Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04281975CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting April 28, 1975 ITEM Special Meeting, Saturday, April 26, 1975 Regular meting, Monday, April 28, 1975 Minutes of April 7, 197 Oral Communications Nor; -Agenda Items Request to Proceed with the Meeting under Revised Agenda Public Bearing: Refuse Disposal Draft EIR Solid Waste Disposal Study Part 1 -- Short -Term Disposal Alternatives CITY or- Pa() Lo 1lro PAGE 1 1 9 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 9 2 1 1 9 2 1 1 9 5 Mathematical Model Study of the Palo Alto Flood Basin and Yacht Harbor; Report of Planning Commission re Flood Basin and Recom- mendations of Planing Commission re Additional Mitigation Alterna-1 2 0 0 tives Planning Commission Recommendation re Vehicle Traffic in the 'Flood 1 2 0 7 Basin Councilwoman Pearson re Letter from Harold's Club asking Permission1 2 0 9 is Remain Open Twenty-four Hours a Day Item 4 -of Published Agenda re Planning Commission Findings re Restoration of Marshland and Plana for Flood Basin be Subject to Public Hearing and Planting Commission Review Councilwoman Pearson Regarding Need for Stop Signs at Miller and Monroe Avenu to Oral Communications Adjournment 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 9 0 4/28/75 Special Meeting April 26, 1975 The Council of the City of Palo Alto met at 9:i5 ax,an. on this date in a Special Meeting with the Planning Commission, commencing at the Baylandar Interpretive Center. Present: Berwald, Clay, Norton, Rosenbaum, Sher Absent: Beahrs, Comstock, Pearson, Henderson The purpose of this meeting was to coneider the Refuse Disposal Area EIR and potential flood basin mitigation measures while viewing the flood basin and surrounding areas, prior to the public hearing of the Refuse Disposal Ares EIR to be held Monday evening, April 28, at 7:30 p.m., or ce soon as possible thereafter, during the regular City Council meeting in the Palo Alto City Council Chambers. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m. Regular Meeting April 28, 1975 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 7:32 p,m. in a regular meeting with Mayor Sher presiding. Present: Beahrs, Clay (arrived 7:47 p.m .), Henderson, Norton, Pearson, Sher, Rosenbaum Absent: Berwald, Comstock Minute ril 7 AOTION: Vice Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Beahrs, that the minutes of the meeting of April 7, 1975 be approved as submitted. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. ice ions - No 1. William A. Hydis, 3588 Arbutus Avenue, spoke on behalf of the City of Palo Alto Retirees Section of the Mid - Peninsula Chapter of the Retired Public Employees' Association and submitted statistics regarding the lag in the cost of living benefits to PERS. 1 19 1 4/28/75 2. Lincoln Mitchell, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Chairman of the Palo Alto Community Drug Abuse Board, read the major portions of a statement prepared by PACDAB clarifying the Board's position concerning recently publicized events affecting the Drug Abuse Program. At the five minute point, Mayor Sher informed Mr. Mitchell that the statement had been in the Council packet for this meeting; therefore, the entire report had been available. 3. Richard Amoroso, 575 Middlefield Road, addressed Council regarding the possible need to discipline some of the activities of PACDAB. Re nest to Proceed with the a.r e u un er ev se•' MOTION: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by 3eahrs, that the business of this Council meeting be taken up in the suggested revised order. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. Mayor Sher explained that Agenda Item 1 would be the public hearing on the Refuse Disposal Area Draft EIR, which appeared on this meeting's listed agenda as Iteme 1 and 2. The second order of business would relate to the Solid Waste Disposal Study Part 1 - Short -Fermi Disposal e:?ternatives, which had been listed as Item 5 on the published agenda. The Mathematical Motel Study of the Palo Alto Flood Basin and Yacht Harbor would be considered the third item of business, which corresponda to Item 4 on the published agenda. The final matter would be one from the Planning Commission reletiug to the flood basin, and that had been Item 3 on the original agenda. Public Hearing: Refuse Disposal Draft EIR (tom:220:5) �1MBA1�� ���� one Mayor Sher stated this was the time and place when and where any and all persons could be heard on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Palo Alto Refuse Disposal Area, dated March, 1975. He staked that the record show the City Clerk has filed an affidavit of publication of notice of this hearing. Mayor Sher requested the representative of the Planning Commission to make her report. Mary Gordon, Planning Commissioner, reported that the Commission herd meetings regarding the Draft EIR on January 15th, January 27th, e aeries of subcommittee meetings, andanother Commission meeting on March 12th. On March 23rd the subject was again on the agenda because the Planning Commission had not had a previous opportunity to review the staff report on this subject, nor an opportunity to discuss the Workshop that was held at the request of Mr. Fra8E:r of the Department of Fish and Game. Mrs. Gordon stated that at the larch 12th meeting the Planning Commission found that the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed expansion of the Refuse Disposal Area in the Baylands is legally sufficient. However, the Commission recommended that the following additional mitigation alternatives be included in the review of the Draft ELR report by the Council as an eddendum to the Draft. The mitigation measures are: (a) Fresh water circulation and marsh restoration; (b) Purchase of Charleston Slough; (c) Restoration of tide gate point to marsh; and (d) Shallow pond areas near Sand Point --restoration to marsh. Mrs. Gordon commented 1 1 9 2 4/28/75 that the staff report spoke to several of these recommendations. According to the latter from Mr. Fraser, some of the recommendations might not be acceptable mitigation measures in terms of fish and g ame . Mayor Sher asked for the staff report on the background of the environmental impact report. David Holton, of the Public Works Department, recalled that on April 22nd, 1974, Council authorized the Mayor to execute a contract with Engineering -Science, Inc., to prepare the Environmental Impact Report and also the waste discharge requirements. The first step involving input and comment took place on June 6th, 1974, when eight local organizations and interested individuals were invited to meet with the consultant and indicate to him what issues and problems should be dealt with in the EIR. One of the results of the June 6th meeting was that some issues appear in the EIR which might not have turned up until much later. Mr. Holton said there was another review with the same people on August 22nd, 1974, which was basically a status report. On September 26th, Engineering -Science, Inc. submitted its preliminary Draft EIR to the city, the Corps of Engineers, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, The report was distributed to Council, the Planning Co niiesion, Stanford University, the Water District, City of Mountain View, City of Menlo Park, and others. In October and November of 1974, the Corpa circulated the preliminary Draft EIR as a working paper in accordance with the federal requirements having to do with environmental protection. This working pa?er was sent to approximately forty federal, state and regional agencies, interested organizations, and civic groups, In December of 1974 and January of this year, comments were collected by the Corpe, returned to the city, and responded to by Engineering -Science, Inc. for the city's EIR. The Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary draft EIR on January 15th, gave its comments, and received input from the public. The preliminary draft EIR came back to Council on January 17th for review and comments. Council's direction at that point was that the final draft EIR should have the .same kind of public hearing before the Planning Commission that any other project of this nature would have. The final draft EIR was then prepared by Engineering -Science, Inc. That was submitted to the city, distributed to Council, the Planning Commission, and interested persons; and the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 12th. Not:ice.s were published, posted, and mailed to eighty-one organizations and individuals; and public comments were received at that meting. Mayor Sher asked for the report of the Director of Public Works on the Environmental Impact Report and the incorporation into the record of additional data. Ben Paw.ioski, Director of Public Works, noted that Council members had been receiving in their packets additional data for the draft Environmental Impact Report. This had been compiled into 83 pages of additional information which was befcre Council along with the EIR. One its included in that additional information is the response from the_State Clearing douse which consisted of letters from three state agencies - BCDC, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the State Health and Welfare Agency. Staff has responded in writing to those three agencies, and those lettere are part of the additional data. 1 1 9 3 4/28/75 Mayo' Sher asked if there, were anyone present who wished to be heard on the question of the sufficiency of the Environmental Impact Report. Joyce Leonard, 4147 Briarwcod Way, speaking for the Palo Alto Branch of the American Association of University Women, said the group felt that upon reading the EIR, there was some question about the wisdom of commissioning S study devoted primarily to landfill in this time of needed resource conservation. In the words of Glenn Seaborg, former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission: "In a recycle society, the present materials situation is literally reversed, all waste and scrap - what a.re now called 'secondary materials' - become major resources, and our natural untapped resources become back-up supplies". John Fredrich, 157 Bryant Street, asked if there were eighty pages of information in addition to the printed EIR. Mayor Sher responded t1aere were eighty pages of accumulated information Council had been receiving during the past several weeks which included comments from various agencies and staff responses. This information had been collated and given to Council members at their places at this meeting. C -.urge Sipe:[, City Manner, commented that all of the material - with the exception of a few documents received tonight in the bound document had been in tie packet over the past several weeks; therefore, anyone who had been reading the packet information had read everything Council had except fet the documents frog the State Clearing House process. Since no one else wished to be heard, Mayor Sher declared the public hearing closed. Mayor Sher stated the Chair was prepared to entertain a motion that Council find the draft Environmental Impact Report, together with the additional data submitted during this hearing, is sufficient or not sufficient. MOTION Councilman Betters moved, seconded by Henderson, that Council find the draft Environmental Impact Report, together with the additional data submitted during this hearing, to be sufficient. (The additional data consists of the testimony during this hearing and the written documents submitted to the Council by Mr. Pawloski entitled "Additional Data for Draft Environmental Dart Report for Palo Alto Refuse Disposal Area", dated April 28; 1975, and consisting of approximately eighty-three pages.) Councilman Beehrs wondered to what extent the subject of sufficiency is subject to litigation. It seemed to him that Council or the community could be harassed forever on the question of sufficiency: and he asked if there had been any litigation in this area and the trend of the Court's reasoning. Marilyn Norek Takata, Senior Assistant City Attorney, responded that the question of the sufficiency of the report could be litigated because state law spells out which categories should be covered in the gut. Mrs. Taketa commented it was very difficult to find any real trend because the'Califcrnia Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Protection Act have been very liberally construed. She added it would be hard to predict whether or not there would be any litigation on this particular ERR, It seared to be very complete, and most comments had been responded to. There 1 1 9 4 4/28/75 do not appear to be any glaring lacks in it, and the real question was whether Council had sufficient information to go ahead and snake its policy decisions. Mrs. Taketa stated that if it appeared to members of Council that, in fact, most of the information is there, it was fairly safe in finding the report sufficient and proceeding to make policy decisions based upon the information as presented. Councilman Beahrs asked if it would be safe to say that a public body, such as Council, which had undertaken reasonable effort, held public hearings, and had been diligent and conscientious about the scatter, would have the benefit of the doubt. Mrs. Taketa thought the city had done a great deal of work on this particular project, giving it much public exposure, receiving all the comments it could, and bringing it all before the Council. She pointed out that this was the second public hearing, and the city was in good condition with regard to getting as much information - as possible before the policy decision is wade. The motion passed ca: a unanimous vote. Mayor Sher remarked that Councilman Berwaid was absent because of the illness of a member of his family, He had submitted comments that he wished to have made; and when Council diecueston reached the point where they were relevant, Mayor Sher would read them. Solid Waste Dia osal Stud Palc or - errs epos .,y,:. r ., .. CMR: 245:5) Mark Harris, Senior Analyst, Solid Waste Disposal Study recalled some of the reasons for performing the analysis on the short range disposal alternatives. First of all whatever the results of tonight's hearing would be, there would be a significant change in the disposal operations for fiscal year 1975-76. Therefore, it was incumbent upon staff to perform some kind of economic and operational analysis in order to prepare a budget supplement which could not really be finalized prior to this hearing. Also, staff needed to determine what the costs of other alternatives might be because of unknown factors such as the Corps not granting the permit to continue operation at the present site, or if it were decided that mitigation would be too costly to consider. The third reason for performing the analysis is based on viewing the long range disposal alternatives. Mr. Harris said staff considered landfill as more or less a base case disposal alternative with which to compare other options, such as resource and energy recovery systems, composting, etc. In terms of the analytical framework, staff viewed the disposal operation as it presently exiete - including the recycling center - as a cost center. The 1975-76 budget presentation was used as the base case, but it needed to be understood that it is 8imsply s base case and not a viable alternative. This is due to the fact that regardless of the decision mule tonight, staff will have to severely modify the present operation. Mr. Harris noted that the analysis really addresses incremental changes for the base case. Certain costa are coon to all alternatives, such as the Environmental Impact Report, the lagoon mitigation design and construction, and the flood basin mitigation study; so those are not included in the economic analysis, but are addressed separately. Mr. Harris said the first alternative staff looked at was the continuation of the present landfill, and that is the reason for the Environmental Impact 1 1 9 5 4/28/75 Report upon which Council had just taken action. Included was the mitigation that would be talked about later in the meeting, and staff took into consideration upgrading the landfill to a sanitary condition. The second alternative study concerned a second lift. - operating on area that was previously filled but not under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps. That being the case, no mitigating procedures would be needed in order to perform a second lift. This alternative would also be run under sanitary conditions. The third option staff explored vas to discontinue any disposal operation within the City of Palo Alto and haul to some alternative site. The two most likely sites are Mountain View and Menlo Park. The fourth alternative actually is a combination of alternatives one and three where the operation would be discontinued after three years. Mr. Harris explained that this alterative was added for several reasons. For one thing, there was some question as to whether the Army Corps of Engineers would grant a permit to Palo Alto for more than three years; and staff felt it should investigate this option to see what the implications would be. Also, it was felt that looking at a three year time horizon, an evaluation could be made of phasing out refuse disposal in a planned manner. In the analysio, several attributes were considered. The basic analysts focused on costs. Capital costs were looked at. In this case, that did not mean costs not as defined in Capital Improvement Projects, but front --end costs required over the life of the entire operation, such as tractors and compactors. Staff also looked at operating expenses - those expenses such as labor, cover material, and any sort of annual contract work that would have to be done. Level of service was focused upon and defined as the residents' ability to dispose of --efuse and continuation of the recycling operation. Some of the major issues associated with environmental impact were addressed by staff, and the effect of each option on long range alternatives was investigated. Councilman Rosenbaum asked what was meant by base case thirty-five cents, under financing options, and how could that be compared to Alternative I, fifty-five cents. Mr. Harris responded that thirty-five cents represented approximately fifteen percent of tba refuse utility bill, as it presently stands. This means that about thirty-five cents out of a $2.40 monthly_c arse goes to the disposal operation. Looking at this in terms of Alternative 1, staff is saying that the increase would be approximately twenty cents per month. Vice Mayor Henderson asked if the rate additions were included in the utility rate structure study which staff had been directed to make, and whether Council would be receiving recommendations in relation to the refuse area in that particular study. Sipel responded affirmatively. He commented that it would all. come together in the next two months. For Councilman Berwald, Mayor Sher read this statement : "''the final grade of the current refuse area is much ton high for my liking. It would appear that the lowest possible level should be achieved, consistent with the aesthetics and the view across this area, in order to retain its baylanda and marshlands appearance". 1196 4/28/75 Councilwoman Pearson wanted to know if Council would be receiving more reports on future possibilities. She thought this seemed rather short-term, and this was not the direction she would like to see Council go. Mr, Harris explained that the long range disposal alternatives would be presented at a future Council meeting. The staff report before Council addressed, essentially, what would be done over the next six years. Two reasons existed for choosing a six year time horizon for the analysis. One was that there would be approximately six years left if the city continued using the present site; and the other was that realistically, it would take at least nix years to pharfe into any major resource and energy recovery aystem. Staff was interested in differentiating between long range disposal and what would actually be taking place over the next six years. Mr. Harris commented that Alternative I would not preclude moving into other alternatives sooner if conditions were such that it would make sense to do so. He noted that the recommendation should not be construed as any indication as to which way Palo Alto was planning to go in tens of future disposal operations. He thought the city was fairly well committed to getting out of the landfill business. Councilwoman Pearson asked when the Yong range report would be before Council. Mr. Sipel thought the report could be agendired during the month cf May. Staff was ready with the report, but the subject will probably require two to three hours for a full presentation, Mayor Sher asked if Mr. Sipel were contemplating having the initial presentation shade in Committee rather than to Council. Mr. Vipel felt it could be done either way, but his prefercnce was that it be done before Council with a lot of prior public notification. MOTION: Vice Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Pearson, that Council approve disposal Alternative I, and direct ataff to take the action necessary for its expeditious implementation, contingent upon the issuance of a permit by the Array Corps of Engineers. Frederick Martin, 375 San Mateo Drive, Menlo Park, addressed Council on behalf of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club. Mr. Martin: felt that one of the gaps in the report on the alternatives was that the cost analysis did not include anything about the post -dumping operation, He asked how much it would cost the city to convert this mud hole to something of value to the community. Mr. Martin explained, for example, that if the city went to a second lift, there would be quite a high area buildup of refuse covered with a certain mount of soil. The city would want to do ao ething with that later, and there is no indication of what the cost of any kind of a conversion would be. In Mr. Martin's opinion, Council - before making a motion -- should direct the staff to include an estimate of converting the dump to Mometh .ng usable later cn. He pointed out that there was some valua gig to the land on a cost per acre basis. Mr. Martin did not find that number adequate, and he thought the meaning was rather ob*cure. He suggested there may be a "low cost alternative", end b. beought to Cbunctlis. ettentioa the fact that in the Menlo hark, Mountain View, Palo !Alto area, there are three landfills in operation. All of those import top soil for a final cover, particularly if there were going to be something growing on it; and the top soil is likely to be of considerable quantity. Technically speaking, Mr. Martin noted that it is possible to compost a considerable fraction of refuse - perhaps as much as 1 1 9 7 4/28/75 1 1 70X - and mix it with some of the older dried bay mud. This could be used as top soil at the Palo Alto dump site and in Mountain View and Menlo Pak, If Council directed staff to investigate this possibility, the life of the current operation as proposed in Alternative I might be extended for a number of years. As a side issue, Mr. Martin mentioned the program in the East Bpy to recycle vine bottles; and he distributed descriptive hrochurear to memheta of the Council. It was his thought that this kind of plan may tig ir, with Palo Alto's recycling center. Mr. Pawloski, in response to Mr. Martin, quoted from page eighty- three of the Additional Data for the Draft Environmental Impact Report: "The first c ent addressed the issue of post -fill operation pollution monitoring and cIemi.-up work and asaociated costs. The economic analysis does include the capital and operating costs associated with pollution monitoring and control (if uecessery). When the operation of the landfill is modified to meet new requirements, proper clean-up and covex will be done as the landfill progresses and that cost is inele4ed in the operational costs of the landfill. Possible low -capitol resource recovery programs and composting are under study as part of'the AMAG Delta Plan and the Santa Clara Cotmty Solid Waste Management Plan. They are appropriate alternatives for long-range considerations and are net available in the near future and should post crtain1y be considered on a regional or sub -regional basis". Mr, Martin said that when he Lead over the report, it was not clear where the post-peration, costs were included. Secondly, if you take the experience 'of `'M untpin View - which has fairly ambitious plans for converting their fill operation to a park the cost involves three or four dollare per top; and that is not reflected in staff's chart. Mr. Martin wondered to what extent staff had planned dealing with the post operations, , Mr. Harris wanted to make it clear to everyone that staff did not know what the final land use would be. At this meting, the discussion was centering around approximately thirty acres out of one hundred and fifty that exist in the Baylands. The decision as to what to do with the land will determAte the cost. Staff felt the cost was basically the same across all four alternatives; and since there was no way of knowing What the final plan would be, it could not be addressed in this particular report. Mr. Martin reiterated that the city has not really looked into what it would do with the land ultimately; and if you are going to talk about landfill operations on a long-term basis, you also have to talk about what you are going to do finally. Otherwise, there was no way of knowing the cost of the landfill. Mrs. Gordon commented that the Planning Commission has requested that a Capital improvement Budget be allocated for planning for the Baylands area, and this +aould encourage moving in a direction that would address some o; the questions raised by Mr. Martin. Mr. Sher remarked that the Punning Commission has already established a special Baylands Subcommittee, of which Mrs. Gordon is Chairperson; therefore, that question is certainly not being ignored. Mr. Martin stated that he had not been thinking of this problem in terms of the Bay Delta program or the county planning, such as it is, for Santa Clara. yt simply seemed to him that technology exists for this type of operation; and with good planning, it could be put into operation in a year or so and serve as a short-term alters ativs. Mr. Marti.kdid not think the response made by staff , addressed itself adequately to that issue. 1 1 9 8 4/28/75 Councilwoman Pearson asked Mr. Martin if he were talking about using the three hundred tons of garbage a day that Palo Alto produced or just a portion of that when he referred to composting. Mr. Martin replied that he was talking about the total organic compound of the three hundred tons which would be about seventy percent. Mrs. Gordon noted that the Planning Commission, on January 15, 1975, urged that solid waste disposal adoption and open space planning be vigorously pursued. Also, in response to Councilman Berwald's concerns, Mrs. Gordon said that the Planning Commission strongly recommended that the project design and the final Draft EIR be returned to the Commission for the sane type of public hearing and review as is required by any other project. Barbara Miley, Monroe Avenue, Palo Alto, had not hears if the public at large had been urged to express their own ideas with regard to conservation. Some citiee provided separate containers for glass, tin cans, etc., and L:erhaps this would be a good idea for Palo Alto. Also, Ms. Miley asked if the tree cutters could in some way help citizens retain their own cuttings. Mayor Sher stated there is the recycling center at the refuse disposal area for glass, cans, etc., and Council has discussed ways of picking up newspapers. Mr. Harris commented that one of the problems with source separation systems is the necessity of duplicating the disposal collection, and most cities which have experimented with this idea are tending to abandon it. He noted that staff was very interested in encouraging and accepting all public i.npt.tt on thia matter. Councilwoman Pearson thought there was no alternative but to go ahead with this, but she also thought that the whole subject should be placed in the Policy and Procedures Committee for study. Councilwoman Pearson expressed her total opposition to the possibility of a second lift, and she did not like the idea of Palo Altane being inconvenienced by having to haul their garbage to Mountain View or Menlo Park. She said she would support Alternative 1 on an interim bears, but the report that was forthcoming from Mr. Harris ought to go to the Policy and Procedures Committee so that a study on an alternative can be started. Councilwoman Pearson did not feel that composting was as far in the future as had been indicated, and she was disappointed that it did not appear as a fifth alternative in the report. Councilman Beahrs was concerned that some of the public did not know about the recycling center at the refuge disposal avea. He passed along the suggestion that individuals keep clippings that could be used for kindling in fireplaces in the winter. The motion paased on a unanimous vote. Councilwoman Pearson had noticed in the r*port some comments about permitting salvaging in the ecology center, and she asked for some information about that. Mr. Holton stated that staff had been trying to create a program that will be successful and safe in tests of providing a location for salvaging operations. Control needed to be carefully exercised so that the operation could be done safely and without additional liability. Soma discussions about such a plan had been held with the Palo Alto Sanitation Company, but staff did not have a final answer at this time. 1 1 9 9 4/28/75 MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson, that the subject of long term disposal alternatives, including composting aad source recovery, be referred to the Policy and Procedures Committee. The referral motion passed on a ;nanimous vote. Mathematical Model Stud of the Palo Alto 0o r:s n an ac r•or • . or o ann n- o,k.., sa on re Flood Bain 'salon_ re Mrs. Gordon reported that the Planning Commission; on January 22, 1975, unanimously foacnd that the concept of restoration of marshland in the flood basin is in conformance with the Open Space Element of the General Plan, and recommended that the proposal and development of detailed plans for the flood basin be subject to a public hearing and Planning Commission review. The April 23rd action taken by the Planning Commission was a recommendation that the City Council find no significant environmental impact and that the implementation of the Flood Basin Mitigation Project be subject to the following: 1 1 Development of a Management Plan with the Planning CoAekission, including public discussion and evaluation, that would include as a minimum: a. Multiple use of the basin and its levees. b. Establishment of a realistic human use -capacity limit. c. Preservation of habitat diversity. d. Development of maximum wildlife values. e. Such Additional items as may be required by the Corps of Engineers in consultation with other agencies and city staff. 2. Establishment of a broadly based Advisory Committee and a Monitoring Program to assess the project. Mrs. Gordon stated that the Planning Commiasion recommended additional mitigation alternatives to be included in the review of the Draft EIR, and those measures are: (a) Fresh water circulation and marsh restoration, (b) Purchase of the Charleston Slough - which was spoken of as not being acceptable by the State Division of Fish and Game, (c) Restoration of tide gate point to marsh, and (d) Shallow pond areas near Sand Point to be restored to harsh. Mayor Sher added that the Planning Commission did recommend a number of possible mitigation approaches, and letters had been received from the D. S. Army Corps of Engineers statingwhich of those would be acceptable. One of the acceptable measures would be opening the flood basin to tidal action, A second acceptable measure was covered in the latter from the State Division of Fish and Game, and �That is the proposal to purchase fifty acres of area from ITT and restore it to its natural condition. The third approved approach would be the purchase of fifty acres of the Leslie Salt Pond for restoration to a natural condition. Mayor. Sher noted thar the recommendation from the Planning Commission- more or less incorporated recommendations made by staff in the memorandum dated April 3rd, 19?5, entitled Mathematical Model Study of the Palo Alto Flood Basin and Yacht Harbor. 12a0 4/28/75 Mr. Pawloski thought it would be appropriate to state how staff was considering the mathematical model of the Palo Alto flood basin, In October, 1973, the city filed an application with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers tc continue Its landfill operations. As part of that process, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is required under national and state law. Such a process is a long one; and there was concern that as the filling continued during the process, there should be loss compensation_. Therefore, it was agreed that a feasibility study should be undertaken to determine whether or not there could be tidal inflow into the flood basin and under what parameters that could be done. Mr. Pawloski noted that one of the concerns was that the flood basin was also used for flood storage and one use might impede the other, After it became apparent that this was feasible and the study was released, concern then arose over what was acceptable mitigation both to the Corps of Engineers and their advisors - the State Department of Fish and Came and the U. S. Department of Fish and Wildlife - and to the Palo Alto community. This brought the matter up-to-date; and Mr. Pawloski introduced Dr. David Kibler, the consultant from Water Resources Engineers to explain the mathematical model.. Dr. Kibler explained that the primary objective of the flood basin etuiy was to ievestigate alternative hydraulic measures by which limited tidal circulation could be introduced within the flood basin without impairing the existing use of the basin as a flood storage reservoir. The second phase of the study involved an extension of the mathematical modeling work which was initiated in the flood basin to include the analysis of releases from the flood basin through a newly constructed set of headworks, which would allow improved circulation in the Yacht Harbor channels themselves. Dr. Kibler said the method used for the analysis was a mathematical model in which an attempt was made to simulate the flow pattern, the changes in velocity, and the changes in water surface elevation within the interior portions as a function of hydrologic inflows atthe upstream end of the fiocd basin and a tidal condition imposed at the downstream boundary ofbasin, which are generated by tides at the headworks. In the course of the analysis for the flood basin, a number of alternative outlet configurations were reviewed which included replacing any one of four, or as many as four, different gates within the existing sixteen gate structure. It was found that tidal circulation could be improved by replacing a single gate with a fly -gate, which can be operated automatically to control the maximum water surface within the interior portion of the basin at any desired level. It was further found that the introduction of tidal flows through the controlled fly -gates would not in any way impair the existing capability of the flood basin to store flood waters. Also, it was found that sedimentation in upstream channels would not be increased in any significant way by increased flood storage or tidal water surface elevations within the flood basin. Dr. Kibler stated that the sedimentation would certainly increase within the interior portion of the basin, occurring in those areas which are subject to the least hydraulic circulation, those Areas in which the velocities are lowest, and in those areas where the flow is impeded by the growth of marsh grans - which, in fact, everyone wants to encourage. It was estimated that the occurrence of an equilibrium sedimentation depth would comprisea balance between the incoming sediment load from the Bay source and the inflow from fresh water sources coming down from upstream in a period of approximately one to two years. So this would be an equilibrium period in which the sedimentlevel within the basin will be out cf balance but could possibly reach a balance. Water Resources Engineers realized that the replacement of one of the existing gates with a fly -gate was the most feasible of all methods investigated. The coat would be approximately $65,000 including 1 2 0 1 4/28/75 the installation of autcriat.t: recording equipment and automatic control devices which would regulate the maximum water surface in the basin. With regard to the Yacht Harbor, it was found that the existing circulation pattern and the chilling problems would be improved very little by additional flows and headworka that would allow releases from the basin to the Yacht Harbor. That fact combined with the kvewledge that the construction of new headworks between the flood basin and the Yacht harbor would be very high made that alternative an unacceptable one, and Dr, Kibler did not recommend it, Councilwoman Pearson asked If Dx, Kibler were recemuading that the flushing out of the Yacht Harbor not be done, Dr. Kibler responded affirmatively. Councilwoman Pearson csked if thia were the same Yacht Harbor study that Council talked about a few months ago, and that so many people thought would be the panacea everyone was looking for, Mayor Sher commented that this is the same study, but the initial study was expanded; and thi, was an expert opinion that the f1uehing out of the ha.bor would not really do the job, Councilwe an Pearson asked if it could now be said t:, those who vote that this recommendation will net scour the Yacht Harbor. Dr. Kibler reapoaded that it would not scour the Yacht Harbor under average annual summer conditicns, There would be some opportunity for scouring under eery severe flood conditions. F lorence LaR.iviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, spoke fcr the Save the Marsh Comm1ttee, She noted thee the group was forested in 1969 tc preserve the flood basin f_oa county park deieiopment, She commended the Planning Commission Subcommittee on the Baylands which held remarkably well --planned and open hearings. The hearings provided an opportunity for presinent local authorities on the Bey and its marshes had time to express thoughts and fears about this project. Ma. LaRiviere noted that the hearing* established and the minutes show: (1) Upland ataloa is vital to the diversity of flora end fauna presently in existence in the Pao Alto Baylands and must be mainteined to keep alive smell mamma popul ttions; (2) The introduction of salt water to the channels can cause the intrusion of salt into adjoining grasslands and cause the death of non -halophytic plants; (3) Thera is a serious question whether en increase in tidal- flay that docc not allow full tidal range will restore goody quality marsh; (4) The slows that will be dynamited to open them will likely tend to silt with the increased circuilatioa and may later need dredging; (5) botulism has never been a problem in the flood basin; and justifyin4 this project on the bests of its prevention swarm silly, erspecielly sines increasing circulation cannot guarantee the eradication in areas where botulism is endemic; (6) A modal shady is a simulation only, not Lent. Sven the consultants doing she hydrological study stated that they did not know prccieetly end definitely what Would happen. It sensed strangely significant to those parson who attended the Planning Commission Subcommittees bearings that the planning Commission's final recommendations to Council carried on the affirmative votes - of Commissioners *0 were present at few car none of those hsaringz. Surely the city should not be expected to maks long range aolutiona to garbage disposal problems by experimenting with land that to already vital, ecologically pr~o4»ctive, and a necessary adjunct to the existing salt North. Thm Save thel March Committee ender the recommendations Of the Subcommittee, kif Mr. Jack Praiser, De 1202 :/26/75 of Fish and Gaze, as indicated it his letter of April 22nd, and of Dr. Harvey - page three of the Subcommittee Report, that circulation of fresh water should be increwd. This was ecologically advisable and leas risky than the intrusion. If the Committee's fears were realized and this project comes to fruition, it asked that the least damaging level, -2.2' be specifically designated as a safeguarding limit. Secondly, the Committee would like to see any chaagee portending hard to the Baylands supervised by Thomas Harvey of San Jose, a recognized authority in this field and a man in whom the Committee had confidence:. Joyce Leonard, on behalf of the Palo Alto Branch of the American Association of University Women, stated that as many of the Council members knew, AAIi'W had consistently expressed its support for the protection and preservation of the Palo Alto Baylands. The AAUW wanted to commend the Planning Commission and, particularly, the Subcommittee of the Commission chaired by Mrs. Gordon, in its ongoing study of several projects currently being proposed for the Baylands and including the proposal to open the flood basin to limited tidal action. AAUW also commended the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for its efforts to include public input in raking their recommendations to the Army Corps of Engineers on the matter of the flood basin mitigation measure. As a result of the meetings held, it became apparent that questions raised, such as possible damage to the fresh water grass areas remained largely unanswered. Ms. Leonard pointed out that the proposed project is admittedly an experimental one, and the effects resulting from this change are unknown. Therefore, the Palo Alto Branch of the AAUW would recommend that should the Council mee,bere find the proposal to increase salt water circulation within the flood basin to be acceptable, that the following Luidelinea he considered: (1) That strict monitoring and frequent evaluation procedures he set up before any changes are made; (2) That the persons selected to be involved in the monitoring and evaluation process be well qualified and selected from a broadly based citizenry; (3) That the minimum water levels of -2.2' to -- 2.0 be tried initially and that an increase to the level of -1.7' as suggested in the study be done onlyafter an adequate test period of approximately one year (including high and low tides) in order to minimize any adverse effects which might occur; (4) That the Palo Alto City Council request from the Army Corps of Engineers (as a part of the mitigation measure) that the flood basin be designated permanently as a wildlife habitat; (5) That the project be abandoned should significant damage to the flood basin occur in any capacity, and that the Corps still consider the project as having been adequate mitigation or cost compensation; and (6) That all controls concerning the proposed project main within the City of Palo Alto's jurisdiction. John Fredrich, 157 Bryant Street, referred to the expert testimony made at the }Larch 12th Planning Commission meeting to the effect that the environmental impact would be significant and unpredictable. Sased on that fact, 14r. Fredrich did not think the project was a good ides. Jack Fraser, Department of Fish and Game, thought his letter of Aprils 22nd was clear; but he wanted to emphasize that the flood basin mitigation plan contained some uncertainties as to its ultimate success. However, Hr. Fraser felt the plan was worthy of a trial. If the plan doss succeed, a great deal of knowledge will have been gained; and in the process, the people of Palo Alto would be benefited. Mayor Sher read the following statement from the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto, dated April 25, 1975: "The League of Women 1 2 0 3 4/28/75 Voters of Pai10 Alto supports the preservation of the flood basin as a natural area with a diversity of habitats in addition to its serving as a flood control facility. Therefore, while we could support mitigation measures to upgrade existing environments within the flood basin in exchange for short term refuse disposal, we are concerned that such measures be carefully planned and continually monitored so that no adverse changes or disruption of existing balances can occur. A commitment to this procedure and to carefully defining the monitoring proce s should be part of any city acceptance of the Refuse Wiapoasa1 E1R and flood basin mitigation project". Mayor Sher read Councilman Berwald's statement as follows; "It would seem to me that the initial tidal level in the basin be eomaawhat under the level proposed by the consultants and that recommended by the staff. 1 would prefer to see the recommendation of the State of California Deportment of Fish and Gaze followed". ?tayor Sher thought Councilman Berwald was referring to the letter from the Department of Fish and Game, State of California Resources Agency; and in that letter, signed by Mr, Fraser, there is the suggestion that the initial tidal level be at -2.2. That level is also the staff's intention and position. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff stated it expected no difficulty with that level. Mayor Sher thought that since there were no differences expressed, it would be useful to specify the initial level so there would be no misunderstanding. It was Mayor Sher's proposal to add an additional condition to the Planning Cot hsion recommendation that would address the comments made by a number of speakers, the League of Women Voters, and the Department of Fish and Game. ;t would be clear then to everyone what the initial levef should be and that it should be watched for approximately one year. Careful monitoring should be done by an advisory group with a broad based representation; and if there were auy adverse impact on.the upland meadow area, the gates would be closed and the mitigation project stopped. Mayor Sher felt the Corps of Engineers understood and desired this, just.. as the city did; and he thought it was also clear that if the Corps of Engineers accepts this as a mitigation project and grants the permit for refuse disposal on this basis, that is the mitigation project even if it later proves; to be inedviaable to go forward with it. The Corps of Engineers did tot want to destroy the habitat of the wild,i1s ahoy more than the Depertment of fish and Game, one of their principal aadeisors on this question; and certainly, the city staff wanted to preserve the habitat for wildlife. tiOTICii; Vice Mayor Sanderson moved, seconded by Pearson, that the Planning Commission recommendation of April 23rd be upheld by Couueil. Mayor Sher noted that (e) under recommendation No. 1 wits something• that had not been i.ncludei in the rotaf f report, and he considered it a very general condition, ile felt some concern about the general language. For example, if the Corps of Engineers specified that is the fresh water area of the flood basin the steer level should be raised to a certain height, but the water was un vailable or very expensive to obtaip,, was the city asgreaeing in advance to such a condition. Mr. Pawloski said staff was obviously concerned about making cilmmitments that •could atilt le hoelored, At the Planning Commission meeting of April 23rd, there wa.a diecuysian about the fresh water habitat, for example; and Mr. Fraser r+entious the fresh water habitat in his letter of April 22nd. It appears that a fresh water habitat will be a pert of the granting of the permit as recommended by they Departmwat of Fish aid Game to the Corps of Engineers At the time 1 2 0 4 4/2g/7S of the Commission meeting, the city did not have a commitment from the Santa Clara Water District about the availability of water from Lhe Water Reclamation Plant and the Ground Water Recharge Program. On this date, Larry White discussed this with staff members of the Santa Clara Water District; and Mr. Pawloski had a letter stating that initially the Water District would make water available at no charge until the water quality from the Ground Water Recharge Program improves. At that time, water would continue to be made available et the basic user charge. So it appeared there was a preliminary commitment from the Water District about the fresh water habitat, Mayor Sher explained he used that particular situation as an example, and he wanted to know if etaff were comfortable with the general language in Vie) of the Planning Commission recommendation. Hr. Pawloski felt that (e) developed as a compromise position. There was discussion about detailed, specific operating conditions being a part of the motion; and there was some concern that staff's hands would be tied when it continued its negotiations with the Corps of Engineers under those circumstances. Therefore, a general broad statement was made; and staff felt there would be no problem with it. Mayor Sher felt the statement was saying that staff could go and negotiate other conditions with the Corps of Engineers. The peculiar thing about :it was that the original discussion was because of Commissioners Renzel and Gordon's concern for delineating the specific level of the tidal water. Other Commissioners thought that was not a good idea and felt general terms should be used. This motion was put to a vote, and Commissioners Renzel and Gordon - who originally raised the question, voted against it, Anne Steinberg, Vice ChairwoulAn of the Planning Commission, pointed out that the words "Development of a Management Plan with the Planning Commission" including part (e) of Item 1 would mean that any conditions developed by the Corps of Engineers would come back to the Commission foe discussion. Mayor Sher asked if any of the conditions that might come up for discussion might include anything like his example of acquiring fresh water to raise the level of the water in the fresh water pond. lir. Pawloski explained that the Department of Fish and Game is recommending that there be a management plan, and that plan states specific water elevation; therefore, he thought staff was faced with coping with those conditions. Mr. Fraser stated that the Department of Fish and Game was required to snake recommendations to the Corps for conditions to be in the permit. He noted that his letter spoke to the fresh water supply and the fresh water marsh. The Department would like to wee those things accomplished, and it would like to see Coancil relate to the Department's proposals. Mr. Fraser did not feel that anyone needed to be put into a straitjacket at this point, and problems involved can be worked out. There seemed to be general agreement with the thrust of the proposal; and now that there is a letter from the Water District indicating the availability of water, that becomes an achievable element. Of course some details remained to be worked out, but Hr. Fraser felt the Depsrtment of Fish and Game and the other agencies would be sufficiently flexible in order to do that. Hr. Fraser concluded that he viewed the fresh water supply and the fresh water marsh at the northern end an integral pert of the mitigation package. 1205 4/28/75 AMENDMENT: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Norton, that item (f) be added under Planning Commission recommendation No. 1 to the effect that the maximum water elevations (via controlled tidal circulation) within the flood basin shall begin at -2.2'. Only after an adequate test for approximately one year should a decision be made to make an incremental increase in the water level in the basing •- provided evaluation of test data from the one year test period indicates no adverse impact on the upland meadow grasslands. Councilwoman Pearson asked if the water supplied by the Santa Clara Water District would be reclaimed water from the sewer treatment plant. !tr. Pawloski responded effirTatively. Councilwoman Pearson asked if she understood correctly that the water would be supplied free of charge for a while. Mr. Pawloski explained that the Water District would be injecting water in the ground and extracting water from another well. Initially, that water may have a high gait content; but it is anticipated that the water will be fresh at a later time. Councilwoman Pearson asked if the basic user charge would be imposed when fresh water was being supplied. Mr. Pawloski said this vas correct. Councilwoman Pearson objected to the charge. Mr. Pawloski noted thet the charge would be thirty to forty dollars per acre foot. Councilwoman Pearson pointed out that the Water District was using Palo Alto's plant and facilities for the process. Since it war a cooperative Situations, she thought the charge should be reduced considerably from the b'seic user cha•cge. Mr. Pawloski thought there wa3 a possibility of negotiating the price downward= Councilwoman Pearson stated that there was no doubt that the price should be negotiated down. Councilwoman Pearson asked who would be appointing the broadly based Advisory Committee. Mr. Pawloski responded there had been no discussion about the appointment of the committee. Councilwoman Pearson wanted Council to have something to say about the committee membership, and the recommendations should come from the Planning Commission nines they know whose expertise is needed in this particular matter. AMENDMENT: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson, that part two of the Planning Commission recommendation read as follows: "Establishment of a broadly based Advisory Committee to be ratified by the Council after recommendations from the Planning Commission and others". 'r> 1 2 0 6 4/28)75 Councilman Beahrs wanted to be certain that membership on the committee would be open to volunteers, after advertising. Mayor Sher felt this was inherent in the amendment. Mr. Pawloski wanted Council to be aware that ore of the recommendations of the State Department of Fish and game is to establish a technical advisor} committee, in addition to the committee presently being discussed. Mayor Sher pointed out that oue committee was a broadly based one that wou'l'd be made up of citizens and users, and that group will be advised by the technical committee. Lawrence White, Director of Nature & Science, reported that in the process of conducting the study, staff had developed good rapport with the Department of Fish and Game, United States Sports Fisheries, and soma other groups. They were all interested in taking part in the monitoring program, and all of their technical advice will be made available to the city. The amendment passed on a unanimous vote. The motion as amended passed on a unanimous vote. l.acenin C Natislon Vehicle Traffic i the Moo Basin Councilwoman Pearson said that dugs were just as incompatible with the Baylan.ds as cyclists. She wanted some response from staff because there was a desire for dog runs, and also people from as far away as Gilroy, East Bay, and San Francisco used that area to train their dogs. The dogs were extremely destructive; and Councilwoman Pearson thought that if there were going to be a dog run, it should be in a specific area. Mrs. Gordon -commented that throughout all of the public type meetings the Commission had, this matter had been a recurring subject. The Commission felt strongly that some action should be taken, and the recommendation was intended to move things along as quickly as possible. Councils Beahrs asked Mrs. Gordon if she had intended that an ordinance would be passed in order to provide enforcement. Mrs. Gordon responded that the Commission did not discuss the details of how the desired effects would be achieved. Councilman Beahrs felt there should be some penalties; otherwise, the effect would be minimal. Mr. White reported there had been one meeting with five members of the policing staff and persons who were concerned about policing problems in the baylaads, which includes dogs, motorcycles, off - the -road vehicles, etc. The Police Department is receiving letters of intent from the private land owners in the Baylande to become agents of their property, and that weans the motorcycle situation will be readied. Mr. White said the dog problem was a little more complex. Retriever training in nature preserves or wildlife refuges is an accepted practice by the U. S. Bureau of Sports Fisheries. With regard to dogs that are running .loose, there would have to be some physical barrier constructed torestrict access into the basin. The only alternative would be to station two or three people down there ail the time. 1207 4/28/75 Frank Michny+ wildlife biologist, commented that dogs are permitted to be trained at certain periods of the year when the birds are not nesting and in restricted areas of some refuges. Mr. White thought it would be well for those interested in this problem to come to a meeting of Mrs. Gordon's committee on the Baylands and discuss the variou=s aspects of the subject. Councilwoman Pearson said, it had been her experience that dogs are out at the Baylands all through the year, and they run rampant, If persons wanted to traizx dogs in the dog run, pe=rhaps an area for that purpose could bo set aside, Peter F. Carpenter, Planning Commissioner, remarked the motion was worded the way it was because it was his understanding that there is a leash law in Palo Alto; and that applies in the Baylands as well as any other piage. The free running of dogs there is just as illegal as in any other portion of the city, Mr. Carpenter felt that if people wanted to train retrievers, they could investigate the possibility of having the leash law modified or waived; but he would be reluctant to have the city condone the violation of the leash ordinance in the Baylands. Mr. Carpenter pointed out that the motion stated all entry points should be signed with all restrictions on access and use, Councilwoman Peaarson thought that it was clear now that one of the restrictions had to d� with dogs, but it had not been clear before the discussion. Her point was that dogs were as destructive in their own way as cyclists. Vice M&.yor Henderson comwted that Mr. White had reported at one of the budget hearings some of the details of dogs running loose in the Baylands. That report made it apparent that the situation vas totally intolerable.. Councilman Rosenbaum asked what restrictions would be placed on bicyclists. Mr. White sta .ed 't.her levee would be a biking and hiking trail, and the interior of the basin would be restricted. Councilman Beehes eon#i skied Mr, Carpenter's observations to be very such in order; bet a paFently, staff had not been enforcing the leash' law. The peact1ce of, lrunuing and training doge in the Baylanda had been indulged fpr eon* time, and Councilman Beahrs thought it Fuld bs eppepirfete for Council to give directions do staff that adsi.nistrat've relaxation in this area was not to be permitted. MOTION: Vice Mayor Haandsreou moved, seconded by Sher, that immediate action be takaz, to prohibit and block all vehicle traffic, motorized and non -motorized, into the flood basin, and that this be accompanied by vigorous enforcement; and in addition, that the area should be signed at 311 entry points with all restrictions on access and use, including dog leash laws, and a request that all users take: precautions to preserve this fragile, environment. Robert Yutzy, 1625 Haze fear Way, Los Altos, said that as a teacher of field ornithology who uses the flood basin area, as a field trip leader for Santa Clara Veliey Audobon Society, and as a graduate student in research psychology in animal behavior, he wanted to ea 1208 et 4/28/73 vigorously support Mr. Carpenter's recommendations. Mr. Yutzy was a dog enthusiast, but he very definitely felt they had their place; and dogs just did not belong in the flood basin. Some of those who had attended the meetings had the general agreement that the right front pond could be conceded to dog owners, if any conceding needed to be done et all. The preference of the Audobon Society membership would be to concede no area. Enforcement of restrictions on anything in the Baylands would be extremely difficult, from hunting to four --wheel drive usage. Mr. Fraser commended the Planning Commission for making this propoeal.: Farlier Council had, in essence, passed a resolution favoring a basin mitigation plan; but it was very important to the success of that plan that some of the conflicting uses of the area be controlled. The field people from the Department of Fish and Gaspe were somewhat appalled when they looked over the Baylands and discovered some of the misuses that had been made of the area. Unleashed dogs roamed freely, for instance. Dog training is very legitimate in certain areas under controlled conditions. To have this area serve as a wildlife area without some kind of control over vehicle and loose dog use would tend to defeat the very thing everyone was trying to accomplish. Mayor Sher read Councilman Berwald'a statement that was relevant to this subject: "While I would agree that public access be restricted and that there be no access during the nesting season in the area closest to the bay, 1 would be opposed to any enforcement stricter than necessary. 1 would not support restriction of cyclists except as noted above. 1 would support the setting aside of an appropriate area for exercising field dcga, perhaps in the area behind the kennels. Whatever wall or berm is placed parallel to the front road should be as low and as natural in appearance as possible, and the use of telephone poles as barriers would be much more preferable than a high wall". Mayor Sher commented that when police officers are in the area making use of the pistol range, it may be possible for them to exercise enforcement of the laws. The motion passed on a unanimous vote. Mayor Sher recalled the suggestion that the Corps be asked to designate the Baylands as a wildlife area, and he wondered if the Corps had the jurisdiction to do that. Mr, White responded that: the land was dedicated park land which has recreational and conservation uses. Mary Ann Marker, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, stated that any requests concerning land use would be referred back to the city. Councilwoman Pearson had received a letter from Mr. Coon, the Manager of Harold's Club in Palo Alto, asking that his card room be allowed t(' resin open twenty-four hours a.day in order to compete with the Cameo Club, which is in Santa Clara County. Mr. Coan would appreciate a reaction from the City Attorney and_Council with respect to his request for an emergency exception to the ordinance. 1209 4/23/75 Mayor Sher recalled that when Mr. Coan addressed Council, Mr. Booth explained that an exception could not be made; and the only way to accommodate his Fequest would be to have the entire ordinance amended. Councilwoman Pearson asked that a letter be sent to Mr. Coan stating that Council would not be able to make exceptions to the ordinance. Mr. Sipel commented that the last time this subject was discussed, staff seat a letter to the Board of Supervisors asking them to reconsider their action concerning the hours of all-night card rooms. A response was received from the Chairman.of the Board of Supervisors indicating that the subject is being reviewed by the Chairman with each of his colleagues to determine if there is enough interest to warrant bringing up the subject again. This meant there was a remote possibility that there would be something done at the county level. Councilwoman Pearsau pointed out that Mr. Coan would appreciate a letter from the city because he planned to use it in his presentation before the Board of Supervisors, and the Council's response to his inquiry would give him some grounds on which to appeal. Mr. Sipel agreed to write the letter. e nest to Take l;' Item 4 on the Published A enda at this Tie MOTION: Mayor Sher moved, seconded by Pearson, that Item 4 on the published agenda be taken up at this time. ne motion passed on a unanimous vote. T_tem 4 of Published Agenda re` ar:n n Gommeission Find at¢�ti� of rsh i. `lens for Flood Basin be $o u is Hearin,g_aaAjoksiajgg Commission Review MOTION: Councilwoman Person moved, seconded by Norton, that Council accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the concept of restoration of marshland in the flood basin is in conformance with the Open Space Element of the General Plan, and recommends that the proposal and development of detailed plans for the flood basin be subject to a public hearing and Planning Commission review, The motion passed on a unanimous vote. Councilwoman Pat s inik Need Monroe Avenues MOTION: Councilwoman Pearson moved, seconded by Henderson, that the item regarding the nerd for 'Atop signs at Monroe and Miller Avenues be referred to staff for a report back to Counci% at next week's meeting. Mr. Sipel noted this was the same motion Council gave last steer to study the traffic problems in that general area. That assignment has not been completed, and staff expected to get to it in the very neat future. 1 2 1 0 4/28/75 r Councilman Clay asked if a report: could be given next week. ir. Sipel stated that if Council wanted to change staff's priorities, that could be done. If the entire area were going to be looked at, that could not possibly be done by the Wednesday agenda deadline. A staff member had looked at this problem today, but enough work had not beet done to determine: whether or not a four-way stop is warranted. Councilwoman Pearson pointed out that staff had this assignment for quite a while; and in some areas, traffic problems had been taken care of in one week after a complaint had been made. Newell Road took forever, and Monroe Park is taking forever; yet another area of town had its traffic problerrs solved in one week. In Councilwoman Pearson's opinion, this matter had gone on long enough; and she expected staff's report to be ready for next Monday, with a recommendation for the stop sign. Mr. Sipel suggested that if Council :anted staff to install a stop sign, it could so direct that. 'iii motion passed on a unanimous vote. Oral Communications 1. Frank Manfredi, 219 Addison Avenue, suggested crying towels be provided for those who are pleading before Council regarding proposals that would .make more money for them. He also commented that The Palo Alto Times was not doing a very good job of presenting the facts concerning the current C.ouncf l campaign. 2. John Fredrich, 157 Bryant Street, suggested it might be a good idea to include the entire statement made by Mr. Mitchell for PACDAB in the minutes, since he did not have enough time to read it in its entirety. Adjourn ent The meeting of April 28th, 1975 adjourned at 10:20 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVE: City Clerk 42t.Mayor 1 2 1 1 4/28/75 hilted !p the City of Palo Alto. Division of Reproduction