Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-20 City Council (10)This report is being distributed early in order to allow more time for Council and public review.City of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:JULY 20, 1998 CMR:301:98 SUBJECT:ADOPTION OF CITY OF PALO ALTO 1998-2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND USE MAP RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution certifying the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as adequate and making the f’mdings required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adopting the 1998:2010 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Land Use and Circulation Map as transmitted to the Council with this report. This recommendation is based on the Planning Commission and City Council’s finding that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was adequately prepared and the City Council finding that the FEIR responds to all comments on the DEIR. BACKGROUND Since October 19, 1992, the citizens, staff, advisory boards, Planning Commission and City Council of Palo Alto have beenin the process ofprepadn~ a Comprehensive Plan (Plan) for the City of Palo Alto to replace the 1980-1995 Plan. On December 2, 1997, the City Council made final changes to the Planning Commission-recommended Plan and returned the Plan to the Planning Commission for final review and comment. The Planning Commission reviewed the changes at its meeting of January 14, 1997 (minutes attached).The Commission commented on the Plan, but did not seek further changes. DISCUSSION Transmitted with this report is the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Palo Alto. The resolution certifying the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan FEIR, making the CEQA findings and adopting the Plan and Map will be provided to Council at the July 13 meeting and in the July 16 Council packet. The Implementation Plan is not included and is following a separate track for finalapproval. At this time, it is anticipated that the Implementation Plan CMR:301:98 Page 1 of 4 will be reviewed by the City’s boards and commissions in late summer and early fall and by the City Council by the end of the year. In preparing the document, staff has incorporated the original document prepared by staff (white pages), the Planning Commission-recommended document (green pages) and City Council changes as identified on December 2, 1997. Numerous non-critical spelling, grammar, title and standard convention corrections have been made. In addition, several changes have been made where the text and Glossary were not consistent in definitions. To the extent possible, relevant data has been updated to the most currently available. Since this final document is the culmination of many hours of review and tentative adoption, ¯ it is being distributed Ju!y 10 to City boards and commissions and City staff, and is being made available to CPAC and the general public. It will be forwarded to surrounding jurisdictions and other state regional agencieS, as required by law, following final adoption. Staff is maintaining a list of those receiving the Plan and will provide errata or update sheets as necessary. RESOURCE IMPACT The Comprehensive Plan and Final EIR identify many costly public improvements, legislative changes, plans, studies and programs that are proposed over the life of the Plan. Significant additional staff time and staff resources will be required to implement the proposals. These costs will be the subject of a separate staff report that will accompany the Implementation Chapter. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Comprehensive Plan is the primary policy tool for guiding the future development of the City. Its purpose is to direct decisionmaking toward a shared vision ofwh~Palo Altoshould be like in the intermediate and long-term future. The Plan provides the policy framework for decisions on both private and public projects. Through the Implementation Chapter, the Plan is linked to the Capital Improvement Program, the City budget and Council priorities. TIMELINE Upon its effective date, staff will begin using the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan as the primary policy tool for physical development in .the City and will forward the Housing Technical Document to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for certification. In addition, the document will be distributed to surrounding jurisdictions and other state and regional agencies as required by law. As noted, staff expects to return to Council prior to the end of 1998 .with the Implementation Chapter, which will be incorporated into the Plan by amendment. CMR:301:98 Page 2 of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Findings for adoption of the EIR are included in the resolution. The EIR identifies environmental impacts related to intersection operations, traffic on residential streets, increased frequency and severity of flooding, and increased need for school capacity as impacts that can not be feasibly mitigated to less than significant levels. These impacts are therefore considered to be significant and unavoidable. The City may approve the Comprehensive Plan despite these unavoidable impacts as long as a Statement of Overriding Considerations is also adoptedl Such a statement is included in the resolution. The unavoidable impacts of Comprehensive Plan implementation to intersection operation include the following: Middlefield/San Antonio (LOS D to LOS F) E1 Camino Real/Page Mill (LOS D to LOS F) E1 Camino Real/Arastradero/Charleston (LOS D to LOS E) Alma/Charleston.(LOS D to LOS F) Embarcadero/East Bayshore (LOS E ) The unavoidable impact of Comprehensive Plan implementation related to increased potential for flooding is the result of potential cumulative development outside of the City but within the watersheds of the City’s creeks, over which the City has no formal control. The unavoidable impact of implementation of the Comprehensive Plan related to schools includes the inability of existing school facilities, even with the funds which will be accumulated though collection of the school impact fee, to accommodate the number of new students which would result from new development facilitated by the Comprehensive Plan. Increased enrollment will cause overcrowding, necessitating the construction of new facilities. Most environmental impacts identified in the EIR could be mitigated. The major mitigation efforts the City would be committing to in certifying this EIR include several intersection improvements, the commitment to fund necessary increases in police and fire service~ out of the City General Fund, and the commitment to ensure that development does not result in significant shortages in park land. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Planning Commission Minutes of January 14, 1998 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan and Land Use and Circulation Map Draft and Final 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Reports (Council Members only) CMR:301:98 Page 3 of 4 PREPARED BY: James E. Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Architectural Review Board Historic Resources Board Human Relations Commission Planning Commission Public Art Commission Utilities Advisory Commission ANNE CRONIN MOORE Interim Director of Planning and Community " CMR:301:98 Page 4 of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 Wednesday, January 14, 1998 Regular Meeting ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Attachment A 2 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2 2 1.Approval of Minutes of December 10, 1997. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 2.1237-1275 SAN ANTONIO ROAD (LOS ALTOS TREATMENT PLANT SITE): Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council on annexation of a 13.26-acre parcel, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Public Park to Major Institution/Special Facilities and Publicly Owned Conservation Land, and a prezoning of the property as Public Facilities to allow a future development project, including restoration of wetlands, the construction of a city,operated household hazardous waste facility, an office and parking facility for PASCO, and a City of Palo Alto Utilities Department storage and staging yard. The proposed PASCO use will require a conditional use permit. Environmental Assessment: An environmental impact report has been prepared. File Nos. 97-ARB-164, 97-CPA-1, 97-D-9, 97-UP-48, 97-ZC-12. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1998-2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Planning Commission review and comment on City Council changes to the Planning Commission recommended 1998-2010 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. COMMISSION MEMBER OUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS 4.Committee/Subcommittee Appoinmaents. Representatives to the Architectural Review Board and Historic Resources Board Meetings, . Discussion of a retreat, appointments and study sessions. 30 30 31 A: I PCMins 10114.reg Page 1 The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, January 14,1998 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers with Chairman Schink presiding. ROLL CALL Pres.ent:Commissioners Beecham, Bialson, Cassel, Schink and Schmidt Absent:Commissioner Byrd .Staff Present:Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney James Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official Eric Riel Jr., Chief Planning Official Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment Consultant Present: Amy Hiss, CH2MHill ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Schink: This is the time on our agenda where we allow for oral communications. If there is a member of the public who wishes to address us on an item which is not specifically covered on the agenda, you have five minutes to speak. Seeing no one, I will close the Oral Communications portion and go on to Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS - None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approval of Minutes of December 10, 1997. Chairman Schink: Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes? MOTION: SECOND: MOTION PASSES: on a vote of 5-0-0-1. Commissioner Beecham: I move approval of the minutes. By Commissioner Bialson. Chairman Schink:All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1.1237-1275 SAN ANTONIO ROAD (LOS ALTOS TREATMENT PLANT SITE): Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council on annexation of a 13.26-acre parcel, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Public Park to Major A:I PCMins [0114.reg .Page 2 Institution/Special Facilities and Publicly Owned Conservation Land, and a prezoning of the property as Public Facilities to allow a future development project, including restoration of wetlands, the construction of a city-operated household hazardous waste facility, an office and parking facility for PASCO, and a City of Palo Alto Utilities Department storage and staging yard. The proposed PASCO use will require a conditional use permit. En{,ironmental Assessment: An environmental impact report has been prepared. File Nos. 97-ARB-164, 97-CPA-1, 97-D-9, 97-UP-48, 97-ZC-12. Chairman Schink: Are there any staff comments? Mr. Gilliland: The applicant is the City of Palo Alto represented by Chad Centola, Manager, Environmental Control Programs, Operations Division, Public Works Department. Chad Centola: Good evening. I want to introduce members of our team on the project. Robert Lee is the senior engineer for our division, Public Works. Michael Jackson is Acting Deputy Director for Public Works Operations. Valerie Young is the Senior Environmental Planner with CH2MHiI1, our consultant working with us on the project. Amy Hiss is a biologist working for CH2MHill. I would like to give a brief overview of the history of the site and also a general overview of the project that we are proposing to do out there. The City of Los Altos operated a wastewater treatment plant on the site. from 1958 to 1972. In 1972, the operation was closed down when they connected to the City of Palo Alto Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Since 1972, there has been a number of tenants on the site, and they range from the current activity of an engineering contractor out there to other tenants that use the site for storage of materials and equipment. In 1984, the City of Palo Alto entered into an agreement with the City of Los Altos to purchase a half interest in the site, with the objective of developing a solid waste facility there. The specific facility was not defined at that time. Over the years, there has been a number of examinations of the site as to what appropriate solid waste facilities might~be developed there. The project that we are bringing forward has four basic components to it. The first one is the preservation and enhancement of some habitat at the edge of the site towards San Francisco Bay. Adjacent to that is a paved storage area for contractors who do work for the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. Currently, contractors do not have any facilities or locations in Palo Alto for storage of equipment and materials during substantial projects, e.g., an underground utility construction project. Adjacent to the utility yard is a corporation yard for the Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) or whoever our refuse collection contractor would be. Currently, the site that PASCO occupies on Geng Road is undersized for their needs. They have employees parking in the adjacent business park, and the facility office itself does not meet current standards for building or ADA access, issues such as that. The fourth component of the project is a permanent household hazardous waste collection center where residents from Palo Alto and small businesses can bring hazardous waste to be A: I PCMins 10114.reg Page 3 consolidated and repacked for shipping off-site for appropriate management. That completes my presentation. Commissioner Bialson: You said that the storage would be used by contractors who are working for the city. Is the city going to have any use for that area for storage of items that the city itself might have? Mr. Centola: If they do, it would probably be limited to some of their items such as utility poles or possibly large concrete products like precast utility vaults. The primary use will be for contractors. The kinds of materials that contractors would be storing out there would be similar to what the city utilities department already stores at the Municipal Service Center. Commissioner Bialson: I believe there was reference to backhoes and other types of vehicles. Mr. Centola: Yes, they would store city utility poles, concrete products, manhole covers, and possibly some bulk materials like backfill, as well as construction equipment -- dump trucks, backhoes, compressors, trailers, things of that nature. Commissioner Bialson: My concern is with the possible use of the storage area as a kind of dumping ground for equipment that is no longer usable. Has there been anything done to address where those sorts of items are going to be stored? Have they been committed to this site? Where are things such as backhoes and other items of large equipment stored at the present time? Mr. Centola: I cannot speak for the Utilities Department. They basically find whatever vacant lot or back lot of a gas station that they can locate in the general area to store their equipment. I am sure you are aware that there is a prohibition against parking materials and equipment overnight in Palo Alto without variances, which are issued on a very limited basis. As far as a dumping ground for old equipment, once contracts are finished, the contractors take all of their equipment and materials and go on to the next project. So nothing is left behind. Commissioner Schmidt: How high do you think the screening will be that is proposed to be around at the berm and grasses, etc., at that facility? Mr. Centola: I would have to refer to the current grading plan that we have, which I have not brought with me. I will have to get back to you on that to give you a specific numbeL but I would expect it to be on the order of four to six feet with plantings on top. Commissioner Schmidt: I believe it also indicates in the EIR that there would be dump trucks and large vehicles there, as well. Is it likely that they would be visible from all viewpoints around the site? (Yes) Continuing along the visibility line of inquiry, the PASCO trucks would also be in the parking lot adjacent, and I am going to guess that they would be there on weekends, as they are out and about on Monday through Friday. A: I PCMins 10114.reg Page 4 Mr. Centola: That is correct. Commissioner Schmidt: So people who are walking out in the baylands areas could possibly see those trucks? Mr. Centola: Yes, there are some visual simulations that include that. There are a couple of ¯ trucks drawn into the simulations to show the magnitude of their size in reference to the view. Commissioner Cassel: There has been no comment in this report as to how this is financed. Regarding this utility yard area, is this something we give free to people who come in or is it something they pay for? How do you plan to finance paying for this? Mr. Centola: The utility department is providing financing for any improvements related to that part of the project. The refuse fund is financing the refuse collection contractor yard and household facility. I don’t know how the utilities department obligates contractors if they were ¯ to use a city facility. I cannot speak to how Utilities plans to address that. There is a cost issue. If storage space is not available to the contractor, there is obviously a cost to them to enter into a contract with the city. Whether or not they incorporate that into what they bid for a project I cannot say. Utilities would be the department that is responsible for that.portion of the project as far as implementation, once it is completed. Commissioner Cassel: What is your role in this project? Mr. Centola: I am acting as the project engineer~ The Public Works Department is bringing the project forward and doing the design of the project. Utilities is providing similar view and input to us, as well as the financing for their portion of the project. The Public Works Department is the one that is bringing the project up. Commissioner Beecham: In the draft EIR, it discusses the reduced project alternative. Do you have any comments on the impact on the city if that alternative is followed? Mr. Centola: If we dropped the utilities yard out of the project, we would lose funding from the utilities department. The refuse fired would pick up the cost Of acquiring the entire property. With the current project, Utilities is providing an appropriate amount of financing based upon the size of their portion of the project to help pay for acquisition of the entire property. So if they drop out, we would lose their funding, and the refuse fund would pick up the tab for the entire project. Commissioner Beecham: So in that case, the primary impact is on funding, but not necessarily any operational impacts or concerns about where else the yard might go? Mr. Centola: That is something that Utilities would have to contend with. I believe that in the reduced project alternative discussion, Geng Road is something that the utilities department A: I PCMins 10114.reg Page 5 might consider, however, that site is being eyed by a number of departments in the city, should Palo Alto Sanitation leave. Currently, we have no specific plan for what happens to that property, should PASCO leave the site. Commissioner Beecham: On the matter of funding, is it going proportional to the square footage of the space, or according tO the buildings, or based on other cost assessments? Mr. Centola: Utilities’ portion of the site does not have any buildings, so their proportional cost is a bit smaller. They are paying for an appropriate amount of square footage on the property, as well as the amount of fill and other improvements that would be placed on their portion of the site. Regarding the structures out there, the cost would be borne entirely by the refuse fund. Commissioner Schmidt: There are several groups that review this and permit this project. I want to ask about a couple of them. When it indicates in the EIR that BCDC does not have jurisdiction here, could I have that explained a little more? Since it appears to be adjacent to the bay, it seems that BCDC would have jurisdiction. Mr. Centola: We spent a fair amount of time discussing that with BCDC. We wanted to make sure that BCDC’s not having authority over the project was indeed correct and accurate. That was the final determination from BCDC. I think Amy Hiss can speak a little more in detail as to the specifics of why BCDC ws not involved. In a lot of cases, their limits of jurisdiction are not really clear cut, based on how close to a tideland area they are. We did spend a fair amount of time discussing that particular issue with them. The conclusion from BCDC was that they did not have authority over the project. Commissioner Schmidt: It is my understanding from the documents that after this EIR is complete and the prezoning is done, etc., then the project will go to the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit.. They permit whether or not you can fill in the marshlands. Is that correct? Mr. Centola: Yes, that is one of several permits we would have to acquire for the project. We have had them out to the site to verify the wetlands delineation work that was done. We did meet with them and with some other agencies to introduce them to the project. Commissioner Schmidt: Is it possible that they would deny the permit, because there is filling in of wetlands involved here? Mr. Centola: Yes, that is possible. The Regional Water Quality Control Board also has some authority over the filling aspect of the project, as well. Mr. Gilliland: I would note as a part of the public testimony that there are four letters before you that were received in regard to this project, most particularly towards the environmental impact report. They are from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Lincoln Property Company, the County of Santa Clara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), and the Peninsula A: [ PCMins 10114.reg Page 6 Conservation Center Foundation. Peter Steinhart, 717 Addison Avenue, Palo Alto: I am speaking for the Issues Committee of the Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation. I want to address one particular concern that we have with the draft environmental impact report. The report lists six separate Comprehensive Plan city policies which advise very strongly against the filling of wetlands. Among them is the Estrain Ecology and Wildlife Policy No. 1, which says, "Action should be taken to preserve baylands marshes and wetlands as permanent wildlife areas and to restore, wherever possible, those marshes which have already been destroyed." There are five others of similar thrust. The environmental impact report states that because the project requires filling wetlands that have been developed in abandoned LATP sludge ponds, it would not be consistent with policies that advise against-the filling of wetlands. Then it proposes that mitigation be done to address this problem, but it says that it will do that mitigation in the course of the regulatory process after the environmental impact report is finalized and certified. We think that without any discussion of the specific kinds of mitigation, we really cannot see through the environmental report what the real impacts of this project would be. We would urge that in the revision of the environmental impact report that we get much more specific suggestions as to what kind of mitigation might occur. It seems from the discussion in the draft EIR that all that is intended is on-site mitigation. If you rtm the figures out, they seem to be expecting a one-to-one project-to-mitigation ratio. If you look at what the regulatory agencies are requiting, that is going to fall far short if they use anything but the very smallest possible configuration here. So somewhere along the line, someone is going to have to decide what kind of mitigation we are going to get. Are we looking for tidal wetlands? Are we looking for brackish wetlands? Are we looking for seasonal wetlands? Those, We think, belong in some discussion in any future environmental impact report. We hope that that will be done. I will leave the remainder of my remarks with you in writing. ~ Commissioner Cassel: You want to leave the remainder of your remarks, yet I want to hear a little bit more. Is there some summary of those? Mr. Steinhart: I have two main points that we wanted to make on the environmental impact report. One has to do with some language saying that in certain cases, if you develop out there and fill wetlands, species will move elsewhere to other habitats. The prevailing view, I think, is that all habitats are full, and this just increases competition elsewhere. I think it is not a critical point. We also felt that in discussing the human impacts and in working on this project, among other things that weren’t considered in the environmental impact report were domestic animals and foxes. There are apparently some feeding stations for feral cats out there that probably ought .to be removed in the course of this project. There should be some attention paid to getting rid of the introduced red foxes that are out there, as well. A: I PCMins 10114.reg Page 7 Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto: I would like to comment on behalf of the Baylands Conservation Committee on the proposed city improvements to the Los Altos sewage treatment plant site. Our committee’s first preference, naturally, would be to see the entire site park-dedicated and returned to its natural state. If my memory serves me, the city acquisition of a half interest in the site was precipitated by the need for a solid waste transfer facility. In Palo Alto, this was a very logical site, due to its proximity to Highway 101. The city designated the site Public Park, however, in order to set a high standard against which any proposals for the site could be measured, should the transfer site not be located there. The transfer site has since been located in Sunnyvale. Now, less compelling uses have been proposed for this site, and we believe you should measure them against the current Public Park designation. Area C is already filled and currently has urban development on it. The major change to this site would be a modest amount of fill and possibly a more intense level of activity. The proposal to use it for a small hazardous waste dropoff station and facility for the Palo Alto Sanitation Company at least would be related to the original acquisition purpose, and it would not seriously impact sensitive environmental habitat. The use of Area B for a utility storage area is much more objectionable to us. The staff report on Page 7 indicates that the reduced project that eliminates this use is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. The existing PASCO site on Geng Road could probably satisfy most of the utility department’s needs without causing any environmental impact. It is already paved, etc. The proposal to fill more than half of Area B to the height of San Antonio Road is a major change to the site and to the area. If you have been out there, you know that it is quite a bit lower than San Antonio Road at the present time. The owner of one of the companies that leased this site previously was so concerned for the extensive wildlife that used the site that he provided me with a hand drawn map of the site, showing which birds nested where. I know that killdeer nested on the berms, but there was quite an extensive use of the site by wildlife. before this latest construction lessor came in and somewhat degraded the site. In any case, the EIR indicated that a salt marsh yellow throat was noted on the site, as well as~aSa-Amedcan peregrine falcon. Both of these are special status birds, so it seems quite contrary to Palo Alto’s long commitment to protecting natural areas to fill this easily restorable open site and pave it for the mundane use of a parking lot for backhoes and storage of conduit, cement, etc. It is unclear to me what mitigation is proposed for the habitat destruction, but just preserving already existing habitat does not mitigate the habitat loss. If you have nine acres of more or less natural area, and you keep six acres natural, you have still lost three acres. Furthermore, the raising and paving of the 3.4 acres of utility area cannot help but aversely impact the wildlife values of the adjoining six acres. Mention was made of a red fox continuing to inhabit the site. The red fox is very destructive to ground-breeding species of birds, including the rails, killdeer, avocets, etc. We concur with the recommendation to deal with that right away. Furthermore, employees at the adjoining office complex continue to feed feral cats and also the fox, by default. The city should immediate outlaw that practice. A:I PCMins 10114.reg Page 8 Before any land use and zoning changes are made, the potential for mitigation ought to be determined. Otherwise, you are needlessly changing the zoning for a project which may not be possible. Typically, agencies like to see a 2:1 ratio of mitigation acreage, so if one acre is lost, two must be created somewhere. I urge you to recommend the Reduced Project Alternative and transient occupancy taxmaintain park designation on the nine or so acres which would remain. I would further add that I fully concur with all of Peter Steinhart’s remarks, as well. Bob Phipps, Vice President, Lincoln Property. Company: We own the project that is adjacent to this proposed development at 1129-1137 San Antonio Road. I have provided a letter dated January 12 that addresses the issues we have with the draft EIR. I will not address all of those at this time. We had a meeting yesterday with the Public Works group, and we thought the meeting went very well. Our goal is to sit down with the appropriate parties to talk about the design and how it affects our project next door. The issues obviously that we have that we do not feel the EIR addresses are the issues as they relate to the neighboring office uses -- things addressing traffic, the aesthetics, because of all of our tenants that are in the project, the noise, and we do have a question on the land use compatibility, as well. Commissioner Cassel: I do want to hear a summary of what you have in your report, because it was just handed to me tonight. We are a citizen body, and our job is to give information back to the City Council, and we cannot do that if we do not have the information in front of us, and your opinion. Mr. Phipps: I would agree. I would like to defer to Richard Rosenthal who could speak to that. Richard Rosenthal: Mr. Chairman, I am the counsel for the Lincoln Property Company. As Mr. Phipps described, we essentially have four issues. The first one has to do with land use compatibility. Our use, and the uses surrounding the site, are essentially office uses. This site introduces next to those office uses a hazardous waste facility, a refuse collection contractor facility, and a construction yard. Those are essentially the three main uses that are being introduced. There are no buildings. The office uses along San Antonio Road and our office use do not maintain any uses that are similar to that. We do not generate any heavy truck traffic such as proposed for this site.. There are no trucks which are washed, maintained or stored at our project. We do not maintain any heavy construction equipment, nor is our site used for the receiving, repackaging, storage and shipping of hazardous waste. In those respects, the uses which are being proposed for this site are different from the office uses which surround the site on San Antonio Road and our project, which is next door. The second point which we made in our letter is with respect to the traffic analysis. Essentially, what the traffic analysis did was that it divided the project traffic into two types of traffic - off peak and peak hours. The peak hour traffic which is generated is really not very much. It is essentially 50 vehicle trips out of 282 trips generated by this project. The remainder of the trips, 232 trips, are generated off peak. The EIR did not measure the impacts of these 232 off-peak trips, especially as they occur during the lunch hour, essentially from 11 o’clock to 2 o’clock, A: [ PCMins 10114.reg Page 9 which is the time when many of our employees will be coming and going from our site, and also from the adjacent sites surrounding .the project. We ask that an additional analysis be done with respect to the convergence of the PASCO trucks, for example, and their employees coming along San Antonio Road back into the project, and how that is going to work with our employees and the employees of the surrounding sites as they are leaving and coming and going on San Antonio Road there. The third item we mentioned in our report was with respect to the noise analysis. The noise analysis assumed that there were essentially no outdoor uses of our project. As mentioned in our letter, that is not the case. There are some outdoor uses of our project. The EIR mentioned that the noise levels of the operations of the project at the boundary line of our project would be approximately 90 decibels. That would affect outdoor uses. With respect to the indoor uses of the operation, the EIR did mention that there was going to be some effect upon the indoor uses, and it recommended some mitigation measures. Essentially, what I said was that after the project becomes operational, we should then sit down and determine which mitigation measures should be.put in place. We would like to be much more proactive than that, and meet with the city to determine the appropriate mitigation measures prior to the commencement of operations on the site. With respect to construction noise, there will have to be some modification of activities during the construction period either by our tenants,~ if they are agreeable to that, or in the construction activities that take place and how the two are going to interrelate. Finally, with respect to project aesthetics, this site was primarily designed to mitigate impacts on those using the baylands, and to a lesser extent; to those along San Antonio Road. In order to achieve .that, the facilities were pushed toward our project. The buildings were oriented in such a way so that the views from the baylands would be minimized. What this has done is that the entire project has essentially been pushed into our back yard. We have some problems with that. We have problems with how our employees at our site are going to percei’~ looking out onto a 30-foot-high PASCO maintenance facility, out onto an area where the garbage trucks are being washed and stored, how they are going to perceive looking out into a construction yard where storage of construction materials is going to take place. What does the city propose, essentially, to screen our site, to screen the project from our employees? That is something that has not been studied. Another thing we want to discuss with the city is whether it is possible to reorient the facilities to make it a little bit fairer distribution of these facilities so that it is not just for the hikers in the baylands whose impacts are minimized, but also give some consideration to the employees in our project so that we do not bear the full brunt of this project. Those are essentially the four issues that we raised in our letter and which we discussed with Public Works yesterday. Chairman Schink: You said you have a number of outdoor uses. Could you describe those ’ outdoor uses? A: I PCMins ] 0114.reg Page 10 Mr. Rosenthal: They are not the primary use of the project, but there are some benches out there where I believe employees gather, have lunch and take their breaks out there. It is at-grade parking, and the buildings are oriented so that when you come off of San Antonio Road, the parking is away from the project site. The buildings back up to the project site, and the parking is on the other side. As you move further into the project, the buildings flip around, and the parking areas are actually up against your project, so as they are entering and exiting the building, they are outside near that area. There are also outdoor loading areas in back of the buildings. Libby Lucas, 174 Yerba Santa Avenue, Los Altos: Good evening. I submitted a letter in which I raised a number of points. I feel that the EIR isdeficient in that it does not talk about some of the previous uses of the buildings that are in Area C. There was a medical instrument washing site, and I think that probably generated a good deal of chemicals, including mercury. I think there was also a pesticide supply agency there, and I know they used to hose down their equipment and shower their employees. So I feel that the analysis of soils, from a geotechnic standpoint, was a very small aspect of what should have been analyzed. I think there should have been a chemical analysis. They also talk about the level of groundwater, but again, not the quality ofthatgroundwater. I think that with the ongoing, fifteen or twenty years use of these other operations, there might be some sort of contamination. There is also the drainage from Highway 1 O1 that comes down in there, going along San Antonio Road and goes into the wetlands. I think that probably needs some analysis. I feel that this site has some enormous capability, but maybe is not exactly what is aimed for in this project, the way you have it before you. Basically, that wetlands area was the former Adobe Creek. I presume it was put into the flood basin when they were protecting the salt ponds. That was obviously the important industry of the day, but I think right now, as you look at your flood zone around Highway 101 and your highly developed residential areas, it would not hurt to ask the flood control authorities to give another look at this. Maybe have at least an overflow capability on this old Adobe Creek channel, or if not, split the channel. It would then put it out into the Charleston Slough, and you would not have this overload in these heavy E1 Nifio or the 1% flood occurrences. With that sort of a game plan, you would then want to have much more of a setback for Adobe Creek, so I really think you should look at all of the opportunities that are available here right now as you consider this site. The wetlands that are there are protecting all sorts of breeding water fowl, and I hate to see it enhanced, because when they enhance it, very often, they destroy a good deal. If it is the former creek, it was a pretty good source. Way back when I was chatting with a then Leslie Salt employee, he said there was a good drain going through that levee that kept that section of old Adobe Creek still functioning to a certain degree of water circulation. I have no’ idea what level that is at now, and whether it has been sedimented out, but this was a number Of years ago when there was a definite connection. Therefore, I really the Coastal Conservancy and BCDC should A: I PCMins 10114.reg Page 11 have had this within their jurisdiction. The first segment of the bicycle bay trail was right there, and the Coastal Conservancy paid for it. As you look back at the site, that was where they had the ribbon cutting ceremony, and all of the state people came down, and all of the bay area bicycle enthusiasts were there. So it is a point not of just a passing, aesthetic value. It has a very definite interface with the recreation elements of Palo Alto and of Mountain View. There again, the Charleston Slough was a former nesting site for the California Clapper rail, and that whole fresh marsh area was absolutely stocked full with all sorts of birds. You can see that from the Harvey Report as to how many birds still live there. Essentially, because of this fence, they have had some safety in raising their young in the sensitive months. One lack in that Harvey Report is that they do not mention the killdeer. I think it is probably because that red fox has come for their eggs that used to be on the levees. I made a mistake in my letter. I referred to the levee where the eggs used to be as Area C, and it is Area B, the middle portion. Aside from that, I think that your recreation count of the people who use that particular spot at lunch hours and on weekends, is very, very high. I think maybe you should get that recreation traffic count, as well as your automobile count. Thank you. Chairman Schink: I have no further cards, so I would like to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to comments that were made. Mr. Centola: In closing, what I would like to say is that we are taking very seriously any comments that we have received on the project. As Lincoln Properties noted,, we did meet with them yesterday, the day we got their letter. We had not heard from them prior to yesterday. As they have noted, I felt that we had a fairly productive meeting. The additional comments we received tonight will be addressed in the final EIR that is developed for the project. Since we have begun working on this project, we have been very sensitive to the envir .~mental issues that surround the project, to date. The comments that we do receive we will be taking very seriously. Hopefully, they will be addressed to everyone’s satisfaction. Commissioner Schmidt: I have several questions. A couple members of the public noted that there is only general reference made to any sort of wetlands restoration. Could you address why there are not more specific recommendations, or will you put more specific recommendations in the final EIR? Mr. Centola: To be fair to the people that commented on the project, we most certainly will put in more specific detail as to wetlands restoration. I can defer part of the question to Amy Hiss, but it is my understanding that during the process we will go through with Fish & Game, the water board, the Corps of Engineers and other permitting agencies, some of the very specific details on the wetlands mitigation, in particular, are specified during those permitting processes, and those are also subject to public review and comment, as well. A:I PCMins [0114.reg Page 12 Amy Hiss, CH2MHill: Chad, I think you got the main point, which is that we are waiting for all of the impacts to be finalized before spending the time and effort in designing a site-specific level of detail for the mitigation plan. We will be going forward with that, with the agencies, working very closely with the Corps, the regional board,. Fish & Game, all of the appropriate resource agencies, as well as members of the public, in designing the appropriate wetlands mitigation for the site. We did not want to take it to that step until we had avery clear idea of where we were moving forward to. Commissioner Cassel: Does that mean that this will come back before this body for us to review that material, once it is in? Mr. Centola: I see that Jim Gilliland is nodding his head yes, so that is the case. Ms. Hiss: As I understand the process, it is through the Corps of Engineers permit. It will be an individual permit for this project. We will be submitting the application. They will prepare a public notice, and send that out to interested parties, as well as to adjacent landowners. That is when the public would have a chance to comment on site-specific information, particularly wetlands information. Mr. Gilliland: Let me clarify the process. What is before the Planning Commission tonight is a prezoning of the site, a Comprehensive Plan land use change, and an annexation request that will go to the City Council. You are also commenting on and reviewing the draft EIR. If the City Council takes action on that and does go forward with the annexation, we will then go through a process with LAFCO. There will be a detachment from the City of Los Altos. After all of that happens, it will then come back to you as a site and design project for the actual facilities to go on the site, how big they will be, the entire project. The applicant kind of knows what the project is at this moment, but it could very well change as it goes through the other permitting processes for the Corps of Engineers and get that actual input. You will see this project again as a site and design application, making recommendations on the actual construction of the project.to the City ¯ Council. Commissioner Schmidt:. What if it is prezoned through us and through the City Council as requested, and then the Corps. or someone comes back, and the project changes. What happens to the zoning then? Ms. Cauble: The proposed zoning change to PF, if it were actually approved by the City Council, would remain on the property. Other uses consistent with the zone could be proposed, or a proposal to rezone it either back to Park or to some other use could be entertained by the city. Mr. Gilliland: The more likely thing that would change is the Comprehensive Plan land use line. If, for example, Area B is not developed as a utility storage yard, then that would probably have a Comprehensive Plan land use .designation of Publicly Owned Conservation Land, which would A:I PCMins 1011.4.reg Page 13 move the line down. That could take place at the time it comes back as a site and design project. Commissioner Schmidt: In talking with Chad earlier today, I had questions about whether there has been testing of the materials in the sludge ponds, since those were sewage treatment ponds, and two of them had accumulated waste for twenty years. Reports were referenced in the EIR, which I obtained from Chad today and looked through them. I walked the site with a scientist from USGS who works in this area, and he reviewed these reports today also. I got some recommendations for material that should be taken from these and included in the EIR in reference to what was found in the testing of the materials in those ponds. I have written up what that would be. It can come from these reports, but I think it should be included in the EIR. Also, it was noted that radioactive cobalt was used on this site by one of the businesses that rented the site there. I would suggest that there be some gamma counting made on the site, possibly just a Geiger counter type measurement, as I understand that radioactive cobalt is fairly radioactive. A couple of other questions on the EIR are that I don’t think I found a topo map included in the EIR materials of it existing. There are the plans that show what the proposed topography would look like. I think we would get a better idea of how much till is really involved if there were an existing topographic map included. I also have a question about how to interpret one of the appendices in the EIR. It is Appendix F-5, the wildlife species of the Palo Alto LATP site. It lists wildlife species, and then it has a column labeled, "Predicted" and a column labeled "Occurred." I assume that that means that it was thought beforehand that they should be there, and then they were found afterwards to either be there or to not be there. There was absolutely no consistency. Nothing that was predicted had occurred there, according to what this chart shows. I wanted to ensure that I understood it correctly, or if there are corrections made in it, to make sure this material is correct. Ms. Hiss: My understanding of this table is that based on the habitats present, they make some prediction as to what would be the most commonly encountered species. That is what is shown in the "Predicted" column. The "Occurred" column is what they actually saw on the site when they did the bird census surveys. They did fifteen surveys on the site between February and May of last year, and these are the species that they saw. Commissioner Schmidt: So there is absolutely no correlation between what was predicted and what occurred? Ms. Hiss: It would be nice if there were a correlation and if the "Occurred" colunm corresponded nicely with the "Predicted" column, but it doesn’t always work that way. When you do the Fish & Game Wildlife Habitats Relationship data base, which is where they got this information, they will be sourcing it for the revisions, but they generaliZe what types of species you would be typically encountering on a site, and then you actually back that up with data from what you saw. A: [ PCMins 10114.reg Page 14 Commissioner Schmidt: That is what it seems like it should say. Someone might want to check that, because I would think you would be predicting things that are on adjacent sites, and obviously, birds fly from one pond to another (which I saw them doing) so I would think there would at least be a tiny bit of overlap. Ms. Hiss: Yes, I agree, it would be nice to have seen that. I agree. Chairman Schink: Kathy, the list of questions you have passed out here are very interesting, and should be read into the record. Commissioner Schmidt: Again, this is in regard to the toxics in sludge. There have been tests done of the sludge, hnd a report made on work that was done in 1991 by Wahler. What I note in here is, "Please provide analysis for toxics in the sludge of the existing ponds on the LATP site for the EIR. Of particular interest are Ponds #4 and #5 (as identified in the EIR because there are different designations in this report), since these ponds were active for most of the life of the treatment plant. Some basic work appears in the Wahler Report from December, 1991. A summary table for the EIR showing the following for the materials analyzed would be helpful: -Describe the extraction techniques used -State grain size of material analyzed -State total concentrations of toxics found, especially -PCBs -Organo-chlofines -Toxic metals -State the detection limits of the methods used for analysis (i.e,, what is the lower limit of each metal or chemical that can be detected with the method used) -State the concentration for each chemical that determines whether the material is hazardous waste A discussion of the work (probably a few pages) should accompany the table, and there should be recommendations about what ~dditional tests should be done. The report does not call out any potential problems, but I feel that this information should be summarized, and other people who review it would be able to see what was done. I think that is an important thing to have in the EIR. Mr. Centola: In addition to Ms. Lucas who had questions regarding any site contamination, we will be addressing that in the comments to the draft EIR. It appears that your analysis of those studies focused primarily on the ponds. When Wahler did do the study, we did take a look at some of the other areas on the site -- the paving and parking areas, the site of the former transformer pad which was out at the Los Altos treatment plant site, as well as the material in the cylindrical structure that was left over from the treatment plant. So there is additional information available, and I believe I mentioned to you this morning that we will be doing a new analysis of the site, because it has been so long since the last time we have taken a look at that. A: I PCMins 10114"reg Page 15 Commissioner Schrnidt: It will be excellent to have that material in the EIR. Mr. Centola: With regard to the use of cobalt, as a little background for your information, when International Neutronics went bankrupt, the State Department of Health Services was left to clean up the site. There was a cleanup project done by the State of California, and they certified the site as clean. ¯ After they left, and Newtech came in, they did not use any kind of radioactive sources. However, we will be taking another look at that structure, as well, during the process. Chairman Schink: Seeing no other speakers, I will now close the public hearing and return this item to the commission. Are there any questions of staff by commissioners? Commissioner .Cassel: Debbie, there seemed to be quite a few pieces of the EIR missing, or information that we felt we needed to complete the EIR. Does that mean it would be incomplete and come back to us when they provide this information? Ms. Cauble: Jim and I were just discussing that. It is unclear to me, as a matter of law, whether the issues that have been raised tonight are such that we can simply include them in the final EIR; or whether, when we get it, it would trigger the need to recirculate an amended draft EIR. So from a staff perspective, that is an issue that we would be looking at when the additional information that the commission has requested and that the applicant has indicated they intend to provide is all received. We would then be making that judgment. It is within the commission’s purview tonight, since you are being asked to recommend whether the draft EIR, together with the information that you have received and you have asked to be included (or I am sure you are going to when you make your motion) if you feel that you need to take another look at it after it is received in order to make your recommendation that it is a complete document, it is within your purview to do that. Staff would certainly be doing that evaluation anyway, even if you Say, "We feel that with all of this information, it can move forward." Commissioner Beecham: Even if we recommend to the council that the draft EIR is not adequate, this will still go to the council for their assessment. Is that correct? Ms. Cauble: No. Commissioner Beecham:So if we reject the DEIR now, it does not go to the council, Ms. Cauble: Yes, but I would not necessarily characterize it as rejecting it. The question before you tonight is whether, together with the information that is going to be added, is it adequate and complete? Are you comfortable in saying that tonight? Do you feel that you need to get the additional information before you can make that recommendation? If you do, staff will not move it forward until that information is added, and would bring it back to you. Commissioner Beecham: On the alternative project in the draft EIR, so far, I do not hear that there is much impact on the city in following that alternative plan. The impact would be that the A: I PCMins [ 0114.reg Page 16 storage yard must be located someplace else, but I have not heard any strong arguments as to why it must be located here, other than a lack of space elsewhere. Mr. Gilliland: I will speak briefly for the utilities. We do have a serious problem in Palo Alto, and it applies to the public as well as the private, in finding locations for construction yards. It is one of the problems that Lisa Grote, as the zoning administrator, has to face on many occasions, because temporary use permits are required. Permitting them and finding locations is extremely difficult. The utility company, because of our undergrounding projects (we have a long-term undergrounding project), is always in need of a utility yard or place to store materials or to have their contractors be able to store materials while they are working on projects. So that was why this site was chosen. There were other sites that were looked at throughout the city, and those are covered in the environmental impact report. There just is not another good, logical site. I think it is understood (and even the EIR addresses this) that this is probably not the ideal site either, but finding some other site within the City of Palo Alto that can be used is not an easy task. Commissioner Schmidt: The vacated PASCO site on Geng Road would be a possibility for that, except it is one acre smaller. Mr. Gilliland: It certainly is a possibility. It also has problems, just as this one does. It sits next door to a business park, just as this does. But yes, it is a possibility. Chairman Schink: If that completes the questions, let’s have your comments on the draft EIR first. Commissioner Beecham: From my assessment of it, I think it does include enough information to make a rational decision today. I think the comments that have been raised for additional information are useful. Part of my assessment for why this is adequate is that I do not expect, in some cases, to find, for example, that there is significant radioactivity, although we certainly should verify that before it goes forward to the council if that is true. But ~ea~g the testimony tonight that the state has cleaned up the site, at this point, gives me a good probability that there is no significant problem there. I think the other information that has been requested probably would take an expert to look at and say, is there any problem, even on the level oftoxics, or anything else. I don’t know, at this point, if the probability of that happening would warrant our putting a stop on this. Let me ask, when will that information be available? Will it be available before this goes to the council? Mr. Gillilandl Yes, the final EIR would be prepared before City Council, and the documentation will be out and available prior to that. It will be at least ten days prior to that, and we usually run more than that. Commissioner Beecham: In that situation, then, I would find the draft EIR to be adequate for our decision tonight. A:I PCMins 10114.reg Page 17 Commissioner Bialson: I have to agree with Bem on that. Commissioner Cassel: I am very concerned, and the reason I am concerned is that this is a city project in which the city is evaluating the city. In that role, we become extremely important people to look at the project with a little more scrutiny than we might if this were a private developer coming in, and staffhad the ability to be a little more independent. Here you have co-workers working with co-workers trying to evaluate a project, and it is very difficult to do. This is the time when our more independent role comes into play more than it does at any other time here and in situations in which the City Council is under a great deal of political pressure and needs a more independent view of people who are not under that pressure. So I would like to see this EIR come back before us with this information, primarily because I am not happy with the project as it is. I feel that I need that information to make further recommendations, so if we went forward, I would not want to meet the project as it is, but rather, one of the alternatives. I would be more comfortable doing that with this other material before: us. Commissioner Schmidti I, too, am somewhat uncomfortable with the incompleteness of the EIR. There is a lot of information there that I am obviously somewhat concerned about, such as the possibility of toxics orcontamination somewhere on the site, and I would like to see what the new information is. I feel that that is an important factor to know. Does the City of Palo Alto want the site? Therefore, I would tend to want to see it come before us again, also. Chairman Schink: I share your concerns as to whether this is a complete document, but it is a draft document, and we have raised some good, important questions. I am confident that we will get those questions answered before we certify it as a final document, so I would side with Commissioners Beecham and Bialson on the adequacy of the draft environmental impact report. Does the commission want to take action on the draft environmental impact report before we go on to the other issues, or do you want to go throughthe issues, one by one? Ms. Cauble: tfyou start talking about the other issues, I want to mention that with Comprehensive Plan amendments, the only thing I am aware of is that coming before the Planning Commission does require four votes to get a recommendation from the commission. As you will recall during the big Comprehensive Plan update, we did have one sub-issue where we never got four votes, so it went forward to council with no recommendation. I was just thinking of that as I listened to your discussion of the EIR. With respect to one item on your agenda tonight, you need four votes in order to have a commission recommendation on that item. Chairman Schink: Kathy raised an interesting point. Do we want this land if there really are a lot of toxic problems there? Do you have an opinion on that? Ms. Cauble: I think we are already under contract to buy it. Frankly, while I think Commissioner Schmidt has raised some very good points about information that should be made A: I PCMins 10114.reg Page 18 available, this property has been studied intensively over a number of years. So while there certainly are very legitimate issues for debate about appropriate land uses, I am not aware of any ¯ information at this time that would suggest that there are major toxic issues that would be such that the city would not want to proceed to acquire the property. But it is a legitimate question that needs to be looked at in every step of the process. Chairman Schink: Does staffhave an opinion as to whether you want motions on each item? Ms. Cauble: Due to the 4-1 issue, you should be looking at them as separate items. That also will give you the opportunity to specifically address the Comprehensive Plan land use map line. Chairman Schink: Is there further discussion on the draft environmental impact report, or will someone make a motion? MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: I will move that the Planning Commission recommend to the council to accept the draft environmental impact report as revised to take into account the questions and issues raised tonight, and that it be found adequate for purposes of this decision. SECOND: By Commissioner Bialson. Commissioner Cassel: I cannot find that at this time. It may be possible to do so in the future. I find it hard to recommend to the City Council that they find this to be adequate unless I have the information to do that. We have had comments in the past when we have not had all of the information in, but it usually has not been of this significance. MOTION PASSES: ChairmanSchink: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 3-2-0-1, with Commissioners Cassel and Schmidt voting no and Commissioner Byrd absent. Shall we proceed with discussion of annexation of the project site. Commissioner Bialson: I understand that we are in contract to buy that land, and I assume there ate no contingencies that would be brought up as a result of any of the discussion points we have raised fiere, so I think we should pursue and recommend that we initiate annexation. I would rather have the property under the coritrol of Palo Alto, since we are the political entity that surrounds that site, and the city has a great deal of concern about how the baylands are developed. Commissioner Beecham: I will support that, too, but as we go along here, I need to make sure that I understand if there are any changes to the staff recommendation on our actions that we need to take if we desire the alternative reduced site approach to be taken, I expect there were changes in the land use and zoning. I don’t know if there is any change on this particular annexation issue. A: I PCMins 10114.reg Page.19 Mr. Gilliland: The change would not be on the annexation. The change would be on the Comprehensive Plan land use map designations. Chairman Schink: If there is no further discussion on the annexation, a motion might be in order. MOTION: Commissioner Bialson: I move that we recommend to the City Council that they initiate annexation of the project site to the City of Palo Alto. SECOND: By Commissioner Beecham. Commissioner Schmidt: Regarding toxics on the site, the reports and the work that have been done do not call out any major red flags. I just feel that we need to have more information in looking at the total site. I think it is reasonable to go ahead with the annexation. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schink: Is there any further discussion on this motion to recommend that the City Council initiate annexation of the project site to the City of Palo Alto? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0-0-1 with Commissioner Byrd absent. That brings us to the third item, Recommend that the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan map amendment from Public Park to a combination of Publicly Owned Conservation Land and Major Institution/Special Facilities. Commissioner Cassel: I am very concerned about all of the fill that is recommended for this site as it includes the utilities pad site. I am extremely concerned about that. It makes no sense to me to be filling in three acres in order to put a cement pad on it. So I would recommend that we work with one of the alternatives sites. It will still require some fill, and there are still some problems with that. _ I am not as concerned about the hazardous waste site, and that is primarily because we have hazardous wastes all over the community. Once it gets onto this site, it will be monitored like crazy. The biggest problem will be to ensure that any wastes or spills that may get onto the ground get back to the sewage treatment plant and not go into the bay or anywhere else. At least, we will have someplace to take things instead of dumping them down the sewers and the other places where they are being dumped..So I think we are better offin the sense that the use will increase and that it is a very necessary site. I also don’t think there is any other good site to put it. I tried to think of alternative sites, as I found that the EIR did not give me good alternatives. They just said that there were none, So I picked Midtown. You will recall that we have a four- acre site there where people do not want tennis courts! What would youd0 if you put the hazardous waste site in there? Would it be safe? What would you gain? Well, it’s right next to the creek, of course, and it would drain into the creek if there were an earthquake, but at least the land is a little more stable there. Also you are close to single-family residences and one cannot really do that, and I think.you would have even more protests on that site. A: [ PCMins [ 0114.reg Page 20 So we do need the hazardous waste site. It must go somewhere. It will be carefully monitored, however, I do not see any good way to monitor a utility vehicle storage site at this site which will be storing a wide variety of equipment, and it will be extremely visible. I cannot see the point of filling eight feet high of land over these ponds at all. So I would recommend that we go with one of the alternative sites. I have a preference for the one with the yellow lines, but do we need to state a specific site? Ms. Cauble: If you want to make a motion on an alternative recommendation, if it is possible for you to point to one of the alternatives in the EIR as your recommendation, that is certainly one way to do it. If that does not quite fit what you want to recommend, then do your best job of explaining it, and I think staff would be able to translate it into a graphic to move forward to council. It is up to you. Commissioner Schmidt: I want to confirm that the item we are talking about now, the Comprehensive Plan amendment, is specific, as illustrated in the overhead. There is a specific line, and is not just a general statement about the site. Some 0fit would be Publicly Owned Conservation Lands, and some of it would be Major Institution/Special Facilities. It must be specific. Mr. Gilliland: That is correct. It is a specific line, as shown on the map. It is intended to represent the 6.1 acres that are currently called for as wetlands restoration. Regarding the 7.2 acres, if you want to just give us a description so that we can correct the map as it goes forward to council, as Debbie said, we will put forward your recommendation. Commissioner Beecham: So in Figure 5-2 where it has three options for the reduced site plan, what you are saying is, we probably should pick one of those, as we must have a specific line that goes into the Comprehensive Plan map change? The reason I say that in a worried fashion is because I suspect that probably ought.to happen is for the applicant to do their site plans under each of these configurations, and try to optimize. I don’t think we can make that decision yet. Ms. Cauble: Again, I don’t think you need to tie yourselves to these alternative configurations. They were in the EIR to provide a reasonable range of alternatives so. that the commission and the public could look at different ways of designating the land uses. You are not restricted to those in making a recommendation. In words, if you want to say, as opposed to the recommendation in the report, you would like to increase the area of Major Institution or decrease the area in order to accomplish whatever, feel free to say so. Commissioner Cassel: Whatever it takes to accomplish the least amount of fill. Ms. Cauble: As specific as you can be will help staff in communicating that to the City Council. Commissioner Schmidt: I would then add, "The preservation of the most amount of existing habitat out there." There is a strip that goes along the westemportion of the site that has pampas A: I PCMins I 0114.reg Page 21 grass. It is a heavy, grassy area which, under the basic proposal, would all be removed. Under the yellow or red line, it would all stay. So to preserve existing habitat out there would also be a goal of the reduced project. MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: We recommend approving the Comprehensive Plan map amendment with the changes as recommended by staff, with the condition that it be consistent with roughly the square footage and the three options talked about in Table 5-2, with the intent to minimize fill and to maximize the remaining wildlife space. SECOND: By Commissioner Bialson. Commissioner Schmidt: I would change that to say "maximize the existing wildlife habitat" rather than "space." Ms. Cauble: I have one question. Is it the recommendation that the land use changes not be made to accommodate the storage yard aspect of the project? Commissioner Beecham: Yes. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schink: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Byrd absent. ’ Chairman Schink: That brings us to Item 4, Recommend that the City Council approve prezoning of the site to the Public Facilities Zoning District with a Site and Design Overlay [PF(D)]. Commissioner Schmidt: I am going to guess that the prezoning would correspond to the line that we just created. Mr. Gilliland: The entire site, no matter what is on it, is PF(D). It is Public Facilities Site and Design Review, so it is not affected by the previous action. What does have to happen is that the PASCO facility requires a use permit. That would also be a part of the project that would come forward after annexation and everything else has occurred. Commissioner Cassel: I thought the site was being divided into Public Facilities and Conservation Area. Ms. Cauble: That is the Comprehensive Plan land use designation that is proposed. The staff proposed-prezoning is for PF for the whole site, with the site and design overlay requirement. Interestingly, this apparently has no zoning in the City of Los Altos. So we need to get something on there. A: [ PCMins [ 0114.reg Page 22 Mr. Gilliland: For your information, all of the baylands are PF(D). Commissioner Schmidt: I would like to comment that the surrounding PF(D), the Palo Alto baylands and the work that has been done in Mountain View in the adjacent area, has made a wonderful baylands environment. There are, indeed, lots and lots of people there. I was out there yesterday, mid-day, not at lunchtime, and there were lots of people bird watching, and there were lots and lots of birds in the Mountain View area and a few birds in the former sludge ponds at this site. It is interesting to see the little wildlife trails across there, even in the non-native grasses, SO there is indeed evidence of a lot of wildlife out there. I would really like to see whatever improvements can be made to that public end of the site, the part that will be more of a conservation area. It really would be an appropriate use for that site. It would be inappropriate to pave three more acres out there just to have a lot for dump trucks and concrete culverts, etc. That would really be highly visible, whereas with the PASCO building, as proposed, I think the Architectural Review Board indeed noted that it is an attractive building. I don’t believe it is very large, and will be well screened, and is close to other existing buildings there, so I don’t think it will be a particularly unattractive facility. I think that will be fine, but I am very happy that we are recommending to not go ahead with the storage lot there. MOTION: Commissioner Schmidt: I move that we recommend approving the prezoning of the site to the Public Facilities zoning district with a Site and Design Overlay [PF(D)]. ¯SECOND: By Commissioner Cassel, and I will note that I was out this afternoon when there were rain showers, and there were people out there walking. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schink: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0-0-1 with Commissioner Byrd absent. Commissioner Beecham: I would like to comment that there was discussion tonight on the subject of foxes and feral cats. I don’t believe there is anything specifically on that issue in the actions before us tonight, but I certainly would support anything the city can do in that area. I certainly would expect that the nearby property owners, to the degree they can affect what their tenants and employees do, would also try to inhibit any feeding of the feral cats out there. Also, with regard to Lincoln Property, I think you will have adequate time to work with the city as they go through site and design. I think that is entirely appropriate. Also, at the same time, Lincoln Property has the ability to speak with a loud, clear voice, and I am sure the city will not let that single, loud clear voice overwhelm the quiet voice of the public at large in their considerations, also. Commissioner Schmidt: It is still possible that the Army Corps of Engineers would not grant Palo Alto the permit to do this, because there will still be a little filling of wetlands involved. I think the changes we have made will have less filling of wetlands, and make it more likely that A: [ PCMins [ 0114.reg Page 23 the corps will permit this project. Commissioner Cassel: I would like to suggest that when thi~ comes back at the next level, that adequate screening is done on all sides of this. project, because these trucks that will be parked there are large. By that, I don’t fence screening. I mean trees, etc. Chairman Schink: That concludes this item, and brings us to Item 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1998-2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Planning Commission review and comment on City Council changes to the Planning Commission recommended 1998-2010 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Schink: Are there any staff comments? Mr. Gilliland: Just to say that what is before you are the changes that the council made in your recommended version of the Compi’ehensive Plan. We are here to answer any questions about those. Chairman Schink: Seeing no questions from the commission, I will open the public hearing. I have one speaker. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, Palo Alto: Good evening. I would like to talk to you about just one issue. There was a change made, and that appears in the attachment of the action agenda of December 2, 1997, Page 17. It refers to sidewalks, and it indicates here that that appears on green page CC-14, Program C-18(a). I believe that the program should be modified to keep the current criteria until the city finishes the repairs on all of the neighborhoods, which I believe the city has divided into 29 for the sidewalk program, as you saw in the infra~ructure program that was before you. The reason is that both in liability and also for political reasons, the city began going through these 29 neighborhoods, one by one, on a priority list, beginning about 1982, and used that list as one of the selling points for the utility user tax. In the first couple of years, it more than doubled the amount of sidewalk repairs. As I recall, the city did 200,000 square feet of sidewalk repairs, including Mayor Sutorius’ neighborhood when he was mayor, and then 200,000 square feet in Mayor Woolley’s neighborhood when she was mayor. After that, there was a switch in the school sites, and the money started going to Cubberley, to the point now where the comprehensiveannual financial report indicates that there is more money spent on school site programs than there is coming in from the utility user tax. So the original selling point that a million dollars of the money would be going to streets and sidewalks has somehow disappeared, and it is just a shell game with the money. This is important for two reasons. One, the city is talking about possibly going to the voters again, needing a two-thirds vote for infrastructure bonds, and also, as former Mayor Cobb indicated in A: [PCMin~10114.reg " Page 24 an economic committee meeting, by the time that comes around (and this was some time ago that he noted this), the voters will realize they have paid in lease payments at Cubberley probably three times what the property is worth over the course of the lease. So I think that the program that was set up, which is easily identified as a neighborhood-by-neighborhood program, is something can. easily be explained to the voters on whether the city did or did not do it. I have noticed some changes in those priorities over the years that are not even reflected in this program. At one point, the city changed from going neighborhood by neighborhood to assigning some of that sidewalk money to go along with fixing streets, which is not done neighborhood by neighborhood. So when a street was repaired or storm drain improvements were made to gutters, the sidewalks next to those streets and gutters that were being repaired were also repaired, instead of going neighborhood by neighborhood as a whole neighborhood. Surprisingly, they seemed to come next to a council member’s house or next to some other political figure. In the most recent apparent priority that you saw in the infrastructure showed that somehow,, the priorities would all be at the north end of town, north of Oregon and Page Mill, before they went south, including neighborhoods that are newer, such as Green Gables, than older neighborhoods, such as Midtown and the former Mayfield area. So I believe it is a political mistake to try and change that priority system from the one that~was set up to do all of those neighborhoods. I also think there is a liability issue, as well, if areas that were indicated at one time to be fixed first are not fixed first. It seems that the ones that are getting fixed first depends upon one’s political office or political connections. F!nally, in regard to this, I think you should also increase the amount that is being fixed. As the amount of money has stayed constant, the amount of sidewalks that are being fixed is now less than what were being fixed before the utility user tax came into place. Chairman Schink: Seeing no other speakers, I will now close the public hearing and return this item to the commission. Are there any questions of staff by commissioners? Mr. Schreiber: I Seldom respond to public speakers, but I feel the need to make a couple of comments. City staff, the Public Works Department and their work in cooperation with other city departments, including the city manager’s office, has quite detailed criteria for identifying streets and sidewalks that need to be repaired. It is based on physical condition, use, and that somewhat relates to age, but it is primarily the physical condition and the use. The fact that ¯ particular repairs occur close to the house of a particular city council member is pure happenstance, It has nothing to do with trying to have the program serve the needs of individuals involved with city government. I have been a member of the city staff capital improvement committee for many years, and the process certainly does not include any type of consideration. As far as the reference to a shell game with the money, one million dollars is still going to streets and sidewalks. Yes, one million dollars does not buy as much now as it did eight or ten years ago, but the city staff and council have kept their commitment to increase street and sidewalk spending out of utility user tax revenues. I think that various members of the Planning A: I PCMins 10114.reg Page 25 Commission in the past have seen that in the Capital Improvement Program, and I can guarantee that you will see that again this year. Commissioner Cassel: I read this document and then tried to figure out what I was supposed to say, and I did not come up with much, primarily because we worked and worked and worked on this. I sat through all of the public hearings except the last one, for which I was ill. The City Council did not agree with all of us. I did some counting. They made something like 33 changes to those changes that we made, and about 64 changes to the white pages where we had made no changes. Most of their changes were wording changes. Many of them improved the language. Some of them changed the names of agencies that had either changed from the time it was originally printed, or maybe just did not get put in correctly in the first place. But agencies and names have changed over time. There were some changes that we would have hoped, they would not make. I do not feel that I want to challenge those changes. They were discussed by us in great detail, and they have been discussed by the City Council in great detail, and they are the final decision makers. So I do not feel the need at this time to recommend changes. In terms of the sidewalks, they decided to stay with the original wording. We said to give priority to people who are walking, because we were concerned about safety issues. They decided to add that to the current program so that it would be one more item to be considered as they continue their current policies, and word it that way. Commissioner Schmidt: I have one comment to make. The council was not in favor of the change we had suggested to the Open Space zone, changing the parcel size from the 20 to the 160 acres, depending upon the slope, etc. There were a couple of other Open Space recommendations that the council kind of lumped with that area designation. I wanted to mention that. I do not know if we may want to think about recommending that they reconsider that. Also, there were two other items, on Page 12, where there are three programs crossed out. In the second and third programr "Consider revisions to the Open Space zone district regulations that would further limit the amount of impervious surface and the intensity of development allowed." Also the next one, "Consider revising the Open Space zone district regulations to establish a maximum allowable house size." As I recall, the council did not really discuss those. I was present that night, and I did call it to their attention. That may have been enough, but I just wanted to note that here. Commissioner Beecham: There was one item here that I cannot accept. This is actually tongue in cheek, buton Page 14, they have added on the green page N-23(b), "Evaluate changes to the noise ordinance which reduce the impact of leaf blower noise." I think that should be "...to reducethe impact of leaf blower noise." However, I tremble at the idea of taking this back to the council. Commissioner Cassel: I am sure there will be some editing. I noticed a few of those, also. A: I PCMins 10114.reg Page 26 Mr. Gilliland: If you have editing items, please give them to us. We love them! Commissioner Cassel: Debbie, are we rriaking a motion to forward our comments to the City Council? What about those of us who have conflicts of interest with some items? Ms. Cauble: Before you take any formal action, I think that for the record, each of the commissioners, maybe not all of you, but a number of the commissioners throughout the Comprehensive Plan process have identified conflicts of interest with respect to different items. None of those items have been discussed by the commission so far tonight. For the record, I am assuming that none of you are participating in any comments on any items to which you have disclosed a conflict of interest. That is probably sufficient for the record, since you have made those disclosures previously. It is up to you how you want to handle this. You can simply move that the staff forward the individual comments you have made tonight back to the council, or if there is some other motion on which you think you might get a majority vote, you are welcome to do that. It is really up to the commission on the manner in which you forward your comments on these changes to the council. MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: I will move that we forward those comments we have made tonight to the City Council, and recommend that they proceed on this document. SECOND: By Commissioner Bialson. Chairman Schink: I share some of Kathy’s concems about the position that the council has taken in regards to the Stanford lands and some of the foothills property and the 20- and 160-acre question. I would like to ask the commission to possibly ask Owen Byrd to write a letter to go along with his recommendation, restating our opinion on that subject. Hopefully, they will see it our way when they make their final considerations, if the Planning Commission is so inclined. Is there any support for that idea? Commissioner Schmidt: ’If Owen wishes to do that, I support it. Chairman Schink: I guess what I am asking is whether there is anyone else who would agree with what he had to say in that regard? Commissioner Schmidt: I think he was willing to go with what the council did, but I am not positive. I still believe that having consistency with the county, which this would do, is important. Annette and I and some others, including the mayor, went to a presentation in San Jose a few weeks ago that actually recommended the importance of having consistency among the jurisdictions. Commissioner Bialson: They essentially recommended regional solutions to these issues, and A: I PCMins 10114.reg Page 27 that would be a regional solution, but I cannot speak to this issue. Chairman Schink: I guess there is not enough support to even make a recommendation. Commissioner Beecham: Jon, you can certainly talk to Owen and he can write a letter and you can sign it and obtain whatever signatures you wish. In that way, he would declare that he is speaking for the signatories, since the commission does not seem to be necessarily moving toward that position. Ms. Cauble: I would just say that as long as you only have three signatories, because if you want to have four of you, we need to have a publicly noticed meeting where you decide what you are going to say. As individual members or less than a quorum, feel free to say whatever you wish. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Schink: Is there any further discussion on the motion to forward those comments we have made tonight to the City Council, and recommend that they proceed on this document? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Byrd absent. Mr. Schreiber: I would .like to briefly comment on the process. What we are going to propose to the council is essentially a two-phase adoption process. What we are preparing and hope very much to have ready for th6 February 17th council meeting will be a document that has all of the goals, policies, programs and text. We will have no graphics, no pictures, nothing like that. It will just be straight text, and have the council adopt that. That gets the essence of the plan, the goals, policies and programs, in place. Then we would come back to the council sometime in May or June with the full document. It will have all of the graphics and other materials, reformatted and laid out, printed, etc., and have that full document adopted. We are doing this approach because the alternative is to wait until what would probably be early summer to adopt the plan. We will in effect be in a state of limbo in terms of what policies really apply for a whole series of months..By law, we have to use the existing plan, yet we have an all but adopted new plan, and I think it would be confusing for the public, for applicants, as well as for staff in terms of what really are the city’s policies. So that is the approach we are taking, and hopefully, we will make it for February 17th. If not, it will be on the council agenda very soon thereafter. Commissioner Schmidt: When is the Implementation chapter coming up? Mr. Schreiber: A lot of staffwork on Implementation is sitting in my office right now. It will be gotten to in the fairly near future. Our effort right now is to get the text put together. You realize that we are merging the white pages, the green pages, changes to the green pages, changes to the white pages, council changes to both, and putting it into one coherent document. That has turned out to be a more than simple task. It is a difficult task in terms of making sure that everything is in and worded in terms of the last wording as accepted by the council. So that has been the focus of our energies right now, along with a lot of otherthings going on in A: IPCMinsl0114.reg Page 28 the office. We will be getting back to Implementation in the next number of weeks. The process is going to be that the material that has been worked on will go to the city’s department heads for review. We have worked with the Assistant City Manager and some department heads, but we need to expand that to other department heads, and then bring forward an Implementation document. I would anticipate with the full document that it would go to the council in May, or more likely, in June. There is no way, effectively, that we could merge the new plan, as adopted in February, into this year’s budget process. The budget process is well along in the process intemally, so what we are looking at is establishing implementation priorities as they will then. feed into the preparation of the 1999 -2000 plan, unless the council decides to take something out of order, which is fine, which certainly could be their call. That budget process begins in the fall, basically, so that will be the approach we are taking. I would expect that that implementation plan would then be back for Planning Commission review probably in April, and I would expect that the commission will want to spend a substantial amount of time working on that, because obviously, there are a lot of tradeoffs, a lot of issues there, and a lot of things that cannot be done immediately, because other things will need to be done immediately, and not everything Can be done immediately. Chairman Schink: Could we put on one of our agendas a discussion of the Implementation plan from perhaps a more philosophical perspective? More in generalities? I am concerned that this document has five or six or seven hundred elements that need to be implemented. It is going to be overwhelming if we want to take it and look at it that specifically. It might be well for the Planning Commission to have a discussion about some aspects of the implementation just from a more general perspective at a near-term date. Maybe it would provide an easier framework for all of you to then develop the Implementation plan. Mr. Schreiber: That would be perfectly fine. Staff would look forward to that. I would suggest that it be sometime after the plan is adopted, in part because then you will actually have a document that is coherent. We will all be referring to the same numbers fo~-policies and programs, rather than the numbers on white pages versus the green pages versus the council changes. Many of those have changed again, because when you reorder them, you start dropping things out, and all of the numbers change. I would suggest that once we get that document back to you that we think about scheduling that for sometime in March. It would be a good discussion. In preparation for that, I would urge commissioners to sit back and take a look at all of that material, putting your thoughts together clearly in terms of what you feel are the priorities. You certainly are already sensitive to the fact that there are a lot of programs related to the zoning ordinance, a great number. The question will be, are we going to take all of those in one chunk, or is there some way of laying to split them up? I will share that I have mentioned to several city council members that the angst regarding single-family regulations may lead to wanting to split that and do single-family first, followed by the rest of the zoning ordinance. There are a lot of those types of tradeoffs. Area plans are another, and how many of those, and when. We are certainly finding with PAMF/SOFA that it is very time consumptive. Lotsof staff time is getting poured into that, so it is not something where we can just tack on another one of A:lPCMinsl0114.reg Page 29 those along the way. It is a major undertaking. Let’s aim for March, and Eric will put it on the list. Chairman Schink: Any further discussion on the Comprehensive Plan? (None) REPORTS OF COMMITTEES - None. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS - None. COMMISSION MEMBER OUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. Committee/Subcommittee Appointments. Chairman Schink: I would call your attention to the memorandum that Eric placed in front of us. Mr. Pd’el: (Stated that liaisons to the CIP process meeting are Commissioners Beecham and Schmidt; also the Public Safety Building Committee will be Commissioner Schmidt.) Chairman Schink: There is also a request for a Planning Commissioner to serve with the new Transportation Arterial Committee. Mr. Schreiber: That is a Transportation Division assignment. We have the funding, and will be undertaking an analysis of the residential arterials this year, as well as an assessment of what type of measures could be undertaken to slow traffic down, yet not divert traffic off into the neighborhoods. Chairman Schink: I thought Phyllis would be the right Planning Commissioner to help on that. REPRESENTATIVES TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETINGS. Mr. Riel: The discussion at the last meeting was to notdesignate a person, but my suggestion is that if we do need someone, that whoever is slated to go to the City Cotmcil meeting that month,. we will let them know, if that is acceptable to the commission. Commissioner Cassel: I thought we were going to put that on the agenda for the retreat we are planning. Commissioner Bialson: Yes, I thought there was some question as to whether we needed continuity to some of these boards and the commission. Chairman Schink: Then let’s move along to Item 6. A: I PCMins [ 0114.reg Page 30 6.Discussion of a retreat, appointments and study sessions. Commissioner Cassel: I checked with many people, and it looks like the 4th or 5th of February would be a good time. It is just a meeting in the library for several hours in the afternoon. It does not take a lot of staff preparation for it. Commissioner Beecham: I would be unable to attend on February 4th. Mr. Schreiber: Since March 2 is the date for the City Council to appoint a new planning commissioner, you may want to set the date soon thereafter, and get that person involved. I just wanted to note that, however, you do not have to wait until after that date. Chairman Schink: We have a recommended date of February 5th from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. I will discuss with the commission what you want to have on the agenda. Ms. Cauble: If you want to talk about agenda items, you should do it at a meeting. Also, it will be a publicly noticed meeting, so you will be limited to those items that are on the agenda. So it is a good idea to find out what you want on the agenda so that we can craft one that allows you to discuss that which you wish to discuss. It has to be posted 72 hours in advance. Mr. Schreiber: It would be good to put it on the January 28th Planning Commission agenda as "Identification of Topics for the Retreat." We can get it out for posting within a day or two. Commissioner Cassel: We can also ensure that anyone who has applied for the Planning Commission can be made aware that this meeting is occurring so that they could attend, if they were interested. Chairman Schink: I assume that we will include as possible subjects the representatives to the ARB and HRB. So we do not need to discuss that any further ¯tonight. ",~ - The last order of business we should discuss is the memorandum from Eric Riel about Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission training. There is an opportunity for planning commissioners to travel to the League of California Cities Planning Institute Seminar, if anyone is interested. Mr. Riel: I don’t know what your previous experience has been with that, but we have $2,967 in the budget. This particular seminar came to my attention, and I didn’t know if you wanted to use that to send one or two individuals to the seminar, or if you would like to take this fund and fold it over to utilize for a future retreat, or how would you like to utilize those monies? Chairman Schink: If a planning commissioner wants to go, can they simply contact you? Mr. Riel: Yes, if the Planning Commission is comfortable with that. A: I PCMins 10114"reg Page 31 Commissioner Beecham: Historically, we do not overwhelm these opportunities. Mr. Schreiber: I want to interject a brief status report under this heading of Questions, Comments, Announcements. It is a brief status report on the Historic Preservation Ordinance update. There are a couple of things to note. One is that there is a workshop scheduled for the evening of January 27th at 7 p.m. in the Chambers. It will deal with historic building codes and rehabilitation of historic buildings. That is the focal point of that meeting. The next City Council review of theissue is scheduled for February 23rd. That will be a very critical meeting in setting direction for staff regarding the ordinance that they wish to see come back. We will be discussing issues related to the ordinance with the Historic Resources Board. I have asked staff to also schedule something with the Architectural Review Board. We are on a very difficult, break-neck pace, because no one in the process wants to extend the interim regulations. To not have to face that issue, we need to have the new regulations in place so that they are effective by May 27th. That means that a second reading occurs on April 27th;which means that action on the draft ordinance occurs on April 13th or so. That is a very, very fast tumaround, so what I am alerting the commission on is that we are going to copy you on a lot of material. You are encouraged to participate as individuals. We Certainly would like to see that, but we are not, at this point in time, as it is probably not feasible, just given the amount of work that has to be done and the timing of all of this, we are not planning on bringing that issue back to a commission agenda. By the time we finish on February 23rd, to get things drafted and reviewed and staff reports done, etc., it is going to be a rather frantic period. Of course, we are also dealing with PAMF/SOFA in the office. That is taking a lot of time, also. I wanted to highlight that to you, so you can look forward to all sorts of material in your packets over the next few months on that. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjoumed at 9:25 p.m. A: [ PCMins 10114.reg Page 32