Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-17 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES = PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ViA KZSU • FREOUENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting February 17, 1987 ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 8 0 3 1 Minutes of January 12 and January 19, 1987 8 0 3 2 Consent Calendar 1. Contract with Occupational Health Services, Inc. to Provide Employee Assistance Services to City of Palo Alto Employees 2. Agreement with DKS Associates for_ •Consultant Services for Fuel --Efficient Traffic Signal Management Project 3. Contract with Pacific Contractors, Inc. for Installation of Equipment Foundations at Park Boulevard Substation 4. Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Water District for Construction of Bank Stabilization Measures Along San Franc i squ i to Creek -Between Cower and Waverley Streets 5. Rtsolutian Ordering Summary Vacation of .a Por- tion of a Public Service Easement at 981 Elsinore Drive 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance AmInding Title 18 (Zoning code) re Medical and Professional Offices Grandfathered in Residential Zones 7.. PUBLIC HEARING$ Planning Commission 'scot- mendation re Application of Gilbert M. Meyer Company for a Tentative .Subdivision Map. for,. Property Located at 440 San Antonio Road 8 0 3 2 8 0 3 2 8 0 3 2 8 0 3 2 8 0 3 2 8 0 3 3 8 0 3 3 8 0 2 9 2/17/87 ITEM PAGE 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board Recommendation re ProposedOffice Building by. Richard Peery for Property Located at 1755 Embarcadero Road 9. Shell Indeanni f ica t'`ion Pursuant to Geng Road/ Middlefield Road Exchange Agreement 10. Report re Palo Alto Noise Ordinance 11. Request from Ford Aerospace & Communications Corporation for an Addition to a Structure at 3825 Fabian Way ADJOURNMENT AT 11:57 p.m. 8 0 3 6 8 0 5 1 8 0 5 1 8 0 6 6 8 0 3 0 2/17/87 Q Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 17, 1987 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: Renzel Mayor Woolley announced that a Special Meeting for the purposes of a closed session re litigation to discuss Centur Federal v. Citl of Palo Alto pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) was. heldd in the Council Conference Room at 7:00 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Steven Popell, 14244 Amherst Court, Los Altos Hills, met with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Superintendent and Business Manager recently, and confirmed the use of Property Fund principal. in fical years 1986 and 1987; i.e., about $500,000 last- year and in addition to the fund balance of about $1,000,000 in the current fiscal. year. The public was misinformed by the eon •cant use of such phrases as "$3,000,000 deficit," "living off capital," etc. He suggested figures be presented to clearly distinguish between the operating deficit and the bottom line deficit, i.e., reflec- ting typical revenue and expenses, and lease and interest income. He submitted an exhibit (on file in the City Clerk's office) which clarified what portion of all Property Fund rev- enues to date represented principal; that is, the proceeds from sales of school sites and what portion represented lease and interest income, and: the overall relationship between lease and interest income and transfers from the Property Fund to the General Fund. The actual principal accumulated over the period in question was slightly less than $24/000,000; interest was nearly $10,000,000; nearly $8,000,000 of princi- pal was expended from the Property Fund from fiscal.: year 1979 -*Ito the present time, but it included somewhere between $2,0001000 and $3,000/000 to get sites ready for sale. Only soaae whete between $5.000,000 and $6,000,000 of actual Property Fund principal was used during the period. There was almost a total equilibrium between transfers from the Property Fund of about $9.9 mil/ion and transfersto the General -Fund of about $9.7 million. He did not believe there was a financial imperative to convert to a three-year high school with the ninth grade and its teachers in the middle school until it was known what the voters would support with dollars. 2. Mayor Woolley announced that Council Member Emily Renzel was married last Thursday, and sent the Council's best wishes. MINUTES OF JANUARY 12 and JANUARY 19 1987 MOTION: Vice Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of the Minutes` of January 12 and January 19, 1987, es submitted. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzel absent, Woolley "abstaining" on the Minutes of January 19, 1987. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Sutorius moved, seCdfded by Klein, approval of the Consent Calendar. 1. CONTRACT WITH OCCUPATIONAL. HEALTH SERVICES, INC. TO PROVIDE EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE SERVICES TO CITY OF PALO ALTO EMPLOYEES (CMR:133:7) (520) 2. AGREEMENT WITH DKS ASSOCIATES FOR __ :CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR FUEL --EFFICIENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT (CMR:141:7) (lOG7) 3. CONTRACT WITH PACIFIC CONTRACTORS INC. FOR INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT FOUNDATIONS; AT PARK BOULEVARD SUBSTATION (CMR:130:7) (1101) Staff is further authorized to execute change orders up to $6,500. 4. AGREEMENT WITH SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR CONSTRUC- TION OF BANK STABILIZATION MEASURES AL NG SAN F.RANCISQU TO CREEK BETWEEN COWPER AND WAVERLEY STREETS 10 (CMR:122:7) 73) Staff is further authorized to execute change orders up to $10,000, 5. RESOLUTION 6593 entitled "RESOLUTION OF .THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ORDERING ` E UIIMARY VACATION OF- A PORTION OF A PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT AT 981 ELSINORE DRIVE (CMR a135:7 ) 720--.03/300) MOTION Renna1 absent. 8 8.0 3 2 2/17/87 6. PUBLIC HEARING; ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 18 (ZONING CODE) REGARDING MEDICAL AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES GRANDFATHERED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES (CMR:137s ) (237-01) Mayor Woolley declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the public hearing closed. MOTIONt Council Member Bechtel moved? seconded by Sutorius, approval of the °ramie. for first reading. ORDINANCE FOR FI T READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF 'TEE OF PALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 18 (ZONING_ CODE) REGARDING MEDICAL AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES GRANDFATHER= IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES" MOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzel absent. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLI- CATION OF GILA RT--t4.. METER COMPANY FOR A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PROPE1th LOCATED AT 440 SAN ANTONIO ROAD (268/300) Council Member Cobb asked how many parking spaces, including guest parking, were planned for the project. Associate Planner Sarah Cheney said 103 spaces including 12 guest parking spaces. Mayor Woolley said the particular project yielded 48 units where RM-4 zoning allowed 106 units.. 'She asked how the project's mass or envelope compared in terms of what the RM-4 zoning allowed. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the project was substantially less than the RM-4 mass which would allow up to a 50 -foot height on a significant part of the property. Mayor Woolley declared the public hearing open. Robert Steinberg, 1130 Bryant Street, was the architect for the project and represented the applicant. He appreciated the oppor- tunity to build more residences. in Palo Alto. Council Member Cobb referred to discussion in the Planning Commission minutes about parking along San Antonio Road. He believed the assumption was unrealistic because it was a bad traffic situation, 8 0 3 3 2/17/87 Mr. Steinberg said the issue was raised both at the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning Commission levels and the appli- cant went back and provided additional on -site parking so they would not have to count on the possibility of parking along San Antonio Road. He believed his on -site guest parking spaces exceeded the City's requirements. MOTION: Council Member Fletcher coved, secondel by Levy, approval, with conditions, of the application to subdivide a 2.941 - acre site into 4s residential condominium units finding that the project, including 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 configuration,- grading and traffic access) are consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and complies with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Codes that the project will not have a sig- nificant impact on the environment nor be likely toresult in serious public health problems; that the site is physically suit- able for the type and density of the proposed development; that there are not conflicts with public easements; and recommend approval, subject to the conditions listed below, CQWDITIONS t 1. The developer shall construct an interior drainage system within the property to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. . No surface drainage over the sidewalk will be permitted. 2. Written approval is required from the City of Mountain View Public Works Department for the storm drainage. plan. This plan directs peak condition store water flow to Dell Avenue in Mountain View. 3. The following information shall be provided at least 30 days prior to submittal of final nap application: a. A letter from the Mountain •View Public. Works Department approving the proposed draiwage plan; b. Calculations which determine the additional storm water runoff created by this development as compared to conventional singe-femily dwellings; show method of sizing retention system; . c. Details of tbo proposed storm line to be bored under San Antonio Road. This shall include the invert elevation of the existing line to be commocted into pipe siting and plans for the existing oatca basin. A aarmnhold is require4 at the point whom* tba bore line will connect to the lateral from the site; Show details of flow reduction at this manhole NOTION CONTINUED d. All existing utilities in San Antonio Road in the area of the bore shall be located to the satisfaction of the. Palo Alto Public Works Department; Additional topographical information demonstrating that proposed site grading conforms with .existing drainage patterns at all property lines (this should include existing elevations on adjacent properties near the property line); and Submittal of a detailed soils report, including recommen- dations for site grading, excavation _ and foundation designs, to the Public Works Department for review and. approval. All grading and excavation on the site shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. 4. The Developer shall apply for a "Tract dubber" from the County Assessor's Office. 5. Any construction within the public right-of-way will require a street opening permit from Pubic Works/Engineering. 6. Installation of all street trees shall be subject to the approval of the City Parks Department. a, Street tree species for San Antonio Road will be Robinia Idahoemssis (Idaho Locust) . b. Removal of one or possibly two existing Italian Stone Pines for driveway access will be .permitted. 7. Provide seffieient space on -site for the location of a utility transformer. S. Install two fire hydrants on --site with locations and sPeCificetiseis *object to the approval of the Fire Deportment. 9. InqUide a clause in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for tho 0041000miniwm project which will authorise the None Owners Est$ .tip ; to tow vehicles parked in snauthorizeed epee's or otlierwisis blocking access within the project and to seek reinbusitenest for each towi®g. 8 0 3 5 :2/17/87 NOTION CONTINUED 10. The Developer must pay for the .establishment of .a "no parting" zone on the east side of San Antonio Roadbetween the project's southerly boundary and tho.,.project driveway. The developer shall contact the Transportation Division regarding the measures necessary to implement such a zone. 11. The developer must install a stop sign at the driveway :zit. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzel absent. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD_ RECOMMENDATIONS RE PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING BY RICHARD PEERY FOR PROPERTY LOCATE D AT 1755 EMEBARCADERO ROAD (300) (CMR:140:7 j 138:7) Mayor Woolley complimented the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board (ARB) and staff for the manner in which the applica- tion was handled. Council Member Klein said questions were raised about whether he could participate in the item because he was part owner of prop- erty located at 1717 Embareadero. An appraiser was hired by the City Attorney yin order to ascertain whether any decision he might vote on would have a "significant financial impact" as set forth in the Fair Political Practices Act of the State of California. The appraiser, Mr. Kidder, determined that any potential vote would not have a significant financial impact on his partial own- ership of the site at 1717 Embarcadero, and the City Attorney ruled that he could participate. Planning Commissioner Mark Chandler said the Planning Commission recommendation differed from staff's in that the Planning Commission recommended deletion of the requirement that the owner of the building provide transit passesto employees because of the impracticability of enforcement and because of lack of connections to the site. The Planning Commission recommended staff devise a reasonable payment to be used for restoration of a wetland because the particular site was identified in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as a seasonal wetland. No data were presented regarding other sites in the area and how they might function in that regard. The Planning Commission attempted to evaluate the project as it would any other building of similar scope. The project was. defined as the office building and the associated zone changes and not the larger exchange agreement. The Commission was not unmindful of thesignificance of the project to the community, The Commission relied solely upon the EIR in identifying impacts. 8 0 3 6 '2/17/87 Correspondence suggested it was unfair to impose mitigations for impacts which were not identified in various appraisals, but the Commission was not in a position to substitute the appraisal for the EIR. When the Commission did its environmental review phase, no majority indicated where costs should be borne. The site and design review recommended the applicant should bear mitigation costs as was customarily the case. Several Commissioners clari- fied it was not suggested costs be borne by one party or the other in the exchange process. The Commission's intent was to identify significant impacts and emphasized concern that mitigations be considered. Architectural Review Board (ARB) Member Jon Schink said the ARB believed the project was well designed. City Manager Bill Zaner said in order —to resolve the soils prob- lem, he and Mr. Peery recommended four changes three of which had no associated costs. First, a Development Agreement to guarantee Mr, Peery that conditions decided upon would not be subsequently changed. Second, Mr. Peery and the City would review the appraisals of the properties; and, if necessary, an additional appraisal would be made, at Mr. Peery's expense, to determine the difference between the values of the properties as they presently stood. The City's property was appraised at about $100,000 to $150,000 in favor of Mr. Peery's. Mr. Peery wanted to review the analysis because the City might be getting a substantially larger amount of money as a bonus. Mr. Peery and the City would try to arrange, to the satisfaction of the respective attorneys, that the difference be shown as a gift to the City. The third item related directly to the Planning Commission's recommended conditions. He referred to Item 19 of Exhibit "A," the 24 conditions that required an encroachment permit for the lot development and included maintenance responsibilities which .allowed excavation and repair within the easement by the City but required Mr. Peery to replace any landscaping, patio or paving removed as a result of the City's work. Although possible; it was unlikely the City would have to remove any of the improvements. If it occurred, he recommended the condition be ehanged and the City would bear the cost of ,replacement. Technically, the City was turning the prop- erty over subject to an easement and Mr. Peery needed an encroach- ment permit to encroach into the City's easement. Normally, the City would require Mr. Peery to replace all improvements as removed. If the situation were different and Mr. Peery had the property and gave the City an easement, the situation would be reversed. It was a minimal cost item, and while the City might never need to get into the easement to get to its sewer lines, if it did, it would have to rep? ice the improvements. Item 9 of Exhibit "A* referred to the dra;rage swale to be placed adjacent to the property in order to deal. ‘iith the City's drainage. There was no question the swale requirement derived . from the way Mr. 8 0 3 7 2/17/87 Peery planned to develop the property. It was previously recom- mended that Mr. Peery bear the costs for construction and main- tenance of the swale. In an effort to complete negotiations and put to rest the question of the soils matter, he and Mr. Peery recommended the City construct and maintain the swale. The con- struction would be a one-time cost of about $16,000. The golf course maintained the grounds immediately adjacent to the swale which only required periodic cleaning to ensure the water ran through freely. Subject to the foregoing, he believed there was agreement with Mr. Peery to move ahead with the project, that the properties would exchange prior to the deadline date in May, and that the City would be in possession of the Middlefield property and the ice skating rink. Mayor Woolley clarified the last word in the first sentence of Condition 9 would be changed from "developer" to "City" and the last sentence would be stricken. City Attorney Diane Northway said since the City was subdivider of the land, conditions for which the City would bear responsibility were placed under the subdivision application. She preferred Condition 9 be removed and conditions regarding the drainage swale be placed under the subdivision tentative map conditions. It would become *6 on the top of page 2. Mayor Woolley asked about Condition 19. Ms. Northway said Condition 19 could remain where it was but changed to say the permit shall allow excavation and repair within the easement by the City and require landscaping and patio or paving replacement by the City." Mr. Zaner emphasized the four conditions he recommended were in addition to those included in previous Memoranda. Mayor Woolley asked whether the Development Agreement would be part of the conditioni list or separate. Ms. Northway said in order for the City to enter into the Development Agreement, it required an enabling ordinance or r mad- lution. Since time was short, she recommended a resolution because it was effective immediately. After the resolution became effective, the City would enter into an agreement. She did not believe anything could be done about the Development Agreement that evening. If Council wanted to direct staff to prepare a resolution, it should be done at the conclusion of going through all the items. Regarding the appraisals and tax treatment of any differences,. those items were also not properly addressed that evening because there were not a part of the approval of the particular development. She suggested any direction to staff be done at the conclusion of all the development approvals. 8 0 3 8 2/17/87 1 Mr. Zaner said the budget amendment would need to be changed. It now read $134,000, which was sufficient to bring forward the capital money from next year's budget into the present year for the fence and all the other necessary items. The figure would need to be increased by $i6,000 to become $150,000. Council Member Bechtel queried the $16,000 for the drainage swaie. She understood the swa1e went around the entire property which involved moving dirt, making mounds, replanting grass, etc. She asked how i t could be done for $16,000. Senior Engineer Jim Harrington said the- $16,000 related to a cer- tain portion of the concrete "V" drain surrounding the property and the connection devices, i.e., manholes and pipes. Assistant Director of Public Works George Bagdon said there was about 800 feet o.f swale and the costs would be completely covered by the $16,000. Vice Mayor Sutorius recognized it was inappropriate to take any specific action on the Development Agreement, but he queried whether such an agreement would stipulate no changes in the existing ordinances, such as noise, or codes, such as the Uniform Fire Code, if they were subsequently changed. Ms. N or t ;weir esid mere could be a change for so-callcd "public health and safety" but s.he referred providing a detailed response until appropriate research could be done. Council Member Cobb asked whether Mr. Zaner believed the deal was fair to both parties. Mr. Zaner said on balance, the package was fair and equitable for both sides. • It was safe to say thet if Mr. Peery was simply dealing with a development and the City was dealing with a developer and the complication of a change in City property was not involved, .the City might not do some of the things it was doing and Mr. Peery probably would not do some of things he was doing. If he had to put a dollar value on the package, at that point he believed the City was substantially ahead. Council Meer Levy referred to the $150,000 costs to the City arising out of the exchange, and queried whether it was fair in connection with the whole exchange, and whether the City . Was in complete conformance with the intent. of Measure A. Mr. Zaner said the City was in conformance with the intent of Measure A. The City was prohibited from, spending any funds for maintenance or operations of the ice rink. Of the $150,000, $90,000 was money already budgeted for the fence around the golf 8 0 3 9 2/17/87 course. The money was included in next Projects (CIP) and needed to be brought in the CIP was $125,000 to do the whole there. The fence would be built regardle He pointed out they were really talking ab Mayor Woolley declared the public hearing o year's Capital Improvement forward. The full amount fence, but $90,000 was es of the Peery project. ut $60,000. en. Bob Moss, 4010 Ormei agreed with Mr. Zaner treated equitably and fairly. The differenc City was acquiring property as a net of givi would also be expending a certain amount of mon value to the City of the Middlefield Road directly quantifiable since the City could n benefit from it directly. It was a communit Council later considered the Development Agree those things already agreed upon were adhered t conform with the citizens vote by adopting the Pla recommendation. that Mr. Peery was in "value" was the ng up property, and ey. The additional property was not of turnaround and y benefit. When ment, as long as o, Council would nning Commission John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, said when the issue was placed on the ballot, it was repeatedly claimed the project would go through normal channels and would not be given special consideration. He was concerned about concessions. He agreed with the proposed wetlands mitigations, and suggested the $50,000 be used in the harbor spoils area. The project would effectively dam up the surrounding area and the City way gracious in providing additional land considering that normally the developer would be required to deal with such a problem on -site. He queried whether the City should pay -for the drainage. Council was obliged to the voters not to give the project special consideration. He urged that Council abide to the public trust. Robert Buell, 1480 Hamilton Avenue, was a member of the Golf Advisory Committee, and represented Bob Davis, Chairs the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Golf Corporation. City promised in the agreement between the City and the Corporation that the fence around the driving range end .tha t hole would be upgraded by raising the height to a minimum o feet. Along the north edge all the way from the tee area to tenth green there was a fence varying in height from 30 feet to little as 10 feet. It was a dangerous situation. The fairway w peppered by golf balls constantly and he did not understand w she City took the chance of bearing the tyke of litigation boun to arise if someone was hit by a golf ball. It appeared a 40 -foot .fence would be constructed but it would be around the Ger,g Road property which posed the least hazard to anyone involved, and there was no immediate plan to do the fence along the tenth fain way. He urged careful consideration before someone got hurt. Senior an of The Golf nth 40 the as as by d 8 0 4 0. 2/17/87 Mayor Woolley asked where the new fence would be around the golf course. Mr. Zither said when the City met with the Golf Course Corporation an agreement was entered into whereby the City would include in its CIP fencing for the tenth fairway, which remained in the CIP. The fencing for the Geng Road project completed a portion of that fence. Mr. Bagdon said the fence ran on both sides of the tee area and would be 40 feet high. The tenth fairway side would be a 375 -foot long fence running from the tee area towards the development prop- erty. On the Embarcadero side of the driving range, there would be approximately 350 feet of new fence. The total cost was esti- mated to be in the neighborhood of $90,000 and it appeared to be in the 1988-89 time frame. Mayor Woolley said the planned blueprint was incorrect because it indicated construction of a new fence alone the fairway part of the tenth green. She asked if any portion of the driving range wind not be enclosed by a 30- or 40 -foot fence. Mr. Hagdon said eventually the City hoped to enclose the entire driving range. The current project with the development would put a fence at the end of the driving range and the proposed CIP of 1988-89 would do the two sides which would complete either a 30- or 40 -foot fence ,around the entire driving range. Jack Morton, 2343 Webster, represented the Trust for Community Skating. He said the conditions of the exchange were negotiated openly and in good faith between the Council and the developer to ensure the development met ARB and housing mitigation require- ments. The. City's appraisal was somewhat faulty and the City would end up receiving in exchange value in excess of $150,000. Recently, a serious soil problem was discovered which meant the developer might have to pay as much as $400,000 additional costs for his project. He requested Council override the proposal pre- sented by the Planning Commission since the seasonal wetlands. seemed to. be Largely caused because the City drained the golf course into .the developed parcel. It seemed unfair for Mr. Peery to correct tte drainage condition by paying for the drain and being required to replace land wrongly designated as wetlands. of one set out to design a package to bring the measure to a stop, there could not have been a more burdensome encumbrance on Mr. Peery. He requested Council finalize what the voters approved ---an exchange of parcel for parcel and to approve the conditions worked out in negotiations between the City and Mr. Peery. He urged acceptance of Mr. Zaner's amendments to the planning Commission proposal sand to go on with the future of the parcel. 8 0 4 1 2/17/87 Council Member Klein asked for clarification that the appraisal was "faulty." Mr. Morton said the initial appraisal was faulty in that it was revised downward. The firs' appraisal suggested the City's property was worth substantially more than Mr. Peery's, and the amended appraisal indicated that Mr. Peery's parcel was worth $150,000 more than the City's appraisal indicated. He believed Mr. Peery felt if an appraisal were made in light of the soils problems, the City would be further benefited. Helen Soderquist, 743 Charleston, was a member of the Golf Advisory Board, referred to the necessity of a fence around the tenth green. She would be disappointed if the land swap took any money from the promised fence. Mayor Woolley declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Vic. Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Klein, as follows: 4. That the City Council confirm that it has reviewed and con- sidered the -information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the Enbarcadero Road office building and that the City Council certifies the FUR as com- plete. B. To adopt the resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use:.: ►p for the Mmba.rcadero Road parcel from Public Park to Retorch Office Park. C.' To adopt the ordinance to change the zone classification from Public Facilities (PF) District to Limited Industrial/Research Parma Site and Design Combining (LM -3(D)) District., -mow Site and D. approve the Tentative Map finding that the proposed *.ubdivi- siem, together with the provisions for its design a and improve- ments, is consistent with the Palo alto Comprehensive Plan and 00Oplies with the Subdivision Map Act aed Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, subject to the following conditions: 1. The water; tank near the intersection of Gong and Robarcaadero Reads shall b+s removed by the City prior to the close of asorow. 2, k five—foot wide sidewalk intersecting with the relocated bike path, shall be financed and coastrectsd by ;> City en the frontages of Gang and Sobarcadere Roads. This sidewalk shall meet the City's standard , handicap ramp requirements MOTION CONTINUED 3. The City shall install a 40 -foot fence between the subject parcel and the Municipal Golf Corse in accordance with Architectural Review Board :(ARB) design approval. The fence shall be installed after the drainage swale and rough grading of the building site is completed butprior to occupancy. 4, When the subject parcel Zs conveyed, an easement for a bicycle path shall be reserved by the City. The exact configuration of the easement shall be in conformance with the final landscaping plans. 5. When the subject parcel is conveyed, a 20 -foot wide sanitary sewer easeoeent stroll be reserved by the City. 6, A concrete drainage swats around the perimeter of the office site, adjacent to the golf course, shall be con- structed and maintained by the City. The swale shall be designed to prevent golf balls from entering the store drain system. AP easement shall be oatained, from the City for placement and maintenance of the Swale on City -owned land, prior to the issuance of a building permit. RESOLUTION 6594 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PALO . ALTO COMPREHEN- SIVE PLAN BY AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR TU1 PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1755 EMBARCADERO ROW' ORD M&NC • R FIRST READING entitled *ORDINANCE or THE IL A .. ITT . PALO ALTO £MENDING: . SECTU* 10.00.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING NAP) TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN_.OAS:• 1?SS AIlISARCADERO ROAD FROM PF TCy. LM -3(D) D) FROM PUBLIC raus TO RESEARCH/OFFICE PARK. Council Member Fletcher requested that Item A be separated out for purposes of voting. FIRST PART OP LION R AMINt ITS °A° paused unanimously, Rsn*sl abet" Council :Member Fletcher opined that Parts '18," "C," and "B" were contrary to the policies stated in the Comprehensive Plan. 8 0 4 3 2/17/87 She could not find that the particular development was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. SECOND PART OF MOTION INCLUri.IMG MARTS B, C AND D PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Fletcher voting "no," Renzel absent MOTION; Vice Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by. Cobb, that the City Council approve the project's Site and. Design based on the following findings and conditions; Findings 1. The proposed design will be orderly, har.monious.and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining, property, in that the proposed use will be similar to other uses in the areas, and measures have been incorporated into the project to screen the project from adjacent uses; 2. The project will maintain desirability or investment in the same or adjacent areas, in that the required on -site improvements and landscaping and construction standards governed by the current Uniform Building Code (UBC) or other current codes, will assure a .high quality of development; 3. The proposed design will observe sound principles of environmental design through careful application of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR; 4. The proposed use will be in accord with the _ Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan As ascended; 5. The przpal=t mitigation for the Embarcadero Road/East Bayshore Road intersection is infeasible in that; a. the cost of the intersection mitigation is excessive in relationship to the cost of the development; b. it will result iws the loss of mature landscaping; c. it will create new operation problems caused by inadequate merging distance.; and it will possibly fail to produce a substantial improvement in intersection level of service because of increased traffic diversion from Route 101; and 60 The propose maeshrestoration project is infeasible in that; 8 0 4 4. ,2/17/87 MOTION CONTINUED i a. the cost of marsh restoration is eXce:asive in relationship to the cost of the development,. including the substantial cost of preparing the soil for construction; b. extensive lands in the Bayiaads a:e presently being restored, which sore than compensates : for the loss of 3.7 acres of seasonal wetland habitat; and 7. The Council findsthat the public benefit of the project, in compliance ,with -voter approval : of. a land exchange, which enables a community recreational facility (the ice skating rink) to remain in the City, outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of increased traffic at the E,mbarcadero Road/East. Rayshore Road intersection and loss of 3.7 acres of seasonal .. wetland habitat and that, therefore, . the adverse effects are considered acceptable. With the, following conditions imposed as mitigations to eliminate or substantially lessen the potential significant effects of the project on traffic, Messing and wetlands which have been identi- fied in. the: EIR: as follows: 1. Prior to application for an occupancy permit, the developer shall submit to the Director of .Planning and Community Environment for approval, a detailed writtep. description of how the following Measures will be i.mplomsnttnid and monitored: a. $ainteaaance of timely .commute alternatives infnrnetien in a central location and , distributionof same to - all new employees, The information - should include all • relevant transit system .timetables, information about rideshari.ng from RIDES Aber Bay Vim - Commuters, ; Inc_ ► and County Transit, and information on.. the buildings and tiee. City's bicyc1 14miiities. £ representative of RIDES or County ?ramie* .a may be able to help, set up these information package,. !b Request that the building owner or property manager, in Cooperation with the individual building tenants, insure tbat: mac#employs* receives. the RIDES car pool, match list epplicat form *ad ; information package at least : once sack y 1 `0 8 0 4 5 2/17/87 MOTION CONTINUED 2. The developer shall pay an in -lieu fee of $73,053 (adjusted annually to the Consumer Price Indei4 as required by the Housing psi tigation Ordinance 356011 The following conditions are also imposed: 3. Construction noise will be subject to the . provisions of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance (Ord. 2664) . ,CoP truet.ion. -equipment must be muffled so as not to exceed a noise emission of 83 dBA at a distance of 25 feet. Construction. activities at the project ,site vill be restricted to the weekday hours of 8100 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 4. Specific dust control measures, as identified on Table 3.6-5 of the Draft SIR, shall be implemented during site construction , to reduce dust emission from the. site. 5, All soils and engineering recommendations in the Soils Report shall be closely adhered to in order to ensure proper placement of fill and support structures. 6. Final engineering plans shall be reviewed by a soils engineer and the Public Works Department, prior to construction, to ensure the stability of the final design. 7. All storm drainage lines shall be terminated with a Lls:p-gate placed within an approved manhole structure. The stuotures restricting flow into the City system shall be placed on the outlet of these manholes. Bolt down lids are required. All such manholes shall be located on -site or within the above -mentioned easement. 8. All storm drainage work in the public right -of -sway will require a street opening permit. 9, Final grading and drainage plans shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering at least 38 days prior to .applying for a building permit. The Engineer Bust submit calculations demon- strating the adequacy of the storm -water detention system. Drainage shall be reviewed by the Public ,Works and Utility Departments to easnere that water does not drain on , to the utility station site or crest* blockage. 10. Pill should be ***placed and compacted during a single dry construction season, fresh Ray to Ot>tober, cr as approved by the Public Works Department. NOTION CONTINUED 11. All exposed soils should be mulched and planted with vegetation by October 15, 1907, or as approved by the Public Works Department. 12. Catch basins should b• used to retain sediment within the site er.a during the construction period. 13. Erosion control measures employed during construction eeperatiens should be evaluated and inspected daily by the general contractor's on -sit, representative and periodically by * qualified soils engineer when directed by the Public Works Department to determine effectiveness. 14. Site elevation must . be raised so that the building's first floor elevation is a minimum of 7.5 feat above mean sea level. Site is in Flood Zone Al (elevation 7 feet), 15. All Uniform Fir* Code requirements pertaining to building distance to fire hydrants shall be followed, which may require the installation of an on -site hydrant at . the developer's expense. 16, An encroachment permit is required for lot development over the serer easement. The permit shall allow excavation and repair within the easement by the City and require landscaping and patio or paving replacement by City, 17. Substructures, . including transformer -pad installation shall be done by the developer. The primary on -site cable shall be installed by the City of Palo Alto at. the developer's expense. 10. Relocation of street lights, ii necessary, shall be et the *avelopsr' O . loigkels041. 1"!. New treyoft the tnharcadero .and Gong Road frontages in the lacdscaps easement shall be Nsla1ee case rather than Eucalyptus. Poplar trees shall not be used on the site since tb.y old •create s maintenance problem. .. A detailed Land. p ng pia* akmll. be • roviev.d by the ARS. 20. A detailed photometrit.lighting plan shell. be submitted for ARS. review and *hail : utilise light standards of 12 to 1# feet and shall have and overage toot candle illumination not to exceed one 21. The developer shall participate in the City -sponsored assistanceprogram for reducing solid waste. 8 0 4 7 2/17/87 MOTION CONTINUED Council Member Fletcher was concerned that wetlands mitigation would be required of any other developer. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher moved to . reinstate the item concerning wetlands mitigation. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher moved to substitute "building management° for the word 'developer" in Item 21. Ms. Northway said the conditions were imposed by the City on the developer. The condition was worded to read "developer" because the City could not enforce the conditions against a third party. Council Member Fletcher asked how Council, could be sure the program was continuous. Ms. Northway assumed the conditions would be recorded and be known by the building manager through that process. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MASTER Council Member Fletcher said while she agreed with rnany points in the motion, she could not support the motion because she opposed no wetlands mitigation and could not makeFinding 7. Council. Member Klein was proud to support the motion. Staff, the Trust for Community Skating, Mr. Peery, Mayor Woolley, Vice Mayor Sutorius and Council Member Cobb,, who worked most closely with the project, deserved a' lot of credit. He was pleased to have played a small part in the remarkable achievement. Council Member Patitucci supported the motion. MASER MW SECOND OF MOTION AGREED THAT ITEM 21 SBOOLD s RR ,D "THE OWNSR SHALL PARTICIPATE; IN THE CITY-SPOUSO ED ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR REDUCING" 'SOLID WASTE AND SHALL MOIRE ANT LESSEE THROUGH LEASE AGREEMENTS TO SO PARTICIPATE* Council Member Levy said he no longer had reservations about the process and was pleased to vote in favor of the motion. The issue had undergone a significant public debate and vote which was important to consider as Council analyzed the various mitigation factors proposed. He concurred that the recommended traffic improvements were questionable and should not be imposed at the present time. The traffic mitigations were designed to ameliorate 8 0 4 8 2/17/87 the traffic at an intersection used entirely by the business people who would be working in that area, and he believed they would schedule themselves so as to ameliorate and mitigate the problems. In regard to the wetlands, it was important to recog- nize the two --thirds vote of the City residents was made knowing it represented a. loss of the site as wetlands. The residents voted for the trade-off itself as being the mitigation for the loss of the wetland habitat represented by the three -acre site. He was disappointed the item regarding transit passes was deleted, although he recognized no transit was located near the property. However, as a conceptual matter, the developer provided the occu- pants of any commercial property with a substantial amount of free parking as an incentive for those occupants to use their cars. He encouraged a similar incentive be offered for occupants to use public transportation, bicycles, etc. He commended the Planning Commission, the ARS, and the City Manager for the • i n tense work involved in bringing the project to fruition, which was -also made possible by devoted work by many members of the public. Council Member Cobb was an open advocate of preserving skating in the City but said concessions had not been made in the sense the measures were tough and fair for all concerned. The project was a marvelous example of the public process at work in a positive way, and the public had certainly done a good job in spite of tough, discouraging obstacles. He underscored the fact. Mr. Peery had been generous in his dealings with the people at the, skating rink and without his cooperation the project would not have happened. Council Member Patitucci said the project was -a case study in how the public process .worked. It involved politicians and the com- munity. He believed the solution would be universally accepted and enthusiastically supported the motion. Vice Mayor Sutorius clarified in response to Mr. Mock's concerns that one report was not posted nor available, the report refer- enced by Mayor Woolley was a written reproduction of a view graph used at the Planning Commission and nothing was late in that regard. The data included lent support to the findings made that evening with respect to the modified mitigations. Council Member Fletcher asked whether the February 9, 1987, staff report (C.mR:14Oa7) was available at the Planning Commission meeting; 8 0 4 9 2/17/87 Mr. Zaner believed the report came out following the Planning Commission's action, but copies went to the Planning Commission, Council and Mr. Peery. He believed the report was posted and copies were distributed to the press. Mayor Woolley believed the project offered greater benefits than costs to the community. The package was fair and balanced and she was pleased to support it. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Fletcher voting "no," Menzel absent. MOTION: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Klein. to adopt the budget amendment ordinance. ORDINANCE 3738 A.S AMENDED TO INCREASE AMOUNT TO $150,060 anti t ed RDIR CE OF THE COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 19$6-47 TO PROVIDE AR APPROPRIATION FOR CAPITAL IAUROVE+l!ENT PROJECT NO. Si -42 'GCMG AHD EMBARCADERO ,i . IMPROVEMENTS' N ON PASSED by a vote of 7-1. Fletcher voting "no," Rensol absent. MOTION: Council Member Cobb eoved, seceded by the park improvement ordinance. ORCINANCE FOR FIRST &DING entitled "ORDI AWCB OF THE C i L OF TH�wrC~f '.F G( ALTO APPROVING AND .ADOPTING PLANS FOR CEkTAIN IMPROVEMENTS ON THE MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE' Klein, to adopt MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1. Pletcher voting "ho," Hensel absent. MOTION: Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Cobb, to direct the staff to prepare a development agreement resolution and the development agreement, and review the appraisals of the property! Ms. t4orthway clarified there was insufficient time for the normal City process, and the items would be brought directly back to Council. Mr. Zaner clarified the City would review or have additional appraisals made, but the objective was to determine if there was a sufficient differential for Mr. Peery to make a gift to the City. If .that could be done in a manner satisfactory to Mr. Perry's attorney and the ` City Attorney, and :a t no cost to the City, staff would move in that direction. 8 0 5 0 2/17/87. e 1 Council Member Klein clarified second- or third -round appraisals were not for any purpose except the possibility of Mr. Perry gaining an additional charitable deduction on his tax returns and had no impact whatsoeveron the merits of the transaction. Mr. Zaner said thatewas correct. NOTION PASSED unanimously, Ren;e1 absent. 9. SHELL INDEMNIFICATION PURSUANT TO GENG ROAD MIDDLEFIELD ROAD EXCHANGE AGREEMENT (300/720-02) Mayor Woolley said some last-minute changes were recommended by Shell 011 Company. MOTIO$s Council Me er Bechtel moved, seconded by Sutorius, to approve acceptance by the City of Palo Alto of the indemnification agreeme*t offered by Shell Oil Company as revised. NOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzel absent:, COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9=10 m. to 9:30 .rn. 10. REPORT RE PALO ALTO NOISE ORDINANCE - MODIFICATION OPTIONS T144-01) (CM R :13 6 s 7) Council Member Levy said the second of staff's three options related to prohibiting the use of any gas -powered leaf blower within 250 feet of any single-family or multiple -family residence which would enable gas blowers to fall within an acceptable residential ambient level. of 65 decibels. The option seemed severe, and 110 understood 70 decibels was more or less general street level noise in most residential areas. He asked if staff developed some alternative within that concept of prohibiting the use of blowers that were too loud but which might be easier for some blowers to meet. Assistant Police Chief Chris Durkin said staff considered the 70 - decibel limit but chose to go with the comprehensive plan of 65 decibels recalling that several residential streets with low-ttaff io densities had a lower ambient than 70 decibels, To reach 70 decibels for a leaf blower would be approximately 175 feet in distance rather than 250 feet. Council Meter ivy understood from a leaf -blower manufacturer that . they now had blowers that were of commercial levels that were below 70 decibels and they had talked to City staff who had tested them. He asked for comments. 8 0 5 1 2/17/87 Police Lieutenant Ed Austin said staff tested the PH 4500 model the previous week, and at a distance of 25 feet the blower measured 86 decibels, and at 50 feet it measured 84 decibels at full throttle. At half throttle, the blower measured 72 decibels at 25 feet. In comparison, most gas -powered leaf blowers tested ranged from 85 to 95 decibels. The model was a little lower and did not have the high-pitched whine of most gas -powered leaf blowers. It was definitely the quietest model measured at half throttle. Council Member Patitucci asked for clarification o.f the meaning of decibels and how to interpret them. He understood that going from 70 to 80 decibels doubled the perceived level of sound. Lieutenant Austin said that was correct. Although a six decibel increase doubled the sound pressure, it took a ten decibel increase for the human ear to perceive an actual doubling in the sound amplitude. Council Member Patitucci understood the doubled occurred again at 90 decibels, so 90 decibels was four times the sound heard at 70 decibels. Most of the machines tested were 85 to 95 decibels at 25 feet, which was anywhere from three to six times louder than the law currently allowed. Lieutenant Austin said that was correct. Mayor Woolley asked if the hours under staff recommendation No. 3 concerning street sweeping were as needed. Assistant Director of Public Works George Bagdon said those were the hours needed. Vice Mayor Sutorius questioned recommendation No. 2 regarding refuse collecting between the hours of 4:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. providing that it did not exceed 95 decibels at a distance of 25 feet, and its impact on the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) trucks which were measured at a decibel level of 97.9. Mr. Bagdon said several measurements of PASCO refuse collections were below 95 decibels. Averaging out the measurements and with other considerations, staff considered 95 decibels as a legitimate level for refuse collection. J. Peter Nelson, 434 Seale Avenue, said the staff recommendations appeared to ask the public to embrace up to 16 times more noise. He believed people did not complain about municipally -caused noise or construction because they did not believe they would get much satisfaction.. Leaf blowers and power mowers were .not essential, but public health was, and he suggested working with manufacturers to cut down the noise. 8 0 5 2 2/17/87 1 1 1 Diana Forsythe, 4250 El Camino Real, lived in a condominium com- plex just north of the Hyatt Hotel. One of the most bothersome noises was leaf blowers. It was impossible to work at home when a blower operated, and it filled her condominium with a smell of gasoline and smoke. Due to many complaints to the Police Department, the Hyatt used a rake for a while, but resumed use of leaf blowers after a few months. She urged Council to ban the leaf blower. John Miller, 565 Arastradero Road, #205, said hundreds of resi- dents complained about leaf blower abuse, and staff's answer was to raise the permissible noise decibels. It was documented that noise above a certain decibel level created genuine health prob- lems, and he asked who would pay the cost of treating residents in yearsahead when the cumulative impacts of exposure to noise on a repeated basis became evident. He queried why a gardener's live- lihood was more important than the livelihood of a resident who worked at home. He asked Council to .endorse a ban on leaf blowers. Bob Reid, 735 Guinda Street, concurred with Mr. Miller that an economic issue was involved with people who worked in their homes. He was a full time writer who worked on a hourly basis, and had no choice but to stop work when a leaf blower was on. The corporate offices at Hewlett Packard would not permit leaf blowers to oper- ate in the hallways, and people who worked at home should receive equal consideration. He urged a ban on leaf blowers in residen- tial areas. David Kline, 1000 Wood Duck Avenue, Santa Clara, was a gardener in Palo Alto for many years until he was recently cited for operating a leaf blower and had to cancel most of his Palo Alto accounts. He rebutted some of the points made in regard to livelihood. People did not expect a leaf blower to go down the hallway at Hewlett Packard, but people in condominiums were not working in an office and the same standards did not apply. He had been a writer and believed any writer was able to tune out surrounding noise. He agreed with the staff recommendation to regulate by hours at a reasonable decibel level. Joe Lewis, 101 Alma Street, said he had been present on two occa- sions when the Police effectively and courteously responded to complaints about the noise ordinance. The present noise ordinance worked well.. He believed the staff report served the City staff well, but not the residents. When he moved into 101 Alma, the noise was soloud they► could not hear themselves talk in his 8 0 5 3 2/17/87 closed condominium and could hardly conduct a telephone conversa- tion. When the gardener came, he had to vacate the condominium. It made all the difference in the world when the Board got the gardener to rake and sweep. To go from a level where the City had a noise ordinance that was working to one that increased the impact of the noise was astounding. The cities mentioned in the staff report were the most desirable residential cities in California and were looking at methods of diminishing the impacts of the intrusive noise into personal lives, yet City staff recom- mended an increase in the impact. He was concerned about air pol- lution. He would be disappointed if the Council, which had been environmentally sensitive over the years, undertook to increase the impact to the residents. William Gruner, 101 Alma Street, #207, shared Mr. Lewis' beliefs on raucous leaf blowers. He lived within four miles of the building for over 30 years and maintained his own property for many years without a leaf blowers He urged Council to put a ban on gasoline -powered leaf blowers. He said being near 110 decibels of noise was like being near the exhaust of a very powerful 1,000 horsepower diesel engine. Barry Cohen, 19519 Kenosha Court, Saratoga, spoke as Vice President of the California Landscape Contractors Association who were present to back their gardeners association in their fight to prevent the loss of _ a piece of equipment that was a major part of their business. They realited there was good and bad use of everything and believed regulation but not banning was important. The Association did not believe the leaf blower was any noisier than a chain saw, motorcycle, or garbage collection container. The industry attempted to make recommendations and changes and manufacturers were working hard on the problem. The noise was a small amount of time on a weekly basis, and they tried to arrange it during_ the day when most people were not at home. Many people would be affected, and the real question was what would be the next piece of equipment banned, and why were the landscape and maintenance people the first chosen. K. Kaku, 33/0 Louis Road, presented a petition signed by about 1,500 home owners (on file in the City Clerk's office). Professional gardeners understood both sides of the problem. Leaf blowers were a relatively minimal annoyance. No one liked leaf blowers, but they served a function. Complaints were over the way the blowers were .used, i.e., the time and day. Therefore, a total ban should not be implemented. Outlawing blowers would increase customers' costs. Time was money. Without power equipment, the industry wa.s returning to a primitive stage. Professional gardeners never blew nebria into neighbors' gardens. Blowers could clean up tan bark wh ch could not be done with brooms, rakes, or water. He asked feee a reasonable solution which did not. favor any public or private industries. 8 0 5 4 2/17/87 Jackson Kato, 330 Monroe Drive, had been a gardener for over 32 and used a leaf blower for 28 years. The first leaf blower was used for insect control, but turned out to be more valuable as a cleanup machine because it was much faster. Trees, shrubs and turf were an important part of life because of their ability to clean the air; and in most cases, shrubbery acted as a noise buffer. An overabundance of neglected leaves, weeds, branches could cause an overpopulation of slugs, snail and rats, termites in some cases, and it could be a fire hazard. He agreed with the staff report and urged Council support.. Tom Ta kayama , 926 Emerson, agreed that leaf blowers made noise,. but he did not believe leaf blowers were the noisiest pieces of equipment in the City. Some gardeners used the machinery with no consideration for other people and it had become a nuisance. The Mid -Peninsula Gardeners Association issued guidelines for leaf blower use and he hoped all members would follow them in order to minimize complaints. He did not believe a ban was the answer. He realized Council needed to come up with the best solution for everyone and he volunteered to work with the City to find some solutions Robin Pendergrast, Echo, Incl., Lake Zurich, Illinois, was exposed to the problem in California when he was asked to appear before the Los Angeles City Council last August when they considered an ordinance to ban or control the use of power blowers. The Los Angeles City Council requested the manufacturers to return in six months -or a year and report on what might be done to tone down the noise of the power blowers. In the past couple of weeks, Echo, Inc. presented the model blower referred to in the staff report. Echo, Inc. was also concerned about programs necessary to direct some etiquette and self -regulation into the use of the product. Echo, Inc. directed tremendous efforts into makingcertain noise and other elements were controlled, and to provide the Gardener's Association, landscaping contractors, and municipalities with the proper rules and regulations on the effective use of the equip- ment. Council Member Levj understood the latest equipment did not meet the 70 decibel level, and he queried whether equipment would shortly be produced to satisfy the requirement. Mr. Pendergrast said the P8 4500 was tested at 70 decibelsbased upon the, •ound ordinance testing presented by the Portable Power Equipment Manufacturer's Association. Specific procedures and controls were designated for the testing of power blowers, which was where the 70 decibel level was arrived at. Every powt,r blower available in the United States wee' tested within the past 15 days and the results were available to anyone interested. Two of Echo's blowers were measured at 70 decibels, 50 feet,: and a third, hand-held unit, had a decibel reading of 69. 8 0.5 5 2/17/87 Council Member Levy clarified Palo Alto's standard was 70 decibels at 25 feet. Mayor Woolley asked what feet. the 70 decibels at 50 feet would be at 25 Mr. Pendergrast said 76 decibels, Vice Mayor Sutorius �uGorxus asked how realistic the "misters was as a device to help control the movement of dust or debris. Mr. Pendergrast said the mister was used primarily for the appli- cation of chemicals to plants and trees. He was advised some gardeners used the misting attachment to wat,sr down the area, but the mister was not recommended by the manufacturer for such purposes. Vice Mayor Sutorius asked the ;practicality of looking to the industry to govern the gas -powered leaf blower down to a lower operating level and having the throttle arrangement sealed or made so it could not be easily manipulated by the user. Mr., Pendergrast could not speak for engineering but said the technology advances made in the last year were tremendous, and the suggestions made that evening would be taken under consideration by Echo, Inc., although he could not speak for . the industry. The element of self -regulation involved using the blowers at a reasonable rpm. Council Member Bechtel asked the life expectancy of present leaf blowers, the odds of a gardener investing in a lower decibel model, and the cost. Mr. Pendergrast said the retail cost of the PE 4500 was $379. They did not believe it was financially feasible . or practical to retrofit equipment. The life expectancy was from one to three years. Council Member Patitucci asked why significant ._progress had occurred in the last two years. Mr. Pendergrast said the recognition of. the need to provide more efficient, quieter, and more durable equipment came into play. Council Member Patitucci said there was nothing too ensure the progress made by Echo, Inc., was also being made by competitors. Echos, Inc., might see a significant competitive advantage if there was a goal to be met _ in order to qualify in Palo Alto or similarly concerned communities. He asked _ if it was reasonable for Palo Alto to have a certification process that gave a stamp of approval to a properly -equipped machine. . 1 Mr. Pendergrastwas uncertain of the practicality but said Echo, Inc., considered the possibility of tagging blowers with the dba rating. Council Member Cobb found it astonishing that a muffler could not De designed to bring the noise of the leaf blowers down to an acceptable level, and he asked Mr. Pendergrast's best estimate of when the industry would have such a muffler. Mr. Pendergrast replied the noise resources, i.e., the elements on a leaf or power blower, were four -fold. \Four different areas were modified to reduce the dba rating. rcho, Inc., did not know whether the 70 dba level at 25 feet was attainable for a portable product. Council Member Fletcher asked if the blower could be set to have less power in the air flow and consequently less noise. Mr. Pendergrast deferred to Tom Lohr, Director of Engineering and New Product Development for Echo, Inc., who said it was correct that reducing the engine speed andpower level also reduced the sound emission. There were applications where full power was needed tor the larger product, but the product could be used successfully at half throttle. Council Member Klein asked what was the maximum technology could achicvo in two to three years, on the basis of Echo, Inc. 's knowledge. Mr. Lehr said Echo, Inc., had made dramatic decreases, but it was not possible at that point in time to say what would be attainable. Mark H. Zellers, 1550 Cowper Street, had worked with his next-door gardener to lessen the noise of his leaf blower, and to use it as different times, and he encouraged Council to provide some. restriction to allow people to work things out. The lot size in Palo Alto was so small that it was not reasonable to use the devices. He suggested the measurement be based on the decibel level at the obserjer' s position. George: Bestidas, 830 Hamilton Avenue, was a home owner and landscape gardener and said it was exciting that manufacturers were working to lower the decibels. He suggested licensing all gardeners in Palo Alto in order to educate young gardeners in how to run their businesses, where to run levels of noise, etc. Information packets should be handed out when gardeners appeared rersonally to renew licenses ona yearly basis. Seventy decibels should be the maximum. He suggested limiting leaf blowees in Palo Alto to 15 minutes in residential areas between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4930 p.m., and in coi rcial areas to weekends. Seventy-five percent of the leaves cae from City trees. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, experienced a serious problem with a leaf blower, and the work was now being done with a rake. It looked a lot better, and he believed did not have to be done as eften. He strongly opposed the use of current `• 9 Y PP gasoline -powered leaf blowers within 250 feet of a single-family or multiple -family residence. He wanted Council to specifically address the problems of tenants, day -sleepers, and those who worked at home. Tenants had little or no control over landscape maintenance personnel, their hours, or what they did. With regard to the recommenda- tions, the public had some recourse concerning City -generated noise but not much for privately -generated noise other than the present noise ordinance. If Council changed the current noise ordinance, he urged it only relate to City personnel and public utilities. Raising the noise ordinance limits for residential power equipment from 70 to 95 decibels was hardly betterthan no ordinance at all. Echo, Inc., indicated the newer leaf blowers operated at 76 decibels, and he urged Council not to consider the 90 decibel staff recommendation. The 1972 noise ordinance was a good one, and Council should leave it alone and just address the issue of leaf blowers. Roy Kato, 1636 Celeste Drive, San Mateo, said the leaf blower was equal to the mower in enabling him to do his job. Landscaping was one of the most important aspects of a new building, and produc- tivity was the key thing. He agreed the noise must be cut down and suggested Council write to all manufacturers stating the points disussed that eveningso theywould be aware that people were demanding less noise equipment. He could live with the staff recommendations. . Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, generally associated himself with the comments of Mr. Miller and Mr. Lewis. The staff recommendations were an excellent example of making life easyfor the staff and hard for the community- and citizens. The City should not legalize excessive noise. Over the years, people objected to noise from many sources, and it was important to remember the core munitx wanted 1ese noise not relaxed regulations. One hundred and ten decibels would be like having a jet engine test cell on the block or a rock band playing on the front -lawn. Any relaxation in the noise ordinance above 90 decibels would be excessive, and 90 was more than needed in most cases. Furthermore, if 90 decibels were allowed for City equipment or demolition, there should be a limit on the total number of hours. The Gardeners Association comments in regard to educating and possibly licensing members were a step in the right direction. It was important to regulate leaf blowers. If the noise tolerance level on leaf blowers was relaxed, Council should allow no more than 75 decibels. In order to get t e. attention of both the industry and gardeners, he sug- gested enforcing the 70 decibel ordinance now with a hold to give the . industry six months to reduce seise to within 70 or ' 75 decibels. It would be an incentive for the industry and gardeners to change if they were put on notice that Palo Alto was serious about cracking down on noise. He reminded Council . Members that their charge ultimately was to protect the health.and safety of the public and citizens of Palo Alto. That would not be done by significantly increasing the noise of equipment permitted in the City, and he urged Council not ta\adopt that approach. Arnold Abrams, 530 Greer Road, said an enormous number of trees in Palo Alto belonged to the City, and he paid a gardener to clean up the leaves that dropped. He believed Item 6 on the staff recommendation was at least a temporary stopgap and should be included. He believed Council should consider financing a grant through the City to find a better method to solve the leaf blower problem. Council Member Bechtel was not happy about the noise of leaf blowers but was not prepared to ban them outright. She was pleased to hear there were manufacturers working to reduce the noise level, and also wanted to be careful Council was consistent with the City equipment. The staff recommendation was a good first step and should be adopted at that point. She hoped, as the gardeners became familiar with the newer machines, they would replace their broken machines with quieter ones. At that point in time, Council could reduce the acceptable noise levels and work from there, but machines were not presently designed at that level. The manufacturers realized there was a threat of outright bars in some communities and would work to ensure they built acceptable machines. 1OTIO$: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Cobb, to adopt staff recommendations to direct the City Attorney to prepare .� .. _ , _ � . t..' ? M un i c l Cod* ordinance amendments to chapter 5.1; v� =Qa.• .� � pa to provide for the following: 1. Equipment used by City personnel, public 'Utility coeipahies,' or their contractors during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 9;00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Saturday,, and 10:00 41,14. to 6:0p p.m. an Sunday, providing that no piece of oquipa it eAceeds 110 decibels at a distance of 25 Poet; any 2. Refuelcollection between the hours of 4:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., gr in, that it does not exceed 95 decibels at a distance of feet., ate 8. 0 5 9 ;_2/17/87 MOTION CONTINUED 3. Street sweeping activities between the_ hours_ of 1.0200 p.m.. to 7:00 a.m., providing that the equipment does not exceed 95 decibels at a distance of 25 feet; 4. Residential power equipment between the hours of 8.:00.a.a. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 9300 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday, and 10 300 a.m. to 6:00. .p m., ._on Sunday, providing that no piece of equipment exceeds 95 decibels at a distance of 25 feet; and 5. Residential construction or demolition with .a valid City permit during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 630© p.a. on Sunday, providing that no piece of equipment exceeds 110 decibels at a distance of 25 feet; and The use of gal. -powered leaf blowers between the hours of 10:00 ass to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, providing that no blower exceeds 90 decibels at a distance of 25 feet. (Use of gas -powered leaf blowers would be prohibited on Sundays and holidays.) 7. The authorization of on_s te:poiary position to the Public Works Department for push cart maintenance in the business districts. f'urthere an additional condition as follows: 0, Palo Alto Municipal Code section 1.08._10;.x, specifies:.. that, unless otherwise stated, sections of the Municipal Code are misdemeanors. The fines for misdemeanors range from $150.00 to $500.00 and/or six months in jail. Violations of the noise ordinance would fall within this penalty rungs. Council Member Patitucci was concerned about the recommendations. There were many imperfections in the current ordinancehaving to do with the method of implementation, , but he believed no action was in the best interests of :the citizens of Palo _Alto rather than acting on the motion that evening. The proposal before Council was , nothing more than measuring the problem and adjusting the law so there was no more problem in every single aspect. The issue developed primarily because of gas -powered leaf blowers, and the other equipment used by the City, contractors, etc., were never a problem in 15 years of the ordinance. The number of people using gas -powered leaf blowers had increased until every block was subjected to sir or eight leaf -blower experiences per day 'which 8 0 6 0 2/17/87 MOTION CONTINUED 3. Street sweeping activities between the. hours_ of 10300 -p.m. to 7:00 a.A., providing that the equipment_does not exceed 95 decibels at a distance of 25 feet; 4. Residential power equipment between the hours of 8.:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday throyh Liday, 2:00 a.a. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 .p..n, ._on Sunday, providing that no piece of equipment •rceeds 95 decibels at a distance of 25 feet; and 5. Residential construction__ or demolition with a valid City permit during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 9:0e a.m, to 5:®0 p.m Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, providing that no piece of equipment exceeds 110 decibels at a distance of 25 feet; and i. The use of gas -powered leaf blowers between the hours of 10:00 a.m to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, providing that no blower exceeds 90 decibels at a distance of 25 feet.. (Use of gas -powered leaf . blowers would be prohibited on Sundays and holidays.) 7. The authorization of one temporary position to the Public Works Department for push cart maintenance in the business districts. Further, an additional condition as follows: 8. Palo Alto Municipal Code section 1.08.010(a) specifies . that, unless otherwise stated, sections of the Municipal Code are misdemeanors. The fines for misdemeanors range from $150.00 to $500.00 and/or six months in jail. Violations of the nose ordinance would fall within this penalty range. Council Member Patitucci was concerned about the recommendations. There were many impertections in the current ordinancehaving to do with the method of implementation, but he believed no action was in the best, interests of the citizens of Palo Alto rather than acting on the motion that evening. The proposal before Council was • nothing more than measuring the problem andadjusting the law so there was no more problem in every single aspect.. The issue developed primarily because of gas -powered leaf blowers, and the other equipment used by the City, contractors, etc., were never a problem in 15 years of the ordinance, The number of people using gas -powered leaf blowers had increased until every block was subjected to six or eight leaf -blower experiences per day which 8 0 6 0 '2/17/87 was the source of the problem. He believed keeping the current ordinance, or an outright ban on leaf blowers with some kind of certification, was the way to go while still allowing gardeners a living Council Member Levy concurred with Council Member Patitucci in many ways. The current ordinance was unrealistic, and a lot of uses about which people did not complain were. illegal by the ordinance. He agreed Council should deal with where the complaints were and should allow the uses people found acceptable., He understood the staff recommendations were essentially designed to do that, and he supported most of the recommendations. He believed the motion should have a sunset clause ie connection with virtually everything before Council in order to allow the public to respond to the increased decibel levels. Ha was not ready to authorize one temporary position to the Public Works Department and believed the concept of a certification or licensing for leaf blowers was appropri\ te. AMENDMENT: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Bechtel, the addition of a sunset clause to cover all provisions of the staff r nda t ion for two years. Council Member Cobb clarified a sunset, clause said the law went away after a period of time, and asked if .Council Member Levy perceived the motion reverting back to the present ordinance or triggering a replacement process. Council Member Levy intended that Council should deal- with the. issue again in two years. City Attorney Diane Northway said she would draft the sunset provision to return to the current legislation unless directed otherwise, by Council. Mayor Molloy was not ready to support a sunset clause that covered al.l the provisions, although it might be necessary for Item 6. Council Member Fletcher believed two years was unreasonably long and suggested fire or six months at the most. AMPOOMIT M by a vote of 3-,5, Levy, Uechtel, Sutorius Co►mncil member Fletcher said many people noticed a iftrovelmot in the level of noise from leaf blowers since enfrc nt; of the ordinance, and she had seen gardeners with 8 0... 6 1 2/17/87 rakes and with leaf blowers at low power levels. It was a step backward to adopt the staff recommendations. Citizens made their feelings about. leaf blowers clear, and Council had never received so many complaints on an issue. There was nothing as noisy as a leaf blower for the . time it went on. Palo Alto should join with the. other \pities in the County and work through the Inter- governmental Council to urge other cities to enforce their noise ordinances. That was the quickest way to see the revolution in technology produce less noisyleaf blowers. It was possible to produce leaf blowers that had lower horsepower and made consid- erably less noise. She did not support raising the decibel level and believed the ordinance 'Mould bekept intact. In regard to City equipment, acceptable noise levels should be specified when soliciting bids. The City of El Segundo, California, incorporated into the administrative procedures and requirements that any goods purchased by the city had to comply with acceptable noise levels. She opposed the motion on the floor. Council Member Klein said noise pollution was a difficult issue because people had such differing opinions. Other equipment pro- duced equal decibel levels but did not produce the amount of complaints as leaf blowers. If the decibels were reduced, the quality of sound produced by leaf blowers would be less bother- some. While there was a lot of sentiment in the community to retain leaf blowers, as presently constituted, most leaf blowers imposed an intolerable burden on a significant number of the citizens. £MENDM ITs Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel, to revise Condition i6 to change the wording *9O decibels' to "82 decibels' and to add the words "to further change the 82 decibels to 75 decibels after July i, 19t9." Council Member Klein chose numbers he believed were achievable but which represented significant improvements over a short period of time. If Council could help move the industry to a 75 txcibel level standard within two years, a substantial improvement would have been achieved. The 82 decibel level was a half -way point between the current 90 decibels and 75 decibels. If someone insisted that 81 decibels was a better number, he had no problem. Council Member Levy asked whether a reduction to 82 decibels would be significantly noticed. Lieutenant Austin said such a reduction would be twice the volume of sound perceived by the ear. Council Member Fletcher referred to Echo's leaf blower which measured 76 decibels at 25 feet. She was unwilling to support the 82 decibel level and wait two years to get to 75 decibels because she believed the decibels could be 70 or less in two years. Many of the present leaf blowers, if not, used to full power, could, comply with the City's ordinance. Council Member Klein was trying to come up with numbers that did not result in an outright ban, but which pressured .:manufacturers and users to reduce the decibels to levels people could live with. He was glad Echo was making progress, .but he did not want to set up a standard which overnight only allowed one manufacturer to operate in Palo Alto. He wanted to help theindustry move along. Council. Member Cobb believed Council Member Klein was on the right track. Gardeners were not rich and to force them to. suddenly con- vert to a new piece of equipment which met all the standards would be very expensive. If gardeners followed the guidelines set forth by the Gardeners' Association, much of .their work could be done without running leaf blowers at full throttle. He could not sup- port an outright ban, but one concept of the guidelines was to discipline members of the Gardeners' Association to not use the 4111 throttle operation unless absolutely necessary and to have the machines operate for a minimum period of time. The difficulty was that not everyone was a member of the association. If Council passed the amendments and still received a lot of complaints, he suggested a permit process whereby someone would have to sign off on the Gardeners' Association guildelines. While he would not want to do that unless it was absolutely necessary, it seethed to him that if the present suggestions did not work, it was the -next logical step. He urged Council support of the amendment. Council Member Levy believed Council Member Fletcher was on the right track, but he was sensitive to the gardeners' ability to work. Council should move with deliberate speed and not immedi- ately and dramatically affect the work of many people who contributed much to the community. Council Member Klein's step-byestep process made sense, and he believed it would mean Councili. *mid reach its goals with ° all deliberate speed. Council Member Patxtucci believed there was an interpretation that if Council Member : Klein's amendMent were the standard, people could ;turn_ their machines: sown and operate them. He disagreed. If something ran at 83 decibels when he heard it, he asked what happened if soMeone said they were running the machine at half throttle and it last tested at 81.6 decibels. He . asked how and if the tests would beat maximum power. If the tests were at maximum power, it virtually eliminated the use of gas powered blowers and he could basically support the amendment, 8 0 6 3 2/17/87 Assistant Chief Durkin said enforcement would be on a complaint basis and _ an officer would have to hear the machine running. For purposes of enforcement, the officer would have to be able to determine the decibel limit at which the equipment was being run and would have to be on -site to see and measure whether a violation occurred. Council Member Patitucci asked the problem of someone saying the policy of the gardeners was to run the machines at half power when in fact the machine had the capacity to be a 90 decibel, machine. Ms. Northway said a violation of the ordinance was criminal in nature and certain rules applied. In the present situation, the misdemeanor or infraction had to be committed in the officer's presence. An officer could not ask the ,gardener to turn up or down the m chine after the fact for purposes of testing. Council Member Patitucci referred to police officers who observed traffic and people who broke the law. The noise ordinance was enforced on a complaint basis so police officers did not look for offenders. The situation was one in which the Council needed to determine whether a particular piece of equipment had the poten- tial to violate, Recommendation #4 said residential power equip- ment could go up to 95 decibels at a distance of 25 feet and he queried why the discrimination against leaf blowers. As he under- stood the ordinance, operating a piece of equipment over the limit was not a violation until there was a complaint. Council Member Cobb said if the City enforced the ordinance, it made no difference whether the blowers operated at three-quarters` or full throttle, the violator had to be -caught breaking the law. Council Member Bechtel disagreed with Council Member Patitucci in terms of the ordinance being complaint -generated. The ordinance had not been enforced which was the problem. It was a crime to operate equipment over the permitted decibel level. It was foolish to have a law on the books which was not being enforeed and it should be changed. Mayor Woolley believed on one hand leaf blowers were necessary for maintenance, but on the other hand, the City maintained two of its parks at an acceptable level without leaf blowers. If limits were placed on leaf blowers, the City called upon "necessity as the mother of invention," and worked toward;: a better: situation. She referred to the item which called for the addition of a position to the budget so the expense to the City needed to be considered. She believed the amendment was a compromise and a step in the right direction. 1 8 0 6 4 '2/17/87 AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Patitucci, Fletcher voting "no,' Menzel absent. AI ENT: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel, to revise Condition #6: to change the hours to "Monday through Saturday from. 9:00 4: m. to 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sundeys and holidays. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Patitucci voting °nos' Menzel absento. AMENDMENT: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Sutorius, to direct staff to eeommunicate Council's action to the known manufac- turers of gas powered leaf blowers. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Renzel absent. AMENDMENT: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Woolley, to delete Conditiow #7. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Renzel absent. AMENDMENT: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Fletcher, that the same provisions of Condition #6, i.e., hours and decibel levels apply to residential power equipment as identi- fied in paragraph #4. Council Member Patitucci asked why the staff recommendation reflected a -difference of 95 decibels to 90 decibels. Lieutenant Austin said 95 decibels was based on a test tial power equipment. including -power lawn mowers, skill saws, etc., which were all near the 95 decibel 82 decibel limit would rule out every power lawn mower date. of residen- chain saws, limit. The measured to Council 'Member Bechtel did net believe the amendment was realistic. Council ''*umber Klein opposed the amendme'lt becaus€l complaints about ot r types of equipment were not the problem. All equip- bent was tot created equal, and people found a qualitative differ- ence between leaf blowers and other machines. Council should not create a, law which put a lot of things in violation until they received many complaints. Council .Member Fletcher asked Council Member Patitucci to consider inserting the word *landscaping" after "residential" in the amendment. 8 0 6 5 2/17/87 MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO WITHDRAW AMENDMENT MAIN NOTIO11 AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 7-1 . Patituccl voting 'no,' Renzel absent. 11. REQUEST FROM FORD AEROSPACE & COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION FOR AN ADDITION TO A STRUCTURE AT 3825 FABIAN WAY (CMR:142:7) (300) Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spokepreviously regarding the Golden Triangle moratorium and the injustice it created specifically for those areas where Council adopted an appropriate Floor Area Ratio (FAR). He urged Council direct staff to proceed with an exemption procedure specifically for any area which was studied and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) adopted within the last two years. The addition would have zero impact on jobs, traffic, and housing.- He urged the applicant to file for a building permit if turned down by the City, and if that was refused, to sue. Jack Uvodich, 19730 Amherst Drive, represented Ford Aerospace as Facilities Engineering Manager, and referred to the letter attached to the staff report (CMR:142:7). It was a "no issue" item except for the change _ in FAR. Ford would consider putting the facility in an existing building but did not believe it was appropriate. The proposed addition .was located in a spot very appropriate to Ford's operation and did not impact, traffic nor add people. In consideration of the security involved, the, location being central, it being in an area appropriate to the kind of equipment, Ford would like to be able to install the equipment in the location proposed.. Council Member Klein was sympathetic to Ford Aerospace's eminently reasonable request which had nothing to do with what the Golden Triangle was trying to accomplish. MOTION: Coopcil. Member Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to direct staff to prepare as ordinance that exempts from the Golden Triangle moratorium s development of less than 1,000 square feet provided it is environmentally beneficial and does not produce aay lacrimal) in employmeata Council Member Bechtel understood the ordinance process would take at least six weeks and she queried whether the item required an ordinance or whether it could be a policy decision. Ms. Northway 'said an ordinance had to be amended with an - ordi=- nance ---called equal dignity --and would take seven weeks because Council was not meeting` in two weeks for a second reading. 1 Council Member Klein asked about passing the ordinance on an emergency basis. Ms. Northway said it could be done if there were sufficient findings. She was not sure staff could have an ordinance returned to Council until March 9, 1987. She suggested Council give staff direction if they wanted the item looked at for an emergency. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said as a new structure, the project would require Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and plan check and building permit. With Council direction, staff could work with the applicant to get the plans in and through the ARB process before the ordinance date was in effect so that a building permit could be received on the effective date. NOTIOI PASSED unanimously, Rennel absent. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:57 p.m. ATTEST: t APPROVED: Mayor 8 0 6 7 2/17/87