COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Department of Public Works

DATE:

December 27, 2006

BOARD MEETING DATE:

January 9, 2007

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Neil R. Cullen, Director of Public Works

SUBJECT:

Resurfacing of County Maintained Roads in the MidCoast

Recommendation

Adopt a resolution determining that resurfacing (asphalt concrete overlays, cape seals, slurry seals and other resurfacing applications) of County maintained roads in the MidCoast area, is an allowed exception as provided by the General Policies of the MidCoast Community Plan, as the resurfacing of MidCoast roads will preserve the existing “neighborhood quality” of the area.

Vision Alignment

Commitment: Ensures basic health and safety of all.

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

The resurfacing of Midcoast roads will improve the condition of the roads for the benefit of the public while maintaining the existing neighborhood quality of the area.

Background

Previous Board Action

Adopted amendments to the MidCoast Community Plan and an ordinance in 1994, that governs the installation of road improvements in the MidCoast area.

History

The MidCoast Community Plan (Community Plan) provides that “all owner and County initiated road improvement projects… shall comply…” with the standards as defined for each area of the MidCoast. Only three improvement projects were completed in the MidCoast since 1994, as the financing of improvements was complicated by the passage of a State Constitutional amendment (Proposition 218) that essentially eliminated a governmental agency’s ability to levy assessments on property including assessments for street and drainage improvements.

We subsequently discussed alternatives with the MidCoast Community Council whereby only County financed street improvements would be constructed (i.e. travel way and valley gutters); and no property related improvements would be constructed as part of a project, and therefore, no property assessments would need to be levied. Additional improvements such as driveway, walkway or parking areas, could be coordinated with our work and paid for separately by those property owners who wanted the additional work done.

The MidCoast Council approved this concept and we surveyed property owners on twelve (12) streets to see if minimum street improvements were desired. We only received surveys back from a majority of property owners on portions of Etheldore Street in Montara and on Cornell and California Avenues in the Princeton area. We did not receive a majority of surveys back on the remaining nine (9) streets, as property owners either were not willing to commit to being responsible for work associated with their property, or were concerned that improvements would lead to more traffic on their street that would travel at a higher rate of speed.

The State Controller generally considers road resurfacing a maintenance type project; and the Planning Division of Community Development also considers resurfacing as a maintenance type project and has, in the past, issued Coastal Development Permit Exemptions for this type of work. We continue to resurface (slurry seals, cape seals or asphalt overlays) streets in the MidCoast that were previously improved to a minimum standard to maintain the streets’ surface.

Your Board has, for both the Emerald Hills and the Devonshire Canyon areas of the County, adopted road resurfacing as a minimum standard, and it is one of the options for road improvements in the Fair Oaks area adjacent to Redwood City.

Discussion

Determining that resurfacing of County maintained roads in the MidCoast area is an allowed exception to the Community Plan will not eliminate the standards as approved in the Community Plan. However, it will allow the Department more flexibility in maintaining the travel ways of the County maintained road system in a reasonable condition commensurate with the Community Plan.

The cost of resurfacing a road is considerably less expensive than reconstructing a road, and therefore, more resurfacing could be done with a like amount of funds. We have developed a preliminary list of roads that we believe should be resurfaced and can expand on the list based upon the input from the MidCoast Community Council, and based on the criteria
(i.e. Pavement Condition Index [PCI]) that we use to identify needed projects in the other unincorporated areas of the County.

We will also coordinate our work with the drainage improvements that your Board previously approved on Cypress; Sunshine Valley Road and Etheldore Street; and on Cedar and Harte Streets; and with other drainage improvements as may be recommended by the Committee that your Board created as part of the Local Coastal Plan update.

A copy of this report has been sent to members of the MidCoast Community Council, the Princeton Association, to the utility type service providers in the MidCoast area, and to the City of Half Moon Bay to make them aware of our recommendation; and we will report any comments that we receive to your Board when you consider our recommendation.

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

Fiscal Impact

There is no direct impact to any fund administered by the County if your Board adopts the resolution as recommended. There will be an impact to the Road Fund associated with implementing resurfacing projects on roads in the MidCoast. Costs of these projects are estimated at:

Slurry Seals

$ 34,000 per mile

Cape Seals

$ 400,000 per mile

Asphalt Concrete Overlays

$1,100,000 per mile

Road Funds have been budgeted for Fiscal Year 2006/07 to finance resurfacing projects in the MidCoast and we propose to budget additional funds in subsequent fiscal years. The projects will be prioritized with other resurfacing projects throughout the County.

There is no impact to the General Fund.