|
|
|
|
|
|
COUNTY OF SAN MATEOInter-Departmental Correspondence |
Department of Public Works |
| |
DATE: |
May 3, 2002 |
| |
|
BOARD MEETING DATE: |
June 18, 2002 |
| |
TO: |
Honorable Board of Supervisors |
| |
|
FROM: |
Neil R. Cullen, Director of Public Works |
| |
|
SUBJECT: |
Road Standards and Road Priority List for North Fair Oaks (Project No. R4H00 - F100 [4]) |
| |
Recommendation |
Adopt resolutions adopting: |
| |
1. |
Minimum road standards for the unimproved roads in the North Fair Oaks Area (Area); and |
| |
2. |
A priority list to be used by the Department in recommending road reconstruction projects in the Area to your Board. |
| |
Previous Board Action |
Adopted minimum road standards and road priority lists for other areas of the County that are used by Public Works in developing and recommending road improvement projects to your Board. |
| |
Key Facts |
1. |
A previous drainage study identified areas in North Fair Oaks that would flood as a result of a 10-year storm event (an event that is likely to occur every 10 years). However, constructing storm drainage facilities to alleviate the flooding experienced in the Area was determined not to be feasible in the near term due to downstream constraints in Redwood City as well as the property owners' costs associated with constructing a storm drain system. |
| |
|
2. |
The North Fair Oaks Council (Council) agreed that the Department should move forward with the development of minimum road standards for the Area including mitigating increased runoff from reconstructed streets, in order that current flooding would not be exacerbated since constructing a storm drain system for the area is not currently feasible. |
| |
|
3. |
The process used by the Department in developing road standards and a priority list for the Area included a variety of opportunities for public input and was endorsed by the Council. |
| |
|
4. |
Developing road standards, a priority list, and improving roads will aid the Department in meeting the Outcome Based Management objectives. |
| |
|
5. |
The Council has endorsed the road standards and priority list. |
| |
|
Discussion |
The steps taken by the Department to develop the proposed minimum road standards and priority list were: |
| |
|
Conducted a field survey of the existing unimproved roads. |
|
Divided the Area into four sub-areas based on their distinct differences and need for different road standard options. |
|
Developed options for street standards in the sub-areas based on standards developed in other County areas and through discussions with the Council at noticed Council meetings. |
|
Obtained input from the Council regarding the draft surveys and letters that were proposed to be sent to the property owners on unimproved streets. |
|
Sent notices to all property owners in the sub-areas and conducted two night meetings to discuss road standards, explain the process to be used and the format of the survey that was going to be sent to each property owner. |
|
Mailed the surveys and tabulated the survey results. |
|
Developed preferred road standards for each sub-area and a composite priority list based on the survey results. |
|
Discussed the survey results, proposed preferred road standards and the composite priority list with the Council at a regular Council meeting. |
|
Posted the survey results, proposed road standards and priority list on the Internet web site and mailed the same information to the property owners in the sub-areas. |
|
Mailed a notice to all property owners in the sub-areas of a night meeting where we explained and answered questions about the survey results, proposed road standards, priority list, and methodology used by the Department to develop the standards and priority list. |
|
Reported back to the Council on the comments received at the public meeting. |
| |
Development of Proposed Road Standards |
We determined proposed road standards for the sub-areas based on which options the property owners "most" or "least" preferred in the surveys. We also determined a "default option" which would be used when property owners on a specific street in subsequent surveys agreed that the street should be reconstructed, but could not agree on what standard should be used. |
| |
Development of Proposed Priority List |
The streets were prioritized based on drainage, pavement condition, and survey results. The first seven streets on the priority list were identified in the previous drainage study for the Area as streets that currently experience flooding that could impact the adjacent properties and which would most directly be affected by upstream improvements. The remaining streets were prioritized based on a combination of pavement condition and survey results. |
| |
Property Owners Comments |
The following is a summary of the comments and responses to the comments that we received from property owners during the above described process: |
|
Comment - Drainage and not exacerbating flooding in connection with road improvements is a major concern for many property owners. |
|
Response - We have incorporated drainage as a factor in prioritizing the roads. We anticipate that during the design phase for specific streets, any increase in runoff will be mitigated by creating areas to store water or allow water to percolate into the ground. |
|
Comment - Protection of existing trees while improving the roads is of concern to many property owners. |
|
Response - The proposed standards have varying degrees of impact to existing trees. Property owners in subsequent street by street surveys can elect to have the street remain "as is" or choose the resurfacing option which will have the least impact on trees; and specific attention to trees will be given during the design and construction phases of the projects, which can include retaining a licensed arborist to evaluate the trees or eliminating improvements adjacent to specific trees. |
|
Comment - It was suggested that streets be prioritized based on the amount and type of traffic that use the streets. |
|
Response - We believe that we have incorporated these elements by prioritizing roads based on their pavement condition, as the distresses exhibited by the road are due in part to the amount and type of traffic experienced by the street. We recognize that pavement conditions will change over time and may not change uniformly on all streets. However, we also believe that it is appropriate to use the pavement condition of the streets at a specific point in time for the purpose of establishing a priority list. |
| |
Vision Alignment |
We believe our recommendation is consistent with the Shared Commitment of a "Responsive, Effective and Collaborative Government," and to "Ensure Basic Health and Safety for All" as the proposed road standards and priority list were developed with multiple opportunities for input by the property owners in the sub-areas, and the proposed recommendations determine an orderly process to be followed for reconstructing public roads in the sub-areas for the benefit of the public that use these facilities. |
| |
Fiscal Impact |
There is no fiscal impact directly associated with your Board adopting the proposed resolutions. There will be an impact when funds are appropriated to finance specific street reconstruction projects. We will be recommending that Road Funds, Mitigation Fees, 1/2 Cent Transportation Funds or County Service Area 8 Funds be used to finance the proposed construction. We also anticipate that funding for the proposed road projects will be incorporated into the annual budget process and compete for funding that is used to finance the maintenance and construction of the approximately 317 miles of roads that the County is responsible for. |
| |
There is no impact to the General Fund. |
| |
Forms of resolutions have been approved by County Counsel and a copy of this report has been sent to all the property owners in the sub-areas and we have notified them of the time that this report will be considered by your Board. |
| |