Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-14 City Council (8)TO: City of Polo Alto anager’s Summary Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Public Works DATE: SUBJECT: March 14, 1996 CMR:183:96 Updated Information on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Special Flood Hazard Areas in Palo Alto REQUEST This report conveys staff’s response to Council’s request for updated information on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Special Flood Hazard Areas in Palo Alto. RECOMMENDATION This is an informational report prepared in response to Council’s request. to discuss this item, staff will agendize it for a future meeting. If Council wishes POLICY IMPLICATIONS This informational report does not contain any changes to existing City policies. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On October 30, 1995, Council approved a request by Council Members Andersen, Huber, and Kniss to direct staff to prepare a report on the status of the FEMA-designated special flood hazard areas in Palo Alto and the actions required to eliminate the flood hazards. In response, the following information regarding the National Flood Insurance Program, its requirements, and the specific flood hazards in Palo Alto is submitted. Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1968 to provide flood insurance to residents and businesses in communities that elect to participate in the program. In return, FEMA imposes floodplain management requirements on the participating community. Palo Alto initially elected to take part in the NFIP in 1979. FEMA has delineated Palo Alto’s Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) on its Flood Insurance Rate Maps for those areas subject to flooding in the one percent flood. They have identified two distinct types of flood hazards in Palo Alto, freshwater flooding and saltwater flooding. Several areas of the City are subject to freshwater flooding, which is CMR:183:96 Page 1 of 12 caused by the overtopping of local creeks in the event of the one percent flood. In addition, a large area on the eastern side of the City is subject to saltwater flooding in the event of failure of the bayfront levees during the one percent high tide on San Francisco Bay. There are two basic requirements applicable to properties in a FEMA-designated SFHA: flood insurance and special building requirements, as discussed below. The flood insurance requirement is not administered by the City of Palo Alto. Federally- backed lending institutions are mandated by law to require borrowers to obtain flood insurance for all loans issued for structures within an SFHA. Since virtually all lenders are backed by the federal government in some manner, this essentially means that every property owner within an SFHA who has an outstanding mortgage on their real property is subject to this requirement. Annual flood insurance premiums for single-family homes are in the $300 to $500 range. The availability of flood insurance in Palo Alto is a direct benefit of the City’s participation and good standing in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). If the City ever withdrew or were suspended from the NFIP, flood insurance would not be available to residents and businesses in the SFHA. Due to the mandatory flood insurance requirement, this would make it impossible to obtain a home mortgage or commercial loan secured by a property in the SFHA. City staff is responsible for enforcing the special building requirements, which have been incorporated into Chapter 16.52 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). For new construction or substantial improvement to an existing structure within an SFHA, the PAMC requires that the lowest floor must be constructed, at or above the base flood elevation as established on FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Map. In late April, staff will submit a report to Council recommending referral of revisions to PAMC Chapter 16.52 dealing with substantial improvements to the Policy and Services Committee. Beginning in 1986, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) began an accelerated flood control program in.Palo Alto. The District has spent approximately $33 million to upgrade the Palo Alto Flood Basin and Matadero, Barron, and Adobe Creeks, to accommodate the runoff from a one percent storm event. As a result of these District flood control projects, approximately 325 properties have been, or will be, removed from the SFHA. Following completion this calendar year of the District’s ongoing work on Matadero and Barron Creeks in Barron Park, the remaining flood hazards in Palo Alto will be from San Francisco Bay tides, Adobe Creek at E1 Camino Real, and San Francisquito Creek. Approximately 3,750 properties will remain in the SFHA. In order to eliminate the threat of saltwater flooding, the Bayfront levees would need to be strengthened and raised to an elevation at least three and one-half feet above the projected high tide level. The District has plans to replace the existing Adobe Creek culvert at E1 Camino within the next several years to eliminate the flood hazard at that location. San Francisquito Creek is the only remaining natural creek in Palo Alto that has not been channelized with CMR:183:96 Page 2 of 12 concrete along some portion of its length. A comprehensive flood control solution that is both economically and environmentally feasible has not yet been identified. There are three ongoing activities that affect San Francisquito Creek: the Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) process, the District’s reconnaissance study of flood control options, and FEMA’s restudy of flooding potential. The CRMP process is a dialogue amongst interested parties to promote the enhancement and health of the San Francisquito Creek watershed by identifying major problems, planning objectives, and future actions. The end product of this collaborative effort will be a San Francisquito Creek Watershed Plan, which identifies the common goals and objectives of the CRMP participants. The District and San Mateo County have recently begun a reconnaissance study of flood control options for San Francisquito Creek. The study will define flooding and erosion problems, possible alternative solutions and impacts, and potential funding sources. San Francisquito Creek is one of many creeks, including 13 others in Santa Clara County, that is being reexamined as a result of revisions to FEMA’s policies. In preliminary meetings with FEMA staff, they indicated that there will be an additional 800 Palo Alto properties (a 60 percent increase) designated within the SFHA on the revised Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as a result of the restudy. Staff will return to Council to discuss the results of this study and possible courses of action after FEMA completes its reassessment in May or June 1996. FISCAL IMPACT This report has no fiscal impacts to the City. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT An environmental assessment is not required for this informational report. PREPARED BY: George Bagdon, Assistant Director of Public Works DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: -/ 6LENN CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Manager CMR:183:96 Page 3 of 12 City of Palo Alto City Manager’s .Report SUBJECT:Updated Information on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Special Flood Hazard Areas in Palo Alto RECOMMENDATION This report has been prepared in response to Council’s request for updated information. No Council action is required. BACKGROUND On October 30, 1995, Council approved a proposal by Council members Andersen, Huber, and Kniss to direct staff to prepare a report on the status of the FEMA-designated special flood hazard areas in Palo Alto and the actions required to eliminate the flood hazards. In response, the following information regarding the National Flood Insurance Program, its requirements, and the specific flood hazards in Palo Alto is submitted. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This informational report does not contain any changes to existing City policies. DISCUSSION National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Historically, the nation’s private insurance companies have been unwilling to offer flood insurance, due to the potentially catastrophic level of claims from even a single major flood. To remedy this situation, Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1968 to provide flood insurance underwriting. NFIP-sponsored flood insurance is made available to residents and businesses in communities that elect to participate in the program. In return, to reduce its level of risk, the federal government imposes requirements on the participating community, including the codification of federal floodplain management regulations into local ordinances. Council first incorporated the federal requirements into the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) in 1979, by adopting PAMC Chapter 16.52, "Flood Hazard Regulations." This Municipal Code section was last revised in 1988 to reflect updated federal regulations. Flood Insurance Rate Maps Once a community elects to participate in the NFIP, FEMA initiates a study of local hydrologic and geographic conditions to determine the extent of the flood hazard in that community. FEMA retains an engineering consultant to study local rainfall patterns, stream capacities, and ground elevations and to analyze this data to assess the risk of flooding. The results of the study are published in a Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and an CMR:183:96 Page 4 of 12 accompanying set of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). The FIRMs delineate the Special Flood Hazard Areas within a community, which are those areas subject to flooding in the one percent flood. The one percent flood has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year. It is sometimes referred to as the 100-year flood, because it is the flood that would be equaled or exceeded on an average of one time every hundred years, measured over a long time period. The initial FIS and set of FIRMs for Palo Alto were published in 1979. Revised documents were issued by FEMA in 1989, based on a restudy of Matadero Creek flooding and updated information on expected maximum high tide levels in San Francisco Bay. Flood Hazards in Palo Alto FEMA has identified two distinct types of flood hazards in Palo Alto, freshwater flooding and saltwater flooding. Several areas of the City are subject to freshwater flooding, which is caused by the overtopping of local creeks in the event of the one percent flood. In addition, a large area on the eastern side of the city is subject to saltwater flooding in the event of failure of the Bayfront levees during the one percent high tide on San Francisco Bay. With respect to freshwater flooding, the urban portion of Palo Alto is divided into four separate watersheds, each drained by one of the local creeks: San Francisquito, Matadero, Barron and Adobe. At the time of the 1989 Flood Insurance Study, none of these creeks had the capacity to convey the storm runoff from the one percent flood. During a one percent flood, excess water would be expected to overtop creek banks and spill into adjacent neighborhoods at several locations within the City. FEMA designates these areas as Special Flood Hazard Areas on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps if the projected depth of the flood waters exceeds one foot (see map, Attachment 1). Flooding is generally caused by an undersized creek channel or by localized constrictions at culverts beneath street crossings. Since 1989, some of the flood hazards identified by FEMA have been eliminated through the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s flood control projects. These projects will be discussed in a later section of this report. With respect to saltwater flooding, much of the eastern portion of the City is at a lower elevation than high tide levels in San Francisco Bay. This land is protected from saltwater inundation by a system of levees along the bayfront. FEMA has reviewed the Bayfront levees in Palo Alto and determined that they do not provide an acceptable level of protection from the one percent high tide event for two primary reasons. First, the levees do not conform to FEMA’s engineering standards for fill materials and construction technique. The levees were built largely with Bay mud rather than higher quality imported fill, and the placement and compaction of the material was not inspected and tested by qualified personnel. The second deficiency of the levees is their "freeboard"; that is, the height of the levees above the projected high tide level. Because the levees do not have a minimum of three and one-half feet of freeboard, FEMA considers them susceptible to failure during the one percent high tide, which is projected to reach eight feet above sea CMR:183:96 Page 5 of 12 level. In the event of such a levee failure, saltwater would inundate all land below eight feet in elevation. These low-lying areas have been mapped as a Special Flood Hazard Area on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (see map, Attachment.i). Requirements in Special Flood Hazard Areas There are two basic requirements applicable to properties in a FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA): flood insurance and special building requirements. The flood insurance requirement is not administered by the City of Palo Alto. Federally- backed lending institutions are mandated by law to require borrowers to obtain flood insurance for all loans issued for structures within an SFHA. Since virtually all lenders are backed by the federal government in some manner, this essentially means that every property owner within an SFHA who has an outstanding mortgage on their real property is subject to this requirement. Annual flood insurance premiums for single-family homes are in the $300 to $500 range. The availability of flood insurance in Palo Alto is a direct benefit of the City’s participation and good standing in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). If the City ever withdrew or were suspended from the NFIP, flood insurance would not be available to residents and businesses in the SFHA. Due to the mandatory flood insurance requirement, this would make it impossible to obtain a home mortgage or commercial loan secured by a property in the SFHA. City staff is responsible for enforcing the special building requirements, which have been incorporated into Chapter 16.52 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. These requirements apply to new construction and "substantial improvement" of existing structures within an SFHA. A "substantial improvement" is defined as any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the existing structure. The primary special building requirement involves the elevation of the lowest floor of a structure. For new construction or substantial improvement to an existing structure within an SFHA, the lowest floor must be constructed at or above the base flood elevation, as established on FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Map. For substantial improvements, the floor elevation requirement extends to the entire structure, which means that existing floors also have to be raised if they are below the minimum elevation. In the most severe case, this would require a property owner to build or raise the lowest floor five to six feet above the existing ground level. Other special building requirements include installation of adequate openings beneath the floor to allow for passage of floodwaters, placement of building utilities (e.g. water heater, electrical panels, etc.) above the flood level, use of water-resistant building materials, and certification of lowest floor elevations by a registered engineer or surveyor. The concept of retrofitting existing buildings when they are "substantially improved" is consistent with the mission of the NFIP. FEMA has two primary roles as the administrator of the NFIP. First of all, FEMA has a responsibility to ensure that local communities comply with sound floodplain management practices in order to promote CMR:183:96 Page 6 of 12 public safety. In addition, FEMA acts as an insurance company, making flood insurance available to residents and businesses nationwide. As an insurance provider, FEMA is motivated to minimize the number of at-risk properties, in order to reduce the potential damage claims by policy holders in the event of a major flood. According to FEMA, the 50 percent threshold used to defme "substantial improvement" was chosen "as a compromise between the extremes of 1) prohibiting all investment to structures in flood hazard areas which do not meet minimum FEMA floodplain management requirements, and 2) allowing structures to be improved in any fashion without regard to the hazard present." Community. Rating System FEMA created the Community Rating System (CRS) program in 1990 to provide reduced flood insurance premiums to proactive communities that perform floodplain management activities beyond the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program. Program participants earn credit points for activities such as public education and outreach, open space preservation, drainage system maintenance, and floodplain mapping. Palo Alto has taken part in the CRS program since its inception, enabling residents and businesses to receive a 10 percent reduction in their flood insurance premiums. FEMA recently performed an audit of the City’s CRS activities and found staff’s practices and documentation to be in compliance with their requirements. Staff recently submitted a renewal application to FEMA for continued participation in the CRS program, as required every five years. Staff will continue to seek opportunities to qualify for additional CRS credit points in order to receive higher insurance premium discounts in future years. Elimination of Flood Hazards Resulting from Santa Clara Valley Water District Flood Control Projects Beginning in 1986, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) began an accelerated flood control program in Palo Alto. The accelerated program was made possible by additional funding generated by benefit assessments approved by voters in the District’s Northwest Flood Control Zone (which includes Palo Alto) in 1982 and 1986. All revenue generated from property in the zone is used to fmance creek maintenance and flood control projects within the zone. The District has spent approximately $33 million to upgrade the Palo Alto Flood Basin and Matadero, Barton, and Adobe Creeks to accommodate the runoff from a one percent storm event (see map, Attachment 2). The District flood control program can be summarized as follows: Palo Alto Flood Basin Construction cost: $ 550,000 Project time frame: 1986 Project scope:.Raising of perimeter levee to a minimum height of 6.1 feet above sea level CMR:183:96 Page 7 of 12 Matadero Creek Construction cost: Project time flame: Project scope: $ 21.1 million t988 - present (estimated completion date is Fall 1996) Placement of flood walls along top of channel or construction of enlarged channel from E1 Camino Real to Palo Alto Flood Basin. Replacement of vehicular bridges at Greer Road, Louis Road, Ross Road, Middlefield Road, Cowper Street, Waverley Street, Caltrain tracks, Park Boulevard, Lambert Avenue, and E1 Camino Real. Construction of underground bypass culvert from Bol Park to E1 Camino Real in order to retain existing natural creek through Barron Park. Barron Creek Construction cost: Project time frame: Project scope: $ 900,000 1988 Placement of flood walls along top of channel from Louis Road to Palo Alto Flood Basin. Construction of underground diversion culvert to Matadero Creek along Bol Park bicycle/pedestrian path in order to retain natural creek through Barron Park and eliminate need to improve channel between Laguna Avenue and Louis Road (cost included in Matadero Creek total). Adobe Creek Construction cost: Project time frame: Project scope: $10.6 million 1986 - 1992 Construction of enlarged channel from Miller Avenue to Palo Alto Flood Basin. Replacement of vehicular bridges at Louis Road, Middlefield Road, Charleston Road, Alma Street, and the Caltrain tracks. As a result of these District flood control projects, approximately 5,900 properties have been, or will be, protected from freshwater flooding for up to the one percent flood. Of this total; 325 properties will be removed from the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) on FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (see map, Attachment 3). The remaining 5,600 properties remain in the SFHA either because they are also subject to saltwater flooding or were never included in the SFHA because they were subject to freshwater flooding less than one foot in depth. CMR:183:96 Page 8 of 12 Remaining Flood Hazards in Palo Alto Following completion this calendar year of the District’s ongoing work on Matadero and Barron Creeks in Barron Park, the remaining flood hazards in Palo Alto will be from San Francisco Bay tides, Adobe Creek at E1 Camino Real, and San Francisquito Creek. As described above, FEMA projects that the Bayfront levees would fail in the event of the one percent high tide on San Francisco Bay..The District has estimated the potential damage from this event to be over $75 million. Approximately 2,400 Palo Alto properties are included in the FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area because of the risk of saltwater flooding. In order to eliminate the threat of saltwater flooding, the Bayfront levees would need to be strengthened and raised to an elevation at least three and one-half feet above the projected high tide level. Some levee segments would have to be raised five feet, although most of the levee is within three feet of the required minimum height. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers performed a study of the Bayfront levees in the mid- 1980’s, but concluded that it would not be cost-effective for the federal government to fund a levee improvement project. In 1990, the Santa Clara Valley Water District asked Council to support their efforts to lobby for a federally-financed levee improvement project in the South Bay, but Council directed staff not to pursue such a course of action. It is estimated to cost at least $5 million to upgrade the levees to FEMA standards. In addition to the high construction cost, a large-scale earthmoving project in the Baylands would potentially have significant environmental impacts to mitigate. The total project cost including any land purchase and mitigation measures could approach $15 million. Although Adobe Creek has already been enlarged to accommodate the one percent flood between the Palo Alto Flood Basin and Miller Avenue, the Water District is currently finalizing a study of the flood potential of Adobe Creek upstream of E1 Camino Real. Most of the identified capacity deficiencies are located in the upper portions of the watershed in Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. Within Palo Alto, District staff has determined that Adobe Creek is subject to flooding due to the undersized culvert at E1 Camino Real at the City’s southern boundary. The study recommends the removal and replacement of the culvert in order to eliminate the flood hazard. The District’s draft study and accompanying environmental document will be available for public review later this spring. Staff has been discussing the culvert replacement project with the District in order to identify ways to incorporate design features that will improve the appearance of this southern gateway into the City and to ensure that the project is compatible with the redevelopment of the adjacent Hyatt Palo Alto site. Staff will return to Council with updated information on this project when it becomes available. San Francisquito Creek is the only remaining natural creek in Palo Alto that has not been channelized with concrete along some portion of its length. Upon completion of the Water District’s ongoing flood control projects, it will also be the only remaining source of freshwater flooding. San Francisquito Creek poses a significant threat to residents of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto. In Palo Alto alone, FEMA has determined that CMR:183:96 Page 9 of 12 approximately 1,350 parcels are subject to flooding of one foot or more in the event of a one percent flood in the creek, and the District has estimated the potential flood damage to be $140 million. At this point, the existing vehicular bridges at Middlefield Road and Chaucer Street are the bottlenecks in the creek cross-section that result in the overtopping of the banks. It is feasible to reconstruct these bridges so that they would not obstruct creek flow. If the bridges were modified, however, the flow rate downstream would increase during large storms, most likely resulting in overtopping of the creek at new locations. In addition to flooding new parts of the City, such overtopping could inundate some of the same properties currently subject to flooding. Unfortunately, the specific impacts of replacing the two bridges are unknown because past studies have not addressed this scenario. As described later in this report, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and San Mateo County have recently begun a reconnaissance study of flood control options for San Francisquito Creek.. Such a study would identify the steps necessary to evaluate the impacts of replacing the Middlefield Road and Chaucer Street bridges. The study is scheduled for completion this summer. In the meantime, it would be not be prudent to proceed with a bridge replacement project until its consequences on the remainder of the creek have been identified. San Francisquito Creek Issues In the past several years~ there has been growing public appreciation of the value of San Francisquito Creek as a community asset to be protected, as well as an increased interest in addressing its .flooding potential. This section of the report will address three ongoing activities affecting San Francisquito Creek: the Coordinated Resource Management and Planning process, the Water District’s reconnaissance study of flood control options, and FEMA’s restudy of flooding potential. In November 1994, staff reported to Council on the City’s participation in the Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) process to develop a watershed management plan for San Francisquito Creek (CMR:506:94). In order to develop a regional plan for the San Francisquito Creek watershed, federal, state, regional, and local governmental agencies; businesses; community groups; and individuals have joined together in the CRMP process. The purpose of the CRMP process is to promote the enhancement and health of the San Francisquito Creek watershed, by stimulating dialogue amongst the interested parties and identifying major problems, planning objectives, and future actions. The end product of this collaborative effort will be a San Francisquito Creek Watershed Plan, which identifies the common goals and objectives of the CRMP participants. Individual task groups have been convened to develop goals and objectives for six specific issues affecting the creek: natural resource protection, flood and erosion control, water pollution prevention, land use planning, social issues (e.g. homelessness and public access), and public education. Representatives from the Public Works, Police, Planning and Community Environment, and Community Services Departments are participating in the task group meetings. C1V[R:183:96 Page 10 of 12 In April 1995, Council approved a request by the CRMP Steering Committee to endorse a joint flood and erosion control study of San Francisquito Creek by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) and the San Mateo County Public Works Department (CMR:166:95). Consequently, the City Manager sent a letter to the District’s General Manager supporting the study, offering the assistance of City staff, and presenting the Council’s concerns. The letter emphasized the Council’s interest in pursuing solutions which do not damage the unspoiled character of the creek and in conducting the study with ample opportunities for public comment and participation. The District and San Mateo County have agreed to conduct the study of San Francisquito Creek, and the necessary funding has been provided in their FY 1995-96 budgets. The District has taken the leadership role in the San Francisquito Creek flood and erosion control study. District staff has been meeting with San Mateo County personnel to discuss the specific scope of the study and the roles of the various participating agencies and interest groups. The District has termed the study a "reconnaissance level analysis" with the objective of defining flooding and erosion problems, possible alternative solutions, and potential funding sources using currently available information. Although funding constraints will not allow for extensive new field investigations, stream monitoring, surveying, or technical analyses, the reconnaissance level analysis will include an assessment of the requirements for a follow-up feasibility study and environmental impact report. In order to facilitate public participation, staff conducting the study will meet regularly with the CRMP flooding and erosion control task group to report progress and obtain feedback. In addition, public forums will be held to solicit input from other interested parties. In 1990, FEMA retained an engineering consultant to restudy the flooding potential of San Francisquito Creek. San Francisquito Creek is one of many creeks, including 13 others in Santa Clara County, that is being reexamined as a result of revisions to FEMA’s levee policy. In conducting these restudies, FEMA’s consultants focus attention on earthen levees that have been built above the natural ground level along the edges of streams to prevent flooding. The key factor in their analysis is the height of the levee above the creek water level during the one percent storm event. Unless the creek levee has a minimum of three feet of freeboard above the water level, FEMA’s revised policy assumes that the levee will fail. Consequently, in areas with substandard freeboard, FEMA’s consultant is directed to study the creek flooding as if the levee does not exist. Naturally, this policy results in a prediction of more water overtopping the creek bank and more properties subject to flooding. In preliminary meetings with FEMA staff and their consultant, they indicated that there will be an additional 800 Palo Alto properties (a 60 percent increase) designated within the Special Flood Hazard Area on the revised Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as a result of the restudy. There will be similar impacts in Menlo Park and East Palo Alto from the San Francisquito Creek restudy, and over 20,000 new properties added to the FIRMs in cities throughout Santa Clara County as a result of concurrent studies on other creeks. Some other cities have already received their map revisions and are in the process of presenting the information to their City Councils. In Palo Alto’s case, however, the consultant’s work and CMR:183:96 Page 11 of 12 the draft map revisions are currently being checked by FEMA’s independent review consultant. The study document and preliminary map revisions are expected to be submitted to the City in May or June 1996. Staff will return to Council with a updated report when the preliminary maps are issued. The preliminary maps will be made available for public review and are subject to a 90-day appeal period before they become final. FISCAL IMPACT This report has no fiscal impacts to the City. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT An environmental assessment is not required for this informational report. NEXT STEPS Staff will return to Council with information becomes available: information on the following topics when more Planning Study/Engineer’s Report/EIR for replacement of Adobe Creek culvert at E1 Camino Real SCVWD/San Mateo County Reconnaissance Study of flood control options for San Francisquito Creek 3.Preliminary Maps from FEMA’s San Francisquito Creek restudy ATTACHMENTS 1 - Special Flood Hazard Areas in Palo Alto 2 - Santa Clara Valley Water District flood control projects 3 - Areas eliminated from the Special Flood Hazard Area as a result of SCVWD flood control projects Ken Nauman, FEMA Kay Whitlock, Santa Clara Valley Water District Randy Talley, Santa Clara Valley Water District Debbie Mytels, San Francisquito Creek CRMP Susan Frank, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Gil Eakins Richard Probst John Paul Hanna CMR:183:96 Page 12 of 12 Attachment 1 Special Flood Hazard Areas in Palo Alto Cr ~ Saltwater flood area Freshwater flood area Scale 0 0.5 1~-~_~--~---~_.~’ Miles 2 AB 14800 ATTACHMENT 2 PALO ALTO TO CR PALO FLOOD STANFORD LEGEND CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS BYPASS CULVERT 0 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT c) z< Z FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS PALO ALTO Santa Clara Valley Water Distrkt 0 60-_. NORTHWEST ZONE Attachment 3 Cr I~Areas eliminated from Special Flood Hazard Area Areas remaining in Special Floo.d Hazard Area Scale 0 0.5 t Miles 2 AS ~ ¢gO0