HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-10 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting June 10, 1996 1. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................79-225 1. Presentation of Youth Service Awards..................79-227 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Janet Stone for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Human Relations Commission............................................79-227 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................79-227 APPROVAL OF MINUTES of MARCH 18, 20, 25, AND APRIL 1, 1996.79-228 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Jim Duffy
Construction for Construction of the Children=s Theatre Storage Building......................................79-229 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Lewis & Tibbitts for Installing Substructure for Underground District No. 3679-229 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and K. J. Woods Construction, Inc. for Phase VII Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project...............................................79-229 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Dresser Areia Construction, Inc. for Phase VI Gas Main Replacement Project 79-229 7. Approval of Proposed Off-Site Location of Below Market Rate Program Units for the 651 Hamilton Avenue Senior Condominium Project...............................................79-229
8. Resolution 7588 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program for Federally Funded City Transportation Projects..............................................79-229 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolutions Regarding Assessments for University Avenue and California Avenue Area Parking Bonds Plan G for Fiscal Year 1996-1997......................79-230
06/10/96 79-223
10. PUBLIC HEARING: Disposition of the Meadows Well Site at 3896 Duncan Place and Approval of Request for Bid Proposals for the Sale of the Site......................................79-231 11. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for Proposal for an Option to Purchase the Tower Well Site at 201 Alma Street................79-236 10. Disposition of the Meadows Well Site at 3896 Duncan Place and Approval of Request for Bid Proposals for the Sale of the Site......................................................79-243 12. Award of Option to Lease the Williams Property, 351 Homer Avenue, to the Museum of American Heritage............79-245 13. 725-753 Alma Street - Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing Project - Actions to Award City Commercial Housing In-Lieu Funds for Pre-Construction Expenses, Including Funds for the Acquisition of the Site...............................79-247 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m............79-248
06/10/96 79-224
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 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, 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) Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Ruben Grijalva, Joe Saccio, James McGee) Represented Employee Organization: International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Lynne Johnson, Joe Saccio, Tom Merson, Bob Brennan) Represented Employee Organization: Palo Alto Peace Officers' Association (PAPOA) Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiation 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 7:00 p.m.
06/10/96 79-225
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Presentation of Youth Service Awards Mayor Wheeler announced the schools and students who were presented the Youth Service Awards. 2. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Janet Stone for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Human Relations Commission MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Resolution.
Resolution 7587 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expressing Appreciation to Janet Stone for Outstanding Public Service as a Member of the Human Relations
Commission≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. Janet Stone thanked the Council for the honor of serving on the Human Relations Commission (HRC) for six years. She felt the HRC contributed to the effort to improve the environment and human relations of the community. She was happy to have been a part of that. Council Member Fazzino thanked Ms. Stone for her outstanding service. She had contributed significantly as a member of the HRC, and he appreciated her stewardship during difficult times. He felt the HRC was making an impact. Currently, there were more issues of concern surrounding people at risk in the community, and the current HRC was doing a tremendous job in addressing those issues. Council Member Andersen said that Ms. Stone added the concept of advocacy to the HRC at a time when it was really needed. She made the HRC a group that truly advocated for human rights and he appreciated that. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Teclu Tesfazghi, 3695 LaDonna Avenue, spoke regarding the Haben
ΑPride≅ Band (letter on file in the City Clerk=s Office). Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne Street, spoke regarding bikeway.
06/10/96 79-226
Tony Medeiros, 35200 Paseo Padre, Fremont, spoke regarding union negotiations. Ted Kai, 2121 Valerga Drive No. 29, Belmont, spoke regarding saving trees. Angelo Lombardo, 231 Alturas Avenue, Sunnyvale, spoke regarding 2 percent at 55 retirement. Cathie Swan, 3369 Leigh Avenue, San Jose, spoke regarding 2 percent at 55. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding political exposure. Wayne Swan, 240 Kellogg Drive, spoke regarding on-street parking. Sarah Tyree, 1671 Woodland Avenue, East Palo Alto, spoke regarding union negotiations and 2 percent at 55 retirement. Brandon Burke, City of Palo Alto employee, 250 Hamilton Avenue, spoke regarding the CALPERS Fund. Michael W. Anthony, no address, spoke regarding blessedness and the homeless. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of MARCH 18, 20, 25, AND APRIL 1, 1996 MOTION: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of March 18, 1996, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Huber Αabstaining.≅ MOTION: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of March 20, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of March 25, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Minutes of April 1, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 7-0-2, Kniss, Rosenbaum Αabstaining.≅ CONSENT CALENDAR
06/10/96 79-227
MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 3 - 8. 3. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Jim Duffy
Construction for Construction of the Children=s Theatre Storage Building; change orders not to exceed $3,500. 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Lewis & Tibbitts for Installing Substructure for Underground District No. 36; change orders not to exceed $165,000. Specific Agreement for Joint Installation of Underground Facilities between the City of Palo Alto and Pacific Bell and Cable Co-op 5. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and K. J. Woods Construction, Inc. for Phase VII Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project; change orders not to exceed $59,404. 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Dresser Areia Construction, Inc. for Phase VI Gas Main Replacement Project; change orders not to exceed $58,890. 7. Approval of Proposed Off-Site Location of Below Market Rate Program Units for the 651 Hamilton Avenue Senior Condominium Project
8. Resolution 7588 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program for Federally Funded City Transportation
Projects≅ MOTION PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolutions Regarding Assessments for University Avenue and California Avenue Area Parking Bonds Plan G for Fiscal Year 1996-1997 Mayor Wheeler announced that the Council would consider confirma-tion of the City Engineer's Report and Assessment Rolls for the California Avenue Parking Projects, Numbers 71-63, 86-0l, and 92-13, and the University Avenue Parking Projects, Number 75-63, and the Lot J Refunding and 250 University Avenue Acquisition. The City Engineer prepared and filed with the City Clerk a report providing for the levying of special assessments within the assessment districts created and established for the projects and under the Resolutions of Intentions No. 4993, No. 5242, No. 6768, No. 6485, and No. 7230. The report set forth the amounts of assessments proposed to be levied for the Fiscal Year 1996-97. The 06/10/96 79-228
assessments would be used to pay principal and interest on the bonds issued in the various projects. The report was and had been open for public inspection. The purpose of the public hearing was to allow the Council to: hear all objections, protests, or other written communications from any such interested persons; take and receive oral and documentary evidence pertaining to matters in the report; remedy and correct any error or informality in the report; and amend, alter, modify, correct, and confirm the report and each of the assessments. Mayor Wheeler asked the City Clerk if any written communications had been received from interested persons. City Clerk Gloria Young replied no. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Schneider said she would not participate on the University Avenue Districts because of a potential conflict of interest due to the location of her business. MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Resolutions.
Resolution 7589 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer=s Report and Assessment Roll for the California Avenue Off-Street Parking Project No.
71-63 (for Fiscal Year 1996-97)≅
Resolution 7590 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer=s Report and Assessment Roll for California Avenue Keystone Lot Parking Project No.
86-01 (for Fiscal Year 1996-97)≅
Resolution 7591 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer=s Report and Assessment Roll for California Avenue Parking Project No. 92-13 (for
Fiscal Year 1996-97)≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Resolutions.
Resolution 7592 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer=s Report and Assessment
06/10/96 79-229
Roll for University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Project No.
75-63 (for Fiscal Year 1996-97)≅
Resolution 7593 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Confirming Engineer=s Report and Assessment Roll for University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Projects (Lot J Refunding and 250 University Avenue Acquisition) (for
Fiscal Year 1996-97)≅ MOTION PASSED 7-0, Schneider Αnot participating,≅ Fazzino absent. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Disposition of the Meadows Well Site at 3896 Duncan Place and Approval of Request for Bid Proposals for the Sale of the Site Manager, Real Property William Fellman said the item was a request to sell the Meadows Well site and on February 5, 1996, Council had approved the abandonment of the site. The 7,800 square foot site was already zoned R-1 with an overlay zone. The overlay zone required a home that was built to be limited to a single story. The City would also retain three easements: one at the left side of the site for a relocated water line, one at the rear for the existing electrical line, and one at the front for a utility box when the neighborhood electrical lines were eventually undergrounded. Staff had established a minimum bid of $250,000 for the site which would be advertised until September 10, 1996, and at that time the written bids would be opened. Bidders at that time would be given a chance to orally bid above the highest written bid until the sale price was established. The winning bidder would have seven days to make a 20 percent deposit of which the total amount would be due after the Council accepted the winning bid and at the close of escrow. The main well was removed and sealed and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) inspected the sealing of the well and issued a report to the City that the well had been properly sealed. The neighbors and members of the Walnut Grove
Homeowners= Association (the Association) still reported signs of water leakage. A second older, deeper well was discovered which was filled with rock and reached a depth of 336 feet. The rock was removed and the well sealed. The SCVWD issued a report for the second well and copies of both reports would be furnished to the buyers, the neighbors, and representatives of the Association. The neighbors had also expressed concern regarding a utility pole on the well site that had been relocated during the Adobe Creek Channel construction. The relocation of the pole resulted in
electrical wiring that extended over one neighbor=s swimming pool.
The City=s electrical division was currently deciding on which of three options would be used to correct the situation and the work would be completed prior to the actual transfer of ownership. Council Member Andersen said the report was clear that an R-1 single-family unit would be appropriate in the area because of
06/10/96 79-230
association and zoning. There were duplexes in neighborhoods throughout the City, and he asked whether the site could accommodate a duplex in a manner similar to those in other areas of the City. Mr. Fellman replied no. The lot was too small and did not fit in with the neighborhood. He said the bid was for a single family residence and the minimum lot with the overlay was 7,000 square feet, and the site was 7,800 square feet for a single family residence which would not accommodate a duplex. Council Member Schneider asked the selling price of houses in the neighborhood, the maximum square footage available for a home on that site, and the cost per square foot for new construction. Mr. Fellman said home prices in the area ranged from $382,000 to $440,000, the maximum buildable square footage was approximately 2,500, and the buildable cost per square foot was $100 to $150, depending on the amenities that were included with the average price being $125 per square foot. Council Member Schneider clarified using the $125-square-foot price and the maximum buildable space, the price of the a newly constructed house would be well over $600,000 which was a significant difference between the highest priced house selling in the neighborhood. Further, she asked whether there was a possibility to reduce the price of the land to make the site more attractive to a potential buyer. Mr. Fellman said the minimum bid was $250,000 which would not be the sale price. The price of the land could be reduced to whatever the Council determined and the actual bidding would determine the sale price.
Council Member Schneider asked what the City=s track record was with putting a minimum bid on a piece of vacant land the City was selling, and how close the City came to meeting the minimum bid. Mr. Fellman said the City did well on the Seale Well site of which the minimum bid was $750,000 and it sold for $1,000,200. On the Middlefield Well site, a window of opportunity was missed and a minimum bid of $300,000 was accepted of which neither of the site sold. Council Member Schneider asked if any interest had been expressed other than what the Council had heard. Mr. Fellman said not on that particular site. There were a number of people who were looking for vacant sites, and staff had routinely accumulated, during the year, a list which would be sent out as soon as the Request for Bid Proposal (RFBP) was made available.
06/10/96 79-231
Mayor Wheeler said in reviewing the map and the way the lot was situated, it was almost at the bulb out of what many places would look like in a cul-de-sac. She realized it was a circular street and not a cul-de-sac which meant the street frontage was a pie-shaped lot and rather narrow in comparison to a standard lot. One of the difficulties in achieving more than a single-family unit on that property would be the restricted amount of street frontage to accommodate the access for vehicles to cover parking. She clarified that where duplexes had been approved in single family residential areas, they had been on corner lots where there was excessive street frontage. She clarified there would be an access problem if a duplex were put on the site. Assistant Planning Official Jim Gilliland said that was correct. In planning it was often a accepted principal to try to put duplex zoning on corner lots because there was access from two different streets and it made the residential units fit in better with the neighborhood. There was one duplex unit he was familiar with in Crescent Park that was on a lot similar to the Meadow Well site but the access from the street was not quite as tight. It could be done, but it would be a difficult design to fit into the neighborhood, especially because the frontage was only 46 feet. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Litsie Indergand, member of Board of the Walnut Grove Neighborhood Associations, 336 Ely Place, thanked the Council for listening to the Association in February when the Meadow Well site was first brought before the Council. The neighbors had expressed many valid concerns about the leakage on the site and appreciated the way City staff had kept the Association informed. The Association understood the second well was now sealed, but there was still some concern with regard to the pipe that was sticking out. City staff informed the Association that the SCVWD had fixed the problem and hopefully there would be no further problems with the site. There were no objections to the lot being sold, but the Association wanted the Council to seriously consider how quickly the property needed to be sold and to make sure there would be no further surprises with the site. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by McCown, to approve the Request for Bid Proposals and direct staff to solicit proposals for the sale of the site. Council Member Schneider asked whether a precedent could be set by reducing the price $50,000 thus making the minimum bid $200,000. She felt the City needed to be compatible with other developments in the area.
06/10/96 79-232
Mayor Wheeler asked how expensive it would be to go out to bid again if the price stayed at $250,000 and no minimum bids were received. Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Emily Harrison said it had happened in the past. Staff anticipated receiving bids above the minimum, whether it be $200,000 or $250,000. Council Member Fazzino asked the difference between $200,000 and $250,000. Ms. Harrison said it was purely a market situation. The minimum bid stated that if nothing were received above the amount that the transaction would be closed. If the bid were above the amount, it was a market transaction.
Council Member Fazzino asked if it were staff=s best guess that $250,000 was an appropriate level to start with and what would happen if the bid were $200,000 instead of $250,000. Ms. Harrison replied there would be no appreciable difference in the activity. City Manager June Fleming said it was a symbolic gesture, and more people might respond if the price were set lower, but she did not know what that would do to the higher bid. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the minimum bid price would be set at $200,000. Council Member Kniss supported the incorporated language because of the interest involved, but it was not realistic because Palo Alto was in the hottest market the City had seen in a long time. A house in her neighborhood had just sold at 30 percent above the suggested selling price. It was a great idea, but the market would adjust the price. People complained about the high rents and high prices per square foot in the Downtown area, and she believed the people felt the Council was accountable. Unless the Council decided just what the mix would be and attempted to adjust the prices, the market would adjust itself. Palo Alto had always been a market driven city. Two years prior, houses sat for months. She did not think it would make a lot of difference if the bid were offered at $200,000. The area and the market would probably go at
$250,000 to $275,000. The Council=s suggestion was a bottom line, not a top line. Council Member Andersen said it was the basic law of supply and demand, and he believed the bid would go over $300,000 and probably closer to $450,000 to $500,000 because of the current market. H suggested the lot be zoned to R-2 and allow for a duplex which would allow more housing for a much lower price. He supported the incorporated language.
06/10/96 79-233
MOTION PASSED 9-0. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for Proposal for an Option to Purchase the Tower Well Site at 201 Alma Street Senior Financial Analyst Janet Freehand said the intent of the Request for Proposal (RFP) was to sell the Tower Well site for development and use which preserved the tower, was compatible with the neighborhood, and provided public benefit through direct use or proceeds from the sale of the site or a combination of both. The RFP included an option to purchase which allowed the optionee up to two years to obtain a zone change, approval of development plans, any necessary permits and environmental clearances, and to provide evidence that sufficient finances were available to complete the proposed improvements. The deed attached to the option included a facade easement which would protect the exterior of the tower as depicted in the development plans approved during the option period. Upon approval of the RFP by the Council, staff would advertise the offering and proposals would be accepted until September 9, 1996. Proposals would be reviewed by an evaluation committee made up of representatives of City staff and the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the evaluation would make recommendations regarding proposals to the Council. Council Member Andersen referred to Attachment A of the staff report (CMR:267:96), Item No. 3 under the Proposal Package,
ΑObtained approval of the development plans from the City=s Historic Resources Board, Architectural Review Board, Planning
Commission, and City Council.≅ He asked what responsibilities the HRB and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) would be given and if there were differences of opinion relating to the proposal, what kinds of considerations would be made. Ms. Freeland said the HRB would review the development plans in terms of the degree in which the plans met standards for historic preservation and rehabilitation. Council Member Andersen asked for clarification as to what extent
the HRB=s recommendations would be allowed with regard to the basic purposes of the RFP as described. He clarified the RFP criteria superseded the recommendations of the HRB, and he wanted to make
certain that the HRB=s responsibilities were clearly defined within the context of what was specified by the RFP. Ms. Freeland said that was correct. The proposals that were received would first be evaluated by a committee and then the Council would award the option. The HRB would review the plans but its recommendations were only advisory. Council Member Andersen asked how long Eucalyptus trees lived and what type of flexibility the applicant had if the tree should die.
06/10/96 79-234
Ms. Freehand replied the facade easement was only meant to prohibit a property owner from doing something that might harm the tree. Council Member Andersen noticed some vines growing on the tower and asked if they were to be replaced. Ms. Freehand said there was nothing in the RFP that addressed that. Council Member Andersen said the insurance program did not specify anything with regard to earthquakes and he asked whether there was any need for assurances. Ms. Freehand said the facade easement would allow the Risk Manager to determine what insurance would be required. Mayor Wheeler said there was a facade easement in place for the Squire House which was very specific with regard to any changes being made. She asked whether the Council could be more flexible in establishing a facade easement than with the Squire House. If no changes were allowed to the exterior, it would be difficult to convert the tower to any useful future life. City Attorney Ariel Calonne replied yes. Staff wanted some dialog with the Council regarding the proposal. Previous minutes suggested an interest in protecting the structure but not in designating it historic, so the facade easement was a question as to how far the Council wanted to go. The language that concerned him in terms of being restrictive stated that nothing could be done that would materially affect the exterior appearance and the obvious question would be windows. If the Council wished to allow some exterior modifications, he would recommended specifying those modifications to the extent possible. Ms. Freeland said the facade easement preserved the exterior depicted in the plans that would be approved during the option period. If the plans included windows, the facade easement would allow windows. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. His concern was that the Council had introduced the HRB review and expressed concern as to how that was focused, and he thought some direction to that effect would be useful. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Wayne Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, said he was driven by an idea of a transit-oriented development which would get more people to ride rail transit and out of their automobiles. There was congestion everywhere from cars with only one occupant. The ultimate would be to have a place where there were no required parking spaces. He thought it would be a good idea to create a combination housing project and car rental agency to provide ground transportation.
06/10/96 79-235
The site was a five-minute walk from the railroad station and a bus transfer location. He contemplated that if a site could be obtained for a modest housing cost, a system could be incorporated which would provide rental cars to the residents. There would be no parking requirement and rental cars could pick up their clients at the curb. Palo Alto would be the place to create such a thing, particularly across from the railroad tracks where the American Red Cross had property that was underutilized. Also, across El Camino Real was a large piece of Stanford property between Palm Drive and Quarry Road which would also permit consideration. He asked the Council to consider the idea of a rental car service that would be available to people for transit-oriented development that would recognize the five-minute walk to the train station. James Walter, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, said he was a global architect and was currently working in the area. He agreed with Mr. Swan that the site was attractive and in an unusual location. It was close to the train station, buses, and vehicularly to El Camino Real and should be utilized in an intelligent way. The nature of the problem suggested that the RFP had a few unique options built in. If the Council wanted to save the water tower, statistical information needed to be provided to developers and architects regarding the tower. There was a very unusual aspect of the nature of the structure. Because the tower was approximately 85 feet tall and the top 35 feet previously contained the reservoir, the tower was designed to carry between 500 and 600 tons of water which few apartment buildings built would carry that kind of weight. If an adopted reuse of the tower were found such as a residential application, the tower was an asset and should not be destroyed nor a facade easement issued that would impede its utilization. He suggested the Council consider a planned unit development for the entirety of the site, including the parking requirements. When the proposal went to the Council for the utilization of the site, it should be considered as a whole piece because if the tower were to be used, it would take a great deal of effort on the part of both the City and a developer to put together a comprehensive package. He suggested the Council mandate that the adapted reuse be constrained and be implemented with an equal facilitation approach to the building codes. Further, that the standard building code not be applied blindly across the board. He suggested the Council mandate the proposal preserve and protect the unique visual nature of the water tower site by keeping the tower the predominant element on the parcel and retaining the open space characteristics around it. He also suggested mandating a double green volume if the Eucalyptus tree were removed. Tom Taylor, 123 Sherman Avenue, was glad to see the RFP move forward. He said there were a lot of good criteria being used to review the proposals, and he liked the element of preservation of the tower. He hoped the Council could give more direction, both to the proposers and to staff, as to how to weigh preservation against other benefits, particularly monetary benefits. The option to
06/10/96 79-236
purchase was set at $5,000, and he anticipated that whoever received the award was going to need to spend $15,000 in structural engineering fees before a determination could be made as to whether the site was developable. Adding an additional nonrefundable $5,000 fee on top of that was punitive, and he suggested it be made a refundable fee based on the engineering or the inability to obtain some of the zoning, etc. David Easton, Board Member, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, requested that a portion of the funds the City received for the Tower Well site as well as the other well sites go to affordable housing in Palo Alto through the Commercial Mitigation Fund. He believed a precedent had been set for that at the Seale Well site. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Simitian said there had been some creative and intriguing proposals, but if preservation were the primary goal, then the way to preserve the site was to leave it alone. The basis for historic preservation had been discussed with respect to a range of sites in the community over the years and he summarized those into three areas: 1) the basis of historic preservation with architectural significance which he did not think applied to the Tower Well site; 2) the basis of historic preservation with social or historic significance to the site or the facility for its use which he differed with those who suggested that the site qualified under that criteria because it was a reminder of the foresight of the municipal founders with respect to a municipal utility did not engender a desire to preserve the site; and 3) historic preservation as a desire to preserve some sense of place and visual continuity, particularly at a time when there was a lot of redevelopment in the Downtown area and changes in the community. He believed a case could be made for preservation based simply on the desire to preserve a corner of Palo Alto that was a reminder of what Palo Alto was like at a different time which he felt was a legitimate basis and one he could support. He was not moved to generate a great deal of money from the site and given some of the constraints that would be put on the site to ensure preservation, that would not happen at any rate. He believed the best way to
preserve Palo Alto=s past was to leave the site alone. MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Kniss, to reject the staff recommendation.
Council Member McCown asked whether Mr. Easton=s comment about the precedent on the sale of the Seale Well site had been part of Council policy that a certain amount of money from the sale would be put into the Housing Fund. Manager, Real Property William Fellman replied yes. It ended up being 50 percent of the sale of the Seale Well site because the PAHC was in great need of funds and rather than wait for the sale
06/10/96 79-237
of the Middlefield Well site, it was allocated to the Seale Well site. It was supposed to be 25 percent of the sale price. Council Member McCown clarified that staff did not believe that element would not be appropriate with regard to the Tower Well site. Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Emily Harrison said the staff report (CMR:276:96) indicated that staff anticipated the Council might wish to use the proceeds from the sale as a public benefit toward any number of identifiable public benefit uses such as child care, housing, etc. Council Member McCown asked whether staff had or would make available to proposers any information about the structure. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said legally it would be better to let the proposers do a record search on their own rather than it being provided by staff. The City would not want to make representations about the condition of the tower without knowing what it was. He could not speak for the Utilities Department with regard to engineering information. It was a matter of public record and anyone who wanted the information could get it and that way it would not constitute a representation from the City. Council Member McCown asked whether the information in the RFP document was clear in that the Utilities Department could be contacted for information. Mr. Calonne said no. Council Member McCown said it would be helpful to add a list of where public record information would be available with respect to the structure. Council Member Andersen asked whether the 25 percent figure applied to the Meadows Well site which the Council had recently taken action on. Ms. Harrison said no. It was a Council policy decision to apply 25 percent of the proceeds of the sale for the Middlefield and Seale Well sites to low-income housing. As Mr. Fellman mentioned, the Seale Well site sold right away for a much higher price, so 50 percent of the proceeds went toward housing. There was no policy to do that with all of the well sites. Staff recognized with the Tower Well site that it was a much different case than the other two sites. It would not just be sold for residential use and no portion of the proceeds was ever designated at that time. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Request for Proposal (RFP), direct staff to solicit proposals for an option to purchase the Tower Well site
06/10/96 79-238
with the proviso that the facade easement include windows as suggested by the City Attorney, and that the public record be accessible with respect to information regarding the structure. Council Member Kniss believed the Tower Well site had historic significance for all of the reasons Council Member Simitian mentioned previously and not just a sense of the past. She thought the Tower Well site was very unusual and Palo Alto did not have a lot of unusual structures that would provide a sense of the past. The Tower Well site offered a wonderful sense of the past and also connected Palo Alto to the utilities and water which were City-owned and so important in California. She thought there was a certain charm in its architecture. In a previous review, the Council could not agree to save the Tower Well site as it was, and she felt there was a sense that the tower would fall down around itself. In Switzerland, there were many such structures that had stood far longer than the 80 or 90 years that the Tower Well site had stood, and she did not believe it would fall down around itself. She asked how much the City spent per year on the site. Mr. Fellman replied $60 per month. Council Member Kniss felt that was a minuscule amount and that nothing had to be done with the historic structures. It looked as if the substitute motion would move forward which she thought would change the character of the site dramatically. She hoped the site would be preserved and could be viewed as a piece of the past. She would not support the substitute motion. Council Member Fazzino thought the Romans and Swiss used much better materials for their buildings than the early municipal utility leaders used on the Tower Well site, and those structures would be around a lot longer than the Tower Well site unless the Council did something to preserve the tower. He contrasted the Colonial Williamsburg to the destruction of the John Hancock home in Boston. He respectfully disagreed with Council Member Simitian. Palo Alto had a rich tradition of preserving and enhancing historic sites through public/private partnerships, i.e., the Downing House, the Squire House, and soon the Williams House. The Council had a wonderful opportunity to preserve a site which more
than represented a certain period in Palo Alto=s history. The
Tower Well site was an integral part of the City=s then radical new municipal utility system and should be preserved. Unless action was taken that evening to move ahead with the public\private partnership, he would guarantee, based upon limited City resources and other priorities, that the site would continue to deteriorate and 30 years in the future someone would suggest the tower be torn down. He was delighted with the staff recommendation and thought the RFP should move forward. Council Member Schneider did not hold the same amount of reverence for the water tower as some of her colleagues. She could not compare the Tower Water site to Willamsburg or William and Mary
06/10/96 79-239
College. She would support the motion and looked forward to a wonderful building on that site that would be available to the community. Vice Mayor Huber supported the staff recommendation. He believed the City would not do anything to preserve the site. If the Council wanted to preserve the tower and allow it to remain a reminder of the past, the Council would have to approach the private sector. The method of seeking out reasonable approaches to saving and protecting the site was an appropriate one. Mayor Wheeler concurred that the tower would not last as long as some of the edifices had in Europe that were much better cared for. She did not see any public will to preserve the tower at public expense. It was worth the effort to elicit some proposals to preserve the tower and site as it was an important aspect that the site retain its characteristics as well as the tower and site. She supported the staff recommendation. SUBSTITUTE MOTION PASSED 7-2, Kniss, Simitian Αno.≅ MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to reconsider Item No. 10. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 10. Disposition of the Meadows Well Site at 3896 Duncan Place and Approval of Request for Bid Proposals for the Sale of the Site MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve that 25 percent of the purchase price be placed in the
City=s Housing In-Lieu Residential Fund. Council Member Rosenbaum clarified that when 50 percent of the Seale Well site was taken, it was with the intention that the Middlefield Well site would soon be sold and no monies from that site would go to the City because the policy was 25 percent. One could argue that the monies were owed to the City for future well sites in order to make up the fact that 50 percent was taken from the Seale site. He asked for the status of the Middlefield Well site. Manager, Real Property Bill Fellman said the Middlefield Well site was returned to the Utilities Department for a study to check all of the well sites. Council Member Andersen said his motion reflected the one particular site. If the Meadows Well site became available at some future date, it could be considered at that time. He clarified that the sites were retained because they might be used as well sites.
06/10/96 79-240
Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Emily Harrison said the sites were part of a comprehensive study that the Utilities Department was doing of the water wells. Mayor Wheeler supported the motion. While she could not support the concept of constructing a duplex unit on the well site in order to satisfy a desire to have some affordable housing, she believed what Council Member Andersen was trying to accomplish was good. The Council would accomplish the same good by supporting the motion without doing it on a site that was less than appropriate. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Fazzino thought it would make sense for the Planning staff to work with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) to develop a policy to address that type of situation in the future so the Council did not have to deal with it on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Harrison said it could be done, but she did not feel the City had a large inventory of abandoned well sites. Staff had time before another occurrence to work with the PAHC. Council Member Fazzino said it did not have to include only well sites, but any public property that might be sold. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said with regard to the Brown Act, staff could be directed to agendize the question of creating a policy but not ask the Council to act on a direction to create the policy that evening. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved that staff be directed to agendize the question of creating a policy with respect to the sale of property and the distribution of a percentage to the In-lieu Housing Fund. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Andersen said as liaison to the PAHC, he would pass the issue on. Vice Mayor Huber did not think the issue surfaced often enough to merit a policy, and he felt it was up to the Council to decide what to do with monies received. In terms of housing and the PAHC, little could be added as the Council decided what should be done and how much should be allocated. He did not see the necessity. Council Member Fazzino believed it was the wrong approach to bring up an item already considered because of a comment by a member of the public. He asked that the item be reconsidered to make a policy change. He wanted a general direction to follow when such proposals came before the Council.
06/10/96 79-241
RECESS: 9:20 P.M. - 9:40 P.M. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 12. Award of Option to Lease the Williams Property, 351 Homer Avenue, to the Museum of American Heritage Senior Financial Analyst Janet Freehand said staff was requesting that the Council 1) approve the option to lease to the Museum of American Heritage (the Museum) for the development and operation of a history museum and a park at 351 Homer Avenue, 2) approve the negative declaration, finding that the project would have no significant environmental effects, and 3) adopt the resolution of intent to dedicate the property as park land. The option agreement granted the Museum a two-year option period during which time the Museum must meet specified conditions prior to entering into the lease. Conditions of the option included a requirement that the Museum receive approval of its development plans, approval of a conditional use permit and a variance for parking, and provide evidence of sufficient funds to construct and operate the project. Once the option conditions were met, the Museum would be awarded the lease. The purpose and required use under the lease was the development of a garden park and museum. Major terms of the lease included a 20-year term, $1.00 per year rent, and the public benefit of the development and operation of a park and museum at no cost to the City. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors approved a $40,000 grant for the Williams Property restoration project subject to the condition that the Council dedicate the property as parkland. The Resolution of Intent to dedicate the Williams property as parkland was subject to conditions that the Museum exercise its option with the City and execute the historic project agreement between the Museum, the City, and the County. The park dedication ordinance would be presented to the Council for approval following execution of the lease and the agreement. Joseph Ehrlich, Board Member, Museum of American Heritage, said the
Museum=s attorney had reviewed the option to lease and found it to be acceptable. The Museum would encourage visitors to use mass transit when possible. He referred to the Environmental Checklist Form attached to the staff report (CMR:267:96), and said he had a concern with the last two sentences of the last paragraph under
Item No. 19,6.a) Explanations for Checklist Responses, ΑThere is no assurance that parking on the current PAMF site will be available in the long-term. However, while this parking would be desirable, the parking shortage described above is not considered to be
significant impact.≅ On December 4, 1995, the Council took action to approve the construction of a new education building, and to direct staff to work with the applicant on a variance application for on-site parking requirements and assist the applicant in exploring long-term off-site parking arrangements. While there could be no assurances, the way it was currently written seemed to overlook that action. He called attention to a progress report
06/10/96 79-242
from the Museum dated May 14, 1995, entitled ΑALL SYSTEMS GO!≅ The Museum was on track and enthusiastic. He recognized Museum Board Member Kathleen Craig who had done a fantastic job locating volunteers for the Museum. Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Emily Harrison agreed with Mr. Ehrlich. She said page 5 of the staff report (CMR:267:96)
referenced Council=s direction to staff to work with the applicant on the parking variance, and staff would be assisting as per the
Council=s prior direction. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Kniss, to: 1) authorize the Mayor to execute the option to lease (Option Agreement and Lease) between the City of Palo Alto and the Museum of American Heritage for the development and operation of a history museum and park at 351 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto; 2) approve the negative declaration, finding that the project would have no significant environmental effects; and 3) adopt the Resolution of Intent to dedicate the property as parkland.
Resolution 7594 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring its Intention to Dedicate the Williams Property located at 351 Homer Avenue, as Parkland, upon Execution of a Lease with the Museum of American
Heritage≅ Council Member McCown was pleased to move forward with the option to lease and she was delighted with the progress and status report. Council Member Rosenbaum thought it would take approximately five years to resolve the issue of the Williams Property and indeed it was the fifth year. He thanked everyone for their efforts. Mayor Wheeler felt very comfortable with the Museum of American Heritage as steward for the Williams property. It was a facility of which the community would be very proud. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 13. 725-753 Alma Street - Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing Project - Actions to Award City Commercial Housing In-Lieu Funds for Pre-Construction Expenses, Including Funds for the Acquisition of the Site Joe Martignetti, representing the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, 540 Cowper Street, asked the Council to authorize and approve the necessary assignments of the documents to allow the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) to move forward on the project and to authorize the advance of $1,030,725 for land acquisition and preconstruction costs. On May 8, 1996, the PAHC received approval from the Tax Credit Allocation Committee to receive tax credits,
06/10/96 79-243
and the PAHC was prepared to move forward by June 30, 1996, to close on the land. He urged the Council to support the staff recommendation. MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Huber, to: 1) approve the Resolution consenting to the assignment of the pre-development agreement from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation to Alma Place Associates; 2) approve the Assignment and Assumption Agreement between the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), Alma Place Associates, and the City of Palo Alto, and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement in substantially similar form, and direct the City Manager to administer the provisions of the agreement; 3) approve the agreement (with promissory note and deed of trust) with Alma Place Associates, to provide a new loan of up to $1,030,725 for site acquisition and other expenses related to the development of the Alma Place single-room occupancy housing project; and 4) authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Alma Place Associates in substantially similar form, and direct the City Manager to administer the provisions of the agreement and to execute any other documents required to close the transaction for the acquisition of the 725-753 Alma Street property.
Resolution 7595 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Assignment of All Rights and Obligations of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation Under its Agreement With the City to Fund Pre-Development Expenses Concerning the Proposed SRO Project at 725-753 Alma Street,
Palo Alto to Alma Place Associates≅ Assignment Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, Alma Place Associates Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Alma Place Associates to Fund Pre-Development and Pre-Construction Expenses for a Single Room Occupancy Housing Development at 725-753 Alma Street Council Member Simitian said the project was a testament to how persistence on a worthy cause could achieve the results desired. In the previous year as Mayor when the project was approved,
everyone had to be encouraged because they thought the project=s many obstacles might be its demise. It was now a year later and there was a real project, a real site, and real dollars with a potential of a place for people of modest means and working in the community to live in close proximity to the Downtown. He thanked the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) and everyone involved. So
much of the Council=s work was incremental and the process was not as quick as one might like, but he was gratified to have reached that point and pleased to offer the motion. Council Member Fazzino thanked the PAHC for its efforts in obtaining the tax credits because three or four months prior he had
06/10/96 79-244
heard a much different scenario, and it was remarkable that the PAHC was able to obtain the tax credits without any change in gubernatorial administration or control of the legislature. Council Member Simitian was a leader with regard to affordable housing and the project would not have become a reality without his efforts.
Council Member Rosenbaum echoed Council Member Fazzino=s comments
with regard to Council Member Simitian=s efforts. He thanked the PAHC for the amount of effort that was put into the project.
Council Member Andersen also recognized Council Member Simitian=s efforts in bringing about the project. The bottom line was that persistence paid off.
Council Member Schneider said that Council Member Simitian=s efforts had been persuasive and thanks to his efforts the project had come to fruition. Council Member Simitian thanked staff for making sure everything fit together over the incremental period of time. The project would not be where it was without their efforts. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
06/10/96 79-245