COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Department of Public Works

 

DATE:

December 15, 2005

BOARD MEETING DATE:

January 10, 2006

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

 

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Neil R. Cullen, Director of Public Works

SUBJECT:

Determining that the Design and Construction of Drainage Improvements at Three Locations in Montara/Moss Beach is Allowable Pursuant to the MidCoast Community Plan, and Authorizing the Director of Public Works to Finance the Design and Construction of Said Drainage Improvements with Mitigation Fees - MidCoast Area

 

Recommendation

Adopt a resolution:

 

a)

determining that the construction of drainage improvements at:

 
 

1)

Etheldore Street and Sunshine Valley Road;

 
 

2)

Cypress Avenue from Etheldore Street to Highway 1; and

 
 

3)

Cedar Street between George Street and Montara Creek

 

in the Montara/Moss Beach area of the MidCoast is allowed by the MidCoast Community Plan; and

 

b)

authorizing the Director of Public Works to utilize Mitigation Fees to finance the preparation of any necessary studies, environmental documents, regulatory and Coastal Development permits, and the construction of said improvements if the design of said improvements are approved by your Board.

 

Vision Alignment

Commitment: Ensure basic health and safety for all.

Goal 7: Maintain and enhance the public safety of all residents and visitors.

 

The proposed drainage improvements will help alleviate both street and property flooding which will benefit the public using the roads in these areas as well as the adjoining property owners.

 

Background

 

Previous Board Action

*

Adopted an ordinance in 1990, which established Mitigation Fees that are paid by property owners at the time a building permit is issued. The Mitigation Fees can be used to construct road or drainage improvements in the subarea of the County where they are collected. The MidCoast area is a Mitigation Fee subarea.

 

*

Adopted amendments to the MidCoast Community Plan in 1994, that revised road standards for the seven (7) subareas of the MidCoast and provided that drainage improvements would be constructed in conjunction with road improvements. The amendments to the Community Plan also provided exceptions to the standards for specified reasons.

 

History

The Department, over the past few years, has evaluated and discussed with the MidCoast Community Council (MCC), various options to construct storm drain and road improvements in the subareas of the MidCoast as provided for in the MidCoast Community Plan.

 

Our most recent proposal was to construct minimum road improvements on Cypress Avenue from Highway 1 to Etheldore Street which would require those owners of developed property that had not paid Mitigation Fees (pre 1990 construction), to voluntarily pay an equivalent fee to help finance drainage improvements. The majority of the property owners on Cypress Avenue who own developed (pre and post 1990 construction), and undeveloped property (62.5%) responded that they were in favor of storm drain and road improvements, but not all of the property owners responded that they would be willing to pay the equivalent Mitigation Fee. We, therefore, deferred the proposed construction of the proposed improvements.

 

We also met with MCC at their regular meeting of November 9, 2005, to discuss possible ways to help reduce flooding in specific areas of the MidCoast that has been re-occurring on an annual basis. The Council approved of constructing storm drain conveyance facilities in the three areas as recommended in this report, without requiring the associated road improvements as described in the Community Plan; and also supported drainage improvements being financed with Mitigation Fees that have been collected in the MidCoast area.

 

Discussion

 

Construction of Conveyance Facilities to Alleviate Flooding at the Three Locations

Members of the MCC have previously expressed their preference for retaining storm water as the preferred method of reducing peak runoff flows to reduce flooding. However, acquiring property to provide detention or retention areas, and developing the mechanism to finance maintenance of the detention/retention areas is a complex and long term process.

 

The construction of conveyance facilities at the three above described locations does not preclude the future construction of retention/detention facilities, and will help alleviate flooding in these areas. We also do not believe that the proposed construction will exacerbate down stream flooding as the proposals will direct the collected storm water back into the down stream culverts or creeks. However, the cumulative impact due to incremental construction has been raised as an issue, and this will need to be addressed through both the environmental and Coastal Development Permit process, if these projects are to move forward.

 

Conformance with the MidCoast Community Plan

We believe the proposed work is in keeping with the Community Plan as while the adopted Community Plan only addresses drainage in conjunction with road improvements, one goal of the Plan is to “preserve and enhance the visual qualities of the coastal community which gives it a unique character and distinguishes it from other places.” The construction of conveyance facilities will help preserve the visual quality of these areas by minimizing the damage that happens each time flooding occurs.

 

Use of Mitigation Fees

The enabling ordinance and subsequent amendments allow Mitigation Fees to be used to reconstruct roads and to improve drainage associated with the roads. Property owners have been reluctant to agree to road improvements as demonstrated by the results of several past surveys that we have conducted, as they are concerned that improved roads will increase the volume and speed of traffic on their streets.

 

We have reported to the MCC that there are not sufficient Mitigation Fee funds to finance the construction of complete storm drain systems in all the subareas of the MidCoast, and that our previous proposal - contribution of a equivalent Mitigation Fee by owners of property developed prior to the implementation of Mitigation Fees - was a means of having every property owner help finance storm drainage facilities. The MCC understands this, but is recommending that these projects be funded due to the recurring flooding in these three areas.

 

Critical Coastal Areas

The California Coastal Commission and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board are evaluating the discharge of stormwater and contaminants into Critical Coastal Areas (CCA) of the State. The Fitzgerald Marine Reserve is considered a CCA and the Etheldore Street and Cypress Avenue projects are located within the watersheds that directly flow into the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve, and the Cedar Street project is in a watershed that is being studied as possibly having influence on the CCA.

 

The CCA study will be ongoing during the design, environmental and Coastal Permit phases of the project and may impact what is proposed to be constructed.

 

A resolution has been approved as to form by County Counsel.

 

Fiscal Impact

The order of magnitude cost of all three projects is $600,000 to $700,000 and is proposed to be financed with Mitigation Fees. Specific costs will be determined as studies, as may be required in conjunction with the CCA, environmental and Coastal Development processes, are identified and completed, and as construction plans are developed.

 

No direct assessments on the owners of the adjoining property are proposed, but property owners may have to remove or reconstruct, at their expense, encroachments in the public right-of-way that could possibly be in the way of construction. This also will not be known until actual plans are developed. In addition, constructing the improvements using Mitigation Fees does not preclude future fees or charges from being levied on the adjoining properties. Future fees and charges may be imposed due to changes in regulations or regulatory mandates of State or Federal agencies.

 

There is no impact to the General Fund.