HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-12-11 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting December 11, 2000
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..........................................................200
APPROVAL OF MINUTES..........................................................200
1. Resolution 8018 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager or his Designee to Submit an Application for Charter Membership in the Golden Gateway Library Network of the Library of California”..........................................................200
2. Ordinance 4668 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $400,000 for the Acquisition of the Pinkerton Property Located at 806-808 Waverley Street”..........................................................200
3. Amended and Restated Agreement to Provide Local Law Enforcement Agency Access to the California Identification System..........................................................200
4. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C9180932 Between the City of Palo Alto and Larry Walker Associates in the Amount of $103,124 to Assist the Water Quality Control Plant with Watershed Planning Activities..........................................................200
5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Fermin Sierra Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $1,367,870 for Project 14 Water Main Replacement Project
12/11/00 91-197
..........................................................200
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS..........................................................200
6. Item Deleted...........................................................201
7. Conference with City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litigation..........................................................201
9. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated..........................................................201
10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the September 29, 2000, decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, whereby the application of William Lee for a Home Improvement Exception [00-HIE-18] was approved...........................................................201
11. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application from Beth Bunnenberg and Pria Graves for the designation of the Sea Scout Base located at 2560 Embarcadero Road to the City of Palo Alto Historic Buildings Inventory as a significant building in Category 1 pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49, Sections 16.49.020 and 16.49.040...........................................................204
12. Resolution of the City of Palo Alto Approving a Cable Television Franchise Between the City of Palo Alto and RCN Telecom Services, Inc...........................................................204
13. Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation re Park Improvement Ordinance Approving and Adopting a Site improvement Plan for the Phased Renovation of Mitchell Park..........................................................204
12/11/00 91-198
14. Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation re Downtown North Traffic Calming Project..........................................................205
15. Policy and Services Committee re Streamlining Council Procedures and Facilitating Policy Dialogue..........................................................216
16. Resolution Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated City Officers and Employees as Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission and Repealing Resolution 7818..........................................................216
(Old Item No. 18) Vice Mayor Eakins and Council Members Burch, Kleinberg, and Ojakian re Emergency Mobile Home Rent Stabilization for Buena Vista Mobile Home Park..........................................................216
17. Council Members Beecham, Eakins, and Mossar re Council Direction to Staff on the Procedure for Filling the Council Vacancy Which Will be Created When Mayor Kniss Joins the County Board of Supervisors..........................................................222
19. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements..........................................................224
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m...........................................................224
12/11/00 91-199
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, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jack Koch, 1466 Dana Avenue, representing SOSCA, spoke regarding the Terman Center proposal. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the Minutes of October 23, 2000, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Mossar “abstaining.” CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Burch, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 – 5. 1. Resolution 8018 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City Manager or his Designee to Submit an Application for Charter Membership in the Golden Gateway Library Network of the Library of California” 2. Ordinance 4668 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $400,000 for the Acquisition of the Pinkerton Property Located at 806-808 Waverley Street” 3. Amended and Restated Agreement to Provide Local Law Enforcement Agency Access to the California Identification System 4. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C9180932 Between the City of Palo Alto and Larry Walker Associates in the Amount of $103,124 to Assist the Water Quality Control Plant with Watershed Planning Activities 5. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Fermin Sierra Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $1,367,870 for Project 14 Water Main Replacement Project MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS 12/11/00 91-200
City Manager Frank Benest announced that Item Nos. 7 and 8 would be continued to 12/18/00 at the request of staff. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 6. Item Deleted. 7. Conference with City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(1) arising out of Palo Alto Unified School District condemnation of Terman Community Center. (Gov. Code section 54956.9(b)(3)(B) & (E)) 8. Conference with City Attorney – Existing Litigation Subject: Sheridan v. City of Palo Alto, et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No.: CV781752 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Items continued to December 18, 2000, at the request of staff. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to adopt the Resolution ordering the abatement of weeds. Resolution 8019 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated” MOTION PASSED 9-0. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an appeal from the September 29, 2000, decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, whereby the application of William Lee for a Home Improvement Exception [00-HIE-18] was approved. Approval was granted to allow the construction of a detached two-car garage within a rear-yard setback at a distance of 71.5 feet from the front property line and 30.5 feet from the street-side property line where 75 feet is the minimum distance required from any street facing property
12/11/00 91-201
line. The property involved is an existing single-family residence (Zone District R-1), located at 404 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District R-1 Single Family Residential. Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Eakins, and Council Members Mossar and Lytle stated they had visited site. City Attorney Ariel Calonne noted a letter received that afternoon from Miller, Starr & Regalia on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Efraim was at Council places. Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said the appeal was to the Home Improvement Exception (HIE) that approved a 560-square-foot garage on a corner location in a side or rear setback, where the 75-foot distance had not been met from either the street-side property line or the front property line. The zoning ordinance required 75 feet of distance from any street-facing property line for an accessory structure located in a side or rear setback. The front of the site was on Waverley Street. The Lowell Avenue side was a street-side yard. The new garage would replace an existing 360-square-foot garage that did not meet the 75-foot distance requirement. An HIE was required because of the location of the accessory structure. There was no location on the site for which the 75-foot distance requirement could be satisfied. The applicant’s purpose for building a larger garage was so vehicles could more easily fit in the garage and people could enter and exit the vehicles more comfortably. The applicant wanted to move the garage closer to Lowell Avenue in order to create a larger back yard. Because it was difficult to create a large back yard on a corner lot, it was not unusual for a HIE to be granted for improvements that would create a larger back yard. The appellants appealed the decision for four reasons. First, there was not special circumstance for the site. Staff’s position was that the corner location was a special circumstance. It was impossible to locate an accessory structure within the site and meet the 75-foot distance requirement. The location of the house was a further constraint on the site. Second, the appellants stated there was no architectural reason for the garage to be detached. Staff maintained that the neighborhood had a detached garage pattern. The garage was compatible with the character of the house and the neighborhood. Third, the appellants stated the garage would be an upgrade to the property at the neighbors’ expense. Staff’s position was that the new garage was a replacement for one that already existed. Fourth, the appellants stated the new garage would be more visible than the previous structure. With the conditions of approval of the HIE, staff felt the structure would not be more visible
12/11/00 91-202
because there would be screen plantings and a fence in between the garage and the adjoining property. The Planning Commission recommended that the appeal be denied. It also recommended two additional conditions: 1) if 35 percent of the main structure or foundation was altered, the HIE approval would be withdrawn and the main structure or garage would be removed; and 2) the garage would be moved two feet further from the rear property line. The appellants were willing to compromise on those two conditions and suggested adding conditions: 1) the HIE approval be withdrawn if the main structure was increased in size by 35 percent or more; 2) the garage should be at least nine feet from the east property line, the Planning Commission recommended eight feet; 3) it should be at least 40.5 feet from the street-side property line, the Planning Commission recommended 30.5 feet; 4) there should be no windows on the east side of the garage; and 5) the fence should be six feet tall instead of seven feet tall, and any plantings should be trimmed so they were shorter than six feet. If the applicant was amenable to those conditions, the compromise was possible. Council Member Mossar said she asked for a report from City Arborist Dave Dockter regarding the redwood tree on the property. Ms. Grote said Mr. Dockter visited the site that afternoon. Neither the site proposed by the applicant, nor the site proposed by the Planning Commission, would damage the roots of the tree. He recommended that the driveway not be altered. Mayor Kniss said it was rare that a compromise came before Council as late as the one presented. She asked the City Attorney whether there was a process that would expedite the decision. Mr. Calonne suggested allowing the applicants to speak before the appellants so they could express their opinion of the compromise. Peter Fortenbaugh, 564 Santa Rita Avenue, spoke on behalf of his brother-in-law Mr. William Lee. He said Mr. Lee bought the house one year prior. All improvements that Mr. Lee made to date maintained the architectural character of the house and the neighborhood. There was no intention of demolishing the house. Mr. Lee made efforts to make the garage as small as possible. Mayor Kniss asked Mr. Fortenbaugh to address the compromise offered by the appellants. Mr. Fortenbaugh said he and his brother-in-law were not comfortable with some aspects of the compromise. Mayor Kniss said the Council would have to proceed with the hearing and negotiate the compromise in public. Mr. Fortenbaugh could ask
12/11/00 91-203
to have the hearing postponed and work with the City in the meantime to reach a compromise. Mr. Fortenbaugh asked who made the final decision in the compromise. Mayor Kniss said it was a joint decision between the two parties and the City. Having the hearing that evening would make the decision somewhat arbitrary. Mr. Fortenbaugh said he was satisfied with postponing the hearing. Mayor Kniss asked Ms. Grote whether the City could work with the appellant and the applicant to reach a compromise. Ms. Grote said the City could. If a compromise was reached, the appeal would be withdrawn. Mr. Calonne said Council should continue the item until next week. MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Fazzino, to continue the item to December 18, 2000. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application from Beth Bunnenberg and Pria Graves for the designation of the Sea Scout Base located at 2560 Embarcadero Road to the City of Palo Alto Historic Buildings Inventory as a significant building in Category 1 pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49, Sections 16.49.020 and 16.49.040. Item continued to a date uncertain at the request of staff. 12. Resolution of the City of Palo Alto Approving a Cable Television Franchise Between the City of Palo Alto and RCN Telecom Services, Inc. Item continued to a date uncertain at the request of staff. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 13. Architectural Review Board and Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation re Park Improvement Ordinance Approving and Adopting a Site improvement Plan for the Phased Renovation of Mitchell Park City Manager Frank Benest said the item was the first major infrastructure management project that involved public input in the design proposal. There were three phases that would occur over five 12/11/00 91-204
years. In the interest of time, staff would take questions but would not make a presentation. Council Member Mossar said part of Phase 1 was the renovation of the dog park. She asked whether staff was involving dog owners in the design of the facility. Deputy Director of Community Services Richard James said they were. Mayor Kniss asked whether the dog park would be closed while it was being renovated. Mr. James said part of the park would remain open. Mayor Kniss asked whether staff was looking at possible locations for an interim dog park. Mr. James confirmed that statement. Council Member Ojakian asked whether staff had examined making the recreation building multi-story. Mr. James said they had not. Staff could examine that possibility during the design phase for that facility in three or four years. Council Member Ojakian said it was important to maximize use of City property. MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Beecham, to adopt the Architectural Review Board and Parks and Recreation Commission recommendations to introduce for first reading the proposed Park Improvement Ordinance for Mitchell Park. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Mitchell Park” Vice Mayor Eakins commended staff and the members of the public for their work on the project. In its original format, she would not have voted for the project. The park was a treasure for Palo Alto. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 14. Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation re Downtown North Traffic Calming Project Council Member Beecham recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Council Member Fazzino recused himself due to a conflict of interest.
12/11/00 91-205
City Attorney Calonne said owning property that could be affected was the reason for Council Members Beecham and Fazzino recusing themselves. Mayor Kniss stated the staff recommendation was to hold the public hearing, hear all public testimony, and allow Council to ask any clarifying questions. Council would then continue the item to a later date in order to consider fully all the citizen views and options. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the purpose of the public hearing was to identify ways to reduce the impact of cut-through traffic on the neighborhood known as Downtown North. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) called for reducing traffic impacts on residential streets. There was a traffic problem in the area in question. There was cut-through traffic in the morning going from Middlefield Road to Alma Street averaging 60 percent of the traffic in the neighborhood. Staff proposed a series of street closings and traffic calming devices in order to reduce that traffic. There were 11 traffic calming devices proposed, 7 of which were street closures. The street closure aspect of the plan was the most controversial. He referred to the Comprehensive Plan, which stated that street closures were only justified if there were demonstrated safety or overwhelming cut-through traffic problems, and there were no acceptable alternatives, or if a closure would increase the use of alternative transportation modes. City Transportation Engineer Carl Stoffel said the problem in the Downtown North area was identified using several techniques. Staff collected data on traffic volumes, traffic speed, and volume of cut-through traffic in the area. There was a neighborhood survey to which 275 people, 16 percent of the neighborhood responded. There were two neighborhood meetings that a total of 70 people attended. Staff determined that cut-through traffic was the primary concern of the residents, but traffic volume and speed were also concerns. On Hawthorne and Everett Streets cut-through traffic was up to 60 percent of the traffic volume. Cut-through traffic was traffic in which whose origin or destination was not the neighborhood in question. Typical volume of cut-through traffic elsewhere was 15-20 percent. There were 27,000 daily car exits and entries to those areas. A typical neighborhood had 17,000 entries and exits. The 85th percentile of drivers sped at 33-35 mph. Typical speeds were 28-30 mph. Those speeds were only registered in some areas of the neighborhood in question. After gathering the data, a consultant designed four options for traffic calming. Staff asked for opinions from residents at neighborhood meetings and through mailings. From the responses, the consultant picked three of the options. Then the project advisory committee, consisting of neighborhood representatives and staff, deliberated to pick one of the options.
12/11/00 91-206
That option was called the Recommended Preferred Option (RPO), which was the only option presented to the neighborhood in a survey following the deliberation. Twenty-five percent of the neighborhood responded to the survey; sixty percent of those responding favored the RPO. There were other alternatives in the staff report, but the RPO was the only one that was fully analyzed and subjected to a neighborhood vote. The plan consisted of seven street closures, three gateways, and one bulb-out. Bulb-outs and gateways narrowed the street; two cars could still pass each other side-by-side. They were intended to show people that they were entering a new area in order to make them change their driving behavior. The RPO emphasized breaking up east-west traffic. The plan would reduce overall traffic by 22 percent, cut-through traffic by 60 percent, and speeds by 10-30 percent. The plan included improvements to Lytton Avenue in order to handle the extra capacity that would be diverted to that street. A dedicated southbound left turn lane with a left turn arrow would be installed on Alma Street to turn left onto Lytton Avenue. A right turn lane would be installed in the opposite direction on Alma Street. Bike lanes would remain, but the City would have to remove six to eight parking spaces to preserve the lanes. The other improved intersection would be at Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue. The green light for people heading west out of Lytton Avenue would have to be shortened to give more time for the other direction. Signal timing would be improved on Lytton Avenue. There was an alternate traffic circle plan with 14 traffic circles. That plan did not directly address cut-through traffic and was more expensive. The other alternative plan had fewer traffic circles. Mayor Kniss asked what a pan-basher was. Mr. Stoffel said a pan-basher was a 6-inch high concrete block that blocked low vehicles but allowed high vehicles to pass. Chief Transportation Official Joe Kott said traffic calming was the alteration of driving behavior. It involved front-end costs and savings over time compared to increased enforcement. It was different from education, advising drivers to slow down. Staff concurred with the Planning Commission recommendation, which was a strong proponent of an open-street system. Palo Alto’s legacy grid street system was important to preserve. Cut-through traffic was drastic enough to warrant a solution. The intersection improvements to Lytton Avenue should precede the rest of the project. The plan would reduce cut-through traffic, improve traffic safety, encourage cycling and walking, and improve quality of life in Downtown North by decreasing pollution and traffic noise. It preserved the distinction between arterial roads and residential streets. One downside of the plan was the traffic shift onto Lytton Avenue. There would be a small increase in emergency response time, but that response time would remain significantly below the minimum thresholds. Another drawback was that other neighborhoods might
12/11/00 91-207
want their own traffic calming solution, further degrading the open grid system of Palo Alto streets. The project would cost between $300,000 and $700,000 depending on the level of design. He questioned the effectiveness of turn restrictions. If there were no medians to prevent turns, the turn restrictions required police enforcement. Using medians inconvenienced everybody at all hours of the day instead of solely during the hours of cut-through traffic. A median might also block driveways. Other options were speed humps and speed tables. Acceptance of speed humps was difficult in some neighborhoods. The Fire Department disapproved of speed humps. Intersection improvements would reduce delay on the arterial roads, but would not affect traffic volumes in Downtown North significantly. Staff supported the RPO. Council Member Kleinberg asked Mr. Kott which method the Fire Department preferred. Mr. Kott said the Fire Department was concerned about street closures because it would be more difficult to reach certain addresses. Their concern with speed humps was that they would proliferate and slow down their response time. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the Fire Department expressed a preference for any of the options offered by staff. Mr. Stoffel said the Fire Department was on the Project Advisory Commission. They supported the street closure plan. Staff was working on a design that would allow fire vehicles to exit a closed block. Speed humps could surprise a driver and damage equipment, while street closures are well known and provided for in the response routes. They preferred having no speed humps in the plan. Planning Commission Chair Annette Bialson said the Planning Commission was frustrated with the plan. Their view was that the problem was multi-faceted and required a multi-faceted solution. The Lytton Avenue intersections were a separate problem. It was difficult to get onto Lytton Avenue from Middlefield Road or Alma Street. The Planning Commission wanted to improve the intersections on Lytton Avenue and see how traffic was affected before proceeding with other parts of the project. They were also concerned about the left turn traffic from Alma Street and Middlefield Road onto Everett Street and other streets. That problem would worsen as Stanford developed more of its housing and employment facilities. They did not like the plan and wanted to treat it as a trial solution. Council Member Lytle cited section Policy T-33 of the Comprehensive Plan that stated all neighborhood streets should remain open unless there was a demonstrated safety or overwhelming cut-through traffic problem. There also had to be no acceptable alternatives. She
12/11/00 91-208
clarified that all other alternatives in the staff report were unacceptable, and that was why staff proposed the RPO. Mr. Kott agreed with that statement. The solution had to be effective and acceptable to residents. Council Member Lytle wanted the public to speak to the acceptability of the other options. Council Member Kleinberg referred to page 5 of the staff report (CMR:440:00) that stated the Fire Department was not in favor of any plan that included street closures or speed humps. To do so would be contrary to its mission of providing emergency services as rapidly as possible. She asked Mr. Stoffel to clarify his statement that the Fire Department was in favor of street closures. Mr. Stoffel said the Police and Fire Departments did not want anything in the streets. They wanted the ability to do their job as quickly as possible. They understood that emergency situations only arose sporadically, while traffic and quality of life issues were constant. They tried to be as accommodating as possible while still completing their mission to provide emergency services. The Fire Department supported the RPO but would rather not have a plan. Council Member Kleinberg said if a speaker were to be accurate, he would repeat what was in the staff report (CMR:440:00) rather than try to interpret the Fire Department’s position. Council Member Burch said he spent a day with the Fire Department. The people that drove the trucks knew the town well and could quickly find the route to any home in the Downtown North area. With regard to speed humps, the ambulances had more trouble with those than the fire trucks. Dan Lorimer, President of the Downtown Neighborhood Association, 465 Hawthorne, said Marty Bean, the traffic consultant, said the situation in Downtown North was the worst case of cut-through traffic he had seen or read about in his career. He asked the Council to ask Mr. Bean detailed questions. The project had been under consideration in one form or another since 1979. In 1997 the Neighborhood Association brought 100 people before Council in order to get a traffic study of the area done. In 1998 20 steps were outlined for the project, 16 steps were completed, and the project was a year behind. The report stated that 60 percent of the traffic was cut-through and overlooked the fact that people driving into the neighborhood to park were not counted. It was estimated that the cut-through, counting people who drove into park, was 75 percent. The area was unique in that it had a major arterial road, Willow Road, which did not connect with another arterial road. Westbound traffic on Willow Road that wanted to continue west after Middlefield Road could not. The traffic could either go down
12/11/00 91-209
Middlefield and continue on Lytton Avenue or cut through the Downtown North neighborhood. By going through the neighborhood a driver could avoid a six-block diversion and six traffic lights. The solutions involving speed humps or traffic circles would not work because they would not slow down traffic enough to make the diversion to Lytton Avenue worthwhile. The wide streets encouraged speeding. Cars on Hawthorne Avenue sometimes drove in excess of 50 miles per hour. He had seen his own child almost get run over by a car. Many residents had seen pets killed by speeding cars. The stop signs were ineffective; people ran the stop signs. Early in the process, the Neighborhood Association did a survey of the neighborhood that revealed that 85 percent of the neighborhood felt there was a problem with traffic. As Mr. Stoffel mentioned, 60 percent of the residents were in favor of the RPO. Mr. Stoffel did not mention that only 23 percent of the residents disagreed with the option, 17 percent wanted a different alternative. The Lytton neighborhood study was important, although three previous Planning and Transportation Commissioners said street closures in Downtown North would not cause spillover traffic in the Lytton neighborhood. Some residents felt that speed humps were worse than no solution at all due to noise and aesthetic problems. He asked the Council not to accept any alternatives to the RPO. The plan was a trial, and its success could be assessed after it had been in effect for some time. David Basqucki, 381 Guinda Street, said he lived in the Lytton neighborhood, which had more cut-through traffic volume than any street in the Downtown North neighborhood besides Emerson Street. He believed 80-90 percent of the traffic in the Lytton neighborhood was cut-through. The Chaucer Bridge traffic was projected to grow 50 percent over the ensuing ten years. He disagreed that Downtown North was the only neighborhood with a cut-through traffic problem; the Lytton neighborhood was worse. He supported the Downtown North Traffic Calming Project as a precedent for traffic calming in Palo Alto. He asked for support for the traffic study in the Lytton neighborhood. Lee I. Lippert, 580 Hawthorne Avenue, said he had been a resident of Downtown North for 17 years. Hawthorne Avenue was used daily as a connection between Highway 101 and El Camino Real. Traffic calming was necessary. He supported the RPO. Any traffic calming solution should not create closed off communities. Street closures should not create confusing street patterns, non-automotive transportation should be encouraged, and passive traffic controls that managed traffic volume should be used. The RPO had redundant measures. The same reduction of traffic volume could be achieved with half as many street closures. The random layout of street closures created a maze difficult for traffic flow. Council should encourage the Planning and Transportation Commission to examine other options.
12/11/00 91-210
Ed Glazier, 255 Everett Street, said not all residents of Downtown North were in favor of the maze of street closures. The plan was unnecessarily drastic and expensive. The problem was not as serious as some of his neighbors believed. With the crowded conditions on Lytton and University Avenues, it was unrealistic not to expect spillover from those roads. The intersection improvements would have limited success because Lytton Avenue would remain a two-lane road. It was unrealistic to create a Traffic Calming Project that did not take into consideration the surrounding neighborhoods. He suggested a plan to add more stop signs and have additional enforcement of speed limits and stop signs. He was told that his plan would not work because drivers would increase speed between stop signs and the City was unwilling to provide additional enforcement of existing statutes. He encouraged a trial of those measures before resorting to a more drastic plan. The City had better ways to spend its money than on street closures. He endorsed a statement made by Palo Alto resident George Browning in the Palo Alto Daily News of December 11, 2000 that stated however much the residents of Palo Alto wished for traffic to disappear or diminish, it would not do so in the current economy. The City should look at all alternatives to solve its traffic problems. Tricia Dolkas, 412 Everett Street, said there had to be a trial traffic calming solution in Downtown North. Once that trial was finished, the City would have a better idea of how to proceed. Street closures were necessary in the area. More signs and police enforcement would not work. Jonathan Seder, 270 Fulton Street, said he lived in the Lytton neighborhood and supported the Downtown North Traffic Calming Plan. He had concerns. The intersection of Everett Street and Middlefield Road was dangerous. There had been 35 accidents at that intersection in the last five years. Something should be done to make that intersection safer. With regard to cut-through traffic, the Lytton neighborhood was much worse. On December 7, 2000 he and a neighbor logged license plates entering the neighborhood for a half hour. Between 60 and 80 percent of the traffic that entered the neighborhood was cut-through traffic. The RPO would exacerbate the situation by diverting cut-through traffic into the Lytton neighborhood. The problem was that the arterial roads did not have enough capacity. Dan Sills, 296 Waverly Street, said cars driving along Everett Street accelerated faster than usual. Danielle Henkes-Luntz, 328 Guinda Street, said she was a resident of the Lytton neighborhood for 15 years. She was concerned that the Lytton neighborhood had not been involved in creating the Downtown North Traffic Calming Plan. She asked the Council to do the Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Study and urged caution in adopting traffic
12/11/00 91-211
calming in Downtown North without studying what the effects would be on surrounding neighborhoods. Alan Luntz, 328 Guinda Street, said the problem with cut-through traffic in the Lytton neighborhood was as bad as the Downtown North neighborhood. He was pleased that the Planning and Transportation Commission understood that the Downtown North Traffic Calming Project would affect other neighborhoods. The intersection improvements meant to increase flow on Lytton Avenue would impede flow on Middlefield Road and Alma Street, causing more cut-through problems. The Council needed a traffic calming plan that took other neighborhoods into account. Greg Chesson, 115 Waverley Street, said the Downtown North Traffic Calming Project set a good precedent for traffic calming in the rest of the City. The worst thing the Council could do was to choose not to do anything about the Downtown North traffic problem. Street closures were the only effective traffic calming method for Downtown North. Sally-Ann Rudd, 204 Cowper Street, said Downtown North was a complicated neighborhood. Half of the residents rented housing, the area was intensely developed, and there was a children’s park. The highest speeds were measured a block away from the park. There was also a bicycle boulevard going through the neighborhood on Bryant Street. There were many parked cars in the neighborhood, making the situation more dangerous. The average speed on Hawthorne Avenue was 36 miles per hour, which was too high for a residential avenue. She wanted the neighborhood closed at the edges. Joe Baldwin, 280 Waverley Street, supported the RPO. Rob Wilen, 482 Fulton Street, said he lived in the Lytton neighborhood and two problems in the area were cut-through traffic and speeding. The speakers at the October 11, 2000 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting made it appear that speeding was the more significant of the two problems. The main goal of the current plan seemed to be to reduce traffic volume. The result of the plan would be to push traffic onto Lytton Avenue, which did not have enough capacity to handle the extra traffic. He advocated improving Lytton Avenue while addressing speeding problems in Downtown North. Ann Gila, 459 Hawthorne Avenue, said she was concerned with speeding near the playground. She supported the RPO. David Schrom, 465 Hawthorne Avenue, said he used to live in a neighborhood with problems similar to those in Downtown North. Mr. Bean was a successful traffic consultant, and the Council should highly regard his opinions.
12/11/00 91-212
Roger Craig, 101 Waverley Street, said people did not obey stop signs on Palo Alto Avenue. He supported the RPO. Katherine Abu-romia, 525 Hawthorne Avenue, supported the RPO. Speeding was a safety problem in the area. Tim Cherna, 419 Forest Avenue, opposed the RPO. There were some traffic problems in the Downtown North area. There were no stop signs at the intersections of Hawthorne Avenue and Tasso Street, Cowper Street, and Kipling Street. Diverting all cars onto the adjoining streets was not the solution. Improving Lytton Avenue would have better results. Bob Peterson, 335 Webster Street, opposed the street closures. They were ineffective and disruptive. The traffic was a consequence of the location of Palo Alto and could not be changed. Speeding was the most significant problem. Mayor Kniss noted that speaker cards would no longer be accepted. Recess: 9:30 p.m. to 9:42 p.m. Margaret Galloway, 401 Fulton Street, supported the Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Study. Speeding was a safety problem on Fulton Street, especially at the intersection of Fulton Street and Lytton Avenue. She supported the Downtown North Traffic Calming Project. She suggested doing a traffic study of the Lytton neighborhood before and after the Traffic Calming Project was put in place. Sherry Cook, 401 Fulton Street, agreed with previous speakers regarding cut-through traffic and speeding in the Lytton neighborhood. Katherine Pering, 388 Everett Avenue, supported the street closures, especially the closure at Everett Avenue and Waverley Street. That intersection was dangerous. Sophia Dhrymes, 483 Hawthorne Avenue, said she was concerned about the street closure on Cowper Street and Hawthorne Avenue. The exterior of the Downtown North neighborhood should be closed. The proposed traffic calming solution would cause loss of independence and property rights. There were better ways to spend Palo Alto’s money. Pat Markevitch, 231 Emerson Street, opposed the RPO. Traffic was a problem everywhere in the City. Putting up barriers would divert traffic, not solve the traffic problem. Fixing the intersections at Middlefield Road and Alma Street would not increase the capacity of Lytton Avenue significantly. Traffic would eventually be diverted to the south of Forest Avenue area. The money would be better used to fix the sewers and the schools.
12/11/00 91-213
Mary Lou Levan, 330 Everett Avenue, agreed with the statements of Ed Glazier, Rob Wilen, Tim Cherna, and Bob Peterson. She opposed the RPO. The money would be better spent on the sewer system. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Avenue, agreed with David Schrom. In the five years she had been leader of the College Terrace Neighborhoods Association. No resident asked to reopen the streets and no resident had complained about emergency response time. Street closures increased property values and community spirit. The closures did not block bicycle traffic. She supported the staff recommendation. Michael Griffin, 344 Poe Street, said cut-through traffic was a problem in Downtown North. He supported the RPO. The Downtown North Traffic Calming Project and the Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Study could proceed at the same time. Walter Sedriks, 325 Waverley Street, said the problems in the Downtown North neighborhood required street closures. In the future, Quarry Road would be four lanes, adding traffic. He urged Council to support the staff recommendations. Mark Nanovich, 228 Waverley Street, said the intersection improvements at Lytton Avenue and Middlefield Road would encourage traffic to turn onto Middlefield Road instead of proceeding into the Lytton neighborhood. The RPO would not affect any other neighborhoods. Emergency concerns were unfounded. The Fire Department was located in the Downtown North neighborhood and the Police Department was 3 blocks away. People in neighborhoods with traffic blocking devices did not want them removed. Irv Brenner, 250 Byron Street, said pedestrians and bicyclists were imperiled by cut-through traffic. Drivers were discourteous and disregarded stop signs. Everett Street was being considered for an east-west bicycle arterial route, which was a good reason for street closures. He felt in danger in the Downtown North neighborhood. He hoped the Lytton neighborhood would benefit from the Downtown North Traffic Calming Plan. Elaine Meyer, University South Neighborhoods Group, 609 Kingsley Avenue, commended the residents of Downtown North for their work on the traffic calming plan. She was concerned about cut-through traffic in her neighborhood. The Downtown North Traffic Calming Project was a trial, so it had very few risks. Virginia Laibl, 216 Webster Street, said seven street closures were excessive. The street closure near her house would detract from her quality of life. She accepted the congestion in the area as a consequence of her location near Downtown. She had not seen much
12/11/00 91-214
traffic on Everett Street; Hawthorne Avenue and Waverley Street both had traffic problems and should be addressed separately. Richard Geiger, 714 East Charleston Road, said the City should have a citywide traffic calming plan. It was not fair to spend money from the entire city to benefit one neighborhood. In South Palo Alto it was difficult to get the City to install signs. The plan would create private roads that would benefit only the people living on those roads. One possibility was creating an assessment district to pay for the improvements. Vice Mayor Eakins asked Mr. Geiger what signs the City did not install in South Palo Alto. Mr. Geiger said Charleston Road was becoming a truck route. He asked for a “no trucks” sign at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Charleston Road. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether Mr. Geiger was referring to the weight limit signs for trucks. Mr. Geiger said he was referring to the “no trucks” signs and the weight limit signs. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether he had asked primarily for signs relating to trucks. Mr. Geiger said yes. Vice Mayor Eakins asked Mr. Benest whether somebody would follow up with Mr. Geiger. City Manager Benest said the Transportation Division staff would follow up. Paul Price, 120 Fulton Street, said he lived in the Lytton neighborhood and asked the Council not to close streets. Geoff Ball, 315 Bryant Street, asked the Council to support the RPO. He asked that traffic be measured in Downtown North and the surrounding neighborhoods before and after the trial to measure effectiveness. Slowing down cut-through traffic was ineffective; the cut-through traffic had to be eliminated from the neighborhood. Scott Ward, 310 Waverley Street, asked the Council to reject the staff recommendation. The plan was in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan because it was ineffective and neighborhood specific. He cautioned against temporary installation. He felt property could be devalued. Many neighborhoods had tried to get barriers removed. With regard to the danger to children, negotiating the traffic was a positive experience for his son.
12/11/00 91-215
Council Member Lytle asked whether Mr. Ward knew of any neighborhoods where barriers had been removed. Mr. Ward said he did not know of any. Mayor Kniss announced that the public testimony was closed. The item would return in January 2001. The Council should put their questions into writing and give them to the City Manager. BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL the public testimony was closed and the item continued to a date uncertain. 15. Policy and Services Committee re Streamlining Council Procedures and Facilitating Policy Dialogue MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to continue Item No. 15 to a date uncertain, and that Item No. 18 would be moved forward ahead of Item No.17 to become Item No. 16A. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Beecham, Fazzino absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 16. Resolution Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated City Officers and Employees as Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission and Repealing Resolution 7818 MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Beecham, to adopt the resolution. Resolution 8020 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated City Officers and Employees as Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission and Repealing Resolution 7818” MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 16A. (Old Item No. 18) Vice Mayor Eakins and Council Members Burch, Kleinberg, and Ojakian re Emergency Mobile Home Rent Stabilization for Buena Vista Mobile Home Park Vice Mayor Eakins referred to the colleagues memo which said the residents of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park would face 25 percent rent increases effective January 1, 2001. Buena Vista was the only mobile home park in Palo Alto. It was an affordable housing option for some Palo Alto residents. Some of the residents of the Park
12/11/00 91-216
were at risk of losing their housing. The increase could be a prelude to an effort to close the Park. The owners were required by state law to provide relocation assistance if they closed the Park. The rent increase could deprive some residents of their right to relocation assistance by forcing them to move out before the Park closed. She suggested a short-term rent freeze to give the City time to study the problem. Mayor Kniss said there were 23 speaker cards and not enough time to hear all of the speakers. She asked the City Manager to explain possible solutions to the problem. City Manager Benest said there were two major issues on the agenda: residential permit parking and a report on the Terman school. Mayor Kniss asked whether residential permit parking could be done in January. Mr. Benest said the issue was noticed and should not be changed. The park issue could be addressed as a third major issue for the December 18, 2000, meeting, at a meeting in January 2001 or in a special meeting. Mayor Kniss suggested that the Council meet at 6:30 p.m. instead of 7:00 p.m. on December 18, 2000. She asked the City Attorney whether it was possible to have Oral Communications later in the meeting. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said it was possible. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Beecham, to hear public testimony until 11:00 p.m. and then to adjourn the meeting to 6:00 p.m. on Monday, December 18, 2000. Council Member Burch suggested extending the testimony until 11:15 p.m. so more people could speak. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Ojakian “no.” Council Member Kleinberg suggested allowing people with handicaps and people that could not attend the following week to speak first that evening. Veneita Gale, 3980 El Camino Real #15, lived in the Park for 43 years and said it would be difficult to find a new place to live. She did not have enough money to pay the rent increase. Pam Davis, 3980 El Camino #88, said her neighbors included retired nuns, teachers, gardeners, disabled people, and children. There were people with ages ranging from newborn to late 90 year olds. Twenty percent were single income residents the rest were families. Forty percent of the residents were on fixed incomes, retirement or
12/11/00 91-217
disability payments that averaged less than $15,000 per year. The residents got a cost of living increase of 3 percent each year. They were facing a 23 percent increase in rent. In 1997 very low income for a family of four was defined as $35,000. The average household income in the Park was $40,000. Since moving to the Park six years prior, she had faced six rent increases totaling $130, a 23% increase. Each November she was notified of a rent increase attributed to increased maintenance costs of the Park. In the prior six years the only improvements to the Park were repaving the streets and an upgrade to the water system. The office was open 40 hours a week, and was currently open part time. There was no longer a night and weekend manager. The notification for the past November stated the rent increase was due to a 50 percent increase in property taxes that year. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said factual evidence about the conditions in the Park and the problems the residents were facing was useful for the Council to hear. Nancy Hopkins, 3980 El Camino Real #12, said the notification of rent increase stated property taxes increased 50 percent. The County Assessor stated that the tax bill for the Park in 2000 was approximately $48,000. The anticipated tax bill for 2001 was approximately $50,000. This amounted to a 4 percent increase. A survey by the California Mobile Home Resource and Action Association showed that a mobile home rent increase of $100 lowered the Park’s value by $10,000. There were three mobile homes in the park that had been for sale for three months prior. The homes were costly to move. Many of the homes in the Park were too old for admittance to other mobile home parks. Over 100 California cities currently had rent control ordinances for mobile home parks. She urged Council to approve rent control for Buena Vista. Pierre Tronik, 3980 El Camino Real #82, stated many of the current residents of the Park could not live with a $700 per month rent. Ann Greaves, 3980 El Camino Real #112, said when she moved into the Park ten years prior, her rent was $325 per month. After the current increase it would be $625. Under the previous owner the spaces cost $185 per month including utilities. Currently her utilities cost over $100 per month. The residents were not renting a place to live; they were renting a piece of asphalt on which to put a home. The mobile home park in San Jose would not accept their homes because they were too small. No other mobile home park within 100 miles would accept the homes. Dave Ross, 2712 Cowper Street, said the emergency ordinance process was being misused. The Jisser family were responsible landlords. Affordable housing was an important issue for Council, but using an ordinance that would affect one property owner was not acceptable.
12/11/00 91-218
Nancy Powell, 399 Sherman Avenue, said she was an attorney representing the Jisser family. The Jissers were caring, concerned landlords. The Jisser's had made several improvements over the prior years. They installed new pipes, pavement, and electrical wiring. They would not have made those improvements if they planned to close the Park. There had been at least a dozen new applications accepted for residence in the park. There was a waiting list to buy trailers in the Park, so there was no threat to the economic well being of the residents due to the rent increase. Council Member Kleinberg asked Ms. Powell whether any of the residents were told that if they sold their homes to a prospective buyer that buyer would not be extended a lease. Ms. Powell said new leases were signed within the past few days. Council Member Beecham asked whether the notification of rent increase had stated that the increase was due to a 50 percent increase in property taxes. Ms. Powell said the notification stated the increase was due to increased expenses. There was a 50 percent real estate tax increase expected. In discussions with the County Assessor’s office she understood that negotiations would result in a supplemental tax bill that would increase property taxes by 50 percent. The current tax rolls would not reflect that tax increase. Steve Blanton, Silicon Valley Association of Realtors, 345 S. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, said his organization was philosophically opposed to rent control. The Park was a special case. He asked that any ordinance put into effect have a firm end date. His organization supported a process that would allow the tenants and the owners to work the problem out by themselves, possibly using arbitration. Joe Jisser, 6179 McAbee Road, San Jose, said the park would not close. In 1999 one of the investors in the park wanted to divest himself of the investment. They settled an MIA appraisal with a fair market value price with rents of $700-$750 per space, not including utilities. The rents were below-market-rate. His property taxes were rising from $60,000 to $120,000 per year. The financing of the Park would raise costs by $5,000 per month. He would do what he could to keep needy people in the park. Ken Jisser, 1195 Nikulina Court, San Jose, said he did not want to see anything happen to people in the Park. He felt the emergency ordinance was the wrong solution to the problem. Vice Mayor Eakins said it would be useful for the City to have future conversations with the landlords.
12/11/00 91-219
Mr. Ken Jisser said he would be available. Mr. Calonne said if the Council decided to take action the following week, he would need time to prepare legal documents. He requested that Council give him direction to prepare a pro forma document. He was not asking for a final policy decision, but wanted some guidelines, so he would have time to prepare the documents. Mayor Kniss said with speakers remaining she was unable to give any guidelines. Vice Mayor Eakins said the meeting the following week was the last one before the holidays. It was 15 days until the rent increase went into effect. Some of the legal documents should be prepared ahead of time, should Council decide to enact an ordinance. She clarified that Mr. Calonne wanted to have some direction from Council to prepare some documents ahead of time. Mr. Calonne agreed with that statement. Vice Mayor Eakins said she wanted to give Mr. Calonne some direction. Council Member Mossar said she was uncomfortable with giving any direction. The Council had not heard enough public testimony. Mayor Kniss agreed. Council Member Ojakian asked whether Mr. Calonne would be available during a discussion between the City and the landlords. Mr. Calonne said he would. Council Member Kleinberg said the Council was not going to institute rent control before the tenants and landlord had an opportunity to negotiate. It was important to move quickly to resolve some of the more difficult cases in which tenants could not afford any rent increase. Council Member Beecham asked Mr. Calonne whether he would be able to prepare the necessary legal documents in time the following week if Council gave him no direction that night. Mr. Calonne said it would not be possible for Council to take rent control action the following Monday if he was not given direction that evening. Council Member Beecham encouraged Mr. Calonne to prepare for the following Monday, since not doing so would preclude certain policy decisions.
12/11/00 91-220
Mr. Calonne said he was unable to prepare without Council direction. Council Member Burch asked whether it was possible for the Jissers to extend the effective date of the rent increase to allow time for negotiation. Mayor Kniss said it was unfair to put the Jissers on the spot. She said Vice Mayor Eakins would be in touch with the Jissers and Mr. Calonne with Ms. Powell. Council Member Kleinberg opposed directing Mr. Calonne to develop a rent control ordinance that evening. It was appropriate to ask Mr. Calonne to research extending state law relating to the situation. Mayor Kniss asked Mr. Calonne whether it was possible for Council to direct him to do that research. Mr. Calonne said he would not be comfortable doing the research over the following weeks without Council direction. MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg, seconded by Eakins that we ask the City Attorney to research the language that would be appropriate to allow the City to extend the protection of State law to City mobile home park residents in relation to relocation assistance by December 18, 2000. Vice Mayor Eakins said it was not necessary to hear public testimony to investigate extending to Palo Alto the protection the state already provided. Council Member Beecham said the action that needed to be taken that evening was to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance that would allow Council to enact rent control by January 1, 2001. The motion did not accomplish that; it did not address the correct issue. Council Member Lytle said she did not support the motion because it was too late at night and the Council did not have time to deliberate. Council Member Burch said he was concerned that the Council would return the following week and would not be able to act because it made no decision that night. Council Member Kleinberg said human lives were at stake in this situation. It was important to preserve affordable housing. The Council should move quickly. She would support having an additional meeting that could be removed if unnecessary.
12/11/00 91-221
Mayor Kniss clarified the information Council was directing Mr. Calonne to gather under the motion would be useful in the future, even if it were not used for the Park issue. Mr. Calonne said under state law relocation assistance was required as mitigation for closing a mobile home park, in order to discourage economic actions that would force people to leave the park. A City ordinance extending that protection to Palo Alto would be appropriate. Though since Buena Vista was the only mobile home park in Palo Alto, the ordinance would only affect one landowner. He could accommodate an additional meeting as Council Member Kleinberg suggested. He could not draft an ordinance on short notice; he needed approximately eight hours. Council Member Ojakian said a special meeting was a good idea. Public testimony had to be heard and he did not want to make a decision that night. Mayor Kniss agreed with Council Member Ojakian. MOTION FAILED 4-3, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg “yes”, Fazzino, Mossar absent. 17. Council Members Beecham, Eakins, and Mossar re Council Direction to Staff on the Procedure for Filling the Council Vacancy Which Will be Created When Mayor Kniss Joins the County Board of Supervisors Council Member Beecham said the item referred to the process for choosing a new Council Member once Mayor Kniss left. Under that plan, applications would be accepted Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, January 9, 10, 11, 2001. Those dates could be difficult for some people. Council Member Lytle asked what a normal filing date was for candidates. She wanted to maximize the time for candidate filing. City Clerk Donna Rogers said the nomination period for an election was normally 26 calendar days. If the resignation was heard January 8, 2001, the nomination period could begin January 9, 2001 and end February 5, 2001. Council Member Lytle asked whether there would be enough time to make an appointment before the charter deadline. City Clerk Donna Rogers said yes. The charter required the appointment be made within 60 days from the time of the vacancy. Council Member Lytle asked why a normal filing time was not used, since there was enough time.
12/11/00 91-222
Council Member Beecham said in the past, the applications were accepted over three days. He would be surprised if somebody would apply that had not already heard there was a vacancy. He was not concerned about leaving a long period of time for applications. Council Member Lytle said many people wanted to meet with her to better understand what being a Council Member entailed. She had not had time to meet those people because it was a busy time of year. She felt the current Council was under greater scrutiny than those in the past. A long filing period would allow more people in the community to be included. MOTION: Council Member Lytle, seconded by Kleinberg, to adopt the procedure in the Council Candidate packet with the exception of adjusting the candidate filing period for 26 days. Council Member Ojakian said he was comfortable with the current proposal. Since the election in November, people knew there would be a vacancy. He felt an extended filing period would not increase the number of people applying. He liked the fact that the new Council Member would be active quickly. Council Member Burch supported the current form of the proposal. Council Member Beecham said the three days scheduled for filing could be difficult if an applicant were unavoidably out of town. He asked by what process people out of town could apply on those dates. Mr. Calonne said he would investigate the problem. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether Council Member Lytle knew people that had difficulty with meeting the deadlines under this proposal. Council Member Lytle said she did. Some people felt that the Council was trying to exclude certain people from applying. Council Member Kleinberg said she had not heard that sentiment expressed. Her concern was that it was difficult to apply due to busy holiday schedules. Council Member Beecham said if they made the appointment at the first meeting in February, the new member would miss only one meeting, but the filing time would be extended by two to three weeks. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Beecham, seconded by Ojakian, to direct the City Clerk to revise the schedule to extend the appointment date from January 22 to February 12, 2000.
12/11/00 91-223
MOTION PASSED 6-0, Kniss “not participating,” Fazzino, Mossar absent. 19. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 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.
12/11/00 91-224