Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-04-27 City Council Summary Minutes-w CITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALOALTOCITYCOUNCILMEETINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KLSU-EREQUENCY90.I ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting April 27, 1987 ITEM Oral Communications PAGE 57-99 Minutes of March 30, 1987 57-101 57-101 57-101 Consent Calendar Referral 2. 1985-86 Management Letter - Coopers & 57-101 Lybrand (C&L) -- Refer to Finance and Public Works Committee Action 3. Contract with Redwood General & Mechanical. for Remodeling Communications Center - CIP 86-10 -- In the amount of $67,324 4. Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Water District re Consultant to Prepare an Action Plan re Pollution Resulting from Urban Runoff 5, Ordinance 3747 re Development Agreement fOr the Property at 1755 Embarcadero Road 6. Report From Council 1.egiclative Committee 7. Ordinance re Park Regulations to Prohibit Fires Except its City Provided Barbecues, Fire Rings and Other Fixtures 57-102 57-102 57-102 57.102 57-102 57-97 4/27/87 ITEM Agenda Changes. Additions & Deletions PAGE 57-102 7A. (Old Item 12) Fee Agreement with the Palo 57-103 Alto Medical Foundation 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Issuance of Palo Alto Medical Foundation Bonds as Required by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act 9. Report from Committee on Oversized Houses on R-1 Lots 10. Report From Council Legislative Committee: AB 1331. SCA 22/SB 1201 11. Ordinance re Noise Standards Recess From 10:05 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. 13. Joint Community Relations Committee for Palo Alto Airport 14. Resolution re Provisions of Century Federal. Inc. License 15. Request of Mayor Woolley re Palo . Alto's Response- to Fremont -South Bay Transit Study Recommendations . Adjournment at 10:59 p.m. 57-104 57-107 57-110 57-112 57-121 57-125 57-127 57-127 57-128 57-98 4/27/87 Regular Meeting Monday, April 27, 1987 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:31 p.m.), Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: Cobb Mayor Woolley announced a Special Joint Meeting with City Council/Human Relations Commission re Human Relations Issues was held at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Bob Britton, 3897 Middlefield Road, spoke in regard to Service Employees International Union (SEIU) negotiations. He wanted the Council to be aware of -tree desires of their employees who faithfully served the community. These employees lived in an area where the cost of living was extremely high; were very dedicated, and deserved to be paid accordingly. He indicated his strong support that the City's negotiators be given direction to approve a cost -of -living increase which reflected the cost of living in the area. He would also like a proposal in regard to AIDS to be reconsidered. 2. Ray Foster, 4317 Silva Avenue, had been a City employee for 12 years, expressed the concerns, feelings, and benefits in having an Agency Shop. He asked Council to seriously consider allowing employees to have an Agency Shop in the City. Voting .. for. an Agency Shop ' did not obligate the non -unison members to put their jobs on the line, nor to negotiate in contract. negotiations, nor to have a: union representative sit in. for them at disputes with ma_ nagement. The purpose of the union was to build better teamwork, a feeling ofe identity, =and- a more pleasant secure work-ing environment. An Agency Shop Would not cost the City .a.. penny. They were one team Working for a common good of the citizens of Palo Alto in a joint effort to make Palo.. -Alto the -best City in which to live --and work. 57-99 4/27/87 3. Shari Reynolds , 162 West 37th, San Mateo, worked for the City for over two years. Palo Alto had a quality staff who were genuinely interested in doing a good job and should be recompensed with a good salary. It was - expensive to live in the Bay Area, and\she believed the City was unfair in its offer of a 3 percent raise. The question of realignment was important. She would like to be able to stay where she enjoyed working, not leave because she could not afford to live on the salary. It was a fair request that an Agency Shop be present in the City of Palo Alto. She had over 200 signatures of her coworkers, gathered in less than a week, (on tile in the City Clerk's office) , many of whom were not members of the Union, who agreed the City Council should urge the negotiating team to let the employees vote for an Agency Shop. 4. Mary Lee, 3835 Deans Place Way, San Jose, President of the Palo Alto Chapter of Local 715, expressed_ the Chapter's concern for fair wages. The City of Palo Alto was proud of the services it offered residents, provided by the City employees. A fair wage was necessary to maintain the present caliber of employee. According to an article in the San Jose Mercury so far that year inflation was running at 6.5 percent. In order to ratify a contract for two years that would enable them to maintain a decent wage, a fair wage was necessary. She urged Council's consideration. 5. Doug Winslow, 22400 Skyline Boulevard, La Honda, spoke regarding contract negotations with Local 715, particularly the proposed clause concerning people with AIDS and AIDS -related conditions. •It was important. Council understood there was no ease. law protecting sufferers of AIDS or AIDS -related conditions and for Palo Alto to take a stand at the request of 'City employees and protect people who contracted the AIDS virus. He urged Council to consider the matter. 6. Roberto Medina, 6231 Montcalm Avenue, Newark, quoted articles from local newspapers saying that a survey of 4,200 companies in 18 states by an arm of the National Association of Manufacturers showed that employers budgeted 5 percent increases for the coming year. Raises for hourly workers should equal last year's increase of 5.5 percent. Regionally employers of the San Francisco Say Area budgeted 5.9 percent for top executives, 5.8 percent for most professionals, and 5.7 rg percent for hourly workers. Organizations ..with structured salary ranges were expected to give an average wage increase of 4.8 percent, . 4.7 for 57-100 4/27/87 professional employees, and 4.6. percent for hourly employees. Consumer prices probably would go up about four times as fast in 1987 as in 1986. A striking feature of the 1987 economy would be the return of inflation. He did not see how City employees could be expected to make a decent living with the proposed. 3 percent increase. Employees at the Water Quality Control Plant had been underpaid compared to other plants in the area for several years and were only asking for equity. The plant was constantly being men- tioned in the news as to discharges as one of the best plants in the )a y. The plant worked 24 hours a day, weekends and holidays and last week at the State Water Control Plant meeting received first place award for California. 7. Mark Malachowski, 2501 Embarcadero Road, worked at the Water Quality Control Plant and said the rec+ehtly-- released government figures showed the inflation rate for the first three months of 1987 was 6.5 percent and might increase drastically in the next two years. A two-year contract saved money for, the City but made it difficelL for .employees to predict whether the salary increase would match the inflation level. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 30, 1987 MOTIOM: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Butorius, approval of the Minutes of March 39, 1987, as submitted. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. Mayor Woolley said Item 1, Presentation of Government Finance Officers Association Award for City's Budget Format, had been removed by staff. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION' Vice Mayor Butorius awed, seconded by Klein, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral 2.. 19t35--86 MANAGEMENT LETTER COOPERS LYBRAND (C&L - DER TO FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS: COMMITTEE CMR i a (406-01) 57-101 4/27/87 Action 3. CONTRACT WITH REDWOOD GENERAL & MECHANICAL FOR REMODELING COMMUNICATIONS CENTER = CIP 86-10 .. IN THE AMOUNT OF x671324 (CMR:212:7) (801-06) Staff is authorized to execute change orders to the contract of up to $10,000. 4. AGREEMENT WITH SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR HIRING A CONSULTANT TO PREPARE AN ACTION PLAN RE POLLUTION RESULTING FROM URBAN RUNOFF (Ct3R:224:7) (1520-01) 5. ORDINANCE 3747 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1755 EMBaRCADERO ROAD" (1st Reading 4/13/87, PASSED 6-1-1, Fletcher "abstaining," Levy absent) (300) voting "no," Renzel 6. REPORT FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE: SB 133, SB 2A2,_SCA 10, AB 853, and SBN 649 (CMR:231:7) 702-06-02) 7. ORDINAmcn rut( eIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE PARK REGULATIONS ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT FIRES EXCEPT IN CITY PROVIDED BARBECUES I FIRE RINGS AND OTHER FIXTURES" CM R: 93: ) 1321) MOTIF PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent, Fletbheer voting 'no. ° on Its. 5, Renzel "abstaining" on Item 5, AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Council Member Klein would not participate. in Item 8, Public Hearing: Issuance of Palo Alto Medical Foundation Bonds as Required by the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) , nor Item .12, Fee Agreement with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, due to a conflict of interest. MOTION* Mayor Moolieey moved, seconded by Fletcher to more forward Item 12, fee Agreement with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, tt become Item 7-A. =IOU ?AVM) enim"o►usly, L1eia 'Inatit , participating,'" Cobb absent. 57-102 4/27/87 7-A. (OLD ITEM 12 FEE AGREEMENT WITH THE PALO ALTO MEDICAL F+LINDA ION CMRz ) (10 1/404-04) Council Member Renzel said the fee was based on a percent of the gross revenues, and the baseline was supposed to be at least equivalent to the property taxes otherwise received. Currently that ways the case, but she asked if there was pro- vision to cover the eventuality of future acquisitions that might also become tax exempt so that the City would not lose tax revenue. \, Director of Finance Mark Harris said the agreement was not dollar for dollar an in -lieu agreement but substituted a new set of services and used a new fee. To the extent that property afterwards acquired was used to generate revenue, the percent would pick up that revenue; but if the property went off the tax roll and was not used to generate income, there would be no effect. Presumably the new property acquisitions would be used in the generation of revenue from providing health-care services. Council Member Renzel asked if the new property acquisitions were not used for those purposes, would they still have the benefit of the 501(c) (3) exemption. Senior Assistant City Attorney. Anthony Bennetti said yes, the 501(c) (3) exemption was available to any nonprofit California corporation. Council Member Renzel clarified if, as the Clinic had done in the past, houses were . acquired and rented . out for a number of years, the Clinic would enjoy the 501(c)(3) exemption and the City would not receive property taxes on them, but there would be. no medical revenue from them. Mr. Harris said that was correct. Staff believed the arrangement was a reasonable proxy for what was not received for property tax, but there would be no difference between the subject item and any other nonprofit corporation that set up facilities within the City. Vice Mayor Sutorius inquired about the availability of Schedule A, which was referenced in the Fee Agreement but not included in the packet. Mr. Urris said ° staff received that day from the. Foundation. Schedule A (on file in the City Clerk's office). Schedule A was basically the parcel description of pieces of property that potentially could become. _exempt from the property tax, their addresses, and the parcel number. If any or all of the properties became exempt, proportionally Schedule A would kick in the fee structure and exempt them from prop- erty taxes. Mr. Bennetti said it should be noted that under the State Constitution, in order tor property to qualify for the "welfare exemption" it must not only be owned by a nonprofit corporation but must be dedicated to exempt purposes. Merely purchasing property and renting it out for nonexempt purposes would not qualify for the exemption. The exemption must be applied for annually. Council Member Patitucci understood the revenue would be approximately $35,000 under the formula. Mr. Harris said the number depended on the year, but for calendar year 1986 the City would have received approxi- mately $26,000 under the formula. Council Member Patitucci said $17,900 would have been paid under the property tax. He assumed the property tax rates were based on some historical valuation of the property.. He asked what the present property valuation rate would be if the property were newly valuated at market value and then the tax rate applied at the current rate. Mr. Harris said the historical value which applied in 1986/87 was approximately $15 million. Arthur Anderson performed an appraisal on the properties listed in Schedule A and used a value of epproximateiy $30 million, saying thy, market value was approximately twice the value used for appraisal purposes. !MOTION s Vice Mayor Sutor.tus moved, seconded by Bechtel, to adopt staff recommendation to approve the Fee Agreement. MOTION. PASSED unanimously. Klein "not participating.' Cobb absent. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: ISSUANCE OF, PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION BONDS AS RE UIRED BY THE TAX EQUITY AND FISt . RE PONS s ITY C (T :FRA) (CMR:228:77 (1631/404-04) Mr. Harris said page 3 of the Resolution spoke to the City issuing bonds at an interest rate not to exceed 8 percent. The Foundation asked, given current market condition, if that figure could be raised to 8.5 percent. The 8.5 percent level reflected some of the fluctuations in the current municipal bond market rates, plus - the Foundation believed the level still made the project economically feasible. On page 2, Section 5, the issuance date of April 1987 should be stricken. Staff received from the Foundation.: a letter from the State Office of Health, Planning and Development pro- viding their committment to insure the bonds, which was the key to issuing the bonds AAA rating. 57-104 4/27/87 Mayor Woolley declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the pub- lic hearing closed. Vice Mayor Sutorius asked the effect of an 8.5 percent interest rate on $27.5 million or $28 million with respect to the debt coverage ratio used in the forecast. Jeannette Price, Amherst Associates, Inc., had looked at the sensitivity of the numbers in the face of interest rate change. They did three different scenarios: Interest rates at 7.75 percent, 8 percent, and 8.5 percent, at what size they would have to make the bond issue to meet minimum debt service coverage ratios of 1.75 times_. At 7.75 percent, they were still able to achieve debt service coverage of 1.83 times in 1988, the year where the debt service dipped the lowest. At 8 percent the debt service coverage went to 1.76. In order to keep the coverage at a minimum of 1.75 should interest rates raise up to 8.5 percent, at a bond size of $25,585,000 --which was slightly above that in the study --the coverage was achievable. Vice Mayor Sutorius appreciated the gift and grant moneys were indentified as unrestricted, and were treated that way in the proformas and forecasts. The Brewer Grose & Co., Certified Public Accountant, statements referenced the fact the research foundation had a guaranteed level of funding, and that it was, therefore, necessary for the doctors to forgive that guarantee in order for the gift moneys not to be reserved out for the Foundation. In 1985 and 1986, the difference between the guarantee and the total gifts was not unsubstantial. He asked whether the proformas and forecasts were not only affected materially by the change in interest rate forecast, butalsothe actual income available to cover debt service. Ms. Price said their use of unrestricteddonations was based on discussions with the auditor; and although- the research foundation bad an agreement, she believed it would be a right of first refusal on some of the funds. They never asked' for the donations, and in that Sense; the auditors were comfortable with their use, and they were not restricted for uses other than debt service coverage. Their projections were fairly conservative, and the office of:.the president expanded its development function and anticipated raising more funds in the future. Page 32 of the feasi- bility study_showed by the end`of the forecast period cover- age from operations alone was 1.97 so the majority of the debt :was generated- through the operations of the clinic alone. 57-105 4/2.7/87 Council Member Levy asked for reassurance that there was no financial risk to the City, and what happened in the worst case situation of a default. Mr. Harris said the bonds represented a limited obligation of the City. The City was obligated to pass on revenues the Foundation provided to the City to pay bondholders. If the revenues were not there, the City had no further obliga- tion. However, the bondholders were protected through the California State Health Insurance policy purchased by the Foundation. Should default occur, the insurance agency would find a way to pay the bondholders. Council Member Levy clarified the City's only obligation was to pass on funds it received from the Foundation; and if no funds were received, there was absolutely no obligation on the part of the City to expend any of its funds to pay the service charges. Mr. Harris said that was legally correct. MOTION Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the staff recommendation to adopt the resolution prepared by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe and authorize the Mayor and appropriate City officials to sign the necessary documents to complete the financing, with the revision on page 2 of the Resolution, Section 5, to delete the wording 'during April 1987," and page 3, Section 5, change the wording "not to exceed 8t" to not exceed 8-1/2.' RESOLUTION 6605 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF CITY OF PALO ALTO INSURED REMO= BEDS (PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION), SERIES 1l$7, THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN INDENTURE, LOAM AGREE - T, CONTRACT OF INSURANCE, REGULATORY AGREEMENT, OFFICIkt. STATEMENT AND CONTRACT OF PURCHASE AND CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH° Council Member Levy was satisfied the City was protected. The bonds would be AAA and insured, and even if they were not, he understood the City would in no way be at risk for the payment. Staff clarified the bonds would notbe arbi- trage so there would not be any risk to the City. The Foundation compensated the City for its expenses in ,connec- tion with the issuance of the bonds. The Palo Alto Medical` Clinic and Palo Alto Medical Foundation were important services to the residents of Palo Alto and provided many of the citizens with excellent, convenient and cost-effective medical care. He believed'. Council served a significant public interest in ;ending its support to the issuance of the bonds. 57-106 4/27/87 MOTION PASSED unanimously, Hein \ "not participating," and Cobb absent. Mayor Woolley believed the action provided Palo Alto resi- dents an opportunity for excellent health care long into the future. The Foundation reached a most satisfactory agree- ment with the City both in terms of the City having an almost zero risk and being compensated for employee time and lost revenue. 9. REPORT FROM COMMITTEE ON OVERSIZED HOUSES ON R-1 LOTS (250) Mayor Woolley emphasized the committee believed the problem was the second story.- Some large homes were built on small lots, but the community seemed to have gotten used to it as long as they were only one story. The cost of setting a second story wall back was about 10 to 20 percent more than building straight up, but the committee believed the appear- ance warranted the requirement. .The committee wanted to avoid the solid Wall, but also wanted to avoid "wedding cake" architecture, which meant if they had required set- backs on each Side, they would end up with a little box for a second story so that most houses with second stories would look pretty much alike. The proposal was for a floor area ratio ( FAR) tor the second story only and with a reduction in the daylight: plane. The recommendation was to reduce the daylight plane from 12 feet to 10 feet, and- to provide design flexibility through the dormer exception which would allow architects some flexibility in developing the house without creating a solid wall. It would only be a dormer injected into the daylight plane. MOTION TO REFER: Mayor Woolley moved, sedoeded, by iteazel, to refer to the Planning Commission the issue of oversized houses on R -1 lots with consideration of the following parameters: 1) T#s sirs of the Second story be limited in proportion to tai , isize of 00 Jot. A 1.33:1 PAR seemed appropriate (for _:sa:ep1.; 5,000 Square foot lot = 665 square foot second stoic ; 5,000 square foot lot = 0OO square foot second story; 4090 square foot lot = 1,064 square loot second story; and 10, 00• Square foot lot = 1,330 square foot second story) ; 2) The daylight plans be reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet; and 3) 8 dormer exception be prodded with maximums for width and height (suggest width.- 14-1s feet, height - 2223 #set.) . Mayor Woolley said the Planning Commission should consider. the direction to De fairly specific but not absolutely fir, . 57-107 4/27/87 As corrected 5/26/87 Council Member Renzel agreed with the committee's report; however, she supported a more substantially reduced daylight plane. If the Planning Commission agreed with the consensus -ot the subcommittee, there would essentially be an exception for a dormer no matter what daylight plan°was used so there could be a full second story over the first for a limited distance along a side wall. For that reason, there appeared to be no real need to have a daylight plane that went up 16 feet at the sideyard setback, which was what a daylight plane beginning at 10 feet would do. She supported a lower daylight plane in order to not see - 16 --foot high single stories built 6_feet from the property line, which was still possible under such a daylight plane. She assumed the Planning Commission had some latitude to look at the issues-. The architects an the subcommittee advised .that approxi- mately 9 or 10 feet was all that was really `needed tor a single story wall. Since they were allowing the exception, the Commission should investigate other combinations to see what they might jean. She otherwise agreed with the FAR. She urged support of the motion. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue's applauded Council's addressing the problem of oversized houses and for wanting to provide flexibility in design particularly of the second stories. He urged flexibility be given to the Planning Commission in deliberating the issue, including alternative proposals. He was concerned that different neighborhoods had different characteristics and needs. A house which was perfectly appropriate in Professorville would be overly large in Barron Park, and he wanted the Planning Commission to address the issue of suitability of houses according to their neighborhoods. One of the major problems with overly large houses was a loss of privacy. He proposed these` might be consideration similar to the daylight plane requirements which would be inside the current daylight plane and would affect the placement of second story windows and decks. It could be well-defined and understood by architects and laymen. Since the issue was of great interest to the public and builders, he believed a special effort should be given to publicize the meeting of the Planning Commission, both in the newspapers and through the neighborhood associations, Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, was bothered by the dormer exception because the way it was structured with the daylight plane starting at 10 feet and a 6 -foot side setback and the dormer exception, there could be a solid wall beginning at 16 feet above grade and extending up as far as someone wished to build a dormer. It would be possible for someone to build a solid structure with a dormer exception which would be over- bearing for at least one neighbor. The second problem was 57-108 4/27/87 the logical way to build a second story on an existing house was to ,qo to an existing outside wall and go straight up. The proposal, which only set an FAR for the second floor, would not prevent such an occurrence so someone could logically go to one side wall or a side wall and a front wall and build up from that. The Commission should consider those circumstances to ensure a building was not lopsided on one side. In addition to the FAR for the second floor, he suggested the Planning Commission study an FAR for the total development area, i.e., either an FAR for the first floor and a separate FAR for •the second floor or a total FAR for the entire site. There were FARs for every zone in the City except R-1 and R-2. Council Member Levy commended Mayor Woolley, Council Member Rensel and :the subcommittee because he believed the second story issue was the heart of the neighborhood concern. Palo Alto was becoming more of a town where single family homes were occupied by childless couples or couples with only one child, but he hoped enough size would be allowed in the residential areas for families of three or four children to live there at a standard of living appropriate to the neigh- borhoods they were in. He calculated the recommendation to the Planning Commission was that a 6,000 square foot lot could have a 2,900 square foot house which might be per- fectly large enough, but he wanted the Planning Commission to review the numbers so Council would not inadvertently discourage decent sized families from moving to Palo Alto if they could afford to do so. Council Member Fletcher was grateful the issue was being dealt with. She referred to the Crescent Park duplex area and was concerned all the backyards in the complex were small and hardly large enough for children to play in. The' first story not being dealt with in the recommendation bothered her because she believed there was some room to re-examine the setback requirements. AMENDRE1Ts Council !!ember Fletcher moved that setback regulations be re-examined. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Klein was concerned about the use of the word "recommendation." The ideas were worthy and he commended the committee, but the proper position should be to refer the items to the Planning Commission for its study and adviceand Council should not be recommending any particular decision on its part. He did not want to do anything 57-109 4/27/87 which would make the Planring Commission feel that its hands were tied at all. He wanted the Commission to study the ideas given by the committee, but did not want to indicate that Council expected any particular result. It was up to the Commission to decide what to recommend. Council Member Patitucci believed 35 percent lot coverage was presently allowed which was an FAR of .35 including a garage if one were to build a single story residence. The .133 had the effect of creating an FAR of .483. Assuming builders would build to the maximum given the price of land, Council in effect was saying it had .483 FAR and that the second story had to be about 38 percent the size of the first. It worked with every size parcel, but he wanted to be clear on his logic. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said as long as the garage was included in the calculations, the logic was correct. Council Member Patitucci asked what the special FARs were on the last development sites for the school district houses. Mr. Schreiber said .3 plus 400 square feet which worked out to be approximately .41 or .42. Council Member Patitucci hoped the Planning Commission would keep an open mind. Council Member Renzel shared Council Member Levy's concern about family housing and asked whether he meant every house in Palo Alto should be capable of expanding to be a large family house. Council Member Levy said his goal was for a 6,000 square foot lot in Palo Alto to be able to handle a house which in turn could be expanded to comfortably house a family of three or four children. ROTIOM PASSED unanimously, s1y, cob min ;t. 10. REPORT FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE: AB 1331, SCA 22/SB 1201 (CM1t * 2 31:7 ) Council Member Patitucci said AB 1331 (Speier) required the Secretary of State to review all initiatives prior to their approval. SCA 22 and SB 1201 would also affect the initia- tive process by authorizing an "indirect initiative." The Council Legislative Committee voted 2-1 that the items were not within Council's purview and that a positioe should not be taken since they affected State initiative procedures and the City had its own procedures. Two Committee members believed a position should not be taken. He deferred to Council Member Fletcher for her reasons why she believed a position should be taken. Council. Member Fletcher believed Council had a role to play in the initiative process, especially since positions were taken on many of the initiatives last November. Palo Alto could benefit from the review process proposed in both measures because the result would be better thought out initiatives and the voters would have better information. She believed the City had an interest in having the initia- tives in the best possible form. MOTION: Council Member Fletcher sowed, seconded by Klein, that Council endorse AB 1331. SCA 22/SB 1201. Council Member Klein supported the motion because he believed it was very much in the City's interest to go on record and see if there might be some improvement in the statewide initiative process, which was an element of California's political life for the past 70 years. He cited Proposition 13 and the Gann limitations as glaring examples of bad drafting and cleazc confusion an the part of the pub- lic. Both Proposition 13 and the Gann limitations had an effect on how Palo Alto operated and the City had to live with the results of both initiatives and their bad drafting. The City had a direct dollars and cents interest in making sure the initiative process was improved and became more rational. Council Member Bechtel said there was no question that statewide initiatives affected cities, voters, taxpayers and elected officials. To add credibility and strength to the support for the two bills, they were both sponsored by the League of Women Voters. She urged support. Vice Mayor Sutorius believed the Legislative Committee did an excellent job with staff in analyzing where Council should focus its attention. He appreciated why two members might, feel Council should not focus its attention and spend credibility on the initiative issues; however, in February, Council acted favorably on a proposal by legisl.Ltors to reschedule the direct presidential primary in California into the April time frame. If Council believed the presi- dential primary was an issue which had bearing and was. important to Palo Alto, the initiative process at the State level was more fundamental and important. He suported the motion. 57-111 4/27/87 Council Member Patitucci said in terms of the potential impact on the Secretary of State, there was a requirement to review proposals prior to their getting petitions. It would be interesting to determine who was serious about getting petitions and who was using the Secretary of State's office to get ideas on what form of legislation to put before the electorate in the form of a petition and then decide to not go ahead with its He understood the procedure for SCA 22 was not as good as Palo Alto's own procedure whereby an initiative petition could be brought before the Council and it could decide to adopt it and avoid putting it on the ballot. The proposed process said Council could adopt or. modify the proposal, but it would still continue through the initiative process unless there was 80 percent of the normal number in which case it could be adopted legislatively. It was more complex than necessary. He could not support it in its present form. NOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-2, Levy, Patitucci voting *no," Cobb absent. 11. ORDINANCE RE NOISE STANDARDS (CMR:20 3 ; 7 ) (1401-01) Senior Assistant City Attorney Tony Bennetti suggested Council add two sections to the ordinance as follows: SECTION 4. "Council hereby finds, that none of the provi- sions of this ordinance will have a significant environ- mental impact." SECTION 5. "This ordinance shall become effective upon the commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its passage" In discussions with staff; it appeared with the lettering proposed, for signs posted at construction sites, there might have been some overkill. Staff believed one and one-half inch lettering would be sufficient. Council Member Bechtel said staff proposed Council might want to reconsider the recommendation on the temporary Public Works position for a push broom cleanup in the busi- ness district and she queried whether there was some way to get around it without expending additional money to allow some leaf blowing at early hours in certain limited and restricted areas further away from a residential neighbor -- hoods or places where people lived. Streets Superintendent Mike Miller.. said previously leaf blowers were used from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Complaints hal been infrequent. Council Member Bechtel asked how often the leaf blowers were used. 57-112 4/27/87 Mr. Miller said every night. Art McGarr, 3666 La Calle Court, was not pleased with the suggestion to raise the decibel (dBA) level on leaf 'blower s from 70 dBA at 25 feet to 82 dBA. They hoped to qualify an initiative petition for the November ballot to maintain the existing noise ordinance as it applied to gasoline powered leaf blowers. To date, they had obtained 1,300 signatures and expected to have the required 2,400 by June 1, 1987. Edith Pope, 301 Oxford, said the problem of leaf blowers exceeding the City's ordinance resulted in her gardener being cited in excess of 20 times over the past six months. The man had worked for her for seven years. He tried to comply with the City's ordinance and purchased a reduced level leaf blower. He still could not comply with the noise ordinance which resulted in his resignation. Her gardener could not take the pressure of constant complaints. The levels of noise produced by leaf blowers were comparable to the levels produced by other power equipment such as street sweeping and power saws. Construction sites were not shut down and garbage collectors were not told to stop. She supported the amendment to allow gardeners as well as other users of power equipment in Palo Alto. Palo Alto needed realistic ideas about how to handle people working in the community. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, disagreed there would be no adverse environmental impact by adopting the ordinance. If a fac- tory worker was exposed to 110 dBAs, oar protection would be required and that worker would have to leave the area where the sound existed after a specific number of hours. Expo- sure to 110 dBAs of sound for more than two to three hours would result in a significant, permanent loss of hearing. Europe's equivalent of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and (many state EPAs would not permit a worker to work in an environment with such a sound intensity without ear protection and they would not be allowed to work in such surroundings for eight consecutive hours. If adopting such an ordinance made an unsafe set of circumstances for every- one in the City assaulted by construction equipment and any other equipment which made up to 110 dBAs of sound, it adversely affected the health and tranquility of the com- muriity. He urged Council reconsider and amend the ordinance in order that no equipment was allowed to exceed 95 dBAs and that no equipment be allowed to operate at such a level at 25 feet for more than four hours .in any one day or 24 -hour period. 57113 4/27/87 John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, agreed with Mr. Moss. He worked in the computer business for many years and while computer rooms were not that noisy, he always wore ear pro- tectors. He had a sma71 hearing loss and said even low levels of noise over a long period of time could be danger- ous. As far as he could determine from the proposal, the only thing being restricted was loud music. If he had a problem with City generated noises, he knew who to talk to and that his complaint would be treated with respect and consideration. He did not expect such consideration from a private party and the ordinance contained no avenue for dis- cussion. Regarding the fact that the present ordinance was not enforced anyway, many laws were rarely enforced but valuable to have on the books. Lack of enforcement did not seer to be sufficient justification.for removing a law wnich. while not being actively enforced put the public on notice that excessive noise would not be tolerated in Palo Alto. The.. new ordinance provided no incentive for purchasing quieter equipment or maintaining current equipment in proper working order. He said .110 dBAs for residential construc- tion was louder than the "Grateful Dead' concert and it was next door. Noise of such magnitude• should not be allowed except on permit basis and a mechanism already existed in the original ordinance. The City Manager had the option to issue six-month permits for equipment which could not meet the noise ordinance, and if necessary, such permits could be routinely_ issued along with building permits if there turned out to be a problem with the current noise ordinance. Such a mechanism could provide the City with additional flexi- bility and it could set the noise limitations in the permits according to the nature of the construction activity. Resi- dential power equipment might be somewhat more difficult, but he believed there could be a similar pewit situation. He encouraged discussion, but believed raising the limita- tion to 95 dBA was as good as no ordinance as ails Leaf blowers were the problem --not the ordinance. He wanted to leave the ordinance intact except for the leaf blowers. Steve James, P. 0. Box 1760, Pacifica, , represented Golden Eagle Distributing in Sacramento. Since the previous meeting, Echo went forward with a "Be Smart" program which - was printed in six different languages and was distributed to the Gardeners Associations. He received a poster he would be passing out to all the dealers in the area which explained the safe and smart operation of blowers. _They were unable to keep the quieter blowers in stock so he knew they were being sold. K. i ekku, 3310 Louis Road, was a gardener in Palo Alto, and agreed with Mrs. Pope. Gardeners did not blow any More than was necessary to operate, and they did not use the equipment hour after hour in one spot. It was used for about 30 min- utes at the longest. Parking lots were usually the longest, buc there were no residents in the area. Gardeners tried not to go into residential areas at 7:00 or 8:00 a.m or Saturdays or Sundays to wake everyone up. They hoped for an opportunity to run their business ethically and to promote their living. MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt the ordinance for first reading with the following revisions: 1. Add Section 4 to read, 'The Council finds that the enactment of this ordinance will have no significant environmental impacts, 2. Add Section 5 to read, This ordinance shall become effective upon the commencement of the 31st day after its passage's and 3. Revise Section 2b.3(a) to change the wording 'a minimum of four inches" to 'a minimum of 1 to 1-1/2 inches." ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 9.10 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE NOISE STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES" Council Member Klein spoke to Council Member Bechtel's.con- cerns about the paragraph at the top of page 4 of CMR:203:7 regarding the problem of keeping the City parking lots clean . and he wanted Council to be able to take some other action other than increasing the budget to do so. He asked whether staff had any recommendations as to how the ordi- nance might accommodate the problem. Mr. Miller said brooms and rakes were currently being used to do the cleanup in the downtown areas as opposed to leaf blowers. In some instances they were on a nine -week cycle before they got back to the same parking lot for hand cleaning. The 10 hours per week represented 25 percent of one persons time juet on the leaf blowers. Mfr. Zaner believed there were two ways to try and deal with the ordinance. One was to revise the ordinanceto allow an exemption for cleaning of public properties so that the use of leaf blowers or power equipment would be accepted. The 57-115 4/27/87 ordinance could also be revised to exempt leaf blowers or heavy equipment on the basis of distance from a residential area. He was concerned by that approach because it was dif- ficult to enforce and meant the City needed to do individual measurements and when the enforcement officers went out it meant there would be a dispute as to where the equipment was operated. Council Member Klein asked if there could be a time limit on the first approach. Mr. Zaner said staff could probably deterMine some band of time in which the work would be done. yt might be diffi- cult, but he believed it could be done. AMENDMENT: Council Member Klein moved, .seconded by Levy, to amend the proposed ordinance to provide an exemption for the cleaning of public parking lots and business districts with leaf blowers. Such cleaning by leaf blowers to be 1 imi Led to not more than ten hours per week with the speci- fications of said ten hours to be provided by the City Manager before second reading. Council Member Levy seconded the amendment for purposes of discussion. He queried whether a public parking,, lot would include privately owned lots which were available to the public, i.e., a parking lot located adjacent to a piece of property in the industrial park. Mr. Zaner said staff intended to include public facilities for which the City was responsible for cleaning. If it was a private lot and someone else was responsible.. ;.for its cleanliness, it would not be included. If on the other hand, there was a situation where the City leased the lot for some public purpose and the City was responsible for its cleanliness, 'it would be considered a public parking lot. Council Member Levy was uncomfortable in having a specific user exemption. He wanted to be able to allow the similar cleaning for the many privately -owned parking lots in town where the parking lots were a considerable distance away from residential areas. The amendment was a start in the right direction, but he queried whether they could allow for the cleanup of those other facilities on the same basis as the City cleaned its own facilities. Mr. Zaner believed the definition could be broadened to remove the qualifier of *public* parking lots. Such ` a designation would then start including things like the Town and Country parking lot, Stanford Shopping Center parking lot, Charleston Center parking lot, etc. 57-116 4/27/87 Council Member Levy believed the ordinance was fundamentally designed for residential areas. He referred to the hours of 1:`:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when residents were sleeping, but said it was at those hours when the industrial/commercial areas tended to be vacant, and it was probably best for the noise to occur then because it would be heard by so few people. He understood there were parking lots close to residential areas and he wanted to find a way to fine tune the ordinance completely, but many of the lots were in the middle of industrial areas and Council should allow them to be cleaned on the same basis as City lots were cleaned. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council !ember Klein moved, seconded by Levy, to refer to staff the entire ordinance in order to further explore the question of cleaning public parking lots in business districts with leaf blowers. Council Member Bechtel said the City's ordinance was pres- ently drafted for those people with parking lots in indus- trial parks, shopping centers, etc., and they might not know about the ordinance as proposed. The motion might provide time to get softie -additional information and it would be interesting to find out how Hewlett Packard or Stanford Shopping Center presently handled the cleaning of their parking lots. Council Member Renzel was concerned about. legalizing the use of leaf blowers at night in public parking lots even in>com-- mercial areas. She was not inclined eo want to refer the issue. The Ci ty! s policy was tp encourage housing in the commercial areas and there were currently two housing proj- ects over public parking garages. While Council assumed staff would use judgment in those matters and there were policies of trying to encourage housing in the commercial areas, now Council was saying .it would make those areas a little less hospitable for people to live in. Council Member Fletcher was concerned about the close proximity of residences to some of the industrial park parking lots. While she agreed with Council Member Renzel, large areas away from residential areas might be designated so that leaf blowers could be used, and consideration could be given as housing got closer. Council Member Patitucci was concerned because he believed Council should talk about the substance of the ordinance other than the addition of the parking lot issue. He was impressed with the comments of some of the speakers as to 57-117 4/27/87 As corrected 5/26/87 the potential environmental impact of some of the noise levels to be permitted under the revised ordinance. He did not believe the ordinance had appropriate public debate and did not believe Council could say there was no adverse environmental impacts. He would not support the ordinance in any where near its current form. He wanted to differen- tiate his comments between the issue originally intended to be discussed relative to the noise' ordinance i.e., leaf blowers, and though he was not happy with the results of the discussion of leaf blowers, he believed it was the only item which had adequate discussion at the February meeting. He was concerned Council totally opened up its noise ordinance in areas never a source of major complaint, he, e, City equip- ment and construction. The noise ordinance, prior to its emasculation, was a situation similar to the 25 mile per hour speed limit on Emba.rcadero Road. No one drove 25 miles per hour, but Council recognized the law could not be spe- cifically enforced and did not raise it to 40 miles per hour because it would incorporate everyone who drove on Embarcadero Road. In the past, Council recognized the reality of enforcing the noise ordinance with equipment users and City staff. There was an exception procedure over which the City Manager had complete control and there were never serious problems with a 70 dBA-limit on equipment that could not be resolved and which required the City to close down any facilities or construction sites. He believed Council went too far and should reconsider the high decibel levels of 95 and 110. Based on his information; such levels were potentially damaging to people who might be around them. Council did not know enough technically to make the decisions it made. AMENDMENT: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by l *solo to reconsider the 95 and 110 dilA limits on the four cat#goriees of equipment: City public utility equipment, 110 dBA; refuse collection, .95 dBA; street sweeping, 95; resi- dential construction 110 dBA, and to re-ovaluate whether the 95 and 1.10 dBAs did not has, an adverse environmental impact. Council Member Renzel concurred with Council Member Patitucci. Two houses in her neighborhod were under con- struction for several months with nail guns and power saws, and now those buildings were completed and another was under construction. It was important to have • some control. In the case of the construction project on El Camino Way, neighbors there . were subjected for six months or longer to construction noise for extended periods. To some extent some of the noise could and should be controlled. 57-118 4/27/87 Council Member Fletcher completely agreed with Council Member Patitucci's comments and his amendment. When an ordinance was revised, she queried whether the finding of the environmental impact was based on the differences between the two ordinances. Mr. Bennetti said the noise levels considered in the original negative declaration were the same. The amendments were not re-evaluated because there was no change in the limits. Vice Mayor Sutorius referred to the private parking lots and queried whether Stanford Shopping Center, Hewlett Packard and some of the others would clean their parking lots with a vaccuum type truck on contract to whoever did their mainte- nance and not use leaf blowers. Mr. Miller said yes. They might use leaf blowers around the islands and landscape areas. Vice Mayor Sutorius would not support the substitute motion. He believed there were ways of handling the public parking lots which were the City's responsibility and he heard no concerns raised by the business community regarding their parking lots. He remembered strong concerns raised by the residents in the condominiums adjacent to the Cabana and how they did rot like the idea of leaf blowers at the early hours. He believed it would be a mistake to try and come up with some type of a leaf blower use in the out of hours. He was inclined to pass the ordinance before the Council and move on. Council Member Levy said one problem with the ordinance was the 110 dBA allowances. He believed the reason Council Member Patitucci proposed his amendment was for Council to re-evaluate such high allowances for various kinds of equipment. He understood the reason for raising the allow- ances so much was essentially because City equipment made such noise. Police Lieutenant Ed Austin said it was correct except few pieces of City equipment were that loud. Council Member Levy clarified the City had a moral obliga- tion to be strictly within the ordinance and since it could not ticket itself discretionarily, as it could ticket pri- vate contractors, the problem was the City needed to raise the dBAs to 110 not in order to control private contractors or to allow private contractors to do things, but to allow the City to do things since it could not have the same kind of -discretion with itself. 57-119 4/27/87 Lt. Austin said although City equipment or employees were not cited, there were a few cases where violations of the noise ordinance caused a job or job site to be shut down temporarily because of complaints. It had been a problem. Council Member Levy concurred with Council Member Patitucci's comments. The City's noise ordinance was enforced only on a complaint basis and generally the resi- dents in town tolerated noise level exceptions except when it happened on a recurring basis, which was the case with leaf blowers. He shared the problem of raising the entire noise level tor equipment other than leaf blowers. He sup- ported Council Member Patitucci's substitute motion and requested that etafL try and figure out a way whereby the City's equipment was treated the same as private equipment and where the City did not have to be more rigorous in con- trolling its own equipment. Where there were not complaints in the past, he did not want the ordinance to be changed. Council Member Bechtel pointed out it was not just because of the City's equipment that Council was trying to change the rules, but simply that the equipment was too loud. A power mower made a certain amount of noise as did power saws and hammers that were routinely used in construction. She believed staff was correct when they recommended the environmental assessment because Council was not making a change in any existing activities and would not be increasing the numbers of activities. Previously there was a law on the books which was unenforceable and now the City was recognizing it. The hours of operation were being closely regulated. She believed it was a mistake to support Council Member Patitucci's referral back to staff. Mayor Woolley concurred with Council Member Bechtel and Vice Mayor Sutorius. The jack hammer was one of the loudest tools and was not just used by the City but by many private contractors for breaking up cement. Her neighborhood recently experienced having a contractor pour concrete into a sewer pipe. To correct the problem a backhoe was used for 24 hours, and not one person objected because two blocks of houses did nothavethe use of the sewer. In most instances when that kind of equipment was used in residential areas, it was not often nor for .a long period of time. She would not support the amendment. Council member Klein appreciated and learned from the discussion. He would support, the position espoused by Council. Member Bechtel and Mayor Woolley and vote against the amendment. In regard to City standards, he favored referring to staff a way for the City to clean its parking lots without the extra cost for it to be done by hand. He 57-120 As co�� 4/2i �7 8 i agreed with Vice Mayor_Sutorius that the City probably could take the private parking lots out of the name referral motion. Council too often felt constrained by putting the City to the same standards as everybody else. The City was different in some respects. There were already on the books any number of differences between what the City and a pri- vate citizen might do, e.g., a police car exceeding speed limits under certain circumstances, or police officers car- rying guns. Those differences were not questioned because they were in the interest of public safety and cleaning pub- lic parking lots was also in the interest of public health and safety. People parked in them far longer hours than at private employers. The argument made by those who wanted a reexamination of the issue was that it was good to have it on the books even if it was unenforceable. The analogy to 25 miles per hour on Embarcadero was misleading; the speed limit on Embarcadero was enforced. While some discretion was wanted, the law had to be reasonable and realistic, or else it became a laughing stock. ;If the equipment `being operated was partof everyday activities and nobody was com- plaining, it did not make sense to have something on the books that enabled a person with an axe to, grind to engage in selective enforcement, with the City having no choice tut to go along with that one irate citizen. He opposed the amendment but hoped for a referral to staff to take care of the public parking lot situation. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 4-4, Fletcher, Levey, Patitucci, Renzel voting l`ayt, e Cobb absent. Mayor Woolley said the substitute motion was to refer the ordinance to staff to review the provision of an exemption to permit the cleaning of public parking lots in business districts using leaf blowers with a limitation on hours. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 10:05 p, rn. to 10:15 Council Member Klein wished to withdraw his substitute motion to refer to staff. Council Member Levy did not agree to the withdrawal. Council Member Klein said he would vote against the substi- tute motion at that point. Council Member Levy believed there was no fundamental difference between parkings lots in front of private. buildings and the City's bUiFling parking lots as a way to facilitate a number of private employers getting together to provide sufficient parking. It would be arrogant and 57-121 4/27/87 inappropriate for the City to have an exemption for their parking lots but not allow an exemption on a similar basis for private parking lots. To the degree City parking lots might incur on private residential areas and be a problem, so the law must be tailored in similar fashion for private lots. It was appropriate to treat the problem as one. An ordinance should be fashioned that allowed public and private lots to be treated similarly. AME3 DNEN: s Council Member Menzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, that on July 1, 1989 gas -powered leaf blowers not produce a.noise level which exceeds 70 dBA. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-5, Renzel, Fletcher, Patitucci voting 'aye," Cobb absent. Council Member Renzel would support the substitute motion to refer in order to ensure another chance for improving the ordinance. Council Member Fletcher said page 3, Section c(1) of the ordinance referred to a device housed within a structure on the property, the measurement would be made outside the structure at a distance as close to 25 feet from the equipment as possible, which to her could be a person running a vaccuum cleaner with a policeman standing at the front door. AMEEDM9 f Ts Cvunclimember Fletcher moved, seconded by Klein, to change the verbaRge *at a distance as close to 25 feet, from the equipment as possible,° to •at a distance et 25 feet from the structure.-" Mr. Rennetti said the amendment would result in a situation where if the building structure coincided with the property line, one might be 25 feet back from a building in which noisy equipment was being used. The plane of the property line was already a limit on noise and the amendment could result in some curious measurements. - Council Member Fletcher queried whether there could be a differentiation between residential where a house had set- backs and industrial plants or business structures where there might not be setbacks. She suggested the question might be referred to staff for response. Mr. Zaner clarified the regulation referred to by Council Member Fletcher only related to construction on residential property with. a - piece of equipment housed in a structure. I..had nothing to do with someone's vaccuum cleaner inside a hocise. 57-122 4/27/87 AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND SUBSTITUTE [LOTION RESTATED: REFER THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE BACK TO ST?F IN ORDER THAT A PROVISION NAY BE MADE FOR AN EXEMP- TION PERMITTING THE CLEANING OF PUBLIC PARKING LOTS IN BUSI- NESS DISTRICTS USING LEAP BLOWERS WITH A LIMITATION ON HOURS. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED by a vote of q--4, Bechtel, Sutoriu,, Woolley, Klein voting 'no,' Cobb absent. MOTION RESTATED: TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE WITH THE ADDITION OF SECTIONS 4 AND 5 AND THE CHANGE IN LETTERING HEIGHT TO ONE AND ONE-HALF INCHES Council Member Patitucci urged his colleagues to vote against the motion. Council needed to think through some of the. consequences. He pointed out a construction site might only have one piece of equipment which peaked up to 110 dBAs for a couple of hours in the course of an entire job. The ordinance grandtathered every piece of equipment on the job which meant if there were other pieces of equipment which could be operated at lower levels, there was no incentive to do so. People- could take mufflers off of equipment so the average noise level went up. There might be ways to accom- modate the peaks but still keep the average level down. There were no incentives for anyone, including City depart- ments, to reduce noise levels over time such as those given to the manufacturers of leaf blowers. Council might -con- sider building in a time limit. He wanted to formulate spe- cific factors priortea the ordinance returning and ..for some Council Members to agree the incentives were worthwhile to try and insure that noise levels went down in the future.: Council Member Renzel said when the original noise ordinance was adopted, consideration was given to the noise levels of existing kinds Of equipment in use in the City at that time. The proposed Ordinance seemed to be the oppposite of what Council. hoped to achieve -by the, original ordinance in that instead of reducing the noise .of. equipment, .__Council was changing the ordinance to accommodate all equipment which exceeded .the noise level. It seemed to be a general degre- dation of the quality of life.. Palo Alto's: noise ,:was nothing like San Francisco's, but Palo Alto could face -the sae . problems and it made no sense to back away from the incentives- which existed for 80.. many years to try , and _e_ ut back on noise, There Were a lot of problems with noise in the community Council could not deal with, and where it could' deal with the issue, it should. She: urged Council vote no on the . motion until such time as there Was a plan for reducing poise levels on City equipment and the equip- ment used in the community. 57•'123 4/27/87 MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-3, Renzel, Fletcher, Patitucci voting "no,' Cobb absent. MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel, to refer to staff the question of devising an amendment to Chapter 9.10 to allow the City to use leaf blowers to clean its public parking lots. Council Member Fletcher asked whether the ordinance would consider proximity to residential areas. Council Member Klein said no. His motion asked staff to return with a proposal. If staff wanted to include such a provision, it was fine.; if not, any Council Member could bring it up at the time. He did not want to tie staff's hands. AMENDMENT: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, to include the word *private" lots, and to incor- porate consideration of giving appropriate distance from residential zones. Council Member Renzei suspected by the time one started drawing circles of distances from which the noise could not be heard by someone in a residential structure, it would make the amendment pointless. She supported the amendment but was not supportive of the idea of having leaf blowers go at night anywhere near a residence regardless of whether it was,multi-family or single family Mayor Woolley would not support the amendment . or the motion because she did not want any discrimination between .public and private. The instances where public or private parking lots were. not close to residences would be fewexcept for the Stanford Research Park and it was probably not a problem there. As pointed out by Vice Mayor Sutorius there were other methods used for cleaning parking lots. She preferred not to see the ordinance further compL sated. £ IBADMEMT . FAILED by a vote of 4-4, Bechtel, Sntoriva, Woolley, Klein voting no. Cobb absent. MOTION PASSED by .a vote of 5--3, Menzel, Woolley,. Patitucci voting 'nano,' Cobb absent. NOTION* Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Menze1, to request staff to prepare it policy for purchasing qttieter equipment. 577-134 4/27/87 NOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. 13. JOINT COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE FOR PALO ALTO AIRPORT (1161-01) (CMR:236 :7 ) Council Member Bechtel asked why the suggestion was for a 1'2 -member committee rather than an odd number, and queried whether a smaller member committee might not be more workable,, Midge -Vaughn, Chairperson of the Santa Clara County Airports Commission, said part of the reason for establishing a com- mittee of 12 was to correct the imbalance of aviation repre- 3entation on the Good Neighbor Committee so there could be no way for the aviation representation to overrule the_ com- munity and vice versa. The committee would. have to work out the best possible solution for everyone involved on every issue. The County intended to establish similar community relations committees at each of its airports. The committee was originally formed because of noise concerns, and as of April 22, the prior month only resulted in one call about a generic noise question. Some of the procedures instituted last fall were beginning to make some impact on the noise issue. The County hoped the committee would enhance the relationship of the airport to the community. If managed properly, the airport could contribute to the community in many positive ways. Berkley Driessel, Vice Chairperson end public member of the Airports Commission, hoped for a representation on the com- mittee of varied points of view. He hoped :the committee would work together to make the airport a valuable resource. Council Member Fletcher asked how many members .. of the Airports Commission were pilots. Mr. Driessel said four members were pilots and three were members of the public. There were supposed to be three pilots and four public members, but because a supervisor appointed a pilot as a public member, the balance was reversed. MOTION* Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Smtorius, to approve the stuff recommendation as follows: 1. Direct staff to prepare and publish advertisements notifying the public of the opportunity to apply for appointment to the Joint Community Relations Committee for the Palo Alto Airport; 57-125 4/27/87 MOTION CONTINUED 2. Authorize the Mayor, on behalf of the City Council, to select five Palo Altar's to serve on the Committee; and 3. Direct the City Manager or his designee to represent the City Council on the Committee. Council Member Fletcher did not like the balance because it was not a balance when one considered that the County staff advocated the pilots; the Airports Commission advocated the pilots. There was a minority of six community members. Her concept of the process was it was a matter of overpowering the nonavia.tion community to indoctrinate them in why they should go along with what the aviation community desired. AMENDMENT: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Reuel, that the Palo Alto City Council would be pleased to participate in the committee if the structure was changed to reflect: five community members, one member representing the Palo Alto City Council, two members from the aviation community„ and one person from the traffic control toner to be an ez officio member. Council: Member Bechtel believed the proposed committee was already fair and even. There were six community members, i.e, five plus one representing the City Council and six others. She would not support the amendment. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-5, Rummel, Fletcher, Patitucci voting °aye," Cobb absent. Council Member Menzel would support the recommendation as structured principally because the public would not go away even if the committee was out of balance. The City Council was still accountable to the public and hopefully the com- mittee ittee would continue to effect the good work that the informal structure succeeded in doing and that it would not create another level at which the public would have to deal before they could address an issue of significance. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. 57-126 4/27/87 14. RESOLUTION \RE PROVISIONS OF CENTURY FEDERAL INC. UTUEME-UTTY=OTT(CMR.23 : Vice Mayor Sutorius advised that he would not participate due to a conflict of interest. MOTION: Council Mee r *ouzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, to approve the staff recommendation to adopt the changes as an amendment to the ,license agreement with Century .Federal Communications. RESOLUTION 6606 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING RESOLU- TION NO. 6101 CLARIFYING PROVISIONS OF A LICENSE GRANTED TO CENTURY FEDERAL, INCORPORATED" MOT/ON PASSED► unanimously, Sutorius "not participating,' Cobb absent. 15. REQUEST OF MAYOR WOOLLEY RE PALO ALTO'S RESPONSE TO rREMONT-SOUTH BAY TRANSIT STUDY RECOMMENDATION (1163) MOTION: Mayor (Woolley sated, seconded by Levy, to autho- rize the Mayor, on behalf of the City Council, to send a letter of support for Alternative 3 of the Fremont -South Bay Transit Study. Mayor Woolley suggested the letter of support make the light rail from Milpitas through to Mountain View, Sunnyvale as the top priority. Council Member Renzel said the map showed the route going ntrth of Route 237 for a portion of a distance east of 101, and she was concerned about supporting a route which went through any seasonal wetlands. If the route was on existing levees or in existing railroad right of. ways, she had no problem. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the map was conceptual at that point and the stud► focused on general corridors rather than exact alignments. Once the corridors of study were selected, the next stage of analysis would look at the questions raised by Council Member Renzel. Staff would keep Council Member Renzel'.s concerns in mind in any review of the more detailed environ- mental review. Council Member Renzel generally supported such an extension because she was a fairly frequent user of BART and it would be more convenient. 5.7-127 4/27/87 Council .Member Patitucci also supported the motion, but was unclear about: the other priority possibilities. Mayor Woolley said the problem was three of the four commission representatives were from San Jose, and the other alternative was to extend BART to San Jose. The concern was for the light rail connection to be first and then the BART connection. It was not that either was not a good idea. ROMPS PASS unanimously, Cobb abs.nt. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10:59 p.m. in memory of Stanley Bishop, a past Council Member who served from 1951 to 1963, ATTEST: APPROVED: