Community Meeti ng # 3February 10, 2007

Flood Damage in the Ross Valley

• The storm of Dec. 31, 2005 was a storm with a 1% probability of happening in a given year (i.e., a 100 yr. storm)

• We’ve had 3 such events (i.e., low probability) in 25 years.

• Damage exceeded $90 million

• Approximately 1/3 of those affected had flood insurance

• The natural flood plain of San Anselmo/Corte Madera Creek is a fully developed, residential area

• It is estimated that as much as $100 million is needed to improve flood protection

Towards Solutions…• Current level of creek capacity is below the 4% probability level (i.e, the 25

yr. storm)

• While short term fixes have been applied, major public works projects and innovative actions are needed to make a significant difference

• Environmentally supportive techniques inform, and merge with, a new generation of engineering practices

• A combination of creek restoration, bridge and culvert replacements and the addition of large detention basins are required to provide the 100 yr. level of protection

• Use of the latest technology, such as credible, computer-generated hydraulic modeling, enables us to have a circumspect view of the watershed and anticipate the effect one project will have on another so that safe and proper sequencing of projects can be planned

• Further hydraulic modeling is required to complete the picture and allow proper planning for the Ross Valley

0 Years Protection

100 Years Protection

COMPARISON: 12/31 STORM & EXISTING CONDITIONS

Ross: Fish Ladder

Ross: Lagunitas Bridge

SA: Madrone Bridge

5 Y

r.

50 Y

r.

10 Y

r.

SA: Nokomis Bridge

FX: Fairfax Culvert

SA: Building #2

SA: Sycamore BridgeSA: Building #3

25 Y

r.

75 Y

r.

Storm: 12/31/05

Watershed - Wide

• “Traditional” Flood Control methods are not effective

• Integration with environmental needs is not only required but it’s the smart thing to do

• Corte Madera Creek has excellent habitat opportunities for endangered salmonid species

Inclusive Approach = Progress• We included key stakeholders from throughout the watershed in the

process to insure that all key issues are integrated into future planning

• Created a Technical Workgroup comprised of volunteer scientists and engineers from the community, citizen action group leaders, staff engineers from the county and the towns, and state and federal regulatory agency representatives to examine all existing data and chart the course for next steps

• This group informed both a Financial Workgroup and a committee of elected officials who could then make informed decisions on process and programs

• This methodology insures the inclusion of “on-the-ground” expertise in the governmental process

CARRYING THIS PROCESS FORWARD IS A KEY TO SUCCESS

Community Outreach• Recognizing that everyone in the watershed is a stakeholder,

we carried out a comprehensive, public education and outreach program

• Conducted 3 Community Workshops that explained, in detail, the findings of the Technical and Financial Workgroups with respect to what happened, how we might fix it, and how we might pay for it

• This helped all to understand the scope of the problem and the possible solutions and created significant community support

• Our final community meeting was attended by nearly 300 people who expressed support for the program

December Survey Results

• Sent 6,000 surveys to property owners; 1,462 returned

• Mimics actual mail ballot

• Actual rate shown on survey

• Broad-based support

Poll Results: 67% Yes to $125

35.4

20.2

31.7

12.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

All respondents[1,462]

% R

espo

nden

tsDefinitely no

Probably no

Probably yes

Definitely yes

Support Throughout Valley

Ross Valley Financing Plan FrameworkREVENUE DESIGNATED

FORLEVERAGING OF NEW FUNDS

Environmental & Habitat Restoration Projects•Fish passage•Erosion control

• All projects will include fish passage and habitat enhancements• Leveraging of ecosystems restoration funds, including Army Corps, Costal Conservancy and Consolidated Grants Programs

Capital Projects

Bridges, culverts, detention basins, acquire hydraulically significant properties, protect key critical facilities

• 4 to 1 leveraging• Bond the revenue stream= $12.5 mil• Bond funds leverage: FEMA, State Flood Bonds, Army Corps, State/Fed Hwy grants • Total $50 million for capital projects.

Maintenance Projects

Dredging, annual creek clearing, bank stabilization

• 4-1 leverage• California Coastal Conservancy, State Water Board, SRF• MCC crews

Hydraulic model, flood forecasting, ER systems

• National Weather Service, FEMA• Coastal Conservancy

Administration, grants, and financing systems

Implementation Draft ExamplesPublic Works Planning Maintenance Staffing

Hydraulic Model Completion $750k

Feasibility Studies (e.g., 3 bridges study approx. $250,000, Fairfax Culvert, $200,000)

Dredging Strategy $10 - $15 million

Grant writing, legislative agenda and financial planning

ACOE Project Completion – Units 3 and 4 $1 million local share – collected

Create Program for Home-Owner Support for stream bank erosion control, permitting, etc.

Annual seasonal prep planning ($ ???)

Fish Passage Projects (dual objective, i.e., flood and fish, $750k - $2 million)

Non-Structural Program House-raising, floodway property protection, etc.

Feasibility of Phoenix Lake other detention sites (Coordination with MMWD)

Land Use and Creek Corridor Ordinances

Property Acquisition Identification and Funding program

Future Vision for Creek Corridor, Floodways, etc

Solutions & FEMA CRS

• A more complete matrix of short, intermediate and long-term actions is in the Library at www.rossvalleywatershed.org, called “Solutions Framework”

• All structured according to the FEMA Community Rating System (CRS) so that, over time, flood insurance premiums are reduced

How do we fund these?..............................

The Good News• Money is available

• Proposition 1E has over $1 billion intended for flood related projects

• Proposition 84 has $800 million designated for Flood Control

• We are aggressively pursuing our share of those funds

• But….Local matching funds are required

Storm Drainage Fee

• Fee would raise $2 million a year

• One vote/parcel; a simple majority of votes cast is needed

• 67% support for $125 a year

• About 62% of SFR pay $125 or less a year

• Virtually all condo owners pay about $30 a year

• Adjustments for inflation limited to 3% per year

• Fee sunsets in 20 years

Voting Process

• February 10: Community meeting

• February 20: Board of Supervisors approve fee methodology

• March 13: Board of Supervisors set hearing date

• March 15: Notices of hearing mailed (45-day period)

• May 1: Public hearing (if no majority protest, proceed)

• May 3 - 4: Ballots mailed (45-day voting period)

• June 26th: Count ballots