HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-09 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting September 9, 1996 1. Joint Session with the Human Relations Commission......80-78 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Ronald E. Bierman Upon His Retirement.........................................80-80 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Ronald P. Schindler Upon His Retirement.........................................80-80 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................80-81 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 17, JUNE 24, AND JULY 1, 1996...80-82 3. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Abbey Group Public Safety Consultants for Computer Aided Dispatch Consultant Services...............................................80-82
5. Resolution 7620 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1401 of the Merit System
Rules and Regulations≅ .................................80-82
6. Resolution 7622 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Determining the Calculation of the Appropriations Limit of the City of Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 1996-97"...............................................80-82
7. Ordinance 4368 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapters 22.04 and 22.08 of Title 22 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Parks≅ .........80-83 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS....................80-83 8. Council Members Andersen and Fazzino re Change in the
Composition of the Human Relations Commission=s Membership to Include One Nonresident Member.........................80-83
9. Finance Committee re Acceptance of the staff=s proposal for prioritizing traffic projects..........................80-87
09/09/96 80-76 80-76
9A. (Old Item No. 4) Resolution Establishing a Crosswalk Between Intersections on Quarry Road...........................80-96 10. Attendant Parking Lot..................................80-97 11. Council Member Simitian and Mayor Wheeler re Proposed Exchange of Management Responsibilities Between the City of Palo Alto and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District....80-103 12. Council Members Simitian, joined by Council Members Fazzino and Kniss re Council Resolution Opposing Proposition 211, the Securities Fraud Litigation Initiative................80-104 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........80-106 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (continued)............................80-106 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m............80-106
09/09/96 80-77 80-77
09/09/96 80-78 80-78
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:55 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: McCown, Rosenbaum Human Relations Commission Members PRESENT: Blitzer, Burroughs, Gutierrez, Hausser, Indergand,
O=Brien ABSENT: Lovercheck SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Joint Session with the Human Relations Commission A. Review of 1995/96 HRC Matters--Tina Gutierrez 1) Accomplishments: better relationship with Council; greater visibility in the community and greater exposure to human services concerns; follow-up on public comments received in November 1995; and better working relationship among HRC. 2) Areas to Improve: better anticipation of issues and more proactive involvement; and Council input to HRC. 3) Roadblocks/Challenges: resources (human and financial). B. Current Concerns for the HRC--Wynn Hauser 1) Problems of the homeless and poor in Palo Alto 2) Escalating rents and ramifications for the community 3) Increasing need for child care 4) Violence against women and children C. HRC Goals for 1996/97--Roy Blitzer 1) Regional approach to services for the homeless 2) Bringing attention to human services concerns in the community 3) Advocacy for increased services and staffing D. Council/HRC Relationship--Henrietta Burroughs ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
09/09/96 80-79 80-79
None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
09/09/96 80-80 80-80
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Rosenbaum SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Ronald E. Bierman Upon His Retirement MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Resolution.
Resolution 7618 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Ronald E. Bierman
Upon His Retirement≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Ronald P. Schindler Upon His Retirement MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the Resolution.
Resolution 7619 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Ronald P.
Schindler Upon His Retirement≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. Police Chief Chris Durkin said Ron Bierman always gave that extra effort to ensure that the task was done as completely as possible and had distinguished himself as a true professional. His personnel file contained numerous letters of thanks and praise from the public and other law enforcement agencies for his outstanding work and professionalism. He said Ron Schindler had worked in almost every major law enforcement during his career in the Police Department and had always distinguished himself as a solid knowledgeable supervisor. His personnel file contained numerous letters of thanks and praise from the public and other law enforcement agencies for his outstanding work and professionalism. Both Ron Bierman and Ron Schindler were two people who really cared about their jobs and the community and tried to make a difference. They were a credit to the Palo Alto Police Department. Ronald Schindler thanked the Council for the recognition. It was an honor to work for the City of Palo Alto Police Department. He
09/09/96 80-81 80-81
reflected on the things that had meant so much to him over his 29 years of service. Council Member Kniss said she went on a ride-along several years previously and thought on that night that not only were the police officers brave and resourceful but so were the families who were at home. She thanked the police officers and their families. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS James Lewis, Abate Shoreline Amphitheatre Noise, A Palo Alto Coalition (ASAN), P.O. Box 50125, Palo Alto, spoke regarding excessive and unwanted noise from Shoreline Amphitheatre in
Mountain View (letter on file in the City Clerk=s Office). Susie Richardson, Palo Alto Unified School District Trustee, 1322
Martin Avenue, spoke regarding ΑRun Palo Alto Superintendent of
Schools Jim Brown Out of Town≅ farewell event on Sunday, September 15, 1996, at 11:00 a.m., at the Palo Alto High School Amphitheatre. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, spoke regarding College Terrace. Greg Van Der Veen, 2133 Yale Street, spoke regarding College Terrace. Marilyn Rogers, 921 Maddux, spoke regarding Shoreline noise. Jon Zweig, 365 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding Shoreline noise. Gail Woolley, 1685 Mariposa Avenue, spoke regarding Scapers - Historic Preservation. Millie Mario, 900 University Avenue, spoke regarding Historic Resources Board (HRB) Ordinance. Richard L. Ford, 2349 Cornell Street, spoke regarding College Terrace development.
Andrew L. Freedman, 4050 Verdosa Drive, spoke regarding Stanford=s practice of using food laced with poison to kill ground squirrels
(letter on file in the City Clerk=s Office). Joe Sparaco, 637 Towle Way, spoke regarding Shoreline noise. Joe Straton, 2053 Edgewood Drive, spoke regarding Shoreline noise. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 17, JUNE 24, AND JULY 1, 1996 MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Minutes of June 17, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent.
09/09/96 80-82 80-82
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Minutes of June 24, 1996, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Minutes of July 1, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0-1, Andersen Αabstaining,≅ Rosenbaum absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3, 5 - 7. 3. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Abbey Group Public Safety Consultants for Computer Aided Dispatch Consultant Services
5. Resolution 7620 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1401 of the Merit System
Rules and Regulations≅
Resolution 7621 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Classified Personnel (SEIU) and Repealing Resolution Nos. 7346, 7519 and 7599"
6. Resolution 7622 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Determining the Calculation of the Appropriations Limit of the City of Palo Alto for Fiscal Year 1996-97"
7. Ordinance 4368 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapters 22.04 and 22.08 of Title 22 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Parks≅ (1st Reading 8/12/96, PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, McCown, Schneider absent) MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 3, 6, and 7, Rosenbaum absent. MOTION PASSED 5-3 for Item No. 5, Andersen, Fazzino, Schneider
Αno,≅ Rosenbaum absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 4 had been removed from the Consent Calendar and would become Item No. 9A. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
09/09/96 80-83 80-83
8. Council Members Andersen and Fazzino re Change in the
Composition of the Human Relations Commission=s Membership to Include One Nonresident Member (continued from 8/5/96) Council Member Andersen said the initial motivation for proposing a
modification to the composition of the Human Relations Commission=s (HRC) membership was prompted by a change in the residency of an HRC member, but that was not the reason it was brought before the Council. A question was raised about how present and future Councils could provide a composition of the HRC that would be diverse and would represent other interests and backgrounds. He had considered other alternatives rather than the proposed change in residency, and his colleagues had indicated there was a need to have some connection to the City. He suggested the proposed motion include a provision that allowed people who worked in Palo Alto to serve the City. It would provide the level of diversity that he desired and would provide future Councils with the opportunity to give consideration to nonresidents. MOTION TO REFER: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to refer to the Policy and Services Committee
consideration of the Human Relations Commission=s membership to include a live or work in Palo Alto composition with respect to membership. Council Member Fazzino wanted to limit the proposal to one nonresident member. He believed the individual should at least work in Palo Alto and have some familiarity with the community. Many of the social issues the HRC addressed were regional in nature and crossed City lines. Given the fact that the Council had previously spent a significant amount of time working with East Palo Alto, it was appropriate for the Council to consider the inclusion of one nonresident member on the HRC. Nonresidents were allowed to serve on the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) because they brought special expertise. He said a low-income individual living in East Palo Alto who worked in Palo Alto might have a very special perspective on the problems of low-income individuals in the area; therefore, everyone would benefit from the involvement of that person on the HRC. Council Member Simitian asked about the issue of citizenship which had been highly controversial in other communities as a requirement for service on a board or commission. City Attorney Ariel Calonne did not know whether or not that was a lawful categorization. Council Member Simitian suggested the possibility of a member of the HRC not being a resident be referred to the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee. Council Member Fazzino offered a low-income
09/09/96 80-84 80-84
resident from an adjacent community as an example of someone who might want to participate, but other examples might be someone who had worked in the community for many years who was not a resident,
someone who was a property owner but no longer Αworked≅ in Palo Alto, or a retired high school teacher who had dealt with young people in the community for 30 years who might want to participate. He was not fearful that the City would suffer greatly if the Council opened up the possibility but not requirement that one of seven HRC members could, if the Council chose to elect him/her, be a nonresident. Council Member Andersen said the venue could be broadened for consideration by the P&S Committee. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to relate the intent of the motion to be one nonresident member position. Council Member Kniss recalled it had been previously suggested that if someone who was currently serving on a board or commission left the community, he/she could continue on the board or commission. Mr. Calonne said he had not given that advice. Residency, when it was a qualification, was always a qualification and loss of residency resulted in loss of the position. Council Member Kniss clarified there was no precedent for someone being able to serve out his/her term. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. The Council could prescribe by ordinance that people who left midterm could be allowed to complete his/her term, but there might be difficulties if the move were out of state. Council Member Kniss said she would support the referral but was uncertain whether she would support having a nonresident on the HRC
for the long term. She believed a person=s commitment and perception changed when he/she did not live in the community. Broadening the motion helped substantially since the community had three jobs to every household. However, in the past, the Council had looked favorably on people who lived in the City. Monty Black, 1120 Byron Street, said cost of living in the City was a wide-scale issue. If people were required to have a high income to live in Palo Alto, then representation on the HRC might not be as broad. People experiencing the darker side of Palo Alto were being forced out of the community. Rent escalation was the source of the issue. Council Member Schneider would not support the motion. Although it was a way to increase regionalism, the HRC had been challenged to bring to the Council the issues that affected Palo Alto. The City Manager had suggested that in order to deal with regional issues,
09/09/96 80-85 80-85
if that were the reason to allow someone working but not residing in the community to be on the HRC, surrounding communities could appoint one member of their human relations committee and that group could meet as an ad hoc committee to discuss what could be done on a regional issue. The people who lived in the City were from all economic ranges, and the Council would not need to address such issues as rent stabilization if everyone in the community were wealthy. There were many people who worked and lived in the community who would be excellent additions to the HRC. Vice Mayor Huber said it was not appropriate to refer the issue to the P&S Committee. The City was better served by people who lived in the community, and there was a dearth of qualified and competent people from all walks of life such as economic strata, ethnic background, etc., in the community who could be considered if they chose to apply. It was an interesting argument that the region would be served, but regional issues should be dealt with regionally, and Palo Alto should not try to create itself as some form of region. The same argument could be made that the community might be served better if someone from East Palo Alto or San Jose served on the City Council which he did not believe was appropriate nor was it for the HRC. Council Member Simitian said nothing in the approach of allowing one member to be a nonresident would require a Council Member to choose a nonresident. The Council would not have to pick a nonresident if there were no dearth of qualified talent and there was no compelling reason to pick a nonresident. The option would be there if there were a dearth or if there were someone who brought forth compelling qualifications. The Council should not deprive itself of the opportunity when it could always exercise its judgment and not select a nonresident. Mayor Wheeler had strong reservations regarding the issue. However, given the fact the item was being referred to the P&S Committee for a thorough discussion of all the issues included in the motion and that the Committee would provide an opinion both pro and con, she would support the motion. MOTION TO REFER PASSED 6-2, Huber, Schneider Αno,≅ Rosenbaum absent. Council Member Andersen said a current member on the HRC had recently relocated to another city because of increased rents, and he asked how the existing policy could allow her to continue to serve until a decision had been rendered. City Attorney Ariel Calonne preferred to bring back legislative information for Council consideration that would address the
existing situation regarding a current nonresident=s continuing to serve on the HRC.
09/09/96 80-86 80-86
MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct the City Attorney to bring back a legislative remedy to the City Council which addresses the existing situation with respect to allowing the current nonresident member to continue to serve until
a decision has been made on the issue of a member=s ability to live or work in Palo Alto or until the existing term of the nonresident member expires, whichever comes first. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
9. Finance Committee re Acceptance of the staff=s proposal for prioritizing traffic projects and to incorporate the discussion of traffic projects and prioritization of funding into the overall General Fund infrastructure discussion of priorities, scheduled for a Finance Committee meeting in Fall 1996. Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Emily Harrison said during the budget process, staff brought forward a major budget policy issue which was infrastructure and traffic/transportation issues. The Council referred to the Finance Committee the issue of prioritizing the various traffic projects that the City faced. The staff report (CMR:336:96) was an attempt to present a rationale and methodology for prioritizing those traffic/transportation projects. During discussions with the Finance Committee, the issue of the traffic/transportation projects was framed in the context of the larger Citywide General Fund infrastructure study that was being done and the fact that it was only one of several major elements of that infrastructure study. The Finance Committee recommended the issue return within the context of the overall infrastructure priorization that would be done for all of the General Fund reports. Council Member Kniss said the Finance Committee supported the framework presented by the staff. The Council had previously discussed how difficult it was to prioritize traffic projects because everyone felt his/her project was the most important. MOTION: Council Member Kniss for the Finance Committee moved to
accept the staff=s proposal for prioritizing traffic projects and to incorporate the discussion of traffic projects and prioritization of funding into the overall General Fund infrastructure discussion of priorities, scheduled for a Finance Committee meeting in Fall 1996. Council Member Fazzino said the City Manager indicated at the Finance Committee meeting that the traffic safety issues would come directly to the Council from the Police Department. He asked whether the level of priority of traffic safety mitigations would
09/09/96 80-87 80-87
be relative to the list presented by staff or whether that was a different issue. City Manager June Fleming said it was a related issue and was a staff priority. Council Member Fazzino clarified staff viewed it as a major priority, the Council had previously indicated it was a major priority, and the Police Department and Traffic Division would continue to work to implement various measures related to the traffic safety priority. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino said staff had tried to capture all the traffic/transportation efforts in the staff report (CMR:336:96) and he wanted to understand the relationship between the two. Ms. Fleming said the issue had to be worked on across the organization and could not be dealt with only in the Police Department. It was more than an enforcement issue and would be part of the planning decisions that were made. Council Member Fazzino believed the joint report prepared by the Police and the Planning Departments previously was one of the most outstanding staff reports that he had seen on any subject. He asked for clarification of the level of priority of the Local Bus Shuttle System and whether planning funds would be committed for the shuttle system for the following year. The comments at the Committee level and in the staff report indicated the shuttle system was viewed as a priority; but at the same time, the staff
report indicated that Αstaff will consider funding for the planning
and design work for a Local Bus Shuttle System.≅ Ms. Fleming said the funding commitment could not be assured at the present time because she did not know what the entire funding demands would be in the budget that would be brought to the
Council. She understood the Council=s commitment to a shuttle system, and staff was extremely committed to the issue. There had been some discussion about the appropriateness of the project and how the City would be able to give serious consideration to a shuttle system outside the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. She did not believe the schedule of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan would impede the issue. She could not make a firm commitment at the present time to the kind of shuttle system that would be presented to the Council in the future. Council Member Fazzino referred to Framework for Prioritization on page 4 of the staff report (CMR:336:96) that indicated the possible use of various criteria to establish priorities but staff had concluded not to move in that direction. He appreciated that those criteria were somewhat subjective and that staff needed to use a
09/09/96 80-88 80-88
number of factors to determine the relative priority of a project. He was attracted to some of the criteria and asked whether there was a way to use the criteria of volumes, safety, comfort, convenience, travel time, etc., which seemed to be factors that needed to be included in any discussion regarding relative priority of traffic items. Ms. Fleming said she had previously discussed with staff about what could be done with the shuttle system if the City were suddenly given major amounts of funding for the project. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said the criteria were the first idea that was presented, and many of the issues about safety were perceptions rather than documented accidents. Review of accidents was a weak criterion because there were not many accidents in specific locations. The choice was to come up with criteria and then apply weights to the criteria. The direction chosen was quite different from that and recognized that many of the projects were not in competition with each other because of funding sources, of commitments made, or that the funds were not interchangeable. He had concluded that resources would be wasted if a project funded by the Electric Utility Fund were compared with a project funded by Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds. Specific categories of funding made more sense; and as part of the Infrastructure Master Plan process, staff would come up with something that applied to all categories so that the categories would not be unique to transportation but uniform among the different categories. The more appropriate time would be when there was some commonality among the categories. Ms. Fleming said staff had looked for every learning opportunity that arose regarding a shuttle system. For example, the shuttle for the art fair gave staff an opportunity to learn some things that would be extremely helpful when it came back with a recommendation to the Council. Council Member Fazzino asked the relationship between the
development of the proposed priorities and the Council=s discussion regarding different ways of managing traffic and transportation issues in the City. The Policy and Services (P&S) Committee would be discussing the issue of more visible transportation management in the near future, and he asked whether the process would allow for the possibility of a formal citizen committee such as the Planning Commission or an ad hoc traffic/transportation commission.
Ms. Harrison echoed Mr. Overway=s comments that as staff put together an overall Citywide infrastructure plan, there would be an iterative process as the P&S Committee looked at the overall traffic/transportation issues with infrastructure setting a priority. The input from the public at the Committee level or from the other public hearings held would be incorporated into how staff
09/09/96 80-89 80-89
would propose to prioritize the projects within the category of traffic/transportation. Council Member McCown said staff report (CMR:336:96) indicated the Infrastructure Master Plan would be presented to the Council in November 1996. Ms. Harrison said the Infrastructure Master Plan was on the Finance
Committee=s agenda for discussion the following week. The original intent was to provide the entire General Fund Infrastructure Master Plan in Fall 1996, but that plan was overly ambitious. Staff would propose to the Finance Committee a phased presentation of the elements of the infrastructure plan to allow staff to complete them with the same quality that had been done with traffic and also because staff wanted the Planning Commission involved in the discussion of each of the elements due to the close linkage of the Comprehensive Plan. The Infrastructure Master Plan, with the exception of bridges and parking lots, would be completed and presented to the entire Council for incorporation into the 1998-2000 Budget. Council Member McCown said there was a number of further action items in each of the topics, and staff recommended the Council move forward with some of the items at the present time and also that other items be delayed and incorporated within the Infrastructure Master Plan process. For example, the residential arterial traffic calming project and the truck route and weight limit project had large consultant budgets for feasibility-type analyses. She asked whether any feasibility analysis would be done on those topics in the infrastructure planning process or whether the items would have to wait until the Council moved into the Infrastructure Master Plan. Mr. Overway said the residential arterial traffic calming project fell into that classification. The truck route and weight limit project had not been classified as an infrastructure project but a study process and would be considered as part of the operating budget. When that occurred, the truck route and weight limit project would compete with other operational budget items. The residential arterial traffic calming project would compete with other infrastructure projects. Council Member McCown referred to Step Four on page 8 of the staff
report (CMR:336:96) which stated Αprioritization has been established based upon the following considerations: 1) Type of project (maintenance, renovation, new), 2) Scale and scope of project (size, time, cost), 3) Existing Council direction (Council interest, approved project), and 4) Relationship to Comprehensive
Plan.≅ The projects that had enormous potential price tags and much longer time frames were being pushed to the bottom of the list. Feasibility studies would have to be done on the larger, long-range projects at the present time in order to be in a
09/09/96 80-90 80-90
position to evaluate and weigh them against other infrastructure needs. Ms. Harrison said staff would not necessarily wait until the complete infrastructure report was prepared, but not all of feasibility studies would go into the 1997-98 Interim Budget. She recalled that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 1997-98 had not been discussed in depth because staff anticipated being at a
different place vis-4a-vis the infrastructure. The feasibility studies that related to the major infrastructure projects could be submitted as part of the 1997-98 Interim Budget, but that did not mean they would be approved by the City Manager and moved forward for recommendation. Ms. Fleming said the situation was a dilemma, and she had had similar discussions with Mr. Overway regarding the same issues that Council Member McCown had raised. Staff would remain flexible on the issues. Council Member McCown said she was influenced by the incredibly long lead time it took for large transportation projects to be funded. Sometimes a project had to be started before all the answers were known so it would be in a position to receive funding. That issue might apply to some of the larger projects. Mayor Wheeler referred to the questions in a letter from Don Way, member of the Palo Alto Unified School District School Board, dated August 22, 1996, that related to the under-grade or over-grade crossings of the railroad at the three intersections which related to the safe transportation of students to and from schools (letter
on file in the City Clerk=s Office). The issue was of concern to
the school community, but the Finance Committee=s and staff=s recommendation had placed the issue in a larger competitive pool for funding. Previously, there had been some funding appropriated for the initial studies of the grade separations. She asked about the timing for potential expansion of CalTrain service which would
raise that issue and other related issues very high on the City=s list. The project would take time to develop a rational solution. She believed, as did the School Board, that there was some urgency to the item and that the City should not drop the item into the larger competitive pool. Mr. Overway said the staff report (CMR:336:96) and the action of the Finance Committee in support of that recommendation was to place the item into a larger pool. That particular project was an anomaly because the initial feasibility planning study had already been funded. He understood if Measure A and B passed, the current plan was to raise the number of trains to approximately 86. The issue of safety in crossing the tracks was the same whether it was 86 or 100 trains. The City had to make some judgments. Further north in San Mateo County, there were sections where road
09/09/96 80-91 80-91
underpasses had been built which he could not imagine working in Palo Alto, and even further north CalTrain had been elevated which would be much safer than the situation in Palo Alto. He believed those situations were not appropriate for Palo Alto because they were in commercial areas, not adjacent to residential areas, and the visual separation was significant. The possibility, within the context of Palo Alto, was to provide grade separations for pedestrians and bicyclists designed in a way that would encourage
their use but not in a way that guaranteed their use. Staff=s concept was to proceed in an urban design manner that fit into the local environment rather than providing something with the hope that people would used it. The issue was clouded further by the fact that there had been some measures taken, i.e., gates, fencing, and discussion at the Council level to provide at-grade crossings which was quite different. The City should either provide all the physical separation possible or accept the fact that the at-grade crossings would be made as safe as possible. He believed the existing at-grade crossings were as safe as possible, and that was the dilemma that led to the conclusion that the City should not proceed with that particular feasibility study at the present time, coupled by the fact that the solutions were very expensive. An under crossing at even one location would be quite expensive. Mayor Wheeler referred to the possibility of PVEA funding for the
Intermodal Transportation Center Project (ΑDream Team≅) and asked whether that was the best project to expend limited funds on and whether the funding, if approved, was wedded to that particular project or could be used elsewhere. Mr. Overway said the funds were allocated by the legislature for
the specific project of the ΑDream Team≅ proposal. It would be impossible to switch the funding.
Council Member McCown said the ΑDream Team≅ was a big set of ideas and the staff report mentioned (CMR:336:96) the City might pursue some of the ideas, and other ideas might have to be forgotten. She asked whether the City could adjust the scope of the Petroleum Violation Escrow Account (PVEA) approval to target something that had a higher probability of being feasible. She asked whether the concept was for further engineering work. Mr. Overway said there was some flexibility, but the issue was geographic or site location. It was geared toward the Palo Alto Transit Station and its immediate surroundings, which were identified in both the legislation and the application submitted. Council Member McCown clarified the City could change the primary focus to improve the bicycle routes in and around the train station rather than big roadways. Mr. Overway said the emphasis could be changed. The application was made for multimodal concepts.
09/09/96 80-92 80-92
Susan Frank, Executive Director, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, thanked the Council for its sponsorship of the shuttle for the art fair. The Chamber hoped the shuttle would be continued but did not underestimate the issues of funding. The
shuttle would be used again in October 1996 for the Chamber=s Showcase Event. The Chamber planned to work with Stanford University and ask the media sponsor to sponsor the shuttle. The Chamber would provide the Council with information after the event which would hopefully help the City decide whether it was possible to create a more permanent system. Dena Mossar, Commute Coordinator, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 1024 Emerson Street, said because of the success of the art fair, there would be commute fair Downtown on October 8, 1996, with special emphasis on promoting carpooling for Downtown employees. There was an incredible interest from the public to learn more about alternative transportation and to use alternative transportation if possible. At the art fair, 308 bicyclists took
advantage of the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition=s guarded bicycle parking. The Alameda County (AC) Transit representing the Dumbarton Express and AC services in the East Bay, Santa Clara County Transportation Authority, and SAMTRANS/CalTrain were all in the same transit booth giving out transit information that ran out daily. The three transit agencies collaborated with the Chamber of
Commerce and developed a ΑShop Downtown Palo Alto--Try Transit to
Downtown Palo Alto≅ bag. City staff developed a try-transit logo which would be shared regionally. There were 2,646 trips taken on the shuttle the weekend of the art fair. People loved the shuttle. She thanked the City for making so much of it possible. Palo Altans were interested in alternative transportation, wanted to solve the traffic and parking problems, and wanted clean air and water, and the shuttle was a big success. She hoped Palo Alto would have a shuttle sooner rather than later.
Flo the Raccoon, Palo Alto=s Storm Drain, provided magnets that promoted the shuttle and encouraged people to take public transit and spare the air. Everyone she spoke with on the shuttle was excited that the shuttle might continue after the art fair. The shuttle would decrease the use of cars which contributed to the overwhelming majority of storm drain pollution to the Bay. Dr. Nancy Jewell Cross, Clean Air Transport Systems, 655 Oak Grove Avenue, No. 6D, Menlo Park, was involved in the resolution of the transportation system situations in the area. The shuttle bus might spare the air, but there was no bus service along Sand Hill Road after 5:05 p.m. on weekdays. She suggested the Council apply political action on Santa Clara County Transit to make sure there was good bus service along Sand Hill Road. If the City wanted to cut down on traffic, it would also need to address how people came into the City, not only the circulation within the City. The City
09/09/96 80-93 80-93
should consider the San Francisquito Creek corridor in its
transportation plan, and the plan should extend beyond the City=s boundaries. Irvin Dawid, 3886 LaDonna Street, requested the Council consider
changing the term Αtraffic≅ projects to Αtransportation≅ projects. Transportation implied more of a multimodal approach. Council Member McCown asked the time line for the planning and feasibility studies for a number of projects that were not presently being proposed for start-up in order for the infrastructure master planning process to take advantage of what some of the larger projects might be. She wanted a better analysis of how it would all fit together. Ms. Harrison said there were two points in which funding could be introduced for feasibility studies: 1) with the 1997-98 CIP which would be a more extensive revision to the first CIP than normally done for an interim year and 2) when the entire infrastructure report had been completed and the 1998-2000 CIP incorporated all the various infrastructure priorities. She said some of the items in the traffic/transportation staff report (CMR:336:96) were not a CIP that needed to wait for prioritization with other infrastructure items. They were operating budget items which could be considered feasibility studies since they might or might not lead to capital projects. Those items could be introduced in the 1997-98 operating budget as well. Council Member McCown asked whether those specific projects would be brought forward in the 1997-98 Budget. She wanted to know what would happen to the projects that were in a holding pattern. Many people who spoke at the Finance Committee meeting were concerned about the residential arterial issue. She asked when the City would move forward on that project. Ms. Fleming said there would be something in the 1997-98 process regarding that project, but she could not describe what that would be at the present time. Council Member McCown said a number of projects was of great concern to the community, and the residential arterial project was one of those projects. People would want to know, as a result of
the Council=s action on the project, when the City would take the next step, which was the planning and feasibility step. People would understand if it changed but not having an answer was unacceptable.
Ms. Fleming explained that the staff=s commitment was to have the project in the 1997-98 process, but staff needed to review what could move forward sooner rather than later. She understood
09/09/96 80-94 80-94
Council Member McCown=s concern, and staff would return with a recommendation during the budget process. Council Member Kniss said it was a very difficult area that had few resolutions. She commended the staff for its presentation at the Finance Committee meeting on July 16, 1996. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. RECESS: 9:30 P.M. - 9:45 P.M. RESOLUTIONS 9A. (Old Item No. 4) Resolution Establishing a Crosswalk Between Intersections on Quarry Road Irvin Dawid, 3886 LaDonna Street, supported the Resolution, but he suggested one of the pedestrian signs in Exhibit 1 be changed to enhance pedestrian safety. He provided a drawing of a sample sign
that said Αstop for pedestrians.≅ The current yellow sign was interpreted as a cautionary sign and implied that people knew the California Vehicle Code which stated that motorists had to stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk. He asked the Council to direct staff
to ask Stanford University to consider the use of the Αstop for
pedestrians≅ sign on the median island. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said staff shared the common objective to try and make it safe for pedestrians to cross at mid-block crosswalks. The City had not put in mid-block crosswalks during the previous 15 years with the exceptions of the ones done on Fabian, Welch Road, and the proposed mid-block crosswalk. The crosswalk was done in the manner proposed to make it as safe as possible, i.e., a center refuge area so that when a pedestrian crossed he/she had a spot to stop safely if necessary. It also provided an opportunity for a sign in the middle of the island. The California Vehicle Code required the City use signs that were established by Caltrans which were standard signing for pedestrian crossings. The sign proposed by Mr. Dawid was a standard sign. The proposed sign could be used, but it was contrary to the California Vehicle Code. If something happened at the crosswalk, staff was concerned that it would increase the
City=s risk of liability which was one of the reasons that type of crosswalk was not being put in very often. Staff believed the crosswalk was safe and that the appropriate sign was being used. If the Council wanted to use a nonstandard sign, he understood a proposal would have to be reviewed, approved, or disapproved by the California Traffic Control Device Committee. He did not recommend
a nonstandard sign, and staff=s concern about crosswalks was that it gave pedestrians a false sense of security. He believed a sign that told cars to stop for pedestrians would further identify for a pedestrian that cars would stop, and he was concerned about any
09/09/96 80-95 80-95
effort to increase that false sense of security because the loser was always the pedestrian. He recommended the Council approve the proposal with the standard signs as required by the California Vehicle Code. The standard signs had been successful and useful on Welch Road. Not all cars stopped for pedestrians, and therefore, the pedestrians who used the standard signs exercised more caution. City Manager June Fleming emphasized the City did not have legal permission to use the sign suggested by Mr. Dawid. The City took a risk bringing the proposal to the Council, but the crosswalk was needed and staff supported the purpose of the crosswalk and the resting place provided. She did not believe the crosswalk should be delayed. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Resolution establishing a mid-block pedestrian crosswalk on Quarry Road between the Stanford Shopping Center and the Hoover Pavilion.
Resolution 7623 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing a Crosswalk Between
Intersections on Quarry Road≅ Council Member Andersen asked whether there could be a combination
of the two signs, i.e., the standard sign and one that said Αstop
for pedestrians.≅ Mr. Overway said a higher level of a sense of security would be
provided to the pedestrian with a sign that said Αstop for
pedestrians≅ than otherwise. In addition, signs on a post in the middle of the median island would block visibility. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 10. Attendant Parking Lot City Manager June Fleming advised the Council the Resolution had been revised to correct the date to September 11, 1996. Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said the Council previously approved an agreement with National Parking Corporation that initiated an experimental program during which the City attempted to provide long-term parking in the core area of the Downtown at a nominal cost. After valiant attempts to make the experiment work,
staff and the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce=s Parking Committee
agreed that the experiment should be concluded. Staff=s recommendation was that effective September 11, 1996, Lot S would revert back to the two-hour free parking and that effective September 30, 1996, the agreement with National Parking Corporation
09/09/96 80-96 80-96
would be terminated. Pending Council=s approval of the recommendation, during that time there would be a National Parking Corporation attendant on-site for a period of time to assist in the transition and to inform the lot users of the change. Enforcement of the two-hour regulation would not begin until after September 20, 1996, so people would be allowed an opportunity to get use to the change. Council Member Kniss recalled many previous discussions about the lack of parking in the Downtown area; and she asked why the attendant parking lot had not been successful since it only cost $1.00 to park there for two hours. Ms. Johnson said the success of the color zone parking program had increased the availability of parking Downtown for short periods of time and had led to the demise of the attendant lot. When the lot was changed to free parking the first hour, there was an increase in the overall usage of the lot, but the greater majority of the people only parked for one hour and left. Staff had discussed the issue extensively and concluded that people were hesitant to pay for parking. Council Member Simitian said the City was considering spending $20,000 per parking space and moving forward with a multi-million parking structure, and he asked how the Council could reconcile the two. Ms. Fleming said staff did not understand what made people park in certain places and not in others and not pay to park in that lot but complain that there was no place to park. She did not know whether the green zones satisfactorily took care of some of the needs of people who wanted to park for short periods of time. It should cause the Council to pause when a parking structure was being proposed but there was an inexpensive parking lot not being used. Council Member Kniss said there were two or three valet areas in the Downtown, and people were willing to use valet park. Ms. Fleming said staff believed people who were coming to the Downtown for lunch or dinner built the cost of valet parking into the atmosphere they wanted to create. The Civic Center Garage was not full at night, and C Level was often empty. Council Member Kniss recalled that one of the problems with two-hour parking was that people did not have enough time to have lunch and shop. She believed the attendant parking lot would provide the solution to that problem. Ms. Fleming said Council Member Simitian raised a valid issue of whether the City should build another parking structure with a top level that might never be used.
09/09/96 80-97 80-97
Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff agreed that there was substantial available parking in the residential areas so that the people who went Downtown currently had options to park in a pay lot. Ms. Johnson said the residential parking permit program would be discussed at a future Council meeting. During the daytime, evenings, and weekends, more people were parking in the neighborhoods but she was uncertain whether there was more available parking. Council Member Fazzino said people parked in the neighborhoods as an alternative to paying even $1.00 for parking. Ms. Johnson said ironically, the City had people on waiting lists who were willing to pay for permits to park in some of the other City lots. Irvin Dawid, 3886 LaDonna Street, representing the Sierra Club, said the Sierra Club wanted automobiles to start paying for itself either by increasing the gas tax and tolls or by getting motorists to at least pay for a small portion of the costs incurred when they parked. Supposedly, the money spent in the stores covered the parking costs. Studies done in Oregon to influence behavior showed that the greatest reduction in automobile use came from paying for parking. He questioned whether there was a parking deficit in the Downtown if the prime parking lot in the Downtown were not being
used. If the City used the term Αdeficit of free parking spaces,≅ then people would begin to think of another way to approach the parking angle. He did not believe cost effectiveness should be used as criteria for determining whether to continue the attendant lot. His calculations showed there had been a 77 percent increase over the original use, and the lot was different at the present time from it was when it was first introduced in December 1995. The Council might be closing the lot prematurely. Susan Frank, Executive Director, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, agreed with Mr. Dawid not to use cost effectiveness as a measurement for determining success. It was important that the Council not use the lack of usage of the lot as a reason not to build a parking structure. The lot was not designed for employees to park in the Downtown. One of the reasons to build a parking structure was to provide additional employee and customer parking. Many of the people who parked in the neighborhoods were employees who were on wait lists for permit parking. The parking deficit was based on the fact that the employee base was not able to find parking. The problem with the attendant lot was that the City provided free parking a short distance from a place that required a $1.00 payment, and the color zone parking created a lot of free parking in the core that did not previously exist. The only other place in the City that had paid parking was two private pay lots. People in the community did not want to pay for parking. The
09/09/96 80-98 80-98
Chamber supported the staff recommendation. She thanked the National Parking Corporation for its cooperation and hoped the company could work with the City in the future. The Parking Committee would continue to reeducate both groups of people, i.e., the employers who needed to buy permits for their employees and the customers and residents who needed to think about spending some money in the Downtown other than in the stores, with the concept of paying for parking. Mike Brooks, Camino Real, Carmel, said people would rather park on the street or in a surface lot than in a parking structure. People found parking structures to be intimidating. In the City of San Jose, street parking was not difficult to find and the city-owned parking structures were only 40 to 60 percent occupied. Parking on the streets in San Francisco was difficult to procure, and city-owned parking lots were 100 percent occupied. If parking were restricted in the core of a city, it either went into a structure or into the residential community. The parking would always go to the free outlying residential community if there were no restrictions. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to: 1) authorize staff to terminate the agreement with the National Parking Corporation effective September 30, 1996, and 2) adopt the
revised Resolution which would change Lot ΑS≅ back to its original use as a free, two-hour color zone lot. Council Member Andersen said many of his students responded to the lack of free parking in the Downtown by going to another area to eat. He said when the Council discussed the issue of a parking
structure at a later date, he wanted to explore the City=s providing some incentive that would encourage carpooling. Council Member Schneider opposed the motion. She was disappointed that staff recommended Lot S be closed. There was a number of other issues in addition to the increased availability of parking due to the color zones. The City did not have time to market Lot S, and it became usable just before the holidays. The City needed to go through a full holiday season in the Downtown area to determine how the lot would be utilized. A validation program had not been developed, and there was a number of merchants in the Downtown area that would have validated parking for their customers. Her customers were delighted with the idea of validated parking. The attendant lot needed more time. She was fearful that in the future when it was inevitable that the City would have to charge for parking, the community would say it did not work previously and it would not work again. Council Member Fazzino agreed with Mr. Dawid that the City did not charge drivers of automobiles the real cost of driving and parking those automobiles. Until that happened, the City would not be able resolve the long-term parking situation. He would oppose the
09/09/96 80-99 80-99
motion and agreed with Council Member Schneider=s comments. It was not easy to oppose a motion when staff indicated that there was a $20,000 deficit for the nine-month program, but he believed the concept needed more time to work. He had noticed recently an increased number of cars in the lot, and he believed parking would be more of a premium in the Downtown area during the fall and holiday season which would encourage people to park in the lot. Unfortunately, it was still too easy to park in the Downtown area. The color zone parking had been successful in some respects but had failed miserably for residents who lived adjacent to the Downtown area. It was too easy for Downtown employees and others to park in residential areas and avoid the burden of paying $1.00 or $2.00 to park in a pay lot. Until the Council addressed the problem of individuals parking in residential areas, the Council would not be able to resolve the larger parking issue and justify the parking structure and future experiments with pay lots would continue to be failures. He wanted to delay action until January 1997 to see whether the experiment would work. Council Member Kniss had been persuaded by the comments of her colleagues and would oppose the motion. Council Member Simitian asked if the City provided the first two hours free, whether it would have any impact on the process. Given the availability of two-hour free parking immediately adjacent on the street, the way to make it simple was to make the first two hours free in the lot. If someone parked for over two hours, there would be a cost and people could make a decision about whether to pay $8 for long-term parking in the lot or park too long on the street and receive a citation. Ms. Johnson said the total usage of the lot would probably increase, but it would be for the first two hours. Staff found that the greater majority of the people parked for the free hour and left and did not use the parking lot for the long term. If the lot had the first two hours free, it would probably be the same situation. Council Member Simitian asked whether there had been permit parking in Lot S recently. Ms. Johnson said no. Council Member Simitian asked what was charged for the closest permit parking lot. Police Lieutenant Don Hartnett said the permit charge for City lots in the Downtown area was $65 per quarter or $200 per year. Ms. Fleming said there were permit spaces in parking lots on Florence Street and at City Hall.
09/09/96 80-100 80-100
Council Member Simitian asked whether the spaces were full subscribed. Ms. Fleming said yes, and there was a waiting list. Council Member Simitian said the staff report (CMR:384:96) indicated Lot S had 86 parking spaces available for free two-hour parking under the previous system, and the conversion provided the potential for 125 spaces with an attendant on duty to double park cars. The attendant parking lot created another 40 spaces, and there was a long waiting list for permits one block away. He imagined that many employees in the area would be happy to pay $40 per month for a permit; and if that $40 were multiplied by the 40 extra spaces, it would equal $1,600 per month or approximately $20,000 per year to help absorb the cost. The rest of the parking lot could be filled with people who wanted to pay or park free. He asked whether that system could be put in place. Ms. Fleming said Council Member Simitian was correct that if the parking lot were made permit parking, people would park there. However, she did not believe that philosophy was subscribed to by
the Chamber=s Parking Committee. She did not believe the merchants supported that philosophy. Council Member Simitian said if 40 parking spaces were given back at $20,000 per space, the City would spend $800,000. If the goal were to preserve free parking for two hours and if only 40 spaces were put into the permit process, there would still be 86 free
parking spaces available. He asked for Ms. Frank=s opinion of his suggestion. Ms. Frank said the Parking Committee had met twice a month for four and one-half years and had discussed almost every scenario, including permit parking, on that lot. Permit parking and pay parking could not be mixed on the attendant lot in the current fashion. There were many issues that would have to be resolved. The reason the Chamber was asking that the lot be discontinued was the cost to the City. Ms. Fleming was uncomfortable with the issues being raised that evening and suggested the item be continued to a future Council meeting. The issue was what the Council wanted to accomplish, how much it was willing to pay to do it, and what the options were. MOTION WITHDRAWN WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to continue the item to a date to be determined by staff. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. COUNCIL MATTERS
09/09/96 80-101 80-101
11. Council Member Simitian and Mayor Wheeler re Proposed Exchange of Management Responsibilities Between the City of Palo Alto and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District
Council Member Simitian said the proposal=s goal would make sure the open space that was owned by both districts was managed well and in the public interest without any painful choices or trade-offs. There had been some significant issues about valuation and trail use in the past, and the way to finesse both of the issues and still improve the management in the public interest was to swap the management responsibility. It had been done elsewhere in the City and was not precedent setting. MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to direct staff to pursue the concept of an exchange of oversight responsibilities for the two parcels as opposed to the exchange of fee title. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said a recent newspaper article regarding the issue indicated there were still some differences
about usage of the Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space District=s (MPROSD) parcel if it were under City management. He hoped it would still be possible to effect an exchange. The City owned two parcels in the foothills that totaled 79 acres, and the MPROSD parcel was part of a larger parcel that would probably require a parcel map to separate the parcel. He suggested the parcels of equal acreage could be exchanged and that the MPROSD could buy the other parcel over time via management of the parcel. He hoped there would not be difficulties in the future due to the different philosophies of management. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. 12. Council Members Simitian, joined by Council Members Fazzino and Kniss re Council Resolution Opposing Proposition 211, the Securities Fraud Litigation Initiative Council Member Simitian recalled the Council had previously received from staff a number of ballot initiatives for comment, and the Council decided it would exercise a more selective approach to the initiatives the Council considered to have particular import. Proposition 211 had particular import for the City because of its heavy support in terms of services from high-tech businesses in Palo Alto, but it also seemed important to bring it forward early because it took an unusual path at the League of California Cities (LCC). The initiative was unanimously supported at the policy committee level and went to the Board of Directors but then suddenly found itself in trouble when the Mayor of Oakland delivered a compelling speech on the initiative. The only other route to take on the initiative would be to follow the process for special action at the LCC convention in October 1996 which was both risky and late. The approach he suggested was for the Council to
09/09/96 80-102 80-102
take action as early as possible to communicate to other cities in the area as well as to the local residents the importance of opposition to Proposition 211. The City of San Jose was the first city in Santa Clara County to take action and approved the measure 11-0. While there was support for the proposition in some quarters, the opposition had been widespread and bipartisan. MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the Resolution expressing opposition to Proposition 211, direct the Mayor to send copies of the Resolution to the other League of California Cities Peninsula Division cities urging that they also oppose the proposition, and direct staff to issue a news release
announcing the Council=s position.
Resolution 7624 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Opposition to Proposition 211,
the Securities Fraud Litigation Initiative≅
Council Member Fazzino appreciated Council Member Simitian=s leadership on the issue. He said the measure would undo much of what was done by Congress the previous year on a bipartisan vote with respect to securities fraud litigation. Of greater concern was the fact that the initiative would allow individuals to bring
personal action against any board of directors= member or retirement fund trustee based upon any action which could be
interpreted as having a negative impact on that individual=s retirement fund. It would make California the center for securities fraud litigation; particularly vulnerable to the lawsuits would be high-tech firms because of the volatile nature of technology products and stock. There was a limited number of securities litigation firms which carefully watched high-tech firms, and when technology stocks dropped, oftentimes the firms would bring suit against the high-tech firm for fraudulent action. The measure would have a very negative economic impact on California, particularly on high-tech companies in the area. More importantly, the mainstream trial lawyers had not taken an active role in support of Proposition 211, and the measure was being pushed by a limited number of securities litigation attorneys. He strongly encouraged the Council to oppose Proposition 211. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, supported the proposal that the Council oppose Proposition 211. It was an appalling piece of legislation written by a narrow special interest group. The proposition eliminated the necessity for people to read a prospectus, so people would no longer have to say they had received and read a prospectus. If the proposition passed, it would make litigation
in California extremely lucrative. He endorsed the Council=s taking a strong stand against Proposition 211. Council Member Kniss said the issue had aroused considerable interest in the business sector of the Silicon Valley during the
09/09/96 80-103 80-103
previous weeks. The implications would be far reaching if the initiative passed. Surprisingly, the initiative had support from a number of people who normally disagreed on issues. She appreciated
Council Member Simitian=s leadership on the issue and hoped the entire Council would oppose the initiative. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Rosenbaum absent. 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Wheeler asked the City Manager about an issue that had arisen in the community regarding the placement of cellular communication towers. City Manager June Fleming said she was aware of the requests for the placement of cellular communication towers. She had asked staff to monitor the situation. She suggested that Mayor Wheeler might want to agendize the item. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (continued) Margaret L. Galloway, 401 Fulton Street, spoke regarding representing the Palo Alto Civic League. Human Relations Commissioner Litsie Indergand spoke regarding the Homelessness Task Force report. Daniel Blackman, 990 Van Auken Circle, spoke regarding Shoreline Noise abatement idea. T. J. Watt, homeless, spoke regarding value which was determined by planning. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding illegal signs. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:05 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.
09/09/96 80-104 80-104
09/09/96 80-105 80-105