FEMA edict complicates San Anselmo bridge removal plan

The plan to remove a San Anselmo bridge that is a crucial component of a flood protection project has hit another snag.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has told the county that the crossing, called Building Bridge 2, cannot be demolished without the unanimous consent of 12 downstream property owners who would face increased flooding. FEMA also said mitigation measures must be completed.

The county announced FEMA’s determination on Thursday, but said it received written confirmation of the edict in November.

“We wanted to give people the opportunity to get through the holidays before they felt like they had to talk about mitigation measures,” said Laine Hendricks, a spokesperson for the county.

The bridge removal is part of a flood risk reduction project that would reduce flooding risk for an estimated 500 Ross Valley homes while increasing it for a much smaller number of residences. The county has declared the downtown bridge structurally unsound and said it blocks the creek’s natural flow, increasing flooding by pushing runoff during storms into the surrounding area.

A plaza on the bridge became a popular gathering place during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, and there is support in San Anselmo for preserving the structure for that purpose.

When public works officials briefed the San Anselmo Town Council on the status of the project in September, they said it could go out to bid late this year and begin demolition in the summer of 2027.

“I expect that this could introduce some delay to the delivery of the project,” Christopher Blunk, the county’s director of public works, said Friday. “If we don’t have unanimous approval of the impacted property owners, the project may not be able to move forward at all, at least as it’s been designed and contemplated to date.”

The county has sent emails and letters to the property owners it believes are entitled to flood mitigation.

“We finally have obtained clear direction from FEMA and are now reaching out to you to obtain your concurrence or objection to the mitigations,” the notifications say.

Supervisor Brian Colbert, whose district includes Ross Valley, said, “The decision rests fully with the property owners. The deadline that we’ve given them is Feb. 28.”

Many if not all of the owners live along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in Ross. Several said they won’t be able to decide what their answer is until the county provides a clearer picture of what mitigations it is offering.

“I have been seeking clarity on mitigation since 2018,” said John Crane, who received a notification from the county. “I have never gotten clear answers from the county.”

Crane said the county initially asserted that his house had flooded in the past. In 2024, Rosemarie Gaglione, the county public works director at the time, said mitigation wouldn’t be required for homes that flooded prior to the project.

“I had the town of Ross investigate that,” Crane said. “There are no National Flood Insurance Program claims on my house since the 1970s.”

“They owe it to homeowners that they’re impacting to provide us with answers regarding the impacts to our homes,” Crane said, “and give us straight talk, not the runaround.”

Jennifer Mota, another affected property owner, said, “I emailed the county a list of questions in August that I would need answered to make an informed decision on whether I would move forward with mitigation, and they never sent me the information.”

Mota said the county’s most recent offer was to cut some additional vents in the crawl space beneath her house so floodwater could flow through, and to raise some utility outlet boxes. She said that would be insufficient.

“My understanding,” Mota said, “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.”

Samantha Hobart of Ross said removing the bridge would result in water under her house, which has a 2- or 3-foot crawl space beneath it, and would threaten another detached structure that sits on a concrete slab. She believes property owners are willing to agree to mitigation.

“The problem is that the flood district has never been able to define what that mitigation support is,” she said. “They’ve gone back and forth on what they’re going to do.”

Hobart said the county originally offered to raise the detached structure, but now says it will only protect utilities.

Crane said, “I don’t think they have money to provide adequate mitigation, which is a shame after wasting $50 million to $60 million on consulting and engineering fees.”

At the San Anselmo Town Council meeting in September, Blunk estimated it would cost $18.2 million to complete the project, and that the project was fully funded through grants and Flood Control Zone 9 money. At that same meeting, however, Judd Goodman, the project manager, said just $400,000 had been budgeted for mitigation.

A 20-year stormwater drainage fee approved by Ross Valley to generate money for flood control projects sunsets in June 2027. The fee generates about $2.6 million per year. Without revenue from the stormwater drainage fee, Zone 9 will have to rely on the $400,000 in property tax revenue that it receives to cover its $335,000 in yearly operation and maintenance expenses.

Ford Greene, a former member of the San Anselmo council, said the county’s initial estimates for mitigation ranged from $3 million to $11 million.

“They’ve been playing this shell game with the mitigation numbers so as to have the project pencil out on paper,” Greene said.

He doubts the affected property owners will agree to mitigations that the county can afford.

“I anticipate that the ownership of the bridge will go from the county back to the town of San Anselmo for $1,” Greene said, “and by next summer, the plaza on the bridge will have reopened.”