HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-10-03 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting October 3, 1994 1. Appointments to the Architectural Review Board ....... 73-442 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 73-445 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 ................... 73-446 2. Approval of Authority for Staff to Expend 1994-95 Funds for Santa Clara County Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program ....................................... 73-446 3. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Solutions for Government Technologies, (U.S.) Inc. for Utility Business Processing Consulting Services ............... 73-446 4. Resolution 7358 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Citywide Stop Inter-section System Map to Approve Stop Signs at the Intersections of Bryant Street and Homer Avenue and Bryant Street and Channing Avenue" .................... 73-446 5. Request to Establish an Instrument Approach at the Palo Alto Airport .......................................... 73-446 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ................... 73-446 5A. (Old Item 8) Resolution Naming the Cambridge Avenue Parking Garage Structure as the "Ted Thompson Parking Garage" ............................................... 73-446 6. Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council approval of Option 4 in the staff report (CMR:228:94) that the City demolish the Arastradero Preserve main house, repair the small house (caretaker's house), and approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance for such costs .............................. 73-447
10/03/94 73-440
7. Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council that the policy which brought consulting projects before standing committees on a yearly basis be revisited so that the Committee can review the consultant projects at the scope-of-work stage rather than the consultant selection stage ................... 73-459 9. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. 4048237 between the City of Palo Alto and Bruns Belmont Construction, Inc., for Golf Course Clubhouse Repairs ..................... 73-460 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 73-462 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ........... 73-462
10/03/94 73-441
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointments to the Architectural Review Board Council Member McCown supported David Ross, Jim McFall, and Robert Peterson. David Ross was appointed to a short term on the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and he had demonstrated the qualities seen in him when he was appointed. Jim McFall had given excellent service to the community as a member of the Historic Resources Board (HRB). She also would cast her vote for Robert Peterson, who brought a depth and length of experience in the greater Palo Alto-Menlo Park community that would be a tremendous asset to the ARB. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR ALFONSO: VOTING FOR GILB: VOTING FOR HUO: VOTING FOR KOHLER: VOTING FOR LIPPERT: VOTING FOR McFALL: VOTING FOR OLMSTEAD: VOTING FOR PETERSON: VOTING FOR ROSS: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler City Clerk Gloria Young announced that David Ross received eight votes and was appointed on the first ballot with Vice Mayor Simitian absent. RESULTS OF THE SECOND ROUND OF VOTING Council Member Wheeler supported Jim McFall. Mr. McFall's greatest strength was the way he handled applicants. He would approach applications on the ARB as he did on the HRB, in a positive, constructive manner. Council Member Andersen had not experienced a more well-qualified group of candidates with a diversity of skills. It made the selection process very difficult. He hoped those who were not
10/03/94 73-442
selected that evening would reapply. He would also support Jim McFall because of his experience and tenure. He would also support Robert Peterson who provided a depth of experience that would serve the community very well. Council Member Fazzino agreed with Council Member Wheeler and believed Mr. McFall had done an outstanding job as a member of HRB. He had played a significant role in why the City was currently far more sensitive to historic preservation issues than in the mid-1980s. Mr. McFall would be an outstanding ARB member. He also would vote for Roger Kohler, Carol Lippert, and Michelle Olmstead. All three candidates clearly would be very sensitive to applicants; in particular, to small applicants who dealt with the frustration of City bureaucracy. Palo Alto was more customer-oriented than other cities, and it was extremely important for members of the ARB to be helpful. There needed to be a change in direction, and Mr. Kohler, Ms. Lippert, or Ms. Olmstead would help establish that change. Council Member Schneider said Jim McFall had truly served the community. She looked forward to his serving on the ARB. She said Francisco Alfonso was impressive during the interview. She hoped he would reapply if he were not selected. Carol Lippert had a wonderful background in interior design and would bring a lot to the ARB. Roger Kohler had a wealth of knowledge and had served the Palo Alto community well. VOTING FOR ALFONSO: VOTING FOR GILB: VOTING FOR HUO: VOTING FOR KOHLER: VOTING FOR LIPPERT: VOTING FOR McFALL: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR OLMSTEAD: VOTING FOR PETERSON: VOTING FOR ROSS: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that James McFall received nine votes and was appointed on the second ballot. RESULTS OF THE THIRD ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR ALFONSO: VOTING FOR GILB: VOTING FOR HUO:
10/03/94 73-443
VOTING FOR KOHLER: Schneider VOTING FOR LIPPERT: Fazzino, Wheeler VOTING FOR McFALL: VOTING FOR OLMSTEAD: Kniss, Simitian VOTING FOR PETERSON: Andersen, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum VOTING FOR ROSS: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that none of the candidates received five or more votes and another round of ballots was in order. RESULTS OF THE FOURTH ROUND OF VOTING Council Member Wheeler voted for Carol Lippert because she had more experience. Ms. Lippert worked well with people who were unable to afford expensive design solutions. VOTING FOR ALFONSO: VOTING FOR GILB: VOTING FOR HUO: VOTING FOR KOHLER: VOTING FOR LIPPERT: Fazzino, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR McFALL: VOTING FOR OLMSTEAD: Kniss, Simitian VOTING FOR PETERSON: Andersen, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum VOTING FOR ROSS: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that none of the candidates received five or more votes and another round of ballots was in order. RESULTS OF THE FIFTH ROUND OF VOTING Vice Mayor Simitian said one of things he looked for in the process was the mix of experiences, skills, and perspectives that the entire body had. Michelle Olmstead would bring not only her individual skills and talents but also her perspective and the balance it provided. VOTING FOR ALFONSO:
10/03/94 73-444
VOTING FOR GILB: VOTING FOR HUO: VOTING FOR KOHLER: VOTING FOR LIPPERT: Fazzino, Schneider, Wheeler VOTING FOR McFALL: VOTING FOR OLMSTEAD: Kniss, Simitian VOTING FOR PETERSON: Andersen, Huber, McCown, Rosenbaum VOTING FOR ROSS: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that none of the candidates received five or more votes and another round of ballots was in order. RESULTS OF THE SIXTH ROUND OF VOTING Council Member McCown said Robert Peterson had had an architectural practice for a number of years. He had been on the faculty when Stanford University offered architecture. She asked John Northway what he could tell her about Mr. Peterson, and he said that he could not think of an architect from the community who would be able to make a better contribution to the ARB than Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson's extent of history and experience in the community and the qualities that he brought from that perspective could be an enormous addition to the ARB. She urged her colleagues to support Mr. Peterson. VOTING FOR ALFONSO: VOTING FOR GILB: VOTING FOR HUO: VOTING FOR KOHLER: VOTING FOR LIPPERT: Fazzino, Kniss, Simitian, Wheeler VOTING FOR McFALL: VOTING FOR OLMSTEAD: VOTING FOR PETERSON: Andersen, Huber, McCown, Schneider, Rosenbaum VOTING FOR ROSS: City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Robert Peterson received five votes and was appointed on the sixth ballot. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
10/03/94 73-445
David Schrom, 381 Oxford Avenue, spoke regarding traffic. Halona Zuck, 206 California Avenue, thanked the City on behalf of the Miramonte Mental Health. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue approval of the Minutes of August 8, 1994, to October 11, 1994. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the Minutes of September 7, 1994, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by McCown, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 5. 2. Approval of Authority for Staff to Expend 1994-95 Funds for Santa Clara County Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program 3. Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Solutions for Government Technologies, (U.S.) Inc. for Utility Business Processing Consulting Services 4. Resolution 7358 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Citywide Stop Intersection System Map to Approve Stop Signs at the Intersections of Bryant Street and Homer Avenue and Bryant Street and Channing Avenue" 5. Request to Establish an Instrument Approach at the Palo Alto Airport MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS MOTION: Vice Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to move Item No. 8 forward to become Item No. 5A. MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 5A. (Old Item 8) Resolution Naming the Cambridge Avenue Parking Garage Structure as the "Ted Thompson Parking Garage" Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said it was an exciting event not only for staff but also for members of the California Avenue Area Development Association (CAADA) because the garage was
10/03/94 73-446
nearly complete. A dedication ceremony would be held later that month. Staff had received requests from CAADA to name the garage in honor of one of the former members who was instrumental in the original project. Vice Mayor Simitian asked when the opening date was. Assistant Director of Public Works George Bagdon said staff would be meeting with the contractors and would probably set a date for the ribbon cutting by the end of the week. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to adopt the Resolution. Resolution 7359 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Naming the Cambridge Avenue Parking Garage Structure as the `Ted Thompson Parking Garage'" MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Schneider commended the staff on the rapid construction of the parking structure. The structure would help the parking on California Avenue and would also increase tax revenues. She hoped the same kind of method would be used in the Downtown area when the City was ready to build a parking structure there. Mr. Roberts said the project was finished ahead of schedule and under budget. 6. Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council approval of Option 4 in the staff report (CMR:228:94) that the City demolish the Arastradero Preserve main house, repair the small house (caretaker's house), and approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance for such costs. Council Member Huber said the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee met on two separate occasions to discuss the question of what to do with the main house at the Arastradero Preserve. The Committee voted 3-1, with Council Member Andersen voting no, to demolish the existing main house. In addition, there was a staff recommen-dation to demolish the smaller house, which had been approved by an earlier Council. The Committee members asked staff to return with other possibilities. He referred to the 5 different options listed on page 3 of the staff report (CMR:228:94) dated April 14, 1994. The Committee quickly dispensed options 1, 2, and 5, which were to subdivide, to move the house, or to build a road through the preserve. That left the question of whether to lease or demolish the main house. Staff indicated it had sent out a number of Request for Proposals (RFP) and had received no response. He recalled that the Challenge Learning Center had indicated some interest in the house. He summarized consensus of the three members who voted yes: 1) the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would cost $90,000; 2) staff suggested increased use of the main house might require considerable construction on the road pursuant to Santa Clara County requirements; 3) there was a lack of
10/03/94 73-447
significant interest on everyone's part to make use of the property; 4) there was a staff estimate of $130,000 for repairs to the main house, which was similar to the Williams Property situation in which Council asked a nonprofit organization to do the repairs; and 5) there was the question of compatibility with the low-impact uses of the preserve. Council Member Andersen felt the City should make the use of the house consistent with the Preserve. The recommendation was to demolish the main house, with a staff recommendation to demolish the smaller house as well. Council Member Andersen said one item that did not come up in the Committee meeting was the question of the current status report of the litigation the City had had with the neighbors. He asked the City Attorney about the settlement agreement and the limits that the City was currently operating under and any opportunities that might be there as a result of time venue. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the lawsuit, which was settled in March 1992, had four components. First was a resolution of any potential attorneys' fees claim against the City. The second was an agreement from American Youth Hostels never to locate a hostel there. Third was an agreement by the City to lock the gate spanning John Marthens Lane for two years, which ended January 1994. Finally, there was a dismissal without prejudice, which meant it left unresolved the neighbors' argument that the hostel use would overburden or misuse the City's rights of access in that roadway. There was currently no use restriction applicable to the City as a result of the lawsuit or settlement. Mayor Kniss clarified currently there was no restriction on the road and the road was a public road. Real Property Manager William Fellman said the road was a private lane within Santa Clara County's jurisdiction, not within City limits. Mayor Kniss asked what that meant in terms of use. Real Property Manager William Fellman said in some cases mainte-nance had been done either by neighbors or by the City. The City also did signage and other things. Mr. Calonne said the City's rights of access were not clearly defined. They were certainly whatever the City acquired with the house. Beyond that, staff felt the City had broader rights to use that road than the neighbors had, which was the allegation in the neighbors' quiet title action. Mayor Kniss said another piece that needed to be considered that evening was the fact that the house had existed and had been lived in continuously since 1948. People had access to the house. Mr. Calonne said the City did not feel at the time the hostel was approved that the hostel proposal would have overtaxed the City's rights to use that roadway. The City had some rights of use in the roadway, and defining exactly what they were became highly
10/03/94 73-448
semantic. Mayor Kniss said currently it was used by a person who occasionally had a guest or two. She asked whether other low-intensity usage such as artists in residence or writers in residence would tax the road and its use any more than it was currently being taxed or used. She also questioned maintenance. Mr. Calonne said it probably would not increase the usage. City Manager June Fleming said Mayor Kniss highlighted the difficult issue that people used the house and had to have access to it. The City's position was that it was not a City road but a County designated road. Some people said the road could not sustain any increase in its usage for a long period of time because it was not wide enough and there were other barriers. There was no traffic engineering staff available that evening who could speak about the road capacity. There had been much disagreement about what would have to be done to the road, if anything, to sustain more traffic. Mayor Kniss asked whether the same use would be acceptable. Mr. Calonne said the current use and proposals thus far were appropriate in staff's opinion. He could not say whether that would generate a dispute; it had in the past. Council Member McCown understood the property was subdivided for the homes that were up there, including the house that was on the City's property. When the road was created, it originally was a private road, not dedicated to the County. Ms. Fleming said that was correct. Council Member McCown asked if it ever had been dedicated to the County or any other public agency. Mr. Fellman said no. Council Member McCown clarified it was a private road located in the County. The City became involved when there was litigation over the appropriate zoning of the road and the greater hundreds of acres. In the course of litigation, the City negotiated a settlement and acquired the land in the 1970s. Mr. Fellman said that was correct. Council Member McCown clarified the house came with the parcel that the City acquired. Mr. Fellman said that was correct. Council Member McCown asked whether the City succeeded to the level of use of the rights of the people the City acquired it from.
10/03/94 73-449
Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Whatever the City acquired in settlement of that lawsuit would include the access benefits to the house. Council Member McCown asked the amount of the acreage and whether any acreage other than the house site itself had rights to use the road. Mr. Calonne said the City owned about 600 acres, but he did not know the historical rights. Council Member McCown asked whether the original intention of the private road in those parcels would define the City's rights. Mr. Calonne said yes. Council Member Fazzino asked about the subdivision possibility options not discussed significantly by the P&S Committee. He clarified the issue would have to be placed on the ballot for approval. Mr. Fellman said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino clarified that any subdivision whatsoever would have to be placed on the ballot. Mr. Fellman said any taking away of the park map would certainly be significant. Staff determined that small pieces could be ex-changed. Council Member Fazzino referred to the $140,000 cost for the road, a ballot measure, and parcel map and asked what the City's obligations would be regarding the road and other requirements if the City decided to move ahead with the option to place it on the ballot, subdivide the property, and sell it off. Mr. Calonne said if the City were a private developer, it would need to look for some clear evidence of an access right sufficient to support the subdivision and attempt to condemn some broader use in that road. Because the road was in the County, the City would need the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to pass a resolution of necessity to condemn some greater interest in the road. He thought it would be a much tougher case to support a subdivision without some further interest in the road than anything staff had looked at thus far. He recalled the Challenge Learning Center (CLC) had proposed another route. Council Member Fazzino asked what the City's actual obligation was in terms of road improvement. No clear responsibilities could be identified at that point. Mr. Fellman said staff had identified that the road would have to be 15 feet in width and would have to be dedicated to ingress and egress for the parcel. Council Member Fazzino clarified it would have to have County
10/03/94 73-450
approval. Mr. Fellman said that was correct. Ms. Fleming said in earlier discussions of the Arastradero Preserve, the road, and the house, staff had looked at some preliminary figures for making the minimal improvements, which were substantial at that time. Mr. Fellman said the figures were approximately $300,000. Council Member Fazzino asked how the $140,000 listed as the total cost of road, ballot, and parcel map obligations related to the $300,000. Mr. Fellman said the $140,000 was strictly for the area that would be within the Arastra property, and staff estimated that, in addition to the 10 acres, another 20 percent of the 10 acres would be dedicated for road purposes for access within the Preserve. Council Member Fazzino clarified the total cost was not $140,000. Mr. Fellman said not if the County's portion of the road had to be updated. Council Member Fazzino clarified that it seemed likely the City would need to update the road, according to comments by the City Attorney and the City Manager. Mr. Fellman said yes. Council Member Huber clarified that in 1986 the staff had estimated it would cost $360,000 to bring the road up to acceptable standards, which would be 20 feet wide with two shoulders and would include the full length of the road. Mr. Fellman said it would include the road up to the Preserve. Council Member Huber asked the level of usage that would trigger the County to compel the City to bring the road up to standard. Mr. Calonne was not aware of any use-related mechanism that would force road improvements. The County or City would compel a road improvement or dedication when it was tied to a subdivision or parcels. A mere increase in use would not trigger some improve-ment. Council Member Huber asked what triggered the County's letter in 1986 that said the City had to fix the road. Ms. Fleming said it was triggered by complaints to the County from owners of the property. Vice Mayor Simitian asked for a better understanding of the statement made in the staff report (CMR:228:94) that any attempt to use the site would trigger an EIR cost of about $90,000. For
10/03/94 73-451
example, the CLC had planned to send shuttle vans of juvenile cancer patients from the hospital on any given day. He asked why the proposal would trigger $90,000 worth of EIR work. Mr. Fellman said the cost was based on a similar cost that the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) of the Mid-Peninsula paid for its EIR. Vice Mayor Simitian asked what the YMCA's EIR was for. Mr. Fellman said it was for the remodel of its facility. Mr. Calonne said the City also had on record at that time a letter from a law firm giving a lengthy list of environmental concerns. Vice Mayor Simitian asked the name of the law firm. Mr. Calonne said it was Miller, Starr & Regalia. Vice Mayor Simitian said $90,000 as a minimal figure for an EIR for some modest increase on that road was excessive. He understood staff's sensitivity to the fact that, given the concerns neighbors had expressed, the City might become involved in an EIR of a broader range than the City ordinarily would feel was appropriate or required. He believed the cost of $90,000 to find out what was involved to send eight households' worth of cars or a couple of shuttle vans up and down that current road was high. The YMCA EIR, a wholesale remodel of existing facilities surrounded by residences on every side in a developed suburban area, was not an analogous comparison. Mayor Kniss asked about the loss of an asset under Option 4, Tear Down, of Attachment A (CMR:434:94). Mr. Fellman said there would be an improvement on the property, and so the ability to use that facility for some use would be lost. In terms of asset management, a facility would be lost. Mayor Kniss said $75,000 for demolition was fairly accurate. She asked what it would take to save some of the nice amenities in the house. Mr. Fellman said the contract could indicate if the City wanted to save something, but he did not know how the City would make use of the items. The demolition cost also included asbestos removal which staff could not be specific on at that time. Ms. Fleming said the City had saved certain pieces when other structures had been demolished. Mayor Kniss stated that she and Council Member Schneider visited the house that morning. There was very little to save from houses unless it had great value. She referred to Option 2, Move, of Attachment A (CMR:434:94), and said the approximate figure to move the house was close to a half million dollars. Only one bid was received, and she asked staff to comment on moving the house.
10/03/94 73-452
Mr. Fellman said the moving included putting the house back together, the landscaping, the parking lot, etc. Staff also felt there should be a turn lane if the house were located close to the bend in the road, which would be a more appropriate location for it. Bill Terry, 925 Laurel Glen Drive, said the City had many wonderful parks. Foothills Park had many wonderful improvements. He felt Council should follow staff recommendations and tear residences down. The Arastradero Preserve should be returned to the most natural state it could be. Council Member Rosenbaum recalled staff recommendations to demolish the Squire House and the house where MacArthur Park was currently located. He understood the logic of the Committee recommendation, but he looked at it somewhat differently. The City acquired a valuable asset in that house when it bought the property in 1976. The City had been unable to find a public use and had been frustrated by the unreasonable opposition of the immediate neighbors. He believed there was virtue in Option 1. The house had been a single-family dwelling on the property for almost 50 years, and no one could possibly object to its continuation. It would in no way interfere with the enjoyment of the Arastradero Preserve. The level of activity for public use would have been greater than with a single-family residence. A single-family residence would not impact the Preserve or its intent as open space. The requirement for a public vote was not a deterrent. He did not view the road and the flag lot as insur-mountable problems. He opposed the P&S Committee recommendation. If that failed, Council should consider some direction to staff with regard to Option 1. Council Member Andersen was disturbed that a use for the property could not be acquired. The threat of an EIR and of litigation had made it difficult for nonprofits to make a legitimate effort. He believed the house had some public benefit. If that were impossible, he was more inclined to support Council Member Rosenbaum's suggestion. Council Member Schneider supported Mayor Kniss's comments. She had a visceral reaction to the house after visiting it for the first time. She was not threatened by an EIR or a lawsuit by the neighbors. It would be wonderful if the public continued to use the house. However, the house was in terrible disrepair. The $130,000 to repair the house and bring it up to code was a low figure. The greatest public benefit would be to demolish the house and keep the land in its natural state. To put something up there that would increase the amount of traffic both on Arastradero and on John Marthens Lane went against the Council's and the community's desire for less traffic. Council Member Wheeler said she was open to ideas other than demolishing the house. She did not believe the Council or staff felt good about the recommendation. It troubled her to talk about demolishing a home that was not that old and was at one time a
10/03/94 73-453
lovely home. She had given a great deal of thought to Council Member Rosenbaum's suggestion, but she did not favor the proposal because staff's discussions with the representatives of the real estate industry had indicated it would not be wise to preserve the house for its historic or intrinsic real value. They had indicated that the value was in the land itself, not in the structure, and that in all likelihood the structure would disappear. So the City would not be preserving the house. The prospect of acquiring some income for the City that could be used for other worthy purposes and goals was very appealing. However, she believed the City had resisted selling off the asset that was the Arastradero Preserve. She certainly would not choose to sell off 10 prime acres of the Preserve to raise funds for other civic purposes. The house was in the prime area of the park, so to sell off 10 acres around it would be detrimental to the Preserve's nature and its value. She reluctantly would support the staff's and P&S Committee's recommendation to remove the house unless she heard a better idea. Council Member McCown associated with the comments of Council Member Wheeler with respect to Council Member Rosenbaum's sugges-tion to reconsider Option 1 to sell off the property or some acreage and the house. Council Member Wheeler's point that the asset was the in land, not the house per se, was correct. It did not make sense to carve a piece of the asset out and sell it. The Committee put the option aside quickly but really struggled with the dilemma of how to make public use of the total property, given the way it was situated, the access issues, and the cost to the City and a potential partner/user with the City to make use of the house. A prior Council made a policy decision that the use of the land should be a low-intensity natural park. The Council should continue to make decisions that were consistent with that policy decision, and the most consistent decision was to remove the structure to allow that part of the property to return to a natural environment. Council Member Huber said the previous Council voted to make the Preserve a parkland. Prior to that time there had been consider-able discussion about subdividing, which was in effect Council Member Rosenbaum's suggestion. He believed the Council made a correct decision several years prior to keep it a low-intensity parkland preserve. He did not see any reason why that should be changed. The map attached to the staff report (CMR:228:94) showed the 10-acre site on a hilltop in the middle of the Preserve. It was too bad that a low-intensity use that met a public purpose was not possible. Each day or season that went by made the cost of any remedial work to the house more expensive. He believed it was time to demolish the house and make it a low-intensity area. Vice Mayor Simitian believed the best argument that he had heard on the issue in favor of demolition was the fact the site was meant to be a low-intensity open space area. It was a legitimate position to take, and a position that a majority of the Council took when discussing parkland. The Council's previous rejection of a trade on the 77 acres across the road certainly was consistent with his position. As a general rule, Council should
10/03/94 73-454
argue the facts, not the motives. The rationalization on the low-intensity use struck him as a rationalization that the Council had come up with because it could not figure out what to do with the site. Low-intensity use was a good reason not to do anything with it, but he wanted to return to where he was previously. He asked what the estimated current construction cost for residential construction was. Mr. Fellman said it was approximately $100 per square foot. Vice Mayor Simitian believed the figure was very low. With approximately 5,600 square feet, the City was looking at close to $200 per square foot for construction cost of a million dollar asset. If $150,000 were subtracted to fix the place up, the asset would be about $850,000. His visceral reaction was not to push the button that evening to vote to demolish an $850,000 public asset. In fairness to his colleagues on the P&S Committee, he did not have any good ideas, which was one of the reasons the P&S Committee returned to the Council with its recommendation because the alternatives were not exactly ideal. However, in his view the Council was talking about pushing a button to demolish a rather substantial asset. The environmental bent that was being discussed that evening, to reduce, reuse, and recycle was supposed to be ethical, but it was not part of the demolition ethic. The City was headed in the wrong direction, and it had a responsi-bility to the neighbors on that site to do a thoughtful environmental assessment, no matter what Council wanted to do with the site. He believed the tension around the issue was moot. Council should satisfy itself and address the environmental issues because it was the City's obligation to the neighbors. The Council needed to make sure the site was not overburdened, put aside the issue of the potential threat, and operate from the premise that a sound environmental assessment needed to be done. Council had done that once before. There was a difference of opinion about that, but the Council needed to move forward. He could not demolish what he considered to be a substantial asset, given the number of needs people brought to Council for space and facilities and given what the City had to spend recently to construct facilities. Council Member Fazzino endorsed Council Member McCown's rational approach rather than the visceral one. He had hoped that a way would be found to preserve the home. He felt bad about tearing down the house or any other property which had historic value. He would vote to preserve the house if the issue were simply the house and historic preservation, but the issues were also usage and access, all of which involved significant costs for the City. Vice Mayor Simitian had properly stated the argument in support of preserving the asset, but Vice Mayor Simitian had not presented the other side, which provided a significant case as far as costs to provide access to that particular site. He could not support the idea that the City should spend the money necessary to provide access to the site on a long-range basis. The property was purchased for the purpose of preserving an open space and to prevent development on the site. The City had participated in a 25-year struggle to preserve the entire property in open space.
10/03/94 73-455
Therefore, he certainly would accept the arguments that the City's primary purpose should be to preserve the area as open space parkland. His second favored approach was Council Member Rosenbaum's suggestion to consider subdivision and sale of the site, but he was also concerned about the attendant costs associated with that option, particularly with respect to access. He was convinced that the costs of legal constraints or obstacles were simply too great to preserve the site. For a number of years, great frustration and concern had been expressed about the site, but no one as yet had come up with an excellent idea on the use of the site. He believed the Council's fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of Palo Alto was to vote to demolish the house. Council Member Andersen said groups like the American Youth Hostels and the CLC had approached the City with regard to the property, but they had to contend with the expense of an EIR and being involved in litigation. He agreed that it was not the time to move forward with Option 1. The Council needed another option, as pointed out by Vice Mayor Simitian. Regardless of what the Council did, the City needed a sound environmental assessment. The City could bear the cost of the EIR, which was no more than the cost to demolish the house, and ask nonprofits to submit recommendation for low usage. He wanted to see what would come forth from nonprofits and not move so quickly. The City could always demolish the house if no one came forward. He encouraged his colleagues not to support the recommendation and to discuss the matter further. Mayor Kniss asked what the current cost was to the City to maintain the approximate 2,000 acres of foothills and the Arastradero Preserve. Acting Superintendent of Open Space and Sciences John Walton said the cost was approximately $800,000 per year for both. Mayor Kniss said the property was nice acreage, but the question was whether or not it was absolutely prime. It had a very nice view of the hills but did not compare to the view from the caretaker's house or the barn. She clarified there was another house not a quarter of a mile from that one. Mr. Fellman said that was correct. Mayor Kniss said there were other homes in the area. She was intrigued by the idea of making some money and putting it into an endowment, but she would support the remainder of the open space. It was a different perspective to compare 10 acres with 2,000 acres. Council Member Andersen's idea was also interesting. She asked whether the house would have to be brought up to code if a nonprofit used it. Ms. Fleming said yes. Mayor Kniss asked whether the City or a nonprofit could make the repairs.
10/03/94 73-456
Ms. Fleming said it would depend on how the RFP was constructed. Mayor Kniss could not vote to demolish a house that had been a wonderful family home. As indicated in the staff report (CMR:434:94), an asset would be lost. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by McCown, that the caretaker's house no longer be considered for occupancy, as previously approved by the Council, and the structure be removed; and further, that funds be transferred from the Budget Stabiliza-tion Reserve to Capital Improvement Program (CIP) No. 19532 for $90,000 for the removal of the main house and the caretaker's house. Council Member Wheeler clarified the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) needed six affirmative votes. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Ms. Fleming suggested that the motion could be divided and separately voted on. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF THE MOTION regarding removal of the main house and the caretaker's house MOTION PASSED 5-4, Andersen, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Simitian "no." Council Member Andersen said if the BAO did not get six votes, it would give an opportunity until the regular budget process for someone to come forth. Vice Mayor Simitian wanted to hear comments from Mayor Kniss and Council Member Rosenbaum regarding the second part of the motion. Council Member Rosenbaum would oppose the BAO. Mayor Kniss would oppose the BAO. She asked whether money could be found elsewhere without the BAO. Ms. Fleming said no. Mayor Kniss said the house could not be demolished unless the BAO passed with six votes. She asked whether the money could be taken out of the next year's budget. Ms. Fleming said that was possible. Mayor Kniss asked whether the money could be taken out of the parks fund. Ms. Fleming said the Council could make that direction and it could be included in the next year's budget.
10/03/94 73-457
Council Member McCown assumed that although there were not six votes to amend the current year's budget, there were five votes to give the policy direction and that implementation of that policy would be brought back in the following year's budget. The City was in the middle of the budget year, and the procedure required six votes. If one of the four would not change his/her vote, then Council needed to wait until there were five votes when the following year's budget came up. Ms. Fleming said the comments were well taken, and it was usual that the City Manager would implement Council policy. Vice Mayor Simitian recalled an effort in which he provided some leadership on the Lytton IV project, a controversial issue that passed by the narrowest of margins. It required a BAO, and former Council Member Cobb, who had adamantly opposed the issue, graciously offered the necessary extra vote for passage of the BAO because he did not want to thwart the will of the Council. However, the difference that evening was that the Council was talking about an issue that would not be adversely affected by a six-month delay. The Lytton IV project would not have gone forward without that accommodation by former Council Member Cobb. A delay in the process might allow for a thin opportunity for a solution. As thin a window as it was, perhaps at the end of the process, there would be a solution. Once the house was demolished, it was gone. He was prepared to remain with his three colleagues that evening, but he believed as a general rule, Council should try not to thwart the wishes of their colleagues. Council Member Fazzino asked staff what would happen to the property over the next six months. Mr. Fellman recommended that it be left as it was, and the tenant would continue to live there. Council Member Fazzino asked the approximate net cost to the City over the next six months. Mr. Fellman was not sure if it was a good bid time or that later would be a better bid time. The City did not spend any money to keep the person there. Mayor Kniss clarified no current costs existed, and the only cost might be in the alteration and the demolition bid. Mr. Fellman said that was correct. The tenant paid the utilities. Vice Mayor Simitian believed the impacts of the demolition project were not inconsequential. It was a fairly remote location, and turning the site back to its "natural habitat" meant heavy equipment would be on a road that had been described repeatedly as being fragile. He asked whether there were any arguments to be made that it was a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that an EIR would be required for demolition.
10/03/94 73-458
Mr. Calonne recalled that the City identified one or more categorical exemptions that would authorize demolition of the house not only without an EIR but also without any environmental analysis. Vice Mayor Simitian said it would be helpful if the Council had that information when the item returned as a budget item. SECOND PART OF THE MOTION regarding the transfer of funds from the Budget Stabilization Reserve to the Capital Improvement Project MOTION FAILED 5-4, Andersen, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Simitian "no." Mayor Kniss clarified even though Council had voted down the amount that evening, the amount would still be woven into the next budget cycle. Ms. Fleming said the inclusion of the $90,000 figure would be considered in the next budget cycle when she considered other items to be folded into the budget. She would remember that the majority of the Council approved the demolition. 7. Policy and Services Committee recommends to the City Council that the policy which brought consulting projects before standing committees on a yearly basis be revisited so that the Committee can review the consultant projects at the scope-of-work stage rather than the consultant selection stage. Council Member Huber said the recommendation came about as a result of what the Finance Committee and the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee did, which was to select a list of consultants that Council would like to review. Council Member McCown had raised the question of what it was Council was really reviewing, because by the time Council received it, Council was probably looking at who the consultants would be, not what the consultants would be doing. The discussion was how the Council could interject itself into the scoping process rather than just selecting who would do the work. Council asked staff whether there was a way to do that consistent with the budget process. In the staff report (CMR:432:94), staff recommended the Council try it for a year in the context of the budget and timing and see if it worked, which was not the P&S Committee's recommendation. He recommended approval of the staff recommendation. City Manager June Fleming reminded the Council it was not staff's practice to bring to Council sections of the Policy and Procedures manual for approval. However, when staff dealt with consultant selection, it was one part of the manual usually brought to Council. Attached to the staff report (CMR:432:94) was how staff actually would implement the recommendation that was before Council. Council Member McCown added that in the scoping stage, the Council would be able to find out what it was hiring a consultant to do rather than be at the point where the Request for Proposal (RFP)
10/03/94 73-459
had already been sent out. In the latter process, what was brought back to Council was staff's recommendation of who the consultant should be. Her assumption was that getting involved earlier would replace getting involved later; i.e., Council would not do both. Staff would not be burdened with a second step, and sooner or later it would not burden Council. A member of the public raised a concern about whether it would still be necessary to look at the choice of consultants after having been involved in defining what the Council was hiring consultants to do. If Council tried it for a year, Council should forego the latter step of being involved in the choice of the consultant. Instead, staff would bring to Council the consultants the Finance Committee and the P&S Committee had respectively chosen at the stage when they were defining the RFP scope. She thought it was worth trying for a year to see whether Council had better participation input that was more helpful to the staff. Assistant Director of Public Works George Bagdon had said at the P&S Committee meeting that in his experience in the last 10 years, even when the staff brought to Council the consultant contract, most of the discussion at the Committee level was not who the consultant was but what the scope was and what the consultant would be doing. She believed that was the direction the Council was headed, and it made sense to formalize it. Council Member Wheeler had also questioned the issue since her tenure on the Council. It seemed the Committees slowed down the process of getting the contracts to the Council and did not have any meaningful input into the process. She was glad the P&S Committee took the time to get the answer to the question. She supported the recommendation. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by McCown, to approve the proposed amendments to Policy and Procedures 1-10 and to direct that the amended procedure be used for the consultant services already designated to be of interest to the Finance and Policy and Services Committees. Further, that the Council review the effectiveness of the amended procedure following the conclusion of the current fiscal year. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 9. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. 4048237 between the City of Palo Alto and Bruns Belmont Construction, Inc., for Golf Course Clubhouse Repairs Ordinance 4237 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1994-95 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Golf Course Clubhouse Repairs" Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts referred to the staff report (CMR:451:94) and a supplemental memo correcting a terminology error in the staff report.
10/03/94 73-460
Council Member McCown asked when the project would be completed. The staff report (CMR:451:94) indicated mid-January 1995. Acting Facilities Engineer Karen Smith said staff had expected the work to be done the end of April 1994. Council Member McCown clarified it would be completed January 1995 instead. Ms. Smith said that was correct. Council Member McCown asked staff for reasons that she could offer to people when they asked. City Manager June Fleming said when staff began the work and took the floor out, they found a mess. The work had not been done correctly, and staff had not envisioned there would be so much disrepair. Ms. Smith said in the first staff report (CMR:141:94) to Council when the project began, staff mentioned that there was a possibil-ity staff would return for additional funding. The extent of the damage could not be determined without really going in and opening up the building. Once staff did that, staff found extensive dry rot in the walls and under the floor. There were design problems with the original plumbing which needed to be corrected. Much of the time had been spent redesigning the project to include all the additional repairs. Council Member McCown asked whether the City had been able to communicate to golfers and other users of the facility what had been happening so that people understood and would be supportive of the reality. Her concern was whether it was affecting the success of the golf course. Ms. Fleming said the concern was legitimate. Staff had tried to find all the damage and to find other ways to accommodate the repair. It had been delayed for good reason as staff had tried to find solutions and the completeness of the disrepair. Staff had tried to extend communications with the golfers, but they were extremely unhappy about the situation. Golfers wrote notes to staff and wanted to know if it was on the next Council agenda. It had been extremely inconvenient, and staff had tried to compensate by making alternate food arrangements. Staff had done everything it could. Mayor Kniss asked whether staff had tried barbecues. Ms. Fleming said yes. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment to the contract with Bruns Belmont Construction, Inc., in the amount of $66,669 for the Golf Course Underfloor Repair project. Further, to increase the project manager's authority to negotiate and execute one or more additional change orders to Contract No.
10/03/94 73-461
C4048237 with Bruns Belmont Construction, Inc., the total value of which change orders shall not exceed $10,000. It represents an increase in staff's authority from $10,000 to $20,000 for all change orders. The $10,000 of additional contingent authority represents the standard 15 percent change order authority which staff was delegated on all projects in order to resolve minor changes during the course of construction. MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Andersen requested the staff look at the need for having meetings on Thursdays evenings with the thought of eliminating that night for meetings, if possible. Vice Mayor Simitian acknowledged that the Friends of the Palo Alto Children's Theatre had a very successful fund-raising drive and he requested that the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) be used to provide $100,000 as a challenge grant. He asked what was the appropriate process. City Manager June Fleming suggested the following: agendize the item under Council Matters, amend the current CIP process to provide for a transfer from the Budget Stabilization Reserve, or add the item during the budget hearings on CIP projects. Mayor Kniss asked about the progress of the City's connection to Internet. City Manager June Fleming said she had spoken to staff and there was a glitch in the program. It was hoped that the connection would be in place within the next couple of weeks. Mayor Kniss announced that Monday was a holiday and the Council would meet on Tuesday, October 11, 1994. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City 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.
10/03/94 73-462