Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-12-12 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES . PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL M EET1 NGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU - FREOUENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting December 12, 1988 .ITEM Study Session re Sand Hill Procedural Framework Oral Communications Approval of Minutes 1. Appointment to the Historic Resources Board 2. Contract with Bay Area Environmental Inc. for Disposal of Existing Inventories of Hazardous Materials 3. Ordinance Amending Title 18 to Allow Day and Residential Care as Permitted Uses in the Limited Industrial/Research Park District 4. Ordinance Amending Title 18 to Clarify the Permitte4 Densities of Existing Lots that are Less than 81500 square feet in Area. and Located in the High DensityMultiple- Family Residence District PAGE 61-3 61.4 61-4 61-5 61-5 61-5 61-6 61-1 12/12/88 5. Ordinance Amending Section 18.08.040 to Change the Zone Classification of the Property Known as 400-420 Page Mill Road from PF to RM-40 6. Ordinance Adding Chapter 4.57 re Dealers in Concealable Firearms Ordinance Amending the Municipal Fee Schedule to Add Fees for Processing Applications for Permits to Deal in Concealable Firearms 7. Finance and Public Works Committee Recom- mendation re Ordinance to Close 1987-88 Budget, Transferring $739,746 from the Unreserved/Undesignated Fund Balance of the General Fund to the Debt Service Fund 61-6 61-6 61-6 8. Association of Bay Area Governments Housing 61-6 Needs Determination 9. Planning Commission Recommendation to Uphold Appeal of Robert E. Lee re Use Permit for a Day Care Center at 351 San. Antonio Road 10. Finance and Public Works Committee Recom- mendation re Guidelines tor Preparing the 1989-90 Operating Budget 11. CIP 84-72 -- Traffic Control Construction 12. Water Usage and Conservation Update Adjournment at 10:25 p.m. 61-6 61-17 61-18 61-22 61-22 R1.m8 12/12/88 i Regular Meeting December 12, 1988, 7:30 p.m. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PT .SENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ,gTIJDY SESSION R S1 +TQ KIz CORRIDOR PROCEDURAL FRAMEWOK The Council net at 6:10 p.m. in the Council Conference Room for a Study Session regarding the Sand Hill Corridor Procedural Framework. Council Member Woolley introduced Larry Patterson, the consultant working on the Sand Hill Corridor Procedural Framework process. Larry Patterson noted the purpose of the Sand Hill Procedural Framework process was to identify conceptual alternatives worthy of further study. He reviewed a flaw diagram, other graphics and related information from the staff report on the currene status of the project, including a summary of the seven alternat *.ves which emerged from the Joint Policy Committee discussions. Several Council, Members asked questions about the cost/utility evaluation methodology used in analyzing possible alternatives: the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study implications; and the importance of reducing neighborhood traffic impacts. Mr. Patterson clarified the cost/utility evaluation methodology was a tool to facilitate discussion of alternatives and would not be used in any subsequent environmental review and evaluation of project alternatives. He also noted a correction in the material distributed to Council that bicycle safety was facilitated by on - road bicycle lanes rather than off -road bicycle paths. Mayor Sutorius accepted the rationale for the seven alternatives identified as warranting further study given the objective of identifying effective alternatives. Council Members Cobb, Bechtel and Fletcher shared concerns regarding any additional access to and from Alma Street and clarified with City staff that in any subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR), mitigation of neighborhood traffic impacts in the area north of Downtown and otter Palo Alto residential areas would be considered. Council Member Patitucci questioned the validity of Option 2 for both the second and third alternatives because driver behavior 61-3 12/12/88 would tend to mean people would find a way to directly access Alma Street. Council Member Renzel expressed concern that Option 2 would encourage through traffic to continue to use Stanford Shopping Center. She was not interested in any alternative that allowed traffic direct access to Alma and would not endorse a four -lane alternative. Council Member Woolley also accepted the alternatives identified as reasonable for further study. Public comments were made by Tony Badger, William Peterson, Jim Morley, George Geomuses, Ellen Wyman, David Schrom, and Margaret Freuth. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber stressed the relationship of the Procedural Framework to any EIR process. He noted the work undertaken thus far was a legitimate precursor to an EIR in that the possible alternative projects were being identified but no decision was being made regarding which project to pursue and implement. ORAL COIO JJICATIONS 1. Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, issued harassment complaints against Palo Alto Police Officers. 2. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor. 3. W. K. Peterson, 228 Fulton, spoke regarding traffic concerns. 4. Bunny Good, Founder, International Group Organization for the Disabled, P. O. Box 824, Menlo Park, spoke regarding Inhumanity Award No. 6 to Goodwill; No. 7 to Red Cross; No. 8 to St. Anthony's; and No. 9 to the Food Closet. APPR0V,&j, QT MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the Minutes of November 7, 198B, as submitted, and November 14, 1988, as corrected. MOTION PAD 8-0-1, Fletcher "abstaining" as to the Minutes of November 7, 1988. MOTION PASSED 9.0 as to the Minutes of November 14, 188. 61-4 12/12/88 1 SPECIAL ORDEU__9F THE DAY 1. Appointment to the Historic Resources Board (702-02) Mayor Sutorius said the McFall, Peter S. Sabin, Council Member Woolley conflict of interest. candidates were: Douglas L. Graham, James and Roger A. Schink. would not participate in the item due to a Council Member Cobb was pleased with the candidates. He intended to vote for Mr. Sabin on the first ballot. Vice Mayor Klein intended to vote for Jim McFall on the first ballot. Council Member Fletcher believed both Mr. Sabin and Mr. McFall were well qualified. She intended to vote for Mr. McFall on the first ballot. Mayor Sutorius said all of the candidates were exceptional. He intended to vote for Mr. Sabin on the first ballot. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING: VOTING FOR SASIN: Cobb, Sutorius, Levy VOTING FOR McPALL: Patitucci, Fletcher, Klein, Bechtel, Renzel City Clerk Gloria Young announced that Mr. McFall received five votes and was appointed. ?"mayor Sutorius congratulated Mr. McFall. 1=911621ZSALEtilthil MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by KleinF to approve Consent Calendar Items 2 - 8. 2. Contract in the amount of $21;830 with Bay Area Environmental, Inc. for Disposal of Existing Inventories of Hazardous Materials, and Change Orders up to $3,000 (1440-01) (CMR:555:8) 3. ORpINANCX 3842 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAW ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 (THE ZONING CODE) TO ALLOW DAY UNRESERVED/AND RESIDENTS CARE AS PERMITTED USES IN THE LIMITED INDUSTRIAL/RESEARCH PARK (LEI) DISTRICT'S (1st Reading 11/21/88, PASSED 8-0, Fletcher absent) (237.01) (NPG) 61-5 12/12/88 4. ORDINANCE )843 entitled "ORDINANCE 01 !HE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 (THE ZONING CODE) TO CLARIFY THE PERMITTED DENSITIES OF EXISTING LOTS THAT ARE LESS THAN 8,500 SQUARE FEET IN AREA AND LOCATED IN THE HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE --FAMILY RESIDENCE (RM-40) DISTRICT" (1st Reading 11/21/88:, PASSED 8-0, Fletcher absent) (237-01) (NPG) 5. ORDINANCE 3814 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICA- TION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 400-420 PAGE MILL ROAD FROM PF TO RN -40" (1st Reading 11/21/88, PASSED, 8-0 Fletcher absent) (237-01) (NPG) 6. ORDINANCE 3845 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADDING CHAPTER 4.57 TO THE PALO ALTO MUN I C I PAL CODE REGARDING DEALERS IN CONCEALABLE FIREARMS" (1st Reading 11/28/88, PASSED 9-0) (1202) (NPG) ORDINANCE 384.6 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL FEE SCHEDULE TO ADD FEES FOR THE PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DEAL IN CONCEALABLE FIREARMS" (1st Reading 11/28/88, PASSED 9-0) 7.., Finance and Public Works Committee recommends to the City Council adoption of the ordinance authorizing closing of the 1987-88 budget, transferring $739,746 from the Unreserved/ Undesijnafied Fund Balance of the General Fund to the D e b t Service Fund (280-03) (CMR:506:8) ORVINANC4i 1/ entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING CLOSING OF THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987"-88" 8. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Housing Needs Determination (1520-02) (CKR:559:8) SON PASSED 9-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommendation re Appeal of Robert E. Les from the Decision of the Zoning Administrator re Use Permit for Property Located at 351 San Antonio Road (continued from 11/07/88) (300) (CMR:51.6:8) Chief kainning Official Carol Jansen said the staff report was counter to the Planning Commission recommendation to uphold the appeal and deny the day care centaur. There vlte a baeic conflict in policy direction with regard to Council direction to facilitate 61-6 12/12/88 8 day care centers versus some of the important land usa issues of concern to the Planning Commission. Staff believed the site was well suited for the proposed use. Planning Commission Chair Joe Hirsch felt the Commissioners believed the proposed use of a day care center for 30 children was too intense a usa for the particular site inasmuch as it was surrounded on three sides by single-family homes. The facilities were at the rear of the property and directed towards the adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Chandler believed the use was too intense for almost any single-family neighborhood in the City. The second proposal listed at the bottom of page 2 of the staff report (CMR:516:8) for a lot subdivision was not before the Planning Commission and was not before the Council. He believed the proposal relied upon an analysis made for another situation at 541 Seale. Policy direction was needed. Staff did not believe the proposed use would be detrimental to the nearby neighborhood whereas the Commission found the use to be too intensive and, therefore, detrimental. Council Member Woolley referred to Condition 5 on page 5 of the staff report (CXR:516:8) regarding landscaping, and asked for clarification about the phases. Zoning Administrator Nancy Lytle wanted to keep the condition fairly flexible until she discussed the development plans with the applicant. She expected landscaping would be in place within a year of operation. Council Member Woolley asked why there was no completion date listed for Condition 6 regarding parking. Ms. Lytle said the intent was for the parking requirements to be accomplished as part of the building permit. Council Member Woolley referred to Condition 8 regarding preference being given to nearby children and she queried how it would be monitored. GIs. Jansen said the preference provision was historically imple- mented on a volunteer basis by the operator of the child care facility. The City would not be monitoring the provision. Counc i l limber Cobb asked about the dangerous traffic patterns. Ms. Lytle said the Transportation Division reviewed the project on site and concluded the amount of additional traffic would be insignificant in tarns of existing situations. 61-7 12/12/88 Council Member Cobb referred to the Commission's concern regarding neighborhood impact as a basis for its vote, and he saw a big jump between 12 and 30 children in terms of a residential use. He was surprised that the next break point would be 12 if the Planning Commission's recommendation were upheld. Hs. Jansen said there was no magical number in terns of how many children were too many, but given the fact the property was more than two and one-half times the size of a normal single family lot within the area and was located on a frontage road, staff believed it had the potential for a greater number of children than perhaps a standard single-family lot. Many daycare issues had been before the Council, and it was fairly consistent in terms of facilitating as much as possible. In one situation where the Zoning Administrator revoked a use permit because of a lack of compliance to a number of conditions on the property, Council extended the revocation on a couple of occasions to allow the applicant to comply. A day care center for 12 children would not require any discretionary approval since it was State permissible. Tae issue of how many children were too many arose when an application was for more than 12 children, and she believed it needed to be dealt with on a site specific basis. Council Member Levy referred to the noise issue difference of staff and the Planning Commission. He asked for an example of what three to five decibels worth of infants and toddlers meant to the ears of the ad j acent residents. City Planner Bob Haley said a ten decibel increase in the noise level would be perceived as twice as loud. The acoustical engineers had advised that a three decibel increase in noise was not considered significant regardless of the noise. Council Member Renzel asked about the City's history in granting a use permit to an occupant of property owned with someone else. Ms. Jansen sail it was not uncommon that an applicant was not necessarily the property owner. It was less common in the case of a day care center. The applicant and the owner both signed the application. Council Member Pletcher referred to the noise issue and qufried whether the study on the comparable child cars canter included c=hildren of a comparable age. Mr. Haley said the facility was an infant day carecenter similar to the proposed operation. Council Member Levy referred to preferenee being given to children living within once -half mile of the site, and asked about parents' 61.8 12/12/88 preferences to have their children close to where they worked in the event they needed to get to them quickly. Ms. Lytle said the public testimony concluded that south Palo Alto should not provide child care for the larger region. She did not speak to other child care providers regarding the condition, just the applicant who did not have a problem. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Cathy Cupak, 351 San Antonio, said the appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator to grant the conditional use permit was filed on July 29, 1988. On October 12, 1988, there was a hearing with the Planning Commission, and even though staff's recommenda- tion was to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission upheld the eppeal. One Planning Commission concern was with her not having an adequate plan for the potential conflict between her barking dogs and the proposed use. The dogs warned passersby and potential intruders of their presence. Since the dogs would have no way of distinguishing the changes in circumstances the day care center would generate, she proposed a six-foot solid fence to restrict the dogs from entering the courtyard area during the day care hours of operation. If needed, a chain link fence could be erected parallel to the solid wood boundary fence to better segregate the dogs from the day care center. Staff has advised that she keep the dogs indoors during the centers drop off and pick up periods. If the dogs bark during the hours of operation, she would put specie' collars on them which left high frequency sounds to discourage them from barking. If all of the above failed and she could not come up with a reasonable and humane solution, she would have no choice but to find a good and loving home for the dog or doge that continued to be a nuisance. She called the Planning Department in September, 1987, to ascertain whether it was permissible to build and operate a day care center in a residential neighborhood, and what zoning restrictions, if any applied. She was advised day care centers veers a permitted use in an R-1 neighborhood. If Council supported the theory that day care centers belonged only in churches and schools, the Planning Department staff should be properly instructed as to how to advise future applicants so they would be prevented from enduring the emotional stresses and financial expenditures she incurred. She urged that Council approve the conditional use permit Council .Member Rensel asked about the landlord. Ms. Cupak said the landlord was her father. The property at 351 San Antonio Road would ultimately pass to her. Robert E. Lees, 355 Christopher Court, was concerned about the proposed substantial business enterprise in his neighborhood. 61--9 12/12/88 Syntex operated a day care center at Cubberley High School, and a toddler, defined as age 2 and under, cosh $600 per month. Assuming $500 per month and 30 children, ittotaled $15,000 per month or $180,600 per year. The applicant intended to build a structure in excess of 1,400 square Zest, ,which, assuming about $75 a square foot to build in Palo Alto, would cost over $100,000., Such an expenditure was a substantial commercial venture. Regarding noise, the applicant submitted a report from a sound engineer which was accepted by the zoning Administrator. A report by another found engineer said there would be a sound problem. One did not have to be an engineer to realize a six-foot fence would not mitigate the noise. The six-foot fence along the back and both sides of his house did not mitigate the sounds of his neighbors when they were outside and he was in his garden. "Quiet enjoyment" was an implied covenant contained in all leases of real property in the State. It meant if a landlord leased property to a tenant, the owner of the property covenanted to do nothing to disturb the tenant's "quiet enjoyment" of the real property. He urged that Council not disrupt the "quiet enjoyment" of his .neighborhood. Council Member Woolley asked whether Mr. Lee had a preference in terms of the materials for the proposed sound wall. Mr. Ise did riot believe it made any difference. Morley Wingrove, 379 San Antonio Avenue, opposed the proposed day care center. Staff referred to multiple" -family housing being directly across the street. "Directly across the street" entailed a frontage road, a two-lane divided road, and a sound wall on the Mountain View side of the road. He hardly considered that part of the neighborhood. Bob Wachs, 4257 Mackay Drive, agreed with Mr. Wingrove in terms of the misleading nature of the statement in the staff report (CMR:518:8) that multiple -family housing was "directly across the street." He was concerned about the statement the "drop off" area would aecoaaodate parents leaving and picking up their children. The "drop off" area was not applicable since they were talking about infant and toddlers. A11 of the children would be in diapers, and all of the parents would have to find a parking spot, get out of the car, bring their children into tLa area, and have a discussion with the applicant. Condition 8 regarding preference being given to children living within a one-half mile radius of the property implied the operation would benefit the neighborhood. He believed his area had more than enough child care. He was happy to see the applicant had a plan to deal with the possibility of barking dogs, but he was concerned about the chain reaction of other dogs in the area. He was concerned about the noise issue in terms of the other sound engineer's report and the fact that Dr. Elliott, a sound engineer, who provided to the Planning Commission, 61-10 12/12/88 indicated the official sound report which went into the applicant's findings was typically off by 10 or 15 decibels. .He was concerned an Environmental Impact Report was not determined to be necessary. Jane Moss, 347 Ferns, was concerned about the City's fair dealings. There was a mission to provide day care where possible and ,:o maintain the residential neighborhoods. She queried how the applicant could provide "quality" infant care for 30 children in one building. Lucy Young, 31.8 Parkside Drive, represented the Greenmeadow Community Association, who opposed the use permit. Reasons for opposition included it being a substantial business which proposed to operate in an R-1 neighborhood thereby weakening and diminishing the residential qualities of the area. The presence of apartments across San Antonio Road, nine lanes away, three on a frontage road and six on San Antonio, and the already heavy traffic from the Peninsula Day Care Center, should not be a reason to weaken the residential character of the area. The fact that the area was already impacted and in jeopardy ought to signal the City Council to protect the R-1 neighborhood and deny the use permit for day care. Rachel Samoff, 3527 South Court, chaired the Child Care Task Force, which was charged with developing a plan for dealing with child care shortages in Palo Alto. Many families in Palo Alto chose to have their infants in group care. Sites for child care centers were very difficult to find. She did not know the applicant personally, but having recognized the drastic need for increased child cars, it was inconsistent to find a site City staff decided was as ideally suited to a child care facility as any residential site would be in Palo Alto and then turn it down. Council Member Woolley asked whether it was common for a day care center to care for 30 children. Ms. Samoff said it was very common. The Syntex Child Care Center had 60 children under two years. It did not wean there were 60 children in one large room. There were rooms with eight or twelve infants. No room in her center had more than twelve infants. There were ways to keep large numbers of children being cared for in small groups. Council Member Woolley asked about the State's licensing require- ments' and whether there would be any problem with doge being on the property. Ms. Samoff maid the licensing agency subjects an applicant to intense scrutiny before a canter was opened and things had to be in order. If a licensing agent found a mosey property, one with 61-11 12/12/88 dangerous debris lying around, or animals that proposed a threat or danger to the children, there was no way the facility would be licensed. The scrutiny was particularly intense when the facility opened. It was not the City Council's job to evaluate whether the center would be a good one for children, that was the job of the state licensing agents who were qualified to do so. Michael Sullivan, 3990 Ventura Court, supported the comments of Ms. Samoff, especially the importance of the licensing department and its role. Lisa Stalk, 1955 Tasso Street, was a member of the Palo Alto Child Care Task Force, and owned and operated a preschool and child care.. center loct}ed in a residential neighborhood. Her business had operated at: a child care center in a residential neighborhood for 27 years. Her lot was one-half the size of the proposed site and she was licensed for 30 children and held a use permit from the City of Palo Alto for 30 children. She was not required to erect any noise mitigation measures. Her child care fees were $650 per month and it was an important business in Palo Alto. To her knowledge no cozplaints had every been lodged against her facility and she had never received any informal complaint from neighbors. She read a letter from her next door neighbors, Susan and Clay Carson, 885 Boyce Avenue, who supported the concept of a childcare facility in an R-1 neighborhood. Dennis Langley, 369 Christopher Court, was a consulting engineer who worked at home, and he was concerned about noise impacts with a child care facility. Paul Burnett, 381 Christopher CoArt, was concerned about the traffic impacts and safety hazards which might be created by the proposed child care facility. He urged denial of the facility. Sheila Hendon, 729 La Para Avenue, supported the 'proposed facility. Susan Pines, 4109 Donald Drive, supported the proposed facility. She was concerned about the °not in my backyard syndrome" about Palo Alto's children. Shirley Streifer, 263 Fairfield Court, believed the issues were the income differential between 12 and 30 children; what would happen to the structure when the child care facility was gone; and the provider's qualifications. George Nowell, 4237 Mackay Drive, believed the use was too intense for a residential neighborhood. The Planning Commission recommen- dation should be considered. He urged denial. 61-12 12/12/88 Mr. Les referred to a letter on file in the City Clerk's Office from Alice Sklar who lived in the Arastradero area. Ms. Sklar had lived next door to a 30 -child day care center and felt deprived of the outdoor use of henhousee. The Planning Commission recommenda- tion should bs considered. Recess from 9:20 p.m. to 9:30 p.mc NOTION: Council Member Levy the staff recommendations amended to approve the use center at 351 San Antonio Zoning Administrator, based tions: Findings moved, seconded by Bechtel, to approve in the staff report (CMR:516:8) as permit for the proposed child care Road, upholding the decision of the on the following findings and condi- 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, in that the project has no significant environmental impacts as documented in the Environmental Assessment. The project site is 19,84S square feet in size, or 2.5 times the minimum lot size of the R-1(743) district of 80000 square feet. The property can accommodate the necessary parking, sound walls and poise buffar zones, outdoor play areas, drop-off access, indoor care space, and an administrative office. The project will comply with require ments of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan for parking and noise, and the surrounding roadways can accommodate the estimated traffic increases. 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto wunicipal Code in that, as conditioned, it will "aain :in the general low -density character of existing single-family areas" by retaining the stray'.: trees, providing a fence in the front yard to screen the parking area, including sound walls to reduce noise levels to surrounding properties to within acceptable residential levels, and providing a parent drop-off area in the front to limit traffic congestion. Conditions 1. The number of children using the day care facility shall be restricted to 30, with ages ranging between 6 weeks and 36 months. 61-13 12/12/88 2. Hours of operation shall be Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 3. All mitigation measures identified in the Noise Level Report dated May 16, 1988, prepared by Precision Audio, and those measures identified in the Environmental Assessment, 88--LIA-3, shall be included in the construction of the project and shall be implemented prior to use of the day care facility. These measures are summarized as follows: a) fencing as reds fined on the plans dated received June 2, 1988, and constructed and caulked according to the description included in the Noise Level Report; and b) covering of the northwesterly exterior wall of the day care facility with an absorbent material as described in the Noise Level Report. 4. The operator shall obtain a State License and provide evidence of such to the Zoning Administrator prior to use of the facility. 5. A detailed plan of landscaping and equipment for the outdoor activity yard and infant yard shall be submitted for approval by the Zoning Administrator and shall include landscaping measures to create increased sense of privacy to surrounding properties. This plan shall be developed and approved prior to issuance of building permits, but shall be /implemented within six months of the facility becoming operational, to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator, once the facility has become opere -iona1 6. All staff parking shall be accomplished on the site. The fence which shall be constructed to screen the parking area shall remain closed., with minor exceptions, during non -operational hours, and to the maximum extent possible during operational hours. These improvements shall be accomplished prior to the opening of he facility. 7. Snags shall be accomplished in a canner considerate of the residential character of the site and neighborhood, and approved prior to the opening of the facility, to the satisfac- tion of the Architectural Review Board. 8. The driveway and turnaround area at the front of the property shell be modified as redlined in plena dated June 2, 1988, to protect the existing strsat tree from construction damage to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. 61-14 III 12/12/88 9. Comments from the Firer Building, Public Works, and Utilities Departments are attached and sha:'1 be included in the working drawings prior to submittal of the building permit application and incorporated into the construction of the proposed project prior to final of the building permit and use of the facility. 10. All conditions be reviewed in one year for compliance at a Public Roaring to be held by the Zoning Administrator and subject to the appeal process to the Planning Commission and Council, and that particular attention be given to the City of Palo Alto's Noise Ordinance with particular attention to barking dogs. Council Member Levy said Palo Alte needed appropriate child care facilities for both residents and people who worked in Palo Alto. Council did need to protect its residential areas. Child carer and especially infant cars, was crucially important in Palo Alto. Regarding whether the use was too intense for the aubject site, 30 children equalled about one regular sized classroom, and noise And traffic related mitigations would minimize the impacts. The proposed site was on a large lot separated from its neighbors on both sides by open areas of the lot and the neighboring homes had their driveways and garages adjoining the particular site. Ik Palo Alto's policy was to allow child care in residential areas, the proposed location was very good in terms of traffic. It was a frontage road over a highly traveled street, and most of the parents would be traveling on major arterial streets rather than through residential streets to get to the facility. While the proposed facility was a business, so were swim and tennis clubs and churches, and the quality of life in the community was enhanced by them oven though the person livingi next door to a church suffered on Sunday morning. The proposed location was very good and the conditions being imposed mode it better. It was insensitive to say "nowhere" to child care when it was such a tremendous need in the community. He urged support. Council Member Bechtel said the parcel was two and one-half times the minims lot size for the area, and if the property was subdivided, there could end up being two separate 12 -child day care facilities or a total of 24 children. The applicant's qualifica- tions would be considered by the State License Review Team. Council considered how the proposed use :elated to the land and the surrounding areas. She agreed with Council Member Levy, and urged support of the motion. Council M4mber Woolley supported the *otior. The facility would be monitored imach better under the use permit and a yearly review would help determine whether changes were needed. She was disappointed by the testimony related to noise►. She believed 61-15 12/12/88 parks, churches and schools were very appropriate uses for neighborhoods. She supported the motion. Vice Mayor amain agreed with the comments of Council Members Levy, Bechtel and Woolley. He agreed the neighborhood was single-family and the multiple -family on the other side of San Antonio should not be considered. Child care centers were an acceptable use in R-1 neighborhoods, and anticipated problems did not occur in actual practice for the same reason Ms. Stelk's facility turned out to be a good neighbor. Child care facilities were an essential part of Palo Alto, and while they were businesses, an elementary school with 14 classrooms and about 350 children was over a $1 million per year business. He believed child care centers were best located in R-1 neighborhoods for the same reason as schools were. He lived across the street from Crescent Park School for more than 10 years, about 50 feet away from the multi -purpose room, and he bound the school to be a good neighbor. The restrictions were reasonable and he supported the motion. Council Member Fletcher said several years ago there was an application for an infant/toddler center at the First Baptist Church on California Avenue. When she, went to the site, she found many neighbors who supported the facility but who would not attend the Council meeting because of those neighbors who were so opposed. Council approved that infant/toddler center and had not received one c emplaint since. The fact was infants did not make much. noise. She would have no problem with an child care center in her neighborhood. The voters of Palo Alto supported noisy leaf blowers, and she could not imagine not allowing child care centers. She supported the motion. Council Member Cobb did not believe sufficient consideration had been given to the traffic impacts as the egress problems were very serious. The situation by (Middlefield was extremely dangerous and he believed the proposed use would exacerbate the situation. He was uncomfortable with the deletion of the condition which gave preference to Palo Alto residents. He supported child care but was not convinced 30 children was the right place to start. It was a discretionary matter and he suggested starting with a smaller number to see how it worked, Council Member Patitucci generally associated his comments with Council Member Cobb. Re believed the Planning Commission made the correct decision on balance, and that 12 was an appropriate number. He would oppose the motion. Council Member Renael associated with the comments of Council Y rs Cobb and Patitucci. There were distinctions between neighborhood parks, schools and a day care center with. 30 children being "retrofitted" into a neighborhood. Those who lived near a 61-16 12/12/88 park or school enjoyed the benefit of the open space and often the use of the facilities. In schools, the periods of time the children were outside were restricted so that the better part of the time was relatively quiet. She agreed the Thistleberry School had not created a problem to the neighborhood but at least one neighbor of the school was the original founder of the school and was comfortable with it. There were some drop off problems in terms of how people parked their cars. While there might not be the same problems along San Antonio, she was impressed by the speed with which people left the day care center further down the road. She would oppose the motion. Mayor Sutorius said while the 4-0 vote suggested unanimity on the part of the Planning Commission, he would not want they record to necessarily convey that if a full Commission had been sitting on the issue that one could predict it would have been a 7-0 vote. Dialogue during the discussion of a matter coup alter how a Commissioner or Council. Member perceived a subject. He supported the motion. He clarified Condition 5 as amended required a detailed landscaping plan, which would be approved prior to issuance of the building permits but it shall be implemented within sic months of opening. Council Meaber Levy said that was correct. Mayor Sutorius cWarif ied all conditions would be reviewed within one year of the opening with particular attention being paid to the noise imipact experience with regard to barking dogs. Council Member Levy clarified the review should be a formal review by the Zoning Adminietrator with a public hearing subject to appeal by Commission and Council. MOTION PASSED 6-3, Cobb, Patitucci, Renzel "no." REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS 10. Finance and Public Works Committee Recommendation re Revised Guidelines for Preparing the 1989-90 Operating Budget (280-05) (CXR:551:8) NOTION: Ctzirporson Patitucci for the Finance and Committee moved approval of the revised guidelines p -.paring the 1989-90 operating budget as follows: 1. Ongoing expenditures in the General Fund should $1.7 million, in a mixture of personnel and costs. Public Works for staff in be reduced by non -personnel 61-17 12/12/88 2. The 1989-90 proposed budget reductions presented as part of the 1988-89 budget will serve as the basis for the 1989-90 budget reductions. 3. While service levels may be reduced, no services to the public should be proposed for elimination. 4. Reserves may be used to cushion the immediate effect of reductions. However, use of services will be short-term and minimized. 5. New revenue sources and increases to existing revenue sources will be aggressively investigated, considering the restrictions imposed by the City's Proposition 4 (Gann) limitation. 6. The use of volunteers is encouraged to the fullest extent possible, especially when service level reductions are indicated, in order to attempt to maintain those services at the c`*rrent level. 7. The budget should target and implement long-term savings and productivity improvements through more efficient organization and use of City staff and resources. 8. The. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) should focus first on current commitments and projects funded by the Utility User's Tax; and secondarily can any new City priorities. Council Member Patitucci believed the function of the guidelines was consistent with the way in which Council approved the budget. It was fairly specific about the actions the Finance and Public Works (F&PIS) Committee would follow in preparing the budget, and then returning to the Council. The guidelines were a departure from previous years where the F&PW Committee had been more general in nature. The F&l% Committee wanted to stick with specific guidelines and giver the current budget situation and revenue forecast they were consistent with the F&PW Committee's abi' ity to return with a reasonable budget. LION PASSED 9-0. =PORTS OF OFFICIALS 11. CIP 84 -72 —Traffic Control Construction (1062) (CMR:552.8) Council Member Woolley understood $71,000 was budgeted tar barriers. If Council opted for Alternative C, the City would save $30,000. If Alternative E were added, the City would save an additional $50, 000. 61-18 12/12/88 1 Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said Alternative E was modified landscaping. The savings of the open drainage channel combined with modified landscaping would reduce the coats by about $70,000. However, it would not be feasible with the currant $30,000 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds. The total cost for the alternative would drop to somewhere in the range of $80,000. He clarified the available $71,000 represented $30,000 in TDA funds, $30,000 from CIP 84-72, and $11,000 from the Evergreen Park CIP. If Council went with an alternative that not only modified the drainage channels but changed the landscaping, staff would have to return to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) with a new landscape plan. The Department of Public Works estimated it was not possible to make the changes, have them reviewed, and get into the bidding process in time to meet the deadlines for securing the $30,000 of TDA, funds. To conclude Council Member Woolley's alternative, it would cost in the range of $80,000, of which $41,000 could be taken from the two available CIP accounts. Council Member Woolley clarified it was only December and the City was just eliminating the sprinkler system and changing from plants which required a sprinkler system to plants which were drought resistant. She did not see why Council could not make a September deadline. Mr. Schreiber clarified the deadline was June 30 for commencing construction. The Public Works Department did not believe the time existed especially given that the plan would require ARB review prior to issuance of any bid documents. The possibility of TDA funding was either tied to using the existing design or to use the existing design with the open channels He determined such a physical chaegs would be minor enough in appearance that it would not necessitate review by the ARB. Council Member Cobb was struck that the first calculation was substantially missed. He asked how staff was so far off. Acting Chief Transportation Official Ashok Aggarwal said the $40,,000 estimate for four barriers was based on a simple barrier design, e.g., an upright pals using old utility poles as opposed to the latest designs being used in Evergreen Park with landscape islands and irrigation. Council Member Fletcher said under Alternative C, the storm drainage would be replaced by an open gutter channel. Disadvantages included that open drainage channels periodically became clogged with debris and required hand -sweeping on an ongoing basis resulting in higher iaint nce cosh. Yet, in Alternative D, the intent would be to eliminate the irrigation endues drought-- resistent landscaping with decorative paving to reduce the total 61-19 12/12/88 project cost without adversely affecting maintenance. She clarified that also included the open drainage. Mr. Schreiber said it did not include open drainage. MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Patitucci, to approve the staff recommendation that staff be directed to: 1. Cancel CIP Project 84-72 entitled Traffic Control Construction. 2. Submit a new CIP for FY 1989-90 including a modified landscaped design for eight new barriers. 3. Notify the Metropolitan Transportation Commission that the existing $30,000 TDA grant for Bryant Street barriers will not be claimed. Council Member Bechtel was disappointed in having to return TDA grant money; however, it wee not as if TDA grant money was gone forever. There were other opportunities. Council Member Levy asked about the difference between doing the project immediately and waiting Mr. Schreiber said the modified landscaping was Alternative D, and it would involve four barriers at a cost of $100,000 versus the Evergreen Park design which was four barriers at $150,000. The difference with the returned TDA funds would be $20,000. Council Member Levy clarified if the City waited a year, the City would probably spend $20,000 less. Mr. Schreiber said if it was assumed there were no further TDA funds rvailable, the cost of City funds would change from $120,000 to $100,000. Council Member Levy asked about the likelihood of the City's being able to get the TDA grant next year again. Mr. Aggdrwal said the City could reapply for the grant, and there was a fifty-fifty change it would get thee. Bob Nose, 4010 Orae, said the Cleao/Maybe11 barrier was about 20 years e1d. If the City went with a modification of the open drainage canal channel and made drought resistent landsoapirg, which he supported, it would end up spending"a,boUt $110,000 to $120:000. Even if the City d,1.4 not get any TDA money, it would still be spending City funds of around $1201000. There would not be any real net cost to the City by redesigning and doing the project more efficiently. If the City proceeded with the two non - 31 --20 12/12/8$3 Bryant Street barriers as modified that year and went through whatever redesign was necessary to get the 'Bore efficient landscaping, reapplied for TDA grant funds next year, and built the two Bryant Street barriers with TDA coney in the next budget, it did not necessarily mean all four barriers would be spread out over a period of time. It could be structured so the bids went out and the barriers were actually built under a single contract at the sane approximate time. The City could continue moving forward with the first two. He urged approval of some combination of Alternatives C and D and apply for TDA grant funds for the Bryant Street barriers when possible. City Manager Bill Zaner urged Council to support the motion understanding that in his opinion $150,000 to build four barriers was inappropriate. To close four streets off and spend $150,000, totaled $35,000 to close a street and it seemed to be a. poor expenditure of City funds. If the motion passed, he hoped staff could return with a much different kind of closure. It would not be beautiful and it would mean the ARB wcnld not get a $35,000 product to look at. It seemed to him the City should be able to close four streets for a lot less than $150,000. He was uncomfort- able with the Planning staff having to defend a set of recommenda- tions which were essentially an. Engineering/Public Works kind of recommendation in relationship to the costs. Council Member Cobb agreed with the City Manager. Council Member Fletcher was not sure the costs could be considerably reduced, but she would support the motion. Council Member Woolley agreed with the City Manager that $150,000 was too much sonny to put into four. barriers. She believed $80,000 was far *ore reasonable. The problem arose because the City pet such fancy barriers in Evergreen Park and :used up all the stoney. The last Evergreen Park barrier was still waiting to be done. She agreed there would be costs associated with the redesigning and maintenance costs were factors to be considered. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Woolley moved, seconded by Menzel, to combine options C and E. Mayor Sutorius would oppose the substitute motion. Council Member Bechtel would not support the substitute motion because she was concerned about the open drainage channels and the increased maintenance. She was concerned it waa a quick fix that would cost the City more in the long run. 61-21 12/12/88 Council Member Fletcher did not believe the costs would be considerably reduced by delaying the project because of the drainage problem. SUBSTITUTE NOTION mum 3-6, Renzel, Woolley, Fletcher voting "aye." Mayor Sutorius noted the material did go to the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association and the Southgate Neighborhood Association. LION PASSED 7-2, Renzel, Woolley "no.." 12. Water Usage and Conservation Update (1410-02) (NPG) City Manager Sill Zaner said the City's conservation figures were about 7.3 percent of its consumption. The wells were being turned off and were still delivering just under ten percent of the water. The City was about 8.6 percent below its allocation from San Francisco. No Action Taken ADJovxxMFerrr Council adjourned at 10:25 p.m. ATTEST' APPROVED: .0-1K) Garb r NOTE: Sense hutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.200(b). The City Council meeting tapes are retained in the City Clerk's Office for two years from the date of the reQting, and the Finance and Public Works Committee and Policy and Procedures Committee meeting tapes are retained for six months. Members of the public may listen to the tapes during regular office hours. { yor • 61=22 12/12/88