Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-06-14 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES' Special Hosting June 14, 1977 PGZ Study Session - Baplands Master Plan and Yacht Harbor I , 6/14/77 CITY OF PALO ALTO 1911-h Tuesday, June 14, 1977 Special Meeting The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date at 7:30 p.m., in a Special Meeting with Mayor Norton presiding. PRESENT: Carey, Clay, Eyerly, Norton, Sher, Witherspoon ABSENT: Beahrs, Berwald, Comstock STUDY SESSION JAYLANDS MASTER PLAN AND YACHT HARBOR Mayor Norton stated the easier parts of the decision making process had been dealt with, and now it was necessary to decide how to integrate the Yacht Harbor and the Refuse Disposal Area. The agenda included the Baylands Master Plan Process (George Sipel, City Manager), the Disposal Problem (Ben Pawloski, Director of Public Works and the consultant, Robert Cooper), the North County Joint Powers approach (Mr. Pawloski), the Alternate Solutions for Landfill Cl.oeure and Recommendations (Mrs Cooper), and the Yacht Harbor Problem (Larry White, Director of Parks and Open Space Management, and the consultants) . Hr. Sipel recalled this planning process began in 1975, and the original impetus for it came from a BCDC requirement that the County and the City develop a Yacht Harbor Master Plan to provide long range solutions to the spoils disposal problem. Simultaneously a lot of other problems surfaced relating to the long term future of the Baylands. Therefore, the Council, Planning Commission and staff began a planning process for developing a Master Plan. The process had its beginnings with Planning Commission menbers getting together and developing a Scope of Services, which was approved by the Council in late 1975. Mr. Sipel said consultants were hired at that point to begin the work, there were several public workshops, and in November of 1976 a series of recommendations were presented to the Planning Commission by the consultants. Re explained the recommendations were intended to provide a very general direction and a comprehensive overview of the entire Barylands. In a sense, Mr. Sipel thought the term "Master Plan" was a misnomer, because a precis° plan vu being developed for an area which he considered to be hotly contested. There is not much land, and there are some very strong opinions on how the land ought to be used both in the short and the long term. Politically and practically speaking, Mr. Sipel thought this kind of problem had produced a need for precise data; and presentations of that would be started at this meeting. The ultimate objective continues to be to develop a Master Plan; but in order for decisions to be made on the Plan, it was necessary to carefully define the uses of various areas so that an exact planning process would be going forward coincidentally. He reiterated Mayor Norton's comsat that the easier parts of the Plan had been edopted, and the herder ones now required attention. It was Mr. Sipel's hope that in the next several weeks the Council would approve some additional recommendations relating to the Yacht Harbor and Refuse Area. Over the next six to nine month, a process will take place that has several components. One of these is the preparation of a draft Ma.steer Plan; and when decisions are made on the subjects being discussed at this meeting, they will be 2 - 6/24/77 incorporated into that draft along with the decisions made a number of months ago. Concurrently with this work, there will be the preparation of an Environmental impact Report, He added there would also be the preparation and processing of whatever permits might be required, depending upon decisions made; and perhaps there would be necessary amendments to the Yacht Harbor lease, depending upon Council's decisions in that area. Not included in the chart that was being shown was the fact that there would be a review by the Planning Commission, which would happen after the consultant prepares the draft Master Plan and before the Council's review of the draft. As preparation for the Master Plan and the Ell'', were gotten into, it was essential to have decisions or, at least, know the areas of decision making. Mx, Sipel consented that one of the matters that needed discussing had to do with defining the problem. In his opinion, the problem is different from the way it existed in 1975 when the process was commenced; and there were two differences at present which staff had not been aware of two years ago. The first is that staff aov has a lot better idea of what the requirements are to close the Refuse Area. Mr. Sipel reported that new regulations were passed in 1975, and they are just beginning to be put into effect in the Bay Area communities. Unfortunately, communities are learning quickly that things are no longer as they once were; and staff will be making specific €tatemento to explain that remark. Secondly, there is now the opportunity to purchase the ITT property; and, heretofore, that has not been part of the planning process on the basis that it was a privately owned piece of land. Mr. Sipel said staff was just #eginnicg to think about the ITT property, because they had not considered specific uses for that land. He informed Council that the property had not yet been purchased, bitt perhaps they would be in a position in the next two to three weeks to take action on that piece of land. Mr. Sipel pointed out that these two differences added to the complexity of the issue; but, fortunately, each was potentially helpful in solving the other problems. There are a lot of inter -relationships among the problems; action in one area can have a "spill -over" effect on another. According to Hr. Sigel, the entire Baylands area had to be looked at with the knowledge that each component of the problem has inter -relationship with another. Some of the problems were landfill requirements, a responsi- bility to close out the existing facility, short-term filling responsi- bilities and opportunities, and then there is the long-term implication of getting out of the solid waste business and into recycling, energy recovering, etc. Also, there is the Yacht Harbor problem. Mr. Sigel added there were other issues in the Beylands relating to recreation, conservation, and aesthetics. These seventeen or eighteen hundred acres of City -owned land are a tremendous asset to the community, and that deserves concern on an immediate and long-term basis. An economic problem also exists. Information from the consultant indicates the City could incur substantial costs in closing out the present Landfill. There were also indirect costs in that if the City can no longer dispose of refuse in the Palo Alto area, it will have to pay for hauling refuse to another place Mx. Sipel said to a lesser degree, the Water quality Control Plant was involved. An example of the inter -relatedness was that in order to keep the Yacht Harbor open, perhaps the landfill problem could be temporarily solved. Mx. Sipel had not expected that could be done two or three months ago, but present data show that is a possibility. However, in order to solve the landfill problem, the aesthetics of the area may be interfered with. He suspected that some people would like 3- 5/14/77 to see the landfill closed out so the City could develop an aesthetically pleasing final Plan. But if the City continues to dump in that area and conduct a landfill operation, that could conceivably continge upon some objectives in terms of aesthetics. Other problems inter- relate also, and Mr. Sipel supported the idea of solving them together. It was not possible to solve one and not another, and that requires the input of a lot of data and the review of fairly complex alternatives. Re felt that in the end, some trade-offs would be unavoidable. Mr. Sipel continued by saying a number of decisions needed to be made before the final planning process could be gotten into. They relate to two specific matters, but they do touch on the otter areas mentioned, In terms of the refuse area, there are four general decisions that need to be made; and Mr. Sipel presented the in descending order. He explained that if Council decided negatively with regard to the first one or two, they might not have to face a couple of the others. With respect to the refuse area, there is the question of wnen it should be closed. For instance, should it be closed in four years when the Corps permit_ has been completed and the area inten:led to be filled has been filled? Should it be closed in eight to teen years and have the City develop a program of mounding, etc. as called for by the Water Quality Control Board? Should a twenty-year plan be considered? Mr. Sipel said these basic alternatives would be discussed in detail as the meeting continued. Along with the timing decision, questions needed to be resolved concerning what materials should be used for cover and contouring. Should dredge spoils be rased? Should fill be imported? And what are the impacts of these decisions? A third area for decision making was what landfill would be most desirable. Council could decide ire favor of a minimum contouring programs that would meet the minimum standards, or it could decide for something that would be more aesthetically pleasing and take more time to complete. The final question before Council was how the land should he used after the filling and contouring have been completed, and Mr. Sipel, noted that has been a long-standing question with respect to the approximately one hundred and forty acres. He stated it is now time to deal directly with that problem. With respect to the Yacht Harbor, Mr. said stated another series of decisions had to be made; and the first and most significant was whether the Yacht Harbor shoed remain open. If the answer is "no", some other questions regarding the Yacht Harbor would not have to be faced; but questions having to do with some of the refuse area questions would have to be confronted in a somewhat different manner,, A second queatiou (if it is decided to keep the Harbor open) is how long it should remain open. Should there be a ten or twenty year plan? Thirdly, Air. Sipel said Council cn 1d need to decide where the dredged spoils should be placed. If there are going to be de -watering ponds, a decision will have to be made as to where they will be located. Another important consideration was how much area should be dredged. There could be a minimum dredging; but if a decision is made for a substantial dredging, there would be more spoils for use in the refuse area. Mr. Sipel summed up his statements by saying there are eight decisions cheat have to be made, cud the too most important are: (1) When should the refuse area be cloned and how should that be accomplished? (2) Should the Yacht Harbor remain open? Councilman Sher did not think that whether the Yacht Harbor should remain open was the threshold question under Yacht Harbor decisions, but rather the ones with vhic}a Council had been struggling for some time - where the dredged spoils should be placed and where the de -watering ponds should be located; and those relate directly 4 - 6/14/77 to how much area should be dredged. If there are satisfactory solutions to thoae questions, then the matter of whether or not the Yacht Harbor remained open could be faced. Mr. Sipel did not feel the Yacht Harbor was the basic issue, and the Refuse Area was by far the greater problem since it dealt with a more basic human need than the Yacht Harbor. Councilman Sher agreed and said it had to be dealt with; if there were no Yacht Harbor, there would still be the Refuse Area problem. Mr. Sipel stated he would be contented if the questions were answered, and the presentations did. not necessarily have to be made in the order he had listed. However, the Refuse Area problem was emphasized to a greater degree than the Yacht Harbor. Councilman Sher was concerned about having to make all the decisions by June 27, and he wondered if Council would have all the necessary information for decision making by that date. Mr. Sipel responded that staff hoped Council would begin making its decision on June 27, and Councilmembers would have to judge whether or not it had all the needed information. His guess was that with the complexity of these issues, there would always be one more question that could be asked; but at sots point a decision will have to be made that there is enough information so Council can proceed. At the same time, Mr. Sipel felt there was new information and a new way of looking at several of the problems; and that should get community arid Planning Commission review. Therefore, it was not his intention to push aggressively for a decision on the 27th; although he would like to see a decision noon. As alternatives were discussed, Council would see the longer they postponed decision raking, the more alternatives would be closed. Mr. Sipel suggested that tentative decisions might be made, then have the EIR process, return the matter to the Planning Commission for review in its final plan stage, and then have Council actually make decisions. Vice Mayor Clay referred to Mr. Sipel's comment that if the ITT property were purchased, there would be a different set of parameters; and he asked haw Council should go about making decisions without knowing positively if the ITT property would be purchased. Mr. Sipel hoped that a decision would be made on the ITT property before any final decisions were made on the Refuse Area or the Yacht Harbor, so that alternative uses of the ITT property could be looked at. He did not know if Council would want to make final decisions on the use of the property without having the Planning Commission look at it. Conceivably, Council could come to a decision on the 27th and want to relate that to the ITT property and find there had not been input from the Planning Commission. This was one problem Mr. Sipel saw in moving quickly if one of the alternatives involved the ITT property. Mayor Norton stated that during this evening's deliberations, it would not be possible to assume that the ITT property is available. Mr. Sipel said that wee correct, although probably the strongest alternative staff would present involved the use of a portion of the /TT property; but he could not say arrangements for the land were final. Bea Pawloski, Director of Public Works, said the state of refuse disposal today could be compared to waste water treatment as it existed twenty years ago. He said this because what it means to operations is that regulations are being written and changed all too frequently, and that does not mean regulations will disappear; on the contrary, they will become Bore stringent. Mr. Pawloski viewed this as a revolutionary process such as was encountered _5_ 6/14/77 in waste water and liquid waste water treatment in that the City moved from primary treatment plants to secondary ones, and now the talk was of tertiary or advanced treatment. It is difficult to predict what will have to be faced in the future. At the City's refuse disposal site, two hundred tons of refuse are received each day; and that amounts to about 140,000 cubic yards of refuse compacted in place each year. That refuse will occupy about five acres of land. Mr. Pawlcski remarked that in February of this year, aerial photographs 'ere taken of the site for planning purposes; and that provided staff with the opportunity of taking stock of the situation. As of February, there were slightly under twenty acres of land remaining; so staff has been saying that by 1980, the existing site will be filled if operation is continued on its current level. Robert Cooper of Cooper, Clark and Associates, showed slides briefly outlining four of the most pertinent regulations of the State Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements for sealing a terminated landfill. Before going over them, Mr. Cooper reported he had been involved in more than thirty sanitary landfill projects in northern California; and almostinvariably, the first problem that arises is the client assumes the regulations do not really mean what they say or there is a way to get around them. He cautioned that out of those more than thirty projects, the Board has adjusted regulations on one or two occasions because of very technicalreasons; but on the whole, the regulations stand and are not modified to any significant extent. Mr. Cooper said Palo Alto would have to submit a Technical Report of Waste Discharge to the Regional Board, and alorg with the Report will go the City's plans for terminating the landfill. The Regional Board will review this information in considerable detail and send it to Sacramento where it will be reviewed by the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Fish and Cam:, Department of Vater Resources, Public Health, and several other State agencies, all of whom submit their com ente back to the Regional Board staff. Mr. Cooper counted that the four regulations shown on the slide were not all of the regulations, but the other ones were commonto the various alternatives which would be discussed at this meeting, so they did not need to be specifically mentioned now. The first regulation he mentioned was the requirement that the landfill be covered with at least one and one-half feet of impermeable material, and there are specific standards for what constitutes impermeable material. A second regulation is that one and one-half feet of soil be placed over the ixperm eeble material, and that is to keep down erosion for landscaping purposes as well as to provide an additional cover for the landfill. The third requirement is an onerous one, and that is the minimum surface slope shall not be flatter than three percent. Mr. Cooper said perhaps three percent did not sound like a great deal - three feet in one hundred; but if an area is several thousand feet across, you have to recognize that you are dealing with thirty feet in one thousand. This requirement has been discussed at considerable lentgth with staff, and they have agreed wales could be provided in order to cut down the thickness of cover that would be required. A minimum slope of two percent had been requested, but one percent had been suggested with the hope it would be accepted. Requirement four is that the landfill be properly shaped and sealed within fifteen months of termination of refuse disposal. Efforts had been made to get the time limit extended, but the Board has not decided to do that. Mr. Cooper asked that these four regulations be kept La mind during the discussion concerning termination of landfill. Mr. Paeloski presented information on the North County Joint Powers approach. Palo Alto is working with five other cities and the North County area around thee* titian to find satisfactory solutions N,V\ 6 - 6/14/77 to refuse disposal problems. Mr. Pawloski read the objectives contained in the Joint Powers Agreement. Phase I -"By November of 1977 to complete a study which would provide a recommendation for the selection of landfill sites which will provide at least ten years of capacity. By July of 1978 to form a permanent Joint Powers Authority in order to process and dispose of refuse generated within the North County area. by July of 1979 to complete a development plan for the implementation. of a Resource and Energy Recovery Facility". At that point if there is agreement, Mr. Pawloski said there would be a movement toward Phase It (if approved by all the parties); and the dates involved are interesting and important. "By January of 1981 to begin operation of a front end processing facility. By January of 1983 to begin operation of an Energy and Recovery Facility which will reduce the need for landfill by at least eighty percent". Mr. Pawloski said that in brief, that is what the North County Joint Powers Agency is all about. Mayor Norton asked if Mr. Pawloski were talking about recycling in one form or another or more garbage to be covered and dumped in the area. Mr. Pawloski explained he was talking about recycling and t eovery of usable materials. This is called the front-end approach - to pull that out of the waste drain. That could involve metals, paper, aluminum, iron, and glass, for example. Mayor Norton understood then, that Mr. Pawloski was not talking about accepting more solid waste from additional jurisdictions, dumping it in the Baylards, and covering it with mud. Mr. Pawloski said he was talking about a solution for the six North County cities (Cupertino, Los Altos, Las Altos Mills, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto and the County areas surrounding those cities); but Mayor Norton had mentioned the 8ayiands when, in fact, a site had not been chosen for the facility. Further, he was talking about refuse generated from within those cities and that County area. Mayor Norton stated Palo Alto should not accept any more solid waste from any additional jurisdictions. Cooper, Clark and Associates studied three possible solutions for terminating the landfill. Mr, Cooper said the first was to terminate the landfill immediately, and his organization studied how the Regionel Board's requirements could be met using only dry fill. The second alternative was to continue refuse disposal just long enough to contour the site so as to reduce to an absolute minimum the quantity of dry fill required. Then the possibility was studied of using either imported fill material and/or dredge spoil for providing cover. The third possibility was called the "maximum plan", and it was to continue refuse disposal long enough to provide the most deoirable landfill configurations. The use of imported fill material and dredged bay mud from the Yacht Harbor were alms considered for this solution The next slide Mr. Cooper referred to dealt with the considerations and basic assumptions that were made in Cooper, Clark's studies. For both the immediate termination and the minimum plan, the assumption was made that no additional area would be covered with garbage. For the maximum plan, the assumption was made that all the area that was permitted ander the Corps of Engineers' permit would be coveted. For all three alternatives the volume of refuse needed to shape the site so as to minimize the amount of dry fill needed ranged from zero for immediate termination to 1.2 million cubic yards for the minimum plan, and 2.8 million cubic yards for the maxims plan. Kr. Cooper said the volume of compacted refuse generated each year is 130,000 cubic yards based on available data; therefore, it would take eight to ten years to properly shape the disposal site for the minimum plan and twenty to twenty-five years to properly r�. - 7 - 6/14/77 shape it for the maximum plan. If a decision were made to terminate the landfill immediately, an additional 1.2 million cubic yards of dry fill would be necessary to shape the site. To cover the landfill, whether it is shaped by using garbage or dry fill, the first two plans would require 300,000 cubic yards of impermeable fill; and the maximum plan would require 360,000 cubic yards. An equal amount of top soil over the impermeable fill would be needed to meet the Regional Board's requirements. Cooper, Clark tried to estimate the cost of the fill material, which is a very difficult thing to do. It in always conceivable that a large construc- tion project will occur, and there will be excess fill which the City could acqvire at a good price; however, the likelihood of acquiring 1.2 million cubic yards is remote. There would be a cost of $6.00 per cubic yard for general fill and permeable fill and $15.00 per cubic yard for top soil at today's prices. Mr. Cooper ,said these costs were then escalated into the future assuming a ten percent increase per year and that interest would remain at seven percent. Because of the high cost of dry fill, Cooper, Clark looked at other sources of fill material; and an obvious source is the annual dredging of the Yacht Harbor. Mr. Cooper showed on the screen some of the considerations and assumptions made if the dredge spoil from the Yacht Harbor could be used for impermeable cover. The assumption was made that if the Yacht Harbor is dredged to its existing configuration and if the inner channel is dredged again to its existing configuration, there would be approximately 100,000 cubic yards of dredged spoil made available annually. And if the South Arm of the Yacht Harbor is dredged annually, another 10,000 cubic yards would be produced. These figures would have to be further refined, and Mr. Cooper said they were about double the figures arrived at in the Master Plan study which he thought assumed more minimal dredging limits. He continued that based on the quantities he mentioned, a calculation was made that a twenty - acre retention basin would be required for the dredge spoil based on a two -foot thickness of dredge material. That would mean the Yacht Harbor would have to be dredged in two separate phases each year. Perhaps half of it could be dredged in the winter months, the material could be dried in the spring and early summer, it could be dredged again, and the materiel could be dried and used by fall. Based on soma preliminary tests, Mrr. Cooper stated that one cubic yard of Bay mud in the Yacht Harbor will result in .44 cubic yards of compacted impermeable cover, so there is a considerable shrinkage occurring between the Yacht Harbor to in -place installation on the sanitary landfill. The cost to the City for providing the dredge spoil would be fifty cents per cubic yard, and the only cost would be to excavate it from the retention basin, load it, and transport it to the adjacent landfill._ Mr. Cooper continued that another assumption made but not proven is that if the dredge spoil were to be flushed a number of times, the salt content would be reduced sufficiently so it could be used for top soil. Perhaps this would be the case when mixed with fifty percent by weight of digested sewage sludge. Digested sewage sludge is not presently produced at the Palo Alto Treatment Plant; the sludge is incinerated. Mr. Cooper noted there were other sources for this material. For example, the City and County of San Francisco truck theirs to Mountain View and pay a very substantial price for disposal there. Thirteen samples of dredged Bay scud were made up by Cooper, Clark, flushed a various number of times with effluent; and some combination of those samples were mixed with undigested sewage slue from the. Treatment Plant. The samples were prepared recently, end it is too early to knot► how viable the top soil mixture is. Mr. Cooper expected there would be more information on that by June 27th. The assumption was made that the cost of flushing - 8 - ,. 6114/77 the dredged spoil with effluent and mixing the sludge would be one dollar per cubic yard, but the amount could turn out to be considerably more or less. On the basis of those assumptions, Mr. Cooper said a determination had been made that nine to eleven years would be required to generate sufficient dredge spoil to properly seal the landfill with impermeable cover and top soil, if it is decided to generate all the dry fill material from the Yacht Harbor and mix it with soils. Cost comparisons had been developed, and he emphasized the costs being talked about are for dirt only, A number of ether costs will have to be faced by the City in terminating, or bringing up to acceptable standards, the sanitary landfill. Some of the corrective measures would include blanketing the slopes, protecting the area from a hundred year flood, and perhaps sealing off underground sand layers which exist at shallow depths. A comparison not -made is the future maintenance for the three alternatives that were studied. For the immediate termination and for the minimum plan, Mr. Cooper reported the grade is as flat as the Regional Board will permit. Garbage settles erratically, and there is no doubt that some of the grades will not be maintained. There will be flow reversel, etc., and the City will be forced over a period of many years (if the immediate or minimum plan is adopted) to have ongoing maintenance to restore grades as the settlements occur. Maintenance for the maximum plan would be considerably less because the slopes are mach steeper and will tolerate a great deal more differential in uneven settlement without losing the general desired drainage pattern. Mr. Cooper stressed that none of these costs was included in his figures. Assuming immediate termination of the landfill operation, 1.2 million cubic yards of general fill would be needed to properly shape the area. At six dollars per cubic yard, that amounts to 7.2 million dollars. Three hundred thousand yards of impervious fill at $6.00 per yard amounts to 1.8 million dollars, and top soil is $4,500,000. The total cost, therefore, is ,$13.500,000 for the dirt required to seal the landfill. An interesting point is that if the Regional Board stays with its requirement that a terminated landfill has to be sealed within fifteen months, and the largest dirt movers are used for ten-hour days, five days a week, for a fifteen -month completion time, a truck would be required every one and one-half minutes on Embarcadero Road in each direction. That is an impossible situation from the traffic standpoint alone, and the City would be faced with a very serious problem if a decision were made to terminate landfill operations at this time. The minimum plan is estimated to be an eight to ten year plan, and Mr. Cooper's firm approached that alternative on three assumptions: 1) that the site would be safe for garbage; 2) that the dredge spoil from the Yacht Harbor would be used for the impervious fill with importation of the top eon, and 3) that the dredge soil would be available and could be treated so it could make satisfactory top soil. Mr. Cooper informed Council that assumption 1) using all imported fill material would cost something over seven million dollars. On the basis of assumption 2) the cost would be five and one -quarter million dollars. On the basis of assumption 3) the cost of the dirt to seal the landfill would be six hundred thousand dollare. Re mentioned that if all the fill were to be imported, fifteen trucks per day would be required; and he did not believe that would be intolerable. Speaking to the maximum plan which is intended to be the moat aesthet- icelly attractive and ecologically suitable solution, ?sir. Cooper reported that this plan would cost tee million dollars if all the landfill were to be imported, If dredge spoil were used as impervious 9 - 6/14/77 fill. and top soil were to be imported, the cost would be approximately 7.4 million dollars; and if the dredge spoil were suitable and available for top soil and impermeable cover, the cost would be seven hundred thousand dollars. Architect Ken Kay shoved slides to illustrate those things expressed verbally by Mr. Cooper. The first slide was of the sanitary landfill and the surrounding area. Mr. Kay stated there were some underground utilities in existence. From Mountain View there is a seventy- two inch line that runs into the Sewage Treatment Plant which defines the border between the ITT propetty and the sanitary landfill; and there are otter substantial underground lines such as the thirty- six inch RCP line running south to Bayshore Freeway. Mr. Kay explained that the highest area of the site was about thirty feet above sea level, and it gradually goes down to nine or ten feat above sea level. A functional diagram showed two possible sites for de -watering ponds. One of these was in the Mayfield slough area, and the other one (which appears to be more desirable functionally' and environmentally) would be located in the south end of the disposal site. The south site contains about thirty acres, and the Mayfield slough site had about twenty acres. Mr. Kay explained that if the Mayfield slough site were used, a two -pond separated system would have to be devised; but if the southern part of the landfill were used, it could be condensed into one. Aesthetically, the southern part of the landfill is a desirable area since it could be screened, and it is in a "pocket". Mr. Kay explained a slide showing what he considered to be the ultimate scheme, and that would change what is a wasteland into an area compatible with surrounding land use which is really marsh area. The fabric'of the marsh would be brought in over the garbage, much as a carpet. The area responds to all of the enviroumental conditions; for example, a strong wind that comes in from the west. And Mr. Kay pointed out trees that would buffer the de -watering pond, although the location of that was not firm at this point. At the Mayfield slough site, the proposal would be to re-establish a fresh water marsh area which would be desirable in a number of aspects, aesthetically and environmentally. A series of slides were shown to illustrate the vertical context of the discussion. Thirty feet might sound high when thought of as a building; but when you think of it in relationship to a vast landscape, it is not so impressive. Mr. Kay referred to the minimum plan and noted it maintained the existing grade, whereas the maximum plan raises one corner another fifteen to twenty feet. Explaining the minimum plan, Mr. Kay said it was really an engineering solution dealing with a grid system, approach to grading, etc.. and it responds to technical aspects tether than a human or animal respect. He showed the existing zero grade and commented that the first very thin - layer was the minima plan prepared by Mr Cooper's office, which stic-k4 very closely to the existing garbage - putting on about three feet of cover. The maximum plan stays with the highest grade and reaches out for the views; it also protects the interiors of the land fora from sun and wind elements. Another slide was useful in showing a typical section of the soil cover, giving the minimum and maximum slopes. :In the maximum plan, slopes were utilized to create a sculptured land form; and the pedestrian and bike paths were used as drainage wales'. Where trees are located, Mx. Kay skid the top soil would have to dip down four feet; and the impermeable cover is really .w4mat seals off the refuse from the surface. The minimum plan would include no trees, but there would be grass, wild flowers and eighteen inches of top soil. Showing s slide of the maximum plan, Mr. Kay proposed as connection of Eabarcadero /toad to Embareadero Way so there would be a loop system around the Sewage Treatment Plant and a provision for parking to accommodate forty to fifty cars, with the expectation that the area would be used for passive recreation. Also proposed in the North Arm were three mounds engineered for drainage, but there would be vegetation provided for the feeding of animals. He added there could be some upland meadows which would take advantage of some spectacular views. Mr. Kay's next slides were concerned with the fresh water marsh, which would give the opportunity for people to walk along the levee. Perhaps there could also be a low -tide boardwalk penetrating the marsh which would bring an educational function into the area. The marsh area would be defined by walk systems and bike systems, and there would be a main promenade following the curvature of the Yacht Harbor and then around the levees. Ht. Kay continued by showing a slide of the South Arm of the Yacht Harbor. There is a gentle slope going up to the top of the nodal point, which could be used as an observation area; and the slope could be used for picnicking and observing wildlife in the marsh area. Mr. Kay showed an overview shot which showed the location of the de -watering ponds, the fresh water marsh, the two nodal points, etc. He said the de -watering pond would be completely screened with a berm and vegetation, and there would be a series of walks and fields. The elements combined to create a simple and passive pleasant area. Mr. Kay realized the de -watering ponds were probably the least aesthetic elements of the site, and all precautions would be taken to hide them. The proposal would be to go down five and one-half feet and have that filled with water and mud, thus establishing the de -watering ponds. There would be an interior service road, a fence within the interior, a berm with some planting and a walk system designed so a person's view would be oriented toward the marsh rather than in toward the de - watering ponds. Mayor Norton asked what kind of fresh water would be used in the fresh water marsh. Mr. Kay said the location was near the Sewage Treatment Plant, and he thought there was fresh water to use for a marsh and for plantings. Mr. Cooper remarked this could take place in connection with the Matadero Creek run-off and the enlargement of the fresh water marsh in the flood /stain. So the water could be a combination of run-off and treated water. Councilwoman Witherspoon thought de -watering ponds mould be looked at after the area had been sealed off, and she also thought the dredging of the Yacht Harbor was being tied in with the closing of the refuse area. So she asked why the de --westering ponds were needed. Mr. Kay responded the de -watering ponds could either be filled in or converted into a pond for ducks and wildlife. Councilman Eyerly asked about the capital costs for this upland park Mr. Kay had been describing, and also about maintenance costs. Mr. Kay replied the maximum cost for the de -watering ponds would be $404,000; and that includes paths, berms, pltnting, irrigation, chain -link fence, concrete service roads and cut from the de --watering ponds that would be placed in the sanitary landfill area. Costs had not been projected for the landfill, but that would be a minimal development. Corrected See pg. 1066 Councilman Sher asked if the de -watering pond next to the Sewage Treatment Plant mss on the ITT property. Mr. Sipel responded negatively. Councilman Sher asked if the leveling off in the minimum and maximum plan would take place on existing fill. Larry White, Director of Parks and Open Space, said it would. Councilman Sher asked if the presentation just made assumed is any way the availability of the ITT property s - 11 - 6/14/77 for de -watering ponds or subsequent landfill. Mr. Sipel replied that the one just described is on the ITT property. Councilmen Sher asked if that land had ever been used for solid waste disposal. and Mr. Sipel said it had not. Councilman Sher conclteded that this alternative assumed the acquisition of the ITT property and the use of that one portion for the de --watering pond, and Mr. Kay concurred. Councilman Sher asked where the solid waste disposal would go in the minimum and the maximum plans. Mr. Sipel said it would go on the site of the -existing landfill, which is roughly one hundred and forty acres of City -owned property. Councilman Sher asked if there would be -another option showing the de -watering pond somewhere else, and Mr. Kay stated that is the option shown, on the Mayfield slough. Councilman Sher understood if that option were followed, there would have to be another de --watering pond; and he asked about its location. Mr. Kay replied it would be located where the existing sludge beds are - on City property. Councilman Sher said in the option that had been shown, twenty arses had been mentioned; and he wanted to know if that included the slopes- Mr. Cooper explained that was the area of the two ponds, and they were a total of approximately thirty acres. Councilman Sher asked if the minimum plan involved two dredgings each year. Mr. Cooper thought there probably would have to be two dredgings, assuming the dredge spoil would be used with or without sludge for both the impermeable cover and the top soil and assuming a twenty -acre pond including the interior slope. Councilman Sher had seen in the report a suggestion to dispense with the temporary pond for the dredgings from the South Arm. Mr. Cooper said that was correct. Councilman Sher wanted to know if that would go into the twenty -acre pond, and 'sir. Cooper, responded affirmatively. Councilman Sher asked if all the material from the dredging of the harbor and from the South Arm would dry out fast enough for this kind of usage. Mr. Cooper explained that the twenty -acre size was chosen based on the assumption that there would be two feet of dredged material in the pond. With one foot of dredged material receiving agitation from a tractor, for instance, the material would dry sufficiently in one to two weeks in the suer months. With two feet of material, Mr. Cooper made the conservative assumption that half of the dry season would be needed; but he actually thought it would dry faster than that. Councilman Sher questioned whether with the two dredgings, the same amount of material. would be taken out that had been contemplated in the ECM report or more than that. Mr. Cooper said more would be taken out. The assumption was made that in order to generate sufficient material to cover the site under the minimum plan, about 140,000 cubic yards of material would be removed from the Yacht Harbor and the inner channel each year. The dredging would be done out to the existing channel boundaries, and the depth would be one end one-half to two feet each year. Cooper Kay stated the dredging would go no deeper than had been done in the past, and it would not go beyond the channel boundaries. Councilman Sher asked where the additional material was coming from that would be used for the cover, and he asked if that would be done by going out further toward the &ay. Mr. Cooper responded negatively and said it would be done by going wider, staying within the channel boundaries, but dredging out to the edges of the channel. Councilman Sher said it was obvious that two dredgings a year would cost acre than one, and someone had suggested the County would pay for that. He wanted to know if anyone had discussed that matter with the County. Mr. Cooper did not feel the cost would be significantly greater. There would be the mobilization cost of moving the dredge on and off one additional time. Councilman Sher asked if Mr. Cooper's experience with thirty refuse sites had all occurred since the - 12 - 4/ 14/ 77 enactment of the new law. Mr. Cooper thought the act had been passed in 1967 or 1968; and since then, any new sanitary landfill has to go through the procedures he had listed early in the meeting. Also, the Regional Board is contacting all existing dumps and all abandoned dumps to begin enforcing their regulations. The most flagrant violations were dealt with first, but Mr. Cooper thought Palo Alto could expect to be required to eubmit a report to the Regional Board in the near future. Referring to earlier statements that after a dump is no longer operating it has to be sealed in fifteen months and that it is very hard to get postponements of such requirements, Councilman Sher thought that Mr. Cooper was now assuming a lot of flexibility in that he had referred to eight to ten years, twenty years, and possibly more than that before finding a solution for the spoils. Mr. Cooper reported that one of the things the Board's staff would look at is the existing condition of the sanitary landfill. The perimeter slopes would have to be done as soon as the Board decided it wanted the landfill to be upgraded to meet its regulations. Councilman Sher was puzzled by this and asked if a decision were made in favor of the maximum plan, which assumes twenty more years of landfill, whether the obligation to meet the Board's requirements could be done over a twenty-year period. Mr. Cooper stated that all sources of seepage would have to be eliminated, and the City would have to demonstrate there was no underground seepage occurring that would pollute water. As the design grading was reached in accordance with the plan submitted to the Regional Board, Palo Alto would be required to begin the final sealing procedures. With the maximum plan (twenty to twenty- five years), as the final grade was built up to in an area, it would be sealed. There would be enough cover materiel in tea or eleven years, so that would not be a problem. One advantage of the maximum plan, according to Mr. Cooper, was that at any time during the twenty to twenty-five year period, if it were decided to terminate the landfill, you could fill and seal at the low point and not go to the proposed elevations Councilman Sh:er's understanding was that leaching had been taking place for a long time; and when the report is filet, the Board could immediately impose the fifteen nth limit for sealing off the areas where there had been leaching. If there were not enough materials accumulated from dredged spoils, that would all have to be imported. Mr. Cooper noted this could be looked at in two ways. The City could wait until the regulations were imposed or go to the Regional Board with a plan and schedule for eliminating the seepage; and he thought if the latter course were taken, the Board night be considerably more cooperative Councilman Sher found Mr. Cooper's corm epta inconsistent with his earlier statements regarding the inflexibility of the Board concerning applications for postponement. Mr. Cooper felt the Board could be considered rather inflexible on the basic requirements which each landfill neat ultimately achieve, but he thought they would make every effort to accommodate a City with a plan and a time frame. Councilman Sher referred to the fact that 140,000 cubic yards of material would be involved for the de -watering ponds, and he asked if the material would be used for building the twerp. Mr. Cooper said it could be used for the barn or for cover on the landfill. He stressed that if it As decided the de -watering ponds should be abandoned, they could be filled in and restored to marsh habitat. Councilman Sher understood the material was Ear mud; and if that were to be used for the berm, he wanted to know how it would have to be treated in order to establish the desired landscaping. Mr. Cooper explained it would be possible to put a Urge amount of top coil in the Bay mud and plant the trees in that. Councilman Sher noted that would have to be imported and he asked if that ,S'r'i 5 1/ - 13 - 6/14/7 cost had been figured in the $404,000 amount. Mr. Cooper replied it did include importation of top soil and fifteen -gallon trees. The amount could be reduced to one-fourth of that or less if the City wanted to settle for one -gallon trees and, in general, a less elaborate approach. Helen Proctor offered some information on plants and top soil require- ments. Mayor Norton said the dialogue with Councilman Sher and staff had continued for 23 minutes. He suggested that he talk with Mro. Proctor or M. Cooper on the phone. Councilman Sher replied that he wes questioning for the enlightenment of other Councilme absrs as well as himself, and he would continue on June 27. Russ Faure-Brac said that his firm had evaluated many methods of minimizing the amount of dredging that would have to be done, and had concluded that the cross section of the North Arm and the Inner Harbor be reduced in order to reduce the total volume from 50,000 cubic yards to about 30,000 cubic yards, A meeting with the County had led to a revision of the plan to 37,000 cubic yards annually. A small-scale hydraulic dredge would be used. Spoils would go to a de --watering pond. A number of locations had been identified for deposit of dry dredged spoils. Landfill requirements would take all dredging. "...for the life of the landfill." Mr. Larry White said that since the study of the landfill had been in pre -design, the County favored a finger -pier in an area to be dredged. The consultant had recommended 86 berths ---the lease line ran about 300 feet in that area which he indicated on the projected map on the wall. A lateral channel parallel to the shoreline and 75 feet wide would accommodate those berths. Mr. Cooper had said it would be advantageous to dredge out more area for the finger pier for it would also collect more sedimentation. The original reason had been to reduce sedimentation —the channel would be flushed. That change had come about because of the landfill. City staff had agreed verbally with the County that the County would take care of the costs for operating the harbor, that is, dredging, transporting spoils to de -watering ponds as well as construction of the de -watering ponds. The County would aleo maintain the de - watering ponds. The City would do landscaping —remising the spoils from the de -eateries ponds to the landfill. The possibility of two d,redgings a year had not been discussed; it would have to be renegotiated with the County. Councilwoman Witherspoon asked if the County was going to buy a dredge with use to be alternated at the Alviso harbor. Mr. White replied that Mr. Rockwell had considered it. Two types of dredges were being thought about. Corrected See pg, 1086 I Councilwoman Witherspoon said that she had not understood the discussion about the South Ara. Was the County thinking only of dredging the basin? Indicating on the map Mr. White said one concept was to dredge in one spot and install a finger pier that would extend to a aeries of floats, which would create a kind of "glory hole" for sedimentation. The second concept was to minimize sediments by dredging a channel 300 fest beyond the County/City lease 11a about 75 feet vide -- similar to what was at Fete's Harbor, and a stronger 'eurreett would bring about more flushing. If .landfill limited the a eoeaet of material 14 — 6/14/77 taken from the harbor the broader channel would produce more material. The County favored the second plan for it made it easier for them to maneuver the dredge, as well as for boats to sail in and out of the North Arm. That design for dredging would not curtail sailing within the baain. Councilwoman Witherspoon mead that the Toros used the basin for their rates. Mr. White said that form of sailing would be curtailed. Councilman Eyerly asked that the figures presented by Mr. Cooper which had not been in the report be made available to committee members. Councilman Carey asked if the termination plans assumed there would be no further refuse deposit at the dumpsite. Mr. Cooper answered in the affirmative. He said the only alternative he had thought of would be to dispose at Mountain View, if it were acceptable to them. de questioned that it would be. Mr. Sipel said that the City would finish filling up the site which had been granted them by the court --hat would he another three and one-half to four years. Mr. Cooper said that the City would no longer use the 116 acres which were now filled. Mr. Sipel said that the City would again have to hunt, as they had recently, for another dumping site, until thily got a long -tern solution. Councilman Carey asked if the staff were saying with alternative A the City was faced with finding another site within three and one- half years or finding out what to do with garbage, and because of regulatory requirements that the present site be covered which, with no dredgings from the Yacht Harbor, would cost $13 million. With alternative B and no harbor dredgings there would be a $7 million cost, because of the lifespan end the SPA, and there would be a longer time in which to find an alternate dumpsite. The same assumptions would be true with alternative C. Therefore if the City did not go ahead with dredging the cost of covering would increase tenfold plus, yet it was virtually impossible to find a place to dump garbage. Mr. Sipel said that starting now it might be possible to find a site within four years, yet the cost would be substantially more than now at the present site --perhaps up to $10 a ton at any site out of Palo Alto. Councilman Carey confirmed that not the details of garbage disposal but the basic question of where garbage could be dumped was the content, of what had been said. Mr. Cooper said his firm had been involved with Ox Mountain, which was to have been the disposal site for all of San Mateo County, and though the County, the Regional Board and other involved agencies were all in favor of it, it had still taken six years to get approval to start dumping there. The area had been so secluded that not even the Sierra Club had registered a protest. Councilman Clay asked about the cost of importing fill. Corrected See pg. 1086 - 15 6/14/77 Mr. Cooper said -that the shaping of the 116 acres could not be done with garbage only. Dry fill would be needed under alternative A in the amount of 1,2 million cubic yards for immediate termination. Under alternatives B and C the site would be shaped with garbage. That explained the higher coats on alternative A. On alternatives B and C the inflation rate of 10 percent was figured over 8 years as opposed to over 20 years. Councilman Clay asked the figures for what garbage disposal might cost in 810 years and 25 years, Mr. Sipel said that disposal cost about $4 a ton now, and in 20 years it might cost eround $20, if disposal were to be in the same manner. Those costs might rise if the City used more sophisticated disposal methods. Mayor Norton asked if all the alternatives assumed that the present flow of -garbage would continue, with no garbage from another jurisdiction. Mr. Sipel said that it was not anticipated that Palo Alto accept any garbage other than their, own, and Stanford's, on a year-to-year agreement. Some trucked -in garbage "came through the gate." Mayor Norton asked how the figures might change were Palo Alto to accept garbage under the Joint Powers Agreement. Mr. Pawloski said that the total garbage generated by the six jurisdic- tions in the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) was 1000 tons a day, 5 times Palo Alto's output, which meant that Palo Alto would have capacity for one year. The staffs of .JPA had written off that possibility as impractical. Mayor Norton -asked if that information was recorded. Councilman Sher asked Mr. White if the minimum plan of 8-10 years and the MAZUR= plan of 20-25 years had been discussed with the County and if they were prepared to go along with the plans, which would mean dredging for the duration of either of the plans, and then not dredging at all. Mr. White responded that the plans had been discussed with the County, and the County said Oat with the 8-10 year plan they would not dredge; they favored the 20 -year plan, "...because that's long enough for them to do something in the harbor." That decision was at the staff level. Councilman Sher said that the County would not went to build additional bertha if the Palo Alto Council opted for the minimum 8-10 year plan, and the County would want to get out of it all right now. He said that then the City should forget about the 8-10 year plan if the City were not prepared to bear the cost of dredging and the like. The County, however, with the 20-25 year plan, would dredge, establish de -watering ponds and build bertha. If that happened, would the Yacht Harbor lease be re -written to reflect the new period of 20-25 years? Mx. White said the lease would have to be amended. Councilman Sher confirmed that the lease would also have to be re -written were the City to opt far the 8-10 year period of time since the County would not bear the cost of any further dredging. Mr. White said the County would either want to re -write the lease or cancel it. 16 - 6/14/77 Mayor Norton asked if the matter of the lease could not be dealt with at a later time. Councilman Sher explained that the County has the obligation to dredge, the City has the obligation to place the spoils, and Bay Conservation District Commission (BCDC) had said there should be no further dredging until there was a four-year solution. He said he thought perhaps that could be revised if the terms of the lease were revised down. The time for which the spoils could be handled would be the time for which the lease could be operant --at a later date when another location for spoils was found the lease could be extended. Mayor Norton said that one concern did not necessarily bring about the other concern. Councilman Sher said he did not knew if the County was prepared to "let it ride" on the basis of designation of a site for spoils. He supposed the lease could ride under those circumstances. He turned to another matter. Someone, perhaps Mr. Cooper, had said that the lease covering over"the dumpsite could be abandoned at any time, and that would be an advantage. Councilman Sher asked what would happen if landscaping would not grow, and, on site, how quickly could that be determined? He feared getting into a plan and finding it would not support landscaping with those materials, and then having to put a lot more money into it. Ms, Proctor said that by the 27th there would be more data available to answer that question. More laboratory tests with the soils were needed. At present it appeared that there was a good chance the spoils could be used. The soils needed proper treatment, and by the nezt meeting she would know more definitely what elements were needed, and the cost. She said some of that cost was determined by what effect was desired, for "even the most horrible spoils will support something." Mayor Norton said that the spoils now on the baylands had grown virtually nothing for many years, and there had been no objections. Councilman Sher said that at one time there had even been talk about having a second golf course out there, and that While the furtherance of the plans did not hinge on whether or not the spoils would support landscaping he did want to know what Council could anticipate from statements Which had been made. He referred to a statement of Ma: Proctor's about spoils being treated with sewage sludge. He asked if the City had that kind of sludge, for its use would produce topsoil and reduce costs. Mr. Fawloski said that Palo Alto's sewage treatment pliant did not produce "digestive sludge." San Francisco produced 700 tons a week which was currently being disposed of at Mountain View, and Palo Alto could get that. That sludge had received more treatment. In the week of June 20 a meeting was to take place with the San Francisco Bay Region Wastewater Solids Study group, made up of 7 participating agencies which were trying to arrive at a regional solution of solids in water treatment plants. Both experts on sludge, and information about sources of sludge would be discussed. Councilman Sher alluded to Point 7 which said that spoils could be treated with sludge and become topsoil. He asked when that atetament could be verified. Mr. White said that the City had been making leaf compost which would be added --there would be experimentation with leaf-and-woodchip compost. The materials were free and available. 17 6/14/77 Anne Steinberg asked if there was going to be any concurrent resource recovery work, Mr. Sipel said that staff had not resolved the extent to which they would continue resource recovery, since it was possible that the City would not have to dispose of solid waste in any other fashion. He thought perhaps both disposal methods should be pursued. Councilman Eyerly asked if more fill were needed at the present lite or if the addition of the impermeable fill and the topsoil would bring the dumpsite to its desired height. Mr. Cooper said more refuse was needed to bring it to the right height, At the present time the height was 30 feet. Two million, eight hundred thousand more cubic yards were needed to bring it to the correct height. The 20-25 year time needed was arrived at by seeing how long it was needed to continue dumping at the present rate to attain the correct height. That estimate included the present 116 acres plus the 20 acres recently authorized by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, and it did not include any ITT property. Councilman Eyerly asked if Mr. Sipel would hays sonar wrap-up on the ITT property at the next Council meeting. Mr. Sipel said that staff had spent about one --half day with the ITT people trying to complete a contract agreement and assuming that agreement could be completed he would place it before Council on June 27. He said he suggested that the property, when agreement had been reached, be put in with the Master Plan for the Baylands now in process, perhaps referring it to the Planning Commission on how it should best be developed and designated, with it returning as part of the final draft plan for the Baylands. Councilwoman Witherspoon asked if an area for composting had yet been set aside for tree trimmings and grass clippings. Enid Pearson had thought that about two acres would be needed for that Mt. White said at least two acres would be needed, and an area somewhere near the landfill would be used, preferably where water to vet it down would be available, so that it would not be blown around. Councilman Sher asked Ms. Proctor for a timeline on moving dried spoila from the de -watering pond, placing it in position as the impermeable cap, mining dredged spoils with elements needed to turn it into topsoil, placing that topsoil in place, planting, and final Landscaping, Be wondered if one oTermtion could follow the other successively, with o lengthy delays. Mx. Cooper said that all the operations followed one another in quick succession. Mr. Pavloski said that the need to dredge acnually changed soge'of the considserstioa, and an operational plan had to be developed. They had thought they would sculpt frith, g;at e' 'then put on -.the impermeable cap, and so on, but now there were some changes, and a different operational plan wee in process, to be presented later. Mayor Norton offered that ample fertiliser from the Ccuncilchaaabers sight be available for creating rich topsoil. - 1$ - 6/14/77 • • MOTION: Mayor Norton moved, seconded'by� Vice Mayor Clay, that the melting adjourn. The motion paosed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. City Clerk Mayor