Posted by Concerned Retiree, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 10:35 am

Glad to see that it is possible to move a decision along quickly in Palo Alto. I hope this quick action leads to more items moving more quickly through the dreaded PA Process.

Posted by rem, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 10:44 am

Why don’t we have a honest City Council and all the other “Councils” and “Work Shops” that will honestly say “Developer (Contractors) Lobbyists , Developer (Contractors), donate to us and we will approve!!!!”

It would be great if the City Council and all the other “Councils” and “Work Shops” learned a new word – NO or new phase – DISAPPROVED….

There is no sane reason for this except MONEY, MONEY, MONEY and not caring about the people of Palo Alto or ANY of the other communities …..

Sound to me like DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT !!!! Gee, the CITY has messed up “University Avenue.", West Charleston Road & El Camino Real, butchered San Antonio Road and let’s not forget San Antonio and East Charleston Road.

Like I said ABOVE - There is no sane reason for these PROBLEMS except MONEY, MONEY, MONEY and not caring about the people of Palo Alto or ANY of the other communities …..

Posted by Rush Rush, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 10:52 am

If the City Council is to have a special meeting on Friday, I haven't seen it "noticed" yet and that has to be done well in advance of the meeting. I rely on Herb to make sure this meeting takes place legally.

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 12:58 pm

C'mon Palo Alto Weekly - there is no such word as "referended."

Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 1:17 pm

"C'mon Palo Alto Weekly - there is no such word as "referended.""

Wanna referend that, o namesake of mine?

Posted by Tom Jordan, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 2:45 pm

The Palo Alto On-Line postings as of 11am 8/12 show 8 supporting Herb Borock, 9 opposing either Herb or the Charter provision itself and 17 addressing other aspects of the project. I address myself to the 9 critics: (1) The City Attorney has advised that Herb's letter is a correct statement of the Palo Alto Charter. The Attorney's Office explained those requirements to Staff, but it is not the job of the Attorney's office to monitor that Staff carries out the instructions. The Attorney's office has done its job. (2) The Manager has stopped work on the project and has called a special Council meeting for 8/14 to consider a second reading of the Park Improvement Ordinance. 8/14 is the first day that the Council can legally take up a second reading, so no time has been lost because Herb pointed out the error. (3) Neither Herb nor anyone I know has raised any opposition to the project. The sole concern has been that the required procedure specified in the Charter (1st reading + 2nd reading + 30 days = ordinance becomes effective, unless a referendum petition is filed) was being ignored. And that is important because of the many past instances where the Parks Article in the Charter has been ignored, particularly by the Dept of Public Works (DPW), which appears to be the part of City government at fault this time too. (4) The first sign to the public and to Herb that the correct procedure was not being observed was when DPW put up the chain link fence around the Plaza. He wrote immediately. How could he have acted sooner? (4) A complete renovation of the Plaza costing $800,000 is clearly subject to the Charter. It is sophistry, or uninformed impatience, to argue that it is not. (5) To all 9 critics of Herb: More light ( accurate facts and logical analysis) and less Heat (uninformed opinions vigorously, often insultingly, expressed) would be helpful. The Parks Article was added to the Charter in 1965 by a citizens' vote of 7-1. I know of nothing else in Palo Alto that has ever passed by a 7-1 vote. The Article deserves repect.

Posted by bikes2work, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Aug 12, 2009 at 9:09 pm

If we are going to start following the letter of the law to the exact wording, then police (or park rangers) should start enforcing this bit of Municipal Code at Lytton Plaza (park):

22.04.320 Parks closed, 10:30 p.m. to sunrise.

Except as provided under this code, no person shall use, remain in or enter any park or building between ten-thirty p.m. and sunrise, other than a duly authorized city employee or persons participating in city-sponsored activities or other activities for which the city has provided written permission to utilize a park beyond the closing time, provided however that the closure of specific facilities during portions of the day or the year may be specified by park regulation.