HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-02-10 City Council Summary MinutesITEM
CITY
COU1CI L
M1NUTEs
Regular Meeting
February 10, 1986
Oral Communications
Approval of Minutes of January 6, 1986
Mayor Cobb re Combining Items #1, #2, and #3, re
Yacht Harbor
CITY
CsF
MA[O
ALTO
r E
6 8 3 8
6 8 3.9
6 8 4 0
Item #1, Sailing .Station; Item #2, Facilities in
the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Area; and Item #3, Yacht 6 8 4 0
Harbor Closure Alternatives
Recess
Items to Consider after 11:00 p.m.
Adjournment: 12:55 a.m.
6 8 5 7
6 8 6 2
6 8 8 3
6 8 3 7
2/10/86
Regular Meeting
February 10, 1986
The City Council of the City of Pe to Alto met on this date in the
Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m.
PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:40 p.m.), Cobb,
Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel,
Sutorius, Woolley
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Rose Green, 344 Creekside Drive, spoke regarding the possi-
bility of putting housing for low-income people both behind
the library and at the Peninsula Conservation Center (PCC).
She suggested looking at an alternative site. With Terman,
the Jewish Community Center took part of the site and the City
took part of the site, but also built some housing for low -
and moderate -income people. She suggested the YMCA might be
interested in Jordan Junior High School, and perhaps something
of the same type could be considered because the school itself
was not being used, and both the garden area behind the main
library and the PCC were sites being used for other purposes.
Also, the School District would be doing more consolidating,
and there might be other sites available and a better location
not used for something else that could be used for housing.
2. Mary Carlstead, 147 Walter Hays, was the Neighborhood Watch
Chairman for 31 families from 128-170 Walter Hays. The fami-
lies had not met regarding the proposed plan to put at least
40 subsidized housing units at the library site; however, over
the weekend she spoke with enough neighbors --85 percent --to be
able to unofficially state their views. They were over-
whelmingly surprised, outraged, furious, and shocked. The
residents would not at drawn into any argument on the pros and
cons of subsidized housing per se; it was a non -issue, nor
would they let themselves be drawn into any argument about
haves and have-nots; that was another non -issue. The issue
was the library site was unacceptable for housing of any kind.
Secondly, the development of the site would have a negative
environmental impact on the library and the Cultural Center.
The land, whether rightly or wrongly, was always considered an
extension of Rinconada Park. The proposal to put 40 units
there was a complete disaster on the educational,
recreational, and cultural aspects .of one of the finest, most
unique sites the City. She believed everyone saw the horror
of the overbuilding at Midtown, the oversized houses on the
mini -lots at Ortega and Crescent Park, and were waiting to see
what would happen at Ross Road. It was a i ty-wi de issue, and
they were worried at the helter-skelter, pell-mell desire to
build, build, build all over town. Somewhere the rape of Palo
Alto had to stop.
3. Blair Stewart, 1580 Walnut Drive, was also concerned about the
Council direction to staff to pursue the two City -owned sites
for housing. Whenever land use i suds arose, it presented
Council with both a challenge and an opportunity. The Chal-
lenge was to do what . was best for Palo Alto in the, l ong run.
Palo Al to was a beautiful city, known for its parks, open
space, recreational facilities, and cultural -facilities. The
development of .th.e Main Library, Cultural Center open space
vas shortsighted, Once developed, land was forever gone for
any other purpose, such. as expansion of the library, the
Cultural Center, or similar purposes. Many petiole conSi tiered
the 4ain Library, cultural space land as being park land,
although it was not formally dedicated. Palo Alto had more
park land than any other comparable city, which was one of the
beauties of Palo Alto. Park land and open space needed to be
preserved in- the middle of the City as well as on the edges,
such as the foothills and haylands. It was not imperative for
the future of the City to develop for housing and other
purposes every available piece of land. The zoning ,-of the
Main Library site was presently for public. facility or public
use, which was the result of the Comprehensive Plan. As well
as a challenge to the City Council, there was an opportunity
to use available funds and resources to beautify the City, to
develop in a way that made the most sense for where the people
wanted the City to be in 20 years.
Mayor Cobb clarified it was not Coubeil's policy to respond to
Oral Communications. The items would be, dealt with as Council
proceeded through its business over the weeks ahead. He thanked
the speakers for attending and sharing their views.
Mayor Cobb introduced Mr. Marco P. Swart from Palo Alto's Sister
City of Enschede in the Netherlands. Normally, when the City had
such a visitor, Council preferred to pass and present a
resolution, but there was not enough time to do that. However, he
presented a proclamation welcoming Mr. Marco Swart to the City of
Palo Alto. Cultural exchange resulting from people -to -people
communication was the foundation of the Sister Cities Program,
which attempted to further international understanding. The City
of Enschede was Palo Alto's sister city in the Netherlands, and
honored Palo Alto by sending a representative to visit. Palo Alto
welcomed Mr. Swart. Participation in the cultural exchange
exemplified the mutual objectives of the two cities; namely, to
promote, encourage and cultivate understanding between the people
of Enschede and Pala Alto. The City of Palo Alto recognized Mr.
Swart's visit would be mutually beneficial. On behalf of the City
of Palo Alto he expressed his heartfelt appreciation to the City
of Enschede and its representative for their significant
contribution to the Sister City Program. He presented the friened
proclamation to Mr. Swart.
Mr. Swart said when he was invited by the Ambassador of the United
States to visit in order to promote a mutual interest between the
two countries, he insisted his visit include Palo Alto because as
a citizen and Councillor of Enschede, a visit to the United States
without visiting their sister city would be like the Mona Lisa
without a smile --still a beautiful picture, but not quite enough.
When he left for Palo Alto that morning, his friends pitied him
because he would be unable to see more of San Francisco. He could
tell them they were to be pitied because he believed Palo Alto was
wonderful. Enschede was the oldest of the two cities, and Palo
Alto was the prettiest. The people of Palo Alto were involved in
the community, worked hard for society, and were kind. Hospi-
tality reached its peak in Palo Alto. He thanked the Counc i l for
all: their attention. He was grateful for the opportunity to bring
good wishes from the City of Enschede.
MINUTES OF JANUARY 6. 1986
Councilmember Bechtel submitted the following corrections:
Page 6692, fourth paragraph from the bottom, first sentence,
delete the words "with sealing in between stuff foundation, and no
peak roof, it wo'sl d" and replace with the words "each floor
could..."
Page 6706, first paragraph after motion, third sentence, delete
the word "It" and replace with the words "The freestanding
sign...„
Page 6712, fourth paragraph from the bottom, third sentence,
de ete the words "it would work" and replace with the words "to
keep the harbor open..."
6 8 3 9
2/10/86
MOTION. Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Klein,
approval of the Minutes of January 6, 1986 as corrected.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
MAYOR COBB RE COMBINING ITEMS #1, #2, AND #3, RE YACHT HARBOR
MOTION: Councflucmber Klien moved, seconded by Woolley, to
consolidate Items #1, #2 and #3.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
ITEM #1 SAILING STATION (CMR:146:6); ITEM #2, FACILITIES IN THE
PALO ALTO YACftT HARBOR AREA (CMR:142:6); AND ITEM #3, YACHT HARBOR
CLUSURE AL1tRXATIVES (CMR:138:6) (P 1K 7-6)
City Manager Bill Zaner said the first report regarding the clo-
sure of the Yacht Harbor was requested by Council in response to
the staff recommendation that the harbor be closed effective July
1. Mr. Adams and his staff estimated the costs and benefits
involved in the closure which information was included in the
report. The second report with regard to a sailing station origi-
nated from a request by the Palo Alto Yacht Club. The Yacht Club
requested assistance in building a sailing station, and Council
i nst •ucted staff to work with the Yacht Club to more precisely
determine their proposal, analyze the proposal, and return to
Council with the costs enc. benefits. The third report related to
facilities in the Yacht Harbor. Council did not specifically
instruct staff to prepare the report, but in preparing the other
two reports, it was necessary to deal with the three facilities at
the Yacht Harbor, i.e., the Harbor Master's office, the Yacht Club
building and the Sea Scout building. Mr. Adams and his staff, in
conjunction with the Recreation Department, reviewed the costs and
benefits of maintaining the structures or replacing them, which
information was included in the report regarding facilities.
Three more reports would be forthcoming, one with regard to con-
version of four acres of Yacht Harbor Point to a marsh which was
required nder the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
(BCDC) permit. A second report would provide for the design of
the remaining seven acres nf. the Yacht Ha.,ror Point, and a final
report would deal with long range operational facilities and poli-
cies. There would be a total of six reports wi kh regard to the
Harbor, all of which were interrelated.
Vice Mayor Woolley referred to closing the berth :.g facilities,
and asked if keeping the berthing facilities open until September
1, 1987 would impact the ranger station or the launching facil-
ities.
Director of Public Works David Adams said no.
Vice Mayor Woolley referred to page 2 of the staff report
(CMR:138: 6) , No. 4, where it said no new berth rentals would be
allowed. She queried if that was because no one would want to
take up residence or whether the policy should be no one was
allowed to rent a berth.
Mr. Adams said if anyone _:wanted to rent space and stayed until the
last possible moment, there would be problems in having, them
vacate on a short notice. The staff assumption might be errone-
oue, and Council might want to keep the berthing facilities full
until the last possible moment.
Vice Mayor Woolley said the termination date would have to be very
clear to anyone coming. in. She referred to page 3 of the staff
report (CMR:138:6), regarding Sea Scouts, and quoted "This tempo-
rary arrangement could continue until the area and piers Were
ready for other public use, which is expected to be no sooner than
late summer, 1987," She asked if staff hard something in mind
which was omitted.. She asked which p' - s were for public use.
Mold
Mr. Adams said the BCDC permit allowed the City to retain some
floating piers for small boat use within the Harbor, and staff'
assumed the Council would want to maintain some form of water
activity whether it be fishing or windsurfing or some sort of
small boat use. Staff intended. to retain some floating piers
in the Harbor for an indefinite period of time.
Vice Mayor Woolley asked how many hours on either side of high
tide the inner -harbor could be used presently. She suspected the
amount of time was minimal, and before the City got into much
expense, they needed find out how usable the area was. She clari-
fied the Sea Scouts could tie up to some other piers until those
le
\iers to be used by the public in general were ready.
Mr. Adams said that was correct. The other piers were not yet
identified. Staff would investigate the piers, their conditions,
and determine which would be most useful for small boats within
the harbor. Those would be retained and the rest would be
removed.
Vice Mayor Woolley queried leaving the Sea Scouts where they were
temporarily.
Mr. ° Adams said when the piers were removed, there would be
floating cranes in place. The piers to be removed should be
removed then rather than doing it separately.
Vice Mayor Woolley said if some piers were to be ready for public
use in late summer 1987, what happened between July, 1986 and late
summer 1987 in terms of public access.
Mr. Adams said the City would be removing the existing berth area.
The area would be a construction zone, and during that period,
access would not be allowed for the public.
Vice Mayor Woolley clarified small boats could not be launched for
that year.
Mr. Adams said they could at the launch ramp area.
Vice Mayor Woolley asked how staff proposed to keep the launch
ramp open.
Mr. Adams said staff would experiment dredging the area with a
land based crane aesuming a permit Could be obtained from BCDC. A
minor amount of material would be removed, and the material would
be taken to the landfill after it was removed. The activity would
not be a complete dredging operation, but simply clearing the end
of the launch ramp.
Vice Mayor Woolley referred to the extremely low tides the previ-
ous week, and using the present launching ramp docks as a measure
of length, the distance between the end of the launching ramp and
the channel at low tide was about 150 feet from the berm or from
where there might be a piece of heavy equipment. She queried
whether heavy equipment could reach all the way out 150 feet to
clear the area.
.fir. Adams said they could not reach out 150 feet, but would go as
far as possible.
Vice Mayor Woolley said a small boat would have no advantage to
get out almost to the channel, but not quite. -
Mr. Adams said staff did not believe the launch ramp would ever -be
usable except at something other than low tide even if dredged.
Vice Mayor Woolley said that brought them back to the question of
how big a tidal window or how much on either side of high tide was
useful. Council needed to consider that this evening when giving
staff direction.
6 8 4 1
2/10/86
As com1,1g
Mayor Cobb referred to the Sea Scout building, and asked for a
bail park estimate of the costs involved in making the building
acceptable for general public use.
Mr. Adams said if the building retained its present limit of 49 or
fewer people, the figure was $340,000, which involved moving the
building up. The top of the building would have to be cue off
because it was in the airport clear zone. The $340,000 included a
necessary upgrading to meet codes in terms of restrooms, etc., but
would not include any landscaping. If the building was brought up
to a standard which allowed more than 49 people to use it, the
cost would be $415,000.
Mayor Cobb asked what kinds of opportunities the City would have
to use the building as it was presently being used without
incurring the costs if the Council voted to provide temporary
berthing as suggested by the staff report for item, #3, and Council
desired to make the building available during 'the period of
temporary berthing. Would a substantial investment be necessary
to use the building on a temporary basis.
City Attorney Diane Lee believed the building would need to have
some kind of accessibility available to the general public on an
as needed basis. If Council wanted to continue the use of the
building with the majority of the use on an interim basis by the
Sea Scouts, that was fine so long as a provision was made for
accessibility on an as scheduled basis by the City.
Mr. Adams checked with the Airport Commission and any additional
use, defined as an increase in number of people at any one time or
an increase in numbers for frequency of use, would not be allowed
because the building was in the airport clear zone.
Mayor Cobb was unclear in terms of continuing the existing use on
a temporary basis.
Mr. Zaner said if Council wanted to leave the building there per-
mitting the Sea Scouts temporary usc:•. and included a provision in
the use of the building that the'building would be available to
other groups on a scheduled basis, the City could probably work
out arrangements so there was no increased use in the building or
modified use of the building with regard to the Airport Land Use
Commission.
Mayor Cobb clarified the temporary use would be essentially a
non -incremental cost way to approach the short-term situation.
t!r. Adams said Mayor. Cobb was correct. The building would remain
in its present condition if it was otherwise legally acceptable.
The earlier comments regarding temporary use referred only to the
BCDC permit or temporarily allowing the boats of the Sea Scouts to
remain and was not intended to be confused with the building.
Mayor Cobb asked if a specific location was already contemplated
for what was labeled a 'sailing station.'
Director of Recreation Paul Thiltgen said yes.
Councilmember Sutorius referred to the correction on page 5 of
staff report (CMR:142:6), which indicated a change in square foot-
age to 2400, and clarified the balance of the paragraph was
correct.
Mr. Adams said yes.
Couneilmember Sutorius clarified the cost was about $125 a square
foot.
Mr. Adams said that was correct.
6 S 4 2
,/10/86
Councilmember Sutorius clarified it compared with rehabilitation
costs for the Harbor Master's building which referenced only the
adobe construction portion of the building and not the attached
sheds. ;he estimate was anywhere from $70,000 to $120,000. He
did not know the exact size of the building, but it was probably
about 450 square feet. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Adams said the size was 480 square feet and the costs would
range from $140 per square foot to $250 per square foot for the
type of renovation, and included some landscaping.
Councilmember Sutorius referred to the airport corridor clear zone
and the comment if the Sea Scout base was raised even one inch,
then the top had to be sliced off one inch. He was unable to
locate the Sea Scout facility with respect to the air corridor in
that regard. As he read the materials regarding the air corridor,
it contemplated and showed a second runway, and the corridor,
therefore, was expanded easterly in contemplation of the runway as
was being considered back in the early 1970s. He did not know how
far the corridor should move, and suggested something in the
vicinity of 300 feet. He asked where the line would be with
respect to existing facilities.
Mr. Adams said the survey needed to be done, but it was clear the
Sea Scouts and the Yacht Club would remain in the corridor zone.
The Harbor Master's office probably would be outside the corridor
zone.
Councilmember Klein referred to staff report (CMR:146.:6) and the
cost of building a sailing station and costs related to users.
The cost estimates for construction were $75,000 with a $7,500
annual cost for maintenance. Regarding user fees, he asked how
the figures compared to other recreational activities in the
City.
Mr. Thiltgen did not have the figure off the top of his head, and
deferred response.
Councilmember Bechtel asked if there was any exploration regarding
a concessionaire to do a small boat rental either out toward the
launch area; or, if feasible at high tide, in the inner harbor.
Mr. Zaner said no.
Councilmember Bechtel asked for what length of time during high
tide would it be feasible to sail with a small boat or windsurf in
the inner narbor.
Mr. Adams deferred to public testimony for response.
Councilmember Bechtel referred oot to deep draft boats, but to
shallow draft boats, or strictly a short centerboard.
Councilmember Patitucci referred to staff report (CMR:146:6), and
said the location sketched out appeared to be farther along the
end of the parking area near the launch ramp. He asked why was
:there a separation from the launch ramp, and why the launch ramp
and small boat activities were not integrated in the :,ame place.
Mr. Thiltgen said. initially the activities were viewed separately
with the idea there was more access to open water further out and
eventually the launch ramp would not be usable.
Councilmember Patitucci said everyone might have a different -
visual -picture of. -the. idea of a sailing station, and he 'asked if
the structure would be something on which someone could drive, or
whether it would be somethi irg off which people could maneuver
them' own Small boats. -
6 8 4 3
2/10/80
Mr. Thiltgen ;aid the structure was designed to have a dock which
would go out into the water with a launching hoist. The small
boat would be walked out on a trailer, put on the hoist, -hoisted
in the water, tied to a floating dock next to the permanent plat-
form and then the trailer would be taken back. The floating dock
would be where people actually got in the boats,
Councilmember Patitucci clarified the boats being discussed would
not require an automobile to push the boat on and off the ramp. A
windsurfer would be carried out to where the water was deep
enough, and they would takeoff from there. There would be. enough
surface area that any number of people could come and go at any
one time. He clarified staff believed the launch area would even-
tually be silted up and unusable.
Mr. Thiltgen said based on the information, the launch ramp would
eventually be unusable.
Councilmember Renzel referred to staff report (CMR:138:6), and
said staff's operating costs were listed at $29,000. In the
reports from the City Auditor regarding the Palo Al to Harbor
Association (PAHA) finances with regard to the County costs of
operating the Harbor, the PAHA figures were something like $23,000
a year in overhead, and the County's were $48,000. She asked
which items were included in the County's assessment that were not
included in the staff's assessment of costs.
Mr. Adams believed advertising for berth rental was one thing, and
maintenance of the berths was another major item. Staff assumed
the City would not maintain the berths. As they became damaged,
the City would move the diminishing number of boats to a more
usable berth.
Councilmember Renzel asked how long it took to put a boat into a
hoist sling and drop the boat in the water.
Mr. Thiltgen believed it depended on the size of the boat.
Councilmember Renzel clarified a skilled person could do it in
about five minutes.
Mr. Adams believed it could be done in five to ten minutes. It
also depended on how much rigging had to be done to the boat after
it was leunched, or prior to actual launching.
Councilmember Renzel clarified the rigging was not included in the
five minutes. She was trying to figure out how much hoist time it
took to put a boat in the water.
Mr. Adams said five minutes would be a good figure,
Councilmember Renzel referred to the diagram which shower the pier
for the sailing station. It showed it at 12 feet wide with a
passing lane in the middle. She asked if that meant there could
only be one direction of traffic on the pier at one time.
Mr. Thiltgen said that was correct.
Counci In mber Renzel clarified someone would take their boat up,
start hooking it up to the hoist, and someone else would come
along and line up in the passing lane. After the boat at the
hoist was launched, the trailer would go back out and the next one
would go in.
Mr. Thiltgen said that was the basis premise.
Councilmember Renzel asked how.. long the operation would take.
6 8 4 4
2/10/86
Mr. Thiltgen said about 15 to 20 minutes per boat.
Councilmember Renzel clarified there could be a little overlap
because of the passing lane.
Mr. Thiltgen said that was right.
Councilmember Renzel asked how much exclusive private use there
could be before running afoul of the park dedication ordinance
once the permanent solutions for the harbor were in place.
Ms. Lee did not have a specific figure, but believed reasonable
access had to be provided for the public to use any facilities
constructed on public parkland; and, as a legislative body,
Council had to decide what that was, but no access for the public
was unreasonable. Council had to make some kind of evaluation
when there was a specific proposal about how that was all going to
sort out.
Councilmember Renzel asked how much dock space was proposed
parallel to the channel.
Mr. Thiltgen said about 20 to 30 feet long and 4 feet wide.
Councilmember Renzel asked how many boats could tie up to rig at
one time.
Mr. Thiltgen said that depended on sizes of boats and how long it
took to get things together; but, figuring a 20 -foot boat and
depending whether it tied up parallel, there could be two to fair
boats at one time.
Councilmember Levy referred to renovating the Harbor Master's -
house at a cost of $150 to $250 a square foot. The cost seemed
extremely high for a small facility that did not seem to include a
bathroom or kitchen. He asked for comments.
Mr. Adams said a replica of the building could be built for closer
to $100,000. There were so many unknowns in the condition of the
building and particularly the basic adobe that the figures s: ere
relatively good. There was quite a range, and it only included
a reatroom, but no public restrooms.
Councilmember Levy clarified the building was built in the
1930s.
Mr. Adams believed that was correct.
Councilmember Levy clarified the building itself was an adobe
replica ok earlier Spanish buildings. He asked if it would be
improper from an historical standpoint, etc., to simply rebuild
the building in the same style if it were found to be more econom-
ical and better from a construction standpoint.
Mr. Adams said the procedure required a demolition permit to be
referred to the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and Architectural
Review Board (ARB). The decision would return., to Council for
final action. Therefore, if Council chose that course, once
Council saw the recommendation from the HRB and ARB, it could then
decide to destroy the building and either not replace it, or
replace it with something else.
C.ouncilmeMber Levy said the cost of C fy. operation had an overhead
figure which added 20 percent to.the costs of City operations for
14 months. He was glad to see it because it was proper to add
overhead to those figures, but he believed it was the first time
an overhead figure had been added in that manner. He assumed --the
6 8 4 5
2/10/86
As co3/24/86
20 percent was a general rule of thumb, and asked if that wac the
case. He asked if staff intended to u'e some kind of rule of.
thumb in the future for costs where overhead should be developed
one way or another.
Mr. Adams believed the 20 percent represented a good cztimate in
that case. In many cases, staff used an overhead figure when
filling out bills and reports on disaster relief, etc. The prac-
tice was not uncommon.
Councilmember Levy asked if staff intended, when it returned to
Council with estimates of costs of City operations in the future,
to add such an -overhead.
Mr Zaner said overhead figures were built into the -est ofd any
City program through the interdepartmental services cearges; all
the costs from one department were charged against another. The
20 percent figure was probably modest.
Councilmember Levy brought the matter up because often Council was
told the opposite. When asking about a planning report and the
costs, Council was told there would not be any costs; that the
City would simply assign somebody presently on staff. There was a
cost when that was done, and he was happy to see the overhead fig-
ure added.
Vice Mayor Woolley believed staff did an incredibly thorough job
researching the needs of other facilities in the Bay Area. The
information was hard to come by, and staff put in a lot of effort
and made it clear there +gas a real need ' for small boat sailing,
and also pointed out the uniqueness of the harbor. Referring to
the sailing station staff report and the first recommendation to
undertake a complete hydrology study of the site, she wanted to
know what was involved, staff or a consultant, and the parameters
of the study.
Mr. Adams said that was only one element of many things to be
studied in the design phase. A hydrology study was singled out
because it required more expertise than some of the other design
features.
Vice Mayor Woolley asked if the expertise was in-house.
Mr. Adams said no.. The City would need a consultant.
Vice Mayor Woolley asked what the study would cover.
Mr. Adams said it would probably require a review of all the
estuaries and sloughs in the area to see what interrelationship
there was between them. The study would probably be fairly exten-
sive if it was going to accurately predict siltation and problems
in the area when something was constructed in the channel area.
Vice Mayor Woolley clarified the purpose of the study was to pick
the optimum location for the launching facility.
Mr. Adams said yeu. The study might also be able to answer more'.
precisely some of Council questions concerning how much use there
could be, which could be reported before the final decision was
made to actually construct.
Councilmember Fletcher asked if the cost of the study was included
in the sailing station. cost.
Mr. Adams said no.
Councilmember Fletcher asked for a rough estimate.
Mr. Adams did not have precise figures, but estimated it would be
expensive.
Councilmember Fletcher referred to the Harbor Master building, and
asked if staff estimated the cost of replacement rather than
renovation.
Mr. Adams said if the old building was removed and duplicated, it
would cost about $100,000. )t the old building was removed and
replaced with either a wood frame, stuccoed building, or concrete
block building, it would cost about $70,000.
Councilmember Renzel followed up on Vice Mayor Woolley's question
about studying the hydrology. The first step was to undertake a
complete hydrology study of the site. She queried whether it was
the site as shown on Exhibit A of the staff report, or the entire
harbor area.
Mr. Adams believed it meant the surrounding area, everything that
influenced the area.
Councilmember Renzel asked if the study would also look at the
best location to restore marsh in order to optimize the useful
life of the inner harbor, area.
Mr. Adams said only if that was Council's direction. Staff
referred to a sailing station in the mouth of the harbor.
Councilmember Renzel clarified by "vicinity," staff meant the
outer area beyond the launching ramp.
Mr. Adams said yes, and the slough directly across from the loca-
tion.
Councilmember Renzel clarified the flood basin access.
Mr. Adams said that was correct.
Councilmember Renzt:l had a procedural question about the five
items listed in the staff report. She did not have a clear pic-
ture of exactly what Council was approving if it directed staff to
study all those things in great detail with hydrological studies,
engineering and environmental studies, and then sending all that
to the Planning Commission and ARS. What if Council did not like
the results. There needed to be some review by Council before
going on to those more costly steps. She asked what staff had
mind by the referral with so many detailed studies to be pursued
before -it returned to Council.
Mr. Adams said the intent was to briefly outline the normal proj-
ect procedure. All City projects went through the process where
staff designed and went through the site and design review pro-
cess, which was essentially what the referral was. Staff could
modify it at Council's direction and return for guidance at any
time should Council ask staff to develop the project.
Councilmember Renzel said a lot of the information requested
Council should already have before directing staff to spend a lot
of money: which was what she was trying to understand.
Mayor --Cobb clarified the issues. Embodied in the three staff
items before Council, w.eres (1) The closure of the berthing
facilities; (2) the question of temporary berthing for the Sea
Scouts in their present. location; (3) deciding what to do about
the three sets of structures, the Harbor Maater, Yacht Club, and
Sea Scout- buildings; and (4) the question of small boat sailing
and/or a sailing station and: related issues of that nature
including the pontoons, etc., tied into the question.
6 8 4 7.
2/10/86
As corrected.
3/24/86
Charles Gray, 647 Arboleda Drive, Los Altos, chaired the Junior
Division Sailing Program conducted by the Palo Alto Yacht Club,
which program existed since 1955. Almost 2,000 kids went through
the program, and some went on to world class participation in
sailing events. Boys and girls, aged approximately 9 to 16, from
all over the local area participated, and over half had -no affili-
ation with the Yacht Club. The program was limited to 30 because
of limited resources, the main one being instructors in the small
boats. The importance of having one instructor per child was
because in the initial stages of learning to sail, there was
plenty of opportunity to get frightened. The instructor taught
what the boats did when going forward and backwards, and it was
important to have somebody experienced on hand. He wanted to
increase the use of instructor resources in the program by
enlisting the services of day sailors which might facilitate three
children in a somewhat larger boat under the guidance of one
instructor thereby smoothing over the initial stages of instruc-
tion. The boats for the program were provided in past years by
members of the Palo Alto Yacht Club, and in some instances, the
boats were provided by the participants themselves. The, boats
were eight -foot "yachts," which was derived from the Dutch -word,
" jacht," meaning to hunt, and an eight --foot boat was a yacht to
the same extent as a 75 -foot boat. He estimated an hour and one-
half to two and one-half hours on either side of high tide when
sailing was possible. If the intent was to sail in the bay, it
was okay; if the intent was to sail in the harbor at the lower
high tides; one could sail in the channels, but it was difficult,
for example, to conduct a race which would use the entire area of
the harbor because the depth of the water was not uniform. The
instructors who staffed the program were drawn frow the ranks of
the Palo Alto Yacht Club with much participation by the parents
whose children were in the program. In the future the program
would be conducted jointly with the Sea Scouts. The program was
valuable for children because it encouraged self-reliance, was
wonderful recreation, and was a real way of looking at the world.
Vice Mayor Woolley asked if Mr. Gray said the inner harbor was
presently usable for about one and one-half to two and one-half
hours on each side of high tide.
Mr. Gray said yes i:= the Intent was to' -sail out into the bay. If
the intent was to sail over the expanse of the inner harbor, it
Was hard toe quantify because even a small boat, such as an El
Torro, hai a draft of three feet because of the centerboard. He
experienced frustrations in the past trying to teach kids hew to
sail and winding up teaching them how to get off the mud.
Councilmember Renzel asked Mr. Gray how long he expected to be
able to use the facility on either side of high tide if he was
using a launch facility near the current launching ramp, or some
other facility.
Mr. Gray expected around the one and one-half to two and one-half
hours under present condition: For purposes of teaching,
however, another limitation was high tide in the morning because
in the afternoon the winds were too strong for beginning bailors,
it was harder to ensure their safety by means of power boat res-
cue.
Councilmember. Renzel asked if the lessons required a morning
tide.
Mr. Gray said the past year lessons were every other Saturday
because of the constraint, and started anywhere from 8:3(► a.m. to
10;30 a.m. and always concluded before noon.
Councilmember Renzel clarified he did not expect to take the kids
way out into tile. channel for the particular program.
Mr. Gray said no.
6 $ 4 8
2/10/86
Councilmember Sutorius asked. Mr-. Gray what, if any, storage
requirements his program needed to conduct the program in a
sai l 1 ng station.
Mr. Gray said for the purposes of using El Torros or similar small
boats, storage facilities for the boats themselves were desirable. -
The alternative was to store them off -site and bring them on -site
with a trailer, which involved a lot of logistics, but he pre-
ferred not to.
Councilmember Renzel referred to Mr. Gray's remark that he ran the
program every other weekend, which she assumed was during the sum-
mer. She asked how many sessions were in a given year.
Mr. Gray said approximately 10 sessions.
Councilmember Renzel clarified Mr. Gray ran the program over a
20 -week period.
Mr.- Gray said yes,
Tom Espersen, 784 Danforth Terrace, Sunnyvale, was a recreational
and racing sailor for about 12 years and was used to going to
other_ places on the Bay to sail and get experience. He had a
21 -year old nephew who had a Hobie Cat with a trailer for it, and
he took the Hobie Cat wherever he went. He believed the
Councilmembers had a mandate from the electorate, and also a good
recommendation from staff to close the harbor. There were sailing
alternatives available in the area, which might require more tra-
vel and inconvenience. The public had beautiful baylands and
marsh lands. It did not bother him to drive up to Emeryville to
hop on his friend's sailboat to go racing or cruising, and he
enjoyed being able to see the baylands, marsh grasses, and birds,
etc. that had been out there for many years, and hoped they would
all be able to continue to do so in Palo Alto.
Phil LaRiviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, sailed a fair amount in the
past, built three boats, and at one time was Commodore of the
first Windmill Fleet on San Francisco Bay. The fleet was formed
for fun, unorganized as opposed to disorganized pleasure boating.
He was not affiliated with the Yacht Club and was not interested
in competitive sailing, but was compelled to mention City Council
pre -1980 voted to close the harbor; which was followed by Measure
D where the majority of the voters of Palo Alto said they did not
want any more dredging and did not want to see the dredging spoils
indiscriminately dumped on marsh. The previous year, Measure C
initiative came up, and a majority of the voters said they did not
want the harbor operated on a user -supported basis and did not
want the Master Plan amended to put boating requirements above all
other public uses. Therefore, he hoped Council would proceed with
the wishes of the people of Palo Alto. The Yacht Club, PAHA, and
the Sea Scouts had five years to plan for the closing of the har-
bor, an orderly closure of their affairs, and withdrawal to other
harbors in the area, so it was a lot to expect the City to rescue
their accumulated needs at the eleventh hour. With regard to the
staff report on the sailing station, it was mentioned there was no
clear _ description of what they were talking about. As he
recalled, it came up when the Yacht Club planned to move to
Redwood City, they could keep a toe hold by opening a sailing
station in Palo Alto where access to the Bay was easy for smal1
boats. Further on in the staff report there were some inflated
figures of boat launch usage in Palo Alto. For instance the
report claimed as many as 150 boats were launched on a weekend,
presumably at the Yacht Club. If his math was right, if one put
150 boats in the water, 150 had to be picked back up again, which
was 300 operations. If it was done as fast as three minutes each,
which was going like clockwork, that was 900 minutes, or 15 hours
of .operation of_ the hoist over a two-day period. Four minutes
took. 20 hours, etc. The use of the public ramp was low in spite
b 8 4 9
2/10/86
of PAHA's dredging over the last four years. He believed the
last available figures were something like 250 l a ,nchi ngs; a small
number. Where was the call from the public for the sailing__
station. Was the City planning to spend a lot- of money on a need
that did not exist. There was also a statement in the staff
report that few sites around the bay were "as ideally suited for
small boat use as Palo Alto's harbor and adjacent waters."
Finally, the conclusions of the staff report were revieeed with a
spokesperson from the Yacht Club. Since the facility was to be
shared with the general public, he wondered why no invitation was
made to the general public to similarly review the conclusions.
He knew of no single picture presented anywhere which showed how
the sailing station and the Sea Scout mooring would be done. He
superimposed two figures which came right out of the staff report,
with the Sea Scout mooring reduced to the proper scale. He
believed both planned to put their facilities in the same spot, so
he arbitrarily moved the Sea Scout mooring facility down to the
only space available. The space was pretty well taken up, with
virtually no maneuvering space. The pier for the sailing station
extended 210 feet out from the parking lot in order to reach the
channel. The report stated over 40 launchings a day could be made
over the busy weekend, which wee 80 operations. At 15 minutes
each, it was 20 hours of hoist operation; therefore, he believed
the figures were inflated because it took too long to go back and
forth one at a time to do any kind of a volume operation. It
would be a disservice to the general public to leave the public
launch ramp out.
Florence LaRiviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, said there would be no
financial gain should the City take over the complicated manage-
ment cf the Yacht Harbor. Most departments of the City government
would become involved in the intricacies of such an operation for
a short period of use. The two elections showed the people did
not want to continue the endless processes employed since 1928 in
an effort to keep the harbor usable at high tide. She supported
the staff recommendation to remove the berths. In regard to the
other plans, before appreciable amounts of money were spent, she
urged the people he gi_c,. c cleat= idea of what projects were being
studied, what land uses they involved, and what the public bene-
fits would be.
Tryg Ager, 954 Bla►r Court, favored the sailing station proposal.
He represented Palo Alto Day Sailor Fleet Four, and was the Fleet
Captain of the organization. Their membership consisted of 21
boats in Palo Alto and their purpose was competitive small boat
sailing, and also disorganized sailing of the same small boats for
pleasure. Fleet Four worked in Palo Alto for over 25 years and
sailed a full schedule of races each year. They hosted national
championships twice since 1979, and several members became
national champions in the Day Sailor class. Frequently fleets
like theirs were affiliated with sailing clubs with a broader and
larger membership, so they happened to be affiliated with the Palo
Alto Yacht Club which involved 160 more people, and with the
regional Day Sailing organization which involved people in Fresno,
Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and were affiliated with the Pacific Coast
group that took them all the way up to Oregon and down to San
Diego. Those groups got together at different places, sometimes
in Palo Alto and sometimes elsewhere. They were also affiliated
with the Bey Area Small Board Racing Association which was a con-
sortium of similar classes interested in competitive sailing.
Some of the boats in the Small Boat Racing Association all met the
requirement outlined in the plan, 15-16 feet, less than 1,500
pounds, and all could sail: in Palo Alto. Each boat had its own
organization and class association and represented groups of
sailors about their size, perhaps bigger. If the sailing station
became a reality, he believed participation in the competitive
small boat sailing would be as was seen five to ten years ago when
the harbor was in much better shape. The sai f l n9 station was a
quality facility that would be used by those organizations in a
6 8 5 0
2/10/86
meaningful way. Public use was important in the sailing station,
and they were happy. to see broader use. As Day Sailors, they were
not interested in excleeive use, but preferred the foci1ity he
available in the community for those who wanted to use it, and to
see it operated in a cooperative and encouraging way for all the
groups in Palo Alto and outside who could benefit by it. They
looked at the cost estimates for the facility, and he believed the
$3 charge was well within what they paid the Palo Alto Yacht Club.
in terms of dues to launch and recover their facility. The fees
were reasonable and a little higher would probably be tolerable if
the alternative was to not sail in the South Bay. The sailing
there was e:x-:..'lient, and nowhere else in the Bay could one have as`
continuous and enjoyable sailing as in Palo Alto. They encouraged
Council to go forward with the report in the proper and judicious
way, examining the issues as they came up, and hoped it became a
reality sometime in the future
Vice Mayor Woolley said since Mr. Ager sailed a boat he was used
to launching from the Club and going out into the Bay, she asked
about the tide window when sailing from the inner harbor.
Mr. Ager believed Mr. Gray's estimate was right; there was about
five to six hours of activity on the Bay which was plenty on a
hot day.
Vice Mayor Woolley asked about the tide window the condition of
the Bay would allow, and whether boats would be able to race in
the Bay if Council kept the facility at the present location.
Mr. Ager said if Council kept the facility in the inner harbor, he
believed the boats could race during t►e present season and
probably the next season; after that it would be a struggle. If
the facility was at the mouth, the channel from the launch ramp
out was minimally dredged, and sort of maintained itself. He
could not predict the future, but it was worth gambling on.
Councilmember Patitucci asked how many people typically sailed in
one of the boats.
Mr. Ager said a Day Sailor was a two -person boat. He showed
pictures of the Laser and Sunfish which were small one -person
boats. Some took three people.
Councilmember Patitucci asked if the boats were pulled on
trailers, on top of cars, were two -people able to carry them out
to the end of a dock and toss them in the water.
Mr. Ager said most of the boats were hidden in garages in Palo
Alto on trailers. They were detached from the car, the mast put
up, the rigging done, and rolled out to the hoist. It took about
two minutes to get the boat into the water and the trailer out of
the way with people cooperating. The boats were recovered in the
same way and brought back to a rigging area and taken apart. They
tried to minimize the time on the hoists so that people could get
in and out quickly.
Councilmember Renzel asked if Mr. Ager would expect to continue to
schedule activities at the higher tides.
Mr. Ager said yes because even out in the Bay the water was
shallow and a reasonable tide was needed to sail. Palo Alto had
always been a high tide harbor, but the high tide window was as
long as six to seven houre when one got out on the Bay at certain
times of the month.
Councilmember Renzel clarified Mr. Ager suggested five to six
hours presently from the inner harbor.
Mr. Ager said yes.
6 8 S 1
2/10/86
As corrected
3/24/86
Councilmember Renzel said the channel was narrow going out to the
main channel of the Bay, and she asked if the Day Sailors tried to
go clear out to the main part of the Bay, or stayed within the
area around the channel_ in the Palo Alto vicinity for races.
Mr. Ager said a tower was erected out there which was an entry
marker for the harbor, and it was also used as a starting platform
for racing. Generally they raced beyond it. The trip was about a
20 minutes from the Yacht Club dock to the tower, and would be
about a 10 -minute trip from the sailing station.
Councilmember Levy asked. Mr. Ager to comment on how long it took
to launch boats off the ramp, and the number of boats he saw being
able to use the sailing station facility.
Mr. Ager said a ramp took longer than a hoist. With a hoist,
launching could be done in as little as a couple of minutes. One
picked up the boat, swung it out, dropped it in the water,
detached it, and pulled it up. By then, somebody took the trailer
out of the way and put another one in. They launched about 30
boats in an hour for eegattas at the Palo Alto Yacht Club hoist
which was a similar facility.
Henry Cohan, 1425 Edgewood Drive, spoke on behalf of the Palo Alto
Yacht Club, The Yacht Club endorsed the idea of a sailing sta-
tion. Regarding the financing for the sailing station, in October
1984 there was a meeting in Bill Zaner's office with him, June
Fleming, and Paul Thiltgen to discuss such a station. At that
time, the question of Yacht Club participation in financing was
raised, and he stated the Yacht Club would be glad to support a
station financially provided the Club had priority use of such a
station on days when the Club had a regatta or junior activities.
There seemed to be a general agreement it was a reasonable end
fair thing to do, and the Club proceeded in that direction. In
December, 1984, Council directed staff to prepare a report; in
June, 1985, the report was delivered as a preliminary report; and
that evening Council was getting a more final report. He was
called by a member of the City staff about a week and one-half ago
to discuss some of the final details. He provided considerable
assistance, guidance, and information along the way on the issue,
and was surprised when told, "You understand because of the
requirement for public access, you couldn't have more than one day
a month of priority use of such a station," followed by, "How much
money does the Club plan to put into building such a station." -He
was surprised since the .Club had never before been asked after the
meeting in Bill Zaner's office to negotiate; was never called upon
to discuss the matter''•._until that moment on the telephone. Since
the Club was entitled to one day a month of priority use, he said
the Club would not put anything into such a station. He clarified
it was like a timeshare condominium; if the Club was entitled to
one day a month, one -thirtieth of the use of such a station for
priority, they would probably put in one -thirtieth of the cost.
If the Club put in a substantial amount of the cost, it would
expect a substantial priority use of the station, which was not
unreasonable; in fact, it was luaicrous and naive to believe any
group would put a substantial amount of money into a facility and
receive nothing in exchange. The Club favored having a sailing
station, and if guaranteed a priority use, would support it finMn-
cially. In 1962, the Palo Alto Yacht Club gave the. City of Palo
Alto a deed which conveyed its rights to 6.4 acres of the Yacht
Harbor as parkland. He gave the City _Attorney a copy of the deed
(on file in the City Clerk's office). He mentioned that to staff
sometime ago, but staff was unable to find .the recorded -deed. The
copy given to the City Attorney contained the book, page number,
date, and a note signed by Jerry Keithly accepting the gift to the
6 8 5 2
2/10/86
City. There was an oral agreement under which the then city
Council agreed the Palo Alto Yacht Club, in exchange for 6.4 acres
of property, would have perpetual rights to a plot for the
location of a yacht club. All he knew was the Club was now
evicted from their clubhouse.
Councilmember Sutorius referred to the .junior Sailing Program and
the Day Sailing process, and asked about the priority reservation
in terms of usage and the time elements involved.
Mr. Cohan said generally on a race day when the harbor was more
usable, people arrived one and one-half to two hours before
starting time. If the starting time waa 1:00 p.m., people started
arriving at 10:30 a.m. or 11:00 a.m., rigged their boats, and
started putting them into the water. The boats had to be in the
water by 12:30 p.m. in order to get to the starting line by 1:00
p.m. On days when there was a regatta or Junior Division
activities, the Club asked for priority for getting boats into the
water before general public access to a hoist.
Councilmember Sutorius clarified the priority was getting the
boats in and out of the water.
Mr. Cohan said yes.
Councilmember. Sutorius clarified the Club was not talking about
storage, meetings, anything other than the use of the physical
facility to get the boats in the water and out.
Mr. Cohan said yes. .At the time a station was discussed in hill
Zaner's office a year and one-half ago, they also discussed the
requirement for some kind of building in which to store equipment
and the two rescue launches the Club used in racing and running
Junior Division as safety boats. It was not mentioned 1,n the
report, but he assumed such a building was a requirement in order
to have a safe and operable sailing station.
Councilmember Sutorius said in Mr. Cohan's responses to questions
as far as the requirements, the essential requirement was pre-
ferred opportunity as far as launching and retrieval.
Mr. Cohan said yes, in the event the Yacht Club put a substantial
amount of money into such a station.
Vice Mayor Woolley referred to the Junior Division program, and
assumed if El Toros and Lasers were involved, they would be hand -
carried onto the dock. rather than trailered, so there was no need
for the priority use of the hoist for that program which would
only use the hoist for the safety launch.
Mr. Cohan said that was correct. There was a need for the use of
the float, however, for launching the boats, especially for the
Junior Division when children were launching.
Vice Mayor Woolley believed that would not exclude use by a few
public boats which wanted to go through.
Councilmember Renzel asked if the Club stored their safety boats
in a building presently.
• I
Mr. Cohan said the safety boats were kept on the Club's pier.
Councilmember Renzel clarified the safety boats were presently
outside.
Mr. Cohan said yes, but if the safety boats were out at that
point, the Club considered the risk of vandalism considerably
higher because of the local clientele.
6 8 5 3
2/10/86
As co/rgt$g
Coertcilmember Levy asked for some idea of what Mr. Cohan was
thinking of when, as representative of the Yacht club, he indi-
cated the Yacht Club would participate in the costs of the sailing
station in terms of financial participation and the reserved times
the Club required.
Mr. Cohan said that was almost opening a negotiation in public.
Councilmember Levy said he did not want to negotiate but wanted to
get some idea of what was on Mr. Cohan's mind.
Mr. Cohan said the Club was considering numbers in the area of
five figures, and the mental estimates the Club came up with were
something like the Staff reached in its estimates of the cost of a
facility. The Club was thinking in terms of a third to one-half,
perhaps two weekends of a month; perhaps a long weekend in times
like Labor Day, July 4th, when the Club had guest regattas, i.e.,
people from other areas such as the Small Boat Raping Association,
or a major regatta like Day Sailor Nationals, or West Coast
Championships when the Club required priority for two or three
mornings.
Councilmember Levy asked if "priority" pretty much excluded the
general public from access.
Mr. Cohan said "priority" excluded the public from access until
all the racing boats were in the_ water, which meantperhaps two to
three hours.
Councilmember Renzel assumed the Yacht Club scheduled its regattas
at the higher high tides.
Mr. Cohan said yes.
Councilmember Renzel asked if that was midday.
Mr. Cohan said the 'regattas usually started sometime after
11:00 a.m. and not much later than 1:30 p.m. because winds got too
strong in the late afternoon.
Councilmember Renzel believed there would be a lot of social
activity with guest regattas at the sailing station, and she asked
where it was expected to occur.
Mr. Cohan said that was another question the Club had not yet
entertained since the Club was losing its facility there.
Councilmember Renzel clarified the Club did not feel having the
sailing station's use for regattas was dependent on having a faci-
lity in the baylands for their Club.
Mr. Cohan said the Club had many small boat sailors, about 60 of
the total membership, which was not an insignificant number, and
the Club was willing to support a station in order to support
small boat sailing.
Councilmember Renzel said her question was whether the Club was
doing that independently, whether or not it had a facility in the
baylands.
Mr. Cohan said as long as the Club's small boat sailors wanted
access to the South Bay, the Club was willing to support it.
Katharine McCann, -783 Garland Drive, urged the. Palo Alto City
Council to adopt the staff recommendation that the Palo Alto
Harbor berth be removed at the_ end of the County lease in July.
She was distressed the matter was not settled after two City votes
to end the Yaeht Harbor. She hoped that evening it would be
finale
6 8 5 4
2/10/86
Dr. Ivan Gendzel, 1019 Harker Avenue, was the recently -elected
President of the Stanford Area Council Boy Scouts of America,
which the previous year was involved with approximately 2,800
youths, 1,000 adult volunteers, and a budget of almost $500,000.
The three traditional divisions in the program included Cub Scouts
ages 7 to 10; Boy Scouts ages 11 to 17; and Explorer Scouts, males
and females, ages 14-20. The Sea Scout program was one of several
within the Explorer Division and served youth in the area for the
past 55 years. The Sea Scout program was vocational and avoca-
tional. It trained young people to sail and also operate power
vessels from a recreational perspective- It also provided suffi-
cient depth and breadth 1n large, deep- haft vessel . operation and
maintenance for young people to gain insights into maritime
careers. The program had about 100 people and there was a steady
turnover as members reached age 21 or went off to college.
Regarding some of the special youth in the program, some had not
demonstrated success in other areas and might even have educa-
tional handicaps. Sea Scouts offered an alternative program in
which they could succeed; a, program which stressed the basic
values of scouting, and one in which reading and writing skills
were not of paramount importance. The Sea Scout program for those
participants was an invaluable addition to what Palo Al to offered
to its youth. The Stanford Area Council enjoyed'a long and mutu-
ally beneficial relationship with the City of Palo Alto.
Representatives of the Stanford Area Council were present' that
evening because they wanted the `Sea Scout program to continue to
serve the youth of the area. To do so effectively, the program
required meeting facilities for land/ship activities for several
units, storage space for gear and equipment for breeches buoy, and
bosun's chair, workshop space for equipment repair, and berthing
facilities for deep -draft vessels. Santa Clara County used to
have a Sea Scout program at the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor. They knew
from the demise of the program that travel time and distance to
get to where the boats were berthed were critical factors. The
distance between the land ship meeting place and a unit's vessel
was also critical. Proximity made for program flexibility in
training and activities and for a sense of identification with a
home base. With the closure of the Palo Alto Harbor, Sea Scout
volunteer leaders worked hard to explore viable alternatives, and
no feasible alternate site emerged. For land/ship activities and
storage, the "Sea Scout base met their needs. With the sea wall
repaired, it would also remain dry. They would like to negotiate
a lease. He did not know the fine points of the law and the role
of local precedent, but there hied to be an acceptable solution to
the problems. He understood the Palo Alto City staff suggested
the City construct a public use building with the Sea Scouts
having the first usage, which could be a perfectly acceptable gray
of meeting their needs. The Sea Scouts proposed a solution to the
deep -draft vessel berthing problem. Without City support, the
appropriate permits would not be issued. They, therefore, needed
the City's help and looked forward to planning With the City for a
facility that would serve them all. He asked Council to give the
problem sympathetic consideration.
Councilmember Klein said the list of facilities needed by the Sea
Scouts was long and impressive. He asked if the Stanford Area
Council costed out what those facilities would, be, and where Dr.
Gendzel saw the money coming from to pay far . them.
Dr. Gendzel had not costed the facilities out, and some of the
following speakers more directly involved in the program might be.
able to better answer.
Councilmember Renzel asked if Or. Gendzel had been out to the
Baylands to look at low tide at the site proposed for the new
berthing facilities.
Dr. Gendzel said not recently.
Councilmember Renzel said when Council took the tour, they ;ere
told the Sea Scouts wanted to hertn landward of the channel
markers. In her experience, the whole area was exposed mud, at
least at a tide as high as a 4.2. At the same time, the inner
harbor where the boats were presently berthed had water around the
boats --they might :got be floating --at a minus .1 tile.. She
queried whether the Scout Council evaluated the proposal because
it seemed the outer channel was not a preferable location.
Dr. Gendzel deferred to Commodore McConnell for response.
Warren Merritt, 1745 Linnet Lane, Sunnyvale, was an employee of
the Goy Scouts of America, and his responsibilities included the
Sea Scout program and facilities. Regarding the narrow issue of
the Sea Scout use of public facilities, they were considered by
many agencies to also be a public agency. In 1914, the Congress
gave them a charter to serve the youth of the United States, and
in the past 75 years they had excellent relationships. The Scouts
had a special relationship with the federal government, the U.S.
Forest Service, the parkland where they had camps, the State spe-
cial facilities and considerations, in cities --notably Palo Alto,
they enjoyed the special relationship for over 45 years. The City
of Alameda recently built a : marina at Bolina Bay, part of which
had to be dedicated to public access, and the City did that by
building a Sea Scout base which berthed a 65 -foot and a 40 -foot
boat. Many other cities, Vallejo, Martinez, Sacramento, Stockton,
Petaluma, Redwood City, Belmont, San Mateo, South San Francisco,
and the City of San Francisco, all helped the program by making
City facilities available. If the Sea Scouts had exclusive use
and could control the use of a facilities, then they could have it
insured. If the facilities were open to the general public with
no supervision, that would create an insurance problem for the
Scouts. Regarding facilities, he urged Council consider giving
the Scouts the exclusive use they enjoyed for so many years.
L i nl ey Harvey, 13410 La Cresta Drive, Los Altos Hills, served as
skipper of Sea Scout ship Intrepid for the past 24 years, which
ship was one of the five Sea. Scout units based at the Palo Alto
Yacht Harbor. Sea Scouts held weekly meetings for instruction and
discussion of planned events. Weather and tides permitting, a
weekly meeting was often preceded by an activity such as rowing
a 24 -foot whale boat --crew of 10 --or by regatta practices such as
rigging the breeches buoy, hoisting, etc. Such activities not
only sharpened mariners' skills, but served to work out tensions
and frustrations in the youth who might have had a particularly
bad day in the struggle to achieve academic goals. The Intrepid
was an active vessel providing facilities for extended cruising on
both inland and offshore waters. The Intrepid was a Coast Guard
certified vessel for crew plus 49 passengers. The complete navi-
gational system was on board providing learning opportunities for
the crew in the use of radar and many other things. For crew
members interested in engineering, a 500 -horsepower diesel main
engine awaited their attention and sufficient output allowed the
vessel to serve in emergency rescue operations of other vessels in
need. Sea Scout vessels have assisted the Coast Guard in search
and rescue activities. A measure of a ship's water program was
the number of days underway and distance traveled.. In 1985, the
Intrepid made 15 voyages, was underway 56 days, traveled 1630
nautical miles, and carried a total of 438 youth plus crew.
During the time, two Cub packs were given a day' -s outing on the
Bay; one Boy Scout troop had a shark fishing trip; and six mariner
groups went aboard and served as crew as part of their training.
Although the idea a Palo Alto -based boat could serve any useful
purpose d'ri ng a national civil disaster was disputed, he offered
the following statistics for consideration: When serving as a
personnel transport, Intrepid could move up to 200 persons; as a
cargo transport, Intrepid could carry 25 tons. In terms of fresh
water, it was roughly 6,000 gallons per trip. A large percentage
of Sea Scouts chose careers in marine' -oriented fields.
6 8 5 6
2/10/86
COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:40 p.m. TO 9:50 p.m.
Sharon Boynton, 1145 South Sage, Sunnyvale, was a mate on the
Morning Star, Sea Scout ship No ;110, based in Palo Alto. The
participants in her group were all high school girls, and to go
further than Palo Alto for water and a place to leave boots was
difficult. The same was true for the guy ships. They worked with
young people to help develop skills and sound values, and she
asked for Council support. The skills related to sailing, seaman-
ship, navigation, ship operation and maintenance, and other
activities related to water. Safety was a major factor. Scout
ships met one night a week and most weekends. The night meetings
were used for planning and administration for indoor learning such
as map reading, navigation, knots and signals. During the regatta
season, they practiced regatta events outside. If they were get-
ting ready for a cruise, they took time to check and repair their
gear. The skipper and mate for the Sea Scout unit gave as many
hours as possible to the program, which was 40 hours per week and
more for some people. She gave a minimum of eight hours a week
for the school years and also worked part time. Each unit had its
own vessels. Vessels required Coast Guard certification and the
same regulations as passenger vessels for hire, and maintenance.
and improvements budgets were considerable, The people worked
hard to retain their vessels. They were usually given to them by
government organizations as surplus or they were donated to the
program by people seeking tax write-offs. If the present
facilities and docking were lost, the units were likely to decline
and ultimately go out of existence. While most of the present
members would stay with the units, many perspective new members'
parents would discourage their chidren from joining because of the
difficulties.
Douglas McConnell, 4174 Oakhill Avenue, was a commodore in the
local Sea Scouts within the Stanford Area Council. In order to
function, the program needed facilities. The most obvious
solution was for the City to negotiate a lease with the Scouts for
the land surrounding the base or some comparable piece of land in
the harbor area and to provide a lease related to the berthing
facilities. He suggested the City of Palo Alto recognize the Boy
Scouts of America as a public organization. There were tests to
see if an organization was essentially private or public. One
could cask questions such as whether the organization was open to
all; did it discriminate; did itexist for private benefit or the
benefit of a narrow segment of the community. On the basis of
those tests and others, the Boy Scouts of America was seen by
practically all to be a public organization. Even if they
accepted staff's opinion that the Boy Scouts of America was
private, then staff agreed the courts upheld the use of structures
and parkland providing there was some public access. They were
anxious to keep their program alive so they were prepared to be
flexible and do the best possible in negotiating with the City.
The City's own practices appeared to be in conflict with the staff
conclusions related to providing leases to the Scouts. From
October, 1940 to January, 1962, the City leased the present site
of the base to the Scouts. The Stanford Area Council was
headquartered in the Lucie Stern Center in Rinconada Park; the
Santa Clara County Girl Scouts of America was located in Rinconada
Park; the Palo Alto Bowling Club operated on City property; the
operations at the Airport and Golf Course appeared .to offer not
only public access, but private gain and benefit to certain
organizations and individuals for leasehold arrangements
concerning parklands. Regarding Arastra Preserve, the mansion
might be exempt and not dedicated parkland, but the stables were
part of the dedicated parkland, and only 9. of the 43 horses
belonged to Palo Al tans. The City supported, and the voters
affirm , the swap of land dedicated as parkland to the skaters.
One suggestion might be for a piece of property to be undelicated
if necessary to provide facilities for the Scouts. Regarding the
berthing of their largest ships, they originally believed the dock
might be able to sit on the mud at low. tide, but a letter from San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development (BCDC) said it would
not be accedtab1e. They now suggest.d the dock be moved closer to
the present area of the launch ramp, which was the same site
chosen for the sailing station. There -was only one area where a
dock could float at all times and all tides, .and the Scouts
believed there were some creative ways whereby the Sea Scouts'
needs and sailing station needs could be met. If the dock was
extended to 160 feet, it could be berthed beside the edge of the
channel so the dock floated at all times, which would allow about
50 feet at the end near the gangway for small boat sailing and
access. He hoped the Council would affirm its support for
scouting in the community, and, for staff to be instructed to work
with the Sea Scouts.
Councilmember Renzel asked if the Morning Star '.,was an additional
ship or another name for a ship included in the report.
Mr. McConnell said it was an additional name.
Councilmember Penzel referred to a new Scout troop being formed
over which Mr. McConnell was skipper, and which was sponsored by
the Yacht Club. She asked if it was still being formed.
Mr. McConnell said the unit was formed, and the Junior Sailing
Program of the Yacht Club was now enrolled and registered as a Sea
Explorer Unit within the Stanford Area Council.
Councilmember Patitucci referred to the concept where the large
boats were at the end of a long 150 -foot dock. The description of
the use of the vessels, the frequency of use and the maintenance
of motorized equipment seemed to require a fairly heavy use of the
dock, and he asked if it was seen as a problem given that on any
sunny weekend day in the summer, if the staff estimates were any-
where near appropriate, there would be a lot of conflict between
the needs of the scouts and the use by the public of the sailing
station.
Mr. McConnell did not believe there was a problem because once one
of the big boats moved and went out through the channel into the
Bay, as long as there was enough water to get back up the channel,
and one of the benefits of putting it out beyond the dredging and
in the edge of the channel, was there were two or three feet of
water even at low tide. At high tide, there were several feet of
water so they probably had a better window there than there was
currently.
Councilmember Patitucci asked if the land -based activities were
separable from the water -based activities.
Mr. McConnell said it was difficult. At their present base, they
could store many things, and during a scout night, they could be
taken out across the road and used. If the whale boat could be
put in the watee and tide was up, the boys could get one-half hour
of rowing. If the land/ship activities were separated, sheer
logistics made a land/ship meeting a pencil and paper, talking
type of activity rather than something practical.
Vice Mayor Woolley referred to the diagram and said if the
floating pier was extended on each side of the pier, one side for
the Sea Scout s berthing and the other side for the public sailing
station, but in reverse, i.e., the Sea Scout berthing would be
closer to the inner harbor, and the public part closer to the Bay,
she asked it if would present any problem. She asked because
Council was concerned about the public boats being able to get
around the Sea Scout boats. If it was reversed, the public would
not need to get around the Sea Scout boats.
Mr. McConnell believed that was feasible. In terms of the Scouts,
it made no great difference. He believed there was room to tack,
but it would be easier for the day sailor if the situation was
reversed.
Councilmember Klein asked if the list of improvements was costed
out and where the money wnul d come from
Mr. McConnell sa l the improvements were not specifically costed
out because they could function in their present building assuming
it could have a sandbagged wall, and the wall repaired. They
could probably function in the building far another ten years
without spending a lot of money, and with just minimum mainte-
nance. By spending $20,000, they could probably turn the building
into a comfortable base of operations for another ten years with
improvements to the toilet facilities, galley, etc. He believed
if the Sea Scouts had the lease to a piece of property and
berthing which guaranteed their activities, they could raise funds
to build a new building for themselves. He was prepared to work
with individuals and foundations provided it was for the Scouts,
and it was not something the City could take._
Councilmember Renzel asked how security for the Scout boats would
be provided if the Sea Scouts had a shared use as outlined in the
report.
Mr. McConnell said they presently had hatch ways and hatch covers,
etc., that locked. The security .would have to be improved; and,
if there were given hours of operation, they would put an access
gate across and lock it, as was the case on their present gang-
way.
Councilmember Renzel asked whether the secured gangway was on the
dock itself.
Mr. McConnell said it was on the gangway.
Councilmember Renzel clarified the public would not have access to
the dock.
Mr. McConnell said not 24 hours a day. There was no need because
the park closed at 10:00 p.m.
Councilmember Renzel was thinking of midday when there might he
high tide and someone wanted to use it.
Mr. McConnell said in that event they would have to arrange some
way of public access.
Councilmember Renzel said the idea was to have the gangway
secured.
Mr. McConnell said there would need to be some sort of security
because if it was a Scout facility, the Scouts had some liability
and needed insurance, etc., to work and be protected.
Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, referred to the sailing station and wanted
to ensure when Council considered it, they took into account all
the costs, factors, pluses and minuses. In CMR:14o:6 on pages 6
and 7, staff listed five specific things to be done in addition to
the estimated $75,000 cost of building the dock. Items #1 and #2,
the hydrology study and developing site specific plans, he
expected would cost .st.mewher°e on the order of $50,000 to $100,000
based on previous harbor consultant studies, and what the previous
costs were. He believed Attachment E to the sailing station costs
and income omitted several items. Several years ago Councilmember
Levy asked that all capital expenditures, especially for non -City
organizations, include the opportunity cost , of money and all the
depreciation of the costs. Taking relatively optimistic income
and expense figures, about half the $7,500 per year maintenance on
the dock would be covered. If the opportunity cost of the $75,000
capital investment for the dock earned about nine percent, that
was another $6,750 a year, so the true costs without figuring
amortization of the dock, maintenance and opportunity cost the
money, was over $14,000 a year. Council should bear in mind they
1�0h8%
from several people, including staff, that over the next few .years
it was likely the harbor would silt up to the point where even
small boat sailing would not be possible to the present extent and
might require additional building. In regard to the Scout
- facility and the Boy Scout headquarters at the Community Center,
he understood Lucie Stern donated it back in the mid -30s with the
requirement there be a facility available for the Scouts. The
Girl Scout house was available for other people to use, and
organizations with which he was associated rented it from time to
time. The Arastra Park house, when used as a house, was rented at
what the staff believed to be fair market value, so there was
certainly no gift of any public funds in that regard. As for the
stables, there was precedent for _using parkland for incidental
agricultural -type uses, which was what a stable would be. The
comments about the Peninsula Conservation Center (PCC) and Jewish
Community Center (JCC) were irrelevant because the PCC was given a
short-term lease and was in the process of being evicted and the
JCC was not on park -dedicated land. There were serious public
policy and legal issues with the City constructing a facility and
giving it to someone's exclusive use. No matter how beneficial
the use was or how much of a public entity they might be, they
were private. Regarding the Yacht Harbor closure, CMR:138:6, Palo
Alto voted on the issue twice and did not want to continue the
Yacht Harbor as a paid facility and did not want to put money into
it. He could not understand the City's still considering
overturning the vote of the people and hoped Council would not
further extend the pain and agony and would vote to close the
Yacht Harbor as of July 1, 1936.
Russell Breed, 1041 Shell Boulevard, Foster City, represented Day
Sailor Fleet 4 and was the Day Sailor class representative to the
Small Boat Racing Association (SBRA)• Palo Alto had a Day Sailor
fleet for a long time. There were other fleets throughout the
area and there were other accesses to the Bay; however, con-
trasting Palo Alto versus Redwood City, Palo Alto was a safe
facility. They did not have to jockey in and out of the harbor
competing with commercial fishing boats and racing boats running
in and out putting up big wakes which were a handicap to a junior
sailing program. There used to be a Day Sailor fleet at Redwood
City which was no longer in existence; . however, Palo Alto Fleet 4
remained constant over the past several years. SBRA had not raced
at Palo Alto recently, which was true. SBRA ran into a problem
with access in and out of the inner harbor where a lot of the fast
racing fleets wanted more time out on the water. As pointed out,
in racing out of the inner harbor versus going out of the mouth,
there was a difference in time, and if the facilities were roved
out to the mouth of the harbor, he believed some of the fleets
would return to Palo Alto.
Dick Trainero 3423 Cork Oak Way, referred to the Remmel Plan, and
believed the City should take a strong look at it. He urged
Council to delay harbor closure until September 1, 1987, and
direct staff to give serious consideration to the kemmel lcck pro-
posal.
Pau' Goldstein, 1024 E+.erson Street, favored the Yacht Harbor
closing. There were several elections in which the voters of Palo
Alto asked that the Yacht Harbor be closed. The City was not in
the business of running a Yacht Harbor, and new activities were
inherently expensive. Each time there was an election there was a
new attempt to maintain the Yacht Harbor. The longer to berths
and the boats were kept there, there would be repeated attempts to
reopen the issue taking up too much time and energy. He supported
the staff recommendation.
Pamela Boyer, 298 Stanford, Menlo Park, was senior adviser for the
Mariners Scout Troop in Palo Alto, a Girl. Scout organization which
had a small boat program in Palo Alto for over 30 years. They
always used the public launch ramp at Palo Alto to launch their
6 8 6 0
2/10/86
canoes, row boats, and small sail boats. Without some sort of
facility, their program would become more difficult. The Troop
currently had about a two-hour window off the launch ramp for
their canoes because of the setback from the channel. It was
increasingly silting up and was noticeable even in such a
shallow -draft vessel as a canoe and especially in the small sail
boats, so it was important some alternative program be devised for
the Troop to continue to use the facilities.
Vice Mayor Woolley asked if Ms. Noyer meant the use of the
launching ramp was down to two hours total.
Ms. Noyer clarified she meant on either side of high tide.
Vice Mayor Woolley asked if that varied in Ms. Noyer's experience
over the years.
Ms. Moyer said yes. She had been out there for about 15 years,
and right after dredging activities, of course, they had a much
longer span of time.
Vice Mayor Woolley asked if that longer span lasted for a matter
of months or years.
Ms. Noyer said the span lasted for years. It increasingly silted
up after dredging. The Troop had always been able to use it at
the longest three and one-half hours.
Joyce Leonard, 4107 Briarwood Way, spoke on behalf of the
Executive Board of the Palo Alto American Association of
University Women (AAUW) . Although AAUW neither opposed nor sup-
ported any of the plans mentioned for the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor,
they asked Councilmembers to carefully review and evaluate the
projects in some comprehensive manner. The AAUW made the request
partially on the basis of the recent public affirmation to close
the harbor, and because of the *epecial siltation and flushing
problems inherent in the harbor's southernmost location on the
Bay. She asked what recreational opportunities were possible with
the constraints. Palo Alto AAUW had long expressed interest in
the preservation and enhancement of the San Francisco Bay, its
sloughs and marshes. They believed the City of Palo Alto had been
exemplary in its efforts to preserve its baylands and hoped any of
the current projects being considered were evaluated within a
similar philosophy.
Arthur. Ogilvie, 948 Embarcadero Road, recommended the Harbor
Master building be preserved, the restrooms be added so the fabric
of the building was not overly damaged, andthe exterior be made
visually compatible with the historic aspects of the structure.
With regard to harbor closure, he recommended the harbor be closed
as required by BCDC. The sailing station needed more careful
study of its placement, considering the marsh that would be
encroached upon and/or destroyed, and a careful evaluation of
whether the dredge.: spoils could be disposed of to meet standards
set by BCDC. He also recommended careful examination be given to
the numbers of boats and boaters in relationship to the percent of
the population of Palo Alto and the needs of the public °eector in
comparison. Silting of the Yacht Harbor was not going to improve
in the foreseeable future because the inflows were being cut off
continually, and the more water stolen from Northern California
and diverted to Southern California, the worse the situation would
get. It also looked as if the area was in a possible trend of
drought years again:, meaning less flows, so a worsening of the
dismal situation could be seen with regard to the flushing,
particularly, of the SOuth Bay. Council should carefully weigh
the costs, with respect to anything done at the harbor, including
the sailing station.
6 8 6 1
2/10/86
ITEMS TO CONSIDER AFTER 11:00 p.m.
Mayor Cobb said Council would complete the public testimony and
continue with the issue until finished.
Ray Remmel, 345 Lincoln Avenue, lived in the City of Palo Alto
since 1951, but his earliest visits to the Baylands were in 1933
or 1934. The proposed Yacht Harbor plan he delivered to'Council
the previous Monday evening was essentially a copy of a highly
successful facility currently operating at Bel Marin Keys in Marin
County. He visited the facility several times and interviewed
many families residileg in the area. He also took extensive video
camera pictures of the facility both from the ground and from the
air. He appreciated the comments made by Councilmember Renzel
comparing the siltation and marsh facilities in the basin, and he
was confident all of Councilmember Renzel's comments could be
answered by adjusting the lock height of the water going into the
harbor. The sediment was precluded from going into the water as a
result of putting the lock there. It only took in water at the
highest tides,. the ebb, when things were quiet and minimally
sediment -laden, and the harbor could be filled then and be clean.
The marsh and inner (:arbor were of particular concern, and with
the locks, the level could be adjusted to any predetermined
elevation. They could maintain water in the harbor for the Sea
Scouts' boat or the Yacht Club boat. More importantly, they could
maintain water in the harbor for the canoes, kayaks, windsurfing,
and the things children could do internally in the harbor they
could not do out on the Bay itself. For safety's sake, it was a
great facfiity comparable to the lake in Fremont. There were
others around the area; Foster City had a similar facility; and it
worked well in Bel Marin Keys and could work in Palo Alto.
Council had before them two drastically different viewpoints for
uses of the Bay. One provided boating facilities so all Palo
Altans could enjoy the heritage which came with living by the Bay
including boating, surf sailing, duce hunting, fishing, and bird
watching. The second proposal narrowly limited Bayside activities
to bird watching. He hoped Council would consider the needs of
all Palo Altans while deliberating.
Councilmember Renzel asked how someone would sail from the inner
harbor out into the Bay at the most desirable high tides if the
level of the lake inside the lock was maintained at a tide lower
than the highest tide.
Mr. Remmel said the purpose of the lock system was to go from one
of lower water in the harbor to a lock. The lock was then raised
by taking water from the Bay, raising the lock up to the Bay's
level, then one sailed out onto the Bay. One entered in reverse.
If the water in the Bay was substantially lower than the harbor,
one did exactly the opposite: sailing from the harbor into the
lock, reduced the water level in the lock, and sailed out onto the
Bay.
Councilmember Renzel asked how the higher tides replenished the
water in the lock.
Mr. Remmel said the higher tides replenished the water inside the
lock at a mai ntensnce operation. Periodically , water would be
brought in when it was not silt -laden. His calculations showed it
only took about 5/100ths of one inch of the water out of the basin
to let through the lock. Numerous boats, Day Sailors, and the
smaller craft, went a flock at a time through the lock, so it
could successfully operate.
Councilmember Renzel asked what Mr. Remmel would do about the
lagoon mitigation the City was currently obliged to maintain.
Mr. Remmel said When they maintained the level of water in the
harbor and lagoon by varying it with the lock , they could take
care of the lagoon mitigation project. The project could not be
6 8 6 2
2/10/86
taken care of if they abandoned the harbor. which would silt in.
in the 1979 Baylands Muster Plan: the City was going to pump the
Yacht Harbor full of mud by diking off the harbor at the launch
ramp and pumping Bay mud into -it.
Councilmember Renzel believed the lagoon was supposed to be
maintained at a level much lower than 8.6 feet.
Mr. Remmel said it could be done by tidal gates. There were
already tidal gates at the lagoon where it crossed the roadway,
which could be adjusted to maintain the level.
Councilmember Renzel asked how water would be let out the lagoon.
Mr. Remmel said the water would have to go at low tide.
Councilmember Renzel clarified the lock system would go out as
well.
Mr. Remmel said yes. In Bel Mari n Keys, about once a month they
flushed and lowered the level in the whole basin to do just as
Councilmember Renzel suggested. It prevented algae, enabled them
to sweeten the water in the lagoon, and it operated successfully
over the years.
John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, generally supported the idea of a
sailing station and any other environmentally reasonable opera-
tions in the harbor. He reminded Council the most recent elec-
tions were against dredging unnecessarily. If there were going to
be 50 to 100 or perhaps more launchings per day, he asked where
the trailers and associated motor vehicles would park. Concerning
the staff suggestion of an experimental diversion of treated
effluent, he would not like to see that happen unless there was a
fair degree of certainty the change would be permanent.. Temporary
diversion might destroy the existing fresh weter, brackish water
marsh which developed outside the effluent discharge area. The
area was productive in terms of wildlife and also a valuable
educati anal resource due to its proximity to the Baylands
Interpretative Center. One other question was whether the City
could continue to use the current outflow area if they allowed the
area to revert to a salt water marsh, albeit not a very productive
one for the time being considered. Would they then be required by
the BCOC to become involved in the massive project to send their
rel ati 4!ely clean effluent well north of the Dumbarton Bridge. He
did not want to see the marsh .area disrupted twice. He. was also
concerned about possible public health issues, influenced by the
harbor waters, might prevent the use by windsurfers of the area.
Presently, the lagoon area behind the duck pond was a valuable
area for wildlife. If they raised the harbor level to the point
where boats could come and go fairly easily, they would not be
able to flush the lagoon area, and would not be able to make the
water fluctuate in the area unless they actually pumped water
through. He did not believe the City wanted to consider°that sort
of a solution. He suggested if the City did not want to take the
risks involved with offering berthing facilities, perhaps the
Yacht Club or Palo Alto Harbor Association could operate the
facilities, handling the billing and other administrative
considerations, paying utilities, and compensating the City
partially for the expenses in the area. They could proceed as
long as it could pay its own way, but not beyond the mandated
closure in 1988. He supported the efforts to retain sailing in
Palo Alto and hoped to retain as many uses as feasible. However,
it should not be at the. expense of disappearing wildlife habitat.
Jack Miller, 3736 Cass Way, said the public voted twice on the
issue and said to shut down the harbor soon. The public voted
twice and said to end the dredging now. They also said to allow
the boat harbor area to return to a normal, natural state of
6 8.6 3
2/10/86
being, which required removing pontoons and excess buildings now.
The public did nut vote to s',end any money for locks, or permanent
facilities, or any dredging. Staff would need to provide a
comprehensive study, which would most importantly look into the
future of Baylands with no money spent on construction and report
the results to the Council and the public. The restoration of the
wildlife environment should be primary. It looked like a cheap
project to him. Palo Alto should not be faced with doorbell
ringers again trying to construct another Yacht Harbor with a
sailing station, or an enhanced launch facility.
Linda Elkind, 2040 Tasso Street, hoped Council would add a check
by the name of one more person who requested thy move forward
with harbor closure. She hoped plans for accommr_dating a sailing
station would be considered carefully in the light of the most
important goal --to maintain an attractive and important wildlife
habitat in natural marsh in the area.
Dan Peck, 680 Rhodes Drive, said it looked as if Council was about
to consider spending between $500,000 and $1,000,000 to destroy a
recreation resource any other City around the Bay would give its
eye teeth for, all to please a group of environmentalists who said
boating was detrimental to the environment. It was not
detrimental, and the facility could maintain itself with little or
no cost to the City. Council consistently refused to consider the
good for the minority who wanted to pursue water programs. He did
not know of any situation where staff was told to solve some of
the problems, like the mud problem which bothered Councilmember
Renzel , and to do it in a positive manner. There was room for the
Sea Scouts, the boaters, and the environmentalists in the Bay. He
liked Ray Remmel's plan and believed Council should consider it
seriously. He believed a hasty decision to hurry the closure of
the harbor would be an error.
Walter Gize, 3540 Bryant Street, said a balance must be reached
for a use of th harbor area to fulfill the different community
interests. If she Sea Scouts were not allowed to continue, there
would be limited usage for a narrow group -of people with exci usI ve
interests. Diverse interests were the foundation on which a
democracy existed. The value of the Sea Scouts' program as it
benefited Palo Alto was not addressed by City staff. If the staff
considered the nl.mber, of hours Sea Scout volunteers devoted to the
use of Palo Alto in one year and multiplied It by 55 years, it
came out to a. lot of hours; multiply the number of hours by the
average hourly wage and the number of dollars arrived at benefited
Palo Alto at no cost. The $3,000 mentioned by City -staff to keep
the valuable program functioning was a bargain. When considering
any new endeavor, generally benefits were balanced against the
cost. The benefits in that case greatly outweighed the costs.
Mr, Thiltgen said Councilmember Klein asked about the per use
costs for the sailing station including amortization of the
apital, and it was about$3 per use per year. Relative to other
facilities in the City, the golf course ran about $1 to $1.50 per
use, and the tennis courts ran about $2 to $2.50 per use.
Councilmember Klein asked if the.. figures were in excess of the
user fee.
Mr. Thiltgen said yes.
Councilmember Klein clarified in talking about the particular use,
staff said the cost was $5. per user, ; and it was a $3. fee being
charged, for a. net $3.
Mr. Thiltgen said yes.
6 8 6 4
2/10/86
Mayor Cobb suggested Council enter into general discussion before
starting the various issues.
Councilmember Bechtel believed Council should take care of the
issue that could be dealt with then. She was concerned a general
discussion might make the item more complicated and take more
time. Regarding the "acht Harbor closure issue, staff did an
excellent job of attempting to prepare information. As predicted,
staff.was only able to make best guesses, and it was shown not to
be cost effective to keep the harbor berthing facilities open
beyond July 1, 1986.
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to
adopt staff recommendation (CMR:138:6) as follows:
1. Instruct staff to close the harbor berthing facilities
effective July 1, 1986; and
2. Allow the Sea Scouts to temporarily berth their existing
boats in the harbor until the piers are ready for public use
or February 28, 1988, whichever occurs first.
Councilmember Patitucci said timing was an important question when
it came to the level of commitment to different kinds of activi-
ties. He did not believe it was easy to deal with the one issue
separately from the others. He knew Councilmembers Bechtel and
Renzel had some ideas for some compromises for small boat users,
etc., and he wanted to hear them outside of a motion or a specific
resolution so Councilmembers could react in the interests of
coming up with a proposal.
Mayor Cobb said there was a motion on the floor and discussion
should be restricted to it.
Councilmember Patitucci said he would probably vote against the
motion in order to return to discussion of the other issues,
whereas he might not vote against it if it was in the context of
the other issues.
Vice Mayor Woolley said the second part of the motion was worded
so the City could evict the Sea Scouts by the summer of 1987
because staff's recommendation read, "until the piers are ready
for public use." She guessed there would be some upgrading of the
Club facilities, and the Sea Scouts could use them until they were
ready for public use, which staff estimated to be the summer of
1987, The motion read "whichever occurs first," which meant the
Sea Scouts were out.
Mr. Adams believed with the process of removing the existing
pilings, piers, fences, and restoring ' e area after destruction
of the buildings, it would take a long time before the area was
safe to open to the public. Staff had no preconceived ideas about
whether the buildings would stay, be renovated, or anything else,
but only. referred to making the small boat pier area described in
the BCDC permit available to the public.
Vice Mayor Woolley was concerned about making the facility ready.
for the public when it was probably not going to be usable except
for c.)noes, It bothered her to make a specific motion which tied
Council to something they had not yet bought into.
AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Sutorius, to
amend staff recommendation Item i to read "Allow the Sea Scouts to
temporarily berth their existing boats ire the existing berthing
area in the harbor or adjacent facilities until the Sea Scouts can
secure a permanent site or February 28, 1988, whichever occurs
first.'
6 8.6 5
2/10/86
Councilmember Sntorius seconded the amendment because the point
made by Vice Mayor Woolley was of a double risk situation, The
Scouts would not know the 3ituatlon and potentially would be
unable to operate effectively; yet, subsequent motions might work
toward a sailing station in which the Scouts would be a full
participant. The amendment was reasonable and did not change the
intent of the main motion.
Councilmember Klein was concerned about the language of the amend -
mew., particularly the phrase "until permanent facilities are
provided." He asked who provided the permanent facilities.
Vice Mayor Woolley said the amendment included the phrase
"whichever occurs first." If it worked out there was a way to
provide a permanent berthing facility for the Sea Scouts as they
requested that evening, it was fine if ready before February;
1988. . If it did not work out, the Scouts could stay until the
BCDC permit required their leaving.
Councilmember Klein was concerned the amendment implied it was the
City's obligation to find facilities with which he did not agree.
If the language was "until the Sea Scouts found other permanent
facilities" _he could support the amendment.
MAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO INCORPORATE "UNTIL THE SEA SCOUTS
FOUND OTHER PERMANENT FACILITIES" IN THE AMENDMENT
Councilmember Klein believed Councilmember Patitucci's idea con-
-cerning a Committee of the Whole was worthy of use and would have
avoided Council's haggling over items.
SUBST /TUTE AMENDMENT: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by
Patitucci, to refer the matter to the Committee of the Whole to
allow the entire Council to discuss the matter in its entirety.
Councilmember Renzel wanted to know procedurally where that action
left the motion on the floor.
Mayor Cobb said the substitute amendment, if passed, would suspend
the motion on the floor, and Council would return to it after
discussion.
SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously.
Counci.lmember Patitucci referred to a proposal for maintaining
some small boat activities separate from that proposed by City
staff, i.e.., some kind of small boat launching facilities and
activities, and he asked for discussion as to whether it was
workable.
Councilmember Bechtel queried the possibility of contracting a
concessionaire to operate a small boat rental facility in the.
inner harbor such as those presently operating at Shoreline Park
and Vasona Lake where the maximum depth was four feet. At times
it dropped to only two feet and then there was a little problem,
but it waS strictly regulated by how much water came through from
Lexington. She did not know if the boat rental facility would
last more than a few years, and it could probably only be at high
tide, but staff had not looked into the idea, and there could be
no City expense involved if the facility was contracted.
Vice Mayor Woolley was concerned Council was getting . into
something inappropriate a.t the Council level because many things
needed to be looked at which Council might take for. granted. She
wanted C encll to work toward some more general motions. Club
members talked about using the outer dock, which was in pretty
6 8 6 6
2/10/86
good condition, at Redwood City in connection with Stanford. She
did not know to whom the dock belonged, or whether they could move
it. Maybe there was no outer dLck in whici case it would be
expensive to build. The inner dock was worthless, about ready to
sink and stay on the bottom with the mud. She did not believe
Council was talking about no expense to the City. When something
was under City ownership, it had to be up to Code and she would
not be surprised if there was some other work to be done in order
for the public to use the facility. She believed Council should
not get that specific but direct staff to provide small boat
sailing access.
Councilmember Renzel said part of the idea of a possible conces-
sion came from the idea perhaps the youth of the community could
bicycle out to the Baylands and have a boating experience without
bringing their own boat. It seemed to make sense to make the
experience available. It would be restricted to the higher tidal
range but like the concession at Stowe Lake, which was a permanent
water area where the public could rent boats all the time, and buy
hot dogs, popcorn, Eskimo Pies, etc. They did not sell fancy
fare; it was not a. restaurant or commercial place where people
went as they might McDonalds, but a place for incidental use in
the Baylands. There might be potential for someone to have a
small conce:sion, but it might not be economic to rent canoes and
small craft for people to use at high tide. The purpose was to
meet the needs of the youth in the community who did not own their
own boats or had no way to take them to the Baylands. She did not
pretend to know anything about having a concession of that sort,
but it might offer something to a variety of users of the Baylands
area.
Councilmember Klein strongly believed Council had to close the
harbor in accordance with Councilmember Bechtel's main motion on
July 1, 1986. He was interested in trying to permanently preserve
the Sea Scout activities in some way but did not see the solution
at hand. He was also concerned their analysis and the proponents'
analysis were not sufficiently rigorous in regard to economics.
He saw it as providing some sort of City subsidy, and when Council
provided City subsidies to other types of organizations, they went
through an elaborate analysis of how much money the City would put
into the program. The various figures being talked about and
expenditures in the Baylands were significant. Much as he liked
the Sea Scout program, he was concerned about the financial
problems and the public access issue and was not sure the
questions were answered, Regarding the sailing station, he was
not persuaded either way and was again concerned about economics.
He was worried Council might spend money on something not
attractive to the public despite the statements of the avid
supporters. With all his concerns he was interested in hearing
more of a debate.
Councilmember Sutorius was ready to act on the Yacht Harbor clo-
sure as set forth in the motion before Council. He was not
chagrined, embarrassed, sad, nor apologetic for having looked
toward the examination performed in the interim period to deter-
mine the cost and revenue aspects. He believed it was important
to . do so, and while the information was expressed in ranges, it
demonstrated an excess of revenue over cost, but the point at
which the excess occurred was not sufficient to justify continuing
the extended period. He put it at about $5,000 if the expenses
were $29,000 and the revenues $34,000. At the higher end, it got
close to being the kind of thing he would support, but the odds of
it getting to the higher end were elim and therefore he supported
the closure portion discussed. He wanted to find a way for the
City to have a small boat sailing opportunity, and within the
6 B 6 7
2/10/86
concept of some kind of a ramp or station process, he wanted it to
cooperatively accommodate the Sea ' Scouting program. He did not
know whether the answer was a concession or lease process,
potentially as elaborate as the Palo Alto Golf Corporation with a
board, the City of Palo Al to as the lessor, and an individual as
the lessee -operator. There were ways of getting to that end, and
Council should not discard the opportunity. He wished he could
advocate the Remmel Plan with which he had some familiarity over
the past five years in one form or another, and commended Mr.
Remmel for the personal effort and integrity associated with his
proposal, but he did not believe Council had the information
available to say it was feasible in a pragmatic sense because of
the regulatory processes or in a financial sense because the
dollars involved were sizable. Regarding opportunities to get
such sizable financial support, while sources could be found, the
realistic situation was it was not affordable. In terms of the
water flow situation and where the facilities might best be
located, he preferred to not nail it down that evening. in
Council's actions. He was interested to know why there was more
water in the inner harbor than in the outer channel. If it leas
because of some slight dredging which created the situation and it
was not going to last, he wanted to know for sure. He also wanted
to know if it might potentially last if beneficial situations
occurred when the appropriate and mandated restoration of the
marsh area was completed. The manner in which it was done could
potentially reduce the siltation processes and stabilize things,
and with the outflow from the water quality, there was a life
potential in the inner harbor which still might make it a
candidate for the berthing activity and the launching associated
with the small boats. He hoped Council action that evening would
move on the closure but retain the opportunity for small boat
sailing with a direction to staff to work with the Scouts in the
development. For the same reasons, he was reluctant to make a
final vote on the Harbor Master building itself. He believed
$70,000 to $150,000 or $120,000 was too much money to spend on a
450 -square foot building tf there was other facility work the City
had to do there and where there was an opportunity to consolidate.
Therefore, retaining the Harbor Master building was unwarranted.
He believed the location of the Harbor Master building was a
logical one for any of the land -based activities associated with
whatever type of sailing activity went on. The location was
useful because it was so proximate to the duck pond and offered
the opportunity for potential vandals to be aware there was a
presence out there, which was important.
Councilmember Levy was satisfied closing the harbor was marginally
the right thing to do because of the public vote taken in, Palo
Alto. He believed the public vote was a vote to not dredge the
harbor, not a vote to close the harbor. Technically and legal-
istically, it might have been a vote on whether to close the har-
bor or leave it open. To keep the harbor open permanently,
dredging was inevitable. The Palo Alto public voted to not dredge
the harbor, but he opined it did not say the City should abso-
lutely close it if a way could be found to keep it open without
dredging. However, what Council had before it was a question of
whether to close it in July or August of 1986, or whether to wait
a year. The costs to keep the harbor open, as staff reported,
were marginally in favor of keeping it open, and he believed staff
underestimated their internal costs. He commended staff for
looking at the general overhead, but he believed it was
underestimated because many new systems had to be set up to
control something which would only last .for one year. He hoped
staff would continue to recognize such costsi i.e., if Council
assigned a ,project to staff, there was a cost to.. do so because
even if the person who did the project was in the, employ of the
6 8. 6 8
2/10/86
City, doing the assigned project meant the person was unavailable
tt' do something else, which meant a cost somewhere had to he rec-
ognized. Unless he was talked out of it, he would vote to close
the harbor at the present time. He believed the Sea Scout program
was admirable and should be sustained if possible, which meant
leaving the Sea Scout facility in place through February 1988, as
called for in the suspended amendment. Regarding public access,
all the facilities could have public access in a way he believed
would be accepted by the Sea Scouts on the one hand, or the Yacht
Club on the other, just as the Palo Alto Tennis Club from time-
toetime had exclusive use of certain facilities like the tennis
courts at Rinconada for tournaments, or the Golf Club had exclu-
sive use to certain tee -off 'times at the golf course during
certain events. In the same spirit, the Sea Scouts would probably
want a use which was predominantly for their facilities, but in
discussions, they indicated a willingness to open their facility
for public use from time -to -time, as the public wished to use it,
which he did not believe would be overwhelming. The question of
the concession was unworkable. In fact, it was indicated some of
staff's estimates as to use of the sailing station or the small
boat ramp were overstated, and staff indicated on a weekday there
would only be 50 launchings and on weekends over 100 launchings
would be unusually large. He did not believe a use that small
could support a concession. The sailing station was only going to
work if the City had cooperation and funding from the Yacht Club
and the Harbor Association. They indicated a willingness to
cooperate if they had use of the sailing station from time -to -time
during special events, which was doable, and he wanted to pursue
it. Finally, regarding the custs of the Harbor Master's house and
some of the other facilities, he could not believe f one could
build a 2,000 square foot house with bathrooms and kitchens, etc.,
for $150,000 or $200,000, it would cost close to that amount to
redo a Harbor Master's little bungalow of 450 square feet. Also,
he looked upon the Harbor Master's bungalow as an historical
building in a different light than he looked at other historical
buildings. It was built in the 1930s as a copy of en old Mexican
adobe, To him, it should not be preserved as representative of
some kind of historical adobe construction because there was no
need to preserve a copy as a historical building. It was a pretty
building, and he believed Council should preserve the concept,
size, and the appearance of it, but in a less costly way.
Councilmember Fletcher seconded the motion to close the Yacht
Harbor at the earlier date. One cost not included was the
liability the City assumed when the County lease ran out. When
the facilities became less well maintained because of the eminent
demise, there could be more accidents and costs to the City. She
liked the idea of the boat rental concession if it could be worked
out and was pretty sure it would attract more people than just a
launching situation because most people did not own boats. There
were many people who went to the Baylands to visit the various
facilities, and if a boat rental facility was there, many of the
people would use it. Regarding public access and exclusive use,
there was an answer to every one of the uses held up as being
exc u si ve. She understood the two stout facilities at Rinconada
Park were not on dedicated parkland;: The Youth Hostel was open to
anybody, and one did not need to be a member. As far as building
any kind of facility, she wondered if Council really knew the
long-term prognosis for siltation in the area so close to the
shore because as more communities built in the Baylands as they
seemed to be doing, she did not know if it decreased the flushing
action and siltation increased. She heard it as a possibility,
aadmaybe if there was a dock going out, they would have to keep
extending it to get into deeper water. It seemed incompatible to
permit permanent docking of the Sea Scout vessels, which had
considerable size, when Council put an end to the berthing of much
smaller sail boats.
6 8 6 9
2/10/86
Mayor Cobb basically identified with the comments of Council -
members Klein and Sutorius. He believed Council had to yet on
with the harbor closure because they were me.ndated to do so, and
the numbers presented for extending the use were not persuasive.
He wanted t� support the Sea Scout program to the extent it was
economically and practically feasible. It seemed to be a
situation which might not have an attractive long-term future no
matter what actions Council took. He supported the idea of
temporary berthing. In terms of the buildings involved as part of
the staff report, he had ideas about preserving the Harbor
Master's building, but the cost was substantially higher than made
any sense, and he wanted to see the cost issue resolved. The
Yacht Club building clearly had to go; it made no economic sense
to preserve it. The Sea Scout building was attractive and also
had a lot of interesting local history. It was tempting to find
some way to preserve it, but the cost figures were frightening.
They were large numbers, and as he compared the $300,000 raised
with the $400,000 that was the marginal cost of going ahead with
Boronda Lake, he believed the lake would serve more people.
Regarding the sailing station and small boat facility, Council
should do what it could to enhance sailing on that scale. He was
not exactly sure he knew where the line was between a sailing
station and small boating facility and wanted to see it developed
such that Council could make clearer choices and have associated
costs. He also wanted to involve the people interested in sailing
in the decision process if something reasonable could be done to
preserve access to the water for the smaller boats. His proposed
direction left a few issues unresolved but also resolved many.
Councilmember Renzel concurred with Mayor Cobb and other Council -
members with respect to closure of the harbor. The issue was
debated ad nauseam; there were hundreds of thousands of dollars of
studies about the issue; the voters spoke twice; and it made no
sense to prolong the agony. Regarding the Sea Scouts, she
believed it was reasonable to permit them to remain in their cur-
rent berthing area until the RCDC permit expired as presented in
Vice Mayor Woolley's amendment. She concurred with respect ao
both the Yacht Club and Sea Scout buildings as described by Mayor
Cobb. The Club building was beyond repair and most, if not all,
of the outbuildings --the various storage sheds, old Sea Scout
facilities, etc., everything but the main Sea Scout facility --
should be removed. The duck pond was by far the most used
facility in the Baylands, end by proximity the Harbor Master's
adobe was associated with the duck pond and had a lot of value to
the public as a landmark within their own community, not to men-
tion its status as a historical landmark State-wide, and as a
Class II historical structure in the City of Palo Alto. Since
Council knew the usual procedure for moving historical structures
would not apply to an adobe structure, it should not take lightly
any decision to remove the facility. She agreed with Council -
member Sutorius and wanted more information as to what else night
be needed before deciding to remove the Harbor Master's adobe.,
She was willing to pay the $70,000 to repair it but was not sure
about $120,000. Regarding tha sailing station, she agreed with
Mayor Cobb, Councilmembers Sutorius and Klein. Council wanted
some means of enhancing small boat sailing, but she was not sure
exactly what it was and perceived many logistical problems with
the sailing station as presented and was reluctant to assign staff
to study the one specific proposal without having a better idea of
where and how far out into the channel the station would go, etc.
Council needed more information before making a decision, The
hydrological information would be helpful because all the groups
indicated their principal activities would be at high tide.
6 8 7 0
2/10/86
1
1
1
Council did not hear much from members of the public who stored a
little boat in their garage and used it not in a group context,
but just occasionally, and whether they would make it their.place
of choice or go to where they were always sure to have water.
Vice Mayor Woolley said when it came to closing the berthino area,
staff, who normally did an excellent Job, got Council -T6 on a
wrong foot by titling the report "The Closing of the Harbor," when
they were talking about the closing of the berthing facilities.
She. used the same reasoning as Councilmember Sutorius, and whether
the berthing facilities would be revenue producing or a cost
liability for the City was hard to determine. Therefore, she \gas
inclined to let it continue until BCDC permit required dismantling
the area. She was sorry Mr. Remmel did not develop his plan
earlier and believed it had some merits. There were some
problems, he biggest of which was the BCDC permit concerning the
tidal action for the lagoon area. Politically, she believed it
was unrealistic to pursue both in terms of the voters and the
Council. Regarding the buildings, she wanted a more general
motion than what the staff report requested and not to make a
decision then concerning the Harbor Master's adobe, but to direct
staff, with a lot of latitude, to consider all the various needs
and return with a package as to the best way to satisfy them with
some options. Regarding the sailing station, she believed Council
needed to bring more general motions to allow consideration of the
inner harbor, the launch ramp, and a dock with a hoist on the end
depending on the financial contributions from other organizations,
what the City determined -from making closer observations of the
patterns of the water flow, and what_ the groups themselves
believed would be satisfactory.
MAYOR COBB` DISSOLVED THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AMENDMENT RESTATED: AMEND ITEM #2 TO READ, "ALLOW THE SEA
SCOUTS TO TEMPORARILY BERTH THEIR EXISTING BOATS IN THE EXISTING.
BERTHING AREA IN THE HARBOR OR ADJACENT FACILITIES INTL. THE SEA
SCOUTS CAN SECURE A PERMANENT SITE OR FEBRUARY 28, 1988, WHICHEVER
OCCURS FIRST"
Councilmember Renzel generally supported the amendment. There
were many donated boats in and around the Sea Scout facility, and
she was reluctant to store a lot of boats in dead storage.
AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded
by Bechtel, to specify the five troop ships.
AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Patitucci, Levy
voting °no."
AMENDMENT AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. - -
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Woolley voting
"no."
MOTION: Councilmember Woolley moved, seconded by Sutorius, to
approve the demolition of the Sea Scoot and Yacht Club buildings
With the proviso the Sea Scouts be allowed to occupy their main
building until a decision on the disposition of the building is
made or February 28, 1988, whichever occurs first.
MOTION WITHDLAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND
NOTION: -Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to
adopt the stiff recommendation (CMR c 146:6) to demolish -the Yacht
Club building and the surrounding ancillary structures.
Councilmember Renzel supported the - motion.
6 8 7 1
2/10/86,
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, to
defer final decision on the Sea Scout main building and to
instruct staff to demolish the ancillary buildings around the Sea
Scout base.
Mayor Cobb asked if the question of use during the temporary
berthing of the Sea Scouts was addressed by the motion.
Councilmember Bechtel assumed the Sea Scouts would temporarily use
the facility.
Mayor Cobb asked if the use during the temporary berthing of the
Sea Scouts needed to be explicit in the motion.
City Attorney Diane Lee assumed Council would provide for some
kind of public access to the building on an as needed basis.
Councilmember Bechtel agreed public access would be on an as
needed basis.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by
Fletcher, to permit the Sea Scouts to temporarily use the main Sea
Scout building until no later than February 28, 1988, provided the
City is given the building without reservation by July 1, 1986,
and, further, that the City may use the facility on a scheduled
basis.
Councilmember Patitucci clarified the substitute motion permitted
the Sea Scouts to temporarily use the main building which would
not be demolished until Council dealt with the question later.
However, his observation of the activities around there was the
additional area was used for many things, e.g., there were
structures from which people hung lines, which was not part of
what was to be demolished, and the area in the immediate vicinity
would still be accessible. He clarified just the dilapidated
buildings would be demolished under the proposal.
Councilmember Levy clarified Council had before it a motion and a
substitute motion.
Mayor Cobb clarified Council was dealing with the substitute
motion.
Councilmember Levy clarified if the substitute notion failed, then
the original motion returned to the floor.
Mayor Cobb said that was correct.
GRIiiINAL NOTION WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND
Councilmember Levy said the motion made good sense.
Councilmember Fletcher asked staff if there was any problem with
the City sponsoring the building for public use in its present
condition. -
Mr. Zaner said once it became a City building, it fell under the
City's general liability provisions. Staff anticipated its public
use would be somewhat limited. Under those conditions, he did not
anticipate a. lot of difficulty.
Councilmember Levy queried if the facility was allowed to be used
by the Sea Scouts through February, 1988, whether staff. preferred
continuance in its present legal status with the proviso. the Sea
Scouts give public access in a manner approved by the City.
6 8 7 2
2/10/86
Mr. Zaner believed the City was better off with the direction the
motion was going, and more legal problems were created by leaving
the building in its present legal status.
MOTION PASSED unanimously.
MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Patitucci, to
authorize staff to explore with the Sea Scouts construction and
financing of a meeting house, a small boat storage, and berthing
facilities in accordance with the City's policies governing City
land and not to include dredging.
Councilmember Fletcher believed the motion was premature because
Council was not sure whether the Sea Scout base would remain in
Palo Alto. A vote had not been taken on it.
Councilmember Bechtel concurred with Councilmember Fletcher.
Council should not instruct staff when it was unclear how the
problem could be solved:
Vice Mayor Woolley concurred with Councilmembers Bechtel and
Fletcher. With regard to the part of the motion related to being
consistent with City ordinances, it seemed Council was already
told it had to be a public building in order to be consistent.
She had grave concerns with removing any land in the Baylands from
park dedication.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by
Sutorius, to direct staff to work with the Sea Scouts and other
interested boating groups to explore the most economical
buildings) with the options where appropriate for the following:
a ranger station; public restrooms; meeting rooms; a work room;
interior- storage; and exterior dry storage.
Councilmember Renzel opposed the motioe. If staff was going to
work with the Sea Scouts and the Palo Al to Yacht Club to develop a
building, perhaps they should also work with the League of Women
Voters, the Peninsula Conversation Center, the Baylands
Conservation Committee, and a multitude of other groups who had a
great interest in the Baylands. It was completely inappropriate
to suggest a building should be designed for any particular group
if it was a public building although Council should recognize what
kinds of needs there were in the area.
Councilmember Klein said there was no language in the motion as to
who would pay for the building.
Vice Mayor Woolley said she had not included such language in the
motion but believed they were important concerns to be worked out
by staff. She included the organizations because the financial
and in -kind contributions as well as some kind of usage pattern
had to be part of the negotiations. She believed the Sea Scouts
were interested in contributing to such a building and knew the
Yacht Club was interested in the docking facility.
Councilmember Klein asked if he could infer Vice Mayor Woolley
believed the City should contribute some money.
Vice Mayor Woolley said yes because they were talking about a
ranger station and public restrooms, which would be City facili-
ties. Instead of a set of restrooms at the Sea Scout base,
another set of restrooms for the ranger office, and another for
the duck pond, she asked if all the restrooms could be combined.
The plumbing aspects of the construction were the most expensive.
Councilmember Klein asked whether Vice Mayor Woolley had a ceiling
in mind as to the City's contribution.
6 8 7 3
2/10/86
Vice . Mayor Woolley believed the City' s contribution would not be
much larger than the ranger office and the public restrooms
although it depended on the amount of public usage.
AMENDMENT TO SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved,
seconded by Levy, to add a proviso that the City financial
contributions not exceed $150,000.
Councilmember Klein was concerned the City had so many demands on
its resources, Council should give people an idea of what the City
was willing to spend. The $150,000, which was outrageously high,
came from the amount Mr. Adams suggested the City would have to
spend on the ranger station. He was willing to use that number at
the moment to give some idea of what the City was willing to do
and what it was not willing to do. If people were interested in
some of the other things, they should know what sort of fund
raising to which they had to be committed. He did not want to see
staff or the Sea Scouts waste time. If the things were not
financially feasible, people should know that.
Councilmember Levy clarified Council was talking about a multi-
purpose facility which satisfied the needs of the Sea Scouts, pro-
vided public restrooms, a Harbor Master's location, and also a
meeting facility which could be used by the Yacht Club and othe,~
public groups who wanted to meet from time -to -time in the harbor
area. He asked staff for a rough total cost of such a facility,
and whether the $150,000 limit from the City was sufficient to
provide, for the Harbor Master's building and the public rest -
rooms.
Mr. Adams said the facility described without the storage and work
area would cost $330,000.
Councilmember Levy asked what the facility would cost adding the
storage and work area.
Mr. Adams deferred response to get the information.
Councilmember Levy asked staff to mak a a guess.
Mr. Adams said the cost was at the building rate of $94 per square
foot so it depended on how many square feet were needed for the
activities
Councilmember Levy believed there`._ should be a facility there if
possible to enable the City to attract the water -oriented and
other youth of the community. The motion on the floor, while
perhaps more specific than he would like, accomplished it in a way
which ensured the participation of other groups and limited the
City's financial participation to a reasonable amount. The motion
enabled Council to study the feasibility of such a facility. He
hoped it turned out to be feasible and had the cooperation of
other groups.,
Councilmember Patitucci asked for clarification on whether the
$150,000 refer.r;d to Councilmember Klein's estimate of those parts
of the facility for the ranger and definitely the kinds of things
the City wanted in. He clarified that of the 2,400 square foot
facility in the staff report, about half should suffice for the
public's general needs, and if a more elaborate facility was
needed, the partial users of the facility should pay for it.
Councilmember Klein said that was correct. He did not _mean the
figures were absolutely final but wanted to give both staff and
members of the public an idea of where Council was going. Of
6 8 7 4
2/10/86
1
1
course, the numbers had to massaged, but his figure was based on
the fact he believed it was the City's responsibility to provide
the Harbor Master's office and the public restroom; beyond that,
it was not the City's responsibility.
Mr. Zaner wanted to be sure Council did not lose sight of the fact
if the City contributed a sum of money, e.g., $150,000, to cover
the restrooms and ranger portion of the building, and other
parties contributed some sum of money for meeting rooms and other
facilities, the other facilities still must be available to the
general public despite the fact they were paid for by private,
independent funds.
Councilmember Patitucci understood, in supporting the motion,
Council was talking about a larger facility than what the City
normally wanted, but it was a larger public facility, and in par-
ticipating, the groups would purchase, in effect, some access to a
public facility.
Councilmember Renzel .took a little different view. She was glad
City Manager Zaner clarified the question of public access, but
she had grave concerns about purchasing access to a public
facility. The public access to a public facility should not be
the exception to a private use, but the dominant use, and the pri-
vate use should be minor. She could not believe any group would
contribute more than a majority of the cost of the $330,000
facility and not expect a fair amount of private, exclusive use
scheduled on a regular basis to the exclusion of other members of
the public. For that reason, she opposed the amendment which
implied if someone bought their way in, they could do it. It was
not appropriate in the public parkland. The City presently had a
meeting room in the Interpretative Center that any group could
hire for $27 an hour. Certainly groups which provided public
benefits could probably get some other kind of arrangement at less
rent, but the meeting room also had restrooms available. The City
still needed some restrooms available when the Interpretative
Center was not open, but she objected to instructing staff to work
in great detail with two groups to provide a building which met
their needs on the City's public parkland at that time.
Therefore, she would vote against the amendment and the main
motion.
Coonci lmember Bechtel wondered if Council was getting into some
hasty decisions becai;se of the lateness of the hour. While she
supported the concept of restricting the amount of City
investment, Councilmember Klein's amendment almost presupposed
Council was encouraging another facility instead of the existing
Harbor Master building. The building had a lot of charm and was
unique. The building was not a truly historic structure in the
strictest sense, but she was not certain Council was ready to
forget the existing building. Therefore, she supported
Councilmember Klein's amendment because the motion was in the
right spirit, but opposed the main motion.
Councilmember Klein supported the main motion. He did not believe
the motion did what. Councilmember Bechtel said. Council was
asking staff to explore and made no commitment. Staff might
return with something all Councilmembers found reprehensible.. By.
supporting the motion, he was not committing to support a final
vote, but Council had to give staff some authorization to spend
time on the study, which was a worthwhile activity for staff to
pursue.
AN UaNilT PASSED by a vote of 8-Z, Reozel voting 'no.'
'Councilmember Fletcher believed the motion was premature. She
realized Council was not approving any structure but did not
believe i t was worth instructing staff to spend time on it.
6 8 7 5
2/10/86
SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSGp. b: a rote of 6-3 Renzei,
Fletcher, Bechtel voting ono. f
Mayor Cobb,asked if staff still needed instruction with respect to
the Harbor Master building.
Mr. Zaner said staff would take no action with regard to the
Harbor Master building in light of the last motion which told
staff to try to develop a building which included it. Staff would
return to Council at a later date.
Councilmember Klein said he would amend Mr. Zaner's comments by
giving one further direction. He did not want to leave with the
idea left on the table he found the proposal acceptable for the
City to rehab the Harbor Master building at a cost which he
assumed would go in at the high end. He could not support it.
MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Patitucci, to
direct staff if the negotiations outlined in the previous motion
proved unsuccessful, the City not rehabilitate the existing Harbor
Master building for use by a ranger but instead explore
demolishing the building and coming forth with a building of
similar design at a more economical price.
Vice Mayor Woolley asked if the motion authorized the demolition
of the Harbor Master -building, or authorized staff to return with
an alternative plan.
Councilmember Klein intended the motion to tell staff if the first
thing Council suggested did not work out, staff should not have in
their minds Council would rehab the building. His motion, if suc-
cessful, would rule out rehabilitating the building and replacing
it. He peeferred staff not spend any more time considering
rehabilitation of the building.
Councilmember Patitucci clarified Mr. Zaner said the prior motion
of a new facility included the Harbor Master facility. He had not
interpreted it as including the facility.
Mayor Cobb clarified the motion was interpreted that a new
facility could include the Harbor Master building.
Councilmember Patitucci withdrew his second to the motion
because he believed the issue was basically postponed.
MOTION LIFO FOR LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION: Councilmember Patitucci moved, seconded by Levy, to
direct staff to study and return to the Council with alternatives
including design concepts and cost estimates for providing
enhanced small boat launching facilities f n the harbor area.
Councilmember Patitucci said the use of the term harbor area was
an attempt to look at a variety of different ways in which small
boat sailing facilities could be provided. The current. design
needed to be spelled out in more detail. The idea the facility
might be maintained in ` the inner harbor rather than the outer
harbor was a possibility. He wanted the ideas •explored and
studied in more depth as to how they might operate. It did not
seem much time was put into the design or what different communi-
ties did. He also believed the motion was a general statement of
support for the idea of a small boat sailing facility as some
Councilmembers stated they soul ct favor without getting tied to a
specific location or type of facility at that time. He suspected
over the next couple of months, as the City closed down the
harbor, they would be studying the idea as an alternative.
6 8 7 6
2/10/86
Vice Mayor Woolley asked if Councilmember Patitucci really meant a
Launching facility as opposed to a sailing facility. The problem
was getting the boats into the water.
Councilmember Patitucci said the use of the word "facility" was
fairly general. The idea was the facility would be a place where
people could take their small boats from windsurfers to something
just under 17 feet, and somehow get them in the water. Whether
the boats were pushed in by the owner, or hoisted in were uses
that would be included in the facilities.
1
i
1
Vice Mayor Woolley believed it was clearer to say a launching
facility. Whether the boat was dropped in by the owner off a
dock, or whether one used a hoist, or a ramp with a trailer, it
was still a lauching facility of some sort.
Councilmember Patitucci said he was happy to modify the motion to
state "for providing small boat sailing launching facilities."
Mayor Cobb clarified the language of the motion was rapidly
converging on the last paragraph of staff report CMR:146:6. If
Councilmember Patitucci simply added the question of costs and
design concepts, the motion would be essentially what staff
proposed.
Councilmember Patitucci was concerned not only with the design
concepts but the cost estimates as well.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, to direct staff to
work with the Palo Alto Yacht Club, the Sea Scouts, and other
interested boating groups to develop specific plans for a Sea
Scout berthing facility and a small boat launching facility which
would be usable for three to four hours on each side of high tide
and would include negotiations for usage patterns and financial or
in -kind contributions..
SUBSTITUTE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Councilmember Bechtel wanted to be sure Councilmember Patitucci
intended his, motion include the idea of exploring leasing to a
concessionaire for operation.
Councilmember Patitucci believed the concession was an independent
decision. The idea of whether a concessionaire could function
there, or whether somebody could rent boats or windsurfers, was
almost an operational decision once Council decided it wanted
small boat facilities. The idea was interesting, but postponable.
The commitment to small boat access and a facility for it was what
the motion stated.
Councilmember Bechtel said it made it more possible to have the
use be a more public one.
AMENDMENT: Cowncilmeember Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel,
that staff contact County personnel and others who had experience
in dealing with concessionairesin the small boat area to see what
kind of interest there might be for operating a concession at the
facility for small boat use in Palo Alto.
Councilmember Levy said the amendment seemed to be independent of
the main motion. There was no reason it could not be an amendment
to the main motion, but he asked if he was correct it was
6x.8 7 7
2/10/86
independent of whether the City had a boat launching facility, or
whether it was in some way tied to having the boat launching
facility,
Councilmember Bechtel said there could not be a concession if
there was no place to put it.
Councilmember Levy understood, but he asked if they couli have a
launching facility without a concession as Councilmember Bechtel
envisioned in her amendment.
Councilmember Bechtel said yes.
Councilmember Sutorius concurred with Councilmember Patitucci's
original comment and the direction Councilmember Levy was headed.
He saw it as a separate matter. He cautioned Council was headed
toward an early morning patchwork quilt.
AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND
Councilmember Menzel was more comfortable with the main motion
than with the material in the staff report. If the motion suc-
ceeded, she had some follow-up motions to add. With the
information Council was given it was difficult to understand the
logistics of what was proposed and whether it met the average
public demand or only group demands. The motion allowed staff to
review a variety of possibilities for providing public access.
Council might ultimately want to go with more than one
possibility but needed more detailed information before doing
detailed environmental reviews and spending a lot of money.
Councilmember Levy was not clear from the staff report about the
difference between the sailing station and a launching facility.
He asked whether the concept of the sailing station was simply to
add a meeting room, or a storage room, and restrooms.
Mr. Zaner said that was the major difference. Council should also
note .ehen staff talked about enhanced small boat launching
facilities, they meant making improvements to the existing ramp if
possible. A sailing station might be a totally separate structure
from the existing ramp.
Councilmember Levy asked if staff understood the earlier motion
which passed as also incorporating the kind of storage rooms which
might have bocci in the sailing station.
Mr. Zaner said yes.
Councilmember Levy believed there was no need at that point to
move with a sailing station. The concept of a launching facility
was consistent with the Baylands Master Plan and should he
pursued.
Councilmember Fletcher commented with regard to the conces-
sion, she believed it was part of the planning. Council should
not plan in little segments hut for what might be feasible to ge
along with the launching facility, because evidently it would be
connected physically.
Vice Mayor Woolley asked for clarification about what staff would_
look at under -the motion.
Mr. Zaner clarified staff would look at a small boat sailing
facility, its alternatives, and return to Council with both design
and cost.
1
1
6 $ 7 8
2/10/86
Vice Mayor Woolley clarified staff would look at enhancing the
existing public ramp, at a dock with a hoist on the end, aad at
inner harbor existing structures.
Mr. Zaner said yes.
Vice Mayor Woolley asked at what point staff would plug in the
possible interests of the Yacht Club to share in the financial
burden. Since the motion did not direct staff to work with the
Yacht Club, she was concerned it sent a message the City did not
want to work with them and did not want their money. The City
could not expect the Yacht Club to come in at the end with the
money if they were not consulted as the facility was being planned
and built.
Mr. Zaner said Vice Mayor Woolley was correct. Council had not
connected in the Yacht Club or Sea Scouts. If Council wanted
staff to work with those groups, it would be done. If they were
to share in the financial obligations, it should be made clear.
Councilmember Patitucci said it was not part of the motion. Once
the City got some design concepts and ideas of the costs, it
should be a City facility where public access and small boat
sailing were consistent with what was done in the past. It should
be embraced and the costs reviewed, and if financing different
options turned out to be more expensive than what the City wanted
to pay, then the City should invite other people in.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Woolley, to
include in the study working with the Sea Scouts regarding
berthing of Sea Scout boats to include financing from the Scouts.
Councilmember Levy said he was simply requesting a study to be
included and wanted to withhold any final judgment until he saw
the results of the study both financially and ecologically.
Councilmember Fenzel was concerned because she believed it sug-
gested people could buy into a private share of what should be a
public`facility. It seemed to be the "tail wagging the dog," and
Council should look from a planning concept at what it wanted to
see in the Baylands and look at facilities to accommodate those
needs. It might be appropriate and feasible to provide facilities
at discounted rates to groups which might need the storage and the
Bay itself, but it was inappropriate to do so at that time.
Council should get the report back first about the launching
facilities and then look at other possible combinations.
Councilmember Patitucci opposed the amendment because he believed
it was a separate issue. Looking at the berthing requirements and
alternatives for satisfying the needs of the Sea Scouts was worth
doing, but not as part of the motion. The issues were_ independent
and should be pursued separately. He did not believe the needs
were necessarily compatible, and he wanted to see Council go ahead
with the main motion and deal with the amendment as a separate
issue.
Councilmember Klein believed the issues were interrelated. He did
not believe the City would build the sailing station ati; also have
Sea Scout ships berthed there Unless it was planned for at the
start. If they both occurred, staff needed to look at them in
conjunction so the design made sense. Since he wanted to 3.ee the
Sea Scouts there if possible, he supported the amendment. Council
directed staff to study with the Sea Scouts the construction of
the buildings, and we v said they could stay in their existing
building for another two years, but Council needed to discuss
where they would berth their ships because it did no good for them
to have land -based facilities without working their ships. It
made sense for staff to work with the Sea Scouts .end the amendment
was the proper vehicle.
Menig
Vice Mayor Woolley concurred with Councilmember Klein. Council
said the Sea Scouts had until February, 1988 to vacate their
berthing facilities. While it was two years away, it was. not too
far to start planning immediately. If it was done in tandem so
Council did not deal with the Sea Scouts until they received a
plan for a small boat launching facility, Council was probably
saying it was too late. Whatever the Sea Scouts did in the harbor
was on City land and they could do nothing without City Council
approval. Council should get started on the planning.
Councilmember Bechtel clarified support of the motion in no way
implied Council would push staff to do the facility but rather to
find out the facts. She was concerned about the size of the boats
in the harbor area. They were big boats and the harbor was
shallow. She was not sure it would work in the long run.
Councilmember Levy spoke to the environmental and ecological
concerns as well as the permitting problems.
AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Renzel, Patitucci, Fletcher
voting 'no.*
AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Sutorius,
staff be directed to work with other interested boating groups as
the plan is explored.
Councilmember Levy asked if staff would work with other interested
boating groups as a matter of course.
Mr. Zaner believed the direction was appropriate. If Council
wanted staff to work with other groups, they should be directed to
do so.
Councilmember Levy asked how it would change the way staff would
ordinarily conduct the study.
Mr. Zaner said staff would have to seek advice from people who
used the harbor and did boating.
Councilmember Klein opposed the amendment because he did not
believe it was necessary for Council to confer preferred status in
the motion. He believed staff would do i t automatically and would
also consult with people who indicated opposition to boating
groups in the past. Staff knew how to do their job and did not
need the direction.
Councilmember Patitucci agreed with Councilmember Klein. He
believed there was a substantive difference between including the
Sea Scouts, which he opposed, and the fact they would pay for and
contribute to whatever facilities, and working with others.
Councilmember Renzel concurred with Councilmember Klein. She
believed Council should not grant preferred status as there were
many members of the public interested in sailing and their sailing
needs were different from organized regatta needs. Council should
look at the subject generally and then see how the needs of
specific groups fits
AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 3-6, Woolley, Cobb, Sutori us
voting *aye.'
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Fletcher voting
"no."
MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, staff
be directed to undertake a hydrology analysis of the inner harbor
and channel to determine the optimal location for any new
launching facilities both logistically and environmentally and the
optimal location for restoration of at least four acres of marsh
on. Yacht harbor Point.
/10785
Councilmember Renzel said hydrology was always the key to sailing
in' the Palo Alto Harbor. It was ignored too long, and Council
should not put in any kind of capital improvement which did not
recognize the potent force of nature. The City needed the infor-
mation before making any decisions.
Councilmember Levy asked about the four -acre restoration.
Councilmember Renzel said in the 1981 BCDC permit, in exchange for
permitting the removal from public use of 11 acres of Yacht Harbor
Point for the period of five years, the City, PAHA, and the County
all agreed to restore a minimum of four acres of Yacht Harbor
Point to marsh. The City was obliged under BCDC to do so. It
could have an effect on the hydrology of the area and should be
studied. The motion directed the hydrological analysis include
which four acres were the best ones to take out to improve the
hydrology of the area.
Councilmember Klein asked about the costs involved.
Mr. Adams guessed the study would cost a minimum of $50,000.
Councilmember Klein asked if the study was necessary.
Mr. Adams said the study would eventually be done as part of the
final design for the Bays ands Master Plan,
Councilmember Klein asked when it would be done..
Mr. Adams said it would be placed in the CIP for Council scrutiny
next year.
Councilmember Klein asked why it needed to be voted on that . eve-
ni rg.
Councilmember Renzel said it was Part One of the Sailing Station
recommendations from staff to undertake a complete hydrology study
of the area.
Councilmember Klein was uncomfortable because he believed the
scope of the study should be developed either at the Committee
level or staff level before Council was asked to approve it.
NOTION TO REFER7. Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Levy,
to refer the question ofa hydrology study of the Yacht Harbor to
the Finance and Public Works Committee for determination es to
scope and the amount of money to spend.
Councilmember Renzel opposed the referral because Council knew it
had to get the information. If Council was going to build perma•-
nent facilities, i.e„ docks, piers, and also make the marsh
restoration, the City should know what it was doing. Staff
already said the money would be spent sooner or later and she
believed the sooner Council had the information the better. It
should be a factor Council considered in locating any facilities
a t the Yacht Harbor.
Councilmember Fletcher believed the study should be done before
staff decided on a location for the launching. facilities.
Councilmember Klein said there were blank references to the study
as if it was clear to everyone else what the study was, but it was
unclear to him. There were , various ways to do a study in his
experience, and he wanted staff to go into more detail as to what
the study was and how much it would cost. There might be areas
Council could eliminate and save some money. He believed it, was
inconsistent with the way Council voted on other issues. Council
did not just move blankly ahead and do such studies without care-
ful analysis.
MOTION TO REFER PASSED by a rote of 6-3, Renzel, Bechtel.
Pletcher voting "no."
Councilmember Renzel referred to the pontoons and believed the
City had plenty of docking materials in the berthing area to be
used for the Sea Scouts, :;ailing station, or public docks which
might be used.
MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved,_ seconded by Bechtel, to
request the Sea Scouts to remove the pontoons from the harbor
area.
ouncilmember Renzel said in order to use the pontoons, the City
was told the Sea Scouts would have to haul them to Alameda, sand-
blast them, paint them with special coatings which presumably
would have \to occur again over time. She believed it made more
sense, if the City was going to build something, to do things
right and not be storing things of such magnitude as the pon-
toons.
Vice Mayor Woolley asked if the City had any direction from BCDC
as to how long the pontoons could stay.
Mr. Zaner said the letter from BCDC simply said it would like them
moved as soon as possible.
Mr. Adams said the BCDC indicated June 30, 1986, but it was based
on Palo Alto's taking control of the Harbor on July 1, 1986.
Councilmember Levy asked what the City was doing with regard to
the pontoons.
Mr. Zaner said nothing was being done at that time because the
City did not yet coOtrol the Harbor. The letter from BCDC said,
"We encourage you to remove the pontoc s from their present loca-
tion as soon as possible and certainly before the harbor closes in
June, 1986."
Councilmember Levy asked how the motion would change what staff
was doing.
Mr. Zaner said staff would notify the Sea Scouts that Council
wanted them to remove the pontoons. The BCDC wrote to them and
told them to remove the poltoons. It was in BCDC jurisdiction,
not Palo Alto's harbor.
Councilmember Levy said if_ it was in BCDC's jurisdiction, he was -
satisfied to le.ve the pontoons to them.
Councilmember Sutorius said the County had control of the harbor
under the lease, and the Sea Scouts said they would get the
pontoons out of there, but suggested it would be more reasonable
if the City requested the County to amend the existing permit such'
that the removal date was June 30, 1986. The following day, the
harbor became Palo Alto's jurisdiction. As he understood the
materials Mr. McConnell only requested the Sea Scouts be allowed
to make the disposal of the pontoons in the most economical and
reasonable possible fashion, and they would be removed by June 30,
1986
Mr. Zaner did not believe the Sea Scouts asked the County to amend
the permit.
Councilmember Sutorius clarified the Sea Scouts asked the City to
ask the County to amend the permit, if page 6 of the. letter from
the Sea Scouts was the accurate reference.
Mr. Zaner referred to the letter from the Sea Scouts and said
there was one error he had not caught previously. The permit did
6 8 8 2
2/10/86.
1
exist in the County of Santa Clara's name; it was a joint permit
issued to the City of Palo Alto and the County of Santa Clara.
Therefore, it was not a question of the City asking the County to
ask BCDC to change the permit. The City had to go with the County
as a co -applicant to change the permit, if that was what Council
desired, because the City was named on the permit.
Councilmember Sutorius believed the City and County could say they
would like to extend the removal date until not later than
June 30, which would let BCDC know the City had done its
follow-up; the Scouts were on record they were satisfied to take
the action as necessary ttetween the present and then.
Councilmember Patitucci believed the whole motion and the discus-
sion were unnecessary. It seemed BCDC had the situation under
control, so why was Council dealing with it.
MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3-65 Re►.ael , Bechtel, Fletcher voting
.aye.
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned at 12:55 a.m.
ATTEST:
APPROVED: