HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-06 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting March 6, 1995 1. Study Session re Tree Task Force ...................... 75-186 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 75-190 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7 AND 12, 1994 ............. 75-190 1. Ordinance 4261 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.49.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (CD District Regulations), Relating to Remodeling of Historic Buildings .......... 75-190 2. Ordinance 4262 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 330 Emerson Street from RM-30 to PC ...................................... 75-190 4. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation .... 75-190 5. Approval of Funding for Phase One of Comprehensive Citywide School Corridor Safety Study ................. 75-191 6. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Preparation of a Massing Model Study .................. 75-197 7. Recommendation for Phased Implementation for Timekeeping Element of Payroll/Human Resources System and Related Hardware, Software and Temporary Staff Support Requirements .................................. 75-202 8. Request for approval of the expenditure of $9,000 to fund the analyses of recorded tapes from selected 1994 Shoreline Amphitheatre concerts, and for the continuation of the noise monitoring system for the 1995 Shoreline concert season ......................... 75-207 9. Vice Mayor Lanie Wheeler and Council Member Jean McCown re Resolution Supporting Retention of San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission ............... 75-209 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 75-209
03/06/95 75-184
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. to Closed Session ............................................... 75-209 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. ..... 75-209
03/06/95 75-185
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:40 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss, Simitian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Study Session re Tree Task Force SYNOPSIS OF THE TREE TASK FORCE STUDY SESSION The following Palo Alto Tree Task Force (TTF) members were present at the meeting: Chair Kate Feinstein, Co-Chair Ken Alsman, Marge Abel, Lynn Chiapella, Betsy Fryberger, Bert Manriquez, David Schrom, and Arnold Soferenko. Bill Courington, resident, assist ed with the presentation. The TTF presented a brief overview of the three interim reports submitted to date: the Interim Report Summary dated December 9, 1994, the Interim Report on Proposed Tree Protection and Management Ordinance dated January 3, 1995, and the Interim Budget Report for the Tree Section dated February 23, 1995. Ms. Feinstein outlined an implementation plan: The City - adopt a first-year budget, renew the Tree Task Force, and improve coordination between departments (a "tree champion"); The TTF - write and launch a nonprofit business plan, complete a process to adopt an ordinance, revise street tree management plan, and write a final report. Mr. Alsman presented key findings: shade standard of 50 percent on streets for both North and South Palo Alto; tree population goal of 40,000 street trees and 10,000 park trees (currently 29,000 street and 6,000 park trees); the existing (1982) street tree plan removal and planting goals were not being met and the street tree inventory was not up to date; development plans submitted to the Planning Department or Building Division had inadequate review of tree issues; and the condition of a large number of existing street trees had fallen to fair and poor condition from good condition due to drought and neglect. Mr. Alsman showed slides of tree sites that had been filled with utility boxes and pavement, and for contrast, slides of tree-lined, landscaped residential frontages. He listed several recommendations that were described in detail in the interim reports: increase removal and planting rates; use more contract services and less permanent staff; budget using long-term "lifecycle" tree cost and benefit analysis; provide an educational
03/06/95 75-186
program for the public by way of the proposed nonprofit group; provide a person in the Planning Department with expertise about trees to review plans and consult; and improve reports to the public about the status of the City's trees. The funding recommendations made were: provide the recommendations found in the Hughes, Heiss & Associates report, including the additional coordinator position to administer the removal and planting contracts (not included in the City Manager's recommendation); also provide more support for keeping the street tree inventory up to date; and begin a nonprofit organization with Utility funding that was similar to the APPA Tree Power program but provided a more relevant service for Palo Alto. Council Member Fazzino asked for an explanation of the philosophi-cal basis of the tree protection ordinance recommendations. Ms. Feinstein and Ms. Abel described details of the ordinance, background research, and asserted that the draft tried to avoid meaningless bureaucratic procedures and protected individual rights. It focused on protecting only the trees that would be likely candidates to survive an appeal process, e.g., the outside of the buildable footprint of a non-variance parcel. Council Member Andersen asked what role the APPA Tree Power program would play. Ms. Abel replied that the TTF supported the concept of public service promoted by APPA but felt the details of the Tree Power program were not relevant to Palo Alto. A letter from the TTF to the Public Utilities Commission was distributed that proposed an alternative to the APPA Tree Power program. Council Member Andersen asked about planting outside of Palo Alto. Ms. Abel suggested a gateway planting between East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. She had talked to Trevor Burroughs of the East Palo Alto Historical and Agricultural Society. Council Member Andersen asked again why APPA dollars were not sought. Ms. Abel said it was "not a good fit." Council Member McCown asked what the priority for next year would be. Ms. Abel said the budget report described the plan for the next fiscal year. City Manager June Fleming responded that Council should give direction to the Finance Committee and then to staff for further action. She reminded Council that the budget could be amended at any time. She expressed appreciation to the TTF.
03/06/95 75-187
Council Member McCown asked what was meant by "better coordina-tion." Ms. Fleming replied that conditions had already improved in the Planning Department and a status report could be requested. Council Member Huber asked about the Hughes, Heiss & Associates' recommendation. Ms. Fleming and Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts replied that the transfer of funds from in-house staff to contract services had already happened, i.e., two out of three recommended positions now and the third by future attrition. Other recommendations were being held pending TTF recommendations. Council Member Huber asked how many trees would be removed and replanted with new trees. Mr. Schrom described basic population structure: 50,000 trees, 50- year lifespan equals 1,000 replacements per year. He described lifecycle cost analysis benefits. Mr. Alsman noted that the present forest was old and dying and replacement would be more rapid than optimum. Council Member Huber asked how many old oaks existed, public or private. Mr. Alsman said no good data was available but he estimated 100 to 1,000. Council Member Rosenbaum compared Mountain View's tree program. TTF members replied that early care had been excellent when the trees were planted. Mr. Alsman said a Mountain View employee from the Planning Department described the Mountain View program and said that support has fallen off in Mountain View recently. Council Member Rosenbaum asked if there was any news about sidewalk/tree conflicts. Ms. Abel spoke about recent research and concluded no solutions were ready now. Enlarging planting space was discussed by removing pavement to make larger curbside planters where traffic flow permitted. Species selection was also a factor. Council Member Schneider asked about the survival rate of new trees. TTF responded that it was high where watering was provided. Council Member Wheeler asked about the difference in the tree canopy between North and South Palo Alto and how to make it equal.
03/06/95 75-188
Mr. Schrom replied the soil conditions in South Palo Alto required enlargement of planter areas. Mr. Alsman said public outreach was vital to young tree survival. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m.
03/06/95 75-189
Regular Meeting March 6, 1995 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian (arrived at 7:50 p.m.), Wheeler ABSENT: Kniss ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding tree removal (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7 AND 12, 1994 MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of December 7 and 12, 1994, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Kniss and Simitian absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2. 1. Ordinance 4261 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.49.060 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (CD District Regulations), Relating to Remodeling of Historic Buildings" (1st Reading 2/21/95, PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Schneider absent) 2. Ordinance 4262 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 330 Emerson Street from RM-30 to PC" (1st Reading 2/21/95, PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, Huber, Schneider absent) MOTION PASSED 5-0-1 for Item No. 1, Huber "abstaining," Schneider "not participating," Kniss, Simitian absent. MOTION PASSED 6-0-1, for Item No. 2, Huber "abstaining," Kniss, Simitian absent. CLOSED SESSION The item might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting.
03/06/95 75-190
4. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Baratte v. City of Palo Alto, et al., SCC#CV744130
Authority: Government Code ∋54956.9(a) Pubic Comment None. ORDINANCES 5. Approval of Funding for Phase One of Comprehensive Citywide School Corridor Safety Study Senior Planner Gayle Likens said the Council reviewed the final report and recommendations of the Meadow/Charleston School Corridor Safety Study in March 1993. The year-long study focused on the school commute routes from the west of El Camino Real neighborhoods, including Barron Park, to Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School (JLS). At that time, Council directed staff to work with the City/School Traffic Safety Committee (the Committee) to identify traffic safety concerns and prioritize other potential study areas and to report back to the City Council. Subsequently, letters were sent to all Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) schools soliciting input on specific traffic concerns. The responses received from the schools included a broad range of issues, e.g., problems at specific intersections chosen by students along walking and bicycling routes to schools, traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity of the schools, request for adult crossing guards, the need for bike lanes, parking issues, and identification of major corridors of concern such as Embarcadero and Middlefield Roads and Oregon Expressway. Three alternative study approaches were developed by staff and were presented to the Committee for its review and consideration: 1) A focus study of individual school corridors or attendance areas, 2) A study of major street systems, and 3) A two-phase comprehensive Citywide study. Both staff and the Committee supported the phased comprehensive study approach which would assure that all the issues were addressed in a coordinated and integrated manner, especially where school commute routes of elementary, middle, and high schools were interconnected and overlapping. Staff felt it would be more manageable to do the study in two phases with one phase covering the northern area of the City, loosely based on the JLS attendance area, and elementary schools north of Oregon Expressway, and a second phase covering the schools in the southern part of the City. Staff proposed a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $45,000 to conduct Phase 1. If the first phase were concluded to the City's satisfaction and Council authorized Phase 2, an additional funding appropriation would be requested. Staff proposed a consultant would be hired for Phase 1 with the option to negotiate the Phase 2 contract if Council authorized the study to continue. Council Member Fazzino commended the staff for its report. He asked why the study would start with the northern area of the
03/06/95 75-191
City. Ms. Likens said staff reviewed the responses received and also recognized that work had already been done in South Palo Alto with the Meadow/Charleston School Corridor Study which was the top priority for the City. As a result of that study, the City had implemented several improvements and were continuing that process. A traffic signal had been installed at the JLS driveway and Meadow Drive and three new adult crossing guards had been added. Staff had proceeded with a study grade of separations for pedestrians and bicycles at the railroad tracks, had worked with Caltrans on intersection improvements at three signals along El Camino Real at major school crossings, and had worked with the Gunn High School community on a focused study of access to Gunn High School along Arastradero Road. Staff felt a two-phased study would be appropriate and it was more manageable to work with a smaller area. There were a lot of issues in North Palo Alto that related to the JLS attendance area and the elementary schools. The Committee reviewed the item but did not take a position on the issue and left it to staff to make a recommendation. Council Member Fazzino clarified there were more issues that needed to be addressed in the northern study area as opposed to the southern study area based primarily on the fact that actions had already been taken as result of the Gunn High School corridor study. Ms. Likens said it was a larger area that had not received focused attention from the City in the same manner as the areas in the south had during the previous years. Council Member Fazzino asked what would change if the study went south to north. Ms. Likens said the second area would receive second priority in terms of the timing of considering those issues. Council Member Fazzino clarified the funding and other aspects of the proposal would not change. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino asked how the set of proposals would fit into the broader set of traffic safety recommendations that the Council would receive shortly. Mr. Overway said the initial staff report that was presented to the Council on traffic safety in September 1994 was organized into several parts, and one part specifically addressed school commutes and identified existing and potential strategies. Staff would submit a report to the Council on March 27, 1995, that would have further explanations and recommendations about potential other strategies. Staff had identified the school corridor studies as an existing strategy and had highlighted the fact that the Mead-ow/Charleston Corridor Study had recently been completed and the
03/06/95 75-192
next logical direction that would be pursued with the Council. The proposal was consistent and compatible and would not be in conflict with what staff would bring to the Council shortly even though that particular item would not be a specific discussion item at the Traffic Safety Workshop since it was identified as an ongoing process. Council Member Fazzino said the staff might go beyond the report with the recommendations that would address the issue of traffic safety for children. Mr. Overway said that was correct. City Manager June Fleming reassured Council that the entire packet of traffic recommendations had been reviewed and there was nothing inconsistent in the recommendation before the Council that evening and the traffic report that the Council would receive in the near future. Council Member Fazzino supported the three approaches proposed. He asked whether the Council would get more if it decided to focus on Approach 1 rather than Approach 3. Council had previously made specific recommendations as part of the Gunn High School Study. He assumed that as a result of Phase 1 and 2, the Council would have specific recommendations that related to individual schools. Ms. Likens said the content of the study would be the same. Staff hoped to address all of the issues from the schools so whether it was a focused study or as part of a two-phased approach all of the issues that were identified by the schools would be addressed through the study. The Council would get focused individual attention on one school site without the extraneous factors of having other school sites participate. The approach would be more directly related to that particular school, but the opportunity to look at a more systematic approach would be missed. The elementary schools fed into the middle schools which fed into the high schools, and children and families were commuting through the grades. There would be a synergy if the school areas were addressed together. The issues that came out of one school often related to another school, and the recommendations could be carried over to other schools. Council Member Fazzino said the Palo Verde PTA had made a recommendation regarding Rorke Way, and he asked whether Phase 2 would get into that level of specificity and impact on a particular school and would make recommendations accordingly. Mr. Overway said the level of detail would be similar for both cases, but the synergy and overlapping of school commutes would be missed. Council Member Andersen asked for a definition of the concept of north and south in the context of the study. Ms. Likens said it was loosely based on the JLS and Palo Alto High
03/06/95 75-193
School attendance areas. Staff found that there were issues related to the middle and elementary schools and many of the same corridors were identified for Walter Hays and Jordan and Duveneck and Jordan. An arbitrary line south of Oregon Expressway was used to cover the school crossings of Oregon Expressway, but the line was negotiable. Staff would review from Oregon Expressway north which would include the schools crossing at Oregon Expressway used by JLS students. Council Member Andersen clarified if the Council approved the staff recommendations, Oregon Expressway would be included as part of the analysis. Ms. Likens said that was correct. Council Member Andersen asked how the two separate studies would integrate and coordinate the impacts of schools that fed from the entire PAUSD, i.e., Ohlone and Hoover. Ms. Likens said staff looked at the schools as being located in one part of the City. Staff recognized the schools drew from the entire City, and students traveled either on foot, bicycles, or automobiles on any streets to approach the schools. There were specific issues around those specific school sites and specific commute corridors leading to those schools sites, and some of the issues were duplicated by other school commute routes, i.e., some of the routes used by Hoover students were the same routes used by the JLS students along Meadow Drive and Charleston and crossing El Camino Real. The specific sites could be addressed in the two-phased study as part of the north and south areas and the commute issues addressed where applicable to the schools. Council Member Andersen asked if the Council decided to allocate funding to complete the entire study, what implications would that have on the analysis. Mr. Overway said staff had thought about that possibility but was concerned about the manageability of such a study. Staff expected to work with committee representation and a larger study would either end up with two committees or a larger committee that would be less focused. Staff had discovered from previous work that it depended upon building consensus for an appropriate solution rather than technological solutions. Information would be learned from Phase 1 that could be applied to Phase 2. The studies usually resulted in implementation projects and a larger study would require a longer list than with two separate phases. There would be more time to allocate funding for implementation of the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). Council Member Andersen asked whether the process for implementing the CIPs would coordinate with the changes within PAUSD. Mr. Overway said staff would identify any current considered changes or ideas as part of the process. Staff had not come across anything in the two or three years since the Meadow/Charleston Study had been done that precluded the City from
03/06/95 75-194
logically proceeding with implementation of those recommendations. If decisions were made that changed the recommendations, then staff would not proceed with the recommendations that seemed illogical. Vice Mayor Wheeler said staff indicated the findings of the study might lead to future CIPs, and she asked if the proposal were divided into the two suggested phases whether the north recommendations would be ready for the 1996-97 plan and south recommendations would be delayed for 1997-98. Mr. Overway said the recommendations would follow the respective phasing but he was uncertain whether it would follow the fiscal year's budget. There was consensus building, staff evaluation, and presentation to the Council. The previous study was unfolding in a series of two or three annual CIPs. Staff expected the implementation of Phase 1 recommendations to parallel the Phase 2 process. Vice Mayor Wheeler recalled many of the findings and recommenda-tions of the JLS corridor study related to improvements that would be made on the sites themselves. She asked whether the study would take that same approach and examine not only what was in the City's realm of physical and fiscal responsibility but also look at things that could be done on the site themselves which would be PAUSD responsibilities. Ms. Likens said there were issues on the school site with the Meadow/Charleston Corridor Study that were identified. She assumed similar types of issues would be raised; however, staff would not do a site study of the school campus. She believed the recommendations would be broader and would need follow up from the PAUSD. Mr. Overway underscored that it would not be an on-site specific school study. In the previous study, most of the PAUSD's issues were related to the spill over onto the public way. The PAUSD had completed site specific studies at four sites, and he thought the principles would be applied to other sites. The focus would be on the public way which would recognize that there was an integration that had to happen with the on-site. Ms. Likens said the proposed study and other studies that had been recently completed looked at physical improvements and policy issues and how the issues dealt with and managed the traffic that came to the site. A lot of the issues could be addressed by working with the PTA to evaluate why the people commuted the way they did to school. That was the focus of a study recently completed by an ad hoc group working with the PAUSD and the Committee. Vice Mayor Wheeler had recently reviewed the report of the ad hoc group and it pointed out that a lot of problems would not change or be affectively addressed by just public improvements or CIPs but also needed attitudinal and behavioral changes. She clarified
03/06/95 75-195
the study would integrate those issues into any recommendations brought to the Council. Judy Pickering, 4081 Park Boulevard, said she supported both the scope of the project and the recommended funding/time frame (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Jeff Whitnack, PTA Traffic Safety Liaison for Addison School, 825 Addison Avenue, said there was a bicycle safety day in 10 schools and a bicycle ride to the middle school was being planned for the end of the year. He encouraged the Council to approve the study now because there presently was an infrastructure for public input. Kathy Durham, 2039 Dartmouth Street, supported the approval both personally and on behalf of the Council of PTAs of funding for Phase 1 of the Citywide School Corridor Study. The Committee had discussed the issue a lot but did not take a position on the north versus south because the parent representatives felt they would vote for their personal interests. The City was asked to make the determination on perceived need. There was a reasonable consensus that the problems in the north had not been examined recently and should be studied first. The two-phase approach was good because it shared problems and solutions and would be more efficient. Something was learned from the Meadow/Charleston School Corridor Study, the PAUSD's study of four sites, the Gunn High School study, and something would be learned from Phase 1 for Phase 2. Time was needed to evaluate the implementation of the changes from Phase 1 before Phase 2. The Traffic Task Force also endorsed the two-phase comprehensive study and urged the Council to begin the study immediately. She referred to the letter from Peggy Esber, Traffic Safety Representative for Nixon Elementary School, dated March 6, 1995, which asked that Stanford Avenue from Bowdoin Street to Junipero Serra Boulevard be included as part of the study of corridors as well as Peter Coutts. Both of the streets were corridors that were crossed by Nixon children on their way to school. Nixon Elementary School recognized that it was not part of the City of Palo Alto, and any recommendations that were made as part of the study could not be implemented by the City; however, the powers that were in charge of implementation would listen and did not have the expertise for studying the safety of school children. She urged the Council to modify that gray area so that those two corridors were included in the study. She said it was important to have the consultant on-line so that he/she could begin next fall. Council Member Huber asked the City's approach with regard to the Stanford University traffic. Ms. Likens said the issues raised by Nixon Elementary School would be incorporated in the study, but staff would need to work with the appropriate agencies to determine whether any recommendations needed to be implemented outside of the City's jurisdiction. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Fazzino, to authorize a two-phase Comprehensive Citywide School Corridor study and approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of
03/06/95 75-196
$45,000, to provide an additional appropriation in the Planning and Community Environment Department 1994-95 operating budget for Phase I of the study which would address school commute traffic safety issues in the northern area of Palo Alto. Ordinance 4263 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Department of Planning and Community Environment for Phase One of a Two-Phase Citywide School Corridor Safety Study" Council Member Andersen had been persuaded it was the best approach. He wanted an analysis done in the future on the impact of all of the PAUSD's schools, particularly the alternative schools. A tremendous amount of traffic was generated by the people who took their children to the schools. The comments heard earlier indicated there was very little bicycling traffic, and he hoped there would be discussion with the PAUSD regarding ways to alleviate that concern. The PAUSD might want to consider the relocation of some of the school sites to areas that were more compatible with arterial traffic flow. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. 6. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Preparation of a Massing Model Study Economic Resources Planning Manager Carol Jansen said the proposal was a follow up to the City Council's adoption in November 1994 of the implementation program of the Economic Resources Plan (ERP). At that time staff asked for Council direction regarding the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real intersection for a potential hotel. Staff suggested to the Council that a massing model study be prepared so the City would know the options that would be feasible and within the community ethic of design for that intersection location. Council Member Rosenbaum said the statement under Anticipated Review Process on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:161:95) was not clear. Ms. Jansen said once the massing model study was completed, staff would return to the Council with results of the study. Staff would make a recommendation to proceed to the next step if it felt there were some suggested design alternatives that would be feasible both economically and from a design perspective for that intersection. The anticipated review process was the follow up if the Council decided to proceed with the next step. Council Member Rosenbaum asked what would be the next step. Ms. Jansen said the next step would be to initiate a Comprehensive Plan and zoning change and craft a development review process specifically for a hotel at that intersection.
03/06/95 75-197
Council Member Rosenbaum clarified if the Council agreed with the outcome of the study, the Council might initiate a zone change for that piece of land as opposed to waiting for the property owner to do so. Ms. Jansen said that was correct. Stanford University was not willing to proceed as an applicant on the property for the Comprehensive Plan and zoning change if the Council took that action. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified the intent was to study a variety of options. Ms. Jansen said that was correct. Council Member Rosenbaum wanted to be assured that one of the options would be consistent with the current height limit. Ms. Jansen said it would be. Council Member McCown asked whether the learning gained from looking at that site would be information that the City could use at some other location in the City or would the information be unique to that particular location. Ms. Jansen said the information would be unique to that location. There would not be substantial carryover from the study to other sites in the City. Council Member McCown believed there should be some aspects of the massing model study that would provide a generalized understanding of the challenges associated with hotel-type development given the City's current regulations. Ms. Jansen said the options available for a 350-room hotel with 20,000 square feet of conferencing facilities on any 6.2-acre site would have carryover to other areas of the City, but it was envisioned that the study would look at that particular site because of its unique characteristics. There were few other locations in the City where a building with a 50-foot height limit would be appropriate, particularly along El Camino Real because of the adjacent residential uses. Council Member McCown asked whether there was discussion with Stanford University about sharing in the cost of the study. Ms. Jansen said the discussion was initiated with Stanford University, but Stanford was unwilling to be an applicant on the issue because of its present role as an applicant on other major issues in the City. Staff envisioned, however, under a development agreement process in conjunction with a hotel developer application that the costs would be reimbursable. The City would have to take the step to prepare the site and have an applicant to proceed with the process. The applicant would have an agreement with Stanford University as the property owner prior to making an application. The City's costs would be reimbursable,
03/06/95 75-198
but the timing could take two or three years. Council Member Schneider asked what the conferencing center would look like. Ms. Jansen said the 20,000-square foot number was used by a hotel consultant that the City retained several years before as being related to a 350-room hotel. There was a relationship between the amount of square footage that conferencing could be supported by a major hotel. The amount of square footage was unknown at the present time, but the staff's aim was to try and accommodate as much conferencing facility on-site as possible which had been the request of the Stanford Research Park Forum who represented a number of major tenants in the Park. The City's existing hotels were very light on conferencing center space. Steve Player, 1874 Guinda Street, spoke as an individual and as a member of the Hotel Subcommittee for the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber). He urged the Council to adopt the staff proposal and approve the $10,000 for the massing study at the site. Palo Alto had an internationally recognized research park that the hotel would serve, and it also had a very diverse full group of nonprofit corporations and community-based organizations which needed a facility of that type in order to hold the kind of events the City wanted. The location made sense for that type of facility. Approval that evening would move the proposal forward. He urged the Council to also approve subsequent steps of zoning and Comprehensive Plan changes to enable a hotel to move forward at the site if the results of the massing study showed that it was a good site and there was design alternatives available. He urged that the approval be in tandem with the Comprehensive Plan because of the important timing issues involved. It was not a long-term project and the short-term needs should be given a high priority because of the community's need for that type of facility. Susan Frank, Executive Director, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, strongly supported the staff recommendations to work with Hill Glazier Architects for the massing model study. The Page Mill Road/El Camino Real site was the most promising location for a new hotel and conference facilities in Palo Alto given the lack of interest in developing other locations such as the old Hyatt Cabana site. She referred to letters from the Chambers's Economic Vitality Task Force, the Stanford Research Park Forum, a member of Syntex Corporation, a member of the Chamber's Board of Directors, Steve Player, and the Downtown Marketing Committee. She highlighted some of the facts from the letters: 1) there was broad-based support in the business community, including the hotel community for additional hotel and conference space; 2) eighty percent of Stanford Research Park's tenancy had expressed a strong need for additional hotel and conference facilities servicing the Park; 3) Stanford University would not build housing on the site, and it was important to Stanford to have something on the site that served Stanford Research Park and its tenants; 4) the need for conference space for the nonprofit community; and 5) the revenues to the City generated by a new hotel would be significant. More would be
03/06/95 75-199
discovered along process. She encouraged the Council to take action that evening. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, asked why a massing model study was being done before the Council looked at the traffic impacts of such a development on that intersection. The develop-ment and the proposed intensification of Maximart would make the service level F, G, or H. There were two properties diagonally across from each at the intersection which could have explosive traffic and housing impacts. She suggested an evaluation be done with CalTrain as to the impact of developing an intense hotel/ development on the site. She said the City was throwing away $10,000 that should be used for Community Services allocations. She asked why the Chamber could not ask the businesses to come up with the money for the study. It was not a big priority for Stanford University either. She referred to page 6 of the staff report (CMR:161:95) which stated the housing alternatives had been solved but a comprehensive study of housing issues had not been done. The City would be the applicant and a speculative commercial developer. The proposal was being approved before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, and housing would be taken away on another site in the City. Curtis Feeny, Stanford Management Company, 2770 San Hill Road, Menlo Park, supported the budget amendment and the move by the City to rezone the site for hotel use. He said housing was a double edged sword in the community, and Stanford had submitted to the Council a proposal to build 1,100 units at Stanford West which had been decreased to 630 units. Stanford wanted to build housing but did not intend to put housing on the site in the future. The best use economically for Stanford was not a hotel but office or research and development. Stanford supported the proposal for a hotel because it had 10 million square feet of Research Park tenants that had no services in the Park. The tenants wanted conference facilities and hotel rooms. Stanford had been inundated with hotel representatives that wanted to put hotels in the Palo Alto area, and that site was the best site in the City. Hotels did not want to put a hotel on an inferior site and then find out that the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real site was available as a site. The Council had an opportunity to meet a great need of both the City and the business community. Clement Chen, Owner, Holiday Inn, 625 El Camino Real, said City staff had investigated the hotel market for several years and had solicited input from the hotel community. City staff had a good understanding of both the local Palo Alto market as well as the national industry, and the Palo Alto hotel market was healthy. He wanted to develop a hotel at the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real site. The site was a prime hotel development site in Palo Alto because of its proximity to Stanford Research Park and Stanford University and there would be substantial benefits for the community and the City. He asked the Council to take any action that would push the consideration of hotel use of the site further along. Staff solicited proposals from a number of qualified hotel architects and he participated in that process. He concurred with the recommendation to approve Hill Glazier Architects.
03/06/95 75-200
MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve (a) a consultant agreement with Hill Glazier Architects of Palo Alto, California, to study and identify the variable building height and floor area ratios necessary to accommodate the antici-pated room count and conferencing facilities of the proposed hotel at the Page Mill/El Camino Real intersection; and (b) a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $10,000 for the massing model study. Ordinance 4264 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Preparation of a Massing Model Study" Consultant Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Hill Glazier Architects for Preparation of a Massing Model Study Regarding a Major Hotel at the Page Mill Road/El Camino Real Site Council Member Schneider said support of the location for a hotel and conferencing facility did not suggest any less determination on the part of the Council to encourage, look for, or develop additional housing. However, the site offered an ideal opportunity for a widely supported and greatly needed facility. Further, Stanford University made it clear that the property would not be developed for housing, and there was potential for litigation which should not be taken lightly. Council Member Huber had considered the issue when he supported the ERP. He had some significant questions about the proposal, but at the time he felt by supporting the ERP the Council would be moving forward with the massing model study. He supported the proposal, but the Council's action should not be viewed as approval of a hotel project at that particular intersection. He would not be interested in the City being an applicant, and it should come forward from the property owner at the appropriate time. Vice Mayor Wheeler was increasingly concerned about the number of individual actions the Council appeared to be taking or was likely to take that slowly decreased the City's land that was zoned for multifamily housing and converted the lands on either a temporary or permanent basis into commercial zoning. She would not be prepared for the long term to support a commercial designation for that particular site unless the property owner provided additional housing acreage. She felt that when, and if, the Council came to the point of proceeding with City approval of rezoning of the property, the package should include an exchange of similar acreage that could be developed with the same intensity of housing that the City would lose on that site. Council Member McCown was extremely skeptical about the policy choice the Council would ultimately need to make and support the issues mentioned by Vice Mayor Wheeler. She would be personally concerned about making any final decisions after the Council had
03/06/95 75-201
the benefit of the massing model study without doing so in the context of the Comprehensive Plan process. The site would need to fit into the overall context which meant there would be a longer horizon in evaluating the ultimate policy decision for a change of use on the site. She believed the next step was appropriate, but she had a lot of concerns and questions about the end result. Council Member Fazzino believed the City was shortsighted in its decision to demolish a wonderful historic structure on the site several years before, i.e., the Mayfield School, which he believed could have been renovated to become a center for nonprofits in the community. He supported the proposal, but he was not convinced it was the best site for a hotel but it was one of the few sites available to explore the possibility of a hotel. He was concerned about the loss of hotel facilities in the community, and there was the possibility that the City might lose the Hyatt. The City would face a very serious hotel shortage in the community if that hotel was lost. He was not interested in adding substantially more hotel rooms in the community but was concerned about losing what the City already had and not having adequate conference facilities. He was concerned about traffic at that intersection, but he believed it was appropriate to evaluate the site. Housing was a very important priority for the community; but a community could not live on housing units alone--it needed services. Mayor Simitian supported the recommendation but was not persuaded by the argument that a particular land owner "would not build housing on the site." Zoning determined what could be built on a particular property, and it was the Council's responsibility to zone property in a way that it thought appropriate in the broader context of the City's needs and the Comprehensive Plan. It was the Council's responsibility to zone property, and properties would be developed consistent with that zoning in the future. He shared the concern about the loss of housing sites. He had raised that issue when he voted against the 1050 Arastradero Road site before adequate housing mitigation was proposed and when the Maximart site was before the Council. He voted against the extension of the amortization of the Linus Pauling Institute and he voted for housing against a hotel use for the Tamarack site. He supported the massing model on that particular site because the Council made choices and trade-offs when it made a decision. He believed the site provided an additional benefit besides simply providing the benefits and services that went along with a hotel and transient occupancy tax. It had the "potential" to leverage additional benefits for the community because of its relationship to the Stanford Research Park. He agreed with his colleagues that voting for the massing model study was not a conclusion but rather an attempt to provide the Council with information that would help it reach a conclusion. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. 7. Recommendation for Phased Implementation for Timekeeping Element of Payroll/Human Resources System and Related Hard-ware, Software and Temporary Staff Support Requirements
03/06/95 75-202
Director of Finance Emily Harrison said staff recommended that Council approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) of $310,000 funded one-third by the Utilities Fund and two-thirds from the unspent fund balance of closed General Fund capital project for airport tank removal. Staff began work on the Mission Driven Budgeting (MDB) in January 1993, and one of the overarching principles of MDB was the provision of information on the cost of services to allow the Council to set priorities, allocate resourc-es, and measure the effectiveness of services provided. It was clear from the beginning that a new timekeeping system would be required which could accomodate the much greater degree of complexity and volume of time information. The City was also in the process of replacing an antiquated payroll/human resources system. Although staff hoped that both systems could be linked, it became clear that the significant requirement for timekeeping far exceeded the capability of the payroll/human resources systems being considered, and a decision was made to pursue timekeeping as a separate system. The payroll/human resource system was approved by Council in June 1994. The Finance Department assumed responsi-bility for both the payroll/human resources project and the timekeeping project in January 1995. There were four key elements to the solution to the staff's proposal: 1) software design, 2) infrastructure, 3) phased implementation, and 4) temporary help required to support system implementation. It was important to recognize when reviewing the information in the staff report (CMR:157:95) that the network infrastructure required for the project represented over 50 percent of the cost that would be required to maintain and growing applications on the City's automated system and would have to be undertaken during the next year or two regardless of whether the proposed timekeeping system was accepted or not. After the staff report was completed and distributed to the Council, a significant change occurred in the information presented in the report. While the staff recommenda-tion had not changed, staff no longer believed the time frame discussed in the report was attainable. Staff would need to return to the Council with an amended schedule. In developing the time line and the cost information for the BAO, staff relied on responses to a Request for Proposal (RFP) that had been issued concurrently with the development of the recommendation. Staff interviewed three vendors that responded and felt that the best proposal made was by a vendor that charged $70,000 for software design. Staff was not comfortable with the next most responsive offer because the cost proposed was significantly in excess of $70,000, i.e., $250,000. Staff negotiated a price reduction to $160,000 by significantly reducing the scope of services provided. Based on that information, the staff report was prepared. Staff learned that morning that the vendor with whom it had been negotiating had misrepresented itself in terms of its status as a subsidiary of another larger software development firm. Staff did not believe it was appropriate to enter into a contractual relationship with the parties involved in the negotiation under those circumstances. Staff was also concerned with the large price difference between that vendor and the next most responsive to the RFP previously issued. Staff proposed that all the responses be rejected and the RFP be redone and reissued with the hope of attracting a larger vendor response and also incorporating
03/06/95 75-203
a potential for more canned software systems as opposed to custom design. It would significantly impact the proposed time line for the system which could not be made operational by July 1, 1995. Staff would return with an amended time line when it returned with a contract for the timekeeping system. Staff recommended Council approve the BAO, but the only expenditures would be made for temporary assistance for manual entry of time card information into the payroll/human resources system and for development of a temporary data base to store the time information until a permanent solution could be devised. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to the Timekeeping Section in staff report (CMR:626:93) which stated "To collect the information that will be required to accurately reflect the goals of Mission Driven Budgeting (MDB), more detailed timekeeping will be neces-sary. Because the City is in the process of replacing the current payroll system with a new payroll/human resources system, there will be many variables to be considered in selecting a consistent method of time reporting and salary account distribution. It is essential that any such new system accommodate the requirements of MDB." The Council later approved a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) program called "payroll/human resources system" and the description was "this project provides for the selection and implementation of an automated payroll/human resources system to integrate with the City's financial data base and support of Mission Driven Budgeting. A new timekeeping system will be developed to support MDB and will take advantage of the tools available in the UNIX environment." The information did not suggest that MDB would cost $310,000. He asked what had happened. Ms. Harrison said until January 1995, the project was the responsibility of the Information Resources Department. Staff and the Finance Department had concerns that the Lawson system could accommodate the City's timekeeping requirements but the Department had not assumed the responsibility for that project and had not made those representations. City Manager June Fleming said staff investigated the City's needs not only for MDB but to also determine what the system would do. Equipment needed to be purchased to replace the system so not all of the costs were directly attributable to the MDB. There was also more indepth need that had been previously identified. Vice Mayor Wheeler said before the Council was a BAO with a specific dollar figure and that specific dollar figure included the consultant services. She asked whether the BAO was still valid. Ms. Harrison said the amount in the BAO anticipated for software design was the price that staff felt was reasonable and one that would be used to negotiate with vendors when the RFP was reissued. Staff felt the $250,000 quoted by the other vendor was inappropriate and overpriced and a vendor could be found for the amount allocated. Staff felt $310,000 would pay for the infrastructure and also pay for the software design and temporary help.
03/06/95 75-204
Mayor Simitian clarified the staff overestimated its ability to make it work with the equipment available, underestimated what it would cost to make it work, and the vendor selected to do the work for a reasonable price was no longer available. Staff now needed to figure out how to make it work for a reasonable price. He asked how the Council could justify voting for a $310,000 BAO when it did not know what the money would be spent on. Ms. Harrison said staff could return with another BAO just for the temporary timekeeping, data input, and the development of the data base. Mayor Simitian asked for an estimate cost for that BAO. Ms. Harrison anticipated that there would be approximately six months of temporary data input assistance which would cost approximately $25,000 to $30,000 and another $25,000 for the temporary consultant so the amount would be about $50,000 to $60,000. Mayor Simitian asked whether a motion would be required by the Council that evening if it wanted to move in that direction. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the BAO could be amended by the Council that evening if it desired. Mayor Simitian asked the amount appropriate for the BAO. Ms. Harrison said the amended BAO should be for $60,000. Mayor Simitian asked what the $60,000 would be spent for and over what period of time. Ms. Harrison said $25,000 would be used for consultant assistance to create a temporary data base to store the timekeeping informa-tion between July 1, 1995, and December 31, 1995, until another proposal and new timekeeping system was put together. Approximately $30,000 to $35,000 would be used for additional temporary personnel needed to input the time information into the payroll/human resources system. Staff would only be able to store the time information until it had an automated system for reporting. Mayor Simitian asked whether staff was certain that the data collected in that manner would be compatible with the system selected in the future. Ms. Harrison said yes. Council Member Huber clarified the proposed BAO would be canceled. He said staff would need $60,000 but there was adequate time for staff to return with another BAO that had an explanation of the expenditures. Ms. Harrison said that was correct. Staff would prefer to begin
03/06/95 75-205
work on the creation of programming a temporary data base for maintaining the information as soon as possible and would prefer that the Council amend the BAO that evening. Mr. Calonne clarified the relative proportions of the funding changes in the BAO would stay the same. The figures in the BAO would be multiplied by the figure of $60,000 over $310,000 which would indicate the pro rata reductions necessary to reach $60,000. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to amend the amount of the Budget Amendment Ordinance to $60,000. Council Member Rosenbaum opposed the motion. Staff indicated $310,000 would probably not be adequate for the job. He would have reacted differently to the idea of MDB if staff had indicated two years before that it would cost over $300,000 to implement. He did not believe the idea was worth that amount of money. Staff should rethink what it needed and return with budget information that would satisfy the Council's requirements and not require that magnitude of expenditure. Vice Mayor Wheeler said a number of items included in the $310,000, with or without the City's moving toward MDB, were items that would need to be purchased anyway. It was unfair to blame the MDB process for some of the expenditures that were outlined that evening. The Council had committed to restructuring the way the City did its budgeting. The Council had applauded the perceived changes that it felt would occur to make the budget a more useful document not only for the Council and the public it served but also staff members. Now was not the time to put the brakes on that project. She was concerned that if the Council did not move forward that evening and fund the completion of the project, particularly the $60,000, the Council would be sorry next year when the City geared up for the next budget process and the information was not available to start building that budget. It was unfortunate that misunderstandings had occurred and that those misunderstandings had spilled over between the Council and staff. The Council would have to spend $60,000 if it wanted any type of budget document. Council would have to accept the fact that it would cost additional money to put budgets in place in the future. Council Member Andersen endorsed the comments of Vice Mayor Wheeler. He asked the staff to make it clear in the future the items that would be used in order to carry out the MDB process. He recognized some of the equipment was antiquated, and it was appropriate for the staff to indicate the other purposes that would be served so the Council could see the broader context. Council Member Huber opposed the motion because he did not like negotiating BAOs at the table and preferred the staff return with a report that explained what the money would be spent for. Mayor Simitian agreed with Council Member Huber. MOTION FAILED 3-5, Andersen, Schneider, Wheeler "yes," Kniss absent.
03/06/95 75-206
MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct the staff to return to the City Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $60,000 with a detailed explanation of the services required. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 8. Request for approval of the expenditure of $9,000 to fund the analyses of recorded tapes from selected 1994 Shoreline Amphitheatre concerts, and for the continuation of the noise monitoring system for the 1995 Shoreline concert season. Assistant City Manager Bernard Strojny said the staff report (CMR:165:95) contained a summary of the concerts held in 1994 at the Shoreline Amphitheatre and the complaints received for each concert as well as information on the sound monitoring system that the City used during 1994. Staff recommended the Council approve the expenditure of $9,000 for the analyses of three tapes that were recorded from the 1994 concert season and continuation of the sound monitoring system for the 1995 concert season. Council Member Rosenbaum said the last Shoreline Amphitheatre season ended October 22, 1994, and he asked why it had taken four months to return to Council with such a modest staff request. Mr. Strojny said the length of time was longer than anticipated because the staff wanted to gain additional information from the acoustical consultant on the tapes from 1994 and had to make certain the tape inventory was complete before staff provided the information to the consultant for his/her recommendation. The consultant had provided a thoughtful recommendation so that the analysis could occur soon and the sound monitoring system was in place for the 1995 concert season. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether the analysis of the three tapes would be done on a timely basis. Mr. Strojny said the consultant had indicated that the analysis would take two to four weeks. Margaret Feuer, 1370 University Avenue, representing the Crescent Park Neighborhood Association (CPNA), said CPNA was troubled by the fact that noise intrusion in their neighborhood caused by Shoreline Amphitheatre remained an unresolved issue. CPNA wanted to know how many years the performances at Shoreline Amphitheatre would be analyzed. The negotiation agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Bill Graham Presents (BGP) and taping of concerts were protracted efforts that avoided the issue. CPNA hoped the Council would begin enforcement of the City's Noise Ordinance and increase Mountain View's respect for the people whose lives had been disrupted too long. CPNA supported the sentiment of the leaders of Abate Shoreline Amphitheater Noise-A Palo Alto Coalition (ASAN).
03/06/95 75-207
Clifford Barnett, 733 DeSoto Drive, echoed the comments of Ms. Feuer. He wanted the Council to approve the proposal and to begin to think about doing something serious about the problem. He reminded the Council that it had acted in the past to protect the quality of life of its citizens. Glenna Violette, 95 Crescent Drive, said the sound walls had increased the traffic and Shoreline Amphitheatre noise in her neighborhood. It was a modest request, and she hoped it would lead to more action. Fifty-four concerts per season was a staggering number. James Lewis, Abate Shoreline Amphitheater Noise-A Palo Alto Coalition, P.O. Box 50125, said since the excessive unwanted noise from Shoreline Amphitheatre had not been solved, it was important to continue the effort to find a lasting mutually acceptable solution. There had been approximately 7,000 complaints filed with the Police Department since Shoreline Amphitheatre opened in 1986, which was more complaints than on any other single issue received by the Police Department. It was a serious problem and needed to be solved. The approach taken by the City was similar to other cities that had noise problems with amphitheaters, i.e., the sound was measured, analyzed, and the data was used for further discussions with amphitheatre management and to explore realistic viable solutions. He asked the Council to consider: 1) a mapping of the location of the citizen complaints, 2) that the City of Mountain View needed to brought into the fold, 3) that the City of Mountain View's City Council would soon review Shoreline Amphitheatre operational issues, and 4) update the Noise Ordinance. Other cities with similar noise problems with amphitheaters, airports, nightclubs, etc. had found solutions that worked. ASAN hoped that through the analysis of the tape recordings and further discussions with BGP that the Council would come to a long-term solution to the widespread community noise nuisance issue. Hilary Lyon, 235 Walter Hays Drive, said 12 concerts the previous year exceeded the 45 complaints. The number of concerts had increased from 39 to 54 in 1994, and the problems increased as the number of disturbing concerts increased. It was a chronic problem that had been going on for 8 years. She offered an alternative solution--the purchase of a spectrum analyzer and sufficient consultant time to write a test program and train a technician (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Bonnie Bernstein, 2114 Bellview Drive, said she represented many people in Palo Alto who were disturbed by the noise from Shoreline Amphitheatre. People deserved to be able to sleep and not be disturbed by noise. It had taken too long and too little had been done. A lot of care was put into the community and it was a serious problem that demanded money, time, and effort to be resolved. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve: 1) the expenditure of $9,000 to fund the analyses of
03/06/95 75-208
recorded digital audio tapes for three selected concerts from the 1994 Shoreline Amphitheatre concert season; and 2) the continuation of the noise monitoring system for the 1995 Shoreline concert season. Vice Mayor Wheeler supported the modest, thoughtful proposal. It was a step the City needed to take. Shoreline Amphitheatre was an increasingly popular venue, and it was more important that Shoreline Amphitheatre be a good neighbor. The City's ability to provide objective data should make it easier for the City of Mountain View and the operators of Shoreline Amphitheatre to be able to implement cost-effective measures which would work toward a final solution of the problem in Palo Alto. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the information produced by the analyses was dual purpose. The staff report (CMR:164:95) correctly stated that the primary purpose was for discussing additional mitigation measures. There was only one "bad" night to analyze when staff previously reviewed the Noise Ordinance. An alternative approach was to develop a data base that could at an appropriate time give the Council the information it needed to enact legislation or otherwise propose legislation. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Council shared in the frustration and if there were an easy solution, it would have been adopted many years before. He hoped there would be useful data received from the analyses of the three tapes so the Council would be able to consider further action. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 9. Vice Mayor Lanie Wheeler and Council Member Jean McCown re Resolution Supporting Retention of San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to adopt the Resolution as amended to change "Solano County" to "Palo Alto" in the fourth WHEREAS." Resolution 7486 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Opposing the Merger of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission with the California Coastal Commission" MOTION PASSED 8-0, Kniss absent. 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Vice Mayor Wheeler acknowledged the City's receipt of two awards: 1) Award of Excellence for it's logo design for the May Fete Parade; and 2) The Agency Showcase Award for Excellence in Marketing for the "Black and White" Ball. She said that the "Black and White Ball" received a perfect 100 score which was unheard of. She congratulated the excellent Recreation Department
03/06/95 75-209
staff. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. to Closed Session. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving existing litigation as described in Agenda No. 4. Mayor Simitian announced that no action was taken on Agenda Item No. 4. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
03/06/95 75-210
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.
03/06/95 75-211