HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 194-06City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:APRIL 17, 2006 C~R:194:06
SUBJECT:RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL TO REFER SAN FRANCISQUITO
CREEK INTERIM FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SAN
FRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council:
Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
(JPA) Executive Director requesting that the YPA identify and review options for interim
flood control improvements along San Francisquito Creek.
Direct staff to submit a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) during the San
Francisquito Creek feasibility study public scoping comment period requesting that the
Corps address the options for interim flood control improvements as part of the feasibility
study.
BACKGROUND
The JPA has partnered with the Corps on a General Investigation (GI) project to plan and
implement a flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration project along San Francisquito
Creek. In mid-2005, the Corps completed its reconnaissance study of the creek, which contained
a finding that adequate justification exists for continued federal participation in a project. On
November 17, 2005, the JPA Board of Directors approved a Feasibility Cost Share Agreement
with the Corps to initiate the feasibility study phase of the project. The cost of the study will be
split equally between the Corps and the JPA. During the feasibility study, the Corps and the JPA
will jointly develop project alternatives and analyze their technical, environmental, and financial
merits and impacts. The feasibility study is expected to take approximately six years to
complete, subject to the receipt of continued federal funding. A public scoping meeting for the
joint Environmental Impact Statement~nvironmental Impact Report to be prepared as part of the
feasibility study has been scheduled for Thursday, April 27 at the International School of the
Peninsula (see notice of public meeting, Attachment A). The scoping meeting provides an
opportunity for the public to learn about the process and timing of the feasibility study and is a
forum for interested parties to provide input to the Corps and JPA staff" on the scope of the study
and the associated environmental assessment. Following the scoping meeting, there will be a 30-
day period during which the public may submit written comments to the Corps project manager
or the JPA Executive Director.
3
CMR:194:06 Page 1 of 8
On January 30, 2006, City and JPA staff and representatives from the Crescent Park
Neighborhood Association made presentations at a joint study session of the Council and the San
Francisquito Creek JPA Board of Directors regarding potential interim flood control
improvements on San Francisquito Creek. The presentations described the existing flood threat
posed by the creek and broadly outlined the scope, cost, and constraints for potential interim
improvements. This report is a fo!!ow-up response to the issues and questions raised during the
study session.
DISCUSSION
Description of Potential Interim Flood Control Improvements
One potential set of interim improvements centers around the removal or replacement of the
Pope/Chaucer Street bridge. Because the Pope/Chaucer Street bridge is not the sole factor
contributing to the flood risk on San Francisquito Creek, this action would require other
supplementa! mea~res to mitigate for the increased flow rates downstream of the bridge site (see
summary of potential interim San Francisquito Creek flood control improvements, Attachment
B). Spedfically, new levees/floodwalls would have to be constructed or existing
levees/floodwalls would need to be raised on both sides of the creek wherever the bridge
modifications caused an increase in the projected creek levels during storm events.
Hydraulic models have predicted, and the February 1998 flood event confirmed, that San
Francisquito Creek does not have the capacity to convey a flow rate greater than 5000 to 6000
cubic feet per second (cfs), regardless of whether or not the Pope/Chaucer Street bridge exists.
During ~he 1998 event (which had a peak flow rate of 7200 cfs), the creek overtopped at several
locations upstream and downstream of the bridge (see depiction of 1998 flood event, Attachment
C). If the bridge were to be removed, models predict that overbanking upstream of the bridge
site would decrease, but creek flow levels downstream of the bridge site would consequently
increase, further exacerbating overbanking at existing flood-prone locations along the lower
reaches of the creek. Because northeastern Palo Alto is built on the historic floodplain of San
Francisquito Creek, the land slopes away from the creek, draining towards the Highway
101/Oregon Expressway interchange. Any water that leaves San Francisquito Creek between
Middlefield Road and Highway 101 will end up ponding in this low-lying region and similar
regions in Menlo Park and East Palo Alto. Thus, although modification of the Pope/Chaucer
Street bridge could reduce the overbanking upstream of the bridge site, it would increase the
overbanking rates downstream of the bridge, would not markedly decrease the total amount of
water leaving the creek, and would do line to reduce the impacts to those low-tying areas where
the floodwaters accumulate. Therefore, any project to modify the Pope/Chaucer Street bridge
would need to be coupled with downstream mitigation measures.
At the January 30, 2006 study session, the neighborhood representatives asserted that the creek
banks would only need to be raised in those reaches where the existing channel conditions do not
provide capacity for a specified flow rate (e.g. the 7,200 cfs flow rate observed during the
February 1998 flood event). Staffbelieves, however, that the banks on both sides of the creek
would need to be raised for the entire reach downstream of the bridge so that adjacent properties
retain the same level of flood protection as they currently have.
ClVIR:194:06 Page 2 of 8
This principle of maintaining the existing level of flood protection for adjacent properties was
utilized during the JPA’s 2.002 Levee Restoration Project., and is the principle that should be
maintained for future creek improvements. For the 2002 JPA project, the water levels upstream
of Highway 101 were projected to increase as a result of the downstream levee modifications.
Therefore, the floodwalls upstream of Highway 101 were raised accordingly in order to maintain
the level of flood protection for properties along Edgewood Drive.
Because the removal or replacement of the Pope/Chaucer Street bridge would increase
dow~nstream creek flow rates, it -would also result in the need to modify downstream bridges and
culverts to accommodate the increased flow. Specifically, the culvert beneath Highway 101 and
its frontage roads is known to be prone to flooding under existing conditions. This culvert would
need to be widened if the Pope/Chaucer Street bridge were removed or modified to allow for the
passage of increased downstream flow rates. The flow capacity of the channel beneath the
bridge crossings at University Avenue and Newetl Road might also need to be increased. The
exact extent of these bridge/culvert modifications is unknown at this time and would be subj ect
to further detailed design studies.
Constraints applicable to interim flood control improvements
There are several constraints applicable to San Francisquito Creek interim flood control
improvements that would need to be addressed as part of any proposed project, as summarized
below:
Jurisdictional issues: San Francisquito Creek does not lie solely within the jurisdiction of the
City of Palo Alto. The creek is the boundm-y betweer, the City of Palo Alto and the cities of
Menlo Park and East Palo Alto. Since any interim measures would impact these neighboring
jurisdictions and would require physical work to take place within their corporate boundaries, no
measures could be implemented without their review and approval. In particular, the
Pope/Chaucer Street bridge over San Francisquito Creek is owned jointly by the cities of Palo
Alto and Menlo Park. The bridge could not be modified without the consent of Menlo Park
authorities.
Right-of-Way issues: Large reaches of San Francisquito Creek and its banks are owned by
private property owners or neighboring jurisdictions. In order to construct interim
improvements, it would be necessary to obtain easements or rights-of-way from these owners
prior to commencing work. The cost of the right-of-way acquisition for required creek bank
modifications between the Pope/Chaucer Street bridge and Highway 101 is estimated to be
approximately $5.5 million.
Regulatory issues: Any modifications in or adjacent to San Francisquito Creek would require
permits or approvals from a number of regulatory agencies, including but not limited to, the San
Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Mateo
County Flood Control District, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Marine Fisheries Service, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (for tidal
reaches of the creek) (see list of regulatory/permitting agencies, Attachment D). In addition, an
CMR: 194:06 Page 3 of 8
environmental assessment would need to be performed in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to address the potential environmenta! impacts of
any proposed interim flood control improvements and to identify the mitigation measures
required to minimize or eliminate those impacts.
These reviewing agencies and regulatory requirements are the same as what the feasibility study
will be addressing, and the timeline to accomplish them would not be appreciably shortened, if at
all, by a local initiative for interim improvements.
Reduced project benefits: Interim flood control improvements would have less benefit as
compared to the proposed joint CorpsArPA GI project. Since interim improvements would not
provide 1% (100-year) flood protection, they would not result in the removal of properties from
the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) published by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). Removal of the mapped fluvial and tidal floodplains is one of the key
objectives of the Gi project. Unless the floodplains are eiiminated, the 4,400 property owners in
these areas will continue to be subject to mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements and
special building restrictions on new construction and substantial remodeling projects.
Financial issues: The proposal to remove or modify the Pope/Chaucer Street bridge and
implement the resultant mitigation measures to enable San Francisquito Creek to convey 7,200
cfs would require a substantial amount of local funding. In 2003, the JPA studied potential
options for a Corps Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) project on San Francisquito Creek.
One option would have increased the creek capacity to 6,500 cfs by creating a bypass culvert at
Pope/Chaucer Street and raising levees and!or floodwalls by one to two feet downstream to
Highway 101. The cost of this less ambitious option was estimated to be $20 million in 2003
dollars and did not include the cost of the additional required work to widen the HAghway !01
culvert or to raise the levees downstream of Highway 101. Even this modest project would be
beyond the means of local agencies to fund without a supplemental funding source.
In addition to the challenge of generating adequate local funds to pay for interim improvements,
there are two primary financia! risks in proceeding on an interim basis. First, there is the risk
that interim work could endanger financial participation by the federal government in the GI
project. The federal government ,ad!! proceed with authorization and funding for the desi~o-n and
construction of a GI project only if the project has a benefit/cost ratio greater than 1.0 (i.e. if the
benefits of that project exceed its costs). During the reconnaissance phase of the San
Francisquito Creek GI project, the Corps made a preliminary finding that there is a "federal
interest" (benefit/cost ratio > 1.0) when a potential flood control project was compared with
existing baseline conditions. By modifying the baseline conditions, an interim project could
jeopardize that positive finding. There is a precedent for such a scenario in the San Francisquito
Creek watershed. In 1970, the Santa Clara Valley Flood Control and Water District (predecessor
of the Santa Clara Valley Water District) and the San Mateo Count}, Flood Control District
completed interim flood control improvements along San Francisquito Creek. As a result of the
resultant reduced flood risk, in 1972 the Corps found that the benefit/cost ratio for a proposed
flood control project had fallen below 1.0 and declined to proceed further with a feasibility study
of flood control options for the San Francisquito Creek watershed. If a local entity proceeds to
fund and construct interim improvements, there is also the risk that the expenditures for such
work will not be creditable towards the cost of the GI project. As the local sponsor of the San
CMR:194:06 Page 4 of 8
Francisquito Creek GI project, the JPA is responsible for paying an assigned portion of the cost
of the design and construction of t_he project. L~" the JPA or a member agency proceeds with
interim improvements, federal regulations may prevent the Corps from recognizing the work as
part of the overall GI project and force the Corps to refuse to credit funds expended towards the
local share of the GI project.
The Corps has provided preliminary information on a number of options that could potentially
reduce the risks associated with proceeding with interim flood control measures for San
Francisquito Creek or expedite the rate of progress on the GI project. This information is
summarized below:
Sectio~,~ 104
Section 104 of Public Law 99-662 (created in 1986) provides a mechanism for the Corps to
provide credit to a local sponsor for implementing interim flood control improvements in
advance of the authorization and implementation of the full project. This mechanism has
mukiple conditions that must be fulfilled and has a moderate level of risk. This process
might be a viable approach in the future for implementing interim improvements as part of
staged construction of a larger complete project, but could be utilized with minimal risk only
after the Feasibility Study determines the scope of improvements to be implemented. This is
due to the fact that the following conditions must be satisfied in advance of proceeding with
the interim improvements in order to receive credit for them in the full project benefit/cost
analysis.
The Section 104 Agreement between the Corps and the local sponsor must be executed prior
to the local sponsor beNnning an_9_y_v creditable work on a Section 104 project. The Corps
approval process for a Section 104 project can take approximately six months. However,
"approval" of a Section 104 project does not guarantee that credit will be provided to the
local sponsor for implementing the project. The project expenditures are only creditable if
the local project is a component of a full Corps project eventually authorized by Congress.
The local sponsor needs a local funding source to pay for the planning/permitting, design
and construction of a Section 104 project and is responsible for obtaining CEQA
certification and any regulatory permits necessary to construct a Section 104 project.
The maximum amount creditable to a local sponsor for a Section 104 project is equal to the
actual expenditures made by the local sponsor. However, this credit cannot be more than
the savings in the federal expenditure which results from the local sponsor having
perfon-ned the Section 104 project. Regardless of the amount of the creditable expenditures
on the Section 104 project, the local sponsor will be required to contribute at least 5% of the
full project cost in cash during construction of the project by the Corps. Implementation of
a Section 104 project by the local sponsor will not impact the economic analysis
(benefit/cost ratio) of the fully authorized Corps project.
Section 104 credit is only applicable to local projects started after the reconnaissance phase
but prior to Congressional authorization of the full project. In the experience of the local
Corps staff, the Section 104 mechanism is seldom used by local sponsors (at least in the San
CM2R: 194:06 Page 5 of 8
Francisco Corps District). Work eligible for Section 104 credit is limited to the portion of a
local improvement project directly related to a flood control purpose. Work proposed for
crediting should be separately useful for flood control (e.g. stand alone as a functional flood
control feature).
Section 215
Section 215 provides a mechanism for the Corps to provide credit to a local sponsor for
implementing a portion of an authorized flood control project. Approval to proceed with a
Section 215 project can only be granted after full Corps project is authorized for construction
funding by Congress. The maximum amount creditable under Section 215 is $5 million.
This mechanism is utilized when a local sponsor has the financial means to expedite the
implementation of a portion of an authorized Corps project. This section is not applicable to
the concept of interim improvements under consideration herein, but could be used to
accelerate partial implementation of a future full project scenario.
Expediting the GI FeasibiB~ Stu~.
The completion of the feasibility study for the San Francisquito Creek GI is subject to annual
funding appropriations by the federal government. Corps staff has estimated that $900,000
($450,000 federal funding, $450,000 JPA funding) will be required during federal fiscal year
2006-07 to maintain the planned rate of progress on the feasibility study. It has been
reported that President Bush’s initial proposed 2006-07 budget contains no funding for the
study. Local legislators headed by Representative Anna Eshoo are worldng in the House and
Senate to add funding for the project during the budget approval process. Staff and
governing body members from the JPA and its member agencies are lobbying for the funds,
and members of the public have sent letters to local legislators seeking support for the
funding request. In the event that no funding or reduced funding is appropriated in the
approved federal budget, Corps staff have indicated that the JPA could ensure continued
progress towards the completion of the feasibility study by contributing local match funding
at a faster rate than the federal funding is appropriated. In any case, the rate of progress
would be constrained by the level of Corps staff resources available to be applied-to the study
($900,000 for 2006-07). There is some risk inherent in providing !oca! funds "ahead of
schedule," however, in that there is no guarantee of future federal funding and no guarantee
that the study will be completed by the Corps.
Conclusions
Staff continues to believe that the issue of interim flood control improvements would be best
addressed by the San Francisquito Creek JPA~ The JPA is the best forum for this discussion
because of its regional nature and its established close relationships with the Corps and the other
regulatory agencies that approve and permit flood control work. The JPA structure and the
feasibility study process already address the exact same issues and regulatory requirements
which would be required of any local initiative. Consequently, there are significant synergies in
pursuing the potential of interim improvements through those activities. Therefore, staff
recommends and has drafted a letter to be sent to the JPA Executive Director requesting that the
JPA Board study and evaluate options for implementing interim flood control improvements on
San Francisquito Creek (Attachment E).
CMR:194:06 Page 6 of 8
On April 27, 2006 the Corps and the JPA will be jointly hosting a public scoping meeting for the
GI feasibility study and associated Environmental Impact Statement!Environmental Impact
Report. This meeting and the 30-day comment period that follows provide an ideal opportunity
for the City to formally request that the potential for interim flood control improvements be
included in the scope of the feasibility study. Staffhas therefore also drafted a letter to be sent to
the Corps project manager that includes such a request (Attachment F).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Approval of the staff recommendations is consistent with existing Council policy supporting the
JPA’s ongoing joint efforts with the Corps to plan and implement a flood damage reduction and
ecosystem restoration project for San Francisquito Creek.
TIM LINE
The public scoping meeting for the joint Corps/JPA General Investigation Project feasibility
study and associated Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report is
scheduled for Thursday, April 27. The feasibility study is expected to take approximately six
years to complete.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
No environmental review is required in order to approve the staff recommendations. The Corps
and the JPA are about to commence the preparation of a joint Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental impact Report for the San Francisquito Creek General Investigation
Project. Environmental assessment of any proposed interim flood control projects would be the
responsibility of the project sponsor.
ATTACItMENT
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Notice of Public Meeting
Summary of Potential Interim San Francisquito Creek
Flood Control Improvements
Depiction of February 1998 Flood Event
List of regulatory/permitting agencies
Draft letter from Mayor Kleinberg to JPA Executive Director Cynthia
D’Agosta
Draft letter from Mayor Kleinberg to Corps Project Manager
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Senior Engineer
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CMR: 194:06 Page 7 of 8
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Assistant City Manager
cc~Cynthia D’Agosta, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
Janice Lera-Chan, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Pam Smmer, San Francisquito Watershed Counci!
Norman Beamer, Crescent Park Neighborhood Assn.
Karen White, Duveneck/St. Francis Neighborhood Assn.
Art Kraemer
Xenia Hammer
CMR: 194:06 Page 8 of 8
Attachment A
US Army Corps
of Engineers ~-
San Francisco District
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF STUDY INITIATION
AND
ANNOUNCEMENT OF INITIAL PUBLIC MEETING
SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK FEASIBILITY STUDY
SAN MATEO AND SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA
INITIATION OF STUDY. The Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, is beginning a feasibility
study in cooperation with the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, to examine the feasibility of
ecosystem restoration and flood control measures in the San Francisquito Creek Watershed. The purpose
of this notice is to notify the public and agencies of the start of the study and to request comments
regarding the scope of the study.
PURPOSE OF STUDY. The San Francisquito Creek Study was authorized by a resolution of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives. The study will
investigate the opportunities to reduce both fluvial (creek) and tidal flooding, to reduce the threat to public
safety due to flooding and to restore ecosystem quality and function, where possible.
PROPOSED STUDY AREA. The study area for the feasibility study encompasses an area of
approximately 45 square miles, extending from the ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains to San Francisco
Bay and including the cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Menlo Park. This study area includes the
entire watershed of the San Francisquito Creek and some additional tidal reaches extending at the northern
end from the Menlo Park City boundary, continuing south of the Dumbarton Bridge to Adobe Creek and
the Palo Alto City border. The proposed study area is shown on the attached map.
INITIAL PUBLIC MEETING. A public meeting will be held at the following time and location:
7:00 to 8:30 PM
April 27, 2006
International School of the Peninsula, Cohn Campus
151 Laura Lane, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County
The purpose of the initial public meeting is to discuss the scope and objectives of the feasibility study.
Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions and to provide comments on the study scope and
purpose. The sponsoring agencies are particularly interested in comments regarding the problems,
opportunities, and potential solutions that should be addressed by the study.
REQUEST FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS. All interested persons are encouraged to provide written
comments on the scope and objectives of the feasibility study. Written comments should be mailed to:
Sarah Gaines, Environmental Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
333 Market Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2197
or
Cynthia D’Agosta, Executive Director
San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Comments must be received no later than May 12, 2006 to ensure full consideration.
FURTHER INFORMATION. Project updates are posted regularly at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/jpa!.
For further information regarding the San Francisquito Creek Feasibility Study, please contact Janice
Lera-Chan, Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at (415) 977-8456 or Cynthia D’Agosta,
Executive Director, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority at (650) 330-6765.
Map of the San Francisquito Creek Feasibility Study Area. Background data from www.wetlandtracker.org
Summary of Pope/Chaucer Bridge Removal Option
for Interim San Francisquito Creek F!ood Control Improvements
Attachment B
¯Remove or replace the Pope/Chaucer Street Bridge
¯Implement measures to mitigate for the impacts of the bridge modifications on
downstream properties
o Instal! new levees/floodwalls or raise existing levees/floodwalls
downstream to mouth of creek in order to maintain existing levels of flood
protection for adjacent properties
o Modify downstream bridges to accommodate increased creek flow
¯Possible modifications to University Avenue bridge
¯Possible modifications to Newell Road bridge
¯Widening of Highway 101 culvert
¯Acquire permits or approvals from regulatory agencies
¯Secure environmental approvals (CEQA)
¯Secure approvals from agencies with jurisdiction over work sites
¯Acquire rights-of-way or easement from private property owners for proposed
improvements
Attachment C
0
0
0
0
luo,x~i pooi_q 1q,661 ,<a~:~uqo~.lo .Z~uimnS
Attachment D
List of regulatory/permitting agencies for interim
San Francisquito Creek flood control improvements
¯San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
¯Santa Clara Valley Water District
¯San Mateo County Flood Control District
¯City of Menlo Park
¯City of East Palo Alto
¯US Army Corps of Engineers
¯Regional Water Quality Control Board
¯California Department of Fish and Game
¯US Fish and Wildlife Service
¯National Marine Fisheries Service
¯Bay Conservation and Development Commission
¯Caltrans
A~achment E
City of Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
April 1/,2006
Ms. Cynthia D’Agosta, Executive Director
San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority
701 Laurel Street
Men!o Park, CA 94025
Dear Ms. r~, A
Palo Alto is a major stakeholder in the ongoing joint US Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps)!San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) Feasibilig, Study
for San Francisquito Creek. The City Council and city staff are strongly
committed to working cooperatively with you and the Corps towards the goal of
implementing a successful flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration
project for the watershed. We envision a project that will pro¥fide much needed
flood protection for our residents and businesses, while protecting and enhancing
the valuable ripm’-ian habitat along San Francisquito Creek.
The recent New Year’s Eve near-flood event has reminded our community once
again of the sigafificant tln’eat posed by- the creek and has renewed the desh’e to
expedite the implementation of flood protection. I fitly understand that the joint
Corps/JPA project is a complex and expensive endeavor that will require an
extended period of time to complete. I believe, however, that there is a need to
explore oppommities to achieve incremental levels of flood protection prior to
completion of the full project. In partictflar, it may be feasible to develop a
staging plan under which the construction of a portion of the overall project is
expedited in order to provide early benefits. Therefore, the Palo Alto City Council
requests that you and the JPA Board carefully consider an implementation strategy
that will provide interim flood control improvements wherever possible. I request
that the issue of interim improvements be agendized for discussion at a JPA Board
meeting in the near future. At this meeting and throughout the feasibility study, I
ask that there be ample opportunity for public input and discussion.
Thank you for the oppommity to provide input on the implementation of the San
Francisquito Creek Feasibility Study. My fellow City Council members and I, as
well as City staff, look forward to working closely with the Corps and the JPA to
achieve a successful flood contro! and ecosystem restoration project for the
community. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact
Public Works Director Glenn Roberts at (650) 329-2325 or Senior Engineer Joe
Teresi at (650) 329-2129.
RO. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.3631 fax
DRAFT Attachment E
Sincerely,
Judy Kleinberg
Mayor
CC."Palo Alto City Council Members
Nicholas P. Jellins, Mayor, City of Menlo Park
Ruben Abrica, Mayor, City of East Palo Alto
JPA Board Members
April27,2006
DRAFT Attachment F
City of Palo Alto
Qffice qf the Mayor and City Council
Sarah Gaines, Environmental Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
333 Market Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2 !97
Subject:Comments regarding the scope and objectives of the feasibility study
and associated E1SiEIR for San Francisquito Creek
Dear Ms Gaines:
Pursuant to the Notice of Preparation issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers
for the San Francisquito Creek Feasibility Study, i would like to submit the
following scoping comments on behalf of the City of Palo Alto:
The Palo Alto City Council requests that the feasibility study and associated
em4rommental assessment include a thorough evaluation of the options for
implementing interim flood control improvements in order to accelerate flood
protection for local residents and businesses. In particular, the study should
evaluate the feasibility of developing a staging plan under which the construction
of a portion of the overall project is expedited in order to provide early flood
control benefits to the community. The study should identify specific interim
project alternatives and implementation strategies, evaluate their relative merits,
and recommend the optimum solution for timely flood protection. The process
should include an aggressive public outreach campaign in order to solicit input
fi:om community members and to keep the public well-informed throughout the
duration of the study.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the scope of the San
Francisquito Creek Feasibility Study. City staff look forward to working closely
with the Corps and the JPA to achieve a successful flood control and ecosystem
restoration project for the community, if you have any questions or need further
information, please contact Public Works Director Glenn Roberts at (650) 329-
2325 or Senior Engineer Joe Teresi at (650) 329-2 i29.
Sincerely,
Judy Kleinberg
Mayor
RO. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.3631 fax
Palo Alto City Council Members
Nicholas P. Jellins, Mayor, City of Menlo Park
Ruben Abrica, Mayor, City of East Palo Alto
JPA Board Members
Cynthia D’Agosta~ JPA Executive Director