HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-10-11 City Council Summary MinutesSpecial Meeting
October 11, 1978
ITEM
Oral Communications
ications
Baylands Master Plan and CIF (Continued from September 18)
Request of Mayor Carey re HCO Council Committee
Recommendations
Oral Communications
kjourrrent
235
10/11/78
PAGE
236
236
251
251
2 5 1
X35
Special Meeting
October 11, 1978
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in a special
meeting, Mayor Carey presiding.
PRESENT: Brenner, Carey, Clay, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher (arrived
8:20 p.m.), Henderson, Sher, Witherspoon •
ABSENT: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
ne
BAYLANDS MASTER PLAN AND EIR
rosy p , r , 1978)
CMR:398:8, 436:8, 441:8)
Mayor Carey recalled to listeners that Council had completed public
hearings and had certified the Environmental Impact Report as being
sufficient at the September 18 meeting. Before Council that evening
were Planning Commission recomendations on the Baylands Master plan
itself. An eleven -page summary, entitled "Approved Planning Commission
Policies" was before each Councilrr , ber, along with a summary of previously
approved policies and showing previous Council actions. He suggested
that after hearing fro Chairwoman Renzel of the Planning Commission
a motion be placed on the floor. Subsequent Council action then, would
be to amend that motion.
Emily Renzel, chairwoman of the Planning Commission, said that the
Baylands Master Plan had been underway for three years. Policy had been
formed on the Lagoon mitigation project, the flood basin levee, the
golf course improvement, Embarcadero Road reconstruction, the new hangar
at the airport, acquisition of IlT property and two high-rise sewage
treatment towers. The remaining major -decisions involved the yacht
harbor and the d --two issues tied together by the possibility of
utilizing dredging spoils for cover on the dump. The Planning C ission,
by a 3-2 vote, recommends adoption of the 15-20 year plan for closing
the dump. The plan had major elevation changes, ranging .from 2044 feet
high, involving 30 acres of tin ITT property to dry dredged mud for dump
cover. The harbor would be dredged three times annually. Of lesser
*pact were previously adopted and amended matters. In the light of the
reduced budget
resulting fror passage of Proposition 13, some of the
recommendations had been "...simplified and scaled down. . . ." ids.
Renzel emphasized the recommendation for setting a park -like tone at the
entrance to 8yxbee Baylands Park by narrowing Embarcadero Road from the
airport entrance bayward; providing park -quality lighting; removing
telephone poles, and providing appropriate signs to each of the major
activities. She emphasized the recommendation for re -locating the dump
acce:.s road to Embarcadero Way, and implementing the forecast plan for
yacht harbor point as shown in the interim plan; providing a limited
number of new parking spaces in Baylands Park to be located so that they
will not constitute major visual intrusion. In general, she said, the
Planning omission recommendations reflected concern for protecting
natural areas and improving aesthetics for existing facilities along
with minimizing the impact of automobiles in the Baylands.
Councilmember Hendersoni ascertained that the "no" votes on the 3-2 vote
were Renzel and Steinberg. Commissioners Gordon and Carpenter were
absent.
Ben Pawloski, Director of Public Works, said staff had met with consultants
on the matter of closure of the d and a representative of the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, to explore methods and timing of the landfill.
236
10/11/78
.J 3 C.
Robert Cooper, Cooper and Clarke, said that in the period of one and
one-half years his firm considered options from immediate closure of the
dump to closing it 20-25 years hence. His firm's report•of May 1, 1978,
said the most economic option was closure in the 20-25 year period --the
assumption was that after the Palo Alto landfill was closed refuse would
be hauled to another disposal site? with attendant high costs. Cost of
energy generation or recycling of materials hadnot been explored in the
study because it was assumed those costs would be "...almost higher than
the cost of landfilling,"{ though change in disposal techniques was
desirable, The intermediate 15-20 year plan was recommended because it
offered the most flexibility if change in disposal methods was a =opted.
His firm thought the recommended plan could be modified to accommodate
the change, should it take place. Mr. Cooper said that if the 15-20
year option were adopted his firm recommended that the fill-in sequence
be selected at the beginning so that the costs would be minimized.
Vice Mayor Henderson said Mr. Cooper's statements almost foreclosed the
development of disposal technology in any time less than ten years.
Mr. Cooper said that his firm's initial study compared immediate closure
with closure in ten years: ten years of planned placement of refuse
would be needed to obtain the required drainage pattern. If dirt had to
be used the process would be extremely expensive so far as shaping the
140 acres. The Regional Water Quality Control Board required that as
the site was filled to the final grade the final cover be placed, so
that all the 140 acres would be covered with three -feet -plus of dirt.
If the life of the landfill were extended one of the following would
have to take place: additional refuse would have to have the three feet
of coder, or some of the cover already placed would have to be stripped
off then replaced again. There would probably be about five years lead
time if the City decide; to generate energy or recycle --and following
his firm's recommendation the groundwork would have been laid, so to
speak.
Vice Mayor Henderson said he was not aware of any spee,fic time require-
ment on closure of the dump, or placement of the three-foot cover.
Larry Cole, Regional Water Quality Control Board, said that the dump Corrected
should be covered "...within a reasonable length of time after disposal see page
operations had ended."' For both economic and watir quality reasons the 291.
cover material was to be placed on a gradual basis, and not delayed
until the last truckload of refuse had been dined.
Vice Mayor Henderson said the City was following a plan at present;
could that plan be presented to the Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Mr. Cole replied that the City could do so; the problem was that once
certain contours had been created and covered, and if the City wanted
to continue to use the site, the cover meuld have to be removed, or
additional cover would have to be placed. Sr. Cole said he thought the
City might be confusing the question of when the site was to be closed
With the need to find an alternative garbage disposal method. No city
could close its dump until it found an alternative method of disposal.
He thought technology for an alternative was 5-10 years off. It was
prudent to have 4 flexible policy oe dump closure troth there was an
alternative. Right now one economic variable wits that alternative
methods of disposal cost more than using the dins.. Costs of dumping
would be slightly higher in the future. The fundamental difference
between ".. cl os i erg tomorrow or the next 25 years was the fact that the
disposal cost . with the dump is cheaper." He thought it was wrong to
stress the requirements of the Regional Board for time of closure.
Alternate methods of disposal would be about $10 per yard; current cost
was about $4 per yard.
237
10/11/78
Councilmember Sher asked if Mr. Cole thought it would be acceptable if
the City had the policy of closing the dump at the earliest possible
date should en alternative disposal system be found.
Mr. Cole said the Regional Board would evaluate the specific proposal of
the City; main elements were that the area be covered.as the final grade
was reached and the City had to have a commitment toward providing slope
and cover when landfill operations were terminated. .A configuration
which was modifiable when alternative disposal methods came along was
important.
Councilmember Sher asked if the plan the City was to submit to the
Regional Board had to have gjefinite dimensions. He thought the City had
to prepare to keep on ...piling it up out there Until it's 25 or 50
years from now, and so we really don't know what the grade will be ---it
may be a mduntain out there."
Mr. Cole said he thought the Regional Water Quality Control Board would
ask for a grading plan, though it would be subject to revision at any
time.
Councilmember Sher asked if the Board was insisting that every city come
in now with a plan for landfill.
Mr. Cole said that it was.
Mr. Cole added there were about 36 garbage dumps in the bay area. The
board hoped to have plans from each of them on some method of closure.
Palo Alto's uncertainty about how long it would need the dump was true
of almost all the cities; most of the larger areaj had submitted plans
for method of closure, however. Some communities had definite plans
since they had alternatives;: Alameda County, for example, had the new
Altamount landfill area it could use.
Councilmember Sher asked if all communities had to provide two feet of
impermeable cover plus one foot of rucn-impermeable cover.
Mr. Cole replied that they did. Most closed dumps were slated for some
kind of recreational use, and without the cover the area would not be
useful. Three feet of covet was a bare minimum; cover for the Berkeley
dump ran to five feet. 'ie did not know where they obtained the cover.
Councilmember Brenner asked if the requirement for covering within a
fixed number of years had been removed.
W. Cole said that the Board said that their rule -of -thumb time was
about three years. The Board dealt with requirements on an individual
basis.
Councilmember Brenner asked if a technology stalemate could be assumed.
The costs the consultants had submitted so indicated.
Mr. Cole said that the Regional Board could no, decide about costs.
Mr. Cooper said he thought the cost of $10 per cubic yard for alternate
methods of garbage disposal would rise in the future. Recycling costs
ran even higher. As technology improved costs might lower, but not in
the near future. Figure 3 of his report showed that costs for removing
garbage by truck were about $13 million for the 15-20 year plan.
Councilmember Sher observed that the costs were somewhat less with the
no -dredging :ption. Did dredging cost bore than the importation of
materials?
238
10/11/78
Mr. Cooper said his estimates assumed that the City was paying for all
of the dredging costs. He said his repgrt assumed that tpe proper kind
of fill would be available by import. Dredged materials Were a dependable
source of cover. Capital costs of dredging would be for pipe, booster
pump and de -watering ponds, and the cost of the three -times -annually
dredging, let out to a private contractor. Costs•of transport of the
dredged spoils would be borne by the City.
Councilmember Sher asked about the consultant's mention of production of
topsoil from dredged materials on page 13, Appendix D. He read, "There
is no doubt that the soil can be reclaimed...it would be desirable,
however, to set up small test ponds;" Those comments were not consistent.
Appendix C then said that "...it must be recognized that this method has
never been proven in full scale production, therefore -it is -recommended
that if this process is to be seriously considered, an experimental
program be developed to determine the quality of the topsoil which would
be produced and the proper amounts of chemical additives and the number
of washings necessary for its production." Such inconsistencies made him
nervous, he said. There had been concern about whether or not dredged
materials would support botanical life. Mrs. Proctor had run experiments,
in which some plants lived and some died. Was there any reassurance?
Mr. Cooper pointed out that the test ponds were suggested so that effectiveness
as topsoil could be maximized, Dr. Ray Krohn at U.C. Davis had been a
consultant on the project --statements about the effective use of dredgings
were conservative, Mr. Cooper said.
Councilmember Sher asked if it had been assumed two washings would be
necessary.
Mr. Cooper confirmed that. Lime and other organic material had to be
added.
Larry White, Director of Parks and Open Space, said that in the tests he
and Mrs. Proctor had conducted viability of the soil seemed dependent on
the amount plantings were watered; everything had grown, though some
were salt burned at first. Removal of salt was important. Washing was
done at the de -watering pond.
Mr. Cooper said that the mixture was inundated; an anaerobic process
occurred over a period of about two weeks and that produced topsoil. Bay
mod originated from topsoil in the valley and foothills, and the procedure
restored it to that condition.
Councilmember Sher asked if vegetation would grow and at a reasonable
cost.
Mr. White said compost and organic materials would be added to produce a
growing medium.
Mr. Cooper said lime in the amount of 6 tons an acre and cellulose of 3
percent of the weight of the soil were added. A large trucking operation
would not be needed.
Counci lmember Witherspoon said she wanted to know the status of the
Bost -sharing program between . the county and the City.
Mr. Pawloski said that costs were not known because it was not yet known
which plan was to be used.
Philip Flint, 2256 Santa Ana Street, said that he recalled the yacht
harbor being dredged about once every three years. Diversion of the San
Francisquito stream flow had caused the need for more frequent dredgings,
he thought. He hoped the amount of dredging would be lessened or eliminated,
by diverting part of the creek flow back. to the harbor. Dredging caused
extreme damage to aquatic life, and dredging was a losing battle. He
feared the City might just continue filling the baylands, as had San
239
10/11/78
Francisco. He said he was a soil scientist, and he knew there was
seepage from such fills. The Regional Water Quality Control Board
should meeitor those areas. He hoped Council would keep the dredging
problem separate from the fill problem, and not use one to excuse the other.
Gretchen Leland, 3700 Laguna Avenue, urged Council to separate the issue
of the yacht harbor from that of the dump, for aspects of•one problems
were being manipulated to justify the other. She thought the City
should close the dump earlier than within 15-25'yearS.:'She thought that
if the City worked with the Joint Powers Agreement it would find creative
alternatives for solid waste disposal. She did'not know how costs of
dredging could be justified. Only 225 Palo Alto families used the yacht
harbor.
F'orence LaRiviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, spoke for Shirley Holmes, presi-
dent of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and its board of directors.
There were 3000 members in the Audubon society, whose interest in Palo
Alto Baylands dated from the 1920s. " The Audubon: Society supported the
Planning Commission recommendation to protect and restore natural areas
and to provide landscaping and facilities for Byxbee Park. The group
asked that dump closure take place earlier than 15 or more years. There
was too much risk of leachate production. It was best to immediately
restore the 30 acres of ITT property to tidal action. She stated objections
the Audubon Society had about the twenty -some years of possible disruption.
Changes in Councils and staff made future commitments the City gave to
its citizens uncertain.
Joyce Leonard, 4107 Briarwood Way, spoke for Palo Alto's American Association
of University Women (A.4U4). She asked that the present door -to --door
recycling collection continue; if the 1972.1482 park charter amendment
now on the November ballot as. measure A, were extended to 1987 did not
pass there would be a shortage of funds for park maintenance and operations.
She did not think costs for dump closure could be 'estimated so far in
advance. Only costly a 4,ernatives were left if early dump closure were
rquired.
Robert J. Debs, 3145 Flowers Avenue, suggested that no coimitment be
made to the plan because negotiations with the county for sharing dredging
costs had not yet started; closure of dump and dredging of yacht harbor
had been "inextricably tied"; money perhaps going for yacht harbor
dredging would best go to keep library branches open. He thought the
suggestion of Hr. Flint that the San Francisquito Creek be again rerouted
be seriously considered and that no immediate decision be made.
Walter Stromquist, 3418 Thomas Drive, said that the closure of the dump
and the maa i ntena nce of the yacht harbor were l i nked and rightly so. He
thought the best commitment Council could make was that which gave the
most flexibility.
Or. Carl Cllertson, 780 Seale Avenue, expressed surprise at the .antipathy
toward the harbor" that had bee voiced, He asked if the dump had to be
closed within a certain period of time.
Mayor Carey said that it was not customary for Council to engate in a
dialogue with the public at the public's time of speaking. Council would
ask the question of staff at the appropriate time.
Dr. E l l ertson responded that he then anndersteld that the dump must be
closed, and in a specific manner outlined by the Water Qual ity.Control
Board, one specification of which was the use of impermeable cover. He
further .'rnderstood that only from dredging could impermeable cover be
obtained, from the standpoint of cost or availability. The harbor was
about to be closed, until the spoils were found to be useful for dump
24 0
10/11/78
Roo
coverage. He objected to the statement that the yacht harbor would be
"...a:- anchor around the necks of 250 boat owners." He thought the
three -times -a -year dredging had been determined by the amount of spoils
needed to provide dump cover. The harbor, then, solved, rather than
created, problems.
Joseph Carleton, 2350 Ross, recalled that Vice Mayor Henderson had
remarked that the Army Corps of Engineers had said that Palo Alto could
obtain dredged spoils from other places where dredging took place. They
could be obtained at no charge. Was that true?
Councilmember Brenner asked Mr. Cole how many dumps had closure plans
which had been approved by the Regional Water Quality*Control Boards
Mr. Cole said he thought only one or two had been formally approved.
Several others had been considered adequate.
Councilor arenner asked the sources of topsoil and fill material for
those dins which had been 'formally approved. Did they have to prove
the cover was acceptable, or did they merely have to say they would
obtain approved cover?
Mr. Cole said they simply had to commit to providing it. He adda=J there
"...is an awful lot of cover around --every time anybody does any excavation
that's where the cover comes from. Cleaning the San Pablo reservoir,
for example, has generated several thousand cubic yards --it isn't like
it's a very scarce commodity —it's just fairly expensive...hauling
costs. . . "
Vice Mayor Henderson asked if Palo Alto was unique in its use of dredging
spoils for dump cover,
Mr. Cole replied that dredging spoils were used as impermeable layers to
separate waste materials. The Richmond Class l chemical disposal site
had a bay mud seal around it, and also the garbage portion of that site.
"So using bay mud as an impermeable sea is a very common practise
around here." Normally the spoils were dredged nearby. Richmond obtained
a Corps of Engineer's permit to dredge a submerged area adjacent to
where they were dumping. He said he was not aware of dredged spoils
being hauled in or away.
Mayor Carey asked for a rough estimate of cubic yards of cover material
needed under the 10 -year plan, the 15-20 plan and the 25 -year plan.
Mr. Cole said the 10 -year plan would require about 300,000 yards; Appendix
B, page 35 gave the figures; the 20-25 year plan called for 325,600
yards of imper, able fill, and 360,000 yards of topsoil.
Councilmomber Brenner ascertained that about 50,000 yards were now
stored on Yacht Harbor Point, which material had been placed at the
last dredging.
Mr. Cooper said it had been determined that those 50,000 yards would be
used for daily and intermediate cover.
Vice Mayor Henderson said that with the 8-10 year plan about five dredgings
would be needed for impermeable fill.
Mr. Cooper replied that, with shrinkage, about 50,000 yards reduced to
about 24,000 yards. About 60,000 cubic yards were obtained per dredging.
The Army Corps of Engineers could not get into the Leslie Salt Harbor
because it would have to dreoge its way in; the closest spot to dispose
of dredgings was near the Port of Redwood City. Some thought had been
given to setting up an area for processing spoils and processing them so
that they could be sold for fill. No approval from regulatory agencies
had been sought. however. The plan was still in the talking stage,
Corrected
see page
291.
241
10/11/78
Councilmember Fletcher asked about using the Leslie Salt ponds as drying
ponds,
Mr. Cooper said Bay Conservation District Commission (BCDC) approval,
and Corps of Engineer approval would be needed. The farther -away such
ponds were established the greater the cost of hauling.
NOTION: Mayor Carey moved, seconded by Clay, that the Council approve
the Planning Commission recommendation as listed in its August 31, 1978
transmittal letter, and approved Planning Commission policies.
RECESS
Council recessed from 9:30 to 9:50 p.m.
Mayor Carey announced that there would be an executive session on
personnel matters at 7:30 a.m., October 13, 1978, (Friday) at StPckney's
Flamingo Motel, in the dining rooms.
Councilmember Sher asked if the daily and intermediate cover, referred
to in the footnotes, came presently from the dredged materials now
.toned on Yacht Club Point.
Mr. Pawloski said imported fill was being used, delivered by contractors
to the site. The operation within the past few years meant that daily
cover was now required alp; about 100 cubic yards per day were being
used. Accurate figures would not be known until there was about one
year's experience. It would probably be about 40,000 cubic yards per
year.
Councilmember Sher asked if such a process would continue for the entire
l i fe of the dump.
Mr. Pawloski said that daily cover was six inches; intermediate cover
was one foot. His estilate of 40,000 cubic yards might not cover the
intermediate requirements. The cover material was being purchased and
delivered and stockpiled. Some material was free, such as that which
contractors were trying to dispose of. In some cases the City paid for
both the material and trucking.
Councilor Sher said he was going to ask a series of questions on
costs and cost assunptio)ns that were built into comparative figures.
There was also the question of county participation. He knew that the
board of supervisors would make such decisions; Mr. Rockwell and other
county people would be making recommendations to the Board and he would
like ....to test some of these assumptions. . .
Mr. Rockwell said the assumption that the county would absorb 50 percent
(of the dredging costs) had been made so that a report could be made.
No decisions regarding that assumption of percent had actually been
made.
Councilmember Sher said he recalled that under the present lease of the
yacht harbor to the county the City's obligation was to designate a site
for the disposal of dredged spoils --the county's obligation then was to
bear the total cost of the dredging subject to the availability of `funds
for that purpose.
@ir. . Roc k e l l said that he recalled that the county was responsible for
maintaining the yacht harbor and the dredging if the City provided a
s i to for the dredged spoils. He recalled that the lease read that it
would have to be "reasonable Costo" Lid if not the county would have the
right to withdraw. One example of "unreasonable" would be if the site
for the dredged spoils was outside the Golden Sate.
242
10/11/78
Councilmember Sher said Mr. Rockwell's recollection coincided with his
own; he recalled that the county did not have an absolute obligation to
maintain the dredging of the harbor.
Mayor Carey said the same topic had arisen during a conversation he had
with Supervisor Steinberg in the previous week; she had said that the
county and the Board of Supervisors would take no position until Palo
Alto had taken a position. So far as landscaping, the county would not
take a position until Palo Alto determined when the yacht harbor would
be closed; the county did not want to put a lot of money into landscaping
if the harbor was going to be closed soon.
Councilmember Sher acknowledged that the county also had certain rights
under the lease. If the lease were, changed the Board of Supervisors
would have to address that matter. 'He asked Mr. Rockwell if he could
recommend the Board's approval of the circumstances that would be created
by passage of the motion'before Council: the 1$-2d year closure, leading
to splitting cost of dredging and capital costs'of establishing dewatering
ponds and the like.
Mr. Rockwell replied that the present plan allowed for no expansion of
the yacht harbor; there was no constraint on time. Three -times -a -year
dredging would increase costs to the county.
Councilmember Sher said he supposed that was why she assumption that the
City would pick up half the costs was written into the report, because
under the present tears of the lease the county was to pay all of the
costs of the dredging. In dredging in connection with the Faber and
Lauhmeister tracts, the full operation, capital costs and dredging, had
been paid for by the county.
Mr. Rockwell said those were temporary pipes --there were no weirs or
pumps or permanent piping, or return circulation pipes.
Councilmember Sher said he thought that in the proposed plan the pipes
would be buried, which would add to the expense. The proposed plan did
not contemplate any additional berths. Could Mr. Rockwell recommend
that to the Board?
Mr. Rockwell said "Well, obviously we would like to expand the yacht
harbor but I understand the problems...the status quo is better than no
yacht harbor, as far as we're concerned." Proposition 13 had affected
the county as well, and there had been cutbacks. This was a maintenance
item and perhaps no action would be taken.
Councilmember Sher said the suggestions had been made that trle present
clamshell method of dredging could be used. What would Mr. Rockwell
think of continuing to dredge with that method every two or three years?
Mr. Rockwell said the county had used some of the material for fill, and
now the county was going to proceed on the landscaping project. With
materials having to be trucked the roads mould suffer --there were drawbacks
to the suggestion.
Councilor Sher spoke of the reference to the BCDC permit which would
be required for all future dredgings. He read the condition: 'There
must be a determination of all costs to the public in maintaining a
marina and the source of the public funds.' Did that mean that the City
and county Nould have to decide specifically how much each would be
called upon to contribute to the dredging and that the funds would have
to be committed for that purpose?
Mr. Pawloski said that those numbers would comae out of negotiations
between City and county, subject to approval of the county and Board of
Supervisors. If, indeed, BCOC did make that requirement, he saw it as
243
10/11/78
i
not presenting a problem. Some constrain: would result from passage of
Proposition 13.
Councilmember Sher asked if all the money provided by the City would be
gathered from dump fees.
Mr. Pawloski said it would. The refuse collection was considered an
enterprise fund --it did not come from the general property tax.
Councilmember Sher said he supposed that information would be built into
the BCDC application. He supposed the county would make a like commitment.
Councilmember Eyerly observed that the concerns of Mr. Dells and other
citizens about using money which might otherwise go to other concerns
would be answered now that they knew the funds did not come from general
tax.
Councilmember Brenner asked Ms. Renzel if all the Planning Commission
concerns had been written out and were within the motion before Council.
M=.. Renzel replied that they had been.
Councilmember Brenner said that if the assumption was that if all else
failed dump fees would be raised, had it been observed -that when dump
fees went up the amount of refuse went down? Had any estimate been made
about the maximum household fee?
Mr, Pawloski said staff had made cost estimates, projecting costs of
capital improvements at the refuse disposal area, based on the "most
costly solution," for the caning five years. Council had reviewed the
capital improvements program for the refuse disposal operation, In June
a rate increase had been asked for; staff had said a 10 percent increase
would be needed in refuse collection rates for the next five years.
There would probably be corresponding increases in disposal rates at the
dumpsite. Those costs included the cost of dredging with dewatering
ponds and so on. That meant a 10 percent increase annually. Current
costs were about $5 per ton. Any currently available alternative was
more expensive. In eastern United States costs were now $10 a ton, and
regulatory requirements and changing conditions would bring about a
similar price increase here.
Councilor Brenner remarked that there was an optimum charge for such
services, and when charges increased people sought other means of refuse
risposal, such as burying refuse in their gardens. Also, the recycling
program had been quite successful.
Mr. Pawloski said waste burial was a heath hazard and was not considered
an acceptable solution. He did not think there would be much of that.
Only 85 percent of the people were recycl i ng and volume of refuse had
decreased in the area where recycling was taking place by 20 percent.
If that program were expanded, Mr. Pawloski questioned, would there be
similar -citywide results? That would not be known for a while. Actual
reduction would be about 20 percent of 200 tons per day.
Councilmember Fletcher askedif the possibility of assessing boat owners
for costs of dredging had been considered.
Mr. Pawloski said that the county would have to determine how it was
going to pay for dredging; the alternative, though not desirable, had
been discussed.
244
10/11/78
Vice Mayor Henderson agreed that the dump closure should be separated
from maintaining the yacht harbor. He would like to close:the dump in
8-10 years, minimizing height of second lifts; continue tfie present
harbor dredging schedule as paid for by the county; continue drying
spoils and using them for dump cover along with obtaining other sources
of cover material as was the case at present; continue coverage under
the same system after the dump closure until coverage requirements had
been met; work with the Regional Water Quality Control 4ard to establish
a schedule for long term final coverage with the proviso that coverage
using spoils would continue without stopping; investigate conversion of Corrected
Leslie Salt flats conversion.to dewatering ponds; ell irate the concept see page
of dewatering ponds in the 8avlanos and move the police -firing range; 291.
adopt the policy of full report of the Joist Powers Authority; move to
develop new disposal systems as soon as possible; establish a policy -of
working toward Citywide recycling of waste materials leading to a mandatory
recycling program; adopt the policy of retaining the yacht harbor as
long as satisfactory locations for the dredged spoils could be found,
Councilmember Sher observed that he agreed with the goals set forth by -
Vice Mayor Henderson. Some factors had to be juggled and some tradeoffs
had to be worked out however, in order to adopt the master plan. He
himself would like to'adopt a plan that did not include 30 acres of
dewatering ponds in the ITT property for 15-20 years. He did not want
to pile up garbage and wind up with an unnatural configunation for the
Baylands such as hills and valleys and windbreaks, brut .a "Mount Trashmore"
might have followed from the decision to go for a second lift. He would
like to prevent that. He would like to adopt a plan with a goal to push
for alternative methods of disposal . He did not want to see the yacht
harbor closed, but he did not think that should be a primary objective.
He thought the best solution would be to adopt the 15-20 year plan
without the dewatering ponds, with dredging to occur every two to three
years. He thought dredging three times a year was "horrendous" though
some said it did not disturb the ecology of the bay.. Six weeks out of
every 52 weeks was too much visual pollution and interfered with boating
and stirred up the waters.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Sher moved, seconded by Henderson, that that
portion of the Planning Commission recommendation relating to setting up
dewatering ponds on the ITT property as noted in the recommendation of
August 31, 1978, as summarized on page 5, Item 0, be deleted.
14r. Pawloski pointed out that the -decision to go to "a second lift" was
not made to obtain additional landfill capacity; it had been to grade
the site so that it would meet requirements, and would drain the site.
Knowing that additional rubbish would have to be placed on top of existing
rubbish led to the 8-10, 15 -20 -year plans, but the "second lift" had
grown out of the requirement for grading the site --it was not an option
that the City could or could not have picked up on.,
Councilmember Witherspoon asked how inundation of the dredgings as
recommended could take place without dewa tee' i ng ponds . _
me. Cooper replied that he was not sure that continuance of the so-
called clamshell dredging would be permitted. The suction dredge did a
much c l eaner job and muddied the water less than the c l amfshel l dredge.
BCDC had solve objections if the dredgings were to be stockpiled ,within, a
certain distance of the bay. 'The biggest c_ comPlaint had been the eyesore
of that mound of dredgings. With dredging only every three years there
would not be enough mmteri a l to bother with, though it could be ,used for
daily cover. The three -times -a -year dredging was to generate as much
material as possible.
Councilmember Brenner asked if the cost for completion of Byxbee Park
had been figured. Were the costs only related to filling and landscaping?
Hed those costs been included in the dump fees? --
245
10/11/78
Corrected
see page
291.
t
Mr. Pawloski said the report had the costs for grading the site and
providing the cover matneial and did not include the cost for landscaping.
The report's five-year projection included an incremental cost of getting
water to the site and beginning installation of an irrigation system.
The plan at present was that each year the area that had been graded to
final elevation would be closed off. Each time a contract would be let
for landscaping and finishing, with costs to come from user fees. In
that way costs would be spread over the life of the fill, 'and from
income from dumping, as opposed; to waiting to the very end when it would
mean that one large sum of moeey was required. The projection of cost
was for the next five years.
Vice Mayor Henderson asked if, in the proposed amendment before Council,
a goal should not be stated regarding time.
Councilmember Sher said that that would be in another amendment.
Councilmember Sher said that topsoil to be mixed with dredgings might
have to be imported; he referred to the annual cumulative figure of
topsoil in the amount of 40,000 cubic yards --perhaps the City could
obtain 80,000 yards a year, with unused yardage to be stockpiled against
the total need of 500,000 cubic yards, within 8-10 years. In that way
there could be more certainty that vegetation would thrive, and all the
processing needed for spoils would not be needed,
Mr. Cooper said that costs in his report had been figured so that those
costs would not all be offset by imported topsoil.
Mr. Rockwell recalled that the BCCC permit for last dredging had the
condition that disposal on Yacht Harbor Point would be for one time
only. It was difficzalt to foretell what ECDC might now allow.
AMENDMENT FAILS: The amendment deleting that portion of the Planning
Commission recommendation relating to setting up dewatering ponds on the
ITT property, as noted in the recommendation of August 31, 1978, as
summarized on page 5, Item 0, tailed on the following vote:
AYES: Brenner, Henderson, Fletcher, Sher
NOES: Carey, Clay, Eyerly, Fazzino, Witherspoon
Councilmember Sher said he wanted to address Item N, the 15-20 year
grading plan.
AMENDMENT: Councilmember Sher moved, seconded by Henderson, that the
City adopt a grading plan based on closure of the landfill 'at the earliest
possible date, but no later than 15-20 years, consistent with the development
of alternative disposal and resource recovery methods, at the most
feasible cost and in the most:feasible time.
Councilor Fazzino said that as Joint Powers Agency representative he
thought it was unrealistic to think that technology was going to be
available for at least ten years.
Councilmember Sher said the future could not foreseen, and so he favored
the phrase "at the earliest possible date consistent with the development
of alternative disposal and resource recovery methods."
Councilmember Fazzino ascertained that the 15-20 year plan would be
underway, and at the point when new technology became available Council
would reconsider.
246
10/11/78
Corrected
see page
291.
See al go
page 316.
Councilmember Sher said he had understood that the plan selected determined
the grading process. Councilmember Sher said he wanted the flexible
plan, with the possibility of earlier closure.
Mr. Cooper said that he thought the filling sequence could be planned so
that costs could be minimized if landfill were terminated in less than
15 years; there would be some additional costs.
Mayor Carey suggested wording "...the filling will be done in such a way
so as to allow earlier closure at minimum expense if made possible by
advances in technology."
Councilmember Sher said that wording was fine, and there should also be
the language that the dump should be closed, by Council policy, at the
earliest possible date.
Vice Mayor Henderson said he thought "...the policy of the City that the
dump should be closed as soon as possible with time not to exceed 15-20
years," would establish such a policy.
Councilmember Sher said that such wording omitted comment on alternative
disposal sites and resource recovery. He would leave his motion as it
read.
Councilmember Eyerly said that the motion was too stringent for it
seemed to imply the closure of the yacht harbor and too -soon closure of
the landfill area. He thought there should be surveillance of the grading
plan and current information fron time to time from the Joint Powers
Agency. He would oppose the motion.
Councilmember Clay said he would oppose the motion. The motion duplicated
an airecdy implicit assumption in the Planning Commission recommendation.
Perhaps there would be no alternate methods of disposal.worked out in 20
years, and he did not want to set a limit.
Councilmember Fazzino asked Mr, Pawloski how he would interpret the
motion now before Council. Woula he understood that the 15-20 year plan
was to be proceeded with?
Mr. Pawloski replied that that would be his understanding.
Councilmember Fazzino said he would support the motion. Reality would
mean that if the City had to continue using the dump it would not close
Mayor Carey► said he w'1d oppose the motion for he thought the wording
might occasion some proolem with the County. He preferred having sore
wording about grading to proceed so as to afford opportunity for earlier
closure should the opportunity arise.
AMENDMENT PASSED: The amendment that the City adopt a grading plan
based on closure of the landfill at the earliest possible date consistent
with the development of alternative disposal and resource recovery
methods, at the most feasible cost and in the most feasible time, but no
later than 15--20 years, passed on the following vote:
AYES: Brenner, Fazzino, Fletcher. Henderson, Sher, Witherspoon
NOES: Carey, Clay, Eyarly
Councilmember Witherspoon referred to page 2 of the Planning Commission
recommendation.
247
10/11/78
Corrected
see page
291.
AMENDMENT: Counciimember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Brenner, that
in the passage "Access to the flood basin should be permitted for organized
water dog training programs," she asked that the word "water" be deleted
and the word "supervised" be added.
Councilrnember Witherspoon explained that in discussion of the activity
it had been understood that a number of different kinds of dogs would
use the area. •
Larry White, Director of Parks and Open Space, said that it was not the
policy to permit hunting dogs in the flood basin. They could not be
supervised.
Councflrnember Witherspoon said she thought that owners and dogs wcald be
there by permit —there would be supervision. The Parks Department could
make the decision as to what kind of program was appropriate.
lice Mayor Henderson said he did not favor any move toward hunting of
wild life. He would vote against the motion.
AMENDMENT PASSED: The amendment passed on the following vote:
AYES: Brenner, Carey, Clay, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Sher
Witherspoon
NOES: Henderson
Councilme ber Clay said he understood that the second runway was not to
be installed in order that traffic could be increased, but so that the
present traffic could be more safely conducted.
AMENDMENT: Counci lmFmber Clay moved, seconded by Carey, that the recommendation
against construction of the second runway be deleted.
Councflmember Clay said he thought the provision should be so worded so
that a second runway could be constructed when it was feasible. He
emphasized that his motion was aimed at increased safety:
Mayor Carey supported the amendment. He said that it was a misconception
that with a second runway traffic would be doubled. It could not be
done. Flight patterns for both runways would direct traffic over the
bay, not over Palo Alto. He gave figures to show that traffic would not
be increased owing to limitations of space.
Councilmember Eyerly said he thought the recommendation of the Planning
Commission about the airport were ambiguous. He read the passage "...environmental
hazards of the second runway that have been expressed through this study
and public hearings necessitates that the City reevaluate the impact of
such a facility." He thought that if the third paragraph, F(3) were
deleted the City would be in a position to talk about changing the lease
with the county.
Vice Mayor Henderson said the second runway ► ould surely lead to an
increase in airport activity of some kind or another. He read the
passage in paragraph 1, "No changes Should_ be wade in airport activities
that will increase intensity of airport use and significantly intrude
upon open .!ppce," That passage was inconsistent with adding a second
runway.
Mayor Carey said that if the aeendment was adopted paragraph I would
have to be modified. He said the second paragraph stating that "...the
second runway is an increase of air traffic. . ." was false.
248
10/11/78
kt
Chairwoman Renzel said that the concern for safety was that the air
pattern for the second runway traveled over the duck pond'and over the
yacht club building --both occupied areas. Flight safety:was not.the
specific concern.
Mayor Carey said that a second runway increased safety --the more accom-
modating a small airport was to small aircraft the fewer:hazards were
occasioned at major airports.
Councilmember Fletcher said that a second runway would lead to additional
flights; East Palo Alto had many flights over its area. She said she
had attended a meeting that evening of county airports and highways
committee. A five-year transportation improvement prograim had been
discussed. Slated for Palo Alto were $1,670,000 for the capital improvements
program. Seven of fourteen items rel,ted to the Palo Alto airport.
"There are all kinds of projects that the county thinks we need, so I'd
like to stop the development of that airport right now."
Mayor Carey said that putting things in the master plan did not stop
events from happening.
Councilmember Sher said that he knew that putting things in the master
plan did not make them happen: permission from other agencies, and
availability of money and negotiating of leases were also needed. The
master plan said that the Council wanted to point development in a
certain direction. If the wish of the majority was that the second
runway not be included that could be taken to the county, as was the
case with the proposed dredging of the yacht harbor. Council had discussed
the matter of the second runway in April, 1977, in the context of a
Planning Commission recommendation that he thought was identical to
F(1) . Then-Councilmember lmember Carey had moved that a second runway be conditional
upon the lease provisions. The consultant had said that the county was
not planning to implement the second runway at that time, That motion
had been defeated but the second runway issue had been one of the election
issues; at candidate meetings he said that people with whom he had
spoken were opposed to the second runway, and he had not heard any
candidates favor the second runway. He thought that to favor a second
runway would be a change in Council policy and most people would find it
undesirable. He would vote against the amendment.
Councilmember Brenner acknowledged that both the yacht club and the duck
pond would be placed directly in the safety zone. Activity at the
airport second runway would preclude activity at the duck pond and the
yacht harbor. In the safety zone no building above the surface of the
water was allowed.
Councilmeraber Fazzino said he thought the entire direction of the master
plan was to preserve the baylands in as near a natural state as possible,
and the proposal for the second runway was a direct contradiction to
that. He hard always opposed the second runway because it was noisy and
hazardous and went against everything Council was trying to do that
evening. He would oppose the tuition. He was not concerned about threats
and pleas of the county regarding the second rummy.
AMENDMENT FAILED: The amendmeet that the recommendation against construction
of the second runway be deleted, fa i l ed on the fol l owi ng vote:
AYES: Carey, Clay, Eyerly, Witherspoon
NOES: Brenner, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher
RECESS
Council recessed from 11:15 to 11:25 p.m.
249
10/11/78
r.`
AMENDMENT: Mayor Carey moved, seconded by Clay, that F(5) be deleted
from the Planning Commission recommendations.
Mayor Carey read, "Delete FBI 3 from the existing airport master plan."
and said his motion was that that statement should be deleted. He explained
that FBO meant Fixed Base Operator. He said his motiod intended not to
oppose the addition of a third Fixed Base Operator at the airport. The
capacity of the existing runway, he explained, was at almost 100 peecent.
The planned FBO was a very snail addition; 'FRO 2'had about 20,000 square
feet of building. About 4,000 square feet were needed,for the third FBO
along with some badly needed tiedown parking areas for aircraft already
at the airport without ti dorm were subject to damage from inclement
weather. The proposed third F$O would service and complement those
operators already on the site. An FBO was a commercial enterprise to
provide permanent parking, flight instructions, aircraft servicing and
mechancial maintenance and sales.
Chairwoman Reneel said the Planning Commission had been concerned about
the visual impact of a third -building at the entrance to the Baylands.
The Commission hod felt that with the second runway deleted the need for
a third FBO had diminished.
Mayor Carey replied that Site and Design review were now required in
the baylands, and proposed buildings would have to be approved.
Counc i lmember Fletcher said a letter from the county dated June 2 read
"she draft environmental impact report does not treat the effect (n
existing FCOs sste ing from deleting a second runway...and possible
loss of employment. . ." She thought that said existing FDOs woi4ld
have a hard time making a living if there was no second runway. She
would -dote against the amendment-
AME ENT FAILED: The amendment deleting F(5) from the Planning Commission
recommendations failed on the following vote:
AYES: Carey, Clay, Eyerly, Witherspoon
NOES: Brenner, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Sher
Councilmarber Clay raised the question of expense of reconstructing
E barcadero Road. He questioned the need for it in the aftermath of
Proposition 13.
Chairwoman Rentel said there had been a, dispute as to who was responsible
for servicing the subject section of Et rcadero Road. It had been
decided, she thought, that it was the City's respoasfbility. It was in
very poor condition and the Planning Commission hdd wanted to include
that project in the master plan. It did not have' to be done in a specified
time.
Councilmemaber Sher said Council recognized that aspects of the master
plan involved obtaining approval of other apencies, such as dredging and
the lease for the airport. If the county, for example, were not i nteres ted
in paying for dredging as outlined in the master plan or BCCC would not
give a permit for three.times-a-year dredging for 15 to 20 years, would
the master plan not have to return for further Council action?
Marilyn Norek Taketa, Senior Assistant City Attorney, said that the
master plan, as she understood it, was adoption of policy and in and of
itself had no legal significance. It did not restrict future action.
Councilm ber Sher confirmed and appreciated that so many people, staff
:ambers among them, had worked long and hard on the baylands master
plan. He questioned, however, the manner in which closure of the dump
and dredging of the yacht harbor had been tied together, making the
250
10111/78
r J
method of dump closure with the dewatering ponds an almost foregone
conclusion. The 30 acres of ITT land needed for dewatering ponds and
three -times -a -year dredging were very negative elements in his opinion.
He said he could not vote for the master plan in its present form.
Vice Mayor Henderson added his appreciation of the amouOt of work that
had been put into the baylands master plan. He, too, had felt that the
dump closure and the maintenance of the yacht harbor should be separate
issues. He would vote against the master plan.
Councilmember Brenner said that the dewatering ponds were a "stumbling
block, for her. Figures showed flexibility, and an abundance of water Cor--ected
for leaching; there was less freedom with capital improvements, however, see page
and less freedom for recovering from mistaken choices. "The real problem 291.
is facing another 15 or 20 years of shoving mud around." She had learned
much about the baylands, and was in favor of many parts of the plan.
She thought it necessary to register her doubt about the dewatering
operation,
Mayor Carey thanked Council, consultants, and staff for their hard work.
Though there were some negative aspects of the plan for him, he would
nonetheless vote in favor of adopting it.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED! The main motion, that Council approve
the Planning Commission recommendations as listed in its August 31,
1978, transmittal letter, with approved Planning Commission policies, as
amended, passed on the following vote:
AYES: Carey, Clay, Eyerly, Fazzino, Witherspoon
NOES: Brenner, Heederson, Fletcher, Sher
RE i EST OF MAYOR CAREY RE HCD
OHS
MOTION: Mayor Carey moved, seconded by Clay, that the.raatter of HCD
Council Committee recommendations be continued to the next regularly
scheduled Connell meting. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
ADJOURIVENT
MOTION: Vice Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fletcher, that
Council adjourn. The motion passed on a unanimous voice vote.
The Council adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
ATTEST:
251
10/11/78