Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-06-01 City Council Summary Minutesr O ITEM Oral Communications Consent Calendar CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY PALO ALTO Regular Meeting Monday, June 1, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. PAGE 8 4 9 Resolution of Support re Prohibition of Malathion Spraying 8 5 2 Underground Utility District No. 22 -- Convers nn on California Avenue Ordinance re Baylands Bicycle Pedestrian Path Ordinance re Zone Change on San Antonio Road and Nita. Avenue Ordinance to Extend Moratorium on Condominium Conversion - Urgency Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Request of Mayor Henderson re Palo Alto Panthers Women's Soccer Team Policy .& Procedures Committee Recommendations re Increasing Speed Limit on Alma Street Policy & Procedures Committee Recommendations re Approval of the Revised Taxicab Ordinance Identification of Traffic Signal Loop Detectors Request of .Councilmembers'Bechtel and Klein re Opposition to Assembly Bills 2003 and 2004 re representation to Local Agency Formation Commission Request of Councilmember Bechtel re A8 1113 Mayor Henderson re Birge Clark and Dr. Esther Clark Adjournment to Executive Session. 8 5 2 8 5 2 8 5 2 8 5 8 5 3 8 5 3 8 5 3 8 5 8 3 6 1 8 6 1 8 6 1 8 6 2 8 6 2 Final Adjournment 8 6 2 Regular Meeting Monday, June 1, 1981 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. _ PRESENT: Bechtel, Fletcher,. Henderson, Klein, Renzel (arrived 8:40 p.m.), -Witherspoon, Eyerly, Levy ABSENT: Fazzino Mayor Henderson announced the need for an executive session regarding Personnel which would be held at the end of the regular meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1e Dick Schupbach, 270 Stanford Avenue, spoke re traffic control in Evergreen Park. The Architectural Review Board had recently approved _. a large structure in the California Avenue area. He said the neighborhood was concerned about the impact this development would have or. traffic. Sometime ago the neighborhood attempted to organize itself and take a position in favor of traffic barriers. The neighborhood was severely split over the issue of traffic barriers. Essen- tially, it was felt that as long as the building on the Southern Pacific property was to be in the future and, that as long as the density was unknown it was better to decide later whether traffic barriers were needed. He and his wife were on record as being against the traffic barriers. It was now clear that the development would go in and there had been a marked change in the attitude in the neighborhood toward putting in barriers. He felt they needed traffic barriers because the projected increase in the population in .the area amounted to 1/4 to 1/3 and translated into more than a.25% to 30% increase in traffic because the median age in Evergreen Park was remarkably high. He asked Council to take whatever action possible for. the installation of barriers in Evergreen Park, to insulate the area from the impact of the new traffic load. He also asked that Council, in considering the idea of putting in barriers, not resort to compromise and that the. barrier's be put in, that they be insulated in a thorough man- ner so that traffic doesn't go up someone else's street. The neighborhood needed to be cut off from through traffic par- ticularly in view of the impact which was expected from the development .in the immediate future. 2. David Schrom, 302 College Avenue, also spoke re Evergreen Park, and asked the people from Evergreee Park to stand: so that'not everyone would need to speak. He asked that Council help in reducing the amount of conflict in Palo Alto. For some time the property: along the S.P. right-of-way, just to the southeast of Evert green Parkneighborhood, had seemed right for development. Many of the . people that lived in Evergreen Park had been working for years to insure that such changes would not' occur at their expense. They felt `that the political -..process and the piece -meal decdston-mak ng set no clear standards ,by which to judge its success. Last year, the Council considered changing the land.. use :deli gna- tion of the property', .The neighborhood protested perrii: siple development of either of the uses that were considered, When -the, project dently approved was before the ARB, they ques- tioned -the wisdom of recommending that the project go forward in -the absence of specific plans ;insuring against negative impact on the surrounding areas, specifically Evergreen Park. 8 4 9- 6/1/81 1 1 Despite a Comprehensive Plan which sets as its first trans- portation objective "The protection of residential neighbor- hoods from through traffic," the residents of Evergreen Park were now confronted by a development which would, according to city staff reports, bring hundreds of additional automo- bile trips each day to their streets. In fact, the estimated trips generated through Evergreen Park by the project amounted to somewhere between 10% and 20% of the total trips generated by the neighborhood itself. Foreseeable develop- ment on nearby parcels would add to that. The Comprehensive Plan would be a shambles if impacts of that magnitude were not addressed. So long as approval of development was con- tingent upon prevention of additional through traffic in neighborhoods, all parties would be motivated to work together toward solutions which truly protect and enhance the quality of the Palo Alto environment. Several residents of Evergreen Park had been working to bring together the parties affected by the proposed project and they believed that the formal adversarialism which was encouraged by hearings before public bodies, including the Council, often impeded compro- mise. He referred to a letter which was addressed to Ken Schreiber from William D. Cox, Jr. and provided for use of funds to implement traffic control and improvement measures. The letter was endorsed by the developer, the City staff, and a large number of Evergreen Park residents, some of whom had met to consider appealing the ARB decision. Specifically, the residents requested that Council commit the City of Palo Alto to whatever action necessary to maintain traffic on Evergreen Park streets at or below the current levels, and that staff be directed to use the funds committed by the developer to make whatever street alterations were necessary to that end. They believed the process by which the accord had been reached was exemplary and they encouraged Council support, thereby providing encouragement to others to act similarly. 3. Mike Gilfix, 333 Leland, Palo Alto, reinforced David Schrom's remarks. He was very much involved when the California Park development came up and noted the difference in attitude in the neighborhood and City staff was remarkable. He felt it was an excellent opportunity to put a nice cap on that to reinforce it. Mayor Henderson asked the City Attorney if it was necessary for Council to take action and would the signed statement be binding and sufficient as far as making sure the $30,000 was available for the study. City Attorney Roy Abrams said he did not think it would be appro- priate to take action because they were in the appeal period and because potentially the matter wou?d,come before: the Council. He did not think it was necessary because the funds as proposed in the letter had been agreed to by Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Noguchi to be earmarked for the uses as described in the letter. He had briefly spoken with Mr. Schreiber about .the matter before the meeting and" Mr. Schreiber would seek modification of the condi- tion at the ARB; ao there would be no need for:. the Council to take action tonight. Mayor Henderson asked if the Council had any negative comments and if for some reason they would not be supportive of the signed agreement. Coutciimember Witherspoon felt . it was inappropriate to take any action until Council had decided on the project, itself. She was concerned and felt it important that the people in Evergreen Park realized that they had the, same concerns as every other neighbor- hood in the City and, Council could not promise that they : would be able to keep traffic in their neighborhood at the minimum levels with or without the, project. 8 5.0 6/1/81- Councilmember Levy endorsed the concept of trying to eliminate or at least decrease through traffic in neighborhoods. While he did not believe the letter committed the Council to a specific course of action, it represented a concept which he endorse.. Councilmember Fletcher said that when she attended the ARB meeting,the conditions were that the City was to have a matching amount of funding and she wondered if the letter negated that condition. Director of Planning and Community Environment, Ken Schreiber said that the modified condition was that $30,000 of the $130,000 that Mr. Cox would provide could be used without any matching City funds. Vice. Mayor Fletcher said she was supportive and pointed out that Council would not have the opportunity to review the project, that it had been approved by the ARB, and would not come before the Council unless it was appealed. Councilmember Bechtel asked for clarification as to whether the Council could take formal action tonight because the item was not on the agenda. Mr. Abrams replied that it was correct that Council could not act and also that it was an administrative permit which, if appealed, would come to the Council as a formal matter. He suggested that by concurrence of Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Noguchi the funds were earmarked and the more appropriate procedure would be to modify the existing ARB conditions. Councilmember Bechtel hoped that members of the public understood that staff would recommend to the ARB that Mr. Cox' letter offering the $30,000 become a modification of the permit condi- tions. She was frustrated that Council could not take formal action, but assured residents of the Evergreen Park area that she endorsed the concept and if it later came to the Council, would would support it. Councilmember Eyerly said it sounded to him like there had been some involvement of the Evergreen Park neighborhood with the developer which had been spelled out in the $30,000 figure above and beyond what the staff might have asked of the developer for the project as a traffic mitigation measure. He had no problem with the use of the $30,000 in Evergreen Park to help forestall traffic, but wondered if the amount volunteered througb discus- sions was larger than what staff was going to ask for. Mr. Schreiber said the original $60,000 mitigation measure related to some specific •improvements that were suggested by staff to the ARB. In the second or third ARB meeting an the pro- ject that mitigation was changed to $100,000 with the concurrence of Mr. Cox. At the fourth meeting, representatives of the Evergreen Park neighborhood requested that mitigation be increased to $130,000. Mr. Cox volunteered to the ARB that if they wished to raise it to $130,000 he was amenable to that figure. Mayor Henderson said that there was no : action that the Council could take and as he understood it this was part , of the mitiga- tion on the project and, therefore, was legally binding once the project had been approved by the ARE. Mr. Schreiber said the availability of the funds would be binding and would be earmarked, but any use of the funds,. would still have to go through a normal City process in terms of the neighborhood study and Council authorization. Also, he commented that the specific wording in the _ letter cited by Mr. Schrom read, "to maintain at present levels and/or reduce, if possible, the pres- ent traffic flow in Evergreen Par':." He said that as recognized 8 5 1 6/1/81. 1 B in tiie Comprehensive Plan and in dealing with other neighborhood park and neighborhood studies, sometimes the additional activity of the housing units there and other forces could move traffic up. Sometimes efforts to try to totally eliminate increases could simply mean moving it from one street to another and the neighborhood often decides that is the worst solution. The miti- gation measures and the letter were to be taken within the con- text that solutions would have to be arrived at and acted upon by the Council and there might well have to be trade-offs in terms of which streets have the traffic and which streets might have restrictions or curtailments. CONSENT CALENDAR Action•Items Councilmember Witherspoon advised that she would "abstain" on Item 1, Resolution of Support re Prohibition of Malathion Spraying. Vice Mayor Fletcher advised that, she would "abstain" on Item 3, Ordinance re Baylands Bicycle/Pedestrian Path (2nd reading). Councilmember Eyerly said he would vote "no" on Item 5, Ordinance to extend Moratorium on Condominium Conversions - Urgency. MOTION: Vice Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Bechtel, approve the Consent Calendar Action Items. Resolution of Support re Prohibitions of Malathion Soravin RESOLUTION 5913 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO SUPPORTING SENATE BILL 1234 WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT THE AERIAL SPRAYING OF M1UTATHION" Under round Utilit District No. 22 -- Conversion on California venue - \" so u .ion a erminin ro er 3es. _ec n o a os ver a eirio o ears RESOLUTION 5914 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DETERMINING PROPERTIES ELECTING TO PAY COST OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 22" Ordinance xe Ba lands _Bic cIe i'edestr n Path (2nd Roadie► ) ORDINANCE 3282 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING A PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PATH IN BYXBEE PARR" (1st reading 5/18/81, passed 8-0, Fletcher "abstaining") Ordinance re Zone Chan a at San Antonio Road and Nita Avenue (2nd ORDINANCE 3283 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF E TY F LO ALTO . AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF :THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO - CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY AT SAN ANTONIO ROAD AND NITA AVENUE :FROM CC AND LM TO RM-4"- (1st reading 5/18/81, passed 9-0) Ordinance to Extend ..Moratorium on Condominium Conversions pi-g-er-TerflrffmnTin ORDINANCE 3284 entitled "ORDINANCE,. :op THE COUNCIL OF ' YHE CITY bF PAt,O .AL'O EXTENDING THE EXISTING MORATORIUM ON CONVERSIONS OF COMMUNITY HOUSING (CONDOMINIUMS) FOR A.FOUR MONTH PERIOD OR UNTIL A NEW CONVERSION ORDINANCE IS EFFECTIVE - URGENCY"-' 8 5 2 6/1/81 MOTION PASSED to approve the Consent Calendar by a vote 7-0 with Witherspoon "abstaining" on Item 1, (Resolution of Support re Prohibition of Malathion Spraying); Fletcher "abstaining" on Item 3, (Second Reading of Ordinance re Baylands Bicycle/ Pedestrian Path); and Eyerly voting "no" on Item 5, (Extension of the Moratorium on Condominium Conversions); Fazzino and Renzel absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Mayor Henderson added an item regarding requests for resolution commending Birge Clark and Dr,; Esther Clark. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Klein, that Item 9 (Request of Mayor Henderson re Palo Alto Panthers Women's Soccer Team), be brought forward. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-0, Fazzino, Renzel absent. Request of Ma1or Henderson re Palo Alto Panthers Women's Soccer team Mayor Henderson commended the Palo Alto Panthers for their outstanding performance, gave his congratulations, and wished them luck. MOTION: Mayor Henderson introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Klein, its approval. RESOLUTION 5915 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO COMMENDING THE OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE OF THE PALO ALTO PANTHERS WOMEN'S SOCCER TEAM" • MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-0, Fazzino and Renzel absent. Policy and Procedures Committee Unanimousl Recommends Increasi3q e speed Limit on Alma Street from MOTION: Vice Mayor Fletcher, Chairperson of the Policy and Procedures Committee moved the Committee recommendation: 1. That the Council approve the Police Department recommendation to increase the speed limit on Alma Street from 35 to 40 mph which would allow the continued use of radar, Milly Davis, 344 Tennessee Lane, for the Palo Alto Neighborhood Coalition, suggested keeping the 35 mph speed limit on the side next to the residences on Alma and increasing the speed on the side of Alma by the railroad tracks. Another suggestion was that "before the Council voted on this, an opinion survey should be taken 'of residents that live on Alma since they would be most affected by the change. Two Alma Street residents she had spoken to were opposed to the increased . speed limit and felt that police were seldom seen on Alma, and that perhaps the present speed limit should be enforced. Further, residents felt it would be more difficult to back out of driveways if the speed waa increased. She suggested that Couneilmembers speak to residents on Alf:a Street before voting on the item. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, did not like the split speed limits idea and, felt i was unsupportable. Generally, he was concerned that while 40 mph may be supportable based on the improvements made to the street and ilaproved> safety conditions, if it turned out that raising it to 40 mph resulted in generating traffic at 45 mph or higher, and it . turned, out that the 85th percentile, after a ur- vey was taken in a year or two, was no longer 42 or 43, but rather 46 or 47, the speed limit could . not be brought ' back down and could not be enforced with radar at 40 mph. He felt Council should consider carefully before raising the speed limit. 8 5 3 6/1/81 R. J. Debar 3145 ?lowers Lane, Palo Alton concurred with Bob Moss' comments, and gave a history of California Vehicle Code sections on raising and lowering speed limits. He urged continu- ance of the matter. Ashok Aggarwal, Traffic Engineer, said that splitting the speed limit on Alma Street, one side at 35 mph and the other side at 40 mph, must be justified based on the 85th percentile speed if the Police Department is to use radar. The Transportation Division picked up three stations on Alma Street and the 85th percentile epeeds ranged between 39 to 45 mph, which meant that to use radar, only 40 mph could be justified. Responding to Bob Moss' comments, he said that any decrease or increase depended on the traffic and engineering fareways One way to downgrade the 85th percentile speed would be if there had been a high number of accidents in the last two years as compared to the statewide average; or, if there was high pedestrian activity and no side- walks, or several dips and bumps in the roadway. Councilmember Eyerly asked what the cost impacts would be if the speed limit were not changed to 40 mph and tracking rather than radar would have to be used. Captain Bob. Elliott, Palo Alto Police Department, said that about 17 percent of all the citations on Alma were paced, and without radar he did not feel it would be brought up higher than 20 per- cent. He said they had been using the "team approach" with radar which had been very effective. With pacing, the team approach could not be used, it had to be an individual officer, and enforcement would be at the sane levels as it was currently. Councilmember. Eyerly asked what would happen if the speed limit was raised to 40 mph, and in a couple of years the Police Department took another survey and speeds were running at 45 mph. Captain Elliott responded .that although the Police Department was not sure they could hold speed limits at 40 mph with radar, speeds limits would increase at a lower level than if they did not have radar at all. Using radar, they would be able to enforce with the highly visible team effort and sow drivers down. Vice Mayor Fletcher felt the decision to increase the speed limit was a difficult one, but was convinced that with the improvements on Alma Street the traffic was likely to keep on increasing even faster than what it was now, and without the radar, it would likely go higher because enforcement would he less. She realized it was a risk, but felt increasing it now to use radar would keep the speed limit lower than it would without the radar. She was going to support the Committee recommendation. . Councilmember Bechtel said she understood that one of the argu- ments for having radar was to ; try o keep the speed at a 35-40 mph level 'and that it could be done easier, and less expensively, with radar than without, but that there -was no guarantee that the, speed limits would be kept down even with radar, and asked if she was correct. Captain Elliott said that Councilmember Bechtel's statement .was. They did not know if the speeds on Alma Street would go up because of the recent engineering changes.;', Further, he noted that the Police Department did not use radar ' only to reduce the speeds, it was used to reduce speeds and to reduce accidents, The accident rate on Alma Street would change drastically, it was already low and would go much lower with the engineering changes. A great percentage of the . accidents ' which had , occurred on Alma Street were caused because of vehicles makingleft-hand turns. He said that.problem had been eliminated in most case, and that they expected to see a large drop in accidents on Alma Street - 8 5 4 6/1/81 Councilmember Bechtel was especially concerned about the portion of Alma between Kingsley and Oregon Expressway because that was the old portion, it was not wide, had not been improved, and was narrower than portions of Middlefield Road in South Palo Alto which were only 25 mph. She had a real problem voting for an increase to 40 mph for that section. She asked if it would be possible to increase the speed limit from Sen Antonio to Oregon to 40 mph, and then from Oregon to Kingsley, keep it at 35 mph, and still use radar. Ashok Aggarwal said that based on traffic and engineering sur- veys, it was not possible to justify leaving the speed limit at 35 mph on the section of Alma from Oregon to Kingsley if the Police Department is to use radar. He said there was a section of the California vehicle Code which clearly stated that it was the intention of the legislature not to use surface conditions as a factor for reducing the speed limit. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Eyerly, that from Oregon Expressway to Kingsley, the speed limit be maintained at 35 mph. Councilmember Klein also felt the decision was a difficult one. He felt Palo Alto was stuck with a had State law which made no sense in the community. He thought everyone had the same goal to keep the traffic safe and at the lowest possible speed. Although it was paradoxical, he felt it was true that in the instant case, given the way Alma was constructed, and the fact that there were no school zones, the 40 mph limit enforced by radar would result in lower speeds than if it were left at 35 mph and no effective means of enforcement were available. He felt thee was a well - established grapevine which existed among drivers, and it would become clear to people as they commuted to Palo Alto, that 35 and 40 mph were not enforced and the results would be higher actual speeds on Alma than at present. Although there was no guarantee that the 40 mph limit, enforced by radar, would stay at that, he expected that limit to be enforced by the Police Department and, therefore, no increase during tie ,next five years. He presumed that someinformal testing could also be done during the five- year period so that if in a year it was found that the speed limit was creeping up despite. radar efforts, they could ask the Police Department to double their efforts on radar and, get the speed limit so that it was not more than 40_, mph at the 85th per- centile. Regarding the recommendation for a different speed limit between Oregon Expressway and Kingsley, he felt different enforcement mechanisms could be used along that portion. He would support the main motion and the amendment. Councilmember Renzel arrived at 8:40 p.m. Councilmetrher Levy said that for part of its distance, Alma Street ran very close to Palo Alto High School, just on the other side of the railroad tracks. He wondered if . that, could be used: to allow the use of radar along that portion of Alma. Mr. Aggarwal stated that to date, that portion of Alma had not been considered a school zone and irrespective of the posted speed limit, the maximum speed limit withiee=:. a school zone when the school is in session, is 25 mph. The criteria would have to be determined forthat portion of Alma Street to fall in the category of 'school zone. Only when ;the determination was made that it was a school =-zone, could it be done. `Councilmember Levy asserted to Mr., Aggarwal his belief that the;,, area by Palo Alto. High School was, in fat, a school zone. He thought that if it were determined to be a school zone area, cer- tainly the crossing of Churchill and Alma was a school crossing 8 5 5. 6/1/81 and that would help for that portion between Embarcadero and Kingsley. He asked Captain Elliott if in a 40 mile zone,` he went 41 miles per hour, would he get a ticket, and if so, what per- centage of the time. Captain Elliott responded that the speed limit could at 41 miles per hour. Depending on conditions, PAPD speeds than that, but realistically, the Department's when they get in the courtroom and get before the judge takes a dim view of citing for one mile over Generally, judges are more likely to look at 3 to 5 the. speed limit. be enforced cited lower problem was judge, the the limit. miles over Councilmember Levy felt the police were not really concerned with the current situation, but were worried about it getting up to the 50 mph area. Captain Elliott responded that was correct and that they were concerned about losing the high visibility of the officers. Councilmember Levy aske=d Captain Elliott if keeping the sign at 35 would be more or less effective than raising the sign to 40 and adding radar. Captain Elliott felt it was more effective to raise the speed limit and have the people who travel on Alma see other people being pulled over and cited. Councilmember Levy thought perhaps Council should hold off taking action. He urged staff to investigate designating Alma a school zone in the r t;cn where it was near Palo Alto High School. He was worried that once the speed limit was raised to 40 mph, basically they could not go back, and that they were not sure that even at 40, they could hold it with radar. Further, since there was going to be a large drop in accidents on Alma, even with the higher speed, he thought they could hold off and see what the effects would be. He was inclined to think that the effects were going to be about the same whether, it was at 35 or raised to 40. He felt they had more options if it were left at 35. Councilmember Witherspoon supported the Committee recommendation. She felt the amendment was awkward and did not like the thought of three different speed limits on Alma, some portions being enforced by radar and other portions being paced. She would rather see the portion by Palo Alto High School designated as a school zone, so, she would not support the amendment. She pre- ferred acting on the matter now rather than waiting six months. Mayor Henderson was pleased to hear Councilmember Klein use the same argument he had been using on the subject. He said he had driven Alma Street every day for a number of years and was well aware of the average speed. He felt that without the ability to use, radar, the speeds would increase rapidly. Alma Street had the largest number :oftraffic citations issued in the Cityp and he felt that with traffic citations reduced by 75 or 80 percent, there would be no control at all. Further, he felt that with h the improvements that had been made, people would come in from Mountain View at 55 :Hiles an hour and would see no reason to slow down. He was : not sure about the proposed 35 mph between Oregon and Kingsley, although he saw merit in that. He ° felt that if thy had radar enforcement` from the South end to Oregon, people would still believe that . it was being enforced from. Oregon t� Kingsley, 1 Councilmember Menzel said she :supported the a*endment to keep the speed limit at 35 mph from Oregon Expressway to Kingsley. She was opposed to raising the speed limit solely for radar ,enforce- ment. She recognized that it might give radar enforcement for five years, but suspected that five years from now another survey would show that it would need tobe raised higher. She felt there was a point where they had to say that the conditions in Palo Alto were different than in Mountain View,. She said there were numerous accesses onto Alma Street. She felt there was a high accident rats that had changed somewhat since the improvements, but was concerned about letting State lair,force the City into policies with which they did not concur. She would, therefore, oppose the main motion. Councilmember Eyerly commenter'that the amendment should be -sup- portable by the Council regardless of how an individual felt about radar, because it had been expressed that Alma Street was narrower there and backing in and out of driveways would really be a problem if they were not able to hold the speed down below 40. He felt that the perhaps the approach was incorrect. Radar was the easy way to police, and if it made policing easier, it would be asked for, but he did not think that-. Council wanted higher speeds. He thought that basically the policy was to hold the speeds to what was set. If staff could not hold the cars to that speed with the resources they had and determine where they were with the speeds on the streets, he thought they should take periodic surveys at least yearly, around budget time, and bring the matters to Council with recommendations. Councilmember Eyerly felt radar was the fall back position, but maintained that the Police Department could lower the speed with sufficient resources He did not know what the level would be, but felt it behooved the Council not to start to raise speeds because the staff had come through with a radar approach. He felt that Council policy should be that speed limits be what is posted and that staff work within those guidelines, and if they could not, ask for more resources to do so. Vice Mayor Fletcher commented that at the Committee she expressed concern regarding the quick transition from a 40 mph zone 25 mph as traffic moved North and she explored with staff the question of maintaining the 35 mph on the northern stretch. She felt it was a good idea and would support the amendment. She asked staff if the speed limit were maintained on the northern section for six months or a year and it was found that, without the radar, the speeds were much higher than they should be, would they then have to make additional surveys or would the current surveys still be effective if Council wanted to raise the speed limits at that time. Mr.:.Aggarwal responded that although the surveys were valid for five years once they were conducted, the situation may change a little because Council chose another course of action. The best course of action would be to resurvey the street at that time. Vice Mayor Fletcher felt it was. worth the risk. She said that if the main motion passed, with the "40 mph speed limit" signs and "enforced by radar" signs displayed, it might have a psycho- logical effect and, therefore, would go along with the amend- ment. Councilmember Levy noted.. that at the southern end of Alma Street there was a . church , that he believed was the site of a pack facility or some type of school. He asked staff to check to see if that could be qualified as a school zone. AMENDMENT T MOTION PASSED which would leave the speed limit ;r- between Oregon Expressway and Kingsley :at 35 mph passed on the following vote: Ayes: Bechtel, Eyerly,: Fletcher, Henderson, Klein, , Levy, Renzel Abit ain: ` Witherspoon Absent: Fazzino MAIN MOTION FAILED to increase speeds •on Alma Street to 40 mph' by a vote of 4-4 , as follows: 1 1 8 5. 7' 6/1/81 AYES: Klein, Fletcher, Henderson, Witherspoon NOES: Eyerly, Renzel, Bechtel, Levy ABSENT: Fazzino MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Klein, the matter to the meeting of June ,g. o continue MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Eyerly, Renzel voting "no." Fazzino, absent. Councilmember Fletcher commented that the history of the law, as she understood it, was that there was a legislator who received a speeding ticket and he claimed Alma Street was a speed trap. Thereafter, the legislator set about eliminating speed traps. Approximately 1-1/2 years ago, he made an attempt to amend the law to exempt certain neighborhood streets. She attended the hearing and the legislators, by and large, believed in fast traveling and did not want any impediments. MOTION: Vice Mayor Fletcher, Chairperson of the Policy and Procedures Committee moved, that the City Council ask the legis- lators to examine the Act which limits use of radar and to intro- duce a bill that would make it more feasible for the City to enforce its speed limits. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. Polic and Procedures Committee unanimously, recommends approval ee e is a::iaab-ardinarce Vice Mayor Fletcher_ said that over the past couple of years, many hours have been spent listening to, and reviewing, qualifications of various cab companies for licenses to operate in Palo Alta. She said that during the process, they became aware that the taxicab. ordinance was very complex, and the Council desired both', a less complex ordinance and a less time-consuming process to regulate taxicabs in Palo Alto. The ordinance has been revised to take outof the hands of the Council the approval process for taxicab licensing and to make various modifications to .simplify it. MOTION: Vice Mayor Fletcher, Chairperson of the Policy and Procedures Committee, moved approval of the revised taxicab ordi- nance. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CM, , OF PALO . ALTO ADOPTIUG A NEW CHAPTER 4.42 REGARDING TAXICABS AND REPEALING PRESENT CHAPTER 4.42" Counc i lmember Levy commended staff and . the Policy and Procedures Committee for an excellent job. , He was concerned with the -fact that when he and former Councilmember Sher made the motion origi- nally to refer the taxicab ordinance to the Policy and Procedures Com?littee, they were concerned that there be more . competition and that specifically the requirementof having to prove that a need existed in the community should not be a factor in order to grant a license. The concept of need ,being established had almost been eliminated, but he felt the ordinance would be improved if the title "Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity" were changed to "Certificate of Public Convenience and Safety" because he felt that a standard . Of safety, not necessity. - was triing to be established Correct ion SI?30g. 8/10/81 Further, Councilmember Levy suggested that Section 4.42.;40(1), which says "that there is a public demand for additional service or that service to the public will be improved by the issuance of a certificate to the applicant" was obsolete by virtue of the current interpretation of anti-trust laws, and should be deleted. The concept of a free market was that the marketplace by its actions would determine whether there was or was not demand. AMENDMENT ."t) MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Klein, that the name "Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity" be changed to "Certificate of Public Convenience and Safety." AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Klein, that subparagraph (1) under 4.42.040 (re public demand for additional service and service to the public being improved) be deleted in its entirety. City Attorney Abrams felt that with respect to subparagraph ( 1) ender 4.42.040, the taxicab company would wish to have some regu- lation so that there was not the "cut throat" possibility within the City causing an oversupply of taxicabs; Eventually the mar- ket would take care of the oversupply, but during that interim period before the market. adjusted, there would be taxicab com- panies monitoring one another's radios. What was attempted with subparagraph (1) was to add the alternative, "or that service to the public will be improved," so that there need not be a spe- cific demand if it could be shown that the taxicab company pro- posing to come to the City would in some manner improve the ser- vice. Councilmember Eyerly was concerned about chaaginq the word "nec- essity" to "safety," Taxicabs were a necessity in Palo Altos especially in view of the fact that the City funds "project mobility." He could not envision how people with the project mobility script could get around without taxicabs and he would vote against the change. He also agreed with Mr. Abrams' com- ments, but he could see a situation where someone wanted to unload on another operator, and was concerned about the small operator being pushed out by a larger operator. He would also oppose the second amendment. Councilmember Klein felt the points were well taken. If Council said it was going to believe in free enterprise, they ought to believe in it. The arguments that were made against the changes to 4.42.040 could be made to any business. He felt competition always- hurt the people with the established position, but the. public usually benefited. He felt there were adequate anti-trust laws to Prohibit unfair competition and did not think Council should get into regulating that. He . would support the amend- ment, Councilmember Renzel felt regarding, 4,42.040, subsection (1), that while ''.there were laws on the books to deal with problems between taxi drivers, etc., the enforcement was indirect and Council had direct control over the. certificates. She felt they had a much more incentive -based means of .controlling that type of activity. She was concerned that they might end up with no taxi service because ' Council would make it so unprofitable for taxi- cabs to be in Palo Alto. She felt there should be some basisfor looking at taxicabs, not necessarily regulating them, but at least the capacity would be there in the ..event things became so marshal, that the risk was run of losing allthe cab companies. Shefelt it was a precarious business and felt that subsection (1) should be retained. 8.5 9 6/1/81 1 1 Mayor Henderson said he understood Mr. Abrams to say that the certificate of public convenience and necessity was the standard term used by the PUG. He did not feel the taxicab business was an ordinary private business enterprise. It was a public service where high standards should be reasonably maintained. There had been some terrible situations in other citieswhen the competi- tion was just opened up totally, causing real cut throat competi- tion, and good companies were run out by lesser companies that could temporar:'ily cut the rates. The lesser companies could not maintain the level of services that the city wanted or expected. He felt Palo Alto was small and it would be easy for a cab com- pany to come in and run out an established company. He was hesi- tant and would vote to keep in some burden of proving the need for additional service and that service to the public would be improved by issuance of a certificate. MOTION FAILED to amend 4.42.020 and change the name to "Certifi- cate of Public Convenience and Safety" by a vote of 5-3 as follows: AYES: Klein, Bechtel, Levy NOES: Eyerly, Renee', Fletcher, Henderson, Witherspoon ABSENT: Fazzino MOTION FAILED to amend 4.42.040(1) to eliminate the burden of proving the need for public demand for additional service by a vote of 4-4 as follows: AYES: Klein, Fletcher, Bechtel, Levy NOES: Eyerly, Renzel, Henderson, Witherspoon ABSENT: Fazzino MOTION FAILED to amend 4.42,040(1) to eliminate that the appli- cant have the burden of proving that service to the public would be improved by the issuance of a certificate by a vote of 6-2, Klein and Levy voting "aye," Fazzino absent: vice Mayor Fletcher raised a concern about section 4.42.220(c) "Interference` with Vehicular Traffic - Prohibited." Vehicles shall not be operated over public streets in search of or solici- ting prospective passengers for hire nor in such a manner as to interfere with vehicular traffic," She felt that interfering with vehicular traffic should be controlled, but if a driver had dropped off a passenger and was beginning to return to his base. and saw another potential passenger, she was concerned that the section would prohibit him from picking up that passenger. Valerie Lehrkind, City Licensing Compliance Inspector, said:. it would not eliminate a driver's being able to pick up that passen- ger. She _clarified that "cruising", meant just driving over the streets of the City constantly looking for a pickup passenger. She said cab companies were now picking up a passenger when they.. see a situation such as suggested. by Vice Mayor Fletcher. Councilmember Fletcher said that when she raised that question in. c6mmittee, the operator . who responded said . that gasoline was so expensive that he would not be cruising. She did not feel that particular section was needed. She felt .that if a driver chose to , meet the train -coming from San Francisco, or at Christmas time if there was a large potential forfares on University Avenue, she did not see the harm in permitting "cruising." She felt it would be limited by the cost of gasoline and the scarcity of casual pickup situations. 8 6 0 6/1/81 MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by bevy, to delete the word, "nor" in subsection (c) under section 4.42.220, "Interference With Vehicular Traffic - Prohibited." MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Eyerly voting "no.". Councilmember Levy felt that the paragraph', following subsection (3) of section 4.42.040 which said, "The decision of the hearing officer shall be final and non -appealable..." was not fi ir. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved that the paragraph following subsection (3) of section 4.42.040 be emended to read as follows: "The decision of the hearing officer shall be appealable to the City Council." AMENDMENT FAILED for lack of a second. MAIN MOTION PASSED, to approve taxicab ordinance for first reading, as amended, unanimously. 8-0, Fazzino absent. Identification of Traffic Signal Loop Detectors (CMR:289:1) Staff recommends that Council adopt the following policy regarding traffic signal direction loops in Palo Alto only at those locations where the loops are "bicycle sensitive": 1. Provide visible detection the detection loop is not roadway (Le., by means etc.). loop markings where the outline of identifiable on the surface of the of a cut in the asphalt payment, 2. Provide visible detection loop markings where it is unclear which of the detection loops will actually activate the traffic signal. MOTION: approve bicycle Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to staff's recommendation and that all future loops be sensitive. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. Request of Councilmembers Bechtel and Klein re 0 sition to sem orma 1115 z an re representation to Local Aenc Councilmember Bechtel commented that: AB 2003 and AB 2004 passed the Assembly on a consent calendar because at the time there was no apparent opposition. She felt that not only should letters be sent{ but also a representative from the Palo Alto, City Council should attend to oppose these bills. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel mcved, seconded by Klein, that the City of Palo Alto send letters to the appropriate legislators opposing AB 2003 and AB 2004. MOTION PASSED unanimouslye Fazzino absent. Request of - Councilmember Bechtel re AP 1113 Councilmember Bechtel said that regarding: Assembly Bill 1113, there was some confusion about exactly what the bill would do, whether there may or may not be a provision which would terminate. LAFCO's powers .es of 1988. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to have staff investigate AB 1113 and report back to Council. MOTION PASSED unanimously. Fazzinc absent, 1 1 8 61 6/1/81 1 1 Ma or Henderson re Sir e.Clark and Dr. Esther Clark. Mayor Henderson reported that the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce was presenting to Birge Clark and Dr. Esther Clark its thirteenth and fourteenth "Distinguished Citizen Award." He said the award was first given in 1945 and only twelve had been given to date. The award was made for outstanding and meritorious achievement and service to one's profession and community and to the general advancement of society. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Levy, that Council approve resolutions congratulating Birge M. Clark and Dr. Esther B. Clark on receiving the Chamber of Commerce Distinguished Citizen Award. RESOLUTION 5916 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE' • CITY OF PALO ALTO RECOGNIZING BIRGE M. CLARK, RECIPIENT OF THE PALO ALTO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE'S DISTINGUISHED CITIZEN AWARD" RESOLUTION 5917 entitled-"RESOLUTI(.}N OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF. PALO ALTO RECOGNIZING DR. ESTHER B. CLARK, RECIPIENT OF THE PALO ALTO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE'S DISTINGUISHED CITIZEN AWARD" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino absent. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Adjournment to Executive Session re Personnel at 9:30 p.m. FINAL ADJOURNMENT Final adjournment at 1:15 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 8 6 2 6/1/81 `