Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-02-16 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALOALTO CITYCOUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU- FREOLIENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting February 16, 1988 ITEM Oral Communications PAGE 59-251 Approval of Minutes of January 19, 1988 59-251 Consent Calendar 1. Rejection of Bids for Remodel of Fifth 59-252 Floor, Civic Center 2. Resolution Adopting Conflict of Interest Code for Designated Positions as Required by Section 2.09.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Repealing Resolution 6942. 3. Report of Council Legislative Committee: Ballot Initiatives Amending Article XIIIB (The Gann Appropriations Limit) , the Roberti Housing and Homeless Act Initia- tive, and IRS Regulation Concerning Taxa- tion of Accrued Vacation, Sick Leave and Compenst tory Time 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated 5. Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board Unanimous Recommendation re Architectural Review Board Ordinance Amendments 59-252 59-252 59-253 59-253 59-249 2/16/88 Planning Commission Recommendation re Application of Michael Fleming for a Preliminary Parcel Map for Property Located at 1159 Lincoln Court Planning Commission Unanimous Recommenda- tion re Stanford University's Design Application for a Project. to Improve the Medical Center Entry Drive for Property Located at 200 Pasteur Drive Resolution Adopting a Compensation Plan for Hourly Personnel and Rescinding Resolution No. 6658 Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 16, 1988 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:34 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:35 p.m.), Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 7:39 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius,Woolley ABSENT: Cobb Mayor Sutorius announced there would be a Closed Session to discuss litigation in progress (Greer, et al. v. City cif Palo Alto1 et al.), pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), at some point during or after the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, spoke regarding. the Palo Alto Police Department complaint report and his request for the figures for 1987. 2. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke to the future of the Baylands and the definition of "public access." He found it impossible to desert a cause he believed was just, even if pursuit of the cause seemed hopeless. 3. Ja.y.Thorwaldson, 4.00 Channing Avenue, spoke on behalf of the Transportation Parking Task Force for the downtown area. Their present approach was to equate every parking space with a car that came into downtown Palo Alto, and they were attempting to apply some of the Varian methods to increase the alternative transporta- tion share. On February 29, 1988, there would be a "Leave Your Car At Home Day," and he encouraged every- body to participate and invited the Council to convene a special meeting aboard the bus line from City Nall to the Transit Center. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 1988 POTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by. Renzel, approval of . the Minutes of January 19, 1988, as submitted. MOTIONPASSED unanimously, Cobb abet. 59-251 2/16/88 CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Levy said the Consent Calendar included the report from the Council Legislative Committee but failed to include one item which was shown in the minutes of the Legislative Committee. MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Renzel, approval of the Consent Calendar, with Item 3 being amended as follows: Adopt Council Legislative Committee recommendation to sup- port the "Government Spending Limitation and Accountability Act" and oppose the "Paul Gann Spending Limit Improvement and Enforcement Act of 1988*; endorse the "Roberti Housing and Homeless Acta initiative; and support passage of legis- lation which would provide that non --elective unfunded deferred compensation would not be affected by Section 457; and that during 1988, the National League of Cities (NLC) Policy Committee study the following topics: 1) Work on securing immunity for the cable television franchising. activities of cities which are consistent with the Cable Act and including retroactive application of such immunity to July, 1977; and 2) Continue to work toward changes in the federal tax law that will provide incentives for ridesharing and use of other alternative transportation. 1. REJECTION OF BIDS FOR REMODEL OF THE FIFTH FLOOR, CIVIC CENTER (CMR:152:8) (810-02-01) 2. RESOLUTION 6670 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED POSITIONS AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 2.09.010 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPEALING. RESOLUTION NO. 6492" (701-04/716-88-05) 3. REPORT FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE: BALLOT INITIA'T'IVES AMENDING ARTICLE XI I IB (THE GANN APPROPRIA- TIONS LIMIT), THE ROBERTI HOUSING AND HOMELESS ACT INITIATIVE, AND IRS REGULATION CONCERNING TAXATION OF ACCRUED VACATION, SICK LEAVE4 AND COMPENSATORY TIME (CMR:15$:8 762-06 ) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. 59-252 2/16/88 4. PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION ORDERING WEED NUISANCE ABA'' (C1'th:144T 001 -04/M0 -0i) MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt. the Resolution. RESOLUTION 6671 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ORDERING WEED NUISANCE ABATED • Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed Mayor Sutorius asked if the City Clerk had received any written objections. City Clerk Gloria Young said no. MOtION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW BOARD PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION RE THE ARCHITECTURA INCLUDING PROCEDURES, APPROVALS L WITH NEW STATE OF CALIFORNI CLARIFICATIONS I AND OTHER L REVIEW BOARD ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, PROVISIONS FOR REVISED PUBLIC NOTICE ADDITION OF SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR STAFF IMITS ON PROJECT SIZE REDUCTION, CONFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS, LANGUAGE CHANGES (CMR:151:8) A MINOR R (702-01/240) ) Mayor Sutorius said the record showed that the Architectural Review Beard (ARB) was active in the development of the changes and had reviewed them. He noted, however, the ARB's review and passing on the changes occurred prior to the Planning Commission action and certain modifications were made. He asked if it was staff's judgment that the changes met with ARB approval. Planner James Gilliland said yes: staff reported back to the ARB informally on the action of the Planning Commission, and the changes were acceptable. Council Member Fletcher said when the Council reviewed the procedures which culminated in the amendments, it was also the desire of the Council to have the ARB hold evening meetings when there were controversial issues before the ARB. The present City staff and ARB members did not seem aware of that discussion, and they seemed locked into the. 8:00 a.an. meeting schedule. She wondered if there could .be a process for an ongoing document to which staff and ARB members could refer. 59--.253- 2/16/88 City Attorney Diane Northway said unless the ordinance pro- vided for when and how the meetings were held, normally decisions about how meetings were held and the dates were left to the rules of the particular body having the meeting. She assumed Council's direction was not in the ordinance because people did not remember it. If the Council wished to have something .formal, there was no other way to impose such a requirement other than in an ordinance. Council Member Renzel assumed staff believed the 30 -day period for deeming an application complete if there had not been notice in writing by the planning staff was anadequate time period. Ms. Northway clarified the requirement was mandated by State law. Council Member Renzel said appeals on actions on minor proj- ects would have to be filed within four working days following the effective date of the Director of Planning's decision. She asked how interested parties would be noti- fied of the decisions. Mr. Gilliland said the decisions reached the Council packet within the tour days because it was three days from the date of ARB approval, then the Director of Planning approved the decision on the following Tuesday, and then the four days was from that date. The time period worked out to just over a week. There was no official notification to other parties. One would have to attend the meeting for minor projects to know exactly what the ARB action was. Council Member Renzel said the time frame seemed short if someone was interested in appealing minor projects. Mr. Gilliland pointed out the projects in question were minor, and it was the same procedure used at present. It was rare that a minor project decision was appealed. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the Public Hearing closed. !NOTION: Council Member Fletcher coved, seconded by Woolley, to adopt planning Commission• and Architectural Review Board recommendations approving the Architectural Review Board Ordinance amendments as follows: 3) Allow greater staff flexibility in approving minor chanoees to previously approved projects; 59-254 2/16/88 MOTION CONTINUED r . 3. 4. 5. Allow staff to approve specific small projects; Conform to the State of California Permit Streamlining Act; Provide for Public Bearing and Notice; Provide for specific dates of approval, appeal, and building permit issuance; and. 6. Per previous Council direction, limit the amount of reduced site coverage and floor area that may be required by the Architectural Review Board. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY _ OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 16.48 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCESS" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION OF MICHAEL FLEMING FOR A PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP .TO SUBDIVIDE FOUR PARCELS INTO TWO, WITH EXCEPTIONS FOR ACCESS OVER AN EASEMENT WHERE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET IS REQUIRED, AND A WIDTH OF 50 FEET WHERE 60 FEET IS REQUIRED; FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1159 LINCOLNCOURT (300) Mayor Sutorius said the applicant continuance, with which staff concurred. MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved',, to continue the item to the March 14•, meeting. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. had requested a seconded by Klein, 1988, City Council 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE STANFORD UNIVERSIT S DESIGN APPLICATION FOR A PROJECT TO IMPROVE THE MEDICAL CENTER ENTRY DRIVE INCLUDING CIRCULATION PARKING SIGNS T AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS INCL UD. NG THE R MOVAL OF ON -STREET PARKING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT PASTEUR DRIVE CMRt Council Member. Patitucci would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. 59-255 2/16/88 Planning Commissioner Joe Huber referenced Item 1 of the staff report (CMR:155:8), and said there was a considerable difference of opinion at the Planning Commission as to how the median strip should be handled. He believed the sense of the Planning Commission to have an irrigated grasslike area was predominantly to ensure the area would not be used for parking. Staff's proposal on a combining district might also deal with the problem. Item 4 related to the parking now on Pasteur Drive, and again there was a split on the Planning Commission as to how to deal with the matter. The majority felt that, until such time as other. free parking was made available elsewhere in the parking lots, the areas along Pasteur Drive should be used for parking. The sense was that some free parking on a short-term basis should be provided. He recalled there were about 138 spaces on the street, and the sense was there should be something there for the five- and ten-minute visitors. Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen said the idea of a landscaped combining district overlay on the median area did not occur to staff at the time the report went to the Planning Commission and was suggested by a member of the Stanford University team The possibility was a landscaped easement, or some other kind of assurance for keeping the median open without requiring it to be landscaped. The Stanford Board of Trustees -did not approve the median area to be landscaped in any form other than their proposal for natural Grasses. In listening to both the ARB and Planning Commission comments on. the treatment of the median, the overwhelming concern appeared to be that there not be parking in -the middle of the median., and various ARB members and Planning Commissioners were split as to how that median treatment should be handled. Staff believed the landscaped combining district overlay would help to ensure no parking. It would be another hurdle to remove that in the future if the University came back for parking in the median area, but it would not require the University specifically to landscape it with grasses and irrigate it at present: Council Member Renzel said the only place the City shad a landscaped combining district was in the industrial Park bordering Barron Park. She asked if the City had been suc- cessful in maintai:iing the landscaped strip and not having it be -invaded by parking. Ms. Jansen said yes, ; and . another example _ of a landscaped combining district overlay was in an area between commercial and residential in the Midtown Shopping Center area. There 59-256 2/16/88 was no difficulty with enforcement. Basically, they could not have parking within the landscaped combining district overlay. Phil Williams, Planning Director at Stanford University, assured the Council that Stanford was concerned about parking. Much of the Planning Commission discussion revolved around the request that Stanford remove parking from Pasteur Drive. The reasons for removing parking from Pasteur Drive were 1) it was short-term parking, there was a lot of movement in and out, and it was not apparently a safe situation; 2) one of the main purposes of the project was to clarify visually the entrance to the Medical Center and parked cars would obscure the signs that would be installed to achieve that purpose; and 3) the .idea of the entrance improvements was to improve the visual appeal of the entrance. They intended to fully replace the parking with equivalent parking at the Medical Center for visitors and patients and, in fact, that week many of the staff parking spaces were reallocated to the new parking structures so an additional, 122 spaces were now available for patients and visitors directly in front of the hospital, in addition to the existing Clinic lots Further, the idea about free parking was mentioned, and close to the building they regu- lated parking of necessity so it could be available to patients and visitors by charging for the parking and then validating the parking slips for patients and visitors, which gave some assurance that staff and vendors would not fill up the parking. He was sure they could design their parking for patients and visitors to meet the intent of staff's recommended condition. Their main concern was their Board had approved it as a three-phase project and had only approved the first two phases, leaving the median open for a Phase 111. He was unable to make it clear to the Planning Commission that imposing a requirement that the median be :gated and treated essentially added Phase III to the project, and Stanford was currently unable to ask approval for that. He believed the staff recommendation regarding the conditions and the suggestion that the Planning Commission consider a landscaped overlay probably addressed everyone's concerns and would allow Stanford to go ahead with the project. They all worked hard on the project together and had a mutual interest in going ahead because they could proceed with the majority of the desired improve- ments rather than waiting two or three years to do the proj- ect all at once. An additional important advantage in pro- ceeding at present was that as part of the completion of the addition to the hospital later in the summer, patients would he moved from the entry area where the construction would take place into the new hospital area, and it was an 59-257 2/16/88 opportunity to create some construction disruption at the entry to the hospital without disturbing patients. They recommended the Council approve the project in concurrence with the staff recommendation. Council Member Bechtel clarified Stanford supported the staff recommendation as presently outlined and did not need to be concerned about the earlier recommendations Mr. Williams spoke to. The Council had an excellent packet of information with almost verbatim minutes from the Planning Commission and did not feel a whole presentation was necessary. She queried the word "pedestrianize," used by the landscape architect. Council Member Renzel referenced the removal of the parking from along Pasteur Drive phased in with the availability of new spaces in the parking structure, and said she observed the buildings along Welch Road had experienced serious parking problems due to overflow parking from the Medical Center. One of the buildings was unable to fence off the back property line adjoining the Medical Center, and she was concerned about Stanford's policy in regard to lessees _being able to protect themselves in that situation. Mr. Williams said Stanford intented that the lessees protect themselves. Stanford also rented space in many, if not most, of those buildings from their tenants and, therefore, it was a reasonable assumption that some of their people would be parking in those spaces and the cars would show Stanford permits. He did not know if there had been extensive advantage taken of that. Stanford had plans to add to the parking inventory in the Medical Center. They had taken the big step with the parking structure and were now moving things around., The next step was to remove the temporary administrative annex which would release more space for additional surface parking. Council Member Renzel asked if Stanford had a policy prohibiting lessees on Welch Road from building fences. Mr. Williams said not to his knowledge, but he could not be positive and deferred a response. Council Member Renzel was concerned tnere .currently was a serious shortage with the Pasteur Drive. parking and, if that. was removed and parking was only substituted for that without taking care of the other problem, it would be a hardship on the tenants of those buildings. She would be interested in an official response. 59-258 2/16/88 Vice Mayor Klein was not clear as to why the Board of Trustees was not asked to approve "Phase III." Mr. Williams said a year and one-half ago when the project was first moving through the Board approvals, there was some concern on the part of some of the hospital administration and some Board ,members as to whether they might not need to provide depressed parking screened by berms and landscaping 'in the area. Many of the staff, and a majority of those involved, preferred to leave the median as open space. In order to resolve the issue, the Board compromised and agreed that while they were in the process of constructing the new parking structure and updating the Medical Center paring plans, it seemed reasonable to move ahead with the majority of the improvements and leave the median as open space, which was most of the intent of the design, during the period required to resolve the issue. Subsequently,. it was clear that the Planning Commission and ARB were opposed to the parking. Stanford recognized all along that it would be tough to get parking approved in the median, even if they chose to submit a plan for that later, which he did not believe was likely to happen. Staff's suggestion for the landscaped combining district seemed a suitable compromise. Vice Mayor Klein referenced the trade-off recommended by the Planning Commission that the removal of public parking on Pasteur Drive should be in accordance with a plan to provide comparable free parking, etc. He asked for clarification of whether Stanford favored that or preferred to see the new parking be consistent with the present charge and validation system. Mr. Williams believed the key was the interpretation of comparable free parking.' Stanford did not wish to open a parking lot for free parking such as there was along the street because it would be filled with staff, vendors, or others taking advantage of the free parking, thus precluding its use by patients and visitors. Vice Mayor Klein asked if staff agreed with Mr. Williams' statement to "pay first and then get it validated," would meet the Planning Commission's recommendation in the item. Ms. Jansen said no; she did not believe that was the intent of the Planning Commission. They wanted comparable free parking, especially for patient visitors who would not be receiving medical treatment and, therefore, would not have something to show to pay for the parking. 59-259 2/16/88 Vice Mayor Klein was concerned there had been a miscommuni- cation. Mr. Williams said it would be nice if they could find an arrangement where the parking could be controlled so it was available and still met the intent of providing parking for the intended people. MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Woolley, to adopt the staff recommendation to approve the Stanford Medical Center entryway plans subject to the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be revised to reflect optional future widening within the Pasteur Drive median at Pasteur Drive/Sand Hill Road. Such plans shall clearly show sign placement and landscaping, should such widening ultimately be required; 2. Applicant shall revise diroctionss and identification signs to minimize sign clutter to the satisfaction of the ChiaE Transportation Official; 3. Removal of public parking on Pasteur Drive shall be in accordance with a plan► to provide comparable free parking, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Community Environment; 4. Subsequent to City Council review and approval, final plans incorporating Conditions 1 through 3 shall be submitted to the Architectural Review Board for approval; Further, that the City Council initiate a zoning action to consider application of the Landscape (L) Combining District Regulations to the Public Facilities (PP) zoned area of the Pasteur Drive median. Council Member Levy concurred it would be unwise at that point to have parking in► the median area. One means of accomplishing that was not necessarily better than another, and if staff and applicant were comfortable with the combining district, he was willing to support it. In regard to the comparable free parking element, while he was willing to support the Planning Commission suggestion, he had no problem with Stanford's presentation. He queried whether it was a new policy for Council to say there should be free parking and then attempt to impose the free parking for specific _ individuals. He sympathized with Mr. Williams' statement that free parking was available to everybody, and 59-260 2/16/88 the casual visitor was often the last one able to take advantage of it. The validation concept was not a bad one, and he would be interested in his colleagues' comments. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor. Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel, to amend kecommendation 3 to allow Stanford University to charge a parking fee and that a validation process be con- sidered for free parking. Vice Mayor Klein understood the Planning Commission's intent. but, having frequently been to the Medical Center, he did not believe the system would work. The spaces were always taken up and he doubted it was by people the Planning Commission was trying to' benefit. He did not believe they would see parking rates like the San Francisco parking garages, so did not feel they were inflicting a burden on people and would get better control by Mr. Williams' system. Mayor Sutorius was confused by the dialogue Ms. Jansen had with Vice Mayor Klein which differed from page 11 of the Planning Commission minutes. Ms. Jansen understood the Planning Commission's action was to have some form of plan where visitors could park for free, visit, and leave the hospital, i.e., a mere people-- triendly atmosphere than a paid -parking situation. Under .the current validation system, visitors had to go into the security office and receive a validation from certain per- sonnel. She understood the Planning Commission did not want that sort of hurdle system. Right now, only people who received medical treatment received that type of vendee tion. Planning Commissioner Huber understood Stanford's idea of free parking was the validated systen. However, there were differences of opinion as to what was "free," but the sense of the Planning Commission on a split vote was something akin to providing an equivalent number of free spaces period, and had nothing to do with a token or ticket. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously„ Patitucci "not partici- pating,' Cobb absent. Council Member Menzel referenced the free parking. that existed in surrounding buildings on Welch Road. Two buildings with which she was familiar hired security guards but were unable to do anything because some of the tenants of the buildings were Stanford people, but other Stanford 59-261 2/16/88. people who were not tenants of the building parked there and pretended they were visiting the Stanford tenants, and they were unable to fence their building. She asked if there was any way that the Council could condition the motion, or require that approval of fencing of Welch Road properties not be unreasonably withheld. As part of the zoning approval, of which Welch Road was a part, the Council required adequate parking on those sites for those buildings. Ms. Jansen would be uncomfortable relating such a condition to the subject application. However, if that _was the feeling of the Council, certainly at 1RB submittals on properties on Welch Road, staff could look at conditions that would directly relate to the parking problem. Council Member Renzel clarified the condition would need to be a separate action at some point. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously, Patitucci 'not participating," Cobb absent. 8. COMPENSATION PLAN FOR HOURLY PERSONNEL (CMR:145:8) (702-04/501) Council Member Levy asked if the element of 1,000 hours ,as a threshhold was being adopted because it was a statewide agreement with PERS. Director of Personnel Services Jay Rounds said yes; that was the threshhold that would require the City to sign up an hourly employee in the retirement system. Council Member Levy clarified that even if the employee remained a temporary employee, the City would still have to sign up the employee in the retirement system. Mr. Rounds said yes. Council Member Levy clarified that was the threshhold the City was using in its contemplation of whether a temporary employee should become a permanent employee. Mr. Rounds said yes; the City had temporary employees at present who had crossed that threshhold and had been signed up in the system. They were nOw moving to limit the term of the hourly employees so they would not reach that threshhold and the City would not have to sign them up in the retire - went system. 59-262 2/16/88 Mayor Sutorius asked if the true intent of the staff report (CMR:145:8), page 2, paragraph 2, second sentence, was that future potential violations could be easily monitored and prevented. Mr. Rounds said that was correct. MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Patitiucci, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION 6672 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL of ' THE CITY OF PALO ALTO A DOP T IC A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR HOURLY PERSONNEL AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO,. 6655' MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. 9. VICE MAYOR LARRY KLEIN RE GOLDEN TRIANGLE (NPG) Vice Mayor Klein wanted to bring the Council up to date, particularly given the recent newspaper stories with respect to the difficulties, especially between Mountain View, San Josee and Milpitas. The '3tary on the front page of the Times Tribune that evening announcing the appointment of Mike Evanhoe as the Executive Director of the Golden Triangle was helpful in that regard. Mr. Evanhoe, who was the former director of the California Transportation Division, was an outstanding man. At the last meeting of the Golden Triangle in January, they were able to reach an acceptable compromise among San Jose, Milpitas, and Mountain View and could move forward. There were still serious difficulties to overcome, but having an Executive Director would be helpful because it provided more of a focus. Council Member Woolley asked what would be the main task on the Golden Triangle agenda for the next few months. Vice Mayor Klein said in the next session they would set for Mr. Evanhoe a variety of tasks and time lines for the accom- plishment of those tasks. The tasks included the implemen- tation of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) pro- gram, and that would involve hiring some people. Mr. Evanhoe would have work to do in regard to Mountain View, which was more interested in running a local option program then in joining the rest of the Golden Triang) a in operating a centralized system, and they hoped to bring Mountain View around on that point. Another major task was to resolve how much more of the San Jose area should be brought into the Golden Triangle process, San Jose representatives had 59-263 2/16/88 T�. t• committed to a study process on that, and he believed it was inevitable that the Executive Director would be involved working with the San Jose planning staff. Melissa Fialer, 742 Torreya Court, asked what the Golden Triangle was.. Vice Mayor Klein said the Golden Triangle was an effort to try to establish some regional planning by achieving better control over problems concerning transporation, housing and job density. It consisted of San Jose, Sunnyvale, Milpitas. Mountain View, Palo Alto, and the County of Santa Clara. The words "Golden Triangle" came from the fact that the area bounded by 101, Route 237, and Route P80 roughly formed a triangle. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned to a Closed Session re Litigation at 8:44 p.m.. FINAL ADJOURNMENT Final Adjournment at A .J5 p.m. ATTEST: City! Clerk APPROVED: 59-264 2/16/88