STAFF REPORT SAUSALITO CITY COUNCIL

Transcription

1 STAFF REPORT SAUSALITO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 14, 2016 AGENDA TITLE: Approving a Variance from the Elevation Requirements of the Floodplain Management Section of the Sausalito Building Code for a Pier at 2 Alexander Avenue LEAD DEPARTMENT: City Engineer as Floodplain Administrator RECOMMENDED MOTION: Adopt a Resolution Approving a Variance from the Elevation Requirements of the Floodplain Management Section of the Sausalito Building Code for a Pier at 2 Alexander Avenue SUMMARY With Resolution No of April 19, 2016 the City Council of the City of Sausalito upheld the decision of the Sausalito Planning Commission upholding the decision of the City's Zoning Administrator approving an administrative design review permit and a variance to allow for the construction of a 946 square-foot residential pier that will extend into San Francisco Bay onto City property1. With subsequent action at that same meeting, the City Council approved a lease agreement for that portion of the pier on City Property2. The conditions of approval for issuance of the resulting design review permit include: " 1. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall obtain a Variance from the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements for Base Flood Elevation (BFE). The Variance shall allow the lowest elevation of the lowest horizontal structural member of the pier and deck/boat lift at an elevation of NAVD88. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director and City Engineer updated project plans showing the lowest horizontal structural member supported by piles at an elevation of+9.00 NAVD88." 1 Agenda itemsa, ^.iaiiicus.com/generatedagendaviewer.php?view id^&chp id =285 2 Ibid., Agenda item 6B. Page 1 of 5

2 As indicated in the application for the required variance dated January 28, 2016 (Attachment 1), the pier was originally designed in conformance with the then current and effective Flood Insurance Study ("FIS") and Flood Insurance Rate Map ("FIRM") for the site in question which established a Base Flood Elevation ("BFE") of +9 feet above the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 ("NAVD88") and identifies the site as being in a Coastal High Hazard Area. The code section applicable to a pile-supported, non residential structure (Sausalito Municipal Code ("SMC"), Section A3) states that," (w)ithin coastal high hazard areas established in SMC the following standards shall apply: A. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be elevated on adequately anchored pilings or columns and securely anchored to such pilings or columns so that the lowest horizontal portion of the structural members of the lowest floor (excluding the pilings or columns) is elevated to or above the base flood elevation," During the course of the applicant's acquisition of entitlements for the pier, the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") issued preliminary FISs and FIRMs for Marin County that would revise the BFE for the site. The then-proposed BFE for the site was +15 feet above NAVD88. The applicant, Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission took the potential change in the height of the pier associated with the best available flood hazard data (in the form of the preliminary FIS and FIRM for the site) into account during their deliberations. Further, the applicant and City Staff recognize that the intent of the pertinent part of the City's Floodplain Management code requires that the following additional considerations be taken into account: 1. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; 2. The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage; 3. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; 4. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community; 5. The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; 6. The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to flooding or erosion damage; 7. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development; 8. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program for that area; 9. The safety of access to the property in time of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; 3 4R 056 Page 2 of 5

3 10. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters expected at the site; and 11. The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical and water system, and streets and bridges. Finally, the potential impact to the neighborhood associated with a fully-compliant (elevated by 6 feet) pier was also taken into account by the applicant, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission. On that basis, and with the concurrence of the City Engineer, the applicant has agreed to design the pier such that all structural components below the new BFE are capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy, and that it will be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that these standards are satisfied upon completion of construction. These certifications shall take the form of a FEMA V-Zone Design Certificate (Attachment 2) and a FEMA Elevation Certificate (Attachment 3). As provided for in SMC , the City Council shall hear and decide requests for variances from the requirements of the Floodplain Management code. In doing so, the City Council shall consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in other sections of this chapter, as well as the 11 elements listed above. As indicated in SMC D, (in summary) variances may be issued for new construction to be erected of one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by existing structures constructed below the base flood level, providing that the 11 elements listed above have been fully considered. The City Council may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as it deems necessary to further the purposes of the Floodplain Management code. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS The City Engineer as Floodplain Administrator has evaluated the application in the context of the Zoning Administrator's and Planning Commission's full and complete understanding of the issues and: finds good and sufficient cause for the City Council to grant the variance from the elevation requirements subject to the design and construction certifications; agrees that failure to grant the variance (meaning require that the pier be constructed such that its lowest horizontal structural members would be 6 feet above the approved elevation) would result in exceptional hardship to the neighbors; and concurs that the granting of the requested variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, creation of nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. 4http:// ubli^luiig.com/ca/sausalito/h1ml/sausalito08/sausalito0s4s.htm1# Page 3 of 5

4 ALTERNATIVES Council may decline to grant the variance. FISCAL IMPACT No foreseeable fiscal impact to the City or the community resulting from the granting of the proposed variance has been identified. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council of the City of Sausalito adopt a Resolution Granting a Variance from the Elevation Requirements of the Floodplain Management Section of the Sausalito Building Code for a Pier at 2 Alexander Avenue (Marin County APNs , and ) ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1-Variance Application Attachment 2-FEMA V-Zone Design Certificate Attachment 3- FEMA Elevation Certificate Attachment 4-Draft Resolution Page 4 of 5

5 PREPARED BY: Jonathon C. Goldman, PE QSD CFM Director of Public Works, City Engineer and ADA Coordinator Andrew Davidson, PE Senior Civil Engineer i '< > r '-r ^ Danny Castro Community Development Director Mary Anne City Attorney SUBMITTED BY: City Manager Page 5 of 5