HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-24 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting April 24, 2000
1. Conference with City Attorney—Existing Litigation ..........................................................113
2. Conference with City Attorney -- Potential Initiation of Litigation ..........................................................113
3. Conference with City Attorney—Existing Litigation ..........................................................113
4. Conference with City Attorney—Existing Litigation ..........................................................113
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ..........................................................113
1. Appointment to Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board of Directors ..........................................................114
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ..........................................................114
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ..........................................................114
2. Approval of Rate Structure and Rates to Finance Storm Drain Operations and the Next Phase of Storm Drainage Improvements – Refer to Finance Committee
04/24/00 90-109
..........................................................114
3. Approval of Safe Routes to School Grant Applications ..........................................................114
4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and COMPSYCH in the Amount of $99,000 for the City of Palo Alto Employee Assistance Program ..........................................................115
5. Request for a Feasibility Study for a Joint City of Palo Alto – Stanford University Performing Arts Facility ..........................................................115
6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Davey Tree Expert Company in the Amount of $65,740 for the 1999-2000 Ash Pruning Project ..........................................................115
7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Ferma Corporation in the Amount of $995,040 for Landfill Phase IIB Partial Closure ..........................................................115
8. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to adopt: 1) a Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to approve an Amendment to the Contract between the Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System and the City of Palo Alto; and 2) an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto authorizing an Amendment to the Contract between the City Council of the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. ..........................................................115
9. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to adopt the 1999-00 Midyear Financial Summary and Budget Amendment Ordinance ..........................................................116
11. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Classified Personnel (SEIU) Adopted by Resolution No. 7782 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7812, 7837, 7872 and 7904 to add a Backup Child Care Benefit
04/24/00
90-110
..........................................................116
12. Adoption of Traffic Signal Upgrade Plan ..........................................................116
13. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to: 1) adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to amend the Table of Organization to add one (1.0) new FTE to begin implementation of the City’s Infrastructure Management Plan; 2) incorporate the remaining Infrastructure Management Plan staffing requirements into the 2000-01 Proposed Budget; and 3) retain the status of the Infrastructure Management Plan in Committee for the purpose of providing periodic status reports. ..........................................................116
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS ..........................................................117
13A. (Old Item No.10) Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.10 of Title 9 [Peace, Morals, and Safety] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Noise from Leaf Blowers ..........................................................117
14. Single-Story Overlay for DeSoto-Channing-Alester: Request by Citizens to Start the Evaluation Process ..........................................................119
15. The Planning and Transportation Commission recommends approval of the Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility Site and Design, Variance and Environmental Impact Assessment applications by the City of Palo Alto Community Services Department for a visitor information center (Gateway Facility), including office and meeting space, storage areas, public restrooms, and associated site improvements on City-owned property within the Arastradero Preserve open space area ..........................................................120
16. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Ordinance No. 4549, Adopted February 22, 1999, Regulating Demolitions and Major Alterations of Certain Historic Resources” ..........................................................120
04/24/00
90-111
17. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ..........................................................123
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. ..........................................................123
04/24/00
90-112
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:15 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian CLOSED SESSION Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. Conference with City Attorney—Existing Litigation (Continued from 4/17/00) Subject: Karolyn Zeng v. City of Palo Alto, SCC #CV777838 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) 2. Conference with City Attorney -- Potential Initiation of Litigation Subject: Potential Initiation of Litigation on One Matter Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(c) 3. Conference with City Attorney—Existing Litigation (Continued from 4/17/00) Subject: Roland Luo v. City of Palo Alto, SCC #CV778354 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) 4. Conference with City Attorney—Existing Litigation (Continued from 4/17/00) Subject: City of Palo Alto v. Service Employees International Union, Local 715, (re: Danton Camm), SCC #CV773215 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Existing Litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. Mayor Kniss announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
04/24/00
90-113
Regular Meeting April 24, 2000 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointment to Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board of Directors FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR MID-PENINSULA ACCESS CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS VOTING FOR ALEXANDER: Eakins VOTING FOR MYTELS: Kniss, Kleinberg, Lytle, Burch, Beecham, Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Debbie Mytels received eight votes and was appointed to the two-year term on the first ballot. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ed Powers, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding dirty politics. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding the Bressler property. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Burch, to approve the Minutes of March 8 and 20, 2000, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-4, 6-9, and 12 and 13 with Item Nos. 5 and 11 removed by staff and Item No. 10 removed by City Manager Frank Benest to become Item No. 13A. 2. Approval of Rate Structure and Rates to Finance Storm Drain Operations and the Next Phase of Storm Drainage Improvements – Refer to Finance Committee 3. Approval of Safe Routes to School Grant Applications
04/24/00
90-114
4. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and COMPSYCH in the Amount of $99,000 for the City of Palo Alto Employee Assistance Program 5. Request for a Feasibility Study for a Joint City of Palo Alto – Stanford University Performing Arts Facility Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $50,000 for a Performing Arts Center Feasibility Study 6. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Davey Tree Expert Company in the Amount of $65,740 for the 1999-2000 Ash Pruning Project 7. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Ferma Corporation in the Amount of $995,040 for Landfill Phase IIB Partial Closure 8. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to adopt: 1) a Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to approve an Amendment to the Contract between the Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System and the City of Palo Alto; and 2) an Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto authorizing an Amendment to the Contract between the City Council of the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System (Inclusion of Employees Performing Duties of Fire Fighting, Fire Prevention, Fire Training, Hazardous Materials, Emergency Medical Services or Fire or Arson Investigation Services Within the “Local Fire Fighter” Classification)” Resolution 7957 entitled “Resolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Approve an Amendment to Contract Between the Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System and the City of Palo Alto (Inclusion of Employees Performing Duties of Fire Fighting, Fire Prevention, Fire Training, Hazardous Materials, Emergency Medical Services or Fire or Arson Investigation Services Within the “Local Fire Fighter” Classification)” Amendment to Contract Between the Board of Administration of the Public Employees’ Retirement System and the City of Palo Alto (Inclusion of Employees Performing Duties of Fire
04/24/00 90-115
Fighting, Fire Prevention, Fire Training, Hazardous Materials, Emergency Medical Services or Fire or Arson Investigation Services Within the “Local Fire Fighter” Classification) 9. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to adopt the 1999-00 Midyear Financial Summary and Budget Amendment Ordinance. Ordinance 4630 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Adjust Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures in Accordance with the Recommendations in the Midyear Report” 11. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Classified Personnel (SEIU) Adopted by Resolution No. 7782 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7812, 7837, 7872 and 7904 to add a Backup Child Care Benefit Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Police Non-Management Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 7788 and Amended by Resolution No. 7903 to Add a Backup Child Care Benefit Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Fire Department Personnel (IAFF) Adopted by Resolution No. 7730 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7772 and 7901 to Add a Backup Child Care Benefit Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Fire Chiefs’ Association Management Personnel Adopted by Resolution No. 7848 and Amended by Resolution No. 7900 to Add a Backup Child Care Benefit Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 7890 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7897, 7902, 7907, 7945 And 7914 to Add a Backup Child Care Benefit 12. Adoption of Traffic Signal Upgrade Plan (Continued from 4/17/00) 13. The Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to: 1) adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) to amend the Table of Organization to add one (1.0) new FTE to begin implementation of the City’s Infrastructure Management Plan; 2) incorporate the remaining Infrastructure Management Plan staffing requirements into the 2000-01 Proposed Budget; and 3) retain the status of the Infrastructure Management Plan in Committee for the purpose of providing periodic status reports. (Continued from 4/17/00)
04/24/00 90-116
Ordinance 4631 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend the Budget and the Table of Organization for the Public Works Department in the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $16,400 and Add a Full-time Position for the Infrastructure Management Plan (IMP)” Resolution 7958 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 7890 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7897, 7902, 7907, 7914, 7927 and 7945 to add the Classification and Salary of Senior Project Manager” MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 2-4, 6-9, and 12. MOTION PASSED 8-1 for Item No. 13, Lytle “no.” AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Mayor Kniss announced that Item No. 15 would be removed from the agenda, as it was not properly noticed. 13A. (Old Item No.10) Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.10 of Title 9 [Peace, Morals, and Safety] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Noise from Leaf Blowers Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, was disappointed that the Council chose to amend the ordinance in a way that increased leaf blower noise in many areas of Palo Alto. All areas near public facilities had an increase of noise that was substantial. For example, if someone chose to bring in a loud portable stereo and play it at a high decibel level, the City would have to go across the street to the bagel shop to measure the noise. Noise should be measured at 25 feet outside of the property line of the public facility. Most of the Council did not live in rental housing, and few lived in condominiums or near public facilities and did not experience the kind of noise that was generated throughout the evening and late night hours. The noise ordinance was the mixed neighborhood’s only protection. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, said two million leaf blowers were sold nationally each year. Palo Alto did not solely support the leaf blower market and should not expect the industry to build an electric leaf blower that gardeners would buy and use. The proposed ordinance was unrealistic and too complicated to understand. The portion of the ordinance that addressed electric blowers did not make sense. He believed the ordinance would be ignored just as the current ordinance was ignored. Ellen Fletcher, 777 San Antonio Road, #108, was disappointed with the Council’s decision to wait longer to implement an ordinance
04/24/00 90-117
that was meaningful. She did not believe the gardeners would disappear from Palo Alto if the Council banned leaf blowers. She noted the gardeners still worked in the City of Los Altos where a ban was passed. The gardeners were still working and the gardens were neat and tidy. She urged the Council to take a firm stand on the issue and ban the leaf blowers. Council Member Fazzino said the property plane issue came before the Council several times. He asked what the practical effect would be to eliminate the language “from the property plane” under Section 9.10.050(a) of the proposed ordinance. He asked from where noise would be measured. City Attorney Ariel Calonne believed the measurement would be from the noise source so that at greater distance the noise would taper off. The difficulty was that there was nothing to stop people from standing on the property line. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the wording could be changed to 25 feet or more from the source of the noise. Mr. Calonne said the change was a policy call that Council could make. Council Member Mossar said the issue had existed for many years. Many Council Members questioned staff on many points. She was assured that there was no impact; however, given the fact that there were still some people that believed there was an impact, she was not comfortable moving forward with a change in the wording. She hoped that if there were some revisions to the noise ordinance, the Council could be given some ways to understand the impacts of the changes so as not to put the Council in the position of being told there was no problem and then finding out there was. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to change Sections 9.10.050 and 9.10.060 of the proposed ordinance with suggested change to strike the words “from property plane” and change to “from the noise source.” Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.10 of Title 9 [Peace, Morals, and Safety] of the Palo Alto” Council Member Burch said at one point, the City indicated it would not clean parking lots early in the morning if the lots were adjacent to residential areas. He asked whether the issue was still addressed in the ordinance. Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson said the Department of Public Works’ and the Department of Community Service’s staff tried to clean the Mid-Town parking lot at a different time. One problem with measuring from the noise source in public facilities was that
04/24/00 90-118
sometimes the noise source moved. Depending upon where the noise source could be moved, a person could be in compliance at one location and out of compliance at another location. Mr. Calonne said the ordinance would be reintroduced for first reading due to a substantive change. The ordinance would return to the Council for second reading at the May 8, 2000, meeting. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Eakins, Lytle “no.” Council Member Kleinberg referred back to Agenda Item No. 12, and asked whether staff could look at timed lights on some of Palo Alto’s major arteries for the reason that it caused less emissions and air pollution when cars did not have to stop and start constantly. If the lights were timed at 35 miles per hour (mph), traffic would be encouraged to travel at 35 mph rather than timed at 30 or 25 mph. Assistant Police Chief Lynne Johnson informed Council Member Kleinberg that the effort was countywide. The particular program was coordinated with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and the City had a staff person working closely with the VTA. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 14. Single-Story Overlay for DeSoto-Channing-Alester: Request by Citizens to Start the Evaluation Process (Continued from 4/17/00) Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said the request was made by the property owners of a portion of the Channing Park neighborhood to initiate a single-story overlay. The area was bounded by Alester Avenue, Channing Avenue, and the sites surrounding DeSoto Drive. There were 57 parcels in the neighborhood. Seventy-seven percent or 44 property owners supported the application. One of the property owners not in support of the application resided at 715 DeSoto Avenue, which was the only two-story house in the neighborhood. Other property owners not in favor of the single-story overlay were on 714, 728, 742, and 756 Alester Avenue and requested to be removed from the area under consideration. Staff recommended for the initiation, that the four houses on Alester Avenue remain in the area under consideration and that staff return to the Council and the Planning Commission prior to returning to the Council with a recommendation as to whether the four houses should be removed. Staff believed the four criteria required to consider a single-story overlay as outlined on page 3 of the staff report (CMR:215:00)were met. MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Fazzino, to initiate and refer to the Planning and Transportation Commission consideration of a single-story overlay zone for the R-1 single
04/24/00 90-119
family area shown on the map (Attachment A) of the staff report (CMR:215:00). MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 15. The Planning and Transportation Commission recommends approval of the Arastradero Preserve Gateway Facility Site and Design, Variance and Environmental Impact Assessment applications by the City of Palo Alto Community Services Department for a visitor information center (Gateway Facility), including office and meeting space, storage areas, public restrooms, and associated site improvements on City-owned property within the Arastradero Preserve open space area. ORDINANCES 16. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Ordinance No. 4549, Adopted February 22, 1999, Regulating Demolitions and Major Alterations of Certain Historic Resources” Council Member Beecham did not participate in Item No. 16 due to a conflict of interest. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the action staff requested was to repeal Ordinance 4549, which was an interim ordinance adopted February 22, 1999. The interim ordinance had a provision to be in effect until it was repealed or replaced by a new historic preservation ordinance. The interim ordinance was a pared down version of the proposed ordinance that was rejected by a vote in March and it was not intended to be a permanent ordinance. Staff recommended the Council repeal Ordinance No. 4549. With the repeal of the interim ordinance, the City would revert to the 1979 historic preservation ordinance. The original preservation ordinance would continue to be in effect and would have Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4; the Professorville and Ramona Street historic districts; and would provide some review on alterations of Category 1 and 2 properties in Professorville. The original ordinance provided for a potential delay for Category 1 and 2 properties and properties within. Staff suggested a historic preservation program that was more than just the ordinance. Staff tried to include amendments to Chapter 16.49 in the program, things that encouraged greater clarity and simplicity, and a review of the incentive programs discussed in summer 1999. The historic preservation program would include emphasis on homeowner assistance that he believed was the most important part of any program. Most people wanted to do the right thing in regard to restoring or maintaining historic resources. Former Historic Resources Board Member Dennis Backlund would work with staff to send a letter to all properties that were Historic Resources within the community to
04/24/00 90-120
discuss things staff could do with the property owner and any assistance that staff might be able to give. In order to promote historic preservation, staff considered walking tours, brochures, award and recognition programs. Almost everyone staff spoke to was in support of historic preservation regardless of the residents’ philosophical approach on the historic preservation issue. Staff was in receipt of the Dames and Moore inventory and would use the inventory to update its list of Historic Resources within the community and would be taking the information to the Historic Resources Board (HRB) in June 2000. There were two issues: historic preservation, and replacement homes within the City’s single-family neighborhoods. Staff held a community meeting attended by 50 people. The R-1 replacement home issue was discussed. The advisory group completed its work in May 2000 and expected to have another community meeting with approaches to discuss with the community in late June or early July 2000. Council Member Burch said the difference was the voluntary versus mandatory compliance. He asked whether there was a way to track results over the next two to three years of the voluntary ordinance to determine whether a voluntary ordinance was working or not working. Mr. Gawf said staff’s mission was to develop the best voluntary historic preservation program in the country. Staff was committed to making the program successful. Tracking was part of any program and staff would be tracking the ordinance. He believed community involvement was important in all the changes. Staff planned on outreach, workshops, and community forums. Jean Wilcox, 4005 Sutherland Drive, said the citizens of Palo Alto had spoken and rejected the Historic Preservation Ordinance. She requested the Council rescind the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance at that evening’s meeting. Every precinct in South Palo Alto but one rejected historic preservation. The process chosen to create the ordinance neglected and ignored any input from South Palo Alto but sought to regulate the South Palo Alto neighborhood in the future with or without its consent. The same group of North Palo Alto residents, whether they were for or against historic preservation, wanted to get together again in an ad-hoc committee to formulate a new historic preservation ordinance. She urged the Council to not consider any future open-ended historic preservation ordinance that was generated from such a committee. She did not have a problem with an ad-hoc committee considering a historic preservation ordinance if it restricted its considerations to the present list of designated historic homes because 98 percent of those were located in North Palo Alto. She suggested the ad-hoc committee should be made up of at least 50 percent of South Palo Alto residents if it wanted to include South Palo Alto homes in an open ended ordinance that could potentially regulate other homes in Palo Alto. She hoped the Council would not consider business and commercial buildings in the historic preservation unless the
04/24/00 90-121
business community and the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce were included in the deliberations. Resurrecting the Historic Ordinance was inappropriate because the “No on G” campaigners would want concessions. One concession suggested was the presumption of variances for historic homes. For example, being allowed to build a two-story structure within a 20-foot setback if the front of the house was untouched. Any future historic preservation ordinance should be voluntary and with the owner’s consent. If a home was worthy of being declared historic, the owner should be proud of it. Historic preservation should not be used as a tool to stop demolition. Monica Yeung Arima, 1052 Bryant Street, congratulated the Council and City for having Dennis Backlund assist in the management of historic preservation. Mr. Backlund was knowledgeable, dedicated, hard-working, reasonable, and had great common sense. If the City wanted to preserve the neighborhood feel of Palo Alto, it needed to have regulations that would fit some of the older homes, whether historic or non-historic. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, was sympathetic to the staff suggestion to rescind the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance and revert to the 1979 Historic Preservation Ordinance. He believed, however, if the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance were rescinded, properties would start to disappear and resemble some cities around the world such as Toronto, Budapest, Bucharest, and Berlin. Those cities were void of historic buildings and looked like any shopping mall anywhere else in the world. Retaining the character of Palo Alto’s community was important. He suggested the Council retain the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance until the end of the year as a transition until the Council had an opportunity to review and implement the R-1 single-story design review. The benefit would be a provision for design review for all homes regardless of age and would satisfy a complaint the Palo Alto Homeowner’s Association which was the Historic Ordinance did not protect the individual homes and the over-sized homes. He urged the Council to give the community a general design review that would protect the entire community. Historic homes were not identified by its location in the City, but by its characteristic as a home. Mary Carey Schaefer, 742 DeSoto Drive, said Desoto Drive did not want design review, rather it wanted size control. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Ojakian, to repeal Ordinance No. 4549 (Interim Urgency Ordinance Regulating Certain Historic Resources) adopting the ordinance. Council Member Fazzino thanked the staff for hiring Mr. Backlund. Mr. Backlund was a voice of reason along with a number of other people on the historic preservation issue for the prior four years. He believed the Council did not have any other course of action but
04/24/00 90-122
repeal the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance. The voters had spoken. Council Member Burch hoped the people on both sides of Measure G would get together to ensure the voluntary Historic Preservation Ordinance worked. Council Member Ojakian agreed with Council Member Fazzino’s comments. Mayor Kniss said the Interim Historic Preservation Ordinance came about when a home in College Terrace affectionately known as “Big Blue” was demolished. She welcomed Mr. Backlund as an addition to City staff. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Beecham “not participating.” COUNCIL MATTERS 17. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Mossar reminded the public and her colleagues that on Thursday evening there would be an Aircraft Noise Forum at the Palo Alto Arts Center sponsored by ABAG and the City of Palo Alto. Council Member Mossar announced there would be a press conference at City Hall at 10:30 a.m., on Wednesday, April 26, 2000, at City Hall. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
04/24/00 90-123