HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-27 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting July 27, 1998 1. Joint Meeting with the Architectural Review Board......87-55 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m..............87-55 1. Appointments to Planning Commission....................87-56 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.........................................87-56 APPROVAL OF MINUTES.........................................87-56 2. Council Approval of Appointment of Wynne S. Furth as Senior Assistant City Attorney................................87-57
3. Ordinance 4511 entitled ΑOrdinance 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 4100 and 4120 El Camino Real from RM-15
and RM-30 to PC-Planned Community≅ .....................87-57
4. Ordinance 4512 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Ordinance No. 4381 in Order to Extend the Period Within Which Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Interim Historic Regulations) Shall Be in
Effect≅ ................................................87-57 5. Amendment to Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to Provide Military Service Credit.................................................87-57 6. Amendment No. 11 to Contract No. 4688 between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) for Refuse Collection and Recycling Services......................87-57 7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Kennedy Jenks Consultants for Turn Key Services for Improvements and Rehabilitation to Two Square Clarifiers at the Regional Quality Control Plant..................................87-57
07/27/98 87-53
8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application by Classic Communities for a Tentative Map to create 27 new lots including 26 residential lots and one commonly held parcel, and related site improvements for property located at 4100-4120 El Camino Real...........87-58 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application by Margaret Toor for an amendment to the conditions of an approved Parcel Map with exceptions for property located at 1159 Lincoln Avenue................87-69 10. City of Palo Alto Proposed Comments on Woodland Creek Apartments Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report87-76 11. Council Members Eakins and Mossar re City Policy on San Francisco Airport Noise................................87-84 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m..............87-85
07/27/98 87-54
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:10 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Huber, Schneider Architectural Review Board PRESENT: Alfonso, Bellomo, Lippert, Peterson, Piha SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Joint Meeting with the Architectural Review Board A. Relationship/Communication with the City Council; B. Residential Neighborhood Study; C. Downtown Improvement Plans; and D. Midtown Master Plan. No action required. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
07/27/98 87-55
Regular Meeting July 27, 1998 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler ABSENT: Schneider SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Appointments to Planning Commission FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR ROBERT ARNOLD: VOTING FOR ANNETTE BIALSON: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler VOTING FOR PHYLLIS CASSEL: Eakins, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian, Rosenbaum, Wheeler VOTING FOR PAUL COHEN: VOTING FOR PETER ENG: VOTING FOR GAIL SCHUBERT: Assistant City Clerk Kathi Hamilton announced that Annette Bialson and Phyllis Cassel received unanimous votes and were appointed to the Planning Commission on the first round of voting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ken Russell, 2136 Oberlin Street, spoke regarding proposed library regulations. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding historic resources. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the Minutes of May 4, 1998, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent.
07/27/98 87-56
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Wheeler, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2 - 7. 2. Council Approval of Appointment of Wynne S. Furth as Senior Assistant City Attorney
3. Ordinance 4511 entitled ΑOrdinance 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 4100 and 4120 El Camino Real from RM-15
and RM-30 to PC-Planned Community≅ (1st Reading 7/13/98, PASSED 8-0, Huber absent)
4. Ordinance 4512 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Ordinance No. 4381 in Order to Extend the Period Within Which Chapter 16.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Interim Historic Regulations) Shall Be in
Effect≅ (1st Reading 07/13/98, Huber absent) 5. Amendment to Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to Provide Military Service Credit
Resolution 7783 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Implementing a Pre-tax Payroll Deduction Plan for Employee Purchases of CalPERS Service
Credit≅
Resolution 7784 entitled ΑResolution of Intention of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Approve an Amendment to Contract Between the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the City of Palo Alto (Local
Fire Fighter Members)≅
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing an Amendment to Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System (Military Service
Credit for Local Fire Fighter Members)≅ 6. Amendment No. 11 to Contract No. 4688 between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) for Refuse Collection and Recycling Services 7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Kennedy Jenks Consultants for Turn Key Services for Improvements and
07/27/98 87-57
Rehabilitation to Two Square Clarifiers at the Regional Quality Control Plant MOTION PASSED 8-0, for Item Nos. 2, 5, 6, and 7, Schneider absent. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Huber Αabstaining≅ for Item Nos. 3 and 4, Schneider absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application by Classic Communities for a Tentative Map to create 27 new lots including 26 residential lots and one commonly held parcel, and related site improvements for property located at 4100-4120 El Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared. Senior Planner Brian Dolan said the subdivision was consistent with the Planned Community (PC) development approved by the City Council one month prior. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open. Scott Ward, Classic Communities Project applicant, reiterated that the plan was the same as the one the City Council had unanimously voted for a month prior with respect to the PC application. The application had received unanimous approval from the Architectural Review Board, the Planning Department staff, and the Planning Commission, and he hoped for Council approval. Bob Moss 4010 Orme Street, referred to his prior statement with respect to the conditions of the PC and said he thought that having
one of the conditions ΑProviding bus passes for one year≅ was inadequate. The parking on the site was tight, and the idea was to emphasize the use of public transit. The buildings would essentially be there forever, and one year was not sufficient time for people to become cultured to using the buses. He recommended that the conditions be amended to require the provision of bus passes for five years with perhaps some adjustment after three years if people were in fact using the bus passes. At that point, people might be willing to continue to buy the passes. The project was a PC and, as such, was difficult to enforce. The additional cost for provision of bus passes for a sufficient amount of time was minor. Mr. Ward said he would defer to the City Attorney, but he believed the conditions of approval with respect to the PC had been ratified. He did not believe there was an opportunity to establish PC conditions associated with a tentative subdivision map.
07/27/98 87-58
Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Eakins verified that what appeared to be a typographical error in the earlier description of the benefits was revised and the passes would be Valley Transportation Agency (VTA) and not SamTrans. MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation to approve the proposed subdivision and related site improvements based on the findings and conditions. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION 4100-4120 EL CAMINO REAL 1. The project is consistent with the land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan in that it is a multiple family residential use and is within the allowable density. The project is consistent with and furthers the City's interest with respect to the following specific Comprehensive Plan policies: a. Housing Element Policy #3: "Protect and enhance those
qualities which make Palo Alto's neighborhoods especially desirable." This project is located in a neighborhood that features a mix of multiple and single family residences, and commercial uses. The proposed project will provide additional housing opportunities within walking distance to commercial services in the area and near a major transit corridor on El Camino Real. b. Housing Element Policy #13: "Increase funding sources used to provide affordable housing." The project will provide Below Market Rate (BMR) units that will contribute to the supply of affordable housing. The project would provide 4 three-bedroom BMR units for families. Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42, "Promote the orderly and harmonious development of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements through the review of new development." The site is designated Multiple Family Residential and is suitable for this use. The site is adjacent to and compatible with a variety of multiple family residential and single family developments. The proposed site plan provides setbacks, and screening from fences and landscaping to buffer the project from adjacent residential and other uses.
07/27/98 87-59
c. Urban Design Element Policy 3, "Promote visual
aesthetics through tree planting, landscaped areas, and removal of visually disruptive elements on major City Streets." The project provides substantial increase in tree planting and landscaping and would replace a highly visible dilapidated structure and unmaintained lot on El Camino Real. 2. The proposed residential subdivision, as conditioned, is consistent with and meets all the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Subdivisions and Other Divisions of Land). 3. The project is consistent with the various components of the El Camino Real Design Guidelines as described below: a. Landscaped Street Theme. Implementation of the proposed project landscape plan, including but not limited to the dual row of street trees along the front of the project will result in substantial improvement to the visual appearance of the El Camino Real frontage. b. Landscaping/Paving. As described above, the project proposes the installation of landscaping and site design to minimize the visibility of parking; it uses tree and shrub groupings to provide strong accent points at the project entrance and in from of individual project units; it provides for adequate sight distance for motorists and pedestrians; it preserves several existing mature trees on the site and requires their protection during construction ; it uses properly sized trees (i.e.,15 gallon) to allow for a mature appearance within five years; it uses plant species determined to be appropriate by the Planning Arborist; it provides a perimeter row of trees to create a buffer between the project and adjacent land uses, including the adjacent commercial uses to the north on El Camino Real. c. Signs. Not applicable; no signs are proposed at this time. d. Architecture/Site Plan. The traditional project architectural design will not attract undue attention; it is not designed with excessive superfluous details, and does not include excessive numbers of colors or excessively bright colors. Project residential units are set back from El Camino Real and several improvements are proposed to increase the desirability of the pedestrian environment along the project
07/27/98 87-60
frontage. Parking, mechanical equipment, and trash areas are adequately screened. The project respects the rights of adjacent properties with related to light, air and privacy through general compliance with the daylight planes requirements and provision of landscape buffering around the project perimeter. The design of individual project units is compatible with the rest of the project and the neighborhood. e. Buffers/Parking Lot. The project does not expose substantial parking to view from El Camino Real in that all but two of the guest parking spaces are located in the center or rear of the project. The two guest spaces that are located towards the front of the project are buffered from El Camino Real by street trees and a planting median containing a dense hedge. f. Lighting. All guest parking areas and walkways will contain adequate lighting for safety on the project site and will not spill over onto adjacent properties. 4. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the proposed 26 condominium units are within the density range allowed by existing zoning and compatible with the scale of neighboring multiple family buildings, single family neighborhoods, and commercial structures. 5. The design of the residential project will not cause significant environmental impacts as determined in the Negative Declaration approved by the City on June 29, 1998. 6. The design of the residential project complex will not result in serious public health problems, would not be detrimental to the existing pattern of the neighborhood, and would result in development of multiple-family homes that would be consistent with the adjacent buildings in the neighborhood. CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL 4100-4120 EL CAMINO REAL Planning
1. The note stating that Αall trees will be removed from the
site≅ shall be removed from the map prior to the submittal of the Final Map. Public Works Engineering
07/27/98 87-61
1. The following shall be incorporated into the Final Map submittal for Public Works review and approval: a. The areas for each lot (in acres) shall be shown. b. Deeds to record encumbrances shall be submitted. c. A legend shall be added to the map.
d. The City Engineer=s Certificate must be included with the map. Public Works-Engineering should be contacted for the current certificate format. e. A statement shall be added to the map indicating whether or not water wells are present. f. The Title Report describes some easements that are not shown on the map. All easements must be shown on the map.
g. In the notes (#3), ΑPUE≅ and ΑPSDE≅ shall be defined. h. Adjoining property shall be shown and labeled with the following: (1) Roads (widths, names, and ties) (2) Subdivisions (name, plat recording data, and tie) (3) Owner (name, deed recording data, and tie) (4) All encroachments from or intrusions to adjoining properties. 2. An approved subdivision improvement agreement shall be prepared. The Applicant shall arrange for a meeting with Public Works Engineering and other relevant departments to obtain guidelines for the presentation of the subdivision improvement agreement. This agreement must be submitted at least 30 days prior to the submission of the Final Map. Approval of this agreement by Public Works Engineering must occur before the submission of the Final Map. 3. Approved street trees in standard tree wells shall be installed on the El Camino Real frontage consistent with the PC Zoning application landscape plan. 4. The entire sidewalk on the El Camino Real frontage shall be replaced subject to City of Palo Alto standards.
07/27/98 87-62
5. The Applicant must prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to include temporary measures during construction activities and permanent post-construction measures. This plan shall be submitted with the Final Map. 6. A performance bond shall be required to secure the repair of existing public right-of-way improvements and the installation of new improvements that are part of this
proposed project. An Engineer=s Estimate for the proposed improvements must be presented with the Subdivision Improvement Agreement submission. 7. The Applicant is responsible for the required engineered exhibits for the dedication of any public utility easements. These easements shall be shown on the Final Map. 8. The Applicant is responsible for the application for a tract number with the County of Santa Clara. 9. A formal drainage and grading plan will be required to be submitted with the Building Permit application. The grading and drainage plan shall show spot elevations of existing grades on adjacent properties to show how drainage patterns work in the neighborhood. 10. A logistics plan for this project shall be submitted with the Building Permit application. This plan shall include construction parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. Utilities-Water, Gas, & Wastewater 1. Public Utility easements (minimum 5-foot wide) will be required for gas services. Each of the five groups of buildings shall have the individual house gas lines brought together by the applicant at a common location where meters can be served from a single header. The location of the public utility easements and the service headers shall be as shown on Attachment F or in locations otherwise approved by the Palo Alto Utilities Department prior to approval of the Final Map. 2. The proposed 20-foot wide streets do not meet City of Palo
Alto=s public street minimum standards, therefore, no on-site water, gas, or wastewater utility main will be run. Utilities placed within substandard streets will be owned
and maintained by the homeowner=s association. The City will terminate their water and sewer utilities
07/27/98 87-63
responsibilities at the back of the curb along El Camino Real. 3. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 4. The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo Alto Utilities with the application for a building permit. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.). 5. The applicant must show on the Final Map the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing water and sewer mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads from the project. This responsibility includes the design and all the cost associated with the construction for the installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or services.
7. The applicant=s engineer shall submit, with the application for a building permit, water flow calculations that will show that the on-site and off-site water distribution system will provide the domestic, irrigation, and fire flow water demands needed to service the development during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determine current flows and water pressures on existing main. Calculations must be stamped by a registered civil engineer. 8. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main(s) to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the Senior Wastewater Engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW Engineering Division. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. The study shall be submitted to the City with the application for a building permit. 9. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction with the final Map submittal. The plans must
07/27/98 87-64
show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. The applicant shall submit to the WGW Engineering Division of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and sewer utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the Utilities Department Design Criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared and stamped by a registered civil engineer. 10. The applicant shall provide to the W-G-W Engineering Division, with the application for a building permit, a copy of the plans for any fire system including all Fire
Department=s requirements. 11. A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the account. 12. An approved Reduce Pressure Principle Assembly (Backflow Preventer Device) shall be installed for the new water connection from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with the requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Reduce Pressure
Principle Assembly shall be installed on the owner=s property and directly behind the water meter. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 13. An approved Single Check Valve shall be installed for any water connections for a fire system to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the city connection and the assembly. If any water well, or auxiliary water supply exists on the site, a Double Check Detector Check Valve or RPPA shall be
installed on the owner=s property adjacent to the property line.
14. The applicant=s contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the utility improvement plan have been approved by the Water, Gas and Wastewater Engineering Division and all utilities conditions are met.
07/27/98 87-65
15. The applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans for all utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-way before the City can install services. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW Engineering Department prior to beginning work in the right-of-way. 16. The applicant shall pay the connection fees required for the installation of the new water service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 17. The contractor shall furnish to the Utilities Department, 5 working days prior to starting work, a complete schedule of work and method of construction for the new water service connection to the existing water main. 18. The contractor shall submit for approval by the Utilities
Engineering Department the manufacturer=s literature on the materials to be used 5 working days prior to starting work. 19. The applicant shall provide meter protection for gas meters subject to vehicle damage. 20. The applicant shall pay all cost associated with the required improvements to on-site and off-site gas main and services. All improvements to the gas system will be performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 21. No water valves or other facilities owned by Utilities Department shall be operated for any purpose by the
applicant=s contractor. All required operation will be performed only by authorized Utilities Department
Personnel. The applicant=s contractor shall notify the Utilities Department not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the time that such operation is required. 22. All utility work shall be inspected and approved by the WGW Utilities Inspector. Inspection costs for any work done before 8:00 AM or after 4:30 PM on a regular work day, or on Saturdays, Sundays or Holidays shall be paid by the
applicant=s contractor. Schedule WGW utilities inspections at (650) 329-2156 five working days before start of constructions.
23. The applicant=s contractor shall immediately notify the Utilities Department (650) 496-6932 or (650) 329-2413 if the existing water or gas mains are disturbed or damaged.
07/27/98 87-66
24. The contractor shall not disconnect any part of the existing water main except by express permission of the utilities chief inspector and shall submit a schedule of the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission. 25. The water main shall not be turned on until the service installation and the performance of chlorination and bacteriological testing have been completed. The
contractor=s testing method shall be in conformance with ANSI/AWWA C651-86. 26. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW Engineering Division, inspected by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector and tested by a licensed tester prior to activation of the water service. 27. All customer piping shall be inspected and approved by the Building Department before gas service is instituted. Gas meters will be installed within three working days after the Building Division completes its final inspection and provides notification to the Utility Department to set the gas meter. 28. Utility service connections will be installed between 30 and 45 days following receipt of full payment. Large developments must allow sufficient lead time (6 weeks minimum) for utility construction performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 29. The customer shall give the City written notice, and shall receive City approval, of any material changes in size, character, or extend of the equipment or operations for which the City is supplying utility service before making any such change. 30. Prior to final map approval, the improvement plans shall include the design of a domestic water system, gas system, and sewer collection system to the satisfaction of the Utilities Engineering Division. The improvement plan must be stamped and signed by a registered civil engineer. a. Water Distribution System (Designed and installed by
developer per City=s Utility Standards for Water, Gas and Wastewater). Water lines shall be designed for fire flows to meet Fire Department and Engineering Division requirements. Items of construction shall include at least the following: water mains; water service; valves; tees; hydrants; blow-off; backflow preventer devices; detector check valve for automatic fire sprinkler; trench detail; cross sections; tie-in
07/27/98 87-67
details; specifications and together with appurtenances to any or all of the above. b. Gas Distribution System (Designed and installed by Utilities Engineering Division; gas design must be shown on the improvements plans). This system shall include gas mains; services; gas meter locations; and together with appurtenances to any or all of the above. c. Sewer Collection System (Designed and installed by
developer per City=s requirements). This system shall include sewer mains; manholes with frames and covers; branches and laterals; cleanouts and boxes; standard details; profiles; specifications and together with appurtenances to any of all of the above. Utilities-Electric 1. A 5-foot wide public utility easements for electric utilities shall be granted surrounding parcel 27 in the front yards of each individual project lot. A public utility easement shall be granted for all of the public recreation area and landscaping area between lots 21 and 22 and along side of lot 22, in the planting area between the front access road and the El Camino Real right-of-way, and the landscaping area in the northernmost corner of the project site between the access drive and guest parking space and the property line. The location of these easements shall be as illustrated on Attachment G or as otherwise approved by the Palo Alto Utilities Department prior to the approval of the Final Map. Utilities Marketing 1. Landscape and irrigation plans including water usage calculations must be submitted to Utilities Marketing and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Fire 1. All construction shall be in accordance with Title 15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, California Fire Code, 1995 Edition, including but not limited to Article 9,10 and 87. Areas of particular concern include: a. Section 901.2.1: Plans for fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction.
07/27/98 87-68
b. Section 901.2.2.2: Plans and specifications for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval. c. Section 902.2.1: A fire apparatus access road shall be provided for every building when any portion of an exterior wall is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access. 2. All automatic sprinkler systems shall be in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13, 1996 edition. 3. All building plans must be submitted to the fire department for review. Transportation 1. The Final Map shall be revised from the Tentative Map to provide the six-foot extension of the driveway aisle beyond the north end of the guest parking space near proposed Unit 26 to provide adequate back up space for the guest parking space as required in the approval of the PC Conceptual Site Plan. Council Member Wheeler asked the City Attorney to respond to Mr.
Ward=s statement regarding conditions associated with a tentative map. City Attorney Ariel Calonne felt that the City Council would have the authority to condition the subdivision map for any number of reasons notwithstanding the PC. He had not looked at the question in any detail but was not willing to say that enacting the PC precluded the Council from imposing conditions on a subdivision map if they were necessary for Comprehensive Plan consistency or
otherwise. It certainly was not the Council=s practice, but it was not clearly unlawful. Council Member Mossar clarified that she had raised the issue a month prior which was to encourage alternative transportation, not specifically limited to bus passes. From her perspective, the proposal was inadequate to be successful. She indicated at that time her colleagues were not interested in pursuing that further. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider an application by Margaret Toor for an amendment to the conditions of an approved Parcel Map with exceptions for property located at 1159 Lincoln Avenue. The amendments relate to removing or reducing recorded restrictions on the designated building area, floor area
07/27/98 87-69
ratio, setbacks and basement ceiling height. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zone District: R-1. Senior Planner George White said the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve in part and deny in part
the applicant=s parcel map amendment requests subject to the findings attached to the staff report (CMR:323:98). The original
staff recommendation was that the City Council deny the applicant=s request subject to findings. The applicant sought to amend or remove a number of conditions that were applied by the City Council in 1988 as part of a parcel map application. Those restrictions included limiting development on the west side of the parcel to increase the setbacks from what the standard setbacks would be on a parcel in an R-1 District, to limit the floor area ratio (FAR) on the site to 3,000 square feet, to limit the building height to 20 feet to the peak of the roof, and to limit a finished ceiling of any basement to 6 feet 9 inches of interior height. The applicant sought to eliminate the restriction on the eastern portion of the parcel, reduce the setbacks indicated on the parcel map attached to the staff report (CMR:323:98), to add additional FAR to the limitation to the maximum 0.30 FAR, or 3,680 square feet rather than the 3,900 square feet indicated in the Planning Commission staff report, and to eliminate the basement ceiling height restriction. The applicant did not propose to change the 20- foot height restriction. The item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its July 8, 1998, meeting. At that time, the Planning Commission felt it could support the request to eliminate the basement ceiling height restriction but agreed with staff on the remainder of the amendment request. The Planning Commission also suggested and recommended that additional clarifying language be added to the parcel map which would translate the FAR limitation of 3,000 square feet to a 0.25 FAR of the gross site area and a condition that would clarify what sort of development would be allowed in the eastern portion of the parcel. Staff had provided draft language contained in the staff report (CMR:323:98) for Council review. Staff had also received a letter from the applicant, Margaret Toor, which clarified the difference between the 0.30 FAR of 3,900 to 3,680 square feet. At the request of a City Council Member, he also put at places a letter to Ms. Toor from the then Assistant City Attorney Debra Cauble in 1995 related to development on the eastern portion of the property. Finally that evening, the applicant had graciously conveyed a letter from a neighbor, Heather White, 1177 Lincoln Court, who generally supported the Planning Commission recommendation on the parcel. Council Member Wheeler asked why staff continued to take its position to deny the application in light of the Planning Commission discussion.
07/27/98 87-70
Mr. White said the staff recommendation reflected the original recommendation and the fact that staff believed that two of the five findings could not be made to support the application. Council Member Wheeler noted there were a many special conditions attached to the particular piece of land and the applicant had requested some additional flexibility in terms of the allowable FAR. If the Council determined that the request was acceptable, she asked whether a height limit would be placed on any addition to the main structure. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said no. If there were additional expansion of the structures on the site, the site development regulations for substandard lots would apply which, as categorized, would be a single-story on flag lots, or 17 feet. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the height depended on the pitch of the roof. Mr. White said yes. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open. Margaret Toor, 1159 Lincoln Avenue, said there were three areas she wanted to address: the specifics of the restrictions themselves; the issue of future handling of the 20-foot height limit versus the 17-foot height limit for flag lots; and the effects of the Council creating a policy specific to the particular parcel. First, she still wanted all of the restrictions removed. She firmly believed that the existing ordinances in Palo Alto concerning lot coverage, FAR, height limitation, conditional use permits for second dwellings, etc., were adequate to the task of protecting the lot from overdevelopment. She was a pragmatist and willing to compromise. She referred to a map which showed the compromise that she offered versus what was currently in effect or originally proposed. As far as the Planning Commission recommendation, she agreed with the removal of the height restriction on the basement ceiling. She could accept the continued limitation of using the east side of the parcel as long as the language was very clear as it pertained to the restriction against habitable dwellings, parking garages, parking facilities, and accessory structures. She believed staff made a comment about the language being altered to change what could be included. What she showed on the map was what could not be put there and what she wanted. She differed with the Planning Commission regarding the buildable west side and requested the Council consider a 0.30 FAR. Mr. White had clarified the confusion that happened at the Planning Commission meeting that the .30 FAR was construed to be 900 square feet, the bulk that would create, and the density as being undesirable. She said that 680 square feet which was actually a 0.30 FAR could fit within the existing building
07/27/98 87-71
parameters on the existing parcel map. She also asked Council to
consider moving the setback against the Echol=s property from 20 feet to 10 feet to allow for some future flexibility should any change occur. The current building envelope could accommodate future development and that there were already some stringent setbacks on that side of the property. With respect to the ambiguity of the height limit, if someone bought the house in 20 or 30 years, and demolished it, a 17-foot height limitation would eliminate a house at a 0.25 FAR from being built in that building envelope. She needed better clarification as to what the rules were going to be about the use of the west side of the parcel if she agreed to giving up everything on the east side of the parcel. Lastly, she was concerned with the process of managing the use of the property. Ten years ago the Council had created a policy specific to the property. Staff indicated a month prior that their role was to support Council policy until it was changed; therefore, staff recommended denial of the application, not based on the merits of the request but on the very existence of the request. The findings that Mr. White referred to were based on the fact that Council put rules in place 10 years prior and because those rules were there, any change requested to those rules constituted an inability to meet one of the findings. Removing staff from participating meaningfully in discussion put an undue burden on the applicant to develop a level of sophistication about City ordinances, rules, and history that exceeded the knowledge base that would be expected of a typical homeowner. It was also unfair to pay fees of several thousand dollars knowing that staff was precluded from rendering any expert opinion on any question asked. The property was created by the application for a minor subdivision with exceptions process, which made sense when properties were being combined and things like utilities and soil conditions were relevant. Questions about restrictions imbedded in the parcel map could be handled in a less burdensome process. She requested that the City Council explore whether there was another avenue for an applicant to use in the future that was not an application for a minor subdivision when the applicant was not trying to create a subdivision. There was discussion earlier in the process as to whether or not she would have to produce a soils report. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Wheeler said she and Council Member Huber, as former Planning Commissioners, had something to say about the property. She was unsure whether she was grateful to the Planning Commission, 10 years prior, that left future City Councils with some flexibility on the property. The current Planning Commission had given the property a very thorough and reasoned examination and was very comfortable with the changes that it had recommended to the Council. She could make the same findings as the Planning Commission in order to support the change in the basement area and
07/27/98 87-72
the other associated changes related to the recalculation of the site coverage to bring it into more conformity with the FAR standards and also the clarification of what kinds of structures might be built in the backyard. Ten years prior, the Planning Commission was consumed with other problems that the lot presented and paid no attention to the back area with the exception of not allowing any building there. The prior Council was less than clear in trying to define what was or was not allowed, and it was only appropriate to define that currently. The family ought to have the same opportunity to enjoy the same kind of amenities that other families had in their backyards. She agreed with the Planning Commission in stopping short of allowing a loosening of the FAR, especially when it involved a change in the setback to the rear of the house. The parcel was unusual and did provide some hardship to some of the neighbors of the property. MOTION: Council Member Wheeler moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation to approve in part
and deny in part the applicant=s Parcel Map amendment request, subject to the findings, and to add the proposed clarifying Planning Commission language to the recorded Parcel Map indicated in the staff report dated 7/22/98. DRAFT FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, IN PART, OF AMENDMENTS TO PARCEL MAP WITH EXCEPTIONS 98-PM-1 1159 Lincoln Avenue
A. Eliminate the building restriction on eastern portion of the subject parcel and apply standard zoning setbacks in this area. B. Reduce the additional side setbacks on the subject
parcel to a minimum of 10 feet (currently required to be 20 feet). C. Increase the allowed floor area on the subject parcel to maximum of .3 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) instead of the
current 3,000 square foot limitation. 1. The proposal changes only physical aspects of the subdivision in that the proposed amendments relate only to previously recorded restrictions on the subject property; 2. The proposal is substantially inferior in bulk, degree or importance to the overall dimension and design of the development and does not add any lots, units or buildings to the subdivision in that the proposed amendments are only to previously recorded restrictions on the subject
07/27/98 87-73
property and do not propose to change the configuration of the original parcel map; 3. The proposal does increase the adverse environmental effects of the subdivision in that the proposed amendments propose to reduce or eliminate development limitations that constitute the currently applicable City policy for
this site based upon the City Council=s action in 1988. 4. The proposal is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan in that the existing and proposed use is residential but is not consistent with intent of the original map approval and related land use restrictions applied by the City Council on March 14, 1988; and, 5. The proposal does not violate the Palo Alto Municipal Code in that the proposal will comply with all currently applicable Zoning Regulations. DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL, IN PART, OF AN AMENDMENT TO PARCEL MAP WITH EXCEPTIONS 98-PM-1 1159 Lincoln Avenue A. Eliminate the basement ceiling height restriction on
the subject parcel requiring a finished interior basement ceiling height of 6 feet 9 inches at maximum. 1. The proposal changes only physical aspects of the subdivision in that the proposed amendments relate only to previously recorded restrictions on the subject property; 2. The proposal is substantially inferior in bulk, degree or importance to the overall dimension and design of the development and does not add any lots, units or buildings to the subdivision in that the proposed amendments are only to previously recorded restrictions on the subject property and do not propose to change the configuration of the original parcel map; 3. The proposed amendment does not increase the adverse environmental effects of the subdivision in that the elimination of the basement ceiling height restriction pertains to an existing basement feature of the dwelling that will not be altered and that the new condition number 3 to be recorded on the Parcel Map serves to clarify the existing land use limitations on the property. 4. The proposal is consistent with the Palo Alto comprehensive plan in that the existing use is residential and is consistent with intent of the original map approval
07/27/98 87-74
in that the original Parcel Map restriction was intended to control future development of the site and related to the fact that in 1988 a basement in excess of 6 feet 9 inches in interior height would be counted as floor area. Subsequently, site has been developed with a single family home and basement and the Palo Alto Municipal Code has modified to exempt below grade basements from floor area calculations. The new condition number 3 serves to clarify the land use limitations placed on the property by the City Council in 1988. These amendments, therefore, are consistent with the intent of the original Parcel Map approval; and, 5. The proposal does not violate the Palo Alto Municipal Code in that the proposal will comply with all currently applicable Zoning Regulations. Council Member Mossar had visited the site that day and was struck by the very dense and cute neighborhood tucked away down a driveway. The restrictions placed on the lot were very important to maintain in principle to make sure that the quality of the court remained as it was. Council Member Kniss supported the Planning Commission recommendations which she felt were a compromise. The area and court were remarkable. Having as many diverse pieces of property converging on each other provided both a positive effect and a challenge to those who resided in the area. She supported the motion. Council Member Huber had spoken to Ms. Toor the prior day. He had given some thought to the suggestions that had been made by the applicant, as well as the Planning Commission, and recalled the difficulty that they had 10 years prior. The reason the restrictions existed was because of the fashion in which the properties were placed and that the property owners could not make any changes without exceptions being granted. Given the number of properties that abutted the specific property, the decision made by the Planning Commission 10 years prior and those made by the Planning Commission continued to make sense. He supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. Council Member Wheeler said that Ms. Toor raised some questions
that were not within the purview of the Council=s decision-making
process that evening but were questions from an owner=s viewpoint
that were important in terms of the City=s process and about what an owner of the property in the future might need to go through.
07/27/98 87-75
She asked that some of those issues be clarified and that some cogent answers be given. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said if there was rebuilding because of damage due to a disaster, the existing FAR envelope could be duplicated notwithstanding the substandard lot regulation. He understood that using the parcel map process to effect any development standard change was expensive and cumbersome. The Council could request staff review what kind of code amendment or
other action would be needed to facilitate Αnormalizing≅ the process for the property while still respecting the conditions placed on the parcel map. A request of staff did not strike him as an unreasonable request that would lead to unintended negative consequences. Council Member Wheeler asked whether Council action was required to request staff to review those issues. Mr. Calonne felt comfortable in looking into the subject without Council action at that time. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 10. City of Palo Alto Proposed Comments on Woodland Creek Apartments Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Senior Planner Brian Dolan said a proposed letter was drafted to send to the City of East Palo Alto which made reference to a four-story project. However, it was not a four-story project, but rather 40-feet tall. As a supplement to the information provided in the staff report (CMR:320:98) about the potential action to be
taken by the District Attorney=s Office, staff had yet to hear of any conclusion of the investigation by the Department of Fish and Game; therefore, staff had no further information to report on that action. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said a report dated July 27, 1998, was
at the Council Members= places which followed up on a phone conversation he had the previous week with a couple of Palo Alto neighbors of the project. It suggested an addition to the comment
letter to ΑRecognize the uncertain legal status of the grading and
fill activity that had happened on the site≅ and to make sure that the uncertainty was documented. The addition would have the effect of preserving any legal remedies that might be exist with respect to the grading and fill activity. He felt it was prudent to do given the fact that the City did not know what shape the site would be in when the rainy seasons came. Council Member Mossar said the draft letter referred to the project raising the grade of the site by one foot. She wondered whether
07/27/98 87-76
there was any way to opine if it meant the site would be four feet or three feet. Senior Engineer James Harrington referred to the information in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which referred to filling of approximately one foot over the site. He believed the three feet that Council Member Mossar referred to was what staff would refer to as temporary fill material that was currently on site. Council Member Mossar confirmed the site would be one foot higher than the condition that existed before the fill was brought onto the site. Council Member Huber asked the City Attorney to explain what the options would be if the letter was sent to the City of East Palo Alto which pointed out the various comments and then the City was not satisfied with the results. Mr. Calonne said the comment letter triggered an obligation on the part of the City of East Palo Alto to respond and to modify the EIR as necessary. There were no specific rules about how those responses would end up looking, so they would need to be monitored to see if they were substantively adequate. If the responses were substantively adequate, then East Palo Alto would be legally free to consider the project and give approval to it. If the City of Palo Alto did not feel that the responses were substantively adequate, then the City would want to voice that objection before East Palo Alto gave final consideration and approval to the project. If the project were approved anyway, there was a period of time within which the City would have the ability to bring a lawsuit based on the lack of environmental compliance. As he had mentioned in discussions with various staff, it was important to line up the environmental concerns with the substantive law concerns because he would want to enter into a dialogue before litigation about the rights the property owner thought he/she might have with respect to flood protection on the site. It was not clear to him that the property owner would be necessarily acting unlawfully or outside of his/her rights by undertaking some degree of flood protection for the site. Bob Rutherford, 1924 Edgewood Drive, thanked the staff for their thorough and timely review of the documents and thanked the Council for making the hearing a priority. The process not only put the project in perspective, but was also helpful for any future proposed project along San Francisquito Creek. Tom Kotoske, 1657 Edgewood Drive, thanked the staff for a job well done, articulate and insightful. He felt that the law was very clear that when a person bought a piece of property he/she had a right to develop it with certain limitations such as that it must not damage adjacent property or create a dangerous condition to
07/27/98 87-77
neighboring properties. Wind River Investments had exceeded or violated every permit that had been issued concerning the project. The vegetation in the precious creek near the site of the development had been denuded. The creek had been filled with trash and had altered the stream flow as it presently was. The ground had been raised by four feet rather than one foot. Wind River proposed a 1,100 foot concrete flood wall that would create a dangerous condition to the other property owners. With respect to the regional concerns, Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) had been preempted in its five to six years planning development on what to do with the creek and had ignored the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) January 1997 letter which indicated the damage that could result from its proposed project. Wind River had ignored Fish and Games and had no stream bed alteration permit for what had already been done. The development group was irresponsible and had put before the City of East Palo Alto a proposal that was based upon junk science and whose hydrology aspects were disclaimed as unreliable by their own people who submitted them. As City staff had pointed out, their project was ill-defined and the whole project was unsound from any
factual basis. It was to the City of Palo Alto=s advantage to see growth in East Palo Alto but not the type of greedy, irresponsible growth and conduct that underlined the proposed project. Stanley R. Smith, 610 Wildwood Lane, thanked the staff and Council for their prompt response. He was concerned about the amount of dirt that had been piled on the site and what would happen that winter if there were another heavy rainy season. He asked that the dirt be removed. Janet Levy, 1843 Edgewood Drive, said that the developer had acted outside of the EIR process. She showed various pictures that illustrated her points including an aerial view of the site which was almost surrounded by water. By raising the elevation on that site by three feet, the impact on the flow of the water in the creek channel was clearly a concern. She showed photos which illustrated the before and after of the vegetation removal which was done after the Draft SEIR was issued but before the comment period was over. In terms of the stream bed alteration permit, which was never obtained, a photo showed the substantial impact on the creek. Council Member Mossar asked about the black plastic that was shown in the photo and whether it served a purpose. Ms. Levy said it was her understanding that the permit the SCVWD issued was for rough grading, i.e., moving the existing dirt around on the site, and required that some sort of protection be put up to keep any fill that moved around from going into the creek. The plastic was clearly not serving its purpose.
07/27/98 87-78
Council Member Mossar confirmed with Ms. Levy that from the view of the picture, the soil was leaning against the sheets of plastic. Ms. Levy thanked the Council for its consideration and appreciated its thoroughness. Richard H. Schwartz 1843 Edgewood Drive, thanked staff for their conscientious and substantive review of the SEIR. The report highlighted the areas of concern with the current proposal for the building project by Wind River Investments. In addition to providing an inadequate SEIR, the Wind River developers had intentionally deforested a creek bed of mature trees and lush vegetation without waiting for any of the required environmental analysis, comment, or scrutiny. The developers were aware of the environmental concerns which were expressed to them months prior both in writing and verbally. Nonetheless, the developers recklessly put the pedal to the metal and preempted the EIR process
by exceeding a basic Αpush around dirt≅ permit, failing to obtain the appropriate approvals and permits, and relying on a groundless claim of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption to rip out substantially all of the creekside trees and vegetation and thereby causing a significant impact. The actions had presumably destabilized the creek bank; and then, adding insult to injury, developers laid three or more feet on the site at the edge of the creek bank itself. He felt that the developers must bare responsibility for their actions. At the very least, steps must be taken immediately to restore public safety. If the developers would not agree to remove the fill from the site and revegetate the trees and landscaping along the creek bank, then they should be immediately enjoined from taking further action that undermined the CEQA process. The final reason not to delay in demanding action was that an important statutory deadline to raise an objective to
developers= actions loomed large. He asked the City Council to join the property owners in actively seeking a reversal of the
developers= action and not to let the statute of limitations run such that viable options for resolution were foreclosed. Kevin Fisher, 728 Alester Avenue, said his house was damaged by the floods of February 2 and 3, 1998, and like many of his neighbors, he had not yet returned to his house. The project in its current form would only mean more suffering for more people, including the residents of the proposed complex, unless it was modified. He requested that the Council do everything within its power including legal means to stop the project in its current form if necessary. If the plans could not be modified, then he had concern about the
City=s resolve for obtaining a comprehensive solution to creek flooding. Mary Schaefer, 742 DeSoto Drive, said some of the residents would not forget the potential of flooding in Palo Alto. She wanted to
07/27/98 87-79
see improvements in East Palo Alto, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Woodside, and all of the communities that happened to be in the watershed of San Francisquito Creek. She wanted every community to weigh every development as to what it would do to the homes that were so damaged and the potential of more homes being damaged. She said the Palo Alto Weekly placed a column in the paper the prior week which noted what was currently happening. She did not want the Council to forget that the water problem needed to be taken care of. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, thanked staff and the Council for taking appropriate action to address the problem created by a
developer in the neighboring city. He referred to Mr. Calonne=s statement regarding how a property owner was allowed to make modifications to protect his/her property and believed that was true, but with limitations. He was reminded of an instance where, for example, a property owner put up a berm on his/her property to prevent a stream which ran through the property from flooding. The
stream was diverted into a neighbors= property and severe flooding resulted. The neighbor sued and won. The proposed project was similar in that it might protect itself with a real risk to neighbors. He suggested in the letter to East Palo Alto that the City of Palo Alto mention there were legal liabilities for creating
hazards on other peoples= property. The City of Palo Alto had spent literally millions of dollars supporting East Palo Alto over the years with a number of agencies. The City had no objections to development, especially useful development in East Palo Alto, and, in fact, applauded it. However, the City was opposed to inappropriate, if not dangerous, development. Council Member Huber asked the City Attorney about the statute of limitation. Mr. Calonne said when a project was exempt from the environmental law, the agency could get a 35-day statute of limitation if they filed a notice of exemption with the county. He was unsure whether that had been done. If the notice was not filed, there was a six-month or 180 day statute of limitation that would apply following approval of the grading activity. Council Member Mossar thanked staff for a well-written comment letter. The letter highlighted the significant issues and problems that the City faced with the project. The problem was that activity had occurred on the site before the public scrutiny and evaluation of the adequacy of the SEIR was completed. She recognized that the draft letter acknowledged that there were some changes but she was not sure what the best route was to make sure
that the City=s comments adequately stated its concerns about those changes. She appreciated the letter provided by the City Attorney
which was at the Council=s places, and that the City Attorney=s
07/27/98 87-80
suggested language helped get the Council to where it needed to get, however, there were some issues of immediacy. She had asked the question about the black plastic because she had been at the site that day and saw a lot of earth straining against not very strong material and understood why residents who might potentially be flooded by the soil would be concerned. She was unsure that what had been done met standards for a temporary retaining wall. Mr. Harrington said the purpose of the fabric was to aid in the filtering of silt material that could make its way into waterways. The intent was to keep the silt on the upstream side and not to allow it to get into the waters below. In the particular case, it appeared that the silt fence was doing a job for which it was not designed. Council Member Mossar said that was an immediate concern. Although she was not an experienced or knowledgeable hydrologist, common sense would tell her that if on the East Palo Alto side of the creek, the bank was stabilized and raised in any way, e.g., a wall or grading, the water at the bend of the creek would go pounding over to the other side. It did that currently. There was a bank stabilization wall that she assumed the SCVWD had put on the Palo Alto side of the bend. She noticed as she walked behind that wall that there were sandbags piled up because clearly someone had been concerned about the ability of the bank stabilization to hold. There was the larger issue of how the project needed to be configured to be a complete, whole, and adequate project; but, there was also the short-term concern of existing conditions and the changes on the site. Mr. Harrington said the SCVWD had not officially responded on the project. He believed that SCVWD was waiting to make a final resolution of its comments pending a meeting with engineering representatives. SCVWD had verbally indicated to staff that the information in the EIR was not adequate. Council Member Mossar said although she heartily endorsed the comments that were prepared on the SEIR, she asked what could be done for the City to address temporary but real issues, e.g., siltation, habitat degradation, changes in flood water patterns. If there were another significant rainy season that year, the site in its present condition could pose problems for residents of both East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. Mr. Calonne suggested that the Council direct a letter to the San
Mateo County District Attorney=s (DA) Office, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), and Governor that the activity had happened, the City did not like it, and the City wanted action taken. Secondly, with respect to the SCVWD jurisdiction, he was unclear as to what authority it had. There was an ordinance, but he knew very little about how SCVWD would assert jurisdiction on the San Mateo
07/27/98 87-81
County side of creek. Clearly, the staff was correct in relying on the SCVWD to look at the hydrology numbers. If the Council looked at short-term versus long-term issues, the comment letter addressed the ultimate questions on the project. With respect to the short-term issues of site remediation, it was probably prudent to wait and see what the applicant and East Palo Alto would do as the rainy season approached. If the Council was looking for action, it should go to the responsible enforcement authorities,
the San Mateo County DA=s Office and DFG. He did not think it was timely for the City to step in and attempt some action to cause remediation of the site. It might be prudent when the rainy season approached, but it would certainly be appropriate to let the immediate enforcement officials know that the City cared. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to
the City of East Palo Alto conveying the City of Palo Alto=s comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Woodland Creek Apartments project, including additional comment recommendations from the City Attorney. Further, to direct staff to prepare an additional letter to Director of Fish and Game, San
Mateo County District Attorney=s Office, and the Governor or other appropriate state officials conveying concern over actions already taken on the proposed property. Council Member Huber supported the draft letter but had concerns with the additional correspondence to the other agencies without East Palo Alto having an opportunity to respond. He suggested that the letter to East Palo Alto be copied to DFG and other appropriate officials. Mayor Rosenbaum suggested that the motion be separated for the purposes of voting. Council Member Ojakian was supportive of the draft letter. The comments were very comprehensive. He did not support the additional letter which was recommended by Council Member Mossar. Some of the Council was planning to meet with East Palo Alto Officials that week, and he would rather wait and have some discussions prior to the additional action. He thanked the public for its approach and comments. He was concerned with the developers approach to the site. Council Member Wheeler preferred to meet and discuss the issue with East Palo Alto prior to sending the additional letter. She also asked whether there were additional ways to work together with East Palo Alto and wanted those to be tried as well. Council Member Mossar understood the caution and asked whether the timing issue was related to the CEQA exemption. She asked how the
07/27/98 87-82
timing related to the Council=s pending vacation. She was concerned that the City develop a strategy which left them with a legitimate option to protect the citizenry from potential problems. City Manager June Fleming said the City had until August 14, 1998, to send its comments to East Palo Alto. The Mayor had asked that she contact her counterpart in East Palo Alto about meeting with the liaison group. The meeting was scheduled to take place that week. Council Member Mossar asked whether there was any timing issue that was critical relative to the CEQA exemption. Mr. Calonne said if there had not been a notice of exemption, then no. He did not think there had been, but he had not investigated it personally. He did not think it was a timing problem but rather a resource problem given the resource starved agencies such as his office, DFG, etc. Council Member Mossar said she supported the letter because she had worked with DFG and other agencies on other issues, and it was important to note the concerns. She would support sending a letter to East Palo Alto with a copy to the other agencies stating the
City=s concerns about the identified issues. Council Member Kniss supported both parts of the motion. She felt it was necessary to indicate how concerned the Council was about the identified concerns. Council Member Fazzino was also concerned. He felt that as the City moved forward and worked with East Palo Alto and other agencies, it was important to separate the issue of legitimate development rights on the site from the destruction of the creek. The City had an excellent relationship with East Palo Alto and it was important to work with that city to address the problem. East Palo Alto was the responsible jurisdiction, and he felt that the problem could be resolved. Violations of law and destruction of the area had as much negative impact on East Palo Alto as it did on Palo Alto. At the same time, it was important to communicate with agencies such as DFG. He was unsure how effective a letter to the Governor would be and would probably be more effective to communicate with Senator Byron Sher and Assemblyman Ted Lempert. He hoped the situation could be resolved. The fact that the floods that year were the worst since 1955 magnified the issue for the community and demonstrated the need to resolve the situation as quickly as possible. Council Member Eakins felt that the draft letter was very thorough and would be helpful to the whole EIR and follow-up project mitigation and development. She supported sharing the information
07/27/98 87-83
with the other agencies as early as possible to provide constructive assistance. Mayor Rosenbaum said that a property owner was allowed to reasonably protect his/her property. One might anticipate that the property owner would claim that what he/she proposed to do was quite reasonable. He asked how in practice did an issue such as that get worked out. Mr. Calonne said the staff would hope that one property owner could protect his/her property without impacting another in an unreasonable way. That would not be known without seeing the hydrology study. Mayor Rosenbaum asked if the hydrology study would be done by the applicant or owner. Mr. Calonne said it was dependent upon what East Palo Alto would require. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF THE MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve the staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to the City of East Palo Alto conveying the City
of Palo Alto=s comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Woodland Creek Apartments project, including additional comment recommendations from the City Attorney. FIRST PART OF MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. Council Member Mossar said perhaps the letter was the wrong vehicle. She had proposed it because the comment letter on the SEIR was important, valuable and the comments acknowledged the changes at the site, but they did not give the City any opportunity to seek relief or protection from the interim situation created by the grading and fill and removal of vegetation. She was looking for a way to say that the interim status of the ground was unacceptable and that the appropriate aspects needed to indicate what remediations needed to be completed to solve the interim problems. It was necessary to get the attention of DFG. Mayor Rosenbaum suggested an alternative to wait until the meeting with East Palo Alto officials took place. Council Member Mossar said the City needed expert advice about what remediation was.
07/27/98 87-84
MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kniss to continue the item to the Monday, August 3, 1998, City Council Meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent COUNCIL MATTERS 11. Council Members Eakins and Mossar re City Policy on San Francisco Airport Noise Council Member Mossar said Mayor Rosenbaum, Council Member Huber, and she had been participating over time in meetings with various citizens, elected officials, and Airport personnel to discuss airport noise issues. There had been an increasing awareness of noise generated by aircraft from the San Francisco International Airport (Airport). On two occasions, the City Council had made attempts to be added to the Airport Roundtable which was a body that advised the Airport and included cities from San Mateo County. The City had been rebuffed in its attempts to become members of that body. The City Council had not had a conversation about appropriate policy direction for the City to take relative to aircraft noise issues, and Council Member Eakins and she felt it was important that the Policy and Services Committee have an opportunity to review the kinds of aircraft noise problems that the City faced currently, the future potential problems that the City might face, and return the item to the full Council with some recommendations about how to approach the problems. Council Member Eakins felt the time had come for the Council to address the issue officially. The City had sent a number of letters and had made some efforts, but it was necessary to offer the community an official public focus. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Eakins, to refer the issues related to concerns and complaints about airport-generated noise and the proposal for the addition of a third runway at SFO to the Policy and Services Committee for discussion and possible recommendation for action. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Schneider absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m. in memory of Lois Hopper who had served on the Palo Alto Unified School District Board from 1954 to 1969. ATTEST: APPROVED: 07/27/98 87-85
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(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.
07/27/98 87-86