HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 82-1997RESOLUTION NO. 82-97
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT
FUNDS FROM THE HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR ASSISTANT CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE APPLICATION AND RELATED
DOCUMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has submitted a Notice of Interest to the Governor's
Office of Emergency Services, indicating the City's intent to apply for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) funds provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Program No. 1155,
with such funds to be used to restore and improve certain storm drains in order to reduce or eliminate the
potential for flooding of homes and business located within the 100-year flood plain of Colma Creek; and
WHEREAS, the City now desires to apply for HMGP funds in the amount of $3,547,500, to be
used to restore and improve storm drainage at or around the Alida Cross Culvert, the Alida/Ponderosa
Storm Drain, the 2nd & C Street Storm Drain, and the Francisco Storm Drain; and
WHEREAS, the application for said grant funds is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco, that:
1. The City Council hereby approves the application for HMGP grant funds in the amount of
$3,547,500, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager or Assistant City
Manager to execute the application on behalf of the City of South San Francisco, to file the application in
the Governor's Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of obtaining such federal financial assistance
under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, P.L. 93-288, as
amended, and to provide to the Governor's Office of Emergency Services the assurances and agreements
required for all matters pertaining to such disaster assistance.
:g :g :g :g :g
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City
Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regu l a r meeting held on the 9th day of ~
du]¥ , 1997 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
A:~EMA.RES
Counciimembers James L. Datzman, Eugene R. Mullin, John R.
Penna, Robert Yee and Joseph A. Fernekes
None
None
None
07/0~/1997 ~9:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC P~GE 82
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 82-97
GGW&C INC.
GR_ANT ITING &' CONSULTING
"Partners For Change"
9 July 1997
TO: Arthur Wong, Terry White
FR: Julie Mozena'~]
RE: FEMA Final Draft
Here is the final draft. I spoke with Franklin Tilly at OES yesterday, and an issue came up around
the size of the request; why they didn't point this out in the Letter of Intent process, I don't
know. Anyway, he said that any requests that go over the $1 million range is automatically
bumped up to the federal level - OES basically doesn't look at it. The review process could take
up to a year. He said not to be discouraged, it didn't mean you won't get funded - it will just take
a lot longer than the OES process, which he expects will make awards sometime in the fall.
In other news: As I was re-working the numbers yesterday, a couple things came up for me. First,
we were looking at the numbers as if the match level is 25% of the grant request; this is not the
case. If you look at the first page of the application, what they are saying is that you can ask for
up to 75% of the total eligible project cost, and the match must equal at least 25% of the total
project cost. So, in other words:
4,300,000 = 78%
1,200,000 = 22%
5,500,000 = 100%
with $1,200,000 match, this is the best we can do:
3,600,000 = 75%
1,200,000 = 25%
4,800,000 = 100%
Because of this discrepancy, I did not move the costs of the other storm drain line items into the
Francisco one, because it put us way over the 75/25 cost share. The only choice we have is to
07/09/1997 09:58 4i53835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 03
increase the match share; if that can't be done, we will have to reduce the grant request to no
more than $3,600,000. FYI, I have circled and wrote question marks in thc areas where the
funding is mentioned.
Other notes:
1. For section 15C, I will be putting those together today.
2. For Section 19 Benefit-Cost Analysis, Ierry has not heard from Victor, so I put together
some info based on our conversations.
3. Section 21 Environmental Review - we are saying that we fit under the category of Small
Scale Mitigation Measures, however Franklin said to me, "Well, we disagree on what 'small'
is", in reference to the mount of $ being requested. This is why OES will not review this,
and will bump it up to FEMA.
4. Attachments:
a. Section I 0 Local Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan Attachment - in the final I will attach the
ordinances Arthur gave me.
b. Section 12 Project Description and Work Schedule - Arthur, please take a look at the
work schedule - I wasn't sure about the EIR timing.
c. Section 14 Project Report - this is where I will put the storm drainage study for Francisco
and Brentwood Drainage Basins
d. Section 19 - this is an extension of the answers from the application. Please read over.
That should do it. IfI don't hear from you both today, I will call each of you tomorrow morning
to go over the application. I am picking up the resolution from Russ tomorrow afternoon.
87/89/1997 89:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 84
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION
1. Project Title
Date: 7/11/97
Applicant: City of South San Francisco
Project title: South San Francisco Storm Drain Improvement Project
_
Grant amount requeste( $4,300,0~00 % (Maximum is 75% of the eligible project cost)
'-~ Applicant matc(h:' '-'$1,200,000. \(Minimum is 25% of the eligible project cost)
/
Q Total project cos't~,.$5,500,000 /
2. Applicant
Address: 400 Grand Avenue P.O. Box 711
City: 'South San Francisco State~__._C_A._ ......
County: San Mateo County
z~p: 9~_o._8_3.. .................
Applicant status: State [ ] County [ ] City iX ] Nonprofit [ ] Other [ ]
3. Applicant's Primary Contact Person
Name:
Title:
Address:
City:
Phone #:
Arthur Wong
City Engineer ....
400 Grand Avenue P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco State: CA Zip:
415/877-8656 Fax #: 415/873-6418
94083
4. Applicant's Alternate Contact Person
Name:
Title:
Address:
City:
Phone #:
Terry White
Superintendent of Public Works
736 Tennis Drive
South San Francisco
4~ {~i877-8550
State: CA Zip: 94080
Fax #: 415/877-8636
5. Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Number
What is the applicant's FIPS number (if known)?
unknown
718197 4
87/89/1997 89:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 85
6. Federal Employer Identification Number (EIN)
What is the applicant's EIN? 94 - 6000435
7. Legislative Districts
Applicant's Office
State Assembly District: 19th 19~
State Senate District:8~ 8~h
Congressional District: 12TM 12b~
Project Site
8. Grant Funding/~ch additional detailed information when necessary)
Grant amount requestedI ~ (Maximum is 75% of the eligible project cost)
? Applicant match: ~l ,200,000 ~Minimum is 25% ofthe eligible project cost)
What isTt~t~lsPour°i;eCtoi~t: ~0'0eapplica~ingfunds? Bay AreaRapidTransit(BART)__
Is there more than one source of the applicant's matching funds?
complete the following:
Yes If yes,
Source Amount
BART 1,200,000
TOTAL $1.200.000
What is the funding source for the long-term maintenance of this project? The City of South San Francisco's Storm Water Fund #24
.... Is additional grant funding information attached to this application? No
718197
07/09/1997 09:58 415383594? GGW&C INC PAGE BG
9. Applicants with Multiple Applications (attach additional detailed
information when necessary)
Are you submitting more than one application? No
along with your proposed funding priority order.
If yes, list all other applications
Is additional applicants with multiple applications information attached to this
application? Not Applicable
10. Local Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan (attach additional detailed
information when necessary)
Does the project include a flood hazard mitigation element? Yes If yes, complete this
section.
As a condition of funding, cities and counties must prepare and file with the OES
Hazard Mitigation Unit a local flood hazard mitigation plan. Guidelines for"preparation of
your plan can be found in the Application Reference Materials packet.
Does the city or county have a local flood hazard mitigation plan on file with the OES
Hazard Mitigation Unit as a result of the 1995 floods? No if yes, does this plan
need to be amended? Not Applicable
Does the project conform to the applicant's local hazard mitigation plan? Yes If yes,
identify the city or county, page and paragraph: South .San Francis.c..0., page 485,
paragraph 15.56.010, Statement of Purpose I~ no, explain:
If a local flood hazard mitigation plan has not been submitted, it must be provided prior
to submission of application to FEMA. Is a local flood hazard mitigation plan attached
to this application? Yes If no, explain:
is additional hazard mitigation plan information attached to this application? Yes
7/8/97 6
87189/1997 89:58 4153835947 GGW&C IN¢ PAGE 87
11. Project Alternatives (attach additional detailed information when
necessary)
Describe at least three alternative strategies considered for meeting the same
objectives as the mitigation project. Include "no action" as one of the alternatives. The
"no action" alternative is to include the consequences and costs of doing nothing. The
three alternatives are to include local hazard mitigation goals, project costs,
environmental considerations and economic benefits:
Alternative A: South San Francisco has considered acquiring the parcels located in
the flood plain and changing it.s. use to possibly a park or resevoir, There are 35 parcels
that are threatened by floodi.ng, and it has been estimated th.at each pamel would cost
approximately $250,000 each. The total cost of this plan would be $8,700,000, a much
more expensive alternative. The City has further determined that environmental
benefits, if any, would be offset by the great, inconvenience to the homeowners,
expense to the City, and overall difficulty in pursuing this avenue. Further, it does not
support the City's overall hazard mitigation goals, which include minimizing
expenditures of public funds for costly flood control projects.
Alternative B: A second alternative considered was to raise the elevation of the 35
parcels. It was estimated that this would cost approximately $100,000 for each parcel,
for a total cost of $3,500,000. While this is economically a feasible alternative that falls
within the parameters of the City's flood hazard mitigation goals, it does not take into
account the serious disruption it would cause to the people living in the affected
houses,'which makes it a less appealing altemative. 'Nor is there any enwronmental
benetit m this altem~tige.
Alternative C: A "no action" plan would mean no immediate spending would be
necessary; however~ ~'he City estimates that when a flood does occur, it would cost
_anywhere from $10,000 - $50,000 per parcel to repair damages to the homes,-
depending on the damage, the cost of replacing resident belongings, and so on, for a
total cost of between $350,000- $1,750,000 each time floodinq occurs. As such, this
would not be an appropriate alternative as the problem would remain unsolved, and
there would be repetitive destruction of the threatened homes as well as disruption
dudn.q ensuing repairs, which is not_eny!_ron, mentally advantageous either. Nor d(~es it
meet the local hazard mitiqafion goals of protecting human life and he .a. lth, minimizing of
expenditures, minimizing the need for rescue and relief efforts, and minimizing damage
to public facilities and utilities.
Provide a point-by-point analvsis of how the proposed pro]ect is the best solution of the
three alternatives. BY enlarging the Francisco Storm Drain while at the same time
building a pump station (to be paid for by BART), the project offers the most effective
solution by greatly reducing the chance for flooding by moving the water efficiently
away from the area. This project will also cause much less disruption to the residents
7t8/97 7
B7/~9/i957 09:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 08
than any of the other alternatives presented in that they will not need to be moved or
displaced in any way. It is environmentally advantageous in that it will reduce if not
entirely eliminate the potential for flood damage in that area. It also meets the City's
hazard mitigation goals of protecting human life and health, minimizing expenditures of
public funds for costly flood control projects, minimizing the need for rescue and relief
efforts associated with flooding, and minimizing damage to public facilities and utilities.
Is additional project alternatives information attached to this application? No
7/$/97 8
07109/1997 09:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 09
12. Project Description (a~ach additionaldetailedinformation when
necessary)
Project title: South San Francisco Storm Drain Improvement Proiect _
Describe the hazard problem the project will directly mitigate (i.e., flooding, seismic, fire,
etc.; include repetitive damage, public health and safety dsks, and utility, essential
facility, public facility, infrastructure, transportation, business and residential damage):
**Please see attachment.
How will the mitigation project solve the hazard problem? By increasin.q the size of
the Francisco Storm Drain and adding a pump station, the potential flood elevation will
be lowered to insignificant levels, thus protecting the residential homes and their
occupants, the railroad crossing at Spruce, and reducin.cl the risks to pu. blic health and
safety.
How will the project conform to the state hazard mitigation plan goal? . The project
conforms to the state plan's .cioal to focus on "restoration and/or improvement of
culverts" in that the project is the modification of a water conveyance device.
How will the project conform to the local hazard mitigation plan goal? The project meets
the City's hazard mitigation goals of protecting human life and health, minimizing
expenditures of public funds for costly flood control projects, minimizing the need for
rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding, and minimizing damage to public
facilities and utilities.
Will the mitigation project have a positive impact on any other jurisdictions? Yes
If yes, explain: BART will be positively affected in that the enlarged Storm Drain built_
in conjunction with the pump station will allow BART to have the flexibility to design
t_h_eir .f_acilities in such a way as to offer the best route that will serve the public.
Will the mitigation project have a negative impact on any other jurisdictions?
If yes, explain:
No
If yes, are the other jurisdictions aware of the negative impact?
other jurisdictions support the project? Explain:
N/A If yes, do the
Is this project linked to a PA Disaster Survey Report (DSR)? No
If yes, give DSR numbers: N/A
If yes, has there been a determination whether this project could be funded under the
PA program? N/A Explain:
7/8/97 9
D7/09/i957 09:58 41538359~7 GGW&C INC P~GE ~
12. Project Description (continued) (attach additional detailed
information when necessary)
Is this project an element of a phased operation?
total planned operation:
No
If yes, explain in detail the
Will there be any relocation of services, businesses or residents during the construction
of this project? No If yes, describe who is relocating and for how long;
A table or chart depicting the project's proposed work schedule is required. Is a work
schedule attached to this application? Yes If no, explain:
Will the start date of the mitigation project be more than sixty days from the approval
date? Y_P,s ... If yes, explain: As work cannot begin before the approval date. it will
Probably take 4-6 months after approval to coordinate work with various ciW agencies
and BART.
Will the completion date of the mitigation project be more than three years fr°~ the
approval date? No If yes, explain: The City does not expect to start the project
more than 6 months after the award date. From that time forward, it is expected to take
2 to 2-112 years to complete the project, which would be no more than 3 years from the
approval date.
What is the project's expected useful life? 50+ years
VVho will be responsible for the long-term maintenance over the expected life of the
project? The City of Routh R~n Francisco
What is the project's location(s)? The Francisco Stor. m Drain B_a. sin,_which has an area
of 482 acres, draining into Colma Creek next to Spruce Avenue. The Drain will be
enlarged close to the subdivision on Spruce Ave. or adjacent to the railroad track.
Detailed project location map(s) are required. Maps identifying the location and
perimeter of the project, diagrams of proposed activities, jurisdictional boundaries,
source of problem being mitigated, etc., should be included for review. Also provide a
map showing the property or properties that are to be directly protected by the
mitigation project.
Are detailed project location maps attached? Yes
Is additional project description information attached to this application?~. Yes
7/t~/97 lO
07/09/1997 89:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE Ii
13. Project Compliance (affach additionaldetailedinformation when
necessa~)
Is the project located in the designated disaster area? Yes If no, will the project have a
direct benefit upon a designated disaster area? ~ Explain:
Does the applicant pledge to fund
expected life of the project? Yes
and carry out all necessary maintenance for the
If no, who will fund and carry out the maintenance?
If no, attach pledge by responsible agent for project maintenance.
Will the project meet ali local, state and federal law, regulations, codes and standards?
Yes if no, explain: ..
Does the project require an exemption or variance from one or more codes?Unknown.
If yes, explain: While none is anticipated, since the project has not been completely
desi.qned, this will be determined at a later stage.
Will this project be constructed to the current seismic codes and standards?
If no, explain:
Yes
Will this project follow the current National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
requirements? _Y..eA. If no, explain:
Is additional project compliance information attached to this application? No
7/S/07 1 ],
87/~9/i997 ~9:58 a153835~47 GGw&C INC PAGE i2
14. Project Report (attach additional detailed information when necessary)
Project title: South San Francisco Storm Drain Improvement Proiect
Provide a brief synopsis of the project: The enlargement of the Francisco Storm Drain
in conjunction with the addition of a pump station by BART will lessen if not eliminate
the potential for flooding of homes and businesses within the Colma Creek 100 year
flood plain. This will achieve the City's objective to assure residents and business
owners of action by the City to. reduce the chance for serious .flooding damaqes caused
by maior storms in the Iow iyin.q areas.
Provide an extensive detailed description of the project (include all mitigation work plus
any additional work that will be performed at substantially the same time):
The proiect objective is to reduce potential flood damage by upsizin.q the existin~ storm_
drain to han. d. le increased capacities and to properly direct flows away from existing
structu_res.
Francisco Storm Drain: The City Will Construct a parallel 5'X6'._reinfomed concrete box
storm drain and appurtenances from the west of El Camino Real to the west of the
railroad track at Spruce Avenue. The City will also construct a parallel 5.25' X 8.5'
reinforced concrete box storm drain and appurtenances from the west of the railroad
track at Spruce to Colma Creek or construct a pump station and appurtenances west
of the railroad track at Spruce Avenue.
Are there any architectural or engineering studies, reports or plans relating to this
project? Yes If yes, attach copies.
Attach color photographs, diagrams, maps, narratives and other information relating to
this project.
Is additional project report information attached to this application? Yes*
*131ease note: The scope of the project has changed significantly since the Francisco Storm Drain report
was written in May 1991; it needs to be updated to take into account changes that have taken place in the
six years since the report was written,
7/8/97 12
87/89/1997 89:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 13
15. Site-Specific Information
To accurately evaluate the application, some projects require site-specific information.
Elevations and acquisitions
Does the hazard mitigation project include an elevation or acquisition? No If yes,
how many structures are to be elevated? N/A
How many properties are to be acquired?- N/A
An elevation is not eligible if located within a regulatory floodway or on federally leased
land.
Complete section 15A, Site-Specific Information for Flood Mitigation Elevations and
Acquisitions, for each structure or property.
Floodwalls and fl0odproofing
Does the hazard mitigation project include a floodwall or floodproofing element? No
If yes, how many structures are to be protected? N/A
Complete section 15B, Site-Specific Information for Flood Mitigation Floodwalls and
Floodproofing, for each structure or facility. If the floodwall or floodproofing protects a
large number of structures call OES at (916) 464-1014 for strategies to complete the
section.
Flood mitigation
Does the hazard mitigation project include flood mitigation other than an elevation,
acquisition, floodwall or floodproofing element? Yes If yes, complete section 15C, Site-
Specific Information for Flood Mitigation.
Seismic retrofit and new building'construction
Does the hazard mitigation project include a seismic retrofit or construction of a new
building because of seismic hazards? No If yes, complete section 'lSD, Site-Specific
Information for Seismic Retrofit or Replacement. (available upon request)
Seismic mitigation other than building structures
Does the hazard mitigation project include seismic mitigation other than a building (i.e.,
nonstructural, pipelines, water tanks)? No If yes, how many separate elements are
there? N/A Complete section 15E, Site-Specific Information for Seismic Mitigation,
for each element. (available upon request)
Does the hazard
hazards? J~o
upon request)
Fire mitigation
mitigation project include mitigation measures because of fire
If yes, complete section 15F, Fire Mitigation Measures. (available
7/8/97 13
07/09/1997 09:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 14
15A. Site-Specific Information for Flood Mitigation Elevations
and Acquisitions
Is this an elevation or acquisition project? No
If yes, which type of project is this?
Each structure is to be described separately. Make as many copies of this section as
necessary.
Structure #: of
Address:
Total square feet: Number of stories: ~ Basement (yes or no?):
Assessor's parcel number:
Approximate year structure was built:
Quality of construction (i.e., poor, good, etc.):
Type of construction (i.e., wood frame, masonry, 'mobile home, etc.):
Type of foundation (i.e., post and pier, continuous perimeter, etc.):
What is the first finished floor elevation using National Geodetic Vertical Datum
(NGVD)?
What is the cost of this individual mitigation element?.
Attach color photogral~'
THIS SECTION NOT APPLICABLE
7/8/97 14
07/09/1997 09:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 15
15A. Site-Specific Information for Flood Mitigation Elevations
and Acquisitions (continued)
Structure's function (i.e., home, fire station, etc.):
NOT APPLICABLE
Type of contents (i.e., typical household, machinery, etc.): N/A
Replacement value is the cost to provide a functionally equivalent similar structure of
the same type using current building codes. For historic buildings, the reproduction
value may be a more appropriate measurement of a building's replacement value.
What is the structure's replacement value?
Has this structure ever been flooded? N/A If yes, complete the following:
Date
Water depth above first finished floor
For some mitigation projects, occupants may have to be relocated during construction
of the project. Relocation time is the number of days for which the building must be
vacated in order for the mitigation project to be completed. Note that this relocation time
is completely distinct from the displacement time needed to repair flood-related
damages. Relocation time is considered an expense in addition to the construction cost
when the benefit-cost analysis is performed. Do not overestimate the relocation time,
but be as accurate as possible. How many days will the occupants have to relocate
while the mitigation project is in progress? N/A
If the occupants must relocate during the mitigation construction, estimate a reasonable
monthly rent the occupants might pay. Rent during relocation is considered an expense
in addition to the construction cost when the benefit-cost analysis is performed. Do not
overestimate the rent, but be as accurate as possible. What is a reasonable monthly
rent the occupants might pay during the mitigation project relocation? N/A '
Location (attach a detailed street map with exact location). Is a map attached? N/A
For elevations, a complete building permit history of the current structure is required. Is
this information attached? N/A
Is additional site-specific information attached to this section? N/A
7/8/97 1 $
07/09/i997 89:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE
15B. Site-Specific Information for Flood Mitigation
Floodwalls and Floodproofing
Is this a floodwall or floodproofing project? No
if yes, which type of project is this? N/A
For floodwalls, how many structures will the floodwall prote~t?
Each structure is to be described separately. Make as many copies of this section as
necessary.
Structure #: of
Address: ....
Total square feet: Number of stories: __ Basement (yes or no?):
Approximate year structure was built:
Quality of construction (i.e., poor, good, etc.):
Type of construction (i.e., wood frame, masonry, mobile home, etc.):
What is the first finished floor elevation using National Geodetic Vertical Datum
(NGVD):
What is the cost of this individual mitigation element?
Attach color photograph
THIS SECTION NOT APPLICABLE
7/8/<)7 16
67/89/1997 89:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC P/~GE 17
15B. Site-Specific Information for Flood Mitigation
Floodwalls and Floodproofing (continued)
Structure's function (i.e., home, fire station, etc.): NOT APPLICAI~LE
Type of contents (i.e., typical household, machinery, etc.): N/A
Replacement value is the cost to provide a functionally equivalent similar structure of
the same type using current building codes. For histodc buildings, the reproduction
value may be a more appropriate measurement of a building's replacement value.
What is the structures replacement value? N/A
Has this structure ever been flooded? N/A If yes, complete the following:
Date Water depth above first finished floor
For some mitigation projects, occupants may have to be relocated dudng construction
of the project. Relocation time is the number of days for which the building must be
vacated in order for the mitigation project to be completed. Note that this relocation time
is completely distinct from the displacement time needed to repair flood-related
damages. Relocation time is considered an expense in addition to the construction cost
when the benefit-cost analysis is performed. Do not overestimate the relocation time,
but be as accurate as possible, How many days will the occupants have to relocate
while the mitigation project is in progress? N/A
If the occupants must relocate during the mitigation construction, estimate a reasonable
monthly rent the occupants might pay. Rent during relocation is considered an expense
in addition to the construction cost when the benefit-cost analysis is performed. Do not
overestimate the rent, but be as accurate as possible. What is a reasonable monthly
rent the occupants might pay dudng the mitigation project relocation? N/A
Location (attach a detailed street map with exact location). Is a map attached? N/A
Provide an individual structure description for unusual situations. N/A
Is additional site-specific information attached to this application? N/A
7/8/97 17
09:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC
07/09/19~?
PAGE
18
15C. Site-Specific Information for Flood Mitigation Projects
(attach additional detailed information when necessary)
Does the mitigation project protect homes or businesses? If yes, how many
structures? ~ If under 50 structures, complete this page. If over 50 structures,
complete the next page.
Provide an individual description of each structure. Make as many copies of this
section as necessary. Structure #: of
Structure's function (i.e., home, fire s't~'tT~, etc.)
Address:
Total square feet: Number of stories: Basement (yes or no?):~
Approximate year structure was built:
What is the first floor elevation using National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD)? ~
Has the structure ever been f~ooded? If yes, complete the following:
Date
Water depth above first finished floor
Location (attach a detailed street map with exact structure location). Is a map attached?
Attach color photograph
7/$/97
07/09/1997 89:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC P/~E 19
15C. Site-Specific Information for Flood Mitigation Projects
(continued) (attach additional detailed information when necessary)
Does the mitigation project protect more than fifty homes or businesses? No
complete this page.
If yes,
Group the protected buildings by first floor elevation, i.e., 20 ft., 21ff.
Complete the following (include only the buildings the project will directly mitigate):
First Number Total Total Depth of Dep~ of
finished of ground square feet water in water in
floor buildings floor of 19__ 19~
elevation square feet basement flood* flood*
(NGVD) of all of all
buildings, buildings
excluding
basements
Depth of
water in
19__
flood'
Depth of
water in
19__
flood*
ex,,,n~,/e 55 30,155 3,188 (1995) (lg65)
31.00 2 feet 3.5 feet
,xa=~!= 40 28,212 4,510 1 foot 2.5 feet
32.00
*Depth of water above first finished floor (include only flood events the project will
directly mitigate)
19
87/89/1997 09:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC P~E 20
15C. Site-Specific Information for Flood Mitigation Projects
(continued) (affach additional detailed information when necessary)
Does the mitigation project provide protection for other than homes or businesses? No
If yes, complete this page.
Does the mitigation project provide infrastructure protection (i.e., bridges, roads, etc.)?
No If yes, describe the problem and the protection for each element (include only
flood events the project will directly mitigate). All items must be quantifiable, i.e., $2000,
1500cfs, 10 days, 51.5 ft., 4 in., 21%, 1997, 2400 sq. ff., etc.
Each element or group of elements is to be described separately. Make as many copies
of this page as necessary.
What is the element to be protected? N/A
What is the current degree of protection? N/A
What will the degree of protection be when the project is completed?_ N/A
What is the current value of the element? N/A
What is the cost of this mitigation element? N/A
Describe how a flood event damages the specific element.
N/A
Complete the following table using the best information available:
Flood
recurrence
in years
$
5 $
$
20 $
$
50 $
$
100 $
200 $
Estimated damages due to flood
event
Estimated damages due to flood
event after mitigation project is
completed.
$
7/8/97
2O
87/89/1997 09:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 21
15C. Site-Specific Information for Flood Mitigation Projects
(continued) (attach additional detailed information when necessary)
Each element or group of elements is to be described separately. Make as many copies
of this page as necessary.
Does the mitigation project include an educational element specifically designed to
mitigate future flood damages? No If yes, describe how the element will mitigate
future flood damages: N/A ......
What is the cost of this educational element? I~A
Does the mitigation project include a warning or data collection system? N/A If yes,
describe how the warning or data collection system element will mitigate future flood
damages: N/A
What is the cost of the warning or data collection system? N/A
If you answered yes to either of the above questions, complete the following table using
Flood
recu rre rice
in years
the best information available.
Estimated damages due to
flood event
$
5 $
$
20 $
$
50 $
100 $
200
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Estimated damages due to flood
event after mitigation project is
completed
7/8/97 21
87/89/1997 89:58 4153835947 GGW&C IN¢ PAGE 22
16. Project Costs (attach additional detailed information when necessary)
Does the project include elements that are not components of the mitigation work? No
If yes, what does this other work include?
If yes, what is the cost of this other work?
Mitigation project costs include all direct construction costs plus other costs such as
architectural and engineering fees, testing, building permits, project management, and
environmental compliance, but excludes relocation and administrative costs.
Administrative costs will~-c~l.~.culated separately.
Mitigation cos .'/t~.500,000~ ~
Other project cos/ts: 0 ~ ,/
Relocation cos't~s: · 0 ~ --
.... .
Does this project incluincl~'ndivid pi~pieces of equipment with a cost of more than
$5,000.00? Yes If yes, identify item(s) and cost: "
Item
pump Station: the equipment for this system is. part of the overall
project of reducing potential for flooding in the targeted South San
Francisco flood plain area, and its cost will be used as the match
for the project.
Amount
$1,200,000
TOTAL
Is additional project cost information attached to this application?
$1,200,000
No
22
07/89/i997 09:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 23
16. Project Costs (continued) (attachadd~ionaldetailedinformationwhen
necessary)
Provide detailed cost figures for the mitigation project, including any expected
expenditures for planning, management, labor, materials, equipment and supplies
(contingency is not a FEMA-allowed cost item):
Item
As the design for the Francisco Storm Drain and pump station is
only at has the concept st._a[le, it is unknown at this time what the
line item costs will be.
En..~.~ement of Franc. is _co. Storm Drain
Pump Station (match)
Amount
TOTAL
Is additional project cost information attached to this application? --No
7/8/97 23
07/09/1997 09:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 24
17. Administrative Costs
Administrative costs of the subgrantee (a funded applicant) for mitigation projects are
funded by FEMA. This is in addition to the FEMA-funded project grant amount. The
state will automatically calculate administrative costs based on the above cdteria using
the following formula for funding:
a. For the first $100,000 of net eligible cost, three (3) percent administrative funding.
b. For the next $900,000 of net eligible cost, two (2) percent administrative funding.
c. For the next $4,000,000 of net eligible cost, one (1) percent administrative funding.
d. For net eligible costs over $5,000,000, one-half (1/2) percent administrative funding.
18. Flood Insurance Study (FI$) Data (attach additional detailed
information when necessary)
Is the project or the property(les) the project protects in a designated floodplain or
floodway? Yes If yes, provide the NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
community and panel number(s): South San Francisco 065067-0001-17B
Has any county or city where the project is located or the property(les) the project
protects requested a change or is in the process of changing the FIS or FIRM? No If
yes, explain: .....
If yes, does the change affect the project or the propertY(i~) the project protects?
N/A
If yes, explain how the change affects the project or the property(ies) the project
protects. N/A
Are there any hydrological studies or reports of the proje~ area other than the FIS? No
If yes, attach a copy.
7t8/97 24
87/89/1997 89:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 25
19. Benefit-Cost Analysis (attach additional detailed information when
necessarT)
FEMA requires a benefrt-cost analysis of all projects. OES analysts will perform an
examination of the project to estimate the benefits. The benefits must be equal to or
greater than the project cost to be eligible for funding. The benefits considered are
avoided future damages and losses expected to accrue because of the mitigation
project. In other words, the benefits are the reduction in expected future damages and
losses.
The information needed may not always be exact. If exact data is not available, it is
acceptable to use approximate data, reasonable estimates, or informed judgments.
All estimates must be clearly identified and be justified by a narrative. Benefit-cost
analysis uses mathematical calculations. All prior damage estimates, probable future
losses, duration, etc., must be quantifiable, i.e., $2,000, 1500 cfs, 10 days, 51.5 ft., 4
in., 21%, 1997, 2400 sq. ft., etc.. Narratives without numeric quantities cannot be used
for benefit-cost analysis.
Have there been disruptions to essential services, roads, businesses, schools, wells,
residences, etc.? Yes If yes, provide precise details of the damages (include only
those damages the proj.e, ct will directly mitigate): No hard data has been found,
Though it is known that there was flooding in the area at least in 1955. Flooding also
occurred in the general area of South San Francisco in 1958, 1968, 1971, 1972 and
1973. There is no information that describes the extent of damage and disruption that
May have taken_place.
Displacement time is the number of days occupants must vacate the building because
of flood damage. Does this project reduce or eliminate displacement time? Yes
If yes, provide the reason for the displacement and the displacement time in days
(include only those displacement times the project will directly mitigate):
**Please See Attached
Have there been damage costs such as debris removal, well decontamination,
environmental problems, sewage contamination, emergency management costs or
displacement costs? Unknown If yes, provide precise details of the damages (include
only those damage costs the project will directly mitigate):
Are there any other expected benefits of the mitigation project not specifically
addressed in the above questions? .Yes.. If yes, what are the benefits? (include
only the benefits the project will directly mitigate): **Please see attached
7/9/97 25
87/89/1997 89:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 26
19. Benefit-Cost Analysis (continued) (attach additional detailed
information when necessary)
Flood Damage Mitigation Projects
Will this project mitigate against future flooding damages? Y.es
following.
If yes, complete the
Does this area have a history of flooding? Yes If yes, explain: It is known
That this particular area experienced flooding at least in 1955. South San Francisco in'
(~eneral experienced flooding in 1958, 1968, 1971, 1972, and 1973; this area may have
been affected as well.
If yes, will the project mitigate future damages of similar flooding events? Yes If yes,
explain the past flood events in relation to the proposed project. Unfortunately hard
~.~3 d0_e_s not exist on the extent or type of dame~ge that. may ha:ye te,k_en place in this
area in 1955.
Has there been prior damage to structures or infrastructure that the project will
mitigate? Unknown If yes, provide full details of the damages due to disasters. Be
precise, include exact water depths for each event (include only those damages the
project will directly mitigate):
Has high floodwater velocity or ice flows cont~il~uted to increased damages? No --
If yes, provide precise details of the damages (include only those damage costs the
project will directly mitigate):
Is additional benefit-cost information attached to this application?
Yes
26
07/09/1997 89:58 41538359~7 GGW&C INC PAGE 27
20. Historical Checklist (a~ach additionaldetailedinformation when
necessary)
Federally funded projects must comply with the requirements of the National Histofi~
Preservation Act (NHPA) and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Does the proposed construction affect one or more structures or properties listed on the
National Register of Historic Places? No If yes, how is the structure(s)
listed? N/A
If yes, how will the proposed project affect the historical matrix of the structure? N/A
Will the proposed construction affect one or more structures eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places? No If yes, why is the structure(s) eligible?
N/A
If yes, how will the proposed project affect the structure? N/A
Does the proposed construction site area "include a structure (buildings, bridges,
tunnels, monuments, etc.) fifty years or older?. No If yes or unknown, explain
how the mitigation project will affect the historical qualities of the structure. N/A
Does the proposed construction site area include a structure (buildings, bridges,
tunnels, monuments, etc.) less than fifty years old but with local historic significance?
No If yes or unknown, explain how the project will affect the historical
qualities of the structure. N/A
Is the proposed construction site area located in a historical district? No
If yes or unknown, how will the proposed project affect the historical district?
N/A
Does the construction site area contain any cultural or archaeological resources over
one hundred years old? No If yes or unknown, explain... N/A .....
If "yes" or "unknown" has been answered in this section, attach a recent or historic
photograph of the structure, district or resource. Is a photo attached to this application?
N/A
Is additional historical review information attached to this application? No
?/8/~)? 27
87/89/1997 89:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 28
21. Environmental Review (attach additional detailed information when
necessary)
Federally funded projects must comply with all local, state and federal environmental
laws. Projects cannot be approved or funded until the provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
have been met. These requirements assure that potential environmental and social
impacts are considered before federal funds are granted to a project.
Are there any completed environmental consultation or permit application activities for
the proposed project? No If yes, explain: N/A
Are there any planned environmental consultation or permit application activities for the
proposed project? Unknown If yes, explain: As the design stage for the project has
no~t yet been completed, it is unknown at this time what kind of applications may be
needed. We anticipate that the pump station will need an initial._st_udy only_, and a CEQA
study will also need to be done for the pump station.
Are there any completed environmental documents (i.e., a CEQA document for work
performed on a prior project at the same site or area) related to the project, site or
area? No If yes, attach a copy.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations provide for the categorical
exclusion of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect
on the human environment and for which, therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. Full implementation of
this concept will help FEMA avoid unnecessary or duplicative effort and COncentrate
resources on significant environmental issues.
7/8/97 28
07/89/1997 89:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 29
21. Environmental Review (continued) (attach additional detailed
information when necessary)
The criteria used for determination of those categories of actions that normally do not
require either an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment
include:
· Minimal or no effect on environmental quality.
· No significant change to existing environmental conditions.
· No significant cumulative environmental impact.
There are three additional programmatic categorical exclusions for the disaster
designated FEMA 1155-DR-CA. These exclusions must only involve projects in
developed areas with substantially completed infrastructure, when the immediate
project area has already been disturbed. The project must not alter basic functions,
exceed the capacity of other system components, or modify intended land use. Also,
the project must not, of itself, have an adverse effect on the quality of the human
environment. The programmatic categorical exclusions are:
Elevations The elevation of a structure so that the first floor elevation is at
least one foot above the 100-year level.
Acquisitions The purchase and removal of structures from a floodway or
floodplain. Title to the acquired property must be transferred to a public
entity. The land may be used for activities consistent with periodic flooding,
including annual crops, open space, wetland restoration and certain types of
recreational activities.
Small Scale Mitigation Measures The implementation of small-scale
mitigation projects such as modification of culverts, or adjoining elements
such as water conveyance devices.
Does the project clearly meet the criteria of categorical exclusion? If yes, explain:
The Francisco Storm Drain portion of the project meets the cdteria of the Small
Scale Mitigation Measures in that it is a modification of a culvert; the I~ump station
meets the cdteria in that it is a water conveyance device and is an adjoining element
of the project. Further, in reading through the Environmental Checklist section, the
City Engineer_determined that the answer to each question was "No Impact".
If no, complete the environmental checklist (section 22).
Is additional environmental review information attached to this application? No
715197 29
87/89/1957 09:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 30
22. Environmental Checklist (complete if not clearly categorically excluded)
Earlier environmental analyses may be helpful where one or more effects have been
adequately analyzed in an earlier Environmental Impact Report (EIP,) or negative
declaration. Is there an earlier EIR or negative declaration that could be used for this
project?. No If yes, attach copy.
Descdbe the construction site as it is now (before the proposed project). Include
pertinent information on topography, plants, animals, soils, stability, existing structures
and uses, views and any historical or cultural aspects: N/A
Describe the construction site's surrounding land uses and settings, including type and
density of land use, the natural, historic, cultural and scenic features: N/A
The following checklist is a brief survey of potential environmental impacts that may be
considered under NEPA and CEQA. Answer each of the following statements. All
answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as component level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
A "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant environmental impact.
· A "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies when
the incorporation of the mitigation measure into a project reduces the environmental
impact from a "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact."
· A "Less Than Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence
that the project will have a small environmental impact.
· A "No Impact" answer shows that there is evidence that there is no environmental
impact, or that the item simply does not apply to the project.
7/8/97 30
07/09/1997 09:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 31
22. Environmental Checklist (continued) Complete if not clearly
categorically excluded.
Circle the appropriate answer for each ol~ the following statements.
P = Potentially significant impact
M = Potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated
L = Lessthan significant impact
N = No impact
Land Use and Planning Would the proposal:
1. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
2. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by
agencies who have jurisdiction over the project?
3. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
4. Affect agricultural resources or operations from incompatible land,
e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
uses?
5. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a Iow-income or minority community)?
Population and Housing Would the proposal:
P M L N
P M L N
P M L N
P M L N
P M L N
6. Cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections? P M L N
7. Induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly, e.g., through
projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure? P M L N
8. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? P M L N
Geologic Problems Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
9. Fault rupture? P M L N
10. Seismic ground shaking? P M L N
11. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? P M L N
12. Seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard? P M L N
13. Landslides ormudflows? P 'M L N
14. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill? P M L N
15. Subsidence of the land? P M L N
.16. Expansive soils? P M L N
'I7. Unique geologic or physical features? P M L N
7/8/97 31
87/89/1997 89:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 32
22. Environmental Checklist (continued) Complete if not clearly
categorically excluded.
Circle the appropriate answer for each of the following statements.
P = Potentially significant impact
M = Potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated
L -- Less than significant impact
N = No impact
Water Would the proposal result in:
18. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff? P M L N
19. Exposure of people or property to water-related hazards such as
flooding? P M L N
20. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water
quality, e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? P M L N
21. Changes in the amount of surface water in any body? P M L N
22. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? P M L N
23. Changes in the quantity of groundwaters, either through the direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by
cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater
recharge capability? P M L N
24. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? P M L N
25. Impacts to groundwater quality? P M L N
26. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise
available for public water supplies? P M L N
Air Quality Would the proposal:
27. Violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation? P M L N
28. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? P M L N
29. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature or cause any change
in climate? P M L N
30. Create objectionable odors? P 'M L N
718197 3Z
07/09/i997 09:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 33
22. Environmental Checklist (continued)
categorically excluded.
Complete if not clearly
Circle the appropriate answer for each of the following statements.
P = Potentially significant impact
M = Potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated
L = Less than significant impact
N = No impact
Transportation/circulation Would the proposal result in:
31. Increased vehicle tdps or traffic congestion?
32. Hazards to safety from design features, e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections, or incompatible uses, e.g., farm
equipment?
33. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
34. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
35. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
36. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation, e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks?
37. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
Biological resources Would the proposal result in impacts to:
P M
L N
P M L N
P M L N
P M L N
P M L N
P'.M L N
P M L N
38. Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats
(including, but not limited to, plants, fish, insects, animals and
birds)? P M L N
39. Locally designated species, e.g., heritage trees? P M L N
40. Locally designated natural communities, e.g., oak forest, coastal
habitat, etc.? P M L N
41. Wetland habitat, e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool? P M L N
42. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? P M L N
Energy and Mineral Resources Would the proposal:
43. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? P 'M L N
44. Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? P M L N
45. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the
state? P M L N
7/8/97 33
07/09/1997 09:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC
PAGE 34
22. Environmental Checklist (continued) Complete if not clearly
categorically excluded,
Circle the appropriate answer for each of the following statements.
P = Potentially Significant Impact
M = Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated
L = Less than Significant Impact
N = No Impact
Hazards Would the proposal involve:
46. A dsk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation)? P M L N
47. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? P M L N
48. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? P M L N
49. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? P M L N
50. Increased fire hazard in areas with combustible brush, grass or
trees? P M L N
Noise Would the proposal result in:
51. Increases in existing noise levels?
52. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
P M L N
P M L N
Public Services Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new
or altered governmental services in any of the following areas:
53. Fire protection?
54. Police protection?
55. Schools?
56. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
57. Other governmental services?
P M L N
P M L N
P M L N
P M L N
P M L N
7/8/97 34
07/09/1~? 0~:58 ~153835gM7 GGW&C INC PAGE 35
22. Environmental Checklist (continued) Complete if not clearly
categorically excluded.
Circle the appropriate answer for each of the following statements.
P = Potentially Significant Impact
M = Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated
L - Less than Significant Impact
N = No Impact
Utilities and Service Systems Would the proposal result in a need for new systems
or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
58. Power or natural gas? P M L N
59, Communications systems? P M L N
60. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? P M L N
61. Sewer or septic tanks? P M L N
62. Stormwater drainage? P M L N
63. Solid waste disposal? P M L N
64. Local or regional water supplies? P M L N
Aesthetics Would the proposal:
65. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
66. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
67. Create light or glare?
P M L N
P M L N
P M L N
Cultural Resources Would the proposal:
68. Disturb paleontological resources? P M L N
69. Disturb archaeological resoumes? P M L N
70. Affect historical resoumes? P M L N
71. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? P M L N
72. Restdct existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area? P M L N
Recreation Would the proposal:
73. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities? P M L N
74. Affect existing recreational opportunities? P M L N
7/$/97 35
07/09/1997 09:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 36
22. Environmental Checklist (continued) Complete if not clearly
categorically excluded.
Circle the appropriate answer for each of the following statements.
P = Potentially Significant Impact
M = Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated
L = Lessthan Significant Impact
N = No Impact
Mandatory Findings of Significance
75. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or prehistory? P M L N
76. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term goals to
the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? P M L N
77. Does the project have impacts that.ara individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) P M L N
78. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? P M L N
Were any "P" (Potentially Significant Impact) items circled? If yes, explain:
Were any "M" (Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated) items
circled? If yes, explain:
Were any "L" (Less Than Significant Impact) items circled? If yes, explain:
07/09/1997 09:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 37
23. Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands (attach
additional detailed information when necessary)
Hazard mitigation projects must be evaluated for their potential impact on floodplains or
wetlands.
Is the project in a wetland (swamp, marsh, etc.)? No
Answer the following questions using FIS and FIRM information:
Is the project in a 100-year floodplain? Yes
Is the project in a 500-year floodplain? No
Is the project in a floodway? No
Is the project in a coastal high-hazard area? No
Is the project outside the floodplain, but supports development in a floodplain? No If yes,
explain: N/A
If you answered yes to any of the above Floodplain Management questions, complete the I
rest of this section. If you answered no, go to section 24. _.
1
Circle type of land use upstream and downstream:
Pasture/cropland (sparse development)
Forest/desert (undeveloped)
Urban (developed)
Wetland (marsh or sloughs)
*both
Does the project have a high or Iow impact on the wetland?
Upstream Downstream
N/A Explain:
How many individuals are affected by the project? 70-100 Explain; We do not
know the exact number of people livin.q in the affected area. There are 35 homes in
the floodplain, so we have estimated that there_may be at least 2-3 persons on
average per home. _
7/8/97 37
87/89/1997 89:58 41538359~7 GGW&C INC P/~ 38
23. Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands
(continued) (attach additional detailed information when necessary)
Is the potential for controversy high or Iow? Low Explain: The Storm. Drain
alone has faidy Iow potential for controversy; the construction will be somewhat
disruptive to residents, but they will be informed as to its purpose in alleviating potential
flooding of their homes, which should m_itigate their concerns. The BART Dump station
has some potential for controversy, however residents will be informed of its importance in
being built along with the enlargement of the Storm Drain so that there is some way to
move the water away from the area. The City expects that this will help alleviate concerns
of the residents.
Is the project in a floodway or coastal high-hazard area location? No If yes, what is the
justification? .....
Who is the local floodplain manager?. Jim Kirkland, Chief B.ilding Official
Address: City Hall, P.O. Box 711,400 Grand Avenue, South
San .F. ra_.n_cisco. CA 94083
Phone #i~115/877-8545
Is additional Floodplain Management information attached to this application? Yes - the
Local Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan.
24, Private Nonprofit Status (if applicable)
Does the applicant have private nonprofit status? Not Applicable If yes, provide the
following:
1)
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ruling letter granting tax exemption under sections
501 (c), (d) or (e) of the IRS code. If you do not have such a ruling letter, you must
provide satisfactory evidence that your organization or entity is organized or doing
business under state law as a.nonprofit entity or organization.
2) Articles of incorporation and bylaws.
What essential community function does the applicant provide? N/A
Is additional Private Nonprofit Status information attached to this application? N/A
7/8/97 38
07109/1997 89:58 41538359~7 GGW&C INC PAGE 39
ATTACHMENTS
07/09/i~? 09:58 ~i53825~7 GGW&C INC PAGE
Section 10
Local Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan
Attachment
07/09/1997 09:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 41
Section 12
Project Description Attachment
And Work Schedule
07/09/1997 09:58 41538359~7 GGW&C INC P~GE 42
12. Project Description Attachment
Describe the hazard mitigation problem the project will directly mitigate:
The lower end of the Francisco ~lrainage basin has been experiencing drainage
problems for many years. Several sections of the existing storm drainage system
are presently undersized due to the past twenty years of conversion of rural land
to urban land in the higher elevation of the Francisco drainage basin. The
developments contribute more storm runoff and in turn increase the possibility of
flooding downstream and in particular the Iow land area of Francisco Terrace.
The runoff, from developed and undeveloped properties, and the unincorporated
territory within the study drainage basin, results in a continuous problem and
sometimes results in flooding of the Iow land areas. By enlarging the Francisco
Storm Drain and adding a pump station (to be paid for by BART), the project will
directly mitigate flooding and repetitive damage to residential homes and to the
railroad crossing at Spruce Avenue in the floodplain area. It will also reduce risks
to public health and safety due to flood damage.
ACTIVITIES (post-award) Mo.1-3
Design Process
Bid Process
Construction
Pump Station
Storm Drain
EIR?? (when?)
X
Year
Mo.4-6
X
O~le
Mo. 7-9
X
South ...... ~ncisco
Proposed Work Schedule
Year Two
Mo. 10-12 Mo. 1-3 Mo. 4-6 Mo. 7-9
X
X X X X
X X X
Mo. 10-12
Mo. 1-3
Yea r
Mo. 4..6
Three
Mo. 7-9
Mo. 10.12:
"o
m
07/0~/1997 89:58 41538359~7 GGW&C INC PAGE 44
Section 14
Project Report Attachment
07/89/1997 89:58 4153835947 GGW&C INC PAGE 45
Section 19
Benefit.Cost Analysis Attachment
07/09/1997 69:58 4153835947 GGH&C INC PAGE 46
19. Benefit-Cost Analysis Attachment
Displacement time is the number of days occupants must vacate the building
because of flood damage. Does this project reduce or eliminate displacement
time?-Yes.
If yes, provide tl~e reason for the displacement and the displacement time in days
_(include only those displacement times the project will directly mitigate):
Reason for Displacement: Flooding. Recently a family was temporarily displaced
due to flooding of their home. One to two inches of water entered the house and
then receded within 2.0 minutes. The contractor worked on their house for seven
days to repair the damage, which means a displacement of at least seven days
can be expected to be reasonable for the amount of damage done in a 20 minute
period. It can be extrapolated from this recent example, then, that if for instance
one foot of water entered a house and then receded six hours later, residents
could be displaced up to thirty days in order to repair the damage done by the
flooding.
**Terry - do you have more exact info on this example or the other example
you mentioned where they claimed 95K in damage~? I'm trying to figure
out here a reasonable way to extrapolate these numbers...
The City of South San Francisco expects that the enlargement of the Francisco
Storm Drain in conjunction with the addition of a pump station provided by BART
will reduce or eliminate the potential for flooding such as described above. Based
on recent examples that occurred in the City, it is reasonable to expect that if the
City does not take such action as described in this project, and a flood took place
in the Francisco Basin, which contains 35 separate residences, the City would
have to pay anywhere from $10,000 - $50,000 or more per parcel for repairs, to
replace belongings, to pay for displacement, and so on, for a total cost between
$350,000 and $'1,750,000 each time the flooding occurred.
Are there any other expected benefits of the mitigation ~roj .ec.t not. specifically
addressed in the above questions? Yes.
If yes, what are the benefits? (include only the benefits the project will directly
rn[tig.a, te); This project provides the least disruptive option of all altematives
considered, in that residents will not be displaced due to construction, nor due to
flooding were no action taken. Residents lives would be greatly disrupted if it was
decided to elevate their homes; the other alternative, which was to purchase the
parcels, is even less favorable as it would permanently move the residents out of
their homes and out of the area. Finally, the project's goal of increasing the size
of the drain and providing a pump station to move the water out of the area
greatly reduces the chances of potential flooding, and greatly reduces the
potential cost damages that may take place each time flooding occurs.