Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-05-26 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALOALtOCLTYCOUNCILMEETINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU-FREQUENCY9G.1 ON FM DIAL - Regular Meeting May 26, 1987 ITEM Oral Communications Minutes of April 27, 1987 1. Resolution 6611 Expression Appreciation to the Barron Park Association for its Sup- port and Participation in the Barron Park Evacuation Drill Consent Calendar PAGE 57-237 57.237 57-238 57-239 2. Contract with Redwood Medical Clinic f 57-239 Medical Screening Services 4. PUBLIC 4iEARIMC: Ordinance Extending the 57-239 Ordinandas Establish;,ng Interim Regula- tions for Town and Country Village, _Stanford Shopping Center, and the OR, CN and CS Districts, and Declaring an Emer- gency . Planning Commission Recommendation re Land Use Alternatives to be Studied in the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study Environmental Impact Report Recess 5A. (Old 3)? Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Related to Noise 57-240 57-256 57-263 Adjournment at 10:16 p.m. 57-266 57-236 5/26/87 Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 26, 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 Cobb (arrived at 7:45 p.m.), Bechtel, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci S utor i us, Woolley ABSENT: Renzel Mayor Woolley announced a Special Joint Meeting with the ArcLitectural Review Board (ARB) re South of University Avenue, Downtown Study, Improving Aesthetics of City Streets, Boulevards, and Gateways, Professionally Prepared Submittals to ARB, Holding Evening Meetings and Referral of Items to the City Council, and Role of the ARB in Percent for Art Policy Decision was held in the Council Conference Room at 6:00 p.m. A Closed Session re Employer/Employee Relations would not be held. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Harrison Otis, 2721 Midtown Court, spoke to the Voyager Proclamation. The scientific achievement- was out- standing. He grew up endeavoring to do something in the field of aviation. The Voyager called attention to a lot of the needs of tomorrow's safety in aviation. Air disasters needed to be prevented with more instrumenta- tion and development of better equipment. He hoped a proclamation would be prepared. MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 1987 Mayor Woolley said there was a new page 57-109. Council Member Fletcher submitted the following correction: Page 57.1'17, second paragraph from the bottom, second line from the bottom, delete the word "not." Mayor Woolley had the following corrections: Page 57-107, second paragraph, omit last sentence. Page 57-12Q, fourth paragraph, line 6, should read, "a sewer pipe. To correct the problem a backhoe was used for 24 nours, and not one..." 57•-237 5/26/87 MOTION: Council Member Sutorius moved, seconded by Bechtel, approval of the Minutes of April 27, 1987, as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzol, Cobb absent. 1. RESOLUTION 6611 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO THE BARRON PARK ASSOCIATION FOR ITS SUPPORT AND PARTICIPATION IN THE BARRON PARK EVACUATION DRILL° (1540-09) MOTION: Council Member Levy moved, seconded by Patitucci, approval of the resolution. RESOLUTION 6611 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO THE BARRON PARK ASSOCIATION FOR ITS SUPPORT AND PARTICIPATION IN THE BARRON PARK EVACUATION DRILL° Mayor Woolley read the resolution which said that Palo Alto residents, local industry, and City officials and staff were concerned about the threat of a hazardous materials incident occurring .in Palo Alto and the Board of Directors of the Barron Park Association (BPA) took the initiative in sug- gesting that its neighborhood would provide the opportunity to test the ability of the City and community to respond to an emergency evacuation and worked with City staff to develop the evacuation element of the Palo Alto Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan and a prototype evacuation plan. The BPA was instrumental in encouraging the majority of Barron Park households in the designated area to partici- pate in the evacuation_ drill held on Saturday, April 25, 1987, and the drill most successfully accomplished its objectives, namely: to test the Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan and the Prototype Evacuation Plan, to provide training for City. personnel, to test the coopera- tive response, and to foStere cooperation between industry, the community, and the City. The Council of the City of Palo Alto expressed its appreciation and gratitude to the BPA for its support and participation in the Barron Park Evacuation Drill and for its continuing dedication to active community involvement. She said Palo Alto was fortunate to have a neighborhood with the kind of energy and devotion that Barron Park brought to the community. Art _Bay:e accepted the award on behalf of Barron Park. The BPA hoped to_do more in the future and work with the City to better nat only their own area but the rest -of Palo Alto. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzel, Cobb absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Woolley said Item 3, Ordinance amending Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to change the noise stan- dards for certain activities, was removed at the request of a member of the public. 2. CONTRACT WITH REDWOOD MEDICAL CLINIC FOR MEDICAL SCREENING SERVICES (CMR:243:7) (520) MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Sutorius, approval of the Consent Calendar. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzel, Cobb absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager Bill i,aner said Item 3, Ordinance amending Chapter 9.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to change the noise 'standards for certain activities, would become Item 5-A. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE ORDINANCES ESTABLISHING INTER.IM REGULATIONS FOR TOWN AND COUNTRY VILLAGE L STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER, AND THE OR, CN AND CS DISTRICTS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (237) City Attorney Diane Northway said with seven Council Members present, six votes were needed for an emergency ordinance. If an additional person arrived, the requirement would be seven votes. Mayor woolley declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the Public Hearing closed, MOTION: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the ordinance. ORDINANCE 3750 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXTENDING THE ORDINANCES ESTABLISHING INTERIM REGULATIONS FOR TOWN AND COUNTRY VILLAGE, STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER: AND THE OR, CN AND CS DISTRICTS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY" MOTION PASSED unanimously-, Cobb, Renzel absent. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE LAND USE ALTERNATIVES TO BE STUDIED IN THE CITYWIDE LAND USE AND IMPACT REPORT TRANSPORTATION STUDY (CMR:275:7) (1041-07) ENVIRONMENTAL Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber introduced Steve Pickrell of the transportation consulting firm of Fehr & Peers Associates, who also worked on the project. Planning Commissioner Pat Cullen said the Planning Commission held eight meetings regarding the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study. It was believed to be one of the most important studies which occurred in the City in the past several years since it was Citywide, affected a wider geographic area and more property owners and residents. Three of the Commission meetings were held in the community to gather input on the scope of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the study. A lot of information and many recommendations were from the public, and as a result, some of the preliminary recommendations before community input was sought were refined. In paL tinular, the housing densi- ties listed for study were modified so that nigh density alternatives were only being considered in two areas. One was the Homer Lane area and the other was the former school site at Mayfield. The rest of the alternatives covered a range of both low intensity development and the "no alterna- tive," which was where the present zoning would be the maxi- mum develor ent. Other possibilities in between were refined. Mayor Woolley said both the CS and CN districts were in the - study for a minimum zoning of .4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR), except for the Urban Lane which she believed -was .5 FAR, and she queried how it fit in with the Golden Triangle require- ments. Mr. Schreiber said so far the Golden Triangle discussions focused on the difference between exempt and nonexempt land uses. Retail service commercial, warehousing, and many other nonoffice, non-RMD, nonmanufacturing land uses were not covered by the Golden Triangle. The Golden Triangle addressed offices, manufacturing, research and development and related uses. Because of: the office restrictions in Palo Alto as well as the use restrictions of some of the zones, the possibility for development above the Golden Triangle limits was emote on almost all parcels. In that senseA-- Palo Alto's regulations were probably more restricted than any recommendation discussed by the Golden Triangle process. 57-240 5/26/87 Council Member Fletcher referred to the Welch Road office area where one of the alternatives suggested a .5:1 FAR, and she queried how it would fit in with the Golden Triangle policy. Mr. Schreiber said the Golden Triangle discussions of FAR in all cases involved potential policies whereby the jurisdic- tions would have latitude to have floor areas either higher or lower than a recommended average. If the Welch Road area was zoned and developed to a FAR higher than the .35 now being discussed by the Golden Triangle process, there would - need to be a corresponding offset in some other part of the community for development of less than the .35 FAR in order to balance out, which was the basic concept of the average FAR. At the May 29, 1987 Golden Triangle Task Force meeting, San Jose introduced a modified version of the FAR which would focus the new .35 FAR on only new development or expanded sites. In that event, the same type of balancing would have to occur, i.e., if the FAR went above on one site, another site would have t' go below or be changed to residential. Council Member Fletcher asked if once the zoning was put in place, some other areas would have to be zoned below .35 to balance out the allowable .5. Mr: Schreiber said the balance could be achieved either by zoning balance out based on theoretical buildout; or, as with the uowntown or California Avenue areas, within a development camp, which might be the more feasible approach. Those details . would have to be worked out and looked at carefully when the Golden Triangle recommendations were received and translated into specific sets of development regulations. 1hat process would be part of the EIR as the Citywide study went ahead. Council Member Fletcher wondered why the SP spur area CS parcels were not- considered for all multiple -family since one of the purposes was to look for sites to rezone to multiple -family, Planning Administrator Lynnie Melena said staff looked for areas they believed were particularly cedevelopable because they had vacant land or appeared to be on the verge of some type of redevelopment, and that was not concluded about the SP spur area, although it was open to discussion. Chief Planning Official Carol Jansen recollected a number of people expressed concern that present uses be retained and there not be many incentives for multiple --family uses within that area. 57-241 5/26/87 Council Member Levy understood there was one recommendation for a density that would exceed Palo Alto's current RM-5 zoning, Ms. Jansen believed the Mayfield School site was 265 units maximum which would be about 45 units to the acre, RM-5 density. RM-5 presently allowed up to 45 units to the acre. That was the only place that approached the RM-5 den- sity. The remainder were 20-30/10-20 units to the acre, and many were reduced by the Planning Commission's last action and recommendation to Council. Council Member Levy asked the status- of the study on the i'91-5 zone. Council gave di,rectior, to look at that with the idea that RM-5 per, se might be too dense a zone for Palo Alto. Ms. Jansen replied staff was working with a subcommittee, comprising members of the Planning Commission, ARB, and staff, to review the multiple -family ordinance regulations in total and would be reporting back to Council. A recom- mendation to Planning Commission was scheduled for August. The review encompassed a number of Council referrals on the multiple -family ordinances in general, including RM-5, regu- lations in regard to setbacks, and other issues. Council Member Levy asked if there was a duplication of effort between that effort and Council's possible approval that evening of an RM-5 density when they might later on decid► to eliminate the RM-5 zone completely. Ms. Jansen did not see a duplication of effort. If the RM-5 was deleted, that one parcel would represent 'a worse -case density but would have little impact on the City as a whole in the Citywide study. Council Member Patitucci referenced the totals for Alternative 1, Alternative 2, etc., in the summary of housing units. He understood the alternatives would be studied as part of the EIR process and Council would not be approving an across-the-board plan far all Alternative 1 or all Alternative 2, but would be choosing by area. Ms. Jansen said correct. Council Member Patitucci pointed out if one chose the option most favorable to producing the most numbers of units, the maximum total number of units was closer to 3,200 rather than .the 2;300. The Golden. Triangle Task Force studies had been able to quantify the impact. of the imbalance of housing 57-242 5/26/87 and jobs, and to the extent ':here was any opportunity in the future to reestablish any balance, there was need for about 50,000 additional housing units in the Golden Triangle area before any additional commercial or industrial space was developed. That might start to bring things in balance, bring people closer to their jobs, and start to reduce some of the traffic impacts, If Palo Alto wanted a less con- gested Santa Clara County, they «eight have to do their -part, which was more likely to be in the area of housing. They were getting close to reasonable numbers, but the totals were understated, Council Member Fletcher referenced Charleston Shopping Center, Alternative 1 to retain office and grocery store size limitation, and she asked the limitation on the whole center for offices. Ms. Melena said the present reol_sl.ations concerning offices in the CN zone allowed a maximum of 5,000 square feet o,r each parcel. There were two parcels in the Charleston Shopping Center, so under those guidelines there could only be 10,000 square feet of offices. Beyond that, more office space could be applied for under a Use Permit. ::_Council Member Fletcher asked the meaning of "specialty retail," under Urban Lane. Ms. Jansen clarified "specialty retail" was the type of shops found along University Avenue not normally associated with a commercial service district. The intent was to try. to limit dress, antique shops, etc.,.rather than the commer- cial service uses presently in the Urban Lane area. Council Member Fletcher believed Council had asked for one alternative to be L oked at in the ►Midtown area: to reserve the ground floor for retail only for any new uses. She asked if that was considered. Ms. Melena said the alternative was considered. Currently► there were other uses at ground level but she believed the base case or existing situation mostly reflected the ground floor retail concept. Council Member Fletcher clarified the alternatives would not necessarily preclude expansion of office uses on the ground floor. Ms. Melena said correct; the only restriction would be .the present office space limitation in the CN zone which was 5,000 square feet per site. 57-243 5/26/87 Council Member Bechtel said a letter, from. the Elks Club at places (on file in the City Clerk's office) asked that a decision be delayed on a potential rezoning. She clarified for the record _what Council was studying. Area 6 would either be the existing zoning plus three alternatives. She .asked it any of those, mainly the existing zoning, would totally preclude the Elks Club potntial needs at a later date. Ms. Jansen said no; in fact, the Elks Club had a low FAR and a substantial amount of parking on that property which would allow for expansion of the existing use. Mayor Woolley clarified that Council was not rezoning that evening_. Rezoning would come much later in the study. Council was deciding on the alternatives to be studied in an EIR. The staff report (CMR:275:7) gave the. alternatives Council was working with. The alternatives were in order going from the lowest density to the highest density, which was build out under the present zoning. The order did not mean that Alternative I had more priority or importance, and all alternatives would be considered to have equal weight and would be given equal study. in all cases, the fourth alternative --complete build out --meant no change and would be given the least study. Carol Stevens, 193 Ferne Avenue, a Greenmeadow resident, appreciated members of the Planning Commission going to her community to give a better clarification of their proposals and hear the residents' views. She supported wholeheartedly the present use of the Cubberley/Greendell complex. The Paio Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) personnel indi- cated the school population, particularly the secondary schools, would be stabilizing by 1990. The decline would be ending, and who could predict the school population in 20 or 30 years. Once the campuses were destroyed for other uses, they would be impossible to replace. Their first choice was to keep the present use of those sites. If an EIR alterna- tive was necessary, their choice would. be the first alternative --the lowest density, single-family housing. Martha Sbarbori, 4005 Ben Lomond Drive, moved to Palo Alto ten years ago from Southern Orange_County, which was then largely undeveloped with tracts of open ranch land, sheep grazing on hillsides, and orange groves. Moving to the more densely -populated San Francisco Peninsula, she consoled her- self with the fact that at least it was a relatively -stable, built -out area, and pi.oVisions for open space abounded, Now she was concerned that the open space in Palo -Alto would fall --victim to the planner's pencil. She . saw in her 57-244 5/26/87 neighborhood of Greenmeadow that pl Miners were attempting to cram as much housing as possible into an already densely built-up area. She was 'concerned there was not enough room for the larger arterial streets to accommodate the increase in traffic brought by more housing particularly denser, multi -family housing. Unlike Southern Orange County where land was available to include new and larger roads to accom- modate the traffic generated by the housing, Palo Alto had no remaining space to enlarge existing arterial streets. She was, already concerned that for her neighbors and her to get onto'Alma at some times of the day, it was safer and easier to drive through their neighborhood and utilize the lights at Alma and San Antonio, or Nelson and Charleston, and then proceed west to Alma than to exit directly from Greenreadow Way or Ferne Avenue. She urged Council to retain only the existing uses at Cubberley and Greendell and at the J. L. Stanford Middle School site. Joe Martignetti, represented Prometheus Development Company, 20300 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino, and said Prometheus entered into a joint relationship with the Traynor -Hill family who owned the property located at the intersection of Charleston and El Camino Real. The site was approximately 4.25 acres, and Prometheus was working with the Traynor -Hill family to come up with a development that would provide housing and neighborhood retail. The site had a colorful background in that the Traynor--Hiii family owned the property for a long time. Their ancestors came to Palo Alto and started a lumber company at the turn of the cen- tury. They built up the business over the years and eventually it became known as The Yard. Other people cur- rently ran the business, but the Traynor --Hill family realized The Yard was not as productive and there were bet- ter uses for the land- Prometheus met with City staff and reviewed the site from an engineering and planning stand- point, studied the utilities, talked to. Planning in :errs of zoning, what was permittable, how it would affect the neigh- bors, the environment, etc. With the cooperation of the Barron Park Association (BPAJ and the Charleston Meadows Association, they conducted a neighborhood meeting in which representatives of the groups talked about the site. In the past they found that developers and owners of property sel- dom gave neighbors a chance to speak their piece prior to the design process of a project. ^rometheus thought they would try to evaluate t_he neighbors' concerns and hopefully incorporate most of them into the development of the proj- ect. Very real concerns from the neighbors ranged efrom density to height limits, setbacks, noise pollution, privacy in terms of views into backyards, etc. Their team of archi- 'tects and engineers was currently attempting to address most of those concerns. One of the things that Prevented their 57-245 5/26/87 making an application was their commitment to the neighbors to return to show how the design addressed the concerns and hopefully to get the neighbors support for the project. They would return to City staff to solidify the application process and understood the application could be presented to staff and then go through a routine approval process in view of the Citywide study. With that, they hoped to address any concerns of staff, City Council., Planning Commission, or the ARB. Staff said they would most likely be required to do a focused EIR which addressed most of the concerns being studied in the Citywide study. They planned to return with the application► and more specifics of the project in the next few weeks. He asked for Council support and assistance with the application for development of the Traynor -Hill site. site. They were confident of bringing back a quality proj- ect of which the neighbors would be proud, hopefully the City would oe proud, and they knew they would be proud, and which would provide the housing needed by the City. Maynard Kuijian, 182 Ferne Court, had lived in the Greenmeadow area for nearly 30 years and helplessly watched the City grow to the point where he felt the quality of life for which they moved to Palo Alto had faded. With great respect for the detailed work and competent staff reports over the many years, he requested Council's consideration of a concept of absolute limits on population density instead of relative density considerations which seemed to move slowly year after year, imperceptibly but with no end. He was a great believer that things they called problems were really symptoms. They had one problem in considering the quality of the City, _ and that was population density. They would feel a great loss if the Cubberley area fell to any interest other than its present use. It was a symbol of something permanent, and if that too fell, it was one more helplessness to endure.. Ken Crittenden, 342 farkside Drive, said when he and his wife moved to the San Francisco area to work 32 years ago, they 1poked throughout the say Area for where they wanted to live, picked Greenmeadow, and were glad they did; however, he was concerned that the quality of life in Palo Alto as a whole, and in the vicinity of their neighborhood, had been changing. It had been diminishing in recent years. The buildings went higher, usage was more dense, and traffic. became heavier not just moving into Palo Alto but out as well. He was concerned particularly that the Cubberley/ Greendell school sites _not .be used for multiple --family housing, His and many of his neighbors' first choice was that it .should be continuede it possible, as an educational facility. If not possible, that the site be_ used for, 57-246 5/26/87 singie-tamilyehousing. He was also concerned about the way the land use study was being conducted. He asked one member of the planning group why the City was studying so much denser usage in Pal: Alto and received the answer that they wanted to find the point at which the system would break down and then would back away from that; point so it would still operate. He hoped he misunderstood'or� that the_ person was not fully informed, but it was important it be looked at. If they found how much they could cram into Palo Alto, the desirability and uniqueness of the community that m ant so much would fade away bit by bit. They should not study what they did not want to have. He used to believe the rest of Palo Alto could become denser and denser while Greenmeadow would remain apart, but he did not believe that any more nor was it true of any other part of Palo Alto. They were woven together and what happened to one happened to all. Mike Ardley, 352 Parkside Drive, a 25 -year resident of Greenmeadow, seconded what the previous speakers said, particularly in regard to why they were in Palo Alto in the first place. They care because Palo Alto was a beautiful place and they expected it to be stable. It had been good, but 55,000 to 60,000 people was sufficient fore the City. Specifically, he felt Alternative 2 of the Cubberley site should be deleted which was a much denser development thari should be in that area of 60 x 100 foot lots. A lot of the residents felt put upon with some of the proposals because for many years before Proposition 13 that part of Palo Alto always voted 'yes' on ballot propositions, and yet their schools were the first ones closed when the school popula- tion declined. They would like to see the open space that was left remain there. Bill Porter, 303 Creekside, lived in Greenmeadow and felt strongly about the quality of life. He' -did not believe big- ness was goodness. He proposed Council add one more alter- native to acquire the Cubberley land in total if necessary, and it it was not possible to continue the site as an educa- tional facility to convert it all into park and not additional housing of any type. That would improve the present quality of life. Daniel Fortune, 3962 Nelson Court, was a new member of the Greenmeadow community. He was dismayed at the concept ..of converting Cubberley campus into Another type of development because one of the reasons they moved there was because of the excellent -school system. They should keep the incred- ibly valuable resource of land available for future generations for use -as an educational facility. Land was an irreplaceable asset. The City of Palo Alto was getting 57--247 5/26/87 older and there were not as many children; however, there was an influx of young people moving in with young families and they would need an educational facility. If the resources of land were burned up for residential purposes, there would be no room for the young families to raise their children. The Cubberley/Greendell area should keep the status quo, and they should continue to maintain the site for the purposes intended by the original City planners. Harrison Otis, 2721 Midtown Court, resided in Palo Alto for 59 years and had seen a lot of changes, both good and bad. Originally, it was` a community of 5,000 and he saw the developments of Downtown and the outer regions. At first - his ideology was to bend to the commercial, but now he had become a re s iden t is l i s t. He was going to bend to people like Council Member Renzel who fought originally for the residentialists because they made a lot of sense. The com- munity was densified and they had jeopardized the aesthetic value around the Midtown area with high -density development. One could not walk across Middlefield Road, and it was a nightmare for the Police Department to enforce traffic regu- lations there. He asked whether they were going to let the real estate people run the town or were they going to have perseverance enough to let the citizens of the community run it right. He suggested returning to 6,000-7,000 per development per lot. He fought to try to keep the schools intact, and they would be used eventually. He sympathized with low-income housing but had seen what thappened on Middlefield Road with high rents. That was not doing some- thing for younger people. They should keep open space for the children of tomorrow. Mark Dobervich, 241 Parkside Drive, moved into Greenmeadow 12 years ago when there was only one child on the block. He was concerned about the rationale and reasonableness of the Cubberley/Greendeli proposed alternatives, specifically Alternative 2, multi -family housing. The neighborhood con- tinued to be reasonable in its recognition of the rights and needs of the PAUSD in its budget plight and also in the needs of the City for more housing. They supported the Cubberley lease and the mixed -use rentals that currently existed; however, he and 308 of his neighbors felt the pro- posed alternative for multi -family housing was far from reasonable. At a density of roughly two and one-half to three times the surrounding single-family ' residences, the resulting traffic and strain on existing services was not a reasonable alternative even .for study. He urged Council to drop the ;alternative. 57-248 5/26/87 Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, suggested modifications to some of the alternatives; a few he believed would be more inter- nally consistent, and a few because he disagreed with what was being proposed. With regard to Area 2, Urban Lane, CS, Alternative 1, he suggested instead of 0.5 FAR a 0.4 FAR. Every place where CS and CN were being studied the minimum FAR was 0.4. If adopted, the City would end up with a multiplicity of FARs within a zone which should be avoided if possible for the sake of simplicity and consistency. In Area 6, CS Zone, Alternative 3, he suggested deletion of the 0.75 FAR for hotels. It was discussed extensively when staff suggested it, and also discussed and generally opposed by the public during the Planning Commission hearings. The CS area in South Palo Alto was highly congested. Most of the Lots were relatively narrows_ and the alternative could lead to excessive congestion. In Area 5, Ford Aerospace Sub -Area, Alternative 2 was a 0.5:1 FAR (no, change) which was essentially the same as Alternative 4, eaxisting. He asked the reason for studying the same alternative twice. In order to get a real range of alternatives, he suggested Alternative 2 should be 0.4, and 0.5 would be the base line for Alternative 4. The same comment applied to Area 7, Park Boulevard; Alternatives 3 and 4 appeared to be identical. He commended the Planning Commission and staff for the work done on the difficult and complex issue, and he was delighted to see that City Council, Planning Commission, and staff were taking a more realistic viewpoint on potential buildout and the severe adverse impacts of allowing maximum buildout in a number of zones as had happened on some sites in compliance with Levy's law that whatever could be built on a site, would be if at all possible. He joined Harrison Otis and others in paraphrasing John Kennedy in saying that when they adopted the proposal that evening, "Ich bin ein residentialist." Phyllis Brown, 451 Adobe Place, spoke as President of the Board of Directors of the Greenmeadow Community Association. At its April quarterly membership meeting, the members of the Greenmeadow Community Association unanimously authorized. the Board of Directors to represent the community at meetings concerned with the future of the Cubberley and Greendell_ school sites. She presented to Council a petition (on file in the City Clerk's office) which read, "We, the undersigned residents of Gre :nmeadow and adjacent communa- ities, strongly recommend that the areas presently occupied _ by school buildings at Cubberley should be zoned only for single-family residences, R-1. We oppose any zoning that wi.11 permit multiple -housing development of any density '-at this site. In addition, the present turf area, tennis courts, and football track area should be zoned as dedicated park area." The community was strongly opposed to the 57.249 5/26/87 rezoning of Cubberley and. Greendell to allow low -density housing or any denser alternatives and strongly favored retention of the current educational uses of the sites but accepted the Alternative 1, R-1 stoning for single-family dwellings. Their position to any zoning allowing residen- tial density greater than single-family dwellings was primarily based on the following reasons: 1) The community mandated a one-7story controlled aesthetic since its incep- tion in 1956 Any changes in street appearances of their homes must, according to codes and covenants, be approved by their Architectural Review. and Covenant Committee. Any building beyond R-1 in the Cubberley and Greendell school sites would lead to erosion of what their community worked hard to maintain for 31 years; and 2) Traffic in and around their community was already a considerable problem. The major roads surrounding the neighborhood, Charleston, Alma, Middlefield, and San Antonio, were already extremely con- gestede They already suffered from too many cars traveling too fast through their neighborhood. The City responding to their needs installed planners at key curbs in their streets to slow traffic which helped, but to allow the additional family units possible according to the Planning Comriission's recommendation, Alternative 2, would invite utter chaos. Primarily, they saw no real positive benefits to be achieved through more high -cost housing in Palo Alto. If more housing was deemed essential, it should at least be appro- priate to the neighborhood, therefore, R-1 single-family dwellings, Alternative 1, should be the densest zoning con- sidered in the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study for the Cubberley and Greerideli sites. Denny Petrosian, 443 Ventura Avenue, supported and wanted Council to expand the proposals for increased housing for the EIR. The need was incredible especially on the Maybell site. The one exception was on the Lambert Street site, housing mentioned tor Ash to Park Boulevard, the commercial area in the Spur Area. Years ago when three neighborhoods in South Palo Alto got together to draw up their own proposals for the zoning that should take place, they came to a compromise with the commercial interests. Since they did not want an auto row on El Camino Real, they felt the small sbueinesses on that street were useful, served people within walking distance, -and were necessary to retain. Thorpe businesses invested on the street in good faith with the assurance of Council that the rezoning would allow them to remain. Even housing incentives for. that area would be a threat to the continued existence of the business, and she believed it was unfair the BMW got to go in there and the small businesses were being penalized for that. The original -staff recommendation for the EIR was that size limits on grocery stores should be removed entirely, and she was glad to see that was no longer an alternative The latest set of Planning Commission minutes with her comments were unclear. To clarify, she was much opposed to removing the size limits on grocery stores. The limits proposed for Alternatives 2 were 30,000 square feet as an allowed expansion which was an improvement, but she still believed it was too much. The allowance of 5,000 square feet would be a more reasonable limit since the purpose of the land use study was not to permit increased growth to a significant extent but to reduce excessive growth. Her main concern was the possibility that Palo Alto's food support service with its several grocery stores could be destabilized with even a 10,000 square foot expansion. The equilibrium of having several grocery stores spaced throughout Palo Alto served neighborhoods and dispersed grocery store traffic. There were a fair number of grocery stores because no one of them could get too big. She understood the removal of the size limitation was originally to provide incentives for grocery stores to go into the Downtown. The reason the grocery stores lett Downtown was not because they were not large enough but because their leases were not renewed due to More lucrative uses for the property. Removing the size limits could allow a huge grocery store conglomerate with a large cash flow, such as Safeway, to expand putting many of the existing stores out of business. Even with a 10,000 square foot extension, some stores did not have any room to expand either building -wise or with parking and would be at :a distinct disadvantage. For instance, the All American grocery store might have higher prices hut served a certain population who could shop without having to own a car. A monolithic store could swallow up all the retail at Alma Plaza and substantial amount of retail. at California Avenue. The leakage of business out of Palo Alto went to other Safeway stores. John Eerwald, 261 Creekside Drive, concurred with the speakers who suggested caution in any major development of the Cubberley site. He believed there would be additional need for education and a continuing need for open space and for some of the buildings on the Cubberley campus which were being used so well for education, worship, exercise, etc. As long as the uses continued at the present level, he sug- gested Council not make any changes. In regard to density, he agreed they would like to keep the open space, the foot - field, the playing field, -and also resurrect the sw3 m- ming pool. Many years ago Greenmeadow and Mr;, Eichler were farsighted `enough to provide an open space at -private cost which would otherwise have to be provided by public cost; therefore, Greenmeadow was interested in not only having its beautifully -Maintained community be protected from its :own 57-251 5/26/87 urge to develop larger densities, but they would like to see the surrounding property protected also. He believed more imaginative designs should be looked at for future residen- tial at that site. No more development of the type seen at Crescent Park was needed but affordable family residential and senior residential. He suggested a cluster developmcnt- and the possibility of an architectural competition that would develop greater densities in certain specific areas but keep the open space. It was more important to protect the quality of the development, and one way was not to con- nect any of the streets to Greenmeadow or Ferne. The City should maintain some of the beautiful buildings built after the original Cubberley site was built tor community use. He was even more interested in looking at the entire south end of the City. He suggested resurrection of .the Southerly Gatewood Study. Some of the matters in the study came to pass, i.e., almost gridlock on Alma. He would like to see staff and Council work toward beautifying and raising the quality of the southerly end of the City which was beginning to look shabby. One of the shabbiest places was Charleston Shopping Center, and the City was ill-advised to take the PC zone from that. Carolyn Dobervich, 241 Parkside, shared Mr. Berwaid's interest in what was happening not only in her immediate area but the rest. of the City and in Mountain View. The four arteries which bordered the Greenmeadow community formed almost the Leck of a funnel going - to the freeway. Whatever was done 5enind or to the sides of their community directly impacted the quality of life in Greenmeadow. Alternative 2 was not worth studying because it would bring no good to the residents of the new multiple housing nor to the present residents. If Council must study something, she encouraged study of Alternative 1 holding the open space and the public buildings which were needed and used by the com- munity. She spoke also to the imeortance of holding the high school campus which was an irreplaceable community asset, and it would be foolish to approve any zoning which would permit the campus to be torn down within the next ten years. She was interested in the idea of the City acquiring the property as an alternative. The present use was working, and if the PAUSD decided to discontinue the present use it would be because the PAUSD was in dire financial straits. The City was in a different financial position and might consider continuing the present uses or some variation in a way which would retain the campus because it might be needed as an educational facility -in the future. Council Member Cobb said there were. four alternatives before Council. The most dense version in each particular area of each alternative could add up to a - larger set of numbers 57-252 5/26/87 than the totals for a particular alternative. He clarified the alternatives were looked at as sets of things to study, and Council looked at all the pieces of Alternative 1 and got the data for them as a particular alternative. Ms. Jansen said that was correct. Council Member Cobb presumed Council looked at each area by itself. In looking at Alternative 2 against Alternative 1, for instance, in the example of the Cubberley area, one had two sets of data► one for Alternative 1 and one for Alternative 2 which was the more dense. At some point in the EIR process, the numbers were added up to get the most dense case scenario. He asked if that t was possible given the interactions from area to area. Ms. Jansen said Council would get the worse -case scenario from a combination of alternatives; in fact, that was required in -the EIR process. Council Member Cobb clarified at the completion of the pro- cess, there was a set of numbers that was the most dense from Alternative I, the most dense from Alternative 2, etc, and those sets of number represented the most dense alternative of all the cumulative possibilities, although that was not a particular alternative per se. That data would be available to Council when zoning decisions were brought forth later on. Mr. Jansen said yes. Council Member Cobb said by voting to look at the particular sets of alternatives, from the point of view of those who read the EIR at a professional level, was there any implicit endorsement involved in a particular alternative or pieces of alternatives by looking at those cases as part of the EIR process. Ms. Jansen said no, only Alternative 4 would get the least consideration. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would get equal treatment in evaluation. Council Member Fletcher asked whether Alternative 2 on Cubberley, to study the low -density, multi -family develop- ment on the remainder cif the site, precluded a mix of R -1 - with maybe a row of multi -family fronting on Middlefield; or whether it would -result in multi -family on the entire site. Ms. Jansen said the development could be mixed. They. were looking at a density range which could take the form of a number of different kinds- of development projects. 57-253 5/26/87 Council Member Fletcher clarified the alternative did not mean the entire site, but there would be some open space, i.e., about 11e8 acres or more. Mr. Jansen said that was correct. Council Member Fletcher asked if there was a potential for increased office use at Midtown. Ms. Jansen replied there was little potential .for additional development in Midtown because the FARs were fairly high in comparison to the alternatives, and the parking configura- tion was such that many parcels could not provide additional parking on site. `Staff believed the limitations on develop- ment were fairly strict in that area and did not believe there was much potential for conversion from retail to office. Council Member Fletcher found that reassuring. Vice Mayor Sutorius asked for elaboration on the cases Bob Moss identified where it appeared that certain of the pro- posed alternatives were identical with the existing situation. Ms. Melena believed due to the reorganization something surfaced that was not apparent generally. The cases pointed out by Mr. Moss were explicitly stated as being the sane, but throughout the areas there would be alternatives where the level of development was the same because not ever area had four distinct alternatives. Overall_, the bottom line development between Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 Citywide would be different from one alternative to the other. Vice Mayor Sutorius clarified staff was forcing four alter- natives in order to have a composite in the manner staff responded to Council Member Cobb's question. Ms. Melena agreed. Vice Mayor Sutorius knew of nothing being proposed or that suggested in the record that the decision process was to select Alternative 1 composite or Alternative 3 composite. zis. Melena said that was correct. Commissioner Cullen said originally the Planning Commission considered the 0.4:1 FAR and that was part of the staff recommendation in Urban Lane. After the Planning Cammissi.on studied the matter, they came up with a .0.5 FAR feelilg the area there could support a denser development. She b ii•e,ved it was still possible to study both 0.5• and/or 0.4 Ft 57-254 5/26/87 (Is. Jansen believed one of the Planning Commission's consid- erations was they wanted to retain the lesser -intensive warehousing and commercial service uses which tended to have a higher FAR and a lower parking requirement. Vice Mayor Sutorius said there appeared to be considerable concern over scenarios which were beyond what would be a likely conclusion on the part of any deliberative body in the City at present. He believed expansion on what the com- position of an EIR must be might put a different coloration on concerns where members of the public had heard the words, "We need to find the breaking point," and what that connota- tion gave to the effort underway. Mr. Schreiber clarifi=ed the purpose of the EIR was to look at a range of reasonable alternatives. The process staff followed in identifying a range Of reasonable alternatives was to look at a range of possible alternatives up to and including buildout under the present zoning. Council ini- tially selected six scenarios for study. Most of the Planning Commission/staff recommendations for specific alternatives in the next phase of the study focused in on scenarios 1, 2, and possibly 3. With a few exceptions, they did not pick the highest -density scenarios because staff had already found the traffic and other impacts of some of the higher -density scenarios would result in the transportation system and related facilities not working. They needed to find out the impact of those higher -density scenarios as a way of gauging the relative impact of lower -density alternatives and also as a way of identifying the ramifica- tions of pursuing no action, which would be the continuation of the existing zoning. in that senses staff did look for the breaking pointre but he believed they could 'say with certainty the highest -density alternative, buildout under existing zoning, was beyond that breaking point for the transportation system. It was a legitimate part of the EIR process, but at that stage staff was looking at much more refined alternatives, lower density alternatives, and ulti- mately Council would pick from amon.q the alternatives in the EIR taking into consideration the relative impacts of the alternatives and also the public input process. Council Member Patitucci said it vas important to understand that in every single instance Council was reducing densities and the allowable development in every single area. Even under the considerations of the alternatives that might not be the most desirable, they were still considerably less than the existing cases and existing potential. In regard to the relationship oft Alternative -4 to the other alterna- tives, he asked if Alternative 4 would be studied as an 57-255 5/26/87— equal. He understood it was noe an equal alternative; therefore, to have something from Alternative 4 in column 3 meant it would be studied rather than just listed. Mr. Schreiber clarified Alternative 4 would be studied but not in the depth focused on the other alternatives. Studying Alternative 4 allowed for elements ultimately to be selected as part of the- actions adopted by Council. Staff had already studied the traffic impacts of Alternative 4 and knew some of the impacts were well beyond current City policy, anything envisioned by the Planning Commission, or previous discussions by Council. Council Member Patitucci said Alternative 4 might be a data point but not one that he would consider for Council's future decision makings Mayor Woolley said the school sites presented a unique situ- ation. Upon completion and as a result of the study, Council might possibly want to do some rezoning; however, in regard to the school sites, that was not necessarily true because the school sites could well continue under their PF zoning. It would only be at the request of the PAUSD that any consideration of the zoning of the school sites would arise. Mr. Schreiber clarified the City could initiate rezoning of the school sites, but Mayor Woolley's basic premise was valid that the starting point was continuation of the PF District, unless for a combination of reasons the PAUSD wished to pursue an alternative. Mayer_ Woolley clarified Council was not looking- at the end of the -process necessarily to any change in the PF zone of the school sites. Council Member Bechtel remembered when the matter originally came to Council and was referred to the Planning Commission Gunn and Jordan school sites were alo on the list, and she asked if those sites were eliminated. Mr. Schreiber said based on the PAUSD's decisions on second- ary schools, Gunn and Palo Alto were dropped .and only the status quo PF district school use was being recognized. Jordan was handled in a separate process and would continue to be handled separately in ;the FIR process. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM '9:10 p.m. to 9:26 p.m. 57-256 5/26/87 MOTION: Vice Mayor Sutorius moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt Planning Commission recommendations as shown in the attachment to CMR:257:7 entitled Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study --Planning Commission Recommendation on EIR Alternatives. Council Member Levy asked if single-family density was six to the acre. Ms. Jansen said five to the acre. Council Member Levy asked about duplex density, R-2. Mr. Schreiber said staff used eight to the acre. Mayor Woolley suggested making amendments by area, starting with Area 2. Council Member Fletcher said Alternative 2 for Town and Country Village would permit the shopping center to be converted into - a hote/ site. She valued the retail. in Palo Alto and would like to preserve it. AMENDMENT: Council. Member Fletcher moved to eliminate Alternative 2 under Area 2 ., Town and Country Village..`. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND AMENDMENT:. Council Member Fletcher moved to eliminate Alternative 3a under Area 6, Traynor -Hill Property AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Fletcher asked whether a child care incentive in Area 8 was considered. Mr. Schreiber said there was an adopted Comprehensive Plan policy that encouraged use -of the variance to provide addi- tional square footage for child care. die did not believe there was ever an application under that condition. AMENDMENT: Council Member Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, to eliminate Alternative 2 from Area 9 for the Cubberley/ Oreende.11 site and the Jane Lathrop Stanford (JLS) site. Council Member Cobb was sure it was understood that Council. was not making zoning decisions but looking at potential alternatives that evening. Based on staff's comments that Alternatives 1 and 2 would be studied in depth because they represented "reasonable" alternatives, he argued multiple - family housing on those sites was not reasonable. JLS was a clearer example of the problem he cited, and he confessed to a Certain bias because he lived close to both sites; how- ever, he tried to be objective and believed he had been consistent in that kind of approach -in the past. The prop- erty was surrounded on all sides by -single-family Eichler homes and a park with the exception of a small enclave for Stevenson House, and it was out of line to consider multiple -family for that site. The Cubberley site was primarily a single-family home area, and the only part that should be considered for multiple -family was a strip along Middlefield. He was concerned Council's action that evening would encourage people to consider the site as multiple family if and when it was ever put up for sale or develop- ment. He urged Council to eliminate those: alternatives. Council Member Klein supported the amendment but also sup- ported wholeheartedly the purpose of the study which was to reduce, not increase the density throughout the community, and also for Council to have good, solid planning data in order to proceed with whatever developments occurred and know what they were getting into. He recognized Council was studying things in part that he and his fellow Council. Members would not be able to support _when all the data was before them. However, there were limits to what Council should be studying, and there was no sense studying some- thing absolutely off the board and the Greenmeadow/Cubberley and JLS areas fitted into that category. They were dealing with land the community had every right to expect would remain in some type of public ownershp. That was why Council Member Patitucci and he introduced the "Less Grand Lease" utility Tax proposal they were working on with the PAUSD, Council Member Cobb and he had been representing the City Council in working out a lease with the PAUSD under which the city would lease JLS and Jordan and also have an agreement that the PAUSD could not develop any of its other sites, including Cubberley, for, a period of 15 years. Both the City Council and the PAUSD would be voting on that proposal the following week. If the proposal went through and the voters voted positively in November, the study of JLS, Dhione, Cubberley, Greendell, etc., would be irrele- vant. If the proposal did not go through, he believed something along the same lines would be worked out. It was 57-258 5/26/87 against the law to zone the property and tell the PAUSD it could not develop it, but there were a variety of things that he was hopeful would work. There was no point in burdening the community adjacent to the school sites with the notion that something unacceptable might occur when he could never support that. They should not worry the commu- nity nor put staff and the, Planning Commission to extra work. Council Member Fletcher said her first choice for the school sites was they remain in their present use to pre- serve them tor future school use. On the other hand, Council was looking at the possibility the Cubberley site primarily was at sometime to be developed, and she would like to leave the option open that people could find housing in Palo Alto at less than *5001000-$1,000,000 which was happening on the school sites zoned for R-1. The Council would not approve of multiple -family housing that was wall to wall on the entire Cubberley site. Nobody had suggested such a scenario. She believed the Middlefield frontage was suitable for a low -middle density multiple -family housing. The street was extraordinarily wide, so the site was well separated from the homes on the other side of Middlefield, and the traffic generated would be far less than at present at that site, tar less than when the United States General Services Administration rented the site, and far less noisy than when -Cubberley was a high school. The traffic generated from multiple --family homes was nothing like that from employment sites. Her condominium overlooked a parking lot, and people dribbled in over a long period of time coming home in the evenings. At the peak period of the day multi -family housing had very low traffic generation. Previous studies showed multiple --family housing generated less trips per units than large single-family homes. ,, Council Member Bechtel concurred with Council Member Klein that Council might be arguing about a matter they might never have to deal with. Cubberley was not on the market and was generating over $1 million in revenue from the existing leases,-, and the City, was already paying the PAUSD to lease all the school sites for playing fields and would continue to ao so. The term of the lease was ten years. Council had already eliminated the most dense uses from many of the alternatives to be studied. She did not support any- thing other than what was presently at the Cubberley site, She saw some value in going through the exercise to find out. what the impacts would be. Eliminating Alternative 2 essen- tially meant they were oat studying anything except the status quo plus single-family residential on a corner. Alternative 2 gave another alternative and would not mean Council would ever support it. Council Member Patitucci suggested dividing the amendment to separate Jane Lathrop Stanford from Cubberley. Council Member Patitucci agreed with both comments. The Cubberley issue was different. None of the multi -family development contemplated in the future would be adjacent to or near single-family. &nd the provision of purchasing about 16 acres of buffer satisfies' him the single-family neighborhoods would not be significantly impacted by the development. At JIJS the area was surrounded and the option was much less likely to be one Council would ever pursue, or one the PAI'SD would ever ask for. Council should be consistent in looking at options which might not be ,,realistic in the short term in order to have options open in the future. He pointed out that no one from Stanford spoke that evening about the Hoover Pavilion area, which Stanford said they had no intention in the next .1() or 15 years of ever converting it to a different use from the medical center, and yet Council was going to study 285, units of residential housing. In a number of instances Council was attempting to look at some of the possibilities in the future. Alternative 2 for Cubberley was unlikely but warranted study, although he agreed it would be inappropriate for JLS. Council Member Levy agreed with much of what had been said; namely, he would not support high development at the sites but an alternative might be worthwhile to study. The case for extremely limited development, single-family or less if possible on the sites, would be strengthened if Alternative 2 remained to study and see the consequences of a greater development. It would be impossible to support 20 units per acre, and he would have a great deal of difficulty with even 10, but he supported leaving them in the study as a bench- mark and gave perspective. He believed perspective would show after study that single-family residential with the areas reserved for -open space was clearly the maximum Council would want. Mayor Woolley understood Council Member Klein's comments that it might be unnecessary to, study any of -the options for the school sites, but without. studying Alternative 2 there was no point in studying Alternative 1 and Cubberley and JLS might as well be removed from the EIR. Council needed to have the full range of opportunities, some of which they would not support, but it gave a better background in_order 57-260 5/26/87 to make choices.. In terms of the Cubberley site, Mr. i3erwald made a good point when he suggested senior housing and also some kind of clustes housing. The community was always looking tor houses for families to increase the school population, and at that point probably townhouses were the only kind of housing that was appropriate for families at a somewhat lesser cost than developments on the other school sites. The comment that the streets would not connect to the Greenmeadow neighborhood was also excellent. If there was to be development of any kind, housing strictly on Middlefield with the open space buffer inbetween had pos- sibilities, JLS was more of an R-1 neighborhood on all sides except for Stevenson House. Again, senior housing for a portion of that site might be an important consideration, and she supported keeping Alternative 2 for JLS. Vice Mayor Sutorius associated himself with the comments of Mayor Woolley, although he concurred with many of the com- ments made by all his colleagues. He would vote "no" on each item. He associated also with how the Planning Commission wrestled with the issue which was of significant concern to them. Several members had gone on record that if the matter came to zoning, they would not be voting for the kind of zoning represented in an alternative. The point was well made that Council needed the alternatives to evaluate. Having just Alternative 1 would cause Council not to con- sider the potential of cluster or frontage situations. Anything that happened on either of the sites would be the subject of a site specific EIR, and he did not see a fear in having the alternative evaluated in the study process. Ms. Jansen said that was correct. AMENDMENT DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF AMENDMENT TO REMOVE ALTERNATIVE 2 FOR CUBEERLEY FAILED by a vote of 2-6, Klein, Cobb, voting "aye," Renzel absent. SECOND PART OF AMENDMENT TO REMOVE ALTERNATIVE 2 FOR JANE LATHROP STANFORD FAILED by a vote of 3-5, Klein, Cobb, Patitucci, voting *aye," Renzel absent. Council Member Cobb said keeping the sites for school use was a decision only the FAUSD could make. The City. Council could only respond to such a decision and such response was limited by Gann limits, the City's resources independent of those limits, etc. There were .also legal reasons that determined the zoning on a particular site, -and the only way Council could keep the sites in a totally open state was to 57-261 5/26/87 buy them all which might not be possible financially. As Council Member Klein commented, perhaps the best way to deal with the issue of preserving the sites in their present form was to support a Utility Users Tax. Given the PAUSD's financial situation and approach to that situation, that Council might have to deal with the questions of the sites going on the market to be sold, and then the issues in respect to what level of development became very real. The Planning Commission made a good effort and he commended them for the good work done, although he was not comfortable with the situation with respect to the Elks Club site nor with the Traynor site. He remained very bothered with the two alternatives which were the subject of his amendment. He did not believe the alternatives were reasonable and was afraid the Council and Planning Commission that made the actual zoning decisions, if they ever did, might be made up of different people. He was sufficiently troubled by the two alternatives, particularly JLS, that he would vote "no" in protest to including densities he believed were not reasonable and would not be supported now nor in the future. There was much talk about building affordable housing, low - density housing, solving jobs/housing imbalances and Palo Alto could not have all three. To get a f fordable housing either the City subsidized it or built in densities nobody would ever support. They needed to face that reality and make zoning decisions based on what the community could com- fortably live with and, if they wanted to make it afford- able, deal with the subsidies up front in ways they could handle. Council Member Levy praised the Planning Commission and the public who spent many hours before' -the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission- listened intently to the public input and had done a remarkable job. The fact Council was moving a study so complex as it came from the Planning Commission was a strong endorsement of their excellent work. The fact Council was studying higher densities did not mean the desire was to implement those densities Council had never approved higher than single-family density for any school site that had been closed and rezoned to the present time. It was not his intent to approve a density any higher than single-family for any schobl site in the future. Even at Terman where multiple -family housing was built, it was only built on a portion of the site and much of the site was preserved as open space and much preserved _ a s a community center. The density for senior housing and the ruitiple- family housing at Terman allocated to the site came to less than single-family density. Council was clearly substane tialiy reducing Citywide the available densities and buildout allowed, He shared the comments, they were all residentialists at that point in Palo Alto. 57-262 5/26/87 MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Cobb voting "no," Menzel absent. 5A. (OLD 3) , ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9.10 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO NOISE (1401-10) Bob Koss, 4010 Orme, referred to a letter submitted that evening from the Barron Park Association (op file in the City Clerk's Office), and said when the ordinance was passed on first reading, he cautioned that Council could not truly make a finding of no adverse environmental impact because the scientific facts did not support noise levels of 95 to 110 dB?1. Subsequently, he went through the Comprehensive Plan and found the environmental section specifically referenced noise. A table was included which indicated acceptable noise levels, and he believed the proposed ordi- nance directly conflicted with the -Comprehensive Plan policies and programs and with some of the text. He under- stood once the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Council could not take a position or pass an ordinance in direct conflict without first going through a procedure of public hearings and revision and amendment to the Plan. If Council adopted the ordinance on second reading, it would be in violation of the Comprehensive Plan and State law.. He suggested that unless Council could clearly demonstrate the legalities of its action and compliance with local regulations and state law, it would be better advised to not adopt the ordinance for second reading and to reconsider. Council Member Patitucci referred to pages 60 through 63 of the Comprehensive Plan and said the table showed that those who supported the noise ordinance changes increased the limits ft -old what was considered steady urban traffic at 25 feet or 70 dBAs to the equivalent of standing in a nightclub where rock mussc played or -standing 25 feet from a jack- hammer or • motorcycle accelerating without its muffler I„000 times louder than the levels previously stated. He was at a loss as to how to re-evaluate some of the upper limits established. MOTION: Council Member Patitucci moved, seconded by Fletcher, to refer the ordinance back to the City Attorney to evaluate whether the ordinance as written violated the Comprehensive Plan and whether it had any legal effect on the ordinance. Ms: - Northway disagreed the ordinance violated. the Comprehensive Plan. She did not believe there was anything in the Comprehensive Plan which enjoined Council from providing . aggressive enforcement of the noise ordinance which states the ordinance had to be static or that the 57-253 5/26/8 standards could never be _changed. The table on page 62 was under the section entitled, "Planning and Design for Noise Protection" and it had some relationship to planning and designing new.structeres. She believed it was recommended, not mandatory. Much of the language in the Comprehensive Plan was not necessarily binding on the Council. One would have to look at the exact language to determine the intent and she saw nothing she believed to bind the Council, The other program referred to was "Modified City Equipment to Meet -Noise Ordinance Requirements" which meant there was first the noise ordinance requirements articulated in the ordinance and then the equipment had to comply with it. It did not mean the ordinance had to be static.' She did not believe there was any legal issue with respect to -Comprehensive Plan compliance. Council Member Levy said there were three policies under the noise enforcement element of the Comprehensive Plan: 1) to support national and state legislation programs; 2) Policy 10, see that non -vehicular noise sources in Palo Alto meet City noise ordinance regulations; and 3) insure compliance with existing noise laws and protection of residents from unnecessary noise. There was nothing contained in the comprehensive Plan which precluded Council from changing the ordinance and therefore changing the acceptable noise levels in terms of the ordinance. The two policies in the Comprehensive Plan said Council should assure compliance, with the ordinance, and if Council left the ordinance as it was -it would be impossible to insure compliance. Council had to be more realistic. The chart on page 62 gave recom- mended average daytime noise levels and said those were the noise levels exceeded only 10 percent of the time. Any noise levels that were otherwise acceptable were likely to be exceeded 10 percent of the time. For the most part, Council was speaking to situations that applied only from time to time on a random basis. The worst offender was the leaf blower where it was not so random, often occurred on a regularly -scheduled time frame every week, and sometimes occurred for 20 or 30 minutes at a time. That was the reason Council was so concerned with leaf blowers and why they were the focus of people's concerns. The ordinance was realistic. It reduced leaf blowers over time and called staff's attention to the need to work harder to reduce the noise levels of City equipment, but that equipment was necessary to maintain the community and infrastructure. He did not see a way out of the dilemma except -by raising the acceptable noise levels and working hard to reduce them in the future as equipment became more efficient. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 2-6, Fletcher, Patitucci voting "aye,"' Rerze1 absent. 37-264 5/26/87 Council Member Bechtel asked when the issue of noise con- cerning the Downtpwn parking lots would return to Council as requested. Police Lieutenant Ed Austin saidC'sometime in :Tilly.. Council Member Bechtel asked if that portion of the ordi- nance was deleted. Ms. Northway said that portion of the ordinance was not covered; at present there was no exemption for that particu- lar activity. Mr. Schreiber referenced the question raised in the corres- pondence regarding the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and said the environmental_ assessment attached to_ the February 12, 1987, staff report spelled out reasons behind the staff-recommended finding of• no significant environ- mental impact. In summary, staff. was riot talking- about changing existing conditions. Noise levels spoken to in the ordinance and the environmental review had existed for a considerable period of time and were noise incidents rather -than extremely long-term, continual high levels of certain• noises. Staff looked at federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) data- and noise patterns in the community and, while it could be argued that certain noise levels were objectionable, there was a difference between objectionable and harmful as defined by the OSHA data. Staff- did not see the noise levels spoken to in the ordi- nance and the noise patterns in the community that could exist under .current regulations or as permitted by the ordi- nance as falling into the federally -defined "harmfu.1"- cate- gory. Based on the fact existing conditions were not being changed, the noise patterns in the community, and federal data, staff did not believe a finding the ordinance would result in a significant environmental effect was warranted. MOTION Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Sutorius, to adopt the ordinance ORDINANCE 3751, entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 0.10 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIP&L CODE TO CHANGE THE NOISE STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES - (1st Reading 4/27/87, PASSED 5-3, Fletcher, Patitucci, Renzel 41101' Cobb absent) Council Member Fletcher strongly opposed loosening the standards, especially for leaf blowers. She heard from a 57-265 5/26/87 retired elderly couple with high _blood pressure who did their own landscaping but suffered greatly from the effects of other gardeners' leaf blowers several times a week because the noise raised their blood pressure. When the enforcement was stepped up, there was a marked change in the noise level from leaf blowers, and she believed the City could enforce the 70 dBA level. There were gasoline -powered leaf blowers that did not have to be used at full throttle, electric blowers, and brooms and rakes which could defi- nitely be used. She saw no reason to raise the standard. The fastest way tc get manufacturers to develop leaf blowers that would not go higher than a certain decibel level was to outlaw them and ask other cities to do the same.- She urged her colleagues to reconsider and vote against the motion. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 5-2, Fletcher, Patitucci voting "no," Renzel absent. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10.16 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 57-266 5/26/87