HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10291985 - X.9 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson
Costa
DATE: October 29, 1985 County
SUBJECT: VINE HILL DETENTION BASIN (.East County)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In the past year, I have had several
meetings with area residents over the very complicated and frustrating
problem that has arisen regarding Drainage Area 29H in the Vine Hill
Road Detention and Infiltration Basin. I believe a public hearing
should be scheduled, hopefully by the end of November to discuss this
situation further. More extensive background will be presented by
staff and myself at the public hearing but I want to indicate now that
I believe the drainage area plan needs to be modified both on an
interim basis and on the long term basis.
1. Interim Modifications
a. That the county agrees not to fence the detention/infil-
tration basin and remove the vineyards as per the conditions outlined
in the April 25 memo from Milt Kubicek. If water is found to be
standing a depth of 12" : for more than 24 hours , the Flood Control
Department would review the necessity again of building the fence.
Before any action to fence the basin .because of standing water is
taken by the suggested Flood Control guidelines in the April 25th
memo, the county Flood Control administration and the county district
supervisor would convene a meeting with the residents whose properites
are directly involved to discuss the situation. A report of this
meeting would be submitted to the Board of Supervisors before any
approval of fencing would be permitted.
b. The county agrees not to allow any additional drainage into
the detention basin from areas outside the natural water shed ( see
attached map for specific delineation of this plan) . Furthermore, it
would be noted that the county would not connect two other detention
basins to this one until the ultimate drainage system is in place.
C. The recently installed pipe that was a condition of the
Cunha subdivision is a gross eyesore. Staff needs to investigate
responsibility for what I believe is an inappropriate construction ( it
may be that the plan submitted to the Planning Department at that time
did not accurately reflect actual ground conditions) . At any rate,
Milt Kubicek and I have agreed that the visual impact of this pipe
needs to be modified anal mitigated.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURF:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMIN4S�fRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE O'rHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON Octobe7 29. 1985 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED 01HER
The Board fixed December 10, 1985 at 10:30 a.m. to discuss the problems in Drainage Area
29H and to consider whether to initiate amendments to the Plan. The Public Works Director
is requested to prepare a report thereon.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
�UAWRPUUAABSENT ) 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAI' THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES( AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENTi A136TAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. C�
CC: Cn ¢, ATTESTED
(� Phil BewWor,Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator
pato%/t.e• �. Vl �f"'` �
Vine Hill Detention Basin
October 29 , 1985
Page TWO
d. It is clear that the residents would have a responsibility to
cultivate and till the soil in the vineyard at least twice per year
for the 10 to 15 years before it is predicted that the ultimate
drainage pian would be in place. This is necessary to allow maximal
infiltration capacity of the sandy soils.
2 . Long Term Modifications
a. The Infiltration Basin was scheduled to evolve into a
detention basin as part of the ultimate drainage plan. I believe this
should be modified in the plan and pipes constructed downstream in the
future should be upsized and those pipes bringing water from other
areas into the Vine Hill Detention Basin should be connected to
complete an entire system thus eliminating the need for a large
detention basin. The outfall pipe from the drainage basin would have
to be approximately 42" rather than the approximately 18" currently
estimated. The estimated cost of these changes would be approximately
$325 ,000 .
b. To avoid in the future the confusion, anxiety, frustration
and surprise that the residents of the Vine Hill Detention Basin, I
believe, it is necessary we implement a resolution establishing Board
directive to the appropriate departments that in the future the county
better define easements and require deed notifications of a more
descriptive nature to be attached to the final map and deed describing
the type of easement particularly when it may involve a detention
basin as in this case.
The lack of descriptive notification to prospective property
owners in this case was in my opinion compounded by other processing
problems--inciuding the fact that certain recommended flood control
district conditions ( such as requiring the fence to be installed over
half of each acre lot before building permits were. issued) were
inadvertently lost in the Planning Department ' s final set of
conditions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That a hearing be set in late November and
that the Flood Control Division be directed to prepare a report on the
subject, issue proper notification for this hearing as well as prepare
the resolution outlined in 2 .b. above.
w.p.w. r .�'-rfrrY... �1 1..•'
-y..r.. I •7� y '' ;i'i� _jf �t 'tJ' J ''�..`a.•, .0 •ate %q..a�
��. Qui+ • '"�t-`•-•� •.A � 1 IpQ OI ` �"�
o 0
`tet•„�, +{l.• ; !•' r' / ° o
WN
I V17
rte'• `�!a •i • `iw..� '?_.1 /� '� � � r'�.
� '.
�• (( rya- aY` - oaf:• :Y.. � �� �`.4,.t. �` {V� r
.17
fizo
.so a 3 ,.t..r 4. far �� �• �r•��%' �. /(/tJ .�.•+