Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07192005 - D5 JEFFREY BATT, (SUBDIVIDER, OWNER& APPELLANT) SILVERHAWK DEVELOPMENT & COMPANY INC. COUNTY FILES # SD897267,,DP9030039 TP980025, TP020008, TP00001 7 In the Walnut Creek (Saranap) Area Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County June 19, 2005 1:00 PM July 19,2005 Board of Supervisors County Files SD897267,DP893003,'IP020008,TP000017 INDEX BOARD ORDER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-2005 PROJECT PHOTOS EXHIBIT "A" SUMMARY OF PERMIT VIOLATIONS PROPOSED NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION LAWS PROJECT PERMITS (CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) Approved by the Board of Supervisors: I- County Files SD897267/DP893003, Modifications to 6-lot Subdivision Final Development Plan—Vesting Tentative Map (June 19, 2001) 2. County File TP020008, Tree Permit for 6-lot Subdivision(September 24, 2002) Approved by the County Planning Commission: County Files SD897267 /DP893003, 6-lot Subdivision Final Development Plan— Vesting Tentative Map (February 27, 1990) Approved by the County Zoning Administrator: County File TP980025, Tree Permit for roadways for 6-lot Subdivision (February 1, 1999) NOTIFICATION LIST APPEAL LETTER STAFF REPORTS: MAY 10, 2005 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1410 2005 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION CORRESPONDENCE & NOTICES 1. Resolution No. 99/186, Approval of the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement, April 20, 1999 2. Darwin Myers February 26, 2002 geotechnical review Letter to Project Planner 3. Public Works- Community Development email regarding status of subdivision improvements, February 24, 2003 4. Darwin Myers November 11, 2004 geotechnical review Letter to Project Planner 5. Reliable Tree Experts, King Drive- Tree#47 fax, dated April 14, 2004,received October 7, 2004 by Community Development 6. County Building Inspection Department, Notice to Comply, January 5, 2005* 7. Public Complaints Alleging Violations of Development Permit Restrictions on Construction activity, January 14, 2005* 8. Silverhawk & Company, Inc. January 20, 2005 Tract 7267 Documentation/Plan Request,response letter July 19,2005 Board of Supervisors County Files SD897267,DP893003,TP020008,TP000017 INDEX CONTINUED 9. Darwin Myers email to Project Planner, February 1, 2005, Jeff Batt Submittals 10. Darwin Myers February 9, 2005 geotechnical review Letter to Project Planner 11. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Punch list for CCCSD King Drive, dated February 10, 2005 12. Building Inspection email to Community Development, February 10, 2005, King Drive grading permit compliance 13. Contra Costa County Public Works Department, February 16, 2005 King Drive Subdivision memo regarding status of plans. 14. County Building Inspection Department, Stop Work Order, dated March 24, 2005* 15. Notice of Intention to Record Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws and Notice of Violation to Tree Protection Ordinance, March 29, 2005 16. Notice of Suspension of Grading Permit,March 29, 2005 17. David Bowie,, Bowie and Bruegman, LLP, Subdivider response letter to Notices, dated March 31, 2005 18. Correction to Notice of Suspension of Grading Permit, April 26, 2005 19. Community Development Department, Response to Notices of Violation of Subdivision Laws and Suspension of Grading Permit, Information Needed to Allow New Complete Application for Revised Development Permit to be Deemed Complete, Dated May 26, 2005* 20. Response to Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws and Suspension of Grading Permit, May 26,, 2005* 2 1. David Bowie, Bowie and Bruegman,, LLP, Subdivider's suggested "Notice to Potential Purchasers-King Estates Subdivision 7267, fax received by Community Development June 11, 2005 22. Darwin Myers July, 2005 King Drive Geotechnical Review Letter to Project Planner 23. County Code Excerpts *NOT INCLUDED, REFERENCE ONLY PLANS 1. ASSESSORS PARCEL MAP 2. SUBDIVISION FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN& VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (APPROVED BY THE BOS ON JUNE 19, 2001) 3. KING DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PLANS 4. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT JANUARY 20, 2005 5. STAFF STUDY:AS-BUILT (CONSTRUCTED) ROAD OVER B.O.S APPROVED JUNE 191P 2001 PLAN END OF INDEX TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �.. • --= � Contra ........ FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP :.��:. Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: July 19, 2005 SUBJECT: Hearing on an Appeal by Jeffrey Batt(Subdivider and Appellant)of a Decision by the County Planning Commission to Authorize the Recording of Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law against the Title of the King Estates project, Subdivision 7267, in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area. (King Estates, LP—Owner) (Sup. Dist. II) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATION—After accepting any public testimony and closing of the public hearing, A. FIND that the development of the King Estates project, Subdivision 7267, has resulted in violations of the subdivision permit and related law. B. SUSTAIN the decision of the County Planning Commission authorizing staff to record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law against the Title to the Subdivision. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTE APPROVE OTHER (S): ACTION OF BOARD ON., APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Speakers: Dave Bowie, on behalf of appellant; Ed�tard Y'...Soares, Saranap Homeowners Association. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Bob Drake(925)335-1214 ATTESTED JOHN SWEETEN, WRK OF THE BOARD OF Original: Community Development Department SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cc: Jeffrey Batt David Bowie, Bowie and Bnuegmann,LLP Building Inspection Department gy PUN Public Works Department Contra Costa County Fire Protection Department County Counsel July 19,2005 Board of Supervisors Appeal of County Planning Commission Decision to Require the Recording of Notices of Violation for King Estates project, Subdivision 7267 Page 2 C. DENY the appeal of Jeffrey Batt. D. DIRECT the Community Development Director,or designee,to execute and record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law against the title to each of the six lots within Subdivision 7267. II. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The applicant is responsible for staff time and material costs in verifying compliance with the terms of the subdivision permit. III. BACKGROUND This hearing is to consider an appeal of a County Planning Commission decision to record a Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws against the title to six lots of a subdivision that was legally established in 1999, based on an agreement that the Subdivider made to implement improvement plans that the County had approved. Two of the six lots have been issued residential building permits, and those residences are approaching completion. The County approval requires that the project provide for a private road and grading improvements built to certain design specifications. However, after construction of the project had commenced, it became apparent that the field conditions of the project were not in accord with the approved improvement plans or the design standards of the approved geotechnical report for the project. Staff communicated these concerns with the Subdivider, however over the course of time, it became clear that the Subdivider was not being responsive to staff. Finally, on March 29, 2005, the Community Development Department (CDD) issued to the Subdivider a Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation against the title to Subdivision. The Notice included a list of development permit requirements that the Subdivider had violated, most notably: (1) Incorrect Horizontal and Vertical Road Alignments - The approved improvement plan requires the road on the property to be constructed at specified alignments. The road (Oak Branch Way) has been constructed at the incorrect horizontal and vertical alignments. Portions of the road have been constructed 10 feet above the grade indicated on the plan and outside of the right-of-way specified on the plan. (2) Missing Upslope Road Retaining Wall -The approved grading plan requires a retaining wall that is approximately 540 feet long and 10 feet high along the slope above Oak Branch Way. No retaining wall along this slope has been built. (3) Incorrect Down Slope Retaining Wall Design - The approved grading plan requires a July 19, 2005 Board of Supervisors Appeal of County Planning Commission Decision to Require the Recording of Notices of Violation for King Estates project, Subdivision 7267 Page 3 down slope retaining wall that is approximately 60 feet long and five feet high, to be located at the end of the cul-de-sac. A retaining wall that is 10 feet tall has been built. (4) Incorrect Upslope Retaining Wall Design for Road Serving Lots 5 & 6 -The approved grading plan requires a single upslope retaining wall that is approximately eight feet tall, to be located along the spur road serving Lots 5 and 6. Two parallel retaining walls have been built. (5) Field Conditions Appreciably Vary from Design Criteria of Approved Soils Report- The soils report for the above-referenced subdivision 1 approved by the County requires various design standards including: (a) Cut slope gradients along Oak Branch Way at a maximum 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) gradient, or with a 1.5:1 gradient allowable where competent bedrock is exposed. The slopes cut along Oak Branch Way are at steeper gradients than recommended by the soils report. Portions of these slopes are at gradients of 0.5.12. (b) Drainage berms or interceptor ditches should be provided at the top of all cut or fill slopes, and drain to appropriate discharge facilities. In no case should water be allowed to flow over the top of cut or fill slopes. No drainage berms or interceptor ditches have been built at the top of the slope above Oak Branch Way. Water is able to flow over the cut slope. The Subdivider also altered and removed code-protected trees without required County authorization. The Notice of Violation would provide constructive notice of the violations affecting this project to interested parties(such as prospective buyers or lenders)should the Subdivider elect to sell, lease or finance the properties. Further, because the Subdivision Ordinance prohibits any County official from issuing permits where there is a violation of subdivision law, the determination of violations of subdivision law by the County would prohibit County officials from issuing new permits until the violations are cured. Based on these field conditions, concurrent with the issuance of the Notice of Violation by CDD, the Director of Building Inspection issued to the Subdivider a Notice that the project Grading Permit had been suspended. November 25, 1999 Geotechnical Investigation Report by Geostrata. 20ctober 15, 2002 letter from Arthur T. Knutson, Geotechnical Engineer, based on a 10/1/2001 visual survey. July 19,2005 Board of Supervisors Appeal of County Planning Commission Decision to Require the Recording of Notices of Violation for King Estates project, Subdivision 7267 Page 4 Staff advised the Subdivider that when the violations have been cured that staff would allow development to proceed. A cure of the violations might take the form of (1) modifying field conditions to comply with approved improvement plans;or(2)applying to the County to modify the existing permit; obtaining the County approval of that application; and compliance with its terms. The Subdivider has objected to a Notice of Violation being recorded against the title to the property, but did not appeal the Suspension of the Grading Permit. IV. PROJECT HISTORY For over 25 years, development of an 11-acre oak woodland, hillside site off of King Drive in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area has been pursued. A. 1979-80 Planned Unit District Subdivision Approval Beginning in 1979, applications were filed and subsequently approved to allow for a Planned Unit District subdivision on the site. However, the initial 1980 approval was allowed to expire by the owner before it could be exercised. B. 1990 Tentative Map and 1999 Final Map Project Approvals In 1990, the County Planning Commission approved a new tentative subdivision map application for six lots. The Subdivider then obtained County approval of improvement plans in accordance with the approved tentative map, and the entered into an improvement agreement with the County, and posted securities to assure the timely completion of those improvements. The Final Map for the King Estates project was then approved by the Board of Supervisors in April 1999, and recorded in June 1999. C. 2000 Application to Amend Development Permit In January 2000,the Subdivider(Silverhawk and Company)then filed new development permit applications with the County (including a Final Development Plan application; County files #DP803003 and SD897267) to allow for modifications to the lot configuration and residential design requirements of the 1990 permit. The project was approved by the Zoning Administrator on September 11, 2000 with modifications. The Zoning Administrator approval was appealed by neighbors of the project to the Planning Commission. After conducting a hearing on the neighbors' appeal, on November 14, 2000, the County Planning Commission denied the appeal, and sustained the Zoning Administrator approval, but with modifications. The County Planning Commission decision was then appealed by neighbors to the Board of Supervisors. July 19,2005 Board of Supervisors Appeal of County Planning Commission Decision to Require the Recording of Notices of Violation for King Estates project,Subdivision 7267 Page 5 On July 1, 2001,the Board of Supervisors granted the neighbors'appeal, but approved the proposed modifications subject to a number of additional requirements. Concurrently, the Board also authorized the applicant to make driveway improvements to two lots within a "scenic easement." D. 2002 Tree Permit (File #TP02-00 to Allow Additional Alterations to Existing Trees In 2002,the Subdivider applied to the County for a tree permit,County File#TP02-0008, to allow additional alterations (including removals) of trees within the project that are protected by the requirements of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance and by the requirements of the subdivision permit. The Zoning Administrator approved that application subject to conditions. However, several neighbors of the project filed an appeal of that decision to the County Planning Commission. After conducting a hearing on the appeal, on July 23, 2002, the Planning Commission denied the appeal, and sustained the Zoning Administrator approval, but added conditions to the permit. Several neighbors appealed that decision to the Board of Supervisors. The Board conducted a hearing on the appeal by the neighbors on September 24,2002. After taking testimony, the Board denied the appeal and sustained the Planning Commission decision, but added additional conditions to the tree permit. V. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON THE PROPOSED NOTICE OF VIOLATION On May 10, 2005, the County Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the staff-issued Notice of Intention to record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law against the title to each of the six lots within Subdivision 7267 on May 10, 2005. At that time,the Subdivider claimed that violations cited in the staff notice were not substantial. They also asked that the Planning Commission not require the filing of a Notice of Violation because it might damage the project's relationship with the project lenders,and potentially cause the project to collapse. Ratherthan the County issue a Notice,the Subdivider suggested that the Commission allow the developer to record his own notice on the project status against the title to the lots. The Planning Commission continued the hearing to June 14, 2005, for staff to review the feasibility or desirability of allowing the Subdivider to record his own notice concerning compliance conditions at the site. At the June 14, 2005, staff reported that if the County determines that there are violations of subdivision law, the County is duty-bound to record its own Notice of Violation against the subdivision (Government Code Section 66499.36). The County could not accept a substitute notice by the Subdivider to satisfy this requirement. July 19,2005 Board of Supervisors Appeal of County Planning Commission Decision to Require the Recording of Notices of Violation for King Estates project, Subdivision 7267 Page 6 The Planning Commission expressed the following concerns regarding the project: • Concern that Subdivider will sell project to another builder • County can't prohibit the sale of lots • County must do what the law requires • When the Subdivider realized that field conditions didn't match approved plans, the Subdivider should have stopped construction,then determined what action to take so as to allow for project compliance (e.g., apply for and obtain an amendment to the development permit) • The purpose of a notice is to protect subsequent purchasers of property After accepting public testimony,the Planning Commission voted unanimously to find that the project violates the requirements of the subdivision permit, and related law, and to authorize staff to record a Notice of Violation against the six lots within the subdivision (5-0-1-1; Clark— Abstaining; Gaddis—Absent). VI. APPEAL OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On June 24, 2005 the Subdivider's attorney, David Bowie, appealed the County Planning Commission decision to the Board of Supervisors. VII. DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF APPEAL POINTS, Exhibit"A"contains a summary of the subdivision and tree permit conditions of approval forthis project that have been violated. This list was originally attached to the two March 29, 2005 notice letters that were issued by the Community Development and Building Inspection Departments. County staff has requested the Subdivider to provide an as-built survey of the of the entire subdivision property(refer to February 24,2003 Public Works-Community Development email regarding Status of subdivision improvements). To date,the Subdivider has only provided staff with an as-built survey of the private road that serves this project, Oak Branch Way. The appeal points reflect those that were raised at the hearing before the County Planning Commission. They are reviewed below, together with the staff response to those points. A. Summary of Appeal Point Alleged Violations Related to the Horizontal and Vertical Road Alignments: The developer constructed the road in the location actually intended, and pursuant to subsequently approved plans. The original plan elevations for the road were incorrect as submitted by the July 19,2005 Board of Supervisors Appeal of County Planning Commission Decision to Require the Recording of Notices of Violation for King Estates project, Subdivision 7267 Page 7 original project engineer. The intention of all parties(including this Board) was to construct a road which would largely parallel apre-existing fire access road. Staff Response: The roadways have not been constructed to permitted plans: Improvement plans stamped Revised Plan April 10, 2000 do not reflect current field conditions, nor has staff approved improvement plans that depict current field conditions. Prior to approval of the final map, subdivision improvements— based on improvement and grading plans that match the Final Development Plan —were bonded, and a Subdivision Agreement executed. The Developer agreed to construct the improvements per plan, or follow ordinance procedure for modifications to the approved plans. The grading and improvements have not been constructed to plan, and therefore to the Agreement, and do not match the Final Development Plan. B. Summary of Appeal Point: Missing YpsLope Retaining Wall.- Itis true that there is currently no retaining wall along the slope of Oak Branch Way. Condition 5 requires that the work be completed and that information provided "[P]rior to issuance of building permits on parcels of this subdivision..." In essence, there is no reason to record a Notice of Violation because upslope retaining walls have not been completed since the project remains incomplete and building permits on specific parcels have yet to be issued. A Notice of Violation is obviously premature and is unnecessary in terms of providing constructive notice to anyone since there is nothing at this point to sell to third party purchasers. Staff Response: Staff does not agree that there is no reason to record a Notice of Violation or that such a notice would be premature. The Appellant's comment suggests that the Subdivider intends to build the road accordingly to the approved improvement plans. However, the Subdivider has not challenged the staff finding that the as-built road does not match the horizontal or vertical alignment of the approved improvement plans. The deviations from the approved plans are substantial. The road has already been paved and otherwise improved so as to indicate that the Subdivider is completing the road in its existing noncompliance alignment. The Subdivider may elect to sell the lots at any time. Without constructive notice recorded against the deed to each lot, innocent buyers may acquire these lots without knowledge of the substantial effort needed to correct the existing flaws in the as-built condition of the road. July 19,2005 Board of Supervisors Appeal of County Planning Commission Decision to Require the Recording of Notices of Violation for King Estates project, Subdivision 7267 Page 8 If the County determines that there are violations of subdivision law, the Subdivision Ordinance (§ 94-12.412) and State Map Act (Government Code § 66499.34) prohibit the County from issuing permits within the subdivision until such time as the violations are cured. Thus, without recording a Notice of Violation, there is no assurance that a prospective buyer would receive constructive notice on the restrictions affecting development of the site. Recording a notice of violation would provide notice that the project is not constructed to approved plans, and that building permits would not be issued until the violations have been corrected or resolved. Staff cannot approve or process retaining wall plans, as the plans would differ from the Tentative Map and Final Development Plan approvals. C. Summary of Ar)peal Point: Incorrect Downslope Retaining Wall Design: This particular problem is fully addressed go in the comments to alleged Violation No. 1 above. In other words, field conditions actually match both subsequently approved plans and the intent of original Subdivision approvals. Staff Response: The appellant continues to state that they are in substantial compliance with approved plans and also that plans reflecting the site conditions have been approved. Staff has not received, nor approved plans that reflect the current field conditions. The roadway topography map provided by the developer in January 2005 confirmed that the roadway is up to 1 0-feet higher than the plans approved by the Board of Supervisors June 19, 2001. The Grading Plan permitted by the Building Inspection Department matched the Final Development Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. Field conditions do not match the approved grading or improvement plan. Staff has not received a grading plan or topographic map that depicts current field conditions of the subdivision site. Staff has asked for that plan (refer to February 24, 2003 Public Works-Community Development email regarding Status of subdivision improvements). Field inspection by County staff does not include surveying of the improvements. However, due to staff concern, the Public Works Department performed a field check on the as-built improvements,, and that survey confirmed non-compliance with the improvement plans,, D. Summary of Appeal Point: Incorrect UpsloDe Retaining Wall Design: Once again, this is a matter similar to alleged Violations 7 & 3 (A and C) above. In addition, however, the staff comment to this July 19,2005 Board of Supervisors Appeal of County Planning Commission Decision to Require the Recording of Notices of Violation for King Estates project, Subdivision 7267 Page 9 particular"problem"noted the aesthetic superiority of field conditions to original plans. AD Why would recordation of a Notice of Violation serve any meaningful purpose as to this particular matter? Staff Response: The wall the appellant is referring to is on Lots 5 & 6, located in the recorded scenic easement. In a letter from staff to the appellant Jeffery Batt, dated July 6, 2000, staff requested "A revised legal description of the scenic easement will be required. Review and recording of this information will require review by the Public Works Department." Staff has not yet received this data. Those lots could also be sold, and they do not comply with the project approvals/permits. E. Summary of Appeal Point: Variance of Field Conditions from Design Criteria: The specific complaints under this category relate to cut slope gradients and drainage berms. These are matters consistent with alleged Violation No. 2 above. Discussions between the Project Soils Consultant and Darwin Myers should resolve this complaint. There is an ongoing need to balance soils concerns with aesthetic issues such as continued tree protection. These complaints will be resolved as a part of this process;it is simply premature and inappropriate to record a Notice of Violation. Staff Response: The Appeal Point acknowledges that the cut slope gradients do not comply with the design standards of the geotechnical report for this project. By provision of the Subdivision Ordinance, the design standards of that report are enforceable by the County. While the County may consider proposed modifications to those standards, there is no assurance that the County will approve the changes that the Subdivider may propose. These issues relate to geotechnical slope stability and public safety, and have not been addressed as required by code and approvals. The developer has not complied with tree protection required by the conditions of approval. It would not be appropriate to allow the project to continue without appropriate disclosure to potential buyers. F. Summary of Appeal Point: Removal of Code Protected Tree: The Developer submitted an arborist report with respect to Tree No. 4 7 on Lot 1 and requested its removal. After more than 60 days., no response whatsoever had been obtained; the project was being held up and permission existed for removal of an additional I I trees which had not yet been removed. Once July 19, 2005 Board of Supervisors Appeal of County Planning Commission Decision to Require the Recording of Notices of Violation for King Estates project, Subdivision 7267 Page 10 again, a Notice of Violation would appear to an excessive response to a minor problem especially when some response from staff could have obviated the entire issue. Itis very important from the standpoint of the Developer, the neighbors and the County to move this project forward without further delay and unnecessary expense. The type of engineering error originally made with subsequent field changes pursuant to approved plans should not really require reprocessing an entire development permit. The original Subdivision was validly approved and there has been substantial compliance with the conditions for approval. Itis respectfully requested that staffs recommendation to record Notices of Violation be denied and that staff be instructed to work with the Developer to finalize as built drawings and conditions without further administrative processing. Staff Response: Staff received a fax copy of the arborist letter recommending removal of the tree #47 on October 7, 2004 (copy attached) after the tree was removed. The applicant did not file a tree permit application to obtain the necessary County authorization prior to removal of this tree. Condition #3 of County File#DP893003 states: "Any need for additional grading that would result in loss of trees must be approved by the County Planning Commission. Non-compliance will be the cause fora "stop work order." TP020008 Condition 10 states: "Prior to any site work, the applicant must submit for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator remedial measures that would maximize the long term preservation of Tree #47 on Lot 1. This information must be prepared by a certified arborist': VIII. TOWARDS CURING THE VIOLATIONS The Subdivider has indicated that he wishes to try to cure the violations by applying to the County to try to modify the existing requirements of the development permit. To assist the Subdivider in this option, staff has: • Held a meeting with him on April 6, 2005 where staff from Public Works, Building Inspection- and Community Development Departments, the County Fire Protection District, and the County Planning Geologist were present to review the concerns of various agencies with the as-built condition of the project; • Identified in a letter to the Subdivider dated May 26, 2005 the necessary detail that July 19,2005 Board of Supervisors Appeal of County Planning Commission Decision to Require the Recording of Notices of Violation for King Estates project, Subdivision 7267 Page 11 would need to accompany a new application to amend the development permit for this project; and • Following submittal of a scope of work by the Subdivider's Geotechnical Consultant, in a letter dated July 5, 2005, the County Planning Geologist responded by indicating that the scope of work seemed appropriate, but also encouraged him to contact the Building Inspection and Public Works Departments on any grading/building issues/concerns those departments may have. However, to date, staff has not received an application for an amendment to the subdivision and final development plan permit. A proposal that is expected to retain the existing road design will be subject to the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and will require a noticed public hearing, and will be a discretionary decision by the County. There is no certainty that the County will grant the modifications to be proposed by the Subdivider, or if granted, it is possible that the County may include conditions that the Subdivider may not accept. Further, the process including any necessary actions to assure completion of approved modifications may take a considerable period of time. Until the process is complete, recording Notices of Violation to the 6 lots will assure that buyers of the lots(s)would be informed of the project status. VIII. CONCLUSION The Appellant continues to state that they are in substantial compliance with approved plans and also that plans reflecting the site conditions have been approved. However, the evidence that the Subdivider has provided to date and comparison of field conditions to approved improvement plans indicates otherwise. The noncompliance status of the project poses a variety of concerns not least of which include the safety of the development project (e.g., stability of slopes) and its inhabitants. Subdivision law provides that where a local agency determines that subdivision law has been violated, that local agency is duty-bound to take appropriate measures to protect the public trust in the development process, such as: • Withholding issuance of building/grading permits until there is assurance that violations will be cured; and • Providing constructive notice to prospective buyers of the noncompliance status of the project by recording Notices of Violation against the title to the subdivision lots so that those parties have the opportunity to become knowledgeable about the project and may avoid becoming a victim of the design and procedural flaws of the subdivision. July 19,2005 Board of Supervisors Appeal of County Planning Commission Decision to Require the Recording of Notices of Violation for King Estates project, Subdivision 7267 Page 12 We see no reason why the Board should not sustain the Planning Commission's decision to find this project in violation of subdivision law and to authorize the immediate recording of Notices of Violation against the title to the property. GACurrent Plan n ing\cu rr-plan\Board\Board Orders\sub7267appeal.bo.doc CSG\RD\ COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO . 20-2005 County Planning Resolution No.20-2005 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION,COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FINDING VIOLATIONS OF SUBDIVISION PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE RECORDING OF NOTICES OF VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION LAW PERTAINING TO THE KING ESTATES PROJECT, SUBDIVISION 7267 IN THE WALNUT CREEK/SARANAP AREA. WHEREAS, on December 5, 1979, related development permit applications were filed with Contra Costa County consisting of a Tentative Map Application (Subdivision 5187), Planned Unit (P-1) District Rezoning (County File #2401-RZ), and Preliminary and Final Development Plan applications to subdivide an 1 1-acre hillside property within an oak woodland into six clustered condominium residences, and one residential lot (total of 7 residences); following a hearing, review and action by the County Planning Commission, and subsequent hearing by the Board of Supervisors, on December 16, 1980, the Board of Supervisors granted the rezoning and development permits for the proposed subdivision subject to conditions; WHEREAS, the Final Development Plan and Tentative Map for the approved project expired on March 30, 1985 before those approvals were exercised; WHEREAS, on January 24, 1989, related applications were filed by Don Henderson seeking a 7-lot residential project consisting of both a Final Development Plan (County File #DP893003) and Tentative Map applications (County File #SD897267); in contrast to the previous project, the 1989 project proposed to distribute the residential sites across the lower and central portion of the project; subsequently, the project was modified to reduce the number of proposed lots to six; and at a noticed hearing held on February 27, 1990, the County Planning Commission accepted the Applicant's withdrawal of the Final Development Plan application, and Approved the Tentative Map application subject to conditions; WHEREAS, following staff review of subdivision improvement plans for compliance with the subdivision approval; the execution of a Subdivision Improvement Agreement by the Subdivider with the County to assure timely completion of the approved improvement plans, and posting of related'securities; and the approval of the Final Subdivision Map by the'Board of Supervisors on April 20, 1999; on June 1, 1999, the Final Subdivision Map for the King Estates project was recorded; WHEREAS, on January 3, 2000, Silverhawk and Company (Applicant) filed a new request with the County to modify the 1990 subdivision permit, and for approval of a Final Development Plan for the site; the new Final Development Plan application used the same file number that had been established for the 1989 application, County File#DP893003; the proposal sought to modify the 1990 subdivision permit conditions of approval to allow for reconfiguration of the lot design, and changes in the requirements for the residential design of the project; on County Planning Resolution No. 20-2005 Authorization to Record Notice of Violation of Subdivision Law King Estates,Subdivision 7267 September 11, 2000, the County Zoning Administrator approved the proposal, but with modifications to the proposed residential designs; on September 20, 2000, a neighbor appealed the Zoning Administrator decision; WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the neighbor's appeal, and on November 14, 2000 voted to deny the neighbor's appeal and sustain the Zoning Administrator approval of the project revision, subject to an additional requirement to provide for an on-site geotechnical inspector review of footing depths to assure that the foundations are grounded in the bedrock; on November 22, 2000, another neighbor, Paul James appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors pertaining to the allowed design and location of project residences, and slope stability concerns; WHEREAS, on June 19, 2001, the Board of Supervisors conducted a hearing on the appeal of the County Planning Commission's decision to grant the project revisions; the hearing also considered a proposal to allow driveway improvements within portions of Lots 5 and 6 that are subject to the restrictions of a Grant Deed of Development Rights ("Scenic Easement'); after taking testimony and closing the hearing, the Board voted to grant the neighbor's appeal and approve the project subject to additional conditions of approval including: • Provision of a full revegetation plan for each lot prior to occupancy on that lot (COA #7.E.); • The Geotechnical Engineer shall document and make recommendations for any foundation design changes based on actual soil conditions(COA#7.G.); • That all grading operations shall be monitored continuously by a County selected inspector to insure compliance with all approved grading plans and tree protection measures(COA#14.B.); • That a certified arborist be present on site for all excavations within the root zones of trees larger than six inches in diameter; and make on-site recommendations to the grading contractor and document observations and remediation taken and the documentation submitted to the Zoning Administrator(COA#14.M.); and • Authorized the proposed driveway improvements within the scenic easement area of Lots 5 and 6; Based on a field review,the approval specifically identified which trees could be removed; Page 2 County Planning Resolution No.20-2005 _ Authorization to Record Notice of Violation of Subdivision Law King Estates,Subdivision 7267 Tree Permit County File#TP020008 WHEREAS, on February 7, 2002 Silverhawk and Company (Applicant) filed a Tree Permit application with the County, County File #TP020008, to modify the tree protection requirements of the King Estates development permit and Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance to allow for the removal and alteration of additional code-protected trees; on April 4, 2002, the Zoning Administrator tentatively approved the request subject to conditions and a notice of tentative approval of the Tree Permit File#TP020008 was sent to interested parties and property owners within 300 feet of the site. On April 18, 2002,neighbors filed an appeal of that Zoning Administrator decision; WHEREAS, on June 18., 2002, a hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission,, acting as the Board of Appeals, and that hearing was continued twice; on July 23,, 2002, the County Planning Commission conducted a continued hearing on the appeal, and after taking public testimony, the Commission voted to deny the appeal and sustain the Zoning Administrator approval but subject to modified conditions. On July 26, 2002,, neighbors of the project filed an appeal of the County Planning Commission decision to the Board of Supervisors; WHEREAS, on September 24, 2002, the Board of Supervisors conducted a hearing on the neighbors' appeal of the County Planning Commission decision; after accepting public testimony,, the Board of Supervisors voted to deny the appeal, and upheld the Tree Permit decision of the County Planning Commission,but subject to modifications including that: • The Subdivider provide educational materials to any buyer on the care and maintenance of the resources of the oak woodland(COA#12); and • Site plans for the development of the site include a delineation of all trees to be preserved on the property; and that any tree so designated becomes a protected tree and cannot be altered or removed unless a tree permit is first obtained from the County(COA #13). WHEREAS, after grading and construction of other subdivision related improvements had commenced, staff detern ined that improvements are not consistent with the requirements of the approved subdivision permit and subdivision improvement agreements; WHEREAS, on March 29, 2005,, the Community Development Department issued to the Subdivider and Owner, King Estates,, LLP and Jeffrey Batt,, a Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Laws based on specified violations of the Subdivision and Tree Permits for this development; WHEREAS,, concurrently the County Building Official (Building Inspection Director) issued a Notice of Suspension of the Grading Permit for this project to the owner, King Estates Page 3 County Planning Resolution No.20-2005 Authorization to Record Notice of Violation of Subdivision Law King Estates,Subdivision 7267 LP and Jeffrey Batt, also based on violations of the Subdivision and Tree Permits for this development; further, there was no appeal filed on this administrative decision pursuant within the time limits specified in the Ordinance Code; WHEREAS, in a letter dated March 31, 2005,the Subdivider requested an opportunity to provide evidence to the County Planning Commission to try to persuade the Planning Commission not to authorize staff to record the proposed Notices of Violation to the title to the respective six(6)lots within the subdivision. WHEREAS, after notice having been issued as required by law, on May 10, 2005, the County Planning Commission conducted a hearing on this matter and allowed all persons interested an opportunity to testify; the Planning Commission then continued the hearing to June 1430 2005 to allow the Subdivider an opportunity to discuss with staff possible alternatives to the County recording of the proposed Notices of Violation against the titles of the subdivision lots; WHEREAS, on June 14, 2005, the County Planning Commission resumed the hearing on this matter, at which time staff reported that the Subdivider had proposed an alternative notice that would be offered in lieu of the Notice of Violation proposed by staff,but that the alternative notice proposed by the Subdivider was not an action that complies with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act; WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission, having considered all evidence and testimony submitted in this matter, Page 4 PROJECT PHOTOS July 19, 2005 Board of Supervisors King Drive Photos County Files SD897267, DP893003, TP020008, TP00001 7 Photo 1-- , Oak Branch Way, showin slo a instabilit beforepavIng 9' p Y ";: .:f..k.... v�v\ O YL*",*'*�--..�4 V\1 9r.9'r\': -}! f• .N,. ,--"..e��1! '^1,".Gr.�-}y Vx Y J LL\w�pL:�'•'yF�:'•:,}}�(y��L,f L 1' 4k' M1Fi 1. v •''• A• ;. :4{•L i- J' y� \ Y . r.. L,.• ••'v {;{ L . . 0 } {fig }. Y}l. L:\ `Y 'v .! .J: ,• ,'C �mayyy' -';-. r 9}.A•.4:Y~• :f l .N:;•n-. ':A, V;:{ •{,rr.��xYj�,Y}:Ty;{:J4,•JJ•ry-{/'�{�::,�•A•f'J,•.•,'L`}:f:.r:.;J•.• + '�}• LY.;•.J;SL•.`. Y..Jr•L:••lV'Jhf~.V.��j¢4.,{��'�y�,r;,,nr:::•..L._.y_Y �4vx::.{•i:'.•!T.?:::r'J'n`•.5�:•?!J r:::::.}:J:r:.7G': . { M1. f {.�Y. .^•' v•vY4LJr'.'{-}•ice''{.,{J •A JY{Y. }J. L'•• •.•}• .1ti::'i:;'•Jk�:L•i:w:•:4:•;Y' .::}•::.1;}.,::::.,{4M1Y YT•Ff'i0'xrr:.:!:..ti. .J.• •4 •\'...}.-�•}:y��•r{fJ y.', 4:{,'r:}r v:i{{:•:....::?+'fir. .•{J }t:J:YY����•" ....};•�ifi.f•}l..r�y}vr.,:ti..r. ,rlv':•...y,,.. } �JJ'Y.;:•.}r:•.�,G,T.J1, •r �,fmfi{:.v4,i{7••,.}L:;/{ryifi.•.:v'::ti•.;{.,.:�;::J•• y� M1• }:•+y9' •J Jr}, r�'yA{{•4•,:•:.}'.m}.-�--A' •. '.•r 4 y.`w}�} }..fy;.' } �f}4{•..`.f»r::•:•r {•r,. 4n{;r.,f, +�'•L..: HIMJJ JJ.%.•• ;.}::••••Y <• Jam::.:;':l.l L, :Jx;r.• } J '4 ••..•Y.v: ..{•ii:::•::•;,ir•�•-.'��`.MY{}::{{;�::•:%{::r,}}}_L,•..4:.•••}?i}:v.:• :{rw:: r w iJ {,,.'.:j{}i:}Y:•N}}Y:}1....>:;•i:14::.•!.}:v:.{:•.:fJ:::.�.:ti•.:+:.:.:•::;r::Y::::.}:{{:::•:,r,::•r v.V:v..{{v/.•Jr +i?}J.L.. {..4 }': {v:•. •:...:r.;•.ao-.:.....: ........: Photo 2 Oak Branch Way, Showingslo a instability, afterpavingno1 pY retaining walls constructed. 9 . : r .. .. . -%. I.. . . . ,.1 •$}.•G'r:•:•:•%{}v}: .................. --,..t`:!;'r:�:{..:'?ti:'{'LiA'•}..%'A�:rx,:•r,':} ..•9,✓•. •,.J,4. .;•:J•:: ::: ................'*- -.: ....... •:{.Y:.}w..�::::.:' {:•?S{.:i;:.,rt;Y':•:.v{Y%'+:LnJ.�•.;.��frr/ ••vC.f., .x}'}}f:}::::'.;.�;Y;J:�{JK--�:;:;}:!h{:M1..J.. JA•Jr.r.•:J...L h•}• .VrJ..N:..r.•.....L....... ..:... M. .....:....... J:.: •::::::J:::`.9:•:Y':.V::.V.V:•9•.9Y.Yr.r..:..•:. A. %.... :.w.v.v.vr:::::::•..Y:•: ..........-:...... }'.}:. ....... :•:i:L:LY::::•::.{ r.. �.�y ... M1.. N:{ .ry;\, ::{ ... i. :{r. :;, ::::: Jl::•::.:•:':: ..:.:........ -....1.:::::::.Y:•:•:•:.�.M1.....::.::.::. Y}tfA-:' ::. ...........:.......:...!:..........:•...• .... .... •..... ':::.::':'::•:•:•:• r('WYX•:L•.:. . ... •::::::.•::: .....•....J.V�:.}:•.v::.�: r !•i:: :A ,.::. ... : ..: ......•..' ..:.. .::: ........:::..: -'... ,.....•.....A... :::. ::::.•:::::.:.::::::::::.:.::::.: ...A.; .: -.. :... - :.. .. }r::... : .... .'.L'. ... •' ..L•ISWYyY: .: .................. .. .. 9y J. f. . - :::.'... M1 .. .w..: .. m rr x ..M1 ......... 1. A ..._. ...... :.:..'.. ... .:-: - ..... - .. - ..:, . ...... ... 1..... .:::::..:...: .. •.. r•:.{• y..M1........: .....,.n: 4 ! \r r J v r >. •::-::;n•Jii }Yx/Y...: ..V:..:):••J,{.•.n:' is:• .. ., 4}1JY+J ...... .. ... •1 .. :0+'... x .. �JJ r - ,y} r .rr y M1 y r rr! ,J r V J y i r J _ v r y-rr L } r ..J:.{::r4.: r.AY.Iv.. ....' .r.ti.} 'A• ,J: VV..•• r:. .. .•. .N:{•S'{•f•{*r.•.1}.r.. ::..Jx.V.. .J.. .- :...-.'• ::.....}L.t..: .••.•:;....:..f .. .. A•JJ'•M1•..,....: JN L f r L::V •fJa'L :}V. i:1%J d ' M v Av - _ -7 .Jwi rr'' v.J M.3}}.:'::r}A.J/�{.y .:..rN A':-Y.'�,JY•. n.A.•.. :. ...v.Y..}JwY+l h\..fi Jlr:v �;: 4 v,..rJ ....�r.. .. Jw... Y♦. f}rFlr }L} .Y.Y .. y w.Jp..y ..4Yt9J' ... :17y :'�^-AW. .. M1.}w;gv7'•. „Y ti,,?yi..:. .. ;... ...!!'.. ::.: r rYN}• .r... } fiv/".: ..r:9...... {.}}:};}vY.�. .::.::i:{:;.: J'Y ...: }}J?Y:}. ?:.. 7 r. '�.Yj{J,:. ..:k:•:::..:::::.:: `r ........ �:V7'•..:.'::.. .:-:•::{-:?:is J•n}}ti,.,..,.;..... ...........r •.•YG4}. :.v Y... .:9:• :•.r.- . {.; .. .:#w:v..J.:•.•:.:•LJS4}{•:::::::::... Jl:::::5:::.:v::.:v:::.n.?..:.'...::..:::::•}'}::•}:?. ...'.-' .rl�., v4 �'' •A%;7?•`..-...::'..::..........-.::::.:::::•::•, r.•L:^r'1..:•:::..•:nw:.v:............/.h.:.,,.,... .:.. f... .....• f L J J?:, : 9`0"} }:•:'-.:.:v:.•. A:v:w._::iSi'.r. {%fir.}:{.}:::Sr•}:.•,v•}+{.4.}}:•}:•}}:�}}:..:.:.::... }q... ....9 fr O :.:: •'} - .Y:!:::• .::::..:.:.:9•..:/�yyr::.vxx:.v:+ .•::.w:.:v:.v::-.:•:r}}>4Yi}`.:..-.:. Yr.••:.:. .:} }• .. J: �y� ......A..{ .......r.}:: i 4.-. l.y.;:r.... r.f.l.. .4::: x•h •?n' :ur:.•• OP4?'...:..-i;.... JJJ}r......r.-..::::•..i.•:. ....,...,'}.,.}•: •.:: A'UlYf•.. ..{NJlyJ.. ,{}J, .•:p'!.. :.o''•' •:A R:.:.......r:::•:•:::::�::r.•lf..........�:.•r•vr:{•:YXr:.- r'. •.9}?i?6•?'>. '•Y::ti{r^r ..4 .. L. .....;. M1lW.. .......:.. .....x4iL.r. .!::..}J.::.h .;•:., j'},•::• }:v:{i-..... �:{.:'r'! .. N.:::•: •:.•:_::-•::::: r..1.;........,,.•::::r::t...,. ria..•:•::: :Y ?} ��.:,y..� :. J :.. • r........- .. ::....v..... r........:.{{..:.....:.::.. ................. ........ ... .....r... rr•.,... ...............S................. .. ....... ......,.fir}\..................... '-:::�... f .•,r .... J:.. .. ........J.A.. n.•k.... ....�i.L;A LlXfr .N.. •.;::: .. ..... ....... ............1..... ........v:J,.;...J......... y�YF....... :...:k. r.. ....;.................:......1..}}..4:'{.... :..:.rte................ v...... Y•+• .•:::... ....... .:ti•A............................ ...rf..l...............r............r... -.. ............... .......... .....n. .................. .: ....;.............. ........f.. r.,ll........... .:::....r.........:.................. :.. }.:..., :": :: h.... :n•::r:.;:...: ............ .................... ........ ..... !.... .....:.):{:.Y:.♦ f. ................•.. F:.... ......... L M}}.:.,.1l.....::•.�:.• r..r:n 3''.•:.::::.Y:;.................................•........ '9V:,V,Y•. ..:...:....:....J...• ... ............. J....................A... .......:.. ....::::•.V; .........J..:.... : ... VX: •...r..♦... .. ...... r TPS ... 1L f........::......:::...:... .....:........1::: .... •.... ' ..r. 1. .......::......... ........... J:/l...............n.................-..... f... ..•:.::.:.. ................ ^T:TMs•..................,� :.......................n./.........-......... ��9r.... ......:: {;.>>ti..... 7ri06r. ......... ..............J......................r.r......................4.i�{............ .........:...... n..., Al J i July 19, 2005 Board of Supervisors King Drive Photos County Files SD897267, DP893003, TP020008, TP00001 7 Photo 3 County Peer Arborist Dennis Yreviewing n Tree 7 on lot 1 and stated that it could be saved �y. .v V }yy r.iy1, i' r: rY r. Photo 4, Tree #47 has been removed without � area (behind ermit and p person and truck) filled in without revision tograding ........... •f: r y'7 r cc ..'+ick:, ..,.,..•.•'.-''�3•.'<•x-•;•:f.`,...!/`.•-.,. ;IIS y �}..,...�.'�:��;•<_� �:. ,... •i�� r� � r M - ••x�My' 'VYA X J •-{A•Ji•' }y,• 4 •�'' v: 'iv:::;:;:-:A ,:..:v?Lvi011:�'?..:.}. :.K.v ':r '••:i:{iv,::;:�?�•' ''!y': •J. yp�y� ,��:.��'`'i,:j:•'.•}.; ^Iyr':"v•JLW �f'� 'k 'r �:v�.r'��. ,•y r .ti ��..r;. };t;;•;!;:r:�yp Iha•" •}�.+..+.'r;.C.yAT.v.�•�::?::its_^�••..•.J:)w�..,A��....�r:y��iS-w�'-{•!.:>i',� ..;:;: „ vrri•}i��4? } YfiY:'•:�.�':j':;{;;'{:{•?'J%'l�R•,•rr.�i•-.: ..,r`:::•.:: :v:vxr.•}::::.. !•i•::�ti-.:.:•.Y}::' '1i}':.•y� ?.J'i.:::r:.': �'}iy.v:} }.}r'•: •.w.;r^;:,4.. •:r ..T-.. :4!.?: v:<;?' •'y::.• n Af:. Ell�:" :.. .'tir.•:•!:V.V.,•.••:•:r:..I}:•:::•:.. :::::i..,,:.I... .:! Y. �" h4 .•}v+f.'...N:v{.:<4: rQw'.':•"i.r.A-rYw`}%{%4-�1::r;r:: .}n,v:x}4. .f:.::itii?::}•}}:• �:v.�.,A}. s•}. 4::• .i. ?ti.,. ., .!. v.fl.•-'� ':::�.:-?•y,•,:-:7•';_. «h n:;:;,{.,t r•' •• •di�iOMh {}:.v.:.:.0?'.K'.'�:;ri'i,'i: :;M...,t ?Y}t�•:rr.: ��..'-. ; roti:: :Ec•}: „ r� ��:r.?.:;�: .{f•.}a?;tS- .:;7.�:: Yca ;:<,. �•' •:.;••'rf rr+!�f:,,::-:. .':,wpp"fiwr" ::4•_:iil4{::i':w:::?r..r.::..:r::.+;.-.; : rr r. :�:�:'+:{�''.::.{,- ;} .�v!{'�,F•. '�. rx}.}"ti(4; sfr•}':?}''}.:�:RS•;:i:{ ,:oyhL •.r ::{.}'!.•.}! t •< �>:'v f.,r. •.}�,;x.! •.'�rt':y. �'A--n'^ •k,Y{.��.r{rte,�.�:{:- •J::5. .,t. •yJ� '4 'J1}'�•.�+. h�...;7�'<•i.- :•YA• ''TIYP.SY:r N• r /!r'•.., •C�CY�. -� '�Y:... ;ter,..:...:.� .•... .. .. y 7 -,.r.. .r..♦•.-..Y)!;{. :::Y:vY,vY S• `•'ii. �'}� �:ti }'t'}', •} ;�7;i....,{fi�.•,•'.y�{'}}'(F.'�' r k �%:�•. / , '� r'•':;;Y•! •Yyk �r��7:;.. •}}:•.;��y.N�!Y,�';:.y.;}.,fir x {.<r{ ♦ '.- .: r .•.{'?• .}�`y '�.yr'. r.w. ,A'•'+.•+'''• k}:•.r;{::<' '• �vu}:fi,:A:.`•�.M.!Ln.!S'. :i'} iT�.}; •vr}: '�l .x:.:•:•`:•}::}}'i`.'•.{?f,{.,Y,.:�}:.v.:.}}Y.!;?..}?r....n:}:;?}:ti{.: •}► ..�;i.. } �r,}i �}?rf :•?. r' ,}l?f:`•: • rr�/yy?:,•. v,I''{q }-. !/ori. y/' '•'-::•:,}' "i'v S• �'r:•1'r .J 'r' • rY:. '•}S�G��•rJ.r::?} ..wli. Yr:}:wii':r.r•':alts+..- v�<'{i: •v.y.-Sti::)•k 3: I '•'? .....iT•}}f}:•.F............:.N,.......:x/.�4flilGJt h....-.............................:�.....:.•..:::....r... ''r:�6..:. -•:r• 'Yf ..y. �,y ..`.-..}}} ..�r:... ................r..:..•r::.+.v•::v::.................. ........... .. ......,-.....:::'''v' r iv}4?�:. •.•fir.-':.. ..vY:$}�� }. -.ivr : .......rr..{.,...........r....,...................�•::. r.,N.. .,...,.....r............!r rr. f•iy..• •� J'J�::' .r•:•.••:}r.'{ �.. ..r: .}.. '.}.�. v:{MYr:•:•:•i.{}.}•)v.... :rF:{:<:\'<S':.;r: �Y '.?.}i�S.o.•. :., •.}i/.��:Siir: y.•�{..;'.}.Y:..hWON.{Yr•..N-:f5iFkf:r..-..lr..r:�...:•..:J..._..Y•:h....,..•;.•. .fr..r:v?,•a Y,.-.•..r•rr........... ...R.....-./,.:`,S.+�c.•.:,•!.f:..,:.•..:ri...�..•...::9.;S.;:..;.F.,,..4.f.:.:Y..;;•:.;.::}.:'1...•!.:..:.,r•..�.•.'rIr.[}::.:,..:.:.....:..:.::,..:.:,--.....:.:.:....:':..Y.;.;i::..:ma.::k.'.-:".+.}.:.;:.y.-h;.{....,.:...:.t?..•:-,:::::::�v i•:Y•:•i}::'.:.j :":UYf•.};_••�_•'}_�•r�.N•i•�r.•.�•A'.-,;•.7•� I I rJP':..' �'+.._4 v:?-i.}..}7+:••.�rp J�rJ� .y . ,r,.:.....♦...,....r ....•.c�:.:��.•�r.r.................•......r:.,,.;.;:::,•:�:: .,�4os `...•`'r',y':�'.,':+x;:S•Y .a' :•.{:. .5:.. ;,z•;. • 'i"_.x.•Y.v..;? .::::{.S:r.:....Y....::::::.,Y•.,..:. ...;..;...::-, ':}7C!-}'.•' i:v:� Y.?: <YN: A'x' ...�...ir.Y::.• y�'t'" Y:.O/I+r.• .»::..;. •:r<;.Y{;�..,::. •}"f:ir'i.�f r•k r: a'.Y•:... .4.X.....X•.... ,.•rte•::::::.. ,;.......:....:.�•h::•; ii:�%':.,5.2}'w•:i:•'':"!fi: ..,�'�1. X• •.4`•` }.•:x•. .A•}.}: ..{M1.; •.y:-: -:•iG:Y v%iG:4�� .., /.. `�i'. .:Y .N.:J rI:r .%''.::•�.r...:.... AIM :.•`'i.�'... f. T i {:r..� .:.r•:•r.••I,•i>i-v............$Y /..............n..�...•v.•.r:.•r�,-�•.�.v0!:.:}vv i�:fA•i:'` w:•' �Y�I••! v' •.v.: r;1?•: y�•r.;fr!� .;Yr::.r r::{..: ?•r.•: r Xry:....� ��Y'':,C i::y�:2::1'::::.r:: 7k!.:: .�: .'•' � '•}..;. •�. :y. of`.•:y:}'i:J r x .�:--i�..•Y..•:ry:•- :!..1liC+ T?`•.: ..Y'��}{.Y.r::�:i!.!.�.:,� Yh:;r :.v .'vr #�y� .S:rt:'rj:•;���;?;r.,¢i,•,H �'ir''S:�Y'r'iNr:r`�p 'fes}{r��>ii?:f�pyv�•. ?•r A , r {v}i:'r~•i.?}r.+ �.,.}::LK{4;:n.w?{i:�:. •'40 f. j' :TiS} 8%V7hY� ...,•:7}:•Y. iGr?ti.s. b?tiYrr8i6:i?+)'i�!!�iSG7'r'R•:.}:{r{.r•Y•n"4G•�J::.s.... .r... ..,..•:{v r... r Y'K::4lY..}♦,r{r,':,rJ•Y•s};%•. •i: syr.:.. .. • 1 1 :•. • • •— • • — �:• • �':• 11 '1 111om '•11wo1 An AL � ��,�7. �►• �•: �'.�'�\i �' ♦tr'{'.fl- �'�. „` :t q � is �t♦ �,' t,�. •� r w hV °:r M{' :a `� "�♦ "fit �' A 43,-,$, w 13 l� • { K' v i iy y i > y L M- v MRS {rh f F{¢ { J r, ex ,ay v N {'s'�'.{�� ,.'-l•.r{:{S;;£?'6r,�}.�C.;a{.;,f�ff:��;;�,,?.;�,r,x { �ii. _,,r„>:: '' rY �^'''' Y'{r { Sr,•.:';':,,,;✓ }rVrfr$'{f l � '4• r r 4 w cf {S}w •vrvn;F r Sia }{{vcf a }x a r..f v Lrq�(T' rSF.'.r r 'Y{f'?ry!r:`.,vr"}j',�,.:,�5'{ :,fJ'{' •f{ 4 AS"!y.. J•{. ..fr:,c• �:'.'9r r� ;� J fi,r...�'f'rF'�<<:... a��y lf+'CnG�r'�•� rs a{.' �:-. '1,C•}f,{r. •:? f �_ + .r,.'�.{:,:r. .:J:'.yy .n,£y�.g� ;��;�;.,� f. �r hx r {,��..:�r.r�� •{r.•rrli$CG?l�r'':F':r�fr(� n�y S'.'v'�r!•rr�'v.•'';.,y't .,�i,`.y:.' '$:'".Y"V }:�,r�•',:,Y.,r,�,�.,n.�.i?Ci•- C2, .;.1., :�•,vjrr�r,., gyp.f, f �{f9c "y?.. •i'-Fy}� n.AC ;J}C;�"�'.. - :ti'..: f. ;:�x?.M.vJf":'rx 4'.. ::,+::'F"rr{iC,,.{,7Cf N X!'!•::•:. r: `r {`Jry r{:• •';}S:t: ,f.., rr: :}. •�7Z' y:F:.,, } r,;yc ref.;. a...,�,,:•: k•;{,� yy JJ,, Y:+?2�:;r.r.•.•:}, r,r.$:�;.,":s+J<r,r.p r�,t< y lll���SSS �(y}:i,r:r:r.:y: :�Y <:;c•.,. •:rJ}Y.<yNf}C,.}�.r,.�.y.'.:. "K'':.$'l'-.... fk,... '•:r r•:}.•:•':7:•Y,:r..,M�i�<�•.{.. r r.�Y rrr'•i :j.;. / „r:.},t;l�+�, h%:..r'crt;;?;'r:;r.4.,{:.�:•f:?,.r ! ,fir }C'r.•.....,. ,+. mr r„%"YvS.•,•:•?S :`air :: .;. ::.::'. a : r r:..."tee}'.' rf yr f^:%'..F:•r rC s•;:::::.v:..vc,,w.fr::5 X,r .i.:M r. r✓..:9 rf.., v,.,.....,f .f^�•.{{.. ;{.-.,',r.•o r�rf°.:S r v/. Gh xrr,}k•}}:}{�h-r}h r•: c{ f^}$:'.,. +7, ;r....r rf ...../. �f.�,.. ,' :%:{•:r+'•Y.l'•:Jr{' l ;. ..i!�:%!.-r}i r�j.:.i;. J •}.;:rC-....,,::r:...Y..}- ,.'7?.,.,.�}G,,;r~:v:.Jr.r:l..rF. { }r r r r• ,•,',''{' 'r ......;. -' } - _ } :.•' .} ....�:�-.:: •.., :�. f. v:�F'35J Y �:.::r::?':^•rfff.;::rr.y::.,.V.}., /!2� {�JitJ �: fY •.V '+t,rr:v:•.r r.. ..:.v ..fi^:/:,, �;,t'y:�F^' , Y':;:'..;E}blr r•:.,f{.r.. �r.,}+�':Y`f. ,y•.:{?.,,:•:-'�.:rr: ,. �.$�.p,�•Y•,rr. rti.:• :{•r}:•�:Jr:,;.,r.••-,:a.•rr. -•.,�,_.:.,v...,�.}:;;r,y{r.+xx�a,.;.v'i:�s'wno-,r: :,�,. ,gym }i��,�.:.. .• :'.;:: ,:."""�;r. .{{r:,.,:}�;V.,;r.,4..;... {r;,{.'ftY�'t'drr�t;�+�`rr•�lr.,:{h•s.:r,r}:C..r r.},:.:"s' xmr' ' } •., 5....;,r,.;,rs;.;r r fi}' �f`a+�{.,rrs�Y.;g{ „r.a,v.';a'✓ ?.• Y:� �� -r.x•'}:f ,,,,�, {,-. r�:•. �rY' {'•�,,�`' f}r},'{. ,r v'Y��"'{}si`::t {{::.. :•,�i}�,r.3;;:y;:': Z','Y ,y. } nj r ✓ �!{r,J.J•%vri:; r..:J�.-. ;�r,J{',f,� r'Y J ,� :. - ,. , .. v;,.,.0 {1;;5'2{x'.r.vrr[,�n✓s^rtr;!'�••?;,NCJ;:+.. r..r {•: dCS,�.�,.v;s<.{J}i;N+} ..f. ,o- .. r; , ?�'.d��`��•: Wrfr�:f,, •.4. ;rte.r. �� '',. •,:. ..� .m C^., .....„ �+ ..,.,.;�;..;; k.;zrr53ui•..;..,r•-,�', rr�r, ..�{�::x'$cri: r rt ,r�rr 4...3 -:.- .,... .r r v.:.{....,r`Y:?}:{{,$::{�.��;J,il"...::•;...r.,. {?�'?""." r.J:SY Y:x,r.'ti•r, •.,'{.J}:.a;:s - lMnc`:,1,.,�c .; .:.r & ..... p.:r;.,...0 ,}','rrl"'n'i�� :.•4•• /{' �r .r...:T: t{; �• ,..r,,: .r,.f f JU;:Y:,;::•;}-. }.. .�f•r r,,,,fi, � { ,.. -Y'{iY{, ,''...:.-.. .. :¢{{c�5.�.,•�....,...f.�J�-.V�& ,'V, �'%}. :,V.v rt.'fh�:f..,... �•-' �r .,=::�..,....� �J•r }. „ ��"�'::': r.. :..,.rr.-.�rr.o�:i:'�'�.�-xr � �r,:•:�• r,� rf-r !� ,}....J },J ., '�'•.r{ �::'�a• r r.-•r.,••s��''G'r� r : ,�,,.;.• r.{,:;;.;..o,.:rrJr,y....,t,}''.,�,,- ,.,s,{ :.•'� .�:f�.•{��.,•r f r ,{r.k:r:���9�r,4 r: ''.:;:..:,r,...;; rrl{... :::f'�'' ...: r, •..vr,vrr.:..,.::�-..•'�'r,{�}. ., ti, 4� ,,.....Y v{r...,r{'{f.:r.,,,t.,•n, �Q��r��}��,.,v.,r.•.,-:: Y ;..,:5�Fear...�.'l.:.�!::.f $ '..} .rr..::::.: J:, •}'{{...,c.}: 4 v. ,/r::,,�-. .r.:.:f.:..,.yr,r....}..,F4., � J r•.:.��...r.vr..•,,.f{:y,:$,$�.✓,ti rrr -. ry,}:n,�,-,fir,}/Aa;,•�•sv•r:r :r..�:`+st ri.,t,> ;..... ,�,}. .r vh �•.{r:;'v } 'i.. 'tri.t {t.S.•....{�•c,,: { Yom;{�:r.-. �•{}v:., r}C r.5i<;Srr:�}:r •.3.z,-.„�aki�k{�., r .. '�r. � �i�'{ yq�,� x o:-Y�::..,.c,,,,•lr�.t.. .. rL'-':;:r' r{h..:,..,.. ....r`.K.: ..r•:'• �Y•Y,r�}} r P�� ...r... .,rte,,.:.r,.. .::.r r•r -,.Jr.,r...-... .-,r}. y.,'.S�{r<, r,rr.,,.:r�i^.�'�.r.,.,r.:}.+��.r rr�"...i�,�..r• �•r','.,:....,.,, .,,- .. r,;n.!.... r ,;.};,...., r.r�t r•rY...,iFyr {.} ,•" r.,,4}2'i,•.,,-:.....,r�r>w,4,�:.,,J:...- ,rr•.,.:»xa:,v};}:. 4xr!Sf+.o-SS:;�'�.,y.. � �,r';°.� ,.:�{,:.:::.: •.•}�.C{F.:•:.r r.�... •tS;'.:•,.,, t._rt z r ,.rr+r t�S''•},..,r„.S^"`v... } rq� :l/.$;•.•:.5f•xa:.. •{ac•F.... .r,}ri n„ .:•:vr.rr.vS.fir.,..1..- .Yr ✓., ; :rh 4'•.r.3:•-yr. :=':� !.: - •S%•'rr'�.,r. r<+�::. >' . r{.;. rfv r,rn.{r}.[{¢....}. f,,•}y yr-,�{r.;-.a...r:{:-v 'r{r f.,. v r' Sd{• } f- ..�,.... �}rr :: ! •�������.r:::,.,.•".. ..,:,,{v •rt r r.!Y rd:r,�:•rr r ar++�'J ��[cu,.{4'{'s`.;r{fi r;;%�:Y•:'�,a r:J- ::•�rr � •.,::...,s,.:.G rJ.,, r�,G�Y {., 1-r,'r�.;r- ra,...,..k..,....;.r.Y...'{ewi2+F.:;r..:. r r•{?.. :f r'?�f?,, •..'2�.:•:•., �} •rr.{•r.f La' u.�..{+.�.,.. .,.�5%.. .;,�,lj h,r, -:..�r r:X.,.. .. .r'r''fl r.,- ��•;vS :•:{:�o:<:',zi, .. ..�•, r ,y.... rr;.4:{......r r.r...,.-,..r >vv...f,G..{:'S r:.: ri:•:.../•. { 4' .�YRM:�::':. ::i5: t••;r f .vo-;2"....;t+:'M N' ,.v':rvrr'' fr'fr4Y,+}}}::.•'. r..;..;,.•.,..�.;r..,.;r: Y.•{•rY$�- "r,{.-..r':r.;•-. .:"-., .,{ r. :�5;f-.,.... ..{... {'S"C•.:1�:.•. } k ,.{.,r r}:7: rr f.....,. ::2rr, n,:'•,w.f;.r.v> .. •r::^r:•rr#o-t� r+' U...,fir �oy2'... r.r :4 r�arr.lJ?•. ::.r::,.. !�+�"r7'� Y- -,rk.. .r.. .�.r' r r✓..: f.:,.: 1} J^� M1.VS{�r.':::r...�^.'r y.f.; Y.,'�: J h, .r:V ••:f1rf. '�:::.;2,w>.:r r�i, r,;�r err.„ .;.•r:• � ., •^ r rav :,r .. :, �:. '`kc,tsfSr :;5;...:}}}:,. ...r.:•,r...... :.:;: :{�.:...., .r{ ..rrrS:�c4 r.{.-. x,r•}' ...rh 7vf. .. "r::{,...... .,�r�,,p. viC,4'Arrr' ��}Q��.�}:. .Y. '::. {r.. y.r...'.S::::::"•,r.-,. .... .;',' rr•{'•r,p•�:'{q• r�'fY•}.'.C{{f'.:'.r::,:''J"$:�iii-':h r fS' r;Y.... '•:ti,....,. ., - .,.1,•:,,:.:..•-Yr.,,rr} k.F.. ...,.r... C•{•rrrr::f,,:{?•...Y 1. .., n},.,..{�,.�.'rn:.r,:..,�... .l3:••n{' {.. �•,•.r„,...:�...-�,..•xr o;}u.r�,:,.}{4r�r fr •}:.,: rJ'�•.;•::• ..., Jrr.YYr.,:{{{a.-�. ,.:^o-v `''�.. ;5::;�;{.,,..;..; ,-fir.-:::.y� -a;�;.; .da.. ..t•SS.} Stu � ::�r•• {.` },qY{i;. .f,{r. `:sSFF�Sd#r'••`;fr;}•:r:: ..r.r .;,. :.,v�f.v: .a..,'•;•••^- : ;: r.a:;.-,�,.,5,.�..} y jy3::v...^G S'}uf<:' ::r $•'?u.;'G S;x;yk:�'�.y;;{.:: r v r 'ff'f.r. ... r."r rrY: :•,o......�• '.✓-.Iri. r.,r ..•:,•} •-�,}{,:;{rr r: .. 'r {:'.+r' i:S'S..:rf- -r}V�.; .rc. .;o:N fi{�'rF'•.,,� 'y%�Fr`f}',��.rf,ti •�r.v{ '{� }.,�',,,,^:•:',rt,s:ry. �G �r:.,{: .J. ' •; r'r` �r :.w�}.` ',�,'�" ;os�.,:{��+� ;3�,r {' f ,�{rf.; r%:3,. v�3.4"Y far<r�r� =� ,o-{ ;}�:r✓r.,;ro-K; .,Cfi+4{1�`�,i�f�F r. r h.,�f. �+v ��u+. ':/'4k,?+S¢7{:�'Sr'Y,�;.�;,'.+?}r �v r.` }r5i rr4 _ y�'..,<. r'{r, ��firr�'� r '�x _ f'-,•fir. . :•: •`�,:�/+.^': •^• .. �'r '!S r: .stir r.r s• a <•K y'.f} "'}*V.:.r:. ,:-.'�,,f��s5 r v ,+�-fJ',:<::r{-r.:..S;. a �.' ,. rte+'{••r � ��rr+{{K'?°�:F;x ro. .;;c.{. �;{fr „J�•,?,l �- ::'`'�:.,yr`. t.ry.ti•r:..:r:., •�Xf f?RS. �"`t}��^�;�- ;,}/.k..:{,<.:::,:.5.� ?� iYS•�y{-r.y;r�:�;��:�;�':;?'S 'w. ,.r y{r��:�,r.r'r....'`�`.",x�,�'y.£. �..., o ..<.'•w.' .a ;�x%rr'�'1;'a.r{ :h, '"�'�:},}�;.,,•n,`.y},r.,;, r, a�: �Y:Y';rf,'`�•,'r:�,;{y} r}h'$r� rr. .,,. 3 �{2 r.:.. ., f�l'}�r<>r..::'':.. ::.r•r.{r StfJfr�, �•; `,....".,;, .,. .. ti�.. ••:�o.x.;.. } � j �:;;�':}tib ..{f��;,rvw.}S •:.:.>' }:}vr.S r r f�?f�r �,,�r^,rc'r'y k �; ,-.� h.;`'�;',>.':' ,�'Y J Sri{:yv:ta���,.�< �.,5b�'r';:�`t �{;''�. >}lcYi;'r'.�sv7 r•rr / 3 ,r .'.c%.../'{: :. ,f. �" ••�Xr.;}Si;.'••'rx�, ,��Jy'S^�hr5d V a}��''�' i July 19, 2005 Board of Supervisors King Drive Photos County Files SD897267, DP893003, TP020008, TP00001 7 Photo 7, Retainingwall at end of Oak Branch Way, across from lot 4 driveway: tentative map shows Fwall. No as-built grading plan submitted that reflects actual wall height, is {:;:ti•�`••��'. �:x:} X:} ... ....... `_, •v y;:i '- IX . ........ ............. . ....... . ........... 4. 111 • Y l f -} •: H } y. i' YYPP •{ { :1 Y 1 Y' } :h•.` '. �1Yw '•Crr'� •}i v•' r• .. r: - A ••,M1r. :tiff Photo 8 Retaining wall constructed for utilities without amendment toplans, or request for permit Yl�{.rF.:rL!lv•Y y�r.$l+,fi`.}1TA•0.•.;���'•�;;.�v.�r'`"r'�,�{�j9 }r�'}r'%?,;•{rr�'• ll.W}.y:;�;}i.:•.y}?'"r 4L�•'• '•,r�••?`r}J:"•-•"'F 4'� r4:{}•Ff',�{'A-/r{!i l}i:{v'':'..0e:•. >' •{:•rv7.'• 444•••W •S�•I.::.:: L �•{•}} �;}::'�••• MISS.'{'• {.�':'.:�:•.:•. A.L.�y5��r>•.. ! ::.;�tip:'}•. r:•. xy�.}::}:}•{:�.L''���i'.':S4•W4•:'{},,\,y.''i?,/'•'•'•-,Y::{:•:?•- .,.TA;:t}�{.,(rr •' 4:JX.-::..:.A•'Yr-,p�Y• ' ::{. Y •:�ri�i,'.{,isY+.}{.•?ri'r:;r{.:�r4J�}�f�y�.�}•ArJ+}ti.}•:•;�:j:{yf''r{4'•$.�`'.�}:�iljyri%�: :l=:C}f,•' .•�'r,'l'::ti:}};r,•;{:v{••:i; M:4r::ti'r,: .:{:i:':?:i: 3ji'•�}•L?,.r,r•�:;h::{i4 y.L.:•{�� ••.{x:d}•{}.• ✓' ff}:�{y;'f j:;�.v}•::r:::.vtSJ••r r r�{r:::ti}k{:{• ::� +•yrs jfi{•.'•::'r.•i r•' _ - •• Jri{�r,`�xrfiYy'i::r{::4:rrf.•'..u:krr�J.•�+a�.?.p{r}{y:•'�?'•:•}:•}iv s: i1yr.YC��,1vh.ti}{.+.;;:.:.'•'r}C"{.�rY}{.i.,�•i r:?::•}:v:v..... ..ti-yli. •✓.- ::{r�}r:,+;try :;••••yriry'•:}S:'1.:r.?ti'v�:-:::y}:i}Q�::•::tir?.y:L 5�'� p.Ly rir' Y fb�y$:?}r::ti{'{::;^S{:"•Y.u'f.,}r/i:+9F?•F%}? }f'Jr,4,.:dE;:::{.ri},`�;L,.;4ii�''•..yr.� ::: r �?{}Lr{{{:� fi' rL:n �:•sii:�p7v;•;yv}'��{•••4•Yi: ^}.Y . W{r{'�'.;.:::::{!•'i Y`}:�}•''iii�J4:�^Y•ir:''}{�f••. >fi,,}• - •.+O,r.�.!1j}{i}:}'rk;{.r3v'.},,r�:•.;X:•:------- }rr :rl�,,.• '�}r•::%r{.L.•.:.r;r. '}j'i:L•'✓}f$r' •i. ;4�:x :•.. yy i:41r%r{:rr'{4:?:�:�.^•: r: ':?•.,,h:i:�r vYfA:: '�y:'•�:'�%:{.y}:'.ti��. w. _ • ... -,•.Jr/.•;':fi{' 'fr`•'Yr'.. r4 s.r:;1�:-.:�4`•�{;y}r ;yr:{, r•. ;• ";?;;?i:.;•{:,.�};� ., -4• 'R ?%,:yf:.._;.?;?):f't4 xi::{:�/''+r.;..,??,.+tr. ?✓ .•'l.;i`:y{:}}4jo`-:;f.ii::ry''�•`03"•• 't3.:a�•x•'�'°�SS::/ i>.•:r••••;SvtSrr AL•�.•v:....:...rFrx. ,.r?4>Y!R.N:::S}h?{��::;J''Y.L:.AJ'L' ! frovJ}.v,�.•.}r:+?r.r }} r•rA:}::v' •�'r} •». yy?; , ? y;.;,:r'};4 }�.y{?:-. 4�+.� .< ,,y:.L ,{5-.... %-•::+•3.•!•r . r+'fi;.};.r�•:y�.;'::}}: v- •.•. 7h7'i! - .•C%r, r. lr A;. ✓ 7r, Al .::.:..•.h•;,•1r 4}!:••+x :}e � ��%. >,:;•- ti•? P:�.•' ,F9r•f4f,�{}•Y? :X;:,i.:]{r,.}y',r.} :: r� {„ 4 ..•'r '�L>',!•'.....i{.•.?�'4 f.i:•'''-Y: ?A.• r frA�: T,7:G. .J... }{{•�vr1.,{• rL�ar•'� r : h r Y ? ..{r,�./rr }....r:..w:•.fa. ..••r.;.�; �y/- :}. 4.4r�.L;:r..;'.••r�,-.•},Y :: .;.;:.;..:.;r:.;,?.., ='��}..may:,';: .5;:p .r ry rvr.r ::{.y...::•x r-...}:•:;r.r.::rK'i''•.�•}�,.,•,.•,.''{+fi.. {.:{�,,•,•':?•�v..vr.{:rf:{.4.•y .:�:r. ?• >,: �' ? :• .aiNr•J,Y••.•::Y!}.'3?',+.J..; s:{/w•`}r.,.y�?r.,L•.::.J�{5��:::.r✓J7:.'�;�,:',.y.,.,.;>.;:...;:.;.. :ai..v:.::¢'•e9i:">•••>r#!• .{ .L:kid'�'i'h '�is>... ri:•::r:r .4.• � i.{r A ... : ....A.r....:.'v'':.....}r•••J Y-.,?:�S.�.......r....;:r::i r. .Mr ..v} �r .;4:.. .:l'•r'r..r:v,.?... .r {w.•;9,r.�.t!•:A• •4}Tr:•:.•.{•�� •♦ :/ ��X:•' 'Y.�.�y.L•:•�'r. �:•:f;,f Y•• ...'L:�:.Y.Y:M1Y......:�y��.r••f.;{•:•L:Y..y� �••},.. .L! }.•i{ •�? '•Li'•:,1• h• .:ry}7' '•:{?... ••j�f}•ti ,•%'' :?.I.S'7:4: .V V} ....... "r7T-r.. JY .:.;. Y{A ..{-...: r A... .+ Y�.��....fir.+L r.:<•};•.YA{•:... .•.:•'Y>'r.•,:�r .......Y•:r:::.::.. :r.•:AY.-..•:,�:3.'.. ••:•...•. ��a.,.•a:::.}�.'• '•fa•?.•• :•a:•Y•dy'r f:'A �••:G. ••:r'a:.:...�:.�•,?�.{�,', ..�•.a:�r ..Y•: r�" W::... •?...T.:.. {r,.4}r... :.j•' ..'Yi5-. >. ;4,.,�tlSYi>rt•..{ •.�'� r. .#:7'!'r:'.•.. .r,�:''v:{1.v...i:v:.Y::....;'r r{r{' {+'.{' .'?,• 'r..}}. +' ... r.v;�:r..::.::.?`'v•. , r v :}YA{.r r.••.r✓ ., f. :A... A.. ,r.r./-!{ ,:r.r.Y?;o, .., ....�lv r r.....?.rvr:••::..x:... •v: �r. r •: '{• f.{'•�:: .:.. .. r r...../•.ti.,n•f:.Y.Y•,,-:':: ,. r:.:.•,{.: !. r Y:{Y.f� e1 -}�...>: .;�, 'J::lr}rJY•-.� .. •i r'•>..{:::{rG. r�::.•:•:::{w:?:••.v;..7/.. ,rr,.. •?j:v �} ,SY i• ���)'� r474::: :v::,... .;., `.N/J+ .;3,: ..r r •�w}.,::�fi.}::�r: ?. v. %}.'>" wk r , ll f'{moi;:: 'rr•{-:}:2.!•:+i�•,�; J• .-y-S:;..:4> ':;...,a,::� `;a.:rlt".�'"x• ••Y.' ax••4:o}r?�'!?}{, '}••'•��i. 'r.� .1:•}:• '�f.. y:Y. ' k :L •r rY};�Yr.vti?.:,.•.,.rr r.-.;r•i"F,.{l;,;U.L:;:•:y -'�-�TG}r%4'�' �Y'j>}r l''p{.,�7•?{4 til.. A � .•}�'i.%�':•:.,v,. : ?�,.j.{�y,;{:,r,.?• .{S},{vrvY'. '{�' ?.41i.•• r v..•;{{Y•.;: :+.,••.dn•v>. .ff{',,�,.•r'��TS.i-�,y•:'"•,:-}.••••{'•• {}iK ��: • j•: .}}..., .•• ♦v.• .Yi,:•" _ x;;l•}.;{:;r}>:{:i{:n[:^'�FA.,-•�i ..r.{L:L•2{•:1{.,-1v.;�i{};•.;{:•.�f%i f;:};• ••r,: ,3; r/.y.::: r {k;!). } '•�.',{'+�r};}�'�• r ri:{•1.:4••{•�,✓;r.� :?Sv.....,�.,.''•'y ti r{• '�% •?•2��: i'n�'�'KY•.�f•.•.'•'.•.' .}: r•.�y•�'}, ••r.yx.'•Y.. ~•�•:i":?.4:h:... �: r•..,�••.vL .{?�' "fi:•i:!•/r• .t]• •r) ..A -r. .4.,.: x•' �.'-J•r. SSS.•:! ...... � • :rf•:...,:;,.... •. •:r:r'•'.... ::•::.:.v r!,L�r•.-...:...,vv:•:.....i:Y _ "'•:}.'v:•:•'••• •••i. -f. •ry{ :''�?r'{ A✓ .k. %.x r<}' •:f .{Jn+ti.L.r..} •.v.,.t;::.�i?•'r>:. v.fir•.. ?.v::-7'{.}::{{{.. 6'.v '=iC.;-'} .(r}; •,r'-f3! •-��vv:- :3i•... {�{4:'•:{ti4:vrf'{•• -{iv5i.'. ;lr!:L':;}'.: .9�'{' ?::v:;:J,.jr �}'.�7�?Cf. •... >•:•�r.��•:4.L'•'"'�.:1v :"{{Y. .::rrrry:}• ♦•. H.:�:::f. '-jr.�A'':.-'.-'•',''�•.•'.'ri: ..},,'�•`,?:AS r?}.. v,• ..?i�rA .•.+:�':". 4r?`�r r. _ .r. .Y.r: {iiv. .4.. •+'''•r`r'if 4:r.:OY.�?.rr..r,.S.�'•:.:.:;�•s:•.'•:•'i'�::{::: '•{}•4r }{'$L.. .?. rte:. _ -!�f>•i.r:f¢il{.,r;:; -� •. .-Lxy}j,.✓¢ 'rr. ;�:Vr •.w .�A.}L' �4:v .�.•.{� ! ..},r 4 ..;" :;}'!Y1Y. =vi{.�v{:fi... {"_,rr: ..v r?r:�. r Y/tL r✓.r ..r •.rti;'i..%•f �% .-v.:..-:.•}Y r''�;'Y^iG,:.; ?5:•:4: ..fh::��!},.:rA>7?>!:....{:yrw. -.{��...-✓.. rrr t'1 r � .�?-'i{: •{ .,vn}•.}:;•}•F..;,: .: '�'•.:f:.;........:. :...x.........r%�.`rPC... :.{;v.,.:: �'`•' :.L:• v4:}:�:.,..,; r::.:.?n•.v•ry rir,.•:�• •ff.4i:�4}r �yvj{•:,::r{ •r-v. {,r,.rr. �::.••}••Y'. ..rr.,rx:+/• :}:; :.rrka-..:rr.ta>r...:! Y9:�'v:>i%�Trrr'.✓.L:v. :,;r.•-•:{.}.r.?}. �x :•'ti:•�:"-.•r ?� ?4•r.•}}�•s.r.• .{. ;Y/.�¢{.:: •%r•{�: :! r:.nr::.Slr4G,.•.-!{}�• ..4?"':'•:8.✓.rlt• :;•.•`'}/�'L/r.: rrC.., Y.:•�G.-.1..{... r..i�'r,}r.:✓.b::w.<.::r.;.?:t??�•.Gr.!iT. T r 7y.{ i rr. i AL{r. • :. .. r4�r • .::. •r ..,,.. ......,...:Fj .:.}�• .+;1....rAi•Y •:){}}.47•r.w:Yrr::..•.. :.v:r...,F�' p ?i... ti':!ij{'•r r:',rir. S.{•y}}?: y, ..:.;.....r •{�L yam• l r:, ...... ::v :..:.... :.:.:::. . ;?i}:!:JY?,.• .rr •.r.:Z}:4:xOC....... r r�ilrh.�.L.�..••.l}',r•.. .}'�i fy.y;.y. vr...... r/W{..•:•f r A .,!.��•f?.?'.�I.r-:)?J,+A!'Fr;?'• r.}:•' .v:?.��q. } .•3. •}r?' r.v. �:. ... ..--v:.{ ....r ...}?J{. r....... i'%A..x..v......>Y:4'.•.: :>•r ,• .: 'Wr - IA. ..-•}::..:.:.....+ .:.... .. :>: ��y,. :.;. .-.:..'-....L-•:::•:•,�.{?}i:{:%:'C::{r,.;.!r�}::•::lv.i} '}.r•- }.:%}'i:" .yam Q{'S. .... ....:v.v:.w:•,!r�.*:r .,v..;;..rr.r.,.:....... ;`rP}C?•,{Y>/�{ r/}•; .............. ...• .:�ri:Sy;:`;.r;{{.;},;}.}L:•::':v:4v)f{:'T'}`F.�L•}::r�f�. ..�.•i r:::$•:�.. ��v�F,^.i,:•{:• '}•r� .rf. .�• �yh!;.:.;.... .......1}ra.. :{•::?JS...;.:. ,{ .... � "ht}v,: ,r..,..{y.; •;,;.; .? .a., ;{aa3:• •.;,{. .� ✓... ✓ r f✓rieY' :?-: �.`• ';':::ice.�.• �:r.� x.... 4:L'Wrr •>•.:�..r}..rA ..�v::"::'f•:•F•r.v... ?•!r: r ry ::r{r:4i:: .f}rr .{ r.4 •. ...}}. .....:{:{•;' .:::::::...Y}:'...f✓'•...:.:.••.!�'•....J{'.r::�••�:... ............,.���,+�: .-L.} �A-y.r'•'•-•-• YS:�'•V}:r'::'• •%I•f: '%'::Y•J•.0 rf:•AV✓..• .♦ �.} ••.•:.'.•'•} .....:.};..`??S vL.:i{�.v..-......-........ .....S.....r4r ...:..........:......:'J.v.�l.-.:�}: ..?:' .?::r. .r.' .r... ..v•:.✓.:r?.• �y� ?' ..S. r{.;. ....{•}•..::.:..::•:•:..w.........:?Y........ :A .. .:............Jvr.. •}Y.y?v:'v A-? ?ry,:..�•�..-}}:{. ..r:i•:r:.-n...:.vr.r.?.. .�:A•/�''"rtr rayl' ..{Jr':4 X. {r r A: r�}:. :r..; ./7y! A-;.;> ..?.iy:v.. .}.{ •:v•:.vr.?`yy:?'i•?'•"i'•}'..r'>p. :: '.+f•.,rte✓. �r.};....' ':v y ?• .•;r '�.+{•:O: :>r}{ter✓•. •:Y '!�+>M'7}rC/f.-'{ ..A.4:`?'{ ••r.• :rMr. •}:{7'r•}r!.4Yr•r: ..L�-N,yk•: • r.,�{....,.-.. .-•.} �� �r7v - ,{airy •}}:•}}: y •}^^ry ,7.v:•�''4: L'1''?: v •�':'''�'�•>:•m. :'4}:i- }Y}:• :M. .r�Y.•'. • .•:?••....4 .`'�'+"i}}....... •:>:vr:.{P'-':'•.- ...-....:•.�. ..�-:: .}:;{.,+.•Y.•Wvti}}:}...{.r >`�Sr^Ir..l.: l4.vl/�'.. r..-.....{rlfi. .A ..'+•+,.y........ ...:.�:::...:...:.:..�.�..�....!'y ':{v;.ryr fi-' 1:�: .l.v.:.. •}:v !A.... .r`{�.. 'fr .,'�:• ,. .... ,. NEEM '' } r.•:..!:.':};�:'•r.-: h:.Lr..:f}-•r:-.•.}L..:..�L..}4.•♦.•,:;.y'L.}LJAr.��,-•••ti...{.'fr?�...l::;l.S.YY,•,-•(S,SYrY:.:{.•'"lf!rr...>;::.•:•}•r.r.•y,..A;..1r•7:h..•y,1.h{..fi}e...,,r.:•�rf.�:.•`,:?.-..;.}i.v.i..1..{.:/w;.:..•kY:�.A:.:{.';l✓:v.?}r.:};..}};.•..::rL-:::::i!.{.}-•t.tii.:.•:-v;.::..:.:};.:.:....f.+r-:-•::.}.;:r.::...>;,?.:i.:.Y,.:..v-'.:v•.-:.,.r}..A,...•-M'r:..!:r{....{.:fi..?'..rr;.•.•.+:.r:r...•a.:}:.:..;.,?.:r:+}Y.�.!1::�r•:}.{.j..:!:'�•v.�!+{hv',....,,4.L-S.iL,�:.�r.N.:.r.S....4.r,,v}--l:.e..{..•..,.:.}......%..?:.:.r:..v...•.:!.�fi..}..;:.i••,.::4iv..:r.i.':.•iir:.?..•'..•:.�v..4;:?'.;{.r:.x•:.ri:.}y}..,:i!.••!.:.::in.o�.:r.?4{v.:i•{•i.:.r.:}.r•vr}:7�....;�[r:.4.,.r}.}a.•:Y.;S�<.���'.:�:+•Zrr•p'•e�',•tt�:�.r�-:.r�L::;•.:•.2'.:4'.':�;..•'{..x.:7:.:a.:4-•:!•-a:.:•:i ¢;,r .-!h.rr79.T'}Y.•r�-.:w{%,J:::;:A i..:!�rh.i.Y.+¢.vir`.Jl.r�>lrr.tiyyc.o-r0{w•'1 y}•.,r;!..:;.v•':r':t?•t>�'✓LJerC•}i.:J.•'{}.y!rN:r•.T•'�i.{$/.-•.•.,-,!>..{L,r. ,.} • �'��yr�Yy_..:r.!:;,:•.r .r�.;•;y:�`:•:•::.:..A.:}. ,.}}...r::}:;r•}`ik.:,••fi•Y•'�.ir•.{.L.}.:l..rr.:::� '�af�:r•[}y�Y.•.}.•: •:r.•,.r,... .,,}•:r r lr ? _ ..'•v. :�> /}Y .;fi..rfr:•:• :�: :.};. ..::ri�YY., 'A�.,. .f•Y., re'19;}..: r..;, -4,r i•4.b':•}y:.r:.{'i.�:-:?•:::%...r.{.,.:::}::.::...rA. .r? i}..i'%•r',• :•}•'••: •r. }:�.}:{>,j •,i}.- .Y.. '•rrLr.. .1.;: .itA•. •Y: ::;A.:✓._?...:lr .•W.•Y. ..?�}+?c..r!�!• fpr .�irY:.,.,��=•r.'.4�:�:{�•. •• : .... if. •:-:':'A A.•.....4.•A•Y::'.:is:•:{!'}:-::•::-::•:•:.:..:..:.:.:.•:l..:.....1.......:....r. .4}: ?•Y':..i.I r•:},•: .?.. yy •4r. r ✓ :r ry .{}�:.�.. •:r.... ..,7}-v:r; -r �y•• ..Y{•}:{tiji..,;..?:{}v r .w.....r..:?4r:.. '•:;v:....::.v y�.i7•},� r ' -r:{+r :y L•�-,v•..:,i:-::.::..r: :::•:.r.?. „.};.::{:_:;::i.Y?:.�.•:::::•:... •:•.:::::s:''��. .¢moi ,r :r.•rR::?• >T:}Y7?:•ri•::•-::'•w::yr{:rri.4: :i`{•...: : fr. rx r ? ``�r r`l. ..-.,..f.. }a."�, J?.ri'•..vi;.r_A......::..::. •rr::•wv::{•/.•! •:{.r�il:{-::}r: ::% AA -,•'�•ir1.p,r.�•:{�]{f Y{. • {Y41'.;4' ...•7.IYjrr.S}'}...,. iY:•r.;??:'•':"' ~iitr::iti+{{:•: �y i�7rxx•?.'Jr •...A4:fi)Yr}A..xAv}�.`•}:•:i:±i•:S}iw:�:•,•x:.v.::w..r.:...1.r.i{�:;i>i:S;:jk�'x'lr:-]G� :{l};r?r:ii•i{ �.h::.✓. :��•'L>:':{:•!,{•YY.%i A.4':•.,r:?ry,���:y . .....r:::.•.•.v:.vxx:i:'H....:wrrYr>}i..,Yr..X..�r.:v�ris.rr:n}{v.x6ii.4PKr{t�'J.�'rrr{"{. EXHIBIT A SUMMARY OF PERMIT VIOLATIONS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION AND TREE PERMITS, SUB 7267 King Estates Subdivision County Files SD897267, DP893003, TP02-0008, TPOO-001 7 Community Development Department March 28, 2005 Amended Subdivision Permit COA# Condition Text Comments 1 This approval is based upon the tentative map and Violation—This condition refers to the original application dated received February 2, 1990. 1990 development permit approval for this project, NOTE: SIL VERHA WK AND COMPANY INC. Subdivision 7267. That approval provided that the (Applicant), MORGAN CAPITAL approval was based on a 1990 tentative map and INVESTMENTS(Owners), County Files that the grading and development be consistent with #DP893003 and#SD897367 to allow a that shown on the approved tentative map(COA#l, revision to condition 7 allowing for the plans 31) &7). submitted April 17, 2001 to be used instead of This 2001 amended development permit authorized the original development plans. a modification to the approved plan to allow development to be based on a revised site plan dated 4/17/2001,requiring the road(Oak Branch Way)to be built at specified alignments. The road has been constructed at the incorrect horizontal and vertical alignment. Portions of the road have been constructed at 10 feet above the grade indicated on the plan and outside of the right- of-way. The approved development plan requires a retaining wall upslope of the property that is approximately 540 feet long and 10 feet high. No retaining wall along this slope has been built. 3 At least 60 days prior to recording a Final Map, Violations-The County approved a 1999 issuance of a Building Inspection Department Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by permits, or installation of improvements or utilities, Geostrata that contains design criteria for submit a geotechnical review report meeting the development of the project. This condition and requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94- Ordinance Code Section 94-4.420 provide that the 4.420 for review and approval of the Planning recommended actions and procedures in the soils Geologist. Improvement and grading plans shall report prepared for a subdivision are a condition of cant' out the recommendations of the approved approval of the subdivision. report and be signed by the engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer prior to checking by The soils Teorort f the above-referenced KING DRIVE 61ot Subdivision 7367 SD897267—DP893003 County. subdivision approved by the County requires various design standards including: Grading will be limited to that which was shown on the tentative map or on subsequently approved 1. Cut slope gradients along Oak Branch Way plans.Any need for additional Uading that would at a maximum 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) result in loss of trees must be approved bv the gradient, or with a 1.5:1 gradient allowable County Planning Commission.Non-coMpliance where competent bedrock is exposed. will be the cause fora"stop work"order. The slopes cut along Oak Branch Way are at steeper gradients than recommended by the soils report. Portions of these slopes are at gradients of 0.5:1.' 2. Drainage berms or interceptor ditches should be provided at the top of all cut or fill slopes, and drain to appropriate discharge facilities. In no case should water be allowed to flow over the top of cut or fill slopes. No drainage berms or interceptor ditches have been built at the top of the slope above Oak Branch Way. Water is able to flow over the cut slope. Violation—Tree#47 on Lot 1 consisted of a Live Oak tree with a trunk diameter of approximately 33-inches(approximately 105-inches in circumference). Condition#3 of the 6/21/2001 amended development pen-nit, SD897267 and Condition#10 of Tree Permit#TP02000 8 require the retention of this tree. The Ordinance Code defines any tree required to be retained as a condition of approval of a development permit as protected under the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance(Ord. Code § 816-6.004). The Ordinance Code prohibits the removal of any protected tree or to cut down or remove any protected tree on private property without a tree permit(Ord. Code § 816-6.002). Tree No.47 on Lot 1 was removed without a tree permit or other authorization from the County in violation of the Ordinance Code. 5 Prior to issuance of building permits on parcels of Violation—This condition requires the subdivider this subdivision, submit an as-graded report of the to provide the County with an as-graded report engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer prior to issuance of building permits. showing location of colluvium and landside � October 15,2002 letter from Arthur T.Knutson,Geotechnical Engineer,based on a 10/1/2001 visual survey. BOLD TEXT_indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19, 2001 Page 2 of 9 3-29-OS -K-1-NG DRIVE 61ot Subdivision 7367 SD897267 DP893003 deposits encountered during grading for To date,the County has received a topographic improvements and utilities; final plan and grades survey of the as-built roadway only;the survey for subsurface drainage including disposal and does not show grades outside the exiting roadbed. cleanout points; any buttress fill or shear key with Refer"Topographic Map"prepared by Buti Land its keyway location; retaining walls; and other rock Surveyor dated December 2004, dated received by and soil improvements installed during grading,as CDD January 20,2005. surveyed by a licensed land surveyor or civil The County has issued two residential building engineer. permits(Lots 1 and 2)for this development. However,the subdivider has not submitted an as- graded report for the whole of the property to document the conditions specified in this condition of approval. 79E A master tree removal permit shall be obtained for tree removal on the lots prior the issuance of any building permits for construction on the lots. The application shall include a full revegetation plan which must be approved by the Zoning Administrator.Planting for each lot must be completed prior to occupancy of the house on that lot. 7.F Peer review.by Contra Costa County shall be conducted on the site specific soils reports required in Condition 14G of the original approval.The cost for the review shall be paid .by the applicant. (14.G Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each new house, a detailed soils report including subsurface investigation and laboratory analysis shall be prepared specifically for the house design under consideration including driveways and pools. The recommendations of the soils report shall be implemented in the house design and foundation plans. The soils engineer shall sign the foundation plan and.review the grading,drainage and irrigation plans to verify that they are consistent with the soils report.) 8 A scenic easement shall be provided across Lots 1 through 5 as indicated on the Tentative Map and extended across the easterly portions of Lots 1 and 2 to King Drive subject to the review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to filing the final map. This is to restrict buildings and structures from those areas and to indicate that no further lot division shall occur. Any fencing within the scenic easement shall be of open wire type. A driveway encroachment is permitted into the scenic easement for lots 5 and 6.The recording of the encroachment document through the Public Works Department shall occur prior to the issuance of a building permit for either lot. BOLD TEXT indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19, 2001 Page 3 of 9 3-29-05 KING DRIVE 61ot Subdivision 7367 SD897267 DP893003 9 Development rights of areas to be established as a Per FM scenic easement shall be deeded to the County. This shall be done with the filing of the Final Subdivision Map. 11. Conditions for approval as related to road and drainage requirements: A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code,this subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance(Title 9). Any exceptions there from must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the following requ ents: 11.A.1 Constructing road improvements along the frontage Roadway not maintained by County.Refer to of King Drive. Constructing King Drive as a 20 "Declaration of Covenants Concerning Private foot paved road to County private road standards Roadway"recorded June 1, 1999. and providing associated drainage improvements along the frontage will satisfy this requirement.The 20 foot paved section shall be extended offsite to connect to the existing paved section of King Drive. If the applicant desires County acceptance of the road for maintenance, shall construct these improvements to County public road standards (including width, grade and section standards) subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Street lighting may also be required before the County would accept the road for maintenance. 11.A.2 Conveying all storm water entering or originating Provide funding for 2 trees per TP000017 within the subject property,without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility,to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. Compliance with this requirement includes the installation of approximately 1,800 feet of Line A of the Drainage Area A Plan(from Panoramic Way westward along Olympic Boulevard)or alternative drainage improvements subject to the approval of the Flood Control District. 11.A.4 Submitting improvement plans prepared by a The subdivider has submitted and obtained registered civil engineer,payment of review and approval of subdivision improvement plans, inspection fees, and security for all improvements including road design plans that are consistent with required by the Ordinance Code or the Conditions the revised development plans approved by the of approval for this subdivision. These plans shall 6/21/2001 permit. include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Traffic En ine . 11.B Construct the onsite roadways, as shown on the Site Violation—This condition requires that on-site Plan;to County private road standards within 25- roadways,be constructed as shown on the approved 0 foot easements.,to include pedestrian walkways as 6/21/2001 site plan. BOLD TEXT indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001 Page 4 of 9 3-29-05 KING DRIVE 61ot Subdivision 7367 SD897267—DP893003 may be feasible.Plans shall be submitted in this regard for review and approval by the Zoning The roadway that has been constructed is neither Administrator with the Final Map. consistent with the 6/21/2001 site plan,nor with the approved subdivision improvement plan. (Refer to comment for COA#1) 12 Hours of construction shall be restricted from 7:00 Permit Compliance Investigation in Progress—In A.M.to 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday.No a letter dated 1/14/2005,the County reported to construction will occur on Saturdays, Sundays, the Developer on allegations from neighbors the Federal or State holidays unless previously project workers violated permitted construction approved by the Zoning Administrator. Should this hours,and asked the developer to see if he could condition be violated,the Zoning Administrator confirm that the alleged violations occurred. The may cause construction work to cease and desist Developer responded to the staff letter,but did until he/she is satisfied that compliance will be not respond to the specific question of whether established. be was able to confirm the alleged violations of Hours of construction shall be restricted from 7:00 permitted work hours. A.M.to 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday.No construction will occur on Saturdays, Sundays, As a result of a reported violation of permitted Federal or State holidays unless previously hours on March 22,2005 (working after 5:00 approved by the Zoning Administrator. Should this p.m.,the County Building Official issued a Stop- condition be violated,the Zoning Administrator Work Order for Residential Permit#342581 on may cause construction work to cease and desist Lot 1. until he/she is satisfied that compliance will be established. 14.G Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each new house,a detailed soils report including subsurface investigation and laboratory analysis shall be prepared specifically for the house design under consideration including driveways and pools. The recommendations of the soils report shall be implemented in the house design and foundation plans.The soils engineer shall sign the foundation plan and.review the grading, drainage and irrigation plans to verify that they are consistent with the soils report. 14.J Trees required to be saved shall be protected during Violation—This condition requires that the construction by wooden fencing constructed with subdivider provide wooden fencing meeting 491)x 4"posts and a 2"by 8"horizontal rail, 3-1/2' specified design standards around all of the minimum height placed around each tree at the drip specified trees to be saved. line except for the minimum necessary work to put in the required roadway improvements or where When staff visited the site, staff did not observe the grading is to be permitted under one-thud(1/3)of fencing meeting the specified design around all the drip line if on only one side of a tree. trees where the condition requires it to be placed. 14.K To reduce soil compaction from equipment, a Violation—This condition requires the subdivider mulch of 1-2 inch sized wood chips should be to place mulch of specified material and quantity placed under each drip lines at a depth of 4-inches within the driplines of trees where no excavation is on the soil where no excavation is to occur for to occur for those trees affected by grading or those trees affected by grading or construction. construction. When staff visited the site, staff did not observe the BOLD TEXT indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19, 2001 Page 5 of 9 3-29-OS KING DRIVE 61ot Subdivision 7367 SD897267 DP893003 specified mulch to have been placed under the applicable trees on this site. 14.M During grading,roots over 2-inches in diameter Violation—This condition requires that the shall be cut off cleanly with a hand saw at the line subdivider conduct grading and related cutting of of excavation.Any exposed roots shall be kept tree roots in a certain manner. It also requires that a moi.st. A certified Arborist shall be present on certified arborist be present on site for all site for all excavations within the root zones of excavations within the root zones of trees larger trees larger than six 'Inches in diameter.Thev than six inches in diameter,and that the arborist: shall make on site recommendations to the' gradin contractor and document observations recommend on-site measures to the grading and remediation taken and the documentation contractor; and shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. • document observations and remediation taken, and provide that documentation to the Zoning Administrator. The site has been graded in proximity to a number of mature trees,including trees that may have had roots larger than 2-inches in diameter that might have been cut in the course of grading. The subdivider has not provided the specified documentation by an arborist of the grading activity as required by this permit condition. Tree Permit File#TP02-0008 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (TREE PERMIT FOR SD897267)_ COA# Condition Text Comment 2 Site Preparation-Prior to the start of any clearing, Violation—This condition requires the subdivider to stockpiling,trenching, grading, compaction,paving or install temporary fencing at or beyond the driplines of change in ground elevation on site with trees to be all trees to be preserved adjacent to or in the area to be preserved,the Applicant shall install fencing at or altered and to remain in place for the duration of beyond the dripline of all areas adjacent to or in the construction activity in the vicinity of the trees. area to be altered'and remain in place for the duration of construction activity in the vicinity of the trees. On inspection of the site, staff found that temporary Prior to grading or issuance of any permits,the fences fencing was not in place adjacent to trees where site may be inspected and the location thereof approved disturbance is Occurring. by appropriate County staff. Construction plans shall stipulate on their face where temporary fencing intended for trees to be protected is to be placed, and that the required fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of any construction activity. 3 Construction Period Restrictions -No grading, Violations—This condition prohibits any grading, compaction, stockpiling,trenching,paving or change trenching or change in ground elevation within the in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dri line of any existing mature tree other than the BOLD TEXT indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19, 2001 Page 6 of 9 3-29-05 KING DRIVE 61ot Subdivision 7367 SD897267—DP893003 dripline of any existing mature tree other than the trees approved for removal unless indicated on the trees approved for removal unless indicated on the improvement plans approved by the county and improvement plans approved by the county and addressed in any required report prepared by an addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. arborist.Throughout the construction of the site,the applicant shall ensure that the arborist is given full Two utility trenches have been cut from King Drive access to the site at all times. If grading or within the driplines of several mature trees: Lot 1 and construction is approved within the dripline of a tree Lots 4/5. A fill bench supported by retaining walls to be saved, an arborist is required to be present has been constructed within the driplines of several during grading operations that may impact the trees. code-protected trees on Lot 1 near the intersection of The arborist shall have the authority to require Oak Branch Way and King Drive,and within a protective measures to protect the roots. Upon the designated"scenic easement". completion of grading and construction,an involved arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods required for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expenses shall be borne by the developer and owner unless otherwise provided by the development conditions of approval. 5 Construction Tree Damage-The development property owner or developer shall notify the Community Development Department of any damage that occurs to any tree during the construction process. The owner or developer shall repair any damage as determined by an arborist designated by the Director of Community Development. Any tree not approved for destruction or removal that dies or is significantly damaged as a result of construction or grading shall be replaced with a tree or trees of equivalent size and of a species as approved by the Director of Community Development to be reasonably appropriate for the particular situation. 10 Trees to be Altered-This approval allows for work Violations—The condition authorized project work within the root zone of 37 trees to allow for the within the root zones of 37 trees on the property based construction of six single family residences and on improvement plans that were reviewed by the driveway improvements. County. It did not authorize alterations including Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of trenching within the driplines of.other code-protected the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance,to trees on this property. compensate for the potential damage to the trees,the applicant shall provide the County with a security The Ordinance Code includes in its definition of a (e.g.,bond, cash deposit)to allow for the planting of protected tree, any tree measuring 20 inches or larger replacement trees. The security shall be based on: in trunk circumference measured 4 V2feet above the ground(Ord. Code § 816-6.004). The Ordinance A. Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements - Code also prohibits trenching within the dripline of The planting of up to 120 trees,minimum 15- any protected tree on private property without a tree gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected permit. (Ord. Code § 816-6.002) trees, and installation of landscaping and hillside erosion control improvements, and As already mentioned,the Subdivider has constructed arborist review of additional screening two utility trenches on Lots 1 and Lots 4/5 that are not between trees#974 and#19 on Lot 6; subject shown on the approved development permit plans. BOLD TEXT indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19, 2001 Page 7 of 9 3-29-OS KING DRIVE 61ot Subdivision 7367 SD897267—DP893003 to prior review and approval of the Zoning These trenches are located within the driplines of Administrator; several mature trees that qualify as protected under the Ordinance Code. This tree permit, or other Prior to M site work,the applicant must development permit does not authorize the utility submit for the review and approval of the trenches. The 37 trees referenced in this condition Zoning Administrator remedial measures that where alterations have been authorized by this permit, would maximize the longerm preservation of do not include the mature trees whose driplines were Tree#47 on Lot 1.This information must be disturbed by the two utility trenches. prepared by a certified arborist. B. Determination of Security Amount-The security amount is based on the planting of one tree for each 6 inches of diameter of trees to be removed,at an approximate planted cost of$200.00 per tree(120 x $200.00=$24,000.00). The total bond would include an additional 20%for inflation costs, for a total of$281,880.00. C. Acceptance of a Security-The security shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. C. Initial Deposit for Processing of Security- The County ordinance requires that the applicant cover all time and material costs of staff for processing a tree protection security (Code S-060B). The Applicant shall pay an initial fee deposit of$100 at time of submittal of a security. The security shall be retained by the County up to 24 months following the completion of installation of approved landscaping improvements.In the event that the Zoning Administrator determines that the landscaping is not in healthy condition, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable care of the replacement trees,then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees. 13 Site plans for the development of the site shall include Violation—This condition requires the subdivider to a delineation of all trees to be preserved on the provide the county with a site plan that delineates all property. Pursuant to Section 816-6.6004 of the trees to be preserved on the property. Any tree so County Code,any tree so designated becomes a designated becomes a protected tree and cannot be protected tree and cannot be altered or removed unless altered or removed unless a tree permit is first a tree permit is fust obtained from the Community obtained from the County. Development Department. Tree alterations have occurred contrary to the tree BOLD TEXT indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19, 2001 Page 8 of 9 3-29-OS KING DRIVE 61ot Subdivision 7367 SD897267 DP893003 protection plans provided by the subdivider without the subdivider first obtaining a tree permit from the County. • Tree No.47 on Lot I was removed(refer to comment under COA#3 of amended subdivision permit#SD897267,above.) • Utility trenches were constructed within the driplines of several mature trees on Lots I and Lots 4/5. (See staff comments under COA #10 of Tree Permit#TP02-0008 above.) End \\fs-cd\users$\bdrake\Personal\3-15-04 Jeff Batt-b.coa.doc CSG\RD\ BOLD TEXT indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19, 2001 Page 9 of 9 3-29-05 PROPOSED NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION LAWS � �•+ i EA CLOSVX Rim ,G4` r'4 A.'am W 925) 335-1210 Recording Requested By: Contra Costa County And When Recorded Mail To: Record on Parcels: 238-040-011, 012, 013, 014, 105, 016 Community Development Department Owner: Contra Costa County King Estates LP 651 Pine Street 1 Blackfield Drive, PMB 404 Martinez, CA 94553 Tiburon, CA 94920 Attn: Robert Drake Space Above This Line For Recorder's Use NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION LAWS (C.C.C. Ord. Code § 92-12.408, and Government Code § 66499.36) Pursuant to attached Resolution No. 20-2005 of the County Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California, the County Planning Commission has determined that the following described real property violates applicable provisions of Division 2 (Section 66410 ff., the Subdivision Map Act) of the Government Code and the County's Subdivision Ordinance Section 92-2.002 ff., Title 9, Ord. Code) as follows, and has directed that the Community Development Director file this notice with the County Recorder based on violations cited in the attached March 29, 2005 Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation letter from the Community Development Department to Jeffrey Batt. This Notice shall be deemed to be constructive notice of the violation to all successors in interest in such property. The County Recorder shall index the names of the fee owners in the general index. Notice of Violation of Subdivision Law King Estates,Subdivision 7267 REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1. Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 238-040-011 through-016 King Drive/Oak Branch Way, Walnut Creek/Saranap, area 2. Legal Description: The land referred to herein is situated in the State of California, County of Contra Costa,unincorporated, described as follows: Lots 1 through 6 of Subdivision 7267,King Estates. PROHIBITION ON ISSUANCE OF PERMITS Until the County determines that there is compliance with subdivision laws, all departments, officials, and employees of the county vested with the duty or authority to issue permits necessary to develop real property shall not willfully issue any permit or license for use or construction or any other purpose in conflict with the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance or of the Subdivision Map Act. (ref. Ord. Code § 92-12.412 and Government Code § 66499.34) DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Community Development Director Contra Costa County State of California Att. County Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-2005 March 29, 2005 CDD Letter to Jeffrey Batt California All-Purpose Acknowledgement G:\Current Planning\carr-p1an\Notice of Violation of Subdivision Law\sub7267.notice of violation.doc RD\ I i PROJECT PERMITS (CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) Approved by the Board of Supervisors: I- County Files SD897267/DP893003. Modifications to 6-lot Subdivision Final Development Plan—Vesting Tentative Map (June 19, 2001) 2. County File TP020008, Tree Permit for 6-lot Subdivision(September 24, 2002) Approved by the County Planning Commission: County Files SD897267 /DP893003,, 6-lot Subdivision Final Development Plan— Vesting Tentative Map(February 27, 1990) Approved by the County Zoning Administrator: County File TP980025, Tree Permit for roadways for 6-lot Subdivision (February 1, 1999) D. �f T0: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS � Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP � -` ' Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRE''t' TOR .,;; � ?�'_,y� J' County DATE: June 19, 2001 SUBJECT: 1. HEARING ON THE APPEAL BY PAUL JAMES, ET AL, OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION Orr--- SIX HOMES WHICH DIFFER FROM DESIGNS APPP,OVEQ IN 1990 ON A SITE LOCATED ON KING DRIVE IN THE SARANAP AREA (DP893003/SD897367). 2. CONSIDERATION OF A MODIFICATION TO A PORTION OF A RECORDED SCENIC EASEMENT TO ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT FOR A DRIVEWAY APPROACH FOR LOTS FIVE AND SIX OF SUBDIVISION 7367. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. CONSIDER the recommendation of the County Planning Commission (Resolution # 10 -2001). CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON June 19. 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _OTHER� SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD'S ACTION. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND _UNANIMOUS(ABSENT-- 1 CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Michael Laughlin 335-1204 ATTESTED June 19. 2001 Community Development JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: County Counsel-Silvano Marchesi SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works-Engineering Services, Heather Ballenger Building Inspection-Code Enforcement Silverhawk& Company, Inc. �•; „ � �> ,� % �,� Paul James,Appellant BY �u l�W�/ EPUTY ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.4 June 19, 2001 This is the date and time noticed by the Clerk of the Board for hearing on the appeal by Paul James, et al, of the County Planning Commission's decision denying an appeal and approving a development plan amendment to allow for construction of six homes which differ from the designs approved in 1990 (DP893003/SD897367) and a modification to a portion of a recorded scenic easement to allow an encroachment for a driveway approach for lots five and six of subdivision 7367 on a site located on King Drive in the Saranap area. Michael Laughlin, Community Development Department presented the staff report and recommendations. Also present were Silvano Marchesi, County Counsel and Dennis Barry, Director, Community Development Department. Supervisor Uilkema commented on suggestions to change conditions of approval. The public hearing was opened and the following persons presented testimony: Lynn Lopez(Appellant), King Drive Neighborhood, 130 El Dorado Road, Walnut Creek; Paul James (Appellant), King Drive Neighborhood, 121 El Dorado Road, Walnut Creek; Stephen Phillips (Appellant), King Drive Neighborhood, 120 El Dorado Road, Walnut Creek; Lance Coletto (Appellant), King Drive Neighborhood, 200 King Drive, Walnut Creek; Arthur Marchetti (Appellant), King Drive Neighborhood, 161 El Dorado Road, Walnut Creek; Kim Bailey, 2609 Olympic Blvd., Walnut Creek; Jim Spright, 3306 Freeman Road, Walnut Creek; Carol Fishel, Saranap Neighbors, Who Love Our Community, 36 Freeman Court, Walnut Creek; Edward F. Soares. Kind Drive Neighborhood; 2757 West Newell Avenue, Walnut Creek; Tom Crosby, 170 El Dorado Road, Walnut Creek; Jeffrey Batt, (Applicant), Silverhawk & Co., I Blackfieid Drive, PMB, 404, Tiburon. The following people did not speak, but left comments for the Board: Kim Bailey, 2609 Olympic Blvd., Walnut Creek; Joan Johnson, King Drive Neighborhood, 110 El Dorado, Walnut Creek; Ken Wainola, 211 King Drive, Walnut Creek; Robert Stevens, President, Saranap Home Owners Association, 12� Kendall Road Walnut Creek. The Public Hearing was closed. The Board discussed the matter. Supervisor Uilkema moved to grant the appeal and approve the permit conditions and housing designs as approved by the Planning Commission with additional conditions of approval: Item 7E: To add that the application shall include a full revegitation plan, which must be approved by the Zoning Administrator. The planting for each lot must be completed prior to occupancy of the house on that lot; Item 7G: The Geotechnical Engineer shall document and make recommendations for any foundation design changes based on actual soil conditions; Item 14B: That all grading operations, trenching for utilities, and the excavation and construction of all foundations, footing, piers and paving shall be monitored continuously by a County selected inspector, at the developer's expense, to insure compliance with all approved grading plans and tree protection measures; Item 14M: A certified Arborist shall be present on site for all excavations within the root zones of trees larger than six inches in diameter. They shall make on site recommendations to the grading contractor and document observations and remediations taken and the documentation shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion. Mr. Barry requested the maker of the motion and the seconder clarify that the motion included approving the stated modification of the scenic easement for the driveway encroachment to lots five and six. Supervisor Uilkema confirmed the modification is included in her motion. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the public hearing is CLOSED; the appeal by Paul James, et. al., from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, on the request by Silverhawk and Company Inc., (Applicant) and Morgan Capital Investments (Owners), approving a Development Plan Amendment to allow for the construction of six homes which differ from the designs approved in 1990 is GRANTED; The Development Plan Amendment., including the findings and conditions of approval as recommended by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, as modified (see.Exhibit "A" attached) is APPROVED; and the modification to a portion of a recorded scenic easement to al low an encroachment for a driveway approach for lots five and six, King Drive Estates, Walnut Creek area(County Files DP 89-3003, SD 89-7276) is APPROVED. ry SILVERHAWK AND COMPANY INC. (Applicant), MORGAN CAPITAL INVESTMENTS (Owners), County Files #DP893003 and#SD897367 to allow a revision to condition 7 allowing for the plans submitted April I7, 2001 to be used instead of the original development plans. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed development plan i S consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 district and compatible with other uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the district. The proposal is for six homes in an existing residential neighborhood, and the property is already subdivided for residential development. The April 17, 2001 plans are designed with the site topography, and are screened from view by existing vegetation. The plans reflect the changes recommended by the County Planning Commission. 2. The modifications to the conditions of approval and the request for encroachment into the scenic easement are Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 15305, Class 5 allows for minor changes in land use limitations where there are no changes in land use or density. In this case the land use and density have not changed since the original approval. The exemption would be appropriate for the incremental increase between the original 1990 approval with a Negative Declaration and the slight increase for the larger homes. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I- This approval is based upon the tentative map submitted with the application dated received February 2, 1990. 2. In Subdivision 7267, the building setbacks shall not be less than 10 feet, all subject to review ani appioval by the Zaning Adminis�rator prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. At least 60 days prior to recording a Final Map', issuance of a Building Inspection Department 'permits, or installation of improvements or utilities, submit a geotechnical review report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the Planning Geologist. Improvement and grading plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report and be signed by the engineering aeoloaist and geotechnical engineer prior to checking by County. Grading will be limited to that v��hich was shown on the tentative map or on subsequently approved plans. Any need for additional grading that would result in loss of trees must be approved by the County Planning Commission. Non- F) - 2 - compliance will be the cause fora "stop work order. 4. Record a statement to run with deeds to the property acknowledging the approved report and the reports of Herzog and Associates, Inc. dated June 7, 1989 and September 18, 1989, by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to recommendations, and noting that the reports are on file for public review in the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits on parcels of this subdivision, submit an as- graded report of the engineering geologist and geotehnical engineer showing location of volluvium and landside deposits encountered during grading for improvements and utilities; final plan and grades for subsurface drainage including disposal and cleanout points; any buttress fill or shearkey with its keyway location; retaining walls; and other rock and soil improvements installed during grading, as surveyed by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer. 6. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on—site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s)7 if deemed necessary. 7. Prior to the issuance of any building permit and/or grading permit for work on any lot, the proposed grading, location and design of the proposed residential building to be located on that lot shall be first submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. 0 frN Qnd hilild t" fit hilicidia ar-cho, thi-M thia U".L.Lk4 L%j A.AL AAAAAUA%w&%_,, V mLAALA.L &.AA%,.w %-*IAA V "X%_w"O L.ALO XJLA%w&k%.OL-LL%.&# Chall hn tal flaa fall":uy­ NIJ A I LA A%_.1 L%.011 A A LL&LX V%_1 A A.IL-LF N__okJAAL.7A%_&%./A L.4LLA%-/AA L3AA&4JLX LJ%-,f &A V L%_, A.ki AAM VV A.Alb Final design and placement of the homes is subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator consistent with the plans submitted April 17, 2001, subject to the following requirements: A. Accurate, to scale site plans shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning A€iministrator, accurately placing all trees. Tree removal must be less than or equal to the tree removal under the original approval. B. Minor adjustments to the house design on lot 6 may be required to further reduce tree loss to below 12 trees. An accurate., to scale site plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. C. Final color and materials shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Colors and materials shall be muted Note: Bold text indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001 - 3 - earth tone colors to blend with the setting, vegetation and soils. Any exterior color or material changes shall be reviewed by the County Community Development Department prior to the exterior change. D. Replacement tree and vegetation planting shall be placed to obscure views of the structures from surrounding vantage points. E. A master tree removal permit shall be obtained for tree removal on -,"he lots primthe i,"suance o"any bUsilding per Ults for construction on L &15 1 the lots. The application shall include a full revegetation plan which must be approved by the Zoning Administrator. Planting for each lot must be completed prior to occupancy of the house on that lot. F. Peer review by Contra Costa County shall be conducted on the site specific soils reports required in Condition 14G of the original approval. The cost for the review shall be paid by the applicant. G. During excavation for and preparation of the foundations of the residential structures, a Geotechnical Engineer or technician esi supervised by a Geotechnical Engineer shall be present to supervise any foundation related excavation or drilling. The Geotechnical Engineer shall document and make recommendations for any foundation design changes based on actual soil conditions. cxr_ ga Q h 9 a a ��t rianr un-r-A dchak xuhsathav--t-n-lc.7X%.-0&A-L "A%I-& %.*%.111%le.LN. V V 11%1_1 L.L1%_�.L Jt L&A 0%.1%_1 %_r.L 41-i'll &.L %_1 U11%-#1A-5%-L 51 r"hld"%;rrn �f tha Qtruatimn A 11 oviv%ninixt c:t=iaturar Qhnll hia car 101 1�d n"d Q n d IQ a a n'n A VVOICUlt il-% n E(21"tnt�lrlt t JL_R X I A%-0 LY I A%-/ U A&I I W X LJ L4 L A%.X A A 1 0 LA LA%..#L LAA%b.#,U L7 I A LX.L.L X%.,0 0 L4 A L 111 " X NJ kJ LpFJL A I I L L *3r_r_LQ A =nwrQ anic trnnac A n:ztn= • A Xbb nron zl"O t�o *JLN.WWA. L.7 k A LoLpf%-.,,LJ %.o1%_JAAL1J1N_,'JLJLk%_4A1L L11%_-, %.,,AAL�LLLAL%wfL%_eJL %JX 0 LAX A N.J LAL I IJLA& L%_011LoLJL1X L&JLA%.& 1-,c_1=,QC ha 13rel;zriaA t Qnt6:iakr. an d hi i I I.- Q 16 n I I a n a a%i i r 4.:1 lc%w Ln vN 1'%Aa 14 C1" C=n d t=I in ti I runk C O.:wQ r10 13ah nn fianciWiQ W I A &A CA%.A%_oe OLJLLA%..oLLo&JL%.,10-% 4AL) JLAJLL4%-1AA. "0 8. A scenic easement shall be provided across Lots 1 through 5 as 'indicated on the Tentative Map and extended across the easterly portions of Lots 1 and 2 to King Drive subject to the review I and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to filing the final map. This 'is to restrict buildings.Z�s. and structures from those areas Note: Bold text indicates changes approved by the Board of SuperAsors on June 19, 2001 1 i 4 VV VV JJR D LRD D .1 i U -4 - and to indicate that no further lot division shall occur. Any fencing within the scenic casement shall be of open wire type. A driveway encroachment is pernutted into the scenic easement for lots 5 and 6. The recording of the encroachment document through the Public Works Department shall occur prior to the issuance of a building permit for either lot. 9. Development rights of areas to be established as a scenic easement shall be deeded to the County. This shall be done with the filing of the Final Subdivision Map. 19 10. Prior io filing a Final Subdivision leap, street names shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department. All residences shall provide for an address visible from the street, which may require illumination. 11. Conditions for approval as related to road and drainage requirements: A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions there from must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the following requirements: 1) Constructing road improvements along the frontage of King Drive. Constructing King Drive as a 20 foot paved road to County. private improvements road standards and providing associated drainage alon4--; 9 the frontage will satisfy this requirement. The 20 foot paved section shall be extended offsite to connect to the existing paved section of King Drive. If the applicant desires County,acceptance of the road for maintenance., shall construct these improvements to County public road standards (including width, grade and section standards) subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Street lighting may also be required before the County would accept the road ror maintenance. 2) Conveying all storm water entering or originating within the subject property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banxs .01 or to an existing aciequate stormdrainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. Compliancewith this 1,80Q.Virequirement includes the installation of approxmately feet of Line A of the Drainage Area 15A Plan (from.Panoramic Way westward along Olympic Boulevard) or alternative drainage improvements subject to the approval of the Flood Control District. 3) Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered civil- engineer or licensed land surveyor. 4) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil encri'neer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the Conditions of approval for this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Traffic 4-.1 4-- Z:) Note: Bold text indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001 0 D D t - 5 - Engineer. B. Construct the onsite roadways, as shown on the Site Plan; to County private road standards within 25-foot casements, to include pedestrian walkways as may be feasible. Plans shall be submitted in this regard for review and uwp approval by the Zoning Administrator with the Final Map. C. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, that legal access to the property is available able from the County maintained portion of King Drive. D. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry., permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements. E. Prior to issuance of building permits, file the Final Map for Subdivision 7267. 12. Hours of construction shall be restricted from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. No construction will occur on Saturdays, Sundays, Federal or State holidays unless previously approved by the Zoning Administrator. Should this condition be violated, the Zoning Administrator may cause construction work to cease and desist until he/she is satisfied that compliance will be established. 13. Prior to filing the final map and/or grading plan, a tree inventory plan for areas in the vicinity of building sites, driveways and the proposed access road, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator to determine heritage trees and other trees for preservation and those trees to be identified for removal. An enlarged map of the proposed access road and the six building sites shall be submitted showing tree locations, the type and size and tree dripline, and means of preservation. The project design may require adjustment to preserve "Heritage Trees." 14. Comply with the recommended requirements of the City of Lafayette included in their letter dated January 23, 1990 and February 21, 1990, listed below and subject 0 to review, detemunation and/or approval by the County Zoning Administrator. A. The final subdivision-map shall not be approved until precise grading plans have been prepared and approved by the Zoning Administrator. B. A grading permit will be required for all grading including the earthwork necessary to develop all dwellings and driveways on each lot. An erosion control plan shall be prepared by the developer and reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to the submission to the County Grading Inspection Section. operations all trenchincr for utilities and the excavation and All grading 1 4:) construction of all foundation footings and piers and all paving shall be continuously monitored by a County-selected inspector at the developer's expense to insure compliance with all approved grading plans and tree protection measures. No grading, trenching, drilling or paving shall be Note: Bold text indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001 ip commenced without at least 72 hours prior notice to the County Zoning Administrator. C. The property owner agrees to enter into and record an agreement holding the County and other public agencies harmless in the event of flood or erosion damage, including damages to properties due to flooding or earth movement. D. All streets in the subdivision shall be private. A roadway and drainage maintenance agreement shall be recorded against each lot in the subdivision, obligating each lot for a proportionate share of the maintenance of the street and any joint private drainage facilities with consent of a majority of the members of the property owners. E. The developer shall post with the County a $5,000 cash deposit, refundable if not used, prior to start of construction. This deposit may be utilized as needed by the County to cover the cost of cleanup, pavement repair, etc., if the developer fails to adequately perform these tasks. F. The builder of each house shall provide roof drainage with downspouts and conduits to convey water to approved storm drainage facilities or existing drainage ways. These conduits must be approved by the County before a Building Permit is issued. G. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each new house, a detailed soils report including subsurface investigation and laboratory analysis shall be prepared specifically for the house design under consideration including driveways and pools. The recommendations of the soils report shall be implemented in the house design and foundation plans. The soils engineer shall sign the foundation plan and. review the grading, drainage and irrigation plans to verify that they are consistent with the soils report. H. Grading operations shall be scheduled only between April 15 and October 1 to avoid the Fall and Winter rains. Grading may continue past October 1, only if the erosion control measures have been installed and certified as operational by the Project Engineer and the Contra Costa County Grading Inspector. I. During the grading operation, the applicant shall control the generation of dust by fully sprinkling the site as determined to be needed by the County Grading Inspector in accordance with the County Grading Ordinance. J. Trees required to be saved shall be protected during construction by wooden fencing constructed with 4" x 4" posts and a 2" by 8" horizontal rail, 3-1/2' minimum height placed around each tree at the drip line except for the minimum necessary work to put in the required roadway improvements or where grading is to be permitted under one-third (1/3) of the drip line if on only one side of a tree. K. To reduce soil compaction from equipment, a mulch of 1-2 inch sized wood chips should be placed under each drip lines at a depth of 4-inches on the soil where no excavation is to occur for those trees affected by grading or construction. Note: Bold text indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001 fIL r � 7 - L. Low, hanging limbs of saved trees shall be pruned prior to grading, etc., to avoid tearing Limbs by heavy equipment. M. During grading, roots over 2-inches in diameter shall be cut off cleanly with a hand saw at the line of excavation:Any exposed roots shall be kept moist. A certified Arborist shall be present on site for all excavations within-the root zones of trees larger than six inches in diameter. They shall make on site recommendations to the grading contractor and document observations and remediation taken and the documentation shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. N. Do not allow raising of the grade around the tree trunks. This causes rotting of the trunk and serious damage/death to the tree. 0. Finished grades shall slope away from trunks to avoid water concentrated at their bases. P. Little or no irrigation within 8-10 ft., of trunks. Q. Only drip irrigation and drought tolerant plants shall be permitted under drip line. R. If large diameter roots (4") are encountered within the zone of excavation, an alternative footing shall be used which bridges the roots with pilings and grade beams. S. Trenches or footings shall be located no closer than 1 0-ft., from the base of the tree trunks. T. A test trench shall be dug to check on the occurrence of roots at the distance where foundation will be. Roots over 3"' in diameter shall not be disturbed. U. When trenching for utilities, tunneling shall be done under large diameter roots to prevent their cutting. NOTE: Trees other than oaks may tolerate more disturbances and moisture than do oaks. After advance approval by the Zoning Administrator, granted for non-oaks, variations of these conditions may be approved. V. No trees shall be removed until grading permits have been issued for the houses on the respective lots. W. Copies of the entire set of the conditions of approval shall be submitted by the subdivider to each lot buyer prior to the close of escrow. X. All runoff from the subdivision shall be collected on-site and conveyed in a closed conduit to King Drive. Note: Bold text indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001 -�:,,2 - S 1 h t7 D t.��t'�4�U ll L�J�� �. 8 Y Existing drainage facilities in King Drive and El Dorado Road shall be upgraded to handle flow from the subdivision. Improvements shall consist of a closed storm drain between the subdivision and Olympic Boulevard, unless alternative improvements are approved by the County Public Works Dept. Z. At least 60--clays prior to filing the final map or issuance of a Grading permit, subdivision improvement plans and Final Map shall be referred to the City of Lafayette for opportunity to comment., The city shall be provided with reproducible copies of the improvement plans and final map. ADVISORY NOTES A. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the applicant Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Currently the fee for the Central region of the County is $2,300 for each added single family residenbe. B. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 67 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. C. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District. Note: Bold text indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: Jeff Batt APPLICATION NO. TP020008 1 Blackfield Dr.,PM[B 404 ,,,,-�Tiburon, CA 94920 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL#s 238-040-011, 012,013, 014, 015,016 OWNER: Morgan Capital Investments ZONING,DISTRICT: P-1 3 Harbor Drive#30'3 Sausalito, CA 94965 APPROVED DATE: Septe-rnber24, 2002, EFFECTIVE DATE: September 24, 2000.2 This is to notify you that the Board of Supervisors has granted your request for a tree permit which authorizes the removal of trees and requires the replanting of trees for the construction of six single family residences on King Drive and Oak Branch Way in the Walnut Creek area, subject to the attached conditions. DENNIS M. BARRY,AICD Director Community Development Department Catherine Kutsun's Deputy Director Unless otherwise provided., THIS PERMIT WILL EXPIRE ONE YEAR from the effective date if the use allowed by this permit isnot established within that time. PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE, as no further notification will be sent by this office. rt.� FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TREE PERMIT NO. TP020008 (Jeff Batt, Applicant, Morgan Capital Inv., Owners) AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON SEPTEMBER 24, 20024D Criteria for Review of the Tree Permit A. Required Factors for Granting Permit. The Zoning;Administrator is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for granting a tree permit have been satisfied as marked: x I The arborist report indicates that the subject tree is in poor health and cannot be r%e saved. (See County Planning Commission stall%report and inventory). 2. The tree is a public nuisance and is causing damage to public utilities or streets and sidewalks that cannot be mitigated by some other means. 1= x 3. Several of the trees in danger of falling and cannot be saved by some other means. (see County Planning Commission staff report and:'inventory). 4. The tree is damaging existing private improvements on the lot such as a building foundation, walls, patios, decks, roofs retaining walls, etc. _ 5. The tree is a species known to be highly combustible and is determined to be a fire hazard. 6. The proposed tree species or the form of the tree does not merit saving. _X 7. Reasonable development of the properties would require the alteration or removal of trees and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on other areas of the site (see attached tree narrative and inventory). 8. The tree is a species known to develop weaknesses that affect the health of the tree or the safety of people and property. These species characteristics include but are not limited to short-lived weak wooded and subject to limb breakage, shallow rooted and subject to toppling. 9. Where the arborist or forester report has been required, and the Director is satisfied that the issuance, of a pen-nit will not negatively affect the sustainability of the resource. 1 0. None of the above factors apply. B. Required Factors for Denying a Tree Permit. The Zoning Administrator is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for denying (or modifying) a tree permit application have been satisfied as marked: 1. The applicant seeks permission for the alteration or removal of a healthy tree that can be avoided by reasonable redesign of the site plan prior to project approval (for non-discretionary permits). _ 2. it is reasonably likely that alteration or removal of a healthy tree will cause problems with drainage, erosion control land suitability, windscreen, visual screenina, and/or privacy and said problems cannot be mitigated as part of the proposed removal of the tree. 3. The tree to be removed is a member of a group of trees in which each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. 4. The value of the tree to the neighborhood in terms of visual effect, wind screening, privacy and neiorhborincr vegetation is greater than the hardship to the owner. 5. If the permit involves trenching a or grading and there are other reasonable alternatives includincr an alternate routeuse of retainina walls use of Pier and 41ntt) grade beam foundations and/or relocating site improvements. 6. Any other reasonable and relevant factors specified by the Community Development Director. X 7. None of the above factors apply. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General I The application for Tree Removal is approved based on the following documents: A. Revised report and tree location plans for the prof ect by Reliable Tree Experts,a certified arborist, dated May 20, 4200020 B. Report by Tree Decisions dated July 18, 12100002 All grading, site and development plans shall clearly indicate trees proposed for removal, altered or otherwise affected by development construction. The tree information on gradin 0 and development plans shall indicate the number, Size,, species, asszaned tree number corresponding to the arborist report discussion, and location of the dripline of all trees on the property. All trees to be removed shall be orantagged with red ore ribbons. t'=) 9 This permit shall be valid for aperiod of 90 days and maybe renewed for additional periods by the Director of Community Development upon request by the applicant. Construction Period Restrictions 2. clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, Site Preparation Prior to the start of any compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on site with trees to be preserved, the Applicant shall install fencing at or beyond the dripline of all areas adjacent to or in the area to be altered and remain in place for the duration of construction activity in the vicinity of the trees. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. Construction plans shall stipulate on their face where ten7pora7,y_/enc1ngr intended,/67- trees to be protected is to be placed, a77 Cl that the requiredfiencinor shall be installed prior to the commencement of anyC077SIMM071 activiti. �. Construction Period Restrictions - No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenchinc, paving or chancre in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline of any existing mature tree other than the trees approved for removal unless indicated on the improvement plans approved by the county and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. Throughout the construction of the site, the applicant shall ensure that the arborist is given full access to the site at all times.If grading or construction is approved within the dripline of a tree to be saved an arborist is required to be present during grading operations that may impact the trees. The arborist shall have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Upon the completion of grading and construction an involved arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods required for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expenses shall be borne by the developer and owner unless otherwise provided by the development conditions of approval. 4. Prohibition of Parking - No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the drip Line of any tree to be saved. 5. Construction Tree Damage-The development property owner or developer shall notify the Community Development Department of any damage that occurs to any tree during the construction process. The owner or developer shall repair any damage as determined by an arborist designated by the Director of Community Development. Any tree not approved for destruction or removal that dies or is significantly damaged as a result of construction or grading shall be replaced with a tree or trees of equivalent size and of a species as approved by the Director of Community Development to be reasonably appropriate for the particular situation. 6. Supervision of Work by an Arborist-All work that encroaches within the drip-line of a tree to be preserved shall be conducted under the supervision of a certified arborist. Arborist Expense 7. Arborist Expense-The expenses associated with all required arborist services shall be borne by the developer and/or property owner. Payment of Any Required Supplemental Fees 8. Payment of Any Due Supplemental Application Fees-This application is subject to an initial application fee deposit of$550.00 which was paid with the application submittal,plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceeds the initial fee deposit. Any additional fee due must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit,commencement of tree alteration work, or 60 days of the effective date of this permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant or owner may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner.A bill will be mailed to the applicatzt shortly after permit issuance in the event that additional fees are due. Restitution for Removed Trees and Construction in the root zone of existing trees 9. Trees to be Removed- This approval allows for the removal of up to 1 12 trees to allow for the construction of six single family residences and driveway access to each residence. The applicant is encouraged to preserve trees that are outside of the area of improvements even if approved for removal, if possible. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, to compensate for the loss of the trees, the applicant shall provide the County -4- with a security(e.g.,bond, cash deposit)to allow for the planting of replacement trees. The security shall be based on: A. Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements The planting of up to 221 trees, minimum 15-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees, and installation of landscaping and hillside erosion control improvements, subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit for the houses. The replacement tree planting must follow strict adherence to aboricultural planting and maintenance standards. B. Determination of Security Amount-The security amount is based on the planting of one tree for each 6 inches of diameter of trees to be removed, at an approximate planted cost of$200.00 per tree(221x V....00.00=$44,200.00). The total bond would include an additional 20% for inflation costs, for a total of$53,054.00. C. Acceptance of aSecurity-The security shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. D. Initial Deposit for Process*ng of Security- The County ordinance requires that the applicant cover all time and material costs of staff for processing a tree protection security (Code S-060B). The Applicant shall pay an initial fee deposit of$100 at time of submittal of a security. The security shall be retained by the County up to 2-4 months following the completion of installation of approved landscaping improvements. h-i the event that the Zoning Administrator determines that the landscaping is not in healthy condition, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable care of the replacement trees, then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees. 10. Trees to be Altered- This approval allows for word:within the root zone of 37 trees to allow for the construction of sig single family residences and driveway improvements. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, to compensate for the potential damage to the trees, the applicant shall provide the County with a security(e.g.,bond,cash deposit)to allow for the planting of replacement trees. The security shall be based on: A. Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements - The planting of up to 120 trees, minimum 15-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees, and installation of landscaping and hillside erosion control improvements, and arborist review of additional screening between trees #974 and #19 on Lot 6; subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator; -5- Prior to any site work, the applicant must submit for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator remedial measures that would maximize the long term preservation of Tree#47 on Lot 1. This information must be prepared by a certified arborist. B. Determination of Security Amount-The security amount is based on the planting of one tree for each 6 inches of diameter of trees to be removed, at an approximate planted cost of$200.00 per tree(120 x $200.00=$24,000.00). The total bond would include an additional 20% for inflation costs, for a total of$28,880.00. C. Acceptance of a Security-The security shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. D. Initial Deposit for Processing of Security - The County ordinance requires that the applicant cover all time and material costs of staff for processing a tree protection security (Code S-060B). The Applicant shall pay an initial fee deposit of$100 at time of submittal of a security. The security shall be retained by the County up to 24 months following the completion of installation of approved landscaping improvements. In the event that the Zoning Administrator determines that the landscaping is not in healthy condition, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable care of the replacement trees, then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees. Deed Restrictions 11. The owner of record shall record the following deed notification prior to the issuance of a building permit: A. "The property you are purchasing contains trees that are protected by Contra Costa County's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Any modification or removal of trees on this property requires a Tree Permit through the Community Development Department. Removal of trees without the benefit of a permit may include the assessment of substantial penalties based on the appraised value of the trees removed." B. All building materials and paint utilized on lots 3, 5 and 6 (including those utilized in the construction of all structures including but not limited to auxilary buildings, and fencing) shall have Light reflectivity index of 50% or less. The owner of record shall record the following deed notification prior to issuance of building permits: "The property you are purchasing is restricted in that building materials (including but not limited to paint', window and door -6- trim, roofing, and siding) must have light reflectivity indexes of 50% or less." Educational Materials Required 12. The applicant or the owner of the property must provide educational materials on the care and maintenance of the resource of the oak woodland to any buyer of the property. Designation of Trees to be Preserved 13. Site plans for the development of the site shall include a delineation of all trees to be preserved on the property. Pursuant to Section 816-6.6004 of the County Code, any tree so designated becomes a protected tree and can not be altered or removed unless a tree permit is first obtained from the Community Development Department. ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 660001 et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees,, dedications,, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90 day period after the project is approved. The ninety(90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication,reservation,or other exaction required by this approved permit,begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. G-\CurTent Pianntng\curr-p1an\Tree PerrTu'ts1TP020008 KD 61ot tree permit-bos.doc mlimp -7- CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: Morgan Capital Invest. Prop. APPLICATION NO. TP980025 Three Harbor Drive, #303 Sausalito, CA 94965 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 238-040-003 OWNER: Same as above ZONING DISTRICT: P-1 APPROVED DATE: 2/1/99 EFFECTIVE DATE: 2/12/99 This period not having been appealed within the time prescribed by law, a permit for: A Tree Permit to remove 20 trees and to allow alterations within the drip(ine of 29 trees is hereby GRANTED, subject to the attached conditions. DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Director Community Development Department COX eb ie Chamberlain Deputy Zoning Administrator Unless otherwise provided, THIS PERMIT WILL E):PIRE six months from the effective date if t}ie use allowed by this hermit is not established within that time. PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE as no ftirther notification will he sent by this office. J FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS. OF APPROVAL FOR TREE PERMIT NO., TP980025 (Morgan Capital Investment Properties - Applicant & Owner) Criteria for Review of the Tree Permit A. Required Factors for Granting Permit. The Zoning Administrator is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code. Section 816-6.8010 for granting a tree permit have been satisfied as marked: 1. The arborist report indicates that the subject trees are in poor health and cannot be saved. 2. The tree is a public nuisance and is causing damage to public utilities or streets and sidewalks that cannot be miti(Tated by some other means. 3. Tile tree is in dander of falling and cannot be saved by some other means. 4. The tree is darnaryin(y existing; private improvements on the lot such as a building foundation, walls, patios', decks', roofs, retaining walls, etc. _ 5. The tree is a species known to be li'( ilfl y combustible and is determined to be a fire hazard. 6. The proposed tree species or,the form of the tree does not merit saving. X 7. Reasonable development of the property would require the alteration or removal of the tree and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on another area of the Int. 8. Tile tree is a species knowii to develop weaknesses that affect the health of the tree or the safety of people and 1)rol)ert)/. These species characteristics include but are not limited to short-lived, weak wooded and subject to limb breakac.--Ye, shallow rooted and subject to toppiino. _ 9. Where the arborist or forester report has been required, and the Director is satisfied that the issuance of a I)ernift xvill not ne`,atively affect the sustainability of the resource. _ 10. None of the above factors apply. B. Required Factors for Denyiiig a Tree Permit. The Zoning Administrator is satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 8 16-6.80 10 for denying (or modifying) a tree permit application have been satisfied as marked: 1. The applicant seeks permission for the alteration or removal of a healthy tree that can be avoided by reasonable redesign of tlle site plan prior to project approval (for non-discretionary permits). 2. It is reasonably likely that alteration or removal of a healthy tree will cause problems with drainage, erosion control, land suitability, windscreen, visual screening, and/or privacy and said problems cannot be mitigated as part of the proposed removal of the tree. 3. The tree to be removed is a member of a group of trees in which each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. _ 4. The value of the tree to the nei`hborhood in terms of visual effect, wind screening, privacy and neighboring vegetation is greater than the hardship to the owner. 5. If the permit involves trenching or grading and there are other reasonable alternatives includinj an alternate route, use of retaining walls, use of pier and grade beam foundations and/or relocating site improvements. 6. Any other reasonable and relevant factors specified by the Community Development Director-. X 7. None of the above factors apply. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. General -The application for Tree Removal is approved based on the following documents: 0 Tree survey map- 0 Report on the project by Macnair & Associates of the Professional Tree Care, Company, a licensed arborist, dated October 241 1998 and January 12, 1999. Except as otherwise specified, development shall be in accord with the recommendations of the arborist reports. All grading site and development plans shall clearly indicate trees to be altered or otherwise affected by development construction. The tree information on grading and development plans shall indicate the number, size, species, (Issigi-ted tree iiiimber corrc.vJ)oii(1iiig to the arhorist re/)ort (lisciissioil., and location of the dripline of all trees on the property. This permit shall be valid for a period for one year after the fiiin� of the final map and may be renewed for additional periods by the Director of Community Developiiient upon request by the applicant. Contingency Restitution Should Altered Trees Be Damaged 2. Trees to be Preserved but Altered - Pursuant to the conclusions of the arborist report, proposed improvements within the root zone of trees noted on the site plan to be preserved have been determined to be feasible and still allow for preservation provided that the recommendations of the arborist are follo\ved. I1204Pursuant to the requirements of Sect*on 816-6. of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, to address the possibility that construction activity nevertheless damages these trees the applicant shall provide the Count)'with a security (e.g., bond, cash deposit) to allow for replacen-lent, of trees intended to be preserved that are significantly damaged by construction activity. The security shall be based on: A. Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements - The plantin(T of up to 70 trees, mInIMUM 1.5-`,allons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees, or equivalent planting contriureviewbonsubject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator* B. Determination Of Security Amount - The security shall provide for all of the following costs based on an estimate prepared by a licensed arborist, landscape architect or landscape contractor- • preparation of a landscape/irrigation plan by a licensed landscape architect or arborist-, • a labor and materials estimate for planting the potential number of trees that may be required; and • an additional 20%of the total of the above amounts to address inflation costs. C. Acceptance of a Sec - The security shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. D. Initial Deposit for Processing.,of Security - The County ordinance requires that the applicant cover all time and material costs of staff for processing a tree protection security (Code S-060B). The Applicant shall pay an initial fee deposit of$100 at time of submittal of a security. The security shall be retained by the County up to 24 months followina the completion of the tree alteration improvements. In the event that the Zoning Administrator determines that trees intended to be protected have been dammed by development activity, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the applicant has not been diligent in providing, reasonable restitution of the dammed trees, then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for miti`,ation of the dammed trees. At least 18 t»ontlr.s following 11tc co»iy4etion ofityork inithin the drilyliiie of trees, the applicant's arborist shall inspect the trees for any significant damage from construction activity, and submit a report on his/her conclusions on the health of the trees and, if appropriate, any recommendations including further methods required for tree protection to the Community Development Department. Construction Period Restrictions 3. Site. Preparation - Prior to the release of the existing; stop-work order on the property, the Applicant shall install temporary protective fencing in accord with the recommendation of the arborist report, and the arborist shall provide staff with a written statement that the temporary fencing has been correctly installed (FAX to 3 3 5-1 2 2 2). The fences shall remain in place for the duration of construction activity in the vicinity of the trees. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits') the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. 4. Construction Period Restrictions - Except as provided in the above listed project descriptions by the applicant and arborist, no gradin„ compaction, stockpilin„ trenching, pavino or chane in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline of any eKistin` mature tree unless indicated on the improvement plans approved by the county and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the dripfine of a tree to be saved, an arborist may be required to be present during grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Upon the completion of�radin� and construction, an involved arborist shall prepare -4- a report outlining further methods required for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expense shall be borne by tlle developer and applicant unless otherwise provided by the development's conditions of approval. 5. Prohibition of Parking - Except as provided in the above listed project description materials provided by the applicant, no parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the drip line of any tree to be saved. 6. construction Tree Damage-The development's property owner or developer shall notify the Community Development Department of any damage that occurs to any tree during the construction process. The owner or developer shall repair any damage as determined by an arborist designated by the Director of Community Development. Any tree not approved for destruction or removal that dies or is si�c�ificantiy damaged as a result of construction or grading shall be replaced with a tree or trees of equivalent size and of a species as approved b}, the Director of Community Development to be reasonably appropriate for the particular situation. 7. Supervision of Work by an Arborist - All work that encroaches within the dripline of a tree to be preserved shall be conducted Under the supervision of a licensed arborist. Arborist Exl)eiise 8. Arborist Expense - The expenses associated x6th all required arborist services shall be borne by the developer and/or }property owner. Payment. of Any Required Stipl)iemental Fees 9 Payment �f Any Due SUDDItnental ADDHI-Qa t'on Fees - This application is subject to an initial application fee,of$_550 which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 120% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit, commencement of tree alteration work, or 60 days of the effective date of this permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant or owner may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. A bill will be mailed to the o►vizer shortly after permit issuance in the event that additional fees are due. AMB/aa Perm/TI'9R0035) -5- CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVEb PERMIT ENGINEER: Don Henderson SUBDIVISION NO: 7267 1143 Missouri Street #4 Fairfield, California 94533 ASSESSOR 'S PARCEL NO: 238-040-003 ZONING DISTRICT: P-1 OWNER: Gertrude Wanek 376 Devon Drive APPROVAL DATE* 27 February 1990 San Rafael , California 94902 This matter .not having been appealed within the time prescribed by law, the subdivision is hereby GRANTED, subject to the attached conditions. HARVEY E. BRAGDON, Director, Community Development Department By* Karl L. Wan dry Deputy erect r PLEASE NOTE THE APPROVAL DATE, as no further notification will be sent bythis office. Unless otherwise provided, you have 36 months from the approval date to file the FINAL MAPS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 7267 1* This approval is based upon the tentative map submitted with the applica- tion dated received February 2, 1990* 2* In Subdivision 7267,, the building setbacks shall not be less than 10 feet,, all subject to review and approval bytheZoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit, 3. At least 60 days prior to recording a Final Map, issuance of a Building Inspection Department permits,, or installation of improvements or ut.]Lli- ties submit a geotechnical review report meeting the requirements of Sub- division ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the Planning Geologist. Improvement and grading plans shall carry out the recommenda- tions of the approved report and be signed by the engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer prior to checking by County. Grading will be limited to that which was shown on the tentative map or on subsequently approved plans. Any need for additional grading that would result in loss of trees must be approved by the County Planning Commission. Non-compliance will be the cause for a "stop work" order., 4e Record a statement to run with deeds to the property acknowledging the ap- proved report and the reports of Herzog and Associates, Inc. dated June 7. 1989 and September 18; 1989, by title,, author (firm) , and date, calling attention to recommendations, and noting that the reports are on file for public review in the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County, 5.6 Prior to issuance of building permits on parcels of this subdivision, sub- mit an as-graded report of the engineering geologist and geotehnical engi- neer showing locat--ion owf-&F vo.LitAv.Lum and lands ide deposits encountered during grading for improvements and utilities; final plan and grades for subsur- face drainage including disposal and cleanout points; any buttress fill or shear key with its keyway location; retaining walls; and other rock and soil improvements installed during grading, as surveyed by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer. 6* Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s) , earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mit igation(s) , if deemed necessary,, 7, Prior to the issuance of any building permit and/or grading permit for work on any lot, the proposed grading, location and design of the proposed res- idential building to be located on that lot shall be first submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Buildings shall be simi- lar to that shown on submitted plans to be designed and built to fit hill- side areas within the envelope areas as indicated on the tentative map. Consideration shall be given to the following: 2 A. Any rear yard deck, whether raised or on grade should blend with the design of the structure. All support structures shall be -screened and landscaped. -B The specific design of buildings of structures shall result in a footprint that preserves existing mature oak trees. A combination of staggered exterior wall lines- and two-story elements may be appropri- ate depending on the proposed building size and location. Co, Roof shapes that complement the character of surrounding terrain and nearby homes shall be utilized. Do Building height, setbacks and bulk shall encourage low profile, stepped-on-grade structures, as much as feasible* 8. A scenic easement shall be provided across Lots1 through 5 as indicated on the Tentative Map and extended across the easterly portions of Lots 1 and 2 to King Drive subject to the review and approval by the Zoning Administra- tor prior to filing the final map. This is to restrict buildings and structures from those areas and to indicate that no further lot division shall occur. Any fencing within the scenic easement shall be of open wire type. 9.0 Development rights of areas to be established as a scenic easement shall be deeded to the County. This shall be done with the filing of the Final Subdivision Map. 10. Prior to filing a Final Subdivision Map, street names shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department. All t$ res- id--c es shall provide for an address visible from the street, which may .A- =LL L require illumination. 11. Conditions for approval as related to road and drainage requirements: X A-1- 004 A, In accordance w4i'a-Ew dh*db *Sw i%:Rol t%ww4w4%—wP;A-cwtf&n 9ot 20—2. Aw VA 6 0 L LLita %.;ounty 0-rdinance code,, this subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9) . Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the following requirements: 1) Constructing road improvements along the frontage of King Drive. Constructing King Drive as a 20 foot paved road to County private road standards and providing associated drainage improvements along the frontage will satisfy this requirement. The 20 foot paved section shall be extended offsite to connect to the exist- ing paved section of King Drive. If the applicant desires County acceptance of the road for maintenance, shall construct these improvements to County public road standards (including width, grade and section standards) subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Street lighting may also be re- quired before the County would accept the road for maintenance,, 3 2) Conveying all storm water entering or originating within the subject property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. Com- pliance with this requirement includes the installation of ap- proximately 1,800 feet of Line A of the Drainage Area 15A Plan (from Panoramic Way westward along Olympic Boulevard) or alter- native drainage improvements subject to the approval of the Flood Control Districte 3) Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered P%,:ivil engineer or licensed land surveyor. 4) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil en- gineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval for this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Traffic Engineer. B, Construct the onsite roadways, as shown on the Site Plan,, to County foot easementst to *include a pedes- trian walkways as may be feasible. Plans shall be submitted in this regard for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator with the Final Map. C. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, that legal access to the property is available from the County maintained portion of King Drive, D. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or per- manent: road an d d� V 1-.&LII=A AL- E, Prior to issuance of building permits, file the Final Map for Subdi- vision 7267, 12. Hours of construction shall be restricted from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M, l Monday through Friday. No construction will occur on Saturdays, Sundays, Federal or State holidays unless previously approved by the Zoning Admin- istrator, Should this condition be violated, the Zoning Administrator may cause construction work to cease and desist until he/she is satisfied that compliance will be established. 13. Prior to filing the final map and/or grading plan, a tree inventory plan for areas in the vicinity of building sites, driveways and the proposed access road, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Ad- ministrator to determine heritage trees and other trees for preservation and those trees to be identified for removal. An enlarged map of the 4 proposed access road and the six building sites shall be submitted showing tree locations, the type and size and tree dripline, and mean-s of preser- vation. Theproject design may require adjustment to preserve "Heritage Trees,.11 14. Comply with the recommended requirements of the City of Laf ayet..te includ- ed in their letter dated January 23, 1990 and February 21, 1990, listed below and subject to review, determination and/or approval by the County Zoning Administrator. A. The final subdivision map shall not be approved until precise grading plans have been prepared and approved by the Zoning AdminlLstratoro Bo Agrading permit will be required for all grading including the earth- work necessary to develop all dwellings and driveways on each lot. An erosion-control plan shall be prepared by the developer and reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to the submission to the County Grading Inspection Section. All grading operations, all trenching for utilities and the excava- tion and construction of all foundation footings and piers and all paving shall be continuously monitored by a County-selected inspector at the developer's expense to insure compliance with all approved grading plans and tree protection measures. No grading, trenching, drilling or paving shall be commenced without at least 72 hours prior notice to the County Zoning Administratore CO The property owner agrees to enter into and record an agreement hold- ing the County and other public agencies harmless in the event of 4:1^0 A ^V� "W"01%Owe P% "ft It %.A %.A e 2-ow 0 s It-o,.Lr%.L dC2At1CXV= I ILC.Luding U lamages to properties dui'. to r1ood- ing or earth movement. D. All streets in the subdivision shall be private. A roadway and drain- age maintenance agreement shall be recorded against each lot in the subdivision, obligating each lot for a nronortionate share of to-holme. A; 16: maintenance of the street and any joint private drainage facilities with consent of a majority of the members of the property owners. E* The developer shall post with the County a $5,000 cash deposit,, refundable if not used, prior to start of construction. This deposit maybe utilized as needed by the County to cover the cost of cleanup, pavement repair, etc. , if the developer fails to adequately perform these tasks* F. The builder of each house shall provide roof drainage with downspouts and conduits to convey water to approved storm drainage facilities or existing drainage ways. These conduits must be approved by the County before a Building Permit is x'ssued. G. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each new house, a de- tailed soils report including subsurface investigation and laboratory 5 analysis shall be prepared specif ically f or the house des Ign under consideration including driveways and pools. The recommendations of the soils report shall be implemented in the house design and founda- tion plans. The soils engineer shall sign the foundation plan and review the grading, drainage and irrigation plans to verify that they are consistent with the soils report. N. Grading operations shall be scheduled only between April 3.5 and October 1 to avoid the Fall and Winter rains. Grading may continue past October 1, only if the erosion control measures have been in- stalled and certified as operational by the Project Engineer and the Contra Costa County Grading Inspector. I. During the grading operation, the applicant shall control the gener- ation of dust by fully sprinkling the site as determined to be needed by the County Grading Inspector in accordance with the County Grading Ordinance. J. Trees required to be saved shall be protected during construction by wooden fencing constructed with 411 x 41f posts and a 2" by 8" horizon- tal rail, 3-1/21 minimum height placed around each tree at the drip line except for the minimum necessary work to put in the required roadway improvements or where grading is to be permitted under one- third (1/3) of the drip line if on only one side of a tree, K*. To reduce soil compaction from equipment, a mulch of 1-2 inch sized wood chips should be placed under each drip lines at a depth of 4-inches on the soil where no excavation is to occur for those trees affected by grading or construction, L Low, hanging limbs of saved trees shall be pruned prior to grading, etc. , to avoid tearing limbs by heavy equipment. M. During grading, roots over 2-inches in diameter shall be cut of f cleanly with a hand saw at the line of excavation. An ex7winanA roots shall be kept moist. N Do not allow raising of the grade around the tree trunks, This causes rotting of the trunk and serious damage/death to the tree, O. Finished grades shall slope away from trunks to avoid water concentrated at their bases. P. Little or no irrigation within 8-10-ft. , of trunks. Q Only drip irrigation and drought tolerant plants shall be permitted under drip line. R If large diameter roots (41') are encountered within the zone of ex- cavation, an alternative footing shall be used which bridges the roots with pilings and grade beams, 6 S" Trenches or footings shall be located no closer than 10-ft. , from the base of the tree trunks* T,v A test trench shall be dug to check on the occurrence of roots at the distance where foundation will be. Roots over 31' in diameter shall not be disturbed. TY Whe ' n trenchinfor utilities tunneling shall be done under large g diameter roots to prevent their cutting* NOTE: Trees other than oaks may tolerate more disturbances and moisture than do oaks. After advance approval by the Zoning Admin- istrator, granted for non-oaks, variations of these conditions may be approved. V. No trees shall be removed until grading permits have been issued for the houses on the respective lots* wo Copies of the entire set of the conditions of approval shall be sub- mitted by the subdivider to each lot buyer prior to the close of es- crow.. X. All runoff from the subdivision shall be collected on-site and convey- ed in a closed conduit to King Road, Y. Existing drainage facilities in King Road and El Dorado Road shall be upgraded to handle flow from the subdivision. Improvements shall con- sist of a closed storm drain between the subdivision and Olympic Boul- evard, unless alternative improvements are approved by the County Public Wo._rks D e.- Z' At least 60-days prior to filing the final map or issuance of a Grad- ing Permit, the subdivision improvement plans and Final Map shall be referred to the City of Lafayette for opportunity to comment. , The city shall be provided with ren—-—roduc—ible r"conies=n ^f 4--V% .9 LLLIP..i-ovement A: — on. plans and final map. ADVISORY NOTES A, The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Currently the fee for the Central region of the County is $2,300 for each added single family residence. B,w The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 67 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. C. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protec- tion District NOTIFICATION LIST NOTICE OF A You are hereby notified that on TUESDAY, July 19, 2005 at ??? p.m. in , McBrien Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, the Board of Supervisors will consider an appeal by Jeffrey Batt of Silverhawk Development & Company Inc. (SUBDIVIDER AND APPELLANT)of the County Planning Commission's decision to authorize staff to record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law against the title to each of the six lots within Subdivision 7267 described as follows: SUBDIVISION 7267 (King Estates, LP— Owner)—The County has previously conditionally approved a tentative subdivision map, and subsequently approved a final map allowing the division of approximately 11-acres into six lots. The approved final map was subsequently recorded. The Community Development Department issued a Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law on the title to Lots 1 through 6 of Subdivision 7267 that resulted from the subdivision, to the owner and subdivider of the six lots. The subject property (Subdivision 7267) is located near the southeastern terminus of King Drive; south of#270 King Drive; and fronting on either side of Oak Branch Way in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area. (APN 238-040-011 through -016) (P-1) For further details, contact the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, or Christine Gregory at 925-335-1236. Dennis M. Barry, AICP Community Development Director G:\Current Planning\cure-plan\AGENDAS\Public Hearing Notices\SD897267-Notice of Violation-BOS public hearing not.doc Ms. Doris Jean Ainsworth Ms. Pauline Angell Ms. Kim Bailey 131 El Dorado Road 1411 Boulevard Way 2609 Olympic Boulevard Walnut Creek, CA 94595-1502 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 William Baldwin & Catherine Mr. &Mrs. Stanley Mr. Paul Borgwardt 2501 Olympic Boulevard 2716 W Newell Avenue 2656 W Newell Avenue Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek) CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Mr. &Mrs. Gary Bomfleth Mr. Joel Burley Ms. Corrine Busbee 41 Newell Court 170 El Dorado Road 11 Corte Del Contento Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Mr. &Mrs. Tin Wai Cheung Mr. & Mrs. Marc Childers Mr. & Mrs. Jon Christensen 2756 West Newell Avenue 2633 W Newell Avenue 3311 Freeman Road Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Mr. &Mrs. Lance Coletto Mr. Dennis Collins Mr. &Mrs. Richard Cormier 200 King Drive 2841 Kinney Drive 2531 Olympic Boulevard Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Mr. &Mrs. Daniel Crosby Mr. &Mrs. Paul Davey Ms. Mary Dunne 255 King Drive 2725 W Newell Avenue 78 Grandview Place Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Mr. & Mrs. Hill Eshbach Mr. Wayne Fettig Mr. &Mrs. Thomas Fishel 160 El Dorado Road 178 Kendall Road 36 Freeman Court Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Ms. Faryce Gideon Mr. &Mrs. Gordon Griffin Mr. & Mrs. Mark Halfon 2431 Olympic boulevard 2690 W Newell Avenue 2561 Olympic Boulevard Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Mr. Robert Dick Harrison Mr. &Mrs. Brett Hathaway Mr. &Mrs. Daniel Hill 231 King Drive 2742 W Newell Avenue 10 Newell Court Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Mr. &Mrs. David Honegger Mr. &Mrs. Francis Hopkins Mr. Carl Hutchins 100 El Dorado Road 2733 West Newell Avenue 172 Kendall Road Walnut Creek., CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Andy JahnNirgina Mac Intosh Mr. &Mrs. Larry Johnson Mr. &Mrs. Frank Krajewski 251 King Drive 1 10 El Dorado Road Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Mr. &Mrs. Richard Lee Mr. &Mrs. Charles Lewis Ms. Suzanna Lie 3303 Freeman Road 2441 Olympic Boulevard 171 EI Dorado Road Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek., CA 94595 Ms. Kathryn Liston Mr. &Mrs. Gregory Lopez Ms. Nancy Lowe 917 Kelley Court 130 EI Dorado Road 2609 Olympic boulevard Lafayette, CA 94549 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Ms. Suzanne Mahoney Ms. Paula Malcom Mr. &Mrs. Jeffrey Marchese 61 Manzanita Court 2461 Olympic Boulevard 2641 W Newell Avenue Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Mr. Arthur Marchetti Mr. &Mrs. Brent Martin Mr. &Mrs. Richard Martin 161 E] Dorado Road 2617 Olympic Boulevard 2657 W Newell Avenue Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Ms. Karen Milligan Mr. &Mrs. Kieran Mone Mr. & Mrs. Joe Moreno 17 Stanley Court 21 Newell Court 140 El Dorado Road Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Mr. William Murray Mr. Gregory Norman Ms. Janet Mary Norris 2673 W Newell Avenue 2511 Olympic Boulevard 20 Newell Court Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Mr. &Mrs. Steve Pappas Mr. Conrad A. Peloquin Mr. &Mrs. Raymond Petersen 221 King Drive 17 Corte Del Contento 181 El Dorado Road Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Mr. &Mrs. Stephen Phillips Nr, & Mrs. John Pinella Mr. &Mrs. Gary Rodrigues Walnut Creek, CA 94595 260 King Drive 2741 W Newell Avenue Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Mr. Rick Ruff Mr. John B. Ruzek, P.E. Rich Walter 201 King Drive 756 Hilton Road 2648 W Newell Avenue Walnut Creek.) CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Mr. &Mrs. Eric Schueler Mr. Clinton Shaw Mr. &Mrs. Dewayne Sherrill 151 El Dorado Road 1430 Boulevard Way 2551 Olympic Boulevard Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Mr. &Mrs. David Skvama Mr. &Mrs. Edward Soares Mr. &Mrs. James Spight 2717 W Newell Avenue 1430 Boulevard Way 3306 Freeman Road Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Mr. &Mrs. Charles Stepp Mr. Robert Stevens Ms. M. Joan Stewart 2451 Olympic Boulevard 125 Kendall Road 150 El Dorado Road Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Michael Timms & Sadie CMr. &Mrs. Kenneth Wainola Mr. &Mrs. Bernard Walenter 2700 W Newell Avenue 211 125 Kendall Road 2655 W Newell Avenue Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Rev. &Mrs. Robert Williams Ms. Victoria Xazera Benson Terry Tre 210 King Drive 101 El Dorado Road 2366 N Pine Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Hanford CA 93230 David &Lisa Foster Jennifer Hale Kelly Adler-Schueler 121 El Dorado Rd. 141 El Dorado Rd 151 El Dorado Rd Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Yoon Gwi-Young Barton W & Shirley Bennett Tre Mutual Operation 280 King Drive 1451 Leimert Blvd PO Box 2070 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Golden Rain Foundation of WC Amis Kapostins Katheen A Fox 1101 Golden Rain Rd 5 Corte Del Contento 16 Corte Del Contento Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 John L& Sue L Gainey 416 S Lincoln St Palmyra PA 17078 Jeffrey Batt Morgan Capital Investment Corp. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District PMB 404 3 Harbor Drive#303 Tiburon, CA 94920 Sausalito, CA 94965 2010 Geary Road a PleasantH1115 CA 94523-4694 Paul Kelly David J.Bowie Central Sanitary District W R Forde Associates Bowie&Bruegmann, LLP 5019 Imhoff Drive 42 Industrial Way Attorneys at Law Martinez, CA 94553 Greenbrae, CA 94904 2255 Contra Costa Blvd.#305 Pleasant Hill,CA 94523 Darwin Myers Carlos Baltodano Kevin Durnford Community Development Building Inspection Dept. Building Inspection Dept. Current Planning—2"d Fl NW INTEROFFICE INTEROFFICE INTEROFFICE Heather Ballenger Brian Balbas Mike Carlson Public Works Dept. Public Works Dept. Public Works Dept. INTEROFFICE INTEROFFICE INTEROFFICE Kevin Emigh Ross Mayer Public Works Dept. Public Works Dept. INTEROFFICE INTEROFFICE APPEAL LETTER C so Mpr BOWIE &BRUEGMANN, LLP Attorneys at Law 242.55 CONTRA COSTA BLVD., SUITE 305 PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523 DAVID J.BOWIE Telephone (925) 939-5300 WILLIAM J. BRUEGMANN Facsimile (925) 609-9670 Dave@bblandlaw.com Bill@bblandlaw.corn June 22, 2005 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, 2°d Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: King Estates Subdivision, Subdivision 7267/Notices of Violation Regarding Subdivision Conditions Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors: I represent Jeffrey Batt of Silverhawk Development & Company Inc., and Sequoia Land Investments. My clients are, respectively,the developer and owner of the King Estates Subdivision 7.2.671, Lots 1 through 6. That particular Subdivision was previously approved by Contra Costa County and a final map was recorded pursuant to which approximately 1 1 acres of land were divided into six lots. By letter dated March 29, 2005, the Community Development Department issued a Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law against the title to Lots 1 through 6 of the subject Subdivision. On behalf of my clients, I previously objected to the proposed Notices of Violation on the ground that there has been substantial compliance with all subdivision conditions. The matter was referred to the County Planning Commission for action and was heard on May 10, 2,005 and June 14, ?005. On June 14, 2005, the Planning Commission authorized Planning Staff to record Notices of Violation against the title to all lots of King Estates Subdivision 7267. On behalf of the developer and owner of that particular subdivision, this letter will constitute an appeal to your Board of that Planning Commission action. I have enclosed herewith the filing fee of$12.5 relative to that appeal. The principal ground for appeal is the substantial compliance of the project to approved conditions to the original subdivision such that the proposed action is inappropriate and the staff recommendation for recordation of Notices of Violation should be denied. The balance of this letter will provide additional detail regarding this appeal. Government Code Section 66499.36 provides legislative authority to this County for recordation of Notices of Violation of the Subdivision Map Act. As set forth therein, a Notice of Violation is appropriate "[W]henever a local Agency has knowledge that real property has been divided in violation of[the Subdivision Map Act]..." . After recording,that Notice is deemed constructive notice of the particular violation to all successors in interest of the property. The Notice of Violation has adverse practical consequences for any developer and property owner. Such a Notice might place existing construction loans in default; it clearly precludes the issuance of any further permits or approvals from the County so that an entire project is halted at great ongoing expense until the matter of the alleged Violation is remedied. In this particular instance, there are third party construction lenders who will be impacted'by the proposed Notices; a project which has been plagued with delays and difficulties together with attendant expense will simply encounter more delay and expense to no one's advantage and the specific disadvantage of neighbors who should wish this project completed as soon as possible. 1. Alleged Violations Related to the Horizontal and Vertical Road Alignments: It has been alleged that condition of approval #3 to Subdivision 7267 has been violated as "[G]rading will be limited to that which was shown on the Tentative Map or on subsequently approved plans." [Emphasis added]. In support of this allegation, County staff has argued that portions of the road have been constructed at 10 feet above the grade indicated on the Tentative Map and outside of the right of way. In actual fact, the road is generally in a different vertical and horizontal alignment than originally indicated in the Tentative Map. The developer constructed the.road in the location actually intended, however, and pursuant to subsequently approved plans. The original plan elevations for the road were incorrect as submitted by the original project engineer. The intention of all parties (including this Board) was to construct a road which would largely parallel a pre-existing fire access road. The road as constructed today substantially parallels the old fire access road. It is constructed and located in the fashion intended. It was also constructed pursuant to subsequently approved plans stamped and inspected by Public Works and approved by the Fire Protection District. Somehow, those plans were apparently not formally approved by the Planning Department. The Subdivision condition permits variance from the Tentative Map pursuant to subsequently approved plans. Had the original design on the Tentative Map actually been implemented, there would have been extremely tall retaining walls and tree loss which clearly was not contemplated in the original subdivision approval. Quite simply, there has been no actual violation of the subdivision condition in either a literal sense or as intended at the time of original approval. There is, undoubtedly, a need to confirm that existing field conditions conform to the subsequently approved plans and, perhaps, to have the planning department join the other County departments in approving existing conditions. There is neither basis nor reason to record Notices of Violation relative to this complaint. 2. Missing Upslope Retaining Wall: It is true that there is currently no retaining wall along the slope of Oak Branch Way. Q--� The subject'matter of this retaining wall has been under discussion with Darwin Myers by the Project's Soils Consultants, Hallenbeck/All West Associates. It is anticipated that the proper treatment of soil retention in this area will soon be fully addressed and the construction of necessary and related improvements will be completed. It is obvious that this project is not yet complete. Condition 5 to the Subdivision approval would essentially require an as-graded report of the engineer and geologist and geotechnical engineer showing final plans, grades, and retaining walls among other things. The condition requires that the work be completed and that information provided"[P]rior to issuance of building permits on parcels of this subdivision.. ". In essence, there is no reason to record a Notice of Violation because upslope retaining walls have not been completed since the project remains incomplete and building permits on specific parcels have yet to be issued. A Notice of Violation is obviously premature and is unnecessary in terms of providing constructive notice to anyone since there is nothing at this point to sell to third party purchasers. I Incorrect Downslope Retaining Wall Design: This particular problem is fully addressed in the comments to alleged Violation No. I above. In other words, field conditions actually match both subsequently approved plans and the intent of original Subdivision approvals. 4. Incorrect Upslope Retaining Wall Design: Once again, this is a matter similar to alleged Violations I & 3 above. In addition', L--, however, the staff comment to this particular "problem" noted the aesthetic superiority of field conditions to original plans. Why would recordation of a Notice of Violation serve any meaningful purpose as to this particular matter? 5. Variance of Field Conditions from Design Criteria: The specific complaints under this category relate to cut slope gradients and drainage berms. These are matters consistent with alleged Violation No. 2 above. Discussions between the Project Soils Consultant and Darwin Myers should resolve this complaint. There is an ongoing need to balance soils concerns with aesthetic issues such as continued tree protection. These complaints will be resolved as a part of this process; it is simply premature and inappropriate to record a Notice of Violation. 6. Removal of Code Protected Tree: The Developer previously obtained permission to remove up to 1,2.2.. trees from the project site. He in fact only removed 111. The Developer submitted an arborist report with respect to tree No. 47 on Lot I and requested its removal. After more than 60 days, no response whatsoever had been obtained; the project was being held up and permission existed for removal of an additional 11 trees which had not yet been removed. It is believed that removal of the tree was appropriate based upon the Arborist Report and within the scope of existing permits. Once again, a Notice of Violation would appear to an excessive response to a minor problem especially when some response from staff could have obviated the entire issue. It is very important from the standpoint of the Developer,the neighbors and the County to move this project forward without further delay and unnecessary expense. The type of engineering error originally made with subsequent field changes pursuant to approved plans should not really require reprocessing an entire development permit. The original Subdivision was validly approved and there has been substantial compliance with the conditions for approval. It is respectfully requested that staff s recommendation to record Notices of Violation be denied and that staff be instructed to work with the Developer to finalize as built drawings and conditions without further administrative processing. Very truly you David J. B ie S-2 On September 24, 2001, the Board of Supervisors granted a Tree Removal Permit, County File #TP020008, to allow for the removal of trees and to allow for work within the root zone of trees to construct six single family residences. Improvement and grading plans were approved consistent with the approved site plan with the development permits, The County also issued building permits including permits for two residences (Lots I and 2) that are approaching completion. The subdivider has also been moving to obtain residential building permits on the remaining lots within the project. However,, field conditions at*the project site differ from,the Board of Supervisors' approvals of permits DP893003, and TP020008. The attached March 29, 2005 letter to the applicant entitled "NOTICE OF INTENTION to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law, and NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS of Tree Protection Ordinance" lists the violations and acceptable remedies to*bring the project into compliance with the approved-permits for the project Applicant Response and Meetingwith Applicant Staff held a meeting with the applicant on April 4�'to further discuss the procedures for project compliance. Since that meeting, the applicant has stated that staff requested documents are being prepared to enable staff to review the-project, prepare a staff report and to bring the project modifications to public heaxing. The attached David Bowie (applicants' representative) March 31, 2of response to the County March 29, 2005 letter to the applicant entitled "NOTICE OF INTENTION to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law, and NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS of Tree Protection Ordinance." 1. Incorrect Horizontal and Vertical Road Alignments: Applicant Comment: Original topography that plans were based on was incorrect: revised improvement plans were prepared, submitted and approved by Public Works and Building Inspection Departments,,. Staff Comment: A grading plan or topographic map of the project that shows field conditions has been requested by staff, yet not received. Improvement Plans permitted by Public Works do not reflect as-built conditions.- the grades reflected on the topographic survey of the roadway submitted by the applicant on January 20, 2005 are not reflected on the Improvement Plans permitted on April 10, 2002 by the Public Works Department. Grading and improvement plans reflecting S-3 the modifications must be submitted or review and approval, and an amendment to the Final Development Plan processed. 2. Missing LTp Slope Road Retaining Wall: Applicant Comment: Accurate Im.provement plans that address the missing ret g walls must be prepared and accepted. Staff Comment: Retaining wall plans, specifications and geotechnical reports that address the retaining walls, must be submitted or review and approval. Grading and improvement plans reflecting the modifications must be submitted or review and approval, and an amendment to the Final Development Plan processed. r. MEN -------------- Nf, S-5 tJ�v t t:i� ..'.: vt. '•��,�ll S s w t�wt:. Y.t r:w:ys•..v• e.:' •. r r.Iy'4 .:.: V •.ti, is Ai f •r ::4 K• •r, 4 Y�•t 4. Incorrect Upslope Retain Wall Design for Road Serving Lots 5 & 6 Applicant Comment: Plan revisions were made submitted and approved. Staff Comment: riFir 1,ne soil nail wall constructed is aesthetically superior (see photo below) to a block or concrete wall. A metes and bounds -legal description- must be prepared submitted and approvedfor the portion of the walls that is in the Scenic Easement An adjustment to the anal ma must beprocessed bYthe J applicantper COA ##8. F s-6 M M ... ......... :;.�.�;. •::is::.•::;}.::: :,:d��:.:}' gm •A •t{ fi Yaj •,1�''4 ... Sty.::.j t:r.,+y}�;,.�r�.�.,1i1-''.,..',r. .'•�SCS..• ••`'•;'rf{...•t:yi`rJ':.r:''!'' :y:.�:1:;�;.,:;.:.;;. •`L^hit;:::•`;:ti{ti.ii:i-:, :<+G.. ',:v.'r'5:}k,viir:}4:::}a[•'.r4•:. 'Sr :;,:?: '�'J��{L•':{;.;i't.t t`•.'•".':':'�;.,'••r•••.•...... ...Lt/: .r.r,.,.�4•r•� x�(f A •11 .h,_;y�;.•pq�y,~•:::�.{• ..1:• ..t.•.1:-...•••LL' ''•.15.:{•-'••r�•]�:J.•, V .•:A..:: ..rr is:S•:� ;';.;•4v`..�5•:' : ..t' 'ft�.ti::•�f�}'fy:J:l •�'•}SS%.•tl:': ••r}J::::•��[•�••'IJ:':':':ti'}::'.•:',�':.::':: ��,t1:{:• ':1.t :rti?••J.{:.: :.;{.i'..1 i};J: :.1':i T'�,.:{.;.�r.rr'tiA{?:J:r:.;.Y:t:•{:Y., 1 n'`-y}.'��'t��.`;�r�r�?:YX:::<�::�J ";grl�.p�� YAC.•rtL •.J�t• .T. ', ' ll":. .:r.'.^J'::.: �.•.V::'.•.•:: t•:�t+• {L' ,�.! A� •::f f':��,'-.W.ti.iljl'•�':'"`i• .. 1{�.,�;AL}J.:<f.• �'�3 \.•�,r�r•;+.,yL�L�rr � ht ':.Y• L•{;`. •7:'r.f.� .�;•_?.;::'.-yi,w,::<•::f,=r•{'r•.}. •r,,4 },;;:r:., A{' .•WE '•rr{•J�fS.,n<?.,::ti•k•r�:�-,4'L�,. t•; {%y:�r1 .} •1..�+ti .1?•A`,1•:t:..;y,,• h: `ti'_,•• .�:y!:���:•`}Yh1 :t:{•.1 •A,•f:".. • :.• r.M,,i.}•.{:..1,W •J.r{frri'::;'i:;•.•:i:v t• ,v�{d4• �hSc ..ft LI::}'<•r:fJ•':.::�}'}J' fh'��•• �'y.f'4r�f..taM1...., •}YJf••.�J.,�1;.•}! 4 ....... ``��. fA,.{?fa ,•:'F:: '•:-\'i:�-:ti':r:.• •'LS•tr�y Je:J. �1{{' }}��,,.f}:'•.S-:: ::f.•::.:�•,.ti•::{•X,;LL••,, .?{...•.•:: `•J:Y:_tA.. •`• r.Y'V .J.Y S:::• .:•l, ;rJ:::�:•t:4:•' :.Y: -•f,'':�S'"::�. .t:,J Lyy�y'�••':::N::e 'r}W��'.'�r.' -4{ ?:;{:. rX:a':: jY.A}' ':}.' �YTW:•:'.: Y{ ?.ri A.'V:v :•::{rf::• ,.tlJ.,JJ,yyrr:.l:N: t''?' :.t -:M1 Mfr-• ti.Y wlm :•L: f. rh ••1 'ritC .J... •:J}r'',V,{.' •,•ti r •f. '::'f.•.'..:.{,;.''�fl:}: .}1:,:1 _,yr;.:•.;irf - •�. .•y�. ':?r•{ff r ::-{':1•:<::Y V:..'.'�'.'•'.•.'•.LS'L:•.'•:`:•'::`•�'JJ''•.Y}. •C44r .5:.: Al :'tir:i:h •f'••.:t�...L•.•V{YY:,y:{{1.y.;• .Y�^Y..:;.tr}}C;:i:{::'r.{.,.. L .L• }�; .:}•:• 'ti. y •.•1�.. ti;::�;:?{;;•?:• ''r• ••�X•::r. «�'{'�'i,'::•. f0;1f1•�Y• ;f vx.:Z:{r;:Si: hy+:t•:r:{} ��":i}: t L•??:{.,,:.;}•v.• '4 r, 114. ':ti '::.t•':?{.Y• `J •',•tr :tit :: +•4••v,'.•••"• rr Y ••� ri J�•: Y• ?� . 1?? r.t r JJ✓ r. •v .1 h. .X .S V' :•Y ..Y Y' y irRt ........... .:..:. .J 5. Variance of Field Conditions from-Design Criteria: Applicant Comment: Under current stud by a licant in consultation with a licant's soil en 1neer, YJJ p Staff Co- ment: .Field Conditions Appirveciably Varyfro- Dto.Svign Criteria o 14 roved Soils RAonort- The soils re ort or the above-referenced subdivision approved by the &A Coun.4- re uires various design standards includin : 1. Cut sloezradients alon Oak Branch Wa atamaximum2:1 X � Y (horizontal:vertical aradient, or with a 1.5:1 gradient allowable where competent bedrock is exposed. i ne slopes cut aloncr Oak Branch Waare at stee er gradients- than Y recommended by the soils re ort. Portions o these slo es are at adients of X1.5:1..1. S-7 2. D-rainage berms or interceptor ditches should be provided at the top of all cut orfill slopes, and drain to appropriate discharge facilities. In no case should water be allowed toflow over the top of cut or fill slopes. No drainage berms or interceptor ditches have been built at the toy of the slope above Oak Branch Way. Water is able toflow over the cut slope. Refer to correspondence on this projectfrom the County Planning Geologist dating back to February 26, 2002. 6. Removal of Code Protected Tree: Applicant Comment: Mr. Batt submitted an arborist report with respect to tree no. 47 on lot 1 and requested its removal. Staff Comment: • COA #10 of Tree Permit#TP02-0008 expressly required the 33-inch code- protected Live Oak tree #47 on Lot 1 to be preserved. Tree 47 is shown in photo below behind orange tape. S-8 r .•i A •%py.� '••'.,ar+}�i,y�Ca+.+r'•'1+�`C{r•.S a •.;• • :..a{1,"•1}}�ffyy.=JY. 1•:.•�.}}i a •r 0-1,52 • - r`'MAIM.,'• •'Y. {'�+•.: •�Y1 ti�'�'.,{}}}^���...;�te:' •. ;y�{r':;' •' •. ;n -•• .1�v,ra.1•.a v�b^,., •:}� r. r}t.>.'{•}{:':f as{t;:,`p'•a' + •'• �r}••'-1 r}:f,•,} •:•Y� ':y: �7, 'r1r{:yf�+ ,�1 '• .•}r:x rr•av:'.vYv .?.k•:•.-' -hr•:'Vi ••:' ••?ti{ ,,•i v. a, �r••a, •..4:k,h,�.k•{•, 'a.:ii,�.,vi+Jr{j•.}+ '�••.yv:: :•:;�}I.'�A'S���Y�S�r.J.''•.t:'r'-�t a•• •:v•'a��,'',:'ti�'.•. "G;:r,:' ii t }' '>:t•'r:?;.�'• ';htn• 't�" ?fi.v.Wr.?:• •pr.'r J:ha'�r."S a •.•.. �h.'`q� '} r: S }a'{••, ,y�,{;;;:{'.:t:J::::{: <•. 'y$• ;a:?•h,r1�rA,e,�5�.a'sa•`a'.}a•J•'i',�y�'':!>.a�a•,�.:. j•.�i. !'•• ' PP�M'r•:}:•'+�'•`� �'v::: .:'Y.r.3pLr��a:++:':,:{�^,;n•. .•�7v3"a{.�45{�''1.'•:'..,'�,V:vT2+TS•'3,'•F'��a�{'+,t+?.,+}'il'•�S•''+;:'.{r,: •aJ, Y: ,�4Y..•.,11•..Yr fhp•!fir yf:'•'•'''��,. 'V.•,�.'•,,',a1.{,'••.1..{r.�:•.l?Y'• ♦ :rr } ,j a"aY'' iriR•r,''ri} avC }• •va�,.�`1T y_`,�•'y:�:•" •:•�:.'� :. { ��v:}�•"^�•'."v:}.^`,`',�7�},•:�•:t,�•':,•{ii9'S•'r{�rl}, `rr•7•ii�.,P:{�::} •: '• :.{`iv. S x..'Y.av Jr vv^'• '�,elvv<' '}. h a•. •}.:•a .av•:.'.eve•r,.,.�r'{ti::{,•�yb. a •,ta1•ti�;}.:r:={J:}r ••�J' }• •,{:gip•�{¢r'k.� :•.4 rn-:;' r1 v'r.{% $''L••v•x}C''•.+a' ` '�'e irk�rhaiv::::' 17' va�r�yr�vr'•••••••;�?^•'•''4.:�'a ' •.. .� .a' �p'}• .ti{a%•'•Y.•,•�}•�1'-�.+ryyJ r•r:•+Y.JA,y::.v:• r.;ti : .'I" •�}•::•a}a�.'A:•�,: :,.••••N.Jl:•:Y::{r:.L':',':{ti 7,:-},.•:;�,.•.'�i•:•.t' hV•••A,•,fYr•lY',/JI•••••a`. r.•}' }¢'.� y���p, 'vr'r r:i. l�ivhv:h`�•:...r.• .tia.w�{J'�,: rpi k :•ap: �.YNf }t• r}•::T'M's:::.:3}x<:<•:-.Y'{••.•Y.ti'•:-r:�'?:;����•?CY,a a+,': .i:.{'rf^�a'rr'}vv.';}�'•'rr'%{+}:'''{t ,.}�kt.a• jlb;sr';�:,r:::.•{¢y. •',�• •:j�:!•y;•'• .,,i1y•v,1y,•4';'•rr'{:yv,'i:y{}rk;"}},:�::v.•.o• Ya�:r..,4::i,%•• 'v ax'•�X:r.. .a r, 7• 'r•J:IiY.'f:ti��G:;s:':i.'"'}'•r}'-. • .{•:r;v %r•r-i4'::r7`aa•�`�•y{'Y:•-••}:s{}Y v: 'r.+�••.a•. .•.i ry'�`rdy.,'.��1.iJy+:tw{.}�t��'K,:li,,':}+•:,.}r�/�.��f;:r{;v:�:;:;:•.:}�,irStii�7?"r,:r�•,'?n''v,.Jr^r,'y,�:4,.Y�.:,1}:';::tir},i:'taCv':vk`;riS,. ••'�, ''`,, .` N ';^\'�M!}�.h.:r.1Y.i,l Y�jh•V••NY••.:}•,•: aW a''V.•:YrM�.}}�.:{lti '..}[.:'•.'. .,.�.•S • •1 as Y �lY•,.t.,"rr�i'• •}V::.:.•:�aYS:}Z•N.111 V.•,,':k'•�•'Y?T •. •$'�;b:.S!J'j''rrWr•'r,;,}}.,,ti;:{S�it�rrC•. •isi''r':�'.{•":.,J:y:r.rrr.7kx.,.. J. ••`y}'::fY•'• lr.J A'• Y.r!r V: •: wf�. Y;r.:•,.1•:'w:"• 'art•{rbc• ..1�.�u' } }',a�,�,.{lkc•.r•,r:t>;a.1a,.::.>i:%.} �.• ,•ti''Y'.�iF.�.Y'V•.\}yr'...•,'.}�5y(.{��?;1}::�•:;::•:•'•kY:,SJti4•'•�{• '•� :Q':;'\al•:'•.Y r?:: ��•,��.:r. .• 4.I• C:'•��.�• a. V! .{:•1 ¢'1.'..•y`,..�a�Y.. aal'•.y�•y7'C��•Y_ ` } ....,.rrJ'Y.\....:••:' A;•�Yyyt•:M1k•'.•M �•. !::•:.:�;:•7:i::'•:::•'.':•.1':r • ' .}•r,}}'` �`,�,�y�r� Y{:��'ri:h ''•.'{w{''r''r.Y:;'a'" ,�,{ r r, •a ,`tir '•' .a{:9' a •"•��"rl°F`v:' ..a.:{G:sk:'•'_ti'".••�•�.i;1 k•'�s�Yhv.t•;;::: +'�.•::. •: ati;va � Si:aa<''.':Y};:?:'r.;a•iti':'v'•{4 r aai:k�,•c;}•'d"^'h'::r Y• r a•.{•y.•y r • a•:•..:•?::a _ r.{;:�:n':1:-yyyy J'�,s s:h.�titiG�i:;:';r�?.r•tii:::. .a•4�Gt".rte,••r,:'. r?E}:•,{i;.iv,}•.:.ak,.•t:• 1 .,: Y"a,i�• •..��,:1:k+,'•.•k''.•}r•'}r:• rr:•::• ri.•:,:',.•w,r a r'r ' ,:r {{•rr�'S. r,W• ai{ifrr{:i'.••.ivy,.{{'riti?i�ir?'. :vr r7 '•'+?,r•,::r:v:ih•{::.r.Kv Ya. r•.,•• },�}:}Y},.}'' .k• }'•hi a.A•.{i.•;..;y.::.....a•::.::::ni'... !':.:.;n'w�!S'::r•r.}Y,. 1,^.';.,-'•``a�6a�•}:;•:•.:i v. 'v {{..rS.Y a"v'{.;.; •ply'. va••:•a.{�.v.•.,}aY-:•:k„va'{:{w r•�".ae.r.S' •.•r`rya `a•,1;:{pr.,:iYry ira,•_,r..'ha•?"r%•'•:•ii}.}v:•rt'.j•,r,�V :r.v..':+rr:'+�••rX••:,•+v,.,y:•r,•S,: {'+�:, ;:rYr,:i'}5D:{':x:7'::4::•••f,.y?y�i .vr;:;:}{'aE', r .l•...:f•:{:.�::%'•vr•.. •}: ;.}v.:' tiv ,,,,. •Y}}r•'•'ti.A`ti'r,:::i:•::•ai{:;:}'r.'i;••y,,•,•rr:•ial,rti„'yJ:?ni:•12v}'.•:•:'r.}k.:,ri v. `;�:r .•1•}tC v.'i;"�{•ja......,{,,}••:,v,.ka.�ri•rt}.�'�}�'e�'',�.}''r•.ry4"`+{'�:f;:.:?'1':}'•:$ �* '�• :1} •�:-'' ``a `+ti4•:'i'r f ,a::-�v:rY •Y':'.,.'rr}..„•{}rvivvh.L' •+•, .,' �• }aa�:fi;x• tt�Jvr;}�. r.'•::::.::,:. {r v ;.. �{ �•. �s a• rr •'a1:Ph•''Y;O.::.'�',''-•' Y�••,. �,',•:,',7:•::;.+:•:S:•i 1:•:f•�•'�y},'.1}.':.':•:�I.•. +? .ia$:�+�y,.+iY.; r•.w.v•:•:{.{ a, r.,. Y.,•a. :'{•'r:•:a:a yj',}k:.. i.:?{r ;''.,•.aa;r'?%"f:{ '.•:,rlt,:a r}. J''y.i+��.h. Y.:J.'r y;�y.'':•r'}1:`:?,•:Y:•:_`''�•{h -1' a y��rwr:.;fi�;r. %':4:•v:.• Yyr �:5:•'•. Jr.':;•:{. r ..r�r"�'`r r�:`•�.tr'.vl':xr:•};:?•Jv}v'1. v:.{'•D,�:: 'tib'r�•`k•:.{i:::`:^{' J. ,4i. aa:}r•'r::ar'`.k�,r::::.r: r.•1'r.x}:?'.'J'>•'r:a:v,, 1 .,•$'�:r.r h'.1y?:•o-�?k:S;.'vf�'{4,'•�. •1}, r�)�10iV•�'•]y� v:•�'•:�a�:{:,•:Y.' r $'v.rh••.•.a {;Y•.:,:::`y':i.r'•., x Y•'�.a:k:{,I"a• Y?{•.%.alr�,5^:,�+{1::'w'•� },,� .tib}.'1'V{t 1'Y�'C�.•' .,•: •.•. } r ''4•" Y{`rN'•r'rl.}ti}''r•A' 1'�'a•.Yr,v:y::.^;.'•r:rhi(tf,•-k:'-'v{• 1:•.;y'•; vJ •'�fr' r♦ :ti•}:�1''•�w'4•::`a•'••'H'` /{'•'+••I:.Y t.•.��ra w:,a a • i'wo sewer tenches extendin rom K,in Drive across Lot I and across C) Lots 415 have been cut within the driplines o several mature trees that asprotected as de rued by the Tree Protection Ordinance gees; qualify• A r aised utility box gradedfill bench supported by retaining wall`s has been built on.Lot I near the intersection ofKing Drive and Oak,.branch Way within the driplines o several code protected trees; • 9%en staff inspected the site, stafffound incomplete temporary fencin in place mound the trees to be preserved as required by the conditions o approval. (Per COO 14.J.- Trees required to be saved shall be protected during construction by woodenfencing constructed with 4"x 4"posts and a 2"by 8"horizontal rail, 3-112'minimum heightplaced mound each tree at the drip line exce t or the minimum necessary work to put in the required roadway improvements or where grading is to be permitted under one-third (113) of the drip line if on only one side of a tree. • Arborist as re orts re uired by O 14.M have not been received rom � q applicant. S-9 V. Recordation of Notices of Violation The Notices of Violation, when recorded, shall be deemed to be constructive notice of the violation to all successors in interest in such properties. After the Notices have been recorded, and the applicant/owner(s) provide satisfactory evidence of compliance with the Subdivision Permit, staff will cause the recording of notices of compliance with subdivision law as appropriate. VI. BuildinR Inspection Director Decision to Suspend Grading Permit Simultaneous with the issuance of the March 29, 2005 letter from CDD providing the Notice of Intention, the Building Inspection Director also 'issued a Notice to the subdivider suspending the project grading permit for similar field condition reasons. The suspension is to remain in effect until either the subdivider modifies the plans to be consistent with the existing approved grading plans, or the applicant applies for and obtains a modified development permit from the Planning Agency. The decision also requires the subdivider to provide a survey of as-built conditions of the entire subdivision area. The Notice to Suspend indicated that the subdivider had a limited period of time to file an appeal of that administrative decision to the Board of Supervisors; and the Director subsequently extended the period to appeal the administrative decision to Wednesday, May 4, 2005. At the time of this writing, the May 4, 2005 deadline for appealing has passed, and it appears that no appeal was timely filed. It should also be noted that the law assigns no role to the Planning Commission in the decision of whether the grading pen-nit should be suspended. GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\DP893003 sr notice to record.rpt.doc CSG\RD\ • Agenda Item#3 Community Development - Contra Costa County ' COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JUNE 14.2005 - 7:00 P.M. L INTRODUCTION SUBDIVISION 7267 (King Estates, LP — Owner) The County has previously conditionally approved a tentative subdivision map, and subsequently approved a final map allowing the division of approximately 1 1-acres into six lots. The approved final map was subsequently recorded. In- a letter dated March 29, 2005, the Community Development Department issued a Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law on the title to Lots 1 through 6 of Subdivision 7267 that resulted from the subdivision to the owner'of the six lots and subdivider. The Notice also indicates that the decision on whether to record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law will be made by the County Planning Commission. The owner of the properties has responded with a letter indicating that he believes he has substantially complied with the subdivision conditions; that he objects to the proposed Notices of Violation; and has requested an opportunity to be heard by the County Planning Commission. The subject property (Subdivision 7267) is located near the southeastern terminus of King Drive; south of #270 King Drive; and fronting on either side of Oak Branch Way in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area. (Parcel#23 8-040-011 through—O 16) (P-1) II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the County Planning Commission adopt a resolution directing staff to record notices of violation pursuant to Section 66499.36 of the Government Code. III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION This "NOTICE OF INTENTION to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law, and NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS of Tree Protection Ordinance" for subdivision 7267 was heard by the County Planning Commission on May 10, 2005, and continued to June 14, 2005, to provide the applicant time to propose an alternate agreement/procedure for staff review (instead of the County recording Notices of Violation on the subject lots). Attached Correspondence.regarding the issues: 1) February 24, 2003 email regarding updated plans. 2) March 31, 2005 David Bowie letter responding to the notice of Suspension and Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law. S-2 3) June 1, 2005 David Bowie letter' and "Notice to Potential Purchasers — King Estates Subdivision 7267 4) Subdivision 7267, "Subdivision Agreement" Adopted by Board. of Supervisors April 20, 1999. Staff Response -to Subdivider Comments from' May 10., 2005 County Planning Commission Discussion Subdivider Concern:. Recording a Notice of Violation stops everything. StaffResponse: Recording a notice of violation is an action that places notice on each lot so that any potential buyer would be aware th"at a building permit would not be issued until compliance with the.final development plan, grading permit, improvement plan and Subdivision.Agreement. Recording a Notice of Violation does not stop everything: The. corrective action the Developer.has suggested doing is to apply for and obtain a modified development permit from the Community Development Department that reflects the existing conditions on the property can be performed. The Building Official has suspended the grading pe'rmitfor this project,pending evidence of completion of necessary compliance actions. Building perm' its for residences have been issued on Lots 1 and 2. The Subdivider is still able to continue to work on these permits at least through the Final inspection (Occupancy Permit) stage. State law and the County Ordinance prohibit the Countyfrom issuing any permit or licensefor any purpose in conflict with the provisions,of the Subdivision-Map Act when development is found to be contrary-to the public-health or safety. Based on the existing conditions of the project, the County is barredfrom issuing any permits on this site until satisfactory evidence is submitted to this department that the cited subdivision permit violations have been cured. (Government Code§ 66499.34 and CCC Ord. Code§94-12.412) It should also be noted that the new development permit process to try to establish project compliance may take a lengthy period of time to complete, and it is not certain that the proposal which the Subdivides will be proposing to the County will ultimately be approved. Until-such time, as project compliance is established, the County is duty- bound to notify potentially innocent buyers of the County concerns and status of these properties. Developer Con c'ern: This was a project where there was a tentative map approved, also a final map that was both approved and actually recorded. There's no indication whatsoever that theseare not validly subdivided lots. This not a substantive problem but a procedural problem; and the project is substantially in compliance with the terms and provisions of everything that's S-3 going on out there. Sta R onse Prior to approval of the final map, subdivision improvements—based on improvement and grading plan that match the Final Development Plan -are bonded, and a Subdivision Agreement executed(document Attached). The Developer agreed to construct the improvements per plan, or follow ordinance procedure for modifications to the approved plans. The grading and improvements have not been constructed to plan, and therefore to the Agreement, and do not match the Final Development Plan. i Developer Concern: Developer corrected problems in the field; and not only corrected it,but went ahead and processed plans through Public Works, through the Fire Protection District,had everything inspected as we graded, it was inspected and compaction was verified before paving; then paved. All of that was done with inspections of Building Inspection Department and with approvals by the Department of Public Works pursuant to plans which were fully stamped and approved by all those Departments. Sta Response: The concern regarding field conditions is not a new topic:As-built plans have been requested to confirm compliance,yet not received(refer to February 24, 2003 email between Public Works, and Community Development). Field inspection by County staff does not include surveying of the improvements. However, due to staff concern, the Building Inspection Department performed afield check on the as-built improvements, and that survey confirmed non-compliance with the improvement plans. They also set control points, so if necessary the County could perform additional survey work at the site. The Grading Plan permitted by the Building Inspection Department matched the Final Development Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. Field conditions do not match the approved grading plan. Staff has not received a grading plan or topographic map that depicts current field conditions. Staff has asked for that plan since October 2002. The County Grading Code states that: "The permittee,his agent, contractor or employee, shall carry out the proposed work only in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and in compliance with all the requirements of this division." (Ord. Code§ 71 6-8.1012 (a)) in"All changes n the plans, grades, or extent of work shall be submitted to the county building official for written approval and incorporation into the permit, accompanied by any necessary fees,before any change in the approved work is S-4 begun. The county building official may amend the permit to approve altered plans, or may deny approval of the changes." "Failure to obtain prior approval for any change in the work shall be cause for the county building official to order suspension of all work until approval is obtained, and may result in revocation of the permit if he deems the changes will increase the hazard to adjoining properties or public roads, or otherwise be detrimental to public welfare." (Ord. Code§ 716-4.1424) Improvement plans stamped Revised Plan April 10, 2000 do not reflect current field conditions, nor has staff approved improvement plans that depict current field conditions. As built improvement plans must be prepared by a registered civil engineer to document modifications made in the field. These plans must be reviewed and signed off by both the Fire Protection District and the Public Works Department, and reviewed by Community Development to assure compliance with the Final Development Plan., Developer Concern: The Final Development Plan approval is based upon a tentative map submitted with the application dated back in 1990. Some 2001 conditions amended earlier conditions. Modified Condition 7 was a condition to the issuance of building and grading permits, it was not a condition of the subdivision 'itself Nothing invalidates this particular subdivision. Sta Res Per County Code, no person shall grade or clear land, erect, move, or alter any building or structure on any land, after the effective date of its rezoning to a P-1 district, except when in compliance with an approved final development plan and/or this chapter. (Title 8, section 84-66.404) The project conditions are integral with the approval of the subdivision. The original P-.1 approval required the following attention to detail(per 84-66.1202 requirements). (a) The final development plan drawn to scale, shall: (1)Indicate the metes and bounds of the boundary of the subject property together with dimensions of lands to be divided; (2)Indicate the location, grades, widths and types of improvements proposed foY all streets, driveways,pedestrian ways and utilities; (3)Indicate the location, height, number of stories, use and number of dwelling units for each proposed building or structure; (4)Indicate the location and design of vehicle parking areas; (5)Indicate the location and design of proposed landscaping, except for proposed single family residential development; (6)Indicate the location and design of all storm drainage and sewage disposal facilities; (7)Provide an engineer's statement of the proposed grading; S-5 (8)Indicate the location and extent of all proposed land uses; (9)Indicate the location of any residential dwellings proposed to be used as new sales models. (b)In addition, the final development plan shall be accompanied by: (1)Elevations of all buildings and structures other than single-family residences; (2)A statement indicating procedures and programming for the development and maintenance of public or semipublic areas, buildings and structures; (3)A statement indicating the stages of development proposed for the entire development; (4)A statement indicating,if any new residential dwellings are proposed to be used as sales models and asking approval of that use; (5)Any additional drawings or in, rmation as may be required by the planning 0 commission at the time of any public hearing in the matter. County Code further states if an applicationfor P-1 zoning and a preliminary or final development plan is finally approved, the preliminary or final development plan and any conditions attached thereto, as approved or later amended, shall be filed with the planning department, and they are thereby incorporated into this Title 8 and become a part of the ordinance referred to in§84-66.1002. (Ord. Code Section 84-66.1004) Developer Concern:, We were willing to record something to the chain of title, which would provide that notice. After all, the only thing that's accomplished by anything that is recorded in the chain of title is to give actual notice to someone of a condition, which otherwise that person may or may not have had actual notice of Sta Response: The Subdivision Map Act requires that a notice of violation shall be recorded if the legislative body or advisory agency determines property has indeed been illegally divided. The notice of violation, when recorded, is deemed to be constructive notice of the violation to all successors in interest in such property. The law does not provide local agencies any choice in alternative deed instruments to be employed for this purpose. (Gov't Code§66499.3 6) The Notice to Potential Purchasers (refer to June 1, 2005 David Bowie letter and "Notice to Potential Purchasers—King Estates Subdivision 7267) does not constitute a Notice of violation per the Subdivision Map Act. Further, after the Notices have been recorded, and the owner(s)provide satisfactory evidence of compliance with the Subdivision Permit, then staff will cause the recording of notices of compliance with subdivision law as appropriate. GACun-ent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\DP893003 sr notice 6-1405 cont CPC.rpt.doe CSB\RD'\ CORRESPONDENCE & NOTI-CES 1. Resolution No. 99/186, Approval of the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement, April 20, 1999 2. Darwin Myers February 26, 2002 geotechnical review Letter to Project Planner 3. Public Works- Community Development email regarding status of subdivision improvements,February 24, 2003 4. Darwin Myers November 11, 2004 geotechnical review Letter to Project Planner 5. Reliable Tree Experts,King Drive- Tree#47 fax, dated April 14, 2004,received October 7,2004 by Community Development 6. County Building Inspection Department,Notice to Comply,January 5, 2005* 7. Public Complaints Alleging Violations of Development Permit Restrictions on Construction Activity,January 14, 2005* 8. Silverhawk& Inc. January 20, 2005 Tract 7267 Documentation/Plan Request,response letter 9. Darwin Myers email to Project Planner,February 1, 2005,Jeff Batt Submittals 10. Darwin Myers February 9, 2005 geotechnical review Letter to Project Planner 11. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,Punch list for CCCSD King Drive,dated February 10,2005 12. Building Inspection email to Community Development, February 10, 2005, King Drive grading permit compliance 13. Contra Costa County Public Works Department,February 16, 2005 King Drive Subdivision memo regarding status of plans. 14. County Building Inspection Department, Stop Work Order, dated March 24, 2005* 15. Notice of Intention to Record Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws and Notice of Violation to Tree Protection Ordinance,March 29, 2005 16. Notice of Suspension of Grading Permit,March 29, 2005 17. David Bowie,Bowie and Bruegman, LLP, Subdivider response letter to Notices,, dated March 31, 2005 18. Correction to Notice of Suspension of Grading Permit, April 26, 2005 19. Community Development Department,Response to Notices of Violation of Subdivision Laws and Suspension of Grading Permit, Information Needed to Allow New Complete Application for Revised Development Permit to be Deemed Complete,Dated May 26, 2005* 20. Response to Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws and Suspension of Grading Pen-nit,May 26, 2005* 21. David Bowie,Bowie and Bruegman, LLP, Subdivider's suggested"Notice to Potential Purchasers-King Estates Subdivision 7267, fax received by Community Development June 1, 2005 22. Darwin Myers July, 2005 King Drive Geotechnical Review Letter to Project Planner 23. County Code Excerpts *NOT INCLUDED,,REFERENCE ONLY d10 e0000 Pim BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Resolution on Apri120, 1999 by the following vote: AYES.* Supervisors Gioia, Uilkema, Gerber, DeSaulnier and Canciarailla NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RESOLUONTINO., 99/iS6 SUBJECT: APPROVAL of the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement for Subdivision 7267, Lafayette area. The following documents were presented for Board approval this daze: Y. Map The Final Map of Subdivision 7267,property located in the Lafayette area,said map W having been certified by the proper officials; H. Subdivision Agreement A subdivision agreement with Morgan Capital Inve ent Properties, a California Corporation, subdivider, whereby said subdivider agrees to complete all unprovements as required in said subdivision on agreement within one Year from the date of agreement Accompan�►ing said subdivision vis ion agreement is security guaranteeing COMPIetion of said improveJnents as follows: As Cash Deposit Deposit amount: $5,800.00 Deposit ad-e- by: Morgan CapitalInvestmentIProperties, a California Corporation. I Auditor's Deposit Permit No, and Date: DP 323902(December 8, 1998) Xekw I heraby cert*that this is a=e and correct copy Q'ACffPD=\En6ve\R0\199M0 4,20-0,doc Of On action taken and entered on the minutes of ChigiumomPublic Worms(ES) the]Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Contacr, Rich Licrly(313=2M8) T—2w2049 Morgan Capitai investn=9 propuli=2 ATTEST�,p:_ April 20 1999A CalifomitC-�- 9mmnft� ftrm� 11 on BATCHELOR,Clerk of*Le Board of Thm Harbor DTive.Sm.3M Idow.900.W an Sivalka,CA 694043 SWQ 1:7un,,y AT' UX-Lur UUCO Casualty Company • Soo Ypacio Vallcy R&I Stz 260 13Y &J Walnut Crack„CA.94596 Duty 4?Vi eew Iti- SUBJECT; APPROVAL of the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement for Subdivision 7267, .. Lafayette area. PAGE; 2 �. DATE: April 20, 1999 Be Surety Bond Bond Company: ULICO Cas-11alty Company BondNumberand.D B98016785 (December 3, 1998) Performance Amount: $579,100.00 Labor &Materials Amount: $292,450.00 i Principal; Morgan Capital Investment Properties, a California Corporation M. Tax Letter A letter from the County Tax Collector stating that there are no unpaid County taxes heretofore levied on the property included in said map and that the 1998-1999 tax lien has been paid in fu11 and the 1999,-2000 tax.Ilea,which became a hen on the first day of January 1999, is estimated to be 59,400.00, with seaaity guaranteeing payment of said tax lien as follows: T Surety Bond Company: ULICO Cassi,21ty Company Bond Number and Date: B99016828, January 7, 1999 Amounts., $9,400.00 Paid by/Principal: Morgan Capital Investment Properties, a California Corporation i NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that said subdivision,together with the provisions for its dftntesi� and improvement,is DETER14aNED to be consiwith the County's general and specific,PIC-'&B- BE IT FURTMR RESLVBD that said parcel/final map is APPROVED and this Board does not accept or reject on behalf of the public any of the streets,paths, or easements shown thereon as dedicated to public use, All deposit permits are on file with the Public Works Department. BE IT FURTHBR RESOLVED that said subdivision agreement is also APPROVED, SLJSDMSION AGrI�M h~�t (Govertuneat Code S66462 and�i6463) :a�.di•►iyion: 3D atwo, I(NkZ�07267Effective �4p aff, ai,u aJ,d ivid era, MORGAN CAPITAL 'INVESTMENT Completion Period: , !����r PROPERTIES N Z'MSES1GNA7VUSA=STT0THXPARTIES' NT A X=RETO: comma COSTA copy SUBDIV= J.Michael Welford .Public Works Dircctar MORGAN CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROPERTIES a California corporation BY: .0000P ftesomm 04) LFJW1 is __2 a C;Quy%01 000000 PRESIDENT A BBcn 1*#= AMOYAL By: ��.��� LINDA J� PLOTT FELT gS�rvicesDivision SECRETARY FORM VMS Victor J.Wes=mi,County Counsel (NOTE:AH zi donskyam to be owledgod. it Subdivide is -A fig, 3110-W=Mid CU-111 v*h the designated aurf la Gor- porstions 6 S3 11) 1. PA and the abovommenfioned 20PUNMENOW D Effective on the above date,the County of Contra Costa,California,hereinafter Wied"Couf1W,, I q SUMM'dar,mutually promise and agr=as follows concerning this subdivision: rd 2, IMPR Subdivider agrm to M* =U certain road improvwnenjs(both public and privatc) A&MOS improvements,signs, t Tights, 0 firc hydrants,landscaping,and such other improvemcpts(including appuil=ant equipment)Ls required in the improvement plans for this subdivision as mviox0ed md on file with the Conim Cosa County Public Works Depamnont and M" confoman=with the Conga Costa County Ordinance Code.(including future amendments thoraco). Subdivider sW mnplft mid work and improvements(herdnafier called"work")within the above completion period from dam hereof as required by the California Subdivision Imbp act(C3ovanmcnt Code SS664 10 and following),in a Hood workmanlikc manner,in 9%e=rdance%vith accepted cansvue�on 0 pmaces and in a manner equal or superior to dw rcq of the County Ordinan= z z4d rulinp made Oumnder,and where them is a conflict a between the improvement plans and the County Ordinance Code,the mi requirements shail govern. 3, NPROVENS"ON7 Upon—acuting this Agrmnant,the Subdivider shall,pumant toGovemment Code S66499,and the County Ordimince Code,provide as smurity to the County. A. dor Performance nd.Qzmntcy-. S- 5 r 8 0 0._0 0 cwh,plus additional secuOty,in the amount of S 5 7 9 r 10 0.0 Otogether total one hundred percent(100%)of the estimated cost of the work. Such additional security is prissented in the form of: Cash,certified check or cashiers check Acceptable corpomte surM bond. Acceptable irrcvocsbte Icttcr of crodit With this security,flee Subdivider guarantees petfern=ce under this Agreement and rnaintenancc of the work for one year after its complelion and accoptance against any defective Workmanship or materials or any unsatisfactory performance. B. For bMenx Seev inthe amount ofs 292o,450,a00 ,which isfifty perecnt(50%)of the estimated cost or the work. Such security is presented in the form ots C&A,acrtffied chrok,or cuMers check Y A=eptablr-corpormo surety bond. Acceptable irrevocable letter of erediT. With flys wuft the Subdivider guarantees payment to the contractor,to his subcontmetom,and to p=ons tinting equipment OTfurnishing labor or materials to them or to the:Subdivider. "� •■ v•�vv`/ Z L-1 1 1 V VV I 4_JA-)L..J.`.► V4VI\1�`J 1 IV•`�T V 1 •�/ Af 1 � • C. Upon ofthe work es complete by the B lad of SuP�sors and upon request of the Subdivider,the amount�rities may be reduced in,aecor&m=with S94.4■406 and S94.4.408 ofthe Otdinanca Code. 4. GU _ =AM-WA RANT" OF WORK. Subdivider guarantees that said work shall be freefrom defects in n►atcrial or workmanship and�Isll perfomn for a period of one(1)year froth and anti'the Board of Su is soca is the work as con lett in aaeordance with At icle 964.6 Acceptance ,of the Onihznac Coda. Subdivider ag=to cotes repair,or replace,at his expense,any defects in said work. The gutnntw periiod does not apply to road iirprovemmts for private roads which art not to be accepted into the County road Bstem. Y 5. P FSTAB W0R. Subdt�r agrees to pciform establishment work for ladscapinjinstalled under this raanent. Said ant . � plant css�tb t work shallowsist of ad=lddy wmwmg pZaM replecble plants,dohs wood,inDdcnt and other pest control and other work dim' ed by the Public Works D crit to be necessary to insttr+e estabfishment of plants. Said lent establishmciit work shall be oRned for a 'od of one(1)P P� P�'n year from and dkor the Board of Supemsom accepts the work w careplete■ 60 SRO .. . Subd'mdar wanants the' variant Plaw for the work arc ade uto attaint fish the w6rk as prmrisW in Sargon 2 and u regcttrcd by the Condidons of Approval for the Subdm' s=on■ X at any time before the Board of Supervisors acoopts the work as corn l= or during the one year giant l=pariah,said improvement plans prove to be inadequate in any respect,Subdivider shall mak=whatever changes at a tte�es B sm3' to sixomplish the.work as promised. 7. ATO FABY COZJNTY, Itt�on of the work an&or materials,or approval of work and/or aerials or statzrnent by any officer, crit or employee of tine County uidicadng the work or any part thercof compli=with the requirements of this A,grccmcn%or acceptance of the whole or an of m d work and/or ,or pay rets,therefor,or any cornbinatiaon or all of*=aws,shall not relieve the Subdivider of his obligation tofulfin this t meat ag as pmcribad;nor shell the and County be thereby be from bringing any action for damages arising froth the faDure to corn ) with �n■�s. PY any of the ter conditions hcmf• 84 2MMAM: Subdivider shall hold hamnlm and inti the indemnitws Rain the liabilities as defined in this=chon: A The indemnhies ne�fnW and protected by this rornise ate the County,and its ' l district,elective and intivc boeAs eomtnission oftcem,agents,and employees. P tY �� BPPo � � ]3. The : b'''. protected against arc any liability or claim for d:uriagc of any kind allegedly suffemd,ineutTed or threatened because of actions defined below,and mcludmg personal injufy,death,pdamage,invent condemnation,or any cam biwWan of these,and re rdless of whother or not such liability,claim or datr�age was u bit at any time befom the County reviewed said improvement fans or ted the work as con late and • ... P $ comp lac,the defense of any suit(s),action(s),or other p ing(s)concerning said Iiab�lmes and claims. C. The actions causing liabilit`►are any act or omission(n*gmt or non-negligent)in connection with the mattem covered this A ent and by greern aMbumble to the Subdivider,contractor,subcontractor,or any officer,agent,or employ=of one or mote of them; D. Non-�Cond�tions; 1whe promise and ag 1 hent in this s don arc not conditioned or dependent on whether or not an Indarnnitnc has r • Y P suPPb�or BOY PiAn(s)or speci8m6on(s)m eorinac ion with thus work or subdivision,or has insurance or other indemnification covorin se maim= or that the all ed d B any of the , cg am�ge resulted panty form any negligent or wi!lfal misconduct of any Indemnity. I • 9. COSTS: Subdivider shall pay when due,all the costs of the work,includingin actions thereof and reloeafm eocisti� utilities re uired . � g � 4 �h�y 14. URVE S. Subdmder shall act and establish sure monuments in eeoordancc with the fled m and to the sa' . . survey map tisfaction of the County Road Commissioner-Surveyor before acceptance of any work as compictc by the Board of Su 'so . P� ns 11. blON-wPERFORMC��4ND CQsTS;If Subdivider faiIs to complete th o work within the time ed in this men and su■ - slP� Agrco t, bscqucrii ions,or fafs to maintain the wort:,the County may proceed to complete and/or maintain the wvork b contract or o 'se and Subdivider to all Y agrees Pay costs and charges incurred by the County(including,but not fim tcd tri: cnginocnng,inspection,surveys,contract,overhead etc. immledintei u deme d ) Y upon n . Subdtvrdct eon98rits to erg►on the subdivision In WFW1 LY by the County and its forces,includingDO tors,in the event the County to a ' my proceeds completes and/or MainWn the work, Once action is taken by County to complete or maintain the work,Subdivider a to all costs ineutTed the Cou a en if Su 'v'subsequently completes the woric 8mm Payby nty, Subdivider Should County Buz to compci performance andel"this Agreement or to roco%w coat incurred in corn lain or maTnuinin a work,Subdivider P S g th rk, ider agnea to pay all attorney`s fees,and all other expenses oFlitiption incurncd by County in connection themivith,even if Subdivider su uen complete the worw bias tiY s to P roceed 12• 1KCPM0RA7_0 T/ --__ -PION. It before the Board of Supervisors seta is the work as coni the subdivision" . • - P •P as�neluded in Inco as a CITY or is atu�axied to an a idstino city,the County's rights under this agreement and/or any deposit;,bond,or letter of credit securingsaid ri i Shalt be to the new Sh.s or acxing city. Such city shall have all the rights of a third party beneficiary against Subdivider,who shall fulfill all the twirls of this agreement as though Subdivider had colt with the city ori 'nal/ . . � Y 13. RECORD MA.P1. In considemtioT j hereo C County shall allow Subdivider to file and record the Final Ma or Parcel Ma ' ' Map p£or said Subdiv�szon. SIIbdiYr T -in Ire, 77-67 11 Bond No.: --Emdmmmp=Eg-80167laL �__, PREMIUM: $11,562.00 I1WPRovEMErrr SEc`uRUY BOND FOR Sv$DlvistoN A W-3%% .�EN'r S(Perfa ance, Guarantee, and Payment) (California Govern�m,ent Code SS66499 w 66499.10) 1. RECTtAL.OF SUBDMS?ON�A���mqvre Pat�C# 0P_V�m---n-ed-an amvam mt with the ipimproveuuatsCounty totalland ply for street, drainage, and other A""%,,L in Subdivision 7 26 7 as specified M' the Subdivision Agre=en�pto complete said work W1 ;�n�c %od wo CAM vy=Uia for in the. Suhdivi,sion Agreement, in accordance ConAr+�; filing SNOM-tate local laws and nfliongs thereunder in order to satisfy for of the Final Map or Parcel Map for said Subdivision. 2. aBLIGATION: INt1ESTMENT PRO E'RT ES MUMMA as Principal, and ULICO CASUALTY COMPANYa corpomtioned existing under the laws of the State Of D&AWAlUor9mm Atransact and leftITmoned to surety business in Califarni,a, as Surety, hereby jointly and severally bind ourselves,ourheirs, executors, administrators,successors, and assigns to the County of Contra Costa,C rma to pay it. FIVE SUREDMSEPII�TT Y-N7.�TE A. Performance and Guarantee: ONE xurmRED Dollars ($ 5 7 91 1 00 9 oo „____,�_____� for itself or any city assignee under the above County Subdivision Agreement,plus TWO HUNDRED NINETY—TWO THOUSAND Be Payment: FOUR HUNDRED FI=-- Dollars (S 292,450.00 to secure the claimsto which rj e is mA-P.m' Title XV(eommeacing with Secu"On 3082)ofPart 4 of]Division M of the civi1 Code of the State of California 3. _C_0_"I T L Q N_ J.. The Condition of this obligation as to Section 2.(A)above is such that if the above bounded Principal, or'Its heirs, executors, administrators, success=or asm' shall in ail things stand to and abide by, and well end trulykeep perforna the covenants,-Its con&tiowIs a and provLsions in the said agreement r i any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on is or its par ,to be kept and performed at thetime aud in the m er therein specified, and in respects a=ording to W30"trUB intent and meaning,161--ongindemnifyharmlessiseG, and shallsave the County of Contra Costa.(or city assiga�e), Amon its officers, agents and employeQz, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and voids otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effects ft As p$rt of the obligation secured hereby addition R a 140n to the face amort specified thczefore,there sh-Al be included o6sts and treasonable exp es and fees,including reasonable - e Y's fees, ed by County (or city assignee) in successfimy emor g such obligation, to be taxedincluded ed as costs and in any judgement rendered, W..P W.O. BA The con(MiLthis obligation as to Section 2,(B) aL" is Much flMt said Principal and the uadasigaed as corporate surety are held firmly bound unto the Couaiy of -A - Coa�ra Costa and 0 o-Uadors, subcontractors, laborcn, matcrial asen and other persons employed m the perfothe afores2id1&gre--P-nT aad ref=ed to in avia"; fivaishedor orth=on of anykind, or for the afore d QvU Code for amounts ..Licb work or due tier the Unemployment insuranceALft Act with respect to "kPa labor, d will pay the s e in an01Tt not eXeeftA.. . the amount is brought upon bond will PaYo M'heremeabove set foith, and 0 in case suit 4 co and remonable exp feesaddition to the ha amount&MMOMreasonable attorney's fees, incurredS1ed by County (or city 9Wm O) includingsuccessfully ene I a n such obligation,to be awarded and fixed by the court,end.to be taxed as costs and to be includedjudgementin the therein n rendered. It is herebyexpresslysdp zadbuezd2nd agmd&9 bond to the benefit 0 A--�Al CO toof anyApersons, 111111111- Fil claimsclaims -lqnAmw Title VO ;M1es cOrp- nsVJit.h S I 3 ofthe Civil Code,so as is (Cpmmen=f�! 3092)of Part 4 of Aivision assi in any suit brought upon bond.to give a of action to their M - Should the condition ofthis bond be fully pQjj.Uj-MM13 th= obUption shall0b As nullandvoid, othervase it shall beremain- in fan force and effect pi I G No alteration of said subdivision agre eMA,L r any ply or sp Of WO& agTeed to by the Principal and the County shallshall relieve=Y Surety from�liability on this bbond; and I's consentherebygivento make such I At" with erh notice to or consent by Surety;zad the Surety hereby waives the provisions of r�a1'f0mia Civil Code Section 2819, holds itself bound without= mu to and independently of any action Ae:mnqt Principal whenever taken. SIGNED AND SEALED on nECEt5Ex 3, 1998 MONO MORGANCAPITAL, TV%V% PRINGTPAL: INVESSMENZWJERTIES SUz6F.JTYYUL1CO CASU&TY- LQ1*2AMAtitirplS: =�E HAR80& DRIVE, STE 303 Address: 500 YGNACID VALLEY RD, STE 260 - City: SAUSALITO94965-2943 Zip: 4City:'WAL=,-ZRE 1z By: By: Print Name: LEW I S.1 ,c ig Print Name: ROBERT E. CaO!71CX Title: -P-R- Esny�T- Title: -&=Ogny-IN-FkCT ROBERTE CHOVIcK OISU SANDER,JACOaS;CASSAYgE GAQTpDAM\EngSvc\1:c=&\MN WORMEN4 INSURANCE SERVICES Rev.Aug=12a 1993 P.p.BOX 2800*3200 VILLA LANE NAPA CA (70712S AD ••uFi•\ • •'►`IF c-Hil co F.ORCONRA COSTAIng a +`!• r••' I' '•• * �� ob 0$JT#AERMT M+ ► • ' �'J• ~ qq/j, I `� •�•4!�Brr•,r_` ! •4/•M`•! •.• ••�i• • !1�w� ,* - �! j ��r•s i • • s`*+1 � zz �(+ � � « � ,1 ti i.2 MI �•�ar,�, r•� � . • • •tl 1•1 �• t••1 • %J' wx .. . ,•N/'.s!i M /EST •t-1N ••��,1�`��`,�Cl j,� - •e t_S�• ! s •f,!I�+1+ •i t•i•. •_ •,1 •• •••p.i ; t wr. Z,•f! E - r� •1•�(rt '' �y i �� %A �U ` 1 .t•1�/1•i• �;� �,. •�_mow•��• � � _ •r•r•• �,•♦•(J ril M•• �1,1'A•f / //ix��I�+�•rl•_•�.1-� '�'•�+• •i �1yt ' t��' j���i�l C�'� '•� may, / �� /u�4• r. � ► • . •►• Mh•f�♦i ��♦ M• IS UFOR �lk 44 ••!! j. b'i�rt llAiw••I�'ll M �wM.l' A,�•,11'• • ' ` • •- COVE 0 D FROM 7 go � � r:`j+TT` w r TT.•,,`,�=�� l •�;t;•� I • -. 1 / r• 1� • Al!+•lt/•�r,/F.} •r • •• flow{ Mfr�Yr♦•�/•{{i s,/i, • t r •• •a ,• i •k •••_ • '• • ••1 r~ 0 , • , ► do:so � C~3R �.- { CAATION NUMBER"' 5lore<w x0oreo 7;01.07 z (E Cash Colkficn hucQdLm see Camty Adtnm1rular s Bulb*10,s,) WL • DESC.. IP ON .. . ..., FLJ�+�tD/ORGL T,�C' WMN ACT's ' •'' I�.��Ot11�i'I' ACCT, . 1 � 1 �. Oil! '7. 1 ;z '.- 4� • If �0: '71 If o�r I .. op • •' r • + • 1 M ! 4, 0,1 we, 61 Z/fo/f 15all • , . + COA • I j •• .• •• ft, 1 ' r 1 • . t 2:0 dog 0%6�'6 . 07 • • r • . i WWI 7 47,0' I f I =I /01 Lena • w ! . 00 • 1 .9090y 007 00.0,000, loop a 04. or! • . I Ir a oV*71 woo I f I 1�A 1 I 1 1 • • i W NATION: � • . - TOTAL � � ,er .sr G'�01 DEPOSIT � IF f �? f following#�� rterm . 1 ,� I�t•�-�'' .+, + ,,rte' ; .r CLAN CURRENCY S CFECKSo 1 uO.,ETC S • BANK DEPOSITS 1 '��'�. '�t� t.c►�..� "�C3 FOR AU01TOR'nCONTROLLER USE ONLY � 1 DEPOSri .. reeIIIIIIIIIII� W2., PERINu i �! • MGM 1 The"ll 11 unt cis for ' .money descibed a#mve ' .'.i'..'"'"r r,!••''. i ,Iii t of above �`► ~• _•� « '� ,�:+`�`M �t' ,• , ' , n 1r�. 1' 1..•I •' i• ' 1• de *mb fih.C#,jptlmry Ttewvr� +. • .. 1 I I�' •' • 1 1� .' /• . t 1 ' 1 1•f r C303 16 • � i 1�e 'F •t!•• • , • _ •♦ 1!■1► 1 • •11.1 - '•r•S-M+/•► • •• `• ► w ' • i R• 1 • 1 � •w ! • •• •/'•,•'••••/�f••-• ��•�ir . �'t 1 f'•i•{ t i I•i M�i•/ 1•r��[$,EXT. 4 • •,.r•y'•!� '* ! `34 REY. 93) F ' `' 1„ II• 1 1• Ilt • t e • I � %=J Am$"Jw%wo WN%wop I\I I IWO Lft-rt.) ta # • a ULICO CASUALTY CONTANY 003 In Massachusetts Avenue,NX Washington,DC 20001 POWER OF ATTORNEY Xnow An Men liy Thew.ft%fiCW3: nut U=O 4"1944 y Comparey,A Dtbware C*rporatim Mving its pmciPAI affirm in Washington,DC,p=uant to the faUowM"r1g=o11adon adopted by the Board of Di=tcrs of the Corporation Ift the 28th day c1ja=L82y,1993: RMLVED: "Mut the Chat=an and Chief Executive Offim be,and hereby is,authorized to execife Powersoof-Artarney,qualiVng the attorney stormed in the Power�Attmwy to execute or bell al the Corparadon contract bonds and o0w seLzted suroty bonds, and to attach thereto the corporate seal of the Corporation,in the trwrisachan of its surety business." A CC--MIS qty be of to any such Powerva&Aft9mq or to any RFMLVM- 'Mat the signahures and atbmskarficw of-suchw"AUV.&P and the of the collrO41113=3 certifimte rekhrig ffimko by faafixqfle,and any such Power f*Att=wy or eft="" Te ba=g such e signDturcry And shal�e v and bftuiing upon the C=parabon when so affixed with respect to any convact band or other related mvety bond to which tt is attached.' fap'hm&e under sind by the authorfty of the above Remlufim This Power of Attorney is signed and ed in-fa cosi DOES ruixtrY MA's,CONS MM AND AFP0DJT; Clay Thompson Jeffrey D,Erickson and Roben F.0umkic,of ISU Sander, la=bs,CmuM Insum= e- aw of Napa,in the State of"' HfarrjA,its true and lawful Attomey(s)4%wFAce with hW power wd auth"hereby conferred in its name,place acrd smad to sign„ execute,aicknowledtv-and deliver in its behalf,and as its act and deed,without power of redelegatim as follows: Contract bonds and other Mated surety lbords; IN AN AMOLTNT NOT TO MILUON P,MDXM.00)DOLLARS;to bind Ulico CavWlty Company thereby as hOy and to the isa e ammT as if such bartd was signed by the duly aufimrized officen of Mica Casualty Company,and all the acm of said TTV Att0rrsey(5)vbVFaft purm=t to the aufliority hi=cin given,are hereby --I b1ps P8 and L;nrkTI[ d. In wftfts WIMM041 Like Casua3 Cmpmy of Dover,DelAwam,has caused d%is Flower of Av=ey to be aped by M Ch=== Chef B%=Uve Off= and its Corporate seal bo be affixed this 15th day of)ue,1995, ad S Tkds Power of Attorney is void unless the seal is readable,the text is in black irk,the sipatures are in black ink,,this no ce i in red ink-,and if attached to a document executed subsequent to March 31,2001V Ulico s!W Comp qLPORIn 0 ,ome"t Com 06 Mtrid Of Coluatbria ss; SEAL. By I ampp-A- aif?$ Q, A.Gr00;6n, Chief Executive Of 04LAW16 On this 15th day of J=e,19%,before the subwriba..a Nousy Pub&of the DLnrict of bia,duly c a a orsed qu cage Robeft A.Geor&e of Ubco carwry to me pasomBy known to be the ind*idual and of d weir:,,and who executed the preceding ent,and wJaww1cdSd the execud=of the iwme;,and being by me duly sworn,deposed and said,that he is the of the Compimy '. -it],and ffat tho seal affixed to the precedinginstyument is the Corporee Seal of the Company,and ffie Corp=te and signature as an officer were duly affixed subuml3ed to ffie said W'AtLLMr=t by the pre on-RU"Or authority and directim of ffie Corpora&m-,,and ftt ftie resolution of the 6.L& Orderred to in the r1liabula"L5 ins=MMAL is MW In fine, In Testimony%Ierecf,I move hereum set my hand,,and wed any official at'Washington.DC the day and year above SOTARy By; �� A ub Vtof CUumho N3aica EX03- , Martli uILZUU1 My Can- CEx.rIFICATION L Joseph A.Carab Assistant tary of Ulico Casualty Comparty of Dove?,Delaware,do heraby certify that the foregoing Resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of this Corpora tion and the Powers of Aftorney issued pursuant thereto,are true and COLAW and that both the Resolution and the flowers of Attorney are in fan force end effect. In Winims W%aeaf,I have he3e=Lto set:ny hand and aftxed the seri of the carporad= dav of DECEMBER 199.1_9 A B SSAL I sep A<mabVc,AA�Wa Gemtary 10, 1V ej UC73-10-24-POAI(06198) CAUFQ3NTA_ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of (:kT'T MR n:a V T'& OPTIONAL SECTION County of NAPS CAPACTTY CI.4IMED 13Y SIGNER On 1-9-8 before me, GGY, PET RN NO2:ARY PUBLIC Ttmpgh do=not requim the Notary to WWE�-MCK ZW CWpim F.0'9 81141aw"a-1AAV-5VaUq5 IM in the data below,doing so may prove in- valuable to persons relfing on the document, personally appeared ROBERT E. CHOVICR C3 INDMDUAL C3 CORPORATE OFFICERS) M personally known to me OR C1 provided to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the pemon(s)whose name(s)Ware subscribed to the within instrument and 0 PARTNER(S) C3 LWrrW acknowledged to me that helshelthey 0 GENERAL exacuted the same in his/herAheir C3 ATTORNEY4NrFACT PIGGY PETERSENZ ao--ed cepacity(les),and tW TRby 0 USTEE(S)Quth hisiher/thairsig�ature(s)Man theCaMm.0107,9270 cpemopno" or the en* 0 GUARD LAWCONSERVATOR > WTAW MMUC W FOFM 3) n behalf of which'the/ pemon(s) 0 OrKER: z NAPA=Rm W COMIL E*=DEC 31 I= ade ecuted the instrument V ES y hand and official seal, SIGNER IS REP��SE�M1NGcWCm*a MGMTURE OF OPUAY W OPTIONAL SECTION THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED To THE DOCUMENT AT RIGHT TITLE OR T'*t?E OF DOCUMENT Mob NUMBER OF PAGES,DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER(S)OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE a WW plum IshmW U summing *NNW of" INSTRUCTIONS TO NOTARY The following infarmabon is provided In an effoTt to,ex;)edfteprocessing of the documents, Signatures required on documents must comply YM the foltewing to be acceptable to Contra Costa County. owrNFATHsignature,1, FOR AL SIGNATURES he name and Interest of the signer should be typed or printed BEthe signa re, The name Must e s4gned REMY as it is typed or printed. MMMUNIN 11. SIGNATURES FOR IN -The name must be signed exactly as It Is printed or typed, The signers interest in the property mu-st-be do III, SIGNATURES Ff,,,aR PARTNERSHIPS-Signing party must be efter a general partner or be authorized in writing to have the-d M to sign ore;; minA%wdffe�ipaftersffip., tV. S NATURESFQR-OORPORAMONS 0curnentsthoulcibsign�e byo officers,one from each of the following two groups: GROUP 1, (a)The Chair of the Board ---- � (b)The President C Any lfice-President GROUP 2.0 a The Secretary b An Assistant Secretary�The Chief Financial The Assistant Treasurer If signatures of officers from each of the above two groups do not appear on the instrument a certified cop of a resoluton of the Board of Directors authorizing the person sign g the instrument to execute instruments of tie type in queon7is required. A Currently valid power of attorney,notafted,W11 suffice, Notarization of only one corporate signature or signatures from on one group,must contain the following phrese- '...and acknowledged to me,that such corporaton executed the wftit 6 of Directors". v&. in instrument pursuant to ifs bye-laws or a resolution of its Board -'—cWwmsVwWw.nww 7M % CaLIFORNtA ALL.PURPV4E ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Mar1n P_ pn December 8, 1998 before me, Deborah L Johnsoa, Notary--Public �� Daae NBMfi W1708 Of 0001(e.g.,14M DOC NOTSFY PUblICI personally appeared Lewis E. Cook, Jr. and Liada J- Plott Felt ,, A-on A(e)of sowelis) -Name (a) personally known to me ', D proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capaclty(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the [)EBOkAH Le.JOHNSON Person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) commission#8 11501 IS .,, Notary rubft w C05fOrric acted, executed the instrument, Morin CxwrdY my carnm Exom AQ4 WITNESS my hand and official seal. sh;"U"Of fiorfy pvokc OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law,It may prove valuable tv persons relying on the document ana could prevent fraudularit removal and roaffmchment of this form to another document Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document. A"Inalvi-minin AV APMATIt Document Date: Number of Pages: 2 f d,,, public Works Director and Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: J• �chael '�4 orOUIU� Uj - -Victor J. Westmall)--c6-Trity -al +� Capaclty(fes) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Lewi"_, Cook, Jr. Signer's Name! Linda J-1—Platt Felt El Individual ❑ Individual M Corporate Officer KI Corporate Officer Tttie(Sj; -President Title(s): Secretary 0 Partner w---❑ Limited C General ❑ Partner M Limited M General M Attorney-in-Poet M Attorney-in-Fact El Trustee ❑ Trustee HIGHT T111j"BPRINT M Guardian or Conservator El Guardian or Conservator OF StGNEk ED Other. Top of Thumb here El Others, Top of thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: Morgan Capital Inv Prop. Morgan Capital Inv. Prop. 01 M-0—Q-3 1010 me, or, 1 0 O 1606 National Noinry A520defflon-0 8296 ReMmet Ave..P.O.bm 7184■Carmos Park.DA,91306-71114 PrW,No,8607 Asonser.Call Toll-Fr"I-BDO-875-8827 mob SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT EXTENSION Contra Costa County Development Number : SUB 7267 Developer :Morgan Capital Investment Properties Or ifi Agreement Date : April 20, 1999 ]First Extension New Termination Date :AprH 20,2001 Improvement Security Security J`vge Security Amount (7p Cash ; $ 5,80U.00(1% Cash,S1,000 Min.) (�Bond : $579,100.00 (Performance) $292,450.00 (Labor S Material) Bond No. (Date) :898016785(December 3, 1998) Surety : UUCO Casualty Company The Developer and the Suety(or Financial Institution)desire this Subdivision Agreement to be extended tbrough the above date; and Contra Costa County and said Surety(or Financial Institution)hereby agee thereto and acknowledge same. Dated: Dated; April 7, 2000 FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Morgan Capital estment Properties e1�Ti Public Works Direc Devel er's S at=ei(s) by Lewis E. Cook, Jr. By: President 00, -'Iijjjjl;;111�9 xk by Len J. Plott Felt, RECO APPROVAL; its Secretary 3 Harbor Drive, 303, Sausalito, CA 94965 By: Address gineering Services Division) U,ICO CASUALTY COMPANY Suety or Financial Institution P 0 BOX 2800 NAPA, CA 94558-0800 (NOTE: Developer's, rety Is and Financial Address Institution's Signatures must be Notarized.) E FORM APPROVED: Victor J.We 1 an,County Comsel Attorney ini 'actfsS iare CLAY THOMPSON Printed After Approval Return to Clerk of the Board F Uo"I I1 "QMNZ.) lit'i a ell4t:) t-'.1.7j CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of CALIFORNIA OPTIONAL SE ON County of NAPA CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER C)n.411-2-/20 before=,—mir-RESA STIIDESAKER�, NO PUBL I C Though sfttatc dam not require the Nomry to rill DATE NAME,TITLE OF OFFICER LGel RANE DOE]NOTARY PLMUC in the dam below,doing so may prove invaluable pemonally appeared CLAY Tfi01'SPSON to persons relying on the doculnent, NAMRS)OF SIGNEgS) 0 INDIVMUAL $Xpecsonslly Down to m;-OR-0 providod w mc or ft basis ofMdenca to 0 CORPORAT13 0 CEWS) be the person(s) =Iv mwhose name(s)is/ate MURS) subscn"ned to the within inmurent and THERESA STUD93AKM acknowledged to me chap he/AdOmy executed .1 AA Q PARTSMS) Q LEMITED cemit #12147" the samo in hivtaftair v;tonZV.W 0 GENERAL It A WC�ifaTliC1C�P.Acity(ies),and that by his/hefteir XX ATTOWEY�&N-FACT 11"WIC"Pub6c signitt=(s)=the. Ment the pemon(S)or 0 TRUSTEE(S) CW* the cariry upon behalf of which the penon(s) I I*dft r It 0 GUARDLANICONSERVATOR win�- AWE acted,c=cutcd ft insuiun=t. [I OTHER: S my d cial ScAll SrGNER IS UrPXSENTING: j NAJVX OF=ONM OR Dn=Y(MS)j GSAM=OF NOTARY 0 acknowledged to me that-such corporation executed the within*nsnumenr pursuant to its by-laws or CICO CASUALTY COMPANY a MSQIVciDn Of its Board of Pirectm OPTIONAL SECTION TMS CERTIFICATE MUST BF4 ATTACHED TI'"do or Type of Documenr-s J,L6 A�Q.E�k�' �s�I�ISie�l TO THE DOCUMENT AT RIGHT, Number of Pages Though the adjacent dam is not nq uired by law,it may prove valuable Date of Doeum=t 04W 6_14W Ov to pemons relying*on the documcm=d could pmvcm fmudulcnt Signer(s)Other Than Namod Above rtwamchm=c of this form INSTIZ ICY UCTIONS TO NOTAR 11 The following mfoimation is provided in an effort to expedite processing Of the documenu. Signatures required on documents M!Wt comply with the following to be acceptable to Cost.Comity. ��Wz L FOR The n 0,1M ingest of ry"AW should be typed or priated]BENEATH the si�ature. The name must be si=cexactly_a5_itis typed or Printed. IT. SI -The must be si d exactly as it .F F _TJA LS .Tie .6 FQZMMTVM is printed or typed. The signer's interest in the PToPeM must be smte& M. SIGNATURES FOR4.1- 112S=Sigaiag -paty must be either a gen=al partner or be authorized in writing to have the au otity to sign for and bmd the partaerslup. N. SIGNAnMS-EM C41mToshould be 1W �e -by two officors,one from each of the following two groups: GROUP 1- (a)The Chair of the Board (b)The President (c)Any mice-President GROUP 2. (a)The Se___A_ry wj u1Q (b)AxLA.&SiStant SecstaiEvc)The Cbi Fi-n__amdfrjcer (d)The Assistant Z`teasurer If Si n4qVqNM h&"%h1bLes Of off cors from each of the above two groups do not appear on inatr=cut a certified copy of a resolution of the Board 9"1person .- IM of Dsrectors authorizing si gthein ent to=C=tc n ents of type in question Ls required. A cu valid ==flypower of&=Mey,rlotj=d;will t Ece. No on of only one corp-orate 91 e,Qr ugan=vs from only one group,must rmutaiz the folloWltig p ;c; acknowledged to m that such corporation exe=ied the witlik insttvmeat pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its Board of ULICO CASUALTY CONTANY 013 Ill.Mssachusetts Avenue,NeWo Washington,DC 20001 ■ t r ■ POWER OF Know AU Mtn By These Presents: That Ulieo CuunIty Company,A De ware Corporation,having its piiricipal office in Wohingm DG,p=int to the following resolution,adoptad by the Bostd of Dimctms of the Corporation effective on the 28th day of January,1993,. REMLVED; 'That the and Chief e Officer be,and hereby is,authorized toexecute Pow=&<&Attomey,Qua' ' g the attomey named in the Powersoof eAttorney to execae on behalf of the atim contract bonds and other ml i nd surety bonds,and to attach thcmto the corporate seal of the CapomdarL in the trareactim of its surety busi nms." RP LVED: "That dw signatures and attembons of such offleers and the seal of the Corporation may be nEfviced to any such Powerof-Art mey or to any certificate rely thereto by facd=&e,and any such Power of-Ahorncy or certificate bearing such facsimile signatures and faesiy&e seal be valid and bk dkg upon the Corporation when so Axed with respect to any contract bond or other related surety bond to which it is ached," This Powar of Attorney is signed and sealed in facsimile under and by the authority of rho above Re9olutian, DOES YMAM COM51rMIM AND APPOWr; Clay Thompeon,,1effrey D.Erick=and Robcst E, Moviek,of=Sender, Jacobs,Cassmyrc Imrarue o of Napa,in the State of California,its nue er+d jaWfui ALt nm7(s)-ir-Fact with full power and authority hereby castifesmd in its ri,u=place and stead to sign, execute,acknowledge deliver in its behalf,and w its act and deed,without power of redelaptios►,as follows: Contract bonds and other related s e ty bonds; IN AN AMDUNT NOT TO EXCEED MILLION (913=,000.00) DOLLAM;to bind LT k*Casualty Company titicreby as Bally and to the some extent as if such bond was signed by the duly authodzed 0 of Mm Casualty Coalpany,And all the acts of said A (s)-itrFaat t to the audio&y herein given are hereby ra'' d and confimed. In Witnew Whmtaf,U11co Casualty Can�pany of Dover,Delaw$Te,has caused this Power of Attorney to be signed by its and Chief e Officer and its Corporate mal to be this 15th day of June..1998. This Power of Attorney is void unless the seal iS readable, the text is in black ink, the signatures are in black ink,this notice is in red ink,and if attached to a document executed subsequent to March 31,2001. Uhco CasComp Panic r �. District of Columbia ss SEAL B . Y� tow�,��' A- =g Chief Ex=WU"VU Offioet On thie 15th day of June,1999,before the sub=-bet,a Not uy Public of tine District of Co duly e�aiored qu carne Robert�.Georgine of Uliro Casualty C=pany to Me known to be the' .dual and off icer described irk,and who execated the precading' ,and imcl=wledged the exe<� on of the same,and g by me duly owwri,,deposed and saidr that he 3s the of the Compmyof iare�aird,and the s1 iced to rho preceding ane t is the Corporate Seal of tfee Company,and the Corporate Seal and sit=as an offi=were duly mixed and subscribed to tete nmtrument by the authority ar%d Bisection of the Corporadon,and that the resolution of the Cosnpeny,referred to in the preceding iustnr crLL is now in force. In Tee'iw-any Whereof,I have hcreunto set my hand, ed my ' ' seal at Washingtor,DC the day and year above written NOTARY By: A N blit PUBLIC . j ft'LeS K&M C,bistrid of ciallimbilk nameMY Cc mion EXP mgmt-31, Mul CEKTIFICAP11ON I,Joseph X Carabillo,Assistaw Secretary of Mco Casualty Company of Dover,Dejawarc,do hereby cer*that tete foregoing Resolution ado ted by Board of Directors of this Corporatim and.the Powers of Attorney issued pursuant thereto,are true and correct and that both the Resolution antic the rowers of Am=t are in full force and eftem. Y in of,Y have hereunto set sty hand and affixed the seal of the ootpomtm Z y c1 - ZQQ of 1 . B SEAL IJA 1191 4, j . nab. ,As instant SQcrttary bels W 1►P U CB-l 02-POA 1(06198) NOW" Nam., —T I I I P CALIFORNIA ALL-P'CTRPOSE ACKNOWLEDGE�NT swo of Cali amia OPTYONAL SE CTION County of marizi CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER on no Deborah Lobnson, Notary_Public Though SMtdle d09S not require the Notato fill Abefore . JNotary pqwmwqv� No "I DAM NAME nME OF 0"10-A Eg.,7JAKU DOE9 NOTAKY rusuc" in Itte data below,doing so may prove invaluable person;glyappmrtd, Lewis E- Cook, Jr. and Linda. J Plott Felt to persons raying on the document. NAM14)0P SIGNER(s) 0 INDIVIDUAL OR-a 0 provided to me on buis of sads&etorY evidence to X CORPORATE OFFICER(S) PS pcnonzIly known to= -prev"Ldent and Secretary be the person(s)whose name(s)is/are OM TrrLws) subsc:n"ocd to the within jns=n=t nd DEBORAH L JOHNSON acknowledged to me that he/sWthoy executed El PARTNWS) 0 LMTED Z, the wme in his/heritheir authorized 0 GENERAL I 'oh % Commission 0 7 150 11 B capacity(Ics),and ftt by his/her/their 0 ATTORNEY-IN-FACT Notary Public m COMOM'00 s; sigmmre(s)on the instruniem the pasw*)or 0 TRUSTEE(S) Main County the entity upon behalf of which the pemon(s) 0 GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR My Comrn,bi#jres Aug 4.2001 actwj=cu tad the insmu nent. 0 OTHER: my d Official seal, Sl(;NER IS REPRESENTING: PIS fficial seat, (NAME OF MUMS)OR ENTITY(I=) 51OF NOTALY Morgan Capital Investmeimt Propt r Macknowledged to me that such coTporation executed the within ftisti Ljxnwt Pur'sunt to its by-laws Of --aresolution of its Board of Directors. FOPTIONALSECrION bdivision A�seement Ext ens o THS CERTIFICATE MUST HE ATTACHED Title or Type of Document Supage TO TIM DOCUMENT AT RIGHT. Number of Pages - Though rhe 4aeant dam is not required by law,it r=y prove valuable Dau of Document April _7_, 2000 to pemons relying an the document and could prevent ftudulent Siper(s)Other Than Named AboveSontra-rpF, q d i Michael Waif ord, Furlic Works Director remamcbmant of this form =g3,nee.t:1Uz Services v slott- -=IONS TO NC)TARY The following info�atien is PrOvided iu effo-rtto dite processus of*e documents.SOAM =erequired on documents must complY IviTh the follo*ing to be acc; ntable o Contm Costa County.14 interest L FOR SIG24A The name andOf signer should be typed or printedENE the s�gaat�ae. The name M1 R�enatly as it is typed or printed. SIGNATMS FOR N d or typed. The signer's inrerest in The -DWIDUALS .The name m=be signed exactly as it is IL property m=be stated. 111. SIGNA S FOR ORP SHIPS.-so I party must be either a general partner or be au&oxizad in writing to live the ,lito sign for end t-honty the partnership. IV, SMATURES FORPOR.A1"Iocum=ts shoillfffijsIeby two officers,one from each of the following two groups,,. GROUP 1 Chair of the Board (b)The President (c)Any Vice-,President GROUP 2. a The SectetUy ?%UA Au Assis=t Sec=tai3► C Tbc Chief Financial 6fficer The AWSMW Treasures If signatures of officers from each of the above two groups do not appear an the a c 'ed copy of a resolution of the Board Sn 33.SI the instrumentto exe=Te=MM=1S of type quesdon is- required. A c=eutly valid Off Directors autho the perso01 E--a power of atcomey,ucts-'Zec�will S cc. — 9 Notarization of only one corporate 619,Pnatt=or signatures from only one group,must contain the following phrase: Lr to its bysolaws or a resolution of in Board of ..and wlmowleciged to M U=such corporation exe=ted the within ins' pursuant Directors." Ray.Mxrah 29,2000. D R W I N 1\f�YE.R%s- 0 ENVIRONMENTAL P,�SEARCH E ENGIhlE'cRINu uEOLOGY February 26, 2002 Michael Laughlin,Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street., ?"d Floor,North Winer Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: Geologic Review Services Contract King Drive Subdivision—Review of Geotechnical & Grading Information Lots 10 & 11/Subdivision 7,'2.67 (Tree Perri I*t/G-')12058) Saranac Area; Contra Costa County DMA Project# 3003.021 Dear Michael: The scope of our review included review of pertinent geologic mappin,of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),review of previous geologic/geotechnical report for the project site, review of previous memorandums issued by County staff, includina the former County Geologist(Todd Nelson), former Public Works Director(Vern Cline) and the Engineering Services Division of the Public Works Department(Brian Table 1 Balbas). These, references,,which are PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL WVESTIGATION, documented in Tables 1 and?, formed a ANG DRIVE SUBDNISION.SAR.ANAP AREA context for review of the geotechnical data Don Hillebrandt Associates provided in a series of letter-reports issued Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Studies for 11'i:Acre Site Area,Immediately South of Ming Drive,Walnut Creek,CA(dated by the geotechnical engineer f0l7the grading I Juh- 14, 1977);Job#336-1 that has been performed under Permit# I Henoo G3 12 0 5 8 and future earthwork on Lots 10 � Geotechnical Evaluation,Ikin�Dave Subdivision. Walnut Creek, and 1 l (Arthur Knudson. Subsurface CA(dated June 7. 1939)Joh#2700.1.0.1 Ena-ineerina). Herzog I Prefiminary Geotechnical Repad.King Drive Subdivision.Walnut Creek,California(dated September 18, 1989),Joh 42700.1-0-1 It should also be recognized that vve made a Hultsren-Tiliis EnQineers site visit on Februan/ 7, 2002 t0 VleVd Peer Review,ktna Drive,Driveway Access.Walnut Creek.CA eYiStinQ conditions. At that time we met dated Iv1ay 15.2001 j;Job 9419.0 representatives of the project proponent at Geostrata � Geotechnical lnvesuszation.Kin,Drive Development,Contra Cost the entrance to the site (applicant, uadinQ ICA(dated November_25. 1999)Joh�_54=-1 I, contract and Art Knutson), and we then I Geostrata walked the property with Joe Romo Plan Reviem!.Lots 5 and 6.KinaDrive Development-Tract 7267. (Grading Technician, Building Inspection I Contra Costa Counn�.CA(dated January_5.2001) Sob 9 54•-]E.. L10086 Department) and we had a telephone conversation with the BID Lamorinda Office (Joe Cluf ) to discuss that office's inspections of the walls that are being constructed under bu-Ildm' 9 permits. Page 2 Geologic Settincy Table 2 During;the 1990s, both the USGS and COUNTY CORRESPONDENCE AND PLANS California Division of Mines and Geology ICountv Correspondence(Staff and Contractors) (GONG) issued geologic and Quarternary Memorandum of Todd Nelson,Planning Geologist Community Development Department(dated October 16,1989) deposits maps of the site and vicinity. The Memorandum of Todd Nelson,Planning Geologist,Community most detailed maps were those of the Development Department(dated March 14,198 9) CDMG.' These maps, published at a scale Memorandum of Vernon L.Cline Public Works Director(dated of 1"=2 000' have a stated purpose of October 18, 1977) providing information about slope stability Letter of Brian Balbas,Engineering Services Division,Public for use bv local officials in land use Works Department(dated"July 24,2000 planning and evaluation of buildingpermit PLANS applications. This CDMG publication Donald Thomas Henderson Associates includes not only a bedrock geology map Site Plan,Subdiviison 7267 and landslide map, but also includes a Icing Drive Subdivision,Scale l"=50' relative slope stability map and a debris (dated November 6, 1988) Ed Revilla Consulting flow,susceptibili-ty map. The kind Drive--Plan&Profile(Sheets 3 and 4 of 6 Sheets) interpretations shown are based on a Tract 7267(latest revision dated 3/31/00);ERC Sob#KING broad-scoped geologic reconnaissance, 726� which included review of pertinent geologic maps and reports, geologic interpretation of stereo-pairs of vertical angle aerial photographs, and field mapping performed during;the summer field season 199.2. and early 1993. According to the CDMG,the site is in the outcrop belt of the Briones Formation,with three landslides identified on the site. The eastern- most slide generally coincides with a landslide mapped by Knutson on Lot 10,but it appears substantially larger. As mapped by the CDMG, this slide ekrtends from King Drive to the north property line of Lot 10 and includes much of Lot I I (see Figure 1). The Relative Slope Stability Map is presented in Figure?. This map indicates the entire property is in Category 4 (most susceptible to landsl*d*ng). The west and central portion of the site is in Subarea 4.1, and the eastern portion of the site is in Subarea 4.2. As the explanation for the map indicates, lands that are within Subarea 4.1 are considered by the CDMG to be,at or close their stability limits because of the steepness of the slopes. The materials underlying this area can, therefore, be expected to fail locally,when adversely affected bv natural processes or man- caused modifications that steepen slopes, increase loads, or remove natural buttresses from the bases of the slopes. Slope instability is probably more the result of the steepness of the slopes than the weakness of the rocks. Lands within Subarea 4.2 are considered to be generally softer,weaker, less resistant and less stable than the rocks within Subarea 4.1 and are invariably less stable than those in the balance of the CDMG study area. Slopes in Subarea 4.2.,are considered by the CDMG to be naturally unstable and subject to failure even in the absence of the activities of man. The slope instability results primarily from the weakness of the rocks in what is only moderately steep terrain. 'Haydon, Wayne D., 1995. Landslide Hazards in the lvIartine=-T+'alnut Creek Area, Contra Costa Countv, California. CDMG Open-File Report 95-12. DHf?V�/IIJ fVIYEI?;; /',SSO�IATE:: 1 Paye 3 Issues The purpose of our review is to assist in resolution of the following gradin�related issues. 1 Was the keystone wall on upper Kind Drive (Lot 11 area) constructed in accordance with the provisions of the approved plans and in accordance with applicable codes and ordinances? 2. Issubmitted by there a landslide on Lot 11 that is not recognized in the geotechnical data sub the project proponent? 3. Are the walls being built along Oak Branch Way adequately documented by the project proponent's geotechnical consultant? 4. Was the road grading consistent with the approved geotechnical report of Geostrata? Bacitground The site is steep, wooded and characterized by springs and relatively shallow landslides. Important geologic/geotechnical work was performed by Hildebrandt and later by Herzog for previous developers. The primary product of the Herzog investigation was an original geologic map that provided an interpretation of bedrock geology, Qeolooric structure, landslides/colluvium, and areas of erosion. The subsequent work performed by Geostrata was aimed chiefly at providing ec*fic standards and criterlafOTconstruction of the road improvements(Kincr Drive specific i and Oak Branch Way). Based on review OT Geostrata report and associated grading plan, a grading permit was issued and associated bui)dincr permits were obtained for proposed retaininc,walls. Earthwork was initiated, but for reasons that are not clear in the written record., the geotechnical engineer for the or, if made, they are not project, Geostrata, either failed to make required inspections, documented in the written record. Acritical point of construction of a wall is the over- excavation to ensure that it is constructed on competent material (not undocumented fill, creeping soil or slide debris). The Geostrata report provided standards and criteria for the wall construction. This initial phase of wall construction Occurred prior to commencement of inspection work by Arthur Knudson, and it was not inspected by the County BID inspectors in the Lamorinda office. Mr. Knudson inspected wall construction after the first 2 or 3 feet of wall was laid., and he offered the opinion that the grading contractor for this project is knowledgeable and that for that reason Mr. Knutson was satisfied that wall construction work performed prior to commencement of his inspection services met appropriate standards. Mr. Knutson is now the geotechnical engineer of record. and he has accepted the Geostrata report(dated November 1999) as the desicn-level report for the site. Simp)y stated,the Geostrata report provides specific standards and criteria for the grading project; Mr. Knutson has responsibility to document that the earthwork. wall construction. drainage improvements.. comply with those recommendations. Additionally, Mr. Knutson explored a landslide on Lot 10 and provided conceptual recommendations for mitigation of the landslide hazard. A concern of the County has been and continues to be the initial preparation work for the wall. The site is a'11,arh risk" area, and the grading contractor is not a geotechnical engineer or enarineerincy- c,.Yeolo(.:).rist. DAPwit-! 1\/IY-R"* Paore 4 DMA Findings 1. Lot 10 Evaluation. The landslide explored Arthur Knutson is located in the portion of the lot that is adjacent to King Drive. It probably extends into King Drive and as mapped by Knutson it also extends onto Lot 11. The test pit lois are diagrammatic and generalized, and do not provide details on observed features and conditions. Similarly, Qeomorphie features used to establish the lateral margins and toe of the slide are not discussed in the two letter reports issued on this slide. The CDMG report maps this slide to the north boundary of this parcel. The base map used by Arthur Knutson to plot the location of the slide shows a storm drain along the west s ide and north side of Loi-#10. It is my understanding that this storm drain is no loner a part of tll�project plans. According to the project proponent, all concentrated runoff from impervious surfaces on Lots 10 and 1 1 will be directed to storm drainage facilities in Icing Drive. Where this is not feasible, runoff is to be collected in a containment facility and pumped to King Drive. The subdrainaae facilities proposed by Mr. Knutson should be connected to this containment/pumping facility. Recommendations. We have the following comments on the�radin�/slide repair: a) The Knutson report summarizes geotechnical exploration of a relative]-N/ small landslide, and recommends that it be mitigated by over-excavation of the slide mass and reconstructin,the slide area as an engineered fill with a basal keyway that is 10 feet wide. The geotechnical engineer provides a typical section and recommendations regarding compaction of the fill. However, limits of earthwork may extend beyond the slide limits shown in the Knutson letter-report. It is not entirely clear to me that slide can be remediated without extending the repair upslope to King Drive. For constructability, the Iimits of aradinR will/mai- extend lateral1v beyond the limits of the mapped slide area. If there are especially significant trees adjacent to the work areas, the dripline should be fenced prior to the initiation of the earthwork. b) Prior to the issuance of a permit for the slide repair we recommend that BID require a Cr radinQ plan for the reconstructed slide area that would show how the future residence. driveway. Kind Drive would relate to the slide repair. Furthermore, it should show the proposed location of the basal keyways and the subdrain as well as the water collection/pumping system. Furthermore,the location of the subdrains should be established by field survey. The geotechnical engineer should also provide construction details for all phases of the proposed earthwork prior to issuance of the perri it. from clearing and stripping,to details of the rock used in the subdrain,type of filter fabric. trench backfill, etc. - �'. Slide- on Lot TY.'] I Evaluation. Neighboring property owners have reported a slide at the toe of the slope on this lot. During our site visit we observed a graded pad on Lot 1 1. This aradinQ appears to fall under the category of undocumented earthwork ("i.e.. grading performed without a grading permit and which may have been pe.,&rzormed withoutmonitoring by a geotechnical engineer j. Because of the Paae previous grading, geomorphic features characteristics of landslide deposits, if they ehisted,have been obliterated. The problem reported by the nei(.,Yhbors may be associated with the previous aradinQ. Perhaps a sliver fill was placed on the lower portion of this lot. Recommendation. In our opinion, the building permit on Lot 11 will require a geotechnical report that provides information on subsurface conditions both within the building site and downslope portion of the lot. The scope of the investigation should include adequate subsurface data and laboratory testing to characterize foundation conditions and provide specific standards and criteria to governsite Qradin�, drainaae and foundation design. The Ions of test borings and test pits should show the details of observed features an<3 conditions, and the report should include a map that shows the location of borin Qs, test pits. as well as any undocumented fill and any slide debris. Like Lot 10, runoff from impervious surfaces (and anN, subdrains) should be conveyed to King Drive. This mai enta--Tl construction of an on-site collection and pumping facility if the waters collectedcannot A flow to kin;Drive by gravity. 3. king Drive Retaining Wall Evaluation. On the north side of King Drive there is a wall that was constructed at/n ear the Lot #11 property line. (This wall is just northeast of the King Drive/Oak Branch Way intersection.) At the time of our site visit there was aseries of en echelon, open cracks within the future travel lane of King Drive. These cracks form a systematic pattern that appears to represent tension cracks (not dessic3tion cracks). These. cracks may be evidence of slope movement/wall movement. Recommendation. VJe recommend that the building permit on this wall not be finaled until the significance of these cracks are fully evaluated by the, project proponent. It would be prudent to include within the scope of work-, subsurface data immediately downslope from the wall to provide data on foundation conditions at the base of the wall. as well as exploration of the cracks to see their vertical e-x-tent. and how the)/, chan.(Ye with depth. Depending on the data Erathered, it mav be necessary to have the exi.stincTwall taken down or acraressive measures initiated to achieve stabilitYC)= 4. Oak Branch Drive Retainint.-T Walls Evaluation. These walls are located in an area which is classified as namralli.) 1177Stabie a77C1 subject tofaiiUre even in the absence of the activities Of 777a77 by the CDMG. The Geostrata provided geotechnical criteria for walls. includingendations for subdra' and report, provi recommendations inaEye permeable material behind the wall. As we understand it.the initial construction of the wall was not observed by the geotechnical consultant_ nor was it observed by the BID. (Inspections by the geotechnical consultant of the project proponent and BID inspectors are required at this time to ensure that the wall is not constructed on unstable soils and that drainage facilities are installed in accordance with the recommendations of the approved report.) Recommendation. In our opinion the building permits for walls cannot be"finaled" without documentation that foundation conditions for walls and wall construction complies with the provisions of the approved geotechnical report and provisions of the codes administered b-\,; the Building Inspection Department. The.... applicant's representatives should provide a Pa,are 6 proposed plan for verifying compliance. The plan should be subject to review and approval by BID, and Hien the project proponent should proceed with the testing/enaineerincr analysis. 5. Cut Slopes Evaluation. On page 13 of the Geospectra report, cut slope gradients were recommended at.',.':l (horizontal to vertical) within 1.5:1 allowable where competent bedrock is exposed. In the field I observed no cut slopes along the road which comply with this standard in the approved report. Moreover,I question whether any of the exposed rock will be stable in slopes steeper than 2:1. The rock exposed in cut slopes was weathered,fractured and raveling. In the upper seQrnent of Oak Branch Way, areas of jointed sandstone were observed,with joints dipping parallel to the natural slope. These joints observed resemble the e:cf'oliation jointing commonly seen in granitic terrain. Within this area rocicfall is a significant hazard. Recommendation. Slopes along Oak Branch Road do not conform with the approved soil report. No evidence has been submitted to document that slopes steeper than 2:1 are appropriate. If 2:1 slopes are not feasible(because of tree loss or interference with development concepts for future residences), retaining walls may be required to achieve loncr-tern stability. A starting point for engineering analyses of these existing cut slopes is detailed geologic mapping and stability analysis. A potential approach to stabilizing the cut slopes is a soil-nail wall. Soil-nail methods have been used successfully for permanent walls in recent years in rock similar to that present on the site. Soil-nailing strengthens the rock behind the face of the cut with grouted in-place small diameter steel bars. 6. Seepage Evaluation. There are areas of groundwater seepage along Oak Branch Road. In areas of seepage, rock is typically deeply weathered and may not perform satisfactorily in cut slopes. The seepage area may be an indication of landslide debris. Recommendation. The final geotechnical report for Oak Branch Way shall include data on the location of seepage areas, details of the design measures undertaken to control subsurface water and evaluation of landslide hazards within the seepage area. We trust this letter provides the evaluation and comments that you requested. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES � .. F Darwin Myers, CEG 946 Principal cc: Gary Faria. Building Inspection Department .s_--_- Joe Romo. Building Inspection Department 3effre�� Batt. c/o Morcran Capitol Investment Propern't1as Arthur ILnutson. Subsurface Enarinestsrim, DARWIN f�fYEf?::!�,SSO�IF�,T�:. v 300-3-02it;(4).wnd ' •' " \ �•r{R'♦ ••1• ` •1 = •`*,{air '`,+' y•'*• •` • •• • _ •, • , _ •••• ! •' .Hyl►`••`*'*••»* a;\,* . • _ _ Okr.' . . , •' •a = ••0•i j • \ Os. .. •. • w♦r`r� *x'11• cz •, _ r r••{ 06 .• , • _. • • •'1 • .�,•=•'fir\• \ t rN ! •• •_•!r•=••••� .• • .•R sal '', • 1 Ln CL 0. WO. vo ..` .'. SO • .\ C/ Q3 + •.. - .� � ` . `tib. •� � �.r� ' - • ..'• •♦ri• •. Lr) 0 • r .+• ♦••;• . •_ - •• �� to Of cV/! �•- *` v CV CU CU •�, V tti r C/'7 �= �" .(� V,•^. Il+�••r� i ✓/• two, �,,, `t •''�.., ,t�� _(rr ��' �~.. •i'..�1't+-� td it +--' ir. w �" /r-t �. ■�� •r C•y' C, I�- �lt�� v✓ �• ,.i. !✓ A /� r = r t-• tri �.w• V4 ��„ �I w_ •*"d a'� w Y/ v. `.R U /rte .l.+r - �� v ,•r/ .••( �-N Y✓ ,-.,. ...� -• !V .ten (♦//. 0•� ._SMO � (vim'; �.•• •- •-- QJ ��+ CL.) v pjJ ri1J �•.' �^" �1 , • .000�� V,/ C. "� t j r �'•F "�'� � •.�-r I• �' t1l�r /n•• C�•Z" ^ ,,,� •j �„� �.. v J •♦v y ..*. �� *'. tl • tJ r �U .•�r 1•�1 .�. .^ cn •,...- •�' - ,,...� •'r. /"• •7" ,�,i �"'v 1 J M{I' .i•,d t\.�Y�,! ,t t{i Vi.J.r• t► s+� ~� �••. rr.. }� t` .M► 0- �- �, .Y ! �j r l^�} 1=.• �„� f.• cu i y •r ;0. U t•!��• V_- /► W ri ,�,•� r t 1I,/ ^� �• * ri'. _ +✓ �� ^ • .rte W�rJ • � .. •/' •� •�` ry t.. ✓, �� •^ V J • " !^' �.l v -.1 v� } -j �, A^ Poo r� �"�%Oo .= 4/ % r'a u^ t^ ✓ = - w♦• Cd ^. r t'.. •�.. 011 ..i.�. W..1 ""' i '"� a,,,, ^„ A f �'q f"'.' C- f `""' �' • ra I B _�� F v rr- 65J I••. �,,, tw .r II�.r rte.. w+� r... r^ .w.. t� Y/ ^ r amms �J i -r,. /({ .... /nr r •rte• ✓ A/ Mrs+ - ""`' �'1 •" /` r } �•{ ^•• r., .i r =.,••. . ....- _ '.�"" •.-• y„• ''may'.' .... .♦ •- aj 1 ..- •/I-� .�.• 0 V � �... .�I. �I•n' �.•� ` ^IO •�• �Ilf� !!• V J �, • rr ,may , .'� _• •Y� `/ r- •,-M_ �t % ..� c• _ _ r — ,,, y�f. —tad = %lmoo � rr- •r- •1.•• f, �•,r r til.• Ez •�' .-^.� �rr.a. i!. �•,� �,•rj �r SWOON �^ ws ..1 �... 0- •,�.r .,,. r' "� �• '-� 4V � r.'•. V .�. NMOM o— �i .� >sr „� ♦V an• •�•I !ar r ,.1 ,••� �! r� .... • ^•_ .r•� �•„mow• C r.. T j.• V r• l// � v,•, ,,,,�, , w•., ,,,,� �.. -} X,�/ ,� [,�. V * /..+� t/'y +frn•� V. v. ! ;� •.� /"�'� Vim,,,, �, `•�.V �1 � inn y -` - A rT•� � IIS♦ y v 4✓ •... ._ ../ w •�. /` ,rte o �•'� W/ '�h �" • w.�.. Ct,1 {u r- 1i•./ I�r �• `� .r, ^ { �I v .� ,7�1 ..J ,/ tJ. ..�• •� to p- CUJ CZ !''.•�, �j �,,, `-` „�. r •-�• .'^ r. ..» *.' •'�•- J' jar �r !�/ .^�. .-..� ...rs +.J .✓ ..•s .�. ..�. .... .r �" •.. �1 .✓ 'yr,�� rr•"' =tC. WJ Y/ - Ct� -•. 'tel �•"' ..+ ��., r.' r MOO— VOOO, v _ o- www .1 C.A. v,� ;�- C) >•.. LG Y. -r V, � •- :_ • Now. . :•— — a > tri - ..•tloom .4 - ccoOO— U _"� rte'- :... J ••- •^ WAN# �, �� c U •I•• •\ . •I • •• • • • L) • ♦ I • ' '• % • • . .. ..... N CU : •• , rte•-...4 .•.' *. • i CL�•. . 1 ire rw•, V4�*%. ' ..• •�' �•.�.. • .•. .,.i .• � .• � � � ill '1 C O a) m C) m p ti 1 �_ _ a) a) >.N . U vi C) _vl 0- �?CU "p �' yr _ _ m -a _r u) u) / a7 a)Ul O �} a) in C1 T�� Q ?' t0 ? il{Q a) t IA r" CA tea) � �,�''�•�•m IIS � a) T ❑a) ea•r•..•• © 0 N�")Q CL 1= m a) V_ or�. ••' ❑4.I )a) Q3 r r_� ••�I. i�Dl �„�' ♦•i a� V / y)U - u ❑ r G va co m ❑ _p a)�} d) tl!u) u) a=_ .n=cn a) Cl ,� to 'D a) :I- U X O= ry u) •r p•fl n) O d d Y m N m O t0 m O a) a)== a) - �_ _ 7'_a) u)a) rat ❑a) O 1A ❑•L)O a) O)❑ u S Cl v_u- Ln---tII m�,; C)M M ta fl a) •0 Tv-- � a) Q =�> o� o`°- �_ �4� _� aco•°-�oa,cr•o==Q'�•u=0 vn',°'.•�v ❑a�,o �_ �M ,_� -boa OL m a)0 C) m m a co o - `°CILas s° `-m U r ❑= ° _ `> ._a)= p °' -.� a)r m N v'�>•' rr G ra a) y,a)O .�0O X �.1 aj*- �►[} v1 r.Y. .� a} � r❑Q v1 tt1 `� a.. r �'� p p Q, Qy m Q) o,.-a) U i a a3 n°' ° ?'u crr... r �_•.`_. °' o M�° u 7.C),ra a1 v1 A a) a) !t 7+r �, ,a a��\ a`❑ ❑CD'0 'Cy = y N•p .m+�8 tD t0 pti a)W r p O•O u p i r1 .: m T u m • 'O y (1? CD a► N U) ; p 0> �,pt�j-01 ❑ ty .� �• U N O r O ,—� ' Vi a) � N_m tin !� �N s Z!.� = Q!'' a ti U v)a) p a)o) a) �►+�.y a) 0 !n 0��y "'rp•.'ro-N '�as 4) 01.• e4 a) 2.. ,0 ❑m >in W , y > '- = Y v! _ p�!►�_,n❑m a)y m CIL 3 N ro a)C) C L vs y ...� a�_ �� �_ m AOR - m__� ��p= rn� o o" a� o _ .:= t R Ul r �- t Q N C3 as N y u Q"� in 0,6 O v) tm-Oyu to ir►�_ Cl p m j m _� s Q p a>) p CJ o)m p � ,� to=_'°� U) _M_ a)m ." a) U)u a) CZ O to to•rr—4n _ a) =as a)- )n 1•. !� 5 u"'❑ U�s. (� = w> �-u CD o❑a) �R O a) �{n G) '" (} m N .,y 7✓a•'.� dl aj m La wF AJS+ t� y t t N �y-°al Rl Y V� IU"J fL U =R) Q(? Ln t/) T•�O to 0 •�Y��m )� _a�a`r.�o > r 6�o �Qa �in a)N�'a)Co:O)LA a)N m N��,ate)� -4n M aa))CU�,[G m r o �� f-'_°) vl (a O a) ,-n a)\crawl ti+.� N CJ. u) G at as iq CU 7 s 01= -� a) =` -_ ti a,, :a- ;9 )n L7 O w 4 ? u " a) � m CT. = u+a a) O .r w p ar a)'� t°0)D a '�J A C L N m-in irs ,j U M _ �0 > y G a, IA 1n W ut r ll1 a) v N tt1 a)O (L�_ O _Z► ?' a) m _ U) in U_ J G OD y _ a)cn ? to in a)O a)y in O?•_...23 ra m 5 Q,Qr p p) m- ,� H•---- m° LA as N a,=.> p•m o m CA M ir!'m N ° n)'' "' as u)m U z u/� a)a)4) -v►T� O a)u�)to �='co m v► � a) 23 a) >ca ? C a)a) r a) �. v) >0 ja m 'D to-i u=- '" j )ri M m O rJ a) O O)= )U w m o o .� Q.of• °; m r=,m 0 ar_ o io -o�t° —CL) 0 �' °o a) o 0 w �,8? m '� Q• - °) o, u '� vt v,a)h m m 0 I.O 3 )n u Cs►v U - ifl m o U+ u a m—.-- O- m_ °1'O •x } a) o ° a Q CL _> a) a a) _ i u N�o ._ Q a) m &n u v, _a o Q' )a - O eo m io na Cl w u CZ m ,. O, u) d _- - _ v a r V� vl 0)a as O U n m r 1•- a) tv (n ..3 vs C) to N -O M of�» x a� •- � �' ....u)r. t � O � �''7\ a) .'� R/ a� 0 a)a).T Ca� a) ❑ V V (� u d {a C) n)� _a_u o Q at u o 1� to y 0� a1 N.ec a m_ m..Qy to u, ,0 > "D g o s c' _ - - 11 o> d 0 m.0 } O a = •D 0 ) � aroi is'0 t0 m ch tD..t m�n il)a)0 z tQ O•as �)m aNi '= ami co 0,p a)O°ro ca ❑ C3�ti c _ is t�)O of U a) C?- .. •.r��y ,► •tn C.a_ in �, '-'� v _ .± _ fl C, a) to ^Ji , c. m U/O�Ln > p�I! d�1 Q:►fir} atr O 21 to U tt ? - t••y a��T I a) Q!' Z! 4) �+ co()❑ ❑u Q M to rn a) [ '� •rte,n iJ a)._�' O a)r a)cn•� 3 �`,O) .: �� C7 a)m r m to as ❑tC )M 0 d u,v)u sn O v,_ ❑:� a)�C7)d °' = o -`0 v►a)- u► cu m°'N in Cl m = as :s Y/s) ru a)•D o)-= = til I u.x = :� =a) ^�'� 1° ,�•- �► ?u'gin n, — °'—=•°a)w =m d'_ `"�°w o a=`�r o a 3 �_�'-° ao o:_ .5 A; eon n► E��o c c"'r'iz—°�u _ ca•�� th.�o°`din o ori=w - c•'= c'no") �� �'�7D > = �,�C r �u _ •; U O D Z?u •a u►=co°'ca> V'o>u = u- a __ ' �n a gn Q rn_ =)n p U)i?= "� m m u, c u) ^-3 Ln a) v, ti 1.` � v r t0 cA�"`u7 a)i Z3 a) G '+'�'-Gr w N `-i �- r<S a)m m V; rs r M v.• ('u U a) M a)m� J cu fa •=(Q•=- f a) X a) -� a,'ta 2)ca L to v. � ;n _ :_- m =io p/m v)p a)=i%gn u _ as >G► tv r L a) cz ==' 51 C/ to e'a _ a in cr m LU u: _v._t; u is �n 0 m ' cs ti vt C U _•n ul 0 a) o) W ... r_ in a qs ey �,c5 a)u o m tc .. = vY i Low > a)Z U CT. Cl aJ.� .-� �/ , r= 17 +�: to 7 u Q Li O " UN In)O-0 t � -•� a)p O _ n) ri�'�v/ 0 _ �- tCt^) r•CTI L} ` �1 r m(u l r L G M O Ut J Y v U(1)� v.C:.�.►� R•3 Page I of 2 Front: Rich Lierly <rlierly@pw.co.contra-costa.ca.us> "' - .us"' <GGre cd.cocontra-costa.ca.us>, Rich Lierly To: CG re �cd.co.contra costa.ca �� g <rlierly@pw.co.contra-costa.ca.us> • <Lcorneli w.co.contra-costa.ca.us>, JRomo@bi.co.contra-costa.ca.us, cc, Larry cornel�us �p gfari@bi.co.contra-costa,ca-us .. •h•.x•.h'.•V1'A•.'.'J. :f•'}J}Y}}D}}}:}}}t1}L4Lp}}.•:•Y.'}}:A}}}}}:.}p}}OO'}}}}O'}:•:JG}:•1W.}}}Y.}7J!'}S}:•}}Y}i:•}P%y7}}}}}YYJI7J'J'}WM}':.D}}}hv,•1}:4C•h}f}Y'/EO'hPX.}}}Wl:•:!M}}}\:AIWJYJY+J>!??Y.1,A;.yvMYfti.;::i{................•c}:•}:.!}}7CJq{r:.•.•A'.,.n!M..}}}Y}}\:?.f.:vj:YY?n'YA}v.:A11}:•Hr:•}?M..;.: }}(•?!}}}}T}}}}}:•�}}`•}:•}}}.:K•}}:•}}}}}:.}\}f} :•T:•:::JJ}:Y}}:.Y.i'}l}}TI}•.•'...MN'}VM•AV}}}..Y.ti}J:xy:1V}}'.}Yf;f..}}V.;:.':.!.w}:.}:::!'itJ•::•::{.;}Y:.;.411}•r..Y.•}:Ah•A}',.}}}::.•lt.V.T}}:•:ti•}:•:•.}'.}AJ1•}.rT.'..}i:•}}J.:1}}J}:•JS}}}}}4;h\1.:..}}.......}.1.}.•._,•}J}.SJ:x}V}1 I. Date: Monday, February 24, 2003 O8:43AM Subject: RE: King Drive subdivision 7267 Christine, I spoke to Mr. Revilla and told him that if you (he) wants us to "sign off" n an revisions there may be, he would need to show how the actual o y Y construction compares to the original approved Improvement Plans. He is reluctant to do "as built" plans at this time, since the construction i s still not complete. Therefore, he is going to attempt to show me the necessary correlation using a "overlay" of the Improvement Plans. Rich __-_-Original Message------ From: CGreg@cd.co.contra-costa.ca.us [mC;Li',to:C�%.":Jr.p,g.,r,—d\e--,ld.co.Vt.--#ontra--os... .... . . :. ........ . :..a._.(� .0 s........................._...�.._...._.._:_.... .....�. ...•. . .... ..., Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:52 PM To: rlierly@pw.co.contra-costa.ca.us Cc: Lcorneli@pw.co.contra-costa.ca.us; JRomo@bi.co.contra-costa.ca.us; gfari@bi,co.contra-costa.ca.us Subject: King Drive Subdivision 72'67 Hi Rich, I have received architectural plans for lots 1 & 2 for review. Last October, I mentioned to both the applicant, Jeff Batt, and engineer, Ed Revilla, that they must submit revised plans of the roads prior to our looking at the driveways and architectural plans for the houses on lots 1- r subdivision 7267 . The improvement plans I have do not reflect the correct wall locations, SD easement lines, and storm drain, (but I may not have the most up to date plans?) . The engineer feels that the revised plans are not required yet, as they g will not pave until later (they do not want to rip up the pavement with. heavyequipment, ) yet I feel that they should be submitted for approval, as we do not have plans that show the current field conf iguration, drainage, walls, grades, etc. Naturally, this is your area, so I am leaving a message for the engineer, Ed, to call and discuss the issue of revised plans with you. I will review the site and architectural plans when I return March 3, and will follow up with you. Thanks, Christine • contra-costa.ca.us/maiI/ccrre(yory.nsf/ $1nbox /C9EFB 1816CCBBB718825... 6/1/2005 htt .1/�n.rr�a111.co. { � DARWIN i IYE ENVIRONMENTAL-RE'SZEARCHI C ENC31NEERI1J"I GEOLDG>' N ovemb tT 11. ?004 (,'hnsrIn=%_', ae2o7'r_ PrajP'=t�7,6-w WL C=a Costa Coun7l C." Dtvtlop mt Darren- 7 /mc-TFlomorth"W*PM' ,, S-rxttt, nn CA 94 5 Subject: Greolocric Review Services ContractT-st, Sub S D 7 2)6 7 (K=1 Dm 7 digsaon s=-- BE �. 7 'I;7v'aIuui Crevh Asea_ Contra Cosm Coun.� D MA Praj too-ci t 3 0 4'.04 D Chhstin.e. DU=* thr- p as-t thTtc wtths, I have rccezved stvx,.rL aJ doc==s =rom.thp CoID I_Init,C Dtvtlopmx,:.m-t and Builmng ...cuon Dt,,pa=mmus, t.'aCh Tequ..s=g ctquamIMPm)" opimon on tht a of iiiatti"lals p?o-\nded b)r-ffit-PTC�j tCt PTOPMffnt� OT T.P..quP.,s"tm* 1y, co=mts on tht, comislmm7 of a -al OT1M- T0V6M., MT tht Con moilS WAII okuuroval.nSlab Approach �-mah n= rjtv) 2*nn att,;,mn rm'twad-thr-ma-L 5: sub tdfDT rn ded a m._.=L ttm* f! an com-Dlianc.. Is sue s Prescnted bac-tt .s p?ojec�.. I tae o,,val�T.,P..d thr- da.7,a andpr.ared tht,letter p?esm-L... crei�� dcl,s ou_Titco=mda:dons. h IS OT_CMniztd_To=srt.address cromET133 issues a WhIC.hpTo,v1. -b c on roll o w b�% aur-smtc*'- ca=mts orae thdoe=�nenrts anquesuon.�� ro s CDD arc BED. General Issues and Concerns IM_DTo-vtm=,-n1 P1aiic r �..v; �a-L LT-1 aur oT_)3'TII OL-thLt-Jaon2omal anc v=caj a_IICrn]M=7L 07 rucaas ano cunrt�wav_,, ait norL P_ 12n-,. 'nt- cm,"Tin—r- r**,­aaL-,,c s s Urtho 6- _DTOV= -ca.,12,,izii�L anci m7amm JIC)V,M, 01a tat- 1M 0 1"07 SaC)77D C)IJ V f::Isum:vv-aL.. t-.,asm= G*12102 =T07;r=MT_S ark IICYt siiovmjnoL acmia- 1znDravczr�un Pians Tn.=.,Lc D ona1:)n within builain.c sntr, n CrL D aczu:7a C,0 MDix-M-Lim..1z, si-rr--Diannin m-tar- a-D_Dh-a=,anal rm\atv, 0! taosr-IDi2n th �,,O=_ M Is D oui.c 2 'D 1) T` tn27-trc' a"DD12"*2111-1UMZ'MTf7 L" 2"t IrLIDTM`fM, 2ZI LLan..an 'Ll jj --=N7M�- a= crn-r7 ai-o7i c- j ai- ILf 1=1 JDJ V,� V� 1 I _ ,. _'InI71(T o- aL a L Vy st,a umtj sumriamrtc I2r- LLL II ­vahs az, 1DTouoso u r, Z*�LtJ aC 11 rJCLL,..InGla I C C.- Ao Tr, tat- maic a7i=- 'Diam To rtmac.,f,"taff.rtLmnm_c-viali�- with - crL--mL s v 0 10 Slate aE at OZ tar- -ar, lrc� AA 1% T was To'd-Caa- hc=war,IDTCrQ Sim t. anti ino... auu osin Tc,mrvut no. 10 maat- ct,"r-t r mor wt r==1 a ar- ar%z=a-Er.; iDiam) Tat DO=IC c E =,.msm2.cr, adcd slop t. aloe cr wig am af.,�sim thaz is su),Q0TMC1 D cal Baia and P:;111EL--L-L=11,dcl-'am-MITS 0, Slo-C)A%WGC-, The ===T�cshould orifi -- - Table I und�ctal � roan s sio .s cc oT rcn dcT TE CHNI CAL D kTA.A-ND O PI3�ION (�F�T� Wit. Operon.Wh.�'n au %ix�co t) � `aini-n. �� i a S' A 3I�LZ�I�ST1 I I IC��4..I�C: of AUT OT n 1Ga 1n't.Jn.�.zechnlcal an-as- SLOPES O D K BR.A..N� ]COAD 1 { i Zn'Cr !Cctaoe,'`200 1c1raisT3`�� J vi�dT1ItbtIne� edroadoed was ongnaU� cmunoe ISI pTOItSsiona1 0101n.ion s of nOT.EGnlca l � l .�..-. ;''e �a��tl�:u i�1t�.200�e�.1T111C1P.�L.Tnese ctr�Tac:�..,na.o ver_. fn.('_'1n"9.3.T om wh3.i. I c omi citT ICi br.-- in r ar, I adeouaic.Iamorof slope mbilmt sal'=. maclvqua�.• C xta C SL•u Tablt 1). Duj- 1h T.OST�lt311 C1'n 1'° Cu.�.S� �S a�on.i� Qa should be noted that�the sloves have all been v-�Tri rd bacl:Zo m lease 1�=:1.luiuci3 will increase an airea.d►atieoua-�-� _' I ._ � sa�e� lacto_. Branch Road wort.prf:,.senmd rn a _ Of ,*- 11.visual surven)OT cut slopes on Cial-Branch Viral�was mase or, r cbr�.aT7 ? -p ccr TMT'0,V'Imt,"T. - E - 1 r 110/04/0) with Forces a oo supenmiznd=l.itxe a.es==tion of each Th..fDEDVN7m-cT 1s ffRccrpto-,d from pa2TAp.,ti cut fiovt!:- i Of"�:.tla. p��T rc��c �lCtLf,"T 1. 0+40.B=10',iractureo sandstone bat=ed-Lc-,1�:1,nc) � ravPtmCvldeZIL, _ 12. 3+10.B=1 f'.fractured sandstone flattened`tci ±(,yaluator. 077 DQE23 0�r t1 c ! raveiinc ev�aen�. C..�'e 09 7'a't0 7-0007'£, CUT stove !�. 4+0U.. ='"�'.Tradurre sandstone fla zned i-c) 1 �.nc� t .A ravelul�ev�aenrt "7'aa7 C7'ZZ�l��eJ'C COY117?2ClZaCQ GZi I 4�SC�, --2['.iracturea sanasr.onc fla'itened no -- ...':.� ('1207'i onra1 rC1 )1C7-n CaZ M;7t/; rave'` eMa*=.. i .�. c'"7'a�t7C72TS a1�01�Vab�C 1=ij�ZC7'C' i 54)�t_B=I`',fractured sandstoneflat=edtci C0771 VCTC721 IS CD DOSCO 17 i ,� IClctooer 11..�04 thc.77CLC J 00SCM)eC. 170 CU7 SLODCO 1r'o.lot Romp*s inuorm►auon 1 am a=c-hmp my l 0/15/02,Tenor, a l O 7?cr the 700 aGr-wh ch G'O 111 D h' i whi ch i oun d ihe cut sl on es on Cial-,hrancir w ail wr thL mud o: I sl13j=r 2hC 1 vear�CUT 11°',rU ea.:. Th e sI o_a es u►=re f latenCc a: "W'I tl'l Zi21r SZL172aQ1'u 77,1- TIZC' Inol.eti and eonsiaereo stably b tavvever.tide ovmcr- wih Q,D 7'071>eC�'1'CD071. J11J07-e0VC$7-, 1 I i�nsx.a,ll iootht�II sluff vral't in iron ai eacrl cut v,pi-ier: SJ3017M aucSD 07? WileMer am)0; V21 � r - 4 h�Sa1Ue are=a or v,=ntten am-rrrnent For ihe ii orneowner. C1,.ZJC1SCQ I'QCf--Wili be siabtc' 111 a.ssomzuon 10 mau=.n th t shiftwa1_' S LODCI�,'' ZCCDC7'fila7l G'-0 DOSCC II1 CU'SLODC- 1 1a� 1 weall2n7`�'c 77'aC1117'C0 7720 71*M)CL71? 111 MC' UDDf`S°cr7?2r72c C)7 !1a7'a'72C: ITQ`1'. a'7'Ga.r Ci: 707721CG.�.►'L172C�7*071C' 1ri�C1"! C1DSC7'1��:� 1�J7t1 70I72T,7 Q1 7Dm va7'a'ILC, To inn nam 7'a4 r L0D!. TT IT11711 T/V a'7-e0 I12C7T aDDO'CZ7 ICS DIE' � �?�27T7�Q72f 1'151.. 0� 7'�r't?a1L� 07r rlZr C�..IaI`7J?c' �ZtI J" r IODn� 1"�G,G'07?27??!'12GZa'i70?:. JLOD!'�'� aL07?G' �..�a,� ;'ar72C1:..�tiC1aC aC� 12C�; CO1i707')7' 1�'IZJ: Tl2 ,aDD7.01)r) 70- 7'�' 1077 JVC1 r'1�aC72 D007; .-UDYY7iZTuC. T�r, Cto:vn,,,,71" T12L7-. ."LOZ.-10- ,^T,-,AC 0 T/-2 a' T ; � ' sl r, " 1 tf ,7 -��? " l rt L� -1,'7 ,� 3 �a, t'?G'11C'lOD'YYt�'71t. G'071"nDT� a �Z.' 2a ; I' a771? Wa1,! 772M' Df7 -eT)' 7,ZJ.7' 'n„; ' a.:'J L 07?�-T G'7'I?:STaD7lITl 1 ,,-rc7-n7?c' D 07172: TO'' pl?o772�C7'77?C Q12a1VSC� 0%��1-/,20 L.� C:W- i71?Ey CL::S1DDr'r ? aCTQ7 LCGf r-rCCJLCr,c7� t72G1DD11?C MIC �Ia DU77);C712aLV,77 l DOT07'cT7671' QDD7'0akr" tC.• „IaD7 t7,Z77?c'' L12r DV" t"10 'r'� I l1'iO'07 -72a1lO :-77M. ? 70a� /a )tDe 11SeC 'Uic TLCll ' . 7 7 .77271uTC J 0?' IT::D. 7?7a7Y✓717 V,'i2 ., «.- � , J0% -71a.Ll?7 x Pacrt-3 TaCP 0 tile CU-t-With grouzea'zr!-ZWace SjMCzzJI? a2-a M#401C 7'STO 0 S17enthe roCk Del"7ind r." DAWS ICq:)r S ��Th'3s11COMIT,SCYt0'MCMnCwthaT- the arp aabi, in S k-DP al a .A--.onnmssanc.-. ZTntre.is no 3n -On 01a-thL%-/ .ammu-crP170filf- oL th=basis of a i'atld r suria m C)n and spacm' -Cl of p2lonnErs (btdnincy d IT-1 a lit 0): -L�6cl=,,Ss of al dep o=s,, on=;; 4-1ft- -a7of shdSDIslap The no roch-faD vass.no mammi =IIS 2*L th" cwtrlo oh�nrr thp mGtosrz-La rtport ra...c cmcnatd-ffia-L=s1ma..-S have a 01,21..1.vrith prom*mc:)ia to allow i r massivrt. =C=i1onaEN7 com-Dtutn �...s0 1.5 1 o TDCI--- I10T2"bY-Aa-tbLUJ- KnUT-S=1--th=- CIrL slop y� wilmjaa7rr,-, noodfOTa n=btT oi v=aTs and wt�Tt pra�smT- Gcospa= r=0rL was C L-v'M Ir 7' lo-D b as-,c.:-,d on th hf�r wt 'ha-vno-m,?n Qns o-i-=,r-o=nmaa.-ams io-r s same 0 A Li a—.L ob stna atonal dam.. �T,o=aa recommendations ase yr Standard 61 outside-ffit rangy of s-10P C'U r%X) innons of Kninsm are well L"., PpTaDUnT�7. Ttco=mda uaiimts allowed b�$the G-aainaonce.Or or rECo=-mdtd b�7 ceortcchuical 01 E, -:s in fanz-a �os�:a Co=-rv. In m-, M'a M s ffn m nto.,.c..i in-cy loQCr±n.IQ.in d dn7itimmmi-Dr r-,c 'A 1 �la��tan4w- *-Iin I-,hr 7, a. -tht �7 '-�:1b�-t Coun TP slopes slop sn'final.have allowcd mcr,-tiit. onI area vrLthm tine Hanson.A-crayezates and R-MC Paci',Materials C)t=-& v\1htr-t�.- To Chis 7 of thc pubic. z-rall ri to healthand atm 4-1 ina.c3siv., diabase. and v7hc!.Tt ro s are not a sh C)u-T F ebruar77 2) 2 0 0'.) letter included a lanas"ide map and a rsl�, t. slope stZoil±7- map. Ta (170J.",Crcolo 'cal Survc�Ttv C�ozns LI IrIaIDS WfMf!IPT0CiUC:tS oz aMCIN7 pT=2-Ttd b7-the C�o�d ana A S"I n 'rr.%.a Cj ah,B razi load L�1'\71slar� Tna�L-ma-D chasc td tht Slat a oi L and Gtolo,7,7o" mea4.1 incluatoss; tie I'C)110V�MLI,irea (1\110S-L Sus C.7., Uolo u,Lanrish rr) Tax- e1L DI2TI;;."D 011 101 S 7 M 6 MoT 1! , T2C7e 76-s-a n2oa'e7'*GTC rock- 7,azI 1,2azalIV W/,IC7c D'are orEDL777SCIV)TcTCTC1'C0 SY-0-T, 0- DC7`"C7'IrczD(- L-77 e.97-e.-, 07- 07-eaTC7- OL.,&., 7-... EiODCL7 M LUOM-0-10 aMr-.. 777TO 07-D7-el- Cd TO - - r 07' CIOSC TO TIIC77'STaD7L7TV Lana, DecauSe Chi 11W&7TeCD7?%P.0SL'r1 07 t1'I C S 10 P C 7/�C 771are 77a U77CZC7-11171?C' t/'27,r a7aeo Cal; tnC7PCT07ac 0r C;C VC,C I C11 0 TO fQ7*/' loealiv w LI narura7 Processcs 0/"'MM-i-CaUSCC 7720ai770atI077S-tI'!Ia-I STecDen SiopeS', 777Lreasr, 1.0 07, removc narural vutp-cEscL-r. T7-om tht, baS O.A.Mc SIODCrl. SiODC L7TaD, 7*hTI-' 77 D7`0D'ao1Y n?o7C STeCV1761" 0- !/' '2,r-- V 0DC t17a7 L7 -1 MC weak,77CSLr�, ,*0-117-r"t17C 71*br.-ISU 7,0 II0 7,t17f, 7, G ia=-, g CYD a- n=[)':'- C)7 M=DMI:� n`10 Orfla-[10-11- CaO C)-=fjr. STU,01 Mt STU A.L %Wolf two WD tn L 0 Tncre waS loose:ED on Lo-L a I and tar- sloiD r- zramamn appeared-Lo D t at t-D tnan' C- Orr P=Tr- V-v k%-IP %- -tr al 7 io-.—"a!- D-,-trjaa*=,,, c)-r-z--jka ClICIL z.,.anin o ILMD 0 TO-TT-, E=m:n C, 5E ar E C)Z'I"4-� .17- i S in DE MOL I'L In 'n c* 10 -=a siact r-t-nt,-"Laar-, �amj a= _- IH 07 int .j 'Dj o 6.0614 ,LfnaCl,r-� L)-7 --j rg=,Sjj"�TTjLa:L Doul C T r, S 01 77 L 7Vr 2:-n zr-)=2 k-0 -T r r3 r: 7T-n.- ano LI 71 SIOT)t 0`7E D= ZIC%j7-,T thizil loos ']I ftov',' 7 7171..Sra- OUM A- Le&a FqC] 77*,i IrIf jvj'a-1-nY.1 YE r-,*:-I�L 7'C 071n 10 7 0 U C.-, L 07 I]ICrf 17 71C)40-Man07 ctrl VOL MeaK U.1 \v%1 I P cr=6 7_11 C� Is a-m7 SIIVC: D acl,io cico sim zraat1,,z /nkm Lc=ainion is m ulus mv..... z� ac Lac) ,LZ It tc���.���! 4 b FiU was lDla,,.%.,P,,d at locaz'one not ShD-VM 10 :EE on m-a=gD.Lam ane, wifhoirl -on'o.. consultation with CDD oi- BID. -kh%Wf.L th%�, 0T_L_is com*Diffuc..,d and vattioin a corm cr� mamn -olan). ED-was placed m oppos* sides ofth in-t�rsccti m 01 Dal E�ranch Road 4t, Stcum L,L 6. 7=�a w=tazon thit.,IE30,astsine' o with t�T_,dSIVV�-a"C'Eo LOIS :`1nt=tr than':Iand atm C'ars.to b an oth.-ti sliver Edl In Dur cm=on. 71 b sarin or thiff. outlook nor its loin--'m= naoiim7 snould b�pi-ovia.�d.. 23 07 zn ai.a-aiT. -ditst 2!-n rrcbm%..,Tnr%-_F Tolp 0T,t)ar,-_- _Crtow DTd. -A-ithuz, Knin-sm. m i c)nobs wain{,cs tui -riaid h fa if =" fnr,-- ,nticl is unc�j.>MT-10 M%-,. ]a,;-has alDlDTM.-.Ci cnanfr,,!,,S_. wn-v P e1cL01"TOT )Ot) and complain thLt_ situa-Don. CO T 7.F. / Lot Tabic. 2- PROVISIONS OF CCA Fr F OF 1. Back-ar-Tonrad SD8973()7 / DP893003 Peerreviem,by Contra Cosu County shall be cmducted on ThA).-Dm­rvisions of CO A.471. arm pT'cSm-ttd the:site-specific soils reports regmrvcl in C-oxi dibon 34G of IT lla.`Cl� e oritymal approval. The-cost for t1te re-virm,shaU be-paid /Pelm Tablp. "V 10 r h-rthftapDlicmii_ 4.Glm'or-Lo the issuanct,- ai ahuiiamrl', T- soils q nw buil nincTDprn10TMplans a-rpd T Lm. t -or=nnr,,%A,n oust.a act=e 111-11 T=ID or"L incluamrMDsUrI&C'..,invEsugallon and jabora.,Lon�anaj,%,,sl.. ,n*a'n, wom, vutn a TtM011i DjQ anti.c I b t n P T 0 1 :i 7 �rciotec:�n�cal cn�n��.� prmarec meC1111--aby Tor int.houst.mesim un ci�-r consiCiM ZLIOL -uoi3 of-ffit soll,r, inchadmig,dirvemay.".and poolr. the reco==nciz T-rmon shall be=D=emented in int house des3'_gn and ioundmor, pian: Tn--soin enmnet.-Ir shall SIP tine ioundzu on Wan MG cysu atL',-.,. Rcr�on rem rjXr in..p-&(Lnr.drainage.an o=Lra-u on iDj ans.III verify thzi thev are consl=m with the.soils repoft-.) Th%x->, I UC'9 CTc o=,21?, TMO-r+L M-07'ric".C.1117 C;0=M1 _LSj on mmilridual lots.- Tlam rtmm-L Ttza=s a 1D=a77 s=ct.zoo in on-nail oD on Lrgk.01o.m'c ano LT,,_n,,o-LE.,c=0,.aJ asp P..cT_c thr-, Pzo ,>c�L. Accoramu u) Iscosiram P P c- DaLy 6- ta�T� A. ZsDovrs. fo'0 ST 71 - TICIS o3tifcrszOrJ OT r.%a-L at==fL -Wal!�A u S1, and _Tf. 312 T6f0C,0=E, n os ► �aTotect fire D' 12111DIE02=T0V6,M=S7' r n772CI r es Lf ' 7`2717 MaT i2CD77- k L, ' 07'1 cr772CZTC C17 C7771 D0 772 07'1� 07 M: '771TL. L) fioll OULO OU"' OCT707,-, or'll Ma7 1/1 - LOCO*aTCI�j 07-1 VI C 14)Cr3TC7'T.1 SICI-r- 0,, _Lj07; G710'DOTI- -L-dj da 2,0_0 i 7'a atnult 7 C. 7' r ar+-t'S a►•�--•-v•- 01 N/ 1-T Co 00 r%.Cj)j6M1 0`^_`'1421". 1�C"la C77 T07*A*-.o 0,'6 1.I)?'' L�UDCZ7V2S707.. �07= 1-ITUIS07 � ".G IC OU77r%' JOE 'IT 1%.210 0""u Z_L__im -1 CDC. -T C 0 1 C C n 7 7 1,1:42 m)_, r7 Pa n o 7.. L In Z)7-n;-r,Llcm)el OPM C71, '­,071,r7'0 Cj27-r JOE! anc V1 C)�"Tj Tr,� C 0 a 72 -j Lj 0 0 7 7)W./I Cr CC�7 r2SI-7 T07- SMEO-S 071,01 )WVP CX-DeMencea Da"7 CIeD77r.TI0IV'r C17W C770e L77 117 _7UTU7't aeD77 .,fiow.r.ARho2!rn no homer. wit Dc ioCcaed 17l/1771 the Path 0�'a DOW7112C71 ae'o7'7S U014',DOMOng O-ThE V700DOsed roact'ways and&-iveways wiII ross fiie Swahes ocDntaini??ctj?p J b 7-2 DOTMnal Cho" ,, flowr. To 7n7*7'7*,aate Dorenti"m7 J2=127,Cb, 7-00-UIT,7*M" 77 '007714�7UTU76i2CD77Sj1011 CI-re77a77?C' 777TC) VIC' 7U?W 700aaWall'r. vt)r rervmmena Tna-., aeDr7r tLov,' d7`UC''SIC)rj IrOr 4.0 b- L..- wahw CXCnMenT walls o C- consrrucred To10 aMp..7-1 Tuzure ae 0 7'7 -Tro772 cxTena71? Cr 077TC) ,v7,,0z?0sSeo roaaways. SIS Plan Trig. S-ir,r.-- Plan does]an't SjanV, nMn raoeSU_j\7tj�SJOD 7 thx:-, =,-r. soil na:E vyaLl iaot::,,hov, ficowoI buil amr, slLr,- is na-L=u==,..s and wt art conct=td tha-i thr-To-Do=a-Dh-- thr- arr-a -ffir,-. ac=at KnuTs on R V ort Thae retort of KMUISOn Ttll'.-,S On a -IOO-L -Ltst pit-Lo ff valuat-, rounda-i.on concihi ons (T-� l o ed b)7 Careo sTrata j andtorrcred b)7 Kninson. N ow.thai Mr- E- son fi�td wiffi a5 foot-Lt,:%,st Pi"L -.-MUT. -Lo submit a lob of the ttst pit and there is no map -v\m-rr itsloca-ion..sho There is no a ysis of P-arthwork.on Lot 3 that�as b t= C0MDIM-PCI* D-OT L*I�mer.,2M debris floe =' d- oTmcussion of "9IoT con=cuoDo thr- soil rail v;L. o11C.9,r,a -C,r t o oaa C map of tj at-� S I-urft-,. b a S 0 ora osu-es maar r SUP-DI=,M, -L06:--Ad'07 ffX,1Dl0Ia"i10D 0 -th%_, pznonr td 0�. Muts on.. B ach.-rrroun d Table 3) r 11•CT 0 F PRO"qr\ ISIONTS OF COA SD 84 773 C 7* /DP89.3 3 C-01 n=ILA&(I �.a�pro-tslonS 0--F CA :` G. ars �. IDT%..&:> bunnro exc2-vabon for preparation prepaon of the ioundabon of n. Tab 1 t 7 haV4:Qt -E& -a resi M'enbal structures.b G'e-OlLeciubcal Ealivaur eer OT 'anoir ioT te cian supervised his a Greotec:lu Bai.,armeer shall bt, ou-tim f.th rff C omm"'Ls cluij present to supervhsot ary Joiuidaboi-L re,12Led UC2-vatjoii or C= laancl-1, P driRuir.Die GreotecrJub aal L.ngmeer sliaU dLc)L-IUIIeML Mid niakp-recommendations for any,lo-undatio-r, ties'cq,r*' D J�LA- FN ' aluau on D4,IS is.ed on actual soil couditioj . T G-La a' cl EmST M* -(I I O"D 0, LaDrj7' A. ri 'tali. ar, v, -tiar-aorI20I1�"i.al anc 77tranormdl prti*ousi- thp,-Lo-Dom-alDh7) otD as :-ulT, TI1 -T Tt-vit�-w o 'Do Toaar ars ncrL, aczirar,,i— "nowL on-thr- IMrjT0-V,=,, .=.-,n7L I.Ilamno: c, Tian"c7 E. I i o� ".rL I.C.lo Z�0 0=f n a ai i o L CED tV-'I O'D 0 aD m c)a.,, m a,E, c L-JaTr.,, var i T-O-r 'ri,-77aYi 10 -L- aTip" c)i)nr,--a-Drj-" irt na= L ..L OIL Toar;c LEE' 7D =IU L G' D IM I C I IDI i: af�ZranzL-. koao IT, irt"wor-r-m7,,r o,.*m-, r'-"'a-a o L, c,_ aS% Si a z a a 0-Ir.r, 7 v:!-rr.- r-T r-L Crr-\Am- fl- LLLa'- Lo T-Irn. SIO-C Tr, -Ar-tmo-- C 77- P VPI Oct 07 04 040* 16p Silverhawk & Compansd Inc, 415-381 -8099 p. 2 SK 1-2803 A a C�11 %J '"R %A I 57?.'0-0� C�A* LANC, CA 04' 2 9 6 H LA A E.*r 7 E 925.'2 8 lot 155 Z Apel 14,*2004 Silverhawk&Co.,Inc. Attn: Jeffrey Batt I Blackfield Dr.PMB 404 Tiburon,CA 94920 Re: King Estates—Tree 947 Dear Mr.Batt Atyour request,I have re-inspected t=#47,a 3T"firve oak ofig ly awessed as bell- g V*.a in fair condition. All atfierupts have been made to save Ws Um—drainage for the tree has been in-,dalled and. a reWning wall constructed to prevent the roots ftrn being excessively buried. It was necessary to xe mve a large limb to allow track access to lot Upon re-evaluation,fufther attempts to save this wee do not,in any opu*n^oti,appear to be jusf.fie& The tn=is in poor condition with a cavity. Rcmoval of a IMe limb has been necessary. A portion of the mots are buried. Fwther to plan aroma this t= may result m great financial cost with the end result that the trees viability wiH beconr nil in the RA=anyway. Accordingly,I am mmendiug removal of this tree, I know that you hive made every attempt to save this t=, but unfortunately,, I now believe that fi rther save it are not w 4. Fort y, you have maay other maWm trees an the property there. Please mH should you have any ques'tins. Sincerely, Jim MusseUs—VP Re e Tree Experts W.C.T-S.A arburist 403-2.4 F E 'FH Nr,,'-, t R 1 M M!K G RE-MOALLAND CLEAR I NG STUMP PPMOVAL s:'J0c1x3 8aJ1 aTqel* 10e dST :*C *0 LO 400 SILVERHAWK COMPANY,INC. REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT January 20,2005 !1!� l lS To: Christine Gregory, CCC Community Development Department From: Jeffrey Batt I � ' JAN � U2 0 2004lu Re: Tract 7267 Documentation/Plan Request AP.DLiCA::U; ,,LiVTER Dear Christine,, Attached please find documentation and plans that have been requested by the departments of Public Works(PVA,Building Inspection Department-(BID)and Community Development Department(CDD). Each of these departments, including the Grading Department are receiving identical packages with the exception of the Public Works Department in which I have left out the request from CDD in regards to items#2 and#3. I can forward on this information to PW but I did not believe they would be interested in the tree and scenic easement issues. : . :..: As you can see,I have included each of the departments request letters in the package.Also please notice that each of the documents/plans have been labeled. These labels are coded.to be applied with the various departments requests. For example,on the plan identified as Topographic Map,you will find the label identifying Public Works,BID#1 &#3 and CDD#A,,. By reading the request letter,and,following,there specific numbered item from these three department letters,,you find that all three would like to see this plan. In regards to the BID request for items#2 this will be done when the driveway construction is scheduled to be laid out. The request for BID#5, no changes to the approved plans are going to be made regarding the guardrails. The retaining walls that are shown on the plans on Oak Branch Way are under review by the firm of Hallenbeck/Allwest Associates. They will be presenting to me various solutions that could used as a replacement for the retaining walls that are shown on the plans that I will then pass on to the above mentioned departments, including Darwin Meyers,for their review and acceptance. Also included in the packages are documentations that I believed were relevant to the request letters. You will find a compliance letter from Drill Tech,the contractor that applied the retaining walls for lots 5 &6. A final signoff and report for Art Knutson,the soils engineer for this project,that pertains to the utility trench backfill,sub grade and base. The original road alignment had to be changed for the acceptance from EMBUD. You will find there request Letter and my documentation showing that an easement was recorded for this re-alignment. I am hopeful that the documents and plans that are being submitted will help clarify the outstanding issues that have been plaguing this subdivision for some time. I am sure that some further explanations will be required, but I truly believe we have a good start to finally see a close to the concerns that the county has regarding the subdivision improvements to King Estates. With this optimism in mind,I request once again that the planning department sees this 1 BLACKFIELD DRIVE PMB 404 TiBURON, CALIFORNIA 94920 (4.15) 381-4295 FAX (415) 381-8099 presentation in good faith and they release my plans for lot 5 to the BID's plan check desk for further review. In that their review would take a minimum of 4 to 6 weeks,I believe that any further explanations and documentation reviews can be met within that time frame. I will be submitting Lot 6 for building permits within the next week and would request the same treatment, if possible,for that lot as well. Thank you for this opportunity to clarify the issues presented above and I look forward to your comments,as well as the other departments comments, in the near future. Sincerely, Jeffrey Batt cc: CCC Public Works Department CCC Grading Department CCC Building Inspection Department Supervisor Gayle B.Uilkema --__ - Page 1 of 1 Subj: Geof. Batt Submittals/SD897367 Date: 2/1/2005 2:07:11 PM Pacific Standard Time From: dmyersassocepacbell.net To: csgj.oy.@.aol.com Earlier today I reviewed plans and brief notes with you. They were materials recently provided by Mr Batt in response to information requests by the County. The materials I reviewed are either incomplete, dated or inaccurate. Basically, they don't respond to our needs.There are many points that could be made, and I have limited time to address those items today. Perhaps a few examples would be useful to understanding the basis of my opinion. 1. Topography of the Site. A map was provided of the internal roads within the project. It claims to provideas- built topography, but it does not provide any information on the slope areas immediately above and below the road. As the peer review geologist, I am concerned about stability of the slopes along the road corridor, and slide areas and drainage ways adjacent to the road. The topographic map does not provide me with an overview of these aspects of the project. 2. Detailed Grading/ Improvement Plans. The detailed plans appear to present dated information in some areas. For example at the Oak Br. Rd intersection with the road to Lots 5& 6, east of the road is a steep, fill slope (sliver fill?), and southwest of this intersection was a depression that subsequently received fill. These two locales are sites of unauthorized grading that occurred during year 2004. They are not shown on the detailed topographic map. 3. Location of Road. The applicant acknowledges that the roads on the site have alignments that are not always within the easements shown on the recorded Final Map. It is my recollection that the applicant was directed by staff to accurately show the road and to provide ametes-and-bounds description. Without this information, it will not be possible to make the necessary revision to recorded documents, and it is not possible to determine setbacks without accurate plans. will attend the meeting on this project planned for Thursday. In today's mail I received a report of Hallenbeck- Allwest Associates on Lot 6. I will try to examine that report prior to our meeting. Wednesday, February 02, 2005 America Online: Cs9J0y D,4 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 0 ENGINEEERING U'-EDLD%r3%Y r�bruar�; 2 00 C riSUM. G7`aon. Prod Ccs Plan=T C onTxa Comm C ours, tlopmomn D,7, a=m,-, I o=umTv\) D.,a v,.. P' Flool. NN orth�1'im Street. C l/Iartin C A 94 5.0 Subject: Greolocric Revlevv Services Contract S D 7?6 r7 (K±i�, DTI*vt Sub dim sian.) / J ffm, Batt W alnul Crew.Art-.-.a. Conn Com C ounn IFMA Project:9 3 0 0 E.05 ' D j,>.a-r Chrisuinc. ou that 3_C (T CA 07 C)' a] lzsujmd a vothat -61ntd DUT-s-1L-ana"in(T Ly.- o o Lr L r%mu,-, issu•s 011 011=,D tT 11 21 0 C�4.1 WI--, W Mid Conctm.&s. In that.ICtteT wt idtiltii�td 071ci (%-.,On cc 7 wtTt, divided m-L c tiu t t'.broad C.altk r—TOT) • irnpT mi m mi Plans ni-ttt-d Gi-adimci of Slop• Gradim' Cl 3Z1 on i-7 01'01 Wl%,--,,issued tier Nov=beT I I ttL=i. we-,had a onc--oii-ont !-r wit" JCf�ri>v B ar. I also had tit1 C none AD p LTt0jC)(rjSj convt,,Tsaiion,,: \-viti) ms main Rob'Irt Wilson of HalicnbtCI-:jA11 wt.".r-,�,r7A.Ssomait...s (H/A-A-) Bastd on thMT rMiltvi OT Tn )E-tLt-j and ouT convt-rrs-noms.. that 1\4o...csy- Bar and VI-fisori unds,>-,-rs=d rm? concerns. and n vv as. Tn,,\,=-DT,.:,b Q.,sjon that conrnci�Ttd tnmi ica D- r.asonn ItJ\Ai E arL Inas aT-pdn- WOUId bt.CIIT>CLM(T MSC1\111 mirrin.2.1,=CT and m -Tinf �TM (-, ( Tmc JOMS 1c) adaTccc thosrissues. Dunm thm vast fr1T.` mon-CnIettcT-reporr..I Tt-m17tokd thTttsITorj . J-1 IMT�i V)0`0 C127 I LTL j i an d thr: r -nx>- DTOATh1 StCODO IttEf" UTO 6t nGto aarm ori L,m j L` 011 Th nA.S k- Damim ASSOCIalt-W&E.1M,-..20()' C-Tcooiocyl%.P".-Nix. ',.QMT)nan.. .%..0 J ---3 6)7, 1 D P a-\A/i L in, 'Via"nuj r %..0 o u nT 0 I...omDan on-il 2 om DI D 30C,- Smot 13 A 0 77 M77C D I lUaLI07-.�,O' 7 7? X12-11=: "(W al'.,jD' C7*777 C010 rM OSLO OVII "301"-00(onto 071 D*0 'alil' #C, 13- 07111C M;.F - C): rl a I,.-,io"D m-t.L Ansm- 2 0 0,.%- (�TeOICCMICCZI W10 Z?7(-r77IeC7*II?Cy'-TeOI0F7' L-)C7 L�C j # C D7-IVC S L D 14C, TVoillut 07117'0 0710 OWIrl', '.,1212707-711C. I x.117L L3UDCZIVZS2O7-#.K117cr7 Fljli-� 0, #G-�-0j 3 OG -L 0 W,st 6 D 0.-.f.-P.,.M*D,.. r)0(14 T IC)97'- '"CCITID217rl' V L21 U 12 1107',J-,0 T L L,11V"LP-71)-r- 1 a �-.nb r,i J.kJ Iv 6s I S S C,.-.,l a i t 2>UJ %"-"0YIP71IeE7'?7If7'-Teo, i cau.:janur— r it L177 rl..7147Lal 111 —07117'(-' �07LC ...01. IV,, L217707-7114-- 10 D J Pa�� .71. l er proM dcd data on Lot 40'. 1 TE1.71ma..d and an-Droved the rep ort on Lo--L, .,tni= on Lo-L 4.i 1 has b,=T5Tt1-rm6.-Od TO J Oj.=,, Romo. Grath u- imp actor: and the acoloTv ImtT on Lo L 4 0 11--i-Si C=. Vtd- Evaluation and Findings l. Cimcral * p in my Chscussiodiscussions vqth)\/Li. Ea-tL his chieff concernwas thai tht. Coun-n, contmuc, and ror-assis builaing,plains. I followed th:r-ouah'b�?rnrltv; of tht. Lot:1Y.5 HJkk but aft.=-b.Tn,,->.a r)N-trirt..t.11=6months I havenoi rt-c..CLj -.d th%-. IMOIII Oil ftiai I rE.,au=...s-LeaL wn1ch Includes aii a-c-Erracit.-d maT-) shmm' -o, thp,.- t-,va'sunr, -LopozraT.)hz, along Oal'. Branch Vs a�-. and adiacmi aTr---,a Loi *4 anted W/At r �TSjr of Slop Sraolllrr,rg,,r*oMnItMnaLlonrI oultain-f, ".)L > anal L I %.A-4 IUTovcmml Pians M 'i ID Wm cr, Ili m ` mi m 'T 11 0()4 1 CtLEl. amachpd. I indimttd the Lri-aamll for 7LI-I roaas is ncr, consisimi vrith the I.mpTOV=ent Plans or with the approved r►co-LechnicaI rT,, oTtfor tress subcilVision. Tnat j-,7, ori rtco=imidstd ust. of 1A (H-V) arrammTs. for cu-L and fill slopa...s. with the PTOvision than in loxcexptima,11�7 competent TDCI',.- CUI SlOphPaS. could be cut at I Tie appl'canld*Ca:-ttd that h..- would provide accura-LpI.,-Lopoaraph)7 foT Oah Branch W a�. incluo'm_rl the, graded slop os and Loi 46 bast- map forH/A-k -Lo t�vadua-Lr, s"%-Is}op; i.oDo-in aphv Thai detailed toporr-m-nn was 'Lo as th f J sLabinlv and pTOVIO t.TpCO=MCaIIOnS TO aICIUMtI oiii -ttrstab1 . oTthr-. road prism-) as-id adiacCM1 lot� _1 l7Tr.i.QII1�T .f ..ZT�l,.Zfi was noi guiltTh.t.applicantsecured a frraam,(T vcmmt tormj=mt thp ITn1)TOVM=mI Rams. Th.-.roELd m accordanctil thOS- m,am FO-nIOT-team mica w-arrtnt Oumra" Tqutsito a,,z--=ad"LO d man", showmLl th,-. non z...omal and v.,711Cal all=ffnI of O ah BranC-1 tand a`m!5,Wa"KIs) ftavt, no-, iTom nt aDp L st o app*rr,--,c j11 d Sausi-ac..iory plansI J h am I- is m th-r-, ua-Lr,-rx%W3 T 112"all7LO SUDMrL IDOS- DIan a]mLwith r-Qun-- Tc) in oGinthe fuzal maT) zor )utmnli3ion D tna7tn- .r.,,ardivio-ri.- (and tvtm til Toad, bed IoCaIJ'* MICTOZLCM'S, MIC) t, and t'n- Mac ahmav hails- s *fLpd t' , lomion Oj sonildrsite:.. TOSUILin L� m t* joss of aa' ' nionaj trees o-j r..,artnwo-rh t=,- n oT, S.novm ori ap-QTO-VVc..-.10 wan. Tin auth mr-a z to d (131-aaim (Trlar Err D---tn,.- OUIaT vt :,vt C ommum i on tim aut h o-r 1 6 ar a m" n r, TheLaffin 1alih�cri hz'terDTc�.ed Tn,-C� 93" oa.,--, -..onsiram�, oTj tnt. a-D-DToa.,--.rj 'Lct a-Ttii*v\,oTi*- 110 mi im p-iT= ri v�aTna.7,- v,,7,,m c,-::mate iToTi7,intDU-11=-r- SlIt"7 OE --.o-. TC �:.1T3�' S 1i��" T 11?.: 8.�7,#7 Vj i ) L)aM'IL J iD,-.-200"4 OCM)ICC47 07117*0 Lf; onmijancc,j-,o.' A-) 0 C LS,i ?1'17a1411.- ,0777-Da77.1.Jll--., 1+4217711 t 7-eei'--Arec ....onrro .ounn: 3 1 0 7 ('a a, C' Lit C C."M 0 1 L,.2 0 C)4 4 0- C; L 11?ry J-17-71)-r 17)CIOV77IC71: �071TYC ,,vc., aLL in 1.P0.L-* j771)CS17vavor. (oai j 01 jA.PVI 77- Paz.. UT.11m, �ra...ainaT.TPmch war, not shoe011appTovx,-md ian and -thr-- c3-arthwOlk TP...suhEd M* within, thr- p 0 onlDhIlto Of 13170'L.O.,=d 12-5.0.S, -PI-MriOUS)N 7 Coayffiworh.not aTpp-ro-v.=..d b�,.'th.=A.. Countervvas� also perl'=.d a-L th..,Mtersec�ion of the a"hveways to Lou -6 vAth Oal-,. Branch vii ay. C%iolations 7m.- allcantOn-Lmupde�Telopmm,, DOD processvAritilout pphas c 6-Od -Lo mmitt thTou-cTh thxEI, land t/conn-ruC. I)TOArImm, acie.,quaut.pians an troubled by the lacy Of detailed Top o g.TaTzDh--\-. the lack_ of Crp-010-m,c anahisis thatis Deeded suppor Itht.. desi � ofDal-, Branch Wa- m(and aac=T O=-nulirun-T unau-thol'crhaps on'I'T,.l TDT-lon rtma=-iv T..-S1C1=C%A.vS) and the-Qa=-rn of rizoo aracimo tnU aazajr PT01-Lc) Coumy is to shui C'Iov7n tht.,PT01P.C1 unTil-dus xtoss a] 7'dpd, "V, TTUSI trus Ifftlt uon and comments than ou T 'v ,.c.,q u r..�.sT.x.xd. Plcas� call if vou hay. TOMdes s,th tvalua any quesuozls. Sinc,0,T6ar DARWIN NnrEP\-S .kS S D CLATES _ - �' .sem'�tt � "� , t /,' 1.,C � 1� �. - "' — Darwin Mjvc SA. CEG 94'-' rm cru a] CCDra1L�. '. Bob al Planner -4,. - Ci a7) Fan*a. Buil dine,In.sp e otl on D cp anm cni 1�.e��u� 1\A='ord_ BIL} 1, 1 m Emi(Th. PVT Ma1--\- Rost 30M.'-()5jLr.vm6' C entral Contra Costa unitary District *=Li U11115=1re".4ro logo IME FAX: (92-5)229-4624 CHARLES N'.BAITS General Manager February 10, 2005 KENTON L.ALM Counsel dor the Disrnct (SI0)808-1006 JOYCE E.MURPHY MC. Jeffrey Batt Secremrvofthe Disrriu Silverhawk and Company, Inc. One Blackfield Drive, PMB 404 Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. Batt: PUNCH LIST FOR CCCSD; KING DRIVE (CCCSD GRID LOCATION: 72E5); JOB N0. 5399 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) has noted that building has begun on single-family homes along King Drive and Oak Branch Way in Walnut Creek. In addition, CCCSD has received an inquiry regarding the release of the sewer construction project security that is being held by CCCSD until satisfactory co mpiefion of the project. The project security cannot be released and CCCSD will not allow any connections to the sanitary sewer until the project has been completed, passed final inspection, and been accepted by CCCSD. Below is a punch fist of items that must be completed before CCCSD will accept the sewer main for CCCSD Project No. 5399. • Submit compaction test results for the entire job with a certification letter wet-stamped by the engineer in responsible charge of the compaction testing stating that bedding and backfill of all sanitary sewer trenches on the job meet or exceed the applicable requirements of CCCSD"s Standard Specifications for Design and Construction. • if compaction tests have not been done, concrete pavement shall brE.1 removed from over the sewer trench, compaction tests shall be performed, and the road shall be... repaired to Contra Costa County specifications. • Successfully complete air testing, cleaning, and television inspection of all mains and laterals. 1.�:\HaminlFonnv:�3�G-Nana Dr Punch L1st.D0 r r Mr. Jeffrey Batt Silverhawk and Company, inc. Page 2 ._v February 10, 20Q5 Ph • Properly abandon the existing laterals installed for Lots 1 and.2, _si.nce the laterals cannot be used due to the road and sewer being built as much;as I&-te.et higher than originally designed. • Pay the $305 "inspection of Unpermitted Work" fee for the installation of new laterals for Lots 1 and 2 through Lot 2, which was done without a perm it, in addition to regular inspection and application fees for the installation of these Laterals. • After obtaining a CCCSD permit, connect the new laterals for Lots 1 and 2 to the main sewer between IVIH3 and MH4 with mechanical taps installed by a CCCSD-approve,r-! tanping c�ntract�r. Removal a^,d replace me^t of a p o rt;g or of the roadway will be required to accomplish this task. A "Private Sanitary Sewer Easement" for the Lateral from Lot 1 that ruri s through Lot 2, in a form acceptable to CCCSD, must be prepared, executed, and recorded prior to CCCSD's issuance of a connection permit for the home on Lot 1. If both lots are currently owned by the same party, an "Irrevocable Declaration of Intent to Grant a Private Sanitary Sewer Easement," in a form acceptable to CCCSD, must be prepared, executed, and recorded prior to CCCSD's issuance of the connection permit. if you have any questions, please call me at 925-229-7376 (office) or 925-766-2433 (cell). 0 Paul Kelly Collection System InsprE.11.ction SUpiprViSor MJP:cb cc: Mr. Lewis E. Cook, Jr. Morgan Capital Investment Properties 3 Harbor Drive, Suite 303 Sausalito, CA 9490'"'%5 Ms. Christine. Gregory Contra Costa.Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 U:\Aamin\Penny',�39�-King Gr Punch List.DO� Page 1 of 1 Subj: King Drive grading permit compliance(Oak Branch Way, road grading only Date: 2/10/2005 12:21:04 PIVI Pacific Standard Time From: afariebi.cccounty.us To: Q.5�gjPy@jP0.l....00.m CC: kumf@_bi.cccounty.us Christine, the current topographic plan submitted does not provide specific"as-built" grading contours in relation to the slopes either up slope or down slope. It only provides for vertical and horizontal alignment of the road within the right of way.Any questions please contact me at(925) 335-1123 Gary Faria Monday, February 14, 2005 America Online: Csgjoy PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE. February 16, 2005 TOM Christine Gregory, Community Development FROM: Kevin Emigh, Engineering Services SUB7ECT: King Drive Subdivision FILE: SD 7267 In December 2004 our office requested as-built surveys of Oak Branch Way, both horizontally and vertically, to assess its compliance with the current approved plan, dated April 10, 2000. We have received and reviewed the surveys and have determined that the roadway has shifted significantly in alignment, both vertically and horizontally, Per Section 96-2,406, '"Review of revisions," of Title 9 and General Note 5 of the approved plans, revised plans, stamped and signed by the applicant's registered civil engineer, must be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to implementing any design changes. In this case the design changes are coming after the fact so the burden is on the developer to prove that the changes have not jeopardized any other components of the approved plan. The as-built survey shows that the horizontal alignment of Oak Branch Way has moved outside the designated right-of-way shown on the final map. In order to rectify this, the Final Map must be amended by either a revised final map, or a certificate of correction. At the same time, the driveway easement for Lots 5 &6, across the scenic easement must be addressed by a similar instrument, Minus some kind of recorded deed restriction, occupancy should be held and transfer of ownership should not be allowed on any of the affected lots. Per General Note 11 of the approved plans, a building permit must be obtained for construction of the retaining walls along Oak Branch Way, as shown on the approved pians. I understand these improvements are under consideration and awaiting further geotechnical study and review.. If there are modifications to the walls, those modifications must also be handled through submission of revised plans by the applicant's engineer, and geotechnical studies to support the modifications prior to being checked by the Building Inspection Department, Until this issue is resolved, no occupancy should be granted to any lots serviced by the road. Community Contra Dennis M.Barry,AICP Development Community Development Director Department Costa County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 ,; 1 Phone: (925) 335-1214 co March 29, 2.005 Certirzed Mail By Mail & hj7 FAX Jeffrey Batt King Estates LP PMB 404 Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. Batt: Re: NOTICE OF INTENTION to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law, and NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS of Tree Protection Ordinance King Estates Subdivision, SUB 7267, Lots 1 through 6 (APN 238-040-U11 through —016) Walnut Creek/Saranap area (Government Code § 66499.36; & C.C.C. Ord. C. §§92-12.408, and 816-6.6002) On June 191, 2001, the Board of Supervisors granted an amendment to the Final Development Plan, County File#DP893003, and to a Tentative Map Approval, Subdivision 7267, subject to conditions, for asix-lot subdivision on a forested, hillside property for which a final subdivision map had been recorded in 2000. That approval was based in part on: • An amended Tentative Map site and road grading plan; and • A report from the geotechnical firm, Geostrata that recommended that project improvements meet certain design standards. Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - S:OU p.m. Office is closed the I st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Laws, and Violations of Tree Protection Ordinance King Estates Subdivision SUB 7267 1 The Building Inspection Department issued a grading permit on grading plans and the Public Works Department approved road improvement plans for the hillside road, Oak Branch Way, that would serve this project that are consistent with the revised Tentative Map Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19, 2001. Substantial grading, road, and utility improvements have commenced. In response to a request by the County to provide documentation on site topographic and improvement as-built conditions, you have recently provided staff with information on conditions on a portion of the site. Violations of Subdivision and Tree Permit, and Tree Protection Ordinance Staff has reviewed existing site conditions and the documentation that you have provided for compliance with applicable subdivision and tree permit, and with the requirements of the Tree Protection Ordinance. Based on that review, the project violates a number of I i provisions of the Subdivision Permit and the Tree Protection Ordinance. The violations are presented in Exhibit A. However, among the major project violations are the following: A. Incorrect Horizontal and Vertical Road Alignments - The approved improvement plan requires the road on the property to be constructed at specified alignments. The road (Oak Branch Way) has been constructed at the incorrect horizontal and vertical alignments. Portions of the road have been constructed 10 feet above the grade indicated on the plan and outside of the right-of-way specified on the plan. B MissinpUpslope Road Retaining Wall - The approved grading plarequires a retaining wall that is approximately 540 feet longand 1 0 feet high along the slope above Oak Branch Way. No retaining wall along this slope has been built. C. Incorrect Down Slope Retaining Wall Design - The approved grading plan requires a down slope retaining wall that is approximately 60 feet long and five feet high, to be located at the end of the cul-de-sac. A retaining wall that is 10 feet tall has been built. D Incorrect Upslope Retaining Wall Design for Road Serving Lots 5 & 6 - The approved grading plan requires a single upslope retaining wall that is approximately eight feet tall, to be located alone�the spur road serving %WW Lots 5 and 6. Two parallel retaining walls have been built. E. Field Conditions Appreciably V from Design Criteria of App oved Soils Report-The soils report for the above-referenced subdivision' ' November 25., 1999 Geotechnical investigation Report by GeostTata. Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Laws, and Violations of Tree Protection Ordinance King Estates Subdivision SUB 7267 approved by the County requires various design standards includiii.g: 1. Cut slope gradients along Oak Branch Way at a maximum 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) gradient, or with a 1.5:1 gradient allowabl e where competent bedrock is exposed. The slopes cut along Oak Branch Way are at steeper gradients than recommended by the soils report. Portions of these slopes are at gradients of 0.5:1.2 2. Drainage berms or interceptor ditches should be provided at the top of all cut or fill slopes, and drain to appropriate discharge facilities. In no case should water be allowed to flow over the top of cut or fill slopes. No drainage berms or interceptor ditches have been built at the top of the slope above Oak Branch Way. Water is able to flow over the cut slope. We are attaching correspondence on this project from the County Planning Geologist dating back to February 26, 2002. Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law Based on the cited violations referenced in this notice, staff has determined that continued development of this subdivision is contrary to the public health and safety(Government Code § 66499.34). Moreover, whenever the County has knowledge that real property has been divided in violation of the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act or Subdivision Ordinance, the County is required to notify the current owner(s) of record of the properties a Notice of Intention to record a Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws. (Government Code § 66499.36 and CCC Ord. Code § 92.1.020.404) Therefore, this is to serve notice of the County intention to record Notices of violation against the deeds to all six lots of this subdivision. Potential Cures for Violations of Subdivision Laws The cited violations maybe cured by one of the following two methods: 1. Submit a written proposal satisfactory to the County Building Official in 'October 15,2002 letter from Arthur T.Knutson, Geotechnical Engineer,based on a 10/1/2001 visual survey. Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Laws, and Violations of Tree Protection Ordinance King Estates Subdivision SUB 7267 the Building Inspection Department and the Zoning Administrator in the Community Development Department for abating all conditions not in compliance with the existing,sting approved plans and permits and brining the property into compliance approved plans and permits.iance with the existing The written proposal must include a schedule for abatement and compliance. 2. Apply for and obtain a modified development permit from the Community q a,0 Development Department that reflects the existing conditions on the property. Should you wish to pursue the latter method of cun*nc-,r the violations, you should be aware that: (A) Public Hearing Required - If you were to try to cure the violations by application for an amendment to the Final Development Plan and Tentative Map to allow the road improvements to remain in their approximate existing condition, this department would view the application as a substantial modification to the existing development permit and require a public hearing pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 84-66.1804; (B) Late Filing Surcharge - Pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 26-?.?806, any such application would be subject to a nonrefundable, 50%, late filing surcharge; (C) Initial Hearing Before the County Planning Commission - The P-1 Ordinance provides that the Zoning Administrator hear approved final development plan applications for modification. However, the Zoning Administrator would intend to refer such an application to the County Planning Commission for hearing, Consideration, and 'initial decision, pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 26-2.1206; (D) New Application Reviewed for Compliance with CE() -Prior to any approval action, the project would be required to comply as necessary with the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); if staff determined that the proposed modifications might result in one or more significant environmental impacts, then the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, and determination by the Planning Agency that said report is adequate maybe required,prior to an)) approval; and (E) New Application Should Be Accompanied by a Survey of As-Built Site Conditions, and Updated Geotechnical Report that will be Subiect to 4 Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Laws, and Violations of Tree Protection Ordinance King Estates Subdivision SUB 7267 Independent Peer Review—As part of the CEQA review for the project, staff will seek 1. A current as-built topographic and improvement survey of the entire propero�,-providing the information described in Condition#5 of Amended Subdivision Permit File #SD897267; and that has been wet-stamped by a civil engineer or surveyor; and 2. An updated report on the project by a geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist that would be subject to peer review by the County Planning Geologist. The updated report should include an ori ginal geologic map of the property, using the map required in Item#1 above as the base. The Original Geologic Map should show the details of observed features and conditions and not be generalized or diagrammatic. The geotechnical report should document that the earthwork was done in accordance with the geotechnical report and approved plans. Any deviations from those plans should be explained and the outlook for long-term stability of graded slopes and other improvements assessed. In particular, staff will expect evaluation of the stability of thegraded slopes along Oak Branch Way and their significance to the potential building site on Lot#4. Based on the analysis, recommendations should be provided to assure satisfactory performance of this cut slope under a range of conditions including earthquakeground shaking, using appropriate seismic coefficients and methodology. Non applicability of Two Provisions of the Map Act We recognize that the Subdivision Map Act has two provisions that where certain conditions are met, allow that qualifying parcels are presumed to have been legally created even though the parcels were created contrary to subdivision regulations (Government Code § 66412.6). However,, those provisions only apply to parcels created prior to March 4, 1972, or at a time when no subdivision ordinance was in effect. All of the lots within this subdivision were created (final map recorded) in 2000, and the County Subdivision Ordinance was in effect at that time. Therefore,neither of those provisions of the law applies, and the lots within this subdivision cannot be presumed to have been lawfully created in compliance with subdivision law. Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Laws, and Violations of Tree Protection Ordinance King Estates Subdivision SUB 7267 Opportunity for Hearing to Present Evidence on Why Notices of Violation Should Not be Recorded As the owner of the subject properties, you will be provided an opportunity to present evidence to the County Planning Commission as to why the proposed notices should not be recorded. The hearing before the Planniner Commission is scheduled as follows: County Planning Commission Hearing County Administration Building, Room 107 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA Tuesday, May 10, 2005 —7:00 p.m. If within 1.5 days of the receipt of this notice,youfail to inform the Community Development Department in writing of your objection to recording the notices of violation, the County Planning Commission is.authorized to direct staff to record notices of violation pursuant to Section 66499.36 of the Government Code. If, after you have presented evidence, it is determined that there has been no violation, the County Planning Commission is authorized to direct staff to mail a clearance letter to the then current owners of record. If, however, after you have presented evidence, the Planning Commission determines that the property has in fact violated subdivision laws, the Planning Commission is authorized to record the Notices of Violation with the County Recorder. The Notices of Violation, when recorded, shall be deemed to be constructive notice of the violation to all successors in interest in such properties. Further, after the Notices have been recorded, and the owner(s) provide satisfactory evidence of compliance with the Subdivision Permit, then staff will cause the recording of notices of compliance with subdivision law as appropriate. Ordinance Restriction Prohibiting Issuance of Permits on Property Divided in Violation of Subdivision Law State law and the County Ordinance prohibits the County from issuing any permit or license for any purpose in conflict with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act when development is found to be contrary to the public health or safety. Based on the above findings, the County is barred from issuing any permits on this site until satisfactory evidence is submitted to this department that the cited subdivision permit violations have 6 Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision LaH)s, and Violations of Tree Protection Ordinance King Estates Subdivision SUB 7267 been cured by one of the methods described above. (Government Code § 66499.3_>4 and CCC Ord. Code § 94-12-412) Violations of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance As you are aware, the subdivision is a forested property. Ordinance Code Section 816- 6.6002 prohibits trenching, grading or filling within the dripline of any protected tree or to cut down or remove any protected tree on private property without a tree permit. Further, the ordinance defines "protected trees" as including (a) Any tree measuring twenty inches or larger in circumference (approximately b /2 inches in diameter), and any multi-stemmed tree with the sum of the circumferences measuring forty inches or larger,measured 4 '/:! feet from the ground level on any undeveloped property within any district; and (b) Any tree shown to be preserved on an approved tentative map, development or site plan or required to be retained as a condition of approval. (CCC Ord. C. § 816-6.6004) The County has granted several entitlements that allow for specific removals and grading alterations that are associated with subdivision improvements to specified code protected trees, subject to conditions: A. 6/21/2001 Board of Supervisors Approval of the Amendment to the Fina] Development Plan and Tentative Map (File#DP893003 and#SD897267j. B. 5/5/2002 Tree Pen-nit File#TPO10011 C. 9/24/2002.. Board of Supervisors Approval of Tree Permit File#TP020008. Those entitlement actions required that the developer take certain actions to safeguard trees that were to be preserved, 'Including erection of temporary fencing barriers to remain in place for the duration of construction activity vity (COA #3 of File #TP020008). However, those entitlements do not authorize the removal or alteration of any other code-protected tree. The following tree impacts have occurred without County authorization: • One 33-inch code-protected Live Oak tree(Tree#47 on Lot 1) which was expressly required to be preserved by the most recent tree permit (COA#10 of Tree Permit#TP02-0008) has been removed; • Two sewer trenches extending from King Drive across Lot I and across Lots 4/5 have been cut within the driplines of several mature trees that qualify as protected as defined by the Tree Protection Ordinance trees; 7 Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Laws, and Violations of Tree Protection Ordinance King Estates Subdivision SUB 7267 • A raised utility box graded fill bench supported by retaining walls has been built on Lot 1 near the intersection of King Drive and Oak Branch Way within the driplines of several code protected trees 3; Attached is Exhibit B that depicts the location of the unauthorized tree impacts on Lot 1 Also, when staff inspected the site, staff found incomplete temporary fencing in place around the trees to be preserved. The Department has determined that these impacts to trees, and the failure to provide fencing around code-protected trees in the vicinity of the construction operation constitute violations of the Tree Protection Ordinance. You may attempt to cure these violations by obtaining from the County either: 0 An amendment to the existing tree permit; or 0 An amendment to the Final Development Plan/Tentative Map; and compliance with the terms of the permit and ordinance code. Developer is Responsible for Staff Compliance Review Costs Please note that the adopted Fee Schedule of the County provides that the developer is responsible for payment of fees to the County to cover all staff time and material costs for purposes of determining compliance with a development permit. The staff costs that are subject to fee recovery include the staff costs of investigation and processing the reported code violations. You may obtain a current accounting of staff costs in the review of this matter by contacting the project planner, Christine Gregory, at (925) 335-1236, Ext. #l. Please also note that until applicable project fees for this project have been paid in full, staff will withhold clearance of any further ministerial (including o^ading or building) permits fo7-this project. Opportunity to Meet with County Staff Prior to County Planning Commission Hearing Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, Community Development and Building Z) Inspection Department staff will be available to discuss this matter with you at the following date, time and place. 3 The fill bench is also located within a"scenic easement'l(portion of the site where the development rights have been grant deeded to the County). Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Laws, and Violations of Tree Protection Ordinance King Estates Subdivision SUB 7267 Monday, Apri14, 2005—10:30 a.m. Community Development Department Contra Costa County County Administration Building, North Wing, Fourth Floor Conference Room 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA We are faxing this document to you, and intend to follow-up with a phone call to verifyC> that you have received it. We also wish to find out if you intend to meet with staff at the above date, time and place, I request that you contact me at (9.2.5) 335-1214, or my secretary, Karen Piona at (925) 3 3 5-1211 by 5:00 p.m., Thursday, March 31, 2005 to confirm your intent to attend this meeting. Sincerely, ROBERT H. DRAKE Principal Planner Att. Exhibit A— Summary of Violations of Development Permit Conditions Identified by the Community Development Dept. Exhibit B — Site Plan of Lot I Depicting Locations of Unauthorized Impacts to Code-Protected Trees Correspondence from the County Planning Geologist Consultant 11/26/2002 11/11/2004 2/09/2005 cc: Members,Board of Supervisors Districts 1, 11)1115 IV, V. Clerk of the Board County Counsel Building Inspection Department Carlos Baltodano Kevin Durnford Gary Faria Joseph Romo 9 Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Laws, and Violations of Tree Protection Ordinance King Estates Subdivision SUB 7267 Community Development Department Dennis Barry Catherine Kutsuris Louise Aiello Christine Gregory Darwin Myers Karen Piona Debbie Sittser Public Works Department Heather Ballenger Brian Balbas Mike Carlson Kevin Erm'gh Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Richard Carpenter,Fire Marshall Rick Ryan Morgan Capital Investment Corporation David J.Bowie,Bowie&Bruegmann,LLP File \\fs-cd\tisers$\bdrake\Personal\Notice of Violation of SUB laws King Estates.1tr.doc RD\ Building inspection Contra Carlos Baltodano Department Costa Director of Building inspection County Administration Building County 657 Pine Street, 3rd Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-1285 R E (925) 646-4108 .�M.•"' FAX (925) 646-1219 ';:'": . ,• (92 5) 335-1100 en March .2.9,2005 Certified Mail B},Mail Sy by FAX Jeffrey Batt PMB 404 Tiburon, CA 94902-.0 Dear Mr. Batt: Re: NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF GRADING PERMIT Kiiicr.Esiates Subdivision, Subdivision 72).67 Grad*n(y Pern t 4'1')0'8 Walnut Creek/Saranap area (APN2-138-040-01 11 -Ul'', -013, -014, -U15, d: -016) (C.C.C. Ord. Code § 716-4.1430) This is to inform you that Grading Permit No. 311.2.1058 is suspended, effective immediately. You must cease all work under the permit and are prohibited from continuin�7 unci] you receive written permission to proceed from the County Building Official. The «radino permit requires you to compl�, with the subdivision's improvement p Ian. grading plan, soils report, and subdivision peer-11 it. (See also Ordinance Code section 94- 4.420, which provides that the recommended actions and procedures in the soils report prepared for a subdivision are a condition of approval of the subdivision.) Ordinance Code section 716-4.1430 authorizes the CountyBuildin,T Official to suspend a cuadin� permit if the conditions at the site vans appreciably from those shown and stated in the application and development plans. or if�-adin�� or construction dot..)Sl) not conform to the approved plans. «rades, or other conditions of the permit. The following conditions at the above-referenced property are in violation of the approved plans and permits: Nonce of Suspensimi of Gradin g Permit Icing Estates Sitzhdivision Grading Permit #312058 A. Incorrect Horizontal and Vertical Road Alignments - The approved improvement plan requires the road on the property to be constructed at specified alignments. The road (Oak Branch Way) has been constructed at the incorrect horizontal and vertical alignments. Portions of the ro ad have been constructed 10 feet above the Grade indicated on the plan and outside of the right-of-way specified on the plan. B. Missin-c.,r-Upslope Road Retaining Wall - The approved grading plan requires a retaining wall that is approximately 5)40 feet long and 10 feet h12r,h along the slope above Oak- Branch Way. No retaining wall along this slope has been built. C. Incorrect Down Sloe Retain'In(T Wal] Design - The approved oradin,T plan requires a down slope retaining wall that is approximately 60 feet long and five feet high, to be located at the end of the cu]-de-sac. A retaining wall that is 10 feet tall has been built. D. Incorrect U-PsIg2e: Retaining Wall Design for Road Serving Lots 5 Lr 6 - The approved grading planTequires a single upslope retaininc, wal 1 that is approximately eight feet tall, to be located along the spur road serving Lots > and 6. Two parallel retaining walls have been built. E. Field Conditions,Appi-cclablv Vary from Design Criteria of Approved Soils Report - The soils report for the above-referenced subdivision approved by the Count), requires various desigm standards includin`r: 1. Cut slope gradients along Oak Branch Way at a maximum 2.-1 (horizontal:vert]cal) gradi ent, or with a 1.5.:I ��-adi ent al I owab I e wh ere competent bedrock is exposed. The slopes cut along Oak Branch Way are at steeper «radients than recommended by the soils report. Portions of these slopes are at crradi ents of 0.5 �. Drainage berms or interceptor ditches should bepTOVided at the top of all cut or fill slopes. and drain to appropriate discharc.-TeUfaciliti es. In no case should water be allowed to flow over the top of cut or f-111 slopes. No drainage,berms or interceptor ditches have. been built at th e top of the slope above Oak Branch Way. WatiEfIr is able tc) flovv- over- the cut slop. � November�'5. 1999 Geotechnical Investigation Report hv Geostrata. October If.20U2 letter from Arthur T. Knutson, Geotechnical Engineer.based on a 10/1 UU l visual survey•. Notice of Suspension of Gradirzg Permit King Estates Sithdivision Grading Permit #312058 F. Removal of Code-Protected Tree without County Authorization—Tree#47 on Lot I consisted of a Live Oak tree with a trunk diameter of approximately 33- inches (approximately 105-inches in circumference). Condition#3:� of the 6/.?,,.1/.'.?.,001 amended development permit and Condition#10 of Tree Permit #TP020008 required the retention of this tree. The Ordinance Code defines any tree that a development permit requires to be retained as protected under the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance (Ord. Code § 816-6.004). The Ordinance Code prohibits the removal Of any protected tree or to cut down or remove any protected tree on private property without a tree permit (Ord. Code § 8l 6-6.002) Tree No. 470DLot I was removed without a tree permit Or Other authorization from the County in violation of the, Ordinance Code. This suspension remains in effect until you receive written permission to proceed from the County Building Official. You will receive written permission to proceed only if you do either of the following: I Submit a written proposal satisfactory to the County Building Official for abatincr all conditions not in compliance with the existincrapproved plans A and permits and bringing the property into compliance with the existincr Z) approved plans and permits. The written proposal must include a schedule for abatement and compliance. 2. fied development permit from the CommunityApply for and obtain a modi Development Department that reflects the existing conditions on the property. Survey of As-Built Conditions - Pnor to reinstatement of the grading permit, an as-built survey of the entire site that has been wet-stamped by a geotechnical engineer, shall be submitted to this department that depicts the following: all keyways supportincT the,modified retaininZ)cr walls and aco-gri'd locationsnsroadway, slope grades of the roadway1 for Kinr-TDTI've/Oak Branch Way. The survey shall show the removal of Oak Trec#47 on Lot 1, along with the retaininc, wall that was either removed or buried. This removal or backfilling occurred on the south side of the driveway at the intersection of Oak- Branch Way and Lot 1. Once all of the violations have been reviewed and cured, and we have received evidence, of compliance with the ordinancr:,, code and with all applicable permits, the suspension of the aradin j permit will be lifted. Notice of Suspension. of Grading Permit King Estates Suhdivision Grading Permit #312058 Opportunity to Appeal Decision to Suspend Grading Permit Pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 14-4.004, you may file a written notice of appeal of this addecision to suspend the grading permit within 30 days (by Friday, Apri122, 2005). The notice of appeal must concisely state the facts of the case and the grounds for your appeal, including your special interest and injury. To be valid, your siverify that the appeal is true and correct, and a anatura....under penalty of perjury must V,.,.2.,,n $1?5 fee must accompany it. The notice shall be delivered to the Clerk of the Board, County Administration Building, Room 106, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, CA 945 S 3) If such a notice of appeal is timely filed, it will be scheduled for hearing before the Board of Supervisors. Sincerely, CARLOS BALTODANO Building Inspection Director and County Building Official Att. Correspondence from the County Planning Geologist consultant Reviewing Project Inconsistencies with Required Project Soil Stabilization Measures 11/26/2-000.2 I I/I 1 0(>4 2/09/2005 10-0 .0.0 cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Districts L,1111 HL TV) V. Clerk of the Board County Counsel BuildingInspection Department Kevin Durnford Gary Faria Joseph Romo Community Development Department Dennis Barry Catherine KutsurH Bob Drake Christine Gregory 4- - Darwin Myers Notice of Suspenson of Graditz�Permit ;gin cr:Estates SLtbdivision 18-1 Grading Permit x#312058 Public Works Department Heather Ballenger Brian Balbas Mike Carlson Kevin Erm*orh C Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Richard Carpenter,Fire Marshall Rick Rvan 91 Central Sanitary District Paul Kelly W R Forde Associates Morgan Capital Investment Corporation David J.Bowie,Bowie&- Bruec-r-mann,LLP File \\fs-cd\users$\bdTake\Personal\notice of suspension of szrading pe=-t Kin,Estates.Itr.doc RD\ f BOWIE &BRUEGMANN,LLP Attorneys at Law 0 ��j ��; 57 2."255 CONTRA COSTA BLVD.,SUITE 3O5 PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523 . DAVID J.BOWIE Telephone (925) 939-5300 WILLIAM J.BRUEGMANN Facsimile (925) 609-9670 Dave@bblandlawxom Bill@bblandlawxonn Via Fax 925 335-1222 March 31, 2005 Robert H. Drake, Principal Planner Community Development Contra Costa County Current Planning Division 651 Pine Street!, 2"d Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: King Estates Subdivision, Subdivision 7A267 Dear Mr. Drake: I represent Jeffrey Batt and Morgan Capital. I have reference to your letter dated March '29, ?005 addressed to Mr. Batt regarding the Notice of Suspension of Grading Permit No. 312058. There is a second document of that same date from you regarding a Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision Law and of the County Tree Protection Ordinance. You and I have spoken briefly by telephone regarding these same matters. Mr. Batt and I have reviewed in some detail the various communications sent from your office regarding the King Estates Subdivision Project. We have contacted the various consultants lair. Batt is currently using with respec*to that project.; we and those consultants wish other County staff members to review both notices, the current status of the entire project and to meet with you and resolve problems. I understand that we have agreed to a meeting to be held at 10:30 a.m.. on Wednesday, April 6 in Room 108 of the 651 Pine Street Building. I thought I would comment briefly regarding the various conditions referenced in your letters indicative of violations of approved plans and permits. 1. Incorrect Horizontal and Vertical Road Alignments: Correspondence from Darwin Myers and your letters both note that Oak Branch Way has been constructed 10 feet above the grade indicated on approved improvement plans. It was also suggested that Oak Branch Way is constructed at a location outside of the right of way specified on those plans. We believe that this alleged violation is factually incorrect; it is possible that there may have been some break down of communication between various County Departments such that the Community Development Department is unaware of modifications made and accepted by Public Works and the Fire District. It is my understanding that the original planned development contemplated that Oak Branch Way would be constructed in essentially the same location as a pre-existing fire access road. Apparently,the original civil plans made a part of the original planning application were based upon incorrect topographic survey information. In the field, errors were discovered confirming that the road could not be constructed as originally submitted. Revised plans were prepared, reviewed by Public Works and Building Inspection and approved with permits issued. The as built plans which have been prepared indicate that the actual road construction is exactly in accordance with the revised plans which were submitted and approved. 2. Missing,Up Slope Road Retaining Wall: M It is certainly true that there is currently no retaining wall along the slope above Oak Branch Way. The subject matter of this retaining wall has been under discussion with Darwin Myers, however. Mr. Myers' correspondence dated November 11, 2004 makes specific reference to a potential approach to the retaining wall problem as the use of a soil—nail wall. Mr. Batts' soils engineer specifically discussed this solution with Mr. Myers and it is quite correct that accurate improvement plans to address this issue of the wall or an alternative solution must be prepared and accepted. 3. Incorrect Down Slope Retaining Wall Design: It is believed that the problem noted with respect to this issue is directly related to the comments made regarding issue No. I above. 4. Incorrect Up Slope Retaining Wall Design: Again, plan revisions were made, submitted and approved. The change is believed to be fully satisfactory to the County as constructed; it appears that there may have been a breakdown in communication amongst departments regarding the chanore from original approved clans. 0 C� A 5. Variance of Field Conditions from Design Criteria: This particular issue involves cut slope gradients and drainage berms or interceptor ditches. These are items under current study by Mr. Batt in consultation with his soil engineer. This is an item which needs to be reviewed and discussed at the meeting scheduled to be held. 6. Removal of Code Protected Tree: Mr. Batt previously obtained permission to remove up to 12.2. trees from the project site. He in fact only removed 111. Mr. Batt submitted an arborist report with respect to tree No. 47 on Lot 1 and requested its removal. After more than 60 days, no response whatsoever had been obtained;the project was being held up and permission existed for removal of an additional 11 trees which-had not yet been removed. It is believed that removal of the tree was appropriate based upon the Arborist Report and within the scope of existing permits. It should be noted that this letter should be deemed to constitute a notice of appeal in addition to its purpose of confirming receipt of correspondence and arrangements for a meeting with staff. The required fee for appeal will be submitted at the time of the meeting. On behalf of the project owner, objection is made to the plan to record Notices of Violation as set forth in the correspondence dated March 29, 2005. This letter,therefore, will constitute an objection requiring hearing before the County Planning Commission before any Notices of Violation might be recorded with the County Recorder. I understand that the County Planning Commission hearing on these proposed notices of violation has been set for Tuesday, May 10, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. This is to advise you that the applicant and owner will be present at that time and place for the hearing on this particular issue. In summary and for the record, the applicant and owner believe that they have substantially complied with Subdivision conditions, that they have constructed improvements in accordance with approved plans after full inspection by County Staff, that they wish to participate in a staff meeting to be held on April 6, 2005, that they appeal the suspension of the Grading Permit No. 312058, and that they object to the proposed notices of violation and request hearing thereon before the County Planning Commission. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I will look forward to meeting with you to resolve all of these issues. Very truly yo s, Ile David J o Cc: Jeffrey Batt Lew Cook Building inspection Contra CarlosBaltodano Department cost Director of Building inspection County Administration Building County 657 Pine Street, 3rd Floor, North Wing Martinez,California 94553-1295 (925)646-4108 ¢�A FAX (925)646-1219 ;4. (92 5) .33 5-110 0 co April 26, 2005 By FAX&r by Mail Jeffrey Batt PMB 404 Tiburon, CA 94920 Dear Mr. Batt: Rei Correction to Notice of Suspension of Grading Permit IcingEstates Subdivision, Subdivision 7267 Grading Permit#312058 Walnut Creek/Saranap area (APN 238-044-011, -012, -013, -014, -015, & -016 (CCC Ord. Code § 716-4.1430) This is a follow-up to the March 2 9, 2005' Notice of Suspension on the above referenced Grading Permit. Pac.-re 4 of that notice letter indicated that you have 30-days to file an appeal of the administrative decision to suspend the �radin� permit. The last date indicarted in that letter to file, an administrative appeal was April ??, 2005. However, that date was in error; the letter should have stated that the final date for filing an appeal of the administrative was April2.8, 200'A) . The purpose of this letter is to correct the error and to also extend the deadline by a corresponding six-day period. Accordingly, this is to inform you that the final day to file an appeal on that administrative decision is Wednesday, May 4, 20056 The other information relative to filing a notice of appeal of that administTa-tive, decision still applies. Should you have any questions on this matter, please contact either Kevin Durnford of my staff at (925) 33�-1158, or Bob Drake of the Community Development Department at (925) 3352 Sincerely, eV CARLOS BALTODANO Building Inspection Director and County Building Official Cc: W.R. Forde Associates David J. Bowie, Bowie & Bruegmann, L.L.P. Clerk of the Board Building Inspection Department Kevin Durnford Community Development Department Bob Drake Christine Gregory County Counsel File \\fl,;-cd'\users$\bdrake\Personal\kSUB7267-notice to suspend - con-ection.doc RD\ BOWIE & BRUEGMANN,LLP Attorneys at Law 0Z) JULN 2255 CONTRA COSTA BLVD., SUITE 3OS PLEASANT HILL,CA 94523 _ DAVID J.BOWIE Telephone (925) 939-5300 WILLIAM J.BRUEGMANN Facsimile (925) 609-9670 Dave@bblandlaw.com Bill@bblandlaw.com Tia Fax and Mail X25 33-45-12""422=1' June 1, 2005 Robert H. Drake, Principal Planner Community Development Contra Costa County Current Planning Division 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: King Estates Subdivision, Subdivision 7267 Dear Bob: As you certainly recall, a hearing was held before the Contra Costa Planning Commission on May 10, 2005 at which the King Estates Subdivision#7267 was reviewed. The specific matters presented to the Planning Commission involved the staff proposal for recording Notices of Violation all as detailed in the staff report and prior correspondence. No appeal was taken by the project proponerrit/appli c.ant with respect to the suspension of a grading permit which had earlier occurred. The Planning Commission declined to take action at close of the public portion of the hearing and continued the entire matter for a further consideration and for further public hearing on June 14, 2005. My clients and staff actually have relatively few areas of disagreement regarding the King Estates Subdivision and County concerns. As you know, Jeff Batt and Robb Wilson, our soils engineer, have been working with you and other staff members to address a variety of outstanding issues. The intent of the project applicant is to move as quickly as possible to bring the entire project into conformity with existing field conditions and to take such additional steps as may be required to ensure that soils stability is not compromised. The principal issue in dispute and currently pending is the staff recommendation to the Planning Commission that Notices of Violation be recorded in the chain of title. The applicant does indeed object to that particular course of action. There are third party construction lenders involved in this particular project. The recordation of Notices of Violation could cause substantial problems with respect to those particular lenders. I have previously advised them of the status of things and have indicated those steps which are underway to correct subdivision conditions and conform field conditions to actual approval. Nonetheless, the recordation of formal Notices of Violation would no doubt cause further problems with those lenders and would, in turn,jeopardize construction progress. I do not believe that either the County staff or the project applicant wish this project to suffer any more delays or potentially change hands yet again in the event of some default which might not be capable of timely cure. That would merely exacerbate potential concerns over liability. By the same token, I do understand that the County is concerned that corrective measures be completed to ensure soils stability along the road before there are any sales to third party purchasers. In essence, the County clearly does not wish to have any liability arising from or related to the failure of the project to conform to conditions of approval. I have suggested a willingness on the part of the project applicant to record in the chain of title an appropriate notice which would give constructive notice to any potential purchasers that corrective work needed to be completed before there could be any actual sale. Mind you, my clients have no intention of selling any homes under construction until they can be certain those homes can be delivered without problems. They do not need liability to purchase any more than does the County. Some type of generic notice should be sufficient to protect and preserve County interests while yet having something less than the draconian impact of recordation of Notices of Violation, I have drafted a Notice to Potential Purchasers of Lots within the King Estates Subdivision 7267. We would be willing to record the enclosed Notice in consideration for the County's substitution of said Notice for the proposed Notices of Violation. There are true substantive differences; in practical effect in terms of third party purchasers, there is no difference. I understand that you will probably refer this matter to County counsel. I would be more than happy to discuss any and all issues with you or any representative of that office. Please call me to see if we might resolve.' this pending Planning Commission matter with a Joint Agreement to record my proposed notice. Very truly your David J. owie Cc: Jeffrey Batt Lew Cook RECORDING REQUESTED BY: WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: David J. Bowie Bowie &Bruegmann, LLP 2255 Contra Costa Blvd, Suite 350 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Mail Tax Statements to: SAME NOTICE TO POTENTIAL PURCHASERS—KING ESTATES SUBDIVISION 7267 (APN 238-040,411 THROUGH 0161 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to potential purchasers of any one or more lots within King Estates Subdivision 7267 that certain field conditions at the project site differ from the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approvals of permits DP893003 and TP020008. Accordingly, no sale, transfer or conveyance of any one or more of the Lots within the aforesaid Subdivision shall occur prior to that date on which amended approvals to conform with existing field conditions shall have been obtained or field conditions shall have been altered to conform to existing approvals of the above-referenced permits by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. The recordation of a subsequent Notice of Performance of*Field Conditions to Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Approvals executed under penalty of perjury by an authorized representative of the property owner shall be deemed to have superseded this subject Notice and the same shall then be of no further force or effect. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirement for issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by Contra Costa County prior to occupancy of any home constructed on any lot comprising King Estates Subdivision 7267, Lots I through 6 as noted. Dated: Jeffrey Batt, Owners Representative State of California County of Contra Costa On 2005 before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared , proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY July 5"', 2005 Christine Gregory, Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 2'Floor,North Wing Martinez., CA 94553 Subject: Geologic Peer Review SD7267 (King Drive Subdivision) Jeffrey Batt Walnut Creek Area, Contra Costa County DMA Project#3060.05 Dear Christine,, At your request we reviewed a letter issued by Hallenbeck / Allwest Associates, Inc. (H/AA; dated June 13,, 2005).' The purpose of this letter was to document observations made during an April 15, 2005 site visit performed by representatives of H/AA (Robert Wilson) and the Community Development Department (CDD, DarwinMyers). At that time we reviewed existing conditi 6ns on Lots 10 & 11 as well as exposures in the King Estates project. We observed oversteepened slopes, unstable slopes, sliver fills, uncontrolled drainage, areas of shallow sloughing, etc. These are conditions that either a) conflict with the recommendations in the Geostrata report b) conflict with gradingshown M' the approved plans, c) do not comply with the standard-of-care appropriate m* year 2005, or d) a combination of the preceding. HIAA The H/AA letter lists fourteen (14) points. Each corresponds to a specific areas) where Arm geotechnical/gradingissues were observed M* the field on April 15, 2005. For each numbered points H/AA suggest conceptual remediation measures. DMA, Evaluation 1. General The H/AA letter accurately identifies the areas and problems we identified 'in the field. We support the approaches to corrective grading/remediation outlined M* the H/AA.-letter. 2. Building InsQection Department The Building Inspection issued grading and building permits, and have followed construction during the period of time since thosepernLits were issued. They may have additional grading - and building - related issues and requirements. Sunilarly the Public Works Department may have 'Hallenbeck/All-west Associates,,2005,Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology Services,King Drive Subdivision,King Estates, Contra Costa County, California,I-1/AA Job#02-0430CTC-00(dated June 13;2005). 1308 PINE STREET 0 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 N 925/370-9330 Page 2 concerns and issues related to the construction of the private roads in the project. The H/A.A list of locales and problems may not address all of the geotechnical and grading related issues of those County Departments. DMA,Recommendations The approaches outlined by Hallenbeck Allwest Associates address the geotechnical and grading concerns and issues of CDD. In our opinion H/A.A should proceed with the technical studies,, engineering analysis and plan preparation needed for the design. We note that actual construction on the site will require clearance by County Departments. Any requests for construction should be accompanied by plans, calculations and appropriate supporting technical data.. We trust this letter provides the evaluation and comments that you requested. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, DARWIN 1VIYERS ASSOCIATES U�� DarwinMyers, CEG 946 Principal cc: Bob Drake,Principal Planner KevinDurnford, Building Inspection Department Gary Faria,Building Inspection Department Mike Carlson, Public Works Department Mary Rose,, Supervisor Uilkema Office Rob Wilson,, Hallenbeck/Allwest Associates Jeffrey Batt, Silverhawk&Company Richard Cruzan, UDI-Tetrad Bowie &Bregumann, LLP DARWIN MYERs ASSOCIATES COUNTY COMPLIANCE CODE EXERPTS No& MM00 TITLE 2., PLANNING ADMINISTRATION 26-2.2022 Variance, conditional use and special permits--Causes for revocation. A permit maybe revoked if the permittee,his successors or assigns,has committed or allowed the commission of any of the following acts relating to the premises, or any portion thereof, covered by the permit: (1) Continued violation of the terms, limitations or conditions of the permit after notice of the violation; (2)Violation of requirements of this code relating to the premises or activities authorized; (3)Failure to abate a nuisance after notice; (4)Any suspension or revocation of a license required for the conduct of the business on the premises covered by the permit; (5)Any act or failure to act resulting in the conviction of a permittee, operator, or employee of a violation of federal or state law, or county ordinance in connection with the operation of the permitted use. (Ord. 1975: prior code § 2207.10: Ord. 917). TITLE 8, PLAN1vING and ZONING 84-66.404 Restriction. No person shall grade or clear land, erect, move, or alter any building or structure on any land, after the effective date of its rezoning to a P-1 district, except when in compliance with an approved final development plan and/or this chapter. (Ords. 79-74, 76-26 § 2, 76- 25 § 2: § 84-66.010: prior code § 8166(c): Ord. 1743). 816-6.6002 Prohibition. No person shall trench, grade or fill within the dripline of any protected tree or cut down, destroy, trim by topping or remove any protected tree on private property within the county without a tree permit, except as provided for in Section 816-4.1002. (Ords. 94-59, 94-22). TITLE 7 72-6.014 Stop work orders. CBC Section 104.2.4, stop orders, is amended to read: "Whenever any building work is being done contrary to this title or any other law or regulation(including, but not limited to, the following: zoning,health, sanitation, grading, fire protection and safety and/or*flood control)relating to or affecting the work, the county building official may order the work stopped by notice in writing served on any persons engaged in the doing or causing of the work; and these persons shall stop work immediately until authorized by the county building official to proceed with the work. " (Ords. 2002-31 § 2, 99-17 § 2, 99-1 § 5: 90-100 § 2,prior code § 7108, Ord. 1372.) CODE COMPLIANCE Page 2 of 5 DIVISION 716 GRADING(Ordinance 99-46) 716-4-1424 Amendment. (a) All changes in the plans, grades,or extent of work shall be submitted to the county building official for written approval and incorporation into the pen-nit, accompanied by any necessary fees,before any change in the-approved work is begun. The county building official may amend the permit to approve altered plans, or may deny approval of the changes. (b)Failure to obtain prior approval for any change in the work shall be cause for the county building official to order suspension of all work until approval is obtained, and may result in revocation of the permit if he deems the changes will increase the hazard to adjoining properties or public roads, or otherwise be detrimental to public welfare. (Ords. 99-46 § 10: 69-59 § 1, 1969). 716-4.1430 Suspension and revocation. (a) Grounds. A permit maybe either suspended or revoked if the county building official finds that: (1) Conditions at the site vary appreciably from those shown and stated in the application and development plans; (2) Grading or construction does not conform to the approved plans, grades or other conditions of the permit; (3) Cessation of work before completion has left the site in a condition hazardous to the public or to the adjacent properties, and the permittee has not complied with reasonable requirements for completion of the work within the time specified in the permit or an approved extension of time; (4) The permittee does not comply with reasonable requirements to safeguard the workmen,the public, or other persons acting in a lawful manner, during grading or construction operations; (5) In transporting materials or in the operation of equipment the applicant causes materials or litter to encroach, obstruct, or be deposited on pavement or in drainage channels within the public right-of-way, or causes unauthorized obstruction or diversion of drainage channels within the site area; or (6) Failure to have a qualified inspector working under the soil engineer on the site during grading or construction when required. (b) Procedure. The county building official shall suspend or revoke a permit by making a written finding and order; and he may seize the permit and/or make appropriate notations on it of the suspension or revocation. Upon the written order of the building official, any suspended permit may be either reinstated or revoked. (c) Effect of Revocation. Whenever a permit has been revoked, work on the site shall not begin again until a new application incorporating the necessary revisions in plans or methods of operation required to fulfill the intent of this division and in accordance with these regulations,has been approved by the county building official. (Ords. 99-46 § 10: 69-59 § 11 1969). CODE COMPLIANCE Page 3 of 5 716-8.1012 Responsibility of permittee. (a) Compliance With Plans and This Division. The permittee,his agent, contractor or employee, shall carry out the proposed work only in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and in compliance with all the requirements of this division. (b)Inspections. In performing regular development work it shall be the responsibility of the permittee to notify the county building official at least one working day in advance so that the inspections required by Sections 716-6.002 -- 716-6.012 can be made. (c) Protection of Utilities. During grading operations the permittee shall be responsible for the prevention of damage to any public utilities or services. (d)Temporary Erosion Control. The permittee shall effect and maintain precautionary measures necessary to protect adjacent watercourses and public or private property from damage by erosion, flooding, and deposition of mud or debris originating from the side. (Ords. 99-46 § 15: 69-59 § 1, 1969). TITLE 9 SUBDIVISIONS 92-8.002 Ordinance conformance All subdivisions subject to the provisions of this title shall conform to applicable zoning regulations and the county code of ordinances. (Ords. 85-56 § 9, 78-5)0 92-8.004 Compliance with specifications All construction materials,methods, tests, and workmanship shall comply with the requirements of the ordinance specifications. (Ord. 78-5). 96-2.406 Review of revisions. Requests by the subdivider for review of revisions appearing necessary or desirable during construction shall be submitted to the public works department and processed in accordance with Sections 96-2.402 and 96-2.404 of this division. (Ord. 78-5). Subdivision Map Act (From Gov Code on web — 2-10-OS) 66418. "Design" means: (1) street alignments, grades and widths; 2) drainage and sanitary facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades thereof; (3) location and size of all required easements and rights-of-way; (4) fire roads and firebreaks; (5) lot size and configuration; (6)traffic access; (7) grading; (8) land to be dedicated for park or recreational purposes; and (9) other specific physical requirements in the plan and configuration of the entire subdivision that are necessary to ensure consistency with, or implementation of,the general plan or any applicable specific plan as required pursuant to Section 66473.5. CODE COMPLIANCE Page4of5 66418.1. "Development" means the uses to which the land which is the subject of a map shall be put,the buildings to be constructed on it, and all alterations of the land and construction incident thereto. 66419. (a) "Improvementif refers to any street work and utilities to be installed, or agreed to be installed,by the subdivider on the land to be used for public or private streets, highways,ways, and easements, as are necessary for the general use of the lot owners in the subdivision and local neighborhood traffic and drainage needs as a condition precedent to the approval and acceptance of the final map thereof. (b) "Improvement" also refers to any other specific improvements or types of improvements,the installation of which, either by the subdivider,by public agencies,by private utilities,by any other entity approved by the local agency, or by a combination thereof, is necessary to ensure consistency with,or implementation of, the general plan or any applicable specific plan. 66421. "Local ordinance" refers to a local ordinance regulating the design and improvement of subdivisions, enacted by the legislative body of any local agency under the provisions of this division or any prior statute,regulating the design and improvements of subdivisions, insofar as the provisions of the ordinance are consistent with and not in conflict with the provisions of this division. 66469. After a final map or parcel map is filed in the office of the county recorder,it maybe amended by a certificate of correction or an amending map for any of the %Ole following purposes: (a) To correct an error in any course or distance shown thereon. (b) To show any course or distance that was omitted therefrom. (c) To correct an error in the description of the real property shown on the map. (d) To indicate monuments set after the death, disability,retirement from practice, or replacement of the engineer or surveyor charged with responsibilities for setting monuments. (e) To show the proper location or character of any monument which has been changed in location or character originally was shown at the wrong location or incorrectly as to its character. (f) To correct any additional information filed or recorded pursuant to Section 66434.2, if the correction does not impose any additional burden on the present fee owners of the real property and does not alter any right, title, or interest in the real property reflected on the recorded map. (g) To correct any other type of map error or omission as approved by the county surveyor or city engineer that does not affect any property right, including,but not limited to, lot numbers,, acreage, street names, and identification of adjacent record maps. As used in this section, "error" does not include changes in courses or distances from which an error is not ascertainable from the data shown on the final or parcel map.. 66499.36. Whenever a local agency has knowledge that real property has been divided in violation of the provisions of this division or of local ordinances enacted pursuant to this division'. it shall cause to be mailed by certified mail to the then current owner of record describing the real of the property a notice of intention to record a notice of violation', property in detail,naming the owners thereof, and stating that an opportunity will be 4 1 1 1 CODE COMPLIANCE Page 5 of 5 given to the owner to present evidence. The notice shall specify a time, date, and place for a meeting at which the owner may present evidence to the legislative body or advisory agency why the notice should not be recorded. The notice shall also contain a description of the violations and an explanation as to why the subject parcel is not lawful under subdivision(a) or(b) of Section 66412.6. The meeting shall take place no sooner than 30 days and no later than 60 days from date of mailing. If,within 15 days of receipt of the notice,the owner of the real property fails to inform the local agency of his or her objection to recording the notice of violation,the legislative body or advisory agency shall record the notice of violation with the county recorder. If, after the owner has presented evidence, it is determined that there has been no violation, the local agency shall mail a clearance letter to the then current owner of record. If,however, after the owner has presented evidence,the legislative body or advisory agency determines that the property has in fact been illegally divided,the legislative body or advisory agency shall record the notice of violation with the county recorder. The notice of violation,when recorded, shall be deemed to be constructive notice of the violation to all successors in interest in such property. The county recorder shall index the names of the fee owners in the general index. PLANS 1. ASSESSORS PARCEL MAP 2. SUBDIVISION FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN&VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (APPROVED BY THE BOS ON JUNE 19, 2001) 3. KING DRIVE IMPROVEMENT PLANS 4. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT JANUARY 2012005 5. STAFF STUDY-AS-BUILT (CONSTRUCTED)ROAD OVER B.O.S APPROVED JUNE 199 2001 PLAN GACURRENT PLANNING\CURR-PLAN\BOARD\BOARD ORDERS\DP893003 OUTLINE-DOC Cj- 00 d CC) co V) 10 .'t Q LAJ U cr- tyl 3J • 1i.I Qf M"n.. U amp•'^• r i. '� 0-6 r'' .Os / *E � `a•, .mss IK U(D 4 ! tics^ `' u i!L to 4 ` sr or '^ .° '� Z tos �• /i� UD was tIl, /�a 01 f x 1-3 i .V �1.•• C3 Com... ' u 0 MJ r- r- C—I ..+ .L ' "a 3 � Into In it 1.48 ot+•r1 �� Nt .t.J Q•t.1 2 I1 Mrd• M se LO bi Jr UD C6 .(�� � �fes^`• i �•- i cc a � t . d •os ft f 01 t U Pit .r 1..1-- •Ct" � a�«on Ut Qate+►. .� °a i �• �.► A*r vo CD 0041f 3�u.11.�ttr• ' V„J c, b r- - ZL-�Z11 dd �- -�- t^y • r~� \.e� 00 ,.. 3..Ut.tt•MIN .` �f •-- ' Z6'SOZ � . i 0 ddL CD C„yv U y .� ALK-6S all rp oi Lai zi i.Y • ~ <r /co,\ 0' Ln: 60'RZC 9610, I l / Ln 1 1 1