COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 
 

DATE:

September 14, 2005

BOARD MEETING DATE:

October 4, 2005

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

10 days, within 300 feet

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

 
 

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

 

FROM:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

 

SUBJECT:

Consideration of a Coastal Development Permit to allow the reconstruction of a sewage pump station located at the end of Niagara Avenue in the unincorporated Montara area of San Mateo County. This project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission. (Appeal from decision of the Planning Commission approving the Coastal Development Permit)

 
 

County File Number:

PLN 2004-00245

 

RECOMMENDATION

Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Coastal Development Permit.

   

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: The proposed project keeps the commitment of “Responsive, Effective, and Collaborative Government.” The Planning Commission, in making its decision, found that the proposed project improves the general health and safety of the community by improving a vital piece of the public infrastructure. By upholding the Planning Commission’s decision, the Board would be reinforcing this commitment.

 

Goal: The proposed project achieves Goal number 20: “Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.” In reaching its decision on this project, the Planning Commission considered the staff report prepared by the Planning Division staff. This document outlined potential impacts of the project and how the project complies with the County’s Local Coastal Program. In making their decision to recommend approval, the Planning Commission determined that this project would have minimal impacts upon surrounding parcels and that such impacts could be mitigated through the conditions of approval, which have been carried over to this report.

 

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The applicant, Montara Water and Sanitary District, is proposing to reconstruct/reconfigure an existing sewage pump station located at the end of Niagara Avenue in Montara. The existing force main which connects the Niagara pump station to the Montara pump station runs along the coastal bluffs between Vallemar Street and the ocean. This location makes the force main susceptible to the threat of bluff erosion. To protect this infrastructure, the District is proposing to re-route the sewage into an existing force main, which runs east on Niagara Avenue to Vallemar Street and then north on Vallemar Street until it connects to the Montara pump station. The bluff top sewage main will be abandoned in place with concrete plugs at each end. To facilitate the re-routing of the sewer main, the Niagara station will be re-configured with underground bypass connections and a new control panel. The control panel will be mounted on a new concrete slab with wing walls that will be excavated out of the bank in which the pump station is buried. The height of the back wall of this enclosure will be approximately 3.5 feet.

 

Planning Commission Action:

 

Report Prepared By: Michael Schaller, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1849

 

Appellant: Chris Tyler

 

Applicant: Montara Water and Sanitary District

 

Owner: County of San Mateo

 

Location: West end of Niagara Avenue, Montara

 

APN: Public Right-of-Way

 

Existing Zoning: R-1/S-17/DR (Single Family Residential/5,000 sq. ft. minimum parcel size/Design Review)

 

General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (6.1-8.7 d.u./net acre)

 

Sphere-of-Influence: Half Moon Bay

 

Existing Land Use: The area of proposed work consists of existing public road right-of-way. Surrounding land uses include residential homes and associated landscaping.

 

Flood Zone: Zone C (Areas of minimal flooding), Community Panel No. 060311-0092B, Effective Date: July 5, 1984

 

Environmental Evaluation: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 (Minor alteration to an existing public structure involving negligible or no expansion of use)

 

Setting: The pump station is located at the end of Niagara Avenue, within the public right-of-way also known as The Strand. The station is approximately 37 feet from the edge of the coastal bluff. The station is underground, buried in a grass covered berm adjacent to The Strand pathway. The project site is surrounded by residential development to the north, east, and south, and the Pacific Ocean to the west.

 

Chronology:

 

Date

 

Action

     

May 18, 2004

-

Application for Coastal Development Permit submitted.

     

February 9, 2005

-

First Planning Commission hearing. Public Hearing continued.

     

March 23, 2005

-

Second Planning Commission hearing. Project conditionally approved.

     

April 11, 2005

-

Appeal filed by Chris Tyler.

     

September 20, 2005

-

Board of Supervisors public hearing.

     

DISCUSSION

 

A.

PREVIOUS ACTION

   
 

This item was first heard by the Planning Commission at their February 9, 2005 hearing. At that time, Mr. Tyler submitted comments stating his concerns regarding the quality and width of paving at the project site, drainage concerns along Niagara and the Strand, and the need for traffic barriers at the end of Niagara. The Planning Commission continued this item to allow staff time to meet with the District’s engineers in the field to discuss these issues and report back to the Commission. This meeting occurred on March 8, 2005. At the end of this meeting, staff concluded that the concerns of Mr. Tyler could not be supported by evidence in the field, or bore no relation to the project under review. Staff reported back to the Planning Commission, and that report is included as Attachment B. Based upon staff’s supplemental report, the Planning Commission approved the requested Coastal Development Permit.

   

B.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

   

1.

This item was first heard by the Planning Commission at their February 9, 2005 hearing. At that time, Mr. Tyler submitted comments stating his concerns regarding the quality and width of paving at the project site, drainage concerns along Niagara and the Strand, and the need for traffic barriers at the end of Niagara. The Planning Commission continued this item to allow staff time to meet with the District’s engineers in the field to discuss these issues and report back to the Commission. This meeting occurred on March 8, 2005. At the end of this meeting, staff concluded that the concerns of Mr. Tyler could not be supported by evidence in the field, or bore no relation to the project under review. Staff reported back to the Planning Commission, and that report is included as Attachment B. Based upon staff’s supplemental report, the Planning Commission approved the requested Coastal Development Permit.

   
 

a.

“County has authorized an encroachment into the right-of-way of The Strand which interferes with the development and/or maintenance of MINIMUM fire protection standards of our home. The proposed encroachment is located at the southern leg of the turn around which is critical to the Fire Protection Plan for our home. The fire truck will drive down Niagara and turn LEFT (South) at the base of the hill, then back up towards our home, then pull hose and equipment the remainder of the distance. A diminution in the standards for the fire protection of our home to accommodate the Sanitary District Lift Station is not acceptable without a thorough justification.”

     
   

Staff’s Response: The appellant’s assertion is not supported by the plans approved by the Planning Commission. The only above ground portion of this project will be the control panel and its surrounding concrete pad and wing walls. An examination of the applicant’s plans indicates that the pad and wing walls will be dug into the embankment which surrounds the existing lift station. The base of the wing walls will be in line with the foot of the embankment and will not reduce the existing travel way. Additionally, these plans were reviewed by the Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District, which recommended approval of this permit, with a request that a condition be added which requires the applicant to trim back the vegetation that is encroaching into the right-of-way.

     
 

b.

“County has authorized an encroachment into the Right-of-Way (ROW) of The Strand without a geotechnical report or proper oversight and review by the County geologist. The proposed Lift Station and improvements encroach into the ROW and displace the driven way toward the advancing cliff face. The cliff and the existing fire and emergency access are the subject of an extensive geotechnical report and cliff retreat study in connection with CDP 95-0046. The cliff retreat study establishes that the cliff’s edge will encroach into the 20-foot wide fire access if the driven way is forced into the westerly half of the right-of-way by the encroaching lift station.”

     
   

Staff’s Response: The appellant’s contention is that the construction of this project will force the driven way westward, towards the cliff edge. There is no evidence to support this contention. The wing walls and slab will not extend beyond the toe of the existing embankment. Thus, there will be no reduction or displacement of the travel way. Staff has reviewed the geologic evaluation that was submitted as part of CDP 95-0046 and there is no reference to the lift station nor its encroachment into the right-of-way, a scenario which could not have been anticipated by the consulting engineer at the time he wrote the report. A review of the above-cited geologic report indicates that, for the portion of sea cliff directly adjacent to the pump station, the projected cliff retreat in 50 years will be over 25 feet from the station. This portion of the report is included as Attachment C.

     
 

c.

“Encroachment into the ROW should be allowed ONLY if it will not interfere with the fire access of our home for the foreseeable future (i.e. 50 years per LCP requirement that no development be allowed within the 50-year coastal retreat zone). County staff should visit the site and stake out the required dimensions of the MINIMUM fire access standards for our home as defined by the SMC BOS on 10/29/96. This exercise will make plainly evident the need for mitigating measures to slow cliff retreat and improve safety. A geotechnical report and cliff retreat analysis should be performed. The County geologist should review the proposal and the encroachment should be subject to his/her approval. The County geologist should visit the site and identify the approximate safe distance from the cliff’s edge on which the bluff will support the weight of a fire truck and make a determination whether the bluff top can accommodate the Sanitary District’s lift station encroachment without interfering with the fire access requirements.”

     
   

Staff’s Response: As discussed above, the only external change to the pump station will be the addition of the control panel and its surrounding concrete pad and wing walls. An examination of the applicant’s plans indicates that the wing walls will not encroach into the established travel way of The Strand at this location. With regard to cliff retreat and improvements to The Strand, there is no clear nexus between the proposed minor alteration of this existing pump station and requiring armoring of the nearby bluff. In analyzing this project, staff has relied upon the cliff retreat study prepared for the appellant’s project in 1995. The County geologist, Jean Demouthe, has reviewed both this document and the proposed project and concluded that there is no nexus between the proposal and potential cliff retreat.

     
 

d.

“The system of streets (Niagara and The Strand) that form the fire, emergency, and vehicle access of our home have been overburdened by a long series of encroachments approved by the County Planning and Public Works without proper public and/or Coastal Commission review.”

     
   

Staff’s Response: The appellant cites a history of problems vis-à-vis his neighbor and the Strand/Niagara ROW. However, these problems do not directly pertain to the project before the Board, which is the minor modification of an existing sanitary pump station.

     
 

e.

“The Sanitary District’s access easement on Niagara, granted by Williams, is not valid. Williams had no valid legal interest in Niagara Street to convey to the Sanitary District for any purpose. Any easement claimed by the Sanitary District for access or underground facilities in Niagara Street should be the subject of a proper condemnation proceeding.”

     
   

Staff’s Response: A review of the applicant’s plans indicates that all work will occur within the public right-of-way. The County has not abandoned Niagara Avenue. The San Mateo County Parks Department owns the parcel on which the Strand is located, both to the north and south of its intersection with Niagara Avenue. While the County has removed The Strand from its list of maintained roads and does not maintain Niagara Avenue, that does not pre-empt the underlying rights of public utilities to utilize the ROW for utility purposes. Because all work is occurring within public ROW, there are no easements necessary to carry out this project.

     
 

f.

“Sanitary District maintains a hostile attitude towards access rights of this appellant. The Sanitary District took an extraordinary stand against our legal access rights during our 1995 permit process. The permits should be conditioned with a roadway maintenance agreement and a provision for revocation of the encroachment permit in the event that the Fire Marshal finds the encroachments hinder our fire access consistent with the requirements set forth on October 29, 1996 by the BOS.”

     
   

Staff’s Response: The relationship between the appellant and the Sanitary District is not the subject of this permitting process. The amount of disruption which will occur to Niagara Avenue as part of this project does not justify the need for a roadway maintenance agreement. The applicant will be required to repair the roadway to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works as part of the issuance of the encroachment permit.

     

2.

The appellant has summarized his position with the following:

   
 

“I requested the following considerations to mitigate against the dangers inherent to this encroachment:

   
 

a.

Close proximity of the driven way to the cliff resulting from the encroaching lift station poses a reasonable danger to vehicles or pedestrians: appropriate safety improvements should be installed.

     
 

b.

Reasonable and prudent measures should be taken to slow cliff retreat to reduce future compromise of the fire access if the encroachment is to be allowed.”

     
 

Staff’s Response: As staff discussed previously, the proposed minor modifications to the pump station will not encroach into the travel way of the Strand. There is no need for them to encroach. The pump station is encased within an earthen bank. The pad and wing walls that are proposed for the control panel are only necessary to retain the soil of the bank. The toe of the bank is the eastern edge of the existing travel way. Since there is no soil to be retained beyond the toe of the bank, there is no need for the wing walls to encroach into the existing travel way. Since there will be no encroachment into the travel way, there will therefore be no need to shift the travel way over, i.e. – there will be no change to the existing conditions. With regard to the appellant’s request for cliff protection measures, given the scope of this project, there is no rational nexus for requiring such measures from the applicant.

   

C.

KEY ISSUES

   

1.

Conformance with the County General Plan

   
 

Urban Land Use Policies

   
 

Policy 8.31 (Overcoming Constraints to Development) encourages the development of efficient infrastructure necessary to minimize the dangers of natural and man-made hazards to human safety and property. The existing force main is located in an area susceptible to erosion due to wave action. Re-configuring the pump station to allow the sewage to use a different proposed route will protect this piece of public infrastructure against catastrophic failure.

   

2.

Conformance with the Local Coastal Program

   
 

A Coastal Development Permit is required pursuant to San Mateo County Local Coastal Program (LCP) Policy 2.1, which mandates compliance with the California Coastal Act for any government agency wishing to undertake development of public works in the Coastal Zone. Public Works includes all transmission facilities for sewage (Policy 2.2). Staff has completed a Coastal Development Checklist for this project. Summarized below are the following sections of the LCP that are relevant:

   
 

a.

Public Works Component

     
   

Policy 2.6 (Capacity Limits) limits development or expansion of public works facilities to a capacity which does not exceed that needed to serve build out of the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project does not involve any expansion of capacity of the sewage disposal network. The remaining LCP policies regarding sewage deal with capacity and service boundaries. The proposed project will not affect either of these areas.

     
 

b.

Visual Resources Component

     
   

Policy 8.4 (Cliffs and Bluffs) requires bluff top development to be set back from the bluff edge sufficiently far to ensure it is not visually obtrusive when viewed from the shoreline. The only proposed external modification to the pump station is the construction of an open top equipment enclosure for a new control panel. This enclosure will be cut into the earthen bank that surrounds the pump station. The back wall of the enclosure will be approximately 3.5 feet in height. There will be two removable bollards at the front of the enclosure to prevent vehicle entry. The outer edge of the proposed enclosure will be located approximately 31 feet from the edge of the coastal bluff top. Given the low height of the proposed structure and its distance from the edge of the bluff, there should be no intrusion into views from the shoreline. Also, once the erosion control planting has become established, the enclosure will become part of the normal visual landscape of a developed urban area.

     

D.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

   
 

Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 (Minor alteration to an existing public structure involving negligible or no expansion of use).

   

FISCAL IMPACT

Not applicable.

 

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended findings and conditions of approval

B.

Appellant’s Letter of Appeal

C.

Excerpt from 1995 Cliff Retreat Study, prepared by James Baker & Associates for the Tyler-Tezza property

D.

Location Map

E.

Detailed Site Plan

   
   

MJS:kcd - MJSP1059_WKU.DOC

Attachment A

 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

Permit File Number: PLN 2004-00245

Board Meeting Date: September 20, 2005

 

Prepared By: Michael Schaller

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

 
 

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

 

1.

Regarding the Environmental Review, Find:

   
 

That this project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301, Class 1, relating to the minor alteration of an existing public structure involving negligible or no expansion of use.

   

2.

Regarding the Coastal Development Permit, Find:

   
 

a.

That the project, as described in the application and accompanying materials required by Zoning Regulations Section 6328.7 and as conditioned in accordance with Section 6328.14, conforms with the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program.

     
 

b.

That the project conforms to the specific findings required by policies of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program.

     

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

Planning Division

 

1.

This permit shall be valid for one year in which time the applicant shall initiate construction. Any extension of this permit shall require submittal of an application for permit extension and payment of applicable fees by February 9, 2006.

   

2.

This approval applies only to the proposal as described on the plans and documents submitted to the Planning Division on July 12, 2004. Any revisions to the approved plans must be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to implementation. Minor adjustments to the project may be approved by the Community Development Director if they are consistent with the intent of and are in substantial conformance with this approval.

   

3.

The applicant shall implement the erosion control plan submitted to the Planning Division on May 18, 2004. The applicant shall also adhere to the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program “General Construction and Site Supervision Guidelines,” including:

   
 

a.

Stabilizing all denuded areas and maintaining erosion control measures continuously between October 15 and April 15.

     
 

b.

Removing spoils promptly, and avoiding stockpiling of fill materials when rain is forecast. If rain threatens, stockpiled soils and other materials shall be covered with a tarp or other waterproof material.

     
 

c.

Storing, handling, and disposing of construction materials and wastes so as to avoid their entry to a local storm drain system or water body.

     
 

d.

Avoiding cleaning, fueling or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in an area designated to contain and treat runoff.

     
 

The approved erosion control plan shall be implemented prior to the commencement of operations.

     

4.

The applicant shall paint all retaining walls, external panels and bollards a light tan color to match the existing soil color.

   

Department of Public Works

   

5.

No construction work within the County right-of-way shall begin until Public Works requirements for the issuance of an encroachment permit, including review of applicable plans, have been met and an encroachment permit issued by the Department of Public Works.

   

Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District

   

6.

There is an existing Fire Turnaround next to this site, which must not be restricted by this project. Vegetation, which has grown into the turnaround from the project site, must be cut back and maintained before final.