HomeMy WebLinkAbout0166.095•
TO:
A T1'El'>'TION: , ..
FROM:
City of Palo Alto
City l\rfanager's Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
CITY MA,'<AGER DEPARTMElItT: Public Works
AGL~A DATE: Marclo 13,lm CMR:t66:9S
SUBJECT:
REQUEST
CoordInated Resollr.'e Management and PlAnning (CRMP) Request
fur Clty Endo,...,..,ent of San Frand'qui!o Creek Flood and Ero.ion
C"" Irol Study
On februaty 2, 1995, the Steering COOl!llittee for the San francisqui!<> Creek Coordinated
Resoorec and Planning (CRMP) process sent letters 10 the Santa Clara Vaney Waler District
(SCVWD) and the San Mole" C.oun!y Public Works Departmen! reqneseng that the two
. ageo.,,"ies conduct a joint flood aod erosion control study 0{ the creek. CRMP also sent I
Jette< 10 the City Man"8er requesting that the Ctly endorse such • study.
RECOMMENDATION
This RpOrI :ecoounends that tbe Po/iv'y and Servic<s C<>mmitree recommend 10 Coo.ncil that
staff submit tbe attached ktre< to me SCVWD cndcrsing ,. flood and eJOsioo rontrol study
0{ San francisquito Creek
mucy IMPLICATIQNS
This report requests that the PoIic)-and Senke, Cornmit!ee reconsider an earlier Council
policy decisioo regarding San Franci squlto Creek On Jnn. 1/, 1990, staff requested
guidance from Cooncil on whether or DO! to "'quest the SCVWD to pursue ,. study of
improvement option; for the creek (CMR:346:O). C<>UDciI directed staff nO( 10 request the
SC\''WO to peifonn tbe study. .
EXECUITVE SUMMARY
•
0.. NO'<-em1:er 14. 1994, ConnciJ endorsed staff'. participatioo in the ongoing Coordinated
Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) process for San francisquito Cro.k
(CMR:S06:94) The purpose of the CR.\{\> is 10 promote the enhancement and health 0{ Ibe
San fnmcisquito Creel< watershed, by stimulating dialogue among the interesled parties and .
identifying majo< problems, planning objectives, and future ",,:ions. bt ceder to develop
goals and objectives for spe.;ific issnes affecting tbe creek, the CRMP Steering (,<>mmlnee
fanned individual task groups. Pl>bli<: Work. Department staff has participated in the task
group euroining flooding and erosioo problems.
Porolull
Sm F~ Creek po5e' • significant flood threat 10 resid<:tm of Polo Alto, Menlo Park,
and East Palo Alto, bo Polo Alto alone, the federal Em<cge!lcy Mar.agement Ageli<)'
(FEMA) has deramined 1hat approximately 1,350 ~Is arc subject to j"ooding of ooe fool
or mO<e in the ~""t of. I OO-year flood in the Creek. Owners of these propenies are
subje<1 10 mandatory purchase of flood insurance and spe<ial b,>ilc!ing requirements when
constructing. or substantially improving, their homes, FEMA is currently restudying Ibe
ilood potential from San Francisqui!o Creek due to chonse, in its floodplain mapping
policies, and preliminary results indicate !hat ther. will be a 60 per<ent increase in the
number of propetties hllhe &signaled floodplain OIl Ibe mi .. ", flood insuraoc., map'. Staff
will provide ~ with on ....mation of the restudy, when the flood i.'1SW1IllCe map'
become avoilable for publk revkw in approximately six mooths. Streambed and bank
aosioo is also a problem along San francisquito Creek. Erosion endangers bomes, streets,
and oth<:r privrde and publio property alongside the =k and threatens nati,'. vegetltUon
along the riJ;arian W<rido!:, Soil erosion results in sedimentation f.mber dov.nstream,
COOIn1>uting 10 flooding and destroying fish habitat are ....
~ of Ihe key findings of Ibe CRMP flood and erosion control task group is thit • lack of
technical infoonafion has bampered identification of potential solutions to flooding md
erosioe problems. The task group concluded chat • COC1jJfehenslve study of San Francisquito
Creek is n<:ede4 befure any meaningful discussion of flood and erosion control. opIions can
take place. In response to !be task group's recom.-nrodatioo, the CRMP Steering Committee
seDI: IeUers to the SCVWD and Ihe San Mateo County Public Warks Departmeat, requesting
that the two agencies cooduct • joint flood and erosion control study of the Creek
(A!tachment I). In making 1heir mr.JeSt. !he Steering O:Jmmitle.e .lso recommended 1hat the
following elements be incorponled inID the soope of the study, in order to roster
environmental protection and r ... -ilitate public partic'pation:
Consider.dion of options such as npstream de'.ention basins. bypass ch8!lnels, and other
alternatives to Creek eIlI"'l!ement or fining,
• Dev.:1ofment of recommendations !bat preserve the Creek. in Us natural state as moch
as possible, and avoid the use of concrete,
C.onslderat>on of alternative polkies and projects llJot would not provide protectioll
against the IOO-year flood. but will protect against less .evere floods while
minimizing ""gative environmental impacts,
Active participation by CRMP members and other ",embers of Ibe public throughout
the sludy process.
A letter WliS also sent 10 lb. cily manager of each municipality adjoining San Francisquito
Creek, requesting that they endorse CRMP'. re'lues! f(W • flood and erosion control. study
of the Creek (Attachment 2). Taking into conside .... tion the environmental safeguards and
, ',' " ,~
.... > \ ~ , '
public particlpalion requcste<las i"'It c{ Il>e study, staff rec~ ihal t!le Polley aDd
Serviees Committee recommend IG Cooneil tlt.t staff submit the attach<d letter IG t!!c
SCVWD c:udoning a flood aDd ero.;k>n comrol study of San Fr!lllClsqwl" C~ek (Atta<hment
3).
FISCAL IMPACT
This repo<t las "" fi5<:aI impacfs to the City.
EN\'IRONML'ITAL ASSESSMEllrr
There is noeaviJoomenlal ,,-,""ssment required m cooj1lll<:tion wilh this repcn. If the
SC\'WD and IfIe San MattO Coonty Public Wads Department proceed ,.ith • flood and
erosion cootroI sIIldy of San Francisquito Creek. tIley wi.n be responsibk for preparation of
an envirQllI!leltM assessment of eaob identified proj.:ct altem.live.
ATIACHMENTS
I -Letter &om CRMP Steering Committee 10 Santa Oara Valley Water Distrkt
2 -LelIa from CRMP Steering Committee to City Manager
3 -Ptopos<:d letter to Santa CIa!a VaHey Water Distrkt endorsing CIIMP', request for
• study of San Fraocisqulto Creek
PREPARED BY, Geo<gt Bagdon. Assistant Director of Public Works
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
CITY MANAGEll APPROVAL: ~f>~t~iW..OM~~))\~.~%:;:;?~~.~ ____ _
BERNARD M. STRQ1f;Y'
Assistant City Manager
cc: Debbie Myte\s. CRMl" Steering Committee
Kay WlIit!ock. SCVWD
John Paul Hanna
,..,.3.U
"-. :"-.-
San Franclsqllfto Creek Watershed
~~~~.-:~~ ____ Coorcfmated ReSOlKce t1anagement and PlaMJng (CRMP)
(.UIbr hu IIIadvR
!9l1 "" IojsMa w
.... 0._
4151'Hl.9m. """WMl)(
Stan Williams
General Man .ger
Santa Clar. Valley Waler District
5750 Almaden Expre5SWay
San Jose, CA 9511S
January 31, 1995
Over !he pasl year, the pa.licipa!icn and support ol the Sant<> Clara Vaney
. Warer Disfrict has been a tremendous 'sse! in the Coordinated Resource
Management and Planning (CRMP) process initiated by the Peninsula
Coru;erv.1lon Cenlet for the San Frandsquito Creek wafershed. This
efforI has broughl ~ 6S representatives {rom !he five cities (East
Palo Alto, Menlo Parlc, Palo Alto, Poctola Valley and Wood.kk), Santa
Qara aNi San Mateo Counties ... a dozen otlter govemmertt agencies ...
community and environmental organizations, :1eighbochood associations
and landowr . .",., including Stanf,yd University, with Ihe purpose 10 Iosrer
I: diverse a..11d healthy watershed, valued as a naMa} a.."'ld cOIlU'!1unHy
resource in a manner ronsiste...'"lt 'Wit.."-puNic 'health and safety as wen. as
with property rights
One 01 our six tasle forces has been Worlehlg on issues related 10 Rood and
F.ro<ion Control and this group has Identified the following pro!>!e!I\S in
need ol so/utiO<l:
I) San Frandsquito Creele poses • significant flood threat 10
thous.nds ol citizens and p<operties in East Palo Alto, Menlo Par~ and
Palo Alto.
2} The continuing erosion ol the creek banks threafens tI1e loss 01
valuable publk .. ,d private property and may .dversely affect habitat
alo."'g the riparian corridor.
3) Future deve!op1I".en! may incrE'ilSE' existing f"K'XXling and eroc;ion
problems .
• ) The NaoonaI FkxJd Insurance Program l',as an econorn.i<: i..'"tlpact
on property o,"-ners.
5) The exisfence of multiple jurisdictions and a Jack of teliable
irlformatlon has hampered tI1e abl1ity 10 identify pofential solullons to
tI1ese problems.
. ,
An expanded list of ~ sp<clk prol>lEm5 has l>een prepared by the Flood and Erosion
Control Task Force and is attached. . . .
On t>ehalf of the CRMP Sleeting Committee, I am writing 10 formally requeSt thai tr.e
scVwD and San Mal<!o County Flood Control District be \he lead ag~ in perforoUng
a swdy ol the San FrancisquilO Creek waEers1\ed with the purpose of evaluating optlons:
• to mir.iIruze fk>oding problerr.s;
• to remove areas from FE).!A flood insurance requiremenf:s; and
• to ensure contfnued 'itcility of the natural creek en 'oIlronment.
Among Hie questions that should be an,-wered by thls shldy of LIu! San Frandsquito Creek
wa!ershed are the followingo
• 'W!-o.2! are the sources and causes of erosion in thl's watershed ?
• What causes flooding in this watershed?
• How do Hooding and erosion affect biological resources, foe example, the
sleeThead trout. in this watershed ?
• What is the impact of p<>(enlial SQ!utions on biologkaI resources ?
• How might low Hows (due 10 Hood control measures) affect biologic.1 resources ?
• How would an ;"crease in impervious surfaces affect \he creel< 1
In defining the scope of the study, we have rour recommend. tlon.<.:
1} The study should consider -.ltemanv .. , such as upstream detention basins, bypass
channels and other possible soIuoo.'1S.
2} h.y recommended soIu60ns must;. as Dluch as possible, preserve the creek in its
natural state. In lceep1Il8 with this goal, any proposed solUDon must avoid con..<truction of
.. concrete-lined d"",.'1ei.
S} Because both funding limitatXlns and concerns arout habitat &">gr.d.1ion may present
obstacles 10 • large scale project. the srudy should analyze hew 10 protect !lot only against
the 1 OO-ye~ flood, but also against !.ess ""vete flood$ of moe" rr""l"ent occurreflC<!-This
will prov>de com.munlty decision-makers with • more comple", picture of the ris •• and
lhe costs 10 protect agaln..<t them..
4) Fina1I y ... because of our :&uccess in involving so many cl the wafecsl'led's sfakeholdPJs iI't
the CRMP process, we belleve tha! the 5!udy should utilize new methods of parOCipaoon
by comnmnity groups and the general pub!k, completely inlegtating the various
stalceholders into the process. o.u CRMP group plans 10 par6cipate ID de$igrung the study
a.."ld to h.etp as an environmental re\iew team.
The time is right 10 begin this study. We an antkipate that FEMA will soon issue %lew
IT.aps which indkate boundaries of the various flood zanes (gg., lOO-year flood potential).
From informal preliminary indications, we believe that 'bose FEMA maps wnJ s1-.ow an
expanded Hood dmger ar€a from San Francis<,'Uilo Creek. This will raise public concerns
about the flood is5tle.
" .
u-'" 5CVWD re s.n F~ Cree. F100d Control Sludy, 1/l1/95, fi)3
So that this study could be accomplish...:! wi:hln the next 18-2.4 months, we urge you to
wnsider thiS matter at L'> early occasion and include funds (or it in your upc;om;ng annt..l
budget
We !-.ave written an klenliul letter to the San Mateo County Public Works Dep.rtment
and sent copies to the five cities wi:hln L'te watershed. asld."S foe their endorsement of
!his proposed study. Because of tI1eir partki",tlon ;"!he watershed CRMP process, we
woop.te s!rong suppo<"t frorn an these jurlsdlctions.
We 1001< forward to your favorable response and 10 working closely with D'.strkt staff as
tM. proposal fO"S focward. .
Sincerely,
~1~/Jt:;~
Debbie Myrels
San Fra . .'",isquHo Creek CRMP Coordinator
This letter reviewed and agreed 10 by participants at !he ranuary 19, 1995 Steering
Committee mee!ing, ol the San Fandsquito Creek Wa!er~1\ed Coocdirufed Resource
Managemer.! and Planning grouP'
Kirk Stoddard. Stanford Linear Accelerator Cenler
Marld)ubi-ow, Stanfo<d LL"'Iear Accelerator Center
Geoff Brosseau ... Peninsula Conservation Center Board of DirecfCcs
Sam Herzberg, San Mateo County Planning Department
Marc KIemenck" Santa Oar. Valley Water District
Duane O'Donnell, San Mateo Counfy Environmental Health Department
u.'onard Lee, Santa Oar .. County Environmental Health Department
Marly Lap<><te, Stanford University Ub1ities Depar!mell:
Elaine ll<anding, Stanford University Utilities Department
}erry Heart'~ San Mateo County Hsh and WlIdljfe Adv'.sory Committee
Sue N">ehoIls, B. Y Are. Action
Karen CotIe!, Community Creek Wa!&
Garl .. Preuss, Communlfy Creek W. tch
Craig K ll<eon. Santa Oara Valley Audubon Society
Leonie Botkin. Stanford Management Comp,my
feler Drekneier, Bay Are. Action
Bob Hockey, Stanford Unlversity Utllitles
fun John,.,." friends of San Francisquito Creel<
Michael Hogan.. 5ay Area Action
Debra Jacobs, Oly of Palo Alto
Y.khael Rigney, Coyole Creel< Riparian Station
~-;::.-"
. ' .
..•
,
" -;:-~t{3>'"
,'-.," -..
•
. ,' .
. ~,~.
, ".'
San franclsq"lto Creek Watershed
Coon1"lI1ated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP)
,....~ JaI'.uar11t" 1995 ,--IDlIzI.... .... TO: CRMP St«!ring COIl".rrUltee
,.. ... 0._
.'~'!Q''''i. FROM: Flood Control and Erosion Task Focce
fa:: 41W2..fDC
~ Draft Ust of Problems (rev. 1/20/9S}
During meetlngs on Sep:ember 14, November 1, November 29, 1994 and January 10, 1995,
we woo-ked 10 define !!\(lI'e spe<:iJkal!y L"e issues and probleln. related !O flood control. and
erosion..
As a .mis....o:ion statement" :for the fl.<x)d Control and ErCk:o-100 Task FCII:ce .. we ~J.1] work to
generate solu&ms to the follov;i.ng ?roblems:
1) San Francisquito Creek poses a slgnitkant flood threat to tho:usanGs of dtiz.ens
ar.d p<operties in Palo All<> and Menlo Porl<.
2) The continuing erosion of the creek banks threatens the!o.s of ... luable public
and prlva!e proper!y and may adversely affect habiw along \he riparia.!,
corridor.
3) Fu·rure development may increase existing flooding iJ\d erosion problems.
4i The National fIoOO Insuran<:e Program r.as an economk impact on r-roperty
owners.
5} The exIster..ce of multirle jurisdkti.:ms a..-1"I.d a iack of reliable irLforrI'.ation has
hampered th~ ability iO identify potential soIuticns N> these problEms ..
n Flooding
• 5edimer,:tation an-d depos1tk-n r-educ~ creek capacity and cause floodiI\g.
• Sedimen!ation at t.''Ie poinI of ou!ilow !o the B.y "an prevent fuw out of the
channel.
• Bridges such as these at M'iddlefie1d, Chaucer/Pope Stree! and Highway 101
.ronstrict the waterway ~.nd cause fl.ooding.
• Debris sometimes clogs the wateIv.ra y ..
• Regulatory constraints on dredging make main~enance of channels tempxaruy
unfeasl"ble ... red-ocing the maMers capacity ~ carry water out to the Bay.
2} Erosion
• Sedimentation and deposjti.... .. m neg.Hively impact potential steeihead spa'lvning
grounds.
./' ~< ..
,"
Flood COI)!rCI 01'\d Erosion®k Force, o.-aft List of t.sues, p. 2:[)
2) ElQ§jOD (cont.}
• So!n!' poorly designed ootf.ll pipes may contribute 10 bank erosion.
• Trees and ot.'ter farge items can attack ",,"e barJ<:s1 causIng erosion.
• Bank E'J'osion threatens live trees CL.'1d adjacent Stn.:l<i:ure5, including NiJdtng.s.
roads, sewer lines and ulility lines.
o Bridges S'.ldt as those at Mlddlefield, Chau""r iFope Stre<'t and Highway 101
eott.strlct t..'\e flow and ca.n cause e!oston.
3.J I wpm at DE:vdQpm cnt
• The cumulative impaL1: of storm water nmoff' from development causes
multi;:>!.! ... com.p!ex eff~4:s upon tIt.€ creek,. including increased "'olume of water.
• New development without adequate setbads limits options foe &a!ing with
flood and erosion problems.
(1 Flood Iosutjlu,e _
• To remove the requiremenf foe fl,")Cl(:I i..1'b"Urance~ we need to remove areas from
the lOO-year flood 2(.-n05.
• Ne ....... ".FEMA tr...aps may requfre more-people to buy in5u·ra."'l<"e.
• Current FEMA regulatJo..--,;; require p€ople to pay flood insurance and puts
sigrlficant constralr.ts 0 .. rern<:'<ieling of existing buildings.
• Being m a flood zelle negatively affects prope!.ty values.
• People within the San Franci.'>;quito Oeek watershed may not be receivL'lg tne
same flood protection benefits as people in -other waters.heds l'.'ithin the SC"r'1-'"iD.
S) Ot;pnjutionat anel Information;!1 IsSUes
• We need !o Imow more about gE-O<nO<poo\ogy. For examp!e, we do D()t k",-",,'
what ii an optimallev21 of sedlmentation.
• We n~ to determine whether stnJocwr .. su<h as freeway soundwans might
inaeaS<? flood potentia!.
• W~ need to de~eJ'!l1.lfle what is the public responsfbility 10 pr-of.:?Ct ~evk;.u5
private development
• \'\I"e need an approach that etllpha... ... izes p1"oteC'"Jon of the ael'K:9 s habitat va1ut."'S.
• We. need an overall approach to flood/erosion problems, Tather tha."1. piecemeal
"~utions.
• Ach.ie\,,·ing. community CDnsensus on proposed solutions is diffirult.
• Raising funds for agreed upon sobtkms is di£licult.
• People respond to shoct-term, rather thm long-le..-rn problems.
• We need to determIne whether any pr~ solutions. s~ as water dJversiollr
might affect wa ler rigllts.
• W-()('mation from the OCOC's earlier study on sea. level rise sho'lld be
incorporated into '''y study.
• TheI'e is no adequa~ "\-.ram1ng sy-stem f-Q( downstream residents of risLi.g
uFsueam wale!" levels during hlgll flows. -
'-:-' ----; .----~~ <' ---------,..---
.".: :;...... • ~.' .-< .. ' , ••
;--~ . '.
:f~.''..:~~:.2~" .'.":-.. :_ 3"~'~~.-,
i ..
,,/',"
~ ;~
. '~:~J.
. '
PwUnsub C .......... ISH c.-_
ml !m IIj<IoI W
"" .... 0._
415,'ftl.ft76.
Fa: ·m.'9C..mc
June Fieming
City Manage<
Ci ty of Palo Alto
p.o, Box 10"L50
Polo Alto, CA 94303
""'-,..;.
ffi)ECEI\!~ID1
U\\ fES 6 19S5
aBE 00 11£ CIIY .........aa
:-::,
Atuchmenl2
Fetruary 2, 1995
The participa60n of Palo Alto's dty staff in the Coordi11ated Resource
Management and Planning process fo< the San Francisqui!<> Creek
watersh~ (luring the past year ·bas been. a tremendous as5cl in our ef-k."I'ts,
io foster a dh"erse and healthy watershed ... valued as a: natural and
cOOlmuruty resource L."1 .a. :nanner consistent v,rith p'..lblk health and safety
as well as lI\'ith p!'operty righ fs.
A~ you know ... <me of the major COIk.""'etIlS raIsed by the aee!c is its potential
fiX floodi.."\g. A...~ rev1e"""..ng the complicated issues re1afed to fl.ood
control within L1\e San Francisquito Creek l'I.-0I1ers-hed$ the Steering
Committee fOe the CR.~ process has decided 10 ask !he Santa Oara Valley
Water District __ ,-,d the San Mateo County flood C"ntrollY.s!rict to
undertake a study of .PO'Ssi'b!e solutions ~o flood a..ld erosion problems
-w.-thln tt.-e l\o'"a.tershed.
The atfacr.ed letter cuflir.es (he reasons for the study and tbo? items we
believe !\.€'ed to be e.-;amined \t\."'e also 5"uggest SOllIe additionaI pro"\1s}ons
reg;,.rding p!'otection of nahtral habitat and a broa:d-ba....o;ed public
participation process,
As noted in the letter. the time is right to begirt this study. V~e anticipate
that FEMA ".rill soon issue nM-V maps which bO'Jcate boundar..es of the
various fl.ood zones.. l..""\.formaI prelimL.iary indic;auDns ;ue mat these
FEMA maps wiJ1 sho~",,~ an expanded ikx>d danger area from Sf Creek
Thls~ al-oog with the recent storm51 v."ill raise public concerns· al:QU{: the
flood issue.
Beca\L~ the results of tJ'!is study 'W'ill provide informatk.n to all the
jurisdJctions within the wa!ershed~ -we urge you to review and endcrse
-, ~. ~ .. '.
'"'-.-,
'0 -~ ~ .~-"
-,-:, .---:
Lett", 10 City of Palo Alto .. San frilIlcisqullO Crm CRW.P. €)!95. page 2
the at'.adled request A letter from the aty of Palo Al to ,11oo.;!d be sent !o the San
FrancisquIto Crecl: Watershed CRMP, clo Pe"lnsuJa C<>nSelvation Center. 3921 E.
BaYSll<>re.Road, Palo Alto. CA ~ by Februal""f 28, 1995, or as soon as po<isibJe_
Knowledge of y<>W' support for this study will enable SCVWD and San Ma teo Count}' 10
include its casts wltNn their 19%-% budgets whkh will be plazt.'led this sprLog_
A simiJax req<lest for suppo<l of this ott," y has been senllO all the five cities in :ne
WOlers.'1ed (East Polo Alto, Menlo Pork. Palo Alro, Portola Valley. and Woodside)_
Your endorsement will enable the CRMP process 10 meet one of its majo< goals_
Thank)'O<I. f« your early mnsideration of this matter_
Sincerely ,
;}eIt1iv iJ'j.ffPv
Debbie Mytels
San FrandsqUl<O Creek CRMP Coo.-diIla!Or
,
Mr. Stan Williams
General M9/lager
Santa Clan V:dley WaW Dislrict
SISO A1maden Exp""y.
San Jose, CA 9S II g
Dear Mr. Williams:
Gty&PaloAlto
OffiacflheCity Mm.w
Attachmcnc J
March IS, 19:15
On behalf c{ the Palo Alto City Cooncil. [ am writing 10 endorse the San
Francisquito Creek Coordinated Resrorc" and Planning (CRMP) Steering
C<1!nmit!ee"S request foe a ~ flood and erosion cootrol study 0( tlle creek by
!he District and !he San Mateo County PL>bIic Works Department. In
subniaiDg Ibis endorsement, I WruJilo emphasize Cotmcil', interest in pursuing
solutions which <!o not damage !he unspoiled character of the creek.
As ~ in \he CRMP letter, yoor study should focus 00 the development
of optioos !hat preserve the creek in irs na!ur.il state as much as po5Sible.
avoidinjj !be use of coocrete. In keeping with the ideals of the CRMP. future
plans for San francisquito Creek sboule! 13k: inlO accOUlll the need< and
cooccrns of !be varioos stakeholders, and iI is lherefoce essentiallhat the saJdy
be eooducIed with ample ~s for public eommen! and partidpaOOo..
The City is commjttecllo woclmg will> your staff, CRMP participants, and
lIlC!Ilbers oflbe public 10 deve!ql envirOllllleIllally soond options for an.viating
fIoodillg and erosion along San Fr.ncisquito Creek .. bile preserving its
ae..<i!Jdks and habitat value. I look fon.'aId 10 • crealive plan fur the creek that
will add 10 its status as • community .. set
Smcerely ..
JUNE fLEMING
City Manager
1FtJT:ko
cc; Debbie Mytels, CRMP Steering Committee
John Paul Hanna
pnbl~
PoOOMo,CA9ot.'m
~,329,15E3
.(15..328. 3ti3tFitI\: