HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05101988 - T.1&2 T. 1&2
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
DATE: May 10, 1988
MATTER OF RECORD
= ----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Formation of Contra Contra County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District Drainage Areas 101-A and 1010,
Danville and San Ramon area
The Board this day held a hearing on the proposed formation
of Drainage Areas 101-A and 1010, Danville and San Ramon area.
Bud Murphy of the Public Works Department reviewed the
proposed drainage areas. He advised that they will encompass 5 to 6
new developments that are proposed for this area, that the general
plan for the drainage area includes a regional detention basin, and.
the second element of the plan consists of a set of guidelines which
will guide each of the developers in developing the existing creek
into a very pleasing and aesthetic creek or riparian corridor upon
completion of the projects. He further advised that the proposed fee
of $ .15 per square foot of impervious surface for the drainage area
will cover the cost of the. construction of the detention basin, and
that the Councils of both the City of Danville and the City of San
Ramon have supported this project.
The Chair declared the public hearings opened.
Bud Murphy advised that Mark Armstrong had delivered to
staff and each member of the Board a letter supporting the development
and maintenance of a regional detention facility through the
assessment district process, but protesting the formation of the above
drainage areas as proposed in the Engineer' s report, and that Mr.
Armstrong had asked him to summarize the letter and respond to each of
the concerns listed therein.
Mr. Murphy advised that the first concern of the owner and
developer was the type and location of the drainage basin. He advised
that the plan as developed is flexible enough so as to make
adjustments so that the detention basin will best fit in with their
development of the property and does not at this time involve a
precise plan for the basin.
Mr. Murphy advised that their second concern is related to
the property value of the basin property that is to be utilized. for
the facility. He stated that what he could confirm for the record is
that the drainage area and the cost assessment includes an amount that
will provide for the purchase at fair market value all of the lands
that are necessary to complete the project.
The third concern of the owner and developer listed by Mr.
Murphy relates to the scope of the flood control improvements to be
constructed and maintained and the question of whether or not the
proposed fee for drainage area is adequate. Mr. Murphy advised that
it is the staff' s opinion that the $ . 15 fee for the drainage area for
the construction of the facility and fees or assessments being
recommended for the maintenance of these facilities is adequate, but
that if at any point during the development of the project it appears
that they are inadequate, there is the option of coming back for an
amendment to either one of the two drainage areas.
Mr. Murphy advised that the developer/owner has also raised
a question as to private versus public enhancements. He advised that
the drainage area project will have to go through the Corps of
Engineers and the Fish and Game permit process which will require
mitigation. He advised that the Flood Control District has no desire
to create a project that is not aesthetically pleasing and so in
will be features in the project that meet that objective. Mr. Murphy
commented that what Flood Control is telling the developers is that if
there are additional enhancements or additonal mitigations that may be
a requirement of that particular development, that the development
would then be expected to participate in the incremental cost for
those features.
Mark Armstrong, attorney representing Braddock and Logan and
Jerry Bettencourt, advised that Bud Murphy had addressed some of their
concerns as outlined in the letter, but that there is still a basic
disagreement with staff in terms of whether or not the assessment
should be higher. He noted that the conditions of approval on the
various Crow, Canyon Corridor projects approved by both Danville and
the County have in their conditions of approval an obligation to
commit up to $. 25 per square foot of impervious surface fee.
Mr. Murphy advised the Chairman that the Flood Control staff is
comfortable with the $ .15 fee.
Board members discussed the desirability of adequate planning and
financing of detention basins .
Mr. Armstrong urged adoption of the $ . 25 fee, commenting that the
developers ' concern is that if there is not enough initial funding to
complete the job to meet the requirements of the Fish and Game and the
Corps of Engineers, the owners would be looked to for funding.
Chairman Schroder commented on the uniqueness of the situation
where the staff is trying to keep the fee down and the developer is
asking for a larger fee. The Chairman noted that there was no one
else desiring to speak and thereupon closed the public hearings on the
proposed establishment of Drainage Areas 101A and 1010. He suggested
compromising with a $ .20 fee with the understanding that if there are
funds left over after the project is completed, those funds will be
returned.
Supervisor Torlakson moved to set the fee at $ . 20, and that after
Fish and Game and other agencies' reviews, that the Board be furnished
with a status report on the re-evaluation of the costs totals and
projections, perhaps in 6 months.
The Board thereupon adopted Resolution No. 88/262 establishing
Drainage Area 101A and instituting the drainage plan, and adopted
Ordinance No. 88-36 which provides for the amount of net increase in
impervious surface to be subject to a fee of $ . 20 a square foot.
The Board also adopted Resolution No. 88/263 establishing
Drainage Area 1010 and adopting benefit assessments therefor.
THIS IS A MATTER OF RECORD.
cc: Public Works