The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-11-09 City Council (5)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:FIRE DATE:NOVEMBER 9, 1997 CMR:419:98 SUBJECT:WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve and adopt the attached negative declaration, fmding that no significant effects on the environment will result from the project to abate weeds; and adopt the attached resolution declaring weeds to be a public nuisance and setting December 14, 1998, for a public hearing. The resolution also orders the City to publish a notice of heating in accordance with the provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal (PAMC) Code. BACKGROUND PAMC Chapter 8.08 specifies weed abatement procedures. The chapter indicates it is unlawful for property owners or occupants to permit weeds to remain upon the premises, public sidewalks, streets or alleys. The chapter also specifies the procedures to be followed to abate weeds. These are: Resolution of the City Council declaring weeds to be a public nuisance. This resolution sets the time and place for hearing any objections to the proposed weed abatement. Publication of notice - This notice informs property owners of the passage of the resolution and provides that property owners shall remove weeds from their property, or the abatement will be carded out by Santa Clara County (County). The City then publishes the notices to abate weeds. Hearing - The Council must conduct a public heating, at which time any property owner may appear and object to the proposed weed deslahaction or removal. After heating and considering any objections, the Council may allow or overrule any or all objections. If objections are overruled, the Council is deemed to have acquired jurisdiction to proceed; and the County will be asked to perform the work of destruction and removal of weeds. On March 21, 1977, the City Council approved an agreement with the County for the administration of weed abatement within the City of Palo Alto. This agreement has reduced the costs and City staff time required for administration of weed abatement. For the past nineteen seasons, the weed abatement program has been expeditiously carded out by the County Fire Marshal’s Office with results satisfactory to Palo Alto residents. CMR:419:98 Page 1 of 2 RESOURCE IMPACT There is no direct fiscal impact to the City. The City of Palo Alto administers the weed abatement program with the Santa Clara County Fire Marshal’s Office with a minimal amount of stafftime. All charges for the weed abatement services are included as a special assessment on bills for taxes levied against the respective lots and parcels of land, and are considered liens on these properties. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A negative declaration for the project has been prepared showing that no significant environmental effects will result from the weed abatement program. ATTACHMENTS Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration Resolution Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting a Hearing Prepared By: Dan Heiser, Acting Fire Marshal / Department Head Review: RUBEN/GiRIJALVA Fire Chilff City Manager Approval: ~(~./d~~~~) t"EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:419:’98 Page2 of 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Annual Weed Abatement Program 2.Lead Agency Name and Address" County of Santa Clara, 70 West Hedding St. San Jose, CA 95110 3. Contact Person and Phone Number:Judy Saunders, County Weed Abatement Officer 408.299.3805 x207 4. Project Location: City of Palo Alto 5. Application Number(s): 6.Project.Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Palo Alto Fire Dept. 250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 7. General Plan Designation: 8. Zoning: N/A 9.Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. (Attach additional sheets if necessary) -- Annual removal of weeds which present a public nuisance and fire hazard. 1 0. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the..project’s surroundings) -- city land and properties. 11.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. -P:\EIA\EIA.MST [2/1/96]Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Land use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Water Noise Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Circulation Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION" (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ! find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. X P:\EIA\EIA.MST [2/1/96]Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. roject Plann Director of Planning & Com Date ty Environment Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 2) 3) 4) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. "Potentially Significant Impact’ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced).. P:\EIA\EIA.MST [2/1/96]Page 3 5) 6) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. P:\EIA\EIA.MST [2/1/96]Page 4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignifiFant Impact IiNmOpact [" a) b) c) d) e) LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projec.tions? x X X X X X b) Induce substantia! growth in an area either directly or X indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? c) -Displace existing housing, especially affordable X housing? 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people tO potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture?X b) Seismic ground shaking?X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?X e) Landslides or mudflows?X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil X conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land?X h) Expansive soils?X i)Unique geologic or physical features?X P:\EIA\EIA.MST [2/1./9.6]Page 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Signff!cant act Impact 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X rate and amount of surface runoff? b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X such as flooding? c). XDischarge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. sediment and debris from construction, hydrocarbons andmetals from vehicle use, nutrients and pesticides from landscape maintenance? d)Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X body or wetland? e)Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands? f)X - g) h) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pollutants from urban or industrial activities? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? j)Alteration of wetlands in any way? 5.AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X X X X X X X P:\EIA\EIA.MST [2/1/96]Page 6 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Signifl.cant Impact 6.TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: ×1 a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result reduction or inteference in:X X X X X X X X a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak X forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool?X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?X 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?X b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and X inefficient manner? c)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: P:\EIA\EIA.MST [2/1/96]Page 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact IINto°pact" ! a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) c) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass of trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise’levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or storm drain facilities? e) Other governmental services? 12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X X X X X X X x X x X X x X X d) Sewer or septic tanks?X e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?X P:\EIA\EIA.MST [2/1/96]Page 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Signif!cant Impact f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposali a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources?. d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or Wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X x X X X X X X x X X X X X P:\EIA\EIA.MST [2/1/96]Page 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, a~d the effects of probable future projects) X d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant tothe tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this casea discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed inan earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. - Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 P.A.M.C. Chapter 8.08 2 3 4 5 P:\EIA\EIA.MST [2/1/96]Page 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Then Signifi.cant Impact 6 7 8 9 10 P:\EIA\EIA.MST [2/1/96]Page 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOUrCeS Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than iNn.Op a c tSignif.icant Impact 19. EXPLANATIONS FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES --la .....Explain choice of impact category; multiple lines may be entered within each row --- Page 12P:\EIA\EIA.MST [2/1/96] Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Signi.ficant Impact P:\EIA\EIA.MST [2/1/96]Page 13 [IF THIS IS A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ADD THE FOLLOWING WORDING AND PRIOR TO PRINTING, DELETE THIS PHRASE] WE,THE UNDERSIGNED,HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED ,PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS , PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURESCONTAINED HEREIN. .__Applicant’s Signature Date P:\EIA\EIA.MST [2/1/96] Page 14 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO DECLARING WEEDS TO BE A NUISANCE AND SETTING A HEARING FOR OBJECTIONS TO THEIR PROPOSED DESTRUCTION OR REMOVAL WHEREAS, weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.010(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, are anticipated to develop during calendar year 1999 upon streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private property within the City of Palo Alto sufficient to constitute a public nuisance as a fire menace when dry or are otherwise combustible, or otherwise to constitute a menace to the public health as noxious or dangerous; NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTIQN !. Weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.010(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which are anticipated to develop during calendar year 1999 upon streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private property within the City of Palo Alto, are hereby found and determined to constitute a public nuisance. Such nuisance is anticipated to exist upon some of the streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private property within the City, which are shown, described, and delineated on the several maps of~the properties in said City which are recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, reference in each instance for the description of any particular street, alley, or parcel of private property being hereby made to the several maps aforesaid, and, in the event of there being several subdivision maps on which the same lots are shown, reference is hereby made to the latest subdivision map. ZE~TION 2. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the said public nuisance be abated in the manner provided by Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code: IT IS -FURTHER ORDERED that Monday, the 14th day of December, 1998, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., of said day, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the Counci! Chambers of the Civic Center of said City, shal! be the time and place when objections to the proposed destruction or removal of such weeds shall be heard and given due consideration; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Fire Chief of the City of ¯Palo Alto is directed to cause notice of said hearing to be given in the time, manner and form provided in Chapter 8.08 of said Palo Alto Municipal Code. 1 981025 syn 0043523 SECTIQN 3. Unless such nuisance is abated without delay by the destruction or removal of such weeds, the work of abating such nuisance will be done by the County of Santa Clara Fire Marshal’s Office on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, and the expenses thereof assessed upon the lots and lands from which, and/or in the front and rear of which, such weeds shall have been destroyed or removed. $.ECTION 4. The City Council hereby finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Administrative Services Fire Chief 981025 syn 0043523 2