Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-12-07 City Council Summary Minutes Adjourned Meeting of November 29, 1994, to December 7, 1994 1. Public Hearing: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee .................................... 74-292 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. .......... 74-315 12/07/94 74-291 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 7:19 p.m.), Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Simitian UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Public Hearing: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto's future. The policies and programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transportation, and Natural Environment. The policies and programs will provide recommended policy direc-tion for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update (continued from 11/29/94) Council Member Andersen asked what would occur should Council wish to reconsider any items at a later time. Mayor Kniss said Council was merely conducting an advisory, first-draft run through of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update Policies and Programs Draft IV (the Plan). At any point, prior to final approval of the Plan in its entirety, Council could reconsider an item. Council Member Andersen asked whether a Council Member could raise an issue at any time. Mayor Kniss said Council Members could raise an issue at any time during its review of the Plan. Because Council was moving through the Plan slowly and with great deliberation, items could be raised at another time. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said as long as Council was on the same meeting, a motion to reconsider would be in order. Once Council had finished a meeting, the motion would be different. The effect of a motion to reconsider would erase the first action, i.e., a distinction without a difference. Council Member Andersen asked how an issue would be handled if Council had already concluded a particular section of the Plan. Mr. Calonne said an issue could be "undone" with another motion. The difference was between Council taking action to reverse its position as opposed to reconsidering and eliminating an original decision. Mayor Kniss clarified Council could continue to revamp the Plan. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said 12/07/94 74-292 Council might find that after it had taken an action in one section, it desired to move in a different direction when it got into another section, and in order to maintain consistency would change an action in a previous section. Until Council reached the final point of handing the Plan back to staff for preparation of the draft Plan, it could continue to change directions. Council Member McCown agreed Council should be allowed to rethink prior decisions but continue to push forward through the Plan. Mayor Kniss said Vice Mayor Simitian had asked that Council not make a final vote in his absence. Council Member McCown supported Goal BE-6 on page 8 of the Business and Economics (BE) section of Plan, which read "Support the development of technologically advanced area wide communications infrastructure," and Policy BE-6.BA which read "Cooperate with regional networks and with companies offering new or emerging information systems to determine their applicability in serving Palo Alto business and residences." The Planning Commission had recommended deletion of Program BE-7.A1, "Establish a volunteer commission or public/private group to assess and make recommendations regarding new developments in telecommunications technology." Although she agreed with the Planning Commission, if Goal BE-6 and Policy BE-6.A remained in the Plan, there should be an implementation program of some kind since the goal and policy were very vague and required clarification. Sandy Eakins, Co-Chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC), said the Business and Economic (BE) Subcommittee wanted to tap the tremendous technological resources in the community. CPAC had suggested a committee as a method by which the City could connect with the vast resources in the area of technology. Mayor Kniss said a local group had formed itself into a volunteer organization to work with technologically advanced programs in the City. Planning Commissioner Bernard Beecham said the Planning Commission had agreed with the staff comment that it was more appropriate to deal with the situation on an ad hoc basis over the life of the Plan. Because of the highly technical aspect, it was best to allow private enterprise to lead the way and approach the City with ideas about what it wanted accomplished, and then the City could respond. Council Member Andersen agreed with Council Member McCown's comments, however, whatever system was established should be a fast-track system and decided quickly. The City would lose if the issue were committed in a slow manner. If the process took too much time, too much input, and too many procedural stepping stones, the purpose of the initial goal would be defeated. The ad hoc committee might incorporate an existing group, which was appropriate, but a commission or City-operated response would be inappropriate. 12/07/94 74-293 Council Member Huber said Goal BE-6 suggested private enterprise involvement, not the City, i.e., fiber optics, etc. Mr. Schreiber felt the intention of Goal BE-6 was not for the City to be in a receiver position. Will Beckett, Co-Chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee said Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) was more interested in taking advantage of what was available. How that was accomplished was not as critical. Council could suggest encouraging a volunteer organization to form a committee. Council Member Huber said the issue was not how the goal would be facilitated with a commission or group but whether the City would encourage something or just wait until someone came through under the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulations. Ms. Eakins said the Subcommittee saw the BE goal as a general goal. Program BE-6.A1 had been proposed so the City would take advantage of the highly skilled and knowledgeable population. Council Member Huber agreed. There was a fundamental need for a program which involved the City, a program which stated what the City would do about the goal. Council Member Andersen thought there was interest in exploring whether or not the City would enter the communication business itself, which had not been stated in the Plan. Staff was encour-aged to wordsmith to ensure that the City would be able to participate in an active manner. Mr. Beecham asked whether Council Member Huber's initial question was whether the City would be directly involved in laying cable or wire. Council Member Huber replied no. The City's job was to own and/or facilitate its citizens and businesses to be technologically in the forefront. Short of spending large sums of money owning something, the City might be able to do something to facilitate such technology, but it was unclear in the Plan. Mr. Beecham said whatever happened in terms of Internet or a global highway, there would be a widespread standard. Articles had alluded to the fact that PacTel's plans were too small for what would be necessary nationwide. The City would have a difficult time setting the standard or be the first with a new process unless the process could be used nationwide. The City could facilitate something once it knew what the items were. Mayor Kniss said there were dramatically different philosophies on the issue. Council Member Fazzino said given the promise of the information and all the groups which had worked on the superhighway over the years, the City could do with one or two fewer groups and a little 12/07/94 74-294 more action. A program was unnecessary under Policy BE-6.A until the City determined which direction it would take. A number of policy options had been presented to Council a few months before, and a decision had been made to "punt" at the current time and evaluate the level of leadership the City wanted to provide, which was entirely appropriate. Prior to including a program, staff and Mr. Beecham should work on the Council-directed effort, returning with a policy about which a decision could be made. Then the City could move ahead with a program based on the policy decision. The policy statement should be strengthened, possibly "Identify appropriate opportunities to work with regional networks, citizen experts and others to ensure that Palo Alto businesses and residents are served at an appropriate level by new and emerging information systems." Council Member Huber's concern was legiti-mate since "cooperate" was a very passive action. Council Member McCown said before Council finally decided whether Policy BE-6.A should be included in the Plan, an identification should be made as to exactly what was meant by the policy state-ment. Council Member Fazzino asked whether Council Member McCown suggested the current language remain. Council Member McCown said it was important to decide whether the City wanted an active or passive role before the Plan was final-ized. Mayor Kniss said the technology was moving so quickly and, although the City had gotten off to a good head start, it would not maintain the lead much longer and would fall behind. Mr. Beckett said a very important distinction had to be made between a committee which would design infrastructure and one which would ensure the City was properly linked into whatever was available, which was an important designation. The committee should not design infrastructure. Mayor Kniss agreed. Council Member Huber also agreed. An important designation should be made about what the City was going to do and how it would be accomplished. He said Council Member Fazzino's suggested wording was appropriate. Mayor Kniss confirmed the Planning Commission and Council agreed to maintain Goal BE-7, "Modify and simplify City regulations that allows businesses to adapt and expand to meet changing market conditions;" Policy BE-7.A, "Streamline City administrative and regulatory processes;" and Program BE-7.A2, "Encourage the use of a variety of zoning tools, land use designations and area planning tools with the participation of interested parties, to develop consistent policy frameworks for particular areas of the City in order to improve certainty in project processing." Annette Bialson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, said CPAC 12/07/94 74-295 had attempted to attain some level of predictability for people asking for changes and made the approval process more streamlined, objective, and flexible. The policies and programs under Goal BE-7 sought all attributes of predictability, flexibility, and objectivity. A great deal of frustration had been expressed by people in Midtown concerning requests for design changes, increases in Floor Area Ratio (FAR), etc. Design professionals sought moving away from FARs as the main standard used and considering more flexible design parameters such as building envelopes. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commissions' vote on Program BE-7.A2 had been mixed: two voted for A, one for C, and one for D. There had been discussion about using zoning tools explicitly as a method of enhancing certain aspects. Mayor Kniss said Council had discussed FAR increases within the Stanford Research Park at its last meeting revealing consistency in the way in which the policy had been put forth. Council Member Huber said Goal BE-7, Policy BE-7.A, and Program BE-7.A1 all appeared to deal with a streamlining aspect, but Policy BE-7.B and Program BE-7.A2 seemed far broader and went beyond where the City needed to be. Some language should be included which said that while the City would streamline the process, it would not forfeit rules and regulations. Ms. Bialson said Program BE-7.A2 contained a caveat "to develop consistent policy frameworks for particular areas of the City." Council Member Huber viewed all of Goal BE-7 as a streamlining process and not what the City would do in a particular area of the City, which belonged elsewhere. Ms. Bialson said CPAC had sought more objectivity and predict-ability. It would be necessary to be clearer in the streamlining process, which could be accomplished by stating more succinctly the City's building envelope, FAR, etc. The question was whether the City could be clearer about what it wanted and what was held sacred in the design review processes. Mr. Calonne said the confusion was due to the mixing of many different concepts and asked whether Goal BE-7, "Modify and simplify city regulation that allows businesses to adapt and expand to meet the changing market conditions," meant the City's regulations which allowed businesses to adapt and expand needed to be simplified. While Policy BE-7.A was an understandable statement, the concept of certainty in project processing was introduced in Program BE-7.A2 and was potentially different from allowing businesses to adapt and expand. He hoped Council would filter out the several different concepts. The sentence in BE-7 was not understandable. Council Member Fazzino agreed with Mr. Calonne. The language in Goal BE-7 appeared to be lose and attempted to convey the need for the City to put certainty and predictability into its permitting 12/07/94 74-296 systems so that businesses could better adapt to a very dynamic, international, competitive situation. The language needed clarification. One could argue the City could violate many environmental regulations in order to allow business to adapt to international, competitive issues. There was a need for predict-ability and certainty in the City processes so businesses could adapt quickly. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, that Goal BE-7, "Modify and simplify city regulation that allows businesses to adapt and expand to meet changing market conditions," be modified to read "Modify the City's administrative and regulatory procedures to assure and provide certainty and predictability so businesses could better adapt to a dynamic and competitive business environment." Mr. Calonne asked whether Goal BE-7 would be limited to existing businesses or whether it was meant to have the City revise its processes as an invitation to other business. Council Member Fazzino said the goal would not be limited to new or existing business, but business in general. Council Member Wheeler said a staff committee, the Permit Stream-lining Task Force, was currently meeting and working on the issues addressed in Goal BE-7. Policy BE-7.A and Program BE-7.A1 was very thin on the program side and would make it necessary for the Task Force to come up with several potential programs. If and when the Task Force came up with programs, the programs should be incorporated into a program statement which corresponded with Goal BE-7 and Policy BE-7.A. Council Member Rosenbaum assumed Goal BE-7 had come directly out of the Economic Resources Plan (ERP), as indicated in the parenthetical remarks. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lyttle said "EPNCP" indicated an Existing Policy, Not Comprehensive Plan, and the "Economic Resources Plan" indicated a similar enough policy statement that staff considered it worth bringing to Council's attention. Council Member Rosenbaum said Council discussion should reflect any concerns about the policy in the Plan and ERP, prior to sending out 5,000 copies of a finalized ERP. Mayor Kniss asked whether Goal BE-7 contained the exact wording of the ERP or a similar message. City Manager June Fleming said the wording was similar. Council Member Andersen asked about CPAC's comments under Program BE-7.A2 regarding the reference to greater predictability as a result of switching from a FAR to a building envelope. Ms. Bialson said presentations which had been made to CPAC by design professionals had mentioned various design principles and 12/07/94 74-297 guidelines which were more flexible while achieving the objectives the City appeared to want to achieve through the use of tools other than FARs. The FAR process was hit-and-miss, and the City could end up with a process which it had not had in mind yet it met the objective FAR requirements. Council Member Andersen asked whether the alternative was an approach which had been used in other communities and whether it seemed to demonstrate, along with the flexibility, a sensitivity to the kind of environmental issues with which CPAC was familiar. Ms. Bialson replied yes. The actual concrete examples of cities from Florida to California, using the same criteria CPAC hoped to bring into the City's regulations to achieve more predictability and more desirable projects had been provided. Council Member Andersen was unable to determine whether one was better than another, but he would endorse examination of an expanded approach to allow creativity and predictability. Alternatives to the FAR approach should be sought which would allow for more flexibility and would avoid violating consistent positions the City had taken which were the reasons why the FARs had been established. Ms. Bialson said although Policy BE-7.E on page 9 of the BE Section of the Plan to "Create and articulate design principles and guidelines so that those who seek develop and invest in Palo Alto are given more objective direction as to the City's wishes," was slated for removal by the Planning Commission, Council might want it preserved under the new and improved Goal BE-7. Council Member McCown said two major ideas were contained in Goal BE-7. The first idea concerned predictability, certainty, and the streamlining of processes, which was appropriate for the BE Section. The City was mindful of the impact of its process on the ability of businesses to adapt so it wanted a policy statement and implementation through streamlining to do things in the community if a business wanted to make changes clear, certain, predictable, etc. The second issue had to do with whether there were other design and zoning tools for achieving the design or change the City sought which were different from the manner in which the City currently operated. The second issue did not belong in the BE Section. To the extent the Plan incorporated a commitment to evaluating such a change pertained to the Community Design (CD) Section. The only aspect which should be found in the BE Section was the policy statement about the City's commitment to the business community to tighten, streamline, and make certain and predictable the processes and rules of the game. The remainder should be removed and dealt with during discussion of the CD Section. Council Member Andersen agreed, but he wanted to be sure Council eventually dealt with the issue. Council Member McCown said Council Member Fazzino's suggested change tightened down the concept which belonged in the BE 12/07/94 74-298 Section. Council Member Schneider asked about the role of the ERP as it related to the BE Section of the Plan, particularly the staff comments on Program BE-7.C1, "Improve customer services and consider assigning an Ombudsperson (expediter/facilitator) within the City to assist applicants with project approvals." Mr. Schreiber said the ERP would be referenced in the Plan. Staff had determined that not all of the details in the ERP should be contained in the Plan, but the ERP should be consistent with the overall policies of the Plan. Council Member Huber asked whether Mr. Schreiber's reference to the ERP actually meant the five main topics which had been adopted by Council as opposed to the entire ten-page document. Mr. Schreiber replied yes, as well as whatever implementation measures Council determined were priorities which should be pursued. Mr. Calonne suggested the Plan identify the ERP with an explanation that the ERP would be a more flexible document with which the City could work. The Plan should authorize and recognize the existence of the ERP but not duplicate the details contained therein. Such a process would ensure consistency. Mayor Kniss said Council would discuss page 9 of the BE Section of the Plan prior to taking a vote on Council Member Fazzino's motion. She asked about the comment beneath Policy BE-7.C, "Work towards improved coordination of the City's environmental review, enforcement and permitting processes" to merge into one program. Mr. Schreiber said the handwritten note "merge into one program," which the Planning Commission had not accepted, referred to merging Policy BE-7.D, "Coordinate between the City's Architectural Review Board and the University's Architectural Review Board," and Program BE-7.D1, "Institute a program which eliminates conflicts or inconsistencies in design guidelines for non-academic Stanford University lands within Palo Alto," into one program. Mayor Kniss asked the Planning Commission to comment. Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission had given policies and programs C or C/D ratings if considered not a high enough priority for inclusion in the Plan. Although Policy BE-6.D to "Coordinate between the City's Architectural Review Board and the University's Architectural Review Board" was not appropriate for inclusion in the Plan, it was something the City would probably want to accomplish. Council Member Andersen said page 5 of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA) letter dated October 6, 1994, gave conditional support to Goal/Policy BE-7.A, "Streamline City administrative and regulatory processes," and Goal/Policy BE-7.C, 12/07/94 74-299 "Work towards improved coordination of the City's environmental review, enforcement and permitting processes," and stated "It is important that measures to streamline and coordinate should not come at the expense of weakening or losing regulations that address environmental concerns and provide the protection of the environment that is important to citizens of Palo Alto. We would like to see wording to that effect in the Comprehensive Plan." Language not adversely affecting the environment should be incorporated into the Plan, which was not clear under Policy BE-7.C. Staff should refer to the LWVPA letter as a reference for added clarification. Council Member Huber thought the motion concerning Goal BE-7 indicated consistency with environmental regulations. Council Member Fazzino said no. Council Member Andersen said the suggested language referenced a policy statement, not a goal. Mayor Kniss had always considered streamlining to refer to speed. Council Member Fazzino said the goal was more general than a policy statement. Mayor Kniss said nothing in the section referred to a timing issue, which was important to businesses. She was troubled that "streamline" might not mean "speed" and she asked whether such language could be incorporated. Ms. Bialson said CPAC's intention was speed and removal of complexity. Mayor Kniss had captured CPAC's desire in the word "streamline." Mayor Kniss thought the word "streamline" should be better defined so it would not sound like previous wording. The goal should meet the needs of the area, however, there was concern that under the policy, what the City hoped to gain was lost. Mr. Calonne said State's Permit Streamlining Act, specifically focused on speeding up processing. "Streamlining" was considered a term which conveyed to planners and lawyers the fact of speeding up the process. Council Member Schneider suggested language for Policy BE-7.A to "Streamline City administrative and regulatory processes to speed up and promote efficiency" if Council thought it necessary to have additional descriptive language. Mayor Kniss suggested staff return with language since Council's intentions appeared clear. Businesses spoke more about the issue of time than any other issue. The problem was not necessarily what was written into the process but the time it took which was troublesome for many businesses. Council Member Fazzino agreed with Mayor Kniss, but time was a 12/07/94 74-300 subset of predictability. The great frustration businesses had in dealing with governments was the unpredictability of the process. Council Member Huber said Council Member Fazzino's motion included the goal to be consistent with regulations which should be in the goal, not in a program or policy. Mayor Kniss thought staff understood the issues of consistency, predictability, timeliness, and being able to work in such a way that streamlining was the end result. Mr. Calonne said Council had hit on a theme or tension point, which it would find throughout the document between certainty and flexibility. The difference was between commandments carved in stone which were certain but inflexible versus case-by-case adjudication where there were no rules but whatever was fair, equitable, and in the communities interest presided. FCC standards regulated the public's interest. There was no way to make something both certain and flexible. The two concepts had to be balanced in a way which was comfortable for Council. Council Member Fazzino supported Council Members Andersen and Huber comments but the intent was to modify the language in a way which tightened up the goal so as to convey clearly the City's intent so it did not impact environmental regulations. All aspects of the Plan could contain language which stated support so long as the City complied with all applicable federal and state laws. He preferred tightening the language to having such language throughout the document. Ms. Bialson said CPAC had found itself placing caveats behind everything which eventually became redundant, implicit, and were eventually edited out. MOTION RESTATED Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, that Goal BE-7 be modified to "Support the City's administrative and regulatory procedures and processes which provided a certainty and predictability to help businesses adapt to a dynamic and competitive marketplace." Council Member Andersen asked whether the addition of "consistent with environmental commitments" should be included. Mayor Kniss thought Council Member Andersen's suggestion was one of the caveats Council would be tempted to add but which were unnecessary. Council Member Andersen felt such language should be included in the policy or program. Council Member Fazzino agreed with the Planning Commission's suggestion not to include Goal/Program BE-7.A2 which could raise the specter of violating but being inconsistent with environmental regulations. Everything should be eliminated which might conceiv-ably violate environmental regulation, making it clear the focus was on process. 12/07/94 74-301 Mayor Kniss said the City would be unable to violate environmental regulations. Mr. Calonne said the Plan had to be consistent with a natural environment element, and the concept should probably be built in. Possibly, staff could remind Council to ensure it had not violated any regulation. Mr. Beecham said Ms. Bialson's reference to the inclusion of caveats also applied to inserting criteria. The environment was a motherhood criteria. The Planning Commission had not included any criteria because one criteria should not be emphasized over another and once one was put in, the question was when to stop. The basic policies of the City had been included in the Plan which were in place and the Plan was consistent, in general, with all the policies. Each of the goals and policies did not need to reiterate the list. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. Council Member McCown agreed with Council Member Wheeler's comments that some of the details from the streamlining work staff had already conducted might be appropriate for inclusion as additional, specific programs. The timing would permit the flushing out of additional implementation measures. Ms. Eakins said the BE Subcommittee had included language about design, not to determine what the design would be, but to help businesses know such standards existed and that there were flexible options. CPAC thought such language belonged with the streamlining aspect, especially Policy BE-7.E, "Create and articulate design principles and guidelines so that those who seek develop and invest in Palo Alto are given more objective direction as to the City's wishes," and Program BE-7.E1, "To achieve harmonious design consistent with community standards and adjacent land uses, balance the use of Floor Area Ratios with other, more flexible design parameters such as envelopes," especially following staff's comments about reorganizing and merging the policies and programs. The ideas were important. Mayor Kniss asked Ms. Eakins how the policies and programs fit into the Urban Design Plan (UDP). Ms. Eakins thought the policies and programs in the Plan were very consistent with the UDP and the Urban Design Guide had been supported by CPAC and the BE Subcommittee. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to retain Policy BE-7.E, "Create and articulate design principles and guidelines so that those who seek develop and invest in Palo Alto are given more objective direction as to the City's wishes," and Program BE-7.E1, "To achieve harmonious design consistent with community standards and adjacent land uses, balance the use of Floor Area Ratios with other, more flexible design parameters such as building envelopes." 12/07/94 74-302 Council Member McCown thought Policy BE-7.E and Program BE-7.E1 should be located in the CD Section, not the BE Section. Mr. Beecham said CPAC had referenced the Downtown Urban Design Guide in the Urban Design (UD) Section. Council Member Andersen said Policy BE-7.E and Program BE-7.E1 were not limited to the Downtown area. The problem was in commercial areas, not just Downtown. Council Member Huber agreed with Council Member Andersen. Since the process had been simplified for small scale, it might be necessary to have a program which spoke to overall design simplification which was not as extensive as Policy BE-7.E or Program BE-7.E1. MOTION PASSED 5-3, McCown, Wheeler, Rosenbaum "no," Simitian absent. Mayor Kniss said the next category in the BE Section was Balance, which stated "Assure a broadly acceptable balance between support-ing businesses, maintaining the residential character of Palo Alto and preserving the environment" under which three goals were listed: Goal BE-8, "Foster commercial centers that serve neighbor-hoods (local shopping, groceries, restaurants, bookstores, services);" Goal BE-9, "Assure a broadly acceptable balance between business development and the maintenance of the residential character of Palo Alto;" and BE-10, "While fostering a balance between smaller and larger businesses, encourage a wide range and diversity of commercial services in Palo Alto." Ms. Bialson said the entire issue of Balance had been one of the more thoroughly discussed items of the BE Subcommittee, represent-ing some of its best work. A great deal of effort had been required to build consensus; however, a sharply pointed goal, policy, and program had been achieved in each issue. Mr. Beecham said BE-9 contained no programs or policies. Reference to the 1989 Land Use and Transportation Study had been discussed briefly. Council Member Wheeler had concerns and struggled with Program BE-8.B1, "Encourage medium density (20-25 du./ac.) housing in proximity to neighborhood commercial areas served by public transportation to support a more vital mix of commercial activi-ties." Policy BE-8.A, "Encourage the upgrading and revitalization of neighborhood commercial centers, Alma Plaza, Charleston Center, Edgewood Plaza," specified neighborhood commercial areas about which the entire set of goals, policies, and programs was con-tained. Of the centers, as currently developed, the economic health did not appear to be at all related to the density of the surrounding housing. The center which appeared to best service its neighborhood was Charleston, which was surrounded by fairly low-density housing. Midtown and Alma centers appeared to function the worst but had the highest density housing. The 12/07/94 74-303 density of housing did not appear to reflect the success factor, which was what Program BE-8.B1 appeared to intend to accomplish. If Program BE-8.B1 remained in the Plan, it would create controversy in neighborhoods surrounding the centers because each of the neighborhoods had a fairly defined character and was relatively happy with the residential character surrounding each neighborhood center. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to eliminate Program BE-8.B1 "Encourage medium (high) density (20-25 du./ac.) housing in proximity to neighborhood commercial areas served by public transportation to support a more vital mix of commercial activities." Mr. Beecham said the Planning Commission had not only wanted to foster the goal of BE-8, but also support housing. Program BE-8.B1 not only defined neighborhood commercial areas, but it was also served by public transportation, a theme which ran throughout many parts of the Plan. The intent was not to change neighborhoods, especially one which already worked but, if there were problems, to use it as a resource which might improve the situation. Mayor Kniss thought Council Member Wheeler's observation was correct. Midtown and Alma areas had the most trouble and the highest density. Ms. Bialson appreciated Council Member Wheeler's comments, but the fact was that Alma and Midtown areas did not work because of the density around them. Council Member Wheeler clarified the high density did not appear to bring success, which was what the program related to. Ms. Eakins said the point was not to bring success, e.g., create something in the policies that if more people or nodes of pedestrian activity were encouraged by having the higher density housing nearby, the more vital the neighborhood center would be. California Avenue and other locations were considered better served with medium density, both in terms of people living in the neighborhoods as well as businesses occupying the commercial centers. Alma and Midtown areas had their own unique problems, which was the result of multiple owners of commercial properties rather than the fact there was not higher density housing surrounding it. CPAC had tried to "kill many birds with one stone." Mayor Kniss suggested the issue be dealt with in the Housing Section rather than the BE Section. Council Member Wheeler said there was another problem besides the placement of the issue. In terms of commercial areas, CPAC was thinking along broader guidelines. The handwritten changes made to Policy BE-8.A, "...Alma Plaza, Charleston Center, Edgewood Plaza. Refer to map titled "City Structure" Community Design Section" referred to very specific neighborhood commercial 12/07/94 74-304 districts which narrowed the focus of the entire set of goals, policies, and programs to the enunciated neighborhood districts, which was not what CPAC had intended. If talking in the narrow context, the program had to be removed. If a distinction was drawn between the little neighborhood centers and areas like California Avenue, the intensity of surrounding development might be of benefit. Ms. Eakins said the section was about Balance and in Program BE-8.B1, public transportation was the key concept in the concentra-tion of higher density housing to support and make the vital mix of pedestrian activity, commercial activities, viability of the public transportation, etc., which would result in the kind of mix it should be. CPAC had not enumerated specific locations, but it had strongly been guided by the workshops which had been conducted wherein people supported the idea of more multi-family and small unit housing around commercial areas. Council Member McCown had not read into Program BE-8.B1 the concerns as expressed by Council Member Wheeler, however, she understood the concern about not designating upgrades and revital-ization only to neighborhood commercial centers with higher density housing. The program should be reworded to not leave such an impression or, if Council removed the program, it should only do so if it did not rule out medium- or high-density housing. The principles were right, and it was something the City should be open to. The negative implication should not be that Council did not want to pursue CPAC's recommendation that there was an opportunity to create the vital mix by clustering housing in such a way. She preferred to see whether staff could come up with language to either modify Policy BE-8.A so it would no longer target only particular areas or reword Program BE-8.B1 for greater comfort. A program which spoke of commercial centers which served neighborhoods was an important idea. Council Member Andersen agreed with Council Member McCown. Council Member Schneider said Program BE-8.B1 was an overriding program which was consistent throughout the Plan, however, it should not be limited to specific sites since the Plan was for 15 to 20 years, after which time there would be additional commercial centers. Medium-density housing should be encouraged close to such centers. Areas which had been specified would see redevelopment which should include medium density housing where none currently existed. MOTION FAILED 3-5, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Wheeler "yes," Simitian absent. Council Member Andersen asked whether staff required direction in the form of a motion to ensure additional language was included with regard to rewriting the existing sign ordinance. Mr. Schreiber said the Planning Commission recommendation was to rewrite the existing sign ordinance so, unless Council removed such recommendation, it would remain. 12/07/94 74-305 Council Member Andersen asked to what extent the term "revitaliza-tion" in Policy BE-8.A limited the size of such businesses as grocery stores. The City had limits which made it difficult for such structures to be revitalized. Mr. Schreiber said Council could establish policies to modify or change the current size limits in either the BE or CD Sections of the Plan. Council Member Andersen felt Council should explore in the CD Section the issue of the extent to which existing caps on grocery stores had limited success in revitalizing areas. More information and discussions with staff were necessary. Some flexibility was necessary and that was one reason some of the areas had been suffering. Mayor Kniss asked whether grocery stores were capped at 20,000 square feet in Palo Alto. Mr. Schreiber replied yes. Grocery stores were capped at 20,000 square feet without a use permit in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. In the Service Commercial Zone, grocery stores could be larger without a use permit. Mr. Calonne thought Policy BE-8.A, as elaborated in Program BE-8.A1, did not suggest expansion of the centers. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether Midtown had intentionally been deleted from the list of neighborhood commercial centers on Policy BE-8.A. Mr. Schreiber said Midtown had been dealt with more specifically in other policies in the Plan while the other centers mentioned did not have areas of specific policies. Council Member Rosenbaum thought the fact Midtown was missing from Policy BE-8.A was confusing and should be included in the list. Ms. Bialson said CPAC had not intended Policy BE-8.A to apply only to areas not addressed later in the Plan, but it was designed to be a more encompassing policy. Council was asked to strike the list, leaving Policy BE-8.A to read "neighborhood commercial centers." Mr. Beecham thought the Planning Commission had not intended to endorse limiting the policy to the centers recommended for inclusion by staff. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Andersen, to revise Policy BE-8.A to read as follows: "Encourage the upgrading and revitalization of neighborhood commercial centers, Alma Plaza, Charleston Center, Edgewood Plaza." Council Member Wheeler supported the motion. Council Member Schneider thought the centers had been specified 12/07/94 74-306 because people living close to the neighborhoods had wanted the areas mentioned in the Plan. MOTION PASSED 6-2, Fazzino, Schneider "no," Simitian absent. Mr. Beecham said Program BE-9.A1 on page 10 of the BE Section of the Plan referenced the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study (Land Use Study), with the Planning Commission's intent to modify as little as necessary to accommodate some of the other goals. Policies BE-9.B, "Allow higher density commercial and residential development in areas where there is no conflict with surrounding land uses," and BE-9.C, "Selectively reallocate use intensities through use of zoning tools including the transfer of development rights," allowed higher densities in various places and allowed transfer of development rights. Program BE-9.C1, "Identify specific areas which may be suitable for lower intensity uses in order to enhance economic vitality," appeared to restrict intensi-ties. The Planning Commission did not want to reanalyze all of the issues on a broad basis. There should be an acceptable balance, but without reassessing everything. Ms. Bialson thought CPAC had tried to convey the desirability of considering higher density in some areas of the City and in other areas, lower density in a business and commercial activity where appropriate. Site-specific recognition for different rules applied to different areas of the City, while being responsive to businesses needing to expand. The Plan would not benefit anyone by having a bare goal without a policy or program. Council Member Huber was interested in the Citywide land use after having sat through the latter part of the Land Use Study in 1989. If Program BE-9.A1 was not contained in the BE Section, he queried where it would be located, since it should be in the Plan somewhere. The consensus in the community had shown the restriction should be contained in the Plan. Mr. Beecham suggested the Planning Commission had erred in simply deleting Program BE-9.A1, rather than changing it to indicate limited modifications but keeping it in place. Council Member Rosenbaum thought Goal BE-9 was too much of a truism. Since there were no policies or programs for the goal and consistent with Council Member Huber's thought that Program BE-9.A1 belonged somewhere, Goal BE-9 should be deleted. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by McCown, to delete Goal BE-9, "Assure a broadly acceptable balance between business development and the maintenance of the residential character of Palo Alto." Council Member Andersen asked for staff's reasoning behind its recommendation to delete Program BE-9.A1. Mr. Schreiber said staff had recommended deletion of Program BE-9.A1 because in going through CPAC and Planning Commission recommendations, there were areas of town where CPAC and the 12/07/94 74-307 Planning Commission had recommended some modifications to land use limitations as a means of allowing additional development, i.e., Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical Center, Stanford Shopping Center, a hotel at Page Mill Road and El Camino Real, etc. Staff was also concerned about areas like Midtown and South of El Camino Real where one of the techniques which might be necessary to encourage revitalization and upgrade of the areas was to provide additional development potential beyond the current limits in the Zoning Ordinance which had come out of the Land Use Study. Existing zoning had not led to very acceptable conditions. Given the explicit policies for the Research Park and implicit policies for other areas, staff thought the firm wording of Program BE-9.A1 in terms of maintaining the limits per the Land Use Study would present an obstacle and probably an inconsistency with later and other actions. Council Member Andersen asked whether there was inconsistency in the Plan with regard to development if the cap were in place but the Plan indicated a go ahead and whether the City would be placed in any legal difficulty while development efforts proceeded. Mr. Calonne said the Plan itself was subject to challenge if it was internally inconsistent. If, at the end of the process, City staff publicly went on record that the Plan was internally inconsistent, it was an invitation to challenge the Plan. What the City would do if it had an adopted Plan which had not been challenged and which was internally inconsistent was difficult to extrapolate. The development project itself would also be vulnerable. There were many details which would be required to provide a more meaningful answer. Council Member Andersen hoped Council had carefully attended to the City Attorney's words. He asked what would occur regarding the issue of inconsistency if Goal BE-9 were removed, assuming the City kept the Land Use Study in place without modification. Mr. Schreiber said if Goal BE-9 was eliminated with all of the associated policies and programs and no other reference was made in the Plan to maintain the Citywide limits per Program BE-9.A1, there was no issue. The new Plan would establish new land use policies for different areas of the community and policies might be established which encouraged greater or lesser amounts of square footage of development in different areas of the community. Essentially, the new Plan would supersede the Land Use Study. Council Member Andersen asked whether Mr. Beecham's earlier suggestion to modify Program BE-9.A1 would be satisfied by the removal of Goal BE-9. Mr. Beecham said there were other goals, policies, and programs in the Plan which delineated expansions in one location or another, which would be part of the Plan and would be implemented. The Land Use Study did not have the same status as the Plan, so the Plan would become the ruling document. The City would have to follow the Plan which meant that if at some later point the numbers in the Land Use Study had to be changed, it would be done. 12/07/94 74-308 One reason to retain Goal BE-9 was that during the public hearing the public had been voiced concern about its removal. There were, however, other areas in the Plan where there should be changes. The public should be informed that Council had not removed it but remained consistent, which was the reason for leaving it in. If Goal BE-9 were removed, there would be no conflict. Council Member Andersen opposed the motion but suggested a modification to Program BE-9.A1. Neighborhoods were concerned about issues related to business development and residential character, a statement with which the majority of Palo Alto would be comfortable. There were issues related to Program BE-9.A1. Mr. Calonne called Council's attention to the language in Goal BE-9, "Assure a broadly acceptable balance between business development and the maintenance of the residential character of Palo Alto," which illustrated the difference between connotation and denotation of the word. Balance, as used in Goal BE-9 appeared to assume there was a connotation that balance was something. Balance, used alone from a denotation standpoint, was the same thing as saying "you shall drive at a speed" without indicating how fast or how slow. Inserted point was a broadly accepted balance which, should Council chose such a route, required a definition of what was broadly acceptable. Council should provide staff with a "speed limit." Council Member Wheeler said the motion had originally been appealing, but after discussion, thought there were many issues about which Council would need to make a decision. Council could not simply lose the community debate, and it was a large community debate, by simply taking scissors to the Plan and wiping out Goal BE-9 and anything attendant to it. Council needed to take action and some responsibility, whatever the version. Something needed to be in the Plan which was specifically stated. Council Member McCown agreed with Council Member Wheeler's comment. The issue was very significant and had to be addressed in the Plan. The Planning Commission had commented that Program BE-9.A1 should reference the Land Use Study with appropriate modifications. Staff could literally bring things from the Land Use Study with specific items which were in the Plan. No reference had been made to changing the 350,000-square-foot Downtown cap, to which she would be very opposed. To the extent Council wanted to specifically reaffirm elements of the Land Use Study for inclusion in the Plan, it should do so. To the extent there were other elements such as FARs in the Research Park, etc., which should be modified, it should also do so. The approach seemed more like a "sledge hammer" approach as presented by CPAC and to which the Planning Commission reacted. Council needed to get into the details to determine what, specifically, it wanted to do. The wording of Goal BE-9 was so broad and vague and was totally useless as a goal. If anything, it should be the statement at the very beginning of the Plan to indicate what the Plan would do for the community regarding an acceptable balance between commercial and residential development. The question was what exactly was the broadly acceptable balance, which was what 12/07/94 74-309 the Plan defined. To have such a statement as a goal was meaningless and too broad. Goal BE-9 was exactly the same as the vision statement for Balance in the BE Section. The concept of balance should be a vision statement, one of the main elements of the whole point of the document. A more detailed way should be utilized to capture as a goal, policy, and program what the City wanted as a definition of balance, i.e., the "speed limit." The Planning Commission might have thrown out all the policies and programs under Goal BE-9 because it needed to start over. Staff needed to help Council make some specific decisions and have it woven back into a goal with a set of policies and programs to define what balance was with respect to the level of business development. Balance under the BE Section was confused, conflict-ing, and vague. The subject could not be avoided and was the heart of what Council needed to discuss. However, it would be helpful to have a session during which time Council could start over to define how it wanted to describe the policy choices. Council Member Huber believed something like Goal BE-9 was the first commandment of the general plan because balance between business and residential was a concept from which everything flowed. Goal BE-9 was a vision statement which should be placed at the very beginning of the Plan, not buried beneath any of the programs. The Land Use Study needed to be included. The capping idea was important, no matter where it was placed in the Plan. Council Member Rosenbaum said his intention in removing Goal BE-9 was for Council to deal with Policy BE-9.A1 and the Land Use Study somewhere else in the Plan. The development potential within the City prior to adoption of the Land Use Study had been 25 million square feet. After the study, development potential had dropped to 3 million square feet, which was the linchpin and keystone of planning in Palo Alto. The Land Use Study had been conducted specifically because potential traffic impacts had not been completed. Therefore, the Land Use Study would not be thrown out. To the extent staff considered there were inconsistencies, it should return to Council with specific recommendations as to where the Plan should be modified on a case-by-case basis. Mayor Kniss summarized the motion to eliminate Goal BE-9. Council's discussion had indicted strong support for Program BE-9.A1 in some form. If Goal BE-9 were eliminated, all the supporting policies and programs would be eliminated also. Council Member Andersen supported the motion based on Council discussion. Council Member McCown reiterated the need to remove Goal BE-9 and start over. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Andersen, to adopt a new Goal BE-9, "Maintain the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study," and direct staff to return to Council with recommended exceptions to the Comprehensive Plan which staff 12/07/94 74-310 considered necessary for a consistent Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Andersen interpreted Council Member Rosenbaum's motion as giving staff latitude to ensure the Plan was consistent, with emphasis on consistency, with resultant flexibility in the Land Use Study. The exceptions would be the flexibility. Although the Land Use Study should be maintained, some latitude should be given if there was inconsistency. Council Member Rosenbaum intended staff to return to Council with what it thought was necessary. Council could determine whether or not staff's recommendations were appropriate. Council Member Fazzino supported maintaining the spirit of the Land Use Study but was troubled by the word "exception," preferring "modifications" based upon the Plan's language or proposals. MOTION RESTATED: "Maintain the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study," and direct staff to return to Council with recommended modifications to the Comprehensive Plan which staff considered necessary for a consistent Comprehensive Plan. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian. RECESS: 9:20 P.M. - 9:30 P.M. Mayor Kniss said Goal BE-10 on page 11 of the BE Section, which stated "While fostering a balance between smaller and larger businesses, encourage a wide range and diversity of commercial services in Palo Alto," had no policies or programs in its support. Council Member McCown said staff's comment in the right margin had indicated "merge with Goal BE-1" since the wording of Goal BE-1 "Maintain and encourage diversity in commercial, retail and professional services businesses," and Goal BE-10, "While fostering a balance between smaller and larger businesses, encourage a wide range and diversity of commercial services in Palo Alto," were virtually identical. In light of the fact programs had not been recommended for inclusion under Goal BE-10, perhaps Goal BE-10 and Policy BE-10.A, "The City should encourage revitalization strategies that recognize the importance of independent small businesses," should be included as part of Goal BE-1. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Huber, to merge Goal BE-10, "While fostering a balance between smaller and larger businesses, encourage a wide range and diversity of commercial services in Palo Alto," into Goal BE-1, "Maintain and encourage diversity in commercial, retail, and professional services businesses." Council Member McCown said Council had whittled away almost the entire Balance section. There was not a good enough reason to repeat the concept, which was critically important to Vitality 12/07/94 74-311 which made merging have sense. Staff's assignment on the prior issue might result in new content in the Balance section. Council Member Fazzino was troubled by the Planning Commission's action under Goal BE-10. The City should have a goal or section devoted to emphasizing the importance of small businesses, particularly in light of what had been heard in recent months regarding changes in the Downtown area. The Planning Commission was asked to justify elimination of Programs BE-10.A1 through BE-1.A4, i.e., whether the Planning Commission thought the City had a role to play in encouraging small business and, if so, whether it was simply that Programs BE-10.A1 and BE-10.A4 were inappropriate actions for the City to encourage small business. Mr. Beecham thought the Planning Commission had been concerned about a bias toward a particular size of business. Businesses should be encouraged, but explicit support or bias toward small businesses was not supported. Council Member Fazzino asked whether consolidation of store spaces was a legitimate method of encouraging small business. Program BE-10.A1, "Where appropriate, restrict the consolidation of store spaces so as to support the retention and vitality of smaller businesses," and Program BE-10.A2, "Where appropriate, allow consolidation of store spaces so as to encourage the vitality of smaller businesses" were diametrically opposed. Mr. Schreiber said staff had recommended deleting Programs BE-10.A1 through BE-10.A4 because it thought BE-10.A1 through BE-10.A3 should be addressed in implementation discussions within the Plan and did not need to be separate programs. There were references to ombudsperson in other parts of the Plan than just Program BE-10.A4 and a recommendation to fold the position into a general program dealing with the ERP. In an effort to reduce the bulk of CPAC's recommendations, staff considered such a level of detail was unnecessary for distinct programs. Council Member Fazzino asked which program, BE-10.A1 or BE-10.A2, was the appropriate course of action, if one supported its retention, in encouraging small businesses when it came to consolidation of space. Mr. Schreiber said Programs BE-10.A1 and BE-10.A2 were fundamen-tally in conflict. The City's Zoning Ordinance in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone contained size restrictions on a variety of uses, e.g., grocery store caps at 20,000 square feet, caps on offices and other service commercial activities by parcel, etc. The program had been included in the Zoning Ordinance during the 1980s in an attempt to support retention and vitality of smaller businesses. The resultant concern was that in some areas where there was a desire for more retail and service commercial vitality, the effort to hold down the size of particular establishments could work against the desire for vitality, because it was a restriction on the market. The City was not well-versed in knowing the best size appropriate for a particular service commercial use which should be loosened up to allow the market to 12/07/94 74-312 function in such areas. If the City decided to allow the market to function, Program BE-10.A2 would be the best method. If the City thought the market function would favor larger establishments and push out or decrease profitability or the likelihood of smaller establishments, Program BE-10.A1 would be the program to pursue. Mr. Calonne said there was also a geographical play which had to be considered in the context of zoning. Where the CN Zone restrictions which had caps were placed, larger businesses would be excluded and pushed into another area where it should be allowed, e.g., CD Zones, etc. Council Member Schneider said, as a small business owner, the program would be viewed as restrictive, whether consolidation was allowed or restricted. The restrictions placed boundaries on the ability of a business to develop rather than allowing the business to find its own right size. The City's involvement ultimately became restrictive. Council Member Fazzino thought the City had limited opportunities in the Downtown zone to provide for small businesses. Council Member Schneider said Copelands on University Avenue was a large retail establishment which, on its own, had broken the building into two smaller spaces. The move had been market-driven, not based on a City restriction on the size of the building. Council Member Fazzino was troubled by the elimination of nearly all references to efforts to encourage small business. Council Member McCown wanted her motion to include Policy BE-10.A. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that a policy be added under Goal BE-1 which addressed the issue of recognizing the importance of independent small businesses as identified in Policy BE-10.A. Council Member Andersen said by eliminating Goal BE-10, Council Member Fazzino's concern was not eliminated. Mr. Calonne questioned the NPP reference to Policy BE-10.A1 since it was a policy which had already been implemented through the CN. If Council did not want the existing size restriction in zoning, it should be made clear. Mr. Schreiber said a mechanism in the CN Zone placed a certain limitation beyond which a business could only exceed with a use permit. However, there was no policy or program which addressed the issue in the current Plan, ERP, or any other City document. Council Member McCown thought Goal BE-10 could be merged with BE-1. The question was whether or not to take into the merged goal a policy statement recognizing the importance of small businesses, which she would support. The next level was whether 12/07/94 74-313 any of the programs were supportable, which she was not prepared to support. Mr. Calonne and Mr. Schreiber had raised the issue of whether or not Council wanted to consider the rules in the CN about the size of spaces, which could be a conceivable program and was an example of a program which could be brought back to Council under a policy which recognized the importance of small businesses. Mr. Calonne said Council appeared to asterisk some of the issues for revisitation prior to finalizing the Plan. Staff should compile a list of the issues which required revisitation. Council Member Huber asked CPAC about Programs BE-10.A1 and BE-10.A2, which seemed mutually exclusive and was an interesting approach. Ms. Eakins said use of the words "where appropriate" was the modifier. Mr. Beckett thought what was being bantered about was another important theme to make. An important element of Palo Alto was small business. The Plan should incorporate an element that the City wanted to encourage small business because it was such an important part of what made up Palo Alto. He agreed with Council Member Schneider that the City should not place restrictions by including the two elements, but that it should be made clear that the City wanted to encourage small businesses. Ms. Bialson said CPAC had proposed two programs which appeared diametrically opposed because of businesses which had been unable to expand to what was economically viable and had moved out of town. Also, there had been concern about the consolidation of spaces which would become so large that the only type of entity which could rent the space was a non-independent, small, local business. CPAC thought the current rules were not beneficial to encourage small independent businesses. Council Member Fazzino assumed staff would proceed as suggested by Mr. Calonne, since he wanted an answer to his question as to which was the appropriate course of action, e.g., restrict or not restrict consolidation of store spaces, and was willing to hold off on making a decision about Program BE-10.A1 and BE-10.A2 until an answer was received. Program BE-10.A3 benefitted all business but was already captured in Goal BE-1. He was most supportive of Program BE-10.A4, with the City in a position of encouraging the formation or expansion of merchant associations for joint market-ing. Ms. Fleming said although the concept was contained in the ERP, an ombudsperson was not. Council Member Fazzino thought the City should retain Policy BE-10.A under Goal BE-1 and identify other ways in which the City could encourage small business to remain in Palo Alto through zoning and other regulatory practices. 12/07/94 74-314 Council Member Andersen wanted to ensure the term "encourage" was clear. When the City encouraged small businesses, it did not mean it discouraged larger businesses, e.g., the City should not prevent a corporation from coming into Palo Alto because it would compete with a small business and the City should not be in the business of protectionism. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to continue the item to the Monday, December 12, 1994, regular City Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 12/07/94 74-315