At a community outreach meeting in Palo Alto on April 20, residents of Menlo Park, Palo Alto and East Palo Alto learned that they might never escape FEMA's flood zone designation, prompting further frustration over the flood-protection efforts two decades in the making.
The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Association (JPA) has been working for 20 years to reduce the risk of flooding of the creek, ever since areas across all three cities were designated as a flood zone in 1997, shortly before San Francisquito flooded in 1998. The JPA consists of three cities along the creek and two local water agencies.
The JPA is focused on replacing the Newell Bridge between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, widening the creek channel, improving the flood walls and, as the last step, replacing the Pope-Chaucer Bridge between Menlo Park and Palo Alto. Construction on the Pope-Chaucer Bridge has to be completed last or the JPA risks causing flooding and damage structures downstream instead of alleviating the issue, as the Pope-Chaucer Bridge acts like a "nozzle" downstream.
Margaret Bruce, executive director of the creek authority, compared construction on the Pope-Chaucer Bridge to taking your thumb off a garden hose.
One resident who moved to his home in 1997, only a few months before FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) designated the area as a flood zone, asked when homeowners might get some relief from the regulations that come with that designation, such as mandatory flood insurance.
Bruce said that residents may not see a change in flood zone designation for a decade, if ever.
"We are faced with climate change," Bruce said. "We are seeing increased variability in precipitation as we design this project. We will do the best we can with what we have to protect the community to the best of our ability, and the goal posts are moving."
To escape the flood zone designation, the JPA would have to prove to FEMA that the current flood zone has a less than a once in 100 years chance of flooding and would have to build concrete floodwalls around the creekbed. The JPA brought this idea to the community when going through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process and it was "soundly rejected," according to Bruce.
Rebecca Eisenberg, an elected representative on the Santa Clara Valley Water District board and director of the San Francisquito Creek JPA, came to the meeting in the final minutes to speak to residents. She reiterated that protection from a once-in-100-years flood was not feasible, despite the JPA's commitment to flood protection.
"I care about you all, but I also care about the environment, and flooding is terrible for the environment," Eisenberg said. "It's awful. It's catastrophic, in addition to people losing everything and losing their homes."
Her reassurances were not well-received by residents. Eisenberg's comments at a March 9 JPA meeting also cause tensions to flare when she wanted to revisit the design of the Newell Bridge, potentially delaying construction.
"People are more important than things," a resident called out at last week's meeting. "Are we waiting for the first person to die? People are more important than the environment."
Eisenberg said that she agreed with the statement but that they can't "keep concreting our way out of this," as climate change increases the size of the flood zone and changes the creek modifications needed to keep the community flood-safe.
There was one tangible accomplishment announced at the meeting: The JPA said there is currently no open litigation over the flood-protection efforts. While there's no guarantee that new legal battles won't emerge, the lawsuits barring the JPA from working on private property have been settled.
The Newell Bridge renovations are currently on a fast track, and the JPA is submitting an application to expedite its permit, which staff expects to receive in September.
The current estimated cost of the Newell Bridge renovations is $15 million, and the JPA is working with Caltrans to secure funding for the project.
To find out if you're in a flood zone, check out the flood map on msc.fema.gov.
Comments
Registered user
another community
on Apr 26, 2023 at 10:48 am
Registered user
on Apr 26, 2023 at 10:48 am
While researching 19th & early 20th century creek, stream and floodplain maps around San Jose and up the peninsula I realized that, historically, there used to be far more willow trees than seen today, and that areas including "Willow" in their names, such as Willow Glen in San Jose or The WIllows in Menlo Park, just on the other side of San Francisquito Creek from Palo Alto, were floodplain areas which would naturally support willow tree stands or forests. Though not empathically put, Water Board Director Eisenberg may be correct -- short of replacing blocks of creek-adjacent houses with tall levees along the entire San Franscisquito Creek, as is done along parts of the Sacramento RIver for example, protecting housing along the creek in a long-term way is not possible. And though homeowners further from the creek might approve of such an idea, it's unlikely that homeowners directly next to the creek would agree.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 26, 2023 at 4:14 pm
Registered user
on Apr 26, 2023 at 4:14 pm
This creek starts at a lake on SU proerty with a dam that is over 100 years old.
The Carmel River and Dam in Monterey had the same history, same vintage, same potential to flood the city of Carmel. They took out the dam and reloacated the vast amount of mud, set up side pools for the fish to come up stream. They solved the samr problem that is happening now. Every time I read about this it starts the resolution on PA property instead of at the source on SU property.
What is preventing the fix on this? Take out the dam at the top, let the exisitng water come on down and empty into the bay, then respread the creek so it has side pools for fish. If there is no dam there then the water issue will even out over the summer.
Registered user
Palo Verde
on Apr 26, 2023 at 6:00 pm
Registered user
on Apr 26, 2023 at 6:00 pm
Carmel River and San Francisquito Creek are two entirely different hydrologic entities. Removing the dam will do nothing to alleviate the downstream flooding.
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 27, 2023 at 12:06 am
Registered user
on Apr 27, 2023 at 12:06 am
Disagree - much written about why they have not fixed the SU lake - filled with silt and the Carmel River Dam that was reengineered a few years ago, also filled with silt. SU needs to bite the bullet here, take the dam out - after the water level goes down late summer- they are moving water over to Lake Lagunita for the kids to go sailing. Once you get the overall water level down then remove the dam piece by piece and empty the lake to some manageable level. Put in a new partial dam with fish ladders. The creek needs to be reengineered from top to bottom and a real stream for fish will maybe appear if not another drought.
The silt issue is well documented and needs to be resolved at the top of the lake and dam. Just moving the middle and bottom around is not a permanent resolution.
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Apr 27, 2023 at 7:34 am
Registered user
on Apr 27, 2023 at 7:34 am
No, Eisenberg is not correct. The current projects re Newell and Chaucer Bridges will protect against the 1996-level of flooding, the largest on record so far. So that in itself will be a tremendous accomplishment. That will not completely protect against 100-year flooding, but to reach that goal it is NOT necessary to have flood walls all along the creek. That protection can be achieved by creating flood retention areas upstream on Stanford land. One possibility is modifying Searsville Dam (not removing it, but rather dredging out the muck and putting in an outlet at the bottom so that during normal times it does not retain water, but during flooding it fills up). Granted, this is a big ask of Stanford, and best case this effort is years away, but it is possible and there is no need to scare people about flood walls, or to argue that nothing can be done.
Registered user
another community
on Apr 27, 2023 at 3:21 pm
Registered user
on Apr 27, 2023 at 3:21 pm
There has been a fair amount of work on exploring the Searsville lake dam hydrology. In 2008 there was an academic paper in Ecohydrology, now sadly behind a paywall, "Four 10-year simulation scenarios (pre-dam, early dam, current and post-dam) were considered ..." (onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eco.34)
Such work might've led to two environmental 2013 lawsuits which, in turn, led to the proposal to place "a hole" or outlet at the base of the dam. This project continues (news.stanford.edu/report/2023/02/21/stanford-proposes-improvements-searsville-dam-reservoir/ and searsville.stanford.edu/) and is expected to "restore natural water and sediment flows without increasing downstream flood risks ... and allow sediment to be gradually and safely flushed to San Francisquito Creek and ultimately to the bay, restoring the natural sediment process which will enhance natural marsh building along the shoreline."
Note that the outlet is not expected to have a great effect on flooding. In part this is because the lawsuit concerned habitat health, not flooding, and that "Searsville was not built for or intended for flood control," (PA Online 2013 -- paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/01/17/stanford-officials-look-to-solving-searsville-dam-enigma -- One small nit - this article managed to miss the 2008 hydrology study.)
To learn more about origin of Searsville lake note that "A handful of creeks feed the little reservoir on the campus, according to Tom Zigterman, director of water resources and civil infrastructure at Stanford. 'There's four or five, depends on where you're doing the counting, but it's a number of creeks that merge right there at that canyon,' he says." (kqed.org/news/11871565/the-real-history-behind-the-myths-and-mystery-of-stanfords-searsville-lake)
So even if the lake didn't exist water would flow from 4 or 5 creeks, allowing for a floodplain in which willow trees would grow naturally.