HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-11-08 City Council (6)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
4
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:FIRE
DATE:NOVEMBER 8, 1999 CMR: 404:99
SUBJECT:WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council approve and adopt the attached Negative Declaration, finding 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 13, 1999, for a
public hearing. The resolution also directs the City to publish a notice of hearing 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 oft he passage of the resolution
and provides that property owners shall remove weeds from their property, or the abatement
will be carried out by Santa Clara County (County). The City then publishes the notices to
abate weeds.
Hearing - The Council must conduct a public hearing, at which time any property owner may
appear and object to the proposed weed destruction or removal. After hearing 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 22 seasons, the weed abatement
CMR:404:99 Page 1 of 2
program has been expeditiously carried out by the County Fire Marshal’s Office with results
satisfactory to Palo Alto residents.
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
F ir~ ChiR~JI~E~I G~ ~IJALet V a
city Manager Approval: ~E~L~ ~t~ SON~~_
Assistant City Manager
CMR:404:99 Page 2 of 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
1.Project Title: Annual Weed Abatement Program
o
=
=
Lead Agency Name and Address: County of Santa Clara, 70 West Hedding St.,
San Jose, CA 95110
Contact Person and Phone Number: Judy Saunders, County Weed Abatement
Officer (408)299-3805 x207
Project Location: City of Palo Alto
5.Application Number(s): (650)329-2184
=
=
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
City of Palo Alto Fire Department
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
8.Zoning: N/A
=
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.
10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
-City lands and property.
11.Other public agencies whose approval
approval, or participation agreement).
-N/A
(Briefly describe the project’s surroundings)
is required (e.g. permits, financing
U:kPLANkEIAForrnkEnvironmental Checklist Form.doc Page 1 of 16
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORSPOTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impac~t" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages. --
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water
Quality
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service
Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
! 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 revisions
in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact 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. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
X
U:\PLANkEIAFormkEnvironmental Checklist Form.doc Page 2 of 16
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR orI 1
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisionsor mitigation measures that areIimposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. I
_I
Date
Date
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1)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).
2)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.
3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,
then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant,
less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. :Potentially Significant
Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4)"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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).
5)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). In this case, a brief discussion should identify
the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
U:kPLANkEIAFormkEnvironmental Checklist Form.doc Page 3 of 16
b)Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an 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
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were
incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific eonditions for the project.
6)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.
7)Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8)This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist
that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance.
I.AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista?
b)Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or ¯
quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
X
X
U:kPLAN\EIAFormkEnvironmental Checklist Form.doc Page 4 of 16
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Ii.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared
by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland; or Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the X
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use.’?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson X
Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could X
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
II1. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make
the following determinations. Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
X
Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation
Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors
X
X
d)
e)X
U:~LANXEIAFormkEnvironmental Checklist Form.doc Page 5 of 16
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
affecting a substantial number of
people?
V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural
community identified in local or
regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c)Have a substantial adverse effect
on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established
native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a
tree preservationpolicy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
U:\PLANkEIAFormkEnvironmental Checklist Form.doc Page 6 of 16
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Resources
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
15064.5?
b)Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.57
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGYAND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and
Geology special Publication
42.
ii)Strong seismic ground
shaking?
b)
c)
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
iii)Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
U:\PLANXEIAFormkEnvironmental Checklist Form.doc Page 7 of 16
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
d)
e)
Vii.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Sources Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than No
Significant Impact
X
X
X
X
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
would become unstable as a
result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-
site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life
or property?
Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project?
Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through the routing transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardo~_ls
materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
Impact
X
X
X
U:kPLANkEIAForm\Environmental Checklist Form.doc Page 8 of 16
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the
project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not .
support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
Would the project:
X
X
X
U:~LANkEIAForm\Environmentat Checklist Form.doc Page 9 of 16
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources
which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d)Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or
off-site?
e)Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood
hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
i)Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involve flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow?
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
J)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
Physically divide an established
community?
Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan,
X
U:kPLANLEIAFormkEnvironmental Checklist Form.doc Page 10 of 16
Issues and Supporting Information
c)
Xo
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Less Than No
Significant Impact
X
Issues Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation
plan?
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability
of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
NOISE. Would the project result in:
Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?
A substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient.-
noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project
expose people residing or
Impact
X
XI.
b)
X
c)
d)
e)
X
X
X
X
X
U:kPLANkEIAFormkEnvironmental Checklist Form.doc Page 11 of 16
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f)For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
a) Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,
response times or other
performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
U:~PLANkEIAFormkEnvironmental Checklist Form.doc Page 12 of 16
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorpe;~ated
Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b)Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic
which is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the
county congestion management
agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
f) Result in inadequate parking
capacity?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
U:\PLAN~IAForm~nvironmental Checklist Form.doc Page 13 of 16
Issues and Supporting Information
Resources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Less Than No
Significant Impact
X
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Would the project:
X
X
X
X
g)Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b)Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
c)Require or result in the
construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
d)Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
f)Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity.to
accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the
potential to degrade the quality I
X
X
X
X
U:kPLANkEIAForm\Environmental Checklist Form.doc Page 14 of 16
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b)
c)
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?
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
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects)?
Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
SOURCE REFERENCES:
X
X
EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES:
category.
-- Explain choice of impact
U:kPLANkEIAFormkEnvironmental Checklist Form.doc Page 15 of 16
[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 MEASURES
CONTAINED HEREIN.
Applicant’s Signature Date
U:kPLANkEIAFormkEnvironmental Checklist Form.doc Page 16 of 16
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 2000 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:
SECTION i. Weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.010(b) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code, which are anticipated to develop during
calendar year 2000 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.
SECTION 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 13th day of
December, 1999, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., of said day, or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be.heard, at the Council Chambers of
the Civic Center of said City, shall 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.
991102 syn 0043895
1
SECTION 3. Unlesssuch 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.
SECTION 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
991102 syn 0043895
2