ATTACHMENT 3
Sacramento County
Department of Water Resources Drainage Development
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA ANALYSIS REPORT JULY 2015 ATTACHMENT 3
Sacramento County Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 1. BACKGROUND ...... 3 1.1 Problem Statement ...... 3
1.2 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) ...... 3
1.3 Community Rating System (CRS) ...... 4
1.4 Repetitive Loss Area (RLA) ...... 4
1.5 Sacramento County Floodplain Management Ordinance ...... 4
1.6 Repetitive Loss Area Analysis (RLAA) ...... 6
2. REPETITIVE LOSS AREA ANALYSIS PROCESS ...... 7 2.1 Advise the Residents ...... 7
2.2 Contact Agencies or Organizations ...... 11
2.3 Visit RLAs and Collect Basic Building Data ...... 11
2.4 Review Alternatives ...... 12
2.4.1 Preventative ...... 12 2.4.2 Property Protection ...... 13 2.4.3 Natural Resources Protection ...... 19 2.4.4 Emergency Services ...... 19 2.4.5 Structural Projects ...... 19 2.4.6 Public Information ...... 19 2.5 Document the Findings ...... 20
2.5.1 Data Collection ...... 20 2.5.2 Types of Foundations ...... 21 2.6 Funding Assistance ...... 22
APPENDICES ...... 23 Appendix 1 Dry Creek Floodplain
Appendix 2 Laguna Creek Floodplain (Inter-Basin Transfer) Gerber Creek
Appendix 3 Local Drainage (Andrew Alan Lane and Winding Way) ATTACHMENT 3
Appendix 4 Chicken Ranch Slough Floodplain
Appendix 5 Lower Cosumnes River / Beach-Stone (Twin Cities Road)
Appendix 6 Brooktree Creek Floodplain
Appendix 7 Morrison Creek Floodplain
Appendix 8 Cosumnes River Floodplain
Appendix 9 South Branch of Arcade Creek Floodplain
Appendix 10 Strong Ranch Slough Floodplain
Appendix 11 Linda Creek Floodplain
Appendix 12 Grand Island Road & Vieira’s Resort
Appendix 13 Local Floodplain (Badger Creek)
Appendix 14 Arcade Creek Floodplain
Appendix 15 Local Floodplain (Dillard Road/Berry Road)
Appendix 16 Robla Creek Floodplain
Appendix 17 Sacramento River Floodplain (Garden Highway)
Appendix 18 Local Floodplain (Leona Circle)
Appendix 19 Local Floodplain (Tangerine Avenue)
Appendix 20 Local Floodplain (Treehouse Lane)
Appendix 21 Rio Linda Dry Creek Floodplain
Appendix 22 North Natomas East Main Drain Canal
Appendix 23 Morrison Creek Floodplain
Appendix 24 Arcade Creek Floodplain at Park Road
Appendix 25 Local Floodplain Madison Avenue at Rollingwood
Appendix 26 Strong Ranch Slough
Appendix 27 Brooktree Creek Floodplain
Appendix 28 Verda Cruz Creek Floodplain
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page | 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Report is to assist home owners in reducing their flood risk by providing a broader understanding of the potential and existing flooding problems and identifying potential solutions. This is one component of Sacramento County’s overall floodplain management program. Due to the number of properties in Sacramento County that meet the National Flood Insurance Program’s (NFIP’s) definition of Repetitive Loss properties, a Repetitive Loss Area Analysis (RLAA) is required for Sacramento County as a part of its participation in the Community Rating System (CRS) program. This Report contains all twenty-eight (28) designated Repetitive Loss Areas (RLAs) within Sacramento County.
The County followed a process prescribed by the CRS program. An area analyses must have been prepared and adopted for each repetitive loss area in the community. The analyses must meet the following criteria:
• The repetitive loss areas must be mapped. • A five-step process must be followed. Although all five steps must be completed, steps 2–4 do not have to be done in the order listed. For example, staff may want to contact agencies and organizations to see if they have useful data (Step 2) after the site visit is conducted (Step 3). • The repetitive loss area analysis report(s) must be submitted to the community’s governing body and made available to the media and the public. If private or sensitive information is included in the report, then a summary report may be prepared for the media and the public. The complete repetitive loss area analysis report(s) must be adopted by the community’s governing body or by an office that has been delegated approval authority by the community’s governing body. • An annual evaluation report must be done. • The analysis must be updated in time for each CRS cycle verification visit.
Properties in the RLAs were notified of the analysis and data was collected from various sources to identify the hazard and capabilities to mitigate them.
Section 2 of this Report describes the specific steps, which include: implementing recommended flood hazard mitigation measures, obtaining funding assistance for these measures, and annually updating this Report.
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 3
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Problem Statement
More than 370 square miles of Sacramento County is within the Special Flood Hazard Area. Additionally, the Department of Water Resources has identified many other areas that are subject to local flood hazards that are not shown on FEMA’s maps. Flooding is a reoccurring problem for communities within Sacramento County, and neighborhood flooding events disrupt transportation, commerce, and lives. Property damage due to flooding is more than an inconvenience; it carries a significant price of both time and money.
Flooding is defined as a damaging overflow of water into a building or onto land that is dry most of the time. One type of flooding occurs when streams or rivers overflow into a floodplain, but flooding also occurs outside of floodplains when the rate of storm water runoff exceeds the capacity of the drainage system. Flooding in Sacramento County is due to the capacity of the drainage system and to overflowing rivers or streams.
The purpose of this Report is to help home owners reduce their flood risk by providing a broader understanding of the problems and identifying potential solutions. This is one component of Sacramento County’s overall floodplain management program. Due to the number of properties in Sacramento County that meet the National Flood Insurance Program’s (NFIP’s) definition of repetitive loss properties, a Repetitive Loss Area Analysis (RLAA) is required for Sacramento County as a part of its participation in the Community Rating System (CRS) program.
1.2 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
The NFIP is based on a cooperative agreement between the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and local units of government. FEMA agrees to underwrite flood insurance policies within a community and the community agrees to regulate development in the floodplain. Participation in the NFIP is voluntary, but communities have incentive to join because Federally- backed flood insurance is not available in non-participating communities and a non-participating community will not receive Federal aid for damage to insurable buildings in the floodplain.
The three basic components of the NFIP are floodplain mapping, flood insurance, and floodplain management regulations. Floodplain mapping is provided by FEMA on a series of maps called Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), which designate areas of a community according to various levels of flood risk. Regardless of its risk level, any building in an NFIP participating community can be covered by a flood insurance policy, even buildings not located in a mapped floodplain. A flood insurance policy is only mandated for Federally-backed
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 4
mortgages on buildings in the floodplain. Any new buildings constructed in a floodplain, and any improvements or repair of existing buildings in a floodplain, is subject to the Sacramento County Floodplain Management Ordinance (Chapter 6).
1.3 Community Rating System (CRS)
The CRS is a voluntary program designed to reward a community for doing more than meeting the NFIP minimum requirements to reduce flood damages. Communities can be rewarded for activities such as: reducing flood damage to existing buildings, managing development in in areas not shown in the floodplain on the FIRMs, protecting new buildings from floods greater than the 100-year flood, helping insurance agents obtain flood data, and helping people obtain flood insurance. The reward for these activities comes in the form of reduced premiums for flood insurance policy holders.
Once a community has been accepted into the CRS, the community’s floodplain management activities are rated according to the scoring system described in the CRS Coordinator’s Manual. CRS communities are rated on a scale of 1-10. A Class 10 community receives no reduction in flood insurance premiums, but every class above 10 receives an additional 5% premium reduction. Class 1 requires the most credit points and provides a 45% premium reduction. Sacramento County is currently a Class 3.
1.4 Repetitive Loss Area (RLA)
The NFIP considers a property a Repetitive Loss Property if two or more flood insurance claims of more than $1,000 have been paid within any 10-year period since 1978. According to FEMA’s records, there are 101 Repetitive Loss Properties within Sacramento County. Several more properties within Sacramento County may have reached the damage threshold for Repetitive Loss Properties, but not all properties are covered by flood insurance and flood insurance claims are not submitted for all flood damage sustained.
A Repetitive Loss Area (RLA) consists of Repetitive Loss Properties and the surrounding properties that experience the same or similar flooding conditions, whether or not the buildings on those surrounding properties have been damaged by flooding. Figure 1 shows the 26 RLAs in Sacramento County.
1.5 Sacramento County Floodplain Management Ordinance
The Floodplain Management Ordinance specifically describes what types of development activities are allowed and how proposed development may be permitted. The floodplain management is to realize the extent of flood hazards and to manage the flooding in a manner so
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 5
as to reduce damage to structures and infrastructure and to minimize the risk of human casualties. FIGURE 1 Repetitive Loss Areas in Sacramento County
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 6
1.6 Repetitive Loss Area Analysis (RLAA)
A repetitive loss area analysis is a detailed mitigation plan for a repetitive loss area. It provides more specific guidance on how to reduce damage from repetitive flooding than the local hazard mitigation plan. The summary RLAA can be found in the Sacramento County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
As with a local hazard mitigation plan, CRS credit is dependent upon the community’s following an appropriate process. The five steps for an area analysis are less involved than the 10-step local hazard mitigation planning process, but the analysis must evaluate each building in the repetitive loss area(s).
Figure 2 demonstrates a RLAA map with the typical information in the legend.
FIGURE 2 Repetitive Loss Area
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 7
2. REPETITIVE LOSS AREA ANALYSIS PROCESS
The process of developing a RLAA consists of five steps: Step 1 – Advise all the properties in each Repetitive Loss Area (RLA) that the analysis will be conducted and request their input on the hazard and recommended actions. Step 2 – Collect data from agencies or organizations that may have plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts of the flooding. Step 3 – Inspect each building in the RLA and collect basic data. Building entry is not necessary for this step since adequate information can be collected by observing the building from the street. Step 4 – Review alternative approaches and determine whether any property protection measures or drainage improvements are feasible. The review must consider the full range of property protection measures for the types of buildings affected, including: preventative activities, property protection activities, natural resource protection activities, emergency services measures, structural projects, and public information activities. Step 5 – Document the findings in a report. The report should include: a summary of the process that was followed and how property owners were involved in the process; a problem statement with a map of the affected area; a list or table showing basic information for each building in the affected area; the alternative approaches that were reviewed; and a list of action items identifying the responsible party, when the action should be completed, and how it will be funded.
2.1 Advise the Residents
Sacramento County sent Storm Ready letters and mailers to all residents informing them of the potential flooding they may experience during storm events. Annual outreach letters have been mailed to residents in RLAs since 1992. Further a website has been developed and communicated to residence for more information on measures to take in advance of the rainy season to prepare for inclement weather and possible flooding, www.stormready.org.
Sacramento County shall notify residents of the ongoing RLAA and requested their input. Upon completion of a draft of this Report, a letter and survey was sent out to residents in each of the RLAAs informing them of this Report, where and how they would be able to review it, and where and how they might submit comments regarding it. Both communication documents are shown in Figure 2A & 2B respectively.
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 8
FIGURE 2A Repetitive Loss Area Report Letter
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 9
FIGURE 2B-1 Repetitive Loss Area Report Survey
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 10
FIGURE 2B-2 Repetitive Loss Area Report Survey
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 11
2.2 Contact Agencies or Organizations
Agencies or organizations that were contacted that may have plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding are:
• Sacramento County Department of Transportation • Sacramento Area Flood Control District • Sacramento County Planning and Environmental Review • Department of Water Resources Drainage Maintenance Engineering
2.3 Visit RLAs and Collect Basic Building Data
On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed. This inspection was performed from the public right-of-way by a County Certified Floodplain Manager (CFM). As such, the CFM did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations and information obtained, and when available from Elevation Certificates on file. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Neighborhood topography and flow routes.
A table will be used for each RLA property to summarize the findings.
Condition of Structure – These data are based on the level of repair required. Consultation with the local building official is highly recommended. • Good (optional minor repair) – Select this option when only cosmetic type repairs are needed. • Fair (needs minor repair) – Select this option when the following characteristics are observed: • Minor shrinkage cracks due to thermal expansion and contraction • Signs of rust on iron or steel members • Signs of corrosion of rebar • Poor (needs significant repair) – Select this option when the following types of damage are observed: • Bowed brick veneer wall or parapet walls • Leaning of wall • Cracking of wall due to excessive settlement • Building settlement
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 12
• Large cracking around sills, eaves, chimneys, parapets, and iron or steel lintels • Differential settlement of chimney • Fungal and insect attack of wood • Exposed rebar in concrete walls due to corrosion • Fire damage
Foundation Type – The selection of a foundation type may require a close inspection of the structure. Consultation with the local building official is highly recommended (see Section 2.5).
2.4 Review Alternatives
Many types of flood hazard mitigation exist, and there is not one mitigation measure that fits every case. Nor is there even one application that fits most cases. Successful mitigation often requires multiple strategies. The CRS Coordinator’s Manual breaks the primary types of mitigation down as displayed in Figure 3.
FIGURE 3 Categories of Floodplain Management Activities (FEMA FIA-15, 2013) 1. Preventive activities keep flood problems from getting worse. The use and development of flood- prone areas is limited through planning, land acquisition, or regulation. They are usually administered by building, zoning, planning, and/or code enforcement offices. 2. Property Protection activities are usually undertaken by property owners on a building-by- building or parcel basis. 3. Natural Resource Protection activities preserve or restore natural areas or the natural functions of floodplain and watershed areas. They are implemented by a variety of agencies, primarily parks, recreation, or conservation agencies or organizations. 4. Emergency Services measures are taken during an emergency to minimize its impact. These measures are usually the responsibility of city or county emergency management staff and the owners or operators of major or critical facilities. 5. Structural Projects keep flood waters away from an area with a levee, reservoir, or other flood control measure. They are usually designed by engineers and managed or maintained by public works staff. 6. Public Information activities advise property owners, potential property owners, and visitors about the hazards, ways to protect people and property from the hazards, and the natural and beneficial functions of local floodplains. They are usually implemented by a public information office.
2.4.1 Preventative
Sacramento County regulates residential and commercial development through its building code, planning and zoning requirements, stormwater management regulations and floodplain management ordinances. Any project located in a floodplain, regardless of its size, requires a
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 13
permit from Sacramento County, unless the project can be characterized as routine maintenance.
2.4.2 Property Protection
These measures are generally performed by the property owners or their agents. FEMA has published numerous manuals that help a property owner determine which property protection measures are appropriate for particular situations, several of which are listed below. The manuals listed below are available for review at FEMA website. • FEMA 259, Engineering Principles and Practices of Retrofitting Floodprone Residential Structures • FEMA 312, Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House from Flooding • FEMA 551, Selecting Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Floodprone Structures • FEMA 348, Protecting Building Utilities from Flood Damage • FEMA 511, Reducing Damage from Localized Flooding • FEMA 102, Floodproofing Non-Residential Structures • FEMA 84, Answers to Questions about the NFIP • FEMA 54, Elevated Residential Structures Book • FEMA 268, Protecting Floodplain Resources: A Guidebook for Communities • FEMA 347, Above the Flood: Elevating Your Floodprone House • FEMA 85, Protecting Manufactured Homes from Floods and Other Hazards For a complete guide to retrofitting your home for flood protection see FEMA P-312, Homeowner’s Guide to Retrofitting 3rd Edition (2014). The primary methods of property protection in Sacramento County are: 1. Demolition/Relocation. 2. Elevation (structure or damage prone components such as furnace or AC unit) 3. Dry flood-proof (so water cannot get in). 4. Wet flood-proof portions of the building (so water won’t cause damage). 5. Direct drainage away from the building. 6. Drainage maintenance. 7. Sewer Improvements. Demolition The only way to ensure a structure will not accumulate additional losses from future flood events is to demolish the structure completely. There are two options demolishing a structure.
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 14
• A government agency can purchase the property, demolish the structure, and convert the property to a park or other open space. • The property owner may retain ownership, demolish the structure, and build a new structure in a manner that meets all local building and flood protection code requirements. Home Elevation Sometimes dry or wet floodproofing are not enough and greater measures must be taken. For example, if the floodwaters are too high for dry floodproofing and the inhabited area is too low for wet floodproofing, it may be necessary to raise the structure. Whenever the floor of a home is below the 100-year flood elevation, physically elevating the structure is often recommended as it is one of the most effective means to prevent flood damage. Financial assistance may be available to you. In the past, Sacramento County has utilized FEMA grant money for dozens of qualified elevation projects. The structure in Figure 4 is an example of a home that is elevated above the 100-year flood elevation. The Sacramento County Floodplain Management Ordinance requires all substantially improved residential buildings have their lowest floor elevated 18 inches above the 100-year flood elevation. This may exclude a basement in the elevated building. FIGURE 4 Elevated House
Dry Floodproofing Dry floodproofing consists of completely sealing around the exterior of the building so that water cannot enter the building (see Figure 5). Dry floodproofing is not a good option for areas where floodwater is deep or flows quickly. The hydrostatic pressure and/or
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 15
hydrodynamic force can structurally damage the building by causing the walls to collapse or causing the entire structure to float. However, in areas that have minimal velocity and low depth, dry floodproofing can be a good option Many flood hazards can be mitigated with various forms of dry flood proofing. Properties that do not have adequate protection of their low opening (window or basement door) can effectively raise the low opening height with a window well or a flood gate. The ultimate height of the low opening depends on several factors, such as: the level of flood protection desired, the appearance, and cost. The flood protection elevation could be set 1-foot higher than the existing low opening elevation, or it could be set to match the elevation of the lowest opening into a home that cannot be raised. This might be the elevation of the threshold of a door, for example. The NFIP only allows dry floodproofing for residential retrofits that are not classified as a substantial improvement. A substantial improvement is any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement.
FIGURE 5 Dry Floodproofing Example (FEMA P-312, June 30, 2014)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 16
Wet Floodproofing
Wet floodproofing consists of modifying uninhabited portions of a home, such as a crawl space, garage, or unfinished basement with flood-damage resistant materials, to allow floodwaters to enter the structure without causing damage (see Figure 6). Wet floodproofing requires portions of the building need to be cleared of valuable items and mechanical utilities. A key component of wet floodproofing is providing openings large enough for the water to flow through the structure such that the elevation of the water in the structure is equal to the elevation of the water outside of the structure. This equilibrium of floodwater prevents hydrostatic pressure from damaging structural walls.
FIGURE 6 Wet Floodproofing Example (FEMA P-312, June 30, 2014)
Direct Drainage Away From the Building In some cases, there are things that the property owner can do on-site such as directing shallow floodwater away from a flood-prone structure. In other cases, there are drainage improvement projects that can be constructed by Water Resources staff. Shallow flooding can often be kept away from a structure if some simple improvements are made to the yard. Sometimes structures are built at the bottom of a hill or in a natural
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 17
drainage way or storage area, so that water naturally flows toward them. One solution is to regrade the yard. If water flows toward the building; a new swale or wall can direct the flow to the street or a drainage way. Filling and grading next to the building can also direct shallow flooding away. Although water may remain in the yard temporarily, it is kept away from the structure. When these types of drainage modifications are made, care must be taken not to adversely affect the drainage patterns of adjacent properties. Over time, the swales along the lot lines or in the back yard may get filled in. Property owners build fences, garages, sheds, swimming pools, and other obstructions up to the lot line. These drainage problems can be fixed by removing the obstructions and restoring the swales so they will carry water away from the building
Drainage Maintenance Rake leaves from inlets. If a nearby creek has fallen or collected debris, call 875-rain. The Stormwater Utility provides funds for systematic maintenance of the County’s storm drain system, and allows for repair and construction projects that directly target local flooding problems. Do not dump or throw anything into drainage ditches, streams or storm drains. Dumping into our drainage system is a Sacramento County Code violation. Debris can accumulate and restrict the flow of stormwater which increases the potential of localized - flooding. To report flood problems or illegal dumping into the drainage system, please call (916) 875-RAIN (7246).
Sewer Improvements Heavy rains can saturate the soil and infiltrate the sanitary sewer system through leaky joints or cracks in the pipes. The inflow of stormwater floods the sanitary sewer system causing water to back-up into the home through lower level plumbing fixtures. This occurrence can be prevented by installing a sewer backflow preventer (see Figure 7). A backflow preventer will allow the sanitary sewer water to flow freely from the home to the sewer, but restrict the reverse flow. Backflow preventers do require maintenance and can fail if debris in the sewer prevents the valve seating properly. An overhead sewer system pumps wastewater from basement level plumbing fixtures up to an elevation near the ground level, where it can drain by gravity into the sewer service line. This higher sewer makes it unlikely that water will back-up into the building.
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 18
FIGURE 7 Install Sewer Backflow Valves Example (FEMA P-312, June 30, 2014)
Temporary Barriers Several types of temporary barriers are available to address typical flooding problems. They work with the same principles as permanent barriers, such as floodwalls or levees, but can be removed, stored, and reused in subsequent flood events (Figure 8).
FIGURE 8 Temporary Flood Barrier
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 19
2.4.3 Natural Resources Protection
Care should be taken to maintain the streams, wetlands and other natural resources within a floodplain. Removing debris from streams and channels prevents obstructions. Preserving and restoring natural areas provides flood protection, preserves water quality and provides natural habitat. Most of the natural resources within Sacramento County are in open spaces owned and maintained by the Sacramento County Park District or Sacramento County.
2.4.4 Emergency Services
Advance identification of an impending storm is only the first part of an effective Flood Warning and Response Plan. To truly realize the benefit of an early flood warning system, the warning must be disseminated quickly to floodplain occupants and critical facilities. Appropriate response activities must then be implemented, such as: road closures, directing evacuations, sandbagging, and moving building contents above flood levels. Finally, a community should take measures to protect public health and safety and facilitate recovery. These measures may include: cleaning up debris and garbage, clearing streets, and ensuring that that citizens have shelter, food, and safe drinking water.
2.4.5 Structural Projects
In response to the flood damage resulting from severe storm events, Sacramento County initiated several Flood Risk Reduction Assessments to determine what structural improvements could be made to mitigate flood damage from future storm events in the areas that have proven to be the most susceptible to flooding.
2.4.6 Public Information
One of the most important, and often overlooked, aspects of mitigation is public awareness. Awareness starts with recognition of the flood risk. FIRM panels, which designate areas of a community according to various levels of flood risk, can be viewed at www.FEMA.gov. Also, real estate transactions require disclosure of known flood hazards. The next level of awareness is related to hazard mitigation measures. Often homeowners can greatly reduce their risks with mitigation efforts; they just do not know it. For that reason, as part of this analysis, every resident in the RLA has been contacted and informed of the opportunity to review this Report. In addition, Sacramento County sends out an annual outreach letter to every resident in each RLA.
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 20
2.5 Document the Findings
This report outlines the process that was followed and any relevant general background information. A separate analysis for each Repetitive Loss Area was done and is detailed in each respective area to this plan in the appendices. Each area analysis will include • A summary of property owner responses, logged phone calls, survey results, etc. • The problem statement with a map of the area affected. • A table showing basic information for each building, such as address, foundation type, condition, and appropriate mitigation measures. • Any alternative approaches that were reviewed. • Action items that include: Who is responsible for implementing the action, When it will be done, How it will be funded. The summary report for Repetitive Loss Area Analysis is included in the Sacramento County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2011, approved December 6, 2011 by resolution number 2011-0886 and WA-2818. This report is the complete repetitive loss area analysis and has been approved by the governing body of Sacramento County. An annual evaluation report will be completed in the fall of each year and submitted with the CRS annual recertification. The evaluation report will review each action item, describe what was implemented (or not implemented), and recommend changes to the action items as appropriate. The annual report will cover all the repetitive loss areas in the appendices and be made available to the media and public. In time for each CRS cycle verification visit, the repetitive loss area analysis will be updated. The update will review the flooding and building conditions as well as any changes to FEMA’s repetitive loss list, to determine whether the number of buildings on the list or other circumstances have changed, and revise the mapping and action items accordingly. The update may be a new report or an addendum to the existing report.
2.5.1 Data Collection
Sacramento County Plans and studies were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA. • FEMA - NFIP Repetitive Loss Update CD that includes the repetitive loss properties. The mitigated and unmitigated properties are provided for reference purposes, and to assist in defining repetitive loss areas.
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 21
• Sacramento County Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) - HMGP provided grants to Sacramento County residence to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. The HMGP is authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. • Local Floodplain Management Activities – Sacramento County has over the years collected base flood elevations related to actual surveyed ground elevation to determine the local flood hazard areas. The review of Elevation Certificates, Local Floodplain Mapping and general review of topography. • GIS – Data for elevations, number of structures, location of structures, and other pertinent data to determine the potential risk of flooding. • FIRM – Federal floodplain mapping, Flood Insurance Study – Sacramento County, California and Incorporated Areas (FEMA 06067C0062H and 06067C0054H August 2012) • Drainage Maintenance and Engineering Section (DME) Service Request Tracking System provided storm event dates, customer problem descriptions, and specific address of affected flooding areas.
2.5.2 Types of Foundations
Within Sacramento County there are basically two types of foundations either slab on grade, crawl space (raised). Figure 12 shows the two common foundation types, which on the Elevation Certificate these are referenced as 1, 1A, 1B, or 8: 1. Crawl Space or raised foundation is a common type that you'll find in home construction. This foundation gets its name due to the fact that it's built above the ground, allowing for just enough room to crawl underneath. There are stem walls on the perimeters, pierced in-between and then a girder system and floor joists on top of that. The foundation is high enough to that you have at least 2' under there to crawl around to take care of the mechanical systems of the house. 2. Slab foundation is usually concrete poured directly onto the ground. This type of foundation is also different from other foundations in that it uses concrete, not wood, to help support the weight of the home.
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROCESS Page | 22
FIGURE 12 Foundation Types
2.6 Funding Assistance The most common hazard mitigation assistance programs are: the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM), and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA). Each program has its own eligibility and funding criteria, but each can be used to fund property protection measures as shown in Figure 8 below, provided that the Benefit Cost Ratio exceeds 1.0. In general, these programs are funded when FEMA approves an application prepared jointly by a local government. In most cases, FEMA pays 75% of eligible expenses, but the federal share can reach 90% for Repetitive Loss Properties and 100% for Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) properties.
FIGURE 13 Eligible Activities by Hazard Mitigation Assistance Program (FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance, July 2013) Eligible Activities HMG PDM FMA Property Acquisition and Structure Demolition √ √ √ Structure Elevation √ √ √ Mitigation Reconstruction √ Dry Floodproofing of Historic Residential Structures √ √ √ Dry Floodproofing of Non-residential Structures √ √ √ Minor Localized Flood Reduction Projects √ √ √ Structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings √ √ Non-structural Retrofitting of Existing Buildings √ √ √ Infrastructure Retrofit √ √ √ Post-Disaster Code Enforcement √ 5 Percent Initiative Projects √ Advance Assistance √
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX A
APPENDICES
REPETITIVE LOSS REPORT
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis
ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 DRY CREEK
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A1.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 ...... 2 A1.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 2 A1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 2 A1.4 BASIC INFORMATION...... 2 A1.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 4 A1.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 4 A1.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 4 A1.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 4 A1.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 5 A1.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 5 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 6 CHERRY LANE ...... 7 O STREET ...... 7 DRY CREEK ROAD ...... 7 10TH STREET ...... 7 16TH STREET ...... 7 EYE STREET ...... 7 FRONT STREET ...... 7 FALLON WOODS WAY ...... 7 CURVED BRIDGE ROAD ...... 7 ELKHORN BOULEVARD ...... 7 JAMIE COURT ...... 7 K STREET ...... 7 LILAC LANE ...... 7 VICKREY COURT ...... 7 VICKIE THERESA LA NE ...... 7 LINDA LANE ...... 7 14TH STREET ...... 7 6TH STREET ...... 7 5TH STREET ...... 7 5TH AVENUE ...... 7 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 1
6TH AVENUE ...... 7 OAK LANE ...... 7 FALLON PLACE COURT ...... 7 JC COURT ...... 7 ALVILDE COURT ...... 7 CASTLE CREEK WAY ...... 7 Q STREET ...... 7 RADALYAC COURT ...... 7 WOODWRIGHT WAY ...... 7
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 2
A1.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 This Report focuses on Area 1, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 1 analysis includes properties on Cherry Lane, Dry Creek Road, O Street, Elkhorn Boulevard and 4th Street and is defined by Figure A1.
A1.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs
A1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 1 is generally Elkhorn Boulevard east of Rio Linda Boulevard. Floods in the Dry Creek watershed generally occur from October through April. The floods are usually caused by a combination of prolonged rainfall leading to saturated soils, and a short period of one to six hours of intense precipitation associated with frontal convection or severe thunderstorms. The source of flooding was primarily identified as the Dry Creek floodplain (North and South Branch) out of bank flooding in older residential areas constructed prior to NFIP requirements. Dry Creek and its tributaries have an extensive record of flood conditions,. Damaging floods occurred in December 1955, April 1958, October 1962, December 1964, March 1983 and February 1986. The floods of 1983 and 1986 were the largest and most damaging on record before 1992. Hydrologic studies have shown that the recurrence interval of the March 1983 flood was approximately 10 years and the recurrence interval of the February 1986 flood was from 50 to 100 years, depending on the specific location in the Dry Creek watershed.6 Flood events also occurred in in January 1995, January 1997, February 1998, and December 2005, with the 1995 flood event causing extensive damage. There are 272 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions. Twenty- two (22) properties were acquired and demolished as part of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and seven (7) properties were mitigated by elevation.
A1.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), the following had plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding are: • Sacramento County Department of Transportation - Bikeway project 2009 The primary methods of property protection are: demolition/relocation, elevate structure or damage prone components such as furnace or ac unit, dry flood-proof (so water cannot get in), wet flood-proof portions of the building (so water won’t cause damage), direct drainage away from the building, and drainage maintenance.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 3
FIGURE A1 Repetitive Loss Area #1
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 4
A1.5 DATA COLLECTION Sacramento County Plans and studies for the Dry Creek watershed were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA. • Analysis of Dry Creek Alternatives to Detention Prepared By Montgomery Watson May 26, 2000 • The 1992 Dry Creek Watershed Flood Control Plan (1992 Plan) and its Update; Update to the Dry Creek Watershed Flood Control Plan (2010)
A1.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) all properties within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs when Dry Creek overflows into a floodplain. The Sacramento County Local Floodplain Map does not cover the Dry Creek Shed for this RLA,
A1.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that sixty-nine (69) of the overall 346 properties within the Dry Creek RLA had reported flooding.
A1.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed in January 9, 1995, January 9 & 22, 1997, June 15, 1997, February 3, 1998, and June 15 & 16, 1998. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 5
A1.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the Dry Creek RLA is slab on grade, which constitutes 79% of the two common foundations found in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
A1.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for acquisition of additional properties in Dry Creek Floodway for demolition to restores the natural floodplain. The County further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available. • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A1
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
DRY CREEK WATERSHED
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 7
AREA 1 CHERRY LANE DRY CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 28 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 10 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 10 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 8
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 4
o SLAB ON GRADE 5
• NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 4
o PUBLICLY OWNED 2
MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 10
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 1
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 1
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 13
AREA 1 O STREET DRY CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 31 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 2 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 9 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 20
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 4
o SLAB ON GRADE 25
• NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0
MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 2
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 17
AREA 1 DRY CREEK ROAD DRY CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 33 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 2 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 30
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 9
o SLAB ON GRADE 13
o UNKNOWN 2
• NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 6
o PUBLICLY OWNED 0
MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 3
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 21
AREA 1 10TH STREET 16TH STREET EYE STREET FRONT STREET
DRY CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 16 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 16
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 2
o SLAB ON GRADE 8
o UNKNOWN 2
• NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 2
o PUBLICLY OWNED 1
MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 24
AREA 1 FALLON WOODS WAY
DRY CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 37 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 35
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 0
o SLAB ON GRADE 37
• NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0
MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUISITION & DEMO 0
• ACQUISITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 28
AREA 1 CURVED BRIDGE ROAD DRY CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 9 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 3 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 6
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 3
o SLAB ON GRADE 3
• NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 1
MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 2
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 31
AREA 1 ELKHORN BOULEVARD DRY CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 24 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 9 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 8 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 7
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 2
o SLAB ON GRADE 4
• NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 1
o PUBLICLY OWNED 3
MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 1
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 12
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 1
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 37
AREA 1 JAMIE COURT DRY CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 11 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 11
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 0
o SLAB ON GRADE 11
• NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0
MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 39
AREA 1 K STREET DRY CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 25 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 24
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 10
o SLAB ON GRADE 14
• NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 1
MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 42
AREA 1 VICKREY COURT VICKIE THERESA LA NE LINDA LANE LILAC LANE 14TH STREET DRY CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 17 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 17
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 0
o SLAB ON GRADE 15 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 1 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 1
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 46
AREA 1 6TH STREET 5TH STREET DRY CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 28 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 11 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 15
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 8
o SLAB ON GRADE 18
• NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0
MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 2
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 51
AREA 1 5TH AVENUE 6TH AVENUE DRY CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 10
REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0
HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 10
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED) 0 o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 10 o SLAB ON GRADE
• NO STRUCTURES 0 o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
0 • ACQUSITION & DEMO 0 • AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0 • ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 53
AREA 1 OAK LANE DRY CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 16 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 14
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 4
o SLAB ON GRADE 12
• NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0
MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 56
AREA 1 FALLON PLACE COURT JC COURT DRY CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 17 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 17
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 0
o SLAB ON GRADE 17
• NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0
MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 59
AREA 1 ALVILDE COURT CASTLE CREEK WAY Q STREET DRY CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 21 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 21
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 2
o SLAB ON GRADE 19
• NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0
MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 1 62
AREA 1 RADALYAC COURT WOODWRIGHT WAY DRY CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 17 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 17
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 0
o SLAB ON GRADE 13
• NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0
MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 4
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 2 ATTACHMENT 3
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 2 LAGUNA CREEK (Inter-basin transfer) GERBER CREEK
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A2.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 2 ...... 1
A2.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1
A2.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1
A2.4 BASIC INFORMATION...... 1
A2.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 4 A2.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 4 A2.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 4 A2.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 4 A2.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 4
A2.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 5
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 6 BAR DU LANE ...... 7 BRADSHAW ROAD ...... 7 CARMENCITA AVENUE ...... 7 ROGERS ROAD ...... 7 GERBER ROAD ...... 7 VINEYARD ROAD ...... 7 WILDHAWK WEST DRIVE ...... 7 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 2 1
A2.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 2 This Report focuses on Area 2, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 2 analysis includes properties on Bar Du Lane, Bradshaw Road, Carmencita Avenue, Gerber Road, Wildhawk West Drive and Vineyard Road and is defined by Figure 1.
A2.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs
A2.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 2 is generally Bradshaw Road west of Vineyard Road. The character of the Inter-basin Transfer flow in general, the flow leaving Laguna Creek remains on the east side of Bradshaw Road and ponds behind Bradshaw Road, overtopping the roadway at the lowest crown elevations just south of Gerber Road, once the capacity of smaller roadside ditches are exceeded. Once flow overtops the roadway, the majority of the spill would flow westward overland across the intersection of Gerber Road and across the properties south of Gerber Road. The inundation of properties just south of Gerber Road is significant, as they convey the majority of the Inter- basin Transfer. This Inter-basin transfer has an extensive record of flood conditions. This RLAA consists of 103 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions. The flood hazard in this area is Laguna Creek inter-basin transfer to Gerber Creek.
A2.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), the following had plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding are: • The Upper Laguna Creek Drainage Improvement and Trail System (ULCDITS) • Sacramento County Department of Water Resources’ comprehensive drainage improvement plan from Vineyard Road to Calvine Road in southern Sacramento County. • Southgate Recreation and Park District’s construction of a pedestrian/bicycle/equestrian trail system along this portion of Laguna Creek. • Multi-use flood control detention basin, and three water quality treatment basins • Flood control detention basin at Triangle Rock’s Vulcan pit, west of Folsom South Canal. • Sacramento County is working on a flood control project (known as Triangle basin).
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 2 2
The primary methods of property protection are: demolition/relocation, elevate structure or damage prone components such as furnace or ac unit, dry flood-proof (so water cannot get in), wet flood-proof portions of the building (so water won’t cause damage), direct drainage away from the building, and drainage maintenance.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 2 3
FIGURE A2 Repetitive Loss Area #2
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 2 4
A2.5 DATA COLLECTION Sacramento County Plans and studies for the Dry Creek watershed were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA.
A2.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) all properties within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The flood hazard in this area is Laguna Creek inter-basin transfer to Gerber Creek. The Sacramento County Local Floodplain Map indicates this entire RLA falls within the Local Flood Plain with a flood elevation of 86.83’ NGVD 29 or 89.13’ NAVD 88,
A2.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Drainage Operation and Maintenance Service Request Tracking System (DOMS-SRTS) indicates that nine of the overall 103 properties within the Laguna Creek (Inter-Basin Transfer) RLA had reported flooding.
A2.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed from both the public right-of- way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
A2.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the Laguna Creek (Inter-Basin Transfer) RLA is raised foundations, which constitutes 74% of the two common foundations found in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 2 5
A2.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for acquisition of additional properties in Dry Creek Floodway for demolition to restores the natural floodplain. The County further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available. • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A2
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
LAGUNA CREEK to GERBER CREEK (Inter-Basin Transfer)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 2 7
AREA 2 BAR DU LANE LAGUNA CREEK to GERBER CREEK (Inter-Basin Transfer)
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 16 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 14
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 13
o SLAB ON GRADE 2 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 1 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 2 9
AREA 2 BRADSHAW ROAD LAGUNA CREEK to GERBER CREEK (Inter-Basin Transfer)
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 33 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 4 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 29
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 13
o SLAB ON GRADE 8
o UNKNOWN 5 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 5 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 1
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 1
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 2 13
AREA 2 CARMENCITA AVENUE LAGUNA CREEK to GERBER CREEK (Inter-Basin Transfer)
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 29 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 27
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 18
o SLAB ON GRADE 8 • NO STRUCTURES 2 •
o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 2 16
AREA 2 ROGERS ROAD GERBER ROAD VINEYARD ROAD WILDHAWK WEST DRIVE LAGUNA CREEK to GERBER CREEK (Inter-Basin Transfer)
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 25 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 24
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 15
o SLAB ON GRADE 3 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 7 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 3 ATTACHMENT 3
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 3 LOCAL DRAINAGE
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A3.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 3- Andrew Alan Lane ...... 1 A3.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A3.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A3.4 BASIC INFORMATION ...... 1 A3.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 3 A3.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 3 A3.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 3 A3.5.3 Structure Inspections ...... 3 A3.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 3 A3.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 4 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 5 ANDREW ALAN LANE ...... 6 WINDING WAY ...... 6 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 3 1
A3.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 3- Andrew Alan Lane This Report focuses on Area 3, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. The subject homes, constructed in 1990, flooded several times due to an unforeseen local shed jump and lack of overland release. Overland release was constructed in the mid1990’s and the homes have not flooded since. See Figure A3.
A3.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the repetitive loss areas.
A3.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 3 is Andrew Alan Lane north east of the intersection of San Juan Avenue and Winding Way. The small (two acre) subdivision was constructed in a low area with one storm drain inlet and no overland release. The homeowners filed flood insurance claims in 1995, 1996, and 1997 when the County was hit by a series of significant storms. Once the problem was recognized, an engineered solution was designed and constructed and the homes have not flooded since that time. There are two properties included on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, one other flood victim that is not listed on the repetitive loss list possibly due to not having flood insurance, and two other homes that would be in jeopardy had the engineered solution not been constructed.
A3.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), the following had plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding are: This was a local drainage issue solved by the local agency. No state of federal agencies participated in the flood control solution. The primary method of property protection is overland release.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 3 2
FIGURE A3 Repetitive Loss Area #3
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 3 3
A3.5 DATA COLLECTION The issue was caused by an engineering oversight at the time of development. The error included a misunderstanding of the contributing watershed area. The solution included establishing an overland release path to assure storm water runoff from significant storm events, exceeding the capacity of the piped storm drain system, would safely release downstream. Sacramento County prepared the study and plans and assured construction was completed.
A3.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Area 3 is in Zone X, on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 06067C0093H. The local flooding occurred in this area in 1993, 1995, 1996, and 1997. The repair was completed shortly after the 1997 storm event, and the area has not flooded since that time.
A3.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners
After flooding up to four times in a three year period with these homes were quite new, these property owners have enjoyed seventeen years without any flooding problems. Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) shows no complaints or questions after 1997.
A3.5.3 Structure Inspections
On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed in January 10, 1995. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
A3.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the Andrew Alan Lane RLA is Slab on Grade which constitutes 100% of the two common foundations found in this RLA within Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 3 4 mentioned).
A3.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The overland release must be inspected periodically and kept clear. The County does periodic outreach to ten properties in Area 3. The local flooding problem was mitigated by a project constructed under the direction of the County. There is no remaining construction action necessary. The overland release must be kept clear and functioning.
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
ANDREW ALAN LANE LOCAL FLOODPLAIN
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 3 6
AREA 3 ANDREW ALAN LANE WINDING WAY
ANDREW ALAN LANE LOCAL FLOODPLAIN
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 8 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 2 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 3 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 3
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS
o SLAB ON GRADE 3 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• OVERLAND RELEASE 5
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 4 ATTACHMENT 3
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 4 NORTH AVENUE East of Mission Avenue Chicken Ranch Slough Floodplain
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A4.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 4 North Ave (Chicken Ranch Slough) ...... 1 A4.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A4.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A4.4 BASIC INFORMATION ...... 1 A4.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 1 A4.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 3 A4.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 3 A4.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 3 A4.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 3 A4.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 3 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 4 NORTH AVENUE ...... 5 MCCOWAN WAY ...... 5 MURCHISON WAY ...... 5 OAKFIELD DRIVE ...... 5 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 4 1
A4.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 4 North Ave (Chicken Ranch Slough) This Report focuses on Area 4, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Repetitive loss area #4 has experienced flooding due to Chicken Ranch Slough and ponding water in the street caused by backwater from the high creek level. Two properties protected themselves with an on-site floodwall, one established sideyard overland release.
A4.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the repetitive loss area.
A4.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 4 is Chicken Ranch Slough upstream of Mission Avenue. The measured water surface elevation in 1986 approximately matched the FEMA flood insurance base flood elevation and the 1995 high water was about 8 inches below the BFE. Flood insurance claims were filed in 1986, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2005; although, some only filed two claims, others filed three or four. The problem is Chicken Ranch Slough and the fact that the PreFIRM homes were constructed too low.
A4.4 BASIC INFORMATION The primary methods of property protection are: demolition/relocation, elevate structure or damage prone components such as furnace or ac unit, dry flood-proof (so water cannot get in), wet flood-proof portions of the building (so water won’t cause damage), direct drainage away from the building, and drainage maintenance.
A4.5 DATA COLLECTION Sacramento County and FEMA flood insurance studies for Chicken Ranch Slough were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the repetitive loss area (RLA): • FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map • Sacramento County 2006 hydrology and hydraulics model • Sacramento County Drainage Engineering
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 4 2
FIGURE A4 Repetitive Loss Area #4
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 4 3
A4.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) the repetitive loss area properties are affected by the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs when the creek is high, and local storm drains cannot drain water from the street due to that tail-water condition.
A4.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that only a small handful of the overall properties within the Area 4 RLA had reported flooding.
A4.5.3 Structure Inspections There have been numerous communications between the property owners in the subject area as shown on the SRTS map below. There are only a handful of properties who have filed flood insurance claims. The repetitive loss properties have experienced several floods, but local on- site mitigation may reduce the number of such claims. FEMA hazard mitigation home elevation program benefit versus cost analyses would not support home elevation due to the depth of flooding. Consequently, it would seem that the on- site floodwalls and overland release are the best solution.
The County drainage engineering staff stands ready to assist property owners with on-site flood protection solutions.
A4.5.4 Types of Foundations The homes in this area are a mix of slab on grade and raised foundation.
A4.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The most common type of foundations within the Dry Creek RLA is slab on grade, which constitutes 71% of the two common foundations found in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
There does not appear to be an urgent project in Area 4. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available. • Potential Funding: FEMA grant
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A4
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Chicken Ranch Slough Floodplain
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 4 5
AREA 4 NORTH AVENUE CHICKEN RANCH SLOUGH FLOODPLAIN
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 17
REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 3
HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 4
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 10
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED) 10 o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 3 o SLAB ON GRADE • NO STRUCTURES 2 o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• OVERLAND RELEASE
• FLOODWALL (Slab On Grade) 1
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 4 8
AREA 4 MCCOWAN WAY MURCHISON WAY OAKFIELD DRIVE CHICKEN RANCH SLOUGH FLOODPLAIN
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 17
REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 3
HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 4
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 10
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED) 10 o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 3 o SLAB ON GRADE • NO STRUCTURES 2 o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• OVERLAND RELEASE
• FLOODWALL (Slab On Grade) 1
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 5 ATTACHMENT 3
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 5 TWIN CITIES ROAD LOWER COSUMNES RIVER / BEACH-STONE
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A5.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 5 ...... 1
A5.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1
A5.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1
A5.4 BASIC INFORMATION ...... 1
A5.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 1
A5.5.1 FLOOD INSURANCE AND FLOOD EVENT DATA ...... 1 A5.5.1 FLOODING EXPERIENCES OF PROPERTY OWNERS ...... 3 A5.5.2 STRUCTURE INSPECTIONS ...... 3 A5.5.3 TYPES OF FOUNDATIONS ...... 3 A5.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 4
BRUCEVILLE ROAD ...... 5 FRANKLIN BOULEVARD ...... 5 TWIN CITIES ROAD ...... 5 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 5 1
A5.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 5 This Report focuses on Area 5, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Repetitive Loss Area 5 has experienced flooding due to the Cosumnes River and backwater Beach-Stone Lake floodplains as described on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. Area 5 analysis includes properties on Twin Cities Road and is defined by Figure A5.
A5.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the repetitive loss area.
A5.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT This area is in a FEMA floodplain, the lot sizes and use are typically agricultural throughout this region of the County. The location of Area 5 is outside of the urban stormwater utility; however, the County floodplain management section stands ready to offer technical assistance and hazard mitigation as grant funds are available. Flooding was reported in this area January 1982, February 1986, January 1997. Post-FIRM structures are constructed safely above the flood hazard elevation; however, some preFIRM structures were not elevated properly. The one known repetitive loss home was elevated after it flooded in 1997, partially paid by HMGP grant funds.
A5.4 BASIC INFORMATION
See maps an table at the end of this document.
A5.5 DATA COLLECTION Sacramento County and FEMA flood insurance studies, for the floodplain affecting the area, were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the repetitive loss area (RLA): • FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map • County BFE analysis for unnumbered A-Zone
A5.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) the repetitive loss area properties are affected by the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs when the Cosumnes River breaches its uncertified rural levee system combined with Beach-Stone Lake floodwater and contributions from the Morrison Creek watershed.
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 5 2
FIGURE A5 Repetitive Loss Area #5
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 5 3
A5.5.1 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that only a small handful of the overall properties within the Area 5 RLA reported flooding.
A5.5.2 Structure Inspections There have been numerous communications between the property owners in the subject area as shown on the SRTS map below. There are only a handful of properties who have filed flood insurance claims. The repetitive loss properties have experienced several floods, but local on- site mitigation may reduce the number of such claims. FEMA hazard mitigation home elevation program benefit versus cost analyses would not support home elevation due to the depth of flooding. Consequently, it would seem that the on- site floodwalls and overland release are the best solution.
The County drainage engineering staff stands ready to assist property owners with on-site flood protection solutions.
A5.5.3 Types of Foundations The homes in this area are a mix of slab on grade and raised foundation.
A5.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES There is no project proposed.
There does not appear to be an urgent project in Area 4. • Responsible Office: individual property owners must request mitigation • Timeline: not urgent • Potential Funding: FEMA grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A5
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Lower Cosumnes River / Beach-Stone
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 5 5
AREA 5 BRUCEVILLE ROAD FRANKLIN BOULEVARD TWIN CITIES ROAD LOWER COSUMNES RIVER / BEACH-STONE
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 10 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 9
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 2
o SLAB ON GRADE 3
o UNKNOWN 2 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 3 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
• Flood Wall
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 6
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 6 BROOKTREE CREEK
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 6 0
APPENDIX 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A6.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 6 ...... 1 A6.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A6.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A6.4 BASIC INFORMATION...... 1 A6.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 3 A6.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 3 A6.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 3 A6.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 3 A6.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 4 A6.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 4 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 5 ELSINORE WAY ...... 6 LEAVITT WAY ...... 6 SOUTHBROOK WAY ...... 6 NORTHBROOK WAY ...... 6 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 6 1
A6.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 6 This Report focuses on Area 6, one of the twenty eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 6 analysis includes Elsinore Way, Leavitt Way, Northbrook Way, and Southbrook Way as defined by Figure A6.
A6.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the repetitive loss areas.
A6.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 6 is along Coyle Creek, upstream of Madison Avenue. The source of flooding was primarily identified as the residences being in low lying areas, in some instances adjacent to a creek that is over capacity, and most of the homes having slab-on- grade foundations. There are 18 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions.
A6.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding were not available. The primary methods of property protection are: • Home Elevation – Is your floor below the elevation of the floodplain? If so, it may be prudent to elevate the structure. Whenever the floor of a home is below the 100-year flood elevation, physically elevating the structure is often recommended as it is one of the most effective means to prevent flood damage. Financial assistance may be available to you. In the past, the County has utilized FEMA grant money for dozens of qualified elevation projects. • Site Modification – Would a small wall, berm, or other site specific grading help keep water out of your house? Often, modification of the area around your home may be appropriate to minimize flooding depending on the depth of floodwater and site specific constraints. • Temporary Flood Barriers – Perhaps sandbags or other barriers could be employed on site in advance of a storm to help keep water out. • Home Removal – If necessary, it may be recommended that the County purchase the property and remove the home from the lot.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 6 2
FIGURE A6 Repetitive Loss Area #6
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 6 3
A6.5 DATA COLLECTION Sacramento County Plans and studies for Brooktree Creek were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA. • Improvement plans for 5334 Elsinore Way • Palm Avenue Subdivision • Orange Estates • Pacific Palm Estates • Oak Brook Park • Oak Brook Park Unit 2 • Oak Brook Park Unit 3 • 6551 – 6599 Coyle Avenue
A6.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012), 7 properties within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs on Northbrook Way and Southbrook Way when flows exceed the capacity of Coyle Creek. The Sacramento County Local Floodplain on Elsinore Way for this RLA floods due to it being a low lying area.
A6.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that 3 of the overall 18 properties within the Brooktree Creek RLA had reported flooding.
A6.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed on February 23, 2015. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes.
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 6 4
• High-water marks and debris mark levels
A6.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the Dewey Drive RLA is slab-on-grade.
A6.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for future mitigation measures. The County further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A6
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
BROOKTREE CREEK (Overland Release)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 6 6
AREA 6 ELSINORE WAY LEAVITT WAY
BROOKTREE CREEK
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 11 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 10
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 0
o SLAB ON GRADE 11 • NO STRUCTURES
o PUBLICALLY OWNED 0 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• AQUISITION & DEMO 0
• AQUISITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
• IMPROVED DRAINAGE FACILITIES 1
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 6 9
AREA 6 SOUTHBROOK WAY NORTHBROOK WAY
BROOKTREE CREEK
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 7 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 6
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 3
o SLAB ON GRADE 3 • NO STRUCTURES
o PUBLICALLY OWNED 1 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• AQUISITION & DEMO 0
• AQUISITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
• IMPROVED DRAINAGE FACILITIES
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 7 ATTACHMENT 3
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 7 MORRISON CREEK
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 APPENDIX 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A7.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 ...... 1 A7.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A7.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A7.4 BASIC INFORMATION...... 1 A7.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 1 A7.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 3 A7.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 3 A7.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 3 A7.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 3 A7.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 3 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 4 FRUITRIDGE ROAD ...... 5 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 7 1
A7.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 This Report focuses on Area 7, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. The Area 7 analysis includes a single property as seen in Figure A7.
A7.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Resident have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs
A7.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 7 is in a rural portion of the County with limit improvements. However, for the past two decades intense mining has occurred east of the concerned area, which has provided flood storage. The source of flooding was primarily identified has high flood waters spreading out over a wide floodplain. There is one property which includes a building on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions. None of the properties have been mitigated.
A7.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), the following had plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding are: • West Jackson Highway – Master Drainage Study (Dated: 2012) The primary methods of property protection are: demolition/relocation, elevate structure or damage prone components such as furnace or ac unit, dry flood-proof (so water cannot get in), wet flood-proof portions of the building (so water won’t cause damage), direct drainage away from the building, and drainage maintenance.
A7.5 DATA COLLECTION Sacramento County Plans and studies for Morrison Creek were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA. • West Jackson Highway – Master Drainage Study (2012)
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 7 2
FIGURE A7 Repetitive Loss Area #A7
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 7 3
A7.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) no properties within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs when high stages experienced in Morrison Creek. The Sacramento County Local Floodplain identifies no properties from this RLA.
A7.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that one of the overall eight properties within the Morrison Creek RLA had reported flooding.
A7.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed in May 2015. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
A7.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within Area 7 is a slab on grade foundation, which constitutes 100% of the 2 common foundations found in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
A7.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES Based on the West Jackson Highway – Master Drainage Study, no further mitigation is required for Area 7.
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A7
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
MORRISON CREEK WATERSHED
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 7 5
AREA 7 FRUITRIDGE ROAD MORRISON CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 7
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 5
o SLAB ON GRADE 2 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 8 ATTACHMENT 3
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 8 COSUMNES RIVER
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 APPENDIX 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A8.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 8 ...... 1 A8.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A8.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A8.4 BASIC INFORMATION ...... 1 A8.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 3 A8.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 3 A8.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 3 A8.5.3 Structure Inspections ...... 3 A8.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 3 A8.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 4 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 5 GREEN ROAD ...... 6 JEFFCOTT ROAD ...... 6 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 8 1
A8.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 8 This Report focuses on Area 8, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 8 analyses include properties on Green Road and Jeffcott Road and are defined by Figure A8.
A8.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs
A8.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 8 is generally area bounded by Wilton Road to the east, the Cosumnes River to the south, Green Road to the north and along the west side of Jeffcott Road. The source of flooding was primarily identified has been determined to be low lying areas around Cosumnes River. Out of bank flooding may occur in older residential areas constructed prior to NFIP requirements. There are 33 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions.
A8.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), the following had plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding are: • 9500 Jeffcott Road – Rose’s Engineering • 11375 Green Road – Rose’s Engineering The primary methods of property protection are: • Home Elevation – Is your floor below the elevation of the floodplain? If so, it may be prudent to elevate the structure. Whenever the floor of a home is below the 100-year flood elevation, physically elevating the structure is often recommended as it is one of the most effective means to prevent flood damage. Financial assistance may be available to you. In the past, the County has utilized FEMA grant money for dozens of qualified elevation projects. • Site Modification – Would a small wall, berm, or other site specific grading help keep water out of your house? Often, modification of the area around your home may be appropriate to minimize flooding depending on the depth of floodwater and site specific constraints. • Temporary Flood Barriers – Perhaps sandbags or other barriers could be employed on site in advance of a storm to help keep water out.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 8 2
FIGURE A8 Repetitive Loss Area #8
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 8 3
A8.5 DATA COLLECTION • Sacramento County Plans and studies for Cosumnes River were utilized in this analysis.
A8.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) thirty-three (33) properties in the RLA are within the 100- year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs when low lying areas around Cosumnes River are inundated by out of bank flooding in the older residential areas.
A8.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that 2 of the overall thirty-three (33) properties had reported flooding and seven (7) reported to FEMA for insurance purposes are within the Cosumnes River RLA.
A8.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed in January 9, 1995, January 9 & 22, 1997. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
A8.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the Cosumnes River RLA is both raised and slab on grade, which constitutes 71% of the known foundations found in this RLA in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 8 4
A8.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for elevating homes. The County further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP & FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available. • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A8
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
COSUMNES RIVER WATERSHED
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 8 6
AREA 8 GREEN ROAD JEFFCOTT ROAD
COSUMNES RIVER
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 33 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 2 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 5 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 26
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 9
o SLAB ON GRADE 8
o UNKNOWN 7 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 9 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 9 ATTACHMENT 3
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 9 SOUTH BRANCH OF ARCADE CREEK
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A9.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 9 ...... 1
A9.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1
A9.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1
A9.4 BASIC INFORMATION ...... 1
A9.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 3
A9.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 3 A9.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 3 A9.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 3 A9.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 3 A9.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 4
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 5
HOFFMAN LANE ...... 6 LONG ACRES COURT ...... 6 MANANA WAY ...... 6 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 9 1
A9.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 9 This Report focuses on Area 9, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 9 analysis includes properties on Hoffman Lane, Long Acres Court and Manana Way defined by Figure A9.
A9.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs
A9.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 9 is generally Hoffman Lane south of Greenback Lane. The source of flooding has been determined to be South Branch of Arcade Creek in low lying area or low floors with a constrained drainage system. Out of bank flooding may occur in older residential areas constructed prior to NFIP requirements. There are 21 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions. There was one property that was mitigated by elevation.
A9.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), the following had plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding are: • South Branch Arcade Creek Drainage studies were performed as referenced in the approved environmental impact reports for the Gum Ranch and Sheltonham developments. Hydrologic models were developed to analyze development impacts and mitigation measures.
The primary methods of property protection are: • Home Elevation – Is your floor below the elevation of the floodplain? If so, it may be prudent to elevate the structure. Whenever the floor of a home is below the 100-year flood elevation, physically elevating the structure is often recommended as it is one of the most effective means to prevent flood damage. Financial assistance may be available to you. In the past, the County has utilized FEMA grant money for dozens of qualified elevation projects. • Site Modification – Would a small wall, berm, or other site specific grading help keep water out of your house? Often, modification of the area around your home may be appropriate to minimize flooding depending on the depth of floodwater and site specific constraints. • Temporary Flood Barriers – Perhaps sandbags or other barriers could be employed on site in advance of a storm to help keep water out.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 9 2
FIGURE A9 Repetitive Loss Area #9
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 9 3
A9.5 DATA COLLECTION Sacramento County Plans and studies for South Branch of Arcade Creek were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA. • Gum Ranch Drainage Study prepared by Morton & Pitalo, May 2005
A9.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) all properties within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs when Out of bank flooding may occur in older residential areas. The Sacramento County Local Floodplain follows the FEMA floodplain for this RLA,
A9.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that seven of the overall 20 properties within the South Branch of Arcade Creek RLA had reported flooding.
A9.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed in June 15 & 16, 1998.. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
A9.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the South Branch of Arcade Creek RLA is Raised Foundation which constitutes 100% of the two common foundations found in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 9 4
A9.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available. • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A9
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
SOUTH BRANCH OF ARCADE CREEK
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 9 6
AREA 9 HOFFMAN LANE SOUTH BRANCH OF ARCADE CREEK
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 10 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 6 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 4
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 9
o SLAB ON GRADE • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 1
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 9 8
AREA 9 LONG ACRES COURT MANANA WAY SOUTH BRANCH OF ARCADE CREEK
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 11 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 4
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 7 • EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 4
o SLAB ON GRADE 7 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 10 ATTACHMENT 3
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 10 STRONG RANCH SLOUGH
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A10.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 ...... 1 A10.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A10.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A10.4 BASIC INFORMATION ...... 1 A10.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 3 A10.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 3 A10.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 3 A10.5.3 Structure Inspections ...... 3 A10.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 4 A10.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 4 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 5 KINCAID WAY ...... 6 KUBEL CIRCLE ...... 6 MAPLE GLEN ROAD ...... 6 LADINO ROAD ...... 6 MEADOW LANE ...... 6 RIDING CLUB LANE ...... 6 ROCKWOOD DRIVE ...... 6 WINDING CREEK ROAD ...... 6 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 10 1
A10.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 This Report focuses on Area 10, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 10 analyses include properties on Maple Glen Road, Kubel Circle, Lading Road, Rockwood Drive, Winding Creek Road and Riding Club Lane and are defined by Figure A10.
A10.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs.
A10.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 10 is generally area bounded by Fulton Avenue to the east, Arden Way to the south, El Camino Avenue to the north and Eastern Avenue to the east. The source of flooding was primarily identified has been determined to be low lying areas around Strong Ranch Slough. Out of bank flooding may occur in older residential areas constructed prior to NFIP requirements. There are 53 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions.
A10.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), the following had plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding are: • Drainage study was developed by David Ford Engineers The primary methods of property protection are: • Home Elevation – Is your floor below the elevation of the floodplain? If so, it may be prudent to elevate the structure. Whenever the floor of a home is below the 100-year flood elevation, physically elevating the structure is often recommended as it is one of the most effective means to prevent flood damage. Financial assistance may be available to you. In the past, the County has utilized FEMA grant money for dozens of qualified elevation projects. • Site Modification – Would a small wall, berm, or other site specific grading help keep water out of your house? Often, modification of the area around your home may be appropriate to minimize flooding depending on the depth of floodwater and site specific constraints. • Temporary Flood Barriers – Perhaps sandbags or other barriers could be employed on site in advance of a storm to help keep water out.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 10 2
FIGURE A10 Repetitive Loss Area #10
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 10 3
A10.5 DATA COLLECTION Sacramento County Plans and studies for Strong Ranch Slough were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA. • Drainage study was developed by David Ford Engineers for Water Resources in 2006 to analyze flood control alternatives. Staff expanded on the modeling in 2007 and developed a website and flood warning system for the area. The models are used by staff to analyze capital improvement projects. • Sacramento County Strong Ranch Slough Flood Prep 100 year Map Book • Kincaid Flood Wall Project by Sacramento County Water Resources (CIP).
A10.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) fifty-three (53) properties in the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The remaining twenty-six (26) properties are within the Local Flood Zone. The flooding occurs when low lying areas around Strong Ranch Slough are inundated by out of bank flooding in the older residential areas. The Sacramento County Local Floodplain Map shows the local flooding in Strong Ranch Creek for this RLA,
A10.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that 12 of the overall seventy-nine (79) properties and 11 reported to FEMA for insurance purposes are within the Strong Ranch Creek RLA had reported flooding.
A10.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed in January 9, 1995, January 9 & 22, 1997. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 10 4
A10.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the Strong Ranch Slough RLA is raised, which constitutes 79.4% of the 79 common foundations found in this RLA in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
A10.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for elevating homes . The County further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available. • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A10
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
STRONG RANCH CREEK WATERSHED
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 10 6
AREA 10 KINCAID WAY STRONG RANCH CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 9 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 2 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 6
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 3
o SLAB ON GRADE 1 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 1 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
• Flood Wall 4
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 10 8
AREA 10 KUBEL CIRCLE STRONG RANCH CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 6 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 3
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 4
o SLAB ON GRADE 2 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 10 10
AREA 10 MAPLE GLEN ROAD STRONG RANCH CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 27 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 3 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 23
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 22
o SLAB ON GRADE 4 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 1 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 10 13
AREA 10 LADINO ROAD MEADOW LANE RIDING CLUB LANE ROCKWOOD DRIVE STRONG RANCH CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 18 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 16
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 12
o SLAB ON GRADE 2 • NO STRUCTURES 4
o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 10 15
AREA 10 WINDING CREEK ROAD
STRONG RANCH CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 19 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 4 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 4 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 11 • EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED) RAISED FOUNDATIONS o 13 SLAB ON GRADE o 5 • NO STRUCTURES
PRIVATELY OWNED o 1 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 11 ATTACHMENT 3
Repetitive Loss Area 11 LINDA CREEK
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A11.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 11 ...... 1 A11.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A11.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A11.4 DATA COLLECTION ...... 1 A11.4.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 1 A11.4.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 1 A11.4.3 Structure Inspections ...... 3 A11.4.4 Types of Foundations ...... 3 A11.5 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 3 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 4 CREEK OAKS LANE ...... 5 EDEN OAKS AVEVNUE ...... 5 HAZEL AVEVNUE ...... 5 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 11 1
A11.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 11 This Report focuses on Area 11, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 11 analysis includes properties on Hazel Avenue. Leever Lane, Nipawin Way, Creek Oaks Lane, Oak Avenue, Eden Oaks Avenue, and Oak Avenue defined by Figure A11.
A11.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs
A11.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 11 is generally west of Granite Avenue and north of Oak Avenue. Floods in the Dry Creek watershed generally occur from October through April. The floods are usually caused by a combination of prolonged rainfall leading to saturated soils, and a short period of one to six hours of intense precipitation associated with frontal convection or severe thunderstorms. The source of flooding was primarily identified Linda Creek low lying areas around Linda Creek and a constrained drainage system. Out of bank flooding may occur in older residential areas constructed prior to NFIP requirements. There are 44 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions.
A11.4 DATA COLLECTION Sacramento County Plans and studies for Linda Creek Remap were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA. • The Sacramento County Water Agency, and Placer County For Linda Creek Floodplain Mapping Agreement
A11.4.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) 37 properties within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs when Linda Creek overtops bank and the constrained drainage system in older residential areas. The Sacramento County Local Floodplain generally follows the existing FEMA floodplain for this RLA,
A11.4.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that 4 of the overall 44 properties within the Linda Creek RLA had reported flooding.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 11 2
FIGURE A11 Repetitive Loss Area #11
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 11 3
A11.4.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed in January 9, 1995, April 1, 1996, and February 3, 1998. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
A11.4.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the Linda Creek RLA is raised, which constitutes 74.5% of the common foundations found within Repetitive Loss Area 11 in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
A11.5 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for elevating structures in this RLA. The County continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available. • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A11
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
LINDA CREEK
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 11 5
AREA 11 CREEK OAKS LANE EDEN OAKS AVEVNUE
LINDA CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 12 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 10
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 9
o SLAB ON GRADE 3 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 11 7
AREA 11 HAZEL AVEVNUE
LINDA CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 10 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 3 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 6
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 4
o SLAB ON GRADE 4 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 1 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 11 9
AREA 11 LEEVER LANE NIPAWIN WAY OAK AVENUE
LINDA CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 22 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 3 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 19
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 16
o SLAB ON GRADE 3 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 3 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 12 ATTACHMENT 3
Repetitive Loss Area 12 GRAND ISLAND ROAD & VIEIRA’S RESORT
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A12.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 ...... 1 A12.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A12.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A12.4 BASIC INFORMATION...... 1 A12.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 1 A12.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 3 A12.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 3 A12.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 3 A12.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 3 A12.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 3 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 4 GRAND ISLAND ...... 5 VIEIRA’S RESORT ...... 5 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 12 1
A12.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 This Report focuses on Area 12, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 12 analysis includes properties on Long Island Road, Grand Island Road, and Vieira’s resort as defined by Figure A12.
A12.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs
A12.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT Area 12 is located in the southern portion of the County on the Sacramento River. The properties located in this area are on the water side of the levee prism. The source of flooding is caused by high stages in the Sacramento River. During 1986 storm event Area 12 experienced high stages from the Sacramento River. There are 43 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties or nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions. Twenty- one (21) of the properties have Elevation Certificates on file and all but three (3) structures have been mitigated either through government assistance or private funding.
A12.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), there are no studies or plans to further protect Area 12. The primary methods of property protection are: demolition/relocation, elevate structure or damage prone components such as furnace or ac unit, dry flood-proof (so water cannot get in), wet flood-proof portions of the building (so water won’t cause damage), direct drainage away from the building, and drainage maintenance.
A12.5 DATA COLLECTION The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – Flood Insurance Study for the Unincorporated County were utilized in this analysis to establish the base flood elevation.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 12 2
FIGURE A12 Repetitive Loss Area #12
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 12 3
A12.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) all the properties within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. Area 12 is located between both levees of the Sacramento River and is inundated by the FEMA Effective floodplain.
A12.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that none of the overall 31 properties within the RLA had reported flooding. However, Area 12 is outside the Urban Services boundary and has limited resources to assist in flooding for this area.
A12.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed on February 6, 2015. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes
A12.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the RLA is raised foundation, which constitutes 100% of the two common foundations found in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
A12.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for home elevations. The County further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available. • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A12
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
GRAND ISLAND ROAD & VIEIRA’S RESORT
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 12 5
AREA 12 LONG ISLAND ROAD GRAND ISLAND ROAD SYCAMORE DRIVE BEACH DRIVE ANCHOR DRIVE
SACRAMENTO RIVER WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 43 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 8 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 12 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 23
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 26
o SLAB ON GRADE 3
o UNKNOWN 6 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 3 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 5
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 13 ATTACHMENT 3
Repetitive Loss Area 13 BADGER CREEK WILTON
LOCAL FLOODPLAIN
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 13 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A13.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 13 ...... 1 A13.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A13.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A13.4 BASIC INFORMATION ...... 1 A13.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 1 A13.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 1 A13.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 3 A13.5.3 Structure Inspections ...... 3 A13.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 3 A13.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 3 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 4 COLLINGS ROAD ...... 5 MANN ROAD ...... 5 HAGGIE ROAD ...... 5 DILLARD ROAD ...... 5 DAVIS ROAD ...... 5 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 13 1
A13.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 13 This Report focuses on Area 13, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 13 includes properties in Wilton, California on Collings Road, Davis Road, Haggie Road, Mann Road, and Dillard Road as show on Figure A13.
A13.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs.
A13.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 13 is within the Wilton area, south of Dillard Road generally between Collins Road and Davis Road, and north of Mann Road. The source of flooding was primarily identified as poor drainage and flat terrain. The local floodplain tends from Dillard Road southeast across Mann Road toward the North Fork Badger Creek FEMA A-Zone floodplain. Damaging floods occurred in January of 1995 and January of 1997. There are 33 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions. The lone repetitive loss property has not been mitigated.
A13.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), the following had plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding: • none The primary methods of property protection are: demolition/relocation, elevate structure or damage prone components such as furnace or ac unit, dry flood-proof (so water cannot get in), wet flood-proof portions of the building (so water won’t cause damage), direct drainage away from the building, and drainage maintenance.
A13.5 DATA COLLECTION The State of California – Department of Water Resources Central Valley Flood Evaluation and Delineation LiDAR (dated 2008) was utilized in this analysis.
A13.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Area 13 is in Zone X, on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 06067C0345H. The flooding is associated with local drainage issues as a result of very flat terrain and limited drainage facilities. The flooding occurs when large storm events back up North Fork Badger Creek. Due to the extremely flat terrain, water ponds through the repetitive loss area. Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 13 2
FIGURE A13 Repetitive Loss Area #13
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 13 3
A13.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) has no record of any calls to report flooding from the properties identified in the repetitive loss area. The only repetitive loss property in the area filed flood claims in January of 1995 and January of 1997. The only historical loss property filed a flood claim in February of 1998.
A13.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed during the storm events causing repetitive flooding of January 1995 and January 1997. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the local flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; • Neighborhood topography and flow routes In addition, visual inspections for each property were made in preparation of this Report.
A13.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the Badger Creek RLA is a raised foundation, which constitutes 73% of the two common foundations found in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
A13.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A13
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
BADGER CREEK WILTON (Local Floodplain)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 13 5
AREA 13 COLLINGS ROAD MANN ROAD
BADGER CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 20 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 19
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 16
o SLAB ON GRADE 3 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 1 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 13 7
AREA 13 HAGGIE ROAD DILLARD ROAD DAVIS ROAD
BADGER CREEEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 13 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 12
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 8
o SLAB ON GRADE 3 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 2 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 14 ATTACHMENT 3
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 14 ARCADE CREEK
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A14.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 14 ...... 1 A14.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A14.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A14.4 BASIC INFORMATION...... 1 A14.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 2 A14.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 4 A14.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 4 A14.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 4 A14.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 4 A14.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 4 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 5 MANZANITA AVENUE ...... 6 SYCAMORE AVENUE ...... 6 PEPPERMILL COURT ...... 6 PASADENA AVENUE ...... 6 WINDING WAY ...... 6 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 14 1
A14.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 14 This Report focuses on Area 14, one of the twenty eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 14 analyses include Manzanita Avenue, Peppermill Court, Sycamore Avenue, and Winding Way as defined by Figure A14.
A14.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAs.
A14.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 14 is made up of six subareas. The area is bounded by Pasadena Avenue, Winding Way and College Oak Drive. The second subarea is generally bounded by Arcade Creek, Valhalla Drive, and Winding Way. The third subarea is adjacent to Brooktree Creek. The source of flooding was primarily identified as the residences being in low lying areas, in some instances adjacent to a creek that is over capacity, and most of the homes having slab-on- grade foundations. There are 47 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions.
A14.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), the following plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding are: • Drainage Study for 4950 Hackberry Lane The primary methods of property protection are: • Home Elevation – Is your floor below the elevation of the floodplain? If so, it may be prudent to elevate the structure. Whenever the floor of a home is below the 100-year flood elevation, physically elevating the structure is often recommended as it is one of the most effective means to prevent flood damage. Financial assistance may be available to you. In the past, the County has utilized FEMA grant money for dozens of qualified elevation projects. • Site Modification – Would a small wall, berm, or other site specific grading help keep water out of your house? Often, modification of the area around your home may be appropriate to minimize flooding depending on the depth of floodwater and site specific constraints. • Temporary Flood Barriers – Perhaps sandbags or other barriers could be employed on site in advance of a storm to help keep water out.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 14 2
• Home Removal – If necessary, it may be recommended that the County purchase the property and remove the home from the lot.
A14.5 DATA COLLECTION Sacramento County Plans and studies for Manzanita Avenue were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA. • Sycamore Avenue Drainage Project • Del Paso Vale • Oakvale No. 2 • Oakvale No. 3 • Oak Creek Estates Unit 2 • Hackberry Estates • 5990 Devecchi Avenue
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 14 3
FIGURE A14 Repetitive Loss Area #14
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 14 4
A14.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) 26 properties within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs when flows exceed the capacity of Arcade Creek, and Brooktree Creek. The Sacramento County Local Floodplain on Sycamore Avenue for this RLA floods due to it being a low lying area.
A14.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that 8 of the overall 47 properties within the Arcade Creek RLA had reported flooding.
A14.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed in March of 2015. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
A14.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the Manzanita Avenue RLA is slab-on-grade.
A14.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A14
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
ARCADE CREEK
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 14 6
AREA 14 MANZANITA AVENUE ARCADE CREEK
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 10 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 9
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 0
o SLAB ON GRADE 10 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0 MITIGATED PROPERTIES 0
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 14 8
AREA 14 SYCAMORE AVENUE ARCADE CREEK
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 9 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 8
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 3
o SLAB ON GRADE 5 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 1 MITIGATED PROPERTIES 0
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 14 10
AREA 14 PEPPERMILL COURT ARCADE CREEK
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 22 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 22
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 0
o SLAB ON GRADE 22 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 14 13
AREA 14 PASADENA AVENUE WINDING WAY
ARCADE CREEK
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 6 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES SEVERE REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 5 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 1
o SLAB ON GRADE 4 • NO STRUCTURES 1
o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 15 ATTACHMENT 3
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 15 DILLARD RD/BERRY RD Wilton Local Floodplain
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A15.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 15 ...... 1 A15.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A15.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A15.4 BASIC INFORMATION ...... 1 A15.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 3 A15.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 3 A15.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 3 A15.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 3 A15.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 4 A15.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 4 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 5 APPLE ROAD ...... 6 BERRY ROAD ...... 6 CHERRY ROAD ...... 6 CURRANT ROAD ...... 6 DILLARD ROAD ...... 6 EARLY TIMES ROAD ...... 6 LIVE OAK ROAD ...... 6 ORANGE ROAD...... 6
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 15 1
A15.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 15 This Report focuses on Area 15, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 15 includes properties in Wilton, California on Apple Road, Berry Road, Cherry Road, Currant Road, Dillard Road, Early Times Road, Live Oak Road, and Orange Road as shown on Figure A15.
A15.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs
A15.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 15 is within the Wilton area, east of Dillard Road generally between Apple Road and Orange Road, and east of Berry Road. The source of flooding was primarily identified as backwater caused by the inverted siphon crossing at Folsom South Canal. During large storm events, the siphon is overwhelmed and backs up the unknown creek that runs north to south through the RLA. Damaging floods occurred in February of 1986, January of 1995, February of 1998, and February of 2000. There are 40 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties, and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions. One property contains two structures with different addresses, so there are a total of 41 structures within the RLA. None of the repetitive loss, severe repetitive loss, or historical repetitive loss properties have been mitigated.
A15.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), the following had plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding are: • US Bureau of Reclamation Folsom South Canal Design Drawings – Reach 2
The primary methods of property protection are: demolition/relocation, elevate structure or damage prone components such as furnace or ac unit, dry flood-proof (so water cannot get in), wet flood-proof portions of the building (so water won’t cause damage), direct drainage away from the building, and drainage maintenance.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 15 2
FIGURE A15 Repetitive Loss Area #15
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 15 3
A15.5 DATA COLLECTION The State of California – Department of Water Resources Central Valley Flood Evaluation and Delineation LiDAR (dated 2008) was utilized in this analysis. In addition, the US Bureau of Reclamation Design Plans for Folsom South Canal were reviewed and used in the analysis.
A15.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Area 15 is in Zone X, on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 06067C0375H. The flooding is associated with local drainage issues as a result of backwater created by the inverted siphon crossing at Folsom South Canal. The flooding occurs when large storm events overwhelm the capacity of the siphon. The unknown stream that crosses the Folsom South Canal runs north to south through the RLA. The properties located adjacent to the creek experience the localized flooding.
A15.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that five (5) of the overall 4 properties within the Dillard Rd/Berry Rd RLA had reported flooding. The severe repetitive loss property, repetitive loss properties, and historic loss properties in the area filed flood claims as indicated in the Data Analysis Summaries at the end of this Appendix.
A15.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed during the storm events causing repetitive flooding of February 1986, January 1995, February 1998, and February 2000. These inspections were performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the local flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; • Neighborhood topography and flow routes In addition, visual inspections for each property were made in preparation of this Report.
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 15 4
A15.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the RLA is a raised foundation, which constitutes 66% of the two common foundations found in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
A15.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant In addition, the County could explore a regional improvement project to increase the capacity of the inverted siphon crossing at Folsom South Canal.
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A15
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
DILLARD RD/BERRY RD Wilton (Local Floodplain)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 15 6
AREA 15 APPLE ROAD BERRY ROAD
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 12 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 2 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 10
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 8
o SLAB ON GRADE 2 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 2 MITIGATED PROPERTIES 0
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 15 8
AREA 15 CHERRY ROAD CURRANT ROAD DILLARD ROAD CONSUMNES RIVER WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 12 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 11
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 6
o SLAB ON GRADE 5 • NO STRUCTURES 0
o PRIVATELY OWNED 1 MITIGATED PROPERTIES 0
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 15 10
AREA 15 EARLY TIMES ROAD LIVE OAK ROAD CONSUMNES RIVER WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 11 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 10
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 9
o SLAB ON GRADE 2 • NO STRUCTURES 0
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0 MITIGATED PROPERTIES 0
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 15 12
AREA 15 ORANGE ROAD CONSUMNES RIVER WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 6 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 5
• EXISTING STRUCTURES 4 (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 4
o SLAB ON GRADE 0 • NO STRUCTURES 2
o PRIVATELY OWNED 2 MITIGATED PROPERTIES 0
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 16 ATTACHMENT 3
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 16 ROBLA CREEK
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A16.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 16 ...... 1 A16.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A16.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A16.4 BASIC INFORMATION...... 1 A16.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 3 A16.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 3 A16.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 3 A16.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 3 A16.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 3 A16.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 4 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 5 C STREET ...... 6 16TH STREET ...... 6 20TH STREET ...... 6 E Street ...... 6 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 16 1
A16.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 16 This Report focuses on Area 16, one of the twenty eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 16 analyses include properties on C Street, E Street, 16th Street, 20th Street, and 21st Street and are defined by Figure A16.
A16.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAs.
A16.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 16 is generally bounded by Dry Creek Road, C Street, 22nd Street, and G Street. The source of flooding was primarily identified as being due to capacity exceedance of Robla Creek and Rio Linda Creek. There are 51 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions.
A16.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding were not available. The primary methods of property protection are: • Home Elevation – Is your floor below the elevation of the floodplain? If so, it may be prudent to elevate the structure. Whenever the floor of a home is below the 100-year flood elevation, physically elevating the structure is often recommended as it is one of the most effective means to prevent flood damage. Financial assistance may be available to you. In the past, the County has utilized FEMA grant money for dozens of qualified elevation projects. • Site Modification – Would a small wall, berm, or other site specific grading help keep water out of your house? Often, modification of the area around your home may be appropriate to minimize flooding depending on the depth of floodwater and site specific constraints. • Temporary Flood Barriers – Perhaps sandbags or other barriers could be employed on site in advance of a storm to help keep water out. • Home Removal – If necessary, it may be recommended that the County purchase the property and remove the home from the lot.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 16 2
FIGURE A16 Repetitive Loss Area #16
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 16 3
A16.5 DATA COLLECTION Sacramento County Plans and studies for Robla Creek were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA. • Rio Linda Subdivision No. 5
A16.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) 41 properties within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs when flows exceed the capacity of Robla Creek and Rio Linda Creek. The Sacramento County Local Floodplain at the intersection of E Street and 20th Street for this RLA floods due to it being a flat and low lying area.
A16.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that 7 of the overall 45 properties within the Dry Creek RLA had reported flooding.
A16.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed in March of 2015. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
A16.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundation within the Robla Creek RLA is slab-on-grade.
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 16 4
A16.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for future mitigation measures. The County further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A16
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
ROBLA CREEK WATERSHED
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 16 6
AREA 16 C STREET ROBLA CREEK
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 16 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 2 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 5 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 9
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 5
o SLAB ON GRADE 10 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 1 MITIGATED PROPERTIES 0
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 16 8
AREA 16 16TH STREET 20TH STREET ROBLA CREEK
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 14 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 12
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 10
o SLAB ON GRADE 3 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 1 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 16 10
AREA 16 E Street Robla Creek
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 21 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 2 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 5 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 14
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 9
o SLAB ON GRADE 11 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 1
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 17
Repetitive Loss Area 17 GARDEN HIGHWAY
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 17 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A17.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 ...... 1 A17.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A17.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A17.4 BASIC INFORMATION...... 1 A17.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 4 A17.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 4 A17.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 4 A17.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 4 A17.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 5 A17.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 5 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 6 GARDEN HIGHWAY ...... 7 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 17 1
A17.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 This Report focuses on Area 17, one of the twenty-seven designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 17 analysis includes properties primarily along Garden Highway and is defined by Figure 1.
A17.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs
A17.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 17 is located adjacent to the Sacramento River. According to information from the County of Sacramento – County Clerk Office, development of along the Sacramento River in Area 17 first began in the 1850’s and is continuing to develop. The majority of homes was built prior to 1975 and is considered Pre-FIRM. These homes were built with no FEMA guidelines for proper construction in flood prone areas. The Sacramento River Basin is approximately 27,000 square miles which drains the northern central valley into the Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta. Several hydrologic and hydraulic studies have been conducted on the Sacramento River system to understand the flooding potential at various locations. These models were calibrated to the large storm events that occurred in 1986, 1997, and 2005. Based on these models, Area 17 is susceptible to high flood stages in the Sacramento River. This is caused by tidal influences, American River, Feather River, Sacramento River, and Natomas Cross Canal converging around Area 17. The source of flooding is caused by high stages in the Sacramento River. The FEMA Effective FIRM indicates that these parcels are inundated by the 100-year storm. Additionally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Common Features and the State of California Central Valley Flood Evaluation and Delineation hydraulic models confirmed this area is flood prone. There are 300 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties or nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions. Of the total homes in Area 17, three (3) homes have been elevated and one (1) home was demolished.
A17.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), the following had plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding are: • SAFCA and USACE – Sacramento Levee Improvement Project • USACE and Bureau of Reclamation – Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project (Completion 2017) • State of California – Fremont Weir Expansion (Planning Stage)
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 17 2
The primary method of protection is to inform the public about flood risks of living in flood prone areas, especially for homes on the waterside of a levee. Additionally, all of the homes in Area 17 are identified in the County’s building permit database. These homes are required to be in compliance with the local Floodplain Management Ordinance which describes how to safely build in areas that are within a FEMA Effective Floodplain and Local Floodplain.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 17 3
FIGURE A17 Repetitive Loss Area #17
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 17 4
A17.5 DATA COLLECTION Plans and studies have been conducted for the Sacramento River system and were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA. • FEMA Effective Flood Insurance Study • SAFCA and USACE – Sacramento River Levee Improvement Project • Central Valley Flood Evaluation and Delineation Project • USACE and Bureau of Reclamation – Joint Federal Project • State of California – Fremont Weir Expansion Project
A17.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) all properties within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs when the Sacramento River reaches flood stages. Additionally, the Sacramento County Local Floodplain is included for the RLA.
A17.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that forty (40) of the overall 327 properties within the Sacramento River RLA had reported flooding.
A17.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed during large storm events which caused the Sacramento River to reach flood stages and for the purposes of preparing this document. These inspections were performed from both the public right-of-way, when staff was not allowed onto the property. As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • High-water marks and debris mark levels
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 17 5
A17.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the Sacramento River RLA are raised foundations, which constitutes 89% of the two common foundations found in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
A17.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for land acquisition and home elevations. The Federal and State governments have taken a strong interest in the Natomas area and have starting funding projects to strengthen and build setback levees protecting the area. Additionally, the Federal and State governments’ area conducting off-site projects to decrease flood stages in the Sacramento River. Lastly, the County further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • SAFCA and USACE – Sacramento River Levee Improvement Project • Central Valley Flood Evaluation and Delineation Project • USACE and Bureau of Reclamation – Joint Federal Project • State of California – Fremont Weir Expansion Project • County - Raise Home Elevations
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A17
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
SACRAMENTO RIVER WATERSHED
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 17 7
AREA 17 GARDEN HIGHWAY
SACRAMENTO RIVER WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 300 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 24 SEVERE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 53 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 222
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 181
o SLAB ON GRADE 22 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 41
o PUBLICALLY OWNED 51 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• DEMO 2
• NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 3
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 18
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 18 LEONA CIRCLE
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 18 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A18.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 ...... 1
A18.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1
A18.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1
A18.4 BASIC INFORMATION...... 1
A18.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 3
A18.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 3 A18.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 3 A18.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 3 A18.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 4 A18.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 4
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 5
LEONA CIRCLE ...... 6 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 18 1
A18.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 This Report focuses on Area 18, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. The Area 18 analysis includes properties on Leona Circle as defined by Figure A18.
A18.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs
A18.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 18 is located is located Natomas off of El Centro between Arena Boulevard and San Juan Road. East of Leona Circle is West Drainage Canal which is designed to take local drainage to the Sacramento River. The topography is this area is relatively flat and is generally sloping east towards the canal. Additionally, Area 18 is located in a rural portion of the County which depends on ditches and culverts to provide positive drainage. The source of flooding for Area 18 is caused by local drainage. Runoff from the adjacent areas collects in ditches and is conveyed toward the canal. During large storm events the ditches are overtopped and the drainage starts to sheet flow causing a wide floodplain. However, the floodplain is shallow. There are 14 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties or nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions. No properties have been acquired as part of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).
A18.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), there are no projects to improve this area. However, private land developers have submitted a Planning Application seeking to redevelop this area. The primary methods of property protection are to elevate structures above existing grades or damage prone components, dry flood proof, wet flood proof portions of the building, or acquire and demolish structures at grade.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 18 2
FIGURE A18 Repetitive Loss Area #18
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 18 3
A18.5 DATA COLLECTION The Sacramento County study for Repetitive Loss for Area 18 was utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA. • Sacramento County - Repetitive Loss documentation (2009)
A18.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) thirteen (13) properties are within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The levees surrounding Natomas have been decertified by US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and de-accredited by FEMA. The resulting FEMA floodplain is the maximum stage in the Sacramento or American River project across Natomas. However, US Congress has authorized the USACE to improve the levees, which result in a FEMA floodplain zone change from Zone AE to Zone A99.
A18.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that none of the overall 13 properties within Leona Circle RLA had reported flooding.
A18.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed for the preparation of this report. This inspection was performed from public right-of-way. As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes.
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 18 4
A18.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the Leona Circle RLA is slab on grade, which constitutes 80% of the two common foundations found in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
A18.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for acquisition of properties and further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources through FMA and property owners to elevate homes. • Timeline: As opportunities and funding becomes available • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grants
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A18
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
NATOMAS BASIN
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 18 6
AREA 18 LEONA CIRCLE NATOMAS BASIN
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 14 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 13
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 2
o SLAB ON GRADE 8 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 4 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 19
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 19 TANGERINE AVENUE
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A19.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 ...... 1 A19.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A19.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A19.4 BASIC INFORMATION ...... 1 A19.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 3 A19.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 3 A19.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 3 A19.5.3 Structure Inspections ...... 3 A19.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 3 A19.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 4 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 5 PERSIMMON AVE. AND TANGERINE AVE...... 6 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 19 1
A19.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 This Report focuses on Area 19, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 19 analysis includes properties on Persimmon Avenue and Tangerine Avenue as defined by Figure A19.
A19.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs
A19.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT Area 19 is located in South Sacramento between Florin and Elder Creeks. Flooding in this area generally occurs between October and April during the rainy season. During large storm events the drainage system becomes overwhelmed and begins to discharge onto the streets, which eventually drains to the creek. However, according to the best available topographic data and staff observations, the parcels experiencing flooding are built lower than the roadway. Therefore, street flooding is spilling onto the parcels in the RLA. There are three (3) properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties or nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions. None of the properties in Area 19 have been mitigated for flooding.
A19.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), the following had plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding are: • SAFCA – Franklin-Boyce Detention Basin
The primary methods of property protection are: demolition/relocation, elevate structure or damage prone components such as furnace or ac unit, dry flood-proof (so water cannot get in), wet flood-proof portions of the building (so water won’t cause damage), direct drainage away from the building, and drainage maintenance.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 19 2
FIGURE A19 Repetitive Loss Area #19
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 19 3
A19.5 DATA COLLECTION The State of California – Department of Water Resources Central Valley Flood Evaluation and Delineation LiDAR (dated 2008) was utilized in this analysis.
A19.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) none of the properties in Area 19 are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain.
A19.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that two (2) of the overall three (3) properties are within Area 19.
A19.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed by County staff. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
A19.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations in Area 19 is a slab on grade foundation, which constitutes 100% of the two common foundations found in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 19 4
A19.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for acquisition of flood prone properties. The County further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available. • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A19
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
FLORIN AND ELDER CREEK WATERSHEDS
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 19 6
AREA 19 PERSIMMON AVENUE TANGERINE AVENUE FLORIN AND ELDER CREEK WATERSHEDS
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 3 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 2
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 0
o SLAB ON GRADE 3 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 20 ATTACHMENT 3
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 20 TREEHOUSE LANE
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 20 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A20.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 ...... 1 A20.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A20.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A20.4 BASIC INFORMATION...... 1 A20.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 3 A20.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 3 A20.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 3 A20.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 3 A20.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 3 A20.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 4 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 5 COLUMBIA DRIVE ...... 6 CORTLANDT DRIVE ...... 6 FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD ...... 6 TREEHOUSE LANE ...... 6 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 20 1
A20.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 This Report focuses on Area 20, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 20 analysis includes twelve (12) parcels as defined by Figure A20.
A20.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs
A20.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 20 is located north of the American River between Eastern Avenue and Watt Avenues. The subdivisions built in this area occurred between the 1940’s to the 1990’s, with the majority of the development taking place around the 1950’s. During this time, it was a very common practice to direct drainage to the natural flow path, which included drainage pipes between parcels, drainage pipes discharging overland and re-entering into drainage pipes, drainage pipes decreasing is size downstream to regulate flow, and variety of other unique schemes. The source of flooding was primarily caused by large storm events that overwhelmed the drainage system and begins to discharge onto the surface, which eventually drains between parcels. The structures in Area 20 are adjacent to the overland release and are built low enough for potential flooding. Reported damages occurred in 1994 and 1995. There are twelve (12) properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties or nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions. No properties have been mitigated in Area 20.
A20.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), no projects are proposed that would impact flooding in Area 20.
The primary methods of property protection are: demolition/relocation, elevate structure or damage prone components such as furnace or ac unit, dry flood-proof (so water cannot get in), wet flood-proof portions of the building (so water won’t cause damage), direct drainage away from the building, and drainage maintenance.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 20 2
FIGURE A20 Repetitive Loss Area #20
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 20 3
A20.5 DATA COLLECTION The State of California – Department of Water Resources Central Valley Flood Evaluation and Delineation LiDAR (dated 2008) was utilized in this analysis.
A20.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) none of the properties in Area 20 are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain.
A20.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that seven (8) of the overall twelve (12) properties within Area 20 have reported flooding.
A20.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed in 1994 and 1995. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
A20.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within Area 20 is slab on grade, which constitutes of 100% of the two common foundations found in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 20 4
A20.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for acquisition of flood prone properties. The County further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available. • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A20
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
HAGGINBOTTOM WATERSHED
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 20 6
AREA 20 COLUMBIA DRIVE CORTLANDT DRIVE FAIR OAKS BOULEVARD TREEHOUSE LANE
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 12 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 7 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 4
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 0
o SLAB ON GRADE 12 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 21 ATTACHMENT 3
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 21 RIO LINDA DRY CREEK
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 21 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A21.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 ...... 1 A21.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A21.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A21.4 BASIC INFORMATION...... 1 A21.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 4 A21.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 4 A21.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 4 A21.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 4 A21.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 4 A21.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 5 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 6 24TH STREET ...... 7 U STREET ...... 7 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 21 1
A21.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 This Report focuses on Area 21, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 21 analysis includes properties on U Street and 24th Street in Rio Linda defined by Figure A21.
A21.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs
A21.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 20 is generally south of U street and along 24th Street. A strong frontal system moved from the Pacific Ocean through California from January 4 through 15. This storm caused damages throughout the state. It was particularly severe in Sacramento County where the slow, west to east movement of the frontal system temporarily stopped, positioning the front over and in line with the American River in Sacramento County. While the front stalled, the rain-producing flow along the front from the southwest continued to dump moisture in roughly the same area, resulting in extraordinary rainfall depths in the area.1 The source of flooding was primarily identified Dry Creek out of bank flooding in older residential areas constructed prior to NFIP requirements. There are 19 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions. Three of the properties were mitigated by elevating the structures.
A21.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), the following had plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding are: • Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) Flood Control Program • Dry Creek Parkway Project The primary methods of property protection are: • Home Elevation – Is your floor below the elevation of the floodplain? If so, it may be prudent to elevate the structure. Whenever the floor of a home is below the 100-year flood elevation, physically elevating the structure is often recommended as it is one of the most effective means to prevent flood damage. Financial assistance may be available to you. In the past, the County has utilized FEMA grant money for dozens of qualified elevation projects.
1 District Engineer, Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 11444 B Avenue, Auburn CA, 95603 Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 21 2
• Site Modification – Would a small wall, berm, or other site specific grading help keep water out of your house? Often, modification of the area around your home may be appropriate to minimize flooding depending on the depth of floodwater and site specific constraints. • Temporary Flood Barriers – Perhaps sandbags or other barriers could be employed on site in advance of a storm to help keep water out.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 21 3
FIGURE A21 Repetitive Loss Area #21
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 21 4
A21.5 DATA COLLECTION Sacramento County Plans and studies for Dry Creek were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA. • 2003 Dry Creek Watershed Coordinated Resources Management Plan (DCC, HLA, Swanson, ECORP) • Dry Creek Watershed Plan Update
A21.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) XXX properties within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs when when Out of bank flooding may occur in older residential areas. The Sacramento County Local Floodplain does not cover this RLA,
A21.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that 10 of the overall 19 properties within the Dry Creek RLA had reported flooding.
A21.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100- year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
A21.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the Rio Linda Dry Creek RLA is raised, which constitutes 83% of the two common foundations found in this Sacramento County RLA (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 21 5
A21.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for HMGP The County further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available. • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A21
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
RIO LINDA DRY CREEK
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 21 7
AREA 21 24TH STREET U STREET
RIO LINDA DRY CREEK
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 19 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 3 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 9 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 7
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 7
o SLAB ON GRADE 3 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 1 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 8
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 22
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 22 NORTH NATOMAS EAST MAIN DRAIN CANAL (NEMDC Tributaries)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 22 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A22.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 22 ...... 1 A22.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A22.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A22.4 BASIC INFORMATION ...... 2 A22.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 4 A22.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 4 A22.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 4 A22.5.3 Structure Inspections ...... 4 A22.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 5 A22.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 5 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 6 BURR AV ...... 7 E LEVEE RD ...... 7 EL MODENA AV ...... 7 MARYSVILLE BOULEVARD ...... 7 RIO LINDA BOULEVARD ...... 7 SCHANDONEY AVENUE ...... 7 SORENTO ROAD ...... 7 STRAUGH ROAD ...... 7 M STREET ...... 7 WEST M STREET ...... 7 Q STREET ...... 7 WEST Q STREET ...... 7 2ND STREET ...... 7 WEST 2ND STREET ...... 7 4TH STREET ...... 7 WEST 4TH STREET ...... 7 WEST 6TH STREET ...... 7 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 22 1
A22.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 22 This Report focuses on Area 22, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 22 analyses includes properties on 2nd Street, 4th Street, 6th Street, Burr Avenue, E. Levee Road, El Modena Avenue, M Street, Marysville Boulevard, Q Street, Rio Linda Boulevard, Schandoney Avenue, Sorento Road, Straugh Road, and W Street as defined by Figure A22.
A22.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs
A22.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 22 is located east of the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC) and north of Elkhorn Boulevard to the County boundary. Floods in this watershed generally occur from October through April. The floods are usually caused by a combination of prolonged rainfall leading to saturated soils, and a short period of one to six hours of intense precipitation associated with frontal convection or severe thunderstorms. The source of flooding was primarily identified as the North NEMDC Tributary floodplain are caused by high stages exceeding the channel banks and flooding older residential areas constructed prior to NFIP requirements. NEMDC Tributary Canal has an extensive record of flood conditions. Damaging floods occurred in December 1955, April 1958, October 1962, December 1964, March 1983 and February 1986. The floods of 1983 and 1986 were the largest and most damaging on record before 1992. Hydrologic studies have shown that the recurrence interval of the March 1983 flood was approximately 10 years and the recurrence interval of the February 1986 flood was from 50 to 100 years, depending on the specific location in the watershed. Six flood events also occurred in in January 1995, January 1997, February 1998, and December 2005, with the 1995 flood event causing extensive damage. There are 99 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions. One property has been elevated as part of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 22 2
A22.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), the following had plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding are: • SAFCA and USACE – Sacramento Levee Improvement Project • USACE and Bureau of Reclamation – Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project (Completion 2017) • State of California – Fremont Weir Expansion (Planning Stage)
The primary method of protection is to inform the public about flood risks of living in flood prone areas, especially for homes on the waterside of a levee. Additionally, all of the homes in Area 22 are identified in the County’s building permit database. These homes are required to be in compliance with the local Floodplain Management Ordinance which describes how to safely build in areas that are within a FEMA Effective Floodplain and Local Floodplain.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 22 3
FIGURE A22 Repetitive Loss Area #22
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 22 4
A22.5 DATA COLLECTION Plans and studies have been conducted for the Sacramento River system and were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA. • FEMA Effective Flood Insurance Study • SAFCA and USACE – Sacramento River Levee Improvement Project • Central Valley Flood Evaluation and Delineation Project • USACE and Bureau of Reclamation – Joint Federal Project • State of California – Fremont Weir Expansion Project
A22.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) the majority of properties within the RLA are within the 100- year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs when the American River reaches flood stages and the NEMDC streams are under backwater conditions. Additionally, the Sacramento County Local Floodplain is included for the RLA.
A22.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that 8 of the overall 98 properties within the North NEMDC Tributary RLA had reported flooding.
A22.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed in January 9, 1995, January 9 & 22, 1997, June 15, 1997, February 3, 1998, and June 15 & 16, 1998. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 22 5
A22.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the North NEMDC Tributary RLA is a raised foundation, which constitutes 41% of the two common foundations found in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
A22.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for acquisition of additional properties in North NEMDC floodplain for demolition to restores the natural floodplain. The County further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available. • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A22
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
NORTH NATOMAS EAST MAIN DRAIN CANAL (NEMDC Tributaries)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 22 7
AREA 22 BURR AV E LEVEE RD EL MODENA AV North NEMDC Tributaries
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 15 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 15
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 3
o SLAB ON GRADE 7 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 5 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 22 9
AREA 22 MARYSVILLE BOULEVARD
North NEMDC Tributaries
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 15 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 10 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 4
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 5
o SLAB ON GRADE 10 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 22 11
AREA 22 RIO LINDA BOULEVARD SCHANDONEY AVENUE SORENTO ROAD STRAUGH ROAD
North NEMDC Tributaries
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 16 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 3 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 4
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 3
o SLAB ON GRADE 4 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 22 13
AREA 22 M STREET WEST M STREET
North NEMDC Tributaries
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 20 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 3 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 17
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 8
o SLAB ON GRADE 8 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 4 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 22 15
AREA 22 Q STREET WEST Q STREET
North NEMDC Tributaries
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 12 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 11
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 7
o SLAB ON GRADE 5 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 22 17
AREA 22 2ND STREET WEST 2ND STREET 4TH STREET WEST 4TH STREET WEST 6TH STREET
North NEMDC Tributaries
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 21 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 4 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 16
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 11
o SLAB ON GRADE 7 • NO STRUCTURES 2
o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 23 ATTACHMENT 3
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 23 MORRISON CREEK Sacramento
FEMA Floodplain
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A23.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 23 ...... 1 A23.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A23.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A23.4 BASIC INFORMATION...... 1 A23.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 3 A23.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 3 A23.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 3 A23.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 3 A23.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 4 A23.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 4 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 5 BRADSHAW ROAD ...... 6 MAYHEW ROAD ...... 6 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 23 1
A23.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 23 This Report focuses on Area 23, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 23 includes properties in Sacramento, California on Bradshaw Road and Mayhew Road as shown on Figure A23.
A23.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs.
A23.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 23 is just south of highway 16 on the west side of Bradshaw Road and east of Mayhew Road. The source of flooding is the Morrison Creek floodplain that runs directly through the RLA. The 100-year floodplain escapes the banks of the creek and floods the adjacent properties in the area. Damaging floods occurred in January of 1995 and 1997. There are 24 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions. Two (2) properties were purchased for purposes of mining by private owners and all structures were demolished as a part of the mining operations. Most of the properties located within the repetitive loss area are actively being mined. As such, the mining pits will be filled with flood water in the events where the creek banks are exceeded.
A23.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), the following had plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding are: • West Jackson Highway – Master Drainage Study (Dated: 2012) The primary methods of property protection are: demolition/relocation, elevate structure or damage prone components such as furnace or ac unit, dry flood-proof (so water cannot get in), wet flood-proof portions of the building (so water won’t cause damage), direct drainage away from the building, and drainage maintenance.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 23 2
FIGURE A23 Repetitive Loss Area #23
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 23 3
A23.5 DATA COLLECTION Sacramento County Plans and studies for Morrison Creek were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA. • West Jackson Highway – Master Drainage Study (2012) The State of California – Department of Water Resources Central Valley Flood Evaluation and Delineation LiDAR (dated 2008) was also utilized in this analysis.
A23.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Area 23 is in Zone AE, on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 06067C0215H (August 2012). Based on the FIRM all twenty-four (24) properties within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs when low lying areas around Morrison Creek are inundated by out of bank flooding resulting from the large watershed contributing to Morrison Creek.
A23.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that 2 of the overall 24 properties within the Morrison Creek RLA had reported flooding. Both of these properties no longer have structures on them.
A23.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed on January 9, 1995 and January 22, 1997 during record storm events. In addition inspections were conducted in May 2015. These inspections were performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; • Neighborhood topography and flow routes; and • High-water marks and debris mark levels.
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 23 4
A23.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the Morrison Creek RLA is a raised foundation, which constitutes 71% of the two common foundations found in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
A23.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for acquisition of additional properties in Morrison Creek floodplain for demolition to restores the natural floodplain. The County further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available. • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant Further, a weir along Morrison Creek is planned to be constructed upstream of highway 16 at an aggregate mine that should control flooding and help reduce some of the structural flooding that has been experienced in the past. Flooding could still be experienced in existing and future mining areas that are below the flow line of the creek.
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A23
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
MORRISON CREEK
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 23 6
AREA 23 BRADSHAW ROAD MORRISON CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 20 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 19
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 5
o SLAB ON GRADE 2 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 11 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 2
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 23 9
AREA 23 MAYHEW ROAD MORRISON CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 4 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 4
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 0
o SLAB ON GRADE 0 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 4 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO 0
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 24 ATTACHMENT 3
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 24 ARCADE CREEK AT PARK ROAD
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A24.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 ...... 1 A24.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A24.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A24.4 BASIC INFORMATION...... 1 A24.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 1 A24.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 1 A24.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 3 A24.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 3 A24.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 3 A24.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 3 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 4 ARCADE CREEK AT PARK RD...... 5 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 24 1
A24.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 1 This Report focuses on Area 24, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 24 includes the floodplain associated with Arcade Creek in the vicinity of Park Road as shown in Figure A24.
A24.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs
A24.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 24 is generally on Park Road, adjacent to Del Paso Park downstream of Auburn Boulevard. The source of flooding is due to Arcade Creek overtopping. The five structures within Area 24 reside on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, have experienced historical flooding, or are nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions. Three of the five structures have been mitigated through elevation.
A24.4 BASIC INFORMATION Due to the severity and nature of the flooding, the primary method of property protection in this area is home elevation.
A24.5 DATA COLLECTION Sacramento County Plans, high water information, homeowner testimony, and studies for the Arcade Creek watershed were utilized in this analysis. The structures located within this area were reviewed by DWR staff as part of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and Flood Mitigation Assistance Program.
A24.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) no properties within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain although the flooding occurs when Arcade Creek overflows its banks. This is because Arcade Creek water surface elevations have exceeded those in the Flood Insurance Study, notably during the 1982, 1983, 1986, and 1995 storm events. Sacramento County DWR is currently in the process of having Arcade Creek remapped in this area to reflect a higher base flood elevation.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 24 2
FIGURE A24 Repetitive Loss Area #24
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 24 3
A24.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that more than one of the five properties within the Area 24 RLA had reported flooding, but the records are to remain confidential by request of the homeowners.
A24.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed as part of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Flood Mitigation Assistance program. The inspections were performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100- year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
A24.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the Area 24 RLA is raised foundations although one home has a slab foundation (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
A24.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for home elevations. The County further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Sacramento County Department of Water Resources • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A24
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
ARCADE CREEK AT PARK ROAD
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 24 5
AREA 24 ARCADE CREEK AT PARK RD. ARCADE CREEK WATERSHED
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 5 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 3 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS
o SLAB ON GRADE 1 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 4
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 25
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 25 MADISON AVENUE AT ROLLINGWOOD
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A25.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 25 ...... 1 A25.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A25.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A25.4 BASIC INFORMATION...... 1 A25.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 3 A25.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 3 A25.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 3 A25.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 3 A25.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 3 A25.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 3 MADISON AVENUE ...... 4 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 25 1
A25.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 25 This Report focuses on Area 25, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 25 comprises the local floodplain area as shown in Figure A25.
A25.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs
A25.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 25 is generally the south side of Madison Avenue in the area of the Rollingwood development (east of the intersection of Madison and Hazel Avenue. The source of flooding is a unnamed stream system flowing southward to the American River. There are 137 addresses which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions. The historic loss properties and repetitive loss properties are all located within the Rolling Wood condominium project. Eight of the condo units have repetitive losses and 17 others have a history of flooding but are not repetitive loss.
A25.4 BASIC INFORMATION The primary methods of property protection would be to elevate affected structures or to construct a permanent floodwall around them if it could be designed to not cause impacts to any other structures in the area.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 25 2
FIGURE A25 Repetitive Loss Area #25
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 25 3
A25.5 DATA COLLECTION LIDAR topography, street level photography, and aerial photography were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA.
A25.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) none of the properties within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs when the local floodplain associated with an unnamed stream overtops its banks during intense rainfall events.
A25.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that approximately 15 of the overall 137 addresses within the RLA had reported drainage related issues.
A25.5.3 Structure Inspections The flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations. Each property within the RLA was reviewed and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
A25.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the RLA is slab on grade, which constitutes a substantial portion of the foundations found in Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
A25.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for home elevation projects. The County further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Sacramento County Department of Water Resources • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A25
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
FAIR OAKS STREAM GROUP
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 25 5
AREA 25 MADISON AVENUE FAIR OAKS STREAM GROUP
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 69 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 8 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 17 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 44
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS
o SLAB ON GRADE 69 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Appendix 26 ATTACHMENT 3
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 26 STRONG RANCH SLOUGH
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 26 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A26.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 26 ...... 1 A26.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A26.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A26.4 BASIC INFORMATION ...... 1 A26.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 2 A26.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 4 A26.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 4 A26.5.3 Structure Inspections ...... 4 A26.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 4 A26.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 4 BELL STREET ...... 5 NORTHROP AVENUE ...... 5 ROSELAKE AVENUE ...... 5 ROSELEE WAY ...... 5 VILLANOVA CIRCLE ...... 5 WOODSIDE LANE ...... 5 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 26 1
A26.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 26 This report focuses on Area 26, one of the twenty eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 26 analysis defined by Figure A26.
A26.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAs.
A26.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 26 is generally bound by Howe Avenue to the west, Fulton Avenue/Munroe Street to the east, Imran Drive to the north and Fair Oaks Boulevard to the south. The Woodside properties are located at the confluence of Sierra Branch and Strong Ranch Slough in the south- west portion of the watershed. The Strong Ranch Slough and Chicken Ranch Slough (SRS / CRS) watershed is an urban watershed of approximately 15 square miles within Sacramento County, in northern California. Water levels in the lower portion of the Strong and Chicken Ranch Slough watershed are affected by the water level in the D05 pond, which, in turn, is related to water level in the lower American River. Homes and community facilities in the Woodside condominium complex in the Arden-Arcade neighborhood of Sacramento County were flooded by local storm runoff in 1986, in 1997, and again on New Year’s Eve of 2005. This complex is located in the Strong Ranch Slough watershed, adjacent to the Strong Ranch and Sierra Branch channels The source of flooding was primarily identified as the residences being in low lying areas, in some instances adjacent to Strong Ranch Slough that is over capacity, and most of the homes having slab-on-grade foundations. There are 69 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions.
A26.4 BASIC INFORMATION From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), the following had plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding are: • USACE (1987). Hydrologic analysis of interior areas. EM 1110-2-1413. Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C. • Chicken Ranch Slough drainage master plan. Prepared for County of Sacramento, Department of Public Works, Water Resources Division, Sacramento, CA. Nolte and Associates – 1991 • Hydrologic study of Folsom Re-operation impacts on Sacramento County Drainage Facilities. Prepared by David Ford Consulting Engineers, • How can Strong Ranch Slough and Chicken Ranch Slough flooding be reduced? Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 26 2
Prepared by David Ford Consulting Engineers, Sacramento, CA. – 1997 • Impact of Sacramento River stage on D05 pumping station exterior stage. Prepared by David Ford Consulting Engineers, Sacramento, CA. – 1997 • Use of weather radar data will improve forecasting in Sacramento County. Prepared by David Ford Consulting Engineers, Sacramento, CA.- 1997 • Economic efficiency of flood-damage-reduction plan for Arden-Arcade neighborhood of Sacramento County. Prepared by David Ford Consulting Engineers, Sacramento, CA. – 1997 • Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood insurance study: Sacramento, California, unincorporated areas. Washington, DC. - 1998 • USACE (1999). Reconnaissance study of Strong and Chicken Ranch Sloughs. WRDA 86, 905b Analysis. Sacramento, CA. • USACE (2001). Strong and Chicken Ranch Sloughs, California – Feasibility report: Phase 1 studies. Prepared by David Ford Consulting Engineers, Sacramento, CA.
The primary methods of property protection are: • The primary methods of property protection are: Home Elevation – Is your floor below the elevation of the floodplain? If so, it may be prudent to elevate the structure. Whenever the floor of a home is below the 100-year flood elevation, physically elevating the structure is often recommended as it is one of the most effective means to prevent flood damage. Financial assistance may be available to you. In the past, the County has utilized FEMA grant money for dozens of qualified elevation projects. • Site Modification – Would a small wall, berm, or other site specific grading help keep water out of your house? Often, modification of the area around your home may be appropriate to minimize flooding depending on the depth of floodwater and site specific constraints. • Temporary Flood Barriers – Perhaps sandbags or other barriers could be employed on site in advance of a storm to help keep water out.
• Home Removal – If necessary, it may be recommended that the County purchase the property and remove the home from the lot
A26.5 DATA COLLECTION Sacramento County Plans and studies for Strong Ranch Slough were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA. • Strong and Chicken Ranch Slough Watershed Alternative Analysis – 2006 • Sacramento County 5.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update - September 2011
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 26 3
FIGURE A26 Repetitive Loss Area #26
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 26 4
A26.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) 107 properties within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs when flows exceed the capacity of Strong Ranch Slough and Sierra Creek. The Sacramento County Local Floodplain on Bell Street, Northrop Avenue, Woodside Lane and Sierra Boulevard for this RLA floods due to them being in low lying areas.
A26.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that 187 of the overall 228 properties within the Strong Ranch Slough RLA had reported flooding.
A26.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed in June of 2015. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
A26.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the Strong Ranch Slough RLA is slab-on-grade.
A26.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to search for additional funding for future mitigation measures. The County further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 26 5
AREA 26 BELL STREET NORTHROP AVENUE
Strong Ranch Slough
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 17 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 5 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 12
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 2
o SLAB ON GRADE 13 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 2 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUISITION & DEMO 0
• ACQUISITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 26 7
AREA 26 ROSELAKE AVENUE ROSELEE WAY
Strong Ranch Slough
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 12 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 0 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 12
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 8
o SLAB ON GRADE 4 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUISITION & DEMO 0
• ACQUISITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 26 9
AREA 26 VILLANOVA CIRCLE
Strong Ranch Slough
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 20 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 8 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 12
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 7
o SLAB ON GRADE 13 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUISITION & DEMO 0
• ACQUISITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 26 12
AREA 26 WOODSIDE LANE Strong Ranch Slough
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
PROPERTIES 150 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 52 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 11 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 87
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 0
o SLAB ON GRADE 150 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED 0 MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUISITION & DEMO 0
• ACQUISITION – NO STRUCTURE 0
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 0
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 27
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 27 BROOKTREE CREEK
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 26 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A27.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 27 ...... 1 A27.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A27.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A27.4 BASIC INFORMATION...... 1 A27.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 1 A27.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data...... 1 A27.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 1 A27.5.3 Structure Inspections...... 3 A27.5.4 Types of Foundations ...... 3 A27.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 3 DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY ...... 4 AUBURN BOULEVARD ...... 5 DEVECCHI AVENUE ...... 5 ROSEBUD LANE ...... 5 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 27 1
A27.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 27 This Report focuses on Area 27, one of the twenty-eight (28) designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 27 analysis includes properties on Rosebud Lane as well as properties on Auburn Boulevard and is defined by Figure A27.
A27.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAAs
A27.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT The location of Area 3 is generally northwest of Auburn Boulevard. The source of flooding was primarily identified as the back water flow from the confluence of Brooktree Creek and Arcade Creek. There are sixteen (16) properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions.
A27.4 BASIC INFORMATION The primary methods of property protection are: wet flood-proof portions of the building (so water won’t cause damage), direct drainage away from the building, and drainage maintenance.
A27.5 DATA COLLECTION Sacramento County Plans and studies for Brooktree Creek were not available to be utilized in this analysis.
A27.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data Based on the FIRM (August 2012) 16 properties within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs when Brooktree Creek overflows into a floodplain. The Sacramento County Local Floodplain Map does not cover the Dry Creek Shed for this RLA.
A27.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that three (3) of the overall 17 properties within the Brooktree Creek RLA had reported flooding.
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 27 2
FIGURE A27 Repetitive Loss Area #27
Department of Water Resources
Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 27 3
A27.5.3 Structure Inspections On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed in January 1995 and December 1999. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
A27.5.4 Types of Foundations The most common type of foundations within the Brooktree Creek flood plain RLA is slab on grade, which constitutes 81.3% of the common foundations found in this RLA within Sacramento County (see Section 2.5.2 of this report for a detailed description of the foundation types mentioned).
A27.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES The County continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Through HMGP & FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available. • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A27
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
BROOKTREE CREEK FLOODPLAIN
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 27 5
AREA 27 AUBURN BOULEVARD DEVECCHI AVENUE
BROOKTREE CREEK FLOODPLAIN
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 7 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 0 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 6
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED) RAISED FOUNDATIONS o 1 (Mobile Home Park)
o SLAB ON GRADE 6 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 27 8
AREA 27 ROSEBUD LANE
BROOKTREE CREEK FLOODPLAIN
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 9 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 2 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 6
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 1
o SLAB ON GRADE 7 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION) 1
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 28
REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 28 VERDA CRUZ CREEK
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
APPENDIX 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS
A28.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 28 ...... 1 A28.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS ...... 1 A28.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...... 1 A28.4 BASIC INFORMATION ...... 1 A28.5 DATA COLLECTION ...... 2 A28.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data ...... 4 A28.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners ...... 4 A28.5.3 Structure Inspections ...... 4 A28.5.4 Types of Foundations...... 4 A28.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 4 COLLEGE OAK DRIVE ...... 5 CRESTVIEW DRIVE ...... 5 MORAGA DRIVE ...... 5 ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 28 1
A28.1 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA 28
This Report focuses on Area 28, one of the twenty eight designated RLAs within the Sacramento County. Area 14 analyses include Moraga Drive, Crestview Drive, Loma Linda Court, Hackberry Lane, and Verde Cruz Way as defined by Figure A28.
A28.2 ADVICE FOR RESIDENTS
Residents have been advised that their property is in or near a flood hazard area by a direct mailer that targeted properties in the RLAs.
A28.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The location of Area 14 is made up of six subareas. The first subarea is directly adjacent to Verda Cruz Creek and is generally bounded by Verde Cruz Creek crossing at the intersection of Hackberry Lane, Verde Cruz Way. The fourth section is located at the Verde Cruz Creek crossing near the intersection of Crestview Drive and Heathcliff Drive. The fifth subarea is adjacent to Brooktree Creek and is generally bounded by Auburn Boulevard, Rosebud Lane, and Devecchi Avenue. The sixth subarea is directly adjacent to Verde Cruz Creek near the intersection of Moraga Drive and Dewey Drive. The source of flooding was primarily identified as the residences being in low lying areas, in some instances adjacent to a creek that is over capacity, and most of the homes having slab-on- grade foundations. There are 22 properties which include buildings on FEMA’s repetitive loss list, historical loss properties and nearby buildings that may have the same or similar flooding conditions.
A28.4 BASIC INFORMATION
From the agencies or organizations that were contacted (Chapter 2.2), the following plans or studies that could affect the cause or impacts to flooding are: • Drainage Study for 4950 Hackberry Lane The primary methods of property protection are: • Home Elevation – Is your floor below the elevation of the floodplain? If so, it may be prudent to elevate the structure. Whenever the floor of a home is below the 100-year flood elevation, physically elevating the structure is often recommended as it is one of the most effective means to prevent flood damage. Financial assistance may be available to you. In the past, the County has utilized FEMA grant money for dozens of qualified elevation projects.
• Site Modification – Would a small wall, berm, or other site specific grading help keep water out of your house? Often, modification of the area around your home may be
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 28 2
appropriate to minimize flooding depending on the depth of floodwater and site specific constraints.
• Temporary Flood Barriers – Perhaps sandbags or other barriers could be employed on site in advance of a storm to help keep water out. • Home Removal – If necessary, it may be recommended that the County purchase the property and remove the home from the lot.
A28.5 DATA COLLECTION
Sacramento County Plans and studies for Manzanita Avenue were utilized in this analysis. The sources listed below provided additional data related to the causes and impacts of flooding in the RLA. • Crestview Culvert
• Crestview Oaks
• Moraga Drive and Dewey Drive Drainage Project
• Via Del Campo High School Drainage Project
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 28 3
FIGURE A28 Repetitive Loss Area #28
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 28 4
A28.5.1 Flood Insurance and Flood Event Data
Based on the FIRM (August 2012) 28 properties within the RLA are within the 100-year FEMA floodplain. The flooding occurs when flows exceed the capacity of Arcade Creek, and Verde Cruz Creek. The Sacramento County Local Floodplain on Sycamore Avenue for this RLA floods due to it being a low lying area.
A28.5.2 Flooding Experiences of Property Owners
Water Resources Service Request Tracking System (WR-SRTS) indicates that 4 of the overall 22 properties within the Dry Creek RLA had reported flooding.
A28.5.3 Structure Inspections
On-site inspections of buildings in the RLA were performed in March of 2015. This inspection was performed from both the public right-of-way, when not allowed onto the property and on the effected property by engineering staff (Drainage Maintenance and Operations, Drainage Development, and Drainage Design). As such, staff did not survey building elevations in relation to the 100-year flood elevation. Therefore, the flood protection assessments in this Report are based upon visual observation of relative elevations along with interviewing residence of observed accounts during the storm event to determine the extent of the damage to the structure. Each property within the RLA was visited and the following attributes were documented: • Foundation type and condition; • Relative elevation of first floor; • Garage location and relative elevation; • Property grading; • Downspout discharge location; and • Neighborhood topography and flow routes. • High-water marks and debris mark levels
A28.5.4 Types of Foundations
The most common type of foundations within the Manzanita Avenue RLA is slab-on-grade.
A28.6 FUTURE MITIGATION MEASURES
The County continues to search for additional funding for future mitigation measures. The County further continues to encourage home owners to raise their structures above the flood hazard. • Responsible Office: Department of Water Resources (Demolition) through HMGP& FMA and Property Owner (Home Elevation) • Timeline: As opportunity and/or funding becomes available • Potential Funding: State and/or Federal Grant
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY A28
DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY
VERDA CRUZ CREEK
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 28 6
AREA 14 COLLEGE OAK DRIVE CRESTVIEW DRIVE
VERDA CRUZ CREEK
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 18 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES 3 REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 14
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS 10
o SLAB ON GRADE 8 • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis ATTACHMENT 3 Appendix 28 9
AREA 14 MORAGA DRIVE
VERDA CRUZ CREEK
DATA ANALYSIS SUMARY
PROPERTIES 4 REPETITIVE LOSS PROPERTIES 1 HISTORICAL LOSS PROPERTIES REPETITIVE LOSS AREA PROPERTIES 3
• EXISTING STRUCTURES (UNMITIGATED)
o RAISED FOUNDATIONS
o SLAB ON GRADE • NO STRUCTURES
o PRIVATELY OWNED MITIGATED PROPERTIES
• ACQUSITION & DEMO
• AQUSITION – NO STRUCTURE
• ELEVATED (RAISED FOUNDATION)
Department of Water Resources Repetitive Loss Area Analysis