HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-07-09 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting
July 9, 2001
1. Joint Meeting with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) re.270
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m...................270
Regular Meeting.271
1. Finance Committee Recommendation re Redevelopment Agency Feasibility.................................................271
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................281
2. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Sposeto Engineering, Inc., in the Amount of $1,074,596 for Fiscal
Year 2001-02 Phase I Sidewalk Replacement Project...........282
3. Proposed Changes to the Direct Access Customer Choice for
Gas and Electric Customers..................................282
4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the application of SummerHill Homes for a Tentative Map to subdivide a 43,700-square-foot (1.00-acre) parcel into 10 single family lots with detached accessory units at 300
Homer Avenue................................................282
5. Request to Delay Consideration of the Children’s Theatre Staffing Recommendation.....................................283
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m...................286
07/09/01 92-269
The City Council and the Library Advisory Commission met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:45 p.m.
City Council
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler
Library Advisory Commission
PRESENT: Angiletta, Jones, Kallenbach, Kass, Place, Wyman
ABSENT: Kagel SPECIAL MEETING 1. Joint Meeting with the Library Advisory Commission (LAC) re
Role of the LAC in the Implementation of the Library Master Plan No action required.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
07/09/01 92-270
Regular Meeting July 9, 2001
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg,
Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS
1. Finance Committee Recommendation re Redevelopment Agency
Feasibility Council Member Beecham said the Redevelopment Agency feasibility issue went before the Finance Committee, who unanimously recommended approval. The Redevelopment Agency feasibility would
set up a City agency for redevelopment, and direct staff to work on designation of the Edgewood Center as one survey area. Edgewood as a Redevelopment Agency (Agency) issue was a small development in size, cost, and the amount of funds that could be available to the City in property tax. The benefit of Edgewood
was to take care of some of the structural issues in that location. The bigger issue was the establishment of an Agency
for the City. Looking back, there were neighborhoods in the City where an Agency would have been beneficial. For example, in Midtown there were problems five or ten years prior that still
existed and hindered property development. Where the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) existed, there were two parcels that
did not fit in. If the City had an Agency, the Agency would have required those two parcels to be part of the overall process. The Agency could be a long-term tool for the City. For Edgewood,
the City could take care of some short-term issues.
City Manager Frank Benest stated that the Finance Committee vote on the Agency was 3-1. The recommendations from the Finance Committee included: the introduction and first reading of the ordinance declaring the need for an Agency to function in the City; declaring the City Council to be the Agency for the City;
and making the finding that formation of a Agency would serve the public interest and promote the public safety and welfare in an effective manner. Staff would be directed to return to the
Council and Agency upon its formation with a number of organizational documents and actions necessary to organize and
operate the Agency, and designate the Edgewood Center as a survey area. If appropriate, the procedures would be initiated for adoption of a Redevelopment Plan including formation of an informal Neighborhood Advisory Committee (NAC). Under California Redevelopment Law, redevelopment funds could be used for several
purposes. Key notions included that forming a redevelopment
07/09/01 92-271
agency fit in terms of the City’s long-range financial plan. Redevelopment funds were used for several purposes:
infrastructure, public facilities, physical and economic revitalization. By law, at least 20 percent of the funds were required for affordable housing. A redevelopment agency could be a useful tool to help preserve Edgewood Center and other possible neighborhood serving retail centers, which was the
primary motivation. The City and the Agency could form a joint public financing authority to assist in financing infrastructure projects, which was a secondary benefit. The joint public
financing authority would help facilitate the issuance of bonds for any number of projects because the City would be able to
look at a variety of revenue streams to pay debt service on the bonds. As the City moves forward the Council must make a finding of a project area of blight. The term “blight” as used in California Redevelopment Law was defined as either physical deterioration of aging or poorly maintained building and
structures or economic deficiencies that included high business vacancies, low lease rates, and depreciated or stagnant property values. In the Project Area Plan, the Agency would identify some necessary facilities a particular neighborhood would need. A variety of issues were addressed in the responses to Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQ) in Attachment 2 (CMR:306:01). The process for developing those questions was a combined effort with the
City’s outreach to the Edgewood Center, discussions with the Finance Committee, and the outreach through the Chamber of Commerce. The first issue was the difference between zoning and
redevelopment. Under Palo Alto’s zoning power, the City could establish allowable uses for particular areas of real estate,
such as neighborhood-serving retail. The fact that the City could establish allowable use did not ensure the appropriate development. If an Agency was formed and the City had certain
powers under Redevelopment Law, redevelopment could be used as a proactive tool that would facilitate the kind of development or
project desired by the community. As a tool, redevelopment could help assemble parcels, fund necessary offsite improvements, provide loans, and help housing and public facilities, such as libraries. The second issue was the potential impact on the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). Palo Alto has been
committed to public education and the partnership with the PAUSD, including funding. There are a number of ways to avoid significant harm to the PAUSD. One approach would involve
negotiating a “pass through agreement” which would pass some or all of the tax increment from the Agency to the PAUSD. Another
approach would involve identifying several PAUSD projects benefiting the Project Area Plan that could be funded by the Agency. Both possibilities had been discussed with the PAUSD Superintendent Don Phillips. One negative consequence to the formation of the Agency included the potential of the City to
07/09/01 92-272
trample on the individual rights of property owners. The method of dealing with that concern was through the proper governance
of an Agency. The City had proposed that the Council become the governing body of the Agency with the Mayor serving as the Chair, the Vice Mayor serving as the Vice Chair, and the Council serving as the governing body. Another concern to the formation of an Agency included creating a new bureaucracy. On the
positive side, the City would have a vital Agency that was doing well and benefited the community. On the negative side, the City would not want to create a new bureaucracy. The first project of
the Agency would be a small project area. It was proposed that the City Manager would serve as the Executive Director, the City
Attorney would serve as counsel, the Administrative Services Director would serve as the Chief Financial Official, and the Economic Resources Planning Manager, the Real Estate staff, and the Planning staff would assist in the development and implementation of the project plan. The third issue involved
more work for staff and criticism from the public. Key implementation steps included adoption of an ordinance by the proposed first reading, initiation of a Project Area Plan to explore through the NAC, and adoption of the Project Area Plan that would identify the project area. Staff believed the Agency
would fit in with the long-range financial plan of the Council and had endorsed its recommendation along with the Finance
Committee. Bob Rutherford, 1924 Edgewood Drive, supported the Finance
Committee recommendation for a Redevelopment Agency. He felt it was important to the Edgewood neighborhood for something to be
done. He urged the Council to keep in mind the architectural style and scope of the neighborhood when exploring the project area.
Karen White, 146 Walter Hays Drive, said it was time for the
City of Palo Alto to join hundreds of other cities throughout California that had created redevelopment agencies to invigorate areas with unmitigated drop-off in revenues, severe physical deterioration and lack of private investment. Edgewood Plaza needed the kind of help that a Redevelopment Agency could
provide. In the future other areas of Palo Alto would benefit from redevelopment authority. As stated by the City Manager, redevelopment could carry with it fiscal benefits accrued long-
term to be used to build and improve community facilities. A NAC, as recommended, would ensure that what was built at
Edgewood would meet the needs of the community and conform to the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) promised for the Edgewood Center. She urged the Council to adopt the Finance Committee recommendations. It was time to create a Redevelopment Agency as
07/09/01 92-273
a tool to improve Edgewood at the present time and other areas in the future.
Mark Sabin, 4274 Wilkie Way, said a Redevelopment Agency would be a good move. Edgewood presently had two sides to the development and no housing. An Agency would create the opportunity to add housing. Because Edgewood was set in
proximity to Highway 101 and not in the middle of the City, traffic flow would be minimal. He suggested to the Council to include members of local businesses when the NAC was formed.
Edgewood should be both neighborhood-serving and business-sustaining.
Wayne E. Martin, 3687 Bryant Street, opposed the idea of a Redevelopment Agency. He felt there were problems associated with an Agency. One of which was having the Council being the Agency Board. He felt the Council Members were inexperienced in
running a multi-million dollar project and, what the basis would be. Janet Levy, 1843 Edgewood Drive, spoke on behalf of the Duveneck-St. Francis Neighborhood Association in support of the
proposed Redevelopment Agency. The Agency would enable the City a variety of options that would benefit Edgewood and Palo Alto.
Sally Probst, 735 Coastland Drive, supported the idea of a Redevelopment Agency and wondered why one had not been created
previously. One major need of Palo Alto was more sources of revenue. There were housing needs that required maintenance as
well as homes to be built. She suggested that the Council increase the State mandated affordable housing allowance from 20 percent to 30 percent. She felt there were quite a few districts
in the City for which an Agency would be useful in the future and appreciated that Council was taking a step in that
direction. Janet Owens, 850 Webster Street, felt it was important for Palo Alto to have a Redevelopment Agency. It would increase the City’s leverage in negotiations among residents, landowners, and
developers. The City’s image for the future could be imaginative, innovative, and wise, but they would amount to nothing without strong tools for implementation.
Patricia Saffir, 2719 Bryant Street, supported the
implementation of a Redevelopment Agency. The Edgewood Center was a good area to begin redevelopment. She agreed with the suggestion made by Sally Probst to spend more than the required 20 percent for affordable housing.
07/09/01 92-274
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, believed the implementation of a Redevelopment Agency would benefit the developers more than the
residents. An Agency would permit the City to step in and assemble parcels on behalf of the single developers. He felt the Council should be cautious in forming a Redevelopment Agency. Council Member Mossar asked whether the 20 percent tax increment
set aside for affordable housing could involve the purchase of an apartment building or single-family home that was converted to low-income housing, instead of building new housing.
Mr. Benest replied yes. There were a variety of ways to use the
funds to promote affordable housing. Council Member Mossar referred to page 39 of the Redevelopment in California Report (the Report) which stated all amounts calculated pursuant to Section 33607.5 should be calculated
after the Agency deducted the amount of tax increments deposited into the low-and-moderate-income Housing Fund. She asked whether the City’s efforts to make the PAUSD whole for their losses be restricted to only those amounts after the 20 or 30 percent.
Mr. Benest said the 20 or 30 percent tax increment would be taken off the top.
Council Member Mossar asked whether increasing the amount of funds set aside for housing would create difficulties for the
PAUSD.
Mr. Benest said not necessarily. It would create less tax increment for the goals of the Project Area Plan.
Council Member Mossar said in the Report the law carefully constrained what arrangement could be made between the City and
the PAUSD. As understood from the City Manager’s comments, the Agency would be in the position to give the PAUSD some funds. Mr. Benest said yes.
Council Member Mossar referred to page 41 of the Report and clarified that the Council was constrained in how much money could be passed to the PAUSD, as well as how the PAUSD was
restricted in spending those monies.
Administrative Services Director Carl Yeats said from conversations he had with the California Redevelopment Association that afternoon, Palo Alto was a basic-aid district and would be treated differently. There was a special formula that described how money was passed through that would allow the
07/09/01 92-275
City to make the PAUSD whole. The PAUSD was also offered an option to either share in 80 percent of the growth community-
wide or growth within the project area. Council Member Mossar asked whether staff was comfortable with those restrictions referred to on page 41 of the Report and that they would not apply in the district.
Mr. Yeats said basic-aid districts were treated differently.
Council Member Mossar said since the City of Palo Alto, the PAUSD, the County of Santa Clara, and other regional agencies
benefited from property tax, what would the general thinking be in regard to redevelopment and the regions needed to fund regional projects. Mr. Benest said staff was not thinking of taking any money away
from any existing allocated property tax. In terms of growth without redevelopment, the assumption was there would not be the growth in values above the formula. Council Member Mossar clarified that with redevelopment everyone
would benefit even though some agencies would receive less.
Mr. Benest said staff was required by law to get together with each taxing agency and negotiate what was appropriate.
Council Member Mossar asked whether infrastructure projects could be used to finance infrastructure projects anywhere in the
City. Mr. Benest said no. Affordable housing could be anywhere in the
City. Infrastructure should be related to the project area or that which benefited the project area. It must be identified in
the Project Area Plan. Council Member Mossar asked whether disaster and emergency relief could be anywhere in the City or just the project area.
Mr. Benest said, as an example, if there were an earthquake that affected a certain part of the City, the Agency could form an emergency project area and then use tax increment.
Council Member Mossar asked whether the reduction in the Reserve
Fund was the reason for a Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Benest said no. The formation of an Agency was just a benefit.
07/09/01 92-276
Council Member Mossar asked whether an economic analysis would be conducted in conjunction with a feasibility study for
Edgewood Plaza. Mr. Benest said yes. Council Member Mossar asked what the real motivation would be
behind the proposed Agency. Mr. Benest said when the City looked at the goals of
infrastructure, public facilities, and preserving or enhancing certain types of uses, the formation of an Agency made sense.
The Agency would give staff the tools necessary to take a more proactive role to provide the financial means to accomplish those goals. Council Member Mossar asked what would happen after the Agency
was in place. Edgewood Plaza was one issue but not the main issue. The main issue was a major policy decision about whether the City wanted an Agency. If the real intent of forming the Agency was to provide the community an opportunity to raise funds, then that objective should be made clear as well as the
intention to do more than just Edgewood Plaza.
Mr. Benest said the proposed Agency would not be justified for simply Edgewood Plaza.
Council Member Mossar clarified that if the underlying reason was to create a mechanism to raise capital for the community to
spend on future visions, then that should be stated up front. Council Member Beecham said an Agency could be used for other
purposes and probably would be in the future. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Lytle, to recommend to the City Council approval of the following: a) Introduce and give first reading to an ordinance declaring the need for a redevelopment agency to
function in the City of Palo Alto, declaring the City Council to be the redevelopment agency for the City of Palo Alto, and making the finding that the formation of
a redevelopment agency “will serve the public interest and promote the public safety and welfare in an
effective manner in that this public body is best able to serve the needs of the community to implement the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law” according to the Health and Safety Code section; and
07/09/01 92-277
b) Direct staff to return to the Council and Agency, upon its formation, with documents and actions necessary to
organize and operate the Agency, and to designate the Edgewood Center as a survey area and initiate the procedures for adoption of a redevelopment plan, including formation of an informal Neighborhood Advisory Committee.
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring the Need for a Redevelopment Agency
to Function in the City of Palo Alto and Declaring the City Council to be the Redevelopment Agency for the City of Palo
Alto” Mayor Eakins asked whether the motion included the Neighborhood Advisory Committee or was that portion being continued.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the second part of the recommendation included several actions that would be premature until the Agency was actually formed and final. Mayor Eakins said the two parts that Council Member Beecham
outlined would be the complete motion.
Council Member Beecham said it was confusing because in the Council Agenda a Subsection C was noted; however it was not noted in the staff report.
Mr. Calonne said the Finance Committee language was more
developed; however it was best to leave Subsection C out until the Agency was formed and the 31 days for referendum had passed.
Council Member Lytle said she liked what she heard from the public. It was a broad justification to move forward with the
staff recommendation. She believed the Agency was due to expire unless significant legislative changes occurred in future years. Mayor Eakins asked Council Member Lytle when the Agency would expire.
Council Member Lytle said she believed it was in seven years. In past years it was not ruled useful for the City because there
was no provision in the law to allow non-contiguous “blight” areas. It was now possible to have those small separate areas as
one project area. Mayor Eakins asked Council Member Lytle whether she would share some of her experiences working for a Redevelopment Agency.
07/09/01 92-278
Council Member Lytle said she worked for a Redevelopment Agency in San Jose that had a $2.5 billion Capital Improvement Program.
One parallel she made was the recent adoption of a redevelopment plan called the Retail Clusters. It included six different neighborhood centers much like Edgewood with similar constraints. Other cities had used this tool and it was time Palo Alto did the same.
Council Member Mossar said she would support the motion, however, it should be clear that monies would only be there if
the Agency was worked and a lot of redevelopment was done. Redevelopment was about significant change and growth, and Palo
Alto did not seem to want significant growth or change. The Agency should not become, out of a desperate need for funding, the vehicle that could be the downfall of the community. Mayor Eakins concurred with Council Member Mossar’s comments,
and felt the formation of a Redevelopment Agency should be a cautious move. Council Member Fazzino could not support the motion, but supported efforts to redevelop the Edgewood Plaza. There was
plenty of private capital available that the Council should consider. He supported the vision of retail space and affordable
housing but had a problem with the use of redevelopment as the tool because he felt redevelopment was established for truly blighted areas in predominately poor communities. The action
itself would take funds away from the schools, the County, and critically important regional regulatory agencies with oversight
and environmental health and safety programs. Council Member Wheeler supported the motion although
reluctantly. The Agency’s potential to do good for the community outweighed some of the real dangers. At the previous Finance
Committee meeting, staff was questioned on what other planning tools were available that might have helped to overcome the Midtown or Edgewood situations. The way to effectively implement and accomplish some of the visions in the Comp Plan would be through the use of the redevelopment tool.
Council Member Kleinberg said she was uncomfortable with the word blight as it was used by her colleagues and the residents.
Staff should be careful about raising community expectations that everything outdated would be repaired, repainted, or made
to look new. Limitations should be put on a Redevelopment Agency. She was also concerned about the diversion of funds from the schools. Assurances were given by the City Manager and staff at the Finance Committee meeting there would be opportunities for partnership and that was expected to be at the top of the
07/09/01 92-279
list. The procedure for setting up an Agency would be a formal and complicated one with opportunity for public input. The
Agency would allow the City to become partners with the private sector and therefore control its destiny. Council Member Burch supported the motion. A Redevelopment Agency was a tool the City should have and use wisely and
effectively. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked staff how much revenue would be made
from the Edgewood Plaza.
Mr. Benest said it would depend on how much improvement was done to the area. Mr. Yeats said a scenario of low growth and development would produce almost nothing. Over the life of the project area, about
45 years, the total amount would be $658,000; a net present value of approximately $114,000. A medium growth development would produce approximately $2.6 million and involved a basic renovation of the center. Over the life of the project area, the total amount would be $2.1 million; a net present value of
$582,000. A high growth development would produce approximately $13.8 million and involved leveling the entire center and
redeveloping it. Over the life of the project area, the total amount would be approximately $5.9 million; a net present value of approximately $1.7 million.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked what the maximum percentage of tax
increment funds could be used toward affordable housing. Mr. Benest said there was no maximum.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said he would oppose the motion. He concurred
with some of Council Member Fazzino’s comments. He did not feel there had been sufficient involvement with the Edgewood neighborhood except for the neighborhood association representative. A PC Zone could work with an incentive for latitude in site and design requirements. The project would come
sooner with a PC Zone than through a Redevelopment Agency that would take a period of time. Sales tax dollars were presently being lost that would flow back quicker with a PC Zone.
Council Member Beecham said the City would need to spend money
on a shopping center to get money. Money spent on a Redevelopment Agency would be invested and the property tax or sales tax received would pay back the Agency for the investment it made. He saw every reason to go forward with the Agency as a tool.
07/09/01 92-280
Council Member Fazzino said he had ethical concerns with the concept of redevelopment for affluent communities such as Palo
Alto. Mayor Eakins said a Redevelopment Agency was a major policy decision for the City to consider. She considered what an Agency would do to make the vision for the City a reality. If the City
had another tool for a more active directive for redevelopment that would be useful. One stumbling block to accomplishing redevelopment was having numerous parcels with the same number
of parcel owners. All the owners would have to sign a document in agreement for anything to happen and that became daunting. An
Agency had become an appropriate tool to use responsibly. She supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Fazzino, Ojakian “no.”
Mr. Calonne said the second reading of the ordinance would occur on July 23, 2001, and the Agency would be formed 31 days subsequent to that.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Eakins said Council’s purpose in changing the practice for
Oral Communications to occur after the main item was to give a fixed time and provide clear expectations of when the main item could be heard at each Council meeting. Topics addressed during Oral Communications sometimes expressed needs and requests that were just outside the scope of what the Council could do.
Council would not be able to discuss an item brought up during Oral Communications because there would not have been public notice. Anytime the Council became concerned about the content
or situation of a speaker during Oral Communications, staff would be requested to follow-up on the issue.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding cable regulation.
Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 432, spoke regarding Ed Gawf’s
resignation. CONSENT CALENDAR
City Attorney Ariel Calonne noted for the record that an
attachment (Rules and Regulations and Rate Schedules) for Item No. 3 was put at places that evening.
07/09/01 92-281
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Ojakian, to
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 and 3.
ADMINISTRATIVE 2. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Sposeto Engineering, Inc., in the Amount of $1,074,596 for Fiscal
Year 2001-02 Phase I Sidewalk Replacement Project 3. Proposed Changes to the Direct Access Customer Choice for
Gas and Electric Customers
Resolution 8074 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Suspending the Implementation of the City of Palo Alto Direct Access Programs for Electric and Gas Utility Customers” Resolution 8075 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending Utility Rate Schedules G-3, G-4, G-7, G-11, G-12, E-4, E-4-G1, E-4-G2, E-4-G3, E-7, E-7-G1, E-7-G2, E-7-G3, E-8, E-9, E-11 And E-17 Pertaining to Direct Access Eligibility and Amending Rule and Regulation 19 Governing Electric Direct Access”
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the application of SummerHill Homes for a Tentative Map to
subdivide a 43,700-square-foot (1.00-acre) parcel into 10 single family lots with detached accessory units at 300 Homer Avenue. File No. 00-SUB-08. Environmental Assessment:
An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared.
Vice Mayor Ojakian stated that over the course of discussions on the item, he was conflicted due to his wife’s employment with Palo Alto Medical Foundation. He was advised that he did not currently have a legal conflict, but since he had not participated previously, he would abstain on the item that
evening. Current Planning Manager John Lusardi said the item was a
tentative subdivision that would provide for the development of ten single-family residences with detached accessory living
units. The subdivision map would implement the project approval actions made by the Council on April 30, 2001. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PT&C) reviewed and recommended approval of the map along with three additional conditions as outlined in the staff report (CMR:302:01). Staff recommended to
07/09/01 92-282
the Council approval of the subdivision map and the additional three conditions.
Council Member Burch clarified that there must be a typographical error on page 2 of the Tentative Map. He said Lot 7 could not be 7,375 square feet, when the other lots were 4,370.
MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Lytle, to
approve the Tentative Map based on the findings (Attachment A)
and conditions (Attachment B) of CMR:302:01
Council Member Lytle said she thought the PT&C added good conditions to the map and appreciated the work they did. Council Member Burch concurred with Council Member Lytle’s comments. The idea of adding individual meters and kitchens to
the secondary units to make them functioning units was an important addition. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1, Ojakian “abstaining”.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
5. Request to Delay Consideration of the Children’s Theatre Staffing Recommendation
Linda Zlotnik, President of the Friends of the Palo Alto Children’s Theatre (Friends), 507 Alger Drive, said the
Children’s Theatre program had been a wonderful resource for her family. She thanked the Council for their consideration of a full-time technical assistant position for the theatre. The
position was originally contemplated and recommended for Fiscal Year 2001-02. A number of proposals were made to offset or
minimize the impact of the position on the budget, such as finding additional revenue. The past summer admission prices for both children and adults increased by $1 and the Board of Friends considered an additional $1 increase for adult tickets. Those increases would generate approximately $17,000.
John C. Owicki, 956 N. California Avenue, said the technical supervisory assistant position involved working with the
children backstage creating scenery and props. The position was more directive than administrative. The chronic understaffing of
the Children’s Theatre lead to a staffing study the previous year which made several points: 1) staffing had been static since 1985; 2) structural changes had occurred such as the elimination of the community box office in 1993; and 3) safety and supervisory concerns had become large. The study encouraged
07/09/01 92-283
City staff to recommend the creation of two theatre positions in Fiscal Year 2000-01, and one position in Fiscal Year 2001-02.
He urged the Council to follow through on staff’s recommendation for the position. Beth Broderson, 900 Los Robles Avenue, said the Children’s Theatre was a positive and well-structured program for her
family. She urged the Council to support the staffing request. Katie Leyva, 900 Los Robles Avenue, urged the Council to
strongly consider the request for more staffing.
Sean Mahoney, 2267 Tasso Street, said the Children’s Theatre took a unique approach that was not commonplace where the youth carried out every part of the production for performances. Each year the demand for participants grew, but the size of the supervisory and teaching staff did not. To allow for growth of
the Children’s Theatre and its backstage participants, the technical assistant position was needed. Joshua Moran, 3394 South Court, said he had benefited from the Children’s Theatre through participation in the various programs
they offered. He felt it could only help the theatre to add another staff position.
Tony Klein, Board Member of the Friends of the Children’s Theatre, 58 Seville Drive, said the proposed position for a
technical supervisory assistant was to fulfill a need for programs already in place. The recommendation for the position
was in the works three years prior and was a necessary position. It was recognized that the position would not be revenue neutral, but raising ticket prices and program fees would
discourage participation from children, parents, and community members. He urged the Council to support the proposal that
evening instead of waiting until the Fall of 2001. Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether the technical supervisory assistant position would be the last request from the Children’s Theatre for awhile.
Mr. Klein said when the proposal went before staff initially, it was believed four positions would be an adequate number to meet
the existing programs at that time. MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct staff to return to Council in the Fall of 2001 with a recommended course of action regarding funding and the provision of an additional position for the Children’s Theatre. Staff should come back to Council after examining an option that would
07/09/01 92-284
not be revenue neutral, but possibly using some or all of City funds.
Council Member Kleinberg said it was the Council’s responsibility to find the funds for the Children’s Theatre in terms of the public health and safety for the children. Additional findings from the staff report (CMR:300:01)
demonstrated that the added staff person would provide necessary relief to the current staff and their support duties. The staff report also pointed out an overall increase in personnel in
Community Services of 52.7 percent; however, in the Arts and Culture Division the increase for Children’s Theatre was none.
She urged her colleagues to support the motion. Council Member Fazzino said the Children’s Theatre was a special institution in Palo Alto that had enjoyed significant growth for the previous 15 years in terms of the number of children who
became involved in the programs. The Friends lent their support and commitment in raising the necessary funds to improve the facilities. The previous City Manager June Fleming and himself as the Mayor of Palo Alto in 1999, had many discussions about the staffing needs for the Children’s Theatre. At that time
commitments were made to add the additional staffing and those commitments should be honored. He believed the Council should
move forward and fund the position. Council Member Wheeler supported the motion but wanted staff to
return with a range of options for staffing such as revenue neutral that could reduce the impact on the General Fund.
Council Member Lytle concurred with Council Member Wheeler’s remarks. Children’s programs and the safety of those programs
should be a priority for the City. There was an expanding demand for children’s services and the Theatre was a cherished and
valuable program for the kids. She supported the motion and hoped it could be addressed soon. Council Member Mossar concurred with Council Member Wheeler’s comments, but at some point the Council would have to stop
addressing every new project that came up. She supported the motion, and would also like to see a range of options to fund the position.
Council Member Burch supported the motion as proposed.
Vice Mayor Ojakian supported the motion, but his preference was not to dip into the budget stabilization reserve nor the infrastructure reserve. He suggested either raising the funds or use funding from the Community Services Department Budget.
07/09/01 92-285
Mayor Eakins supported the motion; however, the Council should stick to the principles they affirmed to not continue to add new
projects when they became popular. The staffing position was a special case because of a prior commitment. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(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.
07/09/01 92-286