The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0158.095TO: City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL A~ON:~eConmUU~ FROM: CITY MANAGER MardI f. 1995 DEPARTME1';T: PuNk won... DATE: CMJl:1S8:95 Palo • .uto Harbor-Point: Request FID8.IlCe Committee 10 review the c:ost and timlDg foc marsh nstoration at Harbor PoInt. REOlJESl: This is a request for !he Fmance Canmittee 10 re-.iew Ihe cost and timing for restoring seven a...,-es of manb at Harboc Point. BEmMMENDADON k isrecOlllr.ll:llded Ihat !he FIII3IlCe Committee recommend lhat Council tale !he following actions: . 1. Direct staff 10 request • ODe year fime .:<1ellSion for a San Francisco Bay Coriselvation and Devek'l'ffi"1lt Commission (llCDC) permit 10 COOlJl!ete sev:n acres of manb n:stocation at Harboc Point. 2. Direct staff 10 prepare I pion 10 implement the project over a three-year period. 3. Direct staff 10 pursue options which wooId reduce or eliminate the City's cost for marsh res!D<alion as folle"",: •. Sed: agency approval for establishment of an euvirorunenW mitigation bank. 1>. Seek grants from orher agencies and utilize $65,000 from • prior wetlands mitigation involving. private party and !he U.S. Deparunenl of Justice. 'These mitigation funds are available from Ihe General Fund reserve account. POlley IMPLICATIONS Approval for proceedIng wIth marsh resloratioo at Harbor Point .. rill reafftml past Council. policy d'u-a:tioo. I'qe I .(4 , .'". .'<~ .. "." .. ~ "~. . . -"./'-," ,"'-.. EXECU11VE SUMMARY In 1.981, (be BCDC issued the Cily • pennit 10 perform • final marina d;e<lging in the Palo A/ID Harbor. The permit req'~ircd the City 10 develop four .c~ 0( marsh and seven acres 0( public acres. improvomeol> 10 mitig'!!: the dredging. Following closure 0( the marina in 1986, Council approved a leclmical study and Envirorunentallmpaci Assessment (EIA) for harbor improvements, including four acres 0( marsh restoration 00 Harbor Pomt, and wosiruction 0( a sailing station. These improvcmen!5 were completed in December 1993 IS part 0( the Harbo< Improvements, ClP 18918. The study also included creating an ad4iticnaI seven acres 0( marsh ()Q Harbor Point in lieu 0( seven ocres 0( public access improvements previously identified in the Baylands Master Plan for this location (sa Location Map in CMR:I07:95). The City's revised plans were reviewed and approved bJ BCOC. As. result. the Board amended the CiIy's permit conditioru in 1992, 10 provide the Cily with the option 0( developing the remaining seven ""res 0( Harbor Point IS marsh ratber ll-.an public ...:;cess InprO¥emen!5, and .1t1ended the canpletion deadline 10 1998" The design for the seven acre manh restoration is nearly complete, and all llC<:essaIy agency permits have been obtained for the work. On January 11, 1m, Coonc~ reviewed the implementation plan for future wort at Harbor Point and referred the rna!!...,. 10 the F>nan<:e COOJrnlttee. See attached CMR 107:95. The C<lOlI1Iitree was asked 10 review the project timing and cost. Slaff bas investigated the I""',ibilily 0( • ooe-year time extension from 1998 10 1999 for completion 0( the marsh restoration. Based on preliminary dIscussions with BCDC staff. a one·year time extension could be administratively granted contingent upon Cily subrnitllll 0(. writtm request for the cxtensicn. With a one year exk:Ilsion 0( the deadline, staff "ill have more time 10 pursue altemate means 0( funding the project or reducing the overan cost 10 the Cily as olSCUSsed below. In aMltion, this would provide Council the opport1;nity for funding the $150,000 marsh restoration cost over a wee-year rather than two-year time frame in :be ClP budget. (If a mi!igatior. bank is sue<:essful. the City cost wou.1d be partially or 1oIJ1Iy reimbursed). - Staff is investigating alternative fund"1llg sources including the creation 0( • mitig~tion bank or 00Iaining grant fimds. Mitigation FundiDg -The City's marsh restoration bas value which is measured by environmental croons. These c,OO>ts arc assigned by lhe U.S. Army Coq.s 0( Engineers IS part 0( the establishment 0( • mitigation bank and can be sold to developers 10 <>ffset envirornnenlal damage caused by !heir projects. In effect, it provides the City .. ith the ~ Ii:> be reimbursed for its project <OSts. Be<:ausc the bank ~s to be set up before the ac!ual restoration occurs, staff recently met with Ille U. S. Army Coq.s 0( Engineers and oIher regulatory agencies 10 disalss the I""'sibil iIy 0( proceeOmg with thi.> concept. The agencies were in general agreement with a mitigation !lank foc the HIUbor Point site and indicated that • proposal would be required from the Cily. The proposal ! "', ' would n=! Ie include • tIlilroogh project description including. site spedfi<: survey for the presence of endangered species. It is ostimare.l tbat it ,,'ou.ld uk. approximately 6 months 10 complete the proposal and an odditionall2 moolhs for agency reviews. After approval, an enviromnenW value would be assigned and the City would enter into • memo of uDdersbDding with the r.v;ewing agencies. An alternative 10 the mitigation bank is foc the City 10 negotiate an agreement up frOO! with • developer 10 fund the IIlMSh restoration. The agreement "'auld requir~ ~pproval 0( tbe U,S. Army Cor;-.; of Engineers. Although this option would be eas;er 10 process, it is also more ruky. If the Harbor Point site and developer's site are not environmentally compatible with respect 10 the type 0( marsh and existing endangered species, the City's current design may n=! 10 be substantially cbanged. This could result in • lengthy new agency design review procesS, possibly causing the City to miss its permit deadline. Sbff has bad preliminary discussioos with • representative 0( the San Mateo Transportation Authority (SMT A) regarding possible mltigation funding tbat could be provMled from anyone of wee projects. Depending 00 the timing for Ihe SMT A project in relation to the timing 0( marsh "",!Oration COIl<truc6oo, the City could either receiv. Uj>-front funding or reimbursement, via a mitigation bank. SIaff recomroeods proceeGmg 5imuJta'leOOsly with both • mltigation bank and direct devel<Jper l!egotiations in order to maximize the possibility 0( obbining outside funding foc Ihe marsh restocation project. Grant Funds -Sbff is researching the lvailability 0( grant fund'mg from agencies such .. the U.S. Enviroomental PrOlectioo Agency, DeparIment 0( FISh and Game, Sbte R.ogiooal Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans, BCDC, and the Coastal Coruervancy. It should be 00!ed that fund'mg in Ihe amount 0($65,000 from • prior wetlands mitigation involving • private party and the U.S. Dep:llt01en! of Ju.<tk.. These funds are available in the General Fund reserve accOUDL . SIaff is also exrloring additional ways 10 red>xe Ihe project cost. The most significant cost of creating • marsh is the hauling and disposal 0( excavated material. Under current landfill standards, there are few disposal si!eS suitable for receiving the excavated material due to its metal content. However, staff receruJy attended • workJ;bop held "y BCDC and 0Iher permitting agencies OIl possible relaxation of landfill cover requirements. Although the City IandfiIJ has sufficient stockpiled cover matetial, chis cbange cculd resWt in acceptaw.e 0( the marsh excavation material ot other nearby Bay Ar""landfill sites, !hereby reducing the cost of bandling and disposal. Staff has Xlenut;"" possible disposal sites in San Jose, Mountain Y-JeW and Redwood City and will proceed with ICStlng the dredge spoils fO£ acceptability as structural fill and capping material after approval of Ihe ClP budget. .. ~ " nsc.l,L IMPACT Pundlng for the project will be discussed as part of !he 1995·96 Capital In¥ovemetlt Ptognm budget~. E!!il1BQNMl1 .. "fI'AL A<iSESSMENl A mitigated ~.tive declaration bas been approved for !he marsh restoration project (91ElAI). AITACBMEJI,'I CM1U01:95 . PREPARED BY: George Bagdon, Assistant Director of Public Works DEPARTMhm HEAD REVIEW: ~ 4. ~~ GLENl'I S. ROBERTS cc: Ms. £rniI,. RenuI INr'1oc of Public WO<ks . , I , ; (L_ ___ ... L ,,:" __ ~- JUNE FLEMING City Manager ~ ~ " ~. . ~. -. ' City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report TO: HQNORABLE CITY <;OUNCn. FROM: CITY M. ..... 'IlAGER DEPARTMENT: Public'l'o<u AGENDA DATE: January 1" 1995 CMR:I07:95 SUBJECT: Palo Alt<> HarboI-Point: Reqtl"..st for Council Direction on Scope of Capitallmprovemcnt Project RF.QllFST This is • request for Council to prcvid< direction on pursuing one of two alternate capital improvement projects for Harbor Point in the Baylands. This request is !'fesented 007 in Older to be .ble to meet the permit deadline imposed by the Son FC2Ilcisco &y Cooservation and Development Commissioa {llaX:j foe one of the altem.te !'fojects. RFWMMF]IDATIQN It is <=>mmended that Council take one of the fo!k,.wing actioaS: I. :Reaffirm its past policy direction of rest.OOng Barbae Point to awsh at a cost of S75O,ooo, « 2. Direct st.£f to punue alternate public access improvements at • cost of $250,000. POJJcy IMPUCADONS AP!'fOv.d foe proceeding with rr=sl.. restoration at Harboc Point will reaffirm past Council policy directior~ fXFC(DnyESt~ARY In 1981, the BCOC issued the City • permit to perform a firuJ marin. dredging in the Palo Ako Harl>or, The permit required the City to develop four acre; of marsh and seven acres of public access improvements to mitigate the dredging. Fo!Jowing closure of the lIl2rioa in 1986, Council.woved a technial study and EIA for h.,-b« improvements, indudillg four acres of marsh restoration on Harboc Point and construction of a sailing station. 1'Mse improvements: were completed in Dc'Ce!Ilber 1993 as pa:t of the Harboc Improvements, CIP 18918. The srudy also included creating an additiorul seven acres of awsh on Harbae Point in lieu of seven acres of public access imp<ovements wlllch had been previou,.]y identified in the Pag~l of) . ,--.~ ." -. · .J"-' ,,....,. < ". ,-'~.' "--.' , Baylmds lhster Plan foe this location (_ attachment). The City's r<vised ptms and teChnkaI report ...... enth .. sia<t\calJy supported by BCOC. AJ. result, the 80aTd amended the City', pencit cooditions in 1992, t<> pcovro. the City with the opfm of developing the rem.;n;ng seven acres of Harbo< Poin, .. marsh rather than public access impcovement$, and enended the imple=tation deadline to 1997. &sed on COUll"';! 'Pf>'O,·al of the techn.ic.J stu<ly and adopti.>n of. Pm Improvement Ot-din:m<:. inco<porating these imp.-ovemenL<, de.ign of the .&Iitional seven acres of marsh rest<>r.tticn was undertakell it< part of CIP 18911. The design is ~Iy c<>mplete and all neoes=y agency permits have been obtained foe the work. In order to complete the peoject by the pennit deadline, funding will need to be budgeted in the 199>% and 19%-97 CIP budgets. Based "" the neor11 completed design plans, 5taff has developed • cost «tim.« of $750,000 foe the .... 0I"k. The marsh re"oration can be accommodated in the CIP budget. Ho .... ev.r, sinc. this is • sigciSant expenditure, <taff is asking Council to review its past p-:.>licy decision to pur" .. e the project.. As an alternative, Council could pursue developing Harbor Point as public access at i.ll estimated cost of 5255,000. thereby making funds .vail.ble for ocher elP pcoj=. The peoject would consist of pachW>J3, ek-",ed vanc.."'Y' and a demon.<tr.tion salt marsh garden within the $eVen .<Ore Hazbor POint area. Because work has DO< been perfncmed on the public access opiion to date, staff estimates it will talte at kast two years to secure the required agency pennits and complete construction. As. result, it will no< be poss1ble to meet the BCDC 1991 deadline unless funds are budgeted for the design dill !iscaI year. Following is the pcojected timet.bk for the public a<:cess peoject. March 1m April-July 1995 August-November 1995 December 1995-May 1996 June-August 1996 Sep«mber 19%-february 1997 f>udga Amendment/agreement foe <onstlitant services Preliminary d~.sign Site and design review Other governmental agency .... .;"ws and permit issuances Final designlbidding Coo<tn:ction If Council re:Ufums the marsh res!ontion peoject, <taff "ill continue to p,,-,we <>Ptions which could defray or reduce the pcoject cost to the City. One poss1biliry in ,-olves osmg the site as • mitigation m=re for another private development p<oject. Staff is looking into potential funding from a development project in East Palo AltO, "hid, is required to mitigate the loss of wetlands, as wen as • sep.rate pcoject sponsoced by the San Mateo County Transportation Authon..--y. A.lthough it is posSIble that One of these developments could finance. significant portion d the harbor marsh r«,oration, more disc,. ... ions and f.mher plan development needs to occur on these projects before a finn Je..--isiOQ can be .. : . .....--.,~. '. j • mtde. In addition, .wI will be Iookin& in,o the avzilablliry of possible gnIl' fu...ding from odie.-ageI>Cies sud> as the Environmenul Ptotectioo. Agenq, Departmeo, or Fish .n& C-ame, Stat~ R.egional W.ter Q-l3!ity Control Board, CAl. TRANS and the Coastal Conservancy. Stoff is olso uploring V2)" to rtd'JCe the project <CSt. The most signifium = of creating • mush is the hauling and disposal of a<=ated materUl. UDder cum,,' landfill sundards, then are few disposal sitts whkh ore suitabl. fo< recei Ying the excavated material due '0 its metal ~0Ilttnt. However, staff =dy attended a .... orkshop held by BCDC and other permitting <gencies OIl possible relaxation oflmdfill cover requirements. Although the City landfill has sufficient stockpiled cover mar.ruJ, !his clunge could result in occeptance of the . mush exa.""tioo. mater..! .t other nearby Bay AI .. lilndfili sites, thereby reducing the COst of handling and disposal. Suff will monitor the progress of thls issue and coctinue to researcl! other possible disposal sites. fJSCAI IMPACT Funding of $750,000 split equ.ny in 199.5-96 and 199&-97 is required f<>< constructing the nu...-.h restora...-;'" option. Alternatively, funding of $255,000 would be required for <he public access improvements project, including. $75,000 Budget Amendment Ordinmc. in 199+95 foe design. and $90,000 in bo<h 1995-96 and 199(,,97 foe cO<lSl:rUCtioc.. ENVIRONMENTAl ASSFSSMfNT A mitig .. ed negative dechratioo has been approved foe the marsh restoration projett (91ElAI). An EIA would need '" be approved as part of the site and design process foe the public access improvements project. AITAC.HMENTS Plan of Harbor pOint PREP AR.E.D BY: George Bagdon, AWstant Director of Public Works DEPARTMEN1" HEAD REVIEW, --f?U~~.:;;.L~. ,;,~~~~ .... _ ....... _-,._ GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Worb CITY M.~AGER APPROYAL:--h-r.i~'~_HE~M1N~~~!l!\----_____ _ ~a."lager cc: Ms. Emily Renzel CMll:10'~S he< 100 . ;." "-,-".' -" , ""':".,; J\.": , -/-'-1'~'~ ., ! r-o ~ -f -o z ~ ." ~~ 5:0 "'> "'~ 0'" .. 0 ... -Q~ 30 "" ~ ~ '" AII(PORT ACRI! Wfil'LANO .uoLie ACC~~S M"RSH "REse~VE I.J\NOfilt.. SAN .r"WCIICO I~V e'N1ER NATlIIVtl. A'U!A MUNOV MA'tSH MrLlNC nAY' "P::' ~> --(EX,§'t'NC .) ON ~ ~ .. ! . HOO., IS(ANQ ~ HO~TH ro ! I _iiiiiIII~id== Tm ~ At ., , ittA1iWilM< ~""'" "\ t,' . , -', :' " :'1