HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-24 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting July 24, 2000
1. Proclamations Welcoming Exchange Students from Albi, France..384
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................384
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..............................................384
2. Ordinance 4651 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 801 and 1101 Welch Road From “OR Office Research” to “PF Public Facilities” and Removing the Landscaping Combining (L) District From a Portion of the Median of Pasteur Drive Between Welch Road and the Stanford University Hospital (Stanford University Medical Center CCTP/ACP and Parking Structure IV)”............................................................385
3. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Resolution No. 7715 (The Policy Against Doing Business with Burma............................................................385
4. Resolution Of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Submittal Of an Application to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District For Funds from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air Fund for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation/South of Forest Area (PAMF/SOFA) Caltrain Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing Project............................................................385
5. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with the Law Firm of Whitmore, Johnson & Bolanos...................................................385
5A. Conference with Labor Negotiator............................385
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration and possible action on, including approval of, a Cable Television Franchise Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto on Behalf of the Joint Powers and TCI Cablevision of California, Inc. dba AT&T Broadband and an
07/24/00 90-382
agreement with the Silicon Valley Community Communications, Inc. Concerning Facilities, Equipment and Other Support for the Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation................................386
7. Implementation of Streamlining Recommendation for Council Processes, Including Revisions to Policy and Procedure 1-10 Regarding Selection Procedures for Professional Consultants.391
8. Proposed Charter Amendment for the Purposes of: 1) Implementing the Comprehensive Plan Governance Section by Granting the City Council the Authority to allow the Planning and Transportation Commission to make Final Decisions on certain matters and, 2) Permitting the City Council to amend the 1962 Citizen Initiative that adopted Chapter 19.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in order to Update and Improve the City’s Planning and Zoning Procedures..................................................392
9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements...............394
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. as a Committee of the Whole to a Study Session regarding Streamlining.............394
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m............394
07/24/00 90-383
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (via teleconference from Brussels, Belgium, at 7:35 p.m.), Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar ABSENT: Ojakian SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Proclamations Welcoming Exchange Students from Albi, France Mayor Kniss presented the proclamations to the exchange students from Albi, France, and Palo Alto. Carol Stevens, Neighbors Abroad, thanked City Clerk Donna Rogers and the Council Members for planning the reception and welcoming the exchange students. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 600 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding sex crimes. Linda Slone, Human Relations Commissioner, 4137 Park Boulevard, spoke regarding Americans with Disabilities Act. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding politicians in Palo Alto. Jeb Eddy, 2579 Cowper Street, spoke regarding other university growth plans. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding the Stanford golf course. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Burch, to approve the Minutes of June 5, 2000, and June 12, 2000, as submitted. MOTION PASSED: 7-0, Fazzino, Ojakian absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Mossar, to refer Item No. 3 to the Human Relations Commission. MOTION PASSED 6-2, Beecham, Lytle “no,” Ojakian absent.
07/24/00 90-384
Mayor Kniss announced that Item No. 7 would be removed from the agenda, and the Council would adjourn to a Study Session acting as a Committee of the Whole. No action would be taken. Council Member Mossar said she would not participate on Agenda Item No. 2 because of a conflict of interest. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to adopt Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 and 5, with Item No. 4 removed at the request of staff. 2. Ordinance 4651 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 801 and 1101 Welch Road From “OR Office Research” to “PF Public Facilities” and Removing the Landscaping Combining (L) District From a Portion of the Median of Pasteur Drive Between Welch Road and the Stanford University Hospital (Stanford University Medical Center CCTP/ACP and Parking Structure IV)” (1st
reading 7/10/00, PASSED 8-0, Kleinberg absent) 3. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing Resolution No. 7715 (The Policy Against Doing Business with Burma 4. Resolution Of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Submittal Of an Application to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District For Funds from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air Fund for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation/South of Forest Area (PAMF/SOFA) Caltrain Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing Project 5. Request for Authorization to Increase the Amount of the Existing Contract for Legal Services with the Law Firm of Whitmore, Johnson & Bolanos MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item No. 2, Mossar “not participating,” Ojakian absent. MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item No. 5, Ojakian absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 5A. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Council Ad Hoc Personnel Committee (Sandy Eakins, Jim Burch, Bern Beecham, Liz Kniss) Unrepresented Employees: City Attorney Ariel Calonne, City
07/24/00 90-385
Auditor Bill Vinson, City Clerk Donna Rogers, City Manager Frank Benest Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration and possible action on, including approval of, a Cable Television Franchise Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto on Behalf of the Joint Powers and TCI Cablevision of California, Inc. dba AT&T Broadband and an agreement with the Silicon Valley Community Communications, Inc. Concerning Facilities, Equipment and Other Support for the Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation (continued from 6/26/00) Council Member Mossar stated she would not participate in this item due to a conflict of interest. Council Member Burch stated he was a Cable Co-op subscriber since it was available in Palo Alto. During the prior few months, he met many people at Cable Co-op and learned about its operation. He looked forward to an excellent association as Cable Co-op transfers the cable system to AT&T. Council Member Beecham said the people of Palo Alto spoke clearly some time ago when Cable Co-op had its voting on whether to sell to AT&T. The vote was overwhelming. The agreements between AT&T with Cable Co-op, the franchise between the City and Cable Co-op, the requirement by AT&T that a new franchise be approved prior to the transfer, and other issues made the situation complicated. During negotiations, certain items were requested that were not achieved. He supported what worked out as the best agreement. He anticipated that MidPeninsula Access Corporation (MPAC) would have a successful future. Administrative Services Director Carl Yeats said the process was long and staff put in a significant amount of work. The process took approximately two years and endorsed the subscriber supported sale of Cable Co-op to AT&T. The agreement was for a proposed ten years and would result in millions of dollars invested in the cable plant rebuild. The rebuild would be completed in approximately 36 months, resulting in increased system reliability, greater channel capacity, and additional digital video services. In negotiating the agreement, staff faced a changing environment. The franchise agreement reflected the changes that took place in the cable television industry. There was a transition from a locally-owned cooperative to a large corporation. Key components included the support for public educational and governmental (PEG) access, additional channels, free cable and internet service for all educational institutions and public buildings, free cable modem equipment for schools and libraries, and audio service offerings. AT&T agreed to have the PEG channels grouped below channel
07/24/00 90-386
33 and pay for any movement of the PEG channels, to maintain subscriber rates through the end of the year, to offer preferred television channels. A new nonprofit entity, Silicon Valley Community Communications (SVCC), was created out of the transaction. SVCC was created by Cable Co-op, and AT&T would provide a charitable donation of $17 million in transfer obligations to provide facilities and equipment to the Community Access Organization (CAO) in the community. SVCC would provide the facilities and equipment to Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation (MPAC) throughout the term of the franchise agreement and would provide for access of new equipment. Currently, there were three SVCC Board Members, with three MPAC representatives and three Joint Powers Authority area representatives to be added. That would give the City and MPAC decision-making control over the charitable organization until the new Board was created. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. Marvin E. Lee, 1241 Harker Avenue, complimented staff for responding to the issue within a reasonable timeframe. The public was not included in the discussion. The staff report (CMR:332:00) indicated that 144 people subscribed to World Class audio service, but it did not indicate that every subscriber to Cable Co-op had the capacity to take a splitter, provided by Cable Co-op, and attach it to their FM to receive every FM station in the Bay Area. Mr. Yeats made the point that AT&T could not be required to provide an audio service. There were other solutions. AT&T’s promise to deliver classical music in the community would be on the line comparable to what it delivers in Mountain View, which was referred to as “light classical.” The Palo Alto citizenry involved in classical music wanted a richer capability. Mr. Yeats referred to the fact that he and the staff recommended the Council enter into an agreement with the new organization. He wanted to see guidelines relating to items such as term limits for Board members and conflict of interest possibilities. Kenneth Freiberg, 842 Clara Drive, said he had difficulty getting a response from AT&T about access to audio systems. He wanted the City to try to get AT&T to give the residents access to classical music. J. R. Prohaska, Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Board, 1048 Menlo Oaks Drive, Menlo Park, said MPAC supported the resolution and associated agreements. He expressed appreciation to all the parties involved. The agreements would be good for the communities. Michael Eager, 1960 Park Boulevard, thanked staff for putting together a competent franchise agreement. The prior year, Mayor Fazzino said the Council would take as much time as necessary to review the franchise. Three months prior, Mayor Kniss said public hearings would be held. He received a copy of the franchise agreement a few days prior and found it long and complicated. The public should have had more opportunity to review the agreement, address the issues, and offer informed comment.
07/24/00 90-387
Bob Smith, 2291 Greer Road, said although the outcome was unknown, technology was rapidly changing. Many FM stations were moving to the internet, and video programming was beginning to show up on the internet. There will be many choices as bandwidth increases. He thanked the Council for making Cable Co-op the best cable television system in the United States for a number of years, for the Council’s expeditious handling of the issues, and for the Council’s moving forward to the future with AT&T. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, was upset about the comments under the “Conditions for the Settlement” which indicated that Cable Co-op had not performed in a number of areas. He took that personally. As a member of the Board of Directors, one of his jobs was to make sure that Cable Co-op complied with the franchise agreement. To the best of his knowledge, Cable Co-op did comply. He found no evidence that staff ever asked Cable Co-op to build upper Page Mill Road. Comments were made without going to anyone at Cable Co-op. A federal law on cable franchising specified when a franchise was renewed, there were certain things that had to be done, such as going to the franchise holder, discuss what went on in the past, and give them adequate time to respond to any nonconformances. He questioned the statement that Cable Co-op was noncompliant. AT&T did a survey on the system and found no noncompliance. Cable Co-op was required to offer only three channels. Cable Co-op was the only cable system in North America that was ISO9000 certified. If staff had documentation that showed Cable Co-op was in noncompliance, staff should prove it to Cable Co-op. Council Member Beecham asked whether Mr. Moss had a report on the action taken by the Council in 1994 accepting the position of Cable Co-op. Mr. Moss said the report was presented at one time. The information was from the Auditor’s Report. Council Member Kleinberg asked the City Manager to have staff review the comments Mr. Moss referred to in the staff report (CMR:332:00) to make sure the comments were accurate. John Kelley, 1868 Mark Twain Street, thanked the Council, staff, and the employees and members of Cable Co-op. He was proud of the level of service that was provided by the Cable Co-op employees. He hoped that MC Square, the new mid-peninsula community media center, would be something the City would be proud of. He urged the Council to vote in favor of the staff recommendations. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, recalled when the Council made the choice to grant a franchise to Cable Co-op. One of the organizing devices that was used to get community support behind Cable Co-op was the fact that it was cooperative as opposed to a “for profit” organization where a
07/24/00 90-388
limited number of investors would benefit from the organization. If the Council approved the proposal and appointed people to the new nonprofit organization, the question was what value they had. If MPAC was an important organization, the three members appointed by the Council could be an additional three members of MPAC. The Board would write its own bylaws including how to chose Board Members in the future and how to replace them. The question was whether the City would end up with an organization that looked like MPAC did or looked more like the way Cable Co-op turned out to be. Jim Dinkey, 3380 Cork Oak Way, was a founder of Cable Co-op. Cable Co-op entered into a monopoly agreement with ISP Channel, which at the current time was not performing appropriately. For instance, ISP Channel would announce it had a seven-minute wait time but ran closer to 77 minutes. He had problems getting new computers hooked up to the system. He asked whether the ISP was part of the franchise agreement. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Burch understood from Mr. Yeats there was substantial backup for all the statements that were made, and the amount that was negotiated was significantly less than what could have been required. He thanked the staff for the work they did. Much correspondence was received from people in support of the sale of Cable Co-op to AT&T. Mr. Yeats said a corrected resolution was at places for Council consideration. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve the staff recommendations as follows: 1. Adopt the resolution consenting, subject to certain conditions, to the transfer and assignment of the cable system held by Cable Co-op to TCI Cablevision of California Inc., doing business as AT&T Broadband, a subsidiary of AT&T Broadband L.L.C. and a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of AT&T Corp. 2. Approve a cable television franchise agreement between the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the Joint Powers, and TCI Cablevision of California, Inc., doing business as AT&T Broadband. 3. Approve an agreement between the City of Palo Alto and SVCC for the provision of facilities and equipment for MPAC. 4. Approve a compromise and settlement agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Cable Co-op.
07/24/00 90-389
5. Direct staff to return at the earliest possible date, with amendments to the City’s cable television ordinance (Chapter 2.10 of the Municipal Code), removing Section 26 of Appendix A, in deference to the U.S. Court of Appeals’ decision in the AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland that restricts the City’s right to regulate cable modem services. Resolution 7991 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Consenting, Subject to Certain Conditions, to the Transfer and Assignment of the Cable System Held by Cable Communications Cooperative of Palo Alto, Inc., to TCI Cablevision of California, Inc. DBA AT&T Broadband, a Wholly-Owned, Indirect Subsidiary of AT&T Corp.” Agreement Between the City Of Palo Alto on Behalf of the Joint Powers and Silicon Valley Community Communications, Inc. Concerning Facilities and Equipment for the Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation Compromise and Settlement Agreement with Cable Communications Cooperative of Palo Alto, Inc. Cable Television Franchise Agreement by and Between the City Of Palo Alto, California on Behalf of the Joint Powers and TCI
Cablevision of California, Inc. Council Member Beecham referred to an email from Mr. Moss and said he believed there might be some differences where he would agree with Cable Co-op’s point of view. At the present time, he was unsure whether any of the differences were material. He asked for more information on the advertising sales revenue where the charge that the City believed Cable Co-op owed was about $52,000. Mr. Moss had indicated the exclusions were accepted by the Council in 1994. Mr. Yeats said a court decision, the Dallas decision, indicated the City could charge the franchise fee, and that was what the City had done. Council Member Beecham clarified in 1994, the City and Cable Co-op made no agreement to modify the franchise to delete the type of requirement that was later substantiated by the court. Mr. Yeats said to the best of his knowledge that was correct. Senior Assistant City Attorney Grant Kolling said he had to verify the information. He believed the Dallas case occurred in 1997, and the dispute with Cable Co-op was with the KFA Audit which came up with an estimation of $214,000 in unpaid franchise fees for the period, January 1996 through September 1999. He was unaware of any action taken by the Council in 1994, but he would check on that.
07/24/00 90-390
Council Member Beecham said he would take the staff report (CMR:332:00) at face value but wanted to know whether there was any information that should come back to the Council in favor of Cable Co-op. Regarding the itemized franchise fees, he questioned whether the City’s fee should be used in revenue by Cable Co-op as a basis for calculating the fee. City Attorney Ariel Calonne explained the compromise in the settlement agreement said specifically that no one admitted any liability or responsibility, and the City discounted its position. Council Member Lytle was impressed with the entire process. The City did a good job obtaining the proper consultants to get through the process. The partners in the community were clear about their needs, and the communication with the Council was excellent. Mayor Kniss thanked Council Members Beecham and Burch for taking on an awesome task in helping and supporting negotiations. She was pleased with the solution. Vice Mayor Eakins appreciated the spirit of goodwill and congratulated everyone involved in the process. Council Member Fazzino thanked all the parties involved for their efforts. The contract was as good as it could possibly be. He was pleased with the efforts that were made to preserve and create higher levels of public access and local origination programs. Cable Co-op was a remarkable community resource during the prior 15 years. He could not imagine any cable system in the United States over that time offered such a wide variety of programming and was responsive to the public with so few resources. The efforts of Cable Co-op employees were appreciated during the transition period. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Mossar “not participating,” Ojakian absent. 7. Implementation of Streamlining Recommendation for Council Processes, Including Revisions to Policy and Procedure 1-10 Regarding Selection Procedures for Professional Consultants Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Reorganizing Chapter 2.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code [Council Organization and Procedure] to Establish New City Council Procedures Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Procedural Rules Governing the Conduct of Council Meetings 8. Proposed Charter Amendment for the Purposes of: 1) Implementing the Comprehensive Plan Governance Section by Granting the City Council the Authority to allow the Planning and Transportation
07/24/00 90-391
Commission to make Final Decisions on certain matters and, 2) Permitting the City Council to amend the 1962 Citizen Initiative that adopted Chapter 19.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in order to Update and Improve the City’s Planning and Zoning Procedures City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the proposed Charter amendment was a follow-up to the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) Governance section that included a number of proposals designed to improve public participation. One of the proposals involved contemplating giving the Planning and Transportation Commission final decision-making authority in some areas. The streamlining discussion the prior May brought the issue up, and it seemed like a reasonable time to come back with the proposed Charter amendment. His office had the lead implementation obligation in the Master Plan/Comp Plan implementation program. The Council was given authority to amend the part of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) that established the Planning Commission and the Comp Plan chapter. In 1962, the Council filed a lawsuit to keep a citizen’s initiative off the ballot. The initiative would have created a mandatory comprehensive plan. After losing its lawsuit, the City Council enacted the ordinance without putting it to a vote of the people. Chapter 19.04 of the PAMC dated to 1962 and, at that time, incorporated 1953 and 1955 planning law. It was very future oriented at the time but ran the risk currently of being out of date. There were two items before the Council: 1) governance follow-up Charter amendment, and 2) to facilitate the zoning ordinance update, a request that the Council ask the voters for City Council authority to amend Chapter 19.04. Council Member Beecham assumed if the Council made the appropriate motion at the present meeting, the item would go on the November ballot. Mr. Calonne said that was staff’s plan, but the Council might choose otherwise. Council Member Beecham said the way the amendment was created left substantial flexibility with the Council in the future. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Lytle, to 1) approve the staff recommendation that the proposed Charter amendment delegating final approval of certain land use items, to be specified in a separate ordinance, to the Planning and Transportation Commission be placed on the Fall ballot; and 2) amend the 1962 Citizen Initiative that adopted Chapter 19.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in order to Update and Improve the City's Planning and Zoning Procedures. Vice Mayor Eakins said the possible change was that not every decision made by the Planning and Transportation Commission would automatically come forward to the Council. That would take a burden off staff and
07/24/00 90-392
individuals in the community. To be able to modify the Charter so the Council had the right to change the ordinances from time to time as deemed appropriate, was the way to go. The process was three-step: 1) change the Charter, 2) put in the flexibility, 3) make the rules in the ordinance so things could happen as time permits. She heard over the years what an accumulation of difficulties the Council had because the zoning ordinance was out of date. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 1632, said the Comp Plan specifically asked for a situation where the Council had appeal power over Planning and Transportation Commission decisions. The proposed Charter amendment was being characterized in staff reports as the opposite of giving the Planning and Transportation Commission the final authority. The voters were entitled to know over which particular issues the Council thought the Planning and Transportation Commission should have power, and language should be included as to what powers the Council believed the Planning and Transportation Commission should have. The implication in the staff report (CMR:334:00) was that the decisions were appeals rather than all quasi-judicial. The Council’s and Planning and Transportation Commission’s values were quite different. One of the reasons was the Planning and Transportation Commission was made up of a majority of people who were in the development business such as builders, attorneys for developers, or architects. Planning and Transportation Commissioners were not elected by the people and could not be voted out of office. The need for the zoning ordinance update would not be for two years. Chapter 19.04 included one item that needed to be updated and that was the language referring to state planning law or something that said the current law was incorporated in the Charter. The duties of the Planning and Transportation Commission including the review of the General Plan and Capital Improvement Program, physical development of the City, and all the additional duties assigned to the Planning and Transportation Commission were listed in Chapter 19.04 and had no reference to state law of a prior date. Other items in Chapter 19.04 included an obsolete section that referred to prohibiting some zoning changes and the actual language of the old statute. Those could be removed, and the one remaining section that needed to be amended addressed incorporating statutes referring to particular dates. The City Attorney could easily change the section in order for it to refer to the current law as amended from time to time. Language referring to powers should be explicitly stated and appealable to the Council. Council Member Mossar was unclear what she would vote for. Conceptually, she had no qualm with moving forward but did not understand what she would delegate and what controls she had. Mr. Calonne said there was a difference in the Comprehensive Plan language between the policy and the specific program. The policy talked about “with appeal to the City Council.” The program addressed the current barrier in the Charter. A charter was a limitation on the city’s powers; not a grant of powers. The reference in the Comp Plan
07/24/00 90-393
to final decision-making authority related to the Charter. He expected the Council would spell out the types of appeals it wanted to have from the final Planning Commission decisions. Council Member Mossar asked when that would be done. Mr. Calonne said when the Charter amendment passed, the Council would then be empowered to adopt an ordinance defining which decisions the Planning Commission might be final. He expected that would go with the zoning ordinance update. Council Member Mossar clarified the Charter amendment gave the power to the City Council to consider in the future how it would handle the matter. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Ojakian absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 9. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Mossar referred to a press release regarding the removal of Dursban, asking whether City staff had stopped using this product. City Manager Benest stated he would check into the matter. Mayor Kniss announced a meeting regarding transit and transportation to be held on August 1, 2000, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Council Member Burch stated he had a conversation with Planning Arborist Dave Dockter regarding trees and the City was looking into preserving trees, particularly redwoods. He was interested in a moratorium. RECESSED TO A CLOSED SESSION: 9:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Labor Negotiations as described in Agenda Item No. 5A. Mayor Kniss announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item 5A. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. as a Committee of the Whole to a Study Session regarding Streamlining. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
07/24/00 90-394
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.
07/24/00 90-395