout of the neighborhood, its unique size, location and configuration, and make a decision that evening. - - Erica ePrince, 302 College Avenue, read a letter from Karen Olson of 121`' Park Avenue, which stated that1e she was concerned with the growing traffic problem-_ in the Evergreen Park -area, and-.- wanted some. controls -and/or street barriers ' to help relieve the problem. Ms. Prime supported a . comprehensive plan to eliminate- through traffic from.her neighborhood, and warted the Evergreen Park area to be a safer, quieter :and mare_. pea ;eful place.. -She -ggrew' up on Oar 'anal !)rive, a cul-de-sac and safe for children, but Evergreen Park was cosplet ly, different. There were many -children and new born babies. i_n _ "ahe neighborhood, . the residents were stable home- owners whb hoped to raise their families there, and it was only a matter of -time before a child eras hit b;y,a car. She invited Caun- ci !members to view the speeding traffic, many parked cars and poor visibility.. --If the scene that evening as unpleasant, there would be far 'more unpleasant : one's unless- something was done; about the traffic. She slid not own a car "but rode her bike four times through the. neighborhood and walked to `the part every day. In .general she did not _-recognize the car drivers.. a That.. was not a safe feeling --she :coul:d not keep track of..who was in the neighbor- hood, who looked suspicious, etc.:. Many: neighbors with whom she - 3 7:-8 4 9/19/83 spoke --even those who previously opposed the barriers-- did not notice how bad the problem -was until the traffic was gone. Their peace, and the fact the Council was no longer plagued by their requests, seemed to suggest that similar action be taken on Park. iccently the director of the Urban Forestry Program for the State of California came for his first sight visit of the Evergreen Park Urban Forestry project. He was impressed with the trees, but even more by the community spirit. People walked up and talked, and he was bowled over by the reality of community in Evergreen Park. It was something precious, and was becoming a rare City resource that should be preserved. She asked for a six-month trial period of the street closure system_, and once the problem was solved, more energy_ could be directed to benefit the City as a whole by planting trees, crime watch, child care, etc. Traffic must be controlled first, and she asked the Council to help. Mayor Bechtel asked that speakers' remarks be as brief .as possible and not repetitious. There were about 10 more cards, and if each took -five minutes, the hearing would. take more than an hour. - Tommy Derrick, 390 Leland, said the Association was before the Council many times, and he personally met with many Councilmembers, after donating hissummer to another project. Mr. Zaner advised him that he supported :.:he elimination of through traffic in Evergreen Park, and would agree to a fence around the area if that was the desire of the residents. A survey, showed alraost two-thirds of Evergreen residents saw through traffic as a problem, and wanted a solution that included at least some restrictive barriers. Staff did riot recommend any plan to stop further -increases or reduce current traffic. The Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee instructed staff to meet with the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association to develop a plan to solve the problem, but staff refused to commit to the task regardless of a City Council facilitator. Staff believed the task was to evaluate proposals in terms of effectiveness or -impact on the City, and could not commit to stay with the struggle until something was agreed upon. The Council directed staff to produce a plan to reduce traffic and speeding in the neighborhood. He personally asked Mr,. Noguchi to commit to the concept that any plan would be monitored and modified if traffic was not reduced, but Mr. Noguchi believed there would be some increase in traffic. Staff failed to comply with,the Council's direction, and could -not even recommend their own proposal, but instead asked residents to wait. patiently until another study was -completed. He asked if the City planned to use the neighborhood as an avenue for, traffic to get to. the California commercial area. . If present commercial access could not'handle the traffic, Evergreen Park should not be used as a solution to those problems. He -was embarrassed to review those'rnatters for the Council, and regretted that residents did not have the courage to go back to the PAP Committee and say "we stop." The Council's and taxpayers' time.and money was wasted by the continuing struggle after city staff refused to.comply with the first directive. He suggested that perhaps Council imposed too many limitations on its directive, and staff could not solve the problem without the use of barriers. He requested Council state its p.osition,.that evening with regard to an acceptable amosnt of traffic in the Evergreen .neighborhood, And what it would do to see that those levels were maintained. - If the Council could not'`;;state what it believed to -be an acceptable level, he asked that ,the matter -be di-smissed from the- agenda. eThe Council should. not waste anyone's time, or the: City's money,: any longer. _The matter ,>shoul d be dropped and left to annther Council with the courage to deal with the problem. Sareia SMith,. 2031 Park Boulevard, .asked . that ' comprehensive mea- sures be iiaplemented on a trial basis --to make her neighbo►r°hood safer-, quieter, and more. peaceful. The measures should be clear, with criteria estabfshed to monitor the- effectiveness of the trim, and if further., action should be _taken. A trae-fic - sU ey 3 7 8 S. 9/19/83 done by the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association• in 1983 indi- cated that the majority of residents supported street closures. She also favored street closures because it seemed to be the only effective and inexpensive method to eliminate through traffic. Street closures were successful in other neighborhoods like South- gate and College Terrace. She believed that perimeter closures of most neighborhood streets would eliminate through traffic and keep it_on El Camino, California, Cambridge and other business streets where it belonged. Street closures would help unite the neighbor- hood as it did in Southgate, and the College Terrace rapist was apprehended partially because residents were able to identify vehicles that were foreign to the neighborhood. The Palo Alto Police Department Neighborhood Crime Watch Program relied on resi- dents' abilities to identify people and vehicles from outside the neighborhood. Present .traffic levels made that impossible, and Peers Park- generated a lot of traffic, and appeared to serve as more than a neighborhood park with a designated service radius of a one-half mile. Peers Park was the only neighborhood :park in Palo Alto where residents had to cross the intersection of a busy collector street without any controls. Speeding was a problem on Park Boulevard, and it was dangerous to enter the park. Park Boulevard was below Lambert Street, which was previously a col- lector street, and which was closed after many accidents. She hoped an accident would not be necessary before action was taken to make her neighborhood safer. The Cox project and other devel- opments would increase the existing traffic problems, and accord- ing to the City's consultant, closures world not have a signifi- cant impact on California Avenue businesses. The Evergreen Park residents stated their concerns about traffic 'y.oetitions, meet- ings and letters, for the past six years, because they cared about the quality of the neighborhood. A neighborhood crime watch pro- gram,ea tree project, neighborhood summer school and energy con- servation projects were implementer, and she hoped the Council would help create a plan to make the neighborhood safer, quieter and more peaceful. A letter from her roommate expressed concern. to the Council about the proposed plan to reduce speed and through traffic in Evergreen Park, She apt'reciated the efforts directed towards solving the traffic problem in her neighborhood, but be- lieved the proposed plan was expensive and would be ineffective. She was concerned about not having an adequate method by which to monitor the effectiveness of a plan that was bound to fail and that when the funds for the project were exhausted, it would be difficult to fund another trial. She supported street closures in the neighborhood because she believed it would be the least expan- sive and,_most effective way to eliminate through -traffic. James Kinsella 1874 Park Boulevard, lived where Park made its first bend to the right. One :Speaker called the process "much ado about nothing" with one qualification -.-that corner. He could at- test to three points: annoyance, safety, and. -timing. Annoyance at too much unnecessary traffic was established and quantified by_ previous speakers, in addition to normal commuters, there were fast food services on Cambridge and ,Ca l f forni a Avenue with deliv- ery trucks speeding through the neighborhood which provided con- venient .access to Stanford. Cars ;still- sped through the area after 10:00 p.m. when Stanford students.retu_rned to School. He lived across front the park, and. in peak. commute- hours there were 'usual-ly 0 or 30 children in the park hai+ing - soccer practice,, and trucks were delivering. He was concerned about his son and other young children' because his driveway was at the end of the blind side of -:the curve :and he lwa, afr!aid one day he might be *flied pulling out of his driveway.` Peopie--rounded that corner at 30 m.p.h., and he believed that effecttve:m easures to prohibit or' re- duce tr"af f i c would decrease hips worries, He agreed with the ma- jority of speakers who wanted things' to ,. T` .= a get C��#nn�- rr*� `trafi'iC. study -was postponed. because nf' the: -California Avenue study, and he appeai*d_t-o- the- COunCi1 for expediency, - During the storms of laist February and March, 41 -safety sign on his. corner fell and was never fixed. -Last week h`e . brought the : sign to a Clty truck, .and .re. quested that things be fixed -,- rind prospective, improvements made-, -- 3 7 .8 ,6 9/19/83 Marilyn Mayo, 404 Oxford, lived on the Stanford to Ash to College to Birch cut -through, and was concerned about what political de- cision the Counci` might make that evening. The. Council should see the strength of the residents and that they would not give up. She was proud of those that attended the meeting, and believed the happenings in the neighborhood were incredible. She believed the Council —should consider what was needed, its cost and effective- ness, and public reaction in an election year. The Council knew. what was necessary, and should sense the dangers of the residents' distrust of the political processes. The residents would not -wait any longer- for studies. Regarding cost, and effectiveness, the Council should consider the staff plan for $53,000 might not work. Barriers were less expensive and effective, and if the Council was worried about setting a precedent, it should be concerned about setting a precedent to spend money in every neighborhood.. With regard to public reaction, she believed ' its _would be embarrassing for the Council to install barriers costing $53,000, and then re- move them. She asked Council to try temporary closures on the perimeters for a period of six months to show the public's reac- tion. The residents were unified to stop through traffic and speeding, which problem was up to the. Council to solve, She could think of no more cost-effective plan than barriers, and in view of the momentum with which .California Avenue was exploding, emore people would come out of the woodwork. Her neighborhood was balk- anized already, and she wanted the neighborhood put back together. i4 Neighborhood u.ni ty-. was the logical step because in this day and age no one could do it 'alone._ Evergreen Park was an old neighbor- hood that needed to modernize. She urged Council consideration of her suggestions. Corinne Powell owned property at 302 College 1Aveneei and was in favor 'of. keeping Evergreen Park a cohesive community neighbor - head. Hugh MacMillan, 2101 Park Boulevard, lived at the corner of Oxford, where there was a long straight stretch in front of his house. His neighbors were almost all senior citizens who could not cross the street without help. If a 70 year old person started to cross the street, a car costing around the curve from Park or up from California would reach him before he crossed the street. Through traffic created a hostile environment, and last year, his car was hit twice within a couple of blocks of his house because people ran stop signs. Thomas Nee, 360 Monroe Drive, lived in Everg_*-seen Park for nine years through his grade school and high school \years, and played in Peers Park. He and his friends did not use the crosswalk, and would play games to get across the road. Card coming around the other side could not be seen, and there were several close calls. That was 12 years ago, and the problem was not any better. Park and Stanford were the main ways for bicycle traffic to get to Stafford, and were extensively used and dangerous. He attended Palo Alto High School, and had to exit from Castiileja, which was dangerous. Therewere two main exits for 2,000 students, one on Churchill and one on Entbarcadero. Half the traffic for Churchill went down Manzanito because the park was illegal for cyclists. Bia'y'cles had to cross the blind turn. In the spring he commuted from Palo Alto to Dublin, and went through nine different cities, The best places to cycle on the Whole journey were Park Avenue and Bryant. The barriers made cycling pleasant, and he believed bar- riers would solve tine current problem. George McDonald owned the buildings at 2165 and 218.5. Park Boulevard' on the corner of College and Park.- He was sympathetic to the people in Evergreen` Park because he had -'been at the loca- tion for..30:<years, and could spend an hour telling what hajpened since California Avenue was closed. He was also concerned about the island at the corner of College' and Park-, which would prevent him`'from servicing his buildings. He got his material via California .and Park, as did the Co-opt and islands would prevent 3 7:8 7 9/19/83 them from running their businesses. ;e saw speeding cars from his balcony, a:1 suggested that stop signs might help. After hearing all the con;erns, he believed that immediate Council action was necessary, and offered to donate $150 for stop signs at the corner of Park and College. John Nagle, 340 Ventura, lived by the former disco, and said there was strong community sentiment in Evergreen Park for action, but stop sigos were not the answer. The basic concept of slowing down traffic through harrassment did not work, there was a .limited amount of compliance resource available, and each additional stop sign weakened the others. Every stop sign represented an extra load on law enforcement, and reduced the level of compliance. There was already low compliance with stop signs, and over the past two years, he saw more people run lights in Palo Alto. Stop lights also weakened other stop signs, and he preferred to reserve the limited abilities to keep drivers under control for more important situations than just slowing them down. The Council might have to bite the bullet and close something. David Schrom was optimistic those Councilmembers most concerned about fairness to the business people on California Avenue would understand his comments. He understood purchase of the Keystone parking lot was currently contemplated at a price for each parking space of over $30,000. A staff report stated that over 100 cars who connected with the commercial use3 around the neighborhood parked on the neighborhood streets, which meant that Evergreen Park currently provided about three million dollars worth of park- ing facilities for the businesses in the California Avenue area, or some $3,000 in capital, per area resident to provide for the parking needs of the businesses in the area. Concern was ex- pressed about the retail vitality of the area, and he believed Council should look to the kinds of uses coming in as a result of the land use policies and patterns which occurred in other parts of the City and country. Retail was threatened because other, more profitable, uses could afford much higher rents and not be- cause people were unable to get to the retail stores, nor because of a lack of desire on the part of neighborhood residents. Cars were parked on both sides of the street on Cambridge, Sherman, and California Avenues, and if parking was required on all street facilities to accommodate the additional trips that would move down those streets as through traffic .was moved out of Evergreen Park, and the number of cars moved equalled the number currently parked in Evergreen Park, by allowing the through traffic to come through Evergreen Park, he calculated residents subsidized the business district between $5,00U and $6,000 each, which represent- ed $500 per person annually at current interest rates. It .was not the policy. of United States government to promote that kind of subsidy, and those Councilmembers whose previous interest was closely allied with the business community would not publicly ap- prove that type of subsidy, but by refusing to take through traf- fic and nonreside t parking off Evergreen Park etr-eets, they con- demned residents to pay that money. He knew the history of the other end of Park Boulevard and how many . children were hurt before it was changed from a collector street, closed off and made a safe place _ for the inhabitants and their children. When he biked down the street and saw kids chasing a ball into the street, he reacted differently from when he biked by Jim Stapleton`s house and wor- ried about the day his kid, who was running .up and down the aisle that evenir3g, would run between two parked cars and become a sta- tistic. Elizabeth Beckett, 1883 Park Boulevard, believed Mr. Kinsella spoke well on behalf of all residents* She was his neighbor, and lived on the concave bend of'° Park Boulevard. He joked abort al- most being broadsi ded when pulling out of his driveway, but she watched near misses every day, and found it frightening. The problem was serious. 3 7 8 8 9/19/83 Councilmember 1-a1tlno Sc id he spoke lip- Lhe sixth, dIId possibly the last time on the Ever•yreen Paris issue. The history of the process was a classic example of bureaucratic obfuscation. The Council agreed with the neighborhood on countless occasions that a traffic problem existed, yet. continued to find ways to put off the _inevitable and enact a strict traffic control system. In 1980, the opportunity arose to develop a solution in conjunction with the Southgate study, but was ignored. In 1981, the proposed California Park project offered another chance to enact traffic mitigation measures, but the neighborhood was asked to wait until staff had an additional opportunity to survey the neighborhood. In 1982, the spectLr _ cif barriers, considered the worst case scenario, forced the Council to punt again and request new alter- natives. In 1983 --his last year on the Council --he was incredu- lous that City staff, after hundreds of additional hours of study, again supported a delay to allow another study to become part of the solution. Now staff wanted a community sounding board to tin- ker with the problem, and he was not surprised citizens publicly assailed bureaucrats. The entire episode reflected badly on the Council and City staff. He could not blame staff entirely because they merely .implemented wishy-washy Council policies. He would have preferred'a Council decision in 1980 when the Southgate issue was discussed and the Evergreen Park neighborhood traffic problem diu riot exist because it would have saved the citizenry a lot of money. He recalled sitting at the KZSU broadcasting booth about nine or -ten years ago as the Council announcer, and watching a courageous Council decide that a terrible neighborhood traffic problem existed in College Terrace and make the only decision to solve the problem. He also recalled the barrier system enacted then gave concern to staff and neighbors, but since became a model for other neighborhoods and cities. As a resident homeowner in that area of town, he assured his colleagues that few College Terrace residents would trade the system `or another. He also had ties to Evergreen Park ---his wife grew up there and his in-laws lived there for 35 years. He sat in front of his in-laws' home on Park Boulevard and watched cars zip by at excessive speeds, per- sonally observed three traffic accidents, and dodged a number of cars when crossing the street to Peers Park. There was no .ques- tion the best solution for the neighborhood would be to immediate- ly enact a barrier .. syster , hut he recognized the unlikelihood. The present traffic level was totally unacceptable, and would immediately worsen with the completion of Park Central--- the Ryland Kelley project at El Camino and California, the proposed development Of the old Union 75 station, plus new potentials devel- opmenit by the sounding board and every other aspect of the California area study. Short of a barrier system, the neighbor- hood's proposal might offer the best compromise between a meaning- ful solution and a political solution available to the City -Coun- cil. They could not afford to listen to the inadequate and hollow staff proposal for delay., and he- encouraged his colleagues to im- mediately enact at least a six. month trial approach along the lines of the neighborhood study. Council should find out if the. proposal would work, and make the final decision whether the present or future Councils needed to --_bother with the issue gain-. _ a. r a a u r. s y Q r 11 • ne intended -Lb make the motion but, giv ►n the amount of- time expended by Councilmember Cobb working with the neighborhood, he deferred to him for the formal motion. Councilmember Cobb believed -the -:City staff was excellent, and likened the present difficulty with more boundary conditions than variables. He believed the issue had gone on too long, and believed the Council would not be fair to the neighborhood if it allowed a further delay. It was clear from remarks made that eve- ning the proposed plan was not satisfactory to either the neigh- borhood or the staff; and again compared too many boundary condi- tions and. not enough variables. The basic problem was the high cost for a trial, which effectiveness was questionable. He be lfeved the Council had three choices that evening --adopt the plan before Council; go back and -consider some limited use of bar- riers —which he prepared to do; or adopt some rlternative plan 9 /19/83 involving pots, stop signs and other reasonably cost effective devices for a six month trial period.- Although there were dangers with taking action that evening on a plan other than that before the Council because it was traffic engineers' work, he believed it would be worse to do nothing, and break faith with the neighbor- hood: residents. A plan must be established, and he agreed with the many neighbors who desired to see some kind of tangible mea- sure regardless of its progress. Page 5 of the staff report sug- gested an improvement of 15 percent or less could be attributed to any one of a number of extrinsic fluctuations, and. it appeared a larger number was required to describe the program as a success. The last time the issue came up, barriers were discussed, but there were too many plans from which to choose. MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by. Fazz#no, that staff be directed to implement a six month trial traffic control plan for Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association (EP4A), with the following target objectives: (A) Reduce through traffic internal to the neighborhood by approximately 30%; (8) Slow traffic on the collector street, Park Boulevard. In this implementation, staff may use a combination of the fol- lowing methods: (1) Additional 2 and 4 way stop signs; (2) Central pots or planters; (3) Limited barriers using temporary devices during the period of the trial. Councilmember Cobb referred to "avoiding closures or other mea- sures that would have an adaerse impact on the California business activities," and noted page 7 of the staff report said the con- sultant reported that the closure of Park Boulevard and Birch Street would have a small or insignificant effect on the business area on ,California Avenue. Since the closure of Park Boulevard was not suggested, he believed 1 irri tee barrier closures on the perimeter would have no impact whatsoever on the business dis- trict. If the motion passed, he requested that staff be sensitive to the concerns of the business people when preparing the appro- priate pla..,'for impiemententation. David Schrorn asked for clarification about the word "internal." Councilmember Cobb responded he defined the neighborhood streets to include Park Boulevard, and the motion prohibited closure on Park Boulevard, which was discussed extensively,: as a collector street, and which he was not prepared to handle that evening. He believed something to slow traffic on Park Boulevard would make a significant impact on the through internal traffic to the neigh- borhood _ streets. burhoud on he neighborhood ss�i eels. Vice Mayor Witherspoon asked Councilmember Cobb what budget amount he had in mind. Councilmember Cobb said he tried to be careful in the items speci- fied --stop signs, planters, and temporary barriers--so that the amount would be less that' what was before the Council* which also involved some work with the street. 'He hoped the work would be temporary and less expensive, but did not have a specific dollar. figure in mind ;Once `he tried to find a solution while listening to the comments, and welcomed staff comments. Vice Mayor Witherspoon sensed the urgency and frustration of the residents. It was cold comfort that two years was not a bad length of time for Council to get a handle on such a complex prob- lem, but.,action was required that evenings She understood the, 3 7 9 0 9/19/83 n.orinn to mean that action could not be t en that evcrring since staff would have to return with a plan for approval. A budget amendment would be required, and people should realize barriers would not be in place before Thanksgiving. Councilmember Cobb asked for clarification that action could not be taken on a budget amendment on any plan other than the one before the Council. Mr. Zaner said he was not as concerned about the budget amendment as he was about othereparts of the motion. Street closures would mean the plan would have to go before the Council again, together with environmental impact report items. Handling the budget was the easiest part. Vice Mayor Witherspoon did not want anyone to expect work to start immediately. The. Council was a victim of its own procedures that were there to safeguard the public. The rules had to be observed. Councilmember Renzel appreciated Councilmember Cobb's motion to get the ball rolling to reduce through traffic in Evergreen Park. The residents were eloquent --the traffic was a symptom of the bigger land - use problem which created street demands the major streets cr;uld not carry. Certain aspects of . the staff pian were appropriate, as immediate permanent improvements in the Evergreen Park area, and would lower traffic speeds. The proposed addition- al bike lanes were in accordance with other Comprehensive Plan programs to provide safe bikeways. A permanent 47 foot diameter planting island at the intersection of Park Avenue and Park Boulevard at an estimated cost of $39,000, or $29,100 plus contin- gency and inflation, would inform people entering on Park from El Camino that they were entering a residential neighborhood, and would have the incidental effect of slowing traffic. That would be an important statement for Evergreen Park, for which no sign would be required. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, that staff . be directed to proceed with plans for a permanent 47 foot planting circle at the intersection of Park Boulevard and Parr Avenue and with the bicycle lanes proposed in the staff report. Councilmember Menzel said she would make a separate motion if her colleagues desired. She agreed with Councilmember Cobb that the Council was in a quandary, and that anything short of enacting outright barriers that evening between : a:. i fornie Avenue and the Evergreen Park area would internally impact the.. Evergreen Park neighborhood.. The Council was not prepared to act as traffic engineers, and she would agree to the erection of either a one or two way carrier at Birch from Evergreen Park although it would put a lot of pressure on the.entran:e at Park. She was concerned about businesses in the residential area and did not want them to be adversely impacted. She believed -he emotion to cut off . 30 traffic was s reasonable semi hurt that percent ` 4i` the ' through ura � � �:, was � . ��_.,,,..,...� , goal was always mentioned, and she decided to hear her colleagues' opinions before proceeding with her amendment. AMENDMENT 41THDHA N. Councilmember Fletcher was not satisfied with the motion because it was unrealistic to expect a 30 percent reduction without a full. barrier at Park Boulevard. Internal berriers excluding Park Boulevard would mean'traffiC channeled to Park, which could mean a significant increase In Cars. At the risk of uopopularlt, , she changed her mind that evening, and was persuaded to accept the staff reCommeildatlon and await the outcome of the California Avenue Study. She believed there were possibilities that might be more effective than the chokers, and saw no reason why the traffic circle at the junction of . Park . Avenue and Park Boulevard should -3/1418A not be put in place. It would be a positive addition to slow traffic at that end, and she was enthusiastic about speed humps or undulations --sometimes called "sleeping policemen•" --because of their effectiveness. They reduced traffic, discouraged through traffic were popular with residents, reduced noise levels and accidents, and had become ad hoc pedestrian crossings because they slowed cars, and provided flat surfaces on which to cross. - Councilmember Levy asked if it was possible to measure the traffic going through the neighborhood on Park Boulevard and other neigh- borhood streets, and effect a numerical reduction of 30 percent in the total amount of through traffic. Mr. Stoffel said the plan submitted in October left Park Boulevard open and indicated the possibility of effecting a 30 percent de- crease in neighborhood traffic, but that was at the risk of traf- fic going to Park. Councilmember Levy asked if the 30 percent reduction included Park. Mr Stoffel said al though it included Park, the reduction was pre- dominantly along the barriers suggested on El Camino and Birch. It was estimated that Park Boulevard would carry 1,000 more cars than it presently did because of other closures Neighborhood. wide, it was expected that non -neighborhood traffic would be re- duced, but more traffic on other streets would result. Councilmember Levy clarified that a reduction in traffic by 30 percent was a measurable criterion, and slowing traffic on Park Boulevard could also be me►asuured. If the speed was reduced, tr of - fic on Park Boulevard would be discouraged, and he asked how much traffic would have to be slowed on Park Foulevard before it was considered measurable. Mr. Stoffel said staff believed anything less than a change of three m.p.h. was down in the realm of error in random fluctua- tions, but the other issue was. whether the residents perceived the traffic to be bet .er at 30 m.p.h. than it was at 35 m.p.h. He believed three m.p.h. would be the first meaningful reduction in terms of measuring the change in speed. Councilmember Levy asked about the current speed. Mr. Stoffel said speed was measured at both straightaways on Park, and the 85th percentile was found to be ,,about 34 or 35 m.p.h. - Councilmember Levy asked when staff would return to Council if Councilmember Cobb's motion was adopted. City Attorney Diane Lee said she believed there was a public hear- ing requirement under the Streets and Highways Code, and a minimum of 10 days notice, and if not already completed, an environmental review would also be required. Director of Planning and Community Environment Kenneth Schreiber believed staff would not return any sooner than three weeks, but probably four weeks, Councilmember Levy asked when the results of the California Avenue study would return to the Council. Mr. Schreiber said staff hoped to have the results of the California Avenue study to the Planning Commission by early to mid -November, and the Planning Commission r'°ecor mendation somewhere after the first of 1984. Councilmember Levy commented that he was frustrated by the choices before the .Council. He was Chairman of the PAP Committee that held the hearings referred to that evening, and believed staff 3 .7 9 2 9/19/83 As Corrected 1/09/84 was given direction that should have enabled them to return with a definite recommendation --not a recommencation to wait. He shared, along with Councilmember Fletcher, a certain ambivalence because he mated to see the Council do something, then complete the California Avenue study and find that something done that evening should be reversed. Since the California Avenue study was moving ahead and, with Councilmember Cobb's motion, the Council was giv- ing staff some general recommendations and not telling them to do specific things, he hoped to get some positive accomplishments. Staff probably should incorporate Councilmember Renzel's sugges- tions in terms of at least installing the circle at Park Boulevard and Park Avenue and narrowing the traffic lanes by installing bike lanes on all of Park Boulevard. He believed a lot could be accom- plished with the motion on the floor to carry out the directive of the P&P Committee. He did not know whether it would do everything required in the neighborhood, but said the neighborhood was unique in that it adjoined a commercial area and needed some help. For the record, he pointed out the barrier on Park Boulevard and Castilleja was not just one that helped Southgate because every car going through there also went into Evergreen. That barrier was positive, but more were required. He would support the mo- tion, and would support Councilmember Renzel's suggestions in the event it failed. Something needed to be done that evening to get the matter moving, and he hoped Council could move in such a way as to not have to go back and reverse actions as the California Avenue study was completed. Mayor Bechtel had a problem with the motion as worded. She also served on the P&P Committee last year and believed the lotion was similar to the direction the P&P Committee gave staff with a few more variations --that there be a reduction in traffic and its speed in Evergreen Park. The motion on the floor amounted to add- ing a few stop signs, some flower pots, and perhaps a barrier, but was unspecific. .She was concerned that staff would not return in two to three weeks, but rather four to six months, and something needed to be done sooner. She supported the thrust of setting standards and trying to reduce traffic, but Aaelieved the motion was not specific enough. Staff's hand; were tied before, and months and yea -es were spent on the item. She believed the Council must be specific and say where to install the stop signs and what should be done to make Park Boulevard safer for those who lived on that street. She would not support the motion. Councilmember Mein asked if a plan could be designed to reduce through traffic _by 30 percent with the five factors contained in Councilmember Cobb's motion. Mr. Stoffel said it would be difficult, and he would probably seek guidance from Mr. Schreiber regarding the definition of limited closures, .and how to determine what, would effect the business dis- tract and how much. Any time something was done on Park or Birch, the business district would be affected in some way. Councilmember Klein asked if through traffic could be reduced 30 percent wi th- a barricade at Park Boulevard. Mr. Stoffel said Park .and Birch were two parallel openings, and -if one was closed _with the other left open, neither seemed to work well. Some reductions could be made, but there were usually ad- verse impacts on the street left open. Councilmember Klein clarified that unless there were closures at both Park and Birch, there would not be a through traffic reduc- tion of 30 percent. j' A:. Mr. Stoffel said oneplan he looked at where Park Boulevard was left open, he estimated a reduction of about 30 percent, but the problem was some side effects of increased :traffic on certain other streets, which might not be acceptable. 3 7 9 3 9/19/83 Councilmember Klein asked if it was fair to say that, absent clos- ing off Birch and Park; Boulevard,. it was unlikely to get a redac- tion of 30 percent without shifting traffic internally from one street to another in the neighborhood. Mr. Stoffel said previous work indicated that the closures did not have to be total, but something must be done to both streets whether it was a combination of a closure on one and a one way on the other to avoid the side effects. Councilmember Klein said when he first became a Councilmember, he was informed by then Mayor Henderson that the most difficult prob- lem which faced a Councilmember, and the one most difficult to solve, was traffic. He did not share the optimism of a lot of speakers tonight that the problem would go away no matter what the Council did. Mr. Ercolani got to the heart of the matter that society was based on the automobile, and everyone insisted on using them. He was not a great fan of barriers, and was intrigued by the fact that the people who mentioned where barriers succeeded neglected to point out the one glaring failure on Hamilton Avenue. He did not believe barriers were a panacea and it was not suffi- cient to say that traffic all over town had to be attacked, but the problem would not go away when it was pushed from one place to another. He believed the Council should face the fact that it was dealing with one particular neighborhood with particular problems, and must grasp nettle and loot play around with lots of difterent alternatives that might not succeed. As much as he liked Council - member Cobb's efforts, he VA not believc it would succeed and the same things would be said again in six months. If the goal to reduce traffic by 30 percent was to be adopted, the Council must have serious traffic barriers and not ones that would hurt any- one. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Fazzino, with the goal of reevcing through traffic by 30 percent, to strike the condition in the main motion of no closure on Paris Boueevard, that staff be given the discretion to use barriers at Park Boulevard and . Birch, and one way streets together with the other measures listed in the main motion, and that there be minimal shifting of traffic within the internal streets of the neighborhood. AMENDMENT INCORPORATED INTO MAIN MOTION BY MAKER AND SECOND -1 Councilmember Eyerly asked what would happen in terms of traffic floe; if the idea of the traffic circle and bike lanes, as recom- mended by Coui i ;member Renee!, were implemented without the rest of the plan. Mr. Stoffel- said the traffic circle at Park -Boulevard and Park Avenue would break up that .stretch, and even though it was a stand alone item, it was seen as being in conjunction with the curve at the end which was another impediment to speeding. Staff antici- pated that an island, besides filling some of the no man's land, would slow traffic somewhat. Staff found that the bike lanes up on- the corner would fit washout taking away parking, so the per- ception of narrowing the lanes eight help to slow traffic. Councilmember Eyerly said the estimates for trial installation were scary figures, it was an election_ year,_ and sore Council -- members were concerned about fiscal responsibility. and criticism from the neighborhood for trial and error. He did not understand why the trial installation had to cost so much money, and asked if they :;ou1d go to sandbags or something simple for a six month trial period that .. would do the same thing without costing $53,000. Director of Transportation Ted Noguchi said sandbags reminded him of the Hamilton Avenue barrier mentioned by Councilmember Klein. Staff started with sandbags in that .case and ended up with an ad- verse reaction from the neighborhood.: If the City was going to try anything, it should be done safelyand professionally. 3 7 9 4 9/19/83 As Corrected 1/09/84 Councilmember Eyerly asked whether the barriers would be cement poured farms. Mr. Stoffel said the idea in the trial was to at least delineate the shape of what was eventually planned, and there were only a few standard devices that could do that, and all expensive. Three inch high buttons were planned like the ones on Churchill Avenue, just west of the railroad' tracks, which essentially could not be driven over at any rate of speed. That cost money, ;a lot of striping would have to be removed, and a few signs would be neces- sary. When evaluations were put in place, so was contracting for maintenance, and the costs mounted. Councilmember Eyerly commented that traffic was a problem for many years, and for as long as he was a Councilmember. It was frus- trating enough that a number of years back, the Council asked staff to create a priority list for neighborhoods in terms of traffic studies, and Council set a policy on how those would fall. It was Evergreen Park's turn, and the City did not have enough resources to study and implement the plans all over the City at ore time, which would be the ideal solution. The particular prob- lJn in Evergreen Park was not helped ard he hated staff to take the brunt of the abuse for the delays and the inability to settle on one plan. As he saw it, the major problem with the delay was too many traffic engineers from the City Council and the neighbor- hood. A lot of things were reviewed because of the pressure and still a decision was not made. He believed Councilmember Cobb's motion started off on another plan, would send staff back to the drawing board, and would take longer than expected by the time everything was put together for implementation. The California Avenue plan would come forward right after the first of the year, and he believed it was important for the two plans to be coordi- nated. Councilmember Klein's amendment would make it more diffi- cult because if staff were to come back before the California Avenue plan returned with a direction to cut back on the traffic and allow barriers on both Park and Birch without considering the California Avenue plan, the City was heading for more trouble. He did not believe that approach was logical. He did not want to delay something happening in Evergreen Park while waiting for the California Avenue plan, and he believed the compromise to get started on something in Evergreen Park and not preempt the California Avenue plan was more along the lines of Councilmember Renzel's suggestions regarding the traffic island and bicycle lanes on Park Avenue, which staff agreed would help. With the traffic circle being a permanent installation, it would not use money for implementation on a temporary basis. He would not sup- port the motion, and hoped the Council would return to a more sim- plified approach. Mayor Bechtel re a9eRde i terms to be completed after .10:30 Councilmember Renzel believed Council was approaching the close of the Evergreen Park item, and that. the Council procedures were not likely to have a lot of public input. She hoped Council could finish the agenda, and preferred to wait and see what happened. She also wanted to see the Council proceed with the smoking. ordi- nance, and believed Mr. Debs' question regarding the referral was straightforward and should not present aey problems. If necessary at the end of the agenda, Council could continue the item regard- ing Council procedures. Councilmember Levy suggested that th.e Council procedural rules- not be attacked. He hated to get Started on something after midnight because there would be demands " on , the Council to rush through without proper consideration. He suggested that Council continue the item re. Council procedures until the next agenda. .Councilmember Renzel said the City Clerk requested if., the Council procedures item was continued, it`be'continued to October 11,` She did not believe the item would .take very long unless there were a lot of Questions. 3 7 9 5 9/19/83 Mayor Bechtel believed it would be better to continue the item because there were a couple of members of the public that wanted to speak to le, and. in -fairness, she did not want to get to 1100 a .m. , and then have i t _continued. MOTION TO BRING FORWARD ITEM #6, RE CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURAL RULES ILAML= 2.04) FOR PURPOSES OF CONTINUARCE MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to bring for- ward I`em 16, re City Council Procedural Rules for purposes of continuance. MOTION PASSED unanimously. MOTION: Mayor Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to continue Item 16, re City Council Procedural Rules to October 17, 1983. MOTION PASSED unanimously. Mayor Bechtel said Council would consider the remaining items on the agenda. COUNCIL RETURNED TO ITEM #8x RE EVERGREEN PARK Councilmember Renzel said it appeared clear that if the City was to achieve the 30 percent reduction in through traffic without the adverse impacts of 1,000 more cars on Park Boulevard, the simple and most straightforward way to accomplish that was to go ahead with trial barriers at Park and at Birch. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Counci lmember Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to proceed with a six month trial plan of barriers at rem( and Birch to determine the impacts; to expect that because of the businesses that barriers would occur between College and Cambridge on Park; to authorize permanent planting circle at Parr Boulevard and Park Avenue, and add bike lanes along Park Boulevard; to reduce enough traffic in the area to allow safe access for pedestrians to Peers Park and if necessary, install a stop sign. Counci lmember Renzel said many people testified Evergreen Park had extensive traffic problems, was an isolated neighborhood and not one where overflow traffic would occur elsewhere. If barriers were implemented on a trial basis, and turned out to be disas- trous, they could be removed. The subject case was different from the Guinda Street barrier which had a lot of open holes from which traffic could flow. In that particular case, traffic could only go along El Camino Real and use the commercial streets which accessed the California Avenue area. It was more direct and involver less potential to yet another more complicated plan to try the closures at Park and Birch on a temporary six month basis with a goal to reduce through traffic by 30 percent. If that were successful without significant adverse effects on the California Avenue area or those businesses on the Evergreen Park .side, the closures could be made. permanent, and the neighborhood would be "modern" and designed as a basic cul-de-sac neighborhood. She believed a planting circle 47 feet in diameter should be perma- nently installed at the intersection of Park Boulevard and Park Avenue, and that bike lanes should be added independent of any tra•ff.ic solutions. She clarified that her proposal was to have a 'barrier on Park between Cambridge- any, _Col loge Cambridge would continue to be an access to the California Avenue area, and any businesses on the Evergreen Park side of the barrier would have:to receive access through the Evergreen Park neighborhood. If her substitute motion failed, she would support the main motion. She believed her motion was more direct and would result in:\action sooner, and might cause less const ernationamong staff to try and find a variety of solutions again. The City had a Comprehensive Plan to protect its residential neighborhoods<,from through traf- f ic,° and a program ,to protect- the R-1 'neighborhoods, ifnd she believed_ both programs should be a strong 'priority. 3 7. 9 6 9/19/83 Councilmember Cobb commented that there was another element of the puzzle to coordinate the lights on El Camino. He hoped that could be done soon because that was part of the solution, If El Cami no's lights were not coord dated, the Courci l had not solved the problem, oecause trying to move traffic out of the neighbor- hood and back on the main street did not work very well and nothing would be achieved but a bigger mess elsewhere. That prob- lem must also be solved. Regarding the substitute motion, he was afraid to vote against a -motion which- did :something, but would oppose'.the substitute motion. He hoped if it failed, its .maker and secondwould join in the main motion. It was a trial for six months to'see what happened. He did not know. whether the speci- fics in the substitute motion were truly the best, and whether they .gave the staff freedom to conduct a proper trial. It appeared.Council started out by giving staff a problem: with _too few variables and too many boundary conditions,, and now was at- tempting to give the solution without knowing the total equation. His motion as amended by Councilmember Klein hopefully gave staff enough variables to solve the problem, and he wanted the experts to solve the problem with enough freedom to do so, and see the test's end result. Reluctantly, he would oppose the substitute motion and urge his colleagues to support the motion as amended. Staff's hands were tied too many times in the past, and now the fetters were removed, and he wanted to see what they could dot Councilmember Levy said he would also vote against the substitute motion because it did the engineering job, and he wanted to see policy. He suspected the engineers would be criticized even more than the polio} makers, and would stick to the policy making. He waivered as to whether to support the new motion because he be- lieved barriers were a risk particularly with the California Ave- nue study and what staff said in terms of it undoubtedly playing a part . in: how Birch and Park _should oe configured. Councilmember Klein did not say.there must be barriers, and he went on record as being reluctant to approve a plan,thate involved. barriers, and whatever the Council's direction, to staff, he hoped everything possible would be done to develop a plan to meet the criteria, short of barriers. Councilmember Fletcher said regarding the substitute motion, while it was true the consultant stated that overall barriers would not significantly hurt businesses, it also said that any access restriction would be significantly disadvantageous to businesses on the east end. Even though it might be a six month experiment that would not do any harm if it did not work, in the meantime, Peninsula Scientific might -go out of business, and she did not want to be responsible for it. She believed the Council should be professionaK and wait for the consultant to finish the California Avenue study. and have a- staff evaluation with a recommendation. No matter what CounCii suggested that evening, it would not be implemented soon as was mentioned earlier, and might cause,_ more controversy and dissention in the neinhborhood. . She believed the Council should let the matter -`ire for the time being with the limited impleiaentation of the traffic circle, bike lanes, and the big overs;zed center street markers. Short of stop gap measures, she did not believe Council should close streets, put in step signs or anything of that nature..without the completed jreporteon California Avenue. Vice Mayor. Witherspoon said the substitute motion neglected to address the lack of safe access to Peers Park. Whatever Council ended up with, it would hopefully reduce enough traffic on Park to have - safe access and a pedestrian: crosswalk to the park.: If the substitute motion did not pass, and Council was back to the -Cobb/ Klein motion, she hoped one would make reference to the bike lanes and some kind of stop sign to access to Peers Park, which would, be the only stop sign she would support. Rega rdi n9 "' the direct ap- proach, although there appeared to be an, infinite number of possi- bilities in the small neighborhood in terms of where to squeeze traffic, and if‘ the Council did not want to bite the bullet and go 3 : 9 7 9/19/83 that route, Council would be in for a few more studies which might not be all bad because the .California Avenue study might reveal ways to facilitate traffic flow on El Camino. There were possl- bilities mentioned by Councilmember Fletcher such as the speed bumps, but she hoped the substitute motion would pass. Council had an opportunity to observe the trial for six months, and the California Avenue plan would be completed about the time Council got feedback on the trial, and if the trial did not work, the bar- riers could be taken out. - i Councilmember Klein associated himself with the: remarks made by Councilmembers Cobb and -Levy as to why the .substitute, motion should not be passed. He .believed there were a couple of amend- ments that should be made to the main motion if the, substitute motion failed such as the one mentioned by Vice Mayor Witherspoon. He did not believe the California Avenue study was a factor the Council -should take into account at that time, and did not see how the study could show no problem. The problem" would not get better, and Council might as well move forward.- Councilmember Eyerly took exception to the last parr of Council - member Klein`s remarks. According to CMR;515:3 on page_, 7, the consultant pointed out some specific impacts on businesses on California Avenue concerning Park Boulevard and Birch Street and said the overall impact df the business district might not be Se great because the business resources would reorient and would come more from the head of the avenue out towards the industrial park. The report went on to say the people on the east end of the avenue could be heavily or more seriously impacted. One business on that end was the Co -Op food market, and -he Council was worried about how to save those types of businesses which could only pay a cer- tain amount of ground rent. Food markets could not pay much, and a six month ,;rill to determine impacts was not fair because retail businesses could not stand six months of trial. He could speak from experience because the City did things on Waver?ey Street a couple of times in- sewer lines where that street was closed off and his business on that street dropped about 50 percent. As soon as the street was reopened, up the business went. Six months of a traffic pa€tern change, not properly analyzed, was gresel-y unfair. He encouraged the Council to vote against the motions outside of the traffic circle and bike lanes and wait for the California Avenue study and not dose streets without proper analyzation. He asked that the substitute motion be divided for purposes of voting. City. Manager Bill Zaner said if Council adopted the original mo- tion made by Councilmember Cobb, plus two _additional items ---the permanent installation of the circle at Park, and the bike lanes -- he believed staff could return on October 24 with a program to meet the -Cobb !potion outline, and have the necessary notices and draft material for Council to set ih place the street closures and EAR mechanism, -- so that the process would move ahead. That way sta-f11 would be given about 30 days to put a plan together, --and get moving on the Park Avenue circle and bike lanes. et Councilmember itenzel asked if there was =any problem -with --the Coun- cil passing_ a- portion -of a - substitute- motion and going -back--.to the original motion. _A- Ms. : Lee said if the substitute motion were. `divided, it r:ka 61d be divided and taken in that order. The rules were up to the Council to decide Councilmember Levy asked what happy' ed to thee. or,igi.naI motion .if the substitute motion, or any portion thereof, passed. MOMENT: Counci lrasmber Klein =-moved, seconded by Cobb*, . to vote on the substitute notion at a whole, and if it failed, aye amend- ment could be moved to the main motion on the floor 3 7 9 8 9/19/83 AMENDMENT PASSED no." vote of 7-2, Fletcher and Eyerly voting Councilmember Renzel said she would move an amendment to the main motion if the substitute motion failed. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Renzel and Witherspoon voting "aye." AMENDMENT: a youncilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, an amendment to the main motion that a permanent circle 47 feet in diameter with a planting island be installed at Park Boulevard and Park Avenue, and that the bike lanes on Park be established, that a crossing be implemented at Stanford Avenue and Park for safe access to Peers Park. Councilmember Levy said 47 feet and the bike lanes represented engineering and not policy which he could not support. The safe access to Peers Park represented policy which he supported. He did not believe Council should do the engineering for staff because he suspected they would ertd up with them anyway. Councilmember Renzel clarified that her figures and suggestions were contained in the staff report before the Council tonight. Councilmember Klein agreed with Councilmember Levy. If the amend- ment stayed as presently worded, he could not support it. He pointed out that if staff was not going to come back with a closure on Park, perhaps the traffic circle at Park and Park would be different than the one suggested, which was one reasuf; he did not like to see the Council be so specific. Councilmember Renzel said she would delete the 47 feet, She believed a significant entry at Park would have an important effect for the neighborhood, and her intent was that it be sig- nificant and not minor. Other techniques were mentioned, and she believed there was an aesthetic and psychological problem with any rind of painted deterrents that had to be' placed in neighborhoods and created.an aura of a fast track, and the Council did not want to do that i n Evergreen Park or any other neighborhood unless it was absolutely essential. Even a yellow line downthe riddle or a residential street changed the residential character, and to the extent Council could avoid that particular type of control Mecha- nism would be better for the'neignborhood. MAKER AND SECOND DELETED REFERENCE TO 47 FEET IN AMENDMENT AMENDMENT AS CHANGED PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Levy voting 'no.," Councilmember Klein said the motion, as. presently worded, stated the measures _designed by staff would not have an adverse impact on the California Avenue business area, and he believed that was too strict a standard, AMENDMENT: Councilmember Klein moved that the design_ proposed. by staff be such as to minimize adverse impacts oR the business activities in the area. AMENDMENT INCORPORATED__ INTO MAIN MOTION BY MAKER AND SECOND NOTION. RESTATED: THAT STAFF IMPLEMENT O$ A SIX MONTH TRIAL IIASIS A TRAFFIC CONTROL -PLAT! FOR EVERGREEN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE FOLLOWING TARGET OBJECTIVES: I. Redyce through traffic internal approximately 30 percent and 2. Slow traffic oh Park Boulevard. to the nei y ±herhood by 3 7 9 9 9/19/83 1 MOTION CONTINUED In that implementation, staff may use a combination of the fol- lowing methods: ' 1. Additional two and four way stop signs; 2. Central pots or planters; 3. Limited barriers using temporary devices during the period of the trial; and 4. One way streets. The following constraints shall apply to that effort: 1. Design to minimize adverse impacts on the business activities in the area; 2. That barriers could be used. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Fletcher and Eyerly voting "no." ITEM #9, SMOKING ORDINANCE (CMR:523:3) Councilmember Levy believed the ordinance was inconsistent in some areas. Smoking was permitted in theater lobbies, but not office lobbies and he wondered whether the differences warranted special treatment. City Attorney Diane Lee said that particular issue was not reviewed, .and that the ordinance was drawn in accordance with the motion passed by -the Council- on June 20. All Council directions were incorported into the ordinance, but there were inconsisten- cies, and she cited the difference between cafeterias and restau- rants. She reminded the Council that the ordinance could be changed and that no legal requirements were involved. Councilmember Cobb referred to item 3, "any emp : oyee In the office work space shall be given the right to designate his or her imme- diate area as a nonsmoking area," and asked how that designation applied in open module work plans -without floor -to -ceiling walls. Ms. Lee said the ordinance gave discretion to various employers to adopt policies, and set specific and general guidelines. Each employer would be able to define the policies in keeping with the standards set forth in the ordinance. Employers were not,locked into a `specific approach --it simply set the precedent for the rights of nonsmokers. Councilmember Levy asked for an interpretation of Item 4, on page 4, "any dispute arising under the smoking policy, the rights of the nonsmoker shall be given precedence." Ms. Lee Sala that in the event of a= close call interpretation of the ordinance, precedeice would be ' given to the nonsmoker's rights because the purpose of the policy was to give priority to the desires of nonsmokers. Glenn Affleck, 3830 May Court, was Technical Regulations --,Officer at Hewlett Packard and represented the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and the Smoking Ordinance Task Force established by the Santa Clara Couo;,y .Manufacturers Group. Working with Ms. Lee was a positive example. of .private and public sector cooperation which resulted in a better ordinance. Some members of his representa- tive organizations questioned- the need for the ordinance aud its 3 8 0 0 9/19/83 enforcement. Rtisinesses attempted to establish written policies in an attempt to accommodate, nonsmokers, but would work coopera- tively to produce a mtatually acceptable ordinance. The ordinance was generally wzrkable, but the businesses desired wording changes, because the original Council direction did not provide the City Attorney with the ability to negotiate. In section 9.14.090(1), he requested that the word "lobby" be deleted, because their lobbies were all public. Section 9.140.090(2), on page 4, required that two-thirds of cafeterieelbe designated non- smoking areas whereas restaurants were only required to designate one-third as nonsmoking. He requested a separate section to specifically cover small meeting rooms as follows: "prohibition of smoking in employee conference and meeting rooms and class- rooms, unless_ participants agree otherwise among themselves." He believed -employers should be allowed to devise an effective alter- native to individual "no smoking" -:signs when a whole series of classrooms were involved, and hoped Council realized the challenge the ordinance would present to busioesses to accommodate the non- smoker. Katie Taylor, 1469 Park Avenue, San Jose, represented the American Lung Association (ALA), and was director of Community Education Programs for Santa Clara and San Benito Counties. She also worked with the Santa Clara County Task Force to provide technical assis- tance and information about the sensitive areas. Tha ALA pre- ferred voluntary compliance with the rights of smokers and non- smokers and that the ordinance would become policy with the vari- ous companies. Ultimately, the ALA desired that individuals be aware of their personal. freedom. The ALA would provide any necessary information. Sibyl Anderson, 704 Chimalus Drive, supported the regulation of smoking in the office workplace because air movement where she worked was such that she was most bothered by smoke coming some distance away. She needed a regulation to support the nonsmoker priority or else she would have to sit in smoke. Gloria Wall, 291 Creekside Drive, was a member of the State Board of the ALA and the loeel Santa Clara County Board of Directors:. She commended Ms. Lee for the well designed smoking ordinance, and said the ALA traditionally acted as a -mediator between the legis- lative' process and the employer. It was hoped to establish a non-- smoking environment because a nonsmoking employee on the payroll represented $5,000 annual savings and since two-thirds of adults were nonsmokers, the democratic rule should prevail. If the issue wer .human rights, it appeared logical thats clean air would take pre a dent over polluted air. The ALA believed that clean air pro- moted lung health, and made good business sense. Three-quarters of people's lives were spent indoors, and the Santa Clara Lung Association concluded that the health of nonsmokers must be, ►ro- tected from second-hand smoke. To that end, -the Council was !fin- courayed to add the provision to include smoking in the work place. Edward O'Dwyer, 5992 Cahalan Avenue, San Jose, was president of the Environmental Health Committee. Some believed the ordinance was not needed and that.. businesses could be self-regulating, and was the opinion three years ago when the Council decided to let industry settle the problem of smoking in business conference rooms. Palo Alto citizens voiced majority support in 198.0 to clean the air in the workplace, but despite public opinion, press reports, lawsuits and complaints from employees and the Surgeon General's report en second-hand smoke, only a few companies ad - 'dressed the problem. Managementwas af: i_d to offend smokers who often composed . less than 25 percent of the workers, and who im- posed smoke pollution on themajority. Those companies _interested in solving the problem did so without regulation, but the remain- der needed guidelines to promote a healthy . working environment. When restaurants failed to establish: nonsmoking areas, guidelines were set for those companies who failed to recognized the publ i,:c's 1 i 3 8 0 1 9/19/83 charryed attitude .towards swok i ng 'The Council had an opportunity to both serve its constituents and set an example for other leaders in California by passing the''ordinance. He strongly sup- ported the Council's efforts. Charles Mawson, 2054 University #500, Berkeley, was Executive Director of Californians for Nonsmokers' Rights, which was a state-wide organization for laws such as the one proposed. 'He said he helped write, or`: consulted on every nonsmoking ordinance in. California over the past four years. Opponents of the ordi- nance believed the government should not intrude --that common courtesy would take care of the problem. No one would have at- tended that meeting if laws were not needed to protect the rights of nonsmoker . Opponents believed the evidence was insufficient that Second-oland smoke harmed nonsmokers, and notwtthstandi ng over 200 studies, a San Diego study showed that an 'employee 'who worked in a smoky envi ronrnent - for over 20 years'.had the --same respiratory problems as one who smoked half a pack a day. Studie's in Japan and Greece showed that nonsmoking wives of smoking husbands had two to three times the lung cancer rate of wives of iusbands who did not smoke, while French studies showed that wives of smokers did not live as long, and children whose parents smoked had more respiratory problems. Ample medical evidence showed that smoking was harmful, and he cited the asbestos industry in the 30`s, when medical evidence showed it was harmful, but nothing was done, and now a problem existed with asbestosis. Nonsmokers did not want to be guinea pigs for 30 years to prove the problem. The 1982 Report on Smoking from the Surgeon General stated; "For the purpose of preventive medicine, prudence dictates that nonsmokers,avoid ex- posure to second-hand smoke to the extent possible." In 1981, the National Academy of Sciences reported that cigarette smoke was one of the major components of indoor pollution, and that public poli- cy should clearly state that involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke had adverse health effects and should be minimized or avoided where possible. Opponents asked why Palo Alto should be the only one to have such an ordinances but many communities had smoking ordinances for years -.-Minnesota since 1975. Utah and Nebraska hag ordinances covering all public places and places of employment, and in 1983 Connecticut would join. --California State agencies recently established: workplace policies, Ukiah was covered since July 198I, and City and County employees of San Diego were covered. Thomas Jefferson, in his inaugural address, stated that a primary reponsibility of government was to try and prevent people from injuring one another. Nonsmokers were being injured. Jobst Brandt, 351 Middlefield Road, encouraged the Council to sup- port the ardinance.. Because of a law, smokers could be made to extinguish cigarettes in food stores, and the same, would.apply to the workplace. He Worked for a Company that encouraged non- smokers, but smokers would not respond to a request to extinguish cigarettes, which made it necessary for an ordinance to enforce nuns► hkers'_ ri ghtst Sarnia Smith, 2031 Park Boulevard, supported the ordinance, believed it was overdue, and it was a shame society glamorized negative things like smoking. .People who .wanted to smoke should go outside, and she was tired of being offended by smoke. Doug MacDonell 3649 Ross Road, referred to the suggestion that cafeterias have the same restriction as restaurants, and said he was against any changes in ,he ordinance. Cafeterias were fre- quently subsidized for the employee convenience and kept on site. . They were widely used, and the two-thirds ban should remain. Melvin Bernstein, - 7-26 Loma -Verde, supported tht, ordinance: Counc lmember Fazai•no basically , supported the ordinance and en- couraged Council support. He believed cafeteria's should .co_nform with. the l aw r. bn restaurants, but could be persuaded to change the restaurant law to two irds nonsmoking, because - that was almost the . case. 3 8 0 2 9/19/83 MOTION: Councilmember Fazzlno moved, seconded uy Fletcher, approval of the smoking ordinance for first reading. ATgORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF ATgfHE CITY Or PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 9.14 OF THE PALO ATgALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT SMOKING IN ELEVATORS, ATgPUBLIC RESTROOMS, AND INDOOR SERVICE LINES AND REGULATING SMOKING IN THE WORKPLACE." Councilmember Fazzino applauded Ms. Lee's outstanding work and realized how many concepts were proposed by the Council. He believed the ordinance would test any potential court challenge, and was basically fair. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by__Levy, to amend the paragraph 9-14.41;0(2) to read "Provis ion and maintenance of a contiguous no smoking area of not less than one-third of the seating capacity and floorspace in cafeterias, and two-thirds in lunchrooms, and employee lounges." Councilmember Fletcher agreed that restaurants should be upgraded to conform to the lower smoking area, and would work on that with Councilmember Fazzino. . Cafeterias were an attempt to reduce lunchtime traffic, and two-thirds of the population did not smoke, so the 1►unch area should be sufficiently attractive to keep em- ployees on site. She believed it would be detrimental to water down the ordinance. Councilmember Levy said he championed individuals who exercised their individual 'i ghts, but research on second-hand smoke made him realize it was detrimental to public health and should be con- trolled. He supported the thrust of limiting :the exposure of the public to the medical problem, and generally supported the motion. He believed the inconsistencies should be eliminated --the amount declared smoke free was immaterial, and as soon as the mandate to set aside a portion as smoke free took effect, the marketplace would take over. If two-thirds of the public were nonsmokers, the space devoted to nonsOokers increased, as was evidenced in planes and. in public areas. It was key to mandate a separa;.ion, and for the sake of consistency,. all eating areas should be required to set aside the same amount of space for nonsmoking. He supported the amendment. Counci lmemher- Cobb complimented Councilmember Fletcher and those who brought the issue to the Council. He suffered greatly from smoke and was allergic to it. He often made a scene in restau- rants because nonsmokers were given. the worst part of the restau- rant, The law for restaurants .needed strengthening, and he op- posed the amenament. Councilmember Klein szid it was important to define the percentage of floorspace designated as nonsmoking. He opposed the amendment he believed two-thirds was the eneeArr amount and the [}eGdiJS� ti v:r a 1 ar�Cv LSFV- 4S3 1 � .�a nu .r �+••�: restaurant regulation should be amended a ,cordingly. Two --thirds should be devoted to nonsmokers because the thrust.. of the ordi- nance was to show the majority of nonsmokers, and that smokers should be required to ask for special privileges.. Councilmember Eyerl; asked that the main motion be split and the reflation of smoking in the office workplace be separated, which he considered to be overregulation by government. ' If that .were. done, he could support the motio . MAIN, MOTION DUVIDED Counci lmember Reni\el opposed the amendment because . at least two- ?-hlyds .of the- pub is were nonsmokers. A cafeteria was often. the only- place an -.employee ate because of. time or financial reasons,. and it was not the same -ma.rketplace °as a restaurant. it was important to. --retain the two-thirds ruling. Space .for nonsmokers 3 8.0 3 9/19/83 was increased on planes because airlines were legally required to provide nonsmoker seats on demand. She concurred with .Council - member Cobb about the ina(!equacy of the nonsmoking sections in restaurants because several Palo Alto restaurants did not comply with the 30 percent rule. It was important to provide adequate space for nonsmokers, and she was often told she could have a table in the smoking section immediately, but would have an hour's wait before getting one in the nonsmoking section. Lunch hour time constraints made it important''to have adequate space, :and she supported the main motion because it was an important step. AMENDMENT TO REDUCE NONSMOKING AREAS IN CAFETERIAS FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Eyerly, Fazzino, Levy voting "aye." AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to amend page 4, 9.14.090(2) to move "auditoriums" and "classrooms" out of this section to Section 1. Mayor Bechtel_ clarified that the amendment would remove auditoria and classrooms from the two-thirds classifications and place them in complete -prohibition. Councilmember Levy believed the amendment was consistent since smoking was prohibited in theatres and auditoriums. Since smoking was permitted in theatre lobbies, he suggested that it be permit- ted in office lobbies. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 8-1. Eyerly voting ":no." AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Cobb, tc de- lete "l;5b:es" from Section 1 of Page 4. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Renzel voting "no." Councilmember Levy believed it was unnecessary to have government mandated signs in every room, which made all other signs less strong. He believed "no smoking" signs should be placed only in the general area where smoking was prohibited. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Cobb, to amend page S, paragraph 9.14.100 by deleting the word "room". Ms. Lee said a specific provision existed on page 4(5) with res- pect to the office work place which superseded the provision re- ferred to by Councilmember Levy, and where the word "room" was net mentioned. Councilmember Levy asked how the two interacted. Ms. Lee -said with regard to the office work place, signs were re- quired but their number and placement were not .specified. Section 9.14. 100 applied to other types of• pro'i)i bi ti ons in the --ordinance, but whenever smoking was prohibited by the code, It would be pro- hibited in policies adopted by the employer. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN Councilmember Fletcher also complimented Ms. Lee for her thorough job; working on her own initiative and with the Manufacturing Group and the Lung Association, She believed the' ordinance was a great step forward for the rights of people who wanted to remain healthy. She complimented the City Attorney and her colleagues for recognizing the need for such an ordinance. MAIN MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF NOTION TO APPROVE ALL SECTIONS EXCEPT 9.14.090. OF THE SMOKING OR©MANCE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 3 8 0 4 9/19/83 SECOND PART OF MOTION TO APPROVE SECTION 9.14.090, PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Eyerly voting "no." MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. ITEM #9-A, (OLD ITEM #2), 1983 SPFED LIMIT UPDATE - REFERRAL TO POLICY ANU PROCEDURES COMMITTEE MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to refer Item 9-A, 1983 Speed Limit Update to the Policy and Procedures Committee. R. J. Debs, 3145 Flowers Lane, said he would make his remarks at the Tuesday Committee meeting. MOTION PASSED unanimously: ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 12:35 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: r4C7LSLZW,/ Mayo► i 3 8 00 5 9/19/83