The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980-08-17 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL Manures Regular Meeting Monday, August 11, 1980 - 7:30 p.m. Item Oral Communications Melanie Viliafana Kathleen McHugh-Bc dyl s k i Adoption of New Gas Rate Schedule G-50 Revised Lease -Purchase Agreement - NCR Computer Equipment Policy and Procedures Committee Recommends re Amendments to Noise Ordinance Gas Rate Refund 32100 Page Mill Road, Site and Design Review Application of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Continued) Palo Alto Yacht Harbor - Consideration by Council of Action on Initiative Petition cry OF PALO CIO Page 1 0 7 107 107 108 108 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 Cancellation of August 18, 1980 Meeting 1 2 9 Councilmember Fazzino re Hazardous Chemicals/ Hazardous Wastes in Town Vice Mayor Sher re PG&E's Problem with Hazardous Chemicals Adjournment 1 29 130 130 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:40 p.m., Mayor Wenderson presiding. PRESENT: Brenner (arrived 8:12 p.m.), Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Levy, Renzel, Sher, Witherspoon ABSENT: Eyerly ORAL COMMUNICATiONS 1. Melanie Villafana, Craig Hotel, 164 Hamilton Avenue, eiscussed possible incorporation of East Palo Alto, the Police Depart- ment, and the Craig Hotel. Last week she spoke to Richard Cabrera of the City's Inspectional Services Department and he said he would inspect the conditions at the Hotel. The tenants are still living with rodents, roaches, noise and there is a very sick person, the manager of the Hotel, who needs medical help. 2. KathleenMcHugh-Bodylski, 561 Center Drive, read a letter from the National Organization for Women re swimming rates, par- ticularly as they affect non-residents, children, and minorities who can no longer afford to use Palo Alto's pools. ADOPTION OF NEW GAS RATE SCHE€)ULE G-50 Mr. Zaner noted that the staff had had some questions from some of the user industries involved. Mr. Harris met with these utility customers and staff wanted to get those comments that Mr. Harris made on the record. Mark Harris, City Treasurer, said there were five large utility customers within the City that eventually could be impacted by this rate structure. They are currently being served by what is known as interruptable gas by Pacific Gas and Electric many. He received calls yesterday and Friday on the City's proposed Gas Rate Schedule G-50 and felt that the customers' comments were :tell taken and staff has made some changes to reflect those cuts. He passed out copies to Council. The comments were included in the section on the G-5ORate Schedule called "Special Conditions." As the Rate Schedule was originally written, the conditions came out of the PUC rate structure that the PUC approved for PG&E. Condition 4o. I talked about termination of service without notice. That was inconsistent with any policy that the City his. PG&E does not follow that policy either. The staff then wrote a G-50 Rate Schedule that they think is much more compatible with the way these customers would be handled in case there is the need for interrup- tion including notification which is the major change. Another comment staff received was the fact that the interruptable rate sehedule happens to be about a penny a ter or about two or three percent him then the schedule the therm customers are currently served under and those customers wondered why they were being penalized for this. This is really a complicated policy decision which has been under discussion for years with the PUC. It has to do with the fact that this price is based on alternative costs of fuel, either coal or oil. It is pegged to that price as opposed to the cost of service, There have been subsequent rate schedules that have been proposed both by PUC and PG&E. He thought this policy would eventually be reversed but for now, an interruptable customer really gets the worst of both worlds. They get charged the highest rates for an industrial or Coe ercial - customer and yet are subject to possible termination. The City has maintained a. long-standing policy of keeping its rates consistent with PG&E. 1 0 7 8/11/80 Councilmember Fazzno noted that this action relates to five customers, one of whom was his employer, Heelett Packard. He asked City Attorney Abrams if he should abstain. Mr. Abrams replied he did not believe it was necessary. He said that Mr. Harris had advised him that the amount of money involved is $10-$20,000 a year, which does not fall anywhere near within the guide- lines formulated by the FPPC for levels of income in which there would be a conflict. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher, seconded by Fazzino, introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, RESOLUTION 5823 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING SCHEDULE G-50 OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES RATES AND CHARGES PERTAINING TO NATURAL GAS SERVICE" The motion passed unanimously, Councilmembers Brenner and Eyerly absent. REVISED LEASE -PURCHASE AGREEMENT MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of the revised Uease-Purchase Agreament for NCR Computer Equipment, LEASE -PURCHASE AGREEMENT - NCR Computer Equipment The motion passed unanimously, Councilmemhers Brenner and Eyer-ly absent. POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE RECO ENDS i cE Councilmember Fazzino, Chairman of the Policy and Procedures Committee, introduced the Committee's recommendations. He said this item was pre- cipitated by the Council's discussion a few months ago on the noise problems in Barron Park between the industrial and residential area. Steps are being taken and after three or four years of frustration, they may be solving that noise ordinance problem. At that meeting, Council- itber Fletcher referred to the Committee the city-wide concern about lawn sewers, garden blowers and other types of equipment of this order. Councilmember Fletcher had felt, and he tended to agree with her, that complaints about the noise level of this type of equipment have increased in the last few months. The Committee felt the primary concert was the issue o4: education. Sgt. Harvey of the Police Department told the P&P Committee" that the use of le nn mowers and blowers is allowed during the week between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.. -end on Sundays and holidays from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Councilmember Fazzino said he has spoken to residents who have phoned the Poi ice Department in the past few weeks complaining about the noise and had been given different answers at different mm's. ncil� giber Fazzinso said that perhaps the first issue the Council should address is the educational one, so that the City's staff can provide accurate information about permissible hours of operation. The residents should be instructed, as well as manufacturers of the various equipment, that various muffler devices can be used to silence lawn and garden tools, and told where they may be purchased. There Ws some concern on the part of the Committee that simply using a 'Sewn mower or blower may in effect not be in accordance with -tie noise ordinance. Apparently, the noise ordinance allows 70 decibels at 25 feet between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. daily, and according to staff, lain mowers range from 80 decibels to 90 decibels at the operator's earn which is equivalent -to 6880 decibels at 25 feet. The WO decibel was indicated as .e limit set by the Outdoor Pooer Equipment Association for lawn mowers that no manufacturer should exceed. There were two issues: one was the educational one, and the other is the issue of the noise ordinance itself, whether the use of certain lawn mowers and blowers represent a problem in terms of decibel level. The Committee felt it should attack the issue of education to see how that works and if the problems continue, they could address the other issue. MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, on behalf of the Policy and Procedures Committee, that the City undertake an educational program utilizing the Utility mailer to inform residents of the various muffler devices that can be used to quiet lawn and garden tools and where they may be purchased. Councilmember Fletcher asked if there was any decibel reading on the leaf blowers. Charles McNeely, Assistant to the City Manager, replied that staff did some reading on the leaf blowers, but could not come up with an average lever, although manufacturers state that the blower's noise is more powerful than that of lawnmowers. Councilmember Fletcher said that the noise was just one part of what she had against leaf blowers. Their effect was to leave big piles of leaves in gutters for wind and/or children to scatter. She was tempted to go a little further about leaf blowers. Councilmember Fazzino responded that the staff report pointed out that the use of any leaf blower automatically is a violation of the noise ordinance. So any citizen would be entitled to call the Police Department to test the noise and disallow the use of the blower. Councilmember Fletcher asked how long it would take a staff person to go out with the appropriate equipment to do a noise reading. Mayor Henderson also asked what the response time would be from the Police, and if Oat was a practical solution. Bill xarer, City Manager, replied that the difficulty becomes a practical one depending upon the circumstances, who is available, and if the technician can be there at the appropriate time. It is difficult to enforce. Councilmeeber Fazzino remarked that if the Council desired, they could move ahead with at least a prohibition of mowers or blowers beyond the allowed residential decibel level. He asked if that would have any additional impact on the City's present noise ordinance. Mr. Zaner replied that presumably the staff would be called out more often, depending upon how much lower the Council, went below 70 decibels. Mayor Henderson asked Councilmember Fazzino if he were trying to set other standards for that equipment. Counc i la,emmber Fazzino replied that they could simply exercise the option which is available to the Council under the present ordinance, that is, prohibit use of blowers in particular which exceed the present allowable residential decibel level Councilmember Fletcher commented that people who had leaf blurs within the perimeters of the noise ordinance would be leg&; but, in essence, they are illegal the way they are operating at present. At this point all they can do is educate. She was skeptical of the results and not sure how much cooperation from homeoweers they would get. Mayor Henderson expressed disappointment that there bed been so little progress towards noise reduction on leaf blowers, lawn mowers, etc. Apparently t a City can't afford further relation at the beret.., He felt the was a need for continued strong enforcement in the areas of au bi lea and motorcycles. He felt there was a -periodic need for. pal Is Ling information about the City's noise ordinance; few people are a re that same protection is available. HDTV* MASS: The notion passed unanimously, Council rs Brenner and Eyerly absent. I0 8/11 /e0 1 1 Councilmnber Fazzino felt it was very important that the Police employees know exactly what the permitted hours are, even if they can't send a patrol car to investigate a complaint. Depending on the complaint level, perhaps in six months to a year, the Council could look at additional enforcement. GAS RATE REFUND (CMR:379:0) Mayor Henderson noted the staff report dated August 7. He asked that the report be briefly summarized for the benefit of the public. Mark Harris, City Treasurer, stated that several months ago the California Supreme Court ruled on the way the RUC was ordering refunds by PG&E. PG&E had basically taken the practice of incorporating refunds they got for the purchase of gas into future rate increases. In essence, the rate increases to customers weren't quite as high as they would have been and were offset by the refunds PG&E got from their gas suppliers. The California Supreme Court ruled that was an improper way to grant refunds and ordered PG&E to give direct refund credit to the affected customers. Palo Alto was one of those customers, and in June the City received approximately $344,000 credit cff its PG&E bill. The action requested tonight is to return that $344,000 to all the City's gas customers on a basis which closely matches that used by PG&E, Mayor Henderson hoped the credit would be clearly marked so that people wouldn't mistake it for the amount due and pay it. Mr. Harris said the average refund will be $13 and there is only a slight chance that the total utility bill would reflect a credit balance. If it does, it will be clearly marked. Vice Mayor Sher said it wasn't often they had the opportunity to refund utility charges to customers. In this case, an average of $13 for resi- dential customers, $50 for commercial customers and an average of $350 for industrial customers makes it clear these refunds ought to be made. The City received a refund from its supplier and therefore it is equitable that the user charges ought to be restored. NOTION: Vice Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Fletcher, that Council adopt the Gas Rate Refund Plan described in CMR:379:0. MOTIOW PASSED: The motion pmissed unanimously, Councilmembers Brenner and Eyeriy absent, Council er Levy out of the Chambers. 32100 PAGE MILL ROAD EV *halm I viitirt*INSULA REGIS. /21/80) ie%! afar Sher noted that Council had received a communication from the f1dPeninsu1e Open Space District sting that the matter be continued until a meeting in Oc tobee. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Vice Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Fazzino, that the application of the MidPen:nsola Regional Open Space District be continued to the mil mooting of October 20, 1900. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED: The motion to vetinue passed on a unanimous vote, Councilmember Eyer1y absent (Councilmember Brenner arrived at 8:12 p.m.) . 1 1 PALO ALTO YACHT HARBOR .. T'TERATIUN BT cuw .iC OF Arrrammarrrnnorvr ax Mayor Henderson noted that in addition to the petition itself, there are reports from the City Clerk and the City Attorney, and a copy of a pro- posed resolution if it is the wish of Council to put this item on the ballot. Mr:. Abrams said the Council should also consider, if it determines to put the measure on the ballot, whether it wishes the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis. If the Council does, that should be included in the resolution. He pointed out that there were two word changes on the resolution. On page 1, in the question next to the important last line, it should read "...dredged spoils as impermeable cover..." On Page 2, under Section 2, the third lino should read, "...harbor dredged spoils es impermeable cover..." Mr. Abrams explained that the first copy of the proposed ordinance received haa the language *Mich was printed in the resolution. Staff later found that the petition which was being circulated was different and, in fact, the petition filed has the language he just gave. Councilmember Witherspoon noted that the Finance and Public Works Committee was meeting the next evening on the consultant selection for the ITT matter. She wondered if there would be any information coming out as a result of that presentation that would affect this one way or the other. Mr. Zaner said the issue before the Committee was the next step in the selection procedure for the engineering work for the ITT area; it does not relate to the dredging of the harbor. Councilmeaber Witherspoon said she knew that but there were costs involved that were an integral part of the whale discussion. Mr. Zaner said he understood that the action before tha F&PW Comeittee tomorrow night is a request from staff for permission to continue negotiations with prospective engineers for the ITT project. It is not a commitment ent on the part of the Council to hire any engineer. !Nark Yyn, 786 Wildwood, said he aae one of the circulators of the petition. He was present tonight to explain their intentions and the reason for the formation of the petition end the results they hope to achieve. This inrtia-+jive petition was not considered rashly; a lot of time, effort and thought has gone into it. It is not intended to be a vindictive assault upon the legislative processes of the community. It is intended, however, to change the direction of those legislative processes now in progress. The first petition, presented to Council in June with 2700 signatures and which stated support for the harbor in Palo Alto, was totally ignored. That petition indicated a ajar -RI ----- - - - �. the .. yy� _. -. pets3 u6on indi ated support in community for a harbor. C ause Council did not appear to be listening to what was being presented, they elected to go the initiative petition route. It is interesting that almost 5,000 signatures of Palo Alto registered voters, over 12 percent of the electorate. are speaking to the Council, Those signatures were collected within three or four weeks. Mr. Yyn said proponents of the initiative petition feel an amendments legol maneuvering, or any other delays would be cynical and unfair to the intentions clearly stated and endorsed by 12 nt of the voters. Over 90 percent of the people approached to sign t�tition were overwhelmingly in favor of its provisions. They urged the Council to listen, and to pass this ordinance to save the cost of a special election end the time and effort and money necessary for an extensive campaign by both the pro and anti harbor advocates. They also urged the Council to honor the contract and lease 1 agreement with the County. No further delays should obstruct the intentions of that agreement. They also urged that the Council allow them to join with them in looking for solutions. They realize there are many problems con- cerning the Council --over the landfill operation, the ITT property and the harbor. They do have solutions based on the same information presented to the Council by the City's extensive studies, and information meny times submitted by his group. He asked that they halt the prejudice and diviseness for the sake of the community. Mayor Henderson noted that the proposed initiative ordinance did not say anything about the situation once the dump was closed. He presumed it was the intention to keep the 'yacht Harbor open, and asked where they intended to dispose of the soil. Mr. Vyn replied that the City was committed to a, landfill operation and his group was willing to take a chance on finding a solution to that in the time span in which the landfill operation will be colleted. They think there are solutions, one would be the creation of salt water marshes, They feel that dredged soils are an ideal source for maintaining a delicate ecological balance. The intitiative proponents do not have a perfect solution for that; they are involved in a campaign to keep the harbor open and that is the major intent at this point. Mayor Henderson said they had to speak to that and that was the reason for his question because that situation just doesn't go away. Speaking for himself, he would like to keep the harbor open, and this was one of the problems before them. No.ody has the answer so far to the problem of what to do with the soil when the dump is closed in less than ten years. Mr. Vyn reiterated that his group was involved right now in this petition and that was taking most of their tIe. Katharine McCann, 783 Garland, was opposed to the dredging initiative and any implementation of it by the Council. The dump will be closed in ten years and the incineration of garbage is feasible, it is just a matter of time. The need for disposal of garbage is very clear. Some see it as a mistake to tie the City to continued dredging of the harbor so that dredging soil can cover the dump. The use of soil may not be the best method, and the fact of the matter is that it is not. The expense to the taxpayer for dredging the harbor should be a major deterrent to continuation of this process. Even more important is the difficulty in, finding a suitable place to put the soils. All kinds of expedients have been tried including raising the road near the harbor. The road, constructed of poor materials, has deteriorated badly in just a few years. How many years after the dump is closed should the City be obliged to find a place for the soils? . She opposed using the 8aylands for this purpose for many years. She appeared to oppose it with John 8rackenshire, the President of the Audobon Society. Gloria Horne, 1471 flings Lane, said she could appreciate the feeling of the boat people. However, she did not feel that any further dredging should be continueC The recreation facilities, the duck pond,-thepondi-the hiking trams and, the nature centers will continue to bwuseifhy the general public. These facilities are open at all times to the majort cy of people. Inflation today is up to 16%, while the 1978 report used an inflation factor of 10%, so the cost estimates are low for today's market. This inflation factor should be included in any report. Also, with the tax on boats going into the . County' s general fund, where will the City get the necessary funds to support the harbor if the County cuts '.back on their expenditures at the Yacht harbor? The dump has a iifespan arum years and must be capped at that time. If the harbor will need dredging every year, until that time, what wi l l be done with these spoils? Where will they be placed? After ten years, what use will be made of the mud that is no longer used for the dump? She asked about the City's new estimate of cost to excavate the dewetering ponds, dredge the harbor, moving the wet mud to the dewatering ponds, continuing to use the mud untilit dries out? She mould like to see answers to these questions before any action is taken. 112 8/11/80 Dan Peck, 680 Rhodes, thanked the Council'for the opportunity to speak and hoped he would be heard. He reviewed several items for the record. The initiative group has conducted a survey of the users of the harbor park complex which shows a significant preference for the maintenance of the harbor as a part of the complex, and that the harbor complex serves at least 10,000 people per year, both Palo Alto residents and residents of the County. His group has presented the Council with dredging information on improved technology for treating hydraulicly dredged materials more efficiently, backed up with the evident of successful use in the Redwood Shores area. They also presented an indepth study of the ITT property development of the salt marsh, pointing out the ecological damage to that area through the excavation proposal, authored by Walter Stro uist. A study has been made of the ecological effects of dredging the 0.3 acres of the harbor. This has not been presented but it is available. It counters almost all of the claims of ecological damage due to hydraulic dredging and improper tampering of the spoils. A re -analysis of the Cooper and Clark proposal has been presented which deletes costly and unnecessary features, namely,flood gate control of the tide in the ITT property: development of the dredge soil and the top soil. They have shown that the so-called million dollar difference that has been referred to time and again is a myth. In short, on the basis of the City's own consultants, the figures show that the dredging alternative is not an economic loss but a probable gain. The majority Council has consistently ignored any and all information presented to it.. $10,000 of Palo Alto money was spent for a report that Council then ignored; the Council disagreed with the staff's recommendation with regard to dredging and the modified schedule for dredging yearly or in alternate years. Mr. Peck continued saying that Council approved a plan for dredging and was aware at the time that there was a condition on the last dredging permit that indicated that another permit would not be issued without a long term plan. Since Vice Mayor Sher is a member of BCDC, the Council could not have been unaware of the improbability of such a permit being issued. On the basis of the June 2 action, the motion, therefore, has a hint of insensitivity. The Council has ignored the statement of support of 2700 signatures in an ill -inform action. TheCouncilhas consistently refused to accept the responsibility of the City to provide a place for the disposition of spoils, thereby depriving not only the citizens of Palo Alto, but the citizens of the County of an adequate harbor for recreation. What to do with the spoils wa:► a question asked a moment ago, and he believed it is not their re- sponsibility to provide that answer. It is Council's responsibility to take action; there are many places to put the spoils. He said it is time for the Council to accept that the citizens of Palo Alto want and need the harbor and they want Council to take a positive action to see that it is aeaintained. Sam Weeny, 832 Homer Avenue, Conservation Director for the Peninsula Conservation Center, said that the PCC has consistently dosed the dredging of the yacht Harb+r because of the adverse environmental impact on water quality. However; the PCC,doe& recommend that the Council send this petition to -the Novi= ballot and ietve the decision to the voters Secondly, the action on the permit application process to be considered tomorrow by the County Board of Supervisors is for one final dredging as decided by the City Council in June, 1980. However, if the yacht harbor initiative passes, the one final dredging decision will be rescinded and will dramatically change the permit application. Therefore, the PCC is requesting that the City send a representative to the County tomorrow to ask them to delaytte BCDC permit application process until after the November election. At that time the picture will be clear, and the taxpayers may save money on a process that may be unnecessary. Florence La Riviera, 453 Tennessee Lane, spoke as a representative of. the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Audobon Society. The Society's 113 8/11/80. concern for the preservation of San Francisco Baylands is historic. They campaigned vigorously many years ago for the setting aside of the marshes as dedicated park land. They testified before the Council in the early 1960's in opposition to the signing of the lease giving control of the harbor and the dredgieg to the County. Dredging has continued and with it, the destruction of salt marshes in addition to the ecological loss of the wetlands from the indiscriminate dumping of mud which dislodges harmful heavy metal. The current proposal is of special concern to the. Audobon Society because it presents no long range plan for that area and requests that the harbor be dredged in perpetuity while identifying only one possible spoils disposal site, and that is available for just ten years. The City could find itself forced to try to supply environmentally acceptable disposal sites when there are none. In keeping with the wetlands policy of the National Audobon Society, it is respectfully requestea that the name of the Santa Clara Valley Audobon Society be included on the ballot argument opposing this initiative measure. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, said there was no question that the Council should put this issue to a vote of the poeple. He has participated in many initiatives/referendums over the past 15 years. His personal observation is that gem people who sign petitions do so not necessarily because they favor the issue, but because they are wi l i i ng . to see ie go to a vote of the people. He had participated in the rent relief issue which went on the ballot as easure H. In little over three weeks about 5,000 valid signatures were obtained, more than the people on the harbor issue obtained. It went to a vote and was defeated almost two to one. The appeal to enact the ordinance without going to a vote of the people is in his opinion a cop-out. There are very few circumstances where that is justified. In general, people who circulate an initiative petition should be willing to see it go to a vote and should be confident enough of their position to argue convincingly and get public support. Therefore, he thought it was only fair that the public vote. One of the issues addressed by the City Attorney was the possibility of putting an amendment to the proposed ordinance on the ballot at the same time. Originally he felt that some qualifying amer nts were necessary because the initiative was so badly drawn. After reading the City Attorney's analysis, he was convinced that putting any amendments on the ballot at the same time would only complicate the legal position. He thought it would be best if the initiative goes to s vote of the people in its present form. There will be an opportunity for various civic organizations to sponsor and nurture the debate, and enable the people in Palo Alto to cep to a very important decision. Margaret Strornquist, 3418 This Drive, stated that she was also one of the proms of the petition drive. She wanted to speak to a couple of items which hadn't been addressed. One was the rape of the ITT property. She felt that it was not the real solution to the landfill operation. Second, she wanted to remind nab everyone that the City is , not supporting the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor; the users and the County are supporting .i t.._ inch of what the users are min out at the Iharbor goes to provide some of the amenitiesthe public use, She uas gettCngitiresi of poi itics, demeaning and loaded phrases, instead of using facts and figures developed by engineers and biologists. Regarding the ITT property, the Council had been given by her husband, prior to the June 2 meeting, many cos with information reminding the Council that the mean sea level of the ITT property was a level to a minus two feet. The Council proposed to take two and half feet off that property and then try to recreate or fulfill a vague possi- bility of expressing the kylands Raster Plan by spending unspecified but obviously large saints of money to engineer a salt marsh. She read, "The marsh land scheme intended to grow pickla rzed would mire fill of approximately 330,000 Ric yards with an excavetioh of 180 cubic yards." They could see the mathematics there-- i n order to get an adequate elevation of approximately plus 4.5 feet for picky, mean sea level, these were indicator plans, or if they meted to balance this, they had to provide 2.5 feet afire as seat level in order to grow crabgrass. She said she was quite inter by the fact that all the envi tal i sts and the ecologist* wha tsl t .haw , 990 it is to .wrap the ITT property to provtde this leedfift, fail to romeeise thet '._t` are going toed up with a wood hole and beve to import fill from sue. 1/11180 Purusha Obluda, 31570 Page Mill Road, said last year he was hired by the City of Palo Alto to work part-time as a replacement for the two naturalists at the Baylands Nature Center while they were on vacation. He has been working there since that time, off and on. He has been studying the Foothills College program about the Baylands and educating himself about the Bay. He said he has come to the conclusion that the amount of damage that could be done by this proposed dredging is horrendous. That marshland is an extraordinary, sensitive eco-system that is going to be manhandled by dredging. Looking at the places where mud has been dumped in the past, he felt the damage has been tremendous. At the risk of raising the ire of boat owners, he would have to say that during the week he almost never sees any boats at the harbor. On weekends there is more use, but it is by far the minority of boats that leave the dock. He said he would like to oppose as vigorously as he could any plan to dredge the Yacht Harbor any longer. Mayor Henderson welcomed former Mayor and City Counciieember Stan Norton. Stan Norton, 888 No. California Avenue, representing the initiative proponents, said he was not going to alddress the Council as lawyer and judge, although the question at hand is a legal one. They just wanted to go on record as being In disagreement with the City Attorney's opinion insofar as he i rid i cater that Section 2 of this proposed ordinance is in some manner deficient. They were quite prepared at an appropriate wirrre to establish their position in that matter if it goes to court. John Walker, 19375 Greenwood Circle, Cupertino, said the last time the harbor has dredged he heard a Palo Alto City Engineer say he would like to have all the mud he could get out of the harbor to fill up holes in the streets. He felt it would be very difficult to determine what will happen ten years from now, He said the lease signed in 1962 started this mess. He felt sure that the people who signed the lease intended that there be a harbor. Certainly things have changed since then. The majority of people in Palo Alto seam to want a harbor. He found the various degrees of opinions from ecologists about what happens to the environment very interesting. The Faber Tract is doing better today afters having been filled with dredge spoils. Mayor Henderson welcomed former Counclimember Enid Pearson. Enid Pearson, 1019 Forest Court, said she had been the author and sponsor of the two other initiatives --the General Plan initiative in 1960 which prevented the 8aylands from being industrialized, and the park dedication ] 5 which dedicated Baylands as park ordinance �� , ,........ted the �� :,via pa�'� and open space. The courts'decided the first one, so it wasn't industrialized, and the voters decided the second issue. It passed .1-1 and the Saylands was dedi- cated as part and open space. She supported the initiative process and the Idea ehat this initiative go on the ballot. She would suggest that it go on as it was presented to the Council by the people circulating the petition. She said the Faber Tract was great m sh, not because it has dredge spoils n it hut �'ebui.. it was _ ahssdi rriant d by the Audobon Society . after the iCDC ordered that tract sealed up. There have been pus proposals about Correction where to put the dredge spoils; every oee of them was cited here earlier. See Pg. 318 She thought there was something wrong with every one of the proposals as 10/20/80 far as the dredge spoils or mu is concerned. She was not sure it was the best soil they could find. There was one other issue thatshould core to the Council's attention. This morning, the Board of Supervisors postponed a decision regarding beginning of the paperwork .squired to get applications for the one last dredging. They postponed action until tomorrow morning at 11:00 a.m. and they would like to have a clear direction from the Palo Alto Council as to what it wishes. She urged the Council to request that no permit applications be made or any other work be done by the County or the City staff, until after the t4ovemober 4 election. 1 1 5 8/11/30 Mayor Henderson brought the matter back to the Council. He said he felt the Council should place the initiative measure on the ballot as is, without amendment or alternative choices. Any additional ballot items on the subject would only be confusing. The measure is involved to begin with, but he believed it could be clearly debated. It seeped obvious to him that the second part requiring use of the dredging spoils to cover this dump is not subject to the initiative process, however it should be left alone. He was willing to receive an advisory, vnte on the subject and make any legal decisions later. His greatest concern, of course, is that the voters be fully informed about the dredging. He said he has received a number of examples of misinformation or lack of information resulting from this petition. He had no problems following the wishes of the electorate if he knows that the electorate is aware of all the arguments for and against. As a Councilmember, he has agonized over this subject many times. He has always preferred to retain the Yacht Harbor, but not at the expense of excessive costs or destruction'to the environment. He was convinced that the points in the initiative petition are ill-advised, and he would do what 'he could to present that argument to the voters. He had a number of questions to put to the voters in relation to this measure and these ware just a few examples. Under Policy 6, the initiative asks for continued dredging and to keep the harbor open appareitly indefinitely. First, at the best, the County would pay only a fraction of the cost of dredging under the plan that is supported by the yacht club people. Did they want the City's tax funds to pay the rest? Second, the dump is scheduled for closure in Bess than ten years; were they then willing to cover the natural bayland marshes with dredging spoils as was done prior to 1971, or pay the high cost of hauling these spoils to dumping areas? Another question was does the state nt "for the enjoyment of the general public" mean the clubhouse and the berthing areas will be open to the use of the general public instead of for the exclusive use of some 250 club members and 108 boat owners? Under Section 2, requiring dredge spoils for dump cover over materials from other sources, were they willing to lock then. selves into this single source no matter how many hundreds of thousands_ of dollars more such a source might cost compareld with some other source? The procedure advocated by the yacht club people has never been done before. The Redwood City comparisons are not valid because there the spoils are being placed on regular land, and the spoils here are going to end up on the dump. If it proves impractical, were they wii l l ing to pay unknown costs, and probably very high costs, for some ot` er means of processing dredging spoils for use as a cover? If the voter's of Palo Acto say "yes" to these questions and many others that wi l i be, parted, the Council must then surely follow such a mandate. He will be surprised if that proves to be the case, but he was prepared to accept the desires of the voters. Councilmember Renzel asked if the whole Baylends Master Plan process wesei't initiated in order to identify long tern disposal sites foe.dredging spoils and the response to a BCDC requirement? Mr. Schreiber replied that . the Baylends Master Plan was initiated in order to satisfy a BCD requiement and than the direction:giveetto staff and the consultants was to come up witha .a..�.�-a►�'. .ii..�...n�1w.. ..1. the .a..__fgy-__ spoils. with ,�t _cr-esa3pos1nag of it is spoils. Councilor Renzel said it was her impression that the consultants would look at every possible possibility, including gra de salt water dikes Correction covering the dump and a ver1et ' of other possibilities, et the time the See Pg. 318 original study was requestedee $r. --Schreiber said that was his recollection. 10/20/80 -Councilmember Renee) noted there had been some suggestions of possibilities including exporting it, Which she understood fr s staff was rejected because it was more expensive than other souk. W. Schreiber said that given the production and tr"ansporrtatien costs, it would not be economically competitive to wit and sell it. Councilmember Renal asked if they had had experience with dredging spoils at the golf course. Re. Sc giber replied that the problem at the golf course 115 8/11/80 was getting above the mud dredge spoils and creating an environment where gr.ss and other vegetation would grow; so using dredging spoils and other material would be counterproductive to making anything green grow. At the golf course there is a never ending battle against salt. Councilmember Renzel asked if staff had received any complaints about the road in the Baylands that is made out of dredging spoils. Mr. Schreiber said the County staff indicated they had received complaints about the condition of the road. Councilmember Renzel commented that she believed the County spent $80,000 this year to try to improve the road end patch up the potholes. She wanted to bring that out by way of saysn#i that many of these possibilities that have been identified are somewhat unrealistic and she would like to enter into the record her understanding of what creates a good salt marsh. It isn't specifically the elevation of the salt marsh, it is the mount of tidal action that covers the marsh areas. There have been experiences with reports on this in terms of flood basin mitigation projects and also the lagoon mitigation project and the critical factor is the period of time in which the plants are inundated and that can be controlled by the amount of water that is allowed in or nut at any given time. It does not relate to the elevation. The Faber Tract was restored because the dike of the Tract was breached and tidal action was allowed to come in and take away the dredge spoils that had been deposited there. Councilmember Renzel said she felt all of that was very important for the record. Those were concerns that she had because after the dump is closed, there are no identified sins for dredging spoils. The Council has made a concerted effort over the last three or four years, in response to the BCRC requirements, to identify spoils disposal sites for the next 40 years and even with the horrendous dike proposal which was to go along the entire bay frontage to a height of 14 feet, that would not have provided a dredge spoils site for the duration of the lease. They have made this kind of concerned effort; it was a very serious matter if this initiative is Corrects passed and she thought that Council ought to put it oe the ballot and let See pg. the public knot the facts. 318 10/20/80 MOTION: Councilor Reneel introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by boner, that the initiative measure re the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor, be put on the ballot. RESOLUTION 5824 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY bf-REVALTO CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR NOVEMBER 4, 1980, FOR SUBMITTAL OF AN INITIATIVE PETITION TO THE ELECTORATE REGARDING THE YACHT HARBOR LOCATED IN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IORYLANDS, RE, QUESTING THE SERVICES OF THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS FOR SAID ELECTION, AND °WRING THE CONSOLIDATION OF SAID ELECTION" Corrects ll See Pg. 318 10/20/80 Councilmember Witherspoon spoke in opposition to the motion. As everyone knows, Council and. the public have gone through this many tines and there was frustration on bath sides of the issue.. She saw one benefit coming _ out of another discustion of this issue, and that is an issue that is even more serious for the City's future perhaps - than whether or not they should have a yacht harbore-specifically, whether or not the City has a dump. , She knew that the policy now is to close the dui in to years; but they hadn't found a solution to where tout the garbage. She didn't think they were going to find t t solution in ten years. They could burn garbage, but they couldn't burn all of it. They could reprocess some of it, b t not all of it. They ore going to have to have a landfill and that is something they couldn't turn off --the garbage is going to keep coming. If there is a peoblem they can stop dredging, but they can't stop garbage. ' This is intricately and psychologi lly, in Palo Alto anyway, somehow associated with the pristine nature of the Baylands and there is a verb strong movement to get rid of . tie duel as soon as possible, to have ` it declared a park and to have an end to the process; and that is t i ed in with the dredging of the herbal*. 1 Councilmember Witherspoon said she has always thought that there was a feeling that if they stopped dredging the harbor and then tied that into *Correction the closure of the dump, somehow they would be able to close the dump See Pg. 31C sooner than had been the policy up until a few months ago. Be that as it 10/20/80 may, she didn't see any reason not to go ahead with this petition; this is the policy that evidently the Council had some months ago before it *See above dat= was changed and there is nothing new or radical about it. She would also speak in opposition to not going ahead with the paperwork for the permit to dredge one more time. This initiative petition, whether passed tonight or by the voters in November, does not affect that motion. Mayor Henderson made that motion; it was passed and supposedly there will now be a.dredging. Whether it is the last one or not is, the subject of the *See above dat. initiative, not whether or not there is a dredging. She didn't see any reason to slow down the paperwork which was slow enough as it is. If there is another policy after November, then more paperwork will be started; but if it is stopped now, the paperwork for the dredging is set back four or five months. Councilmember Witherspoon said she wanted to respond to some of Mayor Henderson's commits. Mayor Henderson had said there was no other source for paying for the dredging, that the County funds don't cover it and it will take the general tax dollars of the City. She had noticed that re- ferred to in some of the letters to the Editor of the Times Tribune. She did not believe that using City tax dollars had ever been proposed. As the Mayor knew, the whole plan was based on the fact that the dump has to be covered and if they don't get the dirt from the harbor, they have to buy it from somewhere else. In other words, ultimately, the people who are going to pay the difference will be the rtfuse disposal users and that is part of the fee structure and that was structured into the whole plan. She didn't think that anybody has proposed that tax dollars from the general fund be used to support dredging the harbor. She believed the Mayor knew that. Councilmember t,Y.therspeon said she thought the comments on whether or not the general public is going to use the harbor overlook the fact that many people trailer their boats in, about two-thirds of the boats are trailered in. She would also like to point out that this Council vetoed extending *See above dat- the amber of boats in the harbor. So they can't have it both ways. She *See above dat: thought the rywr was also mistaken when he said that the R +eod City example on how to process dredged spoils is not valid because of the different type of site in Palo Alto. The discussion is whether or. notthe pr ee= is mid, not wire itisgoing to be put. The process is valid because it is the same stuff. Where it is put is another issue. In response to Councilmember Remzel's concern abut putting raw dredge spoils on the golf course, Councilmember Witherspoon said no one proposed putting the spoils on anything where they were tryingto grow something. She said she didn't think they had the votes tp defeat putting the_ moeeser-e. en the ballot but she_ not h # floor. ...... ballots .wf; but iYs 1 i -7�Q.. 3i�� - �o� the motion o� 7. f loor. Mayor Henderson said that to clarify the motion is to approve the Resolution to put the initiative ordinance on the ballot. Councilmember faxaino said that he knew what the answer to this was going to be, he could count the votes; hut be would ask a question nonetheless.. Would a motion be in order to simply approve the proposal outright? Moor arson said it would be a substitute motion. Mr. Abrams advised that in the past there were two types of difficulties with understanding what substitute motions arc He had - issued a MAO to Council in which he suggested that a. substitute motion or motions which emend4 be related to the motion presently before the Council. If a motion can stand on its own, then it would not be a proper substitute motion. It seemed to him that these two motions stand on theirown and that the motion 0t, the floor should be voted .on first. 1•.1 8 ill84 Councilmember Fazzino said that means that the motion on the floor is the only motion to be voted on. He added that the most recent Council action is clearly to close the harbor as soon as possible. He opposed that action for several major reasons. One, it still ignores the issue of totalcost of the respective project, excavation versus dredging. His greatest CQQ- cern was that it was not realistic with respect tc resource recovery alternatives. Mayor Henderson has voiced great hope for the development of resource recovery systems in the next ten years. but major political planning and engineering problems remain. The PA is moving as quickly as possible, but review of other systems by that group clearly indicates that many, probloes have yet to be resolved. He would like to see a resource recovery system operative in this area in the next five years. He thought that ten years in itself was probably an intolerable period of time. Finally. he thought that the most recent Council action turns its back on environmental damage to the ITT property. He had yet to hear a rational argument why environmental damage would not result with massive excavation of the ITT property. His view is still that for strong environmental and financial reasons the dredge spoils remain the best source of the impermeable soil necessaey to close the dump. He still felt that eventually another site may need to be found for a harbor in this area, but he continued to support continuance of the harbor at least at the present level of activity until the process of closing the dump is completed. rte would support expansion of the present harbor and wanted to move toward additional user subsidy of that facility. However, he still could not go along with the Council's decision to close the harbor at an early date until financial and environmental reasons are more fully explained He may have worded the actual proposal before the Council tonight in a different light to reflect his concerns, but it is at least an attempt to keep the harbor open pending additional development with respect to resource recovery. Approval by the voters seems to be the only way to force the Council to keep the harbor open. He agreed with Councilmember Witherspoon's comments and would prefer an alternative eetion or substitute motion to actually approve this issue outright tonight, and a vote on that would probably have wound up with the motion failing on a 6-2 vote. Given that reality, it is very difficult for him to oppose putting this initiative on the ballot. Correction See Pg 263 10(6/80 Vice Mayor Sher said they all know that this is a controversial issue which has been before the Council many times. There are strongly held views on both sides and he appreciated the fact that people stuck to the substance of their ants, a l though some were presented quite strongly on both sides. He agreed with Me. Vyn that there should be no amendment to the initiative and no delays. He, like Ns. Pearson, believed in the initiative procedure. The signatures were collected, tha options were clear, and it is best at this point to send the subject of the initiative to the voters. If there are legal questions, as the City Attorney has sr esteti, it is best not to confuse the election, but rather have those matters worked out after the election. He did went to correct several points that were a by a ehors First of e11 F Mr. Peck referred to the fact that Vice Moor Sher was _a commissioner of B fC, and part of this whole story is the fact that the last time the dredging application was before the BCDC (and he was not on the Commission at that time), the Commission granted the dredging but said specifically that no more applications would be entertained or approved unless they were part of a proposal which would provide for the ultimate and complete question of the disposition of the dredged spoils. No more single applications for dredging would be considered. He thought that Hr. Peck suggested that the previous action of the Council, calling for one more dredging, which would serve to keep the 'harbor open for another five or so years, was cynical on the part of the Council. He wanted to assure Mr. Peck and others that it was not cynical. If that application were goieeg to be approved, it would have to be presented as an application for a single, final dredging and that it would be the ultimate application. 119 8/11/80 1 That would have to be put to BCDC and he had every expectation that they would approve of the eppl±cation if a part of the context was that there would be no further applications. Speaking now for himself, if this initiative ordinance is presented to the voters and if the voters approve it, he thought the same thing holds true --the next application to BCDC would have to have a complete program for disposition of the dredged spoils. Under the initiative proposal, which ties the matter to the closure of the dump, the present configuration and plan for the dump contemplate that it will be open only ten more years. He thought that in order to get BCDC approval, .they would have to say that this dredging would last only for the life of the dump and that would be the end of it because they cannot at this time say where the dredged spoils might be placed beyond that point. The same thing holds true whatever the next application is to BCDC; it is going to have to be in the context of a _ total plan for the future of the dredging of the yacht harbor. Vice Meyor Sher repeated that this was his own personal opinion, he was not speaking for the Co, i ss i on . He explained why he supported the one last dredging which would give the yacht harbor five more years. At the time, he thought it was a reasonable compromise. He was unprepared to approve a proposal which called for periodic dredging of the harbor a, the various proposals that ranged anywhere from three tins a year ft'. dredging, to once a year or once every other year. They also contemplated hydraulic dredging and the establishmetet of dewitering ponds in the Bay - lands, using up to 30 acres of the BaHands for that purpose. He thought that the adverse effect of that kind of dredging program was not acceptable and so he had voted against it. In his opinion, the fiee year proposal was a reasonable compromise that would give persons who berthed their boats at the yacht harbor an opportunity to make other arrangements. Apparently, that is not something the proponents of this measure agree with. He didn't think they could go ahead with this one last dredging permit; he thought they had to suggest to the County that it be putaside until after the vote takes place because if that paperwork does go forward, the City would have to sub- mit that application as a proposal for a final dredging. He didn't think they could do that as long as this petition is before them. Vice Mayor Sher said the other point he wanted to addres.s:is the claim that there is technology to deal with the hydr;ul icly dredged., ails. There is a plan operating in Redmood Shores that weld be adapted t.. :the Palo Alto Baylands. The Council sheard that amt end he for one has sat down with members of the yacht club and discussed it. The Council has also heard from the City's staff that the proposed garbage plan to dredge the spoils and put them directly on the gyp, work the oen the : dump and then lout them in place as acover is not acceptable end o ld not be acceptable to the Mater Witty Control lewd because of the. danger of the materials leaching g into the top soil. Vire Mayo. Stier- said _ ��_ �d he had one last paint would like to Wit. Meought that a steward ems mom . that t lease the City has with the County imposes on the City a rempensibility to designate a place for the spoil* and the Council hasn't been carrying out that r sibi l i ty. He asked the. City Attorney to give him acopy of the leas* and the City Attorney had put a copy at every Councilimem tier's place. The lease does apt obligate either party to find &Place .fee the spoils* is fact, the lees. contemplates that it meeAeey be ssible to find ' such a place. There is a section on Page 6 of the- lease which talks about adatt stemld happen le that Wit. It is tae that. the mil has an obligation under the lapse, a conditional obligation,`to de the deeding and place the,spoils at a place that the City and County agree on. On page 6 it says that in the absents of an area or. areas for the dredged i l s„ the ob igutioe of the County under the lease to continue leg shell o se. So the lease itself contemplates that it may not be coesibk to flats plus, *alb he woes on the sect of the ease, he said Ow obligation Of the Comety t dredge is conditional and indeed it is.' On page 4, it is provided that the County . hats .the obligation as the need arises and depending upon the availability of funds; the County can take the position that the funds are not available for them to dredge the harbor even if there word a place to put the spoils. It is a conditional obligation and that is an out for the County in the event funds are not available. He thought it was an important point because it means that if the voters say "keep the yacht harbor open, and the County is not in a position to pay for that, then it wi l l not be County funds to pay for those dredgings mandated by the initiative. Councilmember Brenner remarked to Vice Mayor Sher that it seemed ironic to her that same of the peoples, who now question using the ITT dirt for an economic dump coven are the same people who 10-15 years ago were pushing to have the ITT property zoned for industrial basin and to have a sizeable road run through there. She would like to re i nforcee the Mayor's statement in respect to the various costs. The fee structure for garbage disposal, in her opinion should not be tied to supporting the existence of the yacht club. The problem which underlies the Council's dilemma today is to ever have tied these two together and which thereby buried the costs in the future of maintaining a yacht club by raising the fees to collect the City's garbage. This applied to everyone who has a garbage can or two; they pay every month and to have this particular use buried in that mundane fee for collecting garbage, somehow offends her sensibility. She supported the motion on the floor. She knew that the Council would abide by whatever the electorate decides. Some of the ambiguities in the measure will have to be faced if the measure succeeds, but for the time being, she thought they could look forward to a good election. Councilmember Levy said he originally opposed continued dredging of the harbor and the reason was twofold. One was the high cost. At that time the estimate was approximately a million dollars more to dregdred.p. over a period of 20 years. Recent revisions have still indicated to him that the difference is about a .million dollars but the number of years is now reduced to 10 or 12. Another element in that opposition was the realiza- tion that the original plans called for extensive excavation in the ITT property to develop dirt which would be used in constructing the bears for the dewatering ponds. It appeared to him that the amount of earth that had to be excavated from the ITT property for the dredging alternative was equal to over 55% of the amount of dirt that could be used directly from the ITT property if it were to be the source of excavation of the dump cover alone. Another element concerned him an that is the niimber ofuncertainties in the melee pram --one was and still is what the real l i fe a of the .*sip wilibe.gtoothersetefuncertainties are inherent in the ding system that yes proposed. He mss concerned about the very high 'Soot aged costs for the dredging system which locked the City into one proheess and destroyed flexibility, Since then a number of other mosses have been discussed. The advocates of those processes were convinced that those dredging technologies favorable to tkei r cause were feasible and workable and could be ieple eentet3td viably. He was not +minced they could be. He thought the uncertainties are still there end so he coeetimt U.not : farror dredging the harbor for . the dump ewer. Me weld the opportuei tin to put this issue to a c i tywi dee vote. iilr thought it would be unwise to . delay it further. *tees pleased that so many people in the„ City felt strongly about the issue. Couecilmmnber Reseal said she was Viewed about same of the ideas that have been expressed that mehilmaieeetioa. lee retard to the . ITT ply T much of that property is badly dis-4ented land. Vhen the recharge wells were installed, a great trail * . the area was rue over j various� kinds of constructive vehicles a _ trai F bikes. The realty significantelvirenmental habitat on that property is a slough remnant and it happens to r Aideee right where the daexaeteri pads would go for dredging. The dewete aleg ponds have to be located at that tad of the ITT property in cedar to be near the harbor, so that is a serious da rn. That slough newt can be preserved as an 1.; 2 1 $11100: ITT excavation alternative and therefore, in her opinion, it is enviorn- mentally more sound to go for the ITT, excavation, particularly since they had had for several years now a policy to restore the entire ITT property to marsh. As for. the berth expansion, the Council was advised by staff, and she believed by the County as well, that it was not economic to put in the new berths, It would cost something like $800,000 and would take many years for them to pay themselves off before they were returning any revenue. The matter of makit;g good soil out of dredging soil is very Correction complex. The Council never did get any cost figures for that. It See Pg. 318 required a great deal of mixing with water, flushing several times, and 10/20/80 there was an unknown factor of whe}her or not that water had to go through the Water Quality Control Plan again. There were a great many problems with that and it was eventually rejected as a possibility. She said she be - 110144 they had to submit a dump plan to the Regional Mater Quality Control Board before the plan is implemented. She asked if Mr. Schreiber wanted to speak to whit the procedure was for the dump plan if the Council wanted to go higher or make it last longer. Mr. Dale Pfeiffer, Solid Waste Manager, replied that a plan for the closure of the landfill has been submitted; it does not specify source, it gives a set of requirements for closing. It is tentatively approved and a more final plan will be submitted once it is approved by the Planning Commission and the Council. Councilmember Renzel asked how easy it was to modify that plan midway. Mr. Pfeiffer replied that the plan shouldn't require any modifications. It just pertains to the landfill itself and not the the ITT property or to the dewatering ponds. Councilmember Renzel said that they had to meet certain slope requirements and certain impermeability requirements, and asked if it was easy to change the design once they embarked on a specific design. Mr. Pfeiffer said that the stipulation was that once the City got the final plan approved by the Council, it is put into the Comprehensive Plan; it should not be difficult to modify. Councilmember Renzel said she was not talking about modifying it between dredging versus ITT, she was talking about modifying the design in terms of the slope or the height of the dung,. Mr. Pfeiffer replied that the tentative plan that staff gave the Regional board as to the Master Plan, did meet the criteria for the Regional Board. The plan staff is working on now does meet the slope requirements and the one foot requirement. Sn as long as it does meet the requirement of 3t slope and one foot of. impermeable layer, there should be no problem. Councitmacher Renzel said she would not pursue the point, but it was her belief that they had to have a fixed plan at the beg i nni ng and once they have embarked on filling that, portions have to be closed off as they are completed and it has to be redesigned completely if they put a high point" **re a low point used to exist. That was what she understood from previous discussions about determining the design plan. Mr. Pfeiffer said that - the, first two . phases were permanent, but the third phase is flexible. If they don't go as high in that third phase, they have to request modi fi ca ti on of that third phase, Councileasher Renzel said she had a question whether the Harbor cxai t ently breaks even financially in its operations, exclusive of dredging, Mr. Zeller replied that the staff's understanding • from the County was that the harbor des not meet itscosts at the present tame. The gap was in the neighborhood of $70476,000 a year. Councilmember Renzel asked if that includes. dr'edgine. Mr. Schreiber replied that the difference would be not including dredging. The information was that there was a $30,000 differ- ence an as l l y between revenaes and expenditures, and there %a s another or so for dredging costs. Councilmember Wealsaid she heard a new interpretation of part 3 of this initiative tonight -and she wandered who has the right to interpret what the initiative mane. She had understood: until now that items rescinding. the Counci l t s approval of the dredging, and Councilmember Witherspoon therspoon seems :hollows that it is rescinding three words or stun from the entire action of mil. Mr. Abrams replied that if the Council wished an analysis to be prepared, the initial interpretation for the public record would be made by the City Attorney's office. Thereafter, if the initiative passed, and there were disagreement about what that section meant, the interpretation would be made by the coerts. MOTION PASSED: The motion placing the initiative ordinance on the ballot on November 4, 1980, passed on the following vote: AYES: Brenner, Fazzino, Fletcher, Levy, Henderson, Renzel, Sher NOES: Witherspoon ABSENT: Eyerly Vice Mayor Sher said that he thought the Council needed to respond to the matter of the Board of Supervisors having this item on its agenda for tomorrow morning. They will be proceeding with the application for the so-called one more dredging. They want a clear signal from Palo Alto as to what should be done. MOTION: Vice Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Reuel, thai. the Council request the Board of Supervisors to take no further action on dredging, or any other action with respect to the Yacht Harbor, until after the November election. Councilmember Witherspoon spoke in opposition to the motion. As she pointed cut earlier, the paperwork takes forever. At this point, it is the policy of the Council to hove one final dredging, so it is not untrue to have the application. Also, it is her understanding the Council can withdraw the application if the initiative passes in November and if a different kind of action is contemplated. She said one of her reasons for not wishing to slow this process up is that since the whole tenure of the ordinance is Correction to keep the harbor open and the only way they can do that is to dredge, the See Pg3i8 petitioners would not like the City to stop the application for the 10/20/80 dredging that is proposed; they would like more dredging if possible. Vice Mayor Sher said he appreciated what she was saying and his own position was to support one more dredging, but as he said earlier he thought that in order to process that application and present it to BCDC, it has to say that this is the final dredging, because BCC said that the next time the City came back, it had to have a. final plan for disposition of the spoils. The application would have to be in a context of a total plan for the yacht harbor. He didn't think it would be fair to the people who circulated the petition and the voters to do that until after the voters - speak on this question. Councilmember Witherspoon pointed out that if the initiative fails, there would still be the Council policy for one filial dredging,so what was wrong with going ahead with the procedure? Vice Mayor Sher stated there was nothing wrong with the procedure if it tails, but if it should pass... Councilmember Vitherspooi replied that they could then amend the proposal. At least it will have gone through the first three months of paperwork. Vice Mayor Sher said he heard the audience's applause, but it seemed. to him that when they put the application before the BCOC, he didn't think they could have it seriously considered if they said it was subject to what the voters might decide, in which case the City might. be back to present it differently. It just seed to him thatit wes inconsistenCiwith the initiative proposal which vents to take the position that this will not be the last dredging. Councilmember Levy asked what would be the total delay before the next dredging gets done if they delay the application, ..essumirag the initiative is defeated in November. Mr. Schreiber replied that if the initiative is defeated, there would be a minimum of three months' delay. Further, filing 123 0011/80 an application in November, given the usual 6-8 month review process of the various regional -federal agencies, could mean that the "one last time" dredging would not occur until late summer or early fall of 1981. Any complication of that process could continue that into the rainy season and that would cause additional problems. Councilmember Levy asked when this application would go to the BCDC if the County acted tomorrow. Mr. Schreiber replied that the staff has not re- ceived any information from the County about what time process they are following. Councilmember Levy asked what the cost of going ahead now and then having to stop because the initiative is approved in November. Mr. Schreiber said it would be the cost primarily of County staff work as well as any review by agencies; he was not sure if there would be any out-of- pocket expenses. Councilmember Levy said that his feeling was not to delay. It seemed to him that they had a plan now and they should move ahead with that plan. If in November or at any other time the Council changes the plan, they have to go back and initiate the process again, they will, but delays just go on and on. He agreed with Counci lmember Witherspoon that they had a policy now which is that they went to dredge ,'he harbor one more time, and he thought they should do it as soon as possible. Councilmember Brenner, speaking in resonse to Councilmember Levy said she felt Council just voted to submit that policy to the electorate and having done so, it seemed to her not very logical to say go ahead anyway but stop if it passes. It seemed to her that they should have separated Section 3 and said pass it now and no more dredging, but the Council has indeed voted to put the ordinance before the electorate and in her book that means hold everything up and see what the electorate says. She felt it was completely sensibl►_; not to have the County spinning its wheels, now knowing quite where it is going to go. MOTION PASSED: The motion to notify the County that the City of Palo Alto requests that they delay the processing of the one final dredging application passed on the following vote: AYES: Brenner, Henderson, Fletcher, Fenzel, Sher NOES: Fa. i now, Levy, Witherspoon ABSENT: Eyerly MOTION: Vice Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Levy, that the County direct the City Attorney to spare an impartial analysis for the measure to be included in the ballot. hi or Nenserson gave speicial, dispensation to Mr. Stan Norton to speak again. weld it just occcrr d to hire_that-if _this analysis -is 4,0 be twin Mir• � � ... r � r,.•s.. es�o,..bs a -.�,. ■rrowc this ,l G+RC T,9:T f a -4 i �v tam . L�r�e I,y i rtial, it should not contain any reference to Mr. Abrams' view that Section 2 of the ordinence may be less than perfect. Perhaps the Council didn't have to take any action with respect to that, but - that would be Ms analysis. Mr. Abrams replied that W. Norton, as an ex -member of the fraternity of City Attorneys, should know that if the Council were to direct the City Atterney not to inch that, it mi bt not be impartial to that extent; - so the analysis he prepares will be at impartial as it is capable of being impartial. WIN PASSED: The motion directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis passed uraninouslyv Councilmenaer Eyerly absent. 1224 8/11/80 Vice Mayor Shee noted that there was one other matter to be addressed in view of the memorandum the Council received from the City Clerk which relates to any ballot argument which any member or members of th! Council might want to make. These, of course, are the partial arguments, the advocacy arguments. His understanding of the options is that the Council can either write one of the arguments if there is a majority vote to do se, or direct one of the Council tiers to do so. He also understood that there were five slots available for signing arguments on both sides and that there is a ranking of priorities under the laws in selecting those who wish to sign pro and con. He was not going to deal with the pro side; those who favor the initiative will do that themselves, but because he thought some Council action was needed on the other side, he would like to address that. He didn't think the individual Councilmembers should monopolize the five signature slots, there ought to be at least two, perhaps more, slots avail- able to other parties that may wish to join in. Tonight the Council heard from the Audobon Society that they wish to be listed on the negative side, as well as from other organizations such as the Peninsula Conservation Center. Vice Mayor Sher said that in order for the dative side to be written by the Council which has voted to put this on the ballot, and assuming there is a majority opinion for that, a motion is necessary. Mr. Abrams said a motion was necessary. The Council has two choices with respect to arguments. It may either designate the Palo Alto City Council and members thereof to write an argument in support or opposition or it may designate individual ors 30 the Council, in his opinion, can take action as a Council and still allow defending members to join in other arguments should they chose to do so. Vice Mayor Sher asked if a motion would be in order Oat the Council file an argent against the ballot measure with up to three members of the Council being listed as the signers. He asked if that would be sufficient. Mr. Abrams replied that it would. POTION: Vice Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Brenner, that an argument against the ballot measure he written in the name of the Council with no more than three members of the Council being listed in connection with the listing of the City Council on the ballot. Councilmember Renzel said she preferred to see first be more flexible in terms of the number of Councilmembers to sign the argument until they ascertain whether there are organizations who wish to sign the ballot argument. Since there was one known organization, she would be comfortable with no more than four Councilors, but she would hate to see them lose a slat at this point by limiting ft that way. 9tr, Abram said that Ms. Tanner indicated to him that the Council must decide tonight tither it wished to have en argument prepared, and that there would be time t. reafter to determine which cf the Councilmembers would sign that argument. That might be the easiest way to proceed. Vice Mayor Sher asked if tee had to designate who would prepare the argument. Mr. Abrams replied that they should. MOTION WITHDRAW Vice Mayor Sher withdraw his motion, with the approval of the second, so someone else could struggle with the problem, Mayor Henderson said it was one thing to designate the City Council as being one of the five supporters then to enable individual Councilmembers' names to appear. Should they also designate six if there are that rainy who want to be designated? Should they specifically ammo the people they authorize? Mr. Abrams advised that eventually the Council was going to have to to those parsecs ' whom the Counc i l wishes to appear in ' those five slots. If a ballot argument is submitted with more than five is on it, the Clerk is 125 8/11/80 1 WARMINIMMIMMI authorized by law to print only the first five names appearing, s) a con- clusion as to who would appear on the ballot would occur in that Ray. It seemed to him that another alternative might be to designate the Mayor or Vice Mayor or someone else to write the argument and thereafter bring it back to those who wished to join in. What the City Clerk needs to know now is whether the Council intends to have an argument prepared. Mayor Henderson 'noted that this had to be filed by Monday, August 25, so toe only time it could be brought back Would be next Monday and they were abort to cancel that meeting because there would be only five Councilmembers present that evening. Councilor Renzel asked if the Council were to authorize the Mayor to write the ballot argument and authorize any of the six Councilmembers who voted to put it on the ballot to sign the argument, would that be sufficient authorization then to provide the flexibility needed at the time the argu- ment is turned in? Mr. Abrams said it was, recognizing that only the first five Councilmembers signing will be printed in the sample ballot distributed to voters. Councilmember Renzel said she understood that, and wanted to be sure they could authorize a decision at the time it is submitted. Mr. Abrams said that was correct, Councilor Renzel said that they would not have to bring the matter back again just turn in the argument with the five signatures. Mayor Henderson asked if anyone who voted for the motion is authorized to sign, or did the Council have to name those people. Mr. Abrams advised that if they wished to do what Council ber Renzel suggested, they were going to have to differentiate between those Councilmembers who wish to appear on the ballot argument from those who do not; the easiest way might be to poll, The other thing to keep in mind is that if the Council wishes groups to join in that argument, it must recognize that the Clerk will select the first five signatures. Mayor Henderson said that by authorizing six Councilmembers, unless they actually sign it, they were not into the problem of eliminating, Mr. Abrams said that was correct. Mayor Henderson thought that was the way to go, per- haps by an informal showing of hands. Councilmember Brenner asked if they were dealing with the question of it being a Council-supOvrted argument. Mayor Henderson replied that this deals with, in edditfon to having the argument being supported by the Council as a whi'a, authorizing individual Councilmembers to be shown individually by. name in the second, third, etc., slots. Councilmmeber Brenner noted that the Audubon Society has asked to be a Correction signature; she would think that maybe they weld went to accept that now See Pg., 318 and leave a slot apes for another group. Mayor Hendersoe said it was not 10/20/90 necessary to designate the slots; people can agree to not have their names on if they would like to see other organizations included, but this author- izes the six, if they desire to be considered and available for that. Couracilmember Witherspoon asked if there wes a motion on the floor? Mayor Henderson said they are attempting to determine wording for a motion. Ccuntilrsrl■rber Reuel was just stating and clarifying what the City Attorney had said. Councilne tuber Witherspoca said her point was that what Couocilmomber Brenrr said los not what she hard in, the proposed motion.. She wanted to point t that where they hadhad a split on the Council on controversial issue, that appears example �, on the ballot, and she Ws speaking of Measure H as an Old the last one was the Veterans Building; they did not appear as the Counc U even though one way or the other the members filed votes. The individual;; 126 8/11/00 Correct\ See Pg318. 10/20/80 rIPS11151111111KK �i- Councilmembers or the Mayor signed one argument on one side or the other as their inclination led. As they could imagine, she certainly did not want to have anyone confused by the fact that she voted to put this an the ballot. She asked if it would be possible to do it the way it had been done before. Mayor Henderson said that the motion had not been made yet. If Council - member Renzel wants to make it, they could speak to it. Councilmember Renzel said she wanted to clarify the motion with the City Attorney. As she understood it, the Council by a majority vote can determine to have the Council as such be on the ballot argument. Correct? Mr. Abrams replied that was correct. It would not designate the vote. It would say the "Council"and they may also designate individual ambers os has been discussed. The alternative that Councilmember Witherspoon suggested is an alternative that the Council has to sign as individuals independent of the slot showing the Council. Councilmember Renzel noted that Councilmember Witherspoon, as an individual, also has the alternative of signing the other ballot argument if she wistles. Mr. Abrams that that was true even if it showed the Council as taking this position. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Brenner, that the Council direct the Mayor to write a ballot argument opposing the initiative, to be signed for the City Council by Mr. Henderson, Mayor, and that the Council authorize those individual Councilmembers who wish to sign the argument to also sign it. Councilmember Renzel said she was one who wished to sign the argument. She asked if other Councilmembers were also interested in signing. Vice Mayor Sher said he would be glad to be authorized, but he wanted to leave open the question of whether to sign it until he saw how many others wa n t to. Councilmember Renzel determined that Councilmembers Leary, Brenner, Sher, Fletcher, Brenner, Henderson and of course she wanted to have authorization to sign the argument. She added to her motion "The action would be to authorize Mrs. Brenner, Mrs. Fletcher, Mr. Sher, Mr. Henderson, Ms. Renzel and Mr. Levy to have priority for signing the ballot argent, as well as the possibility of other oganizations signing.°`. Mayor Henderson said he didn't think they needed to determine that; it was just to authorize Councilmembers if they so desire. Councilmember Levy said he would;like to try.. doing it a slightly different way. He agreed that the Mayor should write and sign a ballot argument. He didn't thinthere was anything to be gained saying 70tat this was the vote of the Council and having certain five ors of. the Council signing it. He thought they were much better served if within that ballot argueent, the Mayor states specifically what the vote of the Council was and gives the names of those Councilmembers who voted inn favor. In addition to the Mayor as signatory, it leaves four other slots for individuals or groups within the City who wish to join in that argument. He thought that was a fairer way of presenting it and also will enable other groups outside of the Council to join in. Mayor Henderson asked which vote he told refer to in the argument? The vote to put it on the ballot: which would include saying Councilmember Fazzino is opposed? Councilor LeVy said they could take.a vote right now --a vote of those who wished to be included, be named as opposing the initiative. Mayor Henderson said there would have to be some formal motion. 12.7 8/11/80 Councilmembcr Levy said they should tare a vote now. They would be better served by enabling other citizens and groups within the City to join with the Council rather than dominating the argument simply with the names of five Councitmembers. There is no other way for those of them who oppose the initiative to he so shown within the argument. Councilmember Fazzino said he thought that was a much better way to go than to simply have the Council, on a divided vote, identified as the lead agency in support of or in opposition to the proposal. He thought that set a bad precedent and unless it is a unanimous vote, he didn't think the imprimatur of the Council should be used in that respect. They might want to simply mention the vote that took place six or seven months ;go, which was really whit the were talking about ---the excavation and dredging issue. Mayor Henderson commented that it would take 250 words to explain that vote, that was the problem. Councilmember Fazzino thought it was the only vote that cons'/ 'ently lays out where the respective members of the Council are on the elerall issues. His attempt to have a vote on the proposal tonight was defeated because he ;gas beat to the punch by Councilmember Renzel's motion. It was the only realistic alternative. Mr. Abrams read a portion of the section in the Elections Code in the hope that it might help. "A valid argument which includes in its text the name of a person other than the author of the argument, who is represented as being for or against the measure shall not be accepted unless the argument is accompanied by signed consent of such person." So there was an ability to retain these five slots and have other persons d,aigriated in the argument as supporting the argument with their consent. There is also the ability to allow the Councilmembers to sign as individuals if they wish and meet Count: i l momber Levy's concerns. Councilmember Renzel said she haadn't heard much support for Councilmember Levy's proposal, but she personally felt that the ballot argument was going to be short at 300 words and she hated to see them spend words explaining the votes. She thought that if Councilmembers Fazzino and Witherspoon wished to sign the opposing ballot argument, it will be very clear where they stand; she would prefer to see her motion stand. Council€aearb&tr Witherspoon said that from common courtesy and past history, it is not proper to use the Council's name as a body unless it is a unanimous vote, and she would be strongly opposed to that. Obviously, she didn't have the votes to make it stick, but she thought that precedent is in her favor. It has been done before out of cogs count y. The Council did it with the arguments on Measure H end with the Veterans Building. They did not say the Council, or a clear majority of the Council, presented the argent; they each had to individually sign it. Councilmember Levy stated that he did not make.a substitute motion before, but he w u l d like to crake one now. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that the Council authorize the for to write and sign a ballot aunt opposing the measure and naming within the argument those Councilmembers who are in agreement with him. Councilmember Renzel noted there are to be only 300 words and they were going to use six words to name Councilmembers; she thought that was un- necessary and preferred to go forward with the original motion. Council recessed from 10:0 to 10:18 p.m. 128 8/11/80 Mayor Henderson commented that the reason he felt the need for a recess was that he wasn't comfortable with the thought of having the Council sign as a body, the Council being one of the signatures of the argument. He was going to vote against the motion on the floor. MOTION WITHDRAWN: Councilmember Levy withdrew his motion with the approval of his second. Mayor Henderson said they were back to Councilmember Renzel's motion which did incorporate authorizing the Council. MOTION MODIFIED: Councilmember Renzel said that with the consent of her second, she would modify her motion to say, "Authorize the Mayor to write the ballot argument against the initiative, and to authorize the six Council hers who have so indicated their desires to sign the argument, if they wish. MOTION PASSED: The motion, as modified, passed unanimously, Councilmember Eyerly absent. CANCELLATION OF MEETING Mr. Zaner said that the agenda for August 18 is light and there will be three Counclimembers for sure who will be out and possibly four. There are no items that arm critical as far as timing is concerned and they could be carried to the 25th meeting, MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Renzel, that the Council meeting of August 18 be cancelled. MOTION PASSED: The motion passed unanimously, Councilmember Eyerly absent. COUNCILMEMBER FAZZINO RE HAZARDOUS Councilor Fazzino said that last year there was a major problem with a fire a Lockheed and as a result, there was some discussion of hazarAeus chemicals/waste in town. At the time, £ouncilmember Fletcher brought up her concern about transportatiozr of hazardous materials in the community and the issue of what the City could do to possibly preempt or go beyond State end Federal laws in this area. In this week's packet there was an outstanding report by the Assistant City Attorney, Frank Elia, and a lot of questions were raised by this report. In order to reach some closure on the entire issue of hazardous chemicals and waste activities, and in particular transportation, he would like to refer this item to the Policy and Procedures Committee for review. MOTION: Councilmomber Fazzino moved, seconded by Fletcher, that the entire issue of hazardous chemicals and waste activities, and in particular transportation .of these items, be referred. to the Policy and Procedures Committee for review. Mr. Schreiber said that the Council„ in ' February, referred the issue to the Planning Commission. The item that was placed in the Council packets was really the first pert of the Council's assignment. The Council asked the City Attorney's office to investigate it, and the Planning staff intends to meet with the firms and then go back to the Planning Commission. 129 8/11/80 i Councilmember Fazzino said that was fine; it was directed to the Council specifically, but 're was certainly willing to have the Planning Commission explore the issue. But he would also like to have the P&P Committee review the matter, perhaps before it goes to Council. The Committee did spend a fair amount of time on this issue last fail, but he didn't think they had the amount of information they needed in order to make any final recommendations. This report is much better than any the Committee had last fall. Whenever the review takes place is fine with him. Mayor Henderson said he would rather wait and see what comes out of the Planning Commission, and then it could be referred if it wasn't sufficient. Councilmember Fazzino said he was concerned it would get buried in with another issue; he was not sure what the scope of the Planning Commission study was. He asked if it was specifically related to the issue of hazardous wastes. Mr. Schreiber replied that the Council's direction was to ask the City Attorneys office to investigate whether the City could get involved in the regulations and asked the Planning Commission to evaluate that information. MOTION WITHDRAWN: Councilmember Fazzino withdrew his motion with the consent of his secon' . VICE MAYOR SHER RE PG E' S PPOIMITTTRIMUOrrtgui Vice Mayor Sher said they had probably all read in the newspaper today about the problem that PG&E has been having with the capacitors which con- tain one of the most dangerous toxic chemicals known as PCB. The fact is that the capacitors have been exploding and spewing the contents over back- yards. In any event, it is a very dangerous situation. PG&E is in the process of removing all the capacitors, but it will take them about two or three years. That concerned him because Palo Alto has its own utility, and he checked with the City Manager and learned that there is no danger here in Palo Alto. While there were some capacitors with that chemical here, they were all removed a; out eight or nine months ago. They are stored in a place approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Vice Mayor Sher thought the foresightedness of the Utility Department should be complimented in recognizing that danger and dealing with it long before it broke into the press. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None AWOURNMENT MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Levy, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously, Councilmember Eyerly absent, and the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVE: 13O 8/11/80