HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-06-27 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting June 27, 1994 1. Red Cross Recognition of Gunn High School Students Who Provided First Aid .................................... 73-145 2. United States Conference of Mayors Awards ............. 73-145 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 73-146 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and The Wackenhut Corporation for Security Services at Munici-pal Service Center, Lot Q and Webster/Cowper Garages .. 73-146 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Aquatic Habitat Management Corporation for Open Space Lakes Vegetation Clearing Project ........................... 73-146 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Redwood Plumbing Inc. for the Regional Water Control Plant Incinerator Drain Replacement Project ................. 73-146 7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Joseph J. Albanese Inc. for 1994 Sidewalk Replacement/Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance Project .............. 73-146 9. Resolution 7336 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the County of Santa Clara on Behalf of the City of Palo Alto to Apply for a 1993/94 Used Oil Curbside Promotion Grant" ............ 73-147 10. Ordinance 4228 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 to Provide for a Receipt of Payment for Expenses Associated with World Cup Soccer ......... 73-147 11. Ordinance 4229 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 10.70 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to a Congestion Management Transportation Program ..................... 73-147 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ................... 73-147 14. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Adopting the City's Nondisposal Facility Element Pursuant to Public Re-sources Code Section 41730 et seq. .................... 73-147
06/27/94 73-143
15. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Mojave Pipeline Company to Provide Natural Gas Transportation 73-148 16. Amendment No. 7 to Contract No. 4688 between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Sanitation Company for Collection and Transportation of Refuse Produced and Accumulated in the City - Fiscal Year 1994-95 ................................. 73-158 17. Request for Authorization to Pay Public Employee Re-tirement System Billing for 1993-94 Final Year Salary Conversions and Budget Amendment Ordinance Approval ... 73-161 18. Ordinance Repealing and Reenacting Chapter 9.24 [Minors in Streets and Public Places] of the Palo Alto Munici-pal Code Relating to Juvenile Curfew Regulations ...... 73-162 19. Ordinance Enacting Chapter 9.50 of Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to the Removal of Graf-fiti on Public Facilities and Recovery of the Cost Thereof ............................................... 73-179 20. Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Simitian, and Council Members Fazzino and Schneider re Consideration of Aggressive Panhandling Regulations ............................... 73-179 21. Mayor Kniss and Council Members Andersen and Schneider re Conceptual Proposal For a Family Resource Center ... 73-179 12. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation .... 73-179 13. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation; .......................................... 73-179 19A. (Old Item No. 8) Contract between the City of Palo Alto and American Gas & Technology, Inc. for Fuel Conversion of Vehicles ................................ 73-180 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m. .......... 73-181
06/27/94 73-144
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, McCown SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Red Cross Recognition of Gunn High School Students Who Provided First Aid Michael Kasperzak, Chairman, Board of Directors, Palo Alto Chapter of the Red Cross, presented certificates of appreciation to five students who assisted in the Gunn High School explosion. Council Member Andersen said the Red Cross and the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) had an extraordinary relationship. The PAUSD's commitment to provide high quality first aid training to both staff and students was demonstrated through that rela-tionship. The young people's response during the incident heightened and reinforced the importance of that relationship. 2. United States Conference of Mayors Awards: 1) City Livabil-ity Award by Waste Management, Inc., and 2) 1994 "Buy Recy-cled" Purchase Award by United States Environmental Protec-tion Agency Mayor Kniss said she had been privileged to go to Portland, Oregon, and had received two awards on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, the City Livability Award and the "Buy Recycled" Purchase Award. She said it once again proved that Palo Alto was the "No. 1" City in the Bay Area. Public Art Commissioner Natalie Wells thanked the City and former Planning Commissioners Huber and Wheeler who assisted in Byxbee Park becoming a reality. Public Art Commissioner Susan Wexler was pleased with the award and hoped there would be many more accolades in the future. Public Art Commissioner Sandy Eakins was very pleased with the Livability Award. She said Byxbee Park was very walkable and close. She also thanked Orlando Maoine for his support. Director Arts & Culture Leon Kaplan was very proud to have participated in the entire process. Council Member Schneider, liaison to the Public Arts Commission, said as the result of the 1978 City Council Master Plan Update, a major landfill situated on Palo Alto baylands was slated for conversion to a public park. The City Council called upon the Public Arts Commission (PAC) to select an appropriate artist and landscape architect who would be integral in the design of what
06/27/94 73-145
was to become Byxbee Park. In 1988, PAC initiated a national search and, from a field of 75 applicants, selected two artists. A design team was formed with selected architects. Byxbee Park was dedicated in 1991 and represented the City's recognition of the importance of art and culture in daily life. The City Livability Award acknowledged further Palo Alto's dedication to programs that nurtured and sustained artists and art organizations in the community. Mayor Kniss presented awards to Leon Kaplan, members of PAC, and Janet Foreman. Public Works Projects Coordinator Janet Foreman spoke on behalf of the Public Works and Finance Departments and was pleased the City of Palo Alto received the award. Council Member Andersen said when the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee initially discussed becoming real buyers of recycled materials and had enthusiastically supported and recognized the notion staff had brought forth, the P&S Committee never dreamed how far it would actually go. He commended staff for its efforts. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bouncy, representing the Recreation Division, announced the July 3, 1994, Chili Cook-Off Event. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the Single Party Machine (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Claudio Martinez, P. O. Box 273, Palo Alto , thanked those that supported him in his activities. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 11. 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and The Wackenhut Corporation for Security Services at Municipal Service Center, Lot Q and Webster/Cowper Garages 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Aquatic Habitat Management Corporation for Open Space Lakes Vegetation Clearing Project 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Redwood Plumbing Inc. for the Regional Water Control Plant Incinerator Drain Replacement Project; change orders not to exceed $10,000 7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Joseph J. Albanese Inc. for 1994 Sidewalk Replacement/Americans with Disabili-ties Act Compliance Project; change orders not to exceed $135,000
06/27/94 73-146
9. Resolution 7336 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the County of Santa Clara on Behalf of the City of Palo Alto to Apply for a 1993/94 Used Oil Curbside Promotion Grant" 10. Ordinance 4228 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 to Provide for a Receipt of Payment for Expenses Associated with World Cup Soccer" 11. Ordinance 4229 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 10.70 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to a Congestion Management Transpor-tation Program" (1st Reading 6/13/94, PASSED: 8-0, Simitian absent) MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10, Fazzino, McCown absent. MOTION PASSED 7-0-1 for Item No. 11, Simitian "abstaining," Fazzino, McCown absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 8 would become Item No. 19A and that Item No. 5, Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and ELH Development Services, Inc. for Energy Consulting Services, removed by staff. City Attorney Ariel Calonne announced that the City Council would adjourn to the Closed Session at the end of the meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 14. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Adopting the City's Nondisposal Facility Element Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 41730 et seq. Deputy Director of Public Works Operations Mike Miller said the item was a revision of legislation which was originally adopted in 1990, AB 939, the Source Reduction and Recycling Element, whereby all cities in California had to reduce waste by 50 percent by the year 2000. The legislation was amended in 1992 to say if a city had a facility that was a nondisposal facility that handled or processed solid waste, the city had to amend its plan according to the new legislation. Palo Alto's participation in the Sunnyvale Materials and Recovery and Transfer (SMaRT) Station was the reason for being there that evening with the Nondisposal Facility Element (NDFE). Staff requested that Council approve the resolution adopting the NDFE for the SMaRT Station. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified that 1990 was the base year for reducing the waste stream by 25 or 50 percent. Mr. Miller said that a solid waste study was done in 1990. Every city was required to calculate the amount of waste not only
06/27/94 73-147
disposed of but diverted through recycling programs. The combination of the two numbers became the basis. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified the reason for adding the two together was so that cities which were doing a good job of diversion would not be penalized by simply taking a percentage of the waste stream. Mr. Miller said that was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian asked for the definition of a nondisposal facility. Mr. Miller responded it was a facility that in one way or another handled or processed solid waste that was not ultimately disposed of at that facility. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified the SMaRT Station qualified because it was not the ultimate disposal point. Mr. Miller said that was correct. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt the resolution adopting the City's Nondisposal Facility Element. Resolution 7337 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the City's Nondisposal Facility Element Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 41730 et seq." (continued from 6/13/94) MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, McCown absent. 15. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Mojave Pipeline Company to Provide Natural Gas Transportation (continued from 6/13/94) Manager of Resource Planning Tom Habashi said Council was being asked to approve an agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Mojave Pipeline Company (Mojave) to provide natural gas transportation service in California. Palo Alto currently received service from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). However, for the past three years, staff had been considering an offer made by Mojave to become a shipper on its proposed expansion to Northern California. Staff had spent considerable time during the past year negotiating with both Mojave and PG&E on a long-term transportation agreement. After a detailed review of key factors as outlined on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:312:94), staff believed that the Mojave agreement was the best choice for the economic future of the gas utility. On May 4, 1994, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommended approval of the Mojave agreement.
06/27/94 73-148
Utilities Advisory Commissioner Fred Eyerly said the UAC had an extended period of time beginning in September 1993 to study the Mojave project while staff had been studying the project since December 1992. The UAC had six meetings in which the Mojave project was discussed at length with staff. In March 1994, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Mojave attended a UAC meeting and responded to questions. A representative from PG&E had also met with the UAC and expressed concerns that resources were only available from the Southwest and not also from Canada, as well as a concern over the reliability of a single pipeline. Staff had negotiated with both PG&E and Mojave over a period of time and acknowledged PG&E had provided reliable service for many years. However, it did not offer a competitive contract and had played on the City's fears regarding the Mojave contract and the above-mentioned resources and single pipeline. Staff had sent out a Request for Proposals (RFP) to both Canada and the Southwest. Southwest resources included about 50 percent of the United States (U.S.) reserves; there were a number of basins in the southern part of the Rocky Mountains. Pipelines could easily be constructed to connect with Texas and Gulf fields. There was a distant possi-bility of connecting with Mexican fields sometime in the future. The contract had an "out" clause which could be activated on the 1st of November or within 30 days after the first license had been issued to Mojave. Mojave was a part of El Paso Gas, was founded in 1929, had provided services to California since 1946, furnished about 50 percent of all gas in California, and had an extended line to Kern County which was completed in 1992. Plans to extend that service into Sacramento and the Bay Area were targeted for 1996. The chance for interruption was practically nil in a pipeline like Mojave with modern controlled communication technology and which precluded ordinary problems. Historically, pipeline reliability had not been a problem for municipalities. The Mojave construction included modern electronic controls for compressor stations and mainline valves and installation of the best available steel pipe with a life expectancy of 60 to 90 years. Special construction consideration in crossing steams, roads, fault lines, etc., had been given. In case of a catastrophic disaster, continued service was possible due to the pressurized system that made line pack gas available. Any breaks would be repaired within a maximum time of 18 hours. He said the decision as to whether to go with Mojave had some inherent risk as did all long-range decisions in utilities. Consequently, an in-depth study had been done before a final decision was made by staff and a recommendation made by the UAC. The Mojave transmission project offered an economic advantage for the gas utility. It ranked with the electric utility decisions of the last 30 years such as the Western contract, the Calaveras project, and the transmission project opening up the Northwest resources to Palo Alto. The UAC had weighed the decision, accepted the staff recommendation, and recommended the Council approve the contract with Mojave. Council Member Andersen questioned in the worst case scenario of a large earthquake hitting Southern California, would the City of Palo Alto be dependent on PG&E as an alternative backup and would it be a reliable source if the contract were awarded to Mojave.
06/27/94 73-149
Mr. Habashi said staff had initiated negotiations with PG&E to work out a backup contract in case of an emergency. However, the negotiations had not been concluded. Council Member Andersen asked whether conclusion on that question would be reached by the time the fail-safe escape clause expired. Mr. Habashi hoped that would be the case. However, if that did not happen, Palo Alto would be served by a single line, the Mojave pipeline, and would join 90 percent of municipal gas utilities which were also being served by a single line. Staff felt that reliability was not an issue. However, achieving 100 percent reliability was still the goal. Mr. Eyerly clarified that gas transmission was not like electric transmission. There was a line pack in a large pipeline so that even if there were a break, gas was available. If it were built properly, there would be cutoff stations, compression, and a 24-hour supply of gas in the line. El Paso was on the Mojave project and was committed to rapid repairs. Council Member Andersen questioned the level of competition in the entire industry and whether staff would be able to negotiate lower rates. He clarified the cap was a cap and that the City was not locked into the increases built into it. Mr. Habashi said the City was committed to the lower of 1 percent escalation on the tariff that Mojave would file. Council Member Huber clarified that Council was being asked to enter into a contract to transport gas to the City of Palo Alto and it would be the City's responsibility to find the gas, perhaps in the Southwest. Mr. Habashi said that was correct. The City needed to find the gas as well as the intrastate transportation. Council Member Huber said the City currently did not buy gas from PG&E; it bought transportation. Mr. Habashi said yes. Council Member Huber asked if PG&E were required to provide backup by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulations. Mr. Habashi did not believe PG&E presently had that obligation. Council Member Huber clarified if the City chose Mojave, PG&E would shut down its pipes in the City of Palo Alto. Mr. Habashi did not believe it would be technically feasible due to PG&E's network of lines under Palo Alto. A line would probably not be shut down because Palo Alto did not sign an agreement. Council Member Huber clarified if Palo Alto signed an agreement
06/27/94 73-150
with Mojave, PG&E would be history unless a backup contract was negotiated. Palo Alto would be left with Mojave as the only transportation system. Mr. Habashi said that would be correct inside of California. Council Member Huber questioned the purpose for the $2 million cap. Mr. Habashi said the $2 million cap was for capital investments in order to connect with the Mojave pipeline. Mojave went through Palo Alto; however, it did not connect with the three receiving stations. Council Member Huber clarified the money would be spent inside Palo Alto. He questioned who would pay the additional money if the cost exceeded $2 million. Mr. Habashi said Mojave would pay. Council Member Huber asked how many cities had signed up, were about to sign up, or were in a similar situation as Palo Alto. Mr. Habashi said in PG&E's territory, there were Palo Alto and the City of Coalinga. If the agreement were approved that night, Palo Alto would be the only city to sign up with Mojave thus far. Council Member Huber assumed that Mojave was negotiating or making offers with other cities. Mr. Habashi said Mojave was making offers with industrial custom-ers up and down the central valley. Council Member Huber clarified that industrial meant something other than a municipality. Mr. Habashi said yes. City Attorney Ariel Calonne noted that there were only four municipal gas utilities in the state. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that Palo Alto currently had redundancy in service from PG&E. If something were to happen to one pipeline, gas would continue to flow. Mr. Habashi said that was correct. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified one pipeline would be sufficient due to modern technology and the fact that 90 percent of cities were served by only one pipeline. He questioned if staff were prepared to enter into the agreement on November 1, 1994, if backup service had not been secured from PG&E at a reasonable price. Mr. Habashi said yes. All the options would have to be weighed at that time. There were four different contingencies with Mojave,
06/27/94 73-151
and staff would return to Council with a staff report. Council Member Rosenbaum asked if it would be in PG&E's interest to provide backup. He believe that PG&E would argue that the cost of backup would be so great that any savings from Mojave would be exhausted. Mr. Habashi said PG&E staff had indicated interest in talking with Palo Alto regarding backup service. PG&E realized if the City signed with Mojave, it would be better to work something out than have nothing at all. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified PG&E would still receive some income. Mr. Habashi said that was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified that the pipeline did not yet exist. Mr. Habashi said that was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian referred to page 2 of the agreement under Basic Obligations and Conditions which said, "...Transporter's obligation to construct such Expansion Facilities or any portion thereof and to provide the contemplated services to Shipper is conditioned upon and subject to the receipt of authorizations for any such Expansion Facilities deemed necessary by Transporter, the securing of financing arrangements for such Expansion Facilities satisfactory to Transporter, and the execution of contracts with various shippers, including Shipper, for a total throughput which, in Transporter's sole judgement, makes the construction and operation of such Expansion Facilities or any portion thereof economically feasible...." He understood that to mean that Mojave's obligation to provide the services under discussion was contingent upon its ability to receive the necessary approvals from regulatory agencies, to receive financing, and to acquire sufficient contracts. Mr. Habashi said that was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian questioned what would happen if Mojave did not receive those things. Mr. Habashi said Mojave could decide not to proceed with the expansion. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified that Mojave would then not be in a position to provide the services and he questioned what would happen next. Mr. Habashi said the City would continue with PG&E. Vice Mayor Simitian queried if it turned out that Mojave would not provide the services and the City stayed with PG&E, would that not put the City in a less favorable position to bargain with PG&E.
06/27/94 73-152
Mr. Calonne said the services currently bought from PG&E were at prices established by the PUC in an approved, nondiscriminatory tariff. The agreement was such that on January 1, 1996, if the facilities were not in place, the City could terminate the agreement and continue to buy the current transportation services under the protection of the PUC rate regulation. Vice Mayor Simitian asked if PG&E were in a position to offer a competitive rate or was it stymied by the PUC. Mr. Habashi said that PG&E's offer was to use the current, exact same rate; however, the escalation rate would be fixed at 2 percent for services to Southern California instead of the random number that came before the PUC every three years. Staff believed the offer was not sufficient to bring to Council. Vice Mayor Simitian questioned if the City would be less likely to receive that offer, no matter how insufficient, if Mojave were unable to deliver on a pipeline that had not yet been built. Mr. Habashi said that was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian asked what the level of risk was for Mojave's ability to deliver on the pipeline given the needed regulatory approvals, financing, and sufficient number of users. Mr. Habashi believed Mojave had secured enough contracts to proceed; however, financing still needed to be discussed. Staff had until November 1, 1994, to make a decision. He said the issue was whether it would be better to go with PG&E and take the 2 percent escalation being offered. Staff felt the offer did not provide sufficient incentive to overcome the potential benefits of the Mojave agreement. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified that while there was some risk the pipeline would not be built and, therefore, some risk the modest benefits from PG&E which existed would not be derived, staff believed that the benefits PG&E offered as contrasted to the benefits offered by Mojave lead staff to recommend Mojave. The risk was modest and the return great. Mr. Habashi said yes. Whatever offer PG&E made could be reversed by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Vice Mayor Simitian said on page 2 of the May 4, 1994, letter to the UAC regarding the cost of gas transportation, staff mentioned that the potential savings could amount to more comparing Mojave to PG&E because of the regulatory uncertainty associated with PG&E. He clarified the savings could be even greater using Mojave if the PUC allowed PG&E to raise its rates. Mr. Habashi said yes. Staff assumed PG&E's rates would go up with inflation. With Mojave, it would be 1 percent escalation over the next 15 years. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the potential savings could
06/27/94 73-153
amount to much less if the PUC tightened up on PG&E. over the same length of time. Mr. Habashi said yes. Staff had obtained forecasts from many experts and believed it was not likely that PG&E's transportation costs would go up less than inflation. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified it was not likely the PUC would force PG&E. to keep its rates down. Mr. Habashi said yes. Vice Mayor Simitian said the City was partly in the business of predicting what the PUC would be doing in the next few years. Mr. Habashi said that was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian said the savings that were described in the same paragraph of the May 4, 1994, letter said, "...This is over $4 million (in savings) to the 15 year contract term...." He clarified there were $2 million in capital costs described previously and asked whether the $2 million had been deducted before arriving at the $4 million savings figure. Mr. Habashi said that it had been included. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified that, "...savings is $6 million minus the $2 million capital costs, leaves $4 million." Mr. Habashi said that was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian referred to a question asked by Council Member Andersen and clarified if there were a total disruption to the pipeline and it were demolished, there would be a day's worth of backup capacity in the system at any one time. Mr. Habashi said the system would have a least 48 hours of gas capacity. If the interruption happened in Bakersfield, Palo Alto would have two days worth of gas. If the problem were fixed within 18 hours, Palo Alto would not have a problem. A rupture would have to occur 62 miles from Palo Alto before service to Palo Alto would be interrupted. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified if the system were demolished at some point, the goal was to have backup capacity provided by PG&E. Mr. Habashi said yes. Vice Mayor Simitian asked if PG&E were not providing the backup capacity and the system crashed, what would happen when there was no gas. He asked what residents would no longer be able to do. Mr. Habashi said there would be no heat. The discussion had not gone that far because staff believed the system could not be demolished for good. There might be a rupture at one point or another in a major earthquake.
06/27/94 73-154
Vice Mayor Simitian clarified the heat would not work, the water heater would go off, and gas appliances would also not work. Mr. Habashi said yes. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether there were any important industrial applications and whether local businesses or industries used natural gas as an essential element of doing business. Mr. Habashi said yes, restaurants in particular. Vice Mayor Simitian questioned whether there were any public safety issues should the supply in the gas line be exhausted. Mr. Habashi said there would be safety issues if the line rup-tured. Fires would be likely, not only on the Mojave line, but the PG&E system as well. Vice Mayor Simitian asked what might cause a line to rupture. Mr. Habashi said a major earthquake. Vice Mayor Simitian questioned whether there would be a public safety issue if a major earthquake were in a remote location and the City ran out of gas. Mr. Habashi said he was not aware of any. Utilities Advisory Commission Chairperson Katherine Vetjasa reminded Council of the discussion which took place during the joint meeting of Council and the UAC regarding the changes taking place with the electricity in California. Two competitors wanted to supply electricity to large industrial customers, and it was tied into the pipeline. The major markets for the pipeline were not municipalities like Palo Alto but rather independent power producers who made their money by supplying electricity in an open market. Since Palo Alto was at the forefront of getting the market and then the financing to build the pipeline, Mojave wanted to do everything possibly to assure a reliable project. Council Member Wheeler asked what the dollar figure would be on the negative impacts which might occur should the City not accept PG&E's offer and perhaps need to return to PG&E in December 1994. Mr. Habashi said an estimate had not been done; however, he assumed it would be minimal, perhaps $50,000. Council Member Wheeler clarified staff did not believe the City was in any financial risk in its relationship with PG&E should the City need to return to PG&E. Mr. Habashi said that was correct. Council Member Wheeler questioned based upon the history of rate setting by the PUC, if there would likely be a series of reduc-tions in rates as opposed to incremental increases.
06/27/94 73-155
Mr. Habashi said not on the transportation side. There might be a series of reductions on the commodity; however, the transportation price had risen in the past years at the inflation rate. He did not believe that would change in the future because PG&E tended to put most of its costs on the fixed side rather than the variable side. Alan Saunders, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 123 Mission Street, San Francisco, Corporate Account Representative, said the issues were complex and believed the most important issue was that the two services, Mojave and PG&E, were not the same. The base rate for Mojave service was less expensive than PG&E's base rate; however there were more important things to consider. The reliability issue was the key. PG&E's service was provided from an integrated transportation system. There were pipelines to the Northwest and to the Southwest, which provided a proven measure of reliability for the last 50-plus years. There was every expecta-tion that the level of service would continue. PG&E.'s reliability was equalled to what was provided to its core custom-ers; the residents of Palo Alto were treated the same as PG&E.'s residential customers. There had not been a need for backup services in the past 50 years. Service was provided off three lines making interruption to service virtually nil. He said the second issue was overall cost. Gas transportation service was a relatively small portion of the overall gas portfolio cost. The cost ranged from three to four times the cost of intrastate gas transportation service. PG&E provided access to Canadian supply as well as Southwest supply. There had been times when Canadian supplies had been less expensive and times when Southwest supplies had been less. With PG&E, the City would have the ability to access either of the supply basins over the 15-year period. Predicting the future of the gas business was difficult. PG&E also provided storage service and monthly balancing. Most importantly, there would be no need for backup service. PG&E did not presently have a backup tariff filed with the PUC. PG&E's vision of what it would cost to provide backup service had not been determined; however, it was probably a significant portion of what the City was now paying. Council Member Rosenbaum said there was clearly an interest in a backup service. He asked how it would be resolved if PG&E quoted a price the City regarded as unreasonable. Mr. Saunders said a resolution of the issue, even if there were agreement on an appropriate price, would need to go to the CPUC for approval. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the CPUC would look at the cost figures and determine if the proposed cost were reasonable. Mr. Saunders said yes. Council Member Andersen questioned whether the City were in a more competitive position with PG&E than with Mojave and whether there were any other statements that Mr. Saunders would like to make.
06/27/94 73-156
Mr. Saunders said yes. In terms of suppliers, which was the major cost component, PG&E provided access to suppliers both north and south, while Mojave service restricted access to supplies. PG&E would be in a more competitive situation in that case. He said part of PG&E's present offer was a slight discount from existing rates, approximately $25,000 a year, in addition to the 2 percent rate cap. Council Member Wheeler said it had been alluded that the offer from PG&E was not acceptable and questioned whether the rate-making environment made it impossible for PG&E to make it better or whether PG&E believed it did not need to make a better offer. Mr. Saunders said the offer was based on PG&E's cost to provide service off the integrated network, what was acceptable to PG&E management, and what would be acceptable to the PUC. PG&E believed there were enough differences between its service and the service that would be provided by Mojave that PG&E could not match Mojave's price dollar for dollar. The overall cost issue would be very important to both PG&E management and the PUC, as well as the issue of reliability. He did not believe PG&E was in a position to offer a discount that would match Mojave's offer. Claudio Martinez, P.O. Box 273, Palo Alto, believed that backup service should be provided no matter who the supplier was. In the case of a disaster, a pipeline would rupture whether it was a PG&E. pipeline or a Mojave pipeline. Based on that assumption, he said the less expensive offer should be selected. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Wheeler, to authorize the Mayor to execute the Natural Gas Transportation Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Mojave Pipeline Company. Council Member Rosenbaum commended staff and the UAC for bringing the item forward. He believed there was an economic benefit with a small risk. The risk could be eliminated with a backup agree-ment he hoped would be worked out with PG&E. He felt it was a positive agreement overall for the City. Mayor Kniss also commended staff and the UAC for their untold hours of labor on the item. The agreement had many questions, and answers were provided that evening. Council Member Andersen expressed concern that perhaps the City was putting itself in a less competitive environment with the Mojave agreement than if it continued with PG&E. He would be reluctant to support it if the City were locking itself into position of having less opportunity to compete for other sources of gas. He asked for clarification on why the City would not be in an adverse position from the point of view of suppliers. Vice Mayor Simitian said the comment from the PG&E representative was that the bulk of the cost of providing gas was related to the cost of the commodity, not the cost of the shipping. He said the
06/27/94 73-157
question was if the City had obtained a good cost on the smallest portion of the total cost of providing gas and if the City was at risk that even with a relatively minor variation in the cost of the commodity from a single source in the south, it would easily outweigh the savings that had been achieved in terms of the shipping. Mr. Habashi said staff believed that in a few years there would be an equilibrium at the California border. As the Canadians discounted their cost, they would gain a market share. The southern suppliers would lose market share and discount their price. Eventually, the prices would become equalized. Second, the Canadians were building a line to eastern Canada where they would likely find markets, especially in the winter when Palo Alto's need was at its peak. Finally, he said staff put out an RFP for all suppliers from the north and the south to make a comparison between the different suppliers over the next five years. So far, indications were that the price between the Canadians and the southern suppliers were close. After further study, if staff believed the Canadian suppliers, in the long term, were offering gas at a discount, staff would return to Mojave to renegotiate or terminate the agreement. Vice Mayor Simitian clarified an equilibrium based on the market share from the Southwest and Canadian sources meant an inherent advantage to one supplier or another in terms of reduced cost of providing the commodity. In other words, the Canadian and Southwest sources were basically comparable in the cost of producing the gas; therefore, it was the market share issue which drove the cost. Mr. Habashi said staff believed the Canadian cost was a little less than the Southwest; however, the Canadian's had been using the Southwest rate as a gage for their pricing. Three years ago, Canadian gas was reasonably discounted. During the past year, the discount had slowly diminished. The proposals being offered at that time would show very little differentiation between the two. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, McCown absent. 16. Amendment No. 7 to Contract No. 4688 between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Sanitation Company for Collection and Transportation of Refuse Produced and Accumulated in the City - Fiscal Year 1994-95 (continued from 6/20/94) Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said the item was the annual amendment to the contract with Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) for refuse collection services in the City of Palo Alto. City Auditor Bill Vinson said the staff report (CMR:329:94) presented two issues of importance to the audit of the PASCO contract. First, it reflected the results of initial actions taken by the Finance Department regarding the recommendation of the review of PASCO's annual budget. The efforts of the budget and accounting staff had resulted in over $97,000 in reductions in
06/27/94 73-158
line item expenses submitted by PASCO for Fiscal Year 1994-95. Secondly, the report indicated the timing for renegotiating the contract. Specifically, the contract required that PASCO be notified of anticipated changes in terms and conditions of the agreement at least six months prior to the effective date of the agreement. Accordingly, any changes recommended in the audit would be considered prior to December 31, 1994, for implementation in the 1995-96 fiscal period. Council Member Rosenbaum questioned, as stated in the staff report (CMR:329:94), ..."For the purpose of rate setting for next fiscal year and PASCO profits, pretax rate of return on underappreciated fixed assets has been targeted at 5 percent...," if it were a real profit. He asked why a company would be satisfied with a 5 percent return. Mr. Roberts said the motivation for PASCO was that the return was established as a range between 5 and 8 percent. The target for budgetary purposes was set at 5 percent as a floor. The ceiling was 8 percent, and anything above 8 percent was split 50/50 between the City and PASCO. If PASCO were able to find operating efficiencies within that budget, PASCO would increase its rate of return up to the 8 percent. Council Member Rosenbaum asked if PASCO had achieved the 8 percent. Mr. Roberts said the refund credited to next year's budget was from the 1992-93 fiscal year. The current year's books had not yet closed. It was the first time in staff's recollection since the adoption of the contract in 1987 that PASCO had achieved the 8 percent rate of return. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that the City monitored all of the expenses. He asked whether salaries were considered an expense and did not come out of the 5 percent. Mr. Roberts said salaries were a separate expense within PASCO's budget. Council Member Rosenbaum said it would be possible for someone to draw a large salary and it would not be reflected in the 5 percent. Deputy Director of Public Works Operations Mike Miller said there was a profit base targeted at 5 percent. In addition to that, there were salaries for the employees and a category for officers salaries. There was one employee in that category. Council Member Schneider asked for information regarding the vehicle replacement plan. Mr. Miller said there was a rotational plan where vehicles were replaced between 5 and 7 years of age. There was a condition in the contract which stated a vehicle could not be kept beyond 7 years without the City's permission. There were a number of vehicles older than 7 years. Routinely, after the 5th year,
06/27/94 73-159
trucks were replaced. There would be some additional residential trucks replaced during the current year which had been purchased in 1988. Council Member Schneider clarified the City's concern was that the trucks be replaced frequently. Mr. Miller said the 5-year condition was to keep maintenance costs down, to assure a reasonable sale on the used equipment in good condition, and was based on depreciation over a 5-year period. Council Member Schneider asked the cost of a truck. Mr. Miller said cost ranged from $140,000 to over $200,000 and was dependent upon the equipment included on the truck. Council Member Schneider asked how many trucks were in the fleet. Mr. Miller responded there were nine residential trucks, three recycling trucks, and at least nine or more commercial vehicles. That did not include small vehicles, service vehicles, or foot-hills vehicles. Council Member Andersen asked whether it made sense for PASCO to buy new trucks so it would be underappreciated thereby raising its fixed assets to allow more profits. Mr. Miller said trucks were rarely replaced in less than 5 years. When Barron Park was added to Palo Alto in 1987, through PASCO's interest and determination, homes were added to existing routes in lieu of buying equipment, saving the purchase of two trucks. In 1989, when staff proposed to Council a curbside compost program, alternatives included buying up to three vehicles and three loaders. Council selected a PASCO alternative which used existing equipment that went through the same neighborhood twice in one day. He believed that spoke to the relationship that PASCO had with the City and its interest in doing a good job. Council Member Andersen questioned the basis of a fixed-asset approach as opposed to another process which could be used. Mr. Roberts said Council Member Andersen's question would be addressed in the audit response. He said even if that were PASCO's motivation, staff would control it through review and approval of the budget. If PASCO wanted to replace trucks more frequently to have a high base of underappreciated fixed assets, staff would not necessarily approve that expenditure in reviewing the budget. Vice Mayor Simitian would wait the results of the audit before commenting on the issue. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 7 to Contract No. 4688 to provide for revised compensation for the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) under the contract, for refuse
06/27/94 73-160
collection and recycling services effective July 1, 1994. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, McCown absent. ORDINANCES 17. Request for Authorization to Pay Public Employee Retirement System Billing for 1993-94 Final Year Salary Conversions and Budget Amendment Ordinance Approval Accounting Manager Carol Ferrell said staff had informed Council earlier in the year that the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) would be billing member agencies for unfunded liabilities that had been created as a result of certain retirement plan elections allowed by the public employees. Palo Alto labor agreements had allowed employees to participate in such a final year conversion option since 1988. Because the added retirement benefits of the options were not included in the City's rate of employer contribution, an unfunded liability resulted. The City had received a calculation from the PERS of the unfunded liability incurred to date for that retirement option. Staff had calculated the total unfunded liability for retirements through the end of the year. The total was approximately $833,000. Through the use of City surplus accounts with PERS, described in the staff report (CMR:343:94), there was a balance of $460,000 to be paid. Staff had outlined reasons for choosing the lump-sum payment in the staff report and requested the amount be appropriated out of the Fiscal Year 1993-94 budget. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the City had to spend $833,000, including taking $460,000 out of reserves, in order to pay an employee benefit that was granted in 1988. He questioned how the City came to that point. City Manager June Fleming said the item before Council that evening was approved by a previous Council in 1988. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the Council was told in 1988 that the benefit had no cost associated with it. Ms. Fleming said at that time, there was no requirement to prefund the benefit; conditions were different at that time. Council Member Rosenbaum questioned whether the 1988 Council had been particularly well served by staff by being asked to approve a benefit that was to later turn out to cost $833,000. Ms. Fleming recalled that staff presented all the information available at the time. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified there were no dollars attached to the recommendation in 1988. Ms. Fleming felt it would be unfair to the staff that presented the information to Council at that time, as she could not recall whether dollar amounts were given or not.
06/27/94 73-161
Council Member Rosenbaum recognized it was "water over the dam" at that point and hoped that staff, in the future, would present all the information that would enable Council to make proper decisions on such issues. Ms. Fleming said the point was well taken. She believed that when the present Council asked for that type of information, staff had provided it. She would ensure it was done in the future. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance for $460,000 to pay the final year retirement conversions in the safety employee category, estimated for July 1993 through January 1995. Ordinance 4230 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1993-94 to Provide an Additional Appropriation to Pay the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) for 1993-94 Final Salary Conversions" MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, McCown absent. RECESS: 9:03 P.M. - 9:20 P.M. 18. Ordinance Repealing and Reenacting Chapter 9.24 [Minors in Streets and Public Places] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Juvenile Curfew Regulations Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said the proposed ordinance was intended to protect the young people of the community. Although it might be perceived as an infringement on minors' constitutional rights, the City Attorney had drafted an ordinance which allowed for law-abiding minors with legitimate reasons for being out in public during the late night and early morning hours to do so. The enforcement of the ordinance would have no impact on young people who were currently in public places lawfully during curfew hours. For the young people whose intentions were to commit criminal acts, vandalize and damage property, or engage in gang-related activity, the enforcement of the ordinance would send a strong message to them and their parents. Palo Alto had seen an increase in the assembly and loitering of people at various locations throughout the City. The assemblies provided prime opportunities for gang and/or violent behavior. The focus of the ordinance was an effort to prevent opportunities from occurring, thus preventing minors from becoming victims of serious injuries and crimes. Based upon staff's experience, more young people were out in public without the knowledge and/or permission of their parents. Enforcement of the ordinance would place more emphasis on parental supervision. If the ordinance were adopted, staff would provide additional training to officers on techniques dealing with minors in order to make the contacts with the minors as positive as possible. Training for enforcement of the ordi-nance could be accomplished by the end of the summer and beginning of the school year when that type of activity normally increased.
06/27/94 73-162
Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the topic had been addressed at the City/School Liaison Committee level. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said no. Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the topic had been addressed by the Youth Advisory Commission. Mr. Calonne said no. Mayor Kniss said because of the unfortunate death of Police Officer Ted Brassinga, the City/School Liaison Committee meeting that had been scheduled for discussion of the issue had been canceled. Vice Mayor Simitian queried the basis for the 10 p.m. weeknight curfew. Ms. Johnson said it was a judgment call but was based on the calls for service over the last year which involved minors. Vice Mayor Simitian said his interpretation of page 3, Section 9.24.010(f), of the ordinance which spoke about public places meant a minor could not be in a store, a restaurant, or a movie. However, on page 4 of Section 9.24.030, subparagraph g, among the exceptions it indicated that it would not be unlawful if the minor were attending an official school, religious, or other recreational activity sponsored by a civic, commercial, or other similar organization that supervised the activity. He asked what commercial activities would be the exceptions. Mr. Calonne said movie theaters and restaurants would be included. The exception was to allow access to public facilities where there was a proprietor in charge of the activities and to allow minors to travel back and forth between that location. Vice Mayor Simitian said the reference on page 3 specifically included commercial shops. He clarified it was not the intention, for example, during the holiday seasons when stores were open late, for that to be a violation of the curfew. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Vice Mayor Simitian queried when the City/School Liaison Committee would meet. Mayor Kniss said the meeting was scheduled for July 20, 1994, at 8:00 a.m. Superintendent Jim Brown and School Board President Susie Richardson had requested the item be placed on an agenda because of their concerns on the issue. Vice Mayor Simitian queried when the Youth Advisory Commission would meet. Mayor Kniss said the Youth Advisory Commission would not meet until the fall.
06/27/94 73-163
Vice Mayor Simitian was strongly inclined to refer the item to the City/School Liaison Committee, Human Relations Commission (HRC), and possibly the Youth Advisory Commission. Council Member Andersen asked whether the new ordinance was more or less restrictive than the existing ordinance. Mr. Calonne said the ordinance was less restrictive. The nine excepted activities which included being on an errand at a parent's direction, in a vehicle during interstate travel, going to and from work, etc., resulted from the court's recognition of a freedom of movement, interest, or right on the part of minors. The court, when discussing the Texas ordinance, felt the excep-tions provided every conceivable, legitimate activity that would not have fallen under the archaic definition of "loitering." Loitering had the connotation of lingering about with some mischievous or criminal intent. The courts said that did not specify precisely enough the behavior that was prohibited. The exceptions carved out the type of behavior that was protected in a more liberal way than the existing ordinance. Council Member Andersen presented a hypothetical scenario where a young person went to see the movie, "Rocky Horror Picture Show," left at around 2 a.m., drove to Taco Bell, and were eating in Taco Bell. He asked whether there was a violation of the curfew. Mr. Calonne said no. Council Member Andersen asked whether it would be a violation of the curfew if the young people were just standing outside of Taco Bell, watching people go by, etc. Mr. Calonne said possibly and, without any other facts, yes. Council Member Andersen clarified that the difference was as long as the young people were involved in a commercial activity, they would not be in violation of the curfew. Mr. Calonne said presumably the business owner had an interest in asserting sufficient supervision to protect the minors from the activities described by Assistant Police Chief Johnson. Council Member Andersen said if the business owner decided he/she did not want the youth there, he/she could call the police and that would constitute a violation of the curfew. Ms. Johnson said if the youth were involved in a disruptive activity, it could be construed as a violation of the ordinance. Council Member Andersen was trying to discern the difference between selective enforcement and the exception process. He believed there was a legitimate concern on the part of young people that they might find themselves in a selective enforcement situation.
06/27/94 73-164
Mr. Calonne said in 1983, the United States Supreme Court invalidated California Penal Code Section 647(e) which basically said a person was guilty of disorderly conduct if they were loitering and the surrounding circumstances were such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety demanded that they provide identification. In the view of the court, that language provided too much discretion to police officers. He said in the proposed curfew ordinance, specific criteria was provided and required a police officer to ask whether any of the exceptions applied. The ordinance had built-in safeguards against inappropriate use of the ordinance. Council Member Wheeler expressed concern for the youth who had already been in trouble and for the increasing number of young people involved in troublesome activities, and she suggested swift and immediate action to deal with the situations. However, she cautioned that the other 99.5 percent of Palo Alto youth who were not causing any trouble not be swept up in the "net." She queried what in the proposed ordinance did the Police Department believe would enhance its ability to deal with the youth who were trouble-some beyond what was in the existing ordinance. Ms. Johnson said one of the primary differences appeared under the definition of "remain": to linger, stay, fail to leave the premises when requested to do so by an officer. The current ordinance was vague and unclear. It would be easier for officers to discern whether or not a minor would be in violation of the curfew by having the list of exceptions. Officers used "probable cause" to detain minors with the current ordinance. If, after going through the process as delineated in the proposed ordinance, it was found the youth did not meet any of the criteria listed, the officers would arrest the minor and call the parents or legal guardian. The new ordinance placed more responsibility on the parents. City Manager June Fleming underscored that the proposed revision gave a clearer, precise tool for the Police Department to use. It did a better job of protecting the rights of and lessened the potential for detaining or questioning the people who had a legitimate right to exercise their freedom to be out at the time outlined in the ordinance. The proposal was not new; it was a liberal interpretation and revision of an existing ordinance. In a review of the calls for services received by the Police Depart-ment, it was found that gang activity had increased in Palo Alto and that August and September saw increased youth activity. The ordinance was not directed at the youth who had legitimate reasons for being out, even at the times as mentioned by Council Member Andersen. The ordinance was directed at youth who were causing problems and it gave police officers clearer directions as to whom they could question. Vice Mayor Simitian believed the ordinance to be less liberal because the intent was to enforce the curfew. The staff report (CMR:350:94) indicated the existing ordinance was not enforced but used as a probable cause for detention. It was clearly less liberal however improved it was on a constitutional basis.
06/27/94 73-165
Mayor Kniss queried whether the existing ordinance would stay in place if the ordinance were not enacted. Mr. Calonne was not in a position ethically to enforce the existing ordinance. He would be in a position ethically to enforce the proposed ordinance and would do so if the police made an arrest. If a constitutional defense were raised on the existing ordinance, it would be sustained by the court. Council Member Wheeler queried if attendance at parties in private homes were an activity that was permitted. Mr. Calonne said no. The exception, as written, did not contem-plate another adult exercising a supervisory capacity over the minor. Council Member Wheeler wanted more discussion on an exposure to the ordinance in the community. She asked whether the City/School Liaison Committee could hold a meeting and invite the community to attend to obtain input. She sympathized with Ms. Johnson's need to put the ordinance in place in a expeditious manner. She asked whether the ordinance could be brought back as an urgency ordinance in late July 1994. Mr. Calonne hoped it would not be an urgency situation. He suggested Council put a sunset clause in the ordinance or direct to staff to report back to Council within a certain period of time to address the potential concerns which were being raised. A sunset clause provided the opportunity to adopt the ordinance, maintain the opportunity for the public to provide input, and enable Council to make modifications. Council Member Andersen queried what the time line would be for voting on the ordinance if the sunsetting provision were used. He asked if the 31-day period before the ordinance took effect could be used to allow for public input. Ms. Fleming said that would be possible. She suggested that during the following week, representatives of the City/School Liaison Committee and Youth Advisory Commission could be brought together to solicit their input before returning the ordinance to Council. Council Member Huber had a difficult time trying to determine the urgency or emergency nature of the ordinance. The staff report (CMR:350:94) did not indicate that much of an increase in numbers to warrant moving that quickly on an ordinance. Ms. Fleming said the types of incidence reported from the Police Department, admittedly not by the majority of youth in Palo Alto, were severe. When the officers were faced with those situations, the existing ordinance, as described by the City Attorney, could not be used. Historically, the types of cases increased during August, and staff wanted to be prepared to handle any situations which might arise.
06/27/94 73-166
Ms. Johnson said along with the severity of incidence occurring, Palo Alto had been fortunate not to have had any serious injuries to any young people as a result of gang activity. The ordinance would provide other tools to go a step farther in preventing that from occurring. Council Member Huber understood the tool, but he did not sense the urgency from the facts. He queried why it could not be sent to the HRC to allow it to do what it was constituted to do. Ms. Johnson could not recall any incident with as serious a possibility for ramifications as the shooting incident which occurred at a party four to six weeks ago in Palo Alto. The City was fortunate that none of the young people in attendance were shot or killed. The ordinance before Council that evening was a result of that incident. Council Member Schneider clarified on the last paragraph on page 1 of the staff report (CMR:350:94) that the incidents had increased about one-third in the last year. Ms. Johnson said that was correct. Council Member Schneider asked whether the current ordinance contained a parental responsibility element. Ms. Johnson said yes. However, because of the concern over the constitutionality of the ordinance and the widespread acknowledgement that it was not being enforced, it was not uncommon when a minor was detained under the current ordinance for parents to respond, "Well, there is no law against it. Don't bother me with this." Council Member Schneider asked what would happen after a minor was detained and the parent(s) were called. Ms. Johnson said if it were a first offense, the minor would be put through the Juvenile Diversion Program. If the minor were on probation, the minor would be booked into Juvenile Hall. Each case would depend on the history of the particular minor. Mayor Kniss asked staff to comment on a letter from the Council's of Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs) which mentioned the Police Department's zero tolerance policy and the establishment of new gang intervention programs. She asked whether staff had had any discussions with the Council's of PTAs. Ms. Fleming said the letter had been received recently, and staff had not followed up on it. William Glueck, owner of Compact Disc Land, 477 University Avenue, was shocked and surprised by the proposed ordinance. His business dealt with youth, yet he had never experienced a situation where the youth had been rowdy. The proposed ordinance could affect his business, but he had not been informed about the topic under
06/27/94 73-167
Council consideration. At least one-third to one-half of his customers were below the age of 18 years. The youth which frequented his store and stores with which he dealt with did not have any trouble with the youth. Misinterpretation of a law was serious. One paragraph in the proposed ordinance stated children under the age of 18 were incapable of making intelligent decisions, which was untrue. The youth which frequented his store were the same as the youth which had earlier received kudos from the City. Cynthia Sheldon, Louis Road, was concerned about the proposed ordinance since she was 16 years old. The cost of police time to enforce the law, e.g., police giving rides home to minors, was a waste of time and money which could be better spent arresting real criminals rather than law-abiding students. Under prohibited activities in the staff report (CMR:350:94), the City Attorney had stated that private parties would not be allowed. However, under Section 9.24.020, the proposed ordinance did not mention private parties, only public places. The proposed ordinance restricted her freedom. Laura Nadel, 1319 Dana Avenue, was concerned and distressed over the proposed ordinance which discriminated against citizens under the age of 18 in the community. While it was true the crime rate caused by youth had increased in the City, there were also hundreds of responsible young people who did not deserve disre-spect. It was unfair to hold an entire generation responsible for the actions of so few. She was trustworthy and responsible and should not be looked upon as a troublemaker merely for being awake after midnight. The proposed ordinance removed power from parents and gave it to the government. Parents should determine whether a child should be out after dark, not a police officer. Laws such as the proposed ordinance could ignite rebellion, increase hostility, and increase the gap between youth and adults. She had been in the City for eight years and had always considered it an open-minded and somewhat liberal city. She never thought it would discriminate against any force of people, including anyone under the age of 18. Abigail Evans, 912 Forest Avenue, had heard about the curfew ordinance from an article in the newspaper. Crimes occurred at various times of the day and night, e.g., anyone could commit a crime before or after 10 pm, which a curfew would not change. Citizens under the age of 18 should not be singled out and punished. If Council thought a curfew were necessary to stop crime, one should be imposed on the entire community, not just teenagers. It seemed extreme to be stopped and cited by a police officer for driving home from a friend's house at 12:30 am. Youth not carrying weapons should not be punished for crimes not committed. Youth were being treated like criminals simply for being under 18. She queried whether it was really worth the time and money to stop a few trouble makers. Most children over the age of seven knew the difference between right and wrong. Any teenager knew their own mind. If the law was passed, the City would remove the right to choice, thereby limiting the right of free will.
06/27/94 73-168
Jacek Rosicki, 1062 Colorado Place, had worked with many teenagers and had held special events for youths aged 10 to 14 on occasional Sunday evenings. There were more problems and violence with some young adults, but penalizing most of the teenagers because of a few bad ones was an extreme. More effort should be put into the education of adults, more events, creating places where youth could gather in an adult environment, etc. Youth should be treated like adults. Although five young adults had just been praised, Section 1(b) of the proposed ordinance stated young adults were incapable of making decisions in the real world. A number of young adults made wrong decisions, but a larger number made correct decision. Palo Alto was a great city and the Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) was a great police department. There were other ways to deal with the problem. Steve Jarvis, 978 Addison Avenue, said the proposed ordinance was limited to gatherings in public places and would not prohibit private parties. The proposed ordinance was not aimed at bright, young people, but toward people who gathered in his neighborhood night after night. He lived two doors from the acknowledged headquarters of the "A Street Gang," which had only become official during the past month or so. Night after night there had been gatherings of young people, some over 18 and some under, involved in various activities that included drinking, exchanges of other substances, broken bottles, urination in bushes, vandal-ism to vehicles, and two shootings in two years, one of the bullets had gone through a window on Guinda Avenue one block away. The potential harm did not merely include the youth involved in the activities, but innocent people sitting in their homes. The owner of the house where 20 years of problems were documented felt she had no responsibility whatsoever for the activities which occurred in the street. The proposed ordinance would allow the police proper enforcement of the activities. He was wakened at 1:30 a.m. by loud yelling and activities in front of his home, but voice noise was not part of the City's noise ordinance, so the PAPD had no authority to stop it. His 25 year old daughter did not like to come to his home at night when he was not present because of comments made by the youths, and his wife experienced similar problems. His interest was not to impinge on the rights of anyone, youth, adult, etc., but to restore a sense of civility to the neighborhood by giving the PAPD the proper tools with which to handle the ongoing disturbances. Mark Rackers, 20 Tuscabosa Avenue, Atherton, said the proposed ordinance restricted the mobility of a certain group of citizens based on age. Section (h) on page 4 of the proposed ordinance indicated the City would protect the rights of peaceful assembly, but in other parts of the document and the staff report, staff alluded to words such as "gatherings" and page 2 stated: "to discourage and prevent gatherings of juveniles," which sounded like assemblies. He questioned the attitude toward minors, particularly in paragraph (d) which stated young adults could not make critical decisions. Page 1 of the staff report stated, "Congregating during the late night and early morning hours has resulted in more young people being at risk and the increased
06/27/94 73-169
probability of criminal activity," which implied that because young adults were present, there would be criminal activities. It was a clear case of ageism. If the word "Latinos" had been substituted for "young people," there would have been a bigger uproar. It troubled him that someone could be arrested for being in a coffee shop or a dance. He queried what would occur if the young adult could not be taken home because the home situation was not safe, e.g., domestic violence, etc., and the young person just needed to take a walk or go for a bicycle ride. It created a potentially dangerous situation. The Assistant Police Chief indicated the proposed ordinance would not affect legal minors, but the proposed ordinance should be more clearly written to prevent the police from harassing minors. City staff had not even met with youth groups concerning the proposed ordinance. Public notification of the proposed ordinance had been small and if more youth knew about it, more would have appeared in opposition. Sally Tomlinson, 936 Addison Avenue, encouraged Council to approve the proposed ordinance. She hoped Council could discern between the types of activities to which many youth had referred as being permitted by the proposed ordinance and the types of activities which occurred in her neighborhood. At least one neighborhood in Palo Alto was being victimized by a group of youth which regularly gathered and involved the consumption of alcohol, loud and disruptive behavior, foul language directed against the neighbors, and intimidation of passersby. It was not the atmosphere in which she wanted to raise her children. The proposed ordinance would allow the PAPD to take preventive action it was currently unable to take, rather than waiting until the drinking and possible drug usage led to disruptive and/or dangerous behavior. It provided protection for the youth and the community and would be an important step in enabling the retention or regaining of the safe community atmosphere of which Palo Alto was so proud. Sheila Robinson, 1174 Fife Avenue, had attended a neighborhood meeting the previous week and had heard various stories about unacceptable behavior in the neighborhood. The City Attorney had done a good job on the proposed ordinance and she hoped the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), Parent Teacher Association (PTA), and Palo Alto Youth Advisory Council (PAYAC) would be brought on board. The police officer representative had made it clear to Council that neighbors did not feel safe in the neighbor-hoods and wanted to know what could be done. The PAPD officer which had attended the neighborhood meeting, whose title was "Preventative Crime Coordinator," was frustrated at the PAPD's inability to act because no arrests were made which could be followed up with court proceedings. The proposed ordinance eliminated the PAPD's frustration with neighborhood problems. She hoped Council would address the problem. She respected the comments made by the young adults and hoped the proposed ordinance would not be viewed as an impediment to behavior, but a solution to eliminate unacceptable behavior. Although the problem was representative of a small percentage of the population of Palo Alto, it could become the conduit for other problems. Eden Salomon, 969 Addison Avenue, had observed extensive drug
06/27/94 73-170
dealing at the house in her neighborhood. A month before, younger teenagers had begun to congregate, drawn in by profits from drug operations. The drug activity had extended into the public schools and included intimidation. The principal had indicated an inability to remedy the problem of children being robbed, so she had been forced to remove her child from the public schools. Although young people were outraged by the proposed ordinance because of constitutional rights, traditionally young people had a degree of supervision and restrictions on their freedom. If a young person made a decision about good and evil as an adult, it had to take the consequences as an adult. Colleges often set up curfews. The growth of vicious racism was being fostered by the gangs, e.g., blacks against whites, into which young adults were being indoctrinated. Patricia Lacy read a letter from Cathy Reyes, 987 Addison Avenue, supporting adoption of the proposed ordinance. Ms. Reyes' house was located in an area which often involved nightly noises including fighting, screaming, swearing, crying, and cars screech-ing down the street. Her five children often came into her room, frightened by the noises heard outside their windows. Many people on the street were in fear of leaving their homes for fear of bodily harm. If the only alternative was the limitation of the duration of the disturbances, the neighborhood would take what it could get. James Holloway, 710 Torreya Court, said Palo Alto did not suffer from a widespread rash of youth crimes, but from a small group of trouble-making individuals. The way to deal with a small group of people was not with a blanket ban on teenage activities after 10:00 p.m. Everyone was distressed about the recent increase of violence in Palo Alto, but a curfew would not curb the activities. There were no easy solutions. If residents on Addison Avenue could clearly observe minors drinking alcohol, he queried why the authorities had not been alerted. Odile Dish Bhadhamkar, 369 Matadero Avenue, read a letter from Judy Ann Edwards in support of the proposed ordinance. The City provided a fertile breeding ground for crime by allowing unchaper-oned idle young people to roam the streets. The majority of crimes in the neighborhood occurred after nightfall. Until more recreational programs were offered in the neighborhood to engage young people in positive nighttime activities, the proposed ordinance should be passed for a safer summer. There was a sense of urgency because of the number of young people who carried guns and neighborhoods were terrified. She sympathized with the young people who had spoken, but the proposed ordinance was well drafted to allow almost every activity young people would want to engage in while allowing the PAPD more latitude than merely engaging young people in conversations about whether they had a legitimate reason for being out at night. Gangs were gaining momentum, and the City should act quickly. Herbert Susman, 2330 Tasso Street, had lived in Palo Alto for nearly 30 years and was appalled that the City would seriously consider such a broad ordinance. There were problems, but she
06/27/94 73-171
queried how the PAPD could portray itself as helpless, e.g., the PAPD's "hands were tied," when Palo Alto had ordinances against disturbing the peace. The problem might center on an unwilling-ness on the part of citizens to sign their names to an official complaint. He strongly disagreed with the proposed ordinance as too broad an approach. Tally Kenyon, 261 Colorado Avenue, had recently attended the conference sponsored by the Palo Alto Weekly on "Breaking Down Fences." The student panel had stated a belief that most adults in Palo Alto viewed gangs with fear and discomfort. If the proposed ordinance stood alone as a representation of the adult response, it would confirm to young people that their perception was accurate. If adults wanted to show care and concern for youth, it needed to do more. The PAYAC had proposed a youth center for some time. She queried whether the City was pursuing a positive response to youth concerns or whether it would only pass an ordinance which would appear to the youth to be only intended to exert control. She understood the constitutional questions and agreed. The proposed ordinance was too limited. Patricia Lacy, 938 Addison Avenue, lived four houses down from the A-Street Gang with her teenaged son and 20 month old daughter. Most days she was extremely frightened about what was seen and endured over the past few months. Many juveniles needed positive structure in their lives, and society at the current time was not a place for unsupervised young people to be out past 10:00 p.m. Residents of the 900 block of Addison were continually subjected to activities of the A-Street Gang. The continual gang activities involving large congregations of people from young adults to very young teens included disturbing the peace, drinking in public, intimidation of the residents, disorderly conduct, fighting, discharging of firearms, and drug dealing. There was no attempt at supervising the people congregating. The homeowner of 968 Addison repeatedly denied responsibility for what occurred on the property. The curfew law would require all visiting minors, some of which were very young, to be removed at 10:00 p.m. or 12:00 a.m. It would reduce the number of offenders, protect the citizens from further assault, and protect the minors by removing them from potentially harmful situations. She hoped it would cause parents to take a more active role in influencing children to pursue different and ultimately more acceptable social lives and stop hanging around gangs. Unless something was done, the City would also have a long battle ahead. The proposed ordinance was a small step in the direction of helping the neighborhood to be safer for its residents and children. Glenna Violette, 95 Crescent Drive, said adults had many restric-tions placed on their lives but did not resent the fact all people would not do the right thing. She had been surprised Council wanted a consensus from young people that the proposed ordinance was a good idea. Adults should be able to take an action to control people who were not good citizens, including young adults. The law recognized "immature people" by not including their names in newspapers if a crime was committed. She queried whether the young people wanted their names to appear in the paper or records
06/27/94 73-172
unsealed so names could be cleared at 18 years of age, all of that went along with responsibilities as an adult. She sympathized with people unable to get rest because of disturbances in the evenings. The PAPD had indicated the only way to obtain an arrest was if a citizen were willing to make a call, have someone arrested, and then go to court. She hoped the law enforcement agency would be given better control and that Council would act immediately. Randall Meals, 972 Addison Avenue, supported the proposed ordi-nance for three reasons: 1) In his neighborhood over the past three years, youth under the age of 18 had gathered late at night, especially on the weekends, engaging in activities including consumption of alcohol, drunkenness, fighting, use and sales of drugs, large groups blocking traffic, property damage, threats and harassment, sexual harassment of women, speeding vehicles, illegal parking, blocking access to driveways and sidewalks, disturbing the peace, etc. The youth had evolved into the "A-Street Gang." Twice in the past two years, there had been guns fired. The real fear and frustration was hearing seven gun shots in a neighbors house and not wanting to sign a name to a complaint. 2) The proposed ordinance provided for enhancement of the parental role and responsibility for and guidance to the youth in the community. 3) The PAPD would have additional tools to deal with youth problem. The proposed ordinance would not solve all of the problems. He spent time in volunteer activities with youth, and he knew the finest in Palo Alto were among the best in the world. Not all youth fell into such a category, certainly not the articulate youth which had spoken who would be affected by the proposed ordinance. It was time Council addressed the problems before one of the bullets found its way through someone's window and hit a child. Janet Stone, Chairperson, Human Relations Commission (HRC), 2225 Ramona Street, spoke on her own behalf, and supported giving the process adequate time for public comments, particularly to groups already organized, e.g., HRC, PAYAC, PAUSD, etc., for consider-ation. Bypassing groups which had been set up either by the City or had authority in other ways, would be a mistake and would create animosity on the part of teens and others in the community. Council had indicated a desire to receive feedback and input from the PAYAC on the issues and it would be an affront to bypass them. She questioned the content of the proposed ordinance, particularly the lack of clarity on some of the sections, i.e., whether youth returning home from a friend's house after working on homework would be considered violating the curfew. Since the proposed ordinance specifically stated youth would not violate the curfew by returning from public establishments, it would appear returning from a friend's house would be a violation. It should be clarified before support could be given. Council and the City should show the same sense of urgency in dealing with other youth issues, e.g., a place for youth to gather in the evening hours and weekends. It was an issue which had been raised many times before by the PAYAC and others as an urgent need. The City should pay the same kind of attention it had paid to the urgency of the proposed ordinance.
06/27/94 73-173
Kara Montermoso, 715 Jura Way, Sunnyvale, said the proposed ordinance would not solve the problem of the increased level of juvenile crime and gang activity in Palo Alto. A blanket curfew would not solve the problem but would relocate the problem to another city or neighborhood. While sympathetic to residents on Addison Avenue, the curfew would not eliminate the gang problem. The bigger picture, all of society, should be taken under consid-eration. The problem was not teenagers in general, but gangs. Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant Avenue, had first encountered the problem in a letter written by Steve Jarvis to Council. When Mr. Jarvis had been approached, he said not much could be done by the PAPD. The PAPD was exceptionally compassionate and careful of human rights. The problem did not apply to 99.5 percent of the teenag-ers in Palo Alto. Gangs were a different story. Even though the gang might be small, it was large in its malevolent impact on youth, adults, and children in the neighborhoods. The PAPD needed the ability to cope with the problem legally. Criminality began in small doses. If the gang idea became pervasive in the schools, it would become a much greater problem. It was better to pass the ordinance early. She could not imagine it being administered with anything but great fairness and urged Council to pass the proposed ordinance. Leora Hanser, 749 Matadero Avenue, Member, Palo Alto Youth Advisory Council, said the 1994-95 PAYAC had not met but bringing the 1993-94 and 1994-95 groups together would be very productive. While she wanted action and understood the need for the proposed ordinance, if the issue was presented before the PAYAC, it would be taken care of before the end of summer. It was something which could not be accomplished in a month, however, if supported by Council and staff, action could be taken. Parents and neighbors had spoken about their fears, but it was important to understand that teenagers were also frightened and did not know how to deal with gang violence. There was much fear in both junior high and high schools. It was not something with which Council could specifically deal, but was another reason for involving the City/School Liaison Committee. Many parents did not know what to do and did not want to lock their children up. Every year she had been on the PAYAC, efforts had been made to obtain a place where youth could congregate to get away from drinking, drugs, and gangs. It had not been accepted in three years. Actions could be taken so the broad-based ordinance did not have to be passed, but stricter legislation could be passed which was directed more toward the areas and the people which needed the help. Council Member Andersen said originally when he first reviewed the item, he felt he would oppose the proposal. He did not agree with all of the comments made by the public who supported the ordinance; but after listening carefully to staff, Assistant Police Chief Johnson, and the public, he would support the staff recommendation with several modifications. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to introduce the ordinance with the following revisions that: 1) The
06/27/94 73-174
curfew hours be changed to 11:00 p.m. on weekdays and 1:00 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays; 2) An evaluation of the ordinance be forwarded by the Youth Advisory Council, City/School Liaison Committee, and the Human Relations Commission to the staff during the 31-day period prior to the effectiveness of the ordinance; 3) Allow for a six-month sunset clause; and 4) Direct the City Attorney to make any necessary changes to the sections of the ordinance with respect to the commercial uses and private parties provisions. Council Member Andersen recognized the rights and needs of youth to be respected as intelligent, capable people. Most young people did not need a curfew. He understood why it could be considered an affront to young people for the government to impose a discrim-inatory policy on them. He was confident that the community's law enforcement personnel would not abuse its power, and he was persuaded it would not be any different for law abiding young people. The other issue that needed to be addressed was that there were serious, outspoken problems with a small segment of the population. He had discussed the issue of gangs with staff for sometime. People were totally convinced there was gang behavior and whether or not it was the kind of gang that an intercity would see was not the issue. The ordinance was a tool that addressed that particular problem. He appreciated Ms. Hanser's comments, and there was truly a real fear on the part of many young people about the activity that was happening. The proposal was an attempt to deal with situations in which the fear had been manifested by adults and young people as well. He noted that he had to include a mini-unit on the subject of gangs and violence in his classroom which he had not taught in previous years. He encouraged his colleagues to support the proposal and recognize that there were some real needs that would be aggravated by the leisure time that occurred during the summer months. Vice Mayor Simitian opposed the motion. It was important to acknowledge that there was a problem. He understood the intent of the ordinance to be two-fold: 1) to give the Police Department a preventive tool to diffuse problem situations, and 2) a vehicle to try and bring about some greater measure of parental involvement and responsibility. He supported both intents which were legiti-mate goals. Both the proponents and opponents who spoke that evening had overstated the issue on both sides of the proposed ordinance. He understood the ordinance was not intended to prohibit legitimate activities. However, it was important to consider the ordinance essentially criminalized "hanging out," which teenagers did. It could be stated that it was directed at a relative small number of young people, but it was a citywide ordinance that applied to everyone. The Council had a delicate balance to walk when crafting an ordinance that took a narrow, careful, well-defined path that provided the City with the tools the Police Department needed and the vehicle to involve parents without creating an ordinance that was both unworkable, possibly counterproductive, and created the kind of backlash that premature movement might create. He said staff had proposed a change in the way it dealt with the rules for 3,000 teenagers and the parents who were responsible for them with only two or three business
06/27/94 73-175
days' notice. He was sympathetic with the frustrations expressed that evening but was concerned if the Council took action that evening there was ambiguity about what commercial establishments were allowed or not allowed about whether or not private parties were allowed or not allowed, and no involvement or buy-in from the parent or the student community. If the Council took action that evening, it would not help resolve the problem and would create a further problem and eliminate the possibility for buy-in. People would have to have a voice in the proposal for it to work. He did not believe it would work without that process. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO REFER: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to refer the issue to the City/School Liaison Commit-tee no later than the July 20, 1994, and also to the Human Relations Commission including incorporation of as many members of the previous and current members of the Palo Alto Youth Advisory Council; and further, that the City Attorney be directed to return with clarification of the issues raised related to the commercial uses and private parties; and that the issue return to the City Council no later than July 18, 1994. Vice Mayor Simitian said instead of making a judgment call about whether 11:00 p.m. or 1:00 a.m. was the right time, the Council could hear back from parents, students, people who operated commercial establishments, and neighbors about the time when the problems occurred in the neighborhood. Answers were needed on the issue of selected enforcement. He had observed that teenagers still wanted a place to talk to one another, and there should be discussion about how to differentiate between the young people who were hanging out and not causing a problem and the young people who were a potential threat to the community. All of the issues had to be addressed if the ordinance were to be successful. He believed there were currently tools available to deal with some of the other problems, e.g., drinking, drugs, guns, etc. Mayor Kniss asked the time line if the issue was referred. Ms. Fleming said the ordinance would have to return to the Council on July 18, 1994, in order to have two readings. Mayor Kniss clarified the ordinance had to return to the Council on July 18, 1994, in order for it to be enacted before the Council went on vacation after August 8, 1994. She said the City/School Liaison Committee might have to call a special meeting prior to the Council's meeting. Ms. Fleming understood the spirit of the motion was that staff would pull together the entire bodies or as many representatives as possible from the bodies. Staff would work with the chair of the HRC. Vice Mayor Simitian said the City Manager had correctly captured the spirit of the motion. It might be necessary to have an alternate from the five-member Board of the PAUSD or the nine-member Council in order to ensure full participation by the City/School Liaison Committee.
06/27/94 73-176
Council Member Wheeler said there was a problem that needed to be addressed and there was a problem with the method that had been suggested to address the problem. The Council and speakers that evening had raised questions about the clarity of the ordinance. It was crucial that the ordinance be clear before the Council enacted the ordinance. She recognized that there were neighbor-hoods that were currently impacted by real problems, and the ordinance was the ideal vehicle for addressing the problems. People spoke of activities that were illegal, whether perpetrated by teenagers or adults. She was not convinced that the ordinance would resolve the problems that the neighborhoods had. She would arrange her schedule to be available as the Council representative to the City/Schools Liaison Committee at any time during the next several weeks. It was important to discuss the issues with various representatives of the community. She suggested the President of the PTA be among the list of people contacted for the meeting. Ms. Johnson suggested that it was time for the parental community to become more involved with the activities of teenagers in the community, and the PTA was one of the best representatives of that constituency. Council Member Huber supported the substitute motion. He believed it was important for the issue to be reviewed by the HRC and PAYAC. The Council created the bodies to provide advice and input. He asked that the ordinance address the Addison Avenue situation. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION that the City Attorney be directed to address the possible effect of the ordinance on the Addison Avenue issues. Council Member Andersen was concerned about the time line issue. If the Council moved on the original motion, the ordinance would become effective in August 1994. Ms. Fleming said it would be August 11, 1994. Council Member Andersen clarified if the substitute motion passed and if an ordinance were passed at a later date, the ordinance would become effective the middle of September 1994. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. Mr. Calonne hoped an urgency would not occur at end of July 1994; but if an urgency situation arose, the City could move forward. Council Member Andersen appreciated the intent of the substitute motion but would oppose the motion. He wanted to give the staff the tools to work during the summer. There would be an opportu-nity to alter the ordinance during the 31-day period prior to its enactment. Council Member Rosenbaum sympathized with the people on Addison and Ventura Avenues who had a current problem. He did not believe in the next several weeks the groups to whom the issue would be
06/27/94 73-177
referred to would have time for consideration. A six-month period was a better time frame to consider significant changes. He supported the main motion. Council Member Schneider said she would feel unrelenting if she were subjected to that type of activity in her neighborhood, but she had also asked herself how she would feel if her children were subjected to a curfew. She supported the main motion because she could not tolerate what the Addison and Ventura neighborhoods had been subjected to, and she could rest easier knowing that community cared enough to watch over her children. Mayor Kniss said it was a win-win situation to support the main motion. Changes could be made to the ordinance during the month of July. The situations in the Venture and Addison neighborhoods could not be overlooked any longer. The groups had time to get together. If the ordinance were already in place, there would be more urgency attached to it. The HRC, PAYAC, and the City/Schools Liaison Committee should be brought into the discussion. She was concerned that after August 8, 1994, the Council was not scheduled for regular meetings. She suggested the City Manager move forward with the issue as quickly as possible. Vice Mayor Simitian said putting an ordinance in place that was not fully crafted meant the ordinance would have to be done again, e.g, there was no clear view on the rule regarding private parties. He did not believe the ordinance could be implemented without confusion and resistance. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 3-4, Huber, Simitian, Wheeler "yes," Fazzino, McCown "absent." Mr. Calonne clarified there had been a number of comments from the Council and the public about clarifications and provisions of the ordinance. He understood the main motion directed the City Attorney to clarify at least two provisions. He apologized for the lack of clarity regarding attendance at commercial activities, i.e., restaurants, movie theaters, which came from trying to weave the authority for attending movies or restaurants into another section. He would take out of Section G of the Exceptions specific permission to attend movies and restaurants. He clarified that the correct interpretation of a private party, with the door closed, and not open to the public was not a public place and a private party would not be affected by the ordinance. MAIN MOTION FAILED 4-3, Huber, Simitian, Wheeler "no," Fazzino, McCown absent. MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Kniss, to reconsider the substitute motion. MOTION TO RECONSIDER PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, McCown "absent." SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO REFER PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, McCown "absent."
06/27/94 73-178
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Simitian, to continue Item Nos. 19, 20, and 21 and the Closed Session. 19. Ordinance Enacting Chapter 9.50 of Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Pertaining to the Removal of Graffiti on Public Facilities and Recovery of the Cost Thereof 20. Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Simitian, and Council Members Fazzino and Schneider re Consideration of Aggressive Panhandling Regulations 21. Mayor Kniss and Council Members Andersen and Schneider re Conceptual Proposal For a Family Resource Center CLOSED SESSION 12. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation; Subject: Rachel Sheridan v. City of Palo Alto, SCC No. 708150; Au-thority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) 13. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation; Subject: Potential initiation of litigation on two separate matters; Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(c) MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, McCown "absent." 19A. (Old Item No. 8) Contract between the City of Palo Alto and American Gas & Technology, Inc. for Fuel Conversion of Vehicles; change orders not to exceed $17,128 Council Member Andersen said the staff report (CMR:354:94) indicated that only two bids were received due to the time constraints required to have the vehicles converted prior to the August 3, 1994, deadline, and he asked why such a close window of opportunity was provided for the potential bidders. Senior Engineer Greg Scoby said initially staff had proposed to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) that the City wanted to get rebates on its vehicles. PG&E said that due to the mileage currently put on the vehicles which averaged 6,000 miles per year, the require-ment was 20,000 miles per year. At that time, staff felt that the City would not be able to get rebates. Later, he became aware of the fact that the City had been contributing to PG&E's C and G vehicle program and indicated to PG&E that the City already contributed approximately $56,000 into that program without any benefit. The dialogue on the rebates reopened and PG&E decided to waive the conditions previously required. The City received the rebate on April 19, 1994. At that time the conditions required that all of the vehicles be verified prior to conversion, and the conversion had to be conducted and invoiced to PG&E by August 3, 1994. Staff tried to get PG&E to verify some vehicles for three weeks. At that time, PG&E waived the requirement to verify the vehicles but still held the August 3, 1994, deadline, which was one week before the bids were sent out.
06/27/94 73-179
Council Member Andersen clarified the rebate was $86,000. It was approximately $4,600 per vehicle to perform the conversion, and the rebate brought the cost down to about $1,800 per vehicle. Mr. Scoby said that was correct. Council Member Andersen asked whether there was a cost benefit or an extended life on the vehicles by moving forward with the conversion or whether there was a environmental commitment. Mr. Scoby said there was pending legislation that would force fleet operators to have a certain percentage of the fleet run on alternate fuels. The City would get a jump on the legislation. The price reduction of approximately 92 cents per gallon for gaso-line would be between 60 and 70 cents per equivalent gallon. The vehicles that were targeted used 6,000 gallons per year which represented a savings of $552 per year. The life of the vehicle would be extended by approximately 10,000 miles or two years. A vehicle currently lasted seven to nine years and would last nine to eleven years with the conversion. At 60 cents per gallon, it represented a savings on a vehicle in the fleet for seven years of $1,344; nine years $1,728. At 70 cents per gallon, the figure would be reduced to $924 over a seven-year period and $1,098 over a nine-year period. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, to adopt the staff recommendation that Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with American Gas & Technology, Inc. in the amount of $142,736.00 for the NGV Conversion Project; and 2. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with American Gas &n Technology, Inc. the value of these change orders shall not exceed $17,128.00. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, McCown "absent." COUNCIL MATTERS 22. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Kniss said that the World Cup activities were successful. City Manager June Fleming said she had observed the officers and workers and they were doing an excellent job. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:00 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City
06/27/94 73-180
Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
06/27/94 73-181