Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-04-20 City Council Summary MinutesL Regular Meeting April. 20, 1987 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTO CITYCOUNCILMEETINGS ARE BROADCAST Lila FREQUENCY90.1 ON FM DIAL ITEM Oral Communications Minutes of March 23, 1987 1. Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Members of the Palo Alto Child Care Task Force PAGE 57-67 57-67 57-67 Consent Calendar 57-68 2. Report from Palo Alto Child Care Task 57-68 Force 4. Ordinance Adding a New Section to Chapter 2.40 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which would Require the Printing in the Sample Ballot of the Full Text of Ordi- nances or Measures to be Voted on by the Electors 57-68 5. Report from the Council Legislative 57-68 Committee: SB597, and AB 2190/ACA 34 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 57-69 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Susan Covey, et al., from the Decision of the Architec- tural Review Board (AR3) and Director of Planning and Community Environment re Property ty Located at 2475 Hanover Street (ALZA) Recess 57-69 57 37 57-65 4/20/87 ITEM P AG E 6-A (Old Item 3) Resolution Amending Utility 57-88 Rate Schedule G-1 and G-50 as a Result of Tracking PG&E Gas Rate Changes 7. Alternative Methods for a Utilities Users 57-89 Tax U. Request of Council Member Ellen Fletcher 57-90, re Proposed Redwood City Garbage Incinera- tion Plant Adjournment at 10:55 p.m. 57-96 t- Regular Meeting Monday, April 20, 1987 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucc , Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 171 Everett, received a letter from City Manager Bill Zaner, which reflected 150 complaints in 1986 about the Palo Alto Police Department, which resulted in 2 suspensions and -2 ' resignations. In 1985, out of 152 complaints, there was l 'suspension and 1 resignation. He was concerned about how difficult it was to get inforasati ion from the City: - however, he was encouraged that since he started attending City Council meetings six months ago, there were no reports of police abuse among the people he knew. He hoped training officers did not imply to rookies that an officer with no complaints on his record was not working because such atti- tudes lead to abuses. His intent was not to "bug* the Police Department, but rather to ensure legal rights were met. .He would not tolerate any more abuses. MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 1987 Vice Mayor Sutorius had the following correction: 2122_ 51:11, paragraph 1, second to last line, "a two-year titre should be *two consecutive terms." NOTION* . CcOmmcil !ember Levy moved, secodod by Bechtel, a1 of the blast.* of March 23, 19$7 as corrected" AmmoN PAssito UZ almemsZye RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO MEMBERS OF THE PsLg ►i#TQ CHILD C RE TASiC J tCB ��rrnrr rwr � I ri.w .r - :� rw�. - r�rwir�rr�r. - Mayor_ ,looney said - the City supported child .care as. an essortiel e e as ur .tty service, and despite Palo Alto's sub- stantial investment in child care services, the need by families living or working in Palo kite continued to exceed the : supply. The Palo Alto Child Care Task Porte was given the r*sponsibility to examine methods by which employers 57-67 4/20/87 might provide increased child care information and services. The recommendations of the Task Force were well -researched and would provide guidance to the Council and community as measures were implemented to stimulate greater employer par- ticipation. On behalf of the Council, she expressed appre- ciation to Task Force co -chairpersons, Laura Cory and Diane Horgan. members Dorothea Almond, Stephen Avis, James Battersby, Mary Bobel, Dana Bunnett, Cynthia Cannady, Kate Feinstein, Joan Fisch, Leland Muckey, Mechele Pruitt, Cee Salberg, Rachel Samoff. Michael Sullivan and Don Way, and ex -officio members L. Kathleen Austin, Joe Podolsky and James Van. NOTIONs Council Member Bechtel Roved, seconded by Sutories, approval of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 6603 entitled °RESOLUTION OF THE ZEIONCIL OF CIT! OF PALO ALTO EXPRESSING ITS APPRECIATION TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PALO ALTO, CHILD CARE TASK FORCE 'OR OUTSTANDING PUBLIC SERVICE'S NOTION PASSED wna►niaousF'. CONSENT CALENDAR Item 3 was removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of staff. NOTION: Vice Na ymr !tor; us coved, seconded by Cobb, a►ppro ►al of the Consent Calendar. ` Referral 2. REPORT FROM PALO ALTO CHILD CARE TASK FORCE - REFER TO Way Y AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE (CMR:2 2r.7) (702-14) Action 4. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL of THE CITY OF PALO AL • ADDING A NEW SE ION TO C • APT R 2.40 • F THE PALO L* M : N CIPAL •DE, W • ICii WOULD R RE THE pRINT(NG IN THE SAMPLE BALLOT OF THE FULL TEXT OF ORDINANCES OR MEA O BE VOTED O : BY THE ECECTORS (7W ; 5. REPORT ROM THE COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTE : SB 597 Mayor to communicate City's positions to appropriate legis- lators. Priority status to be given all three bills. 1 MOTION PASSED unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Manager Bill. Zaner advised that Item 3, Utiity Rate Schedules G-1 and G-50, would become Item 6-F 6. PUBLIC HAR E ING: APPEAL OF SUSAN COVEY ET AL. FROM THE D CISION OF THE ARCHITE VIRAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB AND DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT RE PROPERTY LOCATED' AT 24WTfANOVER STRETT-MTECT-TTOT (CMR:2 3:7 Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber advised of correspondence receivedprior to the meeting and dated April 20, 1987, from the College Terrace appellants, indicating the appeal was still active. Staff recommended that the appeal be granted and that the project undergo an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . Council Member Cobb asked what additional information the EIR would provide. Mr. Schreiber believed there would be some additional analy- sis of traffic in the immediate vicinity as well as the chemicals .and chemical storage facility although the nega- tive declaration already contained an extensive analysis. Under State law, there would be a review of cumulative impacts. He believed the City's ability to look at cumula- tive hazardous chemical impacts was limited and there would be an opportunity . for the public to ask whatever. questions and have answers provided through the EIR process. He did not believe the amount of information would be substantially greater than what already existed, but the process would be far mote defensible. Council Member Cobb asked about the delay factor. Mr...Schreiber believed it probably added six to eight months to the process. Assuming the EIR was approved, the current cOnstuction season was lost and the delay for the start of construction sight be closer to one year. Vice Mayor Sutorius asked about the differences involved in an' EIR versus the risk assessment analysis. Fire Chief Bob Wall said the risk assessment alternative Would: specifically look at the hazardous materiels and what.. hazards would be posed by the Itorager handling and use of those materials. The risk assessment in such : a degree had 57-69 4/20/87 not been conducted on -an ongoing basis. It was the basis of a new law passed last year and would be required for many .of the sites in Palo Alto and the County with acutely hazardous materials. It provided a guideline for assessing the risk of those hazardous materials and giving a weight to them Mr. Schreiber said the risk assessment process was new and the Planning Department had not worked with it. At first glance, the risk assessment process focused on review of the chemical situation; where&;s, the EIR discussed the chemicals along with other things. Many of the same issues which would be raised in the risk assessment would be looked at in the EIR. Vice Mayor Sutorius asked if both processes would include assessing the transportation aspects of hazardous materials,. i.e., the pick up for disposal or delivery of new material. Chief Wall said the risk assessment plan did not require -looking at the transportation issue but rather the hazardous materials contained, the handling procedures, and emergency response procedures relative to the materials on site. Mr. Schreiber was unaware of an EIR which lookedat a buiid- ing project and then went into the transportation aspects related to hazardous materials. The question might be raised from the ; public's standpoint, but it was not soMe-- thing which was normally part of an environmental analysis. Council Member Levy asked whether the counter -proposal was the one reflected in the letter from the appellants received that evening and asked the appellants to respond to his question during testimony. Mr. Schreiber said the Fire Department was present at the meetings, but the matter was between the College Terrace residents and ALZA. Council Member Bechtel believed. many of the items requested by the College Terrace appellants were already contained in the current hazardous materials ordinance in terms of quarn- tities of chemicals, their storage, etc. Mr. Zaner said many of the items listed in Item 1 were included in the uniform ordinance which was adopted by all cities in the County of Santa Clara as well as the County t Council Member Bechtel asked whether any items on the list were not included. She realized transportation was a sepa- rate item covered by State law and there was no question that the City and County were working with its legislators to try and improve the regulations. Mr. Zaner believed transportation was theonly item not cov- ered by the uniform ordinance. The County uniform ordinance spoke to the maximum quantities of chemicals and 'their loca- tions; however, the letter spoke to the specific issue of proximity to residences, and he did not believe the uniform ordinance included the specific reference. Mayor Woolley declared the public hearing open. Susan Covey, 1160 California Avenue, said the chemical stor- age facility, as approved, provided for 25,000 gallons, of underground and 6,000 square feet of above -ground chemical storage. The chemicals included combustibles and flammables with toxic gas release potential and probably carcinogens. The underground storage was voluntarily reduced by ALZA to 8,000, which represented about a two -fold increase over its current chemical inventory. They were concerned with having the expanded volume of hazardous chemicals within sight of their homes and in the middle of a heavy traffic area. They'., appreciated that the proposed storage technology, the con- tainment and mechanical safety systems were probably the safest available, but were also aware of "Murphy's Law," and thet accidents happened. They were concerned the permit process did not evaluate nor\provide for limits on the quan- tity of chemicals to be stored within an industrial site close to residents. ;, The process did not provide neighbors an opportunity to ask questions or affect decisions before they were actually made. An SIR was necessary to evaluate the impact of M ZA's facility. The Sierra Club and the Peninsula Conservation Center Foundation (PCC) supported the request. ALZA and City staff representatives were, without exception, responsive and responsible individuals. She knew Palo Alto led the country in areas of strict containment regulations and emergency preparedness, but was concerned about problems which would not be solved by the use of safer technology —problems which outgrew the current chemical storage permit process. The City's Comprehensive Plan described the Stanford Research Park as an example of _ a glean industrial area, and it was time to expose the myth. Local industry depended on the use or creation _ of hazardous or toxic chemicals and every Palo Alto resident within a mile of a hazardous chemicalstorage area lived within range of a potential chemical accident. There were currently no maximum limits on the volume of chemicals . which may be 57-71 4/20/87 stored in an industrial site close to residents or within City limits in general. She urged the development of a master plan to regulate the permits and define maximum quan- tities of chemicals allowed in locations close to residents, maximum cumulative quantities of chemicals within an indus- trial area and within City limits, safe chemical transport including safe routes, timing and public warning. She urged a moratorium be instituted until: proper controls could be instituted. Elad Levinson, 1160 California Avenue, said a moratorium was requested to accomplish a calm, rational, and prudent analy- sis and to devise a master plan to include the components suggested by Ms. Covey. The plan should also include multi- ple methods of public involvement in the process of regula- tion. Transport of hazardous chemicals warranted full study. During peak hours, California Avenue was backed up almost halfway from El Camino to Hanover. He queried what would happen if a transport truck loaded with chemicals was in an accident and turned over. The people in cars would: be pinned down $ emergency vehicles would be hard --pressed to enter or leave the area and citizens would find it di,,tficult to evacuate. The appellants suggested the volume of traffic be reduced in order to reduce the risk of chemical acci- dents. A barrier or one-way traffic restriction was proposed for California Avenue. As part of the master plan, a comprehensive traffic study would be enacted. Jon awerg, 2321 Oberlin, previously worked as a research chemist in a drug company in New Jersey. He saw what inade- quate government control. over the chemistry industry .could do to the environment. He was disturbed by the proposal. to increase the quantities of the chemicals within feet of their houses. Local standards and public review for the storage and handling ofthe hazardous materials were needed. He supported the concept of a hazardous substances review commission with representation by residents, industry and independent experts to keep track of the compounds. The commission would prepare . a comprehensive plan for the handling of toxic materials in Palo Alto, approve permits for their~ storage, keep an inventory, wake regular inspec- tions and make:: public' reports to allow for greater public input into the crucial matter and reduce friction between residents and industry_: Jerry Janssen, 1216 California Avenue, read the letter from Joan Hayes, Chairper€on of Toxics Issues of the Sierra Club (on file in the City Clerk's office), with respect to the proposed renovation/expansion of ALS& Corporation. The toxic issues committee read all materials submitted by both sides, commended their efforts and believed all concerned were working with, the legacy of poor city planning done decades ago. They commended ALZA Corporation for its efforts to work with the community, its openness and efforts to plan its new site and facility with state -of -the --art concepts and safe management of potentially hazardous mate- rials. The Sierra Club supported source reduction, recycling, safe containment, all concepts that ALZA seemed ready to use. They commended the citizens group who lived in the area and appreciated their fears and concerns. They commended there for trying, to evaluate the risks they must live with. The Sierra Club requested an EIR to provide a check on the company's planning and reassure the neighbor- hood regarding the risks involved.. Another letter from the Board of Directors of the PCC supported the request of area residents to require an EIR to be prepared to properly evaluate the ALZA project. She submitted a petition (on file in the City Clerk's Office) with 252 signatures. She requested a moratorium on further expansion of chemical storage facilities in Palo Alto until a full public study, discussion and evaluation could be done of the City's permit process. She requested a Citywide policy regulating loca- tion, size, content and cumulative impact of toxic storage facilities. Rosemary Dinelli, 1230 California Avenue, was concerned about the potentially dangerous situation. Advance planning was necessary and Palo Alto needed to enact an ordinance which not only managed the storage of chemicals but spoke to their locations, quantity, etc. She understood businesses could store .the same volume of hazardous chemicals in a residential area as compared to a more industrial area. The City needed to protect the interests of the business and the citizen,. No consideration was given to the cumulative or interactive effect of chemicals_ released to the environment in the event of a disaster. The original charter of the Stanford Industrial Park spoke to "clean industry." She believed the term needed to be defined. Joyce Sanders, 119 Churchill, was concerned about the increased incidence of toxic leaks throughout the country. She suggested Palo Alto lead the way towards finding a solu- tion. Peter = Carpenter, ALZA Corporation,950 Page Mill RoadJ said AL k complied with the zoning and hazardous materials' ordi.- nances and found itself in the middle of a cross fire, The proposed building complied with the zoning and hazardous materials ordinances4 ALZA neither sought nor was given any variances nor exceptions, and ;voluntarily decided to upgrade 57-73 4/20/87 an existing chemical facility which had been in place since 1976. Staff did a very good Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and got promises from ALZA for things to mitigate some of the environmental impacts. At the time of the ARB hearing, ALZA became aware of the neighbors concerns. It sent out 600 invitations to members of the community, held three meetings lasting for three hours each, taped all of the meetings which were available for Council, and developed a better trust and understanding but not enough to arrive at a conclusion. No one at ALZA wanted to denigrate the eon- cerns of the community and believed everyone acted in good faith. The problem was that many members of the group did not trust ALZA, experts, City staff or the City Council. Despite every reasonable assurance given by ALZA and experts and compliance with ordinances and laws, the people were. still uncomfortable. Businesses needed rules and regula- tions to follow and needed to know the standards of conduct in the community. It was difficult to meet those standards if they could be made by a single individual. ALZA would probably be required to do an SIR for the project which would cost approximately $50,000, would delay the project by about a year, and cost between $750,000 and $1,O0O,O00 in additional costs due to inflation. In the interim, the present storage facility, which met code, would continue to operate. He hoped its current capabilities were well within any hazards created by any actions beyond ALZA. The process was long and difficult, and he regretted his inability to report they had reached agreement with their neighbors. To a large degree he believed ALZA was an innocent bystander. Members of the community seemed to be much less concerned about ALZA. than they were about the process. It was unclear that any solution would be satisfactory. ALZA was prepared to work with members of the community, City staff and City Council to try to improve the process. John Joynt, President, Barron Park Association (BPA), 3589 Laguna, aid BPA 1) continued upgrade of chemi- cal � encouraged: Fg cal storage facilities in the Stanford Research Park; 2) neighborhood involvement in the beginning of the process concerning the upgrades, expansions, and new additions of chemical storage facilities in the Stanford Research Park; 3) independent evaluation of the upgrade expansion or new facilities assuring that i.t will not create a hazard to the community in close proximity to the proposed hazardous chemicals; and 4) exploring the possibilities that certain highly toxic chemicals . might be outrightly rejected in the Stanford Research Park. He offered BPA's assistance in establishing a work group. 57-74 4/20/87 StewartKiritz, 1181 College, trusted that the City Council would respond to the sincere concerns of the people in the community and urged that the appeal from the decision of the ARB be upheld. William Thompson, 2390 Hanover, said the local newspaper recently reflected that concern over the management of toxic chemicals was not an issue before the Council. It changed when the City was prepared to approve a 300 -fold increase in chemical storage, but it was a tribute to the community that it could move so far in such a short period of time to close the gap from the proposed quantity of chemicals to a much reduced level. For the record, under the City Charter, the City Council was charged with the responsibility to exercise all powers necessary and appropriate to a municipal corpora- tion and the general welfare of its inhabitants. For the past three weeks, the people believed they carried a .large part of ,the general welfare responsibility because of what they perceived as a gap in'the process. He agreed with the need to establish another review process. Ludek Kitajewski, 1148 High Street, supported the appeal and believed a more thorough study was needed that would include the LIR and also a study of the adequacy of the present hazardous materials ordinance. The citizens should know what hazardous materials were stored, their location, quan- tity, and whether the storage methods were adequate. He opined that storing dangerous materials near residential areas was inappropriate and ill advised. Citizens would suffer in case of accident, but companies would also suffer because lawsuits could ruin a company, as witnessed in the past. He asked Council to declare a moratorium on further storage of hazardous material=s and to review and upgrade the present hazardous materials code. Specifically, the follow- ing two items should be incorporated in Title 17: 1) make it mandatory that routine inspections of all the hazardous materials storage sites, and 2) require businesses to upgrade their facilities to the present City code. The petitions did not all come from College Terrace, and he was convinced there was a serious concern. Brian D. Carilli, 2150 Columbia Street, did not sign .the appeal but attended the meetings with A.LZA. The underlying issue should be addressed in every community. The words We the people" once meant_ that We the people" understood their government, their laws, and . their communities, _ but now seemed to represent only those who got involved, special- interest groups, or those who manipulated the :.system for their own gains. The ALZA corporation found itself in an unfortunate situation. After finding the community was uncomfortable with their plans for a new facility and, in 57-75 4/20/87 some ways, even their existing facilities, ALZA held a meeting to discuss the issues and sent out several hundred invitations, but the turnout was embarrassingly small. Sub- sequent meetings were held and the number of attendees dwindled until only a mere handful represented the people. There were admittedly holes in the system, yet when ALZA \realized one of the problems was the lack of community involvement, they tried --and were willing to continue to try --'to find ways to solve the problem and should be com- mended for the effort. There would undoubtedly be more problems and holes to be filled, but as long as there were corporations like ALZA and community effort, the problems would be solved. An EIR would fill one gap but not all. Rather than find a way to work together, "We the people" could hide behind an EIR and not get involved. The politi- 'E cal and legally -safe choice would be to uphold the appeal; however, the community would be better served if the project was given approval and an effort to improve the system was worked out between all corporate neighbors in the commu- nities of which they were a part. Mary Sylvester, 135 Melville Avenue, asked what toxins were being stored in the community, where, and how. She was shocked to find out toxic chemicals were being stored a few hundred feet away from residential neighborhoods. She asked what toxins were being transported in the community by wheel and rail. She lived one block from Alma Street and the train tracks and was worried about a toxic spill. She realized that federal, state, and county laws and ordinances had jurisdiction over the area but would like the City to take an active role in leading the way on the matter. She asked what the community was doing in terms of risk assess- ment and planning with regard to toxins stored in the community and recommended the City approve the EIR request and open up the process for community involvement and dis- cussion. Mayor Woolley believed answers to many of the speakers' questions were available and asked Chief Wall to give a brief summary later in the meeting. Colin Mick, 2130 Hanover Street, one of the appellants, expressed his frustration over the system. He argue d that the problem was not residents versus corporations. They lived nextto each other and needed to solve the problem as neighbors. An article by an urban archeologist cruising through the garbage dumps in Marin . County commented . that it was interesting how much hazardous material was discarded carelessly by residents of environmentally -aware Marin County. He believed they all lived with toxics in their homes and were probably all to blame for part of the toxics' 57-76 4/20/87 issue. There seemed to be many rules and ordinances, such as Title 17,, but little common sense went into applying them. The frustration was not with the ordinance per se but with the process by which the ordinnces and regulations were applied. It was clear in retrospect that, had there been some mechanism so that ALZA could have been communi- cating with residents of College Terrace prior to the ARB hearing, much of the problem could have been avoided. Once the ARB hearing was held there was not enough time, and most of his time was spent trying to forge a compromise issue that would cost ALZA less. Most of the increase in the toxic$ storage capacity in the current proposal was due .to ALZA'S attempt to follow the City's recommendation for double -wall containment. If that were not the system, the increase in the total amount of materials stored would only be 20 percent. There was not enough time to build trust, to have dialogue, and they could not just deal with a majority to get a compromise agreement but all. 22 appellants had to sign off and agree. Generally, he supported the thrust of the appeal but did not believe an EIR would answer necessary questions. He was concerned that requiring an EIR would send the wrong message to ALZA, certainly to other busi- nesses who might be interested in upgrading their facil- ities, and to the citizens. He recommended an article, "The Compleat Worrier. A Guide to Worrying about Life in the 20th Century," that placed toxic materials quite far down on the risk tables. Council Member Levy asked what percentage of the appellants favored an EIR at that point in Mr. Mick's judgment. Mr. Mickbelieved at least half would favor an alternative to the EIR if it answered their concerns. .Their problem was in being able to deliver the alternative in the time limit. Wanda O'Reilly, 2310 Bowdoin Street, said College Terrace was a neighborhood of children who would be affected by any spill and everyone within Palo Alto lived within a mile of a potentially -hazardous site. She argued that the problem might well have been resolved by some kind of compromise and was happy it was not. It gave Palo Altans an opportunity to take a closer look at a better solution for everybody, including ALZA. A million dollars was nothingcompared to the health or life of one child. A system was needed that allowed the community, the regulators, .the experts, and the corporations an opportunity to regularly remain state-of- the-art, so corporations did not have the opportunity to be scared and not bring their facilities up to. date. A set of laws should be created with build -in assurance that any corporation storing toxic west:as would not have to bring themselves up to date when they decided to enlarge their 57-77 4/20/87 facility but would have to do so on a regular basis. If there was a new definition of state-of-the-art, there should be some requirement that corporations in the area complied. They were not distrustful of the City Council, or of their neighbors who were corporations but were aware that they were not sate. They were caught between the innocent days of the past when there were few toxic . substances and the future when they had a handle on the problem, and they needed a plan to move gracefully through the transition period. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke on behalf of his 95 - year old neighbor who lived in Palo Alto for at least 50 years. When the neighbor moved in there was a pasture on the other side of California Avenue. The industrial park came in with assurances that the permit process would ensure a clean, sanitary industry. It had developed differently, and the "camel's nose was inside the door." He did not know ALZA's need for storage; whether the greater storage was based on the fact it would be more economical to keep three -months' supply of waste or to run a truck every night.. ALZA was not being cheated by the community because they originally set up in business on a certain basis and no business should be allowed to expand indefinitely. Regard- ing conforming to ordinances, community feeling was supposed to count. William Heaton, 2345 Bowdoin Street, used to live across the street from ALZA , and he agreed somewhat that ALZA .was caught in the middle and did not want to critize them. They were good neighbors and tried to respond to the current con- cerns of the City and -neighbors and seemed committed to the safe handling of their toxic chemicals. However, once the Fire Departmentbecame involved, the original proposal.. for. 6,364 gallons of toxic chemicals in a new state-of-the-art facility which exceeded relevant standards became 12,439 gallons of toxic chemical storages including 4,000 gallons of toxic waste storage, centralized storage, handling and distribution of toxic chemicals and waste for all of ALZA, and a toxic waste recycling tacility right next to the resi- dential neighborhood. For some undefined, .incremental improvement in fire safety, they were being asked to accept a toxic waste dump and a toxic waste recycling facility, and he wondered if they gained anything. If that was the only way to make the chemical storage safe, he believed the proj- ect was no longer compatible with the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. The report stated that 8,000 gallons of toxic chemicals stored underground would be safer than storing 2,000 gallons above ground, and he was sure that was true from the Fire Department's point of view, but he asked if that was good enough, how often the tanks would be 57-78. 4/20/87 monitored, who would check them, and what size leak could be detected. Checking the space between the double walls would detect a leak in the main vessel but would not tell . i f the containment vessel was leaking. He asked how much of a leak would be allowed before the tank was drained and dug up. Once the aquafer was contaminated, there was no way to clean it up and wells had to be closed down. It that was the only way to make chemical storage safe enough to be next to the neighborhoods, he urged Council to reconsider. Paul Edwards, 4047 Manzana Lane, a member of the Board of Directors of the BPA and of the executive committee, said there was clearly an increasing citizen concern about risk of toxics. What seemed to have been a deficient process had led to a request for a moratorium due to a lack of trust. A moratorium could drive industry out of.. Palo Alto eventually and would be a loss to Palo Alto's standard of 1 i 'ring and a. lossof some of its excellent citizenry. Thr delay of ALZA's upgrade was unfortunate because it delayed part of the solution. A task force was needed to solve the problem,. and a process that would inform everyone and engender a level of mutual trust. A visionary and creative approach was needed. They had the opportunity to help lead the state and the nation, and he wanted all in the City to take the challenge up. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said John Joynt clearly gave the position of the BPA. The BPA had looked at toxics and haz- ardous for some time and extensively considered the issue. There was no way to aijoid hazardous materials in the present times and, in fact, the most hazardous materials were in people's garages, e.g., open cans of gasoline near a hot- water heater. Industry was only a larger example of toxics and hazardous materials. The key was proper care, handling, storage, and attention to detail. He supported the intent of upgrading and .improving the storage facilities and would not accept asuseful any moratorium on such an improvement and enhancement of the present facilities; however, commu- nity involvement and trust had to be built and a community board to review the proposed improvements and upgrading of facilities was a useful idea. He suggested the board be established as a subcorrnrittee of the Planning Commission and report to the Planning Commission, and through the Planning Commission to the Council. The offers made by ALZA, par- ticularly for risk management on their area -wide basis, were a significant step in the right direction and should be done in the future whenever anybody improved, upgraded, or expanded a hazardous facility. Council would probably end up that evening approving an. EIR, but an EIR would not solve the problem In the end the facility would be built much as currently proposed but without some of the added features already offered by ALZA, and which ALZA said they would not go through with if required to go `:to a :full EIR. The way the system worked, asking for an EIR was the only alter- native the appellants had because of time constraints and legal requirements. He hoped the experience would'n.ot sour people on working together cooperatively to improve the hazardous materials situation in the City, and in involving the community on a broader basis earlier in the process and more extensively. That was the way to build trust between the neighborhood, residents, City staff, and industry and was the best way to resolve the issues. L. Hanlon, 287 Oakhurst Place, Menlo Park, said Mountain View did find the Santa Clara County laws finding the toxic waste handling inadequate, and enhanced and expanded the laws. Any community that handled toxic wastes would be wise to do similarly. Dr. Luis Janssen, 1216 California Avenue, still trusted in the importance of the citizens' words and trusted the City Council to take their concern seriously. He was surprised that Mr. Carpenter was shocked that several of them had problems trusting because they lived in a society where lying was epidemic, which was said. Basically, he did not trust what happened on the other side of California Avenue unless what happened in the corporations was closely moni- tored by the citizens and the Council. Professionally, he spent his day caring for the health of individuals and found it impossible not to protest the fact they continued to make the Bay Area and the Santa Clara Valley a chronically - deceased spot on the beautiful body of the earth. He was concerned there were two big buildings empty on California Avenue, and one was being rebuilt, and the citizens did not know what would happen there. He supported an EIR. knowing it would not resolve the, problems, :-but he needed to know what was going on in the , `hole area. The City needed a board to supervise the accumulated effect of all the cor- porations, and one which was concerned about what happened within the corporations. It a corporation in Palo Alto was given permission to use some of the healthy environment, it should be for the benefit of human kind and not for the benefit of the corporations. Mayor Woolley declared the public hearing closed and thanked the participants for the hours put into their thoughtful evaluations of the issue before Council. She pointed out on page 4 of the staff report (CSR:223:7) were set forth the possible actions Council could take when an appeal had been filed: 1) Council could require an EIR be prepared before 57-80 4/20/87 the City approved or disapproved the project; 2) Council could disapprove the project; and 3) Council could approve the negative declaration, or could continue the matter. She suggested Council first address the appeal. MOTION: Council Member Klein. moved, seconded by. Cobb, to require an Environmental Impact be prepared on the proposed project. Council Member Fletcher felt the neighbors and community would have more to gain by accepting the offer made by ALZA. At the ARB meeting she suggested to staff an independent expert might be called in from outside to make an evaluation and give an unbiased viewpoint. She would like to give the process more time to try to reach an agreement between the appellants and ALZA. SUBSTITUTE NOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fletcher moved that the item be continued to one month to allow for more negotiations between the appellants and ALZA Corporation. MOTION TO CONTINUE DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Bechtel spoke in support of the motion on the floor. An EIR, while not giving necessarily a great deal more information, would provide an opportunity for members of the community to give input, and there would be discus- sion of traffic and other issues. She commended ALZA's efforts for meeting so extensively with the residents and for working voluntarily to attempt to improve their present storage facility. She hoped to hear from Chief Wall after discussion to point out and.. review the extensive existing laws already on the books in the City of Palo Alto. Staff were at the forefront in working with the County in being sure the City had regulations concerning storage of chemi- ca1sr and Council had committed a quite extensive budget and many people -hours, to working on the issue. She supported the request; however, did not want to discourage others who wished to upgrade andimprove their present storage facil- ities Council Member Cobb seconded the motion because Council was in a legal box. As long as there were members of the public who eight be predisposed to challenge an overturning.; of the appeal in Court, Council needed their unanimous tlessing to avoid that kind of legal challenge. Council did ; not have any choice but to have the.. legal protection that an EIR pro- vided. Council Member, Plebe -her -touched upon an interesting point, and he asked if an agreement could be reached which 57-81 4/'20/87 the neighborhood could buy into and the company would be willing to go along with, was it possible for Council to rescind the action. City Attorney Diane Northway believed once Council made a decision, they lost jurisdiction to act. Whatever Council decided, they did not have the opportunity to change unless it was through a motion to reconsider which would occur at the next meeting. She agreed that under the numerous cases that had been decided under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the only assurance the applicant could have that they would be legally protected from lawsuits arising from the project was to prepare an EIR which com- plied with CEQA. Council Member Cobb found the issue difficult acid distress- ing. Hp disliked seeing other companies in a position where they put off taking actions to upgrade their facilities and believed the subject motion could have that effect. His impression was some people would accept no solution other than simply not having any toxic storage in the ; City whatso- ever. Council • Member Levy shared Council Member Cobb's concern. He questioned whether there was one appellant in the case, i.e., the College Terrace homeowners; group, or if there were 22 appellants, i.e., each individual signee of the appeal. The City Attorney had indicated there were, in fact, 22 appellants, and he asked if it could be just as well stated that there was one appellant and that --if the appellant by a majority vote would agree to a certain actions -that would be the action taken by the appellant, and one of the ,22 individuals could not then veto that action. Ms. Northway said i t the appellant was, in fact, an unincor- porated association, the determination of what capacity members had to act or not act as a body was determined by the rules or regulations of that particular organization. With respect to the appeal being filed by 22 individuals; -- which was the more conservative approach -under Court analo- gies ehe researched, individuals . could remain in a litiga- tion while their co -appellants chose to withdraw; therefore, the appeal would continue even though there were multiple appellants. In looking at court analogy, it would not be majority rule unless it was determined the unincorporated association did file the appeal and their bylaws allowed it to be withdrawn in that manner. Council Member Levy commented the ruling disturbed him . a little because he foresaw an unwieldy appeal where lone of 150 people could keep the appeal going even though most of S7-82 4/20/87 the appellants had changed their minds through the course of a discussion. However, he did not believe that was the case in the situation before Council because it appeared at least half the appellants, still felt an EIR was called for, and he shared that view. He was unhappy with the situation. Council believed after their detailed review and passage of the hazardous materials ordinance; they had a process that was carefully drafted, but toxics were a grave concern and the fears of the residents were understandable. Although ALZA had developed an excellent plan, theise was not confi- de nde on the part of the community. An EIR would not resolve all doubts, and he could not conceive of another process that would. The EIR would. allow major citizens' input and might resolve the legal concerns. He believed the transportation of hazardous materials was of much greater concern than the storage and understood the recommendations made by the Fire Department were in line with that: to. reduce the hazards which came about in handling and trans- porting material extensively. He found it difficult to make a distinction between storage of hazardous materials in an industrial area close to residences and storage of them in an industrial area surrounded by other industrial employees. People were at risk in either case and the density; of people was greater during the day in the middle of an .industrial park than on the fringe. Council owed it to everybody, residences and employees, to have a safe community. He was sorry ALZA was caught in the middle of the issue. ALZA was a thoughtful and socially -responsible corporation, and their products made major contributions to health and welfare worldwide. The motion would increase costs to ALZA, which was why he sympathized with Council Member Fletcher's sub- stitute motion. The motion on the floor might act to discourage the upgrading of &LZA's toxics' storage and to increase the safetyof the storage already taking places, and Council's objective should be not to discourage but to encourage. The concern was too important not to give the public the full benefit of input and expertise found in an EIR, and Council should go in that direction. Council Member .Patitucci asked how many similar concentra- tions_..of various chemicals were dispersed within the Stanford Industrial Park. Chief Wall replied that within the Stanford Research Park there were 72 companies currently part of the 300 -plus permitted sites. 57-83 4/20/87 Council Member Patitucci asked where the facility in ques- tion ranked among the 72 companies as far as the quality of the types, of containment that would occur if it wasbuilt, and how that compared with the current facility on the site. Chief Wall said the proposed facility would be in compliance with all features of Title 17 and would also reduce the likelihood of accident in movement of hazardous materials to and from the storage facilities on the premises. The cur- rent facility was in compliance with current code; however, was not fire-sprinklered which presented an explosion and fire -spread hazard. The proposed facility had built-in fire protection. The facility would rank against others in the park as one of the least hazardous of its type in the kind of materials handled and the possibility for a major acci- dent. In fact, there were no toxic gases being used nor proposed to be used in the process. There were no "acutely hazardous" materials now used or proposed. Council Member Patitucci believed Council had accomplished what they were trying to accomplish with the hazardous waste program in many of the facilities throughout the City. By going ahead with an EIR, which was not a substantive but a procedural issue, Council would be sending the wrong mes- sage. He asked the City Attorney if it was correct that the City could end up with the same facility but the procedure guaranteed there would not be a lawsuit. Ms. Northway believed the reason for the recomtendation was because, under the law, that was what the City was required to do. When significant controver zy yes generated on environmental issues regarding a project, the law required preparation of an EIR. She agreed as .a result of preparing that report, it was possible the same or a similarproject might be approved. If the same or similar project was approved after an EIR was prepared, it was 90 percent less likely any lawsuit challenging that project would be suc- cessful. Council Member Patitucci asked if Council was not, by insti- tuting an SIR in the subject, case, starting a process of guaranteeing there would be an EIR every time there was any Modification or revision to any hazardous materials facility, in the City. Ms.. Northway said no, each project had to be judged on its own merits. One of the elements of the issue in question was the controversial nature of the project and its proxim- ity to residential areas. That feature might not be present in future projects. The issue could not be prejudged. P:10 did not believe every project would require an EIR, particu- larly if there was no increase in the quantity of hazardous materials being stored. Also, the traffic -related issue might not arise in other projects. Council Member Patitucci opposed the motion on the merits the staff had done everything it was charged to do and more. The original applicant for the facility had done everything asked under the ordinance and more. The citizens had right -- fully questioned the process, and Council should focus on the process and its whole examination and procedures related to hazardous waste. Because of controversy, he did not believe Council should add a million dollars and a year to the project, do an EIR and possibly end up with less.. He hoped the public could give Council valuable input as to what to do with hazardous waste in the future. Council Member Renzel agreed with Council Member Patitucci's comments to some extent but believed his objectives in opposing the EIR would further delay the project. On _the other hand, the neighbors had raised some important ques- tions about the cumulative impacts in the community. Over the years many people had felt the industrial park was a benign neighbor; but they were becoming concerned, and rightfully so, with how much material was present and whether the City was prepared to deal with the consequences. It was unfortunate that the vehicle in which the matter was coming to Council was a particular project application wherein both the neighbors and the project applicant were making an effort to resolve some problems that could not be resolved in the framework of the application. She supported the,EIR. It was unfortunatethat the possibility of doing a risk assessment for the whole industrial park was not being pursued because that would have more fully accomplished what the neighbors were concerned about and have been beneficial to the City as a whole. Mayor Woolley clarified the EIR would .be site -specific and world only deal with thesubject project and not the cumula- tive impact. Council Member Klein complimented the remarks of Colin Mick, Bob Moss, and Council Member Levy which framed things well. The • paramount purpose served by the EIR was to tto build up pub1ie confidence in the process. Some of the comments that evening indicated people would .like a *zero risk" society, and Mr. Mick's and Mr. Moss' remarks pointed out that was not only an impossibility but showed people •vio- lated that every day, _ and willingly subjected themselves to a substantial risk every time they stepped in an automobile. If the EIR process helped to mitigate the risk of hazardous 57--85 4/20/87 materials, it would be worth the time and energy, the money of ALZA and the City, and the time of the citizens. He was also concerned about the cost of taking a position of turning down the appeal. He did not see what would be gained by losing a lawsuit, spending $50,000 to $75,000 of the City's money, and possibly a similar amount of ALZA's money and being back in the same position in six monthsto two years from now. They were caught and should move for- ward as expeditiously as possible. Council knew an EIR would not produce allwisdom and might not produce all the information nor desired results the neighborhood believed it might, but it waz .a step forward, and taus he suppeerted the motion. Confidence was at stake, and it was important the community felt the process allowed them to be heard. Palo Alto had been much involved in hazardous .material ordi- nances. Staff and Council, particularly the Fire Department, Council Member Bechtel in her role on the Intergovernmental Council (IGC), and Assemblyman Byron Sher, had worked hard on the hazardous materials problem, which was a relatively new one. Santa Clara's ordinance, which was worked on by all the communities in the County, had been a model for the State and nation, although the community concern that evening pointed out that they should see whether it could be improved in some ways. It concerned him when the public apparently did not have confidence in staff when staff gave certain advice with regard to the ordinance and process to be followed because the City staff had an exemplary record in the area, and the Fire Department were the ones who would be putting their lives on the line if there ever was a problem. He hoped Council could work through the process so that companies felt they could still go forward with projects that would improve the problem. Council Member Fletcher said the chemicals were currently stored above ground, in sheds, tanks and barrels, With the EIR process, that condition would stay for an extra year. She was at a loss to understand why her fellow Council Members believed they could do nothing but vote for the EIR that evening, in which case they could not go back except to reconsider the following week. On the other hand, if they gave the process a chance to come to a solution without the EIR, the Council could still vote in the EIR at the end of the process. Locking into the EIR would lose the generous offers made by ALZA, and they would have a more unsafe and unsightly situation for an extra year. She urged Council to think the matter over for a week and reconsider whether to give the process . a chance before voting for the EIR; however, if Council was not willing to do that, she believed an. EIR was necessary and would support the motion. Vice Mayor Sutorius said a.continuance initiated by Council would not seem to be particularly secure; however, Council Often had continuances of that nature either at the request, or request and occurrence of both parties. He understood the ultimate action of Council was at concern, and that a continuance by itself was not raising the kind of concern expressed vis a vis a final decision not to have an EIR. Ms. Northway said that was correct. Vice Mayor Sutorius asked Susan Covey whether she had the authority of the appellants to authorize a. continuance for purposes of continued discussion among the interested parties. Ms. Covey, said she did not have the authority. Vice Mayor Sutorius said Council Member Fletcher made valid points; however, at that stage he supported the EIR. More than one Council Member would be accessible in the inter- vening period if the appellants and the applicant saw the potential that progress could be made with additional time. The EIR would be an interesting and important fundamental contribution. Mayor Woolley shared her colleagues' frustration and appre- ciation of efforts to date in the difficult and relatively near' area . MOTION PASSED by a vot! of 8®1, Patitucci voting r op COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:35 p.m. TO 9455 p.m. Chief Wail reviewed the current status of Palo Alto's haz- ardous materials storage and management program. He said Palo Alto heavily participated in the development of the model ordinance for Santa , Clara . County, which was the model for subsequent state law and was duplicated by other California counties and cities in other sea :es Palo Alto had its own hazardous materials ordinance, a feature of which was the Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement of what materials were stored in the facilities. Any member of the public could ask for an inventory of the materials, and historically individual companies had been cooperative in sharing their inventories of chemicals. Another feature of the .ordinance of public record was the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, i.e., what companies did in the event of an incident, how they managed, responded to, trained employees, etc. The City required mandatory compliance inspections on 57-87 4/20/87 ee an annual basis which was equal to es more stringent than most cities in Santa Clara County. Palo Alt( was the only City that aggressively required upgrading of existing facil- ities, especially double -containment standards, which ALZA's application was in that regard. In addition, the City and Fire Department developed toxic gas controls which were cur rently in place in the Fire Code. No other city in Santa Clara County addressed toxic -gas controls to such a degree, and he believed those codes were the most comprehensive any- where in the State, were developed in cooperation with industry, and had been a model for the Uniform Fire Code which stretched over 11 western states and had been devel- oped through a project of Santa Clara County Fire Chiefs. Palo Alto was very stringent in ordinance and Fire Code regarding hazardous materials, and he stressed the Fire and Hazardous Materials Code were the most comprehensive cur- rently in place in the State. Cooperation received from industry had been phenominal. Currently, only two parties in the City had not complied fully, received inspections, and paid their fees for hazardous materials storage permits, and they were not large hazardous materials users similar to ALZA. Staff was willing to take another look at the process if necessary to see if it needed improvement. NOTION TO REFER Council Member Zlein moved, seconded by Bechtel, to refer to the policy and Procedures Committee the aasardous Materials Ordinance for review and report back to Council on the following issues: 1) Whether there is suffi- cient opportunity in the process for public participation; and 2) Whether the input be forwards to the City Council in a timely manner. Council Member Patitucci asked it the Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee came up with a decision that the process should be changed while the EIR was proceeding, was Council creating a potentially greater legal exposure and should they not postpone any changes to the procedure until the EIR was completed. Ms. Northway replied no to both questions. NOTION TO mirsi PASSED unanimously. 6-A (OLD ITEM 31 RESOLUTICi AMENDING UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE G -I AND v- AS A RESULT OF TRACKING PG&E GAS RATE CHANGES (CMRs216s7) (1111) City 'Tanager Sill Zaner said Resolution 6556 in CMR:216:7 and the attached Resolution should be 6568. He apologized. that the gas rate change came to Council some four months 57-88: 4/20/87 after it was put into effect. The authority to track the PG&E rates required the City Manager to report to Council at the earliest possible moment after the rate change was made. The error in the process had been found and repaired. NOTION: Council Member Patitucci mowed, seconded by Cobb, to adopt the resolution RESOLUTION 694 entitled *RESOLUTION OF TSB sci -t'!t CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING UTILITY RATE SCOODULS G-1 £ID G'SO AS R RESULT OF TRACKING PG&E GAS RATE CHANGES ° NOTION PASSED unanimously. 7. ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR A UTILITIES . USERS TAX (CMR:219:7) (408) }...� Mayor Woolley could not participate in the item due to a conflict of -interest. NOTION TO REFER: Council he mbe r Klein moved, seconded by Patitucci, to refer the item to Finance and Public Mork Coaittee. Vice Mayor Sut.orius asked if the item would be under dis- cussion at the April 28, 1987 Finance and Public Works (Fa4PW) Committee meeting. Council Member Klein said that was correct. Vice Mayor Sutorius understood infrastructure information would be coming to Council via the packet of May 4, 1987, and potentially the City/School liaison would be reporting to Council on the status of the lease discussions. Council Member Klein clarified the May 4, 1987, date for a report from the City/School Liaison Committee was not firm. Vice Mayor Sutorius suggested that material be accompanied by outcome of the F&PW Committee deliberations on the Utility Users Tax material. Council Member Klein said the idea was for both items to go to Council at the same time. Vice Mayor Sutorius asked if staff .would have further information on the matter for the F&PW Committee, e.g., the elasticity of pricing as it affected rate -payer decisions on what and how much they bought.: 57-89 4/20/87 Mr. Zaner said staff was preparing information along those lines. The information would only be estimates, forecasting utility rates and the effect an increased rate --as seen as a Utility Tax --on Utilities. Vice Mayor Sutorius said the subject was complex, and they were on a tight time frame. NOTION TO REFER PASSED unanimously, Woolley "not partici-- pating, • 8. REQUEST OF COUNCIL MEMBER ELLEN FLETCHER RE PROPOSED REDWOOD CITY GARBAGE INCINERATIONPLANT(1122) Council Member Fletcher said Council was concerned about the future of the City's garbage disposal and had looked with anticipation to the proposed incineration plant in Redwood City; however, she read negative articles on the impacts of incineration piants and was called by the Peninsula Committee for the Protection of the Environment. She encouraged public input. Lynn Hanlon, 287 Oakhurst Place, Menlo Park, a board member of the Suburban ,Park Association, said in the 1950s the coast all the way to San Jose was polluted by the former Idea]. Cement Plant on the site in question. The cause of the pollution was a trough of cool air which came from the ocean, through the San Bruno gap, and ttaveled along the shoreline. The site of the proposed incinerator was in the wind trough so all its emissions would be cast often to the south. Initially, the incinerator seemed like a good idea because the area was short on landfill ,space but. after research found the history of emissions from the proposed site and also that the plant was designed to explode. Emis- sions from the stack should not be of concern because it was 320 -feet tall, but the roof was designed to blow away and come back down. A wildlife refuge was less than a mile away and all areas exposed from the cement plant would definitely be exposed from the explosions. They were paying for unneeded power to burn trash. There was a history of poor recycling because recycling competed with the incinerators for the same materials. Gladys Woodhams, 601 Melville Avenue, suggested Council read the material she provided (on file in the City Clerk's office). Scientists remain puzzled about the precise chemi- eel mechanisms that produce the dioxines and other toxic pollutants. Similarly, all attempts to eliminate these emissions had failed. In Sweden and Denmark the dioxines were identified in mother's milk, commercial dairy products, fish, soil, and dust. Based on the findings, large-scale 57-90 4/20/87 monitoring studies had been launched in each country. As a direct result, Denmark and Sweden instituted moratoriums on construction of garbarge incinerators. Europe was disillu- sioned and had returned to recycling. She hoped Palo Alto could go into recycling in the same manner in the future. Bernadette Trammel, 7 Iris Lane, Menlo Park, was concerned about dioxines and furans. The California Energy Commission (CEC) moved to suspend proceedings because of insufficient data from the applicant and had not been able to provide, 1) a fuel contract or complete information, 2) 'quality modeling, and 3) toxic ash disposal. Those uncertainties could only be resolved by experience, and she hoped Palo Alto would not allow'its citizenry to be used as a guinea pig in a massive experiment. They would be the most adversely affected by the plant's high concentrations of toxic emissions which was very alarming. The emissions would not only affect people but the whdl,e ecology of the San Francisco Bay and its Wetlands would be polluted and destroyed. The food -chain contamination had not been taken into consideration in the risk analysis. Ash from the incinerators had been classified as dangerous and/or hazard- ous waste and posed disposal problems. The Bay Area was too populated and its environment too fragile t©► become a guinea pig for a process which was a far cry from safe. A proved, clean means of reducing municipal waste and creating revenue was recycling. Before considering burning trash, all nine Bay Area counties needed to implement maximum recycling to minimize the waste, and only :after recycling was implemented and attained `60 to 80 percent should an incinerator be con- sidered. There was no need for an incinerator, and she urged Council to consider the matter long and hard. Greg Morris, 100 Webster Street, spoke as an attorney repre- senting Leslie Salt Company, an intervenor before the California Energy Commission. He suggested an appropriate action might be a resolution of Council opposing the siting of a .waste -energy plant in Redwood City. They became inter- venors after hiring competent outside counsel to attempt to look at an admittedly -seductive notion of garbage disposal, and to look at what might happen to the 25,000 acres of salt ponds surrounding the facility and located in the South Bay. They learned not only the: potential for serious damage to the product in the making, and consequently to the South Bay and the Wildlife Refuge existed, but also in the worst case there was a significant risk of public health hazard. As a result, they embarked upon the task of spreading that infor- mation topeople they believed were important in the, final decision with regard to siting, including the Peninsula Times Tribune who editorialized against the siting of the 57-91 4/20/87 plant. Only three things were unknown about theproposed plant: 1) What would go into it, as the source of fuel was not yet resolved; 2) What would come out of the stack; and 3) What they would do with the ash. He suggested a resolu- tion of opposition would not be merely a moral gesture but one which would be probative to Palo Alto's colleagues in the north, in the City of Redwood, the County of San Mateo, and the \City and County of San Francisco, who faced deci- sions about the ultimate siting of the facility. He was confident a position by the Council would be considered in those areas. They had provided material generated by . their consultants and others. Council Member Bechtel asked if Mr. Morris had a timetable on the appropriate hearings. Mr. Morris replied the City and County of San Francisco's next action would be a motion to remove from the table a resolution which would authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to talk to Combustion Engineering about the fuel arrangement, which could occur within ten days. At the next Monday meeting, the Board of Supervisors could move to remove the resolution from the table and would hear it at the following Monday's meeting, The City of Redwood and the County of San Mateo would be faced with their decieion ses- sions at a later time. There were a number of junctures when that ;right occur; one, an annexation proceeding which would be involved in taking a piece of County land and making it a piece of Redwood City land. They expected a hearing before the Siting Committee of the CEC on suspension of the application to occur sometime at the end of May or beginning of June. Council's maximum leverage existed until probably the end of May. James Aiello, 100 Spear Street, Suite 410, San Francisco, was Director of Government Affairs for Combustion. Engineering, a 19 -year resident of the Peninsula, property owner, and spokesman for the company proposing the.; subject facility. The proceedings with regard to the ALZA procedure were instructive and should indicate Council's course of conduct. He was amazed at the public uproar concerning whether to have an EIR, and said they were in the middle of conducting an EIR. The rules in the Stte of California for siting that kind of facility were that only one governmental entity had the overall umbrella authority for siting such a facility, which was the CEC. By statute, the CEC and those proceedings were deemed to be an EIR. They:, spent 92 million, and had been working on it for 24 months, and expected another 8 or 9 months, maybe as long ds 15 months, 57-92 x,4/20/87 preparing perhaps the most far-reaching environmental impact statement that the. State had ever seen on a waste -energy facility. Mr. Morris was asking the Council to make a deci- sion before the EIR was made and preempt Palo Alto from ever having that opportunity. To clarify a few misstatements, Sweden and Denmark did not have moratoriums. The Swedish government put a short -time moratorium on new construction, but did not close down any old plants. Over 50 percent of Sweden's garbage was consumed by waste -energy plants, and they had lifted the moratorium and were building new plants. Other countries had stopped to look at the matter, had put new environmental controls in and were going forward. He urged Council not to pass any kind of a resolution. The only resolution before the San Francisco Hoard of Supervisors was to negotiate with Combustion Engineering. Council had months to consider the matter. He encouraged continuation of Palo Alto's marvelous recycling program, but he was convinced if Council contacted those public entities who had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and hired the most competent scientists in the world, Council would be also be convinced that the statements made that evening were totally groundless and that waste energy was the logical alternative after recycling. Ernest Goiteirs167 Almendral, Atherton, was an engineer who had designed power plants for Bechtel Corporation and boilers for.competitors of Combustion Engineering. Numbers taken out of the applicant's application for certification showed there were a million tons of garbage going in, and out of that came about 150,000 tons per year of ash, toxic or not. The Environmental Defense Fund recently published a number of tests of incinerators with a large number exceed- ing allowable limits. Another 150,000 tons per year were noncombustibles. The balance went up the stack and were broken down as follows: Flu gas constituents per year were 2,000 tone of nitrous oxide, 14 tons of lead, 1.31 tons of hydrocarbons, 419 tons of sulphur dioxide, 300 tons of hydrochloric acid Seventy-five percent of the heat gener- ated by the combustion process went up the stack. PG&E could buy power at roughly three cents per kilowatt hour, but the subject plant in 1991 would be getting ten .cents per kilowatt hour. He asked Council to consider the effect of the effluent from the stack on Palo Alto. Two of the three supervisors on the Public Works Committee in San Francisco requested the matter be delayed far five years to learnhow the plants performed and how well the i recycling alternative world work. He recommended Council give the matter five more years. MOTION: Council Member Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, that the City Council recommends that the proposed incineration plaint in Redwood City not be built at this time. The correspondence should be transmitted to the Mayor of San Francisco, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the San Mateo Board of Supervisors, and the City Council of Redwood City. Council Member Fletcher believed Council should take a posi- tion on the issue since Palo Alto was downwind from the proposed plant. The incinerator was bound to toxic pro- ducing. She felt there were many risks in the operation. For instance, if Palo Alto was relying on the incinerator to take care of garbage and it shut down for some reason, the City would not be prepared. Council Member Ren:el said when she was on the Joint Powers Authority for Solid Waste, they were looking at a garbage - to -power plant and learned that it was important to know the input. When dealing with a relatively small amount of gar- bage, it was easier to understand the input in terms of the effectiveness and safety of the plant. She suspected, with a large plant such as the one in question, reliability would be much less_ Her particular problems with the plant were more with its location. The area was highly sensitive. Leslie Salt was a major factor in the Bay, and we would see serious problems with the maintenance of the Bay if that salt -making activity was impacted. She supported the motion. It was premature to be locating a plant with a still -evolving technology in a highly environmentally - sensitive area. Council Member Bechtel shared many of Council Members Fletcher`s and Renzel°s concerns but wondered if it was pre- mature. Information was still being gathered. She agreed with Council. Member Renzel as towhether the location was the appropriate one. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Bechtel moved, seconded by Patitucci, to refer to staff to report back on additional information with regard to a waste -to -energy plant and specifically the proposed Combustion Engineering plant in Redwood City. Mr. Zaner said staff could gather together data they had on the project and provide it to Council along with • the neces- sary timetables. Council Member Patitucci knew staff had watched the matter closely and would like to have their ideas and information. Fie supported the motion. 57-94 4/20/87 As corrected 5/18/87 ( Vice Mayor Sutorius supported the motion. He hoped the pub- lic were not anticipating that staff would conduct an EIR. The point. that a full EIR was in progress was important. He believed the process was working and was undoubtedly an uphill situation as far as Combustion Engineering was con- cerned. On the other hand, it would be premature for the City of Palo Alto to take an official position. Council Member Cobb said every time he saw an issue having to do with waste disposal, he was reminded of the fact that the garbage would not go away and they did not seem any closer to a solution than when he first came on the Council over five years ago. The end of the dump was not that far off even with more recycling. The larger picture needed to be addressed. Council Member Levy supported the motion but hoped it was not turned into a major and expensive research project by staff at that point. He echoed Vice Mayor Sutorius' com- ments that an EIR-equivalent process was in progress and Council would like summary information from staff with specific reference to the decision -making points when Council would have more complete information from the energy department's process and could be fully informed from more primary data. Council Member Renzel opposed the substitute motion and would support the main motion because such projects estab- lished a momentum of their own. If the City of San Francisco bought into the project, it would undoubtedly go through the Energy Commission and Palo Alto's impact would be minimal at that point. It was important for Council to express concerns now as a body rather than to wait until it was too late. One could surmise how the scenario would go if San Francisco decided to ship its garbage to the plant in question. Palo Alto's garbage was a difficult problem, but the burn plant would not solve it entirely. Twenty-five percent of the materials could not go into the burn plant to begin with, and another 25 percent came out as an ash which had not been classified to this point, but there eras _ ques- tion as to whether it should be classified as a hazardous waste, meaning at least 50 .percent of the volume of the original garbage heap remained after burning. Mayor Woolley appreciated the alert sounded by members of the public and the information but found herself in a state of quandary. There seemed many negatives, some of which were not necessarily environmental, which would stand in the way, of the actual building of the plant. She preferred at the point tb refer the issue to staff -and would support .the motion. 57-95 4/20/87 SUBSTITUTE !MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Menzel, Fletcher voting "no." Council Member Fletcher asked when Council might expect a response to the Council request. Mr. Zaner expected staff could return the information Council in 90 days. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10:55 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: Acting /.s I.tant City Clerk M a yor 57-96 4/20/87