Plans to remove a bridge in San Anselmo, a key element of a flood protection initiative, have encountered significant hurdles due to a ruling from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The agency has stated that the demolition of Building Bridge 2 cannot proceed without unanimous consent from 12 property owners located downstream, who may face heightened flooding risks as a result of the project. Additionally, FEMA has stipulated that all mitigation measures must be finalized before any demolition can occur.
The county announced FEMA’s decision on Thursday, although it had received written confirmation in November 2023. Laine Hendricks, a spokesperson for the county, explained that officials aimed to allow residents to navigate the holiday season before addressing the complexities of mitigation measures.
Impact of the Bridge Removal on Local Residents
The removal of the bridge is part of a broader flood risk reduction project intended to alleviate flooding for approximately 500 homes in Ross Valley, while posing increased risks to a smaller number of nearby residences. The county has deemed the downtown bridge structurally unsound, claiming it obstructs the creek’s natural flow and exacerbates flooding by redirecting storm runoff into surrounding areas.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, a plaza on the bridge became a popular community gathering space, leading to local support for preserving the structure. In a status update delivered to the San Anselmo Town Council in September 2023, public works officials indicated that construction bids could be issued by the end of the year, with demolition potentially commencing in the summer of 2027.
Christopher Blunk, the county’s director of public works, acknowledged the challenges posed by FEMA’s ruling. “I expect that this could introduce some delay to the delivery of the project,” he said. “If we don’t have unanimous approval from 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 reached out to property owners it believes would be affected by flooding, sending emails and letters seeking their input on the proposed mitigation measures. The notifications emphasize the need for property owners’ concurrence or objection by February 28, 2024.
Concerns Among Property Owners
Many of the affected property owners reside along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in Ross. Some have expressed frustration, stating they cannot make informed decisions without clearer information on the mitigation options being offered. John Crane, one of the property owners, highlighted his ongoing quest for clarity regarding mitigation since 2018. He criticized the county for not providing satisfactory answers about his property’s past flooding claims.
“They owe it to homeowners that they’re impacting to provide us with answers regarding the impacts to our homes,” Crane remarked. “They need to give us straight talk, not the runaround.” Similarly, Jennifer Mota shared her experience of seeking information from the county, noting that her inquiries had gone unanswered. Mota indicated that the county’s most recent mitigation offer—cutting additional vents in her crawl space—was insufficient to address her concerns.
Samantha Hobart, another property owner, voiced her worries about the potential consequences of the bridge’s removal, fearing that it would lead to flooding under her house. She stated that while property owners are willing to agree to mitigation, uncertainty surrounding the support from the flood district remains a significant obstacle.
Former San Anselmo council member Ford Greene raised concerns about the financial aspects of the project, suggesting that the county’s estimates for mitigation have fluctuated significantly. He expressed skepticism regarding the county’s ability to secure adequate funding for effective mitigation measures and predicted that control of the bridge might revert back to the town of San Anselmo for a nominal fee.
As the situation evolves, the county faces a pressing deadline to secure property owners’ agreements and clarify the terms of mitigation. The outcome will determine not only the fate of Building Bridge 2 but also the future of flood management in the region.
