DRYLAND LEVEE ALIGNMENTS Planning Commission Presentation– June 28, 2016 Community Meeting #2| 4/21/16
Tonight’s Agenda • Project Background • Public Meetings • Goals, Principles & Constraints • Discussion of Alternatives • Alternatives Comparison • The Path Forward
Project Background
Background – Senate Bill 5 • Floods (1983, 1986, 1995, 1997)have caused over $3 billion in damage within Central Valley • 2007 – CA Legislature passed 5 bills known as “2007 CA Flood Legislation” • Senate Bill 5 (SB 5) defined the criteria for “urban level of flood protection” • Level of protection needed to withstand a 1-in-200 chance of occurring in any given year
Background – Senate Bill 5 • Cities and Counties are required to take SB 5 into account when making land use decisions in urbanized areas • Manteca and Lathrop must show “adequate progress” towards compliance by July 2016 • Adequate progress requires having the scope, schedule and costs developed for needed projects • Funding sources need to be identified
Reclamation District 17 (RD 17)
Background – SB 5 RD 17 Flood Plain Without Levee Project
Background – SB 5 RD 17 Flood Plain After Levee Project
Background – Expressway • Antone Raymus Expressway (formerly McKinley Expressway) • Expressway is needed based on City’s current General Plan Mr. Antone Raymus • Manteca’s General Plan is based on 20 year horizon, including transportation needs • Expressway will be 2-4 lanes and 6 lanes at the connections to SR 120 and SR 99 • Current General Plan has Expressway along Peach which is inconsistent with expressway standards
Mailing List Notification Area
Background: Public Meeting # 1 (3/ 30/ 16) Purpose of Meeting #1: • Project Background • Answer Questions/Concerns • Group Exercise • Gain better understanding of constraints & opportunities • Introduction of Website
Background: April 5 th City Council Meeting • Council directed staff to focus workshops on dryland levee alignments only • Expressway alignment will be addressed with General Plan update in 2016/2017 Expressway was separated from the Levee Discussion
Background: Public Meeting # 2 (4/ 21/ 16) Purpose of Meeting #2: • Reviewed feedback from previous workshop • Presented levee alignment alternatives, costs and impacts • Open House/Answered Questions/Provided Feedback on Alternatives
Public Meeting # 3 (5/ 18/ 16) Purpose of Meeting #3: • Presented results from previous workshops • Answered questions received • Reviewed alternatives and comparison matrix • Received feedback
Goals, Principles, & Constraints
Current Project Goal • To build stakeholder consensus on a preferred alignment for the dryland levee that meets the project principles, constraints and is compliant with SB 5 and State requirements.
Guiding Principles/ Constraints • Minimize impact to farmland • Minimize impacts to property owner access • Stay on property lines as much as possible • Utilize existing easements • Respect the “right to farm” • Accommodate entitled properties • Consensus among stakeholders • Meets DWR criteria for “wise use of floodplains” • Cost
Constraints: Funding • The City’s and County within RD-17 do not have sufficient funds to deliver this project by themselves. • To be eligible for potential State or Federal funding opportunities, the project must be consistent with DWR’s Urban Flood Risk Reduction program guidelines and principles.
Constraints: Funding • DWR’s principles and guidelines are based on the following legislation and policies: • Senate Bill 5 (2007) • Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (2012) • Governor’s California Water Action Plan (2016) • Federal Executive Orders 11988 & 13690 Future State and Federal flood risk reduction investments must be consistent with these policies.
DWR Guidelines and Principles • No increase in loss of life and expected damages; showing a significant reduction in losses will result in a more competitive project; • Promote wise use of floodplains with binding limitation on development in deep floodplains; • Achieve multiple benefits in accordance with the Governor’s California Water Action Plan; • Preservation of agricultural land consistent with the 2012 CVFPP and the Delta Plan; • Obtaining federal interest in the urban flood risk reduction project for this basin.
Constraints: City’s Sphere of Influence Existing Dryland Levee
Alternatives Discussion
Alternative 1
Alt 1: Conformance with Principles & Constraints Minimize impact to farmland Minimize impacts to property owner access Stay on property lines as much as possible Utilize existing easements Accommodate entitled properties Consensus among stakeholders Meets Criteria Partially Meets Meets DWR criteria for “wise use of floodplains” Does Not Meet Cost – Approx. $8.5M
Alternative 1A
Alt 1A: Conformance with Principles & Constraints Minimize impact to farmland Minimize impacts to property owner access Stay on property lines as much as possible Utilize existing easements Accommodate entitled properties Consensus among stakeholders Meets Criteria Partially Meets Meets DWR criteria for “wise use of floodplains” Does Not Meet Cost – Approx. $12.1M
Alternative 2
Alt 2: Conformance with Principles & Constraints Minimize impact to farmland Minimize impacts to property owner access Stay on property lines as much as possible Utilize existing easements Accommodate entitled properties Consensus among stakeholders Meets Criteria Partially Meets Meets DWR criteria for “wise use of floodplains” Does Not Meet Cost – Approx. $25.1M
Alternative 2A
Alt 2A: Conformance with Principles & Constraints Minimize impact to farmland Minimize impacts to property owner access Stay on property lines as much as possible Utilize existing easements Accommodate entitled properties Consensus among stakeholders Meets Criteria Partially Meets Meets DWR criteria for “wise use of floodplains” Does Not Meet Cost – Approx. $12.1M
Alternative 3
Alt 3: Conformance with Principles & Constraints Minimize impact to farmland Minimize impacts to property owner access Stay on property lines as much as possible Utilize existing easements Accommodate entitled properties Consensus among stakeholders Meets Criteria Partially Meets Meets DWR criteria for “wise use of floodplains” Does Not Meet Cost – Approx. $30.6M
Alternative 4
Alt 4: Conformance with Principles & Constraints Minimize impact to farmland Minimize impacts to property owner access Stay on property lines as much as possible Utilize existing easements Accommodate entitled properties Consensus among stakeholders Meets Criteria Partially Meets Meets DWR criteria for “wise use of floodplains” Does Not Meet Cost – Approx. $52.4M
Alternative 5
Alt 5: Conformance with Principles & Constraints Minimize impact to farmland Minimize impacts to property owner access Stay on property lines as much as possible Utilize existing easements Accommodate entitled properties Consensus among stakeholders Meets Criteria Partially Meets Meets DWR criteria for “wise use of floodplains” Does Not Meet Cost – Approx. $11.6M
Alternatives Evaluation Summary
Alternatives Comparison Principles/Criteria Alt 1 Alt 1A Alt 2 Alt 2A Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Minimize Farmland Impact Minimize Impacts to Property Owner Access Follow Property Lines Utilize Existing Easements Accommodate Entitled Properties Consensus Among Stakeholders Meets DWR Criteria for “Wise Use of Floodplains” Cost Meets Criteria Partially Meets Criteria Does Not Meet Criteria
Alternatives Comparison Principles/Criteria Alt 1 Alt 1A Alt 2 Alt 2A Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Minimize Farmland Impact Minimize Impacts to Property Owner Access Follow Property Lines Utilize Existing Easements Accommodate Entitled Properties Consensus Among Stakeholders Meets DWR Criteria for “Wise Use of Floodplains” Cost Meets Criteria Partially Meets Criteria Does Not Meet Criteria
Alternative 2A Recommended for Further Study in Environmental Phase
Alternative 2A Recommended for Further Study in Environmental Phase • Follows Property Lines and Existing Easements to Greatest Extent • Minimizes Farmland Impact • Minimizes Impacts to Property Access • Consistent with DWR’s “Wise Use of Floodplains” • Better Consensus from Stakeholders in Comparison to Alternatives 1, 1A, 4 & 5
Moving Forward
Recommend
More recommend
