I agree the process is convoluted and is wasting both time and money. However, how can PA complain when it takes PA 4 years to grant a permit for a slightly higher cell phone tower at the little league park. I am sure many people who have tried to remodel in PA would have many of the same issues with the city that the city is having with the Water Board

The Water Board permitting process doesn't sound much different than the normal Palo Alto process (if you aren't Arrigalla or some donor developer), so stop the whining and figure out what they want.

> Enough is enough, he said, vowing to lobby state officials to fire
> Bruce Wolfe, the water board's executive director whom Berman
> accused of being unable to come up with a process that's
> "actually attainable and achievable."

This is a problem that was caused by the California Legislature—giving these Commissions/Agencies as much power as it did—and with very little accountability for these Government regulators.

Hopefully, Palo Alto’s legislative representatives have been brought into this “game”—and asked directly why these Agencies should be able to operate this way? And .. they should also be asked what they can do in Sacramento to trim the wings of these Agencies?

If they can’t see any way out of this mess—then it’s time for new Representatives who do see a way out.

to Gennady Sheyner - Was the Water Board (or Bruce Wolfe) asked to comment either on the ongoing situation or on this story? Even if their comment was or would have been "no comment", that's worth knowing.

As to the kvetching of previous responses, yes, Palo Alto's Council does not have the most scintillating record in putting together and carrying out projects. It does sound like in this case they're trying hard to do the right thing. More power (and good luck!) to them.

its about time someone slows down the city council construction projects. too bad this water board isn't around when it is really needed--to stop these ugly high rises and over building projects that are going to use tons of water that we dont have. hurray for the water board.

Dear City Staff & Council,

It's frustrating, isn't it, to feel dependent on a bureaucratic and seemingly capricious permit process?

It makes you feel powerless and angry. It makes you wish the people in control would follow the rules so that you could plan with realistic expectations about scale, timing, costs, and impacts review.

Please remember how you feel right now. It is a feeling that is familiar to many Palo Alto residents. Setting realistic expectations, communicating in a thoughtful and organized way, following your own rules and timelines would go a long way toward solving many of our problems.

Remember this moment. Apply what you have learned in your interactions with PA residents. We feel your pain.

City Attorney Molly Stump noted ....a process she referred to as "bureaucratic limbo."
City Manager James Keene noted that the city has actually "lost ground" in the process.

Perhaps the City Attorney and the City Manager prefer the "behind closed doors cronyism bureaucratic process" in which Palo Alto could have ACTUALLY LOST GROUND, i.e. property donated to the city for a specific purpose, not to be sold for a pittance to big development. Kind of looks that way, anyhow...

Maybe we should turn the golf course, duck pond, office park, and airport back into what it originally was, a swamp.

In his letter of 08/29/14, Bruce Wolfe says "Given the extensive
work needed to complete the Application for the Project, we recommend that the Application indicate how the Project can be phased to first implement the flood protection features associated with protecting East Palo Alto and Palo Alto for human health and safety. The certification of the Project could then permit the construction of the Project in phases." In conclusion he says: "To protect the human health and safety in the most expedient way, the Application should propose phasing the Project’s construction to first implement the flood control protection elements for East Palo Alto and Palo Alto to the extent feasible subject to all agencies’ approval. We are willing to work with other agencies to consider permitting the first phase of the Project." The agency recommendation then is for both sides of the creek and does allow for continued funding by the Water District. The letter can be found at: Web Link

Do you want to know why these mysterious delays keep happening?: The Regional Water Quality Control Board is purposely delaying to give Stanford time to decide on the Searsville Dam which is due supposedly this fall. As proposed, the Joint Powers plan is not designed to handle any increase in water flow or critically the rise in creek clogging silt that would result from changes upstream, ie the removal of the dam. Just as Palo Alto cannot make changes upstream that would flood those downstream in EPA, so too could Stanford not make changes upstream like dam removal that would increase flooding downstream. By designing and permitingt the current plan based on current creek water and silt flows, JPA is forcing Stanford's hand to provide upstream detention and other flood mitigating projects, something Stanford has not been a forthcoming good neighbor about to date. By delaying the permit the Regional Water Quality Board is "carrying Stanford's water" by giving them time to change the game, and pushing the problem of the increase in water flow and silt from dam removal downstream onto Palo Alto, EPA and the JPA. The effect being that JPA would need to go back to the drawing board to redesign to handle the increased silt load caused by Stanford without a dam. The delay hurts JPA's "bargaining position" with the large institution that is Stanford, who is apparently manipulating the Regional Water Board to their advantage. Stanford is being ripped in the press and by environmentalists and is looking bad by not committing to remove the obsolete dam to date, so they are in a bad bargaining position. By manipulating the Water Board behind the scenes they are trying to get out of having to deal with the downstream effects of the dam removal project they are getting pressured into. This is the big mystery behind this delay.

Insane. But, hope the bureaucrats take notice of how it feels dealing with a government agency - delays, going back on promises, etc. Ha!

Vice Mayor Kniss please see "Its the Dam's" comments above to understand why it is happening. It is no puzzle, nor is it "typical bureaucracy." It is pure power politics and is completely rational. Stanford is pursuing their self interest and so far is more powerful than Palo Alto at the state level where the Regional Water Quality Control Board reports. Political leaders should be taking Stanford to the woodshed publicly on this: Stanford plays power politics to avoid having to being a good neighbor and dedicate some of their precious land to upstream detention and participate in flood projects, and meanwhile East Palo Alto remains totally at risk.

Berman also said he would phone three government officials this morning to influence the water board's decision. As a lawyer and Council Member, Berman must know that the water board's action is a quasi-judicial decision that must be made by impartial board members who receive information in public hearings. It is not legal for quasi-judicial decisons to be influenced by ex parte discussions between board members and the officials Berman said he would phone this morning to influence the board's decision.

Do I need to buy a boat or move from East Palo Alto?

Feeling like a child left behind.

The drought has given all officials plenty of time to ponder all the issues and begin the work.

I thought when Gov. Brown signed the orders for the repairs it would get done.

This dry weather won't last forever.......

This news article today is very depressing!

Gee, after Palo Alto and the other cities bent over forwards to accommodate the Water Quality Board's demand to eliminate plastic shopping bags, you'd think they'd show some respect....

It is indeed ironic that Palo Alto Officials are upset at the slow permitting process.

Have any of the readers of the weekly tried to get a permit from the City for a residential re-model?

I have to agree with señor blogger and Alphonso. The city is getting a taste of their own medicine. Obviously our council has no clue what the " common" people are put through trying to get a permit or some other such thing-- beaurocrats, commissions, the council etc.
The cell phone towe is,only one example. Remember alma plaza. How about the new bike bridge that will take 4+ years.
One cannot avoid noticing the irony of this situation.
Maybe holman and others can empathize with others that feel,thatntheynwere being held hostage.

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

The regional water board has approved many SCVWD floodplain management projects with no major delays. But the Palo Alto application for reconfiguring the golf course, combined with the JPA application for floodwalls and levees, is running into great difficulty. Could it be that there is a fundamental difference in the confrontational political approach and design style of these projects compared to most others? It appears that these projects were designed (as in 1960's) to "just move the water." 50 years later, multi-objective approaches to floodplain management on a watershed basis is the norm. Yes, that includes designing for impacts from imminent decisions on the Searsville Dam. For the fastest possible regulatory approvals, Palo Alto and JPA leaders may find it beneficial to soften their confrontational approach and update their design objectives to more than just moving the maximum water with minimum land taken from the golf course.

We have the nice folks at Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge to thanks for this latest mess. Emily Renzel, Enid Pearson and the like (the same crowd against the anaerobic digester) got in the ear of the staff at the Water Quality Board.

You would think our representative on the SCVWD would have the Golden Spigot use their considerable clout in Sacromento to put Brucie Wolfie in check. Why not you ask? Well our representative Brian Schmidt is endorsed and supported by Enid, Emily and Krew and he is sitting his hand to fix our creek, just like he has for the last 4 years.

Disgusting, especially given our brother in EPA are under water in case of a flood.

If the city use the courts to progress the application process, when will the city finally do so? What me met the city endure before taking this to court? Os or possible to recover the legal fees if the courts fnd in our favor?

Agree that we are not getting the agency primarily responsible for flood control 110% for us. Did not understand the connect between our person there and the evil Complete the Refuge / drown the people organization.

When is he running again? 2016

Ol' Keene sure looked frustrated at the meeting. I guess I would be frustrated too, if I knew that I was not getting my 8 million in state funding.

The Waterboard is doing what it is there to do - evaluate the design of the proposed project and ensure compliance with the clean water act. They said repeatedly that the information they received is insufficient, and asked for modification, more studies and documentation. This is code for - "this is an inadequate design that will not deliver the promised results."
Should we all invest in a fault design? Do we trust that our leaders (who cannot build a library or a cell phone tower) can provide a design that would really protect residents of East Palo Alto?

Why is Stanford getting a free ride? Correct my memory (I don't have time to go back and reread earlier posts) but I remember that one of the Water Board's complaints was that there was no upstream diversion of flood waters, which would have to take place on Stanford's land. Especially with the issue about the removal of the Sears Dam in play, why aren't their negotiations going on with Stanford to create a place for excess rain water to go near where it originates? I would assume that would be some kind of temporary lake which would have water only when there is excess water. Reducing or slowing the amount of water flowing from the watershed into the creek seems like the most rational response rather than speeding the water on its way to the bay.

It's Stanford's silt that is the hold-up. There is tons of it behind Searsville Dam and is a prime reason it is obsolete. The Dam is maybe 60 feet high and maybe only ten feet deep is actual water by now. The rest is decades of accumulated natural silt and sediment. Once the dam comes down all the future silt that would have been backing up behind it will flow down the creek. Without the proper water flow the silt will back up downstream and form natural dams, potentially making the flooding problem downstream worse. Watersheds are as much about moving water as silt. In fact, floods are a great way to move silt. The interplay of water flooding and silt collecting over geological time formed the alluvial plain those of us who live in Palo Alto now have our houses built upon. Trouble is, most of those houses now vulnerable to flood were built in the period after the Searsville Dam was in place when the dam was acting as a massive silt filter. We have spent 16 years vulnerable without a fix to the Pope Chaucer dam/bridge, based on what we have been told was our moral obligation not to pass our problems downstream to EPA. Why doesn't the principal apply to Stanford as they seek to remove their actual dam and pass the silt downstream? They need to be forthcoming by providing upstream solutions in combination with the downstream work that is already proposed and being held up. If the solution is to just make the creek wider and faster at the Bay to handle all the silt and deliver it there, what happens in between? Stanford ends up with a pristine environment upstream, the bay watchers get as pristine an environment as they can get at the Bay and in between the creek faces a choice between 100 year flood walls or 100 year flooding. That is a false choice if Stanford simply steps up and does their part to continue to handle some of the silt. It can be win, win, win with one of the only urban natural watersheds in the world from hills to bay. These are some of the very things that make Palo Alto unique and a special place to live. To date Stanford remains hidden behind their dam decision as their neighboring Palo Altoan's are forced to bicker with each other downstream. It's time they commit and contribute to a vision of ONE NATURAL WATERSHED FLOOD SAFE AND STEEL-HEAD FRIENDLY on the record in a public way.

I represent Palo Alto at the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and I am one of the five members of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, together with Pat Burt from Palo Alto, Dave Pine from San Mateo County, Kirsten Keith from Menlo Park, and Ruben Abrica from East Palo Alto.

To avoid confusion that I've seen elsewhere, the Santa Clara Valley Water District is a completely different agency from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Water District strongly supports the flood protection proposal that also creates 15 acres of marshland, while the Regional Water Board in my opinion has created unreasonable roadblocks and has contradicted their earlier statements on how this project should proceed.

I and my agency support this project. The five individual members of the San Francisquito Creek JPA unanimously support this project. The five government agencies unanimously support this project. I believe every single elected local official within those five agencies supports the project as do our state representatives to the Assembly and State Senate. The roadblock is at the Regional Board - specifically at the staff level, the Regional Board members themselves having decided they felt the decision (indecision) should be by their staff.

I find it incomprehensible that the Regional Board is showing such a poor understanding of hydrology as to think we could proceed right away with a project that protects East Palo Alto while failing to do construction along the Palo Alto golf course area. This would change the flooding pattern to increase impacts in Palo Alto, and therefore requires new environmental review and many other delays, including forcing yet another permit application to the Regional Board. The induced artificial flooding on the Palo Alto side would also create legal liability. There is no possibility of this being feasible as a short term fix or as a politically acceptable proposal requiring Santa Clara County voters to fund an action that increases flooding risks in their County. Their suggestion delays flood protection to East Palo Alto as well as Palo Alto, and should be withdrawn.

I would encourage voters to contact both the Regional Water Board and their staff to tell them to approve the permit application. This is the right way to proceed with this project, something that provides both flood protection and environmental restoration.

Brian, how about you reject your endorsement from the key instigators at the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge such as Renzel and Pearson?

Some background on Renzel and Pearson

Web Link

@ Brian

If what you say is true, we will support you.if not you are S.O.L.

With our past experiences, regarding Pearson, Renzel. (Bressler property, Anerobic digester,Golf course flood control).

I believe your political clout has just ran out.

@Neighbor

Everything I said is true. The only thing that's a matter of interpretation is whether a new Environmental Impact Report would be required by the Regional Water Board's proposal. I think it clearly would - it would have new hydrology impacts, new land use impacts (changing the FEMA 100 year flood plain designation) and possibly new construction impacts depending on how it was done. That is only one of several reasons why the Water Board proposal would delay flood protection to both East Palo Alto and Palo Alto.

Regarding Enid Pearson and Emily Renzel, I have never hidden my support for the flood protection proposal on the creek and they endorsed me anyway. I don't have an attitude that people have to completely agree with me on all subjects - and I don't know if either of them have stated an opinion on this particular issue. Regardless, even if I may sometimes disagree with them, I still welcome their endorsement.

For those who feel I should disavow the endorsements of the namesakes for Emily Renzel Wetlands and the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, I'm sorry.

[Post removed.]

If you go to the web site for SU Jasper Ridge - where the Searsville Lake / dam is located you will see a study dated 2007 which was discussing the different approaches to management of the lake - which was a growing problem back then. One of the approaches was to remove the silt. When this was brought up now - 2014 - there was a big response about how much money it would cost to remove the silt - where would it go?
Fast forward to other streams 2014 - seven years later on the playing fields in the baylands in which Stanford dirt has been dumped on the golf course for the "soccer field" which was a trade for other projects in the mill. When those projects fell through the dirt is now sitting there and it turns out is not the higher quality dirt but useless dirt.
The silt should be trucked down to the soccer field,also used on the 7.7 acres that are in need of some help, and any other park issues where really good soil / silt is needed.
If they (SU) had started the removal of silt starting back in 2007 then we would not have this problem. You would think that Management 101 is a course taught at SU.
Bottom line is that SU is dumping useless dirt in the baylands but the good dirt is stuck in the lake and creating this horrendous problem. Part of their job is to manage the build up of silt in the lake. Otherwise give the lake to the mid-peninsula open space and they will manage it. Either manage the lake or get out of the business of controlling the lake and the build up of silt.

Since Enid Pearson and Emily Renzel are selling us down the river (creek) on this and the digester, can't we take away their names for the wetlands and their preserve?

Normal protocol for naming of public places usually entails that the benefactor must be deceased prior to naming of said public place. Just Google it.

Why are we naming our public places for living people such as Pearson and Renzel if they opposed to fixing the Creek? Can someone explain this to us?