HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-05-13 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting May 13, 1996 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................79-141 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Sandra Eakins for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art Commission............................................79-142 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Susan Wexler for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art Commission............................................79-143 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................79-144 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26 AND 29, 1996 ...........79-144 3. Final Report from Ralph Andersen and Associates re North County Fire Services Consolidation Study - Refer to Policy and Services Committee....................................79-145 4. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation....79-145 5. Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.57 of Title 4 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Firearms Dealers............79-145 6. Proposed Work Plan for Implementation of Council Direction for Arastradero Preserve Project.........................79-148 7. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........79-159 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. to a Closed Session...............................................79-159 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.......79-159
05/13/96 79-140
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, Huber (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), Kniss (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: McCown ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CLOSED SESSIONS 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Michael Jackson, Rodger Jensen, Susan Ryerson, Tony Sandhu, Larry Starr, Paul Thiltgen, John Walton) Represented Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union, Local 715 (SEIU) Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiations as described in Agenda Item No. 1. Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 1. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
05/13/96 79-141
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:20 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ABSENT: McCown SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Sandra Eakins for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art Commission Mayor Wheeler read the Resolution. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the Resolution.
Resolution 7585 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Sandra Eakins for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art
Commission≅ Council Member Schneider said Sandra Eakins raised the Public Art Commission (PAC) up to the level it was at. Ms. Eakins was a tireless worker and great art appreciator and had found the current members of the PAC, who were an exciting group of people and who set examples for other boards and commissions to follow. Council Member Fazzino said he was pleased to recognize Ms. Eakins and was delighted Ms. Eakins decided to continue her public service on the Planning Commission. He was sure Ms. Eakins would serve the community for many years in different capacities. He was saddened that Susan Wexler was leaving the PAC. The PAC had a remarkable era. He could not think of a time when the PAC was as highly visible in the community. The PAC was instrumental in increasing significantly the number and type of public artworks in the community. It was the first PAC in ten years to be successful in increasing the annual budget. It was also the PAC which spent a long time on the objective of increasing public art and came to Council with a compromise over the controversial percent for arts issue. Ms. Eakins deserved great credit for successfully incorporating the concept of public art in the Comprehensive Plan, which was a major step forward. He could not think of another PAC which had had excellent relationships with the staff, Council, and community. Most importantly, the PAC had provided and would continue to provide a greater appreciation of art as an ethic. Ms. Wexler, while being a remarkable artist in her own right, was comfortable with and successful at working through the labyrinths of City government and achieving her objective that the City provide a much greater commitment to public art. He thanked
05/13/96 79-142
Ms. Eakins and Ms. Wexler for their outstanding contributions and the differences they made on the PAC. Council Member Kniss said Ms. Eakins and Ms. Wexler had different backgrounds and abilities and had made a big difference for the Council and for the City. Ms. Eakins, who had a background in helping run political campaigns, understood the system in Palo Alto and that the most important product was process. Ms. Wexler, on the other hand, brought something quite different as an accomplished artist. It was important for the City to know that when the Council chose applicants to serve, it tried to balance them by finding people who brought a unique contribution. The City
had been very fortunate to have Ms. Eakins= and Ms. Wexler=s contributions. The art in the City demonstrated and reflected that changes had taken place. She hoped Ms. Wexler would consider service again in the future. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Sandra Eakins said it was inspiring to hear all the wonderful remarks. There were so many responsive members of the staff in all departments, and working with Director of Arts and Culture Leon Kaplan was a remarkable and rewarding experience. She learned a great deal. Part of the challenge and fun of the experience was the unending saga of the Foreign Friends. She thanked Council for a wonderful and delightful opportunity. 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Susan Wexler for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art Commission Mayor Wheeler said Susan Wexler and Sandra Eakins had been joined by all their Public Art Commission (PAC) colleagues at an earlier reception, which showed tribute to the work Ms. Wexler and Ms. Eakins had done throughout the years. She read the Resolution. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the Resolution.
Resolution 7586 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Susan Wexler for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Public Art
Commission≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Susan Wexler thanked the Council. The decision to leave was difficult and something she had struggled with since December. She thanked all past and present members of PAC. She thanked members of the public, architects, developers, educators, citizens groups, and staff. She learned a great deal from Director of Arts and
05/13/96 79-143
Culture Leon Kaplan and respected him for his constant move forward and tireless devotion for advocating art. Mr. Kaplan had convinced her to stay on the PAC when she doubted she could contribute anything more. She had not had experience with anything political or public, and it was Ms. Eakins who really knew how to translate ideas and visions into effective action. She believed art had to be brought to everybody and that to be a complete human being, art
needed to be in a person=s life. She acknowledged her husband Lou
for his Αbehind the scenes≅ contributions. Council Member Kniss said Ms. Wexler exhibited and sold her paintings all over the country. It was important to mention that Ms. Wexler was an accomplished artist and that it had been a special privilege to have her on the PAC. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Max Crittenden, 190 E. O=Keefe No. 3, Menlo Park, spoke regarding the Chaucer traffic barrier.
Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the public=s good. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26 AND 29, 1996 MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Minutes of February 26, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 6-0-2, Fazzino, Schneider Αabstaining,≅ McCown absent. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to approve the Minutes of February 29, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0-1, Schneider Αabstaining,≅ McCown absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. Refer 3. Final Report from Ralph Andersen and Associates re North County Fire Services Consolidation Study - Refer to Policy and Services Committee MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. CLOSED SESSION
05/13/96 79-144
The item might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 4. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation Subject: Arkady Shchevlavsky v. City of Palo Alto, et al., SCC No. CV 748140 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a) Public Comment None. ORDINANCES 5. Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.57 of Title 4 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Firearms Dealers Police Chief Chris Durkin said Chapter 4.57 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) regulating firearms dealers was enacted in 1988. It was necessary to amend the PAMC to bring it into
conformance with California=s Dangerous Weapons Control Law. The law required municipalities to accept applications for licenses to sell all, not just concealable, firearms. With some exceptions, all private party transactions had to be conducted through a fully licensed dealer. Council Member Simitian asked whether there was any component of what Council was being asked to do that was not simply designed to bring Palo Alto into compliance with state law. Code Enforcement Officer Judy Glaes said staff was clarifying that the Police Department would be doing a background investigation on everyone who had access to guns in gun shops, which was in the existing PAMC and not mandated by state law. Council Member Simitian clarified the City was neither increasing nor decreasing any of the requirements or burdens associated with any of the transactions except to the extent required by state law. Mr. Durkin said that was correct. Council Member Schneider asked how many gun shops were in Palo Alto. Ms. Glaes said there was none. Council Member Schneider asked how many dealers there were. Ms. Glaes said there were nine Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders. None of them could lawfully purchase a weapon from a
05/13/96 79-145
wholesaler. The Palo Alto FFL holders could not lawfully deal in California and, based on indicators at the federal and state levels, were not actually dealing in firearms. Council Member Schneider asked how many residents in Palo Alto had licenses to carry concealed weapons. Ms. Glaes said none. Captain Tom Merson clarified there might be people who had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and that permit could have been issued in another jurisdiction. The Police Department would not know that number. Council Member Schneider asked whether people who had a permit from another jurisdiction could use the permit in Palo Alto. Mr. Durkin said he or the County Sheriff could issue a permit, and he had not issued any.
Council Member Fazzino supported staff=s recommendation. He was in Texas the previous week and was disconcerted to learn of the new law signed by Texas Governor Bush allowing any law-abiding citizen to carry a concealed weapon. What was most disconcerting was to see signs on the doors and windows of establishments asking people to check their weapons at the door before they walked in. It was one thing to allow someone to have a rifle in his/her pickup, but it was another to expand firearms availability statewide. He asked what the prognosis was for concealed weapons expansion in California. Mr. Durkin said in January 1996 the State Assembly passed Assembly
Bill (AB) 638 which would dramatically liberalize California=s law on carrying concealable weapons by virtually eliminating the discretion of law enforcement officials to deny concealed weapon permits. AB 638 had been passed by the Assembly and, according to the latest information, would be heard in the Senate Criminal Procedure Committee in June 1996. Council Member Fazzino asked if the City of Palo Alto had expressed its strong opposition to the proposal. Mr. Durkin said yes. Mayor Wheeler signed a letter in late March 1996 opposing AB 638. Council Member Fazzino clarified the police chiefs had also been active in opposition. Mr. Durkin said yes. It was something the police chiefs were very concerned about.
05/13/96 79-146
Council Member Schneider asked where the support for AB 638 was coming from. Mr. Durkin said that part was not clear to him, but he was sure the National Rifle Association (NRA) supported it. Council Member Schneider clarified it passed the Assembly and would go to the Senate. She asked whether there was any indication of how the Senate would vote. Mr. Durkin said no. The police chiefs of California were very concerned. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to introduce the Ordinance.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 4.57 of Title 4 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating Firearms Dealers≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 6. Proposed Work Plan for Implementation of Council Direction for Arastradero Preserve Project City Manager June Fleming said representation from various
departments made up a committee to carry out Council=s direction to proceed to remove the structures from the Arastradero Preserve and return it to its natural state. She reminded the Council of the two responses to the request for proposal (RFP) for use of the main house and that staff recommended Council reject both proposals. Staff received further instruction from Council, and a group was organized to carry out that instruction. Staff was at the
beginning of the process, following Council=s direction very carefully, and was coming to Council uncommitted at the present time. Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Emily Harrison said Council directed staff on March 11, 1996, to implement a plan to address the various issues surrounding the Arastradero Preserve.
The five elements of the Council plan and staff=s recommendation for implementation were detailed in the staff report (CMR:253:96). Element 1 was the removal of the structures on the Preserve with the focus on reuse and recycling of the materials from the structures. To implement that, staff proposed a process which would draw on the technical advice of experts in the community in putting together the specifications for a contract to dismantle the structures. The contract would be scheduled before Council in November 1996, which would allow the Council the opportunity to
05/13/96 79-147
review the decision to dismantle the structures prior to actual implementation. Actual dismantling might involve volunteer efforts, if they proved viable from a liability standpoint and did not add to the cost or timeline of removal. Staff would also provide Council with an informational report on how it intended to incorporate volunteers, reuse, and recycling in July 1997. Element 2 was to explore the possibility of a public/private partnership for removal of the structures and for habitat restoration, including the development of a stewardship concept. Staff proposed to begin immediately with a development of an Arastradero Preserve Management Plan, which would provide a basis for an RFP for joint stewardship on Preserve maintenance activities. The Management Plan and RFP, which staff planned to bring in July 1996, would specify the responsibilities and tasks of the joint stewardship and would include active involvement in habitat restoration, removal and control of non-native plant species, trail restoration and maintenance, research, and interpretation. Element 3 involved the creation of a mechanism to allow funding for some or all of the elements of the Preserve plan. The Arastradero Preserve Fund was formalized the previous week with the Peninsula Community Foundation (PCF), which would serve as
the vehicle for donations for implementation of Council=s direction. The donors had indicated their desire to supplement the work of the joint stewardship with financial stewardship for the Preserve, creating a vehicle for ongoing support of Preserve
maintenance. The Fund=s advisory committee would consist of two community representatives and three City representatives. A recommendation on the makeup of the advisory committee was included in the staff report (CMR:253:96). Element 4 addressed habitat restoration on the site previously occupied by the structures. If Council approved the joint stewardship concept, staff would work with the selected steward on a long-range habitat management outline for the entire Preserve, as well as a plan and timetable for restoration of habitat on the site of the former structures. Element 5 was exploration of the creation of a modest gateway facility. Staff recommended reformation of an Arastradero Advisory Committee to work with staff and the steward on design of a gateway facility. The facility could be included in the 1999-2000 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Council Member Kniss referred to Element 3 on page 4 of the staff report (CMR:253:96). She said the expectation was there would be a single $350,000 disbursement. The $350,000 was from the Fund and would be overseen by the PCF. Others were talking about creating a trust. She asked where the trust would be and whether the $350,000 would be disbursed into the trust. Ms. Harrison said the Fund that was created with the PCF could outlive the initial $350,000 contribution to the Preserve. The donors intended to do so and looked at it as a vehicle for ongoing financial support of the Arastradero Preserve. Although the $350,000 pledge would be disbursed upon the approval of the
05/13/96 79-148
contract for the structure removal, the Fund would stay with PCF and could continue to be the vehicle for financial help. Council Member Kniss clarified the Fund might continue to exist without any money in it. Ms. Harrison believed the expectation was that a fund-raising effort would continue beyond the initial disbursement. It might also prove to be a mechanism for the joint steward to undertake a fund-raising effort. The Fund was uniquely qualified to take in donations in a way that City mechanisms would not allow. Council Member Kniss said it was a very good vehicle for any number of fund-raising efforts within the community. It surprised her that the amount would be disbursed right away, yet the Fund would continue to function within the PCF. It was unusual to have a setup in which a fund, rather than being an endowment of some kind, was immediately disbursed. Ms. Harrison said a scenario was that between the present time and November 1996, much more than $350,000 could be raised, but only the $350,000 might be part of the initial disbursement. Vice Mayor Huber referred to Element 2 on page 4 of the staff report (CMR:253:96). He clarified staff would prepare an Arastradero Preserve Management Plan for Council review and approval. Ms. Harrison said that was correct. Vice Mayor Huber clarified that the Management Plan would then go out for a public/private partnership possibility. Ms. Harrison said the Management Plan would in effect be the basis for the scope of services for the RFP. Vice Mayor Huber asked, when drafting the Management Plan, whether staff would be consulting with outside groups in terms of what might or might not need to be done with the Preserve. Superintendent of Open Space and Sciences John Walton said staff planned to meet with outside groups, both within the community for community input on the perceived uses of the Preserve and with other professional organizations and agencies that had open space responsibilities. Vice Mayor Huber said there was one organization very interested in the Preserve, and he wanted to make sure the City would go elsewhere for other views when putting the Management Plan together. Council Member Schneider asked if the $350,000 disbursement would be in dollars or in securities, etc.
05/13/96 79-149
Ms. Harrison said the disbursement would be in cash or cash equivalent. The PCF was able to translate, for example, stock donations into cash for the purposes of the Fund. Council Member Schneider asked if that were the same for the ongoing contributions. Ms. Harrison said yes. Council Member Andersen referred to Element 5 on page 6 of the staff report (CMR:253:96), which indicated exploration of the potential for a new modest facility. He asked for more assurance that there would be a structure to be used as a gateway to the Arastradero Preserve for various nonprofit groups to have access to. Ms. Fleming did not know how much assurance staff could give. The structure would be developed and designed as input came from
various groups. Care and attention would be taken, and staff=s recommendation to Council would be consistent with the nature of the Preserve. Council Member Andersen clarified whether there would be a structure. The wording in the staff report suggested that there might be circumstances to cause Council to say no after some consideration that it might not be appropriate to move ahead. Mr. Walton said the intent was to develop a facility on that section of the Arastradero Preserve that would meet some need, and those needs had yet to be fully identified and articulated.
Council Member Andersen said the term Αmodest≅ was also vague. He knew staff was not able to get square footage, etc., but he asked if the facility would have some of the intent of the original RFP. The two proposals indicated some desire to use them for nonprofit agencies as a place with a public setting. He asked whether there was intent for the structure to accommodate meetings or whether the structure would be some kind of office facility. He realized specifics would come later, but he believed Council needed some kind of assurance.
Ms. Fleming said the words Αmodest facility≅ were in the Council=s
motion given to staff. Staff=s interpretation of the motion was to purposely leave it vague so that staff could work with groups and design the structure. The motion was for a modest gateway structure, and staff was trying to define those elements to bring back to Council. Council Member Andersen was anxious to make certain that the City would not have a facility that would not meet the needs in the
05/13/96 79-150
original intent. His concern was that Αmodest≅ did not mean that it was an office structure and that there was some use by the public and by the nonprofit agencies for various meetings. Ms. Fleming said staff saw the Preserve as a place which was designed for passive use. Staff was trying to promote and educate people to make them appreciate and use the Arastradero, which was much in its natural state and open to the public. Staff did not have an office structure in mind because it was not compatible with the Preserve. Staff would closely follow the plan for the Preserve which Council had approved. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to page 5 of the staff report
(CMR:253:96), Element 3, second paragraph, second sentence, ΑThe expectation is that there will be a single $350,000 disbursement
within the 1996 calendar year, coinciding with the Council=s award
of contract in November 1996 for the removal of the structures.≅ He understood the Council directed that the $90,000 that had been placed in the CIP was to be used for that purpose, and there would be an advisory committee established to make disbursements for improvements on the Arastradero Preserve. He asked why there would be $350,000 worth of expenses to be reimbursed in the 1996 calendar year. Ms. Harrison did not believe the expectation was that the $350,000 was in reimbursement. The disbursement was a good faith gesture by the donors that when the City committed to taking the structures down, there would also be a similar commitment of funding for the ongoing needs for the Preserve plan as a whole. Habitat restoration could start before that point in time. For example, the City might be looking at design expenses within a year or two of the initial approval of the contract. Council Member Rosenbaum said he could understand that the City would be very interested in making sure there was $350,000 in the PCF when the City awarded the demolition contract. He clarified, however, that from the wording of the Arastra Fund Agreement attached to the staff report (CMR:253:96), the money would not be disbursed to the City until the City provided bills for improvements to the Arastradero project, which would not occur until those expenses were incurred. Ms. Harrison said upon approval of the advisory committee, the disbursements could be made. She did not believe it was necessary to show bills to be reimbursed. The advisory committee could approve the disbursal of monies to the City for the purposes outlined in a memo or in a presentation. Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case referred to Paragraph No. 3 of the Arastra Fund Agreement. The initial purposes of the Fund were meant to be without limitation. They were not meant to be
05/13/96 79-151
reimbursements. The word Αgrant≅ was used, which was essentially a
Αno strings attached≅ grant. Because of the donors= interest in making sure the City understood their good faith gesture, the donors set the advisory committee at being weighted in favor of the City. The City could recommend to take less than $350,000 in one lump sum, or the City could take the entire $350,000 at the time of award of contract. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified, if the City took the $350,000, the City would put it in a special fund, essentially earning
interest in the City=s account rather than in the PCF=s account. Ms. Harrison said that was correct. It would also not be subject to the administrative fee that the PCF charged. Mayor Wheeler asked whether there was a mechanism built into either the Arastra Fund Agreement or into the actions that the Council at present or in the future would be taking that would ensure the City would not demolish until there was at least $350,000 in the Fund. Ms. Harrison said yes. The Council would have an action in November 1996 to approve a contract for dismantling the structures. If at that point there were no sufficient monies in the Fund, Council would be informed of that. Franklin Flocks, 3353 Alma Street, Apt. 144, asked Council to reconsider its decision to destroy the structures on the Arastradero Preserve. The ideal use would be some public purpose, but the next best idea was to return the two houses as housing. The structures were a 45-minute walk from the public parking area on Arastradero Road and from the nearest bathroom. The general public would benefit very little from adding a few thousand square feet to a 600-acre preserve. There was nothing shocking about having housing on parkland. The larger house could be sold or rented because it had been continually occupied for the last 15
years with no problems to anybody. Also, $72 million of public funds were used to acquire the Preserve, and it seemed premature to tear down the larger house before having it formally appraised as to what it would bring for rent or for sale as housing. As the owner of all the land, the City could set whatever restrictions it wanted. The City could even limit the number of vehicles that could come in. There was a historic character to the larger house.
It would be a shame to destroy it. For a visitor=s center, there was already a little box with some maps in it. Money should be used to put a parking lot at the end of John Marthens Lane so that the public would have access. The barn was beautiful, and the smaller house was ideal for a park ranger. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, referred to Element 1 regarding the demolition of the structures and reminded the Council that a majority of the Council previously voted to demolish the two houses
05/13/96 79-152
on the Preserve. A minority of the Council at one time wanted to develop housing on the 77 acres, and a minority on the Council at one time wanted to sell the land where the large house was. At present, Council was being put into a position that if the City did not get $350,000, some Council Members would feel the houses should not be demolished, which was what five Council Members were willing to do without the $350,000. He was concerned with linking the demolition to the dollars and linking the public/private partnership to the demolition rather than just to the stewardship of the Preserve. The public/private partnership and the expectation of money could in effect block progress. When the item returned to Council, he believed the five Council Members who had previously voted to demolish the houses should do so again. He referred to Element 2 regarding the Management Plan. Information on usage of the roads and trails in the Preserve by various departments and divisions was needed to develop a decent Management Plan. Also, one part of the stewardship concept that the stewards might not be able to do was replacing park rangers for the enforcement of park rules and regulations, which had an impact on the habitat. In Element 3, he failed to see $350,000 or an actual agreement between the City and any group for $350,000. In Element 4, the current CIP, in addition to providing money for demolition of the two houses, provided money for removal and backfilling of the pool and removal of the ornamental plants to encourage habitat restoration. Additional suggestions, if money came in, were removal of the barn and the water tanks and actual planting of habitat. In Element 5, there was a suggestion of creating a new advisory committee for the Preserve. He hoped it was for the entire Preserve and not just for the one structure. The various elements at the Preserve interacted. The various amenities at the Preserve determined the level of park usage, and the level of usage had an effect on the habitat. That led the amount of habitat restoration and maintenance needed and was also impacted by the effective enforcement of park rules and regulations. The last sentence of Paragraph No. 4 in the Arastra Fund Agreement referred to disqualifying contractors and subcontractors working on the structure. He believed that should be extended to contractors and subcontractors working on sites bordering the park. John Northway was one of the people who had proposals that involved a structure and developing housing on the 77 acres which the Council stopped by dedicating the 77 acres. Mr. Northway was also one of the people who talked about subdividing for five large houses on the Bressler property which currently could only have one house. There might be future proposals for such things considering how long demolition might take. MOTION: Council Member Schneider moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Arastradero Preserve project work plan and the recommended City representatives to the Arastradero Preserve Advisory Group and direct staff to proceed with implementation.
05/13/96 79-153
Council Member Rosenbaum said Mr. Flocks= idea of using the property for a house was one he had supported but did not have political support from a majority of the Council. It was complex and possibly involved setting precedents. It was something that Council was not comfortable doing but seemed to be the best choice. He would with some reluctance support the motion. Council Member Andersen referred to the last sentence in Paragraph
No. 4 of the Arastra Fund Agreement, ΑContractors and subcontractors and their affiliates who perform or who may perform work at the park are disqualified from serving on the Advisory
Committee,≅ and asked what the rationale was for that statement. He clarified the donors were able to do so, but a representative who was interested in tearing down the building and saving the recyclable materials would be prohibited to serve on the advisory committee. Ms. Case said the donors put the agreement together. She understood the reason for the statement was to try to make it clear that the donors did not intend to have any self-serving representation. Council Member Andersen did not understand why the contractors or subcontractors could not be involved. Ms. Case said it was only the advisory committee, consisting of five people. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said there was potential that people making spending recommendations would be directly benefitting from the expenditures. Council Member Andersen said there had been some complex issues that had made it difficult for Council to go in any direction. The Council was given a situation in which there were difficult choices and limited options. The Council Members who opposed the dismantling were able to prevent that from happening during that particular fiscal year because the budget amendment ordinance needed six votes. The Finance Committee at that time was able to postpone the destruction until responses to an RFP were brought to Council. Again, Council was being torn by various groups, including the neighborhood that had opposed anything going in that area and whose intent was self-serving. The reality was where the Council could go and what was the best interest of the general public. The long-term service the City would receive from various nonprofits and their work in restoring the Preserve to a natural state would benefit the entire community in a way that the City would otherwise not have had. One of the proposals was to cut a road through the facility in order to get to the house in a different manner from what was currently available. No one was really excited about that, including the group that submitted the proposal, but it was a political approach to try to solve the
05/13/96 79-154
problem. He supported the motion and believed it was the very best that Council could do for the Preserve. Council did not sell out to interests. He did not think that the proposal was an example of
Αthose who have the gold rule.≅ People with divergent interests came together, which benefitted the whole community in the context of an open space that would be maintained in a modest manner that would better serve the City. There would be a major increase in care and restoration. There would be a facility readily available and accessible, which would be determined by people who had an interest in using it. The City could be proud of the Arastradero Preserve project over the years as the community benefitted from it. He was distressed when it was suggested that Council return to the youth hostel idea, which was an issue settled long ago. Council Member Kniss asked when Council decided to remove the
caretaker=s house and the barn simultaneously. Council was once going to preserve them. Ms. Harrison said the dismantling of the structures was part of the overall direction. It was also the desire of both the staff and donors to have all structures removed at the same time so that the site could be recontoured. Council Member Kniss said with regard to linking the demolition to dollars, that expense would be there anyway, and the $350,000
softened the Αblow.≅ The minority of Council Members who would have liked to save the house with its beautiful paneling and flooring did not prevail because it simply was not politically feasible, which became clearer as time went on. She was very sad to see a house go that had many great values. The house might have made the 50-year rule. She asked when the house was built. Real Property Manager William Fellman said it was built in 1949. Council Member Kniss said that was close. The Council found it enormously frustrating, but at some point Council had to move forward. The property would be an addition to the open space. She supported the motion with reluctance. Council Member Fazzino said the Palo Alto Weekly stirred up the
issue. People called in to the Palo Alto Weekly=s voicemail line claiming the Council was prostituting itself, taking bribes, etc. However, it was interesting to read the Weekly editorial and Paul
Gullixson=s column that the Weekly came to the same conclusion the Council reached despite all the angst and frustration over the various situations that had brought Council to the current point. The fact was there was not any other practical alternative available to the Council. The question was whether the Council should spend $350,000 or more to preserve the house, develop a long-term environmental stewardship plan for the site, provide hands-on public education experience, or spend the money fighting
05/13/96 79-155
the neighbors and dealing with lawsuits for many years. He suspected the City would probably be spending much more than $350,000 dealing with the legal issues. He preferred to do something constructive and move ahead, take down the house, preserve the materials, avoid lawsuits, put the house in a site which was accessible to the public, and develop a long-term environmental stewardship plan. The future generations of Palo Altans would thank the Council for that effort. It was a difficult decision, but he believed it was the right one for the City of Palo Alto. He apologized, on behalf of the City and many others, for how the Council reached that point. The Council was taking the only action which was available. He was very happy to support the motion. Vice Mayor Huber said he started out on the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee with the basic belief that it was an open space preserve, and Council should do whatever to make it such. He struggled with the use of the house and was one of the Council Members prepared to spend the $90,000 to demolish the structures because the City would not be able to get a reasonable use for the property the cost of renovation would be far in excess of what any nonprofit could do. The $350,000 was a gift because it was payment for something Council was going to do anyway. Not only would the Council accomplish what was appropriate for the open space area, but also there would be some funds available to do restoration and other projects that would make it a great place for the entire community. Council Member Schneider said what Council was doing that evening enhanced the preservation of some very valuable property. She was not embarrassed to accept $350,000. The Council had been criticized for doing that, but she did not see what was wrong with taking that money and using it for the preservation of the park. She acknowledged Mr. Northway and the work he had done with staff, the donors, and PCF. Mayor Wheeler said she had had more angst about the reactions to the earlier decision on the item that had appeared mostly through letters to the editor of the Palo Alto Weekly. She believed the Council could probably take a good deal of blame. The Council had failed to enunciate some things that were being enunciated that evening and to portray to the press and constituents the very good rationale for taking the action Council took several months before and the actions that Council would be taking that evening. She had never been more tempted to write a letter to the editor of the
Weekly than she had been after reading the letters to the editor
because Council=s prior actions had been highly misunderstood. People recognized at the top of that hill, absent the fact that there were structures, was a geographic location that was probably the single most valuable piece of open space land within the Preserve. That location had the most commanding views of the entire Preserve and of the surrounding areas. The very highest and
05/13/96 79-156
best use of that land was as a prime addition to the Preserve itself. If those structures were not there, she knew the City would not choose to build any structures. If the City were to construct a facility that would assist in making the Preserve a place where the public could come to enjoy and have some comfort station with some built-in amenities, the City would put that facility at the gateway to the Preserve. The hill would be in open space. She concurred with Council Member Fazzino about the
Council=s wisdom in its fiduciary responsibilities in regard to
that property. It was better to use the City=s monetary resources to accomplish the plan that had been in the minds of Palo Altans since the property was acquired rather than to spend monies fighting lawsuits. She supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 7. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Schneider asked how many domestic partnerships had
registered in the City Clerk=s Office. City Clerk Gloria Young said 39. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. to a Closed Session. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving existing litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 4. Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 4. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are
05/13/96 79-157
available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
05/13/96 79-158