HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-15 City Council (5)TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003
CMR: 428:03
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 the Matadero Creek Long-Term Remediation 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 B.
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 SCVWD the
right to construct, operate and maintain portions of the Matadero Creek overflow
flood control channel on 0.86 acres of City prop.erty.
CMR: 428:03 Page 1 of 6
Subject to Condition of Approval # 12A, approve the early removal of non-native
vegetation, including the eucalyptus trees on-site, prior to bird nesting season,
which begins in January 2004.
BACKGROUND
Council consideration of the proposed project was continued at the July 14, 2003 Council
meeting and rescheduled for September 15, 2003. The staff report for the July 14
meeting (CMR 339:03) contains all pertinent information regarding this proj ect proposal.
The Site Plan, Plan Set, Final EIR, and Mitigation and Monitoring Report were provided
to Council Members in July and are available (along with the July CMR) for public
review at the Planning Division offices at City Hall. The following is a supplemental
report.
Council, when the item was continued on July 14tu, also requested a site visit, which
occurred on Friday, September 5 from 3:00 to 4:30 at the project site. The site visit was
noticed in the Palo Alto Weekly to members of the public. The site visit was attended by
Council Members Beecham, Freeman, Kishimoto, Kleinberg, Morton, and Ojakian; as
well as approximately 20 community members. Council Members who could not attend
have been provided with the informational packets distributed at the site visit. The site
visit packet did not represent any new information, but is being provided to ensure that all
Council Members have the same information. Parameters for the site visit outlined by
City staff were site orientation, project impacts, and mitigation. Staff requested that
policy-type questions or comments be raised at the September 15 regular Council session.
Several City staff members, the applicant, and consultants were available to provide
orientation and reply to questions regarding physical elements, impacts, mitigation and
the regulatory agency requirements of the project. The applicant led Council Members
and the public through different elements of the project, highlighting the beginning of the
project near Matadero Creek, the mitigation "triangular" area near the MSC, and the rear
outlet area, including the relocated access road and the proposed plantings. Council
Member discussion included questions on physical locations of the project elements,
flooding patterns, materials, impacted and replacement habitat, visual impacts,
construction and mitigation schedule, and landscaping elements. Three members of the
public spoke at the end of the site visit and expressed concerns over the project impacts to
public pathways and on regional flooding patterns. One community member expressed
support of the project.
DISCUSSION
Ciardella Property
The Ciardella Garden Supply site, as described in detail in the July 2003 CMR and
attachments, is proposed for the 0.64 acres of required riparian habitat mitigation that
cannot be.provided on-site. The existing lease between Ciardella and the Water District
is a year-to-year lease that also contains an early termination clause. The District
CMR: 428:03 Page 2 of 6
negotiated this type of lease so that it could use this site as a mitigation site when needed.
The applicant is currently in negotiations with Ciardella to potentially allow the business
to continue operation on a smaller portion of the leased land and still have the required
0.64 acres for off-site riparian habitat mitigation. The applicant will update the Council
on the status of this negotiation.
Regulating Agency Permit Status
The proposed project has submitted for permits from the California Department of Fish
and Game (1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Nationwide Permits #31 and #33) and Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB)(for review of Corps permits & for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification).
The project applicant has indicated that the RWQCB and the State Department of Fish
and Game have accepted the 2027 East Bayshore Road site as feasible for the required
riparian habitat mitigation. Permit review is proceeding with these agencies. The
applicant will present an update to the Council on the status of the regulatory permits.
Project construction cannot commence until the applicant receives these permits.
10-Year Maintenance and Monitoring Plan
After hearing concerns regarding the maintenance of the existing Matadero Creek
channel, the City has added a 10-year Monitoring and Maintenance requirement to the
project, including monitoring of the new flood control channel and the existing Matadero
Creek channel, the cost of which will be covered by the applicant. The site and design
review process allows the City the opportunity to add enforceable project conditions,
such as the long term monitoring requirement, to ensure the future maintenance and
monitoring is conducted. The Maintenance and Monitoring Plan will cover a 10 year
time period and will include monitoring, reporting, submittal requirements for
environmental mitigation monitoring, maintenance of the proposed channel, monitoring
of the existing channel (for continued sediment transport modeling), soil testing
requirements for plantings, landscaping monitoring (including monitoring for non-native
percentages), and the implementation of all project conditions of approval.
Although the Maintenance and Monitoring Plan covers a 10 year period, the applicant,
similar to other projects in the city, will be required to continue maintenance for the life
of the project including sedimentation and vegetation removal for proper functioning of
the channel and replacement of landscaping trees.
Landscaping around the MSC
The project, in addition to the required mitigation plantings, will be providing
landscaping consisting of native vegetation around the entire Municipal Service Center
facility. Extending the landscaping beyond the project area and around the MSC is a
beneficial landscaping/screening element of the project.
CMR: 428:03 Page 3 of 6
Non-native Species Removal
Planning and Transportation Commission Condition #2 directed the applicant to explore
an Interim Habitat Plan. The applicant indicated in a letter to the City (Attachment K of
the July 14 CMR), that such a plan was not feasible due to the tight construction
schedule. However, some items meeting the intent of this condition, such as beNnning
nursery planting of the native species and removing non-native species as part of the
Eradication and Revegetation Plan (as described in Condition #12), prior to project
construction. This work could proceed after the applicant receives the project’s Fish and
Game permit and receives City approval of its Eradication and Revegetation Plan.
The applicant, as part of this non-native species removal, has requested permission to
remove the existing eucalyptus trees on-site prior to January 2004, at which time the
possibility of birds establishing nests in those trees increases. Therefore, removing those
trees prior to nesting will prevent this type of habitat impact during construction. The
City’s natural resource consultant agrees that allowing removal prior to bird nesting
season would be a prudent way to avoid nesting impacts. Although early removal is
beneficial to avoid nesting impacts, the removal of the eucalyptus trees on-site will be a
visual impact to the project site a few months earlier than project construction begins.
Staff is recommending that the early removal be approved subject to the following
conditions: 1) that the applicant submit to the satisfaction of the City the project
Eradication and Revegetation Plan, the 10-year Maintenance and Monitoring Plan, and
the construction logistics plan; 2) that the City have the opportunity to review the
project’s Fish and Game permit and its conditions prior to this removal; 3) that other non-
native removal in the existing Matadero Creek channel proceed at the same time; 4) that
the applicant post a sign on or near the project site (to be reviewed and approved by the
City) educating the public on the project and project schedule; and 5) that the applicant
enter into an written agreement to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director to
guarantee replacement of these trees since project construction would not begin until
April 2004. This has been added as Condition 12a.
Pedestrian and Bicgcle Pathways near the Proiect Site
Existing facilities near the project site include the paved pedestrian and bicycle pathway
along East Bayshore Road as well as a gravel and dirt pathway on the existing levee north
of Matadero Creek that provides access from East Bayshore Road to the Baylands and
Palo Alto flood basin. The proposed project will not impact these pathways. Although
the gravel access road that runs behind the MSC is currently gated and locked, pedestrian
access is possible. Access to the gravel road running behind the MSC is not proposed to
change, although the road itself will be shortened. The City and the Water District are
also exploring the potential of a separate project that would add a pedestrian and bicycle
pathway along Matadero Creek, under Highway 101, accessing near Greer Park or Greer
Road. The district is developing a feasibility analysis and will continue to work with
staff.
CMR: 428:03 Page 4 of 6
ARB Condition of Approval (#5) Regarding Screening
The ARB recommended that the applicant add additional screening on the levee just
north of Matadero Creek. Adding some additional vegetation could screen the beginning
of the project from vehicles and bicyclists traveling south on East Bayshore Road. The
beginning of the proposed project is not visible from southbound traffic on.Highway 101.
The applicant, with the consultation of the City Arborist, has agreed to plant vegetation,
such as Coyote Brush in areas near Matadero Creek.
Revisions to Conditions of Approval since Planning and Transportation Commission
Review
The following revisions have been made:
¯Condition 12A: imposes conditions on the early removal of non-native species
including the eucalyptus trees on-site, as discussed above.
Condition #26: the last sentence regarding temporary container plantings during
construction has been removed with the approval by the City Arborist. Instead the
applicant will install temporary construction fencing for more effective screening.
¯Condition #56: regarding digital as-built record drawings, the vertical controls for the
files has been changed from-"NGVD 1927" to "NAVD 1988".
Condition #59: The condition Impervious Area Calculations has been removed
because stormwater on the project site will run into the Palo Alto Flood Basin and not
into the City’s stormwater system, therefore the Stormwater Drainage Fee is not
applicable to the project.
Other Revisions
Site and Design Finding #4 has been amended to include Comprehensive Plan policies N-
9, N-10 and N-11 and to describe the proposed project’s consistency with these policies.
Resource Impact and Environmental Review sections have not changed from the July 14,
2003 CMR (339:03).
CMR: 428:03 Page 5 of 6
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Record of Land Use Approval including the Site & Design Findings,
Architectural Review Findings and Conditions of Approval.
Park Improvement Ordinance
Resolution Making EIR Findings
July 14, 2003 City Manager’s Report with Attachments (Council
only)
February 7, 2000 City Council Study Session Summary Minutes
Comment Letter(s) (Chronological Order)
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
)irector d-f Planning and Community Environment
Assistant City Manager
Gary Kittleson, Natural Resource Consulting
Liang Lee, Santa Clara Valley Water District
Larry Ciardella, Ciardella’s Garden Supply
Sheri Furman
Libby Lucas
Bob Moss
Florence LaRiviere
Emily Renzel
Ellie Gioumousis
CMR: 4_8:0~Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT A
APPROVAL NO. 2003-
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND 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 September 15, 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 contro! 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, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION i. Backqround. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Counci!") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On .July 29, 2002, the Santa Clara Valley water
District (SCVWD), "Applicant", applied for site and design and
architectural review for the installation of an approximately 1,200
foot long, 55-60 foot wide overf!ow flood control channel proposed
for the lower portion of Matadero Creek, downstream of East
Bayshore Road ("The Project").
B. The project includes the installation of the partial
concrete, partial 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
flood capacity, flood protection and convey a 100-year (1%) flood
event flow on Matadero 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 MSC
facility, including the applicant re!ocating the existing
transformer storage area on the MSC site. The proposed project
also requires a Park Improvement Ordinance, since a portion of the
improvements and the some of the required mitigation areas lie
within a strip of land located behind the MSC (map included in
Attachment B) that is within the boundary of Byxbee Park.
C. [History of prior project review - e.g. Following staff
review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the
project on April 9, 2003 recommending approval with the following
conditions: I) 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
000302 syn 0091213
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 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 shall not
include 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
floodplain alternatives, including the Emily Renzel Marsh, in
order to avoid removal of existing riparian vegetation. The
Architectural Review Board reviewed the project on May I and June
5, 2003 and recommended approval with the following conditions:
i) That the applicant add integral color to the concrete ramp
visible at the start of the channel; 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 exploration 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 Environmenta! 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.adoptedEIR
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 i0, 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.
000302 syn 0091213
SECTION 3.Site and Desiqn Review Findinqs
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 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.
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%) 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.
3.Sound principles of environmental design and ecological
balance are observed in the project in that:
The proposed location of the project is replacing a historic
overflow channel that is smaller in size, but does not currently
000302 syn 0091213
3
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 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 wil! 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.
The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan in that:
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) while protecting the natura! environment (N-
9, N-10, N-If) .
Policy N-9: "Avoid fencing, piping~ and channelization of creeks
when flood control and public safety can be achieved through
measures that preserve the natural environment and habitat of the
creek."
Policy N-10: "Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District
000302 syn 0091213
and other relevant regional agencies to enhance riparian
corridors and provide adequate flood control by use of low impact
restoration strategies."
Policy N-If: "Preserve the integrity of riparian corridors."
The project is located within Byxbee Park and Baylands area, but is
consistent with other flood control infrastructure (channel,
levees) in the area. The proposed project branches off the
existing Matadero Creek channel. The existing creek will still
receive flows, even during flood events and non-native vegetation
in the creek will be replaced with native riparian plantings.
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. Increasing the
amount and quality of riparian habitat in the project area, as well
as adding native trees at a higher density around the MSC, and
replacing non-native habitat with riparian plantings will in the
long term enhance willow riparian and native habitat in the project
area.
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 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 Council
under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.82.070, subject to the
conditions of approval in Section 8 of this Record.
SECTION Architectural Review Findings.
1. The design is consistent and compatible wi th
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
000302 syn 0091213
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 i s compa tibl e
environment of the site, in that:
with the immediate
Although the project is located in the Baylands, the proposed
channel is !ocated between two existing flood levees and, by
bending the alignment of the channel across the corner 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 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. The channel is partially concrete, partially
earthen, and following a storm event the concrete portion will
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 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:
000302 syn 0091213
6
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 recreationa! path/
parking area just north of the Matadero Creek/East Bayshore Road
bridge and from the recreational pathway running along East
Bayshore Road. During construction these areas wil! be screened
with fencing. Fol!owing construction, the area will be replanted
with more native species, including the placement of some larger
(15 gallon) trees.
8. The amount and arrangemen t of open spa ce 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 MSC.
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:
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.
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 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 f!ow, 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.
000302 syn 0091213
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
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 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 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 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. 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 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 will also increase
landscaping screening of the MSC site. Long term monitoring and
000302 syn 0091213
8
maintenance will ensure improved native plant material and habitat.
.SECTION 6.Architectural Review Approval Granted.
Architectural Review Approval 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 Flood Basin (PAFB) to Alma Street", consisting of 135 pages,
dated April 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 !, 2003, revised May 16, 2003 and the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan dated January 29, 2003 except as modified to
incorporate these conditions of approval. These conditions of
approva! shall be printed on the cover sheet of the fina! plan
set submitted prior to start of construction.The revised plans
shal! include the fol!owing conditions.
A. PLANNING
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 (Ciarde!la Garden Supply).
[Planning & Transportation Commission]
o 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
000302 syn 0091213
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
f!oodplain alternatives, including the Emily Renzel Marsh,
order to avoid removal of existing riparian vegetation.
[Planning & Transportation Commission]
in
o 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 i0!. [Architectura!
Review Board]
o For the Applicant to continue to explore 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.
[Architectural Review Board]
o The proposed project shall comply with all existing
applicable policies, programs 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 time!ine 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.
°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 I01 is
preferred.
i0. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall
000302 syn 0091213
10
submit for Planning staff approval 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.
Ii.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 shall 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
-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 approva! 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.
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 natural resource consultant. This
plan shall include methods of removal (hand, mechanical,
pesticide) for species and their location 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 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.
12A. If early removal of non-native species on the project site,
including the eucalyptus trees is approved, it shall be subject
to the following conditions: i) that the Applicant submit to
the satisfaction of the City the project Eradication and
Revegetation Plan described above, the Maintenance and
Monitoring Plan described in Condition #15 below, and the
000302 syn 0091213
11
project logistics plan described in Condition #9 above; 2) that
the city have the opportunity to review the project’s approved
Fish & Game permit and its conditions prior to this removal; 3)
that other non-native removal in the existing Matadero Creek
channel proceed at the same time; 4) that the applicant post a
sign on or near the project site (to be reviewed and approved
by the city) educating the public on the project and project
schedule; and 5) that the Applicant enter into an written
agreement with the City to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director to guarantee replacement of these trees since they are
being removed prior to project construction.
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 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 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 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 fol!owed 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
000302 syn 0091213
12
16.
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 !0 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 submittal requirements outlined in
this document will become part of the project conditions.
As part of the Project Maintenance and Monitoring Plan
referenced in Condition #15, the Applicant shall include an
annual survey with at least i0 cross sections of the existing
Matadero Creek Channel and longitudinal survey of the
existing channel 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 control
construction dust.
¯Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
¯Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials
or require al! 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) al! 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.
18.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 accidenta! 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
000302 syn 0091213
13
19.
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.
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 al!owing 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 loca! 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
000302 syn 0091213
14
23.
24.
25.
City prior to the start of construction.
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 shal! 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 i0 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.
The applicant shall consider willow cuttings instead of
fascines from stations 13+20 to 17+20.
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 a!ong 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) 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
i01.
000302 syn 0091213
15
~ggetation 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.
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 shall 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, all 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.
Durinq 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 Pa!o
Alto Municipal Code.
31.The following tree preservation measures apply to all areas
outside of the work area
a. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment
shall be permitted outside the enclosure area.
b. The ground under and around the enclosure area shall not
be altered.
000302 syn 0091213
16
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. 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 shal! 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 deve!oped by the International
Society of Arboriculture. Trees shal! 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 shal!
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
000302 syn 0091213
17
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.
B.PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES
39.
40.
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 Pa!o
Alto necessary to complete the construction of the entire
project and its mitigation.
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 contractorshall
obtain a City of Palo Alto Encroachment Permit for placement
of temporary construction office trailers adjacent to the
Colorado Stormwater 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 additiona!
insured party.
44.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 shal! 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.
000302 syn 0091213
18
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
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 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 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. Al! 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.
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.
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.
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 shall require its contractor to incorporate
best management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution
prevention in all construction operations, in conformance
000302 syn 0091213
19
53.
54.
55.
with the Stormwater 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. (Pa!o 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 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 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.
56.At the conclusion of the project, applicant shall provide a
compact disc (CD) containing digital as-built record drawings
of al! 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 NAVD 1988 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.
57. SWPPP - The applicant must prepare and implement a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP
should include permanent, post development project design
000302 syn 0091213
2O
58.
features as well as temporary measures employed during
construction to control stormwater 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 shou!d~ 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 shal!
be included in the approved development plan set.
SECTION 9.Term of Approval.
i. Site and Design Approval. In the event actual
construction of the project is not commenced within two years of
the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of
no further force or effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.82.080.
2. Architectural Review Approval. The approval shall be
valid for one year from the original date of approval.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
000302 syn 0091213
21
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
i. Those plans prepared by Mark 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 36 pages, dated April 1,2003 (revised May 16, 2003).
2.Those plans prepared by Sugimura & Associates .titled
"Construction of Irrigation & Planting for Matadero Creek; Palo
Alto Flood Basin to Alma Street, Reach i", consisting of 23
pages, dated June 12, 2003, and received June 18, 2003.
3. Site Plan prepared by Mark Thomas & Company for the Santa Clara
Valley Water District titled "Matadero Creek PAFB to Highway i01
Site Plan", consisting of 1 page, dated May 28, 2003.
000302 syn 0091213
22
ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO APPROVING AND ADOPTING PLANS OF SANTA CLARA
VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR A FLOOD CONTROL
CHANNEL IN BYXBEE PARK FOR MATADERO CREEK
REMEDIATION PROJECT
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i. Findings and Declaration.
finds and declares as follows:
The City Council
(a)Article VIII of the ChapLe_ of the City of Palo
Alto and Section 22.08.005 of the Pa!o Alto Municipa! Code
require that, before any substantia! building, construction,
reconstruction or development is co.mmenced or approved, upon or
with respect to any land held by the City for park purpose, the
Council sha!l first cause to be prepared and by ordinance
approve and adopt a plan therefore.
(b) The City desires to approve and adopt a plan 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 Palo Alto Municipal Services Center
(MSC). This project is the downstream portion (Pa!o Alto F!ood
Basin to East Bayshore Road) of the larger Matadero/Barron
Creeks Long-Term Remediation Project. The portion from East
Bayshore Road to Alma Street is currently under construction.
Both portions are needed to meet !00-year f!ow leve! and
fol!owing construction of both, SCVWD can then apply to FEMA to
have flooding classifications changed. A map of the area
delineating boundaries of Byxbee Park andthe 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 finds that the flood
contro! channel, between 55 and 60 feet in width with partial
cast-in-place and partial earthen invert and walls, is the
preferred alternative proposed in the project EIR necessary to
alleviate f!ood damages to residents and properties of the City.
As a result of the flood protection, provided by this project,
030709 sm 0053067 1
approximately 4,700 properties will be removed from the
f!oodplain and 450 properties wil! no !onger be required to
purchase flood insurance. Following the construction of the
f!ood contro! improvements, the estimated damage in the event of
a 100-year f!ood 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 a!ong 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 partially concrete,
partially earthen f!ood contro! channe!. On the east side of
the channe! 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 wil! be added.
(e) The City Council further finds that although the
project’s impacts to wetland habitat (0.II acre) and riparian
habitat (0.66 acre) are not !ocated within Byxbee Park, some of
the required mitigation (0.28 acre wetland habitat and 2.46
acres riparian) for these impacts wi!l be provided on-site
including in the park and improve existing rudera! habitat
within the park with riparian and wetland plantings, as shown in
Figure 4 of the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan dated January 29,
2003. As part of the permitting process, the Applicant will be
required to create a wetland and riparian habitat restoration
plan, which upon approval from the jurisdictional agency will be
considered as part of the project.
(f) The City Council further finds that the proposed
project includes elements that are beneficia! to the park land
including utilizing the Palo 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 additiona! screening for the developed MSC site
!ocated adjacent to Byxbee Park.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby approves the plan of the
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) for construction of
f!ood control improvements in John Fletcher Byxbee Park, in the
vicinity of the City of Palo Alto Municipa! Services Center
(MSC), as described herein and depicted in Attachment B and in
Record of Council Land Use Approva! 2003-
030709 sm 0053067 2
SECTION 3. The lead agency for this project is SCVWD.
The City of Palo Alto as a responsible agency for the project
has made the requisite findings pursuant to CEQA in a Resolution
No. of the Counci! of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the
Adequacy of.the Fina! Environmenta! impact Report for the 3201
East Bayshore Road; Matadero Creek Long-Term Remediation Project
Pursuant to the California Environmenta! Quality Act, which was
adopted on July 14, 2003.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shal! be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
City Attorney City Manager
Director of Community
Services
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
030709 sm 0053067 3
The City of
Palo Alto
Area Covered by
Park Improvement
Ordinance
This map is a product of the
City of Pato Alto GIS
300’
ATTACHMENT A
I
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 t, 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 approximately l 1 +64 to 12+84. The
existing levee/access road area will be regraded to 7% or flatter and hydroseeded with
native grasses. Additionally, the construction of the concrete floodwall beNns 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 Byxbee Park.
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 3201 EAST BAYSHORE ROAD;
MATADERO CREEK LONG-TERM REMEDIATION 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 lower 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 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 i01 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.
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 environmenta! 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 environmental 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 oral
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 Final EIR.
030709 sm 0091312
D. The SCVWD 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
Fina! EIR included a ~no project" alternative, underground bypass
alternative, channel modification alternative, off-stream storage
alternative, channel restoration alternative, and expanded floodway
alternative. The environmentally superior alternative, the
underground bypass 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
long-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 final EIR and wasfiled 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://www.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 ("~{MP") 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 all other matters
deemed material and relevant before considering the Project for
approval. The City Council 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 EIR 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 21.092.1 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,
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. 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 environmental 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 will 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 well 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 channel slopes. The
District will include BMPs and mitigation including following 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 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; the bypass channel 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
biological 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 theimpacted
wetlands
-create at least 2.46 acres (replacement ratio of 3:1) of new
riparian habitat both on and off site to replace impacted
willow 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 biological surveys
as indicated in the EIR for species within or near the
immediate impact site including for Salt Marsh Harvest Mice,
Nest±ng 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 will be scheduled to
avoid the nesting season, and wil! take place outside the
breeding season when feasible. Pre-construction surveys wil!
be conducted by a qualified ornithologist prior to any soil
altering activities and no more than 15 days prior to
construction. The surveys will ensure that no active raptor
nests will be disturbed during project construction. If
Burrowing 0wls 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 wil! 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, all
pickleweed in the construction area will be removed by hand.
030709 sm 0091312
4
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 pick!eweed habitat
will 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 following construction. Inspections will occur
during and following 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 will be implemented; Erosion controls
methods will be used, as appropriate, during construction to
control sediment; and after construction, the District will
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
soil and groundwater within and adjacent to the channel near the
MSC site could be encountered during project construction and
released into the proposed channel or PAFB. To mitigate for this
potential impact, the District will identify the exact location of
electric transmission and utility lines in the project area prior
to construction. Buffers will be established around all utility
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 soi! and groundwater contamination
will be determined. A Health and Safety Plan and a Soil 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.
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 will be conducted in accordance with all
030709 sm 0091312
5
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.
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 removal. The goals of the maintenance
pmogram include restoring the facilities to the ~as built"
condition that will 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, will also be
necessary. Vegetation and sediment will be al!owed 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, but those activities will 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 multiyear 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 Ci[y Council finds, as the Final EIR concluded that
the Project would not result in any significant unavoidable
impacts. The project would have potential 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
level. 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 level.
030709 sm 0091312
SECTION 5. Impacts Found Not To Be Significant. The City
finds that the Final EIR neither expressly identifies, nor contains
any substantial evidence identifying significant environmental
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, Minera! Resources, Recreation, Population and Housing,
Public Services, Air Quality and Noise.
SECTION 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 Final 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 0091312
7
ATTACHMENT E
Special Meeting
February 7, 2000
_REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
14.Status Report on Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Hatadero/
Barron Creek Flood Control Project{ TC "14. Status Report on
Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Matadero/ Barton Creek
Flood Control Project" \f C \i "!" }
Public Works Director Glenn Roberts said staff came forward with a
design issue regarding capacity of Hatadero Creek in lower Matadero
in late 1997. The issue was significant for Palo Alto and
residents of the vicinity. Since that time, theSanta Clara Valley
Water District’s (SCVWD) staff worked hard to identify design
attributes and held a number of meetings and workshops. SCVWD
staff was before the Counci! to present a recommended alternative
and to receive feedback from the Council before taking the
recommendation to the SCVWD Board. He commended the SCVWD staff
and Board for the manner in which it handled the design review and
also for the manner for which it operated Matadero and Barton
Creeks for the prior three years. During the 1998 winter storms,
the SC~A~ managed to operate the creeks so they did not flood.
Greg Zlotnik, SCVWD Chairman of the Board, said SCVWD staff would
present the Council with a brief status report on the Matadero
Creek Remediation Project. Upon completion of the project SCVWD
staff revised the f!ood maps and discovered flaws.
Dave Hook, SCVWD Senior Project Hanager, showed the Counci! an
overhead of the area downstream of Highway !01 at the entrance to
the Pa!o Alto flood basin. Staff identified a fundamental problem
in the area. Due to silt deposit and vegetation overgrowth, there
was no capacity to pass the 1 percent flow through the area next to
the channel. Staff looked at a number of solutions, the most
obvious one was to clean ~-~ char~el out; however, cleaning out the
channe! was not the best alternative because cleaning would be
alternatives, 1) clean out the channel; 2) build a concrete bypass
channel; and 3) build box coverts under Bayshore Road. He showed a
matrix of the three choices on the overhead projector. SC~
sta~’s preference was to build a concrete bypass channel. Water
was still backing up above Highway !0! because of construction.
Some smaller bridges contributed to the backup. SCVWD staff looked
02/07/00 89~
at widening the channe!; however, costs would be large and widening
the channe! would be disruptive. One component SCVWD staff
reviewed and would be recommending would be to replace the small
bridges. The key issue facing the City would be c!osing the bridge
for construction, or keeping the bridge open while attempting to
phase construction. Another component SCVWD staff reviewed was the
f!oodwa!is upstream. The f!oodwalls were not high enough and did
not have ~freeboard" which prevented SCV?~ from removing people
from the flood area. He showed a hyp_othetica! before and after
picture of the f!oodwal!s. SCVWD reviewed floor reduction which
included the possibility of diverting water somewhere else;
however, staff found the possibility unworkable since the water was
already being diverted from Barton Creek to Hatadero Creek.He
showed an overhead of the Creek upstream from Highway !0!.The
leading alternative for upstream included the modificationsof
Louis Road to replace the bridge and f!oodwa!is at a costof
approximately $6 million dollars for upstream and a construction
schedule to be completed by the end of 2002.
Council Member K!einberg asked what existed downstream.
Mr. Hook said a fence for the Corporation Yard. Eight to i0 feet
from the fence was the top of the bank. Along the bank, there was
a row of eucalyptus trees. At the bottom of the bank was the start
of the riparian habitat which was a concern to the regulatory
agencies.
Council Member K!einberg asked whether Mr. Hook discussed any
existing danger to the habitats at the bottom of the creek.
Mr. ~ook said he did not.~
Council Member Klein_berg did not favor concrete troughs when nature
designed a waterway. She was interested in knowing what kind of
environme~tai mitigation the City could provide and how to avoid
having another natura! waterway within Pa!o Alto turned into a
cement trough.
Mr. Z!otnik appreciated Council Hember K!einberg’s concerns. He
showed an overhead of the current channel which remained intact.
The SCV~ was recommending a bypass which was over to the right
outside the main channel. The SCVWD was taking an access road and
excavating it out to put the bypass channel in place. The main
streamway would be left natural as much as possible and another
floodway would be built on land-that was not part of the original
streamway.
Council Member Butch said Alternative No. 1 had a construction cost
of $1.4 million, $.5 million for mitigation, and $16.9 mi!lion land
costs.
Mr. Zlotnik said for the SCV-~ to do mitigation,
bought.
land had to be
02/07/00 89~
Council Member Butch asked why the SCV?~ had to buy land.
Mr. Z!otnik said mitigation could not be done anywhere else unless
the land was bought. Mitigation could not be done in the creek
because resources would be impacted. Land would have to be found
within the region so the same environmenta! values could be
provided that would either be destroyed or impacted by doing the
project. The enhanced riparian corridor was not enhanced in te_rms
of its environmental values; it was enhanced because of its ability
to move water which would require decreasing its environmental
values. Currently, the riparian corridor was c!ogged with
vegetation and habitat which would have to be cleaned out. Permits
were required to clean out the riparian corridor and the
environmenta! values had to be replaced. The land acquisition
costs were to buy land for environmenta! replacement.
Council Member Butch asked how many acres would be purchased.
Mr. Z!otnik said in terms of the riparian corridor, .8 acres.
Council Member Mossar clarified the SCVWD wanted to cut a 45-foot
wide channel through the wet!~nds. The channel may not be
concrete; however, the channel was not a natura! channe! and would
destroy the habitat. The alternatives the SCV~ suggested enabled
the City to leave the creek channe! in its natura! state and divert
f!ows of excess water through the channe!. The same thing was done
in Barton Park to allow the creek to remain natura!.
Mr. Zlotnik said Alternative No. 2 was the more environmentally
benign alternative. It did not seem that way since a concrete
channe! would be constructed; however, the reality of what was not
being impacted made the alternative more environmentally benign.
Vice Mayor Eakins supported Alternative No. 2.
Libby Lucas, 174 Yerba Santa Avenue, Los Altos, hoped staff would
come up with a flood contro! project much like the project for the
Charles River in Massachusetts. Boston could not construct a f!ood
contro! project that could protect the city; therefore, Boston took
the natura! valley approach which consisted of purchasing a !ot of
land and having a lot of wetlands so the floodwaters wou!d undulate
as it came down the Charles River. She believed when staff
reviewed the San Francisquito and Hatadero Creeks, it had to meet
with ~=~{~ and come up with areas in the Stanford campus ~-~
could take the na~ura_ valley approach a!ong Deer.Creek Matadero
basin was over subscribed with all the rivers going into it.
Sediment basins upstream were needed. A good example of a sediment
basin could be found upstream of Barton Creek. There were more
conservative ways to buffer the upstream watershed that were safer
in the !ong run.
02107100 89-3
Janet Owens, 850 Webster Street, #421, was concerned about the
Colorado Park Apartments which were across Colorado Avenue, west of
Highway i0!. There was a City storm drain behind Colorado Park
Apartments that was pumped into the Matadero Creek during flood
problems. Since the storm drain was built, Co!orado Park
Apartments periodically suffered from f!ooding in the east ~nd west
parking lots. She hoped something could be done with the flooding
problem near the Co!orado Park Apartments.
Bob Moss, 4010 0rme Street, said historically, Matadero Creek did
not exist east of Emerson Street. According to an 1895 United
States Geo!ogica! Survey (USGS) map, Embarcadero Creek vanished
just past the railroad track. When the concrete channe! was put
in, it created a flow path through the marsh!and which was filled
and used for housing and industry. The SCVWD abandoned the creek
and did not perform maintenance work once it installed the concrete
channe! in the 1950s. The creek then filled with silt and trees
and bushes grew. The federal government claimed mitigation costs
came into play because more damage would occur to remove silt and
vegetation than to leave the creek as it was and to instal! another
channel that would go around the Municipa! Service Center (MSC).
The only setback would be high f!oodwal!s downstream because there
was no retention pond on Stanford iand that was proposed. Ideally,
there would be a retention pond and 20 acres of dedicated open
space; however, in order to get the retention pond and the 20
acres, the City would have to dea! with Stanford. If the upstream
retention option were tried, the project would be delayed,
increasing the risk of flooding. He believed the alternative plan
was the best option.
Mr. Zlotnik said the Council should have received a letter sent on
behalf of the SCVWD Board to the County Planning Department with
respect to the Genera! Plan process. The SCVWI9 asked the County to
insert the retention basin as part of its discussion. The reason
for the request was that Stanford University indicated an
unwillingness to discuss the matter unless the SCVWD wanted to
provide funding for the land and provide environmenta! enhancement
that Stanford University could use as mitigation for some of its
projects. The SCVWD would provide the emvironmenta! enhancement in
exchange for the property. The SCVWD believed there was an
Opportunity to provide an overall environmenta! benefit and ability
to !ower the f!oodwail ~heights. He asked the Counci! to provide
some comment to the County Planning Department.
Mr. Z!otnik said the retention basin would be located on the
southwest corner of Page Mill Road and Foothil! Expressway. The
basin would be between Matadero and Deer Creeks with significant
buffers off the creeks. The land would still be utilized the same
way lit had been despite the fact that the SCVWD would have to
excavate. The SCVWD did not expect any water on the land with the
02/07/00 89~
exception of every five or ten years. The idea was to provide
environmental enhancements as mitigation credits to Stanford for
other deve!opment it was doing.
No action required.
COL~NC iL HATTERS
15.Council Members 0jakian and Fazzino re Request to Reintroduce
Proposed Median Solicitation Ordinance
Council Member Fazzino recalled that he along with Council Member
Schneider placed the item regarding median solicitation on the
agenda. At that time, the Council decided to direct staff to draft
an ordinance more narrowly crafted with respect to the issue.
Unfortunately, the ordinance was agendized for a meeting that he
could not attend. He requested to reintroduce the proposed Median
Solicitation Ordinance.
MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Beecham,
request that Item No. 15 be reintroduced.
MOTION PASSED 712, Kleinberg, Mossar "no."
to
Counci! Member Fazzino viewed the item as a traffic safety issue.
People standing in medians were at risk, as well as people driving
the cars. in one situation, he observed an automobile rear-ended
by another automobile because the driver had stopped to give money
to someone soliciting from a median.
Tony Ciampi, Bryant Street, provided articles to the Council which
pointed to the fact that cell phones increased accidents, the
magnitude of injuries, and property damage. Severa! Council
Members indicated that the justification for passing the ordinance
was solely based upon protecting the safety and health of the
community. He believed he provided the Counci! with compelling
evidence concerning the hazardous activity of driving an automobile
while using a cell phone. If the Council believed it had enough
evidence to support the passage of the ordinance, it should have no
qualms to pass an ordinance banning ce!l phones which were more
hazardous to public safety.
Shirley Ledgerwood, 2050 Waverley Street, said most of the issues
discussed at that evening’s meeting were important to Pa!o A!tans
because they affected their homes, health, and pocketbooks;
however, no one was thinking of the health or the lack of
were no accidents that occurred
because of panhandling on the streets, except for the accident that
Council Member Fazzino mentioned. She believed the real motive
behind the ordinance was to remove the homeless from Pa!o Alto
streets.
02/07/00 89~
Unged Ballad, student at Stanford University, said the statistics
showed the ordinance was not a transportation issue. There were no
police records of accidents caused by soliciting. Council Member
Butch commented that more accidents occurred at certain
intersections where there was no soliciting than at the
intersections where people solicited.
Thomas Gibbs, exchange student from Atlanta, Georgia, attending
Stanford, said people who panhandled did not do it for sport or
leisure, but panhandled as a means of income.
MOTION: "Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by 0jakian, to
introduce the ordinance.
ist Reading entitled "Ordinance of the Counci! of the City of
Palo Alto Adding Chapter 9.45 of Title 9 (Peace, Morals, and
Safety) to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regulating
Solicitation in Streets, Commercia! Parking Area, and in and
Adjacent to Driveway Entrances"
Council Member Fazzino agreed with ~. Ciampi that cell phones were
a hazard when used while driving. The issue was not relevant to
the discussion; however, he was willing to consider it because cell
phones were a safety issue. He emphasized the ordinance would not
ban panhandling, and there were other places that people could
panhandle after the ordinance was passed.The ordinance was
directly related to a traffic safety issue.
Counci! Member Ojakian believed the issue was a safety issue rather
than a panhandling or homeless issue. He mentioned in regard to
Mr. Ciampi’s comment that he did not use a ce!l phone because he
considered it a safety hazard. He believed the ordinance was
preventative and did not relate to panhandling, but did relate to
solicitors putting themselves in a position that could be
dangerous.
Counci! Member Butch did not support the motion. He-did not
believe the matter was a homeless or safety issue. He encountered
panhandlers standing quietly or sitting there leaving the driver to
take the initiative.
AMENDMENT: Counci! Member Lytle moved, seconded by Butch, to adopt
the ordinance with the effective date postponed unti! after Council
consideration of the Downtown Opportunity Center proposal.
Council Member Fazzino was concerned the amendment made the item a
within the Council and there was no need to merge the two issues.
Counci! Member Hossar said the Opportunity Center was a private
proposal. At some point, the Opportunity Center would ask the
Council to participate; however, the Council should not expect to
have the project appear in the regular budget cycles.
02/07/00 894
City Manager June Fleming said Council Member Mossar was correct.
A~4~MENT FAILED 2-7, Burch, Lytle "yes."
Council Member Beecham would not support the ordinance based on
safety issues; however, he would support the ordinance based on
what he believed was established City rights, procedures, and
policies in the past. The City had a number of regulations to
regulate how and. where commerce was performed and how it affected
the neighbors and public at large. The City would not a!low a
normal business establishment to operate part of its business in
the indicated !ocations. The City was not saying one could not
panhandle; but as with many things, there were appropriate and
inappropriate places to panhandle.
Counci! Hember Kleinberg asked when the law would take effect in
terms of the bail schedule.
Police Chief D%~er said the Counci! would draft a resolution
recommending, a bail schedule to the judge and would determine when
the law would take effect.
City Attorney Ariel Caior~ne said the second reading would occur two
weeks after that evening’s meeting and the law would take effect 31
days after that. The Counci! would send a recommendation to the
court for bail sometime in fall 2000; however, the Counci! could
make that determination anytime.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the law could take effect
without a bail schedule.
Mr. Calonne said that was correct. The court would establish bai!
on its own; the Council’s action would be a recommendation.
Council Member K!einberg asked whether the charge for breaking the
law would be an infraction.
Hr. Dwyer said yes, the charge would be treated as a traffic
infraction. Traffic infractions were priced at $50-250 dollars.
His recommendation would be to price it at the lower end of the
scale.
Council Hember Kleinberg said in Attachment A of a staff report
(CI~:20!:99), seven cities were listed that had solicitation
ordinances. She asked whether the seven cities were a complete
Hr. Dwyer did not believe the list was a complete list of cities
that passed solicitation ordinances. The list was compiled by Ms.
Johnson who had persona! contact with people in the seven cities to
discuss the application and enforcement of the ordinance in the
02/07/00 89J
cities. Most of the other cities passed a solicitation ordinance
as a preventive ordinance.
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE HAZER AND
SECONDER to add language to the ordinance that "No person shal! be
cited under this section unless the person engages in conduct
prohibited by this section after having been notified by a law
enforcement officer that he or she is in violation of the
prohibition in this section."
Council Member Kleinberg suggested that signs posted in the
prohibited areas should have a phone number or ask someone who
owned the private commercial !or where the permissible areas were
located.
Hr. Dwyer said an. expedient way to handle Council Member
K!einberg’s request was to address in the agreement that the
commercial parking lot operator was required to have on file with
the City Manager the pe_rmissible areas and agree to place signage
in the area.
Council Hember Kleinberg asked what happened after the person was
cited.
Mr. D~Ter said when someone was issued a traffic citation, he/she
had the option to pay the bai! recommended or request a court
hearing and plead not guilty and contest the citation. The person
would have to pay the fine if found guilty in court. A bench
warrant would be issued if the person failed to appear in court.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether there was a policy as to how
many warnings would be issued before a fine was issued.
Mr. Dwyer said the matter was appropriate to be left up to police
discretion as !ong as it was supported by good supervision and
training.
Counci! Member Kleinberg asked whether the bai! could be !ower than
the minimum of $50.
Hr. Calonne said the court typically accepted bai! recommendations.
Counci! Member Kleinberg asked what would happen if the person did
not have the money to pay the fine.
Mr. Dwyer said the person could opt for community service in lieu
Counci! Member Kleinberg clarified that the decision was up .to the
judge and the Council had no control over the decision.
Mr.D~,er said that was correct.
02/07/00 89~
Vice Mayor Eakins asked wheuhe_ the provisions applied to the
~drivers.
_war. Dwyer said yes. There were three sections to the ordinance, !)
driver soliciting from other drivers or pedestrians; 2) pedestrians
soliciting; and 3) commercial !ots.
Vice Mayor Eakins clarified a driver could be cited for stopping.
Mr. DbTer said yes, if the driver was soliciting.
Council Member K!einberg did not support the motion. She thanked
the Counci! for adding reasonable mitigated language. There had
not been one traffic accident caused by solicitation, and the
accident rates were not substantially different in comparable
intersections. In each of the 88 accidents reported in 1998, the
primary collision factors did not involve solicitation. The
videotapes recorded by the Police Department showed no behavior by
the solicitors that would constitute a traffic hazard, and
interviews with the business owners conducted showed mediocre
interest. She believed the ordinance meant to deal with a socio-
economica! problem that was manifesting itself in a potential
traffic hazard. She was worried about the kids standing at the
entrance to Pa!o Alto High Schoo! advertising their car wash or
parking for a Stanford game. She was stunned that the Council did
not show the same consideration for the childrens’ safety as it was
showing for the panhandlers. She believed the City needed a
comprehensive approach to the problem of homelessness. If the
Counci! wanted to correct the problem of people having no money,
the Council needed to view the problem in a comprehensive, cross-
sector fashion. She was concerned about passing a law that would
cause people with no money to go to jai! because they had no money.
Counci! Member Mossar did not support the motion.
Mayor ~niss said the County spent $2.5 billion. Half of the money
was spent preparing people to go from welfare to work. There was a
program avai!able for people wishing to re-enter the workforce and
many jobs in the area. unemp!oyment was just under three percent.
She found it difficult to believe that if someone wanted to work
and be retrained that they could not avail themselves of that in
the County.
MOTION PASSED 6-3, Butch, Kleinberg, Mossar "no."
16.Counci! Comments, Questions, and Announcements { TC "16.
Council Member Mossar spoke about the "Think" car.
02/07/00 89-9
Mayor Kniss spoke regarding the passing of Henry Page, former
principal of the Pa!o Alto Adult Schoo! and counse!or at Cubber!ey
High School.
Counci! Hember Fazzino communicated good wishes to former Council
Member john Beahrs (1963-1977).
Counci! Member Butch asked whether the Council would take positions
on measures for the Hatch 7, 2000, election.
City Manager June Fleming replied that staff would look into the
question.
Ai3JOURk%{E!qT: The meeting adjourned at !!:00 p.m.{ TC "A~JOURNHENT:
The meeting adjourned at i!:00 p.m." \f C \I "!" }
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with
Palo Alto Municipa! Code Sections 2.04.!80(a) and (b). The City
Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for
the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the
meetings. City Counci! and Standing Committee meeting tapes are
recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are
available for members of the public to listen to during regular
office hours.
02/07/00 89~0
~na Mossar, Mayor
Palo Alto City Counci.
City of Palo AltoCivic Center
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
ATTACHMENT F
Dear Mayor Mossar and Council Members,
September 8, 2003 RECEIVED
SEP 0 5 2003
Oepartmem o1’ PlannmB ar~
Gornmun~ Environment
On your September 15 council agenda the Santa Clara Valley Water District is asking for final approval of their Matadero
Creek flood control project for a hardscape diversion for stormwater flows into the Palo Alto Baylands.
This project permit anticipates the removal of 289 trees from the riparian corridor, alter extensive stream channel removal of
sediment and vegetation as per a long term maintenance regimen (unimplemented for thirty years on Matadero Creek in the
Baylands until now), and will have the ’enhancement’ capability to remove invasives along the stream.
The Palo Alto Baylands marsh is the best of only three marshes found in the South Bay and is the only one with a riparian
corridor. It boasts some 185 species of birds and waterfowl, resident and migratory, as well as small mammals such as the
Saltmarsh Harvest Mouse.
The impact to this wildlife by the proposed extensive intrusion into the unique resource of uplands marsh and destruction of its
ripadan habitat is not accurately assessed, I feel, in the District’s environmental review and the mitigation is not only damaging
on site, but not in place or in kind off site.
~ The number of trees identified on vegetation plans for removal is 103 trees, when the permit application references 289 trees
to be removed. What and where are the 186 trees still to go?
~ There are 56 more species of birds in the Palo Alto Baylands than noted in the EIR and the majority of all identified species
are protected by the Migratory Bird Act. How many of these species depend all or in part on this ripadan corridor?.
~ The Saltmarsh Yellowthroat nests in the bypass area and this is not accounted for.
~ The wetlands delineation did not take core samplings in 500 feet of upper terrace of Matadero’s dparian corridor, just north of
#101, (found it was not wetlands) and yet the District applied for a COE Nationwide Permit 31 for maintenance of an existing
flood control channel in this exact 500 foot stretch.
~ This upper terrace, if it indeed is not wetlands/channel, then it qualifies as parkland and needs a special.transfer from the
Parks and Recreation Commission? (Palo Alto Ordinance 4368, Exhibit A-2 Dedication for Park and Recreation Purposes
Byxbee Park and City Owned Baylands...All lands owned by the city of Palo Alto lying northeasterly of Bayshore Freeway
excepting public streets, creek channels, the Municipal Golf Course..Palo Alto Yacht Harbor..." would not apply to this area?)
These are just a few of the inconsistencies that concem me. Another is the dverine flood risk maps that do not show the flood
status for all the residential area north and west of Matadero Creek that is in the Matadero Creek watershed. This was the
area that flooded in 1998, but not from Matadero, which has not flooded since 1955?
Finally, the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Permit of July 13, 1976, "That the city of Palo Alto agrees to implement the Lagoon
and Flood Basin Mitigation Projects in the manner described in the final Environmental Impact Statement and as referenced in
their letter of 13 May 1976 to the District Engineer" was furthered on August 7, 1978 when the city council enacted ordinance
3072 to provide funds for "modification of one of the existing flood gates in the flood basin tidal system, and thereby complete
the flood basin mitigation project, as approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the mitigation requirements for
continiued disposal of refuse at the landfill site".
It is essential that the integrity of this original marsh restoration management plan with basin water levels that would preserve
uplands refugia for nesting species such as the Saltmarsh Yellowthroat, be honored and that this proposed flood project
diversion be modified accordingly.
Sincerely,
~ ,~-/
LibbYiEucas, 174 Yerba Santa Avenue, Los Altos, CA 94022
Monday, September 08, 2003 Amedca Online: JLucas1099 Page: 1
FROM : LWU LR-MU
ena Mossar, Mayor
ab Alto City Council
’,~y of Palo AltoCi~ic Center
;50 Hamilton Avenue
~alo Alto, CA 94301
: 650 941 4846
Se~emberS,20O3
S~p. 89 2883 09:38PM P2
Dear Mayor Mossar and Council Members,
On your September 15 council agenda the Santa Clara Valley Water District is asking for final appro~l of their Matadero
Creek flood control project for a hardscape diversion for stormwater flows into the Palo Alto Baylands.
This project permit anticipates the nerno~al of 289 trees from the riparian corridor, after extensi~ stream channel remo~l of
sediment and ~jetation as per a long term maintenance regimen (unimplemente~t for thirty years on Matadero Creek in the
Baylands until now), and w~ll have the ’enhancement’ capability to remove in,sires along the stream.
The PaJo Alto Baylands marsh is the best of only three marshes found in the South Bay and is the only one with a riparian
corridor. It boasts some 185 species of birds and waterfowl, resident and migratory, as well as small mammals such as the
Saltmarsh Har~est Mouse.
The impact to this wildlife by the proposed extensive intrusion into the unique resource of uplands marsh and destn~ction of its
ripadan habitat is not accurately assessed, I feet, in the District’s environmental review and the mitigation is not only damaging
on s(te, but not in place or in kind off site.
~ The number of trees identified on ~getation plans for removal is 103 trees, when the permit application references 289 trees
to be removed. What and where are the 186 trees still to go?
~ There are 56 more species of birds in the Palo Alto Baylands than noted in the EIR and the majodty of all ident~ed species
are protected by the Migratory Bird Act. How many of these species depend all or in part on this riparian corridor?.
~ The Saltmarsh Ye!lowthmat nests in the bypass area and this is not accounted f~r.
~ The wetlands delineation did not take core samplings in 500 feet of upper terrace of Matadero’s dparian corridor, just north of
#101, (f~und it was not wetlands) and yet the District applied for a COE Nationwide Permit 31 for maintenance of an existing
~]c~d control channe! in this exact S00 f~xff stretch.
~ This upper terrace, if it indeed is not wetlands/channel, then it qualifies as parkland and needs a special transfer f~om the
Parks and Recreation Commission? (Palo Alto Ordinance 4368, Exhibit A-2 Dedication for Park and Recreation Purposes
Byxbee Park and City Owned Baylands...Ail lands owned by the city of Palo Alto lying northeasterly of Bayshore Freeway
excepting public streets, creek channels, the Municipal Golf Course..Palo Alto Yacht Harbor..." would not apply to this area?)
These are just a few of the inconsistencies that concern me. Another is the dv~rine flood r~sk maps that do not show the flood
¯ status for all the residential area north and west of Matadsro Creek that is in the Matadsro Creek watershed. This was the
area that flooded in 19980 but not from Matadero, which has not flooded since 19557
Finally, the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Permit of July 13, 1976, "That the city of Palo Alto agrees to implement the Lagoon
and Flood Basin Mitigation Projects in the manner described in the final Environmental lmpa~ Statement and as referenced In
their letter of 13 May 1976 to the District Engineer" was furthered on August 7, 1978 when the city council enacted ordinance
3072 to provide funds for "modification of one of the existing flood gates in the flood basin tidal system, and thereby complete
the flood basin mitigation project, as appro~e~l by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the mitigation requirements for
continiued d~sposal of refuse at the land~lt site".
It iS essential that the integrity of this odginal marsh restoration management plan with basin wate~ levels that would presen~
upland~ rL=fugia for nesting speQte~ such as the Saltmarsh Yellowthroat. be honored and that this proposed flood project
dkersion be medh~ied accordingly,
Sincerely,
Ubby Lucas, 174 Yerba Santa Aver~ue, Los Altos, CA 940~
FROM : LIJU LA-MU FAX NO. : 650 941 4846 Sep. 09 2003 09:39PM P3
FROM LWU LA-MU F~X NO.658 941 4846
LWU LA-MU FAX NO. : 650 941 484~ S~p. 09 2003 09:40PM P5
2001SANTA CHRISTMAS zooO
Species PA Specie~PA
1:17/01 I q 7/I)1 1 "Species PA Species PA
-l.v’//0l 7~0!
Prairie FalcnnE:?~<~c.,CW .Gre~ Homed Oval
"~’Norlhem Pygmy.OwlFalcon. spRing.necked Pheasant v Burrowing Owl
Northern Saw-whel OwlWild Turkey v"White-¢hro~ted SwiftCalifornia Quell Anna’s Humndngbird
-Clapper Rall ’~"Rufus HummingbirdVirginia Rail ~"~Belted KingfisherSofa’.,.
Common Moorhen v"~ Lewis’s Woodpecker
American Coot v’.,~Acorn Woodpecker
Phainopepla
Loggerhead Shrike ,~ .~5C:
Hutton’s Vireo
Orange-~owned Warbler
Yelbw Waddler ~ ~5 c2,
Yellow-tamped W~ler florin
(Myale)
(AudlJ~n’s)
Black.tl~med Gray Warbler
Great Blue Heron ~"~ Sandhill Crane
Great Egret ’~’ Black-bellied Plover
Snowy Egret ~ ~ Snowy Plover
O~ecn Heron ~Se~pal~ted Plover
Black-crowned Night-He~Kil!~er
Grea~r ~[e-fronted Go~e -Black-neck~ Stilt ~
Snow O~-A~fic~ Av~et
Cam~ G~se ~Orea~r Yellowlegs
W~ Duck ~~er Ydlowlegs
Or=n-winged Teal ~. ycllowlc~, sp
No~em Ha~I ~S~led S~dpjper
~lue-winged Teal ~ ~ Whimbd
N~em Shoveler ~Mz~led O~wit
Gadwzll ~~Rudd~ Tug,tone
Eumian Wigeon "Red Knot~ed~ ~g~n ~~San~rlingC~v~back w #Wesmm Sandpi~rRe~d ~~t Sandpiper~ng.necked Duck ~S~iled S~dpiperGrealer S~up ~Dunlin¯Lessee Scaup ~R~ff
Aythya. sp Calidrid ("p~p*), spS~fSc~-S~n-billed Dowi~herCo~n ~l~aeye ~~ng.billed Dowitcher
Ba~w’s Goldeneye ~~wkcher, spBu~ehead .Co.on Sni~H~ed Mefg~er ~B~a~’s GullCo~ Me~er ~Mew Gull
Red-~e~led Mer~nser w ~ :Ring-Nlled GullRuddy Duck w ~llfomiaGull ~5duck, sp He~ng GullTurk¢~ Vul~te ~~~ayet’s GullOspreyIceland Gull ~ , ~ .../~te-~iled ~[e ~~~~er Black.~d GullBald ~gle We~ GullNor~em Ha~er ~ ~ ~~G~uco~.winged GullS~-s~ed ~wk <~w ~Glau~us Gull
~d-ghoulde~d Hawk ~Bla~ Skier ~ ~~d.~iled ~wk ~R~k
~d.mil~/~lan’s) Hawk B~d.~iled PigeonFe~giaous Hawk Mousing DoveGolden ~gle L’~S~, ~~Grater R~nnec
Media ~ ~ ~ ~~Wcsz~ Sc~ech.Owl
The Avocet 8 i~ II~ 04~
FROM : L~U LA-MU FAX NO. : 650 941 4846 S~p. 09 2003 09:41PM P6
Sop. 092003 0~:42PM PT
F~X NO. : 650 941 4846 S~p. 09 200~ 09:42PM P8FROM : LWU LA-MU
~.’
EROM :P9LWU LA-MU FAX NO. : 658 941 4846 Sep. 09 2003 09:42PM
App. A pAL0 ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE
2294 Rev. Ord. Supp.-9/92
O~dik, Susan
From:Lusardi, John -
Sent:Monday, July 14, 2003 5:00~1;~
To:Ondik, Susan; Teresi,.,~
Subject:FW: Loss of~rea at Matadero Creek
fyi
~..... Original Me
From: Harris on~_~ni !y
Sent: Hond~, Ju!y ~ 2003 4:!i PH
Toi Lus~, Job~.; Emslie, Steve _~: FW: Loss of Wildlife Area at Hatadero Creek
..... Original Message .....
From: E!!ie Gioumousis [mailto:e!!iegms@uf.znet.com]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 2:55 PM
To: city.counci!@cityofpaloa!to.org
Subject: Loss of Wildlife Area at Matadero Creek
Dear Council Members,
I submitted the following letter to the paper but it did not make it in.
in addition to the letter I have severa! other concerns about this
project.
This project does not-~ing to address the long term solutions to the
problem which wil! only continue to get worse as the climate becomes yet
more unstable due to g!oba! warming. That is, we are treating water as a
waste product to be gotten rid of as quickly as possible. As we continue
to add more and more impermeable surfaces the run off continues to
increase. We need to institute a ’’no- run-off’ policy for al! new
deve!opment and give incentives for existing development to minimize
further run off.. There are many strategies to do this;
!. berms and swa!es: put in the Village Homes development in Davis over
thirty years ago, and were working perfectly when we visited about i0
years ago.
2 a new form of concrete; pe_~meable concrete, which was deve!oped in
Florida. It has no sand and absorbs ~L the water, it is installed over
a special substrate of crushed rock. This is what should be installed in
sensitive areas such as the bay!ands as wel! as new parking !ots,
driveways, and such.
3. diversion of storm water in roads by little cuts, abutments and soi!
or planted areas to catch and absorb the water.
4. As many planted and mulched areas on developments as possible so the
water can be absorbed into the ground.
There are more suggestions such as eco roofs, roofs planted with grasses
and wildf!owers to catch and use the water. The new Gap headquarters
near i01 and 380 has such a roof and it is very popu!ar with a!l the
employees.
All of these suggestions have the additional benefit that the water is
filtered and contaminants removed by the bacteria in the ground so the
pollutants going into the bay are greatly reduced. This wil! also help
prevent subsidence, the sinking of the ground leve!, which has increased
greatly and @nich creates further f!ooding problems.
Another problem with the project as presented is that it is not really a
1
by pass but a dead end that is designed to overflow i~to a salt marsh.
This will be very destructive to the salt marsh. We have ve_~-y little
salt marsh left along the bay and it is the most productive of al!
ecosystems in producing oxygen.
The Renzei fresh water marsh that was created (not a natura! area) would
be a more appropriate place for temporary storage of overflow water.
Next problem is it does not address the ve_~y serious problem of invasive
plants, specifically Giant Reed or Arundo donax. This plant is listed by
the department of Fish and Game as the most destructive to wetlands and
they recommend that smal! infestations should be removed early or they
will eventually spread and coalesce into one giant stand. This plant is
like a thirty foot tal! bermuda grass in its persistence and invasive
character. ~my little piece can grow and worse yet, the plant is an
extreme fire hazard and burns very readily, even in the waterways. This
usually kills a!! the native plants in the vicinity leaving the arundo
to grow again from its roots and cover even more ground. This is
outlined in more detail in a publication from Fish and Game titled
"Arundo, Stream side Invader" To get copies call F&G at 916 358-2952.
One such colony is growing in Matadero Creek, about 200 yards downstream
of 10!. !t is blocking the flow of water and i believe it is a prime
cause of the back up of storm water in the creek. The answer is not to
build a concrete channe! but hire a qualified restoration company to
remove the 9~undo which is b!ocking the flow. It is possible that is all
that is needed.
The Arundo is also very thick and im,nenetrab!e to wild life. No animals
or birds can use it for food or shelter. To my dismay we found three or
four more co!onies growing in the marsh behind and south of the MSC. if
we want to have a baylands natural preserve this problem needs to be
addressed now or it wil! become much worse and may not be possible to
remedy.
About the flooding contro!: I talked to Owen Del!, landscape architect,
who designed a plan for the city of Santa Barbara, to use natura!
methods and restoration and many other strategies to preserve the
quality of their river and its water. He suggested I talk to the
Berkeley Urban Creeks Counci! who was very supportive of an alternative
to concrete. They gave me the names of severa! hydrologists who
specialize in working with nature and keeping and enhancing the natural
habitat, i spoke with three and~they al! agreed that this was " a truly
horrible plan", an example of sixties engineering", and assured me
there were another solutions possible.
I believe we should wait on this plan, that is reject it as the town of
Los Altos Hills did, and hire an ’alternative hydrologist’ and look at a
better way to do this.
One further thing one of the hydrologists told me was that the diversion
of the water for the ’bypass’ should be only the i00 year f!ood leve!
water. When i questioned the water district they told me it was the 2 to
5 year level that would be diverted. The hydro!ogist explained to me
that if the existing creek did not get the 2 to 5 year storm water it
would never get the deep watering and scouring of the storm water and
would eventually dry UP and fil! with sediment and the existing native
plants that have not been cut down for the project already, would also
die. When I questioned the water department they agreed that this would
probably happen. They did not see it as a problem.
The other reason that I think you should reject this plan is that all
three of the meetings I attended; Parks and recreation, Pla~ning and
Architectura! review board, had serious questions about the project:
it’s visual impact, the effect on wildlife and habitat, and whether
there might be an alternate solution. The response of the water district
was that this was the only plan that will work. i do not believe this is
true. Severa! of the commissioners at the meeting s expressed serious
2
reservations but they all passed it on. if they had taken the step of
rejecting it it would never come to the city council and so the buck
stops here.
i believe you should have a site visit, more detailed info_~mation and
some critica! evaluation by outside experts on f!ooding and hydraulics.
The fact that it passed al! the other adviso_~-y bodies does not mean we
a!l approved. In fact I would say the majority disapprove of the plan
but felt there was no choice. Los Altos Hill has showed us we could have
a choice and I believe we should not destroy this last bit of riparian
habitat and beautifu! area for nature observation without looking into
it a !ot more. The water district wil! say they have but many qualified
people think otherwise and we should find them and get their advice. !t
would be money wel! spent and might save the taxpayers a !ot of money
over the !ong run.
Below is the letter with other reasons for protection of this natural
area.
On Monday, July 14, the Palo Alto City Counci! will be hearing a Water
District flood contro! proposa! for Matadero Creek. Unfortunately, the
proposed plan would have devastating effects on the envirom_ment of the
creek. Presently the creek on the Bay side of Hwy !0! is a beautifu!
lush riparian area..It is very rare as most of our creeks are concrete
channels. It is, in fact, the only such area on our side of the bay. It
is also next to one of only three salt marsh areas left in the south
bay. As a result of this um.i_c!ue combination, it is the best and often
the only place to see birds that require this habitat. There are 153
protected species found here and most are not found anywhere else in the
area.
The water district plan calls for removal of 289 trees in order to build
a concrete channe! to collect our storm runoff. The channe! would be 50
feet wide; equivalent to five lanes of freeway. The view from the
bicycle bridge, which is presently one of a peaceful waterway lined with
trees and shrubs and graced by many birds, would become much like most
of the creeks in to~, a wide expanse of concrete. They plan to
ameliorate it with plantings of grasses and wil!ow shrubs to be scraped
and cut doom wlnenever they reach four feet in height. Thus the area
would never recover. The birds who nest in this area have nowhere else
to go. We know this because they are not seen anywhere else in the South
Bay. With no place to nest and reproduce they would tend to die out and
become !ocally extinct.
The to~ of Los Altos Hills had a similar proposal by the water
district for Adobe Creek. After many citizens exp_ressed their concern
and disapproval the counci! voted to reject the plan. They are currently
working to design a plan more in harmony with the natural area, one
that would preserve the beauty and the wildlife habitat.
Please contact the Palo Alto City Council and ask that we do the same.
There are alternative ways to contro! the flood water. Hydrologists
referred by the Berkeley Urban Creeks Council are available and
committed to preserving the environment, as opposed to the "sixties
engineering" that consists of tons of concrete. The Emily Renze!
freshwater marsh is right next to the creek and could be an appropriate
place for temporary storage of sto_~m water. There are many other
possibilities and the idea! solution is to hire a qualified and
enviro~mlentaily co~nitted hydrologist to come up with a genuine
alternative. The Water District says there is none but severa! of the
hydrologists I contacted stated that there are indeed other ways to deal
with sto_~m water and that it is possible to contro! f!oods and save the
envirom_ment, in fact, the outcome is better all around.
Palo Alto has wonderful parks and natura! areas that are treasured by
all of us. The ~ay!ands are particularly unique and Matadero Creek is
one of the best areas. We should not destroy it. Help preserve this
treasured re~tnant of what was once a vast ex_~anse of marsh, streams and
native plants, for our children and all our successors in this area.
E!!ie Gioumousis
Thank you for taking time to read this and I hope it wil! help to lead
you to ’think again’ as the ads say.
453 Tennessee Can% Palo A}to CA 94306
CIT!ZE_N" 5 COIZ~iTTEE
Tel 650
July 9, 2003
Mayor Dane Mossar and Members of the Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Polo Alto, CA 94301
Fax 328.363t
Re: Ma~dero Creek Flood Cont.! Proj~t
Dear ~eybr Mossar and Members of the Council,
Palo Alto has a long history of proration of wetland species an&o c% C,
preservation of their habitats. In the case of the Emily Renzel lv~rsh,~
even established a marsh to enhance conditions for the endangered salt
marsh harvest marsh (SMHM)
At this time the US Fish and W~!dli~Service, at the request ~ the US Army
Corps of Engineers is engaged in preparing an informal Section 7
Consultation to ascertain what impacts the Matadero Creek proje~ may
have on the SMHM. When that study is completed, it’s possible that a full
formal Consultation may be requested.
it seems inapprop~ate for the city to undertake it’s consideration of the
project before the Fish and Witdii~ Service has issued an opinion.
Design changes may be requested, for instance in the bypass channel
that as F,~,, ,,,~., would divert flows toward the higher elevatior~ poRion of
the b~_sin that now supplie~ necessa~ re:,- ...~...~ai~ for. the mamm~!. _
popuimions.
In years past the City has been forced to engage independent consultants
to ensure that Water Distfi~ projects in its baylands are appropriate and
pro#arly d~igned, Earlier, we requested Water District records of
flooding history of Matadero Creek and maintenance records. When
completed its report, thi~ project could be more.accurately assessed by
~he City,.
Thank you for your consideration.
Florence M. LaRiviere
Chain, omen
PRINTED ON REDY~LED PAPER
A-.O~(.-)’,~) .N"onp~ofitPublic --~’"
July 1, 2003
Dena Mossar, Mayor
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto Civic Center
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
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 rules, a favorite for resident families of ducks and migratory waterfowl.
The Distdct 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 pedod with a 500 cfs flow.
As stormwaters flow into the marsh and lake (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 volumes 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 return this residual flooding to the creek and out of the
neighborhoods when stormwater drains are underwater. 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 Mayfield 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.
Sncerely,
I
Libby .L/uc~s
174 Yerba Sante Ave.,
Los Altos, CA 94022
4 enclosures
Tuesday, July01, 2003 Arnerica Online: JLucas1099 Page: 1
PALO
ALTO
FLOOD
BASIN
Figure 3-3.
Aerial
Sections of Levee around the Palo Alto Flood Basin with
Towill En
Elevations Less than 7 Feet
1999
Schaaf ~ Wheeler
SPRR
O ~,500’3,000’
SCALE:1 INCH = 3,000 FEET
Area Removed from 1% Flood
Hazard
Residual Flooding Due to Local
Storm Drainage Canaei~
Limit of Tidal Flooding
Figure 7-8. Reduction in Riverine Flood Risk after Project Remediation
SCALE: 1" = 10,000’
Figure 1-1.
MATADERO & BARHOr~
WATERSHED LOCATION
Lee Lipped, Chair
Architectural Review Board
City of Palo Alto Civic Center
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
May 7, 2003
Dear Chairman Lipped,
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 dpadan 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 outffall 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 ~isual, 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 ~ecreation route.
- It was mentioned that the invasives, such as the giant reed, should be removed in the summer before the project bdngs
heaW 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 Renzet Marsh appears to have an out-fall 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 Barton 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 Steding 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 Barton 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.
cas
174 yerba Santa Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94022
Wednesday, May 07, 2003 Arr, edca Oriline: JLucaslO£’9 Page:
PALO ALTO BAY LANDS
- ~SO
7.0
> 8.O
5.0
DISTANCE ABOVE BA¥SHORE FREEWAY IN FEET
5000 qSOO 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 IOOO 500 O
150 :::: "
~ ".--~:’:= 6ot~ Open Undo*,"T " ’~
}
FIGURE Vl-2 ANALYSIS OF EXPECTED CHANNEL SEDIMENTATION
PATTERNS 1N MATADERO CREEK FOR IO0-YEAR FLOOD
UNDER PRESENT AND MODIFIED FLOOD BASIN CONDITIONS
FIGURE V-9 PALO ALTO FLOOD BASIN
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION AT --2.0 FEET
2001
Species
SANTA ._... CHRISTMAS
¯ PA Species
l:17LOlI
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
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
Cinnamon Teal
Northern Shoveler
Gadwall
Eurasian Wigeon
American Wigeon
Canvasback
Redhead
Ring-necked Duck
Greater Scaup
Lesser Scaup
Aythya, sp
Surf Scaler
Common 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
The Avocet 8
I17/01 I Species PA Species PA
127101 7/01
Peregrine Falcon
Prairie Falcon CW Great Homed Owl
Falcon, sp Northern Pygmy-Owl
Ring-necked Pheasan[v’Burrowing Owl
Nonhero Saw-whet OwlWild Turkey White-throated SwiftCalifornia Quail
Clapper Rail .Anna’s Hummingbird
Virginia Rail v’Rufus Hummingbird
Belted KingfisherSaraLewis’s WoodpeckerCommon Moorhen
American Coot v"Acorn Woodpecker
Sandhill Crane Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
Red-breasted SapsuckerBlack-bellied Plover
Snowy Plover Nunall’s Woodpecker
Semipalmated Plover ¢Downy Woodpecker
Killdeer Hairy Woodpecker
Not-them (Yel-sh) FlickerBlack-necked Stilt ,,"Northern (Red-sh x Yel-sh) FlickerAmerican Avocet Nonhero (Red-sh) FlickerGreater Yellowlegs
Lesser Yellowlegs v"Pileated Woodpecker
Black Phoebeyellowlegs, sp.
Wilier .Say’s Phoebe
Spotted Sandpiper Homed Lark
Whimbrel v’Tree Swallow
Long-billed Curlew v’VideI-green Swallow
Marbled Godwit Barn Swallow
Ruddy Tumstone swallow, sp
Red Knot v’Steller’s Jay
Western Scrub JaySanderling,/
Western Sandpiper ¢Yellow-billed Magpie
American CrowLeast Sandpiper v’
Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Common Raven
Dunlin ,,,Chestnut-backed Chickadee
Ruff Oak Titmouse
Calidrid ("peep"). sp Bushtit
Short-billed Dowitcher ~,"Red-breasted Nuthatch
Long-billed Dowitcher v’White-breasted Nuthatch
dowitcher, sp Pygmy Nuthatch
Common Snipe Brown Creeper
Bonaparte’s Gull .Rock Wren
Mew Gull Canyon Wren
Bewick’s WrenRing-billed Gull House WrenCalifornia Gull Winter WrenHerring Gull v"Marsh WrenThayer’s Gull
Iceland Gull ,American Dipper
Lesser Black-backed Gull Golden-crowned Kinglet
Western Gull v"Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Glaucous-winged Gull v"Blue-gray Gnatcalcher
Glaucous Gull Western Bluebird
gull, sp Townsend’s Solitaire
Forster’s Tern ,Hermil Thrush
Black Skimmer #American Robin
Rock Dove ,,.,.Varied Thrush
WrentitBand-tailed Pigeon ,,/
Mourning Dove ~Northern Mockingbird
Greater Roadrunner California Thrasher
Black-backed WagtailBarn 0wl
Western Screech-Owl ,,"American Pipit
Cedar Waxwing
Phainopepla
Loggerhead Shrike
#European Starling
Huuon’s Vireo v’CW Orange-crowned Warbler ,,.,’
t,."Yellow Warbler
Yellow-romped Warbler (form?
(Myrtle)
(Audubon’s)
Black-throated Gray Warbler
Townsend’s Warbler
Common Yellowtluoat "
v’Western Tanager
v’Spotted Towhee
~California Towhee
Rufous-crowned Sparrow
Vesper Sparrow
¢Lark Sparrow
v’Sage Sparrow
’Savannah Sparrow v’
#Grasshopper Sparrow
Fox Sparrow
Fox Sparrow, Eastern form
#Song Sparrow
Lincoln’s Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow CW
~White-throated Sparrow v’
#Golden-crowned Sp~ow ,/’
White-crowned Sparrow
~’Lark Sparrow CW
v’sparrow, sp
v"Dark-eyed Junco (form?)
"Dark-eyed (Oregon) Junco
#Nutmeg Mannikin
v"Red-winged Blackbird v"
v’Tricolored Blackbird
Western Meadowlark
Brewer’s Blackbird
Brown-headed Cowbird v’
blackbird, sp
Bullock’s Oriole
Purple Finch
v"House Finch
v’Pine Siskin
Lesser Goldfinch ,,."
Lawrence’s Goldfinch
American Goldfinch
Goldfinch sp
v’House Sparrow ,,."
Total Species 163
,,/Total town
v’Key:sp = speciesundelermint
"C’,V = Corm Week~,,’= Reporl subrniltcd"’= uneslablished exotit
SJ = S~Jose:compiled
PA = P:doAho:nnly the able p
= M~unt Hamilton: ccnoldt
= C~cro-Morg-,,,n Hi!M’,xim
May 1, 2003
Dear Chair and Members of the _Architectural Review Board:
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) has a number of goals set forth in Chapter 16.48 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code. The two that most closely relate to Site and Desig-n Review of a
project like this Matadero Creek Bypass Channel are:
(a)Promote orderly and harmonious development of the city; and
(e)Promote visual .environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and
which, at the same time are considerate of each other.
This project wil! essentially strip out a hugh swath of mature vegetation and replace it with a
50-60 foot wide concrete and "earthen" channel. Theoretically the mature vegetation will be
mitigated by planting 15 gallon specimens of other species. Some of this mitigation is proposed
a mile or two away in an area (Ciardellas) with only a small physical, and NO Hydrological
connection to a channelized portion of San Francisquito Creek.
Hydrology is critical to riparian habitat mxd since so many creeks have been channelized and
paved, riparian habitat is very rare. The only true riparian habitat in the Palo Alto Baylands is
along Matadero Creek. This bypass channel proposes to divert the 2 to 5 year flood flows that
ordinarily would feed this riparian remnant. This will probably mean that the salt water that is
introduced into the flood basin as part of another mitigation (1974 Refuse Area Expansion) will
more frequently be present in the lower parts of this Matadero remnant and even the fine
riparian that is nov,, present v,d!l be impacted. Also, raccoons, feral cats, and skunks from the
flood basin will have a direct dry route to this sensitive area xda the bypass.
In addition, the SCVIa/’D is proposing to remove all non-native species - not only from the
project area, but also from the portion of the creek which is supposed to be preserved. This
area is home to the endangered Salt Marsh Yellowthroat and many other bird species. What
are these species supposed to do during the ten years or so it will take for 15 gallon specimens
of new plants to take hold and provide their required habitat. Are they supposed to fly over to
Ciardellas to check out the 15 gallon species planted there without the proper hydrolog-ic
conditions?
The levee which runs between the remnant of Matadero Creek and the Renzel Wetlands is a
very popular birding spot for not only Palo Altans but people from al! over because of the rarity
of this habitat and the very special species that depend on it. So destruction of this habitat
and ~ving it a backdrop of a freeway sized channel will have a human impact as well.
This project, which may not even do what it is supposed to do, is not harmonious nor will it
provide a visual environment of high aeshhe[ic quality. I urge you to reject it.
If your aesthetic allows you to make the requisite findings, please require boxed specimens of
replacement trees and require that the Matadero Creek remnant be left undisturbed until the
replacement vegetation in the project area has sufficiently matured. Mitigation areas should be
vegetated coincident with the project - not years later. To the extent possible mitigation should
be on-site.
,.Ondik, Susan
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Paul Amato [pa @ rb2.swrcb.ca.gov]
Wednesday, April 09, 2003 5:24 PM
mdargis @valleywater.org
susan.ondik @ cityofpaloalto.org; Dale Bowyer
Matadero Creek Long-Term Remediation Project
To be read for the April 9, 2003, City of Paio Alto Planning Commission
Public Hearing Item #2, Matadero Creek Long-Term Remediation Project:
Please accept this emaii as Regional Board staff level support for the
current approach to flood protection in the lower reaches of Matadero
Creek. The District has proposed a secondary channel that will divert
flood flows to the Paio Alto Flood Basin (PAFB) in order to minimize
removal of riparian vegetation along the active.channe! of Hatadero
Creek. Though the Regiona! Board encourages restoration of active
floodplain whenever possible, it has been demonstrated, as stated in the
£EIR, ~hat this alternative would result in impacts to "approximately
3.4 acres of potential CDFG jurisdictiona! habitat and approximately
0.66 acre of potential USACE jurisdictional habitat as wel! as several
specia!-status wildlife species, including the salt marsh harvest mouse
and Zhe federally listed stee!head rainbow trout". Based on the most
recent information, the current proposa! would reduce impacts to 0.66
acres of riparian habitaz and 0.I! acre of wetland.
Several meetings, site visits, and discussion were organized by
DisTrict staff and attended by regulatory agencies to identify methods
for avoiding project related impacts to the maximum e}:tent. A project
permit has not been issued by the Regiona! Board as we are awaiting a
final application, but at this time there appear to be no unresoivable
issues with the current diversion channel approach.
Sincerely,
Paul F.
Environmental Specialist
SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612
phone: (5i0) 622-2429
fax: (5!0) 622-250i
_April 8, 2003
Chair Annette Bialson and Commissioners
Planning & Transportation Commission
City of Palo Alto
Dear All:
This morning I was hit with a "bug" and am barely able to get out of bed. I’m
writing to express my continued concern with the "overkill" that this project
represents. The project has changed little since the earliest meetings I attended
despite many citizen concerns being raised. (Please see my attached letters.)
A new concern that comes to mind is the fact that 99% of the time this concrete
channel will be dry. It will be a perfect "freeway" for skunks, raccoons, possums, and
feral cats to move from the Flood Basin to the fragile and important remainder of
Matadero Creek.
_Although the eucalyptus trees are not native, they are the only trees we have near
the MSC and nothing native or otherwise can be gTov~m in this new concrete ditch.
Apparently at least part of this project is on Park Dedicated Land as a Park
Development Ordinance is part of the matter before you. It seems to me that a
threshhoid question needs to be asked if this is an appropriate park use. A natural
creek provides both conservation and recreation. This channe! provides neither.
Sorry ! can’t be there tonite.
Sincerely,
Emily M. Renzel
1056 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
December 2, 2002 Re: Matadero Creek Bypass
Rosema_r7 Kamei, Chair and Members of the Board of Directors
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
Dear Chair Kamei and Members of the Board:
APF-..’ 0 ~ _7003
~a,"¢r~ oi Ptanmn9
I am unable to attend )Tour meeting tomorrow and would like the following
comments to be included in the record.
You have received my previous comments in the final EIR document. I remain
concerned that this project will cause major environmental .damage in this
sensitive riparian area of Matadero Creek. And it seems that the flood protection
that is supposed to be achieved with it is marginal at best
It is all fine and good to speak about "timing of construction" and r,.plantino the
terraced sides" of this 80 wide concrete ditch that wil! be placed immediately
adjacent to the current Matadero Creek channel (and in some cases on the historic
Matadero channel), but it will take years for the area to only partially recover as a
natural habitat. Endangered species like the Saltmarsh Yellowthroat don’t have the
luxury of taking time out for years or perhaps decades of recovery.
This reach of Matadero Creek is a prime birdwatching area because of the species
found only in the interface of riparian areas with saltmarsh. Habitat lost here
cannot be adequately mitigated. Both people and wildlife will experience this
deteriorated environment.
Please re-think this terrible project.
Sincerely,
Emily M. Renzel, Coordinator
Baylands Conservation Committee
1056 Forest Avenue
Palo A!to, CA 94301
P.S. I have read the more technica! submittal of Libby Lucas and substantially agree
with it, so I will not repeat the concerns she has raised.
December 4, 2001
Melissa Dargis
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
Dear Ms. Dargis:
I am writing to comment on the EIR for the Matadero/Barron Creeks Long Term
Remediation Project, I regret that I was unable to attend the meeting you held a
couple of weeks ago at the Acterra offices, but thank you for inviting me to it.
I remain concerned about the work proposed downstream of Highway 10!. The 80’
wide hard bottom bypass channel will necessitate removal of a huge amount of both
native and non-native riparian habitat. The bypass is supposed to accommodate
1400 cfs of flow during the 100 year event, but if the flood basin is at or near capacity,
the bypass will essentially be storage ordy.
The current riparian lowlands between the Palo AJto Municipal Services Center and
Matadero Creek channel proper can also provide overflow storage while continuing
to provide great refugia for many- species of birds. Since there are significant
lowlands all around the flood basin, including the Renze! wetlands, the old
Mayfield Slough remnant, and others, perhaps there is a simpler solution which
might entail large high elevation flow-through culverts to allow storage in those
areas until the flood basin is able to discharge.
The Matadero Creek riparian area is particularly important because the rest of the
baylands are basically saltmarsh or fresh marsh. If there are major losses of riparian
habitat in this location, we could see significant losses of species diversity.
i stepped off what I thought was 80’ from the Municipal Services Center (MSC) fence
toward Matadero Creek, and only 50-60’ feet of the original riparian corridor
between the creek and the MSC would remain. K, as part of this project, non-native
species located in the immediate vicinity of the creek are also to be removed, this
could be deva~tatir~g in the ~hoct te~m and potenti~ly have long te~m impaet~ on
some species. Use of herbicides as described in the EIR may have harmful effects
on native plant species and residue might also impact wildlife. Manual removal
sho,,ld be r~m~;rpd if th,~’~ is ~n h,~ plant r~ma~,~l Ln ~’ ’~’~ ~h~ plan~ removal
should not take place until revegetation has occurred in areas designated for
I attempted to find in the EIR an aerial photo of the entire site downstream of 10!, so
that the impacts could be realiy assessed, but so fa~ r have not fo~.t_nd anything k -~
drawings. In the meeting a couple of years ago, there was talk of building a major
15’ access road for maintenance. I could not find reference to it or any depiction of it
in this EIK I hope that means that said road has been deleted from the project. I
believe it will have major adverse impact by providing dry access for red fo× and
other predators and by its direct impact on the wetlands through which it would
have to run.
I know that in dealing with FEMA rules, some rules which govern the rest of the
country may apply here, even though our weather conditions are quite different.
~&rhile you have to acknowledge these rules and attempt to deal with them in order
to remove large areas from the flood maps, I hope you will make every attempt to
persuade FEMA that some projects may just be boondoggles here in California. This
Matadero bypass may be one of them. Please be sure that it is a realisti~ project for a
realistic problem before tearing apart perhaps the largest riparian habitat
downstream of Highway 101.
Thank you for considering this comments.
Sincerely,
Emily M. Renzel, Coordinator
Baylands Conservation Committee
1056 Forest Avenue
Palo ~a2lto, CA 94301
1~SZI~8!2BS~ 11:~9 ~5~434764B
453 Tennessee Lane, Paio Alto CA 94306
CITIZENS COMMITTEE PAGE B2
CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO COMFLETE THE REFUGE
Tel 650 493-550 Fax 650 494-7640 e-mail: marshL~’refuge,org
Architectural Review Board
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Re: #4, April 15, Matadero Creek l:k’oject
Dear Board Members,
April 8, 2003
Thank you for the opporttmity to comment on the Water District plans for flood
control on Matadero C_reeK
Over the last several years the San Francisco Estuary Institute, supported by many
governmental agencies, has produced a remarkable series o£ maps of the historic edges
o£ the bay. (Robin Grossinger 510 746-7380.) They are particularly important now, since
restoration planning is going on for the recently purchased salt ponds. The mps of the
South Bay are sttmning; 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
taking 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 channelized Adobe Creek
will brirlg 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 Palo Alto creeks and their flooding problems. In
many cases, maintenance has been woefxflly neglected while large and imposing
construction is used instead. This project should be denied, and further assessment
made of maintenance and flooding re~ords for Matadero.
Thank you for your careful consideration of work on this sensitive and attractive site.
Yours sin_cerely
Florence M. LaRiviere
A 50I(c)(3) Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation
PLANNING DIVISION
Memorandum
Date:
To:
Subject:
April 4, 2003
Planning and Transportatio~t Commission
John Lusardi, Planning
Item No. 2 3201 East Bayshore Road
On Friday _@ernoon, J~pril 4, 2003, Ms Libby Lucus submitted the attached docurnen~ to be
forwarded to the Commission for the review- of the Matadero Creek Long Term Remediation
Project. Since the Commission staff report had already been sent to printing, tt~is document is
included as a separate attachment.
FOff REFERENCE
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
TECHNICAL REPORT
Supplement to
BAYLANDS M~ASTER PLAN
AND
ENVIRON~iENTAL IMPACT P.~.PORT
Prepared for the City of Palo Alto
By
Environmental Impact Planning Corporation
Garrett Eckbo & Associates
October 1976
I.INTRODUCTION: HABITATS OF THE BAYLANDS
A.OPEN WATER
This is the area of the Bay that is constantly covered by salty
waters, including the deep channels and immediate shoal areas.
It provides feeding areas for a number of waterfow! and water-
birds such as the brown pelican, loon, grebe, cormorant, canvas-
back, scaup, and surf scoter, which feed on mollusks, crustaceans,
worms, and fish. Water quality is generally poor, and primary
productivity is therefore limited.Typical fish species are the
perch, smelt, flounder, and skate.
This habitat plays an important role in transporting sediment
and nutrients across expansive and highly productive mud flats.
Diving ducks depend on this habitat to provide food and resting
space (rafting). ~
Harbor seals, sharks, and large fish occupy the deep water chan-
nels (harbor access and other shipping channels), a habitat of
limited extent in the immediate vicinity of the Baylands.
B.MUD FLATS
Extensive mud flats occur in south San Francisco Bay and repre-
sent perhaps the most outstanding feature of the Baylands.
Extending from the !ower or bayward edge of the marshes to mean
lower low water (MLLW), mud flats are areas exposed by low
tides. They provide habitat for an abundant fauna that feeds
on materials brought in by the tide or on organic detritus sur£
rounding the Baylands.
San Francisco Bay is thought to support up to 70 percent of the
shorebirds of the Pacific Flyway. These birds fly between Canada
or Alaska and Mexico, and their survival depends directly on Bay
mud flats. -
Tidal sloughs provide a physical and ecological link between the
mud flats and the more landward reaches of the salt marshes.
Most sloughs in the Baylands have been modified by man. Diking
has substantia!ly changed the water quality of Mayfield Slough
in the flood basin, and the diversion of San Francisquito Creek
from the Yacht Harbor basin has eliminated ~he influence of
winter fresh-water flows.
Only limited numbers of fish forage in the Bayland’s sloughs,
due to poor water quality, insufficient oxygen, and limited
tidal flushing. The highest populations probably occur within
the yacht Harbor basin, which receives the full effects of the
tidal exchange. Fish in the lagoon are adversely affected by
summer algae blooms, insufficient oxygen, and the partial barrier
of the pipe under the causeway. The flood basin sloughs provide
poor fish habitat in their present state.
Wading birds, puddle ducks, egrets, and herons feed in the shal-
!ows of the larger sloughs. In the Bay!ands, tidal exclusion or
limited tidal variation limits the productivity and availability
of exposed mud-flat zones for shorebirds. Proposed mitigation
projects wil! enhance the wildlife potential of certain sloughs
and lagoons.
Productivity and wildlife abundance is probably greatest in
sloughs bisecting cordgrass marsh land. The slough separating
Hook Island from the f!ood basin level benefits from tidal flush-
ing of the nutrients from the marsh. The bands of vegetation
that fringe the s!oughs s!ope from tidal flats to high marsh vege-
tation. Plants most tolerant to tidal submergence such as cord-
grass occur a!ong the water’s edge; ~pecies intolerant of tida!
exposure are found at higher elevations away. from the sloughs.
Upstream of the slough mouth, in reaches affected by fresh-water
drainage, bulrushes, tules, and cattails predominate. The slough
fringe is habitat for Baylands species throughout the year.
D.SALT MARSH HABITAT
Salt marshes form an extremely productive zone between mud flats
and drier lands and are widely recognized as a highly valuable
natural resource to man, wildlife, and the Bay ecosystem. Much
of the estuarine life in the Bay depends directly on the salt
marshes and mud flats for subsistence, or indirectly on them by
feeding on other estuarine life. Marshes provide habitat for
rare and endangered wildlife and food for fish, invertebrates,
mammals, birds, and reptiles. Some species use the marsh season-
ally; others are permanent residents, including the endangered
salt marsh harvest mouse. Animal and plant wastes or decomposi-
tion products are rushed from the marshes into the mud flats and
Bay waters during each high tide.
2
Of major significance is the role played by marshes in nutrient
cycling and’exchange and in contributing to the high productiv-
ity of fish and shellfish in adjacent waters. For example, the
primary productivity of a Georgia marsh is:
Pounds
per acre Kcal/m2
Frequent tidal inundation
Gentle tidal inundation
Infrequent tidal inundation
17.8 16,000
10.2 7,200
3.3 3,000
Some marshes produce food at a rate seven times that of an equiv-
alent acre of wheat.
Salt marshes show a definite zoning of vegetation due to the
influences of tidal inundation and other factors (including the
duration of tidal submergence, type of rooting substrate, soil
and water salinity, and effect of sun and wind).
Tidal submergence and salinity are the primary factors affecting
species occurence and distribution. A small change in tidal
level, and hence duration of submergence, can significantly
affect plant distribution, especially at the upper and lower
limits of the marsh. Each species survives best within a specific
range of tidal leve! and salinity. These ranges are currently
being delineated for west coast marshes.
Hinde (1954) conducted a pioneering study of the vertica! distri"
bution of salt marsh phanerogams in relation to tide levels in
the Palo Alto marshes. Cordgrass (~partina fo!iosa) is found at
lower levels, while various species of Salicornia (pickleweed)
occupy the higher levels of the marsh.
Cordgrass is a marsh-building salt-toleraht plant that can stand
inundation but not dehydration. .It has limited direct food value
for wildlife but provides vital habitat for a number of species.
Decayed cordgrass contribute greatly to the productivity of the
marsh-mud flat food web. Cordgrass is~not as salt-tolerant as
pickleweed, since it is usually excluded at salinities exceeding.
four percent. It has much air tissue,~ ~ich enables it to pass
air from its leaves to its roots, thereby permitting the plant
to live in soils low in oxygen. There is some evidence to sugT
gest that cordgrass roots may play a role in aerating marsh soils.
Pick!eweed is often the only species present in highly saline
soils, since it is extremely tolerant of high salt levels. This
plant is better adapted to dehydration than inundation and con-
sequently occurs at higher levels than cordgrass. Two species
are recognized in the Baylands: Sa!icornia pacifica and
S. depressa, the former more common, the latter being found
at higher elevations.
Pickleweed can cope with desiccation because it has abundant
fleshy, water-storing tissue~ and high salt concentrations in
its cells, and thereby avoids loss of tissue water into the sur-
rounding salt waters. Hinde gives levels of 10.3 to 7.5 feet
above MLLW for pickleweed. This species is apparently unable to
extend its range downward because it lacks air-transporting tis-
sues.
Salt grass (Distich!is spic.ata), a grass highly tolerant of
saline environments, is found throughout the marsh but occurs
more often in the saltier and higher elevations, such as the
tops or slopes of levees and dikes. It intermingles with glass-
wort (Salso!a soda) or is found in pure strands.
A marsh generally has three or four definite zones.
the lowest levels these are:
Starting at
Cordgrass zone, where cordgrass amounts to 90 to 100
percent coverage.
Middle zone, where cordgrass and pick!eweed are both
present. ~
Upper zone, where pickleweed, predominates.
Landward edge of marsh, where a g~eater diversity of
plants is found. These include ~triplex (fat hen and
Australian saltbush), alkali heath, marsh grindelia,
marsh rosemary, salt marsh sand spurry, and various
grasses.
Pickleweed has wildlife food value and provides refuge and nest-
ing areas for resident and visiting wildlife. During periods of
high tide, many wildlife species seek refuge in the pickleweed
marshes; herons and egrets feed along sloughs or ponds in the
marsh, while owls and hawks hunt marsh rodents. The salt marsh
provides habitat for two endangered species, the salt marsh har-
vest mouse and the California clapper rail.
Other mammals that frequent these marshes are the vagrant shrew,
muskrat, house mouse, raccoon, and weasel. Birds include a wide
range of shorebirds, especially the avocet, black-necked stilt,
plover: willet, sa~dpipers~ and certain wa~r~nw]~ r~]~ coot~
salt marsh song sparrow, long-billed marsh wren~ and red-winged
blackbird. The landward edge provides nesting cover for birds
that feed in themarsh. The rich insect fauna supports ntunerou~
swal!ows that nest elsewhere. A few snakes and lizards may live
along the levees.
4
.Historic... ~hanges "
Development along the Bay.edge has substantially reduced the
extent of marshland. Historically, marsh!and in the Baylands
extended almost to th~ Bayshore Freeway. Much has now been
filled to permit residentia!, commercial, and industrial deve!-
opment. Other areas have been diked off as flood control basins
for collecting upstream waters to minimize flood damage.
The flood basin was formerly extensive marshland; diking has
changed the area into a more diverse habitat of grassland, marsh,
and levees. Implementation of the proposed mitigation projects
wil! increase the amount of marshland yet preserve the higher-
elevation grasslands essentia! to the diverse wildlife of the
area.
While the Laumeister tract is directly open to Bay tides, the
Faber tract was originally diked off to drain the land prepara-
tory to grazing use. In 1971, the dikes were intentionally
breached, and the marsh has rapidly restored itself to its former
productivity.
E.FRESH-WATER MARSH
The landward edge of the diked-off f!ood basin, subject to fresh-
water flooding in the winter, supports a small fresh-water marsh.
Typica! plants include the cattail (three species), common rush,
bulrush, sedge, and fat hen. The vegetation is a mix of fresh-
water marsh species and weedy plants of the community that grow
primarily between the wet depressions. The areas seasonally
flooded contain such plants as water plantain, horseweed, wild
radish, alkali mal!ow, and willow. Growths of cattail and bulrush
provide cover for red-winged blackbirds, coots, marsh wrens, and
puddle ducks (mallard, pintail, and tea!).
Grassland wildlife species are discussed in Section 6.
DISTURBED HABITATS
These habitats are the result of recent land modifications and
disturbances. The placement of dredge spoils and fill provides
substrate idea! for colonization by aggressive weedy species.
example, the refuse disposal area is largely bare ground, although
a number of annual.: grasses (such as Italian ryegrass, Bermuda
grass, ripgut grass, and foxtail) and weeds (such as knotweed,
5
curly dock, milk thistle, and field mustard) occur. Examples
of disturbed habitats include the airport fill area, the refuse
disposal area, Baylands dikes, the dredgespoil settling area,
sand mounds, and roadside areas.
Productivity. in these areas is low. The lack of suitable food
and cover limits wildlife to transient.species such as the
jackrabbit, pheasant, mourning dove, and some sparrows. The
California ground squirrel and the Norway rat are probably the
only permanent resident species.
Nearly fifty species of~weeds have been recorded on fill areas
now occupied by grassland. The majority of grasses are annual,
producing seeds each year and starting anew. In some areas,
shrubs such as coyote brush and French broom have become estab-
lished, increasing the area’s productivity. Wildlife species
are basically the same as those of the grassland habitat.
Levees are usually vegetated by disturbed or weedy species.
While vegetation is sparse or absent on the top, the slopes may
support disturbed or marsh vegetation important to the surviva!
at high tides of a nun~er of species, among them the endangered
salt marsh harvest mouse.
Common levee species include Australian saltbush, fat hen, coyote
brush, various thistles and annua! grasses, sweet fennel, marsh
grindelia, bul! mallow, curly dock, dandelion, and mustard. In
some places the elderberry, tree tobacco, and exotic trees occur.
Ground squirrels burrow in the levee slopes, and willets, sand-
pipers, gulls, plovers, and mourning doves use the levee for
resting or nesting. In some localities, especially immediately
south of the Baylands, levees are vita! nesting areas for shore-
birds when the tides cover the mud flats.
G..GRASSLAND
Lands at higher elevation or drier than the marshlands are
classified as grasslands. This habitat type is of particular
significance to Baylands wildlife because of its role in providr
ing refuge for wildlife during high tide or flooding and in
increasing the diversity of natural environments. Grasslands are
often described as "upland meadows," a term that is misleading
from tida! inundation or f!ooding by levees. Species composition
varies according to soil type, soil moisture and salt content,
availability of ground water, and past land influences.
Five grassland associations have been identified in the Baylands.
These are the wheatgrass, disturbedr ryegrass, fill grassland,
and flood basin grasslands. The wheat and rye grasslands are
found in the f!ood basin; fil! grassland occupies portions of
the airport and commercially developed areas. Many of the
species observed are annuals introduced to California during
the last century, some examples are the bromes (soft chess and
ripgut), Mediterranean barley, farmer’s foxtail, Italian ryegrass,
and wild oats. Interspersed with the grasses are a number of
forbs, herbs, and shrubs. Many, such as mustards, thistles,
curly dock, and knotweed, characterize sites subject to distur-
bance. Fat hen, Australian saltbush, salt grass, alkali ryegrass,
alkali heath, and pickleweed predominate in the saltier soils or
depressions subject to evaporation and salt deposition. Coyote
brush and elderberry are found in better d~ained, less saline.
areas.
Seed eaters and raptors characterize the bird fauna, including
song sparrows, blackbirds, doves, cowbirds~ finches, and pheas-
ants among the former and white-tailed kite, red-tailed hawk,
short-eared owl, and burrowing owl among the latter. Kites,
owls, and hawks feed~on the small rodent fauna of the grasslands,
a particularly valuable resource of the flood basin. The short-
eared ow! breeds on the B~ylands and is most abundant in the
flood basin. Burrowing owls, by contrast, prefer more disturbed
sites (especially the refuse dtunp and ITT property) and rely on
abandoned ground squirrel burrows. Both species of ow! are
.unusual so close to the urban environment. Pheasant breed in the
flood basin, but range onto the refuse fill area to feed. Charac-
teristic mammals include the black-tailed jackrabbit, California
ground squirrel, and California meadow mouse. A few reptiles are
also found in the Baylands.
H.LANDSCAPED OR EXOTIC ILABITATS
Exotic species have been widely planted around the developed
areas of the Bay!ands. While their primary productivity may be
high, they are of limited use to wildlife because of mowing, trim-
ming, the presence of commercia! structures, and the high level
of human activity. In some places the vegetation is better
described as weedy. Many of these habitats were formerly marsh-
land; filling to provide for development has irretrievably modi-
fied their pristine character.
Landscaping has introduced lawn species and exotic trees or shrubs
belonging to many 9pecies, most of whichdo not occur naturally in
California or the Baylands. Of these areas, the golf course is
most utilized by wildlife. Although not much studied, the golf
II.ECOLOGIC~ FUNCTIONS OF H~ITATS
A.MUD FLATS
Critica! habitat for large numbers of shorebirds in winter
months (when exposed by tidal action).
Feeding habitat for harbor sea!, brown pelican, terns, and
Bay ducks during high-tide.
Oxygenates south Bay w~ters. ’
Substrate for many food chains of other areas.
Wildlife wintering habitat.
Some capacity to assimilate nitrogenous wastes (sewage).
Plays role in Bay productivity.
Habitat for estuarine invertebrates and other aquatic organisms.
B.SLOUGHS, HARBOR BASIN, AND LAGOON
Pathways for limited boating and nature study.
Valuable wildlife habitat (ducks, shorebirds, other waterbirds).
Habitat for fish and invertebrates.
Important breeding area for some fish.
Important to Bayland and south Bay food chains and productivity.
High-tide habitat for shorebirds.
C.SALT ~tARS H
species (California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse).
Feeding area for a number of birds, including white-tailed
kite, egrets, herons, song sparrows, and waterfowl.
Plays important role in productivity of south Bay, including
nutrient cycling and oxygenation.
Provides refuge for birds and other wildlife during high-tide.
D.BRACKISH AND FRESH-WATER ~iARSH
Critical habitat for some species of resident and migrant
waterfowl.
Habitat for food chains of other areas.
Value for shorebirds during high tide.
Provides energy, minera!, and nutrient cycling.
E.DRY-LAND SITES (includes flood-basin grassland)
Habitat for diverse wildlife including owls, pheasants, numerous
song birds, and rodents.
Feeding area for hawks, gulls, and other wildlife.
i0
I!I.CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING NATURAL VALUES OF HABITATS
Protecting the natural values~of the Baylands is a primary goal
of the Master Plan. Thus the ecological, biological, and physi-
cal constraints of the Baylands system are major criteria in for-
mulating the Plan and evaluating the effects of alternative uses.
To define the ecologica! sensitivity of each subunit of the Bay-
lands, it is necessary first to establish the significance of
that subunit. The following criteria are proposed; the highest
natural values obtain in areas best fulfilling these criteria.
1.Habitat of rare, endangered, or unique plants and animals.
Site vital to the survival of a particular species
(nesting, feeding, or breeding areas).
3.Degree of floral and faunal diversity.
4.Productivity of site.
5.Vigor of communities (i.e., presence of healthy, repro-
ducing individuals).
o Uniqueness of community (for example, the last or nearly
the last community of its type in the area).
7. Relative abundance of native species.
Degree to which site is buffered from past or present
detrimental influences.
9. Potential for education or research activities.
These criteria are not presented in any particular hierarchica!
order, although rare and endangered species habitat, for example,
is a more important criterion than the relative abundance of
native species.
To establish the relative significance of each area in the Bay-
lands to vegetation, .wildlife, and aquatic life, we have developed
a relative rating system based on these criteria. Sites of low
value have only one or twe criteria evident, while sites of the
highest value meet most of the criteria or are areas especially
important as habitat for rare or endangered species and as undis-
turbed marsh!and.~ With each site classified by significance, the
alternatives can.be more effectively assessed. Table I shows sub-
unit significance in terms of wildlife and vegetation.
ii
00
00
0
o
u u u 0 I I
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
~0 0 0
0 o o o 0 0 0
¯o o o
¯¯o .~
0
0 O
~ ¯
0
o
o
o
o
¯0 0
0 I I
I
0 o
I
I I I I
I I.I I
o
12
IV. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
A.RARE AND ENDANGERED WILDLIFE OF THE BAYLANDS
i.Permanent Residents
California Clapper Rail (Ra!lus longirostris obsoletus)
Listed as endangered-by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
’Distribution: San Francisco Bay and E!khorn S!ough. Casual
visitor to Bo!inas, Tomales, and Humboldt Bays.
Secretive resident of cordgrass-pickleweed zone of the salt
marsh. Occurs in the marsh preserve, on Hook Island, _and on
the Faber and Laumeister Tracts. Total counts have been as high
as 72 for the marsh preserve area at a given time.
Secondary nesting habitab in the Yacht Harbor basin; implemen-
tation of flood basin mitigation project should provide some
habitat in that locali~y.
The clapper rail is highly specialized and depends on undis-
turbed marshland. Bay fil! and drainage have greatly reduced
available habitat; in some areas rat predation on eggs is an
adverse factor. Feeds on mollusks, insects, and other inverte-
brates.
Habitat needs: Protect cordgrass-pickleweed marsh!and; minimize
human intrusion, especially during breeding season.
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris
raviventris)
Listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Distribution:
and salt-water marshes. Prefers Salicornia marsh habitat.
restricted to scattered colonies within its original range.
.fill and diking are major factors contributing to i9~
although competition from other small ro.~ents may also be a
factor.
Unique to San Francisco Bay, inhabiting brackish
Now
Bay
One of the few mammals able to drink salt water. Although able
to tolerate v~riation in salinity, seems to prefer habitats with
13 4.
a stable, high salinity. Able to tolerate high salt content in
diet. Can survive with salt water as its only drinking fluid.
Breeding season probably February to September. Probably does
not make its own burrows. Litters raised in nests built of
plant material (may use old song sparrow nests).
Feeds on green plant leaves and stems, rarely on insects.
Frequently subject to high tides, when they usually climb up
into the higher vegetation. During maximal high tides of
December/Januam~ y and June/July, they are frequently forced to
swim.
Active during the day (diurnal), and during the night depending
%n temperature.
Habitat needs: Preserve Salicornia marsh zone, preferably with
a buffer of levee vegetation, and maintain adequate escape dover
for high tides via hummock development.
c. C~lifornia Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus)
Classified as rare by the California Depart~.ent of Fish and Game.
Winter resident in pickleweed marshes on a consistent but low-
number basis.
2.Occasional Visitors
a. California Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus)
Listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Occasional fall and winter visitor to offshore areas, feeding
in the deeper channels.
Occurs in small groups.
b. California Least Tern (Sterna albifrons browni)
T.~ ~ endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Occasional spring and late summer visitor, feeding in the lagoon
and flood basin area.
14
Breeds to the north of Bay!ands on Bair Island, San Mateo County.
Recent records suggest an increase in breeding activity in San
Francisco Bay, though principa! breeding areas are in southern
California. Colonial breeder, highly sensitive to human intru-
sion and disturbance.
c. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus !eucocephalus)
Classified as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Rare winter visitor to salt marshes.
d. American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)
Classified as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Rare winter visitor to salt marshes.
3.Other Wildlife Speci~es of Special Concern
Several species that have been threatened by loss of habitat occur
in the Baylands. ~hese’may be placed on the Federal threatened
list or the State rare and endangered list at some future date.
a.Salt Marsh Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula, southern.
geographic race)
b. Vagrant Shrew (Sorex vagrans)
South Bay populations.
c.Harbor Seal (Phoca vituleria)
Feeds in sloughs in the area. Hauling sites are located elsewhere
in the south Bay.
d. White-Tailed Kite. (Elanus leucurus)
¯ Feeds in grassland areas (ITT and flood basin).
e. Short-Eared Owl (Asio flammeus)
Resident of flood basin area.
f. Burrowing Owl (Spegtyto cunicu!aria)
Breeds in disturbed grassland areas.
B.MOSQUITO ABATEMENT
Natural tidal inundation can limit the distribution of mosquitoes.
The more frequent the tidal inundation, the lower the chance of
mosquito larvaes’ developing. Water management is most needed
along the upper zones of the marsh and in pockets where fresh
water may remain for long periods.
Control measures used are:
2~
Q
Drainage of wet areas, an action that would be incompati- [i~
ble with preserving the wildlife values of the flood basin.[~i..~
Controlling water levels with dikes. This measure could
be utilized in the fresh-water ~arsh zone. Contact the
Santa Clara County Mosquito Abatement District for specific
details. "
Biological control, encouraging insect enemies of the
mosquito.
Use of smell fish such as minnows to prey on mosquito
larvae. Feasible in fresh-water marsh area.
Use of pesticides - not recommended because they are
non-selective, eliminating predators and harmless species
important as food sources to other wildlife.
C.FLOOD BASIN MITIGATION
Under present limits of tidal flushing, the potential for mini-
mizing dredging in the flood basin is limited Major constraints
u~u~ ~u~ua~ons in the flood basins are !ow ele-
vations, generally very level topography, and the biotic importance
of "grassland" areas to a variety of terrestrial wildlife including
short-eared owls, white-tailed kites, marsh-hawks, pheasant, jack-
rabbits, meadow mice, vagrant shrews, and a variety of songbirds.
16
Should tidal intrusion be increased to -I.0 feet, virtually all
the dry-land zones would be inundated, resulting in a successional
trend toward salt marsh. The fresh-water marsh, however, would
apparently be protected from surface flooding. Therefore, the
only means of increasing the tidal prism, yet maintaining diverse
plant and animal habitat, would be to elevate portions of the
flood basin. Fill or dredge spoils could be utilized. Impacts
associated with this action would include the displacement and
disruption of fauna and flora at the fill site and along the
access road. These effects could be temporary if a suitable
substrate for terrestrial plants were developed and reseeding
techniques utilized to avoid invasion by undesirable species.
More study would be required to determine the feasibility of
replacing lost vegetation.
D.LAGOON MITIGATION
The goals of improving conditions for salt marsh should be met
through the foil@wing, carefully monitored: increase in salt
marsh; increase in low-tide mud flats for shorebird feeding;
improved water quality; and improved educational opportunities.
The limited availability of high-tide refuge areas for shorebirds
in the Baylands has been mentioned. The lagoon island is parti-
cularly vulnerable due to its proximity to existing and proposed
.development and its small size.
A positive planning feature would be to explore additional and
alternative sites to serve this ecologica! function. There are
several possibilities:
1.Faber Tract
This area is utilized by shorebird$. The higher-eleva-
tion areas within the tract should be protected from
human intrusion.
2. Flood Basin
This area also has potential once the mitigation project
is implemented. Again, protection of some areas from
human intrusion would be a desirable action.
3. Fresh-~Water Marsh
The fresh~water marsh in the flood basin provides some
habitat f~r shorebirds. Along %~ith the marsh expansion
and improvement, areas could be developed for use by
shorebirds.
17
16)Flushing with treatment plant effiuent
-loss of salt-water vegetation in lagoon; replacement
with brackish-water species;
- degradation of lagoon island possible;
- unfavorable fluctuations in water leve! possible;
- drastic modification of aquatic community.
Regulatory concerns related to fish and wildlife
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of the U.S, Department of
the Interior have published guidelines for the review of fish
and wildlife aspects of proposals in or affecting navigable
waters (Federa! Register, Vol. 40, No. 231, December i, 1975).
These guidelines concern dredge, fil!, materials discharge, and
disposal of Federa! or Federally-permitted or assisted projects
as they affect fish and wildlife. The Department is entrusted
with: !) insuring that all authorized structures or activities
are judged to be the least ecologically damaging alternative or
combination of alternatives; 2)~ insuring that all activities are
in the public’s interest in safeguarding the environment from
loss and degradation.
In determining whether criteria are met, the FWSA considers the
long-term effects of the proposal and its cumulative effects
when viewed in the context of similar or different activities.
I)Permit applications
Burden of proof to demonstrate the environmental soundness and
public interest lies with the applicant. Destruction or degra-
dation of wetlands and shallow water habitats is permitted only
where there is no question that the pubiic interest demands it~
2)Approval of proposal
The FWS will object to or request denial of a Federal permit for
any proposed project not properly designed or located to avoid
preventable significant damages to fish, wildlife, and/or other
environmental resources.
24