HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-17 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting January 17, 1996 1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee ..................................... 78-33 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m. ............ 78-58
01/17/96 78-32
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:12 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 7:13 p.m.), Huber, Kniss (arrived at 7:13 p.m.), Rosenbaum, Schneider, Wheeler ABSENT: McCown, Simitian UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto's future. The policies and programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transportation, and Natural Environment. The policies and programs will provide recommended policy direction for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Compre-hensive Plan Update (continued from November 27, 1995) Mayor Wheeler announced the City Council would review the Community Services portion of the Governance and Community Services Section (GV) of the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan), and one hour of Public Communication would occur at the beginning of the section. The Community Services materials included Goals GV-11 through GV-15 as noted in the November 3, 1994, Draft Polices and Programs document and the staff recommended goals, policies, and programs as noted in a January 17, 1996, staff report (CMR:119:96). City Manager June Fleming said staff respected the process which had been used and the work done by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC). Staff carefully considered each of the sections and paid meticulous attention to each as they went before the Council. When staff considered the Governance and Community Services portion of the Plan, it realized that a supplemental staff report to Council (CMR:119:96) to address "gaps" pertaining to community facilities, parks, schools, open space, and emergency preparedness might be helpful. Staff was impressed by the potential in the Plan and wanted to make it the best possible document. The Mission Driven Budget process provided staff with the impetus to work across departments in a way that had never been done before, and the document before the Council was a collaborative effort through the Community Services and Planning Department staffs. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle and Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber worked very effectively with Director of Community Services Paul Thiltgen and his staff, and many hours were spent to bring the staff report (CMR:119:96) to the Council. She commended the document as an example of the kind of collaborative work staff could do. It was also a recognition of the hard and complete work done by CPAC. In addition, as staff went through the Governance and Community Services Section of the Plan, it recognized that with encouragement and through the policies set by Council, staff had embarked on a new and extremely cooperative process with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) not previously undertaken. Staff realized the processes and the
01/17/96 78-33
concept of a comprehensive plan might be somewhat foreign to the PAUSD, and she commended Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle for drafting a memorandum to the City/School Liaison Committee to instigate discussion of future policies for the Draft Comprehensive Plan. That memorandum was attached to the staff report. The memorandum suggested the PAUSD provide its input into the document to be merged into what staff brought to the Council in the Community Services Section of the Plan. Unfortunately, the PAUSD was unable to complete its input in time for the meeting that evening. Superintendent Brown placed a high priority on the matter and embraced fully the concept of reflecting in the Plan the unique way in which the City government worked with the PAUSD. Superintendent Brown was committed to PAUSD providing its input to the Council and the timeline would depend largely on the progress Council made that evening. Staff had been inspired by the work of CPAC and looked forward to receiving input from the PAUSD. Community Services Director Paul Thiltgen said as staff went through the process, it recognized many changes in trends and in services provided by the City. While staff did not quite understand how to relate those changes to the Plan and a land use document, working with the Planning Department staff helped to reveal that as trends changed, facilities usage and needs changed. Staff believed it was valid to go through and identify the trends it saw as it worked in the field and the things which needed to be monitored, updated, and improved as far as facilities were concerned. Because of the trends, it was important to identify some of the services which had become more and more important in the community. Child care was probably the best example of something that was not as big an issue when the original document was written as it was today. Staff took the program guidelines it had been working under for years and tried to project what needed to be done differently in the future and how facility needs might also need to change. The Planning Department helped put the information together so it would fit the previous documents written. Planning Commissioner Phyllis Cassel said the Planning Commission was concerned about the tone of the document and that it not take a negative perspective that the Planning Commission had not done anything. The Commission also wanted the community to consider itself responsible for the community and to treat staff appropriately as well as staff being responsibile to the community so that it was a positive relationship. Bob Kirkwood, Chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, Governance and Community Services Subcommittee, said CPAC had trouble figuring out what it was suppose to do in the Community Services Section as well as the Governance Section initially and it tried about four different approaches. At one point CPAC considered setting a long array of service standards but that did not work. CPAC then decided to elaborate on the accomplishments and focus on where improvement or change was needed rather than reciting all the good things that had been done; but the tone of the document ended up being more negative because CPAC focused on areas for potential improvement. CPAC believed there were two or three fundamental themes and that there was room in service providing and planning areas to draw on, work with, and support neighboring jurisdictions. In the early days of
01/17/96 78-34
CPAC, a lot of discussion focused on different concentric circles of regionalism, and CPAC concluded the two special relationships with Stanford University and East Palo Alto needed to be heightened as they would likely be special relationships over the next 15 to 20 years. Many ideas regarding the concentric circles of regionalism were dismissed because of time constraints, but nonetheless the idea of gaining leverage wherever possible was apparent. One specific example was CPAC's brief comments regarding the homeless situation. Further, CPAC had a much longer section on schools in the document but it was scaled back considerably. PAUSD Board Member Susie Richardson spoke on behalf of schools, PAUSD's role, what it was doing, and what could be done. He suspected PAUSD's comments would resemble many of the things CPAC had included before it was scaled back. While not much of the spirit of what CPAC had in mind came through in the document, one area CPAC specifically cited was an integrated services center or several centers for families and children where services could be delivered in conjunction with schools, and where the schools and the City would be a catalyst for getting nonprofit and county services delivered. That thinking was parallel with Council's own discussions and deliberations. In the service infrastructure area, a strong subtheme that went through Community Services and many other parts of the Plan was the idea of neighborhood serving centers. Whether the neighborhood serving centers were schools or City facilities, the point was the desirability of some sort of a community center, meeting place, or a focal point. While he did not believe CPAC captured it as well as it might have, he was not sure how easily it could be captured or set out as a goal. He favored Palo Alto being on the cutting edge of providing access to the national information infrastructure or global information infrastructure through the Internet or otherwise. There were communities in the country where libraries were set up with terminals, and members of the public could use or receive an introduction to the subscriptions to services they could not afford to have in their own homes. The final subtheme was quality. CPAC tried to emphasize the need for the quality movement as recognized in the private sector to be given more of an emphasis in Palo Alto as a way of life. CPAC must have come across as lecturing staff on its demeanor judging by the kind of caricature of language in the last policy where the proposed substitute was that "City staff should be nice and cooperative." The Planning Commission's language did not capture the spirit of what CPAC had in mind. While he believed the document was excellent, he wished CPAC had provided a better starting point. On the other hand, CPAC did not have the luxury of explaining the background and reasoning behind its recommendations and had to incorporate its reasoning into the recommendations as well as the covered goals, policies and programs. The suggested title for the combined element was "Community Facilities." He believed "facilities" implied physical structure, and he was not sure they would have entirely facilities-oriented programs, and some of the staff recommendations were already not facilities in nature. CPAC had not had the opportunity to discuss the document so the foregoing comments were his own. Council Member Schneider said after reading both the staff report (CMR:119:96) and the information from CPAC, it appeared that staff included portions deleted by the Planning Commission in the original document which came out of CPAC. She queried how the two sections
01/17/96 78-35
would be merged and how the comments from staff and the CPAC would be meshed. Mr. Kirkwood deferred the response to Ms. Lytle. It was not clear whether the staff report (CMR:119:96) was intended to totally displace the CPAC document or incorporate it. If the staff report were intended to displace the CPAC document, there were several things it did not capture and which needed to be discussed. If that were not the intention, he assumed some integration would occur. Ms. Fleming emphasized the staff report (CMR:119:96) was not intended to be in lieu of, in place of, or as a replacement to the CPAC document but rather as a complement to it. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said in Phase III of the Plan process, after Council performed its wrap-up and staff considered all of the different sections of the report for any potential inconsis-tences, reported them to Council before moving forward, and then the inconsistences were eliminated, staff would move ahead and take the remaining text of policies and programs and organize them into elements. Those policies and programs would be surrounded with explanatory text and graphics and would return to Council at the end of Phase III as a draft plan. The draft plan would be much easier to read and better looking than the working documents being considered in Phase II. Staff had a professional editor and publisher to help with the formatting and arrangement of information. Council Member Schneider clarified it was not her intent to cast any doubt on the hard work of Mr. Kirkwood's committee; but since the Community Services Section of the Plan was the only place so far where staff had filled in holes, she queried whether there might be other areas of the Plan where staff should have filled in holes as well. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said staff's commentary on the CPAC recommendations was contained in the side column and sometimes on separate pages of the document. As staff worked through the information back in 1994, it tried to spot gaps, omissions, and additional material, etc., and as they were discovered and suggestions were then made to Council. There were a variety of goals, especially policies and programs, that Council and the Planning Commission had the opportunity to review, and Council also added to them. At that point, staff was not seeing significant gaps with possibly one or two exceptions and those comments would be provided to Council in the wrap-up staff report. Ms. Fleming said staff realized it was taking somewhat of a risk by stepping out into an area Council probably did not believe it would, but the more staff understood the vision, direction, and general philosophy coming from CPAC and read the comments Mr. Schreiber referenced, staff believed it was important to take the risk and present the information to Council in a supplemental staff report (CMR:119:96). The staff report was intended to be complementary to and integrated with the CPAC document, not replace the document. Council Member Schneider did not intend to suggest anything different and believed the staff report (CMR:119:96) was helpful to have.
01/17/96 78-36
Mary Jean Place, 809 Northampton Place, President, Friends of the Library, said as board members read the staff report (CMR:119:96) on policies and programs recommendations related to community facilities and services for the Plan, it became aware of the need to add another policy to address the library and its needs. In the City Manager's Report (CMR:119:96) almost every item under the discussion list impacted the libraries. Judicial expectations of the libraries for the community, new demands and the collection for more foreign language material, improved library services for preschool children, and facilities to meet disabilities. Certainly, the electronic age is a major concern of the City's libraries. Demographic changes needed to be addressed in all areas of the library, data information, collections, and facilities to address all ages. Friends of the Library believed without good library services, there would be more social problems. In light of the concerns, Friends recommended adding under Goal 2, "Community facilities and services in Palo Alto will meet present and emerging needs," the following new policy and three new programs to support that new policy: "Policy: Library services and facilities will be maintained and expanded as required to meet the evolving community need"; "Program 1: Continue to improve the accessibility to library collections and all other information sources"; "Program 2: In planning library services and facilities, recognize the importance of enhancing library collections to meet the community interests and needs"; "Program 3: Provide adequate seating and attractive spaces, by anticipating the needs of all library patrons particularly children, students, and seniors." Council Member Kniss said the recommendations appeared somewhat innocuous, and she queried whether any discussion had occurred regarding costs. Ms. Place said the board only addressed the nine issues contained in the staff report. The board wanted a policy which would include consideration of the library when all the other issues were being considered. After reading the policy recommendations, there was a lot of concern about electronic data centers, making facilities available for all ages, and the demographics reflected it. Friends of the Library wanted to ensure the libraries reflected that concern as well. Rachel Samoff, 3527 South Court, represented the Family Resource Center Task Force (FRCTF) who had been meeting for about a year. She believed the impetus for forming the FRCTF was the sense that it was becoming increasingly difficult to raise families in Palo Alto. The FRCTF gathered information from Palo Alto citizens regarding what was difficult, what was easy, and what more was needed in terms of raising families in Palo Alto. Surveys were sent out in school newsletters, focus groups were set up by geographic areas as well as by ethnic groups, and telephone surveys were undertaken. The information gathering phase was almost complete, and the FRCTF clearly heard that raising families in Palo Alto was quite difficult partially because of the demanding work environment and the need for all parents in the home to be in the work force, and also because all parents in the work force worked harder than they had to five to eight years
01/17/96 78-37
ago. Consolidations and layoffs in the work force put real pressure on people to work harder and faster, to take classes to keep training up, and to spend more time at work so that when the layoffs occurred, they would not be the ones impacted. All of those demands went into the time and energy available to spend with family. The FRCTF sensed that a community without healthy, well-functioning families was a community in trouble, and a lot of what was happening in society currently was headed in that direction. She was pleased to see language in the staff report (CMR:119:96) regarding a Family Resource Center and supporting families in general. The FRCTF urged the Council to maintain some focus on human services and especially on supporting families in the Plan because a lot of what was happening in the larger economic and social society was making it harder for families to stay healthy. Communities needed to take a stand, and there needed to be comments and encouragement for corporations to do things that supported families and worked to counteract everything which pushed parents to minimize time and energy at home and maximize time and energy at work. It was interesting to note that people in general recognized there were a lot of services available in Palo Alto for families. The question was accessing those services. It was also interesting how different the input was from different focus groups. Different neighborhoods had different needs, and different ethnic groups had different needs. Whatever family support mechanisms came forward needed to incorporate that diversity. Council Member Kniss acknowledged the hundreds of hours FRCTF spent gathering information, and the networking that came about as a result of that effort was phenomenal. She believed the end result of the FRCTF would be very significant in Palo Alto. She commended the FRCTF on its achievements and said the observations and plans alluded to were very significant for Palo Alto and for families in the 1990s. Human Relations Commissioner Tina Gutierrez, 2850 Middlefield Avenue No. 224, referred to the staff report (CMR:119:96). The Human Relations Commission (HRC) was pleased to see language in the Plan regarding human services and community services. On page 10 of the staff report (CMR:119:96), Item B, the HRC supported the inclusion of the Family Resource Center in the Plan as a real commitment to a long-term plan for family services and for the Family Resource Center in the City. Also on page 10, item B, regarding the "Teen Center," the HRC encouraged planning for a permanent site for a Teen Center since the current site would not be available in another four to five years. On page 11, regarding homelessness in Palo Alto, the HRC was pleased to see language regarding a regional approach to homelessness and to providing services. The HRC did recommend a Council priority of pursuing a regional approach to services, and Policy J, "The City will coordinate a regional approach in addressing issues of homelessness," on page 12 of the staff report (CMR:119:96) was very important given the trends in federal and state funding. With regard to child care, the HRC emphasized that the supply of child care in the City of Palo Alto could not possibly meet the demand. The HRC supported Policy I on page 12, regarding the need for future development and redevelopment projects to evaluate the impacts on the supply and demand of child care in Palo Alto. The HRC also strongly supported Program 8 on page 12 of the staff report (CMR:119:96) to
01/17/96 78-38
support and promote the provision and coordination of comprehensive child care and family services given the demographic trends and the changing needs of the community. With regard to Goal 3 on page 12, "Facilitate the maintenance of an adequate supply of child care services in Palo Alto and to coordinate with the PAUSD in achieving this goal," the HRC strongly believed the City of Palo Alto must be responsive to the needs for additional child care facilities and encourage the City to consider that as new development occurred or as new employees were recruited as businesses within Palo Alto expanded, that developers and the business community assist with the provision of additional child care space. The HRC requested the Community Service portion remain in the Plan to ensure the commitment of the City for better services to the community and to ensure a long-term plan. The HRC did not support the development of a performing arts center as a high priority given the neighboring performing arts center in Mountain View and because there were other more pressing human services and community services needs in Palo Alto. Council Member Fazzino was troubled the HRC felt the need to establish priorities between a performing arts center and the areas which fell under the purview of the HRC. If Council were to start engaging in that kind of priority setting, the Utilities Advisory Commission might well believe it was more important to spend money on upgrading the electric system rather than putting money into child care. He queried why the HRC got so upset about the recommendation with respect to the performing art center. Ms. Gutierrez said given the HRC's charge, human service needs was obviously its bias and focus. She would not say the HRC was fervently opposed or incredibly upset but rather that the HRC did not support a performing arts center as a priority given what it heard from the community for human and community services. Council Member Fazzino believed decisions regarding increased services for the homeless, the unhoused, funding for a Family Resource Center, additional child care facilities, and a performing arts center, etc., were the responsibility of the Council, and he queried whether the HRC believed it had sufficient information to make a case for or against a performing arts center when making its decision with respect to priorities. Ms. Gutierrez said when the HRC first considered the Plan item by item in 1995, it was within that context that the performing arts center was discussed. While the HRC did not necessarily believe the performing arts center fell within its purview, it was simply discussed with everything else being considered. At that time, the HRC was particularly aware of funding challenges within human services and community services in the City. Given what had been heard from the community and the funding challenges, while not within its purview, the HRC felt a performing arts center did not appear to be a priority. Margaret Tour, 1159 Lincoln, represented the Palo Alto Child Care Advisory Committee (PACCAC), which endorsed the staff recommendation to include in the Plan a goal and policies related to child care
01/17/96 78-39
services in Palo Alto. PACCAC supported Goal 3, "Facilitate the maintenance of an adequate supply of child care services in Palo Alto. Coordinate with PAUSD in achieving this goal," and policies H and I, on page 12 of the staff report (CMR:119:96). The demand for child care services in Palo Alto exceeded the available supply with waiting lists at every licensed center. As the population of infants and young children went up and as additional commercial development and housing redevelopment occurred, more working parents would need high quality child care. Available slots at existing centers were unlikely due to an industry push to increase quality by reducing child/teacher ratios. It was imperative to include child care services in the Plan because developers and individuals who assessed project impacts looked first to a community's comprehensive plan to determine which aspects of community life needed to be examined in order to determine impacts and mitigations. Presently no methodology or standards existed to assess the impact of child care services in Palo Alto, and no consideration was given to the cumulative effect of development or redevelopment. Small projects examined one at a time might not reflect a measurable impact on services while in total the projects reflected increased the demand for child care. Present tools were inadequate for analysts to assess the impact of development on child care, and the new Comprehensive Plan presented an opportunity to take the efforts to the next level. The PACCAC existed to support City efforts in child care issues and would participate in the development of a methodology and standards for evaluating impacts and then updating the Child Care Master Plan so it provided a timely blueprint for actions which supported Goal 3. Goal 3 made good economic sense. Palo Alto wanted to remain an attractive place for employers, and a commitment to the maintenance of an adequate supply of child care would be attractive to employers competing for talented people with family demands to consider in employment decisions. Jacob Ballon 3366 Ross Road, President, Youth Council, supported staff's recommendations related to the community facilities and services for the Plan. He referred to the language in Goal 2 and said the development of the Teen Center,"The House," was a perfect example of how facilities and services met the emerging needs in the community. In the Youth Council's Teen Center proposal to the City Council in May 1995, the Youth Council spoke of the need of many teenagers to have a safe place where they could belong and call their own. The status of the current Teen Center building was uncertain. Within five to seven years, the site could become a Downtown parking structure. The needs of teenagers would continue to grow, and the Youth Council urged the City to continue to devote resources toward establishing a permanent facility for teenagers. Sylvia Covarrubias, 574 Arastradero Road, President, Advisory Board of the "House" (Teen Center), said since the grand opening of the "House" last November 17, 1995, the "House" offered many activities and events. Local deejays and bands performed at the "House" and attracted hundreds of Palo Alto teens. The "House" recently sponsored the Ecumenical Hunger Program's annual battle of the bands fund-raiser. The "House" had also become a well-known meeting place among teens. The Advisory Board was committed to fulfilling the original purpose of the Teen Center which was to provide a safe and fun place for teenagers. On behalf of the Advisory Board, she thanked the City Council for its continued interest and enthusiasm.
01/17/96 78-40
Council Member Schneider asked whether there was an increase or decrease in the number of teenagers using the "House." Ms. Covarrubias said the grand opening was a great success; and as the months went by, the "House" averaged 20 to 40 teenage visitors throughout the week. Special events such as deejays and bands attracted over 150 people. Council Member Schneider clarified the people were still enthusiastic and the energy was still high. Ms. Covarrubias said the Advisory Board was committed to continued varied activities because different things sparked people's interests. Council Member Rosenbaum said the staff report (CMR:119:96) indicated that staff's recommendations to some degree overlapped those of CPAC, and if Council went through everything, there could be some redundant efforts. Mr. Schreiber said staff recommended Council move through all of the material. To the extent there were redundancy or overlap, staff would sort it out during the editing process. When the document returned to Council, it would be in a different format. Mayor Wheeler said Council would begin with the information from CPAC and when completed, Council would move into the staff report (CMR:119:96) material. Council Member Schneider said the Planning Commission deleted Programs GV-11.A1, "The Mid-Peninsula cities and counties should meet regularly to address mutual challenges (e.g., homelessness, transit)," and GV-11.D1, "Palo Alto explores with its neighbors, but particularly Stanford and East Palo Alto, service areas of mutual interest or where economics of scale are possible such as i) Address mutual health and safety services including police and fire; and ii) Increase sharing of services and facilities such as recreation, libraries, etc.)" and the staff queried why de-emphasize other surrounding jurisdictions. Program GV-11.A1 spoke to mutual challenges, e.g., homelessness, transit, etc., and she queried the difference between Program GV-11.A1 and Program GV-11.D1. Mr. Kirkwood said the items related to the concentric circles idea. CPAC's feeling in Program GV-11.A1 was that the Mid-Peninsula area was more than just the immediate neighboring cities. In Program GV-11.D1, CPAC referred to immediate neighbors, e.g., Stanford University and East Palo Alto, as being more unique than the neighbors in the Mid-Peninsula area. Council Member Schneider clarified Program GV-11.A1 was the larger concentric circle and Program GV-11.D1 was the smaller concentric circle. Mr. Kirkwood said that was correct.
01/17/96 78-41
Ms. Cassel said the Planning Commission discussed whether to retain the emphasis on Stanford University and East Palo Alto. As CPAC expressed, Stanford University and East Palo Alto seemed to be special areas where a close relationship existed with Palo Alto. In many cities, Stanford University would have been included within the city, not a separate city. Stanford University's relationship to the City was unique. The same was true with East Palo Alto; there seemed to be a river between the two cities that caused a dividing line although there were unique interests and issues where the two cities could work together. The Planning Commission decided to retain Program GV-11.D1. The deletion of Program GV-11.A1 was more in terms of whether the particular verbiage of the program should be included in the Plan not a disagreement with the ideas. The Planning Commission was asked to delete some of the verbiage and some people were interested in whether the particular wording should be retained. Council Member Fazzino said while he agreed with the Planning Commission and CPAC, he felt the need to reflect opportunities for joint services in concert with other neighboring communities, particularly Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Menlo Park, and Mountain View. The City was already moving in that direction in the area of fire service and it was already the case with the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. He queried how to focus on the City's special relationship with East Palo Alto and Stanford University and at the same time encourage the City to explore opportunities for joint provision of municipal services in other Mid-Peninsula communities. Vice Mayor Huber said while he agreed with Council Member Fazzino, the City was working on fire services specifically with certain jurisdictions and he was a little dubious about naming anyone in particular. He believed the City would find itself cooperating with a variety of entities over the years. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to revise the language in Program GV-11.D1 to read "Palo Alto explores with its Mid-Peninsula neighbors, but particularly Stanford and East Palo Alto, service areas of mutual interest or where economics of scale are possible such as i) Address mutual health and safety services including police and fire; and ii) Increase sharing of services and facilities such as recreation, libraries, etc." MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Simitian absent. City Attorney Ariel Calonne referred to page 10, Policy GV-11.C, "Regional services issues will be addressed where possible with full participation of the affected region, be it the nine Bay Area Counties, the Peninsula or our immediate neighbors (e.g., affordable housing supply, homelessness, air and water quality, open space)," and said the California State Constitution gave the City police power to do zoning and most other land use controls and required that Council's actions be in the public interest. Many of the Council's actions in zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments had as their standard for approval that the action was in the public interest. That standard begged the question of which public was the Council speaking to. About 20 years previously, a case came out of Livermore that said in the context of land use approvals with regional impacts, the City's
01/17/96 78-42
public was the region. Policy GV-11.C and the program under it highlighted the Council's role or obligation to take into account regional welfare when exercising its police power. He wanted Council to be aware that emphasized regional responsibility, while positive and laudable, could be looked to as a source of authority to attack decisions that had extraterritorial impacts that Council had not fully addressed. Mayor Wheeler queried whether City Attorney Calonne would help the Planning staff with those issues. Mr. Calonne said the assistance would be more on a case-by-case basis. When a project had regional impacts, it was incumbent on the staff to do a regional analysis, and the City's police power previously referenced enhanced the City's obligation to take regional impacts into account. Council Member Fazzino said the point deserved serious consideration because Council spent much of its time commenting on the City's need to do more in the regional arena, and at times looked at the possibility of expanding the City's borders, doing more on a regional basis, and changing the nature of services which were currently provided given the City's broader interest in providing support for regional neighbors. While the issue could not be resolved that evening, given that so much of Council's time centered around the current and perspective City/regional relationships, he wanted a discussion of the issue and the implications. Mr. Calonne believed Policy GV-11.C put an exclamation point behind the existing legal responsibility to take into account regional welfare when making land use decisions. Council now took the concept which was between the lines of the state constitution according to the Supreme Court and put it in black and white for the City's own land use constitution. He believed Council needed to be prepared to back it up. When projects had extraterritorial impacts, it was conceivable that someone outside the City would query what the City was going to do about it. Council Member Fazzino queried whether the language could be limited to some degree by indicating Council would get involved and provide services on a subregional or regional basis "where appropriate." Mr. Calonne believed the "where appropriate" was the way he would interpret the current law. If a land use decision did not have regional impacts, there was no regional welfare issue to consider. Council Member Fazzino clarified as long as Council identified on a case-by-case basis potential regional impacts or decided that it was appropriate to get involved in some kind of regional relationship, there would not be any problem with respect to some greater regional obligations. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. He believed staff already looked to a regional analysis in those rare cases when it was appropriate. For example, Mountain View did some significant recycling of uses along the San Antonio border, and those projects clearly had
01/17/96 78-43
extraterritorial impacts. Those regional impacts, in his view, made it incumbent on the Mountain View City Council to take into account regional needs at that time. That was the context in which the issue most often arose. Mr. Kirkwood said CPAC had originally discussed regional services as distinct from land uses. The parenthetical examples provided had some land use implication. The drafting and the examples might be part of the problem, and he was not sure the same considerations existed for services. For instance, other than shelter for homeless people, there might be a number of services that would not have a land use relationship although it might well be desirable to carry them out in conjunction with other communities. Mr. Calonne did not intend to indicate the verbiage created a difficulty. What the policy did was emphasize an existing obligation of the City. If he were looking for ways to attack a land use decision the City might have made, he might try and twist the words to say that Palo Alto had accepted a very specific obligation to take into account regional needs when it did things. While he realized the policy spoke to the provision of service, nonetheless, provision of service was often one of the impact areas when dealing with land use decisions whether the service happened to be child care, sewer, water or transportation. While he was not suggesting avoiding the connection, as a legal matter, it was simply a consciousness-raising point. The policy could be used in a different context than anticipated. Council Member Fazzino said while City Attorney Calonne's last sentence said nothing that needed to be changed, he believed the City Attorney should be encouraged to look at the language and change it so the City avoided any possible legal challenges from neighbors or others. It would also be helpful to have a vehicle by which Council could identify potential regional land use impacts on a case-by-case basis. He queried whether that would resolve any legal concerns. Mr. Calonne believed the language was a good restatement of what the Supreme Court already said was the City's obligation. It simply brought the obligation to the fore in terms of people thinking about it. The regional welfare argument out of the Livermore case was kind of a hidden concept that arose in two or three cases in the San Diego area since then. Delmar sued San Diego on a regional welfare argument about some large specific plan developments in the outer areas of San Diego. While the theory had been out there, it had not been used as a litigation weapon. He did not want the legal concern he expressed to interfere with policy and believed the language was a good statement of existing law. It was like putting the "no smoking" sign on the wall; people were just more conscious of it when it was in the Plan. Vice Mayor Huber said Goal GV-11, "Increase public/private and public/public partnership arrangements to leverage public resources in delivering community services," spoke to public/private and public/public partnerships, and most of the policies seemed to speak to regionalism. There needed to be a policy which just spoke to local public/private partnerships.
01/17/96 78-44
Council Member Kniss referred to page 11, Program GV-11.E3, "Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Unified School District through joint powers agreement, or otherwise, will assess whether it is economic to procure insurance coverage for community events at schools or city facilities at a cost which can be incorporated in any standard use fees or be absorbed," which spoke to Palo Alto and the PAUSD. She could not say how many times they had talked about insurance problems, coverage, and lack of use of the PAUSD facilities. While the program looked like an excellent idea, it was problematic. Mr. Kirkwood said the origination of the idea was the feeling that the constraints on insurance and the cost of each individual event needing insurance was becoming a significant problem for the use of community facilities. If the City and the PAUSD worked together with an insurance brokerage, it might be able to procure some generic coverage for most kinds of events, excluding events which served liquor. Currently, he believed everyone who wanted to hold an event in a public facility essentially had to procure separate insurance for it. Insurance companies really profited from something like that. Council Member Kniss had never heard of a good resolution to the problem. Mr. Kirkwood said CPAC believed the problem was significant enough to flag it. It might not be an appropriate item to include in a Comprehensive Plan but it was an opportunity for problem solving. Will Beckett, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Member, said CPAC started meeting at the local inn rather than Hoover School because of insurance problems. Since then, CPAC was able to procure an agreement where it signed off on items recognizing its liability. Council Member Kniss believed the problem was primarily a deep-pocket issue. She could not think of anything which arose more often than people questioning why they could not use school or City facilities more effectively. They were publicly-owned and run by public funds but when it came to using them, it was an insurance problem. Mr. Calonne said in his experience working with the PAUSD and its risk manager, the issue was PAUSD's coverage was tightly admin-istered by the people who sold the insurance to them. PAUSD's discretion about what kind of events it could have was very limited. PAUSD had specific lists of things that could and could not be done. For example, school carnivals could not have pony rides or bounce houses. The risk management was forced on the PAUSD by its insurance carriers. The City was in a different position because the only thing stopping the City from doing something risky was the City Manager's judgment as informed by the City Attorney. The City was self-insured and to the extent of the City's excess coverage, the City paid attention but ACCEL did not spell out strict guidelines on what the City could or could not do. He believed the issue was not availability so much as it was the cost control constraints that insurance carriers placed on the PAUSD like HMOs did on health care. He would be willing to help and wanted to hear the PAUSD's response. Council Member Kniss queried whether the program was appropriate to
01/17/96 78-45
include in the Plan. Ms. Cassel said in order to develop walkable neighborhood communities, there needed to be a facility in the center of the communities that one could walk to and use. If the facilities in the middle of the communities could not be used because of insurance companies, it was something the City should work on. Ms. Fleming said Council should not lose site of City Attorney Calonne's comments that the City was able to do some of the things it did because ACCEL did not place the same restrictions on the City. The City took the initiative and staff worked with other cities to develop ACCEL. Possibly the City's example could serve as a model and encouragement for others to do the same. If the City had accepted its apparent fate, it would not have ACCEL and it would not have been able to do some of the things it did. Mr. Calonne was not sure insurance availability was the constraint. It sounded as if the concern were getting school facilities available for community use. Until the City knew the specific constraints, he suggested the language be turned into something which directed an investigation of the constraints that limited the availability of school facilities for public use. He was not comfortable that insurance coverage was the right issue to open those facilities to public use, and it would help to broaden the language. Mayor Wheeler said sometimes people used insurance as an excuse and she had long experience with attempting to use school facilities. She believed insurance was one small aspect of the reluctance to let the community use the facilities. The public ought to have access to public facilities at a cost and at reasonable times. She concurred with City Attorney Calonne and with the staff comments portion of GV-11.E3 that the language of the program needed to be more general toward the ability of the public to use public facilities not just directed toward insurance. Mr. Kirkwood said the intent was to flag one frequently heard problem. In order to move in the direction of broadly serving facilities in most neighborhoods, schools had to be drawn in, and some joint effort would be needed to find a solution to the problems. He hoped Council could take the matter on as a separate project and that it would be resolved before the Plan was published. Mayor Wheeler said the program was one where the City needed to seek PAUSD's reaction to involvement. Council Member Kniss believed it was a good issue for the City/School Liaison Committee to continue to discuss and perhaps work with the Superintendent of the PAUSD. Sandy Eakins, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Member, said as CPAC worked on identifying areas of coverage for the new Comprehensive Plan, the lack of equal distribution of City owned facilities throughout the communities was one of the items addressed. If one looked at a map of where parks and other public facilities were located, they were not uniformly distributed and in some places the schools
01/17/96 78-46
were the only public facilities. That was why CPAC made the point so strong. MOTION: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to direct staff to work with the City/School Liaison Committee and the Superintendent of Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) to create a new program that would replace Program GV-11.E3, "Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Unified School District through joint powers agreement, or otherwise, will assess whether it is economic to procure insurance coverage for community events at schools or city facilities at a cost which can be incorporated in any standard use fees or be absorbed." MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, McCown, Simitian absent. Council Member Kniss referred to page 12, Policy GV-11.F, which spoke to City representatives working actively with Community Service nonprofits to avoid duplication and maximize services available in Palo Alto. While she believed the policy was commendable, it was very difficult. Margo Dutton, Palo Alto Community Child Care, said bringing nonprofits together in the process of developing the Family Resource Center or whatever it was going to look like, forced nonprofits to talk about what the various agencies did specifically. She believed the key was for the nonprofits to build relationships with each other. When the nonprofits found a problem or need within their own agency and tried to come up with a solution, rather than create an entire new thing for the specific agency, PACCC could call the YWCA, for example, and talk about the need for a child assault prevention class and there could be a collaboration of efforts. Another example was the YWCA held first aid training for child care providers, and PACCC got the word out to other providers to participate. Those were two examples and those same things were happening with almost all of the agencies involved in the Family Resource Center. Ms. Samoff of FRCTF had intended to talk about the communication issue and the isolation people felt in the community due to the way neighborhoods were currently structured. Nonprofits were so busy providing their services positively that they did not spend quality time developing relationships with other nonprofits. The nonprofits came together because of the need to discuss the Family Resource Center, and out of it blossomed many relationships that would be kept intact long after the FRCTF dissolved. Council Member Kniss said while one could talk about bringing all the groups together, without a compelling need to do so, there was little reason for the everyday interaction to change. While the language was included somewhat cavalierly, she was not sure the outcome would change dramatically without a need. Ms. Dutton said dwindling public and private resources being spread among a lot of service providers and nonprofits was a good reason for nonprofits to collaborate where possible, and each agency was made stronger by the collaboration. It was also important to continue to foster what was started in the Family Resource Center, and she believed some ideas of the FRCTF would institutionalize collaboration in a way that would be very positive.
01/17/96 78-47
Mayor Wheeler referred to page 12, Program GV-11.E4, "Improve the quality, quantity, and affordability of day care, child care, disabled care and elder care." She queried the inherent conflicts in improving the quality and the affordability of those kinds of services. Mr. Kirkwood did not believe there was an inconsistency between quality and affordability. In fact, in many instances, a focus on quality helped to reduce costs and improve affordability. Ms. Dutton said if existing services in day care centers were utilized in collaboration with the Recreation Division, as was already the case with the Junior Museum, and existing programs brought into child care centers, there would be no additional cost to anyone and the quality of service would be improved. In terms of child care, affordability discussions could go on for weeks without any answers. Staff salaries were low and child care was a fee for service; therefore, no subsidies from any public sector went directly to salaries at the child care center or the costs of operating a child care center. The higher the quality of service, the better the opportunity for fund-raising resources. In that respect, affordability could be addressed by improving quality. As quality improved, the collaboration improved and outreach to the PAUSD improved. PACCC was now considering how to connect more consistently with the schools where programs were located. As child care staff became more professional, as it had over the years, situations where the services and a cost effective way of doing child care would be utilized. While she did not believe those situations would make a big dent in affordability, neither did she believe there would be a huge increase in costs as quality increased. Affordability would always be a subject of discussion. Council Member Schneider referred to page 12, Policy GV-11.G, "Develop city/business/non-profit programs to more effectively draw the business community into positive roles in addressing community needs." The supporting programs for that policy were deleted, and she queried what programs CPAC or staff had in mind to support the policy. Mr. Kirkwood said CPAC's ideas were deleted. Ms. Cassel said the Planning Commission was asked to look at the supporting programs, and it did not have additional ones to add. The Commission was advised that as the Plan was woven together, other issues might be woven into the programs or the wording might need to be changed. She believed the items were recommended for deletion because, while they were good ideas, no one was sure how to get pro bono advice. Council Member Schneider suggested Policy GV-11.G be deleted since Programs GV-11.G1, "Local business will be invited to provide pro bono advice to Palo Alto," and GV-11.G2, "Palo Alto area business associations and individual businesses develop mechanisms for directing business resources to community needs and particularly for facilitating smaller businesses' participation," had been deleted. She believed the things contained in Policy GV-11.G were in a community naturally. There were ways that businesses supported community needs, and she was not sure it needed to be stated.
01/17/96 78-48
Council Member Andersen appreciated the intent of the policy. There had been some outstanding efforts on the part of the business community, e.g., the Teen Center. Policy GV-11.G was about the business community coming forward rather than the City encouraging it. He would oppose the deletion of Policy GV-11.G because it suggested a relationship that was collaborative and very positive. He was not sure there were many ways the City could make the policy work because it was really up to the business community to see the needs and step forth to do them. He would rather let the "wordsmiths" play with the language and not worry about having specific programs. Council Member Schneider believed she spoke for every business in the community when she said businesses were contacted at least six or seven times a week by various organizations in the community asking for assistance. The business community responded to the requests made by the organizations, and she felt it needed to be in the Plan. Mayor Wheeler associated with a comment made by Vice Mayor Huber about being more inclusive and more specific about the roles of various constituencies within the community in providing community services. She preferred staff include the business community in some meaningful way in the subject portion of the document. Council Member Schneider was convinced the policy should remain. Her concern was being unable to determine what types of programs the business community was not already doing on their own. Mr. Kirkwood suspected the Chamber of Commerce was not among the groups discussing the Family Resource Center, and as a representa-tive of the business community, the Chamber might be able to come up with ways in which the business community might help. In terms of Program GV-11.G2, the idea was for the City to facilitate contributions by smaller companies. He was not sure the City or the nonprofits were drawing on the business community as thoroughly as they could. While those businesses on University Avenue might be obvious targets, he was troubled the Urban Ministry had managerial problems with the amount of management talent in Palo Alto. For some reason, the Urban Ministry's board did not include the kinds of people it needed to help when there were so many in the community. He was not sure whether Palo Alto as a city could serve as a facilitator for such an issue. While he was not sure how to capture those ideas in a program, the attempt was to be inclusive of other cities, the school district, nonprofits, and to think about the role of the business community as well. Sections on individuals were taken out and placed in another section of the Plan. Some recognition of the role of the business community and the potential for the City to facilitate that role was worth mentioning. Ms. Fleming said while the appropriate language could not be crafted that evening, staff understood the philosophy being discussed. In terms of the example of the Urban Ministry, staff had approached a business which was going to help the Urban Ministry with its administrative and management problems. The discussion was helpful, and if Council allowed the concept to remain, staff would return with the appropriate language. There were also good examples within the
01/17/96 78-49
City organization of what was already being done in the Recreation Division and in other places. Council Member Kniss referred to Policy GV-11.G and was mindful of the Human Services network which explored ways to do a variety of things together to save money. She suggested staff might discuss with the Human Services network economies of scale and shared resources, etc. There were lots of duplication and much of it was because groups did not get together because of time or the impetus to do so did not exist. Such things under the programs for Policy GV-11.G could be brought forward. Council Member Andersen asked why Program GV-11.E6, "Deliver services in open spaces, parks and at school sites to realize the maximum public benefits," received a "D" ranking. Ms. Cassel said the Planning Commission believed the comment was vague and that the general concepts were covered elsewhere. Mr. Kirkwood believed the staff recommendations turned out to be more specific. Council Member Kniss referred to page 13, Goal GV-12, "Provide City services, facilities and infrastructure sufficient to ensure the safety, health and quality of life for all citizens." She was puzzled that the goal was included in the Plan because she believed it was self-evident. Mr. Kirkwood said the goal served as an introduction to the mostly oratory language and reflected things already being done. He did not believe there was anything new about the goal. While it was a reaffirmation of what the City already did, it was basically what CPAC was asked to do. Council Member Kniss clarified the verbiage was the end product rather than the beginning product. Mr. Kirkwood said that was correct. Council Member Kniss said at one point Council had a Customer Service Committee. Ms. Fleming said the City still had a Customer Service Committee made up of internal staff which looked at various services and developed and improved various procedures. Council Member Kniss queried whether the Customer Service Committee reviewed the total quality management (TQM) ideas, etc. Ms. Fleming said while TQM was reviewed, the City adopted a philosophy which detailed a manner in which TQMs were typically implemented. While the City worked on permit streamlining, it took the TQM approach to it. TQM was used selectively and not embraced organizationally as a process but more as a philosophy. Council Member Kniss referred to page 15, Policy GV-15.A, and queried whose verbiage was "City staff should be nice and cooperative."
01/17/96 78-50
Ms. Cassel said the verbiage was suggested by Planning Commissioner Jon Schink. She was concerned the language was one-sided, and she believed the community also had a responsibility to respect City staff. Often that was not the case, and it was easy to attack one side and not accept one's own responsibility to show respect to staff and those people who worked on commissions. She preferred the language be more broad and positive. Mayor Wheeler had no problem with the original language as proposed by CPAC, which she believed conveyed that the entire community had a responsibility to treat each other with dignity and respect. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Schneider, to reinstate the original language in Policy GV-15.A, "Services will be delivered in a manner which reinforces positive relationships between city employees and residents, business owners and other stakeholders." Mayor Wheeler acknowledged that TQM had been successful for some people, but she concurred with staff's comments to retain the spirit of it but not necessarily the words. Mr. Kirkwood did not believe TQM appeared in the language, and CPAC was careful not to use that jargon. The whole point in the quality area and the focus on customers was to recognize that customers needed to be treated special in order to succeed. It would be great if there were some way to teach citizens to be good customers. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Fazzino, McCown, Simitian absent. RECESS 9:12 P.M. TO 9:20 P.M. Council Member Schneider referred to page 9 of the staff report (CMR:119:96), Policy GV-16.D, "Preserve all open spaces and make improvements only to those preserves that are consistent with the goals of conservation and protection of the natural environment." She queried whether the City had any open spaces not consistent with the goals of conservation and protection of the natural environment. Ms. Lytle said the language of Policy GV-16.D should read, "Preserve all open spaces and only make improvements to those preserves that are consistent with the goals of conservation and protection of the natural environment." Council Member Fazzino said the issue of active versus passive parks was currently the subject of much controversy in several neighborhoods. He queried whether staff and CPAC discussed the issue. Mr. Thiltgen said the issue was not discussed. Guidelines were included regarding the amount of parks and the radius area. The use patterns were not discussed. Council Member Fazzino queried whether use patterns were appropriate to include.
01/17/96 78-51
Mr. Thiltgen said staff had actually seen a change in the use of neighborhood parks because of the demand for open space. The changes included youth sports and other activities occurring in neighborhood parks which were previously only done in district parks. Neighborhood parks were not looked at as a total passive facility. Mayor Wheeler said the other aspect was that in the City's park plan and possibly even the existing Comprehensive Plan, school facilities were counted as neighborhood park facilities and were actively used. Council Member Fazzino was not suggesting that Council should decide the issue of active versus passive, but rather queried whether it might be appropriate to address the issue since it had been addressed in the past. Mr. Thiltgen was not sure whether the issue needed to be raised. The language change basically reflected the current use patterns. Mr. Schreiber said after the definition of neighborhood parks and district parks, the next sentence in the Plan was "parks (referring to neighborhood and district) should serve the active and passive recreational needs of residents ..." He believed there was a recognition that neighborhood parks could serve both purposes. Council Member Fazzino disagreed. He recalled the discussion over the language in 1979 or 1980, and the issue at the time was passive versus active. Council had just debated the issue of tennis courts in Eleanor Park, and he recalled there was a support for the general idea that neighborhood parks should be primarily passive and the other parks should be primarily active. He was not raising the issue to decide the right answer that evening. He agreed with Mr. Thiltgen the nature of the community had changed and in some respects active uses were appropriate in neighborhood parks as long as they did not create a tremendous burden for immediate neighbors. He raised the policy issue of whether the usage should be addressed in the Plan and was hearing that it should not be raised in the Plan. Mr. Thiltgen said if the issue were to be addressed in the Plan, he suggested the language be as stated by Mr. Schreiber because the patterns had changed. The point was to not include major active facilities such as large baseball fields, tennis courts, etc., in a neighborhood park. Ms. Cassel said it depended on how big the neighborhood park was. Hoover Park was classified as a neighborhood park and had tennis courts facilities and a baseball field. Mr. Thiltgen suggested staff look at the verbiage and return with something that worked. Mr. Schreiber believed the bottom line concept was that the extent to which neighborhood parks had active uses needed to be evaluated within the context of the size, location, and layout of the facility. There was greater potential for conflicts between very active, people-drawing type uses in a neighborhood-type park generally because of its size and relationship to the residential area.
01/17/96 78-52
Mr. Thiltgen referred to Hoover Park and clarified it was adjacent to the former Hoover School. The park itself, with the exception of the two tennis courts, was a passive facility and the ball fields were a part of the school facility. When the school closed, the ball fields were annexed into the park which changed the concept of the park. Ms. Cassel said people were more active and the need for facilities that were not active in terms of a large stadium with the ball field had changed in the past 20 years. The ability to be more active especially in the larger neighborhood parks was important. If a park were only the size of a house lot, then it would really be a passive park. Even in small parks, there were very active play areas for small children. Vice Mayor Huber referred to page 11 of the staff report (CMR:119:96) and the performing arts center. He recalled when the process first began, there was discussion about putting a community or performing arts center somewhere in the Plan. Some mention needed to go in the section. Mr. Schreiber recalled the program was to evaluate the need or the feasibility of the performing arts center, and it was logically pulled into the section as it was reorganized and developed. Council Member Fazzino believed it was important to note that Council had no preconceived idea about what a performing arts center might look like. He did not think in terms of a Mountain View-type facility and assumed Council was awaiting the Arts Master Plan before deciding what the Citywide performing arts needs were and how a downtown facility might fit into that master plan. Mr. Thiltgen said that was correct. Mayor Wheeler said the Plan also did not address how a performing arts center facility might be funded. There were no promises that it would be funded solely or even partially by the City. Council Member Andersen queried whether the City had any control or could encourage child care facilities in private homes. The Plan primarily suggested facilities that were of some size and major business activities but clearly a larger scale. A lot of child care went on in private homes, and he was interested in whether the City might encourage that process. He understood the process was discouraging, and he queried it was partly because of the City's land use policies or whether the activities were primarily regulated by the state. Ms. Lytle said the City allowed child care homes of 12 children under R-1 districts as a permitted use if the provider were a resident in the home. With more than 12 children or a provider that was not a resident in the home, it became a conditional use permit process. She could think of four facilities in R-1 districts that were in home settings. The more common location for a child care center, where there were more than 12 children, was in institutional uses also in
01/17/96 78-53
R-1 settings but where the properties were traditionally used and had parking, such as churches, former schools, etc. There were policies in the Plan which made such uses difficult and preserved the residential character of the neighborhood. It was difficult to put not just a large child care facility but any institutional use into an established residential neighborhood because it had the potential to create impacts to those living around it. All four of the centers she recalled were controversial and approved over objections of neighbors and contained many mitigation measures. Council Member Andersen clarified child care homes with less than 12 children did not require a conditional use but rather a permitted use if the provider lived on site. Mr. Calonne said in small family care, six or fewer were permitted as a break. He believed there was state law preemption on the six or under as there was with adult care homes. Council Member Andersen said the City was committed to child care and one of the areas for it was in single-family homes. It needed to be encouraged if possible. Mayor Wheeler queried whether Council Member Andersen was interested in centers with more than 12 children. Council Member Andersen said while it was allowed, he was concerned about whether it was encouraged. There might need to be economic or other incentives which made the child care centers a possibility in certain areas. Private homes were the local place for children to receive care and yet there were not as many in neighborhoods as there were 20 years ago. Mayor Wheeler recalled some painful hearings at the Planning Commission level regarding the location of child care centers within traditional landlocked R-1 neighborhoods where there were 12 or fewer children. There were problems related to parking, access for staff members, and adequate drop-off space for parents. There were real constraints and concerns the City needed to think about in terms of the quality of life for those who lived immediately next to or behind such a facility. While she was as big a child care advocate, she believed it needed to be approached with some sort of caution because there were a lot of potential problems in trying to fully encourage lots of child care centers in R-1 neighborhoods. Ms. Eakins referred to Goal 3 on page 12, under Policy G, which said "facilitate the maintenance of an adequate supply..." Mr. Beckett stated he wanted a child care center of 6 to 12 children on every block. She believed the word "facilitate" was a good word that recalled the general sentiment of CPAC about child care. It could be as simple as encouraging each elementary school in the PAUSD to send out flyers that the Palo Alto Child Care Coordinator would have a workshop. Council Member Andersen appreciated the comments. The only way to see a real expansion in the amount of child care was if it went into R-1 neighborhoods. While he realized it was controversial and Council
01/17/96 78-54
would always have a room full of people, R-1 neighborhoods was where the expansion of child care would be found. There had to be some encouragement for individuals who might be inclined to go into a business that was tough, did not pay much, and demanded a great deal of wear and tear on a house and family. He agreed with Mr. Beckett and believed the City could have some influence. Mayor Wheeler queried whether staff needed better direction from Council. Council Member Fazzino believed the word "facilitate" was a pretty passive term which did not connote leadership in his mind. He preferred to see leadership on part of the City to increase the supply of child care programs. Ms. Fleming said while staff would recommend the word "encourage," it did not believe the word "facilitate" meant nothing would be done. Council Member Fazzino believed "encourage" was a better word if Council wanted to move past passivity and demonstrate leadership. MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Fazzino, to revise page 12 of the staff report (CMR:119:96) and substitute the word "encourage" for the word "facilitate" in Goal 3, "Encourage the maintenance of an adequate supply of child care services in Palo Alto. Coordinate with PAUSD in achieving this goal." MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Simitian absent. Vice Mayor Huber referred to page 12, Policy J, that the City "will" coordinate, and queried whether "will" was a mandate type of word. While it was a great idea, he wondered whether neighbors would be forced to come together because the City wanted to coordinate something. Ms. Fleming said staff's intent was an extension of what was currently already being done. Staff met with other cities and looked at places and facilities that might accommodate some acceptable level of service on a regional basis for the homeless. Council Member Huber clarified the word implied a command to City staff that it might not be able to fulfill if those being reached out to decided not to cooperate. Council Member Fazzino had no doubt that Palo Alto needed to involve other jurisdictions in Santa Clara County to address the regional homeless issue. Palo Alto could not do it alone. At the same time, there was a limit on what could be done on the local level. Homelessness did not begin and end at the regional level, and the underlying problem associated with homelessness could not be addressed on a regional level. He wanted some regional authority to become an advocate for state and national directions or changes in direction which would impact the issue of homelessness. There was a sensitive balance between Palo Alto wanting to provide services to its homeless community, e.g., shelter, food, and support to eventually move into the mainstream of society and obtain employment, and the concern about being the only city in the area providing a large number of services
01/17/96 78-55
for the homeless. Palo Alto could become a magnet for many more homeless which would stretch its ability to provide adequate services to the homeless community. While he was not proposing different language, those were the issues he was wrestling with as he considered the issue. Mr. Thiltgen said staff was looking at a regional approach because all the communities in the area needed to consider the homeless issue because the homeless gravitated from one community to the other and everyone needed work together to coordinate efforts if it were going to work. Council Member Andersen said former State Senator Tom Campbell sponsored legislation that would have extended the use of the armories beyond the March 1 date. The legislation was tied up last year and was probably dead unless another state lawmaker picked it up. Unless something passed, the current use of the armories would expire at the end of 1997. When discussing regional efforts, the armory legislation needed some encouragement. When the bill was still alive, he was invited to speak at the state hearings, which did not occur because previous Senator Campbell did not have the votes. He was disappointed that the military wanted to tell all the reasons why national security was being jeopardized by having homeless stay in the armories. Council Member Schneider supported the "will" coordinate because Palo Alto had to take a leadership role because it probably had a larger population of homeless than surrounding communities. By taking the role of the coordinator, Palo Alto forced the involvement of the surrounding communities. Mayor Wheeler complimented staff for preparing the staff report (CMR:119:96). It was an extremely valuable document and would prove to be a stellar part of the new Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Andersen was sympathetic to the Friends of the Library, and while he was not sure of the specific language, he encouraged staff to use their proposal as a tool of wordsmithing. Ms. Fleming said she and Ms. Place would meet with Mr. Thiltgen and Director of Libraries Mary Jo Levy to get a better understanding of what the Friends believed was missing and what it wanted incorporated into the draft. Mayor Wheeler said the wrap-up meetings would occur on January 29 and 30, 1996. Staff would identify inconsistencies and pull together some basic policy statements for the essential elements of the Plan and those pieces of wisdom and vision that Council saw to be contained within the Plan. Before staff prepared the draft, Council needed to consider the overall direction for the community in the next 20 years. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Huber, to continue the discussion of the Comprehensive Plan to the Special Meeting of the City Council on Monday, January 29, 1996.
01/17/96 78-56
MOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Simitian absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
01/17/96 78-57
01/17/96 78-58
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
01/17/96 78-59