Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-09 City Council Summary Minutes1 1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ITEM CITY 'i OP MI ALTO Regular Meeting June 9, 1986 PAGE Oral Communications 7 3 2 2 Minutes of May 12, 1986 7 3 2 2 Consent Calendar 7 3 2 3 Referral 7 3 2 3 Action 7 3 2 3 Item #1, Landfill Gas Lease and Operating Agreement 7 3 2 3 Amendment, and Wheeling Agreement Item #2, Foothills Park Dam - CIP 84-03 - Increase 7 3 2 3 in Contract Authorization for Design Services - Change Order to Agreement No. 4463 Item #3, Ordinance re 2047 East Bayshore, 111 Laura 7 3 2 3 Lane Item #4, Ordinance re Vesting Tentative Maps 7 3 2 3 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions 7 3 2 4 Item #9, Issues Appraisal Regarding Bingo 7 3 2 4 item #5, PUBLIC HEARING: Parking Assessments for 7 3 2 4 University Avenue Area and California Avenue Area Bonds Plan G: Fiscal Year 1986-87 Item #6, Finance and Public Works Committee 7 3 2 6 Recommendation re Yacht Harbor Study Plan Item #7, Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Short -Term Actions 7 3 3 5 Item #8, Bryant Street Bridge - Budget Amendment 7 3 4 1 Ordinance, Award of Contract 7 3 4 4 Item #10, Report of Mayor Cobb re Recommendation on the Composition of the Temporary Committee on Downtown Design and. Amenities Regular Meeting Monday, June 9, 1986 The City Council of the City of Palo 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 (arrived at 9:05 p.m.), Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Patitucci, Renzel, Sutorius, Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Councilmember Sutorius introduced Mr. Mike McDonald, General Manager of Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), a joint powers agency of which Palo Alto was a member. NCPA owned and operated power generation facilities, and coordinated and distributed the power resources the member agencies brought into NCPA, Mr. McDonald was named General Manager of NCPA in October, 1985, after a nationwide search. He was City Manager for nine years for the City of Healdsburg, a member of NCPA and therefore a Commissioner of the agency. Prior to Healdsburg3, Mr. McDonald was in the County Manager's Office in San Mateo County and a resident of Menlo Park. 1. Mike McDonald, 180 Cirby Way, Roseville, said NCPA recently completed a second hydroelectric plant which gave a total generating capacity of 220 megawatts at the Geysers. NCPA also purchased the steam field at the Geysers, drilled 12 new wells, and had enough steam to supply all the plants, plus some reserve. The Calaveras hydroelectric`. project was on schedule, within budget, and about 20 percent complete. The fixed -price contract under which the project was constructed was working well. NCPA planned a meeting at the project site in Murphys, in August, and he hoped Councilmember would attend and tour various aspects of the project. Regarding finance, NCPA entered the market several times the previous year both for new money issues and refundings to take advantage of lower interest rates and looked for opportunities to do so again in the interest of lowering the overall agency costs. Councilmember Klein asked how the drop in oil prices affected NCPA's operations, particularly the Calaveras project: Mr. McDonald said the drop in oil prices did not affect operations except the combustion turbine plants operated by gas had fuel oil as a reserve, so theoretically there could be lower costs. The real impact came from the effect on the alternative to NCPA's power, which was PG&E's rates. PG&E's capacity rates and demand charge would only be slightly affected because of Diablo, etc., but would keep their energy. rates down. It would take NCPA many years to get to where the costs of the comparative power, were the same as NCPA paid assuming the price of oil stayed at its present level or crept up slowly. Comparatively, the drop in oil prices made the numbers look slightly worse from NCPA's standpoint. Vice Mayor Woolley thanked Mr. McDonald and said Council looked forward to a possible work session with NCPA in the future, MINUTES OF MAX 12,. 1986 MOTIOils Cosacllnenber Fletcher moved, seconded approval of the Castes of May 12, 19$6, as submitted. Levy, SOTIOM PAS ► by .a vote . of 7-9-1, nnein °abatair ing," Cobb absent. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmembers Klein and Renzel asked to be recorded as abstaining on Item #3, Ordinance re 2047 East Bayshore, 111 Laura Lane (2nd Reading), and Item #4, Ordinance re Vesting Tentative Maps (2nd Reading). MOTIONS Councilaember Levy moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral None Action ITEM #1, LANDFILL GAS LEASE AND OPERATING AGREEMENT AMENDMENT, AND WHEELING AGREEMENT (UTI 4) (CMR:325 s 1) Staff recommends that Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the attached First Amendment to the Landfill Gas Lease and Operating Agreement for Conversion System. 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate the final details and execute the Interconnection and Transmission Agreement with Palo Alto Landfill Gas Corporation. AMENDMENT TO LANDFILL GAS LEASE AND OPERATING AGRiSUEI 1 ma CONVERSION SYSTEMS Palo Alto Landfill Gas Corporation Tupw_Renigww -rrnos Ann vitAm MISSION AGRKR ENT Palo Alto Landfill Gas Corporation ITEM #2, FOOTHILLS PARK DAM - CAP 84703 7 INCREASE IN CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION FOR DESIGN SERVICES - CHANGE ORDER TO AGREEMENT NO. 4463 (PAR 2-15) (CMR:327:6)- Staff recommends that Council authorize staff to execute change orders to the agreement with Earth Sciences Associates for an additional $30,000. Change Order to Contract No. 4463 Earth Science Associates ITEM #3, ORDINANCE RE 2047 EAST BAYSHORE,_ 111 LAURA LANE (2nd Reading) (PLA 3-1) ORDINANCE;3426 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 1S. 0x1.046 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO GAME THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERT_7. KNOWN AS 204/ EAST BAYUIORN FRONTAGE ROAD/111 LAURA LANG . PRON GM (B) TO PC' (1st Reading S/27/96, PASS! 7-0, Klein, 'teased absent) ITEM #4, ORDINANCE RE VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS (2nd Reading) (PLA '-9 ORDINANCE, 36E9 **titled " ORDIN INCE OF THE COUNCIL OF T Cl/ dV PAT4 IWO RISTA I ING REGULATIONS -FOR VESTING TENTATIVE NAPS FOX RESIDENTIAL SuBDIVIsIlN S0 (1st lading S/27/U,; PASSE 7.0, Klein, imnael absent) mongol PEED M 4115*$ly, :Klein, Reaasl "'abstaining, ° on Items 03 asid #4, CobbCobbaiimmosit,,: 7 3 2 3 6/09/86 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS MOTION* Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Sutorius, to bring forward Ite■ #9, Issues Appraisal Regarding Bingo, for th• purposes of continuing the item to July 7e 1956. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. ITEM #9, ISSUES APPRAISAL REGARDING BINGO (LEG 5-4-1) (CMR:331:6) Councilmember Fletcher said Council had a request from the Community Association for the Retarded to continue the item to July 7, 1986, to give involved organizations an opportunity to respond to the staff report. NOTION TO CONTINUES Councilmember Fletcher moved, aec ended by Sutorius, to continue Item #9, re Bingo, to the July 7, 1966 City Council Meeting. Councilmember Sutorius said in making the continuance to the date certain, the applicants would submit comments on the various points raised to staff before transmission to Council without further commitment of staff time or resources. He believed the request was reasonable and supported the motion. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. ITEM #5, PUBLIC REARING;_ PARKING ASSESSMENTS FOR UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREA AND CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA BONDS - PLAN G: FISCAL YEAR 1986-87 (PLA 4-6--3/4.6-4) (CNR:328:6) Vice Mayor Woolley announced it was the time and place set for the Public Hearing on the Parking Assessment Rolls for the following projects: 1. California Avenue Parking Garage Project No. 65-09, Resolution of Intention 3950, adopted January 3, 1967; 2. California Avenue Area Off -Street Parking Project No. 71-63, Resolution of Intention 4993, adopted September 10, 1974; 3. University Avenue Civic Center Parking Project No. 66-08, Resolution of Intention 3896, adopted June 13, 1966; 4. University Avenue Area Off -Street Parking Project No. 75-63, Resolution of Intention 5242, adopted August 9, 1976; and 5. University Avenue 1 t J Parking Garage Project No. 82-33, Resolution of Intention 6257, adopted May 21, 1984. The City Engineer caused to be prepared and filed with the City Clem; a report providing for the levying of special assessments within. the Parking Assessment Districts created and established for the projects and under the Resolutions of Intentions just expressed. The report set forth the amounts of .the assessments proposed to be levied for the fiscal year 1986-87. The assessments would be used to pay principal and interest on the bonds issued in the various projects. The report was and had been open for public inspection. The purpose of the hearing was to allow Council to hear all persons having an interest in any real property within the Parking Asseasement District; to hear all objections, protests, and other writttIn communications from any such interested person, to take and receive oral and documentary evidence pertaining to matters .contained in the filed report, to remedy and correct any error or informality in the report, and to amend, alter, modify, and correct and confirm the report and each of the assessments therein. 7 3-2 4 6/09/86 Senior Engineer, Public Works, Jim, Hareiugtoe •said since the filing of tho Assessment Roll wiih Lhe City Clerk in mid -May, staff received and investigated several inquiries, and as a result, made changes to nine properties in the University Avenue area, Exhibit F on the errata sheets before Council, and two in the California Avenue area, Exhibit C. Changes were submitted to the City Clerk for incorporation into the amended roll. Vice Mayor Woolley declared the Public Hearing open. Gary Tuckman, 514 High Street, was one of the owners of five office buildings in Palo Alto, two on University Avenue and three on California Avenue, and spoke regarding Parcel No. 12015076, 476 Hamilton Avenue. He was concerned about how the property was measured for assessment. It was a small, two-story office building with a central open courtyard with total leasable space of about 6,396 square feet. There were many small tenants including three counselors, psychologists or psychiatrists who used a total of 1,288 square feet. Their use was low with no secretary and only one visitor at at time, and, the demand on parking from the property was lbw. The parcel was measured and charged at 8,564 square feet, approximately 34 percent more than the usable area, apparently because posts supported the second - floor, exterior walkway, which area was considered in calculating the erees the square footage. It seemed unfair to be charged the additional 34 percent when no traffic or tenants were generated to the property and only a few people used the walkways to reach the offices. There were no internal hallways in the building. The measurement was made pursuant to the City's ordinance, and he found no way to get the measurement changed. He was willing to accept the assessment on their other four properties but opposed the subject assessment. Assistant Director of Public Works George•Bagdon said to address Mr. Tuckman's questions, staff needed to research the matter. He suggested Council close the hearing, and staff would return the following week. Vice Mayor Woolley asked whether Council could act on the five resolutions and explore Mr. Tuckman's item. Mr. aagdon said Council could act on the two California Avenue resolutions, but the other resolutions dealt with the University Avenue area and should be deferred to the following week. City Manager Bill Zaner clarified, the issue was not raised with staff prior to 3:00 p.m. that afternoon. Vice Mayor Woolley declared the Public Hearing cloned. Councilmember Sutorius asked about the status of any of the bond issues for refinancing, particularly with regard to Lot J. Senior Assistant City Attorney Anthony Hennetti was part of the. Finance Department interview team who circulated a request for proposal (RFP) to secure the services of a financial adviser on the issue of bred refinancing. One company was targeted and staff would return to Council with a proposal. Based on the oral interviews with the four firms selected, the present state of the market indicated no one issue, including the Lot J bonds, the Civic Center certifica!tes, nor participation in the two utility issues, presented any significant savings to the City by refinancing. Councilmember. Sutoriva clarified the matter was looked at during the RFP interviews and would be monitored to take advantage of any. opportunity where the present value savings would be at a proper level for refinancing. Mr. Bennetti said that was correct. Once a firm was retained, it would provide a target interest rater for refinancing. 6/09/86 Counc#lme ►goer Levy naked if staff had any problem delaying decision on the University Avenue districts. th e Mr. Bagdon said there was no problem with a week delay, but staff would not want to delay much longer because they needed to rerun the roll and get it to the County Recorder within a certain time to be put on everybody's taxes. MOTION: Co:uacil.ember Levy movRd, seconded by Klein, approval of the following resolutions: RESOLUTION 6 519 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING GARAGE PROJECT MO, 65-09 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1956-07" i*sSOLUTIOAJ 6520 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF T CITT OF PALO ALTO CONFIRMING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL CALIFORNIA AVENUE OFF-STREET PARLING PROJECT NO. 71-63 POR FISCAL YEAR 1906-07" MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING FIRST PART OF MOTION APPROVING RESOLUTION 6519 RE PROJECT NO. 65-09 PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. SECOND PART OF MOTION APPROVING RESOLUTION 6520 RE PROJECT 71-63 PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council■ember Levy moved, seconded by Klein, to continue the resolutions re University Avenue Project Nos. 66-00, 75-63, and e2-63 foe' one weak. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. ITEM *6, FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE YACHT HARBOR STUDY PLAN (PWK 7-6) (CMR:236:6fCMR:268:6) Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee Chairman Sutorius said the F&PW Committee recommended Council approve a plan for a hydro- logical analysis of a combined small boat launching facility and Sea Scout berthing facility, launch ramp, and marsh restoration. The Committee also recomm nded the study be incorporated into a proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for demolishing yacht harbor facilities and the Lmplementation plan for Baylands Master Plan elements. Regarding the scope and timing of a consultant report, the F&PW Committee recommended approval of the definition in the staff report (CMR:236;6) except the portion which referred to the analysis of the existing small boat launch ramp for public use. MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius for the Finance and Public. Mork* Committee moved re Yacht Barber Study Plana approval of a plan for a hydrological analysis of a combined small boat launching facility. and . Sea Scout berthing faaciilityr launch ramp, and marsh reetoratiaa incorporation of the study into a proposed CIP for lesaolishing Yacht Harbor facilities/implementation .plan for Eaylande Master Plan elements a consultant teem, scope and timing as defined in the report withexception that on page S, paragraph 3 of R;236:6 it be modified to read, "'Provide anhydrological analysis of the existing small boat launch rasp with respect to possible enhancements or relocation options ii order to make it amble for the public..." Director of Public Works David Adams said staff et with the Sea Scouts' representatives after the F&PW Committee meeting in . an attempt to clarify their views on berthing needs in Palo Alto, and the staff report (CMR:268;6) gave that information. Staff sought clear guidance on Council's desires for scope of work of the consultant; specifically, the size of boats to be included in the study effort, the number of bolts► and the alternative options for mooring larger boats. The information was needed to negotiate a contract with the consultant. Councilmember Renzel asked the dimensions of the three Sea Scouts' ships other than the two large ones. Mr. Adams said the critical dimension was the draft which was about five feet for the next larger boat. Staff used approximately a 28 -foot average for the length of the boats. Councilmember Renzel presumed staff required an outer parameter for length. Mr. Adams said yes, specifically whether the two larger 65 -foot and 48 -foot boats should be included in any consideration for berthing at the combined sailing station and berth :or at any of the options proposed by the Sea Scouts. Councilmember Renzel clarified staff did not need a length dimen- sion for smaller ships. Mr. Adams said no. Councilmember Klein asked how many boats staff assumed the Sea Scouts would have at the sailing station/berthing area, ignoring the two larger ones. Mr. Adams said the Sea Scouts currently had three other boats and suggested three additional for the purpose of growth and temporary berthing. Staff met with the Sea Scouts to discuss the number of boats, and six was the agreed upon number. Councilmember Klein asked if staff researched the size and dumber of boats other Sea Scouts organizations had at other harbor facilities in the Bay Area. Mr. Adams said no, but he witnessed the Sea Scouts' jamboree in Treasure Island Cove which had boats about the size of the 65 -foot boat.. Councilmember Klein said with respect to recommendation No. 4 (CMR;268:6), he assumed the Sea Scouts would like Council to consider all three options. tir. Adams said the Sea Scouts would like Council to consider all three options, but staff believed the additional three mooring options were impractical. Councilmember Klein asked about the comparative costs of having a consultant look at the three options, or any combination thereof. Mr. Adams said the cost would probablybe a few thousand dollars for each option. Councilmember Bechtel said the staff report was cautious and did not take any position because the matter was considered a political issue; however, she believed staff had strong opinions and she was interested in them. Two members of the nee Committee publicly said they did not support berthing boats, b.ut believed Council should give the Sea Scouts a chance and study the issue. The hydrologist could cost another $20,000 to .$30,000, and she asked for "staff's recommendation. Mt. Adams clarified an hydrological study would be required regardless to look at the conversion of a section of Yacht Harbor Point to marsh, to enhance the small boat launch facility, and for any sailing station. In regard to berthing .Sea Scouts boats, based on City surveyors, the entrance channel and any portion of the harbor area was not deep enough to properly accommodate boats even of the smeller dimensions the Sea Scouts curreetly had without dredging/ therefore, staff did not believe it was appropriate to pursue berthing the Sea Scout vessels at all in the harbor entrance or in the harbor. Councilmember Patitucci asked about the relationship between the Sea Scouts needs and its use of the proposed sailing station area, and whether the City could develop a widely -used sailing station. Mr. Adams said the portion of the harbor entrance surrounding the current launch ramp could be enhanced to accommodate manhandled sailboards and boats during periods of high tide, but some study was required to determine how. An ``expert would need to determine whether a facility could be built and used during a big enough high tide envelope to make it worthwhile. Councilmember Klein asked about the cost to build a sailing station. Mr. Adams said over $100,000 and as much as $200,000. Councilmember Klein said before Council went forward with any expenditure, he expected staff would develop a cost benefit analysis to determine how much would be spent per user. Mr. Adams said such an analysis would be part of the consultant study. Councilmember Klein asked if staff knew how the costs compared to other recreational use. and how many users might be expected. Mr. Adams said no. Councilmember Fletcher understood the time a sailboat could actually make use of the water was limited to a few hours a day. Mr. Adams said that was correct, and staff envisioned centerboard boats, which drew substantially less water than a keel boat, would use the sailing station. Vice Mayor Woolley understood the scope of the study included hydrological analyses of a sailing station .including tidal action, wind effects, and siltation rates in the channel area where the ,_sailing station was proposed; hydrological analysis of the present launch ramp area, and hydrological analysis of the marsh restoration project which included- siltation rates and the restoration timing for the marsh. There were six other tasks which included the structures on the land, the permits and public input. She asked how much consultant time would be required to also evaluate the anchoring and mooring proposals for the two larger boats as set out in recommendation 4 a, b and c in staff report (CMR:268s6.) Mr. Adams believed there would be less than a 10 percent additional increment. Staff budgeted $40,000 for the complete study and intended to fit the scope of the study to the budget. amount. Councilmember Renzel said the earlier drawings submitted to the F&PW Committee showed the sailing station concept and the pier going about 240 feet out into the channel, and initially it had about 30 or 40 feet of associated dock. With the combination of the Sea Scout berthing, there was approximately 150 to 180 feet of docking at a minimum running parallel . to the shoreline. She asked about the impact on windsurfing with so much structure going out into the Open water area. 1 i 1 7 31. Mr. Adams did not believe windsurfing would be impacted. Staff believed the total length of the structure running along the length of the channel could be as much as 290 feet if all the Sea Scout boats were accommodated. Councilmember Renzel said windsurfers seemed to go pretty close to the shore during high tide, and she was concerned a windsurfer would run into a dock. Mr. Adams doubted a 290 -foot long dock would interfere with windsurfers, although it might affect boats which had to tack back and forth. Vice mayor Woolley asked whether the water windowwas currently four to six hours or whether it would be four to six hours with a new con%iguration of launching ramp or sailing station. Mr. Adams said four to six hours represented the amount of time the water was deep enough to get boats in and out of the harbor. Vice Mayor Woolley hoped the 'Improved launching facilities might improve the water windows. Mr. Adams said staff believed the restrictions would still be governed by the height of the water. Low tide would reveal a narrow channel so the floating pier portion of the dock would undoubtedlyrest on the mud at low tide. Vice Mayor Woolley said the further out the floating pier portion of the dock, the sooner the tide would be in and the longer the water might be used. Mr. Adams said there was not a big difference because the slope from the embankment to the channel was relatively shallow. Vice Mayor Woolley clarified a hydrologist could definitively answer the questions. Mr. Adams said yes. Vice Mavor Woolley confirmed the study would cover a range of pos- sibil...ies with a cost benefit analysis. Mr. Adams said the consultant's scope of work needed to be limited because each option cost money. A clear contract could be nego- tiated where the consultant would explore the combination and a sailing station option separately, but a range of different options was complicated. Vice Mayor Woolley asked if a range of dock sizes was included. Mr. Adams said yes. A range of options between one boat and eight boats and eight different options plus a sailing station was com- plicated. It was reasonable to negotiate as a contract with two basic options in terms of what should be provided for the Sea Scouts and a sailing station alone. J. Douglas McConnell, 4174 Oak Hill Avenue, requested the scope of the consultant's study be as broad as outlined in staff report, CMR:268:6. San Francisco Bay .Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) believed vessels resting on the bottom in 'low tide made a site unsuitable as a marina, and an actual survey of Bay harbors and ports under BCDC jurisdiction showed eight out of twenty-two boats, or 36 percent, regularly had vessels aground at low tide. He believed there was a high possibility of obtaining a permit for berthing larger and smaller vessels if the Sea Scouts And Palo Alto jointly made the request of the BCDC. The basic issue was whether Palo Alto, through its representatives, was an enthusiastic supporter of sccUting. City opposition or grudging support was sufficient to render ineffective the Scouts' proposed Z/(39?8% rune raising efforts for a combined sailing station, a community center and Sea Scout base. it taced with precision for the consultant study, the Scouts' requested (1) the outer limits be 65 feet with an 8.5 -foot draft; (2) the maximum numbers of boats be eight; (3) additional study be conducted to determine if the two larger boats can be accommodated at the combined berthing/sailing station facility; and recommendations (4) (a), (b) and (c) be included. He believsd his letter, dated May 27, 1986 (on file in the City Clerk's office), more appropriately related to Item #7, Palo Alto Yacht Harbor Short -Term Actions. Linley J. Harvey, 13410 i.aCresta Drive, Los Altos Hills, clarified the boat listed as the 65 -foot, 8.5 -foot draft vessel, should be 7.5 feet as measured during the last dry docking. It was 8.5 feet when the vessel was fully loaded with fuel, personnel, etc., but it normally drew 7.5 feet when docked. Fifty latch barges directly opposite the Port of Redwood City rested on the bottom of the water during low tide. BCDC issued permits to the barges after the rule was established that sitting on mud was inappropri- ate for a marina. The Sea Scouts were looking for a way to con- tinue operation in Palo Alto. Phil LaRiviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, circulated pictures to illus- trate the narrowness of the channel. He complimented staff for their factual presentation before the F&PW Committee on April 8, 1986. Staff concluded the two larger Sea Scout vessels could not be accommodated in the outer channel without dredging, and he con- curred. Regardless of dredging, the large Sea Scout boats would block the deepest part of the channel making access to the Ba.y from the public launch ramp difficult. If a "floating sailing station" were shared by the Yacht Club and Sea Scouts which put eight of the large boats in tandem, staft said the pier would need to be 280 feet long, plus 190 feet, which was what the Yacht Club needed to accommcdate its boats in the Regatta, tor a total of 480 feet of pier which would stretch from the towers to the launch ramp. To anchor the larger boats or construct a floating pier by the shared pier appeared to be unworkable. The Sea Scout big boats, which were 65 feet long with a draft of 7.5 or 8.5, and 55 feet long with a bow spread and a draft of 7 feet, were out of scale with the harbor. It was estimated the 65 -foot boat could move in and out of the harbor for about one more year regardless of whether it was moored tight to a pier. He queried the exposure of moored boats to storm winds. The channel location was poorly protected against the usual winter storm directions. An undated communication by Palo Alto Harbor Association (PAHA), indicated a possible lawsuit against the City .on "Tuesday or Wednesday" to keep the harbor open. He suggested staff not waste any more time and money to accommodate the Yacht Club or the sailing station until the lawsuit was resolved. Councilmember Patitucci asked about the intended recreational use of the Baylands area and to what extent it derived the options to be considered by the study. Mr. Adams said staff was committed to converting a portion of Yacht Harbor Point to marshland. The Baylands Master Plan included the use of small boats and defined nothing further. It was a nature preserve and open space area. Passive use was the statement in the Baylands Master Plan. Councilmember Patitucci said small boat sailing was defined as being under 17 feet and single massed according to the Baylands Master Plan. Shoreline Park had about 20 sailboards to each small boat, and Palo Alto could potentially take advantage of the area he was told was conducive to sailboarding and small boating. He wanted assurances the City made a_ sufficient commitment to the activity in the planning process consistent with the Baylands Master Plan. He asked if sailboarding and proposed plans for the area were consistent with the objectives of the Baylands Master Plana If not, Council needed to decide where it wanted to go. i/{i9382 City Manaaer Bill Zaner said the 1saylands MaRtor Plan antic paled the shoreline area would he used basically as a passive park with the specific caveat that small boat sailing was called out for use after the harbor closed. The Plan did not particularly indicate small boat sailing would be sailboarding, but it was not excluded. He believed it would be too much to suspect the hydrological study to return with possible recreational uses at the shoreline. If Council wanted a study of appropriate recreational uses at the shoreline area consistent with the existing Baylands Master 'lan or some modification of its policy, it was another set of ques- tions which the hydrologist would not be expected to address. Councilmember Patitucci was concerned Council was pursuing an objective which had roots and history which might not be appropriate in the future. He queried whether the data from the hydrological study would provide useful data in terms of coming up with appropriate recreational options for what Council wanted to see now. Mr. Adams said the study was originally included in the CIP to comply with the mandate that the City convert a section of Yacht Harbor Point to marsh. Everything else was incidental. The data received from' the study might be useful for someone else to deter- mine possible uses, but staff would not ask the hydrologist to get into possible recreational uses unless Council directed. In such an event, the study would cost more. Councilmember Patitucci was concerned if a sailing station was considered and one-third of the way through "small boat sailing" was defined as sailboarding. He asked what happened when 55 people wanted to launch their sailboard because launch needs were different. The City should be prepared for the probable recrea- tional uses. Mr. Adams said one element of the proposed study was how to enhance the current small boat launch ramp, but it would not include a detailed study of all of its possible uses. Vice Mayor Woolley said the kinds of uses suggested by Councilmember Patitucci were includes because they were less demanding than facilities required by larger boats. As long as there was a dock with adjacent water, a sailboard could launch. The issue was having more than what a sailboard needed. Councilmember ` Patitucci observed the intensity and types of uses were different. The Berkeley Marina had two docks --one for small boats which had a winch, and another for sailboards, which had a concessionaire at the top who rented sailboards. As the Ci.ty looked at such questions, it needed to have its eyes open. i'he Sea Scout issue -was important, but the question of what Council wanted out there was one he could not answer. MOTION DIVIDGD FOR PURPOSES OF VOTI G Councilmember Bechtel supported Councilmember Patitucci's concepts on sailboarding. In listening to the staff and public, and in reading the materials, she could not support' the inclusion of permanent berthing facilities as part of the study at: that point. ANSMDMMITI t'ouscilaeoiber Bechtel , raved, seconded by Fletcher, to delete the portion of the hydr eIogical an' .,ysis related to a Sea Scout berthing facility. Councilmember Fletcher supported the amendment.. It seeped incon- gruous to prohibit the public from berthing boats, and to con- struct special facilities, which were inaccessible to the general public, for a small group. She was somewhat negative about a sailing station where boats sat- in mud more hours than they were in water since such circumstances did not make for an attractive facility. If boats were permitted, there should be sufficient water around the clock except for three or four hours. Mayor Cobb arrived at 9:05 p.m. Councilmember Sutorius opposed the amendment because he believed it was too arbitrary. The study was intended to provide informa- tion , to certify that some berthing arrangement could be environ- mentally sound and acceptable to the boat owner -operator. He saw no reason not to have data which would demonstrate whether the position was correct. Councilmember Klein opposed the amendment because given the Yacht Harbor's history, it was important for Council to get outside advice and ensure the citizenry understood the right decisions were made. It presently appeared to be environmentally and finan- cially dubious for the City to handle the berthing facility, but a professional hydrologist might see it differently. He wanted to preserve the options if possible. Regarding the costs of having the.hydrologists study the question, staff said the study would cost $40,400 regardless. He believed Mr. Adams said having the consultant study the various extra alternatives requested,_ by the Sea Scouts would cost approximately $6,000, which was reasonable to ensure the City looked at all the possibilities and no one left feeling decisions were made based on inadequate information. He supported the F&PJ.recommendation. Vice Mayor Woolley associated herself with the comments of Councilmember Klein. Councilmember Renzel believed all through the Baylands Master Plan and Council discussions of the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor, it was apparent the Palo Alto Baylands were appropriate for small boating, but large boating was inappropriate. The two major Sea Scout ships were out of scale with anything else presently out there. The Sea Scouts Junior Sailing Program traditionally operated small, manually launched El Toros, which she believed was a more appropriate scale for the Palo Alto Harbor, and she saw no reason why other Sea Scout programs could not also use small boats. It would improve the use of a sailing station to have all the activities focused on manual launching and it also meant the Baylands had less "fill," berthing areas, and boats which rested in mud at low tide. Originally, the sailing station concept was intended to be a low-key operation, and it was now 240 feet long going out into the channel, plus whatever length of docking was needed at the channel. The Sea Scouts should be encouraged to think terms of transitioning to more appropriate vessels for their activities. Some Scouts used smaller boats all along and launched from the public launch for years. Councilmember Bechtel's amendment was appropriate and simplified the matter for staff and meant Council would uniformly encourage appropriate sailing in the Palo Alto Baylands. Mayor Cobb associated with the comments of Councilmember Klein. Al4END* UT FAILED by a vote of 3-i, Stenzel, Bachtgal, Fletcher voting "aye." Councilmember Renzel said the first F&PW Committee recommendation called for a hydrological analysis of a combined small boat lau.sch facility/Sea Scout Berthing facility, and she asked it the hydrological analysis would determine that oneor the other was e ppropriate independent of the other or whether Council needed to instruct that a sailing station also be studied. Mr. Adams said it would clarify the situation to know the sailing sttion would not die if the combination facility could not be done. '7 3 3 a 6/09/86 AHH D belie Cummuilmombor Resazdl moved, s*cunded by Bechtel, to revise F&PW rrecommend.tivn is follows; "Yacht harbor Study Plan approval of a plan for an hydrological analysis of a small boat launching facilit , a combined small boat launching facility and Sea Scout ert ng facility, launch ramp, and marsh restoL•ation." Councilmember Renzel believed the amendment would provide a com- parison of the hydrological effect for both activities as well as each activity on the other. Councilmember Patitucci asked if the definition of "small boat" included "sailboards" and -small motor boats. Mr. Zaner said sailboards wore included in the definition. Mr. Adams did not know that motor boats were excluded, but generally "small boats" referred to something less than 17 feet with a centerboard or dagger -board type configuration --not a keel boat. It could include little row boats with motors. Councilmember Patitucci clarified the intent was boats would be launched for day use, but had to be taken out by dark. The boats would not permanently end upon the bottom at low tide. Mr. Adams said that was correct. AMENDMENT PASSED unan.isously. Councilmember Bechtel wanted to provide guidance regarding the Sea Scouts berthing facility and size of boatsto be berthed and would not support the first part of the motion without an amend- ment to the F&PW recommendation. FIRST PART OF MOTION AS AMENDED RE APPROVAL OF A PLUM FOR AN HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF A COMBINED SMALL BOAT LAUNCHING FACILITY AND SEA SCOUT BERTHING FACILITY. LAUNCH Rl MP, - AND MARSH RESTORA- TION PASSED by a vote of 7.2, Bechtel, Pletcher voting "no., SECOND PART OF MOTION RE INCORPORATION OF THE STUDY INTO A PRO- POSED CIP FOR DEMOLISHING YACHT HARBOR „FACILITIES/I'_4PLEME TATION PLAN FOR BAYLANDS MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS PASSED unanimously. THIRD PART OF NOTION RE CONSULTANT TEAM, SCOPE, AND *L ING AS DEFINED IM THE REPORT WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT OM PAGE 5, PAM/GRAPH 3, OF C*Rs 236 s 6 IT BE MODIFIED TO READ, 'PROVIDE AN ©YDROLOSICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING SMALL BOAT LAUNCH RAMP WITH USPBCT TO POSSIBLE ENHANCEMENTS OR RELOCATION OPTIONS 1r; ORDER AXE IT USABLE FOR THE PUBLIC..." PASSED unanimously. MOTIONS Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Patitucci, City Council approval of the following guidelines for staff; 1) Maximus length to be accommodated should be 65 feet and drafts; of boats should be 8-1/2 feet; 2) Maximum number of boots to be accommodated should be eight (8); 3) Yes, the additional study should • be conducted to determine if the two larger boats can be accommodated at the combined berthing/soiling station facilities; and 4) The additional mooring options: a. Anchoring the two larger _ vessels on a permanent basis in the deepest remaining portion et the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor; 7 3 3 3_ 6/09/0 MOTION COliTIPWED b. Anchoring the two larger boats on a permanent basis in an area near the intersection of Charleston s..aaph. sand the Yacht Harbor channel generally east of th• *siting launch ramp, and c. Mooring the two larger boats at a newly constructed floating pier not connected to any land mask in the vicinity of the intersection of the Charleston clout and the Yacht Harbor channel should be considered. Councilmember Klein emphasized it was a study, and he was not com- mitted to ultimately supporting the specific recommendations. The question was what the hydrologist should study and the motion set outside parameters. Councilmember Patitucci agreed with Councilmember Klein. He was pessimistic the data would support a solution acceptable to all, but Council needed to get the information in order to find out what, if any, options the City had to retain a Sea Scout program compatible with the Haylands Master Plan. Councilmember Renzel said in terms of channel configurations and what would happen with boats with drafts larger than 5.5 feet, it was clear the boats would have a hard time getting much useful time in the Harbor, its entrance, or in the Bay. Staff was being asked to work with a consultant and do many complicated iterations of a study in order to avoid making a hard decision which was already obvious. AIt ND$ENTI Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, that the eddy consider seven smaller boats with drafts of five feet or less. ouncilmember Renzel said the amendment would allow two small boats for each of the larger boats. Staff indicated length was not as much a factor as drafts, but instead of accommodating the 65 -foot and 58 -foot boats with the larger drafts, the City should look at accommodating seven smaller boats with drafts of five feet or less, which she believed were more appropriate for the area and the combined station. Councilmember Sutorius appreciated the spirit of the amendment, but from a study standpoint, what was learned about eight feet would tell everything the City needed to know about five feet, and what the City learned about eight boats of a certain maximum and diminishing lengths, would tell what the City needed to know about seven boats. AMENDMENT FAILED hy t<. vote of 2-7, Renzel, Bechtel voting .aye.. Councilmember Levy supported the motion. The motion embodied the requests of the Sea Scouts, and when the study returned, Council would have bent over backwards to accommodate the desires of the Sea Scouts. The results of the study would enable Council to define where it wanted to go with an informed opinion. Councilmember Renee. said (b) and (c) of the motion spoke to either anchoring ovt or having a new independent fleeting pier which was not connected to land, and she asked how a large boat or two large boats would get fuel. There were water pollution con- siderations in terms of trying to fuel something not shore bound in some way. Mr. Adams presumed the boatwould be moved to a fuel dock in Redwood City or elsewhere. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Renzel, Bechtel: Pl ott,her eating "no e l Councilmember Patitucci said Council discussed the potential recreational use and he believed the initial instructions to the hydrologic study team were appropriate; however, there might be changes in the desired recreational uses for the facility. He suggested Council review the recreational component in the Baylands Master Plan with a view of making changes where necessary and ensuring the study included all guidelines and constraints before returning with a plan which might be recreationally obsolete. Mr. Zaner requested any staff assignment from Council be precise. Mayor Cobb asked if discussing a precise staff assignment at the next City Council meeting would affect the progress of the other items being passed on that evening. Mr. Zaner said no. Councilmember. Patitucci suggested the agenda item include a short staff report pulling together the recreational components from the Baylands Master Plan in order for Council to discuss what process might be appropriate for review during the hydrologic study. Mr. Zaner saw no problem as lone as Council allowed him to desig- nate the Council meeting at which staff returned. MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Renzel, to direct staff to review the Saylands Master Plan, specifically the water based recreational uses which have evolved since the Plan and to properly account for and accommodate those uses in the Saylands Master Plan and report back to Council. MOTION PASSED unanimously. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:30 p.m. TO 9:45 p.m. ITEM 47, PALO ALTO YACHT HARBOR SHORT-TERM ACTIONS (PWK 7-6) (CMR:269:6) Director of Public Works Dave Adams said the Sea Scouts requested permission to continue berthing a few more boats at their present site and to provide for some fenced in storage. Further, staff determined leaving a section of floating pier for small boat use within the inner harbor was inappropriate and wanted to ensure Council had no objection to staff proceeding with removing all the inner harbor floating piers. The action would require the section of floating pier to be used as a temporary berthing facility for the Sea Scouts to be removed at the end of February, 1988, which meant , staff would. request the Sea Scout boats be removed approximately 60 days prior to such time or the last of December, 1987. Mayor Cobb said Council received a letter from John Walker at the Palo .A.tto Harbor Association (PAHA) indicating its intention to file a lawsuit to restrain the City's action. He .asked how the legal action would impact Council's actions. Senior Assistant City Attorney Anthony Bennetti said staff could not anticipate the scope of a restraining - order, but expected staff would proceed with an unlawful detainer action to establish the City's right to possession against each person who claims some better right to possess. He did not foresee the court restraining the City from instituting such proceedings. He had no idea in terms of the legal theories involved with a PAHA action. 7 3 3 5. 6/09/86 Mayor Cobb clarified Council was not constrained from acting on the matter. Mr. Bennetti said no. He believed Council should make its short- term intentions clear. Councilmember Klein asked for staff's recommendation in terms of a Council policy regarding the Sea Scouts' request to temporarily berth more than five boats and to provide a fenced dry storage area adjacent to their main building. Mr. Adams said the request was contrary 'to previous Council direction, but staff saw no problem with the Sea Scouts' request. Councilmember Levy said the Sc outs requested Council extend the decision date concerning the donation of the base, and he asked what it meant from a practical standpoint. Manager, Real Property Bilk. Fellman said the extension was to be for 60 days beyond when the consultant report returned to Council, which was estimated to be April, 1987. Councilmember Levy believed Council intended to allow the Sea Scouts to use the building essentially as it was previously used. If his understanding was correct, he asked about the difference between the City taking over and the Scouts continuing in the present mode. Mr. Zaner said while the City anticipated allowing the Sea Scouts to continue their activities, once the building was in the City's hands, it would technically be available to the general public consistent with scheduling to allow the Sea Scouts to continue their activities. He did not know of effects other than it delayed part of the process. Staff wanted to get as many items cleared up as quickly as possible. Councilmember Levy asked about possible effects regarding insur- ance. Mr. Bennetti said entering into an agreement would straighten out liability between the parties. He believed Sea Scout insurance would contnnue to insure their activities, but absent some new agreement with the City concerning possession, and unless the Sea Scouts were allowed to stay exclusively, the indemnities between the parties would not be clear. The City might still be liable as a property owner, and having no formal agreement with the Sea Scouts would not ensure the City was protected and offered no additionalcomfort level to the City. If there were no new agree- ment with the Sea Scouts by July 1, the City had no understanding in terms of the indemnity agreements between the parties. If Council delayed decision on the notice, it would continue with the status quo. Councilmember Levy clarified if the City took the facility over, it needed to develop a new agreement with the Scouts. Mr. 8r nn etti said yes. The situation was currently ambiguous where the City could be required to give 30 days notice to the Sea Scouts to terminate their right to possession and allow them 90 days thereafter to remove the building. Council .previously directed if the Sea Scouts were willing .to waive their rights under such an arrangement, the City could negotiate a new agree- ment, part of which he anticipated would include making the facilities available to the public when not in use for Sea Scout meetings and straightening out the parties' liability in the event of injury or damage. 7 3 3.6 6/09/86. Councilmember Levy clarified if the City extended the Sea Scouts' use until 60 days after the consultant's report, the city went on the way it was and the present insurance situation did net change. If the. City took the facility over on July 1, 1986, some arrange- ments needed to be made with the Sea Scouts in terms of insur- ance. Mr. Bennetti said if the City did nothing and allowed the Sea Scouts to continue with the present situation, the City's liability went up. The County, who previously teased the City's property, indemnified the City against dangerous situations+ and occurrences, and the County had the benefit of the Sea Scouts' insurance. It the City got into the situation, it did not have the arrangement and was liable for dangerous conditions which existed on the publicly --owned property. Councilmember Levy asked if there was any change in the City's liability to the degree it made the facility available to .the general public. Mr. Bennetti said yes, but not incons:.stent with opening up the area to some kind of park use. To the extent the property was publicly -owned, the City's intent was to make it as generally available to the public as possible., Councilmember Renzel believed the Sea Scouts expressed insecurity in terms of relinquishing their 90 -day title from the City's giving notice. If the City went ahead and secured possession or if the Sea Scouts acceded to providing the City the quitclaim deed, she asked if there was a way to ensure the Sea . Scouts had a nonexclusive lease in hand for a period of time prior to their executing the quitclaim. Mr. Bennetti said yes. It could be a mutual excaange of docu- ments. Councilmember Renzel clarified the Sea Scouts were assured the City would not take away its use in the interim period after it received a quitclaim deed. Mr. Bennetti said the City would negotiate a new written lease and inform the Sea Scouts of the terms prior to their being required to provide the City with the quitclaim deed. Councilmember Renzel said the City once had dry -boat storage in the Baylands which was removed as part of the 1975-76 dredging permit. She asked what permits were required to create more dry boat storage and whether it required site and design review. Mr. Adams eaid there might not be boats in dry storage,, but he understood the Sea Scouts had other storage needs. Councilmember Renzel said the Scouts indicated a need for eight boats in terme of a berthing facility, yet recommendation No. 2 said to -approve more than five, which could be 100. She asked whether the recommendation should be -limited to eight which .was the projected need for expansion and to .what extent the City would Ube parkland to store donated boats being held for the requisite twoeyear.period before they could be sold. Mr. Adams said the Sea Scouts referred to an additional six smaller boats they wanted to keep in the water in ..addition to the five they currently had. The fence would require a -normal building permit and site and design review if it did not conflict with any park ordinances 7 3 3 7 6/09/86 .T. Douglas McConnell, 4174 Oak Hill Avenue, eaid thA SeA fi_r r,u s preeentiy had eupp1ies in the old Santa Clara County Sea Scout base and a row of lockers where paint supplies, lubricants, solvents, etc. were kept. Dry storage was needed for the supplies in order to demolish the buildings by July 1, but such storage at the Sea Scout base would violate the Fire Code. Eleven boats were requested because sometimes boats were donated as a tax write-off. The Sea Scouts tried to be reasonable yet accommodate real needs during the interim period. Recommendation 1 would not provide the Scouts relief. In essence, if the Scouts gave a quitclaim deed to the City, they abrogated any rights regarding the ownership ques- tion. If the consultant report determined the Sea Scout program was no longer viable and would worsen with added siltation, there was no point discussing a community center down at the Harbor. Regarding insurance, since 1971, the Sea Scouts had no lease with the City or County, and there were no indemnity provisions. The Scouts carried the insurance and fortunately had no claims. If the building became the City's property and if the Scouts were the sole .users, they were concerned people would say the building was not up to code, and too much of an insurance risk. Their program could be in jeopardy with short notice, and they would have nowhere to go. Given the disputed ownership, their legal opinion, as members of the executive board of the Stanford Area Council, Boy Scouts of America, was the Sea Scout base belonged to the Scouts and was, therefore, an asset. As directors of a nonprofit corporation, if the Sea Scouts quitclaimed the buildings to the City by June 30, they abrogated rights and responsibilities as stewards. Ile could not persuaae 25 other directors to do that. Councilmember Renzel asked what Commodore McConnell considered was in dispute. There was no dispute about the ownership of the land, regarding the building, and the Sea Scouts' last lease gave them 90 days to move. When the building was donated, the City chose to lease the land and not donate it. Mr. McConnell was not a lawyer and deferred comment. Councilmember Renzel saw the relationship .between the Sea Scouts' decision to build a new building based upon the outcome of the study, but did not see the relationship with the old building. Mr. McConnell said the outcome of the study did not link to the quitclaim per se, but if the Sea Scouts owned the building, they would not make any decision which jeopardized their ownership until the consultant study was completed. The Scouts had little negotiating strength in a community where not everybody liked the Sea Scouts. Councilmember Renzel asked against who the negotiating strength was provided. Mr. McConnell said the people in the community who might not favor boats or Sea Scouts at the harbor. Councilmember Renzel asked if the Sea Scouts were prepared to move the building, if in fact the City conceded the buildings was theirs, and gave them 90 days' notice to move it. Since the Sea Scouts did not own the land, she asked about the objection to quitclaiming what would automatically go to the City after 90 days notice. Mr. McConnell did not know. Councilmember Levy said according to the City's legal counsel, the City was indemnified by the County until July 1, 1986. He asked whether the Scouts could indemnify the City as the County had if the City allowed the Sea Scouts to continua ownership of the base as requested. 7 3 3 8 -6/09/86 Mr. McConnell did not believe the Sea Scouts would have a problem adding the City, or whoever might: be the Sea Scout*' partners, unto their beeic policy. He introduced Warren Merritt who was the Sea Scouts' insurance expert. Mr. Merritt said the Sea Scouts could have partners added onto their basic policy and currently did. MOTION* Couneilsember Reuse' moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt staff recommendations 1, 3 and 4 as contained in staff report, (CfRs 249 t 6) : and to change the wording of Recommendation No. 2, to establish a policy regarding the Sea Scouts' request to tempo- rarily berth more than five boats, as reflected belew. 1) Proceed with securing possession of the main Sea Scout building by a 90 -day notice as provided in the lease, unless the Sea Scouts execute a quitclaim deed and make arrangements to temporarily use the main Sea *cunt" building on a n€- ezclusive ilease until the Sea Scouts secure a permanent site elsewhere or February 2E, 1988, whichever occurs first; 2) Establish a policy regarding the Sea Scouts' request to permit on a temporary basis berthing of _um to 11 boats and to provide a fenced, dry storage area subject to site and design review. 3) Approve removal of all berthing facilities and floating piers, except the Sea Scout berthing structures, as soon after July 1, 1986, as possible, and remove the Sea Scout berthing structures when they are vacvttedf- and 4) A11 w the Sea acouts to temporarily berth Evats in their existing berthing area until they can secure a permanent site elsewhere, or December 31, 1987, whichever cows first. Councilmember Renee' believed it was important for the City, to resolve the matter of possession of the building in order for staff to secure insurance and .clarify the .=,tatter. Even if the Sea Scouts owned the building, which they. might under the original grant as well as their last lease, their rights extended only to removal of the building. Asking the Sea Scouts to quitclaim when they were assured a right to continue until February 28, 1988, gave ample assurance they would not be turned out. She was sure the City . would let the Sea Scouts remove the building if they wished. To the extent Council avoided additional litigation and clarified the issues were good. Temporary berthing was not an unreasonable request in the short-term because of the transition period. A good case was made for a fenced dry :storage area for chemicals which should be contained. Tax laws required donated boats sit for two years, and she did not want to see the City become a parking lot for donated boats, so exactly how much could be accommodated in the dry storage should:, be looked at in: the future. Councilmerber Klein referred to Item al, and believed it was imperative the City establish its legal position with regard to the property. He did not believe the Scouts had legal ownership rights, and was concerned if Council .went along with the Scouts' request, the .City might be deemed by some court in the future to have acquiesced to the. Scouts' _ .- position. As a responsible custodian of the rights of the public of , the City of Palo Alto, he could not let that happen. His position" was the reverse of Mr. McConnell's. If the Sea Scouts beLeved they had a legal right to the property, he encouraged the courts to decide. Council was advisedby the . City Attorney's --office that the property was public property and that advice could not be compromised. Based on Mr. McConnell's atateaaents, Council needed to instruct staff to move expeditiously to establish the City's : legal title to the property. Any other action would leave Council open with regard to insurance and liability. On July 1, 1986, if somebody was injured on the property, an attorney would ",sue everybody, including the City of Palo Alto. Council was responsible for the property and could not 7 3 3 9 6/09/86 rely on the good faith of the Sea Scouts. If the Sea Scouts indemnified the City as a lessee, the City must have a w itten agreement. Coui oil would take unwartaneed legal risks by acquiescing to the Sea Scouts' request. Vice Mayor Woolley opposed the motion. The Sea Scouts wanted to be "ptrtners" with the City, and Council should cooperate with the request for an extension of the time period. Regarding insurance coverage, if the City was added to the Sea Scouts' policy as an additional insured, it offered a bettor, situation than if ..the City had sole coverage, although a lawsuit would name as many parties as were available. The Sea Scouts i.edicated a willingness to make a substantial financ91 contribution to anything developed, which included buildings on the land or a docking facility. She believed operating in a spirit of cooperation would benefit all. Councilmember Levy did not believe a confrontational mode was the intent of the Scouts. The Scouts were not saying they would sue the City ana therefore the City had to do certain things to fore- close that possibility. He concurred with Vice Mayor. Woolley the Scouts sought an extension and had a right to do so. He preferred the Sea Scout program be allowed to continue for another year and one-half essentially as it had, and wanted to find the easiest way to do o' One way was to acquiesce to the Scouts' request for an extension until 60 days after the date of the consultant's report, which he endorsed if Council was assured of satisfactory indem- nification by the Scouts. The Scouts said they could provide such indemnification, which enabled the City to maintain the status quo until after the consultant's report. He favored the possibility. Another possibility was to secure an agreement with the Scouts in connection with their executing a quitclaim deed which guaranteed the Scouts satisfactory use of the base consistent with allowing the facility to be available to the public.- - AMMIDMENT: Coenci !member Levy moved, seconded by Woolley, to replace Item #1 with language that the City extend the decision dote concerning donation of the base to the City until 60 days after the date the coasultantla report appeared on the Council agenda providing the City was satisfactorily indemnified by the Sea Scouts during the period. Councilmember Levy -said if the City was not satisfactorily index e nified, it should proceed as staff suggested; therefore; agreement was necessary within the nest two weeks. Councilmember Patitucci said discussions reflected a desire on the part of many Councilaembers to see the Sea Scouts' program func- tion if possible, and a continuity of the Sea Scouts' program between the present and when a decision was made about whether the program was feasible. A separate issue was the property rights. He asked if there was any difference in the Sea Scouts' activities if Council passed Items 12, #3, and #4, and passed Item #1 in another form. City Manager Hill Zaner said there was no difference in the activities the Sea Scoe ts.would conduct. - Councilmember 'atitucci clarified the Sea Scouts wouldhave con- tinuity with ,the program, and if the study said they could berth a number . of boats and maintain the program, and i t was supported by the City, theprogramwould go ahead. The question was strictly a legal and liability one. Staff said the propertywas the City's and needed to establish some claim starting July 1, 1986. - He tended to support Councilmember. Klein's position from strictly a property rights and indemnity issue, - 7 3 4 -0 6/09/86 1 Councilmember Sutorius asked what wad intended by a good faith negotiation on a "non-exclusive* lease, a g. , the City owned the residence on the Arastra property which was rented, perhaps under a lease, to a family. Subsequently, the family moved and the residence continued to be rented to several people. He asked if those people had exclusive use of the City property. Mr. Zaner said the question of exclusivity went to the issue of parkland. With parkland no one group could have exclusive use. The Arastra homes and some other City properties were not neces- sarily parkland or were exempted by Council from parkland ordi- nances. When the subject facility became the City's responsi- bility on July 1, 1986, since,it was parkland, the City would be careful to ensure the Sea Scouts' use was not exclusive, i.e., other people had access to the structure. The City would not solicit nor search for other uses, and he suspected there would not be many requests for the use of the property, but technically if someone requested use of the facility, the City would consider the request in light of any agreement with the Sea Scouts. The use would not be the Sea Scouts exclusively, but he did not see a practical problem. Councilmember Sutorius asked if the City would collect the keys to the facility from the Sea Scouts who would have to gain access through a ranger. Mr. Zaner said collecting keys was not necessary. There were groups with access to City facilities, and the City scheduled use by different groups. Councilmember Sutorius believed the residential situations cited included parkland. He had confidence in the good faith purposes of the lease negotiations and opposed the amendment because he was persuaded by Councilmember Kiein and the City Attorney as to the appropriateness of achieving the quitclaim. He was aleo persuaded the nature of Council's discussions put such an emphasis on cooperation, the resulting lease would be appropriate to the purposes Councilmember Patitucci identified. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 2-7, Woolley, Lvy voting "aye. M Vice Mayor Woolley assumed the fenced, dry storage area was temporary_and ran the same length of time as the occupancy of the Sea Scouts' base. She asked if the City had any provision for whether such a temporary facility went through site and design review. Public Works Senior Engineer James Harrington said usually the concerns of a fence related to heightwhich typically went into some kind of design mode. The zonit.g in the area was 4s, so typically improvements required site and design approval. MOTION DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF VOTING FIR' T PART OF MOTION RE ITEM #1 PASSED by a vote of #--3., Woolley voting 'no." MOND. PAT OP MOTION RE ITEMS #2, 3, and `4 PASSED unanimous!'" ITEM #8, BRsANT STREET BRIDGE - BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE, AWARD CONTRACT (PWK 2) . (CMRs326s€) - Mayor Cobb said the staff report (CMRo326s6) referred to the public desires for a certain level of service in terms of what led Council to the decision for larger beidges. He asked how many members of the public participated is the discussion. 7 3 4 1 6/09/86 Assistant Director of Public Works George riagdon said at the second of two community meetings at least 20 members ofthe public signed in. Mayor Cobb clarified approximately 40 people. He asked if the public was given any cost considerations. Mr. Bagdon said staff made it known the alternative of two bridges was more costly than one lighter bridge or one narrower bridge. Councilmember Levy believed the staff report (CMR:326:6) implied staff preferred a different recommendation. City- Manager Bill Zaner believed the report was not so much apologetic as it was a lengthy explanation of a complicated process. Staff was not pleased with the financial result and preferred to recommend a project which came in on budget and did not require such a large budget amendment. The preferred design would have been a a single bridge replacing the existing bridge, one which was an adequate replacement, rather than two bridges and having to go into City funds to provide the additional bridge. Mr. Bagdon .said the initial basis for going to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for funding was a ten -foot wide bridge. Councilmember Levy asked if the bridge was in the middle of the street or in the sideway area where the current bridge was. Mr. Bagdon believed the bridge was in the middle. The existing bridge was by the sidewalk area. Staff planned to build a bridge in the middle and take down the old bridge so there was always access across the crock. Donald W. Bierey, 603 Newell Road, said the staff report indicated the date funding terminated was June 30, only 21days away. Diana Lewiston, 1849 Newell, supported the budget amendment. She saw advantage to a two -bridge facility because in those areas of the City with only one sidewalk, an underpass shared by both pedestrians and bicycle riders, there were frequent conflictz which were sufficient occasionally to go to the attention of the Police or the Transportation Division. It was the one place in the City where they had the unique possibility to provide equal facilities for both pedestrians and bicycle riders. She was unhappy the cost was almost twice what went before the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), but hoped Council saw the benefit of a two -bridge facility. NOTIOO a Co aacilmu.ber Levy moved, seconded by Fletchek , to adopt staff recommendation toe 1) Adopt a Budget. Amendment Ordinance to : increase the appropriation for CIP °53-22 by $56,000; 2) Award • construction contract to Pleasanton 3 ginsering Contractor* for ,$76,550 for removal of an existing 5-1/2 foot wide brio and construction of a 10 foot tide bicyc1s, bridge *ad a i foot wide pedestrian bridge along Bryant Street at 'bander* Creek; and • 3) Authorise staff to execute chassis orders to ,the contract of up to 612,050. 7 3 4 2 6/09/86 . . • -'f.. L-rtiew:�.� v c ... i 5a_�.n„,r.. s .-.r-.a.r-..s * ,�s�r:4.�+-.✓�i�'� y NOTION CONTINUED UEDi i AWARD IF CONTRACT Pleasanton Engineering Contractors ORDINANCE 3690 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1985-86 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 83-22 'BRYANT STREET BICYCLE BRIDGE' AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECEIPT`OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION" Councilmember Levy endorsed what Ms. Lewiston said. He attended one of the meetings at El Carmelo School at which there were 35 people, and the area was sensitive because there was a bikeway on Bryant with bikes going down the middle of the roadway at 20 miles an hour, and also children walking to school in the primary grades because the area was a block away from El Carmelo School. One bridge in the middle of the street meant that children would walk out into the street to go across the bridge which was not a good situation, and the parents certainly felt that way. The motion was a compromise which was safer. The bridge was expensive but the only proper solution. Councilmember Renzel concurred with Councilmember Levy. She recalled when the bicycle boulevard concept was first implemented, one of the biggest complaints was from people in the vicinity of the bridge because of the high speed of bicyclists crossing and the inevitable conflicts with pedestrians. To go forward with a safe alternative was reasonable and would improve cycling and safety for children. Councilmember Pat tucci asked why the pedestrian bridge was not on another street. Mr. Bagdon said that street was designated a bike boulevard and was adjacent to El Carmelo School. Councilmember Patitucci asked why Ramona could not be the pedestrian boulevard. The main reason for two bridges was one for pedestrians and one for bikes, and if they were next to each other bicyclists would use the pedestrian bridge and vice versa. Mr. Bagdon said the bicycle bridge was centered in the m; eld a ^f the road where bicycles normally went, and the pedestrian bridge was along the sidewalk. Councilmember Sutorius said he would vote for the motion, but was disappointed and felt a gun was being held against his head. The situation was tyrannical and frustrating, and he was not impressed at the expenditures of the Transportation Department Act funds. The type of excesses involved was one of the reasons government had problems. Councilmember Fletcher believed Council .lost sight of perspectives at times. They just approved a consultant study for about the same cost as the item in question. The bridge accommodated about 600 bicyclists d day plus countless school children, and the City web getting a grant of 447,700. If the project were a roadway for automobile traffic, Council would not he discussing the merits. Mayor Cobb believed Council bent over backwards to accommodate bicycles in Palo Alto, and the project need not be so expensive. He was bothered the City was spending so much to accomplish a basic function, but the safety argument would sway him. The City should start paying attention to the cost of things because they could not keep gilding the lily. 7 3 4 3 6/09/86. XQTIG i PAA XD ui.uimemely. ITEM #10, REPORT OF MAYOR COBB RE RECOMMENDATION ON THE COMPOSITION OF THE TEMPORARY COMMITTEE ON DOWNTOWN DESIGN AND AMENITIES (Pla 7-14) Mayor Cobb said his memorandum of June 6, 1986 (on file in the City Clerk's office) offered two alternatives. He recommended the second alternative because it was desirable to have the broadest \possible public representation. Councilmember Renzel liked Alternative 12 which covered the important bases of the Historic Resource Board (HRB) and the Visual Arts Jury. (VAJ) while enabling the Mayor to select from the architectural and design community and the public-at-latge. She hoped for strong emphasis on the public -at -large, pprticularly since the temporary committee -would be reviewed. by the Architectural. Review Board and the Planning Commission.,-' MOTION: Coumcilnembsr Menzel moved, seconded by Woolley, to adopt Moyers Alternative 2 as follows* 1) One member of the Historic Resources Board, to be selected by the Boirdi 2) One member of the Visual Arts Jury, to be selected by the Jury; and 3) Seen members to be selected by the Mayor from the architectural and design community and the public -at -large (all local residents) for a total of nine. The resultant criteria is to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and the Planing Commission. MOTIOM PASSSO unanimously. Mayor Co b asked staff's help in getting the word out so people could make their interests known. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 10:50 p.m. APPROVED: Mayor 7 3 4 4 6/09/86