Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-10-19 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting Monday, October 19, 1981 CITY of PALO ALTO ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 1 3 4 6 Consent Calendar 1 3 4 6 Consent Calendar - Action 1 3 4 6 Additional Structural Design Services for 1 3 4 7 Phase I Implementation to the Palo Alto Theaters' Contract Acceptance of State Conservancy Grant - Construction of Bike Path Along Adobe Creek Cable Television Feasibility Study - Arendment to Contract Joint Powers Agreement - Menlo Park/Palo Alto Libraries - Provision of Reciprocal Services Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board Unanimously Recommend Approval of the Application of Ebert, Hannum & Volz/Richard Hannum for Site and Design Review of Private Residence for Property Located at Parcel #6, Tract 7025, Palo Alto (Hewlett Residence) Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board Unanimously Recommend Approval of the Application of Gill Cable TV for Site and Design Review for an Additional 6 -Meter Satellite Receiving Antenna on Property Located at 1720 Montebello Road Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Recommends Approval of Appeal of John Eft, (The Learning Center and First Presbyterian Church) from the Decision of the Zoning Administrator to Deny a ' Use Permit for an Infant/Toddler . Center for Property Located at '1-040 Cowper Just Cause Eviction Ordinance Continued to November 9, ..1981• PUBLIC HEARING: The Learning Center (continued) Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board Unanimously RecommendApprova1 of the Application of Mid -Peninsula. Regional Open Space District for Site and Design Review for Grading, Development and Landscaping of a Parking Lot at 32100 Page Mill Road 1 3 4 7 1 3 4 7 1 3 4 7 1 3 4 7 1 3 4 7 1 3 4 8 1 3 4 8 1 3 6 1` 1 3 6 2 1 3 7 0 1 3 4 4 10/19/81 ITEM PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Unanimously Recommends Approval of the Application of HMH, Incorporated for a Tentative Subdivision Map for Property Located at El Camino Way and James Road Planning Commission Unanimously Recommends Approval of the Application of Ross Wilson Enterprises; Incorporated, for a Tentative Subdivision Map for Property Located at 4250 El Camino Real PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Unanimously Recommends to Uphold the Decision of the Zoning Administrator and to Deny the. Appeal of Jirn Verweyst and Robert Pederson for a Use Permit for Property Located at 4141 El Camino Real (Ethan's) Finance and Public Works Committee Recommendsto Council that it Approve the Establishment of the Solar Pal Awards Program PAGE 1 3 7 1 1 3 7 6 1 3 7 7 1 3 7 8 Finance and Public Works Committee Recommends to 1 3 7 8 Council to Enter into an Agreement with Getty Synthetic Fuels, Inc. for the Extraction, Processing, and Sale of Methane Gas at the Palo Alto Landfill Public Employees' Retirement System Contract Amendment: Qne Year Highest Compensation Benefit for Local Police Members Structural Assessment of Civic .Center - Budget Amendment Adjournment 1 3 7 9 1 3 7 9 1 3 8 0 Regular Meeting Monday, October 19, 1981 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the. Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:40 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Fletcher, Henderson, Renzel, Levy, Witherspoon, Fazzino, Klein, Eyerly ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Lou Fein, .1540 Oak Creek Drive, said that one of the two princi- pals in the attempted Oak Creek condominium conversion,: Stanford University, issued a press release stating that the other princi- pal, Scott Carey of Oak Creek Associates., had sought changes in the original agreement between them. He said the .Peninsula Times Tribune and Mercury News reported that ,the principals disagreed significantly on how the original, contract should be interpreted. That event stimulated his bringing to the Council's attention and to put on record what he had planned to do later. He thought there were significant disagreements between what Mr. Carey had originally promised and what Oak Creek tenants believed he pro- m sed, tenants believed there would be. a definite offered sales price to tenants if and when the conversion took place, at the price the Council, in approving the tenative subdivision map on - June 8, would permit him to offer. He said the Council had ap- proved condition 2 which now stated essentially that the definite price would be offered only if the offer was made before December 31, 1981. After that date, Mr. Carey may offer a unit at a price not to exceed a certain ceiling which on the average May be about 25% higher than the price originally quoted. For .example, a unit offered at $100,000 before December 31, may now be offered for $125,000 after that date, He believed that the tenants signea consents partly because they believed that the sale price was as promised, ndependent of the date at which the offer was to be made. He thought that constituted misrepresentation in the so- licitation of consents. He said it was one more instance, among others, brought before the Council in the past, which would make the conversion legally vulnerable.. He Urged the Council, if the converters came to them for final approval, that they insist that the promised sales price was the one originally offered despite the condition to approval that the Council made on June 8. He wondered how many Counci l member s realized that the condition they approved about the price to be offered, depended upon when it was offered. He :said several of his Oak Creek neighbors did not know that. In view of the already, demonstrated cornpl ications, con- flices of interest, disagreemen.t-s, broken promises later mended, of this conversion attempt, -he urged Stanford University again in everyo-ne's interest to withdraw from the conversion.'atfempt, to buy Oak Creek apartments outright, and as a responsible . owner and operator , of those aapartments, provide -rental housinga for City residents ana` Stanford .staff, and as time goes on--• for staff ex- clusively_, which he thought was the present scheme anyway: CONSENT CALENDAR Counci lniember Oein removed Item 6_, Application of Mi'd-Peninsula Regional Open -Space' District for .Site and Design Jeview of park- trig lot --at-: 32100 Page Mill Road, from the Consent Calendar MOTION: Councjlmember Fletcher ,moved, seconded by Fazzino, proval` .of the Consent Cats der as amended. Refer/ al 1 3 4 6. 10/19/81 None Action ADDITIONAL STRUCTURAL DESIGN SERVICES FOR PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute the letter of authorization for $35,000 to add building structural design services to the original contract, No. 4136, with Landry & Bogan, Theatre Consultants. Section 4.2, "Additional Services," was included in the original contract in anticipation of changes of the scope of work during the process of design. ACCEPTANCE OF STATE CONSERVANCY GRANT CONSTRUCTION OF BIKE PATH, ALONG ADOBE CREEK (CMR:484:1) Staff recommends that Council: 1, Approve a resolution accepting a State Coastal Conservancy Grant for $23,800, and agreeing to the attached List of Assurances, Exhibit "B." 2. Approve a budget amendment ordinance to increase the appro- priation for Capital Improvement Project 79-42 by $23,800, and increase the estimated revenues of. the Capital Improve- ment Fund by $23,800, Exhibit "C." RESOLUTION 5963 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY FOR PURPOSES OF A BIKE PATH IN THE BAYLANDS AREA" 1 ORDINANCE 3307 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1981-82 TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 79-42 'BAYLANDS BICYCLE PATH AND TO PROVIDE FOR RECEIPT OF REVENUE FROM THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY" CABLE TELEVISION FEASIBILITY STUDY - AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT Staff recommends that the Mayor be authorized to sign the con- tract amendment to provide that Bartle Wells become the prime contractor (with the approval of Jones -Ti l i son.) . JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - MENLO PARK PALM ALTO LIBRARIES PR VISI N OF RECIPROCAL SE VICES tCMR: Staff recommends that Council approve the joint exercise. --of 'Rowers agreement Witt _ the City of Menlo Park for reciprocal library services with Palo: ill to ,effecti-ve November I, 1981. JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS. AGREEMENT FOR LIBRARY SERVICES - - -- Cityof Menlo Park -PLANNING COMMISSION AND- ARCHITECTURAL- REVIEW BOARD UNANIMOUSLY. RECOMMEND APPROVAL HE APPLICATION OF H N. f R ttES1` ENcE FOR PRO ERTY' LOCA1' D AT PARCEL #6, TRACT T025, PALO ALTO tHEWLETT N PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD UNANIMOUSLY nrumm-xprrmOF IRE APPLICATION OF GILL. CABLE IV FOR CITE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR Alf ADDITIONAL 6-}4ETE`R SATEULfTt RECCTVTf )'TE1IA.-ONi 1ROPtRtY. LO ATtD AT -MTV maTEITE 1: 3 4 7 10/19/81,- MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino "not participating" on Item 5, Site and Design Approval for Hewlett Residence. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Manager Bill Zajer advised that Item 6, Site and Design Approval of Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space District for a parking lot, would become Item 13-A. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION, BY A VOTE OF 4••1 RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE APPEAL OF JOHN EFT, THE LEARNING €, PRESWYTERIAN CHURCH) FROM TH CISI F t ZONING ADMINISTRATOR= TO DENY A USE 'PERMIT FOR AN-INFANT/TODDLER CENTER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED T 1146 COWPER (CMR:40:1) Mayor Henderson commented that he hoped everyone would, accept the fact that all facets of the project had been thcsroughly dis- cussed. .He saw little opposition to the infant and toddler day care center itself. The issue was whether the activity, added to existing activities of the church, would have too severe an im- pact on the immediate 'neighborhood. He said the church had pre- sented a proposal which placed a cap on current --and future activ- ity, and that the official -neighborhood association believed the Council should go further to reduce current activities to offset the increased impact on the day care center. Hopefully, the Council could resolve the difference quickly. Chairperson of the Planning Commission., Jean McCown-Hawkes, said she thought Mayor Henderson had summarized wel 1 the focus of the two hearings held by the Pl anni ng Commission. She said the Planning Commission had asked the neighborhood and the church in an interim period of two months to try and discuss the issue of the overall level of use rj the church facility. Ultimately the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application of the Learning Center coupled with the specific proposed limita- tions submitted by the church. Chief Planning Official, Bruce Freeland, said that when the item first went to the Planning Commission in June, the Commission sought to have a series of negotiations take place between the neighborhood and the church to try and resolve the basic issues of the overall activity which took place at the church. During the summer, there were a series of meetings between members of City staff, representatives of the church, and representatives of the neighborhood to obtain facts about the existing use and the potential for traffic with the day care :enter, and to also try and negotiate a common position to bring back to Council. He said staff inventoried the types of activities presently at the., church. During a -28 -day period of June and July, staff estimated the amountof traffic going to that church. Between Westminster, House, church activities, and outside agency meetings there were - 3,681 trips. A trip was defined as: someone went to the church, that was one trip, they left, that was a second trip --one visit equalled two trips. The amount of trips projected if the infant and toddler' center were approved with the 30 children, as origi- nally -recommended, was 2,720. That estimate was the worst -case assumption that each child was brought to the church in a car,. one child" per car. He said that. would have meant a total, com- bining ` the present activities with., a 30 -child infant/toddler center. -.of 6,401 trips within a 28 -day period. Then staff esti- mated the _ re l ati onshi p of that volume of traffic to what might be typical ,ins a residential area. He clarified that at present, the church took up about one-half of a city block. If a church were not there, there might have been -about 7-1/2 single-family resi- dences built upon it. Under standard factors, 7-1/2 single- family residences would have produced about 1.8 times the volume of traffic of a typical residentiae area. That number meant that the volume of traffic; generated by that one-half block was about 1 3 4 8 10/14/81- 1.8 times the amount of traffic normally generated by one-half of a block. It did not mean that .the level of traffic generally in that neighborhood was 1.5 times greater. than one would expect in a residential. neighborhood. It. referred to traffic generation from that block. He said if one added in the Tnfant;Toddler Day Care Center with 30 children, it i.=ould have meant about 3 times the level Of traffic being generated from that one-half block. Staff was not able to arrive at a proposal which could be brought to the Commission jointly by the neighborhood and the church. The church did bring forth a proposal which Council had. He said that :at the Planning Commission hearing, the Commission felt that the church's proposal substantially mitigated the impact of an infant/toddler center and recommended approval of the center. He said he submitted to the Council several, potential changes to the recommendations submitted to them by the Planning Commission. Mr. Freeland said there had been a question regarding the meaning of the limitation of 25 children at the Day Care Center . It was typical in day care. Operations to have more people enrolled in the program in total than the number of people at the site at a given time. For instance, the Day Care Center, aS licensed by the State, might have two half-time children who would riot _be at the premises at the same time, which meant that there might be 25, children maximum at one time, but there were many eimre children actually enrolled, He said it was . important to remember because in the church's application, it would like to be able to count two' half-time children enrolled in the program as a single child provided that the children were not there at the same physical point in time. He thought this would be somewhat contrary to the intent of much of the negotiations because the intent had been to minimize the number of trips to and from that site. Staff recom- mended that the language be clarified to mean 25 children per day, the effect of which would be to minimize the number of trips to dnd from the property in a single day. This was somewhat dif- ferent than how the church would like to interpret the point. Further, he said that the Planning Commission's fourth recommend- ation was that the Use Permit from the church be modified to in- clude specific provisions in the September 10, 1981, -letter from the church to the Planning Commission, which is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Staff recommended that it not be a modifi- cation to the existing Use Permit, but that the church be encour- aged to apply for a new Use Permit, and that the new Use Permit provision -be one that was more general with sore leeway for con- structing whatever the protecting provisions might be. Mr. . Freeland said that the Planning Commission suggested hours of operation from 1:30 a.m. to --5:30 p.m., Monday through.:Friday. Ms. McCown Hawkes .commented- that the issue of what the Planning Commission meant by 25 children was not discussed by the Planning Commission-. eRegarding Iten Na, 4 relating to the proposed more general language rather than the specific reference etee the September 10, 1981 letter,, the Commission. clearly wanted the con- ditions set forth u' that letter as a minimum. She 'said there was_one vote against the application by Commissioner. Cobb primar ily because of -the procedural question of whether the Commission had tied all of the loose ends or whether the matter should be coati hued for another) two weeks to:try and resolve the matters at the Conuni ss=on before presenting the matter to the Council City Attorney Dore. May,nor said .that regarding paragraph 4, the Commission was using a concept of conditioning the ,present —Use Permit: on a suc-petsfuL application for the other activities.- He did not th-i€ik it was appropriate for Council to make decislons -Or what conditions should be placed upon the other Use Permit --.the one not deal ng with the Day Care Center .. Council would have; = an opportunity,- after net,ce of a public hearing on_; the other. Condi tional Use Permit, to decide which condition should be imposed on the second Conditional Use Permit. Mayor Henderson said that the concern was that the new permit. would be, approved on the basis that the church had volunteered to change the other permit. Mr. Maynor said he thought the Council could thoroughly discuss the activities taking place on the entire property and what types of conditions they might like to see. He asked that the Council not impose any of the conditions until they had had an oppor- tunity to have a full hearing on the subject after proper no- tice. Councilmember Klein asked Mr. Maynor for clarification that the application for a new Use Permit for the Day Care Center was con- ditioned on the First Presbyterian Church applying for a new Use Permit and that everything would be wide open at that particular point. Mr. Maynor sa d that was correct. Councilmernber Klein asked if the Use Permit for the Day Care Cen ter could be conditioned on the church applying, within two months, for a new Use Permit which would contain particular terms. The application by the First Presbyterian Church for the new Use Permit would contain certain minimum terms. Mr. Maynor said he thought it might be appropriate to suggest conditions, but it would have to be done with the understanding that the Council would have a full public hearing at another time; and, at that time, evidence might be heard to change their minds and they would have to leave themselves open to reconcile new information, Councilmember Klein said that in Recommendation. 4, the sentence, "Failure to secure modification,.." in light of the fact that the church would be applying for a new Use Permit, he thought the word "modification" should be changed. Mr. Maynor said it should read, "Failure to secure a new Use Pe:mmit..." Councilmember Renzel said she thought it was a "modification" the existing Use Permit. Mr, Freeland said staff was suggesting a new Use Permit because procedurally, it was easier than to go back through the .old Use Permit. The main reason was to afford protection to the church because the concern had been that the church had an existing Use Permit and would be going into the new process voluntarily. If the church was not given some level of protection that it could maintain the conditions it was used to relying upon, there might not be a basis for the church to apply for the Use Permit. If they applied for a new Use Permit, and it turned sour from their prospective, they could withdraw the application, and the exist- ing Use Permit would stand. If they go in for a modification, they would open up their existing Use Permit, and whatever hap- pened, happened. From the church's point of view, it might not be feasible to think of them going into an open-ended hearing process without a fall -bask position. Mr. Maynor clarified that the 'hearing for a second Use Permit would go before the': -Zoning Administrator and would only appear. before the Council if there was an appeal. -It would be appropri- ate for the Council to make their suggestions tonight, but the Zoning Administrator would have to make his decision based upon the. iifformatibe received at the public hearing. 1 Councilmember Levy asked •regarding Westminster House, if the data concerning vehicular . trips, the number of full-time positions, and the number of clients visiting per month had been confirmed? Mr. Freeland said he would confirm it, and deferred response for a few minutes. Vice Mayor Fletcher asked if, when calculating the total number of trips i n a typical R-1 neighborhood, it took into account the prevalence of shared use housing in single-family residences? Mr. Freeland said it was simply a single-family type of arse and occupancy using standard statistical references --it did not take into account a mixture of other types of uses. Mayor Henderson asked that early speakers ask supporters for the Day Care Center to stand. He thought that would have more of an impact on the Council than repetition of positions orally by many persons. die assured that repetition was counter -productive. He declared the public hearing opeh. Kerry E3ouchier, 1130 Trinity, represented the Learning Center, and gave the Council' their proposal for reduction of traffic. Robert E. Tompkins, 918 Webster _Street, stated that he and his wife were potential neighborhood users of the Learning Center should it be located in the Presbyterian Church. Charlene Seifert, 1024 Mallet Court, Menlo Park, had a letter from Mr. Butrell of 1417 Parkinson in Palo Alto which said that he and his wife were potential users of the Learning Center. Fowler Biggs, 425 Kingsley, said that as a member of the neigh- borhood, he was not against the Day Care Center , he was against placement of a nonresidential program in a residential area which was already overloaded with nonresidential programs. He used the term "nonresidential programs" for the benefit of Menlo Park residents. Jody Dressler, Menlo College, Menlo Park, on behalf of Richard and Brenda Musante of 322 Hawthor ne, Palo Al to, expressed support for moving the Menlo Park Infant and Toddler Center to the First Presbyterian Church located on Cowper Street in Palo Alto. Their family included two school -aged children and they were potential users. Margaret Rosenbloom, 912 Cowper, felt there was a need it the community. She had two children, and was a potential user. Joe Huber, 451 Lincoln, President of the University Park Associ- ation, said he 'had not seen the church's proposal to reduce traf- fic. Regarding the Use Permit proposal, he did not know whether it was being amended, :a new one :applied for, or what precisely was happening. He' thought it was important to know, because the church might not wish to proceed under those ::ircumstahces. Mr Maynor advised that the church must apply for a new Use Per- mit. Jack :.Eft, 3550 0r inda Street: said he thought the church would-be willing to . apply for a new Use Permit as long as it was clearly understood that they were not willing to agree to . any more strin- gent conditions than the ones proposed. If, at some point in the proceedings, ..it appeared ; that more stringent condition's would be imposed, then they would reserve the right to withdraw their ap- plication. 1 1 1 Mayor Henderson asked Mr. Maynor if the Council could approve the new Use Permit on the condition that the church would apply for a new -old permit. - Mr. Maynor said yes. Mr. Huber said he understood that as the application had gone to the Council, the Use Permit application for the Child Care Center was conditioned on the church either 1) applying for an ame;ded permit; or 2) applying for a new permit. He asked for clarifica- tion that should the church choose to withdraw its permit, the child care use would also have to be withdrawn. He said that from Day 1, in March of 1981, before any Use Permit hearing was held, they had met with the church and the Learning Center and told everyone they had no opposition to a Child Care. Center their concern w)s total usage. Their proposal was that if a Child Care Center was desired, it be focused into the neighbor- hood as much as possible, and that the church reduce the level of other activities. He commented concerning the negotiations be- tween the neighborhood and the church with the City's staff assistance. He said they reached a point, after about two months, wherein they could not reach agreement. That point carne when essentially the ,church said it wished to freeze its usage at its present level and, in addition, have the Child Care Center. The Association- felt that the present level of usage was exces- sive in the R-i area, and that the add-on level being talked about, with the 25• per son Child Care Center, was substantial. In the past, the Association had appeared on other applications of the church; and, in those instances, the Council had always denied any additional use on the premises, i.e.; usage in addi- tion to the present usage. He said the present proposed usage was almost 200% higher than the existing Westminster House use. It was to that use the Council had addressed itself in the past and refused to allow any more activity. He noted that the Association did not object to a Child Care Center, but believed that the church should reduce its acti‘ities--not its own church activities --but outside activities to a point wherein the traffic was reduced. He proposed that a reduction in the Child Care Cen- ter totals, plus a reduction in the weekend use at the church. would be such as to provide a reasonable limitation and maintain the area as reasonably residential. He showed an overlay based on a report done by Rich Cabrera for the Building Department. in 1978. He said the report was a listing of borderline legal non- conforming churches, other institutions and businesses being amortized. The Comprehensive. Plan described land use and defined a single-family residential area as follows: "It included one - dwelling unit on each lot, and uses requiring permits, such as, churches and private schools, which generally locate in residen- tial areas and serve them." He thought the key phrase was "serve them," which meant that the churches were to be primarily directed into the neighborhoods. Mr. Huber said that in this particular church, at the present time, Westminster House had some four _ non -neighborhood activities which generated a lot of activity. One activity was "flew Ways to Work," which he - understood _ was a good organization, but was essentially- an employment agency. It was an agency which was piggybacked in on a broad Use Permit now held by the church, and clearly would not be an acceptable use in an R-1 area, but for coming in under the church's- permit. He said there were other uses like that at the site which were essentially uncontrollable right now. The First Presbyterian Church had a -limited number of neighbors , which attend i* its session was composed of people outside of the neighborhood, and obviously, its users did not serve the neighborhood., He was pleased that a Child Care Center could at least serve= some portion of -the neighborhood, J but sug- gested that there should be reductions elsewhere. He thought ,it. was important to note the impacts because this particular area 1 3 5 2 10/19/81 1 1 1 .was severely impacted by downtown. The more successful the down- town area, the more traffic. He also noted that although the area hach a long history, he thought its rebirth occurred with the defeat of the hospital in 1969. From that point forward, people could buy in those areas with the feeling that at least it would remain residential. Since that time, a good portion of the area had returned to a residential area. Regarding the position of the Neighborhood Association, they would' like what the Comprehen- sive Plan offered. A lot of services were already offered to the rest of the. community via the nonconforming uses and via the church. They felt it was a sufficient number, and if any more should be added, something should be subtracted. Mr. Huber. Said regarding the Church`s proposal, the most recent change in conditions actually increased the weekend activity from four to six per quarter, and that coupled with the other poten- tial use by other organizations outside of Westminster House meant that this facility could be used virtually -every - weeker+d. He referred the Council to his proposal concerning the use of the property, and suggested that the Child Care Center not be limited to the immediate neighborhood. He would prioritize the immediate neighborhood, but expand it to the entire City of Palo 'Al to. Councilmember Klein asked if the Council were to pass a Condi- tional Use Permit on this area, could it be conditiored on a specified number of car trips per 28 days, but to set it at a lower figure than the ones anticipated presently and say that the number of car trips that the Day Care Center could generate could be increased if . there were a corresponding decrease in the car trips generated by the other activities on the site? Mr. Maynor said he saw no problem with that. - Suzan Syre.tt, 510 Concord Drive, said this center was very high quality child care. She did not think there were marsh of those types of facilities available. She -felt that the Council was being asked to balance the neighborhood interests' against that need; She said the traffic impacts had been discussed, and as a parent, she would be going down Lincoln to the church. She felt that the traffic trips present were definitely the total worst case, and in actuality, the inpact was less than was stated In addition, she regularly bicycled her child to the Center. The proposal made by the church would give neighbors preference in placing their children in that center which would also mitigate the effect of the traffic on the neighborhood. She realized: that a lot of the neighbors' concerns related to the uses other times than when the Day -Care-Center was operating. Unless the church'.s proposal was accepted, there would be no balance placed on that .usage. She saw -the neighbors best hope of getting a limit on the usage 'as accepting what the church was offering. Jack Eft, 3550 Orinda, Elder of the First Presbyterian Church, and the father of a 20 -month old child said he had to go to Portola Valley to find day care. He said the church believed they were called by the gospel: to minister the needs. of the tom muni ty. They spent a lot of time asking themselves what re- sources -they hart . to minister :to the needs of --t:he community, .and how -could they be used. He said .their buildings were designed for a larger congregation than they had. Originally, .when the buildings were ` built, they had about 1200 members, and ;riow there were down to about 400 ,members- which meant they had a- lot eof under user space. He _ did not think a better proposal could be Made. - :My. - Eft said that regarding Westminster House, there were four onprofit community organizations which were an integral part t of the church's ministry to the community. The Mid -Peninsula Citi- zens for Fair Housing, New Ways to Work, CAR,_ the Mid -Peninsula 1 3. 5 3 10/19181 Health Services which was an alternative to large institutional types of health care. Westminster House uses grew out of ideas by church members and grew because of their efforts. These organizations could not exist if the church did not make that space available at cost. Besides the perceived problems with the current level, the Zoning Administrator denied the application because of the history of uses and proposed uses on the site. He, said there were some political objections to the past uses which had occurred there. Constitutionally, he thought those kinds of objections had no place in the Council's consideration. The church was willing to talk about intensity of use and believed they had a responsibility to the neighbors to limit themselves to a reasonable level of activity, but reserved the right to decide what was a religious activity and what was not. Regarding the history of proposed uses, the church had had seven applications for permits denied. He thought it was ironic that they were denied a use permit because they had been denied use permits in the past. The question should he what was in the best interests of the community. Mr. Eft said that before _the Planning Commission meeting, people from the Learning Center presented clear evidence of widespread support by a large majority of people in the neighborhood. 'The Commission wondered whether they could achieve consensus, ared : tt e church said they were willing to try and achieve consensus with the neighborhood. He said it was clear at the neighborhood meet- ing that there remained some real hostility toward the church amongst the longtime neighbors to the church. The primary reason seemed to be a drug counseling center the church rant at West- minster House in the late 1960's and early 1970's. He reminded the Council that at' that time the City of Palo Alto was in a near panic about drug abuse problem s with its young people, and said as the church saw it, it was part of their ministry for the community. - Mr. Eft said the church had submitted a revised proposal, which included some minor changes. The reason the church had to make the changes was because they had not completed all of their dis- cussions with the Westminster House organizations because of the time pressure on the Learning Center. They had to get out of where they were. The preamble had been rewritten and there were three minor changes. The closing time of the weekend meetings was .changed from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The closing time of gen- eral operations at Westminster House was changed from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The number of staff was changed from 16 to 18. - He believed the changes were in good faith with the representations made to the Planning Commission. He said the church did not have a, completely accurate picture of what the figures should be to. maintain the philosophical position that the church would main- tain existing uses. He -pointed out that the agreement to limit future uses was a significant limitation of its prerogatives by the church. He thought it was very scary for the church to limit the practice of their religion in a given place for all time. He said they had brought themselves around to that . position out of respect and feeling a responsibility to the needs of the neigh- borhood., He thought the church had made a very reasonable pro- posal, and .no other church in Palo Alto; had agreed to any condi- tions like this which would make their church unique to Palo Alto. He asked that the Council take that into consideration in their del iberations. Couhc il member Witherspoon said she doubted that ` anyone had a quarrel with the validity of the reason for. the activities of Westminster House. She thought the were dealing with the fre- quency of use, especially on weekends. She could not understand why the church was unwil l ir'g to discuss limiting the activities on weekends. 1 3 5 4• 10/19/81 Mr. Eft responded that the weeken Saturdays. There were ro Sunday 'el and on Saturdays, there would be o a significant impact on Westminst they had recently had their fed their CETA funding. They we straights, and their Saturday s had proposed to hold about 17 S the church had cut them back from what they felt they neede Councilmember Witherspoon as could not cut back on these financially viable. Mr. Eft said that was an House felt they needed to regular work days Monday p.m. Councilmember Eyerly sa Center, they stated the He was interested in their vacant property Cour..ci1niember Klein ent Use Permit whic have church -related of what a chut ch-re d uses were limited to only eetings at Westminster House, my six per quarter, which was er House organizations because eral funding cut, specifically re suddenly in dire financial emi nar s were money makers. They aturday meetings this quarter, and to 6, which was a substantial cut d to do to continue their program. ked if the rationale was that they seminars and other activities and be important part, but also Westminster reach people who could not be there on through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 id that in a letter from the Learning y had exhausted all other possible sites. what the School District had to say' about in Palo Alto. said he_was somewhat concerned that the pres- h talked about the church being allowed to uses, that the church was the sole determinor lated use was Mr.. Eft said the chdreh firmly believed that the activities which took place were church -related uses covered by their use permit. Councilmember Fazzino asked if any uses were inappropriate if something was religious or church -related by the church. Mr. Eft said ye Mayor Henders Use Permit f would give t tion for the Tracy Star from the c activitie He noted on Satur that th from pa tiatio R a y S had that sta da 9e e s. on asked all of the supporters for issuance of the or the Child Care Program to stand, and said that he Council a better picture than to listen to repeti- next three.hours. er, 1225 Cowper Street, resided about one-half block hurch, and presented a profile of some of the kinds of s which occupied the time and facilities at the church. uses at the church including a class in resume writing days, and a class in responsible investing. He thought e feeling of hostility in the neighborhood did not stem st issues, but rather could be cured by additives in nego- ns on both sides. quil:ieri, 990 Peninsula Way, said that the issue of traffic. generated mere concern than any other `single issue. He said while he understood a lot of the concerns, he.did not under- nd some of the arithmetic. The Learning Center (TLC) was a y care center for 30 children served by 8 staff. In order to !aerate 2,750 car trips per day, TLC would have to a) enroll 600 dditional children, b) hire 1300 additional staff, and c) have ach of the current children come and go 91 times per day. Luana Staiger, 2160 Camino a los Cerros, Menlo Park, President .of.. the Board of Directors of The Learning Center, clarified that regarding the School District, one of the difficulties encoun- tered by TLC in finding a site for the Center stemmed from two limitations. 1) The Center could not move 20 to 30 infants into any building. They were limited by how many square feet, where the "bathrooms`were, and where the doors were. They did not have much 'flexibility in finding a site. 2) The Center was, very 1 3 5 5 10/19/81 1 limited in their budget restraints. They were funded solely by parents` fees; and as a result, any incremental increase in rent must be tacked onto the parents. The Center had contacted quite a few schools in the area; and in general, they ranged from approximately $400 a room. With infants and toddlers-, at least two rooms were -needed 'and the Center could not afford that much rent. Currently, there were no vacant rooms in Palo Alto schools although some were expected in the future. Ms. Staiger said that regarding the residential question and the Center being a Menlo Park organization, the Center felt somewhat disadvantaged in that their name was The Menlo Park Infant and Toddler Learning Center. Currently, the Center was in Menlo Park so most of their clients were Menlo Park residents. After moving to Palo Alto, it was natural to presume that there would be a rapid turnover to serving local residents in order to serve the convenience of people in that area. She said the current enroll- ment was down, and those spaces were being saved in_ addition to an additional staff member, to serve those children of current -Palo Alto residents ,or residents in that neighborhood. She said that if the Center was approved for 25 children, the Center could immediately admit between five to seven children from the area. If the Center was approved for 30 children, they could immediate- ly admit ten children from the area making about 30% of the clientele Palo Alto residents. She said that because the Center only operated for children between three months and four years, they.. had a complete turnover of children just about every two years. Potentially, within a two-year period, there could be 100% Palo Alto residents using the Center. She said in turn, it would tend, to incrementally reduce the traffic over time as more local residents were able to use the Center. Not all of the children in the neighborhood currently use day care, and not all of them ever would, but day care was a very dynamic need. They would like to have the Center available for those farr►ilies that live in Palo Alto. Councilmember Eyerly asked for some idea of their fees, and, if possible, a comparison with Palo Alto Child Care Charged. He said the Councilmemhers had been presented a petition in support of The Learning Center He counted about 29 poteht i al users and noted that the petition went beyond the immediate neighborhood. He -wondered if the statements about Palo Al to residents from the neighborhood were viable in view of the petition? Ms. Staiger deferred to other Speakers. Marcia Adams, 320 Color ado Avenue, said that although she was not in the immediate neighborhood association, she felt that if The Learning Center had been located there about one month ago when she started needing, day care for her five month old child, she would have used it. She said Palo Alto Community Child Care did not have space for her in the Baptist Church, and it would have been very helpful for her to have The Learning Center located at the First Presbyterian Church. Florence Carey Murphy, 569. Addison, was a retired learning dis- abilities teacher. She said she was very active in the Mid - Peninsula Health Service. She said she made about three trips per week to the church on foot, and was concerned because back in the 1950`s when She had to seek day care for her children, the relationship of a center to a bus line was the most important factor in choosing that center. She thought that the location of this particular center, close to the busses on Waverley, Middle- field, Charming; Homer and University where a parent, could get off and walk a child was vent important in a parent's thinking. Victor 0jakian, 526. Addison, was an officer in the University Park Association, He complimented the City staff who, in the 1 .3 5 6 10/19/81 process of the various negotiations, had conducted themselves in an extremely professional manner. He thought they were very helpful. He currently used Child care and supported it. Pre- viously he supported the First Baptist Church Child Care Center and thought that the City's position in supporting child care and helping finance it was admirable. He supported the concept of a child care center in a neighborhood, but he was at odds with this particular issue because they were not talking about a single chii.d care unit going into a neighborhood which had had little or no usages. He Was concerned that this particular neighborhood was inundated with other usages, and probably in the future there would be a series of other proposals "for usages. He thought that this particular usage would propose 19 staff members at a mini- mum, 23 at a maximum, with 25 children, plus about 40 to 70 addi- tional other people who used the site on a daily basis. He said when most people moved into the area, it was with the assumption that it was --an R-1 neighborhood, and he asked the Council to define what an R-1 neighborhood was. Mr. O;iakian said that regarding the church proposals, -they did not represent a decrease on thea site, but the church was main- taining that and adding a child care center. He said he went through the TLC's potential users list and tried to determine how many users there were in -the neighborhood. Further, he went to Palo Alto Community Child Care's current waiting list to see if he could find any user. As an officer at Addison School , he put a comment in their newspaper asking parents in the school if they were child care users, and if they needed immediate use. He gave his lists to the Council for. their use. Joanne Chace, 1325 Cowper Street, spoke for her family as well as four additional families, the Hardings, 530 Kellogg; Smiths, 1520 Byron; Vosper i ngs, 552 Kellogg, and leynseys, 1334 Webster, - who supported The Learning Center's application for a Use Permit. She said the Hardings had _ an infant and were potential users. The Lynseys had a two-year old and were potential users. As a Palo Alto Community Child Care Center member and as a present member of the University Park Associatioh she commented that when she and her husband bought their home in 1971, at the corner of Cowper and Melville, there was a flourishing secretarial school, which was now a single-family house again; and 450 Melville had a our sery school in it, It was not very successful, and was also a single-family house now. -She said that some of the neighborhood changes were in the direction of less traffic. Mar• gat et Nolan, 370 Channi ng, said she had a 22 -month old child and would love to see child care that close to her house. She felt that she would like the option of having part-time child care whichwas also very important to her. If she had it avail- able to her, she would be walking her child to the center rather than having to drive a long distance. Laurel Leone, 2024 Santa Cruz Avenue, Mer,lo. Park, was the parent of ' a 17 -month old daughter who loved The Learning Center. She pointed out that the neighborhood association did not seem to really represent the neighborhood. From .talking with a number of people, she did not feel there was substantial opposition among the residents of the immediate neighborhood. She Was in the field of mathematics, and said she had taken a survey which was straightforward and unsophisticated. Parents and staff walked on weekends and week nights to almost every house within a quarter mile radius of the church. She said that to their surprise sup- port was oVerwhelning, including many obvious nonusers such as senior citizens and parents of older children. Also, many of those contacted were unaware of the existence'of any neighborhood association. She said that of the total'houses contacted,::77% actually signed a petition saying they supptr ted the establish- ment of The Learning Center , 12% were undecided, and only 5% op - 1 3.5 7 10/19/81 posed. She said that 41% of the supporting signatures were with- in one block of the proposed site. She had heard arguments re- jecting the validity of such a survey saying that many signers would just as readily support the opposing survey, etc., which she found insulting to the political integrity of -the Palo Altans who signed. She said she grew up in Palo Al to and; attended Palo Alto Schools from Barron Park Elementary to Gunn High School Her parents made many sacrifices to afford a home in that dis- trict. As a parent, she now understood what the°big deal was -- the quality of care and education her daughter received really mattered to her. She said they paid $80 per week for full time day care which was over $4,000 per year. Their cost would go up even more at the Presbyterian Church. They had been fighting for the privilege to use it for over four months, now they were down to the deadline and if The Learning Center could not move into the church by October 31, they were literally out on the street. She urged the Council not to make a King Solomon's decision,, she had listened to debates over the number of children to be ap- proved. She feared the Council would say yes, but only for 1.0, 15 or 20 children. If the enrollment were cut any further, it would essentially force closure of The Learning Center totally, or to all but the rich. She urged the Council to grant the use permit and to grant it for the full enrollment. Mary Blessing, represented Lorna Kingdon, 3658 Bryant, who sup- ported and encouraged the acceptance of TLC's MOVE to the Presbyterian Church, TLC made a large contribution to the com- munity and to many people and businesses in that it allowed excellent care for children while parents functioned to serve its best interests. Ms. Kingdon had a child at TLC and would like her to continue her care there in the new Palo Alto location. She urged Council support. James Blessing, 52 Cal l ie Lane, Menlo Park, said it appeared to him the Council had. a split decision to make --was TLC a bargain- ing chip to get rid of some of the activities occurring on week- ends which were offensive in the neighborhood. If that was the case, he did not see how turning down TLC's permit gained the loss of any activities on the weekend. He urged Council to con- sider what the cost actually was in terms of traffic in the neighborhood if that, was the real concern. If the number of trips that may cote into the neighborhood were looked at and the worst -cases looked at, Council should consider that if there were half-time people coming in, then there was at least double the value --double the number of families had been served. Marguerite Haley, 580 Melville Avenue, said she had signed the petition only to find out later than the Day Care people had mis- reprent,ed themselves. She said she was lead to believe that it was a church -sponsored organization, that there would be a maxi- mum number of 10 to 15 children there, they would be taken there in carpools, and : that it was also nonprofit. Ned Gallagher, 440 Melville Avenue, member of the University Park Association, said they had appeared before the Council several times in the past, and in each case it was with the view of pro- tecting or enhancing the living conditions of their R-1 neighbor- hood. He said the issue was to determine whether an organization from Menlo Park should be permitted to bring its day care center into a residential area of Palo Alto--a-day care center which had approximately,25 children, the majority of, whom came from Menlo Park or Redwood : City He said the Association contended that such a oroposal was . one more of many such_ proposals-- whidh at- tempted „to, intrude upon the integrity of their R-1 neighborhood and was not °i n . conformance with either the intent or the spirit of the zoning ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan that protect the quality and integrity of the residential - neighborhoods of Palo Alto. Through diligence and effort the residents of his area had contributed significantly toward the upgrading of their neighborhood during the past ten years. They asked th.e Council to help them continue that effort., and to uphold . the denial of the Zoning Administrator of the application of a Menlo Park or- ganization for a day care,center in an R-1 residential neighbor- hood in Palo Alto. David G. Fry, 1052 Cardinal Way, Palo Alto, said he was a past user of The Learning Center when .i`. was in Menlo Park. He said he took his child to The Learning Center on a bicycle, 5 miles everyday and would continue to do that. He was a potential user of The Learning Center in Palo Alto, and would be proud to have a church across the street from him that would have a learning center or some similar organization in it. He did not live in University Park to throw his vote in there. Ed Lillibridge, 465 Melville Drive, said that he and his wife were potential users of The Learning Center. Joe Verkamp, 1201 Cowper Street, said he hoped the Council would .support The Lear ni n.g Center. Stephen Levy, 1058,Stanley Way, represented the Board of Mid - Peninsula Health Services (MHS), and,said -the organization was one of the Church's tenants. He said MHS felt that it should not be placed along with the _organizations either as a forgotten party or . in the middle because to their knowledge all of the organizations that the Church had granted space to, as part of its mission, also supported day care. As far as the -organiza- tions were concerned, and the activities they were permitted to sponsor partly because of the cost savings, and the facilities that were granted to them occasionally on the weekends and at, night, probably had more community innovation and social benefits to the residents of the entire community, many of whom lived i r the neighborhood. They hoped that the Council would .not put them or other community users of Westminster House either against the neighborhood or against day care. :Their interests were also. Palo Alto community interests and MHS requested that they be protected and looked after. Lynn Ashmall, 611 Arbor, Director of The Learning Center, said the organization was a Menlo Park organization because of their - address, but had .'o official ties with Menlo Park. She said that since the time TLC began, a compilation of all the children using TLC showed that 25% of the children were from Palo Alto consis- tently. At any one time there would be between 6 and 7 staff members on the premises, and 25 to 30 children, dependent upon what the Council approved. She understood that the Neighborhood Association had circulated a petition telling the residents that it would be ten years before any significant proportion of Palo Alto residents were allowed into The Learning Center. Since TLC's turnover was almost 100% in two years, and they proposed to give first preference to neighbors within one-half mile or walk- ing' distance, second prefer=ence to neighbors within a mile -,or biking distance, third preference to families with a parent work- ing within one-half mile, fourth preference to families with a parent working within a mile, and fifth preference to anyone who would agree to bike, she did not see how it could possibly be ten years before a significant proportion of the people were from Palo Alto. She said that in going over Palo Alto Community Child Care's (PACCC) list, currently there were 20 families that re- sided north of California Avenue, which was chosen as a border to consider because it :,was the farthest north PACCC site. TLC did not expect to gain any of the current PACCC users, but they. were representative of numbers of families using child care. ;. There were 29 families currently on the PACCC waiting list who lived north of California Avenue. In addition, PACCC had a waiting list of over 100 families, 50 of whom were from Palo Alto. TLC 1 3-.5 9 10/19/81 had a waiting list of over 70 families, which she felt was signi- ficant enough to show the need in the neighborhood. Further, re- garding fees, TLC currently charged $80 per child for full-time; $52 per child. for part-time. She said this was a projected bud- get based on 18 full-time equivalent children, 25 full-time equivalent, and 30 full-time equivalent ,children. Because of increased rent and utilities, if they moved to the Church, they would charge $86 if the permit for 30 children were approved, and $92 if approved for 25 children. If TLC's permit were reduced to 18 children, they would be forced to charge $106 per child. Yearly, the cost per child -per family would be an increase per family of $1,000. Councilmember Witherspoon asked Ms Ashmall how many part-time children TLC had now? Ms. Ashmal_1 responded that currently 15 full-time and 12 part- time children were enrolled. Councilmember Witherspoon asked Ms. Ashmall if TLC expected to have the same ratio in Palo Alto? Ms. Ashmall said ;t would probably depend on the needs of the neighborhood, who applied, and considerations for traffic. It was important that there be pat -time child care because a number of people who were: potential users that lived in the neighborhood indicated their need was for part-time care. She said she would like to get: around the car trips by giving preference to people would would bike or walk rather than reduce the number of child- ren, Councilmember Eyerly said that the description of TLCs day care was called "infant/toddler " and he wondered if that qualified the age of children that TLC took. Further, regarding PACCC, he wondered what their age . group was. Ms. Ashmall said that the PACCC List was their infant/toddler center application list, which she thought went up to age 3. TLC had in the past served up to age 3, but the Board had considered and approved extending it to age 4. This would give the children currently enrolled more continuity but would not increase the number of children, nor would they go out and look for children between the._„ages of 3 and 4. Current enrol lees would be .allowed to remain until age 4. Councilmember Levy said regarding current traffic of the center now being r un in Menlo Park, how many trips per day were made there, and were there car pools or were they all individuals? Ms. Ashmall said she had not added At up, but there were no more than 22 children at any one time, and of those, 15 were full- time, including some families who biked. Councilmember Levy asked how many - children were biked or walked; how many of the staff biked or walked; and the normal absence among the; E hildren Ms. Ashmall said three of the children were biked, and one was walked; three members of the staff biked out of nine.-- Usually, one or two children were absent per day. Penny Black, 220 Lexington Drive, Menlo Park, said she had a son who was .. a student at The Learning Center. She was a . teacher in, Palo Alto, and her son was unable to get into the . PACCC center. She read a few names of families who had children in the Palo. Alto area and ; were potential users of TLC. She said Palo -Alto had _ a history of outstanding education for students in - Kinder- garten through grade 12, and when the PACCC.centers were formed, 1 3 6 0 10/19/81 this was extended to the formative years of three months to five years of age. She said it was almost impossible to find child care from the ages of three months to three years because people did not wart to take care of children who were not toilet trained and did not. talk. She thought the TLC staff was extraordinary and dedicated; and, if they were let go, it would be to the detriment of Palo Alto. Tay Gallagher, 440 Melville, said she was not against child care, and thought it was important. Regarding the petition of support, an address given as 460 Melville and being single-family, was not single-family; and, in collecting signatures for PACCC on Melville Avenue, 16 people who had signed the original child care petition signed for a Palo Alto child care center, they were not told that it was a Menlo Park child care center. Michael Closson, 1102 Guinda, a co -director of New Ways to Work, said his organization Was founded in 197` by members of the First Presbyterian Church and had their offices in Westminster House since that time. He thought it was a fantastic facility and without that particular facility, it would bee hard to imagine. being able to provide near the kind of services currently.of- fered. He. said New Ways to Work did a lot of work with unemploy- ed persons providing them with support and various kinds .of str correction on between' their work and assistance, and saw. a s_ ong c �e.t. et the work of the church. They were proud to be associated with the church because they felt it was a terrific institution that had made a big effort to get out and be in touch with the needs of the community and be responsive to those needs. New Ways to Work strongly supported TLC even though the particular conditions proposed would significantly limit and reduce their own program. In spite of that, they thought it was important to provide the space to another needy organization. He urged Coun.cil's sup- port. Counci lmernber Levy asked Mr . Closson why New Ways to Wor k spon- sored a forum on responsible investing? Mr. Closson responded that the forum as coetponsored by the Church, and it dealt with the ethical implications of one's in- vestment dollar. New Ways to Work's connectioe was that since they dealt with work, where people generated their dincome, in this particular case, they were concerned about where their in- come was spent. Pally Parker, 430 Kingsley, said she lived directly across the street from Westminster House, and was a potential user of the child care center. She 'did not want to see the present uses of Westminster House increased, but felt- they were quiet. and an ex- cei lently run group of organizations. She did not think the pro- posed use would significantly impact the neighborhood. Mayor Henderson asked Mr. Maynor if the Council would have the power to revoke the existing Use Permit if they desired? Mr. Maynor said the Zoning Administrator would have ,that power if he felt that the current Use Permit was being violated. JUST _CAUSE EVICTION ORDINANCE - CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 9 1981 MOTION Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by 1=azzi no, to bring forward Item #14, Just Cause Eviction, for continuance. MOTION PASSED unanimously. MOTION; Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fletcher, to continue Item #14, just Cause Eviction, to November 9. 1 ? 6 L 10/19/81 1 1 MOTION PASSED unanimously. RECESS FROM 9:45 p.m. TO 10:0.0 .m. THE LEARNING CENTER - (Continued) Vice Mayor Fletcher commented that it was true that this was an R-1 neighborhood and she sympathized with the residents in that they had a building in their area which was not R=1. Neverthe- less, she thought the building had tremendous facilities which were ideal for child care. ,She said where the child care activities would take place was quite isolated from the nearest residences. The accesses to the parking lots were disbursed on three different streets so that traffic would be shared and would not all be concentrated on or±e particular street or block. She thought the fact that TLC was now based in Menlo Park was irrel - vant, and the fact that there was a two-year waiting list for PACCC spoke to the need in Palo Alto. Furthermore, this was a nonsubsidized private organization that Palo Alto should try and foster because Palo Alto's resources were limited and when organ- izations sprung up which did not ask for City financial support, she felt it was going in the right direction. The need_for child care by parents who wor ked in the downtown or in the clinic or in the numerous offices located in some of the R-1 buildings would probably be preferable even to serving the immediate families in the immediate neighborhood, —although she did not want to prevent their having a very high priority, but she would like to see the recommendation that the priorities go to families who lived or were .working within the one-half mile radius. Vice Mayor Fletcher said she was gratified, after reading all of the mate- rial, that one of the speakers did mention the extensive bus ser- vice which almost surrounded the child care center. She wanted a vigorous promotion program to use any means of transportation+ other than the single -occupant car. MOTION: Vice Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel , to adopt Planning Commission recommendations plus changes submitted 10/1.9/81 that 1) The use shall be limited to 25 children per day, and there shall be no more than seven staff on the site at any one time. 2) The day care center shall secure the approval of the Zoning Administrator of a program to encourage users to ar e rive in Ways which minimize traffic. Such approval shall be secured within two months after —granting of the use permit. 3) The day care center shall give :first priority to the admission -of • newe children to families living within one-half mile, from the Church,- and shall give second priority to families living within one mile from the Church. 4) The day care use shall be contin- gent upon the application by the First Presbyterian Church within two months, and the approval within five months of a new use per- mit for the Church containing conditions which aford protection to the surrounding neighborhood. ' Fai l ure to -secure a new use permit by the Church shall make -void the use permit for the in- fant -and -toddler day. care center.e In setting this requirement,. it is, intended that the time limit shall not count delays such"as appeals. which are beyond .,the control of the First Presbyterian Church, 5) Hours of operation shall be 7:30, a.m. - 5':30 p.m„ Monday through Friday. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor' Fletcher moved, Seconded by Levy., that if -after one year., the day care "center wished to increase enrollment to 3pi children and staff to 8, , the; shall submit to the Zoning Admi,rji.strator _an average daily count which would indicate-- that projected trips would not be _increased Mr. Freeland said that 113 was the projected number of trips per day. Councilmember Renzel asked if the amendment would make it an ad- ministrative decision to increase the number of childrer if the traffic count showed that there was not excessive traffic; or, would it be an amendment to the Use Permit. Mr. Maynor said that there was no procedure for modifying a use permit. He thought that if the Council built into the use permit the ability to increase the amount of usage for t -he day care center upon a showing of a decrease in projected car trips, then it would be an appropriate administrative formula that could ad- ministratively be applied. Councilmember Klein said that the people who spoke on behalf of TLC were correct that the facilities were superb for the purpose. On the other hand, the neighbors were correct that their neigh- borhood had been impacted by many nonresidential uses, and in particular, the various uses of Westminster House. He thought the Council was in the difficult situation of having to balance the interests and propose a solution. He hoped that the Church would have a cooperative attitude towards working the problems - out with the ne i ghbor•hood and be more `forthcoming in their final proposal because he;did not feel- it wett.far enough. He would vote against the amendment because it would add -too much uncer- tainty and confusion. The 113 trips per day was a .. maximum or worst -case, so' there was -no way The Learning Center could not meet that test. Further, even if a lower number were adopted, on a one day basis, that would be easy to meet. Councilmember Klein said he chose 900 new trips because it would be hard for the day care center to meet it, and he expected that if something like that were adopted, the other organizations at the site would have to cooperate by cutting some of their day trips thus giving the day care center more leeway to meet the standard set forth. Councilmember Witherspoon said she was frustrated that the loca- tion was apropos for an ,infant/toddler center , but combined with all of the other uses, she thought it was too much. She thought Councilmember Klein's,• amendments satisfied her concerns more than Vice Mayor Fletcher's. She was concerned that the Council found i`'? -trips per day acceptable. She did not think it was_ accept- able --she preferred to keep the trips less than that. She said she wanted to see some indication that the Council wanted the ZorZing Administrator to al;o look at the weekend activities gen- erated by the outside groups that used the Church facilities, Philosophically, she. felt that traditionally a church was allowed in a residential zone because it served that zone, and tradition- ally, the area around it was considered part`,.. of the parish. Ob- viously, the First Presbyterian Church saw the community as a much broader area than it had been n traditionally. If .this hap- pened all across town in church facilities, the problem would arise of what defined a community anc' what was an appropriate use in a residential zone. She would vote against Vice Mayor Fletcher's:amendment'• Councilmember Renzel agreed that the use was one which the facil- ities were suited for , and that the neighborhood had had concerns in the past. On the other hand, the Zoning Ordinance had pro- vided for churches in residential zones for a long time. The original concept was that the churches served the immediate: vi- cinity when people did not have cars. When the Presbyterian Church was , built, the parish concept was long dead and it was accepted that churches were a use which could occur in ` an R-1 zone. She thought that the church use that involved automobiles added to the total, but probably was not the major cause of the neighborhood's discontent with traffic. Many churches had relied on the -City's zoninj in locating within residential zones and attempted to perform their ministry -there. In this case, : the 1 3.6 3 10/19/81 1 Presbyterian Church had offerred its facilities for -uses which relate to their ministry and served the community. She did not think the Council could turn their backs on the fact that the facilities had been built in reliance on the zone, and did provide services to the community at low cost that were important for the community. She thought that in this instance, the Presbyterian Church had extended their hand to try and accommo- date the neighbors with respect to the use permit. They had in- dicated -a willingness to modify and qualify their use permit, which she thought was` a generous offer on the part of the Church. She did not think that churches were in a position to just pick up and go elsewhere. Churches had a responsibility to their congregation and their ongoing operations as a church. She thought the Council must recognize that churches were in R-1 zones with their -elaborate facilities which were often well - suited for many public service activities. Regarding the specif- ic ause permit before the Council, she supported Vice Mayor F i etcher ' s amendment primarily because she thought that the new staff wording, which was neither approved or disapproved by the Planning Commission, limited the use to 25 children per day. Further, 'she pointed out that the typical understanding was that it meant 25 children at any one time,' which allowed a day care center which 'had a staff for 25_ children to perhaps have 25 morn- ing children and 25 afternoon children, but basically no more than 25 at any time. She did not suggest that there be 50 child- ren, but that a limitation to 25 children per day might -effec- tively mean 18 or 15 at any one time, which would impact the economics of how the center might operate. She pointed out that the limitation aof. 25 children was severe compared to the 30 children at any time figure they originally applied for. Since the traffic was the major issue, Council should consider allowing a. modification in one year if it could be demonstrated that the expected traffic, was not occurring. Councilmember Fazzino reiterated that the issue was not child care. He thought the Council had been very, supportive of locat- ing child care facilities in neighborhoods, such as The First Baptist Church's Center in the Ventura area. He was troubled about the Church's position regarding its sole right to determine religious uses. The fact that the proposal was before the Coun- cil in an eleventh hour context was an indication of failure in this thinking. He agreed that the present occupants of the site performed work which was clearly related to the church's ministry and the site was a good one for child care. Since the possibili- ties of use manifestation of the church's ministry were limit- less, the City must balance the level of use and the compatibil- ity with the neighborhood against the existing potential space for these kinds of services. Also, the cumulative effect of use after additional use at the site did not make him supportive of The Learning Center proposal unless the church made concessions with regard to present uses. He was disappointed that the' church had not voluntarily agreed to reduce present uses. Further, for the first time, the City must gain a handle on the use permit which had been totally open-ended for many .years.. He was con- cerned about Vice Mayor F1 etcher's amendment to limit The Learn- ing Center traffic counts alone. Het was concerned that' such an approach might make the proposal uneconomic, and would still allow for increased traffic and use by other services at the Center. He preferred general restrictions on total usage of the site. If traffic was to be limited, perhaps a figure should be established for total usage rather than simply_ fox ' child care °sage. He asked Mr. Maynor if that would be a legal approach. Mr. Maynor felt that was inappropriate for tonight. It would be something to be dealt with at the other use hearing, but Council could certainly indicate what their preference was. 1 3 6 4 10/19/81 Councilmember Fazzino said he was supportive of where Council - member Klein wanted to go with his proposal, but was concerned that it only applied to the child care usage. He did not think it would help The Learning Center in terms of providing an economic facility that provided child care at a relatively low cost, nor did it deal with the general use permit. He thought it was unfortunate that the Council could not deal with the general use permit issue tonight because that issue was relative to the entire discussion. He felt as if his hand was being held behind his back- in trying to determine the issue tonight without looking at the broader issues. Councilmember Levy also reiterated that the issue before the Council was the one of balancing legitimate church usage vs. legitimate expectations of a residential neighborhood. He be- lieved in a broader interpretation of what a church should do be- cause he felt stron 1y about the first amendment to the Constitu- tion. Even though he might disagree: with specific uses of the church, he was reluctant to tell a church what was a legitimate religious mission for that particular church. Further, he did not believe that churches served only neighborhoods alone. He thought TLC was a good use of the site, it was removed from the neighbors, there were three entrances to the parking lot, and all of the users could park in the lots. Regarding Vice Mayor F 1 etcher' s amendment to limit the number of trips, he thought it got to the important matter of traffic. He did not agree with the motion completely, but thought the concept was worth -explor- ing. He thought it was conceivable that there could be cheating, but there could also be cheating on Co-uncilmember Klein's desire to have 900 trips as -the standard. He _thought that the figure of 113 trips per day was incorrect because it was the worst -case situation and he suggested 10 trips per day as much more likely to happen. Councilmember Levy said that regarding the traffic issues, basic R-1 use of the site was 2,000 trips per month. If there were 7-1/2 single-family homes, they would generate 2,000 trips per month. Currently, the church use was 3,700 trips per month --not that much more than single-family hoes would generate. If TLC was brought in, he calculated 1,400 trips , per. . month, which would bring the use for that site up to 2-1/2 times ;hat the site would generate if it were all single -family homes. Given the fact that churches had long been legitimate uses in R-1 neighborhoods,' he did not think it was extreme-. He also thought the trips were un- obtrusive trips --they took place all through the day. He said he thought that during the past ten years there had been a reduction in the total amount of trips used by members of the neighborhood. He thought The Learning Center was a legitimate use at a legiti- mate level and would support the staff- recommendation. He sup- ported the staff recommendation because the church had agreed to apply for a new use permit, which he thought gave the neighbor -- hood a handle on ongoing uses. He believed that one of the ele- .ments of: the new permit should be a reduction in the number of. meetings because he thought the concern -to the nei ghbor hood was that when there were large scale Meetings, that .was a major in- trusion. , He would also like to see a one year -review if pose sible. He would not agree with Councilmember Klein that -_900 trips per month should` be the standard because: that '-was too severe in his view. Councilmember i yer l y said he was sure all of the Councilmember s supported child care, and that the facilities at the Presbyterian Church were ideal. He felt that the Council had a responsibility to protect R-1 neighborhoods particularly from . such major impacts that traffic from a full scale child care unit could give. He thought this neighborhood was carrying far more than their shave of special use permits within the City. After reviewing all of the evidence ,presented, it was obvious that the users of the 1 3 5 5 10/19/81 infant/toddler center would be far more scattered than the immediate neighborhood which .meant that bicycles and walking could be talked about, but in reality, there would be quite a bit of car traffic. He was concerned about. the traffic impacts and thought that initially the maximum number of children permitted at one time should be lower than 25. e He had fears similar to Councilmembers Fazzino and Klein that the child care people might not be able tC make a go of it with a limitation of 900 trips per 28 -day period. He would not support the amendment. Councilmember Eyerl_y said that regarding the Church, as the min- utes and documentation -reflected, the neighborhood was an active user of the Church's facilities and the usage had been somewhat of a burden upon the immediate .community for some time. He thought some of the overall usage should be cut back by not being too stringent on the immediate use permit for the child care, but by negotiating with the Church when it applied for a new use permit. He thought everything might come together if the child care level could be set lower ,which would be acceptable, and staff try to handle the other .traffic items in the other use permit. Councilmember Bechtel said -there was no question, that a child care center was needed. At the same time, the R-1 neighborhood must be preserved, and that the particular neighborhood involved had been impacted far more than any other R-1 neighborhood in Palo Alto. She detected some reluctance in the spokesperson for the Church on' any willingness to restrict the Church's use fur- ther. She would be interested in. Councilmember Klein's amend- ments, but felt that the Council should adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation which included that the day care cen- ter would get a use permit contingent upon the Church securing a new use permit with all the conditions discussed by the neighbors and the church including reduction of meetings, etc. If that was not possible, the day care center's use permit would have to be revoked. She felt it was up to the.Church to come up with ways of reducing the impacts upon the immediate neighborhood. • Mayor Henderson said he was bothered by Mr. Eft's response about who had responsibility for deciding the use of the Church proper- ty, because it gave him the impression that almost anything could be justified. He was concerned about the current open-ended use permit and would like to find a way to get to it. He did not want to pick on one organization, but although "New Mays to Work" was a special kind of agency, Mayor Henderson thought its services went beyond what he defined as church ministry. Now, there were going to be evening and weekend workshops, seminars, etc. He was willing to put some limit on the child care facilities to make it go, but not below 25 children, and he wanted some way to control the present uses of Westminster House. He would support the child cane center and would do everything he could to get it in there. Vice Mayor Fletcher pointed, out that the figures given to the Counci lmembers for typical R-1 neighborhood trips were not typi- cal of Palo Alto neighborhoods. She had been going door to door, and time and again she came across single-family homes which were being used by six or eight unrelated per sons each ' owning a car and generating contideralbl) more trips than the types of neigh- borhoods which were samples for the figures presented today. Furthermore, the disturbances from that type of use in R-1 neigh- borhoods were' far greater than : the child care center could gener- ate. The complaints she had heard from people in R-1 neighbor- hoods were about the rowdiness, -the loud .:motors of autos and motor bikes of the young tenants of the buildings, long and loud parties, etc. She said it appeared that the number of activities cl the Church was a surprise to the neighbors because from what 1 3 6 6 10/19/81 she had read in the minutes, they were not aware of them until they were pointed out to them by the Planning. Department Since she had been a member of the Council, she had never received a complaint from anyone in that neighborhood about excess traffic. She felt that the disturbances from the Church had been exagger- ated. Councilmember Renzel pointed out that the Presbyterian Church and its various uses would not be' before the Council at all in the absence of the application for The Learning Center, and while all of the Councilmembers were concerned as to how church related uses could be controlled, the only way the Council would have control of this particular situation was to attach the control to the issuance of a use permit for the child care facility. She said the facilities were adequate and the neighbors were not eon-. cerned about this particular use, but rather the overall level of use. -Further, when the church had 1200 'members, if they all went to church on Sunday, the monthly quota of traffic and parking would occur on one Sunday. She felt the Church was built and authorized at a time when the congregation was Much larger and the neighborhood accepted it then. Recognizing that times, have changed and. the kinds of demands have changed, the- neighborhood would benefit if the use permit was issued, and if some addition- al limitations were accepted by the Church on its basic use per- mit. she thought that the Church had indicated a strong willing- ness to compromise, and felt that should be recognized also. Mr. Freeland commented on Vice Mayor Fletcher's suggestion re- garding a potential to adjust the number of children up and down over a period of time -dependent upon the amount of traffic gener- ated, he was concerned that it implied that the Council might be put in a situation of having to reduce the number of children. He did not wart to go that way unless the Council was prepared at some point to have to cut back on the number of children. He was also concerned that 75 daily trips was harder to measure with certainty -than 25 children per day would be, which put the fac goal question somewhat in doubt ;hen the performance was looked at annually.- He was not sure if he understood Councilmember Klein's proposal of no more than 900 trips per 28 -day period for the day care center, which would imply something like one car for every three children and/or adults coming to the center. If there was "a. decrease in the total use of the site, it would be possible to consider an increase at The Learning Center. He asked if that meant that if there were less than 900 trips per month at The Learning Center and if Westminster House church activities and outside groups fell less than the number indi. cated, : t would be possible to increase the number of children at The l..ear ni ng Center 7 Councilmember Klein said he felt that 25 children wa:s an appro- priate number and if conditions ever changed he imagin xd that TLC would apply for an amendment The purpose of his 900 figure was;. to get around the problem that the rest of the use of the site could not be discussed. In effect, he was trying to hold out..a carrot to get -the other organizations at Westminster House to cooperate. If they could lower their usage by 500 trips per month, that would get the child care level higher. Mayor Henderson said he assumed that all of the counts were ap- proximate, and he asked what was expected of the child care cen- ter? Mrs Freeland said it was hard to. monitor. He had some estimates based on assumptions about how children would arrive. As 'to 'the uses at Westminster, House and the Church, those were derived from data submitted by those achyities at the facility. He said it was not information which was normally available. Mr. Freeland 1 1 1 1 3 6 7 10/19/81 said a ;lot of cooperation would be needed in order to monitor activities at the facility. Vice Mayor Fletcher thought it was easy enough to survey parents of the users, and if it looks as though traffic counts were out of line, she was sure the neighborhood would let the Council- rnember s_ know. Counci lrnember Levy said he would vote reluctantly against the. amendment because from a practical standpoint:, it would be tbo hard to_ count all .the trips. He thought it would even be diffi- cult for everybody` to understand what was meant by a trip. He thought the discussion had been worthwhile becarlse the Council had to start getting to ways to give people incentives to get out of their cars. He hoped that perhaps by allowing the Center to have more children if they had more from within the half -mile radius than if there were more from farther -away might be an incentive. Further, he hoped that no-one forgot that during the first couple of years, there would still be a lot of children from Menlo Park, and they had to come by car ore bicycle. Phasing down to the number of trips the Council was talking about would take about two years. Mayor Henderson said he would vote no on the amendment because he thought each side had to be willing to give, but he would support the Planning'Commissior! recommendation. AMENDMENT FAILED to increase children to 30 if the daily traffic generated did not exceed 75 cars by a vote of 7-2, Renzel and Fletcher voting "aye." AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Fletcher,- seconded by Henderson, moved that condition (3) be changed to --read, "The day care center shall give first priority in the admission of new children to families living or working -within one-half mile from the church, ar'd shall give _.second priority. to families living or. working within one rile-- from the church." Mayor Henderson said he understood that the PACCC program was designated for people who lived and worked in Palo Alto. He thought that the limitation within the distance of one-half mile to a mile would be in line with the Council's general policy. Vice Mayor Fletcher added that it certainly would be to the bene- fit of cutting down on automobile trips if the parents could park in the work place and walk over with the child. Counci lmember Renzel said she thought that as a practical matter, and it was the reason she did hot second the motion, it was un- likely that a parent would drive to work and walk the child. The --purpose of the priority ire, the re'r omnendation was clearly to eliminate car trips. She would not support the amendment because she thought it was clearly directed at elimination of car trips, and she did not think. it was clear that ;lust working nearby would, do that., AMENDMENT FAILED :by a vote .of 7-2, Fletcher and Henderson voting "aye -8 Councils1ember Klein announced that he would not introduce his trips proposal because of lack of support. He thought thy Coun- cil had a second shot at this and he expected that when the new use permit was beft a them, they would be; .cooking for, an overall reduction in the number of trips produced by other . activities on the site to at least balance off the increase what would occur as 1 3 6 8 10/19/81 a result of the child care center. He thought that everyone should be realistic and be planning for that because if he heard his colleagues correctly, that was where they were.. He thought everyone supported the child care center, but really wanted to yet a handle on the traffic. Mayor Henderson agreed with Ceuncilmember Klein. Councilmember Witherspoon added that a use permit went with the land. Ten years from now maybe The Learning Center won't be there, but some other child care group could take advantage of that. use ,permit and put or either a good or bad program. The future must be looked at. She asked if it was possible to have a use permit reviewed? Mr. Maynor said no. Unless Council had good reason 'to feel that conditions, in the neighborhood would change within- the next two or three years, it was not an appropriate condition. Councilmember Klein. said he thought the test Mr. Maynor mentioned had been met. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that the use permit be reviewed one year from now. Vice Mayor Fletcher pointed out that use permit could be revoked if conditions were not met. She would not support the amendment because it was very disruptive for a child care center to relo- cate and not know how long they world stay. They would have to make some changes to the facility and she thought it was too much disruption to only allow them one year and possibly make them :move. Mr. Maynor suggested that there was a likelihood of some •changes in conditions because Council had another use permit to -leek at. He thought that might be a basis for Council to review it within one year, but thought the law was generally that Council had to anticipate some changes in the surrounding area which •could in- clude the -other uses in -the area. He thought it would be appro- priate for Council to impose that condition tonight anticipating 0 possible change in the other. uses and perhaps a reduction of usage. Councilmember Renzel said she would oppose the amendment. She said that the Council and the Planning Commission had scrutinized the proposal and it had been conditioned upon the Presbyterian Church applying for a new use permit that would allow the City. more control. She thought the Council should have some faith in their decision and not constantly ask TLC to come back and be reviewed. It might be a political thing to do, but she thought it was destructive to the process and the people who were trying to do constructive things in the community. Child care certer s were operating on marginal budgets, long hours were put in to make them work, and it was a misteke for the Council to pot just bite the bullet and make the decision. {Here were a lot of cop ditions already placed on this, it had been cut way back from what they asked for, and the Church. was coming in for 'a new use permit or else this permit would not go into effect. Mayor Henderson said that since the word "political" was used, he felt that if the amendment were passed, the whole thing might pass. He would support the amendment because he warted the child care proposal to pass. C©unc:i imember Bechtel said she would support the amendment be- cause she thought - there were enough reasons to review it next year, and there were enough loose ends that Council needed the chance to look at again. 1 3.6 9 10/1.9/31 Mr. Maynor added that the Zoning Administrator would be the per- son reviewing the permit within one year. He thought the Council should think about what criteria they wanted the Zoning Adminis- trator to follow when he reviewed this --if the Council was pri- marily concerned with the things which had been discussed to- night, i.e., the number of trips. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Renzel and Fletcher voting "no." 1 AMENDMENT: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fazzino, that within five years, 75% of the children at The Learning Center come from Palo Alto. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Fletcher voting "no." MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Fletcher, that Item 13-A, application.of Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space Dis- trict for Site an& Desigri Review be brought forward for action. MOTION PASSED unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMEND APPROVAL. OF THE APPLICATION OF MID -PENINSULA REGIONAL 77-3157AU DISTRICT FAR SITE ND DESIGN RE IEW FeR ReDI-Ne, S R CMR: • :1j Staff recommends that Council adopt a motion finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and approving the Site and Design application with the following con- ditions: N L T AT 32100 PAGE MILL 1. A ten foot wide. apron where the parking lot access meets Page Mill Road will be paved with asphalt to minimize the accumu- lation of gravel from the lot on the road, Z. Prior to development of the landscape reserve area for park- ing, the application will be forwarded to the Marring Com- mission and City Council to find that a need exists to -re- quire expansion of the lot. Tom Harrington, 4201 Page Mill Road, said he had been working with the Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space District to try and iron out a parking lot plan. His house looked over the parking lot, and in general, it was a pretty good plan. He was disturbed .with the overflow area. He said the Planning Commission recom- mendation that basically the entire plan be cast in concrete in- cluding the overflow area. He thought there was a design flaw in that area. The Planning Commission minutes said that if there was an overflow in -parking needed in the future, they come back for Site and Design approval as well as proof that '. extr.a parking was needed. The staff recommended they cone back and show need only, which he thought indicated that the whole plan was set for- ever including the overflow. He asked that Council either add to the staff requirement that the applicant, come in for Site and Design Approval whenever they came in for the . need for the over- flow area, or send it back to the Planning Commission to argue out the problems. Planning Commission Chairperson, Jean McCown-Hawkes said that the evening this application was considered, the Planning Commission hat; -gone through their agenda very quickly, and Mr. 'Harrington did not arrive in time to express his concern about the location, of the overflow area. She said the motion had been made by CO misslonr r Nichols, and Commissioner Heneke moved the ;language 1 3 7 0 10/19/81 aUaD SI N Mi P FOR PROPERTY I. CATER AT E Planning Commission Chairperson, Jean McCown-Hawkes said that regarding the number of parking spaces arid the problem created by the dispute over .the easement, she went back through the staff report- submitted to the Commission, and the report that they had contained an incorrect figure that the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance for this site would be 143 parking spaces total In the Commission's minutes, that number was mentioned by Mr. Schreiber, and later in his discussion he stated that the re- quirement was actually 165 spaces which he, by the administrative process, had reduced by nine percent down to 152 spaces. She thought there was some confusion that when the proposal was ap- proved the 146 spaces being provided underground were in excess of the requirements and, therefore, the dispute about the ease- ment and whether there_, were six spaces or not was not . a signifi- cant problem to the Commission. In fact, the reduction, if those six spaces were not provided because of the issue over the ease- ment, and a total of 146 spaces was all that could be :required, was a reduction of 12%. Loring Administrator, Robert Brown, asked Council to note that' staff was proposing an additional condition_ which required the developer to make off -site sewer improvements. The sewer capac- ity in the area was found to be inadequate. City Attorney -Don Maynor, asked if recommendation No. 4 meant that the six parking spaces were permitted, but were not required of the subdivision?. that the development of the landscape reserve area for parking purposes shall not occur without review and approval by the Plan- ning Commission in detail. She said there was no issue before the Planning Commission because Mr. Harrington was rot there, that there would be any problems with the location of the land- scape reserve. The concern which was raised and became part of the motion was the issue of the need to discourage the use of private automobiles to get up to the site. The Planning Commis- sion had intended that their basic design concept would be ap- proved now, and the review in the future would be whether the space was needed. The -Commission wanted to have the opportunity to look at that to make sure the District had done everything possible to implement car pooling programs, or bicycles or what- ever means could be used to avoid the necessity of activating the reserve area, but that the. Site and Design review would be com- pleted now. Herb Grench, Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space District, said he hoped Council would accept the staff recommendation. He thought this had been one of the most thoroughly discussed, -researched and planned parking lots in the history of Palo Alto. One of the thi nys the architect had worked very hard on was the landscape reserve area. The idea for putting in a landscape reserve area at this time came from a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and MPROSO Board of Directors. He hoped they would not have to come back at a later date and go through the planning of the landscape reserve again. MOTION: Councilr-,+ember Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommen- dation with the condition for a site and design review for the grading, development and'landscaping of a parking lot at 32100 Page Mill Road. MOTION PASSED unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION JF HMH INCORPORATED FOR A TENTATIVE L CAMINO WAS;:AND JAMES 1 3 7 I. 10/19/81 Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland, responded that they were permitted but not required. He said there was an issue about an easement dispute between this property owner and the adjoining property owner . The concern was that if it was a requirement and if in the future the dispute over the easement went against the establishment of those six spaces, the. Commission did not want the project -itself held in jeopardy because of those six spaces. Ms. McCown-Hawkes said that Mr. Maynor was correct. She could not suggest that the Planning Commission would change that recom- mendation, but her recollection of their discussion was'that they made the recommendation on the assumption that the City would get, regardless of those six spaces, a total of 146 spaces under- ground, which was in excess of what she believed Ito be the re- quirement of,143. In fact, 143 was not the requirement and 146 was less than the required parking of 152 spaces even as adminis- tratively reduc-ed by the Director of Planning. Mn, Freeland said that to get technical, the requirement becomes the reduced number as agreed to by the Planning Director. The ordinance provided the authority to have the required number re- duced An the circumstances of mixed use. They were meeting the requirements, but the requirements were reduced because of the mixed use of the site. Coun.cilmember Fyeriy said he noted that the Councilmernbers had received a letter from Conrad Cullixson which dealt with the easement Mr, Freeland mentioned. As he understood the letter, there was an easement now to one lot, and the developer desired the use of that easement to connect to a total of five lots. He asked staff for comMents as to how that complaint should be handled. Mt. Maynor responded that there was apparently a dispute over the existing easement and whether it was being wrongfully expanded in use. Apparently, the Planning Commission felt that it was not a significant issue because the parking requirements were already being met. If he understood Ms. McCown-Hawkes correctly, perhaps the Planning Commiss onss understanding was not correct, and per- haps the six spaces did become important, then he thought the easement issue would have to be resolved. He did not think the City Council was an appropriate body to determine which party was correct on the easement issue, but he thought the parties shculd have an opportunity between no.w and the final map to resolve their easement problem. He suggested that the Council indicate that the requirement of the six parking spaces on that easement was a condition of the map, which would give Mt. Cul l i xson an -opportunity to file a lawsuit and have a court determine whether the easement was in _fact being wrongfully expanded. Mr. Fr ee i and thought the concern would be that if those six spaces were in fact a requirement, and if they could not be pro- vided because of a court finding that the easement was being expanded inappropriately, then the final map of the subdivision could not be filed because the conditions of the tentative map could not be met. It was for that technical reason that the Commission made those six spaces permissive .rather than mandatory so that in the event there was a fi ndng that those spaces were an inappropriate use • of the easement, the project would not be killed. Mr. Maynor asked. if_ the six spaces were required by the Zoning_ Ordinance? Mr Freeland responded that it ;was a judgmental matter. The ordinance allowed a f20% reduction in, the number of parking spaces. for a mixed use project. The Planning -D rector had initially 13 7 2 10/19/81 approved a 9% reduction and it the course of the hearing at the Planning Commission, the issue of the additional spaces came up. If the six spaces were not approved, that would be an overall 12% reduction as compared to the full value of the Zoning Ordinance. Twelve percent was still well within the 20% limit. He thought that Mr. Schreiber's feeling at the meeting was that 12% was still acceptable to hirn so in effect it was up to Council's own satisfaction whether a 12% reduction on this project was accept- able knowing that the Planning Director had concurred with it in the course of the hearing at the Commission. Mr. Maynor said he thought condition #4 was appropriate under the circomstances. There was a 20% limit which allowed for a 20% re- duction which had not been exceeded. Councilmember Levy asked if those six spaces were not required, in any -conflict over that easement, would the :person who did not want the easement granted win his case defacto because the City said the easement was no longer necessary? Mr. Maynor said there was an. existing easement,. and the question was whether the easement could be expanded to allow an additional five or six }spaces. If one of the parties wanted to litigate that issue, that was fine --it would not affect the subdivision. Councilmember Levy asked if the Council's statement that those parking spaces were not a requirement, would have anything to do with the court's decision? Mr. Mayor said no. Councilmember Renzel said her Major concern was the oiu- problem of drainage and how much build up of the property there would be. She asked to which public street the site was going to drain? Mr. Brown responded that there was,, a requirement of the APB ap- proval that a ;site drainage plan be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Councilmember Renzel said that was a standard condition, and it was a standard problem because in order to do that, there was often .a grade elevation change at the rear- of the property. In this instance, the rear of the property abutted R-i. If El Camino Way or dames Road were taken as the drainage point, the City had a property with the Cesano property where they were going to have to be four feet higher at the back elevation in order to drain to El Camino. What was done was a compromise that allowed the last 20 feet to drain toward the rear of the property since it was all landscaped anyway and would not create any in- crease over the natural land. Unfortunately, it was not done for a variety of reasons and there were problems. She wanted to make certain that there was not a grade elevation at the property line that would be tw►o, three or four feet higher. Right now Tennessee. Lane was shown as 42 and El Can r'o was shown at 45, which would suggest a three foot grade charge at the end of Tennessee Lane. She did not think it was acceptable for the Council to approve the map at this point without being certain that it was not more than just a drainage plan being submitted, and also that there would be no grade differential along the R-1 property line. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzi no moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendations that the project -'includ- ing ti:e design and improvements (e.g. the street alignments, drainage, and sanitary fatilitie3, locations and size of all re- quired rights -of -way, lot size and configuration,,gradirg and traffic access) is consistent with the adopted ComprehensivePlan and complies with the Subdivision Map Act and. Title 21 of the Palo Alto Muncipal Code; that the project will not have a signi- ficant impact oh the environment nor be likely to result in seri- ous public, health problems; that the size is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed development; aid that there are not conflicts with public easements, and recommend ape proval with the following:conditions: 1) Improvement plans with- in the City right-of-way including landscaping and sidewalk con- struction, shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval priein to issuance of a building permit. 2) An internal drainage plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) The developer shall provide six (6) BMR units -- 2 one -bedroom units and 4 two -bedroom units, at prices to be determined at the time of final inspection based on the current BMR price list at the time of application for a Use and Occupancy permit. 4) The six on -grade parking spaces are permitted, but .are not a requirement of the subdivision. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel that the drainage plan be designed so as not to create a grading dif- ferential along the R-1 (easterly) property line. Mr . Brown mentioned that .at the Planning Commission meeting, one member of tree public who lived adjacent to the site in the R- l neighborhood was concerned that the project would be -on a raised grade and that the buildings would be higher than the proposed height over the existing grade, and the developer assured her that the existing grade would be maintained. Councilmember. Renzel said she was aware of that, but the problem was what the developer's i nter+t was and what he required in terms of drainage t.g the public street was different than what. the City. required. - She Was concerned both from the elevations of the buildings and from the 'differentials along the property lines that that problem -not be run into. She wanted it addressed so that there would not be that grade differential at the property lines on east side of the project. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open. John Traynor, 30 Churchill Avenue, represented Traynor and Silver, which had the property to the south of the proposed de- velopment. The matter before the Council tonight went far beyond the issue of a private dispute between landowners over level of use of an easement, which appeared to be the City's position. He said the City was taking an active role in that it was being asked to merge five parcels into one in a manner which would ex- tend the easement rights over his property to other private prop- erties which were not included in the original grant. They felt that the City did not have the legal authority to create .,, easement rights over their private property for the benefit of other pri- vate property. They had no objections to the merger of the five. parcels�.provided that the easement was concurrently extinguished. The ARB, Planning Commission and staff aft appeared to have agreed that the project. could proceed without the easement, al- though that was modified tonight, and they, therefore, requested that the City of Palo Alto not approve the merger of the five parcels as proposed, or that the plan be modified to exclude use of their property. Regarding drainage, the surface drainage of the back property did go into their easement area and created a mud hole. He said they would appreciate the drainage goirg to, a public street, not through their property. He was u>>der the im- pression that there wls more than adequate underground parking to meet the requirements of the development, and that the project would be able to move forward without the six parking spaces an their property. They were not opposed to the project, but were opposed to the impact on their property. 1 3 7 4 10/19/81 Mayor Henderson said the parking was not a requirement, and that as he understood Mr. Traynor, he was not wi l l i ng to allow the easement to be used. Mr. Traynor said that was correct. What 'was actually happening was that there were five parcels, only one of which had an ease- ment, onto their property. By Merging the five parcels, people who bought condominiums over on James practically would have the right to use their. property. It would. extend. the easement .over their property all the way over to James Road. He thought it was an unusual situation, and they felt that the merger would actual- ly cause an extinguishment of the. easement by itself. Councilmembes Klein said they had been advised by the City Attorney that that issue was not before the Council. The ease- ment issue was really between two private parties, and the City had no authority to grant anyone that easement. Mr. Traynor said that` by allowing the merger to occur, the City was it effect involved in expanding the easement. He thought by the € sere fact that the City was allowing this to occur, involved the City. ;fir. Maynor said he understood that the easement was not necessary to the subdivision. As far as the City was concerned, the ease- ment was not vecessary lior subdivision for parking purposes or any other reason. If, in fact, the developer used the easement improperly, then they had their own legal recourse to pursue. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said that this project exemplified some of the problems of the zoning ordinance as currently written. He asked the Council to make the appropriate revisions on this proj- ect. First, regarding parking, when this was discussed by the Planning Commission when the zoning ordinance was being discussed and adopted, the figure of 20% was thrown out by Mr. Knox, and it related at that tine primarily to (neighborhood commercial and service commercial zeines, which were thought to most likely have most likely have mixed use. The public asked about the 20% rationale, and it was pointed out that dependent upon what the commercial use was, an increase in parking might be needed. . The administrative reduction of 20% or in this case going from 9% to 12% was not justified by any actual fi rid i rg of fact --it was just in the zoning ordinance. If the easemernt were lost and they lost the six parking spaces, it was legal --which did not make it right. He thought there might be a necessity to re-evaluate that and he thought the Council should look carefully at what was really required,. not just what was allowed. Second, the zoning ordinance as originally resented to the City Council, had a re- quirement in mixed use zones for "usable open space," which was. deleted at the. Council level by a narrow vote, not because it was found that people did not need usable open space in residential zones or residential and nixed use zones, but because it was felt to be more economical not to have it in. He thought that should be re-examined because this was cramming it in and the people that lived there were not going to be living very comfortably. Third, the overall attitude that a developer could build; to the maximum of the -'zoning envelope which was they had done in the case of the RM-5 and RM-2 tones. He asked that this be remanded back to Planning Commission and that they look at it in the light of the deficency of the zoning ordinance and come back with a less intense plan with more parking; or, if Council wished to accept this as is, he suggested reducing, the commercial coverage on the site which would then automatically reduce the need for parking, Mayor Henderson declared the public -hearing: closed. 1 1 1 3 7 5 10/19/81 Councilmember Witherspoon said that when the zoning ordinance was being designed, Council was trying to get an incentive to use the minced zone, which was why the parking requirements were flexible as determined by the Zoning Administrator and why the open space was hotly debated. She thought that, one of the successes seemed to be that this was the only residential. type construction in the City for themnext year or so. She did not want to change the game plan in c'the _middle of a game. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Council ember Bechtel commented that she supported the addition of housing along the 'El Camino and El Camino Way area. She said she had heard from a number of residents in the area that there really was not adequate police protection and polite patrolling. 'She asked the City Manager to make a comment to the Police Chief that a little more police surveillance- in that general area would help. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. Mayor Henderson complimented Mr. Cox oe his sensitivity in the work he had done in the relocation of the people on that prop- erty. PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE }PPLICATION OF ROSS WILSON ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED FOR A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED /\T 4250 EL CAMINO REAL MOTION: Vice Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendations that the project, includ- ing the design and improvements (e . g . , the street alignments, drainage and sanitary facilities, locations and size of all required rights -of -way, lot size and confi gura_t:ior!, grading and traffic access) is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Par and complies with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment nor be likely to result in serious public health problems; that the site is physically suit- able for the type and density of the proposed development; and that there are .not conflicts with public easements, and recommend approval with the followir':g conditions: 1) Thee developer shall pay for the bonded assessmer't on the property or apply to the City Engineer for -segregation prior to filing the final map. 2) The developer shall submit to the City Manager and obtain eap- proval prier to issuance of a building permit. 3) The developer shall sell twelve (12) Type A units (1 bedroom, 515 sq. ft.) at a price of $55,000, with occupancy in -compliance. with the -BMR program as administered by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. These BMR units shall be limited to a maximum of six per building and, shall be distributed by floor, Should the project be con- structed inephaseet the number of BMR units in the first phase shall be at least 10% of. the total _ nunrher of ur.iis. 4) The de- veloper shall bear all- costs for expanding the size and capacity Of the sewer system between Arastredero Road .and Vista Avenue to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer, Water -Gas -Sewer Depart- ment. Mayor Henderson said he was concerned that there were a number of very tall trees along the north border that acted as a screen for the whole neighborhood. He wanted., _to know how many of those trees would be removed? Ross Wilson Enterprises, Inc. representative (no name given) said that the initial concept of the project was to preserve as many of the :mature trees as possible on the site. With the exception of one major cedar, all of the specimen trees :)r the site had 1 3 7 5 10/19/81; been preserved. At great expense, the parking garage which was a major excavation wound around the trees -and saved several major specimen trees. Ross Wilson Enterprises, Inc. felt they had tried to-do..as good a job as possible to preserve the character of the site. At the Architectural Review Board stage, as well as the Planning Commission stage, they took'a manlift machine and tried to photograph the re i ghbor hood from 10 feet, ' 20 feet, and 30 feet to approximate the views both from the project into the neighboring homesites as well as taking shots from the neighbor- ing sites into the project and they hoped that in saving the ma- jor trees that the project would maintain some scale and fit into the site as is. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, was concerted about the nature of the hour i ng. He thought they; .were all Very small units and- would be oc- cupied either by single adults or working couples. He -said there was no provision for families at all even though there would be access if there were families living there for children -to go - down _through the fire exit to the new Terman Community Center. 1 -le thought it was ba_d public policy to approve such large devel- opmerts and essentially, exclude families. He- suggested that the mix bf the units be changed to include some standard two -bedroom units, at least 10%, and instead of the BMR units all being the smaller units, include at least ore ore two two -bedroom units to encourage some below market or subsidized housing for families. One of the problems with the zoning. ordinance was that everyone . i me the public asked about the maximum site coverage and inten- sity of use,- they were told that one of the limiting factors was parking. This was -a high intensity use not for families and he thought that should be rectified. Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing closed. Vice Mayor Fletcher commented that since the units were small, they were much more affordable. She said there was a tremendous need for small units. She was in favor of attracting families and hoped they were not being excluded by Council 'approving this particular project. She pointed out that there were 117 units provided where there could have been 230,000 square feet of commercial. The double master bedroom type of unit was another innovative opportunity for shared costs and shared housing in this particular case. The overriding new innovative program was the van 'pooling program which was part of this project. She would support the motion. Coup+cilrnem.ber Levy said he had no objection to this particular site, but he thought the Council should be sensitive to the- fact that every possible site in Palo Alto in the near future-- ezeAld be developed to Very close to its maximum capacity. If that was done, the population of -Palo Alto would be increased greatly. He thought the Council should begin to take steps to rezone the high density sites, Councilmernber Renzel commented .that this was the first project in recent tunes that was 100% residential in a commercial zone. She was pleased to see that. MOTION PASSED unanimously. PUBLIC HEAR ;N0- PLANNING_ COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS TO DMI N I S R R ND a NY H M RE S ND O ER E ER2,0N FOR A DS1 _ ERM1T FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4141 EL CAMINO REAL (ETHAN'S MOTION; Vice Mayor Fletcher moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt the Planning Commission_ recommendation to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator that the use permitnot be granted. 1 1 1 3 7 10/19/81 Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, he declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Eyerly said that the zoning Administrator in his discussion and comments had pointed out that there was a possibi- lity of increased traffic, and there were no provisions included, nor any idea of parking spaces being added to take care of that. MOTION TO DENY PASSED unanimously. FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TO COUNCIL THAT IT MR. - IMITTEE Br INT D ANNUALLY BY THE CITY MANAGER TO REVIEW INNOVATIVE SOLAR SIGa. 3r MOTION: Counci lmember Levy for the Finance and Public Works Com- mittee moved approval of the establishment of the Solar Pal awards program and that a volunteer, three -person -citizens com- mittee be appointed -annually by -the City Manager to review inno- vative solar installations and design. MOTION PASSED unanimously. FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS TO COUNCIL TO ENTER V W LS i EXTRACT!oNz PROCESSING, AND SALE OF METHANE GAS AT 'fHE PALO ALI`- L A N DrI L L Counci lmember Levy said that this program involved taking methane out of Palo Alto's dump. The .advantages were that the City would get $50,000 per year with which to offset the garbage rates. It would provide a better environment for a park ir that area by preserving the landscape route system from gas seepage, and it reduced .the risk of explosion. He_,,said a processing facility would need to be built,' but that woi ld be subject to Planning -- Commission and Architectural Review Board approval. Getty Synthetic Fuels, Inc., who would be the contractor, would con- struct and remove the processing facility. He said the City would receive a royalty of 12-1/2% of the gross. This would be a contract for ten years and would carry with it, two five-year renewals. He said the question was raised why competitive bids were not requested, and the answer was that Getty was the only reliable fire in the field. The other question was whether there would be an adverse effect on the Baylands, and the Committee was satisfied that the short-term impacts were outweighed by the long-range benefits of removing the methane from the site. MOTION: --- Cour+ci imernber Levy for the finance and Public Works .Committee moved approval of the contract with Getty Synthetic Fuels, Inc.. AWARD: OF CONTRACT Getty 5yrthet is Fuels, Inc. Counci?rnember Renzel said there . was no indication of where the test . collection station was, proposed to be. Assistant Director_ of Public Works, Dale Pfeiffer introduced Jim Rawson from Getty Synthetic Fuels, Inca James C. Rawson, Marketing Manager, _ Getty Synthetic Fuels, Inc. said there was no test station, that they used mobile test .rigs which were vacuum pumps on wheels. They would drill some holes into the landfill itself; which were "the wells, and they inserted 1. 3 7 8 10/19/81 their pipes into the wells and pull a vacuum on ite When the test was completed, everything was removed. Councilmember Renzel said there• was a requirement that Getty in- stali utility 1 Ines and asked if there was any reason that what- ever utility lines were installed could not be underground? COUNCILMEM,BERS FAllINO AND BECHTEL LEFT AT 12:10 a.m. Mr. Rawson said Getty hoped to build the facility, if it proved feasible, as close to the treatment plant as possible so all of the utilities would be underground. Councilmember Renzel asked Mr. P,iaynor what the City's preroga- tives were with respect to Site and Design Review once such a contract was entered into? Ir. Maynor, read, "Nothing herein shall be deemed- to limit or af- fect Lessor's discretion to approve ..or conditionally approve.said permit application." He said those words were contained in the contract. - MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino and Bechtel absent. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRACT= AMENDMENT: ONE YEAR H1G ES . C M: ENS ,TI I# IEFIT FOR LOCAL POLI E MEMBERS CMR': O: 1 City Manager Bill Zaner read the following statement into the record: In compliance with Section 7507 of the Government Code, the fol— lowing cost information must be made public at. least two _weeks prior to. the final reading of the ordinance amending -the City-- PERS Contract providing for benefit increases, The cost of the Benefit -increase amendment, Section•20024.2 known as the One -Year Final Compensation Amendment, has been calculated by PERS to be .930% of the current safety employee payroll, or $56,866 per year. While PERS calculates this cost based on the total safety employee payroll, which includes both fire fighters -and police, the`actual.benefit under this amendment accrues only to sworn police employees. Therefore, if the costs were calculated based only on the police payroll, the percentage increase would be - 2.04%," MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the following resolution and introduced the following ordinance for first reading: RESOLUTION 5964 entitled "RESOLUTION OF -THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMEND- MENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY OF. PALO ALTO" ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING AN AMEND- MENT TO - THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE, CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION: OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES` RETIREMENT -SYSTEM' MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazziro and Bechtel absent.. STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT OF CIVIC CENTER- BUDGET AMENDMENT TCMR:4 Cost nued to ctober MOTION: Councilmember 'Klein moved, seconded by Levy, to continue item to October 26.` 1 1 1 3 7 9 10/19/81 MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino and Bechtel absent. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 12:15 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 42:4-e.ou, Mayor 1 3 8 0 10/19/81