Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-05-08 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALOALTOCITYCOUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU- FREOUENCY9O.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting May 8, 1989 Oral Communications Consent Calendar PAG 61-332 61-332 2. Ordinance Prohibiting the Sale or Use of 61-332 Food Packaging Manufactured with Chloro- fluorocarbons 2A. (012 1) Policy and Procedures Recommenda- tion re Cable Television Government Access ChINInel 3. Ordinance Amending Budget to Provide an Additione..l Appropriation for the Library Division in Recognition of Receipt of Public Library Funds from the Public Library Foundation and the State Library 4. Council Member Fletcher re Transit Ticket Sales and Outreach 5. Mayor Klein re Proposed Sale of 77 -Acre Parcel on the North Side of Arastradero Road Recess to a Closed Session re Litigation at 9:36 p.m. Adjournment at 10:10 p.m. 61-332 61-333 61-334 61-337 61-341 61-343 61-331 5/8/89 Regular Meeting May 8, 1989 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:37 p.m. Mayor Klein announced the need for a Closed Session to discuss Waite v. City 9f Palo Alto pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to be held at some point during or after the meeting. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb (arrived at 7:53 p.m.), Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci (arrived at 7:49 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Richard. Rundell, representing World Peace through Religious Freedom, 859 Lytton Avenue, spoke regarding religious freedom. 4. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding newspaper vending racks, Palo Alto Mariner Base, and Palo Alto Harbor. 3. Dolores Furman, 1070 Cambridge, Menlo Park, spoke regarding Stanford Community Report and noise iss4es. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Levy removed Item 1. NOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Sutorius, to approve Consent Calendar Item 2. 2. QRDINANCF 38§9 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 30 THERETO ?ROHIBITING THE SALE OR USE OF FOOD PACKAGING MANdeACTURZD WITH CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS" (1st Reading 4/24/89, PASSED 9-0) (1440) (NPG) MOTION PASSED 8-0. AGENAA CHMGES. ADDITIONS AND DEL$TIQIS City Manager Bill Zaner announced that Item 1 would become Item 2A. 2A. (Old 1) Policy and Procedures Committee recommendation re Cable Television Government Access Channel (1141) (O :202:9, CMR:260:9) Council Member Frenzel said the Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee was asked to review the options for the cablecasting 61-332 5/8/89 8 facility in the Council Chambers. In the course of the time the P&P Committee was to review the matter, staff and the Cable Co-op had an opportunity to purchase permanently installed equipment which appeared to best option, and the Committee ratified that decision. In terms of cablecasting from the Council Conference Room, it could be very expensive to get more equipment and the recommendation was to explore ways in which the Council Chambers could be made more amenable to Committee -type formate. MOTION: Council Member Renzel for the Policy and Procedures Committee moved as follows: 1. Council affirm the selection of Option 1 to build a permanent cablecasting facility in the Council Chambers to provide live coverage of Council and Planning Commission meetings, with Council Committee meetings to be cablecast at some future time; 2. Council approve the policy guidelines for programming access, editing, endorsement, and promotion as presented in the staff report (CMR:202:9); and 3. Direct staff to explore arrangements for a more informal seating arrangement to facilitate discussion and interaction with staff in the Council Chambers. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 9RDINARCES 3. Ordinance Amending Budget to Provide an Additional Appropria- tion for the Library Division in Recognition of Receipt of Public Library Funds from the Public Library Foundation and the State Library (412-03) (CMR:247:9) MOTION: Council Member Levy coved, seconded by Woolley, to approve staff recommendation to adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance to reflect the receipt and appropriation of Public Library Funds in the amount of $47,058. ORDINANCE 3871 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY or PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE LIBRARY DIVISION IN RECOGNITION OF RECEIPT OF PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNDS FROM THE PUBLIC LIBRARY FOUNDATION AND THE STATE LIBRARY" (412-03) (CMR:247:9) MOTION PASSED 9-0. 61-333 5/8/89 COUNCIL OTTERS 4. Council Member Ellen Fletcher re Transit Ticket Sales and Outreach (1160) Council Member Fletcher said the County Transportation Agency determined the volume of activity at the Palo Alto Transit Center Building did not warrant full-time staff, and proposed to replace the person with a telephone. People requesting information would have a toll free direct line to information services in San Jose. However, the building would be closed every afternoon at 1:00 p.m. because the train station agent would no longer be _there in the afternoons, which would be a detriment to the service. When the item was discussed at the Transportation Parking Committee meeting of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce on May 4, 1989, she referred to a previous proposal to located businesses in the building. If that could occur, the building could remain open. Council Member Woolley asked about the present and proposed hours of operation of the Transit Center Building. Manager, Real Property Bill Fellman understood there were presently two separate concessions. One was with the Transit District for the bus services, and the other was with ticket sales for CalTrans. The CalTrans ticket salesperson was at the office between 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., and the Transit District person was in the office between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m, Council Member Woolley asked about the ownership of the land and building and the feasibility of placing a business in the station. Mr. Fellaan said the original lease allowed for ancillary uses as approved by the City Manager, particularly bicycle repair and sales. There had been proposals for a coffee and flower shop and the Coast Guard auxiliary in the baggage room. The train depot was owned by Stanford under a deed with Southern Pacific which had a reversion C '�. When Stanford reclaimed the depot, it was leased to they City of Palo Alto who subleased it to the Transit District. W. Mark Evans, 1681 The Alameda, was an employee of the Transit District and occasionally worked in the Palo Alto Transit Center Building. When the station was refurbished in 1981, there wasp a general understanding the station would remain open for both train and bus ticket sales. CalTrans and Southern Pacific reduced their staffs essentially by ons-half to two-thirds. At one time train agents available until 8:00 p.m., which was no longer the case. Women registered many complaints about the station closing at 5:00 p.m. , particularly during the winter and when panhandlers went through the station grounds. Although the City was assured of having a direct line to the San Jose Information Center, once a 61-334 5/8/89 1 service was cut, it was seldom restored. He urged Council to give the issue the same energy and attention is gave to prohibiting smoking in the station. Jackie Styles, 2745 Monterey Road, #59, was an employee of the Transit District. The closure of the Palo Alto Transit Center was more than just outreach and ticket sales. The citizens deserved to have a place where they could get transit information and schedules. She urged Council give high energy to keeping the Transit Center open. Ardys Sandell, 1706 Lobelia Lane, San Jose, was a transit rider. She was concerned about the Palo Alto Transit Center closure, and especially the women and young people who took the train after 1:00 p.m., and would have no place to go. She did not like having to stand outside in the dark or in the rain or being approached by strangers. Edie Dorosin, Executive Director, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest, represented the Transportation and Parking Task Force of the Chamber of Commerce. The consensus of the task force was to try and delay closure of the Palo Alto Center until alternative uses could be determined. A vacant station would increase concerns about personal safety. Jim Kelley, Operator with the Santa Clara County Transit District, represented the Executive Board of the Operators and Support Workers Union, which believed closing the Palo Alto depot would compound the traffic problems in Palo Alto. Currer_*?y, the Santa Clara train station closed at 1:00 p.m., and there were many complaints. Deborah Wetter, Marketing Director, Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, 1555 Berger Drive, San Jose, CA 95112, said an audit of the marketing division reflected about 52 people per day used tro information and ticket services at the Palo Alto Center. Since the numbers reflected so few people per hour, it was believed the people of North County c, ild ba better served by returning the information person to Berger Drive and putting in a direct line to Palo Alto. She believed there was rarely longer than a two to three minute wait for information. She believed it made sense to consider the possibility of having another use in the depot, but it made no financial sense for the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency to have an information representative in Palo Alto for eight hours and not be able to provide more service to the public. The Transportation Agency agreed to work with the City to have people at City Hall selling passes during the heavy days of the month. 61335 5/8/89 Council Member Sutorius asked whether a joint operation with CalTrans had every been considered. Ms. Wetter believed the problems involved with a joint operation had to do with labor union problems. The Transportation Agency did sell Caltrain tickets at other sites. MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Henze', as follows: 1. The Mayor request, in writing, from the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency that the Palo Alto Depot be open during day time hours; 2. At such time as the service person is removed that a written guarantee is provided that Agency staff will be assigned to Palo Alto City Hall on a regular and continuing basis during the peak sales days per month; and 3. Palo Alto requests that Transportation Agency staff work with the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Transportation and Parking Task Force to develop an outreach program for Downtown Palo Alto. Council Member Fletcher said it would be a great if the outreach program could be in conjunction with the work of the Chamber of Commerce Task Force. It was hard to reach individual employees when so many employers were involved, and originally, the downtown plan called for a "transportation coordinator-- to work on the matter. Cheryl Lathrop who was a member of the Chambea: of Commerce Task Force had contacted MacArthur Park to see whether it might be interested in using space at the depot, and it did express some interest. She hoped the depot could be kept open. Council Member Henze' said it was not a good time to cut back on transit services when one of the major components of the Citywide Transportation Study was the transportation demand management. It was important to encourage transit use and part of it was having readily available infoA:mation and facilities that were comfortable for people to wait and/or get the information, It was worth trying to delay the closure of the building until a program to offer the benefits could be worked out. Council Member Sutorius appreciated the labor organization wanting to support the kind of service and the employment and represen- tation it involved. It was ironic that providing the needed coordinated commute services could not be accommodated between the unions involved. He encouraged the labor union* to work together. Council Member Woolley sympathized with the concern about closing the train station especially in view of the transportation demand management 'TDM) program into which a sizable about of effort and financial commitment was being put. She was concerned about not taking a firm enough stand. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Patitucci, to request the County to continue the current staffing level of the Palo Alto Depot for a reasonable amount of time until the following items can be pursued: 1. The possibilities of one employee providing ticket services for both the Transportation Agency and Caltrain; 2. The location of a small business in the station; and 3. The Transportation Agency staff to start work immediately with the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Transportation and Parking Task Force to develop an outreach program for Downtown Palo Alto. Council Member Fletcher did not believe Caltrain tickets were sold by Transportation Agency staff in any of the depots. The Southern Pacific union had taken a firm stand on the issue. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 5. Mayor Larry Klein re Proposed Sale of 77 -Acre Parcel on the North Side of Arastradero Road (906) MOTION TO REFER: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Patitucci, to refer the proposed sale of .the 77 -acre parcel on the north side of Arastradero Road to the Finance and Public Works Committee and the staff for basic policy considerations and what steps we would have to take if we decided to proceed. Further, direct the staff to prepare en outline on this project which would include, but not be limited to, items such as: timing, finances, use of private sector developers and the legal constraints, zoning constraints, and environmental concerns which would be applicable. Mayor Klein said the City owned approximately 2,000 acres of land west of Highway 280, more than half of which was located in Foothills Park. Approximately 480 acres of the City -owned property was located in the Arastradero Preserve. Palo Alto was clearly committed to preserving land in the foothills. The City acsired the 77 acres by purchasing the land in settlement of a lawsuit. The City's financial difficulties were long-term since sales tax and property tax revenues would not increase tremendously. Approximately 26 positions had been deleted from the budget and furtker cuts would result in reduction of services. The City had 61-337 5/8/89 been judged by many people to be efficiently run and there were no easy cute left. While he was personally committed to preserving open space and was a co-founder of the Mid -Peninsula Open Space District in 1972, the City was financially strained, and he opined the 77 acres were not prime land. He did not believe selling the 77 acres would encourage Stanford to develop some of its acreage. While the best of both possible worlds might be to hold on to acreage, the situation of the City and the character of the parcel warranted careful consideration regarding sale. Development did not mean development of the entire 77 acres. The City's own zoning regulations stated a portion could be developed while the majority would be retained as open space. The 1976 City Council did not dedicate the 77 -acre parcel as parkland because of the possibility that some future Council might want to sell it. A staff study was commissioned in the late 1970's, and in 19E11, the Planning Commission recommendation, which was adopted by a majority of the City Council, was to not take any action at that time. The recommendation was to neither dedicate the 77 acres nor sell it with the proviso that it should be looked at for a possible sale at some future date. Council Member Woolley asked what aspect of finances staff would consider. Mayor Klein believed there were many financial questions to be addressed. One was some range of possible receipt from sale of the land; the cost of necessary improvements; and who would bear the costs. Another question would be how to use the proceeds. He believed proceeds should be used as an endowment similar to the manner in which many other charitable institutions and universities used their capital in order to get a return on their investment each year and which could be used on a perpetual basis. Council Member Woolley referred to the use of private sector developers and queried whether staff would consider different scenarios as to whether the City would actually get into putting in the improvements. or whether the parcel of raw land would be turned over to private developers. `Mayor Klein had the same questions in mind. Many school districts recently had been their own developers and other government agencies frequently sold land to just one developer with various contractual limitations as to what could be done with the property. He would want staff's advice in tens of how to proceed. Council Member Woolley did not want a lot of valueb'ee staff time going down pathways Council would not pursue, and suggested staff might do some of the research, and if it looked as if considerably more research would be required, she preferred staff return to Council to determine whether the direction should be pursued. 61-338 5/8/89 1 City Manager Bill Zaner clarified staff would prepare an outline of which issues would require study and analysis. Staff would return to the F&PW Committee for guidance as to which areas should be considered in depth and which areas did not need analysis. Catherine Shinners, 3779 Redwood Circle, represented the Palo Alto Co -Housing Group, supported the concept of selling the 77 acres, and wanted to participate in the planning processes to develop a nonsubsidized co -housing community on a portion thereof. Their design concept synchronized with some of the plans from a 1981 Palo Alt' study which made recommendations on how best to develop the land given Palo Altans priorities and concern for careful use of the local environment. Edie Dorosin, Director, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the Chamber of Commerce supported a study of the potential revenue source as part of a broader economic study. Jobst Brandt, the 77 acres. nor the birds 351 Middlefield Road, opposed any proposal to sell Clustered housing would not preserve the open space and animals. Robin Clark, 114 Lowell, opposed any proposal to sell the 77 acres as a quick fix to the City's budget problems. Many cities were grappling with the issue of whether to sell open space, and a sale of Palo Alto's 77 acres would set a precedent as a way to settle financial problems. Once sold, open space could never be recap- tured. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, said the Arastra Preserve was important to the greenbelt. Sale of the 77 acres would not solve the financial problems and would pit environmentalists against the arts the same as the proposed charter amendment pitted everyone against fire and police. A coalition could be formed to override Proposition 13 which would take a two-thirds majority. The special interest groups could work together toward the common good. He suggested the California Parks and Wildlife initiative as a model for such a proposal. He suggested postponing the sale of the 77 for a year, and implementing an interim business license tax as4 a temporary measure until the revenue problems were solved. A citizen's committee could then be formed to draft a comprehensive solution to the City's financial problems and a ballot proposition to implement it. Such action would give environmentalists, businesses, etc. the incentive to work together. Council would only need to put the result on the ballot. He urged the general question of revenue including a business license tax be referred to appropriate committees and that the Arastra proposal not be considered in isolation. 61-339 5/8/89 Enid Pearson, 1019 Forest Court, represented the Committee for Green Foothills, which unanimously opposed the proposed sale of the 77 acres of Arastra lands. The Board had previously believed the Council's policy was to ensure Stanford University retained its lands within the Junipero Serra Boulevard as open space. The 77 acres were contiguous with Stanford lands, and if Palo Alto sold the 77 acres, a new foothills policy would be established. She queried how Palo Alto could then oppose Stanford or any other developer's request to develop foothill lands. In response to the Mayor's description that the 77 acres were "not prime open space" and expendable by the City for "a rainy day," the lands were of the highest quality open space and were part of a continuous belt of open space. A3 pointed out by the Vice President of Cornish and Carey Developers in the Times/Tribune, "any land up there is valuable." Anyone familiar with land use and the increasing urban pressure in the entire bay area knew the value of open space a.nd that it was irreplaceable. A citizens committee might be more appropriate to assist with the City's financial needs to determine other sources of income including the business tax, sharing the new utility tax with the school district, cutting services or raising fees. Palo Altans were proud and protective of their parks and open space and the proposal needed more thought and discussion even before referral. In the true spirit of Palo Alto's parks and open space, the acres should be dedicated as park and open space and/or referred to the public for a vote. When she proposed the park dedication ordinance in 1963 and put the baylands into open space into conservation, she believed it would be the end of such problems. In 1989, the pressures were increased and it was more important than ever to retain the open space and parklands. She could not believe the present Council or any other Council could say "no" to Stanford once the City developed the 77 acres. The matter should go to the Policy and Procedures Committee for a discussion of the policy issues. Bob boss, 4010 Oree, referred to the letter he submitted that evening (on file in the City Clerk's Office), and urged that the questions raised therein be included in any referral. Proposals to sell City land and foothills land had arisen before, and as long as the property was not dedicated parkland, the proposal to sell would continue to arise. The question of whether to sell the land should be referred a Council committee. There were many questions to be answered. Lois Vanderbeek, 736 Barron Avenue, read a letter (on file in the City Clerk's office) opposing the sale of the 77 acres, and preferred Council vote to retain the property rather than refer the matter to committee. The matter of the youth hostel should be resolved first. While she did not like cutting the budget and personnel, she did not feel selling the City's natural assets to attempt to temporarily balance the budget was the way to go. 61--340 5/8/89 0 Lois Halle, 2000 Old Page Mill Road, opposed the sale of the 77 acres as a short-sighted solution to a long-term problem. Such a disaster should be resisted every step of the way. Everything west of Junipero Serra Boulevard should be retained in open space. She urged the property be dedicated as parkland. She urged the appointment of a citizen's committee to study the City's financial needs and she was confident any recommendations for raising money would be much less destructive than to sell unique open space. Selling the 77 acres would open the door for Stanford to develop its contiguous open space area. The issue was important enough to call for a Citywide referendum. Trine Lovercheck, 1070 McGregor Way, urged careful consideration of the proposal, and that it be referred to Committee. As a member of the City's Human Relations Committee, she saw many areas in the community which could use more money. Ray Hosier, 304 O'Connor Street, Menlo Park, urged that any development proposal consider a trail easement between Stanford and the rest of the preserve. He hoped the open space could be preserved. BECESSED TO CLOSED SESSION RE LITIGATION AT 9:36 p.m. Council Meaner Patitucci seconded the motion because the issue needed much sore discussion and ana) ysis. If the 77 acres were sold for approximately $20 million, and if the money went into an income --producing assert, it would generate between $1.5 and $2 per year, and he queried the property tax revenue which might be received from developed property. He would also be interested in possibly maintaining a route through the property connecting trails to preserve the continuous ability. Council needed to remember the competing needs of its constituents with fairly limited resources. Vice Mayor Bechtel opposed the motion. She believed the 77 acres were rolling beautiful hills and it was a continuous belt of open space. She was concerned about ending up with a tacky group of clustered multi -million dollar homes. Contrary to the Mayor's experience, whenever she was on the Arastra► preserve property, she saw many people hiking, riding horses, visiting the lake, eta. She believed it was "bad business" to sell off capital. She believed it was premature to make such a decision, and she encouraged her Council colleagues to defeat the notion. Council Member Cobb historically favored dedicating the 77 acres as parkland. The budget situation was serious and it was importrnt to discuss other possibilities. He agreed the City's budget situation was not ! ;hart -term. Ho did not know what his final decisions would be, but he was willing to discuss alternatives to 61-341 5/8/89 cutting essential servicep. He was dedicated to preserving the environment, but also wanted to preserve the libraries, senior services, child care, recreation, etc. The City would be forced to make tradeoffs in the years ahead. Council Member Renzel referred to the serious financial issues facing the City and the structural changes in the financial makeup of the community, but believed in the long-term Council needed to look at whether the community was consuming an undo amount of resources compared to other communities and whether cutbacks were necessary. To sell land to create an endowment to fund ongoing programs was short -Bighted. Land appreciated at far higher rates than almost any other kind of resource, and at the same time, the dollar went down. If the City converted its land to dollars, it essentially put itself in the position of having a diminishing rather than growing asset. The revenue to be generated from any proposed sale would need to be diminished by whatever amount would be added to the fund to keep it the same value in constant dollars. The 77 acres provided an open space continuity and link between the Stanford lands and all the public open space all the way to Skyline. She pointed out the difficulties the City had trying to use an appropriate fac;11,ty on the Arastra property for a youth hostel that was limited to 10 round trip per day of cars. Seven neighbors brought the proposal to a halt. She believed pursuing any proposal to sell the 77 acres was a mistake, and she urged defeat of the motion. Council Member Fletcher saw the effects of the reduced budget in terns of services and City staff. The workloads were increased and many worked far more than the normal 40 -hour week, and more cuts were proposed. She had a problem with the proposal to yell the 77 acres. The average trips coming from any development on the site would be far more than those in more urbanized areas because it was co isolated. In terms of family housing, children would not be able to ride their bicycles to school, there were no sidewalks, and there was no room for bike lanes. Children would have to be driven everywhere to participate in any type of activities. She urged consideration of a business tax rather than selling the property. She opposed the motion. Council Member Sutorius said it was important to recognize the City's extensive commitment to open space, and he did not believe the 77 acres should be "frozen" by dedication. It was appropriate to study potential uses of the 77 acres, but he did not want to est any false expectations in terns of budget relief. He would not support development of the 77 acres as a relief valve for General Fund operating budget, but he endorsed endowment concepts. Endowments for capital funding associated with parks would not be inappropriate. There could be leverage opportunity. All potential housing on the site would probably carry very high sales prices, 61-342 5/8/89 i but it would not be inappropriate to find ways to leverage such moneys to produce truly affordable housing more proximate to schools, shopping and the general services. In terms of density and proposed uses, the 1981 study was very thorough, and potential existed for a configuration that would respect the site and the vistas and leave considerable open space. He did not oppose studying possibilities other than single family residential uses, e.g., life cars might offer interesting joint venture possi- bilities. He supported the referral motion. Council Member Levy was part cf the original decision to not dedicate the 77 acres and to hold it out for possible future development. He disagreed with any comments about the property being commonplace because any open space was important. Mayor Klein indicated the City had reached a crisis point and that action needed to be taken immediately. He disagreed immediate action was required. While the City had experienced a decline in sales tax increases over the past couple of years, he believed it eas a temporary situation. There had also been an aberration in property tax which he believed was a function of how the tax was collected by the County and State and not an indication that somehow property in Palo Alta was worth less. Any proposed sale of the 77 acres would not hasp the current predicament because any such process would go on for many yeere in terms of study, review, action, etc. It was good government' to "tighten the belts," and there was nothing wrong with totally reviewing the City's current pa actices . He believed the City would recover from it current difficulties. He did not believe the money could be put in an untouchable endowment, but rather it would be deposited irte the City's normal reserves. With a fund of such magnitude; it was inevitable that it would be eroded down, and when a significant crisis did arise, the City would have one less fund to turn to. The City's favorable utilities contracts had a finite time frame and the turn of the century would be a significant turning point in the financial well- being of the City. That would be a crisis situation, and he hate to have used up the 77 acres as a resources. Such a study would take many years in terms of staff, Planning Commission and Council time, and when all was said and done, if he was on the Council in 1992 or 1993, he could not conceive of himself supporting the development of the 77 acres. It seemed unwise to begin such a study that would lead to a decision he could not see himself supporting. He opposed the motion. LION PAM= 5-4, Bechtel, Fletcher, Levy, Menzel "no." D7OITHAMENTt Adjourned at 10:10 p.m. 61--343 5/8/89 ATTEST: APPROVED: NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal, Code Section 2.04.200(b). The City Council meeting tapes are retained in the City Clerk's Office for two years from the date of the meeting, and the Finance and 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. 61-344 5/8/89 ATTEST: APPROVED: NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.2O0(b). The City Council meeting tapes are retained in the City Clerk's Office for two years from the date of the meeting, and the Finance and 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. 61-344 5/8/89 i