Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-11 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting March 11, 1996 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................78-336 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 16 AND JANUARY 17, 1996.....78-336 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and George E. Masker, Inc. for Lot Q Parking Garage Painting................78-336 3. Resolution 7577 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting Changes in the City of Palo Alto's Restricted Parking Zones in City Owned and Leased Parking Lots...................................78-337 4. Revision to Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Western Area Power Administration re Allocation...............78-337 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................78-337 5. Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.04 [Council Organization and Procedure] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Revised Regular Meeting Times for Standing Committees.78-337 6. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Department of Planning and Community Environment for the Hiring of Contract Planners..............................................78-339 7. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation to Conduct an Organizational Review of the Utilities Department.....78-340 8A. (Old Item No. 1) Contract between the City of Palo Alto and M.C.E. Corporation for Installation of Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan for a Six-Month Trial Basis...78-343 8. Response to Request for Proposal for Lease of the Arastradero Preserve Main House...................................78-343 9. Caltrans Project to Install Ramp Metering Along U.S. Route 101 and Intent to Delete the Portion of the Project to Install a 03/11/96 78-334 78-334 New On-Ramp at San Antonio Road and Related Changes to the Charleston Road/San Antonio Road Intersection.........78-363 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........78-364 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:04 p.m. in memory of Albert Wilson.........................................78-365 03/11/96 78-335 78-335 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 (arrived at 7:17 p.m.), McCown (arrived at 7:58 p.m.), Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian (arrived at 8:49 p.m.), Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wheeler announced that for the second year in a row, the Administrative Services Department had received four certificates of award from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers for Excellence in Innovation 1995-96. She said that the 1995-96 Mission Driven Budget was awarded the Distinguished Budget Presentation on the national level by the Government Finance Officers Association. Ben Bailey, 343 Byron Street, spoke regarding police retaliation for complaints. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding fair play (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 16 AND JANUARY 17, 1996 MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of January 16, 1996, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Simitian absent. City Clerk Gloria Young announced that the Minutes of January 17, 1996, had been removed by staff. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 4, with Item No. 1 removed by Mayor Wheeler. 2. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and George E. Masker, Inc. for Lot Q Parking Garage Painting; change orders not to exceed $3,000. 3. Resolution 7577 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting Changes in the City of Palo Alto's Restricted Parking Zones in City Owned and Leased Parking Lots" 4. Revision to Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Western Area Power Administration re Allocation MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Simitian absent. 03/11/96 78-336 78-336 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 1 would become Item No. 8A. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5. Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.04 [Council Organization and Procedure] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Revised Regular Meeting Times for Standing Committees (contin-ued from 3/4/96) Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.04 [Council Organization and Procedure] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Modify Council Mail Processing Procedures (continued from 3/4/96) City Attorney Ariel Calonne explained that the Ordinance to Establish Revised Regular Meeting Times for Standing Committees had been changed to provide only one regular monthly meeting of the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee on the second Tuesday of the month. He said the language for Ordinance to Modify Council Mail Processing Procedures had not been changed. Council Member Schneider asked whether a member of the public or a Council Member had complained about the issue of the mail processing procedures. Mr. Calonne said some Council Members had questioned how well the Council was following that procedure. He said no other city was using the process that Palo Alto was using, so it was not an unusual request to simply have the Council retain correspondence when it knew the correspondence had been distributed to full Council rather than disclosing everything to the City Clerk. Council Member Schneider asked whether the proposed change might prevent the public from having the information available. Mr. Calonne said it was possible that the current procedure resulted in more disclosure than the proposed revision. The revised procedure stated that if the Council knew the document had been distributed to a majority of the Council, then it should be retained as public record. The current policy stated the City Council would determine whether it had been sent to a majority by giving the City Clerk a copy of all correspondence received. Council Member Schneider asked whether the change would still comply with the Brown Act. Mr. Calonne said no. The Council would bear the burden either way, and the Council might wish to direct staff to address the issue legislatively through the League of California Cities= process next 03/11/96 78-337 78-337 fall. The process was virtually impossible to assure compliance with because it meant that the mail received by a Council Member at his/her home that might not ever be seen by City staff would become public record. He felt the proposed revision was somewhat easier to deal with than weekly disclosures to the City Clerk. Council Member Andersen asked if the Ordinance were not changed and a constituent e-mailed to seven of the nine Council Members any correspondence, whether there could be any legal recourse by that person if the Council Members unknowingly failed to disclose the correspondence to the City Clerk. Mr. Calonne said the recourse would not be by the person who sent the correspondence but by someone who asked for a copy of the correspondence. He proposed that if someone asked for a communication to a majority of the Council regarding a certain subject which according to the Brown Act had to be a matter that would come before the Council on an agenda, staff would ask the Council whether it had received any correspondence on the matter. The e-mail issue added some complexity and should be discussed at a later date. Council Member Andersen said if the Council approved the recommendation, a Council Member could provide correspondence to the City Clerk that he/she suspected might have been given to a majority of the Council regardless of the language of the Ordinance. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. If the correspondence were transmitted to the City Clerk, it would probably become a public record. The law spoke to correspondence on an agenda item received by a majority of the Council. Council Members could disclose additional correspondence. MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to introduce the Ordinance for first reading. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.04 [Council Organiza-tion and Procedure] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Modify Council Mail Processing Procedures" MOTION PASSED 6-1, Fazzino "no," McCown, Simitian absent. Council Member Andersen encouraged the City Clerk to make any correspondence that was provided from a Council Member=s private mail to be made a public record. City Clerk Gloria Young responded that that would be her intent. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Schneider, to introduce the Ordinance for first reading. 03/11/96 78-338 78-338 Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 2.04 [Council Organiza-tion and Procedure] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish Revised Regular Meeting Times for Standing Commit-tees" MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Simitian absent. ORDINANCES 6. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Department of Planning and Community Environment for the Hiring of Contract Planners Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber noted that the City had had a contract planner program for several years that dealt with full cost recovery applications. The impact of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) project had made it necessary to supplement the budget that was adopted for the Planning Division, and any funds expended under the program would be recovered through application fees. There was no negative impact on the General Fund. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the Ordinance. Ordinance 4334 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for the Department of Planning and Community Environment for the Hiring of Contract Planners" MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Simitian absent. 7. Ordinance Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation to Conduct an Organiza-tional Review of the Utilities Department Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said page 3 of the staff report (CMR:159:96) under Project Schedule Step Two should be corrected to show the addition of electric to gas/water/wastewater. City Manager June Fleming referred to page 9 of Part II - Scope of Work or Services and said there were several items that related to the rates and transfers. She had been asked to clarify the role of the consultant in that regard. The organizational review would look at the organizational structure of the staffing levels related to the two issues and the effectiveness and efficiency of the way the Utilities were organized and staffed. She said it might be confusing since the Council recently received informational reports 03/11/96 78-339 78-339 that went to the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) that dealt with those two subjects. Utilities Advisory Commissioner Paul Johnston said in order to work on the scope of the proposal and on the review of the proposals, Council asked that a blue ribbon committee be impaneled to provide additional input from the community in addition to the UAC=s review. Four members served on that panel, and he felt their input was valuable and helpful. Council Member Kniss referred to page 9 of Part II - Scope of Work or Services that spoke about the comparisons that would be done with other California cities that owned municipal utilities. She asked how many California cities were comparable to Palo Alto and owned their own utilities. Mr. Mrizek said there were approximately 30 electric and 3 gas utilities in California. Staff might carry the study beyond the boundaries of the state into the northwest. Council Member Kniss asked how many of those cities had done a similar study. Mr. Mrizek said some cities were interested in doing a study, but none had been done with the detail as outlined in the City=s Request for Proposal (RFP). Los Angeles Water and Power had just completed a detailed study on its electric and water. Council Member Kniss clarified it was a new endeavor for the Utilities Department. Mr. Mrizek said that was correct for the four utilities. Council Member Andersen referred to page 3 of Part II - Scope of Work or Services, a description of budget and financial information, and the staff=s recommendations on page 1 of the staff report (CMR:159:96). He asked what was the basis for charging 10 percent to the wastewater fund and what was the breakdown of the various charges to the various utilities. Mr. Mrizek replied the charges were based on the number of employees and also the revenues from each of the four utilities. The electric was the largest and would pay the greatest share of the study. The study regarding deregulation would concentrate more in the electric area and far less in the wastewater area. Council Member Andersen was more concerned about the percentage for the wastewater than electric. Mr. Mrizek said the percentages were based on employees, e.g., 50 percent of the Utilities staff was in electric, and the charges were prorated accordingly. 03/11/96 78-340 78-340 Council Member Schneider said Theodore Barry and Associates (TBA) would be using Resource Management International (RMI) as a subcontractor, and she asked the relationship between TBA and RMI. Mr. Johnston said many teams that bid on the project included a subcontractor. Four of the eight companies that bid on the project were invited for interviews; and of the four companies, three companies had teaming arrangements that involved a senior or junior partner and subcontractor. Mayor Wheeler said the proposed Budget Amendment Ordinance before the Council that evening almost doubled the original amount approved by Council. Mr. Mrizek said staff did not know what the study would entail when the budget was prepared previously. A placeholder of $100,000 was put in the Utilities budget, but staff found that large utilities such as the Los Angeles Water and Power=s study cost over $200,000 and other studies cost between $100,000 to $200,000. The RFP was not prepared when the budget was approved the previous year. Staff knew the cost would be higher, but it did not know how much higher at the time. Ms. Fleming said the City had had little experience with organizational reviews. Staff based the estimate on its experience with the General Fund organizational review, but that review had better benchmarking because the process was done by a number of cities. The type of review proposed was unusual, and the City paid close attention to its utilities given its complexity. There were not many cities the staff could use to determine an accurate estimate of the cost. The caliber of the responses assured staff that the product would be good. MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Kniss, to adopt the Ordinance and approve the contract between the City of Palo Alto and Theodore Barry and Associates to Conduct an Organizational Review of the Utilities Department. Ordinance 4335 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1995-96 to Provide an Additional Appropriation to Conduct an Organiza-tional Review of the Utilities Department" Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Theodore Barry and Associates to Conduct an Organizational Review of the Utili-ties Department Council Member Rosenbaum said it was an important activity to undertake at the present time. As the spectrum of competition came closer, it was important to make certain that the Utility was operating in the most efficient manner possible with the current activities and that the City prepare itself for the competitive environment in the future. Santa Clara and Redding, other Northern 03/11/96 78-341 78-341 California Power Agency (NCPA) colleagues, were engaged in an electric study. He thanked the UAC for its efforts in selecting a consultant. The UAC was taking on the same role that was done by the Finance Committee for the Hughes, Heiss & Associates study. He appreciated the UAC=s willingness to take on the difficult assignment of reviewing the periodic reports. Council Member Andersen recalled that both the Finance Committee and the entire Council wanted to proceed with an organizational review of the Utilities Department previously. He was pleased that the City did not act at the time since it was apparent that more benefits would be derived from a focus on the more competitive environment. He asked in the future when an item had had significant review by the UAC, that the minutes of that particular review be attached to the staff report. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS Council Member Fazzino was concerned that the Council would take an appreciable amount on Item No. 8 and the Council should decide whether it would be able to consider action on Item No. 8A or continue it to another meeting. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to bring Item No. 8A (Old Item No. 1), Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Manage-ment Plan - Award of Construction Contract, forward for the purpose of a continuance. Council Member Fazzino asked that staff notify the neighborhood of the date change. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. 8A. (Old Item No. 1) Contract between the City of Palo Alto and M.C.E. Corporation for Installation of Lytton Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan for a Six-Month Trial Basis MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to continue the item to a future date to be determined by staff. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Simitian absent. 8. Response to Request for Proposal for Lease of the Arastradero Preserve Main House Real Property Manager William Fellman said the staff report (CMR:160:96) presented the responses to the Request for Proposal (RFP) for lease of the Arastradero Main House on the Arastradero Preserve (the Preserve). There were two responses to the RFP for 03/11/96 78-342 78-342 lease of the main house: The Children=s Tree House proposed a respite care home for deaf children and a basic living skills program for deaf teenagers; and Bay Area Action (BAA) proposed a stewardship of the Preserve that would create a wildlands restoration research center to facilitate the restoration, maintenance, and well being of the entire Preserve. A six-member staff committee representing five departments reviewed the proposals, interviewed the proposers, and recommended that both proposals be denied. The committee felt that The Children=s Tree House should be denied primarily on the basis of their inability to show they could finance the restoration of the main house and that the BAA proposal should be denied on the basis that their proposal to steward the entire preserve was larger than the scope of the original RFP for a long-term lease of the main house. The committee recommended that Council direct staff to explore the feasibility of a public/private agreement for maintenance of the Preserve that would be similar to the stewardship program outlined in the BAA proposal, report back to Council, and delay any action involving the main house and stable master=s quarters until Council had had an opportunity to review the response. If the concept appeared feasible, staff would return to Council with a draft RFP which would solicit responses on a public/private partnership for maintenance of the Preserve. The BAA proposal also contained a description of three alternative routes as an alterative to using John Martens Lane. Staff felt that none of those options should be considered. On March 6, 1996, staff received a letter from Theodore C. Carlstrom representing the Friends of Arastradero Preserve (the Friends). The Friends= alternative to contribute $350,000 toward the construction of a public facility on the Arastradero Road in exchange for removing the main house and other structures was not included in the staff report or analyzed by staff. If directed by Council, staff would pursue the alternative presented in the letter. Holly Kaslewicz, 2057 Amherst Street, said the public/private partnership concept had been a integral part of BAA=s use proposal to the City of Palo Alto. BAA=s mission statement directed the organization to work in a way that built coalition. BAA applauded the development of public/private partnership discussions and the new emphasis on cooperation and collaboration. BAA had worked in partnership with the City on numerous occasions, and the Preserve provided the next outstanding opportunity for BAA to combine its talents and strengths with those of the City and the community. The results would benefit everyone in the community. BAA had proven its ability to work with the City, the neighbors of the Preserve, and other groups in the community. She urged the Council to adopt a course of action which would end a 30-year impasse and approve the partnership recommended by the City staff (letter on file in the City Clerk=s Office). 03/11/96 78-343 78-343 David Smernoff, Chairperson of Bay Area Action Council, 340 Palo Alto Avenue, Mountain View, said he had been working with his colleagues on the development of the BAA/Arastradero Preserve proposal for over one year. The people who had worked on the proposal were initially disappointed in the City staff=s report. After reviewing the staff report, BAA understood the rationale for the recommendation and supported the recommendation that BAA and staff work together to craft a cooperative stewardship agreement. A public/private agreement would present an opportunity to develop something unique and show other communities how those types of cooperative partnerships could work. BAA felt there was an excellent opportunity to implement staff=s recommendation. Staff was concerned that BAA proposed to assume full management responsibility for the Preserve, but it was BAA=s intention to work cooperatively with the City staff and other concerned residents in the community. BAA did not fully appreciate difficulties of the distinction between the lease agreement for the home and the cooperative agreement. BAA recognized the need for those to be two separate items, a separate lease agreement for the facilities on the Preserve and a cooperative agreement for the stewardship of the lands of the Preserve. An additional complication in the decision related to the facilities on the Preserve. BAA had been in communication with the Friends and saw an opportunity to craft a win-win situation, and BAA was willing to discuss the full range of possibilities for the facilities on the Preserve, including the removal of the existing structures and replacement of those structures with suitable facilities which would serve community purposes. BAA recommended the Council accept BAA=s proposal contingent upon the following provisions: that BAA work with staff to develop the terms of a cooperative stewardship agreement; that staff, BAA, and the neighbors= groups work together to devise a facilities plan for the Preserve; and that both items be incorporated into a collaborative proposal and resubmitted to the Council for its final review. BAA wanted a time line established so that it could accomplish a revised collaborative by the end of July 1996. BAA believed its proposal offered a unique envisionary approach to the management of public lands and that the stewardship agreement could serve as a model for the rest of the country. He urged the Council to adopt an approach similar to the one provided by BAA so the process could move forward quickly to a successful conclusion. Council Member McCown asked whether BAA was still interested in pursuing the concept of a joint approach to the stewardship of the Preserve with the City of Palo Alto if the Council decided to remove the facilities from the Preserve. Mr. Smernoff said BAA would be interested in continuing the stewardship aspect of its proposal as well as being involved in the dismantling process, the design, and the construction of the new facility. If the facilities were dismantled, it would make it 03/11/96 78-344 78-344 more difficult to complete and conduct the type of programs proposed, e.g., classrooms, laboratories, office space. Council Member McCown clarified BAA would need some type of physical structure at the Preserve. Mr. Smernoff said that was correct. James Steinmetz, Project Leader, Bay Area Action, 750 Matadero Road, explained that he had had a lengthy involvement with BAA regarding the home on the Preserve. After he saw the home, he recognized it had vast utility. The house had an interesting configuration of materials that should be reused, and he encouraged staff to dismantle the existing structures. He said there had been some negative publicity regarding BAA=s involvement in the processes; but throughout the process, BAA had endeavored to maintain the highest level of civility, professionalism, and compassion for everyone concerned and had always intended to be collaborative and inclusive. The BAA had met with the neighbors on the issue and found that some neighbors supported BAA and others did understand BAA=s proposal. There was an opportunity to achieve something substantial, and he commended the Friends for coming forth with an alternative. He understood the staff=s recommendations and felt that since BAA=s efforts brought about the compromise, BAA should be a part of whatever facility was constructed. He hoped the proposal would include the utility that would make BAA=s stewardship proposal a reality. Council Member Kniss said dismantling a house was complicated. She asked Mr. Steinmetz what materials of value could be reused, what the process would be, and how much it would cost since recycling was more expensive. Mr. Steinmetz said most homes were dismantled from the roof down. A large portion of a home could be reused if dismantled correctly. There was a means within the region to reuse 90 percent of the home. Council Member Kniss said if the opportunity arose in the future, she wanted Mr. Steinmetz to outline the process in more detail. She felt the paneling and flooring in the home had some value and she did not want it destroyed. Mr. Steinmetz felt the roof materials would have to be disposed of, but the brick chimneys were valuable and could be used in pathways, retaining walls, or reused with masonry. He explained how some of the other materials could be recycled. Council Member Kniss clarified that the process being described was expensive. She asked whether dismantling was still cost effective. 03/11/96 78-345 78-345 Mr. Steinmetz said the costs depended on the time frame. It would be more expensive at a later date if landfills continued to be used for materials from demolished homes. However, he believed there were sufficient volunteers to dismantle the home at an extremely low cost and a high savings. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the proposal from the Friends would address BAA=s interest in providing stewardship of the property. Mr. Steinmetz said the stewardship would be possible. He felt strongly that a facility was important, and the recreation of a facility was the recreation of a public asset. The new facility should meet the needs of BAA in order for it to carry out the appropriate stewardship as well as the suggestions of the Friends. Council Member Andersen said if an alternative facility were constructed, what amount of square footage would be necessary to carry out BAA=s program. Mr. Steinmetz said BAA would need approximately 2,500 to 4,000 square feet to carry out the stewardship proposal. Council Member Andersen asked what was the cost of construction, including land value. Mr. Steinmetz said the cost range was $125 to $175 per square foot. There were examples of buildings that were energy efficient, saved money for the long term, and were built out of recycled materials that also saved money. Council Member Andersen said the recycling element would provide a model for the entire community, but he was concerned about whether $350,000 would sufficiently cover the construction cost for a facility. Mr. Steinmetz said the cost would depend on the stipulations for a public facility, e.g., structural, safety, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations, the quality of the construction, and whether there would be a mix of both paid professionals as well volunteers to participate in the construction. BAA hoped the money proposed would be used as a seed fund, and BAA would attempt to double or triple that amount. Any money that was not used for the construction would hopefully be funneled back into the maintenance and stewardship of the Preserve. Council Member Schneider asked whether the BAA was still interested in a stewardship in partnership with the City if the Council decided to demolish the structures and not build a facility on the Preserve. 03/11/96 78-346 78-346 Mr. Steinmetz said yes, but it would be more difficult. BAA currently performed stewardship and restoration throughout the Bay Area. A facility would be necessary to educate and train people and to research how it could be better done in the future. Council Member Schneider clarified the City of Palo Alto and the Friends would provide a facility for all of BAA=s activities. Mr. Steinmetz said no. A facility larger than 4,000 square feet would be required for all BAA=s activities. BAA wanted to stage the majority of its restoration efforts that pertained to that region. The Preserve abutted the Foothills Parklands, the Foothills Parklands abutted the Los Trancos Open Space Preserve land, etc., and all of the areas were connected due to the decisions made regarding open space. BAA wanted to stage from the point on Arastradero Road hopefully where a new facility would be created. Jerry Hearn, Member, member of Bay Area Action Advisory Board, 144 El Nido Road, Portola Valley, said the Loma Prieta Chapter supported the BAA=s proposal and was willing to devote time, money, and effort to support the proposal in the future. Environmental programs had changed significantly over the last five or six years, and the new environmental movement was toward collaboration. Opportunities needed to be created for people to experience nature without destroying it. He believed BAA=s proposal reflected an effort to be inclusive and an understanding that people could not be excluded from the land if the hope were for them to preserve it. BAA>s proposal had gone beyond what was being requested. He suggested the Council create a mini-coordinated resource management and planning team for the Preserve and invite all the stakeholders to discuss a plan that would effectively represent all the interests of everyone involved. He felt BAA had the facility, youth, energy, and the vision to move the project along. He strongly suggested that BAA be included in whatever decision the Council made (letter on file in the City Clerk=s Office). Janet Hecht, M.D., Executive Director, The Children's Tree House, 4260 Terman Drive No. 107, said the purpose for the house was to provide respite care for up to six deaf children per weekend and up to six deaf teenagers per week during the summer which would allow approximately 300 deaf children to be served each year. A respite care home would be a place for the children to go to be with other deaf children of the same age and to learn social skills while giving parents a needed break. The committee indicated that The Children=s Tree House did not have the financial backing, but it had 90 percent of the items and labor from in-kind donations. The Children=s Tree House had hoped to work with BAA so that the house could be used for its programs and BAA could be the stewardships for the land. She was sorry the $350,000 would only be given to the City if the house were destroyed. Their program was ideal for 03/11/96 78-347 78-347 the Preserve, and the traffic, environmental, and noise impact would have been low and would have served a real need in the community. It would have been the first respite care program in California. The house would have been a perfect location for the program, and she hoped the Council would remember The Children=s Tree House if another facility became available in the future. Council Member Andersen commended The Children=s Tree House for the extraordinary effort it put into the RFP. He asked whether The Children=s Tree House could take advantage of the facilities that might be provided if a structure were available that had primarily an environmental element to it. Dr. Hecht said family programs were currently being done, but it would be difficult to transport six children to the site for only one day. Council Member Andersen asked whether the limit was six children. Dr. Hecht said the state license for a small family home was six children. Chris Whitaker, 4284 Manuela, encouraged the Council to support BAA. BAA had a substantial track record in habitat restoration. He had personally worked on many projects with BAA. BAA also had a proven track record on volunteer coordination and fund-raising for a variety of programs. The partnership had a potential for educating other municipalities, private citizens= groups and organizations, and students from Palo Alto and the surrounding Bay Area. BAA was also involved in electric vehicles, school groups, and community gardens in Palo Alto and East Palo Alto; and it made sure there was a coordinated event on Earth Day each year. He hoped the City would set an example for other cities and states and take a leadership position in that kind of endeavor. Bill Terry, 925 Laurel Glen Drive, endorsed the staff=s recommendation to reject the proposals because they were not in keeping with an open space preserve but not to reject the goals of BAA or The Children=s Tree House. He was concerned about the public process to negotiate a new direction for the City. He felt it should be done without structures and as an adjunct to a true open space preserve. He urged the Council to move quickly and give the community the open space preserve and an appropriate platform and a foundation of which to consider new innovative ideas. Jan Terry, President, Palo Alto Hills Neighborhood Association, 925 Laurel Glen Drive, said the Palo Alto Hills Neighborhood Association had not been called or received a letter from the BAA. She said a petition was signed by 132 people from her neighborhood, other Palo Altans, and people from Portola Valley, Menlo Park, and Mountain View which stated, ΑWe urged the City of 03/11/96 78-348 78-348 Palo Alto Council to vote on March 11 to keep the Arastradero Preserve an open space available to all who want to use it and keep their promise not to develop more roads or to give this resource to special interest groups. The Council voted in 1995 to remove the structures and to sustain the open space concept. The Council voted to fund the demolition of the structures in 1996. We encourage the City Council to remember their commitments and remove the structures and impede the full realization of this concept of open space.≅ John Law, 830 Los Trancos Road, said the house was an excellent location for the educational project proposed by BAA. He believed serious consideration should be given to the value of the house in its present location and what the public would lose if the house were removed. There should be a relationship between the real value that the public would lose and what the public would gain from a new facility on Arastradero Road (letter on file in the Clerk=s Office) Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, suggested the Council reject both proposals as being nonresponsive to the RFP and also reject the proposal to accept the bribe to demolish the house from the neighbors. The City=s property was worth more than $350,000. He suggested staff enter into negotiations with BAA to reconstruct its proposal so that the use of the property would only have access to the Preserve along John Martens Lane. BAA should be given an opportunity to demonstrate financial adequacy for its proposal. The uses should be limited to low intensity and not require many visitors, e.g., the demonstration garden. The terms of the lease should initially be five years with additional terms predicated on the amount of capital investment made. The request that the $90,000 demolition money be diverted to BAA for improvement of the house should not be approved. After negotiations, if it became beneficial to the City and the community to use the $90,000 for the Preserve and the house, then it would be appropriate to do so. The City should enter into a separate discussion relative to the stewardship proposal because there had not been enough opportunity for the City to investigate what might or might not be appropriate. Public/private partnerships were not new in the City. The Council should ensure that the intensity was low and that the City had the final decision on how the operation proceeded. Jonathan Scott, Bay Area Action Council Member, 12 Maywood Lane, Menlo Park, had served as a volunteer on the Arastradero Project. He felt that all of the goals could best be served by a collaboration. He urged the Council to look extremely favorably upon any such collaboration between the City of Palo, BAA, and the Friends of Arastradero Preserve. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, believed the Council should reject both proposals. The houses should be demolished because the houses interfered with the adopted Council policy of creating a low-intensity minimal-cost park with emphasis on natural and open space 03/11/96 78-349 78-349 amenities of the land and sensitivity to the fragile foothills ecology. Maintaining the open space character of the Preserve should take precedent over keeping the houses on the Preserve and also building new structures on the Preserve. The actions of the neighbors of John Martens Lane to seek demolition of the houses on dedicated parkland was consistent with prior actions of neighbors of houses on other dedicated parkland in the City. The Friends described its intent to donate a significant amount of money to the City for open space purposes on the Preserve, and he believed the Council should determine how the funds should be spent to benefit the Preserve after the houses were demolished. He understood from his earlier conservation with Mr. Carlstrom that the group wanted to be assured of the restoration of the habitat on the sites of the demolished houses, and it was unclear whether that restoration was included in the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) 19532 for demolition. The Preserve would benefit more if the donated funds were combined with City funds to implement the Arastra Citizens Advisory Committee=s recommendation to provide two full-time park rangers on the Preserve. Park rangers were needed to enforce appropriate use of trails so that money spent on trail maintenance, habitat restoration, and removal of the evasive species was not wasted when trails were widened and new trails created by members of the public because there were no ranger presence on the Preserve. He believed most of the proposed programs by BAA were too intense, and other groups could handle the programs that needed to be done under the supervision of the park rangers with advice from a recreated citizens advisory committee (letter on file in the Clerk=s Office). Debbie Mytels, 2824 Louis Road, felt the Council had a fantastic opportunity to look into the stewardship of the land, to restore it and the housing area to its natural state, and to allow proper usage by the public. Council also had an opportunity to create a new public/private partnership model for the City. The resources provided by a neighborhood group who wanted to enhance the Preserve would provide additional dollars for the volunteer effort and the support group for the Arastradero project proposed by BAA. A model project could be rebuilding a new building with reused materials. There might be an opportunity to use other volunteer groups on the restoration such as the California Conservation Core or Youth Built which was a nationwide program that put low-income youths through a training program to do restoration of old buildings. She felt it would be a mistake to reopen the RFP process and suggested the Council direct staff to enter into negotiations with BAA and the Friends to come up with a project that would include fund-raising, dismantling and reusing the materials in the house to create an educational facility at Arastradero Road, a long-term restoration plan for the site, and education of the public about the stewardship of the land under the appropriate guidance of the City staff. 03/11/96 78-350 78-350 Ted Carlstrom, 525 University Avenue, No. 1200, said the proposal from the Friends of Arastradero Preserve was very simple. It was committed to the idea of the restoration of the open space on the Preserve, the support of existing actions of the Council, and the recommendations of the staff. The Friends was not an organization but a description of an effort of a group of diverse individuals who had a common interest in the Preserve. The group was not in a position of conducting negotiations or of collaborative efforts. The group had one offer that had been set forth in his letter dated March 6, 1996, (letter on file in the Clerk=s Office) which would begin the open space restoration process by the removal of the existing structures in the Preserve. After completion of the removal by an appropriate arrangement of the Council, there would be multiple gifts of $350,000 to the City either through a community foundation or directly. The purpose and dedication of those gifts was for the open space preserve. If there should be a surplus from the process of restoration of the open space, the remaining funds could be used to construct or seed the construction of a modest entry or gateway structure to the Preserve. The group did not want to design the structure, and that would be left to the City=s prerogative as long as it served the public=s interest. The gifts were not conditional upon any particular size or character of structure being built on the Preserve or near the Preserve. The gifts would enable the first step in the restoration of the open space preserve. After that was complete, the rest would be left to the City. Council Member Andersen said BAA had indicated it wanted to work collaborative with the Friends to determine some specifics. Mr. Carlstrom said the Friends was a group of disparate individuals that described themselves as friends but there was no formal organization. He suggested that the collaboration should be between the City and any private group that the City wished to negotiate with, not with a group of individuals who would be required to participate in an organizational process. Council Member Andersen asked what would happen if the Council wanted to prevent the demolition of the structure until there was some consensus with the City, BAA, and the neighbors. Mr. Carlstrom said the Friends= proposal would fund the previous action by the Council to demolish the structures but would also go a step further and restore the open space with natural habitat. It was a group of individuals commonly motivated who wanted to contribute to the Council=s prior action. Simply, the group guaranteed a certain financial commitment. Vice Mayor Huber said the proposal did not express a particular time frame. 03/11/96 78-351 78-351 Mr. Carlstrom explained that Αnow≅ was indicated in the cover letter. Vice Mayor Huber clarified there was no particular time, but there was a comment that sooner was better than later. Mr. Carlstrom said that was correct. He suggested that the decisions to restore the open space should not be held hostage to other developments. If it were a value judgment of the Council that had been expressed previously to restore the open space, the means were there and could be achieved. The group deferred to the City its judgment regarding the design of the structure. Vice Mayor Huber asked whether the Friends were interested in how the City defined the low intensity use if and when the structures were removed. Mr. Carlstrom said the founding idea that coalesced the individuals was the commitment that Arastra was an open space with low-impact use. The Friends had not indicated an interest in how the City defined that use. Council Member Rosenbaum said it was not often that a group of people offered the City $350,000 to vote in a way that they desired. He asked whether $350,000 was a firm amount. Mr. Carlstrom said the individuals did not seek to buy the Council=s vote but to fund a previous Council action based on the staff=s recommendation which appeared to be endangered. Loose suggestions as had been made of the beneficence of interested citizens in public capital improvements should not be encouraged. The sum of money proposed was the chemistry of the individuals involved and the discussions that he and John Northway had with those individuals. There was a sensitivity that their intentions would be misconstrued. If the intentions were misconstrued in that fashion, the offer would be redrawn. Council Member McCown said the Council=s previous action was to spend $90,000 to remove the structures, and the BAA had proposed a use for the structure but had also made a proposal to dismantle the structure and reuse the materials in another facility. She clarified if the City decided it wanted to remove the structures but to accept BAA=s concept of recycling the materials and together with BAA build a new interpretive center near Arastradero Road, the Friends would have no objection to that process and the use of the moneys that had been put forward for that plan. Mr. Carlstrom said that was correct. He clarified the Friends did not want to participate in the development of a new structure. Council Member McCown clarified if the City arrived at a plan that met the Friends= goal of restoration of the Preserve by removing the structures and restoring the Preserve back to its natural 03/11/96 78-352 78-352 condition, there was a willingness to donate the $350,000 to that ultimate goal. Mr. Carlstrom said that was correct. The funds were a donation to those costs. He said if there were salvage operations in connection with the quality materials after the demolition of the structures, there would be a surplus. A bigger surplus would produce a better building. Council Member McCown clarified that was a new facility near the road for park use. Mr. Carlstrom said that was correct. Marie-Louise Starling-Bell, Emerson Street, spoke regarding recycling. She suggested the Council speak with the people who had worked for the Duveneck Foundation regarding the proposal. She said BAA or whatever group ended up being stewards of the Preserve should find ways for people to use the park without generating more traffic. A partnership was important. RECESS: 9:44 P.M. - 10:02 P.M. Council Member McCown expressed the appreciation of the entire Council for the testimony heard that evening from interested members of the public and proposers and also the written materials received as well regarding the care and concern for the importance of the City=s resource, the Arastradero Preserve. There was the possibility of pulling together some pieces in a way that would ultimately be of significant long-term benefit for the community. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, that the City Council adopt the staff recommendation to reject both proposals and further, to direct the staff to take the following implementation steps not necessarily in the order listed: 1) Proceed with the removal of the structure utilizing the prior budget funding of $90,000 with the focus on the reuse and recycling of the materials from the structures and report back to the Council prior to the removal of the structure; 2) Pursue the implementation of the habitat restoration in the areas where the structures are currently located; 3) Explore the potential for a new modest facility as a gateway to the Arastradero Preserve with the potential reuse of the materials from the existing structure; 4) Explore the possibility of a public/private partnership for both the structural work and habitat restoration implementation steps and with respect to the "stewardship" concept; and 5) Pursue with the individuals represented by Attorney Theodore Carlstrom their contribution of $350,000 to the City in connection with carrying out the steps in the recommendation. 03/11/96 78-353 78-353 Council Member Simitian asked whether the steps would be sequential. He might be troubled by the notion of raising the house first and then exploring the $350,000 contribution. Council Member McCown said her intent was not for the steps to be sequential. She wanted a package of steps the staff would pursue in an integrated order. Knowledge would be available at the beginning of the process so that the City would have the assistance of neighbors of the Preserve in funding the project. Council Member Simitian clarified it was the maker=s and seconder=s intent that before the facility were raised that firm commitments for the $350,000 would be in hand. Council Member McCown wanted those details left up to staff. The intent of the motion was for the City to take the lead and pull together the ideas that had come from many different directions in a manner that was consistent with the ultimate goals and purposes of the Preserve. Council Member Schneider was impressed with the level of thoughtfulness of the people who had spoken that evening. The process had been in progress for about 20 to 30 years. She hoped that after the evening's discussion and after staff returned to Council, there would be a conclusion reached that satisfied all parties. Council Member Rosenbaum said staff recommended part of what Council Member McCown was proposing, but staff also suggested delaying any action involving the Main House and stable master quarters until there had been an opportunity to review the stewardship concept. He questioned why Council Member McCown felt it was important to include giving the authority to remove the structure at the present time. Council Member McCown said the order of the points in the motion was not intended to direct staff to take the structures down first. The different points had to be integrated and coordinated by staff. She expected staff to develop some of the other points before proceeding with the removal of the structures, including confirming financial assistance from the neighbors. The future use of the Preserve and the habitat restoration might be another piece to put in place before removal of the structures. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether Council=s direction gave staff the discretion to demolish the property when staff thought the other elements had been taken care of or whether that was a later decision for Council. Council Member McCown said as a policy direction, the motion directed staff to pursue the removal of the structures. She believed a status report as to how everything would come together 03/11/96 78-354 78-354 before removal was a good idea. The other part of her motion was that there would be an attempt to reuse and recycle the materials from the removal of the house and to pursue the type of interests heard that evening from BAA. There should not be an action to move forward with change in the structures until the whole package was put together. Council Member Rosenbaum asked whether it should be made clear that staff would return to Council before removal. Council Member McCown would support a report on how the package would be put together before actual implementation with regard to the structures. Ms. Fleming said staff had to return to Council to accept the gift. Staff would not proceed assuming that it had authority. Another issue was when to bring to Council a proposed work plan that would show Council the way staff intended to proceed. Staff would bring back the proposed work plan with a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) if it were ready at the same time. Mr. Calonne did not believe City staff would do the work, so a contract would need Council=s approval. Council Member Andersen clarified the tenor of the motion included the use of volunteers or representatives from the environmental community in the restoration and perhaps the dismantling of the buildings. Council Member McCown said yes. She had expanded on staff's recommendation of the possible stewardship idea by making a point to explore the use of a public/private partnership concept in implementing the dismantling and habitat restoration steps. She believed all steps would have the potential for use of volunteers. However, she wanted staff's advice and judgment based on its knowledge of the Preserve and what the package might look like. Council Member Andersen asked if an environmental group would be able to bid for the contract to dismantle. Council Member McCown said the City could contract for the way in which the structures were removed. Council Member Andersen recognized the City had restrictions on bonding and issues of liability, etc. He hoped the City did not limit itself to construction crews when the City could involve the environmental community in the process. Council Member McCown wanted to keep the motion broad. She did not want to rule out the idea of a public/private partnership which would require some creativity because it was a new area. 03/11/96 78-355 78-355 Ms. Fleming said staff had a policy, based on Council policy, that anything done at the Preserve would involve environmental groups and users of the Preserve. Nothing would be done without making sure those persons and volunteers were involved and had input. Staff had not violated that policy. Council Member Simitian asked if that philosophy was respected when the City had the utility road issue. Ms. Fleming said no; the policy was recently put in place. She believed staff had corrected previous actions. Mayor Wheeler clarified there had been sensitivity since that time. Council Member Andersen said money could be spent either on lawyer fees or on trying to come up with a win-win situation that was environmentally appropriate. He believed the City had an opportunity to provide benefits to the community in a way that made more sense in terms of access and workability. He supported the motion. Council Member Kniss previously voted against destroying the house. She was pleased that there were real possibilities and hoped more than just Mr. Steinmetz would be involved in the recycling, dismantling, and reusing. The house was a fascinating piece of property, and the City had struggled with it for a long time. She recalled there were five votes last time to destroy the house in any event before going to a Request for Proposal (RFP). There had been at least two lawsuits associated with it through the years. In addition, there had been a number of uneasy times among those who lived in the area, those who hiked there, and those who wanted to reuse the house. She was pleased the money would go toward restoration, but the cost of the restoration was unknown at the present time. It would take a fair amount of money to return a large piece of land to some type of natural habitat. There was a pool on the property, and there would be a number of other reconstructions that would need to be done. It would be interesting to know how the group arrived at $350,000 for restoration, but it was gratifying to have a group come forward and offer to help with that restoration. She supported the motion. Council Member Simitian said there was no explicit mention in the motion of BAA in terms of the exploration of a public/private partnership with respect to the removal of the structures and the concept of stewardship. He asked whether that was Council Member McCown's intent. Council Member McCown said yes; she intended a general recommendation. She did not intend to direct staff that it had to negotiate with BAA to do all those things. However, she strongly hoped and fully expected, given the interest and enthusiasm 03/11/96 78-356 78-356 expressed by BAA, that BAA would be the logical organization pursued with those ideas. Council Member Simitian said the two reasons Council had the proposal that evening were: 1) that the Council held off on authorizing the demolition and the neighbors who made the offer realized there was a chance Council might approve a use for the site and 2) that BAA brought forth a genuinely competitive proposal notwithstanding staff's recommendation and the neighbors were motivated by the combination of the Council's action and the proposal from BAA. Therefore, he was sympathetic to BAA's desire to follow up on the concept of stewardship. He asked if it were Council Member's notion that it could and should happen but that Council did not need to take any formal action to make that happen. Council Member McCown said yes. Council Member Simitian understood that staff would return to the Council prior to action to dismantle the house. He asked if the maker and seconder of the motion would be willing to incorporate a requirement that staff return to Council before finalizing any financial agreement with respect to the offer from the Friends group. He believed the Council needed to retain authority over the amount and the terms that were acceptable to the City as the policy-making body in that regard. Council Member McCown said that was what she understood staff would do. Council Member Simitian asked if the maker and seconder would be comfortable in making that an explicit direction. Council Member McCown understood the City Manager and the City Attorney to say that a proposal to accept a gift, a work plan, and any contract proposals to do any of the dismantling would have to return to the Council. Council Member Simitian clarified the proposal to accept the gift had to be approved by the Council prior to any authorization for dismantling of the structure. Council Member McCown said that was correct. Council Member Simitian believed it was a simpler issue than what the length of commentary and papers in the Council packet indicated. He also believed it was a happier occasion than what the Αdowncast faces≅ indicated. There could be an enhanced facility which provided real public benefit that somebody else was willing to pay for, and there was a group of people who were prepared to provide stewardship for the site. There could be an end to the 20 years of wrangling, and it was a good place. He credited the Council for hanging tough to see what it could make 03/11/96 78-357 78-357 happen. He credited BAA for putting together a proposal that motivated would-be contributors, and he credited the would-be contributors for saying it made more sense to find a solution than to resort to extended litigation. He had been frustrated over the years by the recommendations to simply demolish. He had opposed that action because he felt it was wasteful. Setting aside all the environmental discussion, whether the house was thought to be worth $100,000, $350,000, or $750,000, he thought it was wasteful. The City currently had a situation in which a group of people had said they were prepared to subsidize it in order to achieve a benefit for themselves in terms of the quality of life and their residences. If the City could get all the benefits he described at the outset and someone else was prepared to accommodate that, he agreed with Council Members Rosenbaum and Andersen to move in that direction. He had always felt there was a use there that was consistent with the property rights of adjacent neighbors and that there was a use that could work there consistent with the policies established for the open space and the Preserve. There were differences of opinion, but he believed those differences of opinion could be left behind, and everyone would end up with all the benefits that had been articulated. He asked whether staff needed further clarification. Ms. Fleming said yes, on one issue. Staff understood that in terms of the item related to the public/private partnership, BAA was one of the groups to contact, but it was not the only group to contact. Council Member McCown said that was the intent of the motion. Vice Mayor Huber said the property had been in the hands of the City for some time and had a low-intensive use. The City was currently at a point where it could accomplish what he always believed should be done, which was low-intensity use. He had been prepared to remove that facility primarily because he did not think it was compatible with the Preserve. For whatever reason, perhaps the conflux of various interests, the City was in a position to accomplish even more than what Council Member Simitian had suggested. He believed the proposal was an excellent one, and he would support the motion. The City needed to look at the idea of public/private partnership in that particular area. The information before Council was not clear as to the intensity of use proposed by BAA and by others. There were very interesting and good proposals being made. He had indicated to Mr. Carlstrom that one man=s intensity was perhaps converse to another man=s. He was very interested in what that would mean. He complimented the BAA for its excellent work and ideas. He believed that through some process, a partnership could work in all probability with BAA. He also wanted to compliment Janet Hecht of The Children's Tree House for her efforts over the many months to find a location. He never believed the Preserve was necessarily an appropriate location for that use, but he hoped Dr. Hecht would find something in the future that would work. 03/11/96 78-358 78-358 Council Member Fazzino said about 30 years ago, there was a battle to save the property from Sunset properties or homes located in Beverly Hills. It had been 19 years since the Arastra Property lawsuit was settled. The City purchased the property, and the battle began to determine future City use of it. By virtue of dedicating the property as open space soon after it was purchased in 1977, in 1982 the Council committed itself to low-intensity and environmentally sensitive use of the property as well as the 77 acres across the street from it. He was really pleased that the decibel level of rhetoric surrounding the issue has been lowered to the degree that all could agree on the outstanding motion provided by Council Member McCown. He applauded Janet Hecht for her tireless work. On behalf of deaf children, he wished her well in finding a permanent facility and hoped the City could be helpful, but he did not believe the site was right. BAA's record of accomplishment in restoring the habitat was outstanding. BAA had provided countless examples in the proposal. He was very excited with the prospect of BAA=s playing a leadership role in environmental stewardship of the property, but his concerns for BAA's proposal had primarily to do with the large number of programs being proposed for the site, the extensive use of the house, and the resultant road alternatives which could present legal and environmental problems. Unfortunately to many, retention of the house at the current location was an obstacle to implementation of a long-term, environmentally sensitive program for the entire Arastra Property. He was very pleased with the direction suggested by the staff, which he agreed was a win-win situation. BAA was a logical partner for environmental stewardship of the Arastra Property. He did not have any problems with the general nature of the motion, and he believed it was logical which direction the City needed to go. If a recycled facility were located closer to the existing road, many of his environmental and road concerns would be addressed. He was delighted by the prospect of accepting $350,000 from well meaning citizens to build such a facility to accommodate BAA's stewardship concept. He applauded everybody for working together on it, and he believed that future generations of Palo Altans would thank everybody for the work that evening. Council Member Rosenbaum said it seemed that the tenor of the agenda item had shifted over the months. Initially, Council was interested in finding a satisfactory use for the house. Council that evening was discussing stewardship for the property, and clearly the house had become of secondary importance. However, it was important to remember Mr. Steinmetz= comments. The City was at the current point in large measure because of BAA=s action. BAA was interested in stewardship, but it wanted to have the facility to work out of. He wanted to think that a modest structure would be sufficient to provide BAA with a facility so the public/private partnership could be pursued. Mr. Steinmetz wanted to pursue the Knapp Cutoff all the way to the road, but he did not think that was 03/11/96 78-359 78-359 promising. The road ideas were not very good, but he hoped BAA and the City could work together. He thanked Mr. Steinmetz and BAA for their efforts. Mayor Wheeler said there was a wonderful and unique opportunity presented that evening. The City had an opportunity to take advantage of people who were willing to commit monetary resources to move the Preserve in the direction for which it was originally intended. There were also other people who were willing to commit their time, energy, environmental expertise, and voluntary labor to move the Preserve in the direction for which it was originally intended. There had been some discussion about the adequacy of the amount of money that had been offered for the project, but much of the deconstruction would be accomplished with volunteer labor, which would make the $350,000 go a whole lot further. She was pleased about the involvement of BAA in the plan and that Council Member McCown explained the generality of her motion. There were probably other groups in the community willing and able to assist in accomplishing the work at the Preserve, and their efforts should be welcomed. Through the formal process, the City had heard from at least one of the former members of the Arastradero Advisory Committee, which was formed when the Preserve became City property. There were a couple of other members of that committee who were still active in the community and who might be willing to contribute some time to make sure the project stayed focused on the original vision for the use of the Preserve. She was enthusiastic about what would come back in a few months as a real proposal for catching up on some work that would not have been done in a timely fashion were it not for the commitment of monetary resources from outside of the City coffers as well as the pledge and commitment of community volunteers to assist in moving forward. MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS 9. Council Members Andersen, Fazzino, and Simitian re Caltrans Project to Install Ramp Metering Along U.S. Route 101 and Intent to Delete the Portion of the Project to Install a New On-Ramp at San Antonio Road and Related Changes to the Charleston Road/San Antonio Road Intersection Council Member Andersen said the startling staff report (CMR:134:96) indicated that the comprehensive approach originally agreed to by Caltrans, City staff, and others that involved a southbound on-ramp onto 101 at San Antonio Road, along with other changes to the Charleston Road/San Antonio Road intersection, had been dropped to simply allow for installation of ramp metering. He believed that the City would lose a great deal without that integrated plan. It was only appropriate that Caltrans had the opportunity to explain to the community how the abbreviated approach would be beneficial to the community. He was reminded of 03/11/96 78-360 78-360 San Francisco that if it had not been for members of that community screaming loudly, that city would be covered with freeways. He believed it was appropriate that the issue be given a public hearing, and that the City had an opportunity to discuss the issues with Caltrans officials. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Simitian, to: 1) direct staff to schedule the item for the City Council Meeting of April 15, 1996, or as soon as possible thereafter; 2) invite representatives from Caltrans to be present at the Council meeting to share information on the project; and 3) reissue the most recent staff report (CMR:134:96). Council Member Simitian said he disagreed with Council Member Andersen only to the extent that the staff report was startling. He thought it was predictable given the record that Caltrans had on that type of issue. He wanted to explain why his name was on the memo and what he hoped to accomplish. It had been his observation that there was a certain resignation on staff=s part about the powers of Caltrans and the City's inability to have much impact. He believed it was worth having a discussion with Caltrans. The City might have a modest impact on what Caltrans did. He wanted to try to get some reassurances about what Caltrans was or was not planning. It was important that the City build a public record about what Caltrans' commitments were and what commitments would remedy any problems that process created because if the City ended up in a protracted discussion with Caltrans about the impact of the situation on the community, the City would want to have that record laid out ahead of time. He asked that staff be enthusiastic about engaging Caltrans in the discussion. It was important to get as much from Caltrans on the record as the City possibly could so that commitments were there that the City could look to in later years. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 10. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Wheeler announced that the Mayor's Round Table Forum on Escalating Rents had been scheduled for Saturday, March 30, 1996, from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. at the Mitchell Park Community Center. She announced that the City Attorney's Office would provide staff time toward setting the parameters with respect to the City's ability to act on the issue, specifically the 60-day notice procedure. Council Member Fazzino requested an analysis of Senator Jim Costa's legislation passed last year. Council Member Schneider congratulated the City Manager and her husband on their 30th wedding anniversary. Council Member Simitian asked about the status of permit streamlining item. 03/11/96 78-361 78-361 City Manager June Fleming said it was scheduled for the Monday, April 8, 1996, City Council Meeting. City Manager June Fleming announced that Albert Wilson, a past Palo Altan, who was well known as a gardening guru and for his show "Dig It with Albert," died unfortunately near the San Francisquito Creek. He would be remembered by many people in the community. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:04 p.m. in memory of Albert Wilson. 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. 03/11/96 78-362 78-362