HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-05 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting February 5, 1996 1&2. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litiga-tion..................................................78-134 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................78-135 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 27, 1995...................78-135 1. Flow Meter Station Rehabilitation for Regional Water Quality Control Plant - Rejection of Bids............78-135 2. Resolution 7573 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1601 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations Regarding the Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association"..........................................78-135 6. Approval of Meadows Water Well Closure and Sale, and Delay of Sale of the Middlefield Well Site (continued from 12/4/95) (CMR:128:96)............................78-136 7. Regulation of Newsracks and Paper on Permissible Options for Regulation of Newsracks ..........................78-141 8. Arastradero Creek Access Road Project Landscaping Mitigation Plan ......................................78-147 9. Proposed Concepts for Use of the Tower Well Site .....78-151 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........78-165 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to Closed Session at 11:10 p.m.............................................78-165 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:03 a.m.....78-166
02/05/96 78-133
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Human Resources/Council Conference Room at 6:05 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 6:16 p.m.) , Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), Schneider, Simitian (arrived at 6:20 p.m.), Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litiga-tion Subject: Potential Initiation of Litigation on One Matter Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(c) 2. Conference with City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(b)(1) arising out of Hammer/Pahl January 29, 1996 correspondence threatening litigation regarding DeLemos property wall historic preserva-
tion issues. (Gov. Code, ∋ 54956.9(b)(3)(B), (C), & (D).) Mayor Wheeler announced that the Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving potential initiation of litigation and significant exposure to litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 1 and 2. Further, that Agenda Item No. 3, Conference with Labor Negotiator re Unrepresented Employee: City Manager June Fleming, was continued to the Regular Meeting. Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 1 and 2. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
02/05/96 78-134
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding communication (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Ben Bailey, 343 Byron Street, spoke regarding the big half-pint of wine caper. Vicki Pelton, 1650 Waverley Street, spoke regarding Burma. Antoinette Vickers, 801 W. El Camino Real, Suite 203, Mountain View, spoke regarding teens. Zan Rubin, 1102 Emerson Street, spoke regarding selective purchas-ing. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 27, 1995 MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Minutes of November 27, 1995, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0-1, Schneider "abstaining," Simitian absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 2. 1. Flow Meter Station Rehabilitation for Regional Water Quality Control Plant - Rejection of Bids 2. Resolution 7573 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1601 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations Regarding the Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association" Approval of Amendment to Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association Memorandum of Agreement MOTION PASSED 9-0. CLOSED SESSION The items might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting.
02/05/96 78-135
Mayor Wheeler announced that Item No. 3, Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation, and Item No. 4, Conference with City Attorney-Potential/Anticipated Litigation, had been discussed by the Council at a Special Meeting held prior to the Regular Meeting. 5. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Council Ad Hoc Personnel Committee (Lanie Wheeler, Joe Huber, Dick Rosenbaum) and City Attorney Ariel Calonne Unrepresented Employee: City Manager June Fleming Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 Public Comment None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. Approval of Meadows Water Well Closure and Sale, and Delay of Sale of the Middlefield Well Site (continued from 12/4/95) (CMR:128:96) Vice Mayor Huber referred to letters Council received from the GreenMeadow Association and Walnut Grove Homeowners Association (on file in the City Clerk's Office). One of the issues related to disaster preparedness and the use of emergency wells in south Palo Alto. He queried whether emergency wells were located there. Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said the City of Palo Alto currently had no emergency wells in its system. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the City was looking at the use of emergency wells. Mr. Mrizek said that was correct. Staff was recommending a study in the next Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to bring its wells up to emergency condition. Vice Mayor Huber queried whether the wells would be scattered throughout the community if that occurred in order to deal with various geographic locations. Manager, Water-Gas-Wastewater Engineering, Roger Cwiak said the Department of Health Services changed the rules for operating wells in public water systems in that the water delivered to those wells needed to be treated to meet the primary and secondary standards. From an economic perspective, Palo Alto would need to pipe its well
02/05/96 78-136
water into one central location for treatment rather than trying to treat the water at each site where the wells were located. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the well water from the emergency well system all went to one location for treatment and then out from there. Mr. Cwiak said that was correct. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the geographic distribution of emergency wells under that system was irrelevant. Mr. Cwiak said that was correct. Council Member Schneider referred to the letter from Carol Morrison and the response from staff which were attached to the staff report (CMR:128:96). The selenium levels were of some concern regarding seepage or ground contamination. She queried the danger and whether the City should be concerned about it if houses ended up being built there. Mr. Cwiak said the level of selenium which was found on one test was 100 times less than what was allowable in the water system. Staff did not know whether the results of that one test might have been a laboratory error because the well was immediately retested and no selenium was found. Council Member Schneider clarified there would be no reason for selenium to reoccur in the location. Mr. Cwiak could not say with certainty whether there was selenium in the water to begin with so he did not know whether the situation would recur. Mayor Wheeler said economics aside, if the City experienced a major disaster and implemented a system where it had one big pipe serve several wells and damage occurred to that one big pipe, how would the people on the periphery of the City be served in the emergency situation. Mr. Mrizek said the emergency wells would be linked together; however, there would be more than one major pipe. Each well would have an emergency generator, and if one or two of the wells failed in a catastrophic earthquake, hopefully one or two wells would still be operating. While staff knew that several of the water mains would be lost, the water could be rerouted via other mains to hopefully most of the City. Mayor Wheeler clarified staff's position was that geographic dispersion of the wells did not necessarily mean a part of town in which a well was presently located would make that well functional after a disaster.
02/05/96 78-137
Mr. Mrizek said that was correct. Even if the City had a good well at the Meadows site and it were upgraded to provide adequate water, which was not the case, the well could sever during a major earthquake. William F. Morrison, 3902 Duncan Place, President of the Walnut Grove Homeowners Association (WGHA), was concerned that sealing the well could result in water finding outlets under other homes in the neighborhood that could create expensive damage to floor heating units. Cracking damage could also occur in many swimming pools in the area. If the well site were sold, WGHA requested a deed reflect the covenants and zoning overlay so that new houses conformed to the houses in the neighborhood. While the Meadows Well might not serve as an emergency well for drinking water, it might serve the Fire Department in the event of a major earthquake. WGHA requested: 1) a new selenium test; 2) a letter from the City stating its liability in the event damage occurred to houses in the neighborhood in the event any sealing process caused water to find other outlets in their neighborhood since it was the City changing the water table; 3) if the well were sealed, the City maintain ownership for a significant period of time in order to determine whether water came up anywhere; and 4) for a study on the emergency water system throughout the City. Litsie Indergand, 336 Ely Place, was particularly impressed by the detailed responses received from Mr. Cwiak in response to WGHA's letter. While most people believed the approach suggested by the City in sealing the Meadows Well was state-of-the-art and would cause no problems, something could happen and problems could occur. Since the City was damming its creeks in preparation for the 100- year flood, it seemed reasonable to also be prepared for a one in a million failure on a well sealing. She agreed with those who suggested there needed to be some kind of assurance from the City that if problems occurred and the water seeped under someone else's property, the City would have some responsibility and liability for damage. While it was suggested the City retain ownership of the property, she believed the City should sell the property. The Walnut Grove neighborhood worked long and hard to obtain its treasured overlay zone and made sure every listing agent of every property in the area was aware of it. WGHA requested the City's assurances that if the well were sealed and the property sold, the City would ensure all the Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs) and zoning overlay were indicated on the deed. Laura Johnson, 4017 Ben Lomond Drive, President of the Greenmeadow Homeowners Association, was concerned that sealing the Meadows Well would close an opportunity in the event of a major earthquake if water were lost. The area contained 270 wood frame houses surrounded by extensive fencing. The houses would be fully engulfed in fire within five or ten minutes and would burn to the ground. The staff report (CMR:489:95) indicated the City intended to hire a water well system design consultant to perform a
02/05/96 78-138
feasibility study of the existing City emergency water well system. It was premature to close the well before completing such a study. There was also the concern about the possible changes in the water table and the drainage that could affect the foundations around their community and particularly the community swimming pool. Mr. Mrizek said the City's wells, including the Meadows Well, were tested biannually. The only test which revealed any trace of selenium was in 1981, and since then the well tested appropriately. There would not be any change in the water table by closing the Meadows Well site because the City did not presently draw from its wells and received 100 percent of its water supply from the Hetch Hetchy system. City Attorney Ariel Calonne did not believe it would be a problem to make sure that whoever bought the property was both legally and practically notified of the neighborhood zoning restrictions. However, Council did not have the authority to make any assurances that if anything went wrong the City would take care of it. If something did happen, the City would either be "strictly" liable, which meant that without regard to fault there would be responsi-bility, or the City would have to be found negligent. As an assurance to the public, the City would look to whoever did the well sealing work to be properly bonded and licensed and would look to them for recourse if something did happen and the City were found negligent. If it were a strict liability matter as could often be the case with utility installations, the City would be liable anyway. He emphasized for the record that he was not suggesting it was a strict liability problem. Council Member Fazzino queried when the last well test occurred. Mr. Mrizek indicated it was tested twice in 1995, and would tested twice in 1996, etc. Council Member Fazzino queried whether there were any instances in which the City built a special liability provision for City services programs. Mr. Calonne said typically, property condition issues were resolved through covenants or assurances provided from the seller to the buyer. He was not aware of a means to create a general insurance policy. The City could probably self-insure, but he did not know how the risk would be identified on the particular problem. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to the firefighting issue, and said the presence of a well in a neighborhood would not enable the Fire Department to fight a fire effectively in the event of a catastrophic problem with the distribution system. Mr. Mrizek said major fires required pressure in the lines to put the fire out, and the Meadows Well would not provide adequate
02/05/96 78-139
pressure to fight the fires. By combining the wells into one site, staff believed there would be a better emergency supply to fight fires. Also, Mayfield Reservoir was a major four million gallon water supply for the entire system to fight fires in a catastrophic emergency. Council Member Andersen hypothesized a catastrophic emergency and the Meadows Well was not closed. In an emergency circumstance and if the well were not upgraded, would people be able to use the water. Mr. Mrizek said the well was currently inoperative and no water would come up even in an emergency. Vice Mayor Huber queried whether the City might defer sealing the well off and consider it in light of the entire emergency water situation. Mr. Mrizek said that was considered but the distance of the Meadows Well site versus the centralized location for emergencies did not make it a viable option. The cost of putting a new well in was quite high and the amount of water from the new well would be minimal. Council Member Kniss queried how much water they were talking about. Mr. Mrizek said if the City were operating the well, it would provide less than three percent of the total water supply. Council Member Kniss believed three percent was a lot of water in a draught. City Manager June Fleming said staff tried to respond to all of the scenarios which would lead to a decision that it would be benefi-cial to keep the Meadows Well open. She emphasized it was a very low producing well. Staff did not see that the well would fit into an emergency system because the pressure was not there and the well was not operational. If Council would be more comfortable having the work of staff validated by someone else, the information could be folded into a study the consultant was going to do. Based on having discussed the issue with staff, her opinion was that a different recommendation would not be forthcoming. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to: 1) authorize staff to abandon the Meadows Well site, remove the well, and have the Water Utility turn the property back to the General Fund; and 2) delay sale of Middlefield Well site and reinstate payment of rental charges from the Water Utility to the General Fund.
02/05/96 78-140
Council Member McCown echoed the comments by some members of the public in terms of the thoroughness and responsiveness of staff in going through a lot of particular questions that representatives from the neighborhood had. She believed it was a prudent decision under the present circumstances to close down a well that really was not functioning and was in its current condition not a desirable feature to have on the property. Closing the well was clearly the right decision and the technology and approach in the closure itself was one the Council should have confidence was the correct and safe way to proceed. She noted in the staff report (CMR:228:96) a recognition of the need to pursue the other questions of emergency supply, and that staff had given a lot of thought to how that would best be designed and in what locations, etc. She agreed with staff's judgment that an old, now nonfunctioning, incompetent well that existed on a particular piece of property the City controlled did not mean the well should not be closed if in fact there were a better location where the City might wish to have emergency water supplies via wells. Even though it would involve new wells in some locations, she believed it was right long-term decision in 1996. She also understood Council's action that evening contained no specific direction and timing on the possible disposition of the property. The decision was to close the well in the particular location. Council Member Kniss believed staff's information was very thorough. She was comfortable Council was taking action to close the well and not dispose of the property. If Council discussed selling the property, she would not be support the motion as com-fortably. Mayor Wheeler commended staff in its thoroughness in preparing responses to the neighborhoods' questions. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES 7. Regulation of Newsracks and Paper on Permissible Options for Regulation of Newsracks Senior Assistant City Attorney Susan Case said there were basically two parts to the Report from City Attorney, dated January 31, 1996. The blinder rack ordinance was the first part of the report which staff recommended Council adopt. Attachment "C" to the report was a position paper which the City Attorney's Office put together stating the City Attorney intended to serve as the guide for the working group that would work with staff to come up a more comprehensive manner for the regulation of newsracks. The Report from City Attorney, dated February 5, 1996, included a replacement Attachment "B" which contained the appropriate definition of harmful matter, which should replace the Attachment "B" to the Report from City Attorney, dated January 31, 1996.
02/05/96 78-141
Council Member Fazzino commended Ms. Case and the City Attorney's Office for an excellent report. He queried what happened if a publication's entire cover were offensive. Ms. Case said the top one-third of the publication would remain visible. She had not reviewed the legislative history behind the Penal Code section and did not know the history of the one-third/two-thirds regulation. She supposed the attempt was to allow the publication to advertise its mast head, etc.. If the San Jose Mercury News placed nude ladies on its mast head, the City would have a problem. Council Member Fazzino queried whether the City was able to decide which two-thirds of the publication would be covered. Ms. Case said it was the bottom two-thirds. Council Member Fazzino queried the time frame for the working group's information to return to Council. Ms. Case said Capital Improvement Program (CIP) being worked on by the Planning Department for its Downtown beautification regulations was currently scheduled for review, and the City Attorney's Office agreed to work with them to tie the newsrack regulations into their efforts at least insofar as the Downtown was concerned. That agreement would drive the working group's schedule as much as anything. She and the City Manager had discussed the matter and were ready to begin the process in the Spring. Council Member Fazzino queried whether a report would return to Council prior to September 1996. Ms. Case said yes, that was the goal. However, the working group was only part of the process. Council Member Fazzino queried how many other cities had similar blinder rack and broader newsrack regulations. Ms. Case said a survey had not been done on many other cities that had similar regulations; however, most of the surrounding cities that had some form of regulations of newsracks were currently working on it or contemplating it. It was a fairly routine type of situation. Council Member Fazzino referred to the statement of permissible options contained in the "position paper," Attachment "C" to the Report from City Attorney, dated January 31, 1996, and that the City could adopt different standards for different parts of town. He queried whether that meant there could be different standards for different business districts or whether there needed to be a
02/05/96 78-142
similar set of standards for business districts, residential districts, etc. Ms. Case said the way to differentiate between the regulations was to come up with some justification for doing so. For example, the City might want wooden racks in a historic area. The City could probably justify different regulations for different business districts based on the look of the district. The area was pretty open as long as the City regulated everyone within a certain group alike. Council Member Schneider clarified the determination of whether a publication must utilize blinders needed to be made on an issue-by-issue basis. She queried when and by whom that determination would be made. Ms. Case said the code enforcement staff from the Building Department would enforce the ordinance similar to their other code enforcement items, e.g. on a complaint basis. Council Member Schneider clarified as long as newsracks contained the identifying information, e.g. name, address, and telephone number of the newsrack owner, distributor of the publication, that was the only requirement the City would have for the ordinance. Ms. Case said the ordinance included the bare minimum of enforce-ment necessary for the blinder portion. When the other regulations were completed, e.g. time, place and manner, size, color, etc., it would fit into the current enforcement. Staff did not put forth any specific design requirements for the identifying information or what the blinders should look like and felt that if the committee and staff wanted to get into those areas later on that would be a more appropriate time to do so. Council Member Simitian referred to the erroneous Attachment "B" to the Report from City Attorney, dated January 31, 1996. He was struck by the underlined portion of subsection (c)(2) of Penal Code Section 313.1 (C)(2) which indicated that any person who knowingly displayed, sold, or offered to sell in any coin-operated vending machine that was not supervised by an adult and was located in other than a public place from which minors were excluded any harmful matter as defined in subdivision (a) Section 313 shall be punished as specified in Section 313.4. He asked about Section 313.4. Ms. Case said Section 313.4 was fairly new and had been enjoined against. An injunction was issued against the section in federal court, it was then lifted, and a federal court of appeals again put the injunction in place. It could not be enforced. Council Member Simitian queried the City's ability to simply prohibit the sale or distribution of the materials from vending
02/05/96 78-143
machines on the streets rather than simply putting a blinder rack in. Ms. Case said it might be possible in the future to prohibit the sale or distribution of the materials from vending machines on the street, but currently blinder racks was the only authority the City had. Council Member Simitian queried how long it might take for the issue to be resolved. Ms. Case said the matter had recently reached the Court of Appeal. Council Member Simitian queried the City's position with respect to the notion of using predominantly or exclusively City-provided racks. Ms. Case said the City-provided racks would definitely be discussed in conjunction with the Downtown beautification. It was an area where the City as landowners versus the City as the regulators converged, and the position paper intended to set out the City's options as regulators. There was no reason why the City could not operate as landowners and have some public/private partnership with regard to donating space or racks themselves. Council Member Simitian queried the current situation with the somewhat battered collection that appeared to be City racks in the Downtown. Ms. Fleming clarified the City made every effort to refurbish the specially designed wooden racks to the best of its ability. Staff even looked at trying to remove the racks, but they were a rather integral part of the other work around them, e.g. the seating and the trellises. The issue would be further reviewed when the committee was appointed. Council Member Simitian queried whether most of the racks were in use. Ms. Fleming believed most were not. Council Member Simitian asked the basis on which they were used. Ms. Fleming said no permit was required. They were just used. Council Member Schneider clarified the positive comments had been from the media. Ms. Case said that was correct. The Chamber of Commerce was also very supportive. Council Member Schneider asked who had specifically responded.
02/05/96 78-144
Ms. Case said notices were sent to some out-of-the-area newspapers. USA Today and one adult publication had responded positively to the blinder regulations. One publication seemed to be making an attempt to comply with the regulations. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, requested the ordinance be extended to include interior displays or displays visible from the street. Several comments were received in Barron Park from people who were concerned about outside visibility of inside displays. He referred to Ernie's Liquors where if one stood outside in the parking lot and looked in, there was a rack which looked out on the window and there were two varieties of adult books. It would be simple for the store owner to slightly move the racks so they would not be visible from the outside. Many businesses contained adult magazines which were not obtrusive or visible, and video stores sequestered its adult videos and nothing could be seen from the outside. Businesses could be sensitive. A footnote in the report indicated the ordinance could be extended to include other locations as well as the outdoor and public ones with some modifications to language. MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to introduce the Ordinance. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 9.79 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Require all Newsracks to Display Identifying Information and to Restrict the Display of Material That is Harmful to Minors" Vice Mayor Huber commended staff on the report and the ordinance. He looked forward to a speedy return of the report from the committee that dealt with the Downtown racks. Council Member Schneider thanked Ms. Case for her work. She looked forward to the report so there would be some regulation of the proliferation of newsracks. Council Member Andersen asked for a clarification of the footnote on page 2 of the Report from City Attorney, dated January 31, 1996. He queried the practical effect of amending the motion to include a regulation of harmful matter in indoor businesses. Ms. Case understood Mr. Moss was talking about displays that one could view from a sidewalk without going into a store. To the extent Mr. Moss documented some existing cases, the ordinance could be extended, and those people would be treated the same as displays on a sidewalk. While it was legal under the ordinance to regulate things on a shelf in a store, it was a completely different arena, and staff chose to recommend limiting control to outside places. She believed the ordinance could be extended to cover Mr. Moss'
02/05/96 78-145
concerns and still keep the same effect intended by the ordinance as written. AMENDMENT: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to amend the motion to recommend that the displays visible from the sidewalk/street without having to go inside the store/shop also be regulated. Council Member Andersen believed they were dealing with a limited situation, and if the ordinance were extended to cover such situations the community might find offensive, the City had something to act upon. The ordinance was enforced on a complaint basis. Council Member Rosenbaum believed the amendment was consistent with the intent of the ordinance and should be added. Council Member Simitian opposed the amendment not because he was not sympathetic with its purposes, but he believed it raised some very different administrative and enforcement difficulties. Once the City stepped inside every public place in Palo Alto, it was a dramatically different enforcement obligation. When dealing with vending machines, there was no one on hand to exercise any judgment or control. In the case of materials which were offensive in other public places, e.g. a store, shop, liquor store, etc., there was some potential remedy in that there was someone there who was capable of exercising some control, and the public had some ability to say to the folks in an ownership control situation that the material was offensive or harmful to young people and we would appreciate some sort of response. Council Member Fazzino supported the concept of the amendment but was concerned about the implications. He was somewhat disturbed about addressing the matter in the context of the discussion concerning newsracks and preferred to discuss the matter as part of the discussion regarding adult material. He was troubled about what might be defined as visible from the street because one could argue that to some people something along a side wall could conceivably be visible to someone in the street. He did not have a problem with the amendment if it were about a front window display. He could support a suggestion that staff be directed to explore the issue and return to Council with a proposal to limit front window displays. Council Member McCown suggested if the direction regarding the amendment were supported, it should be left to the City Attorney's staff to draft what it felt was an appropriate, legal definition of what was being discussed. Regarding Council Member Fazzino's concern about heading down some confusing path, the City Attorney was capable of drafting the ordinance in a way that would alleviate those concerns. If the ordinance could not be drafted in accor-dance with the direction being discussed, Council would be advised.
02/05/96 78-146
The exact language needed to accomplish the regulating of those things obviously visible from the street, which, if they were out on the sidewalk, would be regulated by the present regulation should be left to the City Attorney. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECONDER AMENDMENT: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to amend the motion to direct the City Attorney to examine the issue of indoor displays visible from the street with respect to the blinder newsrack ordinance and to report back to Council with appropriate language. Council Member Kniss believed the City was taking an unusual step by passing the newsrack portion of the ordinance, and she was not ready to take the incremental step of enforcing what was going on inside of what must be hundreds of displays within any kind of establishment in Palo Alto. She queried whether her estimates were correct. Ms. Case was sure the estimate of hundreds of displays was at least that high. Council Member Kniss believed enforcement would be unusually burdensome. She preferred to see how the ordinance went forth and to incrementally include anything additional. She opposed the amendment. Vice Mayor Huber was nervous about anything which restricted free speech. While he believed it was important to regulate newsracks on the public streets, there were means by which citizens could address offensive issues by voting either with their pocketbooks or feet. He preferred to see what became of the first part of the ordinance before venturing from outdoors to indoors. AMENDMENT FAILED 4-5, Anderson, Fazzino, McCown, Rosenbaum "yes." Council Member Simitian said when the broader issue of newsracks regulations was reviewed, he was interested in considering whether some sort of City racks uniform in appearance might be a far easier and appropriate way to bring some sense of order and reasonable aesthetics to the Downtown. Trying to regulate the multiplicity of vendors and racks ended up with 30 different interpretations of what was in conformance. When the issue of blinders racks arose several months ago, he took his four quarters and went out to the racks. He was concerned about more than just the cover of the magazines and that any eight-year old child with four quarters in his/her pocket could walk up to any of the vending machines. The materials were not about nudity and erotic material as much as it was about violent, degrading, and the glorification of sex for money. If he could, he would vote to remove the materials from vending racks Downtown. He associated with Vice Mayor Huber on erring on the side of free speech and first amendment protection,
02/05/96 78-147
but the materials were available for sale to adults at any store or shop, and he wished the materials could be pulled off the street. He asked whether there was some way to amend the motion to simply ask staff to report back to the Council if and when the ability to remove the materials were available to the City. Mr. Calonne said Council could add to the motion. The other option would be to direct staff to look into the feasibility of partici-pating as a friend of the court or otherwise as an interested party in the litigation on Section 313.1(d). Council Member Simitian was reluctant when staff started talking about a friend of the court or interested party in terms of resources because sometimes the City found itself pursuing a case it did not want to pursue or a point of view it was not fully in accord with. He preferred to stay on the narrow and well-defined issue of the City's ability to prohibit the sale of the materials per se. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the staff report back to Council if and when it was appropriate to regulate or prohibit the display of materials that were harmful to minors. Council Member Kniss found the racks offensive to look at regard-less of whether they contained the Wall Street Journal. Her druthers would be not to have any racks on the sidewalks. MOTION PASSED 9-0. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 8. Arastradero Creek Access Road Project Landscaping Mitigation Plan Council Member McCown asked about the plan staff wished to pursue and which part of the staff report (CMR:126:96) related to the consultant proposal previously considered by Council. Superintendent, Open Space and Sciences, John Walton said the plan incorporated pieces of the consultant study but not the entire range of actions. Council Member McCown said Council received a letter from Lynn Chiapella (on file in the City Clerk's Office) which criticized the consultant's plan, which was confusing because she understood the City did not intend to proceed with that plan any longer. Mr. Walton said that was correct. Council Member Schneider asked for a description of a "boom mower" and where it would be used.
02/05/96 78-148
Mr. Walton said a "boom mower" was an attachment which fit on the back of a tractor. It was an articulated mower with a mower head which moved up, down, or out so that uneven surfaces could be mowed or brush could be cut that might be parallel to a path or trail system. It was expected that the boom mower would be used in other open space areas as well as at the Arastradero Preserve. Mayor Wheeler queried whether there were other pieces of special-ized equipment that might potentially be needed to maintain or repair the road and whether they existed within the City's fleet. Mr. Walton said presently the only piece of specialized equipment was the boom mower. Staff anticipated the rest of the plan would be implemented with the use of contract staff and fairly common equipment already owned by the City. Director of Utilities Ed Mrizek said the roadway itself was currently being maintained by the Utilities Department with existing equipment and staff. Mayor Wheeler referred to future fiscal impacts and said there was a rather modest sum of money set aside from the Utilities Depart-ment to maintain the road, and she expected that amount of money presumed a normal year without any heavy damaging rains. She queried whether her assumption was correct and where additional moneys would come from to handle the situation if there were unusual damage due to heavy damaging rains. City Manager June Fleming said the City budgeted for the usual and not the unusual, catastrophic, or real emergency which could cause a catastrophe. If an emergency arose, and she could not get back to Council, an emergency would be declared and she would have the authority to move the necessary funds. If the situation were not on that scale and the resources were not within the City Manager's contingency, she could always bring an emergency budget amendment ordinance to Council. It was not fiscally prudent to budget for the unusual catastrophe because there were other ways available to deal with those circumstances. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, believed the road really benefitted the Utilities Department, and maintenance was an annual item. The road was built in a very steep water shed area, and anytime there was significant rain fall there would be erosion. There was also natural erosion which resulted from the vehicles going up and down. The Open Space and Sciences Division had neither the expertise nor the staff to maintain the road bed as proposed in the City Manager's Report (CMR:126:96). She believed the Utilities Department should be financially responsible to maintain the road bed. The Open Space and Sciences Division should maintain the weed and brush clearing and also plant along the edge of the road where there was already vehicle damage and erosion. Every year the roads in steep areas had to be regraded and redone.
02/05/96 78-149
Not only did she not believe $6,200 would cover road maintenance, it would not provide anything for environmental mitigation which was part of the ongoing the CIP and part of Mr. Walton's task. The Mission Driven Budget only reflected two-full time equivalents (FTEs) available for environmental oversight and field projects. Last year there were five to six people in the field working on one single road problem. She urged that road maintenance be left in the Utilities Department. Further, $24,000 was being recommended for the boom mower and for the environmental project. Most of the money was general litigation and road maintenance and not environ-mental mitigation. The boom mower was to remove the thistles along the edges of the road, which was currently being done manually. Further, $9,000 was being recommended for miscellaneous environmen-tal projects and part of it was to fence off where vehicles had driven off the road and there was continued erosion. She did not consider that environmental mitigation but rather necessary to define the edges of the road to keep the vehicles from driving around. She urged that Council consider using the remaining $20,000 in the CIP as follows: 1) purchase a water device which would be like a water bladder with a long hose so the plants along the edge of the road could be watered; 2) contract labor to clear and grade the blocked drainage swales at culverts one, two, and three. The swales were currently blocked and neither culverts one nor two were working because there was no way for the water to reach it. The water had veered down the road and eroded a four-inch trench in the road which would have to be repaired soon because it would not be passable after the next rain storm; 3) fence off fragile areas damaged at Sites 1 and 3. Above Site 3, there was another area which needed to be fenced off above the lake called Juan Colin Way. There was a huge 20-foot gate there with a string on it which was suffering erosion on the downhill of the creek side; 4) remove the 20-foot gate and the turnaround at Juan Colin Way; and 5) purchase the necessary plant tubes to protect planted seedlings from being eaten. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the proposal from staff transferred responsibility for the landscape mitigation from the Utilities Department, Water-Gas-Wastewater Engineering Division, to the Community Services Department's Open Space and Sciences Division, and defined the amount of money that should be allocated for mitigation. When Council approved the CIP on August 2, 1993, part of the funds was to provide mitigation measures for damage caused to the area prior to the approval and for mitigations for the project itself. Council considered that additional capital moneys might be needed for mitigation, and the City Manager indicated she would return to Council with such a recommendation if necessary. The project proposal before the Council mixed up an operating cost of maintenance of the gravel road of the Utilities Department with the capital costs of the landscape mitigation which were part of the CIP project. The actual mitigation plan involved the minimum the Utilities Department was willing to do when it was responsible for landscape mitigation, e.g. six of the ten recom-
02/05/96 78-150
mended by the Habitat Restoration Group. On August 17, 1994, the Habitat Restoration group recommended the City control and eradicate the invasive, non-native species which occurred along virtually the entire length of the road or on preserved lands adjacent to the restoration sites. While the boom mower would help, it was not enough because some species had to be dug out by the roots. Just cutting them down would leave a barren area and most likely the invasive species would be the ones to regenerate. He believed more equipment and restoration sites were needed, and it made more sense to transfer the entire balance of the CIP which was meant for mitigation to the Open Space and Sciences Division for landscaping mitigation, and the funds for road maintenance should come from the Utilities Department operating budget. The annual amount recommended was only $6,200. On May 6, 1993, the Utilities Department staff report (CMR:283:93) indicated the road was six inches thick and "the City should expect to lose approxi-mately an inch of gravel per year to weather, traffic, and base soil conditions." In the budget for approval on July 29, 1993, the staff report (CMR:399:93) reflected the engineer's estimate for six inches of gravel was $44,000, and the winning bid was $36,300 for one inch of gravel per year. One inch of gravel per year was between $6,000 and $7,000 per year. The $6,200 was enough to buy the gravel to redo the road bed every year. Council should take the entire balance left in the CIP budget, transfer it to Open Space and Sciences Division for the needed landscape mitigation. There were people in the community who did landscape mitigation in the foothills and it would be money better spent. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to: 1) approve the use of $15,000 of the remaining project balance of $44,141 in the Arastradero Creek Access Road Improvements project (Project No. 8915) toward the purchase of a boom mower; 2) approve the use of $9,000 of the remaining project balance of $44,141 in the Arastradero Creek Access Road Improvements project for contract maintenance work and supplies, materials, and tools to implement landscape improvements; and 3) approve that the remaining project balance of $20,141 in the Arastradero Creek Access Road Improve-ments Project be returned to the Utility Reserves. Council Member McCown appreciated the direction being taken and the focus on a more cost-effective approach than when the bids were before the Council. In terms of the detailed issues spoke to by Ms. Chiapella and Mr. Borock, she had faith that staff was making every effort to proceed in a manner which was consistent with the City's need for the road and the goals for the open space character of the area. Council Member Andersen queried whether the dollars would allow staff to do more than just cut the non-native species. Mr. Walton said with the acquisition of the boom mower, staff would start mowing the thistles. Staff realized some of the vegetation
02/05/96 78-151
was best removed from the environment through its root systems, and part of the $9,000 would be for a contract with a local organiza-tion to do some of the actual handwork that could provide the service at less cost than it would cost regular staff to provide. As the project progressed, staff would have a better feel for how it was all going and would continue to use the $6,200 received on an annual basis to do most of that work. The $6,200 being discussed for maintenance of open space in the area was for the vegetation and had nothing to do with maintenance of the road or swales. He apologized that he may have misinformed one of the speakers earlier. Council Member Andersen was supportive of the City doing what needed to be done and he believed there were a lot of volunteer agencies who would help. There needed to be a commitment to work toward removing the non-native species. Mayor Wheeler asked whether thought had been given and funds committed through the normal budgetary process for the maintenance and upkeep of the road. Mr. Mrizek said funds were budgeted through the Utilities Depart-ment to continue to maintain the gravel roadway and the 10-foot width. Mayor Wheeler supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 9-0. RECESS: 9:10 P.M. - 9:27 P.M. 9. Proposed Concepts for Use of the Tower Well Site Senior Financial Analyst Janet Freeland said the item before the Council transmitted three proposal concepts for the use of the Tower Well site, located at the corner of Alma Street and Hawthorne Avenue, and recommended either of the following two courses of action: 1) if Council wished to pursue the concept set forth by Tom and Katy Taylor, staff should be directed to prepare a request for proposal (RFP) for an option to purchase the site for use and development as proposed or as directed by Council and return to Council for approval of the RFP; or 2) if Council did not wish to pursue any of the proposed use concepts for the Tower Well, staff should be directed to continue the status quo and maintain the site pending more appropriate uses to emerge. Staff was not recom-mending that Council approve any of the three specific proposals. The unsolicited proposal concepts presented to staff were: 1) a proposal by Tom and Katy Taylor to purchase the site for use as a single-family residence and public plaza with the tower to be preserved; 2) a proposal by Steve Ogburn to purchase or lease the site preserving the tower for a mixed use combining office and residential uses; and 3) a proposal by Wayne Swan to use the site
02/05/96 78-152
for apartments especially suited for people without vehicles. In March 1992, Council approved a request for conceptual proposals for the Tower Well site and received three proposals in response. In February 1993, Council rejected the three proposals. At that time, Council indicated its intent that the property be land banked and a beneficial use be considered in the future. Staff believed the Taylor proposal warranted Council consideration to determine if it met Council's criteria for a beneficial use of the site. The proposal was different than those previously proposed; it was free of problems previous proposals had with parking, traffic, and intensity of development and it preserved the Tower. The Ogburn and Swan proposals were similar to previous proposals which were rejected by Council. The Foundation for Global Community, the owners of both parcels adjoining the Tower Well site, favored the Taylor proposal. The Foundation board was meeting that evening and was expected to send the Council a letter in support of the Taylor proposal. Historic Resource Board Member Montgomery Anderson reaffirmed the Historic Resources Board's (HRB) desire for the Council to consider the Tower Well site as a Category II structure on the City's historic inventory. As Council considered proposals for the Tower Well site's preservation and/or reuse, it should do so with the recognition of the site as an important cultural resource. The Tower was a symbol of the importance water and utilities played in the history and founding of the City. Palo Alto was one of the first municipalities in the country to own and operate its own utility. The Water Company was the first utility owned by the City, and it provided the City with the ability to develop many of the parks still treasured in the community, and water offered fire protection for a city primarily built of wood when fire was a major threat. Any proposal to develop the site should incorporate the preservation of the Tower and an interpretive element to tell of the importance of utilities to the founding of Palo Alto. The HRB believed it would dovetail nicely with the Public Art Commission's (PAC) desire to incorporate public art on the site. Mayor Wheeler clarified Council's decision that evening would be whether to issue another RFP for potential use of the site; not for or against any of the proposals. Council Member McCown clarified the Taylor proposal was for single-family use, and she understood there was also a unit proposed in connection with a new garage structure. She queried whether it was really two residential units. Ms. Freeland said yes. Council Member McCown asked for a comparison on how the Ogburn proposal differed from the concept of similar proposals, e.g., Tony Carrasco's number of units and how much commercial versus residen-tial.
02/05/96 78-153
Ms. Freeland recalled the Carrasco proposal had more office space and two residential units. Council Member McCown was also interested in a comparison on the amount of commercial square footage. The Ogburn proposal was 1,520 square feet. Ms. Freeland said the Carrasco proposal was 4,100 square feet of office and 1,400 square feet of residential space. Council Member Andersen queried whether the HRB considered the minor modification to a residential use as maintaining the historic integrity. Mr. Anderson said the HRB did not make any formal recommendations on Mr. Taylor's proposal; however, the HRB believed the more intensification of the site in terms of development the harder it became to preserve the Tower. A single-family residence would not trigger a lot of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades which would probably become unfeasible. Because the Tower was a concrete structure there could not be much modification to it in terms of holes, etc. to adapt it for some other use. Council Member Andersen said the lower intensity use suggested by the Taylor proposal would more likely maintain the integrity of the property as a historic structure. Mr. Anderson said when considering the preservation of a historic resource and/or its adaptive reuse, the more intense the develop-ment, the harder it was to manage the goals of preservation with the goals of the proposed use. Council Member Andersen queried whether an RFP would be designed essentially as a R-1 or a R-2 type of situation. If so, was there a need for an RFP. Ms. Freeland said staff had not anticipated limiting an RFP to only single-family or two residential units but rather there could be other proposals as well that might be appropriate for the site. Council Member Andersen clarified Council would be back to a broad approach on the RFP. Ms. Freeland said that was a possibility. Staff anticipated limiting the RFP to purchase including historic preservation and recognizing that public need could be fulfilled both through use or through a monetary consideration that could be applied to a public need whereas the other RFP was lease or purchase. Council Member Schneider asked Mr. Taylor to respond in his comments to how many square feet the Taylor proposal anticipated
02/05/96 78-154
for living spaces. She queried whether unsolicited proposals occurred frequently for the use of publicly owned property. Deputy City Manager/Director of Administrative Services Emily Harrison said the City frequently received unsolicited proposals but waited to return to Council until something met Council guidelines. Council Member Schneider queried whether other unsolicited proposals appeared before Council similarly to the ones before Council that evening. Ms. Harrison said often unsolicited proposals went directly to Council through its packet rather than through staff. Council Member Kniss queried whether the current California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations would apply to the interior of the structure if the Tower were turned into some kind of a dwelling. Mr. Anderson was not sure how CEQA guidelines would apply to such a structure. Anything considered for the building would require a change of use. Council Member Kniss queried whether the historic nature and intent of the structure would be diminished if the Tower were altered in some way as a living space. Mr. Anderson said the U.S. Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation which the City used to evaluate structures indicated that any changes in use being considered should require minimal changes to a historic structure. Council Member Kniss asked Mr. Anderson how he interpreted some of the other proposals Council had seen. Mr. Anderson said the Tower was not currently on the City's historic inventory, and a goal of the HRB was to encourage Council to look at it as a historic structure rather than just another City-owned property. He believed the HRB preferred proposals which provided minimal changes to the Tower. The Tower was considered as a symbol of the City's early founding of the utilities and the forward thinking of the early City fathers and that was what the HRB wanted to recognize and call attention to. Council Member Kniss did not recall any others towns with a similar structure. Mr. Anderson did not believe there were any locally. On the national level, there were historic American building and engineer-ing surveys. The engineering survey looked at infrastructure-type elements such as bridges, walkways, water towers, etc., and a Frank
02/05/96 78-155
Lloyd Wright water tower was preserved in Spring Green, Wisconsin, previously. Council Member Kniss clarified the HRB could not be sure whether the current CEQA guidelines might apply to the interior of the Tower, but if the building were on the historic inventory, it might be worth looking at further. Mr. Anderson said that was correct. The HRB was also looking at a Category II classification rather than one that recognized there had been some modifications to the Tower since it was originally built. The Category II could provide some flexibility as well as the preservation goal. Council Member Kniss queried whether the land around the Tower could be developed in some way and the public could still safely go into the Tower to explore it from a historical angle if it were a Category II structure. Mr. Anderson believed the only thing that might have been of interest on the inside of the Tower was the pumps and machinery that went along with it when it was in use. Currently, it was just an empty cylinder. Council Member Kniss clarified the exterior of the structure was what was of interest and a landmark in the community. Mr. Anderson said it was a symbol. Council Member Simitian believed there were essentially three reasons for a historic designation: 1) there was some event or activity that took place on the site which was of historic, social, or cultural importance; 2) there was some architectural signifi-cance to the particular site or structure; and 3) the structure provided some sense of place and served as a visible reminder of the City's past. While he did not believe either of the first two criteria applied to the Tower Well site, he might be persuaded that the structure was worthy of preservation on the basis that it provided some sense of place and served as a visible reminder of the City's past. He queried if that were the only basis on which he could consider the structure as historic, whether it would be a legitimate basis for a Category II designation. Mr. Anderson believed the letter to the Council dated October 18, 1995, from the HRB (on file in the City Clerk's Office) addressed the fact that the Tower was a reminder of the City's past. Council Member Simitian believed the Tower might well be worth preserving simply because it was nice to walk around a town and look at a place one passed by 25 years or 50 years previously, and the Tower was a nice reminder of Palo Alto's past. For that reason and because the Tower was a defining element of the Downtown, he
02/05/96 78-156
would be willing to consider preserving the structure on that basis alone. Putting aside the other issues, he queried whether the basis on which he would consider preservation was a basis for a Category II designation. Mr. Anderson believed the two issues were tied together. The Tower was a significant part of the City's past and a symbol that everyone had grown up with. Council Member Simitian queried whether the arguments about the structure being a reminder of the forethought of the founding municipal fathers would have applied if the structure were part of the Santa Clara Valley Water District or a Pacific Gas & Electric water tower. Mr. Anderson said the reason the HRB believed the Tower was important was because of its relationship to the founding of Palo Alto and the start-up of the City's utilities. Council Member Simitian clarified minimal change was the desired goal from the perspective of the HRB. Mr. Anderson said that was what the national standards sought. Council Member Simitian queried whether the elements of the Taylor proposal suggested minimal changes. Mr. Anderson said yes. Council Member Simitian queried whether that included the windows which were obviously something the average water tower did not have from top to bottom. Mr. Anderson believed there were actually four slots currently in the building that could be used for window purposes. The proposal was not developed far enough to understand completely what the exterior of the building would look like. The HRB hoped it would be involved in whatever proposal moved forward. Council Member Simitian clarified the key was minimal change, and it probably could accommodate the windows described conceptually. Mr. Anderson said yes. Council Member Simitian asked whether leaving the Tower alone would be preferable. Mr. Anderson said the HRB wanted something to happen for the Tower's perpetual care even if the lot in front were developed as useful open space. To let the Tower stand would not serve much purpose. The HRB also requested consideration of an interpretive aspect to any development to explain the founding of the utilities
02/05/96 78-157
in Palo Alto, the importance of the decision, and how the City lived with the results of those decisions even today. Council Member Simitian referred to the difficulty of public access to the site being compatible with the use of it as a home or office space, and he believed it would be helpful for the proposers to speak to how he/she might manage the interaction between public and private use of the facility. Council Member Fazzino could not conceive any internal historic preservation criteria associated with the facility. If there were, he believed it tended to trivialize the issue of historic preserva-tion particularly when comparing it to the need for the important and appropriate internal historic preservation steps that had been taken to preserve the Varsity Theatre. Mr. Anderson said the Tower could be reactivated as a well and used for its intended purpose. Short of that, the Tower was a concrete cylinder on the inside and did not have much interest for the general public. Council Member Fazzino clarified Mr. Anderson believed the real historic preservation issue before the Council was the cylinder itself and the acceptance of a plan which preserved the well in essentially the same form as it was currently. Mr. Anderson said that was correct. Council Member Fazzino said Mr. Taylor's proposed price of the property was $222,000 less than the budgeted costs of plaza development. The range for the plaza development was $50,000 to $200,000, and he asked for staff's perspective as to what develop-ment costs would be and what a fair purchase price of the property would be after the plaza was developed. Ms. Harrison said staff did not attempt to evaluate purchase prices given the conceptual nature of the proposal. Staff understood Mr. Taylor was using a concept based on the appraised value of the property which was a good place to start, but it would need to be carefully considered and negotiated. Staff did not have a methodology to propose that evening. Steve Ogburn, 1312 Orange Avenue, Architect, Menlo Park, was motivated to present a proposal to provide options with minimal impact to the surrounding environment in terms of the structure. His intent was to limit the structure to a stair tower on the rear because he could not see how to feasibly run a stair tower in the structure and have any floor space left over for usage. His concept would work with a structure that adapted the Tower for a reuse and did not totally lose the real value of the structure itself. The Tower was unique architecturally and worthy of preservation, and it was a piece of Palo Alto's history. His plan
02/05/96 78-158
was different from past proposals in that it preserved the structure as an adaptive reuse rather than an incorporation into a grander scheme. Many of the past proposals did not focus on preservation while that was his primary motivation. While minor exterior modifications could be made, e.g. windows, limiting the ground floor to office use limited the impact of the amount of building change to be done because a residence would want more windows and lighting. If the residential area were limited to the upper part of the structure, it would be easier to solve some of the structural problems in terms of openings. His proposal reflected the importance of keeping the front portion of the lot open and providing the plaza and water feature to echo back to what the history of the lot was and perhaps have some interpretive explanations of the usage of the property. His proposal provided a usage both visually and density-wise compatible with the existing neighborhood. The structure provided numerous challenges to any developer. Any adaptive reuse of the structure would require cooperation between the City's Building Department, Historic Resources Board, and others. There was some leeway, however, with regard to implementation of some of the Historic Building Code. He encouraged that any further RFPs contain a key element to define the historic preservation goal and the intent by the City to sell the property. If too many restrictions were placed on usage, the pool of people who could respond would be very limited. Council should stay with caveats pertaining to zoning on the property. Gail Woolley, 4183 Mariposa Avenue, emphasized the historic value of the Tower and that it was not necessary for the City to own the Tower in order for it to be preserved. Of the various projects over the past 20 years, e.g. the Williams House, the Gamble Garden Center, and the Squire House, the Squire House most resembled the Tower Well site. In 1972, when the Squire House went on the market, some citizens raised $90,000 to purchase and give the house to the City as a gift. The City was not so pleased. The idea was for it to be a senior center, and the neighbors believed nothing on the east side of Seneca should have anything but an R-1 use. Then, public transportation to the location for a senior center did not exist in any abundance and the size of the house was not appropri-ate. In 1976, there was an idea to sell the property with a facade easement because unless one was a friend or member of the Squire Family one did not get inside of the house and it was the exterior of the house the community had enjoyed for so many years. The present owners did a wonderful job on the exterior and interior of the property, and until the present owners, the inside of the Squire House was not well taken care of. Nevertheless, the community had the outside and the City Council had control over what happened to it. A 1974 editorial indicated the City was "stuck with maintaining the huge old Squire House, a mansion now invested with far more historic significance than reality ever dealt it." While some might feel that way about the Tower Well site, possibly in 22 years, more historic significance would be seen. She hoped the writer of the editorial was glad the Squire
02/05/96 78-159
House was not demolished. The facade easement turned out to be a good solution, and the same would be true for the Tower. Regarding permanent protection, she was concerned a Category II structure would not guarantee it would not be demolished at some point. If the City went to the trouble to preserve the Tower, there should be a facade easement or some other mechanism in addition to a Category II designation. In terms of CEQA, it was used for the Varsity Theatre because its requirements indicated if the interior of a structure was integral and absolutely necessary for the historic significance of a building, then it should be considered. In the case of the Varsity Theatre, the inside was even more important than the outside, and that could not be said for very many structures including the Tower Well site. Griffin Taylor, 123 Sherman Avenue, encouraged Council to help his family live in the Tower. Tom Taylor, 123 Sherman Avenue, said his proposal resulted from nine months of meeting with the HRB, the PAC, and various individu-als. While he believed preservation was a key stone of the proposal, he never heard anyone who advocated destroying the Tower. While Council had not formally supported preservation of the Tower and the minutes reflected support for preservation, no one would create an albatross in Palo Alto by designating the building without a use otherwise it became a financial burden. He believed the Tower had historic and social significance, and his proposal was a vehicle for preservation. Their goal was to be preserva-tionists and to minimize the external alterations to the best of their ability. Regarding the public benefit, in the 1992 Request for Conceptual Proposals (RFCP), there were several specific public benefits enumerated, and in retrospect they were all incompatible with the site. The site was small and parking was inadequate for a full commercial or multi-family utilization of the Tower or the site, and preserving the Tower limited the options even further. His proposal created some public benefits of use and were truly public benefits even though not called out in the original RFCP. The last time Council discussed the matter in 1994, the option of another RFP was discussed and ultimately defeated. He urged Council to consider the proposals that evening as if it were a continuation of the meeting held in 1994. In response to the question regarding residential square footage, the Tower itself had about a 700-square feet, and they were proposing three floors in the base, for a total of 2,100 square feet. The second unit would be appropriately 1,000 square feet. In response to the pub-lic/private aspect, when one walked or drove by the Tower which was visible from Stanford Shopping Center, the upper portion was the most visible and really caught the eye. They would inhabit the lower portion and the upper portion of the Tower would be used for storage with no windows. The proposed public space was on the front portion of the lot, and regardless of what was done, Alma Street was a public thoroughfare and they could create an artful
02/05/96 78-160
division between public/private space which would not impede the visual access to the Tower. Russell Hancock, 891 Warren Way, believed the Taylor proposal was creative and sensitive to the concerns associated with the property. Palo Alto was fortunate to have a Tom Taylor who brought his innovative approaches to the problem of developing under-utilized space and converting industrial properties into residen-tial ones. He had a remarkable record of achievement, and his work was appreciated by many. He urged Council to move forward and make a decision. Roger Kohler, 4291 Wilkie Way, Historic Resources Board member, spoke on his own behalf, advocated the City using the Tower Well site as a public facility. It could be a display area for artifacts from the Utilities and Public Works Departments and the exterior could be used for public art as well as old equipment, including old fire trucks. The interior of the concrete structure was dramatic, and if the windows currently enclosed in the lower portion of the Tower area were opened and replaced with glass, the space would be exciting to walk into. There were still water pumps inside and an old control office. He encouraged Council to tour the Tower before making any decisions. Focal points were beginning to develop Downtown. The El Palo Alto area would have a new bicycle and pedestrian bridge as a connection to Menlo Park. Along with it, there would be an informational gazebo which could contain information about El Palo Alto and the creek. About one and one-half blocks away was the Tower Well site, which could be the display museum as indicated; behind it was the old trolley barn which was also part of the history of Palo Alto and was currently preserved as offices. There were several older homes on Emerson Street and the Senior Center on Bryant Street which also could contain additional informational items. City Hall could also be a focal point. A historic trail was starting to develop, and he believed the concept could be developed and advertised to "Come to Palo Alto and Walk Our Historic Trail." He believed the Tower was a great asset and would be a tremendous loss to the residents of Palo Alto if not preserved. Fred Eyerly, 101 Alma Street, represented the Board of Directors of 101 Alma Condominium Owners Association, which believed Council should pursue the Taylor's proposal, as one which met the contin-gencies which the Board had set on any development in the location. It was low-density residential, compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, it preserved the Tower without any increased heights in any development, and it added to the beautification of that part of town. There had been some upgrades in the area along Alma Street, and the Taylor development would add greatly to the area. On his own behalf, from the Utilities standpoint, it was time to commemorate such a structure and remember Palo Alto's utilities heritage, and let the people know how important Palo Alto's utilities had been and continued to be to the City of Palo Alto.
02/05/96 78-161
The recommendation of the HRB to place the structure on the historic inventory was a good preservation step and he encouraged Council to make some forward steps that evening. Council Member Andersen said several years ago he took Sylvia Seaman to an industrial site that had been converted into a residential unit, and it happened to be the Taylor home. Ms. Seaman was very surprised by the creativity and uniqueness. He encouraged Council to visit the site of the Taylor home. Council had an opportunity to preserve the site without some of the problems Council was concerned with last time the matter arose and in a manner consistent with many of the criteria that the HRB laid out. One of the issues about the Tower being made into public facility was the potential for maintenance and liability and injury. The proposal offered a way to provide the Tower as a historic place without altering it significantly and an opportunity to recognize the significance of the City's utilities. The proposal allowed for compatibility of use in a neighborhood very sensitive about the intensification of traffic in the area. While he was curious about how the RFP process might be used, he was supportive of the Taylor proposal and hoped his colleagues would be as well. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to direct staff to continue the status quo, i.e., maintain the site as is, pending more appropriate uses to emerge. Council Member Kniss found the Taylor's proposal appealing and it sounded as if what they did at 123 Sherman was also very appealing. She was concerned if Council pursued any of the concepts presented that evening, it would begin to significantly change the use of the site from public to private. The current open and available use of the Tower allowed it to be admired as a celebration of the past and as a commemoration of what happened early in the City's history with regard to utilities. She saw the site being developed into a park usage in the long term. Mr. Kohler comments were appealing in terms of building some kind of infrastructure within the City's humanity where the significant items and structures began to be noticed. The Tower fascinated her and especially as El Palo Alto began to look less healthy, the Tower would hold its own within that section of Palo Alto. At that point, she was not ready to pursue any of the privatization concepts and preferred to look at the Tower site as a publicly-used area and one which could perhaps contain some of the old artifacts from the early utilities. Council Member Schneider had great respect for the ingenuity and creativity of Tom Taylor and had driven by his remarkable house. Two years ago she was opposed to the Tower site being designated as a Category II historic structure because she believed there were certain things in Palo Alto that could be left alone and did not need to be designated. She noted the top priority in the staff report (CMR:133:96) and Mr. Taylor's report was the public benefits, which were important to maintain. She did not know
02/05/96 78-162
whether the public would get maximum use from a 1,500 square foot plaza. Council Member Simitian reminded her the cost to the City was approximately $60 per month to maintain the property, and she did not know of any accidents or that the site was an attractive nuisance. A community gardens with places for people to gather, public art, and information regarding the historical significance could all be incorporated at a low cost and the site would still provide the public benefit and low impact use being sought. Council Member Fazzino supported the historic nature of the Tower Well site. Any cursory reading of the City's history provided an appreciation for the impact of municipal utilities and would lead someone to recognize the importance of the Tower Well as a symbol of the City's radical decision back in 1904 to provide and develop a municipally-owned utilities system. The Tower Well was remark-able to him. When he first saw Plymouth Rock, it did not look very exciting, and Gettysburg looked like a lot of other rolling hills in southern Pennsylvania. While he was not comparing the Tower Well with either Plymouth Rock or Gettysburg, the point was it was not what the site looked like but what it represented in the historic context. Even though Palo Alto was a small part of the world, the Tower Well was important as a symbol of the outstanding early City government. He was willing to move forward with the proposal to issue an RFP and was probably more willing to look at several proposals although he was a very interested in the creative suggestion offered by Mr. Taylor to preserve and enhance the site. While Ms. Woolley pointed out the remarkable public/private partnership way to preserve the Squire House which occurred 20 plus years ago, she did not say that Squire House would not have been preserved without her leadership. The Tower Well site represented another public/private opportunity to preserve the site. He disagreed with Council Member Schneider in terms of the plaza and believed it would be a significant public benefit. Preservation of the well and care of the site would represent a significant public benefit. He was concerned that despite all the good words of Mr. Kohler regarding some type of a historic trail in Palo Alto, there were few people in Palo Alto with both the vision and money to save the site, and there was little willingness on the part of the present or future Council to put dollars behind such an exciting vision. If a creative public/private partnership were not pursued, he was concerned the site would deteriorate in years to come and instead of community gardens, there would be weeds. Over time pressure would grow and people would forget why the well was important and it would be viewed as an attractive nuisance. Council was missing a great opportunity with the proposal offered by Mr. Taylor and perhaps Mr. Ogburn to look at creative a public/private partnership. He encouraged his colleagues to consider an alternative public/private partnership which truly preserved the site for future generations. He wanted to look at the idea of a facade easement for the particular well, and wanted the City Attorney to respond to the question. He opposed the motion as being short-sighted and something which could lead to the
02/05/96 78-163
deterioration of the site and the loss of the well in years to come. Council Member Andersen believed having the Tower site preserved long-term could best be accomplished by a public/private partner-ship. There would be greater access than was currently the case with the kind of public plaza suggested in the proposals. He was also interested in knowing more about the facade easement. He opposed the motion. Council Member McCown noted many arguments on both sides. She looked back at the criteria used when the RFCPs went out previous-ly, time, and Council Member Schneider pointed out the top priority was how a proposal satisfied a public need and provided a public benefit. Council went through a first pass at that time with examples of possible uses, e.g. child care, single room occupancy (SRO) housing, multiple family housing, and it concluded that most would not work on the Tower Well site because of the small character of the site. Council kept the door open to ideas that might emerge, and while both the Taylor and Ogburn concepts were creative, in reality they predominantly focused on a private and not a public use. Admittedly, the private use allowed the adaption and restoration of the building. The Middlefield Well sites were placed for sale for ordinary R-1 housing and the difference between the sites was the Tower Well site contained the historic tower. Although Council had seen some creativity emerge from a predomi-nantly private use, she was not convinced Council had seen all of the possible creative public uses that might occur. In terms of the urgency for moving forward versus the recommendation of the motion to essentially leave the status quo, she disagreed with Council Member Fazzino that something had to be done then or the site would be lost. The Squire House situation was slightly different; there were crises along the way that threatened the asset if the City did not get involved in some active manner which eventually wound up with the easement. She did not believe doing nothing would jeopardize the structure, so she did not find a compelling reason to pursue the private use approach yet. The Williams House was an example of an asset so special that even though there were several false starts about what to do, it was important to keep pushing forward and find a way to make use of it. Council felt strongly the public should have an opportunity to enjoy the house as a public resource. However, if Council went in the direction of a private use, she believed the Taylor and Ogburn proposals were excellent and ones which Council would want to seriously consider. If Council did not come up with a better public use, it should make a decision about where it wanted to go and move forward. City Attorney Ariel Calonne responded to the question of a facade easement and said when the property was sold, the City would reserve the easement.
02/05/96 78-164
Council Member Fazzino clarified the City could have a facade easement. Mr. Calonne would refer to it as a facade easement for the sake of comparing it to the Squire House, but it would be some form of protective easement. Council Member Kniss queried who would be responsible for keeping up the plaza area in the front in the Taylor proposal which would be dedicated to the City. Mr. Calonne believed the RFP process would resolve that question. Council Member Kniss clarified it was not yet determined how the public benefit would be handled. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. The staff report (CMR:133:96) specifically avoided getting into the pricing issues. Hopefully, there would be some competition with an RFP process. Council Member Simitian believed he was much more empathetic with the notion of historic merit than his colleagues teased him about. His views were close to those of Council Member McCown, and while he would not be upset with any direction Council went on the issue, he leaned toward supporting the motion on the floor. The starting point was whether the Tower had historic merit. He did not see the Tower in terms of historic, social, or cultural significance; the fact that water was previously stored in the Tower Well did not make it historically significant by definition. While he did not believe the architecture was meritorious historically, what did have some historic merit was that the Tower Well provided some sense of place and distinguished Palo Alto from every other plain post war suburban community in California. If Council wanted to give the Tower a Category II historic designation based on that alone, he would entertain it. If the Tower site were historic, what should be done. One of the questions Council Member McCown was getting at was why do anything. He worried when he heard some of the more creative solutions that the Tower site might be part of a "Frontier Village" approach to history. If the value were the Tower and its familiar reminder, why not leave it alone and value it. The Tower was a pleasant contrast in its area, and if Council reached the conclusion the Tower had some merit and should be preserved, he queried whether Council was likely to be more successful and whether the cost of preservation would likely be more manageable if someone else did it or whether the Tower could be left alone and preserved in that way. He supported the latter, but if Council chose the former, it would also be okay. Council Member Rosenbaum impressed by the results achieved through earlier discussions on both the Squire House and the Veteran's Building that was converted to MacArthur Park. Whereas, Council Member McCown was right that nothing had to be done to the Tower
02/05/96 78-165
Well site, and the difference was that something had to be done about termites in the other buildings. With the Tower Well site, Council could wait a few more decades before taking action. Council had some proposals before it which suggested something could be done along the same lines as MacArthur Park and the Squire House. He wanted to proceed with what was before the Council. Council Member Andersen queried whether Council wanted strictly a public use or no use. He wanted to know what would happen if the Council did nothing. Council Member Simitian said the City did nothing in terms of a use with the El Palo Alto site but that did not mean it was not historic or a landmark. There was no need to have a use at the site to render it of historic merit. If the Tower site had intrinsic merit, it should be respected. Vice Mayor Huber said the Tower Well needed to be preserved and he did not believe the City would ever do it by creating a park or spending its own money on it. He did not believe it was appropri-ate for Council to proceed as it did a couple of years ago with benign neglect. The Council could come up with some other method that essentially preserved the facade and provided some good for the public. He believed it was appropriate and a public use just to preserve the "historic" structures and that was good enough in most instances. He opposed the motion. Mayor Wheeler opposed the motion and had much of the same ambiva-lence expressed by Council Member McCown. Council was not accepting any of the proposals that evening and rather was determining whether to give people the opportunity to submit more refined proposals which would, of necessity, have as a large component the preservation of the Tower Well and a status in which it could be recognized in the future. Council always had the opportunity to determine that future proposals did not satisfy the needs to preserve the Tower Well and to return to a motion similar to the one put on the floor by Council Member Kniss which was to do nothing. She believed Council had an opportunity to receive proposals that might move the City forward on the path of ultimate-ly preserving the site. She preferred to give people the chance to do that. Council Member Kniss said the object of her motion was to preserve the Tower Well and would prefer a Category I historic designation if possible. If the motion failed and Council went forward with an RFP, she would like staff to return with how much would it cost the City to keep the Tower Well site as it was. While Council was not making a decision on anything before it that evening, it was always tempting when something was before the Council to think of it as something which might actually be done. She underscored Council Member Fazzino's comments regarding the Squire House preservation and what it took to do so. She was always concerned about losing
02/05/96 78-166
open space in Palo Alto no matter how small. Before considering giving it up, she wanted to explore all the options, not just those which went before the Council in the form of an RFP, but also what the City might do with the property. Council Member Schneider did not want her second to the motion being perceived as not being pro-historic. Her point in seconding the motion was to preserve the site, and her concern was overdevel-opment of the tiny jewels of open space. MOTION FAILED 3-6, Kniss, Schneider, Simitian "yes." MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct staff to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for an option to purchase the site for use and development as proposed or as directed by Council and return to Council for approval of the RFP including the criteria as follows: 1) encouraging preservation of the tower; 2) recognizing that public benefit may be provided through direct use of the site and/or through dedication of the proceeds from the sale of the site to an identified public need; and 3) recognizing single-family use as an appropriate use of the site. Council Member McCown queried what staff meant by the comment in the staff report (CMR:133:96) that if Council wished to pursue the concept set forth in the proposal set forth by Mr. and Mrs. Taylor, it should direct an RFP be prepared. Would the RFP refer to one single family residence in the Tower. Ms. Harrison said at the conclusion of the staff report (CMR:133:96), staff elaborated on the concept in that it would ask Council's consideration for adding into the new RFP encouraging the preservation of the Tower recognizing public benefit through use or dedication of proceeds and recognizing single family use as appropriate but not the only use. Council Member McCown clarified the other proposals for other residential uses and more than just one use of the Tower would potentially qualify under the RFP criteria. Ms. Harrison said that would be staff's intent in returning the RFP to Council. MOTION PASSED 6-3, Kniss, Schneider, Simitian "no." COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Fazzino requested the Mayor and the City Clerk to write a letter of congratulations to the new Oregon Senator Ron
02/05/96 78-167
Wyden, who grew up in Palo Alto, went to Palo Alto High School and Stanford University, and whose mother still resides in the area. Council Member Fazzino wanted to make sure that the City Attorney and Police Chief were aware of the federal judge's decision regarding panhandling. Council Member Simitian asked the City Manager to develop a Council colleague letter re the Caltrans ramp metering issue and to request that representatives of Caltrans be available at the meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned to Closed Session at 11:10 p.m. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiation as described in Agenda Item No. 5. Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 5. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 12:03 a.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.
02/05/96 78-168