The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-04-09 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting April 9, 2001 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment to approve, after review and recommendation of the Architectural Review Board, minor façade improvements to property located at 2685 Middlefield Road................531 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................548 1. Amendment No. 1 to the Revised and Restated Landfill Gas Lease and Operating Agreement for Conversion Systems Between Palo Alto and Landfill Gas Corporation and the City of Palo Alto................................................549 2. Policy and Services Committee recommends that the City Council adopt the first part of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program for local and collector streets, or ‘spot treatments’, and approve in concept the second part of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, or ‘area studies’, to be referred to the Finance Committee for a discussion of funding.....................................................549 3. Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to adopt Attachment 1 of CMR:149:01, a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) supported by the three exhibits: 2000-2001 Adjusted Budget – Midyear Amendments and Capital Improvement Program Status Report (Exhibit A); a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project funding request to propose upgrade to existing traffic signals to increase safety and reliability (Exhibit B); and a CIP project funding request to repair and replace certain components of the City’s existing storm drainage system (Exhibit C).................................549 4. Ordinance 4688 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to accept a $12,139 Grant from the California Arts Council and a $6,000 Grant from the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation and to provide an additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $18,139................550 04/09/01 91-529 5. Annual Public Review of Compliance of Development Agreement with Stanford University for the Sand Hill Corridor Projects....................................................550 6. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Reorganization Chapter 2.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code [Council Organization and Procedure] to establish new City Council Procedures”....550 7. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to File an Application for 2001-02 Transportation Development Act Funds for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects...............550 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to the Road Development Agreement Modifying a Portion of Special Condition Area B on the Stanford University Campus that would Allow for Future Development of Faculty, Staff or Student Housing Consistent with the Recently-Approved Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit.................................551 9A. Open session item and a litigation closed session item regarding significant exposure to litigation arising out of the City’s interest in the Sale Interchange & Transmission Contract No. 14-06-200-2948A between the Western Area Power Administration and Pacific Gas & Electric...................552 9B. Conference with City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litigation..................................................553 9C. (Old Item No. 11) Mayor Eakins re the Cancellation of the April 16, 2001, Regular City Council Meeting................553 9D. (Old Item No. 12) Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements...............................................553 10. Mayor Eakins and Council Members Mossar, Beecham, and Wheeler re Referral to Planning and Transportation Commission of Retail Conversions Issue......................554 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. to a Closed Session per government code section 54956.9 (a), (b)(1), (b)(3)......................................................555 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. in memory of Horace Anderson, a long-term resident who was active in the YWCA and Palo Alto Unified School District; and John Skelton, former AYSO Coach, active in Boy Scouts............556 04/09/01 91-530 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Ojakian, that Item No. 9 be discussed as the first item of the agenda. MOTION PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will consider an appeal of the decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment to approve, after review and recommendation of the Architectural Review Board, minor façade improvements to property located at 2685 Middlefield Road, to include one new pedestrian entry door at the front of the building, two new service entry doors at the rear of the building, roof top mechanical equipment, and a refaced non-illuminated roof sign Mayor Eakins announced the item was a quasi-judicial hearing and Council Members needed to disclose site visits, discussions, or other contacts that occurred prior to the meeting. Action by the Council required making findings as evidenced in written reports or information heard at the current meeting. Chief Planning Officer Lisa Grote stated that the agenda item was an appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to locate a personal service, a dry cleaning facility, in a neighborhood commercial zone. Dry cleaning facilities were permitted uses in neighborhood/commercial zones when three basic criteria were met. The first criterion was that the dry cleaning was to be done on the premises. The second criterion was that all requirements from Title 17, the Hazards Material section of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMF), were met. The third criterion was that all Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) standards and regulations were met. When the Planning Division made the determination that the particular use was allowed in a neighborhood commercial zone in the Midtown Shopping District, staff worked closely with the Hazard Materials Specialist from the Fire Department and the staff of the BAAQMD to make the determination. The appeal focused on the Architectural Review aspects of the application which were exterior modifications to the existing building, including a new pedestrian door at the front of the building, two new points of access at the rear of 04/09/01 91-531 the building, additional roof top equipment, and a resurfacing of an existing rooftop sign. When the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the application, it had concerns based on neighborhood comment. The ARB recommended conditions of approval over and above those that would be typically attached for an application that dealt with the refinement of the rooftop screening, refinement of the location of the trash and recycling enclosures, and further information on potential noise. Planning staff met with the appellants and applicants the afternoon prior to the meeting to further review refinements to the plan based on issues raised at the ARB hearing and issues related to vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation on-site. Planning staff recommended the appeal be denied and the Director’s decision and ARB application be approved. Fire Hazardous Materials Specialist Gordon Simpkinson said the community raised questions about how the City would oversee hazardous materials operations on an ongoing basis. During building construction, the Fire Department would inspect to make sure the equipment and hazardous materials were stored and brought on-site in accordance with the listings and conditions of approval in the Fire Department’s Plan Review. Once the requirements were met and the Hazardous Materials Business Plan required under State law and Title 17 of the PAMC accepted, the business upon completion of building occupancy would begin operation and remain under continued oversight by the Fire Department and the Santa Clara County Health Department. The applicant would be required to maintain permits from both the Fire Department and Santa Clara County Health Department for ongoing operations. Council Member Fazzino asked what environmental issues the Council could legitimately address at the current meeting. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said any of the issues on the record were fair game. The Council and staff were not equipped to answer some of the harder human health chemistry issues but could rely upon regulatory agencies that were charged with those functions. Council Member Fazzino asked about the basis of a decision. Mr. Calonne said in the ARB staff report staff outlined the key findings that focused on design issues. Suggesting the ordinance was built around resolving those types of complex compatibility issues would be misleading. The City’s process allowed the issues to be reviewed by staff. The staff recommendation was to focus on the design and site compatibility issues that were within the technical expertise of the Planning staff. That did 04/09/01 91-532 not mean the Council was foreclosed from getting into other issues. Council Members Mossar disclosed attending a forum in Midtown hosted by the Midtown Association. Council Members Beecham, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Burch, and Ojakian disclosed meeting with owners on-site, by telephone, meeting with number of residents in the area, and exchanging e-mail. Mayor Eakins disclosed attending the forum in Midtown, receiving e-mails, meeting with the owners, and visiting the area. Mr. Calonne said the nature of the Council’s disclosures did not suggest there was significant information that influenced anyone worth disclosing. Council Member Mossar said she would rely heavily on the staff of BAAMQD regarding its recommendations and views of issues relating to the proposed dry cleaning process. Mr. Calonne Council Member Kleinberg said a few e-mails had to do with air quality and solvents to be used by the owner, and that was professional government information she would take into account. Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing open. Joanna Santer, 732 Rosewood Drive, appellant, requested the Council deny approval of the project. The vast majority of residents opposed the dry cleaning plant. At a February 17, 2001, resident’s meeting, 80 people attended, and 77 people signed a petition opposing the plant. Recently, a resident collected 300 additional signatures for a petition opposing the plant. The City staff and applicant talked about how the dry cleaners used a better process. The reality was a new hazard was being introduced into the area. The agenda of the BAAQMD was to encourage dry cleaners to switch from Percholoroethylene (PERC) to the new chemical despite the fact it contributed to smog and global warming. The project was looked at as a model for Palo Alto. The residents of Midtown rejected the notion because it introduced a hazard into the neighborhood. The neighbors suggested the BAAQMD concentrate on switching existing dry cleaners. Other dry cleaners were located on California Avenue, El Camino Real, and Downtown. She questioned whether they were in CN zones less than 25 feet from residences. Children’s activities and the organic garden were within yards of the proposed dry cleaning plant. One other Midtown plant was 04/09/01 91-533 currently in operation, which was considered a contaminated site because it used PERC. Midtown currently had three drop-off sites, and the residents could potentially face the fact that there were three plants within one block. The use of DF-2000 was not new. Those types of hydrocarbons were used many times in the past, and the switch to PERC was due to chemicals that exploded. The passage of time proved that PERC was a dangerous material and was a suspected carcinogen. Enormous liability was associated with the cleaner. Some property owners refused to agree to new PERC plants. Oil companies were eager for a new market and suggested the refined solvents again be used. The hydrocarbons were volatile, organic compounds and toxic. Dry cleaners using the chemicals were subject to the same regulations as PERC but were under the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The BAAQMD’s counterparts in Southern California did not encourage hydrocarbon use and strictly regulated small dry cleaners, requiring maintenance and manifesting conditions. The City and the Federal Register regarded DF-2000 as hazardous. A bill in Congress, 978, would soon become law which gave dry cleaners using wet cleaning and carbon dioxide 20 to 40 percent tax credits to move them away from PERC. The EPA, in its June 1998 assessment of cleaner technology substitutes, advocated wet cleaning over hydrocarbon and PERC. The chemical was not benign, and the applicant consistently maintained the process was environmentally benign. Spotting compounds used on-site in at least four cases were extremely hazardous and listed as hazardous materials. The applicant was asked to provide a list of all hazardous materials to be stored on-site together with a brief description of the manner or use of storage for each by the Fire Department. The list had not yet been given to the Fire Department. The EPA indicated a major hazard associated with harder carbon solvents was their flammability. The National Fire Protection Association considered any dry cleaner having over 60 gallons of the substance a high hazard area. The greatest risk of fire and explosion came from the use of petroleum based solvent, and ignition could be triggered by a burning or smoldering cigarette, heated equipment, a frictional spark inside the solvent reclaimer cage, or static electricity. Extreme care needed to be taken to protect stored material from direct storm light. Hydrogen cyanide could be manufactured at the site because of the large number of textiles present in dry cleaning shops. Babaki Kahrobaie, owner of Holiday Cleaners, distributed a letter sent to the City from the Steering Committee made up of residents in the area who were concerned about the neighborhood and shopping center. The letter addressed the neighbors’ concern about the business being neighborhood-serving. The business was 04/09/01 91-534 small and family run. The letter also addressed concern about the solvents to be used. After the Planning Department approved the permit, it was suggested that the applicant hold a meeting, invite the neighbors, and answer questions, which was done. Engineering Division and Fire Department approved the project. The neighbors appealed the decision of the Planning Department. The matter went to the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and questions regarding solvents were answered by the experts. The neighbors then appealed the decision of the ARB. From January through May, he spent $50,000 on rent and bank payments, with no income from the business. The Planning Department and the BAAQMD did not require permits for the solution used and the Steering Committee did not take a position in the matter. Wei Wang, 3054 Price Court, said when interests of certain groups were involved, the Council was willing to take extra steps. An example was the Winter Lodge Ice Skating and Tennis group. Innocent people were forced to live with Winter Lodge code violations while interests of other groups were protected. An industrial plant should not be allowed to move close to the neighbors. David Houston, 265 Moffett Boulevard, Mountain View, opposed the dry cleaners being located in Midtown because a dry cleaning plant did not belong in a suburban area such as Midtown. He was concerned about the toxic effects that using the chemical DF-2000 posed to local citizens and the Community Garden. Barbara Dawson, 2365 Emerson Street, said on Monday, March 26, 2001, Bill Moyers presented a reality check for the chemical industry in the United States. Activists knew for years that chemicals had more rights than people, and Mr. Moyers’ exposé created visibility on a topic that was previously clouded for 80 percent of the American public. Regarding the Midtown cleaning plant project, Mr. Moyers’ insights should to be heeded. Hydrocarbons were toxic, flammable, and suspected neurotoxins. The labeling of DF-2000 as new and safer was naively insufficient. The EPA did not receive scientific tests from Exxon on the carcinogenic properties of DF-2000. Exxon cited loopholes in the law as a reason for non-submission. On the issue of fluoridation where a substance more toxic than lead was added to the water, CalPerg recommended the precautionary principle, that is, unless legitimate science could be produced that showed that DF-2000 or other chemical to be harmless to people and the environment, it should not be utilized except in highly controlled situations. The House of Representatives in Washington D.C. considered a bipartisan bill through which tax credits of 20 to 40 percent would be allowed for cleaning establishments which used the wet or carbon dioxide cleaning 04/09/01 91-535 process. She urged the Council to deny a permit for any cleaning plant that used chemicals other than those that were scientifically proven safe. Dave Mampel, 2721 Midtown Court, #110, opposed the use of chemicals at the plant. His window was approximately 50 yards from the plant. There were too many hazardous and toxic chemicals in the environment. Neighbors should have been made aware several months prior of the use of chemicals and potential risks. He urged the Council to deny the permit. Theresa C. Bognar, 719 Moreno Avenue, lived approximately 250 feet from the proposed industrial plant and would be directly in the path of the toxic emissions that would be spewed out by the cleaning establishment. The residents were attempting to persuade the Council not to allow poisons to be introduced into the air, ground, and family neighborhood. She asked that the Council not subject the neighbors to the pollution and health hazard. Floura Nayeki, 727 Moreno Avenue, opposed the plant because of the use of chemicals. Glenna Letsinger, 815 Rorke Way, supported the cleaners. All public agencies that were entrusted with the residents’ safety approved the project. She hoped the Council approved the cleaners. Steve Koehler, 2721 Midtown Court, #110, said the owners ran a nice business, but that was not the issue. Information was presented that the chemical was hazardous, but no refutation was heard. If the cleaner went in and chemicals were found to be harmful, he questioned what people would say. Natalie Fisher, 736 Ellsworth Place was concerned about the extreme flammability of the chemical. Occupational Safety and Health Administration recommended fire sprinklers and firewalls when using DF-2000. The staff should be asked why there were no fire sprinklers or firewalls when the chemical was known to be flammable. The site for the plant was in the middle of a small, congested shopping center within yards of homes. The owners of Gates Cleaners, who would operate the plant, did not have experience with DF-2000. Protections recommended by OSHA should be required. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said staff determined the project was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); however, the categories listed in CEQA were necessary conditions and not sufficient. The entire situation 04/09/01 91-536 needed to be looked at to determine whether something was categorically exempt. The Council recently passed an urgency ordinance for what uses were allowed while the Council wrote new regulations for the Midtown area. Requiring the vacated area and the sublet area created to be limited to retail or service use as part of the mitigated negative declaration was appropriate. Using the overhead projector, he noted that the site moved from Parcel 2 to Parcel 62, with both parcels using Parcel 1 for parking. The buildings encroached on the parcel, and the same property owner owned all three parcels. Looking at the project as a single project was appropriate. The applicant would use part of the Larry Welles space and subletting the rest made the approval appropriate to the condition requiring that the space being vacated and the space to be sublet be limited to a personal service or retail uses. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, lived near the old Shell Station, the Arco Station, Matadero Canal, and A.J. Cleaners, which all had pollution. He was concerned about the incremental addition of more pollution. Children frequent the Midtown shopping center and traffic was notorious. Additional problems were not necessary. The ideal solution was to move the plant to a different location that was not child sensitive and where residents were not located nearby. Lori Shapiro, 703 Coastland Drive, attended the Architectural Review Board (ARB) appeal meeting. She was amazed to hear the ARB minimized the concessions they wanted to make. Such as lights, screening, and noise. OSHA safety implementations such as the firewalls, sprinkler systems, special trash bins for solvent filter collectors went unrecognized and ignored. The project should be denied based on safety issues that Gate Cleaners did not submit. OSHA considered DF-2000 as an industrial use. The proposed plant was not in an appropriate land use site. The Midtown Shopping Center was a highly sensitive area and not an industrial site. Reduction of property values because of a plant situated within half a mile of homes was a concern. The residents had to disclose the site when homes were sold, which would lessen the value of their property. Ed Deeney, 634 Colorado Avenue, was concerned about the towers proposed for the top of the plant which would create an industrial-type noise. He questioned the plant’s hours of operation. Shahnaz Reihani, 887 Warren Way, said Mr. Kahrobaie claimed the chemical was odorless, but odorless did not mean harmless. Industrial sites were inappropriate near residential. 04/09/01 91-537 Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, said the application was not complete when it went to the ARB. The ARB added conditions that were important for the neighborhood. She would have filed an appeal based on the missing components such as dealing with parking, lighting, and signage. She asked that staff reconsider how the project looked in the CN District. David Bergen, 886 Bruce Drive, supported the Gate Cleaners application. The Gate Cleaners provided a service that neighbors needed. The Midtown Residents Association did not oppose the project. Hundreds of people in the area supported the project and signed a petition in favor. Cathleen Plutchok, 2697 Marshall Drive, said the residents wanted a quality and safe place to live. Seven cleaners were located in approximately a two and one half mile radius. Another on-site cleaner was not necessary. The residents wanted the Council to protect them. A variety of quality, family businesses were desired. Bardya Kahrobaie, 344 Torino #2, noticed many accusations took place against his parents and brother. His family members were honest people. Some of the concerns raised by residents were warranted, and steps were taken to address those concerns. His family would like the privilege of continuing to work in Palo Alto. Pamela Webster, 2599 Louis Road, endorsed statements of those who spoke against the project. She wanted the Council to be sure that it did not preside over the disintegration of Midtown as a neighborhood shopping center and its movement into a newly designed commercial and industrial center. Bruce Grimes, 749 Moreno Avenue, said he received notice of a meeting in February two days prior to the meeting. He did not receive any direct communication or read any newspaper articles about the chemical that would be used at the cleaners. The residents did not want to run the family out of business. The issues were whether a plant should be located in the Midtown Shopping Center and why anyone would use a chemical that was controversial. The Council should let the applicant have his business in the Midtown Shopping Center, but the dry cleaning in an industrial operation should be located elsewhere. Mark Lawrence, 446 Marion Avenue, said much concern was raised about keeping Midtown neighborhood commercial viable. A department store and other businesses had failed in the Midtown Shopping Center. A grave injustice was being done to the applicant. The owner of the cleaners would have 100 gallons of 04/09/01 91-538 flammable hydrocarbons in the plant. There was as much flammable material in three houses’ driveways. The ARCO station down the street from the proposed business had much more flammable chemicals, and people did not petition to close it down. Evaluating chemical hazards was not at issue for the City. He wanted businesses in his neighborhood that he could walk to. A cleaners that trucked its cleaning elsewhere generated vehicle trips, and more traffic and smog. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said he worked in a dry cleaning plant when he was young. The dry cleaning plant was on the edge of town in an industrial zone. People who worked there did not get sick. The Council should consider whether the use was compatible for the neighborhood and whether the design was adequate. Hannah Zare, 1948 Middlefield Road, supported the Gate Cleaners because it was a family-owned business and conducive to the community. The owner paid special attention to all the requirements and adhered to various issues that were brought up. Ms. Santer said the Council could fundamentally reject the proposal because of its basic incompatibility with the site because of the use, parking, drainage, and fire safety. The ARB guidelines allowed the Council to consider environmental factors including noise, emission of smoke, fumes, odor, and fire safety. The ARCO was a problem but not within a matter of yards from children’s facilities. The applicant filled out some paperwork that gave misleading or false information, including whether or not the project would generate hazardous materials. The parking and circulation issue was not sufficiently addressed. Drainage was also a problem because it ran toward the organic garden and her property. Another consideration was reduction of property values. Mr. Kahrobaie said speakers used terms such as “highly sensitive area,” “industrial chemical plant,” “value of houses” which were not fair comments. The business was a dry cleaners, not an industrial chemical plant. He questioned why speakers called the area highly sensitive. The dry cleaner business would not affect property values. Many people spoke who had lived in the area for many years but did not say anything about the prior plant that was located next to the 7-11 Store. People encouraged him to use wet cleaning, but wet cleaning was not feasible for certain garments. Vice Mayor Ojakian clarified that Mr. Kahrobaie had an existing business in the Midtown Shopping Center. 04/09/01 91-539 Mr. Kahrobaie said that was correct. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked how the clothes were currently cleaned. Mr. Kahrobaie said the clothes were cleaned off-site. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked what chemical or technique was used to clean the clothes. Mr. Kahrobaie said the clothes were sent to a plant in Redwood City and PERC was used to clean the clothes. Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Wheeler asked what requirements the Fire Department had for the applicant. Mr. Simpkinson said at the ARB level, the Fire Department typically asked for a description of use that would allow the Fire Department to classify the occupancy in order to determine what types of major impacts might occur during the building permit process. The information requested by the Fire Department at the ARB hearing was what type of operation would take place and what type of chemicals would be used on-site. Following some confusion in filling out the forms, correct information was provided. Detailed information was required of the applicant in order to obtain Fire Department approval for building permit. The applicant had to demonstrate that he had a machine that was compatible and third party listed for use with the solvent in question. A complete review was conducted for compliance with Title 17, the requirements for secondary containment and proper handling and storage of hazardous materials, as well as compliance with the California Fire Code (CFC) for mitigation of any of the hazards associated with the combustibility of the solvents. Council Member Wheeler asked what type of things the applicant might have to do different than neighboring businesses such as Victoria Emmons Catering or the ice cream store. Mr. Simpkinson said the applicant tailored his business to the extent possible to match with the minimal requirements of Article 36 of the CFC. Comments were made by speakers about OSHA standards for fire safety. OSHA regulated fire safety only with respect to workers safety. The article in the CFC that dealt with dry cleaning plants was tailored after a National Fire Protection Association’s standard that was written toward industrial type uses, such as multiple plants with hundreds, if not thousands, of gallons of solvent. The fire protection 04/09/01 91-540 requirements for extra firewalls and extra fire protection such as sprinkler systems were triggered under the CFC at the point where quantities that created an industrial environment were exceeded. The CFC treats businesses with less than 300 gallons the same way as it would a PERC plant because the safety measures required to be built into the machine effectively mitigated the combustibility as well as health hazards. In terms of off-site consequences through emissions, those were reviewed by BAAQMD. Council Member Wheeler said there were other dry cleaning establishments in the City that had PERC based equipment on- site. One business was in her neighborhood for a number of years. She asked about the Fire Department’s experience with the existing established businesses in terms of enforcement. Mr. Simpkinson said seven dry cleaners had active permits. Some of the owners were cooperative and environmentally conscious, and others needed more education and encouragement to comply with regulations. The businesses were checked annually by the Fire Department. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the fire suppression portion of the Fire Department had experience with dry cleaning fires. Mr. Simpkinson was not familiar with any fire incidents relating to dry cleaning plants. Council Member Burch noted that reference was made in documents presented to the Council about combustible material. He read that “combustible liquid can form a combustible mixture at temperatures at or above the flash point.” The flash point was listed as 147 degrees Fahrenheit. Mr. Simpkinson said that was correct. A source of heat had to elevate the temperature of the material to 147 degrees before an ignition source could cause the material to burn. Council Member Burch asked whether that was considered a high or low flash point. Mr. Simpkinson said it was considered an in between flash point. The fire codes and National Fire Protection Association drew a line at 100 degrees Fahrenheit, which was the demarcation between what was considered a flammable material, i.e. a material that was likely under normal conditions to be ready to ignite. Combustible liquids were materials above the 100 degrees Fahrenheit flash point where a significant source of heat would 04/09/01 91-541 be necessary prior to the ignition source being able to ignite the material. Council Member Burch understood the Fire Department kept a list of all hazardous materials stocked in any businesses in Palo Alto. Mr. Simpkinson said that was essentially correct, but there was no system that was 100 percent accurate. Materials present at dry cleaners were well known. Businesses with hazardous materials were required to post a placard at the entrance of the facility. Council Member Burch asked whether dry cleaners had to post the notification about hazardous materials. Mr. Simpkinson said that was correct. Council Member Burch asked whether there were other businesses with hazardous materials close to residential areas that the City was not aware of. Mr. Simpkinson said there were a considerable number of residential locations with hazardous materials such as propane tanks. Council Member Burch asked whether chemicals used in photo development processing considered hazardous. Mr. Simpkinson said that was correct. The typical one-hour photo businesses would not have the quantity sufficient to trigger the requirements such as filling out the longest of the registration forms and placarding the facilities. The businesses were required to notify the Fire Department of the presence of such materials, and the Fire Department kept records. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether PERC facilities or plants were allowable under City law. Mr. Simpkinson said that was correct. Businesses had to comply with BAAQMD regulations to be allowable. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether sprinklers were required in the building. Mr. Simpkinson said sprinklers were not required due to the size, that is, the business did not exceed the 300-gallon threshold and did not meet the definition of an industrial occupancy under the Building Code. 04/09/01 91-542 Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether Mr. Simpkinson thought the subject dry cleaners was a safe operation. Mr. Simpkinson said it was a safe operation. The Fire Department reviewed fire safety within the scope of its authority. The PAMC had more stringent standards than the State Fire Code in terms of when additional fire protection measures were required. Council Member Lytle asked what specific safety storage precautions would be required for the facility at the quantity they stored materials. Mr. Simpkinson said no additional requirements above the baseline established by Title 17. The Hazardous Materials Storage ordinance required that any hazardous liquid had to be contained in such a manner that if the primary containment vessel failed, the material would not be released to the environment but would be released into a containment system. The CFC required that the machine be listed and approved for the use. The process ensured that a third party, such as Underwriters Laboratory, would take the equipment and destructively test it to ensure the equipment was designed in such a way that normal use would not result in a hazardous condition. BAAQMD’s regulations for the machines were that they be a closed process, that is, the material was reclaimed to the extent practical prior to removing clothes from it. Council Member Lytle asked whether there were any additional safety measures that could be taken. Mr. Simpkinson said rather than a large, single container, several smaller containers could be required within a flammable liquid storage cabinet. Sprinklers could be provided although they were not required under law. The Fire Department could only enforce the legal requirements spelled out in the PAMC. Council Member Kleinberg asked about the agitation of the materials during an earthquake. Materials from EXXON indicated that agitation was to be avoided in order to prevent hazards. She asked whether the Fire Department or ARB took into consideration the tolerance for containment of the materials during an earthquake and to what level earthquake would the materials be safe. Mr. Simpkinson said that was a more complicated issue than he was prepared to answer. The requirement for the equipment, that is, the machine in which the materials ultimately used, was that it be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines 04/09/01 91-543 and that it be anchored in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code. Mayor Eakins asked about the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption not being appropriate because of parcel infringements. Lisa Grote said staff determined the project was categorically exempt under Category 3 of CEQA because the facility was small and there were specific exemptions for small facilities. Staff had noise information on the mechanical equipment and would require, as a result of the ARB recommended conditions, additional verification on the noise potentials from the mechanical equipment. Staff determined the project would be exempt from CEQA given the special consideration for noise. City Attorney Calonne said special circumstances were identified that could take a project out of a categorical exemptions. The Planning staff said not only did the categorical exemption apply, but none of the special circumstances warranting taking a project out of the exemption applied either. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Beecham, to deny the appeal and uphold the Director's approval of the Architectural Review Board application 00-ARB-158 (CMR:192:01). Council Member Mossar acknowledged there was a great deal of concern about the facility but, on balance, important principles needed to be addressed. The proposed business met all the existing zoning requirements and met the category of retail and personal services. The business was highly compatible with a whole body of new, urban planning ideas which permitted smart growth, pedestrian and transit-oriented development. Dry cleaners were often found in lists of progressive planning documents as services to be located close to residences in order for the residents to walk to the cleaners. Dry cleaning was a toxic process. The business was not an industrial plant but was a typical neighborhood, Palo Alto dry cleaning facility. Many of the other dry cleaning businesses were collocated with the residents and all those that did dry cleaning on-site used PERC which was a known toxic. The evidence that home prices were effected negatively by the presence of a dry cleaner was not borne by facts. City staff did their due diligence to make sure the air and water quality laws and fire regulations were met. Staff relied on the experts and did not ignore concerns about toxicity. Allowing the business to proceed was important. Council Member Beecham said the safety issues were taken care of. The appellant pointed out that DF-2000 was in the same class 04/09/01 91-544 as gasoline, but as people filled up the tanks of their cars, they were not concerned if some of the gas spilled, children were in cars while filling the tanks, and people parked cars in attached garages. The risk was minimal and not thought about too much. The use of DF-2000 at the proposed location was no more harmful than having the ARCO station down the street. There was no reason to uphold the appeal. Council Member Wheeler said people valued services that were in their neighborhood. She lived close to the Charleston Shopping Center where a dry cleaners existed for many years and was similarly situated to the Midtown “plant” in that it was next door to a coffee shop, restaurant, and market and closer to dwelling units. The Gate Cleaners would make a good neighbor. The neighbors’ concerns would be ameliorated by the operation that actually went into the space. Council Member Burch supported the motion and was persuaded by the fact there were at least five neighboring business members who wrote in support of the project. The proposed facility moved to something new and more environmentally sound, which he hoped would encourage other cleaners in the City to use the more environmentally sound cleaning method. Council Member Lytle agreed that the Council did not look at whether or not the use was compatible in the location. The staff did a good job explaining the facility was a permitted use. The Council did not have the ability to disapprove the dry cleaners in the proposed location. Neighbors were concerned that the use was not safe, and they were not confident that everything was done to make it safe. The Council had the ability to add additional safety factors. Concerns were expressed about the dissatisfaction about the retail mix in the Midtown Shopping Center and the noise that could be generated from the dry cleaners. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved to add a condition to step up the safety of the staging area for this facility for some type of extra earthquake security measures or sprinklers in order to ensure the storage of the chemicals on-site were safe beyond Fire Code requirements. Council Member Mossar would not accept the amendment because there were other such plants in the area. The Council must be fair and equitable, and it was wrong to require something extraordinary and different for one business owner when others were not confined by the same requirements. 04/09/01 91-545 Council Member Fazzino stated that he would support Council Member Lytle’s concerns in a motion after voting on the main motion as a request to staff to address this issue for everyone not only one particular business. Council Member Kleinberg said the Council was asked to confine its thinking and analysis to a narrow number of questions because the larger questions of toxicity, safety, and hazard were difficult. Local neighborhood-serving businesses were supported in the neighborhood centers. The staff and ARB followed the laws as they currently existed. Too many unresolved questions existed, such as noise, roof screening, and compatibility with the neighborhood. She was not satisfied that the Council met the fundamental requirement it had as a government of ensuring public safety. Materials provided to the Council were a concern that indicated that “inhalation or ingestion can, in the extreme, cause severe injury or death,” that the liquid was volatile and undetectable by odor, and that agitation should be controlled to prevent hazards from happening. The Council was willing to tolerate some risks in the community in the name of convenience. She did not have enough information to make an affirmative vote on the item. Vice Mayor Ojakian supported the motion for reasons stated by Council Member Mossar. Council Member Fazzino said he had no choice but to support the staff on the issue. He shared some of Council Member Kleinberg’s concerns but, based on information before the Council, applying anything but current laws to the applicant was unfair. The proposal before the Council met all applicable zoning laws. Legitimate concerns were raised about chemicals but information from staff and the Fire Department were relied upon. Issues of noise and impact of cooling towers and mechanical units were of concern and needed to be discussed further in the future. Mayor Eakins concurred that the ARB did a fine job handling their portion of the appeal. Much of the material raised at the current meeting was duplicative of the ARB meeting. The expertise from the agencies involved and from staff was appreciated. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Kleinberg “no.” Council Member Lytle said the ARB conditions allowed the Council to require additional safety requirements on the storage of chemicals on the property. Due to the concern in the neighborhood, the proximity of residential, and it being in an 04/09/01 91-546 earthquake zone, she wanted to require additional safety precautions. MOTION: Council Member Lytle moved to require additional safety precautions for the proposed facility. Council Member Fazzino supported a more general direction to staff to look at alternatives to address materials that were prone to agitation from earthquakes. He did not want to come up with a remedy exclusively for the applicant but wanted to look at alternatives that, in time, could be applied citywide. Council Member Mossar relied on the hazardous materials expert who told the Council what should be done with toxic chemicals. THERE WAS NO SECOND TO THE MOTION. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved to ask staff to look at additional protections for substances such as DF-2000 and gassing materials that were prone to excessive agitation and potential problems during earthquakes and come back to Council with a report. THERE WAS NO SECOND TO THE MOTION. Council Member Fazzino suggested talking to Council Member Lytle and the Fire Department and return something to the Council at a later time. Mr. Simpkinson said the State Buildings Standards Commission would adopt a new State Fire Code within the year which would mean within that time frame, local amendments to the State Fire Code would be looked at. Mayor Eakins announced there was a request from staff to add two items to the agenda related to the PG&E and Utilities matters that would become agenda Item Nos. 9A and 9B. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said a motion was necessary with two requirements. The Council would conclude there was a need to take immediate action, and the need for that action came after the agenda was posted. A two-thirds vote was required. MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian, seconded by Council Member Mossar, to add two items to the agenda based upon the need to take immediate action on matters that arose after the agenda was posted: an open session and a litigation closed session regarding significant exposure to litigation arising out of the City’s interest in the Sale Interchange & Transmission Contract 04/09/01 91-547 No. 14-06-200-2948A between the Western Area Power Administration and Pacific Gas & Electric. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Lytle absent. RECESS: 10:00 P.M. TO 10:10 P.M. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Avra Winograd-Hutner, 746 Espiandela Way, Stanford, spoke regarding Palo Alto and Gunn High School HUGG. Adam Riff, 858 Northampton Drive, spoke regarding Palo Alto and Gunn High School HUGG. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding Ralph M. Brown Act public testimony rights. Jim Dinkey, 3380 Cork Oak Way, spoke regarding co-generation. Dorothy Bender, 591 Military Way, spoke regarding Palo Alto Square Landmark Theaters. Alex Edelstein, 355 Santa Rita Avenue, spoke regarding CityThink. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding minor Architectural Review Board staff approvals and losing housing stock in residential areas to use permits. CONSENT CALENDAR City Attorney Ariel Calonne mentioned the Council received an errata sheet for Item No. 6 that picked up two errors noted by the City Clerk and City Manager. Kerry Yarkin, 135 Churchill Street, referred to Agenda Item No. 2 and said street calming was needed on her street and hoped it could be put on a fast track. In November 2000, she read a petition to the Council signed by 17 families on her street relating to traffic calming. Since that time, no action was taken. The street was not ranked, no community meeting was held, and there were large amounts of traffic feeding into Alma Street and El Camino Real. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, referred to Agenda Item No. 6 with regard to changing Council procedures to move a main item ahead on the agenda. He had not noticed a particular change in the public over the prior years in terms of amount of time or number 04/09/01 91-548 of speakers. Oral Communications should remain at the beginning of the agenda prior to the main action item on the agenda. Council Member Mossar would not participate in Item No. 5 due to a conflict of interest because her husband was employed by Stanford University. Council Member Kleinberg would not participate in Item No. 5 due to a potential conflict of interest because of her husband’s involvement in Stanford law matters. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 7. 1. Amendment No. 1 to the Revised and Restated Landfill Gas Lease and Operating Agreement for Conversion Systems Between Palo Alto and Landfill Gas Corporation and the City of Palo Alto 2. Policy and Services Committee recommends that the City Council adopt the first part of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program for local and collector streets, or ‘spot treatments’, and approve in concept the second part of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, or ‘area studies’, to be referred to the Finance Committee for a discussion of funding and further, that a) urban design aesthetics be addressed through use of qualified landscape architect to either design or review the design of each traffic calming measure; b) if this professional is to review rather than create the design, her or his involvement should take place as early as practicable in the design process; c) that traffic law enforcement, traffic safety education, and traffic engineering measures all be considered essential components of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program; and d) consideration be given by the Finance Committee to augmenting the resources available for area-wide traffic calming initiatives. 3. Finance Committee recommends to the City Council to adopt Attachment 1 of CMR:149:01, a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) supported by the three exhibits: 2000-2001 Adjusted Budget – Midyear Amendments and Capital Improvement Program Status Report (Exhibit A); a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project funding request to propose upgrade to existing traffic signals to increase safety and reliability (Exhibit B); and a CIP project funding request to repair and replace certain components of the City’s existing storm drainage system (Exhibit C). 04/09/01 91-549 Ordinance 4687 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Adjust Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures in Accordance with the Recommendations in the Midyear Report" 4. Ordinance 4688 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to accept a $12,139 Grant from the California Arts Council and a $6,000 Grant from the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation and to provide an additional Appropriation for the Community Services Department of $18,139" 5. Annual Public Review of Compliance of Development Agreement with Stanford University for the Sand Hill Corridor Projects 6. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Reorganization Chapter 2.04 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code [Council Organization and Procedure] to establish new City Council Procedures” Resolution 8046 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Procedural Rules Governing the Conduct of Council Meetings" 7. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to File an Application for 2001-02 Transportation Development Act Funds for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Resolution 8045 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Filing of a Claim with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Allocation of Transportation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 2001-2002" MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Items Nos. 1-4, 6 and 7. MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item No. 5, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating.” Council Member Burch preferred to listen to Oral Communications at the beginning of the meeting. Council Member Fazzino valued the importance of the Oral Communications but felt if a major item came before the Council, an Oral Communication speaker did not have more of a right to speak at 7:10 p.m. than a speaker who came to address an issue on the agenda. The system being adopted was an excellent streamlining approach. 04/09/01 91-550 Council Member Burch said a limit of 30 minutes could be set for Oral Communications. The major item invariably lasted two hours or more. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to the Road Development Agreement Modifying a Portion of Special Condition Area B on the Stanford University Campus that would Allow for Future Development of Faculty, Staff or Student Housing Consistent with the Recently-Approved Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit (continued from 4/02/01) Council Member Mossar would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because her husband was employed by Stanford University. Council Member Kleinberg stated she would not participate in the item due to a potential conflict of interest because of her husband’s involvement in Stanford law matters. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf noted that an addendum was provided to the Council prior to the meeting which included a map that was refined to reflect the proposed land trade. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the staff and Planning and Transportation Commission recommendations to: (1) consider the addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sand Hill Road Corridor Projects, certified by the City Council on June 30, 1997; and (2) adopt an ordinance approving the proposed amendment to the Sand Hill Road Development Agreement including amendment to the Road Development Agreement modifying a portion of Special Condition Area B on the Stanford University Campus that would allow for future development of faculty, staff or student housing consistent with the recently approved Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the First Amendment to the Development Agreement Between the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University and the City of Palo Alto Dated August 14,1997” First Amendment to Development Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University 04/09/01 91-551 Council Member Lytle would vote against the motion because the Council had a vague description of the agreement. Stanford should be asked to describe their property agreements with the City more precisely as they had in the past. MOTION PASSED 6-1, Lytle “no,” Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating.” 9A. Open session item and a litigation closed session item regarding significant exposure to litigation arising out of the City’s interest in the Sale Interchange & Transmission Contract No. 14-06-200-2948A between the Western Area Power Administration and Pacific Gas & Electric. Utilities Director John Ulrich said PG&E’s bankruptcy filing and the filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on March 27, 2001 were not unexpected. An emergency meeting of the Council was held to form a Strategic Oversight Committee which worked with staff to look at alternative ways and means of getting electric energy into the City in case the FERC filing and/or bankruptcy resulted in energy that was detrimental or of a much higher cost. The City was prepared to confidently deal with the resulting uncertainty. Legal representation was retained to help Palo Alto deal with the uncertainty of PG&E’s FERC filing and bankruptcy proceedings. Numerous discussions were held in the media and at meetings about the possibility of the worst-case scenario and the potential impacts to Palo Alto. The City worked with energy suppliers and was being prepared to enter into a long-term contract. The City worked with other municipal utilities in Northern California to coordinate and leverage efforts to mitigate the cost increases. In the cost impact area with the bankruptcy filing, PG&E would attempt to obtain protection from its creditors and back out of existing supply and transmission contracts with other utility suppliers. The FERC filing, if settled completely in favor of PG&E, would allow PG&E to charge market rates for energy it sold to the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) where the City’s contract currently existed for the majority of power received. Wholesale costs to Palo Alto would increase from approximately two cents to twenty cents as of the current date. Staff believed it had a strong case to protect its rights and was willing and able to go to great lengths to maintain the benefits of the WAPA contract. Staff would actively pursue all available remedies in bankruptcy court and through FERC. Rates would increase in Palo Alto in light of recent changes in the energy market resulting from PG&E’s bankruptcy filing, but staff was uncertain of the financial impacts at the current time. The existing inverted rate structure combined with the proposed rate increase would 04/09/01 91-552 send the appropriate price signals that energy costs drastically increased and customers had to pay more. Implementing the actions would take a tremendous effort, and the Utilities Department was beginning to implement the initiatives in partnership with other City departments, WAPA customers, and other Municipal utilities. Staff would keep the Council, public, Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC), and others informed of the progress. No action required. 9B. Conference with City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) arising out of the City’s interest in the Sale Interchange and Transmission Contract No. 14-06-200-2948A between the Western Area Power Administration and Pacific Gas and Electric. (Gov. Code section 54956.9 (a), (b)(1), (b)(3).) (Item to be heard at end of meeting) COUNCIL MATTERS BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL Item Nos. 11 and 12 would be moved forward ahead of Item No. 10, to become Item Nos. 9C and 9D. 9C. (Old Item No. 11) Mayor Eakins re the Cancellation of the April 16, 2001, Regular City Council Meeting MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Beecham, to cancel the April 16, 2001, Regular City Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 9D. (Old Item No. 12) Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Vice Mayor Ojakian asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Horace Anderson and John Skelton. Council Member Kleinberg noted that John Skelton devoted a great deal of time to children’s causes and made contributions to non- profit organizations. Council Member Lytle noted concern about the loss of the Palo Alto Square Landmark Theatre at Palo Alto Square. 04/09/01 91-553 Council Member Fazzino noted that many years prior, much effort was made to convince the owners to keep the theatre. He suggested the Mayor and City Manager try to find a way to preserve the theatre. Mayor Eakins stated that Economic Resources Planning Manager Susan Arpan was trying to reach the owners of Palo Alto Square Theatre. Council Member Kleinberg stated she received some inquiries regarding the dedication of Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) park site and suggested that staff prepare a resolution of intention to dedicate the park site. City Attorney Calonne stated a majority of Council could request staff look into the issue. MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg, seconded by Burch, to agendize a resolution of intention to dedicate parkland at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation/South of Forest Area (PAMF/SOFA) park site on April 23, 2001. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Mayor Eakins stated the State of California Environmental Protection Agency sent a letter of commendation to the City for innovative waste reduction programs. 10. Mayor Eakins and Council Members Mossar, Beecham, and Wheeler re Referral to Planning and Transportation Commission of Retail Conversions Issue Council Member Mossar withdrew her name from the colleague memo for Item No. 10 due to a conflict of interest because her husband was employed by Stanford University. Council Member Kleinberg stated she would not participate in the item due to a potential conflict of interest because of her husband’s involvement in Stanford law matters. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Burch, to direct the Planning and Transportation Commission to consider a draft ordinance to be prepared by staff, make recommendations, and return the ordinance to Council for action. Further, to refer to staff the consideration of a revision to the Comprehensive Plan to clarify the intent to preserve existing retail services along El Camino Real Corridor (this would prohibit the conversion of retail services to offices). 04/09/01 91-554 Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, hoped the direction to the Planning and Transportation Commission was broad enough that it could be flexible. The motion only referred to retail. Personal uses might be considered the same way. There were areas in the City with vacant lots that were key lots and would make a big difference in how areas were developed. Limiting to changes in existing uses might not be enough. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, asked that the Council not forget the neighborhood commercial zones and ground floor retail in areas other than the Midtown Shopping Center and Charleston Center. Consideration needed to be given to new buildings and new development. Council Member Beecham said there were two major questions that needed to be addressed at the Planning and Transportation Commission: (1) what is the definition of retail services; and (2) what is office in terms of the ordinance. The existing ordinance listed the definition of retail service as the sale of goods. Council Member Lytle said if there were a holding pattern, it would be nice to not forge new policy territory on it but let the Council rely on its existing office and retail definitions to put things in place until the Council had an opportunity to look at the broader issues in the zoning ordinance update. Mr. Gawf said all the comments he heard at the current meeting would be forwarded to the Planning and Transportation Commission. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating.” ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. to a Closed Session per government code section 54956.9 (a), (b)(1), (b)(3). The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Labor Negotiations as described in Agenda Item No. 9B. Mayor Eakins announced that reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 9B as follows: the Council, by a unanimous vote, authorized the City Attorney to participate in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Bankruptcy proceedings concerning Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Council also authorized a contract with outside legal counsel on these matters not to exceed $100,000. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. in memory of Horace Anderson, a long-term resident who was active in the 04/09/01 91-555 YWCA and Palo Alto Unified School District; and John Skelton, former AYSO Coach, active in Boy Scouts. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 04/09/01 91-556