HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-20 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting July 20, 1998 1. Recruitment of City Clerk..............................87-26 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m..............87-26 1. Interviews for Planning Commission.....................87-27 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m..............87-27 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................87-28 1. Planning Organizational Evaluation Review and Implementation (Zucker) and Planning Work Program - Resource Request - Refer to Finance Committee...................................87-28 3. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C8096728 between the City of Palo Alto and Consolidated Engineering Laboratories for Soils and Materials Testing..................................87-28 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Cupertino Electric, Inc. For Library Lighting Improvements - CIP 19701.....87-28
5. Ordinance 4509 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-1999 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $34,792 to Cover the
Increase in the City=s Annual Rental Payment to the Palo Alto Unified School District for the Lease and Covenant Not to Develop for an Extended Day Care Center at the New Hoover
School Site≅ ..........................................87-29 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS ...................87-29 6. Conference with Labor Negotiator.......................87-29 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will review a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and consider three appeals of a Zoning Administrator approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a private outdoor recreation service (tennis facility) for property located at 3009 Middlefield
07/20/98 87-24
Road on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center.................................................87-29 8. Finance Committee re the Basic Elements of the General Fund (GF) Infrastructure Prioritization Methodology and Financing Plan (continued from 7/13/98)..........................87-30 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the certification of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).....................87-36 9A. (Old Item No. 2) Approval of Compensation Plan and Memorandum of Agreement for SEIU Employees .......................87-41 10. Council Members Mossar, Huber and Fazzino re City Policy on Re-Use of St. Ann Chapel Site..........................87-43 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements.........87-52
07/20/98 87-25
07/20/98 87-26
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:10 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Recruitment of City Clerk Mayor Rosenbaum said the issue was whether the City Council wanted
to use the City=s Human Resources Department to handle the recruitment of the City Clerk or to hire a consultant firm. He indicated that a consultant firm would cost approximately $20,000. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, that the City Council request the services of the Human Resources Department to handle the recruitment of the City Clerk and to reserve the right to seek a consultant firm should the need arise. MOTION PASSED 7-2, Huber, Schneider "no." ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
07/20/98 87-27
Special Meeting July 20, 1998 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:30 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Planning Commission No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
07/20/98 87-28
Regular Meeting July 20, 1998 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Rosenbaum appointed Council Members Fazzino and Mossar as liaisons to work with the Peninsula Interfaith Actions (PIA) on the development of a multi-service day facility for the homeless and those at risk of homelessness. Sylvia Smitham, 2514 Birch Street, spoke regarding 1) concern about a piece of artwork to be placed at Birch and California Avenue, and 2) congratulations on a wedding. Arlen J. Hagen, 788 Cereza Drive, spoke regarding Juana Briones Park - lighting and rooted walkways. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding civic responsibility. Johnny Madrid, P. O. Box 3952, Stanford, spoke regarding Brownfields. Kristina Tom, P. O. Box 3952, Stanford, spoke regarding Brownfields. Herb Borock, P. O. Box 632, spoke regarding Arastradero Preserve repairs. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 5, with Item No. 2 removed by Mayor Rosenbaum. 1. Planning Organizational Evaluation Review and Implementation (Zucker) and Planning Work Program - Resource Request - Refer to Finance Committee 3. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C8096728 between the City of Palo Alto and Consolidated Engineering Laboratories for Soils and Materials Testing 4. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Cupertino Electric, Inc. For Library Lighting Improvements - CIP 19701
07/20/98 87-29
5. Ordinance 4509 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-1999 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $34,792 to Cover the
Increase in the City=s Annual Rental Payment to the Palo Alto Unified School District for the Lease and Covenant Not to Develop for an Extended Day Care Center at the New Hoover
School Site≅ Amendment No. 1 to Lease and Covenant Not to Develop Between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Unified School District MOTION PASSED 9-0 for Item Nos. 1 and 3-5. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 2 would become Item No. 9A. CLOSED SESSION
6. Conference with Labor Negotiator (This item has been removed from the Agenda) Agency Negotiator: City Council Ad Hoc Personnel Committee (Dick Rosenbaum, Micki Schneider and Lanie Wheeler) Unrepresented Employee: City Clerk Gloria Young Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. PUBLIC HEARING: The City Council will review a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and consider three appeals of a Zoning Administrator approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a private outdoor recreation service (tennis facility) for property located at 3009 Middlefield Road on the site of the former Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Center, including the reorientation of two of the four existing tennis courts, resurfacing of the two remaining courts and construction of one additional court, a passive park area, restroom facilities and related landscaping and site improvements. (continued from 12/1/97 - item to be continued to August 10, 1998, at the request of staff) MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Schneider moved, seconded by Wheeler, to continue the item to the Monday, August 10, 1998, City Council Meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED: 9-0.
07/20/98 87-30
8. Finance Committee re the Basic Elements of the General Fund (GF) Infrastructure Prioritization Methodology and Financing Plan (continued from 7/13/98) Council Member Wheeler said the Council, over the prior years, had
been looking at the Αbuilt≅ environment in Palo Alto, everything from the streets and sidewalks to the City buildings and facilities, to determine what it would take by way of resources to keep those facilities in top-notch condition. In prior reports to the Council, $95 million worth of facility maintenance was identified to be accomplished over the following ten-year period. About one third of the $95 million was to catch up with a backlog of deferred maintenance; the other two-thirds was to keep the facilities in fine repair on an on-going basis. The report from the Finance Committee centered around two major topics. The first was the concept of the prioritization methodology that was used to determine which projects would come first. The second major topic was the idea that the Council would utilize current revenue sources for infrastructure maintenance versus using new sources of revenue if the Council and community determined they wished to construct new capital facilities. The motion from the Finance Committee endorsed the methodology for prioritization that was presented to the Committee by the Administrative Services Department. The
Finance Committee=s discussion on the methodology and on the prioritization emphasized several points. The Committee determined there was a need to synchronize projects. An example was a street repair one year and a sidewalk repair the following year which would necessitate excavating the street twice. There was a need for flexibility because there could be changes in the ten-year timeframe, and there was a need to have timely discussion with the Council and the community to determine whether it was best, under certain circumstances, to proceed with repairing an old facility or whether it might be best to determine whether a new facility should be constructed. As far as the financing portion of the recommendation was concerned, the Committee passed along its recommendation to deal with approximately $75 million of the $95 million package, which would be funded through increased funding for the annual Capital Improvement Program, the use of the infrastructure reserve, the designation of half of the new revenue that was generated by major new development projects, and the use of budget savings. The implication of the latter method of funding was that the Council would need to be prudent as the year progressed and there was temptation to look at and pass Budget Amendment Ordinances (BAO). Each BAO passed during a year reduced the amount of money that would go toward infrastructure maintenance in later years. The Council would need to weigh the new program and the new expenditure against the infrastructure plan and program. The Committee retained the discussion of the method proposed by staff to fund the remaining $21 million of infrastructure maintenance. Staff had proposed an increase in the transient occupancy tax to fund the remaining $21 million. The
07/20/98 87-31
Committee determined it would like to have further discussion on that issue as well as alternative methods of raising that revenue. The Committee felt there needed to be discussion with the public on the methods that might be used to raise the additional funds. An increased emphasis on infrastructure maintenance would require the addition of staff. The Hughes-Heiss Report received by the Council several years prior indicated the Public Works Department in particular had enough staffing to support a Capital Improvement Program. The Committee recommended going ahead with an enhanced Capital Improvement Program over the next ten years and noted that staff would not be adequate to handle a higher level of effort in that area. Other Department staff would be impacted as well. An implementation plan with staffing needs would return to the Committee in the fall and to the Council in late fall. The City Council decision at the current meeting would permit the staff to proceed with work on the implementation plan, would allow staff to make a timely decision on the plan, and would permit the Council to include some of the work in the 1999-2000 Budget. Investment Analyst Joseph Saccio said there were three broad categories in presenting information to the Council: Public Buildings and Facilities, Traffic and Transportation, and Parks and Open Space. The Public Buildings and Facilities consisted of all the buildings and facilities within the City and a prioritization of all the work on the buildings and facilities was made by a consultant with assistance from staff. When the prioritization for Buildings was made, the consultant used three categories: the criticality of a building; for instance, a fire building that served the public was deemed more important than a lawn bowling
facility that served a small portion of the city=s population. Another criteria that was used was the criticality of building systems; for instance, a roof was more important to maintain a facility than painting that needed to be done. The third criteria would be the number of people affected by a facility. A formidable dilemma was how to prioritize work for a street versus a sidewalk versus a building versus a park. Staff tried to develop a methodology for prioritizing work and agreed that all the areas were deserving. Any funding approved by Council should be allocated to each of the elements in such a way that a fair share of critical work that needed to be done in each subcategory would be done. It was important to stress that staff intended to be flexible in recommending infrastructure projects in future years. There would be a review process by Senior Management within the City and review on suggested projects before the Planning Commission prior to review by the Finance Committee and City Council. Vice Mayor Schneider said page 12 of the staff report (CMR:191:98) mentioned seeking voter approval to include more visible or popular rehabilitation projects. There would be General Obligation Bonds
with an annual charge that would be included in an individual=s
07/20/98 87-32
property tax. She asked how much a $100 million bond would put on
each person=s tax bill over a 20 or 30 year period. Manager, Investments and Debt, Jim Steele said the amount would vary depending on the individual house. Council Member Mossar questioned Attachment 6 of the staff report (CMR:191:98) which mentioned costs not included in the existing infrastructure financing plan, specifically the Lucie Stern Community Theatre Air Conditioning Project. There was some community expectation that the project was to be completed, and
there was concern that the project should not be in the ΑCosts Not
Included≅ list. City Manager June Fleming said many supporters of the Theatre came forward with the idea of securing grant funding for the project. The timing for completing the grant application and getting a good estimate of what the cost might be from staff were not compatible. Rather than have the opportunity lost, staff rendered a guess with the proviso that staff could not stand by the estimate because the accuracy was unknown. The grant application went forward and was funded an amount that would not complete the air conditioning. There were several options available. The easier one was the source of the grant was extremely supportive of the project and may reconsider the allocation. Council Member Mossar clarified the project was dependent upon grant funding and was not currently scheduled. Ms. June Fleming said that was accurate. Council Member Fazzino thanked the staff for an excellent report. The report represented ongoing infrastructure needs and did not relate to some of the large more visible infrastructure needs that the City might look at over the next few years in terms of the Police/Fire Public Safety facility and issues such as significant improvements to arterials throughout the City. He asked the City Manager to provide comment on the parallel paths that those issues were being addressed. Ms. Fleming said the Council made the hard policy decision which was to insist that the City take care of what it had. The City worked with limited financial resources and was stretched to find a way to maintain what it had. No matter what point in time staff would have chosen, there would have been other things that would arise, such as air conditioning or a new building. Staff had to determine where to stop and make a philosophical decision about what would be funded out of existing resources without having to go to the voter. The day had come when Palo Alto could not fund
everything on a Αpay-as-you-go≅ basis.
07/20/98 87-33
Mr. Saccio said the staff report (CMR:191:98) made a distinction between existing infrastructure and new infrastructure, such as a
public safety building or the library master plan. Staff=s recommendation was to seek new funding to carry forth with those new structures. The Council made it clear that it wanted a picture of existing infrastructure and new infrastructure. Staff intended to bring to the Finance Committee in September a list of projects and potential financing options for new facilities which were addressed in the staff report. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) growth was earmarked in possible violation of Prop 218. Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats said the recommendation was that the TOT might be one possible source of funding which went into the General Fund of the City which was not specifically earmarked for any expenditure. The recommendation was to increase the TOT which would flow into the general fund and work with the overall infrastructure management plan and flow down to the infrastructure reserve. Council Member Fazzino clarified the same intent went for Utility Users Tax and other proposed tax alternatives. Mr. Yeats said that was correct. Council Member Kniss said the Council had prior discussions about the air conditioning. She heard from Theatre staff that they were surprised the air conditioning was not completed during the current year. Her recollection was that the lack of air conditioning was problematic for sitting in the Theatre. The Council had felt it was desirable to have the plays happening in the community. Ms. Fleming said the initial conversation about air conditioning started years prior with the Main Library when they kept temperature charts. There was a written, unwritten, or understood policy about air conditioning in City facilities. When staff did the first upgrade, some changes were made to the Main Library. There was discussion then about air conditioning, and the decision was that an improved ventilation system would be put in. That was done, and it did not work extremely well. In recent years, there had been general discussion about the need to air condition a number of City facilities, and the theatre stood out. The first time air conditioning in the theatres came before the staff was in
connection with the Children=s Theatre project. The administration did not recommend an air conditioning project for the remodel, and
the Friends of the Children=s Theatre worked diligently to try to have that included. The theatres were among the top facilities that people asked to have air conditioned. She believed communications were not as clear as they could have been. The cost
to add to the existing funds to air condition the Children=s
07/20/98 87-34
Theatre would be significant but would not throw the program out of balance if the Council asked staff to give it a different prioritization. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved for the Finance Committee that the City Council approve the basic elements of the General Fund (GF) infrastructure prioritization methodology and financing plan below, and to direct staff to return to the Committee with a more refined implementation plan in Fall 1998: 1. Prioritize existing facilities over new facilities for purposes of infrastructure funding. Staff recommends that new or enhanced infrastructure, such as a public safety building or an expanded main library, and major new traffic and transportation projects be funded from specific new revenue sources such as general obligation bonds, grants, new or increased taxes, and assessment or special tax districts.
2. Approve staff=s methodology for prioritizing General Fund infrastructure work. 3. Conceptually approve a ten-year, $74 million Infrastructure Funding Plan to include: a) allocating 75 percent of annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) spending to infrastructure, to total $4.6 million per year, or $46 million over ten years. This level represents current infrastructure spending levels in the GF and Street Improvement Fund (SIF). This level of funding leaves around $1.6 million in the CIP budget for non-infrastructure items, such as technology, lighting improvements, public art, remodeling, and other miscellaneous projects; b) augmenting current CIP spending by $1.0 million per year, or $10 million over ten years. It is anticipated that funding would come from budget savings that would revert to the Infrastructure Reserve at year end; c) utilizing the GF Infrastructure Reserve, which is expected to total around $13.0 million by July 1, 1999; d) directing half of expected revenue growth as a result of hotel expansion and development projects to infrastructure work. Half of this revenue is anticipated to total $.95 million per year, or $9.5 million over ten years. 4. Development of an infrastructure implementation plan, including an integration of new or enhanced infrastructure with existing infrastructure projects and an infrastructure staffing augmentation plan. With the
Committee=s and Council=s approval, staff proposes to return to the Committee in about six months with a more detailed timeline and implementation plan.
07/20/98 87-35
Ms. Fleming said she could not provide the Council with an estimate of when the air conditioning could be accomplished. Council Member Kniss asked whether there could be a 12-month time frame for discussion and closure. Ms. Fleming said staff would have to come back to the Council with a request for funds to move the project onto the priority list, at which time the Council would receive a better idea of timing. AMENDMENT: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Mossar, that the air conditioning for the Lucie Stern Community Center be included in the General Fund infrastructure prioritization methodology and financing plan as a priority item on the list. Vice Mayor Schneider said the City Manager told the Council that if more were spent than what was recommended, the funds would have to be moved. She asked whether something of higher priority would not be funded. Ms. Fleming said any change to the priority list would impact something; however, she did not believe that one move would create a negative impact on the program. Vice Mayor Schneider clarified $75,000 was received from the Packard Foundation for the project. Ms. Fleming said the amount was between $150,000 and $200,000, and the cost of the project was more than double that amount. Council Member Mossar said the cultural arts were an important part of the community, and air conditioning was necessary to make the Theatre a viable venue. AMENDMENT PASSED 9-0. Mayor Rosenbaum said there had been tentative discussions between the City and the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) about the possibility of the City making some contribution in connection with the School Building Program to the gymnasium or library at Gunn High School. The PAUSD was to provide the City with some information in September as to the costs involved. He asked how any of those programs would fit into the plan. Ms. Fleming said when the Council changed priorities, staff changed its course direction. She believed staff had to maintain flexibility in order for the Council to make adjustments. The program was not put together with a gymnasium in mind because at the City/School Liaison Committee abandoned the idea in favor of the library. There was not a concept of gym expansion because there was no support of staff or the City/School Liaison Committee. If the Council changed its mind, staff would make the necessary
07/20/98 87-36
adjustment. There was nothing before the Council at the present meeting that prohibited the discussion from taking place. Council Member Wheeler said the issue of the gymnasium came before the Finance Committee and was not enthusiastically presented by PAUSD. The City staff had determined, as far as the City was concerned, there was no particular unmet need for City programs that would be met by an enlarged PAUSD gymnasium. The subject of
the joint library had been on the Finance Committee=s agenda for many years, and City policy makers had endorsed a joint library facility at the Gunn High School site. City staff worked closely with the PAUSD staff to plan for such a facility. That was not part of the plan before the Council at the present meeting, and
there was nothing in the plan that would preclude the Council=s furthering either of those items. Council Member Kniss said there had been few items that had been discussed more extensively. One of the areas she hoped the Council would aim toward was to have more cooperation and therefore advantage the dollars substantially. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 9-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the certification of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as adequate, make the findings required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and adopt the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan and Land Use and Circulation Map based on Planning Commission and City Council finding that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was adequately prepared and City Council finding that the FEIR responds to all comments on DEIR. The Plan proposed for adoption is consistent with the Plan recommended by the Planning Commission and tentatively adopted by the Council on December 2, 1997. As provided by law, the Planning Commission reviewed the final document on January 14, 1998, and made no significant comments. The Plan contains new and revised goals, policies and programs for six elements: Land Use and Community Design, Transportation, Housing, Natural Environment, Community Services and Facilities and Business and Economics. The Plan contains a new Governance Chapter and an Introduction that are not elements, and a Housing Element Technical Document that meets State of California requirements for preparation of a Housing Element. City Attorney Ariel Calonne noted two revisions to the resolution to Section 1. (A) as followed: "The City of Palo Alto ("City") proposes to adopt the 1998-2000 2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to replace the 1980-1995 Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995."
07/20/98 87-37
Planning Commissioner Phyllis Cassel thanked the City Council, Planning Commission, staff, and members of the community who were involved in the preparation of the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). The document looked at quality of life, what was the best way to live with each other, and how to develop a community. Robin Bayer, 381 Oxford Avenue, said by participating in the process as a Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) alternate she enjoyed wonderful and illuminating interactions. She appreciated everyone who joined her in considering how ecology could be a basis for successful planning. She was grateful to those who, by declining to do so, assisted her in understanding the difficulty of applying well-proven scientific methods and principles to public policy. The Comp Plan was an inconsistent wish list of conflicting goals, objectives, and programs and lacked measurable performance standards that were essential to ascertain whether it was being successfully implemented. The Comp Plan was the result of an extravagant and manipulative process. Trisha Ward Dolkas, CPAC member, summed it up when she said staff was spending a lot of money to keep the process forward but that was not public participation. There was abundant evidence from around the country and the world that bringing additional people to live and work in Palo Alto would entail greater real cost per unit benefit than would supplying housing and employment to people almost anywhere else they lived today. As a Planning Commissioner, Vic Ojakian had joined her in suggesting a study of the impacts of an end to growth, but the alternative was never formally evaluated. By planning to allow and encourage more people, building, and paving, it was guaranteed that people would work harder for less. There would be more noise; more traffic congestion; more resource depletion; more hazardous and toxic substances in air, water, and soil; and more general degradation of the physical environment in Palo Alto and beyond. The Plan was a blueprint for destruction and a one-way ticket to a lower quality of life. City Attorney Ariel Calonne, a trained biologist, had commented that a sound plan must address carrying capacity even though people might have difficulty acknowledging that growth could not continue for the indefinite future. A plan to prevent further growth of human population, both resident and workforce, and to prevent net increase in building and paving was a necessary step towards making a guide to community improvement. She urged the Council to take the step. Her final
message was Αtime will tell.≅ If the Council approved the Plan, the Council, the authors, and supporters of the Plan were telling the residents they deemed it a secure path to a better future. It was a road to ruin. The bet was on. In 10 or 15 years, people will look around and see who predicted more accurately and promised more truthfully. Near certain that she would win the wager in a narrow sense, she felt a sadness at the enormous loss of people everywhere that small victory entailed. Raymond Herbert, 2339 Sierra Court, thanked the Council, staff, and public for the past five and a half years that were spent in
07/20/98 87-38
putting together the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan would address all areas of the City, City life, residents, businesses, neighborhoods, the rules that the City would operate by, buildings, parks, roads, events, transportation, aesthetics, etc. Appropriately the Comp Plan included environmental studies and environmental protection for the waterways, creeks, land, air, streets, transportation, etc., for its ongoing preservation. He reminded the Council of the matter of safety. Of all the obligations and responsibilities that a City had to its public, the safety of its citizens and property had to be at the top. As the goals of the City and Comp Plan were being met, the goal of safety should not be compromised. He was referring to the environmental protection of the San Francisquito Creek and the other creeks as well. The Creek flooded on February 3, and there were efforts under way to bring the flooding under control so that it would not happen again. It was a long-term plan that would take about ten or more years. Palo Alto should not let the concern for the environmental and aesthetic well being of the creek inhibit the work that had begun to manage and control the flooding of the creek over time. The Comp Plan should include safety and should acknowledge and communicate the fact that the City was committed to the safety of its people, its businesses, and its properties as a top priority. The Comp Plan presented an opportunity to communicate that commitment. Herb Borock, P. O. Box 632, said when the draft Plan was before the Council some time prior, he pointed out to the Council that the draft Comp Plan failed to meet the requirement of internal consistency because the Transportation Element did not match the Land Use Element. He wanted to view the final document but could not obtain a copy. The resolution presented to the Council by the City Attorney demonstrated the continuing inconsistency between the Land Use Element and the Transportation Circulation Element. There were 15 significant impacts that could not be fully mitigated in the transportation circulation and parking. In addition to those, there were six significant impacts in the same section that were alleged would be mitigated to less than a significant level. Those included three intersections that had been on a list of funding and continued to be delayed year after year. One was at Middlefield Road and Oregon Expressway. The other impacts dealt with parking demand and parking issues. He did not believe the Council had a consistent plan if no one challenged the inconsistency of the Comp Plan. It would only show up over the years in the significant adverse effects of development or the inability to develop according to the land use component of the plan as it currently existed. Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, said there was a lot of inconsistencies in the Comp Plan. One that recently came out was
on the Αgetting people out of their cars≅ aspect which addressed producing a shuttle but also said if people came downtown, they needed a place to park. That was a contradiction. He hoped the Council would make the decisions that, in addition to including
07/20/98 87-39
incentives such as providing a shuttle, certain disincentives such as not continuing to provide free parking for everyone who chose to drive should be considered. A major aspect coming out of the
environmental movement was something called Αsmart growth.≅ A
previous speaker did not talk about Αsmart growth≅ but spoke about
Αno growth.≅ If the idea in Αsmart growth≅ was to take the growth and place it in the areas which were already developed or built out, then the growth would not have to be put into the areas that were truly open space. Palo Alto was part of the urban core of the Bay Area. There was a need to welcome new residents in a way that the neighborhood character would not be changed. He looked forward to the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Rosenbaum closed the public hearing. Council Member Eakins thanked everyone who worked on the Comp Plan and, in particular, former Mayor Jean McCown who had the inspiration to do a plan with a grassroots process. There was much questioning and self doubt during the process, but it was definitely a community revival process. Four members of the current Council were part of the process. Growth and change were the hardest issues discussed. There was not a specific set of directions, but that growth would be managed carefully while maintaining community values through many small directions. The cumulative effect was one of managed, orderly, appropriate change. The committee was large which caused some consternation and some inconvenience, but it worked fine to have such a large, broad-based committee. What was not envisioned in the beginning was early direction arising from the group. However, one person said he wanted to see people work toward having a city in which people could talk to each other more easily. That theme caught hold and guided much of the thinking of the Comp Plan. The major themes of the Comp Plan had been mentioned many times: pedestrian-friendly environment to reduce total reliance on the automobile, emphasis on building community and neighbors, maintaining and enhancing community character, trying to meet the housing challenges, caring for the natural environment, meeting residential and commercial needs in a balanced way, and providing responsive governance and regional leadership. The City Manager mentioned the Comp Plan was a blueprint. It was a blueprint for budgeting as well as for planning. The maps were readable, useful, and informative. The
Comp Plan was a fitting successor to Palo Alto=s innovative tradition of very fine comprehensive plans. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Schneider, to adopt the resolution certifying the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as adequate and making the findings required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adopting the 1998-2010 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Land Use and Circulation Map as transmitted to the Council with an amendment to the resolution as follows to revised Section
07/20/98 87-40
1. (A) "The City of Palo Alto (>City=) proposes to adopt the 1998-
2000 2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to replace the 1980-1995
Comprehensive Plan 1980-1995."
Resolution 7780 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Making Findings Thereon Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Adopting the 1998-2010 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and
Land Use and Circulation Map≅ Council Member Kniss said the Council started the Comprehensive Plan process in anticipation that by using volunteers extensively, the City would save a great amount of money, time, and effort. She
agreed with Council Member Eakins= comments that the process did get the City up and going and also altered a number of outcomes. The Comp Plan was an impressive document. Council Member Ojakian acknowledged several people in the audience who were very involved in putting the Comp Plan together. There was still work ahead including an implementation plan and revision of the zoning ordinance. It was a living document and a good effort to balance the various needs and concerns of the community. Council Member Huber said the product was excellent and the process was very important. The process brought together different ideas from different people of different backgrounds. In his judgement, a comprehensive plan always contained conflicting goals. There was dynamic tension that came from wanting housing and less traffic. It was a bit of something for everyone, but it was done with a large community group and outreach which made it a plan everyone could buy into. Council Member Wheeler found it hard to believe that five and a half years had passed since she, Council Member Fazzino, and former Council Member Cobb sat in the seventh floor conference room and reviewed close to 150 applications from people interested in sitting on the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC). With that began the task of putting together the Comp Plan. She agreed with former speakers that the document was large and addressed a number of issues and might appear to be something for everyone. Given her experience with other comprehensive plans, she did not believe there was a document anywhere in the state where more thought had been given to including more aspects of the community than just its physical development which many comprehensive plans confined themselves to. She did not believe there was another city that had given more thought, energy or debate into how to fit all the goals and aspirations of the community together in a relatively cohesive, articulate fashion. Council Member Eakins articulated the major goals as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comp Plan was very clear regarding the community values and where the City
07/20/98 87-41
wanted to be in the beginning of the 21st century. It was a document that was worthy of the prodigious effort that was exerted to put it together. She thanked the members of CPAC, current and former staff members, the Planning Commission and Council Members who invested a large amount of time on the document. Council Member Fazzino said much had been expressed about the time
and cost involved with the process. It was uniquely ΑPalo Altan≅ which said wonderful and challenging things about the community. Given the nature of the community and incredible amount of talent and participation, it would have been wrong to try to impose a general plan in the community. The community should be thanked for helping to put together the blueprint for the years ahead. He also congratulated the members of the CPAC because there were tremendous discussions on a variety of issues; but when decisions had to be made, the committee made those decisions and moved forward. The Comp Plan addressed the interrelationship of various issues such as housing, transportation, land use, and governance; and the plan recognized the importance of the interrelationship of various jurisdictions. The Plan challenged the Council to address the issues on a more comprehensive, broad basis. The process put in place a new generation of leaders for Palo Alto. Mayor Rosenbaum said the Comprehensive Plan had been the major legislative activity for those elected to the Council in 1991 and 1993. He thanked Ken Schreiber who served as the Director of Planning and Community Environment through the entire process. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 9A. (Old Item No. 2) Approval of Compensation Plan and Memorandum of Agreement for SEIU Employees Mayor Rosenbaum said there were two reasons for removing the item from the Consent Calendar. He believed staff might have some changes to the numbers in the report and he had comments to make on a particular benefit contained in the agreement. City Manager June Fleming said the Mayor had discussed with the staff and her the two concerns he had. It was fair to say they evolved around total informational disclosure about impact. Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats said in a meeting with the Mayor that two sections of the staff report were discussed. The main section was the resource impact section. The Mayor had asked for more descriptive language which was outlined on the overhead projector and distributed to the Council. It divided the contract into the three agreements and addressed the cost for the first, second, and third contract years. The language in the report was proposed to be changed to "The cost of the first year of the contract provision is $1,895,683. This cost is based upon a 4 percent salary increase beginning May 1, 1998 ($1,309,400); a 2
07/20/98 87-42
percent at 55 retirement plan beginning January 1, 1999.≅ That would be the prorated cost from January 1 through April 30, 1999, which would be the end of the first contract year which would be $407,984; and special salary and other adjustments for a total of $178,299. That would bring the first year of the contract cost to
a total of $1,895,683. The second paragraph was changed to ΑThe impact of the second contract year provisions is an additional cost of $1,504,986. This cost includes a 2 percent salary increase beginning May 1, 1999 for a total of $689,000, and the remaining, eight months of a prorated cost of the 2 percent at 55 retirement
plan for a total of $815,968.≅ The change between the proposed language and the prior resource impact section was the inclusion of the cost of the remaining eight months of the second contract year. The cost of the third contract year was $848,000, which consisted of a one-time payment of $1,550 to each full-time SEIU employee. Mayor Rosenbaum did not believe the second year costs in the staff report (CMR:311:98) had been properly stated. He planned to vote no on the agreement because of his objection to the 2 percent at 55 provision. The provision was an improvement in the retirement benefits which provided a windfall increase in retirement benefits exceeding 30 percent for those who retired between the ages of 50 and 56 and declining percentage improvements for those between ages 56 and 63. The plan was first offered to cities in California during the recession. The intent was to provide a retirement incentive to those cities who were worried they were going to have to lay people off. In the current environment, that plan served no purpose. The cost to the City would be $2 million a year and exposed the City to uncertain future costs. It was a contractual obligation to provide money to a retirement fund as the stock market fluctuated, which meant the amount the City contributed also fluctuated. The opposite was occurring in the private sector where there was a switch from defined benefit programs to defined contribution programs to avoid the uncertainty of future investment fluctuations. Retirement ages in the private sector were going up rather than going down. Palo Alto was one of the last cities in the area to adopt the plan. The agreement provided for a reduced salary improvement. For the first three years, the cost of the retirement would be provided out of salaries, but it was difficult to say if that would continue in the future. Vice Mayor Schneider said as one who voted for 2 percent at 55, she was aware that Palo Alto had a difficult time recruiting and retaining people for city jobs because Palo Alto was noncompetitive. Palo Alto was mid-range in terms of salaries. The benefit had been asked for and would be the type of thing that would make for better retention and recruitment. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve the resolutions amending Section 1601 of the Merit Rules and Regulations regarding the Memorandum of Agreement between the
07/20/98 87-43
City of Palo Alto and the Service Employee=s International Union, Local 715, adoption of Compensation Plan for Classified Personnel and a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $260,000.
Resolution 7781 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1401 of the Merit System Rules and
Regulations≅
Resolution 7782 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Classified Personnel (SEIU) and Repealing Resolution Nos. 7621, 7682, and 7770"
Ordinance 4510 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-1999 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $260,000 for Salary and Benefit Increases Retroactive to May 1, 1998, for Classified Personnel
(SEIU)≅ MOTION PASSED: 8-1, Rosenbaum Αno.≅ RECESS: 9:05 P.M. - 9:40 P.M. COUNCIL MATTERS 10. Council Members Mossar, Huber and Fazzino re City Policy on Re-Use of St. Ann Chapel Site Council Member Huber said the memo was authored because of community concerns and interest in St. Ann Chapel. The structure was of considerable importance to many in the community and was almost of an age to qualify, at least on a threshold basis, for historic preservation. The Council could not be involved with the who, what, when, where, or why of a purchase or sale of the property but could be involved with land-use issues. The Council should facilitate the preservation of the structure, not necessarily in its present use. The Council was being requested to ask the City Attorney to return to the Council with a report setting forth the alternatives available to the Council in order to preserve the site as an asset in the community. Council Member Fazzino said the issue before the Council was associated with a potential historic structure. The building was
nearly 50 years old. The issue was no different than the Council=s efforts in the past to look at other historic structures or potential historic structures, such as the Squire House or Hewlett-Packard garage. The issue before the Council was not the use of the property. The Council should look at the possibility of incentives to preserve the structure, and the Council should focus on working in partnership with owners of property to find opportunities to preserve historic structures such as St. Ann Chapel.
07/20/98 87-44
Council Member Mossar said she received a number of phone calls from citizens who were concerned that the intention of the Colleagues memo was to prevent the sale of St. Ann Chapel. That was not the intention of the memo. St. Ann Chapel was a very important building in the community. In addition to its likely historic significance based on its architectural merit and its relationship to significant individuals, St. Ann Chapel sits in Professorville which was a protected historic district in the community. St. Ann Chapel also had an important architectural relationship with the Norris House which made the Chapel a key piece of preservation. Arlen J. Hagen, 788 Cereza Drive, said as an active member of the St. Thomas Aquinas parish, he would not like to see the Chapel destroyed; however, as a homeowner and resident of Palo Alto for over 35 years, and being sensitive to the ever-increasing regulations, restrictions, and restraints being placed on citizens by every level of government, he did not want to see the proposal enacted. He recognized the proposal as a dangerous precedent which was fraught with anxiety and emotion and was ill advised and misguided. George Dies, 982 Elsinore Drive, believed there were better matters for the Council to address. Kevin Murdock, 4 Ryan Court, said the policy action the Council might take, in addition to the precedent it would be establishing, would also have an impact on the sale. The sole purpose of the proceeds of the sale of the building was to create an endowment for the Catholic community at Stanford. There was a thriving community on campus with over 1000 students regularly worshiping in the community, 1400 members who regularly participated in services, and an active campus ministry. A campus ministry was very important for people going through their college years because it was a time period when people examine, question and solidify the values they would live with for the rest of their lives. The endowment was important because students in need of the ministry and services did not have the resources to fund the service. Ann Lafargue Balin, 2385 Columbia Street, attended St. Ann since the 1960s and urged Palo Alto to help preserve the special chapel. She was not against Stanford needing a ministry but believed that was a smokescreen. She asked the Council to consider putting St. Ann on the local Palo Alto historic survey. There was nothing like St. Ann in North America. The only other place she experienced that feeling was in the Romanesque chapels in the south of France. The Catholic Diocese had made a lot of money recently with the sale in Cupertino. She did not know why the focus had to be on the sale of the lovely, unique, superior architectural chapel. St. Ann enriched the community and was very important to the values of the community during the Vietnam war and helping migrant laborers.
07/20/98 87-45
John L. Martin, 3595 Murdock Drive, had been active and involved with the Catholic community for many years. While he would be sad to see St. Ann Chapel demolished, he admitted to feelings that bordered on outrage by proposed action that would, in effect, project the City Council into negotiations between prospective buyers of the Melville-Cowper property and the Diocese of San Jose. He questioned the legal basis for such action. Having established those two positions, he corrected an item in the Colleagues memo. The Catholic Diocese did not announce plans to sell St. Ann Chapel but announced its intention to sell the property owned by the Diocese at the corner of Melville-Cowper on which were located the Norris House and Chapel. The Chapel, completed in 1951, failed to qualify for preservation status. City Council members needed to recognize that many competent and active parishioners wrestled with problems of how to manage and utilize parish properties for years before arriving at the painful recommendation to sell the Melville-Cowper property. The reasons supporting the decision were threefold: 1) the Newman Center at St. Ann no longer served the
needs of the social or religious Stanford students; 2) the City=s St. Thomas Aquinas parish had more than enough worship space to
serve area Catholics; and 3) the newly established St. Dominic=s parish on the Stanford campus was dependent on maximum possible income from the sale of the St. Ann property in order to fund its most important work. To think that three Council Members, after hearing from a small handful of citizens, were attempting to convince the majority of the Council to approve a resolution which
he believed was outside the Council=s legislative domain, was
frightening. The matter was outside the Council=s purview and the requested resolution would do major damage to the need to maximize the sale value of the property in support of St. Dominic. He asked how many prospective buyers were going to chance being able to navigate through threatened bureaucratic barriers created by the Council, staff and Planning Commission as almost promised in the memorandum by Council Members Mossar, Huber and Fazzino. The damage may already be done. His hope was that the Council would let the market value play out on a level playing field with no one getting any special attention or consideration. Eric Kastner, 827 Lincoln Avenue, was a member of the new parish at Stanford and believed there was a misconception that the decision was made in the Vatican or some other far away place. Similar to the plan that the Council worked on for five and one half years, the plan for St. Ann Chapel was initiated by the parish at St. Thomas Aquinas. After reviewing the financial needs of the members of the community, a decision was made to split the community in two and allow Stanford to have its own parish. That could only be done if the parish could fund itself. The only asset was St. Ann and the surrounding property. After much discussion, the plan was taken to the Bishop, who did not approve it at that time, but simply approved the process. His understanding was that the parish
07/20/98 87-46
council of St. Thomas Aquinas reviewed and approved the plan after numerous meetings. There were four groups that met for over a year to make the decision, it was then sent to the Bishop and ultimately forwarded to the Vatican for approval. At the Vatican, the plan was reviewed by the Council and Clergy. If the building had historic value, someone should have suggested that a long time ago. The Council described the final environmental impact report as something for everyone. A decision as originally proposed would not be something for everyone and in fact, would be a windfall for
a special group. That was not the governing body=s purpose. Democracy was mentioned by one of the Council Members. There were some serious issues including constitutional rights and the first amendment about what the purpose was if the proposal went through which substantially detracted from the amount of money that could ultimately be received by the new parish. If the value of the property were affected by the movement that was initially proposed, the result could be $2 million, which was a substantial part of what had to be the endowment for the new community at Stanford. Alexander Brainerd, 2479 East Bayshore Road, said he represented the Henry Luce Foundation which was the residuary legatee of Claire Booth Luce. The preservation of St. Ann Chapel was of utmost importance and concern to the Henry Luce Foundation because it wanted to preserve the purpose that Claire Booth Luce had at the time she dedicated her heart and soul and resources to the building and dedication of the chapel. The Foundation also wanted to preserve the chapel as a magnificent artistic building and structure, as a historical structure, and as a living part of the community. He urged the Council to consider and pass any resolution that would preserve the chapel. Christine, P. O. Box 754, said the simplicity and small size of the St. Ann Chapel brought people closer; the priest knew how to make people smile during a sermon; and with the windows and music, the chapel made people feel good and in harmony with each other. In a spiritual way, she felt closer to St. Ann Chapel than Notre Dame in France, which made her feel alone. Mary Fischer, 288 Eleanor Drive, Woodside, said that Council Member Mossar alluded to the importance of culture and the arts to the community, and St. Ann Chapel was a unified work of art which added luster to Palo Alto and the Silicon Valley. The chapel was a commemoration of the life of a person in the community who tragically died young, a place of worship and community gathering, and a historically significant site. The Secretary of State, Supreme Court Justices, Nobel prize-winning scientists, and great philosophers had attended St. Ann Chapel services and artistic presentations. It was a place from which several generations had derived inspiration and was a much loved neighborhood landmark. Amid temples the commerce and industry crowding each other in Silicon Valley, the City could not afford to lose one more temple
of inspiration. The people from St. Dominic=s Parish were acting
07/20/98 87-47
as though St. Ann Chapel was already part of their patrimony, which
was far from true. For its own reasons, St. Dominic=s Parish cut itself off from St. Ann Parish and was currently located on the Stanford campus. She wished the parish well, questioned but what kind of spiritual and Christian education would the students be given to cannibalize off the St. Ann Chapel patronage to enrich
it=s own. She urged the Council to do whatever it could to preserve St. Ann Chapel as a treasured resource for the City and surrounding community. Whitfield Diffie, 288 Eleanor Drive, Woodside, said Palo Alto was not only the most beautiful town in the area but also artistically the most rewarding. Part of the reason for that reward was a number of gems, one being St. Ann Chapel. That artistic beauty and value needed to be seen in unity and not in any individual feature. The chapel also encompassed several congregations that worshiped there, one of those being Latin. It supported the only non-monastic choir in the country and kept the full cycle of the liturgical year in Latin. He urged the Council to do everything it could to preserve and protect that remarkable gift to the community. Robert E. Park, 2491 Ross Road, said historical objects and events did not become important because of a certain date. The community might wish to preserve a building not only because of its unique architecture but also because of the role it played or the
influence it had on peoples= lives. St. Ann Chapel was such a place as it had been a spiritual home of many people in the community. Students who first came to the chapel as part of the Newman Center made it their home. The thought that the chapel might be demolished to fill the coffers of the diocese or the pockets of a developer was heart rending. The Norris House, which was protected historically, and St. Ann Chapel were essentially one property and had been so used since the chapel was built. Each building on the property involved notable women, Kathleen Norris and Claire Booth Luce, both of whom Palo Alto should be proud. He urged the Council to do whatever possible to protect St. Ann Chapel. Mary Kay McCarthy felt St. Ann Chapel was a treasure and a jewel in the crown of Palo Alto. If it were destroyed, it could never
return. Everyone spoke of the chapel=s artistic and spiritual value and its history, which were things not to be ignored. She asked the Council to think carefully because too many times people decided to get rid of something, only to their regret. David Fencl, 1880 Park Boulevard, had been an active member of St. Ann Chapel since 1983. He helped build, repair, and maintain many things at St. Ann Chapel over the years. In 1991, there was a facilities study, and he was one of three who issued a minority report not to dispose of the property. He took the opinion then
07/20/98 87-48
that St. Ann Chapel should be retained and enriched, but things changed, and he had changed his mind. As Council Member Fazzino
said, ΑYou have to make the tough decisions and you have to move
on.≅ He loved the chapel, it had been his spiritual home, but his relationship was with God and not within a building. He had realized he was putting too much value into a structure and not enough in his heart, and he asked the Council not to take action that would influence the sale and disposal of St. Ann Chapel. There were many religious communities that were interested in the property, one most prominently a Jewish community. He thought it would be wonderful to share the high holidays with them or any other religious groups. He did not want the chapel destroyed either, but it was not the facility, it was the people. If the community chose to be caring catholics, there were ample facilities elsewhere. He hoped another religious community would buy the property and, if not, it would go to good use. Richard Scholz, 145 Lois Lane, lived in Palo Alto when the Arch Diocese bought the Norris property and built St. Ann Chapel purposely for the Stanford Catholic students. That had always been the purpose, and currently there was a chance to culminate that purpose and have the funds returned to the Stanford Catholic community through the St. Thomas Aquinas Parish as a debt to be paid to that Catholic community. The purpose for St. Ann no longer existed as a chapel. The architecture was not extraordinary, and the art would be separately handled by the parish. It was a matter of wants versus needs, and the need was to pay off the debt. The parish had no reason to staff the chapel; there were three other churches. The resolution before the Council could place that debt in jeopardy. It would heavily decrease the property value, and he asked that the Council to take action to defeat the motion.
Irvin Dawid, 753 Alma Street, thought David Fencl=s viewpoints were excellent and should be acknowledged by all. Earlier in the year, the Council approved the certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) of which one of the major elements called for more housing in appropriate places
within the community. The Colleagues memo stated, ΑWe fear the chapel may end up being demolished to make way for some other more
profitable use.≅ There was two acres of prime land that was
currently being used for Αdeclining membership.≅ It was a chance to provide more housing in the existing built up infrastructure, exactly what the Comp Plan called for. He found it fascinating that the marketplace was trying to fulfill the needs of the community by increasing housing. The real question was what was the role of government. The Council should be using the incentives called for in the Comp Plan to subdivide the land appropriately with single-family homes. Instead of one mansion-type house, there should be single-family homes so more people could live in Palo Alto. Hopefully, if it were above a certain threshold, they could provide affordable housing or pay into an affordable housing fund.
07/20/98 87-49
That was the role government should be looking into. He questioned the inconsistencies of the Comp Plan. On one hand, more housing in appropriate places needed to be provided; but when an appropriate place was found, the Council wanted to preserve it. He supported housing. Ann Ozer, 1510 Oak Creek Drive, said she had no connection to the chapel other than she had met Claire Booth Luce as the United States Ambassador. People had forgotten that the chapel was a memorial that Ms. Luce dedicated in memory of her daughter who died in an automobile accident, and there seemed to be much insensitivity to that fact. There must be a way that the living memorial could remain so, and the citizens of Palo Alto should do whatever possible to find a way to use the building, whether it be a family center or something related to children. MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Fazzino, to direct the City Attorney to report back to the City Council with alternatives for the re-use of the St. Ann Chapel site. Council Member Huber said the Council would make a decision as to what could be done with the property when the City Attorney returned to Council with alternatives. The Council was not trying to prevent a sale of the property; it was looking at a structure with value. Vice Mayor Schneider asked when the Council could expect something back from the City Attorney. City Attorney Ariel Calonne replied that September would be the earliest possible time. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether a delay might have had some negative implications. She understood St. Ann Chapel was on the market. Mr. Calonne did not know. Vice Mayor Schneider appreciated the good intentions of her colleagues; however, a decision was made by the Diocese after input from the parishioners and clergy. She did not believe it was the
Council=s place as elected public officials to interfere with that decision. Council Member Ojakian clarified that the report the Council could receive from the City Attorney might cover a wide range of things, such as not being favorable toward rezoning, creation of new parcel, a use permit, etc. He asked whether the report could include things like potential of preserving the chapel in return for additional development rights.
07/20/98 87-50
Mr. Calonne said Council Member Fazzino commented on incentives which would be included. He took the motion to broaden the range of options from the single option proposed in the Colleagues memo. It would mean looking at tougher options such as direct regulation to preclude demolition to softer efforts such as incentives. He understood the motion to mean not to focus on one option, but to give a range which would include incentives. The Council could add to the motion any specifics it wished the staff to research. Council Member Ojakian thought everyone was reacting to some disadvantage or controls placed on the property. There could be
some advantages. What he understood his colleagues= goal to be was to hopefully retain the chapel. There were many ways to do that, separate from some of the things already stated. He hoped the report would have a wide range of options. He supported the motion as it stood. He had mixed feelings about the property. In the early 1980s, he was the Finance Chair for the St. Ann Newman Center, and two of his children were baptized and two were confirmed at St. Ann. If the intent were to save the chapel, he would like to investigate that. Council Member Wheeler said the issue was not one she was as involved in or knowledgeable about as some of her colleagues. The Palo Alto citizens who spoke that evening had given her a great deal of information and caused her to think more deeply about the content of the Colleagues memo. The issue was of emotional import to those who cared enough to speak that evening. The comments were reasoned as well as enlightening and had much passion and conviction behind them. She supported the motion as presented. She was troubled by the original motion but felt the amendment was worthy of support. The information given to the Council that evening behooved the Council to seek additional information about
the City=s potential role and what that might or might not be. Comments by Mr. Park indicated that age did not dictate a
building=s importance. There were some buildings that gained their importance in a shorter period of time, and she agreed the chapel was one of those buildings. Once a building was gone, it was gone forever. It was imperative with a building that appeared to have some significance to a broader community than just the catholic community, that the building be looked at, and that was what the motion accomplished. She asked that the Council receive a brief summary from the planning staff regarding the current zoning and land use patterns so the Council would have some context within which to examine the alternatives with respect to the sale of the property. Council Member Fazzino asked the maker of the motion to incorporate
Council Member Eakins= suggestion to add works of art into the motion in terms of the analysis the City Attorney would return to the Council. Since the report would not likely return to the Council until September, he asked whether there were any legal
07/20/98 87-51
possibility of demolition of the structure prior to the time that the report would be discussed. Mr. Calonne said he did not have an answer but stated he would research the question and report back to the Council. He asked for clarification of the comments regarding the incorporation of
Council Member Eakins= suggestion with regard to obligations to preserve art, glass, etc. Council Member Eakins believed there were laws to protect art and questioned what the laws were. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the City Attorney also review any obligation there was to preserve the sculpture and stained glass in the garden area. Council Member Fazzino said it was important to work cooperatively with the Catholic Diocese, Real Estate Agent Tom Foy, and any prospective owner with respect to preservation of the St. Ann Chapel. He appreciated the presence of the representatives of the Henry Luce Foundation who could play a significant role in preservation of the structure. Every time someone tried to bring the issue into the framework of historic preservation, others wanted to bring it back to religious experience. He recognized the entire history of the chapel was associated with a religious experience which was important, but it was extremely important for the Council as public officials to address the issue from the
perspective of the building=s importance as a historic structure. To be fair to the Palo Alto citizens, the Council discussions should focus on that level as opposed to a religious one. He supported the motion as amended which addressed some of the concerns of fellow Council Members and the public. Everyone should benefit from the analysis, both zoning tools and incentives or restrictions, to assure preservation of the building. He related his experience to the account of the destruction of the John Hancock House, one of the most wonderful buildings in American history, and the efforts from 1861-1862 to preserve the building which were all for naught. The reason given was that the family needed money. He believed with St. Ann Chapel that the Council needed to be alert of the fact that there might be a possibility of losing a wonderful building in the community. There needed to be a fair and open community debate about possible preservation of the structure. Council Member Kniss reaffirmed that the issue was the structure and not the chapel. She felt the chapel would not be preserved in its current form which was why Council Member Eakins spoke about the preservation of the art. When the streetscapes started to change substantially, people became less comfortable within their own community. Much of that was addressed during the Comprehensive Plan. She supported the motion. She asked the City Attorney if he would address demolition in his report or would he return to the
07/20/98 87-52
Council at an earlier point in time. She did not believe that the structure was protected under the current rulings. Mr. Calonne did not know whether it would serve any value to
accelerate the point of demolition before the Councils= vacation. If staff saw movement toward an application for demolition permits, staff would return to the Council earlier. He was not inclined to address that question because the Council had not reached any policy decision, and he was hesitant to issue an opinion that might, in effect, foreclose a policy option not considered. He preferred not to give an opinion on demolition until staff returned to the Council with the full report with the proviso that if there was any application or movement toward demolition, staff would return to Council sooner. Council Member Kniss said there was no point in moving forward without answers regarding demolition. She thought it would be helpful if the City Attorney could inform the Council within a short time frame whether or not demolition could actually happen. She was concerned because the Council would be on hiatus for approximately one month. She felt it would make a difference on how the City Attorney went forward. Mr. Calonne said the opinion he would give on the issue of demolition would contain options on both the potential rights of the owners and the opportunities to prevent demolition which was not the kind of advice he wanted to give in the abstract or publicly. Council Member Kniss felt the issue needed to be kept in context. She was concerned that the Council could return and discover that there was some way it could have influenced the outcome of the structure and the structure no longer existed. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Schneider Αno.≅ 11. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Rosenbaum reminded his colleagues and the public of Palo Alto Day with the Giants scheduled for Sunday, July 26, 1998, at 1:05 p.m. at the 3Com Park. Funds will support the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. in memory of
Police Chief Pat Dwyer=s father who passed away earlier that day.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
07/20/98 87-53
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.
07/20/98 87-54