The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has complicated the removal of a bridge in San Anselmo, California, which is vital for a flood protection project. The agency has mandated that the county must obtain unanimous consent from 12 downstream property owners before proceeding with the demolition of the structure known as Building Bridge 2. Additionally, FEMA requires the completion of mitigation measures to address potential flooding concerns for these properties.
On January 11, 2024, the county announced this determination, revealing that it had received written confirmation from FEMA in November 2023. According to Laine Hendricks, a spokesperson for the county, the delay in communication was intentional, aimed at allowing residents to navigate the holiday season before discussing the required mitigation measures.
The removal of the bridge is part of a broader flood risk reduction initiative that seeks to decrease flooding risks for approximately 500 homes in the Ross Valley area, while potentially increasing risks for a smaller group of residences. The county has deemed the bridge structurally unsound, asserting that it obstructs the natural flow of the creek and contributes to flooding during storm events.
The bridge, which became a popular gathering space during the COVID-19 pandemic, has garnered support from local residents who advocate for its preservation. Public works officials informed the San Anselmo Town Council in September 2023 that they anticipated the project could go out to bid in late 2024 and commence demolition in the summer of 2027.
Christopher Blunk, the county’s director of public works, acknowledged that the requirement for unanimous approval from affected property owners could introduce significant delays to the project timeline. He stated, “If we don’t have unanimous approval of the impacted property owners, the project may not be able to move forward at all.”
The county has begun reaching out to the property owners it believes will be impacted by the flood mitigation requirements. Notification letters state, “We finally have obtained clear direction from FEMA and are now reaching out to you to obtain your concurrence or objection to the mitigations.” Supervisor Brian Colbert, who represents the Ross Valley district, emphasized that the decision rests entirely with the property owners, with a deadline set for February 28, 2024.
Many property owners along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard expressed concern about the lack of clarity regarding the mitigation measures being proposed. John Crane, a local resident, stated, “I have been seeking clarity on mitigation since 2018. I have never gotten clear answers from the county.” He highlighted past assertions from the county that his property had flooded, which he disputed, claiming there have been no National Flood Insurance Program claims on his house since the 1970s.
Other residents echoed similar sentiments. Jennifer Mota shared her frustrations after emailing the county with a list of questions in August 2023, seeking information to make an informed decision on mitigation. She described the county’s recent proposal as inadequate, stating that simple adjustments, such as cutting additional vents in her crawl space, would not sufficiently address her concerns about flooding. “My understanding is that they should be either raising my house or building some sort of flood wall barrier so that the base flood elevation doesn’t increase at my property,” Mota explained.
Samantha Hobart added that removing the bridge could lead to water accumulation beneath her home, which is situated on a shallow crawl space. She believes that property owners would be willing to agree to mitigation measures, provided the county clearly defines what support will be offered. “The problem is that the flood district has never been able to define what that mitigation support is,” she noted.
Financial concerns surrounding the project have also emerged. At a September council meeting, Blunk estimated the total cost to complete the flood protection project at $18.2 million, indicating that it is fully funded through grants and Flood Control Zone 9 resources. However, project manager Judd Goodman revealed that only $400,000 had been allocated for mitigation. This raises questions about the project’s viability, particularly when a stormwater drainage fee set to expire in June 2027 generates approximately $2.6 million annually but is not sufficient to cover projected mitigation costs.
Former San Anselmo council member Ford Greene criticized the county’s handling of mitigation estimates, suggesting that the figures have been manipulated to make the project appear financially feasible. He expressed skepticism about whether property owners would support mitigation proposals that the county can afford.
As the situation continues to evolve, the fate of Building Bridge 2 remains uncertain. With the deadline for property owner responses approaching, residents are left grappling with the complexities of flood mitigation and the potential implications of the bridge’s removal on their homes and community.
