HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-08 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting April 8, 1996 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator.......................79-21 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................79-22 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 29 AND 30, 1996..............79-22 1. Legislative Action Program - Refer to the Policy and Services Committee..............................................79-22 2. Policy for Cost Sharing of Replacement of Public Sidewalks over Existing Basements - Refer to Policy and Services Committee..............................................79-22 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hoehm-Schurba & Associates for Recarpeting the Downtown Library........79-23 4. Resolution 7578 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 7531 and Amended by Resolution No. 7567 to Amend the Salary and Benefits for Council Appointed Officers to Evidence a Housing Loan to the City Manager"..........................................79-23 5. The Policy and Services Committee recommends approval of the City Attorney's recommendation for an ordinance which prohibits City board members and commissioners from being financially involved with City of Palo Alto contracts, and includes reference to California Government Code section 1091 regarding remote interest exceptions...................79-23 6. The Policy and Services Committee re Additional Goal, Policy, and Program under the Business and Economics Section of the Draft Comprehensive Plan...............................79-23 7. Permit Streamlining - Customer Working Panel Report and Staff Response...............................................79-31 8. Mayor Wheeler and Council Members Fazzino, Kniss, and Schneider re Law Enforcement Services Downtown.........79-33
04/08/96 79-19
9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........79-50 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m............79-50
04/08/96 79-20
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Human Resources/Council Conference Room at 5:47 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Huber, Kniss (arrived at 5:50 p.m.) McCown, Rosenbaum, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino, Schneider ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Michael Jackson, Rodger Jensen, Susan Ryerson, Tony Sandhu, Larry Starr, Paul Thiltgen, John Walton) Represented Employee Organization: Service Employees Interna-tional Union, Local 715 (SEIU) Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiation as described in Agenda Item No. 1. Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 1. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
04/08/96 79-21
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:16 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding imprudent activity and the Sea Scouts. Douglas F. Wold, P.O. Box 444, Palo Alto, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Police Department. Margaret Ash, 3901 El Camino Real, spoke regarding homelessness and
Council=s participation on the Homelessness Task Force. Council Member Fazzino clarified the Council was not invited to
participate on the Human Relations Commission=s (HRC) Homelessness Task Force. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 29 AND 30, 1996 MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Minutes of January 29, 1996, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, McCown "abstaining." MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Minutes of January 30, 1996, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by McCown, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 5. 1. Legislative Action Program - Refer to the Policy and Services Committee 2. Policy for Cost Sharing of Replacement of Public Sidewalks over Existing Basements - Refer to Policy and Services Committee 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Hoehm-Schurba & Associates for Recarpeting the Downtown Library; change orders not to exceed $2,400. 4. Resolution 7578 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Manage-ment and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers
04/08/96 79-22
Adopted by Resolution No. 7531 and Amended by Resolution No. 7567 to Amend the Salary and Benefits for Council Appointed Officers to Evidence a Housing Loan to the City Manager" 5. The Policy and Services Committee recommends approval of the City Attorney's recommendation for an ordinance which prohib-its City board members and commissioners from being financial-ly involved with City of Palo Alto contracts, and includes reference to California Government Code section 1091 regarding remote interest exceptions. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.16 [Boards and Commissions] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Section 2.16.040 to Prohibit Board and Commission Members From Being Financially Interested in Contracts With the City" MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 6. The Policy and Services Committee re Additional Goal, Policy, and Program under the Business and Economics Section of the Draft Comprehensive Plan Council Member Rosenbaum said the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee undertook the task of incorporating the limits of the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study (the Study) into the new Comprehensive Plan while at the same time introducing the flexibility that the Council felt would be necessary in certain areas to change some of the zoning regulations which led to the square-foot limit in the Study. The P&S Committee recommended two policies and a program as noted on page 3 of the staff report (CMR:212:96): (1) to maintain the limits of the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, with the understanding that modifications to the limits that permit modest additional growth may be made as the result of future studies and (2) to maintain an overall citywide limit of 3,257,900 square feet, and a program to monitor that limit. The P&S Committee suggested staff make modifications since the policies were put together quickly. The staff report (CMR:212:96) reflected those modifications. He was uncertain whether his colleagues felt the modifications fully
represented the P&S Committee=s motion, and he suggested those policies be discussed further that evening. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the policy issue before the Council that evening was one of the most difficult issues in the Draft Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). The difficultly was turning a study that was done six and one-half years previously into a cap or development restriction that was not considered thoroughly when the Study was done. He previously discussed with Mayor Wheeler a framework that should be set in
04/08/96 79-23
place that evening for discussion of what the policy issue was and what the key alternatives were. He reviewed the history of the Study. Staff initially recommended in the March 12, 1996, staff report (CMR:175:96) that the Plan should incorporate the general objectives of the Study but should not include specific square footage numbers. The suggestion was not accepted by the P&S Committee, and the P&S Committee recommended that specific numbers be incorporated in the Plan. Staff had provided that evening five alternatives that would address the Study and the Plan. The first alternative was as recommended in the staff report (CMR:175:96) dated March 12, 1996, and the second alternative was to incorporate the square footage figure in the Plan for the total development in the nine areas identified in the Study. There were some significant omissions in the Study, and it did not include all nonresidential land and land uses such as the Downtown Palo Alto Medical Foundation site, sites on East Embarcadero Road, the airport, Regional Water Quality Control Plant, and Holiday Inn,
etc. The P&S Committee=s second alternative was to incorporate the square footage development figure as a total development cap in the nine areas identified in the Study with the option for the present and a future City Council to amend that limit. Stating that option would probably facilitate future consideration of amendments if the present or a future Council believed it was appropriate. Another option would be to apply the square footage development figure to all commercial/industrial/public facilities development after September 1, 1989, the adoption date of the Study. That would take the development total beyond the framework of the Study to include all nonresidential properties which would broaden the Study but still use the same development figure. Another alternative would be to allocate the square footage numbers back to the nine planning areas. The problem with that alternative was for three of the areas City actions between September 1, 1989, and the present had resulted in a different level of nonresidential square footage from what was identified in the Study. There was no easy way to translate the 3,257,900 square feet into those nine areas. Staff was concerned about the consequences if space were allocated too quickly. There were also alternatives in the staff report which indicated the Council could take the 1989 square footage, add an amount to it, e.g., 15 percent, and establish a new limit, which could be allocated on a citywide basis. Staff did not recommend going beyond the Citywide cap. The P&S Committee asked staff to identify the types of studies or project actions in which amendment of that cap would be appropriate. Staff could not find an immediate answer to that question which was elaborated upon in the staff report (CMR:212:96), and staff believed that the present and a future Council would be faced with a range of development
applications that might not be viewed as totally Αconsistent≅ with the Study. Staff felt it was not realistic to go through an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan process to amend the cap. It might place a heavy burden on smaller project. At the same time, there might be larger projects in which the present or a future Council might conclude that incorporation of that square footage
04/08/96 79-24
under the Citywide total was appropriate and the cap would not have to be amended. Staff felt it was best left to the present or a future Council when faced with specific development proposals to make a decision as to whether that square footage should fit within the overall cap or whether it should go beyond it. Staff could not resolve the problem regarding when to amend the cap that the P&S Committee struggled with. He reiterated when looking ahead to the next 15 years and at the life of the next Comprehensive Plan, staff believed it was unlikely the City would experience development activity that would generate the amount of new square footage as identified in the Study. The number in the Study was a reasonable build-out. Staff was not overly concerned about identifying the 3,257,900-square-foot number in the Plan, but if it were applied to specific areas or zones, there would be less flexibility and there might be a variety of foreseen and unforeseen implementation problems. Staff recommended, which was consistent with the P&S Committee, to use the 3,257,900-square-foot number as a general gauge to monitor additional development in the City and to allow future Councils the flexibility of amending that number if deemed appropriate. The P&S Committee spent a considerable amount of time on transportation issues, and staff had provided a supplemental report on transportation issues that expanded on the discussion at the Committee meeting. Bill Peterson, 228 Fulton Street, asked the Council to reject
staff=s recommendation. The recommendations in the Study were good
for Palo Alto even though there were inconsistencies. Council=s approval of the recommendations would make it marginally easier to develop Palo Alto. The policy would implicitly assume a build-out of traffic that would put the City in Level F by the Year 2010, had the potential to continue to develop Embarcadero Road as a speedway, and would affirm the Council liked a wall-to-wall residential area on University Avenue and was willing to assume the cost of additional police force to bring order to the density being approved. The Council should send a message that more development was not desirable. Jeff Vaillant, 325 Forest Avenue, spoke on behalf of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. He said the Study and its relationship to the Plan was a complex issue and required years of planning knowledge that the Director of Planning and Community Environment had. Therefore, his questions were in the direction of overall considerations and did not argue with the facts in the staff report. He asked how a comprehensive plan which stated as a policy description a particular level of development would still allow the Council the flexibility to make good decisions, whether the Council would need new techniques beyond Planned Community (PC) zones and variances to deal with the development cap, whether the process for amendments to the Plan would be so complex and time consuming that it would discourage the present or a future Council from pursuing areas of the City that were in need of revitalization, whether the artificial cap would prove to be an impediment to creative planning
04/08/96 79-25
approaches such as transfer densities, and whether it would impede
the City Council=s ability to be flexible in areas such as Midtown and El Camino Real by incorporating the Study language that would
mandate a Αno≅ vote by the present and a future Council. The Council needed to move forward with the Comprehensive Plan process; and as noted in the staff report, there would be other
opportunities for Chamber of Commerce=s comments. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, was concerned that the 3.2 million square feet of development would need 13,000 to 20,000 more parking spaces and that each of those spaces would generate 4 trips and would increase the traffic demand at intersections. She reminded the Council the primary focus of the Study was to set appropriate limits on future commercial and industrial developments to minimize deteriorating traffic conditions within the City. A process had been found to change intersections that were formerly
ΑF≅ in 1980-1985 to ΑE≅ but that did not change the traffic. It meant that more crowded conditions were being tolerated in traffic intersections. Side streets were being used more frequently, and additional traffic on the side streets was not being measured as the traffic increased on the major arteries. The impact on new intersections was not being accounted for either. She asked how the problems would be reduced if there were a continual spiral of more development and the City did not have the funds to improve intersections. The Council needed to consider whether to approve developments before it knew what it would do to traffic problems. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, agreed with staff that incorporating the Study into the new Comprehensive Plan was not optimal. However, she feared that the proposal and the overall direction of the new Comprehensive Plan would fail to address fundamental concerns of a large number of Palo Alto citizens about the aggregate and cumulative impact of steady increases in development without a commitment to fund and plan a corresponding
change in Palo Alto=s transportation and street system so that the environmental standards and residential quality of life could be protected. The Study that was supposed to address business, transportation, and environmental issues was boiled down to one goal and policy in the Business and Economics section of the Plan. She suggested it should be broken down into three different goals--business, transportation, and environmental. An alternative goal would be to create an environment for business which was sustainable and competitive in the long run by rigorously protecting the residential quality of life and environmental standards. She wanted in the Plan a citywide development limit, a convincing transportation plan with a commitment to fund and plan a change in the transportation system, environmental standards, and citywide and regional planning. Tricia Ward-Dolkas, 412 Everett Avenue, asked why PC zones were being excluded from being counted toward the limit. The staff
04/08/96 79-26
report indicated the Downtown area still had its full potential of growth. It appeared that the projects as part of the Plan proposals were also excluded from the count. She thought the claim that the traffic had become worse was not true. Also, the change of use could intensify traffic, impact to neighbors, and the environment which had not been recognized, e.g., the Varsity Theatre to a Borders Bookstore. If the goal were to assure a balance among supporting businesses, maintaining residential character, and preserving the environment and it was unlikely the 3,257,900 limit would be reached, she asked why the document was focused on growth and development. She asked where the discussion was about preserving the neighbors and the environment. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the staff report indicated the Study was not a development cap. He said the first objective of
the Study on page 1 of the staff report (CMR:175:96) stated Αreduce future commercial and industrial development potential to minimize
deteriorating traffic conditions.≅ Staff indicated one way of monitoring the extent to which the City was reaching the limits imposed by the 1989 zoning was to create a data base. A data base had already been created, and the Council could have asked for the data in the staff report the previous year when the voters voted on Measure R. Then the people would have known the extent to which the City had already reached limits imposed by the Study in each of the nine areas. He was concerned about the numbers in Table 2 in the staff report (CMR:175:96) with respect to Area No. 9, Sand Hill Road Corridor. The table counted against the limits of two major projects that were omitted from the scope of the study and, therefore, misstated the amount of square footage that remained in that area under the zoning in the Study. Traffic was worse than indicated in the staff report because traffic was only measured on a regular basis for certain intersections and arterial streets. Since traffic was diverted to local streets, those streets also needed to be measured. He referred to the Downtown requirement in the Study to study a new parking structure when the deficit in parking was increased by 225 spaces. The City had begun to look at new parking structures before the parking deficit had increased by 225 spaces. In fact, the recent Downtown monitoring report indicated the deficit had decreased by 110 spaces. There was something wrong with the data being used that was the basis of the limits in the Study. The Downtown monitoring reported indicated that the numbers on the parking might result from changes in the use composition and were not factored into the parking deficit. The numbers should be considered area by area since those areas were affected by the major intersections near the area. Emily M. Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said the Council had before it that evening one of the most important decisions it would make regarding the Comprehensive Plan--how to treat the Study. If the Council accepted the recommendation to let the 3,257,900 square feet be used any way, it would give no credence to the traffic projections. Reviewing the limits in relationship to square
04/08/96 79-27
footage ignored the key concern of where the traffic was going and how much of it was going there. She asked Council to adopt the Study Limits currently in place and assure that Palo Alto would continue to be a nice place to live in the future (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Michael Gagliasso, 2064 Middlefield Road, encouraged the Council to set firm limits. Developers and chambers of commerce were interested in increased development because that was how they made their money. The Planning Department staff helped people who petitioned the City accomplish their particular goal within the framework of the rules that were allowed. Residents were interested in increased development because they lived in the City. The Council heard from more residents because the conditions were bordering unacceptance. Residents put Measure R on the ballot. The residential arterials could not take more traffic, and the people on the local streets wanted to keep the cars on the arterials where they belonged. He could not perceive an increase of 3 million square feet under the allowable standards. Developers did not live in the City and did not care about the
quality of life in the City. The Council=s vote would send a message to the developers and the residents. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum for the Policy and Services Committee moved to approve the following goal, policy, and program for inclusion under the Business and Economics Section of the Draft Comprehensive Plan: Goal: Assure a balance between supporting businesses, maintaining residential character, and preserving the environment. Policy: Maintain the limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new development for the nine planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, with the understanding that the City Council can make modifications to specific property regulations that permit modest additional growth. The additional growth can either count toward the 3,257,900-square-foot maximum or toward a higher number if the City Council amends the Comprehensive Plan. Program: Establish a system to monitor the rate and/or effects of new development, and if the rate and/or effects of growth reach the point where the Citywide maximum might be reached, the City shall reevaluate development policies and regulations. (The point at which policies and regulations shall be reevaluated will be determined during review of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and its Environmental Impact Report). Council Member McCown recalled the set of issues revolving around the Study came to the Council early in its review of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) package with a recommendation from staff and from the Planning Commission that the
04/08/96 79-28
Council should drop from the CPAC package a reference that stated
Αmaintain the limits of the 1989 Citywide Land Use and
Transportation Study.≅ Council Member Rosenbaum made a previous motion two years prior which was unanimously approved by the Council to reject the advice of the staff and the Planning Commission and reinsert into the document the concept of maintaining the limits set in the 1989 Study. Council Member
Rosenbaum=s motion also stated that evening that staff should bring back specific instances that it felt were coming out of the Plan process in which the Council might want to vary the 1989 Study limits. There was a debate over many of the issues during the Measure R campaign. The P&S Committee was then asked to figure out
how to implement the Council=s general direction. Staff was consistent in its review and she was consistent in her disagreement
with that view. She believed the direction of the P&S Committee=s proposal that the Council concretely acknowledge there were development limits and that there was a built-out potential would be set by the language and which would be monitored was precisely what the Comprehensive Plan should be doing. Council acknowledged that it knew Midtown might be an area whereby the strict letter of the 1989 Study limits might need some variation to achieve some goals that were strongly supported by that neighborhood. The Council needed to allow itself the room to do that. As a legislative body, the present Council, future City Councils, Planning Commissions, and future members of the community had the right to propose a change. By stating that the Council believed, as a policy matter, that those were the limits that should be moving forward in the Comprehensive Plan, the Council was not showing intent that no future group of people could propose something different. She suggested the concept of development monitoring be folded into the continuing evaluation of the 11 key intersections to track the traffic assumptions that the 1989 Study was based on. Both rates of build-out square footage as well as how the intersections performed should be measured against those assumptions. AMENDMENT: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to incorporate into the program section in the Policy and Services Committee recommendation to continue monitoring the 11 key intersections. AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0. Council Member Rosenbaum thanked Council Member McCown for providing a history of the issue. He felt members of the public had placed too much of a burden on the Council at that particular time. The P&S Committee had a specific assignment to figure out how to incorporate the limits of the 1989 Study into the new Comprehensive Plan. He felt that many of the comments were devoted to questioning the entire direction of the new Comprehensive Plan
04/08/96 79-29
which might be appropriate in future years but that was not the assignment that the P&S Committee undertook. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 9-0. Mayor Wheeler stated that 14 members of the public had indicated they wished to address the Council on Item No. 8. She asked what the disposition would be of Item No. 7 that evening if Item No. 8 were brought forward. There was some time value regarding Item No. 7 since staff needed direction from the Council as soon as possible. City Manager June Fleming requested that if the Council considered the option of continuing Item No. 7, staff be allowed an opportunity to acknowledge the members of the Customer Working Panel who were present that evening and had worked with staff. The discussion of the item could then be continued to a future date. Council Member Kniss asked whether the Customer Working Panel was a citizen or staff committee and how many people were in attendance that evening. Ms. Fleming replied a citizen committee. There were approximately seven people present, and she would ask that a spokesperson be chosen to speak for the group. 7. Permit Streamlining - Customer Working Panel Report and Staff Response MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to hear the presentation from the working group regarding Item No. 7. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
Mark Johnson, 3242 South Court, said the Customer Working Panel (CWP) began working with staff in February 1995 and was composed of people with diverse backgrounds who effectively represented every customer perspective of the permit process. The goal had been to pass along the frustrations experienced by customers during the permit process, to identify the main issues behind the frustrations, and to propose possible alternatives to make the process more effective for everyone. To date, many important improvements had been implemented. Some of the most beneficial and significant recommendations, however, were currently being developed by staff. The CWP supported the proposed changes. Each type of customer served had a different need from the permit process, and it was crucial that the improvements made addressed each of those special needs. Residential customers generally needed the highest level of support in negotiating the permit process. Staff spent a tremendous amount of time working with residential customers to get them through the steps involved. The
04/08/96 79-30
current system was not geared to consistently provide that level of support and often resulted in either frustration for the customers or delays as people waited their turn. Retail and commercial customers also needed a high level of support and could suffer a significant financial impact associated with lengthy permitting delays. Industrial customers tended to be driven primarily by time pressure. In the increasing competitive global economy, time to
market had become one of the key factors in a company=s success or
failure. To meet the industrial customers= needs, the permit processing time had to not only become shorter but also become predictable well in advance. The report gave a comprehensive review of all the recommendations; however, there were several that were a key to the process. In the area of reduced permit cycle time, CWP suggested development of standardized plan review times for all types of projects. The report listed specific targets for permit processing times. That change would achieve the scheduled predictability many customers needed. In order to meet those guaranteed schedules, CWP recommended that the Building Inspection Division utilize contract plan check help to assure that plan checks stayed on target. He noted that many customers were currently forced to hire outside plan checkers in order to reduce the turnaround time to an acceptable level. CWP felt staff needed to continue to look for opportunities to expand the issuance of over-the-counter permits and, thereby, reduce the number of plans received. In the area of improved customer service, it was absolutely critical to communicate a customer service philosophy throughout the organization and invest in customer service training. CWP felt the permitting staff needed to be more consistently driven by the goal of good customer service. CWP was not suggesting that making the customer happy was a priority over compliance; however, it felt that the goals were not mutually exclusive. Additionally, a one-stop permit center where all services were available in a single area was an important long-term goal. Also, extending express plan review hours to eight hours per day every day was a must to meet the suggested cycle time goals. Development of easy to use how-to guides and creation of a self-help area would significantly reduce the amount of time staff spent answering routine questions. The recommendations for training of staff in the process improvement tools and in evaluating all processes for improvement opportunities were currently underway. However, a system to promote continuous improvement throughout the organization still had to be developed. CWP felt strongly that the recommendations would result in improvements that raised the level of service for all customers; and at the same time, it felt City staff would enjoy working more in an environment consistently filled with satisfied customers. A secondary benefit of the changes would be an improvement in code compliance which was a primary goal of the permit process. Changing the processes would
better meet the customers= needs and overcome the objections of many fringe customers. CWP realized some of the recommended improvements would require an increase in fees to implement. CWP had reviewed the fee structure in Palo Alto relative to other
04/08/96 79-31
municipalities and felt an increase was justifiable. CWP unanimously agreed the project cost savings generated by the reduction in turnaround time and the elimination of the need for customers to hire outside plan checkers would more than make up for the increase. The improvements should not be thought of as a one-time program but rather as a continuous process. The language of customer service and the techniques for process improvement had to be embraced throughout the City structure. Management had to proactively support, promote, and reward continuous improvement efforts. The departments which issued permits had a difficult charter balancing code compliance and good customer service but there was substantial room for improvement in the current approach. CWP wanted Palo Alto to become a benchmark in efficient permit processing and excellent customer service. He said the CWP was willing to continue to provide input as long as necessary. Mayor Wheeler thanked the CWP on behalf of the entire Council for its efforts. Palo Alto was fortunate to have citizens who were willing to devote so much time and talent to the City. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue the item to a future date to be determined by staff. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 8. Mayor Wheeler and Council Members Fazzino, Kniss, and Schneider re Law Enforcement Services Downtown Council Member Schneider clarified the memorandum before the Council was written several weeks before the incident on March 7, 1996, and was no way the impetus for the discussion that evening. She had a special interest in the item because she was a retailer in the Downtown with a strong love for the City, and she was the victim of an assault in Downtown. (An article regarding the incident was included with the memorandum.) The Downtown had gone through difficult financial times but had thrived and prospered. With that success came an increase in traffic, litter, aggressive panhandling, and abusive behavior. She clarified the slides she was about to show were not meant to assume that criminal activity was taking place or that any individual did not have a right to be where they were in the pictures. The slides represented the flavor of the Downtown. She was most concerned about the increased level of assaultive and criminal behavior, and she asked her colleagues to support seeking potential actions and options to improve the law enforcement visibility, safety, and service in the Downtown area. Council Member Fazzino said the Council had discussed similar issues approximately 18 months previously and at that time felt that the situation could be brought under control with self-
04/08/96 79-32
policing and other steps that could be taken. Unfortunately, those steps had not proven successful. The situation in the Downtown area had deteriorated significantly over the previous months, and there was a significant degree of criminal activity. He was concerned that unless the issue was addressed immediately, the Downtown would become significantly affected. He emphasized that the Council did not view the issue as simply an economic issue that impacted commerce in the Downtown area. He had received as many complaints about the situation in the Downtown from residents who lived in the Downtown area as well as many seniors who lived in the Downtown and felt threatened by what was going on there Unfortunately, the recent assault on Council Member Schneider
recently was more typical than Αa typical situation≅ as it was before. The issue of an ordinance should be set aside that evening and the focus should be placed on an increased police presence in the Downtown area which would have a significant impact on reducing criminal behavior and making residents, customers, owners of businesses, and others in the Downtown area feel safer. Council Member Andersen clarified the memorandum indicated that the main interest was to direct staff to prepare a report that described the potential actions and options to improve the law enforcement visibility, safety, and service in the Downtown area. He asked whether the major issue was law enforcement. Council Member Fazzino said the focus of the issue that evening was law enforcement. At the same time, it was recognized that there were some other equally legitimate issues of service with respect to trash and cleanup of the Downtown area which needed to be addressed. Council Member Andersen asked whether further direction would be given to staff as to what areas might have reduced police presence in order to accommodate that service. Council Member Fazzino explained that staff would be asked that evening to bring options back to the Council in order to accommodate additional police staffing in the Downtown area. Council Member Kniss said the Council needed to spend some time on the issues of homelessness versus panhandlers versus aggressive panhandlers versus assault. Homelessness was one issue, and previous discussion was very clear about what was and was not aggressive or passive panhandling. People had become very tired of any kind of panhandling. Originally, the belief was that it was a faceless population; but that was not the case and most of the population knew each other as well as who the Council Members were. The police also knew the people, and that number was quite small. The concern was how to approach the issue and what could be done so that the Downtown felt more comfortable, friendly, and safe. She had spoken to many people throughout the country about the homelessness issue which was now very pervasive. There was nothing
04/08/96 79-33
that the Council could provide for its citizens that was more important than protection and safety. Tony Ciampi, 555 Waverley Street, said nothing happened to the man who attacked him, and there was no article in the paper because he was homeless and the man was not. There was a double standard, and a class of people was being attacked. Currently, because of the language of laws and zoning ordinances, he was forced to break the law of trespassing because of his poverty. It was economic discrimination. Jon Emerson, 530 Webster Street, felt there was an ongoing chronic problem with Lot J, the Webster/Cowper Garage. Twelve merchants had volunteered to sign a petition that stated there was a problem at the garage that needed to be addressed. He referred to a quote
in the Palo Alto Weekly that stated Αwe know it=s a problem, but
it=s not ongoing.≅ He said the police had 83 calls in 8 months which was an ongoing problem. Since the addition of fourth and fifth floors to the garage, it had become a significant problem. Many articles were thrown from the top floor onto cars, etc. Recently, the primary problems were skateboarding and loitering. He had contacted the Police Department over 200 times in the last 3 or 4 years in an attempt to resolve the issues and was told to contact Premier Properties, the management company. Premier
Properties claimed it was the Police Department=s problem. He was stuck in the middle. He had also heard complaints from citizens about their safety when he circulated the petition. Ed Pack, Manager of R.S. Basso Stores, 222 and 355 University Avenue, said the store at 222 University was near the Burger King Restaurant and had had serious crime issues as opposed to panhandling, loitering, or littering problems. At the 355 University location, there were typical problems such as loitering, defecating, spray painting on the building, homeless people camping out at the rear shipping door, etc. In addition to added policing in the Downtown, the Council needed to consider the small core of people who had serious mental problems as well as drug and alcohol abuse problems. Those people needed help, not police enforcement. He felt the serious crime problems were more of an issue than aggressive panhandling. Kathleen Gwynn, 325 Forest Avenue, President of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber was very concerned, as people who lived and worked in Palo Alto, about the quality of life in the community, particularly in the Downtown. The Chamber was delighted that a number of the Council Members supported improved law enforcement visibility, safety, and service in the Downtown. The Chamber believed it was appropriate to take some deliberate actions to address a growing concern regarding the need to provide a safe environment for everyone as well as to recognize the rights of everyone whether homeless, housed, or visiting the community. The Council should support the additional police presence and also send
04/08/96 79-34
a message to the entire community that the police would enforce the laws and ordinances and that the Council would support them in their efforts to do so. There was some concern that the police in the community had to be very careful about enforcement because everyone suddenly became anxious about the rights of people who had been violated. The Chamber believed that the City had an extraordinary Police Department who could be trusted to enforce the laws in a humane and caring fashion. The Chamber believed the City Attorney should be directed to determine whether there were new developments in judicial review of other panhandling ordinances to make it possible for the City to craft a aggressive panhandling ordinance that was defensible. The Chamber believed the Council should formally recognize the role of Another Way Campaign in the community and help it achieve greater prominence among shoppers and visitors to the Downtown. It could be a perfect complement to the increased police presence and allow the City to have alternatives to aggressive panhandling. The Chamber believed the City should engage in some substantial public awareness campaigns. The Chamber supported increased police presence to address aggressive panhandling as well as some of the broader issues that faced the Downtown community. Council Member Schneider asked whether the Senior Coordinating Council (SCC) had heard any comments from seniors who used the facility in the Downtown. Ms. Gwynn said the SCC had heard that one of the problems with the services in Downtown Palo Alto was that it was hard for seniors to speak at the Council meetings due to the lateness of the meetings. She had spoken to her staff at the SCC and the Senior Center, and there was some general consensus that there was a fear factor. It was mostly because many of the participants were women who could not move quickly. When a senior was confronted by someone, they were sympathetic but were intimated very easily. A recent
situation required a citizen=s arrest when a person blocked access to the Senior Center, and clients were precluded from getting the services they needed. Most important was the general sense of intimidation. SCC had tried to work with the people and separate the issues of needing to be fearful in certain cases and ignoring the situation in other cases, but it was not easy to do with that population. RECESS 9:30 P.M. to 9:45 P.M. Susan Frank, 325 Forest Avenue, Executive Director of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber was pleased with the proposed action before the Council that evening. She had previously spoken to the Council in late 1994 and early 1995 regarding the concerns about aggressive behavior associated with panhandling in the Downtown. Since that time, some people seemed more resigned to what was occurring while others were increasingly irritated and concerned. Increasing the police presence was a positive first
04/08/96 79-35
step and would give the Police Department the latitude it needed to be effective. The Police Department had the ability to deal with
difficult situations; however, it needed the Council=s and the
community=s support to deal aggressively with aggressive behavior. Furthermore, in conjunction with the Police Department, the Chamber was willing to continue its education of merchants and customers to be responsible when they were involved in or witnessed an incident. It was not enough to have an increased police presence unless those who were a victim or a witness to an assault were willing to press charges or testify. The perception issue was not about whether or not Palo Alto had a problem but about whether or not the problem bothered people on an individual basis. She reviewed the survey of 50 businesses and individuals who responded that aggressive behavior was a problem for them and many of their
customers (letter on file in the City Clerk=s Office). The comments in the survey indicated the business community not only wanted to be sensitive but also wanted a more balanced approach. The compassion of the business community could be seen by the active role it had played in the Another Way Campaign. Over 70 percent of the people who responded to the survey indicated they were aware of the Campaign. Yet, the frustration was indicated in the 94 percent of the people who responded that they would support some type of legislation proposed by the Council. She noted that one company spent thousands of dollars on security each year and an additional $30,000 to $50,000 to repair the security measures that were in place. Many issues of repair directly related to the street people who caused the problems. She clarified the survey was distributed to 70 businesses over 4 days with response from 50 businesses; it was not a statistical analysis. The Chamber was pleased the Council recognized the serious public safety issue and hoped it would devote significant resources to addressing the problem. The Chamber was willing to work cooperatively with the Police Department to play whatever role possible to make the Downtown a pleasant and safe environment to visit. Barbara Gross, 300 Hamilton Avenue, Chairperson of the Downtown Marketing Group of the Chamber of Commerce, clarified the business community did not represent itself in an opposite point of view from the rest of the community. One of the things that came out of the previous discussion regarding aggressive panhandling was that the business community was equally as interested as the residential community and the City were with the issue of aggressive panhandling in the Downtown. The Downtown Marketing Group applauded the Council for considering increased police presence but that was not the only thing that needed to be done. One particular population was not being addressed. Anyone who broke the rules in the community needed to be taught how to behave appropriately. The business community had put together the Another Way Campaign which raised money not only from the business community in Palo Alto but also from the Stanford Shopping Center. In addition, residents from the community had volunteered in the Another Way Campaign. The Chamber also wanted to fund an entrepreneurial group
04/08/96 79-36
of people who were homeless. Another Way continued to donate 100 percent of the money collected directly to either agencies or the homeless. The Chamber wanted to work together to solve the problem for the entire community. Council Member Kniss asked about the amount of money that the Another Way Campaign had contributed since its inception. Ms. Gross said approximately $17,000 had been distributed. Approximately $6,000 had been collected for the current year which was ahead of the previous run rate. The Another Way Campaign was going through a maturing process. Deborah Clark, new chairperson of the committee, had organized the campaign so that all the merchants in the business community knew about the program and that there would be an outreach within the community groups to educate the community at large that giving money directly to panhandlers would not provide a long-term solution nor support the services that really helped the people in need. Council Member Kniss recalled that approximately $100,000 was previously allocated for related services. City Manager June Fleming said that was correct. Mayor Wheeler had personally delivered checks that totaled $14,000 from the Another Way Campaign to two agencies the previous year. Walt Lundin, 418 East Charleston Road, President, Board of Directors, Urban Ministry, suggested that toilet facilities be provided for the homeless, that mental health services be made available for some of the people on the streets, and that the Council help the citizens see a distinction between behavior and status which might be homeless, poor, or unkempt. He hoped the Council would influence citizens not to make a decision based on
one person=s action.
Council Member Andersen understood that the Urban Ministry=s practice in the past was when a Council Member expressed disapproval of a behavior, the behavior was altered. He asked whether that practice was still being done. Mr. Lundin said that it was not currently being done as much as previously. He understood when the issue of aggressive panhandling was previously discussed, there was a degree of peer pressure from the homeless community. He planned to discuss with his staff how they could be a calming influence in such matters. Council Member Fazzino explained the issue before the Council that evening was not the homeless, and the Council would be discussing the Urban Ministry in the near future. He looked forward to discussing those issues at that time with the Urban Ministry. Unfortunately, the relationship between the Urban Ministry and the City was different from what it was 9 or 10 years previously. He
04/08/96 79-37
hoped that the City and the Urban Ministry could work together to address some of the issues that had been raised that evening. He agreed that after the Council considered the aggressive panhandling ordinance, peer pressure was put on street people to reduce the amount of aggressive behavior. He believed that no longer occurred, and the situation had worsened since that point which
addressed the issue of the Urban Ministry and the City=s working effectively together. Mr. Lundin said his plan for the future was to restore a relationship with the City that might have been strained in the past. The Board of Directors was currently negotiating with the community clients to set up a discussion about the problems seen by both sides. That process would open discussion about peer
pressure. He did not believe the Αhomeless≅ community was a big political entity and could speak as one. There was as much diversity and difference of opinion, concern, and lack of concern among the homeless and poor population as there was among the housed and the middle class. Charisse Domingo, P.O. Box 6126, Stanford, said the Stanford Homeless Action Coalition (SHAC) was disturbed about some of the comments from City officials that appeared in the local media regarding the incident involving Anthony Feipel, a homeless person, and Council Member Schneider. The issue had been inflated into an issue of the homeless versus the housed communities of Palo Alto and the call was for more police protection in the City which sent a message that homelessness was a criminal and delinquent act. SHAC recognized there was a drug and alcohol abuse problem in the City, but it should not target the people who had nowhere to stay but in public places for their drunkenness. SHAC had previously asked the Council to open dialogue with homeless people about homelessness and not leave the situations in the hands of the Police Department or the business community. Council Member Kniss asked whether the person who assaulted Council Member Schneider had a criminal record. Police Chief Chris Durkin said that matter could not be discussed in public. Council Member Kniss reminded the members of the public that the Council was not discussing the issue of homelessness that evening. Council Member Fazzino asked why SHAC was defending Mr. Feipel.
Ms. Domingo clarified SHAC was not defending Mr. Feipel=s actions but felt the local media had only portrayed one perspective of the incident. Steve Bilson, 438 Addison Avenue, said he had been a victim of street people, and his wife who worked on University Avenue had
04/08/96 79-38
also been threatened. The Council should do something about police protection, and the problems needed to be addressed proactively. He hoped the Council would do the right thing. Steve Player, 1874 Guinda, had seen many cycles go through the Downtown area from empty store fronts to the present vital Downtown. He supported Council action to deal with the problems that faced the Downtown to help the City maintain the vitality and a place that people wanted to enjoy. He stressed the action was the appropriate response to one particular level of activity. It was important to make that distinction so that the problem could be treated apart from the general problem of the homeless. There was a perception among many of the seniors about safety, and he urged the Council to consider the issue of increased police to help change that perception and the staff to take appropriate steps to look at what ordinances or other action could be taken to help deal with the issue. He encouraged a dialogue with the homeless and representatives of the homeless and the continuation of the Homelessness Task Force. Jo Webb, employee on University Avenue, had experienced aggressive panhandling and abusive behavior and felt afraid to walk in the streets. There was a need for increased police protection, and she hoped the Police Department would treat the situation as an aggression problem rather than a homeless problem and address only the individuals who made a nuisance of themselves. Jim Balboni, 420 Everett, representing the Edward Everett
Homeowners= Association, had become very alert walking to and from University Avenue to his home. During the previous three months, two cars had been broken into and recently a homeowner had been burglarized. He spent a lot of time in Downtown Palo Alto and did not see police officers very often. If the police disappeared, people who were homeless or from other areas would come to Palo Alto because the City offered attractive nuisances, e.g., beautiful parks, and there were no rules. He urged the Council to take action on the problem. Safety was the issue, and people had a right to feel safe in their own hometown. Margaret Ash, 3901 El Camino Real, said the incident in the Downtown was a significant part of the meeting that evening. She reviewed the incident as noted in the letter from Michael Anthony dated March 29, 1996. She felt Mr. Feipel was being mocked during the incident. The incident could have been avoided if the Council had previously addressed the issue of homelessness. Instead of criminalizing poverty, a more creative or humane solution should be found. Council Member Kniss said she was present when the incident
occurred and explained that Ms. Ash=s account of the incident was not factual nor were the comments credited to Police Chief Durkin.
04/08/96 79-39
Michael W. Anthony, 3945 El Camino Real, said he was present when the incident occurred, and he was the first person attacked because
he was following Police Chief Durkin=s orders. He reviewed the incident as noted in his letter dated March 29, 1996 (letter on
file in the City Clerk=s Office). He tried to keep people from hurting other people and felt more security was needed Downtown. Panhandlers should not be given money. Daniel Myers, P.O. Box 6425, Palo Alto, agreed that the issue before the Council that evening did not involve general public safety but a single incident which took place recently. He saw no reason for additional police presence. Purusha Obluda, 31570 Page Mill Road, agreed with the comments of Mr. Lundin, particularly with the unavailability of toilet facilities in Palo Alto in the evening. He had personal experiences with mental health disease, and people were uncontrollable when they were in a manic state. He hoped more information should be obtained about mental illness before a decision was made. Putting a person in jail who was under an extreme mental condition was not a sensible solution to the problem confronting the City. Jeanie Bilson, 438 Addison Avenue, Bianco Basso, had heard about many similar incidents in the Downtown. She frequently walked to and from work and was nervous in the evening. She agreed that more police presence was needed. People who had a mental illness should get help and not be on the street. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to direct staff to prepare a report that describes the potential actions and options to improve the law enforcement visibility, safety, and service in the Downtown area.
Council Member Fazzino emphasized that the memorandum regarding police presence in the Downtown area predated the incident on University Avenue by two or three weeks. The fact that the matter
was being scheduled for the Council=s agenda was the reason why Council Members were in Downtown Palo Alto that day. Members of the public who spoke that evening had unwittingly made his case regarding the need for additional police presence in the Downtown
area. He believed the government=s primary responsibility was public safety. The City had a deteriorating situation in the
Downtown that affected people=s safety. As responsible public officials, the Council had to address the issue that Downtown Palo Alto was not as safe as it was two years previously. He emphasized much of the issue had nothing to do with the homeless; it had to do with increased economic activity in the Downtown area. There were more homeless, restaurants, bars, people, and residents in the Downtown area. The Downtown area was a much bigger place than it was 5 or 10 years before. It was the result of those kinds of
04/08/96 79-40
developments--not the homeless issue--that had resulted in the discussion of the issue of safety in the Downtown area. He recognized that the problem was limited to 10 to 15 street people and whether they were homeless or not was a secondary issue. It also related to inebriated bar patrons who created problems late at night. The safety issue at night as well as during the day needed to be addressed in the Downtown area, e.g., skateboarders who created safety problems for themselves and others. He believed a small increase in police presence in the Downtown area would have a significant impact on the issue of safety and security for residents, merchants, customers, and homeless people in the Downtown area. He recognized that it was not just a police issue and it would be wrong for the Council to depend upon the police to
solve society=s problems. A number of people who spoke that evening legitimately raised the larger issues of mental health; and the Council needed to do a better job of working with other cities, states, and authorities to address the issue of mental health concerns which was the reason some people were unhoused in the Downtown area. Residents, merchants, customers, City staff, homeless, and others needed to work together to address the issue. Merchants and residents should call police and Council whenever problems occurred. City staff had to work together effectively, whether by public statement, policy practice, or ordinance to address the issue. Residents needed to focus on legitimate means of support for the homeless through the Another Way Campaign, Urban Ministry, and other programs rather than short-term, feel-good responses to panhandling which oftentimes only encouraged drug and alcohol habits and discouraged people from obtaining the kind of long-term help needed to get off the street. The Council needed to
work with the City=s Human Services Division and groups, including the Urban Ministry, to address the broader issues of mental health and other concerns. He believed a relatively minor action of increasing the police presence in the Downtown area would address some very serious concerns of many people who represented different parts of Palo Alto, and it would make them feel safe and secure and would make the Downtown a more enjoyable place to be for everyone. He asked whether staff had an interim plan to address the issue of safety and security in the Downtown area and what the time table would be to bring a plan for long-term options back to the Council. City Manager June Fleming had discussed with the Police Department what could be done on an interim basis to address the large issue of safety. There was a multiplicity of issues in the Downtown area that needed to addressed. She believed the plan could be put in place immediately, and Council authorization was not necessary to do that. It would be an interim plan that would be in place while
staff worked on a more permanent long-term plan. Staff=s target
was to have that plan ready when the Police Department=s budget was discussed by the Finance Committee on May 16, 1996.
04/08/96 79-41
Mr. Durkin said staff=s proposal would be that during the next few months, a special Downtown detail would be put in place which would focus on high visibility patrol by uniformed personnel throughout the Downtown area. Personnel assigned to the special Downtown detail would strive to provide a positive public contact and a sense of safety and security for the public and would arrest individuals involved in any unlawful activities, including drunkenness, drinking in public, disturbing the peace, assaultive behavior, or any other municipal, vehicle, or penal code violation. Establishments that might be selling alcohol to intoxicated persons would also be targeted. Cooperation from the merchants would be sought first, but citations would be issued if there were not compliance. Police personnel would also be watchful for aggressive panhandling and would take aggressive enforcement action whenever possible. He noted the operative words being used were
Αillegal behavior,≅ not appearance or people. Other activities included discussions with the District Attorney to assure mutual understanding, cooperation, and proper dispositions--jail versus mental health options. Police personnel would also identify specific crime trends or individuals who caused frequent complaints. Police would develop a brochure to be distributed to the public which would address various services and responsibilities and would promote a sense of safety in Downtown Palo Alto. Police personnel would be assigned to foot patrol and possibly bicycle patrol for greater mobility. Police officers would also contact all the Downtown merchants and the Downtown Merchants Association to ensure that everyone was aware of the program. He anticipated the special detail could be started in the next few days and two police officers would be assigned from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., 7 days per week, by way of overtime assignments. The costs for the months of April and May would be approximately $20,000. The Police Department had a long history of solving problems, and he believed, with the available resources, the situation in the Downtown could be improved. Council Member Kniss asked whether statistics were available regarding the arrest rate for homeless or transient individuals during the previous two years. Mr. Durkin replied in 1994, approximately 77 arrests were made, and in 1995, there were 80 arrests. There appeared to be little change, but he explained that the Downtown did not have the same resources because police personnel had been devoted to the serial rapist task force from August 1995 through January 1996. More recently, police officers had been very involved with locating the responsible people who were breaking into vehicles and stealing cellular phones. At one point, there were 10 auto burglaries per night. Council Member Kniss was concerned that the Council only heard from 5 or 10 percent of the people who were troubled by what went on in the Downtown area. The Downtown was still very vital, but she
04/08/96 79-42
remembered a time when many store fronts were boarded up. The Council was looking for a level of comfort, security, and safety in the Downtown area. She was troubled by the incident that happened Downtown; and as Council Member Fazzino mentioned, the reason Council Members were in the area was that the issue was going to be
placed on the Council=s agenda. The management of Noah=s Bagels and Starbucks Coffee maintained that there was a constant problem of policing the inside and outside and trying to keep the area tidy. She believed it would be more constructive for people to give something to an agency, i.e., Another Way Campaign, rather than to a person. She thanked the City Manager and Police Chief for coming forward with support so quickly. She felt it would make a major difference, and she encouraged the community to continue to communicate with the Council on issues of concern. Council Member Andersen felt the issue before the Council was appropriate. He appreciated the comments made by members of the business community and the Chamber of Commerce because he saw an opportunity for everyone to work together in solving a larger issue beyond the issue being presented that evening. Much of what was happening in the Downtown was the result of its success and was the reason for increased police presence. The City needed to educate the community on ways to be more safe. The issue of public toilet facilities should be considered by the City and also the business community. The comments that evening suggested a willingness to be cooperative in that regard and hopefully that would help the City find a solution regarding the location of public facilities for the broader community. It was important for the Council to reinforce the issue of mental health and the separation of status and behavior. The amount of additional clutter that transposed itself from night businesses to day businesses needed to be addressed effectively by the business community. He hoped staff would address the broader issues rather than just the safety issue. If the Downtown were a private shopping center, private security would be hired. The Downtown was a dynamic shopping district and perhaps the Downtown merchants should consider an element of private security as well. He supported the proposal but pointed out when it came before the Council as a long-term issue, there would be some very real expenses attached to it. Everything should be done to keep it in the context of the Mission Driven Budget and to look for areas that could be reduced in order to make it a priority. Also, the City needed to make certain that it was not diminishing its responsibility to the infrastructure of the community in order to address an appropriate short-term issue. Vice Mayor Huber clarified two police officers would be in the area until 11:00 p.m. Mr. Durkin said that was correct. Vice Mayor Huber asked what the current schedule was.
04/08/96 79-43
Mr. Durkin said currently there were no dedicated police officers for the Downtown. If there were extra officers from the day and afternoon shift, they were assigned Downtown. Recently, that had not been possible because of the serial rapist and the auto burglaries. Vice Mayor Huber clarified two police officers would be guaranteed temporarily for the Downtown area for the entire day and evening. He said many of the comments that evening involved cleanliness, social services, education, etc., which were not part of the proposal before the Council that evening for staff to look into the safety issue in the Downtown. He asked whether cleanliness, etc., issues in the Downtown would be discussed during the budget process. Ms. Fleming said when the proposal returned to the Council for discussion during the budget process, she hoped to fold in the other issues that needed to be addressed by departments other than the Police Department. She would notify the Council if that were not possible. Many of the issues were not police issues. Council Member Simitian supported the motion within the framework of a very limited, narrow request. The fundamental issue before the Council was a short-term immediate increase in law enforcement visibility and presence in the Downtown area and a report back from staff on longer term solutions. He agreed with Council Member Fazzino that the first obligation of any local government was to protect its citizenry and the public. It was also important, while acknowledging the nature and existence of the problem, not to overstate the problem. However, the fact that the Council did not overstate the problem did not mean the Council should not turn its attention to the issue immediately. The Police Chief had indicated previously that the best law enforcement was preventive rather than after the fact, and the sensible approach was for the Council to address a developing issue before it worsened. He said the comments heard from the members of the public that evening were some of the most thought-provoking comments he had heard during his four plus years on the Council. He did not agree with all of the comments but felt the comments from people on the wide range of issues were helpful. He grew up in Palo Alto and spent time in the Downtown in the 1960s, and he remembered street people co-existing comfortably with middle-class people who lived and shopped in the City. He was optimistic that could still happen in Downtown Palo Alto if everyone took a step backwards. He was troubled that the whole range issues was far broader than the item before the Council that evening. There was a lot the Police Department and the City Council could not do. More respect, tolerance, and consideration among the people who shared space Downtown would have a beneficial impact and would do a lot more than the City could ever hope to do through some formal means. He was frustrated because the Council had been talking about that larger range of issues for too long. During his State of the City
04/08/96 79-44
remarks as Mayor last year, he talked about the deteriorating situation in the Downtown area in terms of the physical appearance. In spite of the substantial improvements that had been made, the slides presented showed an unattractive scenario in many locations Downtown. It had been over two years since the Council had the discussion regarding the issue of aggressive panhandling and that whole range of issues had not been resolved. It had been four plus years since he had heard from merchants in the Downtown about their issues regarding the people on the streets. He was pleased there would be a short-term immediate response to the request. However, the larger range of issues, including law enforcement, had been discussed long enough, and it was time for the Council to make some decisions regarding those issues. The decisions might mean some choices or trade-offs would have to be done that might not be popular in one community or another. He felt the Council was exacerbating the problem by continuing the discussion on the wider range of issues and not ever reaching a conclusion about what was and was not acceptable and what would and would not be done and what the parameters of City involvement and activity were. The issues of newsracks, litter, and acceptable levels of behavior of aggressive panhandling could be resolved, and he wanted staff to provide solutions or choices on those issues as soon as possible. City Attorney Ariel Calonne concurred the proposal had a very narrow focus; and if the Council wanted to resolve the broader array of Downtown issues, direction that evening or at some other point in the future would be helpful. A consultant had been selected for the Downtown Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project, and the first phase of the newsrack issue with respect to blinders had been done. Currently, the location, safety, and blockage issues were being discussed with the assistance of the task force. He suggested staff be directed to respond in a short time frame with a list of those broader issues to get some direction. The motion was fairly narrow, but at the same time, the Council had touched on a very broad array of legitimate issues which were beyond the scope of what he and the City Manager were prepared to discuss that evening. Council Member Simitian suggested staff could return with a broader report that covered how and when the Council would deal with the range of issues. He did not believe any of the issues he had described were issues that had not been discussed by the Council previously. The basic issues were: level of service, regulation of behavior, infrastructure in the Downtown, and law enforcement. the report on the level of service provided to people who had been broadly described as homeless would include--what was appropriate, what should be done, and when. If the Council waited until the courts were absolutely clear, stable, and quiescent on the issue of aggressive panhandling, the Council would wait a long time. Choices could be made within the frame work of that law about what behavior the Council would or would not regulate. He would support
staff=s request to discuss it with the Council in the near future
04/08/96 79-45
if it would bring the issues to some closure. The Council had an obligation to make those policy choices. He felt simple cleanliness and litter were separate issues and easily managed. The Council would not solve homelessness in the City. Ms. Fleming clarified staff would return to the Council with a status report on each of the issues. Mayor Wheeler felt that the issues were out of order that evening and needed to be agendized for a future date so that the Council and the public would have an opportunity to address the broad scope of those issues. Council Member Simitian did not believe it was out of order on a parliamentary basis to ask staff to provide information to the Council at a later date. He wanted to make certain the issues were agendized at a later. Council Member Rosenbaum supported the motion. The addition of two police officers would help with potential criminal activity in the Downtown. The comments regarding certain activities might or might
not be legal according to the City=s current ordinances or state law. The issues that annoyed people were public gatherings in the Webster/Cowper Parking Garage, skateboarding in the garage, loitering, homeless camp-outs, offering to wash windows when a person parked, sitting on the sidewalk, etc. He wanted something definite from staff as to whether or not the Council could do something about those issues. He was reluctant to put the Police Department in the position of having expectations created by the Council that a whole range of activity was under the Police
Department=s control and that significant manpower would change things in areas where that was not possible. He hoped if something were added to the budget, it would be for an identified problem that could be solved by additional funding. He queried the need
to have the funding in the current budget. The Police Department=s budget would be reviewed shortly, and he did believe a long-term solution would be ready that quickly. A Budget Amendment Ordinance could be presented for Council approval at a later date. Mr. Calonne requested that the Council specifically include a direction to staff to look at any legislative options as part of the report. He clarified the issue of aggressive panhandling dealt with First Amendment protected activity. The behavior issues discussed that evening had no element of speech associated with them and were simple matters to regulate. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to direct the City Attorney and staff to include potential ordinance amendment options in the report, based upon the problems described by the public and the Council.
04/08/96 79-46
Council Member Andersen asked that staff include in its effort any work that was being done cooperatively with the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown merchants as well as any commitment by the Chamber of Commerce to carry out some aspect of any long-range plan. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. 9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Wheeler announced that City Clerk Gloria Young became a grandmother that evening. On behalf of the City Council, she wished the grandmother, mother, father, and baby the best of luck. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 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 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.
04/08/96 79-47