Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-06-08 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES ------•-PALOALTOCITYCOUNCILMEETINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU-FRE©UENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting June 8, 1987 ITEM P A G E Study Session re Downtown Design and Ame- 57-300 nities Oral Communications 57-301 Approval of the Minutes of May 4 and 11, 1987 57-302 1. Presentation to rater Quality Control 57-302 Plant of "Plant of the Year" Award from California Water Pollution Control. Asso•- ciation Consent Calendar 57-302 2. Contract with W. F. Anderson, Inc., for 57-303 Removal and Replacement of Two 12 Kv Transformers at Quarry Road Substation in the Amount of $51,000 3. Contract with Coopers and Lybrand for 57-303 External Audit Services in the Amount of $64,100 plus a $6,400 Contingency 4. Agreement with Energy and Control Con- 57-303 sultants for a Feasibility Study of Direct Load Control in the Amount of $26,000 5. Public Hearing: Assessments for 57-303 University Avenue Area and CalifoLilia Avenue Area Parking Bonds - Plan G: FY 1987-88 6, Public Hearing: Resolution Approving the Use of the 1987-88 Community Development Block Grant Funds 57-305 57-298 6/08/87 ITEM PAGE 7. Policy and Procedures Committee Recommenda- tion re the Report from the Child Care Task Force 57-309. 8. The Temporary Committee on Downtown Design 57-316 and Amenities Recommendation re Endorsement of (1) Possible Benefits and Amenities from Future Downtown Projects, (2) Types of Incentives Necessary to Obtain such Bene- fits, and (3) a Process to with Preparation of a Downtown Urban Design Plan Recess 57-322 9. Request of Mayor Woolley re Proposal for 57-322 Downtown Child Care Center 10. Request . of. Council Member Bechtel re Restricting Hours of Operation of Auto Body Painting in Locations Immediately Adjacent to Residential Areas Adjournment at 11:10 p.m. 57-335 57-338 57-299 6/08/87 STUDY SESSION RE DOWNTOWN DESIGN AND AMENITIES At the Study Session, John Northway, Chairman of the Temporary Committee on Downtown Design and Amenities, sum- marized the. Committee recommendations contained ein its J.. nuary 30, 1937 report. Mr. Northway highlighted the recommendations regarding: Benefits requiring major incen- tives; benefits requiring minor -incentives; incentives; and an urban design plan. He presented a slide show using pic- tures from Palo Alto, other American cities, and European cities to illustrate the Committee's recommendations. In discussing the Committee proposal to modify the .Planned Community (PC) zone change review process, Council Member Renzel raised concerns regarding the impact of positive Council action prior to availability of the project design. Council was assured it would retain its decision -making authority until final approval was given to a project during the design phase of the proposed PC review procsss. In its discussion of a Downtown urb;$n design plan, Committee Members explained that an urban design plan would assist the legislative review process in preventing one large project, which provided many amenities, from absorbing virtually all the Downtown growth limit. They believed that an urban design plan would also provide useful guidelines to show where desired amenities and benefits should be placed. An urban design plan was identified as the appropriate mecha- nism for establishing a policy on appropriate functions and improvements for Downtown alleys as well as on the phasing of such improvements. It was suggested that the urban design plan provide guidelines for proper signage of public parking facilities. Committee and Visual Arts Jury (VAJ) Member Orlando Maione suggested that a professional team, including designers, could prepare a quick overview of Downtown's design needs and opportunities in a manner simi- lar to the two student Charrettes. This overview could then constitute the basic framework of an. urban design plan. Council Members expressed concern about the level, of assis- tance necessary for a food store and its ability to be a profitable. Several Council Members said the Committee's list of ame- nities might not be all inclusive but better defined the types of things the community might wish to. see in future Downtown projects. 57-300 6/08/87 Regular Meeting Monday, June 8, 1987 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met o_ n this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:37 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley Mayor Woolley announced a Study Session with the Temporary Committee on Downtown Design and Amenities re Committee Recommendations and Report was held at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Alice Fischgrund, 750 Torreya Court, spoke to the frag- ile state of bus transportation in Palo Alto. The City suggested the changes proposed a few months ago were not a good idea, but at the Meeting of the Whole in San Mateo, the recommendation was overturned and staff were advised to make the cuts in Palo Alto. Essentially all the cuts were back and seemed to hurt seniors more than any other group. She asked Council to consider the capricious attitude of the Transportation Commission toward the City of Palo Alto, The City deserved its share of ridership. She mentioned the 84 bus looked empty because its windows were black but many people rode it. As a vo1nntiler for the City, she was honored at a lovely event last week and said it was nice the City appreciated its volunteers. She would like a bus to the Cultural Center. 2. Herb Pischgrund, 750 Torreya Court, saw his tax money on transit syphoned off and the service going down, all in the name of supposed need to economize. The District seemed to have lots of money to build transit lanes on freeways with funds voted by the taxpayers for public transit. When the judge ruled the County could not use the funds for that purpose, the Times Tribune claimed the Transit District was cash -rich but there were many worthy uses for the cash. The justification for elimi- nating the Fabian Way loop on the 23 line was because Fords was moving out of Palo Alto. The likelihood was that there would be more people there at the beginning of next year, and yet the service was to be cut now. He believed the arguments were grasping at straws to jus- tify what, had been decided 'beforehand. The public hearing process was a travxasty. There was a need for the City to do something more aggressive to deal with the issues of the Transit District in protecting the needs of the bus riders and citizens of Palo Alto. '57-301 6/08/87 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 4 AND 11, 1987 MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Minute of May 4 and 11, 1987, as submit- ted. MOTION_ PASSEL" 8-0-1, Levy °abstaining" on ,Minutes of May 4, 1907, Bechtel abstaining" on Minutes of May 11, 1987. 1. PRESENTATION TO WATEF QUALITY CONTROL PLANT OF "PLANT OF THE YEAR" AWARD FROM CALIFORNIA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION (1122-01) Michael Doeeean, Past President of California 'rater Pollution Control Association, said 20 years ago they embarked upon a program to improve the water quality of the State of California so all the waters were fishable and swimmable. Since that time, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars in waste water treatment plant improvements and enlargements, and some 750 public plants were built or added to in the 'process. It was incuinbeet upon the California Water Polloution Contrel Association to see those plants were operated properly, that the fn,i_.t was gotten out of them so the tax payers got the most benefit for their investment. With that in mind, the California Water Pollution Control Association started a "Plant of the Year" award prograa which was limited within each of the 17 local sections. Last year, they initiated a program to take the winners of those 17 sections and evaluate them tor a Statewide "plant_ of the year." He presented the plaque for the outstanding plant of the year winner tor the past year to the City of Palo Alto. Palo Alto demonstrated outstanding performance not only in complying with the waste water discharge requirements but also in its efforts in reducing the costs to operate the plant without cutting back its performance and fafety programs. Mayor Woolley thanked the California Water Pollution Control Association and said the thorougt.ness of their investigation made the award doubly appreciated. Some Council Members were pleased to notice that the Association decided the City of Palo Alto in the resolution was feminine. Council wished staff to know they were very appreciative of the work they had been doing. It was an outstanding achievement. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Flethcer moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the Consent Calendar. 57-302 6/08/87 2. CONTRACT WITH W. F. ANDERSON, INC., FOR REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF TWO 12 KV TRANSFORMERS AT QUARRY ROAD SUBSTATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $51,000 (CMR:290:7) (1101) Staff is authorized to execute Change Orders for extra work items in the amount of $7,000. 3. CONTRACT WITH COOPERS AND LYBRAND FOR EXTERNAL AUDIT SERVICES 1N THE; AMOUNT OF $64,100 PLUS A $6,400 CO TIN- GENCY (406-01) 4. AGREEMENT WITH ENERGY ANL) CONTROL CONSULTANTS FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF DIRECT LOAD CONTROL IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,000 (CMR:291:7) (1101) Staff is authorized to- execute Change Orders in an amount not to exceed $3,900. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ASSESSMENTS FOR UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREA AND CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA PARKING BONDS - PLAN G: FY 1987-88 (CMR:283:7) (410-02) Senior Engineer, Public Works, Jim Harrington, drew Council -`s attention to errata sheets, Exhibits F & G (on file in the City Clerk's office). Since the filing of the Assessment Roll with the City Clerk in mid -May, staff received and investigated several inquiries involving 15 properties in the University Avenue District, referred to as Exhibit F, and - 8 . properties in the California Avenue .District, referred to as Exhibit G. Staff submitted Exhibits F and G to .the City Clerk for incorporation into the amended rolls He also drew to Council's attention a problem Staff -had that day with the property at 409 Sherman- Avenue- in the California Avenue area. The owners had been notified of a change. Given the shortness of time involved in trying to review and resolve the matter, -staff recom- mended when Council was ready to proceed with voting on the resolution, that the Public Hearing for the California Avenue District be closed and the voting on the-reSoiution be continued for one- creek to allow staff to resolve the matter with the owners. Mayor Woolley said it was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Parking Assessment Rolls for the following projects: California Avenue Parking Garage Project No. 65-t)9, Resolution of intention No. 3950, adopted January 3, 1967 57-303. 6/08/87 California Avenue Ott -Street Parking Project No. 71-63, Resolution of Intention No. 4993, adopted Ser•tember 10, 1974; California Avenue Keystone Lot Parking Project No. 86-01, Resolution of Intention 6485, adopted January 20, 1986. University Avenue Civic Center Parking Project No. 66-08,. Resolution of Intention No. 3896, adopted June 13, 1966;; University Avenue Area Off -Street Parking Project No. 75-63, Resolution of Intention No. 5242, adopted August 9, 1976; and University Avenue Lot J Parking Garage Project No. 82-33, Resolution of Intention No. 6257 adopted May 21, 1984. The City Engineer had caused tc, •be prepared and filed with the City Clerk a report providing for the levying with spe- cial assessments within the parking assessments districts created and established for the projects and under the reso- lutions of intention„ just expressed. The report set fe. tii the amounts of assessments proposed to be levied for the fiscal year 87-88. The assessments will be used to pay principal and interest on the bonds issued on the various projects. The report was and had been open for public inspection, The purpose of the hearing was to allow Council o hear all persons having an- interest in any real property within the parking assessment districts; to hear all objec- tions, protests, and other_ written .communications from any -such interested persons; to take and receive oral and docu- mentary evidence pertaining to matters contained -in the tiled report; to remedy and correct any error or informality in the report; and to amend, alter, modify, and correct and confirm the report and each of the assessments therein. Mayor Woolley asked the City Clerk it she had received any written protests. City Clerk Gloria Young answered no. Bob Kavinoky, 2091 Cornell Street, spoke in regard to the Keystone formula which was more complex than the previous G Bond issues, and he recognized the efforts and cooperation received from Dave Matson and Glenn Vaughn on behalf of the California Avenue Di -strict. 57-304 6/08/87 Mayor Woolley declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to approve resolutions re University Avenue and continue resolutions re California Avenue: to June 15, 1987, City Council meeting. RESOLUTION 6614 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT k4D ASSESSMENT ROLL - UNIVERSITY AVENUE CIVIC CENTER PARKING PROJECT NO. 66-08 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987-88" RESOLUTION 6615 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREA OFF-STREET PARKING PROJECT NO. 75-63 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987=--88" RESOLUTION 6616 entitled RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - UNIVERSITY AVENUE LOT J PARKING GARAGE PROJECT NO. 82-33 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987-88" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci -"not partici- pating." 6. PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE USE OF THE 1987-88 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS (CMR:276:7) (412-02-01) Council Member Cobb was concerned about innovative housing. He understood the administration prevented the kinds of problems that Planning staff suggested might, occur. He asked if-stafffelt comfortable with the kind of administra- tion the organization provided. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said he could not speak to ' the type of administration the organization provided at that point in time. Staff had a broader policy concern regarding the doubling up or more intensive use of single-family structures. It was something they within the City organization recognized was going on within the community but were not very comfortable with in terms of multiple families using one structure. Vice Mayor Sutorius clarified the lodging definition was indicated in earlier staff comments and in the staff report (CMR:276:7) . The City supported other situations through the same program where a -unit of housing was located in an 57-305 6/08/87 R -I zone, e.g., in one case, five veterans would be located at that location. He asked the distinction between shared housing with the lodging type of concern and the fact that was not applicable in the R-1 versus the other kinds of situations such as stated in his example. Mr. Schreiber said State law provided for certain types of group quarters to be allowed as a permitted use, and the Zoning Ordinance allowed for other type with a conditional use permit. Staff's concern related hack to traffic, parking, level of activity, and their sense of past Council concerns with the intensification of single-family dwellings in the manner of more than one family. There were examples Where t ha F nr' 'i rred in a nance. M..,:ight`orward way under the ordi- vice Mayor Sutorius said fiscal year (FY) 87-88 concluded the third year under a statement of program and objectives developed and approved by Council in 1984.. They had an effective system working, a good understanding, process, and excellent citizen participation. He asked the work activ- ities, timing, and processes involved in the 'next round. Human Services Administrator haroo Dutton replied the existing Citizen Advisory Committee would meet in the sum- mer, review the process, and make any necessary adjustments or new parts to the plan, which would be another three-year plan. Council Member Fletcher believed the City originally had an ordina_-^gt on the books limiting housing to five people unrelated upon which there eas a ruling. City Attorney Diane Northway clarified the case of Adamson v. _the City of Santa Barbara said so long as unrelated people were living together as a housekeeping unit, i.e., had the same types of patterns as a family, the City could not discriminate against them because .they were not related by blood or marriage. She believed there was a narrower ruling in terms of how one had to comport or conduct oneself as a family unit even though unrelated by blood or marriage, and the City could go so far as to look at that part of the activities. Council Member Fletcher asked l.f the City Attorney was saying the small distinction between traditional, unrelated people acting as a family and the shared -housing concept needed to be studied. . Ms. Northway said her only point was to respond to the ques- tions in regard to the Adamson case and the effect on the 57-306 6/08/87 City's ordinance about unrelated people. Under the Adamson case, unrelated people had to be living together as a house- keeping unit. To ascertain that was really happening would require on -site inspectors; therefore, enforcement was a problem. The City had dealt with that through determination of a common eating area and living room. Mayor Woolley declared the public hearing open. Judith Steiner, 508 Churchill, spoke as Innovative Housing's Coordinator on the Peninsula and said Innovative Housing was swell -ya i old nonprofit organization with programs in five Bay Area counties. Their purpose was to find new ways to provide housing to meet two of the biggest social prob- lems in the area: The shortage of affordable housing, and the isolation and loneliness that happened in changing fami- lies. They were requesting Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding in Palo Alto for a program called Shared Leased Housing. Affordability was the biggest quali- fication. Theyi had leased one house in Palo Alto since November at 2670 Cowper Street which had previously. been rented to four single people, and they presently had three people living there. The people who went into their houses went through a workshop process to explore their own values and lifestyle in order to find people to share with compat ibly. People in the workshop chose each other to live with. Services continued with teaching systems to help people live together, some necessary communication skills, trouble shooting, and mediation. They also continued managing the house for the owner and were liaison between the residents and owner. They had about 70 houses around the Bay Area and had been supported by CDBG funds in Mar.in County and Alameda County,. They consulted with an agency in San Mateo County called Lease a Home, who modeled a program after ..:heirs and had five houses in San Mateo County. They had ant Cher house in Los Altos and three ;n Cupertino that she managed, and they had not received a single complaint to the City or the neighbors trom any of the houses. It was important for their organization to have a good reputation with the ptop- erty owners in order to secure good houses. She urged Council to follow the recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the CDBG and also the Palo Alto 2000 Committee and the League of Women Voters stated they would like the City of Palo Alto to take a creati'=a .cook at using existing housing stock. Jeri Foley, 524 Thain .-tray, had been a property owner in Palo Alto for 30 years. She flourished here, but now she and many friends Were faced with grave housing problems. For 15 years she had been a specialist in the field of aging and 57-307 6/08/87 discovered there were two kinds of housing for older people: The private residence where many older people lived alone, and an institutional structure. Many would prefer something inbetween. There were many single parents, mature and older adults who lived alone because there did not appear to be anything else available or affordable. There was a glamor- ous idea among many older people they could find something like the "Golden Girls" on TV, but her experience was fre- quently people who were good friends were not necessarily good living companions. With Innovative Housing there were a lot of\,safeguards to provide a way for people to form a living arrangement. People still came to Palo Alto because it was creative and innovative and had done so many wonder- ful i n so many d e t areas, a and she e h o pe d t h e things x�. different r_ City would continue to do that in the field of housing. - She asked Council to consider granting Innovative Housing the $5,000 because she hoped with it Innovative Housing would be able to help people of all ages find a better way of living in Palo Alto in a new age that needed new ways to solve Sylvia Martinez, 794 Allen Court, Chair of the CDLIG Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC), said the CAC strongly endorsed the report. CAC encouraged Council to do every- thing possible tics increase the vitality of the nonprofit sector because it was very- vulnerable. The nonprofits should try to diversify their source of funding. CAC was concerned about the increased dependence on CDBG funds and strongly recommended, and next year would look carefully, at those project proposals that had other sources of funding. The nonprofits should develop their membership and board base as much as possible. The CDBG Advisory Committee would be flexible in standards and understanding but nonetheless firm in its assessment. They commended the nonprofit orga- nizations for the tremendous role they played in the cornrnunity and hoped Council would accept the recommenda- tions. Mayor Woolley declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Woolley clarified it was the recommendation of the CAC to fund the Innovative Housing program. MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt the resolution. RESOLUTION 6617 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING THE USE OF THE 1987-88 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS" 57-308 6/08/87 Council Member Bechtel noted the recommendations were also a majority vote of the F&PW Committee. She said the F&PW Committee discussed Innovative Housing and staff's concern on whether it would ba similar to a boarding house. She believed there was a clear distinction between the program and a boarding house. Innovative Housing had a shared kitchen and two eating areas and truly shared the facil- ities. In such areas as Los Altos, Marin County, and other areas where there might be more conservatives than Palo Alto, they were also using and supporting Innovative Housing. Innovative Housing also received funding from the Community Foundation of Santa clara County. Council Member Klein was once again pleased and impressed by the work of the CAC and supported all but one of its recom- mendations. AMENDMENT: Council Member Klein moved to delete the $5,000 for the Innovative Housing Associated program. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Mayor Woolley believed Innovative Housing provided an impor- tant alternative and a way of solving two of the problems Council had wrestled with many times: A more efficient use of the present housing stock, and affordability. Both solu- tions were achieved without adding to Palo Alto's housing stock, which was something many members of the community were not eager to see especially if . it was many small units on a, small piece of ground. Council Member. Fletcher added to the list of benefits of the shared housing arrangement the probability of increasing single --parent 1~.omes with young children who otherwise would not be able t live iii the community. One of Council's goals was to encourage young families in Palo Alto. MOTION PASSED unanimously. 7. POLICY AND PROCEDURES (P&P) COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE THE REPORT FROM THE CHILD CARE TASK FORCE (CMR 221:7) (702-14) P&P Committee Chairman Renzel said the P&P Committee gener- ally concurred with the L Wewu�.endations of the Child Care Task Force with the exceptions they believed $15,000 from the City should be matched on a dollar -for -dollar basis because of past concerns .about the child care activity becoming too dependent on City funding. The P&P Committee wanted to refer to the F&PW Committee items which had finan- cial ramifications.. The Child Care Task Force had done a good job and must o f the reco€tumenda t inns had a great deal of merit. 57-309 6/08/87 MOTION: Council Member Renzel for the Policy and Procedures Committee moved the City Council take the fol- lowing actions concerning the Report from the Child Care Task Force: 1. Assign the responsibility for community -'wide child care advocacy, coordination, and fund raring to Palo Alto Community Child Carve (PACCC) as part of its contractural obligations to the City; 2. Endorse the concept of a Child Care Master Plan; 3. Direct the Human Relations Commission (HRC) to develop a plan for an ongoing Child Care Task Force and return to Council for approval of structure, responsibilities, and guidelines for membership; 4. Direct PACCC to proceed with establishing a Child Care Fund and a Business Advisory Committee. As an initial contribution to the Fund, direct City staff to transfer the remaining balance from the funds appropriated for use by the 1986-87 Child ,Care Task Force estimated to be $9,000, plus an amount in matching dollars up to $15,000, the matching period to begin at the start of the fiscal year 1987-88 and expire at the end of the third quarter of the fiscal year; 5. Direct staff, consonant with Planning staff wovk load and existing priorities, to explore the feasr.bility of a Child Care Mitigation Fee, review the concept and its implication with the Planning Commission, and report the findings and recommendations to Council; 6. Endorse the efforts of Palo Alto Area Information and Referral Service (PAAIRS) and PACCC to work with 4C's of Santa Clara County to establish a North County child care resource and referral office; 7. Direct that monitoring the progress in -achieving the goals of the Child Care Master Plan become part of the City's regular evaluation procedure tor human services contracts; and 8. Recommend favorable consideration by the Finance and Public Works Committee of a 0.5 temporary position to be added to the staff of the Human Services Division to provide support to the HRC necessary to launch the on- going Task Force and Child Care Master Plan. 1 Council Member Kleie said the P&P Committee referred three items of their recommendations to the F&PW Committee for consideration. The F&PW Committee concurred with the P&P Committee recommendations to match dollar -for -dollar up to $15,000 any outside funds raised by PACCC, and that the, resirtual Task Force funds be transferred to the Child Care Fund to he administered by PACCC. AMENDMENT: Council Member Klein for the Finance and Public Works Cos mittee moved to replace t8 with language as follows: In lieu of authorizing a 0.5 temporary position be added to the staff of the Human Services Division, recommend that development of the ongoing Child :Care Task Force be accomplished by the Human Relations Commission within the existing resources of the Human Services Division and that reponsibility for developing the Master Plan be assumed by the Palo Alto Community Child Care. Susan Chamberlain, 121 Byron Street, spoke as a resident of Downtown with three; children under the age of seven who cur- rently used child care.. In the 12 years she lived in her neighborhood there was a tremendous turnover, in houses, and her street was now almost entirely young families with children. There was a crying need .for services for fami- lies, and they needed more child care both for residents and people who worked in Palo Alto. There was no way that could happen without strong financial support from the City. Diane Horgan, 351 13th Street, Montara, was Co -Chair of the Child Care Task Force. On Recommendation #1, the Task ' E`orce believed it was important there be one person charged with the advocacy of child care for the City of Palo Alto. Also, the $15,000 referred to in Item #4 was money to fund the position, as an addition to the PACCC staff. In Item #2, she believed wording that the goals of the Master Plan should be to increase the supply of high --quality, affordable care for residents and employees who work in Palo Alto was important. In regard eo #5, one of the Task Force's major charters was to find ways that industry could more support child care. After a lot of'research, the one thing they believed was feasible and their industries had tested and found acceptable was the Mitigation Fee; therefore, they would like the wording to be stronger. Mayor Woolley imagined the wording of the recommendations in the staff report was necessarily'' succinct, but she asked whether the larger picture provided for in the Task Force report would be considered when the recommendations were implemented. 57-311 6/08/87 Human Services Administrator Margo Dutton said yes. a Cynthia Cannady, 2065 Emerson -Street, a member of the Child Care Task Force, said the Task Force spent much time and effort looking at studies, proposals, and plans implemented in other areas; did a lot of research and came up with the recommendations after a great deal of discussion. She was happy to see the recommendation of the P&P -Committee waa to contribute and participate by providing $15,000; however, had great . concerns about the recommendation as it had been put before Council. In many respects, she was disappointed with what came forth from their effort. Their concept and goal throughout the Task Force process was to develop a set of recommendations that would create an exciting possibility for a partnership between business and the City of Palo Alto. The Task Force was composed of representatives of industry, the community, and the City. One area of total consensus was the importance of a consistent source of funding for implemental ,on of a meaningful Child Care Master Plan over time. They were clear that a voluntary situation where employers participated by contributing funds from time to time would not be a good base for implementation of a real Child Care Master Plan that would answer the needs of the City. They studied task force reports from other cities at some length and agreed they would be disappointed if their report was verbose and did not propose meaningful solutions to a real problem. The goals were affordability, quality, and availability. They looked at the specific con- tent of a Child Care Master Plan and talked about the importance of looking at land donation and of encouraging the formation of business consortia. Her concern about the recommendations was an equivocal attitude about the Mitigation Fund, and that there be some meaningful way --not merei.y voluntary --to fund the. Child Care Master Plan. She urged Council to change the directive in 45 to look at a way to make the Child Care Mitigation Fee a meaningful reality, and to define the concept of a Child Care Master Plan Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, associated himself with .'the general tanure. of the comments made by Ms. Cannady, particularly in .regard to volunteerism and hoping business would support :.child'care, which had been a fond hope and unrealized real- ity in the City for almost 15 years. `He was reminded of the comment that the best incentive was ' a firm requirement and believed Council should think seriously about requiring some form of child care support from -business. He agreed child care would not be improved by inereasing City staff, and it would be more appropriate if PACCCwas given the basic res- ponsibility because they were capable and experienced, - but he did not want to see PACCC given the responsibility 57-312 6/08/87 without also being given the resources. He would like to see a significant portion of what would have been spent funding a 0.5 position at City level given in increased funding to PACCC. He commented on the general need for child care and the importance of having a good child care organization in the City. One of the things that made Palo Alto a desirable place to work was there was an organization, like PACCC and spaces were available for people to have quality child care for their children. It was important to get the message out so that when business and industry was required to support child care, they would recognize it was for their good and not because the City was being arbitrary, capricious, or wanted to levy more taxes and make things more difficult for them. He supported the thrust of Council Member Klein's amendment but suggesting adding to PACCC's budget to handle the process. Dorothea Almond, 4135 Old Trace Road, a member of the Child Care Task Force, agreed with most of the speakers but was disappointed the emphasis originally placed on the addi- tional Child Care Coordinator had almost fallen by _the wayside. PACCC could do a lot but it took,a specific person to be the advocate to go out to talk to industry and educate industrial leaders as to the importance of child care to their own enterprises. At Stanford, it was because a con- sistent person pursued the various scenes of child care with the various parts of the university that they were able to develop 5, 6, or 7 programs and now took care of about 800 children, many of whom lived in Palo Alto. She emphasized the position was extremely important because a person who was a specialist in that field would be a great stimulus to the whole child care scene. Mayer Woolley asked staff to expand on the recommendation to provide for a specific person to coordinate the activities. Assistant to --the City Manager Vicci Rudi.n said it was staff's understanding the Council Committees desired the $15,000 available for matching funds be directed to PACCC to fund the Child Care Coordinator function. She believed the confusion may have arisen with the recommendation from the F&PW Committee there not be funding for a temporary person in the City's Human Services Division but rather the respon- sibility for developing the plan be given to PACCC, and the assistance- in launching the new Child Care Task Force be handled primarily by the HRC. Council Member Fletcher asked Mr. Sullivan from PACCC to explain how he envisioned the handling of the program, and to address the issue of how the Task Force would interact in the process of developing the Master Plan. t- ..� t,.. ,�v..aa.va 57-313 6/08/87 Michael M. Sullivan, PACCC, 3990 Ventura, said PACCC's effort, if the money for the coordinator function was approved, would be to go after another $15,000 in order to bring on a person. They would work on a draft of a Child Care Master Plan to present to the new Task Force at some point in September or October. At the same time, they would begin the effort to put together names for the suggested business advisory committee and their Board of Directors would look at child care in Palo Alto beyond the services and programs provided by PACCC itself. He saw the coordinator as very important in quickly bringing _together the interested providers and exchange among themselves about what should be in the Master Plan, to get together to develop a plan on how they would in a coordinated way approach business in town. He hoped as those things occurred, the critical role a Task Force would play was to monitor the fact that they were doing it together, which would be visible by the participation of different providers, and would be visible from quarter to quarter how they had been successful working together. That was an adjustment on the original idea of the Task Force. Council Member Fletcher said one of the concerns expressed by child care advocates was that PACCC was short of staff and the added functions would strain their resources further. Mr. Sullivan said the matter was certainly a concern, but if PACCC was successful in pulling together the existing resources in Palo Alto, he believed it was possible. He appreciated the concern and said he trust be conscious to continue to maintain the programs at PACCC, but believed they could pull together to make a concerted effort to approach business. After one or two years there would be a pause of several years, and then they would return to business with what was happening. Council Member Klein recollected at the F& PW Committee when the amendment on the floor was adopted, they were advised by staff the amendment had the concurrence of PACCC, and he asked if that was correct. Mr. Sullivan said yes; it might take more time but was possible. Council Member E':ititucci said there was some definition of a Master Plan and what it was intended to accomplish; however, he clarified the way Council was proposing to provide money for the project was a one-time grant with a matching requiremeryt that would fund about one year's worth 57-314 6/08/87 or a person whose first task was to find out how to fund the other years in order for the capability to exist and be per- petuated on an ongoing basis. Mr. Sullivan said that was his understanding. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Renzel voting "no." AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Kleine that staff explore the possibility of including a child care center in the Palo Alto Housing Corporation California Avenue project. Council Member Fletcher believed the subject project might be particularly suitable for a child care center since it would be for families with many children, and the cost would be considerably less than looking for a site to buy. Vice Mayor Sutorius would not vote against the amendment because the wording was extremely general in that it asked staff to !'explore." In regular ongoing coordination with Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), staff was familiar with how things were presently proceeding with respect to architect selection, advising, etc. However, he hoped Council would not be including in its thinking by any favor- able action on the amendment there was strong potential without impairing the affordability of the housing provided there. Some space arrangement that might assist with respect to care from the standpoint of the occupancy had some potential, but the term "child care center" extended much beyond the physical site of the units. Council should remember while undoubtedly there were needs, PACC(:. did have a center reasonably proximate to the California Avenue proj- ect in the main center and also the College Terrace center. It was not the kind of location where he saw either finan- cial commitments or sacrifices of housing commitments could automatically be the right thing to do. Council Member Levy had no problem with looking into the development proposed and asking staff to review it with the PAHC; however, he had a problem with the way the amendment came to Council. They were dealing with a report from the Palo .Alto Child Care Task Force, and the amendment did not deal with the essence of the Task Force reieort which related to basic long-range policies. Because the amendment was more appropriate as a separate ajendized item, he asked that it not be approved but brought back as a regular agenda item given the appropriate place it deserved. 57-315 6/08/87 Council Member Bechtel shared Vice Mayor Sutorius's concerns and wondered if Council would be sending the wrong message to the PAHC. They did not want a full-scale, huge child care center but a room or space was certainly a possibil- ity. Council Member Patitucci said Vice Mayor Sutorius's decision to vote for the amendment convinced him to vote "no," and he agreed with Council Member Levy. The amendment mixed apples and oranges and was too specific. Council Member Klein liked the idea, but Council Member Levy's arguments persuaded him and he would vote "no." Mayor Woolley concurred with Vice Mayor Sutorius's concern about the space. Those who had a chance to really look at Item 9 realized a child care center was a space eater, both indoor and outdoor. The number of units taken out of the facility did not warrant that, especially when the City might have some school sites which would be a preferable to consider for an additional child care center. Vice dayor Sutorius indicated he would vote "yes," but wished he had been as convincing to himself as he was to Council Member Patitucci. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Sutorius, Fletcher voting "aye.'6 MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. 8. THE TEMPORARY COMMITTEE ON DOWNTOWN DESIGN AND AMENITIES RECOMMENDATION RE ENDORSEMENT OF (1) POSSIBLE BENEFITS AND AMENITIES FROM FUTURE DOWNTOWN PROJECTS ( 2) TYPES OF INCENTIVES NECESSARY TO OBTAIN SUCH BENEFITS, AND (s )s ) A PROCESS TO PROCEED PREPARATION OF A DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN PLAN (CMR:293:7) (702-11) MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Patitucci, to adopt staff recora.enc t ion as follows: 1. Take the following actions on the Downtown Design and Amenities Co itteb's recommendations regarding benefits and amenities: a) Approve the list of "benefits requiring major incen- tives* except for ":if f ice space for nonprofit orga- nizations," and retain the list; and 57-316 6/08/87 MOTION CONTINUED b) Direct the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to expand the (P) Pedestrian Shopping Combining District design guidelines so that future develop- ment proposals would be encouraged to provide such benefits and amenities as art in public places, pub- lic open space, and public drinking fountains. 2. The following actions on the Downtown Design and Amenities Committee's recommended incentives: a) Consider a higher bonus than a 0.5 to 1 FAR. on future Downtown (PC) Planned Community zoned proj- ects on a case -by -case basis, particularly in those situations where it can be demonstrated that provi- sion of special benefits require such a bonus to offset the cost of providing the benefit; b) Consider an ordinance change to the (PC) Planned Community review process to allow conceptual `development plan approval prior to review of detailed design plans for final action; c) Defer i consideration in modifying code and other ordinances affecting Downtown projects, e.g., improvement to building facades on alleys, until after an Urban Design Plan is prepared and adopted so that designpolicies and priorities are clearly defined before such modification is considered; and d) Consider appropriate public financial assistance for public improvements after adoption of an. Urban Design Plan so that priorities are then established on improvements requiring various forms of public assistance. 3. Direct staff to: a) Continue preparation of an Urban Design Plan work program that is consistent with the framework sug- gested by the Amenities Committee; and Return to the Council for approval of a work pro- gram, after input is obtained from the ARB, no later than September 1, 1987. 57-317 6/08/87 MOTION CONTINUED Further, endorsement of a work program designating that the plan be prepared by a task force of workable size and which includes members of the local desigix commun- ity, members of the community at large, and representa- tives from the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board, and Visual Arts Jury. Council Member Renzel was concerned to some degree about the modifications to the PC zone. She was willing to explore to see what form they might take. Mayor. Woolley asked staff for clarification, She. understood Council was giving direction to set in iuoLion, and the recommendations were far from firm. Manager of Planning Project George Zimmerman said that was correct. Council Member Renzel was concerned each move along in an iterative process sent a message that one was inclined to want to agree; whereas she was more inclined to want to dis- agree with some of the recommendations. She wanted her concern on the record so it was not a surprise when the item returned. She was concerned in regard to the PC .modifica- tions about making commitments to square footages as spe- cific trade offs, if Council went with the general idea of the recommendation before they saw a real on -the -ground view of what they were getting and what its impacts might be. Several questions were raised at the Study Session about the food market, and she remained concerned the demographics should be looked at closely to see if the area did warrant a public investment in a food market more than any other area of town.. At present, they dad a high population of senior: in Downtown, but she did not believe that Downtown was going to be a magnet for seniors in the future, and they might see a conversion to younger families. AMENDMENT: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Bechtel, to add to staff recommendation $l.a the following, "...including safeguards to maintain pedestrian scale and feeling concerning food markets." Council Member Levy said the City found in the past most full-scale food stores required an amount of floor space, warehouse space, and parking lot space that was too large to really fit :in the Downtown area. He was concerned if they 57-318 6/08/87 focused single-mindedly on a food market, they might end up with something which would not work well. Also, if the project failed as a food market, they might be left with a large facility for some other use. It was necessary to maintain the pedestrian scale which they attempted to do in Downtown in every other way. Council Member Klein agreed with the thrust of Council Member Levy's thinking, particularly, his comments in the Study Session, and also with Council Member Renzel's com- ments; however, the amendment seemed entirely inconsistent. If the language was added, he believed a full -service food market would be an impossibility in the Downtown area. He had not seen a full -service food market consistent with the pedentria: feeling in the area. As he understood earlier comments, the real issue was whether the full -service food market was such a desirable goal for the community that they were willing to make significant sacrifices. A more appro- priate amendment might be Council needed to reexamine the need for the project Downtown before granting any special incentives. He would not vote for the amendment on the floor. Council Member Fletcher had similar sentiments to Council Member Klein. Realistically, a grocery store within the pedestrian scale would and up being a high-priced, specialty store which did not deserve any public subsidy by giving special incentives. Mayor Woolley asked if Council needed the kind of refined guidance- that evening or at a later point. Chairman of the Temporary Committee on Downtown Design and Amenities John Northway believed that type of refinement would come at a later point, probably part of the Urban Design process should Council endorse that, and certainly specifically when someone actually went in with a proposal for a food market. Mayor Woolley believed .Council was concerned about mis- leading someone into going in with a proposal when some Council Members had reservations. Council Member Levy asked if it was appropriate to pull from the list of Major Incentives or make a general statement that Council would like staff to return with what they con- sidered to be major incentives. Mayor Woolley clarified other than eliminating the office space, Council was approving the list of benefits requiring Major Incentives. 57.319 6/U8/87 Council Member Levy agreed with Council Member Klein. Council could either say a full -service food market was impossible and to delete it, or could say they only wanted to have it if, in the trade-off between pede'Strian amenities and the market, Council could protect the pedestrian ame- nities, which he feared might be an impossibility. Hoever, the purpose of his amendment was simply to allow the -food market to stay in but to make it clear. Council did not want to sacrifice the pedestrian scale. Vice Mayor Sutorius read the definition o f a full -service food market to mean it would sell or provide fresh meats, poultry, fish and produce in addition to packaged staples. He was not opposed to that and would rather not see modifi- cations that would eliminate a store that did exactly that. Council Member Klein said there could be no objections to the definition, but the problem was the recommendation before Council spoke to that store under the heading of "Benefits Requiring Major Incentives The question was not whether Council wanted such a store but what they were willing to do to get it. He assumed another word implicit in the recommendation was "affordable," or "market priced." Deleting Item la meant Council was back in a neutral posi- tion, not indicating what their position would be if such a proposal came oefo;re Council and they could explore at that time whether they believed the area needed some type of public benefit subsidy. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Woolley, to delete tla to, "'Approve the list of benefits requiring major incentives' except for "office space for nonprofit organizations" and "a full service food market/permanently-sited, full--ti.me farmer's market." Mayor Woolley did not want anyone to be misled into believing Council was wholeheartedly in support of a grocery store la the Downtown. By omitting the Item, Council was not presenting to anyone an exhaustive list so that did not mean that someone could not go in with a proposal which included a grocery store. If they managed to go in with the kind of proposal that fit .the discussion, it would be some- thing Council would want to consider. Council Member' Fletcher would vote in favor of the substi- tute amendment but -did not: want to leave the impression Council would not look favorably upon an application. Under -- IiI.A.1 of the report. attached to CMR:293:7,: it said, ,...the Committee believes that.a future development pro- posal including such a food market should be reviewed in a 57--320 6/08/87 very positive manner by the City," and she agreed with that statement but it was a matter of degree of whether they were singling a food market out of being especially worthy of great incentives. The incentives would be in contradiction to the guidelines set up after the Downtown Study. Council Member Renzel supported the substitute amendment which deleted the two areas where she had been Most uncom- fortable with the idea of trading uses for space. She did not see how to ensure the usee continued. In reality, if the space was built and the uses could not survive, the City could end up being forced to allow other uses into those spaces. They would not have the amenity and, in some sense, would have cheated other property owners by giving the bonuses to people who provided something short term but ended up with a long --term space. Council Member Patitucci opposed the substitute amendment. Full service might not be achievable, but he believed it was worthwhile to have the wording as an incentive to attract some ideas and proposals. The proposals could be turned down if Council did not like the ideas, if they did not adhere to pedestrian amenities, if it was in the wrong loca- tion, if it was the wrong proposal,`,.if it was not economic- ally feasible. There was sufficient -evidence that the food market was a concern and to delete it did not give Council an opportunity at any time to see what people came up with. The Committee made a good faith recommendation, and Council` should leave the wording in. Mayor Woolley clarified the list was not all-inclusive. Deleting the item did not mean Council had closed off its options, but had sent a signal of concern. Council Member Patitucci did not agree with that interpre►ta tion. He .believed Council was sending a message it did want to see the kind of proposal.. Council might see recom- mendations of things not on the list, but anything that had been on the list as recommended by the Committee and turned down, he interpreted to mean Council was not interested. Council Member Renzel said two points came out at the Study Session: One, the Amenities Committee did not investigate closely whether or not Downtown was different from any other neighborhood with respect to needs for a food market. There had been previous testimony: to that effect, but basically it was more or less taken -lis a given by the Committee with some evaluation; and two, the PC zone was available through- out the community forpeople to come in with creative ideas to solve community problems and, at the same time, request benefits for themselves as trade --offs. 57-321 6/08/87 Council Member Bechtel shared some of Council Member Patitucci's concerns and pointed out one of the issues pro- posed was a full-time or permanent farmer's market, and a full -service market did ,not necessarily have to be a huge jumbo Safeway. The only danger if the language was left in was Council should be careful not to send a message to a potential developer that Council would definitely approve the proposal. She referenced the past housing incentive where, if a developer provided additional affordable units Council would allow an increase in numbers of units and a project on El Camino Way where a developer jumped through hoops for a year before Council ultimately turned him down. Council Member Klein agreed with Mayor Woolley's interpreta- tion. Council was not saying it was opposed to the idea of there being a food market. The question was whether Council was committed to the idea the market and their capitay..istic oconomy were not working; and, therefore, they should pro- vide some type of big incentive. He was in favor of letting market systems work until it became absolutely clear that government needed to step in. He did not believe that was the case and was concerned about the integrity of their system. He did not want to send false signals to developers when there was a strong possibility Council might not be willing to give the incentive or subsidy upon which plans were based. If a -proposal included a full -service food mar- ket and wanted some trade-offs, Council would consider it. ► JBSTITUTE AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Sutorius, Bechtel, Patitucci voting "no.* MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unali usly. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:20 p.n. tc 9:35 p.m. 9. REQUEST OF MAYOR WOOLLEY RE PROPOSAL ; FOR DOWNTOWN CHILD CARE CENTER (1035) Chop Keenan, 400 Hamilton Avenue, formally introduced a pro- posed Downtown child care center and asked Council to give consideration -to the merits of the projects arid, as the second largest employer in Downtown Palo Alto, to investi- gating the possibility of including in the 1987 budget funds the amount of $370,000 as the City's employer contribution to the proposed center. At a meeting on amenity needs several Months ago, there was discussion on what would induce developers to include child care facilities in their projects. and the response was that there was a dear direc- tion- -from the City that massive projects would not be encouraged, and it would be difficult to include child care 57-322 6/08/B7 facilities on an individual basis. The issue appealed to his public service side, being an employer for 18-19 years and seeing people juggle .their lives in terms of child care, job, etc. They did a review of potential Downtown locations and came up with the site at the corner of High and Addison Streets. They enlisted Antony Carrasco to help .with site and space planning, Mike Sullivan's PACCC group to help design and give guidance' -en operating and PACCC also gave them a perfect vehicle as an operator. Before Council was an option for the building that expired on September 30, 1987, a plan that met all State -mandated requirements for child care, and an operator with a long history in Palo Alto of superb child care. They needed money and were going to the two largest employers in Palo Alto and asking each to contribute $370,000 --the other employer being the Palo Alto Medical Clinic --with a proviso the funds would have a pro rata priority of spaces within the child care center. The center for 65 children contemplated infants, toddlers, pre- schoolers, special needs, and the recovering child. They requested the funds on the basis of three and one-half to one matching requirement, essentially the City would put up $370,000 and the remainder would be provided from other sources including the Medical Clinic. They intended to have a campaign to enlist all the major employers in Downtown Palo Alto as contributors. He believed that kind of univer- sal contribution was critical because people took more pride in a project in which they had perspiration and/or money, and also to have a collective solution to a collective prob- lem. • A few years ago the Medical Clinic tried to do the project on their own and found the cost was beyond their ability but were enthusiastic about a collective solution. They already had endorsements from the Pediatrics Hoard and the trustees of the doctors group and would be making a request of the full Foundation on Thursday. Council Member Cobb noted Mr. Keenan and Ms. Marsh visited his office to discuss the project. He clarified the $1.3 million total had to be outlayed that year. Mr.. Keenan said they had an immediate need for $720,000 for the acquisition of the facility, and then could raise the subsequent- funds needed to improve it ever a longer period of time. Price and suitable location were very difficult, and the opportunity to make the kind of acquisition again would pass.them by. Council Member Cobb said the request was coming late in the City budget cycle. The $1.3 Trillions total was arrived at by $370,000 from the City; $370,000 from the Medical Clinic, and the remainder raised through other major employers in 57-323 6/08/87 Downtown. He asked if Mr.Keenan anticipated the $720,000 needed to acquire the property coming from the Medical Clinic and the City because it would take longer to raise the money from other employers. Mr. Keenan said correct. Council Member Levy asked who the ownership of the property would rest with. Mr. Keenan said they intended to put the property in a trust for the two major contributors, the Clinic and the City, so essentially the asset would reside with them. Council Member Levy asked how the project would be managed, and whether the two major contributors would appoint a board equally. Mr. Keenan said that point had not been thought through. The idea was to have PACCC run the center for an agreed -upon number of years with a priority slot, e.g., if a quarter of the money was raised from the City, a quarter of the child slots would he prioritized for City employees with the bal- ance available on a first -come first -served basis to City employees. Council Member Levy clarified the money to be raised would be to develop the property, and he asked about the working capital and other costs. Mr. Keenan eaid those costs would be covered by tuitions, i.e., a balanced -budget operation other than what the City was already underwriting in terms of $250,000 a year con- tributed to subsidies and $50,000 a year to administration. Council Member Levy clarified if the additional funds were necessary in subsequent year, it would essentially be up to the City and the Medical Foundation to decide how to raise those funds, e.g., if the planning was poor and more capital funds were needed or if there was a maintenance prowl a m. Mr. Keenan said yes. Council Member Klein asked about the three and one-half to one ratio of other people's money to the City. He made the computation of two and one-half to one, i.e., other people would raise $930,000 to the City's $370,000. Mr. Keenan said correct. 57-324 6/08/87 Council Member Klein was concerned, about how the numbers were arrived at. He asked it there were figures as to how many employees the Medical Foundation had compared to the City. Mr. Keenan said no, although it was more than the City's. Council Member Klein was concerned about equity. If the Medical Foundation had twice as. many employees, he asked if they should be paying twice as much money. Mr. Keenan said that was certainly one approach. Council Member Klein asked why it was not the right approach. Mr. Keenan did not know the relative profile in terms of child care needs but felt it 15 slots were, required by the City regardless of the number of employees; 'that basis would be more equitable in assessing the . numbers. He suspected the child care needs were close. Council Member Klein asked if the City had figures on the top ten employers in Palo Alto and how many employees each had. Mr. Zaner said no. Council Member Klein asked if figures were available from PACCC as to whether any increased funding would be required by the City in terms of extre administration and subsidy if they added the 65 spaces. Michael M. Sullivan, PACCC, said no more, it would not cre- ate an additional requirement. Council Member Klein asked how the City would pay for some of the people there who could not afford the full charge. llr. Sullivan said his answer spoke to the administrative development function of PACCC which was currently $150,OOO out of City fundsa in terms of the $250,000 that went into subsidies, it was already true additional people qualified and PACCC was putting additional money into subsidies. He did not know the impact of a Downtown center on people who would qualify for subsidies, Council -Member Klein assumed there would be increased pres- sure on the City to find more money to provide additional subsidies. 57-325 0/08/87 Mr. Sullivan said PACCC's hoped as a result o€ Council's earlier action that evening, providers working together in Palo Alto would begin to bring employers more into the busi- ness of supporting child care costs for their employees, which was part of the goal of the proposal from the task force. Council Member Klein focused on the administrative side of the City's support. He assumed additional administration would be needed to handle a significant increase in avail- able spaces. Mr. Sullivan said PACCC was working on using the computer to allow its office staff to be more efficient in providing some of the work in terms of billing and contracts. Presently, he did not have a sense of the impact 'of that on their office work. The same office would be doing the administrative work for the Downtown center. PACCC con- stantly worked at ekeeping at a minimum in order to stay within the bounds worked out with the City for administra- tive funds. Council Member Fletcher asked about the cost of purchase of the site. She read recently that because of the downzoning Downtown, the cost of land had decreased to a point of $35 per square foot and people were not picking it up even at that cost. She computed the subject site at about $48 a square foot and asked the prospects of bringing down the cost. Mr. Keenan said the property belonged to somebody else from whom they optioned it and included a 6,000 square -foot building which needed rehabilitating. As a data point, the Standard station at Lytton and Waverley recently sold at $40 a foot. The site was priced right within the market place, and a !?umber of people had tried to buy the option from them, Council Member Patitucci assumed the operating budget on Appendix (on file in the City Clerk's office) was put together with the help of PACCC. Mr. Keenan said yes. Council Member Patitucci asked if the costs were typical oc providing the services without any kind of profit component, i.e., $7-,000 a year for full-time child care. - Mr. Sullivan said yes; the figures were based. on current experience. 57.326 6/.08/$7 Council Member Patitucci asked if it was possible to provide the service on a profitable level, or whether all child care in the area was provided through subsidized means. Mr. Sullivan said those were the programs with which he was familiar. Council Member Patitucci asked if there were any successfully -operated, privately --run, profitable child care centers in the area. Mr. Sullivan said he was not familiar with any, but that did not mean such centers did not exist. Mayor Woolley said the Child Care Task Force Report con- tained information about child care centers run for profit. The difference between those kinds of centers and PACCC was quality. Council Member Cobb gathered from Mr. Keenan there was no way to defer part of the $750,000 cost; it had to happen by September. Mr. Keenan said no; in fact, he investigated with the cur- rent fist trust holder the possibility of his extending his deed of trust of about $400,000, and there was some interest in the possibility. Mayor Woolley understood an advantage of the ar_rangemer,t was the site would be totally paid for so there would be no rent. Without that major operating cost, there was a slight possibility that the site could produce a profit which could then be used at other PACCC sites. Mr. Keenan believed the possibility was wishful thinking. Obtaining the tirst capital costs was critical in order to put the center on a break-even basis from tuitions, which were essentially established by ability to pay within the market place. Tuition was a little higher than $600 a month for infants, including diapers and warm meals. Considerably higher tees meant it would not pay to go to work. The balanced -budget concept was based on the building not being part off: the cost. Mayor Woolley clarified it would be possible for the oper- ating budget to be realized from the .current tuitions. Pam Marsh, 327 waverley, passed Council a letter (on file in the City Clerk's office) from Jeanne Enberg, a City employee. She said there was a distinct need" fir child care in Downtown. It was somewhat fortuitous .they followed the 57-327 6/08/87 report of the Task Force on Child Care because they ably described the need in the City, and the Palo Alto Weekla reinforced that two weeks ago with its cover story, that read, "Too many children, not enough caretakers." In the. City of Palo Alto 10,000 people.worked in the Downtown. The second point of particular importance to note was the proj- ect offered an exceptional opportunity for the City of Palo Alto. Over the past several years, she had been a part of a number of searches that looked for child care locations in Downtown, and they had never been successful. They looked for public or quasi -public spaces and found those did not exist. They looked at the possibility of putting child care into older homes and found the cost of land and renovations rendered such a project entirely infeasible. They clearly had to have a child care site on a commercial piece of land, and she emphasized the particular site was an unusually appropriate one, within walking distance of many Downtown businesses and yet was out of the flurry and hustle and bustle of the interior commercial district. The site was large enough to accommodate 60-65 children, which was signi- ficant as it meant a child care center than- was economically feasible and one that could, once the upfront, capital costs were taken care of, run itself long into the future without any additional input of money from anyone. She also empha- sized they were committed, with the City's assistance, to see the project through. They were not prepared to prior- itize slots for smaller donors because of the feasibility of allocating all the spaces, but they promised to provide that major advantage to a major contributor to the project. They had already begun to contact other Downtown employers to solicit contributions. She believed it would be a great campaign and was looking forward to creating a model child care project with the help of all the people who lived in the City. The answer to the question on whether child care could be provided on a tor -profit basis was yes, but caveats had to be kept in mind, Child care was provided on a for- profit basis when capital costs were very minimal, when there were churches available, when there were school sites within a close distance, and when there was a particular variety of other factors that provided a space. Space was the overwhelming problem, and she did not believe child care could be provided in Downtown on a for-profit basis because the capital costs were too high The kind of care PACCC was committed to providing should be kept in mind. PACCC's fees were -generally in line with other for-profit providers. Instead of going into profit, PACCC's money went into sala- ries. They had lower ratios at every leiel of care between teacher:and child. 57-328 6/08/87 Laura Smith, 162 Bryant Street, had been a PACCC parent for almost six years, four at the Downtown Children's Center (DCC). OCC was part time and offered care to 2:30 p.m. They had 30 families on the waiting list who were not dis- couraged there were no vacant spots until September, 1988. Clearly, more child care was needed in the Palo Alto area, especially more infant care. They needed more toddler care, more pre-school space, and more of the special PACCC touch. PACCC was a positive experience for everyone and Palo Alto's children were fortunate to have access to PACCC. PACCC deserved to be nurtured to its fullest potential, and a new Downtown child care center would help to close the large gap between what existed and what was needed. She would not like to see the City let such an opportunity slip away. Diane Horgan, 351 13th Street, Montana, said after working on the Task Force, Palo Alto had no data available that indicated a need for a'Down town center. They had no data at all that indicated where the needs were. The r.ost data they could get told of a need for infant care and after -school care. The Task Force also found out the cheapest kind of care available was in -home day care, which would not require a large outlay of money by the City or anyone and was the kind of care preferred by most parents. She cautioned the City to look into the proposal before accepting it. Cynthia Cannady, 2065 Emerson Street, disagreed completely with Ms. Horgan and did not believe her description of the Task Force's conclusions was completely accurate, There was definitely a strong feeling there was a great need for child care in the Downtown area and a center was an important way of addressing that need. The Task -"Force report spoke for itself. MOTION: Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Renzel, to direct staff too survey City employees in the downtown area to assess the approximate level of need. Mayor Woolley found it exciting that the proposal came in about the same time as Council was studying the Task Force report because the last recommendation of the report was exactly that. If Council supported the proposal, they would be implementing that recommendation far taster than the memo bers of the Task Force could have hoped. The proposal was exciting in that a significant role could be played by employers in providing child care in Palo Alto. Council Member Klein concurred the proposal was exciting and congratulated Mr. Keenan and Ms. Marsh on their efforts. He had no doubt there we* an overwhelming need tor child care 57-329 6/08/87 which the City Council and the private sector needed to address. The private sector could not expect the City to absorb all the costs of the programs and not raise taxes. Enthusiasm could not prevent Council from making a careful analysis of the financial impact because they were talking about significant dollars. He was concerned the numbers were optimistic, and Council needed far more information than was requested in the main motion before it could make an informed judgment as to how much of the public's funds should be spent and how much money the private sector would be asked to contribute to the project. AMENDMENT: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, that staff be directed to: 1) identify the number of employees of the ten largest employers in the downtown area; 2) provide information on the use of the facility by City employees and staff's recommendation on what the City's fair share should be; 3) identify the impacts on the City's 4) capital improvement budget and the operating budget; review the figures provided for the proposed Center; 5) respond to deferring all pr a, portion of the purchase price; and 6) recommend other' f financial arrangements which should be con- sidered by Council before' making a decision. Council Member Cobb said Council was concerned about the issue and understood the need b'ut it was important to have the data before making a decision. At the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee's budget hearings one capital improvement project in the amount of over $400,000 was brought project forward and it dropped the City's reserve from $4.2 million to $3.8 million. At that time, he asked whether the $3.8 million was at the City Manager's comfort level and his answer was not an enthusiastic yes. He read into the response that anything less in terms of reserves would be below the comfort level. Council needed to be good stewards of the City's financial health, and if it approved anything resembling the amount of money requested, there would need to be a trade off against some other project to keep the_ reserves at a proper level. He referred to Appendix A and could not make the $492,000 work off the fees set forth. If the assumption was 65 places taken, five days at week at $3.50 an hour for all of the places, it did not come out right. Council needed to ensure there was not some further input of dollars that would have to come from the City or the other participants to make sure the program worked. He a.: sumpd`° as pert of the amendment the operating budget could be `analyzed to ensure the numbers worked; otherwise, 'it ewes not just the front end costs but some additional ongoing increment of dollars/. albeit small, ethe .City would be responsible for. The budget was tight, and while he wanted to be able to _ support. some type of program, it needed to be done in a fiscally sound manner. 57-330 6/08/87 Council Member Patitucci asked whether any other city in the area owned and operated a day care facility. Mr. Zaner was unaware of any. Council Member Patitucci asked whether there would be any implications in terms of employees' income or union con- tracts if the City participated in such a program. Mr. Zaner did not know whether such- a benefit would be con- sidered reportable income, but it could be. There were other examples of City -provided benefits where the City Attorneys continued to deal with the Internal Revenue Service on the same question. If the -child care tuition was too high, Council could find itself presented with a union demand for a subsidy to provide sufficient funds for the City employees to make use of the slots Council otherwise reserved through its capital coritrtibutions. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Levy, to add the following: 7) direct staff to examine the implications on union agreements; 8) assess the impact on employees' reportable income and the entire sub- sidy process; and 9) investigate alternative financial structures including City ownership. Council Member Klein supported the investigation of the tax impacts on employees. He was opposed to City ownership because the present system seemed to work well. In terms of union negotiations, it seemed to be _speculative and he did not understand what there would be to study. Council Member Levy commended the innovation of the indi- viduals who brought the proposal before Council and he agreed with the need. Council made public policy for the community as a whole and it was also an employer. The issue was the City as an employer of many people and what it should do with respect to the particular proposal. Council needed to know how large the market was throughout the down- town area, the impact on its budget because the City would be putting out significant amounts of money for purchase, reservation and cap .al back up. A principle which he believed applied to any new venture was to carefully analyze the money needed, the time needed, and double both. Council could not go into the project just putting up $375,000. Appendix A seemed to be based on 70 infants, toddlers and children. The plans called for 66 or 67 infants, toddlers and children of whom 6 would be in a recovery room. It Was unclear whether those 6 were from the basic number of 61 who 57-331. 6/08/87 would occupy the facilities or whether those 6 would be brought in from other facilities, or whether they would provide' revenue separate from the others he did not know. If the City went into the project, it had some relationship as the owner; and, as the employer of individuals who would use the facilities, it needed to be clear on its obligation. Would the City leave it up to the employee to figure out how to raise $7,000 or $8,000 per child, or would the City approach PACCC and say it provided a certain amount of money to use in the general community and now it wanted to have priority employer status to get the money back. He agreed with Council Member Klein that the question of City opera- tion of the facility did not have to be analyzed because it operated facilities through PACCC for a long time, but all the other questions were important. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING Council -Member Menzel agreed with Council Member Klein regarding the amendment to the amendment and believed since child care was available in Felo Alto for some time that whatever implications there were for union agreements were already there. The matter of the priority -tor 15 slots would be readily answered when the employee needs in the community were ascertained. She was concerned staff was being sent out for a lot of information that may take well past September 30 to get. The questions were important because if the City paid a portion, it needed to know where the money would come from and how it would affect other priorities. She generally supported -the proposal. The location was good and it was an excellent use for a property on the margin between residential and commercial. If it could work out so it made sense for the City to make such a sizable investment, it was worth pursuing. Council Member Bechtel believed it was a good opportunity for the City and she agreed with Council Member . Klein in terms of further information. The backers of the project might be able to get money from the private sector faster than the public sector. She asked about timing to receive a report responding to Council Member Klein's questions. Mr.. Zaner said staff could return to Council at the last meeting in August. Mayor Woolley asked whether certain parts of the amendments would delay staff more than others. 57-332 6/08/87. Assistant City Manager June Fleming said some of the data was already ascertained but would need to be verified. It would take several staff members working on it together. Vice Mayor Sutorius referred to the main motion and the sur- vey'for the Downtown proposed center. He was concerned the survey could be limited to the proposed building and the library. He queried whether it took much additional time to take a survey of the entire employee body. Mr. Zaner said it could be done if Council directed. Vice Mayor Sutorius believed it was more sensible to make a survey of all employees. He would support the main motion, the amendment and one the part of the amendment to the amendment which referred to assessing the impact on employees' reportable income. Council Member Patitucci clarified his use of the term "alternative financial structures" meant the city- would become the owner of the asset and have other subscribers who were participants. Given that the City was making a capital investment, in order to protect its lone -term value, it might be best protected by owning the property. In that way if the project did not succeed, the City could liquidate and still end up with a significant asset value. He expected the operations would continue exactly as they now did. Council Member Klein had no problem with the survey including all employees, but he believed it was best included in the main motion. He hated to put pressure on staff but did not believe the schedule was workable given the September 30 closing date. Staff needed to move faster so other people could know whether the City would con- tribute, how much, and on what terms. It might mean incom- plete information but in order to be fair Council needed the information for its July 27 meeting. Mayor Woolley clarified Council Member Klein did not neces- sarily expect a completed report by July 27 if it turned out a portion was .difficult for staff to obtain. Council Member Klein. said he wanted everything. FIRST PART OF AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote 2=7, Levy, Patitucci voting 'aye." SECOND PART OF AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Fletcher voting "no." 57.333 6/08/87 THIRD PART OF AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Renzel, Levy, Patitucci voting "aye." AMENDMENT AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. Mayor Woolley agreed to . increase the survey to all employees but requested the survey results be broken down so Downtown was distinguished from employees at the Municipal Service Center or other more distant locations within the City. Council Member Levy did not believe it was appropriate to increase the survey because the essence of the project was to provide child care for' those working in the Downtown area. For people in other parts of town there were other facilities. While more facilities might be needed, there was a specific need Downtown which was difficult to till. Council did not want to simply survey all of its employees so it could fill the slots available --it only wanted to go into the project if there was a need. He believed the need was addressed by the number of City employees working down- town. He suggested Council move back to the original state- ment of the motion. Council Member Fletcher disagreed because there were many e-mployees in the City who did not live in Palo Alto and who would prefer to have their children close by in a first- class facility. All City employees deserved the same bene- fit. To say there were other facilities in town did not help if there were long waiting lists. She supported sur- veying all City employees and was not as interested in the breakdown of their workstations, She referred to a state- ment made in a report that employees did not want their children in child care at their place of employment but rather at their place of residence. The Syntex Child Care Center had 115 slots for children of their empoyees and a waiting list of 50. She believed that confirmed the tremen- dous need and .that many employees wanted to bring their children .into the city where they worked. She commended Mr. Keenan and Ms. Marsh for a tremendous job of putting together such an attractive and innovative plan. AKENDMENTp Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, that staff report back to Council by the last meeting in July. Or. Zaner said he would return before the last meeting in July with a memoindicating the projects which would have to be pushed aside to move the survey into position to be ready in .luly. 57-334 6/08/87 Council Member Cobb said the reasons were obvious to get the report back sooner and he did not want staff to get any deeper into the,survey than necessary. He hoped staff would return with the'kind of information that could reasonably be generated in that time recognizing it might not be perfect. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Levy, Woolley voting "no." MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. 10. REQUEST OF COUNCIL MEMBER BECHTEL RE RESTRICTING HOURS OF OPERATION OF AUTO BODY PAINTING IN LOCATIONS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS (1440) Council Member Bechtel received a call several months ago from a resident who lived across the street from an auto repair place of business which changed ownership in the last year. The use had changed to include a lot of auto painting. Staff advised her what was being done by the Ordinance Compliance Inspector and she met a lot of frustra- tion as did the residents who had dealt with staff for about a year and one-half. The problem was a particular place of business which was a nonconforming use which would be leaving after a few years, but there were no existing ordi- nances which governed or controlled auto painting per se. She wanted to meet the need and not single out one particu- lar place of business because the issue affected other people living close to some sort of a commercial enterprise. MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to direct staff to review problems associated .with the site and the possibility of preparing an ordinance if necessary. Council Member Renzel supported the motion. The letters (on file in the City Clerk's office) referred to significant problemsregarding paint furies, a visible mist of paint in the neighborhood, and disabled cars awaiting care. It would seem the air pollution was controlled by someone. City Attorney Diane Northway said the County or the State would control the air pollution if it was controlled. The State published air pollution standards but she was unaware of who enforced the regulations. Mayor Woolley queried whether the City could mandate the painting be done inside. 57-335 6/08/87 Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said there were building code requirements regarding the environment within which spraying needed to be done. Staff was working with the occupants of the site to ensure spraying was being done in conformance with the code. Part of the problem was the venting on the facility was less than what would be required in terms of location, height, etc. in any type of new structure. Staff was working with, the occu- pants in an attempt to revent the exhaust stack from their peak spraying area. The incidences of outdoor spraying were less as staff followed up on many. Staff believed it received reasonable compliance most of the time in terms of limiting the outdoor painting. Staff responded to the com- plaints. Mr. Northway cited the California Vehicle Code which said it was not unlawful to park a car in the same spot as long as it did not continue beyond 72 hours. The issue arose many times and there were many problems which bordered on the nuisance area. The City's ordinance required cars be moved after 72 hours. Staff could determine whether the business used the street for the conduct of its business which was a violation. Mayor Woolley suggested another possibility was to prohibit parking in certain areas if it was objectionable to the residents but the residents could not park there either. Council Member Renzel said it seemed worth determining whether a business was using the public streets as a storage area for the object of its business since it seemed dif- ferent --from someone parking on the street because they were doing something in a neighborhood or not using their cars for_three days. A business enterprise normally had to pro- vide adequate off-street parking. AMENDMENTZ Council Member Renzel moved to also request that the City Attorney look into the question of whether the City could control on -street parking as a business activ- i_ty • Mr. Zaner suggested Council direct staff to review the sub- ject and return with recommendations as to how to solve the problems up to and including an ordinance if .necessary. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN Ms. Northway asked whether thought was given to an apprapri- ate closing time. 57-336 6/08/8.7 Mayor Woolley said no. Ms. Northway said the City Attorney's office was working on four potential ballot measures and she did not anticipate returningwith anything for three to four weeks. Dena Mossar, 1024 Emersonr. was frustrated because she had been dealing with the City. commencing with the Planning Commission, staff, Fire Department, Police Department, the California Air. Quality Control Board and finally the City Council although she was advised by several people on City staff not to do so. She did not understand how limiting the hours of spray painting did anything to eliminate the air pollution. She Was concerned about the idea of putting a child care center at Gunn High School which was one-half block away from . the auto body shop. The California Air Quality Control Board said it was the City's problem to have an ordinance to control the problem. She heard from Ms. Northway that it was the State's problem. It might well be a gray area but it was strange that residents in a residen- tial area just had to live -with fumes because no one knew whose job it was to regulate and no one was willing to meter the location and determine the acceptability of what was being pumped out. She was told the Fire tepartment was ultimately responsible for the fumes in the City and the problem was not getting: handled. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said the company for which he worked was actively involved with the Bay Area Air Quality Control Boara in an attempt to reduce air pollution. He spoke with Richard Nelson, at 771-6000, .extension 278, who_advised him that anyone who polluted by spray painting violated the California Health and Safety Code, Section 41700 as creating a public nuisance and could be -sued in a civil action. Paints were under the strict control of the state agencies and -there was a limit on the amount of volatile material that could be contained in the paint. On complaint, the board would sample the paint and if unapproved paint was being used, the business would be shut down. Anyone who experienced noxious odors or clouds of dust and fumes should i.mmedia tely call the board at 771-6009, extension 262. If the board observed the types of contamination and air pollu- tion described in the letters, action would be taken. If the board received as many Os four or five complaints in a one or two day period, it would move quickly to see that something was done. It was key to call during the actual spraying. and when the air pollutants were pre;>ent so the. board could observe it:themselves. Restricting the hours of spraying would not prevent the pollution during business hours and if a childcare facility was within one-half block away, it would be unpleasant for the children. The probleM might be worked out on a state and regional basis. 57-337 6/08/87 Council Member Bechtel was frustrated in dealing with the situation and staff advised her an ordinance could do no more than restrict hours,, She was pleased with the motion. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:10 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: Mayor 37-338 6/08/87