The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0458.091~'" " '0.'_ .' ..... : .. , .~ '. october 10, 1991 Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Mr ~ EU\lu4 Power's Inquiry _J;ne_L _Sa. i ling Station at the Palo Jt.lto __ HarbQ_~ Y.emrers of the Council: Mr. Edmund Power has inquired as to the accuracy of a statement appearing in the discussion section of CMR:-431~O (July 1990) relating to the sailing statior.. That staff report requested authorization to proceed W'ith detailed design of the sailing station. The decision to construct a sailing station was made much earlier and was inc1uded in the Capital Improvement Plan by Council on June 24, 1988. The statement to which Mr. Power objects reads: "No dredging or removal of silt at the mouth of the existing boat ~arnp will be permitted by the Bay conservation and Development Commission (BeDC).- It ~ould have been more appropriate to state that BeDC's objection is not to dredging per se, but to the disposal of the resulting dredged material. Beoc ~ill per~it dredging of an existing marina, if the dredged material is transported to an upland location entirely away fro~ the Bay. "'''bile the 1990 report failed to make this distinction, I do not believe the ~ording had any material effect on Council's decision to proceed ...,ith the design of the sailing station~ since that decision had been made t ... 'o years before CMR=431:Q .... as issued. WILL AM ZANER City Manager submitteci, Attachments: Edmund Power letter to City Co~ncil of 9/27/91 Four Letters to Mr. POloler from Beoc cc: EdlT'.und Power CMR=458:91 • HAND DEUVERED .:;; r '; ~ I ~" o~, I .... ~o Sept. 27, I 991 S,p 11 2 ,G f~ '91 To; The Palo Alto City Cc~ncil: :Erlclosed plea.se find copies of fOUT letters from th'8 38.y Conservation a.nt! De'/elopment Commission indicating tbat tte st&.tement in Palo Alta Staff R€port 0#12. July 19,1998 stating tha.t Bene viII not pe:rmi t im.p~·avement to t~.e Palo Alt:> launching ramp is untr'J8-. In return will you J,1ease furnish me with the dOC'UJ!'.ect on __ hieh the Staff ?e'port claim is based. (415) 858 2121 2254 Dart~cuth St. Palo Alto 94306 o --I 0:' _0, " . U1: 1.0 '\iii. " , . .- SAN F;~NCISCO BAY CONs8ATION }H1tT"f VAN ~ A"N<UE. SUC'r( 1011 &AN FUJofOSCO. '" "102-60e0 ~ON!, {"IS} ""-3610 /Ii!'. td!J1U nd 11.. Po· .. '!! r ~25~ Ca:tmouth Street Palo AI~o, California 9~306 Dear Plr~ Pow!!'r: h _ .. AND DEVElOFMENT c'~ miSSiON 5eptemb~r 5, 1990 Thank you for yo~r IetterF of A~9ust 3 and 2B, 1990. Althou9h )Oll raise a number of issues ic both letters, the ba~:c question yc~ are asking is if the eeoc opposes dredgin9 at the PcJo Alto Yacht Harbor site. Beoc's positio~ in the JlClttec is quite clear and sh-rp]e. It is Ollr hoPE tr,at this letter, combined with our past ~orrespondence with y~u~ will completely and finally clarify the ~att~r. )s hes been stated in thE past, the Bay Comwission and its legaJ ~nd planning poliet'!!s all~ oredging for appropriately sited marinas, a water-~riented ~se that is given high priority in the Bay Plan~ ~s both a qeneral 1Jt00ttl!'t and specifically in terms of the Palo Alto Scat Launch pa~p, there is no,q~e5tion that the ramp ~ou]d be an appropriate use. However, as has been stated num~~ous times before, the Yacht Sarbor area does natcrally silt up quite quickly and r~peated cre6ging would be require~. ~ew small bc~t marinas here do net appear to meet SaJ Plan ~e~reation Policy 4.b.fl) whicb states! ~~arinas should be allowed at any s~itable site on the 5ay~ Onsaitable sites are those that silt up r~pidly with sediment ••.• • Dredsing for a pr~-e~isting m6tina or for a boat ramp could be appro?ed by BeDe, but the 8CDC~s plan and legislation make it clear that dredge 5poi~s must be disposed of in an environmentally sound mann~r that 1.-11.1 not harm Bay reso~rees. The Co~issiQn 5boul~ not a]lo~ ~umping of dredge spoils .0 a~eas of high reso~r~e ~a}~e such as wetlands. Tn the case ~t hand, an upland location~ ~wa~ from the B5Y en~irEly, l$ r~q~ired. Given the aboue, the consideration of dredging the harbor turns on the ~illin9ness of the partytsl interested !n 5ueh to continue to pay the costs of hauli~g dredge spoils to an appropriate upland site. ~~ile we certainly support the efforts of the Sea scouts and other recreational boaters to have appropriate facilities for their ose and e~joyment of the Say, the issue of vhether to pay the cost of dredging the site is an internal matter for thE City and its residents to decide. Alto We will be pleased to provide yo~ vi~h our correspondence to the Palo City C~uncil. There has been no correspondence for the jast t~o to three yea:rs. ALAN' P. PE"NDLETO~ !xe~~tive Di~ector -----........ i,.N FRANCISCO BAY CONSERBoN ......... NUS 4V!HVE j , ... ~o, CA~~ ~102~ INE, r .. I" m·uaa f AND DEVElOPMENT C;o;.;SSION January 14, 1987 Mr. Edmund R. Power 2254 Dartmouth Street Palo Alto, California 94306 Dear Mr. Power: Thank you for your statement 5upportinq the continuation of the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor. As you point out. the City of Palo Alto has decided that it is in the hest interest of the city to forego the Harbor to avoid the costs and impacts of future dredqinq and spoil disposal. Because ~~e City is responsible for these costs and impacts and must choose amonq competing needs for the baylands, the City itself must make these hard decisions. Of course, the Commission realizes the qreat value of the Bay for recreational boating. We have au~horized several thousand new berths in the last few years at new and existing marinas where siltation and t.""le disposal of spoil preser.t.s considerably less se:ious finar.cial and environ:!:le:"ltal concerns than it does at the Palo Alto Yacht Harbor. While I recog~ize that it is always difficult t.o adjust to the loss .of a .facility that one has enjoyed and s~pat.""ize with your views, 'We have accepted the Cityts c1ecision on closing' ~"1e palo Alto Yacht Harbor. RRT/rmp RRl'S/20 Sincerely yours, ~?f: :Robert R. Tufts Chairman \ ~ __ .,._-,,....---_.--.-___ ,_~.,_r ___ '-~~. ___ ~ _________ _ • ~ ... n. Of <:.AUK;.iINIA }-.!X 1-GfOO!CE etUII;.'\Iit.JIAN. ~~ ,sAN FRANCISCO SAY CONSE~~ATION AND DEYElOP;"'~"<:l;..V~·ISSION nl.rt IIAN NrS~ ... ~ SUlTl, 2011 SAN ""ANClSCO, CI. 941 az~ ~: \ .. ,~ "7-3686 Nr~ Edmund R. Po~~r 2254 Dartmouth Street Palo Alto, C~lirornia 94306 De<3[ .. r. Power! M'ay 2, Has Chairman Tufts asked me to respond to your letter expressing your concerns regarding the Palo Alto Yacht 8arbor. ~s your letter st~tes, t~e decision to discQntinue dredging the harbor was ~ade by the City anc Bene ~as accepted the City's position as previoi.lsly conveyed to you in our January 14, 1987 letter. It is the City's [ole to decide ho~ it can best manage the Marcor. ho .... e ... er, we sympathize ..,ith the boat users on the l<JSS of t~is fa.;:il.ity. .l,s you know, the Commission has authorized numerous boating facilities p[oposed by mlJn.i~ipaliti-es. Whoether th~ costs of ;r,aintaining th-e Pa:'o Alto Y~c:ht. Harbor Ire feasible is a decision only t~e City can maKe. Tbe City has request.ed the Com.mi.~sion·s p,nticipation in revie .... ing t~e cor.ti~ued ~se ~E Sea scout berlhing. This USe dce3 r~qul!e the Co~~ission's auehori:zation since it is a change from the date of removal the City pre\l'io'Jsly requested. I will be sure to ~eep you i~formed of tbis matter if a public hearing is sche~uled bef~re eeoc. ARP/LP/mm HAN Fe. PENDLETON Executive Vi!eclor ·';?~~:. ~ '";;. · .. ') , ./" .~'~'~n~OF~CA~~~~~ .. -==-================<=============~_=-=-====_=.~================;G~~;;Gl~;~~O;~;~;";'~'.~Go;; ___ ~; I SAN FRANCISCO SAY CON~AnON AND DEVELOPMENT OM..vJSSION ~-.. 1Hd1"I' VAN f'6S, A'tDoU!. SlIT!! 2011 \:~ 5A.N ~,c.. "'11lQ4C*I ~"iJlm~ Mr. Ed~nd a. Powee 22S~ ~Art~~th St:eet p.alo Alto; Califernia !l4306' Dear !ltr. PoW"ec: "'ay 16, 1988 YOI.l inqtJired whether Beoc would g[.i!!nt a permit foe dred9in9 thl!' Se" scout. berth ~t P~lo Alto. onfortunately, 1 am unable to give you. definitive answer. Granting of a permit would depend upon the aco~nt of dredging pt'opcsed, vhere the spoib yould be placed, and \ro'l-ether t~e .spoils contain any toxie oaterials. . Beeause a dredgin; project proposed for Palo Alto 1s likely t~ require a public beariaq, the Commission will also consider tbe public's viewpoint re~arding.vhether a permit 6hQuld be granted. ARP/NWqjq Sincerely YQurs# ,Okne~cIiG ALAN R. P ENIlL ET(XII Ezeeutive nirector .. ~