Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-01 City Council Summary Minutes 08/01/2011 Special Meeting August 1, 2011 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:00 P.M. Present: Burt, Espinosa, Holman, Klein arrived @ 6:05 p.m., Schmid, Shepherd, Yeh arrived @ 6:15 p.m. Absent: Price, Scharff STUDY SESSION 1. Joint Meeting With the Human Relations Commission The Human Relations Commission (HRC) Chair, Ray Bacchetti presented the Council with a listing of their accomplishments for the FY 2010-11. Major accomplishments included conducting focus groups to update the funding priority of needs for the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP), the review of and funding recommendations for HSRAP and Community Development Block Grants, reviewing the Palo Alto Police Department’s Fair and Impartial Policing Policy, activities working towards advancing Youth Well Being through involvement in Project Safety Net, Palo Alto Youth Council and Palo Alto Youth Forum and approving volunteer mediators for the Palo Alto Mediation Program. A major item on the HRC’s work plan for the coming year was to conduct a comprehensive Community Needs Assessment. HRC Commissioner, Jill O’Nan, Chair of the Needs Assessment subcommittee, briefed the Council on the proposed planning, methodology and implementation of the Needs Assessment and then sought the input of the Council. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS City Manager, James Keene spoke regarding: 1) pulling from the agenda, Item No. 9 for further review, 2) Moody’s Rating Agency placed 162 local governments with AAA credit ratings under review for possible downgrade, the City of Palo Alto was not included, 3) the first bicycle parking corral was installed on Ramona Street as part of the Bicycle Master Plan, 4) Electric 2 08/01/2011 Vehicle (EV) charging stations had been installed in the City Hall parking garage and throughout the downtown area, 5) PG&E met with large commercial customers within the City on pipeline integrity tests, 6) the Urban Forestry section of Public Works Department was contacted by a vegetation management consultant regarding the proposed removal of 19 trees on City property, which were interfering with PG&E lines and gas transmission line testing, on City property to provide minimal clearance, 7) the Palo Alto Art Center and Public Art Commission announced a site specific sculpture on the Civic Center Plaza which would be in place for one year, 8) the Bureau of Reclamation awarded a $268,000 grant to the City to assess the feasibility of the Recycled Water Project, 9) Palo Alto summer camps and aquatics programs were ending in mid-August and to date had over 5,600 attendees, and 10) Mayor Espinosa had been selected to receive the Hidden Villa Josephine and Frank Duveneck Humanitarian Award. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chuck Jagoda spoke regarding the proposed vehicle habitation Ordinance. He discussed several speakers from the previous City Council meeting regarding their experiences with sleeping in their vehicles and their opinion on safety. The Community Cooperation Team would be conveying positive stories of un-housed persons in the near future. Winter Dellenbach spoke regarding the informational report from the City Manager regarding the Varsity Theatre. She said the report did not serve the City, the residents, or the City Council very well. She noted there were unsubstantiated conclusions and assertions without evidence or factual information. Winifred Thomas spoke against the use of Smart Meters. She shared her concerns regarding the health risks posed by the devices. She asked the Council to join other communities to pass an Ordinance not accepting the use of Smart Meters in Palo Alto. Ray Dempsey spoke regarding the Professorville parking congestion. He noted there was a petition circulated and signed by 114 persons requesting the City survey the area to determine whether the residents would like residential permit parking. Ken Alsman spoke regarding the Professorville parking issues. He stated the neighborhood parking had been overrun with commercial business employees and customers. Mark Petersen-Perez spoke regarding freedom of speech rights. He said his views were not heard when he stood before the Council. He stated 3 08/01/2011 addressing an Ordinance to prevent vehicular habitation was offending their first amendment rights. Aram James spoke regarding his public records request for all communications regarding the proposed Ordinance for vehicle habitation. He noted the Ordinance may not be enforceable even if it were passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to approve the minutes of June 13, 2011. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Price, Scharff absent CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager, James Keene advised that Staff requested Agenda Item No. 9 be pulled and to be moved to a date uncertain. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to pull Agenda Item No. 2, to become Agenda Item No. 9a. Harold Schapelhouman spoke regarding Agenda Item No. 5, Approval of Automatic Aid Agreement with the Menlo Park Fire Protection District; and authorization to transfer ownership of one inflatable boat, motor and boat trailer to the Menlo Park Fire Protection District. He stated the agreement would improve the fire emergency services and automatic aid between the communities of Palo Alto and the Menlo Park Fire Protection District. He supported regional fire services and said this was a good step towards working closer together. Council Member Klein advised he would not participate in Agenda Item No. 8, as his wife was on staff at Stanford University. MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd to approve Agenda Item Nos. 3-8. 2. CAO Report from the City Council Adoption of a Resolution Calling a Special Election for November 8, 2011 for Submittal to the Qualified Electors of the City an Initiative to Undedicate Ten Acres of Existing Parkland in Byxbee Park for Use as a Compost Facility. 3. Approval of a Water Enterprise Fund Contract With Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. in a Not to Exceed Amount of $8,605,000 for the Construction of the El Camino Park Reservoir, Lytton Pump Station and Well Project WS-08002-501. 4 08/01/2011 4. Approval of a Water Enterprise Fund Contract With Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. in a Not to Exceed Amount of $2,560,000 for Construction of the Well Rehabilitation Project WS- 08002-501. 5. Approval of Automatic Aid Agreement With the Menlo Park Fire Protection District; and Authorization to Transfer Ownership of One Inflatable Boat, Motor and Boat Trailer to the Menlo Park Fire Protection District. 6. Approval of a Contract With Alliance Roofing Company, Inc. in the Amount of $402,751 for Civic Center Tower Roof Replacement Project, Capital Improvement Program Project PF-01002. 7. Authorization of City Manager to Execute the Amended Memorandum of Agreement With the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition for the Recycled Water Project. 8. Authorize the City Manager or Designee to Execute the Welch Road Utilities Project Facilities Construction, Ownership, Operation and Maintenance Agreement. 9. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Adding Section 2.36.040 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require Impartial Mediation for Impasses in Labor Contract Negotiations (First Reading July 18, 2011- Passed 5-4). MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item Nos. 3-7: 7-0 Price, Scharff absent MOTION PASSED for Agenda Item No. 8: 6-0 Klein not participating, Price, Scharff absent AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS 9a. (Former No. 2) Resolution 9195 Calling a Special Election for November 8, 2011 for Submittal to the Qualified Electors of the City an Initiative to Undedicate Ten Acres of Existing Parkland in Byxbee Park for Use as a Compost Facility. Council Member Klein suggested hearing from the public prior to Council discussion. Peter Drekmeier had concerns with the proposed language for the Ballot which would come before the voters that read “shall ten acres of existing parkland in Byxbee Park be un-dedicated for the exclusive purpose of a 5 08/01/2011 processing facility for yard trimmings, food waste, and other organic material”. He said the language was misleading and implied the finished Byxbee Park would be undedicated, which was not the case. The area in question was the previous landfill area that was heavily impacted and was next to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. He urged the Council to change the language to express the accurate location on Byxbee Park land that would be impacted. Emily Renzel was dissatisfied with the proposed language for the Ballot that would come before the voters. The use of the word exclusive made it sound as though it were a conditional undedication which would not happen if it was not used in that manner. She clarified the land was to be undedicated no matter if the measure passed or not. She requested the Council remove the word exclusive. Herb Borock stated his understanding was the Council had an administerial duty to place any petition on the ballot that had followed the procedural rules for qualifying. He was uncertain as to why the Council had been receiving challenges to the substance of the measure since it was the Registrar of Voters office that was responsible for any necessary corrections. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to approve Staff recommendation to adopt the Resolution Calling a Special Election for November 8, 2011 for submittal to the qualified electors of the City an Initiative to undedicate ten acres of existing parkland in Byxbee Park for use as a compost facility, and add the words, “but undeveloped” after the word “existing” in the ballot question. Council Member Klein stated this was a controversial issue and the Council had a duty to be as informative as possible with the few words that were allowed. He noted the verbiage “existing parkland” did in fact create a specific image; therefore, additional words were necessary to convey a more accurate depiction of the actions being taken. Council Member Burt shared concerns with the verbiage. The additional language described a more accurate meaning of the land. He proposed alternative verbiage should read “shall ten acres of former City landfill currently zoned for inclusion in Byxbee Park be undedicated”. He was supportive of the Motion if his Colleagues were satisfied with the verbiage. Council Member Holman stated she would not be supporting the Motion but would be proposing a Substitute Motion. She stated parkland was parkland whether it was developed or not and the community may not be aware that the intent was for it to be developed at some point. 6 08/01/2011 Council Member Shepherd asked at if the ten acres in the Ballot was currently dedicated parkland. Senior Assistant City Attorney, Cara Silver stated it was dedicated as parkland under the City Charter. Council Member Shepherd stated adding the verbiage “but undeveloped” was an enhanced description for the voters. She asked for clarification of the meaning of the word “exclusive” as it was used in the proposed language. Ms. Silver stated Council had before them an abbreviated version of the language that was in the initiative. The description of what was to be voted on was contained in two places within the ballot book. The City Charter specified the Ballot language would state the nature of the proposed Ordinance. She noted there would be an Impartial Analysis completed by the City Attorney included in the sample ballot t and the text of the actual Measure. The Initiative language stated the property would be removed from dedication as parkland for the exclusive purpose of building a facility for converting yard trimmings, food waste, other municipal organics, and sewer sludge from the treatment plant. Council Member Shepherd stated if an agreement could not be reached in 10 years the land could not be used for any purpose other than the description in the Initiative; therefore, now would be the time to add any necessary details for future uses. Ms. Silver stated the restrictions for land use would be included in the Initiative voted on by the people. She clarified the language should provide an overall concept and not every condition would be described within. Council Member Schmid stated since the petition came in, the City had opened 36 acres of Open Space parkland in what was previously a landfill. Mayor Espinosa asked for clarification on the required votes needed. Ms. Silver stated since the item was a Resolution it required five affirmative Council votes. Mayor Espinosa stated he would not be supporting the Motion. He found it to be misleading while there was nothing built on the land, it was a passive park and was meant to be an open prairie marshland type of area. Vice Mayor Yeh stated he would not be supporting the Motion. He stated his preference was to leave the language as it was. He said with any sample ballot there would be supportive and opposing arguments where the voter could seek and receive additional information. 7 08/01/2011 MOTION FAILED: 3-4 Burt, Klein, Shepherd yes, Price, Scharff absent Council Member Holman asked where her Colleagues were with the use of the word “exclusive”. She had asked Staff whether the parkland would be undedicated if the Council decided not to build an anaerobic digester in that location. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Mayor Espinosa to approve Staff recommendation to adopt the Resolution Calling a Special Election for November 8, 2011 for submittal to the qualified electors of the City an Initiative to undedicate ten acres of existing parkland in Byxbee Park for use as a compost facility, and remove the word “exclusive” from the ballot question. Council Member Burt stated according the Initiative the ten acres could only be used as a composting facility. He asked Staff to clarify if there were any other purposes permitted by the Initiative other than those listed. Ms. Silver stated the Initiative clearly stated once the property was undedicated the exclusive use of the land was for a compost facility. She stated it was similar to an overlay zone change; once the change had been made there was an overlying restrictive use that could be added to an underlying zone. While the Initiative did rezone to public facility uses, only a compost site could be placed on the specific property. Council Member Burt stated there could be no purpose of use other than what was stated within the Initiative. He said if his Colleagues were supportive of making a change based on political reasons that was understandable; however, if they were basing their support on the clarity of a legal basis that the change was justified, the City Attorney expressed that was not the case. Council Member Klein said he agreed with Council Member Burt and stated the information circulated to the public was the composting facility would be the exclusive purpose of the land. Council Member Holman stated her Motion was not to indicate the City Attorney’s response was unclear. The language was unclear as to whether the parkland would be undedicated strictly by the vote of the public or if it would be undedicated by a vote of the public and City Council. Council Member Shepherd stated the language in the original petition clearly stated the purpose of the undedication was for the sole use of a composting facility. It would be a misrepresentation to remove the word exclusive since that was the goal for the undedication. 8 08/01/2011 Council Member Burt stated the difference between the initial Motion and the Motion on the floor was a clear interpretation by the City Attorney. MOTION FAILED: 3-4 Espinosa, Holman, Schmid yes, Price, Scharff absent MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to approve Staff recommendation to adopt the Resolution Calling a Special Election for November 8, 2011 for submittal to the qualified electors of the City an Initiative to undedicate ten acres of existing parkland in Byxbee Park for use as a compost facility. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Price, Scharff absent City Manager, James Keene asked to move Agenda Item No. 16 forward. MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to move Agenda Item No. 16 forward to become Agenda Item No. 9b. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Price, Scharff absent 9b. (Former Item No. 16) Finance Committee Recommendation to Approve Policies and Guidelines for a Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff. Council Member Klein stated he felt it would be of benefit to have a brief description of the program for the public to appreciation the direction the City was moving. Utilities Resource Planner, Jon Abendschein stated there had been articles in the newspapers stating the program was residential based, which was not accurate, and in fact it was focused on commercial rooftops. Council Member Klein stated for clarification purposes there would not be any residential components to the program. Mr. Abendschein stated that was correct. The residential customers were served through the PV Partners Net Metering Program. Council Member Klein asked Staff to provide a scenario outlining what would happen if a member of the community was interested in participating in the program. Mr. Abendschein stated there would be a standard application process where the owner of the building could act alone or in partnership with a third-party developer to put solar panels on their commercial rooftops and receive, for 9 08/01/2011 example, a 20-year contract at a fixed rate to sell the harnessed power back to the City and participate in fulfilling the City’s renewable portfolio. Council Member Klein asked how the rate for the energy would be determined. Mr. Abendschein stated the proposal was to set the rate at the market value of the power, inclusive of all of the local green power transmission costs and the value of grid stability. Council Member Klein asked whether there was subsidy from the City. Mr. Abendschein stated no, there would not be a City subsidy. Council Member Klein stated the goals of the program were: item one objective was to fulfill the City’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) from local renewable sources and item two stated the enrollment would be capped at the amount of energy projected to be required to fulfill the City’s RPS. He asked why there was a cap limiting the ability to harness a greater potential supply. Mr. Abendschein stated there would be a policy discussion coming forward in the future for that situation. He noted the intent was to focus specifically on creating a program which allowed the City to allow local rooftop solar to contribute to Palo Alto’s renewable portfolio without making any assertions in the policy. Council Member Klein questioned that if the City was doing well and there was no subsidy from the City for the program, why would there be a cap at the RPS level. Mr. Abendschein stated there was additional value to renewable green power over brown power and to the extent that the City was trying to purchase renewable green power to fulfill the RPS that would be the market value of the solar power. Council Member Klein stated that response did not clarify the reason why the City would not harness more than the RPS level. Council Member Burt stated there was no subsidy compared to the City’s purchase of other renewable power. The program was being priced at a rate that when all cost factors were reviewed for renewables it was comparable to that renewable rate. He stated the current policy was a 33 percent renewable portfolio. He asked how the Feed-In Tariff Program differed from the current programs where customers received credits against their utility bills. His understanding with the Feed-In Tariff Program was it was a 10 08/01/2011 wholesale concept between the generator and the City where the others were essentially retail contracts. He asked the difference to be described so there was a greater understanding of how the proposed program was different from the current programs available. Mr. Abendschein stated a commercial customer could participate in either program; the PV Partner Program provided a rebate and allowed the customer to reduce the amount of electricity they purchased from the City. The proposed program provided an alternative where they would be able to sell their power wholesale to the City, not off-setting their consumption, and receive a long-term contract for that output. Council Member Burt stated the City would receive a number of benefits; there was local generation and an avoidance of the distribution costs which was why the City was able to pay a slightly higher amount for the local generation than if the renewable power was purchased from a distant source. Mr. Abendschein stated that was correct. The rate was based on the value of the renewable, the added value of having the power generated locally as well as the value of the avoided transmission. He stated Staff had anticipated returning to Council for further discussion of the carbon neutral portfolio and the renewable portfolio standard in November of 2011. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to: 1) adopt the proposed Renewable Energy Feed-in-Tariff Policies and Guidelines, and 2) provide guidance to Staff once permit applications exceed 50 percent of the Feed-in-Tariff portfolio objective. Staff was to return to the Utilities Advisory Commission and Council for guidance on program direction and prospective expansion. Council Member Burt stated the Feed-in-Tariff Program was a positive step and it appeared to be a win-win situation because it complimented without replacing the current programs. He noted more than half of the installed solar power had been achieved through Feed-in-Tariff programs. He stated for commercial entities that were choosing to participate, the program was in their value structure and was a benefit to the City. Vice Mayor Yeh stated the program created more options within the customer groups. He noted it was exciting to be able to partner with the local businesses to improve the reliability aspect. He mentioned the Chamber of Commerce had expressed their willingness to partner with the Utilities Department on the initiatives and he encouraged Staff to reach out to them. 11 08/01/2011 Council Member Shepherd stated there had been solar panels showing up in parking lots and she asked if that was part of the program or was it set-up for commercial roof tops. Mr. Abendschein stated Staff was expecting the panels to be on commercial building roof tops. He anticipated Staff working with the Planning Department to prevent any issues that might be associated with parking lot usage. Council Member Shepherd stated the City needed to look aggressively at providing its own resources for energy and the program was a good step. Council Member Klein stated the program had a number of advantages and was he was pleased Palo Alto was moving forward. He noted the name; Feed-in-Tariff was not descriptive of the action being taken. Mr. Abendschein stated the name Feed-in-Tariff was known in the solar industry and at the present time the Utilities Department did not have a secondary name for the program. Council Member Klein stated he had heard at recent conferences the industry was calling it by a different name but could not recall it. Mr. Abendschein stated yes, there was room to have a more accessible name and other cities had chosen to call it by something other then Feed-in- Tariff. Council Member Holman asked Staff to review the types of incentives there were for non-profit organizations to participate in the program. Mr. Abendschein stated a non-profit organization that had the space available to take advantage of the program would have the same contracts available to them as a standard commercial business. Council Member Holman stated she wanted Staff to review incentives to assist them with the installation costs. Mr. Abendschein stated that issue had not been reviewed; although, Staff would consider the request as direction for further development into the program. Council Member Burt stated what was formerly the Feed-in-Tariff Coalition was now known by the acronym CLEAN which stood for Clean Local Energy and Now. He said the term CLEAN was the new consideration nationally. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Price, Scharff absent 12 08/01/2011 ACTION ITEMS 10. PUBLIC HEARING – Adoption of an Ordinance for a Zone Change of 1,565 Square Foot Parcel from PF (Public Facility) to ROLM (Research Office Limited Manufacturing) at 200 San Antonio Road. Assistant Planning Director, Amy French stated Staff recommended the Council adopt the Ordinance amending the zoning map for the 1,565 square foot parcel from Public Facility (PF) zone designation to Research Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) zone designation. She stated the zone change would make the zoning consistent with the underlying Comprehensive Plan designation of research office park. She stated this parcel was a minor follow-up related to the approved 45-unit multi-family housing project approved through the 2008 Architectural Review Board process. She noted the Council had approved the vesting tentative map and the development agreement. In January of 2011 the Council approved the exchange agreement to deed the parcel to Hewlett Packard in exchange for the shaded parcel as shown on the slide. She noted the Planning and Transportation Commission had unanimously approved the rezoning. Public Hearing opened and closed without public comment at 8:31 p.m. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to approve the Staff recommendation to adopt the Ordinance amending the zoning map of the City of Palo Alto to change the zoning designation for 200 San Antonio Road from PF (Public Facility) zone designation to ROLM (Research Office and Limited Manufacturing) zone designation. Council Member Holman stated the Motion was part of a prior action involving a property exchange. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Price, Scharff absent 11. Approval of an Extension of the Trial Period for Phase 2 of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Re-Striping Project through June, 2012. Director of Planning and Community Environment, Curtis Williams stated the Corridor Study was initiated in 2003 because of the numerous anticipated housing projects being proposed. There needed to be a safer and more functional corridor to accommodate the increase in the number of schools. The project area included Charleston-Arastradero from Fabian Way to Foothill Expressway. The first phase of the project was the Charleston Corridor from Fabian Way to El Camino Real. The second phase of the 13 08/01/2011 project would be the section from Gunn High School back to El Camino Real. There was a third portion which had not been discussed to date, Chief Transportation Officer, Jaime Rodriguez was available if the Council wished for more detail on that portion. The third portion was the El Camino Real intersection, which had the complication of being a Caltrans controlled intersection. He stated the original objective of the project was to enhance the school commute safety, to generally increase the quality of bike and pedestrian experiences, and to reduce vehicular speeds. Chief Transportation Officer, Jaime Rodriguez stated Staff had received various levels of feedback over the past year. Initially the community had concerns over increased congestion, left-turn access, and cut-through traffic. He stated in response to those concerns Staff had made a number of corrections since the inception of the project. He reviewed the progress made on the project over the past year. He stated the reason behind the extension of the trial was Gunn High School had changed their bell schedule from a 7:55 start time to 8:25. Staff felt the change in time would alter the flow of traffic and reduce the conflict between Gunn and Terman Middle Schools by an hour. Staff was planning on gathering traffic data and hosting more community meetings. Planning & Transportation Commissioner, Arthur Keller stated the first implementation had just been completed and the notable changes in the school bell schedules would significantly alter the delay in the corridor. He noted because of the improvements being done to the road, Gunn High School would be performing a road and bike census, a traffic survey, and they performed an annual bike survey each spring. He noted this was the first permitted protected left turn in the City and he suggested considering the action in other locations. Lisa LaForge urged the Council not to approve the extension of the re- striping program because of traffic issues on El Camino Real heading southbound. She stated vehicles block the lanes from the bicycles and pedestrian access ways. She said the number of vehicles may not have increase, but the speed of those vehicles had. Betty Lum spoke about the safety of the children attending the schools as the most important factor and she wished to extend the program trial. Rich Ellison gave a historical overview of the traffic flow in the area. He noted the work that had been completed in the area was not causing the delays, it was the intersections. He noted each signal light had a 33 second delay allowing vehicles to travel through the intersection to get to Gunn High School. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus lines had the authority to change the signal so they may continue to travel without stopping. 14 08/01/2011 Council Member Holman asked if there was precedence for turning off the Bus Signal Priority (BSP) when those operations conflicted with cross street operations. Mr. Ellison stated yes, there was a loop in the street to turn off the BSP and it had been utilized in the past. He stated coordinating with the VTA regarding bus signals may benefit the City’s traffic flow. Council Member Holman asked if the City was aware of any policy VTA may have to make changes or adapt to these types of programs. Mr. Ellison stated the VTA did make exceptions; but it was not clear as to what the rational was. He stated if safety was an issue, there would be cause to discuss turning off BSP for that intersection with VTA. Council Member Burt asked how often Bus 522 ran during peak hours. Mr. Ellison stated the bus ran every 15 minutes and there were 11 trains during morning peak hours and 5 of those trains impacted Alma Street’s intersection. Council Member Burt stated there was a bus every 15 minutes in each direction for a total of eight buses per hour. He stated an issue that occurred last spring was trains slowed down as they went through Charleston. He asked if that same issue was currently occurring. Mr. Ellison stated he had thought that situation had ended until he observed the train cross Charleston at a very slow pace earlier today. Evan Lurie stated the addition of the protected left-turn lane was in fact an additional lane; there were no losses to the other two lanes in either direction. He stressed it was not possible to return to the way the traffic or roads were previously, the conditions had changed. Nina Bell stated there was no perfect solution that would satisfy everyone involved. There was a need for a compromised solution for the safety of the school children. She noted the Staff had worked to fine tune the configuration and develop the best solutions for the community. She supported the trial extension. Elizabeth Allyn spoke of the history on the area and housing increases. She supported the Staff recommendation for the extension. Rosemarie Dufrensne stated the data being presented was not accurate for the commute time in the morning and evening. The children were not using 15 08/01/2011 Arastradero Road to travel to school, they were using side streets. She requested Council not support a project that was not providing a positive outcome. Ms. Milo stated the congestion had caused difficulties reaching the businesses in the area. She noted the vehicles were using the side streets to avoid Arastradero Road causing dangerous situations for the residential areas. Philip Melese stated when he first moved to the area the streets were used as freeways and now it was better, safer, and the vehicles traveled at a slower pace. He understood people were frustrated because of the amount of traffic and he hoped that would change once Gunn High School changed their bell schedule. He supported the continuance of the project. Bob Moss recommended the trial continue to June of 2012 as determined by the Planning and Transportation Commission and not July as recommended by Staff. June allowed ample time for Staff to gather information with the new bell schedule and return to Council prior to the 2012 summer break. He suggested stationing people at key intersections and having them record the license number, time, and travel direction of each vehicle and bicycle traveling on Arastradero Road. He stated according to the information in the Staff report, accidents had increased from .03 per day to .05 per day, which would not indicate a successful trial. Diane Chambers, Director of Young Life Pre-School, supported the traffic calming measures. She requested the Council to continue the trial. Kay Sasaki stated after the community meeting they surveyed the residents surrounding Arastradero Road and discovered anger over the loss of the left- hand turn. She stated they had written Mr. Rodriguez and found him to be very responsive and it was obvious the Staff was trying to balance the trial with the needs and concerns of the community. She suggested continuing the trial for an additional year. Jackie Berman stated the plans showed the addition of a left-turn lane to turn onto Miranda Road making it easier to make u-turns. This was not pleasing news for the neighborhood and after a survey, there were 26 opposed, two in favor, and two with no comment out of 60. She requested Miranda Road not be used as a u-turn point. Douglas Moran commented on the failure of the public process. The public felt their input was not heard. Staff needed to force a balance between the main streets and the side streets and there needed to be an aggressive tact taken. There was a failure in communication between Staff and the community regarding traffic calming. 16 08/01/2011 Lynnea Johnson stated the level of young pedestrians out of Gunn High School and the amount of bicycles on Los Robles had increased dramatically, to the point where during the school year it was close to impassible to navigate with a vehicle. Stacey Ashlund urged the Council to continue the restriping project and said the use of the side streets was not caused by the restriping but in the increase in population. Steve Schmidt stated the efforts being made to create a pedestrian and bicycle friendly City yielded flexibility. He stated the community was interested in the safety upgrades and the much needed expansion of the bicycle and pedestrian movement. With improvements come inconveniences but it was a small price to pay for student safety. He supported the extension of the trial. John Woodell stated he commuted through Palo Alto on his bicycle daily and he thanked the City for making it safe for bikes. Council Member Shepherd stated page 351 of the Staff Report showed the construction phases occurring at Gunn High School. She asked if the trial was to continue, what type of construction was to take place and how would it impact the trial. Mr. Rodriguez stated Staff had been coordinating with the school through the constriction phases and where vehicular traffic was concerned they had been encouraged to avoid Arastradero Road but to take El Camino Real to Page Mill Road to Foothill Expressway. Council Member Shepherd clarified the construction was not anticipated to impact the data being collected. Mr. Rodriguez stated that was correct. Council Member Shepherd stated there was little to no compliance with the straight through west-bound Alma signal prohibiting straight through traffic on Churchill between 7:45 and 8:30 am. She asked if the same experience was occurring in the Arastradero corridor. Mr. Rodriguez stated yes, Staff had been working diligently to make the project work, making changes as they were brought to the forefront. He felt the bell schedule change at Gunn High School and the proposed changes at Bowman International School would have positive effects to the traffic distribution on Arastradero Road. He noted no matter what changes had been accomplished, there appeared to be a log jam between 7:35 and 8:30 AM. 17 08/01/2011 Council Member Shepherd asked if Staff had recognized whether people were following the new rules, and what type of outreach had been done with the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Council. She asked who was endorsing the trial extension. She noted at the Jordan Middle School parking lot there was no left turn, and yet everyone exited turning to the left. Mr. Rodriguez stated specifically along Arastradero Road there were no restrictions other than no vehicular movement during pedestrian crossings. He noted the crossing guard for the Terman School was very active in preventing vehicular movement during the beginning and end of school. He stated the issues Staff observed were the merging lanes, where people were uncertain of what to do. He stated the signage could be changed to be more direct. Council Member Shepherd asked if there would be considerations for adding restricted turns on Arastradero Road to assist with the issues the Arastradero West Apartments had with entering and exiting the complex. Mr. Rodriguez stated there was a request in to Caltrans which was pending for no right turn on red signage for south bound El Camino Real onto west bound Arastradero Road. Council Member Shepherd stated how impressed she was by the 40 percent increase of bicycle traffic to Gunn High School. She noted her biggest concerns were the cut-through traffic going through Barron Park and Maybell Avenue, a lack of full access to driveways, and the lack of ability to maneuver through the area. She asked Staff to elaborate on the necessity of a full year extension for the trial when the P&TC recommended the report be released in spring and the project be completed by end of summer. Mr. Rodriguez stated there had been discussion at the P&TC level regarding a trial period of less than a year. He noted there was significant amount of data that would be lacking if the March through May timeframe was not incorporated into the data. He stated the data would be more complete with a full two-year period inclusive of both phases. Council Member Shepherd stated during the discussions with the P&TC it was noted the Staff was anticipating measuring the side street cut-through issue during the extended trial period. Mr. Rodriguez stated that was correct; there was a desire to capture more data in a broader sense. The data collection to date had been focused along Arastradero Road, Maybell Avenue and some of the other side streets. He anticipated, with the support of the Council, the umbrella would be extended 18 08/01/2011 further into the Barron Park area to ensure the City could provide information or respond to community concerns more accurately. Council Member Burt stated from the outset this project was a trial and there had been responses and tweaking and there was more tweaking to do. He stated there needed to be acknowledgment in the areas that still had problems. There was work being done to address them, but he felt it would be beneficial to clearly state to the community that some areas still had issues and the City was working on them. He noted the community may not be aware of the various changes that had occurred and he recommended informing the people of the changes that had already been completed. He stated an issue was the west bound morning traffic had a degradation of approximately a minute and a half but east bound had an improvement of the same time. He suggested there be a better monitoring system without sending Staff to stand out there with a stop watch. He felt the use of webcams would assist in supplying the necessary information. He asked if Staff saw any opportunities to tweak the project in a manner that assisted the west-bound morning traffic at the expense of east-bound traffic which had improved. Mr. Rodriguez stated the chart being reviewed read opposite from the direction of thought; the west-bound traffic flow had improved by a minute and a half and the east-bound direction was slower. Council Member Burt asked if there was a way to balance the flow. Mr. Rodriguez stated with the ability to reintroduce traffic signal coordination there should be an equal traffic flow in both directions. Council Member Burt stated the bell changes alone may be the biggest adjustment and may self address the issue. Mr. Rodriguez stated that was correct. Council Member Burt asked for clarification on what was intended for the Miranda neighborhood. Mr. Rodriguez stated the recommendation Staff made at the P&TC meeting was to put in a short left turn pocket behind the cemetery at Arastradero Road onto south Miranda. He stated the neighbors polled themselves and did not support the recommendation and therefore Staff was no longer moving forward with that recommendation. Council Member Burt stated a community member had brought to the attention of the Council the Arastradero Road backup was causing a lack of traffic flow on El Camino Real south-bound. He asked if that was correct and 19 08/01/2011 whether there were going to be webcams placed in that location for monitoring. Mr. Rodriguez stated early in the project when the merge was in place there was an issue. That was the incentive to move the merge farther west. He did feel the bell schedule change would have a positive impact in spreading out the traffic in that area. Council Member Burt asked if the changes going forward were going to be on the home page of the City website so everyone could follow what was happening. Mr. Rodriguez stated the traffic division section within the Planning and Community Environment web pages could be revised to show the project status and a link placed on the main page of the City’s website to take the community to the updated pages. Council Member Schmid stated slide number 14 of the Staff presentation noted 335 pedestrians and bicyclists and asked for clarification. Mr. Rodriguez stated the pedestrian traffic was any person moving through the intersection. Council Member Schmid asked where the pedestrians came from; he noted near the intersection there was not housing to support 300 pedestrians in a half hour. Mr. Rodriguez stated the pedestrian traffic emerged from all over the City and used that intersection to cross. Council Member Schmid asked if the numbers shown had any indication of the traffic on Maybell Avenue where vehicles were dropping children off and driving away. Mr. Rodriguez stated he had heard of those incidents occurring although more for the high school than the middle schools. A majority of the traffic was from both sides of Arastradero Road. Council Member Schmid stated on slide number 19 of the Staff presentation, it was clearly indicated that the travel time started after passing El Camino Real or Foothill Expressway. He stated he was unclear on the travel time description for the east side of Alma. Mr. Rodriguez clarified the travel time being shown was from Alma once the vehicles had crossed El Camino Real. 20 08/01/2011 Council Member Schmid stated the four minutes and 25 seconds was not the time it took to cross Alma and the railroad tracks. Mr. Rodriguez stated that was correct, the time calculation was starting at Alma on the west side, crossing the tracks and onto El Camino Real. Council Member Holman asked what Staff envisioned the next steps should be regarding El Camino Real in terms of working with VTA to resolve the outstanding traffic issues. Mr. Rodriguez stated a feasibility study at Arastradero Road was necessary. He noted the widening of Arastradero Road would make notable improvements to the traffic flow where El Camino Real and Alta Mesa were involved. The widening of the road allowed for needed improvements at El Camino Real and would allow for the addition of the bicycle lanes to continue down Arastradero Road. Council Member Holman stated it appeared there may be competing goals; VTA was trying to get Rapid Transit moving. She asked what the planned schedule was for community meetings to gather feedback, suggested changes, and hear concerns. Mr. Rodriguez stated if the City Council approved the extension there would be an outreach plan put together within the next few weeks. He stated the schedule for community meetings would be on a quarterly basis unless there was value in meeting every other month which could be accomplished. Council Member Holman stated the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) easement access had been closed. She asked if there was an advantage to looking into the feasibility of re-opening that area. Mr. Rodriguez stated the portion that was closed was the backside of the apartment complex along Arastradero Road. He stated the initial closure occurred because there was an issue with the youth congregating in the area and participating in illegal activities. Council Member Holman asked if students were encouraged to take Boll Park to access Gunn High School through the back. She asked if Staff could return with the information. MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to approve an extension of the trial period for the Phase 2 of the Charleston- Arastradero Corridor Re-Striping Project for an additional 11 months, through June 2012. 21 08/01/2011 Vice Mayor Yeh stated the two areas of interest to him were the traffic signal coordination and the new bell schedule. He stated with both of those items in place he felt the traffic flow would be smoother. He stated the information on the collision data within the Staff Report was too preliminary. He was interested in seeing the updated data at the mid-point check-in in January of 2012 and at the end of the full year review. He was interested in having the bicycle data broken out between Maybell Avenue and Arastradero Road. He stated if the protected right-hand turn had been changed onto El Camino Real, and there was already an increase in the traffic. Staff should be conscientious and cautious regarding their approach. Council Member Holman stated her agreement for a six-month check-in status report on the overall project. Council Member Klein stated he supported the Motion and the work Staff had done. He encouraged continued discussions with VTA, the pressure on El Camino Real needed to be alleviated at the Arastradero Road intersection. He asked if the trial ended in June of 2012 would Staff be able to return to Council with the final report prior to the August 2012 break. Mr. Rodriguez stated yes, Staff would return to Council with the final report towards the end of June or the beginning of July. Council Member Klein asked if assuming that the report was heard in July of 2012, and the Council decided to end the trial, make it permanent, or modify it, would there be sufficient time to complete the necessary changes prior to the start of the following school year. Mr. Rodriguez stated yes, there would be coordination with the street resurfacing Staff and the School District. Mayor Espinosa stated the City took on the project because there was a problem in the corridor. It was being used as a raceway and there was undesirable traffic flow. The trial had not been perfect but there had been corrections along the way as there would be through its completion. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Price, Scharff absent 12. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution 9197 Confirming Weed Abatement Report and Ordering Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment on the Respective Properties Described Therein. Mayor Espinosa read the Public Hearing script for Agenda Item No. 12. He asked that the record show that notice of this hearing had been given in the time, manner, and form provided in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. He asked if the City Clerk had received any objections. 22 08/01/2011 City Clerk, Donna Grider answered no. The Public Hearing opened and closed without public comment. Mayor Espinosa stated that no one had appeared or had filed a written objection against the Weed Abatement proceedings and that any Resolutions passed by the Council on this matter would reflect this finding. He stated that he would entertain a Motion to adopt a Resolution overruling objections, confirming the report, and ordering the abatement cost to be a special assessment against the listed properties. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to adopt the Resolution confirming the report and ordering abatement costs to be a special assessment on the properties specified in the report. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Price, Scharff absent 13. Recommendation from the Policy & Services Committee Regarding Electronic Packet for Council. Council Member Klein stated that the City Council’s agenda packets were in paper form and had been prepared and paid for by the City. In an effort to help minimize the use of paper, and lower delivery and overtime costs, the City transitioned into producing the packets electronically. The issue had been discussed at two Policy & Services Committee (P&S) meetings and the Committee recommended that the electronic device the Council Members would use to read the packets be paid for by the City. The rational was to have the City pay for the electronic device with the understanding that the equipment remained as City property, and would be reclaimed by the City when the Council Member left office. Legal issues came into play regarding the use of City property for personal matters. State law stated that City- owned devices should not be used for personal matters. The City Attorney’s Office stated that the use of City-owned devices for personal use would be limited to minor, incidental matters. What was less clear was whether the use of a City-owned device or a personally owned device made a difference in discovery. The discovery was raised in the event the City was involved in litigation, and the party suing the City wanted to discover communications between Council Members or Council Members and Staff regarding the issue. It was a matter of degree, a gray area of the law and it was fair to say there would be less of a chance of having information discovered on a personally owned device. The concern would not be in discovering City information on a personally owned device but the risk would be of having personal information discovered on a personally owned device. The P&S Committee voted 3-1 to encourage, but not require for Council Members to purchase an electronic device and the device would not be paid by the City. Paper 23 08/01/2011 packets could still be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office if one chose not to receive packets electronically. Council Member Shepherd stated her understanding was the delivery of the packets to the nine Council Members was being eliminated from the budget as a savings. Council Members’ mail was included in the delivery of the packets and she raised concerns regarding Council Members not receiving mail until City Council meetings City Clerk, Donna Grider stated the Council Members who opted to go with an electronic device had the option to have the mail sent to them in an envelope; mail could be picked up in the City Clerk’s office, or given to them when Council Meetings were held. The Council Member could decide how mail would get to them. The goal was not only to reduce the use of paper but to limit overtime and the cost to deliver the paper packets. Council Member Shepherd stated she had her own electronic device and did not want to have a separate device for City use only. She wanted to get a better understanding if the intent was to have all the Council Members who opted for the electronic device to have the same setup for the purpose of having the system technically managed by Staff. Ms. Grider stated having the same system was not the necessary because the vehicle used to upload the packet material could be downloaded on a variety of electronic devices. Council Member Shepherd asked if that could be done now. Ms. Grider answered yes. Council Member Klein stated that one of the Committee’s considerations was to not have two electronic devices. The City would cover the required software, the installation of the software, and the monthly fees for the equipment. Council Member Shepherd asked if the City-owned device could be used for campaign work. Ms. Grider stated City work could not be mixed with campaign work. Council Member Shepherd stated her campaign work would be done on her own electronic device and asked if there would be concerns if she paid for her own monthly connection fee. Ms. Grider deferred the question to the City Attorney. 24 08/01/2011 Senior Assistant City Attorney, Cara Silver stated the prohibition and state law stated that City-owned property could not be used for political advocacy or personal use. Council Member Shepherd asked what the outcome would be if the City paid for the monthly connection fee. Ms. Silver stated she believed under the P&S Committee’s proposal the City would pay only for the applications used in the device. Council Member Klein stated the application was designed to be used only for City Council matters and not useable for election matters. Ms. Grider clarified that the P&S Committee’s Motion did speak to the monthly fee: “the City could choose to pay any applicable monthly fee incurred by the Council Member to receive a packet.” Council Member Shepherd asked if a stipend was considered to cover the paper and printing expense of the packet. Council Member Klein stated the issue was discussed but no formal Motion was made. It was not part of the recommendation. Mayor Espinosa stated most of the Council Members accessed information through personally owned electric devices. He raised concerns regarding someone who runs for City Council that may be homeless, did not have a job, and could not afford to access the information through a personally owned electronic device. The City had City-owned electronic devices that were clearly identified as City-owned and could not be used for any other purposes. He asked if there would be concerns, legal or otherwise, to adopt a policy similar to the City’s policy on cell phones, where one could obtain a City-owned electronic device to access the information. He asked if the City would be put at risk if someone was accessing the information different from the way most other Council Members accessed the information. Ms. Silver stated that did not pose a legal impediment because the proposal recommended by the P&S Committee included an option that each Council Member could elect to receive a paper packet and have access to the materials either through various types of electronic devices or paper. Mayor Espinosa asked Ms. Silver if language could be added, similar to the City’s cell phone policy where one could choose to have the City pay for the electronic device, with the understanding it could not be used for personal matters. He asked if it would create a conflict with the City in terms of how people accessed information and what type of disclosure might be required after the fact. 25 08/01/2011 Ms. Silver stated she needed clarification and asked if there was a no paper option in accessing the material. Mayor Espinosa answered no. What he was asking was to add wording similar to the City’s cell phone policy, to allow the City to have City- purchased items made available for Council Members to use to access information. He asked if there would be a difference or concerns that some Council Members accessed information through City-owed devices and some through personally owned devices. Ms. Silver said that language would be fine. Council Member Klein stated that option was considered during P&S Committee discussions. It was Council Member Price’s position, and was rejected given the Motion set before the Council tonight. Mayor Espinosa stated he wanted to get a better understanding on why the issue was voted against. Council Member Klein stated cell phones were less expensive than an electronic device. That was the primary distinction made between Council Members who chose to take an item from the City and those who did not in contrast to the much lower cost of a cell phone. He addressed the fact that companies had rules to not use company-owned equipment for personal matters. Council Members should be held to a higher standard and should not be placed in a position of temptation. A situation should not be created where the City would put people at risk to use government-owned equipment for personal use. Council Member Schmid requested clarification. He said his role as a Council Member was to make a decision based on public information that was accessible to everyone. For clarity he presented a situation where he had a personally owned piece of paper, which he made notes on, that he used for public and private matt. He asked if there would there be an issue in using a City-owned electronic device in the same manner he used his personally owned paper. Ms. Silver answered no. She clarified that the state law prohibition against personal use was if a Council Member used the City-owned electronic device for purely personal business. Council Member Schmid asked what would be the difference if a Council Member carried a City-owned paper packet as opposed to a City-owned device that was issued to them and used the material to get a message across to the public. 26 08/01/2011 Ms. Silver asked if the intent was to write personal notes on the material. Council Member Schmid answered no. He explained that the City had given him a packet that contained paper documents. The packet was City-owned and would be used because it contained public information. He asked the City Attorney if what she was saying was that Council Members would be restricted in the future because they were giving an electronic device and could not use the City-owned device as freely as they do now. He said that seemed to be an imposition on the restriction of the freedom of information. Ms. Silver stated the restriction on the personal use aspect was one of degrees that had not been well flushed out in the courts. She said some cases that were starting to percolate in the Court of Appeal system regarding the personal use of an electronic device were still unsettled. Council Member Schmid stated he understood the issue regarding the electronic device but the information itself was in the public domain. Council Member Burt stated he believed the restriction was around a state law on public property. The distinction was the material was property and the packet was not. He said Council Member Schmid was focusing on the content and the content did not have restrictions. The restriction was around the property. Council Member Schmid stated his concern was that the content was on the property. Council Member Burt stated that was not the distinction. Council Member Schmid referred to a statement in the Staff Report, page 480-481, that implied certain functions on the electronic device were not available at this time and questioned if he would be able to do as good a job by replacing paper with an the electronic device. He asked if the transition was moving into a more constrained environment. Mr. Keene stated the constraints depended on ones approach and habits. The technology was evolving and the current device was more versatile then than the last. He said the movement was in a transition phase and the larger tradeoffs were more in the savings of production and delivery rather than in the ease of using an electronic device. Council Member Holman raised concerns regarding the issue of two classes of Council Members in terms of purchasing their own personal electronic device or having the City purchase the device. She emphasized that Council Members would need to be responsible for their liability and disclosure issues 27 08/01/2011 in terms of using a City purchased device. She referred to a statement in the Staff Report, page 434, regarding “a stipend given to Council Members, an amount sufficient to purchase an electronic device.” She said the response was that the stipend would be considered compensation and would exceed the maximum amount allowed for Council Members under the City’s Municipal Code and state law. She asked Ms. Silver to clarify the state law. Ms. Silver state there was a limit on Council Members’ compensation in state law but did not know if that applied to Charter cities or a provision where Charter cities could go above and beyond that level of compensation. Council Member Holman stated she needed clarification on whether Council Members would continue to receive large paper documents such as, Environmental Impact Reports (EIR). Ms. Grider answered yes. Council Member Holman asked if delivery of packets to the libraries and various locations would be delivered no later than they currently were delivered. Ms. Grider stated that was correct according to P&S direction. Council Member Holman raised concerns regarding an issue that would not be discussed this evening but wanted to get it on the table. She said as the Council transitioned into paperless packets, the Boards and Commissions would be faced with the same issues and did not receive compensation or have expenses paid. The issue needed to be addressed because the transition could be an imposition on many of the members. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to accept the Policy & Services Committee recommendation that: 1) the Council policy would be to encourage, but not require, Council Members purchase and use their own electronic reading devices, 2) the City would purchase applications required to allow the Council Members to read the packet on their device, 3) the City could choose to pay any applicable monthly fees incurred by the Council Member having either WI-FI or 3G access, and 4) Staff would support the accessibility of the electronic packet. Council Member Shepherd stated she supported the Motion because it had an option that gave Council Members the flexibility to use a City-purchased device or the use of their personally owned device. Mr. Keene clarified the Motion had a provision for the City to provide the software and possibly data charges but not the hardware. 28 08/01/2011 Vice Mayor Yeh stated the purchase expanded the flexibility to access public information. It did not stop delivery of the paper packets and the option remained if Council Members opted to have the packet delivered to them. The Motion enabled Council Members to access the information in different ways. The technology existed and the information was already being delivered to Staff members through applications on electronic devices. He said electronic devices were perceived as a perk. He felt as members of an elected body, to build in a perk would not be good and would raise concerns on how the public would view the City Council’s role. The Motion was maximizing flexibility. AMENDMENT: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to allow for the purchase of the electronic devices by the City. Council Member Shepherd stated she understood the P&S Committee’s concerns and how they had gotten to this point. She raised concerns regarding Council Members or potential Council Members that could not afford their own electronic device would need to have the capability to access one that was City-owned. She wanted to keep the option open in the event a Council Member needed the financial support and release from the expense of producing the packet electronically. Council Member Holman stated, without having it built into the Motion, that Staff would inform Council Members of their obligations and responsibilities when using City-owned equipment Council Member Burt stated the Committee discussed the issue of Council Members wanting to keep the current method in receiving their packets if they preferred not to use electronic packets. No one was forced to use electronic packets. He said in today’s world a good used laptop could be purchased for $200 and was affordable with the limited stipend Council Members received. Council Member Schmid stated he was in favor of creating incentives to move in the direction of electronic packets. He supported the Amendment. Mayor Espinosa stated he wanted to add language for clarity and said “if a Council Member could choose to have the City purchase the device recognizing that the device could only be used for Council business and not for personal use within the law.” He encouraged Council Members to purchase their own devices. He supported the Amendment because it allowed the option for someone who could not afford the device to access one and be equal with the other Council Members. This was an equity that should be allowed. 29 08/01/2011 Council Member Klein was not in favor of the Amendment. He asked how many votes the Amendment required. Ms. Silver answered four. Council Member Klein stated Vice Mayor Yeh had raised a good argument that needed to be discussed. He said that City-purchased equipment would be regarded as a perk and treated by aggressive or contentious Union representatives as an indication that the Council was not consistent. Council Members were asking Union members to make sacrifices and at the same time Council Members were granting themselves an additional perk. He said Council Member Burt responded well regarding to the theoretical Council Member who could not afford an electronic device. He said Council Members were compensated and the money should be used to offset expenses. The City libraries had computers where the information could be accessed by the theoretical Council Member who could not afford their own electronic device. He felt the Amendment would send a bad signal. Council Member Burt stated he concurred with Council Member Klein’s comments. The Mayor stated it was the City Attorney’s opinion that there was no difference in potential disclosure ramifications on personally owned devices from City-owned devices. He stated this information was different than was understood from the P&S discussions. He asked the City Attorney if that was correct. Ms. Silver stated the opinion in the City Attorney’s Office had been consistent; this was an evolving area of the law. City business conducted on a device issued by the City or a personal device owned by a Council Member was discoverable and subject to the Public Records Act. The gray area of the law was whether personal business conducted on a personal device as opposed to a City issued device was fully discoverable and that was where the distinction came into play. There would be a difference in opinion on the issue and currently evolving. Council Member Burt stated what he was hearing was there was a distinction and the Mayor indicated there was no distinction. He asked that the issue be clarified. Mayor Espinosa asked the City Attorney to reiterate the distinction on personal information and its discoverability. Ms. Silver stated there could be a distinction. She said currently there was no established legal precedence on the issue. AMENDMENT PASSED: 4-3 Burt, Klein, Yeh no. Price, Scharff absent 30 08/01/2011 Council Member Shepherd asked if parameters should be considered on the electronic device that a Council Member could purchase. She asked if that was something Staff could come back with. Mr. Keene stated the purchase would go through the City’s bidding process and parameters would be established in the process. Choices would be limited as opposed to an individual making a purchase for themselves. Council Member Shepherd stated the device would need to meet the requirements to generate an electronic packet. Mr. Keene stated the specifications would be standardized and applicable to software to be used across the board to conduct City business. Vice Mayor Yeh expressed his appreciation for all the work the Committee had done on the item. Because if the Amendment he would not support the Motion. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 5-2 Klein, Yeh no. Price, Scharff absent Mayor Espinosa asked what the timeline was in getting the specifications for an electronic device. Mr. Keene stated Staff would work on getting the specifications. The main Motion included possibilities that required putting options together to establish parameters for the policy such as which applications were required and how they would be made available to the Council Members. 14. Authorization for the Mayor to Appoint Members of the City Council to File Written Arguments for the Binding Arbitration Repeal Measure and Against the Green Energy Initiative. City Clerk, Donna Grider stated the Election Code allowed for arguments to be written by the City Council. Past practice was that the City Council had precedence in writing City arguments and Council Members had the option to ask the Mayor to appoint up to five members to draft the language. The members could be a mix of Council Members, citizens, or dignitaries to draft one argument. Emily Renzel stated the parkland dedication measure was complex, contentious and confusing. She urged the Council to insure that the best information reached the voters. She agreed with the Staff’s analysis and recommended procedures to insure that voters had arguments on both sides of each measure on the ballot before them. Council Member Shepherd asked what the appointing process was. 31 08/01/2011 Senior Assistant City Attorney, Cara Silver stated assigning five Council Members to draft the argument collectively would be subject to the Brown Act. One option would be to have less then a quorum draft the argument and the other members could sign the argument under the authority given tonight. The option would not be Brown acted. MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to authorize the Mayor to appoint up to five members of the City Council to draft and sign written arguments for the Binding Arbitration Repeal Measure. Council Member Shepherd stated the initiative was being placed on the Ballot and the Council should have the opportunity to put forward their argument. She questioned the need to appoint five City Council Members to write the argument but said the opportunity was there to do that. Council Member Holman stated if the decision was to appoint four Council Members not all appointees would be required to sign but it would give the opportunity to draft or help draft the argument. City Manager, James Keene stated that was correct. He suggested keeping in mind the amount of time it would take to get the work done and the ability to have a drafting team at work. Ms. Grider stated August 16th was the due date for direct arguments and August 23rd for the rebuttal arguments. Council Member Holman stated four Council Members would be more practical than five and suggested to have four Council Members draft the arguments with the option for a fifth person to sign. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to appoint up to four members. Mayor Espinosa stated he wanted to make clear that this would not be a political gain for him. The majority voted in favor of the issue and he knew of Council Members who wanted to serve on the Committee. He said he would be happy to work with them and to support the will of the Council. Council Member Burt stated restricting to four members was appropriate. He said the fact that he had been working with the Council, Council Members Holman and Scharff on preliminary draft language needed to be disclosed to comply with any Brown Act concerns. 32 08/01/2011 Council Member Klein stated that identifying the four Council Members who would be working on the draft would relieve the Mayor of any political pressures. Council Members Scharff, Holman, Shepherd, and Burt were most vocal in supporting the measure and Vice Mayor Yeh was the other Council Member who supported the vote. Mayor Espinosa raised concerns regarding naming individual Council Members as it may set the expectation they were signing the argument. Council Member Klein stated he did not feel that would be the case. The purpose was to notice they were the official Council committee that would be working on the draft, whether they were Mayor or Council appointed. Council Member Burt stated Council Member Shepherd did not support the vote. Council Member Klein stated he misspoke. He said it was Council Members Scharff, Burt, Schmid, and Holman who were the most vocal supporters of the measure. Council Member Shepherd asked if those four would be the Council Members to draft and sign the arguments. Council Member Klein clarified they were the Committee Members to determine whether it was politically prudent for them to sign or to get others who they thought might be helpful. Council Member Shepherd stated she wanted to make clear that the four Council Members identified would only draft the argument and she accepted them as the appointments. Council Member Holman stated she felt Council Member Shepherd may have left out a piece when she stated that the four Council Members identified were to be the drafters and thought that Council Member Klein’s language was that the four Council Members would be the committee. Council Member Shepherd asked Council Member Klein if his intent was to make the four Council Members a campaign committee. Council Member Klein answered no. He stated it was the Council’s committee that would do the drafting and or sign. Council Member Shepherd stated the four Council Members would be drafting the language for the measure in favor of the initiative and not necessarily all would be signing. 33 08/01/2011 Council Member Klein stated Council Members needed to be given the authorization to sign on behalf of the City. Not having the authorization would not be useful. Ms. Grider stated the argument needed to be drafted and signed. At least one Council Member was required to sign the argument in order for the priority to be given to the Council. Mayor Espinosa asked Council Member Shepherd if she accepted the language. Council Member Shepherd asked for clarification regarding what language would that be. Mayor Espinosa stated his understanding was the language was to add the names of the four Council Members who were mentioned to serve on the Committee to draft the language and potentially sign the argument but not required because there could be outside community members added. Council Member Shepherd accepted the language change. Council Member Burt stated he wanted to have Council Member Klein be on the committee because of his legal knowledge, writing skills, and political experience. Mayor Espinosa stated that a Substitute Motion was required or the original Motion needed to be changed to accept the recommendation. Council Member Shepherd stated that would become an organized, public Council meeting with five Council Members. Council Member Burt recommended the committee be composed of the three Council Members that already met plus Council Member Klein. AMENDMENT: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member XXXXX to name Council Members Burt, Holman, Scharff, and Klein to serve on the committee to draft the language and potentially sign the argument. Council Member Shepherd stated she wanted to unwind the discussion and allow the Mayor to make the appointments. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Mayor Espinosa restated the Motion on the floor was to authorize the Mayor to potentially appoint four Council Members to draft and sign written arguments. 34 08/01/2011 MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Price, Scharff absent MOTION: Vice Mayor Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to authorize the Mayor to appoint up to four members of the City Council to draft potentially the ballot arguments against the Green Energy Initiative. Vice Mayor Yeh stated the Motion provided openness and flexibility to the process. Council Member Klein stated he felt the City should remain neutral on the issue. The issue was divisive and was brought to the Council by members of the public. The Council’s role on the issue under the law was to follow the Charter. He felt taking a stance one way or another would be inappropriate. He did not support the Motion. Council Member Shepherd stated she concurred with Council Member Klein’s comments. The Motion placed the Council in a political position. She was unsure on how to make a fair argument between the two different debates regarding the parkland versus the environmental group. It would be inappropriate to put the Council in that position. She did not support the Motion. Council Member Burt agreed that it would be inappropriate for the Council to take a position since the Council did not have policy debates around the issue. Council supported Staff in moving forward with the evaluation on the technologies to be used should the initiative pass. Additionally, it would be highly inappropriate to go through a debate this evening given two Council Members were absent. He did not support the Motion. Council Member Schmid stated his understanding was there could be an opposition if the Council did not participate. He asked the City Attorney to clarify the statement. Ms. Silver stated she thought the issue was in terms of past practice and that an argument could be accepted from a citizen group provided it contained at least one Council Member. The Election Code gave priority to arguments that contained a Council Member’s signature. Council Member Schmid referred to page 503 of the Staff report, which stated “a body or member of a legislative body authorize such a group.” He asked if that was the statement that was being referred to. Council Member Klein said the following paragraph stated that the City Election Official will give the following preference and priority in selecting the argument. The first priority would be the Council or a group of Council 35 08/01/2011 Members, the second was an individual voter, and third was a bonafide association of citizens. He said the people who were opposed could file an argument against the initiative. Ms. Grider stated the past practice was exactly what Council Member Klein had explained. A bonafide association would be someone who has a Fair Political Practice Committee. She said currently there were committees formed for both sides. Council Member Holman stated the fair thing to do was to not write a rebuttal argument. The Council had not taken a position and Council Members could sign on either side MOTION WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER NO ACTION TAKEN 15. Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternates for 2011 League of California Cities Annual Conference- September 21-23, 2011, San Francisco. City Clerk, Donna Grider stated the City Council was requested to select a voting delegate and had the ability to select up to two alternates. She noted receiving confirmation to serve from Mayor Espinosa. Mayor Espinosa welcomed requests from his Colleagues of being selected as an alternate and received confirmation from Council Member Holman. MOTION: Council Member Shepherd moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Yeh to designate Mayor Espinosa as the voting delegate and Council Member Holman as alternate for the 2011 League of California Cities Annual Conference- September 21-23, 2011, San Francisco. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Price, Scharff absent 16. Finance Committee Recommendation to Approve Policies and Guidelines for a Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff. COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Holman asked if the City required any mitigations by PG&E for the work being completed by them, to include the removal of trees. City Manager, James Keene advised he was not sure but would get back with Council. 36 08/01/2011 Vice Mayor Yeh requested Staff provide updated information regarding changes to the Residential Parking Program, specifically any changes in the voting threshold. Mayor Espinosa thanked City Staff for all their hard work over the past 6 weeks during the long and packed Council meetings. The City Council adjourned to the Closed Session at 11:49 p.m. CLOSED SESSION 17. Conference with City Attorney -- Potential Litigation Subject: Potential Litigation- Public Employment Relations Board on behalf of International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1319 v. City of Palo Alto Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(c) Herb Borock stated earlier in the evening the binding mediation proposal item was removed from the Agenda because according to Staff the bargaining units and unions had indicated their willingness to discuss the matter. He stated according to the newspapers there appeared to be concerns on whether it was possible to discuss Binding Arbitration not mediation. He stated if the Union wished to make a case regarding the Ballot Measure they should be going to court rather then going to the Public Relations Board because the substance of the Measure was not appropriate. The City Council reconvened from the Closed Session at 12:14 a.m. and Mayor Espinosa advised no reportable action taken. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m.