Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-03-13 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTO CITYCOUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU- FREQUENCY 90.! ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 T Oral Communications Minutes of February 13, 1989 P$GE 61-180 61-181 1. Contract with Art Craft Linoleum Shop for 61--181 Carpeting Floors in Police Department 2. Environmental Compliance Project, Phase II 61--181 3. Resolutions re Dependent Care Assistance Plan 61-181 4. Resolution re Funding Under State -Local 61-182 Transportation Demonstration Program 5. Ordinance to Establish Special Speed Zones 61.182 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Sand Hill Corridor Joint Policy Committee Recommendations re Conceptual Alternatives for Future Environ- mental Impact Report Evaluation, Procedural Framework, and Tasks and Procedures for Preparation of EIR and Preliminary Design 7. Council Member Ellen Fletcher re Transporta- tion Commission Structures Adjournment at 9:29 p.a. 61-182 61-191 61-1.92 61-179 3/13/89 Regular Meeting March 13, 1989 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:30 p.n. PRESENT: Cobb, Fletcher, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: Bechtel, Klein QRA,,, COMM NIC1 ION4 Z ION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Patitucci, to limit Oral Communications to three minutes per speaker. NOTION PASSED 6-1, Sutorius "no," Bechtel, Klein absent. 1. Deborah Ju, 371 Whitclem Drive, spoke regarding Elks Club property rezoning. 2. Steve Jennings, 369 Whitclem Drive, spoke regarding Elks Club property rezoning. 3. Jean Olmsted, 240 W. Charleston, spoke regarding ElIrs Club property rezoning. 4. Jacques Wolgecenter, 474 W. Charleston, spoke regarding Traynor -Hill property rezoning. S. William Armstrong, 363 Whitclem Drive, spoke regarding Elks Club property rezoning. 6. Bill Spengler, 471 Carolina, spoke regarding concerns with the procedural process of the Citywide Land Use Study hearing. 7. Marc Regelbrugge, 230 MacLane, spoke regarding Elks Club property rezoning. 8. Tim Gadus, 4080 Wilkie Way, spoke regarding Elks Club property rezoning. 9. Randy Fry, 231 Whitclem Courtr spoke regarding density in his neighborhood, particularly the Elks Club property rezoning. 10. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding concerns with the City Council's decisions on the Citywide Land Use Study. 61-180 3/13/89 11. Bunny Good, Founder, International Group Organization for the Disabled, P. O. Box 824, Menlo Park, spoke regarding Palo Alto Police patriotism. 12. Found Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding response to his questions to the Council with respect to the yacht harbor. ROYAL OF MIKES_ NOTION: Council Member Sutorius roved, seconded by Woolley, approval of the Minutes of February 13, 1989, es corrected. NOTION PASSED 7-0, Bechtel, Klein absent. CONSE1T CALENDAR Levy/Woolley - Approve Consent Calendar Items 1 - 5 1, Contract with Art Craft Linoleum Shop fog- Carpeting Floors in Police Department; Authorize staff to execute change orders up to $5,000 (810-04) (CMR:153:9) 2. Environmenta]. Compliance Project, Phase II (1440-01) (CMR:1?5:9) Contract with Bay Area Environmental., Inc. for Removal and Disposal of Hazardous Wastes; Authorize staff to execute change orders up to $5,300 Contract with Safety Specialists, Inc. for Hazardous Materials Storage Locker for Police Department and Fire Department Evidence Room; Authorize staff to execute change orders up to $1,700 3. $ ;SOIIiTION 6760 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF PAIR ALTO DEPENDENT CARE ASSISTANCE PLAN" (501) (Clot :17 2 : 9 ) R$OLUTIQN 6711 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATH ALTO ADOPTING AN AMENS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN" (501) (CMR:172 : 9 ) RESOLUTION 6762 entitled *RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL AND COUNCIL -APPOINTED OFFICERS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 6728 AS MOWED BY RESOLUTION NO. 6734 TO MAKE CERTAIN CHANGES TO THE DEPENDENT CARE PROVISIONS IN ORDER TO CONFORM WITH CHANGES IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE COIF" (501) (ClR:172:9) 61-181 3/13/89 4. MOLUTION 6763 entitled "REE3LUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN APPLICATION AND RELATED DOCUMENTS FOR FUNDING UNDER THE STATE -LOCAL TRANSPORTATION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM" (1010) (CMR:170:9) 5. QRDINANCE 3858 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTIONS 10.56.010, 10.56.020, AND 10.56.030 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH SPECIAL SPEED ZONES" (1st Reading 2/27/89, PASSED 7-0, Bechtel, Patitucci absent) (1065) LION PASSED 7-0, Bechtel, Klein absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Sand Hill Corridor Joint Policy Committee Recommendations re Conceptual Alternatives for Future Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Evaluation, Procedural Framework, and Tasks and Procedures for Preparation of EIR and Preliminary Design (1168-02) (CMR:174:9) Director of Planning and CoLmunity Environment Ken Schreiber introduced Larry Patterson, the consultant working with the City on the project. Council Member Levy said he and Council Member Woolley met with Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Zaner, at which time Mr. Schreiber commented on what structure the EIR should take and what projects and alternatives should be included. He was concerned about the future of Alma Street, and he asked for comment. Mr. Schreiber said given the history of the issue and the discussions to date regarding alternatives, he opined that under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the EIR would be obliged to review a full range of alternatives including a connection across El Camino Real from Sand Hill Road to Alma Street. The EIR was an informational document, and the inclusion therein of an alternative in no way indicated support nor an obligation to approve implementation of a particular alternative. Council Member Rsnsei clarified an alternative could not be approved until it received environmental review. Council was possibly caking it easier for a subsequent Council to approve an unpleasant alternative by epp oving an environmental study of such alternative, City Attorney Diane Northway said CEQA review was only valid for certain periods of time beyond which she believed Council would need to start again. 61-182 3/13/89 1 Council Member Renzel referred to page 13 of Attachment V of the staff report (CMR:174:9), and the discussion that the advanced draft EIR was published to permit the lead agency, and in the subject instance, the Joint Policy Committee (JPC), to review the document prior to circulation to the public. Further discussion seemed to indicate the JPC was going to be the lead agency and she asked for clarification about who the decision -makers were in the process, Assistant Planning Official George Zimmerman said the lead agency was the City of Palo Alto. The intent of the JPC and the outlying workflow for the possible subsequent EIR and preliminary design preparation phase would be that of a sounding board and advisory to the City Council. Council Member Fletcher also queried where Council fit in the EIR process. City Manager Bill Zaner said the JPC was asked to review the EIR but only in an advisory capacity, The lead agency was the Palo Alto City Council and it was responsible to approve or disapprove the EIR. Council Member Fletcher assumed the same was true for the selection of the preferred alternative. Mr. Zaner said that was correct. Mayor Pro Ten Cobb declared the Public Hearing Open. Bill Peterson, 228 Fulton, said the connection of Sand Hill Road to El Camino was not in the longs -term interests of Palo Alto or Menlo Park. Planning procedures did not adequately account for traffic attracted by a modification in the road structure, and he referred to the underestimate of the traffic generated by the Dumbarton Bridge. The Sand Hill Road proposal was to slightly modify the road structure, and to improve local traffic circulation and facilitate development. He urged Council to focus the creative energies on solving the transportation problems rather than a quick fix approach. Jim Morley, 160 Waverley Street, urged a Quarry Road/Arboretum Road connection. Quarry Road was previously a two-way road, and he believed such an alternative would alleviate a lot of southbound traffic. He was concerned Stanford would dictate the living conditions of Downtown North and he urged Council face the pressures. Cathie Lehrberg, 1085 University Avenue, referred to the proposed University Circle Project, and said reports estimated an extra 61-183 3/13/89 4,200 cars per day up University Avenue. She queried the impact of a new influx of traffic from the other end of University Avenue as well. She urged Sand Hill Road not be considered without University Circle. Paul Wilson, 45 Willow Road, Menlo Park, said the projected traffic increases on Oak Avenue/Sand Hill Road was 45 percent. Cambridge was projected to have traffic increases of 35 percent. A full description of Stanford's plans needed to be reviewers in an EIR, and the traffic considerations needed to include the extension and all possible routes to support Stanford development. Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne Street, was concerned about the traffic impacts of a Sand Hill Road connection. He urged consideration of the Quarry Road possibility since it was further south and alleviated the fear of an ultimate connection to Alma Street or the Willow Road connection. Margaret Fruth, 1007 Peggy Lane, Menlo Park, said the Sand Hill Road connection had been discussed for 35 years without resolution. The current study was too narrow in its scope and could not possibly resolve all the differences. Moving ahead with the Sand Hill Road extension or doing nothing were theonly alternatives offered. Widening other struts such as Quarry and Arboretum was not offered; extending Quarry Road to El Camino with no right turn on red to resolve the traffic problem was not discussed; extending Campus Drive west either along the edge of the golf course to Alpine or further south to Highway 280 was not considered. Palo Alto and Menlo Park were under no obligation to provide the traffic networks Stanford wanted in order to construct an additional 3.8 million square feet of buildings in the next decade. Eric Gilbertson, 215 Oakhurst Place, Menlo Park, urged, if Council went forward with the Stanford EIR, that it make a clear statement to the Sand Hill Corridor Committee of its interest in consideration of all the alternatives, an effort ,Z zAeard reduced car trips, and that bicycle transportation be designed into the final construction plans. The Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan was a good place to start for ideas. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said CEQA required that pimple who wanted to challenge any decisions of the Councii in court . needed to have participated in certain meetings, and he believed that process began with the environmental review process. He did not believe the public hearing that evening was a part of the process, and the fact that people had not attended did not mean they gave up any rights to later appeal. There already appeared to be a preferred method of funding, e.g., an assessment district which paid off a bond issue. He recently read an article which indicated a Stanford official believed an assessment district or apportioning 61-134 3/13/89 1 i costs to people other than Stanford University would be used to pay for the EIR. Stanford should pay for the EIR. He was concerned about where in the process the public would have the opportunity to indicate the detailed questions it would like to see answered in the EIR. Previously, the Planning Commission was the forum to do so, and the public was given adequate notice. It appeared the matter was to be considered by the JPC rather than the Planning Commission. If the public did not have the proper opportunity to present its questions, it would have to be done during the comments or the draft EIR, and at that point those who prepared the document were locked into the positions stated. He urged proper process. Allen Price, 1855 Bay Laurel Drive, Menlo Park, looked forward to Councils with a vision of the future. He encouraged Council to proceed. Mayor Pro Tem Cobb declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Patitucci, to approve Joint Policy Committee re&omu endations as follows: 1. Endorsement of Sand Hill Road extension conceptual alternatives for future Environmental Impact Report evaluation; 2. Direction to the consultant and the Joint Policy Committee to proceed with the last phase (Part 8) of the Procedural Framework; and 3. Outlined Tasks and Procedures for Possible Subsequent Phases (EIR and Preliminary Design preparation). Council Member Woolley referred to the Quarry Road connection, and said she understood it was so close to the intersection of University Avenue and El Camino that CalTrans forbade the two-way use. Council Member Renzel recognized the Quarry Road extension was tentatively rejected by CalTrans, but Council never really tested them by sending the alternative forward in a serious manner. The proposed Sand Hill Road connection at El Camino was equally close to the shopping center entrance and CalTrans had not raised the same concerns. X : Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to amend the Conceptual Alternative Plan to also seriously consider the Quarry/Arboretum connection. Council Member Renzel said the Medical Center region was extended down to Hooves. Pavilion and incl. ded the distance in between. 61-185 3/13/89 Emergency access vas on Quarry Road from the north and Arboretum was used from E barcadero Road and Palm Drive to the south. Since the emergency room was located on the back of the hospital, she did not expect emergency access would be from Sand Hill Road. From Palo Alto's perspective it made sense to explore the alternative. Council Member Patitucci supported the main motion because it came from the study process which had been underway for a year, and involved representatives from the three involved entities. His familiarity with the area indicated the Quarry Road site was not workable. He used to think a possible connection to Palm or an improvement over to Embarcadero through Arboretum might work, but from the Palo Alto standpoint it did not wake sense because it drove the traffic into Palo Alto without allowing it to disperse to Menlo Park and Palo Alto in some reasonable number. While well- meaning, the Quarry Road alternative was an attempt to try and add another alternative. Council needed to correct the situation. Council Member Levy said the JPC did not address the concept of Quarry Road. It did not seem to be feasible for the reasons pointed out by Council Member Patitucci. He deferred to staff for comment. Mr. Schreiber said the Quarry Road connection was pursued at least twice with CalTrans. The engineering safety problem was not the relationship to the shopping center but the relationship to the offramp to University Avenue and Palm Drive. The JPC process was a focus on identification of feasible alternatives that people wished to see studied in depth. In the EIR process, there was also a need to look at any other alternatives people wished to raise either in initial discessions after the EIR process began or through review and comment on the draft EIR. It was not unusual for additional alternatives to be raised either initially or during the review of the document. He was sure the Quarry Road alternative would be raised again no matter what Council did. In that sense, it would need to be included in the EIR. He cautioned Council against giving the Quarry Road alternative a status equal to the alternatives identified by the JPC. AMINDNIXT FAILED 2-5, Renzel, Fletcher "aye," Bechtel, Klein absent. Council Member Renzel said when the Sand Hill matter was previously before the Council, it approved a proposal and voiced a strong concern that there be no connection to Alma Street. The Alma Street connection appeared in both the three and four --lane alternatives to El Camino as a matter to be studied. She saw no point in studying a project which -was unacceptable to the Council. 61-186 3/13/89 AMEMDMIIMT: Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, that the alternative which permitted a connection through to Alma Street be dropped fi?gym consideration. Council Member Sutorius tried to pay attention to the actions and deliberations of the JPC and respected the communications received from the Menlo Park, Stanford and Palo Alto members of the public. If he had a bias in favor or opposed to a particular action, he would want the action evaluated because if he had strength of conviction and a reasonable foundation for his view, the record would agree with his findings. The inclusion of all the alternatives recommended by the JPC and conti:ained in the main motion were appropriate. He opposed the amendment even though he had also expressed the same notion contained therein. Council Member Fletcher recalled the previous Council action opposing any future Alma Street connection was unanimous. Council Member Patitucci did not recall his voting against the alternative of a connection to Alma Street; in fact, with mitigation, he believed it mad ght be the best alternative available. He associated with the comments of Council Member Sutorius in terms of seeing all the dates and impacts He found the current situation to be deplorable, and he would be interested in its EIR. He would not support the amendment. Council Member Levy said he became emotional in the JPC deliberations when the subject of the Alma connection was raised. He was surprised that representatives from Menlo Park were equally as emotional on the other side of the issue. Palo Alto was the lead agency in the project and would ultimately make the decision. He doubted he would ever support a crossover to Alma Street because the key element in the project was to ensure the neighborhoods in Palo Alto be safeguarded. He also wanted to see the Menlo Park neighborhoods safeguarded. However, the alternative needed to be studied because of previous lawsuits and the great concern being raised about it. He agreed with Council Member Sutorius. He believed the date would support the fact that having a crossover to Alma Street would be deadly for residential neighborhoods in Palo Alto and perform no other good for other cokeenities. Council Member Renzel said a crossover to Alma Street was studied in the last EIR, and especially based on the recent approvals, the numbers reflected in the last EIR could only be worse. She saw no merit in proceeding to study an alternative clearly not aitigatable in the north side except to totally shut the affected neighborhoods off from Alga. She urged reconsideration. The only difference between the present and past process was that Palo Alto was now looking at Menlo Park's alternatives which were already determined to be unacceptable by the Palo Alto City Council. 61--187 3/13/89 ANT FAILED 2-5, Cobb, Renzel "aye," Bechtel, Klein absent. Council Member Sutorius understood Palo Alto was the lead agency and also there was a JPC. He presumed the EIR prucess would go through the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Schreiber said the draft RIR would receive public hearings at the Planning Commission and ,l ty Council levels. Council Member Renzel believed concern was expressed that no Planning Commission process was planned prior to the draft EIR having been completed. Mir. Schreiber said development of the alternatives for the draft EIR would be reviewed with the JPC. It was not assumed it would go to the Planning Commission. Most EIRs processed by the City did not go for discussion prior to the draft being available to the Planning Commission. If Council wanted the Planning Commission to have a "scoping" meeting, it would be appropriate. AMI T: Council Member Fletcher coved, seconded by Renzel, add an item which requires the Planning Commission to review the scoping process. Council Member Fletcher believed the Planning Commission process had much more visibility than the JPC. Mr. Zaner urged that Council not refer tha item to the Planning Commission. A joint committee was established consisting of the three agencies involved in the project. Moving the issue to the Planning Commission would in all likelihood require going back through the 1TPC to get buy -in from the other agencies if changes were made. There was good representation on the JPC, the meetings were open to the public, and the minutes were published. The objective was to move the process along. Council Member Renzel had not seen published minutes for JPC meetings. She did not believe Council had good feedback on what was happening at the JPC. She agreed the meetings were not held at convenient times for people who worked. There was good reason for the matter to go through the Planning Commission. Council. Member Patitucci asked whether the prcoss would include the Menlo Park Planning Commission in a similar procedure. Mr. Schreiber said the Menlo Park Planning Commission would not undertake a similar process, but such an action on the part of Palo Alto would add tine to the process. The focus of the process up until circulation of the draft EIR was on . the JPC. There was not 61-188 3/13/89 the issuaption that details would return to either Planning Commission or City Council prior to the draft KIR. Council Member Patitucci asked what the process before the Planning Commission would add that would not otherwise be available. Mr. Schreiber said if the JPC held an advertised evening meeting to consider alternatives and receive input, it would essentially duplicate what would happen at the Planning Commission level. The concern about returning to the Planning Commission was compounded if its recommendation also needed to return to the City Council. Such a process would probably add about two or three months. 3UIBTITUTI AKENDKRUT: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Sutoriue, to strongly encourage the Joint Policy Committee to hold an advertised, public, evening meeting to allow more public participation in the scoping process. Council Member Levy said meetings to date were held from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 pals. and were well attended by members of all three communities. He endorsed a more broadened of ortunity for public input. Council Member Woolley associated with the cow ente of Council Member Levy. Council Member Renzel believed the JPC already did what it considered to be scoping. She was concerned some proposals might have been ignored. The Planning Commission was supposed to determine tine physical configuration of Palo Alto, and should review the scope of any EIR for what would have a major impact on the community. She opposed the substitute amendment. SUBSTITUT= AMT PASSED 6-1, Renzel "no," Bechtel, Klein absant. Council Member Fletcher referred to Attachment 3, Alternatives 2(a), (b) and (3) , the three -lane alternatives,which said with minor modifications, the San Francisquito Bridge could accommodate three lanes, and a separate pedestrian/bicycle bridge would be provided. She pointed out bicycles needed to travel with the flow of traffic, and if it was not feasible for bicycles to share the road, two bridges would have to be built. Council Member Renzel did not like the alternatives proposed for study other than the no -build. There had already teen two or three SIR processes on the Sand Hill Road connection, and it was clear each time that the levels of service would not increase at the intersections and in some cases were worse. If the connection went through to Alma, there would be core ..trips through the north site 61-189 3/13/89 neighborhoods. She did not believe the alternative was acceptable to the City of Palo Alto and she would not support going further with the process. Mayor Pro Tem Cobb asked when a decision would be made as to which alternatives would be carried forward in the process. Mr. Zimmerman said assuming the EIR preparation started in the summer, the scoping, which would occur after the traffic analysis was completed, would be sometime in late October or November. Council Member Patitucci said whatever issues Council reviewed, a minimal number of citizens voiced their opinions. There were many more unrepresented citizens who were very much in favor of solving the 20 or 30 -year problem. He was proud to be a member of a City Council who took the offensive to try and resolve the issue. He hoped they would see a solution they could look back on as being much more acceptable than doing nothing. Mayor Pro Tem Cobb believed by and large Council did have an open mind on the issue. He hoped the EIR process carefully considered Palo Altoneighborhoods in the north part of town. MOTIOM AS AND PASSED) 5-2, Fletcher, Renzel "no," Bechtel, Klein absent. MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Cobb, to approve Recommendations 4 and 5 as follows: 4. Approval of a budget amendment accepting $2,000 from Stanford University and increasing total funding for the Procedural Framework from $35,000 to $37,000; and INANCE 345B entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAla. 1988-89 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE SAND HILL CORRIDOR PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK" 5. Approval of an amendment to the consulting agreeaet for the Procedural Framework. Amendment No. 1 to Contract Nos C0000788 for Professional Consultant Services with CH2M Hill for Sand Hill Corridor Procedural Framework MOTION PASSED 6-1, Renzel "no," Bechtel, Klein absent. 61-190 3/13/89 COUNCIL MATTERS 7. Council Member Ellen Fletcher re County Transportation Commission Structures (1501-01) Council Member Fletcher said the County Transportation Commission had been trying to determine how to reduce thk - size of its 29 - member Commission. The Palo Alto City Council recommended a 16 member Commission and after much discussion, there was a tentative agreement for 19 members. The final recommendation was for 22 Commissioners --one from each city and two additional representatives appointed by the. San Jose City Council, five representatives from the Transit District Board of Supervisors. San Jose and Santa Clara would be very well represented and she believed it would be fruitless for the Palo Alto City Council to oppose the recommendation. Council Member Sutorius referred to the quest for cohesive approaches for intercity and regional issues, and was disappointed in the continuing need to justify things by having particular cities called out. He queried why the Fifth District Supervisor could not appoint a representative from the list of candidates recommended by that district's cities or based on her canvass of candidates. Council Member Levy agreed. It should be recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the number of Commissioners remain at 22 and that supervisorial appointments be made not by lists supplied by individual cities representing the unincorporated area per se but that appointees consider themselves representatives of each Supervisor's overall district rather than individual cities.. NOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Woolley, to endorse a 22 -member Commiwsion but recommend each Supervisor select a representative for the overall respective district as opposed to singling out a particular city and direct the Mayor to write a letter. Council Member Woolley asked why Supervisor made appointments. Council Member Fletcher said the idea was that people who represented special interests or had special knowledge if transit were to be appointed. However, it was not necessarily adhered to. Historically, San Joss, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale had extra people because of their population base. Council Meer Woolley believed it was important to reduce the number of people serving on the Transit District Board. Council Member Rsnzel supported the motion.• i 61-191. 3/13/89 As Cor rec teu 4/10/89 Council Member Patitucci supported the motion. He queried whether there was ever talk about proportioning membership on the Transit Commission based on participation in the Golden Triangle Task Force. Council Member Fletcher said no. Mayor Pro Tem Cobb agreed with Council Member Sutorius. MOTION PARSED 7-0, Bechtel, Klein absent. ADJOURNMENT: Adjourned at 9:29 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: Mayor Pro Tem NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with F1lo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.200(b). The City Council. meeting tapas are retained in the City Clerk's Office for two years from the date of the meeting, and the Finance any: Public Works Committee and Policy and Procedures Committee meeting tapes are retained for six months. Members of the public may listen to the tapes during regular office hours. 61-192 3/13/89