HomeMy WebLinkAbout0411.091',.-
,
\
-
~; .'
~~
• • . .
",!';, ,'"
August: 29, lSi91
THE HO~DRABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto~ california
f.lood H~zard Requlat:n:i.ncn_!;;=_ Status Report
Members of toe Council:
Report in BrieJ.
This is an informational report on the status of flood hazard
regulation related activities. Fo Council action is required.
Background
On December 10, 1990, Council received a report describing the
City's application to PEMA's Community Rating System (CRS) program
(CMR:599:0). On :March 41 1991, Council received a report outlining
the findings of the legal consulting firm of Rivkin, Radler, Bayh;
Hart , Kremer re.garding alternatives available, to the City for
reducing or eliminating FEMA's floodplain management requirements
(CMR: 169: 91) •
Discussion
1. £Omm14_Ditv Rating System
staff sub::-.itted an application for participation in FEMA's
CO!T'Jrlunity Rating system (eES) program on December 15, 1991.
The CRS program rewards communities fo~ performing specified
activities that redu.:;oe flood losses, facil i tate accurate
insurance ratings, and pro~ote a .. 'areness of flood insurance.
On May 16, 1991, staff received a l€tter from FEMA accepting
the city's CRS application (Attachment 1). Palo Alto is one
of only 293 cities/agencies in the country (26 in the state)
to be accepted into the CRS progr~~. As a result, Palo Alto
residents will receive a 5 percent reduction from the standard
pre-rnium for all ne .. or rene· .... ed flood insurance policies in
place on or after October I, 1991.
On July 18, i591, FEMA a.uditors verified the floodplain
management activities contained in the City's Cf<S application.
thus ensuring the 5 percent insurance preDlium reduction
through October 1993. Based on input from the audit~ ~he City
!lay be a'tlle to earn further reductions in later years of the
-1-
CMR:411:91
.,
. ,
, \'
"
j
I
. ,
, I
I ,
" ,
-
2.
•
CRS pr09ra:::o if additional activities are: llndert~ken. Ho .... ever',
many of -t.he: suggested act-ivities may be diffic1..i.lt to conduct
in Palo Alto cr are not feasible .... ith current staffing leve15.
staff can apply for additional credits during the annual CRS
program recertification process, beginning in December 1991.
Prior to then, staff ~ill return to council ~i~h a
recommendation on pursuing additional discounts_ as veIL as
the resulting in'.pact.
lollgw"'"up to Cour.cilnGuidancE Given at Mar.<:;:J .. ----..!.... _____ 1991 Study
Session
Ja..t t.he March 4, 1991 st.lJdy session. Council ask.ed staff to
investigate and report on severa 1 issues identified by the
legal consultant and individual Council members. The
following summarizes staff's findings on these issues:
.'rA! etttl!_cts 0 f r1cently C01l9_t __ ru~_ted=:::J1>~.~r~r;ji~.~r~.::::. ~S~u~c,,;h~a~S~jt~h~.i fn.Jlva v Bound va 11 s ~ .,t",h"e,-.. m"e"d,-",,,· .""!!~b"" ... r .. r~i,-,e,,,r ..... _ on -P9: tee t fal
flooding
In response to an inquiry from st.aff~ che Santa Clara Valley
water Distr lct (District) has indicated that the Existing
media.n barrier and sound walls along High'lo'ay 101 are not
effective as flood control devices (Attachment 2). The median
harrier was deliberately designed Yith openings in it in order
to allow for: the passage of f':oodwaters. Likewise, the.
isolated sections of sound wall do not provide a solid barrier
and could not be made solid du~ to the need for openings at
the local interchanges and the creeks. Ir'. addition, even if"
these barriers could prever.t s.alt'tlater flooding from crossing
the freelriay. they also would have the negative impact of
preventing freshwater from escaping to the Bay, thus causing
flooding west of the freeway.
• !he possibility of" ___ t;:_9~_~ __ t. __ ructing .~12ve~ alona the tr~ew&v
:frcntaqe rO.4 .... __ 1_J:l.Jlltea4 of ~r~-tll9......~ __ l)_~ existing levee5 An the
BayleneSs
The District has stated that there-may be a number of
alternative solutions to the saltWater flooding problem. Any
alte~native would need to be evaluated on ~he basis of flood
protection, cost, co~unity s~pport, and environmental impact.
A stUdy of Palo Alto's saltio'ater flooding hazard was in the
District's PLoposcd 1991-92 budget. Ho\o{ever~ it ..... as dropped
due to budget constraints and there is currently no schedule
for its reconsideration.
Even if a levee .... ere bui 1 t along the freeway frontage road.
the levee around the Pale Alto Flood Basin still would need to
be raised in order to prevent saltwater from fillinq the Basin
-2-
CMR:411:91
L
,
,-1 •.
-
•
-------------------------~
,,----,
and backing up into the tributary creeks durinq Bay flooding~
In addition, if the Basin filled ~ith salt~ater, it ~o~ld not
h!lve the capacity to accept the. infloitr from the creeKs.
Therefore, the City vould be highly susceptible to fresh~ater
flooding ~est of the free~ay.
The cost-effectiveness _9Ln improving tbe l.e",e. system to
elia.i;g&te the risk 0._, saltwater floO" __ ~!!g
In order to determine cost-effectiveness, staff attempted to
calculate he ... met.ny propert..ies ,",ould be removed from the
Special Flood Hazard Area if the saltwa.ter flooding hazard
~ere eliminated~ Unfortunately, this attempt was unsuccessful
due to the fact that the saltwater and freshwater flood areas
actually overlap. Many of the properties that are shown to be
in the salt~ater flood zone are also in the fresh~ater flood
zone; the FZR~ maps only show the ~orse case hazard
(Atta~hl!'l~nt 3). Thus, if the saltwater hazard .. 'ere
eliminated, the freshwater flood zone 'Would increase
substant.ially. Staff contacted FEMA in. order to determine the
true full e~tent of the freshwater flood zone, but was told
that the information was not available ~Attachment 4}.
Apparently, the saltwater flood zone was mapped first and the
~appinq of the freshwater zone 'Was discontinued once it joined
the saltwater zone.
FEMA is currently conducting a restudy of the flooding hazard
from San Francisquito Creek.. This study, which is Scheduled
to be completed by April 1992, is cx~ected to result in an
enlarged fresh~ater flood zone, due to a change in FEMA's
levee policy.. This remappii1q effort also 'Will stop at the
salt~ater flood zone boundary, and, thus, will not provide any
additional informaticr. required to determine the cost
effectiveness of iirlproving the Bay levee.s. With such limited
information, staff can only say that a substantial number of
the 4700 flood-prone properties in Palo Alto .... o'.lld remain in
one of the flood zones even if the saltwater flooding hazard
"-"ere elimi,n,3.ted. Staff does not recocunend that the City
develop this information itself due to the cost, ..... hich is
estimated to be at least $100,000.
• The possi~.ili...~y of covering P9j:_e_l:I.th.l flood. d:4m~ ______ 1....Q.~.se9 with
aelf" .-i.u.:9urance
Staff has looked into the option of providing self-insurance
and 'Withdrawinq from the National Flood Insurance Program.
Congress adopted the Flood Disast~r Protection Act of 1973
requiring the purchase of flood insurance as a condition for
receiving any form of federal or federal-related financial
assistance 'Wltbin an identified special flood ha:zard area.
The Act also requires that no such federal fin~ncial
CHR: 411: 91
.~ .. ..
assistance be provided within a special flood "hazard area
unless the community is participating in the Nation~l Flood
Insurance Program. All federally ~ssisted loans secured by
property in special flood h.a:aard areas must be protected by
flood insurance, which is required by most lenders. ~ithout
federal underwriting, insurance c01l1panies 'Will not provide
flood insuran:::e coverage and~ due to the magnitude of the
risk, underwritinq for self-in~urance is not possible.
Withdrawing from FEMA would effectively eliminate all
financing for building construction, remodeling or resale of
property in special flood hazard areas. Not only would flood
insurance be affected by withdraval from the National Flood
Insurance Program, but other federal aid wi thin the flood
plain, such as Community Development Block Grant funds and
loans from the Federal Housing Administration, the Veteran's
Adll'li .. nistration and the Small Business "-dministration, "ilI'o\J.ld be
cut off. Also, other federal dis~ster assistance for
reccnstruction of damaged buildin9s 'Would not be available in
special flood hazard areas. The loss of federal funds could
severely hurt the local community. For these reasons, staff
does not rcconunend th<lt the city self-illsure and ,,"'ithdraw from
the National Flood Insurance Program.
• Tbe impacts OZl_.....Moperty oWller!l of _:t:_he combiuatio!l: Q.Lm_the
tloo~plai~ m_~llagament ordina.nc __ .-.-l~bich milly cau~ __ • <?:wnera to
raise t~eir :atruc;turesJ &n~_ tb ___ zODing or(Hnane~_9 (which limit
th_e Jl4iabt and bulk _9t ~ __ tructurti!J!..l
Staff is in the process of ident,ifying approximately lS blocks
of single-family houses ~ithin the freshwater and saltwater
flooding areas. 'I'hese block$. ...,ill form a representative
saIDple of all R-l properties subject to the flood r-egulations.
Properties will be analyzed for:
• The number that are affected by the mini:!1lJm floor
elevation requirements (i. e., some hou$es have ra ised
foundations that already exceed the mini~u~ floor
elevation and ~ould not need to b~ rais~d even if they
~ere wsucstantially improved W };
• The existing and maximum floor area per the zoning
regulations for each structure;
• The amount of floor area that c_Quld be built under the
City's administrative regulation of the flood hazard
program without triggering the floor height requirements;
and
• Potential conflicts between raising the structure and
zoning height and daylight plane regulations.
-4-
CMR:411:91
L
•
,
i
~
\ -':---
'.
~. r :.
-
•
Staff also will identity examples of raised structures and
ways in wbich architects have responded to the flood
regulations in preparinq remodeling/addition plans.
Office and field data collection and analysis should he
completed by mid-October, and a report returned to Council in
November 1991.
Build-ing e. cQ.llltion with other ci __ ~ieSi with .imilar fl __ 904.. __ EOD!l
probl ... ill order to lobb.Yn tor lagislatlv. c)'HIll.ge.
Staff has made an informal survey to determine if there are
other neighboring cities with similar residential flood tone
problems as experienced ~y Palo ~lto. At this point the city
that staff has been able to identify, Foster City. has
addressed the problem by building levees ~hich meet the FEMA
requirements. Staff will continue to contact neighboring
communities, but at this point l our n~ighbors either do not
have the sam~ magnitude of residential problem, have corrected
the potential problem by constructing levees or at this point
the issue is not a pricrity for them. Staff will continue to
c01l'llrlunicate ~ith other cities to determine if they have
problems similar to Palo Alto'5 and, if so, whether they 'Would
join Palo Alto in pursuing a legislative remedy.
Respectfully submitted,
JOE TERESI
Acting Assistant Director of Public Works
DAVID G. ADAMS
Dir~ctor of PUblic Works
._4.-_ ........
JUNE FLEMING
Assistant City
Attachments:
Manager
1. 5/16/91 letter from FE¥~
2. 7/30/91 letter from SCVWD
J. FEMA ~lood zone map
4. 8/1191 letter from FEMA
Related Reports: CKR:599;Oi 169;91
-5-
CMR:411:91
•
__ s,
~.~~
~~o-"
~,
,
I
"
r·
Mr. William zaner
city !' ... "as ...
City of palo Alto
city Hall
Palo Alto, California .4301
eGar Hr. :ar:er:
On behalf cf tnQ Fedaral Ins~~ance Ad:inistr~tiQn (iIA>, I .o~ld
like to cor.;ratuhte ycur c:cl!IlI\""ity fer it$ achle'le",ent. in
contributinq to the success of the National Floed In.~=.nce
'1';::99>"." (llFIP). '!'he voluntary actions ur.cert.ken by yo"r
'co~lty e~ceedinq the ~ini~um standards Q! the N,IP~eet the
r~qui'rell\ent.s tor a CLASS 9 Ratins in to,>" c"",,,,un~ty Ratil'.q S:i.t<:",
(CRS). _ -!
" .-
Til" 1:~ ... :u'05 tw'Y'>W' c:o::\:,unl ty':s activities will be a ~=,,~
t,od!lstion in aBo -ne'" or renewed flood !nsunnce 1'011<::100. in phc ..
on cr 'f~.~ octOber.i, l~il. This.$av1ngs jd,a tangible result
ot the voluntary a<:t'ivl·t!u your .cb~ity 'has implet.let,t~d .
.. . ...... ,/
'rhe CLASS 9 ntinll r.pruents· a .1II1nl,.\uIf tota~ OIt $00 eredit";'le
points 6s1t-eartifieQ by your community. The peints h~ve been
initially eontl~e~, but no~ yet ve~;:jad for the ~'IP by ISO
Comm~rclal ~is~ ServlCQ., Inc., CRS fleld repr •• entativ~, The
next step in th~ process V~ll bQ an ISO conducted visit to field
\'~r1ty !nfotmation provld«d in the CRil application, '{our ISO
representative will ~. contacting your CRS Coordib~tc= to
6che~"le this visit ".h·sen Y.areh "r.d [>ecer;ilior,
Aft~r tho verification visit, the Fty~ region.l offico will
r.vi.~ the tindi~~o, and reco~a"d to F~, wheth<" yo". co~~unity
.111 r~c.ive any s~ditional points. Bv February 15, 1992, r .ill ~rovid" your co~~ity .ith Its Verified Ck$ r.ti"~, CLASS 1
~~r¢ush 10, and any ad~1~1on~1 reduction in in~ura~ce pr~m1u~s
that wQould: t.e:eO:D.R E:!!-::c:::ti'v£. on ~t¢i:.el:' it 1.992.
Yo~r eommunity $hcul~ k~ prQud ¢f the activitle~ you've alre3dy
unttertalcoen. I e.n<:Qura":-Q you to net onlj7 ccnt!m:.e t.h.'f: activitie~
11~ted in your application in the first year of th~ eRs, ~ut, to
e~,~nd the~ as th~ progrern grcw~. As you ~~~W doubt recegnize~
the rewa.d~ are far 9reater than red~~ed flood ir.surar.ce rate5.
IncrQaseC! public S2.t';:tYI rec.:.lctiC:l cd ca:;;J.ao;e; to ;property and
public: infr_aso.truct-.:t"€.r a.vc:!.danc"~ cf f:ec~,omle eisrupt.icn a:ld
-----------------
•
L .. ~
, i
f
i
r
i ,
~
. .. -, ..... . --::;~'., 1
I
l
I
!
------~ ~----------
J'l...L.-26-1931 16~ 38
losses, reduction of buman 5ulte~inq, ~~~ protection of the
lloodpla1ns are &mon~ ~~. h~llmarks of out.tanding publtc
sezv1ce. Tne$. co~unit1 flood less t.~uct1on initiatives
coupla4 with increases 1~ the n~er ot insar~d st~ctures s~ould
~ak. your community a safor place to live.
Sine.rely,
-.--,.-r------------
1_'. J ..... ~y,_ <, l.~
", -.
-:'. -.-".' -. ~ ;<",
"-' ,'~
, '4,:'
."~'-~ .
•
~ ;lfs
. : .~
-
:
July 30, 1'191
Mr. Joe Teresi
City of Palo Alto
Public Work' Department
Engineering Divis ~n
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mr. Teresi.
S75C' I\.lMM)F..N EXPRESSWAY
SAN JOSE, C"LJFOONlA ~ 118
T'El...EPHONE (408) 2f.i5-26CJ'J
F,Ii{;S!MrLE ';':_081 .2P5-Q271
AT! ACHMEI'7 # 2
The following is in response to the questions raised iii Jour letter of July 19, 1991 c()u.;eming tlooo':ng
from high tides in San Francisco Bay.
1. Plans for the recently constructed sound waIls on Bayshore frec .... 'ay near Sail Flanci.~qulto Creek
were not reviewed by this DLc;trkt to identify if the structures would affl!l..1. flooding. Thes.e studies
are routinely done by Caliuns. The bighway between Adobe and Matadero Creeks does not have
a &oundw.all and me median barrier has openings which are apparen.tl)' to allow upland tlood"'nters
tv travel to the bay without poooin& hehind ttJe harriers. TidaJ f10JdinC could follow the reverse
path.
2. There mayor may DOt be .a Dumber of alternative solutlons to the tidal flood probfem. AU would
normally be Investigated' during the District's planning process.. Ea-:h aJtern",ti""e ~'ould be e\"a!uated
for how \\'ell it mee'...s Qur objectives including flood' prDte,:tiur., fca';on.'!bie ':-cst., Sirong .::ommuniry
s·Jpp0ft, and minimum em: iromn~ntal impact
3. Staff initially propos.ed (0 include fundll'li: in flSC.al' year 1991-92 to s.rudj' the tidal flooding prohlem.
sim:e the Corps of Engineen is no longtT invotvtld arId It is :!>tlll if. biEn. priorii)' n.:~ tin t}l';::
Northwest lone. However, char: s.tud)' bas sin-:e heen dropped because of budgetary constraints.
There is no s-.:hed llle for its recons ider ation
Sincerely,
,{:" r __ -, /
{:'~J~ ,. "_~/"-.ll
Randall R. Talley, P.E.
Supervising Engineer
Flood Control Planning Division
L
•
!
[
i
... ,'"
:·7~; -.,. ,~~~i4 .
1
I
r ·f
L
-
-:i ."-!I· E-II -r
if":
1
Ii
Z~"E!" .~E S,,'::JE"<:! ,L' Ilooc'rij Ir:;on Il""e
ba" du,," ~, :Ne··I~p.:·,n9 of lt1E!" ~·.e"s
W 0;1 .... 100 In pcn~ te· an e-'.ev,,· ,~,,, :If Ii" rilel
o.vo·~~ 5£'. 'e~1 I.'J",e,1 ~oor rr~~t!;.:> <IT
l!ltS !'1E",·"I,c", or to, gr",
1
1
.•
!
I
-
o o
Re-gion IX Blo./lldlllg Ill,)
Prl::~idjo of San Fr .. nci.,.('). Caijr')!ljja 9-i ;!9
~r. joe Teresi
Depsrt£ent of Public ~orks
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto. California 34303
Subject: Special flood haz-ard Areas it! Pale Al to
Dear Mr. Tere~i:
This is io respoTlse to your lEtter or July 19, 1991, subject as above.
'lie agree with the state!!!ent in your letter that the :lJulti-creek and San Franci:sco
Bay o'ierfio'lol floodplains !SHlA), reflected on the Palo Alto flC'>od Insurance R~te
Map (FI~~). overlap. It is fu~ther ag.eed that if the tidal flood hatard from
the Bay i,as relllol;,!;!d by Ieree imprO\elZleDt (i.~ .• sufficierlt fref'.boa.rd to meet the
Federal [Illergeney ~anAgelle!Jt Agency (FE"1A) sta.. ... dards). the riTer-jne floodpl.e.in
would be extended downsb"E'am to reflect the increased o .. -=rflow cf the SFHA.
The following addresses yc,ur specIfic conceros:
1. The e:dsting d&ta inforllation cannot be used to
aetel"'lIline the aciditic:.nal dOlOnstream ri~'er.ine o'rer-flo ...
floodplains.
2. ThE' iilJlited ~1!..'p Ma.intena.nce P"::gra.1II stud~
Fra;;cisqul to (reel;: is scheduled for cOllpletion
15, 1992. T~~5 stud~ ~Ill e~d ~nere
for S3.n
by A~ril
the San
Francis~lJlto Cl"'E'ek c'\"er fl 010 •• 10105 the cur-rent idthcut
le."ee bl:t·c-k""ater .area frolll S.'lf! Francisco Bay. It ...-ill
not pro· .. lae suffIcIent data to deter-Line the ado-;.t:wnal
dmmstr.eu ri"erlne oyerflo .. floodplains affected by 8.
le,;ee systoell e] i:lI11nating Ba,v floodIng.
~e appreCIate ~cur interpst in explor~ng alternatives to ~lti~ate th~ ~ffe=ts
of flood hazards "ithin the C'olll!lunlty. If ,'OU haH~ ~Ue&tlons or ne-eo furthe-r
assi;::tarK~e rl'!ative U'l tblS lIJattE'r. pl~as" conta"Ct fi.a.:;mond T. Lenaburg at ':15-
S~3-11Bl.
L
;;;.~e>-?97tht1
f'" (" In a I KVr..~1 kas
Dh'isicn Chief
~atll!'"al '" Technological Haz~rds