Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-01-17 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting January 17, 1995 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... 74-370 1. Ordinance 4256 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.49.100 [CD Parking Regulations] and Adding Chapter 16.57 to Establish a Fee on Commercial Development Within the University Avenue Parking Assessment District as an Alternative In-lieu of Fully Satisfying Parking Requirements .......................................... 74-370 2. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation .... 74-370 3. Conference with Labor Negotiator ...................... 74-371 4. Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code ∋54957.6.......................................... 74-371 5. Report from Aggressive Panhandling Ad Hoc Task Force .. 74-371 6. Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council that the proposal for a charter amendment which would reduce the size of the City Council not be placed on the ballot ......................................... 74-379 7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Housing Corporation to Provide Assistance with Pre-Development Expenses for Single Occupancy Housing at 753 Alma Street ....................................... 74-382 8. Palo Alto Harbor Marsh Restoration - Request for Policy Direction ............................................. 74-383 9. Request from Cable Communications Cooperative of Palo Alto, Inc. (Cable Co-op) for a Public Hearing on the Approval or Disapproval of the TCI Cablevision of California Inc./Cable Co-op Agreement ................. 74-388 10. Mayor Joe Simitian and Council Members Huber and Schneider re A Challenge Grant to Support the Children's Theatre .................................... 74-391 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 74-393 01/17/95 74-368 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:55p.m. ................................... 74-393 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. .... 74-393 01/17/95 74-369 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Herb Borock, 3731 Byron Street, spoke regarding Sand Hill Road Initiative and Referendum. Sophia Dhrymes, 483 Hawthorne Avenue, spoke regarding several issues affecting her mother and herself. Terry Feinberg and Cheryl Nelson, 792 Meridian Way, Tri-County Apartment Association, San Jose, spoke regarding Industry Stan-dards Program. Elizabeth Lowe, Morgan Holland, Robby Marks, Asif Sin-Bar, and Rafi Bivas from Ohlone Elementary School asked the City Council to join them in celebrating Random Acts of Kindness Week from February 12 to February 17, 1995. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14 AND 15, 1995 MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Minutes of November 14, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mayor Simitian announced that the City Clerk Gloria Young had removed the Minutes of November 15, 1995. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. 1. Ordinance 4256 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.49.100 [CD Parking Regula-tions] and Adding Chapter 16.57 to Establish a Fee on Commer-cial Development Within the University Avenue Parking Assess-ment District as an Alternative In-lieu of Fully Satisfying Parking Requirements" (1st Reading 11/28/94, PASSED 9-0) MOTION PASSED 9-0. CLOSED SESSION The items might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 2. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Levitz v. City of Palo Alto, SCC #732827 Authority: Government Code ∋54956.9(a). 01/17/95 74-370 Public Comment None. 3. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Council Ad Hoc Personnel Committee (Chairperson Ron Andersen, Liz Kniss and Dick Rosenbaum) Unrepresented Employees: City Attorney Ariel Calonne, City Manager June Fleming, City Auditor Bill Vinson, and City Clerk Gloria Young Authority: Government Code ∋54957.6 Public Comment None. 4. Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code ∋54957.6 Employee Organization: International Association of Fire-fighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Agency Negotiator: City Manager June Fleming and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Susan Ryerson, Lalo Perez, and Jim McGee) Public Comment None. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 5. Report from Aggressive Panhandling Ad Hoc Task Force John Northway, Chairperson, Aggressive Panhandling Ad Hoc Task Force, introduced the members of the Aggressive Panhandling Ad Hoc Task Force (Task Force). He noted that all the evidence that was received from both members of the Task Force and the public was anecdotal. There were no statistics on the problem. Also, the Task Force tried to focus on the problems of aggressive panhan-dling which was symptomatic of much greater problems. The problem of aggressive behavior while soliciting was relative small, but it was a problem that was very intensely felt by the individuals who were subjected to the behavior. All the participants on the Task Force agreed that aggressive behavior in solicitation was not acceptable behavior. The advice given by the Task Force was a two-pronged approach to the problem. Many of the social services were not available in quantity, e.g., the Urban Ministry was only open until 11:00 a.m., and there was no full-service, drop-in center for people who were homeless. The Task Force felt the City needed to take a comprehensive look at the type of services that were available to the homeless community. The Task Force also 01/17/95 74-371 felt there was a need for increased police presence in the Downtown but did not reach a conclusion regarding whether that suggestion should or should not be accompanied by an ordinance. Half of the members of the Task Force felt an ordinance would be appropriate. He said when the Task Force began, the people in the panhandling community had a lot of fear and suspicion. One positive aspect that came out of the Task Force and the work done was that everyone found out they had common needs and problems. One of the prime recommendations of the Task Force was that the type of communication among the business community, panhandling community, and the Police Department be continued. Positive things began to happen as a result of the composition and work of the Task Force. Council Member Kniss said Mr. Northway's reputation as an exem-plary leader preceded him being asked to chair the Task Force. The job done by him was usually good, very productive, and was appreciated by the Task Force. It was an unusual assignment. Council Member Andersen agreed with the comments of Council Member Kniss. He referred to a letter written by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) dated November 16, 1994, which referred to the areas of threats and coercions. He asked what was specifically not covered by existing law that a new Ordinance could refine without going beyond the concept of the areas of threats and coercions. Police Chief Chris Durkin said one behavior was clearly constitu-tional and protected, another behavior was codified in the Penal Code and was against the law, i.e., assault, battery, disturbing the peace, and then there was a narrow area of behavior between those two. It was possible for a person to approach someone, be very aggressive about soliciting for money, and use profanity that might not be covered as a violation of the law. The use of profanity in the way of an assault was an unlawful attempt coupled with the present ability to commit a violent injury on another person. Someone following another person and using profanity would not qualify as an assault. Council Member Andersen asked whether there were other areas of concern that the Police Department hoped would be covered in an ordinance. Mr. Durkin said the areas of concern dealt with following and blocking people, loitering around automated teller machines, and appearing at a car window in the evening when people were in parking lots which were currently not against the law. Pat Davis, 1949 Edgewood Drive, Volunteer, Another Way Campaign, said the purpose of the Another Way Campaign (the Campaign) was to address the issue of the panhandling and to increase resources for the homeless. The Another Way Committee (the Committee) was made up of representatives from the Downtown Marketing Committee, merchant community, Stanford Shopping Center, Palo Alto Weekly, the Police Department, City Staff, and interested citizens. It also had representatives from the Urban Ministry and Miramonte 01/17/95 74-372 Mental Health Services, the two local organizations that received the funds raised by the Campaign. Due to the efforts of the Committee, the Campaign had raised approximately $22,000 to date. She personally talked to the merchants and tried to increase the visibility of the Campaign. Many of the merchants were enthusias-tic about the Campaign. The Committee felt the Campaign had met with great success over the past two years, but it faced a constant struggle because of limited resources and staff avail-ability. The Committee had worked extremely hard and had estab-lished a good foundation on which to build, but it could not grow without additional resources. The Committee hoped that the Council would embrace the Campaign and provide additional funding and support. Purusha Obluda, c/o of Peninsula Peace and Justice, 555 Waverley Street, No. 27, had watched the homeless problem appear and grow in Palo Alto. He had originally been skeptical about the repre-sentation on the Task Force. Everyone on the Task Force admitted that there was no hard data, and no one really knew whether or not the problem was overwhelming. There was probably four or five people in the City that caused the difficulty. He asked whether the City really wanted to pass a new Ordinance that affected those people. The ACLU insisted that the present law adequately covered any aggressive panhandling that was unpleasant, and it stated that any additional laws that the City might pass would be unconstitu-tional. He did not expect the Council to pass an ordinance about aggressive panhandling; but if it did, it would not be overwhelm-ing. Even though the members of the Task Force were charged with only addressing the issue of aggressive panhandling, they were stunned by the lack of services for the homeless people. He hoped the Council and the general public would direct its attention toward a drop-in center to help the homeless and not make their lives more miserable. Jesse Wilson, 134 Park Boulevard, said the Council should try and get the homeless off the streets because it spoiled his shopping pleasure. Victor Frost, P. O. Box 213, Telephone Pole 1139, was a passive panhandler. The social services in the City did not provide for the street people, and nutritious food and day labor would help. Some of the aggressive panhandlers were from out of the area and had drug problems. He had had an argument with them. The passage of an Aggressive Panhandling Ordinance would be okay as long as the parameters were clear for the street people and the Palo Alto Police Department. Council Member Kniss asked whether the police had to intervene when Mr. Frost had a problem. Mr. Frost said the Police Department was called by the store manager when a problem occurred outside of a store front. Terry O'Day, Stanford Homeless Action Coalition (SHAC), 634 Mayfield Avenue, said the Task Force opened up the dialogue in the community. People learned that everyone was trying to deal with 01/17/95 74-373 serious concerns about human rights and general safety issues. He said the community committee recommended on page 9 of the Task Force report would be a good idea especially since the Task Force had indicated the information received had been anecdotal. The commission of the Task Force was short, and data finding would be helpful. The report suggested representatives on the committee should include the business community, the Police Department, and the solicitation community, e.g., SHAC and the Urban Ministry, but SHAC and the Urban Ministry were not designed to represent low-income people. He said a person from the low-income community should be involved on the council. It was the only way to open a real dialogue about issues important to the people in Palo Alto. Council Member Fazzino said even though there would be disagree-ment on the appropriateness of an ordinance, he appreciated Mr. O'Day's participation in the effort. He was an outstanding repre-sentative of SHAC. Bill Michel, 255 South Rengstoff, No. 79, Mountain View, was shocked when he heard about the possibility of an Aggressive Panhandling Ordinance in Palo Alto. He was concerned about the civil rights ramifications. He urged the Council to consider what was a living wage in the area. Band-aid solutions might get the problem off University Avenue but it would not solve the problem for the long term. Michael Hollingshead, Urban Ministry of Palo Alto, P. O. Box 213, Palo Alto, said the Urban Ministry could not represent the homeless or lower-income community. The Urban Ministry provided services and a sense of community. The Task Force divided the issue of panhandling into four categories--passive, assertive, aggressive, and abusive. There was a good deal of dialogue about the things that might be regarded as assertive by one person and aggressive by another person. He felt that anything that fell under the category of abusive and at the farther end of aggressive was covered by current law. He was concerned that even with an ordinance aimed specifically at abusive and/or aggressive behavior that there was a tendency, in particular because of the anecdotal evidence and testimony given, that all panhandlers and homeless individuals would be put into the same category. He said the number of people who commented on specific instances of physical behavior or use of profanity were about the same number of testimonies given by people who had been passively panhandling and were assaulted by the public, e.g., throwing a quarter or using profanity. Another ordinance might be needed to protect the panhandler. There were existing laws to take care of the wider issues. Kathy Barnett, 451 Alger Drive, thanked the Task Force Committee. She said Palo Alto had enough legal resources that it could write a carefully-worded ordinance regarding aggressive panhandling, but an ordinance would address the issues associated with poverty and homelessness. The City did not respond to East Palo Alto's previous problems with an ordinance, and many solutions were offered. The City should not do less with respect to the problems for its own community. 01/17/95 74-374 Brian Rawson, 725 Newell Road, said Palo Alto should be a home for all people regardless of his/her income levels or personal difficulties. An ordinance that would provide the ability to restrict people from being on the streets should not be passed. The City should increase the services for the homeless, deal with joblessness, and the issues of poverty. Council Member McCown said Police Chief Durkin commented on the gap in coverage between the existing state laws to control aggressive behavior and behavior that was constitutionally protected and not the subject of action. There was also an issue of police visibility in situations where potential actionable behavior occurred. She asked whether additional language in the Ordinance that described that gap behavior would require addi-tional police staffing in order to enforce the Ordinance and whether that additional police staffing could accomplish the same thing with the existing laws even if the additional coverage were in the Ordinances. City Manager June Fleming said the issue needed to be thoroughly discussed with the Police Chief before she made a recommendation. There were several ways to approach increasing visibility of police in the Downtown area. She was uncertain about the need to increase police simply to enforce an ordinance that closed the gap. It was possible that the Ordinance could be effectively enforced without additional police staffing. Many ordinances were enforced on a complaint basis only. There was only anecdotal information available, so the resolution might be by trial and error. Council Member Fazzino asked the City Attorney to give a sense of how other cities' actions might affect the recommendations he brought to the Council. He recognized that the City Attorney was particularly interested in specific behaviors which had been identified in Palo Alto. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said some of the constitutional law pitfalls would have been identified. Other cities' ordinances pictured the breadth of the spectrum that was trying to be regulated which would help the City make a judgment call regarding which pieces of that spectrum fit the picture described by the Task Force. He wanted to make certain after reviewing the Task Force's report and conferring with the City Manager that the recommendation was custom-fitted to Palo Alto. Council Member Fazzino said there was a lot of emphasis in the report about the need to address homeless issues on a broader basis. Even though it was not a specific charge for the Task Force, it was an important issue for members of the Task Force. He asked whether the City Manager intended to bring back recom-mendations which addressed a broader set of issues as well as the specific issue of aggressive solicitation. Ms. Fleming said she intended to address each issue that was raised by the Task Force. 01/17/95 74-375 Council Member Rosenbaum said previously the Council had asked the Mayor to appoint an ad hoc task force and that the City Manager and City Attorney prepare for Council consideration an ordinance. The Council decided after discussion that the ad hoc task force should report back to the Council. He had anticipated at that time that the Council would then make a decision on how to direct staff. He asked whether staff would return with an ordinance for the Council's consideration. Mr. Calonne said staff tried to carefully follow the directions that came out of the July 5, 1994, City Council meeting which was reflected on page 1 and 2 of the Task Force report. The primary difference from the original memorandum was that the direction to the City Manager and City Attorney was to exercise their indepen-dent judgment based on the Task Force's report and return to the Council with some form of recommendation. At that point, the Council would make a decision. The difference was that he and the City Manager had a higher obligation and the recommendations would be thoroughly reviewed in terms of its legal and administrative ramifications. Council Member Rosenbaum believed it was the Council's obligation to review the Task Force report, make a decision, and direct staff to implement that decision. He asked at what point would the Council make its decision. Council Member Kniss recalled that Council Member Huber put a separate piece into the motion; and the interpretation was that after the Task Force had met, a report would be submitted to the City Manager. A decision would be made after that as to whether or not the Ordinance should be written and/or to pursue other avenues. It was difficult occasionally to ascertain the precise process answer. City Clerk Gloria Young said there was an incorporation into the motion on July 5, 1994, that the item be revised to "include that the ad hoc committee shall report back to the Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney." An explanation was followed-up by comments from Vice Mayor Simitian who said "it was important that the Task Force's work return to the Council and be made a matter of public record prior to any ordinance forthcoming to the Council." Council Member Rosenbaum said he was not one of the four Council Members who initiated the original memorandum and asked whether the four Council Members were satisfied with the process. He asked the purpose of the meeting that evening on the issue. Council Member Kniss said the four Council Members were willing to allow the process to move forward. Council Member Andersen said the phrase "and other program elements" was important and conformed with the findings of the Task Force. He encouraged the staff to take the recommendations seriously. The people working diligently on the Another Way Cam- 01/17/95 74-376 paign desired additional support, and he would be looking for alternatives available to bring about some of the services. He wanted to know how overwhelming the problem actually was but recognized that hard data was difficult to obtain. He queried whether the Ordinance was the avenue and the extent of the impact on homeless people by aggressive behavior. There was a desire by many in the homeless community to change that behavior. He wanted staff to explore other ways to achieve the objectives rather than an ordinance, e.g., a sunset clause, and possibly a period of time for experimentation. He knew the City Manager and City Attorney would respect civil rights. He felt the comment regarding protection of panhandlers had merit. Any attempt to restrict panhandling would not get to the root of the problem, and he wanted to know of other approaches that dealt with the broader issue of extreme poverty in the community. Council Member Kniss said many communities had dealt with the problem, and the City had a great deal to learn from those commu-nities as well. The Task Force, particularly Mr. Hollingshed, helped define the population under discussion. Additionally, it was found that it was a very narrow problem, but it was a problem. Staff's report should include the different segments of the population such as the more permanent homeless versus temporary homeless and the long-term panhandlers versus the short-term panhandlers. Council Member Schneider said the Task Force tried to focus on the issue of aggressive panhandling but the question of social services provided in the community could not be avoided. She wanted Palo Alto compared to cities with similar demographics. She said the City budgeted $1.3 million General Fund money for Human Services, received $150,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and allocated approximately $125,000 directly to benefit the homeless. She wanted those figures compared to other cities the same size as Palo Alto. She referred to page 7 of the Task Force Report which stated "One key conclusion of the Task Force is that the magnitude of aggressive solicitation in Palo Alto is small. Any City action should be cautiously framed to avoid exacerbating the current situation." She asked for an explanation of that statement. Mr. Northway said the Task Force suggested that great caution be exerted because of the fact that the law had to apply to every-body. It was a narrow band of behavior. He referred to page 7 of the report which stated "The Task Force also noted that solicitation that impedes traffic flow poses a safety hazard for solicitors and passersby." That situation took place near El Camino Real and the shopping center; but if the people who lived along the creek were discouraged at the location, they would move into the Downtown area. He said during the holidays, the streets were quiet because the word got out within the community that that kind of behavior would not be tolerated. Many of the members of the Task Force felt that that was a pragmatic and community building approach. Mr. Calonne echoed Mr. Northway's comments. He recognized that 01/17/95 74-377 one City action could cause other kinds of behavior. He was influenced by the participation and reactions of the homeless and panhandlers who were involved. There was a real and human reaction just as there was a very real perception and reaction on the part of the people who had been bothered by aggressive panhandling. It would be difficult to deal with the legitimate perceptions people had as distinguished from a more objective reality. He was uncertain whether there was an objective reality that was worthwhile. The language "trying to avoid exacerbating the current situation" was designed to remind the Council to take into account the psychological and perception side of the issue. Council Member Huber said the staff report should include some discussion of the City's services, what could be done, and how it would be funded. He said educational programs were mentioned and should be considered. There was reference to a committee, but it was unclear what the committee would do and what its relationship would be with the Human Relations Commission (HRC). That partic-ular area was within the jurisdiction of the HRC, and the HRC needed to be intimately involved. He had previously expressed concern about the context of the Ordinance in terms of what might be the law and its efficacy. An ordinance might not be necessary if it became too narrow and only affected two or three people. He wanted a clear statement of the gap that the Police Chief felt existed. Vice Mayor Wheeler said Mayor Simitian had previously expressed concern about the automatic blending or assumption that the problem the Task Force would address, aggressive panhandling, was of necessity also a problem of homelessness. She assumed some light had been shed on the population that would be addressed when the Council discussed aggressive panhandlers. She hoped there would be some elucidation about whether it was intimately tied to services for the homeless population, whether it was about a different and distinct population, or whether there was a combina-tion of both. She was concerned about how a committee would be set up, who it would report to, and who would be its constituent members. It might be a good idea to tie it to the HRC, but some issues were raised in the report about making the committee an independent body that would not have the constraints that an offi-cial City body operated under. A lot had been accomplished in a quieter setting, and the Council should evaluate whether a quieter setting might not be more effective than a public setting. Council Member Andersen said the committee would be a legitimate vehicle for a group that felt it had not had much influence on the decision-making process. He wanted the analysis to show whether there could be an effective method for representation of people in the extreme poor portions of the community. A Council liaison on the committee might be appropriate. Mayor Simitian said the report was useful. He underscored his observation when the process began that the discussion was about conduct, not about status. The discussion was not about homelessness or being a panhandler but about bad behavior that some people exhibited. His position was the same as the original 01/17/95 74-378 goal which was how the Council could eliminate that bad behavior to the extent that it existed. He supported programs for the homeless and programs that provided adequate affordable housing in the community. He had a particular sensitivity to legislating based on status, and he would not support a recommendation from that legislated against people who were homeless or panhandling. He wanted a solution to a particularly bad behavior no matter who exhibited it. He wanted the discussion to focus on the fact that the discussion started with a particular kind of bad behavior that people felt constituted a problem in the Downtown area. He shared the interest of his Council colleagues who wanted a clearer identification of the extent to which there was some bad behavior that was not presently addressed by existing laws. He clarified the item would return to the Council in four to six weeks, and the Council would hear from the City Manager and the City Attorney at that time. No action required. RECESS: 8:35 P.M. - 8:45 P.M. 6. Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council that the proposal for a charter amendment which would reduce the size of the City Council not be placed on the ballot Council Member Huber, former Chairperson, Policy and Services Committee, said the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee voted 3-1, Schneider "no," to recommend that the City Council size reduction not be placed on the ballot. The P&S Committee held several hearings but very few members of the public attended. The P&S Committee members expressed concern that the citizenry did not appear to be particularly interested in the item. As a conse-quence, the P&S Committee mailed a letter that had pros and cons on the issue to organizations, homeowners' groups, and the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto. The written responses to the letter were almost overwhelmingly in favor of leaving the Council at its nine-member size. MOTION: Council Member Huber for the Policy and Services Commit-tee moved that the proposal for a charter amendment which would reduce the size of the City Council not be placed on the ballot. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, had not heard any clamoring on the part of the public to change the size of the Council. People were very content with a large, diverse Council to represent them. Palo Alto was able to be extensively involved in the region because of the large number of Council Members. Palo Alto was also a full-service city. Other cities might have similar services, but Palo Alto had an incredible array of services that were governed by the Council which distinguished the City from other communities that had less Council Members. A three-member standing committee would have a quorum of two which did not seem like a true committee. The City had benefitted from having four-member committees in the community. She urged the Council not to put the non-issue on the ballot. 01/17/95 74-379 Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, President, the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto, said the League of Women Voters (LWV) thought it was a non-issue and was pleased to be in concurrence with the P&S Committee not to put the issue on the ballot. She was impressed with the Council's collegiality, courtesy, and compe-tence. The LWV was concerned about the possibility for diversity in the future as community became more diverse, representation from different areas, and also the workload. Council Member Fazzino felt a seven-member Council was a good idea. He still believed it would have provided a much better balance between the Council and staff and would have provided for much stronger Council decision making and better representation for Palo Altans. He also believed there would have been more opportunity for real deliberation among Council Members and more opportunity for public participation in meetings, e.g., Oral Communications to five minutes and agenda item participation to seven minutes; and it would have lead to shorter meetings and reduced costs. Since over 400 cities in California had five members and only a few cities had seven members, he felt it was a balanced approach to reduce the Council from nine to seven members. He said the Council had had major charter discussions in 1894, 1909, 1929, 1950, and 1965. He felt another discussion by the Council on charter reform in the City was overdue, and he wanted the issue to take place within the broader context of charter reform. He believed it was important within the next five to seven years for the City to grapple with broader issues of charter reform and identify ways for the Council to represent citizens more effectively and involve them to a much greater degree in the public process. That was his primary intent behind the proposal. Council Member Huber said he had initially supported the referral, but he had personally discovered that it was difficult to hold two jobs. He did not believe the workload would be reduced with the reduction from nine to seven Council Members, and greater demands would be placed on the remaining Council Members. It was difficult to get people in the community to seek out the job because of the amount of work required; and he felt if the number were reduced, it would discourage people with full-time jobs from ever seeking the office. He believed the position should remain a part-time position. Council Member Schneider supported the Council reduction. She had experienced that smaller groups were more efficient, made decision-making easier, consensus was arrived at more readily, and communication between the members flowed more freely. The Council would experience the same results with a seven-member Council. Council Member McCown said all of the 14 other cities in Santa Clara County, except San Jose, had councils that were seven members or smaller. She did not agree with the points made by Council Member Schneider. Palo Alto's nine-member Council was better able to debate issues, arrive at consensus, be efficient, and be influential not only within the community but within the region than any other City Council in the County of Santa Clara at 01/17/95 74-380 the present time. The issue was not with size but with who ran for office in the community and who the community elected to serve. The fact that there had been a stunning silence of support for the issue in the community during the previous two to three years was an indication of that fact. There might be a time when there was a different sentiment in the community and a desire to change. When that day happened, any Council serving should be open to putting it on the ballot. It was not an issue, and the Council had many other issues that it needed to address that the community was interested in. Vice Mayor Wheeler agreed with Council Member Fazzino's comments that each of the Council Members wanted to find ways to continue to involve the community in helping city government accomplish its tasks, but she believed the reduction of the City Council would have the opposite effect. She had made the motion to refer the issue back to the P&S Committee for further study of the issues that had been raised by the public and by members of the Council. She and Council Members Andersen and Rosenbaum had raised questions regarding a number of policy issues that needed to be explored before putting an item on the ballot. The P&S Committee tried to solicit ideas from the community based on a letter that capsulized the arguments that had been raised at the Council level and to determine whether there was interest and support in the community. The results were clear that the community was not engaged by the issue, and the responses returned from a wide geographic area within the community indicated universally that people were not interested in the Council pursuing the subject. She supported the P&S Committee recommendation. No matter what happened the Council needed to ensure the community that the Council would be broadly represented and would represent different viewpoints and geographic areas in the community. There would be fewer opportunities with fewer Council Members. She was concerned about the workload for individual Council Members and the ability of Council Members to remain in contact with the citizens of Palo Alto. Those items were dear to both the previous Councils and the present Council and also dear to the citizens of Palo Alto. There would be fewer abilities to remain in contact with fewer Council Members. She felt without answers to the substantive questions and concerns that were raised when the item was referred back to the P&S Committee, that any campaign on the issue could become a divisive one in the community. The issue was returned to the Council at that time due to the timing of the 1995 election. The 1995 election was very important to the community. The best job that Council Members could do for the community was to inform the community on the important issues that related to the school districts and not dilute the importance of that issue with something that the public had indicated it did not care about. Council Member Andersen strongly believed that the reduction of the Council membership from nine to seven would not offer more citizen access. Council Member Kniss supported putting the issue on the ballot. She said a seven-member Council worked very well in other commu-nities. The Council currently functioned very well with nine 01/17/95 74-381 members, but it was not a matter of size. The suggestion was for the issue to be put on the ballot so that it could be decided by the public. The issue would return again. Mayor Simitian valued the diversity of viewpoints that the Council represented. The suggestion was that a smaller Council would eliminate the potential for diversity that currently existed. He said on Palo Alto's nine-member Council, the largest Council for a city of its size in the area, there were no renters, no one lived West of Alma, no one was under 40 years of age, no one qualified as a senior citizen, no one made less than the median household income, no one was a single parent, and no one was a parent of school-age children. A nine-member Council had not provided the City with the diversity that it thought would be valuable. It was incumbent on each Council Member not to see themselves as representatives of some particular individual constituency but to see themselves as being responsible for representing the needs and viewpoints of all of those people. He rejected the notion that a seven- or nine-member Council would ensure some measure of diversity. He believed a nine-member Council made the Council less accountable to the public, and the public was not as aware of the Council's individual viewpoints and the actions taken as he/she could be and should be. A smaller Council was a step in the right direction. A larger group was less likely to have a real discussion. The very diversity of viewpoints and experiences that he valued from his colleagues was lost in the formality that was enforced by a nine-member Council. The larger Council was a force for the status quo and it became more difficult to reach a consensus. There were times when change was desirable, and it was harder to make good change when there was a larger body. It changed the balance of power on policy-making decisions. The City had a Council/City Manager form of government that was built on the foundation that the City Manager and her staff administered the City, but the Council Members set policy. When the Council was unable to set policy because it was caught in a quagmire of status quo, the policy vacuum was filled by the staff. MOTION PASSED 5-4, Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider, Simitian, "no." ORDINANCES 7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Housing Corporation to Provide Assistance with Pre-Development Expenses for Single Occupancy Housing at 753 Alma Street Senior Planner Catherine Siegel said Council action was requested to approve a contract with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) to provide a loan of up to $295,000 from the Housing Reserve Funds for pre-development activities to take the proposed Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing project from the feasibility study phase through the application for zoning, entitlements, and the securing of housing subsidies. After approval of the project by the Council, the financing secured, and the completion of the project, the $295,000 would become part of a total estimated $2.3 million in subsidies needed from the City. All funds would be provided to the PAHC in the form of a loan. Given that there were 01/17/95 74-382 many uncertainties regarding the project, staff believed it was appropriate to provide financial support for the PAHC through pre-development phase of the project. Margaret Ash, 446 Forest Avenue, No. 6, asked that some of the SRO housing be made available to the homeless. She understood from the neighborhood meeting and listening to the architect that the neighbors had been assured that no homeless people would be allowed in the SRO housing. She thought that was unconscionable based upon the previous Aggressive Panhandling Ad Hoc Task Force report. The Urban Ministry could utilize at least five units, and it would be a humane thing to do and a better solution to panhandling. She had observed panhandlers renting hotel rooms in Palo Alto, but there were less people able to do that because there was a campaign to stop giving directly to panhandling homeless people in the City. There was still no housing for the homeless in Palo Alto, and the Another Way Campaign did not offer any solutions to the people who had no place to go. The SRO housing could be used as an experiment, and 753 Alma Street was a perfect opportunity to do something about the situation. The loan would fold into the major project funding when and if that moved forward. Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, 540 Cowper Avenue, said after the feasibility study and report, PAHC felt there was no reason not to proceed as fast as practical on the approvals for the SRO project at 753 Alma Street. After review with the City staff, it was clear that it would be beneficial from a process, legal, and financial stand-point to begin the environmental analysis on the site acquisition and on the project at the same time. PAHC had designed and committed to an aggressive schedule for the pre-development activities and zoning entitlement approvals. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by McCown, to: 1) approve the funding agreement and the promissory note form with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) to provide a loan of up to $295,000 for pre-development expenses related to the development of single room occupancy housing at 725-753 Alma Street; 2) adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance authorizing the transfer of $295,000 in Housing Reserve Funds (Industrial - Commercial Account) to be used for PAHC's expenses under the agreement; and 3) authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement in substantially similar form and direct the City Manager to adminis-ter the provisions of the agreement. Ordinance 4257 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide Assistance with Pre-Development Expenses for Single Room Occupancy Housing at 753 Alma Street" MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 8. Palo Alto Harbor Marsh Restoration - Request for Policy 01/17/95 74-383 Direction Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said the item was presented to the Council so that it would have the full information about the alternatives available and be able to consider the policy options. Staff had not recommended any particular course of action. A decision would be necessary in the near future due to the scheduled deadlines on the permit from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Mayor Simitian asked the time line available to meet the BCDC deadlines if the item were referred to a Standing Committee(s). Mr. Roberts said the alternative of public access would require that some action be undertaken during the current fiscal year rather than waiting until next fiscal year's budget, and a decision would need to be made on one policy alternative or the other as input into the upcoming Capital Improvement Project (CIP) process. Staff believed the two issues needed to be satisfied in the next 30 to 45 days. A rapid turnaround from the Committee would accommodate that schedule. City Manager June Fleming said if the item were referred to only one Committee, it would be possible to turn it around and return it to the Council within the necessary time. MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Kniss, to refer the item to the Finance Committee. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion and felt the issue needed careful discussion by the Finance Committee and evaluation of other options. Council Member McCown asked whether there was any other policy issues independent of the issue of the amount money involved in the project. Mr. Roberts said it was a financial issue; however, it related to the adopted Master Plan for the Baylands and could be construed as a policy issue. Council Member McCown said if a situation arose that suggested there was a problem with the prior policy, it was a policy issue. It was a financial issue if the Council questioned whether it wanted to spend the amount of money that the adopted policy required. She wanted to be certain that the issue was not brought before the Council because BCDC had other concerns apart from the dollars. Ms. Fleming agreed with Council Member McCown, and the Council had an option of how to exercise the policy that the Council already made which involved finance. Staff did not want to proceed without Council's approval of an option which was more of a financial decision than a policy issue. Council Member McCown asked why that particular project was 01/17/95 74-384 brought forward. Mayor Simitian asked when the policy decision was adopted. Mr. Roberts replied 1987. Mayor Simitian clarified the City Manager and staff had brought forward a policy seven years old that preceded many on the Council to determine whether the Council wanted to move forward with a $750,000 item. Council Member Huber asked whether the City had to make a decision to comply with BCDC regulations within 30 or 60 days and whether the City could apply for an extension. Mr. Roberts said the City could apply for an extension, but the City was presently under BCDC permit mandated deadlines to implement a project by 1997. Spring 1995 would be the time line necessary to prepare for the upcoming Capital Improvement Project (CIP). Absent an extension, the time line required action in the next several months. Council Member Huber said there was suggestion that there might be other sources of funding to help defray the $750,000, and he asked whether there was time to solicit additional funding. Mr. Roberts said staff was aggressively pursuing those options; however, the City had received no commitment to date. In order to ensure any outside funding, an extension of time would be neces-sary. Council Member Andersen asked whether the City could concurrently ask for a time extension and refer the item to the Finance Committee. Mr. Roberts said yes. Staff would need direction that evening to pursue that option. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the City Council direct the staff to request a time extension from San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Mr. Roberts said applying for an extension was viable, but obtain-ing an extension was an administrative or Board decision made by BCDC. Council Member Andersen asked whether a lack of position by the Council would make a difference in BCDC's decision. Mr. Roberts said BCDC would make an independent decision based upon its prior actions and the City's current status. BCDC's prior actions mandated that the City must complete the public access alternative, and the City had been given the option to complete the marsh restoration alternative. To date, the City had shown good faith progress, e.g, preparing the plans obtaining environmental clearances, and it had a good track record. 01/17/95 74-385 Council Member Rosenbaum said staff had indicated that the City could respond within 30 to 45 days and the Council could decide at that time. He requested for a time extension from BCDC should be discussed at the Finance Committee. Council Member Andersen was concerned that if the staff did not move forward with an application for an extension immediately, the City might be put in a more difficult position with BCDC. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the issue before the Council was a financial consideration, but she believed it was a policy issue when plans changed in the Baylands area due to the potential environmental impacts. She said there were some broader issues that went beyond financial, and she hoped that information would be available to the Finance Committee. Council Member Kniss asked why the project cost $750,000. Mr. Roberts said the cost of the project was driven primarily by the creation of a marsh where a marsh did not presently exist. Restoration could be best described in the longer term sense of what the Bay was like 75 or 100 years ago. At the present time, the seven-acre area was semi-solid ground that needed to be excavated and disposed of offsite in order to create a low-line area where marsh could occur. There was a tremendous expense involved in the excavation and disposal of that material. Mayor Simitian clarified that the City had until 1997 to deliver the product, and the deadline was a City of Palo Alto deadline in terms of how the City proceeded in the budget cycle. Mr. Roberts said there were two time line considerations. The primary concern was that if the Council desired staff to pursue the public access alternative, there was a substantial process that needed to be undertaken during the current fiscal year. There would be permits and environmental clearances to complete the front-end work on the BCDC project and allow its deliverability by 1997. Mayor Simitian clarified the function was how quickly the City of Palo Alto could move its agenda and deliver the product, and nothing had to be done with BCDC by a June 30, 1995, deadline. Mr. Roberts said that was correct. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said the marsh restoration was the right thing to do. There were endangered species in the Baylands which would benefit greatly from the additional acreage of marsh. There were considerable public access presently in the Baylands. Marshes were precious, difficult to obtain, and a commodity. She was also stunned by the dollar amount but was confident that sources of funding would be found to help offset the costs. The problem was the way BCDC's alternative action scenario was structured and the choice to spend $250,000 for the public access improvements which had not been designed yet and 01/17/95 74-386 would need a budgetary item in order for it to be accomplished by 1997. The high cost of the marsh restoration would take time to secure alternative sources of funding. It did not allow the City to pursue a dual track at the same time. She urged the Council to ask staff to pursue an administrative extension which would allow the City to keep open both options until sources of funding could be secured for the marsh restoration. The present process was bias toward the public access improvements which had ongoing maintenance and liability issues associated with it. She said the security from the harbor master's adobe looking across to Sand Point would be increased with the area open. She urged the Council to maintain the present policy and seek funding for it. Marvin Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, said Santa Clara County had deep dredged the harbor in Palo Alto. He said the weight put on the top at Harbor Point pushed out the bottom of the harbor and was the major force that contributed to the destruction of the harbor. He read a letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office). He said there were large policy issues that still needed to be brought back to the community. Palo Alto had a natural small boat harbor that could be restored and should be considered again, particu-larly in light of the Mayor's view that the City needed to develop alternative activities for young people. It was time to reconsider the issue on a broader base. He suggested that when the dirt was removed, the pressure on the small harbor would be relieved. Council Member Andersen asked whether Mr. Lee had any further comments. Mr. Lee said the City needed to provide various activities with the hope that young people would choose one of them, and one of the activities should be at the Baylands. A small boat basin had been destroyed at the harbor and should be brought back. It would not destroy any of the areas. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the policy to restore an additional seven acres of marsh on Harbor Point was made seven years ago on the basis of a consultant study that considered the option of public access improvements and rejected it as did the Council. Staff had had six years to work on the concept of a mitigation bank to fund the marsh restoration. He believed staff was at the stage of being able to find solutions to the issues raised in the staff report (CMR:107:95) and set up the mechanism for a mitigation bank. The Council needed to find out from staff the status of those efforts before making a decision to change the policy. He would not do a dual track, i.e., continue the current policy and seek an extension from BCDC, and refer it to the Finance Committee. The referral would take away staff time from implementing the existing policy. A one-year extension would solve the two problems that prevented the funding. He asked that staff seek the mitigation bank mechanism and work with the Port of Oakland to change the standards for a dump cover. He hoped quarterly reports would be available. Staff should be directed to continue to pursue projects that would provide mitigation money. He hoped Council would continue the current policy. 01/17/95 74-387 Council Member Andersen asked whether the Council was doing a disservice to the staff by postponing its general policy position that evening. He supported the policy decisions made earlier. There was a financial question that needed to be considered, but it would take a major shift to allow the financial question to change his policy direction. He asked whether it was appropriate to give some indication to staff regarding Council's policy position that evening. Ms. Fleming said staff did not need that direction at the present time. It was not a financial issue that brought the item to the Council, but the issue of the expiration of the approvals from BCDC. MOTION TO REFER PASSED 9-0. 9. Request from Cable Communications Cooperative of Palo Alto, Inc. (Cable Co-op) for a Public Hearing on the Approval or Disapproval of the TCI Cablevision of California Inc./Cable Co-op Agreement Assistant City Manager Bernard M. Strojny said the item was based upon a request from Cable Communications Cooperative of Palo Alto, Inc. (Cable Co-op) to have the City Council set a public hearing to consider certain provisions of an agreement between TCI Cablevision of California Inc. (TCI) and Cable Co-op. Brad Anderson, Chief Executive Officer/General Manager, Communi-cations Cooperative of Palo Alto, Inc., 3200 Park Boulevard, said a series of fiber optic rings were being built that would inter-connect all the cable systems in the Bay Area. Viacom and TCI, the two large cable operators in the Bay Area, were leading the project. Cable Co-op felt it was necessary to participate in the project so that Palo Alto would not be the only broadband facility in the Bay Area not connected. Communication would be available throughout the entire Bay Area, and it was necessary for Cable Co-op's future success to be able to provide comparable service as other communities. On August 4, 1994, Cable Co-op entered into an agreement with TCI to be the contractor to build the fiber optic loop through Palo Alto. In addition to building the loop, TCI would also construct some conduit which would allow Cable Co-op to more easily upgrade the system in the future. TCI would also guarantee rights to receive programming over the cable. It isolated the rate basis from any costs of the construction because Cable Co-op was leasing back the cable to TCI. It was not a policy issue but a narrow technical issue derived from the broadly worded franchise held through the City. He hoped the public hearing could be held next month. Council Member Fazzino referred to Mr. Anderson's letter dated January 9, 1995, which stated "It does not place TCI in a position to ever offer any services to any home or business, except Cable Co-op." He understood that based upon current law the City could not prohibit TCI from operating a communications utility in Palo Alto but it could not do so using that particular fiber optic. 01/17/95 74-388 Mr. Anderson said TCI could not offer services because it was a cable company, not a telephone company. Council Member Fazzino clarified under current law, unless Congress changed the Telecommunications Act, TCI could not provide that service. He said Mr. Anderson's letter expressed concern about the nature of the long-term relationship between TCI and Cable Co-op. The City had had an unfortunate experience recently with MFS, and citizens were concerned about whether Cable Co-op might eventually become part of TCI. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the channels were received through satellite. Mr. Anderson said yes. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether in the future different channels would come via fiber optics. Mr. Anderson said it was currently anticipated that up to 90 channels would be available on the fiber optic ring. The benefit was that the reception would be better on the fiber optic ring than using the satellite dish. Council Member Rosenbaum said TCI had agreed to simultaneously construct, at its sole expense, an interduct (empty conduit). He said the City had expressed interest in that type of interduct for future City use to save digging up areas twice, and he asked whether it was difficult to secure and whether it was costly for TCI. Mr. Anderson said the negotiations with TCI were difficult and occurred over a period of eight months. He believed the cost was in the range of $75,000 to $100,000. Council Member Huber said Mr. Anderson's letter indicated that if the deal did not go through, TCI would have to request access and pay permanent encroachment fees. He asked the cost of the fees if that happened. He asked how the proposal impacted the study of fiber optic systems that was being done. Senior Assistant City Attorney Grant Kolling said staff did not have any calculations that evening regarding the source of the encroachment fees if the security interest were disapproved. Mr. Strojny said the calculations could be available for the February 6, 1995, public hearing. It was difficult to determine what the impact might be on the study of the fiber optic systems, but Cable Co-op was interested in partnering with other firms other than TCI to provide the communication services being envisioned by cities. Council Member Fazzino said how the Congress approached the telecommunication deregulation might have a real impact on the City's future relationship with TCI and the opportunity to have a 01/17/95 74-389 City communications utility. He asked whether Mr. Anderson had any insights regarding what might happen in the near future as far as deregulation was concerned. Mr. Anderson believed the regulation was clearly moving toward a competitive environment. Cable Co-op felt that the proposal laid the groundwork for that competition. Cable Co-op anticipated the competition would probably come from Pacific Bell or from a similar company such as MFS rather than from TCI. Overbills were anticipated from telephone companies but not another cable operator. There would probably be a choice of two wires and possibly more in the future. Cable Co-op's strategy was how to remain one of those wires. Council Member Andersen said the issue from TCI's and Cable Co-op's point of view was not the encroachment fees but the time it had taken to get it through the City. Mr. Anderson said that was correct. Mayor Simitian said there were some policy issues, and the issue was not as narrow as it was defined. The starting point had to do with the revenue implications. Staff had indicated that the revenues would be relinquished if the Council allowed the right-of-way to be transferred from Cable Co-op to TCI. If the Council did not do that, then TCI would offer the City something of value for the opportunity. The Council was being asked to let Cable Co-op have something of value rather than the City. He wanted staff to return with the franchise fee that might be charged in another comparable community. He was increasingly reluctant to be rushed on communication and technology issues which were important telecommunications and big dollar issues. The Council had a responsibility to make sure all the facts were available. He wanted staff and Cable Co-op to comment on whether or not it would give TCI the first opportunity to make its way into the Palo Alto market if Cable Co-op went out of business. He wanted some discussion about the kind of advantages it gave TCI in an emerging, competitive market. He was particularly concerned because at the most recent meeting of the Santa Clara County Cities Association he was advised that six cities in Santa Clara County that had TCI as the primary provider had just written to the federal government protesting four increases over the course of the past year. He understood Cable Co-op was getting as part of the deal the empty conduit, access to programming, favorable rates, and better quality. He wanted to know whether Cable Co-op was getting any cash as a result of the lease arrangement. Cable Co-op received the value of the ownership and benefits of all those things without paying for it. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said the first point under Policy Implications in the staff report (CMR:106:95) as to whether or not a third party should be permitted to take a property interest in the cable system and the third point whether Cable Co-op should be permitted to delegate its system maintenance to a third party was nonsense. Cable Co-op bid and won the franchise in cooperation with Pacific Bell who built, operated, and maintained the system. 01/17/95 74-390 The City agreed to that arrangement in the franchise agreement. He wanted to know who the third party was if it was not Pacific Bell. The system was bought from Pacific Bell and could be sold and leased back to Pacific Bell or some other entity and the City would have nothing to say about it. The cable was in the ground and because of the City's delay, TCI had bypassed Palo Alto and lit that cable. Cable Co-op had been excluded from getting a self-healing system hooked up to the head end because of the City's dilatory tactics. Cable Co-op could not accept that kind of delay in a competitive situation. Congress and the courts were moving quickly so that cable operators could offer telephone service and the telephone companies could offer cable service. If Cable Co-op had to request Council approval to amend the franchise agreement every time it wanted to offer a new service, it would not be competitive. The Council's fears of having TCI take over Cable Co-op would become self-fulfilling. Cable Co-op was not losing any money but opportunities. The only issue to be discussed on February 6, 1995, was if Cable Co-op went out of business, that TCI had a residual interest in the system. It was a non-issue and no money was involved. Council Member Andersen cautioned the Council not to be prejudiced about the experience the City had with MFS. The Council needed to move quickly and provide a process that moved more rapidly than the franchise agreement allowed. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to set a public hearing on February 6, 1995, for the purpose of determining whether the Council shall grant its consent to Cable Co-op's assignment to TCI Cablevision of California, Inc. (TCI) for an irrevocable license to use and a security interest in a portion of the fiber optic ring being constructed by TCI and owned by Cable Co-op. Council Member McCown said there was a technical franchise agreement issue that had been brought forward by the staff. Cable Co-op had the right under the agreement to petition the Council for action and the Council needed to act promptly. MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Mayor Joe Simitian and Council Members Huber and Schneider re A Challenge Grant to Support the Children's Theatre Mayor Simitian said the goal was to provide some alternatives for youth and to make a public/private partnership more than just a phrase. It was a way to work cooperatively with a nongovernmental organization in the community that had a proven track record of success, and it was an attempt to leverage a relatively small amount of money to produce a fairly broad-based benefit for the entire community. The request was for the City Manager to examine the possibility of adding $100,000 to the targeted $3,000,000 Capital Improvement Program in 1996-97, which was the year that the Friends of the Palo Alto Children's Theatre (the Friends) 01/17/95 74-391 hoped to be successful in its fund-raising drive. The City Manager and her staff would have to be concerned about historic preservation issues and make sure those issues were addressed. The Friends had indicated it would try and raise $500,000 for a second stage, classrooms, and additional shop facilities. The goal was to put a challenge grant of $100,000, thereby helping the Friends reach that $500,000 goal. If the Friends did not reach its goal, the City would not be committed to put the $100,000 forward; and if the Friends were successful, the City would receive a $500,000 facility in exchange for $100,000 which would provide a recreational opportunity for kids in perpetuity. Council Member Kniss asked whether the funding was possible within the current budget cycle. City Manager June Fleming believed the funding could be accommo-dated. Staff kept the Council's priorities/policies in mind when putting together budget documents. The proposed motion was carefully crafted so that it would not impact the City's tradi-tional target for CIPs. It was outside of that target and would not jeopardize projects which would be brought to the Council within that target. Laura Selznick, Past President of the Friends of the Palo Alto Children's Theatre, 3451 Waverley Street, said the Friends were excited to be part of the public/private partnerships with the Council. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Huber, to request the City Manager to examine the possibility of adding $100,000 to the targeted $3,000 Capital Improvement Project in 1996-97. The $100,000 would be available only upon the Friends of the Palo Alto Children's Theatre successful efforts to raise the other $400,000. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the present Council could not commit the Council in 1996 to make that budget allocation. She wanted to be certain that the staff was confident that the Council had given an appropriate direction and that it was okay for the Friends to rely on that action. Ms. Fleming said it was a Council decision. She would return to the Council with a proposal that allocated the funds even though the CIP was approved annually. She understood the intent and was comfortable with the direction. Mayor Simitian said the budget action would take place as part of the current budget cycle so that there would be a commitment or not; but any allocation, if an allocation were approved, would be designated for expenditure in the 1996-97 fiscal year. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Friends should not assume that the Council had authorized an expenditure of $100,000 that eve-ning. It would not happen until the end of June 1995 if approved. Vice Mayor Wheeler cautioned the Friends regardless of the Council's action that evening and in June 1995, the project still 01/17/95 74-392 had to go through discretionary review processes and procedures. She would personally try to have the process flow more smoothly than the last one did. Council Member Fazzino would support the motion because the Friends were so successful the first time around. It was an incredible community asset. He did not believe a $100,000 contribution for a $500,000 asset on a long-term basis was a problematic financial situation for the City. He expected the Friends would respond to any concerns that the City Manager and her staff had regarding the viability of the project and its ability to raise the funds. The Friends wrote the rules as far as public/private partnerships with the City. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Simitian said that with respect to the January 18, 1995, City Council Meeting regarding the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) Draft Comprehensive Plan, the City Council would conclude its discussion of the Business and Economics Section only. Mayor Simitian noted that the real property tax issue previously scheduled for the January 23, 1995, City Council Meeting had been rescheduled to February 6, 1995. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:55p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involv-ing existing litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 2 and labor negotiations as described in Agenda Item Nos. 3 and 4. Mayor Simitian announced that no action was taken on Agenda Item No. 2. Mayor Simitian announced that Agenda Item No. 3 was agendized for the City Council meeting of January 23, 1995. Mayor Simitian announced that no action was taken on Agenda Item No. 4. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.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 Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the 01/17/95 74-393 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. 01/17/95 74-394