San Francisquito Creek waters rise at about midday near the Pope-Chaucer Street bridge in Palo Alto. Embarcadero Media file photo by Carol Blitzer.
A regional plan to bolster flood control near the San Francisquito Creek remained on shaky grounds Thursday as city leaders and water agency officials charged with implementing it squabbled this week over the budget and an allegation that the Menlo Park mayor had threatened to “blow up the project” if it included floodwalls.
The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, which includes officials from Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, has been exploring ways to protect neighborhoods in the three cities ever since the devastating February 1998 flood. After completing its first major project in the particularly vulnerable area downstream of U.S. Highway 101 in 2019, the agency has spent years planning for its second project, which would the “Reach 2” area between the highway and the Pope-Chaucer bridge. In 2023, the creek authority reset its plans after a heavy rainstorm upended its hydraulic assumptions.
The revised plan, which the agency’s consultants released last month, included three components: widening the channel in various areas to create more water capacity, replacing the Pope-Chaucer bridge and installing floodwalls along the creek in the three cities. Mayor Drew Combs has adamantly opposed the floodwalls, citing past opposition from many of his city’s constituents.
“When I see floodwalls being proposed by the JPA, history is repeating itself even though the community has been very clear,” Combs said.
Following his comments, creek authority Executive Director Margaret Bruce issued a report that notably omitted floodwalls from the staff recommendation for flood-control improvements. She cited the Combs comments as an indication that “proposed floodwalls would not be acceptable to Menlo Park” and committed to proceeding with “project work focusing on the project elements that are possible.”
Not everyone was happy about this revision. Thomas Rindfleisch, a Crescent Park resident and long-time proponent of improving flood control, decried what he called an attempt by one JPA city to “veto” the agency’s entire Reach 2 plan, which aims to protect 2,953 parcels in Palo Alto, 1,252 in East Palo Alto and 857 in Menlo Park from a flood the size of the 1998 one.
“It seems preposterous that Menlo Park should be able to dictate that Palo Alto and East Palo Alto can’t have moderate and prudent floodwalls to protect their citizens and their properties,” Rindfleisch said.
The creek authority had agreed to analyze, in lieu of floodwalls, a bypass tunnel for water runoff. Rindfleisch noted that the alternative had already been studied and deemed infeasible. He urged creek authority officials to proceed without delay.
“Our perpetual delays in decision-making and plan implementation is why we are 27 years out from the 1998 flood of record, with precious little to show for mitigating the main cause of flood damage, Pope-Chaucer bridge,” Rindfleisch said. “Perpetual delay is the unkindest form of denial, and our communities expect and deserve better than that.”
While the board did not formally discuss the Reach 2 design at the June 26 meeting, the meeting included an exchange in which Bruce recalled a recent phone conversation that she had with Combs and Menlo Park City Manager Justin Murphy in which Combs further underscored his opposition to floodwalls.
The conversations, Bruce said, included Combs commenting that “floodwalls of any kind, in any place, of any height anywhere in Menlo Park are unacceptable and if you propose that we will blow up the project.”
‘Let me be very clear, this is a Menlo Park decision.’
drew combs, menlo park mayor, on floodwall proposals in his city
Combs claimed he did not make those statements and said that he would not have “wasted hours upon hours of my life” in creek authority meetings if that were truly his opinion. His feedback, he said, aimed to “create an environment in which projects being put forward by JPA have the most opportunity to be successful.”
He then went on to reassert his opposition to the floodwalls, calling the element “problematic” and underscoring his city’s right to control what happens within its jurisdiction.
“Let me be very clear, this is a Menlo Park decision,” Combs said. “Menlo Park did not abdicate its control over its jurisdiction by joining this body. Any decision about taking a full lane of something in the public right-of-way in Menlo Park, to think that would be a decision that would be owned by a body of which Menlo Park has just one vote, I think is really not logical,” Combs said.
East Palo Alto Council member Ruben Abrica, who serves on the creek authority board, interjected at one point during the exchange to warn his colleagues that the board may be violating the Brown Act, which governs meeting transparency, because the topic of Reach 2 floodwalls had not been agendized. Without having a discussion in an appropriate place, the board is just “creating chaos,” he said.
While the floodwall proposal has been largely rescinded, Bruce said the agency will continue to advance parts of the plan that are less controversial, including channel widening and permitting for the Pope-Chaucer replacement. That long-awaited project likely won’t start until 2028 because the creek authority needs to wait until the Newell Road bridge, which is downstream of the Pope-Chaucer, gets replaced. Palo Alto is spearheading the Newell Road project, with the City Council approving a construction contract on June 16.
Bruce assured the public that that the agency is analyzing every possible option for flood improvement.
“We know that there are members of the community who are very interested in knowing that we have absolutely turned every stone and taken a look at every detail, so we are intending to move forward with work in preparation of channel-widening work,” Bruce said.
Funding for the work remains an open question, with the creek authority still evaluating the proper way to split the costs. Valley Water, which was a major funding source for the Reach 1 project, is expected to also foot some of the costs for Reach 2.
Earlier this year, Valley Water officials flirted with the idea of stepping back from the creek partnership. Even though that hasn’t happened, Valley Water’s representative expressed on June 26 some concerns about the creek authority’s budget process.
Nai Hsueh, board member at Valley Water and the creek authority, asserted that she cannot approve the capital budget for the creek authority without first clearing it with her board. She proposed voting only on the operating budget and not approving the capital budget at this time, a move that Bruce said would delay the Reach 2 work for months.
Palo Alto City Council member Greer Stone, who chairs the creek authority board, declined Hsueh’s request to remove the capital budget from the vote, which prompted Hsueh to vote against the budget.
“I’m concerned about additional delay,” Stone said.
Gennady Sheyner is the editor of Palo Alto Weekly and Palo Alto Online. As a former staff writer, he has won awards for his coverage of elections, land use, business, technology and breaking news.
Gennady...
More by Gennady Sheyner
