HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-10-30 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting October 30, 1995 1. Interviews for Public Art Commission .................. 77-179 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... 77-180 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, AND OCTOBER 2, 1995 ... 77-180 1. Amendment of Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Vision Service Plan to Allow for the Conversion from a Fully-Insured Vision Plan Contract to a Self-Funded Vision Care Plan ...................................... 77-180 2. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Advanced Systems Group for Marketing Information System Applica-tion Software ......................................... 77-180 3. Member Resource Marketing Project Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Northern California Power Agency for Marketing Surplus Electric Power .................. 77-180 4. Confirmation of Council Priorities .................... 77-180 5. Resolution 7550 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Denying an Appeal and Approving the Design of a Project to be Located at 375 Arboretum Road .................................................. 77-181 6. Request from Cable Communications Cooperative of Palo Alto, Inc. (Cable Co-op) for a Public Hearing on the Approval or Disapproval of the TCG San Francisco, Inc./Cable Co-op Facilities Agreement ................. 77-181 7. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation that the Mitchell Park Dog Run remain in its present location, with modifications, and that Council approve the mitigation measures associated with the noise and odor problems .. 77-181 8. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council removal of the Percent for Art Ordinance from the list of pending items which had been referred to the Policy and Services Committee .................. 77-181
10/30/95 77-1
10. Ordinance 4301 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 22.04 [Park Use and Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages at Boulware Park .................................................. 77-181 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ................... 77-181 10A. (Old Item 12) Council Members Andersen, Huber, and Kniss re Request for Status Update on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zones in Palo Alto ..... 77-181 11. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee .................................... 77-182 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 77-201 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. ........... 77-202
10/30/95 77-178
Special Meeting October 30, 1995 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:20 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber, McCown SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Public Art Commission ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
10/30/95 77-179
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, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber, McCown SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 323 Byron, spoke regarding police abuse. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth, spoke regarding honesty in government (letter on file in the City Clerk Office). Harry Merker, 501 Forest Avenue No. 302, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Police Department. Judith Wasserman, 751 Southhampton Place, Co-Chair of the Public Art Commission, spoke regarding public art. Debbie Mytels, 2824 Louis Road, spoke regarding Measure R. Eric Gilbertson, 215 Oakhurst Place, Menlo Park, spoke regarding his concern for the growing use of high-tech traffic signal programs. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, AND OCTOBER 2, 1995 MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Minutes of September 26, and October 2, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, McCown absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 8 and 10. 1. Amendment of Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Vision Service Plan to Allow for the Conversion from a Fully-Insured Vision Plan Contract to a Self-Funded Vision Care Plan 2. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Advanced Systems Group for Marketing Information System Application Software; change orders not to exceed $3,000 3. Member Resource Marketing Project Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Northern California Power Agency for Market-ing Surplus Electric Power 4. Confirmation of Council Priorities
10/30/95 77-180
5. Resolution 7550 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Denying an Appeal and Approving the Design of a Project to be Located at 375 Arboretum Road" 6. Request from Cable Communications Cooperative of Palo Alto, Inc. (Cable Co-op) for a Public Hearing on the Approval or Disapproval of the TCG San Francisco, Inc./Cable Co-op Facilities Agreement 7. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council approval of the staff recommendation that the Mitchell Park Dog Run remain in its present location, with modifications, and that Council approve the mitigation measures associated with the noise and odor problems. 8. The Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council removal of the Percent for Art Ordinance from the list of pending items which had been referred to the Policy and Services Committee. 10. Ordinance 4301 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 22.04 [Park Use and Regulations] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages at Boulware Park" (1st Reading 10/16/95, PASSED 9-0) MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item Nos. 1 - 7 and 10, Huber, McCown absent MOTION PASSED 5-2 for Item No. 8, Andersen, Schneider "no," Huber, McCown absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 9, "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting and Authorizing Execution of Program Supplement No. 007 to the Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Caltrans for Federal-Aid Projects, Relating to the Proposed Traffic Signal Timing and Controller Replacement Project," had been removed from the Consent Calendar by Council Member Rosenbaum and would be agendized for a future City Council Meeting. Mayor Simitian announced that Item No. 12 would be moved forward to become Item No. 10A. 10A. (Old Item 12) Council Members Andersen, Huber, and Kniss re Request for Status Update on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zones in Palo Alto Council Member Andersen said that at the last Town Hall meeting, the Council received several inquiries from residents living in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) area regarding the status of FEMA-designated flood zones in the Palo Alto. The City needed to communicate with FEMA in Washington, D.C. to determine to what extent deregulation was applicable to the strenuous
10/30/95 77-181
expectations that FEMA had placed on the Palo Alto community because Palo Alto needed reconsideration. Council Member Kniss recalled discussing the flood zone problem extensively with former Congressman Tom Campbell in Washington, D.C., in 1989. At that time, there was a considerable amount of disagreement between the Army Corp. of Engineers and FEMA as to how much flood zone should be established. She had been approached by several residents that were affected by the flood zone. She felt a fair amount of time had passed, there had been changes in FEMA and in the elected bodies in Washington, D.C., and it was now an appropriate time to communicate with FEMA in Washington, D.C. Gil Eakins, 3493 Greer Road, member of the Palo Verde Neighborhood Association, said the Palo Verde Neighborhood Association (the Association) had established a flood committee several months prior and had been talking with a number of agencies that were involved in the flood zone matter. It appeared there was nonconformity in Washington, D.C.'s understanding of the issue and also there was a change in the status of officials in Washington, D.C. It was not just the issue of insurance monies, but what could be done with houses in the flood area if there were a disaster. The Association felt Palo Alto needed reconsideration because there was a strong possibility that something could be done differently if a disaster should happen again. He estimated that at least $5 million had gone into that insurance fund from the Palo Alto area; there were 4,000 houses paying approximately $250 per year for flood insurance. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Andersen, to direct the City Manager to have staff communicate with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in Washington, D.C., regarding the status of the FEMA-designated flood zones in Palo Alto, and then prepare an information report to Council outlining the current status of flooding potential and FEMA-designated flood zones in Palo Alto and to outline what would have to be done to remove Palo Alto from the FEMA flood zone designations. Council Member Andersen encouraged the City Manager to communicate with the Palo Verde Neighborhood Association as the Association had done some excellent work. He recommended staff find out what had been accomplished before formal communication was made to FEMA. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, McCown absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 11. 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
10/30/95 77-182
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 October 2, 1995) Mayor Simitian announced that the City Council would review the Community Design (CD) Section of the City of Palo Alto Comprehen-sive Plan Update Policies and Programs Draft IV (the Plan) but would not start a new section if that section were completed that evening. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to a memo he authored at places regarding Town and Country Village. Because two Council Members were absent that evening, he suggested that the item be dealt with the following week assuming the CD Section was not finished that evening. He asked that staff make sure the memo got into the packet for the next week and that Planning Commission and Compre-hensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) members were aware of what he wanted to discuss. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the next goal for Council discussion would be on page 30, CD-16, "Maintain the existing scale and retail orientation of the California-Avenue Business district." Council Member Schneider referred to staff's comment "Include policy and program relating to use air space over city-owned parking lots for housing," and said the issue of putting housing over city-owned parking lots was brought up several years prior with regard to the University Avenue area and it was not well received by people in the Downtown community. The reasons were that the present lots that had housing or office space above them were not well utilized, and the factor of not being able to go up another level with parking. She asked what California Avenue had that University Avenue businesses did not have with respect to parking and how University Avenue could become more like California Avenue. Mr. Schreiber said California Avenue had larger rectangular surface lots, and staff felt that at least one of the lots could be made available for housing along with retention of the existing parking. The difference between California Avenue and the Downtown area was the size configuration and location on the edge of the commercial area of the lots in the California Avenue area. Council Member Schneider asked what CPAC's comments were with regard to the item because it had not been included in CPAC's recommendations. Planning Commissioner Tony Carrasco said CPAC had talked in general about adding housing closer to the business area to make it more vital. He did not believe the specific issue of air space over city-owned parking lots was covered. Council Member Schneider confirmed that the recommendation was
10/30/95 77-183
from staff and not from the CPAC or the Planning Commission. Dena Mossar, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, said that was correct. Mayor Simitian asked for an explanation of the staff's comments on page 7, Program HS-1.D14, "Develop site specific incentives to encourage multi-unit housing on top of below grade parking lots. Create incentives for owners of existing large parking areas to develop such projects." Mr. Schreiber said Program HS-1.D14 did not refer to public or private lots, it only referred to larger lots. Mayor Simitian recalled Council Member Fazzino asking about housing over commercial in terms of mixed use on California Avenue. Mr. Schreiber recalled that some Council Members wanted to preserve the opportunity for floor area devoted to housing in the California Avenue area, even when the California Avenue area's zoning was changed to reflect a lower nonresidential floor area. Council Member Fazzino said he had been frustrated that even though the Council had raised the issue as an important priority fifteen years prior, there had not been much progress and he had indicated that the potential was significant in the California Avenue area to achieve the objective. Council Member Schneider said city-owned parking lots over which housing would be allowed, had not worked in the Downtown area, and she felt the Downtown community would continue to fight against it in University Avenue public lots. There were differences in the California Avenue area because of the size of the lots. She was uncertain whether the reason was good enough to be included in the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). Council Member Andersen said as the City became more limited in space and attempted to reach objectives with regard to housing, creative methods needed to be used. He did not want to see Program HS1.D14 taken out of the Plan. When a preliminary project came before the Council, if there were specific problems with a proposal, the Council could decide against it at that time, but he encouraged creative housing approaches. There were a lot of empty parking lots which he felt was poor land use and how to accomplish better land use should be examined. He felt the Palo Alto community would find parking structures to be an acceptable method of parking because as land became more limited, there would be no more room for the suburban parking lot. Council Member Kniss said she did not recall the City's air space being used in such a way. She asked staff where it was used in Palo Alto. Mr. Schreiber replied in Downtown Palo Alto in the late 1970s, the Arbitare housing development was placed over a City parking lot which was changed to an underground parking structure.
10/30/95 77-184
Council Member Kniss asked how successful it had been. Mr. Schreiber said the housing had been occupied and reasonably successful. There had not been an economic analysis, but staff was not aware of any unusual vacancy rates. Council Member Kniss confirmed that the parking had gone to Arbitare. Mr. Schreiber replied that some of the parking was a City parking garage and some of it was part of the Parking Assessment District which had replaced the surface parking. Some concerns in the Downtown area were that the public parking in the structure was somewhat difficult to use because of size constraints which partially related to it being a small size parcel that was located in the middle of the block which made it different from some of the parcels in the California Avenue area. Mayor Simitian was familiar with the parking since his law office used the garage for permit parking. Some of the initial problems for long- term parking had been related to the fact that the site had a peripheral location, was not well signed, or easy to find. In addition, because of its proximity to the railroad tracks, there had been problems with homeless people who were occupying the space, the garage was not well lit, and not a secure location. In the past couple of years, the Council had taken action to make some radical changes in terms of the nature of the space. The parking garage was now well lit, painted and cleaned up, patrolled regularly by security, the permit space was now had a waiting list, and the night use had picked up substantially. Some of the concerns that Council Member Schneider alluded to arose because the space had not been well presented in the early stages. The spaces were now heavily used for parking. Council Member Kniss supported Council Member Schneider's comments. At some point, the feeling of being crowded materialized. The parking lots might not be attractive, but they offered open space within the City. She was aware that there was a continuing search for more housing developments and she recognized that a balance needed to be kept. While the City might look at using air space on an individual basis, she would not want to make it a policy that air space always be considered for housing. She supported eliminating the air space item from the Plan. Vice Mayor Wheeler said that during the Business and Economic Section discussion of the Plan, the Council had approved wording that stated, "Revise zoning so that the commercial development potential is comparable to other areas as specified in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study while retaining substantial residential development potential." She heard the concerns expressed by Council Members' Kniss and Schneider, and felt that evaluation of development over a parking lot on a minimal basis should be left in as an option with regard to air space over a parking lot. She believed the possibility of having a unique potential for the use of that type of site should not be eliminated, and that staff did not mean it should be for every parking lot. Given the concerns expressed that evening, staff
10/30/95 77-185
could bring back a policy and program which would indicate that while air space over a parking lot was not being encouraged, it should be examined on a special case-by-case basis. Council Member Schneider thought it was a good compromise, She would not suggest for additional housing, but her concerns would be satisfied as long as it was clear that examination of the use of air space would be done on a case-by-case basis. Mayor Simitian felt it was a concept worth preserving and, while it might not be desirable in every case, given the limited number of housing sites in Palo Alto it would be unwise to eliminate it. In keeping with Council Member Fazzino's issue regarding the California Avenue area and the potential for preserving mixed-use possibilities in terms of zoning, he believed the California Avenue area had tremendous potential, particularly with the changes being driven by the market in Downtown Palo Alto. The businesses serving Palo Alto were likely to relocate from the Downtown area where rents had changed in recent years to the California Avenue area. Mr. Schreiber said the Council approved that aspect in the Business and Economics Section of the Plan. Mayor Simitian felt it was a Community Design issue with respect to what kind of design should be brought to the California Avenue area and should be incorporated as such. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct staff to incorporate language into the programs and policies in Goal CD-16, "Maintain the existing scale and retail orientation of the California-Avenue business district," to encourage potential for mixed-use residential development. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, McCown absent. Mayor Simitian said the next goal for Council discussion would be on page 31, Goal CD-17, "Encourage South El Camino Real to evolve into a Multi-Neighborhood Center." Council Member Schneider confirmed with respect to a policy regarding the El Camino triangle, that the property was privately- owned. When privately-owned land was being considered for use as a central public plaza, it indicated it was publicly-owned and not privately-owned. She asked how the property could be dedicated as public space when it was privately-owned. Mr. Schreiber said it was a question of timing. The Comprehensive Plan did not effect any change in property rights that would require compensation, so the language alone would not compel the Council or its successors to acquire the property. If the language meant the City had to acquire the property, it would have to be condemned in the future. Council Member Schneider asked the City Attorney whether the City would have a problem in 15 or 20 years with that type of a project, e.g., the zoning on El Camino Real had caused major
10/30/95 77-186
problems. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said no. With specific language regarding a particular piece of property, if the Council ended up with a consistency requirement, it would preclude use of the triangle as anything other than a public plaza. Council Member Fazzino asked which of the policies would best address the problem of empty lots and continued inactivity on South El Camino Real. Under Policy CD-17.A, "The South El Camino Real area should be well-designed, compact, and economically vital Multi-Neighborhood Center with a diversity of local-serving commercial and residential uses, a fabric of one to two story buildings, and a network of interconnected and pedestrian-oriented streets and ways, using the conceptual map prepared during the Design Workshop as a starting point," staff was trying to revital-ize El Camino Real. In communicating it to the public, he wanted a guarantee that the City was adopting policies which addressed a pervasive problem. Mr. Schreiber said the two most important programs that addressed Council Member Fazzino's concerns were Program CD-17.A2, page 31, "Encourage and provide incentives for a mix of retail and profes-sional office space along El Camino Real. Create and apply new zoning standards for Mixed-Use (Office and Retail) designations. This designation would permit either retail shops or office space at the ground floor provided the building comes to the sidewalk and has street-facing windows and entries. Real entries from parking lots are also encouraged," and Program CD-17.B1 on page 32, "Apply more flexible applications of parking standards that allow shared parking among property owners and count on-street spaces." Council Member Kniss said it incorporated a number of issues the Council had been struggling with for a long time. In discussions with Vice Mayor Wheeler during field trips to that area, they talked about incentives that could be provided which also included the parking problem. The lots along South El Camino Real were awkward lots and made the area a very tough planning area. Mr. Schreiber said obstacle for redevelopment in the South El Camino Real area was the current City requirements for new buildings to provide full parking which many of the current sites could not provide. The sites were developed prior to the current regulations. Current regulations required that any demolition or replacement provide full parking; on-street parking did not count toward required parking, which was a built-in an incentive to keep the existing building. In a retail study done by Gruen and Gruen for the City several years prior, it was noted that in areas along El Camino Real, property owners kept the existing buildings, put in minimum maintenance, and allowed the buildings to slowly deteriorate. There were reasonable rates of return with low maintenance and low cost. The biggest incentives to overcome that obstacle would be to loosen up the parking requirements and the stringency of a number of City regulations regarding retail on the ground floor and limitations on offices. If a site could be redeveloped to a pedestrian-friendly front exterior that had offices, it was better than retaining it in its current condition
10/30/95 77-187
which might be a poor quality retail or a vacancy. Those types of use and parking issues needed to be worked with to try to create incentives. He did not know whether or not additional floor area ratio was necessary; but if it were, it would require additional parking which could wipe the economics out because of the cost factors. Council Member Fazzino was not convinced that the actions the Council took that evening would be directly connected to possible actions taken by the property owners to renovate their properties. Mr. Schreiber said the actions taken by the Council during the Comprehensive Plan process would not change any regulations or adopted policies, but the regulations needed to be structured to achieve the Council's wishes. With regard to area planning opportunities, the South El Camino Real area was a low priority in comparison to areas like Midtown where work was currently being done, the California/Ventura area with the Hewlett Packard site and former Maximart site, and the South of Forest area Palo Alto Medical Foundation which all had a higher priority because of severe problems or some significant near-term opportunity. Staff felt it made more sense if City resources were going to be expended, that the resources be put into areas that were likely to have a more immediate impact. The problems with South El Camino Real were very entrenched and were not helped by the fact that the area was dominated by smaller parcels and property owners, small family retail, and not developers which made it more difficult in terms of an economic and design process. Council Member Fazzino confirmed that it would be some time before any significant changes would be made in the South El Camino Real area. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Assessing the various factors on City resources, money, and staff time over the next few years, it would be a reasonable length of time before staff would get to the South El Camino Real area. Council Member Fazzino asked if property owners were identified who wanted to move more quickly, what were the three or four issues that Council would need to address in order to give them the incentive to take action on their own to bring about the changes the Council desired. Mr. Schreiber identified parking and loosening up restrictions on retail and office uses in terms of types of use and current disincentives to assembling property. When there were size limits on a wide variety of office and retail uses, it discouraged assembling property. There would be more redevelopment if larger groups of land could be assembled. Larger areas created more flexibility and opportunities than individual parcels. Mayor Simitian ask if there were some middle ground between the "big box" suggestions from Gruen and Gruen in the study three and one-half years prior and the existing uses that were currently problems. Mr. Schreiber said most of the land along El Camino Real would not
10/30/95 77-188
work for the "big box" retail users who needed 5 to 10 acres. There was very limited opportunity for "big box" retail on El Camino Real and staff was not supportive of "big box" retail because it brought with it a very heavy traffic impact that would be difficult to accommodate. If the "big box" issue were put aside, it would leave the smaller parcels that were a mix of office and retail uses which was on a much smaller scale than what was envisioned by the "big box" developers. Council Member Fazzino referred to the redesign of El Camino Real with the possibility of four lanes and two-lane frontage roads which had been given a "B" designation. He asked whether the proposal would have any impact on bringing about the kind of moderate development that Mayor Simitian had suggested. Mr. Schreiber noted on page 17 of the Community Design Section that Council had already deleted a similar concept in a previous review. He referred to page 32, Program CD-17.C1, "The City shall undertake a study of the feasibility of re-designing El Camino Real so that the number of through travel lanes is reduced from 6 to 4 and create a 2-lane frontage road on the eastern side that provides diagonal parking, wider sidewalks, and the ability to develop a more intimate, pedestrian-oriented space. At a minimum, provide strong safe pedestrian crossings at key intersections." Staff did not see a realistic chance of narrowing El Camino Real from six lanes to four lanes in the South El Camino Real area. Traffic volumes in the range of 50,000 vehicles per day would not work on a four-lane road without creating overwhelming congestion. There were other areas where it might work, but not with the volumes in the areas south of Page Mill Road. Council Member Fazzino said reducing the lanes down worked in Burlingame and north San Mateo where six lanes were reduced to four lanes. He asked why it would not work in Palo Alto. Mayor Simitian asked assuming that action was taken, where would the El Camino Real traffic go. Menlo Park had reduced the lanes on El Camino Real down with disastrous traffic consequences. He asked whether the traffic would move to Alma Street, Highway 101, and up to Foothill Expressway off of El Camino Real because that was the direction he felt Council Member Fazzino was leading up to. Mr. Schreiber said the major shift in traffic would be to Alma Street because that was a parallel route and in close proximity. Traffic that wanted to go longer distances already used Highway 101. Only extreme congestion would induce traffic to use Highway 101. Essentially the primary shift of traffic would go to Alma Street, and traffic would filter to other routes as people became desperate to find some way to move up and down the Peninsula. Most people were not moving far enough distances suitable for Highway 101. Council Member Fazzino was searching for ways to create a more attractive environment that would encourage some moderate scale development in the South El Camino Real area. He asked what steps could be taken in the short term to improve the situation with respect to South El Camino Real given the fact that South El
10/30/95 77-189
Camino Real had been identified as a low priority. Sandra Eakins, member of the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, agreed with Council Member Fazzino that traffic congestion on El Camino Real in Menlo Park was not a disaster, but it did not have the intensive employment area that South El Camino Real was in Palo Alto. CPAC members had observed during its deliberations on the issue that it could be either a high speed, high capacity street or an attractive shopping street; not both because they were incompatible. It was CPAC's intention to do the best with what was available under the conditions on either side of the street and not try to make the two sides of the street appear the same. Council Member Kniss referred to the coordinated area plan that had been discussed for a significant period of time and asked what the cost range was and what it entailed. With respect to the Planning Division Work Plan, it sounded like an additional impact on the Planning Division. Mr. Schreiber said it would be a significant impact on staff. In terms of cost. staff came up originally with an estimate of $200,000 to $250,000. The difference primarily was related to whether current City staff could handle the staff load or whether the staff load would have to be supplemented with contract staff. The underlying technical consultant needs: a facilitator, design expert, economist, traffic modeling expert, air quality expert, etc., would be in the range of $200,000. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said that while there were several area plans that were of higher priority than South El Camino Real, the area was not likely to turn over quickly with opportunities which could be taken away in the near future; therefore, budgeting the staff's time into the future and getting to the area eventually was not a bad strategy. Her recommendation was that if the Council wanted to do something quickly, the best thing to do that would have a positive effect on El Camino Real would be to give parking a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) relief for incentives, and have well-landscaped, pedestrian-oriented building design. Something needed to be set up that would give a good bonus in parking in FAR such as parking in the rear, a two-story building at the sidewalk, retail at the ground floor, and a lot of trees. Council Member Kniss asked how it could be incorporated into the Plan so it could be done more quickly. She asked what Policy CD-17.E, "If and when the Ventura Elementary School is re-opened, alternative sites should be found within the South El Camino Real area for the community center and day care," meant. Mr. Schreiber replied that when the Plan was being prepared one and one-half years prior there had been some reported discussion that the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) was considering reacquiring and reopening Ventura as an active school site, but it was not an active issue at present. Council Member Kniss clarified that the City owned the Ventura site.
10/30/95 77-190
Ms. Fleming said that was correct. The Ventura site was leased to Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC). Council Member Kniss asked whether selling the Ventura site back to the PAUSD had been previously considered. Ms. Fleming said it was just a discussion and it was for temporary use of the Ventura site while other sites were being prepared. During the temporary use, there was some peripheral discussion about ways in which the City and the PAUSD could work cooperatively in programming at the Ventura site. Council Member Kniss suggested removing Policy CD-17.E on page 32. Mayor Simitian suggested that language be retained that community center and day care use be preserved within the South El Camino Real area. It would then be clear that the area needed those uses and it would finesse the question of who would own, lease, and manage the Ventura site. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Kniss, to modify Policy CD-17.E, "If and when the Ventura Elementary School is re-opened, alternative sites should be found within the South El Camino Real area for the community center and day care," to read "Sites should be retained within the South El Camino Real area for community center and day care uses." Ms. Fleming said the concept of the use of the former Ventura School site that PACCC had fostered and the City had supported was a community center concept, but it was not a real community center as the City had in other locations. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Wheeler "not participating," Huber, McCown absent. Council Member Kniss asked what incentives could be provided for the South El Camino Real area. Ms. Lytle said what she had referred to was embodied in Program CD-17.A2, "Encourage and provide incentives for a Mix of retail and professional space along El Camino Real. Create and apply new zoning standards for Mixed-Use (Office and Retail) designation. This designation would permit either retail shops or office space at the ground floor provided the building comes to the sidewalk and has street-facing window and entries. Keep entries from parking lots are also encouraged." The incentives Council Member Kniss alluded to could best be found in the Zoning Ordinance under Parking and Relief along El Camino Real prior to Program CD-17.A, "Prepare a coordinated area plan for the South El Camino Real area that addresses land use compatibility, transitions and adjacencies between residential and commercial uses, and the need for Urban Design Workshop as a basis for preparing this plan," which would be ideal. If Council wanted to proceed more quickly, it could make Program CD-17.A2 and also Program CD-17.B1, "Apply more flexible applications of parking standards that allow shared parking among property owners and count on-street parking spaces,"
10/30/95 77-191
a short-term implementation to begin immediately. Council Member Kniss asked whether Council needed to make any changes. Ms. Lytle said the incentives would come as a result of undertaking some of the other things articulated in the other policies and that was to have well landscaped, pedestrian-oriented design so the buildings that were getting the bonuses would put their parking in the rear, build two-story volume with the store front right on the sidewalk with interesting ground floor uses, etc. Council Member Andersen clarified there were other areas in the community that had similar exemptions, not just along El Camino Real. Ms. Lytle said currently the only incentive zoning was the Planned Community (PC) zone which was used in the Downtown and primarily the California Avenue area. Council Member Andersen clarified that the current manner in which the City had been operating along El Camino Real, unless a property owner demolished their building, the property owner would have to fall back to a much lower FAR as a result of the parking restriction. Therefore, it was a disincentive to do anything. If the property owners could be assured of the same FAR which was similar to that which was done in other areas, the parking was not driving the formula and the formula stated the same FAR. Mr. Schreiber said the only place in the City where a property owner was allowed to demolish a noncomplying building that was larger than the FAR allowed and then rebuild it with the same square footage in a different configuration was in the Downtown area. It was a significant incentive to redevelop sites in the Downtown area. Council Member Andersen clarified it was only in the Downtown area. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Council Member Andersen saw it as a disincentive to do any new construction if square footage would be lost. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. The disincentive to redevelop in other areas such as El Camino Real was the original square footage could not be recaptured if current parking standards had to be met, which was a reflection of City regulations that had been driven more by parking concerns than by use and design or redevelopment encouragement concerns. He noted that for El Camino Real and many other neighborhood and community-serving commercial areas, where neighborhoods were in close proximity, it was a very real issue in the sense that the old use might be okay but a new use with more vitality, activity, and the same amount of parking as the old use was often regarded as meaning there were going to be more cars parking in the residential areas within a block of the commercial areas.
10/30/95 77-192
Council Member Andersen asked whether the suggestion made by Ms. Lytle differed from the kind of exemption that was in the Downtown area. Mr. Schreiber said the Downtown area had the Downtown Parking Assessment District so the major provisions for parking were pooled through the parking lots and structures. The Downtown regulations came out of two considerations: 1) the City's substantial downzoning from a 3:1 to 1:1 FAR in 1985; and 2) the desire to maintain the retail commercial vitality of the Downtown area. When the regulations were created in the 1980s the concern was that the City may have gone too far in the downzoning which in hindsight the City had not. There were a lot of sites in the Downtown that were already over the 1:1 FAR and if those were going to be locked in place, it would end up in a situation such as stipulated in the Gruen and Gruen study where there was incentive to retain older buildings but not maintain them very well. There was a concern that there needed to be some incentive for people to upgrade and redevelop property in the Downtown. Ms. Lytle said another issue was the parking standards that applied everywhere but in the Downtown and California Avenue areas where there were suburban parking standards, and as redevelopment occurred, the buildings were grandfathered in in terms of floor area which usually met resistance from the people along El Camino Real. The kind of redevelopment staff had seen go through had been small retail fast food outlets with a large parking lot pattern which were what suburban parking lot standards would yield, but were usually objected to in hearings and not what people wanted. The Council needed to review the parking ratios and decide whether it wanted to accept a less suburban standard along South El Camino Real which had the impacts mentioned by Mr. Schreiber of people using on-street parking. If a coordinated area planning process could not be worked out or parking among multiple property owners, then the potential as a zoning incentive was done for a short term to create impacts in some areas where there would be some instances of potential impacts being created as properties turned over and utilized the incentives. The advantage of doing it in a coordinated area plan process was because staff could work with an area, determine what some of the problems were, and find solutions that could be applied to more than one property such as shared access or shared parking with narrow properties on El Camino Real which was a difficult thing to make happen on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Council Member Andersen asked whether Council should give a direction to allow for some flexibility in parking, then the City could move quicker than going through some of the procedures both the Plan and the area-wide plan would require. He asked whether it was workable or whether it was something too radical for Palo Alto. Mr. Schreiber said one of the purposes of an area planning process was to gain the input, understanding, and concurrence of not only the peripheral property owners but the nearby residents. The problem he foresaw was that a "quick fix" would not be a simple public process. The problem was to put in place regulations that
10/30/95 77-193
would have a notable parking impact in residential areas. If the regulations were successful, more of a parking problem would be generated than was there today, and if they were not successful, then the parking would not get worse. Council Member Andersen referred to the staff comment on Program CD-17.A3, "Note that the preservation of the mobile home park is a change from current policy which reserves the site for housing but not specifically for mobile home park." He felt the Council was in agreement to keep the moderate-priced housing concept available in that area. He asked if Palo Alto were losing potential housing by limiting the zone to a mobile home park and would there be additional housing units available if the zone were left alone. Mr. Schreiber replied it would be very unlikely to lose potential housing because the density of the mobile home park was quite high. Mayor Simitian asked what Program CD-17.A3, "Preserve the existing mobile home park as a source of affordable housing near both shopping and transit," meant, what was the current designation, and what designation would it become. Mr. Schreiber said the land use designation was mobile family residential and the zoning was RM-15. He was not sure what designation it would become. Some type of mobile home designation would have to be created. Mayor Simitian clarified in that event, the City would advise the property owner that he/she had just become the owner of a mobile home park in perpetuity where a housing site was presumed to be. Mr. Schreiber said yes. He had two concerns: 1) the regulation of mobile home parks was a complicated area under state law and other regulations, and 2) that facility was under code control by the State of California. The State preempted the City from an inspection role. If a rigorous inspection was done regarding electrical connections, utilities, and sewer, etc., that area would probably have a lot of problems. From his standpoint from previous experience, it was best to leave the areas lie quietly for fear of what type of consequences the City might get into if it got into more active regulation. Mr. Calonne said he could report back the following week on a mini-survey of what the restrictions were on mobile home park conversion. It was a heavily regulated area. Will Beckett, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee, said that CPAC's purpose in addressing the mobile home park was to preserve something the neighborhood felt very strongly about in terms of low-income housing. It was a well-loved area despite the feeling most people had about mobile home parks. The bottom line was that it actually served a very valuable service in the neighborhood. Mayor Simitian asked from a process standpoint whether the property ownership had offered any opinions on the topic during the course of the Comprehensive Plan process.
10/30/95 77-194
Mr. Schreiber replied that he was not aware of any opinions. Mr. Beckett said that the property owners valued the mobile home park too. When put in a position of either abandoning the entire thing or making minor changes, things were left as they were so that state approval was not lost. Mayor Simitian suggested that conversation occur between staff and property owners. He did not want to move forward on a major limitation on property rights without comments from the property owners. He would also like to hear from the City Attorney regarding the implications with respect to Program CD-17.A3 (mobile home parks). Mr. Schreiber said staff would contact the property owners and inform them of that evenings discussion and the likely continuation of the discussion the next City Council meeting. If the property owners were in attendance, the Council could ask questions. Council Member Schneider referred to Policy CD-17.B, "Use the El Camino Triangle as the centerpiece to the neighborhood by creating a central public plaza and encouraging new Mixed-Use (Retail and Office) buildings around it and link the Ventura Neighborhood to El Camino." She recommended that the City not make any reference to specific properties such as the El Camino Triangle. She had spoken to two of the property owners who had very successful businesses and intended to pass the property down to their children. She felt it was unwise for the Council to make determinations on specific properties to become a central public plaza when the property was privately-owned. Ms. Eakins said the subject had surfaced several times and when CPAC referred to "public" it meant public access and not public ownership. Council Member Schneider understood, but the El Camino Triangle property was privately-owned and divided up into a number of successful businesses. Ms. Eakins said that the CPAC recommendation meant that the entire area bounded by the roads become public pedestrian-oriented. Council Member Schneider said a central public plaza implied a plaza which would be publicly-owned. Ms. Eakins said the CPAC's intention was public access, not land taking. The goal was street friendly, pedestrian-oriented. Mayor Simitian said he took it to mean that it would be "a happening place." Council Member Schneider reiterated that she spoke to two of the property owners in the El Camino Triangle who were very concerned because they read it as somewhere down the road, the property would be bought by the City and made into a public plaza. The wording needed to be such that it would assure that private
10/30/95 77-195
property would not be condemned by City in the future and used for a public plaza. Ms. Eakins said "access" or "happening place" could be inserted. Mayor Simitian asked if the word "plaza" could be changed to "focus." Mr. Calonne suggested striking the word "public" and inserting "publicly accessible." Council Member Schneider said "publicly accessible" sounded better. Council Member Kniss said the real question was whether there was an easily accessible public area because in some instances that might not be the case. Ms. Lytle said the composite diagram that came out of the workshop showed that the best place for a public space was at the terminus of Meadow Drive. It would actually provide a terminus to that street and a little public space which was currently privately owned. The intent of that type of planning was that the property had to be budgeted for and purchased or there would not be a plaza but some kind of public access or something less than a plaza. The intent of that type of exercise was that the City would trade, incentive or somehow compensate for the land. Council Member Kniss said staff seemed to be headed in a very different direction. She asked whether how the City would make it publicly accessible if there was no publicly accessible land. Mayor Simitian said a neighborhood was publicly accessible, it was not a plaza nor was it a park, it was publicly accessible and it had a number of plazas and focal points in it which were also publicly accessible. Council Member Kniss understood the discussion about redesigning someone's property so that it could become publicly accessible and that was what she heard Council Member Schneider was objecting to. The question was, whether the City could tell property owners that when they redesigned their property should it be made publicly accessible. Mayor Simitian asked staff whether Walgreen's in Downtown Palo Alto was publicly accessible. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Mayor Simitian said the point that CPAC and the language was making was that there was a triangle of land which sat in the middle of an area, and the City wanted and try to create some type of focal point; a place where things happened and would be accessible to the public in that area. It did not have to be a particular parcel, it could be anywhere within the triangle and could be entirely privately-owned and operated. It was all perfectly appropriate and was not inconsistent with any individual property owner's private property rights. Council Member Schneider repeated that she had spoken to two
10/30/95 77-196
property owners from the area that were very concerned about the issue and they wanted some assurances that in 15 years they would lose their businesses or that their businesses would not be compromised in some way. She was responding to their concerns. Vice Mayor Wheeler said it was an area she had felt bad about after the last Comprehensive Plan was done almost 20 years prior. There had been a great vision for El Camino Triangle in that Comprehensive Plan and the concept was to make those properties as they redeveloped over the 20-year life of the plan to face in toward the neighborhood and create a neighborhood-serving function. To accomplish that, some of the buildings would have had to be reoriented, some of the lots would have had to be redrawn, and there would have been no access in that vision to El Camino Real, the access was to have been from El Camino Way. Unfortunately, if the Council were not willing to indicate up front that it was going to take governmental action, i.e., spend public monies to acquire public space, there was no way that as the properties came up on a one-by-one basis for redevelopment that the Council could demand the properties be developed in a certain way and that was what had happened. There was nothing wrong with the vision 20 years prior; the problem was the City did not put up the money where it's public mouth was. As individual properties came up, the City could not force the property owners to realign the property the way the City wished. There had to be access onto El Camino Real and there were legal lots that could be developed. She felt the Council needed to commit up front that it was going to somehow acquire that public space and make it happen. Council Member Kniss said when the Council got into the issue, it was going to have a focus. The City could not ask a landowner to donate some of their property here and there along the way. Mayor Simitian was baffled, he did think that was what was being said. One minute the Council was indifferent about the City directing a property owner that had a multi-family site that he/she had a mobile home park in perpetuity, but when it was discussed that the City was going to exercise its responsibility to zone and amend the Comprehensive Plan to say it would be nice to have some focus in the neighborhood, everyone thought that was the taking of private property. Council Member Andersen said the answer was that there were no incentives to do that and the Council had just discussed the kinds of incentives that might very well cause some of the property owners to agree that it was a great idea. The property owners would like it to be a "happening place," and if the City were able to provide an incentive such as flexibility in parking and if there were some way that flexibility could be arrived at in that area in exchange for appropriate landscape and design, he felt things would happen. He suggested that staff be encouraged to look at some incentives to make that a possibility. Mayor Simitian said the language in Policy CD-17.B should be amended to read, "Encourage use of the El Camino Triangle as the centerpiece to the neighborhood by creating a publicly accessible focal point and encouraging ...." It now indicated the notion of encouragement, incorporated the idea of incentive, and instead of
10/30/95 77-197
using "central public plaza" which was the phrase of concern, the phrase "publicly accessible focal point" could be used which could either be private or public and with no particular parcel identi-fied. From a design standpoint, the Council should encourage the area to serve that purpose. Council Member Schneider said staff should return to the Council with some incentives and then it would be palatable. Mr. Beckett said for a long time, the business owners had been tossing around ideas about how to revitalize the El Camino Triangle area and were now in a situation where they were trying to work with the community to do that. He saw it as being very much like that situation where the business owners would come together and with that vision do things such as have a public eating space between two restaurants as a starting place, and as it developed, try another eating place in the future. The idea was the ability to use the space between the buildings as gathering areas to enhance two restaurants for outside eating in the future. Council Member Rosenbaum said the Plan was general and the discussions had been about general things which might well have implications for property owners and no public hearings were being held on individual pieces of land. He clarified that before any change would occur, there would be a public hearing, property owners would appear before the Council, and the Council would make some final decisions. He asked why the Council was suddenly getting upset about one of the general policies. Mr. Schreiber said it was true that before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, there would be public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Council and if there were any area-specific, site-specific zone changes, there would also be public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Council. Council Member Schneider said verbiage without the incentives would alleviate a lot of the anxiety, and adding the incentives would make more sense, but she was comfortable with the verbiage. Mayor Simitian thought that was the type of language some of property owners would like to see in the document. A property owner could bring in a proposal which was consistent with the language in the Comprehensive Plan, the City would encourage it rather than impede it, and then if the City wanted some kind of focal point in that area which was publicly accessible, the property owner could ask the City to lighten up on some of the standards. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, to modify Policy CD-17.B, "Use the El Camino Triangle as the centerpiece to the neighborhood by creating a central public plaza and encouraging new Mixed-Use (Retail and Office) buildings around it and link the Ventura Neighborhood to El Camino," to read "Encourage use of the El Camino Triangle as the centerpiece to the neighborhood by creating a publicly accessible focal point and encouraging new Mixed-Use (Retail and Office) buildings around it
10/30/95 77-198
and link the Ventura Neighborhood to El Camino." Council Member Kniss thought it was a logical approach to the issue. What Mr. Beckett said was true, that if the property owners could come together and the City encourage that, a spirit of cooperation could be achieved which would hopefully pervade the Comprehensive Plan in general. She appreciated Council Member Schneider's comments regarding her conversation with the two property owners. It was good to hear from the property owners who would be affected by the policy. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, McCown absent. Vice Mayor Wheeler referred to Program CD-17.A1, and asked whether the term "coordinated area plan" meant something specific that would lock the Council into a $200,000 study by using that term in the Comprehensive Plan or could it be feathered out. There had been some discussion that evening as to what might be learned from the Midtown experience that could potentially be applied to the area, and she did not want to commit to a study by using the term "coordinated area plan" if it were not necessary. Ms. Mossar said the CPAC came up with the most innoxious, nondistinct phrase possible which was substituted everywhere where other phrases could be interpreted as a specific planning tool. "coordinated area plan" was CPAC's intent for doing planning in an area, but she did not know what the legalities of the use of the term might mean. Mr. Schreiber said that staff's understanding of CPAC's objectives was that CPAC wanted to see planning to go on in a number of areas of difficult physical planning in such a way that the community was involved and physical change could be encouraged as part of the process in an economical and publicly acceptable and feasible way. Staff defined "coordinated area plans" in a June 10, 1995, staff report (CMR:295:95). Staff's sense was that in the past, the City had included in the Comprehensive Plan or the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, a list of study areas which had never been defined other than a few areas on a map. While there were a variety of ways to approach a "coordinated area plan," if the bottom line was that the Council wished to have an intersection of extensive public involvement and economic feasibility, it could not be done quickly and cheaply nor could it be done with only City staff resources because there was not the expertise needed to really make the process successful. Vice Mayor Wheeler asked that Program CD-17.C1 on page 32 be reinstated as a "B" designation and reworded to read, "The City shall undertake a study of the feasibility of redesigning El Camino Real to provide wider sidewalks, strong safe pedestrian crossings at key intersections, and tree and streetscape improve-ments." Mayor Simitian clarified that the Council had deleted the program, but what the Council had attempted to delete previously was the concept of eliminating two lanes, and what Vice Mayor Wheeler was saying was it had been agreed not to eliminate two lanes, but she
10/30/95 77-199
wanted to use Program CD-17.C1 as a vehicle to discuss improvements along El Camino Real independent of lane elimination. He felt it was a distinct issue which stood on its own independent of the two-lane issue. Mr. Calonne pointed out that if the Council were going to modify Program CD-17.C1 on page 32, it might want to modify Program CD-9.G1 on page 17 also. Council Member Andersen said the only way the redesigning could happen was if the City gave private property owners an incentive to make a shift in their property that would allow them to do so. He did not object to the idea, but the pragmatic problems that would be created needed to be recognized if it were left by itself. Council needed to acknowledge that there needed to be some motivation on the part of the property owner to do something that would provide that type of aesthetic improvement which would probably be centered around some of the disincentives the property owners currently had. He wanted to see property owners bring forward suggestions and hoped that staff would encourage that. Council Member Kniss asked if there were a realistic way to go about the study. Mr. Schreiber said the realistic way to go about the study would be to take some cross sections to see whether there was enough space in the cross section to make some changes. Staff's sense that evening was that there probably was not, but it was something that could be looked at rather easily. Council Member Kniss said if it could be looked at easily, she would support it. Mr. Schreiber said he would not want a lot of staff time spent on the study unless the initial cross sections indicated to the Council that the study was something it wanted to spend more time on. At the beginning stage, it would be kept very simple. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Simitian, to maintain Program CD-17.C1, "The City shall undertake a study of the feasibility of redesigning El Camino Real so that the number of through travel lanes is reduced from 6 to 4 and create a 2-lane frontage road on the eastern side that provides diagonal parking, wider sidewalks, and the ability to develop a more intimate, pedestrian-oriented space. At a minimum, provide strong safe pedestrian crossings at key intersections," as a "B" designation and revise the language to read, "The City shall undertake a study of the feasibility of redesigning El Camino Real to provide wider sidewalks, strong safe pedestrian crossings at key intersections, and tree and streetscape improvements." Council Member Fazzino felt that the possibility of reducing the number of lanes and alternative transportation should not be rejected. Four lanes worked in Menlo Park and in other parts of El Camino Real, and he believed it should be considered. It might not be feasible, but he was not ready to reject it at that point. He accepted the remainder of the language and the intent behind
10/30/95 77-200
it. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to replace the words "undertake a study of" with the words "give consideration to." SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved to include language to read: "The City shall undertake a study of the feasibility of redesigning El Camino Real so that the number of lanes are reduced from 6 to 4." SUBSTITUTE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND MAIN MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber, McCown absent. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue the Community Design Section to the Regular City Council meeting on November 6, 1995. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 7-0, Huber, McCown absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Simitian announced the dates and times for Storm Drain Public Outreach Program: Wednesday, November 1, 7:00 p.m., Cubberley Community Center, Room A-2; Thursday, November 2, 7:00 p.m., Hoover School Multi-Purpose Room; Wednesday, November 8, 7:00 p.m., Palo Verde School Multi-Purpose Room; Thursday, November 9, 7:00 p.m., El Carmelo School Multi-Purpose Room; and Wednesday, November 15, 7:00 p.m., City Hall Council Chambers. Council discussed a procedural issue regarding a future agenda item, the former Maximart site, scheduled for the Regular City Council meeting on November 13, 1995, and the issue of reopening the public hearing. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Schneider, to direct the City Manager and the City Attorney to indicate on the agenda for the Regular City Council meeting of November 13, 1995, that the public comment would be limited to people who had not spoken previously to the item. MOTION PASSED 5-0, Fazzino, Kniss "not participating," Huber, McCown absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 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
10/30/95 77-201
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.
10/30/95 77-202