4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board members considered and approved the agenda 5-0.

Transcription

1 Chairperson Bay called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. at the City of Palo Alto Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. 1. Roll Call Members Present: Members Absent: Associate Members Present: Associate Members Absent: JPA Staff Present: Others Present: Chairperson Bay, City of East Palo Alto Vice Chair Zlotnick, Santa Clara Valley Water District Director Kinney, City of Menlo Park Director Mossar, City of Palo Alto Director Gordon, San Mateo County Flood Control District- Alternate None Pam Sturner, Watershed Council Michael Fox, Stanford University None Cynthia D Agosta, Executive Director Andrew Kloak, Staff Kevin Murray, Staff Janice Lera-Chan, Jay Kinberger (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers); Debra O Leary (City of East Palo/COE Liaison) Joe Teresi (City of Palo Alto); Beau Goldie (SCVWD); Kent Steffens (City of Menlo Park); Ann Stillman, Brian Lee (San Mateo County Flood Control District); Mary Schaefer (Palo Alto Resident); John Schaefer (Palo Alto Resident); Xenia Hammer (Palo Alto Resident); Ginger Holt (Menlo Park Resident); Vivian Blomenkamp (League of Women Voters Palo Alto); Art Kraemer (Palo Alto Resident) 2. REPORT OUT ON CLOSED SESSION-RE: Personnel Matters Chairperson Bay said the Board discussed personnel matters during the closed session before the meeting. He said they would adjourn back into closed session at the end of the meeting. 3. APPROVAL OF THE June 24, 2004 SPECIAL MEETNG MINUTES Board members considered and approved the June 24 th meeting minutes APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board members considered and approved the agenda CONSENT CALENDAR- None 6. PUBLIC COMMENT This is a limited time for public to comment on items not on the agenda. None 1 of 9

2 7. REGULAR BUSINESS A. COE Project Updates -COE San Francisco Project Managers scheduled for a question/answer period on both the CAP 205 (near term) and G.I. (long term) projects. Ms. D Agosta stated this item was going to follow a question-and-answer format. She said CAP Management Team members would first start with questions and questions from the public would follow after that. Ms. D Agosta introduced two staff persons from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) in Ms. Janice Lera-Chan, GI Project Manager and Mr. Jay Kinberger, CAP 205 Project Manager. Mr. Kinberger said the COE had almost completed the Initial Assessment (IA) and the last stage was the real estate appraisal component. He said real estate costs were much higher than expected. He said they were working on ways to reduce the real estate appraisal numbers but they were still quite inflated. He said they were working with Ms. D Agosta, the COE-Sacramento office, and Debra O Leary to rectify this. Chairperson Bay said the Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration (FDR/ER) seemed to give the JPA more flexibility than the Watershed Study (WS.) He asked Ms. Lera-Chan for her assessment as to the best course of action for the JPA. Ms. Lera-Chan said, in her opinion, the FDR/ER would be the best option. Chairperson Bay asked what factors drove the GI on the federal level. Ms. Lera-Chan said the appropriated funding drove the schedule. Mr. Kinberger said funding was what drove things but progressing according to a defined schedule was important, too. He said you could only do things so fast. He said the COE had goals and a path associated with the project. Chairperson Bay asked whether the JPA could expect federal funding to continue to be appropriated. Mr. Kinberger said the JPA s funding was passed through Congress and was a priority in the president s budget. He said future requests would stay in the federal budget but the president could change things. Mr. Kinberger said the JPA needed to work with the appropriate Congress Members to ensure the necessary add-ons were in future budgets. Chairperson Bay asked whether the appropriations had to continue for the schedule to proceed ahead. Mr. Kinberger said federal appropriations needed to come every year to stay on schedule. He said authorization covers a whole phase of the GI but is paid in installments. He said not getting authorization meant reprogramming of the installments. 2 of 9

3 Vice Chair Zlotnick said the annual effort of securing federal funding was an ongoing endeavor that would never be easy. He said the strength of the delegation made him confident about getting future federal funding for the JPA. He said as long as we do what we need to, the COE would stay on schedule. Joe Teresi said he had seen wide range cost estimates for the Feasibility phase of the project. He asked when a more definite number would be determined. Ms. Lera-Chan said the exact amount would not come until the Project Management Plan (PMP) was complete. She said the total cost for this phase would fall between three million and six million dollars. Mr. Teresi asked whether the PMP was a sub-component of the Recon Study. Ms. Lera-Chan said the PMP was a product of the Recon Study. Vice Chair Zlotnick asked how long would it take to complete the Recon Phase of the G.I. if the Board made a decision tonight on the project s focus. Ms. Lera-Chan said spring or early summer 2005 was when it would be complete. She said the COE was hit with a reprogramming/slippage of the original $100,000 down to $65,000 for the Recon Study Phase. Vice Chair Zlotnick asked if the JPA needed to fight to get the reprogramming money back. Mr. Kinberger said there was enough money to complete the Recon. He said that while the funding situation was minimally adequate to complete the work, the biggest step to keep the project viable was a Board decision on the project direction. Vice Chair Zlotnick asked Mr. Kinberger if the COE would accept payments from the local level to continue doing the work. Mr. Kinberger said that could not happen until the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) was signed. He said there was no vehicle to accept local monies during the Recon phases. Ms. D Agosta asked if and how the JPA could reach a 100-year level of protection with the G.I. Ms. Lera-Chan said the JPA might be unable to physically increase the channel size for a 100-year flood protection because there was not enough space to work with. She said this might be a constraint in how much can be done and weather we ll reach the 100-year flood protection standard. 3 of 9

4 Mr. Kinberger said there was a process to weigh the benefits versus the costs when looking to achieve maximum protection. He said the JPA, as the local sponsor, could elevate the SF Creek s ability to protect against a 100-year flood by paying all costs above the standard local match, to achieve this. He said this was called a buy-up. Ms. D Agosta asked whether working on the CAP 205 and the GI at the same time was hurting the COE s ability to do complete the first phases. Ms. Lera-Chan and Mr. Kinberger said no. Mr. Kinberger said the COE s philosophy was the federal and local dollars should be expended at the same time. He said this doesn t always work because of timing on one end or the other was different. He said the COE could still move forward for some amount of time in these situations. Xenia Hammer asked what drove the real estate costs and where the land in question was located. She asked what was the process to buy-up the level of flood control protection and how the community would be included in these decisions. Mr. Kinberger said the footprint of the project [CAP205] is pretty much aligned with the creek. He said the area that parallels the creek below East Bayshore is where the project buy-up of land would be. He said the value of real estate costs are based on the highest and best use of the land. He said if there is an encumbrance that constrained the highest best use, then this lowered the real estate costs for that piece of land. Mr. Kinberger said the answers to these questions would not normally be known until two-thirds through the Feasibility stage. Mr. Kinberger said the CAP program was a very small COE program with limited funding and that was done on purpose. He said the COE would not encourage buyups on tasks with such a limited scope. Director Kinney asked for the formula for the cost/benefit (c/b) ratio. Mr. Kinberger said the c/b ratio was one to one. He said if the costs were.99 and the benefits were 1.01, there would be positive c/b ratio [.99:1.01], which in theory would allow the COE to declare a federal interest. Vice Chair Zlotnick said the lands the JPA might need for the CAP 205, were largely in the baylands. He said that real estate there was non-viable for both construction and development. Director Mossar said the land being discussed was owned by the City of Palo Alto and was zoned as restricted public open space. 4 of 9

5 Mr. Teresi said the land was dedicated as parkland and could not be used for anything without the vote of the citizens of the Palo Alto. Mary Schaefer said a good number of the houses that were flooded in 1998 did not get included in the flood plain figures. She asked if these homes would be included in the data the COE uses. Mr. Kinberger said there would be an opportunity to take in more information during the Feasibility stage. He said the COE would run a model to assess where the damage was in past flooding with projections where the water might go. Ms. Hammer asked whether options besides building floodwalls downstream of Hwy. 101 were being considered. She said a different approach could be allowing water to flood open public lands and might favorably impact the cost benefit ratio. Mr. Kinberger said their job, at this phase, was not to give the community a project but see if a project could work here. Chairperson Bay said the COE s ground rules would not let the JPA proceed ahead without at least one solution. He said this existence proof and a good cost/benefit ratio needed to be found by the COE Vice Chair Zlotnick said we are going down parallel paths toward this existence proof. He asked how far could we go on this track. Mr. Kinberger said the CAP 205 and the GI were running neck and neck now but they would be implemented at different times. He said two federal projects in the same footprint could not be underway at the same time. Vice Chair Zlotnick asked whether the CAP 205 and the GI could be moving ahead at the same time. Mr. Kinberger said this could work for the Recon Study phase but once Feasibility begins we cannot have two different phases working at once. He said folding in data from the CAP 205 would help GI. In summary, Chairperson Bay said the tentative outcome signaled by the COE was troubling. He asked if the COE had to give an answer to the question, Will the IA for the CAP 205 reflect a positive benefit/cost ratio, resulting in a federal interest, would the answer be no right now? Mr. Kinberger replied that with today s information, it would likely be a no, but that they weren t finished with analysis yet. Chairperson Bay said he was appreciative of the COE s openness and flexibility in the last several months. 5 of 9

6 b. Decision on selection of project focus for Recon Phase of the G.I. project-approval Ms. D Agosta reminded the Board that Director Gordon needed to leave at 7:30 p.m., so the Board should vote on this before then. The Board considered approval of the selection of the project focus for the Recon Phase of the G.I. between the Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration (FDR/ER) and the Watershed Study (WS). Vice Chair Zlotnick moved select the FDR/ER, Director Mossar seconded, and approved 5-0. [Director Gordon left at this time-7:30 p.m.] Art Kraemer asked when the IA would complete. Mr. Kinberger said when the COE saw nothing five months ago, they did not want to do a disservice to the community by wrapping it up then. He said the final results of the IA would come out once we get better and more detailed information. Mary Schaefer said it was nearly impossible to have the City of Palo Alto vote affirmatively to use these public lands for flood control. Vice Chair Zlotnick said the next step was the JPA should send a letter to the COE indicating the direction on the G.I. project. He said this letter should also be sent to Congressional and State representatives in our area. Mr. Kinberger thanked the Board for their involvement. He said he looked forward to their continued partnership on these projects. c. Board Direction on CAP 205 project Ms. D Agosta said the Board needed to approve the preparation of member agency sub-agreements to put the JPA in position to sign a CAP205 Feasibility Cost Share Agreement (FCSA.) Ms. D Agosta asked whether the timeline was set for when the SCVWD Board was going to approve the first year funding for the Feasibility Phase in keeping with Vice Chair Zlotnick s offer in June. Beau Goldie said this was targeted to go to the SCVWD Board in November. He said he would bring the draft agreement to the Board before then. Director Kinney said, in the big picture of things, he saw the advance money would be credited back to the SCVWD at a later date. 6 of 9

7 Chairperson Bay said he would look into his agency paying back some of those funds advanced by the Santa Clara Valley Water District for the Feasibility Phase of the CAP205. He said there might be a way the City of East Palo Alto could front load their payment agreement. He said the reason for this was because East Palo Alto would receive a big benefit first if the project moved from the bay to the hills. The Board gave JPA staff and legal counsel direction to develop sub-agreements for the CAP 205 project. d. Recommendation for FY Auditor - Approval Ms. D Agosta said she was recommending the JPA contract with Mr. Kevin Harper, CPA to conduct the FY audit and provide financial advising consulting. She said the total cost for both services was not to exceed $15,000 in the contract. Director Mossar said the contract was something she was comfortable with. She said Mr. Harper had done good work for the JPA in the past. She said next year a Request For Proposal (RFP) would need to be issued so that the JPA can find where the best work and lowest cost is among a pool of auditors. Ms. D Agosta said the JPA did issue a RFP and interviewed candidates before deciding on Mr. Harper in 2002 and would re-visit this process in Vice Chair Zlotnick said considering that three years of audits by the same firm was the limit in Sacramento, finding a new auditor next year was what he would advise. The Board considered approval of the contract with Mr. Harper. Director Mossar moved approval, Director Kinney seconded, and approved 4-0. e. Letter to CalTrans / SamTrans regarding Hwy 101 project-attachment Ms. D Agosta said she would like to have Board approval of an attached letter from the JPA in order coordinate efforts on the CAP 205 with CalTrans and SamTrans. She said those two agencies were planning to extend one lane in each direction on Hwy 101, which may impact San Francisquito Creek. She said the letter would be sent after the final report of the CAP 205 Initial Assessment was issued. Vice Chair Zlotnick said this letter should also be sent to others besides individuals at these two agencies. He said political figures such as Byron Sher, Joe Simitian, Steve Poizner, Ira Ruskin should be included in who receives this. The Board considered approval of the letter. Director Mossar moved approval, Vice Chair Zlotnick seconded, and approved 4-0. f. Future meeting dates and draft agenda items Ms. D Agosta said proposed agenda items were outlined for upcoming board meetings. She said the appointment of the JPA Chair would not be on the September 7 of 9

8 agenda since the current chair had one more year to go [Chairperson Bay was appointed on September 23, 2003 to a two-year term from September 2003 to September 2005.] Vice Chair Zlotnick said getting Congresswoman Anna Eshoo to attend the fifth year ceremony would be excellent. He said Ms. D Agosta should do what she could to accommodate to the Congresswoman s schedule to make this happen. g. Clip File Director Kinney said contrary to reports in a local newspaper, he would not be continuing on the JPA Board after his Menlo Park City Council term ends in November. 8. Board and Associate Member Reports- Agendized reports from Board and/or Associate Members requesting Board action. 9. Board and Associate Member Matters- Non-agendized comments, requests, or announcements by Board and/or Associate members, no action may be taken. Pam Sturner said the Watershed Council was working with Director Kinney and Kent Steffens from the City of Menlo Park to focus on a low cost simple design solution for the Bonde Weir at Alma Street. She said Mr. Steffens was scheduled to talk about this at an upcoming Steelhead Task Force (Task Force) meeting. Ms. Sturner said the Task Force was also looking at preliminary designs and plans for a flashboard dam on Los Trancos Creek. Mr. Steffens said the Bonde Weir project was going to have a limited scope, simple design, and solid structural integrity. He said the Department of Fish and Game would help them pinpoint the bottom of the structure. He said monies to do the project could be found from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Bay Bridge Mitigation funding sources. Director Mossar said the Caltrain Electrification Project (CEP) would have impact on the area near the site of the Bonde Weir. She said wanted the CEP to be on the agenda for the September Board meeting. Chairperson Bay requested reports at the September meeting on SCVWD s restoration site below Highway 101, the Stanford golf course, the Sand Hill Road project, and the Watershed Council s Cape Ivy spraying program. He said these reports should be agendized under Board and Associate Member Reports at the next meeting. Michael Fox said this report on the golf course and the Sand Hill Road project should be something Stanford University and the City of Menlo Park issue jointly. He will coordinate with City of Menlo Park on this. Chairperson Bay adjourned to closed session at 8:10 p.m. 8 of 9

9 Report Out On Closed Session Chairperson Bay reopened the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Chairperson Bay said the Board reached several conclusions during the closed session. He said Ms. D Agosta s contract that expired on June 30th would be extended until October 31, He said the short timeframe of this new extension was at the request of the Executive Director. Chairperson Bay said the Personnel Committee would be meeting again next week. Each Board Member would have one-on-one meetings with Ms. D Agosta before the September Board Meeting. Chairperson Bay said the closed session would continue to the September Board meeting to determine the issues. 10. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Bay adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m. Minutes Prepared by: Andrew M. Kloak Clerk of the Board 9 of 9