Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2003-07-14 City Council (13)
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: JULY 14, 2003 CMR: 339:03 3201 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD; MATADERO CREEK LONG- TERM REMEDIATION PROJECT [02-D-07, 02-ARB-70]: APPLICATION BY SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (SCVWD) FOR SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN OVERFLOW FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL FOR THE LOWER PORTION OF MATADERO CREEK DOWNSTREAM OF EAST BAYSHORE ROAD TO INCREASE FLOOD PROTECTION AND CONVEY A 100-YEAR (1%) FLOOD EVENT FLOW. ZONING: PUBLIC FACILITY WITH SITE AND DESIGN OVERLAY PF(D). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED AND CERTIFIED BY SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (SCVWD) BOARD. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: a. Adopt findings for this project from the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) certified by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Board as set forth in the resolution, Attachment C. b. Adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance for the portion of the Matadero Creek overflow flood control channel in Byxbee Park, set forth in Attachment D. c. Direct staff to include the project in text and maps when the Baylands Master Plan is updated. d. Approve the Site and Design for the proposed Matadero Creek overflow flood control channel based on the findings and conditions in Attachment A. e. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an easement ganting SCVWD the right to construct, operate and maintain portions of the Matadero Creek overflow flood control channel on .86 acres of City property. The Parks and Recreation Commission at its December 17, 2002 meeting recommended that Council approve the Park Improvement Ordinance and the flood control plan CMR: 339:03 Page 1 of 12 submitted by the SCVWD with the request that Council seriously look at alternative mitigation sites and that alternate land swaps be considered in order to maintain the Ciardella landscape supply business !ocated at 2027 East Bayshore Road. The Planning and Transportation Commission at its April 9, 2003 meeting recommended that the Council approve the Park Improvement Ordinance, the amendment(s) to the Baylands Master Plan (when updated), the ganting of the required easements and the Site and Design review with three conditions including that the applicant consider amending the mitigation to include alternate sites and habitat types with the goal of reducing or eliminating the mitigation use of 2027 East Bayshore Road, that the applicant explore using an interim habitat plan to reduce project impacts to habitat areas, and for the applicant to explore other project designs including the use of the Emily Renzel Marsh to reduce or avoid riparian habitat removal. The Architectural Review Board at its June 5 meeting recommended Council approve the site and design and architectural review of the project with three conditions including adding iron oxide or integal color to the concrete area most visible to the public, to add landscape screening for the view of the project from East Bayshore Road, and to continue to explore alternative off-site mitigation including a site (Stevens Creek in Mountain View) mentioned in public testimony. BACKGROUND The proposed project, shown in the attached site plan, is the downstream portion of the comprehensive SCVWD Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project, which extends from the Palo Alto Flood Basin (PAFB) upstream to Alma Street. The Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project arose from a 1999 engineering study that examined ways to bring flood protection for Matadero and Barron Creeks up to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standards. The remediation includes flood control improvements both upstream and downstream from Highway 101, extending 1.5 miles from the Palo Alto Flood Basin (PAFB) to Alma Street. The Council heard project alternatives identified in the 1999 Engineer’s Report in a February 2000 status report presentation. Environmental review and project design proceeded over the following ~o years. The SCVWD Board certified the EIR and approved, the project in December 2002. In February 2003, after undergoing staff-level architectural review, the City approved with conditions the upstream portion of the Matadero Creek improvements, including Louis Road bridge replacement and heightened floodwalls and headwalls between Highway 101 and Alma Street. The downstream portion, this proposed project, is subject to site and design and architectural review because it is located in the Public Facilities zoning district with a Site and Design overlay PF(D). The downstream portion of the Remediation Project extends between Highway 101 and the PAFB. It includes the construction of a 55-60 foot wide, 1,200 foot long, high-flow CMR: 3_39:03 Page 2 of 12 flood control channel for Matadero Creek located downstream (east) of U.S. Highway 101 adjacent to the City of Palo Alto Municipal Services Center (MSC). The project includes the installation of the flood control channel, related levee adjustments, a floodwall along the north and east sides of the Municipal Services Center, landscaping and wetland and riparian mitigation areas. Construction would be completed in 4-6 months from April - October 2004. The project requires an easement over 0.86 acres from the City of Palo Alto for the portions of the project on the east and south side of the MSC facility. The applicant must also reconstruct, at its cost, the transformer storage area now located within the easement area on the MSC site. The project will also remove the last 400 feet of the existing gated access road/levee and replace it with a portion of the proposed channel. The proposed project also requires a Park Improvement Ordinance, since a portion of the channel and some of the required mitigation is on the edge of the PAFB portion of Byxbee Park. The proposed flood control channel will capture excess flow from Matadero Creek during moderate to severe storm events and convey it to the PAFB, thus reducing the backwater effect in the creek and improving the performance of City storm drains. Modeling of the 100-year flow event included both high riverine and high tide flooding scenarios. The configuration of the primary Matadero Creek channel will not be altered, as part of the flood contro! project, but mitigation for the project will include non-native vegetation removal and native plantings along the existing creek channel. DISCUSSION The primary benefit of this project is to increase the capacity of Matadero m~.d Barton Creeks to achieve the SCVWD’s goat of 100-year (1-%) flood protection for local residents and businesses. The project, by increasing the efficiency of flow in Matadero Creek, reduces the risk of flooding and potential flood damages from Matadero Creek between Alma Street and San Francisco Bay and protects the parklands/baylands. The flood control improvements will also indirectly benefit residents along Barron Creek by allowing the SCVWD to make full use of the Barron Diversion culvert, which diverts excess flood flows from Barron Creek to Matadero Creek upstream of the Barron Park neighborhood. Use of the Barron Diversion culvert has been limited since its construction in the mid-1990’s due to deficiencies in Matadero Creek that will be corrected by the proposed overflow channel and raised floodwalls upstream of Highway i01. The overflow channel will also improve the performance of the City’s storm drain system by lowering creek levels during storm events. Lower creek levels will allow storm water to flow through storm drain pipes and pump stations more efficiently, resulting in less frequent backups and street ponding in the neighborhoods that drain to Matadero Creek. Following completion, the proposed project and upstream improvements would protect, as shown in Attachment C of the Planning & Transportation Commission Report, approximately 4,700 properties from creek flooding. Following FEMA approval, approximately 450 of those properties would no longer be required to purchase riverine CMR: 339:03 Pa~e ~ of 12 flood insurance. The remediation project, including both the proposed project and the upstream improvements (underway), must be completed prior to the District applying for FEMA reclassification of these areas. The applicant estimates the potential savings from reduced flood damages at $180 million. The development of the Matadero Creek overflow- channel consists of three main elements: 1) new overflow channel, wall and landscaping, 2) onsite mitigation for impacts to wetland and riparian habitat, and 3) offsite mitigation for impacts to riparian habitat. Construction of Overflow Channel The construction of the new overflow channel involves a combination of concrete and earthen bottom, walls and berms with areas for landscaping and vegetation. The bottom of the channel (55’-60’) will consist partially of concrete (-30 feet wide)and approximately 25 feet of earthen bottom. The concrete sections of the channel bottom will not be visible once they are covered with sediment deposits from periodic overflows from the main creek channel. Once completed, maintenance of the channel would occur when sediment accumulates to a depth of 1’ in the channel or when vegetation within the channel reaches 4’ in height. In order to construct the proposed overflow channel, the SCVWD will require an easement from the City, extending across the northeast corner of the MSC and behind the east side of the MSC. In exchange, SCVWD has ageed to ~’ant an easement to the City on a portion (0.25 acres) of the 2027 East Bayshore Road site not used for mitigation for a potential storm water pump station project at San Francisquito Creek, as discussed in the 1993 City’s Storm Drain Master Plan. The potential storm water pump station is not part of this project; if it is pursued by the City it would require project, budget and environmental review approval by the City Council. Onsite Wetland Mitigation The Matadero Creek overflow channel impacts 0.11 acres of wetland under the Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction and 0.66 acres of riparian habitat under the California Department offish and Game’s jurisdiction. The wetland impact requires a replacement area of 0.30 acres, while the riparian impact requires 2.46 acres, 1.82 acres of which can be provided on or near the project site, with some mitigation occurring in Byxbee Par ~k~lood Basin, for a remainder of 0.64 acres to be provided off-site. The project would include a new overflow channel constructed through a mix of riparian, eucalyptus, wetland, scrub and rudera! (disturbed) habitats. A tree inventory of 361 trees conducted by Barrie D. Coate & Associates indicated approximately 289 trees, including willows, eucalyptus and black walnut will be removed within the project area. The project proposes to replace the eucalyptus habitat on the north side of the MSC with native trees, such as California buckeye and Coast Live Oak. Additionally, to mitigate for the removal of the 289 trees, the proposed project will replace these with native CMR: 339:03 Page 4 of 12 plantings, including over 365 trees (including 15-gallon native sycamores and oaks), 500 new shrubs and 1,000 new willow cuttings. Offsite Wetland Mitigation For the 0.64 acres of required riparian mitigation that cannot be completed on-site, the applicant is recommending the use of the 2-acre, SCVWD-owned site on Laura Lane off East Bayshore Road (2027 East Bayshore Road) near the International School. This site is currently leased to Ciardella Garden Supply, although the SCVWD acquired it for use as a project mitigation site, including mitigation of future San Francisquito Creek flood improvements. Ciarde!la Garden Supply has leased this site from the SCVWD for the past 37 years, and the current lease expires on March 3I, 2004. Since the SCVWD acquired the land with the intent of using it as a project mitigation site, it structured the lease with the ability to terminate with 90 days notice and with no legal obligation to relocate the business. SCVWD, as the property owner, has indicated that this site will be used as a mitigation reserve site for this or other District projects and this will likely result in the current lease not being renewed after its March 31, 2004 expiration date. According to SCVWD, (March 11, 2003 letter to the City included as Attachment E in the Planning & Transportation Commission staff report), leasing the property over these years has benefited both parties, in that the business received a below-market lease rate and the SCVWD received some income from the property. Although not obligated to, the applicant has stated that it has worked, and will continue to work with the lessee, Ciardella’s to find a suitable relocation site. It has identified approximately 22 available sites for potential relocation and contacted 10 other public and private agencies looking for suitable sites, as outlined in its March 11, 2003 letter to the City (Attachment E in the Planning & Transportation Commission staff report). SCVWD also analyzed several additional mitigation site alternatives on Matadero, Adobe, and San Francisquito Creeks between the release date of the Draft EIR and March 2003, as outlined in their letter to the City. Following the analysis of these additional sites, SCVWD staff and its environmental consultants maintain the original finding that the 2027 East Bayshore Road/Laura Lane property is the best-suited mitigation site for this project. Alternative Channel Ali,~ment An alternative overflow channel alignment that encroached further into the existing footprint of the MSC, using a strip along the north boundary was considered in the Fall 2001. This alignment had the potential to reduce the project’s impacts to existing habitat areas, and most likely eliminate the need for off-site riparian habitat mitigation. However, further encroachment into the MSC property was determined to conflict with the City’s space needs identified in the MSC Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study (under way at that time), require further relocation of City and utility facilities, and increase the potential to require further soil remediation. This alternative alignment was determined to be infeasible and was not addressed in the FEIR. CMR: 339:03 Page 5 of 12 The Planning and Transportation Commission and ARB reports, Attachments E-G, include a discussion of significant issues for the project. In addition, staff has included additional construction and mitigation monitoring measures into the Project Conditions of Approval (Attachment A). Staff recognizes the unique nature of this project, and feels that it is important to monitor the success of the project, its mitigation, and its landscaping over the long term and has therefore added a condition of approval to extend the project monitoring period through a City-hired consultant (paid for by the applicant) to 10 years. This time period will allow the applicant to report on how the overflow channel functions after at least one major storm event, as well as ensure that the mitigation and landscaping is well established and effectively softens the concrete portion of the channel. The Site and Design overlay zoning of the project site provides the City the opportunity to condition, as well as enforce, long term monitoring and maintenance. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project was approved, including the certification of the EIR by the SCVWD Board in December 2002. The SCVWD Board’s resolutions and findings are included in Attachment F of the Planning & Transportation Commission report. The proposed project has undergone review by the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) and the Architectural Review Board. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed and made recommendations on the project on May 28, 2002 and December 17, 2002. The Commission recommended that the Council approve the Park Improvement Ordinance, Attachment D. It recommended the approval of the flood control plan submitted by the SCVWD with the request that Council seriously look at alternative mitigation sites and that alternate land swaps be considered in order to maintain the Ciardella landscape supply business at its current site. The applicant, during and following the review by the Parks and Recreation Commission considered several alternate mitigation sites. These sites, as well as the twelve sites analyzed in the EIR are discussed in the applicant’s March 11, 2003 letter to the City, included as Attachment E of the Planning and Transportation Commission staff report. The letter also discusses two additional sites, one on Adobe Creek and one at the Los Altos Treatment Plant that were recommended for investigation by the Parks and Recreation Commission at its May 28, 2002 meeting. Additional sites, such as the land opposite San Francisquito Creek at the 2027 East Bayshore Road location, parkland near the MSC, and parkland near Adobe Creek were also explored. The conclusion of H.T. Harvey and Associates, ecological consultant to the applicant, was that after considering these 17 sites as potential riparian mitigation areas, the 2027 East Bayshore Road location was still the best in size and geomorphic setting for mitigation. Important factors in considering this offsite mitigation were the salinity of the soil (whether it was appropriate CMR: 339:03 Page 6 of 12 for riparian plantings), the size of the site, and its availability. The California Department offish and Game has jurisdiction over the project’s riparian impact and mitigation and is currently reviewing the project’s permit application and proposed mitigation. The City’s project conditions of approval state that riparian mitigation to the satisfaction offish and Game must be completed on the 2027 East Bayshore Road site, or at an equivalent site. The P&TC reviewed this project on April 9, 2003 and voted to recommend approval of the adoption of the Park Improvement Ordinance, the amendment to the Baylands Master Plan, the ~anting of requested easements in and around the Municipal Services Center and the Site and Design review with the following three added conditions. 1) For the applicant (SCWVD) to consider amending its proposed project mitigation plan by exploring the use of alternate sites and habitat types to mitigate the project-related loss of riparian habitat, including the use of off-site and non-riparian mitigation, and to coordinate with California Department offish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with the goal of reducing or eliminating the use of the proposed off-site mitigation site at 2027 East Bayshore Road, currently leased by SCVWD to a family- owned business (Ciarde!la Garden Supply). 2)For the applicant to explore the development of an interim habitat plan that would reduce project impacts by planting and establishing primarily on-site habitat areas prior to the planned removal of existing habitat areas within the project site. The scope of the interim habitat plan shal! not include the off-site mitigation site at 2027 East Bayshore Road. 3)For the applicant to further explore alternative project desig-ns that would utilize other channel alignments and floodplain alternatives, including the Emily Renzel Marsh, in order to avoid removal of existing riparian vegetation. P&TC discussion preceding its recommendations included: Alternatives presented in the EIR, such as dredging the existing channel; Alternatives considered during the initial scoping phase, such as using more of the MSC site; Offsite riparian mitigation alternatives, including analysis conducted by the applicant upstream on Matadero Creek and other on other creeks; Maintenance and monitoring of the project and project components (lar~dscaping & mitigation) Public comments on the project included both those supporting and opposing the proposed project. Supporters particularly noted the modifications of the project that have occurred over time, the design constraints of the location, and the benefits of reducing riverine flood risks. Opponents expressed concern over the loss of existing habitat areas and the construction impacts of the project including those on wildlife and vegetation; advocated alternatives to the project considered in the EIR or scoping process; questioned CMR: 339:03 Page 7 of 12 the proposed mitigation, including the loss of a local business; and questioned the maintenance requirements of the project. Verbatim minutes of the discussion and public testimony can be found in Attachments E-G. The applicant has indicated in its June 20, 2003 letter (Attachment K) to the City that it is not feasible to consider out-of-kind mitigation (wetland habitat mitigation for a riparian habitat impact) or multiple small riparian sites for mitigation and still be able to meet Fish and Game or Regional Water Quality Control Board permit requirements, which are necessary for construction. It also notes that although it has submitted a proposal to delay mitigation (to postpone the need to relocate Ciardella’s), that it is not desirable to delay mitigation establishment. Doing so may create a temporary loss of riparian habitat and the jurisdictional agencies may not support this. The Commission also recommended that the applicant explore the development of an interim habitat plan. The applicant can, according to its letter of response, proceed with non-native species remova! on the existing Matadero Creek channel once Fish and Game permits are received. According to the environmental review of the project, the window for construction is limited to 4-6 months, primarily in the summer. Additionally, the project mitigation requires that biological surveys occur prior to any habitat disturbance to help protect wildlife in the area. Establishing habitat areas on-site earlier than construction would mean disturbing existing habitat, replacing it with immature habitat this year, then removing that habitat in 2004 and replanting immature habitat again following construction. Lastly, the Commission recommended the applicant explore floodplain alternatives including use of the Emily Renzel Marsh. Chapter 5 of the Final Engineer’s report, included as Attachment D of the May 1, 2003 ARB staff report, with Table 5-5 in that chapter summarizing conceptual alternatives, includes a discussion of the Emily Renzel Marsh alternative which would require construction of more levees and would impact more wetland habitat than the proposed project. According to the Engineer’s report, many of the alternatives were not pursued because they did not achieve the 100-year level of flood protection, had large environmental impacts, or were not feasible due to high social and fiscal costs. The applicant, in its June 30 letter to the City indicates that realistic feasible alternatives to the project have been considered by SCVWD and several engineering firms since 1998 and that it feels the proposed project is the best solution for flood control on Matadero Creek. At its May 1, 2003 meeting the Architectural Review Board (ARB) requested clarifications on some items, including materials, visual representations and the offsite mitigation. Six members of the public spoke to the item, expressing both opposition and support for the project, although the majority was critical of project elements or requested further information. Comments in opposition to the project included concerns that this was a "1960’s type of project" for flood control; the flood control objectives might be achieved in other ways; concern about the project impacts to the existing channel, species CMR: 339:03 Page 8 of 12 and habitat in the area, as well as proposed onsite mitigation vegetation and non-native removal; and the offsite mitigation impact to an existing business. Supporters referenced the need for this project to protect Barron Creek and Matadero Creek neighborhoods and pointed out that the project was only on a minor portion of the Baylands. At the June 5th ARB meeting, two members of the public spoke to the item, both supporting the flood control element of the project and one prompting the applicant to look for other off-site mitigation sites. The Board recommended approval of the proposed project with the following three project conditions. 1)For the applicant to add iron oxide or integal color to the concrete ramp where it is visible to the public at the start of the overflow channel. 2)For the applicant to provide landscape screening for views from East Bayshore Road and Highway 101. 3) For the applicant to continue to explore alternative off-site mitigation, as indicated in Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation #1, including the Stevens Creek site referenced in ARB public testimony on June 5, 2003. The applicant has added integal color to concrete areas most visible to the public as shown in the project plans (Attachment H). The ARB also recommended a condition that landscape screening be provided for view from East Bayshore Road and Highway 101. According to its June 20 letter (Attachment K) to the City, the applicant is still exploring this condition. The final condition that ARB added was for the applicant to continue to explore alternate off-site mitigation including a site reference in public testimony, the Stevens Creek site. According to the applicant, the former Cargill Salt Ponds at Stevens Creek near Mountain View were recently acquired and planning for their restoration has just begun. These lands will not be available for approximately 15 years, precluding their use as a mitigation site for this project. RESOURCE IMPACT There is no resource impact to the City of Palo Alto’s General Fund. The planning, design and construction cost of both upstream and downstream portions is approximately $24 million. The SCVWD’s Lower Peninsula Watershed Fund provides funding for the implementation of the project. Following completion, the project would protect approximately 4,700 properties from creek flooding, and after FEMA approval of the flood zone classification changes, and approximately 450 of those properties will no longer be required to purchase riverine flood insurance. Additionally, the SCVWD estimates the potential savings from reduced flood damages at $180 million. POLICY IMPLICATIONS CMR: 339:03 Page 9 of !2 The project is in conformance with City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan by reducing the potential flood risk from Matadero and Barron Creeks and following completion and FEMA approval, removing properties from the flood plain. The project is located within the area covered by the Baylands Master Plan and will require amendments to the text and maps of the Baylands Master Plan. The required changes include the following: 1) Maps identifying the area along Matadero Creek as riparian area will be modified to show the location of the proposed overflow channel in this area between the creek channel and the north boundary of the MSC; 2) Flood Protection text sections of the Baylands Master Plan will be modified to include the proposed overflow channel project; 3) Baylands Master Plan references to the 30 foot wide landscape screening along the back (east) side of the MSC between the MSC fence and the existing levee, will be updated to include the landscaping strips proposed with the flood control channel development and landscaping described in the Municipal Services Center Master Plan (1987). The Baylands Master Plan, adopted in 1978 and updated in 1987, is currently being updated to show-changes since 1987, and staff recommends the above changes be made at the same time as the Baylands Master Plan update. The proposed project requires a Park Improvement Ordinance, since a portion of the overflow channel and some of the required wetland and riparian habitat mitigation areas lie within Byxbee Park behind the MSC (map included with the Ordinance in Attachment D). Byxbee Park includes the art park itself, as well as the Palo Alto Flood Basin. The proposed project is along the edge of the Palo Alto Flood Basin behind the MSC site. The existing use of this land is a flood control levee and maintenance road, and the proposed use is a maintenance road and part of the proposed Matadero Creek overflow control channel. The proposed wetland and riparian mitigation areas in the Park and Flood Basin will improve some existing developed and disturbed habitat to willow riparian and wetland habitats. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As the "Lead Agency", under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the applicant, (SCVWD) prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project. The SCVWD Board certified the Final EIR on December 3, 2002 and adopted EIR Findings in conformance with CEQA. These findings can be found in the Planning and Transportation Commission report Attachment F. Subsequent to the SCVWD Board approval of the project, the SCVWD filed a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk on December 10, 2002. As a "Responsible Agency", approval of the Site & Design for the Matadero Creek overflow channel by the City of Palo Alto Council includes approving a Resolution making EIR Findings that address the portion of the flood control project downstream of Highway 101, included as Attachment C of this report. Alternatives to the proposed overflow channel considered in the environmental review included an off-stream storage alternative, existing channel restoration, expanded floodway alternative and undergound flood control alternative. Chapters from the FEIR CMR: 339:03 Page 10 of 12 and the 1999 Engineer’s Report summarizing these alternatives were included as Attachment D in the May 1, 2003 staff report to the Architectural Review Board. The underground bypass alternative, identified as the environmentally superior alternative in the EIR, was not selected because of impacts to East Bayshore Road and undergound utilities, the limited space available to achieve the necessary hydraulic design parameters, the difficulty of long-term maintenance, the fact that impacts to habitat are reduced, but not eliminated under this alternative, and the overall cost of this alternative. According to the FEIR, all potentially significant impacts of the project were reduced, with mitigation, to a less than significant level. The project does not induce population grow-th in the city because it is not an expansion of existing infrastructure, and does not increase jobs or housing in the area. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Attachment I: Attachment J: Attachment K: Attachment L: Attachment M: Findings and Project Conditions of Approval Record of Land Use Approval Resolution making EIR findings Park Improvement Ordinance Planning & Transportation Commission April 9, 2003 Meeting Staff Report & Minutes Architectural Review Board May 1, 2003 Meeting Staff Report & Minutes Architectural Review Board June 5, 2003 Meeting Staff Report & Minutes Site Plan & Plan Set (Council only) FEIR (Council only) Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Council only) Applicant letter addressing P&TC/ARB added Conditions Applicant Presentation/Overview of Project Comment Letter(s) PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Emslie Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR: 339:03 Page 11 of 12 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Emily~ison Assistant City Manager Ariel Calonne, City Attorney Wynne Furth, Sr. Assistant City Attorney Gary Kittleson, Natural Resource Consulting Joe Teresi, City of Palo Alto Public Works Bill Fellman, City of Palo Alto Real Estate Liang Lee, Santa Clara Valley Water District Larry Ciardella, Ciardella’s Garden Supply Sheri Furman Libby Lucas Bob Moss CMR: 339:03 Page 12 of 12 ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project [02-D-07, 02-ARB-70] JULY 14, 2003 PLEA SE NO TE."Additional or changed conditions may be applied to the project as the review process olztil~tles. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the plans dated May 16, 2003 and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan dated January 29, 2003 except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the final plan set submitted prior to start of construction. The revised plans shall include the following conditions. A. PLANNING 9 o For the Applicant (SCWVD) to consider amending their proposed project mitigation plan by exploring the use of alternate sites and habitat types to mitigate the project-related loss of riparian habitat, including the use of out-of-kind (non-riparian) mitigation, and to coordinate with California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to request their approval of such an alternate mitigation plan, with the goal of reducing or eliminating the use of the proposed off-site mitigation site at 2027 East Bayshore Road, currently leased by the District to a family-owned business (Ciardella Garden Supply). [Planning & Transportation Commission] For the Applicant to explore the development of an interim habitat plan that would reduce project impacts by planting and establishing primarily on-site habitat areas prior to the planned removal of existing habitat areas within the project site. The scope of the interim habitat plan shall not include the off-site mitigation site at 2027 East Bayshore Road. [Planning & Transportation Commission] For the Applicant to further explore alternative project designs that would utilize other channel alignments and floodplain alternatives, including the Emily Renzel Marsh, in order to avoid removal of existing riparian vegetation. [Planning & Transportation Commission] For the Applicant to add integral color to the concrete ramp at the start of the overflow channel where it is visible to the public. [Architectural Review Board] For the Applicant to provide landscape screening for views from East Bayshore Road and Highway 101. [Architectural Review Board] For the Applicant to continue to explore alternative off-site mitigation, as indicated in Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation #1, including the Stevens o 10. 11. 12. Creek site referenced in ARB public testimony on June 5, 2003. [Architectural Review Board] The proposed project shall comply with all existing applicable policies, progams and requirements, including the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 and the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall be responsible for submitting a Construction Management Plan to the Planning Division, which shall include, but is not limited to, an expected timeline for demolition and construction activities, and hours of construction. The Construction Plan shall include a traffic plan and safety plan for construction traffic crossing the pedestrian pathway along East Bayshore Road. A logistics plan shall be submitted for review by the City and shall include the following: staging area (shall be precisely identified), and shall include areas for parking, temporary unloading, storage, personal services, and haul route. To minimize damage and encroachment on non-essential areas for construction, the truck and haul route shall be clearly identified on site with fencing, including areas of the levy that will not be graded out to Bayshore Road. The logistics plan shall specify which access to Highway 101 is preferred. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit for Planning staff approval samples and!or details of materials to be used in the project, including the desig-ns of any signs to be posted on or near the construction site. The project is located in an environmentally sensitive area that provides habitat to several endangered species. This area is subject to the jurisdiction of several State and Federal agencies. The Applicant shall contact these agencies to determine their interest in the proposed project. Agencies of concern are as follows: Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Army Corps of Engineers Regional Water Quality Control Board State Department of Fish and Game State Lands Commission Subsequent to State Department of Fish and Game approval, the applicant may substitute in equal habitat value an alternative off-site mitigation area other than the proposed 2027 East Bayshore Road. Evidence of Agency permits approval and corresponding permit conditions or correspondence indicating no agency interest shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Departments. Permit conditions from other agencies, such as the ones listed above shall be reviewed by the City of Palo Alto prior to the start of work and shall be considered as conditions of the proposed project. Prior to the start of work, the applicant shall submit an Eradication & Revegetation Plan to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and City’s natural resource consultant. This plan shall include methods of removal (hand, mechanical, pesticide) for species and their location 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 2 within the eradication area. As part of Eradication & Revegetation Plan, the applicant shall identify methods of non-native removals including preferably pulling Cape Ivy and periwinkle by hand. Where necessary, manual scraping of underground stems will be utilized. The plan shall also include a primary contact for the Plan, monitoring and notification requirements to the City of Palo Alto when maintenance is to occur and annual reporting on the non-native removal and revegetation performed. Sediment, Maintenance, and Mitigation Area Monitoring 13.Prior to the start of work, the applicant shall provide up to $30,000 for the City to retain a natural resource consultant to cover the cost of ongoing (up to 10 year) project and mitigation monitoring necessary to ensure the success of both the project and its required mitigation. Required reports, as outlined in the required Maintenance and Monitoring Plan, shall be submitted by the District to and reviewed by the City and/or its consultant. If the City determines the conditions or reporting requirements have not been met, then the monitoring period and yearly progress report may be extended as required in writing by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. City staff and consultant time required for implementation and monitoring of the processing, construction, Mitigation Monitoring Program and yearly progress report review shall be subject to cost recovery fees charged to the District. Prior to the start of construction, the District sha!l establish an account with the City Revenue Department and fund as necessary until the Final Progress Report is deemed acceptable. 14.Prior to the start of work, the applicant shall submit the approved Wetland Restoration Plan for the wetland mitigation area to the satisfaction of the City’s natural resource and revegetation specialist consultants. 15.Prior to the start of work, the applicant shall submit a Maintenance and Monitoring Plan. This Plan shall be in addition to the submitted Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, which followed the environmental review of the project. The Maintenance & Monitoring Plan shall cover a period of 10 years of the project’s implementation process, scheduling and reporting requirements of the required mitigation, maintenance, and project conditions of approvals for all project components including the landscaping, soil testing, wetland mitigation, non-native species removal, native plantings, vegetation replacement rates and time periods, existing channel monitoring and modeling, both on- and off-site riparian mitigation, and the proposed channel maintenance. To reduce the spread of non-natives in the project area, channel maintenance should occur in June and following a major storm event when possible. This Plan may reference other reports already produced, such as the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, but should at the very least present a schedule of all elements of required maintenance and monitoring for up to 10 years. This report will include submittal requirements to the City or its representative. This Plan shall be submitted to the satisfaction of Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to the start of work. The schedule of submittal requirements outlined in this document will become part of the project conditions. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 3 16.As part of the Project Maintenance and Monitoring Plan referenced in Condition #15, the Applicant shall include an annual survey with at least 10 cross sections of the existing Matadero Creek Channel and longitudinal survey of the existing channel for up to 10 years, as well as schedule and reporting procedures for maintenance on the new channel and report. Environmental Review and Conditions 17. o 18. 19. At minimum the following dust control measures shall be implemented during project construction to reduce the impact of construction dust. More measures, as outlined in the construction management plan, may be necessary to control construction dust. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Project personnel shall be alerted to the possibility of encountering archaeological resources during construction and apprised of the proper procedures to follow in the event that archaeological resources or human remains are found. In the event of accidental discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office shal! be notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American, and if they are, shall comply with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.5(e). In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during grading or construction activities, all work shall cease within 150 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified, professional archaeologist. The archeologist shall conduct independent review of the find, with authorization of and under direction of the City. Prompt evaluations should be made regarding the significance and importance of the finds and a course of action acceptable to all concerned parties should be adopted. If mitigation is required, the first priority shall be for avoidance and preservation of the resource. If avoidance is not feasible an alternative plan that may include excavation shall be prepared. All archaeological excavation and monitoring activities shall be conducted in accordance with prevailing professional standards as outlined in the State CEQA Guidelines and by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The Native American community shall be consulted on all aspects of the mitigation program. Preconstruction biological surveys, as indicated in the environmental review of the project and the January 29, 2003 Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, including Salt Marsh Harvest Mice, Nesting water birds, California red legged frog, among others. Copies of these surveys shall be provided to the City of Palo Alto or its designated representative. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 4 20.The percent cover criteria for the riparian mitigation areas shall be increased from 5% to 10% in Year 3 and from 15% to 20% in Year 5. The applicant shall also monitor and report the percent of non-native, invasive species and during the monitoring period only allowing 5-10% in the riparian mitigation areas. In the wetland mitigation area, the applicant shall also monitor and report the percent of non-native, invasive species and during the monitoring period only allowing 5-10% in the wetland mitigation area. 21.Prior to the start of work, the applicant shall submit the Soils Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The applicant shall comply with at! related local and state hazardous materials regulations and laws. Planning Arborist Prior to construction 22.The final Conditions of Approval for this application shall be included at the beginning of the plan set submitted to the City prior to the start of construction. 23.Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit the Final Planting and Irrigation Plans to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and Director of Planning and Community Environment. At a minimum, the applicant shall provide for 15 gallon California Sycamores and Coast Live Oaks in the planting plans. The initial selection, grown saplings and acceptance before planting shall be inspected and approved in writing by the City Arborist or its Revegetation Consultant. The applicant shall also include a summary table with planting totals for each area (landscape, riparian mitigation, wetland mitigation). The Planting Plans shall also include soil preparation, at a minimum providing tilling of any soil to be planted to a depth of 18 inches, hydro seeded soil shall be tilled to a 10 inch depth, and the City or its representative shall inspect the soil for compaction, texture, and composition, making recommendations the applicant must implement to assure successful plantings. Prior to application the seed mix ratio shall be tested, verified and approved by the City Arborist, or its representative and plans should indicate mulch type, depth and areas to be covered. 10% of the planting locations for trees shall be tested for drainage prior to planting. Verification of mix purity and absence of foreign adverse and absence of foreign adverse seed shall be verified by an outside source approved by the District and City. Application method, any required amendments, takifier and mulch are to be disclosed and approved by the City arborist or his representative. 24.The applicant shall consider willow cuttings instead of fascines from stations 13+20 to 17+20. 25.On the south side of the MSC and at the wetland mitigation area, soil samples shall be taken to test the salinity and nutrients of the soil prior to plantings (at the final grade). The soil test results of the samples at the south end could be compared to results from samples along the eastern side. If the south site is determined to be saline, California sycamore will likely not perform well in the planting areas along the MSC and willow scrub habitat dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 5 container stock should be planted. Propagule (seeds and cuttings) collection could be performed downstream of East Bayshore Road in the Matadero Creek Watershed to be proximal to the saline conditions of the Baylands. This will serve to select for material that is more adapted to the saline conditions near the project site compared to vegetation growing further upstream of Highway 101. Vegetation and Tree Protection Zones 26.The applicant shall describe how areas to be preserved from construction impacts will be protected, where protection fencing will be placed, where siltation barriers will be placed and indicate such on all applicable plans as a bold dashed line. Temporary plantings for construction screening of the project shall be reviewed and approved by the City arborist prior to placement. 27.A plan sheet titled: TREE AND VEGETATION PROTECTION shall accompany the plans submitted prior to the start of construction and referenced on all Civil drawings (Utility, Storm, Grading, Erosion, etc.); Demolition; Staging; Building; Landscape, Planting and Irrigation Plans. The Tree and Vegetation Protection sheet shall also contain the arborist report. For the trees near the project area that will remain (30 trees), this sheet sha!l clearly show tree protection zone, indicating where protection (fencing, etc.) will be placed as a bold dashed line and denote all trees to be retained and those to be removed. 28.Inspection Schedule. For trees and vegetation to be protected during construction, al! inspections outlined in the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.30, shall be performed as required. The Inspection Schedule Table shall be printed on the final set of plans submitted prior to the start of construction. Durin~ Construction: 29. Biologist Inspection Report. The City’s project Natural Resource Consultant shall perform a site inspection to monitor tree and vegetation condition on a minimum of two-week intervals. The City shall be in receipt of the inspection report during the first week of each month until completion at fax # (650) 329-2154. 30.The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 31.The following tree preservation measures apply to all areas outside of the work area No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted outside the enclosure area. The ground under and around the enclosure area shall not be altered. to Proiect Completion Landscape Architect Inspection. The contractor shall call for an inspection by the Landscape Architect, and provide written verification to the Planning Department that all 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 6 trees; shrubs, planting and irrigation are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. Post 33. Construction Maintenance. For the life of the project, all landscape shall be well maintained, watered as required, fertilized as necessary and pruned as required. Groundcover, shrubs and hydroseed grassland area shall maintain an 80 percent cover rate. Trees shall be maintained at 100-percent of new trees planted. Any trees or vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the SCVWD within 30 days of discovery. 34.Weed control. During the 10-year monitoring period, invasive weed shall be pulled during the optimum season (spring) annually.- 35.Landscaping as screening and related irrigation facilities are to be maintained for the life of the project by the District. 36.All trees shall be pruned for structure two years after planting according to the current edition of Best Management Practices--Tree Pruning as developed by the International Society of Arboriculture. Trees shall be pruned every four years thereafter until the 10- year monitoring period has ended and the final monitoring report has verified that District obligations have been met. 37.The Mitigation and Monitoring Program and the Maintenance and Monitoring Plan related reporting requirements, encompassing all planted areas (trees, landscaping, landscaping, wetland areas, riparian areas) shall be provided to the City annually for I0 years. The Progress Report shall be submitted by the District to and reviewed by the City and/or consultant. If, after a Final Progress Report is submitted, City determines the conditions have not been met, then the monitoring period and yearly progress report may be extended as required in writing by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 38.Cost Recovery. (On-going throughout Processing, Construction and Mitigation Monitoring). City staff and consultant time required for implementation and monitoring of the processing, construction, Mitigation Monitoring Program and yearly progress report review shall be subject to cost recovery fees charged to the District. Prior to the start of construction, the District shall establish an account with the City Revenue Department and fund as necessary until the Final Progress Report is deemed acceptable. PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES The applicant shall, prior to construction, obtain all easements, including a temporary easement for replacing the transformer storage pad and approvals from the City of Palo Alto necessary to complete the construction of the entire project and its mitigation. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 7 40.The applicant shall invite City staff to attend the pre-construction meeting with the project contractor in order to discuss project schedule and logistics. Please notify Joe Teresi at (650) 329-2129 regarding the time and location of the meeting once it has been scheduled. 41.The applicant shall, prior to tree removal or construction, meet with City representatives for the Municipal Service Center (MSC) and Public Works to coordinate any temporary access required during construction and temporary closing of parking spaces on the MSC site necessary for tree removal. 42.Prior to the start of work, the applicant’s contractor shall obtain a City of Palo Alto Encroachment Permit for placement of temporary construction office trailers adjacent to the Colorado Storm Water Pump Station on West Bayshore Road. 43.Prior to the start of work, the applicant’s contractor shall submit a certificate of insurance acceptable to the City’s Risk Manager naming the City of Palo Alto as an additional insured party. Prior to the start of work, the applicant’s contractor shall obtain a City of Palo Alto Street Work Permit from the Public Works Department for all work within the public right-of- way. The contractor shall comply with the terms of the Street Work Permit for the duration of the project. 45.The applicant shall be responsible for the identification, location, and protection of all utilities within the project work area. The applicant’s contractor shall contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 227-2600 at least five working days in advance of starting excavation to provide for marking of underground utilities. 46.The applicant’s contractor shall notify the City’s Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to the start of work. All work within the public right-of-way shall conform to the City of Palo Alto Standard Drawings and Specifications and shall be subject to inspection and approval by the Public Works Inspec.tor. 47.The applicant’s contractor shall notify the Water-Gas-Wastewater Utilities Inspector at (650) 566-4504 at least five working days before start of construction. The applicant shall provide protection for utility lines subject to damage. Utility lines within a pit or trench shall be adequately supported. The WGW Utilities Inspector shall inspect all exposed water, gas, and sewer lines prior to backfilling. All work on water, gas, and/or wastewater utilities shall conform to the City of Palo Alto Utility Standards and shall be subject to inspection and approval by the Water-Gas-Wastewater Utilities Inspector. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all Water-Gas-Wastewater Utilities engineering and inspection costs related to the project. 48.The applicant’s contractor shall not operate or disconnect any valves or other facilities owned by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. Only authorized Utilities Department personnel shall perform any required valve operation or utility disconnection. The applicant’s contractor shall notify the Utilities Department not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the time that such operation or disconnection is required. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 8 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. The applicant’s contractor shall immediately notify the Utilities Department at (650) 496- 6982 or (650) 329-2413 if existing water or gas mains are disturbed or damaged. The applicant’s contractor shall conform to the City’s Truck Route Regulations (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 10.48 at all times during construction of the project. The applicant’s contractor shall conform to the City’s Noise Ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10) at all times during construction of the project. Construction hours shall be posted on site and within public view. The applicant shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris or other waste materials into gutters, storm drains, or creeks. (Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.09) The applicant’s contractor shall be required to periodically apply water to exposed dirt surfaces, as necessary to control dust during construction. The applicant’s contractor shall remove spillage resulting from construction material hauling operations along or across any public street immediately. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. The applicant’ s contractor shall complete the replacement construction of the Municipal Service Center (MSC) transformer storage pad and coordinate with City Utilities Department and City Public Works staff to relocate the existing transformers and transformer pad prior to start of construction of the portion of the bypass channel across the northeast corner of the MSC. A temporary easement for construction will be required and must be obtained prior to construction. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. The applicant’s contractor shall be responsible for maintaining the integrity of Municipal Service Center security fencing (including existing fencing, approved temporary fencing, and!or replacement fencing) adjacent to the work zone throughout the duration of the project. At the conclusion of the project, applicant shall provide a compact disc (CD) containing digital as-built record drawings of all improvements constructed in the public right-of-way, easements or property in which the City owns an interest. All files should be delivered in Auto Cad .dwg format. Plans shall be prepared using the California Plane Coordinate System North American Datum 1983 for Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD 1927 for vertical controls. For each CD delivery, a simple digital text file shall accompany the drawing files. This metadata file will include the date of the file, the coordinates used, the source of the data, the company name and contact information, along with the name of the technician who prepared them. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 9 57.SWPPP - The applicant must prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP should include permanent, post development project design features as well as temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water pollution. Specific Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that apply to the work should be incorporated into the design. Applicant is advised that the erosion control plan in the current plan submittal is sufficient to meet the requirement for temporary measures under current regulations. The Applicant should contact Public Works for method of labeling the permanent SWPPP areas consistent with other projects in Palo Alto. 58.SWPPP - The City Standard "Best Management Practices" plan sheet titled PoIlution Prevention-It’s Part of the Plan shall be included in the approved development plan set. 59.Impervious Area Calculations - The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the project site. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area prior to the start of construction. A standard worksheet for the impervious area calculations is available from Public Works Engineering. The completed worksheet shall be accompanied by a marked up site drawing. The drawing should identify the permeable and impermeable areas of the entire project site with appropriate area summations to support the entries made on the completed worksheet. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 10 ATTACHMENT A SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3201 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD MATADERO CREEK LONG-TERM REMEDIATION PROJECT 02-D-07, 02-ARB-70 1. The project will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, hmwzonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The project proposal is a flood control channel located between two existing flood levees and adjacent and within portions of both the developed Municipal Service Center (MSC) site and more sensitive Byxbee Park/Baylands area. Initial construction and revegetation of the project will inherently alter the appearance of natural character within the project area. To counter this impact, the applicant is proposing both on- and off-site wetland and riparian mitigation areas, enhancing existing riparian areas on Matadero Creek, extending landscaping around the MSC and has reduced the amount of concrete in the channel design. Beyond the construction time, elements such as the vegetation once it is further established, the replacing of non-native species with more native ones and the increased density of trees in the area will enhance the natural character of the site. o The project is designed in such a way as to ensure the desirability of invesOnent, or the conduct of business, research of educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent area. The proposed project area would be consistent with the flood improvements within the project area including levees on the north side of Matadero Creek and around the MSC property. The primary benefit of this project is to increase the capacity of Matadero Creek to achieve 100-year (1%) flood protection for local residents and businesses. The project would protect approximately 4,700 properties from creek flooding, and 450 properties of those properties will no longer be required to purchase flood insurance. Additionally, SCVWD staff estimates the potential savings from.reduced flood damages at $180 million. The project will use 0.86 acres of the MSC site, and pay for the relocation of the transformer storage area in that location, thereby limiting the impacts to the MSC site. Construction of the project will be governed by Municipal, Building and other applicable codes. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 1 3.Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be observed in construction of the project. The proposed location of the project is replacing a historic overflow channel that is smaller in size, but does not currently meet 100-year flood protection. An alternative explored in the environmental review but discouragedby regulating agencies would have dredged the existing channel to achieve this same flow level. This alternative, however, would have significantly impacted existing riparian and wetland habitats each time dredging occurred. The amount of concrete proposed for the flood control channel has been scaled back so the channel is now partially concrete and partially earthen. The proposed project impacts, both riparian and wetland habitats and is required under California Department of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers to replace the impacted habitat at a 3:1 and 2:1 ratio, respectively. Both on-site and off-site mitigation is proposed with the project to meet regulatory replacement requirements. The mitigation will replace existing developed and disturbed habitat with riparian and wetland habitats. A more long term (7-10 years) monitoring period is being required of the proponent and the City hired an independent natural resource consultant to aid in the review of this project and as part of the project conditions, will likely continue to monitor the project construction and its mitigation. The project will remove a significant amount of existing vegetation for project construction, including the mature eucalyptus trees along the MSC property. This screening on the north side of the MSC will be replaced and landscaping screening extended around the MSC site. Approximately 290 trees will be removed for the project. The removed vegetation will be replaced with more native plantings, including approximately 365 trees, 500 shrubs and 1,000 willow cuttings. 4.The project is in accord with the Palo Aho Comprehensive Plan. The project is in conformance with City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan by reducing the potential flood risk from Matadero Creek and removing properties from the flood plain. The Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment Element includes policies and programs to minimize the exposure to natural hazards, including flooding (Policy N-49). The project is located within Byxbee Park and Baylands area, but is consistent with other flood control infrastructure (channel, levees) in the area. Although the project does impact wetland and riparian habitat, it will be required to convert developed and disturbed habitat at a higher ratio to riparian and wetland habitat. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 2 Policy N-49: "Focus efforts to reduce exposure to natural hazards on those areas where the greatest risks exist." Policy N-50: "Implement public safety improvements, such as access roads and other infrastructure, in a manner that is sensitive to the environment." The comprehensive plan, under the Flood Hazards section, recognizes that further flood prone areas along Matadero and Barron Creeks will be removed from FEMA maps with Matadero Creek improvements, such as the proposed project. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 3 ATTACHMENT A FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW 3201 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD MATADERO CREEK LONG-TERM REMEDIATION PROJECT 02-D-07.02-ARB-70 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, furthers the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance as it complies with the Standards for Architectural Review as required in-Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC. (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan promotes reducing the risk of flooding in local creeks, including Matadero Creek and removes properties from the flood plain. The project proposes to meet Comprehensive Plan policy N-50, by: replacing impacts to wetland and riparian habitats at an increased ratio as required by regulating agencies; by replacing the removed non-native eucalyptus habitat with more native plantings; by extending the landscape screening element all around the Municipal Service Center (MSC); by replacing lower quality (ruderal) habitat with more native, willow riparian habitat; and by conducting non-native species removal and native plantings to enhance existing willow riparian habitat near the project area. (2) The design is compatible with tile immediate em, ironment of tile site in that although the project is located in the Baylands, the proposed channel is located between two existing flood levees and, by bending the alignment of the channel across the comer of the MSC, keeps this partial concrete channel adjacent to the developed MSC site and away from the majority of the riparian and wetland habitat in the Palo Alto Flood Basin. Habitat revegetation, landscape screening, and channel bed materials would reduce visual impacts of the project. (3) The design is appropriate to the function of tile project in that the flood control channel is designed such that excess flows fiom Matadero Creek during moderate to severe storm events will be captured and conveyed to the Palo Alto Flood Basin thus reducing the backwater effect in the creek and improving the performance of city storm drains. The channel is partially concrete, partially earthen, and following a storm event the concrete portion wiII likely be covered with sediment and in part blend in with the surrounding environment. (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses in that the proposed channel is a mix of earthen and concrete channel with new habitat vegetation and landscape screening, transitioning from the more natural elements of the flood basin to the more developed MSC site. The project also extends landscaped screening around the MSC. (7) The planning and siting of the various functions on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that the proposed project is a flood control channel between the existing Matadero Creek and the MSC site. The public view of the project is limited to two areas: from the recreational path/ parking area just north of the Matadero Creek/East Bayshore Road bridge and from the 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 1 recreational pathway running along East Bayshore Road. During construction these areas will be screened with fencing. Following construction, the area will be replanted with more native species, including the placement of some larger (15 gallon) trees. (8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the fimction of the structures in that the project includes new vegetation to replace the impacted riparian and wetland habitat areas at a 3:1 and 2:1 ratio respectively. The project also extends the landscape- screening element around the entire MSC. (9) Sufficient ancilla~3, fimctions are provided to suppo~:t the main functions of the project and are compatible with the project’s design concept in that the earthen edge of the channel will be planted with willows, providing important sediment removal during higher flows, soil erosion control and more natural transitioning from concrete portions of channel to adjacent riparian areas. The project also includes maintenance and monitoring agreements for the sediment removal, habitat maintenance, non-native species removal, and sediment transport modeling to ensure key elements of the project will be supported over time. (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that the project augments an existing flood basin, improves an existing channel and over time improves wetland and riparian habitat areas. The project will remove both wetland and riparian habitat, and is required to replace them at a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio. The concrete channel integrates earthen strips and adjacent willow plantings, and following a high water flow, sediment deposits will cover the concrete elements of the channel bottom. The loss of the eucalyptus habitat, that provides screening for the MSC site, will be replaced with more native, riparian habitat and the screening element will be extended around the MSC site. (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and fimction, and are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements andfimctions in that the project is a flood control channel originally proposed as a wide (60’) entirely concrete channel with concrete walls. The project has since evolved to be partially concrete and partially earthen (both sides and bottom). Integral color has also been added at.the beginning of the project to the portion of the concrete channel visible to the public. The project also includes landscaping that will extend around and further screen the MSC site. The landscaping, as well as other plantings will replace existing non-native species with more native ones to provide additional screening of the MSC and the channel itself. The project will replace impacts to wetland and riparian habitats at an increased ratio, replacing ruderal (disturbed) habitat including areas within Byxbee Park with wetland and riparian habitat. As part of mitigation, the project will also conduct non-native species removal and native plant replacement from the existing Matadero Creek channel. (13) The latzdscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, pIant fomzs and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site in that the plantings will be primarily native plantings consistent with the adjacent riparian and wetland habitat. The plantings in the landscaped area will be a mix of native trees 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 2 and shrubs and the plantings in the triangular shaped riparian mitigation area on-site will transition from lower native shrubs to native trees along the edges. (14) The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a varie~, that would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance in that the project removes invasive, non-native vegetation within the project area and in the existing channel, and replaces it with native vegetation. The project will also install and maintain the irrigation system necessary to establish the proposed plantings. The long-term natural character of the area will be enhanced through these native plantings. The project wilI also increase landscaping screening of the MSC site. Long term monitoring and maintenance will ensure improved native plant material and habitat. ARB standards/findings #4, #6, #10 and #15 are not applicable to the project. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 3 growth in the city because it is not an expansion of existing infrastructure, and does not increase jobs or housing in the area. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attactzment B: Attact-maent C: Attact~ment D: Attactvr~ent E: Attactm-~ent F: Findings and Project Conditions of Approval Record of Land Use Approval Resolution making tHR findings Park Improvement Ordinance Planning & Transportation Convnission April 9, 2003 Meeting Staff Report & Minutes Architectural Review Board May 1, 2003 Meeting Staff Report & Minutes Attact~nnent G:Architectural Review Board June 5, 2003 Meeting Staff Report & Minutes Attactmaent H: AttacNr, ent I: Attactmaent J: Attachment K: Site Plan & Plan Set (Council only) FEIR (Council only) Mitigation Monitoring Plan (Council only) Applicant letter addressing P&TC/ARB added Conditions CMR: 339:03 Page 21 of 23 Attachment L: Attachment M: Applicant Presentatioru’Ove~iew of Project Comment Letter(s) PREPARED BY: Susan Ondik, Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Steve Emslie Director of Plat~ning and Community Enviromnent CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Emily Harrison Assistant City Manager CC:Ariel Calonne, City Attorney Wynne Furth, Sr. Assistant Civ Attorney CNLR: 339:03 Page 22 of 23 Gary Kittleson, Natural Resource Consulting Joe Teresi, Ci~ of Palo Aito Public Works Bill Fellman, City. of Palo Alto Real Estate Liang Lee, Santa Clara Valley Water District Larry. Ciardella, Ciardella’s Garden Supply Sheii Furrnan Libby Lucas Bob Moss CMR: 339:03 Page 23 of 23 ATTACHMENT B APPROVAL NO. 2003- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAIqD USE APPROVAL FOR 3201 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD; MATADERO CREEK LONG-TERM REMEDIATION PROJECT: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW [02-D-07, 02-ARB-70] (SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, APPLICANT) On July 14, 2003, the Council approved the application by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) for site and design review of the installation of an overflow flood control channe! for the !ower portion of Matadero Creek downstream of East Bayshore Road to increase flood capacity and protection and convey a 100- year (1%) flood event flow, making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION i. Background. The City Counci! of the City of Palo Alto ("City Counci!") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On July 29, 2002, the Santa Clara Valley Water Dxstrlct (SCVWD), Applxcant , applxed for site and design and architectura! review for the installation of an approximately 1,200 foot long, 55-60 foot wide overflow f!ood control channe! proposed for the !ower portion of Hatadero Creek, downstream of East Bayshore Road ("The Project") . B. The project includes the installation of the partial concrete, partia! earthen flood control channel, related levee adjustments, wetland and riparian mitigation areas, the installation of a floodwall surrounding the Municipal Services Center, and landscaping. The purpose of the project is to increase f!ood capacity, flood protection and convey a 100-year (1%) flood event f!ow on Hatadero Creek. The project requires the granting of two easements totaling 0.86 acres from the City of Palo Alto for the portions of the project on the east and south side of the HSC facility, including the applicant relocating the existing transformer storage area on the MSC site. The proposed project also requires a Park Improvement Ordinance (Ordinance #__), since a portion of the improvements and the some of the required mitigation areas lie within a strip of land !ocated behind the MSC (map included in Attachment B) that is within the boundary of Byxbee Park. C. Fol!owing staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project on Apri! 9, 2003 recommending approva! with the following conditions: i) For the Applicant (SC~4V-D) to consider amending their proposed project 000302 syn 0091313 mitigation plan by exploring the use of alternate sites and habitat types to mitigate the project-related loss of riparian habitat, including the use of out-of-kind (non-riparian) mitigation, and to coordinate with California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to request their approval of such an alternate mitigation plan, with the goal of reducing or eliminating the use of the proposed off-site mitigation site at 2027 East Bayshore Road, currently leased by the District to a family-owned business (Ciardella Garden Supply); 2) For the Applicant to exp!ore the development of an interim habitat plan that would reduce project impacts by planting and establishing primarily on-site habitat areas prior to the planned remova! of existing habitat areas within the project site. The scope of the interim habitat plan shall not fnclude the off-site mitigation site at 2027 East Bayshore Road; and 3) For the Applicant to further explore alternative project designs that would utilize other channel alignments and f!oodplain alternatives, including the Emily Renzel Marsh, in order to avoid removal of existing riparian vegetation. D. The Architectura! Review Board reviewed the project on May 1 and June 5, 2003 and recommended approval with the fol!owing conditions: i) That the applicant add integral co!or to the concrete ramp visible at the start of the channe!; 2) That the applicant provide landscape screening for views from East Bayshore Road and Highway i01; and 3) Continuing on the Planning and Transportation Commission condition that the applicant continue to investigate alternative off site mitigation, including the exp!oration of the Stevens Creek site reference in the public testimony during the June 5th meeting regarding the project. SECTION 2.Environmental Review.As the "Lead Agency", under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the SCVWD prepared an Environmenta! Impact Report for the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project.The District’s Board certified the Final EiR on December 3, 2002.With the certification of the Fina! EIR, the Board also adopted EIR Findings in conformance with CEQA. Subsequent to the SCVWD Board approving the pro3iect, the District filed a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk on December i0, 2002. As a "Responsible Agency", approva! of the Site & Design for the Matadero Creek downstream flood contro! overflow channe! by the City of Palo Alto Council wil! also require approving a Resolution (Resolution #__) making EIR Findings that address the downstream portion of the overall flood control project. 000302 syn 0091313 SECTION 3.Site and Design Review Findings i. The project will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites in that: The project proposal is a flood control channel located between two existing flood levees and adjacent and within portions of both the developed Municipal Service Center (MSC) site and more sensitive Byxbee Park/Baylands area. Initial construction and revegetation of the project will inherently alter the appearance of natura! character within the project area. To counter this impact, the applicant is proposing both on- and off-site wetland and riparian mitigation areas, enhancing existing riparian areas on Matadero Creek, extending landscaping around the MSC and has reduced the amount of concrete in the channel design. Beyond the construction time, elements such as the vegetation once it is further established, the replacing of non-native species with more native ones and the increased density of trees in the area wil! enhance the natural character of the site. 2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas in that= The proposed project area would be consistent with the flood improvements within the project area including levees on the north side of Matadero Creek and around the MSC property. The primary benefit of this project is to increase the capacity of Matadero Creek to achieve 100-year (1%) f!ood protection for !oca! residents and businesses. The project would protect approximately 4,700 properties from creek flooding, and 450 properties of those properties will no !onger be required to purchase f!ood insurance. Additionally, SCVWD staff estimates the potential savings from reduced flood damages at $180 million. The project will use 0.86 acres of the MSC site, and pay for the re!ocation of the transformer storage area in that location, thereby limiting the impacts to the MSC site. Construction of the project will be governed by Municipal, Building and other applicable codes. 3. Sound principles of environmental design ecological balance are observed in the project in that: and The proposed location of the project is replacing a historic overflow channe! that is smaller in size, but does not 000302 syn 0091313 currently meet 100-year flood protection. An alternative explored in the environmental review but discouraged by regulating agencies would have dredged the existing channel to achieve this same flow level. This alternative, however, would have significantly impacted existing riparian and wetland habitats each time dredging occurred. The amount of concrete proposed for the flood control channel has been scaled back so the channel is now partially concrete and partially earthen. The proposed project impacts both riparian and wetland habitats and is required under California Department of Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers to replace the impacted habitat at a 3:1 and 2:1 ratio, respectively. Both on-site and off-site mitigation is proposed with the project to meet regulatory replacement requirements. The mitigation will replace existing deve!oped and disturbed habitat with riparian and wetland habitats. A more long term (7-10 years) monitoring period is being required of the proponent and the City hired an independent natural resource consultant to aid in the review of this project and as part of the project conditions, will likely continue to monitor the project construction and its mitigation. The project wil! remove a significant amount of existing vegetation for project construction, including the mature eucalyptus trees a!ong the MSC property. This screening on the north side of the MSC will be replaced and landscaping screening extended around the entire MSC site. Approximately 290 trees will be removed for the project. The removed vegetation will be replaced with more native plantings, including approximately 365 trees, 500 shrubs and 1,000 willow cuttings. 4. The use will be in accord with the Palo A1 to Comprehensive Plan in that: The project is in conformance with City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan by reducing the potentia! flood risk from Matadero Creek and removing properties from the flood plain. The Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment Element includes policies and programs to minimize the exposure to natura! hazards, including flooding (Policy N-49). The project is located within Byxbee Park and Baylands area, but is consistent with other f!ood contro! infrastructure (channe!, levees) in the area. Although the project does impact wetland and riparian habitat, it will be required to convert developed and disturbed habitat at a higher ratio to riparian and wetland habitat. Policy N-49: "Focus efforts to reduce exposure to natural hazards on those areas where the greatest risks exist." 000302 syn 0091313 4 Policy N-50: "Implement public safety improvements, such as access roads and other infrastructure, in a manner that is sensitive to the environment." The comprehensive plan, under the Flood Hazards section, recognizes that further f!ood prone areas a!ong Matadero and Barton Creeks will be removed from FEMA maps with Matadero Creek improvements, such as the proposed project. SECTION 4.Site and Design Approval Granted. Site and Design Approval is granted for the project by the City Counci! under Palo Alto Municipa! Code Section 18.82.070, subject to the conditions of approva! in Section 8 of this Record. SECTION 5.Architectural Review Findings. i. The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan, in that: The Comprehensive Plan promotes reducing the risk of flooding in local creeks, including Matadero Creek and removes properties from the flood plain. The project proposes to meet Comprehensive Plan policy N-50, by: replacing impacts to wetland and riparian habitats at an increased ratio as required by regulating agencies; by replacing the removed non-native eucalyptus habitat with more native plantings; by extending the landscape screening element all around the Municipa! Service Center (MSC); by replacing !ower quality (ruderal) habitat with more native, wil!ow riparian habitat; and by conducting non-native species removal and native plantings to enhance existing willow riparian habitat near the project area. 2. The design is compatible environment of the site, in that: with the immediate Although the project is located in the Baylands, the proposed channe! is located between two existing f!ood levees and, by bending the alignment of the channel across the corner of the MSC, keeps this partia! concrete channel adjacent to the deve!oped MSC site and away from the majority of the riparian and wetland habitat in the Palo Alto Flood Basin. Habitat revegetation, landscape screening, and channel bed materials would reduce visual impacts of the project. 3. The design is appropriate to the function of the project, in that: 000302 syn 0091313 5 The flood control channel is designed such that excess flows from Matadero Creek during moderate to severe storm events wil! be captured and conveyed to the Palo Alto F!ood Basin thus reducing the backwater effect in the creek and improving the performance of city storm drains. The channel is partially concrete, partially earthen, and following a storm event the concrete portion wil! likely be covered with sediment and in part blend in with the surrounding environment. 5. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses, in tha t : The proposed channel is a mix of earthen and concrete channe! with new habitat vegetation and landscape screening, transitioning from the more natura! elements of the flood basin to the more developed MSC site. The project also extends landscaped screening around the MSC. 7. The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community, in that: The proposed project is a flood control channel between the existing Matadero Creek and the MSC site. The public view of the project is limited to two areas: from the recreational path/ parking area just north of the Matadero Creek/East Bayshore Road bridge and from the recreational pathway running a!ong East Bayshore Road. During construction these areas wil! be screened with fencing. Following construction, the area wil! be replanted with more native species, including the placement of some larger (15 gallon) trees. 8. The amount and arrangement of open space i s appropriate to the design and the function of the structures, in that : The. project includes new vegetation to replace the impacted riparian and wetland habitat areas at a 3:1 and 2:1 ratio respectively. The project also extends the landscape-screening element around the entire HSC. 9. Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and whether the same are compatible with the project’s design concept, in that: 000302 syn 0091313 The earthen edge of the channel will be planted with willows, providing important sediment removal during higher f!ows, soil erosion control and more natural transitioning from concrete portions of channel to adjacent riparian areas. The project also includes maintenance and monitoring agreements for the sediment removal, habitat maintenance, non-native species removal, and sediment transport modeling to ensure key elements of the project will be supported over time. ii. Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project, in that: The project augments an existing flood basin, improves an existing channel and over time improves wetland and riparian habitat areas. The project wil! remove both wetland and riparian habitat, and is required to replace them at a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio. The concrete channe! integrates earthen strips and adjacent willow plantings, and following a high water flow, sediment deposits wil! cover the concrete elements of the channe! bottom. The loss of the eucalyptus habitat, that provides screening for the MSC site, wil! be replaced with more native, riparian habitat and the screening element will be extended around the MSC site. 12. The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions, in tha t : The project is a flood control channel originally proposed as a wide (60’) entirely concrete Channel with concrete walls. The project has since evolved to be partially concrete and partially earthen (both sides and bottom). Integral co!or has also been added at the beginning of the project to the portion of the concrete channe! visible to the public. The project also includes landscaping that wil! extend around and further screen the MSC site. The landscaping, as well as other plantings wil! replace existing non-native species with more native ones to provide additional screening of the MSC and the channe! itself. The project will replace impacts to wetland and riparian habitats at an increased ratio, replacing ruderal (disturbed) habitat including areas within Byxbee Park with wetland and riparian habitat. As part of mitigation, the project will also conduct non-native species removal and native plant replacement from the existing Matadero Creek channel. 13. The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors createa desirable and functional 000302 syn 0091313 7 environment and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site, in that: The plantings wil! be primarily native plantings consistent with the adjacent riparian and wetland habitat. The plantings in the landscaped area will be a mix of native trees and shrubs and the plantings in the triangular shaped riparian mitigation area on-site wil! transition from !ower native shrubs to native trees a!ong the edges. 14. Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance, in that: The project removes invasive, non-native vegetation within the project area and in the existing channel, and replaces it with native vegetation. The project wil! also instal! and maintain the irrigation system necessary to establish the proposed plantings. The long-term natural character of the area will be enhanced through these native plantings. The project will also increase landscaping screening of the MSC site. Long term monitoring and maintenance will ensure improved native plant materia! and habitat. SECTION 6.Architectural Review Approval Granted. Architectura! Review Approva! is hereby granted for the Project by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 7.Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Mark Thomas & Company titled "Map and Construction Plan for Matadero Creek; Palo Alto F!ood Basin (PAFB) to Alma Street", consisting of 135 pages, dated Apri! i, 2003, revised May 16, 2003, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approva! in Section 8, and state and federal permits. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Public Works. The conditions of approval in Section 8 shal! be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. SECTION 8.Conditions of Approval. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the plans dated April i, 2003, revised May 16, 2003 and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan dated January 29, 2003 except as modified to 000302 syn 0091313 incorporate these conditions of approval. These conditions of approva! shall be printed on the cover sheet of the final plan set submitted prior to start of construction.The revised plans shal! include the following conditions. A.PLANNING o For the Applicant (SC~TV-D) to consider amending their proposed project mitigation plan by exploring the use of alternate sites and habitat types to mitigate the project-related loss of riparian habitat, including the use of out-of-kind (non- riparian) mitigation, and to coordinate with California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to request their approva! of such an alternate mitigation plan, with the goa! of reducing or eliminating the use of the proposed off-site mitigation site at 2027 East Bayshore Road, currently leased by the District to a family- owned business (Ciardella Garden Supply). [Planning & Transportation Commission] For the Applicant to explore the deve!opment of an interim habitat plan that would reduce project impacts by planting and establishing primarily on-site habitat areas prior to the planned removal of existing habitat areas within the project site. The scope of the interim habitat plan shal! not include the off-site mitigation site at 2027 East Bayshore Road. [Planning & Transportation Commission] For the Applicant to further explore alternative project designs that would utilize other channe! alignments and floodplain alternatives, including the Emily Renzel Marsh, in order to avoid remova! of existing riparian vegetation. [Planning & Transportation Commission] For the Applicant to add integral color to the concrete ramp at the start of the overf!ow channe! where it is visible to the public. [Architectural Review Board] For the Applicant to provide landscape screening for views from East Bayshore Road and Highway i01. [Architectura! Review Board] For the Applicant to continue to exp!ore alternative off-site mitigation, as indicated in Planning and Transportation Commission Recommendation #i, including the Stevens Creek site referenced in ARB public testimony on June 5, 2003. [Architectura! Review Board] The proposed project shall comply with all existing applicable 000302 syn 0091313 policies, programs and requirements, including the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 and the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). o Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall be responsible for submitting a Construction Management Plan to the Planning Division, which shall include, but is not limited to, an expected timeline for demolition and construction activities, and hours of construction. The Construction Plan shall include a traffic plan and safety plan for construction traffic crossing the pedestrian pathway a!ong East Bayshore Road. o A logistics plan shall be submitted for review by the City and shall include the fol!owing: staging area (shal! be precisely identified), and shall include areas for parking, temporary un!oading, storage, persona! services, and haul route. To minimize damage and encroachment on non-essential areas for construction, the truck and haul route shall be clearly identified on site with fencing, including areas of the levy that will not be graded out to Bayshore Road. The logistics plan shall specify which access to Highway i01 is preferred. !0. Ii. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit for Planning staff approva! samples and/or details of materials to be used in the project, including the designs of any signs to be posted on or near the construction site. The project is located in an environmentally sensitive area that provides habitat to several endangered species. This area is subject to the jurisdiction of several State and Federa! agencies. The Applicant shal! contact these agencies to determine their interest in the proposed project. Agencies of concern are as fol!ows: Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Army Corps of Engineers Regiona! Water Quality Contro! Board State Department of Fish and Game State Lands Commission Subsequent to State Department of Fish and Game approval, the applicant may substitute in equal habitat value an alternative off- site mitigation area other than the proposed 2027 East Bayshore Road. Evidence of Agency permits approval and corresponding permit conditions or correspondence indicating no agency interest shal! be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Departments. Permit 000302 syn 009 t 313 10 conditions from other agencies, such as the ones listed above shall be reviewed by the City of Palo Alto prior to the start of work and shall be considered as conditions of the proposed project. 12.Prior to the start of work, the applicant shall submit an Eradication & Revegetation Plan to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and City’s natura! resource consultant. This plan shall include methods of remova! (hand, mechanical, pesticide) for species and their location within the eradication area. As part of Eradication & Revegetation Plan, the applicant shal! identify methods of non-native removals including preferably pulling Cape Ivy and periwinkle by hand. Where necessary, manua! scraping of underground stems wil! be utilized. The plan shal! also include a primary contact for the Plan, monitoring and notification requirements to the City of Palo Alto when maintenance is to occur and annual reporting on the non-native removal and revegetation performed. Sediment, Maintenance, and Mitigation Area Monitoring 13.Prior to the start of work, the applicant shall provide up to $30,000 for the City to retain a natural resource consultant to cover the cost of ongoing (up to i0 year) project and mitigation monitoring necessary to ensure the success of both the project and its required mitigation. Required reports, as outlined in the required Maintenance and Monitoring Plan, shall be submitted by the District to and reviewed by the City and/or its consultant. If the City determines the conditions or peporting requirements have not been met, then the monitoring period and yearly progress report may be extended as required in writing by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. City staff and consultant time required for implementation and monitoring of the processing, construction, Mitigation Monitoring Program and yearly progress report review shal! be subject to cost recovery fees charged to the District. Prior to the start of construction, the District shall establish an account with the City Revenue Department and fund as necessary until the Final Progress Report is deemed acceptable. 14.Prior to the start of work, the applicant shall submit the approved Wetland Restoration Plan for the wetland mitigation area to the satisfaction of the City’s natura! resource and revegetation specialist consultants. 15.Prior to the start of work, the applicant shall submit a Maintenance and Monitoring Plan. This Plan shall be in addition to the submitted Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, 000302 syn 0091313 1! which followed the environmental review of the project. The Maintenance & Monitoring Plan shall cover a period of i0 years of the project’s implementation process, scheduling and reporting requirements of the required mitigation, maintenance, and project conditions of approvals for all project components including the landscaping, soil testing, wetland mitigation, non-native species removal, native plantings, vegetation replacement rates and time periods, existing channel monitoring and modeling, both on- and off- site riparian mitigation, and the proposed channel maintenance. To reduce the spread of non-natives in the project area, channel maintenance should occur in June and following a major storm event when possible. This Plan may reference other reports already produced, such as the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, but should at the very least present a schedule of al! elements of required maintenance and monitoring for up to i0 years. This report will include submitta! requirements to the City or its representative. This Plan shal! be submitted to the satisfaction of Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to the start of work. The schedule of submitta! requirements outlined in this document wil! become part of the project conditions. As part of the Project ~aintenance and Monitoring Plan referenced in Condition #15, the Applicant shall include an annua! survey with at least I0 cross sections of the existing Matadero Creek Channel and longitudina! survey of the existing channe! for up to i0 years, as well as schedule and reporting procedures for maintenance on the new channe! and report. Environmental Review and Conditions 17.At minimum the following dust control measures shall be implemented during project construction to reduce the impact of construction dust. More measures, as outlined in the construction management plan, may be necessary to contro! construction dust. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other !oose materials or require al! trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soi! stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil materia! is carried onto adjacent public streets. 000302 s>:n 0091313 12 18.Project personnel shal! be alerted to the possibility of encountering archaeologica! resources during construction and apprised of the proper procedures to follow in the event that archaeo!ogical resources or human remains are found. In the event of accidental discovery of human remains on the site, the Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office shall be notified immediately. The coroner wil! determine if the remains are those of a Native American, and if they are, shal! comply with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15064.5(e) . In the event that archaeological resources are discovered during grading or construction activities, all work shall cease within 150 feet of the find unti! it can be evaluated by a qualified, professional archaeologist. The archeo!ogist shall conduct independent review of the find, with authorization of and under direction of the City. Prompt evaluations should be made regarding the significance and importance of the finds and a course of action acceptable to al! concerned parties should be adopted. If mitigation is required, the first priority shal! be for avoidance and preservation of the resource. If avoidance is not feasible an alternative plan that may include excavation shal! be prepared. Al! archaeological excavation and monitoring activities shal! be conducted in accordance with prevailing professional standards as outlined in the State CEQA Guidelines and by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The Native American community shall be consulted on a!l aspects of the mitigation program. 19.Preconstruction bio!ogica! surveys, as indicated in the environmenta! review of the project and the January 29, 2003 Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, including Salt Marsh Harvest Mice, Nesting water birds, California red legged frog, among others. Copies of these surveys shall be provided to the City of Palo Alto or its designated representative. 20.The percent cover criteria for the riparian mitigation areas shal! be increased from 5% to 10% in Year 3 and from 15% to 20% in Year 5. The applicant shal! also monitor and report the percent of non-native, invasive species and during the monitoring period only al!owing 5-10% in the riparian mitigation areas. In the wetland mitigation area, the applicant shall also monitor and report the percent of non- native, invasive species and during the monitoring period only allowing 5-10% in the wetland mitigation area. 21.Prior to the start of work, the applicant shall submit the Soils Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The applicant shall comply with all related local and state hazardous materials 000302 syn 0091313 13 regulations and laws. Planning Arborist Prior to construction 22.The final Conditions of Approval for this application shall be included at the beginning of the plan set submitted to the City prior to the start of construction. 23. 24. Prior to construction, the applicant shall submit the Final Planting and Irrigation Plans to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and Director of Planning and Community Environment. At a minimum, the applicant shall provide for 15 gallon California Sycamores and Coast Live Oaks in the planting ~plans. The initia! selection, grown saplings and acceptance before planting shal! be inspected and approved in writing by the City Arborist or its Revegetation Consultant. The applicant shall also include a summary table with planting totals for each area (landscape, riparian mitigation, wetland mitigation). The Planting Plans shall also includesoil preparation, at a minimum providing tilling of any soil to be planted to a depth of 18 inches, hydro seeded soil shall be tilled to a i0 inch depth, and the City or its representative shall inspect the soi! for compaction, texture, and composition, making recommendations the applicant must implement to assure successful plantings. Prior to application the seed mix ratio shal! be tested, verified and approved by the City Arborist, or its representative and plans should indicate mulch type, depth and areas to be covered. 10% of the planting locations for trees shal! be tested for drainage prior to planting. Verification of mix purity and absence of foreign adverse and absence of foreign adverse seed shall be verified by an outside source approved by the District and City. Application method, any required amendments, takifier and mulch are to be disc!osed and approved by the City arborist or his representative. The applicant shall consider willow cuttings instead of fascines from stations 13+20 to 17+20. 25.On the south side of the MSC and at the wetland mitigation area, soi! samples shall be taken to test the salinity and nutrients of the soi! prior to plantings (at the fina! grade). The soi! test results of the samples at the south end could be compared to results from samples along the eastern side. If the south site is determined to be saline, California sycamore will likely not perform well in the planting areas along the MSC and willow scrub habitat dominated by arroyo wil!ow (Salix lasiolepis) and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) container 000302 syn 0091313 stock should be planted. Propagule (seeds and cuttings) collection could be performed downstream of East Bayshore Road in the Matadero Creek Watershed to be proximal to the saline conditions of the Baylands. This will serve to select for material that is more adapted to the saline conditions near the project site compared to vegetation growing further upstream of Highway !01. Vegetation and Tree Protection Zones 26.The applicant shall describe how areas to be preserved from construction impacts will be protected, where protection fencing wi!l be placed, where siltation barriers will be placed and indicate such on al! applicable plans as a bold dashed line. Temporary plantings for construction screening of the project shal! be reviewed and approved by the City arborist prior to placement. 27.A plan sheet titled: TREE AND VEGETATION PROTECTION shall accompany the plans submitted prior to the start of construction and referenced on all Civil drawings (Utility, Storm, Grading, Erosion, etc.); Demolition; Staging; Building; Landscape, Planting and Irrigation Plans. The Tree and Vegetation Protection sheet shal! also contain the arborist report. For the trees near the project area that wil! remain (30 trees), this sheet shall clearly show tree protection zone, indicating where protection (fencing, etc.) wil! be placed as a bold dashed line and denote all trees to be retained and those to be removed. 28.Inspection Schedule. For trees and vegetation to be protected during construction, all inspections outlined in .the Eity Tree Technical Manua!, Section 2.30, shall be performed as required.The Inspection Schedule Table shall be printed on the final set of plans submitted prior to the start of construction. During Construction: 29.Biologist Inspection Report. The City’s project Natural Resource Consultant shal! perform a site inspection to monitor tree and vegetation condition on a minimum of two-week intervals. The City shall be in receipt of the inspection report during the first week of each month unti! completion at fax # (650) 329-2154. 30. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or 000302 syn 00913 t3 15 31. replacement of any trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The following tree preservation measures apply to all areas outside of the work area a o No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted outside the enclosure area. The ground under and around the enclosure area shall not be altered. Prior to Project Completion 32.Landscape Architect Inspection. The contractor shall call for an inspection by the Landscape Architect, and provide written verification to the Planning Department that al! trees; shrubs, planting and irrigation are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. Post Construction 33. 34. 35. Maintenance. For the life of the project, all landscape shall be wel! maintained, watered as required, fertilized as necessary and pruned as required. Groundcover, shrubs and hydroseed grassland area shall maintain an 80 percent cover rate. Trees shall be maintained at 100-percent of new trees planted. Any trees or vegetation that dies shal! be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the SC~$D within 30 days of discovery. Weed contro!. During the 10-year monitoring period, invasive weed shall be pulled during the optimum seaso8 (spring) annually. Landscaping as screening and related irrigation facilities are to be maintained for the life of the project by the District. 37. All trees shall be pruned for structure two years after planting according to the current edition of Best Management Practices--Tree Pruning as developed by the Internationa! Society of Arboriculture. Trees shal! be pruned every four years thereafter until the 10-year monitoring period has ended and the fina! monitoring report has verified that District obligations have been met. The Mitigation and Monitoring Program and the Haintenance and Honitoring Plan related reporting requirements, encompassing 000302 syn 0091313 16 38. al! planted areas (trees, landscaping, landscaping, wetland areas, riparian areas) shal! be provided to the City annually for i0 years. The Progress Report shall be submitted by the District to and reviewed by the City and/or consultant. If, after a Final Progress Report is submitted, City determines the conditions have not been met, then the monitoring period and yearly progress report may be extended as required in writing by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Cost Recovery. (On-going throughout Processing, Construction and Mitigation Monitoring). City staff and consultant time required for implementation and monitoring of the processing, construction, Mitigation Monitoring Program and yearly progress report review shal! be subject to cost recovery fees charged to the District. Prior to the start of construction, the District shall establish an account with the City Revenue Department and fund as necessary until the Fina! Progress Report is deemed acceptable. B.PUBLIC WORKS AIqD UTILITIES 39.The applicant shall, prior to construction, obtain all easements, including a temporary easement for replacing the transformer storage pad and approvals from the City of Palo Alto necessary to complete the construction of the entire project and its mitigation. 40.The applicant shall invite City staff to attend the pre- construction meeting with the project contractor in order to discuss project schedule and logistics. Please notify Joe Teresi at (650) 329-2129 regarding the time and location of the meeting once it has been scheduled. 41.The applicant shall, prior to tree removal or construction, meet with City representatives for the Municipa! Service Center (MSC) and Public Works to coordinate any temporary access required during construction and temporary closing of parking spaces on the MSC site necessary for tree removal. 42.Prior to the start of work, the applicant’s contractor shall obtain a City of Palo Alto Encroachment Permit for placement of temporary construction office trailers adjacent to the Colorado Storm Water Pump Station on West Bayshore Road. 43.Prior to the start of work, the applicant’s contractor shall submit a certificate of insurance acceptable to the City’s Risk Manager naming the City of Palo Alto as an additional insured party. 000302 s) n 0091313 17 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. Prior to the start of work, the applicant’s contractor shall obtain a City of Palo Alto Street Work Permit from the Public Works Department for all work within the public right-of-way. The contractor shal! comply with the terms of the Street Work Permit for the duration of the project. The applicant shall be responsible for the identification, location, and protection of al! utilities within the project work area. The applicant’s contractor shall contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 227-2600 at least five working days in advance of starting excavation to provide for marking of underground utilities. The applicant’s contractor shall notify the City’s Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to the start of work. All work within the public right-of-way shall conform to the City of Palo Alto Standard Drawings and Specifications and shal! be subject to inspection and approva! by the Public Works Inspector. The applicant’s contractor shall notify the Water-Gas- Wastewater Utilities Inspector at (650) 566-4504 at least five working days before start of construction. The applicant shal! provide protection for utility lines subject to damage. Utility lines within a pit or trench shal! be adequately supported. The WGW Utilities Inspector shal! inspect al! exposed water, gas, and sewer lines prior to backfilling. All work on water, gas, and/or wastewater utilities shall conform to the City of Palo Alto Utility Standards and shall be subject to inspection and approva! by the Water-Gas-Wastewater Utilities Inspector. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all Water-Gas-Wastewater Utilities engineering and inspection costs related to the project. The applicant’s contractor shall not operate or disconnect any valves or other facilities owned by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. Only authorized Utilities Department personnel shall perform any required valve operation or utility disconnection. The applicant’s contractor shal! notify the Utilities Department not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the time that such operation or disconnection is required. The applicant’s contractor shall immediately notify the Utilities Department at (650) 496-6982 or (650) 329-2413 if existing water or gas mains are disturbed or damaged. 000302 syn 0091313 18 50.The applicant’s contractor shall conform to the City’s Truck Route Regulations (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 10.48 at al! times during construction of the project. 51.The applicant’s contractor shall conform to the City’s Noise Ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10) at all times during construction of the project. Construction hours shal! be posted on site and within public view. 52.The applicant shal! require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris or other waste materials into gutters,storm drains, or creeks. (Palo Alto Municipa! Code 16.09) 53. 54. 55. The applicant’s contractor shall be required to periodically apply water to exposed dirt surfaces, as necessary to contro! dust during construction. The applicant’s contractor shall remove spillage resulting from construction material hauling operations a!ong or across any public street immediately. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approva! of Public Works Engineering. The applicant’s contractor shall complete the replacement construction of the Municipa! Service Center (MSC) transformer storage pad and coordinate with City Utilities Department and City Public Works staff to re!ocate the existing transformers and transformer pad prior to start of construction of the portion of the bypass channel across the northeast corner of the MSC. A temporary easement for construction will be required and must be obtained prior to construction. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. The applicant’s contractor shal! be responsible for maintaining the integrity of Municipa! Service Center security fencing (including existing fencing, approved temporary fencing, and/or replacement fencing) adjacent to the work zone throughout the duration of the project. At the conclusion of the project, applicant shall provide a compact disc (CD) containing digita! as-built record drawings of all improvements constructed in the public right-of-way, easements or property in which the City owns an interest. All files should be delivered in Auto Cad .dwg format. Plans 000302 syn 0091313 19 57. 58. 59. shall be prepared using the California Plane Coordinate System North American Datum 1983 for Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD 1927 for vertical controls. For each CD delivery, a simple digita! text file shall accompany the drawing files. This metadata file wi!l include the date of the file, the coordinates used, the source of the data, the company name and contact information, along with the name of the technician who prepared them. SWPPP - The applicant must prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) . The SWPPP should include permanent, post development project design features as well as temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water pollution. Specific Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that apply to the work should be incorporated into the design. Applicant is advised that the erosion control plan in the current plan submittal is sufficient to meet the requirement for temporary measures under current regulations. The Applicant should contact Public Works for method of labeling the permanent SWPPP areas consistent with other projects in Palo Alto. SWPPP - The City Standard "Best Management Practices" plan sheet titled Pollution Prevention-It’s Part of the Plan shall be included in the approved development plan set. Impervious Area Calculations - The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the project site. The applicant shal! provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area prior to the start of construction. A standard worksheet for the impervious area calculations is available from Public Works Engineering. The completed worksheet shall be accompanied by a marked up site drawing: The drawing should identify the permeable and impermeable areas of the entire project site with appropriate area summations to support the entries made on the completed worksheet. SECTION 9.Term of Approval. i. Site and Design Approva!. In the event actua! construction of the project is not commenced within two years of the date of counci! approva!, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipa! Code Section 18.82.080. 2. Architectural Review Approval. The approval shall be valid for one year from the original date of approval. 000302 syn 0091313 2O PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Director of Planning and Community Environment Senior Asst. City Attorney PLP~S AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by Hark Thomas & Company for the Santa Clara Valley Water District titled "Map and Construction Plan for Matadero Creek; Palo Alto Flood Basin (PAFB) to Alma Street", consisting of 36pages, dated April 1,2003 (revised May 16, 2003). Those plans prepared by Sugimura & Associates titled "Construction of Irrigation & Planting for Matadero Creek; Balo Alto F!ood Basin to Alma Street, Reach i", consisting of 23 pages, dated June 12, 2003, and received June 18, 2003. Site Plan prepared by Hark Thomas & Company for the Santa Clara Valley Water District titled "Matadero Creek PAFB to Highway i01 Site Plan", consisting of 1 page, dated Hay 28, 2003. 000302 syn 0091313 21 ATTACHMENT C RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CO~CIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 3201 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD; ~ATADERO CREEK LONG-TERM REMED!ATiON PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Counci!") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. The Santa Clara Valley Water District ("Applicant~)for the site and design review for the installation of an overflow bypass channel for the !ower portion of Matadero Creek downstream of East Bayshore Road to increase f!ood capacity and protection and convey a 100-year (1%) flood event flow. The flood control project branches off the existing Matadero Creek channel just east of Highway i01 and adjacent to the Palo Alto Municipal Services Center (MSC) to the Palo Alto F!ood Basin (PAFB). It includes the construction of a 55-60 foot wide, 1200 feet long, high-flow flood control bypass channel for Hatadero Creek !ocated downstream (east) of U.S. Highway i01 adjacent to the City of Palo Alto Municipa! Services Center (MSC). The project includes the installation of the bypass channel, related levee adjustments, wetland and riparian mitigation areas, the installation of a floodwall surrounding the Municipa! Services Center, and landscaping. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (hereinafter "CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq., an Environmental Impact Report, ("EIR"), was prepared by the Applicant to evaluate anticipated environmental impacts resulting from changes in land use as a result of the implementation of the Project. The Final EIR is on file in the offices of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, along with the records, minutes and files constituting the enviroN_menta! review record of proceedings. C. The draft EIR was offered by the Applicant for public review and comment beginning on October 16, 2001, and ending on December 4, 2001, and the Applicant received written and ora! communications during the public review period. The Applicant responded to these comments in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, and the comments and responses have been included in the Fina! EIR. 030709 sm 0091312 D. The SCV-WD Board held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on November 20, 2001. The Board found the draft EIR provided an adequate project description, identified and analyzed each potential significant environmental impact and proposed feasible mitigation measures, described and evaluated a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project and its proposed location, including those specific alternatives required by CEQA, and recommended preparation of Final EIR based upon the draft EIR reviewed by them. Alternatives to the proposed project included in the Draft and Final EIR included a "no project" alternative, underground bypass alternative, channe! modification alternative, off-stream storage alternative, channel restoration alternative, and expanded floodway alternative. The environmentally superior alternative, the underground by!pass channel, was not selected because of impacts to East Bayshore Road and underground utilities, the limited space available to meet the necessary hydraulic design, the difficulty of !ong-term maintenance, the fact that impacts to habitat are reduced, but not eliminated under this alternative, and the overall cost of this alternative. The final EIR, which included responses to the comments received on the draft EIR, was made available to the public on November 21, 2002. The fina! EIR and was filed with Santa Clara County on December 4, 2002. District staff conducted several public meetings during the EIR process to identify additional issues of public concern. These meetings were held on June i0, 1999; September 22, 1999; and February 17, 2000. Several project updates have been mailed to residents and businesses in the project area throughout the life of the Project. Project information has been made available at the District’s Web site (http://%es~.scvwd.dst.ca.us). E. The SCVWD Board certified the Final EIR on December 3, 2002. As part of the accompanying resolution, the Board also approved a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ("HHP") pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. The MMP is designed to ensure compliance with project changes and mitigation imposed to avoid or substantially reduce the environmental effects identified in the final EIR. SECTION 2. Certification. As a "Responsible Agency~ the City Council hereby finds, declares, and certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the CEQA. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Project, and al! other matters deemed material and relevant before considering the Project for approva!. The City Counci! hereby finds the following: A. That the Draft and Final EIR prepared by the Applicant and reflect the independent review and judgment of the Applicant as Lead Agency. 030709 sm 0091312 B. That the E!R has been prepared in compliance with the CEQA. There is no significant new information that would support a conclusion that the EIR should be re-circulated pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. SECTION 3. Significant Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated To A Less Than Significant Level. The City Council finds that the EIR certified by the SCVWD Board identified potentially significant environmental effects of the Project with regard to land use, geo!ogy and soils; vegetation and wildlife; water quality; hazardous materials; public services and utilities; visual and aesthetic resources, and short-term traffic and noise conditions during construction. Mitigation measures were identified which eliminate or substantially reduced each of these impacts. The City Council finds that, in response to each significant effect listed in this Section 3, all feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmenta! effects identified in the Final EIR as summarized below. Each of the mitigation measures summarized below is more fully described in the EIR. A. Land Use. Potentially significant impacts were identified for the construction activities that could result in significant physical disturbance, and could cause temporary disruption. The District wil! implement a Construction Management Plan to minimize impacts on the surrounding area to the fullest extent possible. The Construction Management Plan will include information regarding construction activities, and BMPs to control dust, noise, and water pollution impacts, as wel! as contact information during construction. B. Geology and Soils. Potentially significant impacts were identified for the Project because it is located in an area of expansive soils and potentially unstable channe! slopes. The District wil! include BMBs and mitigation including fol!owing the recommendations of the geotechnical investigations that have identified sufficient site and soil characteristics to support a specific project design that will reduce potential hazards; slabs on grade wil! have sufficient reinforcement and be supported on a layer of non-expansive fill; foundations of proposed improvements will also be placed below the depth of seasonal moisture fluctuation; the bypass channe! structures will be constructed in accordance with appropriate governing building codes and FEMA standards to withstand loadings from earthquake, flood flows and earth pressure. C. Biological Resources. The potentially significant biologica! impacts of the Project include that the project or its 030709 sm 0091312 construction will result in the loss of wetland and riparian habitat, and could impact sensitive species occupying the project site, including Steelhead Rainbow Trout and Fall-run Chinook salmon, California red-legged frogs, nesting raptors, Burrowing Owls, nesting waterbirds, nesting swallows, nesting salt marsh Common Yellowthroats and Alameda Song Sparrows, salt marsh harvest mice, and salt marsh wandering shrews. The District, as part of the Project, will include the following mitigation: create at least 0.22 acres (replacement ratio of 2:1) of new wetland habitat on the project site to replace the impacted wetlands -create at least 2.46 acres (replacement ratio of 3:1) of new riparian habitat both on and off site to replace impacted wil!ow riparian habitat -limit construction to the dry season -take measures to ensure that water quality is not impacted during construction take measures to ensure that all species will have unimpeded access to the creek both upstream and downstream of the construction area immediately prior to construction, conduct biologica! surveys as indicated in the EIR for species within or near the immediate impact site including for Salt Marsh Harvest Mice, Nesting waterbirds, California red legged frog, among others. If frogs are not found on site during pre-construction surveys, all vegetation within the impact area will be completely removed prior to construction. If frogs are found on site during pre-construction surveys, the District will establish a buffer zone or move the frog(s) in conformance with permit requirements of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"). Construction wil! be scheduled to avoid the nesting season, and will take place outside the breeding season when feasible. Pre-construction surveys wil! be conducted by a qualified ornithologist prior to any soi! altering activities and no more than 15 days prior to construction. The surveys will ensure that no active raptor nests wil! be disturbed during project construction. If Burrowing Owls are present and avoidance is not feasible, the Owls will be removed with the authorization of the CDFG. if nesting waterbirds are found, a construction buffer around the active nest will be established. Old nests in the construction area wil! be removed before the swal!ow co!ony returns to the nesting site. If necessary, a permit will be obtained from USFWS to remove or destroy nests. Any eggs removed from the nests will require incubation by an approved wildlife rescue group. If Common Yellowthroat or Song Sparrow nests are found, a construction buffer around the active nest will be established. Within i0 days prior to initiation of construction, al! pickleweed in the construction area will be removed by hand. 030709 sm 0091312 Remaining pickleweed habitat will be avoided during construction and a qualified biologist wil! be on hand to monitor the area and rescue any smal! mammals found in the area during construction. All impacted pickleweed habitat wil! be replanted immediately following construction. Tree protection measures are included in the project conditions of approval #22 - 38. These measures include the protection of the existing and adjacent trees on and near the site during construction and fol!owing construction. Inspections will occur during and fol!owing plantings. Construction and Tree Protection mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that trees on site and adjacent to the site are protected during construction activities. D. Water Quality. The potentially significant water quality impacts of the Project were identified as the construction of the project could impact the water quality of Matadero Creek. The District identified mitigation measures, including construction of the channel only occurring in the dry season; a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan wil! be implemented; Erosion controls methods wil! be used, as appropriate, during construction to control sediment; and after construction, the District wil! stabilize and/or revegetate the disturbed areas of the creek channel. E. Hazardous Materials.The potentially significant impact of the Project for hazardous materials is that the construction of the proposed Project could expose construction workers and nearby land uses to risk if breaks occur in electric transmission lines and/or other utility facilities. Contaminated soi! and groundwater within and adjacent to the channe! near the MSC site could be encountered during project construction and released into the proposed channe! or PAFB. To mitigate for this potential impact, the District wil! identify the exact !ocation of electric transmission and utility lines in the project area prior to construction. Buffers wil! be established around all utility lines prior to construction and wi!l be in effect until construction is complete. Breaks in unidentified utility lines wil! be repaired immediately by the responsible party. Prior to construction, the extent of any soi! and groundwater contamination wil! be determined. A Health and Safety Plan and a Soi! Management Plan shall be prepared that will identify protocols for working in contaminated areas. Any contaminated soi! or groundwater encountered during construction will be disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulations and requirements. F. Construction-Related Impacts on Noise.The potentially significant impacts of the Project during construction include temporary noise levels higher than existing levels. Construction activities wi!l be conducted in accordance with all 030709 srn 0091312 City Noise Ordinances. The contractor wil! be required to use ~’new technology" power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. All internal combustion engines used on the project site will be equipped with adequate mufflers and properly maintained. G. Cumulative Impacts. For the reasons stated in the EIR, the Project was not found to result in cumulatively considerable impacts when considered in combination with past, current, and probable future projects. H. Project Maintenance.The Project will include a maintenance program that includes erosion protection, vegetation management, and sediment remova!. The goals of the maintenance program include restoring the facilities to the "as built" condition that wil! exist fol!owing construction, repairing the facility as necessary, and eliminating hazardous conditions. The hazardous conditions include eroding banks, presence of large dead or fallen trees, and excessive trash and debris. The general tasks to be performed under a routine maintenance program include fencing repairs, trash and debris removal, weed control, and elimination of potentially hazardous conditions. Annual inspection and periodic removal of sediment and woody vegetation in the waterway, as well as restoration of abraded concrete structures, wil! also be necessary. Vegetation and sediment will be al!owed to accumulate to a predefined leve!, at which time the "as built" condition wil! be restored by maintenance activities. The vegetation wil! provide additiona! habitat value and shading between maintenance cycles. The maintenance activities will follow standard BMPs designed to avoid any substantial adverse impacts on water quality or other biological resources. Other maintenance activities not currently conducted may be included, but those activities wil! also be conducted using BMPs. The existing, ongoing maintenance activities in the areas affected by the Project are also the subject of the District’s mu!tiyear stream maintenance program ("SMP"), for which an EIR has been prepared. The SMP and accompanying EIR have evaluated the impacts of ongoing maintenance activities and will provide mitigation as appropriate. SECTION 4. No Significant Impacts Which Cannot Be Fully Mitigated. The City Counci! finds, as the Final EIR concluded that the Project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts. The project would have potentia! significant impacts in Land Use, Soils, Vegetation, Wildlife, Water Quality, Hazardous materials, and Aesthetics. However, the project includes mitigation that would reduce these impacts to less than significant leve!. The project would also have short-term construction related impacts, such as noise, that would also be mitigated through a Construction Management Plan to less than significant leve!. 030709 sm 0091312 SECTION 5. Impacts Found Not To Be Significant. The City finds that the Final EIR neither expressly identifies, nor contains any substantia! evidence identifying significant environmenta! effects of the Project with respect to any of the environmental impacts dismissed through the scoping process. The proposed project would not have any impacts on Agricultural Resources, Energy, Mineral Resources, Recreation, Population and Housing, Public Services, Air Quality and Noise. SECT!ON 6.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. With the City Council certification of the adequacy of the Final EIR for the downstream portion of the Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project, it also, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines 15097, adopts the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Report (attached). SECTION 7. Substantial evidence supporting each and every finding made herein is contained in the Fina! EIR including amendments, revisions and records of proceedings. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 030709 sm 009 t 312 7 ATTACHMENT D ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF PALO ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS OF SANTA CLAkA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR A FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL IN BYKBEE PARK FOR H~TADERO CREEK REMED!ATION PROJECT The Council of the City o{ Pa!o Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION !. Findings and Declaration. find< and declares as :o±=ows: The City Council (a) Article VIII of the Chapter of the City of Pa!o A!to and Section 22.08.005 of the Pa!o Alto Municipal Code require that, before any substantia! building, construction, reconstruction or development is commenced or approved, upon or with respect to any land held by the City for park purpose, the Council shall {irst cause to be prepared and by ordinance approve and adopt a plan therefore. xn~ Cit~ desires to a~rove and adoDt a ~!an of c._e Santa C~ara Valley Water Distr~ct (SCVWD) for construction o~~ood control improvements ~n ......y-~o~ i~..... ~onn Y!etcner B~,x~see ~k, the vicinity of the City of Pato A!to Hunicipa! Services Center (HSC) . This project ~s the downstream portion (Pa!o A!to Flood Ba~n to East Bayshore Road) of ~~.~e larger Hatadero/Barron Creeks LOnG-Term ’~ = ~ation ProjectR~m~d_±~< portion __om East Bayshore Road to Alma Street {s currently under construction. ~o~._ portions are needed to meet !00-year flow level and following construction of both, SCVWD can then apply to FEHA to have flooding c!ass{{ications changed. A map of the area delineating boundaries of Byxbee Park and the flood control channel is attached as Attachment A. (c) The City Council further finds that SCVWD prepared an Engineers’ Report and an Environmental impact Report (EiR) for this project, and the documents have been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the provisions of Section 15311 of Title 14 of the California Code of regulations, respectively. (d) The City Council further {{nds that the flood control ........... cha~ne~, between 55 and 60 feet in width ""~w~n _~artia! cast-in-~!ace and ~artia]_ earthen invert and wa__~,- ~]< is the preferred alternative proposed in the projec: EiR necessary to alleviate flood damages to residents and properties of the City. As a ~=su!t of the flood protection, provided by ~.~s project, 030709 sm 0053067 approximately 4,700 properties wil! be removed from the floodplain and 450 properties wil! no longer be required to purchase flood insurance. Following the construction of the flood control improvements, the estimated damage in the event of a !00-year flood will be reduced from $303 million to $183 million mostly as a result of insufficient capacity of local storm drains. Within Byxbee Park, the proposed project includes three areas with alterations along the east and south sides of the MSC site. Along the east side of the MSC the existing access road will be replaced in part with a par<iaiiy concrete, partially earthen flood control channel. On the east side of the channel and near its outlet, the project is proposing to replace rudera! habitat with riparian and wetland habitat as part of their required mitigation for wetland and riparian habitat impacts. Lastly, along the south and southeast edge of the MSC, between the MSC fence and the gated access road/levee a landscaping strip and irrigation will be added. (e)The City Council further finds that although the ~~a~_~=~(0 ~acre)project’~ impacts ~o wetland ~ ’~+and riparian <’ ~’ ’Park,of!oc=~e within Byxbee some~a~a~ (0.66 acre) are not - ~" ’ _ - the required mitigation (0.28 acre wetland habitat and 2.46 acres riparian) for these impacts will be provided on-site including in the park and improve existing rudera! habitat within the park with rimari an and wetland p!antin~s, as shown in Figure :~ of ~-~e Mit’~g~on~ and Monitoring r~_.~’-n dated Januarv~ _79, 2003.As part of the permitting process, the Applicant will be required to create = wetland and riparian habitat restoration p!an, which upon approval from the jurisdictiona! agency wil! be considered as part of the project. (f) The City Council further finds that the proposed project includes elements that are beneficial to the park land including utilizing the Pa!o Alto Flood Basin (PAFB) portion of Byxbee Park for excess flood capacity, increasing both wetland and riparian habitat quantity and quality in the park area, inhibiting some spread of non-native vegetation into the park, and by providing additional screening for the deve!oped HSC site located adjacent to Byxbee Park. SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the p!an of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) for construction of flood control improvements in John Fletcher Byxbee Park, in the vicinity of the City of Pa!o Alto Municipal Services Center , ___~achment B and in(MSC) as described herein and demicted in ~ Record o~ Counci! Land Use Approval 2003- 030709 sm 0053067 2 SECTION 3. The lead agency for this project is SCVWD. The City o{ Pa!o Alto as a responsible agency for the project has made the requisite findings pursuant to tEQA in a Resolution No. of the Counci! of the City of Pa!o Alto Certifying the _ _.’’~__e 3201Adequacy of ~ne Fina! Environmenta! impact Report for ~h _ East Bavshore Road; Matadero Creek T ~ ~-~_ ~ong-~_m Remediation Project Pursuant to u~.e California Rnv{ronmen%a] Quality Act, which was adopted on July 14, 2003. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day ..... the date of its adoption INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ,~TTEST: City APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor City Attorney City Manager Director of Community Services Director of Planning & Com_munity Environment 030709 sm 0053067 3 ATTACHMENT A Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Plan for the portions of the proposed project within the Palo Alto Flood Basin part of designated Byxbee Park Area covered by Park Improvement Ordinance includes portions of the proposed project from Stations 1+66 to 17+20, as shown on approved plan set dated April 1, 2003 (revised May 16, 2003) and include the following: 1) Landscaping: From Station 1+66 to station 9+70 along the south and southeast edge of the MSC, add native landscaping strip and related irrigation as additional screening element. This strip is away from the project construction area, but adds an additional screening element to the MSC site. Another landscaping strip, on the exterior of the access road/levee extends from Station 8+48 to approximately station 12+84. The interior landscaping beNns again at Station 11+64 and continues for the rest of the project (past 17+20). The landscaping strips include native plantings such as California Sycamores, California Buckeyes, Blue Elderberry and Black Sage). The new landscaping replaces areas along the access road that are not planted or have a mix of native and normative plantings. 2) Channel: From Stations 8+48 to 17+20, along the east side of the MSC, the existing access road will be replaced with a partially concrete, partially earthen flood control channel. From 8+48 to the channel outlet at 12+84 the project will relocate the existing access road/levee closer to the MSC to allow for access to the outlet of the channel by a concrete maintenance vehicle ramp running from approximatelyl 1+64 to 12+84. The existing levee/access road area will be re~aded to 7% or flatter and hydroseeded with native grasses. Additionally, the construction of the concrete floodwall begins at approximately Station 10+02 and continues beyond the project area covered under the Park Improvement Ordinance. From 12+84 (the outlet) to 17+20 (approximate end of Park Improvement Ordinance Area) and beyond the channel is partially concrete and partially earthen. 3) Habitat Mitigation areas: The proposed project also includes a small mitigation area on the east side of the channel. Near the channel outlet the applicant is proposing to replace existing ruderal habitat with riparian and wetland habitat as part of their required mitigation for wetland and riparian habitat impacts. Wetland plantings will occur in a 0.28-acre area located from approximately Station 10+04 to the outlet of the channel. Riparian (willow) plantings will occur at the outlet of the channel and continue along the exterior of the channel, as shown on the Planting Plans. These improvements are beneficial to the park land by utilizing a portion of the park that is Palo Alto Flood Basin (PAFB) for excess flood capacity, increasing both wetland and riparian habitat quantity and quality in the park area, inhibiting the further spread of non- native vegetation into the park, and by providing additional screening for the developed MSC site located adjacent to B3~bee Park. ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT E PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT 2 TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM:Susan Ondik, Planner DEPARTMENT:Planning DATE: SUBJECT: April 9, _00_~ Matadero Creek Long-Term Remediation Project [02-D-07, 02- ARB-70]: Request by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) for Site and Design review for the installation of an overflow bypass channel for the lower portion of Matadero Creek downstream of East Bayshore Road to increase flood capacity and protection and convey a 100-year (1%) flood event flow. Zoning: Public Facility with Site and Design overlay PF(D). Environmental Review: Environmental Impact Report prepared and certified by SCVWD Board. RECOMMENDATION Staff recon~nends that the Planning and Transportation Commission: Recommend the City Council: a. Adopt findings for this project from the Final Environmental Impact Report certified by the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board. b. Approve an amendment to the Baylands Master Plan and adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance, for the portion of the Santa Clara Valley Water District flood control channel in Byxbee Park. c. Approve the preliminary Site and Design for the proposed Matadero Creek flood control improvements based on. the findings in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.060 d. Grant the requested easements in and around the Municipal Services Center (MSC) to the District in order to allow the construction of the proposed Matadero Creek bypass channel. In exchange, the District City of Palo Alto Page 1 will grant an easement to the City for a future storm water pump station consistent with the City’s adopted Storm Drain Master Plan along San Francisquito Creek and will design and construct an extension of the MSC transformer storage pad to compensate for the portion of the pad to be removed for the bypass channel alignment. 2.Forward the Site & Design application to the Architectural Review Board for review of detailed plans. With recommendation for approval the review of the Site and Design will be forwarded to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.055, then to City, Council for final action. BACKGROUND The proposed project, shown in the attached site plan (Attachment A), is the downstream portion of the comprehensive SCVWD Matadero/Barron Creeks flood control project branching off the existing Matadero Creek channel just east of Highway 101 and adjacent to the Pato Alto Municipal Services Center (MSC) to the Palo Alto Flood Basin (PAFB), It includes the construction of a 55-60 foot wide, 1200 feet long, high-flow flood control bypass channel for Matadero Creek located downstream (east) of U.S. Highway 101 adjacent to the City of Palo Alto Municipal Services Center (MSC). The project includes the installation of the bypass channel, related levee adjustments, wetland and riparian mitigation areas the installation of a floodwall surrounding the Municipal Services Center, and landscaping. The proposed flood control channel will capture excess flow from Matadero Creek during moderate to severe storm events and will convey it to the Palo Alto Flood Basin. thus reducing the backwater effect in the creek and improving the performance of city storm drains. The improvements will reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of flooding in Matadero and Bah’on Creeks between Middlefietd Road and San Francisco Bay. While the project provides protection for a 1% (100-year) flood event, it will not effect tidal flooding which affects the channel area from the Bay to approximately Middlefield Road. The project will benefit, but not eliminate local storm drain backups, except in areas where the bridge constrictions are removed and flood peaks allowed to pass more quickly. The configuration of the Matadero Creek channel will not be altered as part of the flood control project, but mitigation for the project will include normative vegetation removal and native plantings along the existing creek channel. The Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project arose from a 1999 engineering planning study that examined ways to bring flood protection for Matadero and Barron Creeks up to FEMA standards. The Remediation Project for the Creek includes improvements both upstream and downstream from Highway 101, extending in City of Palo Alto Page 2 total 1.5 miles from the Palo Alto Flood Basin to Alma Street. The Council heard project alternatives identified in the 1999 engineers study in a February 2000 status report presentation. Environmental review and project design proceeded over the following two years. The SCVWD Board certified the EIR and approved the project in December 2002. In February 2.003 after undergoing staff-level architectural review, the City approved with conditions the upstream portion of the Matadero Creek improvements, including Louis Road bridge replacement and heightened floodwalls and headwalls between Highway 101 and Alma Street. The proposed project is discussed in the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as the "Expanded Floodway Alternative". It is also referenced in some impact sections as the portion of the project "Downstream of Highway 101". The proposed project was not the environmentally preferred alternative identified in the FEIR. The underground bypass alternative, identified as the environmentally superior alternative in the EIR, was not selected because of impacts to East Bayshore Road and underground utilities, the limited space available to meet the necessary hydraulic design, the difficulty of long-term maintenance, the fact that impacts to habitat are reduced, but not eliminated under this alternative, and the overall cost of this alternative. DISCUSSION The primary benefit of this project is to increase the capacity of Matadero Creek to achieve the SCVWD’s and FEMA’s goal of 100-year (1%) flood protection [’or local residents and businesses. The project, by increasing the efficiency of flow in Matadero Creek, also reduces the risk of flooding and potential flooding damage from Matadero and Ban-on Creeks between Middlefield Road and San Francisco Bay. The project would protect, as shown in the attached map, approximately 4,700 properties from creek flooding, and 450 properties of those properties will no longer be required to purchase this type of flood insurance. The remaining properties will still be required to purchase flood insurance because they are also subject to tida! flooding. Additionally, SCVWD staff estimates the potential savings from reduced flood damages at $180 million. The Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment Element includes policies and programs to minimize the exposure to natural hazards, including flooding (Policy N-49). Policy N-50 directs the city to implement safety improvements in an environmentally sensitive manner. The comprehensive plan, under the Flood Hazards section, includes that further flood prone areas along Matadero and Barron Creeks will be removed from FEMA maps with Matadero Creek improvements. The Baylands Master Plan, prepared in 1978 and amended in 1987, indicates a portion of the project is within Byxbee Park. The proposed bypass channel would be a permitted use for the Public Facilities District with Site and Design overlay PF(D). The projects purpose is to reduce the flood damage City of Palo Alto Page 3 potential of Matadero Creek. The proposed bypass channel branches off the existing Matadero Creek channel just downstream of Highway 101 and East Bayshore Road and is located primarily within a Santa Clara Valley Water District easement. A portion of the bypass channel is located on the City of Palo Alto MSC property. The proposed’ project will provide for needed floodwater attenuation in the downstream reach of Matadero Creek. The development of the overflow channel consists of three main elements: 1) new flood control channel, wal! and landscaping, 2) onsite mitigation for impacts to wetland and riparian habitat, and 3) offsite mitigation for impacts to riparian habitat. New Flood Control Channel. Wall and Landscaping This element consists of the construction of the new Flood Control Bypass Channel with concrete and earthen bottom, walls and berms with areas for landscaping and vegetation. The bottom of the channel (55’-60’) will consist partially of concrete (-30 feet wide) and approximately 25 feet wide of earthen bottom as indicated in the attached map and cross sections (Attachment A). The channel includes, in addition to the 30’ wide concrete portion, two concrete vehicle turnouts, needed to allow maintenance trucks into the channel for vegetation trirnming and sediment removal. The MSC side of the channel will include a concrete knee wall, earth slope and floodwall, and the side near the flood basin will be earthen with willow plantings. The proposed project will install a floodwalt around the MSC. The project will also relocate a portion of the chain link fence on perimeter of the MSC site replacing it with the proposed floodwall topped with a chain link fence. The existing access road, which extends around the south and east side of the MSC, will be shortened by approximately 740 feet. The flood control bypass channel with an internal access/maintenance concrete strip will replace this portion of the access road. The bypass channel will augment the existing Matadero Creek channel by conveying excess flow directly into the Palo Alto Flood Basin during moderate to severe storm events. In order to construct the proposed bypass channel downstream of Highway 101, the District needs two easements from the City using portions of the MSC land. The bypass channel is a mix of concrete and earthen materials to increase its permeability and reduce its visual impact. The original channel bottom design was entirely concrete, but the design was modified through regulatory agency review of the project during and following the environmental review process. The District is also planting willow waddles at the Palo Alto Flood Basin outlet for sediment retention during a flood event. Vegetation within a portion of the channel (on the earthen bottom and along the walls) would be allowed to grow to 4 feet, particularly in winter months, before being trimmed, furthering the potential to trap floodwater sediments. Once completed, maintenance of the channel would occur when sediments were 1’ deep in the channel or when vegetation within the channel reaches 4’ in height. The District will make at least annual surveys of the condition of the existing and bypass channels to determine what maintenance needs to OCClJr. City of Palo Alto Page 4 In order to construct the proposed flood control bypass channel the.SCVWD will require two easements, one for the northeast corner of the MSC and one for a strip along the east side of the MSC. The District is proposing a portion of the East Bayshore Road mitigation site be used by the city toward a potential pump station project at San Francisquito Creek, as discussed in the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan. This is discussed further under summary of significant issues. On-Site Wetland And Riparian Habitat Mitigation The Matadero Creek bypass channe! impacts 0.11 acres of wetland under the Army Corp of Engineers jurisdiction and 0.66 acres of riparian habitat under the California Department of Fish and Game. The wetland impact requires a replacement ratio of 2:1 (0.22 acres), while the riparian impact requires a 3:1 (1.98 acres) replacement ratio. Temporary construction impacts, mitigated at a 1:1 replacement ratio, also include 0.06 acres of wetland and 0.48 of riparian habitat. Wetland mitigation will occur on-site, as shown in attached Figure 4. Only a portion of the 2.46 acres of riparian habitat mitigation proposed can be provided on-site (1.82 acres, including the non-native eradication areas), for a remainder of 0.64 acres required to be provided off-site. The SCVWD Board included the non-native eradication areas as part of the project mitigation in their review and findings for the project. Therefore, 0.8 acre, of the mitigation acreage for riparian habitat consists of the restoration of the downstream reach and levee area between the proposed channel and Matadero Creek, now consisting of a mix of native and non-native vegetation. The District is proposing to remove all non- native vegetation and replant the exposed areas with native vegetation. These vinca, ivy and giant reed eradication areas are shown on Figure 4 of the attachments. As a follow- up to this effort, the District would also add to its downstream maintenance plan the regular removal of non-native vegetation. Off-Site Riparian Mitiaation For the 0.64 acres of required riparian mitigation that cannot be completed on-site, SCVWD is recommending the use of a portion of the 2 acre, District-owned site on Laura Lane off East Bayshore Road next to the International School. As previously indicated, the land swap with the City for the expansion of the SCVWD easement into the MSC will also likely be located on this site. The District analyzed several additional mitigation site alternatives on Matadero, Adobe, and San Francisquito Creeks between the release date of the Draft EIR and March 2003, as outlined in the attached March 11, 2003 letter to the City. Following the analysis of these additional sites, District staff and their environmental consultants maintain their original finding that the Laura Lane property is the best-suited mitigation site for this project. This site is currently owned by SCVWD and leased to Ciardella Garden Supply. The offsite mitigation would require that City of Palo Alto Page 5 Ciardella Garden Supply be relocated. This impact is discussed further under summary of significant issues. The city has hired independent consultants to review and make recommendations on the projects proposed planting plan and palette, general hydrology, riparian and wetland mitigation and required mitigation and landscaping maintenance. Their comments will help form project conditions to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. The City wil! also utilize the consultants with the ongoing project mitigation review by the Army Corps and State Department of Fish and Game. Bavlands Master Plan and Site & Design Review As indicated above, the project is located within the area covered by the Baylands Master Plan and will require amendments to the text and maps of the Baylands Master Plan. The Baylands Master Plan, adopted in 1978 and updated in 1987, is currently being updated to show changes since 1987. A park improvement ordinance, (Attachment B), presented and recommended to Council by the Parks and Recreation Commission in December 2002, is required for any project with substantial building or construction within dedicated parkland. The Site & Design Review Combining District provides a process of review and approval of development in environmentally and community sensitive areas to assure use and development -are harmonious with other uses in the vicinity and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Application materials submitted by the project applicant for the site and design process include a general site plan and description of planned uses. The plans may be preliminary in nature (PAMC 18.82.055). The Cormnission shall reco~rn-nend approval or changes it deems necessary to accomplish the following Site and Design Combining District objectives (PAMC 18.82.060). I) To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. 2) To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. 3)To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. 4) To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. If the Commission recommends approval, the project will be forwarded to the ARB and then City Council for final action. If the Commission recommends denial, the project is forwarded directly to the City Council. The following discussion provides a summary of significant issues for the proposed project. City of Palo Alto Page 6 SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Flood Control Bypass Channel Design and Municipal Services Center The project would include a new overflow channel constructed through a mix of riparian, eucalyptus, wetland, scrub and ruderal habitats. The project includes the removal of most of the eucalyptus habitat, approximately 50 mature blue gum and silver-leaved eucalyptus trees growing up to 50 feet in height. In the FEIR, this was determined to be a less than significant impact, because the species noted are non-native and invasive. This area that provides screening of the MSC site and potential raptor nesting sites will be replanted with trees such as California sycamore or California Live Oak. The project will also be removing existing pervious habitat and replacing it with a mix of impervious and pervious materials. The new channel will be approximately 1200 feet long with a combination of concrete and earthen bottom. The project would remove approximately 740 feet of an existing maintenance road, thereby offsetting some of the new impervious surface within the project. In order to construct the proposed bypass channel downstream of Highway 101, the District needs two easements from the City. The first easement area is in the northeast corner of the City’s Municipal Services Center (MSC). By bending the alignment of the bypass across the corner of the MSC, the District will be able to reduce the project’s impacts to existing riparian habitat. The requested easement area is currently used for storage of electric transformers. The District will extend the transformer storage pad to the west as part of its flood control project in order to compensate the City for loss of a portion of the existing pad. The second easement area requested by the District is a 30’ wide strip outside the eastern (back) boundary of the MSC, between the existing MSC fence and the existing levee. The District is requesting an easement area totaling 0.84 acres. A larger easement within the MSC was considered in the Fall 2001 that would further avoid some of the existing habitat areas near the project. However further encroachment into the MSC property was determined to conflict with the MSC Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study (occurring at that time), require further relocation of City and utility facilities, increase the potential to encounter hazardous materials, and with these, increase the project costs. Therefore, this alignment was determined not to be feasible and was not addressed in the FEIR. City staff has used the opportunity created by the District’s easement request and their proposed use of the Ciardella Garden Supply site as an environmental mitigation area to request a pump station easement from the District. The City’s Storm Drain Master Plan includes a project to construct a pump station at the end of the 96"-diameter storm drain that empties into San Francisquito Creek just downstream of Highway 101. This storm drain, which serves an area of over 1,250 acres in northeastern Palo Alto, backs up and causes widespread street ponding during even moderate storm events when the creek level rises. Construction of a pump station on a 0.25-acre site in the west corner of the Ciardella parcel will greatly improve the performance of the existing storm drain, City of Palo Alto Page 7 allowing the pipe to drain freely.regardless of the creek level. Although there are no funds to construct the pump station at this time, acquisition of an easement at this time will ensure that the site is available for the pump facility in the future. Use of a portion of the Ciardella parcel for a pump station will not preclude the District’s use of the remainder of the site as mitigation for the Matadero Creek project and other future District flood control projects. Staff recommends that the City grant the requested easements in and around the MSC to the District in order to allow the construction of the proposed Matadero Creek bypass channel. In exchange, the District will grant an easement to the City for a future storm water pump station along San Francisquito Creek and will design and construct an extension of the MSC transformer storage pad to compensate for the portion of the pad to be removed for the bypass channel alignment. Offsite Habitat Mitigation At The Ciardella Garden Supply Site Review of the proposed mitigation and subsequent permits are pending from the Army Corp of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, and San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board. The on-site mitigation of riparian and wetland habitat will be completed concurrent with and following the construction of the channel. SCVWD is recommending that offsite mitigation take place on a 2-acre District-owned parcel on Laura Lane off East Bayshore Road, next to the International School. Approximately 0.64 acres of the site will be used for riparian mitigation, and approximately 0.25 acres will be part of the land swap agreement between the City and the District. The remainder of the site will be available to the District as a mitigation site for future flood control projects in the Lower Peninsula Watershed. The District analyzed many off site mitigation alternatives on Matadero, Adobe and San Francisquito Creeks. These alternatives are summarized in a March 11, 2003 letter to the City (Attachment E), and still determined the original recommendation of the Laura Lane property as the best offsite mitigation area. This site is currently owned by SCVWD and leased to Ciardella Garden Supply. The Ciardella Garden Supply is a small business located within the City of Palo Alto. The business provides both residents and contractors with landscaping material such as rockery, gravel, and soils and also recycles materials, including concrete. The nature of this business would make relocation within the City of Palo Alto more difficult than locating a typical garden supply business. The business has two buildings occupying a relatively small portion of the site, with the remainder of the site as outdoor storage area ¯ for landscaping materials. The Ciardella Garden Supply has leased this site from the District for the past 37 years. The current lease, which expires on March 31, 2004, was signed in 1992 with an option to extend exercised in 1998. Riparian planting for the mitigation site is planned for November 2004. The SCVWD has also requested an extension from the California Department of Fish and Game to delay the off-site planting City of Palo Alto Page 8 of the mitigation area an additional year. If the extension is granted and off-site riparian mitigation planting and associated termination of the Ciardella lease is delayed until Fall 2005, the District would have provided Ciardella’s with approximately 40 months to relocate. This extension, however, would also mean the project would not be completed in its entirety until the end of 2005 or early 2006. The SCVWD has also stated that they have worked, and will continue to work, with Ciardella’s to find a suitable relocation site. As summarized by the District in their March 11, 2003 letter, they have identified approximately 22 available sites for potential relocation and contacted 10 other public and private agencies looking for suitable sites. The City will continue to coordinate with the owners of Ciardella’s and the applicant in looking for other suitable sites for mitigation. However, the ultimate disposition of acceptable habitat and the final timing of implementation are determined by the California Department of Fish and Game’s and the Army Corp of Engineers’ permits. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW The Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project was approved, including the certification of the EIR by the SCVWD Board in December 2002. The SCVWD Board’s resolutions and findings are attached. The City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed and made recommendations on the project on May 28, 2002 and December 17, 2002, minutes of which are attached. The Con~nission recommended the Park Improvement Ordinance, also attached, for Council approval on a 4 to 2 vote. The Parks and Recreation Cormnission recommended the approval of the flood control plan submitted by the District with the request that Council seriously look at alternative mitigation sites and that alternate land swaps be considered in order to maintain the Ciardella landscape supply business at its current site. RESOURCE IMPACT The total project cost (both upstream and downstream portions) is approximately $24 million. The Lower Peninsula Watershed Fund provides funding for the implementation of the project. The project, by increasing the efficiency of flow in Matadero Creek, also reduces the risk of flooding and potential flooding damage from Matadero and Baron Creeks between Middlefield Road and San Francisco Bay. The project would protect, as shown in the attached map, approximately 4,700 properties from creek flooding, and 450 properties of those properties will no longer be required to purchase flood insurance. The remaining properties wilt still be required to purchase flood insurance because they are also subject to tidal flooding. Additionally, SCVWD staff estimates the potential savings from reduced flood damages at $180 million. City of Palo Alto Page 9 POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan & Area-Specific Plan The project is in conformance with City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan by reducing the potential flood risk from Matadero Creek and removing properties from the flood plain. The Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment Element includes policies and programs to l~nimize the exposure to natural hazards, including flooding (Policy N-49). Policy N-49: "Focus efforts to reduce exposure to natural hazards on those areas where the greatest risks exist." Policy N-50: "Implement public safety improvements, such as access roads and other infrastructure, in a manner that is sensitive to the environment." The project is located within the area covered by the Baylands Master Plan and will require amendments to the text and maps of the Baylands Master Plan. The required changes include the following: 1) Maps identifying the area along Matadero Creek as riparian area will be modified to show the location of the proposed bypass channel in this area between the creek channel and the north boundary of the MSC. 2) Flood Protection sections of the Baylands Master Plan will be modified to include the proposed bypass channel project. 3) References to the 30 foot wide landscape screening along the back (east) side of the MSC between the MSC fence and the existing levy, will be modified to include the landscaping strips proposed with the bypass channel development and landscaping described in Municipal Services Center Master Plan (1987). The Baylands Master Plan, adopted in 1978 and updated in 1987, is currently being updated to show changes since 1987, and staff recolr~nends that these changes be made at the same time as the Baylands Master Plan update. Designated Park Property The proposed project is located within designated park area of Byxbee Park. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed and recommended the attached Park Improvement Ordinance for Council approval in December 2002. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As the "Lead Agency", under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the SCVWD prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project. The District’s Board certified the Final EIR on December 3, 2002. With the certification of the Final EIR, the Board also adopted EIR Findings (attached) in confo~anance with CEQA. Subsequent to the SCVWD Board approving the project, the District filed a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk City of Palo Alto Page I0 on December 10, 2002. As a "Responsible Agency", approval of the Site & Design for the Matadero Creek downstream flood control bypass channel by the City of Pa!o Alto Council will also require approving a Resolution making EIR Findings that address the downstream portion of the overal! flood control project. Although the FEIR addressed the full extent of the flood control project, the Commission should primarily focus its review of the FEIR on the areas that directly relate to this project, including the project alternatives. Following the 1999 engineering planning study that examined ways to increase Matadero Creek’s level of flood protection to FEMA standards, the Santa Clara Valley Water District released the Draft EIR, including review of both the upstream and downstream portions of the remediation project in October 2001. The proposed project is discussed in the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as the "Expanded Floodway Alternative". It is also referenced in some impact sections as the portion of the project "Downstream of Highway 101". The Draft EIR for the project was circulated for public comment from October 2001 to December 2001. The SCVWD Board held a public hearing on the DEIR on November 20, 2001. Alternatives to the proposed overflow channel considered in the environmental review included an off-stream storage alternative, existing channel restoration, expanded floodway alternative and underground bypass alternative. The underground bypass alternative, identified as the environmentally superior alternative in the EIR, was not selected because of impacts to East Bayshore Road and underground utilities, the limited space available to meet the necessary hydraulic design, the difficulty of long-term maintenance, the fact that impacts to habitat are reduced, but not eliminated under this alternative, and the overall cost of this alternative. According to the FEIR, all potentially significant impacts of the project were reduced, with mitigation, to a less than significant levet. The project does not induce population growth in the city because it is not an expansion of existing infrastructure, and does not increase jobs or housing in the area. The SCVWD has submitted for and is undergoing ongoing negotiation for the following permits. -California Department of Fish and Game 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement -San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board for review of Nationwide Permits #31 and #33 and for Section 401 Water Quality Certification U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits #31 and #33 City of Palo Alto Page ]1 It is likely that some project design elements and related mitigation will change through the above .agency review process. Through the project conditions of approval, the City will require to be kept informed of any alterations or permit conditions of these agencies and that the final project design be in substantial conformance with the project, as submitted for the Site and Design review process. TIMELINE If the Planning and Transportation Commission finds the project to be acceptable, the ARB will review the design proposal on May 1, 2003 and make recommendations to Council. The proposed project with both Commission and ARB recommendations will then proceed to Council for final action in June 2003. ATTACHMENTS A. Project Site Plan, Cross-Sections & Pictures B. Park Improvement Ordinance C. Reduction Of Flood Risk Map D. Habitat Area Map Within Project Area (Figure 2) & Proposed On-Site Mitigation Map (Figure 4) E. March 11, 2003 Letter To City Staff With Summary Of Alternate Mitigation Site Research F. SCVWD Board Resolutions (Certifying FEIR And Project Approval) And Findings G. Minutes From The City Of Palo Alto Parks And Recreation Commission H. Final Environmental Impact Statement (Commission Only) I. Mitigation & Monitoring Plan (Commission Only) COURTESY COPIES City Council Ariel Colonne, City A~torney Wynne Furth, Sr. Assistant City Attorney Prepared by:Susan Ondik, Planner Reviewed by:John Lusardi, Planning Manager Department!Division Head Approval: //c~s~ Grote, Chief Bla~nning Official City of Palo Alto Page I2 View (S) toward MSC from across existing Matadero Creek - Start of Bypass Channel View looking North from access road behind MSC Pr.op.osed channel would come to approximately this point & east edge of channel would align withexisting east edge of maintenance road. ~ Attachment C SPRR 0 1,500’3,000’ SCALE: 1 INCH = 3,000 FEET Area Removed from 1% Flood Hazard Limit of Tidal Flooding Residual Flooding due to Local Storm Drainage Capacity Figure 7-8 Reduction in Riverine Flood Risk After Project Remediation Schaaf ~ Wheeler Attachment D Attachment E 5750 ALMADEN EXPWY SAN JOSE, CA 95118-36i4 TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600 FACSIMILE (408) 266-027i wwv.,, va t!eywa ter. o rg Ab; EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER March 11,2003 Mr. Gregory Betts Superintendent of Open Space City of Palo Alto 1451 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, California 94301 Subject:Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project - Summary Letter, Investigation of Alternative Mitigation Sites and Relocation Efforts Pertaining to Ciardella’s Garden Supply Reference: City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting, December 17, 2002 Dear Mr. Betts: Thank you for sending us the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) meeting referenced above. We appreciate PARC’s recommendation to the City Council to approve the Flood Control Plan submitted by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District). PARC also requested that City Council look into the possibilities of using other mitigation sites that would allow Ciardella’s Garden Supply (Ciardella’s) to remain in operation in Palo Alto. In addition to PARC’s recommendation, the city council liaison to the PARC, Mr. Jack Morton, and you also suggested the District examine specific sites that are owned by the City for mitigation purposes. In response to these requests, the District has conducted further investigation looking into this matter. In the following, 1 have provided a summary of the results of all the investigations conducted to determine suitablemitigation sites for this project. I would like to convey to the City that the District has performed a thorough analysis and spent significant efforts to identify possible sites for mitigation. The District Board of Directors and staff are sympathetic to Ciardella’s Garden Supply family owned and run business. For many years, the District has offered Ciardella’s the use of District property at a significantly reduced rate, partly because the lease could be terminated quickly. As a public agency with a fiscal responsibility to the public, the District does need to consider how public funds are spent, the cost of purchasing sites versus using District owned property, and whether the continued lease after the District has identified a need for the use of the site can be interpreted as a subsidy to the business. In this case, there are no other viable mitigation sites. I am sending a copy of this letter to Ciardella’s and their attorney because the District has agreed to provide Ciardella’s with information as the project progresses. C~’T’," OF R&LO ALTO The mission of the Santa Ciara Valley Water District is a health,/ safe and enhanced quaiit,, ol Jiving in Santa ,~ r Coun,~,’ ~o~,-e~ec~ ve ana environmentdiy sensitive manner.through the comprehensive management of v,~ater resources in a pract cal, Mr. Greg Betts Page 2 of 5 March 11,2003 Summary of Alternative Mitigation Sites Reviewed 1. Investiqation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) During preparation of the EIR, the District and its ecological consultant H.T. Harvey & Associates conducted an extensive evaluation of all potential sites for riparian mitigation in the lower peninsula area. The search area covered watersheds of Matadero, Barron, San Francisquito, Adobe, Permanente, and Stevens creeks. Twelve (12) possible sites were identified. A thorough evaluation of all factors affecting riparian mitigation resulted in the recommendation of the proposed mitigation site at 2027 East Bayshore Road, a parcel owned by the District and leased to Ciardella’s. The District’s Board approved public circulation of the draft EIR on October 16, 2001, and after due processes adopted the final EIR on December 3, 2002. As described in the Final EIR, most of the potential mitigation sites studied were either not feasible or not available. Oui" consultant recommended the East Bayshore Mitigation Site for the following reasons: o The site presents a good opportunity to create and restore habitat from a biological perspective. o The proximity of the site to the impacted site. o It is the only site within the same geomorphic setting as the impacted site. ,,It is the only available parcel large enough to satisfy the mitigation requirements. o It is located on the historic floodplain of San Francisquito Creek. o The site is currently dominated by non-native vegetation and developed areas. o There are future opportunities to integrate the site back into the San Francisquito Creek floodplain. o It is a District owned parcel. The results of their evaluation are presented in letters dated May 7, 2002 and July 25, 2001, which are enclosed as attachments to this summary letter. 2. Additional Sites Requested by PARC In a public hearing with the PARC on May 28, 2002, the Commission asked us to further investigate sites at Adobe Creek and the Los Altos Treatment Plant (LATP). Our consultant studied these sites and concluded that neither of these sites would be appropriate as mitigation for the project. The results of their evaluation are presented in a letter dated June 10, 2002, which is enclosed as an attachment to this summary letter. 3. Additional Site Requested by Council Member In the PARC meeting on December 17, 2002, Council member Jack Morton asked if City-owned land opposite of San Francisquito Creek could be traded for the mitigated lands, which might allow Ciardella’s to remain at the East Bayshore Site. In response to this request, the District Mr. Greg Betts Page 3 of 5 March 11, 2003 contacted Public Works to identify the limits of City-owned land along San Francisquito Creek.1 Our consultant studied two potential areas along the banks of the creek and concluded that neither of these sites would be feasible as mitigation for the project. The results of their evaluation are presented in a letter dated February 10, 2003, which is enclosed as an attachment to this summary letter. 4. Additional Parkland Site Lastly, on February 11,2003, you requested that we consider the parklands between Ponds A and B (between the MSC and Adobe Creek) as potential mitigation land. Our consultant reviewed this area and concluded that this site is not suitable for riparian habitat restoration because the site is removed from the natural stream banks of both Adobe and Matadero Creeks. In summary, as shown on Figure 1, we evaluated 17 locations for potential mitigation sites. The East Bayshore Mitigation Site is the only site within the same geomorphic setting as the impacted site; near enough and large enough to satisfy the mitigation requirements of the project. Ciardella’s Garden Supply Ciardella’s has leased the East Bayshore Mitigation Site from the District for the past 37 years. The District currently leases the 1.32 acre site at below-market value to Ciardella’s for $3,019/month (5¼¢ per square f0ot/month). Ciardella’s has enjoyed a long benefit of low rent; due in part to the provision that Ciardella’s would relinquish its lease on a short 90-day notice at the District’s request. A comparable site in Redwood City is currently leasing for approximately $17,000 a month. The current lease was signed in 1992 with an option to extend exercised in 1998. The lease expires on March 31, 2004. In order to meet its mitigation obligations for this project, and for future protection of other creeks in Palo Alto, the District needs the East Bayshore Site. While the District regrets that the termination of the lease will require Ciardella’s to relocate, the District has taken significant efforts to assist Ciardella’s in finding an alternative site for its business. As summarized in Table 1, the District identified over 22 available sites for potential relocation. As summarized in Table 2, the District has also contacted 10 other public and private agencies looking for suitable relocation sites. In addition, the District Board has decided to provide Ciardella’s as much time to relocate as possible and has asked staff to request permission from the regulatory agencies to delay the use of the mitigation site. Assuming the regulatory agencies allow the mitigation planting to be ~ A map identifying the City of Palo Alto’s property line adjacent to San Francisquito Creek was provided to the District by Public Works on December 18, 2002. This map Shows that the southwestern extent of City-owned property near the creek ends just northeast of the U.S. Postal Service parking lot. This boundary is approximately 500 to 1000 feet downstream from the East Bayshore Mitigation Site. Public Works confirmed that the City does not own land directly across the creek from Ciardella’s Garden Supply. Mr. Greg Betts Page 4 of 5 March 11, 2003 postponed until autumn of 2005, the District will have given Ciardella’s more than 40 months to find a suitable home. Conclusion It bears emphasis that the District has made every effort to provide Ciardella’s with advance notice of the lease’s termination, and to assist Ciardella’s in relocating its business. The proposal to use this particular property for mitigation was not made lightly. The use of this site means that the District will be able to use property that it already owns and will not have to acquire additional property at added cost and potential delay. The property is located on the historic floodplain of San Francisquito Creek, and provides the best opportunity for the District to create and restore habitat from a biological perspective. It is the only site within the same geomorphic setting as the impacted site on Matadero Creek; and the only parcel large enough and so situated to allow the District to meet its project schedule requirements. Due to the imperative need for completion of this project to relieve the residents of Palo Alto from 1% flood risks, the District has spent significant efforts to ensure that all facets of the project are properly conducted. If you have additional comments on this project, please do not hesitate to contact me. I trust that this summary letter provides you the necessary background information for your staff report to the City Council. Please email or contact me at (408) 265-2607, extension 2927 or Mr. Eric Tsou at extension 2690, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Liang Lee, P....~." Senior Proje~ct Manager Capital Program Services Division Attachments: Figure 1 - Table 1 - Table 2 - Summary Map of Alternative Mitigation Site Locations Partial List of Properties Provided by the District to Ciardella’s as Potential Relocation Sites Summary of Brokers, Agencies, and Companies Contacted H.T. Harvey Letter dated July 25, 2001 - Possible Mitigation Sites H.T. Harvey Letter dated May 7, 2002 - Off-Site Mitigation H.T. Harvey Letter dated June 10, 2002 -Adobe Creek and LATP Off-Site Mitigation Evaluation H.T. Harvey Letter dated February 10, 2003 - Potential Mitigation Sites on City of Palo Alto-owned Lands Mr. Greg Betts Page 5 of 5 March 11,2003 cc w/att:Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer, City of Palo Alto Susan Ondik, Planner, City of Palo Alto John Lusardi, Planning Manager, City of Palo Alto Larry Ciardella, Ciardella’s Garden Supply Gerald Houlihan, Esq., Matteoni, Saxe & O’Laughlin cc w/o att: K. Oven, J. Micko, E. Cote, L. Lee, E. Tsou, S. Wu, E. Gabrielsen, Project File Table 1 Partial List of Properties Provided by the District to Ciardella’s as Potential Relocation Sites Property Location 1061 Douglas Ave Redwood City,, CA Menlo Park, CA ~!.~70 Fortini Rd San Jose, CA S. Sunset ,’Ave San Jose. CA Ltagas Creek Gilroy, CA Colombet Ave San Martin. CA Monterey Rd Gilroy, CA C hurc h Ave Gilroy. CA Sycamore Ave Morgan Hill. CA Sycamore Ave Morgan Hill. CA Lions Cree’k Gilroy. CA Wren Ave Gilroy. CA South Valle~ Fwv Morgan HiIl. CA South’""\~allev F~vw Morgan Hill. CA S. \\:inct~ester Bird Campbell. CA Santa Teresa Pipeline San Jose. CA Santa Teresa Pipeline Gilroy. CA O’~per Silver ’;eek’" San Jose. CA Yerba Buena R’d ......... San Jose. CA Yerba Buena Rd San Jose. CA ’Flint (:reek " :San Jose, CA Fl’int Creek San Jose. CA Size Of Site 1.62 acres 1.5 acres 0.87 acres 0.10 acres 0.75 acres 0.73 acres 7.65 acres 5.89 acres 1.94 acres 4.87 acres 1.39 acres 3.46 acres 7.24 acres 9.22 acres 1.95 acres 0.81 acres u 0.08 acres 3.57 acres 1.34 acres 2.76 acres 10.82 acres 0.82 acres Unit Cost 25¢!sq.ft/mo. .~ 5 ¢, sq.f’dmo. nia n/a n/a n/a n/a rl/a nia n/a n/a n,/a n/a Fl/a nia n/a n/a nia Property Contact B"T Commerci’al .... ;Real Estate Comi’~h and Carey" .Commercial SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCV\\;D SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCV\VD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD SCVWD Date Provided ,’April 12, 2002 April 18. 2002 April 18, 2002 April 18.2002 April ! 8. "~00"~ ,.April 18. "~00" ,.April 18. 2002 ~00~ April 18. 2002 ,.April 18. 2002 ,.April 18.. ..April 18. 2002 April April April ,.April 18. 2002 18. 2002 18.2002 18.2002 "00"April 18,~ a ,.April 18, 2002 ~00-~April 18, ~ -’ ,.April 18. 2002 April 18. 2002 ,.April I 8. ~00~ Table 2 Summary of Brokers, Agencies, and Companies Contacted Contact Name Agency Date Contacted Ricardo Xbquera City." of East Palo Alto April 23. 2002Redevelopment Agency Manager William Fellman Cirv of Palo Alto April 23. 2002Real Propert)~ Manager Mike Girard Port of Redwood Ciw April 26. 2002Director Linda DeWald City. of Mountain View April 26. 2002Real Property Manager Nancy Follower Countw of Santa Clara April 26, 2002Property Manager Ci~ Manager Menlo Park April 23. 2002 Chris Mann Granite Rock April 26. 2002Real Estate Manager Gary Dowd San Francisco Public Hetch Hetchv Land Bureau Utility Commission April 26. 2002 John Lynch City of Redwood City April 26. 2002 Carolyn Hamilton County of San :Mateo April 26. 2002Real Property 25 July 2001 H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS Shannon George David J. Powers and Associates 1885 The ?alameda, Suite 204 San Jose, CA 95126 Re: Matadero Creek Long-Term Remediation Project, Possible Mitigation Sites (1518-03) Dear Shannon, On 18 July 2001, two H.T. Harvey & Associates restoration ecologists surveyed the potential mitigation sites as per your request (binder dated 16 July 2001). Our investigation included a preliminary, assessment of the potential of each site to be successfully restored to high quality riparian habitat. This mitigation project would compensate for direct impacts to riparian habitat from construction of the proposed bypass channel from Matadero Creek to the Palo Alto Flood Basin. The level of detail for this assessment was limited,, as it serves to rank potential mitigation sites based upon brief reconnaissance-leve! surveys. The purpose of the site ranking was to determine the location of a suitable mitigation site for the project’s EtR. This assessment does not take the place of more detailed surveys necessary for restoration planning. John Bourgeois, M.S. and David Thomson, M.S. collected data for Sites A-K on current habitats, geomorphology, and land-use of both the surrounding areas and the proposed site (note: this does not include utility, rig.ht of way issues). Site L was surveyed by John Bourgeois on 19 July 2001. This data was used to predict the suitability of each site for the creation and!or restoration of riparian habitat. Below are the results of these surveys. PROJECT SUMMARY Depending upon the alternative chosen, permanent impacts to riparian habitat from the construction of a diversion channe! from Matadero Creek, where it crosses under Highway 101, to the Pato Alto Flood Basin may exceed 2 acres (i.e. the "80-foot alternative"). Of the required mitigation, project planners and their consultants have identified the need for some off-site mitigation. This need may approach 2 acres of riparian habitat creation and/or restoration. The site -vicinities can be located on Figure 1, and their suitability and rankings are summarized in Table 1. H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCL4TES ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS Matadero / Barron Creek Long-Term Remediation Project: Potential Mitigation Site Vicinity. Map File No. 1518-01 Date 7726/01 Figure 1 Project Site 4000 feet approximate scale in feet Potential Mitigation Sitea 1 In order to mifigatz for impacts to CDFG jm-isdictionat habitats, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and its consultants have identified twelve potential mitigation sites for this project. However, three of the sites are steeply sloped and cannot be graded for riparian habitat creation (Sites G, H, and I). This leaves nine sites (italicized in Table 1) suitable for riparian habitat creation. Of these, two sites (Sites C and D) might be disqualified due to their current use by other projects (see Site Data section below). The specific characteristics of each site, including positive and negative aspects relative to mitigation potential, are discussed below. SITE DATA Site A. This site is adjacent to the Veteran’s Administration Hospital, close to the intersection of FoothiLl Expressway and Hillview Avenue. The site abuts the existing Matadero Creek riparian corridor, where it daylights north of Hitlview Avenue. Land use surrounding the site includes commercial or industrial development on the opposite bank and the hospital and its facilities adjacent to the site. The parcel investigated included an unvegetated lot being used for parking, a temporary construction staging facility, and a vegetated area consisting of ruderal grasslands. Present riparian vegetation of the corridor in this area includes valley oak (Quercus lobata), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California sycamore (plantanus californica), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), blue elderberry. (Sarabucus rnexicana), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor). The present riparian corridor is high-quality habitat, but is being encroached upon by new development, especially on the bank oppGsite the proposed mitigation site. The site has good potential for the creation of high quality riparian habitat adjoining existing habitat. Site B. This site is adjacent to the Intemational School near the comer of E. Bayshore Road and Laura Lane, downstream of where Highway 10! crosses San Francisquito Creek. Land uses surrounding the site include commercial and industrial. The parcel investigated includes several habitat types. The majority of the site is developed and currently under commercial lease from the SCVWD. There is also a large disturbed area containing mostly non-native vegetation or landscaping. The site also includes the SCVWD levee and access road, some native and non-native riparian vegetation on the levee, and mudftats within the bed of San Francisquito Creek (tidal area). The most promising portion of the site is a narrow area between the levee road and the fence behind the school’s playground. During our initial investigation of the site, the playground.had not been built and the parcel appeared more desirable for riparian mitigation. Native riparian vegetation at the site includes willows (Salix sp.), elderberry., coyote brusk and coast live oak. Other common vegetation at the site includes walnuts (duglans californica), giant reed (Arundo donax), blackberry, acacia (Acacia sp.), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) and other, ornamentals. Riparian vegetation along the lower portion of this stretch of San Francisquito Creek is sparse or non-existent. A small portion of the proposed site’s downstream end appears to be too far downstream for riparian habitat creation (i.e., estuarine habitat). The opposite bank consists mairdy of disturbed ruderal grasslands. What native riparian vegetation that does exist within the parcel is interspersed with non-native species or development. The site has good potential for riparian habitat creation and restoration but appears to be constrained by the SCVWD’s lease to the landscaping ftrm and its own access road. For alternatives associated with this site, please see below. Site C. This site is adjacent to Palo Alto Avenue between Hale and Seneca Streets, on San Francisquito Creek. Residential land uses surround the site. The parcel is currently landscaped as a new park for the City of Palo Alto. The landscaping includes a large turf grass area surrounded by mulch planted with ornamental shrubs. There is also a drinking fountain. Between the new park and the creek is a mostly unvegetated very, steep slope, unsuitable for riparian plantings (habitat creation). The upland portion of this site (the new park) is considered suitable for riparian habitat creation. The slope to the creek would be suitable for restoration if graded into the park area to create a gentler (--3:1) slope. Site D. This site is located between the Foothill Expressway and Adobe Creek, in the vicinity of Raquel Court. Residential land uses surround this site. The site is a mixture of native riparian vegetation and disturbed ruderal and non-native vegetation. Species found on site include oaks, eucalyptus, prickly pear (Opumia sp.), and non-native grasses. The parcel has already been identified by the Adobe Creek Planning Study for use as a mitigation site and plans are being completed for its restoration. This site is considered suitable for riparian habitat creation and restoration. Site E. This site is a small parcel of land located at the terminus of Araswadero Road at Page Mill Road. The parcel is bordered by Matadero Creek, Page Mill Road and Balert Ranch Road. Residential land uses surround the parcel. The site currently contains non- native grasses and landscaped species. It appears that a few oaks and a walnut have been planted at the site within the last 10 years (however, this does not appear to be a restoration site). The site abuts high quality riparian habitat along Matadero Creek. The parcel appears to be suitable for riparian habitat creation and restoration. Furthermore, there is another similar parcel across Balerl Ranch Road that appears to be similarly suited to riparian habitat creation (see the Alternatives section below). Site F. This parcel is on Hale Creek, just downstream of Highway 280. Specifically, this site is at the terminus of Dawnridge Drive near Hi!ltop Drive. Residential land uses surround the parcel. The site is currently leased for horse pasture and is kept as mderal ~assland. The site abuts high quality riparian vegetation along Hale Creek containing a dense canopy of oak and willow. The site is amenable to riparian habitat creation. The created habitat would adjoin existing high quality, riparian vegetation. However, this site may be constrained by the SCVWD’s lease to the horse owners. Site G. This site is at the terminus of Southwood Drive off of Hamilton Avenue. Residential land uses surround the site. The parcel consists of a very. steep slope, covered by rip-rap and English ivy (Hedera helix). Several private residencies sit directly behind this narrow site. Due to the steep grade of the site, it is currently unsuitable for riparian habitat creation. Furthermore, the narrow width of the parcel wil! not allow the site to be graded to a gentler slope. Therefore, the parcel is considered unsuitable for mitigation. Site H. This site is at the terminus of Lincoln Avenue just past its intersection with University Avenue. Residential land uses surround the site. The parcel consists of a very. steep slope, covered by rip-rap and English ivy. Several private residencies sit directly behind this narrow site. Due to the steep grade of the site, it is currently unsuitable for riparian habitat creation. Furthermore, the narrow width of the parcel will not allow the site to be ~m-aded to a gentler slope. Therefore, the parcel is considered unsuitable for mitigation. Site I. This site is at the terminus of Maple Street just past its intersection with University Avenue. Residential land uses surround the site. The parcel consists of a ve~’ steep slope, covered by rip-rap and English ivy. Several private residencies sit directly behind this narrow site. Due to the steep grade of the site, it is currently unsuitable for riparian habitat creation. Furthermore, the narrow width of the parcel will not allow the site to be graded to a gentler slope. Therefore, the parcel is considered unsuitable for mitigation. Site J. This site is adjacent to Moana Court off of Miranda Avenue (parallels the Foothill Expressway). Residential land uses surround the site. The majority, of the site is upon a very. steep g-fade, similar to Sites G, H, and I above. However, there is a small section (0.3 acres) that consists of disturbed ruderal grasses upon a gentle slope. This slope did contain eucalyptus trees that were recently removed (their stumps remain). Although there is a portion of this site suitable for riparian habitat restoration, and it does abut a narrow riparian corridor, the majority of the site is situated upon very steep slopes consisting generally of sack concrete, Himalayan blackberry, and English ivy. Therefore only a portion of this site is considered suitable for riparian habitat restoration. Site IC This site appears to be several parcels at the termini of Pastel Lane, Franklin Lane, and Franklin Court, and also along Derrick and Franklin Avenues, all of which are off of Sleeper and Eunice Avenues. Residential. land uses surround the site. All the parcels except the one along Franklin Avenue are very steep sloped parcels (as described above in G, H, I, and portions of J) consisting of sack concrete, rip-rap with English ivy and some eucalyptus. The parcel along Franklin Avenue is currently adjoining an open space area that appears to belong to the SCVWD. This portion is currently maintained as a neighborhood park with turf grass and several trees including oaks, pines (Yinus sp.), and redwoods (Sequoia semper~irens). The bank along this portion is also steep but could be graded to a gentler slope using a portion of the park. Site K is suitable for riparian habitat creation and restoration. This would include removing some non-native trees and grading a portion of the site .and/or planting the park area with native riparian vegetation. Please refer to the conclusions and aitemafives sections below. Site L. This site is located adjacent to Junipero Serra Boulevard,. at the confluence of Matadero and Deer Creeks. Land use surrounding the site consists solely of pastureland (open space). The habitats on site consist of ruderal grassland. The proposed sites abut a high quality riparian corridor surrounding Matadero Creek and its tributary, Deer Creek. The riparian corridor of this site consists of willows, oaks, California bay (Umbellularia californica), buckeye (Aescutus californica), coyote brush, snowberry (Symphoricarpos sp.), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). This parcel is suitable for riparian habitat creation. However, the land is owned by Leland Stanford University.; the SCVWD holds no easements within the parcel. The active pastures contain approximately 20 acres of rudera! grasslands on which the mitigation acreage requiremem described above could easily be contained. Furthermore, the created habitat would be surrounded by over 20 acres of open space (pasture). CONCLUSIONS Based upon the proposed sites, there is good potential for off-site riparim-t habitat creation and/or restoration as mitigation for impacts from the bypass channel. Only one of the proposed sites is truly in-kind mitigation from a geomorphic standpoint; that being the International School site (Site B). All other sites were removed from the vicinity and influence of San Francisco Bay. Only three sites were within the watershed of Matadero Creek; those being the Stanford Pasture, Veteran’s Hospital, and Amstradero Road sites (Sites L, A, and E respectively). Of the remaining eight sites, only three were unsuitable for riparian habitat creation and/or restoration; those being the Maple Street, Southwood Drive, and Lincoln Avenue sites (Sites I, G, and H respectively). The preferred site for in-kind mitigation would be the International School site (B) on San Francisquito Creek. Although this site is not on the affected drainage (Matadero Creek), it is the only site that would create and restore habitat within the same geomorphic setting as the impact site. Depending upon how the constraints to creation and restoration at the site are addressed, the site could mature into high quality riparian habitat. There are greater than 2 acres within this site that could be made available to riparian habitat creation and restoration (although see alternatives section). An excellent second choice would be the Stanford Pasture site (L) on Matadero Creek. Although this site is removed from the influence of San Francisco Bay, it is within the affected watershed. Furthermore, land uses surrounding the proposed site are amenable to high quality riparian habitat and its associated values (open space versus developed for all other sites). The parcel is over 20 acres in size, adequate space is available to mitigate for all of the off-site needs associated with this project while still leaving the majority, of the site untouched. A good third choice would be a combination of the Veterans Hospita! and Arastmdero Road sites (A and E). Both of these sites are within the Matadero Creek watershed and would append existing moderate to high quality, riparian habitat. These sites are not preferred to the Stanford Pasture site due to the higher degree of development surrounding the sites. Together the two sites should contain approximately 2 acres suitable for riparian habitat creation and/or restoration. The remaining five sites that are suitable for riparian habitat are both outside of the influence of San Francisco Bay and outside of the Matadero Creek watershed. Although they could be used to create or restore riparian habita~ they cannot be considered in-kind for this mitigation and a higher mitigation to impact ratio would likely be required. Additional alternatives, if needed are discussed below. A_LTEtLNATIVES Although there is very good potential either for in-kind creation and!or restoration or th’e replacement of habitat within the Matadero Creek watershed, we noted a few alternatives during our site visits. These suggestions are purely from a biological standpoint and do not take into consideration other constraints (i.e., ownership) to mitigation implementation. As stated above, the preferred mitigation site is the International School site (B). However, several constraints to implementation were noted during the site visit. This included the occupancy of most of the site by a lease (landscaping fn-rn) and the levee-top access road that separates the site from the creek bank riparian habitat. In time, the created riparian habitat’s canopy may adjoin that along the creek bank, but functions and values would be diminished due to the persistence of the road. On the opposite bank, across San Francisquito Creek from the proposed International School mitigation site, is a large area of open space consisting of disturbed ruderal grassland. This site, from a biological standpoint, would be preferable due to the absence of access roads or other obstructions to habitat continuiu,. However, there may be other constraints to mitigation at this alternative location. Another minor alternative, or addition, is at the Amstradero Road site (E). Adjacent to the site is another similarly disturbed site that could be appended to the mitigation, increasing the area available by 0.2 acres. This parcel could be useful if a small amount of additional mitigation were needed. Please call me at (408) 448-9450 (x402) if you have any questions or need further information. Sincerely, Eric Webb, PhD Project Manager Katherine Oven, Schaaf & Wheeler Dan Stephens, H.T. Harvey & Associates Project File 1518-03 H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS May 7, 2002 Ms. Shannon George David J. Powers & Associates 1885 The Alameda, Suite 204 San Jose, California 95126 Re: Matadero Creek, Off-Site Mitigation (Project number 15t8-01) Dear Shannon: The purpose of this letter is to introduce the Matadero Creek Flood Control project and briefly outline the events that led to the need for off-site mitigation and the subsequent choice of the International School Mitigation Site to meet the project’s mitigation requirements. Project Summa~" The Santo Clara Valley Water District (District) is proposing flood control measures along Matadero Creek between E1 Camino Real and the Palo Alto Flood Basin (PAFB). The Flood Control Project for the Matadero and Barron Creek watersheds is located within the City. of Palo Alto in Santa Clara County., California (Figure 1). The project is designed to decrease backwater pressure by providing better conveyance of storm flows and strategic sediment removal along this stretch of Matadero Creek. The project site extends for approximately 3.5 miles along Matadero and Barron Creeks from the PAFB to Foothill Expressway in the City of Palo Alto (Figure 1). The project contains ~vo components, one downstream of Route 101 and one upstream of Route 101. For the purposes of this letter, only the areas downstream of Route I01 are being discussed, as this is the component of the project that requires mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional habitats. Downstream of Route 101, the proje~ proposes to construct an armored by-pass channel 60-feet in width (with a proposed maximum construction area extending 10-feet beyond the width of the channel on either side). This bypass channel will be located along the edge of the City ofPalo Alto’s Municipal Services Center (MSC) and convey flood flows from Matadero/qBarron Creek watershed to the PAFB. Impacts and Mitigation Construction of this project will permanently impact a total of 0.89 acres of protected habitats. Of the total impacts, 0.11 acres are United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional area and 0.78 acres are rip’arian habitat under the jurisdiction of the California Department offish and Game (CDFG). Mitigation measures for these impacts include the creation of a minimum of 0.22 acres of wetland habitat (2:1 mitigation ratio), and 2.34 acres of riparian habitat (3:1 mitigation ratio), including various habitat enhancements within the project area (i.e., non-native species remov.al and habitat restoration). Some of the mitigation will occur on-site, however, a portion of the riparian habitat mitigation will need to occur at an off-site location, as inadequate acreage is available on-site to mitigate all of the project impacts. In order to minimize the amount of off-site mitigation necessary, the project team has worked to reduce impacts to the extent possible, and to exkaust the available on-site mitigation opportunities. Despite these effort:s, 1.37 acres of riparian habitat will need to be created or restored at an off-site location to mitigate for project impacts (Table 1). Table 1. Summary of Mitigation Site Areas (all units are in acres). Total On-site Off-site Regulated Mitigation Mitigation MitigationHabitatImpactsRequiredAvailableRequired USACE 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.00 CDFG 0.78 2.34 0.97 1.37 Off-Site Mitigation Search Search for off-site mitigation location(s) began in 1999, and numerous potential mitigation sites were examined and several discarded for a variety, of constraints (e.g., too distant from impact site, existing ROW easements, flooding concerns). In July 2001, H.T. Harvey & Associates prepared a preliminary, assessment of possible off-site mitigation locations (see attachment). The report discusses all of the feasible mitigation sites, or potential mitigation sites already owned by the District. This limited the tota! number of potential mitigation sites to the twelve analyzed in the attached report. We concluded that the Intemational School Mitigation Site was the best option for off- site mitigation from a biological standpoint. A_lthough not on Matadero Creek, ~ is located very. close to the impact site and it constitutes the only site that provides truly in- kind mitigation from a geomorphic standpoint. Its location is very. similar to the impact area on Matadero Creek, in that this reach of San Francisquito Creek is immediately dowaasn-eam of Route 101 in an area that is tidally influenced by San Francisco Bay. The mitigation site is in the historic floodplain of the creek and is currently being leased from the District by a landscape contractor business. Although the site is behind the present levee, the 100oyear flood currently tops this levee. Off-Site Mitigation Design Existing Conditions. The haternational School Mitigation Site is located immediately adjacent to San Francisquito Creek just downstream of Route 101 (Figure 1). The site is immediately adjacent to the I.utemationai School of the Peninsula. The International School Mitigation Site is a mosaic of upland riparian,, and aquatic habitats associated with San Francisquito Creek. Upland habitats consist mainly of developed areas interspersed with non-native grasses and landscaped areas, although along the creek levee there are approximately 0.4 acres of mixed riparian woodland and some patches of coyote brush scrub. The mixed riparian habitat is generally a mix of mature native and non- native woody species. A landscaping contractor business currently occupies the site and will need to be removed as part of the mitigation implementa6on. Current and furore public access issues along the levee road will also have to be examined. In addition, the District has !ong-term plans to build a floodwall along the upland perimeter of this parcel, and remove or gap the existing levee, allowing the mitigation site to become part of the San Francisquito Creek floodplain. The District also has plans for a land swap with the City. of Palo Alto, so that the City. can locate a new" stormwater pumping station somewhere on the haternational School Mitigation Site. Proposed Mitigation, Mixed riparian woodland v-ill be established at the International School Mitigation Site by removing all non-native vegetation in the area and grading the parcel to the appropriate elevation and slope for mixed riparian plant species. Al! open areas will be planted with native riparian forbs, shrubs, and/or trees. The mitigation will be approximately 1.76 acres in size. The anticipated order of events for construction of the off-site mitigation is as follows: 1 ) Finalize Mitigation and Monitoring Plan; 2) Perform hydrologic and grading analysis; 3) Perform detailed soils and groundwater analysis; 4) Prepare detailed plans and specifications; 5) Obtain permits and approvals; 6) Install silt and ESA fencing; 7) Grade site and remove all hardscape from the mitigation area; 8) Remove select non-native species from the project vicinity.; 9) Loosen, replace or amend soils as necessary; 10) Install irrigation system; 11) Plant native vegetation in mitigation area as described in the planting plan below; 12) Hydroseed all denuded areas as soon as possible. Site preparation at the International School site includes the removal of all hardscape and non-native vegetation from the planting areas, and ~-ading those areas to an elevation appropriate for the establishment of riparian habitat. Grading at the off-site mitigation area will need to incorporate mitigation plantings, as well as future District design considerations such as levee removal and potential floodwater conveyance. Soils at the design grade within the mitigation site are likely not suitable m riparian habitat creation. Possible shortcomings include poor organic content and over- compacted soils. The off-site mitigation area still requires extensive testing to meet the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and also Tire 22 if disposal is required. At the mitigation site, soils will likely need to be mechanically loosened and amended with organic matter. The site may need to be back.filled with suitable soils to attain elevations similar to the existing surrounding habitat once fills have been excavated to expose native soils. A mixed riparian planting association is proposed for the International School Mitigation Site. The proposed plant species in this group include coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California bay (Umbellularia catifornica), and valley oak ((~uercus lobam) for the upper canopy species. Mid-canopy species include box elder (Acer negundo), California buckeye (Aescutus catifornica) and blue elderberry. (Sambucus mexicana), while understory plantings include coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus var. laevigams), and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). All disturbed areas will be hydroseeded with a native ~m-ass and legm-ne mixture after site preparation. We feel that the International School Mitigation Site is the best option for off-site mitigation for the Matadero Creek Flood Control Project. Implementation of the proposed mitigation will fully compensate for the impacts that result from the flood control project, and the habitat value of San Francisquito Creek will be greatly enhanced. Thank you and please call me with any questions at 408448-9450 (x402). Eric Webb, Ph.D. Restoration Division Head co:Eric Tsou, SCVWD Katherine Oven,, Schaff & Wheeler Dan Stephens, HTH Project file 1518-01 Attachment: H.T. Harvey letter report dated July 25, 2001. H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS June 10, 2002 Mr. Eric Tsou Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, California 95118 Re: Matadero Creek, Adobe Creek and LATP Off-Site Mitigation Evaluation (Project number 1518-01) Dear Eric, Beginning in 1999, H.T. Harvey & Associates began a comprehensive search for suitable mitigation areas in the vicini~’ of the Matadero Creek impact site (downstream of Route 101), as well as further upstream in the Matadero and adjacent watersheds. Numerous potential sites were identified. Included in these initial sites, was the Adobe Creek area immediately downstream of Route 101. This site was eliminated from consideration as a realistic choice for off-site mitigation for several reasons. First. the area most appropriate for restoration to willow riparian habitat is currently dominated by a large stand of mature eucalyptus (Eucai.~pms sp.t. \Vhile eucalyptus trees are invasive, non-native species, they do provide some habitat structure and are utilized by nesting raptors. The removal of such a large stand of mature trees would likely raise public opposition. Secondly, the adjacent bank slopes (which are dominated by ruderal, non-native vegetation) consist of sack concrete, presumably for erosion control purposes. The removal of large areas of sack concrete would be necessary to revegetate these slopes and create willow riparian habitat. Finally, as you move downstream past the areas discussed abo-v~, trees become more sparsely distributed and are less vigorous. Furthermore, areas of adjacent pickleweed (Saiicor~ia virginica) (a dominant salt marsh plant species) become more prevalent as the influence of the Palo Alto Flood Basin (PAFB) increases. It was our contention that these areas may not be the most appropriate for willow establishment, due to the higher salinities that are likely prevalent in this reach of Adobe Creek. The pattern observed at Adobe Creek mimics the existing conditions at Matadero Creek. in which woody vegetation disappears as salt marsh habitat becomes more dominant. However, at the public hearing with the Palo Alto Parks Commission on May 28, 2002, the Commission asked us to further investigate this site as a potential location for off-site mitigation ~br the Matadero Creek Remediation project. The following day, H.T. Harvey & Associates staff visited the site-again to re-evaluate its potential for use as mitigation for willow" riparian habitat. As with our first impression of the site, we feel that the area currently occupied by the mature eucalyptus trees would be ideal for restoration to willow riparian habitat, but would likely meet with public opposition. The vegetation along the slough in the area north of the LATP site consists of large areas of giant reed (’.4rundo donax) and cattails (Typha sp.), interspersed with a few stunted eucalyptus trees and only 2 or 3 willow trees. The area quickly becomes pickle~veed marsh as you move north, away from the channel and into the PAFB. Mitigation opportunities in the area include the removal of the large areas of eucalyptus and giant reed and replanting with native vegetation. Areas along the banks that are currently ruderal habitat could also be revegetated with native riparian species. However, the potential for the creation of willow riparian habitat in the downstream portions of Adobe Creek is questionable due to the site’s proximiff to the muted tidal salt marsh habitat of the PAFB. Although not impossible, we feel that an at-tempt at creating willow-dominated riparian habitat in the downstream areas of Adobe Creek would either meet with opposition from the removal of a mature stand of eucalyptus, or would be vew risky due to the inappropriate geomorphic setting. Willow establishment in the downstream portion of Adobe Creek would likely be difficult and mav result in a hig_h mortaliD’ rate of planted vegetation. Since the mitigation site will need to meet specific performance criteria to be in compliance with regulator?’ permits w’e do not recommend using this site. However, an invasive plant species eradication and native revegetation program that is not linked to specific performance criteria would greatly improve habitat conditions in the downstream reaches of Adobe Creek north of the LATP site. In addition to this reach of Adobe Creek, H.T. Harvey & Associates also performed detailed evaluations of the restoration potential of the Los Altos Trear_ment Plant (LATP) site in 1999 for the City of Palo Alto. Restoration concepts were developed in Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prepared for CH2MHill and the City of Palo Alto (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1999). The plan was prepared to mitigate for impacts associated with the development of a solid waste collection corporation yard and permanent household hazardous waste recycling faciii~, on the site. Our evaluation of ~he site detem~ined that the appropriate target habitats for restoration at the LATP site include muted tidal salt marsh or diked salt marsh. The LATP site is currently comprised of hypersaline salt pans, seasonal wetlands and uplands dominated bv non-native plant species. The LATP site is surrounded bv development, parking areas and levees. The site receives little if any freshwater inputs. Furthermore, there is no nearby source of freshwater discharge that could be routed onto the site. Due to the lack of anv freshwater inputs (besides incidental rainfall), we believe that riparian restoration on the LATP site is not feasible. However. the site provides an excellent oppormni~, for wetland restoration as detailed in the LATP Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (H. T. Harvey & Associates 1999). H. r. HARVEI" & .4SSOCIATES If you have any questions please call me at 408-448-9450 (x402). Sin~ rely, Eric Webb, Ph.D. Restoration Division Head Ms. Shannon George, David J. Powers & Associates Katherine Oven, Schaaf & Wheeler Dan Stephens, H.T. Harvey & Associates Project file 1518-0I References H. T. Harvey & Associates. 1999. LATP Site Development Project Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Project Number 1200-04. Prepared for CH2MHill. H.T. HARVEY & .4SSOCIATES H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS 10 February2003 StevenWu Santa ClaraValleyWaer District 5750Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118 Subject: Potential Mitigation Sites on City of Palo Alto-owned Lands (Project # 1518-04) Dear Steven, H. T. Harvey & Associates restoration ecologist David Thomson, M.S. performed a reconnaissance-level site assessment of two potential mitigation areas proposed by the City of Palo Alto (City). The City asked that these areas be considered as off-site mitigation for impacts that would occur due to the construction of the flood b.vpass channel for the MataderoiBarron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project. Our overall conclusions are the two sites will not meet the specific mitigation requirements for project impacts to riparian habitat within CDFG jurisdiction. The major concerns identified with the two sites during the assessment were lack of direct connectivity with riparian vegetation adjacent to San Francisquito Creek and potenti.ally high water table salinity. Site 1 is located a short distance downstream of State Route 101 on San Francisquito Creek in Santa Clara Coun~ (Figure 1). It is located between the southern levee and the baseball fields in the Bayland Athletic Center, just downstream of the proposed East Bayshore Mitigation site. The vegetation on site generally consists of bare ~ound due to its current use (see below). Howev~, there are some trees and shrubs present such as eucalyptus, pines, and coyote brush. There are also a few willows adjacent to the site along a drainage ditch that runs beside the golf course, past the downstream extent of the site (i.e. the drainage and the wil!ows appear to be on the golf course’s property). Site 1 is a long strip approximately 50 feet wide that runs parallel to the creek along the levee. The site is fairly level and is surrounded on one side by the Baylands Athletic Center’s baseball fields and on the other by the creek. The site is open space currently utilized by the SCVWD as a construction staging area during their present levee maintenance project. ~X~# ..............~<,.~.,. ......’~ ......~ 1 Project Vicinity ~~_~Site 1 I ~"~ ’, ~~_~ ~ ~ ~ Cf __ ~ .........,, ~@ V~’MaoCon~med1997bv~eC~ii~miaSm~~.~ ~ ~g~ "~ ................................................ ~{~’&u~omo~le~ssociation~enr~uc~bv~ission ~~Z’~ ~# Ma~dero~dBarronCree~FloodControlProject: ~ Location of CiU" of P~o Alto O~ed L~ds --...................................................... ~’,, {~~" . ~ ~ File No. 1518-04 Oa,e U18/03 Figure 1 Adjacem to Site 1, on the inboard side of the levee (i.e. along the creek bank), the vegetation is dominated by ruderal grasses on the higher portions of the levee and high marsh species (including pickleweed), at lower elevations where the creek is intertidal and presumably brackish. There is no woody vegetation adjacent to the site between the creek channel and the levee. We consider Site 1 to be marginal at best for riparian restoration. This is due to a lack of connectivity between the site and the creek. Connectivity to San Francisquito Creek is missing mainly due to the lack of woody vegetation on the creek-side of the levee. It is unlikely that riparian vegetation could be established between the creek channel and the levee because of high salinifies in the channel. Furthermore, due to the presence of salt- tolerant vegetation along the channel, we believe that even if the levee were moved adjacent to the baseball fields so that the site were inside the San Francisquito Creek floodplain it would not support riparian vegetation due to the high salinifies in the channel. Site 2 is located further downstream from Site 1 along San Francisquito Creek near the Friendship Bridge in San Mateo County. (Fi~m.tre 1). It is located between the northern levee and residential housing in East Palo Alto, just upstream from a SCVWD pump station. The vegetation on site generally consists of mderal grasses with sparse coyote brush. The site is filled with concrete debris that is over,own by the ruderal grasses. There are no trees on this side of the creek except for some ornamentals on the property, of the adjacent residential lots. Site 2 is larger than Site 1, encompassing an approximately 50 to 200-foot wide strip of land between the levee and residential housing. The site is fairly level with some microtopography created by the concrete debris. The site is located just upstream of the fully tidal salt marshes of the Baylands Preserve. Adjacent to Site 2, on the inboard side of the levee (along the creek bank) the vegetation is dominated by a narrow strip of ruderal grasses, near the levee access road and a broad tidal brackish marsh containing species such as bulrush and picldeweed, closer to the channel. There is no woody vegetation adjacent to the site within the creek channel. Site 2 is also not appropriate for riparian habitat restoration. Similar to Site 1, there is no woody vegetation on the inboard side of the levee to afford connectivity between created riparian habitat and the creek. Furthermore we believe the water table at this site is likely saline and would not support riparian vegetation. However t~s site could be utilized for tidal marsh creation by moving the levee behind the site and excavating the site to the appropriate elevation. In conclusion, we still believe that the East Bayshore Mitigation Site provides the best opportunity for mitigating the project impacts to riparian habitat. We feel the two sites H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES proposed by the City of Palo Alto would be better suited to brackish and salt marsh habitat creation if the SCVWD were to relocate the levee behind the sites. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at 831-786-1700. Sincerely, Eric Webb, PhDI Project Manager Dan Stephens, HTH Pat Boursier, Ph.D., HTH John Bourgeois, HTH Steve Machida, MTCO H.T. HARVEY & .4SSOCIATES Attachment F RESOLUTION NO. 02- RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MATADERO/BARRON CREEKS LONG-TERM REMEDIATION PROJECT AND ADOPTINGFINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT QF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS BE tT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of Santa Clara Valley Water District as follows: WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Water District ("District"), as Lead Agency under California Environmental Quality Act, has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (°EIR") for the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project; and WHEREAS, the District is now considering the proposed flood control work of the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project; and WHEREAS, the District Board of Directors has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR and the record of proceedings including, but not limited to, staff reports, oral and written comments given at public hearings on the EIR, the responses thereto contained in the Final EIR, and all other matters deemed material and relevant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors hereby determines that the EIR is adequate for purposes of its consideration of the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Directors makes the findings and states theoverriding considerations as shown in Attachment No. 1 hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Directors adopts the mitigation and monitor.ing program referenced in the EIR and findings attached hereto, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Executive Officer is hereby authorized anddirected, on behalf of the District Board of Directors and in its name, to execute any such documents and to perform any such acts as may be deemed necessary or appropriate to accomplish the intentions of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of Santa Clara Valley Water District by the following vote on December 3, 2002. AYES:Directors NOES:Directors _ ABSENT:Directors ABSTAIN: Directors SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT LAUREN L. KELLER By: Rosemary C. Kamei Chair/Board of Directors ClerkJBoard of Directors RL11852.doc RESOLUTION NO. 02- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROJECT AND GENERAL CONSTRUCTION PLANS IN REPORT OF ENGINEER AND DETERMINING TO PROCEED WITH WORK OF PROVIDING FLOOD CONTROL PROTECTION MEASURES ON MATADERO/BARRON CREEKS LONG-TERM REMEDIATION PROJECT FROM THE PALO ALTO FLOOD BASIN TO ALMA STREET WHEREAS, the Northwest Flood Control Zone (Lower Peninsula Watershed) and other zones of the Santa Clara Valley Water District has been duly and regularly established and exists pursuant to provisions of the Santa Clara Valley Water District Act; and WHEREAS, on the 5th day of November 2002, the Report of the District Engineer was filed with this Board, which report consists of maps and general construction plans for Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation project: A general description of the proposed work of the flood control protection measures ("project"), together with plans and profiles relating thereto; A general description of and maps showing the location of the proposed project and the lands, right of way, and easements required therefore; and 3.An estimate of the cost of the proposed project and means of financing these costs; and WHEREAS, this Board of Directors did on the 5th day of November 2002, adopt its resolution declaring that the public interest and convenience require the construction of said project in accordance with said maps and general construction plans as contained in said report and specifying its intention to undertake construction of the same and setting a time and place for public hearing of said resolL~fion, to wit, the 3rd day of December 2002, at 9:40 a.m., at the Santa Clara Valley Water District, 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, California; and WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of said public hearing was duly given and published pursuant to law; and WHEREAS, on said 3rd day of December 2002, at the time and place in said resolution and in said notice specified, a public hearing was duly held. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water District as follows: SECTION 1 That all comments including all written and oral objections to the proposed project have been heard and considered; SECTION 2 That this Board hereby finds and determines that the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and Guidelines for the implementation thereof have been met and complied with; RL11853.doc 1 Approving the Project and General Construction Plans in Report of Engineer and Determining to Proceed With Work of Providing Flood Control Protection Measures on Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project From the Pato Alto Flood Basin to Alma Street SECTION 3 That this Board hereby approves said Engineer’s Report, including the general construction plans for Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation project, from the Palo Alto Flood Basin to Alma Street, Project No. 102109, in said Zone; SECTION 4 That this Board hereby determines that said project is for the benefit of a single zone of the District, to wit, Zone; further determines to proceed with the construction of said project in said Zone according to the said report and plans of the Engineer of this District and further determines that the cost thereof shall be borne by the said Zone or other zones established by the District; and SECTION 5 That the District Engineer is directed to draw up precise plans and specifications for said project based upon the said report and includes al! environmental mitigation measures related to impacts described in the Environmental Impact Report. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of Santa Clara Valley Water District by the following vote on December 3, 2002. AYES:Directors NOES:Directors ABSENT:Directors ABSTAIN: Directors SANTA CLAP..,& VALLEY WATER DISTRICT AT-FEST:LAUREN L. KELLER Rosemary C. Kamei Chair/Board of Directors CterWBoard of Directors RL11853.doc 2 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MATADERO/BARRON CREEKS LONG-TERM REMEDIATION PROJECT This document presents findings in accordance with Sections 15091 and 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA°) Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. Under CEQA, the Santa Clara Valley Water District ("District") must prepare written findings of fact for each potentially significant adverse environmental effect identified in a final environmental impact report ("EIR") and explain whether the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long- Term Remediation Project ("Project") has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the potential effect. Findings must describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures ("mitigation") and project alternatives. In some cases, the District may make a statement of overriding considerations when it has identified specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations that make avoidance or reduction of significant environmental effects infeasible. CEQA also requires that the District identify whether another agency has responsibility for avoiding or reducing significant environmental effects. These findings concern the environmental impact report entitled Final Environmental Impact Report for the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project that was prepared by the District to satisfy the District’s responsibilities under CEQA. These findings concern only the document’s compliance with CEQA. Attachment 1, Page 1 of 15 November 2002 The Board of Directors of the District ("Board") hereby finds, determines, and declares: 1.BACKGROUND A.Project Description The project site encompasses approximately 3.5 miles of Matadero and Barron Creeks from the Palo Alto Flood Basin ("PAFB") upstream to Foothill Expressway in the City of Palo Alto ("City"). The engineering analysis determined that a combination of flood control components would be required to provide the desired flood protection to Matadero and Barron Creeks. Based on this analysis, the proposed Project consists of improvements on Matadero Creek downstream of Highway 101, as well as upstream of Highway 101 between the freeway and Alma Street. o ° o The downstream segment of the proposed Project, between Highway 101 and the PAFB, includes the construction Of a bypass channel consisting of a gravity retaining wall system and a hard bottom. The gravity retaining wall system is comprised of interlocking blocks that create pockets within the wall system, which are available to be planted with vegetation. The bypass channel will be located along the edge of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Services Center/Corporation Yard ("MSC") an~ wili be sized t~ convey approximately 1,400 cubic feet per second (cfs) during a one percent flood event. This bypass channel would be approximately 60 feet wide and would be constructed within the District’s easement along the north and southeast boundaries of the MSC. The proposed bypass charmer would originate just northeast of East Bayshore Road with a se~Jiment basin, which would convey flood flows into the bypass channel. The bypass channel would travel along the fence line, just north of the MSC, before turning to the southeast and ou~ffalling into the PAFB° The levee area between the proposed bypass channel and the PAFB would be planted for riparian and wetland habitat mitigation. Construction of the proposed bypass channel will take approximately 12-18 months to complete, depending on biological constraints. Upstream of Highway 101, the Project proposes to replace and raise the Louis Road Bridge. The new bridge will be on the same alignment and structural footprint as the existing structure. The bridge will be raised approximately 1 foot, and as a result, roadway approaches will have to be raised and repaved on both sides of the bridge. The trapezoidal channel under the Louis Road Bridge will be replaced with a U-frame channel to improve conveyance capacity. An approximately 40-foot long channel transition (from trapezoidal to U-frame) would be included upstream of Louis Road, and an approximately 20-foot long channel transition would be built downstream. The transition lengths are in addition to the 65-foot length of U-frame channel under the bridge. In addition, floodwalls and headwal!s between Highway 101 and Alma Street will be raised as necessary along the creek channel and at various I100~bridge crossings to meet the FEMA criteria for one percent ’ ,4 Attachment 1, Page 2 of 15 November 2002 o protection. However, during the process of obtaining a Conditional Letter of Map Revision from FEMA, the District conducted a risk-based analysis to determine the site-specific freeboard necessary to pass the one- percent flood discharge. Based on these results, the District proposed and received approval from FEMA, to use risk-based freeboard criteria between Bayshore Road and Ross Road, and thus lower the required headwall and floodwall heights. The draft EIR evaluated three "Enhancement Opportunities" pursuant to the Board’s Ends Policy of improving the environmental quality of streams and environmental resources in its jurisdiction. Such enhancements go beyond the mitigation necessary under CEQA to reduce an impact to a level of insignificance. Commenters on the draft EIR urged that the District proceed with one of these enhancements - Enhancement No. 2 - as part of the proposed Project submitted to the Board for approval. Enhancement No. 2 involve~ the restoration of Matadero Creek downstream of Highway 101 to a more natural riparian habitat. In response, the District Staff has incorporated Enhancement No. 2 into the Project as mitigation for riparian impacts, in order to provide more on-site mitigation. The Board finds that the EIR provides sufficient evaluation of this enhancement under CEQA to support its inclusion in the Project. The Board further finds that, although incorporating Enhancement No. 2 will increase the amount of onsite mitigation for the loss of riparian habitat caused by the Project, the amount of mitigation (both onsite and offsite) proposed in the draft EIR was sufficient to render this impact insignificant. The :objectives and public benefits of the Project include: a) Increase the flood capacity to achieve the District’s and FEMA’s one percent (100-year) f!ood design flow level of protection with adequate freeboard along Matadero and Barron Creeks; b)Provide equivalent levels of flood protection throughout the project area; c)Protect existing sensitive habitat within the Matadero Creek watershed; d) Provide for efficient and cost-effective flood control maintenance; e)Obtain a letter of map revision from FEMA to remove the existing flood prone areas from the Flood Insurance Rate Map; and f) Reduce the risk of flooding from Matadero and Barron Creeks in the tidal inundation zone between Middlefield Road and the San Francisco Bay. The estimated cost of the Project is $14 million: approximately $200,000 for right-of-way acquisition, approximately $13.3 million for construction- related activities, and approximately $500,000 for mitigation. Attachment 1, Page 3 of 15 November 2002 l=inal Environmental Impact Report 1.As the lead agency for the Proiect, the District has prepared a final EIR for the Project based on the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines for CEQA (Sections 15000-15387, Administrative Code, Title 14, Chapter 3). Pursuant to the Section 15232(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the final Ell::{ comprises the following documents and materials: ¯The draft EIR; ~The draft Engineer’s Report; []Appendices; []Comments on the draft EIR; []The District’s responses to comments on the draft EIR; []The final EIR, which includes revisions to the draft EIR based on comments on the draft EIR. The final EIR is on file in the office of: Ms. Lauren L. Keller Clerk, Board of Directors Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118 The planning records, other District records, and minutes and flies constituting the record of proceedings are also on file at this location. These records are incorporated in this document by this reference. The Board desfgnates Ms. Keller as the custodian of the documents and record of proceedings on which the decision on this Project is based. The draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from October 16, 2001 to December 4, 2001. The comments received were considered in the preparation of the final EIR. The District conducted a public hearing on the draft EIR on November 20, 2001 to provide the public with an opportunity to make oral comments and additional written comments. Approximately 20 members of the public attended. The final EIR, which included responses to the comments received on the draft EIR, was made available to the public on November 21,2002. The final EIR and was filed with Santa Clara County on December 4, 2002. District staff conducted several public meetings during the EIR process to identify additional issues of public concern. These meetings were held on June 10, 1999; September 22, 1999; and February 17, 2000. Several project updates have been mailed to residents and businesses in the project area throughout the life of the Project. Project information has Attachment 1, Page 4 of 15 November 2002 been made available at the District’s Web site (http://www.scvwd.dst.ca.us). o District staff held meetir~gs with the staffs of the City of Palo Alto, the California Department of Fish & Game ("CDF&G"), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board to review the Project and draft EIR. Staff from these agencies have attended several field trips and reviewed and commented on project plans. Board and District staff members have attended a variety of local meetings of environmental groups, neighborhood associations, and have met with concerned citizens on an individual basis to discuss the Project. o The final EIR reflects revisions to the draft EIR in response to comments received on the draft EIR. Specific responses to those comments are presented in the final EIR, and the revised text of sections of the draft EIR that were modified in accordance with those comments are presented in the final EIR. On December 3, 2002, the District conducted a further public hearing before the Board to review and consider the Project. o As part of the accompanying resolution, the Board is also approving a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ("MMP") pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. The MMP is designed to ensure compliance with project changes and mitigation imposed to avoid or substantially reduce the environmental effects identified in the final EIR. The MMP is described in detail in the MMP document and is incorporated in this document by reference. o The Board has reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR and record of proceedings before considering the proposed Project for approval. The information reviewed includes, but is not limited to, the draft and final EIRs, staff reports, oral and written comments received by the District on the draft EIR and the Project, responses to these comments (in the final EIR), and all other matters determined to be relevant. The conclusions of the final EIR reflect the independent judgment of the District. ALL POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WILL BE MITIGATED TO A LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The Project was considered to have potentially significant impacts on land uses, geology and soils; vegetation and wildlife; water quality; hazardous materials; public services and utilities; visual and aesthetic resources, and short-term traffic and noise conditions during construction. The Board finds that, in response to each potentially significant effect identified in the EIR and listed herein, all mitigation measures, feasible changes, or alterations that avoid or substantially reduce these environmental effects have been incorporated into the Project. With implementation of the proposed best management practices ("BMPs") and/or mitigation described in the EIR and summarized below, the Project is determined to have Jess-than-significant impacts on these resources. Attachment 1, Page 5 of 15 November 2002 Land Use Impact--Construction activities could result in significant physical disturbance, and could cause temporary disruption to the adjacent land uses. BMPs and Mitigation--The District will implement a Construction Management Plan to minimize impacts on the surrounding land uses, particularly the residences, to the fullest extent possible. The Construction Management Plan will include the following measures: o Notification and communication with neighborhood regarding construction activities, and ~ BMPs to control dust, noise, and water pollution impacts. Determination--With implementation of the proposed mitigation, there will be no significant impacts related to land use impacts. Geology and Soils Impact-- The Project is located in an area of expansive soils and potentially unstable channel slopes. BMPs and Mitigation--The Project includes the following BMPs and mitigation: Geotechnical investigations conducted to date have identified sufficient site and soil characteristics to support a specific project design that will reduce potential hazards. Slabs on grade will have sufficient reinforcement and be supported on a layer of non-expansive fill. Foundations of proposed improvements will also be placed below the depth of seasonal moisture fluctuation. All new bridges, bypass and channel structures will be constructed in accordance with appropriate governing bridge!building codes and FEMA standards to withstand_..Ioadings from earthquake, flood flows and earth pressure. Determination--With implementation of the proposed BMPs and mitigation, there will be no significant geologic and soils impact. Vegetation and Wildlife impact-- The Project or its construction could result in the loss of wetland and riparian habitat, and could impact sensitive species occupying the project site, including Steelhead Rainbow Trout and Fall-run Chinook salmon, California red- legged frogs, nesting raptors, Burrowing Owls, nesting waterbirds, nesting swallows, nesting salt marsh Common Yellowthroats and Alameda Song Sparrows, salt marsh harvest mice, and salt marsh wandering shrews. BMPs and Mitigation-- The Project includes the following BMPs and mitigation: Attachment 1, Page 6 of 15 November 2002 The Project will create 0.22 acres of new wetland habitat on the project site to replace the impacted wetlands. The Project will create 2.34 acres of new riparian habitat both on and off site to replace impacted willow riparian habitat. Construction will be limited to the dry season. Measures will be taken to ensure that water quality is not impacted during construction. Measures will be taken to ensure that all species will have unimpeded access to the creek both upstream and downstream of the construction area. A survey for the species within the immediate impact site will be conducted immediately before construction begins. If frogs are not found on site during pre-construction surveys, all vegetation within the impact area will be completely removed prior to construction. If frogs are found on site during pre-construction surveys, the District will establish a buffer zone or move the frog(s) in conformance with permit requirements of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"). Construction will be scheduled to avoid the nesting season, and will take place outside the breeding season when feasible. Pre-construction surveys will be conducted by a qualified ornithologist prior to any soil altering activities and no more than 1 5 days prior to construction. The surveys will ensure that no active raptor nests will be disturbed during project construction. If Burrowin~ Owls are present and avoidance is not feasible, the Owls will be removed with the authorization of the CDFG. If nesting waterbirds are found, a construction buffer around the active nest will be established. Old nests in the construction area will be removed before the swallow colony returns to the nesting site. If necessary, a permit will be obtained from USFWS to remove or destroy nests. Any eggs removed from the nests will require incubation by an approved wildlife rescue group. If Common Yellowthroat or Song Sparrow nests are found, a construction buffer around the active nest will be established. Within 10 days prior to initiation of construction, all pickleweed in the construction area will be removed by hand. Remaining pickleweed habitat will be avoided during construction and a qualified biologist will be on hand to monitor the area and rescue any small mammals found in the area during construction. All impacted pickleweed habitat wil! be replanted immediately following construction. Determination-- With implementation of the proposed BMPs and mitigation, there will be no significant impacts to vegetation and wildlife. In addition, the District’s Board will consider the adoption of Enhancement No. 2 as part of the Project, which would further increase the amount of onsite riparian habitat mitigation, although this enhancement is not necessary to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. Attachment 1, Page 7 of 15 November 2002 Eo Wa~e~ Qualit~ impact-- Construction of the proposed Project could impact the water quality of Matadero Creek. BMPs and Mitigation--The Project includes the following BMPs and mitigation: 1. Construction in the channel will only occur in the dry season. 2. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be implemented. 3.Erosion controls methods will be used, as appropriate, during construction to control sediment. 4.After construction, the District will stabilize and/or revegetate the disturbed areas of the creek channel. Determination--With implementation of the proposed BMPs and mitigation, there wilt be no significant impacts on water quality. Hazardous Materials lmpa.ct-- Construction of the proposed Project could expose construction workers and nearby land uses to risk if breaks occur in electric transmission lines and/or sanitary sewer lines in the creek channel. Contaminated soil and groundwater within and adjacent to the upstream channel could be encountered during project construction and released into the creek channel or PAFB. Petroleum-impacted soil and!or groundwater within and adjacent to the proposed bypass channel area could be encountered during project construction and released into the creek channel or PAFB. BMPs and Mitigation-- The Project includes the following BMPs and mitigation: The exact location of electric transmission lines and sanitary sewer lines in the project area will be identified prior to construction. Buffers will be established around all transmission and sewer lines prior to construction and will be in effect until construction is complete. Breaks in unidentified utility lines will be repaired immediately by the responsible party. Prior to construction, the extent of any soil and groundwater contamination will be determined. A Health and Safety Plan and a Soi! Management Plan shall be prepared that will identify protocols for working in contaminated areas. Any contaminated soil or groundwater encountered during construction will be disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulations and requirements. Determination--With implementation of the proposed BMPs and mitigation, there will be no significant hazardous materials impacts. Attachment 1, Page 8 of 15 November 2002 F.Construction-Related Impacts on Traffic and Noise Go No Impact-- Construction work associated with the Louis Road Bridge could result in short -term traffic and circulation impacts. Construction of the proposed Project could result in temporary noise levels higher than existing levels. BMPs and Mitigation--The Project includes the following BMPs and mitigation: 1.The number of crossing guards located along Louis Road, in the vicinity of Ohlone Elementary School, will be increased during construction. A detour plan will be implemented in coordination with the City of Palo Alto. Construction activities will be conducted in accordance with all City Noise Ordinances. The contractor will be required to use "new technology" power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. All internal combustion engines used on the project site will be equipped with adequate mufflers and properly maintained. Determination--The short-term duration of these impacts and the implementation of the proposed BMPs and mitigation will each independently reduce potential construction impacts to a less-than-significant level. Utilities and Services Impact~ The Project could interfere with utility lines during construction of the U- frame channel near Louis Road. BMPs and Mitigation--The Project includes the following BMPs and mitigation: 1. The exact iocation of utilities will be identified prior to construction. 2. Buffers will be established around all utilities. o All underground utilities will be protected and/or relocated during project construction as necessary. Any damage to these utilities will be repaired and/or replaced by the District. DeterminationwWith implementation of the proposed BMPs and mitigation, there will be no significant impact on utilities and services. Visual and Aesthetics Impact-- The proposed increase in floodwall and headwall heights could result in a significant visual and aesthetic impact. BMPs and Mitigation -- The District proposed and received approval from FEMA , to use risk-based freeboard criteria between Highway 101 and El Camino Real, and thus lower the required headwall and floodwall heights. In addition, temporary, removable flood barriers along the channel maintenance access roads, raised sidewalks, and architectural treatment of headwalls will be employed to further reduce visual impacts. Attachment 1, Page 9 of 15 November 2002 Determination --As a result of the reduced heights of the headwalls and floodwalls from the use of risk-based freeboard criteria, the use of removable flood barriers along the channel maintenance access roads, and installation of raised sidewalks at the Louis and Greer Road bridge crossings, (as described in the final EIR), the Board finds that the visual and aesthetic impacts of the Project will be reduced to a less than significant level. The incorporation of decorative architectural elements into the headwall designs at Greer, Louis and Waverley bridges will further reduce the Project’s residual visual impacts. Cumulative Impacts For the reasons stated in the EIR, the Project was not found to result in cumulatively considerable impacts when considered in combination with past, current, and probable future projects. Project Maintenance The Project will include a maintenance program that includes erosion protection, vegetation management, and sediment removal. The goals of the maintenance program include restoring the facilities to the "as built" condition that will exist following construction, repairing the facility as necessary, and eliminating hazardous conditions. The hazardous conditions include eroding banks, presence of large dead or fallen trees, and excessive trash and debris. The general tasks to be performed under a routine maintenance program include fencing repairs, trash and debris removal, weed control, and elimination of potentially hazardous conditions. Annual inspection and periodic removal of sediment and woody vegetation in the waterway, as well as restoration of abraded concrete structures, will a!so be necessary. Vegetation and sediment wilt be allowed to accumulate to a predefined level, at which time the "as built" condition will be restored by maintenance activities. The vegetation will provide additional habitat value and shading between maintenance cycles. The maintenance activities will follow standard BMPs designed to avoid any substantial adverse impacts on water quality or other biological resources. Other maintenance activities not currently conducted may be included, such as the possible repair of vegetated gravity retaining walls, but those activities wil! also be conducted using BMPs. The existing, ongoing-maintenance activities in the areas affected by the Project are also the subject of the District’s mulfiyear stream maintenance program ("SMP"), for which an EIR has been prepared. The SMP and accompanying EIR have evaluated the impacts of ongoing maintenance activities and will provide mitigation as-appropriate. Determination--The Board finds that maintenance activities are an integral element of the project design and are needed to ensure proper function of the constructed facilities, and that maintenance activities, including those to restore the "as built" condition to these facilities, will not result in significant impacts. Ill.PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to a project or to the location of a project that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. The EIR must evaluate the comparative merits of those alternatives and consider a "no-project" alternative. For comparative purposes, the Attachment 1, Page 10 of 15 November 2002 objectives of the Project are set forth in Section I.A., and impacts are analyzed in Section II of these Findings. As set forth below, the District considered various alternatives in selecting the Project. The Board certifies that the EIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. The Board has evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives and rejected them in favor of the Project, as summarized below. A.Underground Bypass Alternative To minimize intrusion into the creek channel and meet the flood control requirements of the Project, this alternative would include a 40-foot wide, 8-foot high box culvert under East Bayshore Road. A sediment basin would be excavated just downstream of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge to minimize sediment accumulation in the box culvert itself. Flood flows would be diverted into the box culvert via an inlet structure and would discharge into the PAFB just south of the MSC property. The culvert would need to span the entire East Bayshore road right-of-way and would require substantial utility relocation and elevating the roadway to at least 6 feet NGVD (the road is presently built at an elevation of 4.0 to 5.0 feet NGVD). This alternative would also require modifications to the main entrance road to the MSC and other driveways along the alignment in order to provide safe vehicular access. Impacts associated with this alternative would be the temporary closure of East Bayshore Road, access problems to property fronting East Bayshore Road during.construction,~ and the temporary disruption of utility services in the area. Although this alternative would reduce potential envii’onmental impacts ~ssociated with biological resources and exposure of hazardous materials, compared to the proposed Project, the proposed Project includes mitigat.ion to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, the total cost of this underground bypass is estimated to be S15,000,000 compared to $8,000,000 for the portion of the proposed Project it would replace. For these reasons, the Board finds that this alternative is infeasible and rejects it. Bo Channel Modification Alternative The purpose of this alternative would be to reduce the visual impact associated with the increased floodwall and headwall heights along the upstream reach of Matadero Creek. This alternative could construct a 36-foot wide U-frame concrete channel to replace the existing concrete trapezoidal channel from Greer Road Bridge to Alma Street. A low-flow fish channel could be included, as could reconstruction of the existing maintenance access ramps. Floodwalls could be added as necessary to provide freeboard and the Louis Road Bridge could be replaced and raised as discussed in the proposed Project. Replacing the existing trapezoidal channel with a U-frame channel would increase flood flow capacity within the creek channel. As a result, floodwalls would no longer be required upstream of Ross Road, so the overall visual impact would be reduced. (This impact is reduced to less than significant with mitigation in the proposed Project.) However, environmental impacts associated with the U- frame channel, increasing floodwall/headwall heights downstream of Ross Road, Attachment 1, Page 11 of 15 November 2002 Co and the raising of Louis Road Bridge would duplicate the impacts discussed for the proposed Project. Moreover, the total cost of this channel modification is estimated to be $30,000,000 compared to $6,000,000 for the portion of the proposed Project upstream of 101. For these reasons, the Board finds that this alternative is infeasible and rejects it. Off-St~’eam Storage Alternative The purpose of this alternative is to reduce the amount of flood flows conveyed through Matadero Creek and thus reduce the scope of channel remediation. This alternative could include a 130 acre-foot off-stream flood storage basin on a 20-- acre site near the intersection of Foothill Expressway and Page Mill Road on Stanford University land. During high flow events, water from Matadero Creek would overflow through a spillway structure into a holding pond for detention and eventual release back into Matadero Creek. Construction of this alternative would eliminate the need for floodwall improvements upstream of Ross Road and would reduce the floodwall and headwall height needed at Louis Road and Greer Road (although these are not a significant impact under the proposed Project). However, due to the location of the off-site storage basin, implementation of this alternative could impact riparian habitat and red-legged frog populations. Also, this alternative would not entirely eliminate the necessity for some floodwall modifications. Furthermore, as stated in the Engineers Report, the total cost of this off-stream storage is estimated to be S40,000,000 compared to $6,000,000 for the portion of the proposed Proiect upstream of 101. For these reasons, the Board finds that this alternative is infeasible and rejects it. Channel Restoration circa 1971 Alternative To restore design water surface elevations at Bayshore Freeway to their original design level, the downstream channel could be returned to its 1971 condition by removing established sediment and vegetation. Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of material would need to be removed to meet flood capacity requirements. This alternative would result in the loss of all of the vegetation in the entire existing riparian corridor along the southern overbank area of Matadero Creek below Bayshore Freeway. Approximately 3.4 acres of potential CDFG jurisdictional habitat and approximately 0.66 acres of potential US Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional habitat would be impacted, as well as several special- status wildlife species, including the salt marsh harvest mouse and the federally listed steelhead rainbow trout. A total of 11.5 acres of land would be required for riparian and wetland mitigation, the majority of which would be offsite. At the present time only approximately 2.3 acres of off-site mitigation area have been identified. In addition, rigorous and frequent maintenance above and beyond current maintenance procedures would be required to maintain the channel capacity. Restoration of the creek channel would not require the project to utilize contaminated land adjacent to the MSC property. As a result, this alternative avoids the mitigation required by the proposed Project (this impact is reduced to less than significant with mitigation in the proposed Project). However, this alternative creates a more significant biological impact than the proposed Project. Attachment 1, Page 12 of 15 November 2002 Eo In addition, currently identified mitigation sites would not be adequate for the mitigation needs of this alternative. The total cost of this channel restoration is estimated to be $17,500,000 compared to $8,000,000 for the portion of the proposed Project it replaces. For these reasons, the Board finds that this alternative is infeasible and rejects it. Expanded Floodway Alternative To restore flood flow conveyance downstream of Highway 101, a 50-foot wide floodway could be created alongside the exis.ting creek channel. The floodway would begin just downstream of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge adjacent to East Bayshore Road and extend approximately 1,600 feet toward the PAFB. A maintenance access road could be built east of the MSC where the existing levee is located. Any stands of Giant Reed would be completely removed. Because of the maintenance required, the bottom of the floodway would need to be covered with a hard maintenance floor. This alternative would result in the loss of approximately 3.16 acres of potential CDFG jurisdictional habitat. This alternative would also impact approximately 0.4 acres of potential US Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional habitat consisting of high quality wetlands. A total of 10 acres of land would be required for riparian and wetland mitigation, the majority of which would have to be found offsite. Taking into account identified on-site and off-site mitigation areas, this alternative would have a net deficit of more than 5.0 acres. In order to meet flood capacity req,uirements, the floodway and the creek channel would require vigorous ongoing maintenance. Expanding the existing floodway would not require the project to; utilize contaminated land adjacent to the MSC property. As a result, this alternative avoids the mitigation required by the proposed Project (this impact is reduced to less than significant with mitigation in the proposed Project). However, analysis shows that this alternative creates a more significant biological impact than the proposed Project. In addition, currently identified mitigation sites would not be adequate for the alternative’s mitigation needs. The total cost of this expanded floodway is estimated to be $14,000,000 compared to $8,000,000 for the portion of the proposed Project it replaces. For these reasons, the Board finds that this alternative is infeasible and rejects it. Fo No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative would be to leave Matadero Creek and the Louis Road Bridge as they are. The District would continue its Emergency Operations Plan at the Barron Diversion and its maintenance procedures along Matadero and Barron Creeks from Highway 101 to Foothill Expressway. This alternative avoids all the impacts of the proposed Project. However, Matadero and Barron Creeks would not be able to adequately convey a 100-year flood flow. This alternative does not meet the project objectives and is infeasible. G.Other Alternatives Other alternatives were reviewed by the District in the initial screening of alternatives for the Draft Engineer’s Report and in the final EIR’s response to comments. For the reasons stated in those documents, these alternatives are Attachment 1, Page 13 of 15 November 2002 IV’. rejected as infeasible and/or because they would not provide any environmental benefits over the proposed Project. Environmentally Superior Alternative The environmentally superior alternative for the downstream reach is the underground bypass channel. This alternative reduces the impact to biological resources and would allow for all mitigation pJantings to be done on site. Furthermore, this alternative avoids the contaminated soil located on and adjacent to the MSC property. However, the underground bypass channel would create significant construction, traffic and circulation impacts for the properties adjacent to East Bayshore Road. In addition, as stated in the Engineers Report on page 6-24, the total cost of this underground bypass is estimated to be $15,000,000 compared to $8,000,000 for the portion of the proposed project downstream of 101. Moreover, selection of this alternative is not necessary to avoid any significant environmental impacts, since the Project mitigates all impacts to an insignificant level. The environmentally superior alternative for the upstream reach is the U-frame channel modification from the Greer Road Bridge to Alma Street. This alternative somewhat reduces the visual impact that would result from the increase in fioodwall and headwall heights along Matadero Creek. The channel work could impact existing ruderal, aquatic, and developed habitat, as well as nesting swallows. However, these impacts would also occur with the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is considered superior because it does not create any new significant impacts beyond what is created by the proposed Project, and it reSuces the visual impacts caused by the proposed Project. However, selection of this alternative is not nec.essary to avoid any significant environmental impacts, since the Project mitigates all impacts to an insignificant level. Moreover, as stated in the Engineers Report on page 6-53, the total cost of this channel modification is estimated to be $30,000,000 compared to $6,000,000 for the portion of the proposed Project upstream of 101. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Board has determined that there are no impacts which are significant and cannot be mitigated to levels of insignificance. Although not significant, there are residual tevels-Sf impacts which remain unavoidable. In the event that any of the Project’s impacts are deemed significant, the Board has also determined whether there are other alternatives or further mitigation measures which are feasible and capable of mitigating the impacts to levels of insignificance, and whether overriding considerations favoring the proposed Project’s approval exist. If any of the unavoidable impacts of the Project were deemed significant, the Board finds that there are no other feasible alternatives or mitigation measures for further reduction of impact levels, and the Board further finds that the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects and that such effects are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the Project, even after giving greater weight to its duty to avoid the environmental impacts, and to protect the environment to the maximum extent feasible. This determination is made based upon the public benefits identified in the EIR and record of the Project, including but not limited to those set forth in I.A., above. The need for maintaining flood protection is very important for Santa Clara Count-y. The Project will not only maintain flood protection for homes, but also schools, businesses, streets, and highways throughout Palo Alto. The potential cost savings from flood emergency response, flood Attachment 1, Page 14 of 15 November 2002 Vo Vl. VII. damage repair, flood insurance premium, business interruption, and governmental flood insurance program administration can be spent on other activities or programs that benefit the community and quality of life in Santa Clara County. In addition, if any of the remaining unavoidable impacts of the Project were deemed significant, the Board finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the final EIR, or as detailed above in Section NO SUPPLEMENTATION OF EIR NECESSARY Ao Changes made in the Project or in the information provided regarding project impacts since the issuance of the draft EIR include the acceptance by FEMA of the use of risk-based freeboard criteria, the use of temporary, removable flood barriers (along the channel maintenance access roads), raised sidewalks and architectural treatment of headwalls in certain locations to reduce the visual and aesthetic impacts, and the District’s inclusion of Enhancement No. 2 as part of the Project in order to increase on-site mitigation. Bo The Board finds that there is substantial evidence to support a conclusion that no significant new information or project changes have been added to the final EIR that warrants recirculation pursuant to Section 21092.1 of the Public Resources Code. This finding is based on all the information presented in the EIR and record of proceedings. The Board finds that the new information added to the EIR did not change the EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the District has declined to implement. None of the new information added to the final EIR disclosed any new significant environmental impact that would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; disclosed that any substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level; or disclosed that a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly reduce the significant environmental impacts of the Project. The Board further finds that the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies information or makes insignificant modifications in an already adequate SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS FINDINGS Substantial evidence supporting each and every finding made herein is contained in the EIR or record of proceedings. MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN A summary of the MMP for the Project is provided in the MMP document. Attachment 1, Page 15 of 15 November 2002 Attachment H MINUTES DRAFT PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION REGUL4aR MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2002 Baylands Interpretive Center 2500 Embarcadero Rd. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Richard Beck~vith, William Gar~ey (partial attendance), Ellie Gioumousis, Jennifer Hagan, Edie Keating, L>~n Torin Judith Steiner Others Present:Jack Morton Staff Present:Dawn Calvert, Paul Dias, Amy Johnson, Lester Hodgins, Daren Anderson C:-~LL TO ORDER:Meeting called to order by Lynn Torin at 6:05 pm AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: None BUSINESS: 1.Approval of November 26, 2002 draft minutes. Minutes of November 26, 2002 meeting were approved. 2.Santa Clara Valley Water District, Park Amendment Ordinance for the Matadero Creek proiect. Oral Communications: Ms. Libby Lucas, a resident of Los Altos, stated that she was concerned about the center of the channel no longer being usable for recreation or vegetation and the loss of habitat by the project. She stated that there are other options and alternatives that have not been considered. She concluded by stating that the project was not a good one, because it was not scoped accurately. Mr. Rick Johnson, a Palo Alto resident stated that Palo Alto has a great flood control problem. He asked that another hydrologist review the project and concluded by stating that Adobe Creek also has flooding problems that should be reviewed and considered part of the project. DRAFT Mr. Larry Ciardella, President of Ciardella’s Garden Supply stated that he was being forced to leave because his business resides on the land that is being mitigated. He stated that his business has been there for 37 years and he doesn’t want to move out of Palo Alto, because it is where his customers are. He does Understand how important this project is to solving Palo Alto’s flooding problem, but he is one of the Top 10 recyclers in Palo Alto. Santa Clara Valley Water District has offered to assist him by relocating his business to Campbell, where they have land available for him to use, but he would prefer to stay in Palo Alto. Council member Jack Morton asked if the land opposite of the creek, which is currently owned by the city could be traded for the mitigated land, which might allow Ciardella’s Garden Supply to remain where it is. Santa Clara Valley Water District Staff stated that this idea had not been discussed as a possible option. Mr. Ryan Wiegel, a Palo Alto resident, requested that no chemicals be used in the creek during the project, because of the Steelhead trout living in it. A brief discussion ensued. Commissioner Garvey stated that he had to leave the meeting and he gave his vote, via proxy, to Commissioner Torin. Commissioner Hagan made a motion that the Commission recommend to City Council to approve the Flood Control Plan submitted by Santa Clara Valley Water District ~vith a request that the City Council look seriously at alternative mitigation land so that the business of Ciardella’s is not destroyed. Seconded motion, Commissioner Beck~vith. FOR: 4 (Beckwith, Garvev who was absent voted by proxy. Ha~oan. and Torin); AGAINST: 2 (Keatin~o and Gioumousis); ABSENT: 1 (Steiner) Commissioner Beckwith made an amendment to the motion that other potential land swaps be considered (i.e. Adobe Creek), and included in the mitigation section of the Flood Control Plan. Seconded the motion to amend, Commissioner Hagan. FOR: 4 (Beckwith, Garvev who was absent voted by proxy), Haman, and Torin); AGAINST: 2 (Keatin~o and Gioumousis), ABSENT:I (Steiner) Commissioner Keating wanted to state for the record that while she was satisfied that the habitat and recreation impacts of the project were acceptable, she felt that the Commission would need more study to comment on the flood control aspect of the project. There was f~trther discussion regarding the proposed habitat and recreation aspect of the plan, as well as additional review of the project by an independent hydrologist. 3.Community Garden At Cameron Park. Oral Communications: DRAFT "O Ms. Ute Engelke, a resident of Palo Alto, spoke in support of a community garden in College Terrace. Ms. Engelke showed the commissioners a petition of signatures that she had collected from the neighborhood showing support. She stated that there is a growing demand for additional community gardens and that the existing gardens only exist in north Palo Alto. Ms. Holly Welstein, a resident of Palo Alto and Secretary of the College Terrace Resident’s Association, stated that she was also in support of a community garden located at Cameron Park. She suggested a public meeting be held in order to hear the comments from the residents in the neighborhood. Ms. Patricia Becker, Manager of Common Ground, located in College Terrace. Common Ground is a nonprofit organization that educates the public in organic gardens. She stated that there is the possibility of a partnership with the city to teach methods of non- pesticide usage, which would help the City meet its goal. Ms. Becker also stated with regards to the city memo wTitten by Paul Dias, Director of Parks and Golf, she thought the project could be done with less money. Ms. Susan Stansbuv, employee of Foundation for Global Community, stated that she appreciated the work that Mr. Dias put into the memo. However, she recommended fewer plots and stated that she didn’t believe there was any need for an access road. She also recommended that a soil test be conducted in order to determine whether soil replacement was necessary, and that if the city recruited volunteers to do the labor to establish the community garden, it would save money. Mr. Paul Dias, Director of Parks and Golf.. commented on the speakers’ requests and made the following remarks/recommendations: 1.Liked the idea of collaborating with Common Ground. 2.Part of the park would need to be kept for soccer usage in order to accommodate the need for athletic fields in Palo Alto. 3.Plot sizes of 5 feet by 20 feet would be too small because the plot sizes in the other gardens were larger than that. 4.The access road is necessary in order for the trucks to enter in order to pick up debris. 5.The grass currently growing in the park must be excavated down deep; otherwise it will continue to grow back up into the plots. 6. The demolition and construction is necessary and is estimated to cost anywhere from $3,000.00 to $5,000.00. Better soil needs to be brought in because the current soil is mostly clay. 7. tVlr. Dias wanted to advise the speakers that there are approximately 50 people on the current wait list and he does not know if the residents of College Terrace would actually be the ones to get a garden plot initially. DRAFT Mr. Dias stated that the city will need to develop a Park Improvement Ordinance as a standard operating procedure and that the City is not taking on new projects right now because of the current budget issues. He did recommend a neighborhood meeting and for the residents of College Terrace to investigate fund raising options before this proposal goes to the City Council for approval. A brief discussion ensued regarding the corrm~ents by Mr. Dias. Commissioner Becl~vith made a motion to move for~vard and schedule a community meeting at College Terrace and for the residents of the College Terrace neighborhood to present a preliminary plan at the meeting. Seconded motion, Commissioner Gioumousis. A brief discussion ensued regarding the need for field usage in Palo Alto and what the impact of a community garden would have at Cameron Park. Commissioner Keating amended the motion to encourage community members to work ~vith Mr. Dias to develop a preliminary plan that would include a site option, preservation of soccer uses, costs, and public/private funding options. Seconded motion to amend, Commissioner Gioumousis. FOR: 5 (Beckwith, Gioumousis, Ha,~an, Keatino.~ and Torin); AGAINST: 0: ABSENT: 2 (Garvev and Steiner) Online Registration Update. Mr. Rob de Geus, Recreation Program Supervisor, reported on the results of the new online registration process. He gave the example of one popular class "Marine Biology for Preschoolers" had 30°/; of it’s participants register online. He also convnented on previous concerns shared by the commissioners: The Bar Code terminology has been changed to User I.D. Libraries will be open during summer camp registration for residents that do not have access to the internet and Library Staff will be available to assist them. With regards to online security, for more information call the City’s Chief Information Officer Glenn Loo at 650-329-2492. With regards to equal access, free tutorial sessions will be held at the Cubberley Community Centers computer lab on 3 Saturday’s for those individuals who would like to receive training prior to summer camp registration. Residents will continue to have the ability to do "drop off", "mail in", and "fax in" registration. Resident Vs. Non-Resident Registration. Mr. de Geus stated that in past suraeys conducted, Palo Alto residents have requested, for quite a while now, they be given priority over non residents at registration. Staff has suggested that Palo Alto residents could be given a one-week priority over non-residents, and can begin this. with the Spring 2003 session. 4 DRAFT A discussion was held regarding a possible issue for non-Palo Residents who are employed in Palo Alto not being able to enroll their children because classes might be full before they have an oppommity to register. Mr. de Geus agreed that this could be an issue because some programs for example, at the Palo Alto Art Center and the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo do experience up to 50% non-resident participation at times. City Staff will evaluate the impact, if any, in the future. Commissioner Gioumousis made a motion that City Staff adopt a policy allo~ving residents to register one week in advance of non-residents for Community Services Department classes and camps. Commissioner Hagan seconded this motion. FOR: 5 (Becl~vith, Gioumousis, Ha.~an, Keatin~, and Torin); AGAINST: 0; ABSENT: 2 (Garvey and Steiner) Commissioner Beckwith made a request for a future agenda item to evaluate resident vs. non-resident participation in sports/league programs. Reflections/Comments On 12/9 Meetin~ With Citv Council. Commissioner Torin asked for comments on what went right and what needs to happen the next time. A brief discussion was held. Comments were made that the meeting was a success and how open and receptive the council was towards the efforts and goals of the commission. CALL FOR AGENDA ITEMS Status of the Bay Ridge Trail agenda item was reviewed. Appointment of a new chair and vice chair for 2003. ANNOUNCEMENTS o On January 13, 2003, the City Council will appoint three candidates to this commission. ADJOUILNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:45pm. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 99 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26: Wednesday, April 9, 2003 REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM City Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue PaIo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL: 7:00 PM Commissioners: Annette Bialson, Chair Michael Griffin, Vice-Chair Karen Hohnan Patrick Burt Bonnie Packer Phyllis Cassel Joseph Bellomo Staff: Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special Projects Susan Ondik, Planner Gina LaTorra, Planning Technician Amy French, Current Planning Manager Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary AGENDIZED ITEMS: 1. 203 Forest Avenue* 2. 3201 East Bayshore Road 3. Preliminary review of CIP Chair Bialson: The Planning and Transportation Commission meeting will come to order. Secretary, please take the roll. Thank you. The first item on the agenda is Oral Communications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. Chair Bialson: I have no cards so we will close that item. CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by a Commission Member. City of Palo Alto Page I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Bialson: There are no items under the Consent Calendar. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. Chair Bialson: There are no Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions. UNFINISHED BUSINESS. Public Hearings: None. Chair Bialson: There is no Unfinished Business. We will go to the first item under New Business, which is 203 Forest Avenue. Staff? NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearings: to CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 "~1 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 ¯~j ...............~ .....j ...........................j and better definit!ons for the kSnds of ,.~s tha~ would re.ire Conditie~a! Ch?!r_nie!sen: Thank you. 3201 East Bavshore Road - Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project [02-D-07, 02-ARB-70]: Request by Santa Clara Valley Water District for Site and Design review, Baylands Master Plan Amendment and park improvement ordinance for the installation of a overflow bypass channel for the lower portion of Matadero Creek south of East Bayshore Road, and adjacent to the City Municipal Service Center, to increase flood capacity and protection and convey a 100-year (1%) flood event flow. Zoning: Public Facility with Site and Design overlay PF(D). Environmental Review: Environmental Impact Report prepared and certified by Water District Board. SR Weblink: http://w ww.citvofpaloalto.org/c ityagendaJpublish/planning-transportation-meet in gs/1754.pdf Mr. John Lusardi. Planning Manager, Special Projects: Members of the Commission I would like to introduce Joe Teresi from the Public Works Department who is the Project Manager for this project and Susan Ondik who the Project Planner for this project. This is the Matadero Creek flood control project. Pursuant to the Zoning Code Staff has provided the Commission with the preliminary site and design review for this project. The Architectural Review Board will review specific project details and conditions. Before having the Santa Clara Valley Water District present the project Staff would like to address some areas of the project and the ongoing progress to finalize design and mitigation measures. Staff would like to acknowledge this project for what it is, it is essentially a wide earthen and concrete channel through an existing habitat area in the Palo Alto Baylands Flood Basin. The City recognizes that this project has some inherent land use, design and visual constraints because of the required engineering and hydrology to achieve floodwater attenuation. Given Cio, of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 that, this is the downstream portion of the Matadero and Barron Creeks remediation project. The flood control project is being implemented in order to protect approximately 4,700 properties with 450 of those no longer having to purchase flood insurance. Recognizing the need for this flood control project for the community the City Staff has been working with the Water District to include project improvements, to offset design and visual constraints of the new channel. First the City has contracted with an experienced hydrologist natural resources consultant to assist us in peer review of the project. We have asked him to present to the Commission his work to date on the project design. In summary, the City, consultants and the District have addressed the following areas. The bypass channel, where design and engineering is needed to meet hydrology requirements for flood waters, the amount of the concert channel has been reduced by adding areas of pervious earthen materi!l that would also allow vegetation up to four feet in those areas of the channel combined with the canopy from new willows and trees on the edges of the channel the visual hardscape of the channel will be reduced. Habitat mitigation and landscaping, we have addressed and will continue to refine this issue for the Architectural Review Board review. It basically involves the removal of non-native vegetation including the natural channel and the eucalyptus trees along the MSC site and replacement with more native and stronger vegetation. While not considered habitat the project will provide additional trees for screening around the entire MCE site specifically adding new trees for screening along the southern boundary of the MSC area. With respect to hydro!ogy we are carefully addressing the long-term relationship between the natural channel and the bypass channel to ensure that natural seasonal flow through the natural channel is maintained. Maintenance, the City believes that long-term maintenance and monitoring of the project is critical for the new channel and the existing natural channel as well as the habitat that will be replaced. Off site mitigation affecting the Ciardella Garden Supply, the Water District has provided the Commission with a summary of their work to locate a new site for this business or finding a substitute habitat site. The City is very aware of the sensitive nature of the impact on this local business. Staff has met with the owners and we are committed to working with them and the District to seek a solution to their dilemma prior to development. The Water District presentation will address alternatives in the Final EIR, however, regarding the proposed channel design alignment Staff would like to discuss two options that were considered early, in the project design phase specific to the MSC site. One identified in the Staff Report would shift the channel as proposed further on to the MSC site avoiding some of the habitat areas. Similar to the proposed project design the open channel would require the relocation of MSC facilities including parking, underground utilities and a fueling station and involve the removal of more hazardous materials and remove additional property from the City’s use on the Municipal Services site. The second alignment of the MSC site looked at an underground box channel through the MSC site itself. The alignment would also require the relocation of MSC facilities and while it would remove the open channel effect of the flood control measure the raised grade of the MSC site necessary to achieve a flood water flow through the box channel to the flood basin would also significantly affect the grade and use of the maintenance yard itself. In addition both of these alignments would still result in some habitat impacts although we could reduce the need for mitigation off site and within the project area. However, based on the City’s Municipal Service Yard Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study, the !oss of the MSC usable space, these alignments were not considered as viable alternatives to the project. CiO" of Palo Alto Page 18 1 2 I would like to clarify one technical change in your packet. In your Park Improvement 3 Ordinance the exhibit identified a portion necessary for the Park Improvement Ordinance along 4 the northern portion of the MSC site. That was an incorrect identification. The actual area that 5 needs to be changed for the Park Improvement Ordinance is that area along the existing 6 maintenance road of the Water District’s maintenance road, that is along the south and along the 7 rear portion of the MSC site, not along the natural portion adjacent to the MSC site. So basically 8 what we have is a situation where there is no property lines with respect to the MSC site. So we 9 estimated how much of that property essentially the maintenance road was a part of the 10 designated park for the purposes of the Park Improvement Ordinance. The map located on the 11 wall, the area located on the wall shows the actual area that would need to be changed for the 12 Park Improvement Ordinance. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3! 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 The Commission has received some correspondence prior to this meeting and I have been asked to clarify that one email that you have received is from a Board Member of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and not a member of the Staff from the Regional Water Quality Control District. The Staff has summarized their recommendations in the Staff Report and with that we conclude our presentation. I would like to introduce the Water District at this time for their project presentation. Mr. Liang Lee. Santa Clara Valley Water District. Senior Proiect Manager: Good evening. My name is Liang Lee. I am a Senior Project Manager with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. I am happy to be here tonight to present to you the results of a lot of people’s hard work over the last three years. These people include the Water District employees, the City Staff, the regulatory agencies and the communities, which include the Midtown Resident’s Association and the Barron Creek Association. We have a PowerPoint presentation that we prepared. Since I have only a very limited time I have to skip a lot of the details. If I miss anything that you wanted to know please ask the question and I will address them later. This slide shows the Barron Creek and Matadero Creek area entirely in the City of Palo Alto. On the lower portion of this area where the Barron Creek Sediment Basin, the Matadero bypass, the Barron Creek bypass is this area has been taken care of in the last ten years. Right now the project that we are looking at is from the Palo Alto flood basin to Alma Street, fight here. The problem that we are trying to solve is flooding in Palo Alto. We have a few slides showing past floods. This one is in February 1998 at Greet Road. You see this is the railing on top of Greet Road and this is the top of the floodwal!. The 1998 E1 Nino flood was a 70-year flood. You see the water level coming up to within a foot of the top of the floodwall. At one o’clock in the morning Water Distfict maintenance crew was trying to remove debris, which you will see here from the water to clear the waterway. This is a picture of Greer Road again in !995, which is a five to ten year flood and water filled the waterway and has come up to the bridge headwall. The cause of these high waters is this. You are standing fight on East Bayshore Road looking at the Bay. San Francisco is to the north in this area and the sea is to the south. This was taken in t999 that shows a narrow channel with a lot of vegetation. This 20-foot wide channel about six feet deep is what we have to pass all the Matadero flow. This is the problem. This constriction is backing water up into the City of Palo Alto and causing all the flood problems. City of Palo Alto Page I9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 The goal of this project is to provide flood protection to Palo Alto and we have established a series of objectives in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report and in our engineer’s report. We want to provide flood protection to meet FEMA’s one percent flood design flow criteria and we want to protect existing sensitive habitat within the Matadero Creek water shed that includes the Palo Alto flood basin. The flood benefits as John just described to you is including containing the one percent flood, protect 4,700 properties from flooding and getting 450 properties from paying flood insurance. This slide shows the general area where we will alleviate the flooding problems. This is the Matadero Creek and this is the Barton Creek. The fix to solve the flooding problem we need to provide additional channel conveyance capacity to the Matadero Creek. To do that if you will look at this aerial photograph taken in 2002 this dark area is where the existing Matadero Creek is, this is the levee on the north side and this is the MSC site. You see a lot of vegetation in this area leaving a very small waterway for Matadero. This is the problem we are facing, how do we create additional water capacity in this area? We looked at an older aerial photogaph from 1976. You see the existing Matadero Creek still in the same location, you see a lot less vegetation in this area, and you also see another channel going down this way. It show’s this was the natural flow path. Matadero Creek overflows and follows this route to go into the Palo Alto flood basin. This gave us an idea that this would be one of the solutions basically to give Matadero Creek back its old alignment. What will be involved in this to finding a solution is either we will widen this existing creek or we are clearing this area to provide even more space or we will define this overflow bypass channel or if we build a culvert underneath East Bayshore and divert water this way into the flood basin. These are the alternatives that we studied. This is in here, the overflow bypass, under~ound bypass, channel restoration and expanded floodway. This was identified after we have exhausted other alternatives such as finding upstream storage say in the Stanford land to temporarily intercept and store water so that it doesn’t get into Matadero Creek and become a problem. That didn’t go through so these were the four alternatives that we ended up with and studied in great detail. The environmental impact to these four alternatives was analyzed. As you see the overflow bypass will have a .66-acre permanent impact and will require mitigation for 2.46. The underground bypass whereas if you build a culvert underneath the East Bayshore it will still have .42 acres of impact and require a 1.1 acre mitigation. The other two, channel restoration or expanded floodway will require much more mitigation. So this table shows that the most environmentally friendly option will be the underground bypass but that was not selected because we had identified other problems with that alternative. The impact is we would need to raise the East Bayshore Road by four feet. This would create a lot of drainage and traffic problems for East Bayshore. The culvert would be a completely confined space. Because we really do not have a lot of hydraulic head to convey the flow this culvert will be very flat causing sediments to deposit and create a lot of maintenance problems. The environmental impacts were not totally avoided and the cost was about twice as much as the overflow bypass option. So for these reasons the most environmentally friendly option was not selected. So the proposed project as identified in the EIR is to construct an overflow bypass channel downstream from Highway 101. Upstream from Highway 101 we will replace the Louis Road bridge and raise floodwalls, which I will not go into details of in this presentation. So in the EIR if you read it you will see that this is the bypass channel alignment that was identified in that Cio" of Palo Alto Page 20 1 report. We will build a concrete channel from the existing Matadero Creek, let it overflow and 2 come down to the flood basin. This would involve in the existing creek it will fill water up to a 3 two-year flow level. When a flood higher than a two-year flood comes the water level will rise 4 above and it will overflow into the bypass flow area. You will have this 55-foot wide channel to 5 take the flow down into the flood basin instead of backing water up into Palo Alto. The existing 6 dike, this existing levee, will contain the 100-year flow. So this is basically the design that was 7 developed. It was envisioned that needing to keep this 55 or 60 foot wide channel open in order 8 to allow water to flow we need a hard surface, a concrete surface in this area because it is all Bay 9 mud in the Baylands. The soft Bay mud will not allow vehicles to get on and do maintenance 10 work. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 So this was presented in the EIR as the option and the EIZR was finalized last December. A design began and immediately we asked how could we optimize the design? How can we minimize the use of concrete? We started a series of meetings with the regulatory agencies. We met with the City Planning Department, Public Works, City Maintenance and we met with the District Maintenance Department. Together we decided how to shorten the channel, reduce concrete, vegetate embankments, reduce pavement, maximize planning onsite and provide as much mitigation as the regulatory agencies require. These were actually put on paper, our design consultant started finalizing the design at the same time to minimize the impact to the vegetation we hired an arborist, Barry Coate, to inventory the trees in the Baylands. Of the 100 trees he was able to survey 66 were eucalyptus trees. He estimated about 190 willows would be in the project footprint and that is a total of 290 trees impacted. To mitigate this effect the project will plant approximately 365 trees, 500 shrubs and 1,000 willow cuttings. So we are trying to mitigate the environmental impact. At the end this yellow area is what you see where we cut out concrete and returned the channel to existing soil. What this proposal entails is our maintenance equipment will come on in this gray, area, the concrete pavement, and turn around in these areas and be able to reach across the yellow zone to clean the sediment, clear the vegetation and maintain the channel capacity. Because if we don’t maintain this channel cleanly what would happen is in five years we would have to come back and do another project. Also, this cross-sectional view shows that with reduced concrete pavement to a 30-foot wide area and returned the 25 feet to natural and then planning willow cuttings, on the outside and trees installed on the inside, and this is the MSC. So this is a typical cross-section of the design that we will construct at the site. We have tried to involve the community and regulatory agencies in this overall process. The Midtown and Bah’on Creek Resident’s Associations, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game were the agencies that supervise or oversee this project. The City Public Works, Planning and Parks and Recreation Commission. We also made a presentation to the City Council in February of 2000 for information. The status of this project is that the District Board certified the EIR last December. The final project plans and specifications were approved by the District Board April 1, 2003 and the Palo Alto City’s site and design review is ongoing as tonight’s meeting is part of it, We will try to seek the Palo Alto City Council’s approval in June. The project construction will start this City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 summer for the upstream section and next summer for the downstream section. This is a general summary of the project situation. We have a few more slides describing the biological impacts. I will ask our biological consultant, Dr. Eric Webb, to give you that introduction. Mr. Eric Webb, Harvey & Associates. Biotic/Habitat Consultant: As Liang pointed out there are a number of sensitive habitats that occur within the project area. This is a habitat map of the project area with Matadero Creek channel here in blue, this is the MSC, and the areas that are shown in geen are riparian habitats. The areas shown in light blue are dike salt marsh and the areas that are hard to see but are orange are freshwater marsh. These are the areas that were most sensitive within the project area. The bypass channel is shown in black and during the process of determining the location of the bypass channel we tried to minimize impacts to these habitats. We were able to avoid impacts to dike salt marsh, which is here. There is some freshwater marsh that will be impacted and of course some riparian habitat that will be impacted from the bypass channel. This table quantifies the area of impacts to regulated habitats from the bypass channel. Willow dominated riparian habitats, there will be .66 acres of permanent impact and .48 acres of temporary impact. The required mitigation for that impact is 2.64 acres. Of that 1.82 acres can be accommodated onsite. Also there is a little over one-tenth of an acre of permanent impacts to freshwater marsh and 0.06 of an acre of temporary impacts to freshwater marsh from the project. The required mitigation for that is .28 acres and all of that area can be restored onsite. This is a map of the proposed onsite mitigation. The willow dominated riparian habitats will be restored on the outboard side of the bypass channel, marsh will be created between the bypass channel and the levee and existing marshes and a mixed riparian community will be planted in this triangular area that will be within the flood plain of the bypass channel. Now as I mentioned there wasn’t enough area onsite to do all the riparian mitigation therefore we had to look for off-site opportunities. So we conducted a site search in July of 2001 on Matadero Creek and adjacent creek channels, Barton, San Francisquito and Adobe Creeks, within those watersheds. We identified numerous sites but only 12 of those were real potential mitigation sites where we would be able to restore, create riparian habitat. Within those 12 sites we were looking for sites that would be within the flood plain of one of these creek channels that would accommodate all of the riparian habitat preferably on one site. Also preferably within District owned lands or within lands they could reasonably acquire so that they would actually be able to do that restoration on that property. So the most appropriate site of those 12 sites was the East Bayshore Road site on San Francisquito Creek. It is just downstream of Highway 101. That site was selected and analyzed in the EIR. The site as I mentioned was selected because it does provide riparian habitat and the regulatory agencies have reviewed the mitigation site and agree that it is adequate to mitigate for the impacts. There were also additional efforts to look for more mitigation sites after this one was selected and reviewed in the EIR. At the request of the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council Member Jack Morton the District evaluated five additional sites. Therefore there were a total of 17 sites that were finally evaluated. Also we contacted Palo Alto Public Works, Real Estate and Open Space to see if there were any City of Palo Alto lands that were available. City of Palo Alto Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 3! 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Several sites were identified for further evaluation. On the map, the triangle is the East Bayshore mitigation site. We looked at two sites that were downstream of these Bayshore mitigation sites on San Francisquito Creek. We look at some parkland in the flood basin. We looked along Adobe Creek within the flood basin and at the old Los Altos treatment plant site. None of these sites met the mitigation requirements. We would not be able to create riparian habitat at any of these sites to mitigate for the impacts from the project. This is amap of the East Bayshore mitigation site and the proposed location for habitat restoration. The green band is the area proposed to restore riparian habitat. With that I will turn it back over to Liang. ~Mr. Lee: As John described early on it is an unfortunate situation that we have to use this East Bayshore site for mitigation for Matadero Creek and possibly later on other projects in the Palo Alto area. The District has done a lot. We have tried to work with Ciardella and find additional other sites for the business and work with the City to find sites for them. These are described in the next few slides, which I won’t go into any detail right now but you have in your handouts if you care to read about it. If you have questions we can address them later on. Thank you. Mr. Lusardi: I would also like to introduce Gary Kittleson who is our hydrologist and natural resources consultant just to give you an update on his work in reviewing the project. Mr. Gary Kittleson. City Consultant. Natural Resources: Thank you and good evening. I am Gary Kittleson, environmental consultant, hydrologist, Natural Resource Management. I was retained by the City Planning Department to provide an independent review of this project. In that process I was provided with extensive documentation, the Draft and Final EIRs, the draft and final engineering reports, extensive correspondence between the City and the District as well as my own contacts with Fish and Game and other regulatory agencies that I deal with often. My experience is primarily in wetland hydrology, flood control projects and balancing of impact and mitigation. In reviewing this process we really were working with the 90% plans. Essentially we were not dealing with the final plans because they are still being developed from the mitigation perspective. The real issues that drive the mitigation are loss of riparian habitat because that is the one that drives the mitigation requirement to a three-to-one that puts you off-site, which sort of creates an inherent conflict in that you cannot create exactly what you have or are losing in the other alternative spot. My review of the onsite mitigation was that it is adequate in terms of the wetland mitigation. There are potential impacts associated with non-maintenance or negligence on the part of the District in the long-term maintenance. This project requires extensive sediment removal on a regular basis. Sediment in this area really comes periodically not annually so there are some questions that we have about how the bypass channel with perform under extreme events with a lot of debris and sediment. Those issues can be dealt with through the mitigation monitoring proposals that we have reviewed and added to. We have required additional surveying in our discussions of potential conditions of approval. We have required probably more oversight by City Staff during the process of long-term maintenance and we have also asked for a longer mitigation-monitoring period. They had proposed essentially to have a three year mitigation monitoring period or maybe five years and we are asking for seven to ten years Cio" of Palo Alto Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 because that is really how long it will take to see how the project performs and how the District performs. The off-site mitigation is not an exact in kind riparian mitigation. It is not a willow riparian. It is essentially and oak woodland riparian which is different in habitat, takes longer to grow, will be a more dramatic change from what is there because currently it is used for light industrial landscape firm. So essentially we have worked with the District to try to refine this project to an acceptable level of mitigation and impact. I will say that this is essentially a concrete channel where there is not a concrete channel currently. It will have a profound short-term aesthetic impact. It has the potential for a long-term impact because it is just a concrete channel where currently it is predominantly non-native species although there are some valuable riparian habitats within those areas. The District has gone a long way in this process of the review of the 90% plans that we have been involved with, or I have been involved with, to accommodate our concerns. That said I would turn it over to you for questions if you have any. Certainly it is a very complicated project with a lot of history. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. We do have questions for you and appreciate the City Staff hiring someone who is an expert to review all this. Michael, you have something? Commissioner Griffin: Gary, if you could help me understand better the genesis of this. My understanding from looking at the slides and listening to the presentations is that the existing Matadero Creek channel silted in over the years and I guess I am wondering why was it allowed to silt in. Is it a fact that because it is in the wetlands the District was prohibited from doing proper maintenance or was it negligence or another cause? Mr. Kittleson: I would describe it as a lack of maintenance and I would have to ask the District as to why that happened. It is very typical to under-maintain wetland habitats for regulatory reasons. Also it is difficult on a local political and perceptual basis to take excavators and chainsaws into habitats. So often times it doesn’t get done simply because there is a general sense that it is not a good thing to do. Often times you then have a more substantial fix which this would fall under that category, but I don’t really know exactly why. Commissioner Griffin: Well then the question it poses for me is what is to say that we are going to spend however many million dollars on this bypass channel and if for the very same reasons the District decides that we can’t keep up with the maintenance on this any better than we did the last time and we are going to get back into the same situation again. Mr. Kittleson: I will turn that over to the District. Mr. Lusardi: Madam Chair, before the District answers that question I would like to point out one of the reasons we are doing a site and design and one of the strengths of the site and design is the conditions that the City wil! impose on the project. Working with our consultant we are establishing strong monitoring and mitigation measures involving the consultant, not just City Staff but involving the consultant. So I think it is important for the Commission to understand that those conditions that we impose as part of the site and design will then be able to be enforced by the City and not another regulatory agency but at the City level. I think that is an imPortant consideration long-term. Cit), of Palo Alto Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 !9 2O 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Griffin: So you are implying here that the City of Palo Alto will have some control over the degree of maintenance that gets undertaken but that was not a preexisting condition? In other words the City could not provide that kind of direction to the District because of jurisdictional problems on the existing silted in Matadero Creek. Mr. Lusardi: The City could not require directly the mitigation I mean the maintenance. We could report it to regulatory agencies that could then choose to enforce it. This, the Commission needs to consider this is an opportunity for us to have direct maintenance and monitoring conditions in this project in the long-term. Chair Bialson: This is where they asked for a five-year period and we are asking for how long a period? Mr. Lusardi: I think we are working with our consultant and he has identified a seven to ten year period. I think this is also an opportunity for us to keep our consultant involved through the District as a condition to maintain that kind of monitoring. Commissioner Griffin: Mr. Lee, did you wish to speak? Mr. Lee: Yes. I think I can supplement the response. The reason why the existing Matadero Creek downstream from Highway 101 was not maintained was because the District did not have a regulatory permit to do so in the past. That is why through this study we have looked hard at the existing creek to find out the existing situation. We think, and this is reported in the en=lneer s report, that the existing Matadero Creek downstream from Highway 101 is in an equilibrium state. In other words, the annual sediment deposition and scouring is reaching a balance. The creek bottom, the creek invert elevation does not change very much. This is a hypothesis. We believe based on our experience and observation this is the case but we are not sure. That is why we proposed a monitoring program to measure the cross-sections of the creek yearly for five years. That is what Mr. Kittleson just referred to that he recommended that we extend that period to seven to ten years. We will keep watching the creek, find out what it is doing. If it is not in equilibrium and it is depositing we find out and then we will take maintenance measures. This is fully documented in our EIR as part of the District obligations. If the District fails to do so there is a means to get back to the District now whereas before we did not have that permit or commitment. Chair Bialson: Where did you get the permit from? Mr. Lee: From regulatory agencies. Commissioner Griffin: I am curious to know why were you unable to obtain the proper permits? Mr. Lee: Because if you look at that creek situation you see a lot of vegetation, it is such a densely populated natural area the regulatory agencies would not let us touch it. That has been basically the regulatory attitude. Chair Bialson: Keep it natural. Mr. Lee: Yes. Cit)’ of Palo Alto Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 !1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Bialson: Wynne. Ms. Furth: It may not be clear to everybody that this land is not simply land that is regulated by the City as the local jurisdiction or the Water District as the owner of easements. This is land that is subject to extensive state and federal regulation. As you pointed out it looks very natural, it is important habitat, so both Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction here. I think to oversimplify a bit the District wasn’t going to be able to get a permit to do the kind of maintenance they need to do until they had a more comprehensive plan. Mr. Lee: Yes. Chair Bialson, I would like to introduce Melissa Dargis, our Environmental Planner who has a little more to say to address Mr. Griffin’s question. Ms. Melissa Dargis: Santa Clara Valle7 Water District, Environmental Planner: Good evening. I just wanted to add a clarification regarding the maintenance on the downstream portion of Matadero. The District does have maintenance guidelines for this portion of the creek as well as upstream of Highway 101. I just wanted to highlight the downstream portion. We do clean and remove sediments to an area approximately 300 feet downstream of the 101 bridge. Also in our sediment guidelines have the permits to remove obstructions from a 20-foot wide channel. One of the first photos you saw in the slide shows with the vegetation you saw that narrow channel. Our crews do go in there through our permits and clear overhanging vegetation and pull out any obstructions or debris from the channel but they do not remove sediments in that area because the permit does not cover that portion. So throughout the years we have continued to maintain that area within the limit of the permit that we have had. In the past that has been a Memorandum of Understanding and currently it is through the Stream Maintenance Program, which covers our routine annual maintenance in the creeks. Then just lastly I want to point out that sediment transport is a natural process of a creek system. Thank you. Chair Biatson: Fine. Appreciate that. Let’s have some Commission questions and then go to the public. Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have a question for Gary. Why seven to ten years as opposed to it is an ongoing concern of flooding so why not 50 or 100 years? Why seven to ten? Mr. Kittleson: That was more performance based so you would see how it is performing and then use an adaptive management program long-term to basically operate the system so that it functions. My primary concern looking at how this would likely perform is that as you split a channel formally you create an island and that has hydraulic impacts to the sediment transport regime. So you don’t really know how it is going to work. So within seven to ten years typically you get your cycles of wet and dry around here, so you get your big storm events and your drought periods. During your big storm events you get a lot of debris and sediment, 1997 and 1998 were significant. During drought periods you get lots of plant growth. So during that seven to ten year period, it would be in my estimate possible to see the performance of the channel and the required maintenance. After the monitoring period is over it doesn’t relinquish the District from any maintenance that maintenance would then be prescribed by the management programs that were developed. So they would basically figure out the lay of the land once this channel got put in. City of Palo Alto Page 26 ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 I would also point out that the channel that we are talking about is a highly manipulated channel. It is between two levees downstream of a bridge and it is diked. So the hydraulics are not natural. So it is vegetated. The predominant vegetation in the area is non-native. The vast majority of sizable trees that will be the visual impact are eucalyptus, which are non-native. So really it comes down to in some senses a very dramatic visual impact for the first ten to 15 years and that is really what I think from a coromaunity perspective is the most significant. Habitat- wise the eucalyptus does have habitat value. There is a lot of canopy around there. The area mapped for the wetlands in the EIR is very confined it does not represent all the riparian habitat in the adjacent area. It simply is an envelope in which they could do a confined study. Commissioner Holman: At the moment I will just ask one other question. You talk about it being a valuable riparian habitat and there were 17 sites identified as potential mitigation sites. I am not sure if this is a question for you, Gary, or for the Water District. Why were none of those sites found suitable? Mr. Kittleson: I will give it a quick shot and then I will turn it over to them because I wasn’t involved in any of that. Essentially it is an acreage and a type question. Can you find adequate acreage in a contiguous area that will function as a riparian habitat long-term in perpetuity? And then there are other things were there is just type. You can’t put a wetland riparian habitat into a salt marsh habitat or adjacent salt marsh habitat. So there were constraints that were both sort of physical in terms of space and also sort of geomorphic in terms of the actual habitat potential. Commissioner Holman: Maybe I misunderstood, I thought the !7 sites that were identified were riparian potentially. Mr. Kittleson: No, I believe they ran the gamut from empty space to grasslands. Mr. Webb: All the original 12 sites that are identified had opportunities for riparian habitat restoration. Most of those sites were too small to cover the entire mitigation requirement from the project. It is preferable when you create a habitat to try to create it all in one unit instead of having very small isolated patches of habitat in multiple watersheds. So the goal was to try to create the entire mitigation project at one site. So of those original !2 they would have required numerous sites. Also many of those sites were not owned by the District and the District would never have been able to acquire those sites not in a reasonable timeframe to actually implement a habitat restoration project. So if they can’t acquire it and they can’t put it on the site then the site is of no use. The additional five sites that we looked at that actually encompass the full 17, those five sites that we looked at later, those are exactly as Gary described. Many of them are in areas that are tidally influenced so there are salinity problems that would not allow the establishment of riparian habitat. There are a couple of them that are really right within the flood basin. Many of these of those five sites that have habitat restoration potential it is just unfortunate that it is not riparian habitat that we could restore there, Many of them are upland habitats, grassland or wetland habitats. So there are restoration opportunities in those additional five sites it is just not going to provide the appropriate habitat as mitigation for this project. Chair Bialson: Bonnie. Cir., of Palo Alto Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Commissioner Packer: I need some help to understand what is going to happen if this channel is put in. I was looking at the overflow channel schematic and it shows that the channel will fill up with water in a ten-year flood. Is that correct? So my question is what would the channel look like and how would it support any vegetation when there is no water in and if there is a drought for a couple of years and there is never an opportunity for the creek to overflow into the channel? How does that affect whatever vegetation you wou!d put in there or on the sides? Mr. Lee: When we first install the project that channel will be kept clean. We will remove all the vegetation within that channel boundary. Part of it will be put in a concrete bottom part of it will be left as natural soil. As water flows over it sometimes, as wind blows seeds over it sometimes, or as vegetation naturally migrates into the natural soil area of that channel vegetation will start to grow. In the EIR it defined the maintenance requirements for this portion of the channel. When the vegetation grows to higher than four feet then it is-required that we remove the vegetation. So this is defined. The bottom line is we need to keep this channel clear from sediment deposits or vegetation growth in order to allow water, flood water, to have room to flow. So this channel will not be a natural habitat. Commissioner Packer: Then the other question that is related to that is right now there is a lot of vegetation around the banks of the existing creek up to the service center and I guess it is because it has always been overflowing and creating a very lush environment. Will that aspect change? Will that area become dryer because the water is not sitting there it is going over into this channel? Is it going to make that area less lush? Mr. Lee: No that will not. This overflow bypass channel that we will build does not have a lower boundary, which keeps all the water within its walls. There is no flood basin sidewall to contain water. So as water overflows from the existing Matadero Creek it will flow onto the flood basin land basically except where there is existing vegetation the water will just be ponding there. It doesn’t have enough room to move. Where it is in the bypass channel then it can move along because it doesn’t have that resistance holding it back. Commissioner Packer: Is that why it has to be so wide? Would the channel work if it were narrower? Mr. Kittleson: The size of the channel was designed to take away a 100-year flow so that we don’t have that backwater or that ponding effect into the City. That size has been minimized. That is the minimum that we need. There is no significant slope on this bypass channel to drive flow at a higher velocity that is why it needs a wider width. Chair Bialson: Joe. Commissioner Bellomo: Question on the alternatives of this project. As I look at the aerial map I see that the eastern edge or the northern edge of the MSC, and you mention this in your studies, that there was parking infrastructure that could not be taken away. Were there any solutions looked at that could utilize this area and come up with inventive, more radical thinking in terms of tiering the storage capacity of the parking thus creating a channel of the MSC property w, ithout going into the riparian at all? City of Palo Alto Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Mr. Lee: That was one of the alternatives the John mentioned early on. We looked at whether we could carry the bypass channel from the existing Matadero Creek and theoretically into the MSC site and make a turn and flow into the flood basin as John described because it effects too much of the MSC facilities. Commissioner Bellomo: Again it is a question, with the cost accrued why couldn’t there be an inventive way of tiering kind of delicately not to disrupt the Bayland landscape structural accommodations to do something like this. That is the piece I am missing that I would like to explore. Mr. Joe Teresi, Public Works: Early on this was an area that was addressed and concurrently with this process there has been a consultant who is doing a Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study for the MSC site. The site is already very constrained, there are a large number of employees that have had to be moved off-site because there is not sufficient space on the MSC and in particular the employee parking is an area of particular concern. For that reason this was not viewed as a viable option. The MSC is already very constrained and it was felt that the City could not afford to lose any of the valuable space at that facility. Although, we did accommodate an area at the back corner of the site where the bypass channel kind of curves around the back and we were able to relinquish that corner. Commissioner Bellomo: Okay. Just for brevity, was there a solution that did not take away any of the infrastructure that could accommodate this channel within the MSC? What you are saying is there might not have been but it certainly, would have been good to see what was looked at. Mr. Lusardi: I think the short answer to that question is no, I don’t think there is a channel that you could put on the MSC that wouldn’t restrict or eliminate some of the storage capacity, some of the uses at the MSC site. Commissioner Bellomo: Well, it would certainly change the profiling. There could certainly be accommodations. It is more of a comment and I don’t want to go there but it seems to me there might have been a solution that would interestingly explored that would not take away infrastructure from the MSC. Mr. Lusardi: I don’t think we have identified any, I can say that. I think we have looked at it and I don’t think we have identified any. I also have added that there are a lot of hydrology issues involved here and engineering issues and maintenance issues and all of those have to be layered onto the project design. While I am here let me just answer part of Commissioner Packer’s question too. The bypass channel includes irrigation for the landscaping that is going to be planted. Chair Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Butt: We have a lot of lowland areas that are part of this flood basin. I didn’t hear a discussion on the viability of utilizing some of those lowland areas as a storage basin during the flooding periods. What is the feasibility of that and to what extent was that looked at? CiU of Palo Alto Page 29 1 Mr. Lee: The lowlands in the Palo Alto flood basin? That is a good question. The entire Palo 2 Alto flood basin right now serves as the storage area for the Matadero, Barron and Adobe 3 Creeks. So the floodwater coming from Matadero and Barron will go into the flood basin and be 4 stored in there temporarily. That is how the hydraulics and the flood hydrograph were analyzed 5 for Matadero Creek. The flood storage as water levels rise in the flood basin and flow coming 6 down the creek and the relationship to the tidal water outside of the levee, there are tide gates 7 connecting the two, these were all connected when we analyzed the problem. So the storage 8 capacity of the flood basin is relied on for this project. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 !7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Mr. Teresi: I would add that it is really not a question of a lack of storage the issue here is a lack of conveyance. That little reach of the creek in between 101 and the flood basin that runs along side the MSC is a classic bottleneck. There just isn’t enough area there for the water to pass through that reach to get to the flood basin. The flood basin has plenty of storage but that reach is holding the water back and is it is very evident even during moderate storms. If you go back up to a bridge say at Greer Road or Louis Road the water backs up very quickly in those reaches because of the existing bottleneck along this reach. Commissioner Burt: There is not a potential for culverts to transfer or convey that water to the flood basin? Mr. Teresi: As I think I said earlier that was one of the options to construct an undergound culvert around the MSC and into the flood basin but because of the cost and the maintenance issues and impacts to road that was not picked as the option for this project. Commissioner Burt: Mr. Teresi: Right. Commissioner Burr: The one you are referring to is under East Bayshore? I was wondering whether there are other paths for the conveyance of that water out into the flood basin. Mr. Lee: No. Matadero Creek comes down within a very confined space. There are residential properties on both sides of the creek. There is essentially no room to create a bypass or culvert parallel to the existing creek basically. Commissioner Burt: I was actually referring to east of Bayshore way to convey the water and I take it there is no way. Mr. Lee: East of Bayshore. Commissioner Butt: Yes, a way to convey that water from Matadero Creek into the flood basin once you have past East of Bayshore. Mr. Lee: Yes, the alternatives that were looked at include this current overflow bypass or widening the existing creek, just widen it at the existing creek location, make the creek 60 feet wide rather than 20 feet, or clearing all the vegetation between MSC and the existing creek so that the creek itself has a huge space to flow over that will never have a flood problem to City of Palo Alto Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 consider. Those were the three alternatives that were looked at. This proposed project is the one with the least environmental impact and most efficient. Mr. Teresi: I think what I hear you saying is had they considered the idea of having an undergound culvert that is parallel to the existing creek maybe on either side of the creek that runs parallel to it? On the one side you have Renzel Marsh and a lot of salt marsh habitat and on the other side is the MSC and I don’t think those are really seriously looked at as viable options. One of the things with these underground culverts is maintenance is very hard and very expensive and difficult and also very expensive to build. So I don’t think those were ever seriously identified as options for this project. Chair Bialson: Do you have some more questions? Commissioner Burr: Yes, I have two other vegetation related ones that our biological expert may be able to help us on. Chair Bialson: Pat, if we could finish these up and then we will take a break. Okay? Commissioner Burr: Okay. Can you compare the vitality of the eucalyptus habitat compared to native trees and native plants in the riparian corridor? It is my understanding that even though it provides a visual benefit that the biological diversity in a eucalyptus forest is much more constrained than would be the case in a riparian habitat that was comprised of native vegetation. Mr. Webb: That is correct. Actually native wildlife species are adapted to use native habitats not eucalyptus forests. There are some wildlife species that both forage and nest in eucalyptus stands. At the Palo Alto flood basin the species that would be of greatest concern that could utilize the eucalyptus would be nesting raptors. However there are hundreds of eucalyptus that will still be in the flood basin even after these would be removed, at least 20 or 25 eucalyptus immediately within or adjacent to the Matadero Creek channel. So eucalyptus are quite common in the flood basin, they are quite common in the lower reaches of Matadero Creek and actually this small stand although there are 66 are planted in a row, they are linear and really provide very little habitat for native wildlife versus the dense willow riparian habitat which is one of the most broadly used habitats for avian species in California. Commissioner Burt: My second question has to do with what was described by Mr. Lee as the way in which the new basin would be vegetated. As I understood it, it was anticipated that it would become vegetated by windblown seed over time as opposed to any deliberate vegetation that would not interfere with the water flow. I wonder if, one, my understanding is correct because I am concerned with the windblown vegetation not necessarily being native plants that would be deposited there and exacerbating the sorts of problems that we have with invasive species and second, whether there isn’t an alternative to that by deliberately planting vegetation that would be low growth and not interfere with the objectives of the flood control? Mr. Webb: The area that will be maintained within the bypass channel itself will not be planted with native vegetation because the goal is to keep the vegetation at a minimum height within the bypass channel. So that area will be periodically excavated, cleaned and the vegetation will be disturbed. So there will be both native and invasive plant species that will likely take hold through time as that sediment is deposited within the bypass channel from flood events until the Ci~.~ of Palo Alto Page 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 District comes in and removes that sediment and vegetation again. Now all of the natural areas that will remain undisturbed after the bypass channel is constructed will be revegetated as part of the project. Some of that is landscaping but much of that is mitigation that wil! be conditioned in the regulatory agency permits. So all of those areas will be revegetated with native riparian plant species, all of that will be maintained and monitored during the establishment period and as part of that overall mitigation progam within all natural areas adjacent to the bypass channel the District will enter into an invasive species eradication program. They will eradicate all invasive non-native species and then revegetate those areas also with native riparian plants. Commissioner Burt: My question had to do with those areas that are not intended to be vegetated. Are there not opportunities for native grasses to be readily reseeded there every four years or something that they were going to be scraping this? Is that not an opportunity? Mr. Webb: That could potentially be done only in those areas that are not concrete lined. Commissioner Burt: Those are exactly the areas I am referring to. Mr. Webb: There is that possibility. We haven’t looked into that but there is a possibility of coming back in and hydro-seed those areas with native grasses. However, the rest of that area that is concrete lined will be rapidly covered by sediments in the next storm event and will likely be invaded by non-native plant species and some native plant species. Do you see what I am saying? A slug of sediments will come in on a flood event and with that there will be invasives established. So it would be very difficult knowing the flooding regime and the transport of sediments into the bypass channel to be assured that invasives won’t take hold within the bypass channel itself because it will be so often disturbed. Chair Bialson: Can we stop there? We are losing Commissioners one at a time we have lost two so far. So let’s hold off and have a break and then continue. I am sure you can all use a break as well. Chair Bialson: I think given the lateness of the hour and the number of cards we will limit each speaker to three minutes. The first speaker is Sheri Furman to be followed by Larry Ciardella. Ms. Sheri Furman. 3094 Greer Road. Palo Alto: I am here in a different capacity than I was last week. I am Sheri Furman, Chair of the MRA Creek Committee and I live on Greer Road adjacent to Matadero Creek. This first picture you saw in their slide with the water is right at the other side of my house so I have vested interest in this. I know tonight you are talking just about the downstream reach east of 101 on this project but this project as a whole, the upstream reach, is dependent on this downstream reach so I wanted to give you a little background from the MRA’s point of view. Normally I would speak a little more extemporaneously but I did a prepared speech tonight. The MRA Creek Committee spent most of last year first debating with and then working with the Water District on this project. We questioned the need for the project, its massive impact on our neighborhood and the Baylands and various alternatives to the proposed project a lot of which you have covered tonight. Without going into the gory details of these sessions eventually we came to support the project you have before you. In the process the District’s risk based analysis City of Palo Alto Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 !3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 ended up lowering the height of the flood and head walls. The MRA also suggested raised sidewalks to retain visibility into the creek at its lower reaches, which the City and the District agreed to. We worked with the Barton Park Association to find a mutually agreeable solution because it impacts both of our neighborhoods. We work with the Public Art Commission and residents to come up with an acceptable design for artwork on the bridges. Many of us in Midtown face a double whammy from both tidal and riverine flooding.. This project at least reduces the risk of riverine flooding and for many in both Midtown and Barron Park eliminates the need to carry flood insurance. While I sympathize with those worried about the impact on the Bayland I believe the lands are more self-healing than we think and that the project will not be as disruptive as claimed. Of more concern is the amount of water Stanford with its building development will possibly be dumping into the creek in the future. Even those it’s General Use Plan calls for onsite mitigation one never knows so this project becomes even more important for riverine flood control. One thing I want to address before I forget Commissioner Butt and Commissioner Bellomo’s questions on some of the alternatives. The problem at my house on Greer next to Matadero I am three feet above sea level. The f!ood basin is obviously about zero. If you get a neat tide what happens is the water just can’t get out into the flood plane with the channel constricted the way it is at the moment. As far as using the MSC site, I understand what you are getting at with the tiering but to even go from even zero feet to three feet or six feet at the amount of water that is coming down the channel would really take pumping. Can I go on just a tad more? I will finish reading I just wanted to explain that to you. On issue of the relocation of Ciardella’s I want to public state my regrets at the loss to Palo Alto of yet another unique business. I understand the issues and laws involved here but personally I would rather have no mitigation than lose this business. I have two ideas where Ciardella’s could be relocated and I mention these with tongue only slightly in cheek. The first is the former Scott’s site on East Bayshore. It is a far better use of the site for Palo Alto residents than yet another office park and the traffic it will bring. The second site is the unfinished portion of Greet Park on Colorado. We have been waiting 20 years for its completion and if all you are going to do with it is let weeds grow and store sand bags you might as well rent it to Ciardella’s. Perhaps they can even provide filled sand bags during bad storms, which of course we won’t need if this project is carried out. Please take into account the effort Public Works and the MRA put into this project. We spent the better part of last year working on this. I would like to thank both Glen Roberts and Joe Teresi for the time they spent educating us on creek behavior. While none of us in Midtown are exactly looking forward to this work with its noise and street closures we recognize the need for it. The MRA urges you to support this project and approve this item because it provides needed flood protection for both Bah’on Park and Midtown. Unlike San Francisquito this project is funded and can be completed within two years and it reduces the pressure on Public Works to deal with the creeks during heavy storms. Thank you, Chair Bialson: Thank you. Next is Larry Ciardella to be followed by Craig Breon. You have three minutes. Mr. Larry Ciardella, 2027 East Bayshore, Palo Alto: I have Ciardella Garden Supply. We have been in Palo Alto for 38 years come May, so we are about a month away from that anniversary. City of Palo Alto Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 !9 20 21 22 2.~ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 We have provided materials for a lot of customers that I see out in the audience here and probably some of you folks also when you have done your landscaping. We have a lot of long time customers. We have people coming in now that used to bring their kids in to sit on the tractors, to take pictures, now those kids are coming in bringing their kids in. We really want to be able to serve your kids and stay here awhile longer. My dad and I started this 38 years ago. I brought in a partner, Bob Bodelli, we had the lemonade stand on the corner many, many years ago and now both Bob’s son and my son want to eventually take over when we retire. We are probably one of the top recyclers in Palo Alto. I’d say at least in the top ten because of the products that we do. My family history goes down to the dairy on Charleston Road there many, many years ago back in the 1930s. We do a lot of community based activities, we donate a lot of material to different groups, Palo Alto JCs, Gamble, just to mention a few. We have been looking at some different alternative sites but to try to find an acre here in Palo Alto is just almost impossible. The closest one we looked at that the Water District had was in Campbell and we looked at it. It was a percolation pond. Some of the other sites that the Water District had talked about were lands that were land locked and right in residential areas that would be an impossibility to get zoning for. We have been a family business here for many, many years and we would like to stay if we could. If you look at the stuff we do, the materials we provide, it provides a lot of oxygen for the air for the plants to gow, new lawns, and shrubs. We deliver to California Native Plants Society for one customer. I think that this mitigation that has to be done that even the State does not have anything that says that it has to be mitigated three-to:one. That is just something that is offered out. I think if it was a less mitigation possibly we could stay and I think we probably do a lot more in a week delivering our materials for the environment that you would get out of an acre of riparian area. I guess what we are doing is asking you folks to pass on to Council to help us stay. It is the same recommendation that the Parks Department made and we would appreciate it. Thank you very much. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Next is Craig Breon to be followed by Libby Lucas. Mr. Crai~ K Breon. 22221 McClellan Road. Cupertino: Good evening. I am the Executive Director of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. We have about six or eight hundred members, I am forgetting exactly in Palo Alto. I was involved with this project early on when they were designing some of the original alternatives and have been following it sort of periodically. At this point I guess I am fairly supportive of the project. We are not in general in favor of adding a lot of concrete into the landscape. Certainly we try to get to natural flood plains and things like that whenever possible but there are a lot of site constraints here. I think given those, the Water District has done a fairly good job of trying to minimize their impacts, concentrate the concrete that is there against an existing parking lot that isn’t particularly attractive anyway. In addressing a couple of the mitigation issues I do think it is a shame any time a locally owned family business has to close down or move. At the same time it is important to correct one issue there. It is a standard mitigation ratio of three-to-one for riparian impacts. That is because what you plant takes a long time to grow and you don’t get the same habitat value right away therefore they impose that additional mitigation of three-to-one and that is standard throughout the Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Water District is right City of Palo Alto Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 ._3.3 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 that you don’t want six one and one-half acre sites. That is hard to manage and it is not very good habitat-wise and it leads to the issue that was talked about earlier of trying to make sure that the maintenance of these things occurs over time. With those constraints I would still encourage the District and you to either help find a different site or help to try and relocate that business. But at this point I think the project has improved considerably from when they first put it to us. It may improve a little bit more in the permitting process that it still has to go through but I am supportive. Thanks. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Libby Lucas to be followed by Ellie Giumousis. I apologize for the pronunciation. Ms. Libby Lucas, 174 Yerba Santa Avenue, Los Altos: I have a number of serious concerns that I have had with this project for the last two and one-half years. First off I think you probably realize that there are three marshes in the South Bay and that your Palo Alto Baylands marsh is the best. The other two are one at the end of Dumbarton Bridge and the other is just an evolving one on Calaveras Point. This is the only one with a riparian corridor in it so this is unique habitat. You have in this project area salt marsh harvest mouse and salt marsh yellow throat. They say there hasn’t been a salt marsh harvest mouse seen but they have the rat poison out there right now so as soon as you can get that removed I think the happier we will be. I think that you need an interim comprehensive habitat plan because I don’t think this year of in between before the project gets down here is going to be beneficial to the wildlife that you have. This is a very, very special spot. It is an upland terrace. You had other upland terrace wildlife habitat over in the Emily Renzel Marsh but when that was used for the recycled water you lost that habitat for your pheasant and your burring owls and numerous species. But there is salt marsh harvest mouse over there and that habitat is being monitored but the other has gone by the wayside. This upland terrace is the only upland terrace that you have for your small mammals of the basin to escape to high ground. The way the bypass channel is being oriented it will wipe out tha{ escape route. Technically this is not a bypass channel this is a diversion. A bypass channel would go back into the main channel and this does not, it diverts your flood flows away. But it diverts it as you biologist said your salt marsh habitat is a diked salt marsh, which means there are dikes all around that. So it is a dead end for a diversion to go to so you will be sending these high flood flows into the sanitation sewer line from Los Altos/Mountain View that goes across the basin there and then the other levee is your recreation levee. So I think that if you are going to look at getting the flood flows going more smoothly through this area I think you want to widen the floodway not the channel, the floodway on either side of it. When the Emily Renzel Marsh and the ITT property were acquired by the City the die was sort of already cast and no one played around with that levee but now that that does belong to Palo Alto there is no reason why that levee couldn’t be shaved back 25 feet or so to increase this floodway on either of the creek. If you have the nasty giant reed taken out and any of those other invasives that are gumming up the works you would have a lot more flow and I think that could be accomplished. One last point, that Barry Coate’s vegetation plan is something that I think the public needs to see. I certainly would like to have you make it available before this project goes to the City Council. I think it is very important to know how many trees are going to be taken out. You are going to lose an enormous swath of that riparian corridor and it is unique irreplaceable habitat in the right place at the right time. You should be very, very proud of it and I hope you will defend it. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Bialson: Thank you. Could you stay for a second please? Commissioner Burt: You alluded to the role of a highland escape route for mammals that presently exist that would be removed as a result of this project. Do you have any recommendations on how this could be reconfigured to preserve that need? Ms. Lucas: They showed you that orientation of the natural overflow from 1976 that just bent around the very edge of the MSC yard. Do you remember that? That only went around about ten or 15 feet and then would flow back into the main channel. If you kept to just that much of a natural, again the cement business of just making something so your maintenance vehicles can go in and make a U-turn, I think that is outmoded. There is a Director on the District who has requested that the District obtain smaller equipment for working in the Guadalupe Channel. If they get that small equipment it would be ideal for working in and around this floodway, around Matadero. You don’t need this big equipment superhighway, which I think is basically the reason for this design to begin with. So yes I think you could just have your natural floodway just go around the end but then come right back into the main channel. The channel is 250 feet wide at 101 and then it goes down to 150 feet when it gets to that edge of the levee from the ITT site and from the MSC yard. So you have to open that bottleneck up a bit. Where their present maintenance road goes is right where you would then ramp down and work on that area to remove sediment. So that really is the critical area not back on 101 where they want to take it back to, I think. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Ellie Giumousis to be followed by Bob Moss. Ms. Ellie Giumousis, 992 Loma Verde Avenue, Palo Alto: I am on the Parks and Recreation Commission and we did discuss this at length. We had a lot of objections to it. Unfortunately that night the tape was not working and the minutes are not very complete as to what was covered. We were very concerned about Ciardella’s because we don’t feel that we should lose another tax paying business. Furthermore many of us felt that that was not, we did not even realize when they talked about the revegetation on Matadero Creek where it was. We didn’t know that it was going to be Ciardella’s I found that out by accident. In fact the Chair said I don’t understand what you are saying you mean your business is going to be taken for restoration? If you think about it you look at a site like that with concrete, with packed roads, with piles of soil, is this a good area for restoration? So that is one thing. The other thing is that I discovered that area by accident two years ago and I was struck by how unique and beautiful it was. I had never seen that kind of native plants near the marsh. There is no other place like that. I understand now from talking to a hydrologist retired from the USGS that all the creeks at one time were riparian corridors. They have all been cleared out, cut down and they, are all gone. You say the picture of how beautiful it is. When I was walking again I met a birder and I told him they were going to widen this and cut down the trees. He said, oh they can’t do that there are and he listed about four or five birds I can’t remember and said that is the only place they come. That is the only place we can see them. So that is another plea for not doing it. Finally, we went on a little field trip to see what they are planning and they are talking about taking out the eucalyptus which is non-native species it is true but it is not blue gum, it is not City of Palo Alto Page 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2! 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 invasive species that are planted along the edge of the service yard. They are not expanding into the marsh. Over at Adobe Creek where the underpass goes under 101 that you can walk through and comes out over close to PCC there are blue gum eucalyptus and it is quite a large grove and the white egets come and nest in them in the evening. Further on out they are expanding into the marsh and over the years we have been going there every year there are more eucalyptus going further out, they are smaller but each year the ones close are getting bigger. That is along the side of the creek. Eucalyptus, blue gum eucalyptus, is an extremely invasive species and it would be a perfect restoration site because of the blue gum, the Arundo donax, invasive giant reed and the [panthus ~ass] that is there should be taken out and oaks could be planted in that area. One last thing. There is an oak tree further on down Matadero Creek there is an oak tree that seated itself down there. I was amazed to find it because after everything is gone it is sometimes hard to get another tree growing. It is hard to get natives established and watering them doesn’t work. If they have to be watered it is not self-sustaining and it is not really a good landscape. I have a lot of problems with this and I just read Emily’s letter and she suggests putting the water over into the freshwater marsh as a bypass and that makes a lot of sense. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Bob Moss to be followed by Enid Pearson. Mr. Bob Moss. 4010 Orme. Palo Alto: Thank you Chair Biatson and Commissioners. This is an interesting project. I began working on flood problems and creek control literally the day after I moved into my house almost 32 years ago. For more than 25 years I was Chairman of the Creek Committee for the Barron Park Association so this is a project I have lived with for a long time. We had hoped that flooding on Barron and Matadero Creeks were resolved with the project that was completed in 1998 until they found out that they had under-designed it and had to come back with this project. So I am hoping that we will actually finish the flood control by getting this one completed. It does have some issues as you have pointed out. One of the interesting things Commissioner Griffin asked about maintaining the channel that exists. What historically was that for about 15 or 20 years the Water District did no maintenance and they came in one fine day and looked at the channel and realized that it had sedimented and a lot of vegetation had grown in there and they said, good heavens we have to do something. Meanwhile the laws had changed and they couldn’t just go in and remove all the vegetation and tear it out because now in order to do that they had to have an offsetting mitigation. That is why you saw that chart that said they had to have 11-plus acres of offsetting mitigation. That is the reason they didn’t get a permit because they didn’t want to have to do the mitigation. So this project is a best alternative to doing what logic says you should be doing anyway which is go back in and clean out the old channel. The laws no longer allow that as just a straight operation. There are some problems with putting the concrete in and I talked about that during the break. It is done primarily for the maintenance vehicles so that there is someplace for them to run and because of the size and shape of the vehicles. So unless they come up with a better way of maintaining the channel I think we are kind of stuck with it. Functionally you could do it with one 12 or 15 foot concrete pad in the middle if you had a way of getting the access to either side without the vehicles falling off the edge. City of Palo Alto Page 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 The other comment and I picked this up from one of the letters from Emily Renzel is about the vegetation and allowing new plants, new trees to take root and grow for as long as possible before the existing ones are removed. I think to the extent possible that can be done that we should do that. I would recommend that this be approved even though I think it is not perfect, I think it is the best we can do with the situation we have. It does get us out of the situation of flooding. I really would like not to have to have a flood-warning tree anymore, which I have been doing for the last 28 years. It would be nice to get rid of it. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Enid Pearson to be followed by Herb Borock. Ms. Enid Pearson. Forest Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi I want to thank all of you for all of this hard work. I would like to thank the Staff for making an attempt to make this terrible project something viable that I would like. I would like to tell you that I was the liaison when I was on the City Council to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. I was also on the California State Water Commission for four years. I have a feeling that once again the Santa Clara Valley Water District has created this problem by not maintaining the channels which they could have done all along and they didn’t do it so now they have a terrible problem and something that is very difficult to fix. Their usual solution has always been and seems to still be let’s concrete it. I think if you will look in the newspapers recently Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and the San Francisquito Creek residents have all turned down concrete. I don’t know why we have to say let’s go for concrete. I would often wonder what the cost of clearing the current channels like every five years, which they seem reluctant to do, would be versus building this concrete channel. I would like to say look at the channel itself. It is 55 feet wide, that is five freeway lanes, and dressing up this channe! with a few trees here and there after they have that concrete poured would be like putting trees along Bayshore Freeway. I kind of object to the mitigation it seems really unfair to mitigate a business out to the way so that they can fix up a mess that we are creating. So I think that mitigation can be put almost anywhere in the Bay Area, BCDC does it all the time so it doesn’t have to be right in the same space. I take a little bit of issue with the fact that you can’t have some here and there and everywhere. It may be harder to maintain but at least you can do it. -I would like the Staff and the Planning Commission to fiercely oppose this project and to encourage the Santa Clara Valley Water District to come back with a severely reduced proposal and maybe something more in the 21st Century. Finally, this project is clearly a violation of the Park Dedication Ordinance. I would expect the Council and the Planning Commission, the Staff, the City Attorney, the City Manager to make every effort to honor its intent to protect the open space and the conservation lands. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Could you please stay, we have a question to ask. Commissioner Griffin: Enid, I am wondering considering the freeway size of the retention conveyance and the vegetation problem that you alluded to what is your feeling about maintaining the eucalyptus as a buffer area to the extent possible? Cit)" of Palo Alto Page 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Ms. Pearson: Well I learned something tonight from Ellie Giumousis and that is that all eucalyptus aren’t bad. It seems that these are the good ones and I would certainly like to maintain them. If you start from scratch and start growing something again you are going to start with barren land. The [scorchers] policy went out a long time ago so I would suggest that you keep as much of the vegetation as you can. I just can’t get over it, 55 feet wide. I remember when the Santa Clara Valley Water District wanted to put what they call the outer Bay dikes, they were out beyond the current dikes and they were going to be 55 feet wide and they were gong to protect the whole Bay Area from flooding. I maintained at that time that yes, they would protect from flooding there would be no bay left. Chair Bialson: One more question. Commissioner Burt: Enid you alluded to this project violating the Park Preservation Ordinance. Is that due to the concreting that you are referring to or other reasons? Ms. Pearson: The size of the project. The ordinance, at least when the people passed it at the voting booth the idea was that you were not to change the use of the land or the park by putting something invasive on it which would change the use. In other words, you couldn’t put substantial buildings on it or you couldn’t change its use. It seems to me that if you are going to put a 55-foot wide concrete channel that is certainly changing it from open space and conservation lands. I think that was the intent of the Park Dedication Ordinance. We said we wanted it protected in perpetuity for the people of Palo Alto. Of course we had one other thing that I think is kind of left and that is if you do change the use of the land then it should come to a vote of the people. Now I have to ~say one thing right there. It is hard to be against flood protection because I have been in it. I am flooded but still I think there are ways to do this without creating such monsters. They have to learn that we don’t want concrete anymore. We want some other way. There has to be a modern way to do it. Any more questions? I can rave forever. Chair Bialson: And we appreciate it too. One more question. Commissioner Holman: Being that you have been involved in things for quite a good while. I don’t know what the reasons were that the upstream storage on Stanford didn’t work but how would you view that as an alternative? Ms. Pearson: That is an interesting question, Karen, and a long time ago when San Francisquito Creek flooded and when the other creeks flooded, I think that was in 1955 and maybe a little later there were a couple of more floods and all of Palo Alto flooded. The Army Corps of Engineers came in and said okay we are going to figure this out and solve this problem. They did solve the problem. They said you need catch basins and where are they going to be? They are going to be on Stanford land and Stanford said oh no they are not. Of course that is the best way to protect the people downstream. Well I think the President of the University at that time, I can’t remember who he was somebody named Sterling, he marched back to Washington and he lobbied against this project with the Army Corps at that time was proposing and it just simply disappeared. But it is one of the good alternatives to have catch basins in the foothi!ls prevent the water from coming downstream in the first place. City of Palo Alto Page 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Mr. Teresi: I think at this point there is still some confusion about the Park Improvement Ordinance and which parts of this project are actually within the park. So I could either take the time now to explain that or maybe later it is up tO you of course but I would like to have an opportunity at some point to clarify that. Chair Bialson: I think we will allow the public to finish speaking and then we will ask you. Thank you very much, Enid. Ms. Pearson: I would like to hear the clarification because I do remember what the ordinance said and what it did include. I think it has changed and is still changing and I will probably be back here again in a couple of months. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Herb Borock and I have no other cards. I do too, Joy Ogawa to follow. Mr. Herb Borock, P. O. Box 632, Palo Alto: Good evening Chair Bialson and Commissioners. This agenda item is described in your agenda and your Staff Report as a request from the Water District for a site and design review. I thought it was an application from the Water District. I would hope that in the future you would follow your own procedures and separate the Staff Report from the applicant’s presentation. This evening the applicant was included in the middle of the Staff Report. They are really two separate things and please have an obligation to follow proper procedures in a California Environmental Quality Act requires that. Secondly, as a site and design review I believe this is a quasi-judicial decision although it is not identified that way on your agenda and does require appropriate disclosure. Third, the Staff Report recommends making the findings for site and design review by making a reference to the section of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. In fact you need to make findings based on evidence and have reasons for them. In the past Staff Reports would have an attachment that would indicate why you are making those findings for site and design review so that the public would have an opportunity to comment on them. We have been deprived of that opportunity and I don’t see how it is possible for you to take the step of making a recommendation and sending this on to the Architectural Review Board before you have a revised Staff Report that has such an attachment and the public including those of us who have spoken tonight have an opportunity to comment on such a recommendation. In regard to my first comment I would hope that in the future if Staff introduces an applicant in the middle of a Staff presentation that somebody who is here all the time either a Commissioner or one of the Staff members who is here all the time will remind the Chair that the appropriate thing to do is to stop the proceedings at that point and ask the Staff to finish the Staff Report and then go on with your regular procedures and have the applicant speak. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Joy Ogawa and that I believe is the last speaker. Ms. Jo.v Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto: I won’t pretend to know much about this project, I have been informed and educated tonight. So basically my impressions are kind of formed by what I have heard tonight. One thing I have noticed is that the Water District listed alternatives that it considered but I have heard other people speak tonight that wasn’t necessarily all of the CiO, of Palo Alto Page 40 -+ I Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Parklands Between Ponds A and B Project Site (msc) A: Veterans Hospital B: International School (Ciardella) C: Hale Street D: Foothill Expressway E: Arastradero Road F: Hale Creek G: Southwood Drive H: Lincoln Avenue I: Maple Street J: Moana Court K: Stevens Creek L: Stanford Pastureland Site 1: CPA Lands adjacent to Baylands Athletic Center Site 2: CPA Lands adjacent to San Francisquito Creek Figure 1 Summary Map of Alternative Mitigation Site Locations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 possible alternatives and there may be better alternatives that the Water District has not considered and have been suggested by Libby Lucas and Emily Renzel. Another thing is a process thing but it is not quite as detailed as Herb’s and that is that I notice that Santa Clara Valley Water District is the applicant and also was the lead agency apparently that certified the Environmental Impact Report. So it kind of seems to me this is kind of the fox guarding the hen house kind of situation. I realize that it happens but I also think that when the applicant is also the certifier that we need to take special precautions and pay special attention. I also notice that the notice for this public hearing doesn’t really tell you what it is about really. It doesn’t tell you that we are going to be destroying some really valuable riparian habitat. And it doesn’t tell you that the mitigation is going to evict this really valued business in Palo Alto. Also I would like to point out that Palo Alto can say no to the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s plan. In fact, Los Altos Hills did that just last week. Los Altos Hills said no the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s proposal for widening Adobe Creek because of its environmental impacts which apparently from what I read included the removal of 140 or more trees and basically replacing them with concrete. I guess Los Altos Hills decided that the District’s plan was overkill. So I don’t think we need to pave over our most valuable remaining riparian habitat. We should not be allowing the eviction of one of our most valued businesses as part of the mitigation for the destruction of our beloved Baylands. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you, Joy. I have no more speaker request cards. Would the District care to make some closing comments at this point? You will have five minutes. Mr. Lee: Yes, Chair I would like to comment on a few questions brought about by the public. To the one that we just heard from Joy that not all the alternatives were studied. This project went through a rigorous environmental impact analysis following CEQA law and was fully adopted by the District Board. Even afterwards we still contemplated comments from the public until today. So the District has been accepting and analyzing alternatives raised by regulatory agencies, community,, public and everyone else. So perhaps if we could make that environmental report available people could study it more and find out what we actually did. Another comment made by Libby that the report prepared by Barry Coates could be made public. That report is actually included in the Staff Report and it is actually part of our specifications for the project so it is public information. If anybody wants to see it we would be happy. to provide the information. The Ellie Giumousis also mentioned that some eucalyptus trees are not as invasive as the others may be. Eric, can you comment on that? Mr. Webb: Ellie is right there are actually some eucalyptuses that are non-invasive. The ones that are planted along the MSC are not necessarily invasive but they are non-native. The do provide very little wildlife habitat for native wildlife species. The opportunity to provide greater area of native riparian habitat will benefit native wildlife species. City of Palo Alto Page 41 1 One other comment that Libby had made about escape cover for small mammals particular salt 2 marsh harvest mice, which do occur in the pickle weed habitat, the pickle weed dominated salt 3 marsh near the bypass channel. Escape cover is really important for harvest mice and other 4 small mammals. During large flood events the Palo Alto flood basin fills with water, harvest 5 mice in order to escape that flood event they need to get up onto higher elevation areas. Right 6 now there are levees that provide some escape cover for the harvest mice and other small 7 mammals during these flood events. The District proposes to actually increase the amount of 8 escape cover and to revegetate these slopes with native plant species that would even provide 9 better escape cover than is there presently. Actually they are proposing to increase the amount of 10 escape cover for small mammals as part of this project. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Mr. Lee: In summary, I will just say that this project went through a rigorous process through CEQA and through outreach to the community, the City, regulatory agencies. It is driven by the need to provide flood protection. We try to mitigate or avoid environmental impacts. I hope the efforts that we went through are obvious to you. We are still in the process of optimizing the design, improving it any way we can. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. I would like to bring this back to the Commission now for our comments and thought and ultimate vote. I want to remind the Commission that it is 10:15 and we need to make a decision tonight so if we could be focused on our questions and comments. If we have a question on the parkland we can ask Joe. You get to ask a question as soon as Michael asks his question. Commissioner Griffin: I will go first. Mr. Lee, your colleague, Eric, I am wondering if he might respond more on the trees. I really like the trees. I would really like to keep the trees and I am really trying to figure out if there is a way even though they are eucalyptus which, etc.. etc. Is there a way to keep the darn trees? Mr. Webb: Fair enough. When we were trying to find a location for the bypass channel that minimizes impacts to sensitive habitats the choice was do we move the bypass channel closer to Matadero Creek and impact a larger area of willow dominated riparian habitat or move it closer to the MSC and impact more upland habitat and much of that along the MSC along the north side is a eucalyptus grove. So yes I understand what you are saying. You hate to remove mature trees. I don’t think anybody likes to see 60-some mature trees removed even if they are eucalyptus. You have to weigh your choices. In weighing those choices moving a large stand of willows along Matadero Creek or removing 66 eucalyptus trees in an upland area adjacent to the MSC. From a biotics perspective it is much better to remove the eucalyptus. So those are the kinds of choices that we are making in actually determining the location of that bypass channel. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you, Eric. I would like to ask Gary a question if I may about the concrete in the bottom of the channel. We have heard discussion tonight about it is necessary for supporting the machinery. I have some questions about that I am in the machinery business myself and we don’t always require to have concrete on the bottom of a creek in order to operate machinery there. Are there other reasons that we should know about why there is concrete in the bottom of this conveyance? Mr. Kittleson: I should state at the outset that my preference always in creek restoration is not concrete. That is just a preference. This rea!ly is a structura! issue. It is basically the MSC is a City of Palo Alto Page 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 !0 11 12 13 14 !5 16 17 18 19 20 "~1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 fill pad it is a filled wetland essentially. So you are all sitting on Bay muds everywhere. When you start cutting that down to get elevation grades to convey flood flow, which under any alternative you need to do you are immediately, lessening your fill pad over the Bay mud. So the concern that the District has is that as they actually grade down to get conveyance, which is part of the process regardless of the options, they are into a more unstable terrain. Maintenance on a regular maintenance basis it is very difficult to do in a Bay mud situation. If they don’t have concrete they could be prevented from maintaining for many years just based on hydrology, if we have a series of wet winters. It may not dry out enough to really access all the areas necessary. There is a potential option to do extensive vegetation reduction to get capacity that really hasn’t been looked at, as I understand the alternatives analysis. All the options that were looked at resulted in a tremendous amount of sediment removal that required heavy equipment. I will say that the District has responded to the regulatory concerns about that extent of concrete by reducing it where possible. One thing that you should think is functionally once this channel fills up that concrete is going to disappear. It is going to be under mud. So it won’t look like a fresh concrete channel most of the time, it will look like a dirty concrete channel or it will look like a very flat streambed with essentially non-native vegetation, which is really what is going to be there. Commissioner Griffin: Were there any FEMA repercussions from the use of concrete? Mr. Kittleson: Not so much. Really it is flood conveyance. It is basically reducing the constriction. Basically al! the options looked at reducing restrictions downstream, reducing the backwater effect, which then allowed a remapping of the flood plane by FEMA. So any alternative that is less than this in terms of less width or less incursion into the wetlands and riparian areas requires sort of a serious set of negotiations on the part of the District’s part with FEMA as to what is legally mappable as far as flood capacity. You need to have adequate capacity. This hard channel that they are going to put in will always be hard and essentially smooth so it can be modeled on a regular basis for capacity. If it is not you basically have to go in once or twice a year and survey and you have to do very site-specific sediment removal and vegetation removal. It requires essentially, I don’t want to say a full time biological staff, but it requires annual surveys for species, a much more rigorous annual maintenance and monitoring program. Not to say that it couldn’t be done but it really wasn’t look at essentially for cost reasons. The alternatives really looked at a much wider swath of clearing or a gross clearing of the whole flood area between the levees. Chair Bialson: We are going to have other Commissioners now. Could we prioritize our questions and try to keep to as few questions as we possibly can. I promised Phyllis and then Bonnie. Commissioner Cassel: I wanted to hear what Mr. Teresi had tO say concerning the follow up for what is parkland and what is not or from any of the Staff that have comments. Mr. Teresi: I need to use the map on the wall. Can everyone see that? In order to understand the Park Improvement Ordinance first we need to understand how this land was dedicated as park. It was actually dedicated in two separate pieces. This line here, this jagged line, separates what was called the.ITT property from the rest of the Baylands. This portion over here, I will call it the non-ITT land, that was dedicated as parkland in the mid-1960s. In the ordinance that dedicated this portion of the Baylands as park it specifically excluded from that park dedication, City of Palo Alto Page 43 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 1 "creek channels and the MSC." So therefore we have shown this area, the MSC and the creek 2 channel as excluded from the park as per the ordinance. Later in 1982 the ITT property was 3 dedicated as parkland and in that specific ordinance of park dedication this area in red here again 4 was specifically excluded from the park. So therefore what we have shown in this map is that 5 the only portion of the Water District’s project that is within a dedicated park is this narrow 6 orange strip at the rear and south side of the MSC. Much of what is in there is just an existing 7 levee as shown here. This light area is the existing levee and maintenance road. So this is the only part of the project that is within a dedicated park. Chair Bialson: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: Related to that one of the documents that we got was this Master Plan Report for the MSC and that is where it was recommended that the eucalyptus trees be planted back whenever this was. The 1987 MSC Master Plan recommended that 30-foot landscape buffer zone be established. That is where it had the eucalyptus trees. That is just sort of backgound so people know that at one time people wanted to have those eucalyptus trees there in order to provide a visual screening. I have another question. I wanted a clarification from whomever about the width of the channel. Some members of the public said the purpose of the width of the channel is to allow the vehicles to turn around. How much of that is true or is the width of the channel really necessary in order to allow the water to flow in order to make the channel effective as a bypass. Mr. Lee: I will answer that. The full width of the channel, the 55 feet width was determined based on hydraulic requirements. In other words, to convey the flood flow that we need to, it requires the 55 feet width. That was done after a very careful hydraulic calculation by one of our consultants. Then it was reviewed by another consultant and reviewed by the District. So it is through a very thorough engineering analysis that was determined. Although it may, sound high or large to some people it was very carefully designed. Then within that 55 feet, the width of 30 feet to be concreted was based on maintenance needs, based on the maintenance equipment that we have, the long excavator with the long arm to reach over 25 feet to scrape the channel clean it requires the 30 foot width of concrete. That is how that was decided. Commissioner Packer: Thank you. If I can ask one other quick question of Planning Staff. A few months ago we approved a pedestrian pathway to the International School. I wonder if the proposed mitigation site is going to impact it. I was looking at the map from that project and it looked very close. I wonder if we have any overlap there. Mr. Lusardi: No. The proposed pathway for the International School hugs the post office site and actually gets away from the riparian area. It will take out some under-value riparian brush but the overall mitigation that the Santa Clara Valley Water District is proposing will replace that also. The pathway itself is not affecting the mitigation area. Chair Bialson: First Karen and then Joe. Commissioner Holman: I have a question about what did happen to the upstream catch basins on Stanford land. What happened to those options? City of Palo Alto Page 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Ms. Catherine Overn, Santa Clara Valley Water District: Good evening. When this project began in 1999 1 was working for the consulting firm of Schaef & Wheeler that was selected and hired by the District to perform the planning study for this project. One of the alternatives that we looked at early on included creating an off-stream storage basin at the corner of Page Mill Road and Foothill Expressway. This land is owned by Stanford University. What the purpose of the storage basin was to shave the peak flows off of the flows coming down Matadero Creek and Deer Creek combined fight up in that area and then continue flowing down to the Bay. So that basin was just going to shave the peak flows and provide a lower flow during a one percent or a 100-year flood event. The basin wouldn’t be operated that often because we don’t get those high flows that often. We met with Stanford University officials I believe three or four times in the fall and the spring of 1999 and 2000 and broached this issue with them and tried to describe what we wanted to do and there was significant hesitation I should say on Stanford’s part to allow us to put that basin in. The basin would cover approximately 20 acres of that corner of Page Mill Road and Foothill Expressway. It would actually store 130 acre-feet of water during a one percent flow event. I don’t know the specifics of exactly what Stanford has planned or what the zoning on that land currently is but Stanford basically told the Water District that they were not interested in providing that land to the District for this purpose even though at the time District Staff tried to portray it as a good partnering project that would provide that off-stream storage and that it would also provide possibilities for some habitat enhancement. Now that area is a red-legged frog potential area. So anything that was created within that 20 acres would then have to be carefully scrutinized in order to clear the red-legged frog. So even creating the storage basin could possibly have significant environmental impacts. As I told you before the 20 acres was what was needed and at an estimated cost of $2.0 million per acre you are talking about $40.0 million just for the land costs. So if Stanford did not deed a lease to the District to operate that storage basin I believe the District had the option of pursuing an eminent domain procedure and then would have to pay an assessed market value for the land if it successfully worked its way through the courts. So given all of those constraints and Stanford’s hesit~ition to partner with the District on this that alternative was dropped from further consideration as the project continued. Commissioner Holman: Yes, follow up. Were there any other locations upstream that were considered? Ms. Oven: Yes, there was one other location considered and that was to create, I believe that back in the 1950s there had been a proposal to create a water storage reservoir that would basically cover the area from Page Mill Road just upstream of Foothill Expressway and would flood what is now Highway 280 as it runs north and south along that area. That water reservoir idea of course never continued it never was constructed, Highway 280 came in. So one other alternative is essentially to cross Page Mill Road with a dam and provide an upstream storage area there. That was also an alternative that was described in the engineer’s report. Again at this point in time with Highway 280 running right through what would be the reservoir it really was not considered to be a feasible alternative but it was investigated at the time. Commissioner Holman: Could Palo Alto Staff respond to how much water comes down from Stanford land and so is there a way of evaluating kind of what their if you will, responsibility might be in terms of partnering? City of Palo Alto Page 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Bialson: I think, Karen, we are getting into an area that would be interesting but at this point in the evening if we could hold off and allow the other Commissioners to ask their questions that go more to this particular project and then see if we have time to go into this other. We don’t have the opportunity to expand the area of our consideration at this point t0 Stanford and its responsibilities? Is that the path you are going on? Commissioner Holman: Well, I understand that is not the project we have in front of us but to know how to act on this project I think it would be very helpful to have other information that may be available. Chair Bialson: I appreciate your interest in that but let’s ask the other Commissioners first with regard to their questions, which might impact their decisions as well. Commissioner Bellomo: I would prefer to go more to comments at this point. So I will defer to other Commissioners for questions. Chair Bialson: Are there any other questions? Why don’t we have your answer then with regard to Stanford? Mr. Kittleson: I just wanted to note that Upper Deer Creek and Upper Matadero Creek are predominantly undeveloped, they are open lands so the responsibility for accentuated or extra drainage from Stanford, essentially they will drain far less than all the neighbors next to Matadero Creek because they are just not that impervious. Stanford does have a lot of development proposals on the board, they are doing a lot of development but that is not in the area of that that is of concern for that site. Those two creeks are also known habitats for red- legged frogs so the regulatory constraints to doing an occasionally full reservoir would be significant, it would probably require take of a federally endangered species. It would be a far more onerous project from a regulatory perspective than the one in front of you. That may or may not have been part of their screening I wasn’t involved but in 1998 red-legged frogs were documented throughout that area as tadpoles and adults. So they were there. Chair Bialson: Phyllis do you have a question? Commissioner Cassel: Yes. Chair Bialson: Let’s have one more question and then let’s go on to comments. Commissioner Cassel: I know it is typical to do riparian habitat replacement with the same kind of land or habitat that you are disturbing. Is there any way other than that to repair habitat in that general area other than riparian habitat? In other words, so that we could perhaps do the LATP side of the two ponds or something of that sort. We wouldn’t do those as riparian habitat we would be doing them as salt marsh or some other kind of habitat. Is there any way to do that? Mr. Kittleson: Typically riparian habitat replacement is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fish and Game. They are driven by the State Fish and Game Code. They typically have a three-to-one replacement ratio. In some situations it is less, in some situations it is more. It is preferred to have in kind and onsite thereby after that in kind and off-site. The situation we are faced with is almost in kind and off-site but that is about the best you are going to get from the Cit)’ of Palo Alto Page 46 6 7 8 9 10 !1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 1 alternative screening that I have reviewed. It is a case-by-case basis. There could be a case that 2 the district would make per your comment that we could do ten-to-one on salt marsh somewhere 3 else or something. You could start negotiating because the streambed alteration permit and the 4 associated conditions are negotiated based on the merits of the project. They are in the process 5 now of negotiating permits with the state and federal regulatory agencies and we are in contact with them. So that could be a condition of approval but that would be out of your jurisdiction, typically it would be a suggestion that would then get incorporated into the discussions with Fish and Game. Chair Bialson: One more. Commissioner Holman: Just one more question, I believe it is for you, Gary. In looking at the proposal in front of us I have a question about getting water to bend. Water wants to take the most direct route so how do you respond to the bend that the water is being asked to take and then with the preferred environmental project I presume that it would be asked to bend even further to a right angle. Mr. Kittleson: Yes. The District could speak more to that. The hydraulics are difficult in the environmentally preferred alternative predominantly because you are turning it ninety degrees and putting it into a tube with heavy sediment loads and debris loads as we have seen from the slides in the presentation. The alignment proposed for the bypass essentially is a bypass alignment from the 1970s. It is described sort of as a natural channel but my read on the 1976 photo is it was a dredged channel essentially if you look at how it outlets and everything else. It is unlikely that that was a natural channel. It may be residual from the dredging for the levees in that area or the fill for the MSC. I am not sure I have not done historic analysis of the site but the configuration is not typically a natural channel, it doesn’t have the meanders that you see in the other slew channels around here. It simply is a big wide uniform channe! essentially where they are talking about doing a concrete channel. So it is not in my opinion a natural channel it was a residual maintenance feature that has slowly filled and vegetated. Just to respond to the question about how the performance would work. This channel is designed with a ten percent ramp up from the existing channel. The bypass channel has a ten percent ramp at an elevation of the two to five year storm above that flow the entire basin is essentially filled from levee to levee at that point but the smooth channel, the quick route out, is down the bypass channel. So there is actually a sill essentially it comes up the ramp and then it drops back down, shallow grade all the way around. So until that point flows continue to flow down the original channel. It is only after that flood flow that the basin fills up and the smooth channel takes a tot of the percentage of the flow. The fact that it is very wide and smooth gives it that hydraulic benefit and that is really the purpose of it. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Bonnie do you have a question? Commissioner Packer: Yes. What would happen in very high tide situation to that flow? Mr. Kittleson: In a very high tide situation the tide gates would be closed and flood basin would basically just be full. The extreme high tide in the case of a levee breach or a malfunction of the gates that are controlling the flood basin outflow, this project would not affect that. This project would be overwhelmed by the tidal flooding. Tidal flooding in that sense is not truly affected by Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 this project or the project has no real effect on it. In addition, local storm drain issues adjacent to Highway 101 are not really solved by this project. This project only solves riverine flooding. So the residual storm drain management issues that are faced by all the urban areas in subsiding areas essentially below sea level you have storm drains that are below the tides you really do have some issues that are not being solved here. Chair Bialson: Michael. MOTION Commissioner Griffin: I would like to make a motion and as opposed to reading off this long list here I would like to move simply the Staff recommendation, which consists of item number one and subparagraphs a, b, c, and d, plus the second major bullet item, which is to submit the site and design application to the ARB. Chair Bialson: Phyllis, do you have a comment? SECOND Commissioner Cassel: Yes. Could I add a little piece to that? I will second it and solve that problem. AMENDED MOTION Would you consider adding in that we ask the District to please consider replacing the riparian habitat, they have to replace the two acres, replace all or part of that with other habitat replacements appropriate to the Baylands? There are some other areas in there that could clearly be replaced rather than the industrial site farther up the way but they need to make a special request to do that. Chair Bialson: Would that be done in order to preserve the business that is presently being displaced? Commissioner Cassel: That is correct. Chair Bialson" So would you want to state that in the suggested language that they replace this with land that does not require the removal of a family business that has been in Palo Alto for 38 years? Commissioner Cassel: You can say it that way if you like, yes. Chair Bialson: Michael. Commissioner Griffin: I would accept your language. Chair Bialson: So the motion would be for the Staff recommendation with the addition of that language. We have another one. Cit)" of Palo Alto Page 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4t 42 43 44 45 46 47 AMENDED MOTION Commissioner Packer: Would you mind an addition, which encourages the continued redesign of this project to address as many of the concerns that continue to be raised as they have been doing since the environmental reports, to continue that process to address the mitigations on the environment as much as possible? In other words, that our approval of the findings is not an approval of the final design but that it is going to continue to be modified to address the environmental concerns that are being raised. Chair Bialson: I think we are dealing with a preliminary site and design. Commissioner Packer: So that doesn’t have to be in there? Commissioner Bellomo: Does it say preliminary site and design? Chair Bialson: I believe it does in 1.c. Commissioner Packer: If it is not necessary then I’ll withdraw it. Chair Bialson: I will let the maker of the motion decide that. Commissioner Griffin: Thank you, no. Chair Bialson: So we have on the table that I think has been agreed to and seconded. Would the maker of the motion care to speak to it? Commissioner Griffin: I think we have heard tonight some controversial aspects of this plan. I wish it were not even necessary to begin with but regardless of all of that we are here now and we have to deal with what we have. Under the circumstances I think that the plan that we have spent some time reviewing this evening is probably the best of an awkward situation. Myself, I would like to see us go with the culvert plan underneath Bay frontage road but I fully understand the difficulties that are there so we have to do what we can do. Chair Bialson: Does the seconder wish to speak to the motion? Commissioner Cassel: It is always difficult to be going into the riparian habitat or any of the habitats down in the Baylands at all. So I would hope that the District would continue to look for ways of using less cement and other ways of altering that Baylands. I presume you have already looked at Emily Renzel’s proposal for putting this freshwater into the Renzel habitat but look at it again and keep looking at ways to minimize the impacts of this channel in every way you possibly can. Chair Bialson: Pat. AMENDED MOTION City of Palo Alto Page 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Commissioner Burt: I would like to propose two additional friendly amendments. One has to do with the vegetation. There are two components of that one. First to include an interim habitat plan so that we have replacement habitat going in place prior to the loss of the existing habitat. Connected with that to recommend the seeding of appropriate native vegetation that would not interfere with flood control on the mud flat that will be created over the top of the concrete area. So that is two parts of the vegetation aspect. Then the second friendly amendment would be a request to continue to pursue the alternative that Phyllis just spoke of the incorporation of the flood plain as a way to reduce the necessity of the scope of this proposal. I am not satisfied that we have adequately pursued that alternative and I would like to see that not as a recommendation that we have the basis to make at this time but as a specific request to pursue that as an unresolved issue. Chair Bialson: Could you be more specific about that? Commissioner Burt: That the alternative of having flood relief into the tidal basin in the areas of the Renzel Reserve and other flood plain areas there have additional exploration by the Water District. Commissioner Griffin: My reaction is that I wish we had a chance to bat that around a little bit and get some feedback from Staff on it. Is there a possibility of having some discussion at this stage on this particular aspect we are talking about here? Mr. Lusardi: I think at this point the only thing Staff would recommend is that you use the word explore, we wil! explore it, but that doesn’t mean that we can necessarily do anything. I do want to point out though on the interim habitat issue I think the Commission should be explicit that if that is the direction you go that the Ciardella’s Nursery is not the interim habitat mitigation site because that would be the most appropriate place to start the interim mitigation and I am sure that is not your direction. Commissioner Burt: That is correct. "Exploration" of that alternative would be an acceptable approach for my amendment. Chair Bialson: So you are asking that that site be specifically excluded from the exploration of that. Commissioner Burt: There are two aspects, that from the interim habitat that the nursery not be included in the interim habitat aspect and that the exploration of the flood control use of the additional flood basin be an exploration. Is that what you were referring to, John? Yes. Chair Bialson: I think what you are communicating by including that in the motion is our discomfort with part of this process and the desire that it be continued to be explored in some of these things. Ms. Furth: Madam Chairman I believe Joe Teresi has a comment. Chair Bialson: Yes, Joe? Cir.’ of Palo Alto Page 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Teresi: I think if the Water District had some more time, I think they have already looked at that as a possible option and I think they have reasons why it would not work. So I know you are under a time constraint but I do understand that they have looked at that as an option. Commissioner Burt: I guess our problem is that that was not presented to us as one of the options that was explored and the reasoning was not presented to us. So we are missing that rationale. Chair Bialson: I think we are at a point now where it does no harm to include it but I leave it up to the maker of the motion to determine whether or not he will include it. Commissioner Griffin: I will accept the second portion but not the first. Commissioner Burt: I believe the first had to do with the interim habitat. Chair Bialson: Seconder. Commissioner Cassel: I thought it would be the other way around Ms. Furth: We have three items and if you could tell us specifically if you are referring to the interim habitat plan excluding use of the Ciardella’s site, the seeding of appropriate natives on the new mud flat and the furthei- exploration of using the flood plain including the Emily Renzel preserve to reduce the scope of this project, which one of those you are talking about we would be clearer on what you are saying. Chair Bialson: You are speaking to the maker? Ms. Furth: Yes. Commissioner Griffin: I am not accepting the seeding of the flood plain portion. Chair Bialson: Seconder. Commissioner Cassel: I will go along with the maker of the motion. I have no option on the one he said no on so I will accept it. SUBSTITUTE MOTION Commissioner Butt: Then I would like to introduce that as a substitute motion incorporating all the aspects of the maker of the motion with the exception of the seeding of the mud fiat. Chair Bialson: So you are proposing a substitute motion, which includes the entire motion that has been made with the addition of the seeding of the mud flat. Commissioner Butt: The mud flat that will be over the concrete area. City of Palo Alto Page 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Bialson: So what we are doing is now getting into the question of seeding. Do I have a second on the substitute motion? I do not hear a second. So why don’t we have some comments toward the primary motion that is now on the table. I believe that Karen has first dibs. SUBSTITUTE MOTION Commissioner Holman: I would like to propose another substitute motion. This motion refers back to comments that Commissioner Bellomo made earlier having to do with the MSC site. When I look at the aerial view of this site I see a lot of underutilized space. I am referring back to previous comments made by Commissioner Bellomo and I would move to deny the application or the proposal and ask for further exploration of the MSC site and the proposal that Commissioner Burr did of the Renzel Wetlands as the holding pond. Chair Bialson: Is there a second to that motion? Commissioner Bellomo: Do I need to second this to discuss it? Chair Bialson: I believe so, yes. SECOND Commissioner Bellomo: I will second that. Chair Bialson: Do you want to speak to your motion, Karen? Commissioner Holman: Just that I think that there probably are better solutions that really aren’t in front of us. The proposal that is in the letter by Emily Renzel I don’t see that as Commissioner Butt mentioned, I don’t see that as something that has been explored. It is certainly not something that has been in front of us and so that is one. The other is as I said as I look at the aerial view of the MSC site I see a lot of underutilized space and so surely one of these other proposals or one of these other possibilities should be explored. So that is why I am recommending denial of the project. Chair Bialson: Joe. Commissioner Betlomo: First of all I want to acknowledge the work that has gone into this. I think there was that statement made. I thoroughly feel that this is an overwhelming amount of information to take in and I appreciate the efforts that went into this. I do feel that the alternatives that we have been given to speak to have not, in my opinion, been fully explored and that is in regard to really a construction methodology and concerning the engineering, the biological specialist, a landscape architectural drive and an architectural drive that would in fact bring us to more of an inventive solution. I believe the MSC siting with its pervious area does provide opportunities. I think I was misunderstood with the channeling that would be hydraulically pumped from East Bayshore into this channel as it diverted over to the MSC site. I wasn’t alluding to that. I was alluding to having a channel that would turn at an awkward 90 degree to the MSC pervious area that then could allow the MSC to provide more infrastructure for storage in an architectural fashion. Without having a piece of tracing paper in front of me and kind of showing you those ideas I am lost in respect to understanding what those alternatives City of Palo Alto Page 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 t8 19 2O 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 could be without disrupting, going away from everything that has been said and providing less harm to this area and placing it on the MSC site, which seems appropriate in regard to this type of channel. So having said that it is hard to be really respectful of the work that has gone on and not trying to undermine anything but I just feel that fundamentally what we are speaking to here should be provided on this property, on the MSC site. The alternatives aren’t before me and that is what I am struggling with to understand how that property could be utilized to mitigate the effects of this project. Chair Bialson: So you are seconding the motion? Commissioner Bellomo: I am seconding the motion. Chair Bialson: Fine. Commissioner Bellomo: Again, I feel that there needs to be more design alternatives forwarded to the ARB. I feel that what we are doing is sending this to the ARB for their review of this project. Have it be a preliminary and they might still request alternatives to the approach. Chair Bialson: Okay. That is understood. Pat, do you want to speak to this? Commissioner Butt: Could we have restated the substitute motion? Chair Bialson: Wynne, were you going to say something? Ms. Furth: I was going to say that if you recommend denial of the project it is not going to go to the ARB it is going to go to the City Council. If as I understand the proposal is that the City make the MSC site available for the channel that is probably the appropriate place to send it. Chair Bialson: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I just wanted to make one other comment about why I want to deny the project. In reading the Staff Report and in discussions with Staff today and from comments made this evening I am really not terribly convinced that this solves the problem that it sets out to solve. Given tidal action could be coming in at the same time water is trying to go out, given the dikes that are out there I am just not terribly convinced it is an adequate solution to solve the problem that does need to be solved. Chair Bialson: Could you share with us your discussion with Staff that you are relying on? Commissioner Holman: Staff could speak for themselves but it was the conversation we had in regard to tide coming in at the same time. Mr. Teresi: The area that Matadero Creek flows into which is the Palo Alto flood basin is isolated from the tide by a set of tide gates so it won’t allow the tide to come in. So there is no tidal action that occurs. It is held outside the levee and there are floodgates that only allow water to exit the flood basin out into the Bay. There is no in-flow from the tides into the basin. City of Palo Alto Page 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 !6 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Holman: From my conversation with Staff this afternoon I understood that that is one situation but I was understanding that while water wouldn’t be able to come it also water would not be able to go out. Mr. Teresi: That is the whole purpose of the flood basin. The flood basin provides that additional storage area to hold the water until the tide goes down. That is the intent of that 600- acre basin is to act as a holding basin for the water that is coming out of the hills via the creeks and to hold it there without causing flooding until the tide goes out and then the water can flow out the gates. Mr. Lusardi: I think Staff’s reference that the Commissioner is speaking to in our discussion today is we were talking about the extreme event where a major tidal action occurs along with the flooding action. I don’t think this mitigates that kind of an extreme event. That was the reference we were making to that. Chair Bialson: So was there a meeting that occurred this afternoon between several members of Staff and a Commissioner? Mr. Lusardi: We met with the Commissioner out at the site and walked her through the site at her request. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Wynne. Ms. Furth: I think that the Engineers and the Engineering Staff and Planning Staff are making clear that this is not a project that deals with significant global warming for example but this is a project that is intended to deal with the so-called 100-year flood. The City does believe that this successfully addresses a significant section of our flooding problems. Chair Bialson: I think Bonnie and then I would like to vote on these motions. Commissioner Packer: I would like to explain why I am going to vote against the motion to deny and vote for the motion to not deny. It for these reasons: at first when I read about this I was really worried about this huge cement thing covering this beautiful riparian area but with all the information that we had tonight and the importance of it to protect the City from the riverine floods I think this is probably the best project. The main reason is because the channel goes right along the MSC and it is so close to something that is already very developed and has been there for years and years. Look at the old pictures and the MSC has always been there, this big impervious thing, and this other concrete channel I see it as just a slight expansion of the MSC so I could handle that. It isn’t like it is a big concrete swath going in the middle of the park and it is going to be very visible. So for that reason and for all the other good reasons why we need this flood control I think it is a good project and I will not support the motion to deny. Also I don’t think it s politically feasible that the City Council is going to want to give up the MSC or a large portion of it to the channel. So there is another reality factor there. MOTION FAILS CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 !9 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Chair Bialson: Let’s vote on the substitute motion. All those in favor of the motion vote aye. (ayes) All those opposed say nay. (nays) So that motion fails with Commissioners Bellomo and Holman voting yea and all others voting nay. Going back now we are at the basic motion if I am correct. Commissioner Griffin: The basic motion with two adds. I am wondering if we could restate those two? Would it be possible that Staff has written those down? ~Mr. Lusardi: The motion moved the Staff recommendation with an amendment that the Santa Clara Valley Water District consider replacing the riparian habitat with other type of habitat that might be equal but although different type of habitat, to encourage continued redesign or design issues to address concerns that were raised this evening, to explore an interim habitat plan along with the ultimate final mitigation plan and to explore additional areas in the Emily Renzel basin to look for mitigation areas. Chair Bialson: I think there was an additional one or an expansion of one, maybe it is my personal favorite and that is why I am recalling it, that the negotiation that be entered into to replace the riparian with other types of replacement be done for the purpose of saving the business that is now on the area which is being designated as the replacement of the habitat. Ms. Furth: We understand that you want this alternative habitat to be explored because you wish to preserve the Ciardella business site. Chair Bialson: Thank you so much, Wynne. Pat. Commissioner Butt: Yes I realize that upon hearing the restatement of the motion that if I understand it right it talks about not utilizing riparian habitats and I think the objective that we are in agreement upon is wanting to look at other habitat replacements that would allow for the preservation of the nursery but not to specifically rule out riparian habitats. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you, but rather to include in looking for other sites to not exclude other habitats if we can’t get to the riparian habitat. Chair Bialson: In other words, there was a question of fresh water versus salt water riparian. Commissioner Cassel: We couldn’t replace some of the habitats. We have spaces in the Baylands that need repair but they can’t be done as riparian. Commissioner Burr: The way the motion was stated I don’t think it reflected your intention and I want to make sure that we have corrected that. Commissioner Cassel: Thank you. Commissioner Burt: I believe Staff captured correctly what was stated before but I think this is a clarification that we all are in agreement upon. So could I ask Staff to state, as they understand it this clarification of Phyltis’s amendment? Cir.’ of Palo Alto Page 55 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 1 Mr. Lusardi: Basically you want the Santa Clara Valley Water District to explore all avenues of 2 mitigation whether it is riparian or wetland habitat that could effectively eliminate or reduce the 3 need to use the off-site habitat design identified in the project. 4 5 Commissioner Burr: That sounds great to me. 6 7 Chair Bialson: That is it, is that what you are saying Michae!? 8 9 Commissioner Griffin: Right. 10 Chair Bialson: Could we vote on that motion please? Hold it. Commissioner Griffin: That statement that John just read attached to the original motion is what we are voting on now? Chair Bialson: The original Staff recommendations. Mr. Lusardi: There are two other additions. Commissioner Griffin: Let’s hear them, please. Mr. Lusardi: One is the interim habitat plan and the other is exploring additional areas in the Emily Renzel area. Commissioner Griffin: I had previously said that I was not in favor of this interim. Commissioner Burr: No, you had opposed the grass seeding. Commissioner Griffin: Fair enough. Ms. Furth: Can we do our short version one more time? It is to explore an interim habitat plan which does not involve the Ciardella site, look further at using the flood plane in the Emily Renzel Marsh as ways that might reduce the scope of this project, though Staff is skeptical, to continue to address the design issues that you have raised this evening and to tr5 to secure from the regulatory agencies permission to do other kinds of habitat restoration in the area that would not require use of the Ciardella site. Chair Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Burr: I heard something slightly different from John and that was not what Wynne had said which was to prohibit consideration of the Ciardella site. Ms. Furth: You can’t do that. Commissioner Burt: But what I heard from John, which I think captured my, understanding, was to look at options to minimize or eliminate the impact on the utilization of that site. Cit3’ of Palo Alto Page 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Ms. Furth: I am sorry, I thought i was capturing something which Staff said about the interim habitat plan specifically which was that you were concerned about having an interim habitat plan so that you go restoration going before you did removal and if you don’t indicate that you don’t want the Ciardella site used for those purposes that is the first place they would go to start doing it. Mr. Lusardi: With respect to the Ciardella site there are two issues. Number one is the interim habitat plan as Wynne stated is you want to exclude the Ciardella site as being part of the interim. The second part is explore other habitat mitigation areas that could eliminate the Ciardetla site as an ultimate mitigation area. But there is no way that we can conclusively say that can be done at this point. We can explore it. Chair Bialson: Explore it. Mr. Lusardi: Whether it is wetland or riparian. Chair Bialson: Is that what everyone agrees? Commissioner Griffin: Those two items. Chair Bialson: Those two items. Commissioner Griffin: And in addition to those two items that John just said was the Emily Renzel mitigation. Commissioner Burr: Explore the other flood plain alternatives including the Emily Renzel lands. Chair Bialson: Is that the maker’s understanding? Commissioner Griffin: Yes. Chair Bialson: And the seconder? They are indicating that it is true. Karen wants to speak to this. AMENDED MOTION Commissioner Holman: I would like to offer also two more amendments. One would be to consider in addition to other types of habitat restoration to consider more than one riparian habitat restoration as opposed to considering the Ciardella site as riparian habitat restoration. That would be one amendment. Chair Bialson: Michael. Commissioner Griffin: I was just going to say would you like to repeat that for us, please? Commissioner Holman: Yes. That in looking at the riparian habitat mitigation that using more than one site as opposed to using the Ciardella site be considered. While that may not be optimal City of Palo Alto Page 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 it would be better than what is being proposed and not impossible and it might be more feasible than getting true consideration of other kinds of mitigations. Chair Bialson: So you are asking that multiple sites be considered. Let the maker respond to that. Commissioner Griffin: I am not seeing the distinction between what we have said before and what you are saying now. Could you highlight the differences, please? Commissioner Holman: As I understand the previous amendment it says to consider say salt marsh restoration as opposed to riparian. So it is not one kind for the same kind is how I have understood it. Chair Bialson: I think the language of it was expanded to the point where it included what you are saying but maybe Staff can indicate whether or not that is the way they understand it. Commissioner Cassel: My understanding of the motion was that it was broad. Mr. Lusardi" That is correct. It was broad with the caveat of prior testimony by consultants saying that you can only get so small on a site before it become ineffective. Again, the caveat being that this has to be accepted by regulatory agencies. Chair Bialson: Right, but Karen is asking that the exploration be done. Commissioner Burt: My understanding is that the motion as was already there does allow for consideration of the concerns that you expressed, Karen. Commissioner Holman: Okay, with that clarification. The other amendment I would make is that if the riparian habitat is removed that rather than it all being removed at once that it is sequentially, maybe this is what is meant by because I have not been clear on the interim habitat, but the habitat would be removed in a sequential pattern and not all at once. Commissioner Griffin: Does Staff have any comment on that? What is your intent in the way that this is going to be constructed? Would it be removed sequentially? Commissioner Burt: If I might comment? The substitute motion that I had proposed and I understood to be accepted was an interim habitat plan, which can include staging. It could include establishing new habitat before elimination of the old habitat. So once again I believe that the motion that is on the floor does allow for what you are seeking in yours. It is an interim habitat plan without us attempting at this time to necessarily define the sequence of events that would be in that plan. Commissioner Holman: I think it would require a little bit of clarification because Staff has said that where they automatically would go to provide the interim habitat would be to the Ciardetla site. Chair Biatson: I think we need to vote but you are saying to me Michael that you are refusing the amendments. City of Palo Alto Page 58 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Griffin: Yes, that is correct, both of them. Chair Bialson: Seconder? Commissioner Casseh Yes. MOTION PASSED Chair Bialson: All those in favor of the motion please vote aye. (ayes) Al! those opposed say nay. (nays) We have oddly enough exact reversal of the previous vote where we have all Commissioners but Commissioner Bellomo and Holman voting aye on that motion. I believe that this closes the matter. Appreciate all the work that has gone into this by all the parties and by the public as well. I don’t think this is the end of it. We will probably see you back here. Thank you very much. ,C4P. comment CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 59 ATTACHMENT F Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date: To: May 1, 2003 Architectural Review Board From: Subject: Susan Ondik, Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 3201 East Bayshore Road Matadero Creek Long-Term Remediation Project [02-D-07, 02-ARB-70]: Application by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) for Site and Design and Architectural Review Board (ARB) review for the installation of an overflow flood control channel for the lower portion of Matadero Creek downstream of East Bayshore Road to increase flood capacity and protection and convey a 100-year (1%) flood event flow. Zoning: Public Facility with Site and Design overlay PF(D). Environmental Review: Environmental Impact Report .prepared and certified by SCVWD Board. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board 1) review the proposed project; 2) hear the project presentation from the applicant and take public testimony on the project design; and 3) continue the item to the May 15th ARB meeting when remaining items such as final planting plans, final mitigation monitoring report and conditions of approval will be presented. This project is being presented for Site and Design Review of the Board because the project zoning includes a Design overlay (D). Other elements of the project include Council action to: o Adopt findings for this project from the Final Environmental Impact Report certified by the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board. o Adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance for the portion of the Santa Clara Valley Water District flood control channel in Byxbee Park. Recommend staff amend the Baylands Master Plan to include elements of the project. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 1 Approve the Site and Design for the proposed Matadero Creek flood control improvements based on the findings. Grant the requested easements in and around the Municipal Services Center (MSC) to the District in order to allow the construction of the proposed Matadero Creek bypass channel. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The proposed project, as shown in Attachment B, is located in the Public Facilities zoning district with a Site and Design overlay PF(D), on parcel 008-05-004 which includes the MSC, portions of the Palo Alto Flood Basin and Byxbee Park, the Recycling Center and the Water Treatment Plant. The proposed flood control channel branches off the existing Matadero Creek channel just downstream of Highway 101 and East Bayshore Road and then proceeds around the City of Palo Alto Municipal Service Center (MSC) to the channel outlet located behind and adjacent to the MSC site. The proposed channel is primarily located within a Santa Clara Valley Water District easement, but a portion is located on the City of Palo Alto MSC property, requiring an easement of 0.84 acres and the relocation of the existing MSC transformer storage area. The project will also relocate approximately 340 feet and remove approximately 400 feet of the existing gated access road. The proposed project requires a Park Improvement Ordinance, for a strip of land located behind the MSC (map included in Attachment B), primarily containing the existing access road, that was estimated to be within dedicated Byxbee Park (boundaries when the park was dedicated were not exact). According to the biological assessment conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates, Which is summarized in the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, Attachment G, the project site is a mix of riparian, eucalyptus, wetland, scrub and ruderal habitats. The project also includes both wetland and riparian mitigation. The proposed on-site mitigation now consists of coyote brush habitat and willow riparian areas where non-native species eradication is proposed to occur. A tree inventory, conducted by Barrie D. Coate & Associates indicated approximately 236 arroyo willow, 51 red twig willow, 48 pink ironbark eucalyptus, 9 silver dollar gum eucalyptus, 2 pines, 4 northern California black walnut, 2 swamp gum eucalyptus, 4 river red gum eucalyptus (red ironbark), 3 evergreen ash, 1 Acer negundo californica and 1 corkscrew willow that are within the project area. Most of these trees will be removed with the project, and the project includes replacement plantings. This is discussed further under the summary of issues. The proposed project will provide for needed floodwater attenuation in the downstream reach of Matadero Creek. The development of the overflow channel consists of three main elements: 1) new flood control channel, wall and landscaping, 2) onsite mitigation for impacts to wetland and riparian habitat, and 3) offsite mitigation for impacts to riparian habitat. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 2 PROJECT DESC~PTION Background The proposed project (site plan included in Attachment B) is the downstream portion of the comprehensive SCVWD Matadero/Barron Creeks flood control project branching off the existing Matadero Creek channel just east of Highway 101 and adjacent to the Palo Alto Municipal Services Center (MSC) to the Palo Alto Flood Basin (PAFB). It includes the construction of a 55-60 foot wide, 1200 feet long, high-flow flood control channel for Matadero Creek located downstream (east) of U.S. Highway 101 adjacent to the City of Palo Alto Municipal Services Center (MSC). The project includes the installation of the flood control channel, related levee adjustments, the installation of a floodwall surrounding the Municipal Services Center, landscaping, and wetland and riparian mitigation areas. The proposed flood control channel will capture excess flow from Matadero Creek during moderate to severe storm events and will convey it to the Palo Alto Flood Basin thus reducing the backwater effect in the creek and improving the performance of city storm drains. The improvements will reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of flooding in Matadero and Barron Creeks between Middlefield Road and San Francisco Bay. While the project provides 100-year (1%) protection from creek flooding, it wilt not eliminate the risk of tidal flooding, which affects the area from the Bay to approximately Middlefield Road. The configuration of the Matadero Creek channel will not be altered as part of the flood control project, but mitigation for the project will include nonnative vegetation removal and native plantings along the existing creek channel. The Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project arose from a 1999 engineering study that examined ways to bring flood protection for Matadero and Barton Creeks up to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standards. The Remediation Project for the Creek includes improvements both upstream and downstream from Highway 101, extending in tota! 1.5 miles from the Palo Alto Flood Basin to Alma Street. The Council heard project alternatives identified in the 1999 Engineers Study in a February 2000 status report presentation. Environmental review and project design proceeded over the following two years. The SCVWD Board certified the EIR and approved the project in December 2002. In February 2003 after undergoing staff-level architectural review, the City approved with conditions the upstream portion of the Matadero Creek improvements, including Louis Road bridge replacement and heightened floodwalls and headwalls between Highway 10! and Alma Street. The primar5, benefit of this project is to increase the capacity of Matadero Creek to achieve l O0-year (!%) flood protection for local residents and businesses. The project, by increasing the efficiency of flow in Matadero Creek, also reduces the risk of flooding and potential flooding damage from Matadero and Barron Creeks between Middlefield 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 3 Road and San Francisco Bay. The project would protect, as shown in the map in Attachment B, approximately 4,700 properties from creek flooding, and 450 properties of those properties will no longer be required to purchase flood insurance. The remaining properties will still be required to purchase flood insurance because they are also subject to tidal flooding. Additionally, SCVWD staff estimates the potential savings from reduced flood damages at $180 million. SUMMARY OF ISSUES Flood Control Channel Design The city has hired independent consultants to review and make recommendations on the project’s proposed planting plan and palette, general hydrology, riparian and wetland mitigation and required mitigation and landscaping maintenance. The City will also utilize the consultants with the ongoing project mitigation review by the Army Corps and State Department of Fish and Game. Staff, with the consultants, is still reviewing the project engineering and design, including the Irrigation and Planting Plans and will return to the ARB on May 15, 2003 with the applicant’s final plans and the City’s Conditions of Approval. Vegetation The ARB has with its staff report a draft set of irrigation and planting plans. Staff is still reviewing these, and final versions will be presented to the Board at their May 15, 2003 meeting. The project would include a new overflow channel constructed through a mix of riparian, eucalyptus, wetland, scrub and ruderal habitats. The project includes the removal of mature eucalyptus habitat, which provides partial screening of the MSC site and potential raptor nesting sites. In the FEIR, this was determined to be a less than significant impact, because the species noted are non-native and invasive and other eucalyptus habitat is available near the project site for raptors. Of the total 361 trees inventoried, 289 of these will be removed. The project proposes to replant the eucalyptus habitat on the north side of the MSC with more native trees, such as California buckeye and Coast Live Oak. The applicant is proposing to plant approximately 365 trees. 500 shrubs and 1000 willow cuttings to replace lost trees and habitat areas. The triangular-shaped ripa~an mitigation will be replanted following construction with mixed riparian plantings. The project also includes replacing and extending the native plantings as a screening element around the entire MSC site. Plants within the landscape area include California Sycamore, California Buckeye, and Blue Elderberry. Willow cuttings and fascines will also be planted along the Palo Alto Flood Basin side of the channel. The wetland mitigation planting plan, not 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 4 yet submitted to the City, is still being negotiated with the appropriate agencies and the city, as this area is likely a mix of fresh and salt-water marsh, species. Similarly, the vegetation removal and replanting plan for the non-native eradication areas would require approval of the City and appropriate agencies. Aesthetics The proposed project will place a 1200 foot long partially concrete, partially earthen flood control channel branching off the Matadero Creek channel toward the developed MSC site, through willow riparian, some freshwater marsh and eucalyptus grove habitat, as shown on Figure 2 of the Mitigation Monitoring Report (map is shown in Attachments B & G). The proposed alignment then bends across the northeast corner and along the MSC site ending in an area between the existing levee/access road and the MSC. The proposed project also includes the installation of a concrete floodwall around the MSC, landscaping, and habitat mitigation (both on- and off-site). As previously indicated and as shown in the site plan (Attachment B), the channel bottom will be both concrete and earthen. The concrete portions of the channel are required to meet the hydraulic flow objectives of the project and to al!ow maintenance vehicles in the channel to remove sediment. These concrete portions will not be visible once they are covered with sediment deposits from periodic overflows from the main creek channel. Public views of the project will primarily be from the recreational pathway that runs along East Bayshore Road, and from the recreational pathway/parking area located on the levee just north of the existing channel. Therefore, the most visible portions of the proposed project will at the beginning where it branches off the existing channel and of the triangular shaped mitigation area (shown in pictures included with Attachment B). Aesthetically, the proposed project is replacing an established mixed habitat of varying quality with the channel (both earthen and concrete), landscaping, willow plantings and required mitigation areas. The proposed triangular-shaped riparian area will first be used as the construction staging area, and then be planted following construction. During construction, this area will likely be screened with fencing. Vegetation in this area following construction, will take time to establish and the City is considering where to require larger (15 gallon) trees to add to the screening element. On-Site Wetland And Riparian Habitat Miti~_ation The Matadero Creek flood control channel impacts 0.11 acres of wetland under the Army Corp of Engineers jurisdiction and 0.66 acres of riparian habitat under the California Department of Fish and Game. The wetland impact requires a replacement ratio of 2:! (0.22 acres), while the riparian impact requires a 3:1 (1.98 acres) replacement ratio. Temporary construction impacts, mitigated at a 1:1 replacement ratio, also include 0.06 acres of wetland and 0.48 of riparian habitat. Wetland mitigation will occur on-site, as described in the Mitigation Monitoring Report. Only a portion of the 2.46 acres of 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 5 riparian habitat mitigation proposed can be provided on-site (1.82 acres, including the non-native eradication areas), for a remainder of 0.64 acres required to be provided off- site. The SCVWD Board included the non-native eradication areas as part of the project mitigation in their review and findings for the project. Therefore, 0.8 acre, of the mitigation acreage for riparian habitat consists of the restoration of the downstream reach and levee area between the proposed channel and Matadero Creek, now consisting of a mix of native and non-native vegetation. The District is proposing to remove all non- native vegetation and replant the exposed areas with native vegetation. These vinca, ivy and giant reed eradication areas are shown on Figure 4 in Attachments B and G. As a follow-up to this effort, the District would also add to its downstream maintenance plan the regular removal of non-native vegetation. City of Palo Alto Easements In order to construct the proposed flood control channel downstream of Highway 101, the District needs two easements from the City (see map included with Attachment B). The first easement area is in the northeast corner of the City’s Municipal Services Center (MSC). By bending the alignment of the channel across the corner of the MSC, the District will be able to reduce the project’s impacts to existing riparian habitat. The requested easement area is currently used for storage of electric transformers. The District will extend the transformer storage pad to the west as part of its flood control project in order to compensate the City for loss of a portion of the existing pad. The second easement area requested by the District is a 30" wide strip outside the eastern (back) boundary of the MSC, between the existing MSC fence and the existing levee. The District is requesting an easement area totaling 0.84 acres. A larger easement within the MSC was considered for two alternative alignments in the Fall 2001 that would further avoid some of the existing habitat areas near the project by either placing the channel under or directly through the MSC site. A reduced habitat impact could eliminate the need for off-site mitigation. However, further encroachment into the MSC property was determined to conflict with the MSC Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study (occurring at that time), require raising a portion of the MSC site, require further relocation of City and utility facilities and buildings, and increase the potential to encounter hazardous materials. Therefore, these alignments were determined not to be feasible and were not addressed in the FEIR. Descriptions of the alternatives considered for the !999 Engineering Study and in the FEIR can be found in Attachment D. Staff recommends that the City grant the requested easements in and around the MSC to the District in order to allow the construction of the proposed Matadero Creek flood control channel. In exchange, the District will provide 0.25 acres to the City for a future 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 6 storm water pump station along San Francisquito Creek and will design and construct an extension of the MSC transformer storage pad to compensate for the portion of the pad to be removed for the channel alignment. Offsite Habitat Mitigation At The Ciardella Garden Supply Site Review of the proposed mitigation and subsequent permits are pending from the Army Corp of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, and San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board. The on-site mitigation of riparian and wetland habitat will be completed concurrent with and following the construction of the channel. SCVWD is proposing that offsite mitigation take place on a 2-acre District- owned parcel on Laura Lane off East Bayshore Road, next to the International School. Approximately 0.64 acres of the site will be used for riparian mitigation, and approximately 0.25 acres will be part of the land swap agreement between the City and the District. The remainder of the site will be available to the District as mitigation for future flood control projects in the Lower Peninsula Watershed and the applicant is considering completely planting the site with riparian habitat. The District analyzed many off site mitigation alternatives on Matadero, Adobe and San Francisquito Creeks and still determined the original recommendation of the Laura Lane property as the best offsite mitigation area. A summary of the sites examined is available in the March 13, 2003 letter from the District to the City included in the Planning and Transportation Commission Staff report, Attachment E. The Laura Lane property is currently owned by SCVWD and leased to Ciardella Garden Supply. The Ciardella Garden Supply is a small business located within the City of Palo Alto. The business provides both residents and contractors with landscaping material such as rockeu, gravel, and soils and also recycles materials, including concrete. The nature of this business would make relocation within the City of Palo Alto more difficult than locating a typical garden supply business. The business has two buildings occupying a relatively small portion of the site, with the remainder of the site as outdoor storage area for landscaping materials. The Ciardella Garden Supply has leased this site from the District for the past 37 years and the current lease expires on March 31, 2004. Leasing the property over these years has benefited both parties, in that the business received a below market lease rate and the District received some income from the property and could, when flood improvements were needed, choose to terminate the lease with 90 days notice and not have to relocate the business. However, the SCVWD has stated that they have worked, and will continue to work, with Ciardella’s to find a suitable relocation site. They have identified approximately 22 available sites for potential relocation and contacted 10 other public and private agencies looking for suitable sites. The City will continue to coordinate with the Ciardella’s and the applicant in looking for other suitable sites for mitigation. However, the ultimate disposition of acceptable habitat and the final timing of implementation are determined by the California Department of Fish and Game’s and the Army Corp of Engineers’ permits. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 7 Riparian planting for the mitigation site is planned for November 2004. The SCVWD has also requested an extension from the California Department of Fish and Game to delay the off-site planting of the mitigation area an additional year. If the extension is granted and off-site riparian mitigation planting and associated termination of the Ciardella lease is delayed until Fall 2005, the District would have provided Ciardella’s with approximately 40 months to relocate. This extension, however, would also mean a delay in the riparian planting and that the project would not be completed in its entirety until the end of 2005 or early 2006. BOARD & COMMISSION ~VIEW The City of Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Board reviewed and made recommendations on the project on May 28, 2002 and December 17, 2002. The Board recommended, by a 4 to 2 vote that the Council approve the Park Improvement Ordinance and recommended the approval of the flood control plan submitted by the District with the request that Council seriously look at alternative mitigation sites and that alternate land swaps be considered in order to maintain the Ciardella landscape supply business at its current site. The P&TC reviewed this project on April 9th, 2003 and voted by a 5 to 2 vote, to recommend approval of the site and design review with three added conditions, the adoption of the Park Improvement Ordinance, the amendment to the Baylands Master Plan, and the granting of requested easements in and around the Municipal Services Center (MSC). Commission discussion preceding the recommendation included: o The alternatives presented in the EIR, such as dredging the existing channel; o Alternatives considered during the initial scoping phase, such as using more of the MSC site; o Offsite riparian mitigation alternatives, including analysis conducted by the applicant upstream on Matadero Creek and other on other creeks; Maintenance and monitoring of the project and project components (landscaping & mitigation) Public comments on the project included both those supporting and opposing the proposed project. Supporters, in summary, generally accepted the project particularly noting the modifications of the project that have occurred over time, the design constraints of the location, and recognizing the benefits of reducing riverine flood risks. Opponents, in summary, expressed concern over the loss of existing habitat areas, the construction impacts of the project including on wildlife and vegetation, brought up other alternatives to the project considered in the EIR or scoping process, questioned the 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 8 proposed mitigation, including the loss of a local business, and questioned the maintenance requirements of the project. A substitute motion to deny the project and explore an alternative alignment was also proposed during the Planning & Transportation Commission meeting, but did not pass by vote of the Commission. The final motion included the staff recommendation with the addition of the three following conditions. 1)For the Applicant (SCWVD) to consider amending their proposed project mitigation plan by exploring the use of alternate sites and habitat types to mitigate the project- related loss of riparian habitat, including the use of out-of-kind (non-riparian) mitigation, and to coordinate with California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to request their approval of such an alternate mitigation plan, with the goal of reducing or eliminating the use of the proposed off-site mitigation site at 2027 East Bayshore Road. currently leased by the District to a family-owned business (Ciardella Garden Supply). 2)For the Applicant to explore the development of an interim habitat plan that would reduce project impacts by planting and establishing primarily on-site habitat areas prior to the planned removal of existing habitat areas within the project site. The scope of the interim habitat plan shall not include the off-site mitigation site at 2027 East Bayshore Road. 3) For the Applicant to further explore alternative project designs that would utilize other channel alignments and floodplain alternatives, including the Emily Renzel Marsh, in order to avoid removal of existing riparian vegetation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As the "Lead Agency", under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the SCVWD prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project. The District’s Board certified the Final EIR on December 3, 2002. With the certification of the Final EIR, the Board also adopted EIR Findings in conformance with CEQA. Subsequent to the SCVWD Board approving the project, the District filed a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk on December 10, 2002. As a "Responsible Agency", approval of the Site & Design for the Matadero Creek downstream flood control overflow channel by the City of Palo Alto Council will also require approving a Resolution making EIR Findings that address the downstream portion of the overall flood control project. The SCVWD Board FEIR findings are included as Attachment C. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 9 Following the 1999 engineering planning study that examined ways to increase Matadero Creek’s level of flood protection to FEMA standards, the Santa Clara Valley Water District released the Draft EIR, including review of both the upstream and downstream portions of the remediation project in October 2001. The Draft EIR for the project was circulated for public comment from October 2001 to December 2001. The SCVWD Board held a public hearing on the DEIR on November 20, 2001. Alternatives to the proposed overflow channel considered during the environmental review process, as described in Attachment D (sections of the FEIR and the Engineer’s Report), including an off-stream storage alternative, existing channel restoration, expanded floodway alternative and underground channel alternative. The underground channel alternative, identified as the environmentally superior alternative in the EIR, was not selected because of impacts to East Bayshore Road and underground utilities, the limited space available to meet the necessary hydraulic design, the difficulty of long-term maintenance, the fact that impacts to habitat are reduced, but not eliminated under this alternative, and the overall cost of this alternative. According to the FEIR, all potentially significant impacts of the project were reduced, with mitigation, to a less than significant level. The project does not induce population growth in the city because it is not an expansion of existing infrastructure, and does not increase jobs or housing in the area. The SCVWD will be required to submit and is currently negotiating for the following permits. California Department of Fish and Game 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Contro! Board for review of Nationwide Permits #31 and #33 and for Section 401 Water Quality Certification U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits #31 and #33 It is likely that some project design elements and related mitigation will change through the above agency review process. Through the project conditions of approval, that will be brought to the ARB at the May 15rh meeting, the City will require to be kept informed of any alterations or permit conditions of these agencies and that the final project design be in substantial conformance with the project, as submitted for the Site and Design review process. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice’of this ARB review of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, mailed notifications were also provided to interested individuals who have participated in the project’s review process. The City Council will review the project at their June 2, 2003 meeting. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 10 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Findings for Site & Design Approval & Architectural Review Board Standards for Review Attachment B: Site Plan, Pictures, Habitat Area Map, Mitigation Map, Flood Risk Reduction Map, & Park Improvement Ordinance Area Map Attachment C: SCVWD FEIR Findings Attachment D: Summary & Alternative Chapter from FEIR and Summary, Alternatives Chapter from Final Engineer’s Report Attachment E: (ARB members only) Draft Plan set & Draft Irrigation & Planting Plans Attachment F: (ARB members only) Planning & Transportation 4/30/02 staff report with attachments Attachment G: (ARB members only) Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program Report Prepared by: Manager Review by: Susan Ondik, Planner ~ John~~l~nning Manager COURTESY COPIES: City Council Ariel Calonne, City Attorney Santa Clara Valley Water District Greg Betts, City of Pato Alto Open Space & Sciences Joe Teresi, City of Palo Alto Public Works Bill Feldman, City of Pato Alto Real Estate 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 11 The City .of Palo Alto Area Covered by Park Improvement Ordinance This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS Santa Clara Valley Water District6 Attachment D Final Environmental impact Report Matadero/Barron Cree~ Pro|ect SECTION V SUMMARY This document includes a number of technical terms with which members of the public may not be familiar. Because of this, a glossary is provided in Section XIII beginning on page 132 of this EIR. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Objectives The objectives of the proposed Matadero Creek Remediation Project are to: 1.increase flood capacity to achieve the District’s and FEMA’s one percent (100-year) flood design flow level of protection with adequate freeboard along Matadero and Barron Creeks, 2.provide equivalent levels of flood protection throughout the project area. 3.protect existing sensitive habitat within the Matadero Creek watershed. 4.provide for efficient and cost-effective flood control maintenance. 5.obtain a letter of map revision from FEMA to remove the existing flood prone areas due to riverine flooding from the Flood Insurance Rate Map, and 6.reduce the risk of flooding from Matadero and Ban’on Creeks in the tidal inundation zone between Middlefield Road and the San Francisco Bay. Project Description The project site encompasses approximately, 3.5 miles of Matadero and Bahon Creeks from the Palo Alto Flood Basin (PAFB) upstream to Foothill Expressway in the City’ of Palo Alto (City). The engineering analysis determined that a combination of flood control components would be required to provide the desired flood protection to Matadero and Ban-on Creeks. Based on this analysis, the proposed project consists of improvements downstream of Highway lO1, as well as upstream of Highway 101 between the freeway and Alma Street. The downstream segment of the proposed project, between Highway 101 and the PAFB, includes the construction of a bypass channel consisting of a gravity retaining wall system and a hard bottom. The gavity retaining wall system is comprised of interlocking blocks that create pockets within the wall system, which are available to be planted with vegetation. The bypass channel will be located along the edge of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Services Center/Corporation Yard (MSC) and will be sized to convey approximately 1,400 cubic feet per second (cfs) during a one percent flood event. This bypass channel would be approximately, 60 feet wide, with an additional 10 feet on each side for a construction buffer, and would be constructed within the District’s easement along the north and southeast boundaries of the MSC. The proposed bypass channel would originate just northeast of Matadero/Barron Creeks Remediation Project Final Environmental Impact Report Santa Clara Valley Water District October 2002 East Bayshore Road with a sediment basin, which would convey flood flows into the bypass channel. The bypass channel would travel along the fence line, just north of the MSC, before turning to the southeast and outfalling into the PAFB. The levee area between the proposed bypass channel and the PAFB would be planted for riparian and wetland habitat mitigation. Construction of the proposed bypass channel will take approximately 12- 18 months to complete, depending on biological constraints. Upstream of Highway 101, the project proposes to replace and raise the Louis Road Bridge. The new bridge will be on the same alignment and structural footprint as the existing structure. The bridge will be raised approximately 1 foot, and as a result, roadway approaches will have to be raised and repaved on both sides of the bridge. The trapezoidal channel under the Louis Road Bridge will be replaced with a U-frame channel to improve conveyance capacity. An approximately 40-foot long channel transition (from trapezoidal to U-frame) would be included upstream of Louis Road, and an approximately 20-foot long channel transition would be built downstream. The transition lengths are in addition to the 65-foot length of U-frame channel under the bridge. In addition, floodwalls and headwalls between Highway 101 and Alma Street will be raised as necessary along the creek channel and at various bridge crossings to meet the FEMA criteria for one percent flood protection. A~AS OF KNOWN CONTROVERSY Local residents are concerned about the loss of aesthetic value in the area because of the proposed floodwalls and headwalls. At one bridge crossing, the new headwall will be 5 feet above sidewalk level. In addition, the residents are concerned about the potential for flooding in the general vicinity of Matadero Creek. Matadero/Barron Creeks Remediation Project Final Environmental Impact Report Santa Clara Valley Water District October 2002 ALTERNATIVES The planning study process included a comprehensive evaluation of the entire hydrologic/hydraulic system of Matadero and Barron Creeks. From this analysis, it was recog-nized that some combination of flood control measures, both upstream and downstream, would be required to meet the flood protection objectives of the project. Various possible project components were identified and evaluated as part of the planning study. Those alternatives that might reasonably be assumed to reduce project environmental impacts and which are therefore evaluated in this EIR, are listed below. Underground Bypass Alternative To minimize intrusion into the creek channel and meet the flood control requirements of the project, this alternative could include a 40-foot wide, 8-foot high box culvert under East Bayshore Road. A sediment basin would be excavated just downstream of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge to minimize sediment accumulation in the box culvert itself. Flood flows would be diverted into the box culvert via an inlet structure and would discharge into the PAFB just south of the MSC property. The culvert would need to span the entire East Bayshore road right-of-way and would require substantial utility relocation and elevating the roadway to at least 6 feet NGVD (the road is presently built at 4-5 feet NGVD). This alternative would also require modifications to the main entrance road to the MSC and other driveways along the alignment in order to provide safe vehicular access. Impacts associated with this alternative would be the temporary closure of East Bayshore Road. access problems to property fronting East Bayshore Road during construction, and the temporary disruption of utility services in the area. However, this alternative significantly reduces potential environmental impacts associated with biological resources and exposure of hazardous materials, compared to the proposed project. The proposed project includes mitigation to reduce Biological and Hazardous Materials impacts to a less than significant level. Channel Modification Alternative The purpose of this alternative would be to reduce the visual impact associated with the increased floodwan and headwall heights along the upstream reach of Matadero Creek. This alternative could construct a 36-foot wide U-frame concrete channel to replace the existing concrete trapezoidal channel from Greet Road Bridge to Alma Street. A low-flow fish channel could be included, as could reconstruction of the existing maintenance access ramps. Floodwalls could be added as necessary to provide freeboard and the Louis Road Bridge could be replaced and raised as discussed in the proposed project. Replacing the existing trapezoidal channel with a U-frame channel would increase flood flow capacity within the creek channel. As a result, floodwalls would no longer be required upstream of Ross Road, so the overall visual impact would be reduced but it would not be reduced to less than significant. However, environmental impacts associated with the U-frame channel, increasing floodwall/headwall heights downstream of Ross Road, and the raising of Louis Road Bridge would duplicate the impacts discussed for the proposed project. Off-Stream Storage Alternative The purpose of this alternative is to reduce the amount of flood flows conveyed through Matadero Creek and thus reduce the scope of channel remediation. This alternative could include a 130 acre- Matadero/Barron Creeks Remediation Project vii Final Environmental Impact Report Santa Clara Valley Water District October 2002 foot flood storage basin on a 20-acre site near the intersection of Foothill Expressway and Page Mill Road on Stanford University land. During high flow events, water from Matadero Creek would overflow through a spillway structure into a holding pond for detention and eventual release back into Matadero Creek. Construction. of this alternative would eliminate the need for floodwall improvements upstream of Ross Road and would reduce the floodwall and headwall height needed at Louis Road and Greer Road. However, due to the location of the off-site storage basin, implementation of this alternative could impact riparian habitat and red-legged frog populations. Furthermore, as stated in the Engineers Report, the total cost of this alternative is estimated to be $40,000,000 compared to $6,000,000 for the proposed project. Channel Restoration circa 1971 Alternative To restore design water surface elevations at Bayshore Freeway to their original design level, the downstream channel could be returned to its !971 condition by removing established sediment and vegetation. Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of material would need to be removed to meet flood capacity requirements. This alternative would result in the loss of all of the vegetation in the entire existing riparian corridor along the southern overbank area of Matadero Creek below Bayshore Freeway. Approximately 3.4 acres of potential CDFG jurisdictional habitat and approximately 0.66 acres of potential US Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional habitat would be impacted as well as several special-status wildlife species, including the salt marsh harvest mouse and the federally listed steelhead rainbow trout. A total of 11.5 acres of land would be required for riparian and wetland mitigation, the majority of which would be offsite. At the present time only approximately 2.3 acres of off-site mitigation area have been identified. In addition, rigorous and frequent maintenance above and beyond current maintenance procedures would be required to maintain the channel capacity. Restoration of the creek channel would not require the project to utilize contaminated land adjacent to the MSC property. As a result, this alternative avoids the mitigation required by the proposed project (this impact is reduced to less than significant with mitigation in the proposed project). However, this alternative creates a more significant biological impact than the proposed project. In addition, currently identified mitigation sites would not be adequate for the mitigation needs of this alternative~. Therefore, this alternative is considered infeasible. Expanded Floodway Alternative To restore flood flow conveyance downstream of Highway 101. a 50-foot wide floodway could be created alongside the existing creek channel. The floodway would need to begin just downstream of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge adjacent to East Bayshore Road and extend approximately 1,600 feet toward the PAFB. A maintenance access road could be built east of the MSC where the existing levee is located. Any stands of Giant Reed would be completely removed. Because of the !The Engineer’s Report discusses off-site mitigation areas that are not analyzed in this report. Specifically, land in the general vicinity, of the project site that is owned by Stanford University. This area was not taken into account for this analysis because the District is not in any agreement with Stanford University to purchase or lease the land in perpetuity,. Therefore. there is no guarantee of acquiring the land and it cannot be considered a viable mitigation site at this time. MataderoiBarron Creeks Remediation Project viii Final Environmental Impact Report Santa Clam Valley Water District October 2002 maintenance required, the bottom of the floodway would need to be covered with a hard maintenance floor. This alternative would result in the loss of approximately 3.16 acres of potential CDFG jurisdictional habitat. This alternative would also impact approximately 0.40 acres of potential US Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional habitat consisting of high quality wetlands. A total of 10 acres of land would be required for riparian and wetland mitigation, the majority of which would have to be found offsite. Taking into account identified on-site and off-site mitigation areas, this alternative Would have a net deficit of more than 5.0 acres. In order to meet flood capacity requirements, the floodway and the creek channel would require vigorous ongoing maintenance. Expanding the existing floodway would not require the project to utilize contaminated land adjacent to the MSC property. As a result, this alternative avoids the mitigation required by the proposed project (this impact is reduced to less than significant with mitigation in the proposed project). However, analysis shows that this alternative creates a more sig-nificant biological impact than the proposed project. In addition, currently identified mitigation sites would not be adequate for the alternative’s mitigation needs"-. Therefore, this alternative is considered infeasible. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative would be to leave Matadero Creek and the Louis Road Bridge as they are. The District would continue its current operations and maintenance procedures along Matadero and Barron Creeks from Highway 101 to Foothill Expressway. This alternative avoids all the impacts of the proposed project. However, Matadero and Barton Creeks would not be able to adequately convey a 100-year flood flow. Environmentally Superior Alternative The environmentally superior alternative for the downstream reach is the undergound bypass channel. This alternative significantly reduces the impact to bio!ogical resources and would allow for all mitigation plantings to be done on site. Furthermore, this alternative avoids the contaminated soil located on and adjacent to the MSC property. However, the undergound bypass channel would create significant traffic and circulation impacts for the properties adjacent to East Bayshore Road. In addition, as stated in the Engineers Report on page 6-24, the total cost of this alternative is estimated to be $15.000,000 compared to $8,000,000 for the proposed project. The environmentally superior alternative for the upstream reach is the U-frame channel modification from the Greet Road Bridge to Alma Street. This alternative somewhat reduces the significant, unavoidable visual impact that would result from the increase in floodwall and headwall heights along Matadero Creek. The channel work could impact existing ruderal, aquatic, and developed habitat, as well as nesting swallows. However, these impacts would also occur with the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative is considered superior because it does not create any new significant impacts beyond what is created by the proposed project, and it reduces the visual impacts caused by the proposed project. However, as stated in the Engineers Report on page 6-55, the total cost of this alternative is estimated to be $30,000,000 compared to $6,000,000 for the proposed project. 2 Please see footnote No. 1. Matadero/Barron Creeks Remediation Project ix Final Environmental Impact Report Santa Clara Valley Water District October 2002 SECTION VIII ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that could feasibly attain most of the project objectives and would avoid or considerably reduce any of the sig-nificant impacts of the proposed project. In addition, the No Project Alternative must be analyzed in the document. The purpose of this section is to ascertain whether there are alternatives of design, scope, or location which would substantially lessen the significant impacts of the proposed project, even if those alternatives "impede to some degee the attainment of the project objectives" or are more expensive [Section 15126.6(b)]. The planning study process included a comprehensive evaluation of the entire hydrologic/hydraulic system of Matadero and Barton Creeks. As part of the planning study, an analysis of the PAFB was conducted to incorporate the PAFB’s present physical and operational conditions into the evaluation of the creek channel hydraulics in the lower reaches of Matadero Creek. From this hydraulic analysis, it was recognized that some combination of flood control measures would likely be required to meet the flood protection objectives of the project. Various alternative project components were identified and evaluated as part of the planning study. These alternative components were evaluated based on their ability to reduce significant impacts caused by the implementation of the proposed project. Of the alternatives identified, the Renzel Marsh Alternative was determined to be. infeasible regardless of the potentially significant impacts resulting from the proposed project. This alternative would have diverted flood flows in excess of existing capacity into Emily’ Renzel Marsh through a spillway cut into Matadero Creek~s northern levee. The spillway would be approximately 200-feet wide and located just downstream of East Bayshore Road. To provide sufficient backwater relief at Highway 101, the crest of the spillway would be set at an elevation of 3.5 feet NGVD The use of Emily Renzel Marsh would require the construction of containment levees within the bayland that could alter the hydrology of the marsh environment. Construction of the levees would impact marsh habitat. Some riparian habitat would also be impacted during the construction of the spillway. Furthermore, sediment transport behavior downstream of Highway 101 indicates that much of the suspended load would be discharged into the marsh during high flow events. The sediment load could impact the marsh habitat and would require maintenance. Other issues associated with this alternative include procuring right of ways for construction, and indicated lack of community support. Based on the analysis, it has been determined that this alternative does not reduce potentially significant environmental impacts in comparison to the proposed project and does not feasibly attain the objectives of the project. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. The proposed project has resulted in several significant impacts that can be mitigated. The visual and aesthetic impacts of the proposed headwall heights across one bridge can be mitigated through one or more of the measures provided in Section VII-H. Two additional impacts, which will require substantial mitigation to reach a less than significant level, are due to the proposed bypass and construction in an area of contaminated soil or goundwater. The proposed bypass channel would result in the loss of wetland and riparian habitat. There is not enough land available to mitigate for Matadero/Barron Creeks Remediation Project 120 Final Environmental Impact Report Santa Clara Valley Water District October 2002 the impact on-site. Therefore, a substantial amount of off-site mitigation will be required to reduce this impact to a less than sig-nificant level. The proposed bypass channel would be located adjacent to the MSC. There are soils and goundwater in this area contaminated with high levels of diesel-range petroleum and gasoline-range petroleum hydrocarbons. Construction could introduce contaminated soil or goundwater into the creek channel or the PAFB. Both of the impacts have been reduced to less than significant in the proposed project. The discussion below addresses possible alternatives that could feasibly reduce or avoid impacts caused by the proposed downstream and upstream improvements. There is also a discussion of the "no project" alternative. The alternatives were identified through consultation between responsible agencies and the District, based on the objectives of the project. A.VISUAL IMPACT ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives were identified that would reduce the visual impacts from the proposed project. However, the District investigated possible alternatives and could not identify any alternative that would reduce the visual impact to a less than sig-nificant level. (See page 102 for additional measures to reduce visual impacts) Therefore, regardless of the final design for the upstream reach of Matadero Creek, implementation of flood control measures would create a significant, unavoidable visual impact. Off-Stream Storage Alternative The purpose of this alternative would be to reduce the peak flows conveyed through Matadero Creek and thus reduce the scope of channel remediation. This alternative would construct a 130 acre-foot flood storage basin on a 20-acre site near the intersection of Foothill Expressway and Page Mill Road on Stanford University land. During high flow events, water from Matadero Creek would overflow through a spillway structure into a holding pond for detention and eventual release back into Matadero Creek. Construction of this alternative would eliminate the need for floodwall improvements upstream of Ross Road and would reduce the floodwall and headwall height needed at Louis Road and Greer Road by more than 1 foot compared to the proposed project. However. the project would still have a significant visual impact. Furthermore. due to the necessary location of the storage basin. implementation of this alternative could impact riparian habitat and red-legged frog populations. The Off-Stream Storage Alternative could reduce aesthetic impacts compared to the proposed project, and it meets the basic objectives of the project. However, this alternative would impact biological resources in the upstream reach of the project site. Specifically, the site is known to have red-legged frog habitat and to be occupied by red-legged frogs.~s The loss of habitat or individuals would result in a significant impact. Because the project would have significant additional environmental impacts this alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed project. Furthermore, as stated in the Engineers Report on page 5-12, the total cost of this alternative is estimated to be $40,000,000 compared to $6,000,000 for the proposed project. ~s Project Biologist Eric Webb has documented the presence of red-legged frogs on previous work done on that site. Matadero/Barron Creeks Remediation Project 121 Final Environmental Impact Report Santa Clara Valley, Water District October 2002 Channel Modification Alternative The purpose of this alternative would also be to reduce the visual impacts from increased floodwa!l and headwall heights along the upstream reach of Matadero Creek. This alternative would construct a 36-foot wide U-frame concrete channel to replace the existing concrete trapezoidal channel from Greer Road Bridge to Alma Street instead of the much shorter segment only under the Louis Road Bridge. A low-flow fish channel would be included, as would reconstruction of the existing maintenance access ramps. Floodwalls would be added as necessary to provide freeboard and the Louis Road Bridge would be replaced and raised as discussed in the proposed project. Construction of this alternative would take place within the concrete-lined portion of the existing creek channel. Environmental impacts associated with the U-frame channel, increasing floodwall/headwall heights, and the raising of Louis Road Bridge would duplicate the impacts discussed for the proposed project. In particular, the visual impact of floodwal!/headwall improvements would be similar to the proposed project at the Greer Road and Louis Road bridge crossings. However, floodwalls would no longer be required upstream of Ross Road, so the overall visual impact would be reduced but it would not be reduced to less than significant. The impacts of construction adjacent to existing residences would be increased since in-channel work would occur over a much longer distance. Nevertheless, construction impacts would be temporary and BMPs would be implemented to reduce all construction-related impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the channel modification alternative is a feasible alternative to the proposed project for reducing visual impacts. However, as stated in the Engineers Report on page 6-55, the total cost of this alternative is estimated to be $30.000.000 compared to $6.000.000 for the proposed project. B.BIOLOGICAL IMPACT ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives were identified that would reduce biological impacts created from the proposed project. Neither alternative would avoid all impacts to biological resources, but either of the alternatives would reduce the overall biological impact compared to the proposed project. Underground Bypass Alternative To minimize intrusion into the riparian corridor and meet the flood control requirements of the project, this alternative would construct a 40-foot wide, 8-foot high box culvert under East Bayshore Road. A sediment basin would be excavated just downstream of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge to trap sediment and minimize sediment accumulation in the box culvert itself. Flood flows would be diverted into the box culvert via an inlet structure and would discharge into the PAFB just south of the MSC property. (See Eigures 12 and i3) The culvert would span the entire roadway of East Bayshore, requiring substantial utility relocation and elevating the roadway to at least 6 feet NGVD (the road is presently built at 4-5 feet NGVD). This alternative would also require modifications to the main entrance road of the MSC and other driveways along the alignment in order to provide safe vehicular access. Approximately 0.42 acres of potential CDFG jurisdictional habitat would be impacted as a result of the sediment basin. Some wetland vegetation will be impacted immediately downstream of Highway 101, which would be a toss of habitat for the San Francisco garter snake (if it is present in the area). No pickleweed is present in the construction area, so salt marsh harvest mouse habitat would not be impacted. A total of 1.1 acres of mitigation area would be required for this alternative. Matadero/Barron Creeks Remediation Project 122 Final Environmental Impact Report Santa Clara Valley Water Distric~October 2002 Adequate mitigation sites are available to compensate for the loss of habitat. This alternative results in the removal of less habitat then the proposed project. Therefore, this project is more consistent with Section 404 guidelines that encourage avoidance of habitat impacts in preference to replacement mitigation. Regular sediment and debris maintenance would need to be strictly enforced to maintain conveyance capacity. In addition, safety provisions would need to be followed for work within this confined and potentially hazardous space. Maintenance, therefore, is substantially more difficult with this alternative than with the proposed project. This alternative, however, would impact significantly less overall habitat because of the location of the channel. Therefore, less mitigation area would be required for the loss of habitat and fewer wildlife individuals would be impacted, directly or indirectly, as a result of the project. Impacts from this alternative include the temporary closure of East Bayshore Road, access problems to property fronting East Bayshore Road during construction, and the temporary disruption of utility services in the area. The Undergound Bypass Alternative does reduce biological impacts compared to the proposed project, and meets the basic objectives of the project. Therefore, the undergound bypass is a feasible alternative to the proposed project for reducing biological impacts, but it does not reduce any significant impacts of the project. This alternative, however, does create infrastructure and land use impacts not caused by the proposed project. But, all infrastructure and land use impacts could be minimized through mitigation. In addition, as stated in the Engineers Report on page 6-24, the total cost of this alternative is estimated to be $15,000,000 compared to $8.000,000 for the proposed project. C.HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives have been identified that would reduce or avoid the level of hazardous materials impacts of the proposed project. Channel Restoration circa 1971 Alternative To restore water surface elevations at Bayshore Freeway to their original design level, the downstream channel could be returned to its 1971 condition by removing established sediment and vegetation. Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of material would need to be removed to meet flood capacity requirements. This alternative would result in the loss of the entire existing riparian corridor along the southern overbank area of Matadero Creek below Bayshore Freeway. Approximately 3.4 acres of potential CDFG jurisdictional habitat and approximately 0.66 acres of potential US Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional habitat would be impacted as well as several special-status wildlife species, including the salt marsh harvest mouse and the federally listed steelhead rainbow trout. A total of i 1.5 acres of land would be required for riparian and wetland mitigation (compared to 2.56 acres for the proposed project), the majority of which would have to be found offsite. At the present time approximately 2.3 acres of mitigation area have been identified19. In addition, rigorous and frequent maintenance would be required in the future to maintain the channel. 19 The Engineer’s Report discusses off-site mitigation areas that are not analyzed in this report. Specifically, land in the general vicinity of the project site that is owned by Stanford University. This area was not taken into account for this analysis because the District is not in any a~eement with Stanford University to purchase or lease the land in perpetuity. Therefore, there is no guarantee of acquiring the land and it cannot be considered a viable mitigation site at this time. Matadero/Barron Creeks Remediation Project 123 Final Environmental Impact Report Santa Clara Valley Water District October 2002 WCC LIJ I--,< ZCCW d ¢7 Z 0 w Z tll Wn- Z I--0w 0 0 Z 0 Z Restoration of the creek channel would not require the project to utilize contaminated land adjacent to the MSC property. As a result, this alternative avoids the significant hazardous materials impact created by the proposed project. However, this alternative would create a more significant biological impact than the proposed project. Because this alternative would result in geater biological impacts than the proposed project, it is not considered to be environmentally superior. Expanded Floodway Alternative To restore flood flow conveyance downstream of Highway 101, a 50-foot wide floodway could be created alongside the existing creek channel. The floodway would need to begin just downstream of the bicycle/pedestrian bridge adjacent to East Bayshore Road and extend approximately 1,600 feet toward the PAFB. A maintenance access road could be built east of the MSC where the existing levee is located. Any stands of Giant Reed would be completely removed. Because of the required maintenance, the bottom of the floodway would need to be covered with a hard maintenance floor. This alternative would result in the loss of approximately 3.16 acres of potential CDFG jurisdictional habitat. This alternative would also impact approximately 0.40 acres of potential US Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional habitat consisting of high quality wetlands. A total of 10 acres of land would be required for riparian and wetland mitigation, most of which would have to be found off- site. Taking into account-identified on-site and off-site mitigation areas, this alternative would have a net deficit of over 5.0 acres. In order to meet flood capacity requirements, the floodway and the creek channel would require vigorous ongoing maintenance. Expanding the existing floodway would not require the project to utilize contaminated land adjacent to the MSC property. As a result, this alternative avoids the significant hazardous materials impact created by the proposed project. However, analysis shows that this alternative creates a more significant biological impact than the proposed project. Because this alternative would result in ~eater biological impacts than the proposed project, it is not considered to be environmentally superior. Underground Bypass Alternative As discussed under Section VIII. B., Biological Impact Alternatives, this alternative would construct a 40-foot wide, 8-foot high box culvert under East Bayshore Road. A sediment basin would be excavated just downstream of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge to trap sediment and help minimize sediment accumulation in the box culvert itself. Flood flows would be diverted into the box culvert via an inlet structure and would discharge into the PAEB just south of the MSC property. (See Figures 12 and 13) The benefit of this alternative is that contaminated soil and groundwater located along the northern property line of the MSC would be avoided during construction. This would completely eliminate the significant hazardous materials impact created by the proposed project. However. this alternative would require the temporar), closure of East Bayshore Road, create access problems to property fronting East Bayshore Road during construction, and the temporarily disrupt utility services in the area. Based on the analysis, it has been determined that the Underuound Bypass Channel Alternative does avoid potential environmental impacts associated with hazardous materials (in the downstream reach) in comparison to the proposed project and meets the basic objectives of the project. This alternative, however, does create infrastructure and land use impacts not associated with the Matadero/Barron Creeks Remediation Project 126 Final Environmental Impact Report Santa Clara Valley Water District October 2002 proposed project. But all infrastructure and land use impacts could be minimized through mitigation. In addition, as stated in the Engineers Report on page 6-24, the total cost of this alternative is estimated to be $15,000,000 compared to $8,000,000 for the proposed project. D.NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The No Project Alternative would continue current operations and maintenance procedures along Matadero Creek from Alma Street to the PAEB. Under this alternative, local residents within the floodplain would continue to face potential flooding hazards. The upstream reach does not have the capacity or floodwal! height necessary to adequately convey a 1 percent (100-year) flood flow. Therefore, flood flows would overtop the banks of Matadero and Barron Creeks during a 100-year flood and inundate nearby properties. In addition, the capacity of the Matadero Creek channel downstream of Highway 101 would continue to decrease as the channel fills with sediment and vegetation. This alternative would necessitate the mapping of a substantia! new floodplain and increase the flood insurance burden within Palo Alto. Without proposed improvements the Louis Road Bridge may be damaged during a 100-year storm. However, the No Project Alternative would not result in any new significant impacts. Based on the analysis, it has been determined that the No Project Alternative would avoid those impacts that are significant but reduced to less than significant in the project including hazardous materials and biological impacts. In addition, the significant unavoidable visual impact of the proposed project would be avoided. However, this alternative does not reduce the flooding hazard in the area and does not meet the objectives of the project. E. ENVIRON~IENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The environmentally superior alternative for the downstream reach is the undergound bypass channel. This alternative significantly reduces the impact to biological resources and would allow all mitigation plantings to be done on-site. Furthermore. this alternative avoids the contaminated soil located on and adjacent to the MSC property. However, the underground bypass channel would create significant traffic and circulation impacts for the properties adjacent to East Bayshore Road. In addition, as stated in the Engineers Report on page 6-24. the total cost of this alternative is estimated to be S15.000,000 compared to $8,000,000 for the proposed project. The environmentally superior alternative for the upstream reach is the U-frame channel modification from the Greer Road Bridge to Alma Street. This alternative somewhat reduces the significant, unavoidable visual impact that would result from the increase in floodwall and headwall heights along Matadero Creek. The additional channel work could impact existing ruderal, aquatic, and developed habitat, as well as nesting swallows. However, these impacts would also occur with the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative is considered superior because it does not create any new significant impacts beyond what is created by the proposed project, and it reduces the visual impacts caused by the proposed project. However, as stated in the Engineers Report on page 6-55, the total cost of this alternative is estimated to be $30,000,000 compared to $6,000.000 for the proposed project. Matadero/Barron Creeks Remediation Project 127 Final Environmental Impact Report Santa Clara Valley Water District October 2002 Final Engineer’s port CIL&PTER 1 SUMMARY STUDY OVERVIEW In 1997, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) completed a series of flood protection improvements on Matadero and Barron Creeks in Palo Alto, California. While these improvements were intended to provide flood protection meeting National Flood Insurance Progam standards, subsequent analyses and system performance during the February 1998 E1 Nifio flood demonstrated that the completed improvements do not provide flood protection meeting national standards. Consequently, the District has elected to undertake a long-term remediation project to bring the flood protection provided by Matadero and Ban-on Creeks up to standards .set forth by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and reduce the burden of flood insurance purchases within Palo Alto. The engineering planning study for this work began in March 1999. This Engineer’s Report presents existing flood problems within the Matadero Creek and Ban-on Creek watersheds, formulates alternative solutions to those problems, and provides a rationale for the selection of a recommended capital improvement prouam. Environmental impacts and mitigation requirements for project alternatives are also discussed. (The proposed project Enviro~amental Impact Report (EIR), which is bound with this report, contains a more detailed discussion of environmental impacts and mitigation.) This document is intended to provide readers with an understanding of current flood protection problems within the Matadero and Ban-on Creek watersheds, show how the recommended remediatipn plan has been selected from a number of alternatives, and provide the District’s Board of Directors and the public with information necessa~ to make informed choices regarding the proposed remediation plan and its alternatives. FLOOD DA3’La_GE REDUCTION OBJECTIVES One of the District’s stated goals is to provide protection against flooding in a manner that maintains the desired qualiu’ of life in a community. This goal is met through a series of flood damage reduction objectives that direct the District’s activities: Provide flood protection by management of the natural floodplain, or of a modified floodplain, using the more structural ~pes of channel modification only where other measures are inapractical. Maradero and Barton Creeks Rernediarion Projecr Final Enghwer’s Report !- 1 October 2002 Ch,al)ter 1 -- Surnma~ Give priority to protection against flooding of developed areas, with the areas of ~eatest potential damage having the highest priorities. Encourage proper controls to prevent incompatible land uses in areas subject to flooding. o Discourage future land use practices which will subject existing urban areas to additional flooding. o Ensure that channel modification measures taken to assist an area does not induce flooding upon an5’ other area. Maintain District facilities to ensure that the), continue to provide the level of flood protection for which the?’ were constructed, both to protect the public’s investment and to comply with regulations of the federal flood insurance prouam. BACKGROUND Matadero Creek and Barton Creek drain !5.9 square miles and 3.2 square miles, respectively, of tributary’ watershed into the Palo Alto Flood Basin (Figure 1-1). The watersheds are located in the city limits of Palo Alto and Los Altos Hills, and in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Historic Flooding At the rum of the last century, creeks drained the eastern slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains directly to San Francisco Bay through bayland slougJas. By the time those creeks reached the Southern Pacific Rail_road, the runoffthev carried would o,~Terflow the incised channels e’~’entua!ly finding their way to San Francisco Bay via shallow overland flooding. Si~ificant flooding events in 1940. 1955, and 1958 demonstrated the need for flood control protection to this wowing area of Palo Alto. Area propert?, values increased as auicultural land converted to residential, commercial and industrial uses; flood damages experienced during the 1950s led to a series of flood protection projects beginning with the creation of the Palo Alto Flood Basin (PAFB) in 1956. To provide additional flood flow conveyance, the Matadero Creek channel was concrete-lined from Alma Street to Greer Road following the 1955 flood. Land subsidence resultkng from ~oundwater overdrafting from 1920 to 1970 ied to a reduction in flood flow conveyance for Matadero Creek. so levees and floodwalls were built in 1971 along stream banks in the area to compensate for the subsidence and contain flood waters in the channels. 2Vlamdero and Yarron Creels Rernediarion Project Final Engineer’s Report.]-2 October 2002 = I0,000’ Figure 1-1. ~/IATADERO & BARRON CREEKS WATERSHED LOCATION MAP .....Schaaf ~, Wh~"eler ,,C~, aDter I -- Summary Flood Insurance Study Published in 1980 A Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), first published Febma~ 15, 1980 for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), presented the actuarial flood risk situation in Palo Alto. (Within the planning study area, the currently effective FIRM of June 2, 1999 is nearly identical to the map published in 1980.) Tidal flooding is shown from the Bay inland to about Ross Road. Channel constrictions at the Southern Pacific Railroad and E1 Camino Real caused ponding upstream, but prevented overtopping of Matadero Creek or Barron Creek further downstream. Recent Flood Protection Projects A planning study prepared by the District in April 1988 proposed to provide 100-year flood protection to all properties influenced by flooding on Matadero or Barron Creek other than those within the established tidal zone, or those affected by San Francisquito Creek flooding. Recommended projects, with the exception of improvements to Matadero Creek between Hillview Avenue and Foothill Expressway, were completed by 1997 and involved: 1) Additional floodwalls along the existing concrete-lined Matadero Creek channel; Bridge replacements over Matadero Creek at Greer Road, Louis Road, Ross Road, Middlefield Road, Cow’per Street, and Waverley Street, the Southern Pacific Railroad, Park Boulevard, Lambert Street, and E1 Camino Real; 3) Re~li~med and enIarged Matadero Creek channel between Alma Street and Park Blvd.; 4)Replacement of the trapezoidal channelwith 25-foot wide rectangmlar "U-frame" channel along Matadero Creek between Park Boulevard and E1 Camino Real; 5)Hip flow underground bypass channel for Matadero Creek flows from the old railroad bridge at the upstream end of Bol Park to E1 Camino Real; 6)A high flow underground diversion from the Barton Creek sedimentation basin near Gurm Higah School to Matadero Creek at Bol Park. This facilit)r diverts sufficient flow so that the Baron Creek channel can adequately pass the one-percent discharge from Gurm to its confluence with Adobe Creek; and 7) A floodwall along Bah’on Creek upstream from the sedimentation basin. .Matadero and Barron Creeks Remediation Project Final Engineer’s Report October 2002 Chapter 1 ~ Surnmar~, " NPROBLEM DEFINITIOI Floodprotection improvements completed in 1997 were desired to provide conveyance for the one- percent flood on Matadero and Ban-on Creeks, meeting NFIP standards for freeboard where applicable. That project was not intended to remove mapped flood hazards within the one-percent tidal zone. While preparing a LOMR application to FEMA subsequent to the completion of the facilities recommended by the 1988 Engineer’s Report, however, the District discovered errors in their hydraulic analyses. As a result, the completed project provided increased flood protection, but did not meet current FEMA or District freeboard standards. Several reasons for this have been suggested by District staff and independent review during the present plarming effort: ¯Design freeboard is one foot less than current FEMA and District standards; o Desi~ starting water surface elevations were underestimated; o Channel capaci~’ downstream from HigAaway 101 was overestimated; o Hydraulic assumptions used for bridge desig-n were not valid; and o Certain assumptions regarding the design flow regime were not valid. Performance During the February 1998 E1 ~’Viho Storm Event In November 1997, District officials developed a temporary emergency operations plan to balance flood protection between Matadero and Barton Creeks during high-flow events. This plan reduced the desig-n diversions from Barton Creek to Matadero Creek by 50 percent, but allowed District staff to manually ccrrrtrol flows so that some Barron Creek floodwater can be diverted to Matadero Creek when it is safe to do so during large runoff events. This temporary remedy was tested during the Februav 2-3, 1998 storm event, which produced the highest runoff recorded to date_on Matadero Creek. By physically operating the Barron Diversion, District crews were able to prevent overflows along both creeks during the hours of peak storm runoff. A combination of operational timing and storm duration resulted in Matadero Creek conveying close to the desi~ peak discharge without spilling. However, had District crews not closed off part of the Ban-on Diversion at a certain point, more flow would have entered Matadero Creek and could have resulted in significant spills along the floodwalls or at bridge crossings. Sufficient freeboard to meet FEMA standards was clearly not provided dov,~nstream of Alma Street. 3Mtadero and Barrow; Cree~ Remediatior~ Project Final Engineer "s Report 1-5 October 2002 Chapter l -- Sumrna~ Identified Problem Areas Once the full Ban-on Diversion flow to Matadero Creek is restored, protection against, the one- percent flood on Barron Creek can be provided in all areas outside of the previously identified tidal zone. On Matadero Creek, however, several problem areas have been identified. Palo Alto Flood Basin Operation. Higher than anticipated water levels during the February 1998 runoffevent prompted a detailed analysis of Palo Alto Flood Basin (PAFB) operation. This storage facility protects lower elevations of Pato Alto against tidal flooding by storing creek runoff during high tides and releasing that stored water on ebb tide through a series of one-way gates. Several factors influence flood basin behavior: During significant storm runoff events, climatological factors tend to result in recorded tide elevations that are higher than predicted astronomic tides. Recorded tides during extreme runoff events also tend to be higher than the tidal ele,~’ations upon which the flood basin was designed, particularly the low tides. This tidal phenomenon influences PAFB operation to the point where the maximum level of stored water in the basin during the desig-n one-percent runoff event is one foot higher than previously assumed. Due to inadequate freeboard along the basin’s inboard levees, the Palo Alto Municipal Services Center (MSC) continues to be at a risk of flooding during periods of extreme runoff,, as are low-lying residential and commercial areas southwest of Highway 101. Storage capacity within the PAFB has not significantly diminished since it was first created thirty years ago. Channel Constriction Downstream of Highway 101. Matadero Creek does not empty immediately into the PAFB do~vnstream of the Bayshore Freeway. Here the creek is contained between a levee to the north and the MSC to the south for a distance of about 1,200 feet. Based on aerial photo~aphs, conditions in this reach of Matadero Creek have changed substantially over the past thirty years. Sediment accumulation and subsequent ~ow-th of dense vegetation within the creek overbanks has cut the available channel capacity in this reach by 50 percent. Even without the effect of tidal behavior on dov~,mstream starting water surface elevations, the channel constriction increases the one-percent flood stage at Highway 101 by 1.6 feet relative to conditions 30 years ago. Back~ater effects can impact one-percent water surface elevations upstream to Bryant Avenue. Matadero and Barron Creeks Remediarion Final Engineer "s Report 1-6 October 2002 | | Chapter ] -- Summary Channel Constrictions Upstream of Highway 101. Several bridge openings at Matadero Creek roadway crossings are of inadequate size to discharge the desig-n one-percent flow-rate with available head. The most critical of these is at Louis Road, whose bridge structure is also inadequate to resist the loading imposed on it when the bridge becomes pressurized. The combination of bridge area deficiencies means that with flow overbanking and ponding upstream of Alma Street eliminated, the one-percent discharge cannot be contained in Matadero Creek downstream of Alma, and overflows are predicted at Louis Road and Waverley Street. Shallow flooding areas have also been identified at Hillview Avenue and Foothill Expressway due to limited culvert capacities. These flooding areas do not exceed about one-foot in depth and are confined so that the spills re-enter the creeks without causing serious property damage. These areas are not a part of this project. FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT ELEMENTS Santa Clara Coun~, is divided into five zones. Each zone is defined by watershed boundaries and is essentially a unique fiscal entity. All revenue generated within a zone must be spent on the construction, operation, and maintenance of facilities that benefit that zone. Matadero and Barton Creeks are located in the Northwest Zone. After flood problems within each zone are investigated in a long-range planning context, flood damage reduction needs are identified and prioritized on a project-by-project basis. The District has developed an inte~ated, multi-objective planning process that addresses flood damage reduction, erosion, sedimentation, maintenance, pollutants, recreation, and other watershed- concerns. Alternative solutions are evaluated within the context of economic feasibility, environmental impact and mitigation, and community acceptability. Evaluation of Alternative Solutions Many conceptual project alternatives to meet project objectives have been considered for feasibility using flood protection, environmental impact and project cost as primary screening criteria. Conceptual alternatives include non-structural measures such as flood-proofing, upstream reservoirs, off-stream storage, flow diversions, and channel modifications. A total often conceptual solutions have been formulated and screened down to four feasible solutions which are evaluated using more refined criteria for environmental impact, project cost, maintenance, and other considerations such as construction schedule and local drainage. Matadero and Bamron Creeks Remediazion Projecz Fina! Engineer’s Report 1-7 October 2002 Chapter l -- Summary Public Outreach Community feedback and support for project alternatives have been actively sought during the preparation of this planning study. The District’s staff and its consultants have met with and held public forums for residents, business owners, City of Palo Alto staff, Stanford University representatives, regulator?, agencies staff, and members of the environmental community. This report is available for review by the public prior to final approval and publication by the District. NFIP Regulations It is the policy of the District to desigu flood damage reduction projects to contain the one-percent flood with appropriate freeboard. The one-percent flood is the standard level of protection established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is charged with administering the National Flood Insurance Progam (NFIP). The NFIP requires flood insurance when financing, through federally backed institutions, structures located within a designated flood hazard area. Thus it is a goal of the District not only to reduce flood damage potential, but also to reduce the burden of mandatory, flood insurance. PROPOSED PROJECT After carefully considering a number of alternative solutions in the context of flood damage reduction, economic feasibility, environmental impact, and long-term maintenance, the proposed project is recommended because it provides one-percent flood protection for the least overall capital cost and environmental impact. The project is a combination of bypass construction, channel modifications, and floodwall modifications. Its completion would allow the District to cease its emergency operation of the Barton Creek diversion facility, and provide one-percent riverine flood protection along both Matadero Creek and Barron Creek from Foothill Expressway to San Francisco Bay. Tidal flooding, which affects areas from the Bay to approximately Middlefield Road, is not addressed by the proposed project. Proposed Flood Protection Measures A plan for flood protection and future maintenance is presented in this report. An overflow bypass will be constructed from Highway 101 downstream to the Palo Alto Flood Basin, adjacent to the City ofPalo Alto’s Municipal Services Center. Flood walls will be raised from Highway 101 upstream to Alma Street. Channel modifications will be made at Louis Road, and the Louis Road Bridge will be replaced and elevated. The culvert-to-channel transition downstream of Alma Street will be improved. Project cost is approximately$14 million, of which $13.2 million is construction related, and $600,000 is for mitigation and $200,000 is for right-of-way (see Table I-I). Matadero and Barton creed ~xe edmt~on t~rqiect Final Engineer "s Report 1-8 October 2002 Chapter 1 -- Sumrnao, Table 1-1 Matadero Creek Capital Improvement Project Cost Summary. by Study Reach Reach Length Reach Limits [feet)Project Element Estimated Cost I PAFB to U.S. 101 1,400 Overflow Bypass $8,000,000 2A U.S. t01 to Louis Rood 2,330 Raise Floodwalls $1,800,000 2B Louis Road Bridge 120 Replace Bridge $1,500,000 2C Louis Road to Alma Street 5,500 Raise FIoodwalls $2,700,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $14,000,000 Significant Environmental Impacts and i~litigation Predicted environmental impacts and mitigation requirements are described in the project EIR. Environmental impacts and mitigation acreage for major project elements are listed in Table 1-2. Table 1-2 Impacts and Mitigation for Proposed Project Mitigation Impact On-Site Off-Site Total Habitat [ac][ac)[ac)[ac) Willow Riparian 0.78 0.97 1.37 2.34 Freshwater Marsh O. 11 0.22 0.00 0.22 TOTAL 0.89 1.19 1.37 2.56 Project Financing A total budget of $24 million has been allocated for the Matadero / Barron Creeks Remediation Project. This budget includes all costs for engineering, construction, inspection, mitigation and administration. Funding for project completion will be provided by the District’s capital funds allocated to the Matadero and Barron Creeks Remediation Project in the Lower Peninsula Watershed. Matadero and Barron Creeks Remediation Project Final Engineer’s Report 1-9 October 2002 Chalgter 1 -- Sumrnar~ Construction Staging Project construction could commence in Spring 2003 and be completed in early 2005. It is possible that work downstream of Highway 101 will be bid separately from charmel, bridge, and floodwall modifications located upstream of Highway 101. The work downstream of Highway !01 is si~_~nificantly different in terms of consmaction, environmental impact, and schedule. A schedule of construction staNng is presented in Chapter 9, "Project Cost, Financing, and Staging." 2vfatadero and Bar~on ~r ~ks Remediation Prqiect Final Engineer’s Report 1 - 10 October 2002 ZONE ZONE A CONTAINED IN CHANNEL ZONE A ZONE AE (EL 8) ZONE AO. (DEPTH 1) ZONE AH (EL 30) ZONE A CQNTAINED IN CHANNEL {E ZONE AO (DEPTH 1) t ZONEA CONTAINED IN CHANNEL ZONE AO (DEPTH ZONE A ~ IN CHANNEL ZONE AE/.~ ZONE A 100-YEAR FLOOD’ "~ CON’rAINED IN ¯CHANNEL ZONE A ZONE AE ZONE AH ZONE AO No base flood elevations determined, Flood depths of 1 1o 3 f~et (usuall~ areas of pondlng); baJ~e flood elevations determined. Flood depths of I 1o 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terra}n); average deptt~s determined. For are~ of alibi ~ floodl~;v~ocl~ a~o ZONE AE 0 1,500’ 3,000’ SCALE: 1 INCH = 3,000 FEET Figure 2-5. 1999 FIRM for Matadero and Barton Creeks S chaaf ~ Wheeler CHAPTER 5 CONCEPTUAL ALTER_NATIVES Conceptual alternatives to meet basic project objectives are formulated and evaluated in this chapter. Alternatives are examined in a broad sense, using the three fundamental screening criteria established in Chapter 4: one-percent flood protection; potential environmental impacts; and reasonable project costs. Those alternatives that pass this comparative screening process are identified as feasible alternatives meeting basic project objectives, and are suitable for further development as discussed in subsequent chapters. Four basic options are available to the District, the latter three of which can correct identified deficiencies in the Matadero and Barton Creek system: 2. 3. 4. Do Nothing (No Project); or Store Surplus Runoff in Excess of Available Conveyance; or Divert Surplus Runoff.aJ-ound the Existing System; or Increase System Conveyance. Non-structural solutions that would not involve charmel modifications or the construction of other flood protection facilities are also explored as an adjunct of the No Project alternative. "NO PROJECT" ALTERNATIVE V~ile this alternative does not meet project objectives, a description of the flooding situation without project action must be included with environmental documentation for any recommended remediation plan. Description of Alternative Under this scenario, the present emergency operating plan that does not increase the risk of flooding along Matadero Creek would continue indefinitely. A full description of the emergency operating plan was provided in Chapter 3. No construction or other capital improvements would take place. Present maintenance practices would continue. Alternative Screening The "No Project" Alternative has been evaluated using the three fundamental criteria for conceptual alternatives: Matadero and Ba~7"on Creeks Remediarion Project Final Engineer ~ Report 5-1 October 2002 Chapter 5 -- Conceptual Alternatives Flood Protection. The emergency operating plan does not provide for one-percent flood protection meeting NFIP standards along Matadero and Barton Creeks. While the risk of flooding along Barron Creek is substantially reduced relative to pre-1988 project conditions, diversion of flood flows from Barron to Matadero can only take place if conditions in the Matadero Creek channel make it safe to do so. The "No Project" alternative provides a ~eater level of flood protection along Matadero Creek than along Ban-on Creek. Figure 5-1 shows the residual floodplain remaining under the "No Project" alternative. Increased flood protection benefits have been provided to the north of Matadero Creek, but not to the south. Continued emergency operation does not allow for full design diversion of flow into Matadero Creek, leaving one-percent flood discharges in Ban-on Creek that exceed the pipe capacity’ at Laguna Avenue. Under this project alternative, no action would be taken on Matadero Creek be~veen the Palo Alto Flood Basin and Alma Street. The Barron Creek diversion would be operated so that flood risk on M atadero Creek is no ueater than under pre-1988 project conditions. (If necessary.’, there would be no flow at all diverted from Barton Creek.) Plate 1 provides a water surface profiie for the "no project" alternative. While one-percent floodwaters do not overtop the existing floodwalls upstream of Highway 101, the water surface is carried above the natural channel bank between Greer Road and Ross Road. Less than one foot of freeboard is afforded just upstream Louis Road. Downstream of Highway 101, floodwaters spill over the southerly creek bank into the Municipal Services Center. Since the reach of Matadero Creek with inadequate freeboard downstream of Ross Road is within the mapped one-percent tidal flooding zone, the current flood hazard map presented in Figure 2-5 is not affected. Homeowners and businesses residing in the one-percent floodplain, where flood depths are one foot or ~eater, would still be required to purchase flood insurance through the NFIP. Since the goal of this remediation work is to provide a level of flood protection consistent with NFIP standards, the "no project" alternative cannot meet this objective. Because FEMA and District freeboard criteria are not satisfied on Matadero Creek downstream of Ross Road, a residual floodplain would remain even when future bayland levee improvements are completed to remove the mapped one-percent tidal flooding hazard area. The freeboard problem tha~: is somewhat masked by the tidal flood hazard zone mapped in the area would no longer be ma~ked once the burden of mandatory, flood insurance purchases is lifted by future levee improvement projects. Matadero and t~arron Creeks Remediation PrQiect Final Engineer "s Report 5-2 October 2002 Palo Alto Flood Basin SPRR 0 1,500’ 3,000’ SCALE: 1 INCH = 3,000 FEET Flood Prone Area Limit of Tidal Floodiug Residual Flooding Due to Local Storm Drain Capacity Figure 5-1.Riverine Flood Risk after 1988 Project S chaaf U" W~eeler Chal~ter 5 -- Conce!~tual Alternatives Environmental Impacts. Without a project, there are no significant impacts to bioloNcal resources. Riparian and wetland habitats below Highway 101 would experience no deleterious effects. Areas of hazardous material contamination adjacent to the MSC would not be disturbed. Project Costs. Economic costs are associated with a "no project" alternative. The present worth of annual flood damages prevented by a remediation project, estimated to be about $1.9 million per year, is $31 million. Insurance premium costs to the owners of the 470 structures that would remain covered by the program in lieu of a project are $300,000 annually. The present worth cost for this coverage over the 100 year project life is $5 million. Alternative Feasibilit), The "No Project" alternative is not feasible because it fails to provide one-percent flood protection on Matadero and Ban-on Creeks meeting NFIP and District standards. NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES A non-structural alternative would minimize flood damages to structures in the floodplain without channel modifications, upstream storage, or upstream diversion. Non-structural options include the removal of structures from a floodplain or flood-proofing structures within the floodplain. Description of Alt.ernative Although listed as a "non-structural" alternative, flood-proofing involves structural measures taken by individual property, owners. These measures could include a combination of rebuilding structures on earthen fill above the floodplain; lifting structure on columns above the floodplain; constructing floodwalls or berms around individual properties and installing pumps to handle interior drainage; or building flood shields, closures, and flood warning systems. AIternative Screening Non-structural alternatives have been evaluated using the three fundamental criteria for conceptual alternatives. Flood Protection. The flood hazard map in effect would not change, but individual proper*;’ owners could be relieved of the need to purchase flood insurance once their flood-proofing measures are certified. Flooding could still occur, especially along Ban-on Creek, with the potential for disruptions to emergency services during flood events and damage to landscaping and ancillary," structures that are not flood-proofed. l~datadero and Barton Cree~" Remediation .~roject Final Engineer’s Report 5-4 October 2002 Chal)ter 5 -- Conceptual Alternatives Environmental Impacts. With a non-structural solution, there are no significant impacts to biological resources. Riparian and wetland habitats below Highway 101 would experience no deleterious effects. Areas of hazardous material contamination adjacent to the MSC would not be disturbed. The impact &flood-proofing measures would be limited to individual properties which are already developed and not considered to be riparian or wetland habitat. Proiect Costs. Removing 3,500 structures from ihe freshwater floodplain that remained after the completion of the 1988 project would cost more than $2 billion. Costs to flood-proof 3,500 structures are estimated to exceed $250 million. Neither approach is considered to be within the range of feasible project cost. Detailed cost estimates are provided in Appendix E. A ltern ative Feasibility This alternative is considered infeasible and impracticable due to the high cost of flood-proofing structures or removing structures from the floodplain. Non-structural approaches to flood protection do not address or solve continued impacts from creek overflows including street flooding and ponding, non-structural damages or the mapping of flood hazard areas. The social impact of relocating families anct/or removing homes is significant, and full public participation would be difficult to achieve. Finally, in response to several community inquiries regarding District responsibility for flood insurance premiums, it is District policy to provide one-percent flood protection rather than assume liabili~ for flood insurance premiums. STORAGE ALTERNATIVES Conceptual storage alternatives-would reduce the design discharge conveyed by the system and thus eliminate the need for channel remediation. Creek discharges can be reduced by providing storage that retains or detains a certain volume of flow. To eliminate the need for Matadero Creek or Ban-on Creek channel improvements (the latter of which requires full diversion to Matadero Creek), system discharges need to be reduced on the order of 1,100 cfs at Alma Street, (from 2,800 cfs to 1,700 cfs) which is roughly equivalent to the 10-percent flood. Three storage alternatives are available for consideration, as described herein: ¯Construction of an upstream reservoir; o ~am off stream storage faciliD; at the upstream end of the system (Stanford); and o1~ ~tr,.arn stora~e~ facility, at the downstream end of the s:sL~m,, *~ (Renze! Marsh). 3Jatadero and Barton Creeks Remediation Prq/ect Final Engineer’s Report 5-5 October 2002 Chapter 5 -- Conceptual Alternatives UPSTREAM RESERVOIR ALTERNATIVE Building a dam on either Matadero or Ban-on Creeks, or one of its tributaries, is one method of providing flood protection storage. However, an upstream reservoir within the Ban-on Creek watershed is not feasible because such a facility cannot be located to control a drainage area sufficient to reduce downstream discharges and meet project objectives. Even without diversions to Matadero Creek, the !ower reaches of Matadero Creek are exposed to higher levels of flood risk relative to other reaches of Matadero Creek due to inadequate freeboard. Thus, even if all of Barton Creeks upstream runoffis capt-u.red by a reservoir, inequitable flood risk along downstream reaches of Matadero Creek is not alleviated. Description of Alternative A 1957 District project to construct a water supply reservoir in the Matadero Creek canyon upstream from the confluence with Deer Creek has been re-examined in the context of a flood protection project. To reduce the one-percent discharge at Alma Street to 1,700 cfs while providing for the maximum 600 cfs diversion from Barton Creek, the one-percent flowrate at the reser~,oir location cannot be Heater than 150 cfs. With the one-percent inflow hydro~aph at this location, a 600 acre- foot flood control reservoir is required. (See Figure 5-2 for the conceptual dam and reservoir site.) Alternative Screening The Upstream Reservoir Alternative has been evaluated using the three fundamental criteria for conceptual alternatives: Flood Protection. By reducing downstream discharges on Matadero Creek, protection against one-percent riverme flooding would be provided along Matadero and Barton Creeks from Foothill Expressway to San Francisco Bay. Environmental Impacts. The conceptual dam shown on Fig-ure 5-2 would be approximately 1,000 feet long, with a toe to crest height of 100 feet. The reservoir created by this impoundment would inundate roughly 60 acres during a desig-n one-percent event. This alternative would fl the stream corridor environment for nearly a mile, but it does not appear that any homes wouid :~.eed to be relocated. Interstate 280 would be flooded at the Page Mill Road interchange, so the freeway interchange would need to be partially relocated toward the south on higher ~ound. Page Mill Road would need to be relocated above the elevation of the dam’s emergency spillway (0.5 miles of road work). Old Page Mill Road, which would be completely inundated by the reservoir, provides access to homes above the western shore. A replacement road would need to be built above the reservoir. Short-term environmental impacts include noise, dust, and air pollution from blasting operations for the dam foundation, construction of the dam itself, and reconstructing the freeway interchange. Matadero and Baby-on Creeks Remediation Prq/ecr Final Engineer "s Report 5-6 October 2002 SCALE: 1 INCH = 2,000 FEET Figure 5-2. Upstream Storage Reservoir Site Schaaf ~ Wheeler Chapter 5- ConceptuaI Alternatives The impoundment ofstreamflow.in the upper reaches of Matadero Creek would have environmental consequences. Sediment would become trapped behind the dam, changing the stream’s geomorphology both upstream and downstream of the reservoir. Upstream effects of a reservoir could include delta formation (similar to Searsville Lake on the adjacent San Francisquito Creek watershed), a ~adual raising of stream levels in the bactcwater zone, and additional stream bed meandering. Initial downstream impacts could include increased bed scour and bank de~adation. Maximum peak reservoir releases for this alternative are limited to a relatively minor 150 cfs. For an order of magnitude comparison, the peak annual discharge at the Matadero Creek gage (which does include a larger watershed) has exceeded t 50 cfs every year for 37 of the past 45 years. Diminishing average annual flows in the creek could have a significant and unavoidable impact to the natural stream environment benveen the reservoir and El Camino Real. For the purpose of estimating an order-of-magnitude environmental mitigation cost, it is assumed that a 50-foot riparian corridor 4,500 feet long would be lost under this alternative. The loss equates to 5 acres of riparian habitat, which would likely be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio, resulting in t5 acres of mitigation. Project Costs. Table 5-1 provides a summary of estimated capital costs for this conceptual alternative, assuming adequate mitigation acreage could be found. Reservoir construction costs are estimated in Appendix E. Table 5-1 Estimated Project Costs for Upstream Reservoir Alternative Project Element Construction Mitigation Work Land Acquisition for Reservoir Land Acquisition for Mitigation Contingencies TOTAL COST Estimated Cost S25,000,000 $3,000,000 $20,000,000 S15,000,000 $17,000,000 $80,000,000 3/latadero and Barton Creeks Remedia~ion Prqiecr Fma] ~ngb~eer’s Report 5-8 October 2002 Chapter 5 -- Conceptual Alternatives Alternative Feasibility Upstream reservoir construction is not feasible due to its higla cost and substantial environmental impacts to the Matadero Creek corridor. The cost of this conceptual alternative is two times the limit of feasibility. Over half of the project cost is associated with land acquisition for the impoundment and mitigation. STANFORD STORAGE ALTERNATIVE A smaller off-stream storage facility that would reduce Matadero Creek flows by 600 cfs has been formulated as another upstream storage alternative. This alternative reduces some of the environmental impacts posed by the previous alternative, particularly the low-flow regime along Matadero Creek. Description of Alternative Figure 5-3 presents a conceptual schematic for a 130 acre-foot detention basin located on a 20-acre site near the intersection of Foothill Expressway with Page Mill Road on Stanford University land (Photo 5-t). During high flow events, water from Matadero and Deer Creeks would overflow through a spillway structure into an excavated holding pond for detention and eventual release back to Matadero Creek once the peak of the flood wave has passed, Flood protection facilities required for this concept include an excavated basin, two overflow spillways at Matadero Creek (Page Mill Road) and Deer Creek (Coyote Hill Road), and a return- flow drain back to Matadero Creek just upstream from Foothill Expressway. Since a berm or dike is not required for this impoundment, the facility would not be classified as a dam. Alternative Screening The Stanford Storage Alternative has been evaluated using the fundamental screening criteria for conceptual alternatives. Flood Protection. By’ reducing one-percent discharge in Matadero Creek by 600 cfs, full desi~ flow diversions from Barton Creek into Matadero Creek can be made. This diversion of flow allows for full one-percent flood protection along Barron Creek. BacMvater analyses for Matadero Creek with an upstream reduction in flow and the desi~ma diversions from Barron Creek indicate that the Stanford Storage Alternative is ~ot, by itself, adequate to provide one-percent flood protection between San Francisco Bay and Ross Road. The selection of an additional conceptual remediation alternative wouid be required for this reach of Matadero~re~. Mamdero and Ya~v’o~; Creeks Remediation Prqiect Final Engineer’s Reporz 5-9 October 2002 Figure 5-3.Schematic of 130 acre-foot Off-Stream Storage Basin Chapter 5- Conceptual Alternatives Environmental Impacts. Most of the potential detention site is located away from the riparian corridor and used as pasture for horses. This land use would not necessarily be affected by this proj ect alternative. Construction of overflow spillways from Deer Creek and Matadero Creeks, and the necessao’ drainage facilities shown in Figure 5-3 could potentially impact riparian habitat and red-legged frog populations. Although detailed biological assessments of construction impacts associated with an upstream storage facility have not been made for this planning study, Stanford biologists have been evaluating this site for on-campus mitigation, and suggest that this location provides red-legged frog habitat. However, sufficient gazed areas are available immediately adjacent to the riparian corridor to provide on-site mitigation for riparian impacts adjacent to Coyote Hill Road or Page Mill Road. In essence, the width of the riparian corridor could be increased, while reducing the impact of the gazing on creek bank erosion and pollutants -- sediment and feca! matter -- entering the stream. Project Costs. Land costs for upstream site acquisition are assumed to be $1 million per acre, based on a survey of nearby land sales in Palo Alto (Appendix E). Leasing the necessary la~_~ to construct and operate the 130 acre-foot detention facility is estimated to cost $25 millior, with contingencies. Construction and mitigation costs for the off stream storage facility are estimated to be $5 million, so storage basin costs total $30 million. The cost of additional remediation still necessary in the downstream reaches of Matadero Creek is $10 million. Therefore, the total cost of this alternative would be approximately $40 million, which is at the limit of feasibility.. Alternative Feasibilit), The Stanford Storage Alternative is considered infeasible and impractical because the faciliv does not detain enough flood volume to significantly reduce the scope of dou~nstream remediatic~n, kn addition, construction of the storage faciliDT would reduce the availability of areas suitable to mitigate for riparian habitat impacts caused by necessary remediation downstream ofHi~_~way 101. Implementing this alternative also reduces the potential of future mitigation credits for Stanford on this site, and may impact red-legged frog habitat. Finally, the cost of this alternative is high. Matadero and Barton Creek~ Remediarion Prqieet Final Engineer’s 2~eporr 5- ! 2 October 2002 Chapter 5 -- Conceptual Alter77atives RENZEL ~a_ARSH ALTERNATIVE To provide back~vater relief at Highway !01, flood flows in excess of existing downstream channel capacity could be allowed to overflow through a spillway cut into Matadero Creek’s northern levee into Renzel Marsh. This would expand the flood basin during high flow periods by providing additional off-stream storage within the marsh. Figure 5-4 shows the location of the Renzel Marsh, which the City of Palo Alto created in the 1980s to demonstrate the benefits of using tertiary treated wastewater for marsh habitat creation. Many members of the community with an interest in this baytand environment have expressed support for this area to remain undisturbed. Description of Alternative Under this alternative, flood flows in excess of approximately the five-year remm period xvould be allowed to pass throu~h a 200-foot wide spillway created in Matadero Creek’s northern levee just downastream from East Bayshore Road. To provide sufficient back~vater relief at Highway 101, the crest of the spillway would be set at an elevation of 3.5 feet NGVD’29. A levee system tying back to higher wound would prevent an increase in flood risk to properties adjacent to East Embarcadero Road. Ring levees around the ITT communications facility, are also required. A new pump station would dewater the storage area after spill events, limiting marsh inundation to two weeks d’~ration. A lternative Screening Fundamental evaluation criteria described in Chapter 4 have been used to test the Renzel Marsh Alternative for feasibility: Flood Protection. During the one-percent flood event, water would spill into the marsh area. Estimated one-percent spills to the marsh total 850 acre-feet. If the marsh is empty prior to the runoff event, predicted water levels in the marsh could reach an elevation of 4.4 feet NGVD’29, which is one foot higher than the lowest elevations on the northern side of the marsh at East Embarcadero Road. Containment levees are needed around the marsh to protect adjacent areas of Palo Alto. The one-percent water surface elevation at Highway 101 is maintained at an approximate elevation of 5.6 feet NGVD’29, which is consistent with assumed one-percent flood conditions in the 1988 Engineer’s Report. The Renzel Marsh Alternative solves the problem of a constricted channel between the Palo Alto Flood Basin and Highway 101, althougJa floodwall improvements are still required for adequate freeboard. Matadero and Ba,~ron Creeks Remediatio~: }Zrqiecr Final Engineer’s Repor~5-13 October 2002 Figure 5-4 Renzel Marsh Alternative Scale: 1~’ = 600’ Schaaf~Wheeler Chapter 5 -- Conceptual Alternatives Environmental and Ecolo~_ical Impacts. This alternative has a direct environmental impact due to the construction of containment levees, and an indirect impact on ecology by altering the hydrology of the Renzel Marsh environment. Both impacts require mitigation. Approximately 8,500 lineal feet of containment levee would have to be built around the marsh. The containment system would be between 1 to 4 feet above adjacent wade. Visual impacts resulting from this project element would be sig-nificant and unavoidable, and mitigated with landscaping and aesthetic desi~ma elements. The footprint of the proposed levee containment system that is located outside of the East Bayshore Road pedestrian!bike path is within USACE jurisdictional wetlands. Along East Bayshore Road for a distance of 2,300 feet, containment can be provided by elevating the existing paved bicycle/pedestrian path by three to four feet. This action requires an encroachment into wetland habitat of 0.53 acre. In other locations the levee can either be situated in wetland habitat or upland areas where ordinance-sized trees would be lost. By avoiding an aligTn-nent that requires the loss of a number of large trees, the estimated impact to jurisdictional wetlands is 1.42 acres. For the purpose of estimating wetland mitigation costs, the biologists’ opinions are that habitat mitigation will be at a 2:1 ratio (2.84 acres), with similar saltwater marsh habitat located as near to the impact site as possible. To create this habitat, salt evaporation ponds in the South Bay would be converted to saltwater marsh subject to tidal action. Ring levees necessary to protect the ITT site total 2,200 lineal feet, and would be at an average height of seven feet above adjacent uade, with a twenty-foot top width and sides slopes compacted at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The footprint of this containment levee impacts 12.0 acres of saltwater marsh. This impact would be mitigated by acquiring 24 acres of salt evaporation ponds and converting them to saltwater marsh habitat. Approximately 0.05 acre of riparian habitat would be impacted by constructing the overflow spillway on the Matadero Creek bank. This impact would be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio, using suitable areas identified in Chapter 6. Based on those identified riparian mitigation sites, the 0. ! 5 acre of riparian mitigation could be accomplished within District rights-of-way. Saltwater habitat would be inundated by freshwater spills from Matadero Creek every five years on average. The operation of this facility would increase the frequency, depth and duration of flooding xvithin the Emily Renzel Marsh, and constitutes an indirect environmental impact. ~\:ramdero and Barron Creeks Remediation Project Final ~,ngineer ’.~, Report Chapter 5 -- Conceptual Alternatives Breeding populations of California clapper rail are found in nearby marshes. They are potential visitors to the marsh and may use it as occasional foraging habitat and as a refuge when nearby tidal marshes are inundated during high tides and flood events. Intermittent flooding up to nine feet in depth would be sufficient to further reduce or eliminate upland refuges. The anticipated duration of marsh inundation during a one-percent flood event is two weeks. This has the potential to increase the clapper rails’ exposure to predation. Late winter storm runoff events that spill water to the marsh could cause the toss of a breeding season’s production within the marsh and adjacent levee slopes for a number of bird species. Since there is a twenty percent annual chance of overflow to the marsh, this is considered to be a si~mificant impact. Increased depths of marsh flooding during extreme runoff events would be sufficient to substantially reduce or eliminate any populations of salt marsh harvest mice witi~in the marsh. This marsh likely hosts a population of this species, so this impact is si~nificant. The impact may reduce genetic variability within the surviving population, and make the survivors less able to withstand future challenges. It is the opinion of m~a]ogists and ornithologists that the nesting habitat impacted by the increased frequency of freshwater flooding, albeit rare, in the saltwater habitat due to this conceptual alternative can be mitigated at a ratio of 1:1 (H.T. Harvey and Associates, 200i .) This will create permanent habitat for animal populations and replace the habitat periodically arnpacted by ilood events. The areal extent of periodic inundation is estimated to be about 243 acres. Mitigation would be provided by converting South Bay salt evaporators into saltwater marsh habitat. This conceptual alternative has been presented to Ci~ of Palo Alto staff, Emily Renzel, and others in the environmental community. Man5’ members of the community have expressed opposition to this alternative due to its adverse impacts on the saltwater habitat of the marsh. ! ! ! 11 !I Project Costs. Table 5-2 summarizes estimated construction and mitigation costs for the Renzel Marsh Alternative, assuming that adequate salt evaporation ponds can be acquired for wetland mitigation. Total estimated project cost is $47 million, for which detailed cost estimates are provided in Appendix ]E. The Renzel Marsh Alternative exceeds the limit of feasible project cost. Most of the estimated cost is for the conversion of salt ponds into saltwater habitat to mitigate project impacts. ~fatadero and ~arron Creeks Remediaffot~ ~rqiect Final Engineer "s Report 5-16 October 2002 Chat)ter 5 -- Conceptual Alternatives Table 5-2 Estimated Costs for Renzel Mar~h Alternative Project Element Construction Mitigation Work Land Acquisition for Mitigation Contingencies TOTAL COST Estimated Cost $5,000,000 $27,000,000 $6,000,OOO $9,000,000 $47,000,000 Alternative Feasibili~.’ The Ren_zel Marsh Alternative is considered infeasible and impracticable because of high cost and significant impact to 240 acres of saltwater marsh habitat. FLOW DIV-ERSION ALTERNATIVES Conceptual diversion alternatives are considered to reduce the design discharge conveyed within certain reaches of Matadero and Barton Creeks, and eliminate the need for channel remediation. Creek discharges can be reduced by diverting a percentage of the one-percent flood discharge around inadequate portions of the system. Two basic flow diversion alternatives have b~e-n considered: 1) A complete bypass of Matadero Creek betax-een the PAFB and Alma Street; and 2) A downstream bypass of Matadero Creek be~,een the PAFB and HiDhway 101. The Complete Bypass Alternative would provide full remediation for one-percent riverinc flooding on Matadero and Ban-on Creeks. For the Downstream Bypass Alternative, additional remcdiation above Hi~__.hway 101 is required. Fig-ure 5-5 shows each concept. .~4atadero and Barton Creeks Remediation Project Fina} Engineer’s Report 5-17 October 2002 Figure 5-5.Flow Diversion Alternatives 1,000’ 2,000’ SCALE: 1 INCH = 2,000 FEET S ~haaf & VV-heeler Chalgter 5 ~ Conceptual Alternatives COMPLETE BYPASS ALTERNATIVE To eliminate the need for channel improvements to the Matadero Creek channel, if full diversions from Barton Creek are implemented, Matadero Creek flows must be reduced by t,100 cfs at Alma Street. Lesser rates of flow diversion have not been investigated because substantial downstream channel improvements would still be required. Description of Alternative Figan-e 5-5 shows the conceptual aligm-nent of a proposed 20-foot by 8-foot under~ound box culvert that could safely convey 1,100 cfs under the Southern Pacific Railroad, past the identified problem areas of Matadero Creek, and into the Palo Alto Flood Basin. The total length of the diversion structure would be approximately 10,000 feet. The structure would consist of a cast-in-place reinforced concrete box with manholes for ventilation and access eve©’ 500 feet. To avoid the purchase of private rights-of-way, the proposed route is within ciD" streets. V~,~hile the structure can be accommodated within residential street right-of-way, it is anticipated that this project alternative would require the relocation of a significant number of private and public utilities. Alternative Screening Using the screening criteria from Chapter 4, the Complete Bypass Alternative has been evaluated for feasibility. Flood Protection. The complete bypass alternative allows Matadero Creek to carry the reduced one-percent discharge, and the maximum design one-percent diversion from Barton Creek. within the existing creek channel below the natural ~ound elevation. Freeboard improvements would not be necessary, and both Matadero Creek and Ban-on Creek would be affbrded protection against one- percent riverine flooding. Environmental Impacts. Constructing an under~ound diversion along Loma Verde Avenue from Alma Street to the Palo Alto Flood Basin would have significant short-term impacts to residential neighborhoods and traffic circulation during construction. Relocating utilities to accommodate the diversion structure’s footprint would be ve~" disruptive to the community, time consuming and expensive. Some minor env~onmental impact to wetland habitat at the PAFB ou~fall would be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio, requiring the conversion of 0.02-acre of upland area on District right-of-way bordering the northeast side of the Municipal Selwices Center to freshwater marsk, Matadero and Ba,"ron Creeks Remediation P;’qiect Final Engineer’s Report 5- ] 9 October 2002 Chal)ter 5 ~ Concel~tual Alternatives Project Costs. The total cost of shoring and excavation, dewatering, bypass construction, utility relocation, traffic control, and street restoration is estimated to be $75 million. A construction cost estimate is included in Appendix E. Alternative Feasibility The Complete Bypass Alternative is considered infeasible and impracticable because of its $75 million capital cost, and community impact during construction. DOWNSTREAM BYPASS ALTERNATIVE For this alternative, bypass construction is limited to the r~ach downstream of Highway 101. This eliminates the need to cross the Southern Pacific Railroad or Caltrans right-of-way, but project remediation is still required upstream of Highway 101. Description of Alternative Fig-ure 5-5 shows a conceptual alignment for a bypass facility that would carry about one-half of the one-percent discharge from Highway 101 into the Palo Alto Flood Basin. Depending upon the route, the total length of the downstream diversion structure would be about !,500 feet. The downstream bypass would consist either of an open charmel or of an undergound structure with open channel flow. The downstream bypass would be constructed within District or City. of Palo Alto ri~_jat-of- way. ,am undergound bypass would require the relocation of a sig-nificant number of private and public utilities. A ltern ative Screening Using the screening criteria from Chapter 4, the Downstream Bypass Alternative has been evaluated for feasibility: Flood Protection. The Downstream Bypass Alternative allows the existing Matadero Creek channel downstream of Highway 10 ! to convey a reduced one-percent discharge, so that the design water surface elevation at Highway !01 is less than 6.0 feet NGVD’29, and is consistent with the water surface assumed in the 1988 Engineer’s Report. Spills to the MSC at the peak of Matadero Creek’s discharge would be eliminated, and remediation upstream of Highway 101 is better facilitated with a lower starting water surface elevation. Environmental Impacts. Constructing an underuound bypass limits environmental impact to 0.4 acre of habitat, while an open channel bypass wouid impact 0.9 acre of habitat. Matadero and Barton Creeks Remediation Project Fina! Engineer’s Report 5-20 October 2002 Chapter 5 ~ Conceptual Alternatives Proiect Costs. The total cost of shoring and excavation, dewatering, bypass construction, utility relocation, traffic control, and street restoration are estimated to be on the order of $8 million for an open charmet bypass and $15 million for an underHound bypass. Construction cost estimates are included in Chapter 6 and Appendix ~E. Alternative Feasibility The Downstream Bypass Alternative is feasible since it achieves project objectives downstream of Highway 101, and the unavoidable impacts to riparian vegetation and wetland can be adequately mitigated, as more fully discussed in Chapter 6. CHANNEL MODIFICATION ALTERNATI VES Channel modification alternatives would improve the ability of the combined Matadero and Ban-on Creek systems to deliver the one-percent flood discharge so that adequate freeboard is provided, freshwater flood risks are reduced, and the burden ofmandato©’ flood insurance purchases is limited to the one-percent tide flood hazard zone. This would meet the basic project objectives outlined in 1988 and restated at many public forums. Channel modifications to both Barron Creek and Matadero Creek have been screened for feasibilit);. BARRON CREEK ~IODIFICATION ALTERNATIVE One conceptual alternative is to modi~ Ban-on Creek so that its base flood discharge could be contained without requiring diversions to Matadero Creek. Description of Alternative Preliminary hydraulic analyses for Barron Creek improvements necessary for the channel to contain its entire one-percent flood discharge of 740 cfs have.been made. Photos 2-16 and 2-17 show the limitations of the District’s right-of-way along Barron Creek between Ramona Street and E1 Camino Real. Without condemning additional right-of-way, the conceptual approach to increasing channel capacity is to: 1) Raise floodwa!ls between Louis Road and El Camino Real; 21) RepIace inadequate bridges; and 3)Increase the capacity of the culvert between E1 Camino Real and La~na Avenue, either with a larger diameter pipe, or with a parallel pipe. ~a~adero and J~arron Cree£~ Remedia~ion ~roi,~et Final Engineer’s Report 5-21 October 2002 Chal~ter 5 -- Conceptual A lter-natives Preliminary hydraulic analyses indicate that once these improvements are made, the height of required floodwalls to contain the increased discharge between Ramona Street and E1 Camino Real are on the order of 15 feet as measured from natural ground. A ltern ative Screening The fundamental screening criteria for alternative feasibility have been applied to the Barron Creek Modification Alternative: Flood Protection. This alternative would provide protection against the one-percent flood on Ban-on Creek without the need for upstream diversions to Matadero Creek. However, as discussed previously for upstream storage and diversion alternatives, reducing Ban-on Creek diversions to zero does not provide adequate freeboard on Matadero Creek. Environmental Impacts. The 15-foot high floodwalls required in some reaches of Barton Creek for this alternative would be a negative aesthetic impact that cannot be adequately mitigated and is clearly unacceptable based on alternative floodwall heists presented at public meetings. Project Cost. Appendix E provides an estimated cost for this conceptual alternative of approximately $20 million. About $10 million in downstream Matadero Creek improvements would still be necessary to provide one-percent flood protection. The total project cost of this alternative is therefore about $30 million. Alternative FeasibiliO, This conceptual alternative is considered infeasible and impracticable because floodwal!; .up to 15 feet in height would be required on Barron Creek, and sQmaificant improvements are still required to provide one-percent flood protection on Matadero Creek. ~[ATADERO CREEK CHANNEL MODIFICATIONS Three alternatives are available to improve Matadero Creek conveyance and meet project objectives: raise channel floodwalls; 2) enlarge the channel: and 3) replace bridges. .~(atadero and t?arron Creeks Remediation ~rqiect Final Engineer’s Report October 2002 Chal~ter 5 -- Conceptual Alternatives RAISE FLOOD~:~’ALLS ALTERNATIVE For this conceptual alternative, Matadero Creek floodwalls would be raised to meet NFIP and District standards for freeboard without any, other channel or bridge modification. To provide one- percent flood protection along Barton Creek, full diversion would be a!lowed to Matadero Creek. Description of Alternative Floodwa!ls and bridge headwalls would be added, raised or replaced in order to provide freeboard meeting FEMA and District standards. Downstream of Highway 101, existing maintenance practices would continue and sediment would continue to accumulate in the channel overbank until quasi- equilibrium is reached at MHHW. A new floodwall along the MSC would prevent spills to the south, and a new floodwall or higher levee between Matadero Creek and Renzel Marsh would mitigate the increased risk of flooding to the north. Table 5-3 summarizes the necessary floodwall elevations for this alternative. Table 5-3 Floodwall Elevations for "Raise Floodwalls" Alternative Location Natural Ground NG VD’29) W Bayshore Rd 6.0 Greer Rd 7.0 Louis Rd 8.0 Ross Rd 1 i.0 Middlefield Rd 15.3 Cowper St 18.5 Waverley St 19.0 Bryant St 22.8 SPRR 26.0 Park Bird 28.0 Lambert Ave 30.0 El Camino Real 31.5 Existing Required Floodwall WSEL Floodwall Floodwafl Height (ft (ft NG VD’29)(ft (feet) NGVD’29)NGVD’29) 9.21 9.0 13.21 7,2 10.79 10.0 14.79 7.8 14.80 11.2 18.80 10.8 16.95 13,3 20.95 10,0 18,80 17,3 22,80 7,5 20.85 19,8 24.85 6,4 23,18 20.0 27, ! 8 8.2 23.10 23.5 27.10 4,3 27.12 29.0 31,12 5.1 29.51 29.5 33.51 5.5 30,12 31.5 34,12 4,1 3! ,07 32.5 N!A 1.0 Matadero and Barton Creeks Remedianon Prqiect Fina! Engineer "s Repor~,October 2002 Chapter 5 -- Conceptual Alternatives A lternative Screening The fundamental screening criteria for alternative Floodwalls Alternative for Matadero Creek: feasibility have-been applied tothe Raise Flood Protection. This alternative would provide protection against the one-percent flood on Barron Creek and Matadero Creek. Environmental Impacts. For safety and aesthetic considerations, a six-foot high floodwall (as measured from lowest adjacent grade) is considered to be the general limit of feasibility. This limit has been established based on community input during public meetings. Between Highway 101 and Waverley Street, requisite floodwall heights are in excess of the limit of feasibility. Downstream of Highway 101, floodwa!l ali~n-nents would be placed to avoid impacts to riparian habitat. Pro_iect Cost. Based on an extrapolation of floodwall improvement cost estimates given in Appendix E, this alternative is estimated to cost $15 million. Due to the increase in bridge headwall heights, it is assumed that half of the bridges bet~veen Louis Road and Lambert Avenue would need to be replaced because of the potential uplift pressure. A lternative FeasibiliO, This conceptual alternative is not feasible without conjunctive remediation improvements, due to the necessity of floodwalls over t0 feet in heig.ht on Matadero Creek. Raising floodwalls is, however, considered to be a feasible alternative if the resulting wall heights are not excessive. CHANNEL ENLARGEMENT ALTERNATIVE For this conceptual alternative, the cross sectional area of the Matadero Creek channe! would be enlarged to better convey the one-percent desi~ma discharge with full diversion from Barton Creek. Floodwalts would be modified only as necessary to provide adequate freeboard. Description of Alternative Dow-nstream ofHi~_Aaway 101, the creek channel would either be restored to its 1971 surveyed cross section, or other channel modifications would be made that restore the channe! conveyance assumed in the 1988 Engineer’s Report. A maintenance plan for annual sediment management would be included with project remediation. Portions of the concrete-lined flood protection channel bem’een Highway 101 and Alma Street would be enlarged from the current trapezoidal configuration to match the rectang-ular "U-frame" section upstream of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Matadero and ~3arron Cree~ Remediarion _Project Final Engineer’s Report 5-24 October 2002 Chal~ter 5 -- Conceigtual Alternatives A lternative Screening Fundamental screening criteria for alternative Enlargement Alternative for Matadero Creek: feasibility have been applied to the Channel Flood Protection. This alternative would provide protection against the one-percent flood on Barton Creek and Matadero Creek. Environmental Impacts. Adverse environmental impacts are concentrated in the reach downstream of Highway 101. The channel excavation necessary to increase conveyance would result in the loss of up to 4 acres of a high quali .ry riparian corridor along the southern overbank area of Matadero Creek below East Bayshore Road. This riparian corridor provides a rich habitat for a variety of species due to dense vegetation, a well-defined understory, and proximity to San Francisco Bay. Between Highway 101 and Ross Road, an increase in floodwall heights relative to existing conditions would be mitigated with aesthetic wall treatments. Proiect Cost. Enlarging Matadero Creek from the Palo Alto Flood Basin to Alma Street is estimated to cost up to about $38 million, which is within the limit of project feasibility. Other feasible permutations of floodwall, bridge and channel modifications are available to reduce estimated project costs, as explained in Chapter 6. Alternative FeasibiliO, This conceptual alternative is feasible because it provides one-percent flood protection within the study area, its environmental impacts are of a mag-nitude that can be reasonably mitigated, and its cost is within the limits of feasibiliu~. BRIDGE REPLACEMENT ALTERNATIVE By itself, this conceptual alternative carmot remedy identified flood protection problems. However, replacing selected bridges could help reduce the scope of necessaD" fioodwall and/or channel enlargement improvements upstream of Highway 101. Description of Alternative As explained in Appendix H, backwater effects could be lessened by increasing the area of bridge openings, and correspondingly reducing ener~ losses through bridges. Table 5-4 provides a summary of surveyed areas for each bridge opening between West Bayshore Road and Alma Street. The survey was made after sediment was removed ~om the charnael in Spring !999. Maradero and Ba~v’on Cree¢:s Remediation Prqiec.~ Fina! Engineer "s Report 5-25 October 2002 Chapter 5 -- Conceptual Alternatives Table 5-4 Comparison of NIatadero Creek Bridge Openings A WSEL Measured Net Area Across Bridge Bridge Location [square feet][feet] West Bayshore Road 750 O, 1 Greer Road 360 0,9 Louis Road 200 3,9 Ross Road 230 2.0 Middlefield Road 240 1.5 Cowper Street 200 1,4 Waverley Street 230 1.4 Bryant Street 260 O, 1 Alma Street / $PRR 190 3.2 ~Changes in water surface elevations due to each bridge are from analysis of the 1% ~qood using existing channel conditions without allowing wall overtopping. Based on the bridge head losses presented in Table 5-4, the Louis Road and Ross Road bridges are the most likely candidates for modification, as is the Alma Street / Railroad culvert. However, by improving the downstream culvert-to-channel transition at Alma Street, the change in water surface elevation across the railroad cu!~;ert does not compromise one-percent flood protection. Bridge modifications could include either raising the bridge or removing it altogether. Based on field surveys, raising Louis Road by one foot at Matadero Creek is feasible; raising the Ross Road bridge is not feasible, due to sight distance limitations. Removing certain roadway crossings from traffic and replacing bridges with pedestrian / bicycle bridges has aIso been explored. City of Palo Alto engineering staff have indicated that the adverse impact on traffic cannot be adequately mitigated. The removal of Louis Road, which would have the ~eatest hydraulic impact, would eliminate a busy thoroughfare with a bike path and bus route. Some members of the public with direct access to Louis Road have expressed support for this option (traffic volurnes on Louis Road would almost certainly diminish), while those living on neighboring streets ha,~e expressed A4atadero and Barton Creeks Remediarion Project Final Engineer’s Report 5-26 October 2002 Chapter 5 -- Conceptual Alternatives opposition, since traffic volumes on other streets would likely increase: Alternative Screening Since this alternative is intended to supplement other remediation projects, only the latter two screening criteria for alternative feasibility have been applied: Environmental Impacts. Temporary road closures and traffic detours would be necessary during the replacement of the Louis Road bridge, which is expected to last up to six months. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic would likely be routed to Greer Road and Ross Road via Loma Verde Avenue and Colorado Avenue. Once the bridge is reopened, however, vehicular and pedestrian traffic should return to existing patterns. Eliminating the use of the Matadero Creek crossing for all but pedestrians and bicycles at Louis Road would si~ificantly alter traffic patterns in this residential neighborhood. Although traffic and emergency access to all property can be maintained, the elimination of through traffic on Louis Road betaveen Loma Verde and Colorado would inevitably increase traffic flow on Greer Road and Ross Road between the two cross streets. For these reasons, the City, of Palo Alto has indicated that eIiminating vehicuiar traffic on Louis Road at Matadero Creek is not acceptable. Potential project impacts to local storm drainage and driveway access would be mitigated as described more fully in Chapter 6. Project Cost. Replacing the Louis Road bridge at a higher elevation is estimated to cost about $I million including structural bridge replacement, roadway modifications, local drainage improvements, traffic control, and contingencies. Alternative Feasibility This conceptual alternative is feasible because it provides increased flow conveyance at a reasonable cost with minimal environmental impact. The replacement of the Louis Road bridge as a project element in combination with other floodwalt and channel enlargement alternatives is considered further in Chapter 6. ~datadero and Barron Creeks Rernediarion Prqiect Final Engineer "s Repor~October 2002 ,~hal~ter 5 -- Conceptual Alternatives SUiVIMARY Evaluations of the conceptual alternatives described in this chapter are summarized in Table 5-5. Using the screening process presented in this chapter, twelve conceptual alternatives have been categorized as feasible or not feasible as summarized below. Chapter 6 presents the evaluation of feasible project alternatives. FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES INFEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES Downstream Flow Bypass No Project Raise Matadero Creek Floodwalls Non-Structural Approaches Matadero Creek Channel Enlargement Upstream Reservoir Louis Road Bridge Replacement Stanford Pasture Storage Renzel Marsh Storage Complete Flow Bypass Barton Creek Modification Matadero and Barton Creeks Remedia~ion Project Final Engineer’s Report 5-28 October 2002 < Z ’~.= ATTACHMENT G Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date: To: June 5, 2003 Architectural Review Board From:Susan Ondik, Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment Subject:3201 East Bayshore Road - Matadero Creek Long-Term Remediation Project [02-D-07, 02-ARB-70]: Application by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) for Site and Design and Architectural Review Board (ARB) review fo~ the installation of an overflow flood control channel for the lower portion of Matadero Creek downstream of East Bayshore Road to increase flood capacity and protection and convey a 100-year (1%) flood event flow. Zoning: Public Facility with Site and Design overlay PF(D). Environmental Review: Environmental Impact Report prepared and certified by SCVWD Board. RECOMMENDATION This project is being presented for Site and Design Review of the Board because it is located in the Public Facilities zoning district within the Site and Design Review Combining District (D). Although this project is a Site and Design, with related standards of review, staff recommends that given the unique nature of this project that the ARB utilize the required findings of approval to. help focus the project review process. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board: Recommend approval for the proposed Matadero Creek flood control channel’s site and design and architectural review based on the draft Findings included in Attachment A and the Draft Conditions of Approval in Attachment B. Other elements of the project include Council action to: ,Adopt findings for this project from the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) certified by the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 1 Adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance for the portion of the Santa Clara Valley Water District flood control channel in Byxbee Park. Recommend staff amend the Baylands Master Plan to include elements of the project. Grant the requested easements in and around the Municipal Services Center (MSC) to the District in order to allow the construction of the proposed Matadero Creek flood control channel. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project was first presented to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on May 1, 2003. The following staff report expands on the May 1st report, particularly on issues that were raised during the meeting or have been clarified since that time. Board members Should refer to the May 1st report for a broader project description, summary of issues, and environmental review discussion. The proposed project is a 55-60’ wide, approximately 1200 foot long, flood control channel branching off the existing Matadero Creek channel downstream of Highway 101 and East Bayshore Road and proceeding around the City of Palo Alto Municipal Service Center (MSC) to the channel outlet located behind and adjacent to the MSC site. The development of the overflow channel consists of three main elements: 1) new flood control channel, floodwall and landscaping, 2) onsite mitigation for impacts to wetland and riparian habitat, and 3) offsite mitigation for impacts to riparian habitat. The proposed project will increase the capacity of Matadero Creek to achieve 100-year (1%) flood protection for local residents and businesses. After considering many alternatives, the proposed project design was selected to meet hydrological requirements and minimize environmental impacts. Alternatives considered in the preliminary design phases in 1999 - 2000, including upstream storage and use of the Emily Renzel Marsh can be found in the Final Engineer’s Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement, sections of which were provided to the Board with the May 1, 2003 staff report. These preliminary design alternatives were eliminated either because they did not meet the project objectives of accommodating 100-year flows and/or their environmental impact was too great to pursue further. The existing proposal is therefore a combination of meeting the 100-year flow objective while minimizing the environmental impacts as much as possible. According to the applicant, the proposed channel must be maintained on a regular basis to meet hydraulic requirements, and must, at least in part, be made of concrete (versus alternative materials) for the channel to accommodate this maintenance equipment on the unstable Bay mud. The extent of concrete proposed with the project has been scaled back to the minimum required for the maintenance vehicles and the partial earthen bottom will help minimize 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 2 the presence of the concrete channel while still meeting hydraulic requirements. Other elements are included with the proposed project to soften the appearance of the channel, such as earthen banks and willow plantings, and new or enhanced habitat to mitigate for the project impacts to riparian and wetland habitats. As part of the proposed project, existing non-native species on-site, such as the eucalyptus, vinca, ivy, and giant reed will be replaced with more native species such as California Sycamore, California buckeye and Coast Live Oak. Since the May 1st ARB meeting there have been some modifications and clarifications to the project. As indicated in the staff presentation to the ARB on May 1st, it was unclear the extent of the project’s proposed floodwall on the south side of the MSC. Wetland indicator species were identified in the "ditch area" between the MSC and the existing levee. Part of this small area has since been delineated as a wetland, and the project scaled back to protect and avoid this area. Therefore, the floodwall on the south side of the MSC has been removed from the project proposal. The proposed floodwall will therefore end near the southeast corner of the MSC site. The applicant has, however, agreed to retain the landscaping/screening element on the south side of the MSC. According to the applicant’s environmental consultant, this landscape p!anting and maintenance would not impact the nearby wetland area and is seen by the City as a beneficial screening element of the project. Additionally, the applicant has received permission from the city to, where possible and beneficial to protect this area, use portions of the MSC site to access this area for plantings. The flood protection along the south side of the MSC will be slightly lower than if a wall was included, but the existing levee will still provide flood protection. Additionally, if waters are high enough to reach the south side of the MSC, they will likely overflow onto East Bayshore Road and into MSC front the west. These changes are shown in the Attachment D Site Plan. SUMMARY OF ISSUES A discussion of issues surrounding the proposed project was included in the May 1, 2003 staff report. The following focuses on how the project addresses the required site and design and ARB findings of approval (PAMC Section 18.82.060 and 16.48.120). Staff recommends that because this is such a unique project, that the Board refer to the Findings of Approval (Attachment A), some of which are further discussed below to help with the project review. Site and Design Findings Finding #1: The project will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 3 The project proposal is a flood control channel located between two existing flood levees and adjacent to both the developed Municipal Service Center (MSC) site and more sensitive Byxbee Park/Baylands area. The project is designed to transition from the more natural elements of the flood basin where it incorporates earthen banks and willows to the more developed MSC site where the project includes hardscape elements including the concrete channel bottom and floodwall. Initial construction and revegetation of the project will inherently alter the appearance of natural character within the project area. Public views of the project and its construction will primarily be from the recreational pathway along East Bayshore Road, and from the recreational pathway/parking area located on the levee just north of the existing channel. To counter this visual impact, the applicant is proposing both on- and off-site wetland and riparian mitigation areas, enhancing existing riparian areas on Matadero Creek, extending landscaping around the MSC and has reduced the amount of concrete in the channel design. Additionally, the applicant will be planting along the front of the floodwall along East Bayshore Road and will be either color treating or top dressing the concrete in the most visible areas of the channel. Staff has consulted with a revegetation specialist who reviewed and helped to structure the current planting plan proposal, included in Attachment D. Beyond the construction time, elements such as the vegetation once established, the replacing of non- native species with more native ones and the increased density of trees in the area will enhance the natural character of the site. City staff has helped shaped the current proposal but would encourage the Board to provide guidance on both landscaping screening elements and screening of the proposed channel as well as the material and the proposed treatment of project materials, fencing, and other details. Finding #3: Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance will be observed in construction of the project, The proposed project is replacing a historic overflow channel that is smaller in size, but does not currently meet 100-year flood protection. -An alternative explored in the environmental review but discouraged by regulating agencies would have dredged the existing channel to achieve this same flow level. This alternative, however, would significantly impact existing riparian and wetland habitats each time dredging occurred. City staff, in reviewing the project in respect to this finding, considered such things as the placement of the channel, the mitigation proposed for the project’s impacts, the protection of adjacent areas during construction, the amount of concrete proposed with the channel, as well as its visual impact on the area (as discussed under Finding #1 above). The proposed project still impacts both riparian and wetland habitats and will be required by regulating agencies to replace the impacted habitat at a 3"1 and 2:1 ratio, respectively. Both on-site and off-site mitigation is proposed with the project to meet regulatory replacement requirements. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 4 The project will remove a significant amount of existing vegetation for project construction, including the mature eucalyptus trees along the MSC property. This screening on the north side of the MSC will be replaced and landscaping screening extended around the entire MSC site. The applicant is proposing a planting palette that will provide screening of the channel for the MSC site workers, Baylands recreational users, and drivers along East Bayshore Road and Highway 101. Approximately 290 trees will be removed for the project, and this vegetation will be replaced with more native plantings, including over 365 trees (native sycamores and oaks), 500 new shrubs and 1,000 new willow cuttings. Since this project impacts habitat that may take more than a few years to establish, a more long term (7-10 years) monitoring period is being required of the proponent. This monitoring will not only report on the mitigation and landscaping area establishment and maintenance, but on the effects of the proposed channel on the existing channel sediment transport. Additionally, the City hired an independent natural resource consultant to aid in the review and conditioning of this project. As part of the project conditions, the City and its consultants will continue to monitor the project construction and its mitigation, with reporting requirements from the applicant for 7-10 years. Overall, although the project impacts habitats and vegetation, the long-term natural character of the area will likely be enhanced through the increase ratio of wetland and riparian habitat areas, and more native plantings at higher ratios than existing plantings. Long term monitoring and maintenance will also ensure improved plant material and habitat. ARB Findings (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that although the project is located in the Baylands, the proposed channel is located between two existing flood levees and adjacent to the developed MSC site. The proposed location of the project is replacing a historic overflow channel that is smaller in size, but does not currently meet 100-year flood protection. By bending the alignment of the channel across the comer of the MSC, this partial concrete channel is kept adjacent to the developed MSC site and away from the majority of the riparian and wetland habitat in the Palo Alto Flood Basin. Habitat revegetation, landscape screening, and channel bed material treatments, as discussed in the Site & Design Finding #1, would reduce visual impacts of the project. (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the flood control channel is designed such that excess flows from Matadero Creek during moderate to severe storm events will be captured and conveyed to the Palo Alto Flood Basin thus reducing the backwater effect in the creek and improving the performance of city storm drains. Since the overflow channel is being located near the MSC site, the project also 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Ter,rn Remediation Project Page 5 includes the installation of a floodwatl along the channel on the outside of the MSC. The visual impacts of the project were discussed in the Site & Design findings (#1) above. Although the channel is partially concrete, following a storm event the concrete will be covered with sediment and in part blend in with the surrounding environment. (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses in that the proposed channel is a mix of earthen and concrete channel with new habitat vegetation and landscape screening, with the design transitioning from the more natural elements of the flood basin to the more developed MSC site. The project also extends landscaped screening around the MSC. (7) The planning and siting of the various functions on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general communi~’ in that the proposed project is a flood control channel located in the area of an existing, smaller overflow channel. The proposed project is also located between two existing levees, one just north of the existing Matadero Creek and one around the MSC site. The concrete channel has been redesigned to minimize concrete coverage and increase habitat and landscape plantings in the area. The public view of the project is limited to two areas: from the recreational path/parking area just north of the Matadero Creek/East Bayshore road bridge; and from the recreational pathway running along East Bayshore Road. Visual treatments to address these areas were discussed in the Site & Design findings above. During construction these areas will be screened with fencing and boxed 24" trees. Following construction, the area will be replanted with more native species, including the placement of some larger (15 ga!lon) California Sycamores and Coast Live Oak trees. (I I) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that the project augments an existing flood basin, improves an existing natural channel and over time improves wetland and riparian habitat areas. As discussed in the Site & Design findings above, the project will remove both wetland and riparian habitat, and is required to replace them at a higher (2:1 or 3:1, depending on habitat type) ratio. The loss of the eucalyptus habitat that provides screening for the MSC site will be replaced with more native, riparian habitat such as California Sycamores, coffeeberry and buckeyes, and the landscape screening element will be extended around the MSC site. The concrete channel also integrates earthen strips, adjacent willow plantings, and concrete treatments to minimize the appearance of the proposed flood control channel. Additionally, following a high ware{ flow, sediment deposits will likely cover the concrete elements of the channel bottom. (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function, and are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions in that the project is a 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 6 flood control channel originally proposed as a wide (60’) purely concrete channel with concrete walls, has evolved to be part concrete and part earthen (both sides and bottom). The Board was provided a set of plans with the May !s~ staff report that included floodwall and channel details. Besides the scaling back of the ftoodwall on the south side and the top dressing or coloring of concrete that is now proposed, the plans remain unchanged. The project’s proposed visual screening elements were discussed above in Findings #1 and #7. Staff is recommending that the ARB determine that the proposed treatments, materials, and landscape elements are adequate to screen the proposed channel from the main points of view of the project, namely at its divergence from the existing channel to the MSC. (13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors" create a desirable and functional environment and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site in that the plantings will be replacing non-native with native plantings and increasing the ratio of adjacent wetland and riparian habitat. There is a mix of planting types proposed with the project: landscape, wetland, and riparian. The plantings in the landscaped area will be a mix of native trees and shrubs. The trees will be spaced approximately 15’ off center. The plantings in the triangular shaped riparian mitigation area on-site will include native shrubs and trees, with 15-gallon California Sycamores along the edge and Coast Live Oak in the riparian mitigation area. Staff recommends the Board find that the landscaping is adequate as proposed to provide screening for the long-term. Other potential options for screening may be considered, including spacing the larger trees farther apart, or even planting more densely and require the applicant to thin out the "less desirable" plantings in 5 years. (14) The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a varie~.’ that would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance in that the project removes invasive, non-native vegetation within the project area and in the existing channel, and replaces it with native vegetation. The long-term natural character of the area will be enhanced through these native plantings. The .project will also increase landscaping screening of the MSC site. Long term monitoring and maintenance will ensure improved native plant material and habitat. There is some question as to the salinity of the soil on the south side of the MSC and staff, with consultant’s input, has suggested soil testing of this area, and if found saline, the substitution of Coyote Brush and willow plantings. Follow-up Items During the May 1, 2003 ARB meeting Board members requested some further information on issues that were discussed during the hearing. The following are responses to these issues. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 7 Alternative Material At the request of the Board the applicant was directed to explore alternate materials other than concrete for the flood control channel. The applicant recently expanded on the following items. A pure earthen channel would be impossible to maintain because of the unstable Bay mud and maintenance is necessary to ensure the channel meets the 100-year flood level flow design. To ensure adequate flow, maintenance vehicles will clear vegetation and scrape the bottom of the channel when sediments are more than 1 foot deep or vegetation more than 4’ in height. This action would likely damage any material other than a uniform cement bottom. An extremely wide earthen channel with lower slopes could work, but in this location, which is constricted by other levees and recreational trails, there is just not enough room. As far as type and extent of materials for the channel, allowing maintenance vehicles in the channel appears to be the biggest constraint. The applicant looked into articulated mats, gabion mats, a cobble gravel bottom, grouted rock bottom, and open-celled blocks (turfstone). The articulated mats and cobble or gravel bottom would limit the vegetation that could grow in the channel and would not be stable enough for the maintenance vehicles. Similarly, open-celled blocks (turfstone) would be difficult to maintain and is expensive to install. Gabion mats, in addition to these complications, were discouraged by the California Department of Fish and Game. Grouted rock bottoms would appear similar to concrete, but would be more difficult to maintain. Therefore, the applicant still feels the current design, with a mix of earthen and concrete is preferred. It was designed in consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers and Fish and Game and with the mix of earthen and concrete material, should allow vegetation to quickly grow within the channel, while still providing access by maintenance vehicles. Visual Representation of Project The applicant will present visual representations of the project during their presentation to the ARB on June 5, 2003. Offsite Mitigation Although the California Department of Fish and Game prefer in-kind, on-site mitigation, if it cannot be provided alternative off-site mitigation may be pursued. All wetland mitigation will be provided on-site, but not all the riparian mitigation can occur on-site without further impacting other habitat in the project area. Fish and Game also discourages the use of a number of smaller sites instead of one parcel for mitigation, as well as using not-in-kind habitat. (wetland for riparian) as mitigation. The proposed mitigation, including the offsite riparian habitat is under review by the California Department of Fish and Game. The applicant acknowledges that the offsite mitigation is a different type of riparian habitat (oak woodland versus willow riparian), but preliminary consultation with Fish and Game has supported that type of mitigation. The city’s consultant recommends that, if possible, the applicant plant the entire off-site parcel (only 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 8 a portion is required to mitigate for this proposed project) and pursue banking the extra riparian habitat with Fish and Game. Baylands Master Plant List At the May 1, 2003 ARB meeting, there was a comment from the public that the project should consider, if it hadn’t, the Baylands Master Plan Recommended Plant List. The plant list, released with the Baylands Master Plan in 1978 has not been updated since its release and includes plants that are now considered non-native and invasive, such as eucalyptus trees. The professional practice and experience of plantings in sensitive areas has progressed a great deal since 1978. According to the City Arborist and the City’s natural resource consultants the plantings on the Baylands Master Plan Recommended Plant List are quite outdated, and the project’s proposed plantings are more appropriate for the habitat areas within the Baylands. Alternative Designs The applicant was asked to explain the alternative designs considered for the project. The main constraints of the site that impact design and material considerations of the project include its placement near the MSC site between two existing levees (one for the MSC and one which contains the recreational path). Its location near the flood plain where it must be built on relatively unstable Bay n-rest include solid strips of concrete to provide a stable enough structure for the maintenance vehicles. The project biologist indicates that additional riparian mitigation cannot be provided on-site without further impacting other wetland and riparian habitat. As included in the ARB May 1, 2003 staff report, Chapter 5 of the Engineer’s report provides a good overview of the alternatives considered and ruled out at an early stage. These included removing all structures from the flood plain or flood proofing all structures which was not economically or socially feasible; damming Matadero and Baron Creek which similarly had high social and environmental costs; upstream storage on Stanford open space property which was infeasible because it is prime red-legged frog habitat (in which impacting one frog would be a "take" under the Endangered Species Act) and difficult negotiations with Stanford; downstream storage at the Emily Renzel Marsh which had a significant (240 acre) impact on the environment and high cost ($47 million); an underground box culvert under Loma Verde which was not pursued because of impacts to infrastructure and significant cost ($75 million); an underground box culvert under East Bayshore Road which had Significant infrastructure cost ($15 million), and maintenance difficulties; and the existing channel enlargement which had very large and ongoing environmental impacts. The public and Board members made other suggestions at the May 1st ARB meeting, including exploring the use of more pervious concrete, natural stream restoration and other design considerations. Pervious concrete in the channel, as discussed above, would 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 9 not be as strong enough to support the maintenance vehicles and would require more frequent replacement over time, Replacing impervious concrete in an urban area with pervious concrete is an option to reduce urban stormwater runoff, however, during heavy rain events such as those that would prompt a 100-year flow event, even pervious surfaces quickly become saturated. Natural stream restoration would be difficult because it would not likely accommodate the 100-year flow, requiring the use of adjacent properties as flood plain/overflow areas and the relocation of hundreds of homes. The proposed downstream flood control project, without real estate costs, is $5-6 million with 2.7 acres of environmental impact. Additionally, the proposed flood control channel considered different elements in its design. A design with vertical concrete wails and a fiat, completely concrete bottom was eliminated early on because of the overall aesthetic impact. Log cribwalls were not considered because of long-term maintenance issues. Rock riprap and gabion wails were not desirable because they required a larger footprint that would impact more habitat and the walls would not support vegetation. Vegetated masonry walls (with other biotechnical solutions) were also part of an earlier design that was eliminated by the City to accommodate more landscape screening (the low knee wall with a landscaped vegetation strip was preferable to the higher earthstone wall without landscaping). BOARD & COMMISSION REVIEW The Board & Commission Review presented in the May 1 ~t ARB staff report summarized the Parks and Recreation Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting discussions. The ARB reviewed the.project on May 1, 2003 and asked for clarification on some items, including materials, visual representations and the offsite mitigation, responses to which were outlined above. Six members of the public spoke to the item, expressing both opposition and support for the project, although the majority was critical of project elements or requested further information. Comments in opposition of the project included concerns that this was a "1960’s type of project" for flood control; that the flood control might be achieved in other ways; the project impacts to the existing channel, species and habitat in the area; proposed onsite mitigation vegetation and non-native removal; and the offsite mitigation impact to an existing business. Supporters referenced the need for this project to protect Barton Creek and Matadero Creek neighborhoods and pointed out that the project was only on a minor portion of the Baylands. Two letters were also submitted (Attachment C), in anticipation of the May 15th ARB meeting (item was continued to June 5, 2003). Responses by the applicant to these comments are also included. 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 10 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This section presented in the May 1st ARB staff report summarized the environmental review that has occurred to the present time. As indicated above, further exploration of the south side of the MSC has indicated the presence of wetland indicator species. The applicant has therefore scaled back the proposed floodwall along this portion to avoid any further wetland impact. Landscaping will be retained, as it requires much smaller equipment for plantings and is a beneficial screening element that was added to the project. The Council will be required to adopt findings for this project from the Final EIR certified by the SCVWD Board. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this ARB review of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, mailed notifications were also provided to interested individuals who have participated in the project’s review process. The City Council will review the project at their July !4, 2003 meeting. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Findings for Site & Design Approval & Architectural Review Board Standards for Review Attachment B: Draft Conditions of Approval Attachment C: Comment Letters Received and the Applicant’s Response Attachment D: (ARB members only) Site Plan & Inqgation and Planting Plans Prepared by: Manager Review by: COURTESY COPIES: City Council Susan Ondik, Planner 5-~ Manager Ariel Calonne, City Attorney Santa Clara Valley Water District Joe Teresi, City of Palo Alto Public Works Bill Feldman, City of Palo Alto Real Estate Libby Lucas Florence LaRiviere Ciardella’s Garden Supply 3201 East Bayshore Road: Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation Project Page 11 ~/08/2002 11:09 G5049~7640 AttachmentC~TIZENS COMMITTEE ~~’~CITIZEN~ COMMITTEE TOCOMPLETE 453 Tenn~ ~ne, P~lo Alto CA ~3~Tel 650 493-5~Fax 650 494-7~0 THE REFUGE e-mail: marsh~’refuge.org Architectural Review Board City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 Re: #4, April 15, Matadero Creek Project Dear Board Members, April 8, 2003 R C VED MAY 0 8 2003 Depa~nent ot Ptannmg and Gommanit7 Environment Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Water District plans for flood control on Matadero Creek. Over the last several years the San Francisco Estuary Institute, supported by many governmental agencies, has produced a remarkable series of maps of the historic edges of the b,ay. (Robin Grossinger 510 746-7380.) They are particularly important now, sincerestoration planning is going on for the recently purchased salt ponds. The maps of the South Bay ace stunning; a glance shows the wealth of habitat types that existed. Riparian vegetation and upland refugia were fully evident in the past, and are almost non-existent today. We are pleased that your board is considering the aesthetic aspects of the project. Surely there are methods to control possible future flooding on Matadero without taldng a bulldozer to what could be a pick and shovel project. A walk along the present creek, and then one along Charleston Road to observe the ¢hannelized Adobe Creek, will bring the results of these activities into sharp focus. Beautiful natural vegetation or concrete walls. The mitigation proposed is of concern because it is not directly connected to a creek, so it does not duplicate the characteristics of the damaged land, and is some distance from it. Over many years we have observed Falo Alto creeks and their flooding problems. In many cases, maintenance has been woefully neglected while large and imposing construction is used instead. This project should be denied, and f’ttrther assessment made of maintenance and floodizag records for Matadero. Thank you for your caref~ consideration of work on this sensitive and attractive site. Yours sincerely Florence M. LaRiviere A 50I (c)(3) Nonprofit Public Benefit Co .rporat~on Lee Lippert, Chair Architectural Review Board City of Palo Alto Civic Center 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Chairman Lippert, May 7, 2003 There was considerable testimony at your recent May 1 hearing on the Long Term Remediation Project for Matadero Creek to which you and your fellow Review Board members listened and responded very astutely. Therefore, I must apologize for my belaboring the subject further, but do believe there are still aspects to consider. ~ The Santa Clara Valley Water District in this presentation put the level for diversion of flows at the 2 to 5 year event. These are the flushing flows that are needed to clear sediment through Matadero Creek’s narrow non-gradient channel into the lower basin and out to San Francisco Bay. If they are not retained in channel it will silt up rapidly. ~ The diversion will cut through the lower and upper terrace of the natural floodway of the creek, permanently dewatering and decimating refugia in this unique Baylands dparian corddor and directing stormwaters and debds to the inner basin that has no tidal action. The project designers seem to be unclear on the elevations of the basin and that this outfall has levees on three sides (baywards is a sanitary sewer line) so there is no hope of establishing a new creek corridor alignment. Also, if the present creek channel silts up the dynamics of the tidal circulation in the basin will be lost. ~ The diversion channel was only depicted as a suspended concrete apron in trees in the visual, but to get a better idea of the size and wing walls of the intended structure it would help to visit the upstream Matadero Creek diversion (above Bol Park). ~ The proposed cement wall adjacent to the Bay Trail bike path is a further aesthetic loss that could not have been envisioned when the State Coastal Conservancy joined with Palo Alto to put in this first bike bridge for a scenic regional recreation route. ~ It was mentioned that the invasives, such as the giant reed, should be removed in the summer before the project brings heavy equipment into the baylands preserve. Is it possible for the Board to make that a condition of approval? ~ The proponent’s visual of the houses to be removed from the floodplain by this long term remediation project was not entirely clear. A red outline of residences between Matadero Creek and Oregon Expressway shows houses affected by overbank flows from San Francisquito Creek that extended into the Matadero ~vatershed’ but which will not realize any relief from this project. The houses to be removed were in grey? ~ The Emily Renzel Marsh appears to have an outfall for a 24" Caltrans pipe that goes under #101 and relieves the highway and frontage roads of storm waters. This might be enlarged? In high water could other City drains be directed here? Could storm drains be directed to Barron Creek from streets east of Matadero Creek? Would this remove backwater concerns in 2 to 5 year events? ~ A possible unexplored altemativ for relief from the backflow of concern would be the use of the former Sterling Canal that historically channeled Matadero flows to Barron Creek at the Bay’s edge. The right of way appears to be still in existence. ~The other unexplored alternative of upstream storage would be to put peak flows that are diverted from the Barron Creek sediment basin into the underground bypass to Matadero Creek, into underground storage tanks under the Gunn High School playing fields. The City of Mountain View has invested in underground storage tanks. Thank you very much for your continued conscientious review of this flood project. Libby’Lucas 174 yerba Santa Ave. Los Altos, CA 94022 Wednesday, May07, 2003 Amedca Online: JLucas1099 Page: 1 i)2 - PALO ALTO BAY LANDS % DISTANCE ABOVE BAYSHORE FREEWAY IN FEET 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 IO00 500 0 ~80 :--~:-~~::: ::F~L:’~Mo~ifiedBosm(tGoteOpen)For~ I.O FIGURE Vl-2 ANALYSIS OF EXPECTED CHANNEL SEDIMENTATION PATTERNS IN MATADERO CREEK FOR IOO-YEAR FLOOD UNDER PRESENT AND MODIFIED FLOOD BASIN CONDITIONS FIGURE V-9 PALO ALTO FLOOD BASIN WATER SURFACE ELEVATION AT --2.0 FEET 2001 SANTA ! ,, CHRISTMAS Species PA Species PA t 17t01 I qT/OI Pied-billed Grebe ,," Horned Grebe Eared Grebe Red-necked Grebe Western Grebe Clark’s Grebe Aechmophorus, sp American White Pelican Brown Pelican ,," Double-crested Cormorant v’ American Bittern ,’ Great Blue Heron ,,," Great Egret Snowy Egret Green Heron ,,/ Black-crowned Night-Heron Greater White-fronted Goose Snow Goose Canada Goose Wood Duck Green-winged Teal Mallard ,’ Northern Pintail ,,/ Blue-winged Teal v’ Cinnamon Teal Northern Shoveler Gadwal/ Eurasian Wioeon American Wigeon ~" Canvasback Redhead Ring-necked Duck Greater Scaup Lesser Scaup Aythya, sp Surf Scoter Conunon Goldeneye Barrow’s Goldeneye Bufflehead Hooded Merganser Common Merganser Red-breasted Merganser Ruddy Duck duck, sp Turkey Vulture Osprey White-tailed Kite Bald Eagle Northern Harrier Sharp-shinned Hawk Cooper’s Hawk ,,/ Accipiter, sp Red-shouldered Hawk ,,,’ Red-tailed Hawk ~,’ Red-tailed (Harlan’s) Hawk Ferruginous Hawk Golden Eagle American Kestrel ~" Merlin Peregrine Falcon Prairie Falcon Falcon, sp Ring-necked Pheasant Wild Turkey California Quail Clapper Rail Virginia Rail Sofa Common Moorhen American Coot Sandhill Crane Black-bellied Plover Snowy Plover Semipalmated Plover Killdeer Black-necked Stilt American Avocet Greater YellovAegs Lesser Yellow, legs yellowlegs, sp Wiltet Spotted Sandpiper Whimbrel Long-billed Curlew Marbled Godwit Ruddy Turnstone Red Knot Sanderling Western Sandpiper Least Sandpiper Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Dunlin Ruff Calidrid ("peep"), sp Short-billed Dowitcher Long-billed Do’,vitcher dowitcher, sp Common Snipe Bonaparte’s Gull blew Gull Ring-billed Gull California Gull Hefting Gull Thayer’s Gull Iceland Gull Lesser Black-backed Gull Western Gull Ghucous-winged Gull Glaucous Gull gull, sp Forster’s Tern Black Skimmer Rock Dove Band-tailed Pigeon blourning Dove Greater Roadrunner Barn Owl Western Screech-Owl The Avocet 8 ]’~ Species PA Species PA 127101 "PO 1 Great Homed Owl Northern Pygmy-Owl Burrowing Owl Northern Saw-whet Owl White-throated Swift Anna’s Hummingbird Rufus Hummingbird Belted Kingfisher Lewis’s Woodpecker kcom Woodpecker Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Red-breasted Sapsucker Nuttall’s Woodpecker Downy Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker Northem (Yel-sh) Flicker Northern (Red-sh x Yel-sh) Flicker Northern (Red-shy Flicker Pileated Woodpecker Black Phoebe Say’s Phoebe Horned Lark Tree Swallow Violet-green Swallow Barn Swallow swallow, sp Steller’s Jay Weslern Scrub Jay Yellow-billed Magpie American Crow Common Raven Chestnut-backed Chickadee Oak Titmouse Bushtit Red-breasted Nuthatch White-breasted Nuthatch Pygmy Nuthatch Brown Creeper Rock Wren Canyon Wren Bewick’s Wren House Wren Winter Wren Marsh Wren American Dipper Golden-crowned Kinglet Ruby-crowned Kinglet Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Western Bluebird Townsend’s Solitaire Hermit Thrush American Robin Varied Thrash Wrentit Nonhero Mockingbird California Thrasher Black-hacked Wagtail American Pipit Cedar Waxwing Phainopepla Loggerhead Shrike ~; European SIarling Hutton’s Vireo ,/ Orange-crov,,ned Warbler Yellow Warbler Yellov,,-mmped Warbler (form’i v" (blyrtle) (Audubon’s) Black-throated Gray Warbler Townsend’s Warbler Common Yellowthroat ¯ Western Tanager Spotted Towhee California Towhee Rufous-crowned Sparrow Vesper Sparrow’ Lark Sparrow Sage Sparrow Savannah Sparrow Grasshopper Sparrow Fox Sparrow Fox Sparrow’, Eastern form Song Sparrow Lincoln’s Sparrow Swamp Sparrow’CW White-throated Spanor,’ Golden-crowned Sparrow White-crowned Sparrow Lark Sparrow CW sparrow, sp Dark-eyed Junco (form2) Dark-eyed (Oregon) Junco Nutmeg Mannikin Red-winged Blackbird Tricolored Blackbird Western Meadov, qark Brewer’s Blackbird Brown-headed Cowbird blackbird, sp Bullock’s Oriole Purple Finch House Finch v" Pine Siskin Lesser Goldfinch Lawrence’s Goldfinch American Goldfinch Goldfinch sp H°us,e S Drr~,w v’ Tolal Species 163 ,,/Total Key: town sp = sNcies undetermint CW = Count Week *= Reportsubmittcd **= unestablished exoti~ SJ = San Jose: compiled PA = PaloAllo:only ihe s~ble pcr~ MtH = Mount Ha~lton: C~-MH = C~ero-Morg~ 5750 ALMADEN EXPWY SAN JOSE, CA 951 i8-3614 TELEPHONE (408} 265-2600 FACSIMILE (408) 266-027t www.valleywater.org May 15, 2003 Ms. Susan Ondik City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject:Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project - Response to Comment Letters Reference:Comment Letters by Ms. Florence M. LaRiviere, dated April 8, 2003 and Ms. Libby Lucas, dated May 7, 2003 Dear Ms. Ondik: Thank you for providing us a copy of the comment letters to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) referenced above and giving us the opportunity to respond to the assertions put forth by Ms. LaRiviere and Ms. Lucas. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) is committed to working with concerned citizens, the City of Palo Alto, and the regulatory agencies to provide a long-term solution to the potential flooding of Matadero and Barron Creeks. Design Background and Technical Review Before responding to the questions and comments raised by Ms. LaRiviere and Ms. Lucas, the District wishes to emphasize that the Matadero/Barron Creeks Remediation Project (project) brought for your review was developed after careful analyses and consideration by recognized experts1 in their respective professions of engineering, biology, and environmental planning. Furthermore, an independent peer review and value engineering study of the project was conducted by Value Management Strategies2 to optimize the project design. The District has also conducted numerous public workshops and meetings, and worked closely with the communities most affected by this project, the Midtown Residents Association and the Barron Parks Association, in developing the most technically appropriate, economically feasible, and environmentally conscious solution to the problem at hand. Our work is also subject to the regulations and guidelines imposed by the regulatory agencies, which include the Army Corps of Engineers (COE), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The major responsibilities of these agencies are to provide environmental stewardship; protect California’s diverse fish, wildlife, plant resources, and habitats; and preserve and enhance California’s water resources. Prior to construction of this project, these agencies must review the project I The firms that participated in developing this project include Schaaf & Wheeler (Civil Planning), D.J. Powers & Associates (Environmental Impact), HT Har.vey & Associates (Biological), Mark Thomas & Co (Civil Design), Lowney Associates (Geotechnical), and Sugimura Associates (Landscape Architects). ~ The firms that comprise the peer review consortium include Nolte Associates (Structural), Ninyo & Moore (Geotechnical), LTD Associates (Hydraulic), AMEC (Environmental), and Fraser Engineering (Civil). The mission of the Santa Clara Valley Water District is a healthy, safe and enhanced quality of living in Santa Clara County through the comprehensive management of water resources in a practical, costeffective and environmentally sensitive manner. Ms. Susan Ondik Page 2 of 4 May 15, 2003 components, before issuing their permits. Given the project nature, location, and land use restrictions, the District has worked with these regulatory agencies to develop environmentally appropriate designs and mitigation of habitats that conform to the most current state of the art. Recognizing the complexity and special nature of the technical aspects of this project, the City of Palo Alto has hired its own natural resource and revegetation experts, Mr. Gary Kittleson and Ms. Valerie Haley, to review the project and protect the interests of Palo Alto. They have provided valuable comments and suggestions which we have already incorporated into the design. The District is committed to working with Palo Alto’s Planning Department and Public Works Department in developing the most appropriate design for this project. Response to Ms. LaRiviere’s Letter In her letter dated April 8, 2003, Ms. LaRiviere commented that "Riparian vegetation and upland refugia were fully evident in the past, and are almost non-existent today." As part of this project, the regulatory agencies require a 3 to 1 replacement for riparian habitats and a 2 to 1 replacement for wetland habitats. Our mitigation and monitoring plan complies with these guidelines. With this project, the District will create more riparian habitat in Palo Alto. Additionally, this project will create more wetland habitat on-site than currently exists. Ms. LaRiviere also commented that this is a "pick and shovel project" rather than a "bulldozer" project. Unfortunately, Ms. LaRiviere does not fully comprehend the construction constraints of this project. Due to the proximity to habitats of the salt harvest mouse and potential nesting birds, federal and local guidelines limit the construction and maintenance window to roughly a 3 month period in the summer months. The project extent comprises a 55-foot wide by 1200-foot long area in soft bay deposits, which by itself creates very difficult working conditions. Without using suitable construction equipment, the project cannot be reasonably constructed or maintained. Ms. LaRiviere has also starkly categorized this project as "concrete walls." In fact, as shown on the landscaping plans, the District has worked with the City’s Planning Department to create vegetated earth embankments. The District has also worked with our landscape architect, to provide a planting palette that will screen the overflow channel from the Municipal Service Center (MSC), the drivers along East Bayshore Road and Highway 101, and the recreational users of the Baylands. While this project will impact approximately 290 trees (63 of which are non-native eucalyptus trees, and 190 of which are willows), the District will plant over 365 new trees (including native oaks and sycamores), 500 new shrubs, and 1000 new willows. With the exception of the inlet ramp at the entrance to the channel and the floodwall planned adjacent to East Bayshore Road (refer to page 3), the project will not be visible to the casual user of this area. In fact, for their own safety, pedestrians are currently discouraged from accessing behind the MSC (i.e. they must walk around a gated fence on the south or along an unmaintained path that runs adjacent to the north side of the MSC). Lastly, Ms. LaRiviere suggests that "the mitigation proposed is of concern because it is not directly connected to a creek, so it does not duplicate the characteristics of the damaged land." As discussed above, this project has been carefully evaluated by the District’s civil and biological experts, the City’s biological experts, and reviewed by the regulatory agencies which directly oversee the mitigation requirements. Significant professional efforts have been put in by all responsible parties involved in this project to develop the mitigation plan. Ms. Susan Ondik Page 3 of 4 May 15, 2003 Response to Ms. Lucas’ Letter In her letter dated May 7, 2003, Ms. Lucas asserts that the project will "divert" the "flushing flows that are needed to clear sediment through Matadero Creek’s narrow non-gradient channel into the lower basin and out to San Francisco Bay." This assertion is misleading because the project will not be "diverting" Matadero Creek. It merely provides a passage for the overflow’~ to enter the flood basin instead of backing up into the City of Palo Alto. Ms. Lucas claims that the "diversion" will "permanently dewater and decimate refugia in the unique Baylands riparian corridor [by] directing stormwaters and debris to the inner basin that has no tidal action." Again, this claim is erroneous as the project will not be draining Matadero Creek. It will only provide a channel to convey the flood flows that exceed Matadero’s current capacity. During significant storm events, the entire Palo Alto Flood Basin (PAFB) will be covered by water, just as it always has. Ms. Lucas claims that "if the present creek channel silts up the dynamics of the tidal circulation in the basin will be lost." Again, the District would like to re-emphasize that the project has been carefully analyzed and reviewed by the District’s team of experts. Additionaliy, as part of our planning study, Dr. George Annandale, an internationally renowned sedimentation expert, has reviewed the project from a sedimentation perspective. The City’s own biological consultant, Mr. Gary Kittleson, is also an expert in stream sedimentation. The District has also established a long- term survey plan to monitor the creek channel geometry. The monitoring plan has been thoroughly reviewed by Mr. Kittleson, and the District has incorporated his review comments. Ms. Lucas suggests that the "proposed cement wall adjacent to the Bay Trail bike path is a further aesthetic loss." The District recognizes that aesthetics are a major part of the environmental impacts that we are committed to mitigate. We are currently working with the City’s Planning Department and our landscape architect to provide shrubs along the outside edge of the wall to visually screen the wall from recreational users of the bike path. We also welcome comments and suggestions by the ARB on this matter. Ms. Lucas suggests diverting City drains to a 24" Caltrans pipe that outfalls into the Emily Renzel Marsh. Neither the drains nor this pipe is under the District’s jurisdiction. Ms. Lucas suggests exploring the "use of the former Sterling Canal that historically channeled Matadero flows to Barron Creek at the Bay’s edge." The City of Palo Alto filled in the Sterling Canal in the late 1960s. The City right-of-way that formerly contained the Sterling Canal now contains underground storm drains which route water from Barron Creek, beneath Matadero Creek, to a City pump station. This idea is not professionally merited nor is it feasible from the City of Palo Alto’s perspective. Perhaps City staff could more appropriately address this item. Lastly, Ms. Lucas suggests exploring the use of underground storage tanks under Gunn High School. This is essentially the off-stream storage idea discussed in the Engineer’s Report (page 5-9). As discussed in the ER, to achieve some flood attenuation effect, the storage tanks would need to hold 130 acre-feet of water. To give some magnitude to this quantity, the tanks would need to have a 20-acre footprint and be over 6 feet high! This well exceeds the capacity of the underground storage tanks beneath Gunn High School. The overflow refers to the water that exceeds the current capacity of Matadero Creek and backs up into Palo Alto. Ms. Susan Ondik Page 4 of 4 May 15, 2003 Finally, as part of Ms. Lucas’ enclosures, she references the "Mathematical Model Study of the Palo Alto Flood Basin and Yacht Harbo¢’ and asserts that this study was "made to comply with U.S. COE Permit No. 74-60-72 to City of Palo Alto for loss of Bay marshlands due to sanitary landfill." We reviewed this report and have attached the executive summary to this letter. As shown in the summary, the "two-fold purpose of the study was to: 1.Determine the feasibility of re-introducing a viable tidal marsh environment within the flood basin without impairing its essential function as a flood storage basin. Determine the feasibility of releasing tidal flows from the flood basin into the Yacht Harbor to improve hydraulic circulation and thereby transport deposited sediment back out to San Francisco Bay." (This was deemed not feasible and does not apply to our project.) The findings of this study pertinent to our project are: 1."That adequate tidal circulation can be achieved by replacing a single tide gate with a slide gate controlled automatically to maintain a maximum water surface in the flood basin." (This finding was incorporated into the operation of the PAFB tide gates in 1979.) "With respect to sedimentation deposition, the study has determined that sediment inflows from the drainage area above the basin contribute very little to sediment deposition within the flood basin. Principal channels in the basin will experience some shoaling, but will tend to maintain their present configuration with equilibrium sediment depths below the maximum water surface elevation of -1.7 feet MSL." (This is consistent with the District’s findings that Matadero Creek’s sedimentation is in equilibrium.) Closure We trust that this letter provides you additional insight into the technical nature and rigorous review that this project has already undergone. In developing the project, the District’s consulting experts have reviewed the most current strategies and viable alternatives to solving the flooding problem along Matadero and Barron Creeks. District staff has also worked closely with City of Palo Alto staff to produce the most technically and economically feasible alternative available, which is the project before you today. We look forward to continuing working with the City staff and ARB to complete the site and design review. Please contact me at (408) 265-2607, extension 2927, or Steven Wu at extension 2987, if you have any questions. Sincere.~.~. C. Liang Lee,...~. Senior Projedt~Manager Capital Program Services Division cc w/att:Joe Teresi, Palo Alto Public Works John Lusardi, Palo Alto Planning Department K. Oven, J. Micko, J. Christie, M. Dargis, E. Tsou, S. Wu, E. Gabrielsen, T. Inman, Project File prepared for THE CITY OF PALO ALTO MARCH 15, 1975 MA OF AND YACHT HARBOR THEMA TICA L MODEL S TUD Y THE PALO ALTO FLOOD BAS~t~ TC 425 P35. K5 1975 C.2 LIBRARY SUMMARY The Palo Alto Flood Basin was closed off originally from San Francisco Bay in 1956 with the construction of tide gates and perimeter levees which have eliminated all tidal circulations in the basin. The 600-acre tidally protected basin now serves as a storage basin for flood waters discharged to Matadero, Adobe and Barton Creeks as they traverse the City. Because the flood basin is one of the few undisturbed wetlands remaining in the San Francisco Bay area, it has been designated by the City of Palo Alto as a wetland preserve. The flood basin thus constitutes an invaluable resource as a tidelands natural area and wildlife refuge where numerous species of waterfowl, shore birds and mammals find permanent habitat. This report summarizes the findings of a mathematical model study of the Palo Alto Flood Basin and Yacht Harbor. The two-fold purpose of the study was to: Determine the feasibility of re-introducing a viable tidal marsh environment within the flood basin without impairing its essential function as a flood storage basin. Determine the feasibility of releasing tidal flows from the flood basin into the Yacht Harbor to improve hydraulic circulation and thereby transport deposited sediment back out to San Francisco Bay. The findings of the mathematical modeling study of the Palo Alto Flood Basin and Yacht Harbor are summarized in the paragraphs below. I-l In the absence of long-term records describing the hydraulic behavior of the flood basin and Yacht Harbor, several mathematical models were employed for the purpose of simulating hydraulic circulation under assumed conditions of tide and stormwater inflows. Mathematical models of hydraulic systems have been used for the past 15 years to test alternative plans for improved circulation and water quality control. When such models are developed from basic, laws governing fluid motion, they can be considered valid from a physical standpoint and become very useful tools in examining alternative water resource management plans. In the case of the Palo Alto Flood Basin, mathematical models based on basic principles of mass continuity and conservation of fluid momentum were applied. These models were tested against one another and also against the results obtained in an independent study conducted by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. In each case~ nearly identical results were obtained for the same boundary and starting conditions. The models were then used to guide engineering judgment concerning the impact of proposed modifications on hydraulic circulation and sedimentation in the flood basin and Yacht Harbor. In the absence of complete historical data and valid models, engineeringjudgment on such matters in systems as complex as the Palo Alto Flood Basin and Yacht Harbor becomes somewhat speculative. The analysis of computer simulation results in this study has shown that restoring tidal circulation to principal channels of the flood basin is hydraulically feasible. However, a maximum water surface elevation of -1.7 feet MSL must be maintained if the entire upper-lying grassland areas are to be preserved in their present state. The study has found that adequate tidal circulation below elevation -I.7 feet MSL can be achieved by replacing a single tide gate with a slide gate controlled automatically to maintain a maximum water surface in the ~lood basin. This modification to the existing tide gate structure is recommended for design and construction. It is recommended further that I-2 the maximum water surface elevation be set initially at -2.0 feet MSL. This initial surface elevation can be increased gradually to -I.7 feet MSL based upon adequate field reconnaissance and sampling work to insure that proper environmental conditions are in fact being established in the flood basin. The analysis of flood storage capability and sedimentation has been based on the assumption of a maximum water surface elevation in the flood basin of -1.5 feet MSL rather than -1.7 feet MSL. This assumption is more seve..~e from the standpoint of usable flood storage capacity and therefore the results of the flood simulation and sediment analysis are conservative. Computer simulations in the flood basin under conditions of maximum inflow and tide have shown that the flood storage capacity of the basin is not significantly reduced if the maximum tidal water surface is maintained below elevation -1.5 feet MSL. The flood storage analysis includes the loss of storage taken up by sediment deposition in the basin. Operating conditions for effective flood control in the basin include provisions for automatic closing of the slide gate during high tide just prior to flood inflow. With respect to sediment deposition: the study has determined that sediment inflows from the drainage area above the basin contribute very little to sediment deposition within the flood basin. Suspended sediment inflow from San Francisco Bay, on the other hand, is the primary source of sediment deposition in the flood basin. It is estimated that an equilibrium sediment depth approaching elevation =I.7 feet MSL will be reached in the isolated interior portions of the basin within one to two years of opening the flood basin to tidal circulation. Principal channels in the basin will experience some shoaling, but will tend to maintain their present configuration with equilibrium sediment depths below the maximum water surface elevation of -I.7 feet MSL. I-3 The results of this study indicate that tidal circulation can be restored to the flood basin in an elevation range such that salt marsh plants, such as Salicornia and Spartina, are known to survive Further, by limiting tidal flows to elevation -1.7 feet MSL, the upland grass areas now present in the basin can be preserved. Restoring limited tidal circulation to the flood basin in this way offers a number of important advantages for environmental enhancement. With the growth of Spartina along principal channel ways and the preservation of the existing upland meadow grasses, a more natural salt marsh plant community will be established than exists pr.esently in the flood basin. The presence of increased hydraulic circulation induced by tidal inflows will reduce the potential danger of waterfowl botulism normally associated with anaerobic, stagnant water conditions. It will provide a new source of nutrients from San Francisco Bay which will further encourage the development of a more balanced salt marsh aquatic community. Finally, the presence of tidal waters in the flood basin will act to buffer sharp changes in salinity during periods of fresh water inflow in the winter and periods of hypersaline conditions in the summer. Each of the above factors appears desirable from the standpoint of achieving a balanced salt marsh environment in the flood basin at a level which meets the objectives of marshland restoration consistent with the Open Space Element of the Palo Alto General Plan. The proposed modification of the existing tide-gate structure is a cost-effective means of salt marsh restoration to the principal channels of the flood basin. The cost of replacing a single tide gate with a slide gate, together with automatic lift, water level recorder, and remote sensing equipment, has been estimated at $65,000. This cost assumes a construction period commencing in mid-1976. Computer simulation of the Yacht Harbor, with tide gate connection to the flood basin, has shown that very little improvement I-4 in present harbor shoaling patterns can be expected as the result of summertime releases from the basin to the Yacht Harbor. Only by substantially increasing the hydraulic head difference between the flood basin and the harbor can adequate scouring velocit#es be maintained in the harbor. However, the higher tidal water surface elevation in the flood basin is undesirable from the standpoint of preserving selected marsh grass species. Furthermore, the costs of placing 16 additional tide gates leading to the Yacht Harbor are estimated at $361,000. In view of these high costs and the questionable improvements in hydraulic circulation, the Yacht Harbor gates do not appear justified. ATTAC NT K 5750 ALMADEN EXPWY SAN JOSE, CA 95118-3614 TELEPHONE (408) 265-2600 FACSIMILE (408) 266-0271 www.voHeywater.org AN EQUAL ©PFO~TUNfTY, EMPLOYE~ June 20,2003 Ms. Susan Ondik Planner, Planning Division City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Subject:Matadero/Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project - Response to Palo Alto Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board Amendments to Staff Recommendation Reference:City of Palo Alto Planning Commission Meeting, April 9, 2003, Meeting Minutes City of PaD Alto Architectural Review Board Meeting, June 5, 2003 Dear Ms. Ondik: Thank you for your continued assistance in guiding our project through Palo AIto’s Site and Design review process. We appreciate the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommendation1 to the City Council for approval of the Site and Design review for the proposed Matadero Creek Flood Control Plan submitted by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District). In addition to approval of the staff recommendation, the PTC recommended three amendments as follows: o For the Applicant (District) to consider amending their proposed project mitigation plan by exploring the use of alternate sites and habitat types to mitigate the project-related loss of riparian habitat, including the use of off-site and non-riparian mitigation, and to coordinate with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE), with the goal of reducing or eliminating the use of the proposed off-site mitigation site at 2027 East Bayshore Road, currently leased by the District to Ciardella’s Garden Supply. For the Applicant to explore the development of an interim habitat plan that would reduce project impacts by planting and establishing primarily on-site habitat areas prior I The PTC and ARB recommendation to the City Council includes: a) adopt findings for this project from the Final Environmental Impact Report, b) approve an amendment to the Baylands Master Plan and adopt a Park Improvement Ordinance, for the portion of the Santa Clara Valley Water District flood control channel in Byxbee Park, c) approve the Site and Design for the proposed Matadero Creek flood control improvements, and d) gant the requested easements in and around the Municipal Services Center (MSC) to the District in exchange for an easement to the City for a future storm water pump station. The mission of the Santa Clara Valley Water District is a healthy, safe and enhanced quali~/o~ living in Santa Clara County ~,~ through the comprehensive management at water resources in a practical, cos~’~ffecfive and environmentally sensitive manner. Ms. Susan Ondik Page 2 of 5 June 20, 2003 to the planned removal of existing habitat areas within the project site. The scope of the interim habitat plan shall not include the off-site mitigation site at 2027 East Bayshore Road. For the Applicant to further explore alternative project designs that would utilize other channel alignments and floodplain alternatives, including the Emily Renzel Marsh, in order to avoid removal of existing riparian vegetation. The ARB also recommended three amendments to the staff recommendation as follows: 1. Add integral color to the concrete ramp visible at the start of the channel. 2. Provide landscape screening for views from East Bayshore Road and Highway 101. 3.Explore alternative off-site mitigation options (other than 2027 East Bayshore Road), including the exploration of the Stevens Creek site reference (by Mr. Bob Moss’ in the public testimony regarding the project. Presented below is the District’s response to address the PTC and ARB amendments 1. Alternate Sites and Habitat Types (,,pTC) Pursuant to our meeting with PTC on April 9, 2003, the District has contacted the regulatory staff assigned to our project for the downstream permit, Krissy Atkinson with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and Paul Amato with the Regio.nal Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to inquire about the feasibility of using alternate sites and habitat types to mitigate the project impacts to riparian habitat. We also understand that your consultant, Gary Kittleson, has also consulted with Dave Johnston of CDFG to inquire about the feasibility of the aforementioned out-of-kind mitigation request from the City. Based on the discussions, CDFG would not be in favor of using a number of alternate smaller mitigation sites in lieu of one large contiguous mitigation site. Although mitigation is determined on a case by case basis, there are general principles followed by CDFG in order to preserve, protect and enhance existing natural resources, per Fish and Game Code. The function and value of both the impact area and the mitigation site are taken into consideration by the regulatory agencies during this process. Additionally, the project’s Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (adopted last year) include the District owned East Bayshore Site for mitigation. The CDFG would also not be in favor of accepting non-riparian (i.e. wetland or upper woodland) or out-of-kind mitigation for project impacts to riparian corridors along Matadero Creek. Mitigation is done to replace what is removed so there is proportionality. The ecology of it is a complex process. One cannot look at merely "a tree for a tree;" other factors such as wildlife foraging, cover and habitat are also an important part of the function and value process. According to CDFG counsel, one cannot impose mitigation not related by impact; it would be unconstitutional and may be considered a "take." In an email message to the District on June 6, 2003, the RWQCB emphasized that "mitigation should be in-kind, on-site (whenever possible) and occurring prior to or concurrent Ms. Susan Ondik Page 3 of 5 June 20, 2003 with the project impacts." CDFG adds that the streams within Santa Clara County are unique and highly specialized systems. The flora and fauna within these creeks has adapted to living within these environments; creek corridors juxtaposed with urbanization. Because of the specialized ecology, CDFG recommends mitigation within a close proximity to the impact area, either on the same creek or a neighboring creek. Both CDFG and RWQCB have also voiced the issue of additional "temporal loss" relative to the request for delay of creating the mitigation site. We are waiting for formal correspondence to address the issue. 2. Interim Habitat Plan (PTC) Planting and establishing habitat areas on-site prior to removal of the existing habitat areas at the site is not feasible considering the sequence of construction. Construction of the overflow bypass channel necessitates that the entire footprint of the channel as well as the triangular mitigation area be cleared prior to construction. As currently planned, construction of the overflow channel will be completed in 4 to 6 months. With the limited construction window, staging of plant removal would be impractical and seriously jeopardize completion of the project, increasing construction costs and imposing unnecessary delays. Planting of on-site mitigation areas need to be performed after construction to ensure that the plantings will not be disturbed or damaged by construction equipment. Additionally, a number of the on-site mitigation areas need to be graded down to meet the elevations required to establish mitigation plantings. The use of off-site plantings (other than at 2027 East Bayshore Road) is also impractical because there are no other sites with similar geomorphic conditions that can accommodate the off-site mitigation needs. On the other hand, the District is willing to remove the invasive species on-site earlier in the construction schedule and begin nursery planting of the mitigation species earlier to develop larger specimens at the time of planting. We have started talking to the regulatory agencies about this approach. So far the response has been positive. This work may start as soon as we receive the CDFG permit for the downstream section. 3. Emily Renzel Marsh (pTC) This alternative, as well as many other conceptual alternatives, were considered as part of our planning study. Chapter 5 of the Final Engineer’s Report (FER) summarizes the feasibility of each alternative evaluated. In particular to the Emily Renzel Marsh alternative, this alternative would require constructing approximately 8,500 lineal feet of containment levee around the marsh, impacting 1.42 acres of USCOE jurisdictional wetlands (requiring 2.84 acres of wetland mitigation). Additionally, 2,200 lineal feet of levee would be required to protect the adjacent ITT site, impacting 12.0 acres of saltwater marsh (requiring 24.0 acres of saltwater marsh mitigation). And 0.05 acre of riparian habitat would be impacted by constructing the overflow spillway on the Matadero Creek bank (requiring 0.15 acre of riparian mitigation). Ms. Susan Ondik Page 4 of 5 June 20, 2003 The cost for this alternative is $47 million, which exceeds the limit of feasible project cost (compared to $5 million for the overflow bypass alternative). The associated environmental impact of this alternative includes 24.0 acres of saltwater marsh habitat (compared to 0.77 acre of permanent riparian and marsh impact for the proposed project). Breeding populations of the California clapper rail and the salt marsh harvest mouse may also be significantly impacted. For these reasons, the Emily Renzel Marsh alternative was deemed infeasible. In addition to the alternatives discussed in the FER, other alternatives were also considered during preliminary planning. These alternatives included shifting the entire overflow bypass channel onto the MSC property, shifting a portion of the overflow bypass channel onto the MSC property, or constructing an underground bypass channel beneath the MSC property. The District discussed these preliminary alternatives with the City of Palo Alto in June of 2000 and was directed not to locate the bypass channel through the MSC due to the usage needs of the MSC. 4. Addinq Inte.qral,,Color to Concrete Inlet Ramp(ARB) The District is amenable to this condition and will incorporate an integral earth-tone color to the visible portion of the concrete inlet ramp. The District may also "broom" in soil onto the surface of the concrete inlet ramp to further camouflage the concrete. 5. Additional Landscape Screeni£.q to the North of MSC (ARB) The District and our consultants will visit the site to explore the potential for providing landscaping along the District maintenance ramp adjacent to the south side of the Emily Renzel levee (in particular, the planting of willows) and within the corner of the Emily Renzel Marsh to the north of the Emily Renzel levee (in particular, planting of taller trees for screening). This amendment to provide additional screening to the north of the project may or may not be feasible, depending on soil conditions, easements, and maintenance needs to access the creek. 6. Stevens Creek Site Referenced by Bob Moss (ARB) The site in question is actually the former Cargill Salt Ponds located near Mountain View. State and federal agencies have recently acquired these salt ponds with the intent to restore these lands to Bay tidal wetlands. Prior to restoration to tidal wetlands, Cargill is responsible for removing any hazardous waste that may exist and leave the ponds in a condition to discharge to the Bay. This site is not feasible for mitigation of our project because these lands will not be available for approximately 15 years. The regulatory agencies require that mitigation for this project occur prior to or concurrent with construction. Timeline For your information, we have prepared the following timeline to assist the City Council in understanding our schedule. Ms. Susan Ondik Page 5 of 5 June 20, 2003 Parks and Recreation Commission December 17, 2002 - Recommended Approval (4-2, with 1 absent) Planning and Transportation Commission April 9, 2003 - Recommended Approval (5-2) Architectural Review Board June 5, 2003 - Recommended Approval (4-0, with 1 abstention due to conflict of interest) Palo Alto City Council Scheduled for July 14, 2003 Start/End of Downstream Construction April 15, 2004 - October 15, 2004 Conclusion It bears emphasis that the District and its team of consultants has thoroughly evaluated the realistically feasible alternatives to the project. The District also hired a consortium of experts representing six specialty engineering firms to review the project from a value engineering standpoint. We feel that the proposed project before you is the most reasonable and practical solution for flood protection improvement on Matadero Creek. This project will protect 4,700 properties from flooding. If you have additional comments on this project, please do not hesitate to contact me. I trust that this letter provides you the necessary information to address the Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board amendments to your staff recommendation to the City Council. Please email or contact me at (408) 265-2607, extension 2927 or Mr. Eric Tsou at extension 2690, if you have any questions. Sincerely, C. Liang Le._~, P.E. Senior Project Manager Santa Clara Valley Water District CC:Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer, City of Palo Alto John Lusardi, Planning Manager, City of Palo Alto K. Oven, J. Micko, L. Lee, E. Tsou, T. Inman, M. Dargis, S. Wu, E. Gabrielsen, Project File ATTACHMENT L Matadero and Barron Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project Presentation to Palo Alto City Council July 14, 2003 @ 7:00pm Santa C~ara Valley Water D~strict6 To complete 100-year flood protection work for Matadero and B arron Creeks’ residents between Highway 101 and Alma Street Protect the residents and businesses in Palo Alto from flooding on Matadero and Barron Creeks Protect the riparian corridor that lines Matadero Creek downstream of Hwy 101 Improve the aesthetics around the Municipal Services Center 2 plain Matadero ~arron Creek Fig. 7-8 from ER Area Remove~ from 1% Flood Hazard Limit of Tidal]Flooding cope of Work Rebuild Louis Road Bridge Raise floodwalls 1 to 2 feet between Hwy 101 and Alma Street Build an overflow channel downstream of Hwy 101 next to the Municipal Services Center Matadero Creek Barron Creek Diversion City of Palo Alto ........ Mu~!~ip.al Service Center rpstream of 101 o Approved by CPA Staff o Permitted by regulatory agencies o Construction work started in June 2003 o Will be completed by November 2004 4 ownstream of 101 In the B aylands Need CPA Council Approval of Site and Design Review, Park Amendment Ordinance, and MSC Easement Plan to start construction April 2004 Will be completed November 2004 Process Planning study started in 1999 Public meetings- June 1999; September 1999; February 2000 Presentation to CPA Council February 2000 Design started in September 2001 Draft ER/EIR circulated for public review October 2001 Public Hearing- November 2001 5 idents Creek Association to gn Meetings with Ms. Lucas July 8, 2002, November 20, 2002 Final EIR adopted by District Board December 2002 CPA hired independent consultant to review project plan Continuous consultation with City Planning and Public Works and regulatory agencies to improve design 6 1.No project (doesn’t solve flooding problem) 2.Remove structures from floodplain/flood-proof (not feasible from social or economic standpoint; $250 million cost) 3.Dam Matadero/Barron Creek (not feasible due to relocation of Hwy 280, loss of 5 acres of riparian corridor; $80 million cost) 4.Off-stream storage facility at Foothill Expressway/Page Mill Road (red-legged frog issues, Stanford land not available; $40 million cost) clapper rail and salt ,use habitat; $47 million cost) 6.Underground culvert beneath Loma Verde from Alma to PAFB (construction impacts to residents; $75 million cost) 7.Underground culvert beneath East Bayshore (traffic and grade impacts on East Bayshore, maintenance difficulties; $15 million cost) 8. D/S 101 Channel Restoration to 1970s width (4 acres of impact to wildlife, wetland, and riparian habitats; $15 to $18 million cost) 9.D/S Overflow Bypass Channel (0.8 acres of permanent impact; $5 million cost)=Preferred Alternative Originally Proposed Overflow Bypass gnment .eview November 21, 2002 - Public Arts Commission (Upstream) December 17, 2002- Parks and Recreation Commission (recommended approval 4-2) April 9, 2003 - Planning and Transportation Commission (recommended approval 5-2) June 5, 2003 - Architectural Review Board (recommended approval 4-0) 11 Flood Basin and Biological Habitats John Bourgeois, HT Harvey & Associates Overflow Bypass Channel is located on the northwestern edge of the Palo Alto Flood Basin (PAFB) PAFB is a man-made system -Levees surround the PAFB -15 flap-gates/1 sluice gate control tidal influence - Freshwater sources: Adobe, Barron, and Matadero PAFB tidal range is approximately 1.3 feet Diked salt marsh is the dominant habitat in the PAFB - Pickleweed dominated -Habitat for the salt marsh harvest mouse 12 tsln .tats Habitats within the mapped project area (in acres): - Willow riparian: 3.18 - Freshwater marsh: 0.48 - Diked coastal salt marsh: 0.60 - Eucalyptus: 0.52 - Aquatic: 0.60 - Coyote brush scrub: 0.22 - Ruderal: 2.10 - Developed: 0.40 13 tats The goal is to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive habitats Permanent impacts (acres) -Willow riparian: 0.66 -Freshwater marsh: 0.11 -Eucalyptus: 0.52 -Ruderal/Developed: 1.20 Temporary impacts (acres) -Willow riparian: 0.48 -Freshwater marsh: 0.06 o Compensate for the loss of riparian and wetland habitat o Where possible mitigate on-site and in-kind o Eradicate invasive, non-native species in project area o Improve habitat for wildlife 14 n ,n Rationale Similar geomorphic setting In close proximity to impact site Site that can accommodate all of the project’s mitigation needs Owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District 15 Initially project will result in the loss of riparian and wetland habitat functions and values o The project improves the long-term habitat conditions The project also creates additional habitat along San Francisquito Creek Wildlife use will be improved in the long-term condition 16 MSC on Project will protect the residents and businesses in Palo Alto from flooding Protect the riparian corridor that lines Matadero Creek Improve the aesthetics around the MSC i7 July 1, 2003 Dena Mossar, Mayor Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto Civic Center 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ATTACHMENT M Dear Mayor Mossar and Council Members, On your July 14 council calendar, the Santa Clara Valley Water District is asking for final approval of their Matadero Creek flood control project in the Palo Alto Baylands. In reviewing the long-term benefits of this design, I wonder if they are all that you would wish for your constituents. The proposed Matadero Creek bypass is actually a diversion of peak flood flows around the Municipal Service Center to a 40- acre diked marsh and uplands area, just inboard of the Los Altos-Mountain View sanitary sewer line. This marsh area holds a large lake, (due south of the MSC), surrounded by tules, a fa~rite for resident families of ducks and migratory waterfowl. The District should explain how their diversion of 5 and 10-year event peak flows of 500+ cfs (aprox), not to mention 100-year event flows of 1400 cfs, will be absorbed by this marsh. It appears that water depths of six feet would be generated in a six hour period with a 500 cfs flow. As stormwaters flow into the marsh and take (Figure 3-3), will they not rapidly breach the levee trails, inundating the Iowlying area adjacent to East Bayshore and comingle with basin tidal waters? Would this exacerbate the tidal backflow to the residential community across #101? This tidal flooding is not legally the District’s responsibility, but it would certainly be hard to distinguish between the ~lumes of water from the different sources. Figure 7-8 shows the anticipated limit of tidal flooding as well as the residual flooding due to local storm drainage capacity, for which the District also is not liable. The U.S. COE report on the 1998 February storm event has a map of San Francisquito Creek flooding that shows the sheet flows reaching across Oregon Ave. to Matadero Creek. As noted in Figure 1-1 this area of bank overflow (1900 cfs) is entirely within the Matadero Creek watershed and yet these flows qualify as residual flooding due to local storm drain capacity. The raised levees along Matadero Creek will do nothing to retum this residual flooding to the creek and out of the neighborhoods when stormwater drains are unde[water. Does this flood control project really live up to the claim of being the long-term remediation of flooding in the Matadero and Barron Creeks watershed? It would seem that the council could get a better Matadero Creek drainage channel capacity to Mayfleld Slough and the Bay for their $8 million. A realinement of levee at the choke point where the Matadero Creek floodway narrows from 250’ to 150’ is the most probable location. It might provide a saner solution than taking out three hundred trees in this unique Baylands wildllife preserve and unleashing countless acre-feet of stormwaters around the MSC. Sincerely, 174 Yerba Sante Ave., Los Altos, CA 94022 4 enclosures Tuesday, July01, 2003 America Online: JLucas1099 Page: 1 PALO ALTO FLOOD BASIN ADOBE CREEK Figure 3-3o Sections of Levee around the Palo Alto Flood Basin with Elevations Less than 7 Feet Aerial Photo by Towill En, ,dneers~ April 1999 ............ s~aaf ~, Wheeler SPRR 0 1,500’ 3,000’ F----L__~~I SCALE: 1 INCH = 3,000 FEET Area Removed from 1% Flood Hazard Residual Flooding Due to Local Storm Drainage Capacity Limit of Tidal Flooding Figure 7-8.Reduction in RiveHne Flood Risk after Project Remediation .......... Schaaf’~" Wh~ele~r_ SCALE:10,000’ Figure 1-1. MATADERO & BARRON CREEl WATERSHED LOCATION MA