February 5, 2013 – Council Meeting

Item #9. ZAB appeal 1214 Glen Avenue

Staff presentation
2 story 2400 sq ft home with attached garbage. Sent back to ZAB board after addressing recommended changes.  Appeal addresses: Privacy , shading, size of lot, drainage and creek adjacency.   Staff recommends denying the appeal.
Bates sent a staff person to meet with appellant and view property.  Wengraf and Worthington had conversations with Appeallants
Appeallants:
Want public hearing to address questions that have not been answered.  Still unresolved issues.  Hydrology issues.  All run off to go down Glen onto Summer Street.  There is significant water during storms and this would add to the impact.  There have been no studies on the path of the running off after obstructions so would like time to hire specialist to test the property and determine impact to the street.  Want to get creek adjacency corrected.  The 30 foot set back should encroach into 1214 Glen and it does not.  Design does not conform to other home building materials in the area.  View is being impacted.  Substandard lot which doesn’t confirm to current code.
Applicant
Approved 7 -0 in August by ZAB.  All 9 issues submitted by residents have been addressed.  There have been 2 ZAB hearings and use permit was granted with conditions which have been addressed.  3 issues have to do with ZAB process. 2 issues deal with professional expertise .  2 issues deal with water run off and they are conditional.   Have the right to build on the lot.  The final issue is the materials – these issues were addressed by ZAB and approved.  I am not creating any additional run off.  I am taking water off the property and diverting it onto the street and away from the neighborhood property.  I cannot make it any worse by law.
Councilmember Comments
Maio.  Do we have a hydrologist opinion?  There was a geotechnical engineer.  I am concerned about the impact of the run off and the impact of this construction in adjacent properties.  This is of concern to me.
Wozniak.  Have we heard from 1212 Glen?  Are they in favor of the plan?  What is the relationship of the Appeallants properties to the project site?  It is not clear in the report.  So there is not really a set back?  There are only boring tests and no run off tests?  Hydrology does not happen until later in the process?  When does view ordinance impact a project?  It is also a non traditional design.  The metal siding is an issue for the neighbors.
Arreguin. Excavation. This is on a 14% slope.  Will it be done in such a way that it will not create any instability?  I think the creek adjacency might be an issue and recommendations should be made so the safety of adjacent neighbors is not compromised.  There is conflicting information in the creeks map and it should be verified.
Wengraf. The lot on Glen had a slope and Summer is lower that the lot on Glen.  There is s 12 foot drop from the lot on Glen.  1214 is a substandard lot size.  There were 2 ZAB members absent and only 2 members visited the site.  Also it was one member’s first meeting.  ZAB was concerned about the run off into the street.  Doesn’t our climate action plan require that the runoff stay on the property?  Only 40% will be held on site so how does this comply with our climate action plan.  How do the neighbors who are the recipients of this water participate in the process after the fact?  Our storm system is overwhelmed in storms so we need to prevent additional run off.  Also the parapet might need to be lowered and lowering the height of the building will help the shading issue.  As designed the design is overwhelming on the site.
Maio.  I also have hydrology concerns so I move for a public hearing on this property.  Seconded by Wengraf.
Anderson. If we move ahead without hydrologist testimony, if there is damage down the line?  Is the city liable?
Capitelli. I am going to support the motion but on a limited basis.  The design is not an issue.  However there is an issue with the creek location that I want resolved.  I hope we can expedite this and have it on March 19th or as close to that as possible.
Wozniak. The staff report is clear about the creek per Public Works. Does staff still stand by that?
Bates. Can we independently look at the hydrology? This seems to be the main issue.
Wozniak  Either the rain currently seeps into the ground or it runs downhill.  If a structure is built here then more water will be diverted into the street and not down hill?  I don’t know what additional information we would have at a public hearing so I can’t support the motion.
Arreguin. My concern is the location of the creek and I am hopeful that the public hearing would address future run off.
Vote
Schedule a public herring
Abstain. Wozniak
Yes. All others
Item #10. ZAB appeal  1488 Keoncrest Drive
Staff presentation
Addition up to 3 stories.  Issues:  process of AUP, shadow and view impacts, massing.  Staff recommends denying the appeal.  6 commissioners were present. 3 were absent
Appeallants
18 appeallants who signed are present. Want amended plan without a 3rd story. Were not allowed to speak at ZAB. No opportunity for mediation.  Significant shadowing. Not a modest bungalow.  Out of character with the neighborhood.  There is a restrictive covenant that limits homes to 2 stories.  Would love to go to mediation
Applicant
Project is sSet back from street.  Always thought the house would be improved by building over the garage.   It costs too much to build over the house so it must be done over the garage.  House is lower than many on the street. Over 75% of the neighbors support the plan.  1 to 1 set back and has less impact and is farther away from the street.  Covenant has already been broken there are other homes that are over 28′ high.  ZAB did not believe that this would warrant a public hearing. A mediator assigned by the City didn’t believe this could be mediated.
Wengraf. Met with a large group of neighbors and the applicant
Capitelli. Had a discussion with Appeallants and applicant
Wozniak. Met with Appeallants and neighbors.
Worthington. Meet with one person
Public comment
Support project.  Total 3
Against project.  Total 12
Councilmember Comments:
Capitelli. What is the setback of the 3rd floor from the face of the building?  My concern around this application I don’t recall extending noncomforming set backs.  I have a difficult time supporting the application with the height extension due to the grade change.  I move to set this for a public hearing.
Wozniak. There is reference to a covenant and the city says we don’t have to conform?  This is not binding on the city?  What is the total square footage of the addition?  What are the triggers for an AUP?  The applicant mentioned cost as an issue, what kind of weight can council give to the cost of a project as a finding?  It would have been nice if ZAB would have held a public hearing.  There are shadowing issues here as well.
Arreguin. The shadow studies by the applicant only study December and June.  There seems to be detrimental shadowing impact to the adjacent properties.
Wengraf. I will support the motion and hope that a public hearing will bring consensus to the neighborhood.
Bates. I favor a public hearing and I think there is room for compromise. I would like Capitelli and Maio to meet with everyone and see if we can’t reach a compromise.
Maio.  Before this happened the neighbors were very close.  But we need a public hearing. I hope we can schedule this soon.
Vote
Hold over for public hearing
Abstain. Wozniak
Yes. All others
Item #A support residents of Jeju islands (held over from January 29th)
Maio. Motion to accept the revision.
Vote. Unanimous
Maio: Modified resolution supporting the residents but not requiring letter writing. Motion and second to accept revised resolution.
Peace and Justice Commission Presentation
Support Maio changes with minor modification but want letters to call on Senate and
Congress to restrict any funding toward the project.
Public comment
Support peace and justice commission changes:  Total 3
Councilmember Comments
Bates. I support us taking a position but I don’t know enough about this to vote so I will abstain
Capitelli. I struggle with every item you bring before us and I don’t know how you triage all the things that are going on in the world such as Syria, girls in India etc., and we come up with things that I don’t have the time to investigate and I run out of energy to address these issues and I struggle with every one.  I wish we could focus on peace and justice issues of California and the greater Bay Area region.
Wozniak. I don’t think North Korea plays any role here and I don’t know enough about this to vote.  I think there are more pressing peace and justice issues to focus on.
Anderson. I am going to support this.  Of course we have the right to tell our government what we support.  Maybe we need to know more about this but we do know that a pristine island will be overwhelmed by a military base which will make it a target and it will be militarized.  We would not want such a target on our back.  But we need to support the commissioners we appoint and the decisions that they make and the priorities that they set to address.
Maio. I guess that someone came to our peace and justice commission with the issue and I took it serious because of that.  I took the council of mayors format on this resolution.
Vote
Support resolution with Maio changes
Yes:  Maio, Moore, Arreguin
Abstain:  Wengraf, Anderson, Bates, Capitelli
No: Wozniak

Item B. Residential preferential parking (held over from January 29)
Staff presentation
Expanding areas for preferential parking permits around Saturday commercial areas and neighborhoods surrounding football stadium on game days
Trying to recoup dollars.  It costs to enforce current enforcement. Expanding enforcement comes at a cost and it need to make sense to do.  We can’t really expand without it costing more money at this time than we can afford. It would run at a deficit.
Councilmember Comments
Bates:  I want to expand this program but I want us to break even.  We need to understand how much we would have to raise the fees to cover our costs.  We also need to look at charging people for multiple cars.  Then we can look at the entire program
Arreguin. If we increase it to $50 then that would bridge the gap and if we charged $55 then we would have a profit. We can’t keep operating at a deficit.  Double fine areas and increasing Saturday enforcement  would increase revenues and this has not been analyzed.  It is time for us to look at increasing the fees.  What are the costs of enforcement?  I really want to also look at Saturday enforcement as part of the analysis.
Bates.  From the perspective of the council we to break even and I am confident that the manager can come back with a fee analysis and have it come back for presentation.
Wozniak. This should be revenue neutral in the short term and mid term look at reducing costs.
Wengraf. My concern is that if you enforce on Saturday you are just pushing the traffic away farther away from the campus and that is not fair either.  The University should be providing shuttle service.
Public comment
There is really bad bike parking on game days and it is not being promoted as a way to get to the game.
Students are really negatively impacted by Saturday enforcement. Students benefit by selling their parking 0n game days.
Item #11. Letter to UC Regents on phasing out nuclear related activities
Peace and justice commission
UC wanted waiver for nuclear free zone.  We have given the waiver before but it is time that the voice of the people  be heard and this is not in compliance with our nuclear free zone.  Need to phase out UC management of national nuclear weapons laboratories.  It is time.
Councilmember Comments
Wozniak. I think your letter is incomplete. I think the policy of our nation should be to get rid of all nuclear weapons.  We should not only send a letter to UC we should send a letter to the President to get rid of all nuclear weapons.  The labs are separate from the University. The federal government pays for this.  There are the issue and this letter does not go far enough.
Capitelli. The timing of this is such that we ask the University for some favors and the we slap them with a letter about their labs.  I have one concern. Why didn’t the request for the waiver go to disaster preparedness commission?  I believe the lab is co-managing these labs with the University of Texas.  Perhaps this letter goes to all the managers of the lab as well as the federal government.  At least in the weapons business I would like to see that go away.  Maybe you need to come back with a revised letter.
Wozniak. We divide our government into good and bad agencies.  I think if we make an ordinance that excludes us doing any business with Livermore we could grant a blanket waiver to the University for everything else.
Anderson. I think you should send a letter to the Pentagon and the President, but I also think we need to send a letter to the other parties.  They need to be reminded.
Vote
Motion. To send this letter to UC and a letter will be drafted to send a letter to all the laboratories,  and universities associate with nuclear weapons the president and the defense department
Unanimous