News

Guest opinion: A record of accomplishment fixing San Francisquito Creek

The recent Almanac guest opinion titled “Creek flood control plan doesn't tell the whole story” questioned the upstream flood control project of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The guest opinion is misleading and ignores the tremendous progress that has been made by the JPA to protect our community from flooding and sea level rise.

The JPA was formed by the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water), and the San Mateo County Flood Control District (now the Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District) in the wake of the devastating flood of 1998. That flood endangered people’s lives, damaged approximately 1,700 properties along the San Francisquito Creek, and closed Highway 101.

The JPA was created to plan and implement flood control measures to prevent a similar catastrophe from ever happening again. A huge milestone toward this goal was achieved in 2018 when the downstream segment of the project between Highway 101 and the Bay was completed, which will protect 1,000 homes from a 100-year flood event with 10 feet of sea level rise.

The JPA is now planning and designing an upstream flood control project with the goal of protecting people and property from a one in a 70-year flood as was experienced in 1998. The plan is to replace the Pope-Chaucer Bridge so it no longer impedes the natural capacity of the creek and to accommodate greater creek flow by removing in- stream concrete structures at five sites, adjusting the creek banks where necessary, and replacing the University Avenue Bridge parapet extension upstream of that bridge. Contrary to what was asserted in the guest opinion, these relatively modest modifications to the creek are very different than those considered earlier in the planning process and would in no way result in a “permanent sterilization of the creek environment.”

The authors of the guest opinion falsely imply that the JPA is not committed to 100-year flood protection, which is required to relieve homeowners in the flood zone of the financial burden of buying expensive flood insurance. While it would not make sense to leave the community in harm’s way by delaying the planned upstream project that will protect the community from a 70-year flood, the JPA’s ultimate objective is to build flood control infrastructure providing 100-year flood protection. In fact, on March 24, the JPA released a request for proposals to conduct an environmental assessment of implementing 100-year flood protection through a combination of stormwater detention on Stanford lands and additional bank height at strategic locations in the creek.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

The authors of the guest opinion also are incorrect in asserting that recent actions by Stanford have taken upstream detention on Stanford lands off the table. In fact, the JPA

is currently in discussions with Stanford about accessing its lands to conduct an evaluation of this very possibility.

Finally, the authors unfairly attack the JPA and its Executive Director Len Materman by stating that “[the JPA has been misleading the public” and that Materman has disclosed minimal information and deployed “smoke and mirrors” in advancing the JPA’s projects. Over the years, the JPA’s members and Materman have repeatedly vetted the JPA’s projects in great detail in countless JPA board meetings and public forums.

During Materman’s tenure, the JPA completed the $77 million Bay to Highway 101 project, certified the final environmental impact report for the 70-year flood protection project upstream of Highway 101, initiated the SAFER Bay project to protect 11 miles of shoreline in two counties from Bay flooding, and created an advanced regional flood warning system that is now a model for others.

This work wasn’t easy and would not have been accomplished but for Materman’s extraordinary leadership, perseverance and creativity. As Materman departs from the JPA after almost 12 years of service, we are confident that we speak for the community in thanking him for a job well done.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Gary Kremen represents District 7 on the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors and is board chairperson of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA). Dave Pine represents District 1 on the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and serves on the JPA board.

The Almanac will publish guest opinions online every weekend while the publication of our print edition is suspended. Submit signed op-eds of no more than 600 words to letters@almanacnews.com by Wednesday at 5 p.m.

Follow AlmanacNews.com and The Almanac on Twitter @almanacnews, Facebook and on Instagram @almanacnews for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Guest opinion: A record of accomplishment fixing San Francisquito Creek

by Gary Kremen and Dave Pine / Contributor

Uploaded: Sun, Apr 26, 2020, 9:34 am

The recent Almanac guest opinion titled “Creek flood control plan doesn't tell the whole story” questioned the upstream flood control project of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The guest opinion is misleading and ignores the tremendous progress that has been made by the JPA to protect our community from flooding and sea level rise.

The JPA was formed by the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water), and the San Mateo County Flood Control District (now the Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District) in the wake of the devastating flood of 1998. That flood endangered people’s lives, damaged approximately 1,700 properties along the San Francisquito Creek, and closed Highway 101.

The JPA was created to plan and implement flood control measures to prevent a similar catastrophe from ever happening again. A huge milestone toward this goal was achieved in 2018 when the downstream segment of the project between Highway 101 and the Bay was completed, which will protect 1,000 homes from a 100-year flood event with 10 feet of sea level rise.

The JPA is now planning and designing an upstream flood control project with the goal of protecting people and property from a one in a 70-year flood as was experienced in 1998. The plan is to replace the Pope-Chaucer Bridge so it no longer impedes the natural capacity of the creek and to accommodate greater creek flow by removing in- stream concrete structures at five sites, adjusting the creek banks where necessary, and replacing the University Avenue Bridge parapet extension upstream of that bridge. Contrary to what was asserted in the guest opinion, these relatively modest modifications to the creek are very different than those considered earlier in the planning process and would in no way result in a “permanent sterilization of the creek environment.”

The authors of the guest opinion falsely imply that the JPA is not committed to 100-year flood protection, which is required to relieve homeowners in the flood zone of the financial burden of buying expensive flood insurance. While it would not make sense to leave the community in harm’s way by delaying the planned upstream project that will protect the community from a 70-year flood, the JPA’s ultimate objective is to build flood control infrastructure providing 100-year flood protection. In fact, on March 24, the JPA released a request for proposals to conduct an environmental assessment of implementing 100-year flood protection through a combination of stormwater detention on Stanford lands and additional bank height at strategic locations in the creek.

The authors of the guest opinion also are incorrect in asserting that recent actions by Stanford have taken upstream detention on Stanford lands off the table. In fact, the JPA

is currently in discussions with Stanford about accessing its lands to conduct an evaluation of this very possibility.

Finally, the authors unfairly attack the JPA and its Executive Director Len Materman by stating that “[the JPA has been misleading the public” and that Materman has disclosed minimal information and deployed “smoke and mirrors” in advancing the JPA’s projects. Over the years, the JPA’s members and Materman have repeatedly vetted the JPA’s projects in great detail in countless JPA board meetings and public forums.

During Materman’s tenure, the JPA completed the $77 million Bay to Highway 101 project, certified the final environmental impact report for the 70-year flood protection project upstream of Highway 101, initiated the SAFER Bay project to protect 11 miles of shoreline in two counties from Bay flooding, and created an advanced regional flood warning system that is now a model for others.

This work wasn’t easy and would not have been accomplished but for Materman’s extraordinary leadership, perseverance and creativity. As Materman departs from the JPA after almost 12 years of service, we are confident that we speak for the community in thanking him for a job well done.

Gary Kremen represents District 7 on the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors and is board chairperson of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA). Dave Pine represents District 1 on the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and serves on the JPA board.

The Almanac will publish guest opinions online every weekend while the publication of our print edition is suspended. Submit signed op-eds of no more than 600 words to letters@almanacnews.com by Wednesday at 5 p.m.

Comments

Henry fox
Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 26, 2020 at 4:31 pm
Henry fox, Menlo Park: The Willows
on Apr 26, 2020 at 4:31 pm

Thank you Supervisor Pine and Director Kreman for this important editorial and thanks Len Materman for the work you did. The 1998 was indeed destructive. Noow that the the downstream work is completed, we can eliminate the obvious choke point and replace the Chaucer bridge.
Perhaps we can even prefab it.


Pat Burt
another community
on Apr 27, 2020 at 9:47 am
Pat Burt, another community
on Apr 27, 2020 at 9:47 am

Thanks to Dave Pine and Gary Kremmen for setting the record straight about the accomplishments and plans of the SFCJPA.


Peter Carpenter
Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Apr 27, 2020 at 9:57 am
Peter Carpenter, Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Apr 27, 2020 at 9:57 am

"Perhaps we can even prefab it."

Great idea . We built a bridge with a comparable span. It was totally prefabricated using renewable wood. Took 3 days to pour the concrete supports and ONE day to swing the bridge components in place and install the road bed.


just curious
Menlo Park: other
on May 3, 2020 at 9:44 pm
just curious, Menlo Park: other
on May 3, 2020 at 9:44 pm

Does anyone know how much approx. it would cost to run a new pg&e service over a four mile stretch.

Also would they require it to be underground


Menlo Voter.
Menlo Park: other
on May 4, 2020 at 8:44 am
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
on May 4, 2020 at 8:44 am

Last time I did a PG&E underground from a pole to a house of 125' it was about $25,000. That included trenching, conduit, backfill and pulling new conductors in from the pole to the house. That was across the owners' own property. If it has to cross other properties it becomes more complicated.

Doing math for a "simple" install based on the above, there are 5280 feet in a mile. The cost above was $200 per foot. That works out to $1,056,000 per mile. So 4 miles would be about $4,224,000.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.