june 11, 2020 · mitigation 1 to 1 or better ... daybreak in relation to critical flood zone 1...
TRANSCRIPT
June 11, 2020Appeal presentation
By Franco Crivelli
Negative impacts
Promises not completed, maintained, or built.
Political maneuver on Affordable housing
Previously denied then approved on promises
City of Reno Negligence in following up with verification of flood mitigations features
Many features never built as promised
All other built but not operational
And a very large majority of these developments did and do increase Peak flow in violation of regulation.
Promises don’t work
Example in the original Double Diamond
Daybreak promises and modeling
Mitigation 1 to 1 or better
Expert on the matter
Logical assumption
1:1 flood mitigation in critical flood Zone 1
Mitigation concepts
100 yr Flood level
Underground water level
Existing ground level
1:1 flood mitigation in critical flood Zone 1
Mitigation concept
Practical 100 yr Flood level
Underground water level
Existing ground level
1:1 flood mitigation in critical flood Zone 1
Mitigation concept
Practical 100 yr Flood level
Underground water level
Existing ground level
1:1 flood mitigation in critical flood Zone 1
Mitigation concept
Practical 100 yr Flood level
Underground water level
Existing ground level
1:1 flood mitigation in critical flood Zone 1
Mitigation concept
Practical
And non practical
100 yr Flood level
Underground water level
Existing ground level
2:1
4:
1
This is not happening!! Because is not possible …. due to the high water table in the area.
Floodway which must
be free of
encroachment
In orange:
Zone AE and Zone X
high flood hazard
area
The area with the Truckee River and Steamboat Creek.
And a major road in the Floodway like the SE connector
These are the nearby communities that will be negatively impacted by Daybreak if not properly built
The best modeling
The 1997 Flood
REAL LIFE event modeling
We really know how floods work
Modeling gives you the outputs that you desire
Modeling is done on existing FEMA conditions data which are know to be in error
They will tell you that there will be a 25% increase in flood storage capacity >> Questionable
National modeling
example with COVID19
2005 Flood
The 1997 Flood
Notice that no houses were flooded
Daybreak location map
Daybreak in relation to Critical Flood Zone 1
Development Constraints Area (DCA)
What’s really happening with Daybreak
A lot of the Flood mitigation has already been used by the SE connector
They claim that TRFMA was contacted
TRFMA has no authority to approve nor deny any projects.
They only suggest proper practices but are not policing projects
This projects present many risks and uncertainties for the existing residents downstream
A reminder of the historical decision event
It was a concern then
Nothing has changed but got worse
In 2006 This body (not the same people)
Made a very reasonable and responsible decision on the approval for the north side of this area
If decide to approve
The approval shall only be as follow:
Develop only
Parcels 2, 5, 8
And 10,11,12
And 23, 24, 26
And 17, 18, 19, 22
All parcels shall only be developed with 1:1 min flood mitigation on site
And when we talk about 1:1 mitigation ……. we means proper mitigation.
Which needs to be built before any filling is done in the floodplain.
And need to be maintained and operational ready for the possible arrival of flood events.
Condition shall state that local government entity needs to monitor all phases of construction.
100 yr Flood level
Underground water level
Existing ground level
In closing I want you to think about communities like this
These communities have no room for errors or bias in modeling.
And do what your predecessors did in exercising safe decisions that respect the existing residents and avoid adverse impacts
THANK YOU
FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING