Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06261990 - 2.7 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Coulvry 444 ,r CC!r�r •� � SF( DATE: June 5, 1990 q(rF SUBJECT: REPORT from the Public Works Director in response to Board referral of April 10, 1990, regarding Mr. R. M. Bickerstaff and fees in connection with Minor Subdivision 108-89. SPECIFIC REGUM(S)OR RECOMMEMMTIO P&BACKGROLM AND JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action: ACCEPT report and RECOMMEND Pacheco Properties be requiredto pay the Drainage Area 57 fee of $0.35 per square foot of new impervious surface generated by any development in conjunction with Minor Subdivision 108-89 and sustain the requirement to pay the Countywide Area of Benefit fee for future road improvements for the development of the property at the industrial rate at the time the building permit is issued for the new facilities. II. Financial Impact: Drainage - The subject property is located within the boundary of Drainage Area 57 and is required by ordinance to pay the drainage area fee (approximately $70,000). Fee payment is essential to insure construction of the Drainage Area's plan of improvements and for equitable application to all land developments. Roads The subject property is within the Countywide Area of Benefit, for which a fee of$1.60 per gross square foot for industrial development has been established. The amount of impact is dependent upon the size and number of buildings proposed to be constructed. The applicant has paid $66,355 to the County in fulfillment of this obligation, which if refunded, would result in a deficit in the accrual of funds for projects in the Central County Area. This could result in raising the unit fees to other developers in the area to co ensate for the shortage. Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: — RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE —APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON If— TOO APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AYES- NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 3 JJO:dmw G� MS108.80 Orig. Div: Public Works (FCE) cc: County Administrator Community Development Building Inspection County Counsel County Assessor County Treasurer - Tax Collector County Auditor - Controller Chief Engineer Accounting Engineering Services Road Engineering Board of Supervisors Minor Subdivision 108 June 5, 1990 Page 2 of 3 III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: Drainage In 1985 Pacheco Properties (Developer) was granted a land use permit (LUP 2014-85) to construct a 30,500 square foot office building on the subject property. The original conditions of approval for this permit include the following: 1) Conveyance to the County by Grant Deed, the future "development rights" over the portion of the subject property that is traversed by Pacheco Creek in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance Code (County Ordinance No. 89-28). - 2) The construction of channel improvements to the portion of Pacheco Creek which traverses the subject property in accordance with County Ordinance No. 89-28. 3) A contribution to the County Drainage Deficiency Fund (Fund No. 812100-08.00) in the amount of$0.21 per square foot of new impervious surface area generated by the project in anticipation of forming Drainage Area 57. (Drainage Area 57 was eventually adopted on November 8, 1988, with a drainage fee of $0.35/sq.ft) The "development rights" to the property adjacent to the creek were granted and the drainage deficiency fee was credited against the channel improvement costs. The Developer entered into a deferred improvement agreement to improve the channel at a later date. In 1989, as the Flood Control District was constructing channel improvements immediately upstream of the subject property, the Flood Control District agreed to also construct the necessary improvements on the subject property in exchange for using a portion of the subject property as a spoil site for excavated material. In doing so, the Flood Control District essentially broke even as it incurred an additional cost of excavation but a lower cost of disposal. The only cost incurred by the Developer was the cost of accepting the excavation spoils. In reference to the two (2) 54-inch RCP drainage pipes, General Conveyor, Inc. in 1974 requested permission to install a drainage pipe across the subject property and a drainage permit was issued by the.County. As the pipes were not required by any County drainage plan and were installed by the Developer only to improve the usability of the subject property, no credit toward the present drainage area fee can be given for the cost of their installation. 1 Presently, the Developer is proposing to subdivide (MS 108-89) the subject property and to create additional impervious surfaces in the process. He is therefore required by Ordinance No. 88-86 to pay a drainage area fee of $0.35 per square foot of new impervious surface area generated by this project. Based on the above, there is no basis for any credit for work previously accomplished to be applied to the required fees. i — ...ow Board of Supervisors Minor Subdivision June 5, 1990 Page 3 of 3 III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: (cont.) Roads The Countywide Area of Benefit was formed to provide a basis for the mitigation of cumulative traffic impacts due to new growth in specific areas. The mitigation is in the form of the payment of a fee, which has been calculated using the cost of planned major road and bridge projects and the pro rata share of impact based upon peak hour traffic generation. The Area of Benefit was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 15, 1988 and has been uniformly applied since. Pacheco Boulevard near the frontage of this development will eventually be realigned and . straightened, with a new undercrossing of the ATSF Railroad constructed. The new undercrossing is one of the projects being funded by fees collected for the Area of Benefit. The frontage improvements, which were required with a previous land use permit application, are normal and required by the County ordinance. The improvements were deferred by agreement because they cannot be constructed at this time due of the proximity of the major realignment project at the railroad. The minor improvements and traffic report required as a condition of approval of the Minor Subdivision is to investigate and relieve a traffic operational problem, due to conflicts between high traffic volumes on Pacheco Boulevard and increasing driveway access needs, exacerbated by narrow curving pavements and limited sight distance through the existing undercrossing. The conditions of approval relating to roadway improvement and fee payments stand on their' own and should not be considered in light of other fees or encumbrances placed for other purposes. There is nothing unusual regarding any of these conditions, and there is no basis for reconsideration or relief.