Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-09 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES --PALOALTOCITYCOUNCILMEETINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSL!-FREQUENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL= Regular Meeting May 9, 1988 ITEM Oral Communications PAGE 60-31 Approval of Minutes of April 11, 1988 60-31 1. Community Development Block Grant Funding 60-32 Recommendation - Refer to Finance and Public Works Committee 2. South Bay Discharger Authority - 1988-8,9 Budget Approval 3. Contract with General Electric Corporation for Maintenance of 69KV Oil Circuit. Breakers for Substations 60-32 60-32 5. Ordinance Adding Chapter 18.64 Regarding 60-32 Additional Site Development and Design Regulations for Commercial and Industrial oiatricts to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Amending Other Sections of Title 18 to Refer to this Additional Chapter 6. O cdin; nce /Amending Section 18,08.040. of 60-32 the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoc'ing Map) to Apply the Landscape Combining District (L) Regulations to - P?roperty. Located at - 200 Pasteur Drive ;,R solution Approving and Authorizing the.. 'Il vflor. to Execute the Letter of Agreement, Cooirdination of City and County Hazardous Materials Activities 60-32. ITEM PAGE 8. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the 60-33 Fiscal Year 1937-88 to Provide Idditional Funding 'for Capital Improvement Protect 87-16, (Civic Center Power, Heating & Ventiiation Systems, Retrofit) ,9. Use of Plastic Packaging for Take --Ott 60-- 33 10. Council Member Gail Woolley re Lot K -: 60-41 Redesignation of Nine Permit Parking Spaces to Time Limited Space \,, Foods - Recommendation Recess 60-45 11. . Council Member's Frank Patitucci, Gail 60-45 Woolley, and Leland' Levy re Placing of a Restriction of City Cuuncil Terms on the 1988 Ballot Ad journotent to a Closed Session at 10:34 p.m. 60-57 • Final ,Adjournment at `u:4ti p.m. 60-57 Regular Meeting Monday, May 9, 198e The City Council of the City of Palo Alto `net on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:37 p.m.), Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy (arrived at - :37 Patitucci, Renzel, Sgtorius, Woolley (arrived at 7:37 p.m.) Mayor Sutorius announced a Special meeting with the Human Relations Commission was held prior to . the meeting in the Council Conference Room. At some time during or after the meeting there would be a G used Session to discuss litiga- tion in progress (Morris v, ._Ort , C fitg o Palo Alto, et al.) pursuant to Government Lo izde Section 54956.9(a)a ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Ben' Bailey, 171 Everett, spoke about Palo Alto Police Department complaints and disciplinary actions. 2.. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, read a letter from San Francisco Bay Conservation andDevelopmentCommis- sion (BCDC) regarding dredging of the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor. , 3. Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, requested the matter of demolition rights over the Winter Lodge be agendized for public discussiot,. 4. City Manager.: Bill Zaner announced the appointment of Assistant Chief Bruce Cumming as Police Chien of the City of Menlo Park. APPROVAL OF, MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, approval of -the Minutes of April 11, 1988, as submitted. MOTION PASSMD 8-0-1, Bechtel , "abstaining. CONSETLEAUME Item #4 was removed at staff's request,{,. .iOTIOi1: Council Member - Bechtel moved, 'seconded by *lefn, epprowal of tin CoOsent Calendar. Referral COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING RECOMMENDATION —REFER TO FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE (41 -o2)_ Action 2. SOUTH BAY DISCHARGER AUTHORITY - 1988-$9 BUDGET APPROVAL CPR 263 8) { 122) 3. CONTRACT WITH GENERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION` FOR MAINTE- NANCE OF. 69KV OIL CIRCUIT BREAKERS FOR SUBSTATIONS (CMR:268:8) (1101) 5. ORDINANCE 3810 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 18.64 REGARDING ADDI- TIONAL SITE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS TO TITLE 18 (ZONING) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING OTHER SECTIONS OF TITLE 18 TO REFER TO THIS ADDITIONAL CHAP- TER" (1st Reading 4/25/88, PASSED 9-0) (701-03/237-01) 6. ORDINANCE 3811 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZGN ING MAP) TO APPLY THE LA D- SCAPE COMBINING DISTRICT L PRO REGULATIONS TO PS TY LOCATED AT 200 PASTEUR DRIVE" (1st Reading 4/25/88, PASSED 8-0, Patitucci.'hnot participating") (701-03/3.00) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci "note, participating' initiate #6. 7. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND At .,1HORI ZING THE MAYOR TO EXE- CUTE THE LETTER OF AGREEMEP T, COORDINATION OF` : CITY AND COUNTY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ACTIV?TIES" (CMR.271:8) (701-04/1440-01) MOTION*. Council Meter. Woolley proved, seconded • by Klein, to adopt A tit U € recoaresenda tioo adopting Raso►l u t ion 6691. RESOLUTION 6691 entitled •F LOTION .,Op THE COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ; APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE LITTER OF AGREEMENT, COOK= DIRATXGN 0 '± CITY AND COUNTY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ACTIV►ITYB ' LETTER OF AG1EE ENT, COORDINATION OW CITY AND CCU HAZARDOUSlIATERIALS.ACTIVITIES 8. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987--88 TO PROVLDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING, FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, PROJECT 8 (CIVIC CENTER POWER HEEtTING & VENTILATION SYST S RETRG' 'IT (CMRs2 s :) Oi-O ld- Council Member Patitucci said the ordinance moved forward one fiscal year the expenditure for the heating and ventila- tion system primarily because of the increased use of the computer system. NOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt staff recommendation tot 1. Approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance to the budget for fiscal year 1987-88 in the amount of $475,000; 2. Authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Man Wah Construction Company in the amount of $420,050 for the construction of the . Civic Center Power, Heating, and Ventilation Retrofit, CIP 87-16; and 3. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $54,450. ,ORDINANCE 3812 entitled °ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL E CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THR BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987--88 TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT. PROJECT 87-16 `CIVIC CENTER POWER, HEA7.NG, AND VENTILATION SYSTEMS RETROFIT" CONTRACT WITH MAN WAU CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR CIVIC CENTER POWER, HEATING, AND VENTILATION SYSTEM RETROFIT NOTION PASSED unanimously. 9. USE or PLASTIC PACKAGING FOR TAKE-OUT FOODS - RECOMMEN- DATION GMR:226:8) (701-04)1444) Council Member Woolley asked about staffing for the project without requiring additional funds. As6fstantto the City Manager Vicci Rudin noted that among staff's recommendations was that's volunteer task force be established to develop an; educational program to communicate with the public, etc. -Staff had expressions of interest to serve on the task force from various community groups which hid beep active in the .conservation movement, as well as the Ch*ab r of., Commerce. In term* of staff's involvement, they could see 'existing otaff in the Public Works Department bringing together the task force, but it would be important to have volunteers do the bulk of the work in communicating and developing the educational program. Council Member -Woolley referenced the relative cost of foam and paper for the City's supplies, page 5 of ,the staff report (CMR:226:8), and asked the total cost. Special Assistant to the Finance Director Lynne Johnson replied over the past 12 months the City spent approximately $9,600 on the products. The increased cost of $4.,300 would be almost a 50 percent increase. Council Member Bechtel asked if the resolution at places (on file in the City Clerk's office) was different from the resolution attached to the packet. Ms. Rudin said only grammatically. Staff discovered the five sections did not follow from the resolve. Council Member Bechtel asked about an alternative for the styrofoam cups used outside the Council `Chambers. Ms. Johnson said there were pros and cons to the uee of even the paper cups. Some people in the industry said the plastic liner used in the cups for hot liquids also was not biodegradable. There were alterntives to the foam products. Council Member Bechtel did not get a clear idea from the staff report of what the Cityshould do about some of the specific products in Palo Alto. Ms. Rudin said the fear of supporting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) was not present. The City did not. purchase products using CFCs in their manufacture, and' the. continued use of foam cups would not involve CFCs. It Council wished to .use only biodegradable products, the question was encountered of what the tradeoff was.: Council Member Levy asked for more precision on how much staff time and cost the volunteer task force would take and whether establishing a task force as envisioned would mean themembers might- feel they were not being properly sup— ported et the levels projected. Ms. Rudin knew Council was sensitive to using volunteers and expecti ig them to carry the effort themselves; owever, that waa a' true situatiOn . in launching another tasii force. The enekgy to be expended in developing the success of the pro- gram would have to rely on the task force's devotiok to the assignment. Staff received coamunications from the, Peninsula Conservation Center, the War on Waste Committee, the Chamber of Commerce and various \individual citizens expressing interest in the project. She believed there was energy in the community to work on the cause. Taking on the project would require staff to simply shift their emphasis, but it was in line with the efforts currently of the people. who operated the recycling program. Council Member Levy clarified staff would have to • shift its time around, but at present it was not known how much of that staff time would be rrquired. Mr. Rudin said that was correct. Vice Mayor Klein believed two different problems were addressed in the staff report: One was CFCs and the second was biodegradability and the use of the City's landfill. In regard to CFCs, staff indicated it was possible to buy plastic products without CFCs, and. he asked how difficult that was. He asked whether the manufacturers told staff whether the products contained CFCs. Ms. Johnson understood that two -,thirds of the manufacturers of plastic food packaging, such as styrofoam cups, plates, bowls, etc., did not use CFCs in the manufacture of those productE.- She recently read an article where many of the remaining third of those _ w nufacturers had committed to not using -CFCs in the :particular configuration currently used.' There was a movement at the .industry level to eliminate the use of CFCs. Vice Mayor Klein asked how easy it was to determine whether the take-out food vendors' packaging contained CFCs. Ms. Rudin said staff was advised that the individual restau- rant, etc., would require. their distributorof manufacturer to provide them with a letter documenting the product was manufactured without the use of CFCs and would have that letteron their premises in case they were challenged. Vice Mayor Klein asked for staff's thinking in rec6m- meitding only a voluntary . rather than a mandatory program on the use of CFCs giten the facts that two-thirds Of manu- facturers were, not using CFCs and that Los Angeles was moving toward a requirement that their food _'vendors not use CFC material. Ms. Rudin _believed the -fall -back position would be that the. voluntary phase -out program suggested by staff have a deadline of June, 1989. At that point a ban would be appro- priate. By that time also, state legislation would be in place, assuming it passed the legislature. Staff understood even the plastics industry was behind legislation that would phase out CFC-made products. Council Member Woolley agreed ,with Vice Mayor Klein .that there were two parts to the problem. She believed the matter of CFCs was almost a non -issue at that point because of what - the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was doing on a federal level and, what the industry was doing, with good examples being set by McDonald's and Burger King. She did not believe the first three staff recommendations dealing with CFCs would be a burden on staff and would establish the Council'F position. The more important part on the local level was curtailing the use of non -recyclable, non biodegradable plastics. It was just as appropriate for the City to be involved in considering the reduction in plastics as it was to take the lead in recycling of news- paper, glass, cans, and the two -liter plastic bottles. NOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt staff recommendations 1 - 6, with the resolution being amended in Section 4 to delete the words "unlers there is no acceptable alternative." 1. Support state and federal actic:„. for a phase -out pro- gram to eliminate the use cf all. chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); 2. Establish a volunteer task force to develop an educa- tional program, in cooperation with the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, to inform -City residents and busi- nesses about the potentially harmful effects of the use of CFCs in all plastic materials; 3:. Direct a volunteer task force to establish a voluntary phase -out program for all take-out food vendors in Palo Alto to eliminate the use of plastic food packaging made with CFCs by June, 1989; 4. Further direct the volunteer task force to establish an educational program that would inform City residents and businesses about the use of all plastics; 5. Direct the Council Legislative Committee to evaluate and make recommendations concerning proposed state and federal regulations that emphasise the recycling of Plastic food containers and plastic packaging; and 60-36 5/09/88 MOTION CONT'D 6. Adopt the resolution which expresses the Council's com- mitment to the elimination of CFCs and the responsible use of all plastics.. RESOLUTION 6692 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF 1'HE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONCERNING THE ELIMINATION OF CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS AND THE RESPONSIBLE USE OF PLASTICS" Council Member Woolley referenced deleting the words "snless there is no acceptable alternative" from Section 4 and said staff reported the City did not use any plastic food pack- aging containing CFCs. Since the supply of such packaging was readily available, she saw no reason for the caution. AMENDMENT: Council Member Woolley moved; seconded by Fletcher, to add to the recommendations: 7. Direct the volunteer task force to report back to the Council on the feasibility of banning the use of non - biodegradable packaging originating at business estab- lishments within the City and, if feasible, suggest target dates for compliance. Council Member Renzel asked whether the amendment referred to non -biodegradable packaging created or being used in Palo Alto. Council Member Woolley meant being used by businesses in the community. They had no control when the City or any other business bought products which came already packaged, but they had control over a retail store's using a plastic bag to package several items. Council Member Fletcher was not sure there was a good sub- stitute for the plastic coverings for newspapers on rainy days. Council Member Woolley believed the task force needed to explore those kinds of things. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously Vice Mayor; Klein felt the CFCs were a major problem. Even though the food packaging was only a small part, he believed the Council should be on record 4s being much stronger than merely indicating a voluntary phase -out over a 13 -month period. 60-37 5/09/88 AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Flein moved, seconded by Renzel, to revise Section 3 of the Resolution to require all take-out food vendors in Palo Alto to eliminate the use of plastic food packaging containing CFCs by December 31, 1988. Vice Mayor Klein said they had heard from staff twc-thirds cf the manufacturers already had eliminated CFCs, and there was no ..excuse any longer for anybody to be using them. The December 31, 1988, date gave ample time for, anybody to deplete existing inventory. He recalled DuPont, America's largest manufacturer of CFCs, indicated it was getting out of the business. Other people were still in it, and he believed it was a serious issue and the Council should do its small bit to indicate that their society had to stop using such packaging. MAKER AND SECOND OF AMENDMENT AGREED TO INCORPORATE LANGUAGE TO DELETE RECOMMENDATION t3. Council Member Cobb asked if staff concurred with Vice Mayor Klein's understanding that the amendment provided a feasible time schedule and did not create undue hardship. Me. Rudin recalled the Chamber of Commerce committee that worked with staff on developing the recommendations advo- cated the June, 1989, date as being consistent with the national program the various firms established fore using up inventories and phasing out the use of the products. Council Member Levy wanted to eliminate the use of the products as soon as possible but he was in no positiyn to determine whether a fair date was June, 1989, or December, 1988. He asked if it was the Chamber of Commerce's`<feeling that June, 1989, was the earliest action could be accom- plished or if they were just using the date because of con- formance with state and federal regulations. Ms. Rudin said the date was not tied to state and federal regulations but tied to the national corporate plan of the firms represented on the Chamber of Commerce's committee. Ms. Johnson clarified June, 1989, had to do with the 18 - month phase -out that McDonald's and Burger King had already implemented. Council_ Member Renzel commented the same rationale that went for the City's being able to convert over applied in terms of the feasibility. It was certainly technically and`eco- nomically fusible. They heard the inventory use would have taken place by June, 1989, so the -amendment was a reasonable thing to support and put emphasis on a very serious prob- lem. 60-38, 5/09/88 Mayor Sutorius was not sure he heard part o . Council Member Renzel's comment the same way in regard to the inventory being exhausted by that time. He understood staff to res- pond there were national purchasing processes and that the phaPr -out of many of the large users was scheduled to be completed by June 1989. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Woolley, to reinstate recommendation /3 and revise the voluntary elimination of plastic food packaging containing CFCs to occur by December 31, 1988; to become mandatory, by June, 1.939. Council Member Renzel asked what would happen between December and June. Mayor Sutorius compared the interim period to some seismic hazard corrections where the City had voluntary processes and allowed a little leeway before taking final enforcement actions. Council Member Renzel believed it was highly unlikely smaller outfits would have at least a year's inventory on hand. She read that morning about Hewlett-Packard's "as needed" inventory system and believed most companies were not tying up finds in inventory. If McDonald's and Burger King felt they could use up their inventory by June 1989, it seemed unlikely that others could not as well. The amend- ment might as well be voluntary until June, 1989, when it would become mandatory. She supported the amendment as originally made. Mayor Sutorius said stretched targets were not inappropriate and one aimed at that target, but in regaru to manadatory enforcement, the vendors knew there was a firm date by which to meet the target and, if they failed, they had little time thereafter. Council Member Levy was uncomfortable changing a date that had been developed after consultation between staff and mem- bers of the community. Mayor Sutorius's suggestion was a good one. Obviously, the use would phase down substantially but mandatorily be absolutely eliminated by June, 1989. If the Council had all the facts before it, it might be that using an earlier date would be in order, but as they did not, he did not believe the sic -months of difference would be critical. Vice Mayor Klein said there was a major difference between the subject matter and an earthqua'$e ordinance. They did not know when and if an earthquake would hit. They did know 60-39 5/09/88 CFCs were damaging the environment right now and would con- tinue to do so from January i, 1989; to June 30, 1989, so there was a reason not to have a phase -out period. The time table had been worked out primarily from business input, net community ir_put. He was not being critical of business, but they were faced with a seriouu environmental hazard. Their program would not accomplish a great deal, but anything that encouraged continued use of CFCs was e'. tremeiy }Jnfortunate. Council Member Renzel's point was absolutely right. It ..did not add up for industry on the one hand to urge shli ing to a system where companies did not maintain much Inventory, and then say they needed 13 months of inventory. Council Member Woolley said the Chamber of Commerce commit- tee did work with staff in generating the report, and she understood it was a good working relationship; therefore, she was hesitant to take a relatively arbitrary action which would fly in thee €ace of a recommendation which came out of a citizen.' group from the Chamber of Commerce. The amount of CFCs in plastic food packaging was very smallcompared to the air conditioners and cleaning solvents which accounted for about 98 percent of the CFCs yenarated. If they put it in perspective and realized most businesses in Palo Alto probably would voluntarily, or had already phased out their use of such materials, it was not worth the ill will gener- ated by not taking into consideration what the committee recommended, or at least not having the information before making the decision. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-40 Bechtel, Fletcher, Klein, Renzel voting "no." Council Member Levy was concerned about the amount of staff time required by the task force. AMENDMENT: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Patitucci, to revise Recommendation #2 to state, "It is the intent of the Council that once established, the task force would proceed without further use of City staff support." Council Member Levy clarified it was his intent if addi- tional staff support was needed, it would come through the normal Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee procedures so itcould be discussed more specifically. He did not mean to exclude the use of City facilities for, meetings, etc. Vice Mayor Klein opposed the amendment. It placed the wrong emphasis onwhat the Council was doing ie regard to the cutr they had to make in the budget. The City would still have 60-40 5/09/88 staff and the staff would still have projects to do. To a significant degree, the Council had to depend on the City Manager and his advice with regard to the allocation of the work of staff. City Manager Bill Zaner concurred with Vice Mayor Klein's comments. He was not eager to take on a new assignment, but if staff was ^oing to carry out the Council's policy, they needed the flexibility to work with the task force. He promised the Council that staff would not spend a lot of time. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Levy, Patitucci voting "aye.' Council Member Woolley seid the resolution was truly worth- while in an immediate way. Section 2 stated they would support, state and federal regulations that emp"asized recycling. On Attachment B, she learned from staff that AB 3299 (Killea) would be heard in the Ways and Me:ns Committee on May 25, 1988. If the Council adopted the resolution, they would, in effect, be taking a position and it would be possible to send a letter of supp?rt to the Ways and Means Committee meeting. She believed they would realize a small benefit from the action that evening. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. 10. COUNCIL MEMBER GAIL WOOLLEY RE LOT i( - REDESIGNATION OF NINE PERMIT PARKING SPACES TO TIME LIMITED SPACE (211-02) PPTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Bechtel., to direct staff to change the designation of all or part of the spaces in the first bay entering from Lytton into Lot K from permit to time limited. Council Member Levy asked if staff could point out on a transparency the first bay of the parking lot in question. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway pointed out the bay referred to where one entered from Lytton Avenue, going into the property. There were two bays: One entering and one exiting from Lytton. The one exiting_ was the private lot. David Jury, 305 Lytton Av6 nue, representing Lytton Partners, the owner of 361 Lytton, said the recent change in the parking lot had turned out to be a hardship for the tenant of the building, First Nationwide Bank. First Nationwide had the right to cancel their lease should the situation 60-41 5/09/88 become impossible. He did not know if +thet was their inten- tion, but he -wanted to avoid that confrontation. The City1e zoning ordinance asked that banks and savings and loans be located out of the core area on the side streets. ,Itseemed logical that customers of those banks and savings and loans that located out of.' the core area be offered parking. The rear of Lot K by Waverley Street had a number of vacant slots on almost any day. A recent request for a parking permit .was granted within two weeks. Close by, Lot T was currently a mix of permit and two-hour parking and, other then at lunchtime, was underutilized. They requested Lot KK\ be returned to the configuration it was before the change and:would be happy to cooperate with the City in designing anC installing signage. Madelynn M. Krebs, Branch Vice -President, First Nationwide Bank, 361 Lytton Avenue, requested Lot K adjacent to their office be converted back to a two-hour lot from a permit - only lot. First Nationwide Bank had been in business in Palo Alto for over 30 years during which time they always had parking available tor customers. Their current cus- tomers, as well as potential customers, considering parking when selecting a financial institution. Parking was an important element in the total service package offered cus- tomers-. Since relocating to 361 Lytton Avenue, their deposits •..ier-e down 1.9 percent over their total savings beee, and it would work out to 11.4 percent if it continued at the same rate for the year.. Much of the loss was attrib- uted to lack of parking. She concurred with David Jury that the lease contained an option to leave should the situation not be resolved. Signatures of customers were available for review. Their merchant customers did not want to carry large sums of cash, and the situation posed a security probe lem because ` v had to look for parking and, at times, walk a distance. The signs marking Lot K as permit -only parking could easily be overlooked when in a hurry. A new customer parked in .the lot in error and received a parking ticket, which did not do much for public relations. As mandated by the Planning Commission, financial institutions were limited in their location in the downtown area. First Nationwide was on the outskirts of downtown and, unlike the financial institution on University Avenue, did not have available parking. Pam Marsh, 327 Waverley Street, lived right across the Waverley arm of Lot K, and supported Hare, Brewer, and Kelley's proposal for a reversion of Lot K back to its pre- vious configuration. She firmly believed the retail estab- lishmeets struggling to establish in the general area needed 60-42 5/09/88 on -site, street -level parking. The neighbors in the area had been supportive in the past of the establishment of retail businesses. The neighborhoods near downtown Palo Alto were packed duringthe day with commuter parking on the streets. For years, they had used Lot K and the short-term parking there to provide a little respite for themselves. If, during the day, a repair person or friend visited, there was nc place for them to park. Some of the residential units near Lot K had no off-street parking available, and others had one small space. For over ten years she had been involved in innumerable committees on parking and traffic in downtown Palo Alto, and the present ongoing staff was doing a tremendous job addressing the parking probl'.ms downtown. She was pleased by "all their efforts and believed the policy generally established to separate long- and short-term parking was a sound one; however, any policy had to take into consideration the specific environment. Both residents and businesses were being hurt by converting Lot K to all - permit. She pointed out the proposal forwarded to the Council by David Jury to change the lot back to the way it was before,was different from her understanding of Council Member Woolley's proposal. In the past, there was also short-term parking on the arm that went out to Waverley Street and not just in the corridor off Lytton. She hoped the Council would support changing tale lot back. Council Member Woolley said what she had originally discus- sed with Mr. Jury and staff was either the conversion of the entire first bay (18 spaces) or the conversion redesignation of half the bay. That was the reason for making the motion general so it would be up to staff. She asked if it was easier to explain to the public: that half of the bay was penal t and half was two-nour, or to make the whole bay two- hour in order to avoid confusion. She asked staff how different it would be if Lot K was to go back to the way it was --which was not the motion. Mr. Overway clarified if the Council chose to convert 9 of the spaces --which was half the bay --staff believed it would work better if the Council converted all 18, but that was in the first bay. He believed, as raised by Ms. Marsh, t f:ere were additional two-hour public spaces in Lot K in other sections. He did not have the information with him. Council Member Woolley asked if conversion v, more than 18 spaces would be a problem in tears of the number of permits issued for Lot K. Mr. Overway said conversion of more than 18 spaces would just increase the problem that would exist by converting the 18, but some of the permits could be absorbed. into Lot T. 60-43 5/09/88 The bigger issue was one of proper signing and ensuring people understood. It was possible deal with the sigr-rage issue of the first bay of 18, but spreading other public spaces in Lot K became more complex. Separating the parking lots had proved sucessful because staff no longer received complaints about the confusion. Council Member Fletcher said Lot T had both permit and pub lic parking, and the plan according to past directions was' to ccnvert the lot to all public. Mr. Overway felt that if they were adding public parking and subtracting permit parking from Lot K, they should keep Lot T the way it was. Mr. Overway said Council Member Fletcher's statement was correct. By removing 18 permit spaces, about half of them could be absorbed in the empty spaces presently in Lot K. The other nine had to go elsewhere and Lot T was available. By taking the action before Council, staff recommended Lot T remain split 50/50 for an undetermined time. At present, the public portion in Lot T was fully utilized, and the permit portion was not even half utilized. Council Member Levy said the motion was to change the desig- nation en all or part of the spaces, and he asked if staff would be given that discretion. Council Member Woolley said yes; in the first bay. Council Member Levy commented the implemented changes and policy worked well. He would only make exceptions to it with caution; but he could see, particularly if the spaces against the building were designated as two-hour, that would work well. He urged staff to be clear with the signage to avoid the confusion that had existed when signs looked simi- lar and people believed "permit" meant parking was permit- ted. Vice Mayor Klein asked for an interpretation of "first bay." He was rot sure whether it meant 9 spaces or 18 spaces. Mr. Overway understood staff would implement 18 spaces, if left to their discretion. Mayor Sutorius said on two occasions he had seen quite a vacancy in the public parking area in Lot R during the mid- day period. He knew the Council made modifications to the original staff recommendation as it affected Lots P and R and appreciated staff had done a number of things to create spaces. He asked staff's assessment of the use of the parking at present. 60-44 5/09/88 Mr. Overway said his personal assessment was that Lot R was being used rather well. MOTION PASSED unanimously. MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved that Lot T be kept in • its present ccntiguration. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Mayor Sutorius noted that staff intended to sustain the status quo; COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:00 P.M. TO 9:10 P.M. 11. COUNCIL MEMBERS FRANK PATITUCCI, GAIL WOOLLEY, AND LELAND LEVY RE PLACING OF A RESTRICTION OF CITY COUNCIL TERMS ON THE 1988 BALLOT (705-88-03 MOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Levy, to direct staff to prepare an appropriate Charter Amendment which will establish a limitation on two consecutive terms of Council Members and place the Charter Amendment on the ballot at the November, 1989, election. The effectivll date would be January 1, 1990, and would apply to all elections thereafter., Council Member Patitucci said the memorandum dated May 4, 1988, initially proposed the item be ;laced on the November, 1988, ballot and be effective for the next election to the City Council. He was persuaded that placing the Charter Amendment on the 1938 ballot would require a Special Election and cost extra money; and, secondly, it would be smothered by the attention paid to the national election. Also, he was convinced that there would be a wide range of Council Members running in 1989, some for a third term, some for a second, and some for a first; and he believed the iasue would get full discussion at that time. Since no one would be affected in that election, everyone could speak freely. It would be a healthy debate, and he hoped the pub- lic would decide what it wanted in Palo Alto based on the merits. He hoped the Council Members appreciated they were not there voting on the issue but were simply placing it in front of the voters in a manner that would give full and complete discussion. He was willing to live with the results of the election and would prefer not to be in a positicn of not allowing the issue t^ get before the public. He urged support. Council Member Cobb referenced the memorandum prepared by Vice Mayor Klein and himself (on file in the City Clerk's office) and advised that he would move to amend the motion at the appropriate time from two terms to three terms. 60-45 5/09/88 Ellen Wyman, 546 Washington Avenue, urged the Council not to limit Council Members to two terms. When the idea was proposed 11 years ago, she opposed it. It was undemocratic and unnecessary. They heard no concern expressed by people in the community for the need for that kind of limitation. Perhaps it was reasonable to have limitations of terms for Mayors in big cities, but she did not believe Palo Alto had political patronage nor the problem of dynasties being established. Anyone who served two terms was a "lame duck" for half of the time he/she served on the Council. The limitation would bring less accountability, less responsible long-range planning, and would make it harder to have the City's Council representative- in top positioes in regional agencies. Palo Alto had a lot to contribute, and she would like to see its input on those bodies increased, not decreased. They would have a problem with continuity. By 1891 --if the limitation was effective now-ePalo Alto could have only one Council Member who was not serving a first -term. If the limitation had a later effective date, the problem might be postponed but they could be in the same position in a few years. The Council would have to rely more heavily on staff which presented several problems. They would have more strong recommendations coming_ from staff, who were not elected. At a time when they were looking at budget problems and talking about personnel using most of the budget, the capacity of staff would be strained. She recognized it sounded logical to get new people, new ideas, and to have more challengers, but there were not always enough qualified a andidates, especially in the last 10 or 15 years. In 1975, three incumbents were defeated in one election, so the fact there were incumbents did not necessarily mean a challenger would not run or do well. Reducing the number of incumbents did not guarantee an adequate number of qualified candidates. They had a quiet time without great divisiveness or controversy in the last few times, and it might be largely because they had a good balance of points of view on the Council. Traditionally, it had been easier tc find a candidate who worked or had business interestu in Palo Alto than to find people who simply lived there and who cared about their community, yet they needed the point of view of those who did not have any financial interest in the Council's activities. They were fortunate to have so many people willing to serve so long, but she questioned why someone who had done a good job on the Council should be prevented from running again. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, associated himself with Ms. Wyman's comments. He spoke from personal experience about how difficult it was to overturn incumbents; however, it was not a good idea to limit council Members to two terms. The City of Palo Alto would be ill -served if, for. instance, 60-46 5/09/88 • Kirke Comstock had been forced off the Council after two terms. There were sitting Council Members he would not like to see forced off prematurely; on the other hand, one term could be excessive fcr some Council i4embers. Council Members who did not wish to run for a third term were not forced to do so, but that did not mean people should be required to retire after only two terms. It would be a dis- service to the community if a Council Member was forced to rcAire just as he was getting involved in a pressing matter. He liked the memorandum written by Council Member Cobb and Vice Mayor Klein except that a three -term limit was only 50 percent less bad. When the Constitutional amendment lim- iting the President to two terms was passed, he believed it was the second worst amendment ever passed --Prohibition was the worst --and nothing in the interim had changed his mind. There was no public ground swell, and he suggested the Council oppose the motion. Council Member Patitucci asked what Mr. Moss's objection was to putting the item on the ballot. Mr. Moss said his main objection was that while the Matter was pending between now and 1989, people who were running for election in 1989 would not know whether they would be the first Council Members limited to two terns or not. The character of the people who would run for election in 1989 would be different if the item was on the ballot. Also, there was the way the item was structured, e.g., exemption of sitting incumbents, etc. He did not believe the public would support the limitation and it would do damage to the electoral process in the interim period. Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, said voters had returned the present Council Members to the Council because to get reelected in Palo Alto they had to devote themselves com- pletely to the community. He asked why they now wished to deprive the City of the expertise acquired with such a high deg.{ ee of personal sacrifice. He reminded the Council of the ' importance of continuity to such issues as open space, smoke -free environments, bike lanes, the winter Lodge, com- munity character, library funding, curbside recycling, etc. Voters were clearly able to limit the Council term a single term. In spite of occasional abuse, the public evi- dently liked to have the Council Members there again and again. Jon Schink, 420 Lowell Avenue, said many might believe a citizen -activist such as he would herald the idea. There were members of the public such as he and Bob Moss, who considered themselves the new blood who would like to bring new ideas to the Council, but --like Bob Moss --he recognized 60-47 5/09/88 the idea as a poor one. He asked if the new blood that would be brought to the Council was more important than the experience gained in running Palo Alto. As a citizen he preferred to have other citizens feeding the new ideas into the Council and allowing the Council Members withexperierce continue running the City. It took one or two yews for new Council Members to have the experience to make the pro- per decisions. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, was strongly against the second- er third -term limitation for Council Members. It was entirely appropriate for Chief Executives but represen- tatives were an entirely different matter. Although he might disagree with him at times, he appreciated the years of excellent service to the community that Pete McCloskey had given. Being in a body such as the Council was not just a matter of representing one's own views. One represented the views of the consteltuents and that took time to learn. Furthermore, the limitation would diminish Palo Alto's influence in important regional and state organizations, In particular, he acknowledged the service of Mayor Sutorius in the area of utilities and Council Member Fletchec in the area of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and related topics. The most recent election was considerably mere lively than the previous one, and he expected the next to definitely be a lively election in view of the R-1 and other development issues. The problem of attracting quali- fied candidates to the Palo Alto City Council had less to do with incumbents than with other factors. He believed the proposition would benefit the business community substan- tially more than the residentialists. There was an old saying, "If it ain't broke, do►A't fix it." Peter Taskovich, 751 Gailen Avenue, supported the speakers before him. There was no good reason for the limitation., and the main reason the incumbents had been reelected easily was because they had done a relatively good job. It was patronizing to say the citizens did not know when enough was enough. The problem with placing the proposition on the ballot was that future citizens would be bound by the law approved by current residents. Palo Altans took an interest in City issues and voted if there was controversy. Another problem was the two -term limitation would encourage slate politics again. Gary Fazzino, 1960 Park Boulevard, was intrigued with the proposal since he placed a similar item on the Council agenda nearly 11 years ago. At chat time, he supported the concept of term limits for Council Members for a number of reasons. First, the position of elected official should r.cvc r be con sider-eri A lob, They 1f would not enc f� 60-49 5/09/88 political careerists. A true democracy should allow for as many talented citizens as possible to participate in the decision -making process, end that was particularly appropri- ate at the local level. There were many talented citizens in the coilmunity willing to serve, but they were discouraged from doing so because of the difficulty involved in ousting an incumbent. Since 1950, nearly 90 percent of all i nc;jm- bents who sought reelection had been reelected. Palo Alto once had a two -term limit during the 1950s and 1960s wheA six -year Council terms were the law. However, ha also si;p- por ted a balanced version of the proposal. In 1977, he proposed and continued td -support a three -term limit rather than two. It was consistent with former City policy which allowed individuals to s'-rve 12 years. It allowed the truly outstanding Council Memb rs to continue serving on the Council while, at the same time, allowing the opportunity for new blood. In addition, his 1977 proposal exempted present Council Members from any limit. Present Council Members ran with the expectation they could continue to serve at the public's pleasure if they did a good job. He :=ti1, believed a term limit was a good idea; however, if the issu._: was to be placed before the voters on the ballot, he_ asked that it be made a balanced plan. Elsie Begle, 1319 Bryant Street, expressed her agreement with the previous speakers. She could not imagine why they would manufacture a problem when they had plenty of real ones. Council Members would not have the same commitment or interest. She liked to think public opinion was a thumb tack they all sat on and, with a limit of two terms, they would not feel the thumb tack very sharply. Palo Alto had a fine City Council. The citizens appreciated the work of Council Members and were satisfied, but would like to be given the option of being dissatisfied. Council Member Levy thanked Council Member Patitucci for giving them the opportunity to listen to all the gratifying public input. He supportedthe measure before the Council. His concern was not that the public did not know v ho to vote for but that they did not get a chance to vote for all the truly good people in the community who were capable, experi- enced, and would like to run if they did not have to face the difficulty of unseating an incumbent. It was true incumbents were unseated from time to timed however, the last one occurred in Palo Alto in 1979. The memorandum written by Vice Mayor Klein and Council Member Cobb men- tioned the recent School Board election as a case where political direction of an elected body could change, but the only incumbent who ran for the School. Board was elected. The proposal allowed an incumbent to run aeain after two years. It did not demean the voters' intelligence and was 60-49 5/09/88 not undemocratic. In fact, he viewed the power of the incumbency as an imputation of the democratic eystem. The incumbent was so stronce was so able to command the money; press coverage, etc., that the voters did not have the choice to consider newcomers on an equal basis. While it might not represent perfect democracy, the realities of their present situation were such that the community would be better served if there were a two -term limitation and fresh blood had a chance to serve the public, as he knew in Palo Alto there were many individuals who would welcome that opportunity. Council Member Cobb believed the proposition was a bed idea for the reasons outlined in the memorandum; however, if the amendment was to go to the ballot, it should be made more reasonable. AMEFDMENTs Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, to change two terms to three terms. Council Member Cobb said a three -terra limit allowed for more gradual transition, was more consistent with the decisions of people who had chosen to run for three terms, provided a point of compromise between those who believed any limits were fundamentally wrong and those who supported a two -term limit, and provided a better mix of continuity and change. Mr. Taskovich's observation was exactly correct: a nine - person Council and a two -term limit situation encouraged slate politics which some of them spent effort to get away from. The best -funded slates often wore and one of the last times a whole group was turned out of office en masse was because of a well -financed campaign of that nature. Most people would stop at two terms, and the three -term people would temper out the system so there would be fewer seats available. That would give a better chance for continuity and balance= If the term was less than three, he favored reducing the size of the Council. Council Member Bechtel supported the amendment but would oppose the main motion. Council Member Patitucci clarified under a two -term limit, in the typical election, only two members of the Council would be required to run again. The pattern would be two members of the Council every two years, and every fourth year there would be three. (Mayor Sutorius said the Council was having difficulty under- standing the sequency. 6050 5/09/88 1 Council Member Patitucci said it a pattern of elections was laid out where everybody ran for two terms, the average pat- tern by which people were elected went 2-2-2-3, 2-2-2-3. It might not follow that pattern if there was an election in which four people: chose not tc, run, and then all four would have to be replaced. He would oppose the amendment. Mayor Sutorius supported the amendment. Reasonable argument had beenmade as to why three term offered benefits and allowed for a tranoition. If it was determined that a two - term limitation was wise, then the voters would have an opportunity to make that change. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Levy, Patitucci voting °no. ° Council Member Bechtel said there was no question in her mind that it was healthy for a Cou,.'Al and any organization to have some change and new blood. She did not believe there should be a wholesale ouster forceably unless there was a valid reason, and that reason would need to come from the voters in making careful analysis and looking at all the Council Members' voting records. She also considered the history. It might be true that an incumbent had not been voted out of office since 1979, but that did not mean there had not been any change in the last nine years. In 1981 only Council Member Fletcher and former Council Member Fazzino were running for full -term reelections. Council Member Cobb had lust been elected, and she and Vice Mayor Klein had been on the Council a short time. In 1983, Mayor Sutorius and Council Member Woolley were new Council Members and other Council Members were leaving because they had decided it was time to get new look. In 1985, it was true they had incumbents running; however, none of the incumbents had served more than one term with the exception°n of Council Member Fletcher. They had not had an overwhelmingly lengthy time that any of them had served on the Council, unlike in the City of Campbell where a Council Member had served for 25 years. Several members of the public spoke well and effectively in opposition to the proposal. Vice Mayor Klein was opposed to the idea of limits on Council Members serving the day he took office, opposed to it when he ran for reelection, was opposed to it now, and would be opposed to it the last day he served on the City Council. It was a bad idea. It did notmake sense --to cre- ate an odd class of people who were ineligible to nerve in the community. Right now, everybody who was an adult, a resident and elector of the City of Palo Alto was eligible to serve except for convicted felons and people who were certifiably insane. He did not believe they wanted to add former Council Members to those two categories. Council 60-51 5/09/88 Member Patitucci suggested the motion was merely putting the matter to the voters. He had heard the argument before in a variety of ways and it was usually a concealment of a weak argument. To be candid, it was not just putting it before the voters but was en attempt to get the voters to pass something that the proponents wanted. Certainly when such a matter was put on the ballot, the Council majority was, in effect, endorsing and :suggesting that the voters pass it. The argument was not realistic. He found it an extraordi- nary argument to be before the Council. He had been on the Council for over seven years and had never had a constituent tell him they needed a limit. In response to Mr. Moss, he and Council Member Cobb supported the three -term idea only as a way to avoid any even worse idea, and he knew they would oppose the main motion. Some of Council Member Levy's remarks might be taken to the idea that : omehow their game was to let many people serve as City Council Members. He suggested it was not elementary school or the Little League baseball team where one tried to let everyone play. Running a community was serious business, and if people wanted to serve they should run. They all knew running for the Council was not an easy task, nor was running the City. They wanted people who were committed and all knew it was time-consuming. One of the tests for people to serve was to go through the process of meeting the electorate and fighting through an election process. Indeed, having so- called "fresh blood" and no incumbents running might produce an undemocratic situation eince there was little debate on the issues. Any incumbent had to be prepared to defend the positions he or she had taken. If there were no incumbents running, the issues did not get debated in that way because challengers did not have any votes to defend. He referenced the idea that there were people anxious to serve who were not being called forward and said the experience of 1985 indicated to the contrary. That year, Council Member Patitucci, a non -incumbent ran, and there was only one other can6idate--apart from the four incumbents ---and that person really did not run a race. When the citizenry was aroused and concerned, it found ways. Their memorandum pointed out that 24 incumbents had lost in Palo Alto in the last 50 years. During the 1970s, six Council Members lost, and their names represented all parts of the political spectrum of the community: Gallagher, Clay, Seman, Rosenbaum, Henderson, and Pearson. They were a small community and it was not hard to mount a campaign. There were no impediments to somebody's running, and one did not have to raise thou- sands of dollars to run a successful campaign. The entire community could be walked during a political campaign. He had been heartened that evening.by the public input because it seemed to represent a wide variety of input from people 60-52 5/09/88 who sometimes did not agree on anything else. What Council had before it wee an issue they really did not need and which would be contrary to the interests of the community. He hoped his colleagues would join with him in voting "no." Council Member Renzel said the public had mentioned the potential for loss of influence at the regional level by having limits, and that was significant. The the City of Palo Alto had been able to have a great deal of representa- tion in, for example, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). In her experience, other communities had to retire good people at the regional boards because they had reached their two -term limit. In talking to many people she felt were potential candidates, she found most of them were happy to let a willing person do the job because they were not willing. It was true of the political process in Palo Alto that one had to put in "dues" politically before one could be a successful candidate and, indeed, three present Council Members ran and lost before they ran and won. That was part of the political process of getting to know what was going on in the community. In the last few years in a number of communities, there were declared elections where an election was not even held because there were insufficient candidates, and she not believe it had anything to do with incumbency. That was a pathetic situation, but it might be a reality of the time that there were not enough people in that age group and of -tAcat inclination. That was of concern when forcing people who might be willing to serve, to step down. Having such a mandated and routine rotation of council Members, would put a lot more r>>)wer and influence at the staff level. She knew of some cities with limits where essentially the staff was very powerful and that did not serve the voters well. Palo Alto was fortunate to have a competent staff, but if they were talking about a democratic process and having a responsive Council, it should :Je the Council who was making the decisions and not staff. She would vote against the motion. Council Member Woolley referenced participation at the regional level and said she did not believe any of them were even on the career path to a position with the League of Cities. A few of them belonged to committees, but certainly had not gotten into the chain of positions of officers. At the regional level, she had found it possible to be active within the first three years of being on the Council and did not see why eight years was not enough time. No one who had spoken had been approached as to the need, but she had quite a few people say they really supported the idea of a two - term limit. Most organizations had much shorter term 60-53 5/09/88 As corrected 6/06/88 limits. In regard to the comment that with a two -term limit, a Council Member would be a "lame duck" for the second term, she did not consider herself a lame duck. She felt she had been extremely active in her fifth year on the Council. As for the reasons why she would support a limit, the first concerned the role of the campaign in the demo- cratic process. A vigorous campaign was part of a d3mo- cratic process. They managed to have a vigorous campaign the last November, but if Bob Moss had not run, they came close to not having a real campaign. That was partly because it was formidable to face an incumbent. Maryce Freelen was quote; in the newspaper as commenting on the recent election in Mountain View and saying that she believed the quality and quantity was better than in any other election she had seen in Mountain View because they had so many open seats and the voters had a real choice. In the unsolicited letter attached to Council Member Patitucci's memorandum, Lynn Briody said that the Council Members who were retiring had a responsibility to ensure there were strong candidates to replace them and, in the case of the Sunnyvale City Council election, she said the three Council Members who were departing endorsed three can- didates and those were the three elected and that was a real endorsement of the Council's policy. To some extent, there was a perception among members of the public that the Council Members were an elite group, and that was because incumbents had a big advantage in an election. It was even true on the boards and commissions. Council Members could run again. In her letter, Lynn Briody said that she viewed the two-year interim period as a refresher period. Others in Mountain View and Los Altos, and the present Mayor of Sunnyvale, had returned after two years. At the personal level, more often than not, the level of energy, enthusiasm, and dedication had to wane sometime after eight years. Council Member Fletcher's kind of dedication was more the exception than the rule. The limit on the term saved Council Members from having to make a deliberate decision to cut the cord. Being on the Council was special and it was hard to imagine life afterwards. The Human Relations Commission (HRC) had already taken the first step to limit terms. On balance, she believed change was probably better than more than eight years' experience. Most of the time, particularly in a community like Palo Alto, they would have good candidates. She supported .he motion. Council Member Fletcher believed the issue arose because in the last election all incumbents ran and in the precious election all the candidates were incumbents except for one seat. However, she could not remember that happening before in all the years she had been a Council watcher. There had always been a turnover where many incumbents decided not to 60-54 5/09/88 run. She could see a lot of open seats in the next two elections. If what had happened in the last two elections was a pattern, she would be in favor of the motion, but it was unlikely in the foreseeable future. When the enthusiasm and dedication waned, the incumbent naturally decided not to run again. In regard to the HRC's proposing a two -term limit,` -during the last round of appointments one of the incumbents who had been in favor of the two -term limit decided to apply because of the disruption of having almost a complete turnover on the HRC all at once in this particular situation. She could see the same possibility happening at the Council level where, as the filing deadline neared, incumbents might decide to run because they felt the Council would riot be well represented. They needed flexibility, and she was not in favor of a hard-and-fast rule. Council Member Cobb said his strong opposition was expressed in the memorandum. He had been public about the idea he would like to run for one more term, but he would feel the same way on his last day on the Council as he did now, i.e., the idea under discussion was fundamentally wrong and un- democratic and was an attempt, however well intentioned, to manipulate the system. The voters could do better them- selves and had in the past. They could not look at one or two elections and say it was trend. There would be substan- tial turnover in the Council in the next two elections. The issues and changes coming in the City were significant and important, and they needed a mix of the new blood that would emerge naturally along with some old hands. It was not easy to recruit people to run for City Council, and he saw many cases where many people were asked and relatively few were willing to take on the task. When Council Member Woolley first raised the issue, because of his own personal inter- ests and plans, he asked a great many people whether they felt three terms were too many, and no one said that would be a problem. There was a front page story and supportive editorial when the issue was first raised, and not one letter to the Council or editor. In regard to the boards and commissions, the members were not elected but appointed and it was the Council's job to decide properly whether the board should be turned over or new blood brought in. If he was placed personally with a choice on a particular board where a person with tremendous capability was willing to serve a third term and the alternatives were not as strong, he would pick the best person because that was what they had to do in every instance, both as electors and as Council Members. From speaking wiaLt-, people in other cities with limits, the results were not necessarily always- good, and there were recent examples where the City Councils were 60-55 5/09/88 As corrected 6/06/88 slightly weaker because of mandated changes. The bottom line was the voters had to decide and the Council should not manipulate the process so they could not make whatever choice they wanted. That was what democracy was all about. Council Member Patitucci hoped the issue would carry on a tradition started by Gary Fa zzino and, at some point, they would have a City Council who might see it in the commun- ity's intr rest to have the debate take place in the commun- ity. The idea between two and three terms was subtle. With a nine -member Council, probably c three -term limit was not a bad idea. The issue was one of a trade-off between continu- ity and stagnation. He believed that continuity was an advantage, but there was a point at which it led to the per- petuation of old ideas without any fresh thinking. The Council was guilty of that on a number of issues. The public did not see things the way the Council did, and he did not until he came into office. He saw issues that needed to be re-examined with a fresh view. They became tied to decisions made previously/ and it was human nature to want to continue and not rehash old issues. The deci- sions_might not change, but he believed there was a certain amount of momentum that would not change without new faces. To the e.tent people were happy with the Council, he was happy co be a part of it but felt it was a little self- serving to not put the issue before the public. Council Member Levy commented that nationwide at all levels of government there was a tremendous power to the incum- bency. The incumbents controlled that power and generally tried to use it for their own self-interest. That was why he believed it was valuable if they, as incumbents, would submit the particular element of the power of the incumbency to the public and let them reaffirm they had confidence in the way the charter was laid out, or make another selection that said the power of the, incumbency was so substantial that it should be curtailed somewhat. That was the concept he saw, and he felt comfortable that it would be wise to let the public look at that power. Council Member Woolley appreciated Council Member Patitucci's bringing up the issue. She did not agree it had been a worthless exercise but, rather, a healthy discussion, and she hoped it would be carried on. Possibly, they might look to the League of Women Voters. Mayor Sutorius personally supported the concept of a term limitation. He shared some of the reasons advanced in favor 60-56 5/09/98 of a limitation. Some good points of view were expressed by members. of the public and colleagues opposed to a limita- tion, bAA the balancing of_the pros and cons did not con- vince him against a limitation process. He would have found it.impossible to support putting something on the November 1998 bi'.tilot--as in the original limitation-- regardless of how well -crafted. He found putting something on the 1989 ballot, crafted on three -consecutive -term basis support- able because it spoke to the types of exposure that he had in being involved in campaign processes in support of col- leagues on the Council prior to his running for his election and through his own two campaigns. He was aware of quali- fied people who found it difficult to mount the campaign: because they were already part of the support team for one or more candidates and did not want to be perceived as with- drawing commitment or moral support, or setting up the potential for a negative reaction to their taking on the task. They also faced the increasingly difficult situation of fund-raising for the campaigns. That latter item trig- gered his action and ultimately the involvement of all incumbents and noa-incumbents toward a voluntary spending limit in the last election campaign. He believed there was value to what the incumbent and non -incumbents did in that regard; but it only spoke to a piece of the situation, and there was no assurance future candidates would undertake it. A term limit offered the opportunity to assure that when the people exercised their right and franchise to vote a Council Member out, they were making a choice that allowed them a better shot at having a qualified candidate on a non - incumbent basis ae available as a replacement. He expressed support for the concept. He believed the small number of people present that evening was not reflective of how many people in the community felt. He wondered how many people knew the item was to be discussed. NOTION AS AMENDED FAILED by a vote of 4-5, Levy, Patitucci, Sutorius, Woolley voting 'aye.' ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10.34 p.m. to a Closed Session re Litigation. FINAL ADJOURNMENT Final adjournment at 10:40 and Queene Amirian. p.m• in memory of Sally Siegel APPROVED: ie.5244111"...or h0-57 5/09/88