Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-21 City Council Summary Minutes 01/21/97 81-145 Regular Meeting January 21, 1997 1. Appointment and Swearing In of New Council Member.....81-147 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................81-150 APPROVAL OF MINUTES........................................81-150 2. Resolution 7646 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Julia Maser for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Architectural Review Board≅ .........................................81-150 3. Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Agreement C6074891 between the City of Palo Alto and Montgomery Watson Engineers for Modifi cations to Software Used at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant.................................................81-151 4. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc. for Electric Industry Restructuring81-151 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Golden Bear Arborists, Inc. for Tree and Stump Removal............81-151 5A. (Old Item 8) PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recom-mends to the City Council approval of a request from property owners of Tract 795 for a zone map amendment to apply a single-story overlay zone for the Charleston Meadows neighbor-hood..................................................81-151 5B. (Old Item 9) PUBLIC HEARING: The Historic Resources Board recommends to the City Council approval of an application to reclassify the property located at 460-476 University to a Category 2 building on the City=s Historic Resources Inventory 81-153 5C. (Old Item 10) Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the 01/21/97 81-146 Agreement for Financing Electric Capacity With the Northern California Power Agency...............................81-153 6. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Obstructing Streets and Sidewalks to Add Section 9.48.025 Prohibiting Sitting or Lying Down Upon the Public Sidewalk on University Avenue Between High Street and Cowper Street (continued from 7/8/96)...............................81-154 7. Vice Mayor Andersen and Council Members Fazzino and Kniss re Proposed Direction to Staff to Develop a Comprehensive Approach to Downtown Needs (continued from 9/24/96)...81-172 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........81-172 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m............81-172 01/21/97 81-147 01/21/97 81-148 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:20 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Eakins (seated as a Council Member at 7:45 p.m.), Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointment and Swearing In of New Council Member Council Member Kniss said Council had interviewed candidates for the vacated Council position at some length, at which an impressive list of prospects had appeared. The criteria had included the ability to: 1) "hit the ground running"; 2) represent the community well; and 3) work with Council for 11 months with some degree of comfort. She supported Sandy Eakins because of her extensive background. Council Member Wheeler had felt assured of the future of the City after having sat through the interviews. Four individuals had stood out at the interviews as being able to represent the City efficiently. Support was given to Sandy Eakins, with whom she was well-acquainted, because she was able to Αhit the ground running,≅ had put much time and expertise in citywide matters, was unafraid to work hard, was capable of being a leader, knew how to work with people, had worked well on the Public Art Commission, worked well with the private sector, and had worked on the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC). Although a conflict of interest would arise, should Council come to a vote on the Sand Hill issue, no one issue should dictate the selection of a Council Member. Vice Mayor Andersen agreed with the comments of Council Member Wheeler about the extraordinary candidates, any one of whom could represent the City. Support was given to Victor Ojakian because of his thorough work on the Planning Commission, his very carefully analyzed assistance from a Council Member's perspective, and the very reasoned, careful, analytical approaches he took to problems. Mr. Ojakian would be fair to all segments of the community. His strong neighborhood background and commitment to the entire community was particularly noted. Council Member Schneider agreed with Council Members Kniss and Wheeler in support of Sandy Eakins, whom she had both served with and known for many years. CPAC had been ably led by Ms. Eakins. All of the candidates had been spectacular. Elster Haile was encouraged to continue his involvement in Palo Alto politics, particularly on one of the boards and commissions. 01/21/97 81-149 Council Member McCown said the group of prospective Council Members had made it very difficult to make a decision. Three of the group could readily serve on Council, and Sandy Eakins and Victor Ojakian could do an excellent job. The third individual, Dena Mossar, had emphasized a deep knowledge and commitment to environmental and transportation issues. Ms. Mossar had been very involved both in her immediate neighborhood and in citywide and regional issues. She focused her energy and commitment to issues which would make a great addition to Council. Agreement was expressed with Council Member Wheeler's comments about conflicts of interest, since Ms. Mossar would be unable to vote on Stanford-related items; however, a number of very distinguished Council Members had faced the same problem. Council Member Rosenbaum agreed with his colleagues that the group of candidates had been outstanding and, by virtue of community service in neighborhoods and service on City commissions, had demonstrated the necessary attributes to provide outstanding leadership on Council. A number of openings on Council in 1997 and 1999 would be ably filled by a number of that group. Support was given to Victor Ojakian. Council Member Fazzino had been impressed with the enthusiasm of the seven candidates for the position. Each was outstanding in his or her own way, and four had the experience to perform the job immediately. Sandy Eakins had a breadth and depth of leadership in the community through the arts, CPAC, the Planning Commission, school advocacy, etc. Victor Ojakian was a neighborhood leader, Planning Commission Chairperson, a strong leader on CPAC, very analytical, etc. Litsie Indergand was a neighborhood activist, Human Relations Commissioner, very sensitive to human needs, extremely helpful personally on the disability fee issue as well as broader homeless issues, and someone who had helped to broaden his consciousness on a number of issues. Dena Mossar was a strong environmentalist, leader in transportation issues, had an outstand-ing regional perspective, and brought people together. Each would bring a positive aspect to Council. Support was given to Sandy Eakins. Mayor Huber agreed with his colleagues in comments which had been made concerning the principal candidates. In a normal election, importance was placed on people's positions. Sand Hill Road would be one of the biggest issues Council would face, and Council needed a full complement of Council persons to consider the issue. Support was given to Victor Ojakian who had served the City well. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR ANDERSON: 01/21/97 81-150 VOTING FOR EAKINS: Fazzino, Kniss, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR FREEDMAN: VOTING FOR HAILE: VOTING FOR INDERGAND: VOTING FOR MOSSAR: McCown VOTING FOR OJAKIAN: Andersen, Huber, Rosenbaum City Clerk Gloria Young announced that none of the candidates had received five or more votes and another ballot was in order. RESULTS OF THE SECOND ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR ANDERSON: VOTING FOR EAKINS: Fazzino, Kniss, McCown, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR FREEDMAN: VOTING FOR HAILE: VOTING FOR INDERGAND: VOTING FOR MOSSAR: VOTING FOR OJAKIAN: Andersen, Huber, Rosenbaum City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Sandy Eakins had received five votes and was appointed as Council Member on the second ballot. MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to unanimously appoint Ms. Eakins as Council Member. MOTION PASSED 8-0. SWEARING IN OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBER EAKINS - HELD ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Lee Alton, no address, spoke regarding the issue of homelessness. 01/21/97 81-151 Glenna Violette, 95 Crescent Drive, spoke regarding representing the Palo Alto Civic League. Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant Street, spoke regarding interim housing regulations for historic landmark status. T. J. Watt, no address, spoke regarding grants for operating expenses to Stanford University. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding democracy in relation to access to San Francisco Bay. Robert Norse, 309 Cedar #14B, Santa Cruz, spoke regarding repre-senting Homeless United for Friendship and Freedom (HUFF), the rights of the homeless, and the ban on sleeping in Santa Cruz. Olivia Wang, no address, spoke regarding lack of Council Members= attention to the audience at the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by McCown, to approve the Minutes of October 28, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Eakins Αabstaining.≅ CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-5. 2. Resolution 7646 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Julia Maser for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Architectural Review Board≅ 3. Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Agreement C6074891 between the City of Palo Alto and Montgomery Watson Engineers for Modifi-cations to Software Used at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant 4. Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc. for Electric Industry Restructuring Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Pacific Consulting Services, Inc. for Electric Industry Restructuring 81-152 Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Resource Management International, Inc. for Electric Industry Restruc-turing Consultant Contract between the City of Palo Alto and EES Consulting, Inc. for Electric Industry Restructuring 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Golden Bear Arborists, Inc. for Tree and Stump Removal MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Andersen, to bring Item Nos. 8, 9, and 10 forward to precede Item Nos. 6 and 7 and become Item Nos. 5A, 5B, and 5C. MOTION PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5A. (Old Item 8) PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission recom- mends to the City Council approval of a request from property owners of Tract 795 for a zone map amendment to apply a single-story overlay zone for the Charleston Meadows neighbor- hood Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Jean Olmsted, 240 West Charleston Street, supported the staff recommendation preserving Eichler housing and one-story zoning. Marilyn Edwardson, 4126 Park Boulevard, spoke regarding living in the Charleston Meadows Neighborhood for over 40 years and encourag-ing Council to approve the staff recommendation which would maintain the neighborhood's architectural cohesiveness. Donald Wilson, 231 Carolina Lane, shared his neighbors' concerns about maintaining the integrity of the community and concern about construction of very large homes in the area. Support was given for the staff recommendation. Ron Bushnell, 251 Carolina Lane, said more square footage could be obtained through a tasteful two-story building or setbacks which would take the front, side, and backyards. Although construction of a one-story structure was acceptable, Council was encouraged to consider 35 percent rather than 40 percent. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. 81-153 MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to: 1) approve the Negative Declaration, finding the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and 2) introduce the ordinance, rezoning the 96 lots in Charleston Meadows from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-1(S) Single Story Overlay District. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of a Portion of Property Collectively Known as >Charleston Meadows Tract 795' From R-1 to R-1(S)≅ Council Member Wheeler lived in a neighborhood within the single-story overlay zoning. Planning Commissioners were invited to join the once a year house tours of Greenmeadow Eichlers, which revealed how many had modernized the Eichlers in a way which would hold up for years to come without impinging on surrounding neighbors. Support was given to a neighborhood which had taken upon itself the hard work of eliciting and achieving concurrence among the vast majority of neighbors to retain the character of the neighborhood; therefore, support was given to the Charleston Meadows Tract in doing so. Council Member Fazzino said when the issue of preserving homes in the community had been discussed, Council struggled with the issue of preserving Eichler homes, which were just as special as any other home in the community. One of the easiest ways to preserve the character of Eichler homes was through support of the single-story overlay district concept. Terrible images came to mind when imagining what some builders could do in an area such as the Eichler neighborhoods if two-story buildings were allowed. The motion was supported, which was reasonable. The exception process had worked well in other areas. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 5B. (Old Item 9) PUBLIC HEARING: The Historic Resources Board recommends to the City Council approval of an application to reclassify the property located at 460-476 University to a Category 2 building on the City=s Historic Resources Inventory Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing open. Charles Holman, Architect/Designer, 366 Lytton Avenue, representing the building's owner, said an application had been submitted for reclassification of the building from a Category 3 to a Category 2. The building met a number of criteria established by the Palo Alto 81-154 Municipal Code (PAMC) for the reclassification. The HRB had approved the reclassification. Reclassification would allow the owner to build out the remaining second level and restore the store fronts of the building. Mayor Huber declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, that the City Council reclassify 460-476 University Avenue to a Category 2 historic structure, in compliance with the definitions of historic categories [Section 16.49.020(b)] and the criteria for designation of historic structures [Section 16.49.040(b)]. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 5C. (Old Item 10) Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Agreement for Financing Electric Capacity With the Northern California Power Agency MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Resolution for Financing Electric Capacity with the Northern California Power Agency. Further, to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance establishing the transfer of $170,000 from the power purchase account to the debt service account and the transfer of $67,000 from the power purchase account to reserves. Resolution 7647 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Agreement for Financing Electric Capacity With the Northern California Power Agency≅ Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Northern California Power Agency for Financing Electric Capacity Ordinance 4396 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Recognize and Implement Bond Financing of the Termination Payment for the Washington Water Power Contract≅ Council Member Rosenbaum said the bond issue of $50,000 for Palo Alto was relatively small. More interestingly, the bond repre-sented the rapid change in the electric industry. In 1991, the City had entered into a 20-year contract with the Washington Water Power (WWP) for the purchase of power which, at the time, had appeared economically advantageous. The contract allowed the City to cancel after ten years, with five years' notice. In 1996, at the time notice could be given, WWP power was no longer economi-cally advantageous, so notice of cancellation had been given. The 81-155 City had then gone further and negotiated as to what it would cost to exit the contract entirely after only five years, which had resulted in the termination penalty. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 6. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Obstructing Streets and Sidewalks to Add Section 9.48.025 Prohibiting Sitting or Lying Down Upon the Public Sidewalk on University Avenue Between High Street and Cowper Street (continued from 7/8/96) City Attorney Ariel Calonne said staff had responded to direction from City Manager June Fleming during the budget process to prepare an ordinance for Council's consideration dealing with sidewalk obstruction caused by people sitting or lying down (the "Sit/Lie" ordinance). In July 1996, after an extensive public hearing, both Council and staff had identified areas which required further work. Council had asked staff to examine changing the proposed penalties in the ordinance from a misdemeanor to an infraction, which staff had done. Staff's major concern had involved how to deal with the range of speech and expressive conduct activities currently ongoing on sidewalks in the context of a "Sit/Lie" ordinance. The City Attorney's Report of January 16, 1997, contained factual conditions which currently existed primarily in Downtown Palo Alto along University Avenue. In July 1996, Police Chief Chris Durkin had indicated that in 23 years, Palo Alto's streets had not been busier. The Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD) had observed pedestrians who had been startled or distracted by people sitting or lying on the sidewalk, pedestrians forced into the street to dodge trip hazards, people lying on sidewalks, and objects in planter wells and the sidewalks. Palo Alto's large senior citizen population was particularly impacted by sidewalk hazards because of the inability to negotiate the streets. The City's trip and fall liability on planter wells and other obstructions on the sidewalk was significant. The situation was not that pedestrians tripped over other people on the sidewalk but that people sitting or lying on the sidewalk created a distraction which diverted a pedestrian's attention from other obstructions for which the City would be responsible. The purposes or interests which would be served by the "Sit/Lie" ordinance included safety and congestion concerns related to increased traffic. Moving sitting or lying people from the sidewalk would hopefully reduce distraction and reduce the slipping and tripping hazards which went along with the distrac- 81-156 tion. Impacts included a reduction in obstructions, delays by pedestrians trying to avoid obstructions, and the resultant congestion. The proposed "Sit/Lie" ordinance would forbid sitting and lying down based on the presumption that people sitting or lying down caused a harmful obstruction. Council had expressed an interest in alternatives with which to address concerns. One alternative was an ordinance which only prohibited sitting and lying down when an obstruction was caused. The proposed ordinance presumed sitting and lying caused the pedestrian distraction and obstruction. Council could make a decision to forbid sitting and lying only when it actually caused an obstruction. A "Sit/Lie" ordinance would clearly establish a pedestrian corridor in the area covered and was consistent with the City's sidewalk obstruction rules for physical objects other than people, i.e., currently, placing something on the sidewalk in a way which blocked pedestrian traffic was forbidden. The advantage of the "Sit/Lie" ordinance was its relatively non-confrontational enforcement ability in that it was very clear-cut; no judgment call was required to determine whether a person sitting or lying on the sidewalk was an obstruc-tion. The problem with the "Sit/Lie" ordinance was its somewhat unsettled aspect legally. A decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in the case of Roulette v. City of Seattle upheld a "Sit/Lie" ordinance on what was called the "facial challenge." A facial challenge was a relatively easy form of review of an ordinance. A more exacting review by a court would result if an attempt were being made to prosecute an individual. Although the Roulette case upheld the form of ordinance, it was by no means the last word on the court's final judgment. On the other side of the alternatives was an obstruction-type ordinance limiting the perceived impact on "street people" by indicating a person could sit or lie down as long as pedestrian traffic was not obstructed. Although relatively subtle legally, such an ordinance would be difficult to enforce. Direct observation of someone blocking traffic would be required, and police discretion in enforcement would enhance the chance of confrontation. Rather than an unquestionably clear corridor, the police would have to make a judgment call each time to determine whether someone was actually blocking the sidewalk and whether to enforce the ordinance. The proposed "Sit/Lie" ordinance would forbid sitting or lying along a seven-block stretch of University Avenue sidewalks from the Bay side of High Street to the Stanford side of Cowper between the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The ordinance would not forbid sleeping on the sidewalk between 11:00 p.m. to 10:59 a.m. Pursuant to Council's request, the penalty had been changed from a misde-meanor to an infraction. Exemptions included medical emergencies, wheelchair usage, stroller usage, public chairs, benches, and planter walls, private seating with an encroachment permit, and lawful temporary street closures. The second of the three ordinances attached to the Attorney's Report was a wholesale 81-157 revision to the City's parade ordinance. In Palo Alto, temporary street closure was synonymous with parades. During parades, people were allowed to sit on the sidewalk. The most difficult element of the "Sit/Lie" ordinance was the exemption for First Amendment protected speech in certain circumstances. The "Sit/Lie" ordinance indicated it was lawful in the three striped areas of Attachment 2 of the Attorney's Report to sit or lie if necessary to convey an intended message. Additionally, six feet of sidewalk would need to be left clear in the striped areas. Examples of the kinds of speech which could be accommodated while sitting or lying down were given. The Ninth Circuit had experienced difficulty understanding the kinds of speech which would require one to be seated or lying down in order to convey the message. The issue was whether sitting or lying was expressive conduct or simply behavior unrelated to speech. The courts had struggled with the issue for a long time and was one which would not be solved in an evening. However, common vocabulary was necessary. Some of the kinds of behavior which had been characterized as expressive conduct included nude dancing, wearing clothing which had symbolic content, sit-ins as protests, etc. Clearly some forms of physical behavior could communicate and were protected by the First Amendment. What was unclear was how the mere act of sitting down added to or related to communication. Under the exemptions, the first which came to mind in the speech exemption was the issue footnoted in the Roulette case. One of the people who had challenged the Seattle ordinance involved a street musician who was a keyboardist who was unable to play the keyboards unless seated; therefore, the ordinance had the effect of cutting off the musician's ability to express himself. The court had ducked the issue because it was a facial challenge, not as applied. However, the incident raised the issue of exactly how difficult it would become to figure out when and if sitting or lying down was necessary for communication. People would attempt to test the ordinance by sitting with signs which stated, "I'm sitting down to test the ordinance." Any number of examples would be difficult to determine. One of the legal issues related to the First Amendment concerns was termed "over-breadth." When the ordinance potentially forbade behavior beyond what it was intended to forbid, it could have a chilling effect on other people speaking. If some behavior or speech were specifically forbidden by the ordinance which prevented people from understanding whether some other legal behavior was also forbidden, an over-breadth problem existed since the ordinance would effectively censor people who would otherwise speak for fear of being prosecuted. The concern was overcome with the required police notice or warning in the ordinance. The penalty was only an infraction, but the ordinance specifically required a police officer to let someone know he or she was violating the ordinance before being able to issue a citation. Therefore, someone sitting in one of the exemption areas would not have to guess as to whether or not he or 81-158 she was at risk of prosecution. If at risk of prosecution, the law required a warning after which a choice could be made. Concern was expressed about the need to determine whether the language concerning speech or conduct was protected under the First Amendment for which sitting and lying were necessary. Although the Roulette case addressed a keyboardist, a myriad of examples could arise. General orders would be necessary to provide guidelines for the police. Another significant issue was the impact of the seated speech areas on the specific locations. The sidewalks were lined with businesses and other interests. One of the concerns about defining free areas was the potential concentration of activities or the possibility of a dispersal. Some of the alternatives to the exemption approach included relocation of the exemption areas. If any of the areas were unsuitable, Council was authorized to relocate, and some or all of the areas could be eliminated. Council could also drop the seated speech integration language, i.e., sitting or lying only when necessary to convey a message, since it would be difficult to enforce and apply. Sitting and lying could be exempted in certain locations. Another alternative would be to return to the permit system which, although a prior restraint, was a form of censorship heavily disfavored. Palo Alto would probably fail to have sufficient volume to warrant a permit system. The legal standards involved in a prohibition on sitting or lying on the sidewalk were that of "time, place, and manner," i.e., not censorship of the speech but rules about when, where, and how it could be done, assuming the initial hurdle could be surpassed which equated sitting and lying with communication. The courts had indicated such time, place, and manner restrictions were acceptable if the content was neutral and if narrowly tailored to serve significant governmental interests. The courts had recently indicated that regulating the use of sidewalks, free flow of pedestrians on the sidewalks, and safety on the sidewalks and streets constituted a significant government interest. Finally, the regulation needed to leave ample alternatives for communication open, i.e., one could not completely proscribe speech. If the time, place, and manner of speech were regulated, alternatives had to be available to allow the speakers to reach the intended audience. The regulations had to void the over-breadth and vague problems. The Supreme Court had indicated the government, i.e., the City's purpose in controlling, had to have the intent to regulate the content of the specific kind of speech, e.g., regulating the speech of Democrats over that of Republicans would be a classic case of content-based restriction which would violate the First Amendment. The legislative intent and purpose of the ordinance were sidewalk obstruction and congestion. The courts had particularly focused on whether a regulation had been adopted because of a disagreement with the message being spoken, which was not seen anywhere in the proposed ordinance. Sitting and lying, if any communicative value existed at all, were not associated with a 81-159 particular message uniformly. People sat for many different reasons, which was important to keep in mind. Some incidental effect on speech was acceptable, and the courts had recognized that time, place, and manner restrictions might have an impact on some speakers. A classic example was adult theater restrictions which focused on a particular kind of speech. While the court recognized the City had not attempted to regulate the kind of speech because of its content, it had recognized the secondary effect on the rest of the community. Staff was not interested in what people were trying to say, but the concern was the secondary effect of blocking pedestrian traffic. The regulation also had to be justified without reference to the content. Staff had been concerned for some time that "narrowly tailored to serve the interest and protect sidewalks" meant the least restrictive manner in which to do so, i.e., the City would be required to define an easier or less intrusive way to preserve sidewalks. The Supreme Court a few years before had indicated the City's burden was merely to show that its interest in sidewalk congestion and avoiding trip hazards would be achieved less effectively without the regulation. The issue of ample alternative channels communication, assuming sitting and lying down were speech and the Council had forbidden such speech as an incidental effect of sitting and lying, sought to know how people were being impacted. The benches along University Avenue were exempted; therefore, the 140 feet of benches meant almost 50 people could sit, which represented an ample alternative channel. All the side streets intersecting University Avenue were not covered by the regulation and, therefore, allowed people to reach their intended audience. Most of the parking used by people patronizing University Avenue came from one of the side streets. Therefore, people who thought they had to sit or lie to communicate would have access to the audience from any one of the side streets. Lytton Plaza itself was a dedicated park for which the proposed ordinance would not stop communication. The seated speech exemption also provided an alternative in being able to stand up, i.e., nothing precluded anyone from communicating any message while standing. A third ordinance was attached to the Attorney's Report and was related to the City's existing obstruction ordinance in Chapter 9.48 which prohibited anyone from placing an object on the sidewalk. A few minor cleanups had been required to the ordinance to deal with the encroachment permit process already in place and the fact the existing parade ordinance contained a provision for sidewalk sales. In the context of the revised temporary street closure ordinance, it had made no sense, so it had been moved into the sidewalk obstruction ordinance. Council Member Fazzino commended Mr. Calonne on his excellent presentation and asked whether the federal court had recently upheld Berkeley's "Sit/Lie" ordinance, which was far more expansive than the City's proposed ordinance. 81-160 Mr. Calonne said prior to the Roulette case, the Federal District Court had enjoined enforcement of the Berkeley ordinance on a facial challenge. When the decision on the Roulette case had been issued, the Federal District Court dissolved that portion of the injunction which had stopped the "Sit/Lie" ordinance. Council Member Fazzino asked how comfortable Mr. Calonne was with either: 1) removing exemption 7 on page 3 of the Attorney's Report, "In order to engage in First Amendment-protected speech when sitting or lying down is necessary to convey the intended message, in three specified locations, provided at least six (6) feet of passable sidewalk remains open. The three areas are 1) the fifty (50) feet of sidewalk on the north side of University Avenue at High Street (the right side of University as one faces Stanford University), 2) the sidewalk on the south side of University Avenue immediately adjacent to the dedicated park at Lytton Plaza and Emerson Street (the left side of University as one faces Stanford University), and 3) the fifty (50) feet of sidewalk on the north side of University Avenue at east side of Ramona Street (the right side of University as one faces Stanford University at the left side of Ramona as one faces City Hall)," because of the significant and legitimate concerns about the impact on businesses; or 2) limiting the exemptions to one area such as the sidewalk in front of Lytton Plaza. Mr. Calonne thought the issue depended on whether sufficient alternative locations remained in which people could communicate, assuming such a thing as seated or lying communication existed. If Council were comfortable with the 140 feet of linear bench space and the side streets as ample alternative channels, the exemption could be eliminated. Council Member Fazzino asked Mr. Calonne whether elimination of the exemption completely could be defended. Mr. Calonne replied yes. Judgment calls were very difficult. In a reading of the cases, it became clear that there were almost as many approaches as federal judges dealing with the problems. The level of certainty in dealing with any of the issues was not high; however, ample alternatives existed when examining all the benches and side streets. The other influential aspect was the question of reducing the exemption to Lytton Plaza. Although possible, the problem of defining seated communication became an issue. Beyond the example of the seated keyboardist, he was unsure. The temptation was to keep the ordinance simple, allowing sitting on benches, in Lytton Plaza, along the side streets, etc., without dealing with the exemption area. A minimalist approach to impacting street activity was desirable. During the Summer of 81-161 1996, Council had been cognizant of Downtown's formula in its relation to the street activities, e.g., street performers. The broadened exemption area was not necessarily related to legal requirements as much as addressing the problem without dramatically altering the character of the area. Council Member Fazzino asked whether either alternative would be legally defensible. Mr. Calonne replied yes. The issue was one of degree. The more alternative areas, the better. Another problem would arise in attempting to define seated communication. Council Member Fazzino asked whether a cleaner approach would be to eliminate the exemptions completely. Mr. Calonne replied yes; however, staff preferred to avoid eliminating all of the exemptions. Vice Mayor Andersen said some encroachment permits allowed restaurants to serve in areas set apart from the building itself with signs posted indicating the area was specified for public use and could not be restricted. Such areas would be available for any person under the way the ordinance was proposed, regardless of the exempted areas. Mr. Calonne said the ordinance would not affect such areas, which were established through the encroachment permit process. Vice Mayor Andersen asked how many areas would be considered speech-protected, with people exercising their rights and providing the six-foot clearance, which would become a hazardous situation. Mr. Calonne thought the six-foot clearance would not create a hazard. Vice Mayor Andersen said as long as there was six feet in the protected areas, a hazard or obstruction would not exist, yet the purpose of the ordinance was to ensure more than six feet existed in other parts of the University Avenue area. Mr. Calonne said the six-foot limit was a relaxation of the eight- foot standard in the encroachment permits which had been included, knowing it would allow more space than allowed for in a commercial encroachment, i.e., more space for speakers. Vice Mayor Andersen asked about the typical width of City side- walks. Mr. Calonne thought the typical sidewalk was 12 feet wide. 81-162 Council Member McCown asked whether a standing individual would be less distracting or obstructing, based on the two legislative findings Mr. Calonne had mentioned when talking about obstruction and distraction to pedestrians encountering other obstacles, than a person sitting or lying, not necessarily communicating at all. The typical image was of a person seated against the wall of a building with a box or cup asking for money but not interacting at all with pedestrians walking by. Mr. Calonne said whether the distinction held was an issue, Council would be able to resolve in the findings. People standing up were at eye-level and would not have the same distracting effect, i.e., pulling a person's attention from where they were walking. The standing up fulfilled the speech allowance or alternative channels of communication function. One reason for distinguishing was to allow the sidewalks to remain a public forum. Council Member McCown asked whether the courts had upheld a presumption similar to the presumption inherent in the ordinance that a person sitting or lying on the sidewalk was obstructing and might not require any specific inquiry by a police officer. Mr. Calonne replied yes, when not dealing with expressive behavior. To the extent the City regulated sitting or lying down completely unrelated to the message value of the conduct was clearly allow-able. Council Member McCown asked about the relationship of the proposed "Sit/Lie" ordinance to the encroachment permit process. Percep-tions by some were that other obstacles on the sidewalk such as chairs and benches outside restaurants were more of a hazard or impediment to their flow, i.e., allowing encroachment permits while another ordinance prevented a human being from sitting in a similar space. Mr. Calonne thought doing so was unnecessary. The City was obligated to regulate without regard to content and to take a step which legitimately advanced the objective of reducing congestion, distraction, and blockage of the sidewalk. The City was not required to stop every source of congestion, blockage, and distraction. If the ordinance did what the City wanted it to do, the City would not need to relate everything it could to solve the problem. The fact other things caused distraction, congestion, and blockage would not matter if it were clear the City was not attempting to regulate the content of speech because of a dis-agreement with the speaker's message. Council Member Wheeler asked about Mr. Calonne's comment about temporary street closures being essentially synonymous with a 81-163 parade, yet the City had other activities requiring the closure of University Avenue. Mr. Calonne said public governmental agency sponsored functions were exempt from the parade permit ordinance. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the Arts Festival would be considered a publicly sponsored event and exempt from the "Sit/Lie" ordinance. Mr. Calonne said temporary street closures were exempt from the "Sit/Lie" ordinance. A street fair could be properly classified as a temporary street closure. Language had inadvertently been left in the temporary street closure ordinance which forbade the construction of permanent or temporary structures. Staff proposed removal of the language, deleting Section 10.10.080(b), which would allow the parade ordinance to function as it currently functioned with respect to the non-publicly sponsored events. Council Member Schneider asked about the issue of "manner," assuming the City had not enacted a permit process system and enacted reasonable time, place, and manner rules. Mr. Calonne gave an example in the case of Ward v. Rock against racism which dealt with a ban in Central Park. The city had imposed sound restrictions for which a lawsuit resulted. How loud something was said was considered a manner restriction. Arguably, whether seated or standing was a manner restriction. Police Chief Chris Durkin said staff had found no documented instances of tripping as a result of someone sitting on the sidewalk; however, first-hand observation of events Downtown by various officers supported the proposed ordinance. Officers Souza and Brown had been assigned to the Downtown Health & Safety detail since April 1996. Police Officer Derrick Souza said the proposed ordinance had not been created as a punitive but rather a preventative action, attempting to prevent injuries which might occur to pedestrians in the Downtown area. Since April 1996, he had observed numerous occasions, of pedestrians engaged in the activities of shopping, conversing, traveling to and from appointments, etc., who failed to concentrate on the sidewalk. Seated individuals on the sidewalks along the busy University Avenue area became a safety issue. On numerous occasions, he had observed instances of pedestrians having to alter their path to move around people as well as individuals complaining about the people sitting on the sidewalk. The issue was out of his hands as an officer. On occasion, he had asked seated individuals to reposition themselves. In some instances, 81-164 the individual would move, and in others the individual would not. Because the issue was one of safety and prevention, the ordinance would act as a tool for police officers in the Downtown area to accomplish certain tasks. Without such tools, police officers had a difficult, if not impossible, time accomplishing assigned tasks. The proposed ordinance would benefit Palo Alto by providing a safe thoroughfare in the Downtown area. Police Officer Sandra Brown had observed congested foot traffic in the Downtown area since April 1996 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. During the late evening hours, when street musicians sat along the sidewalks, sidewalks had become so congested that numerous individuals had been forced to walk out onto the street in order to pass the blocked sidewalks. The purpose of the ordinance was prevention. Foot traffic had changed over her nine-year tenure with the City. People walking along University Avenue holding a large box, children, or assisting a senior citizen were unable to look at the sidewalk for which the proposed ordinance would assist in the area of safety. Often, crowds watching street musicians had to be dispersed to keep people out of the middle of the street. The desire was to prevent people from being struck by moving vehicles and keep people from having to walk in the street to traverse University Avenue. Vice Mayor Andersen clarified staff had had no record of anyone tripping over a person sitting or lying on the sidewalk on University Avenue. Officer Souza said Vice Mayor Andersen was correct. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether any police officer had seen anyone come close to tripping and would have tripped over a person sitting or lying on the sidewalk unless he or she had been warned. Officer Brown said on different occasions while the officers were on foot patrol, people were seen diverting the flow of traffic to go around a person sitting or lying. Vice Mayor Andersen asked whether a person had been observed in the act of almost tripping. Officer Brown replied yes. One of two people walking and talking would warn the other of a possible hazard. Vice Mayor Andersen asked Mr. Calonne about the cost the City would incur if the ordinance were challenged. 81-165 Mr. Calonne said many variables existed, but whether staff or outside counsel was used, a cost of $20,000 to $50,000 was not unrealistic. Council Member Schneider asked about conditions of sidewalks along University Avenue during the daytime as opposed to the evening incidents with street musicians. Officer Souza said at certain times during the daytime hours, street musicians would set up three feet of equipment at a bench area preventing people coming out of stores to enter the flow of pedestrian traffic. Roughly 12 feet of sidewalk space would be reduced to three feet. With the amount of pedestrian traffic at prime hours, the space was inadequate. Council Member Schneider asked for a further explanation of the tripping element of a seated individual. Officer Souza said the failure to produce any reports of tripping incidents meant nothing since many people tripped and fell, but because of embarrassment, people would not pursue the issue further. People were engaged in conversation, actively shopping, or were senior citizens with walking devices, all of which became a safety issue. Just because incidents had not been reported was not an indication that such incidents had not occurred. Eventually, an incident would occur. Officer Brown said on many occasions, people had not only sat with backs against the wall, but also stuck legs out or brought along boxes used for collecting money. On several occasions, police officers had asked individuals to move boxes back. Many times during the day, musicians would have set up equipment in the middle of the sidewalk, bringing forth great crowds. The musician would be asked to move the keyboard and stool out of the middle of the sidewalk to allow pedestrians to pass by. The issue was one of prevention. She and Officer Souza knew the flavor of the Downtown area, and before issues became a problem, they would be addressed. Assistant Chief of Police Lynne Johnson said during calendar year 1996, seven documented casualty falls had occurred on University Avenue. Numerous others had occurred throughout the Downtown area. Out of the seven on University Avenue, five of the individuals had been over the age of 70. Mr. Calonne said anywhere from 10 to 30 percent of the City's litigation load was due to sidewalk hazards, not necessarily tripping over people but tripping over things it was desirous for people to have seen. 81-166 Council Member McCown said Officer Brown had mentioned the example of an incident during the daytime hours of a musician setting up a keyboard in the center of the sidewalk. She asked about the response the officers would receive when requesting the musician to move back. Officer Brown said the individual had been asked to move twice. The first time, the individual had moved the equipment back about one foot. After she had left and then returned, the individual had moved the equipment back out into the sidewalk. After becoming more firm with the individual, the equipment was moved. Council Member McCown clarified the individual remained in the same area but just moved back against the wall. Officer Brown replied yes. Council Member Fazzino referred to the testimony which appeared on the survey conducted by the Senior Center a few months before indicating 84 percent of individuals 60 or older favored approval of such a "Sit/Lie" ordinance. A number of comments by seniors included several which indicated either having tripped or came close to tripping over individuals seated on the sidewalk. He asked whether the testimony was consistent with the officers' conversations with seniors and staff at the Senior Center. Officer Souza replied yes. The survey was valid. Council Member Fazzino asked about other conversations the officers had had with seniors and Senior Center staff concerning specific problems in the Downtown area with respect to the issue of people lying and sitting on sidewalks. Officer Brown had not specifically spoken with anyone at the Senior Center; however, senior citizens had occasionally approached the officers requesting assistance in getting to a specific newsrack, etc. Many had asked what the City was doing about "cleaning up" the Downtown area. Attempts were always made to treat everyone equally. When a situation was brought to the officers' attention with a complaint about a specific individual, attempts would be made to address the person individually. For example, a father walking with his small child had asked her to deal with a seated individual who had frightened the child. She had indicated her inability to do anything about the individual seated on the sidewalk. Council Member Kniss asked how many patrol officers were normally assigned to the Downtown area on foot or bicycles, at what hours, and whether any other officer supported the area when not present. 81-167 Officer Souza said two officers were permanently assigned to the Downtown area during hours which varied between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Council Member Kniss asked whether only Officers Souza and Brown were assigned Downtown. Officer Souza said he and Officer Brown were the only two officers permanently assigned Downtown. Other members of the patrol were assigned temporarily when the two were off. Officer Brown said she and Officer Souza were dedicated to the Downtown Health & Safety Enhancement Program; however, second and third watches were also assigned to Beat 2, which incorporated Downtown. If extra members were on patrol, an officer would then be assigned to walk a foot beat Downtown. On any given day, three or four officers would work Downtown. Traffic also worked Downtown. Council Member Kniss clarified roughly two officers were Downtown either on foot or on bicycles during the day. Officer Brown replied yes. Council Member Kniss asked how many people were on University Avenue in the areas addressed by the proposed ordinance during the late afternoon and early evening hours on a Thursday. Officer Brown thought thousands of individuals were present at that time. Traffic would be backed up completely, often with individu- als running red lights out of frustration. Side streets were crowded. Foot traffic was heavy. On any one block, over 100 people would be walking on one side of the street. Bicycles were on the street; many people and many issues existed. Council Member Kniss asked whether any officers attempted to direct the traffic or move the pedestrians. Officer Brown said she and Officer Souza worked daily with pedestrians who walked against the red lights, attempted to keep individuals from walking into the streets, dealt with vehicles caught mid-intersection, etc. Even traffic lights had been changed during certain hours to allow east and west flow on University Avenue to keep moving. Numerous citations were issued Downtown as a result of the congestion. Council Member Schneider questioned the City's liability in the event of a tripping incident since the City's sidewalks were old 81-168 and contained various levels. The fact an individual could be distracted and fall could result in City liability. Mr. Calonne replied yes, in some situations, if the City were aware of a dangerous condition. Vice Mayor Andersen asked how many of the 10 to 30 percent liability had involved someone tripping over another human being. Mr. Calonne said none of the incidents involved tripping over another human being since responsibility for such an incident would have been disclaimed as being a dangerous condition of which the City had not received notice. Council Member Eakins asked whether the City would have a potential liability if Council passed the proposed ordinance with the additional sit/lie restrictions and an individual tripped because the ordinance had not been enforced fully. Mr. Calonne replied no. RECESS: 9:36 P.M. - 9:55 P.M. Mayor Huber declared the public hearing open. Glenna Violette, 95 Crescent Drive, Homeless Task Force, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance. Tripping incidents were not caused by people sitting on the sidewalks but faulty sidewalks, over-congestion, tables and chairs, and various other distractions, all of which could not be controlled. A clearer delineation should occur with regard to the tables and chairs. No area was provided for homeless individuals. Kenneth Russell, 159 Melville Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance since it appeared to be directed against homeless individuals. Joe Baldwin, 280 Waverley Street, said Seattle and Berkeley had taken tough love and "carrot and stick" approaches to a common set of problems involving citizens afflicted with mental disabilities, drug and/or alcohol addictions, and poverty, i.e., Seattle had used a $20 million program, and Berkeley had instituted four programs prior to establishing ordinances. Palo Alto had proposed only the "stick" without the "carrot." Norma Burchard, 3891 Magnolia Drive, Urban Ministry Food Closet volunteer, said of the many homeless, 99 percent were very nice. Requiring good conduct of people able to give it was necessary. Most people who needed to lie or sit down did so in areas which 81-169 were not in the way of others. Honoring a social contract was not being unkind. Barbara Gross, Center Drive, urged Council to pass the "Sit/Lie" ordinance. Downtown Palo Alto had changed dramatically over the past five years as well as three members of her own family who had become wheelchair-bound. The ordinance would provide the police with a tool by which to address individuals unaware of surroundings and allow better communication. Standards needed to be established for changing times. Chris Coob, 1234 Emerson Street, spoke against the proposed ordinance, indicating the use of side streets for First Amendment rights was an abuse of the right since not all freedom of speech was made with words. A homeless person sitting or lying sent a strong message without words. The homeless could not be chased away from Downtown without giving something in return. Cary-Andrew Crittenden, Halford Avenue, Santa Clara, a worker with homeless in Palo Alto and volunteer with the Urban Ministry, spoke against the proposed ordinance as being against homelessness. If the issue were really one of obstruction, it would be covered under Penal Code section 647(c) which addressed sidewalk obstruction. The time, place, and manner issue with exemption zones was censorship. The ordinance would be brought to court, should Council pass it. Dave Siegel, 1120 Byron Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance which failed to focus on the right issue. Andrew Vardanian, Lantana #200, read from an e-mail message in support of the proposed ordinance which the writer thought would prevent panhandlers on University Avenue. However, the proposed ordinance would not prevent panhandling or target such behavior. Officer Brown's example of a young child frightened by a homeless individual sitting on the ground was an issue which would not be addressed by the proposed ordinance. Tom Soule, Alvarado Row, Stanford, said if the City really wanted to end the problem, the issue of providing shelter for the homeless would be addressed. Bjorn Johnson, 592 Alvarado Row, Stanford, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance because it would cause the entire community to suffer. Placing restrictions on community public space would strike a blow to both public involvement and incorporation. The ordinance would severely restrict the ability of the homeless to panhandle along the most traveled area of Palo Alto, creating an 81-170 even greater feeling of separation and isolation homeless individu- als already experienced. Olivia Wang, 323 Serra, said the issue was not one of safety but whether the "Sit/Lie" ordinance would achieve its purported goal of eliminating obstructions to sidewalk traffic, which it would not. The proposed ordinance was a symbolic measure to satisfy merchants, the elderly, and other individuals desirous of ridding the Downtown area of homeless individuals. The proposed ordinance would result in huge lawsuits because of questions about its constitutionality. Seniors in favor of the proposed ordinance were under the impres- sion it would solve a problem different from the obstruction problem, which was nonexistent. In public areas, time, place and manner restrictions of expression were permissible only allowed if the law was content neutral, was narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and left open ample alternative channels of communications. The court had ruled that the Berkeley ordinance failed on all three counts and the act of sitting on the sidewalk could convey a message: "The degree of discomfort at the very site of a sitting solicitor was evidence that the message conveyed by the content was a powerful and disturbing one." Unlike Palo Alto, Seattle and Berkeley's ordinances were part of compre-hensive strategies to assist the poor. Council was urged to question the motives behind the proposed ordinance and consider the detrimental effects if passed. Mari Spira, 2025 Tasso Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance which was merely "cosmetic" legislation. Roy Jacob, 3833 Park Boulevard #28, spoke against the proposed ordinance. While visiting India recently, his family had been approached by a four-year-old begging child who had been repri-manded by the authorities by being struck in the back; Palo Alto's approach to the homeless problem was much more subtle. Council was asked to see life from a homeless person's perspective. Jeff Vaillant, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance which had been written without regard to class and attempted to address the issue of obstructions impacting pedestrians on a sidewalk. Proactive action was necessary to prevent accidents and to give the police a tool with which to get people to move who refused to do so otherwise. Susan Frank, Executive Director, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the Chamber supported the proposed ordinance as well as many in the community who had expressed support through the many calls and letters received by the Chamber. The Chamber dealt with such Downtown issues as parking, cleanliness, traffic, and safety, of which the proposed ordinance would address the issue of safety 81-171 and uphold the quality of life. Palo Alto occasionally was required to enact legislation to deal with such troublesome issues. The police officers were of a calibre which would support the ordinance with the utmost discretion and professionalism. Matt Bartels, 36C Escondido, Stanford, spoke against the proposed ordinance which would not alleviate the safety concerns it claimed to address and was not in the best interest of Palo Alto. The congested sidewalks were the result of economic vitality and should be accepted as such. The current Penal Code was sufficient to deal with the issue of obstructions to sidewalks. Robert A. Morgan, 1150 Byron Street, spoke regarding disrespect for laws because of the many practices supported by the law. Only such laws that had moral and ethical substance and had compassion on individuals in disadvantageous positions should be passed. Bad laws created a general disrespect for laws. Becky Johnson, 1019 North Branciforte Avenue, Santa Cruz, Board of Directors, Citizens Committee For the Homeless, spoke regarding the criminalization of poverty represented in the acts of panhandling, trespassing as in a doorway, after hours as in a park, camping, sleeping, and sitting considered offenses against society. Council was urged not to pass the proposed ordinance, which was truly directed at homeless people. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Andersen, to continue Item No. 6 to the Monday, March 10, 1997, Regular City Council Meeting. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Obstructing Streets and Sidewalks to Add Section 9.48.025 Prohibiting Sitting or Lying Down Upon the Public Sidewalk on University Avenue Between High Street and Cowper Street Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Obstructing Streets and Sidewalks Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 10.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Relating to Temporary Street Closures MOTION PASSED 9-0. 7. Vice Mayor Andersen and Council Members Fazzino and Kniss re Proposed Direction to Staff to Develop a Comprehensive Ap- proach to Downtown Needs (continued from 9/24/96) 81-172 MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Andersen, to continue the item to the City Council Meeting of March 10, 1997. MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Huber announced that Council Member Sandy Eakins would be assigned to sit on the Policy and Services Committee. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:00 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.