HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-04-03 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting April 3, 1995 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ........................................ 75-329 1. Approval of International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF, Local 1319) Memorandum of Agreement and Compensation Plan ..................................... 75-329 2. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 2650 Park Boulevard and 204, 228 and 230 Sheridan Avenue from RM-40 to PC .................. 75-329 3. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee .................................... 75-329 4. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ........ 75-352 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. ......... 75-352
04/03/95 75-328
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:09 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 7:25 p.m.), Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding democracy (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding the bicycle damage to Arastradero Preserve and the Baylands area. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Huber moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2. 1. Approval of International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF, Local 1319) Memorandum of Agreement and Compensation Plan Resolution 7489 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Compensation Plan for Fire Department Personnel and Rescinding Resolution No. 7282" Resolution 7490 entitled "Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 1501 of the Merit System Rules and Regulations Regarding the Memorandum of Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and Local 1319, International Association of Fire Fighters" 2. Ordinance 4268 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as 2650 Park Boulevard and 204, 228 and 230 Sheridan Avenue from RM-40 to PC" (1st Reading 3/20/95, PASSED 7-1, Rosenbaum "no," McCown "not participating") MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item No. 1, Fazzino absent. MOTION PASSED 6-1 for Item No. 2, Rosenbaum "no," McCown "not participating," Fazzino absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 3. PUBLIC HEARING: The Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs Document Prepared by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Commit-tee. This document contains recommended policies and programs for guiding Palo Alto's future. The policies and programs are organized into six areas: Community Design, Governance and Community Services, Business and Economics, Housing, Transportation, and Natural Environment. The policies and programs will provide recommended policy direc-tion for preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and
04/03/95 75-329
Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) during Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan Update Mayor Simitian announced the City Council would review the Natural Environment (NE) Section of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Polices and Programs Draft IV (the Plan). One hour of public communication would be held at the beginning of the section. Richard Rathburn, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee, Natural Environment Subcommittee, said the NE Section dealt primarily with the ecosystem and the biological processes which preceded our species by billions of years. Because it was such a large system, it demanded that the long-term implications of the immediate actions be addressed, e.g., following last year's flooding in California, the wisdom of building in flood plains was being broadly questioned. It was difficult, if not impossible, to manage and control the streams and rivers in the long term. Palo Alto had built up to the edges of its streams and creeks. He had experienced in the workshops with the public almost universal support for restoring the waterways and riparian corridors. The effort would required considerable foresight and commitment in order to move in that direction. The NE Section also dealt broadly with pollution. The greatest polluter was the automobile. There had been a continuous increase of traffic in Palo Alto, and taken incrementally within the context of economic opportunity and community benefit, each increase had seemed very acceptable. The net impact had become almost intolerable and was directly affecting Palo Alto's quality of life. Traffic had become the prime calibrator in the community's ability to deal with the real long-term complex consequences of continued growth. The NE Section did not address traffic extensively but strongly endorsed the Transportation Committee and its innovative approaches to reducing the use and impact of the automobile. The Subcommittee found that although it did not address some of the issues directly in the NE Section other areas in the Plan did. The NE Section also dealt indirectly with the quality of life in the City. The Subcommittee strongly supported the Community Design Section in its attempts to define and enhance the relationship between the natural and the urban environment. The NE Section uniquely focused the City's attention on the long-term consequences of its actions. The question was how more cars, housing, jobs, and people would affect the City's ability to achieve both long-term economic vitality and economic sustainability. The NE Section dealt with some very technical geological and seismic details, noise levels, and utilities. The Subcommittee was not prepared to deal in-depth with all of those issues and depended greatly on consultants and staff expertise for many of the ideas and solutions that were contained in the Section. Planning Commissioner Kathryn Schmidt reminded the Council that the Planning Commission tried to reduce the length of the document as it looked at all of the sections. Some of the policies and programs were good ideas but were not given the highest priority as it tried to shorten the document. As indicated in the staff report (CMR:197:95), the majority of the policies and programs in the NE Section built on the existing Comprehensive Plan (Comp
04/03/95 75-330
Plan). A lot had been done to preserve open space and acquire and save property in Palo Alto since the last Comp Plan was done. The NE Section tried to integrate the creeks and riparian corridors more for public use and to restore and repair certain sections. She noted the Planning Commission eliminated a recommendation to have a setback from the top of the creek in its first consideration of the policies and programs but reconsidered the program, NE-1.B3, as noted on page 4 of the staff report which indicated the revised goal the Planning Commission wanted in the Plan. There were policies and programs in the Plan that had the goal of protecting and restoring the urban forest and there were many that supported various elements, e.g., policies that sustain long-term water supply and quality, that improve air quality, continuing programs for hazardous material management, energy conservation and alternatives, and emergency preparedness. There was also a section devoted more to community education. The NE Section needed to have a long-term look at the environment. The vision of the Section was to meet the current needs for Palo Altans without compromising the needs of future generations. Palo Alto had been a leader in the area and she hoped it continued to be in light of potential changes occurring in Washington, D.C., that might impact long-standing environmental legislation. Council Member Kniss said reference had been made that a lot of land had been acquired and she asked what the City's effort had brought forward since the last Comp Plan. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the major public acquisition that had occurred in the Baylands was the former I.T.T. property, and the rest of the lands were under public ownership more than 20 years prior. There were a serious of unfortunate decisions made many years prior. A considerable number of parcels in the foothills were now under public ownership, whether by the City or the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MPROSD), that were under private ownership 20 years prior. The City ended up owning the Arastra property by court order which was the only City acquisition that had occurred in the foothills since that time. The MPROSD had acquired a variety of parcels in the upper foothills that related to the City's Foothills Park system. Potential development activities 20 years prior in the foothills were a very significant community and Council issue. There were relatively few parcels in the foothills in 1995 that were under private ownership that had any notable development potential under existing zoning. The developments that had occurred in the foothills in the last 5 to 10 years had generally had a low to moderate level of controversy, not the high levels of controversy seen 20 years prior. Staff had concluded that there was not a lot of parcels left to purchase for public use and the parcels not in public use were zoned such that the private development potential was appropriate for those areas and would not lead to significant conflict over views and environmental impacts. Council Member Kniss said the Arastra property was the biggest and the last of its size that the City would be able to buy and the revamping of the marshland was also extremely important. The City
04/03/95 75-331
was at a maintenance point more than an acquisition point or even being able identify other areas that could be protected in open space or a preserve. Ted Wassam, 3504 South Court, said the NE Section was forward looking and would improve by several levels the quality of stewardship for that portion of the earth's surface included in Palo Alto's city limits; but he was bothered by the Vision Statement which seemed to imply that people's needs would override the environment's needs. He believed that if every environment within the City was kept as healthy as possible, people would be the chief beneficiaries. The particulars in the rest of the document recognized the need to maintain all the pieces that made up Palo Alto. The Vision Statement should fit the rest of the document. The question was whether the City could afford to maintain and replace the trees. He proposed the following rewording of the Vision Statement: "Palo Alto meets today's needs without compromising needs of future generations. Human health and welfare is enhanced by an ecosystem management program that maintains the biological well-being of land areas of all kinds -- residential, mercantile, industrial, open space and dedicated nature preserves. Dealing with threats to the environs of people and our fellow creatures -- threats such as contaminated ground water, hazardous waste disposal, and air pollution -- is essential for ecosystem protection" (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Craig Breon, 22221 McClellar Road, Cupertino, representing the Santa Clara Valley Audobon Society, said Palo Alto was doing a lot of things that were very supportive. He was impressed by the Planning Commission's ability to adapt its first decision and revisit the issue after listening to some of the people who had concerns regarding the decision on riparian corridor setbacks. He was also impressed with the recent decisions regarding the full restoration of the Baylands. He thought language regarding habitat fragmentation, integrity of the habitat, and biodiversity should be included in the NE Section. A full setback would preserve much of the integrity and fragmentation problems of an entire riparian area. Riparian areas were vital to the life patterns of species and any small impact such as noise and night lighting could disrupt the species. The Planning Commission spoke about an exception for residential areas, but he wanted language that stated there would not be much development 100 feet on both sides of the creek. There should not be a blanket exception for residential areas as compared to a business because it would have the same impacts. The policy should be from the nature perspective first and then fit in the human elements. He hoped the language would state the City would actively look for funding opportunities for restoration of the integrity of habitat. Camas Huberthal, 329 E. Bayshore Road, No. 205, representing the Committee for Green Foothills, said the Committee for Green Foothills (the Committee) found Goal NE-1, "Integrate human activity with the larger ecosystem," to be vague and subject to gross misinterpretation. The Committee agreed with staff that the goal should be reworded for clarification and suggested the
04/03/95 75-332
wording should be: "Protect the natural environment by minimizing the adverse impacts of human activity and emphasizing proactive educational and restoration efforts." The Committee strongly supported NE-1.A2, "Support regional and sub-regional efforts to acquire, develop, maintain and/or operate an open space system, with public access, where suitable, extending from Skyline Ridge to the San Francisco Bay." The program would involve Palo Alto in the preservation of the larger Bay Area greenbelt that provided a valuable corridor system necessary for the survival of wildlife and plant species as well as sanity of Bay Area residents. The Planning Commission and staff were commended for recommending retention of Program NE-1.B3, "In open space areas, all building, other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas (except for passive or intermittent activities) and ornamental landscaped areas should be separated a minimum of 100 feet from the edge of the riparian corridor (or the top of bank), whichever is greater." The program would protect critical riparian habitat for wildlife and plants and would provide a buffer zone that would help implement other goals and policies throughout the NE Section. It would also serve as open space and provide an educational, scientific, recreational, and aesthetic resource for the community. The Committee agreed that a 100-foot setback from the top of the bank at a 2:1 slope would be sufficient in most cases. The Committee agreed with staff's recommendation to retain Program NE-1.C1, "Control access to environmentally sensitive public areas in the Baylands, foothills and along riparian corridors." The Committee urged the Council to retain Policy NE-1.C, "Minimize the negative impacts of human activities on plant and animal life." The programs and policies were central to maintaining Palo Alto's rich natural heritage. The Committee urged the Council to retain Goal NE.12, "The residents and business community will be educated concerning how to respect, manage and protect natural resources in a way that sustains the natural built and economic environment while balancing human needs"; and Policies NE.12.A, "Notify the community of change in regulations through existing publications and mailings. Publish regularly updated research and new information in this field"; NE.12.B, "Encourage community members to respect and protect natural resources"; and NE.12.C, "Solicit citizen input for mechanisms to improve and/or prevent damage to the natural ecosystems." The environmental education of residents, especially children, and the business community was critical to the long-term implementation of the goals, policies, and programs set forth in the document. If people did not understand how to respect, manage, and protect natural resources, it would be difficult for them to uphold the document (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Mary Schaefer, 742 DeSoto Drive, said the homes in the fresh water flood plain should not be forgotten when considering the restora-tion of the natural resources. She had previously expressed a serious concern of Stanford University and Palo Alto paving over large drainage areas in the flood plains so that water was more rapidly spilled into the natural environment which created a potential for flood. The actions affected the existing homes that were built before the fresh water flood plain was defined by two
04/03/95 75-333
floods in the later 1950s. She believed the storm drain system had been designed to handle a great deal of water from within Palo Alto, but she did not believe the 100-year flood had been ad-dressed and should not be overlooked in the planning with Palo Alto and Stanford University. She asked the Council to revise the Noise Ordinance to include what happened when amplified noise traveled great distances and invaded quiet neighborhoods. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said the thrust of the goals, policies, and programs of the NE Section was good. The concern for protecting and restoring natural areas was heartening as was the attempt to control various pollution. The pursuit of those laudable goals was likely to be negated by the mindless chase for the dollar set forth in the Business and Economics Section of the Plan. The conflicts among sections were inevitable with different groups creating each of the sections independent of the others. At some point, some consistency needed to be achieved and she hoped it was not done by transporting the City back to 1950s and 1960s. She said the most glaring problem was the Vision Statement. There was no mention of the Baylands and the Foothills as well as other natural resources such as creeks and open spaces. The words "balancing protections with human needs" gutted the essence of environmental protection. Human beings had always balanced their needs by destroying the natural environment. The City's vision should preserve what was left of the natural environment and let other interest groups speak up for destruction and balance as the policies came forward and not begin with a compromised vision. She asked the Council to adopt the Santa Clara County's setback of 150 feet to protect the only intact natural riparian corridor remaining on San Francisquito Creek. Existing improvements could be grandfathered but at least some chance would remain for the rest of the creek. In addition, the upper reaches of Adobe, Barron, and Matadero Creeks should also be protected. The Noise Section as submitted by the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) had been virtually gutted by the Planning Commission and staff, and she urged the Council to reinstate most of the policies and programs as set forth in her detailed comments (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said state law required a compre-hensive plan to have seven specific elements. The NE Section encompassed four of the seven elements--conservation, noise, safety, and open space, so the majority of the Council's time should be spent on that element. The Council's actions regarding the previous sections had more to do with the environment than any wording that could be placed in the NE Section. There was no specific reference to actions that previous Councils had taken in the existing Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), specifically language of the Open Space Element as amended in April 1973, the 1969 Parks and Recreation Policy Statement, and the Baylands Master Plan as amended to date. He said the Children's Health Council recently received approval to build 40 feet from the top of the creek bank on a 26-acre mostly vacant site. It would seem appropriate to revisit that decision and move the building back to at least 100 feet from the top of the creek bank otherwise it broke up the habitat created elsewhere along the creek at a 100-foot setback.
04/03/95 75-334
He said the areas that complained the most about the noise from Shoreline Amphitheatre were also the areas that voted in favor of louder leafblowers during a previous election when leafblowers were a ballot measure. A solution for Shoreline Amphitheatre might also require the Council to find a solution for gasoline powered leafblowers. Recently, the Council had emphasized utilities rates being based on the cost of service, not on conservation as in the past. Art McGarr, 3666 LaCalle Court, said the Noise Ordinance currently controlled leafblowers which still seemed to be the intent with Program NE-8.B7. He said the laws controlling leafblowers did not go far enough, and he believed Palo Alto should follow the lead of Los Altos and ban leafblowers. Noise was the most obvious pollution emitted by gasoline powered leafblowers but unburnt fuel and dust was also pollution. Attempts to control the leafblowers through the Noise Ordinance had not worked, and the existing laws were cumbersome and unenforceable. Linda Elkind, 2040 Tasso Street, representing the Committee for Green Foothills, said the Vision Statement about creeks did not give the City the tools that it needed in order to protect the creeks. The Comp Plan helped staff and the people who dealt with land in the City to understand what the City was trying to achieve. She suggested language in the NE Section that would read: "Protect existing wetlands, riparian areas, and water bodies; and retain their functions and values related to flood protection, sediment and erosion control, water quality, ground water recharge, aesthetics, education, recreation, vegetation and wildlife habitat. Restrict development within riparian areas, and wetlands." She strongly supported inclusion of the word "restore" in the Plan. She suggested the following language regarding setbacks: "Exceptions to the 100 foot setback may occur where the surrounding development is less than 100 back from the creek or may be considered in some limited circumstances as long as basic habitat protection objectives or significant net improvement in the creek's condition are achieved." Palo Alto had done a good job, but it still had creeks to protect (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Hilary Hug, 381 Oxford Avenue, said there was strong evidence that noise was detracting from the quality of life in Palo Alto. Diverse constituencies had begged for quiet, and large groups of residents had protested unwanted noise sources such as leafblowers. The Noise Ordinance had unsuccessfully addressed that nuisance. Hundreds of people had protested the intrusion of Shoreline Amphitheatre, and residents had worked for a decade to quiet the CalTrain horns. She asked the Council to strengthen the noise section of the Plan to unequivocally support a quieter city. She thought the CalTrain horns were unnecessary. Every grade crossing in Palo Alto was protected by both pedestrian and vehicular gates as well as by flashing lights and ringing bells. Sounding the horn as the train approached the crossing was redundant, and sounding the horn as the train passed through added nothing to bystanders' safety. Concrete medians that would prevent drivers from going around the lowered gates or modifying
04/03/95 75-335
the gates with double hanging chains or posts would make a greater contribution to safety. The train whistle was much quieter prior to 1985, and there was no evidence that the louder whistle increased safety. In other communities such as the City of Placentia, train operators were prohibited from sounding the horn in residential areas unless there was an emergency. A technical report on noise prepared by Brady and Associates, Inc. dated August 1994 was commissioned by the City of Palo Alto for the Comp Plan and identified the train horn as one of the major noise polluters in the City. There were 60 passenger and approximately 6 freight trains per day which when multiplied by the 4 grade crossing in Palo Alto, totalled 224 blasts per day. Realtors estimated that property values might be reduced by as much as $10 million as a result of the noise. The noise imposed a threat of permanent hearing damage to hundreds of school children who skate, walk, and bike to and from school. The horns would become worse as the frequency of service increased. She referred to Program NE-8.B2, "Collaborate with CalTrain to reduce train noise." Council action was the only effective remedy, and she hoped the Council would seize the opportunity to strengthen the policy to support a ban on all but emergency train soundings. Council Member Kniss asked whether Ms. Hug had documentation from her resources. Ms. Hug said yes. She would provide the Council with a copy of the City of Placentia's ordinance and other resource information. Council Member Kniss asked whether there were details surrounding the ordinance. Train whistles were very contentious, and a number of cities had been involved in lawsuits regarding the issue. The City had had unfortunate happenings at the crossings and had been asked for even more resounding train whistles. She wanted more background information. Ms. Hug agreed the City should look into the liability issue and what measures could be taken to keep the crossing safe. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said The Community Association of Neighborhoods (CAN) was generally pleased with the NE Section. CAN recommended a few modifications and changes. CAN found structuring the rates according to efficiency and cost alarming and wanted a rational look at the environment without trading off costs. Air quality was an important issue and the City should be concerned about it. CAN supported an improved and stricter enforcement of the Noise Ordinance (letter on file in the City Clerk's Office). Tim Burch, 177 Hemlock Court, had made a video program called "A Sense of Place" that related to the NE Section. He had interviewed people across the country about the natural environ-ment and found that psychologists believed that the natural environment had the most healing aspect for people under stress. The phrase "natural environment" implied that there was some other kind of environment other than a natural environment which was not true. There were trees and parks in Palo Alto and people should
04/03/95 75-336
be able to go anywhere in the City and experience a natural environment. The community's present and future well being depended on how healthy, productive, and sustainable the City kept the whole environment. Council Member McCown asked for a response from the CPAC represen-tatives regarding the concerns raised by some speakers about the wording in the Vision Statement with respect to balancing human needs. The implication was that it balanced against the environ-ment. Dena Mossar, Co-chairperson, Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Natural Environment Subcommittee, said it was difficult to deal with the fact that there were natural environment in terms of habitat, animal life, trees, Baylands, and Foothills and at the same time CPAC was being asked to deal with protection of human beings from earthquakes, flooding, and utilities. The CPAC struggled with the logical inconsistency of having it all placed in the NE Section. The Subcommittee would not have generally disagreed with the comments made that evening. At the time the Vision Statement was drafted, there would have been stronger suggestions for the wording but the CPAC process tended to be in the middle. Council Member McCown clarified there was no specific intent behind the phrases in the Vision Statement along the directions of the concerns expressed by the speakers. Ms. Mossar said the CPAC's intent was to state that the integration and importance of the environment was very important and that humans were part of that environment rather than balancing it against the environment. Vice Mayor Wheeler said Mr. Borock raised the point about the document not containing referrals and inclusion by reference of some very substantial bodies of work which had formed the basis for a lot of the existing policies that related to natural environment issues, i.e., the Open Space Element, the Baylands Master Plan, and the Parks and Recreation Plan. She asked whether it was staff's intent to include those policies and programs in the Comp Plan. Mr. Schreiber said the intent was that the new Comprehensive Plan would include a new Open Space Element that would replace the 1972 Open Space Element. The Element was not updated in the 1970s and early 1980s due to litigation. The Baylands Master Plan would be referenced since it was an up-to-date planning document, but not all of the details had been included in the existing Comp Plan. He would not envision including all the details in the existing Comp Plan. The 1969 Parks and Recreation Plan had not been discussed for inclusions, and he would need to review the document to determine whether there were things in the document that needed to be referenced. The City had made many advances since 1969, and he was uncertain whether the City would want to retain as a City document a planning document of that age.
04/03/95 75-337
Vice Mayor Wheeler said many of the policies and programs in the existing Comp Plan addressed the City's more urban types of park facilities. She did not believe that was referenced in the NE Section. Most of the discussion in the 1976 Comp Plan was in the Schools and Parks Element. The programs and policies might belong in the Community Design Section, but a reference was still needed for those elements. She believed there was still a real threat to the continued existence of some of the urban spaces unless the Council reinforced the importance of those programs and policies to the community. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said there might be another set of reasons for reviewing parts of the documents to determine what might need to be carried forward. Most of the NE Section affected restrictions on what people could do with their property, and the legal standard used by the courts since 1987 was that the regula-tions in the element had to substantially advance some legitimate government interest. The document in its current form lacked any technical support that explained why the City would need 100 feet as opposed to another number. He surmised that there was quite a lot of discussion in the broader record on the technical issues and that the background documents referred to also contain a lot of evidence that might support some of the property restrictions in the document. He suggested there might be another motivation to review the earlier documents separate and apart from their policy value. Ms. Mossar explained that the Subcommittee disintegrated over the course of the work and she was given the responsibility to review the Open Space Element and the Baylands Master Plan. She summa-rized some of the points in those documents in the NE Section. It was clear to her that taking the documents from the past and putting them in the Plan was inadequate, e.g., the Open Space Element did not address the riparian corridors and creek setbacks which was a key aspect of open space. The work done to date acknowledged the existence of the history but put a new slant on what should happen in those areas. Council Member Andersen asked whether the Council needed to be more specific in terms of making sure that the Vision Statement distinguished between the issue of natural disaster as a human need as opposed to some of the other issues and concerns and whether the suggested language provided by Ms. Renzel and Mr. Wassam would tighten up the concerns expressed by the City Attorney regarding the recent court decisions. Mr. Calonne said the Vision Statement was a policy-driven state-ment. To the extent that the Vision Statement was not single-mindedly focused on environmental protection, it might raise interpretive questions about the Council's motives for other very specific protections. The concerns raised by former Council Member Renzel and others was an ambiguity that needed to be cleaned up. Council Member McCown suggested that staff return with a reworded Vision Statement that separated the human needs issues as well as
04/03/95 75-338
the public safety issues. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Andersen, to direct the staff to revise the Vision Statement with respect to the human needs issues as well as the public safety issues. Council Member Andersen encouraged staff to use the language suggested by former Council Member Renzel as a guideline. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Kniss referred to Goals/Policies NE-1 and NE-1.A and asked CPAC whether the restoration of riparian zones meant that the areas that had already been done would be dug up. The policy seemed arbitrary and ambiguous. Ms. Mossar said the riparian zones would be restored to their natural conditions as much as possible, e.g., exotic plants species might be removed and replaced with native species. Restoring riparian habitat at that point in the document was a general statement and meant that there was a string of areas where vegetation could be restored which would restore the animal life and approximate the natural conditions in that area. There were other specifics in the NE Section about the action of removing concrete. City Manager June Fleming said the staff report (CMR:197:95) had raised the concern that there was a heavy price tag if the intent were to restore the zones by removing the work that had already been done. Council Member Kniss said any ambiguity in the Plan needed to be clarified. Mr. Schreiber said the concept of restoration in terms of the CPAC process focused primarily on what might be done within City parklands. Most of the channelization that had occurred was against a property owner's backyard. Nobody had seriously raised the concept of removing the work done. Staff was concerned about the costs and the potential technical complications. Council Member Kniss said the words "where suitable" might be necessary in that area. The Council had to consider what would happen if the work was undone. She would preferred the remaining area not be done. She recognized the wording was out of context but it was alarming. Mr. Rathburn said the words "open space" was definitive. The policy did not state that things would be ripped out that were currently built but implied a biologically sensitive restoration. A lot more was known about the ecosystem than was known previously. The language implied that areas in open spaces would be restored to the most ecologically true state. He agreed that that might involve costs and that the wording was ambiguous and should be more specific.
04/03/95 75-339
Mr. Calonne said page 3 highlighted a drafting style issue that made a difference. The language attempted to be so broad, and broad generalities left a lot of room for misunderstandings about the intent on specific issues. He suggested Council begin with the staff comments which staff identified as being more of a vision than a goal. He asked the Council to address whether the Policy NE-1.A was intended to apply to public and private property. He concurred with a number of staff marginal comments, particularly NE-1.A3, "Protect designated open space areas from deterioration or destruction by either private or public action." It was a laudable goal, not a program. Mayor Simitian asked for clarification of the notation "ECP" on NE-1.A3 which had been indicated for deletion. According to the keycode, ECP was an existing Comp Plan policy or program. Mr. Schreiber said the wording of the existing policy did not function as a program. Staff's comment was that it was covered by a policy already proposed and did not fit as a program within the context. Mayor Simitian clarified if it were covered by a policy already proposed, then Policy A applied to both private and public actions. Mr. Schreiber said that was his understanding. Mr. Calonne suggested that there were some specific kinds of things that staff might want to articulate with respect to private property if that were the Council's direction. The statements were acceptable for public property, but he urged more specificity on the programs for private property. The legal context was that what was not said specifically could not be said specifically later. Some of the breadth in the existing Comp Plan was quaint but not very good from an enforceability standpoint. Council Member Huber preferred the NE-1.A3 language and he asked if the language could be worked into the policies or rewrite NE-1.A in conjunction with NE-1.A3. Mr. Calonne said he was comfortable with Mr. Schreiber's comments that it was policy-level language that did not belong at a program level. Designated open space areas was ambiguous, and it was not clear whether the language referred to either public or private property. Council Member McCown asked what open space areas were defined as private property. She had always thought of the Open Space Element as being predominately public property. Mr. Schreiber said the language could refer to areas that were zoned open space controlled development as well as publicly owned open space land which tended to be zoned public facilities. There were public park lands in environmentally sensitive areas and private lands that were designated open space controlled develop-ment.
04/03/95 75-340
Council Member McCown said the legal standards had changed since the previous Comp Plan was done when the distinction between public and private was not that significant. The City Attorney had pointed out that the distinction was significant in the linkage that was necessary if the policies and programs were intended by the Council to be applied to private property. The new tougher legal standard was about whether the Council's actions would substantially advance some public purpose. She did not believe the CPAC had that distinction in mind when it decided on the wording for the section. The language was more akin to the way it was done in the previous Comp Plan which did not make that distinction in each area. The City Attorney was correct but she did not know how to make the distinctions, legally or otherwise, as the Council went through the process that evening regarding public open space issues versus private open space areas. Ms. Mossar pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended Program NE-1.A4, "The Land Use Map shall reflect those natural areas requiring protection, repair and specific setbacks," be deleted. It was included in the Section to provide the specifics for the community relative to the general comment. Mr. Calonne did not know CPAC's intent and suggested the Council direct staff to rewrite the phrase in Goal NE-1, "Integrate human activity with the larger ecosystem." Mayor Simitian believed the CPAC was trying to state that the City would do what it did without messing up where it was. Mr. Rathburn said the CPAC attempted to view it as an integrated system. MOTION: Mayor Simitian moved, seconded by Wheeler, to direct staff to reword Goal NE-1, "Integrate human activity with the larger ecosystem," and Goal/Policy NE-1.A, "Conserve and restore open space areas, including natural habitat areas, wetlands, streams, and riparian zones and areas of special or unique ecological significance," in the Natural Environment Section to provide clearer direction and more focused language as reflected in Linda Elkind's correspondence of April 3, 1995, "Protect existing wetlands, riparian areas, and water bodies; and retain their functions and values related to flood protection, sediment and erosion control, water quality, ground water recharge aesthetics, education, recreation, vegetation and wildlife habitat. Restrict development within riparian areas, and wetlands," and staff comments. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Council Member Andersen was impressed by the comments in Linda Elkind's letter, the Committee for Green Foothills, that made reference to the City of Portland's proposed amendments which might help staff in the drafting of the language. Vice Mayor Wheeler referred to Program NE-1.A1, "Update and
04/03/95 75-341
improve regulation of natural habitat and open space areas," and staff's comments regarding "planning for necessary access by fire, parks or utilities vehicles and equipment." She wanted to make certain that if that kind of language were incorporated that it would be extremely clear that it was the natural environment that needed to dictate what happened with the other things and not the convenience of the trucks that needed to take precedence. What had been done on the Arastra property was better than the original plan but it had design features that were very unkind to the creek and would not serve the City well in the long term. If it were not possible to remove the concept, then it should be made very clear that what happened would be dictated by the caring and concern for the natural habitat rather than for the vehicles. Mayor Simitian clarified Vice Mayor Wheeler's suggestion was that the habitat and open space issues would take precedent over the conveniences of the vehicles. He clarified if it were inconvenient to deal with public safety issues in a way that was respectful of the habitat and the open space, the habitat and the open space would come before the convenience of the means by which the City dealt with the issues. Council Member Kniss asked whether NE-1.A2, "Support regional and sub-regional efforts to acquire, develop, maintain and/or operate an open space system, with public access, where suitable, extending from Skyline Ridge to the San Francisco Bay." was the same issue that the Council dealt with in the Transportation Section and what was meant by public access. She said the access would have to connect through Palo Alto lands such as Foothills Park. She was concerned about the impact and who would use the trail, i.e., would horses share the access with bikers and hikers. Ms. Mossar clarified the language was taken from the Open Space Element. Mr. Calonne was uncertain whether regional and subregional included City efforts to acquire open space and the language should be contrasted with the language on page 6, NE-1.D3, "Manage and develop gifts of land in the foothills to further the goals of creating and maintaining open space preserves." It was unclear who would be the beneficiary of those gifts--the City or some regional agencies. Superintendent, Open Space and Sciences John Walton said there was a variety of access that could be made available to a trail system and would bring a connection between the foothills to San Francisco Bay. The trail program could be limited to a pedestrian access, developed for mountain bicyclists as well as hikers, or set up for equestrians. There were a variety of issues when trails systems were designed which would determine not only where the trail were laid based on who would be using the trail but would determine the maintenance costs of providing a safe trail system for people to use. Council Member Kniss wanted to know what Program NE-1.A2 "Support regional and sub-regional efforts to acquire, develop, maintain
04/03/95 75-342
and/or operate an open space system, with public access, where suitable, extending from Skyline Ridge to the San Francisco Bay," meant. It was ambiguous to support the program with public access where suitable. She asked what revisions had been done from the existing Comp Plan and how the City became up-to-date on issues. It was a complicated issue. Mayor Simitian clarified Council Member Kniss' primary concern was whether or not the language in NE-1.A2 committed the City to supporting the use of such trails by bikers. Council Member Kniss wanted to know what group the trail system would aim toward or whether it would be an open space system with three different trails. Ms. Fleming said staff could return with a recommendation for an access if staff understood what kind of access the Council wanted. Trails could be designed for bikes, horses, and pedestrians. Staff needed policy direction from the Council on the issue. RECESS: 9:20 P.M. - 9:35 P.M. Council Member Kniss said the program only belonged in one section of the Plan, and she suggested that the program be removed from the Transportation Section and remain in the NE Section of the Plan. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the issue arose during both the Transportation Workshop and at the CPAC meetings. People felt there should be a bicycle connection from Skyline Ridge to the Bay. The reason it was included in the Transportation Section was that there was a mandatory pathways diagram that showed how to link regional pathways required in the guidelines for comprehensive planning under the circulation section of the state law. Council Member Kniss said when the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MPROSD) was first formed, there were no major issues around bikers and horses. The MPROSD was currently struggling with what should be done with the bikers, hikers, and horses issue. It was difficult for hikers to share the same trail with bikers, especially if it were thought of as transportation. Transportation for bikers meant 15 to 20 miles per hour (mph). A variety of issues needed to be considered such as whether there should be three trails instead of one and whether there should be a trail through Foothills Park which required a land swap with MPROSD. She suggested staff discuss the regional and subregional issue further with MPROSD and determine how trails were presently handled and how the trails would be handled in the future. Council Member Andersen supported the language "support regional and sub-regional efforts to acquire, develop, maintain and/or operate open space system, with public access." The local concerns were overshadowing some very important regional issues. The issues of bicycles on the trail and in Foothills Park and horses in certain areas were legitimate, but he did want to be the
04/03/95 75-343
community that blocked a very important regional trail system that was a long-term objective. He wanted to make certain that the Council showed support for that concept. The policy issue was to keep it in the context of 20-year comprehensive planning outreach. The community wanted the linkage of trails but the question was the kind of trail in certain areas. He wanted to see bicycle trails that provided regional access, but there were some areas where it might not be appropriate. Ms. Fleming said staff would return to the Council with further information on the item. Mayor Simitian asked the staff to distinguish between recreational and transportation use of trails and the extent to which those trails were or were not compatible. If the purpose of the trail was both recreational and transportation, then the question was how could both be made compatible. He queried whether it was an issue for the Comprehensive Plan or whether the Comprehensive Plan should simply indicate the existence of a trail and leave the debate and resolution about who would use the trail to some other document or location. If it were some other document or plan, he wanted staff to indicate which one so that Council Members who held strong views on the issue would know where and when he/she could vote on the matter. MOTION TO DEFER: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to direct staff to defer Goal/Program NE-1.A3, "Protect designated open space areas from deterioration or destruction by either private or public action," and Goal/Program NE-1.A4, "The Land Use Map shall reflect those natural areas requiring protection, repair and specific setbacks," until Goal NE-1, "Integrate human activity with the larger ecosystem," had been reworded. MOTION TO DEFER PASSED: 8-0, Schneider absent. Council Member McCown referred to the second paragraph in Program NE-1.B3, "In open space areas, all buildings, other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas (except for passive or intermittent activities) and ornamental landscaped areas should be separated a minimum of 100 feet from the edge of the riparian corridor (or the top of bank, whichever is greater). Exceptions to the 100 foot setback may be considered in some limited circumstances as long as basic habitat protection objectives or significant net improvement in the creek's condition are achieved. Allow as pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle pathways along creeks with adequate setbacks to preserve and protect the natural riparian environment. Exceptions to the 100 foot setback may be considered in some limited circumstances as long as basic habitat protection objectives or significant net improvement in the creek's condition are achieved," and said the original CPAC language supported by staff allowed for exceptions to a 100-foot setback in limited circumstances as long as the basic habitat protection objectives or significant net improvement in the creek were achieved. She asked whether the Planning Commission's recommendation to have a specific exemption for single-family property was intended to replace the prior wording that described
04/03/95 75-344
exemptions in general terms rather than specifying single-family property. Ms. Schmidt said the Planning Commission recommended that the single-family property would be exempt. Staff did a lot of research on the issue as noted in the staff report (CMR:197:95). It was noted on page 4 of the Plan that "modifications to the sites could be handled through an exception process." Council Member McCown could not understand why there needed to be specific wording in the Plan rather than having the broader concept of exceptions. Ms Lytle said staff did a parcel-by-parcel analysis of the issue and found that there were approximately 125 single-family proper-ies that were adjacent to natural creek areas. Most of the properties had currently built into the 100-foot setback, and many of the properties would probably develop within the 100-foot setback. Staff felt it would be burdensome to put every property owner through an exception process. The outcome would probably not be any better than if the City had them collaborate through a nonregulatory educational process about the value of creeks to their property and participating collectively in maintaining creek setbacks. Staff analyzed where the natural creek system came into contact with multiple-family and public properties and also the difference between the original CPAC recommendation and staff recommendation. Staff provided an illustration to the Planning Commission that showed why staff recommended the 100-foot from the top of bank rather than the edge of the riparian corridor which lead the Commission to adopt the more refined wording recommended in the staff report (CMR:197:95). Council Member McCown asked how the single-family property exemption from the 100-foot setback requirement would have affected the Council's previous action on an issue and whether it had any impact on a setback imposed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). Ms. Lytle said it would not have had any bearing on the appeal that the Council heard previously. Council Member McCown clarified it would only apply to single-family property that did not otherwise have a setback imposed by the SCVWD. The properties exempted from a new 100-foot setback would be subject to the SCVWD's setback requirements. Ms. Lytle said that was correct. Mr. Calonne said the SCVWD had acquired easements and had conveyed to it a property interest. The setbacks operated without the City acquiring any property interest. Mayor Simitian clarified the reason there had been great debate over the single-family residence was the imposition of a city setback from the SCVWD's easement line. He recalled the easement was 20 feet and the City's setback was an additional 20 feet. He
04/03/95 75-345
asked whether there would be a de facto 40-foot setback in each of the 125 single-family situations. Ms. Lytle said yes, but it varied. There would always be a 20-foot setback from the edge of the SCVWD's easement. Mayor Simitian asked the range of variation on the SCVWD's easement. Ms. Lytle said it was based on a 2:1 slope from the creek center line, but it was generally 20 to 25 feet. Council Member Huber asked whether the SCVWD setback was from the center of the creek or the slope. Ms. Lytle replied that the SCVWD took a 2:1 slope from the center line of the creek back to a stable condition. MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Wheeler, to replace the wording in the Natural Environment Section for Goal/Program NE-1.B3, "In open space areas, all buildings, other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas (except for passive or intermittent activities) and ornamental landscaped areas should be separated a minimum of 100 feet from the edge of the riparian corridor (or the top of bank, whichever is greater). Exceptions to the 100 foot setback may be considered in some limited circumstances as long as basic habitat protection objec-tives or significant net improvement in the creek's condition are achieved. Allow as pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle pathways along creeks with adequate setbacks to preserve and protect the natural riparian environment," with the Planning Commission recommendation, page 4, CMR:197:95, "In areas along natural creeks, all buildings, other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas (except for passive or intermittent activities) and ornamental landscaped areas should be separated a minimum of 100 feet from the top of bank. (a) On undeveloped sites, the 100 foot setback would be observed; (b) On sites where development already exists within the setback, the existing development would be legal and nonconforming, and modifications to those sites could be handled through an exception process; and (c) Single-family property would be exempt from the 100 foot setback requirement, with creek setbacks to be achieved by use of guidelines and further study through the City's participation in the Coordinated Regional Management Plan process and coordination with adjacent cities." Ms. Mossar asked whether the Planning Commission language was intended to replace all the CPAC language under NE-1.B3. She said the "exceptions clause" in the second paragraph underscored what some members of the public spoke about in terms of natural environment considerations being a very important criteria for granting exceptions. The third paragraph acknowledged that pathways required setbacks which was different from building setbacks. Council Member McCown did not object to the second paragraph but
04/03/95 75-346
criteria would need to be developed for exceptions. The Planning Commission language contemplated the exceptions so that staff could blend the two ideas together in some way. The third paragraph's language stated "allow pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle pathways along creeks with adequate setbacks..." The Planning Commission's language talked about building structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas, and ornamental landscaped areas which she assumed would include pathways. The concept in the Planning Commission's wording was that a pathway would also need to be located with a setback. She asked staff to make sure that idea was included in the wording. Council Member Huber asked whether the 100 plus properties were creek front properties and whether any of the properties had 100 feet, i.e., not under Paragraph (b). Ms. Lytle said no. Staff concluded that the 100-foot setback did not apply to single-family properties. Council Member Huber clarified currently Paragraph (b) would be the only area dealing with single-family properties. Ms. Lytle said Paragraph (c) exempted single-family property entirely. Paragraph (b) applied to larger commercial properties. Properties that were developed currently would maintain a legal nonconforming status with the development being grandfathered. Modifications could be made to the development through an exception process. Single-family homeowners would be educated through City guidelines about the value of creek as a resource and the value of flood control measures. Homeowners would be encouraged to set back from the creek but would not be regulated any further than the present SCVWD's easements and the setback from those easements in the Zoning Ordinance. The properties were located along San Francisquito Creek, the Bol Park area of Barron Park along Deer Creek, Barron Creek in Barron Park, along Adobe Creek, in the RE District adjacent to Los Altos Hills, and the Terman Park area. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. Council Member Kniss asked why NE-1.C1, "Control access to environmentally sensitive public areas in the in the Baylands, foothills and along riparian corridors," had been taken out by the Planning Commission. Ms. Schmidt said the City Attorney had stated at the Planning Commission meeting that a baseline was necessary. Mr. Calonne said his comments at the Planning Commission meeting were directed toward Policy NE-1.C. He was concerned that the language might end up being inconsistent with other parts of the Plan that spoke to different development activities. Council Member Kniss asked whether the language could be rewritten in Program NE-1.C1 so that it would not compromise other parts of the Plan.
04/03/95 75-347
Mayor Simitian said the Planning Commission needed to clarify why Policy NE-1.C had been deleted and why Program NE-1.C1 was downgraded to a "B" status. Policy NE-1.C was an existing Comp Plan policy which was being eliminated because of its lack of priorities. Ms. Schmidt said the Planning Commission occasionally eliminated a policy but felt the remaining program could be incorporated under another policy. Planning Commissioner Schink felt that Policy NE-1.B accomplished the intent of Policy NE-1.C. The Planning Commission felt Program NE-1.C1 should be included under Policy NE-1.B or part of an appendix or text versus a specific program. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to retain Goal/Program NE-1.C1, "Control access to environmentally sensitive public areas in the in the Baylands, foothills and along riparian corridors," as a program under Goal/Policy NE-1.B, and to delete Goal/Policy NE-1.C, "Minimize the negative impacts of human activities on plant and animal life," in the Natural Environment Section. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. Council Member McCown said Program NE-1.D4, "The City will adopt and maintain a master plant list of suitable native plants for each foothill zone based upon adaptability, wildlife utility and aesthetic compatibility to the natural foothills landscape," supported Policy NE-1.D, "The City of Palo Alto shall continue to preserve the foothills as open space," and Program NE-1.E2, "Using the map `Baylands Plant Zones,' the City will adopt and maintain a master plan list of suitable plans for each bayland zone based upon adaptability, wildlife utility and aesthetic compatibility to the natural baylands landscape," which spoke about the City adopting master plant lists for native plants in the foothills zone and the Baylands. She asked whether the program would support having the information available to the public or whether the City would impose on itself a certain set of planning requirements. She was unclear who the program was aimed at. Mr. Schreiber said the long-standing Baylands plant list had been applied to both public and private development in the Baylands when it came through the City's design review process. There was no adopted plant list for the foothills and it would need to be developed before it could be formally applied. The approved Baylands plant list would continue to be used in the design review process even if Program NE-1.E2 were eliminated. Council Member Kniss asked why Program NE-1.F1, "Evaluate recommendations of Tree Task Force and incorporate appropriate measures into tree protection ordinance," had been eliminated. Ms. Schmidt said the Planning Commission accepted the staff recommendation to address the program in Phase III. Council Member Huber asked whether there would be an indication
04/03/95 75-348
that the Tree Task Force recommendation would incorporated at a later date. Mr. Schreiber said the Tree Task Force recommendations would be incorporated after the Council's review. Vice Mayor Wheeler referred to Program NE-1.F9 "Actively pursue the Tree Power Program as well as other sources of funding for planting trees," and said the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recently indicated it was not supportive of using the Tree Power Program as a source of funding. She asked whether language should be incorporated into the Plan that was more generic. She supported pursuing outside sources of funding but believed it would be better not to name any particular source at the present time. Mr. Schreiber referred to page 7a which indicated the UAC's comments on the Tree Power Program. MOTION: Vice Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to amend Goal\Program NE-1.F9, "Actively pursue the Tree Power Program as well as other sources of funding for planting trees," to provide generic language to pursue outside sources of funding. Council Member Fazzino preferred the issue be held in abeyance until the Tree Task Force discussions and that the motion be strengthened to be more specific through the use of the guidelines proposed by the American Public Power Association (APPA). He disagreed with the recommendation of the UAC and believed there was a direct relationship between Utilities and the City's tree management program. He preferred to wait until the City fought the important battle of using the guidelines for financial support of the City's tree program and evaluate the motion within that context. Vice Mayor Wheeler said the intent of the motion was not to preclude any further discussion. She did not want the language to be so specific that it tied the City to that particular program. Council Member Fazzino asked whether any specific motion should be considered that evening with respect to the Tree Management Program. He wanted to either deal with the issue extensively that evening or wait until the Council had carefully deliberated the recommendations of the Tree Task Force. SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DEFER: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to defer action on Goal/Policy NE-1.F, "Protect, revitalize, and expand Palo Alto's urban forest, on public and private lands, through education programs, sensitive regulations, and on adequate long-term financial commitment to this resource," and on Goal/Programs NE-1.F1 through NE-1.F14 in the Natural Environment Section: (F1.) "Evaluate recommendations of Tree Task Force and incorporate appropriate measures into tree protection ordinance," (F2.) "All city departments - particularly Planning, Utilities and Public Works should work in coordination so that projects will incorporate unifying design principles and
04/03/95 75-349
preserve and enhance the urban forest," (F3.) "Reestablish Arbor Day in Palo Alto," (F4.) "Native forests should be fostered and maintained, including preserving and planting of native oaks and other compatible plants, regulation and protection during construction and on-going education for city staff, homeowners and developers regarding compatible landscaping and irrigation," (F5.) "The City shall develop and implement an enforceable plan for proper street, park and parking lot tree planting, replacement, irrigation and maintenance," (F6.) "Enforce current street tree protection ordinance," (F7.) "Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and certain other significant trees on public and private property," (F8.) "The City shall develop and implement guidelines to reduce the impact of large vehicles on street trees--including tearing of branches by trucks and trimming of trees to accommodate 14-foot clearances," (F9.) "Actively pursue the Tree Power Program as well as other sources of funding for planting trees," (F10.) Promote 50% canopy cover for streets, parking lots and parks," (F11.) "Plant one street tree per resident by 2010," (F13.) "The Utilities Department shall develop and implement guidelines to protect trees from utilities maintenance functions and installation," and (Fl4.) "Work cooperatively with the Palo Alto Unified School District to incorporate their trees in the overall urban forest guidelines." SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DEFER PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. Council Member McCown asked why the Planning Commission did not retain Program NE-2.C1 "Review and update grading ordinance and project approval procedures," to support Policy NE-2.C, "Minimize site disturbances that cause erosion and sedimentation downstream." Ms. Schmidt said the issue received a split vote 2:4 by the Planning Commission so it became a "B" status. It would still be mentioned either in an appendix or in the text. Council Member McCown clarified it was an existing Comp Plan program. She said the grading ordinance was a particularly important element of protection against erosion and the issues being described in the goal and it was an important concept to have in the document as a program MOTION: Council Member McCown moved, seconded by Rosenbaum, to retain Goal/Program NE-2.C1, "Review and update grading ordinance and project approval procedures" as a program in the Natural Environment Section. Mayor Simitian said the review and updating of the ordinance was a routine matter and did not need to be elevated to the level of a program. MOTION PASSED 6-2, Andersen, Simitian "no," Schneider absent. Mayor Simitian asked for staff comment on Program NE-2.D2 "Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to enhance and restore urban riparian corridors to provide flood control while maintaining natural riparian corridors," and NE-2.D3, "Establish
04/03/95 75-350
guidelines for structural setbacks in urban riparian corridors," given what was already in place for various parts of the creek. Ms. Lytle said the programs referred to the County Hazardous Waste Management Program (CHWMP) process for San Francisquito Creek as specifically mentioned in the parenthesis and adding wildlife and natural riparian qualities to a natural drainage from its headwa-ters to the Bay. The language spoke about asking the SCVWD to explore other ways of handling drainage that would assure both public safety and also enhance the natural quality of the corridor. Council Member Andersen asked for further clarification on Policy NE-3.B, "Ensure Palo Alto's long-term supply of water balancing environmental and cost issues." Mr. Rathburn said the discussions were about whether to ensure Palo Alto's long-term supply of water at any cost and the environ-mental issues surrounding bringing water from the Sierras. The question was balancing the issues. It was a nonspecific way of stating that the City should "weigh the long-term supply of water and its increased need with environmental and cost issues." Ms. Mossar said an example would be if the City needed to do something to make sire extra dams were built, there would be high environmental costs as well as high economic costs. CPAC tried to acknowledge those considerations. Council Member Fazzino asked whether there was an implication that the City's only major source of water for the community was the Hetch Hetchy. Director of Utilities Edward Mrizek said the Hetch Hetchy was the best supply water for the City. There was a chance that in the future the supply from Hetch Hetchy would possibly decrease as other users come online. Staff was always looking for alternative water supplies. Council Member Fazzino asked whether there were any viable alternatives. Mr. Mrizek said no. Council Member Fazzino referred to NE-l.B and said that over the previous 20 years, the Council, staff, and community had voiced the need to identify other sources of water. Hetch Hetchy remained the only realistic viable source. He asked whether the NE Section should identify any opportunities to work through the state and federal government to change their water policies so that there was more water available to communities. He was troubled that there was no reference in the NE Section to the issue of state water allocations which was a significant issue. Mr. Rathburn recalled that there was a discussion on the issue of pumping some of the City's groundwater and mixing it with the Hetch Hetchy water and the long-term availability of Hetch Hetchy.
04/03/95 75-351
Mr. Mrizek said the well systems were maintained but were only used for emergencies. It was an option in the future to use the groundwater through the well systems as the City did prior to connecting to Hetch Hetchy many years before. The well systems were the City's second best water resource at the present time. Council Member Fazzino was concerned that the City's major alternative strategy with respect to supply of power was to pump groundwater. He believed state water allocations was a fundamental issue, and he asked the staff to consider language which included state participating in discussions regarding state water allocations as an alternative strategy for identifying a supply of water. Mayor Simitian said the City looked at a variety of alternative sources of water when it was in drought conditions. He suggested staff return with information regarding those alternatives. The fundamental goal was to protect water resources and drinking water. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Simitian, to continue the item to the Monday, April 10, 1995, City Council meeting. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. COUNCIL MATTERS 4. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Council Member Kniss announced the State of the City Address scheduled for Wednesday, April 5, 1995, at 5:45 p.m., at 3990 Ventura Court. She also asked about Senator Tom Campbell's Senate Bill SB556--Sales Tax/Integrated Manufacturer/Retailers. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
04/03/95 75-352