After toxic discovery, council approves changes to Stanford's housing project

Palo Alto endorses amended map for University Terrace development after TCE was found in soil

The discovery of a cancer-causing chemical at a construction site last year prompted Stanford University to redesign its new faculty-housing development on California Avenue.

It also triggered concerns from residents in the adjacent College Terrace neighborhood about whether the underground toxins may have migrated toward their own homes.

The proposal by Stanford to move seven homes in the planned University Terrace development from "hot spot" areas where trichloroethylene (TCE) was discovered won the City Council's approval Tuesday night, despite requests from College Terrace residents that the project be put on hold until the issue is better understood.

The residents' concerns were heightened last month, after tests of 19 College Terrace homes showed a detectable level of TCE in six. In some cases, the contaminant was found in samples taken from crawl spaces or basements, suggesting that it was not caused by a chemical solution (such as a degreaser) used by the homeowner.

No one debate Tuesday the fact that TCE, which causes cancer and birth defects and generally travels in soil vapors, should be taken seriously. The main question that the council wrestled with was whether approving Stanford's revised map for the 180-home project would in any way hinder potential future efforts by College Terrace residents to protect themselves from TCE.

Cast in an unfamiliar role as soil scientists, council members concluded that it would not. To that end, the council voted to support Stanford's proposal to redesign its site map and added conditions calling for the university to equip the roughly 40 new homes closest to hot spots with further protections against toxic chemicals. This could be sub-slabs under the homes' foundation, a ventilation system or a depressurization system.

The decision was informed by extensive testimony by a team of scientists from the state Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Facing persistent questioning by the council, state officials assured council members that they are reviewing the report from the College Terrace residents about the neighborhood's TCE levels and will issue a response soon.

Whatever mediation is proposed for those sites, they said, will not change the situation at Stanford's construction site at 1601 California Ave. The state agency had concluded that the toxicity issues found at the construction site were sufficiently addressed by Stanford through the university's decision to reconfigure the development.

But some residents questioned whether this solution goes far enough. Lenny Siegel, executive director of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight, reviewed Stanford's risk assessment for the California Avenue site and concluded in a memo last year that the document "understates the risk from TCE vapor intrusion" and that the university's plan "does not sufficiently mitigate the risk of vapor intrusion."

The recent finding of TCE at the College Terrace homes added a fresh wrinkle. Though Stanford's and the state's analyses suggested that the chemical at the construction site would not travel to the adjacent neighborhood because the soil is predominantly clay rather than sand, Siegel argued in a June 26 memo that the assertion that TCE has not moved "is not borne out by the evidence."

The analysis commissioned by College Terrace residents "calls into question the finding that relocating the buildings on the project site is sufficient to meet regulatory requirements," Siegel wrote. The standard distance for relocating buildings away from elevated soil-gas levels is 100 feet, rather than the 50 feet proposed by Stanford, Siegel wrote.

Siegel recommended including in the new homes "sub-slab depressurization" systems that prevent vapors from entering homes by forcing vapors to migrate elsewhere. Such a system typically involves a horizontal pipe with perforation installed under a building, connected to vertical pipes above the roof line, and fans that divert the soil gas away from the residence.

Another option is a passive system (which, unlike an "active" system, does not need to be maintained by the homeowner) known as "sub-slab venting," which achieves the same goal as depressurization but relies on outdoor air pressure rather than fans.

Thus far, Stanford has been hesitant about adding the new systems, arguing that simply relocating the homes away from the toxic sites is sufficient and noting that the state agency did not require the barriers. By moving the planned homes, Stanford has taken a "conservative" approach toward making sure the faculty members living in the new houses would be unharmed by TCE, said Chris Wuthmann, Stanford's project manager for the University Terrace project.

"We'd prefer not to make it necessary for homeowners to have to check or maintain the system beneath the foundation slabs," Wuthmann told the council.

Siegel didn't fully buy this explanation.

"They said they don't want to do it because they don't want homeowners to check the manometer to see that it's working," Siegel said. "It's like saying people can't deal with methane detectors or smoke alarms. It's rather simple to deal with. It's a standard way of mitigating."

Councilman Cory Wolbach, siding with Siegel, pushed for Stanford to include these mitigations to the 40 homes that would be closest to the toxic site. After some debate, the council voted 7-to-1, with Councilman Eric Filseth dissenting and Councilman Tom DuBois recusing himself (his wife works at Stanford), to include Wolbach's proposal in its approval. The council then voted 8-to-0 to approve Stanford's map amendment for the housing project.

The decision came despite requests from College Terrace residents that the decision be delayed until the state toxics department responds to the neighborhood's findings. College Terrace resident Fred Balin said approving Stanford's amendment without waiting for the DTSC's analysis of the College Terrace data a "complete abdication of responsibility" on the city's part.

"Listen to what you have to tonight; get a sense of the project (but) under no circumstances approve it," Balin said.

But the council opted to move the project along after being reassured by state regulators that two toxic sites -- at College Terrace and University Terrace -- can and should be evaluated separately and that there is no reason to have the issue at the former hold up the construction at the latter.

Jovanne Villamater, hazardous substances engineer at the DTSC, said she does not expect the agency's response to the residents to have any effect on its approval of Stanford's plan for dealing with TCE at the construction site.

"If we were to find out that there is an impact on the neighborhood, we'd try to find a way to mitigate what's going on," Villamater said. "But I don't see it as impacting the decision that was already made."

The reassurances from state experts satisfied the council members, who openly acknowledged their lack of expertise on the topic of toxic soil vapors. Wolbach called the testimony from experts "an education for all of us."

Vice Mayor Greg Scharff, who made the motion to approve Stanford's request, concurred.

"This is difficult," he said. "None of us are experts in this area."

Ultimately, Scharff proposed granting Stanford the amendment to the project map, which the council had initially approved two years ago. The approval, he argued, "doesn't put the neighbors in any worse situation across the street."

Councilwoman Liz Kniss agreed and, citing the reassurances from the state agency, said the council should follow the recommendation of its planning staff and approve Stanford's redesign.

"This is troubling and I feel bad for the neighbors, but we have listened to an hour and half of testimony and it's pretty much stayed the same," she said.


Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

We can't do it without you.
Support local journalism.


7 people like this
Posted by gxbell
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 30, 2016 at 5:03 pm

Can the soil be remediated?

11 people like this
Posted by Ed
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jun 30, 2016 at 8:13 pm

Stanford and state 'experts' argue that moving the houses solves the problem. Perhaps it will, but I doubt it. Both groups seem to fundamentally ignore the fact that the various TCE plumes under the ground in Palo Alto, Mountain View, and likely elsewhere in Silicon Valley, have been moving around for decades! The TCE plume under NASA/Ames for the most part, used to be completely within the boundaries of Mountain View. It's moved miles closer to the bay on the NASA/Ames property and it's a EPA SuperFund site Web Link IS the plume referred to in this article this plume? Web Link Bowing to Stanford property management, driven by dollars and cents, seems like a wreck-less and premature decision by PA city council.

13 people like this
Posted by Marie
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 30, 2016 at 8:37 pm

Marie is a registered user.

This particular plume is more than likely a result of manufacturing by the CAG (the Chemical Analysis Group), which was part of HP. Varian and HP and others are responsible for the other superfund site in Stanford Research Park between the HP site and El Camino.

Below is a website listing all superfund sites in Santa Clara County.

Web Link

Below is an article from PAOnline from 2010 which references Varian, HP on Hanover, and specifically, the HP site at 601 California Avenue, and others. The article makes clear that despite an expensive cleanup, the plume continues to move:

Web Link

I think we are overdue for another update on this project. I hope PA Weekly will follow up on their 2010 article. It is very disingenuous of Stanford and for that matter the city of PA to imply there is no impact beyond the actual site.

22 people like this
Posted by Been There Before
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 1, 2016 at 12:20 pm

Doesn't anyone remember the Fairchild/Minolta disaster in the Santa Teresa area of south San Jose?? This happened in the 70's and 80's, and the plume contaminated all of the drinking water in the Great Oaks water system.

Children were born with serious birth defects; many women suffered repeated miscarriages; children suffered skin rashes from bathing in the water; dogs and cats gave birth to deformed offspring; people found profoundly deformed plants, fruit and vegetables in their gardens; there was a cluster of childhood cancers, including leukemia; an unusual number of adults were diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver, in spite of not drinking or working in the electronics industry.

There were lawsuits, both individual and class action, against Fairchild, Minolta and Great Oaks Water Dept., as well as the City of San Jose--and they are still not fully sorted out.

Let's learn from history and not allow Stanford to do this. Heaven knows they don't need the money, and those expensive homes will end up being unsellable in the end. Stanford can't be trusted to do the right thing if that happens.

End this now and save lives!

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Don't be the last to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

First Sunnyvale, then Australia: Mountain View's Le Plonc plots expansion
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 2,477 views

Juggling Renewables
By Sherry Listgarten | 35 comments | 1,981 views

Premarital and Couples: Living as Roommates?
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,430 views

Homestead Faire at Hidden Villa 4/27
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 789 views

A trial run
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 541 views


Vote now!

It's time once again to cast your vote for the best places to eat, drink, shop and spend time in Palo Alto. Voting is open now through May 27. Watch for the results of our 2019 Best Of contest on Friday, July 19.