Foster City property owners will pay $90 million to upgrade the city’s existing levee system as mandated by FEMA and amid concerns about sea level rise after semi-official election results show 81 percent of voters approved Measure P.
“We’re very excited. Our community is well educated and always understood the issue at the end of the day and understood we needed to protect our community so tonight’s election results are a big win for Foster City,” said Mayor Sam Hindi.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency notified the city in 2014 that its existing levee system lining the San Francisco Bay would no longer protect the community from a 100-year flood, and needed to be raised. The move came after FEMA released a new map placing the Bayfront community into the flood zone and questioned the sufficiency of the levee that protects 9,000 Foster City properties and another 8,000 in San Mateo. The existing levee ranges from 12 feet to 13 feet and FEMA’s highest requirement is for it to be raised 16 feet in certain areas.
After FEMA released the new flood map, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission required Foster City to raise the levee 2 feet taller than what FEMA originally mandated.
All property owners — residential, office and commercial — will see their tax rates increase about $41 per $100,000 of assessed property value, with the average property owner paying about $270 more a year in taxes. If the measure didn’t pass, then property owners with federally backed mortgages would be required to purchase thousands of dollars of flood insurance every year. It could also lead traditional lenders to require property owners to secure insurance if they’re located in the flood zone.
The measure required two-thirds approval, and while it received many more votes than that, not everyone is happy about the news.
“The residents of Foster City were put into a position they couldn’t get out of and it was all about fear,” said Linda Koelling, a former Foster City mayor. “It’s going to be an egregious situation for this community to have to do this right now and the people were not told accurate information about why this had to happen.
“We don’t have to fix our levees, we have to modify them because of information from a group of people that won’t let us take care of it ourselves,” she said, adding that the city could’ve fought “at least part” of the required levee upgrades. “When that wall goes up and people can’t see over it they’re going to go back and complain.”
Koelling said she’s not surprised by the measure’s comfortable passage given what she describes as fear tactics and the amount of money spent to persuade voters of its necessity.
Hindi, for his part, was not surprised either.
“I want to thank all the community members who volunteered to help pass this critical measure and my fellow councilmembers and voters especially for protecting Foster City and its future.”
Hindi added that the levee design is about 80 percent complete and will be ready for construction bidding by October. It is estimated construction could take two years starting in spring 2019.
“It’s going to be very costly for the residents of Foster City and I don’t think they realize how much as there will be periodic assessments as it moves along and businesses will be paying a hunk of change for this as well,” Koelling said. “It’s crazy to be asking Foster City residents to be putting out this money now and what about everywhere else in the Bay Area? The waters won’t just rise around Foster City.”
(1) comment
Linda Koelling was against it?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.