Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-05-17 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MIt1UT€s Special Meeting Monday, May 17, 1982 ITEM Interview of Three Candidates Seeking Appointment to the Historic Resources Board CITY of Pt1LO ALTO Special Meeting Monday, May 17, 1982 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue at 6:45 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fazzino, Klein, Levy, Renzel ABSENT: Cobb, Fletcher, Witherspoon The purpose of the meeting was to interview applicants for two vacancies on the Historic Resources Board. 6:45 p.m. Robert A. Nerrie 7:00 p.m. Robert T. Steinberg 7:15 p.m. Gail C. Woolley ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. ATTEST: City APPROVED: 1 1 2 0 4 3 CITY COUNCIL Mll1UT€S city OF PALO ALTO Regu ar Meeting Monday, May 17, 1982 ITEM Oral Communications Minutes of March 22, 1982 Resolution Recognizing Garey T. Mills for His Extraordinary Acts of Bravery Resolution Recognizing the Outstanding Accomplish- ments of the Palo Alto High School Academic Decathlon Team Resolution Congratulating Bill Miks for California Water Pollution Control Association's Operator of the Year Award Consent Calendar Referral Employee Relocation Assistance Program Referral to Policy and Procedures Committee Action 2 0 .4 8 Compensation Plan for Classified Employees 2 0 4 8 Ordinance to Dedicate Hewlett -Mullen Property 2 0 4 9 Ordinance re Human Relations Commission Timing of 2 0 4 9 Appointments (2nd Reading) Master Traffic Signal Comnvter and Computer Room 2 0 4. 9 Planning and Architectural Review Board Recommenda- 2 0 4 9 ti on re Hoover Associates for Site & Design Review of Building Addition For Property at 3475 Deer Creek Road Finance and Public Works Committee Recommendation 2.0 5 0 re Cogeneration Project Public Hearing: Planning Comm,1 ssi on Recommendation 2 0 5 0 re •.Preliminary Parcel Map With Exceptions for Property Located at 524 Chimalus Drive Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recommendation 2 0 5 1 re Application of William,Clancey for Approval of Preliminary Parcel Map at 2024 Columbia Street Request of Mayor Eyerly re Yacht Harbor Association 2 0 5 4 Request for Two Week Dredging xtensi fin Adjournment 2 0 5 8 2 0 4 7 2 0 4 7 2 0 4 ?. 2 0.4 7 2 0 4 8 2 0 4 8 2 0 4 8 2 0 4 6 5/17/82 Regular Meeting . Monday, May 17, 1982 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Aveue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb (arrived at 7:45 p.m.), Eyerly, Fazzino, Klein, Levy, Renzel ABSENT: Fletcher, Witherspoon ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Melanie Vi l l afana, 425 High Street, Palo Alto, said that she had spoken under Oral Communications on May 10, regarding the fact that she had a bolt lock installed on her door, and there were two keys made. She had requested that the matter be looked into, and to date she had heard nothing. She also com- mended Officer Stamm of the Palo Alto Police Department for his helpfulness to her. 2. R. F. Bennett, 524 Middlefield Road, said he attended the Historic Review Board Interviews, and was impressed with the questions asked of the candidates because they showed caring on the part of Councilmembers. He was concerned about the nonpeaceful situation in the world. Councilmember Cobb arrived at 7 :45 p.m. MINUTES OF MARCH 22 1982. Councilmember Renzel had the following correction: Page 1611, last para7raph , last line, the word "statutes" should be deleted, and "status quo as the basis for granting the vari- ance" inserted. MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel) approval of the minutes of March 22, 1982 as corrected. MOTION PASSED Unanimously, Fletcher, Witherspoon absent. ITEM #1, RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING GAREY T. MILLS FOR HIS Mayor Eyerly read the resolution, and added that it was not common for the City Council to find an individual to -write a resolution on for acts of bravery. NOTION: Mayor Eyerly roved, seconded by Fazzino, approval of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 6029 entitled '"RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF nrinrrrior-mo ALTO RECOGNIZING GAREY T. MILLS FOR HIS EXTRAORDINARY ACTS OF BRAVERY.' NOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher, Witherspoon absent. Mayor Eyerly presented the framed resolution to Mr. Mills. Mr. Mills said -he was proud to accept the resolution and thought that anyone would have done the same thing in his lace. ITEM #2j RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE OUTSTANDING ACCOMP ISHMjNTS OF ItIE `PALO ALTO ttiGN.SCHUOL ACAULMIC UEGATHLU1f tom'"..�,�� Mayor Eyerly reed the resolution. He said he thought the accom- pl i shanent was an unusual one, and the first for Palo Alto. 2 O 4 7 5/17/82 Mayor Eyerly said that all of the Councilmembers were very proud of the unusual accomplishment of the Academic Decathlon Team. MOTION: Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Resolution. RESOLUTION 6030 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF H ALO ALTO RECOGNIZING THE OUTSTANDING ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL ACAtEMIC DECATHLON TEAM" 1 1 MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher, Witherspoon absent. Mayor Eyerly presented the framed resolution to the team. Jennifer Rickard accepted the framed resolution on behalf of the Palo Alto High School Academic Decathloan Team. ITEM #3 RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING BILL MIKS FOR CALIFORNIA WATER PU LIIIION CUNIliOC A55UCIA fON'S OPER Mayor Eyerly read the resolution. Director of Utilities Edward Aghjayan said that as compared with professional sports' Players of the Year Award, there were about 4,000 players in the league represented by Bill Miks. He intro- duced Bill Miks and noted that one did not become MVP unless one played on a championship team. For that reason he asked that Steve Hayashi and Don Fredericks Manager and Assistant Manager respectively of the Water Quality Control Plant also stand and be recognized with Bill Miks. Mayor Eyerly said he thought the City was very fortunate to have a Supervisor such as Bill Miks at the Plant. Palo Alto had had few problems with its water quality operation, and he felt fortunate considering the information that surfaced occasionally in the newspapers concerning some of the problems in other areas. MOTION: Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the resolution. RESOLUTION 6031 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CONGRATULATING BILL MIKS FOR CALIFORNIA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION'S OPERATOR OF THE YEAR AWARD'S MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fletcher and Witherspeen absent. Bill Miks accepted the framed resolution with thanks and said he was hot,. red. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Fazzi no advised that he would not participate in Item #6, Ordinance to Dedicate Hewlett -Mullen Property, since Mr. Hewlett was his employer. MOTION: Counci imeaber Cobb moved, seconded by . Bechtel, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral ITEM 4 EMPLOYEE ' RELOCATION nn.ICII Alt PRi CEDURES Action ITEM 5 COMP.E! T.ION PLAN FOR`CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES (CNR:269'2) Staff recommends that the Resolution be -adopted effective May. 1, 1932. REFERRAL TO 2 0 4 8 5/17/82 RESOLUTION 6032 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CLASSIFIED PERSONNEL (SEIU) AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 5793 AS AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NO. 5901 AND RESOLU- TION NO. 5938" ITEM #6, ORDINANCE TO DEDICATE HEWLETT-MULLEN PROPERTY ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE. CIT17- OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 22.08 (PARK DEDICATIONS) OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 22.08.350 (HEWLETT-MULLEN PROPERTY) And Referral of Name to Finance and Public Works Committee ITEM #1 ORDINANCE RE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION. TIMING OF ,r.,... ATrqFrlrTlorEWTS-TrrrrlCEFM'-gT-7-7 remormow ORDINANCE 3355 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 2.22.020 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE TERM OF OFFICE FOR THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION TO MARCH 31" (1st Reading 5/3, Passed 6-0, Renzel, Fletcher, :Cobb absent) ITEM #8, MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL COMPUTER AND COMPUTER ROOM Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Award the contract for the master traffic signal computer to Multisonics Corp. in the amount of $247,181.18. 2. Award the construction contract for the computer room to L. Dek Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $20,695. 3. Authorize the Mayor to sign both contracts. AWARD OF CONTRACTS Multisonics Corporation (Computer) L. Dek Construction Co., Inc. (Computer Room). ITEM 49 PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW -BOARD RECOMMENDATION RE " '" " � orrAns—Fly ,t 1f I E i( I 1IG ADD m • • Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board recommendation approving the Site.. and Design _application with the following conditions; 1) That any time it appears to the Chief Building Official of the City of Palo Alto that the deferred parking spaces, or any part thereof are required, the applicant, their successors or assigns shall provide off-street parking spces as required by the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance within ninety (90) days of notification to provide additional parking spaces by the Chief Building Official of the City of Palo Alto. The decision of the Chief Building Official as to the need for additional Parking shall be final 2) Pl ans for additional :'off-street parking stalls, if and when required, ; shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board; 3) All ..final landscape plans will be, reviewed by .the Public i Works: Department'; 2 0 4 9 5/11/82 1 1 1 4) The office lighting should be designed to automatically- com- pensate_ for - available daylight, or demonstration made to the Uti l i ti es_ staff that thi s is not cost effecti ve or practical prior to the issuance of a . bui 1 di ng permit; 5) Any change to the proposed planting plan that would affect the shading of the south and west exterior windows must be approved by the Solar Conservation Di vision; 5) Shower facilities will be developed somewhere in the building complex... These facilities should ilclude separate, showers for men and women; 7) The final landscape pl ans for Bui 1 di ng "C" and the plans for the landscape reserve should it be converted to parking. The 1 and scape pl ans should i r .orporate details of the bermi ng along Deer Creek Road; 8) A study .of the entranceand stairway located on the southwest part of the bul 1 di ng; and find that the proj ect will have no significant environment al impact. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Fazzino "not participating* on Item 16, Ordinance to Dedicate . Hewlett -Mullen Property, Fletcher and Witherspoon absent. ITEM #10 FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS (F /WW1 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION irrrrtenrirPnrrariTtri7CM11T.20-2:21(Continued from 5/10/82) Councilmember Levy advised that he would not participate on the item because of his present employment and a conflict of i nt er- est. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Cobb, that the Mayor be authorized to execute the agreements with E. F. Hutton, and Jones, Hall, Hill and White for financial and legal services associated with revenue bond financing for the cogeneration proj- ect, and adopt the ordinance to appropriate $90,000 from the Electric Fund System Improvement Reserve to finance the associated costs, which will be reimbursed upon sale of the bonds. MUNICIPAL FINANCING CONSULTANT AGREEMENT E. F. Hutton SPECIAL LEGAL SERVICES o COGENERATION.FINNANCING PROCEEDINGS Jones, Hall, Hill A White ORDINANCE 3356 entitled "ORDINANCE_ OF THE COUNCIL OF fHt tiTY Of PALO ALTO AMENDING .THE P'UDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAS 1981-6Z TO PROVIDE AN P'4-? *OPRIATION FOR FINANCIAL AND LEGAL CONSULTING SLr CES FOR THE • COGENERATION PROJECT' (Continued from ,L, - :•182 ) MOTION PASSED 6-0-1, Levy "not participating,* Fletcher and Witherspoon absent. ITEM 111, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE Mayor E°yerly : a:dvi.sed that the applicant, Karol i ne H. Edwards, had withdrawn .her subdivision application. MOTION: Counci lmeaber Levy moved, ; seconded by Renzel , to accept applicant,;.Karaline_ K. Edwards', request for withdrawal. MOTION PASSED ubanlnously-, Fletcher. Witherspoon absent. ITEM #12,, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE MAP AT 2024MINIMA STREET" Planning Commission Chairperson Jean McCown-Hawkes said that the question was a close one for the Commission. The principal reasoning of the Commissioners that voted to deny the application was the very substandard size of the parcel , particularly parcel #1, that would be -created if the split were approved. She said it was generally felt that if the house were not present on parcel #1, the lot split would not be approved. . The Commission found those to be important consi derati ons in order to protect the mini- mum lot sizes provided for in the Zoning Ordinance. Further, she said .lot was a desire to preserve rental units consi stent with the Cottage Duplex Zone, which was called for in the Comprehensive Plan, And other policies in the plan to encourage the preservation of rental units. She said the ,Commission was also concerned about variances Oat would be required, as a part of the lot split, to allow the house on parcel t1 . to be in existence in its present formation, and that if that house were ever removed or destroyed, the odd shape of the parcel would require further variances for a new construction or for any additions to it. Ms. McCown -Hawk es said that three Commissioners were persuaded due to the unusual characteristics of the property particularly because of the existence of a drainage ditch which created a natural division between the two properties. She said that the program in the Comprehensive Plan discouraged the splitting of larger lots and was viewed as being tied to the necessity of pre- venting additional bui l di wigs in the City's neighborhoods rather than in the situation where the houses were already in existence. Lynnie Melena, Executive Assistant of the Planning Department, said the creek or ditch which ran through the property and whether it was a natural feature which was needed to carry water runoff was discussed in depth. Since that time, it was ascertained that the . creek was natural, cbut . in about 1953, a diversion pipe was installed crossing Stanford Avenue at the. City boundary so that the runoff from the faculty housing . area that used to go into that ditch now went into the pipe, crossed Stanford.- and down the - Stanford campus to El Camino. She said that the properties which bordered the parcel were the only source of any runoff into the ditch, and there was very little water it the ditch. Mayor Eyerlydeclared the public hearing open. Bill Clancey, 2024 Columbia Street, said he thought it was sig- nificant that two of the Planning Commissioners saw the lot and felt strongly in favor of the split.. He presented some photo- graphs to reflect the presence of many trees and that neither home. was visible to the other. He thought the lot was a large one intended for two houses, and that .the, large ditch, which it was practical to fill in at this, points had created two pieces of land. He quoted Commissioner Cullen that "nature had created two parcels, and whether they were called two or one, nature had created two parcels out of ..the piece of property." He thought that variances were intended for odd shaped hots,` and he pointed out that the density , for housing on "Col ege Terrace would not be increased , nor, would the single family character of the area be changed. He said that ,Commissioner Nichols was concerned about granting variances on a very small lot, and Mr. Clancey pointed out: that to rebuild the house on 2024 ,Col umbi a would regiii re. one variance for the backyard, which was 13 feet as opposed to the 20 feet which was required. ,He thought it was important ° to consider affordable .housing as well as rental housing when.. setting ., a plan for the community. He -- said .> the ;sal i t was R justified because ;of unusual size of the lot and said .it would make., another home avail- able ,on College Terrace, Stanford University recognized the need for more -housi nsy. Which was why it, was° building on Peter Coutts Hill behind College Terrace. He quoted Commissioner Sutori us' that "I think it is important that we support situations that allow. single family_ home purchases just as it is important that we do those things to allow rental situations." Mr. Clancey pointed out that regarding the City's benefit, it would increase property tax revenue. He said the City was 'made - up of productive and happy homeowners who wanted to maintain their property, enhance its value, and enhance the appearance of the neighborhood He pointed out that that the effect on Palo Alto's rental housing stock would be that his bedroom would become an owned room and the other bedroom would become a rented room. Mr. Clancey summarized the findings necessary . to approve the exception, namely that: (1) the special circumstances or condi- tions that affected the property were produced by nature --not by man, and the special circumstances or conditions were not appli- cable to other properties in Palo Alto; (2) the exception was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; that i s , a potential affordable home for him to own --to own a house which he had occupied; (3) that the subdivision would not be detrimental to the public wel fare or injurious to other property in the territory inasmuch as no change was being made except the change in ownership; and (4) the granting of the exception would not viol ate the requi rerents goals, policies or spirits of the law in that the granting of the exception would support one of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan to encourage home ownership. Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Renzel said that regarding increasing the affordable housing in Palo Alto, the Council should remind themselves that rental housing was the most affordable housing in Palo Alto, and the most scarce. She said there was ditch which divided the prop- erty, but it was a i'ed._in such a way as to create a substan- tially substandard lot --about 151A0 s :.:re feet below the City's requirement, it had only a 20 foot frontage, it had the same set- back requirements and buildable requirements as any other lot in the City, and could have a much more intense building put on it than that which now existed. She thought that College Terrace was a.;particularly impacted area with many small lops, and it did not make sense for the Council to create another substandard lot. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Klein, to uphold the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the applica- tion of Ni l l i am Cl ancey, for approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map, with exceptions, for property located at 2024 Columbia Street. Councilmember Levy said that he had walked around the property, and concluded that there were two questions --the size and, configuration of the property, and the the question of the Compre- hensive Plan related to rental housing. He commented that regarding the rental housing element, his attitude was more per- missive regarding the question of rentals versus ownership. He thought that the emphasis on rentals in the Com prhensi ve Plan was not an absolute, but was in there because the City was histori- cally a heavily owner -occupied community, He said that the balance must be looked , at when it was . said 'that rentals were valuable to the . community because a variance of living situations was basically what Palo Alto was striving for which included smaller, more modern homes. Ke agreed with Ms. Cullen that granting a variance to allow a more modest home was in keeping with the policies and spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding the size of the parcel, he said that one of the parcels would be 8,000 square feet, and the smaller one would be 4,250 square feet in an area where the basic lot size, was about 5,000 square feet. He agreed that the lot ', was short of the standard size, but:. not dramatically short. He said that the ditch which ran between the properties was a ndtural ` of vi si on ' and was bordered by a l a.rge number of trees. He thought the element was nice and natural, and if it *ere filled in in Order to make the. "lot a more cohesive 2 0 5 2 5/17/82, single lot with a large building built on it, the neighborhood would be the lesser. He said that to leaving the lot as is, with the two homes on it, would not hurt to the neighborhood, and would be within the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan to have two modest homes rather than one parcel which could conceivably result in one very large home. He thought that the pictures gave a fair feeling of what the lots were --they were heavily forested, and the two buildings maintained a substantial amount of privacy. He said there was a.. reasonable backyard, and the. shape of the lots was dictated by the ditch and lent a pleasant feeling to the area. He saw nothing that was incompatible with the neighborhood. Because the subdivision would provide some extra, modest ownership housing and the fact that it was a natural division, he would vote against the motion. He would support granting the variance. Councilmember fazzlno said he agreed with Councilmember Levy, and was frustrated by the City's regulations and unwillingness to improve the quality of life for a particularly individual. He said it was clear that nature had provided a boundary, there were two separate lots, and the City had the opportunity to provide affordable housing for a member of the community --an objective which he thought was as important to the City's Comprehensive Plan and goals as the goal of providing rental housing. As a fellow resident of College Terrace, he was concerned about providing additional affordable housing opportunities in the area, and the " subject subdivision provided that opportunity. He was concerned that if the Council did not respond to the subject situation where the facts clearly pointed toward the need to divide the two lots, given the natural situation, that the City Council could not go ahead and provide affordable housing for anyone in the community. He encouraged the ,Counci lmembers to oppose the motion and overturn the Planning Commission decision. Mayor Eyerly commented that if a subdivision occurred, one lot would be 4,250 square feet instead of 6,000 square feet, which was considerably below what was required in an R-1 area. Further, he said the lot would only be 20 feet wise rather than 60 feet as required, He said it was his opinion that when the City zoned property, the zoning ran with the land not with the structures on the land, which approach precluded future developments that could really impact an area. He said that the zoning in the area was R-1, and he could not support a lot which was so far below what the standard called for. Vice Mayor Bechtel said she also walked the land. She was torn, but concluded that the lots were too small and she could not sup- port dividing then. She spoke about a situation on Middlefield Road that allowed a house ten feet deep, and where two variances were granted. The house stuck out like a sore thumb on Middlefield Road, and the City had heard many reactions to it. She said the variances were only granted because the lot was so marginal. The subdivision before the Council had a 20 -foot wide front lot, and she did not think that was large enough. She would support the. motion. Counci imember Kl ei n said he would vote agai nst the: moti on, and would . vote in favor of upholding the Planning Commission recom- mendati on.° In his opinion, the exceptions were far greater than any previously allowed by the City Council. He was sympathetic to the people involved, but felt that the Council needed to remember that any decision it made would have .a precedental effect on- the, next decision ade by the Council. Regarding the _ rental housteg Stock, even though they were only talking about losing one or two units, he thought it was a detriment. He ' thought_ the Council needed to emphasize rentals over single family. Ownership. NOTiON PASSED by a vote of 4-3, Fszti no, levy, Cobb voting "no,'' Fletcher and Witherspoon *bsent 2. 0 6 :3 5/17/82 As Corrected:` 7/19/82 ITEM #13,. REQUEST OF MAYOR EYERLY RE YACHT HARBOR ASSOCIATION 1 Staff recommends that the City Council approve a time extension for dredging not to exceed four weeks from notification by San Francisco Ray Conservation and Development (BCDC) that they have granted the extension, MOTION: Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by F.azzi no, to approve a timeextension not to exceed :four weeks from notification by BCDC that they have granted the extension. Florence LaRi vi ere, 453 Tennessee Lane, said that when the dredging of the yacht harbor was fi rst discussed, citizens poi nted out the possi bi 1 i ty of a wet winter and the hazards of having a private organization in charge of a sensitive project. The gravity of those concerns was not appreciated, and staff had raised those probl ems as reasons for 9ranti ng the extensi on. According to the State permit, the launch ramp was to be dredged first every year because of fears that the special interests of the dredgers would result in keeping the channels open in front of the Yacht Club and neglect of the public use areas. She said that the dredging was supposed to have been completed two months ago, and the ramp was still unusable. Another condition of the permit was that a thirty-five foot band inside the pathway around Yacht Harbort Point was to be kept natural. That condition was viol ated and at the western rim of the point the spoil was within a few feet of the path. She asked the following questions with regard to granting another extension of the dredging time: 1. When the dredging commenced, there were two ramps and three floating docks for public use. Early in the current dredging, the center dock was broken, hauled away, and had not been returned. She said that three docks had allowed a choice for departure and landing under various condi ti ons, and now there was only one ramp and one usable dock. She asked if the dras- tic reduction in public facilities was acceptable to the City. 2. At the original hearings, the Habor Association had given assurances that 14,000 cubic yards would be ample to ade- quately open the harbor the first year, and that 9,000 cubic yards would be sufficient in each of the four future dredgings. She said the total capacity was limited to 50,000 cubic yards, and she inquired as to ' how much spoil had been deposited on Yacht Harbor Point so far. 3. It would be necessary to remove more spoil from the right side of the public ramp, and she wanted to know where it would be deposited since it would probably be removed by front -loader • Leakage of Yacht Harbor Point dikes onto the road had con- tinued even though mud from the ramp had been dumped along the dike to stop the process. She asked if the dikes were secure. 5. The Measure D vote, elicited by the Yacht Club, indicated that people did not want to have the en vironmental damage and" the costs of perpetual dredging. The community now understood that costs of dredging were totally borne by thel users .of the Harbor, and she asked what the figures were for the costs being borne by taxpayers through the ---County. 6.. How many berths were rented, and what was the current monthly berthing fee? Also, what was the total cost of thedredging? Ms. LaRi vi ere said she had been under the impression that the City was ; going to assume supervision responsibility. for the dredging, and she was discouraged that a private citizen' had to monitor a project that required professional overseeing. She preferred that '2:0 5 4 5/17/$.2 there be no further deviations from the schedule, but hoped that if the City granted the extension, it would make a strong state- ment that ,hereafter, now that the Association was experienced, the dredging agreement would be adhered to. She hoped that each Councilmember responsible for making political decisions regarding the land would visit it occasionally ly during the period of. disrup- tion, especially at low tide. She said one could not help but notice the effect of the dredging on the once fine tidal marsh of Yacht Harbor Point. She pointed out th)t no ..matter how important it was to keep the harbor open, the nand was in trust to Palo Alto, and the Councilmembers had the responsibility of guardian- ship over'the City's small part of one of the most vital and endangered habitats on earth. John F. Walker, 19375 Greenwood Circle, Cupertino, commented that the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development (BCDC) permit stipulated that the launch ramp would be dredged first, which was done. He said that in terms of the number of . days spent on vari- ous parts of the project, the : l auach ramp dredging occupied about 25 or 26 days --the maximum number of days spent to do the Sea Scout Base was 21. He felt they had done a good job, and said that the BCDC representative was pleased with what he had seen. The problem in removing the remaining dirt from the launch ramp was that the mud was on the concrete portion of the launch ramp and would have to be moved out with a frontloader.. He suggested that Ms. LaRi vi ere., provide him with a list of . questions for his response. Mayor Eyerly said that Ms. LaRi vi ere had asked about the ramps and the floating dock, and he asked what the situation was regarding replacement. City Manager Bill Zaner commented that the City had a contract. with the County, and the County had the responsibility for the entire project. Mr. Walker said that the County had ordered a replacement, and the dock would be replaced. He said that the Harbor Association was only responsible for the dredging --not for maintenance of the pier. Councilmember Renzel asked if the Harbor Association was going to pay for the pier since it appeared to have been broken during the dredging by the Harbor Association... She said it was apparent that the pier had been dredged under one part of it, and that the other part was in mud. She said that when the tide went out, the pier fell in. Mr.. Walker said that the area under the pier had not been dredged --the dredging followed the middle of the channel , and eventually the mud slid down. He said that the portion of the float which - fell sat on pilings of old telephone poles, rather than foam, and the result was that the telephone poles had broken. Councilmember Renzel asked if the second ramp was to °be cleared next year. Mr. Walker said yes. He said that dredging of the Yacht Harbor was to continue for five years under the plan, and that the dredging had .been,:comp1 eted for this year. The Harbor Association planned ; to widen the harbor a little more each year, so that at the end of five : years, the Harbor would be wide enough. He said that he ascertained from the Harbor Master than there . were 153 l aufches in 1981, and as of last ,Friday, there had been about 30 en the weekend. He said he visited the Harbor every afternoon and inevitably there were boats inthe Harbor that had not checked in. He felt it was fair to say that ramp usage had increased immeasur- ably. 2 0 5 5.. 5/11/82 -_ Mayor Eyerly said that the request for an extension was justified considering all the problems the Harbor Association experienced, and that the extension would give the Harbor Association the opportunity tc complete the dredging of the berthing area. He said that dredging would take some time because of the fact that the channel was narrow and it was difficult to berth a boat. He urged that his colleagues support the moti on. Vice Mayor Bechtel said she was bothered . by the second request for an extension. She would support the motion, but said it was the last time she would do so. She reminded the Harbor Association that a two -month extension had already, been granted, and that originally, the Council agreed to one final dredging, and instead there was an alternative for a small dredge. She said the Council did not want dredging to be a year round process, and it would be a mistake if the Council started granting extension after exten- sion. She put the Harbor Association on notice that she would not vote for any more extensions, She wanted answers to Ms. LaRi vi ere` s questions, and specifically the amount of material that had been dredged so far; and, the number of rented berths and the revenue generated therefrom because that money went to the Harbor Association to cover their costs. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Bechtel roved, seconded by Renzel, that the broken dock at the launch area be replaced as a condition, of granting the extension anc that completion of the dredging of the public launch area be a first priority at the next dredging. Mayor Eyerly clarified that the first part of the motion meant that either the BCDC or the Harbor Association would have to replace the dock as a condition to the extension. Mr. Walker said that the question boiled down to what needed to be completed. He said the project began with the concept that the Harbor Association would dredge a little this year, a little next year, and a little the next year, until it was all done, The Harbor Association spent more than a month, seven days a week, dredging the launch ramp. He said that the Plan for October, 1982 was that on October 1, the dredge would be in position at the launch ramp, and the floating docks would be removed and out of the way so that a month could be spent dredging the west side. He felt that it would take at least thirty days to do what was intended because for every yard taken out, in terms of a square yard hole, about -four yards was taken out because the mud fell in.. He had anticipated that in October, 1982, one-half ,of the dredging will have been completed and the launch .would be very useful for everyone He said that particularly on the weekends, he observed that there was more than enough room to launch boats. He had records did indicate . that waiting was a problem. He said that the Council's wishes needed to be specified, because the problem began when not everyone knew the same rules at the same time. Vice Mayor Bechtel asked Mr. Wal ker if half of the channel had already been dredged. Mr. Walker said that the channel was half of the dredging, but that the float on the west side was an L-shaped float, and the Harbor Association had not had enough time to clean . out an area of 40 feet. " He s -aid that a 40 foot wide . path had been dug, which would °'have to be duplicated next time to make. the L -Shaped float free and clear. Vice ::Mayor Bechtel clarified that one-half of the dredging had not beep completed. , Mr. Walker said that was correct. Vice Mayor Bechtel clarified that her amendment. priority would be given to the public launch ramp. Mr. Walker said that was fine. Mayor Eyerly clarified that between the Harbor Association ,and the County of Santa Clara, the broken dock would be cared for one way or the other. Councilmember Renzel said she was disturbed that the major condi- tion of the BCDC permit was that the launch ramp be dredged first before any other dredging took place. She understood that to mean. that the launching ramp would be completed before any other dredging took place. ' She pointed out that a portion of the launching ramp was completed, but that in the course of it, one of the Cocks which serviced the partially completed ramp was destroyed and removed. She thought it was reasonable for the Council to reiterate the BCDC condition to make sure that the ramp was fully usable before any further dredging took place. She said that the entire thrust of the permit conditions was to make sure that the public area was completed first. She appreciated that Mr. Walker had designed a schedule that worked well with the objectives of the Harbor Association, but the BCDC permit was clear that the launching ramp should be done, first. Mr. Walker said that originally the BCDC permit said that the Harbor Association would begin dredging on August 1, and have it eompl eted by the end of February, which would have allowed plenty of time. He said there were a number . of factors which interferred with the timeframe, and it wound up that instead of being a six- month dredging, the Harbor Association actually had about 70 days of dredging time. He said that if the Harbor Association had had six months, ail of the goals would have been accomplished. He pointed out that had the entire 70 days been spent on the launch ramp, the people that paid the bills --those who rented the berths --would have nothing to show for it. Councilmember Renzel said she appreciated Mr. Walker's position, but that some of the problems were raised in advance. She said the County had done a major portion of the ramp clean out with on the area labeled "Mundy Marsh" in the Baylands Master Plan, and that recently another illegal dumping was discovered to the west or south of the launch ramp that was dredged. She said it, was no accident, that the way the materi at was dumped, an acci dent would have required that the whole piece of equipment fall in. She believed that the permit was to the County and the Harbor Association, and that the City of Palo Alto was a. party. She said it was inexcusable that the illegal dumping took p1 ace that the Council altered their original , plan for a one-time 50,000 cubic yard dredgi ng,_ I n order to accommodate the plan for a five time winter month dredging, the object being to avoid dredging i n those months . when the water quality was apt to be less than desirable ,;and to avoid dredging during the nesting season. She pointed out `that a two -month extension into the nesting season had already occurred, and that was more than adequate. The Harbor : Association had set its priorities as to where , they would dredge, and as far as she was concerned, the Harbor Association failed in terms of the launching ramp requirement of the BCDC permit, and she would not support the main motion on the floor, but would support the amendment. William R. Carillon, -2053 Park Boulevard, a boat owner and member of the Palo Alto Yacht Club, reitered that the Harbor Association Oa not want to disturb the birds. He did not see a major prob- lem, and said that the Harbor Association was only trying to maintain a small club house and -a. small harbor. AMENDMENT PASSED unaallousiy, Fl etcher and Witherspoon •'absent.. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote Of 6-1, Renzel voting ".ne,' Fletcher' and Witherspoon absent.