San Mateo County Grand Jury • 2011-2012

Still No Emergency Action Plans for Levee Failures In San Mateo County

Published: September 25, 2012 91 pages Consolidated Report
Ver PDF original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F5, F13, F14, F16, F17, F18, F19, F21

Findings 17 findings

F1 Page 2
That affected cities and County prepare Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) and submit these annually to the County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services (OES).
F2 Page 2
That OES do what is necessary (without duplicating other information gathering efforts) to gather the information required to assess risk and develop response plans for levee and dam emergencies. 3Email of April 9, 2012 to Grand Jury from a Technical Specialist of Michael Baker Jr., Inc., explaining that determining the number of levees is not exact due to the somewhat arbitrary starting and end points of levee segments. FEMA tends to focus on levee systems in its accreditation process. 4 http://www.sanmateocourt.org/documents/grand_jury/2006/DamLeveeFinal.pdf. 2 3. That the County Public Works Director work with city and special district public works officials and engineers in the County to evaluate and report on the integrity of dams and levees throughout San Mateo County. The Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) OES provides a variety of services to the cities of San Mateo County. It has several units with specialized skills, many members of which are certified in emergency medical response. OES assists other public safety officers across the County in providing situational care and protection for the citizens of San Mateo County. OES also provides regular coordinated emergency planning and training services to the 20 cities and towns within the County and a wide variety of support and resources to assist cities in dealing with disaster and other emergency situations. The OES is responsible for the San Mateo County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) that details the planned response to extraordinary emergencies and disasters. Depending on the specific emergency, OES will serve as a coordinating agency rather than a primary responder. Cities and special districts are responsible for making sure that OES is given the information it needs to coordinate emergency response.5 The OES has a Flood Preparedness Guide for Levee Maintaining Agencies. The purpose of this Guide is "To provide an emergency planning guide for local levee maintaining agencies to utilize in developing their local emergency plans in compliance with the Governor's Executive Order.” However, this Guide does not provide specific criteria to assist the affected cities to develop consistent, comprehensive EAPs. The Emergency Services Council (ESC) The OES is funded and governed by the Emergency Services Council (ESC) through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) that includes the 20 cities and towns and the County of San Mateo (see, Attachment 2). The cities and towns of the JPA contribute money to fund the JPA based upon a formula that takes into account the population and average assessed property value of each. The County then matches the funds contributed by the cities and towns. The remainder of the OES budget comes from State and FEMA program funds.6 The ESC reviews and recommends emergency plans, programs, and agreements for adoption by the Board of Supervisors and city councils in order to carry out the purposes of an emergency services organization. The Sheriff’s OES serves as the ESC’s emergency services organization and is responsible for minimizing the effects of disasters and major emergencies on the County’s citizens.7 5 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury, 2006-2007: Emergency Planning for Dam or Levee Failures in San Mateo County, p 5. 6 http://www.sheriff.com/divisions/operations-division. San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury, 2006-2007: Emergency Planning for Dam or Levee Failures in San Mateo County, p 2. The 2006-2007 Grand Jury Report on dams and levees directed two Recommendations to the ESC.8 The first Recommendation issued was as follows: 1. Authorize and fund, by December 31, 2007, the Office of Emergency Services/Homeland Security to work with other entities in the County to acquire whatever information is necessary to assess risk and develop response plans for levee and dam emergencies. This effort should use all available information, including that collected by FEMA, to formulate plans specific to our County and to incorporate those plans into the Office of Emergency Services/Homeland Security (OES/HS) Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) by July 31, 2008. The ESC agreed with this Recommendation, stating, however, that funding was not available in the 2006-2007 budget. The ESC said it would attempt to secure grant funding and work would be completed at the “earliest possible opportunity.”9 On March 26, 2012, the Grand Jury sent a letter to the Board of Supervisor representative on the ESC to ask if the ESC had met its commitment in response to this Recommendation. Repeated attempts by the Grand Jury failed to generate a response from Supervisor Tissier. According to OES, it secured funding in fiscal year 2007-2008 for work to begin on the dam and levee Recommendations. This funding resulted in the creation of a dam database, inundation maps of hazardous dams, and a section on dams in the County EOP. With the resources available, little progress was made on levees. No additional funding was provided to continue this work in 2008-2009 or in subsequent budget years. The funding of the OES Joint Power Agreement has remained relatively flat for years. The OES Director said in 2008 that additional funding would be sought for the dams and levees project. The office did apply to the California Emergency Management Agency for a Hazard Mitigation grant to fund the project; however, the application was denied.10 The second Recommendation in the 2007 Grand Jury Report stated: 2. Adopt a resolution by December 31, 2007, requesting all jurisdictions – whether County, City, Special District, or private entity – having authority for dams or levee integrity to cooperate with the OES/HS to develop credible emergency plans for responding to dam and levee degradation or breech. The ESC agreed with this Recommendation and issued a resolution that did not include a date for completion of these activities. Id. p7. Letter to Hon. John L. Grandsaert, Re: 2006-07 Grand Jury Report: Emergency Planning for Dam or Levee Failures in San Mateo County, from Rose Jacobs Gibson, President, San Mateo Board of Supervisors and Chair, San Mateo County Emergency Services Council, September 26, 2007. Letter to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury in response to its inquiry regarding the status of the ESC commitment to authorize and fund the OES to work on dam and levees per the 2006-2007 Grand Jury Report, from Supervising Manager, OES, April 13, 2012. Investigation The Grand Jury gathered and reviewed data from various sources including: • One interview with a supervisor of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s OES and one interview with a civil engineer of the Redwood City Planning Department. • San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report, 2006-2007: Summary of Emergency Planning for Dam or Levee Failures in San Mateo County. • Responses to the 2006-2007 Civil Grand Jury Report from the County Manager, the Emergency Services Council, and the affected cities. • San Mateo County “Operational Area” Emergency Operations Plan, March 2007. • Correspondence received from a Technical Specialist with Michael Baker, Inc., a consulting firm to FEMA. • Flood Preparedness Guide for Levee Maintaining Agencies, Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, dated November 1997. • Responses to the 2011-2012 Grand Jury letter requesting status on commitments made to the recommendations in the 2006-2007 Grand Jury Report. Responses were received from all affected cities (Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, and South San Francisco). • OES reply to a Grand Jury letter regarding funding commitments made by the ESC in 2007, dated April 13, 2012. • Superior Court staff email reply to a Grand Jury question regarding the lack of response from the City of San Carlos to the 2006-2007 Grand Jury Report, dated April 25, 2012. The 2011-2012 Grand Jury contacted the cities responsible for dams and levees in San Mateo County. Letters were sent to the cities of Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, and South San Francisco requesting current status on the commitments they made in response to the 2006-2007 Grand Jury report on dams and levees. All cities and County Departments (OES and Public Works) responsible for dams appear to have fulfilled their commitments. OES developed an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) for dams that incorporated all necessary information from the cities responsible for dams and includes the procedures required for an emergency response to dam failure within the County. The OES is the recipient of the annual reports on dam integrity and inspection. Due to this satisfactory compliance with the 2006-2007 Grand Jury recommendations, the 2011-2012 Grand Jury focused its investigation on levees. With respect to levees, there was a range of compliance. Four cities produced EAPs varying in consistency and level of detail, but did not send their EAPs or annual updates to the County. Three cities did not develop EAPs. (See, Attachment 1 for details.) None of the seven cities had involvement with OES. Since 2007, Foster City, Redwood City, and San Mateo and the County worked with FEMA to bring some levees up to FEMA accreditation standards. As a result, areas of these cities are no longer within a FEMA designated “floodplain,” and property owners in these areas do not have to add the cost of flood insurance to their mortgage payments. While these actions reduced the risk of catastrophic failure, they did not address the procedures for emergency response in the event one should occur. • List of Levees: San Mateo County Levee Status, FEMA, March 12, 2012 City FEMA ID Number Status since 2007 Burlingame P2415, P2417, P2943, Removed P2977 Foster City P771 Accredited Pacifica P2418 Removed Redwood City P1918 a & b Accredited Redwood City P2440 Not a levee Redwood City P3000 a, b, c, d & e Accredited Redwood City P3001a Accredited San Carlos P1992 Accredited San Carlos P3006 Part of Redwood Shores not Accredited San Carlos P3007 a Part of Redwood Shores not Accredited San Mateo P1915 De-Accredited San Mateo P1916 Accredited San Mateo P2024 Accredited San Mateo P2422 De-Accredited San Mateo P2430 Accredited San Mateo P2980 Accredited San Mateo P2981 Accredited San Mateo P770 Accredited San Mateo P788 Accredited South San Francisco P2034 De-Accredited Notes: 1) East Palo Alto is also responsible for levees. Its levees were not included in the FEMA Levee Status of March 12, 2012 because East Palo Alto failed to respond 6 to FEMA’s Provisionally Accredited Levee Agreement letter pertaining to requirements for flood insurance protection. 2) San Carlos, Redwood City, and the County of San Mateo share responsibility for levees located around the San Carlos Airport. 3) Property owners in De-Accredited flood plain areas may incur the extra cost of flood insurance. Findings The San Mateo County Grand Jury finds: 1. All City and County dam owners fulfilled their commitments in response to the 2006- 2007 Grand Jury report.
F3 Page 7
There is a lack of consistency and varying amounts of detail among the EAPs completed by the cities.
F4 Page 7
The San Mateo County Levee Status from FEMA dated March 12, 2012 shows levees no longer exist in the cities of Belmont, Burlingame, and Pacifica, due to reclassifications and removal. Regarding the County Sheriff’s Office of Emergency Services (OES): 5. The OES does not address levee failures in the County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP).
F6 Page 7
The OES stated it does not have adequate resources to develop an EOP for levees, despite its commitment to do so in 2007.
F7 Page 7
In 2008, the OES Director applied to the California Emergency Management Agency for a Hazard Mitigation grant to fund continuing work on dams and levees. This application was denied.
F8 Page 7
The OES did not request or receive copies of EAPs for levees from any of the affected cities. Regarding the Emergency Services Council: 9. The Emergency Services Council provided OES with funding in fiscal year 2007-2008 that resulted in the creation of a dam database, inundation maps of hazardous dams, and a 7 section on dams in the County EOP. No additional funding has been provided to complete the committed work on levees.
F9 Page 11
Consistent with the timeline, develop and communicate to the affected cities the specific requirements and guidelines for the development of credible, consistent, comprehensive Emergency Action Plans . These requirements are to include at a minimum: • A list of three or more separate telephone contacts to ensure at least one responsible official or responder is made aware of the emergency • A protocol setting out actions that will be undertaken to mitigate danger during an emergency • A copy of the most recent inspection report on levee integrity 10. Consistent with the timeline, develop a tracking and follow up system to assess timely receipt of levee owners’ EAPs and yearly updates.
F10 Page 8
The ESC adopted a resolution in 2007 requesting all jurisdictions for dams or levees to cooperate with the OES to develop credible Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for responding to dam and levee failure. The resolution did not contain a required due date for the development of the EAPs and nothing has been done in the last 5 years.11 Regarding the County of San Mateo: 11. The County of San Mateo shares responsibility with San Carlos and Redwood City for the levees located in the vicinity of the San Carlos Airport.
F11 Page 11
Work with the appropriate responsible city and County departments and FEMA to acquire all necessary information to assess risk and develop EAPs for levee emergencies.
F12 Page 8
The County Public Works Department did not develop an EAP for levees located in the vicinity of San Carlos Airport. Regarding the Cities of: Burlingame 13. Burlingame filed a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan with the Association of Bay Area Governments to have its levees removed as a review indicated these were not levees. East Palo Alto 14. East Palo Alto developed an EAP for levees in January 2011, which did not meet its committed timeline. It was not submitted to OES until January 2012.
F15 Page 8
FEMA records dated March 12, 2012 do not indicate the existence of any levees in East Palo Alto, which contradicts East Palo Alto’s understanding that it is responsible for a levee. According to FEMA, this discrepancy exists because the City of East Palo Alto failed to respond to the Provisional Accreditation Letter regarding requirements for flood insurance. Foster City 16. After receiving the Grand Jury request letter of December 20, 2011 Foster City completed an EAP dated January 12, 2012, which did not meet its committed timeline or was it submitted to OES. Resolution (undated) attached to the letter to Honorable John L. Grandsaert, Re: 2006-07 Grand Jury Report: Emergency Planning for Dam or Levee Failures in San Mateo County, from Rose Jacobs Gibson, President, San Mateo Board of Supervisors and Chair, San Mateo County Emergency Services Council, September 26, 2007. Pacifica 17. Pacifica responded to both the 2006-2007 Grand Jury Recommendations and the 2011- 2012 Grand Jury status request letter stating that it had no dams or levees. The levee was removed as part of the Army Corp of Engineers’ San Pedro Creek and Wetland Ecosystem Restoration Project in 2000. San Carlos 18. San Carlos reported it has no record of receiving the 2006-2007 Grand Jury Report’s Recommendations for Dams and Levees and has no record of responding.12 19. The Superior Court of San Mateo County records could not confirm that San Carlos received a copy of the 2006-2007 Grand Jury Report.
F20 Page 9
San Carlos did not develop or submit an EAP for its levees. South San Francisco 21. South San Francisco responded to the 2006-2007 and 2011-2012 Grand Jury status request letters stating it has no dams or levees in its jurisdiction according to the FEMA Map Modernization Regional Manager in 2007.
F22 Page 9
According to FEMA's list of levees in San Mateo County, dated March 12, 2012, there is one levee in South San Francisco.
F23 Page 9
South San Francisco has not reconciled this discrepancy with FEMA.
F24 Page 9
FEMA has categorized the levee in South San Francisco as De- Accredited. The levee does not meet flood protection criteria; therefore, flood protection insurance to corresponding adjacent areas may be required.
F25 Page 9
The City of South San Francisco did not develop or submit an EAP for its disputed levee. Conclusions The Grand Jury concludes: 1. The risk of levee failure has not been a priority for the cities and County as evidenced by the lack of EAPs before the 2007 Grand Jury Report and the inadequate follow through on their own commitments five years later. Letter to 2011-2012 Grand Jury in response to inquiry regarding the status of the City of San Carlos commitment to fulfilling the 2006-2007 recommendations for dams and levees, from Bill Moura, Assistant City Manager, San Carlos, March 22, 2012. 9 2. The failure of the Emergency Services Council to adequately fund OES’s development of Emergency Action Plans for levee failures is contrary to its Mission Statement (See, Attachment 2).

Recommendations 11

Conclusions 7

No Responses Found 9

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Belmont City
Burlingame City
East Palo Alto City
Foster City City
Pacifica City
Redwood City City
San Carlos City
San Mateo City
South San Francisco City