Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flood Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
JPA outlines REACH 2 flood plan for San Francisco Creek, says final alternative due by year’s end
Summary
The San Francisco Creek Joint Powers Authority told East Palo Alto officials it seeks to protect communities to the 1998 flood level and will choose a REACH 2 alternative by the end of the year. Staff said phase‑1 'no regrets' actions have partial state grant funding but that larger components will require further Army Corps and local funding decisions.
Greer Stone, chair of the San Francisco Creek Joint Powers Authority and a Palo Alto councilmember, told the East Palo Alto City Council the JPA’s REACH 2 project aims to provide protection up to the flood of record — the 1998 event — and that the board is preparing to select a final alternative by the end of the calendar year. "Our responsibility at the JPA is to ensure our communities never again face this kind of danger without robust protections in place," Stone said.
Margaret Bruce, the JPA’s executive director, presented four engineering alternatives developed by the JPA’s consultant (WRA): remove and replace the Pope/Chaucer bridge with an open span or modify the existing bridge and widen the channel on one or both sides, or pursue a hybrid approach. Bruce said the team found the creek has less capacity than previously modeled and the board reaffirmed a 7,200 cubic‑feet‑per‑second capacity goal in January 2025. "We have about $8,000,000, $8,500,000 in a grant from the Department of Water Resources for the phase‑1 elements of this," Bruce said, adding that Army Corps participation (an additional roughly $10,000,000) depends on the Corps’ cost‑benefit calculation.
Bruce and Stone emphasized the project will be phased and that some "no‑regrets" actions — replacing temporary wooden flood parapets, removing in‑channel constrictions near Manhattan Avenue and adding bank stabilization — are already within the project’s certified 2019 environmental impact report and could proceed with existing grants. They also described a supplemental EIR needed for certain phase‑2 actions and flagged tradeoffs: where flood walls are used, trees and public access could be affected and construction could cause traffic disruption.
Councilmembers pressed for cost ballparks and suggested site tours; staff declined to speculate on a final price until the alternatives evaluation completes. Council and public speakers also raised community safety concerns: several asked the JPA to inventory historical encampment locations and to coordinate outreach to people living in the creek channel. Bruce said the JPA has amplified public‑information coordination between municipal PIOs and convenes a multi‑agency coordinating committee that includes fire chiefs, CHP and the National Weather Service.
The JPA team said the selected alternative will be a suite of measures rather than a single fix and that community outreach and permitting will follow the alternatives decision. The council did not take formal action on the item; staff and the JPA will return with the final alternatives evaluation and funding framework.
