Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-12-17 City Council Summary Minutes1 0 1 CITY COUNCI L I A PP /PIP •P+/a. f Iii IU '�.) ITEM Regul ar eeeting December 17, 1984 CITY OF PALO ALTO PAGE Oral Communications 5 3 2 0 Minutes of October 1, 1984 5 3 .2 0 Consent Cal ender 5 3 2 0 Referral 5 3 2 0 Action 5 3 2 0 Item #1, Vehicle Maintenance Reporting System 5 3 2 0 I tem #2, Ci v i c Ce n ter Ca no py Dem of 1 ti o n 5 3 2 0 Item #3, Resol ution Authorizing Examination of 5 3 2 1 Sal es and Tax R3cords Item #4, Resol ution Decl aring Weeds a Nui sance Item #5, Resolution Providing authority to the City Manager to Effect Certain Ganges in Gas Utility Rates Item #6, Ordinance re Hot Tub, Sauna, and Massage Establ ishments Item #7, Di sestabt ishment of Downtown Business Improvement District Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Item #8, PI annina Commission Recommendation re 5 3 2 2 Application of Santa Clara Val ley Water District for Site rind Design Review of Proposed El trod Basin Project in Palo Al to .Bayl ands Recess to Closed Session re Litigation 5 3 3 2 Mayor Klein re Items Requiring Action That Evening 5 3 3 3 Return to Item #0, SCVWD Proposed Flood Basin 5 3 3 3 Proje t 5 3 2 1 5 3 2 1 5 3 2 1 5 3 2 1 5 3 2 1 Item #9, PUBLIC WARIN G: Community Development 5 3 4 2 Block Grant Progress Report Item 11, Pl arming Commission and Arrh1 tectural 5 3 4 3 Review Board Recommendations re County Referral. of Stanford University's Proposed Environmental Safety Facility Projedxt Design and Environmental I ct Report S 3 1 8 12/11/84 ITEM Item #12, Planning Commission Recommendation re Appeal by Pal o Al to Hill s Got f & Country Cl ub re Denial of Use Permit Request for Two Additional Tennis Courts Item #15, Request of Councilmernber Renzel re County Hill side Po1 icy Item #17, Report of Counrilmember Cobb re Cal averas Project Item #18, Request of Vice Mayor Levy re Hover Expedition on January 11, 1985 Item #19, Cancellation of December 24, 1984 City Council Meeting ADJOURNMENT: 12:45 a.m. P AG E 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 5 6 5 3 5 6 5 3 5 6 5 3 5 6 5 3 .1 9 12/17/84 Regular Meeting December 1/, 1984 O i The City Council of the Ci ty of Palo Al to met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel ( arrived at 7:40 p.m.) , Cobb, Fl etcher , Klein, Levy, Renzel , Sutorius, Witherspoon (arrived at 8:06 p.m.: Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1 . Tony Sanderson, 230 W. Fl oresta , Menlo Park, Chair of the Pal o Al to Animal Services Advisory Committee, said that al though the City Manager terminated their services effective February 8, 1985, he bel ieved the committee still had a role to play in the Animal Shel ter. He intended to communicate with the Coun- cil in January, 1985 with information pertinent to the si tua- tion. 2. Lisa Girand, 2200 Byron Street, Secretary of the Palo Alto Humane Society Board, supported Mr. Sanderson` s request. The Board asked that i t be put on record as a matter to be brought before the Council in much detail. Four years ago when she requested creation of the committee she was spokesperson for many in the community who were concerned about .the operation of the shel ter. They were still concerned about animal wel- fare and bel ieved their concerns were met wi th untruthful ness, unresponsiveness and cover-up from staff. She requested that Council agendize the matter soon to discuss the problems and arrive at sol utions. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 1 , 1984 NOTION: Conncilmerber Setorius moored, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Minutes of October 1, 1984 as submitted. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Witherspoon absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Couacilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral None Action ITEM 01, VEHICLE MAINTENANCE REPORTING SYSTEM (CMR:605:4) (FIN Staff recommends that Council award a contract to Malnstem Corpor- ation not to exceed $13,000; ,and authorize staff to execute change orders of up to $3,000. AWARD OF CONTRACT Ilaiaste* Corporation ITEM 02, CIVIC. CENTER PLAZA CANOPY DEMOLITION (CMR:602:4) (PWK 7.2) Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with Power -Anderson, Inc., in the amount of $87,900 for the canopy removal; and, authorize staff to execute change orders for the project in an amount not to exceed $13,000,. AWARD OF CONTRACT hover -Anderson„ Inc. 5 .3. 2 0 12/17/84 ITEM # - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXAMINATION OF SALES AND .TAX rrrrzryr—fie y: -r_ : ■ r _ _ - Staff recommends that Council adopt the resol ution authorizing the City Auditor and City Manager or their representatives to examine Sales and Use Tax Records maintained by the State. RESOLUTION 6336 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITT OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING EXAMINATION OF SALES AND OSE TAX RECORDS" ITEM 04, RESOLUTION DECLARING WEEDS A NUISANCE (CMR:598:4) (PR T Staff recommends that Council determine there will be no adverse environmental impact from this action and adopt the resolution declaring weeds to be a nui sance.- RESOLUTION 6337 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITT OF PALO ALTO DECLARING NEEDS TO DE A NUISANCE ANO SETTING A NEARING" a ITEM #5, RESOLUTION PROVIDING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER TO t EFFECT TAIN CHAP4'ES IN GAS UTILITY RATES ( CM -R: 600: 4 f LJT I 1-7) Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution autho- rizing the City Manager to adjust gas rates for the purpose of tracking PG&E rate increases and decreases on a timely basis. RESOLUTION 6338 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF ,TOE CITT or— Tilo ALTO PROVIDING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER TO EFFECT CERTAIN CHANGES IN GAS UTILITY RATES (SCHEDULES G-1 AND G-50 AMENDING RESOLUTION 0212" ITEM #6, ORDINANCE RE HOT TUB, SAUNA, AND MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS (LEG 54-) ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE ALO ALTO AMENDING TITLE 4 (BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS CODE) REGARDING THE PERMISSIBLE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR NOT TUB, SAUNA, AND MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS. ITEM 117, DISESTABLISHMENT OF DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DI'I'R'TCT tPtA 4--6-2) ORDINANCE 35DO eetitled ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF T'PIE CITT OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 19$4-$5 TO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION . FOR REFUNDS TO BUSINESSES IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA ORDINANCE 3511 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE TG DISESTA©L1SNING A PARKING AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA KNOWN AS THE DOWNTOWN NOSINESS IMPROVE - WENT AREA ESTADLISNED PURSUANT TO FART 6 OF DIVISION 18 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND NIGNWOAYS CODE AND REPEALING C$APTER 13.24 OF THE PALO ALTO !!D!ICIPAL CODE' (1st toodley 12/3/$4, PASSED 5-4) NOTION PASSED unanimously, UItN.rs»e.ee absent. AGENDA CHANGES ADDITIONS APID DELETIONS -CouncllmOmber Renzel added Item #15, re County Hillside Policy. Vice Mayor Levy added Item #16, re Antinal Services Committee. Councilmeaiber Cobb added Item #17, re Cal averas Project. 5 3 2 1 12/17/84 ITEM #8, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION OF SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT P`OR -SITE AND OtSfGN REVIEW OF PR-OOSED PROJECT 1F PACO ALTO BAYLANIIS (Cf3R: 575:4 ) (PWK 5-+f) City Manager Bi11 Zaner said a • summary memorandum incl uding a recommendation from siaf€ was in the packet. He said the City' s consul tent, Linsi ey, Kraeger, and the Santa Cl are Val ey Water District (SCVWD) representatives would provide a nontechnical summary of their position. Councilmember Sutorius said he realized the focus was on improve- ments related to a one percent event, but asked about the appro- priate nomenclature to describe the January, 1983, flooding. Stan Wol fe, SCVWD, responded that the January, 1983 event was described by the United States Geological Survey in Menlo Park as a 20 -year .flood. SCVWD described it as a 17 -year event. The water surface elevation in the pond reached an elevation of about eight feet. Councilmember Sutorius referenced the attachments to the SCVWD 1 etter of February 22, 1984 to the Director of Planning and Commu- nity Environment Ken Schreiber, and clarified that a 17- to 20 - year event at the existing situation seemed to have area flooding that would not flood in a one percent situation. The amount of property subject to flooding, if aggregated, would be greater than in the one percent event if the upstream improvements were made without any basin change. He was unclear about whether the map i ncl uded as attachment 3 to the February 22 letter included al 1 of the areas subject to flooding. Mike McNeely, Design Division Engineer, SCVWD, said the mapping reflected flooding that would occur during a one percent event if water got out of the channel . Sometimes actual events did not match the theoretical pl ottin9 as local drainage --from local sources and not the creeks themselves-- entered into the situation. The dark orange mapping, al so, shown in the SCVWD letter as attach- ment 5 , was where fl ood ing would increase if the fl ood basin improvements were not built and they went ahead with one percent improvements on Adobe, Barron and Matadero Creeks. More water would be brought down into the flood basin and the basin would seek an elevation of 5. 7, whereas the surrounding elevations of the berms and the nature ground around the flood basin were only at elevation 4. It would escape out into the area shown in dark orange across highway 101 into the West Bayshore neighborhood and increase the flooding level there above what was now `expected. Councllmei+tber Sutorius clarified the amount of area subject to a 17 to 20 -year occurrence was probably 1 arger in aggregate square mileage than the area represented in dark. orange. Since commer- cial and residential areas were involved, the property damage potential and the current insurance premiums being paid would be considerable, in the green area. Mr. McNeely responded the flood insurance premiums were estimated at over $500,000 annually. Councilatember Sutorius clarified that $500,000 was for the total area subject to the one percent event. Mr. McNeely said it was only for the areas that would be deeper than one foot, which was a federal fl ood insurance requirement. Councilmeaber Sutorius requested that the presentations edify the probability.; situations involved wherein <a major segment of the cpooruni ty was sgabj ect to the ' Ile to 20 -year event. 5 3 2 2 12/17/84 Councilmember Bechtel requested the presentations include a brief description of what was involved in the SCVWD's proposal , the height along the frontage road area as well as al ong Matadero Creek and the base distance. She further requested that someone speak to the maps prepared at Councilmember Sutorius' request. The Ci ty was having probl ems wi th its creeks , and white 1 ooki ng at how much more flood protection the Cl ty would have for its citi- zens, she asked that priorities be addressed. Councilmember Woolley said the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) clearly stated its unwillingness to be an arbitrator, but the SCVWD's proposed compromise left the final determination of the levee height up to FEMA. She asked on what grounds FEMA would become involved in making that determination and how would FEMA make that determination. Councilmember Cobb requested comment from the consultant, SCVWD, and staff as to the likelihood of the City coming to grips s with the technical differences of opinion. reflected in all documenta- tion. He asked if the SCVWD would open. the question of beginning some of the upstream work in parallel with the kind of work recom- mended for the flood basin so that the issues raised by Council - member Sutorius might be addressed in a shorter time frame. John O'Halloran, General Manager of the SCVWD, appreciated the opportunity to appear before the Council. The SCVWD took the Ci ty' s concerns to heart and worked dil igently for reasonable com- promises to provide the minimum protection needed by the City. Mr. McNeely would explain the proposed project and SC VW Ds sug- gested compromises. Mr. McNeely said the proposed project was 6,600 feet of earthen l evee and 750 feet of flood wall . The earthen levee was adjacent to the bikeway around and behind the Municipal Service Center and stopped there near Matadero Creek. The only flood wall proposed was about 750 feet of conc rete flood wall , two to three feet high, on the east side of Matadero Creek within the yard area of the Municipal Service Center . The proposed project continued from Matadero Creek for about 3,900 feet out towards the northwest cor- ner of the basin. He spoke of 1 .1 acres of fill into the wet- lands, minus about .7 of an acre that would to restored behind the Municipal Service Center. Regarding the West Bayshore . Road area and the bikeway, the original proposal meant the levee would ex- tend out into the flood basin about 40 feet measured from the edge of the slope by the bikeway. The SCVWD proposed to install land- scaping between the bikeway and levee, i ncl ud ing the slope at the levee. The upstream areas were not improved first because the SCVWD was worried about an existing situation where flooding could occur with a one percent fl ow. If Adobe, Barron and Matadero Creeks were improved, the SCYWL) was concerned about the mostly residential areas between highway 101 and Louis Road. Attachment 5 to the February 27, 1984 letter showed e depth of flooding there of about three feet --much more than the SCYWO anticipated under any current circumstances. The District did not wish to induce flooding in that area :.:rough lack of action or as a result of action taken on Adobe, Barron, and Matadero Creeks that would occur as the water sought its 1 ev el of 5.7. As the site of the basin eras located at only 4.0 feet, the water would no, to the northwest towards the City -owned land commonly known as the a ITT property." The general height of the levees was four feot•, with the .Matadero Creek 1 evee at 3.6 feet, and as the water sought the 5.7 feet elevation, it mould break over the existing Matadero Creek levee. If it held, the SCVWD was confident the flood would be limited to the ITT property. If i t did not, which happened when a 1 evee overtopped, the District :was concerned about flooding through the Embarcadero Road area eventually reaching the gol f course and airport and surrounding the treatment plant Some com- promises were discussed. The description of the project was a levee and the minor amount of fl ood wall up to elevation 7. The 5 3 2 3 12/17/84 1 1 District was willing, to discuss an interim possibility of a 6.1 top elevation to reduce the visual impact of the levee and allow upstream improvements to proceed rapidly, and provide a minimum amount of freeboard above the calculated 5.7 foot el evation. The Di strict originally planned to ask FEMA to arbitrate, but pres- ently FEMA was only willing to do so if a fl ood insurance map revision were submitted. That revision would not be submitted for many years, because there was a theoretical sal t water fl ooding l trait shown on the flood insurance maps for the area. If the fresh water fl ooding for the area was el iminated, there was stil 1 the potential for salt water flooding until the Corps of Engineers discussed a shorel ine study. The SCVWD proposed that the upstream improvements be allowed to proceed wi th the 6.1 foot height, rec- ogef zing that it would be a many year process of arbitration until FEMA reviewed a flood map change. Another al ternative was to ac- tually raise the bikeway instead of constructing a levee in the East Bayshore Road area. The current levee extended 35 to 40 feet into the wetlands area, and the bikeway could be raised to eleva- tion 7 instead of pushing the fill out into the wetlands. It would save half an acre of fill Into the wetlands, but the SCVWD bel ieved the extra cost for the work of $100,000 should be borne by the City. The final al ternative was to excavate almost an acre on a spit of high land on the southeast corner of Adobe Creek to cause additional wetlands. Any of those alternatives would re- store almost one acre of wetl ands. On the other hand, if the alternatives recommended by the City Manager were adopted and the bikeway not raised, the result would be awash, wi th wetlands neither added nor gained. He referred to the scale model of the East Bayshore Road, depicting existing conditions, and the current SCWVD district proposal. The model showed the raised bikeway al ternative at el evation 7, wi th the 6.1 el evation al so depicted . Councilmember Witherspoon arrived at 8:06 p.m. Councilmember Cobb believed the raised bikeway alternative was an easy thing to do, and it suggested to him the possibility of get- ting the upstream improvements started sooner. He asked for the schedule for starting the upstream improvements under the various proposal s. If the bike path al ternative was chosen, he asked if i t would be possible to truncate the schedule. Mr. McNeely said the SCWVD schedule depended upon when it com- p1 eted the flood basin improvements, and ,when the money to build the upstream improvements was available. It -,might take up to 15 years to complete the Adobe, Barron and Madero Creek work with current revenue, which was based on property taxess and benefit assessment for flood control . All the alternatives would allow the District to proceed upstream forthwith. There was money in the budget to start work on Adobe Creek and begin a segmented approach as soon as possible. Any of the alternatives for the flood basin would not affect that schedule. Councilmember Cobb asked for a definition of "as soon as possi- ble." Mr. McNeely said the SCWYO would probably start work in the stammer o f 1486 and might be able to start the coming summer with the first section of Adobe Creek. If they got the flood basin out the coming summer, the SCVWD would follow up with a big contract on Adobe Creek. Councilmember Bechtel asked whether the schedule was irrespective o f whether the flood basin was proceeding. Mr. KC Neel y cl ar i fi ed the flood basin had to be the first unit of constriction. It would occur the first summer, which he hoped would be in 1985. _ 5 3 2 4 12/17184 C ounc i'member Bechtel said the map showing flooding on the LEI property al so showed flooding across Embarcadero Road. She under- stood the industrially -zoned properties along Embarcadero Road were already at an elevation of seven .feet. Mr. McNeely said the streets were not at seven feet. He presumed the new properties were buil t at seven feet, but there were sev- eral properties almost at street level. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland confirmed that since the advent of the National Flood Insurance Program, all were required to "pad up," but he believed some older facilities might be 1 ower Counc ilmember Renzel recalled that, with the exception of Ming's Restaurant, the properties along Embarcadero were all built within the past 10 years and were padded up, as there had begin site and design approval on virtually all. He wondered why they were shown as flooded on the snap. She asked what volume of water was expected to flow out of the flood basin to cover all the areas they discussed, as 5.7 feet was presumably the maximum elevation. Mr. McNeely asked whether she referred to the depth of flooding in the West Bayshore or to the northwest. Councilmernber Renzel said she was asking about any of the areas shown. A depth of 3.8 feet was mentioned, but that was hard to imagine, as the edge of the basin was al ready at 4 feet, and more than 1.7 feet of water would come out of it, Mr. McNeely said the areas on West Bayshor.e were much lower than four feet, so once the water came out and traversed Highway 101, it could easily approach the three foot depth. It depeded on the scenario followed. If the basin overflowed to the west and the Matadero levees failed, a greater portion of the water would go in that direction. He believed the depths were two to three feet maximum as shown on the visual aid attached to the February 27, 1984 parcel, but he would double-check. Council,nember Renzel said she had spoken with FEMA, who said they had a provision for certifying levees so that there was not neces- sarily a constraint to wait until the Corps of Engineers finished its study to deal with the outboard levee. Mr. McNeely b el iev ed that until a levee b ui 1 t up to an elevation of about 13 feet was constructed outboard, FEMA would not consider any map change on the salt water flooding. Councilmember Sutorius asked about the design solution for the outflow culverts under the Bayshore. A reap showed arrows pointing towards the present outflows. Mr. McNeely said plans were already developed for Adobe Creek to widen the culvert and make it basically a vertical wall channel underneath Highway 101 at Adobe Creek. They had not yet reached. the stage of having detailed designs on Matadero Creek, but envi- sioned the necessity of widening that culvert, not because of its basic •width, but because of the -upstream and downstream: condi- tions. By widenlf the culvert under the freeway, the water sur- face upstream was reduced and the hydraulic si tuatlon was improved --the ability to discharge flow underneath then freeway. Basically, it would be a widened concrete channel under Adobe Creek. Counclleember Sutorius referred to. Attachment 1 to the February 27, 1984 letter, which indicated that one of the outflows was capable of handling a 50 -year event, and the other a 615 .year event. He asked if the change in design for Adobe Creek to a "`ti" from a "Y" channel would produce a one percent event capacity. 5 3 2 5 12/17/84 Mr. McNeely .�� - said that a the _ �_ • � had McNea y said -that wale the whirlid Wee of the design, but i t had to be done in conj unction with improvements upstream and down- stream. The chart reflected the capac f ty at that 1 ocation, including the upstream and downstream conditions. Councilmember Sutorius cl arified that it would be the first thing to occur after the basin work was under way, and asked what would happen next upstream after the Bayshore work. Mr. McNeely said the SCYWO was presently working on the Adobe Creek part. As soon as that was done, they would present pro- posal s for flood wall s and culvert en1 argements, wi th some con- crete channel replacement of earthen channels downstream of Louis Road on Adobe. Creek. Yice Mayor levy asked what the total cost would be for all the projects related to Adobe, Barron and Matadero Creeks-- the fl ood basin and the upstream improvements. Mr. McNeely said approximately $15 mill ion. Vice Mayor Levy asked if the bike path al ternative would represent any intrusion into the existing marsh area. Mr. McNeely said the intrusion would be minimal for the 2,000 feet in the East Bayshorte area, al though there would be some intrusion along the Matadero northwesterly side of the basin because of the levee there. Vice Mayor Levy confirmed the extra cost of the bikeway was $100,000 out of the total $15 million cost. Mr. O'Hal1oran introduced Professor Leo Beard to discuss the hydrology aspect of the project and its soundness. Professor Beard had been a professor and head of the Water Resource Depart- ment of the Universi ty of Texas. He was the author of many books on statistical methods and hydrology and had written many techni- cal papers. He was a member of the National Academy of Engineer- ing, the first Director of the Corps of Engineers Hydraul is Engi- neering Center, and a Fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers. He was a member of the panel that reviewed the SCVWD's hydrology in 1976. Professor Leo Beard said at the request of the SCYND he reviewed the computations and procedures used in the design of the Pal o Al to F1 ood Basin. Generally, he found the standard procedures accepted by the profession and by FEMA, who used the same general procedures for 90 to 95 percent of their work of that nature. The problem of the Pal o Al to Flood Control basin design was unusual and practically unique, and involved certain procedures thet, in combination, had to be checked carefully by experienced. engineers. He considered it worthwhile to make a careful , step-by-step check of the design of the project. In reviewing what went into the design, his ideas were somewhat different from the assumptions made by the Di strict. For example, the Di strict assumed that the three 100 year floods on the creeks should be added to get a 100 - year inflow into the basin. However, in actuality, the 100 -year inflow would be somewhat less; he believed some two to five per- cent smaller than the District` s estimate. Another critical aspect of the design was the timing and magnitude of the tidal cycl e used to control the out fl ow from the basin during the event. The tidal cycle the Di strict used was average, but he believed they should use a cycle more characteristic of •what occurred dur- ing major floods, which was more extreme. The District used the most critical phasing of the cycle, _which would maximize the water surface in the basin. He suggested, using a greater amplitude of cycle with a large number of phasing to represent an average, or expected, type of phasing of the cycle that might occur over a long period of time, to anticipate a 100 --year maaxiaxum elevation from a 100 -year inflow. . As a result, the District found slight 5 3 2 6 12/17/84 reductions in the maximum elevation. There was a si ight reduction due to the phasing, but a sl ight increase due to the magnitude of the cycle. He further suggested consideration of the initial storage. The District started with the pool empty, whereas a critical condition for the flood control basin would probably result from more than one single spurt of run-off and be the resul t of a series of storms. Therefore, some initial amount of water would be in the basin at the time the flood occurred, which tended to raise the maximum water surface elevation by a small extent. He checked the outlet coefficlency used ---the hydraulics of the outlets -- and found them reasonable. The weir coefficients were reasonable, considering the conditions that might prevail (luring a major fl ood. Taken together, the figures were considered by the District and run through their computers. The impact of his suggested changes was not great ---al l his suggestions lowered the maximum water surface from 5.7 to 5.5 feet. The District referred to the freeboard as a safety factor, but it.s function was to al so prevent water from spilling out ov er the levee , even though the average water surface at the time might be at a certain 1 evel . Wind and the resulting wave action would make the water run up the 1 evees. The reasonable District assumption of a 35 m.p.h. wind over one mile would cause a run uo of .1.7 feet, and it would be remiss to consider no freeboard necessary. A one foot freeboard was minimal , and a two foot freeboard would be adequate. If he had to sign as a registered engineer the plans for the flood control basin, he would be reluctant to sign for pl ens that called for a 100 -year protection with a maximum levee height of less than seven feet. Councilmember Renzel asked Professor Beard how many tidal cycles he selected to determine what an average value might be, and the criteria used to select what cycles were average. Professor Beard said the phasing of the tidal cycle was aonroxi- mately 12 hours. . There were 72 different hourly intervals, one hour apart, the complete operation of the system was performed, with the flood flowing into the basin. The average of those 72 maximum water surfaces was taken to obtain the water surface, which turned out to be several tenths of a foot lower than what would be obtained with the most critical tidal cycle, phasing. Co unc i 1+eember Renzel clarified that Professor Beard expected a series of storms to create a filling of the basin. She asked what the probability was of a storm creating 4.9 inches of runoff on top of a storm that raised the level in the basin for an extended period of time. Professor Beard -said that when there was a major flood into a basin, there was a good chance it occurred on wet ground and therefore followed some rainfall. Even nominal amounts of rain- fall would cause runoff into the basin for some period of time. Councilmember Renzel said the basin al so discharged every 12 hours. Professor Beard .said it did not distharge completely in 12 hours. Counciimember . Renzel referred to the discussion of water spilling out and the purpose of the freeboard, and asked how much water was expected to come out as a result "f wave runup. Professor Beard said it depended on the amount of freeboard pro- vided. If none ,was provided and the water surface was at ,the top of the levee and there were one foot waves, quite a bit of water would go over the top of the levee. Even if the levee held, he doubted if the pumping capacity could pump the water back into the basin without intensive flooding on the land side of the levee. If the levee did not hold i t would bo disastrous. In general , an earth levee w u1 d not bold in such a situation. 3 2-7 12/17/84 Councilmember Benze1 asked how prev-ailing winds were dealt wi th when determining the wave runups and whether runup might go against the wind Professor Beard said only those winds in a more or less orthogonal direction to the levee were examined. The wind components used in the studies were those directly against the levees on the north- west levee along the highway where a .75 to 1 mile wind blew across. The winds recorded as blowing in that particular direc- tion and their magnitudes were used to establish the wind computa- tions, Mayor Kl ein asked Professor Beard to el aborate on why the Pal o Al to Flood basin was unique. Professor Beard said it was unique because the outflow from the little reservoir was controlled by a tidal cycle. The highest levee was to prevent flooding by tides along the coast and the Bay, wi th the flood control levees around the basin lower . it was a situation he had not seen before. From a hydrologic standpoint, it was unique mainly because the outflow was controlled so strongly by the height of the tide and its fluctuations. Councilmember Sutorius clarified that Professor Beard served on the 1976 panel to review SCYWD procedures. He asked if he sub- scribed to its recommendations to use simulation for flood control design techniques. Professor Beard agreed that the panel at that time suggested the approach be investigated and considered by the Di strict. Councilmember Sutorius asked if he was familiar wi th the methodol ogy the Ci ty received from . Li n sl ey, Kraeger Professor Beard said he was furnished a copy of the report, but was not asked to comment on it. Councilmember Sutorius asked if the technique used in the consul- tant' s report represented something similar to the simulation process urged by the panel in 1976. Professor Beard bel ieved it did. Mr. O'Halloran said the SCVWD's presentatioi' was concluded. The District was anxious to proceed, as it had the same concerns as the City to protect the up'stream area and take care of the prob- lems. The SCYWD hoped to receive conceptual approval of the project as soon as possibi e. Mayor Klein pointed to the time constraints that evening. The lengthy items 9, 11, and 12 had to be concluded, al though staff informed him that item 13 could be deferred. Not many of the items added by the Council .could be handled that evening. Delbert Franz, Vice President of Linsley, Kraeger Associates, said he and Dr. Brooke Kraeger would represent their firm that evening, as Dr. Ray Linsley was recovering from recent eye surgery. A summary of their methodologywas to determine the required height o f the wall or 1 ev ee for, the Palo Al to Fl ood Ba n to limit flooding to an average of once in 100 years. It was a complex task, more so than determining the height of a l evee requi red on a stream. Two factors made it complex: the fluctuations of San Francisco Bay controlling the release of water into the flood basin, and the amount nf water in the basin when a stow began. In combination, those two factors, together with the time history of inflow from Ma tadero,; Adobe =and Barron creeks, determined the maximum level of water in the flood basin during a storm. 5.3'_2 8 12/11/84 As Corrected 2/25/85 The complex time history of snflows durii g a sturiii were nut as difficult as deciding what time rel ationshi p to use among the three interacting factors, as it was a major determinant of the flooding response of the basin. The water level in San Francisco Bay could be near high tide or near low tide when a large inflow occurred. No one could say what the level of the Bay would be when a major storm occurred. A 1 arge storm might begin soon after a moderate etorm and before the water returned to its normal winter level. No one knew how often such storms would occur. No long record of the in fl ow to the flood basin existed to answer such questions. Together with the City's long record of hourly rainfall to improve the drainage design for the City and rainfall and evaporation data from other stations, the measured streamfl ow on Matadero Creek was used to compute the inflows to the Palo Alto Flood Basin for a 73 -year time period. Computed time history represented the in fl ow expected wi th the watersheds of the three creeks fully developed and existing obstructions to flow removed. That computed hi story of in fl ow was second only to a 1 onq record of inflow to the flood basin. Tho se and the predicted ti de infor- mation from the National Ocean Service were used to compute the maximum water level in the flood basin for each of the 73 years. The water level expected to be. excneded on the average once only in 100 years was then computed from the annual maximum water level s. The approach implicitly included the complex interactions among the three interacting factors determining the response of the flood basin to a storm. It was not necessary to make any assumptions. AlI major fay, tors infl uenc Ina; the flood basin level were included together with maximized use of the avail able mea- sured data. Arbitrary assumptions about critical interactions were not made. He submitted that the result of their study pro- vided the best available estimate of the water level expected to be exceeded on the average once in 100 years in the Palo Alto fl ood basin . Councilmember Cobb asked if it was fair to surmise that the tech- nical differences of opinion would. not ' nnverge. Mr. Franz said that was correct. As stated in a write-up on December 10, 1984, making unverifiable assumptions about the rel a- tivnship between when floods occurred and what the conditions of the tides and the flood basin would be, meant there was no way of arriving at the correct answer. Councilmember Cobb said as an engineer,.he thought in terms of safety factors and margins of error, etc. He asked if Mr. Franz could assign a number to the 3.1 feet he calculated to represent a safety factor or a margin of error. Mr. Franz said that in Linsley, Kraeger' s original report, pl us or minus half a foot was:. allowed for the uncertainty of the final answer. Councilmember Sutorius referred to the flood basin capacity and asked if there was a station monitoring; the exact level on -a con- tinuous basis in the basin using tel emetered communication', and how' soon Mr. Franz would find such data useful in the process he used to fired the- 10.0 -year event. He asked how long he needed to receive the additional information before modifying or corrobora- ting any of hi s techniques. Mr. Franz said it was difflcral t to say as it depended on whether there were any high f'1 ows. After finishing the project they dis- covered by accident that another prof ec_t_ monitored the flood basin Level s for almost one year. It so happened that the year in ques- tion was aanremarkabl e. If some wet years were comieg (a debatabl e forecast) , only. two or three years would hel p .them corroborate th e a results. If they happened.. to bn entering,a. dry period, even. with all the instrumentation in place ._they could watt for five years without having anything significant to work on. It w s one of the' frustrations of hydr 1 ogy. 5 3 2 9 12/17/84 �i� s 1 it a s n C 8 n Avenue, : d -t' _ Crystal sawiiiug�:, �.��}v �.tia�iitiii3�j' rev�iiiri�, served for several years on the Advisory Coped ttee of the Northwest Flood Control Zone, which advised the District. Al 1 who served were frustrated. In 1950, the City was flooded as far as Newell Road. No one cared whether it was a 100 -year or a 17 -year flood. Members of the Advisory Committee had no contrary plans to the Flood Contrnl Di strict. The committee members were from Sunnyvale, Los Altos, Los Altos Hill s, and Pal o Al to , and were not overl oaded wi th Pal o . Al tans when the p1 ans were approved. She was not impressed when the Council said they were more interested in the upstream than in the downstream problems. Residents downstream were concerned Council might overlook the important concept. The staff report recom- mended that Council base its conclusion on considerations includ- ing, but going beyond, technological data, and balancing expert testimony and publ is needs, especially where safety might be involved. That was the sentiment of many on the Advisory Commit- tee, and al so of the publ ic. The experts could measure for years, but one heavy rainfall could be disastrous. She asked the Council to adopt the staff recommendations so that work could proceed in an orderly manner to get the flood isasin shored up before going ahead with the additional work upstream. A memo in the packet from Mr. Ferraro of the SCUD to Councilmember Renzel pointed to the tragic resul is ofthe flooding of Alviso. Such things could be avoided if the Council proceeded in the manner suggested by the staff and the Fl ood District. Florence Sundt 160 Kingsley, commended the. Council for engaging the consul tant. She was impressed by hi s report. One foot of encroachment of the marshes flashed a warning light to her, 'and she asked the Council to seriously consider Linsley, Kraeger Associates' report. Phil La Riviere, 453 Tennessee Lane, spoke for the Save the Marsh Committee. He thanked the SCY%4D for providing the means to resolve the controversy. There were now two new recording depth gauges -.one in the basin, the other in the Bay, so predictions by the District and the consultants could be checked by actual mea- surements of all storms occurring. The U.S. Geological Survey e stimates for Matadero Creek should be used for an unbiased measure of storm magnitude.. He disagreed with staff's concl usion that the correct solution could never be determined._ The present e stimates for the 100 -year depth of 3.1 feet versus 'es? feet was so far apart that experimentation with known data would soon show trends. The Di strict interpreted the consul tent's analysi s as an overall attack on their hydrol oglcal abil ities. However the Di strict' s 1976 panel suggested expert hel p on some problems be attained . The Pal o Al to Fl ood 6a sin was unique and beyond standard answers. Questions and criticisms from the Council podium resulted in the creeks being thoroughly cleaned out for the first time in years. The District was now using up-to-date information, installed the tide gauges and recognized that the 100 -year flood required, that the channels under highway 101 be enl aaged. The consul tent's report and Professor Beard's letter of November 14, 1984 showed that the peak flows from the three creeks should not be combined by simple addition and that the input. hydrograph should not be phased with a tidal stage to obta iv a maximum depth. Written objections to those practices were sub- mitted one year earlier to no avail . Professor Beard came up with a maximum water surface elevation of five feet. The existing. minims barrier height was four feet, so the' storage capacity of the basin was shy by one foot. Such an amount of water could be diverted into, .end stored on, the ITT property, wi th tittle or no water flooding back across the freeway into the Bayshore neighbor- hood. - The protection of than area was ,the major objective of .the flood wall. The large amount of water predicted by the District for the 100 -year flood meant: expensive channel 1mproverkents. The District would run into severe engineering problems at teeny street crossings. During the past 20 years, ` four times the District recommended a 1.0 levee height y regardless of their cooputatlon .of the maximum water elevation. The 6.i foot compromise called for 6 3 3 0 12/17/84 three feet of freeboard rather than the 1.3 feet in the project proposal The Committee recommended the project bedenied > as tech- nically unjustified. The Council should find a definitive experi- mental solution and not dismiss the highly paid consul tant's find- ings. A test would not significantly alter the schedule, but could greatly reduce flood insurance costs and construction sav- ings, which could be used to correct the many well known channel constrictions that caused flooding for many years. The Corps of Engineers gave the maximum tide depth ever recorded in Palo Alto as 7.5 feet, and its latest 100 -year flood estimate was 7.8 feet. A 13 foot freeboard would be too much. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, Chairman of the Barron Park Creek Committee, was involved in the flooding after having four feet of water in his basement. The backbiting in the correspondence between the SCVWD, the consultant and the Council was disturbing. The Dis- trict earl ier believed it inappropriate for the public to ask for an accounting., although It was the public's right and duty to do so. The Barron Park eAssociation mapped the area of fl ooding as a result of the preceding year's storms. When he bought his house he was required to have flood insurance because of the area. The City map was revised in 1976 or 1978 and his area was removed from the flood insurance zone. In 1983 the areas removed were fl ooded, as well as areas that were never in the flood area. Predictions and reality did not coincide even fora 17 -year flood. There was a problem in the District`s methodology, but he bel iev ed both the consul tent and the Di strict were wrong. The consul tent had a bet- ter theoretical model but did not have the supporting data over a period of years to adequately tune the model . The District was overconservative, as Professor Beard's letter and statement veri- fied. It took until 1983 for the Di strict to factor in the actual measured stream flows for 1968-1976, and they still had not fac- tored in those for 1976-1983. The latter years included a dry and a wet spell, The District said it had insufficient data, but did not use existing facts. With regard to freeboard, as was pointed out, it wo ul d be unlikely that a 100 -year flood dumping of four to six inches would have a wind coming from the east or southeast. It would necessitate. a 30 m.p.h. wind from the east or southeast to overtop the levee on the Bayshore side. Two feet of freeboard attributed to wind or waves was excessive. 10o staff member offi- cially attended the presentation at Mitchell Park concerning the projected improvements along Adobe Creek, where it was explained the Council would be asked to`.raise some of the creek crossings on Louis and Greer Road by as much-; as four feet. The stream flow improvements were substantial. The Barron Park residents wanted to see the upstream improvements dime ie fast as possible. He suggested a compromise close to the staff recommendation. The Council could make a rational statement that the actual basin depth would have to be approximately five feet, and that there should be some freeboard to allow for uncertainties in the actual stream flow. There would al so be some wind, al though not so much as suggested. He suggested a total 1 evee height of six feet, close to the staff recommendation of 6.1 feet. Residents were tired of monitoring ° the creek flow every time it rained. They wanted the problem solved. • Nancy Holmes, 843 Moana Court, was a member of the original flood basin committee 10 years earlier. She' wrote a self -guided nature walk along Natadero- Creek at the edge of the flood basin, which was distributed by the City. . She was pleased that the diversity of the riparian` habitat remained.. If the road vas widened and the levee built, much -of that diversity would be bulldozed so that the floodgate could be easily reached from the recycling area . She lived on Adobe Creek where no flooding occurred in 20 years, Nothing was Ito be done for several years about Barron and Natadero Creeks _ because the District wanted' to raise the _ banks of Adobe Creek from El -Camino down `into the flood basin Were property values were higher. However, Barron Park residents -experienced flood damage in recent years.. The threat was consistently made et the presentation that high flood insurance would be 'necessary if MAYOR KLEIN RF ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION THAT EVENING Mayor Klein said Items 9, Publ is Hearing re Community Development Block Grant Progress Report; 11, P1 anning Commission and Architec- tural Review Board recommendations re county referral of Stanford University's proposed Environmental Safety Facility Project Design and EIA; anu 12, Planning Commission recommendation re appeal by Palo Al to Hill s Gol f & Country Cl ub of Use Permit Denial , required action that evening after completion of item 8. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, to contl nae Item 10, Inflow Infiltration Source Detection Study; Item 13, California Avenue Are* Parking Permit Program; Item 14, Request of Tice Mayor Levy re Public Employees Retirement System; and Item 16, Request of Tice Bayer Levy re Animal Services Conaait- tee. MOTION TO CONTINUE MASSED unanimously. RETURN TO ITEM #8, SCYWD PROPOSED FLOOD BASIN PROJECT Councilmember Cobb understood the District's raised bike path alternative involved an incremental cost of $100,000 using the method shown on the Di strict' s middle model . He bel ieved it should cost less, and asked for clarification. Mr. McNeely said the biggest expenditure was repaving the bikeway and any barriers required on the edge of the bikeway. It was a rough estimate, which included design and the District's costs, but he believed it was approximately correct. Councilmember Cobb clarified that not nearly as much fill would be required. Mr, McNeely said the reduction for fill was factored into the costs. Mr. O'Halloran said if the cost was found to be less after con- struction, the Ci ty would pay only hal f of the final figure. The Di strict was not asking for $IOG,OOO up front, Councilmemter Cobb said he asked whether the work could be under- taken in parallel to expedite the upstream work if one of the com- promise solutions was accepted, and it was inferred that Adobe Creek work could start as early as the following year. ` He asked if it could start earl ier. Mr. McNeely said the District was still in the .planning phases of Adobe Creek and awaiting resol ution of the flood basin contro- versy. There was also the question of committing staff time, as the Engineer's Report and the environmental document --either a negative declaration or an Environmental Impact Report CEIR)--had to be finished before proceeding to final design. Before the com- ing summer the District would probably complete one 'roject-- the flood basin --and finish the planning on Adobe Creek so that work might start in the spring and summer of 1986. Counc 11 member Cobb referred to a suggestion to get some data down- stream, and asked whether it could be done . in parallel to confirm where they were and mitigate some of the basin work that had to be done. He asked ,if it would take so long that it would not have any impact on the results. Mr. McNeely said that work to obtain data .from monitoring depths in the flood basin was already started with tai er eter ed gauges on the tide levels and degths in the basin. Councilmember Cobb asked if it would take several, years before sufficient information .was obtained to help with the f+ecision, 1 the wells were not raised. Flood ii suraui;e was at the diteretion of :he 1 and er--the fi iest time she refinanced her house she had to have it, the second time -she did not. There was a genuine ques- tion of whether the flood wall in the basin was necessary before upstream modifications were made --hopefully in the areas that flooded. She urged the Council to deny the project in the flood basin as being costly and probably unnecessary. Douglas Graham, 984 Fl ima Way, represented the general public in the SC IOW D' s Northwest Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee. He was on the committee, listened to flood basin proposals for over ono year, and shared Mr. Moss' impatience with thr impasse of the two elected governmental bodies whose concerns were the publ`le' s health, .,el fare, and safety with regard ti creeks and the flood basin. He also feared remaining in the process for a prolonged period. leaving many little neighborhoods along the creeks and the whole West Bayshore area in danger. He chaired the Barron Park Association and chaired the Creek Committee from 1973-83 who con- structed the map shown. The, discrepancy between the two zones pointed to by Cauncilmember Sutorius was caused because the Dis- trict used a one foot flooding of the streets to determine a one percent flood zone, whereas he mapped the area flooded by six inches. Several issues were not entirely brought out. He could not answer the scientific questions and did not consider them the most important. No one disagreed that work was needed upstream -- the question was 'whether work should first proceed upstream or downstream. He did not bel ieve the District could proceed without doing the downstream work. The legal issues involved could not be wished away. There were also questions about whether it was an appropriate function for the Council --a political body --to decide which method was best; or the task of professional review groups such as journal editorial boards, professional scientific associ- ations, etc. The Council was being asked by some people to do work for which it was ill -prepared. The Council could evaluate the evaluators and decide whom to trust, but should not do the,. evaluation. The Council should accept, the considered scientific judgment of the public professional staff responsible under state and county law for making decisions concerning hydrology in the county. If the Council went counter to those decisions, how would it justify its actions should future events prove the SCVWD right and the private consul tent wrong. One risk attached to accepting the SCVWD's proposal was that a small portion of marshwould be further disturbed for a short time by construction activities. There would al so be a certain destruction of some habitat. It would be temporary in that the riparian habitat would re-establish 1 tsel f. al though it would take time. The cost was approximately $.75 million. One significant benefit was greater protection against flooding in the West Bayshore neighborhood. There would be an immediate .go-ahead for the first phase of the Adobe Creek project, which would eventually reduce the frequency and area of flooding in the BarronPark and other upstream neighborhoods The benefits outweighed the risks. If the consultant' s proposal were accepted there would be a greater likelihood o1 flooding in the West Bayshore neighborhood tiecause of less protection. The second risk was that it Would be unacceptable to. the SCYWD and would lead to further delay in upstream work. The third was the legal , and moral risk. Should fi eed ing in any -area occur because of an inad- equate basin or delay, when the official government body responsl- bl a had advised otherwise after considerable consultation -and dis- cussion, it would leave the City -in ; a bad spot. The _benefit of accepting _the consultant's proposal was that there would be -less disturbance to the marsh However, ender the alternative bike path proposal, there.,: would be _ considerable mitigation by the District in restoration of marsh area .earl ler lost. It mould also cost less. He urged the WOK 11- to�consider all the factors, including 't -:publ c »ol.lcy issues. -fie : Barran Park residents wanted_ a Alec1sioe. and we`rk to be done on the creiftt , COUNCIL RECESSED : TO CLOUD SESSION: RE _LITISAY IAI FROM_912.E O d wall ! were a w w Flood Z at the _ � the =. s were not raised. F good insurance was the disl retfon of the lender —the first time she refinanced her house she had to have it, the second time she did not. There was a genuine ques- tion of whether the flood wall in the basin was necessary before upstream modifications were made --hopefully in the areas that flooded. She urged the Council to deny the project in the flood basin as being costly and probably unnecessary. Douglas Graham, 984 FI ima Way, represented the general publ is in the SCUD' s Northwest Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee. He was on the committee, listened to flood basin proposal s for over one year, and shared Mr. Moss' impatience with the impasse of the two elected governmental bodies whose concerns were the public's health, welfare, and safety with regard to cheeks and the flood basin. He also feared remaining in the process for a prolonged period , leaving many 1 1 ttl e neighborhoods al onq' the creeks and the whole West aayshore area in danger. He chaired the Barron Park Association and chaired the Creek Committee from 1973-83 who con- structed the map ehown. The discrepancy between the two zones pointed to by Councilmember Suto.rius was caused because the Dis- trict used a one foot flooding of the streets to determine a one percent flood zone, whereas he mapped the area flooded by six inches. Several issues were not entirely brought out. He could not answer the scientific questions and did not consider, them the most important. No one disagreed that work was needed upstream -- the question was whether work shoul d first proceed upstream or downstream. He did , not bel ieve the Di strict could proceed wi thout doing the downstream work. The legal issues involved could not be wi shed away. There were al so questions about whether it Was an appropriate function for the Council --a political body --to decide which method was best; or the task of professional review groups such as journal editorial boards, professional scientific associ- ations, etc. The Council was being asked by some people to do work for which it was i11 -prepared. The Council could eval uate the evaluators and decide whom to trust, but should not do the evaluation. The Council should accept. the considered scientific judgment of the publ is professional staff responsible under state and county law for making decisions concerning hydrology in the county. If the Council went counter to ,those decisions, how. would it justify its actions should future events prove the SCVWD right and the private consultant wrong. One risk attached to accepting the SCVWD's proposal was that a small portion of marsh would be further disturbed for a short time by construction activities. There would also be a certain destruction of some habitat. It would be temporary in that the riparian habitat would re-establish i tsel f, although it would take time. The cost was approximately $.75 million. One significant benefit was greater protection against flooding in the .West Bayshore neighborhood. There would be an immediate go-ahead ,.for the first phase of the Adobe Creek project, which would eventually reduce the frequency and area of flooding in the Barron Park and other upstream neighborhoods. The benefits outweighed the risks. If the consultant's proposal were accepted there would be a greater I ikel ihood of flooding in the West gayshore neighborhood because of less protection. The second risk was that it would be``unacceptabl a to the SCVWQ and would lead to further delay in upstream work. The third was the- legal and mora l risk. Should flooding in any area occur because` of an inad- equate basin or del ay. when the official` goveeresent body responsi- bi a had advised otherwise after considerableconsultation and dis- cussion, it would leave the City in a bad spot. The benefit of accepting ` the consui tanto s proposal was that there would" be less disturbance to the warsh•. However, under the alternative bike_. path proposal, there would be . considerable mitigation by : the Di strict in restoration of marsh area earlier lost. It would also cost . less. He urges the Council, to consider ..ell, the factors, including- the public. policy issues. The °:` Barron Park residents wanted a decision and .workte be done on the creeks. COUNCIL RECESSED TO CLOSED ,SESSION RE :LITIGATION. FROM '9;22 ft.rat TO le MAYOR KLEIN RE ITEMS RE9UIRING ACTION THAT EVENING Mayor Klein said Items 9, Public Hearing re Community Development Block Grant Progress Report; 11, Planning Commission and Architec- tural Review Board recommendations re county referral of Stanford University's proposed Environmental Safety Facility Project Design and EIA; and 12, Planning Commission recommendation re appeal by Palo Al to Hill s Gol f & Country Club of Use Permit Denial , required action that evening after completion of item 8. (NOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Klein moved, seconded by Cobb. to continue Item 10, Inflow Iafii tratien Seurce Detection Study; Item 13, California Avenue Area Parking. Permit Program; Item 14, Request of Tice !layer Levy re Public Employees Retirement System; and Item 162 Request of Tice Hauler Levy re Animal Services Commit- tee. NOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED unanimously. RETURN TO ITEM#8, SCYND PROPOSED FLOOD BASIN PROJECT Councilmember Cobb understood the Di strict' s raised bike path alternative involved an incremental cost of $100,000 using the method shore on the District's middle model . He believed it should cost less, and asked for clarification. Mr. McNeely said the biggest expenditure was repaving the bikeway and any barriers required on the edge of the bikeway. It was a rough estimate, which included design and the District's costs, but he bel leved it was approximate?y correct. 1 Councilmember Cobb cl arifled that not nearly as much fill would. be required. Mr. McNeely said the redde don for fill was factored into the costs. Mr. O'Halloran said if the cost was found to be less after con- struction, the Ci ty would pay only half of the final figure. The District was not asking for $100,000 up front. Councilmember Cobb said he asked whether the work could be under- taken in parallel to expedite the upstream work if one of the com- promise sol uti.ons was accepted, and it was inferred that Adobe Creek work could start is early as the following year. He asked if it could start earlier. Kr. Mctbeely said the District was still in the planning phases of Adobe Creek and awaiting resolution of the flood basin contro- versy. There was also the question of committing staff time, as the : Engineer's Report and the environmental document --either .a negative declaration or an Environmental: Impact Report (EIR)--had to be finished before proceeding to final design. Before the com- leg summer the District would probably complete one project-- the flood basin --and finish the , planning on Adobe Creek so that work sight start in the spring and summer of I,98b. Councilmember Cobb referred to a suggestion to get some ,data down- stream, and asked whether it could be done in parallel confirm where they were and mitigate some of the basin: work that had tb_ be done. Me : asked if it .,would take so long that its. would ,: not have any i*paet on the results. Mr. . Mc Meel y said that work to obtain ._,data: from monitoring depties in the flood basin :;was already Started' with tel emeteereo gauges<.oi the; tide. levels aid deRth$ in: the b`esie Councilmember - Cobb asked if it would take several ,years before sufficient informationwas-obtained to help -with the ofecision. Mr. McNeely said the District was still eval uating how many years would be required to devel op sufficient data. It again depended upon whether it was a wet or a dry year, and additional data on Adobe, Matadero, and- Barroo Creeks would al so be helpful . - Councilmember Cobb said City staff recommended a palatable compro- mise height of 6.2 feet, which did not please the District. He asked if there was some room left for compromise. He understood that if the City did not make a decision to move ahead on the flood basin work with any number, cost, and trade-offs the City and the District could agree upon, the District would stop. and refuse to start work upstream until such a decision was reached. Mr. O'Halloran said the District was as anxious as -.the City to start the upstream work, but their attorneys advised, and they knew from experience, that if they undertook a project their pro- fessional engineers knew would cause additional flooding in another area, it was opened to liability. They had lawsuits totaling $300 million from the previous two years where the Dis- trict did not bel ieve it had trey l iabil ity. Because of the legal ramifications, the District never proceeded with w+irk on a project that might induce flooding el sewhere. The District believed in its engineers, and people could drown or be seriouslyinjured, and there would be property damage. Regarding whether the District was willing to -compromise further than the 6.1 foot figure, its engineers' studies, confirmed by a top-notch professional , con- cl uded there had to be some freeboard over that level . The engi- neers said that while 6.1 feet left only four -tenths of a foot of freeboard, they did not feel a moral problem would be created downstream by doing •upstream work, if the City agreed. It was known that upstream work would take many years, by which time it was hoped; that FEMA would say what was safe. AMA would make the final decision. Councilmenber Cobb clarified that if the City did not make the decision to proceed. in the fl ood basin, the District would turn its attention to other activities until sa decision was made. Mr. -O'Halloran said he would have to return to his Board of Directors for the .answer. He knew that if the District could not first go upstream to do any work, it would be in a dilemma, Councilmember Witherspoon referred to the report and the -rebuttal of ethe Planning Commission some time 'earl ier regarding _pumps and pumping. _Pumping was ,considered to be too expensive, and she was unclear o :;. what the Di strict estimated the high tide to be in the worst- scenario. She asked if the- water would flow back -in over the levee elf they tried to pump it out at high tide *hen it could not normally go out through the tide gates. Mr. McNeely said that pumping was discussed Only in connection wi th local drainage. There were several pt ping stations in the West Bayshote and adjacent area. The District never discussed pumping out the flows out of t basin tnto the Bay as it would b extremely, expensive. The .c:losest .thy came to- such a proposal -:was e discussion of tidegates, whore there would be no cost benefit. Cauncilm saber Witherspoon uhders_toad it was t timing factor as there Was onl yi a- certain window during the 24 -hour period _ during which they could get the water: out. " --Aside from the. -cost, she -asked:.. if i t t l'd -be feasible engineering .to pump the water out. Sir. McNeely did not .believe it. would be, since it~'was so costly. Cow cfim*bar Witherspoon wanted to know .ideether -1t was iiifeatibl e from an eng1neerd#ng _point ofe-View b ante thee,ti0e was- toe- high. Mr. McNeely- sad if -the cost • factoishWehe eeleiatnated,`.pusping was feasible. They--, were- talking ` bout: a- cost: _of" .$700,000, for the project, but the cost of Pumping _would -.be to -the eiliions. Councilmember Witherspoon said that was not fsctored in, and she misunderstood the response about pumping in the rebuttal Mr. McNeely said pumping was not discussed as experience showed it to be way out of 1 ine wi th the other al ternatives. Councilmember Witherspoon referred to .Vice Mayor levy's request for a ball park estimate of the total costs of the flood basin and upstream improvements, including the new project of increasing the capacity under the eayshore. Mr. McNeely projected about $15 million, and regarding Council - member Wi therspoon' s question concerning the time span, it would take 10 to 15 years. The District could assign approximately $1 million per year to the Northwest Flood Control Zone from the money derived from within the zone. In round numbers the cost would be $15 million over 15 years. Councilmember Witherspoon said they would not have to use bonding or any other extraordinary means to accelerate the work. Councilmember Bechtel said that in his letter of December 17, 1984, Mr. Laltiviere spoke to the possibility of measuring actual storms and their effects on the flood basin with the new recording depth gauges. She asked how long it would take to do so. The District proposed to start construction in the flood basin, if it received approval s, in six months or a year, so it would be able to analyze that winter's storms. She asked if that data would be useful in gaining additional information about the basin and run- off. Mr. McNeely believed they would obtain only rudimentary informa- tion, and a minimal amount from which to draw any conclusions. On the other hand, if there was a storm that derived the 5.7 foot water -surface, they might well be able to draw some concl usions. Councilmember Renzel said there was some reserve capacity in the basin presently, considering the constraints upstream, and based on the Di strict' s predicted levels. She asked how much additional work cold be done upstream without going over the top of the four foot level of the basin at that time.. Mr. McNeely said that by the District's cal cut ations, there was no reserve. The reserve mentioned was based on previous informa- tion. Counciheember Renzel 'pointed out that the flood basin never approached topping up to that point. She presumed there was some work the District could do that would not overload it, as there would still be restrictions upstream. Mr. McNeely said they projected water surfaces in the 100 -year event under existing conditionsto be over four feet. The sides of the basin varied from a Minim= of 3.6 feet.: Al though the District wanted to help t,e people upstreem, any additional work upstream might push the flooding downstream. Councilmember Renzel did not subscribe to that argument, and said it was difficult to take action Without, Miring . from her. .col- leagues. She was pursueded by the work -of the consultants, Linsley, lcraaeger Associates= and believed they responded well to the criticisms of the District. 1`o some extent Professor Beard cerroborated the complexity of the situation in the flood basin and also the fact that a simulation model was recommended to - the District for some of the more -cemplex situations. As the Scheduling of the upstream work : was over e_ 10 to. 15- year period,; with the first stages not :beginning actual construction until the summer after the next, and since she.-Awas somewhat conservative in nature, she recognized" they were discussing almost $1 million dollars in funds that could be used to address upstream flooding 5 3 3 5- 12/17184 As Corrected 2/25/85 1 if the consultant's results were correct. It was foolish to experiment with an interim solution to' test :ho was right or wrong, spendfng a million dollars and causing much environmental L 1_ _ fair l __ L ! _ J. 1 L 1 L� � I __ A _ 1. hariii. There was a Toil- apount of protection buii t iiitu the Baylands. The ITT property was 156 acres and accommodated water on each acre. Even using the District's rainfall numbers, there was only a one percent chance of an instantaneous peak Of 5.7 feet. She believed that on either side it would be lower, and for the period it overtopped, the ITT property would probably be ade- quate to contain it. She would consider putting a levee along the ITT property at Frontage Road where it would not harm sensitive environmental areas to allow the capacity to be increased. The westerly side of the ITT property was already raised up high and not suabject. to flooding. The ITT company .could 'stand flooding once in one hundred years, and if .the District's projection ws correct, it'would get considerable water in any case. MOTION: Csuecilmember teazel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to uphold the Pleasing Commission recommendation to deny the applica- ,tion of the SCYWD far Site and Design review of the proposed Flood Oasis project in the Palo Alto Oay1 ainds- and reeenest .that the Water District gather fNrtber date in the -.Fined Basin to help refine their projections, and farther that the Water District consider the 'ITT property and how than might be integrated into rasing it as _freeboard, Councilmember Renzel said her motion denied the staff recommenda- tion= The District should be urged to investigate using the ITT property as a backup storage area only as there was a middle levee at a height of almost four feet. The District should be asked to again look at what might be possible that would not harm the sen- sitive area and allow the District to go ahead with upstream work. In terms of public resources, there were places in Palo Alto that suffered real flooding. Everyone knew that projections were largely hypothetical. The more realistic simulation made by the consultants bumped real measured rainfall against real tides to see what happened had a high degree of credibility, and she wanted the City to go in that direction. In the interim, a flood map revision could be pursued to get verification from FEMA that the City was not doing something wildly extravagant by accepting the Linsley, Kraeger figures. Councilmember Cobb was not a hydrologist, and the Council was not qualified and did not have the tools to resolve the technical dif- ferences between the two approaches. As pointed out, there were many unknowns, and there might be no right answer. He leaned towards the Linsley, Kraeger 'lnalytical approach. but if Council took the path suggested ,by. the motion, nothing would happen.- As some Barron Park residents said, it °would put the issue in limbo for years. He wanted a compromise to get data everyone. could believe in and a wall whose height all were happy with. while not slowing anything dowry upstream. Aspects of the staff proposal made sense and he did not like the idea of going into the Bay_ lands so the raised bike path had appeal He was not convinced it needed to be so high, and hoped if they went that route, it could be lowered. He was sure it would not cost more than the -current proposals, and wanted i t considered. He was most concerned that Council was putting itself in a position where nothing would hap- pen. Engineers always built a little conservatism in as a safety factor, particularly when trying to protect people. If the con- servatism could be put into a design without doing any other harm, it was reasonable. In the present case, where there were many unknowns, if there could be an adequate safety, factor without hares ng the environment, -1 t_:was reasonable. For that reason the raised bike path appealed to him.. When one dealt withthe safety, possessions and heMeS of people, a littleextra conservatismwas a better answer to are engineer , than not enough. he preferred to err on the side._.of being too safe. Those were his` considerations, and while he wanted to• hear other -comments, he wanted a solution that got things moving,, Councilmember Fletcher was impressed by the Linsley, Kraeger report and spoke with a k owiedgeabie hydrologist who said Mr. Linsley's method was accepted by professionals. It could not be discredited just because it was not accepted by government agen- cies since they were notoriously backward in their methodologies. Mr. Linsley taught, at Stanford University for 25 years, and some of his students were notable experts in the field. The creek channel capacity was increased since 1950, and the areas west of the Bayshore had not since flooded. The District's proposal was extravagant and did more than temporary harm to the natural habi- tat. She was not convinced it was necessary. If the Water. Ri s- tri et had the public's welfare at heart and if the proposal was turned down, she could not believe they would not proceed with .the necessary work on the upstream channels. The SCVWD would be well advised to take some outside expert recommendations or analyses just as the City had. They would see that their approach was not the only way. Counci lmember Bechtel; said Council was i n a difficult situation, with experts saying different things.thingse She was impressed by the Linsley, Kraeger recommendations; and found their point about the over estimation of the effects ofurbanization on the one percent flood interesting. She understood the concerns of the SCVWD and the people, and Council needed somouhing to protect not only the Barron Park residents, but chose living closest to the Bayshore. She was notconvincedthat the SCVWD's seven foot requirement was. necessary, and as Mr. LaRiviere mentioned, over the past 20 years the SCVWD always came up with the same seven foot number even though there were improvements in methodologies and studies. She was intrigued by the simulations proposed in the recommendations of the earlier policy boards to the SCVWD, but was disappointed the District representatives were unwilling to do any work up- streaF< until something in the seven foot range was agreed to. Since the money came from the taxpayers, the District must be willing to save everyone money. Approximately $3 million was gen- erated annually by the taxpayers of the northwest zone, which money was mostly accrued although some was spent on San Francs squi to Creek. She wanted to make some safety improvements for the closest residents without wasting the money and damaging 1.5 to two acres of marshland. She was intrigued by 1'_Councilmember Renzel's proposal to use the ITT property as additional space and wanted the District to explore that further. Mayor Klein opposed the motion. He was not a hydrologist, abut Councilmembers were required to make semi -scientific decisions. Based on the material and presentations, he believed the consul- tart's methodology was best and was disappointed by the way the SCVWD handled the matter. He was aghast at the cost of the model - and the consultants, etc. , and as a citizen, intended to follow the SCYWD's activities more closely as he was unsure it was using the public's money wisely. Although he considered the Linsley, Kraeger approach better, he was willing to vote for the 6.1 foot compromise, primarily because he believed it was the District's choice. His conscience would not allow him to sit by for One or two more years while some constituents were held hostage in Barron Park. He did not .accept the analysis`` given,, and as a decision - maker for the public, would not have the flooding of Barron Park and other neighborhoods upstream on his conscience. It was a longaterm project, which he wanted done fast, but he would feel badly 1f the people in Barron Perk had a flood problem the coming winter because of a vote taker' that evening. The SCVWD had the responsibility for making the decision, and it was not the Coun- cil s affair to get. into the hydrology to determine the best approach, and to answer the questions raised. Fe recognized and regretted some environmental damage to the marsh1 ands he did not think neceSeeees but the overri di -01 concerns were to protect the citizens he' rePresented and to air some deference, to the SCVWD which had the respon5ibi 1 sty ter ,desi gnl eq of that nature. Counc iimember ken zel pointed out that as publ is officials they . had a responsibility to see that funds raised out• of the Di strict were spent properly within the District. The Council was capable of exercising ,some degree of judgment about the assumptions that went into, • various hydrol og is methodol ogles --that one did not have storms without rainfall, that the tides rose and fell , that wate: sometimes, discharged from the flood basin, and sometimes did not. Some col pel1Inq evidence was_ brought before the Council : and in fairness to the public, the Council had to urge the SCY D to adopt the methods their panel' recommended and to use the kind of data they were now generating in the flood basin She pointed out that Barron Park' s. creeks were . not schedul ed for dpproximatel y 10 years, and that almost all the 'construction work _of the District was contrac ted .out. While they budgeted and scheduled year, by year, - there was no reason why certain projects could not be doubled up • and done in the same year as they were hired out tee different - contr. attors. The schedule could • be adjusted to accommodate change in what came out of• additional. Study for the flood basin. If Barron Park was flooded in 1984-85, it would not have- been in fl uenced. by any decision made that evening as they would get no protection until 1993. Councilmember. Sutorius asked about the capacity of the ITT prop- erty and the pros and cons associated with its use. City Manager 8111 Zaner did not know the ITT capacity. A •letter was. received from ITT approximately two years earlier during the winter of bad storms which reminded the Ci ty of its obi igations to provide them with a dry site. They 1 eased a small portion of the si to from the City consi sting of the buildings and the towers. Councilmember Satorius said Councilmember Witherspoon gave him material generated in response to the Planning Commission meeting of January, 1984 on expanding the area' of the basin, and it was stated the -the water elevation in . the fl ood basin would be reduced by• less than one foot by adding the ITT area. The concept in the motion was entirely reasonable, and he asked Councilmember Rental if she had. some information showing that using the ITT property would be something more than suggested in that response. Co unc 11 m weber Renzel said the general level of the ITT property was between zero and minus One foot, and the Frontage Road area was around three feet, so there would be three or four feet and certainly more in some areas due to deep spots.. Therefore, one should multiply three. or four feet by 154 acres. .In response to staff` s comment regarding, ITT's request, if the Ci ty attempted to accommodate the 5.7 feet the District came up with for the one percent stow, ITT would not be. dry. She believed there was -‘ apacity there, and was willing. to .consider having the District put. its levee constructions along the 'frontage ,road . ofelTT. There were no important .wetl ands_ there end no important View .of an area that was .not already surveyed from higher points al Ong E*barcadero Road , the refuse area and the' Municipal Sery is ee.eCe a ter There was no. security problem in 'having •a levee there, which would increase the capacity of the ITT ;property significantly .as two sides Of I,t were built well above seven feet. .The height of the I evee 'could be built to aceom*odate the same level as •the :;fl and basin 1tsei f. Coon; 11member Satorlus prefe=rred that a decision be made that evening,but if Council was concerned about the consequences; he preferred a. less cancl usi ve action that left the door open . MIU *tMT; :Ctiteicilluerstrer Sitar #as ■eyed, deco dad by Cobb, thwO1d eppr ► 1 Nod, O ztl .1deatt1 ficateea •f a pl ae that 04014. eti1 ft*: ITT , pr1� t tact adleg as . 1 teem loam* eats. ,r:sh tired is tt: `arm is al 1 ear:toff ..-. •irerfi ear 000 ad I meat ettlt cdpite1t, . = Councilmpmbee Sutorius said the purpose of the w e diiient was to not have an approval that evening of afi al ternative pl an whit e the opportunity- still existed that either alternative before the Coun- cil did not need to be, of its present magnitude He suggested the City Attorney or staff make comments on what approval actions would be that evening. He understood the Council had the authori- ty to deny, but did not know whether it had the authority to approve. He was unclear about whether the alternative discussed as a compromise ,was before them. Ms. Lee said Council operated under a State law provision requir- ing that the project be approved wi thin one year pl us the 90 addi- tional days afforded by the District. The Council had to act on the project constraints upstream, and based on the. District's predicted levels. tir. Freel and did not be1 ie•`e env ironmental consideration wasgiven to the ITT property as part of a project along those lines. Unless that was the case, he believed it required supplemental environmental analysis by the SCUD before either the Council or the District Board could act to change a _project to such a degree. Even though the City of Palo Alto did not produce the project, it was necessary to make env ironmen cal findings, based on the EIR prepared by the District, covering whatever the proj ect detatic turned out to be. Councilmember Sutorius clarified that Council would be unable to act that evening if the proposal incl uded destroying, then rebuilding, the bike path and the new design concept shown as one a1 ternative. Mr. Freel and said Council could not act that evening, and for that reason staff recommended .returning the Item to the Planning Com- mission so it could review specific drawings showing detail s of the project and make a determination in regard to the adequacy of the EIR toward that compromise project. The same conditions would apply to any other modification the Council might want to make. The Council would then have the findings presented to it for its consideration when it gave approval . Mr. O'Halloran said the proposal to use the ITT area to enlarge the flood basin was first considered in January, 1983, at the Di strict' s : Flood Control Advisory Committee when a study was made. In January, 1984, in the report to the Planning Commission, under "Al ternatives," the ITT, property was mentioned as the only appar- ent possible addition to the flood basin. ..As ITT's communication towers had to, be protected in accordance with the land agreement, the remaining usable surface area was some 130 acres, compared to the 600 acre fl ood basin. Its higher ground surface meant the water elevation .in the flood basin would be reduced by less than one foot, Al so, approximately 20 acres, 10 of which were wetl and, would be covered by 1 evees around the perimeter of the ITT prop- erty and the ,Communication Center at an additional cost of $400,0000. The Di strict could not just fy the significant environ- mental damage and costs. Al though the ground surface went down to minus one or two feet in some areas, it was generally above zero as compared with a consistent mines two foot elevation in the flood basin, making the storage available not as great _as in the flood basin. There was also the expensive ITT communication equipment jutting out into: the middle of the area which he under- stood had :.tb be protected. Councilraember -Cobb confirmed that the motion was to support the Planning Commission rec ws endaticn :todeny the .original seven .foot Water .Di strlot proposal intended to explore some of the ctm promises fie discussed earl ler , but : asked . .i f, he .sho u'i d - fi.�ret vote �ag,a:in st .thy ,moti©n. and p_ offer . al ternat Ves, or vote with' the ieatian' to reeve the' opportunity.. open for `a 'caaprorise, 1 Ms. Lee said that some derivation of the staff recommendation was appropriate for those Councilmembers seeking a compromise, so they should not _vote in favor of the motion. Once the project was denied, the Couucll would have nothing before it. Councilmember Renzel said she did not intend to enlarge the flood basin by using the ITT property, but to use it as a freeboard so that as the : flood basin had operated in the last 20 years, it would contain all the waters. When the fl ood waters rose above 3.8 feet, which Linsley, Kraeger sad(' would not happen once in one hundred years, it could go into the ITT property. ' She did not know how the District calculated its numbers, but she did not believe it was necessary to build a levee around the existing ITT facilities for that occasional situation, which was the existing situation. Presently, ITT. was pumped in winter, as it accrued water in various places. A different situation would not be created. They would only acknowledge that the property offered an insurance property on top of the Linsley, Kraeger simulation work indicating that not more than 3.1 feet of water in the flood basin in a one percent probablity-could be expected. Her motion Offered that ITT property would be used as a. freeboard and would not become part of the tidal circulation or the normal flood efforts of the flood basin, except in extreme events when water would be permitted through some kind of spillway, which could be incorpor- ated as part of the existing levee. She saw no problem in shoring up the Frontage Road to allow an extra foot of storage. The caliber, of habitat on the. ITT was different from the 40 feet of marsh along the Frontage Road that would be used for the staff proposal. and certainly from the acre of marsh that would be excavated to create what the District called "wetlands." Vice Mayor Levy asked for clarification about what_ would result• from the vote. If Council voted to deny the proposal , he under- stood that it would be the end. Until the SCVWD returned with a new proposal , there would be no construction upsteeam and nothing further done in the flood basin. When Mr. Zaner, ; agreed, Vice Mayor Levy said he would have to vote against that :eventuality .to leave the door open for some action. Mayor Klein pointed out that the amendment withheld approval until the District reported back after consideration of •the ITT prop- .arty. Counc ll member Renzel asked if the amendment withheld approval of any proposal , or only for the 7 or 6.1 foot propose) s. Mayor Klein said the motion was for the District's proposal for seven feet. Counciliaember Sutorlus said the amendment made a commitment for a date certain response or action by the Council. The Council_ would commit ltsel f to making a decision on the main question no later ° than February 28, 1986. The sooner the Council had input back, the greater the potential for a fevor•abl a situation involv- ing a less extensive change to the flood basin at a lower cost, saving moneys that -could go forward* on downstream activities.. On the negative side", should the District confirm the information given -;by them in January, 1983, that the potentials for increasing the storage capacity on: the ITT property did not appeal tee them, they could inform the Council asp soon as they wished. The ball would then be returned to the Coo icii for a '‘go"' or no go" deci- Counealmember Renzel asked if the amendment was a substitute _ to part one of her motion. Mayor Klein told amendments were, in a-soay, substitutes', It was a matter of degree. It was a . half -way substitute as it .: withheld approval. A full substitute would have /approved it Mr. Lacier suggested that since staff already spent substantial time on the item, the District should be asked whether additional time would result in any change in the information given that evening. He did not want to go back to the Di strict for a further study only to have it come up with similar results. He wanted to hear any information the District had. Mr. Jim Lenihan Director of District 5 of the SCYWD, which encom- passed the City of Palo Al to, empathized with the Council , but did not bel ieve the Board would approve the ose of the ITT property at an additional cost of $400,000. The proposal before the Council was an excellent compromise worked out over a number of years. He was involved since the beginning, and considered it to be in the best interests of the citizens of Palo Alto —whom both bodies served. He especially appreciated Mayor Klein' s comments about the areas of representation and authority. The responsibility was the District' s, and he did not want to take the position that the project could allow work to be done upstream and not downstream= They were advised that work had to be done downstream first. It was not a new idea, was consistently adhered to throughout the Di strict and was engrained in their philosophy on flood control problems. He was only one Board member, but was convinced that if their staff returned with a change that cost $400,000 to the Di s- trict, the Board could not be expected to find it acceptable. Co unc ilmember Renzel said if the motion passed, she hoped the item would be ag end lied for the SC VW D Board She watched their agenda for the flood basin, but had not seen it shown. She wo u1 d have attended to speak if it was on the agenda, yet the Council received reports that the Board made decisions wi th respect to the flood basin that were not agendized. If the motion passed, she hoped there would be a full publ is discussion at the Di strict Board level . Councilme ber Sutorius supported the amendment. He did not under- stand why using the ITT property would cost $400,000 additional as i t was an in lieu potential . Should it turn out to save moneyon the current project, there would be a net reduction of approxi- mately $400,000 in total Di strict costs. On the other hand, if it did not offer the total assurance the Di strict bel ieved necessary, it wa a likely to result in a smaller- sc al ed proj ec t that would be a tag -along. He did not see it escalating to the approximately $1,200,000 the Di strict suggested. The proposal could be imple- mented and allow important upstream work, which appeared to be at the Bayshoreend and currently at a 50 and 55 -year capabil ity, to begin. If it gas important that the work start at that end, the current and added eapac i ty produced from a freeboard and overflOw on ITT would by the Di strict' s cal cul ation, bring it up to the 80 to 90 year level . Li n sl ey, , Kr aeg er cal c ul ated that it would be well over one hundred years as ise His amendment did not present a forced added cost, but had the potential of reducing the cost. Counclliaember Cobb asked if the amendment left any exploration of the compromise recommended by staff. Mayor Klein said the compromise recommended by staff was not on the floor and was not placed on the floor. It would be left -,in limbo. A follow-up motion to approve the staff recommendation would be inconsistent wi th the amendment and an amended motion. It might be possible to direct staff to .continue negotiations along the lines of the suggested compromise. Both were not pos- sible, as the staff recommendation was to advise the District to proceed with proCessi ng the basin project, based on the compro- mise. As the amendment wi thheld approval , the two were dia- metrically opposed. Vice Playor Levy ass ed that approval` would be withheld until February 28, 1985, at which time the Council would either have to act on the proposal or it would be approved by default. ir. Lamer atid iis. Lee agreed. Mr. zaner said if the Council wanted to deny the project or wanted to let it go until . i t ran on its own, they had until February 28, 1985. If the Council wanted to impose some other sol uti on, it stil l had to return to the Planning Commission, go through site and design approval and return to the Council for final approval by February 28. If there was a further compromise to be worked out, staff had to work out the tuning so they could go to the Planning Commission and return to the Council in time. Vice Mayor Levy said that meant the Council had to hear from the Di strict wi thin three or four weeks Mr. Zaner said staff would have to hear quickly. Mayor Klein did not support the amendment because they had al ready heard from the Di strict. He was sure Mr. Len i han. spoke for his colleagues, despite his protestations to the contrary. Given the time constraints, he had troubl e asking for a usel ess act, and bel leved they had to get on with the process. ANEKDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Woolley, Levy, Klein, ,Cobb voting °no.. NOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Klein, Cobb voting 'm+a.`° Councilmember Renzel believed it would help the District in its concern about 1 iab i1 i ty i f FEMA were asked to revise the fl ood map with respect to the flood basin only. MOTION: Ceincilwember 'teazel eared, seconded by Witherspoon, to ask staff to develop an appeal to FEMA vsing the Linsley, Krieger documentation as a basis for the flood basin effort. Councilmember Renzel said the motion addressed the fl ood basin only. It would probabl y involve obtaining certi fication of the outboard levee. Vice Mayor Levy regretted that the flood basin question was not resolved, and suggested it was premature to go to FEMA before reaching that point. Councilmember Renzel said that a large amount of the necessary material s were already prepared-- the Linsley, Kraeger documenta- tion contained computer printouts and data to demonstrate to FEMA that a proper job ways done. If the proper data was presented, it could be taken care of within four months. If it ran parallel to the present activity, it esight provide additional info relation that would be useful to the District as well as the City in future dis- cussions, NOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM 19, PUBLIC HEARING. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT Marg-Sr ir •:17 Mayor Klein said no action was required by the Council Councilmember Witherspoon referred to page a of the Fair Housing Services provided by the Midpeninsui a Citizens for Fair Housing . There was a reductionin the contec is and caseloads carried. _ -She found the current cost per contact of approximatel y $58 high Kr. Miller said the number of cases was slightly down, but not to •'significant degree. The prior year the case load was higher due to the, number of new cases- coaling in under child discrimination which had since dropped. They were hoped to become zero. 5 3: 4 2 12/17/84 CuUircilmember- Witherspoon shared that hope if the costs al so dropped. the costs were now up to $58, even counting the ones considered an educational meeting. She presumed the Emergency Housing Consortium (EHC) was part of the budget, but asked if it was appropriate for the City to spend money outside the County. Mr. Miller said the Emergency Housing Consortium was budgeted the previous year to find a si to and set up a program in the Palo Al to area to serve the homeless. None of the funds were spent to pur- chase either the si to or the building. The site was purchased by the liidpeninsul a Coal itian Housing Fund, and leased to the EHC. Counci'member Witherspoon confirmed that they had not spent $10,000. Mayor Klein decl ared the publ is hearing open, As no member of the publ is wanted to speak, he declared the publ is Marino closed. ITEM #11, PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ItECOMMENDAT1ON RC COUNTY REF_ PROPOSED) ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY FACILITY� PROJECT DESIGN AND CNYIkkOMME) TAL IMPACT REPORT (PLA 1"6 7 (CMR:60-7:4T Planning Commissioner Jean McCown said that due to the fast turn- around, there were some omissions from the Planning Commission minutes. The Commission supported completion of a permanent facility to handle the various waste streams Stanford attempted to deal with. The Commission focused on the siting and land use con- siderations since those issues were intertwined wi th the technical safety issues discussed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which relationship explained the Commission's comments. Two of the five Commissioners wanted further exploration of more remote sites for the facility to decrease the concerns about potential problems from operation of the facil its► in its proposed location near residential areas such as Oak Creek Apartments. Based on the analysis in the EIR of a preferred site designated as "I," the other three believed the opposite approach to 1 ocate the site es close as possible to the source of the materials to be treated should be pursued. Three Commissioners preferred to see the si ting of the facil sty 1 inked wi th the pl anning of the 85 acres in the triangle, and the other two preferred to see it proceed with- out that necessary connection. Councilsaember Bechtel cl arified that the Commission` s definition of 'more remote' was none of the si tes shown \in "A" through "J" of the EIR, but rather on the other side of Jun i per o Serra . Councilmember Woolley. understood that about 45 empl oyees were envisioned for the facility, and asked if the parking was adequate or more than adequate. Commissioner McCown said the parking of 65 spaces was more than adequate. The parking lot was designed to accommodate other development to probably occur in that area even though it would be a small accommodation. Councilmember Woolley clarified that it would not accommodate an enl arcement of the Environmental Safety Facility (ESF) but other facilities. She asked about the progress between Stanford and the City on .long-range pl an s for the 85 acres. Mr. Freeland said staff asked Stanford to take the lead in putting 1 together a paper and process to get it started. Nothing was yet received from them al though they received a document that addressed the potential update of the ,so-called Area A -B -C °.Use Permit Agreement conditions, which_ was being „reviewed. He . knew Stanford hoped and intended to get the Joint planning effort underway . so -it. could doveteil in with the County's Use Permit, which was scheduled to come up in . March, 1985. He expected to hear fret them sho r dd Y , 5 3 4 3 12/1.7/84 Cowie iifesuer Wool ley clarified they were talking about spring and that Stanford had .a September deadline to compl ete the p1 an Councilmember Bechtel understood Stanford had various other proj- ects corning before the County in that area. She heard of the Conference Center in a hotel in the Menl o Park area and an office complex of 60,000 square feet on County land. She asked if staff knew .of any other projects. Mr. Freel and s,.id the week was full of. surprises. He only heard that day of thf;, Conference `Center and hotel apparently envisioned in the Sand Hill Road neighborhood. A new 58,000 square foot Medical Center office building was contemplated in the Governors Avenue area near the Welch .Road extension that was just going in, near but not on the 85 acres. There might well be other buildings popping ;gyp that he had not heard of within the coming few weeks. He no longer felt so confident about it. Councilmember Renzel asked if the ESF were incl tided in the traffic projections for Willow Road. Mr.. Freel and recal led that the traffic to be generated was in the background growth factor rather than specifically factored fn at that location. It was a small facility in terms of traffic gener- ation, and would probatly make little difference. Councilmember Renzel pointed out that the Conference Center and the 58,000 square feet of office buildings might have an impact. Mr. Freeland agreed , and said staff asked the County to specif- ically look at the 58,000 square foot building with regard to the immediate intersections of the building. The Conference Center was new to him, and he did not know whether it was a real project or what. He was alarmed that it would have a major implication for the traffic analysis done for willow Road, but did not have sufficient information. Linda Weisberg, Assi start Provost for Facilities Pl inning for Stanford University, said she and several Stanford staff members were present to respond to questions, as a substantial mount of material was already prepared and considered. Present were Drs. Roland Finston, Director .of Health Physics and Alain deCl eve, Director of Health and Safety, who would jointly run the opera- tions and were primarily responsible for staffing and design of the fact] ity; Jerry Parks , Project Manager; and Andy Doty, Pub1 is Relations Coordinator. She was with the project for 2.5 years, and was prepared to speak to the site and policy and the Univer- sity' s genera perspective issues. Stanford sent a letter wi th material s to the City the . previous Thursday in .response to some concerns of the Planning Commission. She showed slides of the proposed location of the ESF and views of the three types of land use .contemplated in the 85 acres-- ref ativel y high- densi ty academic buildings; low-den si ty buffers al ong Willow Road opposite Oak Creek Apartments, and the support service zone. Tire lays -out` dif- fered from the 1980 Land • Use P1 an in that some high- density and the support service zones were flipped, so that future academ.tc. building design could be contiguous wi th the service zone. She showed a schematic _ drawing of the ESF With three small buildings. The ' first would ho vie the staffs of the two groups and the Un iv er- sity's insurance program, witha conference and teaching area in the middle of the building. The second building was storage for the very low-level radioactive Material, which was presently housed in Stanford. The third building was a combination loading deck for biological materials with a separate one for chemicals; chaotic.) storage cells, and a treatment recycling laboratory and an incinerator to burn biological- waste and al so; chemical s and the 1 ow -level; radioactive material once it decayed to '; background levels. There was :a satal l parking area wi th 10 extra spaces to accommodate people . who caste for laboratory training , thyroid 5 3 4 4 12/17/84 scans and the many other activities that Heal th physics or Heal th and Safety conducted outside the disposal operations. She showed a picture of the model from old Searsville Road which was no 1 onger in use. The final design would have a brick or concrete block wall to hel p define and contain the interior yard of the facil ity. The incinerator stack would go to roughly the back of the middle building. Safety was the first criterion throughout. The location was based on 15 criteria, only one of which deal t with the distance hazardous materials would have to be trans- ported. The evaluations, supported by the EIR, showed there was no safety difference between the sl tes. The remote site wa s not selected because of the cost of packing and transporting material across a public road, nor .the hospital where the 3.5 acres were not available, nor on the periphery, where some of the activates would be less effective. Because of those facts, Stanford consid- ered the proposed location appropriate. Councilmember Renzel asked about the difference in requirements between transporting on a public versus a private road and the rationale behind them. Ms. Weisberg said the differences affected the ex tent to which we t materials were packed in an absorbent so that if they spilled out, they would be contained. The containers were of a different kind of material . Stanford would al so have to meet transportation requirements when carrying material s on its own road system, but they were less stringent because they would not go on pl aces where there was a high traffic count. Crossing Junipero Serra would require Stanford to meet the Department of Transportation regula- tions. Chemicals would have to be packed in a 55 gallon barrel of sand and sealed. To carry the same material by van from the Medical Center to the ESF meant packing it only in a triple con- tainer without sand. Counc11member Renzel ascertained from Ms. Weisberg that the fed- eral requirements eel ated to the fact that it was a public road -- not whether there was one car or a hundred thousand on it. She asked how driving on Stanford roads would change the impact, as they might have a hundred thousand or one car on them. Ms. Weisberg said the question related to the likely risk of driving within a campus drive, which was unlikely to have 20,000 automobiles, traffic 1 ights .and turns, etc. She was not conver- sant with how the regulations were reached, but underscored that Stanford met the requirements • for the interior campus system, which happened to be different from those for a highway. Mayor Klein' ascertained that .no other member of Stanford had a prepared-, sta temen t to make and suggested the Council' address ques- tions to -the Stanford representatives. Councilmember Witherspoon understood the technology was practiced in • Europe for many years and asked if the proposed facility was state - of - the - art. beye nd that practiced -,.in Europe Dr, de Cleve said the definition of .state - of - the - art might lead to confusion. It would not be a high tech facll ity that might fail . The state.- of- the- art equi.pmen t --a an Inc inerato r--wa s used for many years in hospital s, universities and industry for the disposal of b iol og is al , radiological and sole `them is al material s with protec- tion of the air and the environment. State-of-the-art storage meant isolation cells bullt with all protection devices such as fire al arms, ,sprinkl er system.,_ etc ..that any -.spill would be contained -and not reach the ground. • The well 1 s. Would be built so that fire could not spread. Each cell would be 100 square feet, and contain only small amounts of material. The laboratory where the chemicel s would - be treated -'would be small , with a tank` in which two acids or bases that neutralized each iother cOul de be placed before they were released It wit not a complex facility. but vas state -of the -art because of its design. - 5 3 4 5 12/17/84 Co uric ilieeiiber Fletcher asked about a worst case scenario when ✓ enting out the material s rel eased —what would be the nature of the hazardous materials released if theee was a real breakdown in the venting system. Dr. de Cl eve expl ained the worst case hypothesi s. Stanford handled small quanti ties of a variety o.f chemical s, and he used as a model the most toxic gas. Gas cylinders were handled directly by the vendors in the •laboratories for safety reasons and because it was in the contract that they del iv er full and collect empty o nes. Occasionally, Stanford handled an empty cylinder. If in error a cyl finder full of the most toxic gas handled at Stanford was placed in the gas vault for empty cylinders and- for some reason broke open --valve fail ure, an earthquake, or real 1cious tam- pering -Wand the contents of one cubic foot of gas was rel eased, it would, fill up the room which had a capacity of 1,500 cubic feet. He assumed the , ventilation system would push the 1,500 cubic feet out of the room - through the vents at full capacity, although it would normally push out only 150 cubic feet per minute. It would take 10 minutes to release 100 percent of the gas, with two air changes. Assuming the plume escaped from the facility and, going against the laws of physics, remained as a bubble and traveled at a minimal wind speed of 1.5 m.p.h., the gas could be worked with under safe conditions for . eight hours at .05 parts per mill ion. One would be seriously sick after working with it for two hours at six parts per million. The lethal dose of the gas for 50 percent o f the population was 250 parts per million. Assuming all the conditionshe gave, the concentration of the gas in the air bubbl e would be .22 parts per million. If one assumed that the gas with- in 10 meters of the facility had not moved or been dil uteri, anyone wi thin 10 feet of the facility could work for two hours, al though it would not be advisable. In the worst scenario for the most poisonous gas that was not really handled at the facii ity, when everything went wrong, the gas did not diffuse and hit a person standing by for 10 minutes (after which it would have traveled on) , there was no danger to that person, Counc i1member Fletcher asked if the bubble cool! d fl oat over to Oak Creek Apartments. Or. de Cleve said that any bubble could float anywhere. Even in the worst case where a bubble floated without expanding or dil ut- ing, it would still be safe as it would pass through. Although not advisable, for the length of time at such a concentration, it would have no adverse health effects on people 10 meters from the facil ity, at Oak Creek Apartments, or anywhere el se. Councilmember Fletcher asked if there would be a dangerous release of chemicals if the filter ing system fa 11 ed. 4r. de Cleve said there would not be a filtering system, except for the incinerator, but.. scrubbing. The largest mount of. mater- ial s to be burned at the fac1,1 ity would be of the biological type for which the law did not require scrubbing, providing the temper- ature in the burning chambers wass adequate. The sc rubbing added to the facii ity was to provide art additional safety factor and a safeguard should the .biol ogical material s be contaminated by pl as - tic s, which sometimes were included in the load. Even if it failed, there would be no ill effects. Councilmember Cobb asked if Dr. de Cleve would assign probability to any exposure of the residents at oak Creek to any worst case analysis made, He asked if the worst case analysis included such things as an explosion in a m&Jor fire at a time when the pre- vailing wind would take the products to Oak Creek Apartments. Dr. de Cleve said that was dune, but Oak Creek Apartments were no different from any other kind of'housing complex. ` The only excep- tion was the propane tank to' ensure continuous 'f_ unctlo'ning of the burning process at ,the incinerator in case of a blackout Such a 5.3 a 6 12117/84 propane tank would be smaller than those found at Lake Tahoe or in rural areas or in filling stations where fire or expl osien would in the worst case require evacuation within 300 or 500 feet. Evacuation would be required wi thin 300 to 500 yards --not feet --of the facility. No ill effe.cts were anticipated outside the Stanford boundaries going in the direction of Oak Creek. Councilmember Renzel asked whether the facility would be restric- ted to Stanford wastes, or whether it would receive pressure to take wastes from local industry :and other groups Dr. de Cleve said it would be under such pressure as it was not easy to get a facil ity approved, but for many reasons, indl uding 1 100 i) i ty, Stanford could no t. The. prof ec t_ was for Stanford wastes, and it encouraged others to follow suit. The onl y excep- tion was hospital biological wastes, as Stanford had a reciprocal arrangement wi th El Camino Hospi tal and Stanford Research Institute (SRI) to .dispose of each other's wastes for a week or ten days under emergency conditions if one of 'the partners needed to work on its incinerator, Councilmember Renzel asked if that was specified in the penult. Dr. de Cl eve said no es they had not gone through on the Permit for biological waste, but would do so. Councilmember Renzel clarified that Stanford did not object to a condition restricting the facility to Stanford use except in an emergency. Dr. de Cleve .emptasized that an .emergency would only be for bio- logical type wastes that could. not ,wait. There was no problem in storing .chemical and radiological wastes for 10 dad+s, Biological wastes could not be stored for 10 days without being treated. Larry Theisen, an officer wi th Brown and Caldwell of Wal nut Creek, the firm that prepared the EIR, said their work was done for !.ante Clara County, and the work pl an was developed in . direct interface with the County to respond to their needs even though they were under contract to Stanford.. They were experienced in EIR' s, and found. that the facility could be constructed. end put 'into place with the appropriate mitigations Brown and Caldwell was experi- enced in the field of hazardous materials management, with two l aboratories employing some 75 people who worked daily wi th hazardous material s. Louis Fein, 1540 Oak Creek Drive, opposed approval of the ESF at that time on the proposed site. He was concerned that the December 5, 1984 Planning Commission minutes quoted him as recom- mending "this approval . He said "disapproval ." The Council should recommend disapproval 'of any facil ity, incl uding the ESF or any activity, on the 86 acre area on campus until after the County approved a Land Use Plan . for the whole area, and not tolerate piecemeal p1 anning, which violated well respected pl anning principles. He was surprised that the planning staff recommended • approval of piecemeal planning on the grounds that they could not see any land use plan for all 86 acres that would not include the proposed site and facility. He was pleased the majority of the Planning Commission opposed it. It was expected that the Land Use Pion would be approved in less than one year, during' which time Stanford could renew its agreement for its existing fat 111ties. The proposed site was inappropriate. The probability of accidents and its impact on people and property was unknown. No. probabil ity estimate was done because no one knew how to make one. An incin- erator dealing with three waste streams. at once had never before been done, - He referred accidants at nuclear and chemical plants where ex -ports made .c ,asst, of 'low peObabil ity -of accidents and consequences, It should mike the Council, pause before, giving credibility to claims by. provioter experts of a, proposed :facility of that or any other type. David B1 ellenthal 1766 Willow Road, was concerned -chat the facil- ity was practically in his backyard. He said hazarous materials were presently being moved 200 miles to a landfill location, and he did not believe the present emissions were safe. There were many -senior citizens and children at Oak Creek, but in the past ,few years six people died from cancer, and he was concerned about the cancer causing emissions coming from Stanford incinerators. Stanford c1 aimed it could go no further than it was presently go- ing, but when people on the other side said that 300 yards was too close to them, Stanford said it would be moved away, and it was moved 250 yards from the Oak Creek. apartments. Kandis Scott, 535 Los Arbales,, Stanford, referred to the letter from Stanford University, which was on file in the City Clerk's office, and said Stanford emphasized there would only be small amounts of hazardous materials incinerated in the proposed facil- ity. Page 5-1 of the EIA described the biological waste stream as "very large." If the material.- was of such a small amount, she believed the al ternatives described on pages 5-1 through 5-3 were feasible. She did not believe Stanford had the facts and argu- ments to go both ways. Stanford spoke about double, triple and multiple safety features, yet in the EIR, it described a project that onl y offered those sa fety features as mandated by law. On page C-4, a statement suggested that Stanford was not looking towards double and tripl a safety features, and described the necessity of a bypass stack, to be used in the event of an emer- gency so that the hazardous mai'rial s would not be contained in the building, but would be released into the air to avoid a dan- gerous concentration of materials wi thin the building. The bypass stack would be used during power failures so that the emergency generator would not need to be large enough to power the induced draft fan. To build an emergency generator too small to power an induced draft fan was not double and triple safety procedures. Stanford spoke of the need to share its incinerators with other institutions on an emergency basis. Stanford took a part of the VA wastes ever since the VA cl osed down its incinerator over one year ago. Stanford said in the EIR statement that nine percent of the radioactive waste it burned in its hospital were off campus, non -Stanford radioactl,ve wastes. She requested the names of the institutions in which there were three waste stream incinerators, and while Stanford was happy to speak with her, she was provided with no such institutions. There was no acknowl edgment of an em- ployee or truck driver who was in a hurry, and shoved something into the wrong storage cabinet or someone who hastened the incin- erator process. When examining safety, those factors should be considered. In the -undeveloped toxic free area, a toxic storage and incinerator plant should have significant impact on appropri- ate uses in the surrounding areas. To approve the plants Council must confront the fact that it was beginning the design of the l and use pi an for the 85 acres. Keith Rouse, 515 Newell Road, said there was a need for an envi- ronmental safety facility to combine the various packaging, burn- ing and storage, and the question was where to put it. He was opposed; to the current pl an In a letter dated June 7, 1983, by Provos Pasteur, he outl ined many of: the projects for the ..particu- lar -area, but the student housing complex going across Campus Drive. West wasnot included. It was the last flat area of land near the center of campus rr@e fi c h was why it was needed' for a vari- ety of support systems, housing and `recreation facilities. The toxic material s presently being used could get -Poore exotic. His letter stated `this approach .ts seen as necessary (building this facility) owing to the expansion, of research efforts that used chemical s and other toxic material s as well as the growth of patient care activities. -1= suaaest the facility should-. be placed el sewhere.° The idea of traffic and peckaaing seemed ironic; -and he proposed that if the . faC11.1ty was.on campus, it needed the _absol ute max imUm stringent_ package 'requirements because Campus Drive- Wiest- at 4:30 p.m.- we's hazardous and would become more so because the Reagan Library would be at the end " of i t just off 5 3 4 S 12/11/84' Juniper° Serra. The; present projection of traffic was 200,000 to 500 000 people per year many of which would use Campus Drive West. Regarding safety of radioactive waste, in the November 2, 1983 issue of New York Times, Rockefeller University WAS turned down for a permit to burn radioactive waste. The report stated that however s1 ight the chance might be of an `accident, "we don' t want it" and they refused the permit. The waste was currently being burned - in Florida. He was concerned that "both the Planning Com- mission and the ARB expressed great concern about being unable to assess the risk and potential environmental impacts associated with the technically sophi sticated facility." They were al so con- cerned that neither the City nor County had the experts to ade- quately assess the proj ect. He was downwind from the new si to by about 200 feet. It was a matter of trust —of, believing what Stanford officials said. They said the facility was needed near the Sear svill a Road site because of proximity to the ever expand- ing medical school; that it was safer to haul materials -short distances. The public had to put *heir trust in Stanford because he saw nothing that suggested there were experts on the other side. Susan Mill er, 1540 Oak Creek Drive, supported Stanford's proposed project. She held an environmental engineering degree from Cal Poly and had eight years experience in the environmental field. Upon hearing Stanford's presentation at Oak Creek Apartments a coupl e of weeks ago and tal king wi th Stanford personnel , she was convinced that the proposed facii ity offered a safe and sound en- vironmental al ternative to treating the hazardous wastes that Stanford now produced. The facility offered the following advan- tages over present practices: (1) it provided one central loca- tion for waste consolidation thus enhancing Stanford's capability for treating and recovering hazardous and radioactive waste. From her experience at Hewlett Packard, if there was not one central area to bring the waste and treat it, it was difficult to safely package and treat. (2) the waste was better secured as the facil- ity was designed with the state-of-the-art double and triple con- tainment that the new regul ations required. Regul ations on exist- ing facilities were not as stringent as for new facilities. The faci1 ity would be much safer than what Stanford al ready did. (3) the facility all owed Stanford to retire the two of der , 1 ess effi- cient incinerators and replaced them with a state - of - the - art in- cinerator offering 99 ;percent efficiency for removal 'of the con- taminants from the atmosphere. They were replacing one incinera- tor wf th two and were getting a lot less contamination into the air because the facii ity was more efficient. (4) the facil ity cut down on the amount of waste to be transported off -site because it al l owed for more w: ste to be treated and incinerated oil- si to . Environmental Protection Agencysta ti st.ic s showed that the great- est danger posed to the publ is was through transporation of hazardous waste --no t to its storage. While no one wanted the facility in their backyard, the problem was where to put i t. Arguments could go on until the ,year 2000, but the facii ity would never get buil t. She bel ieved it needed to be buil t. The publ is tended to forget that hazardous waste was a necessary byproduct of reseerch _end hospital processes. The new facility did not create any more waste nor did it induce Stanford to produce or store more waste -nit offered a state - of -the - art alternative to handling -and treating the waste. They were living in a teehnol ogica11y sophi s- ticated environment and society and , technologically sophi sicated hazardous waste facilities were needed. Stanford should. be given that opportunity to build one. Councilmember Fl -etcher was concerned about the radioactive wastes, future student housing in the area, and that site !I" was rejected in part because it was within a 250 foot radius of :other activity, i .e ., if it was not compatible with human habitation within a 250 foot radius, was it compatible with being close to Oak Creek. Mr. Blumenthal made the comment that radloective waste, did not break down, but rather stayed radioactive indefinitely, and she asked for comments. 1 1 12/17/84 Dr. Roland Finston, Stanford University Director of Health Physics, agreed that incineration per se did notchange the radio- active character of a radioactive atom. There was a variety of radioactive materials that Stanford dealt with varying longevity of hazard. The EIR pointed out that Stanford intended to store the large bulk for a sufficient length of time and there would be one part in a million of the original activity present at the time they were burned. There were certain radioactive species that had longer half lives and the incineration process would change the chemical bonds that those atoms were found in and convert them into low hazard chemicals such as carbon dioxide labeled as carbon-14 or water labeled with tritium, and the EIR addressed the quantity of radioactive materials that would be released and the dose to any member of the public from such incineration. The com- parison could be amply done with the natural radioactive environ- ment to which all were exposed. That comparison would show that the exposure from such releases was a small fraction of the natur- al radioactive environmental exposure. Ms. Weisberg said the new student housing dormitories were only being explored in terms of costs and financial options and how many years away Stanford was from being able to incur additional debt to pay for them. The location being considered was further away from the ESE. As the current 800 -bed unit was just to its north of Lake Laguni ta, it would be just to the west. With regard to site "I ," she clarified that Councl ]member Fletcher asked whether site "I" which was near the medical center was turned down because it was seen as imcompatible with surrounding uses. Councilmember Fletcher clarified the EIR stated site "I" "was con- sidered to be incompatible with adjacent land uses which include within a 250 foot radius, the museum, the Dean's lawn at the edge of the Aboretum and the Hospital and there was extensive pedes- trian traffic in the area." e Ms. Weisberg said the most important reason for not selecting site "I" was there was not sufficient land area right at Site "I" to have storage, a chemical facility, an'incinerator, office build- ing, room for expansion in the future; and parking. They wanted all those requirements, and site "I" barely would have made it, and would have made it impossible to use that facility for a pur- pose Stanford believed would be more "compatible` with academic building, i.e., compatible in that another academic facility could go there better than 1n academic facility could go at Site "J" whereas the ESF could well go at either "I" or "J" and was not harmed by being at site "J". The aesthetics of site "I," and the fact that there was pedestrian traffic to the museum were ancil- lary reasons, but were not the overriding ones. Councilraeraber Woolley asked what`was expected of the Council. Chief Planning . Official Bruce Freeland believed it would be best to have a formal motion. There was some confusion after the Plan- ning Commission about what was done, and he believed it was best to have a position. It was clear! that the .City was advisory to the County. Counci larember Woolley was primarily .concerned about safe operation of the facility. She was assured by the fact that all of the activities to go on at the new facility were currently taking place on campus. The low level radiological waste was being burned in the incinerator at the hospital now, ,so that .:the acci- dents mentioned could happen now as well as when the new=. facility was built. Further, combining the disposal i n a specialized, more efficient facility increased the level of safety and, therefore, those activities ."should be less subject to accident that they were currently. As long -as the operationwas safe,.. the location was a secondary concern and she applauded Stanford for not overlooking its own backyard. Too often, people were prone to approve proj- ects in the abstract, but not next door. The site chosen minimized the transport of wastes, and she supported the staff recommendation for Site "J" because presently the radiological wastes were being packaged at the Bonnair siding anu .he Oak Creek Apartments were no closer to the proposed_ facility than Escondido Village was to the present site, and more people were housed in Escondido Village than in the Oak Creek Apartments. With regard to design, she agreed with the Planning Commission that the design was not attractive and she endorsed the staff recommendation regarding landscaping the facility. She believed Condition No. 1(a) might say "except in an emergency for biological wastes," because she was lead to believe the problem of an emergency situa- tion was only with biological wastes because those were not easily' stored. MOTION: Councilme.ber Woolley moved, seconded by Levy, to adopt the Pleasing Commission and Architectural Review Board recommenda- tions that Council direct staff to forward the Draft EIR to Seata Clara County and that Santa Clara County approve the proposed Environmental Safety Facility on Site J with the following condi- tions; I. a. Except is an emergency for biological wastes, only gen- erated on campus and at the Medical Center to be handled by the ESF; and b. Stanford University should only apply for as 'on -site Part B permit' for its incinerator; 2 No radioactive ashes should be accepted at the Palo Alto sani- tary landfills 3. The design of the ESF be approved with the following coadi- ti•ns and comments: a. The landscaping plans are acceptable for the parking lot and for the facility itself, except that additional shrubs and/or helloing s eel d be provided on the two sides of the facility facing Willow Road and the Oak Creek Apartments to further screen it; b. An aarbsri st should be retained to review the ESF plans and specifications and site conditions with the objective •f faorther defining safeguards both during construction sad for the future protections of the oek trees; c. To mitigate the visual impact, . the measures listed on page 4-3i of the EIR (use earth tone colors, avoid fermati•n of a water vaparplume from the exiraest stack and control of exterior lighting) should be incorporated into the building design, exterior finish, etc., to improve its appearance on the Willow Road sides of the facility; d. The wall surroeadi ag parts of the facility sbeel d be can- strutted with split -faced black with integral color (rather than the smooth -faced painting concrete block initially prap•sed); e. " All reef -top east pmeat be painted, perhbps a , dark brown; mod that toer be intredeced on window mullions and col 4. Copies ofthe k`iaal EIf be' dtstribated to the Pisaaim, Cemaaaism ti•n, ARB,,'and City Coeac4l Counci ioeober Saetorius was intri gazed. by the co nt that Site "J" had room: for expansion, and in .tyres_ of -s4 ety, he asked *hat ex-. pansioh was forecasted -.and how.. construction and aaodification was handled : for ..such . a sensi ti ve .eperaion 5 3 5 1 12/11/84 As Corrected 2/25/85 Ms. Weisberg said the only expansion contemplated was the adminis- trative building -snot the chemical , incinerator, or radiological buildings. The facility was designed so as to add office modul es o ff to the end wing of the administrative building if necessary. Councilmember Sutorius clarified that the safety and security pro- grams contemplated handling the personnel involved, contractors, e tc. It was different from the new construction of a facii Ity not yet handling the wastes and trying to meet a critical schedule in terms of the handling processes etc. Ms. Weisberg said the facility was designed .with a concrete wall at the back where the end of the administrative building bumped up against i t. It was possible to locate construction trailers away from that concrete wall and build on to the facility and perhaps move the concrete wall without ever going into the rest of the facii ity for any construction work. Councilmember Cobb said the location was closer to a residential area. He asked if Stanford considered another site on the other side of old Seersv it 1 e. Road somewhere between the current site and Si *e "G" where it could maximize the distance away from where people lived. He bel ieved in the need for the facii ity and the fact that Stanford was putting it in its backyard, but was con- cerned about it being so close to Aerie people had to live wi th it o n a day to day basis. Ms. Weisberg said the EIR incl uded the 13 criteria Stanford attempted to use to site the facility. Site MG which was near the Red Barn and stables waves considered to be inappropriate since it was the only part of the campus that still retained the character of the original Stanford farm. Recently the Red Barn was renovated and the stables were being spruced up. Stanford did not believe moving the facility to that location reduced the safety of the facility nor did it make it further away from any people living in adjacent areas. _ Councilmember Cobb said the dispersal of any type of material went inversely wi th the square of distance so that small changes in distance could make for significant changes in terms of dispersal of biological material. He clarified that he asked whether it was possible to move the location across Searsville Road and get it a 1 i ttl e further away from where peopl e 1 iv ed . Ms . We i sberg deferred to Brown and Caldwell, who prepared the EIR, to respond to the dispersal factors of the emission and how they affected safety. A representative of Brown and Caldwell said the quantities being deal t xi th wer e sm al l and wer e not model ed . Countilmerber Cobb asked whether there were sites available across old Sear svii1e Road that might have -been considered. Ms. Weisberg said the area was "not studied as 'it was presently in the hands of- the Athl etic Department. The: impacts, in terms of transportation, etc., that did not seem to be different if they were over old Sear sville Road could have to be measured, but the Sear sv11Ie block neighborhood at the corner of Old .Searsvil1e Road and Campus Drive West would be no further. away if the 1 °c a ti o n were changed. She attempted to be responsive, but the site we s. not studied because it was not in the freed up land area chosen as a criteria. Vice Mayor Levy safe= transportation appeared to be a 'wore risky .. element than the handling and storage of the materials or the risk from an ac c i d en t taking pi ac e at the st o e' ag e or disposal site. He was sympathetic to the fact that Stanford tried to minimize : the transportation. He was satisfied that Stanford was acting in a responsible manner in designing the fac if ity and was willing to accept the plans before the Council and recommend their approval with the safeguards incorporated into the motion. He was con- cerned about 1 and scaping, but bel ieved it was sati sfactoril y addressed in the motion. ,Regarding whether the Council should approve the site before approving a more comprehensive plan for the 86 acres, he was aril ling to accept the proposal because he believed it was a low intensity use of the site and any likely al ter nativ a uses would be more intense. Since the City would have approved the ESE, anything el se before the Council would have to be sited in relation to the existing element, and having approved a ESF made it more rigorous to approve any future development in the area because of the proximity to a concentration of people l iv ing or working in the area. He was concerned about the conven- tion center emerging about which the City had no previous know- ledge, but was pleased that Menlo Park was al so looking rigorously at any development going onto its land. There was no question that he would look more closely at anything tocome down the pike involving the area, and bel feved the level of confidence he had a few months ago was- at a lower level. When he heard the term state - of- the - art" he turned off because he b el ieved it wa s vague and imprecise term for anyone to use, and it was necessary to be more precise in describing things. He supported the motion. Mayor Klein agreed wi th Vice Mayor Levy down to the comment about the use of the English language. Regarding the 85 acres, he felt mislead about the convention center and bel ieved . the City should have been told. He was not concerned about the ESE in relation to the 85 acres because he agreed with Vice Mayor Levy that develop- rment potential would be reduced by the facility rather than en- hanced. The facil ity was necessary, and there was a risk. The question was whether technology was such that the risk was at a small level so that the society could accept it. He was persuaded through the EIR and el sewhere that the facility was well within acceptable risks for Stanford, the residents of Oak Creek, and everyone el se. Hebel ieved it actually reduced the risks faced by the community, and the facfl ity should be endorsed. Councflmember Renzel said one speaker mentioned there would be severe permit restrictions on the new facil ity versus those re- quired on an existing fac fi i t,y, and she asked whether Stanford wa s pursuing the permit as a new facility, and whether it was being done prior to construction. Jerry Parks, Stanford University Project Manager for the ESF said there were seven identi fled permits that were mandated.. Councilmember Renzel asked whether Stanford was first building the facility and then • requesting the permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mr. Parks said Stanford would be given` a permit to build and then a permit to operate . There were two parts to the same permit. Counciimeieber Renzel asked whether that was standard procedure. Mr. Parks said the EPA 'procedures changed , and. the perm -it to build end then • the permit to operate were the procedures under which Stanford was presently operating.- CoUncilmember Renzel was less sanguine about Mhat might happen on the 86 acres wi th respect to the ;ESF'. going i In a rational etarketpl ace, i t might be reasonable l_ expect less development, but she did not bel ieve Stanford was a rational marketpl ace. The City saw that the right hand did not always know what the left. hand was doing, and since Willow Road went through, the City saw many projects come along that were not then identified. She believed the City was being pieceme*l/sd, and its input into the planning process was eroded by the. variety of apprval s being sought. There were requests for a 60,000 square : foot office building, anti .the conference center hotel- going up Sand Hill Road. While the proposed project was included in the background level s of the Willow Road traffic projections, less planning latitude re- mained everytime the City approved something without knowing the other pieces of the puzzle. The ESF was essentially an industrial facility and had to be called a service faciity for Stanford, and she wondered whether it suggested that all the other service facilities would also be industrial -type facilities and whether that was what the City contemplated in an academic area. She believed it was not. As desirable as it was to have an environ- mental safety feeil lty, she was not ready to - approve it at Stanford or anywhere else in the Willow Corridor until the City had a p1 an for what was going on there. She opposed the motion. Councilmember Bechtel said if the use was altogether. new and Stanford was not t already burning its wastes, she would concur with Councilmember Renzel. Eighty-five percent of the wastes at the ESF would come from Stanford Hospi tal , and the wastes were al ready being burned there with Incinerators not as good as the ones pro- poseds Additionally, the other wastes were being stored :on -other parts of the campus and then transported to other locations.- West Covina had one of the few hazardous waste sites in the. State, and wa s no t wiId about having everyone el se' s wastes brought to tha t facil ity. They were concerned about. transportation through their community as any other residents should be. If possible, it made sense to deel wi th the wastes on- sito. She shared the concerns about Stanford' s pl ens, and it was true that when P.al o Al to asked. ab out pl an s for the 85 acres , i t .we s told the t= Stanford had none . That evening, Council received a .copy. -of a letter from .Provost Pasteur to the residents of the neighborhoods; dated June 7, 1983, which outlined many proposed facilities over a year and: a hal f ago. _ She was not sure the City heard about any of .the .:proposed facilities, and she asked that Stanford keep the City more in- formed. It was not fair fo r Stanford ° to say it had no pl an s when that was not the case. Mutual trust was necessary. Counc llmember Fletcher was concerned about the particular applica- tion,. and . spent much time discussing it .with Stanford people, en- vironmental hazardous waste specialists,: and with the City' s Fire Chief. She believed there was an urgent need for the facility, and was reasonably assured. that the surrounding residents would. not lae harmed. Although she had reservations, she supported the. motion. Councilmeaber . Sutor,ius associated himself with -. the co eats of Mayor Klein, _and expressed disappointment in not being advised of Stanford's p0'ar , NOTION PASSED by a vete sf 8.1 teazel vetleg 'dme.' Andy -Doty, 4072 Scripps 'Avenue, Stanford iinlveer•sity.: Director of Community ati o n s , said the 1 and . by :Interstate 280, was zoned commercial- • within -the Ci ty of Menlo Park for dozens :of ,years. It was. on Stein ford'•s land use plan as a commercial °.area suitable for develop ent . :Inquiries were received= regarding .the use :o.f that property almost weekly for years, and the University did nothing. Only recently did the Real Estate office; respond to :those people wi th requests' for proposal s. It was not a new- devei opment, and when Stanford spoke to , the City in the past about Sand. Hill Read, he thought in terms of Gernsey Field and Sand Hill SLAC. Stanford pointed out on numerous occasions the land in question was commer- cial property subject to development sometime in the .future.. He apologized for not call ing Palo Alto the date the news broke. He did not believe it was fair to say a lot of projects were received by the City recently about Which it had no prior knowledge_ because Stan ford tried to keep the City -staff notified of upcoming issues. He suggested might be appropriate for a Stanford official to attend monthly Council meetings. Caunc ituamber Renzel asked how long had Stanford considered put- ting the hotel conference site out for request for proposal s. 5 3 5 4 12/17/84 Mr. Doty said I few weeks to a month. Councilmember Renzel said she was upset not because Palo Alto did not know about the projects, but because traffic projections were done in three different EIR s designed to address cumulative im- pacts and two major project applications were received that were not counted as part of those traffic projections together with 40,000 ; quare feet of shopping center. ITEM #12, PLANNING COMMIS-SION RECOMEIIDATION RE APPEAL BY PALO ALTO F{TLL CliL'F S COUNTRY Call RE DENIAL OF USE PERMIT RegrtsT FtR TW -1� Bruce Hamilton, 260 Sheridan Avenue, represented a neighbor who would be affected by the proposed tennis courts, and • opposed the additional tennis courts as injurious to his property. He urged that the denial by upheld.: NOTION: Coencilreeaber Remzeel roved, seconded by 1Te of l ey, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to uphold the deci- sion 9f the teeing Administrator to dewy a use permit for twoad- ditional tennis courts in the locations regaired by the applicant with the following findings: 1 . The proposed use, at the proposed location, will be detri- mental or iujarloos to property or improvements in the vicis- ity, and will be deetrieeeetai to the pobl is health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that the proposed addition- al tennis courts will have a vary detrimental visual 'infect OR existing views from the rearyards of adjoining properties, particularly that of 3124 Alexis Drive. The proposed court addition is to be located eighteen feet from the common prop- erty line with 3124 Alexis Drive and the fencing surrounding the court would be four feet above the re*ryard elevation of this parcel. The addition of two tennis _,:oerts would also increase the impact of aaise on the adjoining properties, which must presently contend with signtficaut 1eeise intrusion fres the two existing courts; and 2. The proposed es* would net be located s d condected in a sran- ntr in accord with the Palo Al to Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Ti ti a 18 of the Palo Alto Phonicipal Code in that the proposed addition of tennis coorrts %mold be inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Noosing Policy 3, "Protect aced 'enhance those goal iti.s which make Palo Alto neighborhoods especially desirable;. Enviroeeueatal Resources Policy 11, 'E*sOree coeval I - /ace with tenth.' noise laws acrd protection of residents from unnecessary aeise;1 and the purposes ef the RE (ilesideetiah Estate) District, 'To create sad mairetale simple family living areas characterised by compatibility with, the District, "Ted protect the public health, safety, and welfare; to protect and preserve epee space land ... and to permit .the reeseaa ie -muse of ow space land, while at the same time ps esery $egg mild pro- tecting its inherent open space characteristics." NOTION PASSED ■aanimensly ITEM " #15, REQUEST OF COU$CILi MBER RE$Z£L RE COUNTY HILLSIDE PoLIC4 (PLA �6 3• Councilaereeber Renzel said on December 18, 1984, the County Board of Supervisors would consider a change of its Hillside Poi icy of the County Plan . to permit more housing in the foothills in the unincorporated county area. The cost of servtc-,Ong hill side devel- opment was high_ in terms of water, gas, sewer; ` road maintenance, pal ice and fire protection and school*, and the -changes being pro- posed in the County slope density formula would have its greatest impact in the steepest ands which wereal so those subject to the greatest seismic hazard. -All resulted in ,public costs to the tax- payers 5 3 5 5 12/17/84 MOTION: cnoi icilmember de..ze1 .roved, seconded . by Klein, that the si}iii} .ii ii. is �r seconded Mayor send a letter to the Doerd of Supervisors of Sancta Clara County on December 18, 1984 urging maintenance of the County's current hill side poi icy. Counc ilmember Renzel said she planned to attend the meeting and would convey any message. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #17, REPORT OF COUNCIL MEMBER COBB RE CALAVERAS PROJECT (UTI. 3.1 ) Councilmember Cobb said Palo Al to committed for 23 percent of the Calaveras Project, and the bid opening on the project took place a few weeks ago. Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) expected that the bids would be completely turnkey, which meant the terms of any financial exposure was minimized. The bids were not pure turnkey and presented project management as an issue. Together with the fac t that over the pa st month or two it wa s cl ear to the NCPA that the level of cooperation and communication between the Cal averas Co un ty people and NC PA was not such a s to run a large project. Earl ier in the month , he and the other member of the pol icy board met with the NCPA staff to discuss the matter, and concl uded .it was not workable to have Cal averas manage the project and financially protect NCPA. NCPA suggested to Calaveras that NCPA take over construction management of the project in return for certain considerations to Calaveras and that it was the only way that NCPA could comfortably continue with the project. NCPA did not bel ieve it could make that type of commitment on behal f of the member cities. On January 3, 1985, the decision as to whether to proceed would take pl ace in a special NCPA meeting. Presently, Calaveras took back NCPA's rejection of those key points which involved such large amounts of money to its Board to decide what, i f anything , to do. NCPA opined that no one el se would hel p to make the project go forward and eventually Cal averas weal d return and accept the conditions put forth by NCPA. There was a possi- bil ity that the Cal a .v eras Project would not proceed unl ess the conditions could be made acceptable to the members of NCPA. ITEM #18? REQUEST OF VICE MAYOR LEVY RE HOVERS EXPEDITION ON Vice Mayor Levy said Hover Express was an entity planning to introduce Hovercraft transporation on the Bay. A trip was pl anned for January 11 ,. 1985, leaving from Redwood City at 10:15 a.m. for San Francisco, and Alameda and return to Redwood City about 1:30 p.m. Lunch would be provided. ITEM #19, CANCELLATION OF DECEMBER 24, 1984 CITY COUNCIL METING NOTION: Count i1meshy Secktel moved, seconded by Cobb, to. cancel the December 24, 1984 City Council ■eetins. NOTION PASSED unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 12.:45 a.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 5 3 5 6 12/17/84