HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-09-10 City Council Summary MinutesCITY
COUIICIL
ITEM
Ural Communications
Minutes of June 24, 19135
Minutes of July 1, /985
Consent Calendar
Referral
Action
Regular Meeting
September 10, 1985
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Item #1-A (Old Item 1), Resolution of Intent to
Establish Underground Utility District No. 29
Item #3, Emergency Ordinance re Insurance Coverage-
ror School Buses
Item #3-A (Old Item 2) Ordinance
Moratorium - R-1 Substandard Lots
re City -Wide
Item #4, Agreement for Joint Participation in
Installation of Underground Facilities - Welch
Road/Pasteur Drive
Item #5, Gamble Property Garden Center
Item #6, Meeting Schedule for Award of Cable TV
Franchise
Adjournment: 9:05 p.m..
CITY
C)F.
PALO
ALTO
PAGE
6 2 4 4
6 2 4 4
6 2 4 4
6 2 4 4
6 2 4 4
6 2 4 4
6 2 4 4
6 2 4 5
6. 2 4 6
6 2 4 7
6 2 4 8
6 2 4 8
6 2 5 1
6 2 5 4
Regular Meeting
September 10, 1985
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:40 p.m.
PRESENT:
AbSrNT:
I3erhtel, Cobb, Klein, Levy, Renzel
( rrived at 7:45 p.m.), Sutorius, Woolley
F1e-.cher, Witherspoon
Mayor Levy announced the need for a Closed Session, re Litigation
to discuss Century F deral Communications v. City of Palo Alto
pursuant to Government Code Section'54956.9(a) to be held at some
point during or after the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 1985
Councilmember Klein submitted the following corrections:
Yaffe 597U, last paragraph, last line, add the wnrd "cask" after
"laying out."
Pave 5979, first line, the word "more" should be "much."
MINUTES OF JULY 1, 1985
Councilmember Witherspoon
submitted the following correction:
Page 6002, first paragraph, change the word "curious" to
"interested." Strike the next sentence and add: "She was undee
the impression that all contiguous lots under single ownership had
been consolidated a few years ago."
MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb approval
of the Minutes of June 24, 1985 and July 1, 1985 as corrected.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher, Renzel, Witherspoon
absent.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Bechtel removed, Item #1, Resolution of Intent to
Establish Underground Utility District .No. 29.
Councilmember Klein removed Item #2, Ordinance re City -Wide
Moratorium.
Referral
110ne
Action
None
AGENDA CHANGES, AUDITIONS AND DELETIONS
Mr, Zan r said that !tem #1, Resolution.. of Intent to Establish
Underground Utility District No. 29, would become Item 11-A and:.
would be taken up npxt. Item Ordinance re City -Wide
Moratorium - R-1 Substandard Lots, would become Item #3-A.
1
6 2 4 4
9/10/85
Councilmember Bechtel said that evening's newspaper said the
Finance and Public Works' (F&PW) Committee would take up some items
to be referred at chat night's meeting. She ,queried whether they
were already referred or whether Council needed to do it. She
clarified all items were in -the packet and concerned rates, etc.,
and she did not remember them being on a previous Council agenda
for. referral. As a procedural matter, she believed the items
should be put on the agenda as a change and referred.
Director of Utilities Richard Young understood all rate items
always resided in the F&PW Committee and were not necessarily
required to be referred back to them.
Mayer Levy said there were two other items, the Capacity Expansion
and the Consultant Selection.
Councilmember Bechtel clarified that Consultant Selections were
always in F&PW Committee without being referrals.
Mayor Levy asked if the three items were automatically referred.
Mr. Laner said yes. At the beginning of the year staff asked the
IOW Committee to indicate which items they wished to have
referred directly to them. Those items were referred.
ITEM #1-A (OLD ITEM #1), RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ESTABLISH
UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 29 (DTI 8-11) UCMR:499:5)
Councilmember Bechtel removed the item from the Consent Calendar
because the last time the City had undergrounding in the Downtown
area it was a real problem for Downtown merchants since the major
work was done over the holiday season in November/December. She
remembered that staff wrote to the Downtown merchants and con-
struction was halted for a period of time, which must have cost
more, in order to not interfere with the difficulties concerning,
extra shopping. As she looked at the schedule for timing, the
same thing was happening, and she could not understand why --start
of construction August 1986; Completion of project Winter 1987.
Director of Utilities Richard Young understood the area was not in
the direct Downtown area, but further out. Aevertheless, there
would be some: impact. He recalled the last Downtown project was
Manned and the contract directed that the contractor would com-
plete` -certain portions of the work prior to the holiday season,
and it was even called off in Noeierriber, which was part of the
original plan for them. The difficulties itr working around that
seemed to have come out all right. He (lid not recall any negative
complaints from the Downtown merchants ae that point. There might
have been another project prior to the one he referred to, with
which they had more difficulty, but the first one he was involved
with staff definitely set aside the holiday:season aed everybody
backed off knowing that was the plan.
Councilmember Bechtel said it ended up the streets were all chewed
up, there were barriers, temporary road covers, and it meant that
during the rainy season as well as the holiday season less parking
was available on -street because of some of the chewed up spots.
She did not believe people were satisfied. Further, she was not
clear of the exact the boundary, but based on the map, the area
from Bryant to Cowper and Tasso was the major part of Downtown,
between Lytton and Hamilton. She asked if that was, the under -
grounding Part 11.
Mr. Young said yes.
Councilmember Bechtel.. asked if there was any way things could be
moved up faster. There was a big space between the end of the
public hearing at the end of March, and award of construction con-
tract in July of 1986. She agreed the undergrounding needed to be
done, but could not stand the thought of doing it with the same
timing.
Mr. Young said one constraint would be the budget process, but
beyond that stats needed to coordinate with the telephone company,
which was the principle reason why the item was before Council
that evening. The telephone company would not start their engi-
neering design until staff established the district. From that
standpoint, there were coordination problems to be worked
through.
City Manager Bill Zaner noted the project went over a three-year
period. It started in 1985 with the resolut .m and did not end
until the winter of 1987, so there would be some timing flexi-
bility. Staff was mindful of Council's admonition not to disrupt
the Downtown area, and he believed Mr. Young was correct the last
time out the City was careful not to do it. He believed the pre-
vious project was the one where there was a difficulty in the
Downtown area. Staff would be careful to arrange the timing,
There was enough flexibility to ensure the Downtown was not dis-
rupted during the busy holiday season; any! staff would work it out
that way.
Mayor Levy assumed the award of construction contract was timed
for July; 198f in order to take part as pal 1. of the 1986-87 bud-
get. He queried whether the award of contract could take place
earlier with the assumption there would be funds in the 1986-87
budget year to handle it, so that construction could be moved up
somewhat but still funded out of the 1986-87 budget.
Mr. Zaner said there might oe some legal difficulties with it.
Those aside, he reassured Council that staff would arrange the
project in such a way that it would not disrupt the Downtown
activity during the holiday season. To try to work out a schedule
then, and figure out whether to award a contract in July or April,
was something he was not prepared to do. Staff would arrange it
so it did not interfere with the merchants.
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt
the resolution, and that staff be directed to improve the timing
schedule so that downtown merchants and shoppers are disrupted as
little as possible during the holiday season.
RESOLUTION 6423 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO AMEND
SECTION 12.16.020 OF CHAPTER 12.16 OF TITLE 12 OF THE
PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND
UTILITY DISTRICT NUMBER 29"
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher, Witherspoon ab:,ente
ITEM #3, EMERUENCY ORDINANCE RE INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR SCHOOL
BUSES U.EG 5)
Councilmember Sutorius commended Mr, Zaner's staff and City
Attorney Diane Lee for their responsiveness to the issue.
NOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to
adopt the ordinance.
ORDINANCE 3636 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO MANDATING AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
INSURANCE ON SCHOOL. BUSES OPERATED BY SERVICE PROVIDERS
UNDER CITY CONTRACT AND DECLARING AN EMIrRGENCY"
Mayor Levy clarified it was an emergency ordinance and required
six affirmative votes.
MOTION ; PASSEA unanimously, Fletcher, Witherspoon absent.
6>2 4 6
9/10/85
ITEM #3-A (ULU ITEM #2) ORDINANCE RE CITY-WIDE MORATORIUM - R-1
SUUSTANDARD LOTSd2nd Reading (PLA 3-fj
Councilmember Klein said his concern in supporting the ordinance
last time it was before Council was an effort to help stop what he
believed were two particularly unfortunate developments —the one
on Wilkie Way and the one in Barron Park. He_ understood the proj-
ects would now proceed since the ordinance was not passed on an
emergency basis; and what he wanted to accomplish was thwarted and
would not occur. The City was left with an ordinance that would
be in effect for two months, and he believed it was a useless
ordinance. After thinking about it further, he disliked ord`.-
nances with little\or no effect and would, therefore, vote against
the ordinance on second reading.,
Councilmember Sutnri'lc referred a matter i nvol •- R -
- a �1iYl:lYi?ly d pUa nLlar
conflict of interest on his part to the City Attorney. She
advised, and he concurred, that while the potential conflict of
interest was being investigated and researched, it was appropriate
to abstain on the item.
Vice Mayor Cobb discussed the matter with staff that afternoon.
He underscored the ordinance was the only mechanism available to
address the two developments Council believed were inappropriate;
one went through and the other was still pending. There was some
potential effect of the ordinance.
MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Cobb, tr adopt
the ordinance.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
IMPOSING A MORATORIUM FOR ONE YEAR ON THE ISSUANCE OF
DEMOLITION PERMITS AND BU/LDINs PERMITS FOR SUBSTANDARD
LOTS IN R-1 DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF PALO ALSO (1st
Reading 8/19/85, PASSED 5-2, Levy, Woolley *no,'
Bechtel, Witherspoon absent)
C,uncilmenber Renzel said since there was less than a full Council
that evening and there might be a full Council the next or subse-
quent weeks, she asked whether it was appropriate to continue the
item and then pursue the possibility of an emergency ordinance, or
at (east have the languaye available so that if Council wanted to
adopt the ordinance on an emergency basis, it could.
Ms. Lee said the item could be continued. Council did not have to
havea second reading within a prescribed period of time.
Councilmember Renzel believed Council would have a difficult time
getting the five required votes to pass the ordinance.
Ms. Lee concurred.
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by
Cobb, to continue item for one week.
Councilmember Renzel believed the Council was dealing with more
than just two properties. There ware serious problems with sub-
standard lots City-wide and until there were additional guidelines
for single-family zones, it was •important that Council offer its
residents some protection from difficult situations in the neigh-
borhoods. She hoped Council would support the continuance in
order to offer that opportunity.
Mayor Levy voted against the ordinance when it was raised on.
August 19 because he dtd not believe 4t was an emergency, and
because the short duration, before hearing from the Planning Com-
mission dtd not require a moratorium. He continued to -hold to
that view but was willing to continue the item because he saw no
reason for the full Council to not act on the item. He did not
E=2 4 17
9/10/iS.
suspect he would support it *hen .it was voted on the following
week, Out be; it:ved Councilmember Fletcher should have an oppor-
tunity to vote, and perhaps the conflict Councilmember Sutorius
referred to might be -also resolved.
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED by a vote of 0-1, Woolley voting "no,"
Sutorius "not participating,' Fletcher, Witherspoon absent.
ITEM 04, AGREEMENT FOR JOINT PARTICIPATION IN II4STALLATTON OF
UN)ERGROUNU FACILITIES - W LC v ll UR UkIY (UTf $)
Mayor Levy said Item #4 was removed from the agenda by staff. It
would appear In the September 16 agenda.
ITEM #5, GAMBLE PROPERTY GARDEN CENTER (PWK 6-2) (CMR_488:5)
Councilmember Woolley said on page 2 of the staff report
(CKR:488:5) staff referred to Phase I improvements and that if
there was a choice regarding phased improvements, then certain
ones would be a part of Phase I. She did not find anything to
that effect in the Option Agreement and asked for clarification.
City Manager Bill Zaner believed it was in the lease and might
take a few minutes to locate.
Councilmember Woolley referred to the lease, Attachment 6, Summary
of Lcase, and several different uses were listed: The Required,
the Permitted, and the Encouraged. She just wanted to ensure they
covered Le base of meetings --just general meetings. The events
l i yted were all specific and were not just planning meetings, or
organizational meetings. She was sure that was going to be an
important use.
Councilmember Sutorius pointed out that on the second page, under
"Optional Uses" there was the phrase, "...ancillary to and sup-
portive of Required, Permitted or Encouraged Uses..." and, if that
was what was in mind, that was fine.
Mr. Zaner said it was.
Councilmember Woolley referred to the Option Agreement, Page 3 at
the top, "U. OPTIONEE shall have submitted to, and shall have
received approval of its design and development plans..." and then
listed the Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Planning Commis-
sion, and City Council. It seemed to her that since it was a
Category 2 structure, it also had to be reviewed by the Historic
Resources Board.
Mr. Zaner said staff would include that.
Councilmember Woolley said her last question was on the same page,
"F," it talked about permits having to be obtained and there was a
catch-all phrase at the end, "...and any other land use permit
required..." She asked if a use permit would be under that cate-
yory.
City Attorney Blare Lee said it would be any other land use per-
mit; a conditional use permit was included in the language.
Financial Planning Administrator Gordon Ford said Councilmember
Wool ley's first, question referred to "H" which referred to the
possibility of a phased development. What it said was that in the
event it was necessary to phase in the development, all and any of
the permits for the construction had to be obtained before any of
the development was done, without specifying what a phase would
be.
Councilmember Woolley clarified the staff report, said certain
things had to be in( phase one. For example, in phase one, it said
required parking had to be included. She remembered when Council
originally discussed the matter, almost the entire Council had
6 2 4 8
9/10/85
reservations about the amount of parking required for the proposed
activities. She believed sumo of the Council wanted to take a
"wait and see" attitude and go slowly on the parking, rather than
cover up a rather ,large portion of the property with parking lot.
She was concerned they not say in Phase I all the parking had to
be included.
Councilmember Sutorius clarified in the review process referred to
by Councilmember Woolley, it was feasible for the applicant, on
the applicant's initiation, or staff, or the ARB on their respec-
tive initiation, to provide that a portion of the parking would be
provided in landscape reserve. As to the timing aspects, if the
applicant performed all the necessary review steps with the City
and the permits were granted, the permits had a life and would
expire if the 'croak des i ynatt d .and approved in the subsequent phase
were not accomplished, or if the permits were not extended. It
was normal City process that would control in that regard.
Mr. Zaner believed Councilmember Sutorius was correct. The dil`-
fiiulty he found was that staff Airs riot haves a clear definition of
what was considered to be Phase I. If Council was concerned that
staff had not properly identified Phase I, and it appeared there
was not a section in the Opticn which specifically indicated what
projects would be under Phase I, there was no harm in delaying
the item, talking with the lessee, and putting in a section to
clarify what staff would expect to be in Phase I.
Councilmember Woolley was concerned the City requtTed something in
Phase I, like the parking, that Council might not all agree was
required in Phase I. It was in the staff report, but she was not
sure the Council would agree with it.
1
Ms. Lee believed the Option Agreement talked about the kinds of
plans the aoplicant had to prepare. As Councilmrmber Sutorius
said, Council would have an opportunity to address those issues as
part of the Land Use process, so perhaps that was the intent of
the staff report, Just as any applicant came in with
came �. s I: with LI1 a project,
she assumed if they had a site plan, it would include the parking
and those other kinds of things. So, the issue would be addi-essed
at a later stage of the process.
Vice Mayor Cobb had a question about the approval of bylaws, which
was a condition of Council's approval. Bylaws could be changed,
which implied that any change in bylaws would have to be approved
by Council. He asked if it was stated somewhere or implicit.
Mr. Zaner said it was included.
Fred Eyerly, 101 Alma, was ,a member of the Board of Directors of
The Elizabeth F. Gamble Garden Center, and hoped Council would
support the staff recommendations. If there were further ques-
tions, members of the Board were present.
MOTION: Councilme■ter sytorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to
adopt the staff recommendation as follows:
1. Approve the Articles of Incorporation of the Elizabeth F.
Gamble Garden;
2. Authorize the Mayor to signthe Option to Lease; and
3. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Lease upon notice from the
Manager-, Real Property or Finance Director that all of the
conditions of the Option to Lease bevel been fully satisfied.'
AWARD OF OPTION AGREEMENT
Elizabeth F. Gamble Garden Center
b 2 4 9
9/10/95
Mr. 7arer said.a thoncnt ago he answered Vice Mayor Cobb's question
about the bylaws rndicatiriy the option included a clause which
required changes in the bylaws to return to the City Council. As
he read the clause, it did not appear to do so. If that was the
Council's desire, staff would insert it that way.
Vice Mayor Cobb said if bylaws could be changed by the governing
body, it seemed if it was one of the City's conditions, Council
ought to have some control over it. He had no problem with it
residing with the City Manager.;
Mr. Zaner said that was fine; staff would do it that eay.
Councilmember Woolley intended to support the staff recommenda-
tion, but felt a need to say something td the gerden group about
the letter Council received in its packet (which is on file in the
City Clerk's office). She was concerned with the request that the
City contribute in two more ways to the Garden Center. By leasing
the property to the Garden Center, the City already made a large
contribution. In fact, if one considered the value of the land,
u Leine by the Crescent ark CL,rool site, to be over $1,000,000,
or the alternative cost of the land if the site was sold and the
money invested to be at least $100,000, the City already committed
itself to the lion's share of the total cost of the project. The
first request was that Council consider paying a portion of the
operating expenses, such as the utilities and the insurance. When
Council analyzed the various proposals, they pr ised the Garden
Center because they came in with self-sustaining proposals. She
was aware in the Garden Center's proposal they inc tided a footnote
on their operatiny expenses page, saying they hoped the City would
pick up the cost for the utilities and insurance. However, in the
lease, the-developljient and the operation of the Garden Center
specifically stated it be at no cost to the lessor, and .he hoped
it would ultimately be the case. The second request concerned the
expenditure of funds from the Gamble Property Capital Improvement
Fund to be used for improvements to the Garden Center. She remem-
bered Council made an amendment to the basic motion to lease the
property to the Garden Center that same night, that when the lease
was signed the remainder of funds, if any, be used to acquire or
develop senior housing. Couocilmember Klein did not favor the
amendment because he was concerned there might be some- improve-
ments the City needed to make for which the Garden Center could
not be properly held responsible, and she remembered Councilmember
Sutorius suggested there might be some improvements to the lawn
bowl area, or to the Kellogg Parkette. Those were both reasonable
uses for the funds, but simply using a portion of those funds as a
contribution from the City to the Garden Center itself was not the
intention of the Council. She felt strongly about it, because the
Garden Center proposal was definitely a "want" and not a "need."
Those at the F&PW Committee who listened to the Human Services
requests heard many "needs," the City could not satisfy. She
believed the City made a sizable contribution and she looked to
the Garden Foundation as having a successful fund-raising cam-
Vaign. She said before that the Garden Foundation was well-
oryanized with strong supporters; and she preferred to not see
them start their campaign in October with the idea the City might
pick up some of it, but rather that the whole thing be raised by
the citizens. As the staff report said, there was no hurry. The
Center had a 2O -year lease with another 10 -year extension,, and 'she
imagined all Councilmembers envisioned it would go on for a long
time, so if all the money was not raised at the beginning, it was
fine; there was something left to look forward to. She urged the
Garden Center to not request the Council make a contribution to
either the operatinu expenses or .the capital improvement for the
Garden Center itsel .
Councilmember Bechtel believed the issues Councilmember Woolley
raised could be discussed at a'.=later point. ' What Council had
before it that evening was an Option Agreement, and she applauded
the members of the Gamble Garden Center Foundation for the
9/10%85
extensive work. She knew it took a lot of time to pul`! together
A11 the legal aspects, and it- was time to get on with it, and
proceed with the Capital Fund Dri-ve, which was scheduled in the
hope that everyone in the community could let others know about
the Center so they could become involved in contributions and
iriteryeneratibnal gardening project they were beginning. At a
_later point, Council could discuss other ideas concerning that.
Mayor Levy asked if the addition of the HRB to the list of approv-
ing agencies would he included in the final draft.
1
fl
Mr. Zaner said yes. Being a Class II structuwe, it was required
to go to the HRB.
Mayor Levy said there seemed to be a need for language to clarify
what was incl,ided in Phase I.
Mr. Loner b =l ieved it was covered. As the City\ Attorney indi-
cated, it was a matter of a permit returning and it would have to
unaeryo review. He was not sure stafr, knew precisely what those
items would be in Phase I. They 'ould attempt to do it if Council
wished, but after hearing the City Attorney, he believed it was
covered.
Mayor Levy said if staff was satisfied then he was willing to let
it stand.
Mr. Zaner believed it would be administered as presently written.
Mayor Levy associated himself with the comments of Councilmember
Woolley. He sensed the strength of her feeling and concurred with
her comments.
Mr. Eyerly clarified the letter in the packet to be up front with
the Council. The Garden Center was not going to ask for those
things unless they raised a considerable\amount of money to accom-
plish their goals. If successful, the Center planned to ask Coun-
cil about sh?-ing in the project in some way, not on particular
items, but some level which indicated the City's interest in the
Gamble ,rroperty and shared some of the costs in view of its bene-
fit to all the people of the community on a no -charge basis. As
to the moneys generated by the gent, the Garden Center put that in
thinking there might be something that came along as they devel-
oped plans for rehabilitation, etc., in which the City should
share. The Center wanted to say those things in the letter so
Council would not be surprised when they returned. They were not
asking for out-and-out help for fund raising, and Council would
have ample time to debate .'.t later on.
Mayor Levy appreciated Mr. Eyerly being up front, but emphasized
the Gamble Property represented a gift on the part of the City of
the u_e of an asset worth about $2,000,000, which was a consider-
able sharing by the City of its assets.
Councilmember Renzel said in view of the recent remarks by former
Mayor Eyerly, she associated herself with the comments of Council-
-
member Woolley and Mayor Levy.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher, Witherspoon absent.
ITEM #6, MEETING SCHEDULE FOR AWARD OF CABLE; TV FRANCHISE
PRE 7-3) (CMR;502:5)
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, spoke on behalf of the Palo Alto Civic
League, who supported the staff recommendation regarding the hear-
ings for the Cable TV franchise award. The Civic League supported
the maximum public involvement on such issues, and it was unfor-
tunate that Council considered a public meeting on a weekday morn-
ing. Thy hoped it would only be done in the most extraordinary
circumstances.
6 2 5 1,
9/10/85
Counci lmembar Bechtel was nn vacation when Council considered .3
Council meeting at 9:0U a.m. on a Tuesd?y morning, and when she
reAu her packet, she was appalled. She had a feeling 9arkinr,on's
Law was active in meetings, and if Council scheduled eight meet-
ings,- it.would fill_up eight meetings wittl comment, etc.
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved to schedule Council meet-
ings for September 23 and 30.
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to adopt
the staff recommendation adopting the following meeting dates to
award the cable franchise for the Palo Alto service area:
9/23/85 - Initiate hearings and deliberations leading to award of
a cable franchise.
9/30/85 - Reserve, if necessary, for continuing and concluding the
cable franchise award p..,..=ss; and
10/1/85;. 10/2/85 and 10/3/85 - Reserve, if necessary, for contin-
uing and concluding the cable frar*chi se award process.
Councilmember Klein said Council was committed to itself and the
public to resolve the issue, and the only way to do so was to set
meetings and tell everyone involved that Council would conclude
the matter. It was time for a decision, and if it meant sitting
there for a week, he was prepared to do so. While he supported
the staff recommendation, he did not find anything immoral about
having a morning meeting. He realized the long tradition was to
hold meetings at night, but many local organizations, including
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, met in the morning. For
every person inconvenienced by a morning meeting, there were
others who were inconvenienced by night meetings. While he
realized the tradition was to hold meetings at night and he
intended to support it in general, where it was necessitated, it
might be appropriate in some situation; to hold a morning meeting.
Since the consultant could not be there on that Tuesday morning,
he was prepared to go with the schedule as recommended by staff
except as modified to use the word "and" rather than "or" for
October 1, 2 and 3.
Counc i l member Woolley clarified that Council would meet, if neces-
sary, on October 1 as the first choice.
Councilmember Klein said his intent was tnat presuming Council did
not finish by a reasonable hour on September 30, Council would
meet on October 1 at 7:30, and if Council did not finish then, it
would meet on October 2 at 7:30, and if Council did not finish
then, it would meet on October 3 at 7:30.
Councilmember Woolley knew that Councilmember Fletcher had a
meeting on October 3 which she could not miss. She also should
attend the IGC meeting and hoped Council was successful in con-
cluding its deliberations.
Vice Mayor Cobb apologized to the public for Council's effort to
move the meeting to a Tuesday morning. He did not know whether an
apology was necessary, but the point was for Council to not lose
its inertia because it was time to make a decision.
Mayor Levy asked Mr. Zaner when Council would have the next :report
which would include recommendations.
Mr. Zarsee said the report would be in the Council's packet on
Thursday, September 12, in accordance with the schedule. Regard-
ing a recommendation, staff would include a chart to indicate the
major characteristics 3n which staff made its evaluations. He
believed the 'summary chart included in the report would be a good
tool for Council in its decision making.
6 2 5 2
9/10/85
Mayor Levy supported the motion, un September 23, there would be
resentations by staff and the consultant, after which time he
intended to call on the Community Access Organization (CAO). Then
there would be a summary from the two proposers, City Cable
Partners and the Cable Coop, after which time Council would hear
briefly from each of Palo Alto's partners 1n the joint powers
agreement --Menlo Park, Stanford, East Palo Alto and Atherton.
Then he would take public testimony. He intended to specifically
contact those groups which indicated special into:rest in the
issue, and referred to the Palo Alto School District and other
organizations. The nature of the prepared presentations from
staff, the CAO and others would probably take two hours, at which
time he would hear from the public. He hoped the public comments
could be completed by 11:45 p.m. In any case, h3 suggested Coun-
cil not meet- past 11:4s n:. m, On _ Septenther 30, he hoped to con-
clude the public testimony, and begin the more specific discus-
sion. He intended to use staff's chart, and the major points of
the chart as the "agenda" for the meeting of September 30 and on-
ward from there. Each of the major discussion points should be
discussed and he would like to hear from the proposers for clear
reasons why they considered themselves superior in each area. He
hoped the decision could be made by September 30 but was not opti-
mistic. He believed that to discuss those major points would
probably take a full evening and carry over to October 1. He
looked for they decision to be made by the end of the third night,
October 1.
Councilmember Bechtel was nut wild about Council planning then to
have meetings for five nights. She agreed everyone should reserve
that time on their calendars personally, but if Council assumed it
would take five nights, it would take five nights. She believed
Council could do it as outlined in two or three nights. As
pointed out by Councilmember Woolley, Councilmember Fletcher had a
conflict nn er_tnher 3, anti she alert had a meeting the nnnA.aA to
attend in the early part of the evening on October 2 and 3.
Vice Mayor. Cobb believed it would easily take three nights, but it
should not take longer than four. He hoped the process as struc-
tured by the Mayor would permit Council to have some give and take
with both of the potential franchisees because a lot of questions
were raised. He hoped the meeting would be structured such that
Council could ask direct questions, get the charge and counter
charge on the table and deal with in ways that made those points
clear and leave no ambiguities.
Mayor Levy said the motion on the floor reserved five evenings.
It did not necessarily say Council would need five evenings, but
if needed, Council would meet on October 1, October 2 and October
3. He hoped that if Councilmembers supported the schedule, they
were prepared to be present according to the schedule in order for
Council to 'conclude deliberations. If Council was not prepared to
meet the schedule, another alternative should be offered.
Councilmember Renzel said it was known that at least two Council -
members would not be available on October 3, and perhaps the extra
add on day should be a different one. She agreed with Council -
member Bechtel that Council should not have five meetings, and
also agreed with Councilmember Klein and Mayor Levy that Council
needed to provide everyone equal notice about when Council
intended to discuss the matter if a reschedule was necessary. She
did not personally have knowledge of what would be another appro-
priate date besides October 3.
Mr. Zaner did not have a fifth alternative date and wanted to
ensure the consultant was available. Staff confirmed he was
available for the five days as listed in the motion, and if Coun-
cil was unable to conclude its business in those times, staff
would need to go back and talk to the consultant and see what he
had available.
6 2 5 3
9/10/85
Councilmember kenLel asked if there was a problem with using
Uctober 7 as a final date if Council was unable to conclude on
Uctober 2.
Mr. Zaner said October 7 was the League of CP0ifornia Cities
conference, He did not know how many Councilmember intended to
attend those sessions in the afternoon.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzal moved, seconded by Woolley, to
delete October 3, from the meeting schedule.
Councilmember Bechtel concurred with the amendment. If Council -
members did not go along with the amendment, then the other alter-.
native was to persuade the two Councilmembers with conflicts that
cable.was the more important meeting.
Councilmember Klein did not support the amendment. With all due
deference to Councilmember Fletcher, the IGC was not required.
There were other ways for Council to input the IGC on a general
basis, and he did not see why it was crucial. He did ,riot know
Councilmember Bechtel's conflict., but moped she could also resolve
it. He also hoped Council did not meet on October 3, but it was
an extraordinary issue and one whi'rh dangled far too long. He
hoped the language remained the same and that Council would
promise itself to move forward as expeditiously as possible and
reach a decision.
Mayor Levy ayreed with Councilmember Klein. The chances of
Council neediny Octoher 3 were low. If October 3 was needed, it
was probaUly all the more important the meeting follow immediately
upon the preceding meetings. It meant there was a good deal of
closeness ir. the decision and some tight discussion needed to take
place. He suyyested Council hold to the schedu;e and vote
accordinyly.
AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-4, Bechtel, Renzel , Woolley
voting -'aye,' Fletcher, Witherspoon absent.
MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher, Witherspoon absent.
Mayor Levy said there would be many questions as a result of the
material Council had to .date and from the report Council would
receive that weekend. He suggested Council commit as many ques-
tions as possible to writing in advance so staff could have the
questions ahead of time and the opportunity to do research in
answering them where necessary and so that staff could also send
those questions to others who might need to respond.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSIUN RE LITIGATION
Council adjourned to Cloed Session re Litigation at 8:45 p1m.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT
Final adjournment;at 9:05 p.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
6 2 54
9`/10/85