Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-10 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting September 10, 2001 1. Four-Party Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to resolve the Third Middle School Challenge. The MOU includes five inter-related transactions: The 1) City/PAUSD land swap; 2) Jewish Community Center (JCC) interim facilities; 3) PAUSD agreement with the JCC to provide relocation and other assistance to JCC (including Lease Termination and Mutual Release Agreement between City of Palo Alto and JCC); 4) City-Stanford agreement regarding the Mayfield site; and 5) JCC sub-lease with the City ...... 389 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ....................................................... 411 APPROVAL OF MINUTES ....................................................... 412 2. Ordinance 4712 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 10, Chapter 10.64, Section 10.64.250 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in Order to Reduce the Penalties for Violations of Regulations on Bicycles, Roller Skates, Skateboards and Coasters” ............................................ 412 3. Ordinance 4713 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 22.08.330 to Formally Rename the Dedicated Parkland Called the 'Arastra Property' as the 'Arastradero Preserve'” ............................. 413 4. Ordinance 4715 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) (to Provide Section 21362.2 (3 percent at 50 Full Formula) for Local Fire Members)” ...... 413 5. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting New Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining to Dark Fiber Licensing Services ........ 413 6. Resolution 8080 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Acknowledging the City Manager Authority to Execute the Gas Industry Standards Board Base Contract for Short-Term Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas with British Petroleum Energy Company” ............................................................. 413 09/10/01 92-387 7. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Foothills Park” ................................................... 413 8. Recommendation to Support the Implementation of San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority’s Levee Restoration Project ............. 413 9. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Asplundh Tree Expert Company in an Amount Not To Exceed $250,000 for Fiscal Year 2001-02 Tree Maintenance Project ..................................... 413 10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 30061, Title 3, Division 3, relating to the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund to consider the Police Chief’s request for funding frontline law enforcement law enforcement programs, and per the requirements of the United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs for Local Law Enforcement Block Grants. .......... 414 11. Conference with City Attorney — Pending Litigation ................... 414 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. .......................... 414 09/10/01 92-388 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (teleconferencing from Washington, D.C.), Lytle, Ojakian, Wheeler ABSENT: Beecham, Kleinberg, Mossar (all three – due to conflict of interest of Item No. 1) REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 1. Four-Party Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to resolve the Third Middle School Challenge. The MOU includes five inter- related transactions: The 1) City/PAUSD land swap; 2) Jewish Community Center (JCC) interim facilities; 3) PAUSD agreement with the JCC to provide relocation and other assistance to JCC (including Lease Termination and Mutual Release Agreement between City of Palo Alto and JCC); 4) City-Stanford agreement regarding the Mayfield site; and 5) JCC sub-lease with the City. City Manager Frank Benest said the four-party Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) involved the City of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), the Jewish Community Center (JCC), and Stanford University. The Council was asked to approve the conceptual agreement between the four parties in order to resolve the related problems of providing the Terman site for the third middle school and preserving the community center located at Terman operated by the JCC. If the City approved the MOU, staff would proceed with environmental review and public hearings before the Planning & Transportation Commission and City Council regarding the Mayfield Development Agreement and the ground lease related to the Mayfield site. The MOU provided a comprehensive framework. The Council was not being asked to approve the development agreement or the ground lease. On October 4, 1999, the PAUSD notified the City of the need for a third middle school. On February 11, 2000, the PAUSD pinpointed Terman as the best site for the third middle school. On March 8, 2000, a public meeting conducted by the Council was held to consider guiding principles for middle school planning. On May 30, 2000, a public meeting was conducted jointly by the Council and the PAUSD regarding the third middle school and related community center challenges. On September 11 and 12, 2000, two public meetings were conducted by the Council to consider options and recommendations for providing Terman as the third middle school and preserving the Community Services facility, avoiding interruptions of JCC services and preserving 09/10/01 92-389 the JCC as a community asset in Palo Alto. On October 5, 2000, Stanford offered the Mayfield site for the community center and a long-term location for the JCC. On December 18, 2000, a public meeting was conducted by the Council to provide direction for the City Manager to resolve the middle school/community center challenge. On January 29, 2001, a public meeting was conducted jointly by the Council and PAUSD to consider the Terman/Cubberley land swap. At that meeting, the two bodies approved in concept the property exchange. Since that time, negotiations were guided by the Council’s Ad Hoc Committee on the middle school. The negotiations with the other parties were guided by certain Council goals that remained consistent from the beginning: (1) facilitate the transfer of the Terman site from the City to the PAUSD for the middle school; (2) maintain the community center and its services for Palo Alto; (3) keep the JCC whole and maintain it as a key provider of health and human services for Palo Alto and the region; (4) promote the joint use of both Terman and Cubberley. The comprehensive solution to the middle school challenge was complex because the MOU involved four institutions that had different jurisdictions and primary responsibilities. The comprehensive solution involved five separate, but interrelated, transactions. The first transaction was the City/PAUSD eight-acre land swap which included (1) the PAUSD securing a building and parking lot at Terman; (2) the City securing a building and parking lot at Cubberley (3) joint use by the City and PAUSD at both Terman and Cubberley; and (4) the PAUSD being provided certainty to reclaim part of Cubberley for a small compact high school prior to lease expiration. The second transaction was the interim facilities for the JCC. The JCC was asked to vacate the Terman site in order for PAUSE to begin renovation of the site to serve as a middle school. The City would provide interim space for the JCC at Cubberley for non-childcare programs; PAUSD would provide interim space at Greendell for childcare and other children’s programs operated by the JCC; and there would be no interruption of JCC services. The third transaction involved the PAUSD Agreement with the JCC to provide relocation and other assistance to the JCC. The Agreement was approved by the PAUSD and JCC. The PAUSD would pay to relocate the JCC to interim and permanent sites. The PAUSD would pay a negotiated amount to JCC to cover a variety of issues including payment for depreciated improvements. The PAUSD would set up the JCC at Greendell, and the JCC would continue to use certain facilities at Terman until facilities such as the gym and pool were needed by the PAUSD. The City and the JCC would agree to wine down the Terman lease. The Council was asked to approve the mutual release and settlement agreement attached to the MOU. The fourth transaction 09/10/01 92-390 was the Agreement between the City and Stanford which was based on the Comprehensive Plan policy which recommended a transfer of development rights program and other measures that provided greater development flexibility within the Stanford Research Park without creating significant adverse traffic impacts or increasing the allowable floor area. The Development Agreement provided the following: (a) Stanford provide the Mayfield site to the City for $1/year for 51 years to be used for community center purposes; (b) City grant Stanford vested rights to build 100,000-130,000 square feet of added development in the Stanford Research Park within the City’s existing Urban Growth Boundary; (c) Development of the Research would not exceed permitted FAR; (d) FAR allowed on individual sites in “South Research Park Area” could be increased up to 25 percent but total development in area could not exceed present FAR; (e) Stanford planned to use 30,000 square feet of its Mayfield entitlement at the corner of Hanover and California. The redevelopment of the existing building will not exceed the existing allowed FAR for the site; (f) Stanford would pay an additional $150,000 toward traffic calming projects benefiting College Terrace in connection with redevelopment of the Hanover site; (g) Stanford was encouraged to locate up to 100,000 square feet of new development on the Hillview site if it built at least 240 units of housing on the Hillview site (or elsewhere in the Research Park) at the same time, including 15 percent BMR units. The fifth transaction was the JCC Sub-Lease with the City. The sub-lease included: (a) JCC would raise all necessary funds to design and construct a new community center; (b) JCC would pay all development and pre-development costs; (c) the total square footage of the community center would not exceed 130,000 square feet; (d) facilities including gyms, pool, program use, fitness areas, child care, pre-school and school rooms, and office space for JCC and other existing nonprofit tenants; (e) uses at the current JCC might be relocated to the permanent JCC at Mayfield; (f) JCC would operate and maintain the community center; (g) City would receive dedicated (or “first call”) space for gym, classroom, dance studio/fitness area and storage space, as well as rights to shared use of additional space in the community center; (h) City and JCC would establish a Joint Programming Committee that would meet regularly to oversee cooperative programming; (i) City and JCC would share revenues from joint programming; (j) JCC would fund scholarships for memberships and programs for lower-income participants including Palo Alto residents; and (k) JCC would pay $100,000 in lease payments to the City plus three- quarters of CPI per year. Once the MOU was approved, the City would complete environmental review including traffic related issues. The Planning and Transportation Commission and Council 09/10/01 92-391 would hold public hearings to consider the Mayfield Development Agreement and the ground lease. The Planning and Transportation Commission and Council would consider planning and zoning approvals for the community center. The Council and PAUSD needed to approve a formal property exchange agreement. The four-party MOU responded to a variety of Comprehensive Plan policies that were identified in the staff report (CMR:344:01) and met the goals set by the Council. Staff recommended approval of the MOU and the lease termination and mutual settlement agreement with the JCC. John Hennessey, President of Stanford University, said in October 2000, at a press conference in the Council Chambers, he announced Stanford’s offer to make the Mayfield site available to the City for a community center. The Mayor, members of the Council, the City Manager, the President of the PAUSD, and leaders of the JCC were present at that time. Everyone realized that much hard work was needed to take advantage of the opportunity offered by the Mayfield site. The Mayfield site was one component of the complex problem and provided new momentum toward a solution. A successful transition and resolution required complex negotiations and a dedicated collaboration of four parties. The organizations had to work within a number of constraints and do their work in a timely fashion. The dedication and good will of all the participants led to a solution. The Council had the results of the extraordinary collaboration. Stanford’s original offer was based on a suggestion by the former Mayor and City Manager that Stanford find a way to accept the transfer of development rights. The development agreement and ground lease implemented the offer made by Stanford in October 2000. The Agreement permitted the City to gain immediate use of the Mayfield site for $1 per year. Stanford would vest certain development rights in the Stanford Research Park, but using the development rights in the near future was unlikely. The Mayfield offer was not proposed by Stanford as a business deal. Stanford chose to help resolve the serious community problem because Stanford was a member of the community. Stanford’s future was tied to the future of the community. Stanford was pleased to participate in the community process and saluted its colleagues in the collaboration for the energy and spirit brought to the issues. Carol Saal, President of the JCC Board of Directors, said the JCC offered child development programs, after school day care, after school enrichment programs, summer camps, and youth athletics. The JCC also included health and wellness programs for adults including recreational and master swimming, aerobics, 09/10/01 92-392 dance, yoga, basketball, tennis, and other activities comparable to those of private clubs. Cultural and educational offerings as well as specialized programs such as cardiac rehab, new immigrant culturation were also provided. The JCC was in existence for over 75 years and represented one million members nationwide. Since the announcement approximately two years by the PAUSD of its need to reclaim the Terman site for a third middle school, the JCC struggled with the importance of wanting to be a good Palo Alto citizen and accommodate the PAUSD needs while being obliged to protect the existence of the JCC. The JCC leaders experienced a range of emotions, from great optimism based on broad community support to genuine despair because of the few options and high cost of relocating a JCC in Palo Alto. Areas including the PAUSD land at Churchill, Stanford land at Coyote Hill, the Elks Lodge, and the Fiesta Bowl property were explored. Through the leadership of City Manager Frank Benest and his staff with support of the Council, an opportunity was created at the Mayfield site. While the City and JCC recognized there were significant problems to solve at the Mayfield site that required careful planning and due diligence, the problems were found to exist on almost any urban site. The Mayfield site represented a fine opportunity for the community center with related recreational, educational and civic activities. In order for a long-term solution for a JCC home to be possible, short- term facilities were necessary to insure the uninterrupted delivery of essential services by the JCC. The PAUSD, under the leadership of Don Phillips and John Toumy, made interim space available at Greendell along with other interim space provided by the City at Cubberley. The PAUSD provided the JCC a fair compensation under the terms of the Terman lease. The MOU was the result of a complex but cooperative effort, including hundreds of hours of support from many people. The MOU provided adequate interim space and the opportunity for the JCC to consider Mayfield as a long-term site, made possible by the City and Stanford. The Council was asked to support the MOU. John Toumy, President of PAUSD Board of Education, acknowledged the cooperative effort that resulted in a mutually beneficial agreement for all four parties involved. The PAUSD’s long- standing commitment to provide excellence in teaching and learning for the students of Palo Alto was the impetus in finding a successful solution to the challenge of opening a third middle school. The community placed a high priority on education, and PAUSD was gratified by the strong community support received during the process. Much hard work was accomplished by all the organizations involved in achieving the 09/10/01 92-393 resolution. The agreement survived two PAUSD Superintendents, two City Managers, two Councils, and two School Boards. Mayor Eakins announced that speaker cards would not be accepted after 8:15 p.m. and that each speaker would be allowed to speak for three minutes. Mark Sabin, 4274 Wilkie Way, was pleased with the agreement. Palo Alto was a built out City with many challenges ahead. Opportunities and leadership to forge a solution among the different parties was something the City had to be faced with in the future. The agreement was a good example of what could be done. The JCC provided critical services as well as exercise programs. The PAUSD was able to obtain its third middle school, the City had the opportunity to obtain additional space at the Cubberley Center, and Stanford was compensated for the Mayfield site. He urged Council to support the agreement. Betsy Allyn, 4186 Willmar Drive, asked how the public was able to address changes to the MOU. She questioned who the housing was for if the Mayfield entitlement on the Hillview side allowed Stanford to build 240 additional housing units. She questioned why the JCC was getting 130,000 square feet for its center when Avenidas and the Palo Alto Child Care Center got approximately 140,000 square feet. The joint use facilities with the JCC and the City were a concern. Another concern was why the JCC paid only $100,000 per year when it paid $250,000 per year for Terman. Tony Klein, 58 Seville Drive, commended the City, the PAUSD School Board, Stanford University, and the JCC for coming up with a creative solution to an intractable problem. Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, said the MOU had a complicated structure that carried out several policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan. The MOU carried out one of the Council’s five primary goals which was for continued, collaborative, productive, cooperation between the City and the PAUSD. The addition of 240 more housing units in the City was supported. Shelley Hebert, 3714 Redwood Circle, supported the MOU. She had a stake in each aspect of the proposed solution to a challenging problem. She was a Stanford University graduate, sent two children through the Palo Alto public schools, and participated in numerous programs offered at the JCC. The four-party agreement outlined in the MOU represented a critical milestone. 09/10/01 92-394 While additional land in Palo Alto could not be created, the land the City had was assured to use to strengthen the institutions that were vital to the community life. The JCC was an institution with a long and distinguished history of serving children and seniors, teens and adults, people of all faiths and ages. The agreement gave the JCC the potential for a new home. The creativity and vision that went into crafting the MOU was exactly Palo Alto needed. The Council was urged to approve the MOU as presented. Gordon Newell, 4163 Hubbart Drive, congratulated the Council, Stanford, the PAUSD, and the JCC. The Cardiac Therapy Foundation, of which he was a member, profited by the support and activation of the MOU. The Cardiac Therapy Foundation helped hundreds of people with cardiac problems. Mary Davey, Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, 12645 La Cresta Drive, Los Altos Hills, said if the Council took the Mayfield site, which was zoned for housing, requiring that the additional housing be found elsewhere need to be considered. The Council needed to provide additional housing for people who worked and lived in Palo Alto. Barbara Hart, 244 Byron Street, represented the JCC After School Childcare Program, which was open to all children of the community. Many families were pleased with the move and looked for a positive outcome to continue providing after school childcare to the community. Bob Shapiro, 31 Anderson Way, Menlo Park, urged the Council to endorse the proposed MOU. Ed. Roger Holland, 1111 Parkinson Avenue, supported the MOU. Beverly Bogart, 3919 Bibbits Drive, was a supporter of Palo Alto. She had worked at Stanford for 35 years, sent her children to PAUSD Schools, and joined the JCC after retirement. She was delighted that the JCC would continue because it was an important part of her current life. Don Sweet, 2290 Tioga Drive, Menlo Park, said the agreement was remarkable in that it resolved several long-standing problems to the satisfaction of the four parties involved and the good of the community. The Council was urged to approve the agreement. 09/10/01 92-395 Len Shustek, 160 Cherokee Way, Portola Valley, said the people who were involved in the agreement should be proud. The Council was urged to support the agreement. Kate Hill, 884 Los Robles Avenue, Executive Vice President, Palo Alto Council of Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs), said the PTAs voted to support the leadership of the PAUSD in its support and relocation of the JCC. Her family supported the agreement. Dorothy Bender, 591 Military Way, said she had gone before the Architectural Review Board (ARB) regarding the Alza Center as a site for housing. Stanford proposed 82,000 square feet of office on the site. The time was right to look at housing opportunities in the Stanford Research Park. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, was delighted to see that the City found a way to keep the JCC which was a community resource that the City could not afford to lose. Stanford Management Corporation (SMC) was commended for the way in which it handled the office building on the Hanover site. SMC responded positively to the neighbors’ concerns about the site by agreeing to move the building back from California Avenue, to close the driveway on California Avenue and move the access to Hanover, to have fruit trees on the site, and to put parking underground. The question still existed whether or not the property should include housing. Absent a study, it was too early to say that the impacts of any development on campus with respect to impacts on parks and libraries were fully mitigated. The fact that the MOU tied the neighbors’ hands with respect to changing any Floor Area Ratio in the Stanford Research Park until 2011 was of concern. The community was concerned about increasing amounts of office development. Leannah Hunt, 2170 Byron Street, encouraged the Council to approve the MOU. She was pleased with the housing component and thanked everyone who worked together to achieve a wonderful program. Steve Zelinger, 3119 Stockton Place, thanked the City Manager for the moral leadership and courage that he and his staff engaged in the process of providing the opportunity for the JCC to begin its arduous journey. Marian Cooper, 473 Valencia Drive, Los Altos, was thankful to have lived in a community where there was a JCC and thanked everyone involved in making the four-party MOU a reality. 09/10/01 92-396 Hank Cooper, 473 Valencia Drive, Los Altos, thanked all the parties involved in making available a viable option for a new home for senior activities and allowing for future seniors from the entire community. Diana Steeples, League of Women Voters in Palo Alto (League), 3198 Ramona Street, congratulated all the parties involved in reaching agreement on the complicated set of issues. The League followed the negotiations closely. The issues involved touched upon a number of the positions adopted over time by the membership, especially those that had to do with housing, public education, community services, and cooperative working relationships between the City and other jurisdictions and agencies. League positions were based on careful studies and member consensus. The League was pleased that the MOU enabled the PAUSD to open a third middle school at the reclaimed Terman site, and the League appreciated the fact that Stanford University made available valuable property for a community center. Steven Van Zant, 262 Whitclem Drive, said the agreement was one of the worst situations he had seen. There was a general feeling that because the deal was complicated and involved many parties that it somehow was good. The agreement might be good for the JCC but it was not good for the City of Palo Alto. The expenses at the JCC, were too great for him. The JCC was a private, exclusive community center; private because it was run by private interests, and exclusive because it charged above-market prices for its services. Peter Drekmeier, 570 Matadero Avenue, agreed that the JCC was a valuable asset to the community but was concerned about the jobs/housing imbalance. Many questions remained to be answered such as what happened if the JCC found another location that was more suitable. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, suggested the Council approve the MOU but keep in mind that the MOU was not the final deal. There would be opportunities at both the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council meetings to elaborate and refine the agreement. One refinement that should be considered was that the 240 housing units be made a firm requirement. The comments made about jobs/housing balance were ludicrous and had no validity. The amount of jobs in Palo Alto was unknown. The job/housing imbalance was not a reason to change the way the City was run. 09/10/01 92-397 Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, recognized much work went into the agreements. The process of making decisions at a policy level and then sending it to the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) was a concern. The agreements should be referred to the (P&TC) prior to being approved by the Council. Concerns included what the JCC would do if they found another site and about using land for something else when it was zoned for housing. Page Mill Road and El Camino Real were some of the most congested intersections in Palo Alto. She questioned whether the site was appropriate for a community center. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the public did not have enough time to review the documents. Two subject matters were brought together but should be kept separate. The agreements relating to Terman did not include Stanford, and the agreements relating to Mayfield did not include the PAUSD. The negative effects of combining the agreements were that three Council members were unable to participate because of being in conflict with one of the subjects. Another problem was the development agreement did not go through the procedures the Council adopted for development agreements. A majority of the Ad Hoc Committee reviewed the agreements in a meeting that was not noticed or open to the public. If the JCC decided on an alternate site in Palo Alto, the City would be left with a site it could only use for a community center. The MOU did not provide certainty to anyone. The City should not give up rights that it had for future environmental view of certain projects under the General Use Permit (GUP) for more community center mitigation. There was no limit on the floor area for the residential uses. Edie Keating, 3511 Waverley Street, applauded the benefits that came from the proposal. The opportunity of the community to have a third middle school and have the JCC stay within Palo Alto were wonderful things. The people in the community did not fully know what the cost of the proposal was. Concerns included limits on citizen initiatives, FARs that could not be reduced for ten years, and full mitigation for the General Use Permit (GUP). Stanford had commented on building bridges and trust with the community. The trust in Stanford’s commitment to the community would be deeper if its lease was for as long as needed, which would almost approach the permanency of the development rights that would be granted to Stanford if the Council went ahead with the MOU. She urged the Council to delay approval of the MOU. John Ciccarelli, 2065 Yale Street, College Terrace Resident’s Association Board, said the Board followed the Mayfield site process with interest for several reasons. The College Terrace 09/10/01 92-398 neighbors were closest to the site, the proposal promised a set of community resources that would benefit the neighbors, and the process of designing the site’s land use and street connections opened a set of opportunities to improve local circulation in a way that would transform and calm California Avenue south of El Camino Real. College Terrace began the process, working with Stanford Management Company and its architects on the Alza site at Hanover Street and California Avenue for what the residents hoped would be a new, internal street to connect Hanover Street to El Camino Real. College Terrace was pleased to hear that Stanford pledged $150,000 towards traffic calming mitigations for impacts to College Terrace and California Avenue. College Terrace was encouraged by the MOU’s inclusion of two housing options and hoped it was the start of a new way of considering the Stanford Research Park from single use to mixed use that would benefit the City and Stanford. College Terrace looked forward to working closely with the Planning Staff and Stanford to create a plan whose benefit extended beyond the Mayfield site. John R. Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, said most of the residents had not seen the MOU which deserved time for consideration by the citizens. President Hennessy said it was unlikely Stanford would use development rights in the near future. He questioned where the 240 housing units that the City said might be built were. If the City gave up 240 housing units on the Mayfield site, 240 should be added to Hillview or in the Stanford Research Park. He saw a win for Stanford who would get development rights for three acres of buildings on property that had not been developed. The JCC would win because it would get the opportunity to build. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, said the MOU put the community in a dilemma. If the Council agreed to the MOU without input from the Planning and Transportation Commission and public, the Council might repeat the mistake that was made in South of Forest Avenue (SOFA), where the development agreement was signed prior to Planning and Transportation Commission and ARB review. The City needed to take care of the jobs/housing imbalance. More time for the public to digest the MOU was encouraged. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, said in June 2001, during Oral Communications, she reprimanded Stanford for demanding commercial office development rights in exchange for a lease on the Mayfield site when Stanford could have asked for housing development rights instead. That would have been a true transfer 09/10/01 92-399 of development rights. Residential was a permitted use in the Stanford Research Park, and Stanford could build housing at the Hanover site if they chose. The Hanover site was perfectly situated for housing, but Stanford chose to build an empty shell of an office building, built out to maximum FAR. As to the jobs/housing imbalance, the bottom line was that the MOU removed a six-acre site, zoned multiple-family residential, and burdened the neighbors with an additional 100,000 to 130,000 square feet of office space. At the first neighborhood meeting, it was clear that none of the neighbors supported the additional office development at the Hanover site, and many residents indicated they would be supportive of a housing use. Stanford was unresponsive to that concern. Mr. Benest said the Mayfield site was not part of the regional fair share numbers that were cited in the Housing Element. Stanford recognized the need for housing and was willing to work with the City in terms of the housing issue. The Hanover site was zoned Light Manufacturing (LM), and the development of Hanover was within the permitted FAR for that site. The existing development in the Stanford Research Park and the Mayfield entitlement was within the Comp Plan envelope. A question was raised regarding the lease rate for the JCC at the Mayfield site. Staff took the market lease rates and discounted those for the $50 million to $70 million that the JCC would raise to build the community center and for the public benefits. Dedicated first call space was a gym and classroom to be used anytime during the day. The programming in the shared space was worked out. The City got a community center in conjunction with the JCC. Questions were raised about the JCC at Mayfield. As part of the negotiation, staff recognized from the beginning that the JCC had a long-term lease and legal rights in terms of their long-term lease. The negotiation in terms of the interim facility as well as a long-term home was part of a negotiated settlement. The JCC was not an exclusive community center for the Jewish community, but was a non-sectarian, United Way agency providing health and human services. The JCC was not a discriminatory agency. An issue was raised about the interim use at Cubberley. Agencies were not being forced out of Cubberley. Additional space used by Foothill College was negotiated. A question was raised relative to what would happen if the JCC found another site. The City was happy to develop the Mayfield site as a community center as Palo Alto was in desperate need for community service space. Stanford would continue to enforce the current mitigation program regarding contaminated ground water. A question was raised about placing the Mayfield entitlement on the Hillview site or in the larger south Research 09/10/01 92-400 Park. That area had available space. Development rights were not forever but for 25 years. In terms of the issue of the compact high school at Cubberley, the PAUSD wanted the lease at Cubberley, less the eight acres that the City would own as part of the land swap. The PAUSD was concerned about what would happen in the event of an unforeseen circumstance such as an explosion of new students. As part of the land swap, the City agreed that in the event of something unforeseen where the PAUSD needed the site, the City wanted to give certainty to the PAUSD. The Council was not being asked to approve the development agreement. Environmental review and full public hearings were necessary. Council Member Fazzino assumed if the JCC were to walk away and find another site, the City had to find necessary funds in order to consider the Mayfield site for a community center. Mr. Benest said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino clarified the Council had to go to the public for the requisite financial support. Mr. Benest said given the City’s commitment to maintaining and renovating existing infrastructure, there was no existing money to fund the community center. The Council could decide not to approve the development agreement. His recommendation was that a community center on the site be considered, given the community service needs. The City would be faced with the same task as the JCC which meant going out to the community to raise $50 million to $70 million. Council Member Fazzino asked what would happen if the public turned down a proposal to build a community center. Mr. Benest said prior to approving the development agreement, the City would have a firm commitment from the JCC. If the JCC was unable to develop the site, the City had the site since the City had the lease with Stanford. Council Member Fazzino asked what level of commitment was made with respect to the housing in the Stanford Research Park. Mr. Benest said Stanford offered the Mayfield site for $1 per year for 51 years for a community center. The consideration for that was office development in the Stanford Research Park. The City further negotiated that it would be within the Comp Plan envelope. To effectuate the housing in the Stanford Research 09/10/01 92-401 Park, the City provided an incentive which made putting housing there in Stanford’s best interest. Council Member Fazzino said there were concerns about a disproportionate increase in square footage for non- research uses such as law firms and venture capital firms. He questioned whether there was a way to control mixed use in a research park. Mr. Benest said existing rules were applied to the current situation. Staff did not try to negotiate outside the existing rules in terms of the current mix in the Stanford Research Park. The existing LM zone allowed a variety of office development. The existing rules were applied until 2010. If at a future date the Council, as part of the Zoning Ordinance update, wanted to change the rules of the game for the non-Mayfield entitlement, which was miniscule compared to the whole Stanford Research Park, the Council had that opportunity. Council Member Fazzino asked whether there was a way for the Council to address the issue as part of the current agreement. Mr. Benest suggested that not be done because the issue dealt with the total Stanford Research Park. Stanford wanted to deal with big global interests in terms of the Stanford Research Park. Staff did not want to get into the major global issues and resisted that effort. If the Council had an interest in the future of the Stanford Research Park, there were opportunities through the regular process to deal with that. Vice Mayor Ojakian understood that Mr. Borock questioned the composition of the Ad Hoc Committee. The Ad Hoc Committee initially consisted of four people because the thought was that more Council Members were able to participate. When it became clear that certain colleagues were not able to participate, the Committee dropped to three people. Council Member Wheeler said the City Manager expressed discomfort with the Council addressing the issue of uses within the Stanford Research Park. Certain members of the public raised the general issue of what the Council might be able to change as it went through the environmental analysis during the public hearing process. She asked about the nature of changes that might be made. Mr. Benest said there would be many opportunities for meaningful participation. One of the issues raised was traffic issues. As part of the development agreement and part of the environmental 09/10/01 92-402 review, staff and the applicant for the Mayfield site would do traffic studies. Significant traffic impacts required mitigation programs. Traffic was a major issue that confronted the City. The development agreement and ground lease were attached for full disclosure. Stanford made the offer of the Mayfield site based on consideration. The Council was acknowledging at the present meeting that the City had a complex challenge that needed to be unraveled and a framework needed to be found in order to go forward. Staff asked the Council to approve the framework. If the Council did not approve the framework, the problem would not be solved. Council Member Burch clarified the Stanford deal was not dependent upon the JCC being at the proposed location. Mr. Benest said that was correct. Stanford made the offer to the City for a community center with the understanding it would be a long-term home for the JCC. The JCC anticipated using the Mayfield site. The City negotiated the major deal points for the sublease. Council Member Burch asked why the Council had to say it would build a community center if the JCC was not at that location, and what would stop the City from providing affordable housing at the site. Mr. Benest said the City had to renegotiate with Stanford, because Stanford did not offer the site for any and all uses. Council Member Burch asked whether there would be anything to prevent the City from putting something into the agreement that the City had the right to build something other than a community center if the JCC chose not to build there. Mr. Benest said the agreement would be jeopardized. Stanford could have built housing because the property was zoned for housing. Stanford did not decide to build housing and did not offer the site for the City to build housing on the Mayfield site. Council Member Burch said concerns were expressed that the City was trading 130,000 square feet of office space for 240 units of housing. Mr. Benest said the City tried to make the offer from Stanford the best deal possible in practical terms. A development agreement was a negotiated agreement where value was provided 09/10/01 92-403 for value. If the City tried to require something else, Stanford had to agree. Trying to solve a major, complex issue was a negotiated agreement. Council Member Burch asked whether the agreement could be tied to the building of the 100,000 square feet so that Stanford could not do one thing without the other. Mr. Benest said staff tried to find out what the interests of Stanford were. Stanford wanted to vest the office development on the Hillview site. Once the City identified what Stanford’s interest was, the City found a way to give Stanford an incentive to do what they wanted to do only if they built 240 housing units within the Stanford Research Park. Council Member Burch clarified the City did not have control over the size of the 240 housing units. Senior Assistant City Attorney Wynne Furth said the site was zoned for any density between R-1 and RM-30. A minimum unit requirement of 750 square feet was required as well as a requirement that 15 percent of the units were part of the Below Market Rate (BMR) program. The actual size of the units was a function of how much of their FAR they were willing to spend on housing. Staff originally talked about small confined square footage for housing. Stanford believed the site was a good one for units larger than RM-40 units. Mr. Benest said it was in Stanford’s interest not to build large housing. Council Member Burch asked whether the City was precluded from discussing whether the units were for sale or for rent. Mr. Benest said the City wanted to provide flexibility in terms of all the issues related to the development agreement in terms of flexibility. Staff did not know what the needs were in 15 years in terms of housing and product types. Staff wanted a minimum number of units, flexibility, and a minimum number of BMR’s. Council Member Burch said if the Council were to approve the agreement at the current meeting, was there a window for the public to have input. Mr. Benest said the development agreement would go through the regular process which was quite lengthy. Given the complexity of 09/10/01 92-404 the challenge with the middle school and community center, the question was whether the framework in the best interest of the Palo Alto community. Council Member Lytle thanked Stanford for making the offer to the community. The City had a public policy that said it was not to convert housing designated property to nondesignated property. If the MOU contained an encouragement of the conversion, how would it play out in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process. Mr. Benest said the City found a solution to the middle school/community service problem. The City found a situation of encouraging housing to offset the loss at Mayfield. The City found out what Stanford wanted in terms of the Hillview site, and the City provided a way for Stanford to get it, which was to provide the 240 units. The City tried to offset the loss by creating through the negotiations the gain. Council Member Lytle said another Comp Plan policy was to encourage compact urban development. The Hillview property seemed to be a more suburban location for the housing. She asked whether the framework that the Council was asked to approve allowed the City to encourage a more compact location for housing. Mr. Benest said staff agreed with Stanford that housing could be any place in the Stanford Research Park. The interest of Stanford was to vest the existing development on Hillview. Council Member Lytle clarified when the City did the environmental impact review (EIR) of the proposal, the issue of being inconsistent with the current policy would be analyzed with suggested mitigation. Mr. Benest assumed that was correct. Council Member Lytle said another question raised was with traffic. The documents given to the Council implied that the City would get a $150,000 Traffic Calming Study. The City would do a traffic analysis as part of evaluation the EIR. Mr. Benest assumed the JCC would mitigate any traffic problems related to their development. Stanford provided additional monies to do something about traffic calming on California Avenue. 09/10/01 92-405 Council Member Lytle said page 4 of the MOU implied the Terman Library could be lost if the PAUSD use found a need to reclaim it. The Comprehensive Specific Plan policy was to retain those services in southwest Palo Alto. She asked whether that would get analyzed in the EIR. Mr. Benest said the property exchange agreement would go back to the Council and PAUSD, which would specify issues related to the library. Staff had discussions with Don Phillips and Bob Golton of PAUSD and everyone understood that the Terman Library at Terman Middle School was a needed service for both the community at large and the middle school. It was to the advantage of the PAUSD to maintain the library at Terman as long as possible. In terms of the space for the Friends of the Library, staff recently talked to Bob Golton about preserving the library as long as the PAUSD did not need it. The City was optimistic about cooperating with the PAUSD to resolve the issue. Council Member Lytle said the development agreement contained a section that she found alarming. The title was “No moratorium, growth limitation ordinance or phasing or timing of developments” and included language that said the City Council would be limited for growth control, moratoriums, and suspension of development rights. She questioned whether the Council had the ability of the citizens to do a moratorium or initiative. She asked whether the decision on the development agreement was a referendable decision. Mr. Benest said the issue for Stanford was whether or not they offered Mayfield to solve the middle school/community center challenge, they wanted to guarantee that they would be allowed to do what the City promised to do. That only related to the Mayfield entitlement and not the other 11,000,000 square feet of development in the Stanford Research Park. City Attorney Calonne said the statement that citizen rights were being taken away was mischaracterization. Coming forward with a very explicit document at the current time clearly identified what was at stake for the public. The development agreement, when and if it were adopted, was subject to referendum. Council Member Lytle said one of the reasons for bringing the detailed information forward was so the community had an opportunity to study it through the months ahead to see what was at stake. The City had the opportunity to modify it as part of the process and part of the EIR. 09/10/01 92-406 Mr. Benest said the Council and community had to deal with the development agreement. Council Member Lytle said page 26 of the draft development agreement had to do with dedications and the City’s not allowing for dedications. The GUP tried to negotiate a path dedication from the Bay to the foothills. She asked whether that provision would interfere with the City’s ability to implement what the City tried to accomplish in the GUP. Mr. Benest said the City negotiated that normal dedications would apply. Staff did not anticipate the prohibition getting in the way of what was planned. Council Member Lytle asked for an explanation as to why there would be no impact on Cubberley users and tenants. Mr. Benest said the JCC had to downsize its basic operation to fit within the interim space. All the child related programs were going to Greendell, and non-child related programs were going to Cubberley. The City looked at some of the additional space that Foothill College used. The basic core program at Foothill College would remain. Council Member Lytle said the original discussion was 100,000 square feet and the JCC was to be an anchor tenant with other uses allowed. She asked whether there was a potential to combine another nonprofit user along with the JCC in the 30,000 square feet. Mr. Benest said originally there was to be an added nonprofit space for outreach programs. Staff found that other nonprofits needed more than the outreach space. The bigger issue for the JCC was they wanted to maximize the opportunity but faced the challenge of $50 million to $70 million. Council Member Lytle said there were competitive issues going on elsewhere in the City at school sites. Creating a synergy and partnership to solve conflicts that occurred elsewhere was terrific. She queried what happened in 50 years. Mr. Benest said staff anticipated that the JCC would continue to be a wonderful community asset and, as the 51 years approached, a timetable was set out for renegotiating the lease with Stanford to continue the use. 09/10/01 92-407 Council Member Lytle said a member of the public talked about the assumption in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and how the City was clearly reaching some assumptions that were made for a 2020 buildout. She asked what that meant in terms of looking at the additional square footage. Mr. Benest said staff looked at the square footage and found it fit within the envelope that was available in the Stanford Research Park. Chief of Planning Lisa Grote said there was no cap in the Comp Plan in the Stanford Research Park. There was a cap of development in the City overall. When the EIR was analyzing that potential impact, square footage to different parts of the City was allocated. One alternative looked at 800,000 square feet in the Stanford Research Park, second alternative looked at 600,000 square feet, and a third alternative looked at 1,200,000 square feet. When the overriding considerations were adopted for the EIR for the Comp Plan, 800,000 square feet was assumed because that was considered the project as it was defined at that time. There was an acknowledgement that whatever the square footage was in the Stanford Research Park or elsewhere in the City, a statement of overriding consideration was needed. Additional environmental analysis would be done when the development agreement was done. Council Member Lytle asked whether it was safe to assume that if there were a statement of overriding considerations for the Comp Plan EIR with a lower growth rate projection, a statement of overriding considerations would again be needed. Ms. Grote said the 100,000 square feet discussed on the Hillview site was within the 800,000-square-foot alternative that was analyzed in the Comp Plan EIR. There might not need to be another statement of overriding considerations. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked what the probability was that the 240 units would be built. Mr. Benest said in terms of the likelihood of the units being developed, Stanford agreed to that provision because Stanford wanted to take advantage of the opportunity. Stanford looked at a number of ways to promote housing. Larry Horton, Stanford University, said one of the difficulties Stanford had in working with the development agreement was that Stanford had no projects beyond the Hanover site. Stanford 09/10/01 92-408 needed to put together a development agreement on things Stanford might do but had no plans for. Housing was articulated by President Hennessy as a priority. Mr. Benest said if staff preferred to develop a smaller community center, more housing could be added. The issue was that the City had to negotiate consideration with Stanford. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked about the $150,000 for traffic mitigation for College Terrace. Ms. Furth said one of the sources of the number was that Stanford planned to tear down what was on the site and rebuild the entire site. The City could only charge impact fees on the new square footage. Stanford’s proposal was based on an estimate of what additional money they would pay under the then existing impact fees for the entire building. Vice Mayor Ojakian clarified the City was assured of getting the dollar amount. Ms. Furth said that would be a condition of the Hanover approvals which were not yet done. The MOU plan assumed that prior to the development agreement returning to the Council, the Hanover project would have been submitted to the various City boards and commissions for review and approval. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked, assuming the JCC built the community center, at what stage would the City give preference to people in the neighborhood in terms of membership, similar to what was done at Terman. Mr. Benest said in negotiating the deal points for the JCC sublease, the City focused on scholarships for low-income participants. Staff wanted to make sure there was an approved outreach program and that the staff would get reports back on who took advantage of the scholarships. Discounted rates for immediate neighbors were not negotiated. Vice Mayor Ojakian said the rates did not have to be discounted but possibly giving the neighbors a level of priority to make the center a walkable center. Mr. Benest said that was not part of the negotiated sublease but the suggestion would be brought up. 09/10/01 92-409 Vice Mayor Ojakian said it was his understanding that there were some issues including a sewer or storm drain pipe that made the project difficult to develop. He asked whether there was latitude in the MOU for discussion as to how that got mitigated. Mr. Benest said staff wanted the cost minimized. Some utility relocations were necessary. Anyone who developed the Mayfield site had to relocate some utilities. The City would not pay for that relocation. The City was in a partnership to develop a community center and looked at a variety of ways to minimize the cost. Mayor Eakins was concerned with how to explain that the MOU was not a legally binding document yet. Mr. Benest said if the Council had one transaction such as the JCC sublease, an MOU would not be needed. The City found it needed an overarching framework where all the different transactions and efforts made sense. The middle school/community challenge would not be solved without a framework approved by the Council. The MOU was not legally binding but was part of the direction the City was going. Mayor Eakins asked about a timeframe for the rest of the process. Mr. Benest anticipated the development agreement would be processed prior to the end of the year. Ms. Furth said while the four parties agreed on something that could work, one part of the agreement was ready for Council action. The PAUSD and JCC came to terms and had their Board’s approval. One of the documents was the Lease Termination and Mutual Release Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the JCC. MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Four-Party Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Attachment to CMR:334:01)to resolve the Middle School Challenge. They further approve the PAUSD agreement with the JCC to provide relocation and other assistance to JCC (including Lease Termination and Mutual Release Agreement between City of Palo Alto and JCC –Attachment B-3). Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. He said the City Manager did an outstanding job of fashioning an excellent agreement. His only lingering concern had to do with the degree of commitment to housing in the Stanford Research Park. 09/10/01 92-410 Vice Mayor Ojakian thanked all the various parties involved including the PAUSD, the JCC, and the City Attorney’s Office. Wynne Furth spent a tremendous amount of time on the agreement, and her efforts were appreciated. People were proud of the cooperation. The agreement was complex and involved multi-parties. The big issue was that people wanted housing. The possibility existed that more housing could be added at the Mayfield site. Council Member Wheeler said the benefits to the community outweighed any of the potential problems. All the parties received something out of the agreement, and all the parties gave something in the agreement. She was an advocate of housing, particularly affordable housing. The City was unsuccessful during the years in convincing Stanford to construct housing on the site. The MOU was a great model for working together to create good things for the larger Palo Alto community. Council Member Lytle said the MOU was a political leadership model of decision making. She shared concerns expressed about being objective in evaluating environmental impacts of the project. Council Member Burch said his total commitment was to make Palo Alto a sustainable, livable, and vital City. He would have preferred to see housing on the Hanover site. People who lived in Palo Alto needed to be near things that were important to them. The direction the City was going was a concern. The City needed to find housing for people who worked in Palo Alto and needed a small, affordable house to live in. Mayor Eakins supported the motion. The four parties did a tremendous amount of work, and there were genuine concessions all around to make the agreement come to pass. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Beecham, Kleinberg, Mossar “not participating.” Council Member Fazzino left the meeting at 10:30 p.m. RECESS: 10:30 p.m. to 10:40 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 09/10/01 92-411 Mayor Eakins noted that Council Member Wheeler had excused herself from the Council meeting due to a conflict of interest because of discussions regarding the Ventura site. City Attorney Calonne noted that the meeting would not be in session during Oral Communications due to a lack of a quorum. The Council meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. due to lack of a quorum. Betsy Allyn, 4186 Willmar Drive, spoke regarding Ventura. Sylvia Smitham, 2514 Birch Street, spoke regarding Ventura. Leannah Hunt, 2170 Byron Street, spoke regarding rental mediation ordinance. John R. Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, spoke regarding the Ventura school land use. The Council meeting reconvened at 10:50 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of July 16, July 23, and August 6, 2001, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 5-0 Beecham, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Mossar absent. Mayor Eakins announced that the Closed Session Item No. 11 would not be held that evening due to a request from staff to remove the item. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Burch, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-9, with Item No. 5 being removed at the request of staff. LEGISLATIVE 2. Ordinance 4712 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 10, Chapter 10.64, Section 10.64.250 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code in Order to Reduce the Penalties for Violations of Regulations on Bicycles, Roller Skates, Skateboards and Coasters” (1st Reading 8/06/01, Passed 6-3 Beecham, Kleinberg Mossar absent) 09/10/01 92-412 3. Ordinance 4713 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 22.08.330 to Formally Rename the Dedicated Parkland Called the 'Arastra Property' as the 'Arastradero Preserve'” (1st Reading 8/06/01, Passed 6-3 Beecham, Kleinberg Mossar absent) Ordinance 4714 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan For Improvements to the Arastradero Preserve” (1st Reading 8/06/01, Passed 8-0, Mossar “not participating) 4. Ordinance 4715 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) (to Provide Section 21362.2 (3 percent at 50 Full Formula) for Local Fire Members)” (1st Reading 8/06/01, Passed 6-3 Beecham, Kleinberg Mossar absent) 5. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting New Utility Rate Schedules EDF-1 of the City of Palo Alto Utilities Rates and Charges Pertaining to Dark Fiber Licensing Services (Item to be removed at the request of staff) 6. Resolution 8080 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Acknowledging the City Manager Authority to Execute the Gas Industry Standards Board Base Contract for Short-Term Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas with British Petroleum Energy Company” 7. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Foothills Park” ADMINISTRATIVE 8. Recommendation to Support the Implementation of San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority’s Levee Restoration Project 9. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Asplundh Tree Expert Company in an Amount Not To Exceed $250,000 for Fiscal Year 2001-02 Tree Maintenance Project MOTION PASSED 5-0 for Item Nos. 2-4 and 6-9, Beecham, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Mossar absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 09/10/01 92-413 10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will hold a public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 30061, Title 3, Division 3, relating to the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund to consider the Police Chief’s request for funding frontline law enforcement law enforcement programs, and per the requirements of the United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs for Local Law Enforcement Block Grants. Mayor Eakins declared the Public Hearing opened, and with no requests to speak, declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Ojakian, to accept the Bureau of Justice’s Assistance (BIA) Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBO) in the amount of $23,218, with the funds to be used for compensation for the Positive Alternatives for Youth (PAY) outreach specialists. MOTION PASSED 5-0, Beecham, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Mossar absent. CLOSED SESSION . 11. Conference with City Attorney — Pending Litigation Subject: In the matter of the Application for Enhanced Final Compensation of Danny D. Brand, et al. and City of Palo Alto, Board of Administration, California Public Employees Retirement System, Case No.: 4693 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Item removed at the request of staff. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Vice 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 09/10/01 92-414 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. 09/10/01 92-415