Item 3 - Pomerado Creek FEMA Study and Proposed Improvements
AGENDA ~PORT SUMMARY
,
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Ma~
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manage~\
Mark S. Weston, Director of Engineerin servic~
Javid Siminou, Senior Civil Engineer ~
DATE: December 14, 1995
SUBJECf: Pomerado Creek FEHA Study and Proposed Improvements
ABSTRACf
In January 1992, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEHA) initiated a flood study
for Pomerado Creek. Pomerado Creek provides drainage for approximately four square
miles located east and west of Pomerado Road from Poway Creek to Pomerado Hospital.
The limits of the study are from Poway Creek to Glen Oak near Abraxas School. On
September 18, 1995, City staff submitted an appeal of the preliminary flood study for
Pomerado Creek. On September 26, 1995, the City Council directed staff to conduct
surveys, technical studies, and determine the cost of the improvements necessary to
contain the flood waters within the Pomerado Creek concrete channel should the FEMA
study be verified.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is not subject to CEQA review. Each project will receive an environmental
review at a later date.
FISCAL IMPACf
Staff recommends appropriating $1,100,000.00 for design and construction of the
improvements needed to contain the water within the channel.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Residents located in the affected area and the Residential Ad Hoc Committee.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve staff's recommendation to construct a
20-acre foot detention basin, addition of a 12'x5' RCB to the existing box culvert
under Pomerado Road at Robison Blvd. and other transitional structures to improve the
flow efficiency at an estimated cost of $1,100,000.00, appropriate funds for this
project, and advise FEMA immediately of the City's plan to contain the flood flow in
the existing channel.
ACfION
LQLlA.. DEe 1 4 1995 ITEM 3
· AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF POW A Y
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Ma~ ~
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager~ ~
Mark S. Weston, Director of Engineerin Service
Javid Siminou, Senior Civil Engineer i;
DATE: December 14, 1995
SUBJECT: Pomerado Creek FEMA Study and Prooosed Imorovements
BACKGROUND:
In January 1992, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) initiated a
flood study for Pomerado Creek. Pomerado Creek provides drainage for
approximately four square miles located east and west of Pomerado Road from
Poway Creek to Pomerado Hospital. The limits of the study are from Poway
Creek to Glen Oak near Abraxas School.
In June of 1993, FEMA released preliminary flood profile information; however,
no maps identifying the impact to the surrounding properties were released.
In November, 1994, preliminary floodplain maps were submitted to the City of
Poway. Staff responded to FEMA with concern about the impact to the
surrounding neighborhoods.
In June of 1995, FEMA completed their study regarding Pomerado Creek and
advised the City of Poway of their intent to publish the preliminary maps and
conduct a 90-day comment and appeal period.
After receiving the preliminary plans in June of 1995, City staff and their
engineering consultants reviewed the preliminary maps and found their
methodology and analysis to be generally acceptable. The FEMA appeal must be
based on technical and scientific data to refute the findings of FEMA. After
the September 7, 1995 meeting with FEMA, City staff reviewed the
administrative and technical record of the floodplain study and found
discrepancies between County records and FEMA analysis. The following is a
summary of our findings:
In the mid-to-late-1970's, the County had designed and constructed most
of the present Pomerado Creek drainage facilities. In a January 21, 1977
ACTION:
2 OF 14 DEe 14 1995 ITEM 3
Pomerado Creek FEHA Stu~i and Proposed Improvements
December 14, 1995
Page 2
letter from the County to the Los Angeles District U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer, the County formally terminated floodplain mapping of Pomerado
Creek because of the imminent construction of channel and culvert
improvements designed to carry a peak discharge of 2,900 cubic-feet-per-
second. The 1985 FIS for Poway did not identify any flooding potential
along Pomerado Creek. However, the present FIS (based on analyses
completed in June, 1993) shows 100-year flows breaking out of the channel
at all crossings from Pomerado Road upstream to Holland Road.
On September 18, 1995, City staff submitted an appeal of the preliminary flood
study for Pomerado Creek. In addition, staff sent FEMA the County records and
copies of the appeal letters from the residents. The thrust of the appeal was
to convince FEHA that the study should never have been conducted and the area
in question should not be mapped.
On September 26, 1995, the City Council directed staff to conduct surveys,
technical studies, and determine the cost of the improvements necessary to
contain the flood waters within the Pomerado Creek concrete channel should the
FEMA study be verified.
FINDINGS:
The City engaged Nolte and Associates to evaluate the analysis of the FEMA
flood study. A review of the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses and the
resulting FIS mapping confirms the reasonableness of the assumptions, methods,
and results presented by FEMA. During a 100-year flood, the flow-carrying
capacity of the existing channel and culverts would be exceeded in a number of
locations. At these points, flood flows would overtop culverts and road and
would spill into adjacent roads and yards.
Flooding upstream of Glen Oak Road occurs because the existing 72-inch pipe
culverts north of Abraxas School cannot handle the 100-year inflows. Flooding
at Glen Oak Road is exacerbated by the limited capacity of the pipe-to-box
transition structure. Downstream of Glen Oak Road, the channel capacity is
adequate for the 100-year flood in most cases. The existing box culverts at
Holland, Vaughan, Tassel, McFeron, and Pomerado limit the capacity and these
crossings cause flood waters to escape the channel.
HYDROLOGIC ANALYSES:
The hydrologic analyses (HEC-l) prepared by Ensign and Buckley (E&B) for the
FIS was reviewed. Input parameters, such as basin characteristics and
rainfall data, were found to be reasonable and were consistent with other
studies in the county. The resulting peak discharges also showed good
agreement with the "approved" data provided in the County's 1977 Hydrology
Report.
In their 1977 report, the County estimated flows based on projected land uses
for 1990. Based on this, and consistent with reviews by the Corps of
Engineers and by a Poway citizen's group, the above discharge rates were used
for subsequent floodplain mapping and design. Our consultant has reviewed the
land uses proposed in Poway's November, 1991 General Plan and modified the
HEC-l program accordingly. The resulting peak discharges are approximately 10
percent higher at Holland Road, and seven percent higher at the confluence
with Poway Creek which are not considered to be significant. So the fl ow
DEe 1 4 1995 ITEM 3
3 OF 14 u
Pomerado Creek FEMA Study and Proposed Improvements
December 14, 1995
Page 3
rates used in both the draft FrS and in the City's consultant analyses are
judged to be acceptable for the evaluation and implementation of proposed
improvements.
HYDRAULIC ANALYSES:
The hydraulic analyses (HEC-2) for the present FIS was reviewed. Stream data
such as roughness and loss coefficients were found to be consistent with field
observations. Culvert dimensions and channel cross-section data were
independently obtained by the City's consultants, Berryman-Hennigar and Nolte
surveys. These data also compared favorably with those used in the FIS. We
are in general agreement with the methods and results of the FIS, with one
exception.
In FEMA's study, the analyses were based on subcritical flow regime. However,
since the invert slope of concrete lined channel is significantly steeper than
the critical slope, it is believed that the existing channel will sustain
supercritical velocities for most portions of the channel between the box
culvert crossings. Furthermore, the 1995 FIS guidelines preclude the
assumption of supercritical flows only in natural channels.
Therefore, the HEC-2, from the FIS, was re-analyzed as a supercritical channel
and the results were compared with the subcritical run. The supercritical
HEC-2 analyses resulted in a lower water surface profile than the Ensign and
Buckley (E&B) subcritical runs. The output suggests that supercritical flow
will occur in channel reaches between the road crossings, and that hydraulic
jumps will occur at the culverts with flows likely to overtop the road at the
Holland, Vaughan, Tassel, and the McFeron Road crossings. In the reaches
where supercritical flow is fully developed, water surface elevations may be
as much as four feet lower than those reported in the FIS. At the culvert
crossings, allowing for hydraulic jumps to occur, the water surface elevations
are still up to two feet lower than those in the FIS. Unfortunately, even
with these assumptions, the hydraulic jumps and the culvert/transition
constraints the Pomerado Road crossing and at Glen Oak still indicate that a
significant amount of 100-year flood flows will leave the channel in a
supercritical flow regime.
MITIGATION NEEDS AND ALTERNATIVES:
Classic hydraulic analysis and channel design typically proceed from
downstream. However, since a key problem with Pomerado Creek is getting the
water into it in the first place, and because supercritical flow is
predominant, the evaluation of alternatives to eliminate 100-year flooding
starts upstream and works downstream.
A number of alternatives that might contain the flood waters within the
existing concrete channel were evaluated. These included upstream detention
to reduce downstream flood volumes, enlargement of existing pipe and box
culverts, raising the height of existing channel walls, and replacement of
existing box culverts with bridges that span the entire channel without
intermediate piers or walls. Channel improvements downstream of Pomerado Road
adjacent to the proposed Brookview Housing project were also evaluated.
DEe 14 1995 ITEM 3
4 OF 14
Pomerado Creek FEMA StudY and Proposed Improvements
December 14, 1995
Page 4
DETENTION:
Where an adequate amount of land is available and where excessive grading is
not required, the construction of a detention basin may be cost effective.
It had been suggested in the Koebig (1975) report that, if feasible, it would
reduce downstream flow rates and perhaps eliminate the need for more costly
bridge or channel modifications. A properly designed detention basin could
also serve as a park.
The most likely site for a detention basin appears to be east of Pomerado Road
between Glen Oak Road and Ted Williams Parkway. A 20 acre-foot basin was
evaluated. From HEC-l model studies, it was determined that this basin would
have the following effects on downstream 100-year flow rates:
PEAK DISCHARGE IN CFS
WITH
NODE LOCATION EXISTING DETENTION
1 Upstream of Abraxas School 1,300 600
2 Glen Oak Road 2,000 1,200
3 Ho 11 and Road 2,300 1,400
4 Vaughan Road 2,600 1,600
5 Tassel Road 2,800 2,000
6 Poway Cree k 2,900 2,150
Construction of the proposed detention basin would require approximately
20,000 yards of earthwork and construction of a 72-inch culvert for low flows.
The most cost-effective improvements to contain the flood waters within
Pomerado Creek, and thereby removing approximately 115 homes from the proposed
floodplain designation are as follows:
1. Construct a 20 acre foot detention basin east of Pomerado Road, north
of Abraxas School, between Glen Oak Road and Ted Williams Parkway.
The detention basin will also utilize a 72-inch low flow pipe at an
estimated cost of $508,000.00.
2. Construct approximately 1,000-feet of two foot high (average) flood
wall to the west bank of the channel at specific segments of the
channel to contain the flows at an estimated cost of $45,000.00.
3. Extend the existing channel concrete lining about one foot on each
side of the channel for approximately 12,000 lineal feet at an
estimated cost of $82,000.00.
4. Modify the existing transition structure at Glen Oak Road for a more
efficient flow at an estimated cost of $30,000.00.
5. Add a 12-foot X 5-foot RCB to the existing box culvert including a
300-foott channel transition upstream of the RCB at an estimated cost
of $333,000.00. This improvement benefits the Brookview site as well
as existing homes.
DEe 14 1995 ITEM 3
- 5 OF 14 --- --.
Pomerado Creek FEHA ~.udy and Proposed Improvements
December 14, 1995
Page 5
The total cost of these improvements including engineering and contingency is
estimated at $998,000.00.
INTERIM GRADING NEAR BROOKVIEW:
The existing natural channel, downstream of Pomerado Road at the Brookview
site will be graded to accommodate the flood waters. The cost of this interim
grading is estimated at $100,000.00.
PREFERRED RISK POLICY:
Concerns were raised by several property owners in the area regarding the
availability of flood insurance at lower premium rates, known as a "Preferred
Risk Policy." The following information was obtained from FEMA and other
agencies:
1. A Preferred Risk Policy applies to flood insurance coverage for
properties that are not located in floodplains and have not been
mapped by FEMA. Therefore, to take advantage of the Preferred Risk
Policy, the insurance must be purchased before the maps are released.
The release of the maps is estimated to take place some time in late
spring to early summer of 1996.
2. Most private insurance agencies should provide the flood insurance
under the Preferred Risk Policy. There is a minimum of 30 days
waiting period for the purchase of the insurance policy. Property
owners interested in obtaining additional information should contact
the Allstate Flood Agency at 1-800-527-2634.
3. Once the flood insurance under the Preferred Risk Policy is obtained,
the premiums generally may not be changed due to a change in map
designation. However, much of this depends on the individual
mortgage companies. Other exceptions are:
a. Sale of the property and new financing and
b. Transfer of the mortgage from one mortgage company to another
(i.e. "buy-outs").
FEMA has provided additional information and requirements for the "Preferred
Risk Policy" (Attachment 2).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
This action is not subject to CEQA review. Each project will receive an
environmental review at a later date.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff recommends appropriating $1,100,000.00 for design and construction of
the improvements needed to contain the water within the channel.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION & CORRESPONDENCE:
Residents located in the affected area and the Residential Ad Hoc Committee
DEe 14 1995 ITEM 3
6 OF 14
.-
.-
Pomerado Creek FEHA Stuoy and Proposed Improvements
December 14, 1995
Page 6
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Direct staff to submit a letter immediately to FEMA describing the
conceptual improvement plan, schedule, and funding plan; requesting
FEMA to delete this area from floodplain mapping.
2. Direct staff to initiate the preliminary design needed for submittal
of the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMAR) to FEHA and
proceed with the final design and construction of the proposed
improvements in Alternative 2.
3. Appropriate $1,100,000.00 for construction of the improvements in
Alternative 2 which includes $100,000.00 for interim channel grading
across the Brookview housing site. The source of funds will be
provided by the City Manager at the Council workshop meeting.
JLB:MSW:JS:bw
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Results of Study and Proposed Alternatives
2. Preferred Risk Policy
DEG 14 1995 ITEM 3 .'
7 OF 14
---------- - ---- - ---..------------------------------- ---- ----
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the past 20 years many drainage facilities have been constructed along Pomerado Creek
from Oak Knoll Road upstream to Abraxas School (Figure 1). These improvements include
concrete pipe culverts, concrete box culverts and a concrete flood channel between Pomerado
Road at Robison and Glen Oak Road. Until recently it was believed that these structures would
prevent flooding of the areas adjacent to the creek. In particular, these improvements were
thought to collect and divert runoff from a storm as severe as the I DO-year event. However,
mapping from a recently presented Flood Insurance Study (FIS) (Ensign and Buckley, 1993)
suggests that much of the property abutting the creek in this area is subject to 1 DO-year flooding.
The purpose of this study is to verify the validity of the data and mapping from the FIS and to
evaluate and recommend mitigation measures for potential flooding. After selection and design
of mitigation measures, a Map Revision will be processed with FEMA to remove the affected
areas from the floodplain.
A review of the hydrologic (rainfall and runofI) and hydraulic (floodplain) analyses and the
resulting FIS mapping confirms the reasonableness of the assumptions, methods and results
presented. During a 1 DO-year flood, the flow-carrying capacity of the existing channel and
culverts would be exceeded in a number of locations. At these points (Figure 2), flood flows
would overtop culverts and roads and would spill into adjacent roads and yards, in some places
to depths of 3 feet or more. The City's stated objective is to contain the I DO-year flood flow
within the channel.
Flooding upstream of Glen Oak Road occurs because the 72-inch pipe culverts north of Abraxas
School cannot handle the 100-year inflows. Flooding at Glen Oak is exacerbated by the limited
capacity of the pipe-to-box transition structure. Downstream of Glen Oak the channel capacity is
adequate for the 1 DO-year flood in most cases. It is primarily the limited capacity of the existing
box culverts at Holland, Vaughan, Tassel, McFeron and Pomerado that cause floodwaters to
escape the channel.
Four alternatives that might contain flooding within the existing concrete channel were
evaluated. These included upstream detention to reduce downstream flood volumes,
enlargement of existing pipe and box culverts, raising the height of existing channel walls, and
replacement of existing box culverts with bridges that span the entire channel without
intermediate piers or walls. Estimated costs range from $1 million for the detention alternative
to nearly $3 million for the bridge option. Channel improvements downstream of Po mer ado
Road adjacent to the proposed Brookview Housing Project were also evaluated with each
alternative.
Recommended improvements (Figure 4) include the construction of a 20-acre- foot detention
basin upstream of Abraxas School, improved transition under Glen Oak Road, a section of low
flood wall on the west side of the channel, and an improved transition to a triple 12'x5' concrete
box culvert at Pomerado Road. This is the least expensive of the 4 alternatives. It is the least
disruptive to the community because it makes maximum use of the existing drainage facilities.
And the proposed detention basin will provide open space or the possibility for another
community park.
DEe 14 1995 ITEM 3 . .1,
ATTACHMENT 1
8 OF 14
.
lED W1WAM~L
PKWY
l3X72" RCP
B'X5' RCB
TRANSITION/ENERGY
G~N 0,", DISSIPA TlON STRUCTURE
.
DOUBLE k RD
B'X6' RCB
DOUBLE
10'X6' RCB
HOLLAND RD
DOUBLE
10'X6' RCB
VAUGHAN RD
FOOTBRIDGE
MEADOWBROOK LN
DOUBLE
12'X5' RCB ~
~
~c ....
ROAO I
NO SCALE
STUDY AREA
DEC 14 1995 ITEM 3 ,.14 FIGURE 1
Q OF 14
TED W1WAMJ~
PKWY
RD
HOLLAND RD
VAUGHAN RD
MEADO'NElROOK LN SHALLMAN ST
0 UJ
0 I ~
0(
a:: I a::
UJ I u...
::E
0 TASSEL RD
c..
~ ~
~O ....
ROAD I
NO SCALE
100- YEAR SPILLS
DEe 14 1995 ITEM 3 .. fiGURE 2
10 OF 14
~-_.-
.
NEW DETENTION BASIN
WITH LOW-FLOW BYPASS
TED YALUAMS JI
~~ J
3X72" RCP
B'X5' RCB ~
~, '\ 0 ( NEW TRANSITION
STRUCTURE
~....tlV --.~ ,
041{
DOUBLE
B'X6' RCS
DOUSLE c
< Q..\J
10'X6' RCS 0
cc ~\)'
HOLLAND RD .. ' \-~
I i I -(-.ov
EXTEND CONCRETE f'
i i I DOUBLE
CHANNEL LINING II i I /'0'X6' Res
THROUGHOUT
I . VAUGHAN RD
'u I
FOOTBRIDGE II II;
., I!
, ,
<>1' ,t.DOV8ROOK 'N ; I U ,
- ~ I' I ~ S A' LIJ '-T
II R'-- H. co. ~,N ~
"I i '"
_ 1: I ::<
~Ii i u ~ r DOUBLE
~I! !: 0/ 10'X6' Rca
j"
c::. , rnl TASSEL RD
ADD NEW JlyrDOU8LE
FLOODWALL ~]f,~::; ReB
DOUBLE ; [' .oS!'"
12'X5' RCS i' V.d~~$>
ADD 12'X5' RCS~' , NEW CHANNEL ~
NEW OUTLET TRANSITION / (I ~;RANS/TION
REGRADE CHANNEL ! II ~~ ...
j ROAD I
-1<NOLL NO SCALE
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
FIGURE Otl141995 ITEM 3 ,.
11 OF 14
',I'iO\l 02 '.95 04:15P~..~~~'".~:I::{;,{~,;DI: .";~tf..:;::(r>::"'~i:::;;i'~;:;i~!:~.;~iK~i1~:k;~~;J~~)~\~i~:~t~\~2i~j;~'~~~:~i:
'.',' .:,':." '.,;";' PREFERREO'RIS 'POLlCY",,",!"'I':;""7^"'" ";:../.,,.y "':', ",' . .....
. . . ." ,.' Effective OctOber"1, 1995 ',.,:. '.", '.. .....
GENERAL DESCRIPTION COVERAGE LIMITS
The Preferred Risk PoliCy (PRP) is available The PRP has the same terms and conditions as
only in the B, C, and X Zones. Only one the SFIP with one exception: theSFIP's
building J;an be insured per policy, and only one elevated building coverage limitation provisions
polley can be written on .each building. It is do not applt; to a poliCy written as a PRP.
offered cnly to the owners Of 1-4 family Coverage COmbinations
residential buildings.
The PRP is not available in the Emergency BuildinglContents
Program or in Special Flood Hazard Areas. Without Basement Premium
Condominium units, except for townhousel $ 20,000/$ 5,000 $ 80
rowhcuse type buildings, are not eligibie under $ 30,000/$ 8,000 $105
the PRP. $ 50,000/$ 12,000 $ 135
MAP "GRANDFATHER" RUL.ES $ 75.000/$ 18,000 $155
$' 00,000/$ 25,000 $170
To be eligible for a Preferred Risk Policy, the $125,0001$ 30.000 $ 185
building must be in a S, C, or X Zone on the $150,000/$ 38,000 .. $ 200
effective date of the initial term as a PRP. Then, $200,000/$ 50,000 $220
if otherwise eligible (see Eligibility Requirements $250,000/$ 60,000 $ 235
listed below), continuous coverage guarantees
PRP eligibility, even if there is a subsequent Building/Conlents
zone change, With Basement Premium
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS $ 20,0001$ 5,000 $105
The following conditions should be used to $ 30,000/$ 8,000 $ 130
determine a building's eligibility for a PRP $ 50,000/$ 12,000 $ 160
based on its entire flood loss history, during , $ 75,000/$ 18,000 $ 180
period of ownership. $' 00,000/$ 25,000 $ 195 I
If any of these conditions exists, the dwelling is $125.000/$ 30,000 $ 210
$150,0001$ 38,000 $ 225
not eligible: $200,000/$ 50,000 $ 245
2 loss payments, each more than $1,000 $250,000/$ 60,000 $ 260
3 or more loss payments, regardless of Building deductible: $500 Contents deduotibl.. $500
amount The deductible. apply separately to build!n;; and
2 federal Disaster Relief payments, each contents,
more than $ t ,000 Only one of the above coverage combinations I
may be purchased. The probation surcharge
3 Federai Disaster Relief payments, applies to Preferred Risk Policies whenever
regardless of amount applicable.
, flood insurance claim payment and 1 REPLACEMENT COST COVERAGE
flood disaster relief payment (including Replacement cost coverage applies only /f 1 he
loans and grants), each more than
$1,000, building is the principal residence of the
insured and the building coverage chosen is at
RENEWAL least 80 percent of the replacement cost of tfie
If, during a policy term, the risk fails to meet building, or the maximum available, I
the eligibility requirements, the risk will be FEES/DISCOUNTS
ineligible for renewal as a PRP. An eligible There is no Expense Constant, Federal Policy
risk renews automatically without Fee, or Community Rating System discount
submission of a new applioation.
PRP' October'995
DEe 14 1995 ITEM 3 'i
12 OF 14 ATTACHMENT 2
-
,.,'-' ..... . ,..J',' ",,(,,.,~~-,:;:-' "'_,,~, '~'~'. "'~'j"_~>""'~~"'.!_
"NO\! 02 '95 04:16Pt1*FEI1P X MIl DIV .....>..~,..;~:.,:.:,., '~'.,~:-~':~:","": ~ ,~:~">''.'~I\,,.,f''~'''h',)P.3~''l'~:< "~"i."'~
. .. ,',.",' " ", ','"f,'"I,". .~' .',I'.,>^""r/' ,'\... .~.':.::,''''~..',.:.".' ':'\; ~'{:'<\:..:"f~.':
. ~~..,:;-:' . :'.: ", ';1,4 '''>'~''', .~. :;<';~:~;f~~7\';:I/<~~,~~~~:t~.~~ti't~';,-~~ ,~%:t~~~~m;~~~1~',:~~~.~~1~(i~~:~f;~.(r.
'.,' ." " ..!,. .~'1.,,,"..-"( ~,~....,:\~1,: ....tt~...~~..~':"...,,~,: ".,:t",I, '4j"""~0 ......1..\.1'. .'~l~"':"":t.'l~'i ,.~".
.J' ~,... t. ,.. I , , ,. '" , d",. ,,< " .", .
. . assoc!ated wit.h a 'Preferred Risk PoiiCY,:' ::'...~, ".',:".'" :':SECTI.oN 4, ,",: ,"",
Probation tees will be Charged. ' . . INSURED INF.ORMATION . /"
ENDORSEMENTS Enter the .name, ml'lling address, cny, state, lip
code, telephone number, and Social Security
The Preferred Risk Policy cannot be endorsed Number of the Insured.. .
to increase coverage midterm.
CANCEL LA TION/NULLIFICA TION .':' If thejnsured'~ mailing address is a post office,
box or a rural route number, or if the address
An existing Standard Flood Insurance Policy of the property 10 be insured isdlflerent from
(SFIP) cannot be canceled in order to convert to the mailing address, Section <V of the
a PRP. A PRP should be purchased as a new Application must be completed.
policy at SFIP renewal time.
COMPLETION OF THE FLOOD INSURANCE SECTION 0
PREFERRED RISK POLICY APPLICATION DISASTER ASSISTANCE
SECTION CD Check "YES" if flood insurance is being
required lor disaster assistance: otherwise.
POLICY STATUS check "NO"
Check the appropriate box to indicate if the '"
If "YES" is checked, identify the government
application is for a "N EW" policy or a (disaster) agency, and enter the complete
"RENEWAL" of an existing policy. If the name and mailing address of the disaster
application is for a renewal of either a PRP or agency in Section @ of the Application,
SFIP, enter the current 1 C-digit NFIP policy
number, Enter the insured's case file number, tax 1.0.
SECTiON CD Number. or Social Security Number on the line
after "Case File Number."
BILLING/POLICY PERIOD
Check the appropriate box to indicate who should , SECTION @
receive the renewal bill if "BILL FIRdJ COVERAGE COMBINATIONS
MORTGAGEE" is checked. complete Section 7 . Check the coverage combination desired.
If "BILL SECOND MORTGAGEE: "BILL LOSS
PAYEE," or "BILL OTHER" i~hecked, provide
mailing instructions in Section 8 . SECTiON (J)
Enter the pOlicy effective date and policy FIRST MORTGAGEE
expiration date (month-day.year), The Enter the name, mailing address, city, state, lip
effective date Of the policy is determined by code, telephone number, and loan number of
adding the appropriate waiting per~ to the Ihe first mor1ga~ee.
date of application in Seclion 13 . The
standard waiting periOd is 30 days, Refer to SECTION @
the General Rule Section, page GR 7, for the SECOND MORTGAGEE OR OTHER
applicable wailing periOd. Identify additional mortgagees by checking the
SECTION CD appropriate box and entering Ihe loan number,
the mortgagee's name, mailing address, and
PRODUCER INFORMATION telephone number.
Enter the producer's name, agency name, 11 more than one additional mortgagee or
address, city, state, Zip code. telephone disaster assistance agency exists, provide the
number, and tax I.D. Number or Social Security requested information on the producer's
Number. letterhead,
SECTION
PRP2 October 1995
DEe 14 1995 ITEM 3 1";
13 OF 14 --------- ----- --~-~ .-
", ," "'SEqTION@',: .",>:
:, . . Enter the Flood Insurance Rate Map zone,
PROPERrY LOCATION SECTION@
Check ''YES'' if the location of the property BUILDING
being insured is the same as the insured's
mailing address entered in$ection @ of the Complete all requ ired information in
Application. Leave the rest of Section (!) blank Subsections (A) through (F) on the AppliCation.
unless there is more than one building at the (A) Identify the building occupancy. Check
property location. Single Family or 2-4 Family.
If more than one building Is at the location (8) Idenltly building type. If the building type is
Of !he Ins.urElP property, use Sectlon(!) to a manufactured (mobile) home, the
speolfloally Identify the building to be producer must provide the make, model.
Insute~BrieflY describe the building in and serial number of the manufactured
Section 9 or submit a sketch showing the home In Subsection (F).
location of Insured buildings to assis,t the NFl P
in matching lhepolicy number to the specific (C) Identify date of construction.
building insured.
If "NO," provide the address or location of the (D) Check "YES" If the building is the
Insured's principal residence: otherwise,
property to be insured. check "NO."
If the insured's mailing address is a post office (E) Enter date of purchase.
box or rural route number, give the streel
address, legal description, or geographic
location of the property. SECTION @
SECTION @ ,
NOTICE
COMMUNITY If the answer to either question A or
question B Is "YES," this risk Is not eligible
Enter the name of the county or parish where forthe Preferred Risk polley.
the property is located.
Check "YES" if the propeny is located in an SECTION @
unincorporated area of the county; otherwise,
check "NO." SIGNATURE AND DATE
Enter the community identification number, map The Application cannot be processed without
panel number, and revision suffix for the the signature. A cheCk or money order lor the
community where the properly is located. totaf premium, payable to the NFIP, must
Community number and status may be obtained accompany the Application.
by calling the NFIP toll-free number or by
consulting a local community otricial,
PRP3 October 1995
DEe 14 1995 ITEM 3 ,.lo4
14 OF 14
n)>~m,"'n)>cnr-~n
o :: ~ :;j m;:+."'C s::: (1) (1) 0
~ Q) Q) S. S'< "'C c-::: to c: ."
q- -t -0 )>)>CD 3 ~ :r~
Q) a. C Q) -. (')
(') ~"'C -::: ..... m =
.... (') g: 3 P '0 :tI Q) 0 ::s :::E ~
o -. CD (1) CD -" <
(") :;j co :;j 0 Q) tA ..... m :::;. 0 m
o.....:;j.....s-ooso~
3m eL::D::DE"" ~~ ~
"'C (') . CD..... m )> 3 fA )>
- ..... ::D ::D tA -. =r-
CD CDCD"'COS:ECDO C
~. < fA. 0 :;j )> -. a "'C
o -."'C ~ r- ..... Q)
:;j CDOtACD-to.::r-
::~CD:::Q(,,)::D
C') tA CD -. CD
o CD ~)>~ < ~
'"C -. m
3 m'O "'C ~ m
'"C tA~cr
- .....o:;j ~
CD .:......<
..... Q)
CD '. -
........ ~
C')
r- -c
0 ~
S
::D <
-
m
~
~ooooooo~~~ m
l\JoocnCJ1WI\J~~1\J1\J1\J 2
--...--...--...--...--...--...--...--...--...--...--... -I
WOOOO~WWI\JI\J~
~ .~ ~ ~ ~ c.n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
--...--...--...--...--...--...--...--...--...--...--...
tCtCtCtC(.CtCtCtCtCtCtC
mmmmmmmmUlUlUl
-.-- ~--~.__._---_._--_._.__._._------ ------
~~
"
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Ma~
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager
Peggy A. Stewart, Director of Administrative servic~~
DATE: December 14, 1995
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information for Pomerado Creek FEMA Study and Proposed
Improvements
ABSTRACT
This report identifies specific funding sources for the $1,100,000 in funding
to be appropriated by the Council for the improvements necessary to contain the flood
waters within the Pomerado Creek concrete channel.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental review not required for this agenda item according to CEQA guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT
The specific funding sources for the $1,100,000 appropriation are identified within the
report.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
No additional public notification and correspondence of the supplemental information.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council appropriate $1,100,000 from the specified
funding sources for this project.
ACfION
1 of 5 DEe 14 1995 ITEM 3
--------------
· AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF POW A Y
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members~ City Council
FROM: James L. Bowersox, City Man
INITIATED BY: John D. Fitch, Assistant City Manager
Peggy A. Stewart, Director of Administrative Services
DATE: December 14, 1995
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information for Pomerado Creek FEMA Study and
Proposed Improvements
BACKGROUND
The preliminary estimates for the Pomerado Creek Flood Control Improvements are
approximately $1,000,000 (Attachment A) plus an additional $100,000 for interim
channel grading across the Brookview housing site. A project of this magnitude
would normally be funded with either bond proceeds or reserve funds designated for
capital improvement projects. Since the funding of this project was not originally
anticipated as part of the City's capital bond financing, it has been necessary to
combine a variety of funding sources and strategies in order to finance this
proj ect.
FINDINGS
The following funds have been identified for appropriation for this project:
Amount Description of Source
$350,000 Proceeds from the City's sale of the Southwest corner of the lot
at Poway and Community Road.
$180,900 Parkland Dedication Fees. A portion of the project will include
building soccer fields which will be funded from this source.
$105,000 1993 Tax Allocation Bond Proceeds, interest earnings.
$ 55,000 Redevelopment Agency Capital Improvement Fund reserves.
ACTION:
2 of 5
DEe 1 4 1995 ITEM 3
.- -
.
Agenda report
December 14, 1995
Page 2
$180,900 Brookview Village Project will share in $116,205 of the box
culvert costs which benefits the Brookview site as well as
existing homes.
$ 50,000 Brookview Village Project will share in $50,000 of the interim
channel grading across the Brookview site.
$242.895 Loan from the sewer fund to be repaid from a future bond sale or
from future drainage fund revenues.
$1,100,000 Total funding sources to be appropriated for the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is not subject to CEQA review. Each project will receive an
environmental review at a later date.
FISCAL IMPACT
This report identifies specific funding sources for the $1,100,000 appropriation for
design and construction of the improvements needed to contain the water within the
channel.
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
No additional public notification and correspondence for this supplemental
information.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council appropriate $1,100,000 in funds from the
sources identified in this report.
Attachments: A. Preliminary Estimates, Pomerado Creek Flood Control
Improvements
3 of 5 DEe 14 1995 ITEM 3
--------------------_._..._._---_.__._-_._---~---
'n - -.-----.
- --_. --- ----- ..--.. -------'--'-'---"-~ --------'-,----. --'---....'.--. ---'~.-
".
..
DEC. 00 l' 9f(FR I) 12: 14 NOLTE & ASSOCIATES TEL:619 278 4628 P.002
.
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES, POMERAOO CREEK FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS
":':'1~': ~PETFNpp~~SIN.:,"~ ':'.: .. ::.~ ::rY~~"::?] L:: ::.~~"'!i':.: ;
DETENTION BASIN GRADING 20,000 C.Y. 3.25 65,000.00
SLOPE PLANTING 49,200 S.F. 0.42 20,664.00
72" R.C.P. 900 L.F. 2D7.00 166,300.00
-.. --..-.- WiNGED HEADWACL.s-' .... " ...-----.. 2 EA. _~!560.oo 9,120.00
. -- -" . "12-' -- -TT
OUTFALL RISER/STANDPIPE/54" eMP 126.00 1,512.00
OUTFALL STORM DRAINI36" R.C.P. 130 --Cf'" .. ......-104]0 ....1"3,520.29
P.C.C. SPILLWAY 5,000 S.F. 4.00 20.000.00
RIP.RAP SLOPE PROTECTION 193 C.Y. 120.00 23,160.00
" ...... , n.'. ,_._... '_... ._. '''''__''
SUBTOTAl. 339,276.00
-- --...--"-'--'-- ADD 25% 'CONTINGENCY
84,819.00
.....-.... .... .......... .....p' ... .....-- 84,819.00
25% ENGR., CONTRACTOR, & PERMITTING 0'" - "-'" ...n.....__..._._,
~.~t.-~'...c...ll. -1 ;~ -!l-'~. ,;",-~ 't ~l':.I' l:I ""I' . , '[)
l';r1,.,.""'1 I:r.' IH~'" J '~. Iii!: f. aiI'.~ ~tr~"
~ _ 4.~~~~ ~ "'" ~ I. ...... , , 1 ~ h ". ..___.._u. , - , , '" .' . ""'---.."..
. ...' .. ',." " ,~j[qf.~m!G~. .
,,,.. "'--"""!'OEMc):'Ex'iST TRAI~is:STRUCTURE'@'G~ENOAK 14 CY 175.00 2.450.00
NEW TRANSITION STRuCTURE @ GLENOAK 47 C.Y. . '--310:00 . . 14.57fOo
-..... SUBGRADE PREP. & COMPACTION 520 S.F. 0.40 208.00
.. .u.__." . ..._. LF. 14.75 1,209.50
DEMO. EXIST 4-72" R.C.P. 82
NEW CONNECTION TO NEW TRANS. STRUCT. 4 EA. 400.00 1 800.00
sUBToTAL. _.w. . . .w..... 20,037.50
ADD 25% CONTINGENCY ........ . . "5.009.38
=-~_-::I
25% ENGR.. CONTRACTOR, & PERMITTING 5,009.38
"'.',C '."0'].",,'''. ~ T" '" ;'[".c; '....;.Jlf;itlJ F"~Zf ~
q.~~ ..l.~!~J' 6~;;t;;; ...~~ . 1;:"1 s'~~"'l-H~~.\-'- :='A:. -I ; {,f..Jl'.:;'
..-.---.- ......-...--
!~!W,j~~~t~,,~~g~~,~~~J,
EXTEND CONC. CHANNEL LINING 1 FT. EA. SIDE SF 4.20 50.400.00
-...---. 1;Cibooo
REMOTE ACCESS TO CHANNEL BY CONTR. L.S. 1,00000
..-- .... DEMoE'XisTFENCESAi.b'"tii'GCHANNEL
L.S. 3,600.00 3,800.00
SUBTOTAL.' .. . .-. w_.___
55,000.00
ADO 25% CONTINGENCY . ...-- ""'13.750.00
25% ENGR., CONTRACtOR. & PERMITTING 13,750.00
.tlW' ,I ":~T~:Jl ~~ ~ \-~(.'~'~111 '1"'Jf jlll'~ ~ "'1" -"IIJ.~ 1.~~~~
":,. "..I'l,,~' ':. ~ I.tl~c,~,':'. 1. ." \~'...11 ~~\~:'. ~H'~ .. ,.-. """- . . _ ....,,~I C
,..__w_____ ...
, ~ . i..... =J~~~.,.. .w, ~ .
.- ~-~
FLOOD WALL, 2 FT. HIGH S.F. 14.00 28.000.00
" . -'." ". O'EMO EXIST FLOOD WALLS & FENCES .', . ~'.. .-
LS. 1,000.00 1,000.00
.... REMOTE ACCCESS TO CHA~t:'!I;L B_Y CONTR. LS. 1.000'~OO .."...
1.000.00
SUBTOTAL 3O,COO.C<!
-- ...--. ADD 25% CONTINGENCY 7,500.00
25% ENGR., CONTRACTOR, & PERMITTING ... ..
-' . -- .- 7.500.00
'; ~!~"'I ""hft'.f' '~11 II - -t, '11~'11" ~"I't '--..~... " ~l', ~~~ ,~,f0G"~
!h'l 1''''J.t'-'I'''l'I,.~~~111~"i\~-'---'''''~'':fi1"I'''1' J ' !~""'! 1"~
_ . d 1_..... ...... ........,., ~ >< W""~" I",", ...'J '.~ ,", _ ~ ;T ~.
-... .....-.
.... ...-
4 of 5
DEe 1 4 1995 ITEM 3
.
--_._~---- -------...... ....--------. ~- -------.--
I\EC.-Ol'95IFRII12:15 NOLTE &. ASSOCIATES TEL:6!9 278 4628' P.003
.
. .
,
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES, POMERAOO CREEK FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS
':: .....S. ~, : :::~:"'80' '",-8""0'0 "C' ""':IrQ' ""1"'~' _I..,. ~o'\... r.. ...,..' 'J"~ ...~............,"'...~"to'...... ",'I'M.~'
:.. ":..r: ..,rv,' ,. : 1ft:'.: ': ,.:" ~.~. :::~: ':",": ,.~..~-::. ;':~:",'.~,~' ': :::' .~.
...-.---..ADDIT10NAC 12' X5:-BARREi.:'122~ LONG . . 154 ... C.Y. 310.00 47,74CLOO
- . SUBQRADE PREP. FOR RCB 1.600 S.F. 0.40 " . 640.00
REMOVE EXISTlNG PAVEMeNT; RECOMPACT 1,675 S.F. "-'''-. i:20 1,890.00
- REMOVE PCC SIDEWALK 236 S.F."1:iib' . "-"424.80
REMOVE PCC CURB & GUTTER 47 L.F. .. "'i.'3Ci" '-"'20210
REMOVE EXIST 27" RCP 13 L.F. - 14:75'-- 191.75
FORM RCP CONN. TO NEW BOX 1 - EA. .... .. 52CU:i0 520.00
' CONSTRUCT NEW A.C. PAVT. & BASE 1,575' - . sJ.- . .. "--2.30 3,622.50
AC. BERM .. _... .... . . -. .. ....."15- LF. 4.00 60.00
TYPE"G"CURB&GLJTTeiC" .... .....-. ...-. 47 I LF. 11.00 517.00
i PCC SIDEWALk-'-'--' 236 S.F. 1.90 448.40
- I UNDERGROUND TEL., REMOVE & REPLACE 20 L.F. 15.00 300.00
UNDERGROUND ELECT., REMOVE & REPLACE 20 LF. ........-15:00 300.00
f'GAS LII~E,REMOVE & REPLACE I 20 L.F. 10.00 200.00
, 10" WATER MAIN, REMOVE & REPLACE 0 L.F. 0.00 0.00
, CONC. ENCASE EXIST. 12" SEWER 20 L.F. "'14.40 .. '288.00
EXTEND HEADwALL TWc:i"ENDs" . ... " ,u-i"-' . -t.Y." 700.00 700.00
-. . u. WING WALL, ONE END 2 C.Y. 520.00 1,040.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL, EIGHT DAYS 1 LS. 3840.00 3,840.00
._u_ ~~~~~~~~N~~~~~~:~~~~W~~'-"- ..... ,-'- 3~5'--r i:.- .... ...;;~:~. -'-2,~~:~
TREE REMOVAL 1 L.S. 1000.00 1,000.00
FENCING 20 L.F. 10.90 218.00
--- 'pcc'APi~oNwic'O'rciFFWALL, '@OUTFALL ....... u-i'2c) u. '-S.F. 7.60 912.00
STReET NAME SIGN 1 EA 195.00 195.00
_u. u.. u. __ u.... u...__.._....__.....u . ....u.. . .._..._..._1
RIP-RAP@OUTFALL 18 i C.Y. 120.00 2,160.0D
GRADE TRANS.TO DOWNSTREAM CHANNEL 1 L.S. 1,500.00 1,500.00
300' TRANSITION TO EXIST CHANNEL 473 I C.Y. 310.00 146,630.00
.. GRADING:TRANSITION"-- .. .. ..' ..... 660.... ul-cx 5.00 3,300.00
SUBTOTAL i 221,607.05
ADD 25% CONTINGENCY 55,401.76
25% ENGR. 55,401.76
_. ..... ...... , ..~- .
,
r;~ '
+ lJ~.)...'-"u_-
DEe 14 1995 ITEM 3
5 of 5