HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-07-25 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
--PALOALTOCITYCOUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST UVE VIA KZSU- FREOU ENCY 90.1 ON FM DIAL
Regular Meeting
July 25, 1988, 7:30 p.m.
ITEM PAGE
Oral Communications 60-185
Minutes of June 20, 1988 60-185
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 60-185
1. Ordinance re Moratorium on Flag Lots in 60-185
R-1 Areas
2. Toxics Protection Council Proposal 60--186
3. Council Member Fletcher and Mayor 60-193
Sutorius re Police Citizen Complaint
Information and Statistics
4. Council Member Fletcher re AB 3354 (Floyd) 60-194
5. Council Members Bechtel and Woolley re 60-195
Permitting Skateboards to be Used in the
Street
6. Update Report on Current Water Shortage 6r-197
7. Report on Shoreline Amphitheater Noise 60-199
Adjournment at 10:20 p.m.
60-184
7/25/88
i
1
Regular Meeting
Monday, July 25, 1988
City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on thie date in the
Council Chasber3, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:33 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Patitucci (ai:ived
at 7:':4 p.n.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley, Levy
Mayor Sutorius announced that a Special Meeting with the Historic
Resources Board was held at 6:15 p.m., in the Council Conference
Room.
Mayor Sutorius announced the need for a Closed Sassion re
Employer/Employee Relations to be held at some point during or
after the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth, spoke regarding the bureaucracy of
elected officials and the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor.
MINUTES OF JUNE 20 1988
MOTION: Council Maabsr Klein moved, seconded by Rensel, approval
of the Minutes of . une 20, 19840 as subsitt!.
NOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-0-1, Levy "abstaining."
CONSENT CALENDAR
None
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
MOTION: Tice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Sutorius, to add
Item re Current Water Shortage to beoeme Item S.
NOTION PASSED unanimously,
NOTION: Mayor 8utorine moved, seam:died by Klein, to add Item re
novellas Amphitheater Noise Issue to become Item 7.
MOTION PASS= unanimously.
1. Ordinance re Moratorium on Flag Lot's in R -1 Areas
(701-03/242) (CMR:248:8)
NOTION: Council Member Rensel Wired, seconded by Bechtel, to
adopt the native declaration prepared for the Flag Lot
Moratorium awl Interim Regulations.
60-185
7/25/88,
NOTION CONTI D
exprmAMCI 3022 entitled "OIDIJIANCE OF TSB COUNCIL 07 TNN CITY
OP PALO ALTO IMPOSE A MORATORIUM U$TI! DECEMBER 10, MISS,
ON TIE alCCIPTAMC1 OW APPLICATIONS 7OR TINTATIVX SUEDIVIsmm"
MAPS AND PRELIMINARY MUM, MAPS WEICa MOULD CRIATI A FLAG
LOT IM R-1 AND Es BONING DISTRICTS AND ON TSB PROCE8SINO
AID/aft ISSUANCE 07 BUILDING PERMITS FOR FLAG LOTS IN R-1 AND
Rs 101110 DISTRICTS BRICE DO MOT MEW? CERTAIM CRITERIA',
Council Member Patitucci favored a moratorium on flag lots where
single lots in existing neighborhoods were being divided, but did
not support a moratorium in multiple lot subdivisions. He could
not support the motion.
Mayor Sutorius referred to the effective date of the ordinance as
it applied to existing flag lots, and clarified any building
permit application receiveu by the close of business on Monday,
July 11, 3.988, and subset antly judged to be complete in its
status would not be affected by the moratorium.
Director of Planning and Community Environment Kin Schreiber said
there were two building permit applications in process.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Patitucci voting lino.'
2. Toxics Protection Council Proposal (1440-01-01)
Council Member Woolley was a mambIr of a task force charged with
structuring the Toxic. Protection Council (TPC). The Inter-
governmental Council (IGC) called a special meeting for August 4,
1988, to discuss the proposal, and the Board of Supervisors
needed to act on August 9, 1988, with complete draft language in
order to put the Toxic. Protection Council proposal on the
November ballot. Clearly, toxics issues were gr_nwing and cities
needed all the help they could get, and an organization which
functioned on a regional basis, county -wide, would benefit the
City. She was concerned that by placing the TPC as a separate
entity, it would be totally unrelated to IGC. All the work dons
at the County level so far was done through IGC. While she would
agree IGC was not the effective organization the City Council
would like it to be, the area of toxic. was its "shining star."
She believed it was important for the TPC to stay as a function
of this IGC. The Charter of IOC was to address joint
jurisdictional issues, and toxic. was one. The Board of
Supervisors felt the need to have the Toxic. Protection Council
proposal on the November ballot because the Open Spice ballot
measure would be on the June ballot and two tax measures on the
same ballot were not considered to be a good idea. She preferred
to create the WC by County ordinance rather than by ballot
measure since the basic way to raise funds was through a service
area like the Vector Control District, and the Board of
Supervisors could do that by ordinance. A charter amendment
60-186
7/25/8@
would set the TPC up in perpetuity as a separate entity from the
Board of Supervisors. Cities had to agree to join the service
area and if a city did not wish to join a service area it was up
to a City Council. A city could also withdraw from the service
area if it did not believe the TPC was effective with the Local
Agency Formation Commission's {MAPCO) permission.
Vice 4ayor Klein agreed with the need for the TPC but queried why
it was not just placed directly under the County or under some
other regional power organization.
City Manager Bill Zaner said the biggest problem was £ind".ng a
funding mechanism. The solution was to either go to the
legislature and get some authority, which did not presently exist
under State law, to establish some kind of a protection council,
which would take. a long time; or, try and create a mechanism out
of available resources. The TPC was proposed to link a county
service district to such a function, which was never before done.
There was no question of they need for some kind of central
control and direction for, policymaking region --wide. There had
been attempts to centralize the policymaking at the Cr•nty level.
He was not sure he agreed it should be within the IGC but it .s
not a bad place to start. If it was done bl ordinance, it could
always be moved.
Vice Mayor newn understood any city could opt out.
Mr. Basler clarified there was no way to force a city into a
special service district set up by the Board of Supervisors.
0►etting out of a special service district required concurrence
from LFOo, and ]DECO could hold that withdrawal of one city
damaged the overall effectiveness of the organization and so
damaged its revenue raising capability that it would not allow a
city to leave. If the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara decided
not to join the special service district, there would essentially
not be an organization because it would require the affirmative
action of 50 percent of the cities representing 50 percent of the
population.
Council Member Woolley said putting the TPC in the hands of the
County would be fine, but the problem was the City of San Jose
would never agree to it. It was not feasible to move withott San
Jose's participation.
Vice Mayor Lein referred to the composition of the Board, and
the fact that "four elected officials from City Councils other
than that of San Jose, one of who must represent South Count , "
and it .'� like the author was from South County. He queried
why the language did not say one must be from Palo Alto, Mountain
View, etc. Considering where people lived in the County and the
communities which had toxics problems, he did not see why a seat
was specified for Morgan Hill and Gilroy.
60.187
7/25/88
Council 'Umber Woolley agreed, and said the compromise was to
increase the city representatives to four instead of two so more
of the generating cities could be represented.
Vice Mayor Klein had no problem with that but he was very
concerned about the specific designation of South County.
Council Member Bechtel pointed out that South County encompassed
half the land in the County, and it was true it had some serious
water pollution problems. She shared Council Member Woclley's
concern regarding t+:ring. She did not see that the proposal
should be put on the November ballot because she doubted it would
be ready or pass. It was unclear what the TPC would do with a
budget of approximately $500,000 a year.
Council Member Woolley clarified the $500,000 a year was a cap
and that in the early years, the tax would be less. Originally
the TPC was proposed as a charter amendment and the only way the
money could ever be raised was to go back to the ballot again.
It needed to be sufficient to carry the bcdy through for at least
ten years. She agreed there was no need for such a level of
funding in the beginning. It was a disadvantage of a charter
amendment and a plus for the ordinance.
Council Member Fletcher asked why toxic reduction was not part of
the function.
Council Member Woolley believed it was an oversight and could be
added.
Council Ede r Patitucci clarified
"Council" to have a "District," so
functions but the ''Council" was
de3igned structure.
it was not necessary to have a
a "District" could perform the
an administrative, separately
Mr. Zaner said that was correct. Under the law, the County Board
of Supervisors could establish a "District," and it would be Jul
Board of Directors.
Council Member Patitucci queried why add another layer of an
indispendigxt booty.
Mr. . Zaner said the thought was . there should be a body whose sole
function was to deal with hazardous materials and toxic.
policies. While the Board of Supervisors was competent, it had
other responaibiliti.s. The funding mechanics would be done by
the District, and the Council would be, effectively,
independently created in the Charter, and the coney would flow
over from the District to fund the Council.
Council Member Patitucci said the District idea made some sense,
but he was bothered by the Council idea. He asked if the . TPC
would assume some of the reaponsibilitios in terms of what Palo
Alto already did with regard to hazardous materials.
60-188
7/25/8$
i
e
hr. Zaner said the TPC offered a mechanism for coordinating what
Palo Alto ways doing with other jurisdictions. For example,
several City Manager's in the County were trying to establish a
model toxic gas ordinance for the all the cities in the County of
Santa Clara which eve yone could adopt and live with. It made no
sense for Palo Alto to adopt an ordinance and find out the City
of Mountain View took a different position. When the State of
California adopted new regulations and statutes, i.e., Tanner, it
took cities almost a year to get organized in terms of how to
respond to the new responsibilities. The TPC made sense for the
whole County so Palo Alto was not doing one thing and Mountain
View another. The TPC would coordinate the steps and be
proactive in establishing the kinds of policies necessary to
protect the public. It was not intended to be an enforcement
agency as was the City of Palo Alto.
Council Member Cobb agreed with Vice Mayor Klein and believed
they were better off establishing the TPC by ordinance rather
than by Charter amendment.
Council Member Renzsl. shared. Council Member Patitucci's concern
about separate agencies and districts, but as pointed out,
without a separate kind of authority, the City of San s; �se
probably would not participate in to the program, and it was
essential in order to sake it an effective program.
Dr. Inga Harding-Earlow, 3717 Laguna Avenue, was a toxicologist,
and worked extensively with the various communities in Palo Alto.
She was the Community Representative to the Serra LEPC, Region
II, which was comprised of 16 counties in Northern California,
including Santa Clara. The stated functions of the TPC needed to
be more specific in terms .3f how it would "protect .1° Under the
Serra "Right to know" ordinances, there was a mechanism for
communication. She was overwhelmed by the number of public and
other meetings on taxies and that none of the agencies seemed to
communicate. She hoped the TPC could consolidate some of the
many meetings. She was concerned the TPC would only be made up
of elected officials and there were no ttxics experts. She would
oppose the TIC as represented and would do everythng possible to
see that the citizens voted against it.
Nancy Nos, Alga Corporation, 950 Page Mill Road, was concerned
about the haste in which the matter was to be placed on the
ballot and that the issues needed to be more clearly defined..
Her colleagues at the County Manufacturing oup commenced review
of the proposal and were concerned about another creating another
layer of bureacracy and that the TPC not duplicate
responsibilities already taken care of by existing agencies.
Concern was also expressed over whether the TPC would bypass the
IGC and whether it would be more appropriate to have the TPC
within the IGC perhaps even as a function as an expanded
environmental safety committee. Concern was expressed over the
vagueness of the descriptions of the functions. It appeared the
TIC would be primarily advisory and educational and the name
60-189
7/25/88
"Protection Council" might be misleading. The figures presented
were questioned in terms of whether they were realistic, whether
it was a good use of taxpayer dollars; or whether the same
dollars might be allocated to an existing agency that might have
more of an effect. The split roll rate in allocating the higher
rate of charges to commercial and industrial uses was perceived
as being anti -business. She urged that Council consider how the
TPC might affect competition within the County. She also
expressed concern over the proposed composition and that it was
made up entirely of representatives of government agencies
without any members of industry or the public and that staff did
not seem to provide the adequate technical and scientific
resources needed to evaluate and make recommendations on complex
toxics issues. She emphasized the need to take more time to
consider the issues and not rush into making a decision.
Kelly Erin O'Brien, 268 Nargarite Avenue, represented the
Peninsula Industrial i Business Association (PIBA), and expressed
concern over trying to get the proposal on the November ballot.
The idea was to build consensus and that could not be done by
August 9. For those involved in environmental planning, the
important task was to understand, through the resources and
expertise of the people, actively involved, and make intelligent
decision -making without wisely put together organisations PIBA
urged the matter not be rushed aid placed on the November ballot.
The TPC appeared to be strictly a political committee. Further
consideration was needed.
Bob Nose, 4010 Orme, agreed with all of the previous speakers.
Council Member Woolley's concerns were also appropriate in terms
of establishing the TPC by ord:► :.nce rather than by Charter
amendment. There was not a proper balance between the amount
levied on industry and on the private homeowner. The disparity
between the amount of toxics spilled and the cost of clean-up was
not recognized. He suggested $1 for a single family home and $10
for every industrial or commercial property. He referred to the
$400,000, and said it took Assemblyman Byron Sher seven years to
get the sua of money approved by the Governor. The Reg iona l
Water Quality Control Board immediately tripled its staff and
were able to do things it had been trying to do unsuccessfully
for years. He queried whether it was an effective use of
taxpayers' money to establish the proposed organization without a
clear purpose and an opportunity for the public to discuss what
would be done and how. He urged the matter not be placed on the
November ballot.
Council Member Woolley agreed the composition and functions of
the technical advisory committee needed to be included. It was
assumed the technical advisory committee would include members of
industry and public with s ial eltpertise and also the staffs of
cities with special expertise.
MOTION: lei1 Member Woolley moved, seconded by Pletcher, that
moil st°osgly support the Taxies Protection Council proposal
60-190
7/25/88
1
in concept, but request consideration of the foll'�wing
and circulation of a revised draft to the cities:
1. Place the 'FPC within the structure of the IOC
towards centralising specialised regional bodies;
,.lb) Revise the first point under Functions of the Draft Plan
to reads "Develop and recommend county -wide policies
fo.: both short -tern and long -tern reduction and
management of tonics to protect residents from negative
health effects and protect property from damages..."
a. Funding
changes
as step
a. Clarify that the $2 and $5 amounts are caps with lesser
amounts to be levied at first as needods
b. Consider including a mechanism for increasing the cap
after ten years with the concurrence of the cities.
(only appropriate if created by Charter amendmont.)
3. specify how a city may withdraw from the service area.
4. Include the coaposition and function of the Technical
Advisory Committee.
a. Recommend either striking the reference to representation
from South County or that the other three elected
officials also indicate the areas that rill be
specifically represented.
8. Request that the board of Supervisors not approve placing a
ballot measure for s, Charter amendment on the November
ballot.
axINDMRNT; Council Member Fletcher moved, soconded by Rensel, to
add between the words "long-term" and "management= the words
"reduction and."
RNDKRNT INCORPORATED INTO MAIN NOTION.
) M* ?s Vice Mayor Klein saved, seconded by Cobb, to revise
the language in (5) to states *given the inadequate time for
review of this proposal, it is requested that the Board of
Supervisors not approve a ballot measure for a Charter amendment
for the November 1,88 ballot,
ASIMMDMRSIT=CORPORA =TO MIN MOTION.
AMMER:Ms Vice Manor Mein Named, seconded by Mensal, that the
1 e in item 4(a) requiring on, *Mafiafrees South County be
stricken ar that in addition the other three local elected
officials have their areas of representation specified.
60-191
7/25/88
AMMMOMEMT IMCOIPORATMD INTO MAIM MOTION.
Council Member Cobb agreed with the amendments but queried when
concept stopped and precise detail started. He suggested Council
direct its discussion to broad .rear of concern.
Council Member Woolley queried whether Council Member Cobb would
be more comfortable vita language that Council strongly supported
the. need for an organization to coordinate toxic. issues.
Council Member Cobb was concerned about whether Council was going
to take the concept apart on a word -by -word basis or whether
Council would provide some broad direction with which to return
to the IGC.
Mayor Sutorius agreed with all of the suggestions. He believed
the City Managers worked diligently on the subject and had an
important message they tried to convey.
Council Member Levy did not understand the need for the TPC. The
members of the public spoke to aeding another layer of bureacracy
and the general description of the functions said the TPC world
supplement current County services. Before he could support the
concept, he needed to understand the need for the extra layer of
bureacracy and why the same functions could not be accomplished
under the direct guidance of the Board of Supervisors.
Council Member Woolley said it was suggested that by putting the
TPC under the IGC, 4,t would not create another layer of
bureacracy. The heed was due to the fact that the City of San
Jose would not agree to having the County assume the role because
it wanted to have a part. She pointed out the organization
provided for two members from the City of San Jose.
Mr. fansr said there were any number of committees and task
forces with regard to toxic.. One of the hopes for the TPC was
that there would be more consolidation and elimination of some of
the smaller organ►i zat ions . He believed the County shoul . be a
sub -regional government for the area of toxic., but the practical
consideration was that there would not be any kind of toxic.
policy coordination unless cities were willing to build a
mechanism that everyone would buy into. Clearly, many cities
would be reluctant to yield to the County Board of Supervisors
such policy coordinating functions and would feel more
comfortable with some board on ehich they had representation to
do that kind of work.
Council Member Levy asked who would implement the TPC's
guidelines and to whom the recommendations would be focused.
Mr. Miner said the policies, guidelines; or draft ordinances would
be implemented by each of the jurisdictions in the County just as
was done with the Hazardous Materials Storage ordinance. The TPC
as presently constituted would not have the authority to require
60-192
7/25/8.
a jurisdiction to adopt its guidelines or ordinances. At least
one city already indicated it would not participate if the TPC
had such authority.
MOTION PASSED by a vote of a-1, Levy vetizg Nao.N
3. Council Member Fletcher and Mayor Sutorius re Police Citizen
Complaint Information and Statistics (1202)
Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, was concerned about the loophole in
California Penal Code Section 832.7 which the City Attorney cited
in her opinion that information in a police officer's personnel
file may not be released without a court order. When the law was
passed in 1978, anyone would naturally assume the word
"information" referrred to information of a personal nature not
related to the officer's official actions since it was long a
basic principle of American law that the "official" actions of a
goverment employee are never privileged and confidential
information except under limited and extraordinary circumstances
such as national security or an ongoing criminal investigation.
Section 832.7 did not specifically say personal, nonrelevant
information --just information. The State Attorney General agreed
with Diane Worthway, in Opinion 88-306, that the law, as worded,
meant all information in the file and all statistical data
derived from files must be kept secret. The Attorney General's
office recomae`tded that Assemblyman Byron Sher introduce a bill
to amend the wording of Section 832.7, but Assemblyman Sher
advised he could not get to it in 1988. Despite the Attorney
GoLlral's opinion, the San Francisco Police Dapartaent would
continue to post its data daily.
Lynn Torin, 721 Ensign Way, spoke as Chair of the Human Relations
Commission (HRC). The HRC, at its July 14, 1988, meeting
unanimously agreed to encourage the City Council to take
initiative to change State legislation to permit discretionary
law enforcement release of appropriate information while still
maintaining the necessary confidentiality with respect to
individual complaints. The HRC believed Palo Alto's Police
Department was an excellent one, but that any group which used a
system where the monitoring wa$c done from within the group was
not quite as good a system where there was some appropriate view
by the public. The HRC offered its help.
MOTION: Council Member lletaher moved, seconded by Butorius, re
Polio* Department o msplaint, to direct the Mayor to oomm=nicate
with ssem bl yman Sher to ma*vey s
1. The City Council's appreciation for his assi tamce to datep
2. The City Council's strong interest in securing legislative
authority to resume discretionary law enforcement release of
oosplaimt and investigation information with proper
confidentiality protections: and
60-193
7/25/88
3. The City Council's availability to assist/support in the
preparation and advocacy for such legislation.
Council Member Fletcher said it was not in the public interest to
keep information which should be in the public domain unavailable
to the public. The Police Chief did not agree with the idea of
not releasing information. It was also not tradition in Palo
Alto to make information unavailable to the public as long as the
confidentiality of individual staff members was protected.
Council Member Levy agreed with Council Member Fletcher and the
HRC. He believed it was an oversight on the part of the
Legislature in having used the specific language. If it was
necessary to get a change in the language, it was appropriate to
move ahead as vigorously as possible to open up the actions of
the Palo Alto Police Depart alt more to public scrutiny without
violating the true individual rights to privacy.
Mr. Zaner said it was important to guard the rights and privacy
of private individuals who made complaints against the polio.
Those persons sight not wish to have their names disclosed to the
public. The laws tended to operate to protect both sides.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
4. Council Member Fletcher re AS 3354 (Floyd) (725-02-01)
Council Member Fletcher said if AS 3354 passed, it would prohibit
cities or counties from adopting local ordinances requiring
establishments selling alcoholic beverages to put up any types of
signs which sight warn of the health and driving effects of
alcohol consumption. The League of California Cities was
concerned about the Legislature preempting local jurisdictions
from their normal functions.
MOTION* Council Member Fletcher moved„ seconded by Bechtel, that
the Mayor be directed to send a letter of opposition to Senator
Morgan.
Council Member Patitucci queried whether the legislation would
stop cities from doing something they were already doing or
whether it was an anticipation that cities might want to do
something.
Council Member Fletcher believed it was the typo of legislation
all at:ism should be concerned about. If only those
jurisdictions which currently had such ordinances objected, theTl.
the bill did not stand a chance of defeat. Since local
jurisdictions were the enforcementagencies, she believed it
could be in the public interest to have signs in the bars and
restaurant:; that sold alcoholic beverages that persons who drank
on the premises should not drive. She .would not want to be
preempted by the . State legislature . from introducing such an
ordinance.
0
City Attorney Diana MartLway said the issue was the posting of
signs relating to health consequences. Under existing
legislation, the State did not believe it had the right to
prohibit cities or counties from passing such legislation. One
of the essential functions of local government was to protect the
health of its citizens. She believed citizens looked to local
goverment for that level of protection.
Mayor Sutorius said the City of Palo Alto City Council had long
taken a stand that it would oppose those actions which
genericrlly eroded local authority inappropriately.
*O?IOM PASSED unanimously.
5. Council Members Bechtel and Woolley re Permitting Skateboards
to be Used in the Street (1167)
Council Member Woolley believed when skateboards were originally
provided for in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), they were
thought of as a fad or a toy. It was apparent that skateboards
were a serious form of transportation for students to middle
school and high school. The present ordinance said skateboarders
had to stay on the sidewalk, and she believed it would be far
more appropriate to allow skateboards to go in the street. On
the other hand, it was necessary that skateboarding in the street
be done responsibly. The Police Department was not opposed to
skateboards being ridden on the street but was interested in it
being done responsibly and wanted that built into the PAMC.
MOTIO$t Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Bechtel, that
the Palo Alto Aunicipel Cods revision to permit skateboards to be
used in the street be referred to the Policy and Procedures
Committee.
Hank Scotch, 2375 Santa Catalina, was concerned that little was
provided for teenagers to do in Palo Alto. He believed the use
of skateboards should be encouraged and it should be permitted on
the streets with the same rules as for bicyclists. He belisved
there should be places to skateboard perhaps at Rinconada Park
with obstacles created as was done in Benicia.
John Christian weeks, 3060 Price Court, was a student at Palo
Alto High School. He supported skateboarding in the street. He
had been cited for skateboarding in the street, but in court, the
judges always let it go without a fine. He supported the idea of
a skateboard park. He referred to an Ohio Supreme Court decision
which said *Municipalities were immune to lawsuits arising from
accidents on City -owned recreational areas used by the public
free of charge.
Ed Connolly, 1044 giant, represented the skateboarding youth In
Palo Alto. He supported the suggestions for establishing a
skateboard park or a place where recreational riding could be
encvuregdd.
60-195
7/25/68
Bev Benson, 2375 Santa Catalina Street, was the frustrated parent
of a skateboarder. Skateboarding could be a key to character
development and esteem building. She experienced taking her son
to court several times and had fines imposed. She urged support
for the PAMC revision.
Council Member Patitucci referred to a drawing which was received
regarding various devices used by skateboarders. He referred to
theconcrete areas in some of the parks and suggested one might
be equipped adequately for skateboarders.
Mr. 2aner said the liability issues were the major concern.
A, ;1D : Council ICeaber Pat ituvci moved, seconded by Levy,
that staff explore the cost of providing skateboard areas in
parks.
Council Member Woolley supported the concept and assumed it could
return to the Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee in October.
If Council requested a report on the feasibility of a
recreational area, it might take longer than October.
Council Member Cobb supported the amendment but noted the
difficult budget process. If the concept could be done at
minimal cost, it sight be worth pursuing.
City Attorney Diane Northway did not know whether the October
date was realistic for the ordinance.
Council Member Patitucci did not necessarily want the cost
estimates done in the same time frame ag the legal changes. He
just believed the City should look into the matter.
AMINDIC77 PAB$BD by a vote of •-1, Butorius voting „no."
Council Member Bechtel believed skateboards should be treated
like bicycles. She encouraged support of the motion.
ANZUOMMAT: Council Member Pletcher moved, seconded by Reams, to
seek the advice of the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee
(P C). prior to hearing the item at the Policy and Procedures
(P6P) Committee.
Vice Mayor Klein opposed the aaen0Aent because the main motion
was a referral to thee P&P Committee to study the issue with
regard to the PANC and with regard to whether to accommodate
skateboarding in a public park. PABAC was welcome to testify at
the committee level.
Council Member Levy said there were some analagies in
skateboarding and bicycling and it was not appropriate to single
out one advisory group related to bicycles. He urged that other
cities and states be reviewed to see what they eters doing.
6S-186
7/25►/88
i
Council Member Menzel did not believe it hurt to request the
information from PABAC and have it available when the P&P
Committee considered the matter in order to understand what the
interrelationships might be. She supported the amendment.
Council Member Fletcherbelieved the P&P Committee should have
the best advice available.
Vice Mayor Klein agreed that PABAC should testify but believed it
was inappropriate for Council to set forth e series of people
that should testify. The P412 Committee was composed of four
members of the City Council, and if they wanted people to
testify, they would ask.
AMMILIBT PILED by a vote of 2-7, Menzel, Fletcher voting naye.n
Council Member Fletcher said the Section 21968 of the 1982
edition of the California Vehicle Code clearly stated that r.o
skateboard may be propelled on any sidewalk, roadway, etc.
Section 21967 said the local jurisdict.io.ks could make rules and
regulations by ordinance or regulation prohibiting or restricting
persons from riding or propelling skateboards en roadways --not
ordinances permitting skateboards on roadways. She believed that
would be a material consideration.
Mayor Sutorius supported the motion.
MOTION AB MEND= IMMO unanimously.
6. Update Report on the Current Water Shortage (1410-02) (MPG)
City Manager Bill Zaner said currently business, industry and
commercial were doing very well with regard to water
conservation. Residential users were doing a good job but it
needed to be substantially bettor. In order to meet the
guidelines handed down by San Francisco Botch Retchy, Palo Alto
needed a conservation effort by residential customers of
sou/Where in the neighborhood of about 25 percent. They were now
running about 17 percent. The fact that Palo Alto's wells were
turned on provided an opportunity to almost break even. August,
September and October were the heavy water user mon` ola 'and Pelo
Alto would need to pick up a few more percentage points on the
residential side to make the total Botch Botchy allotment. If
Palo Alto failed to meet its conservation target, it would be
fined. He listed the different and numerous ways in which the
water conservation effort wee publicised. Be directed the
Utilities Department to prepare a mandatory conservation pr am
for Council's consideration. The plan Was to bring the item to
Council on August 15, 1988, and it was patterned after exactly
tIle same rate penalties the city would pay to Retch Tetchy. Thu
aroposal would be for Council to review and adopt the plan on a
standby basis. If it was not neede4 and the City was not in
danger of receiving pemalties from Retch Hetchy, then it would
not be put into operation. If it looked as if the City was in
60--197
7/25/88
danger of receiving the penalties, then the plan would be put
into effect. If the wells had not been turned on and if Hetch
Hetchy's penalty system were in effect last month, with all its
conservation, the City would have been fined in excess of
$300,000.
Council Member Fletcher asked about the advantage of not having
mandatory controls.
hr. Zaner said mandatory controls for the next four months would
cost the City $150,000, The City had experience and the last
tine it put on controls, it immediately received 2,000 telephone
calls. There had to be a process system for exemptions, some
people did not understand how the controls worked and people were
needed to explain, and there needed to be ordinance enforcement.
The process was.expensive and if the City coulca avoid spending
the $150,0006 it would prefer to do so. On the other hand, if
that was the cost of avoiding the fine, it would be built into
the system and pa id .
Council Member Cobb asked if the different taste in his water had
to do with the use of the wells.
Mr. Zaner said the wells had been on for well over a week, and in
the early days, there were no comments. There had been some
comments in the past few days from people who said they could
detect a change in the water's taste.
Council Member Cobb asked whether the City's mailers made it
clear that if the City did not achieve more conservation, it
would be subject to fines that would be passed on to the
customer.
Mr. Zaner said yes. Ninety percent of the residential water was
irrigation. Only a small percentage of water used in a residence
was used for sanitary and cooking purposes. Irrigation was the
easiest to cat back on.
Council Member Bechtel saw the ads and flyers; yet, in talking
with members of the eosmunity, the perception was that there was
not a crisis this time." She believed it night be because the
City had backup wells.. She was not sure the message was getting
out in spite of the amount of material.
Mr. Zeiler agreed people did not believe the City was at the edge.
Mayor Sutorius agreed. with Council Member Bechtel. It was a
serious situation and. the. City needed to find other more
st,taulating ways of getting the message aegis. It would be
unfortunate if there was any reliance on the fact that either the
wells were the answer to the problem or that the rate increase
would be the educational tool. With regard to the taste of the
water, the closer ones source of water to the well, the higher
the pr eeur°e for the water.
60-198
7/25/38
ATTEST:
NO ACTIOA TM=
7. Report on Shoreline Amphitheater Noise Issue (1401-01) (NPG)
Mayor Sutorius pointed out the complaint level in Mountain View
was nothing like Palo Alto's. He and the City of Mountain View
Mayor would be caking contact with some of Palo Alto's citizens,
and would regain flexi;.le and available to be on site to directly
experience the noise levels. There was some potential for the
further codification of output which were also being pursued.
NO LION TAM
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned to a Closed Session re Employer/Employee
Relations at 9:40 p.m.
Final Adjournment at 10:20 p.a.
APPROVED:
d(0
ty erk .�.
i ■ M or
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with
Palo Mt» ':unicipal Code Section 2.04.200 ib) . The City Council
meeting tapes are retained in the City Clerk's Office for two
years following the date of the meeting, and the Finance and
Public. Works Committee and Policy. and Procedures Committee
Ming tapes are retained for six son s. Members of the public
may listen to the tapes during regular office tc . 's.
•
60-199
7 j25/88
c
i
s