Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-06-15 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTOCITYCOUNCIL MEETINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU-FREQUENCY90,1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting June 15, 3987 ITEM Oral Communications Approval of the Minutes of May 18, 1987 57-342 Consent Calendar 57-342 1. Contract with Piazza Construction Comp. 4 57.342 for Foothills Park Dam Repairs and Increase in Contract Authorization for Consultant Construction Stage Services with Hardesty Associates and Earth Science Associates PAGE 57-341 2. Contract with Utilitech, Inc., for Elec- 57-343 ric ><';till y Underground Sealing Project 3. Muni pal Service Center Building C 57-343 Remodel - Rejection of Bids 4. Report from Council Legislative Committee 57-343 5. Ordinance 3755 Amending Section 4.32.110 57-343 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code .to Change the Prohibited Hours for, Solicitation of Information for Commercial Purposes to Six p.m., until X12 ne a.m. 6. Resolution 6618 Confirming a_ngineer's 57-343 Report ._ and Assessment Roll - California Avenue Parking Garage Project No. 65-09 for Fiscal Year 1987-88 57-339 6/15/87 ITEM u. (Cont) Resolution 6619 Confirming Engineer's Report and Assessment Roll - California Avenue Off -Street Parkig Project No. 71-63 for Fiscal Year 1987-88 Resolution 6620 Confirming Engineer's Report and Assessment Roll - California Avenue Keystone Lot Parking Project No. 86-01 for Fiscal Year 1987-88 PAGE 57-34 3 57-343 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission 57-344 Recommendation re Modification to the Zoning Ordinance to Permit Recycling Centers in Commercial and Industrial Dis- tricts in Compliance with the California Beverage Container Recycling and ,Litter Reduction Act (Bottle Bill) 8. Report from Council Legislative Committee 57-344 re AB 1728 9. Report and Recommendations from Personnel 57-347 Committee re Council -Appointed Officers' Support Staff Classification and Benefits 10. Golden Triangle Strategic Planning Process 57-349 - Review of Phase II Golden Triangle Task Force Recommendations 11. Ther►aal Insulation Final Test Results and 57-356 Recommendations 12. Santa Clara County Transit District - 5)-358 Proposed Bus Route Changes in Palo Alto Recess 57-364 13. Initiative Petition for a Proposed Ordi- 57-364 nance THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE PALO ALTO 14. Request of Mayor Woolley_ and Council Member .57-372 Levy re Solicitation Hours for Commercial Purposes 15. Request of Council Members Cobb, Klein, and 57-376 Patitucci re Creation of a Citizens' Com- mittee for Passage of Utility Users Talc Adjournment at 1.1:22 p.m. 57-377 57-340 6/15/87 Regular Meeting Monday, June 15, 1987 The City Council of the :City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:32 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Mayor Woolley announced that a special meeting to interview Mid -Peninsula Access Corporation candidates was held at 6:15 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Stanley J. Faust, 921 Oregon Avenue, was concerned about his neighbors chree pitbulls and a requested variance to go beyond the City's limit and start a breeding busi- ness. He submitted literature regarding city ordinances against. pitbulls and other animals .which caused a nui- sance to the neighborhood andprovided a certain amount of danger for the inhabitant-.. He hoped the :.]Palo Alto City Council would strongly consider -an •- `ordinance against pitbulls. He also requested the noise ordinance regarding barking dogs be tightened. 2. Beverly B. Crowell, 919 Orr'gon Avenue( was also con- cerned about her np i ghhnrc f pi fleul 1 s and their variance request to acquire more pitbulls and start a breeding business. The model ordinance, due to constitutional issues, did not ban pitbulls but contained a grandfather clause which allowed presently existing pitbulls to remain. The dogs were registered, pictures were taken, and the dogs could not be replaced. The goal was to eventually have no pitbulls. She urged the City con- sider adopting such an ordinance as quickly as possible. She did not believe pitbulls should be tolerated in the City of Palo Alto. 3. W. K. Pete! -.son, 228 Fulton, was concerned about the through traffic in his north Palo Alto neighborhood. The source of traffic way the continued growth of the industrial aria of Stanford north. Connecting Sand Hill Road with El Camino would increase the traffic if the barrier stayed. The barrier was not totally under the control of the City Council. If Caltrans determined there was a danger, it could, over the violent objec- tions of the City Council, remove the barrier and the 57-341 6/15/87. traffic going through the north part of Palo Alto would be intolerable. He was concerned about resultant grid - locks and the necessity for a .new expressway on University or Willow Road. Palo Alto could work with Stanford to control the amount of traffic trips gener- ated and not put more cars through the residential areas. He suggested parking spaces be taxed and the proceeds be used to fund free bus service and a parking lot in the Baylands with nigh intensity shuttle buses back and forth. If plans regarding traffic demands from continued development of Stanford were not made now, the residential character of the north part of Palo Alto would be ruined. Council Member Patitucci referred to the death which occurred -as a -result of a .pitbull and queried whether the City had any legislation against vicious animals. Ms. Lee said the- provisions were-- found in the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 6.28, MINUTES OF MAY 18, 1987 MOTION: Council Member Klein coved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the minutes of May 18, 1987 as submitted. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-0-2, Levy, Sutorius "abstaining." 4- CONSENI\ CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Consent Calendar. Council Members Bechtel and Fletcher asked to be recorded as voting "no" on Item 5, Solicitation Ordinance. Council Member Levy said he would "abstain" on item 5. Action 1. CONTRACT WITH PIAZZA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR FOOTHIL fS PARK DAM REPAIRS, AND INCREASE IN CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION FOR CONSULTANT CONSTRUCTION STAGE SERVICES WITH HARDESTY ASSOCIATES AND EARTH SCIENCES ASSOCIATES (CMR:297:7) (1321-12) Staff ie further authorized to execute the following change orders: Piazza contract up to $121,000; Earth Sciences Associates up to $172,800; and Hardesty Associates up to $19,400. 57-342 6/15/87, 2. CONTRACT WITH UTILITECH, INC. FOR ELECTRIC UTILITY UNDERGROUND VAULT SEAE.TNG PROJECT (CMR:314:7) (1101) Staff is further authorized to execute change orders up to $900. 3. MUNICIPAL SERVICE CENTER BUILDING C REMODEL - REJECTION OF BIDS FROM CHEGWIN CONSTRUCTION AND HODGSON CONSTRUCTION, INC. (CMR:305:7) (810=003) 4. REPORT FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE (CMR:322:7) (702-06) The Council Legislative Committee recommends that Council support AB 10, SB 590, SB 171, AB 1731, and SCA 9, and direct the Mayor to communicate the City's position to our, legislators and others as appropriate. The Committee recom- mends that nonpriority attention be given to all five bills. AB 1728 received no recommendation. 5. ORDINANCE 3755 entitled "L DINANC E OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 4.32.110 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE PROHIBITED HOURS FOR SOLICITATION OF INFORMATION FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES TO . :00 p=m.,.UNTIL 9;00 a.m." (1st Reading 6/01/87, PASSED 6-2-1, Fletcher, Bechtel "no," Levy "abstai,ri') (409) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher, Bechtel vv.ing "no," on Item 5, Levy "abstaining" on Item 5. 6. RESOLUTION 6618 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE PROJECT NO. 65-09 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987-88" (CMR:323.7) (410-02) RESOLUTION 6619 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - CALIFORNIA AVENUE OFF-STREET PARKING PROJECT NO. 71-63 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987--88" RESOLUTION 6620 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - CALIFORNIA AVENUE KEYSTONE LOT PARKING PROJECT 86 -(775K -FISCAL YEAR 1987-88" MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of Resolutions 6618, 661# and 6620. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 57-343 6/15/8; 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE ZONING ORDINANCE MODIFICATION RE RECYCLING CENTERS IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS (300) Council Member Levy asked at what point Council approved the standards for use permits. Director of Planning and Community Environment. Ken Schreiber said the standards for the use permit hearing process and decision -making process were established by the Zoning Administrator and did not return to Council without specific direction. Council Member Levy clarified parking spaces would only be replaced it necessary, i.e., there would be no requirement to develop new spaces if there were excess parking spaces. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Mayor Woolley declared the public Hearing open, Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Llutorius, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to modify the Zoning Ordinance to permit recycling centers in commercial and industrial districts. in compliance with the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act (Bottle Bill), finding that the proposed changes will not have a significant effect on the physical environment. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 (ZONING CODE) REGARDING RECYCLING CENTERS" MOTION PASSED unanimously. 8. REPORT FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE RE AB 1728 (CMR:322.7) (702-06) Council Member Patitucci said AB 1728 involved notification for the release of parolees. The bill provided a 30 -day period in which the local government may respond and provide information the Parole Board needed to consider before it made a final decision. There was a balancing issue between the parolee having an opportunity to start out in a comnuniti after having served a sentence and the question of the con- munity -having an opportunity in significant instances of having their position known.;. The particular legislation did not provide any power to the jurisdiction except the power to comment and the requirement that the Parole Board consider 57-344 6/15/87 the comments. He suspected future legislation would be more „aggressive. He supported the legislation. Council Member Fletcher opposed the legislation because it would require notification of the community 90 days before a parolee was placed in a community. She believed San Jose's interest was prompted when a parolee was placed in the home of a minister, had a job arranged, and would be supervised by the minister in whose home he resided. When the neighborhood found out, the pressure grew overnight and the parolee lost his opportunity for a job and supervision by the minister and had to leave the area. Notifying a community 90 days in advance would give a parolee practically no chance to start a new life because no matter where the parolee was placed, the 90 -day period would be sufficient to incite enough public opposition because no one wanted an ex -felon in their neigh- borhood. She was concerned about counter -productivity. She urged Council consider that parolees served their time and deserved a second chance. If there was any problem, they would be arrested again. Council Member Levy agreed with Council Member Fletcher although not as strongly.' The issue seemed to be related to the action of parole rather than the action of any one civic jurisdiction review, The real question'was whether a felon should be paroled at all. He was concerned that too many convicts were paroled toe early and with insufficient super- vision. Once the decision was made that a person deserved the right to return to society, the question was whether any one jurisdiction had the right to reject that person. As a representative of Palo Alto, if he had the right to reject someone who had a.criminal record, his instincts would be to let the person go elsewhere. In the broader sense, he did not believe any one city should have that righil. He was more sympathetic to Council Member Fletcher's position bat believed any stance taken by the City should be accompanied by a statement that the review criteria for parole should be more carefully considered and more stringently applied. Council Member Klein did not believe the bill was as dra- conian as stated by Council Members Levy and Fletcher, It seemed to have two key provisions, i.e., if the parolee was to be released to the county from which he or she was con- victed, the Parole Board would notify the sheriff 30 days prior to the release. It did not seem to give -the .community a veto right. If an inmate was _to be released to a county different from the one -in which he or she was convicted, the notice provision was -for 90 days and it provided the ability to comment. He believed it was appropriate for a city or county be able to respond if a notorious felon was to be released into their commuunity. The bill wisely kept in the 57-345 6/15/87 hands of the Board of Prison Terms the right to make the assignment, but it was also appropriate for citizens to pro- vide input. As a public body, Council had input on its deci- sions all the tirne and he did not see where the Board of Prison Terms was any different. He pointed out the Singleton case was the exception and there were thousands of parolees released each year back to the counties from which they were convicted or other counties and no complaints were made. He believed that would continue to be the case. In an excep- tional case, local jurisdictions deserved the courtesy and right to comment in accordance with the democratic processes. He supported the bill. Council Member Renzel believed notifying the governments of the communities 90 days in advance had a predictable result and the Singleton case made it obvious. Even politicrians:who might_ normally be kind and sensible would not stay quiet if they believed their community would be outraged that a crimi- nal was in their presence. Every politician 'ein every local community would feel obliged to speak out against any felon being released in their community. The 90 days would then have to run for every subsequent community. She agreed there was inadequate sentencing for certain types of crimes, but it was a different issue and not addressed by the particular legislation. Putting the paroling of people who served their required time into the political ballpark would not aid in the functioning of the hopeful reformation of people who in the past committed feloneous crimes. She opposed the legis- lation. City Manager Bill Zaner said Palo Alto had no instances of problems. Some felons had been paroled into the City and were reported to the Chief of Pollee. He could not speak to the seriousness of the crimes [Or which the parolees were convicted or whether they were as serious as some of the ones recently being publicized. MOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Klein, the.t Council support AB 1728 and direct the Mayor to communi- cate the City's position to our legislators and others as appropriate. Vice Mayor Sutorius did not support the motion. Palo Alto was going on record in support of legislation regarding the full disclosure of sentencing. He believed the City properly supported that piece of legislation which provided an early opportunity for victims, officials, enforcement officers and the general public to be well aware of what the probable, actual sentence would be as opposed to the lawfully pro- claimed sentence. All parties had an opportunityto register 57.346 6/15/87 a concern from that date forward and to have their own tickler if there was a belief that something should be done in advance of the notice that ordinarily would go to the City. He did not believe the particular piece of legislation was as necessary as some of the others. MOTION .FAILED by a: vote of 3-6, Cobb, Klein, Patitucci voting "aye.1e 9. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PERSONNEL COMMITTEE RE COUNCIL -APPOINTED OFFICERS' SUPPORT STAFF CLASSIFICATION AND BENEFITS (501) `dice Mayor Sutorius said the Personnel Committee's role was important in guiding the conclusions. The Council Personnel Committee was not a standing committee and while the meeting was the subject of public knowledge and referral it was not a meeting with a publicly noticed agenda printed in the news- paper. There were three members of- the Committee and it did not take final actions. It seemed inappropriate to make a specific recommendation on the two cases. However, a recom- mendation was made that the procedures followed should be common as they presently existed regardless of whether the job function reported to a Council -Appointed Officer (CAC). Any desire for modification was a matter for the Policy and Procedures Committee. MOTION TO REFER% Vice Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Levy, that the specific classifications withheld from final action be referred back to the Finance and Public Works Committee. Mayor Woolley attended the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee meeting when the referral was made and she per- ceived the issue as being a question of the availability to the Council Members of criteria for the reclassification of Council -Appointed Officers' staff members. Nothing in the report provided Council with criteria. She asked if the information was available. Mr. Zaner said the criteria for reclassification of CAO staff members was identical to the system used for any other posi- tion. The process was reviewed with the Council Personnel Committee by the personnel analyst charged with reclassifica- tions. Staff could reduce the process to writing. Mayor Woolley believed it would be helpful because Council was in an awkward position. Council received the report saying the process occurred and the City Manager recommended no reclassification but yet Council._ did not really know the details of the process. It was difficult for Council to make a decision. 57-347 6/15/87 Council Member Patitucci asked for clarification about whether the Council -Appointed Officers should use the same process as was used by other departments. Vice Mayor Sutorius said yes. The F&P7 Committee requested that part of the consideration be whether there should be a distinctprocess or departure with respect to how CAO support staff should be handled as opposed to other support staff, Council Member Patitucci queried whether that implied that if the Personnel Department looked at one of the situations and said it was not, a position that would be normally reclassi- fied as a result of actions if it were in the City Manager's domain, then the recommendation would have the full weight of the Council. Personnel Committee in terms of consideration. Mr. Zaner said the process used to determine whether the reclassification should occur was technical and was the same whether the position was a CAO reporting position or a department. In the budget process he reviewed the reclassi- fications atter the technical work `was done and made a recom- mendation in the budget as to whether a position should be reclassified. In the subject instances, which both happened to reptjrt to other CFO's, he recommended against just as he recommended against a whole series that happened to report to department heads. He did not believe the process was any different. i Council Member Patitucci said if the positions reported to the City Manager and followed the process that he wanted to uniformly administer, then those reclassificiations would not have been recommended. Mr. Zaner said that was correct. Council Member Fletcher asked if all four CFO's concurred with conclusion and recommendation No. 1. Vice Mayor Sutorius said the conclusion was unanimous and was. part of the discussion during the period of time the CAO's met with the Committee. City Auditor Mike Northrup agreed with the recommendation. Council Member Bechtel said Council Member Patitucci expressed concern that perhaps the Council Personnel Committee did not understand the F&PW Committee's recommenda- tion. The Personnel Committee believed that since the F&PW Committee was a public meeting process it was more appropri- ate forthe final decision to be made 4t that point. 57-348 6/15/87 Mayor Woolley was frustrated that Council did not have the necessary information to make a decision. The situation was different from when they were talking about staff under the City Manager. Council would accept his decisions because the staff people reported to him. When talking about staff under the CAO's, she believed Council was more in the deci- sion --making role andneeded to know the criteria for making tiie decision. If Council had the information and then the matter was referred back to the F&PW Committee, a good deci- sion might be made. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 10. GOLDEN TRIANGLE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS - REVIEW OF PHASE II GOLDEN TRIANGLE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS (CMR:316:7) (1045-01) Council Member Klein, Council Liaison to the Golden Triangle Task Force, said he voted on the tentative votes taken at the Golden Triangle Task Force meeting in accordance with the staff recommendations, and he hoped his colleagues would see things the same way. There was a public hearing at the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, June 17, 1987, for final public input with regard to the recommendations which were scheduled for a final vote by the Task Fore on Friday morning, June 19, 1987. Council Member Renzel understood the commitment to the housing actions was preliminary at that point because all the decisions crith respect to housing allocations would be made in another phase. Knowing the sentiment of the community with respect to housing density, she was concerned the c;ppor- tunities to address the housing issue were primarily.limited to change of zoning from other kinds of uses to dousing and even there densities might be of sufficient +.onccrn to the. residents that any decision the Council made would " no, be a final one. She asked if the issue came up at discussions at the Golden Triangle Task Force that, given the fact there was such a gross imbalance: in their own community relative to the other Golden Triang-a.e. communities, how they would be able to make any kind of commitment with respect to housing. Council Member Klein said all representatives of the other five communities used much the same language as Council Member Renzel. There was great' concern as to how to solve the housing problem, but .there was n4 Commitme'nt at present as to any particular allocation of formula. There was a clear conundrum that everybody recognized,a serious portion of the problems in the Golden Triangle dealt with housing. Mr. Schreiber slated it well that the study started out as a 57--349- 6/15/87 transportation study and ended up as a housing study. It was a difficult problem to wrestle with because all the communi- ties felt the way just expressed_ by Council Member Renzel, yet they all recognized they had to come up with more housing and not solely by putting it on one particular community. As of right now, the recommendations before Council were extremely light on housing, just saying it was a problem and ;geeing if solutions could be worked out in the next phase of the Golden Triangle. Council Member Cobb reinforced Council Member Klein's com- ments. Sunnyvale Council Member O'Toole expressed the same kinds of concerns yesterday, and he expected they were uni- form. LaJune Bush, 3000 Hanover Street, represented Hewlett- Packard (H -P), the Santa Clara County Manufacturing Group, and served as Chairperson of the Working Council. The Manufacturing Group and H -P appreciated the Council's parti- cipation in the Golden Triangle Task Force and urged support of the Task Force recommendations. In summary, they urged the City of Palo Alto to: \A) adopt the full package as pro- posed by the Golden Triangle Taske Force; 2) ensure the implementation of the Task Force recommendations; and 3) con- tinue to be involved as the recommendations.were implemented. As the transportation demand management Component of the Golden Triangle Task Force moved forward and was implemented, both the Manufacturing Group and H -P encouraged the Council to continue to draw on the expertise of the senior industry representatives of the Concil and the Manufacturing Group Board of Directors. Also, they wanted Council to encourage a formal participation of senior industry representatives in the early stages of the program development. They also strongly recommended there be clearly -defined linkages between performance and investments in transportation infra- structure. Council Member Patitucci asked about "insure implementation of the policies within each jurisdiction." The focus of that issue revolved around the City of Santa Clara, and he asked what industry was going to do to try to get that community to adopt the full package of recommendations. Ms. Bush said basically the same presentation the Council heard from her that evening was given to each member city of the Golden Triangle Task Force, including the City of Santa Clara. She understood the other cities intended to move forward even if one city was reticent in . its approval. .They had a large facility in the City of Santa Clara and had con- versations both privately and publicly. 57-350 6/15/87 Katherine Strehl, P.O. Box 3504, Manager of Community Relations for Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, said the company was located primarily in Sunnyvale but had about 1,000 employees in Palo Alto. Lockheed and the Manufacturing Group commended the Council tor its active involvement on the Task Force and in developing solutions to problems that crossed jurisdictional lines. They reaffirmed adoption of the full package of -policies. They believed in the absence of adoption and implementation of any one policy, the effec- tiveness of the program would be seriously undermined., They supported the transportation demand management program before Council which promoted voluntary participation of employers of 100 or more and believed it was the one area where the private sector could make a difference. Success in the pro- gram hinged upon two critical factors. One was active involvement of the private sector as the program was .devel- oped in the next phase. Involvement of senior representa- tives would insure something was put into place that really made a difference and would encourage other employers to participate. The second factor was public investment in capital improvements which would improve the transportation infrastructure, e.g., commuter lanes and improvements to transit service. In the absence of those improvements, they ran a risk of failure in achieving a significant ride -sharing goal. The investments gave employers the necessary incen- tives to `encourage ride -sharing and certainly provided assurances the public sector was a partner as they moved forward.' Michael Fair, 111 Tennyson Street, gave a copy of oleasanton's Traffic Ordinance to each Council Member on June 1, 1987 and asked the Council to study and follow the prudent guidelines to solve the worsening problem. The Golden Triangle Task Force proposals were not effective enough to solve Palo Alto's traffic congestion. First, the City needed to pass an effective and fair ordinance not depending on other cities in the area to solve its problem. The impact .fee was just another business tax. They should try proven, inexpensive methods first and not add another cost to the business community which could lead to cutting jobs or higher prices. The voluntary method of transportation demand man- agement was not effective enough. Only when forced would commuters see the benefits of carpooling, public transporta- tion and flextime. He asked why flextime was not mentioned in the proposals, and for the Council to amend voluntary participation to mandatory participation. -.The roadways to Palo Alto and its surrounding areas were presently congested, and it _a,ould be a nightmare to drive around the community in three -years. The citizens -of Palo Alto needed the Council to pass, an effective ordinance that day. 57.-351 6/15/87 Mail( Saul, 501 Forest, #609, commuted to San Jose every day and had the strongest objections to the proposals. He was reminded of an old Colorado saying that developers were people who did not have their home in the mountains, and environmentalists were people who did. They were largely talking about protecting the quality of life in Santa Clara County for people who lived there already or for people who had already "made it," and were not encouraging growth in the business community for people who lived outside the community. It was important because the big business commu- nity clearly was in favor of the proposal and yet was not creating jobs. They were talking about limits that would increase the cost to small businesses, businesses which grew anc' which would largely contribute to the welfare of the community at large over the next 20 to 30 years. The story of Silicon Valley was small businesses growing into big busi- nesses, not large businesses which had reached a stable status quo and were n9 longer growing. Specifically, an FAR basically limited the''amount of building on a certain piece of land. An FAR limit would then drive up the price of real estate and had a major impact on small businesses who needed to lease land and would drive small businesses into other areas. He challenged the inherent assumption in the proposal that there were limits to growth in the highway system. Highway 101 was in terrible disrepair, and they could increase the fluidity of traffic by spending more money on it. Central Expressway could be changed into a highway and would not limit growth. People were not going to carpool. Californians liked to have their own cars. He urged Council to reconsider the proposal which would inevitably limit growth in the area. Santa Clara was very shrewd; they wanted to grow and were not participating. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to adopt staff recommendation incorporating the following actions: 1. Endorse the proposed Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM), including the City participating in the TDM Coordinating Council, with the Mayor directed to appoint a Council Member to the Coordinating Council; 2. Endorse the Task Force's actions on the list of Capital Improvement Projects and the need to vigorously pursue additional state and federal funding for Colder. Triangle -related transportation improvements; 3. Endorse. the Task Force's housing -related actions; 57-352. 6/15/87 1 MOTION continued 4. Endorse the proposed Growth Management Program with City evaluation of the Program to be incorporated in the forthcoming Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study NIIR; and 5. Commit to City participation in the Golden Triangle Implementation Plan. Council Member Menzel believed the whole Golden Triangle Task Force action resulted because all the participating communi- ties recognized there were complicated and interrelated problems between them, principally transportation and housing. For many years she had supported attempting to balance housing and jobs, and it was unfortunate even their community didnot make bigger strides towards that some years ago. It would be more difficult to achieve balances now but, for the health of the entire area, it was important the physical development of the area made economic sense. They had seen many empty offices being built, many highways grossly'overcrowded, and workers importeco from other counties because of jobs without having adequate housing. They now knew the old idea of drawing a big enough circle to balance jobs and housing did not apply, end they needed to do every- thing possible as a greater community to make some sense out of laid use. She supported the actions. Council Member Bechtel commended Council Member Klein's participation on the Committee. In regard to the speaker who suggested following Pleasanton's lead, many of the. local businesses in the County already used flextime as much as possible, ridesharing was actively pursued and should be con- sidered. All the speaker's suggestions were being used. Obviously they could be used further but did not preclude the suggestions that were part of the Golden Triangle recommenda- tions. In regard to where smaller start-up businesses would go, she referenced the vast number- of empty buildings in Santa Clara. Vice Mayor Sutorius supported the motion and shared the appreciation for Council Members Klein's and Patitucciss par- ticipation in the process as well as the professional participation of staff. He was particularly pleased to note there was some indication that potentially important commer- cial areas of San Jose would come -in under the Golden Triangle umbrella, which was a shortcoming at the outset of the process. He was encouraged by indications the downtown area of. San Jose would be subject to going, in, as well as other relevant areas both within San Jose and outside the 57•-353 6/15/87 present triangle, and there would be flexibility regarding the rules for those outlying areas. Council was aware there were some relatively near -term financial situations coming up, and he queried the implementation of the TDM first phase and the staffing with respect to ongoing Golden Triangle. Mr, Zaner said the City did not have any funds in the pro- posed budget for implementation of Golden Triangle. However, he noted with the budget message those costs would arise and Council would have to deal with them. The costs were not enormous and were easily handled as a budget amendment. His best estimate at present for the City's share of the TDM por- tion of the Golden Triangle was in the $50,000 to $75,000 range, depending entirely on how the program worked out and the number of participants. With regard to ongoing staff required for Phase ITI, the end of Phase II marked the end of the Manufacturing Association's financial commitment, so the cities and jurisdiction would need to rind other means of financing staff. If there were five or six jurisdictions, Palo Alto's share might be somewhere in the $10,000 to $12,000 range. The total cost might be $75,000 to $80,000. Council Member Levy supported the motion and joined in com- mendation to Council Member Klein in particular. The motion was obviously something to be approved in broad outline with the detail subject to significant discussion, but. the broad outline was important. He was particularly pleassd with the partnership developed between business and government on the Peninsula. He was sorry Santa Clara was not participating and did not believe they were shrewd but unwise. He did not believe inevitable growth was inevitably wise, nor that a bigger community would be more attractive, stimulating, or enjoyable to live in. He opined Santa Clara would also come to that conclusion and join. Council Member. Fletcher favored the motion and hoped its implementation would be effective. She referenced the sug- gestion that an extension of the Measure A sales tax was an inappropriate source of funding for highway expansion and said there had been strong comments from Council against the Concept. She hoped the matter would go to Council before their representatives promoted the idea. Council Member Cobb said in regard to Mr. Fair's indication of a need for mandatory measures, he did not like to see government in a position where it. had to force people to do things. He referenced Mr. Saul's comments and said he had lived in the area a long time, yet was the owner of a small 57-354 6/15/87 As corrected 7/20/87 business who loved to drive his car and never used public transportation. He could not drive his car to see a client before 9:00 a.m. or akter 3:00 p.m., and the window was getting smaller every day. He did not see a lack of vitality in small businesses but saw an exodus of some large busi- nesses because it became too difficult to live and get around in the area. The real issue was a trade-off between quality and life and unlimited growth. He did not believe even unlimited growth would wake the area inexpensive enough for some of the things Mr. Saul referenced to occur. Los Angeles came to mind as a place where growth had not been limited, and unlimited growth would see the exodus of people like him- self who could not live in that kind of congestion. He also commended Council Members Klein and Patitucci. Realization of the Golden Triangle goals, particularly housing, would be difficult, but they had to start because otherwise the area would become unlivable, and he liked living there. Council Member Klein believed it was important that Council be unanimous on the issue. The full package of the Golden Triangle recommendations before Council represented a remark- able step forward, and he hoped they would be adopted by at least four other cities. They were operating in an area where other people had not gone before which made it diffi- cult. Palo Alto's staff made a significant contribution with several members participating. In particular, Ken Schreiber and Bill Zaner took the lead in a number of discussions and Council should be proud of their participation in the pro- gram. They were a long way from accomplishing everything, but the most important thing was they were going to formally start on a program, and he believed they still had a chance to preserve their area as a viable place to live and'.work. He did not detect any lack of vitality in small businesses, and the recommendations were one way to insure vitality was maintained. Flextime was desirable and a large number of Palo Alto's employees used it. Unfortunately, they were seeing the afternoon commute rush-hour retreating towards noon which was part of the result of flextime. The Pleasanton program was looked at carefully. They would like to be in the same position; however, Pleasanton was starting from scratch with a far smaller area, while the Golden Triangle already had a tremendous number of jobs and an an established infrastructure. He believed there were people who would favor mandatory TDM now, but they had to try a smaller step first; to prove voluntary program with mandatory reporting would not work before switching to_a system .that nobody in the country -was using as yet, i.e., mandatory ridesharing, etc. They were embarking on an experiment that 57--355 6/15/87 had a fighting chance, and he was glad Palo Alto was a key player. He hoped it would succeed. Mayor Woolley said the necessity and importance of the Council's action that evening was pointed out last March by the Futurecast 2001 Subcommittee on Governance whose report concluded their big problems were mostly of a regional nature and the solution was to find some sort of regional govern- ment. In order to do that they needed to change their way of thinking and behaving, The Golden Triangle was a giant step in demonstration of their willingness to make that change; therefore, she applauded the effort. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 11. THERMAL INSULATION FINAL TEST RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (141.0-01) Mayor Woolley said Item 11 was removed by staff. Council would not be taking up nor discussing the item but would be happy to hear from Mr. Tranmer who came from Benicia to speak on the item. Joel Tranmer, 4280 Iowa Street, Benicia, spoke as President of the largest manufacturer of cellulose insulation in the country and said they probably had more insulation in the City of Palo Alto's program than anybody else who manufac- tured that product. He was also the. President of the Cellulose Manufacturers Advisory Council and represented companies manufacturing cellulose for sale in the State of California. He understood the City of Palo Alto was consid- ering the removal of cellulose insulation from attics at great expense to taxpayers and suggested such action might not be necesi;ary. Strictly from a liability standpoint, all the materials ins'Salled in the City's program were labeled by Underwriters Laboratories, the manufacturers certified the products were manufactured to the state and federal stan- dards. In addition, the City of Palo Alto was provided with a certificate saf insurance from each manufacturer naming the City as additional insured. The City also qualified all the contractors who participated, and they also certified th0 materials were properly -installed and provided the City with a certificate of insurance. In the unlikely event there was a fire or problem involving insulation, he believed the City would be well protected from a liability standpoint. Council should understand fires .involving insulation almost always happened within days of installation because they were caused by contractors causing electrical shorts or putting insulat- ion :over heat -bearing Surf -sees.. The fact the City had no insulation -related fires to date was an indication all was 57-356 6/15/87 well from an installation standpoint. It was important to understand there were no generally -accepted methods to test cellulose material after it was installed in an attic. The tests used in the City's program were designed to test mate- rial right after it was installed -and right out of a bag. Their technical director, George Andrews, would begin writing such a standard. The problem had not arisen during his 11 years in the industry. It was also important to consider that just because a cellulose sample did not pass the radiant panel test did not mean it was flammable or presented a pub- lic safety hazard, but only that it did not pass the test. The Federal Register of -July 6, 1979 which defined the Consumer- Products Safety Commission's interim standard for cellulose ineulation, which was the present standard said, "The Commission agrees that the historical development of the attic floor radiant panel test does not in, itself mean the test is suitable for assessing the fire performance charac- teristics of cellulose insulation. The attic floor radiant panel test with a pass/fail criteria of .12 watts per square centimeter simulates the exposure of insulation materials to a small attic fire under 160 degrees fahrenheit air tempera- ture conditions, which represents conditions that have been demonstrated by the National Bureau of Standards to be worst -case summer attic conditions with an added safety factor. Studies conducted by the National Bureau of Standards` show that in spite of this difference, the pass/ fail criteria of the test approximates the entry flex level of the insulation under realized conditions with a 50 percent safety factor added." That could only mean that the Consumer Products. Safety Commission considered samples that failed within a range of .08 watts per square centimeter and .12 to fall within_ that safety range. He believed Palo Alto was using .12 watts per square centimeter as a pass/fail criteria. During the past ten years the cellulose industry manufactured and installed in excess of 30,000,000 bags of insulation in 1.1 million attics in the State of California alone. To his knowledge, during the same period there had not been One single product -liability judgment awarded due to inproper manufacture or unsafe cellulose insulation. He also understood the City of Palo Alto experienced no fires, no deaths, and no personal injuries associated with its insula- tion program. He asked Council to consider that fact with considering the City's risk in leaving the insulation in the attics. For over a year he was a r:P., et of a task force appointed by the Public Utilities .Commission of the Stale of California to study insulation -related fires. He had .the final report, and the conclusion of the task force was there was not a significant problem. He suggested the problem could be solved -through an inspection and correction program. 57-357 6/15/87 If the 850 attics in the program were inspected to insure proper installation and barriers, the City would not have a public safety problem and would save a great deal of their taxpayers' money The eyes of many people across the nation were watching the City of Palo Alto. He recOved calls every day wanting to know what the City was going to do. When Council made its decision, he asked they consider the conse- quences for all of them. The industry was willing to help in any way possible. Council Member Renzel asked if a copy of the report could be made available to staff. Mr. Tranmer said the final report was in the hands of the Energy Chief of the Public Utilities Commission who should be contacted for a copy. 12. SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT PROPOSED BUS ROUTE CHANGES IN PALO ALTO (CMR:318:7) (1162) Virginia Lee, 656 Lytton Avenue, spoke as a resident of Lytton Gardens whn presented a petition to keep Route 35 at a previous meeting of the Transportation Committee, signed by 80 percent of the residents of Lytton Gardens. She also spoke as a member of Palo Alto's Human Relations Commission who endorsed the petition of Lytton Gardens. The statement in the report that only five people from Lytton Gardens used the bus was to be questioned because, as their population became more frail and elderly, more people were forced to relinquish the use of their cars and use the bus. Many shop- ped at Midtown and to transfer carrying groceries would be virtually impossible. According to the administrator of Lytton TII, many visitors and staff personnel used No. 35. The idea of a shuttle bus not yet in place left many ques- tions in her mind. Public transportation was meant to serve all residents and certainly the frail and elderly should have top priority. She asked Council to keep Route 35. Mayor Woolley. asked it Lytton Gardens had a shuttle service or van owned by the facility. Ms. Lee said yes, thanks to the Rotary Club they had a bus to take people shopping and to doctors' appointments certain days a woek. She felt that was not sufficient for getting people to Midtown to shop, not just' the residents of Lytton Gardens but all Downtown seniors. Mayor Woolley understood other bus routes could be taken but involved a transfer or walking to Homer. 57.358 6/15/87 Council Member Fletcher, asked the destinations of most of the residents who wanted to use the bus. Ms. Lee said to Midtown, San Antonio Shopping Center; and to Lucie Stern Community Center. Alice Fischgrund, 750 Torreya Court, believed Palo Altans were getting short shrift and the whole last operation -was a rusn job. They had three public meetings, the halls were filled, and everybody had copies, including the Transportation Commission, of the petitions from Lytton Gardens, the Senior Center, the Jewish Community Center, and Geological Survey, yet the changes were going to be made with few concerns addressed. The remaining changes were essen- tially cuts, and instead of improved service, they had reduction of service. Eventually, the whole county would be "improved," but she wished to voice her objection. She was appalled the Palo Alto staff was endorsing the changes which did not serve the citizens of Palo Alto. The City sh01d object. The seniors wanted and deserved public access. Herbert Fischgrund, 750 Torreya Court, believed there was plenty the City could do to keep the wrong outcome from hap- pening-. Many important points came out in the public hearings, and in the final proposal and analysis by City staff a thoughtful job was done in analyzing the impacts and mitigations. Serious issues still remained. City staff's conclusion was that it was apparent County Transit was intent on reducing s service .��� „�.:� costs and equipment in north county prior to the end of 1987 to accommodate future transit demand in the light rail corridor. He read the Transit District's staff report and the objectives of the study and did not see anything about that but saw improving service efficiency without significantly impacting services levels, improving service directness, etc. He asked the basis for defining the inevitability based on light rail. He asked the basis for the statement that delay in existing service for one year as the Coun01 recommended was unlikely. The City should take a vigorous position that there was no established need for the cuts. The were some good ideas embedded in the changes. he asked the need for the saving and whether the City had budget information that said the County needed to save money in the first place. They read in the public press about the District salting away money for transit lanes, which were not permitted under the half -cent sales tax. He saw no data that said more routes_ operated below standard in the area than in other areas which were not yet being evaluated. The Operations Committee voted to essentially endorse' the Palo Alto position and was overturned by the Transportation Commission on a 10-9 vote, sent back to Committee which met with oniy_a few hours notice. Until a lot of questions were 57-359 6/15/87 answered, the City should :take a vigorous position that there was an important difference of opinion. He asked what the City planned to do to support the position at the Transportation commissio,n and before the Board of Supervisors. Transportation Planner.Gayie Likens said the transmittal from the Transportation Agency outlined the three objectives of their study, but in earlier communications with them, they referenced the bus element of the T2000 plan and in a broader context outlined the three elements of improving efficiency, streamlining the service, and eliminating duplication of service but also alluded to the need to accommodate the needs in the light rail corridor, -and would be moving onto that as the next sector of study. It appeared they would be looking at not only what was there now but what needed to be thereto accommodate the light rail system. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway- said staff did not have the budgetary numbers of the Transit District. •Basically, the Transit District was trying to cut out and reduce service in -those areas that were least productive because they had a need to institute additional service as feeder systems into light rail system. They divided the County into four sectors, and the savings realized in that kind of analysis in all tour sectors was intended to go into service feeding the light rail system. - He did not have information on the actual cost numbers with regard to the service into the light rail and the cash flow situation out of the County Transit System. George Hargrove, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, spoke on behalf Of the U.S. Geological Survey and SRI employees who rode Route 35. He spoke in opposition of the discontinuance of Route 353 He referenced staff report CMR:318:7, page 9, which said, This less direct, more time-consuming transit ride may discourage existing Palo Alto ridership, although it is possible that the Line 300 connection to Menlo Park may draw more ridership from other areas of Palo Alto and the county." He did not know if it was possible to do that kind of projection. Their position all along had been the reason. Route 35 should be retained was because they had done a variety of things- they believed warranted a continuation of the route for at least one year. They offered to work with the Santa Clara County Transit District to increase the ridership. The line had great potential for increased rider -- ship, and they had a commitment from their population which numbered 1,500 at 345 Middlefield, to look into the prospect. Kay Clarke, Director of Corporate Communications at SRI, made the same--kind-of commitment on behalf of SRI. There were TSM 57-360 6/15/87 or TDM studies underway in Menlo Park and Palo Alto. He served on the TSM study :;coup in Menlo Park, and guidelines would be coming out in the near future. The Middlefield corridor was recognized as a particularly congested corridor in Menlo Park, and he suggested contacting the City Engineer in Menlo Park, one of the prominent officials on the .TSM study group who might be able to shed some light on the feasibilty, acceptability, and need to retain Route 35. The justification for discontinuance .of Route 35 seemed to ignore the implication of the St. Patrick's Seminary development complex directly across from their campus, from which they expected several hundred new residents. The core buildings would be for the elderly so bus transportation would be a central component. He was disappointed if Route 35 was con- demned to abolishment because the ridership would retreat to their -cars. The proposed Route 300 came down El Camino Real and the Middlefield corridor was not well served by that con- nection. He hoped the Council would show the same wisdom as in the past when it recommended no major changes in existing service be implemented- for one year to allow employers in Palo Alto and Menlo Park to develop TDM programs. Mayor Woolley said the whole study of changes in bus routes had been going on for sometime, and she asked if the U.S. Geological Survey had done anything to upgrade the number of riders in that time. Mr. Hargrove said he and riders appeared before the Transit District hearings. .At the most recent hearing, they offered for the first time to work with the Transit District to improve the numbers of ridership. Mayor Woolley asked if Mr. Hargrove had any specific ideas in mind to increase ridership provided extend services for one year,= the Transit District did Mr. Hargrove said the publicity surrounding the hearings and the discussion by their employees about Route 35 had already led to some increased ridership. Specifically, they would develop a coordination committee at the Geological Survey's campus to approach all 1,500 employees and made them more aware of the bus line. Council Member Fletcher felt somewhat like Mrs. Fischgrund that the county was determined to make cuts, and she was appalled at the process they were using after the last round when the Transportation Commission did refer the matter of cutbacks back to the Operations Committee, but the notice for the meeting including the description of the proposed changes only came to her one day before the meeting. She objected c7. -1A1 6/15/87 strenuously to making any changes prior to having local input, so the Operations Committee decided they would take action anyway and endorsed the proposals unanimously and believed they were being gracious by holding up the return to the Transportation Commission of the item for two weeks. With the Transportation Commission getting unanimous recom- mendation from the Operations Committee, she did not know what kind of chance Council had. She believed the plan was completely different, should have gone through a new series of hearings, and was definitely a reduction of service to Palo Alto. MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, that the City of Palo Alto request the Transportation Commission to postpone any change for, one year pending the outcome of the implementation of the TDM measures. Council Member Renzel said in the Golden Triangle Task Force they just embarked upon an important step of making sure all the communities had transportation systems managements, and allowing the companies who were within route --particularly Route 35 --to develop increased ridership and to help comply with making transportation systems work was made more diffi- cult if Council supported .removal of routes which provided vital transportation to many people, and could potentially provide it to more with promotion. It made sense to try to implore the County Transit District not to make the cuts that year. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Sutorius, to: adopt the staff recommendation to direct the Mayor to write a letter •to the County Transportation Commission and Transit District Board communicating the following comments on the proposed bus route modifications, with a revision to Recommendation No. 2: 1. Palo Alto endorses the proposed changes on Lines 23 and 24; 2. Palo Alto opposes the proposed elimination of Line 35; 3. Palo Alto endorses the proposed rerouting of Line 84 but requests the current frequency of peak hour service be maintained; 4. Palo Alto endorses the proposed rerouting of Line 86 but requests continuation of current evening service; 5. Palo Alto endorses rerouting of Line 88 but requests that Current Saturday service be maintained; ref 7rn 41 —304 6/15/87 SUBSTITUTE MOTION continued 6. Palo Alto endorses the proposed route modifications on Line 300. Council Member Fletcher said the problem with the substitute motion was nearly all the other changes were interrelated to Line 35. The Transportation Commission was told the Transit Agency did not want to make any changes which saved less than $100,000 a year because of the cost of redoing maps and time- tables. Mayor Woolley did not see the problem because the substitute motion did not save any money at all. Council Member Fletcher clarified the substitute motion endorsed all the other changes, and those changes would not save the money eliminating Route 35 would. Vice Mayor Sutorius seconded the motion because he believed, despite some of the calendar and timing problems, a conscien- tious effort was made to reflect community concerns, a logi- cal explanation was given for certain things that could not be accommodated in the best judgment of the Transit District, and that some of the creative things offered benefits. He believed Palo Alto's ridership interests towards the com- munity center area would benefit, which was valuable. Council had not taken the time nor was it within their prov- ince to evaluate the impacts in the Mountain View and Los Altos area and on through the routings of the various lines. To withhold approval for an extended period of time as sug- gested in the main motion ignored the potential savings and service improvements available in those other areas. It would be an inappropriate action to make that strong a repre- sentation. Council Member Bechtel supported the substitute motion. There was value in responding with input on the proposed changes concerning frequency of service, evening service, etc., rather than simply saying "no," because Council would not have as much impact as they would with the substitute motion. There was some real need for Line 35. She agreed with Ms. Lee it was not good to eliminate a line without an alternative for the Senior Center. Council Member Levy was concerned about the implementation .and politics of the issue. If Council e;ame out with opposi- tion to the elimination of Line 35, the effect could be the Transit. District would go ahead anyway and they would be worse off than with staff's recommendation which included a 57-363 6/15/87 senior shuttle service as a demonstration project. He asked if the effect of simply opposing the elimination of Line 35 per se would be a futile: gesture. Would Council be better off saying, while they opposed the elimination of Line 35, if in fact the Transit District was going to eliminate Line 35, Council urged them to commit to development of a shuttle service. Mr. Overway said the Board of Supervisors was the final decision -maker, and the matter still had to go through the Transportion Commission first. Council was represented on the Transportion Commission by Council Member Fletcher. The Operations Committee endorsement of their staff's recommenda- tions carried significant weight, but previous experience showed a significant shift at the Transportion Commission and he was not sure how it would play out. Regarding whether the shuttle would be more likely with or without Line 35, Line 35 was $304,000 of the $485,000 cost savings and to take that out and ask for additional shuttle costs was unlikely. Council Member Levy agreed with not eliminating Line 35, but if the Transit District eliminated Line 35, he wanted to see' a shuttle service. He queried whether it should be stated as part of the motion oc whether by stating if Council negated its original statement that it opposed eliminating Line 35. Council Member Patitucci could riot '.separate the elimination of Line 35 from its connection to the other recommendations. He believed staff made an effort to qet the best possible deal given the reality of the Commission's direction. The proposal was a hedge and he supported the staff recommenda- tion or nothing. He opposed the motion. Council Member Fletcher said the item would go before the Transportion Commission on June 24, 1987, and the final decision -maker was the Board of Supervisors. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Patitucci voting 'no.' COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:40 e.m. TO 9:55 p.m. 13. INITIATIVE PETITION FOR A PROPOSED ORDINANCE THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE PALO ALTO ACT (705-87-08) Mayor Woolley said Council could either adopt the ordinance without any alteration or it could place the ordinance on the November ballot. Council could not make any changes to the ordinance in either ease. 57-364 6/15/87 MOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Levy, to direct the City Attorney and the City Clerk to include the proposed ordinance in the resolution to be brought to the Council on July 13, 1987, calling a Special Election to be consolidated with the General Municipal Election, to be held in Palo Alto on Tuesday, November 3, 1987, and submitting said ordinance to the electorate. MOTION TO RAISE QUESTION OP PRIVILEGE: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to limit public comment to three minutes. Council Member Levy preferred to request the public to abide by the three minutes, but would not support the motion. While he did not believe there was a lot to be gained by excess testimony, he did not believe it was proper for Council to arbitrarily change its normal rules. Council Member Renzel agreed with Council. Member Levy. Many might have prepared their remarks based on five minutes and it would be difficult to edit them. She .urged the public to be brief. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Renzel, Levy, Sutorius, Fletcher voting "no." Paul Gardner, 890 Fielding Drive, generally believed elected officials let the people down on the nuclear issue and the people would start to move forward. He was happy to see the initiative before the Council. Constance Kuruppu, 1177 Amarillo, believed nuclear weapons were an obscenity. Parents were responsible to their chil- dren yet paid taxes to support nuclear weapons. She was 13 when the atomic bomb at Hiroshima exploded and did unspeak- able horrors to human beings of that city. She was concerned about the future being taken away from the children of this world. Douglas Mattern, 2671 Southccurt, said Council had the oppor- tunity to make a positive statement to the most perplexing issue of our time. It did no good to argue that a. city council had no business in matters as complex as a nuclear free zone. The issue affected everyone. There were enough nuclear weapons currently stockpiled to kill 58 billion people and every day the United States added another three to five nuclear weapons. To meet the requirements and needs of the 21st century would require a profound change in the view of the world and a greater change in the responsibility to the future. The world must be nuclear free to survive. 57-365 6/15/87 Perrin French, M.D., 1240 Waverley, said when Considering whether to leave the decision -making to the Pentagon or Washington, D.C. generally, he referred to an interview which appeared in Foreign Affairs Magazine wherein 80 top policy makers were interviewed with regard to nuclear war issues. The people were found to be very confused in terns of a pre - nuclear thinking versus post -nuclear thinking and declaratory policy versus actual -war -fighting policy. The people skipped back and forth between the two arenas of thinking without being aware of their own confusion. The conclusion was they were -dealing with a battle of perceptions. Few believed the United States could prevail in a nuclear war but was simply building its hardware in order to give the appearance of a willingness to fight a nuclear war. Regarding whether Palo Alto could make a difference, Lawrence Weiler, an arms con- trol negotiator, stated, "only when public concern has been effectively aroused has progress ever been realized in curbing the nuclear arms race." Freeman Dieson, who des- cribed himself as having one foot in the'\;warriors' camp and one foot in the victims' camp, spoke of the non-nuclear world being a worthy end for mankind to strive for and the means to reach it must be _firstly moral, secondly political, and thirdly technical. He saw what Council could do as a moral step which might be important in putting a cap on the arms race. Barbara Guarienti, 755 Ramona Street, Executive Director of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber had not taken a position on the subject but wanted to undeLstand the initiative and its possible consequences. It intended to explore both sides of the matter and invited both proponents and opponents of the initiative to review the matter with the Chamber and Government Relations Council in the next couple of weeks. In the meantime, some members of the business com- munity examined the language of the initiative and looked into the experience of the Marin County process. She queried the .economic impacts on the Palo Alto community, the poten- tial cost to the City in higher administrative expenses, lost revenues, increased price; of products and service, how City contracts and purchases would be affected, whether the City could sell its utilities to affected companies, could the City be prevented from purchasing federal bonds in that the government was engaged in nuclear weapons, and the legal risks and obligations the City might incur from the ordi- nance. Such proposals could give rise to unanticipated costs and unintended problems. The Chamber believed the City Council, Chamber, proponents of the initiative, and the com- munity = at large needed to study the. proposal with great care. 57-366 6/15/87 Ward Truehblood, M.D., 1550 Dana Avenue, supported the initi- ative, and was concerned with the quality of life in the community. The nuclear free zone was probably the most important issue Council would ever deal with. He urged Council support. Any change in the country had to begin with individuals, the cities in which they lived, and then the capitols. The CityaeCouncil was the proper forum. Michael Closson, 469 Homer Avenue, was Director of the Center for Economic Conversion in Mountain View. People were con- cerned about addressing the impacts of excessive military spending on the economy both nationally and locally. In fiscal year 1985, the last year for which he had complete data, $395 million of Pentagon spending went to 60 companies in Palo Alto. It averaged $7,066 for each resident of Palo Alto. Nationally, the average was $644 per person. Palo Alto seemed to be a heavily dependent military community. In Palo Alto, few companies were involved in nuclear weapons work as aefined by the ordinance. Presently, they were unable to find a single explicit contract directly involved in nuclear weapons related work in Palo Alto. He expected that given Lockheed's track record, their research lab in Palo Alto would be involved in some applied research for first strike weapons. He also expected there would be some subcontracts to firms in Palo Alto involving nuclear weapons production. The employment impacts were unclear because the amount of .contract work was unknown, but dollar for dollar, military production generated fewer jobs than almost any other kind of employment. It was important to consider the issue at the local level and he wanted to ensure Palo Alto obtained accurate information. Kay Schauer, 546 Jackson Drive, was a member of the Coalition for Palo Alto Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, and regarded the project as one of the most important of her life. Palo Altans were concerned about the nuclear arms race. In the 1982 November election, 73 percent of the Palo Alto voters supported Proposition' 12 on the California ballot which favored a bilateral, verifiable nuclear weapons freeze. In April of 1982, most council members voted in support of a local freeze initiative. The resolution passed by the Council viewed the build up of nuclear weapons with great alarm, expressed concern that.suc;i a build up made nuclear war or, accidential explosion more likely and recognized that the current nuclear arsenals of the Soviet Union and United States provided adequate deterrents against an attack from either .,side, and that peace was a local issue. Tne proposed initiative ordinance would bring consistency into what Council said it believed with. what was actually going on in Palo Alto. Palo Alto had the opportunity to send the message to others that it was serious about its belief and was willing to -put its money and efforts on the line. The 57-367 6/15/87 proposed ordinance was constitutional. Cities were supposed to look out for the welfare of its citizens. The ordinance did not prohibit any activities of the federal or state gov- ernments. -It only prohibited activities of cities, private individuals, and corporations. Congress had the power to pass a law at any time saying it needed Palo Alto companies or individuals to allow nuclear weapons production within their territories and Palo Alto's law would be superseded. Cambridge, Massachusetts spent $20,000 a year on its Peace Commission which provided sanctuary to Central American refu- gees, encouraged local military contractors to diversify, etc. The Cities of San Francisco and Atlanta were involved in international trade. Chicago, Los Angeles, and others were sanctuary cities. It was important for Palo Alto to take a stand against nuclear weapons and she urged Council support. Peggy Rogers, 1020 Fife Avenue, quoted a nuclear freeze worker in Ashland, Oregon, "the business of nuclear weapons has infiltrated our country, our way of life, and our economy. Nuclear weapons crept into our towns the way Nazi trains crept into Bavarian villages on their way to the gas ovens." Nuclear weapons were everyone's responsibility and they all,,had to decide how they felt about the arm's race and what they were going to do about it. She urged the citizens of Palo Alto and its representatives to join the nuclear freeze movement. Alan Miller, 3852 Corina Way, said Palo Alto was a people - oriented town. The President of the Board of Trustees and Minister of the Palo Alto [unitarian Church sent a letter to the Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Coalition which informed them that at the annual, meeting of the congregation, the Church unanimously passed a resolution applauding the international treaties establishing nuclear weapons free zones in South America, Antarctica, outer space, and the sea bed. Being. inspired by the nuclear weapons free zone ordinances and resolutions of hundreds of municipalities and churches in England, Europe, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States, it declared- all property of the Palo Alto Unitarian Church to be a nuclear weapons free zone and encouraged all those who used the properties to denounce the use. or threatened use of nuclear weapons by individuals, groups, or states. Since then over 70 percent of the Unitarian Churches in the United States took the same actions. It was Palo Alto's opportunity to demonstrate its care for its people and children. 57-368 6/15/87 Judith LeVine, 2727 Midtown Court, #22, said currently the United States stockpiled about 25,000 nuclear weapons. About 300 of the smallest weapons aimed at the 200 largest metro- politan and industrial areas in the Soviet Onion would kill approximately 75 percent of its population and destroy over 60 percent of its industrial structure. The excess nuclear weaponry made the world situation increasingly volatile and unstable. The emphasis on defense and nuclear weapons destablized the economy and social service structure. Military spending doubled since 1980, and it was estimated that nuclear weapons spending would be 83 percent higher in 1988 than in 1983 costing $30 billion per year. Fifty-four percent of the 1986 tax dollar went -to the United States military effort and included 9 percent towards nuclear weapons activities. Two percent each went to housing, educa- tion, and nutrition, 7 percent to health and 1 percent to social services. The Palo Alto Nuclear Weapons Free Zone initiative was a means for those who lived in Palo Alto to say they wanted a change in the priorities. Debbie Mytels, 2824 Louis Road, supported the inititive because it sent a message of hope to the children. Numerous studies showed that children had many fears and worries about their future and nuclear war. The provisions in the initia- tive for an economic conversion commission were a reasonable and rationale way to begin the effort. The four --year time period would allow companies time for planning to lessen the impact upon their employees and their own economic situation. It would provide an opportunity to put the brains and talent in`the community to work on other pressing social needs. It was important to add Palo Alto's voice to how to convert to a peace time economy. She urged that Council -put a statement on the ballot in support of the nuclear weapons free zone. Virginia Brink, 2471 Ross Road, spoke on behalf of the Womens International League for Peace and Freedom, an organi.7ation devoted to world peace since 1915. She read a statement from Dr. Linus Pauling, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. "To advance the cause of peace and disarmament, Palo Alto should be declared a nuclear free zone. The City should join the growing number of nuclear free zone communities." She urged that Council pass the proposed ordinance without alteration. Allen Perry, 4345 Silva Avenue, said many young people wanted to help in the inititive as did people from Menlo Park and Los Altos. Palo Alto needed to make a statement and take a step in the right direction. The subject was too easy to ignore and had been ignored for many years. .57--369 6/15/87 Barbara Hart, 244 Byron, said children of all ages learned their basic orientation from the important adults in their life. In order to help children grow in confidence and trust despite an element of deep uncertainty about the future, we must take steps toward achieving a reasonably clear view of what we stand for. Current research showed ways in which children were affected and responded to the nuclear threat. Firstly, there was a response to the actual physical threat, and secondly, children were concerned that adults were doing nothing about the threat. Even young children believed they might not grow up and experience the future. Studies also showed that children with parents who were actually involved in studying the nuclear threat had hopes of success arid felt less burdened. It was important that Palo Alto take a stand for the children. David Lee, 2120 Cowper Street, was a junior at Palo Alto High School, and a member of the Palo Alto High School Peace Club. Early in 1987, three members from the Peace Club circulated petitions to make Palo Alto High School a nuclear free zone. Within a period of about two weeks, they collected well over 500 signatures in support. It was then that the Palo Alto High School Student Council overwhelmingly passed the nuclear free zone proposal. He referred to talk that there was a lot of despair and pessimism in todays youth, and, the actions of the Palo Alto High School students might be` an indication that the mood of the up and coming generation was one of optimism. As the nuclear free zone proposal at Palo Alto High School indicated, the students were not going to sit by as nuclear weapons clouded their future and livelihood. The Peace Club hoped the elected representatives of their parents would follow suit by passing the ordinance. Dwight Bolinger, 2718 Ramona Street, hoped the City Council would adopt the nuclear free zone ordinance without putting it off until November. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said such a decision was usually difficult for Council to make because it . c:olved peoples livelihood. Mr Closson said his research wai•.- unable to find any people within the City of Palo Alto who would be immediately affected by the initiative. If there were no such companies in Palo Alto, there should be no problem with the City passing the ordinance. If theme were, the City had a difficult choice. In April of_ -1982, five Council Members supported a nuclear freeze. He realized the initiative was a little different because rather than expressing an opinion, Council had to -take an action which had some effect, He urged that Council pass the ordinance. 57-370 6/15/87 Michael Herrington, 1037 Amarillo, pleaded that Council con- sider the future of life itself and the future of each mem- ber of their family. He queried whether Council could let economic interests, cost benefit, break e',ens and return on investments cloud the issue of whether there should be a future. He urged careful consideration. Ted Salo, 3178 Ross Road, urged Council support of the ordi- nance. Sooner or later something had to be done about the nuclear issue. Council Member Levy praised those who worked to qualify the ifteasure as an initiative and was convinced Council would best serve its constituents by allowing then to directly vote on the matter. Council Member Fletcher agreed with most of the sentiments expressed. She was a member of many organizations dedicated to the reduction or elimination of nuclear weapons. She believed the country's priorities were skewed when it placed a higher priority on the value of nuclear production than on the welfare of the citizens. She supported putting the ini- tiative on the ballot rather than adopting the ordinance that evening because she believed the discussion during the course of the campaign would be healthy and would focus more atten- tion on the issue than if Council voted to adopt it that evening. eThe facts necessary to make an intelligent decision would be brought up and the extent of the nuclear production and related issues would become public. Council Member Klein agreed with almost every statement made which was critical of the present nuclear policy. The criti- cisms did not follow, however, that he should be in favor of the nuclear free zone or that he should vote to enact the ordinance as a Council. Member. Herb Borock correctly raised the comparing of the nuclear free zone issue to the nuclear freeze ordinance which Council adopted five years ago and which he supported and co -sponsored. It was the proper role for the City Council to take positions on major issues- such as nuclear policy and to forward those positions to Washington, D.C. where the policies were ultimately made. :He did not believe it would be proper for the Palo. Alto City Council to start enacting policies which seemed to be Palo Alto's own foreign, defense policy. It did not make sense because there was one national government for a good reason.- Many of the speakers disparaged people in Washington and said they had given up on them. He agreed but could not give up because those people were -the ones Who would make the deci- sions and it would; be true regardless of whether Palo Alto enacted the! ordinance in November. In many ways, the effort 57-371 6/15/87 however earnest\ was misplaced. The proper place for the effort was to change the way people thought in Washington, and the proper way to go about it was to try to elect an administration in -November, 1988, and put people in high levels of government that would change the way the government acted. He did not believe the way to proceed was to enact an ordinance that promised more than it could deliver. Palo Alto would not be a nuclear free zone. It would be a dream until things changed in Washington. They would still parti- cipate in the nuclear weapons race in a variety of ways. He feared all they would be doing by enacting the ordinance was increasing the expenses of the City and getting involved in silly discussions -•-as Marin Coenty presently was --as to whether one could still buy IBM typewriters because IBM participated in making nuclear weapons. He did not want to see the City do that and worried that to a significant degree they might be trivializing the movement. He would prefer to see Palo Alto go in a clean, direct, constitutional way, i.e., to elect an administration in November, 1988, that would see things similarly. For that reason, he regretfully .had to part company with the people with whom he otherwise agreed or, where they were in the world and how they needed to make changes. MOTION PASSED unanimously,. 14. REQUEST OF MAYOR WOOLLEY AND COUNCIL MEMBER LEVY RE SOLICITATION HOURS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (409) Mayor Woolley noted her comments in the memo identified the Cable Co-op but, in fact, the proposed ordinance would apply to any commercial solicitor. The ordinance simply required the residents would be notified by mail in advance of the solicitation. Lisa Van Dusen, 1868 Mark Twain, said an item relating to the same topic was on the agenda recently, and it was because the item was of great importance to Cable Co-op thot represen- tatives from Cable Co-op met with Mayor Woolley, Council Member Levy, and City Attorney Diane Northway to discuss a solution that would_ meet the City's, City Council's, and Cable Co-op's concerns. Before Counci.11 was the result of the combined discussion. She thanked the participants, particu- larly Council Member Levy, for .some creative thinking and work on the matter. Th main reason the issue was so impor- tant to Cable Co-op was because they felt their product was sufficiently complex that they wanted an opportunity to :personally explain it so people would understand what Cable Co-op offered, and to match what was offered to people's needs and interests. They used telemarke ting,.mail, etc., but those methods were secondary in communicating their 57-372 6/15/87 message. Particularly, with telemarketing, they could only reach about 60 percent of the people because only that many had listed phone numbers. In any event, the hours were important because people did not get home from work until at least 6:00 p.m. Council Member Cobb asked for a basis for treating Cable Co-op differently from any other company that might choose to do similar solicitations in the community. Ms. Van Dusen did not believe the ordinance did that. Mayor Woolley added a major concern of the City Attorney was that the ordinance treat all commercial solicitation in exactly the same manner. The City Attorney was satisfied the ordinance provided equal treatment for everyone. Ms. Van Dusen said basically everyone tried to come up with a way treated everybody equally and which addressed the privacy and safety issues concerned in solicitation. The time period was limited and notification of both residents and the City was included. Council Member Patitucci had difficulty with the .issue. He did not understand, with the amount of publicity any co-op in Palo Alto was getting, why there was any difficulty whatso- ever in communicating through media they did not have to pay for or which they might pay for, and why they needed the extra tool of invading the privacy of individuals who were in their homes during the dinner hours. He found such occur- rences so objectionable that he would hate to get the same feeling about the Cable Co-op. He asked if Cable Co-op believed the ordinance was an absolute necessity to their marketing operation. Ms. Van Dusen said Cable Co-op believed the ordinance was very important. They had already sent out postcards to let people know that cable was available. They were not in a position to let the entire service area know cable was avail- able at one time. Council Member Patitucci asked if anything prohibited Cable Co-op from leaving a slip of paper on the door, possibly with a return mailer saying the service was available and to return the self-addressed envelope if the resident wanted someone to stop by and; giving a suitable time. Ms. Van Dusen spoke to knocking on someone's door without notice to tell them about Cable Co-op and asking them to subscribe. 57.373 6/15/87 Ms. Van Dusen said basically Cable Co-op was sending out postcards so people could either call to set up an appoint- ment or say they preferred Cable Co-op not to come by. She encouraged people to let Cable Co-op know if they were uncom- fortable with a visit. The Cable Co-op was careful to respect "no soliciting" signs and could not use door hangers because they were not permitted. MOTION: Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance which would allow commercial solicitation from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. pro- vided: 1) The City is notified by the solicitor of the location and time period of the solicitation; 2) The maximum solicitation period be six weeks for a par- ticular location; 3) The residents to be solicited are notified by mail no more than four weeks and no less than one day in advance; and 4) An area is not solicited again for three months after the close of the first solicitation. Mayor Woolley commended the Cable Co-op for working with the City Attorney in advance to get opinions and iron out wording in order to clarify the ordinance and facilitate its prompt return to Council. Since no Council meetings were scheduled the following two weeks, the second reading would be when Council returned in July and the Ordinance could go into effect as soon as possible. She urged support of the motion which had a one-year sunset clause so that Council would evaluate the ordinance at the end of that period. Council Member Fletcher was delighted to see the proposal before Council to make it possible for the Cable. Co-op to contact people personally. Nothing was as effective as personal contact. Mail was often thrown out unopened, and Co-op would need the personal contact in order to approach the projected penetration. They needed Council's assistance. If cable Co-op wiled, all of Palo Alto would lose a good Cable service. Council Member Cobb queried whether Council would pass such a measure if not for the Cable Co-op. Mayor Woolley said no. 57-374 6/15/87 Council Member Cobb said it would not be just the Cable Co-op that took advantage of the ordinance over the next year. Mayor Woolley said nothing in the\ ordinance as written limited it to the Cable Co-op. Council Member Renzel also did not care to be bothered at hose; nevertheless, she had knocked on a good many doors for political reasons and felt strongly it was .important the pub- lic be able to do so. The proposed ordinance was not apt to result in many solicitors at everyone's door. It was not easy to send out advance notice within a very short time frame and during the one-year period, the maximum number of times one could receive a solicitation appeared to be four. A person had the option to request nobody came by. She queried whether there should be a requirement that the notice offer a phone number where someone could request no solici- tors. Her solution when bothered at home was to say "No, thanks," and close the door which did not take a lot of time. The advance notice eliminated some of the security woccy. She supported the motion which would eliminate many of the problems previously addressed. Council Member Levy supported Council. Member Renzel's state- ment and believed the motion was a fair compromise between .intrusion on privacy and notification ahead of time. With that in mind, Council was being fair to the home owners by giving .;.advance notice, limiting the amount time, and not allowing solicitors to repeat quickly. The ordinance was clearly difficult enough that it was not going to be used very much, but would apply to anyone who wanted to contact home owners within Palo Alto, Council Member. Patitucci believed Council Member Cobb's ques- tion was relevant. He saw perfectly reasonable Council Members concerned about the privacy of Palo Alto citizens trying to accommodate the Cable Co-op when they admitted they would not for any other enterprise. Council set up Cable Co-op as an arm's length operation that had to make it on their own, not with the City bending over backwards to pave the way for the operation to get benefits otherwise unavail- able to other businesses in the community. The Co-op was a business separate from the City. It was not an arm of City government, and Council should not be giving them special favors, but should give them an opportunity to prove they could do what they said they were going to do, which was to be successful without extraordinary help from the City of Palo Alto.. Council might consider something extraordinary if there were problems later on, but the motion was currently inappropriate, 57-375 6/35/ 87 Vice Mayor Sutorius agreed with- Council Member Patitucci in a generic sense. The City would be prenotified and there would be the mail notice. The marketing effort would not just occur between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. It was basically mid- morning and into the evening. It was perceived that the City of Palo Alto made the cable television decision and was the reason why it was so long in coming. He was on the premises when cable was installed in another community. The experi- enced cable company tried to explain to a sophistocated sub- scriber over the telephone what the cable' television would provide and how it would be arranged. It took three visits and multiple telephone calls before the frustrated subscriber understood what was involved. He did not believe Palo Alto wanted to take such risks by avoiding a reasonable ordinance change with a sunset clause. He encouraged Council Member Patitucci to consider that Council was not trying to involve itself with the Co -Op but was trying to recognize the sub- scriber 4ouid have a shot at better understandin g cable and be able to make a decision. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Cobb, Patitucci voting "no." 15. REQUEST OF COUNCIL MEMBERS COBB, KLEIN AND PATITUCCI RE CREATIQN OF A CITIZENS' COMMITTEE FOR PASSAGE OF UTILITY USERS TAX (705-87-08) Mayor Woolley announced that she would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to create a citizens' committee for passage of the Utility Users Tax and the Gann override to consist of 14 members, one-half to be appointed by the Palo Alto Unified School District Board of Trustee's if it so desires, and one-half to be appointed by the Vice Mayor and two members of the Council. Council Member Klein said since the Council initiated putting the matter on the ballot, it seemed appropriate to get the_ campaign going by creating the nucleus of the citizens' com- mittee and letting them carry the ball the rest of the way. it was important to emphasize that no funds from the City,be spent which was why the motion included that the committee would be appointed by the Vice Mayor and two other members of the Council so no money would be spent by the City on adver- tising. The committee was not intended .to be exclusive and it -was stated that, the, committee would appoint additional members as it saw fit. 57-376 6/15'/8.7 Vice Mayor Sutorius said Council Members Klein, Patitucci and Cobb discussed the matter with the City Attorney and were clear that the City would not be the action members of the committee although individual Council Members were free to be a member either through the initial process or expansion. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Woolley "not participating.* Vice Mayor Sutorius requested Council Members Renzel and Klein work with him on the manner and process by which candi- dates were identified. He encouraged all Council Members to provide input. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:22 p.m, ATTEST: APPROVED: 57-377 6/15/87