Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08132002 - C101 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: JOHN SWEETEN, County Administrator Costa DATE: AUGUST 13, 2002 County SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GRAND ,JURY REPORT NO. 0207 ENTITLED "UNRESOLVED DRAINAGE PROBLEMS" SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT report as the Board of Supervisors' response to Grand Jury Report No. 0207 entitled, "Unresolved Drainage Problems". BACKGROUND: The 2001-2002 Grand Jury filed the above-referenced report on May 30, 2002, which was reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and subsequently referred to the County Administrator, Public Works Department, and Community Development Department, who jointly prepared the attached response that clearly specifies: A. Whether the finding or recommendation is accepted or will be implemented; B. If a recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will be responsible for implementation and a definite target date; C. A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is accepted but cannot be implemented within a six-month period; and D. The reason for not accepting or adopting a finding or recommendation. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: �' f F. d _�_ _�wC :--- == -------------------- RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOM ENATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE —Y,--APPROVE OTHER �r SIGNATURE(S): ® ,. - _....------------_---------------.-_ ACTION OF BOA141) �y ROVE AS RECOMMENDED W OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN UNANIMOUS(ABSENT y' ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE AYES: NOES: SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED lMC `a CONTACT: JULIE ENEA(325)335-1077 JOHN SWE EN, r CLERK OIf) HE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CC: PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE GRAND JURY SUPERVISOR GAYLE B.UILKEMA COUNTY ADMINISTRATORf{ PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY Unresolved Drainage Problems August 13, 2002 County Response to grand Jury Report No. 0207 Page 1 RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0207 UNRESOLVED DRAINAGE PROBLEMS FINDINGS 1. In 1972 the County approved Subdivision #3987 located at La Playa Drive and Diablo View Road in Lafayette. Response: Agree 2. Subdivision #3987 is located uphill from a property (subject property) on Diablo View Road in Lafayette. Response: Agree. 3. The County did not inspect the site before issuing approval for Subdivision #3987 although they admitted they should have and had intended to do so. Response: Disagree. The Board of Supervisors approved the Subdivision Map of Tract 3987 on April 24, 1972 and there is evidence in the file that County Staff inspected the site on June 5, 1972. Since only the pertinent information from the paper files was microfiimed, the County has no documentation that a field review was conducted prior to submission of the conditions of approval. However, since it was standard practice when this subdivision was being processed in 1972 for County staff to field review each development prior to drafting the conditions of approval, and for Project Planners to make site visits as part of the analysis for providing recommendations to the hearing body, in the absence of documentation to the contrary it is reasonable to conclude that the site visits occurred. 4. The subdivision application stated that surface storm water would be discharged into an existing creek bed for conveyance to an existing creek. A subsequent cursory inspection by the County and a detailed inspection by a professional engineering organization stated the existing drainage path was not a natural watercourse. Response: Partially disagree. There is no evidence that the County performed only a cursory inspection. 5. County Subdivision Ordinance 914-2 requires that surface water runoff be collected and conveyed to the nearest natural watercourse as a condition of subdivision approval. Response: Agree, with the clarification that County Subdivision Ordinance 914-2 specifies a number of requirements regarding drainage, including the requirement that surface waters flowing from a subdivision be collected and conveyed to a natural watercourse or to an existing public storm drainage facility having adequate capacity. 6. County Engineering has repeatedly agreed that the subdivision approval should not have been granted without assuring adequate water drainage. Response: Partially disagree. In general, subdivision approval should not be granted absent adequate water drainage. With regard to the subject subdivision, Public Works Department(Flood Control Division) documents indicate that stats`reviewed the drainage and improvement plans for Subdivision 3987 during the plan review process, and found them acceptable from a drainage standpoint. 7. The runoff from most of Subdivision#13987 enters the subject property where it pontis as there is no natural outlet. Unresolved Drainage Problems August 13, 2002 County Response to Grand.fury Report No. 0207 Page 2 Response: Disagree. Topographic wraps predating Subdivision 3987 clearly show a historic drainage way across the subject property. County staff would have relied upon these topographic maps in determining the adequacy of drainage on the subject property. The ponding that now occurs results from grading on neighboring properties downstream of the subject property. 8. The first property downhill from the subject property appears to have been filled to a. higher elevation a long time ago, and has an old 24-inch drainpipe installed with the intake somewhat higher than the lowest grade level of subject property. This high intake on the downhill property is the only water runoff from the subject property, and since it is higher than the ditch coming from the upstream property, water is forced to pond in this area until the level reaches the higher level of the elevated outlet. Response: Agree. 9. At the next property line downhill, the 24-inch drainpipe reduces to an approximately 15-inch drain, then continues to an open ditch that runs past several more properties to an identified creep bed. Response: Agree. 10. The downhill drainage pipe was referenced in a June 14, 1972 letter from the County to the two adjacent properties discussing a ditch to resolve the drainage problem. The mismatch in elevations was not mentioned. Response; Agree. 11. Since 1972, the County has approved several additional minor subdivisions uphill of the subject property. All of these drain into the 1972 vintage storm sewer system, which compound the storm water runoff to the subject property. Response: Partially disagree. Upstream of the subject property, three Minor Subdivisions were approved(MS 1-88, MS 32-88, and MS 72-88). During the plan review process, data provided by the developer's engineers indicated the downstream systems were adequate and complied with County Subdivision Ordinance requirements. County staff reviewed the data submitted by the developer's engineers and agreed with their analysis. 12. County Department of Public Works has advised owner of subject property that he is not responsible for this ponding problem, and that future uphill developers will be required to resolve this problem. Response: Partially disagree. California law requires properties to accept drainage from upstream properties. However, new development is required to mitigate its runoff to pre- existing levels. Oftentimes, this includes onsite detention andlor bypass of an existing inadequate drainage system rather than repairing it. The subject property owner was advised that his drainage condition could possibly be relieved by improvements made by new development. 13. Various correspondence begin County Planning Department, County Flood Control District, Subdivision #3987 applicant, the then resident of the subject property, and the then resident of the upstream property, discuss inadequacy of drainage, including easement for a new drainage pipe and signed releases for surface drainage over the upstream property. Subsequently, applicant wrote that he would not provide the discussed underground pipe. Both residents, and some neighbors, had written the County that they had experienced severe flood damage to their orchards. Response: Agree. Unresolved [drainage Problems August 13, 2002 County Response to Grand Jury Report No. 0207 Page 3 14. The upstream neighbor to the subject property refused to sign a drainage release, but did later grant a drainage easement for some consideration from the applicant. Subject property owner offered to sign an easement for an underground pipe. The County Planning Department referred the offer for easement to the County Flood Control District. No agreement was met and no action was taken. Response. Partially disagree. The owner of the subject property submitted a letter indicating a preference for granting an easement for a drainage pipe, if necessary. The Public Works Department(Flood Control Division) contacted the subject property owner on April 18, 1972 regarding a drainage easement for Subdivision 3987. The upstream neighbor, the developer, and the subject property owner were unable to reach agreement and, consequently, an easement was never granted. 15. During the subdivision application process County notations on drainage drawings indicate that applicant of Subdivision #3987 statements, "water is conveyed to an existing creek bed," must be verified (by the County). There is no record this was ever done. Subsequent reviews by County Engineers in 1990 and a private engineering firm in 1996 state subject property was not an existing creek bed. Response: Partially disagree. (With regard to documentation, please see the County's response to Finding No. 3.) D. B. Fleet and Associates completed a preliminary review of the drainage problem on the subject property and issued a report dated September 24, 1996. In this report, Fiett identifies two historic drainage paths across the subject property. One drainage path is a creek, which crosses the southeast comer of the property, and the other is a drainage swele without derinable bed and banks, which crosses the width of the property. Subdivision 3987 drains to the drainage Swale across the width of the subject property. 16. Various 1990 County Flood Control memos indicate that subject property drainage is inadequate and that future subdivisions will be required to "collect and convey„ to a natural watercourse. Neither Flood Control nor Public Works would remedy the current inadequate drainage problem. Response. Agree. 17. During 1992 and 1993, letters from the County informed the subject property owner that future uphill developments would be required to replace the ditch on his property with an underground system. Response: Agree. 18. In January 1994, County Public Works Department described subject property's drainage problem to District 2 Supervisor, including description of many assumptions by Public Works Department about existing drainage that were either inaccurate or totally incorrect. The statement of Public Works Department was that drainage may or may not be adequate, but there was nothing the County could do. Response: Partially disagree. The Public Works Director sent the attached memorandum dated January 18, 1994 to the District ll Supervisor summarizing the drainage issues regarding the subject property. The memorandum included a topographic map clearly showing the historic drainage way on the subject property. The Public Works Department believes the statements made in this memorandum regarding the existing drainage were accurate and correct. 19. The County Mosquito Abatement District has cited the owner of subject property for having standing water on this property. Response: Disagree. According to the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District(MVC District), they have not pursued any abatement or enforcement action on Unresolved Drainage Problems ,august 13, 2002 County Response to Grand Jury Report No. 0207 Page 4 the subject property. Incidentally, the MVC District has no authority to issue citations for having standing wafer. 20. In July 1996, the County Mosquito and Vector Control District sent a letter to County Public Works Department asking them to correct the drainage from the County street to the subject property to eliminate the health risk posed by standing Water on this property. Response: Agree. 21. A July 30, 1996 letter from Public Works to Mosquito and Vector Control District indicated that subject property's drainage problem was overlooked when the last development was approved and that it is the County's intent to recommend that the next development in the area install an underground pipe. Response: Agree. 22. In September 1996 a civil engineering firm, D. F. Flett, of 1655 North Main Street, Walnut Creek, CA, hired by the owner of the subject property, assessed the drainage on this property. Their report stated the following: that although the County maps indicated a drainage path for the affected property, it had no definable bed or banks; runoff from uphill developments was diverted to flow across the subject property, although that development carried the requirement to take all runoff to a watercourse having definable bed and banks. The adequacy of the watercourse should have been verified by the County Planning Department but this was never done. The same engineering firm noted that a County Flood District engineer prepared a drainage deficiency design and cost estimate on May 15, 1990. The design indicates the installation of 100 feet of 42-inch pipe and 275 feet of 24-inch pipe is necessary to correct the drainage problem, and the cost was estimated to be $58,000. Response: Partially disagree. D.B. Flett and Associates completed a preliminary review of the drainage problem on the subject property and issued a letter report dated September 24, 1996. In this report, Flea stated one of the two historic drainage paths had no definable bed and banks. The report also stated a portion of the runoff from MS 90-88(actually MS 909-88, an upstream Minor Subdivision) was diverted to flow across the subject property. During the plan review process, the developer's engineers provided data and an analysis indicating the downstream systems were adequate to convey this small diversion. Based upon this submittal, Public Works did not determine a creed to take any further action to verify the adequacy of the watercourse. The County Planning Department is not changed with verifying the adequacy of drainage facilities, but normally includes proposed conditions of approval provided by Public Works in the staff report prepared for the hearing body. The County Public Works Department prepared a cost estimate on May 95, 9990 for a storm drain system between La Playa Drive and Foothill Park Circle. The total estimated cost was $58,900. RECOMMENDATIONS The Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors implement the following: 1. Require that appropriate County engineering staff inspect every site for which an application for a drainage permit is approved, to assure that maps submitted and the statements made, related to the project, are in fact true and correct. Unresolved Drainage Problems August 13, 2002 County Response to Grand Jury Report No. 0207 Page 5 Response: Has been implemented. For future drainage permits the County will examine available documentation regarding drainage conditions in the area and will augment that information, as necessary, by conducting field reviews of the site and the surrounding area. With regard to new development applications with drainage requirements, the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) requires that an analysis of the impact of a development on surrounding properties be made and that any mitigation identified must be included as a condition of approval for the development The required analysis and mitigation significantly improves the quality of information on which approval decisions are based. 2. Direct Public Works Department/Flood Control District to establish procedures to ensure that the commitments to link a drainage change to a future development are actually known and reviewed when the anticipated development does occur. Response. Has been implemented. drainage concemslcomplaints registered with the County are recorded in Assessor Parcel Books maintained at the Public Works Department and are used by staff engineers reviewing development applications to assess drainage conditionsAnadequacies in unincorporated areas. However, new development is required to mitigate its runoff to pre-existing levels. Oftentimes, this includes onsite detention andlor bypass of an existing inadequate drainage system rather than repairing it. Consequently, residents experiencing a pre- existing drainage condition may not necessarily derive relief from improvements made by new development COMMENTS This report provides the County's responses to findings and recommendations regarding alleged flood damage to the subject property located at 3134 Diablo View Road downstream of Subdivision 3987 in the Lafayette area. Subdivision 3987 was approved 30 years ago in 1972 under different operating rules and procedures, and in a significantly different environment than today. The Board of Supervisors would like to note that the subject property owner reached a settlement with the County over the drainage issue and was compensated fully in accordance with that settlement. Throughout the findings, the Grand Jury refers to both the Public Works Department and the Flood Control District in relation to the drainage issue cited. The County would like to clarify that the drainage issue cited in this report is not a District responsibility, it is a local County drainage issue. Participation of Flood Control District staff on this particular issue was in a consulting capacity only. _. 07/25/02 THU 18:07 FAX 925 313 2333 CCC PUBLIC FORKS X009 ` PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: Janua 1$, 1994 TO: Supervisor Jeff Smith, District II FROM: J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director SUBJECT. Drainage Problem, Leonard 3134 Diablo View Road, Lafayette FILE: 3046-06 APN 169-051-025 This memo is in follow up to Milton Kubicek's conversation with Mark Hughes regarding the drainage problem on Mr. Leonard Van Nord's property at 3134 Diablo View Road, Lafayette. This is a long standing problem that first surfaced in 1972 with the development of Subdivision No. 3937, see enclosed map. At that time, Mr. Bell (Mr. Van Nord's neighbor to the west) filed a lawsuit against the subdivision developer, Lockwood Corporation. The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice on December 16, 1974. We have no knowledge on the settlement between the parties. Since then, several ether developments have occurred within the area. Downstream, Minor Subdivision No. 61-79 was approved without any improvements to the man-made ditch. We can only. assume, in 1979, the ditch was considered to be adequate. Upstream of Mr. Van Nord's property, three Minor Subdivision have occurred (MS 1-88, MS 32-88, and MS 72-88). During the plan review process it was determined, based on data provided by the developer's engineers, that the downstream systems were adequate and complied with the County Subdivision {ordinance. The Ordinance requires developments to "collect and convey" storm waters to an adequate man-made facility or natural water course. This requirement requires careful evaluation in each instance. The above Minor Subdivisions discharged their storm waters into the adequate man-made drainage system constructed by Subdivision 3937 which is upstream of the man-made ditch across Mr. Bell and Mr. Van Nord's properties. Goes the Code require the man-made system be adequate along its entire length to the natural water course? Our interpretion of the code is that it does. However, we still must answer the question, is the man-made ditch across the Bell and Van Nord properties adequate"? Some would say yes and others would say no. The issue is further complicated by the fact that the downstream properties have the obligation to accept drainage from upstream properties. What are the responsibilities of Mr. Bell and Mr. Ven Mord to solve their own drainage problem? The enclosed topographic map that predates Subdivision 3937 clearly shows a drainage way on their properties. if they were to subdivide today, they would be required to improve the earth ditch to a pipe or concrete lined ditch. 07/25/02 THU 18:07 FAX 925 313 2333 CCC PUBLIC WORDS (holo Supervisor Jeff Smith '� b January 18, 1994 Page Two There is some question as to our ability to force upstream properties to improve the ditch on Mr. Van Nord's property solely based on the Subdivision Ordinance Code. When the next parcel upstream develops, it is our intent to address this issue in the EIR process and the development conditions of approval. We will recommend to the Planning Commission that a storm drain be installed to replace the man-made ditch and that the requirement be addressed its the EIR as a mitigation measure and specified as a condition of approval. Until the above property develops, there is nothing we can do with regard to the Van Nerd drainage problem. We have enclosed some of the past correspondence on this issue, If you have any further questions, please contact Milton Kubicek at 313-2203. JMW:Iv c.VenNord.t 1 enclosures CC., Members Bderd of Supervisors V. Alexceff, GME©A Director M. K'ubicek 17+ pages of enclosures not included for brevity's sale.