SU0015931 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The use was approved by the San Joaquin County Planning Commission on November 21 2006 , ( Planning Application 06 - 00320 ) and implemented by building permit BP - 0700138 , finalized on July 20 , 2007 . Wet-floodproofing of this structure was authorized by the Floodplain Administrator based on an interpretation of Development Title section 9 - 1605 . 12 (d ) which states that , " In all new construction and substantial improvements to existing structures in areas of special flood hazard , enclosed areas below the lowest floor , which are used solely for parking of vehicles , building access or storage in an area other than a basement , and which are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters . " However , based on FEMA policy , the structure is potentially in violation of the lowest floor elevation requirements in 9 - 1605 . 12 ( a ) or the dry -floodproofing requirements in 9 - 1605 . 12 ( c ) . The portion of the structure below the base flood elevation is used solely for parking , building access , and storage , however , according to FEMA , because there is no floor above the ground floor , the ground floor is considered the lowest floor , and the elevation or dry-floodproofing requirements of 9 - 1605 . 12 ( a ) or 9 - 1605 . 12 ( c ) , respectively , should have been required of the applicant . There is good and sufficient cause for the flood variance : While FEMA does not set forth absolute criteria for the granting of variances , NFIP policy , as described in Technical Bulletin 7 - 93 , Wet- Floodproofing Requirements for Structures Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas , indicates that wet-floodproofing of non - residential structures may be appropriate in some situations , provided a variance is issued . Failure to resolve this violation , as identified by FEMA , could lead to FEMA placing the County on probation in the NFIP which would add a $ 50 surcharge to every flood insurance policy premium in the County . The County could eventually be suspended from the NFIP ; flood insurance policies could not be written or renewed , any form of Federal financial assistance for building construction would be prohibited , and Federal disaster assistance would be severely restricted . Failure to grant the flood variance will result in exceptional hardship to the applicant : If this flood variance is not granted , the only alternative to resolve the violation , as identified by FEMA , would be physical modification of the structure , either by constructing a building pad to elevate the facility one foot above the base flood elevation , or by dry-floodproofing at the current elevation . Elevating the 72 , 000 square foot facility is highly impractical considering it involves complete disassembly of the structure and reconstruction on a building pad elevated one foot above the base flood elevation . The other alternative to consider is dry