Sacramento County Grand Jury
• 2006-2007
• Agency Response
Response to:
The Flood Risk in Sacramento County
City Hall Office of the City of Sacramento*
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 3 findings
F1
Page 1
The planning and implementation of the development of North Natomas, and the push to develop to the Sutter County line, constitute the fiscalization of land use. In May 1986, the city rejected the no project alternative (Alternative A) and the limited development alternative (Alternative B) for fiscal reasons. The city noted when it made findings on May 13, 1986, (Resolution No. 86-348, adopting findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations supporting the NNCP and conforming to the general plan amendments), that the North Natomas area was going to grow in the unincorporated areas and other places in the region and that the city would not fiscally benefit unless it allowed the development to proceed on land within the city with full build out in the entire Natomas basin. Response to Finding 1 The City disagrees that the planning and implementation of development of North Natomas constitutes the "fiscalization of land use" as defined in the report, as the development decisions that were made "with an eye toward healthy and balanced communities" in addition to the necessary fiscal analysis of such development. Additionally, the Grand Jury finding refers to the 1986 community plan which is outdated information. As a result, the findings are not based on the current community plan or financing plan. In May 1994, the City Council adopted an update to the North Natomas Community Plan which is significantly different from the 1986 community plan. The Financing Plan was approved in October 1994 and was updated most recently in 2005. The Grand Jury was provided a copy of the most recent plans.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 2
An independent fiscal and compliance audit needs to be conducted to determine whether the city has met the stated fiscal goals and whether development has actually been completed and built in a timely and proper manner. This audit needs to be conducted by persons versed in land use and development, fiscal issues related to development, and familiar with municipal financing. Further, the audit needs to be conducted and overseen by some entity or independent persons not in association with the city. The audit should observe the actual results of development and compare the results to the stated goals for developing North Natomas. The following issues need to be addressed in the audit: 1. Has the development enhanced the city's ability to attract major industrial employers? 2. Does the area contain optimum amounts of land devoted to parks, recreational facilities and open space? 3. What has been and will be the fiscal impacts of the development on the city, i.e., is the revenue derived from the development supporting not only the capital cost of the infrastructure required for the development, but also the ongoing cost of maintaining that infrastructure including the development and maintenance of the regional park? 4. Do the actual tax revenues generated by the development of North Natomas provide an ongoing revenue surplus for use throughout the city? 5. Has the jobs-to-housing ratio goal of 60% been achieved? 6. Have the various fiscal devices that the city used to assist the developers provided a clear audit trail to determine that builders/developers did what they were supposed to do with the money and in a timely and proper manner? 2 The audit report should be made readily available to the public at the same time it is given to the city.
F2
Page 3
1 There is no information currently being provided to the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board as to the content of the water, sediment and soil in the drainage detention basins in North Natomas. The City may be allowing untreated surface water containing pollutants, such as pesticides, to reach the Sacramento River Response to Finding 2 The City disagrees with this finding. The basins in North Natomas have been designed in accordance with specific criterion developed in compliance with the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Permit, issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB), pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act (See Attachments 1-3). All urban runoff from the North Natomas development is treated in a water quality basin before it is discharged to the RD 1000 drainage canals, and from there to the Sacramento River. The City has proactively sampled the water quality through grab samples, in the North Natomas Water Quality Detention Basins (Basins) over a 3 year period. The City also commissioned a study to determine the interaction between the Basins and ground water and to recommend monitoring and maintenance strategies (See Attachment 4). To date there has been no request or requirement to provide this information to the CVRWQCB.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 3
The City should develop and then conduct, on a regular basis, an analysis of the water, sediments and soil in the drainage detention basins and provide that information to the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board. 3
F3
Page 4
The plans to evacuate the area in case of a flood event are still being developed. However, to ignore the advice of DWR and to continue allowing building in the Natomas flood plain after the city has been put on notice that it does not meet the minimum flood protection status, raises the question of potential responsibility for flood related damages and loss of life. Response to Finding 3 The City agrees that flood event evacuation plans continue to be developed but much of the planning work is complete. The City has developed flood inundation maps which show how the Natomas Basin would flood under various levee breach scenarios. These maps will serve as a basis for Police and Fire to develop evacuation routes out of the basin. Given the current status of the Natomas Basin levees, the floodplain managers (City of Sacramento, Sacramento County and Sutter County) have applied to FEMA to remap the basin into a new flood zone designation consistent with the 4 proposed SAFCA project (described below in Response to Recommendation 3). During the period from 2007 to 2010, when 100-year protection is being restored to the Natomas Basin, development within the basin will comply with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the City will only approve development consistent with current FEMA flood zone maps and regulations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 5
The city should immediately stop allowing any further building in the North Natomas flood plain. The restriction should remain in effect until the federal government certifies the flood protection as meeting the minimum 100-year flood level. The city could allow for continued planning, and the maintenance of existing structures. In addition, the city should build or retrofit community buildings to a height sufficient to enable the buildings to act as a shelter for people to gather until help arrives.
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.