HomeMy WebLinkAbout0508.000I
I
G). . -": ;I' ,'---
.. -----
--
September 20, 1990
THE BONORASLE CI Tll COIJIiCrL
palo Alto, callfGrni.
rl221 Hazard RegulatipOs Status Report
Members of the Council:
Report in Brief
This is an informational report on the status of flood hazard
regulation related activities~ No council action is required.
Background
On June 11, 1990, council provided the following quidance to staff
on outstandlnq flood hazard related issues:
• 00 not request tbe santa clara Valley
(District) to pursue a study of improvement
Franclsqui to Creek.
Water District
opt.ions tor San
• Do not pursue a levee improvement project vith the District.
• Do not pursue an Army Corps of Engineers levee project 'Which
meets Federal Emerqency Management Aqency {FEMA} criteria.
CoUncil direeted staff to investiqate hiring a lobbyist to
represent City Interests in Washington, D~C. on FEMA policies and
regulations, and to report back on the cost{benefits of joining: the
FEMA Community RatIng System Program. This program was described
in CMR:346:0, dated June '. 1990.
Disgussion
At the June 11. 1990 meeting. Council indicated a desire to receive
periodic reports on the status of flood hazard related issues4 The
follOWing suaaarizes the actions which have occurred over the last
fifteen weeks.
1. Legislative LobtIyist
On September 10. 1990. Council authorized hirinq tbe firm of
Rivkin, Radler, Bay!'!. Hart. , Kremer to assist the City in
determininq what alternatives aight be appropriate to pursue~
The consultants' report is due within 45 days. -
-1-
CMR:508:0
•
I
!
I
~
i
~
I
_ .
. -
..
\
<.,
." ,
.-. l
\
\ ." ~I,,~~"
j
"' j
1
1
j
1
-
•
\
/
______ -..,"ol. ...,~_,' __ .~_~ __ ".,..: ____ .. ;o""'''"'''~_ -=.!.._-~-:r<.lo.,~"'~~~~I_£iii!S~"
3.
4.
o o
Legislatiye Responses
Attacbed are copIes Of letters from .rEMA which respond to
Senators Cranston and Wilson and to Representative Campbell on
issues raised by various Palo Alto citizens. In summary ... FEKA
defends the accuracy of the flood maps and explains the
differences 1n their flood criteria as opposed to that of the
Army Corps of Engineers. }"EMA vould consider map changes if
the City provided the proper elevation and hydrologic dataa
However, staff bas already recommended to Council aqainst
pursuing a challenge due to the expense and. low probability of
success based on Foster city's recent experience (CMR:346:0).
Community Assistance Visita On April 20 1 1990, FEMA regional
staff conducted a co~unity assistance visit (audit) making a
field survey of the specIal flood hazard areas to assess the
numl::ler of substantially improved structures. FEKA also
reviewed City files to obtain preliminary information on the
City's documentation of building permits. staff received a
Community AssIstance Visit Report on August 15 1 19-90a The
report reque&ts that Palo Alto:
• provide FEMA with a copy of all building permits issued
on projects within .e. special flood hazard area since
February 1'980 (the date of the City's entry into the
National Flood Insurance Program];
•
•
•
provide FEMA with a copy of all variances processed since
February 1980:
adopt a floodplain manaqement o·rdinance" which includes
the latest Flood Insurance Rate Kap dated September 6 1
1989. The City's existing ordinance references an
earlier map dated August 15, 1979;
develoP procedures t.o be follo'Wed for processing a
building permit application ... with respect to flood hazard
requlatlons. The procedures should identify areas of
responsibility, review processes l conditions for
approval I record keeping and handling of variances and
public requests for information.
A final community assistance report. based on findings
trom infonaation requested in the preliminary report. will
be completed in fall 1990a
Community Rating System program f~. The final community
assistance report diSCUSSed above will indicate whether the
City meets federal requirements for National Flood Insurance
Program participationa If -deficient in meeting the
requirements ... Palo Alto will not be permitted t.o participate
in the CRS program. Therefore l staff viII postpone proceeding
-2-
CXR:~8:0
-.
I l,
f
I
f •
I ."
". "
\ -
~ \ "
" ,
1;, " , -"
'-"'~o-":":
--1~
.
.,.,'
'. •
\
/'
""".Le' ,~""-~~ ______ .. "_..,._, •.. _~.'""'_~. _"_~_""""-_""""~,-".;.>~~,:,,,.;:~".c..::il(~_t!,,.*_;~.,,
5,
with a CRS application until receiving the tinal report and
aaklng an assessment of any required corrective actions~
Worksbopt A workshop tor surveyors... enqineers and other
interested partie.s entitled ·Surveying The Flood Zone-was
held on July 16, 1990. city staff and representatives from
FEMA explained survey requIrements and the information
necessary to complete the FEKA Elevation Certificate and the
City of Palo Alto Elevation Certificate For Special flood
Ha%ard Areas. The Elevation Certificate is used by FEMA to
deter.ine insurance rates and issue Let~ers of Map Amendment
and Letters of Hap Revision {LOMAs and LOMRs}.. The Elevation
Certificate for SpeCial Flood Hazard Areas is used by the city
to admInister building applications for new and substantially
I.proved structures within flood hazard areas in accordance
with the FEKA regulations. city staff found it necessary to
develop a separate form because FEKA f S form: did not request
infonoatiOl'. needed to pre-qualify houses. The ~ity's
Elevation Certificate enables homeowners in special flood
hazard areas ~o pre-qualify their ~ses to future buyers if
they conform to FEMA $tandards~ thus ensuring that any future
substantial remodeling can be performed without baving to
raise the e~isting floor or house.
6.. Levee Improvements. On June 1.9 .. 1990 .. a meeting was held
between t.he Santa Clara Valley Water District ... the count}· of
Santa Clara and cities within the County to discuss possible
u·nified action on opposing the Army Corps of Engineers'
negative pcsltion on federal funding of new South Bay levee
systea construction. As none .of the participants in the
lIIeetifl9 sbowed interest in opposing the Army corps' position ..
the District has decided not to pursue this matter further~
7.
A letter regarding the City IS position 'Was sent: to the
District on June 22. 1990. stating that the city or Palo Alto
could not join 'With the District in a study of San
Franclsquit.o creek .. propose improvements to the outboard levee
system ... or oppose the position of the Army corps of Engineers
on federal financing of the levee system. The letter
indicated that t.he city 'Would continue to work 'With the
District to complete existing rlood cootrol projects on
Matadero and Adobe Creeks and erosIon control projects on San
Francisqulto creek .. and would like to continue to be infonr.ed
by the District on future District actions with the Army Corps
of Engineers and FEMA.
l1eighborh004 Meeting.. On June 27. 19"90 .. City staff and
Council Members Levy and Fazzino met with residents of walter
Hays Drive and the surrounding area to address concerns
reqarding SUbstantial improvements in the Special Flood Hazard
Area adjacent to San Francisquito Creek. FEMA requlations and
-)-
CKR:~08:0
...1:
o o
their effect on buying. sellinq and constructing bomes in the
Special Flood Hazard Area also were discussed.
8. Future fJ'Ka Study. In a meeting on Auqust 16, 1990" ataft was
advised by FEHA repres.entatives tJ:r.at the agency vill be
conducting a restudy of the fresh water flood zone in tbe
South Bay area including Palo Alto.. The restudy will llse more
conservative levee criteria" which viII affect the boundaries
of the "flood zones.. It is es1:imated t.hat new 'Jlaps based on a
restudy will be available tor public comment in approxi~ately
nine ll""tII.. staff will bring this item to council'.
attention wben this inforeatton becomes available.
Staff will provide the information requested in FEMA's preli.inary
ComtIiunity Assistance Report and viii return to Council in fall 1990
with the final Report findings o!lOO their effect on participation in
the CRS program. At the same time.. an updated flood plain
management ordinance vill be recommended for Council action.
~~
Assistant Director of PUblic Works
DAVID G. ADAMS
Director of Public Works
~~~~
City Manager
cc: Janet K. Dolan, Menlo Park city Man~ger
Attachments: FEMA res~ses to Senator Wilson, Senator Cranston
and Representa~ive Campbe11
Related: Reports: CMR: 346: 0
CMR:SOB:O
•
•
"
~ ...
. '
,
-
. ~
o
Federal Emergency Management Agency
wa.s!iington. D.C. 20472
The Honorable Tom Campbe11
House of Representatives
washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Campbell:
This is in response to yc~r concern regarding the identification
of tbe area landward of the existing levee as flood-prone on the
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of Palo Al to.,.
CaliforlliaJ' dated September 6, 1989. You submitted newspaper
articles to,at discuss the dilemma tb.e city faces regarding whether
the bay front levee system should be considered to protect against
flood events. The articles also mention that the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) has detennined the flood-prcne area to be
smaller than that identified by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA} on the FIRM,
We share yoar concern and certainly appreciate that local residents
and city o~ficials are confused by these conflicting flood-prone
area ~e.si9nations~ Un.fortu·nately. we see no simple solution. FEMA
is charged with identifying flood-prone areas throughout the United
state.s. In order to remove a flood hazard oesignation from a FIR...'"'! ..
we m~st be provided" with either 1) technical data indicating that
the .freeboard .. structural stability. ~el'"ation .. and :maint.enance
requirements .. as detailed in section 65.10 of the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations (copy enclosed). have been met.
or 2) certification from a Federal agency with responsibility for
levee design l such as the COE.. that a levee has been adequately
designed and constructed to provide protection against a 10'O-year
.flood event. Because 'we bave not received such information, "'e
cannot remo"-e t.he flood hazard designation from the area in
question. The bay.front levee system in Palo Alto "Would be
overtopped during a 10c-year flood event. A levee system designed
~or a fl.ood -.:.ore .frequent than the 10'O-year event cannot be.
credited on a FIRM because the potential for levee failure "Would
be much qreater ~hen overtopping occurs and it is Qoubtful that a
cOmJIlunity 'Will always be able to prevent. a levee failure by making
repairs durinq the event. Because of the sense of security that
a levee can create among the owners and potential purcha5ers of
property. development often occurs in the area the levee is
intended to protect~ As a re5ult .. a large number of ho~es ~ay be
at risk it the levee fails. Also .. the flooding that results from
a levee failure is more like t.he instantaneous flooding-from a
dambreak than the flooding ~aused by a qradual rise of ~aters in
unprotected floodplain areas. Therefore, We consider the flooding
from a failed levee to be po·tentially catastropbic.
•
.,
•
" >
";'~~'~,
\
\
t , , .
. ~ .
. " \
: "-,"
~~.~
,-'-... ' .. ' ;:~~~. , ,
,
I , , r
I ,
<
-
.......
. ,
o o
2
The COF-, on the other hand, considers the flood protection levels
afforded by existing levees in the estimates of potential flood
damage it uses to eva!uate an exis~ing levee system for possible
upgrading. Wben the estimated .flood. damage is annualized an.d
compared with the estimated project cost annualized over the life
of the project, the COE may often find that the necessary
cost-to-benefit ratio_ is not Obtainable l and the project is
declared to be economically unjustified.
The COE levee evaluation criteria differ from our criteria because
tbe agencies have different missions. One of our missions is to
accurately map :flood hazards throU9hout the United states b~sed on
a urliforlll lO'O-year standard for flood insurance and floodplain
management purposes.. While the :floodplain management standards of
the NFIP are dJrected primarily at ne~ construction l the COE is
oriented toward the design and construction of eccnomically
justifiable civil vorks projects to protect existir.g construction
and not necessarily tied to an'y specific frequency event.
Although 'We cannot revise the flood hazard designation at this
~ime. please be advised tbat FEMA has recently created a community
Ratinq System (CRS) to provide a new incentive for activities that
reduee flood losses and support the sale of flood insurance.. Any
community participating in the NFIP may apply for CRS
classification in order to obt.ain floOd insurance premium rate
credits for its residents~ The community must demonstrate that it
is implementing floodplain management and public information
act.ivitie.s that exceecS the minimum. requirements of the NFIP.. One
o~ the activities tor which the CRS provides credit involves levee
~aintenance and the development of a levee emergency response plan
for areas protected by levees designed for Ilore frequent than
lO~-year ~vents. However, to be eligible fo~ credit under this
actIvity. the levee system must provide protection from at least
a 25-year flood and be certified by a registered professional
engineer as meeting all of the requirements specified in Section
65.10 of the NFIP regulations except for Paragraph (b) (l) ...... hieh
establishes the .inimum design £reeboard~ Additional information
concerning eRS may be obtained by contacting our F.egional Office
in San Francisco# California l at (415J 923-7177 ..
L
•
!
. ':::;
""1~~
"""'" '
'.
1-~"c
I
I
I
l
] ,
L
--
c
3
A.' V
;
/
o
I trust tb~ i~formation provided bere ~ill be helpful. alth¢U9h I
understand it does not solve the city's dilem:na. Please be assured
that we will ~o everythi.ng 1ie can , within thE limits of the
regulat.ions by "'hicll 'We ]Dust abide ... to assist the city in achieving
its objective. Xf you require further assistahCe~ please have a
zember of your $taff contact our Office of Con9ressional Affairs
at (202) 646-4SO¢.
Enclosure
CC; FEHA Central
FIXA. }{eading
Acting' DIR
Cole
itegic..nal Dir.
RS Ce.ntral File
Case File
Duryee
Waters
Kolu:-
Co.ncurrence:
ll-AA-RS
!:IOlIR
IA-R.l.-RS
KAT'UCKS
Sincerely,
Harold T. Dut:Yee
Ad.minilStrator
Federal Insurance A~inistration
Mai~ Room
l!a il ROO11l
EX-CA
NTHD -Reg. 9
IA-~-:RS
TEe -KBJ
IA
IA-M
IA-~-:RS
II'
ROSE
CR
2-
.~ =
~-. ~
'" ,-
.-J
~~--
~?;: ~ v. ,-
0.;:>
(,>
<11
!'''!
"f
... . '
';-~:-'"~~
-:'
"0
.!
"l ,
•
i ,-'
"
.. :.. . ~ .... _., .
:: '--' ~---
. ~'. ,--. ::~
--+'~--:-:':-..
'.:-::' ~-:-.
. -
11f'
--:-i.-::: -
" .. : .
.:.: :-; ...
.-"'-' ..
. '-
'_." ,
,"
o
:
Tom Cempbea
Member-or COflsreu
/
o
•
"' ..
---"
t
~'
!
t"
1
;
. -.. '
':..'
;.'. , -;.-·o~-
"'0:
'.
..
..
.. '::
.~ .. 0-. ,
MICHAEL E~KE~. JR., IN"
REC'IVED
•
r""t,; \-c, • • J UN" ~ 1990 . ~J:l.ll~-'''-----------------;'AI.£J(AN~m.cDRi''';·VlR'==-+----
-=:.' ~\M. Q4.\'f ~-.h~ {.it; .L~v'~s Y/cT _.5,~~.ci ~~ _________ ---,~
JJC& . ..:L'f..~., ~'" -f~ '&._2 _"L<£.!.';'o..""~=t,·,,, ~: ~~ _".o:." ... lJlJ..~ :~-< f-,"lY..<0;ifE
--~--._----_._--------._--_ .. ----
~,,~.Hu! 1'" .c... "£w.~\..' h l?s.~ !Cle.4cl{\· .... .e __________ _
._(~ pH·( .... &~J.. Vtdtsc~~o,Jr:r \.. (...Q:L~(l __ I.,A,.t_mm __ ~~_C_:,~tm __ '2..u..~'i .. :f ...... h .. "'""1 , ..... p~'::!~ .... l'_~!...._ ..
C; 6._~~( l.1.l<--h;J. 1"'0"'-;< ~"'~ \ (e ':J.~.$-~-f~j.Y..<'-'l,'-.----
~~.{.t"(.~~~4"'oe o!-J_<" ___ ---.9.f--f-1c-c.....J etc.. 1-"" ~GI,..~~c. ..... ~ .... -\ r-C~-~m-.-----~ !
_ . ..J;E,~'1.£Z7f--·~r~7 G'M';/ wc."cb-.::tf,_/PaKc..P/f_c< Vf-",U($ '.4, _ ['
.'. .'. cr ~-.rpf' .. dl""lIi /-d's ....a vpS'~"'~ 't:"I.AiU-5 ~'cL..-< f!lr-Cl.r~ '~ ----.s~ 8s '"' ~';'J_/.ho'/-""d~t:_.Y·A!:t---A ...:il. !~~~i!!_"Y'1 __ ! ~ "'~~~~Ct-_~ec-1._ i
~ ___ -,Gc"'M-Jn.. . ;t"tL;"_/Jd~...iI.B.f 0/1". fl'",,.,p,, o/-£tJ':.<C"b3'£<J""",-l'« fl_Y,L I..
lWll'f'l. I_
S 4 ~ Ir.._lla~c.. Val"':, We'!,,, JJ,ffnJ s~,-k /Ei>r~ /"Py.{,., _ .... (.1..-&.0 ,
. ~v>J(LJJ!.j .. ~JJcw'[ ,1,-.R."" .... J-~r.-d-/b..hN}~~"'t.-L=_._ A.~ kk_ ,f
r;,;~~/,J .. ' 6;~_4.H£~;fr/-/_~ __ ~ ___ c;-Y_(/ ~c 'f('"&il'.s
______ -'( s ..... ~~ ~c's'i!'!fo-Cr<~IJ,--,-. ,-. ______ _
---------
/N 5".JC-./;?c.,/. .
_______ FEn,!f ;710//-1''';7 4f'fKM-"'~ /eu/q/L-_m_·
! __ ~ ___ =-Gt!/.LPfi F.;7~~4 <>Jk"'L<LA"_~""&"'_/""'"-ft/,;. £"""pM-MI $6.~~
____ -_ CO'lJ MIL:~<!J<:,r(,i'l .~ .f'!S'£J_c#..LCidq'f'~_/""'J.Q=yeC/!'T~'r,."
.(~_<.,s__~_a.<:k4 4"y~ ... c/..d/._r.~.:' rf.d~,d._6; _d"'(4/~. 6'<,/ ___ .
___ -'"6_o.f!>~..../.!!."'fu.;/~ ~ Cr<6t'" 5",/r-/~x/f__ _ _. ____ .
___ --=.-_",(<!';as ",",cu/./ hf,u/r J'" a""'-~~<kj'=l.r-0~-"''1-«L''''=--.-----
_-----L&~~;.h< (b"-4-V<"5./Y-'.!S~I</('<~~~s ck~,yd+ ,j,:J[-,_. __
________ -"sf",.;,.id.,. CI"~;-1~&-.1-_",.,« /?M~C<-rc:/ ".{i.~«£ ... J
-'~------:L ---~_,_'---'-"-'------,
-
I
'-
-
i. "
•
"-'.;-' .
. '~.lt.:.tc.,,· .•. ",. :,," '.~ ..• ...:... ..... _'""'~_ ... " ::;;~~~ .• .....:...;;,;;:;..... . -...... ~ _~.;.._ ........... .....::~~.;..-'-'>."":t"~_\.-;...,> -_>~~ .. ':'.~'.:.-" y~",-~,,_;:,-~}~~.!,,;::~:-~~,~'.:'_!t
•
o
MEMORA."IDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
F.e4 --------
CHAEl !AKERo JR. 1'1<:'
RECEIVED
AUxANDR ...... YIRGINL&,
DEPUTY REGIONAL DiRECTOR . -/k
OUe~ Natural & TechnologiaJ Hazards
Division
hsues Tlial Collld Arise Dl1ring the FEMA
Direclor's Confirmation Hearings
This responds to the req~st from Headquarters to address any issll-es that could
be brought up by Senator Pete Wilson during tbe confirmation bearings. The
Palo Alto City CollDcil .toted tha!tbey intended to' go congressional' will! •
· complaimt tbat the 100 year floodplain designated by the Corps Ilf Engineers .
· (COB) f« thi< COS! benelit study differed greatly Crom the 100 year fIoodplaill
designated by FEMA under tbe Flood Insurance. Study, During tbe Coundl
. meeting ou May 7. FEMA, COE and the County Water District staff attempted
· to explain the difference in the purpose and ultimate results of tbe two stU<lies.
The Counell Hstened politely. but stated tba! when FEM .... tells tbem that they
.have • large floodplain tIlat should be p<operly managed at the sawe time Illat
Ille COE tells them that !bey llave a sm.all floodplain and can't qualify for COE
assistance \0 improve the levees, something is wrong.
" The basis for tbe differen~e is tb~ purpose eacb ·agency bas for doing its flood
study. The statutOI)' focus of tbe FEMA slndy is on the floodplain created by the
100 year flood. based on existius ~ondjtions. If an existing levee does nO! meet
our 5taooards or is not <:ertifi-cd as adeqllate by the COE .. we must assume Chat
the levee ,.011 fail during the 100 year flood event. The results of the study are
used as the basis for cbarging actuarial insurance rates and establishing minimum
floodproofing requirements for new construction and substantial impr""eme nlS of
existins builamgs.
The f""u, oflbe COE .tudy is on the economic benefit derived by funding flood
!,<otection for !he flooding that is "most h"kely to occur", This means tbat a gre.t
part of the economic ben.e:fil is obaine(! by evaluating <Iii-mage: caused by less
severe flooding that o<:cun 'With ~reater frequeccy SOdl as 10.20-1 an-d 50 year
flood ev~nt~ They an also take into account future conditions, wbkh in some
~ases enlarge. Ibeir fioodplaia Over FEMAo
.. but in this case which is based OD
Udal flooding, had no effect on the result. Tbe COE guidelines for !e"ee. allow
them to aSSDme that if • levee lias cot failed in tbe past, it Wllt not fail in tbe
future even tl10ugh it doc, no! meet the COE safety standards and would not be
, .
•
\
.,
"' ,,/~ --.,.-.
,~!~~t-. ~:;--.
'.
\
\
.
\"
\-1\ ."
•
----
-
" ;.,"" ::'
" .",
,/
o
: -2-.
certifi<:d b~ tile COB. As a result oCthe two different meilwdoicig~:the
study assumes tIlat the Palo Alto levees arc over-lopped but most probably woDld
hold lip onder tbe 100 year flood, ",bile FEMA must assome that they WI and
produce moch grealer Dooding In this ease. . .
The problem pr:senled by tbe si,nitieant differe~oe between the 100 year
floodplains genua ted by FEMA and the COE has been raised before in other
commonities Bnd Regions. It has been recently discussed at the congressional
level with DO resolution. The two agencies agreed to disagree. The result is that
Ibe public appearance ~oDtiDues 10 be given that the Federal government can't
decide wh.( a 100 year Doodplain is and both agencies <actinue to be a target for
c!i:sgruntled local officials who reel they cmmol get 3 straight answer.
«:
. Record File: RIX NTII.D/fJPR
Reading File a.ron File J.
FEMA/RIXjNJHD/FIPB/JEklridge/l"
_.
S/IOj90
•
'\\ .....
:>\~')l-· "
·····1.·[ .J
I
,""-~
• I
" l
~ f ~,
lho Wrd time
1--:;:.'i'·.').;':i!3i'i\ifl:~'J'kr·f/ir~'-·i~·-·;t;~I';-,::,'.' ;,;,,,; 111 .,,:, 1;'=~;~I!rce:!.~ .
• - . '-, _;, , .... " •• , :·'oI""·'~-~·,\~""';'.'!"-~.,.,"iI'#"';"nfl"·k' •. ~,.. :' .... .""Vi.'-, CU~1nSanLaC1'1'8Col
'. . .. . I' I l -,' -' I' I .. "',111'\' " ~ ,.w .". . , • t" \I'It opers w f\llld t!bJld 0
5 ... , ,
· .' ... ' ,'" .. 11'£ ,"''''''r. .. ,',;' "··U"··'lf"n. ''''''. " ItvJludO/ \!tlDg'""
,:,VOlceS.Jom. "ca ... ori:i:eJJ.a', ,,;~ ;:;;r.~u~:r,;Os ,/,:,,~r~:..~:=.:, \ , . " '.,.' '.;1 '.'it'_ , ..... ,;;;.i~·,~~~;j(( .. ~~~:~",.,."·,!'·",·::..~:,·".,t·:i'·'~,_I','-::J .. ';;, -' ... =l.nc!udln~~I:'
" . ., . -'" ,---'. . .... , r .. ,.' ... ,'. I' ',,',' '" ,t,! ,'"" ';.,1; .J"'''' 1-,i\HI h.1 .' ~--.:-1. /°1 " ',. r~ buroe=u:"O~lfIJ ~:
'II. 84'lllOdc!s, gl~0':lP':,~~YS" ":;;:, :~~=~uan"~',I~' ~
L
!
L .... /
, ~ wu one hot \" .. ,.
io the dtlving pub-.
• ... A Wf'IIen'atlYo eP.tn'u !
...... _'dilld
_ 900 Inl.ant.t;. tol ,
; ttflll too hot. " 'friend to get out. .' '
l!,IgM CIte lind, "We ,u.rt braUm.!. 'nlQ gu ta~ iI
t'n bl,lrsUng Into the engin. bflck tbll!l"8o 'I'her.t wu r.
kchlldml. •
" 'I11(! develop"'lPTlt reo
• used lu rWuce ur~'
Sec C:rtdJ to do but W'Ilt.ch It butn IUld·waU for
y ret.a1l. the pro~· 'Utili depal'l.menl.," 1Ietl'tI'It., 1IAId. "ll wu,
)11 It 18 wOt'king on C(Nl'-:ed _ tolaJOO!": '
llnl,.a\n Ulli OOtn~· The lJerrol .. Jolnoo a'gfowlng nwnbtor ~ ___ .'" .• 'I. ;'f';~ _ '=-','" _ ",. 1,1,' . If recall n~ of Ylel'O ownen WllO han Jeer) Ulelr two.'. i' '''''1i."it'-,,,,,' " \ 'J" . ~ ~ aIId the coV1!m~ teBleta go oul_ UtcrBUy -In". bhua of'~, i ... .:A:-Ir'~q.:~:. '".,;,.:\i' \ ' ..... ,,' _"":~h"'-...•. : .... ',' I ,'. ,1'1 ,II,.' .• ' ...' ,'1 .' ' .. , '.
~, oj
Irone.,. "glory.1'b1' in~d~t,CanI.l!r fl'lr,!,wo',. "_ '_I .' _,' _,,_ '. ., _ _ •• • Of.,. 22.y ...... 'd Wety In WMhln""''' D,c.; ""d tl,~""""~<:,i'iP()ntiac';i'kr6s'have a weakness lor bur.tong onto (Jame " , , , ,
\ \1111 .porl! Car'll of at IM,lt 3'10, Iln'!J involving 1084 Fleroa"~~ ',.: '. ",', ,j ,',' J'l~ ,"', ••• 1,·""1 f.o\" 'j ",':t. " , . ': ' , ". . ': ,,' Regents weIgl
Inside
1.11 bllJterlng ICt.'UI. and anol))et !IS Involvlng Idtet mode-lK. ' " ... \ ~~. I ", ~ ,.' f ,>I.",,, ... ~ _. (1 " • i. ~'{I': ,"j I 'w'" >._., '" ! .,' I I '.', 'j,.. '
0, H. and • Irtood AbouI34~.OOO .cUt • ..,.."en! """, •••• i;., b~!~'J1r."1 t::;.'» J~'i' :'~"r-'-' /' ('" '\'L~!be' _-'-'. . "-I' rC ~ ' .. John Nuck."s. dit""", J in hlI dad'. 1984 _ btotw~ ]98,3 And )988. but 18.1e& decllnr!tt~;\ .. : .lD .",'~ \'b/' petluon I&IUW~ i.be ;Natiooal:' &Crt.......,. ·rruru RI'I a I'M ..... ,'" nos .,,' L~ t..,pbon.tory,
BAld h. """nod ..... ily .rlo! 198. and tho model ,"US', ,HigbwaJ"TnUIlOSa!<llJ'MmInIairaUon "' .. ",/rom a <ltadll oomblnaUon o! '." dol .... '.'toolimon bel_ Con. .~-,,-~ In I •• a. .' ... -n f'" '/ ,\" I ,I, luwsCl-'''' the fire iePOl'ta. Cbo C8ltor de.. .' " . \ S~t FIJ!:Jl.O PDQr'4]J Y
¥R\. .. 'm,LI1~ ,.,. .,'.-..-.... • 'K'-;.!;. -.: ' "J i "grt!n8SR'gL"lltsoftlxo
'. I . :~., Urilvonity ... OIliI ...... .J> .A. hires, 19hb "·"··~JlfC;:,iW~a~:!~hiougIi :fl~d,'rule's,:::" :~te,.,"';'~t1~.
, ,"In "~";)' /.",\ 't<, t·: .'1 .. ' I,.''' .:.<,", •.• '",-" i " .'.' d .... :"""_ .... ::J:
By ~I" wpln . I ~:./ -, ,',' ::i'~;,:" j .'/,'OOaIMd!e tor 'n!isldeata'an OQeofOtItlb or tbe 'abQou.ooo PalD Alto htnDol '" vulnrTabht, ~ ve alicsdy
Ii'
. Menul)'''',," lIuff W",,,-[ ", ,\' I: , : ... 1',\ -( "·'i:city. '''41.~1! -"1' 1 :",'i!. _. .~.'.:.':' ,,_, 'I " -I " I 1n .'l(Jo.')'"all" llOOtJ. -!' ,', ,.1,. '" cd to 1~ {un4!l •
I'al(l Alto', poUUct&na •. wou'd.,rv.ther k}·--~~·~.bait lM!la:}'edd~ ", Coancl1 DXlmben JllJd ~y hope t.h.al'a,', rrow-t'\Inning the: LaW] ~I right U<ao gi •• 1n ",roder>l,llaQdJa'" !bal', oldlng,"bolhot,," all'eugthoU s..,.Fraoru....,~ C<I>aUlIMI'WU1 belp them nnd "'me lug ... ' roQn' RlId Los_
.' I "'ron;, ,UJ cJllm are rh:.Uculoua arid ouUandl&h, ~~ ("co. na1~ .. 1lhd wJdea San I~to .,.1.11.1.1\ .. 'Qr' regulatory tolution. 'l"IIey 5ald' lab;ntories 'QTl "nwnic ~ ", v"e . City cOuncil dootdro :unanlmomly .• Cttd\::.DotJ),wwld-be apemtve .. ud env. t •..• ,'thfy hopo tJ\at!iOl1'H!OlWl vrtu cbailengo,llIB: ~ ,
•. r,7-'. , ' . late M~tI.t1y to h1nt. Waab.lnglon Jobby1at. 'roomenl&Jly ~ but t..bet AteI tIM! QJl]t '_, 'Fed.etal Emergtllf • .,. Ma.Q8g«m:at~g~. '~ . \
. to help wade t~. bW'IM.ucratkqua.g. I :&ppcm!I:lc..wa" to,"OUrnlDQ\e,fNeralllood', ';' •. -':,' 1..'1 S "'FI',no p 3B' 6UQ ~ . &EI' 0 ~ vf Jlood,ruleI,th&"hu ('l't".Q\ed a .maps'doolgnat.1onoCananatb.lt1Dcl1Jdea .,J ':,." L (P(P,rI.AlV J. pae. l' a::ze: --. . ~ .
,
,J' :~t
'r"
• , J't;' ·h.\; .Jj"""'~' . '~'''';:si.;;-.~ " , .. _ .. 1_. ,
''' .. "''~'-' , ... ~ :~~~~.~ ~
i"' 1 ... ' ,,"'. ' ,,1.. _ _.... ~ ..••
...
, ,
i >j.
, "
--1
',-'-:,;
':: "",-.. , ...... ,
.,'
,-~--
=: :m: 1
'. •
,
-~~
.~.
--1
-"
~ i
I
I ,
]
1
t
.. o o
Federal Emergency Management Agency
W ... hingtan, D.C. 20472
The Honorable Pete wilson
united States Senate
Washington~ D.C. 20510
Dear Senator wilson:
..ll 3! 199)
This is in response. to your letter dated July 9.. 1990 .. 'Which
enclosed a letter dated April 25 .. 19"90, from Mr. and .Mrs. Lyle
Bartz and Hr. and Krs~ Fater Kittell, wb-o o;"m property in Palo
Alto, and MS. Maureen Moravick, Chairman" West Baysbore Property
Owners Associaticn. You req\lested that we co,nsider the e.nclosure,
which you referred to as case 0190070'0'02. Your constituents are
concerned that more. than 5" 0-0'0 bomes and businesses in Palo Alto
have been designated to be within a Special Flood Haz;ard Area
(SFHA). The April 25 letter raises several issues about 1) the
sources used to prepare the effective Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
report and Flood Insurance Rate Hap {FIRM) for the City ~f Palo
Alto, 2) flood insurance requirements, and 3) the processes by
which SFHA designations bay be revised a
The initial FIRM for the City ~f Palo Alto was issued on
February 15, 1980. The FIRM was subsequently revised on
September 6, 1989_ to incluoe updated flood risk aata for Matadero
Creek and to revise the base {lOa-year) flood eleVation {BFE) for
san Francisco Bay .from elevation 7 a.c.9 feet to 7. 7 f02-e.t~ For
reference, the BFEs on the FIRM are rounded to the nearest Whole
foot; bowever, the actual BFEs are given in the FrS repor~a The
source of the San Francisco Bay BFE presented on the effective FIRtIf
was a 1984 report prepared by the U.s. Army Corps of E.ngirleers
(COE). Although the SFE for san Francisco Bay .. as ppdated .. the
extent of the SFRA affected by flooding from the Bay remained the
same as that sbown on the 1980 FIRM because the increase in
elevaticn and the cha1lge to tile SFHA boundary "'ere minimal.
To ensure teat the FIS report and FIRM are as accurate as possible,
we E1eet with cOI!UI'\unity officials to discuss the preliminary result.s
before the :final FIS report and FIRM are published. The final
community coordination ~eeting for the effective FIS report and
FIRM for the city of Palo Alto was held on August 4, 198,8. After
the com:munity coordination :lJ.eeting, ,.,-e published a public notice
in t.he ~insula Times Tribune.,. on September 9 and September 16,
1988, to inform cOlIl1llunity residents of the proposed BFEs. 'l'he
notice stated 'that the preliminary FIS report. and FIRM vere on
display at the Palo Alto City Hall, Public Works De~rtment, and
that the second publication of the notice would initiate a 90-day
appeal period durinq ~hich prop~rty owners could appeal the BFEs,
including the revised Bay elevation, hased on scientific or
t.echnical data. All concerns raised by the community during the
appeal period ~ere resolved.
•
\
" I'
I
f
") '. :,;.,.;
-. .t:t~.
,
\ I .
I.
I
t
-
--'
.-~ ."' , -
0-o
2
In response to your constituents· concern that the lO-foot contour
line. is veIl 'Within the SFHA, 'We plotted the contour from tlIe
u.s. Geologic~l Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps for Pale Alto and
M~ntain View on the September 6" 1989, FIRM. We .found that,
except .for an area south of Ross Road" east of Lema Verde Avenue,
and vest of San Antonio Road, the lO-foot contour is not within the
SFRA. Ho~ever, tor the area where the 10-foot contour is within
the SFHA, we reviewed an aerial map entitled ·San Francisco Bay
Shoreline Levee.s: San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, California,
prepared by the caE. AI thoogh this map does not depict ground
contours, it does present spot elevations and is more detailed than
the USGS quadrangle that covers the same area. The extent of the
flooding depicted on the FIRM: is consistent with the more .accurate
spot elevations on the COE mapa
For your information, the Flood Disaster p.rotection Act of 1973
mandates the purchase of flood insurance as a condition of receipt
of Federal or federally related financial assistar.ce for
acquisition or construction of buildings in SFHAs. The Act
prohibit.s Federal agencies from making or guaranteeing a loan
secured by a building in an SFHA unless flood insurance has been
purchased a The prohibition of the Act applies to lending
institutions regulated, or whose deposits are insured by, a Federal
instrumentalitYa A lending institution may also require the
borrower to purchase flood insurance in a .greater amount than
required by statute or for a building outside an SFHA. Pl~ase not.e
that revising the FIRM to remove the SFHA. designation from a
property does not automatically waive the flood insurance
requirement., as the lending institution reserves the right to
require the purchase of flood insurance.
The April 25-letter states that. the CQE believes that we have
overstated the flood risk and that the flood that has a l-percent
chance of occurrence (lO'O-year flood} would net af.fect property
'West of Bayshore, Highway lOI~ The COE's evaluation considered the
flood prot.ection levels af.forded by existing levees~ This is
performed as part of the estimate of potential flood damage used
in a cost-to-benefit ratio to evaluate possible upgrades to the
levee system. The COE criteria differ from our criteria because
the agencies have different missions. One of our missions is to
lIlap :flood hazards throughout t.he C·nited States accurl!lltely based on
a uniform lOil-year standard for flood insurance and .floodplain
management purposes. While the floodplain ~anagement standards of
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are directed primarily
at neW' construction, the COE is oriented toward the design and
construction of e<::onomically justifiable civil "'orks projects to
protect existing constru~tion ar~ not tied to any specific
frequency event. We are unable to a.:ljust the SFHA to reflect the
exist.ence of levees unless _ ",e receive either 1) technical data
indicatill9 that. the freeboard, structural stability, operation .. and
:l1.aintel'1ance requirements, as detailed in Section 65.10 cf the NFIP
regulations (copy enclosed}, have been ~et or 2) certification from
~ ..
•
r
I
t
~
I
•
\
\
\ , , .. .-\
... -, ...
i
1
;
'j
1
1 ,
,
, -,
o o
3
a Federal agency, such as the COE# that the existing levee system
or improved levee has been ~~equately designed and ccnstructed to
provide protectIon from the 100-year event.
The April 25 letter mentions that several manmade improvements have
been ~ompleted since the map was published. The NFIP regulations
provide proceaures by which a property or structure may be removed
froIl. a designated SFHA 'When technically justified. One such
proced·ure involves a :map revision based on manmade changes ~
including improvements-to an existing levee system. If the City
of Palo Alto or individual property ovners -wish to pursue a
revision to the floodplain boundary delineations sholJn on the
effective FIRM, they may do so under the applicable provisions of
Part 65 of the NFIP regulations. Part 65 descr-ibes the map
revision procedures and the requir-ed supp¢rting data. Depending
on the basis o~ the requested revision I the supporting technical
data that the requester would be required to submit might consist
primarily of elevation information but could also include
hydrQI09ic and hydraulic calculations.. If ~ after revielJing the
requester's supporting data~ ve find that a revision is warranted~
we can re .... ~ise and reprint the: FIRM cr issue. a Letter -of Map
Revision ..
Another procedure involves a map amendment based on property being
inadvertently included in the -SFHA on an effective FIRM. Property
owners may submit certain property and elevation information and
request ~ap amendments under the provisions of Part 70 of the NFIP
regulations. The map amendment procedure mi'ly be useful for
property O\o7Do!;rs in the area where the Ie-foot contour is within the.
SFHA. :I.f we determine that a property has been incorrectly
incltlded in the SFHA, 'We can amend the FIR-Ii by issuing a Lette.r of
Map Amendment that oEticial1y removes the property from the SFHA.
We have enclosed a copy of our ·Conditions and criteria for Letters
of Map Amendment (LOMAs}l-which further describes the amendment
procedures.
We regret that l without additional information I we cannot consider
a revision to the efEective FIRM for the City of Falo Alto. SholJ!d
the City or individual property owners wish to pursue a revision
or amendment~ 'We will be pleased to ~ork 'With the~ to ensure tbat
the request is fully considered.
-"
\
)
•
I
r
~~;~,.~. "'-
'-~1~l
'"~'" "
,'1:;-.
to
. ,
", ,
\
\
, 3';
I
I
I
•
. .
:-.:-':.-_ -'--_:::....:. ____ __''''-" .. ..,...,l..,..,., ;-.d-,~ ___ ~<_.,_...:-~ __ -_ ..... :-.,,..,...~,...~ "'l!':':~"1;.~"'f:,i\!!"· __ 4.~ ~
o o
I trust 'that the information presented in .this letter-will be
useful to you and to your constituents.. 'We bave returned the
April 2S letter. as you requested. If you require further
assistance I please have a member o~ your staff call our Office of
congressional A~falrs at 646~'SOO.
Enclosures
Sincerely,
SIGNED
Harold T~ Duryee
Administrator
Federal Insurance Administration
Incoming correspondence
cc: FEMA Central
FEMA P.eading
Acting
Cole
Regional. Oir.
~ central File
Case File
Duryee
Waters
Croxdale
Hail Room
lola il Room
DIR
EX-CA
IITHD -Reg ° 9
IA-RA-RS
TEe -KBJ
IA
lA-FA
ll-RA-R$
IA:RA:RS:CROXDALE:hs -07}24/90 -FEMA control ,1146-90 Du~ Date
concurrence:
IA:RA:RS
CROXDALE
COOE:IBM:SCOTTS 07/31/90
IA:RA:RS
KATTICKS
lA-RA
MRAZIK
IA CR
ROSE
c --,'" r.
!~ ---,-,-
§~ <0
"_0
~ =
<-~
W
~
W
'" c
,
'----~
i
!
• ,
;
--l
J ,
.::;
..
•
.-
C'C_'1'1"lJ!5 o o ..... U1 n.w 1C!5
,o.(l'011:".a."U"e.. .... ~.,',CI ..... "" .o_uu.
Cll_OO1:~ SCbf"C!: ~ " .... ~~ •• _
""~I"" (C ...... :-tf-! 000 o.c:,..c
July 9. 1990
Director
Federal Emergency Management J..gen.cy
50,0 C Street .. S.W.
Washio~t~~ D.C. 20472
Oea:o ni recto-r:
.,010'''' IC-Q,o,Q ... ,c r;t' ..... "'~
I nave en.closed a copy of a letter which I
received from several constituents of Palo Alto ..
Califoccia regardiog FE~A·s designation of more than
5,0'00 bomes and businesses in Palo Alto as beio'9 in a
salt water flood zone. I would appreciate it very much
if you would bring this letter to the attention of the
a~~iate i~dividuals within your agency for
consideration and respond to ~e at your earliest
conveo ience ..
Flease return with your reDly the corresoondence
which 1 have enclosed referring to cas~ ~l90070002A
Thank you vet'"j' l[luch for your assistance in this
matter.
Sincerely.
PETE WILSON
PW':dw
Ene losure
o o
April 25. 1990
'Ihe l'.cnxable Pete Wilson
thited States Senate
720 s..nate Hart Office lUllding
Washlngtcn D. C. 20520
Dear Senator Wilson:
Z am 10Iri ting to ask your support for the efforts of the City of Palo
Alto and Mayor Cd:>b in partkular to resolve the prol:llems an->ected
Yith J'EMA's designation of D>Xe t!lan 5000 ha1les and OOslnesses in Palo
Alto. as being in a salt Water flood 2Cne.
NE:I~ MEE"l'Il.t:;S -= WH1\T WE HAVE LEARNU>
Real r:inancial
Hardship
Peed Real
Estate Market
ffi? I S .Map
We have !learl frao in:tividual owners s.lffoOring
financial ~p in ttyW:J to sell their haDes, of
omers and real estate agents I:>eing sued for
·n:rdisclosure-of 1:h.in;s they 'Were l.lIia"waIe of~ of
lowsuits I:>eing prepared against Palo Alto, .. ince the"e
is sane. evidence t:hat certa1n persons in t:he city
administratiOfl .-.ere awa.re~
stat.istics anr:3 sales rates vera pt."eSe1'ited loohtch s."":lai.7
haTe sal ... have d..~ dramatically for ~~
within the -flood zone 8 , offers have been ~led
and banJ<s are trying to =nTI'ELY reqllre flood
~.. '!he drop is in addition t..o ncx-:rra.l. rr.arket
"'softe.'"li.r:g" an::! there are dL>-ect 1 inJ..:",=, tc tM
pmlicity an:::! con:fusiOi-. cannec""~ ",'ith this ~Je:n.
FEM1Vs !rap is not believable. USGS Tcpolo;:ical maps
for the Palo JJ. to arrl M::mltain View qu.adrarl;les s.."1t::7...
10 foot. cx:nt.our lines well t..i. thin ~'s 1 foot flood
bc:>lndaries. In additicn the u.s. "Anrrf CO<ps of
Eng-ineers !las stated in a l'Jblic meet ing that they
believe ~ has overstated the floc:d rLCik an::3 a. ·~OO
~-aar flood" l'C:>lld nolo affect prq>erty -st of
Bayshot"e, hi<jhway 101. We uroerstan1 that J'EMA's map
is basEd on a pri~te survey done by a San .Jose firm.
•
.'\ . ..... -
\ .
\ -'
. :".\. .
•
.'
-:~."'" .'
.;~~~~i=,/' ,
' ..
~:.
•
'~.'.
. -
.. ' . o o
Sane ~ the information d>tained fiaIl the city, and
f=m FE». has !>=yen ~ or ..as later c:artxadicta:!.
1oiIIA!I' an yoo ro
o Assist the city ~ Palo Alto in eliminating the exnfUsicn
0<>II1n3 f:ran FE»..
o FersU>de nw. that it ""'-lld be better i~ it used "generally
acoept.oble" sources foe its hydrological =rveys and :tt a
private contra= worJdng for: nM1<.
o Assist in getting the area restttVe'jed if neoes" ry since
there are a mmber ~ w.N-MAOC ~ts that have bee.'l
<XIftllet.ed since 'the mp '\.'as ~...ruct.ed.a
o Assist in 00tal.n1rq ~ on a list of
ad:titionaJ. izrproo.-enents, if req.llred, "rum \IO:>lJ.d
rem:;M; the banes am bls:inesses fran the flo::xi zane
designation.
Rer.E!lbe.r, there are two flood zones in Palo Alto .. the fresh. water
danger f:ra:n the IISe'Ve.I'al c:reeks, and the salt wter danger fran a -100
year H:.gh Tide·. '!he salt .... ter dan3er ""'" affects the most _Ie by
far.
S!noe.rely.
';?!f"o ~ &7 'f~ ~ ~~KU
l¥le and =1 Bartz Peter and l<Ory Elle.'l Xi ttell
32ll stoc:kton PI. 3132 Korris Dt:.
p-~o Alto .. Ca. !l43¢3 Palo Alto ca. 94303
•
.'
. i
, .
/
o
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
The Honorable Alan Cranston
United States Senate
Washinqton.-D~ C ~ :2 0 51 Ct
Dear Senator Cranston:
J.t ,,4 199')
This is in response to your letter dated June 29" 1990-., which
forwarded a letter dated April 25" 19'90 .. from Mr. and Krs .. Lyle
Bartt and Mr .. and Mrs. Peter Kittell, ~bo own property in Palo
Alto l and Ms. Maureen Horavick, Chairman, West Bayshore Property
Owners Association~ You requested that we consider your
constituents I concern regarding the more than 5,000 homes and
bosinesses in Palo Alto that have been designated to be within a
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The April 2S letter raises
several issues about 1J the sources used to prepare the effective
Flood Insurance Study {FIS} report and Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the city of -Palo Alto, 2) flood insurance.requirements,
and 3) the processes by which SFHA designaticns may be revised.
The initia1 FIRM for the City of Palo Alto vas issued on
February 15. 19BO. The FI~{ was subsequently revised on
Septembe~ 6. 1989. to include updated flood risk data for Matadero
Creek and to revise the base (IOO-year) flood elevation (BFEJ for
san Francisco Bay from elevation 7.49 feet to 7.7 feet. For
reference. the BFEs on the FIRM are rounded to the nea~est whole
~oot; boweverl"the actual BFEs are 9iven in the FIS report. The
source of the San Francisco Bay BFE presented on the effective FI&~
vas a 19B' report prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
{COE}. Altbo1J.gh the BFE for San Francisco Bay .. as updated l the
extent of the SFHA affected by flooainq from the Bay remained the
same as that shown on the 1980 FIRM because the increase in
elevation and the change to the SFHA boundary ~ere mini~al.
To ensure that the FIS report and FIRM are as accurate as possib1.e ..
we meet with co~unity officj~ls to discuss the preliminary ~-esults
before the final FIS report and FIP.H. are published. The final
community coordination meeting for the effective FIS report and
FIRK Cor the City of Palo Alto was held on August " 1988. After
the community coordination meeting, ~e ~blished a public notice
in t.he Peninsula Times Tribune on september 9 and September 16~
19B8, to inform community residents of the proposed BFEs. The
notice stated that the Preliminary FIS report and FIRM were on
display at the Palo Alto city Hall .. PUblic ~orks Department.. and
that the second publication of the notice ~ould initiate a SO-day
appeal period during which property owners could appeal the BFEs,
includinq the revised Bay elevation... based on scientific or
technical data. All concerns raised by the community during the
appeal period were resolved.
L
•
k , ,
r.
'/
,
\
•
.""'T\ ..... .
~>":c -I-~·~
.-:~~-,-
,;~, ,
..
-
.
o o
2
In response to your constituents I concern that the lO-foot contour
line is 'Well 'Within the SFHA t we plotted the contour from the
c. s .. Geological Sunrey (USGS) quadrangle :maps for Palo Alto and
Mountain View on the September 6. 1989 .. FIRM. We found that,.
except tor an area south of Ross Road,. east of Loma Verde Avenue ..
and west of San Antonio Road .. the lO-foot contour is not 'Within 'tha
SFHA. Hoveve~1 for the area wbere the lo-toot contour is within
the SFHA .. 'We. reviewed an aerial map entitled -San Francisco Bay
Sh~reline Levees: ~n Mateo and Santa Clara counties .. California,.
prepared by the COE. ~thou9h this map ooes not depict ground
contours .. it does present spot elevations and is more detailed than
the USGS quadrangle that covers the same area. The extent of the
flooding depicted on the FIRM is consistent with the more accurate
spot elevations on the COE map.
For your information, the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 197)
mandates the purchase of flood insurance as a condition of receipt
of Federal or federally related .financial assistance for
acquisition or construction of buildings in SFHAs. 'l'b.e Act
prohibits Federal agencies from making or guaranteeing a loan
secured by a building in an SFHA unless flood insurance has been
purchased. The prohibition of the Act applies to lending
institutions regulated, or ~hoSe deposits are insured by, a Federal
instrumentality. A 1ending institution may also require the
borrower to purchase "flood insurance in a greater amount than
required by statute or for a buildir~ outsiee an SFHA. Please note
t.hat revising the FIRM to remove the SFRA designation "from a
property does not automatically Y~ive the flood insurance
requirement, as the lending institution reserves the right to
require the purchase of flood insurance.
The April 25 lett.e.r states that the caE bel ieves that woe have
overstated the flood risk and that the flood that has a l-percent
chance of occurrence (10'O-year flood) 'Would not affect property
'West of Baysoore, Highway 101. The COE's evaluation considered the
flood protection levels affort!ed by existing levees. 'This is
performed as part of the estimate of potential flood damage used
in a cost-to-benefit ratio to evaluate possible upgrades to the
levee system. The COE criteria differ from our criteria because
the agencies have different ~issicns. One of cur missions is to
map flood hazards throughout t,he United States accurately based on
a uniform tOO-year standard for flood insurance and floodplain
management purposes. While tbe floodplain management star~ards of
the National Flood Insurance Frogram (NFIP) are directed primarily
at new construction.. the COE is oriented to\o,ard the design and
construction of economically justifiable civil ~orks projects to
protect existing construction and n¢t tied to any specific
frequency event. We are unable to adjust the SFHA to reflect the
existence of levees unless . "We receive either 1) technical dat<:!..
indicating that the .freeboard .. structural stability. operation l and
~aintenance requirements, as detailed in Section 65.10 of the NFIP
•
\
I
I'
"11':";
~ . .;.,.,,'
\ , , ", \ ,
\
\
~ .,
.-, ,
" "7""10 00" " "0 '"""' '. ~" J"~:
,., '",,",-
!
~.·.c.
~, .
-
...
o o
3
requlations (copy enclosed) r have been met or 2) certification from
a Feaeral agency~ 5UC.~ as the COE 1 that the existing levee system
cr improved levee bas been adequately designed and constructed to
provide protection from the lOO-year event.
The April 25 letter mentions that several manmade improvements have
been completed since the map was published. The NFIP regulaticns
provide procedures by which a property or structure lnay be removed
from. a designated SFHA when technicaliy justified. One su-ch
procedure involves a map revision based on manmade changes,
including improvements to an existing levee system. If the City
of Palo Alto or individual property owners wish to pursue a
revision to the floodplain boundary delineations shoW'll on the
effective FIRM. they may do so under the applicable provisions of
Part 155 of the NFIP regulations. Part 155 describes the map
revision procedures and the required supporting data. Depending
on the basis of the requested revision, the supporting technical
data that the requester would be required to submit might consist
primarily of elevativn information but could also include
hydrologic and hydraulic calcula:tions.. If, after revie..,ing the
-requesterfs suppOrting data, \Ie find that a revision is warranted;
we can revise and reprint the FIRM or-issue a Letter of l"!ap
Revision.
Another procedure involves a map .amendment based en property being
inadvertently included "in the SFHA on an effective FIRM.. Property
owners za~ submit certain property and elevation information and
request map amendments ur~er the provisions of Part 70 of the NFIP
regulations. The map amend!!le.nt procedure may be. useful .for
property owners in the area 10Ibere the lO-foot contour is within the
SFHA. If \Ie determine that a property has been incorrectly
included in the SFHA, we can amend the FIRM by issuing a Letter of
Map Ame~ent that officially removes the property from the SFHA.
We have enclosed a copy of our ·Conditions and Criteria for Letters
of Map Amendment (LOMAs),· which further describes the amendment
procedures.
We regret that, without agditional info~ation, we cannot consider
III revision to the effective FIRM for the City of Palo Alto. Should
the City or individual property owners \lish to pursue a revision
or a~enQment, we will be pleased to work with them to ensure th2t
the request is fully considered.
•
I-
t
'.
•
I I '
I
1
j
I
:
/
o o
4
1. trust that the. infontation presented in this letter will be
usetul to you and to your constituents. We have returned the
Apl':'il 25-le.tter.. .s you requested.. If you require further
assistance, please have a member of your staff call our office of
Congressional Affairs at 646-4500.
.•.. :
Sincerely ..
SU!r+€D
Harold T. Durye~
Administrat.or
Fede.ral Insurance Administratiot'l.
Enclosures
I.ncoming corr,espondence
cc: FEKA central
FEMA Readill9
Acting OrR
Cole.
Regional Dir.
RB Central File
Case File
Duryee
Wat.ers
Mohr
Mail. .Room
Hail Room
EX-CA
NTHD -Reg. 9
IA-RA-RS
TEe -MBJ
IA
IA-RA
IA-RA-RS
XA-RA-RS:Mohr:hs: 07/17/90 -FEMA Control :1084-9Q
code : lBM: PALO
Concurrence:
IA-RA-RS
MOHR
IA-RA-RS
MATTICKS
IA-RA
MRA2IK
IA
ROSE
_._-"-~
CR
DUe Pate
D7/20/90
"" _.
..
,. ,
!
1 ,
To:
/
o o
1anital ~tatts ~rna£[
WASHJHGTO",,-DC JO!l10
June 29, 19.90
Con~re5sional Liaison
Federal Emergency Management Agency
500 C Street~ SW
Washiagto.n, DC 20472
Enclosure From:
He:
:Mr a and Mrs. Lyle Bartz
3211 Stockton PI.
Falo Altos CA 94303
Please address the concerns raised by Mr. and Mrs. Bartz
regarding FE.MA"'s designatio-n of more than 5,.00'0 homes and
businesses in Palo Alto as being in a Salt Water flood zo-ne.
I forward tbe attacbed for your coosideratioc.
Your report .. in duplicate~ along with toe return of the e~closure
"'i 11 be appreci at ed .
~;'DCetelY ~n~
Please ad~ress envelope to:
Senator Alan Cranston
Senate Office Building
Wasbicgton. D.C. 20510
Att:
Marco Frazier 4 202/22(-3553
•
'. o
10iXU 25. 1990
'Ille Sono<a!:>le Alan cranston
onit.ed states serate
1.12 Senate !!art Office B.li.Jding
Washin;ton D. C. 20510
Z am IoIritirq to ask )'<lUI: suppo>:t foc tile ~!forts of the City of Palo
Alto ~ Y.ayor 0Jbb in particular to resolve the pcobl=s comecte:l
with F'EM1l.' s designa:tion eX 110Ce than 5000 bares an:i bJs:inesses in Palo
Alto as I:>eirq in a saltwater Flood zane. "
NEIG!iOCilHXO MEE:'l'lN;S -I!ND >IHAT ~ HAVE IEAllNED
Real Financial
Rard$ip
~'s Man
We have beard fran inlividual. c.me..""S SIlffe.ri.ng
financial hardship in ~ to sell their hanes., of
""""'"" ard real estate agents being sued for
-Ia"disclosure." of th:"",..]5 they 'Were ~'are -of, ard cf
lawsuits bei.Tq prepared against Palo Alto... sino:! the....""'e
is sane evidence that. certain persons in the city
adm:inistratian -were aware.
statistics an::! sales rates 'ioo'ere prese.~ .... him s.~
haDe sales have ~ dra!t;oUcally for p.:opa.'"\:y
'Within the -flood zor.e"" ... offers hav-e be'2..., canc:elle:i
a.rd banks are tryi.ng to R....~C1'IVU.Y require flocd
insurance. "D1e drq:l is in a&Ution to noI:'!!lC!.l 1!'..:rY.2t
-s0fteni.n:.3'" ar'd the:::'e are dire:::t. lir.ks t.o the
~licity am confusion co~ with this p<cllle:;l.
~'s map is not. belie\P....ble. USGS Topological traps
foc the Palo Alto a.ro. l"!oontain Vie. quadrangles $hCI.;
10 foot. cont.Q.Ir lines lo'e'll vithin FE'1A's J foot. floo:J
bo.nlari"". In addi tien the u. s. ~ Corps of
Engineers has stated in a p.Jblic zreet3n3 that t..lJey
bel.ieve :FE-9!. has ovastated tl'-.e flccd risk arO a. -100
year flocxl" '-""lld not affect prq:erty .. _t of
Bayshore .. rugtl'"way 101. we un5.erstarrl that ~ ts map
.is based: on a private survey done by a San .1csa tirm~
•
\
.... .:
-"
,
o o
R~
Ct!nfusim
SaIIO of the infoanation obtained ft= the city. an:!
frau nMA has proven wr=g or was later c:ontrad.icted.
l<aM CAN YOO to
o Assist the City of Palo Alto in e1.ilninatin3 the o:>nfusia'l
cxming fran FD9...
<> Persuade F»!A that. it ""'-lld be better if it use::! ~ly
acceptabl.e" sources f= its by<lrolcqical SUIVe)'S an:! rrt a
private contractor ~ for n>o\.
o Assist in 9"ttin;J the area resurveyed if T>eoesS?'Y since
there are a t1U!IDer of Mm-lWE ~ that have bee,
oa!plet.e:l since the map .as <XTlSt:ruct:erl.
o Assist. in d:>taining agrea>ent on a list. of
..&:litionaJ. ~. if ~. ohld>. \oIC>.lld
rarcve the haDes ard businesses = the need zone
designation. _
P.eme:nber¥ the-""e-are. two floo::1 ZCCleS in Palo }.ltc, the frEs.."L wter
darJ:1er fran the several creeJr.s., and the salt 'Water dan3er fran a -100
year High Tide". '!be salt "",ter dang€r nc<J affects the llD6t people by
hr.
'lhank you for your tine an;j ef.forts to help resolve this prd:llem...
l¥le am Carol Bartz
32ll stockton PI.
Palo .Alto*' Ca.. 94303
Mauree..'1 M.xavkk., O'la:i.rnan
le~~~~~
3132 Morris Dt'".
Falo Alto Ca.. 94303
. " .-
West aa~ Property o.mers ;'ssoci.tion
:n.25 Stockton Pl. .
Palo Alto ca. 94)03
•
•