HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-02 City Council Summary Minutes (2)
Special Meeting
March 2, 2015
Study Session ........................................................................................28
1. Study Session on Shuttle and Rideshare Program for the Future
(Continued from February 2, 2015) ..................................................28
City Manager Comments .........................................................................32
Oral Communications ..............................................................................32
Minutes Approval ....................................................................................33
Consent Calendar ...................................................................................33
2. Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract C12143475 with Alta
Planning + Design to Extend the Contract Term to December 31, 2015
for the Safe Routes to School Planning Project ...................................33
3. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute an Electric
Fund Construction Contract with MP Nexlevel of California, Inc., in the Amount of $1,697,836.50, for Trenching and Installation of Utility
Substructures for Underground Utility District No. 47 (Project: EL-
11010) in the Area of Middlefield Road, Homer Avenue, Webster
Street, and Addison Avenue; and Approval and Authorization for the
City Manager to Execute Addendum No. 2 to the Agreement for Joint
Participation in the Installation of the Underground Facilities System
Between the City of Palo Alto, AT&T, and Comcast Corporation of
California IX, Inc. ...........................................................................34
4. Resolution 9497 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Designating 300 Homer Street Known as the Roth Building as a
“Sender Site” in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program
and Direction to Staff to Advertise Request for Proposal to Market the
TDRs.” ..........................................................................................34
5. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that the City Council
Adopt a Resolution 9498 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Approving the City of Palo Alto Utilities Legislative
Guidelines.” ...................................................................................34
6. Appeal of Director of Planning and Community Environment’s
Architectural and Historic Review Approval of a Rehabilitation of a
03/02/2015 117- 026
MINUTES
Category 3 Historic Resource located at 261 Hamilton – Request for
Continuance to April 6, 2015 ...........................................................34
7. Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Contract C08125506 with The
Planning Center ¦ DCE, now Known as Placeworks, to Increase the
Contract by $157,525 to an Amount Not to Exceed $1,894,731 and
Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) 5306 entitled
“Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
to Increase the Fiscal Year 2015 Appropriation to the Planning and
Community Environment Department for Preparation of a Fiscal Study
in Conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Update.”.........................34
Action Items ..........................................................................................34
8. Public Hearing: Objections to Weed Abatement and Adoption of
Resolution 9499 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto #9489 Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated.” ...................................34
9. Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution 9500 entitled “Resolution of
the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Water, Gas and
Wastewater Connection and Capacity Fees and Miscellaneous Utility
Charges (Utility Rate Schedules S-5, G-5, W-5 and C-1)” ....................35
10. Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding Establishment of an
Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit (Continued from February 9, 2015) ....35
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements ........................53
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 A.M. ............................53
03/02/2015 117- 27
MINUTES
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 6:07 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid,
Wolbach
Absent:
Study Session
1. Study Session on Shuttle and Rideshare Program for the Future
(Continued from February 2, 2015).
Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director, reported
the City had a vision for a multimodal transportation system. The Council
had supported significant investment in implementing the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation Plan, forming a Transportation Management
Association (TMA), implementing advanced traffic signal systems, and implementing parking management programs. The existing shuttle program
combined community shuttles and last-mile shuttles. Regional services are
provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and
Stanford University. Based on prior Council direction, Staff had undertaken
a number of near-term improvements to the shuttle program. Staff hoped
to initiate a new west shuttle route once private-sector or grant funds were
obtained. In addition, Staff was working on live tracking of shuttles and a
mobile application and was increasing frequency of the Crosstown Route.
The contract with the shuttle provider expires in 2017; therefore, the City
had approximately 1 1/2 years to test pilot programs.
Gil Friend, Chief Sustainability Officer, invited the Council to provide its
thoughts, aspirations, and expectations for future transportation efforts.
The question was how to make transportation more convenient such that no
one would need to drive. Without that convenience, mode shifts in
transportation would not occur. Local government's role in transportation
was not necessarily as a service provider. Private-sector transportation was
experiencing a flurry of activity.
Local governments needed agility in service delivery and in the governance
process. There was interest in exploring single subscription access to all transportation modes.
Council Member Kniss was concerned that the sharing economy was not
sharing with cities with respect to taxes. Before committing to a long-term
03/02/2015 117- 28
MINUTES
program that involved ridesharing, the City should consider methods to
collect taxes and to ensure the public's safety.
Council Member Burt felt the shuttle system was an important element in
achieving the objective of a 30 percent reduction in Single Occupancy
Vehicles (SOV). He inquired whether the objective was calculated by a
reduction in the percentage of vehicles on the road or the number of SOVs
on the road.
Ms. Gitelman would have to review the memorandum. The 30 percent
decrease was articulated in a Colleague's Memorandum that informed the
effort to establish a TMA.
Jessica Sullivan, Parking Manager, advised that the memo did not specify
details for calculating that number.
Council Member Burt indicated core shuttle routes had not been expanded
since the inception of the shuttle system. He was concerned whether Staff
had identified the routes of highest value in the near-term. The City should
engage community partners with expertise and explore collaboration with
the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and neighboring communities
to identify an integrated approach to transportation. Wi-Fi on buses would
be attractive to riders. He was unsure whether grants and private-sector
funding would create comprehensive and sustainable funding. At a policy
level, the Council should raise the issue of partnering with VTA for a regional
transit system. The Council should consider a business license tax solely for
the purpose of funding Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Programs.
Vice Mayor Schmid believed businesses, Caltrain, and Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART) should provide transportation for commuters, and the City should
invest in transportation for the community. Many SOV trips were from
households to jobs, schools, healthcare, and shopping. This was an
opportunity not to invest in additional shuttles, but to think about
alternatives for a low density community to displace car trips with shared
vehicles.
Council Member Berman was pleased by the use of technology and proposal
of Wi-Fi for shuttles. A robust shuttle system encompassing residential areas of the community could be an asset. The City should improve
transportation for commuters and residents, especially if private employers
were willing to fund routes to job centers. Staff should analyze the cost for
a Citywide network of shuttles stopping every 15 minutes. The City should
strive for a robust shuttle system that removed cars from roads and moved residents to destinations faster and easier. Transportation was an important
03/02/2015 117- 29
MINUTES
issue, and the Council should support transportation with more time and
more resources.
Council Member Wolbach was excited about improving the shuttle system.
Public transit should be a superior alternative to driving. A good
transportation system needed good routes, good frequency, useful hours of
service, easy access to information, ease of payment, and good branding.
VTA did not view its role as removing cars from the road. The City would
have to change VTA's view or seek other partners. He prioritized riders in
the order of commuters, students, residents who were unable to drive, and
residents who preferred not to drive.
Council Member Scharff suggested Staff provide concrete methods to
accomplish the goals of alleviating parking issues, reducing congestion, and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He requested more information about
NextBus, DoubleMap, and TransitScreen. Staff should propose concrete
transportation alternatives and revenue streams. The City's TMA should
work with smaller companies to reach an SOV goal of 40 percent. He asked
why the Embarcadero shuttle was not included in live tracking.
Ms. Gitelman explained it was a separate contract.
Council Member Scharff wanted Staff to provide concrete proposals to open
contracts in 2017. The Council needed sufficient information about mobility
as a service so it could provide Staff with direction.
Council Member DuBois inquired whether Staff planned to meet with Uber.
Ms. Gitelman would be happy to meet with other providers. Businesses had
subsidized Lyft to encourage employees' use.
Council Member DuBois asked if any cities or public agencies utilized Lyft.
Ms. Gitelman was not aware of any cities. In the New York area, businesses
funded a discount on Uber as a way to bring people to the businesses.
Council Member DuBois inquired whether the $1 million committed to
shuttles could be used to explore ridesharing.
Ms. Gitelman reported much of the $1 million was utilized for parking
programs at Council direction. The Council could determine whether 2016
funds would be used for parking, shuttles, or other solutions.
Council Member DuBois found the Chariot service interesting. It leveraged corporate commuter dollars, pretax dollars, to pay for vans on semi-custom
routes.
03/02/2015 117- 30
MINUTES
Mr. Friend added that Chariot was calling itself "Google bus for the rest of
us." Many different kinds of funding and many creative ideas were available
in the marketplace.
Council Member DuBois expressed concern that the City was investing in
legacy technology, large buses on fixed routes.
Ms. Gitelman advised that many transit agencies were experimenting with
hybrid systems with fixed routes. She did not believe the City could operate
without the Crosstown Route because it served a large number of students.
Transportation agencies were also experimenting with a door-to-door service
as a supplement to fixed routes.
Council Member DuBois felt buses or shuttles could become outmoded
systems.
Mr. Friend explained that the City would not be as agile as private providers
if it over specified and defined systems and routes and used the normal
decision cycle to make changes. The Council could think about defining
parameters and metrics for the system, and then allow flexibility for private
providers and City Staff to innovate in a more agile way.
Council Member DuBois wanted to offer point-to-point service for seniors.
Staff should return with proposals to experiment with a rideshare service so
the Council could compare them with the shuttle program. With the City's
lower density, a rideshare program could be a better direction than fixed
routes.
Mayor Holman stated Google buses seemed to operate as offices, so there
could be confidentiality issues. People's habits did not change overnight.
She had not heard anybody in transportation refer to a rider as a customer.
Mr. Friend noted the Finnish system was designed around making the
system work better for the customer. That would be worthwhile for the City
to consider.
Mayor Holman indicated residents, commuters, seniors, and students had
different destinations. She wanted to offer better senior services. The
Council did not have sufficient information. The Council needed to identify
an ongoing and sustainable funding source. One funding source had to be
PAUSD. The mapping for the shuttle system was unavailable and not user-friendly.
James Keene, City Manager, advised that Staff's and the Council's thinking
had expanded from focusing on shuttles to mobility as a service. The
03/02/2015 117- 31
MINUTES
Council charged Staff with designing different solutions. There was no
turnkey operation the City could copy. The idea of tweaking the shuttle
system was not viable.
Mr. Friend would return with specific ideas for transportation. These things
were central to the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan. The City would not
make any significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions without
transforming transportation.
Mayor Holman suggested Staff not be limited by current concepts.
City Manager Comments
James Keene, City Manager, asked if he should acknowledge the National
Arbor Day Proclamation.
Mayor Holman read the Proclamation into the record.
Mr. Keene announced commercial compostables would be sent to a new,
higher-use facility to eventually generate sustainable electric energy and to
be converted to a soil amendment. The City launched the online Business
Registry which should provide critical insight into the business community.
Staff had completed renovations to the Airport terminal building, resulting in
a savings of $140,000.
Oral Communications
Urban Cummings invited the public to a celebration of Arbor Day on March 7,
2015.
Bonnie Packer, Palo Alto Housing Corporation Board President, explained
Palo Alto Housing Corporation's rental of a house to its employee and the
sale of the Maybell property.
Mila Zelkha, speaking as an individual, was disappointed by attacks from a
few individuals on Palo Alto Housing Corporation and its Executive Director.
Sea Reddy spoke about relations between Israel and Iran.
Dan Garber reported in 2014 property and business-related revenues
contributed more than half of the funds in the City's General Fund.
Commercial property contributed 71 percent of revenues while single-family
residences contributed 29 percent. City data showed the contribution from
commercial property would increase significantly over the next ten years.
Changes to the uses and availability of commercial property could have
03/02/2015 117- 32
MINUTES
advantageous or detrimental impacts that would directly affect residents'
quality of life. He provided a report to the Council.
Deb Goldeen believed the City contracted with a company whose employees
were not qualified to perform gas line replacements. She expressed concern
about the safety of those workers and residents.
Omar Chatty hoped the Council would begin efforts to eliminate Caltrain
service. Another person died on Caltrain tracks in San Jose. Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART) was an alternative to Caltrain.
Winter Dellenbach invited the public to a rally in support of Buena Vista
Mobile Home Park on March 9, 2015.
Minutes Approval
MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to
approve the minutes of December 1, 2 and 8, 2014.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 DuBois not participating
Consent Calendar
Jeff Hoel spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 5. Staff should follow
Assembly Bill (AB) 57 as it appeared to have been written for the benefit of
AT&T.
Stephanie Munoz spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 4. The concept of
Transferable Development Rights (TDR) was outmoded and not well
conceived.
MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid
to approve Agenda Item Numbers 2-7.
2. Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Contract C12143475 with Alta
Planning + Design to Extend the Contract Term to December 31, 2015
for the Safe Routes to School Planning Project.
3. Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute an Electric
Fund Construction Contract with MP Nexlevel of California, Inc., in the
Amount of $1,697,836.50, for Trenching and Installation of Utility
Substructures for Underground Utility District No. 47 (Project: EL-
11010) in the Area of Middlefield Road, Homer Avenue, Webster
Street, and Addison Avenue; and Approval and Authorization for the
City Manager to Execute Addendum No. 2 to the Agreement for Joint Participation in the Installation of the Underground Facilities System
03/02/2015 117- 33
MINUTES
Between the City of Palo Alto, AT&T, and Comcast Corporation of
California IX, Inc.
4. Resolution 9497 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto Designating 300 Homer Street Known as the Roth Building as a
“Sender Site” in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program
and Direction to Staff to Advertise Request for Proposal to Market the
TDRs.”
5. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that the City Council
Adopt a Resolution 9498 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City
of Palo Alto Approving the City of Palo Alto Utilities Legislative
Guidelines.”
6. Appeal of Director of Planning and Community Environment’s
Architectural and Historic Review Approval of a Rehabilitation of a
Category 3 Historic Resource located at 261 Hamilton – Request for
Continuance to April 6, 2015.
7. Approval of Amendment Number 3 to Contract C08125506 with The
Planning Center ¦ DCE, now Known as Placeworks, to Increase the
Contract by $157,525 to an Amount Not to Exceed $1,894,731 and
Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) 5306 entitled
“Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
to Increase the Fiscal Year 2015 Appropriation to the Planning and
Community Environment Department for Preparation of a Fiscal Study
in Conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Update.”
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
Action Items
8. Public Hearing: Objections to Weed Abatement and Adoption of
Resolution 9499 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo
Alto #9489 Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated.”
Mayor Holman noted an at-places communication had been provided.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, advised that the correct year was 2014 rather
than 2013.
Public Hearing opened and closed at 7:50 P.M. without public comment.
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to adopt the Resolution ordering the abatement of weed nuisances in
the City of Palo Alto.
03/02/2015 117- 34
MINUTES
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
9. Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution 9500 entitled “Resolution of
the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Water, Gas and
Wastewater Connection and Capacity Fees and Miscellaneous Utility
Charges (Utility Rate Schedules S-5, G-5, W-5 and C-1)”
Public Hearing opened and closed at 7:51 P.M. without public comment.
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to
adopt the Resolution amending the following Utility Rate Schedules: W-5
(Water Service Connection Fees), G-5 (Gas Service Connection Fees), S-5
(Wastewater Service Connection Fees), and C-1 (Utility Miscellaneous
Charges), effective May 1, 2015.
Council Member Scharff requested an explanation for placing the Utilities
Legislative Guidelines on the Consent Calendar and the rate amendments as
an Action Item.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported the rate item needed to be approved
by the Council as an Action Item under rate setting procedures. The Utilities
Legislative Guidelines were placed on the Consent Calendar consistent with
Council direction. A Council Member could request the item be removed
from the Consent Calendar. Staff felt Council time should be reserved for
items requiring a great deal of discussion.
Mayor Holman added that the rate item was placed as an Action Item to
allow public comment.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent
10. Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding Establishment of an
Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit (Continued from February 9, 2015).
Mayor Holman advised that Item Number 10 was a continuation of the
discussion started on February 9, 2015.
Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director, recalled
issues and possible remedies raised in the February 9 discussion. Possible
remedies were grouped as either long-term ideas that could be analyzed in
the Comprehensive Plan Update or short-term ideas that could be
implemented on a temporary basis. Strategies discussed on February 9
included an annual limit of Office/Research and Development (R&D) square footage; programs and performance measures that would directly address
the impacts of development; and slowing the pace of development by
03/02/2015 117- 35
MINUTES
increasing development costs and imposing fees. The Council had discussed
other zoning changes or modifications to existing regulations that could
affect the amount or pace of development. The question was whether the
City needed to change its development standards or moderate the pace of
new development while the Comprehensive Plan was being updated and, if
so, how. Possible remedies discussed on February 9 included requiring a
Conditional Use Permit for new Office/R&D and imposing conditions on
development; instituting a district-specific moratorium; suspending the use
of exceptions; and instituting temporary reductions in allowable densities.
An issue with short-term strategies was their effect on projects in the
pipeline. Staff believed the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) data set
was more useful because it utilized Citywide data and segregated uses.
Using that data set of December 2014, the pipeline contained 16 projects
totaling approximately 185,000 square feet. Of those 16 projects, five
contained less than 5,000 square feet, and none contained more than
30,000 square feet.
Mayor Holman noted Council Members asked questions at the prior meeting.
She requested Council Member Kniss, who was absent on February 9, submit
her questions.
Council Member Kniss asked if Staff included the Stanford areas in the nine
planning areas.
Ms. Gitelman indicated Stanford Research Park and Stanford University
Medical Center were included.
Council Member Kniss asked if they were separate.
Ms. Gitelman could not recall. The data set of nine planning areas was not
Citywide.
Council Member Kniss inquired about the number of pipeline projects located
in the Downtown area.
Ms. Gitelman could return with details of the pipeline projects. The at-places
memorandum included a breakdown of Office/R&D square footage by several
districts. It was an overview of data presented in the Staff Report broken
down by district.
Council Member Kniss asked if the total number was spread out over nine planning areas.
03/02/2015 117- 36
MINUTES
Ms. Gitelman explained that the total amount on packet page 359 pertained
to the nine planning areas, dating to 1989. Data presented on packet page
357 pertained to the City as a whole, dating to 2001.
Herb Borock felt information regarding the nine planning areas would be
useful should the Council wish to take action in relation to particular areas of
the City. Information in the at-places memorandum counted Stanford
campus employment as employment in the City of Palo Alto. If the Council
wished to include Stanford University employment, then it had to consider
secondary effects.
Dan Garber indicated real estate consultants were recommending office
space rental rates increase because of Council discussions. An office cap
would increase rental rates, make attracting employees more difficult, and
increase the cost of working in Palo Alto.
Hamilton Hitchings suggested the Council reduce the estimated square feet
per worker to 100 square feet per worker; adopt Palo Alto Forward's
suggestion of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program;
implement an annual cap of 20,000 square feet for office space; and
implement an office space selection process.
Frank Ingle endorsed imposition of a cap in combination with an application
selection process. The Business Registry should be useful in determining the
source of the Downtown parking problem. Perhaps the Council could apply
parking fees per employee to mitigate parking problems.
Jerry Schwarz supported Palo Alto Forward's suggestions to address traffic
and parking problems. The main problem for Downtown residents was the
type of retail.
David Bena, Watercourse Way, felt a development cap would increase rents
and cause businesses to leave Palo Alto.
Ben Lerner supported a cap on new office development, but preferred a
moratorium. Unrestricted office growth threatened the quality of life in Palo
Alto. The jobs/housing imbalance pressured the City to approve higher
density housing.
Stephen Levy stated the fiscal study was critical to understanding the
impacts of development. In considering a cap, the Council should think about pipeline projects, when a cap would end, and the legality of a cap.
Judy Kleinberg, Chamber of Commerce, urged the City to engage in a
strategic examination of facts and surveys before imposing an annual or
03/02/2015 117- 37
MINUTES
interim office development cap. An annual cap would create problems
without solving traffic and parking problems.
Peter Stone advised that a hastily imposed cap would discourage the
innovative elements of the business community. The existing business
climate reflected the vitality of the local community, which supported a
healthy General Fund.
Terry McCarthy, Survey Monkey, did not believe parking and traffic problems
were caused by office workers or office space. Employees of Survey
Monkey, Palantir, and RelateIQ spent on average $210 per week per
employee in Downtown Palo Alto. Survey Monkey looked forward to working
with the City to develop solutions that would benefit everyone.
Susan Graf stated the vibrant Downtown environment would die without
growth. She suggested the Council review results from the new TDM
Program and Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Programs before considering
more zoning rules.
Olya Kransnykh advised that imposing an office cap would ensure the office
environment remained static. Limiting growth would result in energy
inefficient buildings and reduced worker productivity. Limiting growth would
not solve parking and traffic problems.
Robert McGrew, Palantir, expressed concern about the imposition of an
annual office cap as a solution to parking and traffic problems. The Council
should understand root causes of parking and traffic problems before
imposing measures that would add collateral damage to Palo Alto
businesses. He reviewed findings from a survey of Palantir, Survey Monkey,
and RelateIQ's 1,186 local staff and contractors.
Tara Nussbaum, Palo Alto Forward Steering Committee, believed an
Office/R&D cap would not solve problems of parking, traffic, housing, and
retail climate. A development cap would cause businesses to intensify their
usage of existing buildings with a corresponding increase in traffic and
parking issues.
Bob Moss felt limiting office space would have no impact on jobs, growth, or
rent increases. A temporary cap of 25,000 to 35,000 square feet would
allow some growth while studies were conducted.
Stephanie Munoz suggested Stanford University house its workers within
walking distance of their jobs. An interim cap was necessary.
03/02/2015 117- 38
MINUTES
Margaret Heath suggested the Council impose a moratorium on office
development applications until pipeline projects were completed, perform an
accurate traffic study, implement a Business Registry including employee
counts, and cease exceptions and incentives.
Fred Balin reported office space had increased by more than 500,000 square
feet while retail space had shrunk significantly in the past seven years. The
Council should also prohibit conversion of retail space to office space and
reject any project that required Council discretion.
Randy Popp, speaking as an individual, agreed with comments published by
the Chamber of Commerce, Palo Alto Forward, and Stephen Levy. Capping
growth would be a tragic misstep. Incentivizing people to behave better
would have little effect in the short term. Replacing inefficient and obsolete
structures with new building stock, if done thoughtfully, would improve
traffic and parking problems.
Ian Irwin advised that sidewalks were not wide enough for the number of
pedestrians and bicyclists occupying them. A moratorium was appropriate
while issues were resolved.
Lee Lippert reported carbon neutrality could not be achieved by slowing
development. Building efficiency could only be achieved through building
replacement.
Terry Holzemer believed the growth in office space was changing the
environment. It was time to stop development exceptions and impose a
limit, cap, or moratorium on office development.
John Kelley felt a moratorium was a horrible idea. Even worse was the
Council deciding an issue when it had instituted a process in which the
community could participate.
William Ross favored a moratorium and a temporary cap. The Council
needed a cumulative traffic study and should consider a zero water footprint
requirement for new development.
Stephen Ehikian, RelateIQ, reported the company subsidized Lyft and Uber
services for employees commuting into Palo Alto via Caltrain. If the Council
could focus office development near arteries of transportation hubs, then
business owners could develop methods to reduce congestion.
Richard Brand encouraged the Council to act on a six to nine-month
development moratorium. The Council should act now rather than waiting
for additional data.
03/02/2015 117- 39
MINUTES
Neilson Buchanan was convinced that 800 nonresidents parked in the
Downtown North neighborhood daily. The private sector would have to
cooperate with the public sector in order to resolve parking and traffic
issues.
Doria Summa supported a short-term moratorium in order to evaluate and
resolve problems.
Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, indicated the City had collected a great deal
of data. Existing buildings were responsible for a larger share of traffic and
parking problems than new buildings. The number of employees that could
result from intensification of use was higher than the number from new
buildings. The Council could impose a strict trip limit on new development
and require new development to contribute funding to reduce trips.
Ruth Lowy supported a cap on growth of office space. She hoped the
updated Comprehensive Plan would not contain loopholes that allowed more
growth.
Stuart Hansen indicated the City was now obligated to build 2,000 new
housing units, which would further burden traffic and parking. He requested
the Council consider a near-term cap or moratorium on continued
development.
Jeff Brown suggested the Council review the carrying capacity of the City.
The construction of buildings emitted more carbon than the operation of
buildings.
Rainier Pitthan supported better transportation and housing. Council
Member Scharff was a member of the Council that attempted to reverse the
Ordinance which did allowed conversion of retail to office. That should be
reversed.
Council Member Scharff reported that action was taken before he joined the
Council.
Mr. Pitthan clarified that Council Member Scharff attempted to reverse that
Ordinance. Good regulation was mandatory for a vibrant community.
Mayor Holman recalled the prior discussion ended before Council Members
Burt, Scharff, and Berman could speak.
Council Member Scharff clarified that the prior discussion ended with the Council agreeing to a round of comments and questions without offering
03/02/2015 117- 40
MINUTES
Motions. He wanted to hear comments from all Council Members prior to
offering Motions.
Mayor Holman agreed. She proposed Council Members limit their comments
and questions to 7 minutes each.
James Keene, City Manager, asked if Mayor Holman was planning to end the
discussion at a particular time.
Mayor Holman noted the item was scheduled to end at 11:15 with another
date scheduled for a follow-up discussion. The item could extend past 11:15
in order to accomplish as much as possible. She requested Council Members
speak for 7 minutes and not offer Motions during the first round of
comments.
Council Member Wolbach proposed the three remaining speakers be allowed
10 minutes as he spoke for that length of time at the prior meeting.
Mayor Holman would limit all speakers to 7 minutes.
Council Member Burt summarized problems, issues, and alternatives
mentioned by the community, colleagues, and others in order to frame the
discussion. Many issues were interrelated. He was not prepared to institute
a solution immediately. He was interested in a cap because it would not be
an onerous tool. A carefully crafted cap could add quality of life and control
the future.
Council Member Scharff advised that the Council needed good data in order
to understand the ramifications of a cap. He was not comfortable with his
understanding of the consequences. The Council needed to address the
negative impacts identified by community members. A cap would not make
a difference in any of those negative impacts. The Council needed to
eliminate congestion, to solve the parking issue, and to protect retail.
Protecting retail should have an easy solution.
There should be no issue with expanding ground-floor retail throughout the
City. Office development did not increase the number of mandated housing
units. An office cap could increase rents to the point that professional
service providers could not afford them. The Council should dedicate more
resources to implementing RPP and TDM Programs than to implementing a
cap. He questioned whether the Council would arbitrate an application selection process, as people were not happy with Architectural Review Board
(ARB) decisions. The Council needed to approach this carefully and
thoughtfully. Perhaps the Council and community could explore a cap
through the Comprehensive Plan. If the community was concerned about
03/02/2015 117- 41
MINUTES
sustainability and trips, the Santa Monica model would probably be a better
approach. The question was how to minimize congestion and increase
mobility.
Council Member Berman reported the Council had heard concerns about and
initiated programs in relation to traffic, parking, and retail space. Those
programs remained in the 2015 work plan and would require a considerable
amount of Council and Staff time. Implementing an office cap on
development would not preserve local retail, would not address rising rental
rates, and would not reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new
construction. A low cap or a moratorium would likely eliminate a few dozen
trips into Palo Alto and the need for a few dozen parking spaces, but would
require massive amounts of Staff and Council time to plan and initiate. Staff
and Council time would be better spent on other initiatives. He would not
support the implementation of a moratorium or a cap. The Council had an
opportunity to begin studying programs and performance measures that
would directly address problems and impacts of development. He was
interested in requiring new construction to meet target Single Occupancy
Vehicle (SOV) rates and identifying revenue-generating options from new
and existing buildings.
Vice Mayor Schmid felt the Staff Report asked the Council to frame a
discussion, to begin a debate. The current ratio of 3 employees to 1
employed resident would increase over the next 20 years; therefore,
parking, congestion, and density would worsen. The 1988 Citywide Land
Use and Transportation Study Final Report listed TDM as a solution to Palo
Alto's problems. TDM did not appear to be the solution by itself. Agenda
Item Number 7 authorized a consultant to assist Staff with answering
questions of who paid and who benefited. That was part of the debate.
Council Member Kniss believed Council Member Burt's list indicated the
complexity of the issues. Retail was one of the most difficult issues. Office
workers were the best retail customers. Businesses in adjacent communities
were expanding which would affect Palo Alto.
She was surprised by Palo Alto's lack of a parking app. A parking app would
reduce the number of cars driving around looking for a parking space. She preferred to implement other initiatives prior to a cap on development.
Council Member DuBois stated the status quo was creating an environment
dominated by office space and decreasing diversity. Traffic, parking, noise
and air pollution, and bike safety were symptoms of the underlying issue.
The discussion was an opportunity for the Council to focus on root causes and have a clear discussion regarding a fundamental vision for Palo Alto.
03/02/2015 117- 42
MINUTES
The Council had to discuss rate and type of growth for the future. The issue
concerned creating space in zoning for residential and retail at the expense
of Office/R&D. It was time for a new kind of mixed use such as
retail/residential. The Council should ensure impacts were considered in the
Comprehensive Plan Update. Staff asked the Council to consider two
scenarios in the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
process. Evaluating those scenarios was both wise and prudent. The transit
hub and the Transportation Management Association (TMA) would be located
Downtown; therefore, an annual cap would be logical. The Council should
agree on the need for a cap prior to discussing its creation. The Council
should consider immediate protection of ground-floor uses and conversion
from retail to office, density assumption changes, and exceptions. He was
interested in directing Staff to explore an annual cap as part of the
Comprehensive Plan Update.
Mayor Holman indicated rental rates had been increasing without an office
cap. An interim moratorium or office cap could exacerbate that. With
respect to the lack of energy efficiency of older buildings, a 50-year old
building received the highest Green Business Award the prior week. Office
space was a component of the problem. An office cap or moratorium could
affect retail space and services. The Council should initiate an Interim
Ordinance as well as a cap in order to eliminate the Citywide conversion of
retail and service to office until the Council could determine zoning
parameters to protect retail and services. If the Council did not act, more
changes would occur that could not be reversed. If the Council did not act
with respect to office development, data would be collected in a mercurial
environment. Rather than implementing a cap or moratorium, the Council
could require full impact fees. Obtaining data from new initiatives would
take a long time.
Council Member Filseth noted the City had fixed limits similar to a cap. An
office space limit was surgical compared to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit.
The advantage of a development cap was it provided a level of predictability
for the amount of office space to be developed.
Combined with Business Registry data, the City might be able to predict job growth accurately over an extended period of years. An infinitely increasing
jobs/housing ratio was unsustainable. It was not complicated to slow office
growth while implementing TDM and other measures and zoning relief for
retail. If the Council directed Staff to consider limitations on office growth as
part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, nothing would happen for another 18 to 24 months. The Council should direct Staff to include an office
development cap within the Comprehensive Plan Update.
03/02/2015 117- 43
MINUTES
Council Member Berman clarified that an RPP Program was delayed because
the Council continued to add initiatives to Staff's work plan. The Council
should attend to and provide resources for a TDM Program so that it could
be successful. Palo Alto should consider a cap for no net trips. A cap did not
address existing buildings, existing employers, and existing tenants. Council
Member Burt listed the many issues the Council would need to address in
implementing a development cap. Addressing those issues would require
thousands of man hours. The Council had identified many programs that
addressed the problems of parking and traffic.
MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member
Wolbach to direct Staff to study and bring back to Council:
1. Methods for requiring new construction to meet target Single Occupancy
Vehicle (SOV) rates;
2. Different revenue generating options from new building construction
including development fees that can be spent on trip reduction efforts;
and
3. Different revenue generating options from existing buildings potentially
including fees on commute trips or square footage that can be spent on
trip reduction efforts.
Council Member Berman believed the City had finite monetary and time
resources and major issues to be addressed. The Council should dedicate
resources to the programs and policies that would accomplish the most
good. Methods contained in the Motion addressed concerns of the
community.
Council Member Wolbach remarked that precluding opportunities to
negotiate was nonsensical. The Motion focused Staff time on challenges
caused by development, excessive car trips, and intensification of use. He
favored slowing but not capping office development unless it was
accompanied by significant efforts to control transportation and housing
costs.
The City needed the business community as a partner in solving
transportation and housing problems. The Council should direct Staff to
return with options for retail protection.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council
Member Filseth to direct Staff to analyze the impacts of an annual
development limit on Office/R&D of 10,000 sq. ft. and 40,000 sq. ft. for the
draft Environmental Impact Report.
03/02/2015 117- 44
MINUTES
Vice Mayor Schmid advised that numbers effectively demonstrated that
office development and job creation continued to grow faster than residential
housing. The Substitute Motion was an attempt to initiate a debate
regarding a limit on development.
Council Member Filseth explained that an annual limit would slow but not
stop office development in order to allow housing to grow. The high
concentration of jobs relative to housing increased housing rates. Adding
new office space near mass transit did not reduce car trips. The difficulty
with the Motion was measuring outcomes. The Substitute Motion addressed
the heart of the problem.
Council Member Kniss noted the Downtown Cap reported office space grew
by approximately 10,000 square feet per year. Office space in Downtown
had not grown at an incredible rate. She questioned whether the cap
contained in the Substitute Motion would apply to all nine areas or only
certain areas.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to analyze and
report back to the Council within 45 days the impact implemented (on a
temporary basis as the Comprehensive Plan is developed) of immediate
zoning changes to include:
A. Chapter 18.52 change the parking requirements only for general business
administrative office, professional and general business offices and R&D
space to 1 parking space per 125 sq. ft. until sufficient data is available
from the Business Registry to modify;
B. Expand ground-floor retail protections Citywide and prevent conversion of
retail to office; and
C. End exceptions in Zoning Ordinances. Staff to provide a complete list of
current exceptions and suggestions on which to modify.
Mr. Keene interpreted the Amendment as asking Staff to analyze and return
with the impact of listed changes. If passed, the Council would not be
directing to Staff to make those changes. He was unclear whether the
Substitute Motion directed Staff to analyze the impact of the stated caps.
Council Member DuBois suggested the intent of the Substitute Motion was for Staff to analyze the impact for the Comprehensive Plan Update. The
Amendment directed Staff to analyze potential immediate changes to the
Ordinance.
03/02/2015 117- 45
MINUTES
Mr. Keene clarified that Staff would return with information within 45 days
under the Amendment. Including the draft EIR language seemed to take the
Motion further than simply directing Staff to return with an analysis.
Vice Mayor Schmid noted the Council approved Agenda Item Number 7, to
hire a consultant to evaluate results from each of the Comprehensive Plan
options. He wanted to ensure that was included in those options. He
inquired whether "draft EIR" was the wrong terminology.
Ms. Gitelman indicated the draft EIR associated with the Comprehensive Plan
Update was correct. The Substitute Motion directed study as part of the
Comprehensive Plan Update, and the Amendment directed study of interim
measures to be considered prior to the Comprehensive Plan Update. She
asked if that was intentional.
Council Member DuBois replied yes. He asked if there was an issue.
Council Member Filseth inquired whether items b) and c) of the Amendment
contained sufficient detail for Staff to perform the work.
Ms. Gitelman could return with information responsive to items b) and c). If
adopted, the Council would direct Staff to study the impact of items b) and
c). She was unsure whether Staff would know the fiscal or environmental
impacts of significant changes in Zoning Regulations within 45 days. Staff
could provide their judgment of methods to implement them and possible
impacts.
Council Member Filseth asked if that information met Council Member
DuBois' goals.
Council Member DuBois answered yes.
Mr. Keene added that Staff would more likely provide advantages and
disadvantages in Staff's judgment. The Amendment was a separate step
from the Substitute Motion and could stand on its own regardless of whether
the Council adopted the Motion or the Substitute Motion.
Council Member Filseth felt 125 square feet per employee was extremely low
as a Citywide average.
Council Member DuBois explained that the categories in item a) were a
subset of other categories. He was suggesting Staff evaluate the square
footage at half the existing rate until data was available from the Business Registry. The rate of 250 square feet was out of date.
03/02/2015 117- 46
MINUTES
Council Member Filseth reiterated that 125 square feet was aggressive as a
Citywide average.
Council Member DuBois asked if Council Member Filseth could propose a
different number.
Council Member Filseth replied 175 square feet.
Ms. Gitelman wanted to ensure the Amendment distinguished between
parking requirements and employment densities. More parking spaces
generated more traffic.
Council Member DuBois referred specifically to Chapter 18.52 because it was
the base parking requirement. The remainder of Chapter 18 discussed TMA
and other ways to mitigate that requirement. Chapter 18.52 set the base
usage assumption, which could be adjusted below that.
Ms. Gitelman clarified that the adjustments available in the Code were
limited. By changing the base requirement dramatically, more parking space
would result.
Mayor Holman had been told that the parking requirement determined
whether development occurred and the size of the building. Requiring more
parking would limit the size of the building rather than creating more traffic.
Council Member Burt stated Council Members were debating a nuance. Only
the maker and seconder could speak to their Motion.
Mr. Keene was interested in whether the Council wanted to direct Staff to
return with additional information prior to deciding which direction it wanted
to take.
Council Member DuBois advised that the Substitute Motion was directing
Staff to analyze the impact of a Citywide cap. At 20,000 to 40,000 square
feet, the cap covered the average growth rate over the last few years.
He proposed the Amendment because the Substitute Motion was part of the
Comprehensive Plan Update. The Amendment was meant to address
concerns regarding a rush to file development applications.
Council Member Burt did not feel the Council had adequately discussed
issues in order to make thoughtful recommendations. The Motion and
Substitute Motion were premature. A 20,000 square foot cap was a near
moratorium that would expire in 15 years when the Comprehensive Plan was again scheduled for update. He was interested in reducing development
peaks significantly and increasing quality of projects. An alternative to a cap
03/02/2015 117- 47
MINUTES
would motivate the community to review better solutions. If traffic and
parking issues improved through other initiatives, the Council could be
willing to institute a moderately higher cap. He wanted a tool that would
allow the Council to differentiate among detrimental projects. Some
exceptions in Zoning Ordinances were good, and some should be
reconsidered. He would not support the Motion or Substitute Motion. If
neither passed, then the Council should schedule a follow-up meeting after
framing the issues.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change “10,000 sq. ft.” to
“20,000 sq. ft.”
Council Member Scharff agreed with Council Member Burt for the most part.
Allowing 175 square feet would provide a third more parking. The cost of
the additional parking was the equivalent of a moratorium. The proposed
development cap was also the equivalent of a moratorium. The Council
needed to think through the issues. The City needed to work on congestion
and target SOV rates. The Council was focused on implementing initiatives
to improve traffic and parking problems. The City needed new revenues to
focus on initiatives.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change in Section A “125
sq. ft.” to “175 sq. ft.”
Council Member Wolbach would not support the Substitute Motion. The
Substitute Motion as amended was intended to be a moratorium. Office
development should be slowed because of its negative impacts. If a
development project could mitigate all its negative impacts, it should be
approved.
Council Member Berman would not support the Substitute Motion.
Mayor Holman believed the Substitute Motion attempted to accomplish too
many objectives. Some exceptions in the Zoning Ordinance were beneficial
and should not be abolished. She favored preservation of retail space. The
Council did not have sufficient data to propose a number for item a).
SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED FAILED: 3-6 DuBois, Filseth,
Schmid yes
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by
Council Member Berman to direct Staff to return with:
03/02/2015 117- 48
MINUTES
1) An Interim Ordinance prohibiting the conversion of retail to any other
use; and
2) Options to strengthen and expand ground-floor retail protections
Mr. Keene suggested Staff could return with information for Item 1) prior to
Item 2).
Council Member Scharff asked when Staff could return with an Interim
Ordinance prohibiting conversion of retail.
Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported Staff would need to review some
details and refinements with respect to an Ordinance prohibiting the
conversion of retail to other uses. Staff could need to return for more
specific direction prior to presenting an Ordinance.
Council Member Scharff requested a timeline.
Mr. Keene indicated Staff would return as quickly as possible.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add at the end of Number 1
in the Motion-as quickly as possible.
Mayor Holman bifurcated the Amendment and Motion for voting purposes.
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney, advised that was allowed.
Mayor Holman asked if the Amendment applied Citywide or in commercial
areas.
Council Member Scharff reiterated that the Amendment stated in commercial
areas. He wanted an Interim Ordinance to prevent further loss of retail
while Staff developed options.
Mayor Holman asked if Council Member Scharff meant retail only or retail
and services.
Council Member Scharff felt services destroyed retail in many places.
Council Member Burt inquired whether the Council should consider expanding ground-floor retail locations and refining the definitions of retail
and services.
Council Member Scharff responded yes.
03/02/2015 117- 49
MINUTES
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to change in Number 1 of the
Motion- “retail” to “retail and services”.
Ms. Stump reported Staff would need to return to the Council to discuss
detailed issues and to notice a discussion focused on retail preservation.
The current Agenda Item was focused on growth management.
Mayor Holman asked if Council Member Scharff intended for Staff to return
with an Interim Ordinance after Staff conducted the analysis of retail
locations.
Council Member Scharff intended Staff to return with an Interim Ordinance
as soon as possible.
Ms. Stump asked if Council Member Scharff was seeking an Ordinance
applicable to specific properties outside an area that required retail but
where retail was present.
Council Member Scharff wanted an Interim Ordinance to be in effect while
the Council clarified the ground-floor retail requirement.
Ms. Stump inquired whether the Interim Ordinance should pertain to retail
property regardless of where those properties were located in the City.
Council Member Scharff replied yes. The Ordinance could expire in six
months or a year.
Ms. Stump would need to review a variety of issues and return with a
properly agendized item for public participation. That type of focused
direction in asking for a specific Ordinance was not a current Agenda Item.
INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the end of Number 2
in the Motion-: “and reconsider: a) definitions of retail and services; and b)
locations throughout commercial areas.
Council Member Kniss inquired whether the City Attorney would return to the
Council prior to presenting or when presenting an Interim Ordinance.
Ms. Stump understood Council Member Scharff wanted Staff to address the issue with all possible speed. Staff would review different ways to do that
and present them to the Council as choices.
Council Member Kniss asked if that would be publicized.
03/02/2015 117- 50
MINUTES
Ms. Stump replied absolutely. The Council was not taking action at the
current time.
Vice Mayor Schmid asked if the Council was voting on an Amended Motion.
Mayor Holman explained that the Council was voting on the Amendment
independent of the Motion.
Ms. Stump indicated the Amendment could be characterized as a separate
Motion and would survive if the underlying Motion failed.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0
Mr. Keene reported Staff would return to the Council with issues involved
with Item 2. The Council wished to make a public statement of its intentions
in the area of ground-floor retail. Staff would return as quickly as possible
with an Interim Ordinance and a detailed report of the work needed to
accomplish other things.
Council Member Burt believed the Motion was intended to be inclusive of
measures the Council might take outside of the Comprehensive Plan to
address development issues and other issues relating to traffic impacts.
That was not all he wanted to do. In the fall of 2014, the Council was
considering either changing the Zoning Code prior to the Comprehensive
Plan or a cap. Neither of which were included in the Motion. Within zoning
changes, he wanted to include review of exceptions. He would not support
the Motion. He preferred to hold an additional discussion of all measures.
Council Member Berman inquired whether Council Member Bert was
requesting clarification of the Motion.
Council Member Burt was not willing to support the Motion unless it returned
for further discussion of either a cap or zoning on an interim basis or within
the Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Berman intended the Motion to be an alternative to a cap,
but did not intend for it to include potential zoning changes.
Council Member Burt had not ruled out a moderate, reasonable cap.
Vice Mayor Schmid concurred with Council Member Burt that the Motion did
not effectively deal with the range of issues discussed. He would not
support the Motion.
Mr. Keene suggested the Council hold the Motion as a draft so that Staff could provide additional information.
03/02/2015 117- 51
MINUTES
Mayor Holman asked if the continuation date for the discussion was March
23, 2015.
Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk, indicated possible dates were March 23 or
March 30.
Mayor Holman requested objections to carrying the Motion forward to March
23.
Council Member Burt preferred the Motion be withdrawn and the Council
begin a discussion of alternatives on March 23.
Council Member Wolbach believed the Motion was clear and targeted the
core concerns around development. It seemed to support and encourage
further work on TDM and tying that to development. The Motion did not
preclude the Council from holding additional discussions. The Council should
support the Motion unless Staff indicated it was superfluous or would create
excessive work for Staff.
Mayor Holman clarified that the Motion needed clarification or an
amendment.
Council Member Scharff suggested a Motion to Continue was needed.
Mayor Holman concurred.
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by
Council Member Berman to continue this Agenda Item and Motion until
March 23, 2015.
Council Member Scharff stated the hour was late and Council was not at its
best. The Motion should remain on the table for amendments or a vote.
Council Member Wolbach inquired whether Staff could provide some
feedback regarding the amount of work required for the Motion prior to
March 23.
Mr. Keene advised that a direction for Staff to perform work was out of order
with a Motion to Continue on the floor.
Council Member Burt believed supporters of the Motion would want to
continue it to the next meeting.
MOTION TO CONTINUE FAILED: 4-5, Berman, Kniss, Scharff, Wolbach
yes
03/02/2015 117- 52
MINUTES
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by
Council Member Burt to withdraw the Motion and to continue the Agenda
Item to March 23, 2015.
Council Member Scharff stated a Motion to Withdraw should be made
separately from a Motion to Continue.
Ms. Stump reported the Council could vote once on both issues unless a
Council Member requested the Motions be bifurcated.
Council Member Wolbach wanted to vote on the Motion and then discuss a
Motion to Continue.
Mayor Holman explained a Substitute Motion was on the floor.
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED: 6-3 Berman, Kniss, Wolbach no
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Council Member Wolbach attended the Library Advisory Commission meeting
the prior week. The Palo Alto Library Foundation would dissolve in June
2015.
Council Member Kniss was elected Vice President of the Peninsula Division of
the League of California Cities.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 A.M.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto
Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the
preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee
meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
03/02/2015 117- 53