Technical/specific Q&A

BB2 REMOVAL AND THE PLAZA

1)      Are the flood risk reductions worth the total cost of the project?

  • Yes, removing the bridge significantly reduces flood risk for hundreds of homes and businesses in our community. The project is expected to cost around $11 million, but is projected to deliver over $23 million in benefits, mainly through flood risk Removing the bridge is a cost-effective solution.

2)      Has the District sought additional opinions about the safety of BB2? If so, what were the findings? Could the plaza be resurrected atop a reinforced BB2?

  • Yes, the District consulted with independent structural engineers and environmental specialists to assess the safety of BB2. These evaluations confirmed that BB2 is structurally unsound and poses a risk to public safety. The findings, now public, emphasize that keeping the bridge in place would pose long-term risks to public safety and flood management efforts.

The District considered repairing BB2 and the plaza; however, doing this would not solve the underlying issue of the bridge obstructing the creek during severe storms, which exacerbates flooding.

3)      Can BB2 be made entirely earthquake-safe?

  • Theoretically, yes; however, seismically retrofitting BB2 to make it earthquake-safe would not solve the bigger problem – flood risks caused by its location. It also would require a large financial investment. The decision to remove BB2 is based on a comprehensive and cost-effective management strategy to improve safety, reduce flood risk, and promote long-term environmental sustainability.

 

PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS

4)      Will engineering drawings be available to the public for download?

  • Yes. Once finalized, project designs will be made available on the District’s website. The District is committed to transparency through open public meetings, accessible documents and ongoing stakeholder engagement and communication.

5)      Will the Town of San Anselmo review and approve the construction phasing plan? Will the public be able to see and review it?

  • Yes, the Flood Control District will submit the construction phasing plan to the Town of San Anselmo for review and approval as part of the permit process. The plan would be available for public review following permit approval.

6)      Where will truck access be located for the removal of materials generated from demolition and excavation?

  • Access will be through the parking lot on Center Boulevard. The parking lane in front of BB2 on San Anselmo Ave will be designated as the staging No lane closures will be required. To minimize traffic impact, the Flood Control District will develop a traffic control plan, which it will submit to the Town of San Anselmo for review and approval.

7)      Has the District established when San Anselmo Avenue will be closed or have reduced lanes for construction access, and for how long?

  • The District is developing a traffic control plan and does not anticipate closing lanes for an extended period of time. The traffic control plan will aim to minimize impacts or disruptions to the area.

 

TREE PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

8)      Has an arborist been assigned to evaluate the impact of excavation, soil compaction and bank destabilization on the redwoods?

  • The District is hiring a qualified arborist with redwoods experience and will prepare a tree protection and monitoring plan to be reviewed by the Town of San Anselmo before construction. The plan will include an assessment of the baseline (existing) condition of the redwood trees, potential impacts by construction activities, measures to protect and/or minimize impacts during construction, and measures to monitor the trees after construction.

9)      Are contractors required to carry insurance to cover the potential loss of the redwoods?

  • Yes.

10)  Are you going to set aside a reserve fund for potential damages to the redwood trees in Creekside Park?

  • No. Ordinances guiding the project do not require agencies, departments or districts to carry a reserve fund to address potential damages to trees.

 

FLOOD MITIGATION, DOWNSTREAM IMPACT AND WINSHIP BRIDGE

11)  The District’s mitigation plan depends on keeping Winship Bridge in place for now. Does the Town of Ross know this, and do they approve?

  • Yes, the BB2 removal project does not assume the replacement of the Winship Bridge, which is a separate project being considered by the Town of Ross, and this has been communicated with the Town. The Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) application, a formal review by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that includes planned mitigation, will be reviewed by the Town of Ross prior to BB2 removal.

The Winship Bridge Replacement is an important part of flood risk reduction along San Anselmo Creek. The District is working closely with the Town of Ross and encourages residents to learn more about that project from the town’s Department of Public Works. Replacing the Winship Bridge would help reduce localized water level increases during major storms.

12)  Can the District provide updated mitigation estimates based on the hydraulic model scenario that assumes Winship Bridge stays in place?

  • Yes. Flood mitigation estimates without Winship Bridge replacement will be defined as part of the FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) application. Mitigation estimates are also being reviewed as part of the San Anselmo Flood Risk Reduction Project (SAFRR) Environmental Impact Report (EIR). More specifically, Mitigation Measure 4.9-4 is the part of the EIR that provides flood mitigation requirements.

13)  Has the District considered mitigation for downstream San Anselmo businesses near the creek in its plan?

  • Yes, the District has updated hydraulic models that consider all properties around the creek, including downstream San Anselmo businesses. Engineers use hydraulic models to analyze how runoff translates into water depth and the speed that water travels.

 

FEMA INVOLVEMENT AND REGULATORY APPROVALS

14)  Has the District submitted the Baffle proposal to FEMA? If so, what was FEMA’s response?

  • No. The “baffle” was originally considered as a temporary structure at BB2 to keep the creek in its current, more constrained condition until measures could be taken to reduce downstream, localized and limited rise in creek water levels caused by the project. However, further analysis and evaluation of data revealed that the baffle is not needed and would be too expensive to implement. As a result, the baffle is no longer part of the project or under District consideration.

15)  With speculation about FEMA’s potential elimination, has the District considered alternative funding and flood risk strategies?

  • FEMA still exists, and the District continues to work under FEMA regulations to reduce flood risk. It’s important to note that the SAFRR project is not dependent on FEMA grant funding, so its progress would not be affected by changes to FEMA.

 

FUNDING AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

16)  What is the source of funds for downstream mitigation?

  • The District relies on multiple funding sources for this project, including grants from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), allocations from the Flood Zone 9 (FZ9) fund, and contributions from the Storm Drainage Fee Fund.

17)  If the District doesn’t have funds for mitigation, where will the money come from?

  • The District has budgeted $400,000 for flood mitigation downstream of the bridge. If current project funds cannot cover necessary mitigation, the District could seek additional funding from state and federal grants, including the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and FEMA. Additionally, the District may explore public-private partnerships and consider other funds and pathways to support critical efforts.

18) In March 2024, San Anselmo voted to exit FZ9, yet the flood fee still appeared on property taxes. What are the financial reporting requirements for capital improvement projects and maintenance activities funded by the flood fee and the property taxes?

  • In 2007, property owners in Ross Valley voted to assess themselves the Stormwater Drainage fee each year for 20 years, terminating on June 30, 2027. In March 2024, residents of the Town of San Anselmo voted to withdraw from Ross Valley Flood Zone 9 via Measure F. However, this vote does not affect ongoing projects approved and funded while San Anselmo was still part of Flood Zone 9. These projects are continuing under agreements made before San Anselmo’s withdrawal, which is why the fee still appears on property tax bills. The Flood fee will no longer appear on property taxes after February 1, 2027. 

Every year the District Board of Supervisors is required to approve an annual update report that includes a summary of program activities funded by the fee measure. In addition, the District provides annual updates to the Zone 9 Advisory Board on the annual budget for the zone capital improvement projects and maintenance activities.

19) What is the estimated cost of BB2 removal, including staff, design, land, and construction?

  • The total estimated cost of the BB2 project, including staff time, design, land acquisition, and construction, is approximately $11 million. This estimate is based on secured funding sources and project expenditures to date. However, final costs may change due to material costs and unforeseen construction factors. The District remains committed to cost transparency and will provide updates as the project progresses.

20) The cost of the SAFRR project has increased. What additional increases are expected?

  • The SAFRR project has sufficient funds to cover the estimated costs, assuming BB2 is removed in 2026.

21) How much additional cost has been incurred due to delays in BB2 removal caused by FEMA coordination?

  • As of April 2025, the District estimates that additional fees and staff time related to FEMA coordination is approximately $300,000. At this point, the District continues to believe there are sufficient funds to cover the cost of  BB2 removal, including ongoing FEMA coordination, assuming BB2 is removed in 2026.

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND TRANSPARENCY

22) Has the District notified downstream towns and cities of its intentions regarding BB2 so they can participate in the process?

  • Yes, downstream municipalities have been kept informed through official communication channels, stakeholder meetings, and project updates. The District remains committed to ensuring that all affected municipalities have a voice in the planning and execution of BB2’s removal.

23) The 2023 budget included an Ad Valorem tax that wasn’t listed before 2021. Why is this being collected now?

  • This tax has been collected since well before passage of Proposition 13, enacted in 1978, and has been included in every budget report to the Zone 9 Advisory Board. The only change is in the detail of how the budget is presented.

24) How many agreements with neighbors, if any, have been reached?

  • The District is preparing a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that will detail rise, potential impacts, and proposed mitigation. Any agreements with affected neighbors would occur after FEMA approval.

25) What is the anticipated timeline to reach agreements with all affected property owners?

  • Any necessary flood mitigation will be identified as part of the FEMA CLOMR application, which is planned for submittal in Q2 2025. Finalization of necessary agreements would be targeted with the approval of the CLOMR, anticipated in late 2025/early 2026. Further, any necessary agreements are anticipated after the CEQA Environmental Impact Report addendum is complete – before the bridge is removed.

26) What is the anticipated cost of these mitigation agreements?

  • Cost estimates for mitigation agreements would vary based on property-specific requirements, construction needs, and potential compensation for impacted stakeholders. Scope of mitigation will be defined as part of the CLOMR application.
Close window