HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-10-16 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting October 16, 2000
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................... 70
CONSENT CALENDAR.............................................. 72
1. Contract 00-SNR-00336: United States Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration Central Valley Project, California Contract for Electric Service Base Resource with City of Palo Alto – Refer to Finance Committee........... 72
2. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Supporting Measure A of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to Extend the One-Half Percent Sales Tax for Transportation Purposes.................................. 72
3. Confirmation of Joseph Bellomo to the Architectural Review Board to fill an unexpired term ending September 30, 2002 72
PUBLIC HEARINGS............................................... 72
4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council and the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission will hold a public hearing to gather public comments on the proposed Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit [County File # 7165-07-81-99GP-99P-99EIR]............................. 72
COUNCIL MATTERS............................................... 81
5. Council Members Kleinberg and Ojakian re City/School Liaison Committee Membership..................................... 81
5A. (Old Item No. 2) Resolution 8005 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Supporting Measure A of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to Extend the One-Half Percent Sales Tax for Transportation Purposes”81
6. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........... 82
ADJOURNMENT................................................... 82
10/16/00 91-69
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (via teleconference from Seattle, Washington, at 10:30 p.m.), Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Richard Dodds, City Employee, SEIU Chief Steward, 77 Santa Rosa Avenue, spoke regarding PERS Petition Delivery. Dawn Wilcox, 810 Wintergreen Way, spoke regarding Counsel of the Blind. Stanley R. Smith, 610 Wildwood Lane, spoke regarding AT&T Data Services. Aaron Blanucci, 1047 Noel Avenue, #4, Menlo Park, spoke regarding AT&T/Cable Co-op. Daryl Reagan, 967 Moreno Avenue, spoke regarding eruv. Tom Jordan, 474 Churchill Avenue, spoke regarding Mayfield site. Tony Roder, 3875 Magnolia Drive, spoke regarding AT&T. David Gross, 800 La Mesa Drive, Portola Valley, spoke regarding cable modem service. Kirke Comstock, Vice Mayor, Town of Portola Valley, 9 Coalmine View, Portola Valley, spoke regarding 575 Los Trancos Road site. Joe Webb, 248 Huckleberry Trail, Woodside, spoke regarding Mayfield and Jewish Community Center. Mark Heyer, 726 Marion Avenue, spoke regarding Telecom outage. Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, member of League of Women Voters, spoke regarding invitation to Measure A debate to be held Saturday, October 28, 2000, at City Hall. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding AT&T service.
10/16/00 91-70
City Attorney Ariel Calonne suggested correspondence expressing the City’s extreme displeasure with the AT&T service. City Manager Frank Benest said his staff tried to advocate on the issue, and a letter from the Mayor would have been appropriate. Council Member Kleinberg asked Mr. Calonne to prepare a report on the powers of the Council with regard to the cable modem service. Council Member Kleinberg asked that Mr. Benest examine Mr. Heyer’s suggestions to see if they were appropriate. There were possibilities of treating cable modem service as a utility. Home based businesses that used cable modem service were a great benefit to the community in reducing traffic. City Manager Benest clarified the City’s position on the Mayfield site proposal. Stanford had offered the Mayfield site for a City community center. The rationale for the Jewish Community Center (JCC) as the center’s anchor tenant was that it was more cost-effective for the City to allow a non-profit provider for community services. The JCC was not a private, religious organization. It was no different from the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA). The JCC was a non-sectarian, United Way agency that provided health and human services in a non-discriminatory way for the whole community. The JCC had certain legal rights as a tenant of the Terman site. The City was trying to mitigate the impact on the JCC when the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) reclaimed the site for a middle school. Vice Mayor Eakins said the newspapers were saying that the City was building a new JCC at the Mayfield site with community funds. She asked Mr. Benest to clarify the extent of such arrangements, if any. Mr. Benest said there were no such arrangements currently. The City was going to invite Stanford to make an application to the City. They were going to evaluate the proposal in the usual manner. If the application were successful, the City would have developed a community center with the JCC as the anchor tenant. The JCC would raise funds to build the center, with the City supplying funds to the extent that it had services and programs at the site. Council Member Lytle asked why the City did not pay the legal obligation to the tenant and let them find another spot themselves, if they could. She asked what the City’s policy was with regards to maintaining community centers and services in Palo Alto. Mr. Benest said the City needed the community center and people providing community services. Not only did the JCC have legal
10/16/00 91-71
rights as a tenant, but it had also served the community well for eighteen years. It was a non-profit organization that provided health and human services directly related to the quality of life in the community. Joe Hirsch, 4149 Georgia Avenue, spoke regarding the Mayfield site. John Ciccarelli, 2065 Yale Street, spoke regarding the Mayfield site. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve Consent Calendar Items Nos. 1 and 3 with Item No. 2 removed by the Mayor to become Item No. 5A. 1. Contract 00-SNR-00336: United States Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration Central Valley Project, California Contract for Electric Service Base Resource with City of Palo Alto – Refer to Finance Committee 2. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Supporting Measure A of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to Extend the One-Half Percent Sales Tax for Transportation Purposes 3. Confirmation of Joseph Bellomo to the Architectural Review Board to fill an unexpired term ending September 30, 2002 MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 1 and 3, Fazzino absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The City Council adjourned to a Special Joint Meeting with the
Planning and Transportation Commission at 8:00 p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council and the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission will hold a public hearing to gather public comments on the proposed Stanford University Community Plan and General Use Permit [County File # 7165-07-81-99GP-99P-99EIR] Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said the purpose of that evenings review was to finalize the City’s comments on the Stanford University Community Plan (SUCP), General Use Permit (GUP) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and forward them to the County of Santa Clara (County). The SUCP was an important document because the County, Stanford and the surrounding communities had worked with only a GUP for the last 40 years, and
10/16/00 91-72
now they had a community plan that outlined a vision of what Stanford should be. The staff was pleased with the SUCP core concept. He identified five issues. The first was the Academic Growth Boundary (AGB) and the open space preservation. Once the plan was adopted, the AGB was in place until the County Board of Supervisors amended the SUCP. The SUCP did not have a time limit. He approved of the duration the County planning staff proposed, which was 25 years and 5 million additional square feet of space constructed. Mr. Gawf and his staff disagreed with the County about certain areas included in the AGB. He recommended that the area known as the Lathrop property and parts of the Stanford Golf Course not be included in the AGB. The second issue was preserving the first hole of the Stanford Golf Course. Stanford would preserve the golf course in exchange for the use of a section of land that was designated as open space in the Sand Hill Development Proposal. The third issue dealt with housing. The County GUP proposed to add over 3000 faculty and student housing units to the Stanford Campus. The City recommended that the amount of housing built be linked to the construction of academic buildings on campus. The City Planning staff was concerned with the building of housing along El Camino Real because it would change the streetscape. The fourth issue was transportation. The County plan contained a no new net trips policy. If Stanford did not comply, they would be forced to pay the cost of improving the intersections. The City Planning staff wanted a procedure for enforcing non-compliance and reviewing performance. The fifth issue was the question of how the new construction would impact the community facilities. Stanford proposed to solve the problem by leasing the Mayfield site to build new community facilities. Mayor Kniss clarified that in the deal to preserve the golf course, Stanford agreed to change the location of the open space to be preserved. The City maintained the same amount of preserved open space. Mr. Gawf confirmed Mayor Kniss’s statement. Council Member Kleinberg clarified Mr. Gawf’s statement about the length of time the Council wanted to preserve open space. Mr. Gawf said the Council wanted to preserve the open space for a period of 25 years or more, with the permanent preservation as the main goal. City Manager Frank Benest said that an Ad Hoc committee of the Planning and Transportation Commission should meet with his staff the following day because a quorum of the full Planning Commission could not be achieved. Planning and Transportation Commissioner Bialson agreed that an Ad
10/16/00 91-73
Hoc committee was necessary because there were many members of the Commission travelling. Mr. Benest said the Planning Commission had a good sense of what they wanted to do. Planning and Transportation Commissioners Bialson, Burt, and Schmidt would serve on the Planning Commission Ad Hoc Committee of the Planning Commission. Mayor Kniss said Stanford would be given 10 minutes at the beginning of the public hearing session and three minutes at the end. Larry Horton, Stanford University, said Stanford’s preferred outcome was the adoption of Stanford’s original SUCP and GUP submitted in November, but that Stanford understood that every land use proposal was subjected to technical review and community opinion. Stanford wanted to be able to use Stanford lands for the purposes for which they were given in trust: to support the education and research missions of the university. Stanford wanted to house more students and faculty on campus, and wanted to minimize the impact the development had on its neighbors. Over half of all the construction under the new permit would be housing, 78 percent was low-income housing for students, medical residents, and post-graduate fellows. Stanford accepted the challenge of no new net trips. Stanford pointed out that this standard was not imposed on any landowner, and welcomed the City and County to impose the standard on themselves. Stanford submitted two mitigation measures to benefit the community, a choice between a middle school site or $10 million for the PAUSD and an offer to lease the Mayfield site to the City for a new community center for one dollar a year for fifty-one years. The matter of greatest concern to Stanford was the AGB. Stanford was concerned that the boundary would not provide adequate space for new housing, and accepted the 25-year AGB provided there was public recognition that the boundary might need to be reviewed in the future. Stanford thanked the City for its support over the years, and praised the cooperation between Stanford and the City. Edward Holland, 1111 Parkinson Avenue, said that in Silicon Valley, 25 years was a long time. Stanford was taking a risk in accepting a 25-year limit. He asked the Council to be less rigid and consider a 10-year limit. Bill Benal, 640 Forest Avenue, Apt. B, asked the County not to compromise on the goal to preserve open space permanently. He asked that the County not allow the AGB to be amended like the Sand Hill agreement was. He asked that the County freeze development if Stanford did not accomplish no new net trips.
10/16/00 91-74
Stan Christensen, 640 Forest Avenue, Apt. B, suggested that the Council ask for codified public access to the foothills as part of the SUCP. He suggested that some of the land be protected permanently, the amount of which should be tied to development. Cathy Kroymann, President of Palo Alto Unified School District, 1 Somerset Place, reported that PAUSD said that Stanford’s offer to lease the site at the corner of El Camino and Page Mill to the City for the construction of a community center was a low-cost solution to the search for a new middle school site. Leasing the site would allow the City to use the Terman site, currently occupied by the Jewish Community Center (JCC), to build a middle school. She was confident that an agreement would be reached in the near future. Kathleen Much, 128 Hillside, Menlo Park, asked the Council to recognize the benefits of the original Stanford plan, and to return the community plan to the original AGB and 10-year time frame. She strongly advocated not accepting linking housing development to academic growth. Ewart Thomas, 915 Wing Place, Stanford, said technology changed the way that Stanford did its science. The advances forced Stanford to be more flexible in the way it approached academic planning. The setting of the AGB was an essential planning tool for Stanford, and he urged the Council to be flexible in setting the AGB. Linda C. Cork, 680 Torwood Lane, asked the Council to allow Stanford to build more housing. She said that one of her secretaries almost quit her job because her rent was raised to a level she could not afford, and she could not find new housing. She asked for flexibility in the AGB to accommodate changing academic priorities. She pointed out many advanced technologies did not exist 25 years prior. She stated that 10 years was an appropriate time frame. Eric Fertig, 275 Hawthorne Avenue, #205, asked why the dish access policy was not included as part of the SUCP. The access policy should have been used as mitigation for loss of open space due to development. He complained about the loss of public access as a result of Stanford policy changes. He cited the example of the Portola Valley Ranch, where the developer set aside open space for public access. Larry Taylor, 2140 High Street, said that the housing Stanford was building was mitigation in and of itself for proposed development because it was located where the residents worked. He asked the Council to consider the housing as ample mitigation. Laura Stuchinsky, Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, and Housing
10/16/00 91-75
Action Coalition, San Jose, said that the Housing Action Coalition supported the housing portion of the SUCP. She commended the Council for its creative thinking in the matter of preserving the Stanford golf course. She acknowledged the Council’s statement on record that it supported the housing portion of the SUCP. She cautioned against creating unrealistic linkages for housing development. Betty Koski, 1245 Magdalena Court, Los Altos, felt that the land swap made to preserve the Stanford golf course was a good idea, and hoped that the Council would propose it to the County Planning Commission. Michael Anderson, Bootronisy, Menlo Park, congratulated the Council on its work on the issues between Stanford and the City. He felt that the current SUCP was acceptable. Mandy Lowell, Hamilton Avenue, asked the Council to trust the City to make the right decision in 25 years. She opposed having too many long-term restrictions on Stanford land use so that Stanford could handle eventual contingencies. John A. Stern, 2303 Cowper Street, favored of the SUCP. He pointed out that 44% of Palo Alto students attended school on Stanford land. He urged the Council to have more flexible development linkages. He spoke against a 50-year time limit on open space preservation, and advocated reducing the limit to 10 or 15 years. James M. Montoya, Stanford Vice-Provost for Student Affairs, 125 Peter Coutts Circle, Stanford, assured the Council that the addition of 100 undergraduate housing spaces does not indicate a planned increase in the size of the undergraduate student population. He spoke about the need for development to support students with special needs, and emphasized the need for a flexible GUP. Gordon W. Newell, 4163 Hubbartt Drive, supported the current form of the SUCP. He said the Lathrop district was 78% developed. He pointed out several buildings, some of which existed for 100 years. The Carnegie Institute should not have been prevented from developing that area. Crystal Gamage, 1568 Channing Avenue, asked the Council to be fair with Stanford in the designation of open space. She did not agree with permanent open space preservation. She referred to the Williamson Act, under which a person could only keep their land in trust for a specific person for a period of 10 years before its use was reviewed. Nancy Peterson, 549 Ashton Avenue, urged the Council to support the
10/16/00 91-76
current version of the SUCP. Matt Owens, 627 S. Eldorado Street, San Mateo, said some Stanford faculty commuted from Gilroy and Tracy. He urged the Council to support Stanford in building new housing. Tom Jordan 474 Churchill Avenue, said the Council should support the SUCP. He said that any plan could be appealed at any time, so there was no plan that would remain unchanged. James Sweeney, 445 El Escarpado Way, Stanford, said Stanford had made concessions greater than should be expected in the current draft of the SUCP. He opposed the 25-year term of the AGB, and feared that it would not allow development in the event of unforeseen contingencies. He opposed a hard linkage between academic and housing development. Elsie Begle, 501 Forest Avenue, supported the use of Stanford’s open space to maintain its academic excellence. Mayor Kniss announced that no more speaker cards would be accepted. RECESS: 9:40 P.M. TO 9:55 P.M. Denice Dade, Committee on Green Foothills, said the current GUP was more comprehensive than anything else that had been proposed. The mitigation monitoring program would ensure implementation. The SUCP needed a permanent open space protection provision, which was not adequately addressed in the plan. A conservation easement or a developer agreement was necessary to hold the AGB in place. She quoted Craig Brittan, General Manager for the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, when he said the Stanford foothills was the most important piece of open space in the County requiring protection. Development was permanent, so open space needed to be protected. She proposed a density bonus overlay, where every piece of development required a portion of open space protection. Bill Lane, 880 Westridge Drive, Portola Valley, said Leland Stanford was at his best when he ran the Stock Farm. Mr. Lane had been appointed to raise $1 million to restore the Stanford Red Barn, and he did so as a historian, not as an equestrian. He appreciated the Council’s support in the preservation of the Stanford Red Barn. Kathy Durham, 2039 Dartmouth Street, was concerned about the County’s lack of support for the City’s proposal that Stanford prepare an integrated transportation plan across jurisdictions with long-term and multi-modal focus. The County’s focus on site-specific traffic studies and no net new commute policy would not help her and other College Park residents. Transportation planning
10/16/00 91-77
in the Research Park should have been linked to development on Stanford campus. Two hundred more units were added to the infill housing development in Escondido Village. She recognized the need for more student and faculty housing. She wanted the Council to work with the County on zoning after the GUP was passed. She wanted the County to work on reducing speed and increasing safety on Stanford Ave. She asked the Council to carefully examine the Mayfield plan and be careful where they allowed the transfer development rights. John R. Easter, 1175 Stanley Way, said he had some familiarity with Stanford because he lived with his wife and three children in 750 square feet of housing. The municipal golf course was losing money. He asked why people were so interested in the Stanford golf course when it was a private club that most residents could not use. The emphasis on the golf course was misplaced. The tiger salamander was probably going to become an endangered species, which would mean Stanford could not do anything with the golf course hole. He felt the Council should not give up any open space to preserve the golf course. The Mayfield site was not a gift. The Council was giving up development rights to land they had already set up as future housing. The potential loss was 600-700 housing units. Irene Sampson, League of Women Voters, 3992 Bibbits Drive, said the League had publicly supported more Stanford housing, childcare facilities, traffic improvements, and preservation of natural habitat. They supported negotiations between Stanford and the PAUSD with regard to the middle school issue. She congratulated the City on facilitating the Mayfield agreement. The lease of the Mayfield site freed up the Terman site for a middle school and allowed relocation of the JCC. The City could construct a community center for the JCC and other non-profits. If the deficit in local housing supply continued, the League would support further housing on Stanford land. She believed the Community Plan should provide flexibility for housing sites not yet identified. Jack Koch, President of Save Our Schools and Community Assets (SOSCA), 1466 Dana Avenue, supported the concept of developer impact fees on all developers including Stanford. He congratulated Stanford on its assistance with creating a new middle school. The Council should continue to search for other sites, including the Elks Club, in case the current plan did not go through. The current draft of the SUCP was reasonable. Edie Keating, 3511 Waverley Street, said the Council did not have the Mayfield site yet. She wanted a deal that was not related to the County’s SUCP. There were other options for housing that did not involve using open space. Open space should be preserved permanently because it did not increase traffic, and it was best
10/16/00 91-78
for the community. Gail Sredanovic, 2161 Ashton Avenue, Menlo Park, urged the Council to remember that once open space was gone, it was gone forever. Rapid changes were stressful to the human psyche. The solution was open space. She said to listen to the graduate students who did not trust Stanford to build graduate housing. She supported previous speakers who said Stanford did not need to build in open space. Herb Borock, P. O. Box 632, said the Council adopted an open space policy for Sand Hill area B. The open space was supposed to last for 25 years, but only lasted for 3 years, and allowed housing on the golf course. If three supervisors or five council members could change open space protection, there was not much protection. If housing were built on the 13-acre site previously considered open space, Stanford should be required to mitigate the effects of the Hazardous Waste Facility located 600 feet away. He opposed development on sites D, I, and part of E. The streetscape on El Camino should be preserved. He opposed the transfer of development rights in exchange for the Mayfield site. Christopher Stromberg, 796 Escondido Road, Apt. 14A, Stanford, said he trusted Stanford to build housing. He supported the new Sand Hill Road agreement. In the original agreement, the surrounding communities forced Stanford to designate certain areas as open space for 20 years. The golf course was protected because the agreement could be amended. The AGB in the community plan could not be amended. The possibility of amendment was necessary. Graduate students’ need for housing should have overridden aesthetic needs and traffic problems. George Gioumousis, Ph.D., 992 Loma Verde Avenue, said that Stanford was rapacious. 25 years was not enough time for open space preservation. Gerry Plunckett, 51 Kilroy Way, Atherton, felt that the AGB should have included the entire Stanford golf course. Except for the first hole, the golf course was designated Campus open space, and did not have the strict 25-year limit. Cindy Jacobson, La Donna Street, believed the City should have accepted nothing less than permanent protection for the foothills. The City had the right to stand up for the preservation of open space. She saw the possibility that the Stanford Management Company would have taken the lead in preserving open space. Barbara Gross, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, endorsed the SUCP. The SUCP would have reduced the housing shortage by building new housing. New facilities would have been
10/16/00 91-79
located within the campus. Two-thirds of the campus would have remained undeveloped. A campus open space designation would have protected areas within the core campus. Stanford and the PAUSD reached an agreement regarding school development. The SUCP was going to help maintain Stanford’s leading academic reputation. She congratulated all participants on their open, constructive dialogue. Michael McGuire, 2112 Old Page Mill Road, felt the restrictions Stanford recently put on access to the foothills were put there in order to prevent anyone from establishing a legal right-to-access. 25 years was not long enough for preservation of the foothills. Permanent protection was requested. Angela Chabot, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Rm. 11, Stanford, spoke against the SUCP. The foothills needed to be permanently protected. There were other ways to meet Stanford’s academic and housing needs. The preservation of the foothills was as important as the creation of the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District in the 1970s. Richard Harris, 1370 Masonic Avenue, San Francisco, felt the AGB should include the entire Stanford golf course. Putting it inside the AGB should be a condition of the revised Sand Hill agreement. He supported permanent open space preservation. Libby Lucas, 174 Yerba Santa Avenue, Los Altos, felt that Stanford golf course hole number one should be permanently preserved. The original vision for the University was a wide-open undergraduate experience. Stanford was the only place the San Francisquito Creek flooding problems could be alleviated. Something should be included in the SUCP for that purpose. Lastly, development in the foothills was a bad idea because of toxic waste deposits there. Jeb Eddy, 2579 Cowper Street, said the current plan had no firm commitment for protection of the land. He wanted Stanford to give the City a vision for development, so that they would not have to react to project after project. He wanted some serious enforcement measures included in the plan. Larry Horton, Stanford University, said there were many comments about avoiding sprawl. He said that Stanford’s plan had no sprawl; it only had compact development in the core campus. The foothills were important to Stanford, and were not endangered by the plan. He referred to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), where a comment was made that the draft EIR failed to identify mitigation measures to reduce the project’s significant effect on open space. The response to the comment states that there was no impact on open space in the core campus, because it was mitigated there. There was one problem that should have been mitigated, the Lathrop district, and they believed that by reducing the AGB, it was
10/16/00 91-80
mitigated. The conclusion in the draft EIR stated that no impacts to core campus open space were going to occur, therefore no mitigation measures were required. No action taken. Reconvened to Regular City Council Meeting. COUNCIL MATTERS 5. Council Members Kleinberg and Ojakian re City/School Liaison Committee Membership Council Member Ojakian proposed an expansion of the City/School Liaison Committee to increase the membership from two to four members. Some of the upcoming activities required more representation from the Council. MOTION: Council Member Ojakian moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to ask the Mayor to appoint two additional members to the City/School Liaison Committee for the duration of the study to develop a joint facilities master plan. Council Member Burch asked whether Council Member Ojakian would like the Council to nominate the members or have the Mayor appoint them. Council Member Ojakian said historically the Mayor made committee appointments. Council Member Fazzino supported the motion. He hoped that every major point of view on the Council would be supported in the committee. MOTION PASSED: 8-0, Mossar absent. 5A. (Old Item No. 2) Resolution 8005 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Supporting Measure A of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to Extend the One-Half Percent Sales Tax for Transportation Purposes” Vice Mayor Eakins said Measure A was important to the County’s vitality. For the City, Measure A meant $40 million for the Dumbarton Rail Connection to Alameda County. There was money for the intermodal train station, for underpasses, and for electrification of CalTrain. She urged the Council to support the measure for the upcoming election.
10/16/00 91-81
MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Ojakian, to adopt the Resolution. Council Member Beecham stated he would be voting no. He supported mass transit, but preferred a proposal by County Supervisor Joe Simitian and was waiting for a more balanced proposal next year. Mayor Kniss said she would also have preferred a more balanced proposal, but was not expecting one to garner enough support to be on the ballot the following year. Five votes were necessary to get on the ballot, and County Supervisor Pete McHugh said he would not support the proposal. If the measure did not pass, a backup plan was unlikely. Council Member Fazzino said if San Mateo and Santa Clara County officials had done their job 30 years prior, the traffic problem would not have existed. He or Council Member Beecham could have come up with better proposals, but the current proposal included some important projects. The proposal also contained the Dumbarton Rail provision, which was not in any other County proposal except for County Supervisor Simitian’s. He supported the proposal. Council Member Burch agreed with Council Member Fazzino. Until BART circled the Bay, any proposal would be inadequate, but he supported the proposal. MOTION PASSED: 7-1, Beecham “no,” Mossar absent. 6. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Burch spent the day at Fire Station No. 2 with the paramedics and stated he was impressed with their level of expertise. Vice Mayor Eakins asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Colonel Charles “Chuck” Probst who was a designer of automobiles and an expert on transportation issues. Council Member Fazzino asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Joseph Carleton who was active in Neighbors Abroad and was strong in environmentalist issues. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. in memory of Charles “Chuck” Probst and Joseph Carleton. ATTEST: APPROVED:
10/16/00 91-82
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
10/16/00 91-83