Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-13 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL ME ETINGSARE BROADCAST LIVE VIA ICZSU- FREOUENCY90.! ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting June 13, 1988 ITEM Oral Communications Approval of Minutes Consent Calendar PAGE 60-109 60-109 60-109 1. Contract with West Valley Construction 60-110 Company, Inc. for a Utility Trench and Substructure --Park Boulevard to Hansen Way 2. Contract with Martinez Bay Cal Construc- tion, Incorporated for Various Traffic Improvements in the Midtown Area 4. Ordinance 3816 Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year 1987-88 to Provide an Additional Appropriation, for the Thermal Insulation Program of the Gas Utility from the Gas System Improvement Reserve 5. Council Members Renzel and Fletcher re Endorsement: San Francisco Bay -Delta Estuary Protections 60-110 60-110 60-110 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Assessments for 60-115 University Avenue Area and California Avenue Area Parking Bonds 7 Finance and Public Works Committee Recom- mendation re Negotiations of a Contract with Waste Management Incorporated for Long -Term Disposal Capacity at Kirby Canyon Landfill in San Jose 8. Council Members Bechtel and Woolley re Overnight Parking of Recreational Vehicles 60-119 60-122 Ad)ournment at 9:25 p.m. 60-123 60-108 6/13/88 Regular Meeting Monday, June 13, 1988 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:37 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb (arrived at 8:05 n.m.), Fletcher, Klein, Patitucci (arrived at 7:50 p.m.), Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ABSENT: Levy Mayor Sutorius announced that a Special Meeting with the Visual Arts Jury was held at. 6 20 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. GRAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, spoke regarding his right to know how many complaints received by the Police Department resulted in disciplinary actions, and the fact that 18 weeks had elapsed since his original request. 2, Saskia Boissevain, 410 Cambridge Avenue, announced that "Mayfield Days," would be held the following weekend. It was the California Avenue Art and Wine Festival to re-establish the identity of the area as the Mayfield Village or the Mayfield District. She thanked Council Member Fletcher and Mayor Sutorius for their help in the preparation process. 3. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding the destruction of the Yacht Harbor and the Sea Scout facility and Palo Alto City Council accountability. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 'NOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the Minutes of lay 16, 1988, as submitted. NOTION PASS= unanimously, Cobb, Levy absent. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved. seconded by ,Erin, approval of the Consent Calendar, with Item 3 removed by staff. 60-1G9 6/13/88 Council Member Patitucci asked to be recorded as voting "no" on Items 2 and 4. 1. CONTRACT WITH WEST VALLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A UTILITY TRENCH AND SUBSTRUCTURE -PARK BOULEVARD TO HAN ENS WAY (CMR:307:8) (1101) Staff is further authorized to execute change orders to the contract in the amount of $19,800. 2. CONTRACT WITH MARTINEZ BAY CAL CONSTRUCTION, INCOR- PORATED FOR VARIOUS TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE MIDTOWN AREA (CMR:306:8) (1041-09) Staff is further authorized to execute change orders to the contract up to $2,500. 4. ORDINANCE 3816 entitled 'ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE THERMAL INSULATION PROGRAM OF THE GAS UTILITY FROM THE GAS SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT RESER E6 (CMR:309:8) (701-03/1110) MOTION PASSED unanimously, Patitucci voting "no," on Items 2 and 4, Cobb, Levy absent. 5. COUNCIL MEMBERS RENZEL AND FLETCHER RE ENDORSEMENT: SAN FRANCISCO BAY -DELTA ESTUARY PROTECTIONS (CMR:313:8j X01-04/1041-02) (Continued from 6/6/88) MOTIONS Council Member Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the resolution. RESOLUTION 6698 entitled `RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ENDORSING THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY -DELTA ESTUARY PROTECTIONS" Council Member Renzel said stafi did not raise any concerns regarding the support of standards that protected all bene- ficial uses of the San Francisco -Bay Delta. She referred to the clause in the resolution where the City of Palo Alto urged the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt water quality standards that assured the protection of the Estuary before increased diversions or exports were considered. She understood that meant until standards were established, the State Water Resources Control ao&rrd would not prejudice the outcome of the standard setting by approving new structures and other means of d€version: beyond what currently occurred. Staff expressed concern that the clause proposed to limit 60-110 6/13/88 the water exports and diversions out of the Delta, ¶which was true but only until the Delta protection standards were adopted. Staff also suggested the possibility of a conflict with evidence presented to the State Water Resources Control Board, but the City's testimony, presented through the Suburban Water User's Association, the non -San Francisco Retch hetchy users, related to present and projected demand or use for water within each of the jurisdictions. It did not address other diversions. Staff believed it was pre- mature to adopt the resolution, but she believed it was the ->roper time to address the water standards. The biggest impacts on water standards were the diversions to Southern California and what might happen during the Bay -Delta process to prejudice the standard setting process. About a year ago, a staff report responded to several pieces of legislation to build water structures prior to the end of the standard setting process. The report indicated it was in Palo Alto's bests interests to oppose any water legisla- tion that would affect the normal outcome of the Say -Delta Water Quality hearings. She did not believe the resolution was inconsistent with the basic concept that they were trying to set standards to protect the health and vitality of the Bay and the Delta without making major changes in the interim that would bias the process. She did not believe it was detrimental to the City's interests to support high - quality standards for the Bay. Many cities and counties supported the standards. No amount of clean water going through the pipeline would compensate the City if there was a murky and dead bay. Whether water was taken up or down stream, if staff's scenario of having to take Delta water was clear, the amount of water would affect salinity and it was highly unlikely that the State Water Resources Control Board would make major changes in the Retch Hetchy alloca- tion which was about 1.7 percent of the diversions. It was fairly speculative to expect there would be a major change to the Hetch Hetchy system, but the resolution only addressed the period of time until the standards were set, which conformed with the court decision that said standards must be independent of the water rights process. She asked if staff had any additional information to present. Director of Utilities Richard Young said the staff's greatest concern was that the City not get into a battle over legislation that might force the City into an uncom- fortable position. Staff was concerned about the fore- closing options before they were explored. The last 'Resolve' clause in the resolution put a priority on the adoptiyn of water quality standards before consideration of their usefulness,_ what the impacts would be, and any applicable restrictions. Staff proposed that portion of the resolution be modified or eliminated. 60-111 6/13/68 Vice Mayor Klein said the proposed resolution referred to increased diversions or exports being considered, and staff comments implied the resolution referred to present diversions or exports. Mr. Young was concerned there was no definition of what the baseline was in order to deter:mine where the increased diversion would apply. Council Member Renzel understood that over the last ten years the Hetch Hetchy users had used 250,000 to 260,000 acre feet of water and the capacity of the system was on the order of 300,000 acre feet. The resolution asked the State Board not to consider any increased diversions or exports prior to setting its standards. When there were year-to- year fluctuations in the City's use of the Hetch Hetchy water, she asked what triggered the need for an additional permit or review by the State Water Resources Board. Mr. Young said as far as he knew the only issue that would trigger such an act would be the need to go above the allowed capacity. Council Member Renzel said the City was below the allowed capacity and as long as it did not exceed approximately 300,000 acre feet, and need to build additional structures or make some physical modification to the delivery system, the State Board would not be considering those changes. Mr. Young agreed, but others could construe it to mean literally where the water capacity was at today. Council Member Renzel said the proposed resolution was directed at the Phase One hearings which set standards. Phase Two determined potential water rights allocations, and Phase Three revoewed the environmental impact of any changes to the allocations of the water rights. She did not believe Palo Alto was prejudicing itself by saying it wanted to have a healthier Bay. Mr. Young said the issue of establishing the standards with the conditions as indicated in the resolution would preju- dice the other side where determination was made of rights and uses. Council MLgiber Woolley asked if the last lino of the "Resolve" clause was amended to read, "...before diversions to new destinations...", would solve staff's concern. Mr. Young said that had some potential. 60.112 6/13/88 Peter Steinhart, 717 Addison Avenue, representing the Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation, said the Board of Directors endorsed the proposed resolution several weeks ago. The Board was concerned about the declining Bay -Delta water quality, Staff's objections centered around the possibility that standards could reduce the amount of Hetch detchy water that came into Palo Alto. The resolution asked the Board to set some standards that applied to new diversions; not to existing ones. The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors endorsed the resolution. Palo Alto should endorse the resolution because it could be its last chance for a while to set bay water quality standards. It took the State Board ten years after the resolution -calling for the study to get around to holding a hearing. It was in the City's best interests for Council to support the resolution. Kristina Wood, 16655 Skyline Boulevard, Woodside, was a biologist at Syntex Corporation, and Chairperson of the Water Resources Committee, Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club. The shores of the San Francisco Bay -Delta estuary were the largest in North or South America, and should be the source of one of the largest shrimp fisheries in the country. There were a few surviving shrimp fisheries in the Alameda area, but they were always concerned aoout mercury, lead, cadmium, etc. showing up in the shrimp. Some of the heavy metals were neurotoxins which destroyed the nervous systems and many accumulated in the brain. Some of the highest levels of silver ever recorded in clams were found in East Palo Alto. The latest study by the National Marine Fisheries in Tiburon found that one-third of the more than 3,000 striped bass that they sampled in the Delta weze dead. Of the remaining two-thirds, one-third had cancerous tumors. A concurrent study of the East River in New York City, showed the striped bass were far more toxic. The City of Palo Alto poured toxic metals into the Bay, in fact applied for an exemption as part of the South Bay Dischargers Association to increase its discharge by 25 percent. She urged Council to support the resolution. John Mock, 736 Barran Avenue, supported the resolution, and concurred with Council Member Renzel's remarks. The staff report (CMR:313:8) stated, "The resolution proposes to limit water exports and diversions out of the Delta.' He dis- agreed. The resolution discussed protection of Bay "...before increased diversions or exports are considered." Also, staff's objection to the resolution centered around the possibility that should standards be set, they could reduce the amount of . Hetch Hetchy water that came into Palo Alto. The objection was unfounded. In summary, he urged Council's support for the resolution. 60-113 6/13/88 AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Woolley, to amend the second "Resolve" clause, to read: "AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Palo Alto urges the State Water Resources Control Board to adopt water quality standards that assure the protection of the Estuary before new diversions or exports programs are considered. AMENDMENT INCORPORATED INTO MAIN MOTION Council Member Fletcher urged adoption of the motion as revised. It was clear that the City's water supply would not be jeopardized by the resolution. The maintenance of the flushing action of the water that ran into the Bay was very important to the South Bay as well as people in the Delta. With substantially increased diversions cr exports, people would suffer greatly from the increased toxic metals which were discharged into the South Bay. The League of Women Voters, Association of Bay Area Government, and Save the Bay Association also endorsed the resolution, and it was important for Palo Alto to be on record in support. Council Member Renzel said there was language in both Senator Ayala's and Assemblyman Costa's bills to add some new structures in order to increase diversions under the existAng programs, and she did not want that to occur. She queried whether the modification to the resolution allowed an opportunity to add more structures. Mayor Sutorius said it was the Council's resolution and therefore, its interpretation of the language was that it would not allow additional structures. Council Member Renzel suggested adding the words "permits for" prior to the wording "for new diversions or exports programs," because a permit was needed for any kind of structure. THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE MAIN NOTION THAT THE SECOND RESOLVE CLAUSE READ! AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT THE CITY OF PALO ALTO URGES THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD TO ADOPT WATER QUALITY STANDARDS THAT ASSURE THE PROTECTION or THE ES7''5ARY BEFORE ?UNITS FOR MEW DIVERSIONS OR =PORT PROGRAMS ARE CONSIDERED. Mayor Sutorius said it was important for the City to express itself given the extremely long duration of the study and the phases attached thereto. He felt there would be analyses, evidence, testimony, and effective critiquing and evaluation to influence the final decision and not just the adoption of the resolution. 60'114 6/13/88 MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ASSESSMENTS FOR UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREA AND CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA PARKING BONDS (CMR:304:8) (710-04/410-02/410-03) Mayor Sutorius said it was the time and place set for the public hearing on the Parking Assessment Rolls for the following projects: California Avenue Parking Garage Project No. 65-09 California Avenue Area Off -Street Parking Project No. 71-63 University Avemtle Civic Center Parking Project No. 66-08 University Avenue Off -Street Parking Project No. 75-63 University Avenue Lot J Parking Garage Project No. 82-33 California Avenue Keystone Parking Project No. 86-01 The City Engineer had caused to be prepared and filed with the City Clerk a report providing for the levying of special assessments within the parking assessments districts created and established for the projects and under the resolutions ot intention that were covered in each of the projects. The report set forte the amounts of assessments proposed to be levied for the fiscal year 1988-89. The assessments would be used to pay principal and interest on the bonds issued on the various projects. The report was an had been open for public inspection. The purpose of the hearing was to allow the Council to hear all persons having an interest an any real property within the parking assessment districts; to hear all objections, protests, and other written communica- tions from any such interested persons; to take and receive oral and documentary evidence pertaining to the matters con- tained.in the filed report; to remedy and correct any errors or informality in the report; and to amend, alter, modify, and correct and confirm the report and each of the assess- ments therein. Mayor Sutorius asked the City Clerk if she had received any written protests. City Clerk Gloria Young said no. 60-115 6/13/88 Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing open. Ariel Basse, 555 Glenwood Avenue, Menlo Park, spoke on behalf of Casa Olga, located at 180 Hamilton Avenue, and was ccncerned about its assessment. The owners received a notice that they would have to pay approximately $17,700 for FY 1988-89. He felt that was an outrageous sum of money for a facility that did not generate any parking spaces. The Casa Clga facility should be classified as a residential facility, and not taxed through the assessment. Casa Olga had 77 patient rooms, and approximately 120 patients residing in the facility. If there had been kitchens in the individual patient rooms, the project would have qualified as a residential facility and would have been exempt from the assessment. There was a centralized dining facility, and no need for individual kitchens. The residents were almost all elderly and infirm. He asked the City Council to exempt Casa Olga, and classify it as a residential facility and therefore exempt from the assessment payments. Council Member Bechtel asked ebout C.isa Olga's assessment last year. Mr. Basse assumed the amount was close to what was proposed. Mayor Sutorius asked staff to coiment regarding 130 Hamilton Avenue. Assistant Planning Official George Zimmerman said the assessment was quite similar to last year. - The original building permit was issued for a hotel. Mr. Basse said it was correct that Casa O1,ga was built under o hotel classification. If the City wanted to maintain the continuity of the permit, the assessment on the hotel would not be for 200 cars. The assessment according to the City's ordinance would provide for one space per . room and given the 72 rooms, the assessment would be for 72 cars as opposed to 200. Mr. Zimmerman said the assessment was based on total floor area and it was only where the credit applied that it was based on the parking requirements. The CD regulations were approved in August, 1986. The parking requirement was a flat rate of one space per 250 square feet of floor area, Mayer Sutorius confirmed that any on -site parking regardless of the usage would ow deducted from the floor area cAlcula - t Mores . 60-115 6/13/88 Mr. Zimmerman answered yes. Vice Mayor Klein asked what would happen if the owners of Casa Olga relinquished their hotel permit and applied for some other form of occupancy permit. Mr. Zimmerman said under the current regulations if the owners wished Casa Olga to be classified as a group of residential units in a multiple -family structure, then the owners would have to provide kitchens in the units. A pro- vision in the Zoning Ordinance required that if Casa Olga became a residential facility, and then wished at some later point to convert back to commercial, the current parking regulations in the CD District would require full provision of on -site parking. Mr. Basse asked that Casa Olga be exempted from the perking assessment district on the basis that it was a residential facility and not a commercial enterprie. City Attorney Diane Northway said if the Council was inter- ested in pursuing any of the ideas that Mr. Basse mentioned, the only appropriate way to do so would be to rezone the property, which could not be done as part of the procedure that evening. The action would be prospective. Council Member Renzel asked how many employees were at Casa Olga. Mr. Basse said there were approximately 15 employees during any one shift. Norman Rosenblatt, 520 Cowper, was a general partner of the Garden Court. He was not aware the assessment was calcu- lated strictly on the basis of square footage. Given the four uses at 520 Cowper, e.g., the hotel, restaurant and businesses, there was a total assessment for 264 spaces minus the 64 the hotel provided itself, which he believed was extremely unfair. The hotel only had 61 rooms and only 43 percent of the guests arrived in cars. Council Member Renzel asked if there was a charge for parking at the hotel. Mr. Rosenblatt said yea. The charge was $5 a night for hotel guests. Council Member Renzel asked how many employees there were. Mr. .Rosenblatt said there were approximately 7f employees. 60-110 6/13/88 Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed. Senior Engineer Jamey Harrington said since the filing of the assessment roll with the City Clerk in mid -May, staff had received and investigated -several inquiries, and six of the properties were identified in Exhibit F, and in addition, there were two additional changes which were identified in Addenda *6. Staff formerly submitted the changes to the City Clerk for inclusion in the amended roll to be included in the resolutions confirming the Engineer's Report for the parking assessment districts. MOTION: Council Member Bechtel mowed, seconded ty Rcnzel, approval of the resolutions as amended with the revisions to the assessment rolls. RESOLUTION 6699 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE PROJECT NO. 65-09 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89" RESOLUTION 6700 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - CALIFORNIA AVENIM OFF-STREET PARKING PROJECT NO. 71-63 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89" RESOLUTION 6701 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - UNIVERSITY AV UE .IVIC CENTER PARKING PROJECT NO., 66-08 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89' RESOLUTION 6702 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREA OFF-STREET PARKING PROJECT NO. 75-63 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980?89" RESOLUTION 6703 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - UNIVERSITY AVENUE LOT J PARKING GARAGE PROJECT NO. 82-33 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1988-89* RESOLUTION 6708 entitled *RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL - CALIFORNIA AVENUE KEYSTONE LOT PARKING PROJECT NO. 86-01 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1988-89* 60-118 6/13/P8 Council Member Cobb asked staff if there weLe any other situations similiar to Casa Olga where }here was a disparity between the amount of parking generated and the size of the assessment. Mr. Zimmerman said there were no similiar uses to Casa Olga in the assessment district within the CD District Downtown. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Levy absent. 7. FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIO1 RE AUTHORIZING STAFF TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS OF A CONTRACT WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED FOR LONG-TERM DISPOSAL CAPACITY AT KIRBY CANYON LANDFILL IN SAN JOSE (CMR:296:8) (1072) Council Member Patitucci said the item came before the City Council on May 16, and the Council discussed whether to grant the staff the authority to negotiate the contract under the guidelines proposed in their memorandum (CMR:279:8). The item was referred to the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee and its task was to evaluate the methodology and the information used by staff to determine if in fact the decision had been made in an acceptable manner. The F&PW Committee reviewed the methodology, heard from the contractors dealing with only the significant points. MOTION: Council Member Patitucci for the F&PW Committee moved that the City Council authorize staff to begin negotiations of a contract with Waste Management Incorporated for long-term disposal capacity at Kirby Canyon Landfill in San Jose under the guidelines presented in the staff report of May 12, 1988 (CMR:279:8) , attached to the staff report of May 26, 1988 (CMR:296:8 ) LETTER OF INTENT FOR LONG-TERM DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE FROM NORTH COUNTY CITIES Council Member Patitucci pointed out the authorization to negotiate would be in combination with two other communities --Sunnyvale and Mountain View, which constituted three of the seven communities in the county that were looking at a waste management solution. Three of the com- munities were leaning towards Waste Management and the four others were leaning towards BFI. Vice Mayor Klein said although the City of Mountain View's City Manager Bruce Liedstrand had recommended the City contract kith Waste Management Incorporated, their City Council had not made that final decision. 60-119 6/13/88 City Manager Bill Zaner said the Mountain View City Council would meet the next day on that particular item. Vice Mayor Klein referred to Council Member Pa titucci's remarks at the F&PW Committee, and asked if he would want to reconsider if Mountain dew's City Council decided not to go forward with Waste Management Incorporated. Council Member. Patitucci said it would be a reason for the City Council to take another look at the proposed con- tract3r, but he did not think it was a reason not to act on the item that evening. Council Member Cobb asked if Palo Alto staff would change its view if the Mountain view staff decided to go in the other direction. Mr. Zaner said the real question was whether it would change the costs proposed by Waste Management. If Waste Management held its prices and proposal, then the staff would be in the same position. If, however, one of the members dropped out for whatever reason, and Waste Managemnt found it necessary to revise its package, then staff would need to look at that. Council Member Woolley asked about BFI's suggestion that Palo Alto build its own transfer station. Director of Public Works David Adams said the option as presented by BFI included other cities. Staff previously looked at the aspects of a transfer station, and concluded it was not practical because of the economy of scale. Mayor Sutorius referred to the economy of scale, and asked if the transfer station would be used for Palo Alto's waste stream only. Mr. Adams said that was correct, and that was BFI's proposal also. Mr. Zaner said it was important to remember that in an effort to solve what amounted to a region -wide problem, a number of alternatives were reviewed, one of which was a transfer station in Palo Alto. In the first go around, Palo Alto offered to host a transfer station at the north end of the county. and have another transfer station somewhere around Sunnyvale or Santa Clara. As other communities made decisions about where they wanted to go, it made less sense to have a transfer station at the north end of the county. 60-120 6/13/88 David Gavrich, 55, Almaden Boulevard, San Jose, was the Director of Resource Recovery end Recyling for BFI. He said there culd still be regional cooperation by lining up a disposal capacity together and tailor how the material got to the facility. He said a month ago that a $40,000 savings was being overlooked in the analysis. Staff presented its report to the F&PW Committee, and BFI's analysis of the report found the $40 million error. Staff felt there were inconsistencies in BFI's transportation numbers, but BFI's staff felt there was a $40 million gap. The irony was even if the transportation numbers in the staff report were accurate, .A would make a very strong argument for not shifting Palo Alto's waste to the City of Sunnyvale for 30 years, and it would make a strong argument for maintaining control in Palo Alto. The proposal that was before the Council was a terrific deal, but it was a terrific deal for Sunnyvale. He urged the Counci: to take a long hard look at the other alternative for transferring from the Palo Alto. Tim Flanagan, 2099 Gateway Place, Suite 200, San Jose, represented Waste Management Incorporated. He said the issues was not new, and had been under review since 1976 when the City first formed a Joint Powers Agency (JPA) to begin an investigation for long-term disposal capac.�.:.y. Waste Management had several attractive proposals for the City of Palo Alto. Kirby Canyon was an environmental state- of-the-art landfill and was constructed in 1986. The landfill design had minimal or no ground water underneath the site fat potential -contamination. Kirby Canyon also had 24 million tons of capacity available for the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale. One of the major bene- fits that would come. out of the proposal with Waste Management was that the more recycling of materials that took place, the greater the benefits would be to the parti- cipating cities. The City of Palo Alto was only committed to move its garbage to the City of Sunnyvale, and then it was Waste Management's obligation to take the garbage to Kirby Canyon. He felt the City would get a strong environ- mental commitment from Waste Management Incorporated. There was an extremely rigorous enforcement within the company to ensure compliance with state and local regulations. If the City of Mountain View did have a problem complying with the proposal, Waste Management, Incorporated would make sure that the same price was maintained for Palo Alto and Sunnyvale. Mr. Zaner clarified the so-called "royalties" the City of Sunnyvale would collect were payments to help awortize the cost of the land that Sunnyvale would contribute to the project. Palo Alto would continue to have substantial 60-1.21 6/13/88 control over the refuse. The compost area would remain open, the recycling center would remain open or the City could take advantage of , the offer Mr. Flanagan alluded to, and more importantly, the residents would still have access to the Palo Alto landfill at all times. The landfill would not close, but staff wculd be gearing the landfill down which would extend its life substantially. Having a trans- fer station in the community was a two-edged sword. Mountain View had assessed an inconvenience fee against the cities that were :,sing its dump. It was not entirely with- out some benefit that the transfer station was being placed somewhere else. Council Member Cobb referred to the comment by Mr. Gavrich with respect to a $40 million cost. Superintendent of Field Operations, Mike Miller, said when staff assessed the costs, they took the current costs and prorated theca given the mileage and hours. When staff cal- culated the costs, they rolled in everything that could potentially increase the costs over time. In order to verify the costs, staff looked at a number of different reports, scenarios and calculations. The City of Santa Clara's staff report showed average costs for a seven mile one-way or fourteen mile round trip to Newby Island ranged between $7 and $13 a ton. Based on information from the other cities, information generated internally, and the BFI's model, staff felt that the costs they projected were accurate. NOTION PASSED unanis+ou.:ly, Levy absent. 8. COUNCIL MEMBERS BETSY BECHTEL AND GAIL WOOLLEY RE OVERNIGHT PARKING OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES (10 6) Council Member Woolley said in 1981 the issue of banning overnight parking was before the City Council. Council's action limited the overnight parking ban to recreational and commercial vehicles, which wart.* defined in the code. More recently Council tightened up the ordinance in relation to commercial vehicles. She and Council Member Bechtel believed the ordinance needed to be tightened even more in relationship to recreation vehicles. For commercial vehi- cles, there was no hardship provision; but for recreational vehicles, there was a hardship provision which said if a resident did not Pave a place to park the vehicle on his or her property, the resident could apply for a permit to park on the street at a cost of $20 per year. She felt it was reasonable to have some hardship provision, but a permit parking place at $20 a year on the _street was too generus. 60-122 6/13/88 MOTIOfi TO REFER: Council Pember Woolley moved, seconded by Bechtel, to refer the revision of the hardship provision of the overnight parking of recreational vehicles to the Policy and Procedures Committee; and that after August 1, 1988, staff be directed to issue permits for a maximum of four months. Council Member Woolley said staff had the discretion to issue a permit for any period up to one year. She suggested the period for next year be limited to four months with the idea that Council would have taken some action by that time. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, suggested Council be very careful about restrictions on overnight parking particularly in RM zones. The 3800 pounds unladen weight might be a good legal definition, but it was hard to understand. Clearly, a large recreational vehicle was a blight in a residential neighborhood, but the term "recreational" vehicle was not clearly distinguished between Winnebago -type vehicles and conventional passenger -type vehicles that have been adap�ed for camping purposes. In particular, the City should not discriminate against residents in rental units where off- street parking was limited and where compact only parking spaces were available. Those residents should not have to go to City Hall two or three times a year to get a parking permit to enjoy what the affluent resident,; enjoyed on a routine basis. He did not want to see Palo Alto go any further towards banning overnight parking. MOTION PASSED un*nimously, Levy absent. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 9:25 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 60-123 6/13/88